ML20217K361
| ML20217K361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/10/1998 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804070204 | |
| Download: ML20217K361 (7) | |
Text
,;
QV, (
\\
1 UNITED STATES e'
p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
I wAsmorow, o.c. sness.aeoi G
February 10, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan FROM:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for ions
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AGREEMENT STATES' AND REGIONS' RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL PROGRAMS STATUS AND TIMELINESS OF INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP) REPORTS On January 31,1997, the staff briefed the Commission on the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP). In a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated February 21,1997, the Commission noted that the staff committed to improve the j
timeliness of the IMPEP reporting and resolution process. The Commission directed the staff to report back to the Commission in one year on the steps the staff has taken to improve the timeliness of IMPEP feedoack to Agreement States and Regions, and whether those steps have resulted in more rapid feedback.
Originally, the staff's goal was to issue the draft report for comment to the Region or Agreement State within 30 days of the exit meeting and to issue the final report within 90 days. In FY 96, no report was issued within 90 days. The elapsed time from exit meeting to issuance date ranged from 96 to 208 days. At the time of the Commission briefing, the reports for three IMPEP reviews conducted in FY 97 were not yet issued and more than 90 days had elapsed.
l Subsequently, an analysis of the steps within the report generation process revealed that reports were being significantly delayed in the preparation of the draft report due to higher jf priority work assignments and because of the need to allot more time for Agreement State review of draft reports. On February 10,1997 and March 19,1997, memoranda were sent by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and the Office of State Programs g
(OSP) to team participants and their managers addressing the need for timely issuance of IMPEP reports. Team members and their management were informed of the IMPEP Program priority, the commitment of effort necessary for IMPEP, and the need for the allotment of aufficient time for team member participation. Separately, the timeliness goals for each step of the IMPEP report generation process were reviewed, the goal to issue the report was revised from 90 to 104 days to allow Regions and Agreement States 30 days to comment on draft reports, and after approval by the Management Review Board (MRB), all team members and their management were informed of the revised goals. In addition, portable computers and onsite meeting rooms were made available to facilitate the team's preparation of the draft report.
s v u '; O 2
/L[ y b/h g g 9804070204 900210 t
RES E
/O hi-/
i h
The Commissioners 2
With the steps taken above, and increased management oversight of the IMPEP process, seven of nine IMPEP final reports for reviews conducted after February 1,.1997, were issued within 104 days. The two IMPEP reviews, New Mexico and Texas, have exceeded the 104-day goal because of the results of the review and special direction by the MRB. In New Mexico, the review team originally recommended probation for the program because of the significance of the findogs. Extra time needed by the State of New Mexico to respond to the draft report, a special meeting of senior NRC and New Mexico management officials, at the direction of the MRB, and a second MRB meeting, resulted in an additional 49-day delay. In Texas, the State also required extra time to review the draft report. The MRB directed the review team to revise the low-level radioactive waste disposal non-common performance indicator text in the proposed final report to remove any unintended suggestions that the low-level radioactive waste site in Texas was not suitable based on the performance assessment. The MRB directed the staff to share the revision with the State for comment. These additional steps delayed issuance of the final report by 91 days. is the Summary of Agreement States' Adequacy and Compatibility Status as of January 1998. Findings for reviews conducted before December 1995, were based on the 1992 Policy Statement " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs" which was suspended in October 1995 and rescinded in October 1997. All reviews performed beginning FY 96 were conducted under Management Directive 5.6 (MD 5.6),
" integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program." Depending on the State's performance, review cycles under IMPEP are up to four years. Attachment 2 is the Summary of Regions' Adequacy Status as of January 1998. Regions are reviewed under MD 5.6 every two years. Attachment 3 contains a FY 97 summary of the days to issue IMPEP reports against the 104-day goal. Attachment 4 is a graphical presentation of times to issue final IMPEP reports from the inception of the program in November 1995 to present. In the February 21,1997 SRM, the Commission noted the staff had committed in the January 31, 1997 briefing to improve the IMPEP reporting process and requested staff to report back on whether steps taken to improve the timeliness of IMPEP feedback to Agreement States and Regions have resulted in more rapid feedback. The first IMPEP reviews were initiated in early FY 96. In comparing FY 96 with FY 97, staff believes the steps taken to improve timeliness in issuance of IMPEP reports have resulted in more rapid feedback in FY 97. This is graphically depicted in Attachment 4 where timeliness data for FY 96 and FY 97 are compared.
