ML18295A334

Minutes: Texas Impep MRB Meeting, April 24, 2018

ML18295A334
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/22/2018
From:	NRC/NMSS/DMSST/ASPB
To:
Meyer K
References
Download: ML18295A334 (5)

Text

MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF TEXAS APRIL 24, 2018 The attendees were as follows:

In person at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland:

Dan Dorman, MRB Chair, OEDO Kevin Williams, NMSS Marc Dapas, MRB Member, NMSS Linda Howell, NMSS Mary Spencer, MRB Member, OGC Paul Michalak, NMSS Monica Ford, Team Leader, Region I Lance Rakovan, NMSS Maurice Heath, Team Member, NMSS Charlotte Sullivan, TX Ron Linton, Team Member, NMSS Charles Maguire, TX Joe OHara, Team Member, NMSS Kelly Cook, TX Francis Cameron, Member of the Public By videoconference:

Darrell Roberts, MRB Member, Region III Randy Erickson, Region IV Tara Weidner, Team Member, Region I James Trapp, Region I Binesh Tharakan, Team Member, Region IV Mark Shaffer, Region IV Michelle Simmons, Team Member, Region IV Vivian Campbell, Region IV By telephone:

Santiago Rodriguez, MRB Member, NM, OAS Kathy Modes, NMSS David Stradinger, Team Member, ND Lizette Roldan-Otero, NMSS Philip Goble, Team Member, UT Karen Bachtel, TX Alisha Stallard, TX Muhammadali Abbaszadeh, TX Brad Broussard, TX Bobby Janecka, TX Hans Weger, TX Tony Gonzalez, TX David Hastings, TX Gehan Flanders, TX Lee Line, TX Vaishali Tendolkar, TX Fred Duffy, TX Kan Tu, TX Nicole Traphan, TX Zhenwen Jia, TX Anastasia Ozain-Porterie, TX Ben Wishert, TX Jason Kelly, Member of the Public

1. Convention. Mr. Lance Rakovan convened the meeting at approximately 1:00 p.m. (ET).

He noted that this Management Review Board (MRB) meeting was open to the public.

Introductions of the attendees were conducted.

2. Texas IMPEP Review. Ms. Monia Ford, Team Leader, led the presentation of the Texas Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review results to the MRB. She summarized the review and the teams findings for the eight indicators reviewed. The on-site review was conducted by a team composed of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the States of Louisiana, North Dakota, and Utah during the period of January 29 - February 9, 2018.

A draft report was issued to Texas for factual comment on March 13, 2018. Texas

Texas MRB Meeting Minutes Page 2 responded to the teams findings by letters dated April 9 and 10, 2018. Ms. Ford reported that the team found Texas performance was satisfactory for seven indicators and satisfactory, but needs improvement, for two indicators: Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; and Uranium Recovery Program.

3. Common Performance Indicators.

a) Mr. Binesh Tharakan reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Texas representatives discussed the high level of staff turnover and progress Texas has made in filling vacancies. The MRB directed that additional language be included in the report involving the teams determination that staff turnover did not have a significant impact on the inspection program.

The team found Texas performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory and the MRB agreed.

b) Mr. Joe OHara reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of the proposed final IMPEP report.

The team found Texas performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory and the MRB agreed.

c) Mr. Dave Stradinger reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.3 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Texas representatives discussed the significance of compliance versus performance-based inspections and expectations during inspections, as well as the weakness noted in the report involving inspecting the Yttrium-90 microsphere portion of the licensees; programs. The MRB and the team discussed why this issue was discussed in this section and not in Section 3.1 of the proposed final report. The MRB directed a number of changes to the report, including providing additional a statement that the Y-90 weakness was a program-wide knowledge deficiency in one narrow issues, revising the statement that this deficiency does not necessarily reflect on the quality of the rest of the inspection program, and including a statement in Section 3.1 of the final report pertaining to this issue.

