ML19168A155
| ML19168A155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/2019 |
| From: | NRC/NMSS/DMSST/ASPB |
| To: | NRC Region 4 |
| Johnson R | |
| References | |
| Download: ML19168A155 (6) | |
Text
RESOLUTION OF COMMENTS REGION IV RESPONSE TO DRAFT IMPEP REPORT
- COMMENT RESOLUTION 1 The Region suggests that all references to areas examined outside the scope of Agree. The team reviewed the the IMPEP, such as reactor decommissioning, should be removed from the report and removed reactor report. decommissioning references.
2 Page (pg) 3, Paragraph (P)1: Region IV recommends that the text stating 16 The team appreciates this staff members and managers left the program be modified to reflect there were additional information and has seven staff members that left the materials program and seven individuals in revised the report accordingly.
either supervisory or director positions who retired or transferred to other responsibilities. All the positions within DNMS were subsequently filled where vacancies occurred. Please note that the number of staff members identified above differs from the nine identified in the draft report because the Region identified that two of the original nine staff members were assigned to the reactor decommissioning program, and therefore, the Region recommends not including them in the assessment for the IMPEP program review.
3 Pg 3, P1: Region IV recommends a correction to the number of staff members The team appreciates this who were hired from outside the agency. There was only one individual who additional information and has was hired from outside the agency. The other four staff members transferred revised the report accordingly.
from other organizations within the NRC, including HQs, Region 1, and Region IV. In addition, please note that two of those four staff members (who had transferred from within the NRC) were not assigned to the materials program, but were assigned to the reactor decommissioning program, and therefore, should not be included in the staffing assessment for the IMPEP review.
4 Pg 3, P2: Region IV recommends removing the reference to uranium recovery The team has removed the staffing from this portion of the report and include it in the non-common language involving the uranium performance indicator portion. In addition, the context of the last sentence could recovery program from Section 3.1 lead to the wrong impression that there was degradation in performance; to the extent possible, however therefore, the Division suggests that the sentence be modified to state: "that given that multiple staff and while staffing levels changed there was no degradation in performance." management dedicate a percentage of their FTE to radioactive materials, uranium recovery, and non-materials topics, the team feels it cannot completely remove all data involving the uranium recovery program from Section 3.1.
1
The team supports the edit involving program degradation requested by the Region to Section 3.1.
5 Pg 5, P1: Region IV calculated different percentages of reciprocity inspections The team disagrees with this for 2016 and 2017. The number of candidates in 2016 was 46 and 7 reciprocity comment. Portable gauge (Priority inspections (Priority 1, 2, and 3) were performed; therefore, the percentage 5) licensees do not count in should be 15 percent. The number of candidates in 2017 was 37 and 8 IMPEP. IMPEP focuses on core reciprocity inspections (Priority 1, 2, and 3) were performed; therefore, the licensees (Priority 1, 2, and 3).
percentage should be 21.6. Attempts to inspect also do not count. In reviewing the list of candidates, the team found one licensee listed in the pool for 2017 that should not have been included because it was inspected in 2016.
The team considers the correct percentages for 2016 and 2017 to be: 13% and 14% respectfully.
2016: 6 inspections and 46 candidates = 13%
2017: 5 inspections and 37 candidates = 14%
6 Pg 5, P4: Region IV suggests modifying the paragraph to clearly state: "The The team agrees with this team identified that the Region continued to not meet the 20 percent goal for comment and has revised the each year for reciprocity inspections established in NRC's IMC 1220. The team report accordingly.
determined that a number of factors, including geography and timing, contributed to the failure to meet the 20 percent reciprocity inspection goal."
7 Pg 6, P4: Region IV suggests that the terms "industrial," "commercial," and The team agrees with this "service" be more descriptive for the casework that was reviewed. In addition, comment and has revised the since the Division has one master materials license, then the report should report accordingly.
reflect "a master materials license."
