ML20141G370
| ML20141G370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1997 |
| 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 9705220332 | |
| Download: ML20141G370 (6) | |
Text
r.
y
=
c MAY - 51997 1
l MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Denwood Ross, AEOD g, g.,.,.,,
- -..~..,.
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior kr'ofe*ckNbNdd[r FROM:
Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: APRll 10,1997 MEETING Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on April 10,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
William Spell, LA Roland Fletcher, MD Distribution:
DlR RF DCD (SP01)
PDR (Yes/)
RLBangart PLohaus SDroggitis DCool RWoodruff, Ril SMoore EDrinnon, GA JMyers FCameron HNewsome g
SBaggett JHornor, RIV, WCFO
{I CHackney LA File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KXS\\LAMINFIN.97 To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: *C"
- Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment /ericiosure
DATE 05/3/97 05/f/97' OSP CODE: SP AG-12 gg4-
~
g g q u i g.+ w' 943 4
ou 9705220332 970505 PDR STPRC ESCLA PDR
pnnary UNITED STATES y
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4 001
%,,, g
- May 5, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
W4 ugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC j3 [
Denwood Ross, AEOD
[
FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: APRIL 10,1997 MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on April 10,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
William Spell, LA 4
Roland Fletcher, MD l
e 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 j
meeting. The attendees were as follows:
Hugh Thompson, EDO Karen Cyr, OGC
)
' Carl Paperiello, NMSS Roland Fletcher, MD i
Richard Bangart, OSP Richard Woodruff, OSP Elizabeth Drinnon, GA Steve Baggett, NMSS j
James Myers, OSP Dennis Sollenberger, OSP Kathleen Schneider, OSP Pat Eng, OEDO Patricia Larkins, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP i
Janet Lambert, NMSS i
By phone
- William Spell, LA-Michael Henry, LA Thomas Patterson, LA Jay Mason, LA l
James Sanford, LA Ray Paris, OR Ronald _Wascom, LA l
1.
Convention. Hugh Thompson, Deputy EDO, Chair of the Management Review l
Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 2:30 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
2.
Old Business. Approval of the Maryland MR8 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.
i 4
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, 1
]
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 l
concluded with exit briefings with Louisiana management. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on February 14,1997; received Louisiana's comment letters dated February 28,1997 and March 4,1997; and submitted a proposed final
. report to the MRB on March 27,1997.
l Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Myers discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Status of the Materials inspection Program. His presentation L
corresponded to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP report. The review team found j
Laiana's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory." The MRB
(
i I
L
~- _ _ _ _
t c.
l o
l discussed the problems with the State inspection' program regarding the length of time between inspection and enforcement actions, which the State had self-Lidantified 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 l
. for this indicator.
Mr. Woodruff presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator,'
i j
Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of p
the IMPEP report. Mr. Woodruff reported that the IMPEP review team found that i
. Louisiana's performance with respect to the indicator to be " satisfactory." No.
i 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 f
federal agency to oversee all radiation issues. The MRB concluded that Louisiana's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
t t
Mrs.'Drinnon presented the finding regarding the common performance indicator, i
3 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. She summarized the findings in Section 3.3 4
of the report, where the review team found Louisiana's licensing actions to be generally thorou0h, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. The IMPEP team found Louisiana's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made three recommendations, as documented in the report. 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 i
with site releases after license termination. Following this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Louisiana's performance met the standard for a l
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Myers discussed the finding for the common performance indicator, Technical i
i Quality of Inspections, which is summarized in 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 i
i 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 l
discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Louisiana's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
3 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 i
performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made one suggestion, 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 and allegations. The MRB noted that use of a computer based system may not be l
l 2
1 i
i
i q,-
t e
- e 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.
Non Common Performance indicators. Mr. Woodruff led the discussion of the non-
. common indicator, Legislation and Regulations, which summarized Section 4.1 of
}
the report. Due to three outstanding regulations not adopted by the State, the team had found Louisiana's performance relative to this indicator to be " unsatisfactory."
Mr. Bangart indicated that two of the three identified regulations were not required r
i
.to be adopted by Louisiana. The review team noted that the draft regulation on i-
" 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 mtter of compatibility. The MRB recommended that the State i
implement the requ%ents in this regulation through legal binding requirements on a case-by case basis until the regulation is promulgated as final. The MRB revised t
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 i
the standard for " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Woodruff stated that the non-common indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program, was not reviewed. Although Louisiana has low level 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 i
has been designated as a host State for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.
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 I
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 j
3 i
,[
~~
s.u,
4 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 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 1MPEP reviews and reports. Status charts were distributed to the MRB.
7.
Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:15 pm.
4
't 4
9 4
4
. d.
a
--._