The team found Texas performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory and the MRB agreed. The MRB also supported the recommendation made by the team.

d) Ms. Michelle Simmons reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. Her presentation corresponded to Section 3.4 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Texas representatives discussed the revised list of license conditions,

Texas MRB Meeting Minutes Page 3 including the leak test condition discussed in the proposed final report. The MRB and the team discussed whether the team considered unsatisfactory for this indicator. The MRB directed that the number of licensing actions reviewed by the team be corrected in the final report.

The team found Texas performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory but needs improvement and the MRB agreed. The MRB also supported the recommendation made by the team.

e) Ms. Tara Weidner reviewed and presented the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities. Her presentation corresponded to Section 3.5 of the proposed final IMPEP report.

The team found Texas performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory and the MRB agreed.

4. Non-Common Performance Indicators.

a) Ms. Monica Ford reviewed and presented the non-common performance indicator, Compatibility Requirements. Her presentation corresponded to Section 4.1 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Texas representatives discussed the perpetual care account cap numbers discussed in the report, as well as the number of regulations Texas provided to the NRC for comment and adopted during the review period.

The team found Texas performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory and the MRB agreed.

b) Mr. James Pate reviewed the non-common performance indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 4.2 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Texas representatives briefly discussed staffing issues and the progress Texas has made filling the vacant position noted in the proposed final report.

The team found Texas performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory and the MRB agreed.

c) Ms. Ford presented the non-common performance indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program. The indicator was reviewed by Binesh Tharakan, Maurice Heath, and Phil Goble. Her presentation corresponded to Section 4.3 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Texas representatives discussed whether training was an issue with the performance of inspector 2 as noted in the proposed final report, including the Texas Commission on Environmental Qualitys response to the draft IMPEP report involving the debriefing of inspector accompaniments. The MRB sought clarification as to whether inspection results were communicated to licensees and, if so, how. The MRB directed that this issue be clarified in the final IMPEP

Texas MRB Meeting Minutes Page 4 report. The MRB and the team discussed whether a satisfactory, but needs improvement rating for this indicator would be appropriate. Ms. Ford noted that the team had considered that rating, but ultimately went satisfactory for numerous reasons. The MRB directed several changes to the final report, including providing additional context involving the frequency of inspections.

The MRB members voted on the rating for this indicator. Two MRB members, including the MRB Chairman, voted to support the teams recommendation of a satisfactory rating for this indicator, as did the Organization of the Agreement States Liaison. Two MRB members voted to find this indicator satisfactory, but needs improvement. Thus, ultimately the MRB found Texas performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory. The MRB also supported the three recommendations by the team, as well as closing the recommendations from previous reviews involving this indicator.

d) Ms. Ford presented the non-common performance indicator, Uranium Recovery Program. The indicator was reviewed by Binesh Tharakan, Ron Linton, and Phil Goble. Her presentation corresponded to Section 4.4 of the proposed final IMPEP report. The MRB, the team, and Texas representatives discussed the similarities and differences between this indicator and the LLRW indicator.

The team found Texas performance with respect to this indicator to be satisfactory, but needs improvement and the MRB agreed. The MRB also supported the three recommendations by the team, as well as closing the recommendations from previous reviews involving this indicator.

5. MRB Consultation/Comments on Issuance of Report. The team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the Texas Agreement State Program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with the NRC's program. The team recommended, and the MRB agreed, the next IMPEP review take place in approximately 4 years. The MRB directed that a periodic meeting be held in approximately 2 years.

The final report may be found in the ADAMS using the Accession Number ML18120A324.

6. Precedents/Lessons Learned. None applicable to this review

7. Comments from Members of the Public. Two members of the public in attendance provided remarks.

8. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:15 p.m. (ET)

SUMMARY

OF APRIL 24, 2018, TEXAS MRB MEETING ML18295A334 OFFICE MSST/ASPB MSST/ASPB NAME KMeyer LRakovan DATE 10/22/18 10/19/18 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY