ML20199E141

Forwards for Review & Comments Draft Rev to Part IV of Impep Handbook 5.6 Which Incorporates Guidance for MRB & Addl Experience from Nebraska & New Mexico Impep Reviews

ML20199E141
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/14/1998
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP)
To:	Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20199E037	List: ML20199E034 ML20199E071 ML20199E141
References
NUDOCS 9802020098
Download: ML20199E141 (16)

Text

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

aur

-[

t UNITED STATES s

Ij NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066H001

%,,,,,+/

January 14, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO:

Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:

Richard L. Bangart, Director (4

//

.. /

Office of State Piograms M I A1({ /u V/77 (

SUBJECT:

DRAFT REVISION TO INTEGRATED MATERIALS y

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP)

HANDBOOK 5.6, PART IV, " PROGRAMMATIC ASSESSMENT" PER JUNE 30,1997 SRM in the June 30,1997 Staff Requirements Memorandum, SECY-97-54, Final Recommendations on Policy Statement and implementing Procedures for: " Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program" and " Policy Statement on A6equacy ar.d Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," the Commission directed the staff to prepare guidance for the Management Review Board regarding adequacy and compatibility determinations. The Commission also directed that the guidance be such that Agreement States could perform self assessments of their programs, should they choose to do so, with some confidence that the NRC's review would produce similar conclusions.

Attached for your review and comments is a draft revision to Part IV of Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) Handbook 5.6 which incorporates the guidance for the MRB and additional experience gained from Nebraska and New Mexico IMPEP reviews.

We have also included for your concurrence, requested by January 22,1998, an All Agreement States letter transmitting the draft guidance to the Agreement States requesting their comments l

within 30 days. We plan to incorporate, as appropriate, comments from the Agreement States within two weeks from the end of the comment period and prepare the revision to the Handbook in accordance with Management Directive (MD) 1.1, NRC Management Directive System. This would include transmittal to affected offices, including NMSS, AEOD, Regions, OGC and OlG for the comment and approval cycle. This MD approval process will provide an opportunity for other members of the MRB to review this revision.

Attachments:

As stated 9802020098 980126 PDR STPRO ESGGEN PDR

-6 0

ROUTING AND TRANSNITTAL SLIP DATE: JANUARY 15, 1998 CONCURRENCE REQUESTED INITIALS DATI C. PAPERIELLO 1/

/98 LETTER T0:

ALL AGREENENT STATES OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA FRON:

RICHARD L. BANGART, DIRECTOR l

0FFICE OF STATE PROGRANS

SUBJECT:

DRAFT REVISION TO NANAGENENT DIRECTIVE AND HANDBOOK 5.6, PART IV, ON INPEP YOUR COMENTS/CONClRRENCE ARE REQUESTED BY C.0.8. JANUARY 22. 1998.

OSP CONTACT: KAllfY SQ9tEIDER (415-2320) i PLEASE CALL KATHALEEN KERR (415-3340) FOR PICK UP.

t.

P e

preeg

[

t UNITED STATES g

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C

WASHINGTON, D.C. 30646 4 001

\\...../

ALL AGREEMENT STATES OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA TRANSMITTAL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP )

Your attention is invited to the enciosed correspondence which contains:

INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION..........

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ~. FORMATION....XX DRAFT REVISIONi0 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE AND HANDBOOK 5.6, PART IV ON THE INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM TRAINING COURSE INFORMATION...............

1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION.......................

l OTHER INFORMATION...........................

I Supplementary Information: In the June 30,1997 Staff Requirements Memorandum, SECY-97-54, Final Recommendations on Policy Statement and Implementing Procedures for:

' Statement of Principles and Policy for the Agreement State Program" and " Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs," the Commission directed the staff to prepare guidance for the Management Review Board regarding adequacy and compatibility determinations. The Commiss;on also directed that the guidance be such that Agreement States could perform self assessments of their programs, should they choose to do so, with some confidence that the NRC's review would produce similar conclusions.

Enclosed for your review and comments is a draft revision to Part IV of Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) Management Directive and Handbook 5.6 which incorporates the guidance for the MRB and additional experience gained from IMPEP reviews.

We would appreciate your comments by thirty days from your receipt of this letter, if you have any questions about this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.

CONTACT:

Kathleen N. Schneider TELEPHONE:

(301)415-2320 FAX:

(301) 415-3502 INTERNET:

KXS@NRC. GOV

s, c

SP 4-This information request has been approved by OMB 3150-0029, expiration April 30,1998.

The estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request is 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.

Forward any comments regarding the burden estimate to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

l 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0052), Office of Management and l

Budget, Washington,- DC 20503. If a document does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information.

Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated

s DRApr l

Part IV I

Programmatic Assessment General (A)

A management review board (MRB) will make the overall assessment of each NRC region's or Agreement State's_ program, on the basis of the proposed final report and recommendations prepared by the team that conducted the review of that region or State, including any unique circumstances. Additional!y, the overall assessment will include a consideration of information provided by the region or State at the MRB meeting. In addition to a recommended overall finding, the proposed final report will contain the team's recommendations for each common indicator and each applicable non-common indicator for both Agreement States and NRC regions. (1)

The MRB will consist of a group of senior NRC i g agers, or their designees, to inc!ude-(2)

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs, as Chair (a)

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (b) l Director, Office of State Programs (c)

L Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluatbn of Operational Data (d)

General Counsel (e)

The Organization of Agreement States also will be invited to specify a representative to serve as a member of each MRB, as a non-voting Agreement State liaison. In this capacity, the State representative will receive applicable documentation and engage in all MRB discussions. The Agreement State liait n does not have voting authority, since this function is reserved solely to NRC. The Agreement State liaison representative is expected to provide an Agreement State perspective on any matter that is voted on by the MRB. (3)

For an NRC region, the MRB will only assess the adequacy of the program to protect public health and safety. For an Agreement State program review, the MRB will assess both adequacy and compatibility. (4)

' Adequacy Findings for Agreement State Programs (B)

Finding 1 - Adequate to Protect Public Health and Safety (1)

If the MRB finds that a State program is satisfactory for all performance indicators, the State's program will be found adequate to protect public health and safety, unless unique concems that impact adequacy are identified. (a)

If the MRB finds that a State program is satisfactory with recommendations for 1

Improvement for two or less performance indicators and satisfactory for all remaining performance indicators, the MRB should consider whether the State's program is adequate or adequate but needs improvement. (b)

Finding 2 - Adequate, But Needs improvement (2)

If the MRB finds that a State program is satisfactory with recommendations for

=

improvement for two or less performance indicators and satisfactory for all remaining performance indicators, the MRB should consider whether the State's program is adequate or adequate but needs improvement. (a)

If the MRB finds that a State program protects public health and safety, but is found satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for three or more performance indicators and satisfactory for the remaining performance indicators, the MRB should give strong consideration to finding the State's program adequate, but needs improvement. (b)

If the MRB finds that a State program protects public health and safety, but is found unsatisfactory for one performance indicator and satisfactory or satisfactory with recommendations for improvement for the remaining performance indicators, the MRB should give strong consideration to finding the State's program adequate, but needs improvement. (c)

In cases where previous recommendations associated with adequate, but needs improvement indicator findings have not been completed for a significant period of time beyond the originally scheduled date, the MRB also may find that the program is adequate, but needs improvement. (d)

Finding 3 - Inadequate to Protect Public Health and Safety (3)

If the MRB finds that a State program is not capable of reasonably assuring public l

health and safety for any reason, the MRB would find that the State's program is inadequate to protect public health and safety.

Compatibility Findings for Agreement State Programs (C)

Finding 1 - Compatible (1)

If the MRB determines that a State program does not create conflicts, gaps, or disruptive duplication in the collective national effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act materials, the program would be found compatible.

Finding 2 - Not Compatible (2)

If the MRB determines that a State program creates unnecessary gaps, conflicts, or disruptive duplication in the collective national effort to regulate Atomic Energy Act materials, the program would be found not compatible.

2 m

l

s Adequacy Findings for NRC Regional Programs (D)

The MRB adequacy findings for regional programs will be the same as those listed above for Agreement States.

Guidance for MRB Determinations for Agreement State Programs (E)

For most Agreement State reviews, no action other than issuance of the final IMPEP report is needed. For those infrequent reviews where additional action is needed, the following l

alternatives should be considered.

Heightened Oversight Without Probation (1)

When one or more of the common and non-common performance indicators are found unsatisfactory and are of such safety significance tnat assurance of the program's ability to protect the public health may be degraded, heightened oversight by the NRC will be considered by the MRB. However, if strong commitments to improve their program have been made by the Agreement State at the Department Director management level, the MRB will consider heightened oversight without a formal declaration of probation, if the MRB believes the actions by the Agreement State will result in necessary program improvements and the State is capable of implementing those commitments. Heightened oversight without probation could include requests for an Agreement State program improvement plan, periodic Agreement State progress reports, periodic NRC/ Agreement State conference calls, and a follow-up review by the IMPEP team.

Probation (2) l The MRB will consider probation for an Agreement State using OSP Intemal Procedure D.23,

" Procedure for Placing an Agreement State on Probation" as a reference. Probation is appropriate for MRB consideration when an Agreement State is found adequate but needs improvement or not compatible and any of the following circumstances occur: (a)

When one or more of the common and non-common performance indicators are found unsatisfactory and are of such safety significance that assurance of the program's ability to protect the public health may be degraded, heightened oversight by the NRC is required, and heightened oversight without a formal declaration of probat;on may not result in necessary program improvements. (1)

When previously identified programmatic deficiencies have gone uncorrected for a significant period of time beyond which the corrective actions had been originally scheduled for completicn Lnd the NRC is not confident of the State's ability to correct such deficiencies in an expeditious and effective manner without heightened oversight and a formal probation declaration by the NRC. (ii) 3

n When a program has repeatedly been late in adopting required compatibility elements and only heightened oversight by NRC together with a formal declaration of probation would yield improvements. (iii)

The following are examples of Agreement State program deficiencies where the MRB would consider probation for an Agreement State. This list is not allinclusive and other Agreement State program deficiencies may require consideration. (b)

The Agreement State repeatedly fails to identify design deficiencies in follow-up analysis of events or incidents involving sealed sources and devices. (i)

Inability to retain skilled staff resulting in increased backlog in inspections and deficiencies in the technical quality of inspection and licensing programs. (ii)

Inability / difficulty in adopting regulations which could result in significant impacts across State boundaries or allows licensees to be subject to less stringent requirements than NRC requirements determined to be necessary to satisfy compatibility criteria. (iii)

Suspension (3) l l

The MRB will consider if suspension of an ajreement is required to protect public health and safety, or if the State has not complied with one or more of the requirements of Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act, in accordance with OSP Internal Procedure D.22, " Procedure for I

Suspension of a Section 274b Agreement" when any of the following circumstances occur: (a)

In cases where the MRB finds that program deficiencies related to either adequacy or compatibility are such that the NRC must take action, the MRB will recommend to the Commission to suspend all or part of its agreement with the State. (i)

In cases where the State radiation control program has not complied with one oi more reeuirements of the Act, i.e., the State program is not compatible with the NRC program and the State has refused or is unable to address those areas previously identified as compatibility concerns and the non-compatibility is disruptive to the national program conducted by NRC and Agreement States for the regulation of Atomic Energy Act material. (ii)

Suspension, rather than termination, will be the preferred option in those cases where the MRB believes that the State has provided evidence that the progiam deficiencies are temporary and that the State is committed to implementing program improvements. (b)

Termination (4)

The MRB will consider termination for an Agreement State in accordance with OSP Intemal Procedures D.21," Procedure for Termination of a Section 274b Agreement" when any of the folicwing circumstances occur: (a) 4

a The State radiation control program is found to be inadequate to protect public health and safety, and no compensating program has been implemented; (i)

The State has been on probation for a period of time during which it failed to respond to NRC concems regarding the State's ability to carry out a program to protect public health and safety; or (i:)

The State radiation control program is not compatible with the NRC program and the State has refused, or is unable, to address those areas previously identified as compatibility concerns and the non-compatibility is significantly disruptive to the national program among NRC and Agreement States for the regulation of Atomic Energy Act material in accordance with an earlier agreed to corrective action plan. (iii)

The following are examples of situations where the MRB would consider recommending initiat ng formal procedures to terminate an agreement. This list is not all inclusive and other situations may require consideration. (s; Significant loss of staff, which includes number of staff or those with critical skills, coupled with a State's inability to hire appropriate rep!acements. (i)

