 |
Search Options | |||
| Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |  |
|||
Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission Meetings, Slides, Transcripts, Meeting SRMs, and Full Written Explanation for Closed Meetings > 1997
>
01/31/1997
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
***
BRIEFING ON INTEGRATED MATERIALS
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM
***
PUBLIC MEETING
***
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Building One, Room 1F-16
One White Flint North
11555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland
Friday, January 31, 1997
The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
notice, at 10:04 a.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON,
Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission
KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission
GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission
NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission
EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission
. 2
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary
KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel
HUGH THOMPSON, JR., Acting EDO, and Chair,
Management Review Board
DR. CARL PAPERIELLO, Director, NMSS
DR. DONALD COOL, Director, Division of Industrial
and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS
RICHARD BANGART, Director, OSP
KATHLEEN SCHNEIDER, Sr. Program Manager, OSP
BRUCE MALLET, Director, Division of Nuclear
Materials Safety, Region II
ROLAND FLETCHER, Manager, Rad Health Program,
Maryland Department of the Environment
JAMES McNEES, Director, Rad Materials Inspection,
Alabama State Department of Public Health
RICHARD RATLIFF, Chief, Bureau of Radiation
Control, Texas Department of Health
. 3
P R O C E E D I N G S
[10:04 a.m.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Today the Staff and representatives from
agreement states will brief the Commission on the Integrated
Materials Performance Evaluation Program, or IMPEP.
IMPEP was initiated in part in response to
comments from Congress and the General Accounting Office
several years ago that criticized NRC's program to assure a
national uniform level of protection of public health and
safety in the nuclear materials area.
Since 1994 the Staff has initiated, piloted and
refined a program to evaluate agreement states and regional
materials programs in a common manner.
On June 27th of 1995 the Commission approved the
Staff's proposal to implement and expand IMPEP. The Staff
has gained considerable experience since then and the
purpose of today's briefing is to provide the Commission
with a status update.
I understand that this morning we will hear from
the two headquarters offices that implement IMPEP -- the
regional perspective and the agreement state perspective.
We appreciate the attendance of the agreement
state representatives and look forward to hearing your views
on IMPEP.
. 4
We also look forward to hearing from the Staff,
both from Headquarters and the regions.
Since 1995 agreement states have been represented
on the review teams and have provided a liaison to
Management Review Board meetings. I am interested in
hearing the Staff's experience in coordinating more closely
with and being evaluated by agreement state personnel.
In November the Staff documented the status of the
IMPEP program in a paper, SECY 96-234, which is publicly
available. I understand that copies of the Staff's and the
agreement states' viewgraphs are available at the entrances
to the meeting.
Unless there are any comments from the
Commissioners, Mr. Thompson, please proceed.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Chairman Jackson and
Commissioners.
I am pleased to be here this morning. In fact,
actually we have four members of the Management Review Board
at the table here, so we might be having one of our meetings
right here today.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, we have been through some
of that.
MR. THOMPSON: It is a pleasure to be here and
brief the Commission on the IMPEP program.
As you know, we briefed the Commission in March of
. 5
1995 and with the Commission's approval began the
implementation of the Integrated Materials Performance
Evaluation, IMPEP --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Has it been since March, 1995?
MR. THOMPSON: I believe, so and it's when the
briefing was but time flies when you are having fun.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes.
MR. THOMPSON: As Chair of the Management Review
Board, I believe that this program has proven effective both
in terms of evaluating the adequacy and compatibility of
material programs both in NRC and in the agreement states
during the past year and improving the technical and
programmatic exchange of information between NRC and the
agreement states.
I think this latter point is a very important
point because one of the things that I always found very
useful at the end of the meetings, I would ask the
participants both who participated in the review of the
agreement states what was their observations, lessons
learned, and even the NRC Staff's -- we would bring in the
Office of Research, NMSS. We really do get a broadening of
the program internally within NRC as well as within the
agreement states, and I must admit that it's even delightful
to have the Office of General Counsel represented --
[Laughter.]
. 6
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Delightful?
MR. THOMPSON: Delightful. I mean -- no, but it
is one of the few places that I know that we really come
together as an agency looking at an important program and I
know the Commission has been encouraging us to do that and
this is one of the programs that really has, I think,
achieved that, and credit should be given to GAO for pushing
us in this direction.
I wasn't really happy about it to start off with,
but I must commend the Staff for taking that challenge and
moving forward and today we have two panels, as you
mentioned, the reviewers and the reviewers, and we will hear
from both.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And some mixture of the two.
MR. THOMPSON: And some mixture of the two --
that's true -- with Roland Fletcher. He's been on both
sides of this approach there, but on my left though is
Kathleen Schneider, from the Office of State Programs, who
was instrumental in doing much of the early work, both in
the agreement state programs in the previous program as well
as with the new program, and has been a team leader; Don
Cool, who is the Director of the Division of Industrial and
Medical Nuclear Safety, who will do most of the Staff's
presentation; and the two gentlemen on my right, Carl
Paperiello and Dick Bangart, who are members of the Board
. 7
and I wouldn't --
MS. CYR: -- you can consult me twice --
[Laughter.]
MR. THOMPSON: But there's no damning at all in
this case, but with no other things I would like to turn the
briefing over to Carl -- I mean Don.
[Laughter.]
MR. THOMPSON: They look so much alike --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It must be the glasses.
MR. THOMPSON: It's my tie that's making my vision
go wrong today or something.
DR. COOL: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning.
DR. COOL: If I can go ahead and have the first
slide -- as you indicated we will have two panels here.
[Slide.]
DR. COOL: What we intend to do here in the next
few minutes is to walk you quickly through some of the
background, a lot of which we have already touched on, some
of the indicators in process, because a number of you were
not here at the time that we last were up here, which wasn't
that close to two years ago -- it doesn't seem like that
long --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Actually, no one was here in --
[Laughter.]
. 8
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- except Commissioner
Rogers --it was a comma and not a period, the point being
that you can be robust in how you kind of give your
perspectives.
DR. COOL: Right, and some of our results and
schedules. If we can go ahead and go to the next slide on
the background, as we have already indicated, we established
this program --
[Slide.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Can you speak a little more
into the --
DR. COOL: Let me see if I can get this a little
bit closer. There we go. I keep forgetting and Chip
reminded me all through public meetings years ago that I
need to swallow the microphone, so we will attempt to do
that, and put it here a little bit closer.
We developed the program in response to some
outside inputs to be sure, but also in response to some of
the things that we have been observing, so it was in a sense
quite timely to try and get some measure of consistency in
how we were looking at our own regional programs, how we
were looking at the agreement state programs.
It was a move to try and move towards performance,
try and look at the particular areas that really needed to
be focused upon, try to get some rigor in that particular
. 9
program.
We went through a series of steps in '94 and '95
in terms of initial pilots, some initial development of
criteria, subjecting those to comments, for which there was
a great deal of comment and input, some wonderful
discussions at some of the all agreement state meetings and
CRCPD meetings about the indicators, what should be in and
what should be out.
We had some very vocal viewpoints on that and it
directly influenced the way the common indicators are, as
you see them today, implemented then.
Go ahead and go to the next slide.
[Slide.]
DR. COOL: Following the Commission's approval in
1995 they issued the Management Directive 5.6 under which we
are conducting the program, laid out the common performance
criteria which were part of that directive.
Some of the key elements in this process and
activities, there is state participation on the teams and on
the Management Review Boards; the teams themselves are
interdisciplinary teams -- depending on the size of the
program it may be two or three individuals for some of the
states, usually four or five for the larger states and for
the regions drawn from a variety of perspectives -- some
inspection backgrounds, some licensing background, some of
. 10
the folks who have more details in terms of some of the
implementation budgetary resources, some of those sorts of
things.
The focus is on the program performance -- where
is it going, how is it going well, are they looking at the
right sorts of things, are they implementing the directives
and requirements that are out there and available.
It's also provided an opportunity to go through a
much more rigorous documentation process. That is in the
development of a report, a review of the report by the group
that was reviewed, both the regions or the states, and
coming together and providing that for the Management Review
Board that then examines it, has made modifications on
occasions to the final outcome and the final review process.
Staff also began the development of a series of
noncommon indicators, noncommon indicators being those
particular program areas that do not cross the board through
all the regions and all of the states. For example, low
level waste, where there are several states that are
pursuant low level waste programs and other states are not.
Again, similarly in the sealed source and device
area, where some of the states are doing sealed source
device reviews as part of their agreement, some of the
states have not chosen to take that particular authority so
we use those in those areas where that program is actually
. 11
operating with the states.
Drafts were provided, comments received from the
states on those particular program areas, and have been
implemented on the first round as we went through the FY '96
cycle.
The noncommons, both for the states and for the
regions, are a year, probably two years, behind the common
indicators in terms of having tested them, working through
them, refining them, what my friends in the computer
industry talk about as "hardening" -- getting them refined
down, getting them locked down in a way that everyone has
agreed to over a course of time, so they are not to the same
degree of rigor and are not in fact in the management
directive yet, although they will be and we will continue
that process.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you this question.
Tell me a little more about what you think you have gained
from the unique perspectives that the agreement state
liaison have had -- I am going to ask them the comparable
question -- as part of the Management Review Board and have
they been effective advocates for states or programs from
their states that are different than ours but which achieve
good performance nonetheless?
What do you think we have gained from that?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, certainly from my perspective
. 12
they have been fully active participants, asking questions
such that help develop the significance of an issue or of a
finding or in certain areas we basically have had reasonably
good programs to review.
We have had one program that we will talk about a
little bit that was more difficult than others, but in each
program they tend to have areas for improvements or areas
that need further exploration of the table and having
members of the agreement states there.
They have asked excellent questions. They have
been bringing their perspective to the table as to what a
state may have to achieve in order to correct a deficiency
and it gives us some confidence that, you know, if we are
asking something that it can be accomplished in the
agreement state programs and in programs that are out there.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Have we taken anything that
they may have suggested and migrated it into our own
process?
MR. THOMPSON: I'll probably turn that over back
to Don or maybe Bruce and others can talk about it.
