ML20153E574
| ML20153E574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/08/1998 |
| From: | Lance Rakovan NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Congel F, Cyr K, Knapp M, Lohaus P, Piccone J NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9809280149 | |
| Download: ML20153E574 (7) | |
Text
_. . , -.
SEP 0 8199g l
MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members:
Malcolm R. Knapp, NMSS Paul H. Lohaus, OSP Josephine M. Piccone, NMSS l Karen D. Cyr, OGC Frank L. Congel, AEOD FROM: Lance J. Rakovan, Health Physicist /s/ Lance J. Rakovan Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF l HEALTH, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND l NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AUGUST 18,1998 MRB MEETING Attached for your review and comment are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on August 18,1998. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2589.
Attachment:
As stated cc: Gene Miskin, NYCH Steven Gavitt, NYSH Paul Merges, NYDEC Rita Aldrich, NYDL John Spath, NYSERDA t~'~
' 30C y Roland Fletcher, MD u
@O{h
{h L-Distribution:
DIR RF DCD'(SP01)
SDroggitis
. PDR (YES/) '
KSchneider HThompson, EDO TMartin, AEOD CPaperiello, NMSS 1l DWhite, RI MStephens, FL - JCameron, Rlli
- JCook, RIV LCox, NC AGrewe, TN DSollenberger, OSP FCameron, OGC DCool/FCombs, NMSS l HNewsome, OGC GDeegan, NM.SS DBroaddus, NMSS New York File:] O g 2 9 JMcNees, AL DOCUMENT NAME: G:\lMPEP\NY3MRB98. MIN Ta receive a copy of thle document, Indicate in the box: "C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP // l l NAME LRakovan W l
DATE 09/ d /98 l OSP FILE CODE SP-AG-20; SP-AG-20-1; SP AG-20-2; SP-AG-20-4 9809280149 980908 PDR STPRG ESGNY PDR
l l
l
. 1 i*
l MINUTESi MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 18.1998 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as following: ;
Malcolm Knapp, MRB Chair, NMSS Paul Lohaus, MRB Member, OSP Frank Congel, MRB Member, AEOD Josephine Piccone, MRB Member, NMSS Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Dennis Sollenberger, Team Leader, OSP Duncan White, Team Member, RI Jamnes Cameron, Team Member, Rlli Gene Miskin, NYCH Steven Gavitt, NYSH Paul Merges, NYDEC Lance Rakovan, OSP Roland Fletcher, Agreement State Liaison, MD Kathleen Schneider, OSP John Thoma, EDO Nancy Belmore, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP By telephone:
Jack Spath, NYSERDA Heidi Voelk, NYSERDA Rita Aldrich, NYDL Kenneth Daniels, NYCH Richard Borri, NYCH Karim Rimawi, NYSH Cindy Costello, NYSH Michael Stephens, Team Member, FL
' Jacqueline Cook, Team Member, RIV Allen Grewe, Team Member, TN i .
- 1. Convention. Malcolm Knapp, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB),
convened the meeting at approximately 1:00 p.m.- Introductions of the attendees were
- conducted.
2.- New Business. New York Review introduction. Mr. Dennis Sollenberger, OSP, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the New York review.
Mr. Sollenberger discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of New York's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted on January 26-30,1998 for New York City Department of Health (NYCH);
February 23-27,1998 for New York State Department of Labor (NYDL); March 30-April 3,1998 for New York State Department of Health (NYSH); and April 20 23,1998 for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). Each onsite review included an entrance interview, detailed audits of a representative sample of completed licensing actions and inspections, and follow-up discussions with staff and management.' An exit meeting was held with all four agencies as well as New York
~
Energy Research and Development staff on May 12,1998. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on June 24,1998. Comment letters were sent by Neal L.
Cohen, M.D., Commissioner, NYCH, in a letter dated July 15,1998; Rita Aldrich, Principal Radiophysicist, NYDL, in a letter dated July 27,1998; Karim Rimawi, Director, Bureau of Environmental Radiation Prc sction, NYSH, in a letter dated July 20,1998; and Paul J. Merges, Ph.D., Director, Bureau of Pesticides and Radiation, Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials, NYDEC, in a letter dated July 24,1998; The review
[ team submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on August 7,1998.
2
_ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ... _. - ... ___ ~_
i '.
- i 1 .
f
- Mr. Sollenberger stated that the reviews of NYCH, NYSH, and NYDEC would be discussed in this meeting. The MRB meeting on the review of the NYDL program will
! take place on September 1,1998. During that meeting, a final rating on adequacy and compatibility for the New York program will be decided upon by the MRB.
