ML20149F605
| ML20149F605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/15/1997 |
| 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 9707220240 | |
| Download: ML20149F605 (7) | |
Text
-.
JUL 15 SRA MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
'Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP.
Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Frank Congel, AEOD fi; int 1 cisnea tv8 o
.R. M melder FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: ILLINOIS JULY 2,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on July 2,1997. These minutes are submitted for your approval. Please review and comment by July 25,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2320, or Lance bovan at 415-2589.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Gordon Appel, IL Robert Quillin, CO Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP07)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
PLohaus SMoore, NMSS RWoodruff, Ril JLynch, Rlli James Johnson, KS MBurgess, NMSS DSollenberger DCool, NMSS WOlmsted, OGC RBarrett, AEOD JThoma, EDO TCombs, CA f
HNewsome, OGC lilinois File KAllen, IL i
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\LJR\\lLMRB. MIN TJ receive e iopy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E* = Copy with attachment / enclosure "d" = No copy OFFICE OSP /p [
OSP p3l NAME LRakovan:gd
KNSchneider DATE 07/0/97 07/ r/97
/
OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-8 g 75 3 g gg @ E CTE b 9707220240 970715
~
((lll.ll.l[.lloll}.{lal!}l} PDR STPRG ESGIL PDR
p arrog 1 p UNITED STATES E j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066dHJ001 49***** ,o July 15, 1997 d MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members: Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Frank Congel, AEOD FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: ILLINOIS JULY 2,1997 MRB MEETING l i Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on July 2,1997. These minutes are submitted for your approval. Please review and comment by July 25,1997, if you have any quest:ons, please contact me at 415-2320, or Lance Rakovan at 415-2589.
Attachment:
As stated l cc: Gordon Appel, IL Robert Quillin, CO 4 (
-.-~. -- ~ .s h MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF JULY 2,131 i g These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attend *es were as follows: Richard Bangart, OSP Richard Barrett, AEOD l Carl Paperiello, NMSS William Olmsted, OGC Don Cool, NMSS Gordon Appel, IL Steve Collins, IL Richard Woodruff, Rll
- ~
James Lynch, Rill Dennis Sollenberger, OSP . John Thoma, EDO Kathleen Schneider, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP I By phone: Robert Quillin, CO Michele Burgess, NMSS I Kathy Allen, IL Joseph Klinger, IL Bruce Sanza, IL Charles Vinson, IL [ ' Sandi Kessinger, IL Daren Perrero, IL j May Burkhart, IL Paul Eastvold, IL l' Steve England, IL Mike Evan, IL j' Robert Hottsclaw, IL 1 1. - Convention. Richard Bang;;rt, Acting Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted. 1 j 2. New Business. lilinois Review introduction. Mr. Richard Woodruff, RSAO Region ll, j led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the tilinois review, i Mr. Woodruff discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of Illinois' response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review war. conducted March 24-28,1997. The onsite review included an entrance interview, 1 detailed audits of a representative sample of completed licensing actions and j . inspections, and follow-up discussions with staff and management. The onsite portion of the review cor'cluded with exit briefings with Illinois management. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on April 15,1997; received lilinois' comment letter dated June 2,1997; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on June 24,1997. 'Mr. Woodruff noted that he, Mrs. Schneider, and Mr. Collins had met prior to the meeting to discuss minor changes in ine report, and j that these changes would not be addressed at the MRB meeting. Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Woodruff discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Status of the Materials inspection Program. His j presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP report. The review team j found Illinois' performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory," and made two suggestions as documented in the report. Mr Woodruff noted that Illinois had j requested that both of these suggestions be removed from the final report. The i i 1 9 ~. 4
7'- r a MRB discussed with the IMPEP team and the State the suggestion involving i_ reciprocity inspection frequencies. Mrs. Schneider commented that an All 8 Agreement States letter on gu&nce for inspection of reciprocity licensees - i MC 1220 was recently issued. After this discussion, the MRB agreed that lilinois' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator. ~ 1-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 lilinois' performance with respect to the indicator to be " satisfactory," and made no comments. The MRB agreed that Illinois' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator. Mr. Lynch presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3.3 of the report, where the review team found Illinois' licensing actions to be generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. The IMPEP team found lilinois' performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made one suggestion, for license reviewers to check SS&D registry sheets prior to authorizing license modifications which result in a change in the handling of a SS&D. The IMPEP team noted lilinois' request to remove this suggestion from the final report. Illinois commented that the suggestion involving the review of SS&D registry sheets implied that the State was not completing these reviews. The MRB directed that the final report be altered to note that the usual practice of the State is to review SS&D sheets. The MRB and the State also discussed the NRC terminated sites handled by lilinois..The MRB agreed that Illinois' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator. Mr. Woodruff discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, which are summarized in Section 3.4 of the report. The team found that lilinois' performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made one suggestion, regarding the scheduling of an inspection in the absence of the site RSO. The MRB questioned the IMPEP team and the State on the State's policy of conducting unannounced inspections, specifically rescheduling these inspections when the site RSO is not available. The MRB commented that the State should have some control on this policy, and discussed with the State the possibility of licensees avoiding inspections by exploiting this policy. The MRB stated that the differences between the NRC's and Illinois' definition of 'an " unannounced inspection" did not appear to impact inspection effectiveness, and i requested that this be noted in the report. The MRB also requested that the suggestion be reworded to state that the review team suggests that Illinois evaluate whether the practice of deferring inspections due to licensee scheduling conflicts is being