ML20148G344
| ML20148G344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/27/1997 |
| 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 9706050287 | |
| Download: ML20148G344 (6) | |
Text
.. -.
.~
1 MAY 2 7 1937_
is i
MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperriello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Denwood Ross, AEOD Om!71M1cir odty:
FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project'MahidEP*MC#
I Office of State Programs 4
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: MAY 14,1997 MEETING 1
Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on May 14,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Robert Goff, MS Robert Quillin, CO i
i 1
9706050287 970527 PDR STPRG ESGGEN PDR me Distribution:
l DIR RF DCD (SPO6)
. SDroggitis PDR (YESf)'
CGordon, RI DCool, NMSS SMerchant, NMSS g (i FCameron, OGC RWoodruff, Rll i
i Frank Congel, AEOD CCardwell, TX j
HNewsome, OGC SMoore, NMSS Mississippi File PLohaus DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\LJR\\MSMRBMIN.97 To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy OFFICE OSP
,l OSP l
l NAME LRakovan:gd/nbk KNSchneider g6 DATE 05/n /97 05/,17/97' v
OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-15 0500 g gg gf M IEN..
- 4
- y4
m.
- m. _. --.. -..
skR f 800 I
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 May 27,1997 l
MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
l Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP l
Carl Papperiello, NMSS l
Karen Cyr, OGC
/
i bc Denwood Ross, AEOD FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Sen~ior Project Manager Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: MAY 14,1997 MEETING Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on May 14,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated l
cc:
Robert Goff, MS Robert Quillin, CO l
l i
i*
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF MAY 14,1997 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were r'.iscussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:
Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Donald Cool, NMSS Frank Cong,el, AEOD Francis Cameron, OGC Craig Gordon, RI Sally Merchant, NMSS Robert Goff, MS Paul Lohaus,.OSP Kathleen Schneider, OSP l
Lance Rakovan, OSP Patricia Larkins, OSP By phone:
Richard Woodruff, Ril Cynthia Cardwell, TX Robert Quillin, CO
~
1.
Convention. Hugh Thompson, Deputy EDO, Chair of the Management Review l
Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 3:30 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were' conducted.
2.
New Business. Mississippi Review introduction. Mr. Craig Gordon, Region I, RSAO, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Mississippi review.
Mr. Gordon discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included review of Mississippi's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted January 27-31,1997. 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 Mississippi management. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on March 20,1997; received Mississippi's comment letters dated April 14,1997; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on April 25,1997. Mr. Gordon noted that all findings from the previous review were closed.
Common Performance Indicators. Ms. Cardwell discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Status of the Materials Inspection Program. Her presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP report. The review team found Mississippi's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory," and made two recommendations, as documented in the report. The MRB discussed the recommendation involving an initialinspection tracking system, and debated what level of importance the recommendation should receive. Mrs. Schneider explained the differences between the findings " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement," and recommendations and suggestions under the finding
" satisfactory." Mr. Goff commented that previous delays with initial inspections 1
were caused by staff turnover and computer problems, and that the State is addressing these problems. The MRB directed the review team to include in the final report the discussion of the impact of staff turnover on the delay in some initial inspections. The MRB reached consensus that the recommendation involving initial inspections should be changed to a suggestion in the final report, and that Mississippi'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 Mississippi's performance with respect to the indicator to be " satisfactory." One recommendation was made pertaining to this indicator. The MRB discussed the status of the State's plan to fill the vacant Health Physics Trainee position, as well as details on the position itself. Mr. Goff replied that the position would be filled as soon as possible, and commented on the difficulties in training employees. The MRB commented that the suggestion as written was repetitive, and directed the IMPEP team to clarify the language of the recommendation in the final report. The MRB concluded that Mississippi's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
J l
Ms. Merchant 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 Mississippi's licensing actions to be generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. The IMPEP team found Mississippi's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made one recommendation and one suggestion, as documented in the report. The MRB discussed with the review team different types of licensing in the State including exclusive federal restriction and strontium-90. Following this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Mississippi's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
i Mr. Gordon discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, which is summarized in Section 3.4 of the report. The team found that Mississippi's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made three recommendations and one suggestion, as documented in the report. The MRB questioned the IMPEP team on the suggestion involving various types of field notes for different situations. Mr. Goff responded that the State experienced no specific problems in that area, but the suggestion by the team was appreciated. The MRB and Mr. Goff then discussed the benefits of announced versus unannounced inspections. The MRB reached consensus that Mississippi's performance met 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. Ms. Cardwell led the discussion in this area. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found Mississippi's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made two 2
J l
l 4
recommendations, as documented in the proposed final report. The MRB discussed the review team's recommendation involving prompt responses to incidents, and questioned the team and Mr. Goff as to the circumstances when the State would conduct an on-site response, especi@y those indicated where there is a potential 1
for radiation exposure or contamination to the public. Mr. Goff commented that procedures for incident response have been and continue to be followed, and that there are acceptable situations where an on-site response is not conducted according to State policy. The MRB directed the review team to revise the I
recommendation on prompt responses to incidents to recommend that the State review their procedures for responding to incidents in the public domain. Following this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Mississippi's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Non-Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Gordon led the discussion of the non-common indicator, Legislation and Regulations, which summarized Section 4.1 of the report. The team found Mississippi's performance relative to this indicator to be
" satisfactory." Mr. Gordon noted that of the two comments made by the NRC during the previous routine review, one had been corrected, and the other is being addressed through legal binding requirements and is scheduled for adoption in 1997. The MRB reached consensus that Mississippi's performance met the standard for " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Gordon stated that the non-common indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, was not reviewed because the State did not perform any SS&D i
evaluations during the period of the review.
)
Mr. Gordon stated that the non-common indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program, was not reviewed because the State does not have authority for a LLRW disposal site.
3.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Gordon concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Mississippi's program was rated "satisf actory" on both the five common performance indicators and the single non-common performance indicator. The MRB found the Mississippi program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible. The team recommended and the MRB egreed that the next IMPEP review for Mississippi be conducted in four years.
4.
Comments from the State of Mississippi. Mr. Goff thanked the IMPEP team for their work, and commented on the benefits of the IMPEP process including discovering new insight on ways to improve the State's program and establishing j
relationships between Mississippi and NRC staff. He agreed that having a staff i
member from another Agreement State on the IMPEP team was a good idea.
j Mr. Goff asked that the next IMPEP review take place at a different time in the year to avoid management conflict due to legislative processes.
3
5.
Old Business. Mr. Bangart presented a draft response to the letter sent by the State of Maryland. The letter discusses the State's disappointment and dissatisfaction i
with the findings discussed in the final report of their recent IMPEP review. The MRB decided that as the State had not taken any action to bring about the changes recommended in the final report, the findin's from the IMPEP review would not be g
altered. Mr. Bangart was given lead in redrafting the letter to the State, and circulating the letter for comment to the members of the Maryland MRB before the i
letter was issued.
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.
Adjoummef; The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:20 pm.
i i
4