Common Performance Indicators. Status of the Materials inspection Program.
Mr. White presented the findings for the common performance indicator, Status of the l Materials inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Sections 3.1.1,3.1.3, i and 3.1.4 of the IMPEP report.
1 NYCH. Mr. Cameron reviewed this indicator during the NYCH review. The review team i j found NYCH's performance with respect to this indicator " unsatisfactory," and made two j recommendations as documented in the report. Mr. White stated that the February 17,
- j. 1998 letter from NYCH detailed that they had taken steps to correct a computerized system to more effectively track inspections. NYCH commented that they were aware j of the problem and were working on it at the time of the review. Due to NYCH's l progress with this indicator since the time of the review, the MRB stated that NYCH's l
- pedormance met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations for !
! Improvement" rating for this indicator, and directed the team to edit the report to reflect this change.
! NYSH. Mr. White reviewed this indicator during the NYSH review. The review team found NYSH's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory with j recommendations for improvement," and made one recommendation, involving initial
. inspections, as documented in the report. NYSH stated that is their policy to complete all initial inspections within six months and that they are working to better track initial
.j Inspections. The MRB complimented NYSH on their timeliness in dispatching inspection findings. The MRB agreed that NYSH's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.
NYDEC. Mr. Grewe reviewed th!a indicator during the NYDEC review. The review team found NYDEC's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that NYDEC's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Technical Quality of Inspections. Mr. White presented the findings for the performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections. He summarized the findings detailed in the Section 3.2.1,3.2.3, and 3.2.4 of the report.
NYCH. Mr. Cameron reviewed this indicator during the NYCH review. The review team found NYCH's performance to be " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" :
for this indicator, and made two recommendations and one suggestion as documented in the report. The MRB, NYCH, and team discussed the recommendation involving documenting violations in inspection field notes. After a brief discussion about performance based review training, the MRB agreed that NYCH's performance met the ,
standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.
?
NYSH Mr. Cox reviewed this indicator during the NYSH review. The review team found NYSH's performance to be " satisfactory" for ti..a indicator, and made three suggestions as documented in the report. The MRB agreed that NYSH's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
NYDEC. Mr. Grewe reviewed this indicator during the NYDEC review. The review team found NYDEC's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that NYDEC's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Technical Staffing and Training. Mr. Sollenberger presented the findings for the ;
coromon performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. He summarized the fin::ings detailed in Sections 3.3.1,3.3.3, and 3.3.4 of the IMPEP report. Mr. Sollenberger reviewed this indicator for each New York agency. i NYCH. The rev!ew team found NYCH's performance to be " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" for this indicator, and made two recommendations and one suggestion, as documented in the report. Mr. Miskin announced that as of August 10,1998, he assumed the NYCH Bureau Director position. The MRB and the l State discussed the status of two open positions in the Department. Mr. Sollenberger l commented that the finding was due more to the lack of a training program than the j vacancy of the Bureau Director position. The MRB directed the team to delete the l suggestion involving the vacant Bureau Director position. While discussing NYDEC's l performance in this indicator, the MRB noted that both NYCH and NYDEC received the I same recommendation, yet the two programs received different ratings. The MRB questioned the team as to this apparent inconsistency. Mr. Sollenberger stated that there were differences in performance and implementation between the two programs, and that the team believed the findings were appropriate. The MRB stated that the report as written did not properly support the differences between the two programs with respect to this topic, and directed the team to reassess the finding for NYCH. The MRB decided to evaluate the finding for this indicator at the September 1,1998 MRB.
NYSH. The review team found NYSH's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and identified one good practice involving monthly teleconferences. After a brief discussion involving NRC training courses and in-house training, the MRB agreed to identify NYSH's use of teleconferences to keep their staff current on health physics j and program issues as a good practice. The MRB agreed that NYSH's performance i met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
NYDEC. The review team found NYDEC's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made one recommendation, as documented in the report. The MRB and NYDEC discussed the differences between Agreement State and NRC training programs. Following this discussion, the MRB agreed that NYDEC's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. Mr. White presented the findings for the common performance indicator, Tect.nical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3.4.1,3.4.3, and 3.4.4 of the report, where the review team found
. 3-
-a,e- -- -> -- s- w+ -- - - --- '*--w s,- e --
l*
l New York's licensing actions to be thorough, complete, and of acceptable quality with l health and safety issues properly addressed.