abused. After this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Illinois' 1 performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator, i The common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, was the final common performance indicator discussed. Mr. Woodruff led the discussion in + this area. l As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found Illinois' i i performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made two suggestions. Mr. Woodruff noted that Illinois made comments on both suggestions. The MRB discussed with the IMPEP team and the State the reasons behind Illinois not directly notifying the NRC Headquarters Operations Center of events requiring i immediate or 24-hour reporting. The State has found their policy of contacting the l-Region ill RSAO successful. The MRB supported the IMPEP team's suggestion involving notification of NRC Headquarters Operations Center. The MRB and the j State discussed the reasons behind the State not utilizing the NMED system. After a discussion involving allegations received directly by the State, the MRB requested that the final report note that all allegations received by the State are handled in i accordance with the same procedures as those for allegations referred to the State by NRC. The MRB agreed that Illinois' performance met the standard for a l " satisfactory" rating for this indicator. Non-Common Performance indicators. Mr. Lynch led the discussion of the non-common indicator, Legislation and Regulations, which summarized Section 4.1 of } the report. The team found Illinois' performance relative to this indicator to be } " unsatisfactory" due to the State's failure to adopt the decommissioning record keeping regulation in addition, the review team provided the status on the three l regulations presenting unresolved compatibility issues. The team made one - recommendation as documented in the report. The MRB discussed with the State the differences between NRC's'and Illinois' declared pregnancy definition, specifically health physics concerns. The difference between the NRC and State definitions is that Illinois allows a woman to declare pregnancy without providing l the estimated date of conception. If no date of conception is provided, under some scenarios it appears that the Illinois rule could allow an embryo / fetus to receive a I. dose in excess of the limit in NRC's regulation. Representatives from Illinois identified another scenario under which the NRC rule would be less protective of the }- embryo / fetus than the Illinois regulation. The MRB requested that the NRC review { the compatibility classification for the declared pregnancy definition. Illinois i commented that the regulation involving record keeping for decommissioning was scheduled to be adopted in early 1998. Because of the progress to date in the promulgation of this rule and the expected adoption date, the MRB determined that ] 4 a sufficient basis did not exist to support a finding of unsatisfactory for this indicator. Based on this discussion, the MRB reached the consensus that lilinois' i performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator and noted i . that this indicator could be " revisited" if significant delays in rule adoption occur or if Illinois adopts rules that are not compatible with equivalent NRC regulations. Ms. Burgess led the discussion of the non-common indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program. The findings for this indicator are summarized in Section 4.2 of the report. The team found lilinois' performance to be " satisfactory," and made two suggestions, as stated in the report. Ms. Burgess noted that Illinois made a number of comments on this section of the report, and that the suggestions j .--e ,,, e ~
i i - l i*' made in a number of these comments were adopted in the final report. The MRB discussed with the IMPEP team the use of the phrase " major issues" in the report. The State commented that SS&D file reviews are always completed, and that the statement that deficiencies in SS&D files may indicate a weakness in the review process was inappropriate. The MRB suggested and the IMPEP team agreed to remove the phrase indicating a weakness in the Illinois SS&D review process. The i MRB directed the IMPEP team to add a suggestion to the final report stating that J' lilinois evaluate the review information supporting the registry sheets issued during j ~ this period to ensure there is no weakness in the review process. Following th's discussion, the MRB agreed that Illinois' performance for this indicator met the i standard for a " satisfactory" rating. I' Mr. Sollenberger led the discussion on the non-common indicator, Low-Level . Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program. The findings for this indicator are summarized in Section_4.3 of the report.- Mr. Sollenberger stated that the team j used a " forward look" approach to this indicator, and that the team found lilinois' 3 performance relative to this indicator to be." satisfactory." The MRB questioned the i IMPEP team about the readiness of the program. The MRB reached consensus that lilinois' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator. 4 M. Sollenberger also led the discussion on the' final non-common indicator, Uranium Recovery Program. The findings for this indicator can be found in Section 4.4 of. i the report. The team found Illinois' performance to be." satisfactory." Mr. Sollenberger stated that the State has only one licensee, which is remediating a site l which thorium recovery operations were previously conducted. He was able to complete a site visit and talk directly with the site resident inspector. After a brief 7 discussion involving the scope of the 10 CFR Part 40 amendment, the MRB agreed that the Illinois' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" for this [ indicator. 3. MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Woodruff concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Illinois' program was rated " satisfactory" on the five common performance indicators and four applicable non- ] common performance indicators. The MRB found the lilinois 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 lilinois be conducted in four years. 1 - 4. Comments from the State of Illinois. Mr. Appel and Mr. Collins thanked the IMPEP { 3 i. team for their work in the review. They,*tated that the IMPEP process is a major j' improvement from the old system of State reviews. They also commented that the MRB was a good idea in that the management perspective it adds to the IMPEP
- review process is valuable.
1 3 5. Old Business. Approval of the Colorado and California MRB Minutes. At the completion of the New Business, the Colorado and California draft MRB minutes were offered for the MRB epproval. The Colorado draft minutes were approved as i 4 a I h e
s written. The California draft minutes were approved as written by the MRB, but the MRB requested that Ed Bailey should be able to comment before the minutes were i finalized. 6. Status of Remaining Reviews. Mrs. Schneider briefly reported on the status of the remaining IMPEP reviews and reports, i 7. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:00 pm. 1 4 f 4 ~ i f I 2 a l 4 l 4 1 4 4 -E- ,}}