I can tell you that at each meeting that we have
we try to look for good practices and make that available to
all the agreement states and to the NRC regions so that
where we have a good tracking system, a good method for
documenting results, follow-up on enforcement actions, I
. 13
think almost in every case each state has had something that
has been highlighted as being good or one of the evaluators
will come back and say I really learned a lot here because I
liked that way they did "x" at, you know, in North Carolina
and then we want to use that back in improving the program
either in one of the regions or in one of the states that
were participating in it.
So, I don't know, Carl?
MR. PAPERIELLO: I can't add anything, no.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay.
DR. COOL: Certainly from the Staff's perspective,
there has been a great benefit. They have provided some
very good viewpoints, some ways that the individual reviewer
was doing things that was quite useful both to the other
team members doing the review and to the region, and those
are the ones that I can speak directly to in terms of the
way practices are being done.
Perspectives that we have learned in reviews of
the states have provided us several things, ways of doing
public interaction and getting feedback on customer service,
for example, extremely useful sorts of things that were
going on there.
From a more general perspective, I think it's fair
to say that virtually everybody who has been part of each
one of these reviews has walked away learning something.
. 14
To be very frank, my staff is not particularly
happy when I go out to one of the closeouts for the regions
because they know I am going to come back with something
that I am going to ask them to start doing because I found
something that will probably work better, something that
will help our own particular program. That has been a great
strength.
Just to finish up then --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Can I ask a question?
DR. COOL: Please, yes.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: THe issue of noncommon
performance indicators, you said you are running one to two
years behind the common performance indicators since the
common performance indicators one or two years ago you
locked those in.
That means very soon you are going to be able to
tell us what the noncommon performance indicators are? I am
just trying to be more precise on timing.
DR. COOL: Okay -- a two-part answer to your
question. We can tell you what the indicators that we are
looking at are now --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right.
DR. COOL: -- we'll do that in about a slide.
My expectation is that when we are ready to do a
revision of the management directive, and there will be
. 15
several reasons for doing that when the adequacy and
compatibility statement is ready, that we will also be in a
position to write into that management directive the
noncommon indicators, particularly those that go along with
the state reviews that have already been subjected to a
round of state comments.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: And what would be the
role of the Commission in approving the revised management
directive?
Would it be submitted to the Commission as the
original directive was or what is your -- how does that
work?
DR. COOL: The previous directive, and somebody
may need to help correct me here, was approved by the EDO
and provided to the Commission with the Federal Register
notice.
The management procedures normally have the EDO
approving the directives. That doesn't mean that we can't
provide it to you as you wish.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I understand the
procedure.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, we typically keep the
Commission informed on any issues that they like to be
informed on, and it certainly would be provided to give
copies to the Commissions once we have reached the point --
. 16
and as we said, this will really be an integral part of an
issue that does require the Commission's approval on, the
adequacy and compatibility area.
MR. BANGART: I'd like to add, Hugh, that we are
further along in terms of experience with criteria for the
noncommon indicators for the ones that cover low-level waste
and sealed source and device reviews.
Those were drafted earlier in were part of this
interim program that has been conduced the last year.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: For those that you haven't
drafted anything yet, what documents were you using?
MR. BANGART: They have all been drafted. They
have all been out to the agreement states for comments and
were in the --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, what about the ones for
the regions?
DR. COOL: For the regions in the fuel cycle area
it was the Fuel Cycle Program Plan, which fuel cycle has in
the SDMP area, decommissioning arena. They were using the
set of documents that go back to the SDMP program statement.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And those are the ones that are
then used as the basis for what you are going to be
drafting?
MR. BANGART: Yes, that's correct.
DR. COOL: And in the noncommon area what we have
. 17
attempted to do is to parallel for that particular program
element the same sorts of things that we do in common for
the general program, so look at the specific issues or
training or qualifications for that area, such as sealed
sources, device reviews in that particular area, so again
trying to look at the same sorts of things -- the quality,
the timeliness, and the training, but focused on that
particular program element.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: To go back to my
original question, when do you see the process getting to a
conclusion and this revised directive being issued?
DR. COOL: I would expect we would have the
revised directive this year once we're in a position to do
that.
I would also expect that we would probably be
looking on about an annual basis -- as we complete each
fiscal year looking and seeing whether there are things that
we have learned, things that have come out of the Management
Review Board meetings which would dictate to us that we want
to go back in and modify, adjust -- all those particular
exercises.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: So there will be annual
review process?
DR. COOL: I would think that in order to do this
job properly, we ought to always be checking to see if we
. 18
are still on track.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I think an appropriate
way to address the Commissioner's concerns is if you could
lay out what your integrated schedule looks like relative to
the various pieces coming together.
MR. THOMPSON: Dick, you might be able to address
that.
MR. BANGART: Let me just add that the other major
revision to the management directive will be the change in
the way compatibility is determined so once the Commission
hopefully gives final approval to the new adequacy and
compatibility policy statement and the implementing
procedures --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Has that come here yet?
MR. BANGART: It is out for office concurrence as
of this morning.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. That is what I am trying
to say is that's what we need to know is what -- how that is
coming and how the schedule is for that, because all these
other things hinge on that.
MR. THOMPSON: My sense is within the next couple
of months we should be -- is the timeframe we're looking at,
and I can send you a little --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: For the revised adequacy and
compatibility policy statement or --
. 19
MR. BANGART: That will be Day Zero and then a
couple of months. Once it's approved, then we'll --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So if I ask you whether you can
get it to the Commission within the next month, is that an
issue?
MR. BANGART: It is --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: This has to do with just the
adequacy and compatibility.
MR. BANGART: We are on a schedule now that would
get it to you within a month.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. BANGART: We have asked for office concurrence
in two weeks and then that will be at EDO's on the 18th.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Because then everything else --
and then we need to understand how everything else is linked
to that.
Yes, Commissioner Dicus?
COMMISSIONER DICUS: The other question then, as I
understand it, is the policy statement of principles and
policy for agreement state programs has to be part of this
package as well, is that --
MR. BANGART: Yes, they are combined. They are
combined into one paper.
COMMISSIONER DICUS: With the adequacy and
compatibility?
. 20
MR. BANGART: Yes. Those policy statements and the
outstanding implementing procedures are all in the package
and it's about like that, unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And we will review it in three
days.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz?
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yes. Has the issue of the low
risk, low complexity SDMP cites being addressed as who
should take responsibility for those and the issue being
discussed to see whether agreement states are willing or
have we made any recommendations or any discussions have
been made, and how to handle them if they are put on the
table?
MR. THOMPSON: The agreement state programs that
we reviewed are typically the ones for which they have the
oversight for, and then part of our review process we go and
select the parts that we review, so the parts that we select
for review are typically those that have more risk
significance and look at those.
I don't think we are looking at trying to change
the regulatory role and responsibility that is currently
involved either in agreement states or nonagreement states
at this time.
So we are just looking at the agreement state
. 21
program and the regional programs as they currently exist.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: So how size with low risk
might fall in our field but actually might eventually want
to be in some other field. Have those been addressed in any
fashion? Because I think eventually that will become an
issue.
MR. THOMPSON: I think that's addressed, but
that's not addressed in this type of a program here. I
think to the extent that I think we looked at that as some
of the issues with the strategic type planning area and I
don't know that they quite raised up to the Commission's
level of review at this time yet but I think that is the
forum in which we are looking at what we would push that.
For example, I think the Commission is addressing
things in the nuclear medicine area and there is one where
we are looking at what focus we should have in a regulatory
perspective which would -- you know, we would give guidance
to the program reviews as to what part of the medical area
needs attention and what part needs less focus and less
attention on that.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: This is the same type of
issue, essentially?
MR. THOMPSON: That's right. But the program we
have here today really looks at the program that exists and
the regulatory programs that are being carried out currently
. 22
by the states and by the regions.
DR. COOL: Okay, we can go on to the slide on
common indicators, just walk through these very quickly.
[Slide.]
DR. COOL: The five common performance indicators
that are looked at common to both the regions and the
states, the status of the inspection program, is it being
executed in a timely fashion, are there overdue inspections
that are outside of the window of opportunity? Are we
getting to people on the yearly basis for those that are
priority ones, are we getting to new licensees within the
first six months to make sure they, in fact, are
implementing the kinds of programs that are necessary, are
the reports getting issued in a timely fashion, are we
moving forward quickly in terms of the enforcement actions
or other things that come out of that, so there is not a
delay between findings that may be found and communicating
and taking actions associated with those?
The indicator related to technical staffing and
training, in terms of the overall level of staffing, the
right kind of staff availabilities, the right kind of mix,
the right kinds of qualifications. Are inspectors going
through the qualification process? Are license reviewers
going through the qualification process? Is there anything
that may pose a concern in terms of abnormal rates of
. 23
attrition or turnover within the programs?
Technical quality of the licensing activities,
where representative samples of actions are taken and
reviewed, looked at in terms of the findings that are found,
whether or not the safety issues have been properly
addressed, try to pull a representative sample across the
variety of different kinds of licensing actions, new
actions, amendments, renewals, terminations and a variety of
different kinds of program codes from simple types of
licensees to the more complex. Try to find one broad scope
of some of those activities, so we address a range of areas
there.
Technical quality of the inspections. Part of the
program provides for inspection accompaniments where folks
from some of the other regions or some of my staff, the
folks from the agreement states, will actually accompany the
inspectors of the regions or the states, see how they are
doing, what they are looking at, examine how they are
documenting those, how they are following up, are they
conducting inspections looking for the right kinds of
issues.
The last one, in terms of response to incidents
and allegations, in terms of the level of effort, were
appropriate kinds of actions taken to events that were
identified as reporting happening in a timely fashion, those
. 24
sorts of activities.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a couple of
questions on this particular slide. I will start from --
with respect to the last one, the response to incidents and
allegations.
Obviously we have and are devoting considerable
attention to this whole area of allegation management. Are
the agreement states' allegation programs similar to ours
and have agreement states made parallel improvements along
the lines that we have been moving or trying to move?
MR. THOMPSON: My sense is that each agreement
state that we have looked has a program that does respond to
allegations. They do not have programs as structured as
ours where they have allegation review boards. As I can
remember, obviously they don't have the power reactor
community to -- which has a large number of people involved
in them.
They typically have a much, much smaller number of
allegations. They do not have, in general, an investigative
office to follow up, though they do have other capabilities
at the states to follow up on issues, whether it's like the
state bureau of investigations or other investigative
support functions. But we do look to see if there was
timely feedback. They do, you know, try to track and
sometimes their programs, we identify areas for improvements
. 25
and identify areas that they could, you know, have proper
feedback and control.
So I think our program is probably much more
structured and robust than probably any agreement state
program would be but we do look to, say, the fundamental
aspects of them, that they are identified, tracked and
feedback is given as part of our review process.
MS. SCHNEIDER: You covered everything I was going
to jump in and say. But, like you said, we have made some
comments in the areas to enhance it and I think it is an
area where we are strengthening the states by this team
approach, bringing our expertise out to them.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you this question.
I notice that you had a common performance indicator on
status of the materials inspection program and one on
technical quality of licensing. But you don't have one and
didn't adopt one, I guess, at the initiation of IMPEP on the
status of the licensing program, although backlogs are still
something that are still being grappled with and were
specifically mentioned in discussion of staffing,
specifically mentioned with respect to Nebraska.
So the question is, is a common indicator on the
status of licensing or licensing backlogs something that
needs to be looked at?
DR. COOL: A couple of comments on that.
. 26
When the original performance indicators were
being discussed, that was a specific topic of discussion
and, in fact, was probably one of the areas where there was
more discussion and comments with the states than perhaps
any of the others. The view taken by the staff in its
recommendation to the Commission back now several years ago
was that there was not nearly the nexus between the status
of the program and whether or not there were some backlogs
as there was in the inspection area and in response to the
comments from the states, who did not believe it should be
present, it was not included in the set of five indicators
at that time.
In terms of the regional reviews, that is one of
the things that was specifically looked at under my
common -- noncommon indicator in terms of operating plan
performance because that's one of the things that are
specifically addressed between NMSS and the regions as part
of our operating plan. So we do that for the regions but we
have not done that for the states in view of the comments
and development.
The discussions associated with Nebraska and some
of the areas which were discussed which didn't have a home,
if you will, or didn't seem to have quite a particular home
brought the issue to light, certainly perhaps warrant some
additional discussion but there was a rather strong,
. 27
consistent sentiment at that time not to include these --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I am not asking you so much
from the historical perspective but on a go-forward basis in
terms of the fact that it did come up in terms of the review
of an agreement state program where there was a question
about potential placement on probation. And all I am really
asking, is it something in light of your experience you
think needs to be revisited. That's number one. And,
number two, is it in any sense incorporated into other
common performance indicators?
MR. THOMPSON: I'll respond and then I'll let Dick
respond.
One of the things that's great about the IMPEP
program is that you are free to follow where the path leads
you. For instance, in looking at staffing and
qualifications, when they started looking at that area where
they had key missing staff members we looked at what the
results of that was and in fact the team originally made a
recommendation with respect to that particular criterion was
that it was an unsatisfactory criterion. We had some
debates and we can discuss those a little bit later.
We certainly can re-look at that issue but right
now I don't think by not having it as a criterion prohibits
us from looking at areas where lack of staffing may have
contributed to the issue. And so I felt the board had full
. 28
knowledge of what the status of that program was at that
time and, in fact, before we actually made our preliminary
conclusions had a status of where it was at the date that
the board met.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me rephrase the question.
Are licensing backlogs in general an issue?
MR. THOMPSON: In fact, I think Nebraska, if my
memory's correct, was the first state that we found where it
was truly a real issue. We had had some other states in
previous reviews that it had been an issue but that's my
memory. Dick, I don't know if you can --
MR. BANGART: Kathy, I would generally agree with
that statement.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Yes. Most of the time you are not
going to find the backlog in licensing. But you will find
it if you have vacancies in staff, I'll speak historically,
they're going to let the licensing go first and redirect the
resources to the inspections.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So it shows up when you look at
the staffing issues?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: All right.
MR. BANGART: I would like to follow up. The
point that Hugh made about being able to look wherever you
need to look and especially to identify root causes, the
. 29
Nebraska MRB did reveal that there is no "management
effectiveness" kind of category anywhere there. That is a
broad brush kind of issue.
We need that and we've talked within our office
about either Management Directive 5.6 or in our own internal
office guidance, we need to deal with management
effectiveness. Don said that there is an argument to be
made, at least, that there is a weak nexus between health
and safety and backlogs but it can be part of management
effectiveness. What we plan to do is deal with any broad
brush issues like that in a summary section of the report
where, in Nebraska, we had symptoms of management weakness
spread throughout the report and in multiple places we
covered the same thing.
So we will focus that now in a summary section
that will give a broad brush treatment as to the overall
management effectiveness of the program.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I want to ask you one last
general question but I will make one little comment. We did
have an earlier Commission meeting where we talked about
issues having to do with general licenses versus specific
licenses.
MR. BANGART: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Keeping up with certain kinds
of sources and a need to assure ourselves that we had an
. 30
ability. And that does propagate to the licensing regime
and therefore, to the extent that we believe that our
ability to understand where things are with respect to that
class of materials licensees has a health and safety
implication, then one can't exactly throw out and say that
licensing backlogs, without having parsed what that backlog
means, has no health and safety significance.
MR. BANGART: I agree.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: My last comment is,
apparently -- a question -- the teams and the Management
Review Board decisions are based largely on the qualitative
evaluation of performance. Are there any quantifiable
indicators or is the nature of what you're reviewing such
that that has no particular place?
DR. COOL: The final writeups of the report are,
in fact, qualitative dealing with the performance indicators
themselves. There is a great deal of quantitative data
underneath that originally examined, in terms of inspection
frequencies, inspection findings, numbers of events. We go
in and look at the nuclear materials event database, see
what is available there, use that, in essence, to help guide
us in going and selecting events to follow up inspections
that we might want to check back on, licenses that we may
want to examine.
So while the final report comes out in a
. 31
qualitative area, the staff utilizes a number of
quantitative data points underneath it in guiding its review
and in looking at some of those particular issues.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Does having the qualitative
nature ever cause you to be challenged in your results?
DR. COOL: It has not to date.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: She shook her heard.
MS. SCHNEIDER: No. I was -- I would say
during -- during the pilot we did have some discussion with
some of the states, both Utah and Illinois, as we were
further refining it, and that's why I shook my head one way.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: All right. Thank you.
[Slide.]
DR. COOL: The next slide dealt with the noncommon
performance indicators and I think, perhaps, as a result of
discussions, we have already touched on most of those. We
look at the operating plan and the utilization and the
resources and the regional activities, fuel cycle activities
and will be working now, as the last bullet notes, in terms
of reviewing the SDMP program which is unique to the
regions.
In the states, the areas of regulation, legal
authority, sealed source and devices, low-level waste and
uranium recovery, some of those come from the older criteria
which the Commission asked us to continue with. A couple of
. 32
those, sealed source and low-level have, in fact, been
drafted, commented upon and tested in some of the reviews
because some of the states reviewed this year had those
programs.
The uranium recovery one has been drafted,
commented but not yet subjected to a test in the field with
a review because none of the states which were reviewed in
FY '96 had a uranium recovery program, so it is a little bit
farther behind.
As I already indicated, that will need to be
brought up to speed as we actually have a test of the system
see what works. One of the things that we will need to go
back and look at is whether there is some overlap between
those things in the noncomment and things which are in the
comment. Whether or not you in fact deal with, say,
training for all the program area or whether you talk about
the training in SSDs separately from the training associated
with routine licensing to try and minimize the number of
cross-connections, overlaps that come out there.
In terms of the implementation --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: When you talk about refinement
of noncommon indicators, what kind of refinements do you
think are needed or what do you mean by that?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Some of the comments we got on the
low-level waste and the sealed source and devices is we
. 33
weren't clear as to exactly what type of statistics we would
want them to maintain on their program. A little bit more
clear guidance on training. Again, so that's the type of
refinements we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
DR. COOL: Implementation results, which is the
next slide.
[Slide.]
DR. COOL: We laid out a schedule for the reviews
of all of the states in the regions. That review was laid
out, assuming a two- to four-year cycle based upon the
previous reviews for the states, the previous review
conducted under the old cycle. All of them are laid out
under a schedule which has every one reviewed under the
IMPEP criteria by the end of FY '99. We do between nine and
12 reviews per year, two regions each year, and then seven,
nine, 10 states depending on the cycle. There are 12
reviews scheduled in FY '97, three of which have already had
their teams on site and for which the documents are in
various stages of review, comment by the particular state to
move forward.
We reviewed nine programs in '96. Those were laid
out there; I don't need to go particularly further with
that. Seven of those nine have completed the process.
Nebraska has completed the management review board and that
. 34
report and minutes will be in the EDO's office next week.
The report for Maryland is with Maryland for review and
comment back prior to a draft final being prepared for the
management review board and --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before you go --
DR. COOL: Roland is probably going to address
that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now, I know that there is a
delay of at least two-and-a-half months and sometimes longer
between the on-site review and the management review board
meeting and the question is, is the finding of adequacy and
compatibility applicable to the date of the on-site review
or of the date of the management review board meeting or the
whole period in between? Because I am going to ask you this
specifically relative to Nebraska in terms of what you take
into account and how much -- what goes on in the interim
plays into the ultimate decision and therefore how timely in
some sense is the final decision and what's the linkage.
MR. THOMPSON: The management review board uses
all the information that is currently available to it at the
date it meets to make that decision. Therefore, if the
issue were no staffing and they had now hired up and
staffing, we would make our finding as of the day that they
reflected. If they had staffing of 10 people and they all
left, we would find that the problem would be a staffing
. 35
problem, although it may have been fine two months before.
So that is one of the reasons we actually have the
state participate and being present to respond to questions
and to issues at the meeting so that we have a current
status that when we make our judgment, it is the judgment as
of the facts that are before us that day.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: All of this is documented in
the record that that's the basis for the decision one way or
the other?
