ML20138E498
| ML20138E498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1997 |
| From: | Schneider K NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Bangart R, Paperiello C, Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138E502 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705020269 | |
| Download: ML20138E498 (5) | |
Text
-. _~..- - - . - - . - - -_ .. . - . - . . _ .- - - .-
M 2 8 20977 MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members:
Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP l Carl Paperielto, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Denwood Ross, AEOD Orldnti CICned by:
FROM: I Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Proje"ct 5A'arfagerr Office of State Programs l
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: APRIL 10,1997 MEETING i
l Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on April 10,1997. These minutes are submitted for your approval at the May 2, l 1997, meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated cc: William Spell, LA j Roland Fletcher, MD pistribution: !
DIR RF LDCDliSPO1i IPDR (Y'es/)' l RLBangart PLohaus /
SDroggitis DCool [ !
RWoodruff, Ril SMoore EDrinnon, GA JMyers /
FCameron HNewsome SBaggett JHornor, RIV, WCFO CHackney LA File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\KXS\LAMRBMIN.97 i Ts receive e copy of thie document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure *E* = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N' = No copy
( OFFICE OSPc6 c OSP g c NAME LRakovan:gd W KSchneider
! DATE 04/p/97 4 04/ff97
, _.3nq -
! 9705020269 970420 STPRG ESGL PDR ll ll ll l lll)l l
....,s . .
f
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 10,1997 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:
Hugh Thompson, EDO Karen Cyr, OGC Carl Paper,ello, NMSS Roland Fletcher, MD Richard Pangart, OSP Richard Woodruff, OSP Elizabeth ('rinnon, GA Steve Baggett, NMSS James Myers, OSP Dennis Sollenberger, OSP Kathleer 3 chneider, OSP Pat Eng, OEDO Patricia Larkins, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP Janet Lambert, NMSS By phone:
William Spell, LA Michael Henry, LA Thomas Patterson, LA Jay Mason, LA James Sanford, LA Ray Paris, OR Ronald Wascom, LA
- 1. Convention. Hugh Thompson, Deputy EDO, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 2:30 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
- 2. Old Business. Approval of the Maryland MRB Minutes. The Maryland draft MRB minutes were offered for the MRB approval by Mrs. Schneider. The new format for the MRB minutes was used, and no comments were offered. The MRB approved the minutes if no additional comments were received by April 11,1997.
- 3. New Business. Louisiana Review Introduction. Mr. Richard Woodruff, Region ll, RSAO, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Louisiana review.
Mr. Woodruff discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included review of Louisiana's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted October 7-12,1996. The onsite review included an entrance interview, detailed audits of a representative sample of licensing and inspection files, and follow-up discussions with staff and management. The onsite portion of the review concluded with exit briefings with Louisiana management. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on February 14,1997; received Louisiana's conment letters dated February 28,1997 and March 4,1997; and submitted a propose:, final report to the MRB on March 27,1997.
Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Myers discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Status of the Materials inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP report. The review team found l Louisiana's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory." The MRB
D discussed the problems with the State inspection program regarding the length of time between inspection and enforcement actions, which the State had self-identified and corrected. The MRB also discussed the program for level and density gauge licensees who participate in a self inspection program. The MRB reached consensus that Louisiana's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Woodruff presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of the IMPEP report. Mr. Woodruff reported that the IMPEP review team found that Louisiana's performance with respect to the indicator to be " satisfactory." No recommendations were made pertaining to this indicator. The MRB discussed the need for a diverse staff with the State. Mr. Spell addressed the State's need to address all radiation issues including NORM and stated his support for a single federal agency to oversee all radiation issues. The MRB concluded that Louisiana's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mrs. Drinnon presented the finding regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. She summarized the findings in Section 3.3 of the report, where the review team found Louisiana's licensing actions to be generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. The IMPEP team found Louisiana's performance to be " satisfactory" for ; Sis indicator, and made three recommendations, as documented in the repost. The MRB discussed with the review team the recommendation addressing site releases and discussed the importance of correspondence. The State discussed its concerns on liability issues associated with site releases after license termination. Following this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Louisiana's performance met the standard for a "satisf actory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Myers discussed the finding for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, which is summarized Section 3.4 of the report. The team found that Louisiana's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made one suggestion, as documented in the report. Mr. Myers mentioned difficulty in finding all pertinent documents in some files. Mr. Myers noted that a strong point of the inspection program was peer reviews of draft inspection reports, and also that the State had a strong supervisor accompaniment program. Following this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Louisiana's performance met the standard for a "satisf actory" rating for this indicator.
The common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, was the final common performance indicator discussed. Mr. Woodruff led the discussion in this area. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found Louisiana's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made one suggestion, i as documented in the proposed final report. The MRB discussed the review team's suggestion for the State to implement a computer based tracking system for events ar>d allegations. The MRB noted that use of a computer based system may not be 1
2 ;
~
necessary or an effective use of resources, if the number of events and allegations is small. The MRB discussed with the review team Louisiana's confidentiality policies, and the consistency between the program's many regional offices.
Following this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Louisiana's performance ,
met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator. j l
Non Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Woodruff led the discussion of the non-common indicator, Legislation and Regulations, which summarized Section 4.1 of j the report. Due to three outstanding regulations not adopted by the State, the team l had found Louisiana's performance relative to this indicator to be "unsatisf actory."
Mr. Bangart indicated that two of the three identified regulations were not required to be adopted by Louisiana. The review team noted that the draft regulation on
" Decommissioning Recordkeeping, Documentation of Restricted Areas and Spills" ;
had been reviewed by NRC staff and found compatible. The State was notified of this on April 10,1997. Mr. Spell stated that the rule was out for public comment, and he expected it to be promulgated in September 1997. The MRB discussed the impact of this one regulation and noted that under the new compatibility policy, this rule would not be a matter of compatibility. The MRB recommended that the State implement the requirements in this regulation through legal binding requirements on a case-by-case basis until the regulation is promulgated as final. The MRB revised the team's recommendation to " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" and directed the report to be revised to reflect these changes. !
Mr. Baggett led the discussion of the non-common indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program (SS&D), which was based on Section 4.2 of the report.
The team found Louisiana's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" and made three recommendations, as !
found in the report. The MRB reached consensus that Louisiana's performance met the standard for " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Woodruff stated that the non-common indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program, was not reviewed. Although Louisiana has low-level l radioactive waste disposal authority, NRC has not required the State to have a program for licensing a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility until such time as the State has been designated as a host State for a low-level radioactive waste disposal f acility.
- 4. MRB Consultation / Comments on Issuance of Report. Mr. Woodruff concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Louisiana's program was rated " satisfactory" on the five common performance indicators and " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" for the two non-common performance >
indicators. The MRB found the Louisiana program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible. The team recommended and the MRB agreed that the next IMPEP review for Louisiana be conducted in four years.
- 5. Comments from the State of Louisiana. Mr. Spell apologized for not attending the meeting in person due to other business matters. He commented on the difficulties
- 3 l
l
facing a State agency in regulating radioactive materials as well as all other concerns. He indicated his appreciation for the opportunity to attend the MRB by l phone and that there were no adverse results. He commented on a variety of !
issues regarding NRC and State relations. At this point, Louisiana representatives ;
left the meeting to attend a public meeting in South Louisiana.
- 6. Status of Remaining Reviews. Mrs. Schneider reported on the status of the remaining IMPEP reviews and reports. Status charts were distributed to the MRB.
- 7. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:15 pm.
l l
l l
l l
i i
j
- 4 l
l