8 Pg 6, P5: For the last sentence of the paragraph, Region IV suggests providing The case was LKS Inspection additional clarification regarding the one inspection that did not address Services, IR 2015-001. Most previously identified open items and violations, by clarifying whether it was a likely, the reports simply lacked failure to inspect these items or a failure to appropriately document these items. explicit documentation. The apparent violations were for failing 2
to wear alarming ratemeters during radiographic operations, and for failing to charge direct reading dosimeters, items which are typically evaluated during any radiography inspection. For example, the next routine inspection (IR 2016-001, eight months after issuance of final action) confirmed that radiographers were observed wearing ratemeters and direct reading dosimeters. The team has revised the report with additional information.
9 Pg 8, P1: Region IV suggests removing the term "industrial" for commercial The team has removed the word nuclear pharmacy or better clarify the types of casework that was reviewed. industrial from this paragraph.
10 Pg 8, P3: Region IV suggests expounding on the licensing casework The team added additional evaluations performed throughout the review period in order to put the new peer language to the report in response review process into perspective and to clarify that not "all" of the licensing to this suggestion.
actions were being peer reviewed prior to issuance. The Division performed quarterly quality control checks of a sample of licensing casework throughout the review period. In response to the pre-lMPEP audit, the Division initiated a new peer review process that supplemented the quarterly quality control checks.
After further operating experience, the types of licensing actions being reviewed may be adjusted with management approval.
11 Pg 8, P3: Region IV recommends clarifying the last sentence regarding the The team added additional types of errors that were identified during the new peer review process prior to language to the report in response issuing the licensing actions. Also, the last sentence appears to indicate that the to this recommendation.
errors involved security marking on the documents and we are not certain that is the case.
12 Pg 13, P1 and 2: For clarity and context, Region IV suggests combining the two The team appreciates the paragraphs to reflect the uranium recovery staffing levels chronologically, suggestion and additional starting with 2014 and 2015, and ending with the transfer of the program to information and has revised the Wyoming. In addition, one of the inspectors that was transferred during 2018, report accordingly.
was transferred to another Division (DRS) in the Region and did not remain in DNMS.
3
13 Pg 13, P3: Region IV recommends providing further context regarding the two The team appreciates the uranium recovery inspectors qualification documentation matter. The Division recommendation and additional suggests modifying the paragraph chronologically for the two uranium recovery information and has revised the inspectors who were trained, qualified, and interim certified; however, the formal report accordingly.
documentation was not performed in a timely manner. The Division suggests the paragraph should describe that based on interviews, the IMPEP team determined that during 2016, one inspector received verbal approval and one inspector received hand-written approval for interim qualification. The two inspectors subsequently performed independent inspections that reflected their interim qualifications during 2016 and 2017. However, formal documentation of their interim qualifications was not completed until April 2017.
14 Pg 13, P4: Region IV suggests that the description and analysis of the uranium The team further discussed this recovery program be separated into operational and decommissioning activities new information with Region IV because there are differences between inspection frequencies and safety staff and has incorporated the significance for the two programs. In addition, the contributing factors should be information it believes to be expanded in the description to support the team's recommendation. At the time accurate into the report.
of the IMPEP review there had been 65 uranium recovery inspections performed (38 operational inspections and 27 decommissioning inspections).
There were 13 overdue inspections for the operational uranium recovery program, that reflects 34 percent. The length ranged from 24 days to 220 days overdue. Several factors contributed to the overdue inspections including staffing, workload, and inclement weather in the Wyoming area. There were 10 overdue inspections in the decommissioning uranium recovery program, which is 37 percent. Five of these inspections were deferred by direction or consultation with NMSS, or the U.S. Department of Energy had submitted draft long-term surveillance plans (L TSP) to the NRC and the inspectors were waiting for the final L TSP to be issued in order to inspect the licensees. As a result, these facilities had not been inspected for several years, although they were identified and tracked in the master inspection plan. For the remaining sites, the Division identified there were no significant activities occurring at the sites and the sites were consequently judged to be of low safety significance.
Given the limited availability of inspectors, the scheduled inspections were delayed.
15 Pg 13, P4: Region IV suggests stating that uranium recovery inspection reports The team appreciates the are issued at either 30 days or 45 days (for team inspections) from the final exit additional information and has date, as specified in IMC 2641; or use the term "final exit date" as the reference revised the report accordingly.
because timeliness is not always 30 days as indicated in the draft report. The Division issued 4 out of 65 uranium recovery inspection reports past the 4
required issue date. The 4 late reports were issued during the 2014-2015 timeframe. The Region believes that a large majority of the inspection findings were communicated to the licensees in a timely manner. In addition, the IMPEP report should clarify that the Division typically extends the final exit date because the inspector is waiting on analytical laboratory results for radioactive samples associated with the inspection, the inspector is continuing to perform in-office reviews associated with the inspection, or management review of potential enforcement issues was ongoing.
16 Pg 15, P2: Region IV developed the "DNMS Branch Chief Accompaniments Job The team appreciates this Aid," which references Regional Policy Guide 1038, "Management Oversight of additional information and has NRC Activities at Region IV Facilities." While DNMS decided to utilize NRC revised the report accordingly.
Form 649, there is not a requirement in the Regional Policy Guide to fully complete the form but that the "documentation should be sufficient for annual verification of the accompaniment by division management." Based on the Regional guidance, the Division suggests that the last sentence in this paragraph be eliminated.
17 Pg 15, P5: The draft IMPEP report indicates that the "Division" has written The team appreciates this procedures for allegations; however, they are considered "Regional Policy additional information and has Guides." revised the report accordingly.
18 Pg 15, P7: The draft IMPEP report indicates individuals' identities were The team agrees with this protected, "as allowed by law." Region IV suggests that the phrase "as allowed comment and has revised the by law" be deleted since protecting the identify is an agency policy. report accordingly.
19 Pg 16, P1: Region IV acknowledges that the Team recognized that the two The team agrees with this uranium recovery inspectors were trained, had management accompaniments, comment and has revised the and received either verbal or written interim qualifications prior to performing report accordingly.
independent uranium recovery inspections. Therefore, the Region questions how it failed to meet one of the performance indicator objectives. As noted in the report, this was a documentation issue and not a performance issue since the individuals were trained and interim-qualified. The Region recommends deleting this bullet.
20 Pg16, P2: Region IV recommends that the report reflect "formal" documentation The team agrees with this for the interim qualification in lieu of "proper" documentation. comment and has revised the report accordingly.
21 Pg16, P2: There is not a requirement to perform inspections at pre-construction The team partially agrees with this facilities; therefore, the Division recommends that this sentence be removed as comment. The phrase address an example. the lack of inspections at pre-construction facilities has been 5
removed. The team retained the rest of the sentence.
22 Pg 16, P2: Region IV suggests providing further context and supplemental The team has reviewed the report information regarding the supervisory inspection accompaniments to further to ensure the information provided support the recommendation. The accompaniments were successfully has been incorporated in the performed for each inspector except for two cases during the review period, in detailed Discussion portion of which an inspector only performed one inspection during the year and the Section 4. The Evaluation portion second inspector was out on sick leave for a prolonged period, but was is meant to be a high-level accompanied when s/he returned to the office. overview and has been revised by the team only to provide that level of detail.
23 Pg16, P2 and 3: Region IV suggests providing further context and supplemental As discussed in the teams information regarding the performance indicator for ensuring inspection findings response to Comment #14, the were communicated to the licensee in a timely manner. As discussed on page team further discussed this new 13 of the report, 4 out of 65 inspection reports were issued beyond the due date information with Region IV staff between 2014 and 2015. During the remainder of the review period, all the and has incorporated the uranium recovery inspection reports were issued on time. Therefore, the information it believes to be Region believes we met the performance indicator objective since a large accurate into the Discussion majority of the findings were communicated in a timely manner. portion of the report.
24 Pg16, P2 and 3: Regarding the performance indicator objective regarding a plan The team has reviewed the report to perform any overdue inspections or establish a basis to perform any overdue to ensure the information provided inspections or reschedule the inspections, Region IV suggests adding a couple has been incorporated in the of sentences because the evaluation description lacks context for this detailed Discussion portion of performance indicator objective. Region IV suggests including a statement that Section 4.
the inspection staff interfaced with NMSS or DNMS management on the rescheduling of the uranium recovery inspections; however, these discussions and decisions were not documented. As a result, the Region developed a process to document management decisions when inspections needed to be deferred or rescheduled.
6