MR. THOMPSON: That's correct. That is, and
that's the --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is there a reason why the
management review board meetings are so distant from when
the on-site reviews actually occur?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, the process that was put in
place essentially allowed for the states to have an
opportunity to respond and I think that's invaluable.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, and to remediate?
MR. THOMPSON: If they are very smart, they will
remediate. It wasn't intended to be --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: To be a remediation?
MR. THOMPSON: To be a remediation. Quite
frankly, I would like to have no state have to have a
remediation period.
Some states are able to aggressively respond. We
. 36
have had some states that would drag the response period out
and that was an uncomfortable situation where it says, you
know, well, we've had our review; how come we can't get the
states to come in to hold the meeting.
Most of the state we are dealing with right now
are responsive in a timely fashion and on only a few
occasions do I think we end up with an -- with an unusually
long time before the --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you negotiate when the
management review board meeting is relative to the end of
the on-site review?
MR. THOMPSON: I usually rely on my staff to set
that up. Kathleen?
MS. SCHNEIDER: What we've been trying to do is we
do have a goal of trying to get the draft report out in 30
days. Then if we give the state two weeks to respond, then
we try and have it within two weeks after that.
I do have -- you know, ideal conditions, we should
be able to do everything in 90 days to the final report and
maybe Mr. Bangart would like to address this a little bit
too. But we have not been able to get -- we have found that
we have needed to do some refinements in that process
because we haven't been able to make it on time all the
time. Dick?
MR. BANGART: We do track each of the reviews and
. 37
how we're progressing in terms of issuing the draft report
and the final report holding the MRB and unfortunately the
delays that are longer than we would like are occurring more
frequently than we would like.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right.
MR. BANGART: So we have under evaluation right
now initiatives that we can put in place that we think will
make the process move more quickly and that starts at the
front end from making sure all the team members have a
laptop PC with them so they can work in the evenings.
Another practical consideration like having a meeting room
at the hotel so it is easy for the team to get together and
discuss. Having the team leaders making sure that each of
their team members have time available so that they can
devote the necessary time for prep, conduct the review and
document the followup. And the extreme, I think,
alternative on the other end is have the team stay together
until all the pieces are submitted to the team leader for
incorporating into the report.
So as we consider those, those will be documented
at least for the agreement state reviews in our internal
guidance. So we expect that the timeliness is going to
improve.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Karen?
MS. CYR: If I could just make a comment as an MRB
. 38
member, I view this process in the sense as sort of an
incentive process. I mean, I think there is an enormous
amount of communication that goes on between the team
reviewers as they are doing the review and as the findings
are being prepared and they provide that to the state. So
that, yes, I think there is an opportunity for states to
remediate and come -- but I think that's valuable. I mean,
I think there is communication going on all the time and
they come to the board to provide the current status of
their program and if there have been deficiencies identified
in most case, every case we've had, they've taken steps to
try to do that. But I think that's a value of the process.
I mean, I don't --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We are not going to get into a
debate about what the value of the process is. The real
problem has to do with one of timeliness. Timeliness of
what the particular snapshot is, you know, we're getting
information, what does it mean as well as timeliness of
response by those who are being evaluated to whatever the
findings are at that time. If you have something that is a
negotiated kind of ending date, then you can negotiate and
the question becomes not that you don't want people to
remediate but people also have to be motivated to know that
there is going to be some ultimate decision and that, in
itself, can be a motivation to do what has to be done
. 39
consistent with whatever constraints they are operating
under in the given situation or state or whatever the case
may be.
So I don't think we're here debating or arguing
the issue of whether it's a good thing. The real issue has
to do with the timeliness with which things get closed out
and what the meaning of the given snapshot is at a
particular point in time as far as any information the
Commission might get about what you're saying about a given
program. And that's all, you know, I think we are
discussing this morning.
MR. THOMPSON: We certainly are sensitive -- one
of the real efforts was to try to move in a timely fashion
with timely feedback to the states, timely feedback to the
regions and I know, in particular, they appreciate a timely
feedback from the results and likewise we like to have a
timely resolution of the process and I will continue to work
with Dick to make sure that those things that we can do to
improve the timeliness of the process are focused on.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Can I ask before we
leave this slide or can we get slide 7 back up or do you
want to go ahead?
COMMISSIONER DICUS: Are you changing subjects?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I'm going to change
. 40
subjects.
COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay.
I am okay with what you're doing but I have a
question with regard to what, in a situation, this would be
either for agreement state or a regional office. You go in
and in the review a really serious acute health and safety
issue exists where a program, be it one of ours or an
agreement state has a serious problem and it is an acute
health and safety issue. Do we wait 90 days or 120 days to
do something? I think that gets at the heart of what we
need to do.
MR. THOMPSON: We obviously don't wait on one of
those. In particular, what we will do, in the past we have
actually provided technical assistance to an agreement state
program where we would do their inspections, we would do
their licensing. The same way if we have a problem with the
regions, we have often had support from another region to
support a particular region, so if there is an immediate
problem, we will respond to it as soon as we are aware of
it.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That is built into the process?
Okay. That's enough.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Don't keep talking; we agree.
We're fine. We have the answer.
. 41
MR. THOMPSON: It's built into my process.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On the chart that we
were on, the last bullet was regions found to be
satisfactory and therefore adequate to protect public health
and safety.
As I understand it, there are three grades you can
get. You can get satisfactory, satisfactory with
improvement and unsatisfactory. Were the regions found
satisfactory across the board or satisfactory with
recommendations for improvement?
DR. COOL: They were found satisfactory on all the
indicators for all the regions thus far.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: If you are in a
situation where it was satisfactory with recommendations for
improvement, are you still adequate to public health and
safety? Is it only when you get into the unsatisfactory
category that issues get raised as to whether you are
adequate for public health and safety? I am just trying to
understand what the grades mean.
MR. THOMPSON: Essentially, we would have to
have -- I think for a not adequate to protect public health
and safety on our own program, a programmatic breakdown
whereas we were, you know, not looking at an area and that
would have to be fairly substantial.
There are lots of things you will find
. 42
satisfactory with recommendations for improvement. Though
the program is fine, it may not be operating as quickly or
it may not be operating as quickly or it may not be -- the
staffing level may not be as high as you would like it
because our -- it is slightly different with the regions.
We are kind of in touch with the regions on a real time
process and if there is a real issue, Carl or I will be
working with the regional administrator to address a health
and safety problem immediately.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: What does it mean for
the states, then? What do these grades mean for the state
program? I know we are going to get to Nebraska in a minute
but if a state program were -- obviously if it is
satisfactory across the board it is in great shape but how
many satisfactories with need for improvement or
unsatisfactories do we need in order to trigger a probation
or some action?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, we haven't specifically
crossed that bridge with this program. There were two
programs in an earlier state or earlier time that probably
met that area. One was Idaho in which we took the program
back and the other one was Iowa which, really, we ended up
doing all the inspections and the licensing reviews for that
program. Those would be the types of situations where we
would expect to be sufficiently proactive in the activities
. 43
in order to ensure that a safe program exists.
I don't think you will find this program coming in
with something that is inadequate to protect public health
and safety. We will be in touch with the Commission well
before that ever occurs.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay.
MR. BANGART: If it were to happen, though, if an
agreement state had an overall rating of unsatisfactory,
that would equate to not adequately protecting public health
and safety.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: It's sort of like -- I'm
trying to analogize to the reactor area. Our lowest
category in the SALP scores is, as I recall, adequate or
something like that and then the testimony we've had in
previous Commission meetings is, if it ain't adequate, it's
shut down.
MR. THOMPSON: That's right. We would take
action.
Now, you know, there is a formal process to go
through and there may be some -- there may be some day -- I
keep seeing the agreement state programs in an improving
trend. Nebraska was a test for us and we can discuss that a
little bit later on, I think. That was one of the reasons
we wanted to have this meeting after we had kind of taken a
hard one to see where we would end up on it.
. 44
But, in essence, right now, you really don't give
a program to the state unless you have some confidence that
it is adequate to protect the public health and safety to
start off with and then you stay in contact with them so
that there is a reasonable expectation that you are not
going to find one unsatisfactory. It really, you know, the
two that we had in the past with respect to Iowa and Idaho,
we had lots of dialogues in particular with the Commission
early on with those or supported the state with our own
inspection efforts.
MS. SCHNEIDER: If I could offer one thing, we do
have a process. We have both in the law -- Karen, correct
me if I'm wrong -- that if there is a problem, we can do an
emergency suspension. If the public health and safety has
been compromised.
MR. THOMPSON: And even for a specific facility.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Right.
MR. THOMPSON: I think there was a state --
MS. SCHNEIDER: Yes, there was, back in '78, '79.
MR. THOMPSON: That triggered that change in the
law so we could come in and if the state were not taking
sufficient action and we had a public health and safety
concern, that we could come in and take over the response
for that particular incident.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Right, and we have a procedure to
. 45
do that, too, in place.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
[Slide.]
DR. COOL: All right, the next slide which you
have, which is slide eight, talks about frequencies and
reviews. We do the regions on a two-year cycle, pick up two
each year back and forth, irrespective of the fact that they
have had all satisfactory performance, we use this as our
opportunity to examine all the areas within the NMSS
program.
For the states, the team recommends to the MRB an
interval based upon the findings. The MRB can adjust that
based upon things which they may observe as a result of that
process. Normally two to four. In the case of Nebraska,
which we will deal with in a moment, it is going to be less
than that. There have been several that have been in the
two to three range and several where the recommendation has
been for a four-year review.
A number of comments as we have gone through this
process and interacted with the states in the Management
Review Board meetings was that while the formal length of
review going out three, four years in recognition of good
performance was an appropriate thing, that there was a
concern expressed about a lack of contact that might result
if you don't show back up for three or four years.
. 46
Thus, the proposal that the Staff plans to move
forward with is to do in a annual get-together the regional
liaison officer, staff person within OSP, meeting with the
state representative, reviewing where the program is going,
follow-ups to any of the things that may have been
discussed, changes and trends, new authorities that may have
been looked at, other issues that may be coming along,
issues which might warrant going back and looking at whether
the next scheduling is still appropriate or otherwise,
and/or influencing the composition of the team that might be
considered when you get to that point.
For example, if someone relinquished sealed source
device authority then someone of my folks that are part of
the sealed source group wouldn't be part of that team, so
that we can make ongoing adjustments to that program.
COMMISSIONER DICUS: I have a couple of questions
and comments regarding the annual one-day meetings.
In one of the documents, I think here in the
policy issue statement, and you have talked about who would
participate in that annual visit with the state, and if it's
an agreement state it would tend to be the state agreements
officer.
The issue I want to surface, because I think it's
one that is a little bit troublesome with the states, and I
think we need to consider it on our FTE situation with the
. 47
agency, is that the director of a state agreement program is
generally a Civil Service position but there is also a
position in the state called the state liaison officer,
which is a position as we all know appointed by the Governor
of the state.
Now in many of the agreement states the director
of the state program and the state liaison person out of the
Governor's office are one and the same people. In many
states they are different in agreement states or non-
agreement states alike.
The state agreements officer of course has
generally always dealt strictly with the agreement state and
then the regional liaison person has dealt with the
Governor-appointed liaison person within the state.
Again, sometimes it's the same, sometimes they are
not, but they focus on different issues. They may focus on
the same issues sometimes but sometimes not.
The point I want to bring up on these annual
meetings that are going to occur is that in Region I we have
six agreement states now, including Massachusetts in that
number, and they have -- we have a regional liaison officer
and a regional agreements officer, I believe -- so we have
two FTEs.
Is that correct, I think?
DR. COOL: I'll turn to Dick for that.
. 48
COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. In Region II we have
eight agreement states, and I think the same staffing.
In Region III there are two agreement states and
there's one FTE doing half and half in the two.
In Region IV there are 14 agreement states, and we
have one agreement state officer but I think two liaison
officers if we include the staff, and the state agreements
officer is at the field office in California.
So the question or the point I am trying to get
around to is ensuring that there is some sort of equity
across the regions if we are going to do these annual
reviews given the state we have got a Region IV with 14
agreement states in it as opposed to a region that only has,
say, two agreement states, and how you see this coming out.
I think what is happening is that the roles
between the -- the regional agreement state officer and the
regional liaison officer are simply being meshed and the
distinction between the two are going away and I would like
a little feedback on, from anyone, what you see, any
problems with this, including the fact that these can be
different people at the state level, they can be the same
people at the state level, and they may be dealing with
entirely different issues.
I would like some feedback.
MR. THOMPSON: I'll respond first and then I'll
. 49
let Dick.
We looked at, early-on, areas where we thought we
could achieve effectiveness and efficiency in the NRC
programs in light of decreasing resources that were
available.
My discussions with regional administrators in all
the regions were that this was an area they believed that
they would be able to have, over time be able to combine
those responsibilities into a single point of contact with a
backup within the materials programs in the regions and be
able to effectively carry that, those programs out with
support from the NRC Office of State Programs and from
Headquarters.
That process is one that's evolutionary and it's
evolving fairly slowly but that was the approach, and we
were sensitive to this issue, to make sure -- because
sometimes there were different skill levels involved in the
individuals and the questions that were being asked.
Some of them required a fairly technical response
with the agreement states where the state liaison was a bit
more --
COMMISSIONER DICUS: On policy.
MR. THOMPSON: -- on policy area, but Dick, do you
want to provide any additional thoughts on that?
MR. BANGART: Just a small comment.
. 50
The long-term goal is to have a state programs
representation in the regional office, as you suggested by
the meshing comment, and so we hope to have people with
backgrounds and skills that will allow them to deal both
with policy-related issues, reactor-related issues, which
often are discussed with the state liaison officer as well
as agreement state materials program issues, so the goal in
the Region IV situation is that there would be three FTE but
that FTE, those three persons, would be able to deal with
any and all issues where we interact with states in Region
IV and we think that that would be a sufficient amount of
resource to carry out that function.
In the interim period now, there is additional
support coming from our office to fill that loss of the one
RSAO position.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think we have to move along
here -- even though I am at fault, basically.
[Slide.]
DR. COOL: Okay. The next slide, slide 9, was in
fact -- we now come to the point -- we have talked about it
two or three times -- where we'll get to Nebraska, just as a
very quick synopsis of the process, and then Mr. Thompson
will talk about the MRB.
The team was out in July, late July timeframe. At
that time there were several indicators that were found
. 51
satisfactory. There were several indicators which had
recommendations. There was one indicator at that time where
the team's finding at that point was an unsatisfactory
finding. There was a relatively long period of time where
the state was responding back and in fact responded back in
several piece, more than one piece of correspondence.
The Management Review Board met on January 22nd
and was represented both by the Governor-appointed director
of the program as well as the individual who was actually
running the program.
A couple of the issues associated with regulations
and with staffing which, getting to the point you were
making a little while ago, the snapshot during the week the
team was there -- some significant weaknesses, some
regulations which were not in place, and some significant
staffing issues.
During that intervening period we were caught up
to date. Staff was hired and hired up. The regulations
were brought up to date and brought into line, such that by
the time we got to the Management Review Board meeting in
the regulations are they were all up to date, completely
caught up.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are saying that the
Management Review Board's decision was based on substantive
performance in the interim and not planning relative to
. 52
that?
MR. THOMPSON: That is correct. In fact, we
explicitly, even in the staffing level, assured ourselves
and asked questions did the new staff they have, were they
qualified.
One of the areas that we looked at was the quality
of their licensing review and the quality of inspections.
They had not, even with their lower staff, had a
failure in doing quality health and safety reviews and
quality inspections.
So by the time they had their rules and
regulations up to date and in place and had their staffing,
I think there was one person left who was being hired, but
essentially they were at full staffing, they clearly -- and
also had addressed the management issue, which Dick had
pointed out, that our performance indicators don't capture
very well, but it was one where we were comfortable, as
comfortable is maybe not quite the right word, but it was
our judgment that in fact the program was not satisfactory
with room, still recommendations for improvements as
identified, but they had completed the inspections that were
the ones that were overdue -- you know, the inspections that
had been done that hired consultants in there to complete
some of their inspection reports, so I was confident at the
time that I made my support for a finding of satisfactory it
. 53
was based on the significant improvements as well as the
promises.
They put a plan in but they had made significant
accomplishments between the time that the team had done
their review and the time the Review Board met.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What was the unsatisfactory?
MR. THOMPSON: There were two originally. One was
technical staffing and training and the second one was the
legislative and regulations.
The legislative and regulations one was fairly
clear -- you know, either you have the regulations in place
or you don't -- it's one of those. You can actually
implement programs by orders or something that we have given
credit for if you only have one licensee, do you have to,
you know, go through a whole process to have an acceptable
program.
The staffing and training one was much more
systemic in the program that had led to a number of
licensing delays that they had and a number of the programs
of almost a year, for which they did not have a manager of
the program in place, that they had people acting, and as a
result of that their program wasn't being managed and it was
drifting along, even though the people who actually went out
and did the inspections and did the licensing reviews when
they did them they did them well.
. 54
Their ability to reorganize, to get their program
focused, and which they did, within the state and their
commitment by the Governor, I believe it was Governor
Nelson, and to his desire to have present at the Board
meeting was the director of the Department of Regulations
and she was able to relate not only her personal commitment
at the cabinet level but the Governor's commitment to this
program, that it was going to continue to have --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What was it they were
committing to that related to the problems you had
identified?
MR. THOMPSON: Ensuring that that program got
adequate management attention, that it didn't drift.
They actually have taken that program out of, I
think, part of the Health Services area and put it in a
Division of Regulation and Licensing, which is what the
responsibilities of this program were directed at.
So that was their mission now was the regulation
and licensing and with that focus and with the cabinet-
level support to keep it focused in that way as well as the
improvements that they had made and the fact that they did
not have a defective or significant problems in the
technical quality of the work was the basis that at least I
was using to judge and you have got three other members here
if you wish --
. 55
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are saying that relative
to the two unsatisfactory categories they had actually made
measurable progress? They had addressed the technical
staffing issue. They had trained the people?
MR. THOMPSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And that they had adopted the
relevant regulations?
MR. THOMPSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And then over-arching this was
the commitment by this high level state official that the
program would no longer be treated as an orphan?
MR. THOMPSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So the promise wasn't having to
do with the specific unsatisfactory category, it had to do
with giving it continued attention --
MR. THOMPSON: Continued attention.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- but the unsatisfactory
issued had been --
MR. THOMPSON: -- had been fixed.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Did they jump all the
way from unsatisfactory to totally satisfactory or did they
jump to satisfactory with improvement?
MR. THOMPSON: It's really satisfactory with
improvements.
. 56
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Out of the seven
categories, as I understand it, two were unsatisfactory,
four satisfactory with need for improvement, one
satisfactory without, and it looks like four grades in that
six-month period, four grades moved up at least. Am I
correct -- the team comparing to the MRB.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Compared, there was a change in
the regulations from unsatisfactory to satisfactory.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Totally satisfactory?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Right. The only other change was
the other unsatisfactory was then changed to satisfactory
with recommendations.
All the other findings for the indicators stayed
the same and then the overall team finding was satisfactory
with recommendations.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: That stayed the same --
MS. SCHNEIDER: I mean adequate with
recommendations for improvement.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Do we have -- the
November memo to the Commission said that there were -- in
the five common performance indicators, four were
satisfactory with recommendations for improvement, one was
unsatisfactory. In the noncommon there was one
unsatisfactory and one satisfactory.
MS. SCHNEIDER: By now it is five satisfactory
. 57
with recommendations in the common and in the two noncommon
they're satisfactory.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: So that's slightly
different from the slide but --
MS. SCHNEIDER: Excuse me, I'm sorry. It's my
mistake. I am trying to do it here.
Licensing quality, so it is four out of the five.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: With recommendations.
MS. SCHNEIDER: With recommendations.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Four out of the five --
MS. SCHNEIDER: Common indicators.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right and they all
stayed the same and the two unsatisfactories did jump all
the way to satisfactory?
MS. SCHNEIDER: No. One of the -- the training
and staffing is a common indicator and that went from --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Unsatisfactory --
MS. SCHNEIDER: -- unsatisfactory to satisfactory
with recommendations.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right, and then the four
that were satisfactory with recommendations, did one of
those improve?
