ML20141A529
| ML20141A529 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/1997 |
| 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) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706230064 | |
| Download: ML20141A529 (6) | |
Text
-
1 l
MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Msmbers:
Hugh Thompson, OEDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello,'NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Frank Congel, AEOD Gr10inta cisnod by FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Id5frI5t 0fDC1 dor J
Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: COLORADO JUNE 3,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on June 3,1997. Any comments will be discussed at the State of Illinois MRB meeting currently scheduled for July 2,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415 2320, or Lance Rakovan at 301-415-2589.
Attachment:
As stated i \\
Distribution:
DCD ISP03)
DIR RF
- . a s g --,)qq g POR (YES v' NO
)
SDroggitis RBangart MKnapp, NMSS JThoma, OEDO PLohaus SMoore, NMSS FCombs, NMSS JHornor, RIV CMaupin, OSP LBolling, OSP DSimpson, CO JJacobi, CO N
JCook, RIV Colorado File 19 h
k I
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\LJR\\COMRB. MIN To receive a cop,' of this document, indicate in the box: *C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure
- E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure
- N* = No copy OFFICE OSP
.(
OSP l
l NAMF LRakovan:nb a KSchneiderAQ DATf:
06/i1/97 06/n /97
?706230064 970617
~
OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-b !
i p8"4 9 j
[
4 UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655 0001 June 17,1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
Hugh Thompson, OEDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMcA Karen Cyr, OGC Frank Congel, AEOD
." k
^
j{pvu Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager /y )v FROM:
Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: COLORADO JUNE 3,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on June 3,1997. Any comments will be discussed at the State of Illinois MRB meeti1g currently schedu!eo to< July 2,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-2320, nr Le:#: Sakovan at 301-415 2589.
/.ttachment:
As stated cc:
Robert Quillin, CO Richard Ratliff, TX k
e
- - _ -.. - - - ~ - - -
j 4
i MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 3.1997 i
l These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:
Richard Bangart, OSP Frank Congel, AEOD Malcolm Knapp, NMSS Frederick Combs, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Jack Hornor, RIV John Thoma, OEDO Cardelia Maupin, OSP Paul Lohaus, OSP Kathleen Schneider, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP Lloyd Bolling, OSP Scott Moore, NMSS Robert Oulilin, CO By phone:
Richard Ratliff, TX Jacob Jacobi, CO Donald Simpson, CO Jacqueline Cook, RIV 1.
Convention. Richard Bangart, Acting Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 1:10 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
2.
New Business. Colorado Review introduction. Mr. Jack Hornor, Region IV, RSAO, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Colorado review.
Mr. Hornor discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included review of Colorado's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted March 10-14,1997. 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 Colorado management. Following the review, the team issued a' draft report on April 10,1997; received Colorado's comment letter dated April 29,1997; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on May 23, j
1997. Mr. Hornor noted that all findings from the previous reve were closed.
I Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Hornor 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 Colorado's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory," and I
made two recommendations: one, regarding frequency of HDR brachytherapy I
I license inspections, and the, second, regarding reciprocity inspections, as documented in the report. The MRB discussed the status of the All Agreements i
State Letter on MC 1220. OSP plans on issuing this letter by the end of June. The MRB discussed the recommendation involving frequency of HDR inspections and questioned Mr. Quillin on the reasons HDR licensees were inspected annually.
While discussing the inspection frequencies of gamma knife licensees, Mr. Quillin
~. - - -.-.
i 2
)
commented that problems with a specific licensee led to the annual inspection frequency for gamma knife licensees. The MRB reached consensus that Colorado's j
performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
l Mr. Hornor presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of the IMPEP report. Mr. Hornor reported that the IMPEP review team found that Colorado's performance with respect to the indicator to be " satisfactory." One q
recommendation was made pertaining to this indicator. The MRB, Mr. Quillin, and the IMPEP team discussed training and qualifications of inspectors conducting inspections independently. Following this discussion, the MRB concluded that Colorado's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this i
indicator.
Ms. Maupin presented the findings 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 Colorado's licensing actions to be
. generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. The IMPEP team found Colorado's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made two suggestions, as documented in the report. Ms. Maupin noted that the State requested that the suggestion involving inconsistent welllogging license documents be removed from the report,
)
l yet the team decided to keep the suggestion due to the license inconsistencies.
i The MRB discussed with the review team license inconsistencies and omissions j
j found in Colorado licenses, and their impact on the program in general. The MRB did not direct the IMPEP team to remove the sugge.ition about welllogging licensees. Following this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Colorado's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" ratmg for this indicator.
i Mr. Hornor discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Technical l
Quality of Inspections, which are summarized in Section 3.4 of the report. The team found that Colorado's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made four recommendations and one suggestion, as documented in the report. The MRB and the IMPEP team discussed the suggestion involving unannounced inspections, including questions on the effectiveness of announced and unannounced inspections. The MRB then questioned the IMPEP team and Mr. Ouillin about the use of RCD 59 short form, and any matters that are not addressed due to the use of the short form. Following this discussion, the MRB directed that the recommendation involving the short form be chanoM to a 4
suggestion. The MRB reached consensus that Colorado's performance me the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
The common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, was the final common performance indicator discussed. Mr. Hornor led the discussion in this area. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found Colorado's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made two
3 recommendations, as documented in the proposed final report. The MRB had no comments, and agreed that Colorado's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Non-Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Hornor led the discussion of the non-common indicator, Legislation and Regulations, which summarized Section 4.1 of the report. The draft IMPEP report recommended that the finding for this indicator be deferred until NRC completed compatibility reviews of Colorado rules not previously evaluated. NRC completed review of the Colord rules submitted on March 27,1997 and by letter dated May 29,1997 transmitted comments to the State. Based on these comments, the team found Colorado's performance relative to this indicator to be " unsatisfactory" due to three rules adopted by the State which are not compatible with equivalent NRC regulations. The team made two recommendations, as documented in the report. Mr. Hornor commented that there were still regulations necessary for compatibility, i.e., regulations corresponding to one section of 10 CFR 34.25 and 40 Appendix A. The MRB discussed OSP's procedure for review of agreement state regulations. Mr. Quillin commented that the regulation involving uranium mills could be found in the current Colorado regulations. Mr. Quillin indicated that Colorado would use a legally binding requirement, i.e., license condition, until the revision corresponding to 10 CFR 34.25 was promulgated as final. The other four items were discussed with additional information from the State as to their status, and were not considered to create conflicts, duplications, or gaps, or other conditions that jeopardized an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material by the MRB. After this discussion, the MRB directed that tne report be revised to reflect that Colorado's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator and that the IMPEP team was directed to revise the report to recommend that Colorado adopt the requirements of the missing section of 10 CFR 34.25 through legally binding requirements until the final regulations were promulgated. The MRB also directed OSP to ensure that the Colorado regulations corresponding to 10 CFR 40 Appendix A are compatible.
Mr. Hornor stated that the non-common indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, was found to be " satisfactory." The findings for this indicator are summarized Section 4.2 of the report. The MRB had no comment and agreed that Colorado's performance for this indicator met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating.
Mr. Hornor stated that the non-common indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program, was not reviewed because the State is not a designated Host State.
The discussion on the final non-common performance indicator, Uranium Recovery Program, was led by Mr. Hornor. The findings for this indicator are summarized in Section 4.3 of the report. The team found that Colorado's performance on this indicator was "satisf actory," and made three recommendations, as documented in the report. The MRB and IMPEP team discussed the appropriateness of a thirty day time limit for dispatching inspection findings. Mr. Quillin commented on the
1 4
?
complexity of some licenses, and that past problems in this area had been resolved.
- Following this discussion, the MRB suggested that the recommendation involving I
the timely dispatch of inspection findings be changed to a suggestion. The MRB reached consensus that Colorado's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
i l^
on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Colorado's program was rated 3.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Hornor concluded, based
" satisfactory" on all of the performanca indicators. The MRB found the Colorado 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 Colorado be conducted in four years.
1 4.
Comments from the State of Colorado. Mr. Quillin thanked the IMPEP team for their work in the review. He commented that getting an "outside" perspective was valuable, and agreed that the IMPEP review system was an improvement over the former review system. Mr. Ouillin also commented that he believes the program to be beneficial to both State programs and the NRC.
5.
Old Business. Approval of the Mississippi MRB Minutes. At the completion of the New Business, the Mississippi draft MRB minutes were offered for the MRB approval. The Mississippi draft minutes, as written, were epproved as circulated with no changes.
6.
Status of Remaining Reviews. Mrs. Schneider briefly reported on the status of the remaining IMPEP reviews and reports. Status charts were distributed to the MRB.
+
7.
Adjournment. The meeting was ad 0urned at approximately 2:15 pm.
3 4
1 4
-