Continual problems which manifest in the State's inability to perform adequate inspections or issue appropriate licenses. (ii)

State's inability to adopt compatible program elements over a significant period of time (years) and nationally disruptive regulatory program conflicts, gaps, or duplication exist. (iii)

Continued probationary or suspension status for a State program beyond the period originally envisioned. (iv)

Guidance for MRB Determinations for NRC Regiona! Programs (F)

Though not impossible, NRC believes that it is unlikely that a NRC regional program would deteriorate over a period of time such that the program would be found inadequate to protect public health and safety. The YRC headquarters office, NMSS, closely monitors the program status and quality of the regions. A significant weakness which would affect public health and safety would be addressed by adjustment of priorities and redirection of resources as necessary to address deficiencies. (1)

Though not impossible, NRC believes that it is unlikely that a NRC regional program would be found adequate but needs improvement. As noted above, NMSS closely monitors the daily activities af the regional programs and would redirect resources and adjust priorities as necessary to address deficiencies. (2) 5 l

3 If significant adequacy-related concerns are identified in a regional materials program by an j

IMPEP review, the same criteria fur an Agreement State determination that a program la adequate, but needs improvement, should be used by the MRB. Program probation, suspension, and termination are not applicable to regional programs. NRC must implement immediate action to correct regional program deficiencies that are similar to those that would warrant probation, suspension, or termination actions for an Agreement State. (3) 6

1 f

SP 98-2-

I This information request has been approved by OMB 3150-0029, expiration April 30,1998.

The estimated burden per response to comply with this voluntary collection request is 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.

l Forward any comments regarding the burden estimate to the Information and Records M:.7agement Branch (T 6 F33), U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

20!55-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0052), Office of haanagement and Budget Washington, DC 20503. If a document does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information.

l l

Richard L. Bangart, Director l

Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated i

DistributiOD:

DIR RF DCD (SP03)

SDroggitis PDR (YES.L) (NO_)

OSP Staff A/S File FAXED TO STATES:

IMPEP File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KXS\\SP98000.KNS; G:\\KXS\\PA

v. e*.. ew ee w. oocum.aunae.i. we w c M.4w uce,.er.RTIV.KNS

• See Previous Concurrence.

nem<. v. com =m ee.atw*w. v_. No em OFFICE OSP OWp NMSS:D

,OrpP;D/ l NAME KSchneider.nb:kk PLohabi,V\\

CPaperiello RtB&ngdrt / ')

DATE 01/09/98

• 011'l/98 01/ /98

" 011)'/98 _

OGP FILE CODE SP-A-4; SP-l 2

l i

SP1s cc5

< TRANSACTION REPORT >

01 199e (t10tJ) 22:09 4

C Ota r) AOC A ST 3

g to.

DATE Tite DEST !tJAT IOPJ ST AT IOtJ PO.

DURAT I OtJ t100E IRE SULT 35614 1-20 20:24 919 571 4148 8

O'03'59*

tJORti. E OK 35615 LO:28 701 328 5200 8

O*03'55' tJORM.E l OK 35010 20:32 503 731 4001 8

O'C.3'54*

tORM.E OK l

359, 20: 38 8037377412 8

O*04'00*

NORt1. E OK L56.8 20142-.. _._ _532 7938 615 8

O'04'00*

tJ

.___ ORM.E OK J

35619 20t46 51283467' 8

O'04'28*

PORM. E OK l

35620 20:51 801 533.J97 8

O*04'36*

iJORt1. E OK l

35621 20156 360 753 1496 8

O'03'54*

tGM. E OK 35622 21:00 Sie 457 2225 8

O'04*0;*

tJORti. E OK 3b623 21:05 518 457 5545 8

O'04'23*

NORt1. E OK 35624 21:09 tJEW YORK CITV 8

O'06'05*

tORM. E 6 OK l

3562Y 21:16 502 227 7862 8

O'04'26*

tJORt1AL OK 35626 21:21 AECD (613) 995-5066 8

O'04'12' tJORt1AL OK 35627 21:25 WA5MitJ0TCtJ DC 8

O'03'55*

tort 1. E OK 35628 21:29 7996726 8

O'03'57' NORti.E OK bTb 21I34 217 782 1329 8

O' 04'29' NORt1 E l OK 6

35630 21239 512 239 6362 8

O*04'04*

NORti.E OK 35631 21:43 4024714640 8

O'05'09' NORt1AL f OK 35632 21148 912 262 3143 8

O'04'20' NORMALI OK 35633 22:09 RHODE !5LAtO CK O

UOOO 152 1'21'47*

/

i m-

s p </ 2 0 0 5

• 1

< TRANSACTION REPORT i

01-20-1998(MON) 20f23 E

f3 f7 D A D C A S *T' 3

l t JO.

DATE T!!1E CCST itJAT ICH STAT IOtd PO.

DURATION t10DE RESULT 35509 l-20 18:15 610 337 5324 8

0*04'00*

i M.E OK 35500 18:19 404 562 4955 8

0*04'02*

tJ M.E OK 35591 18:23 70851'31096 8

0*11'52*

t<

M.E OK 35592 18:36 817 860 8122 8

O*03'55" t 3Rti. E ;

OK i

35593 18: 40 5109750301 8

O*04'13*

f*3Rti. E OK 35594 18:44 334 206 5387 8

0'07'17*

f JORt1. E OK 35595 18:52 002 437 0705 8

0*04'04*

tJORM. E OK 3559G 18:56 50106124G8 8

0*04'31*

tJORM.'E OK 35597 19:01 916 323 6491 0

0*04'Ol" t JORti. E OK 35598 19:05 303 343 3697 8

0* 04'18*

tJORM. E OK 35599 19:10 904 407 0135 8

O*04'11" NORM.E OK 35600 19:15 404 362 2653 8

0*04'31' NOfM.E OK 35001 19:19 217 524 4724 8

0*04'02*

t "E

p' 35002 19:24 IDWA 8

0*03'58' t

M.E W

35003 19120 913 29G 0984 8

0'04'20*

idt1. E OK 35004 19:33 502 564 6533 8

0'03*57*

iJORt1. E OK 35605 19: 37 LOUISIANA O

O'05*08*

iJORti. E OK 35506 19:43 t1AINE 8

0*05*14" tJORM/4.

OK 35607 19:48 410 631 3198 8

0*04'31*

tJORt1AL OK j

35608 19:53 601+354+6167 0

0*05'30' NORt1AL OK 35009 19:59 402 471 9449 0

0*03'53' IJORt1. E OK 35610 20:03 7026875751 8

0'05'31*

NORt1AL OK 35611 20:09 603 225 2325 8

0'04*04*

NORM.E OK l

35612 20:13 50582?1544 8

0*05'11*

NORt1AL OK 35C13 20:19 518 458 6434 0

0*04'03" NORM.E OK 200 2'00'17' 4

l l

t

< TRANSACTION REPORT >

01-26-1998(t10tD 15:03 E

13 FRO AOC A ST 3

fL.

DATC Tit 1E DESTINATIOtJ STATIOrd PO.

DURATIOtJ t10DE RESULT 35585 1-26 14:45-OHIO B

O'04'06*

NORt1.E OK 35506 14:50 pet #45VLVANIA 8

0*03'57' NORti.E OK 35587 14 54 OKLAHoriA 0

0'04'21*

NOR.1.E OV 3550B 14i59 8177272098 0

0'04'28*

fJORti. E OK 32 0*16'52' l

=

t

sp</ scc 6

< TRANSACTION REPORT >

01-28-1999(WED) 09t23 L

R E C E I Ut'I 3

I tJO,

DATE T i t1E CCST itJAT ICtJ STATIOtJ PO.

OLAAT IOt4 t10DE RESULT 35703 1-28 09116 713 772 0155 4

0' OG ' 32

• FItJE OK 4

0*00'32' i

I l

I I

t I

t o

< TRANSACTION REPORT 01-20-1998(WED) 09145 C

TRANSMIT 3

tJO.

DATE Tit 1E DESTltJATIOtJ STATIOfJ PO.

DURATION t10DE RESULT 35704 1-20 09t40 tW5ERDA 8

0'04'38*

tJORt1AL OK S

O'04'38*

a

/

_...