MS. SCHNEIDER: No, they stayed the same.
MR. BANGART: Let me -- I guess the original
licensing quality was always fully satisfactory.
. 58
MS. SCHNEIDER: Correct.
MR. BANGART: From the outset -- so of the
remaining four common the only one that changed, as she
indicated, was for training and staffing from unsat to sat
with recommendations.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: So the November memo
then is the place that's wrong? It said --
MS. SCHNEIDER: Right.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Maybe you need to correct that
for the record.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The reason -- it is
obvious in terms of the recommendation to go back in just a
few months and look at them again that while they are not on
probation they are not exactly in totally good graces
either.
We are going to be from Missouri in terms of the
promises that were made to you, is that correct?
MR. THOMPSON: That's correct. Typically we have
a two to four year timeframe and our objective was to say
programs that really look solid and sound we may review only
once every four years, others that are, you know, fairly
stead, three years, once -- and this one, since they did
have and had had this experience in the history --
. 59
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: There is a history here
too.
MR. THOMPSON: There is a history here and we were
not unaware of the history and that is why the Board
recommended going back in a period of a year to 18 months to
do a follow-up review process.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: And that is a year to 18
months from last July, as opposed to from --
MS. SCHNEIDER: Correct.
MR. THOMPSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But by not putting Nebraska on
probation, I mean given what you said and given the history,
have we in any sense changed the threshold in terms of how
we are then able to deal with other states?
MR. THOMPSON: I don't believe there was any
intent to change the threshold. I can't say that there --
obviously what other states may look at, it says, gee, we
can, if we can get our program all fixed by the time we meet
with the MRB they are prepared and will look at a team's
report and change a recommendation.
I would also say that the team at this particular
meeting withheld their final recommendation to the Board
until after they had the presentation from the state and the
team did recommend that they make a modification and not
place the program on probation.
. 60
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Going back to Commissioner
McGaffigan's comments, in terms of being from Missouri, how
much are we relying on promissory notes versus actual
progress?
MR. BANGART: As I tried to indicate earlier, my
decision was based on the accomplishments that they had
made with the program that they had modified. I was
confident that program was satisfactory and with
recommendations inadequate to protect public health and
safety.
If they had not been able to staff, if they had
not had the leadership, if they had not been able to put
regulations in place, there would be no question they would
be on probation in my mind.
MR. THOMPSON: The other piece that is missing
here in the discussion is that there is ongoing
communication between both the Regional State Agreements
Officer and staff in my office with all the agreement states
throughout the year. We knew that they had lost staff
because the Regional State Agreements Officer told us that
six months ago. He has since retired. What we didn't know,
they hadn't restaffed the ones they had lost and we didn't
know the extent to which there was lack of day-to-day
management being exercised.
But we do have that to rely on as well and if we
. 61
learn of something occurring that is different from what we
believe to understand will happen, then we can refocus on
whether we need to go back out sooner or not, even before
the one year, 18 months.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. THOMPSON: We wanted to have Nebraska behind
us so that we could -- it was a test of the bd and the
system. We could have come and briefed the Commission
before Nebraska and it wouldn't have been as tested and you
may not --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And we won't have been as
testy.
[Laughter.]
MR. THOMPSON: I'll put that back in my -- Don?
DR. COOL: Moving through the last couple of
things that we were going to cover, slide 10 dealing with
the ongoing implementation.
[Slide.]
DR. COOL: We have issued a good practice report
for the previous year. Our expectation is we will issue one
of those each year once the reviews that were conducted in
the physical year are completed.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Stop.
Kudos to you for that one.
DR. COOL: Thank you.
. 62
We found it very useful. It was asked for; we
agreed.
What we want to look at is some of the things that
people have talked about of particular areas of lessons
learned, the sort of other side of the coin. You know,
pitfalls to watch out for. We have discussed ways to do
that. Whether we can include some of those within the
report, do a separate report. In the interim and anyway,
these are public documents. The regional reviews are
provided to all the regions. The OSP reviews are on the
home page and available so that everyone can see all of the
detail that you get in there.
We have already talked about the management
directive so in the interest of trying to help us move
along, unless there are questions, jump to the resources.
When we originally came to the Commission, we
provided you with an estimate that was about a half and
FTE's worth of effort to conduct a review. That has
actually panned out very well. There are variations, of
course, but on the average that has actually panned out very
well. About an FTE's worth of that effort coming from the
folks from the states who have participated on the teams,
the other portion of it being staff within NMSS, state
programs and the regions and going through that process. We
have budgeted that for future years and are continuing to
. 63
move forward with that.
In terms of the annual meetings that we have
talked about, and Dick could certainly address this further,
state programs believes that they can accommodate that
within the budget and the effort they devoted to the liaison
officers and the activities.
Moving then on to our conclusion, back to what we
said in the beginning, this has proven to be a very
effective process for us. Good learning experiences from
all concerned. The reviewees, the reviewers, those of us
who come out as managers to take a look at the program
finding good ideas, things that are going on has allowed us
to look on a consistent basis.
Has been used as a mechanism by those reviewed --
here I will speak for the regions and not necessarily for
the states -- to look at themselves in a consistent fashion.
That is one of the things that we have not tried to pick up
here using a similar process, to look at ourselves in the
same manner and get some measure of consistency and improve
our performance. We are already on track and have already
been out to three reviews, have 12 reviews planned for FY
'97 and to move forward with the program.
MR. THOMPSON: That completes our presentations.
If you wanted to go to the panel and we will stand by?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We will see. Commissioner
. 64
Rogers, do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I don't have a question; I
just had one comment. That is that on your slide four when
you were describing how you got started on this, that you
assembled the impact teams and conducted training and I
don't think we have time to talk about it but it seems quite
apparent the training seemed to work very well and certainly
this program has gone very well and I just suggest that
however you did it, take note of and see where we might be
able to use it in the future.
DR. COOL: We brought everyone in, sat them down
for a full day, walked through the process, the criteria,
the underlying philosophy, metrics, culture, whatever sorts
of things you would like to do. We have had the state
people participate with that this year. We did 38, nine of
them from the state. And interestingly enough, we also had
a couple of folks from FDA come over and observe and
participate in that process. My understanding is that FDA
is considering a similar kind of process and approach in
looking at some of their activities, some of the mammography
reviews that they are conducting with the states. It's been
very useful. Those also get everybody around the big table
in the auditorium with a lot of exchange.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think we need to move along.
Commissioner Dicus?
. 65
COMMISSIONER DICUS: No questions.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz?
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yes.
I just want to make a comment that, you know, the
impact seems to be such an effective mechanism that I think
we should -- I mean, it is a win-win situation for the NRC
and the regions and so forth, that we should encourage you
and the regions to communicate, you know, as widely as
possible the results and we need all the good press we can
get and therefore sometimes even the good practices report,
I think that is certainly something that should be widely
distributed and used.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Thank you, no questions.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much.
Are we hearing specifically from the regions?
MR. THOMPSON: Bruce Mallet will be here
representing the regional review as well as the --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: The agreement states. Very
good.
We should try to move along, even though it is
totally our fault. Commissioner Dicus is going to have to
leave in about 15 minutes or so, so we want to try to cover
as much as we can before then.
MR. MALLET: Well, good morning, Chairman and the
. 66
other Commissioners. It is a pleasure to be here today.
I am Bruce Mallet; I am from Region II. I am the
Director of the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety. My
comments today are based upon assessments that we did in
Region -- all the regions in 1995, 1996. I did receive
input from my counterparts in the other regions. Some have
accused me of getting co-bagholders. I received input to
give you a complete picture.
[Slide.]
MR. MALLET: If you turn to the first slide, I
broke the comments up into three areas. Strengths, areas
that we thought were improvement and challenges to the
program. I won't in the interest of time go through all the
strengths but I would highlight a few of them to point out
answers to questions you had earlier.
If you look at the first one on level of
expertise, I believe Chairman you asked what we gained from
the process. As far as the individuals participating in
both the agreement states and regions, we gained what I
believe are three things. Expertise and experience from all
different levels. It really was helpful to have that broad
wealth of knowledge.
I believe you also gained what I call a fresh
look, insights. An example, an individual from the state of
Georgia was on our team. We thought that we had everything
. 67
well done but this individual pointed out that we were not
documenting our basis for decisions very well. A whole new
area that we hadn't thought to look at. We wouldn't have
had that insight without that.
On timely issuance, I recognize you talk about
timeliness of the review board so let me clarify this
comment. We thought it was a strength on the issuance of
the reports in draft form. They call came out to the
regions within about four to six weeks after the review. It
was very timely to get that turnaround. In past reviews we
have had, it's been several months to a year before you get
the draft report back.
On the Management Review Board, I would highlight
there we felt the strength was decisions are made at the
review board to make corrections. In the past, when you
didn't have that appear process or that discussion, you
didn't get the senior managers involved in correcting it
right away if it was a problem.
On the sharing of good practices, I would add
something in addition to what we discussed that's going on.
I don't know if you're aware of it. When you're not on the
list of good practices as a region, you are looking for new
areas to improve so you can be put on the list.
[Laughter.]
MR. MALLET: So it's an insight I don't believe we
. 68
figured on or planned on but you are gaining that out of the
process.
I would also say on causes of the programs being
evaluated themselves, you have caused the regions, and I
believe the agreement states would probably support that, to
do our own self-assessments and that's what we're after in
the process. I think all the regions now are looking ahead
before the team finds the problem.
In areas for improvement, we talked about sharing
of good practices. It is also important to share the
corrective actions from the various regions and how they
have solved the problem. Right now, we are doing a good job
of getting the reports out and sharing amongst the regions.
I am not so sure we are sharing with the agreement states
what are the findings and we propose that would be an area
for improvement as well as how they fixed the problem would
be an important item to have.
As far as we talked about reviews in agreement
states, the second bullet there, we believe that we would
support an ongoing review between the three to four years of
the IMPEP reviews as issues come up and the states having a
mechanism to go out and take a look to see if they are
consistent.