As a result of the Office of State Programs operating plan review by the Program Review Committee in early FY 98, the report issuance goal was further revised to an output measure of issuing the final report within 104 days of the review exit date for 80% of the reviews, with no report issued later than 180 days.
Attachments:
As stated cc:
t l
SUMMARY
OF AGREEMENT STATES' ADEQUACY AND COMPATIBILITY STATUS' January 1998 STATE YEAR OF ADEQUACY FINDING COMPATIBILITY FINDING REVIEW Alabama 1995 adeguate compatible Arizona 1995 adequate FW" Arkansas 1995 adequate FW i
Califomia 1996 adequate compatible Colorado 1997 adequate compatible Florida 1995 adequate compatible Geor9 a 1996 adequate compatible 1
4 lilinois 1997 adequate compatible Iowa 1996 adequate compatible Kansas 1995 adequate FW Kentucky 1996 adequate compatible l
Louisiana 1996 adequate compatible Maine 1995 adequate compatible Maryland 1996 adequate but needs not compatible
- Improvement Massachusetts 1997*
adequate compatible Mississippi 1997 adequate compatible 8
Nebraska 1996 adequate but needs compatible improvement Nevada 1997 adequate compatible New Hampshire 1997 adequate compatible New Mexico 1997' adequate but needs compatible improvement New York 1995 adequate FW North Carolina 1995 adequate compatible North Dakota 199G adequate compatible ATTACHMENT 1
t 0;
i STATE YEAR OF ADEQUACY FINDING COMPATIBILITY FINDING REVIEW Oregon 1996 adequate compatible Rhode Island 1994 adequate compatible South Carolina 1995 adequate compatible Tennessee 1996 adequate compatible Texas 1997 adequate compatible Utah 1994 adequate compatible Washington '
1995 adequate FW
'The 1992 Policy Statement, " Guidelines for NRC Review of Agreement State Radiation Control Programs," was suspended in October 1995 and rescinded in October 1997. All reviews performed beginning FY 96 were conducted under Management Directive 5.6,
" integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP)." Depending on the State's performance, review cycles under IMPEP can be as long as once each four years.
8Please note that "FW' indicates that the finding was withheld under the 1992 Policy Statement.
- By letter dated June 5,1997, four regulations were identified under the 1992 Policy Statement as necessary to satisfy the regulation compatibility criteria.
' Massachusetts became an Agreement State on March 21,1997, after being found adequate and compatible by the NRC.
- Nebraska's program was considered for probation, but as a result of commitments by State management, the MRB recommended heighten oversight without probation. A follow-up review was conducted September 1997, and the Nebraska's program remained adequate but needs improvement and compatible. Next IMPEP review is scheduled for September 1998.
'New Mexico's program was considered for probation, but as a result of commitments by State management and a meeting between NRC and the State's senior management officials, the MRB recommended heighten oversight without probation. A follow-up review is scheduled for July 1998, i
ATTACHMENT 1
I
..i
SUMMARY
OF REGIONS' ADEQUACY STATUS January 1998 REGION YEAR OF ADEQUACY FINDING REVIEW Region i 1996 adequate Region 11 1996 adequate Region 111 1997 adequate Region IV 1997 adequate ATTACHMENT 2
1 i
t t
IMPEP REPORT TRACKING FY 97 Total number of days from State or Review Date review to release of final report Region Month / Year Goal: 104 Days LA 10/96 199 CA 10/96 236 TN 12/96 166 MS 1/97 112 CO 3/97 94 Region IV 3/27 91 IL 3/97 102 Region 111 4/97 102 TX 6/97 213.
NM 7/97 165 NH 8/97 95 NV 8/97 95 (NE 9/97 82 ATTACHMENT 3
0 42 4=
4
=
T
=
0 N
2 E
~
2 M
H
~
l C
j A
~
T J
T 0
A
~
0 S
2 D
~
O
+
0
^
8 I
1 R
E b
P
=m 06 1
e E
m m
M l
m g
l I
m 0
T m
41 s m
y m
a E
I' m
m D
^
7 a
f C9 0 o NY
.l m
^
2 r l"
l i
~
1 eb F
l A
m l
u U6 g
g N
0 g
l
^
L 0
1 Y
SF 4
l l
I T
^
g 0
8 R
O P
^
,i6 0
E R
P
^
.I 40 EP M
^
^
cI 0 I
2 wI 0 6
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 6 S 6
" " 9 9 9 9 ' 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 C D A A "
E
^
S O V L X M V E o'
I N
1 1
I 1
e G
G N
N N M C T
N N G I
E E
R R
5.I 36 5
j ll