NYCH. Mr. Stephens reviewed this indicator during the NYCH review. The IMPEP
. team found NYCH's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made two i
suggestions as documented in the report. The NYCH responded to both suggestions in their February 17,1998 letter. The MRB agreed that NYCH's performance met the i
standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
NYSH. Ms. Cook reviewed this indicator during the NYSH review. The IMPEP team found NYSH's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made no I
recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that NYSH's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
NYDEC. Mr. White reviewed this indicator during the NYDEC review. The IMPEP team found NYDEC's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made no recommendations or suggestions. Mr. Merges noted the good coordination between l NYDL, NYDEC, and NRC regarding the CintiChem decommissioning and license termination. The MRB agreed that NYDEC's performance met the standard for a
, " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Response to incidents and Allegations. Mr. White presented the findings for the common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations. He summarized the findings in section 3.5.1,3.5.3, and 3.5.4 of the report. Mr. White noted that each New York agency received a recommendation to notify the NRC Operations Center within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for all significant events and provide complete follow-t" .
documentation to NMED on all reportable events.
NYCH. Mr. White reviewed this indicator during the NYCH review where the review team found NYCH's actions met the performance criteria for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator and made one recommendt.iion and two suggestions. The MRB and NYCH discussed allegations that are re: erred to the State by NRC. The NYCH I
commented that they contact the NRC about appropriate incidents within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, but the contact is usually not to the NRC Operations Center. The MRB directed the team to clarify the report to state that the recommendation (s) relates to the State's lack of reporting to the NRC Operations Center. The MRB agreed that NYCH's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
NYSH. Mr. White reviewed this indicator during the NYSH review where the review team found NYCH's actions met the performance criteria for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator and made one recommendation. The NYSH stated that NMED reporting is a separate issue from incident and allegation performance, that NYSH follows the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notification rule unless reporting interferes with their investigation, and that New York has certain confidentiality laws involving misadministrations. The MRB and the
! State discussed the speed with which incident information is released once reported to
- brief d:scussion on 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notification, the MRB agreed that NYSH's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
i
t NYDEC. Mr. White reviewed this indicator during the NYDEC review whert. . review team found NYDEC's actions met the performance criteria for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator and made two recommendations and one suggestion. The MRB, the review team, and NYDEC discussed coordinction between the various New York agencies when responding to an incident. The MRB agreed that NYDEC's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
i l Non-Common Performance Indicators. Legislation and Program Elements l Required for Compatibility. Mr. Sollenberger presented the findings for the non-i_ common performance indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility. He summarized the findings detailed in Sections 4.1.1,4.1.3, and 4.1.4 of the report. Mr. Sollenberger reviewed this indicator for each of the New York agencies.
l NYCH. The review team found NYCH's performance with respect to this indicator to be
" satisfactory," and made one recommendation. After a brief discussion with NYCH on regulation adoption, the MRB agreed that NYCH's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
NYSH. The review team found NYSH's performance with respect to this indicator to be
" satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. After a brief discussion l with NYSH on a possible discrepancy in the report dealing with regulation amendment, the MRB directed the team to resolve this issue, and agreed that NYSH's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
l NYDEC. The review team found NYDEC's performance v.ith respect to this Indicator to be " satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that
- NYDEC's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program. Mr. Sollenberger reviewed this indicator during the NYDEC review and led the discussion for this indicator. The review team found NYDEC's performance with respect to this indicator to be " satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. Mr. Sollenberger gave a brief description of how the New York LLRW program is handled. NYDEC commented on what responsibilities the agency has. After a brief discussion about the status of the New York LLRW program, the MRB agreed that NYDEC's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Sollenberger stated that the team's initial recommendation to the MRB was that the New York program be found
" adequate, but needs improvement and compatible." With the revision to the finding for NYCH for the common performance indicator, Status of Materials inspection Program, l the MRB_ directed that the preliminary rating for the New York program be revised to be adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible. The MRB approved of a
! follow-up review of the NYCH program in one year. The MRB will make the final decision on these issues at the September 1,1998 MRB. Mr. Sollenberger thanked the New York agencies and the IMPEP team members for their effort in the review.
i
[
t
._. _ .._ _ ~ _ . - _ . - _ , . . ._- _ - - _ _ - - _ . --
a.
l' Comments from State of New York. Mr. Miskin stated that the NYCH IMPEP was a positive experience that NYCH is dedicated to making program improvements.
Mr. Gavitt thanked the IMPEP team for their professionalism and courtesy, and stressed the importance of conducting performance based reviews. Mr. Merges also thanked the IMPEP team, and stated that the IMPEP process is beneficial.
- 4. Status of Upcoming Reviews. Mrs. Schneider gave a quick description of upcoming reviews.
- 5. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:35 p.m.
6-