The third bullet for areas for improvement has
caused a lot of discussion. Let me clarify that bullet. It
. 69
says, Maintain the level of rigor in the creation and use of
the noncommon indicators. It is not the indicator; it is
the criteria that supports that indicator or the measure.
To support the same level of rigor that we had in the
development of the common indicator criteria or
measurements. And we discussed that earlier. Unless there
is a question, I won't go into that in any more detail.
I will mention one other comment. During the 1994
and 1995 reviews, the criteria had gone out to the regions
for comments but it was being developed during the review
process. It is hoped during the next set of reviews the
criteria will be set and you won't have a development during
the process. That will help establish that criteria.
I would move now to challenges. It is very
important in the program. I think Commissioner Rogers
mentioned earlier about the training. I will go to the
second one first, that we maintain a cadre of experienced
team members. As you develop, this program goes on. We've
seen it before in the agency. We tend to slide back and not
train as well and not keep the staff --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I thought you said the training
is conducted every year and the team members participate in
several reviews a year.
MR. MALLET: It is. And our comment is not an
area for improvement; it is an area of challenge to maintain
. 70
in the program that we continue doing that and we don't back
down from that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. MALLET: And keep the same level of experience
and expertise.
If I can flip to the first one, as in any program
where you do assessments, we believe you ought to continue
to evaluate the adequacy of those indicators.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are you referring to both the
noncommon --
MR. MALLET: Both the noncommon and common. And
we need to not assume that we've solved the problem; we need
to keep looking at them each year to make sure they're
correct to get us the adequate assessment of the program,
what we're looking for.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Not only just what's in them
but if there are others that might be needed?
MR. MALLET: That's correct, make sure they are
adequately assessing that performance.
That concludes my comments, unless there are any
remarks or comments from you?
No?
MR. RATLIFF: Chairman Jackson and Commissioners,
I think in the interests of time, you know, I am Richard
Ratliff, past Chairman of the Organization of Agreement
. 71
States with the Texas Program, Roland Fletcher who is the
chairman elect who is going to talk about two aspects,
actually be in on the management review board as a state
member and a state having been reviewed and then James
McNees on the far right from Alabama who will talk about
being on an IMPEP team.
I had some prepared remarks and I think just to
cut it short I'm going to give them to the state program
staff and let them give them to you rather than taking the
time here but just some real good observations I've seen, I
think it was back in 1993 when we first heard the acronym
IMPEP and we were all trying to figure out what it was. We
were in Tucson or Phoenix, Arizona.
There was a lot of change since that time period.
Initially, some of the noncommon indicators were things like
the number of incidents that the state has and the states
made a good point that it is not the number it is how you
handle a response to them. I think NRC did a good job.
We worked well in paring this down to things that
we all agreed the bottom line is protection of public health
and safety. The IMPEP program I think has worked well.
Many of the states were real apprehensive when it first
started. They normally would have two people come to the
review. When they saw this team, I think they rally felt,
what are we going to do.
. 72
But I think they soon learned that they were
looking more at performance and looking at sharing
information. That is really what had happened when we first
started out as agreement states. When we had our program
reviews, they were more share information because the
authority had been relinquished to the states and it was
mainly just to check and see and share information on how to
do things better and I think this really helps. You have to
make sure that we are doing our jobs but that sharing of
information is really one of the most important areas.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It helps you.
MR. RATLIFF: As we have had people who have been
on the teams from the states, the comments that I get is it
helps them from several directions because they have really
been able to work with other NRC folks and let them realize
that the state people really are qualified, that they deal
with not only radioactive materials but NORM and NARM and X-
ray and so many areas that they really do have expertise
usually in licensing and inspection and incident response,
so they have a wide variety of expertise. So this has
helped, I think, to let the state people come to the table
with equal credentials and I think it has really worked
well.
But we have learned, from other states, from NRC
regions. I think that is one of the things we found that is
. 73
good. When we go to different programs you are always going
to find something that they're doing better and that really
helps you in your program, even though you are committing
this FTE from the states, I think this has been a good
endeavor.
We have a few concerns but they are not major.
You know, timeliness was always the question. When we were
regulatory agencies, when we expect timely responses from
our licensees that have problems, they have to know that
they have problems. The close-outs are good and almost all
of the draft IMPEP reports come quickly. But there has been
a tendency, like was mentioned earlier, that they are
getting a little longer and you really need to have that
quick turnaround so that the states, if they are given two
weeks, like we heard earlier, that would be difficult. And
you have to plan around what's happening.
We do nuclear power plant emergency response
exercises, we do the large X-ray programs. And so I think
that two-week time period has to really be based on what
other activities does the state have going on. But I think
timeliness really is important and if there is an issue that
really impacts health and safety, I concur with the previous
panel. It has to be something that's addressed right away
and really -- and it very seldom happens but when it does,
it has to be taken care of.
. 74
The noncommon performance indicators, I think, are
going to be an evolving issue and I hope we can have the
same communication we have had on the others as we try to wk
through what is required. The decommissioning issue came up
and it's getting more and more resolved because most of the
states have real detailed programs in their license reviews
and they terminate to look and make sure the sites are
clean. I think we have always done that and so it is not as
big of an issue but we need to make sure that, as we get
into waste, uranium, sealed source and devices that we have
equal coverage.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you think that
decommissioning should be folded into the common indicators
for licensing and inspection?
MR. RATLIFF: Yes, I do, because that is a common
indicator that the states look at and we have -- I think,
historically, the states, because we are closer to the
situation and even more accountable to our governing bodies,
we have looked and we have closed out facilities and we have
made sure that they were clean. Some states have developed
rules that even give guidelines so the licensees know going
in how clean is clean. So I think that that should be
common and it will help in the long term.
Several of the states made the comment to me, and
in pretext I think we would agree, that if you have low-
. 75
level waste and/or uranium and/or sealed source and device,
it is better to come all at once, though, within a month
period and do all the review because one thing I think that
always gets lost and it came out a little earlier is that
the agreement was signed by the governor of the state and,
for years, I have pushed the idea that there should be a
close-out with the governor's office. If not, at least with
the liaison that the governor appoints so that there should
never be a point where a governor would all of a sudden get
notified that your state is not doing well. I think they
should know when we are doing good and then when we are
having problems so that could be factored in.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So are you saying that the low-
level waste and uranium programs are or are not being
conducted, reviews being conducted at the same time or a
different time?
MR. RATLIFF: I think we are at a point where it
is just starting. I know California had its review and the
waste was not as detailed. In Texas, our review is
scheduled for June and all of the programs will be done in
June, which is good. I think that is the way to go because
that way, when you come out with your final draft report, it
is a draft report on the compatibility of the state of
Texas, not the Department of Health or the Department of
Natural Resources. So you really, I think, need to make
. 76
sure that coordination is done.
So far it has worked well but we want to just
emphasize that. And then, before I turn it over to the
other guys here, I really think acknowledging that the
states really are helping, that we do sacrifice a lot of
other things to put people on the review teams and the MRB
and that we really do need the training and without those
resources you might see a problem with us being able to
continue.
Any other questions, or we can let the other folks
talk and we can do questions at the end.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz?
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Why don't we do it at the end.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. FLETCHER: Chairman Jackson, Commissioners, I
am Roland Fletcher. I am the Radiological Health Program
Director for the state of Maryland. I feel very fortunate
to have had the opportunity to participate in an IMPEP
review for the state of Maryland and also participate on two
MRBs. I like to think that it's because of, you know, my
qualifications, et cetera, et cetera. But it occurs to me
that every now and then my physical location might have
something to do with it.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, you see, that's a
. 77
qualification.
MR. FLETCHER: I would like to touch upon a few of
the aspects of our review. First of all, I would like to
echo what everyone has said and that is that the team
approach is extremely beneficial. It gives the opportunity
that your program is really being looked at in toto, not
just concentrations but you get a full program review
perspective and you have various levels of review and I
believe it is more thorough and more complete. So the team
approach, I think, is the way to go and it has worked out
well.
I also feel that the IMPEP creates less of the
licensee inspection approach. No matter how you do a
program evaluation, if you are coming from one level to
another level, there is going to be something of an IG type,
you know, get ready, clean up, dust off everything and watch
out for the white gloves. But the team approach that is
being implemented, I believe, takes some of that away and
the evaluation of the programs, not only how you are
implementing how you are implementing the programs according
to established rules and regulations but new ideas that you
have presented, new approaches that you have undertaken --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you think it strengthens the
willingness to self-assess?
MR. FLETCHER: I believe so. I really do. I
. 78
believe that individual states will -- I think someone
mentioned that they love to be in this good practices, you
know, publications and many states are doing innovative
things that sometimes don't come out in the standard report
and I think the team approach gives that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before you go on, I am going to
give Commissioner Dicus the chance to see if there are any
particular questions or comments she wants to raise.
COMMISSIONER DICUS: No. I want to apologize
first to both sides of the table and certainly to the staff.
I think this is the first time I have had to leave a
briefing early and it would be this one.
I do very much apologize to each of you but I have
a killer schedule this week and I have to be someplace else
at noon. I'm not going to make that now.
But thank you all. I really appreciate what the
staff has done and appreciate what the agreement states have
done in implementing this and I think it is being extremely
effective and very helpful.
Thank you.
MR. FLETCHER: And I also because of the approach
feel that it is less of a let's find something wrong
approach. I have been through program reviews where it
appeared -- maybe of course, you know, we're somewhat
paranoid sometimes -- but it appeared as though the goal was
. 79
to find something wrong.
This was not the impression that I got through
this approach. There was more discussion. There was more
interaction and, as I said, more analysis of positive
things.
The agreement state team participant is an
excellent addition, and it does two things. Every program
director and program staff have pride in their program.
There is a little extra boost of knowing that another
agreement state is looking at your program that goes even
beyond following everything that's there.
You want to make sure that the things that you
have done in your program, the agreement state participant
looks at it and says ah, yes, that's good, I like that, or
we are doing similar things.
There is a certain level of comraderie there that
hasn't existed before and I think, you know, that is very
beneficial.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But then if we go to put you on
probation you are going to be more angry then?
MR. FLETCHER: Well --
[Laughter.]
MR. FLETCHER: I want to talk about it. I was on
the MRB for Nebraska and I want to talk about that.
[Laughter.]
. 80
MR. FLETCHER: I think the exit briefing therefore
becomes more credible because I believe my staff really felt
as though we had worked together through that program
evaluation, and it was a more positive response from them
than any of the previous ones that we had been through so
once again I think this is a very positive approach and we
should continue it.
As far as the MRB is concerned, I participated in
two, Georgia and Nebraska, and I wanted to say that I felt
that my participation, particularly on the Nebraska MRB, I
had an appreciation of what that state had to go through to
get from the exit briefing to the MRB, I mean perhaps more
so than anyone else sitting on the MRB because there are
demands on the state that are beyond the demands that are
NRC-specific and what has had to have happened is that a
great deal of emphasis, a great deal of priority and a great
deal of resources had to be brought to bear in spite of,
unfortunately, falling behind perhaps in some other areas,
because that is almost inevitably what has to happen, in
order re-address the things that were brought out in this
program.
I am happy to see that they were able to do that
and I am also happy that in the MRB process we can take into
account the efforts that that state takes to address the
things brought up in the exit briefing and give them, you
. 81
know, give them recognition that they are heading in the
right direction.
The NRC -- the IMPEP-NRC Staff, we interface with
each other pretty regularly, but the Governor, the Secretary
of your Department doesn't have that interface, and unless
there is some continuing encouragement when they devote the
resources to taking care of a problem, there's got to be
that continuing encouragement so that that program director
can continue to move in the direction that you need, so I
think being able to reassess what has happened between the
exit briefing and the MRB is very beneficial to the very
levels of program performance that you are looking for.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, that's it? Mr. McNees.
MR. McNEES: Yes, ma'am. Chairman Jackson,
Commissioners, I am Jim McNees with the state of Alabama
where I am in charge of Radioactive Materials Compliance.
Having been outspoken in my beliefs for the past
20 years I was a little surprised when I was selected to be
a part of this --
[Laughter.]
MR. McNEES: I am thankful for the opportunity and
it really turned out to be a wonderful experience. I am
thankful to the NRC for paying for the travel. I am also
thankful to the state for giving me three plus weeks of work
time to devote to it and if anybody was going to be on a
. 82
team it will take at least three weeks of your time and a
critical time is when you first return home from the review
that you can avoid the pressing business long enough to get
your portions of the report finished.
I participated in one review and I believe that
the function of the team leader is really a key to the
success of the state person as well all the other team
members, having an organized and specific task for you to do
and evening discussions that we had reviewing what the team
had accomplished and what we were going to accomplish the
next day.
Also a key to the success was the IMPEP book of
standards or the criteria. They are a significant step
forward. The set up expectations of the regulatory agency.
It's a set of expectations where any regulatory agency could
use it for a self-review to see how they are standing at any
time.
As a member of the team, I received more than I
contributed. I learned a lot from looking at how the state
of Kentucky did things and ways that they did things that we
could take back and improve for ourselves.
I also learned from the other team members in the
discussions we had of how various problems were solved, how
various corrective actions were taken, and from their input,
so it was a very positive experience to be the member of the
. 83
team.
The IMPEP program itself eliminates a past
animosity that the states had because in many of the states
you would hear comments of they should take care of all
their own inspections or their own inspections before they
come criticize us. They should take care of their backlog
before they criticize us.
One of the most positive things of IMPEP is that
it sweeps everybody's door-step with the same broom, and I
think that is a very positive thing.
In looking to the future, two concerns we need to
think about. One is timeliness. The effectiveness of the
program is enhanced by having the report, draft report, back
in timely fashion, the report out in timely fashion, the
answers back in timely fashion.
Also, the success of the program has a lot to do
with the purpose of the team. In addition to evaluating the
regulatory indices, the purpose of the team I was on was to
help that body or that regulatory entity do a better job.
That was the underlying philosophy of everybody that was on
the team. We are here to help them to do a better job and we
need to make sure that that stays the purpose in all future
teams and all future reviews.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, thank you. Anything
else?
. 84
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you this question,
those of you from agreement states.
Have agreement states personnel, either the
liaison or -- on the MRB or the team members discuss their
experiences with other agreement states, in a broader based
way, not one on one, such as the OAS meetings or CRCPD
meetings, and then that leads to the second question -- do
states that are not participating on the teams or on the MRB
know that NRC -- know that NRC -- is evaluating its own
regions in all agreement states in the same manner, using as
much as possible the same common indicators?
MR. RATLIFF: Yes. In fact, at our agreement
states meeting last September we not only had presentations
by Kathy Schneider, NRC, but the states themselves, to give
their experiences, what they had found, and from the people
who were on the review teams.
I think some states would love to put someone out
there but if you are a state like North Dakota with three or
four people, that one person for three weeks really is a
large part of their resources, and they would love to get
the experience.
The whole idea of what is going on and how it is
helping I think has been transmitted to the states. All the
states agree.
. 85
Some states are actually anxious for their IMPEP
review, you can believe it and in fact what Jim said is real
true. What we did in Texas was took the IMPEP tools and
dedicated four staff for two weeks to do our own internal
IMPEP review to see how we would do before you all came to
look at us, and I think that is important.
The states really should evaluate themselves
whether they do a full-blown evaluation or not.
One thing I forgot to mention earlier, Madam
Chairman, was that different reviewers for each IMPEP review
is going to help. You know, it was nice to have the same
face come back every time from the region but I think this
is going to benefit us long-term in having different people
from different NRC programs and different states. It's
really going to improve so you don't get into the thing
where they always miss this area. That's a real benefit.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. FLETCHER: One point that I wanted to
elaborate on is that various states would love to be able to
participate in having a representative on the team, but as
Richard pointed out, states are constrained as far as their
numbers, their resources, and right now I have discussed
with my state and with various other states we encountered
in meetings the desire to learn, to see what variations
there are from state to state -- not severe, perhaps, but
. 86
different approaches to, you know, to sometimes troubling
problems that don't elevate themselves to an IMPEP review
report may still be something that an individual on another
staff has come up with a procedure to handle, so for the
most part people would like to have that opportunity.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan, do you
have any comment along that line?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Rogers.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, we have spent a lot of
time here today and I don't want to prolong it, but I do
want to say that I see the changes that have taken place in
the last few years through the development of this program.
It's really dramatic.
We didn't hear words like we're hearing here today
from agreement states and others. I think that everyone
that's been involved with the development of this program
really needs to be complimented because I think it is really
a superb achievement.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz?
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I couldn't agree more with
Commissioner Rogers. I really think this like I said before
is a win-win situation. I think it is obvious why.
Regulators with common goals are formed into teams which
share common views, common goals and they try to do a better
. 87
job.
Really there's substantial benefits to the
approach. I am almost sorry we cannot do this with
reactors.
[Laughter.]
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I do believe there's always --
there's this question of funding and I'd like to say that
maybe we should apply some creative thinking and maybe even
honest creative accounting to try to solve that issue when
it is necessary, but again I commend you.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Be careful talking about them,
Commissioner.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you one kind of
overarching question and this is really directed probably
more to the Staff but to anyone, and this is on behalf of
Commissioner Dicus, but I think it's an excellent
overarching question.
That is, based upon the IMPEP results to date, if
we had a GAO audit and report, would that report find the
issues previously raised to have been resolved?
MR. MALLET: I thought you wanted me to answer it.
MR. THOMPSON: I would like for you to answer it,
. 88
but, no, I believe they would.
Obviously they were focusing on having a
consistency between the agreement states, a consistency
between the performance. They might like more quantitative
numbers. I mean they will always be pushing us to improve,
but I think the things that we have heard here today about
the communication that goes on, it's almost an intangible
benefit and whether the GAO would have even recognized that
that would be a significant part of this product in our
response when they made those recommendations, I don't think
that was part of it, so I would hope they would think that
their expectations have been surpassed.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It's a serious question in
terms of, you know, I mean since that was a big spur one
does not like to come under the GAO spotlight, but your
judgment is that from your understanding and experience that
the issues would have been felt to have been resolved?
MR. THOMPSON: That's my judgment.
MR. MALLET: I would add something to that. What
the GAO report said was a couple things. Hugh mentioned one
of them -- consistency.
But driving towards the common goal -- in the past
we were reviewing the agreement states with different
criteria and different goals than we were reviewing the
regions and I believe the GAO now would come out and say,
. 89
yes, you are on the same criteria. You are talking about
the same common goals now. I think that is a big plus.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Very good. Well, thank you.
The Commission would like to thank the Staff and
the representatives from the agreement states for a very
thorough briefing. We particularly appreciate the
participation of the agreement states as well as the folks
from our regions to get those perspectives as we strive to
have a national and a uniform level of protection for the
public, for workers as well as the environment in the
nuclear materials programs, as evidenced today and as the
various Commissioners have attested to.
I am not going to re-preach. Obviously IMPEP has
matured significantly since its inception in 1994 and that
is a fairly short period of time and it's good to see NRC's
material staff and the agreement states staff working
together more closely in evaluating materials programs,
because both Federal and State regulatory bodies stand to
benefit from this interaction.
IMPEP provides a structured, systematic
approach -- you know, there are always things that can be
improved -- but it does provide that for evaluating the
regions and agreement states an approach that was obviously
lacking a few years ago, and so real progress has been
demonstrated and you know that consistency is very important
. 90
in terms of regulatory effectiveness.
But the year and a half of experience also has
shown us that there are areas for improvement.
The Staff is aware, and you have spoken to the
fact that the noncommon indicators need to be refined, and
both the regional and agreement states' representative have
also addressed this concern.
The Management Review Board's decision-making
process -- I think it's useful to self-assess -- in my
view -- and you have actually assured us this is the case
but it is the kind of thing that should be continually self
assessed -- that the Review Board's findings should be based
on, you know, being from Missouri, that they should focus
closely on performance as opposed to plans or promises for
future improvement.
I think we should leave open and see what the
Commission wants to say on this issue of the relative
timeframe between the onsite review conclusion and the
Management Review Board's decisions, and so again the
Commission thanks you and thanks all of you for your very
diligent efforts and progress in an area that is important,
and so unless there are any further comments we stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the briefing was
adjourned.]
|
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |