ML20154E308
| ML20154E308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/28/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Pearson D TEXAS, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9810080140 | |
| Download: ML20154E308 (5) | |
Text
- -. _ _ _.
l SEP 2 81998 Mr. Dan Pearson, Executive Director
~ Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for your comments on the draft revision to Management Directive and Handbook 5.6, l
Part IV of the Integrated Materials Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated June 19,1998.
We have considered your recommendation that Organization of Agreement States members have voting privileges on the Management Review Board (MRB). It has for some time been NRC's approach to interactions with Agreement States that it is not appropriate to extend a decision making role to Agreement States with respect to matters that concern NRC's evaluation of the l
adequacy and compatibility of an Agreement State's program (see, e.g., SECY 94-264). That i
activity involves a statutorily-based decision making function that is most appropriately discharged by the NRC itself. On most other issues involving Agreement State interaction, however, NRC now strives to achieve early and substantive Agreement State input and participation in NRC decision making, where appropriate.
To ensure that an MRB had access to the Agreement State perspective on IMPEP reviews, an Agreement State Liaison position to the MRB was approved by the Commission in 1995. Although the Agreement State liaison is not a formal member of the MRB and does not vote on matters before the MRB, the Liaison participates in discussions of the program under review, including questioning the review team and offering opinions on matters under consideration by the MRB.
- In response to your second and third comments, similar concerns were raised in the October 1997 All Agreement States Meeting. In All Agreement States Letter SP-98-026, we committed to revising the procedure for MRB meetings to clarify the process and actions of the MRB, including the executive sessions. The revision of the Office of State Programs MRB procedure was transmitted in All Agreement States Letter, SP 98-073 for comment. We are presently finalizing this procedure.
If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact Kathleen Schneider at 301-415-2320.
Sincerely, W
C 3 7-arbang rt
- s4 rector ce of mak Rograms
'O [k 3
Distribution:
\\
DIR RF (8S193)
, DCD (SP08)'
SDroggitis (PDR (YES.f._ NO
)
l Texas File l
L DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KXS\\TEXPEAR.KNS
- See previous concurrence.
(
. Tre receive a coat of this docuenent, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" - Copy we attachment /enclosufe 'N' = No copy OFFICE OSP l
OSP:DD l
OGC l
OSP:D/in /
l NAME KSchneider:kk PHLohaus FCameron RLBangart"lo DAT,E 07/21/98*
07/21/98*
09/22/98*
0908/98 98'10080140 98o928
~
. = -
>M4 y
\\
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. anans anni September 28, 1998 Mr. Dan Pearson, Executive Director Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for your comments on the draft revision to Management Directive and Handbook 5.6, Part IV of the Integrated Materials Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated June 19,1998.
We have considered your recommendation that Organization of Agreement States members have voting privileges on the Management Review Board (MRB). It has for some time been NRC's approach to interactions with Agreement States that it is not appropriate to extend a decision making role to Agreement States with respect to matters that concern NRC's evaluation of the l
adequacy and compatibility of an Agreement State's program (see, e.g., SECY 94-264). That activity involves a statutorily based decision making function that is most appropriately discharged by the NRC itself. On most other issues involving Agreement State interaction, however, NRC now strives to achieve early and substantive Agreement State input and participation in NRC decision making, where appropriate.
To ensure that an MRB had access to the Agreement State perspective on IMPEP reviews, an Agreement State Liaison position to the MRB was approved by the Commission in 1995. Although the Agreement State liaison is not a formal member of the MRB and does not vote on matters before the MRB, the Liaison participates in discussions of the program under review, including questioning the review team and offering opinions on matters under consideration by the MRB.
I In response to your second and third comments, similar concerns were raised in the October 1997 All Agreement States Meeting. In All Agreement States Letter SP-98-026, we committed to revising the procedure for MRB meetings to clarify the process and actions of the MRB, including the executive sessions. The revision of the Office of State Programs MRB procedure was transmitted in All Agreement States Letter, SP 98-073 for comment. We are presently finalizing this procedure.
If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact Kathleen Schneider at 301-415-2320.
Sincerely, k
lC lti (
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs l
Mr. Dan Pearson, Executive Director Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for your comments on the draft revision to Man ement Directive and Handbook 5.6, Part IV of the Integrated Materials Evaluation Program (IM EP), dated June 19,1998.
We have considered your recommendation that Organiza on of Agreement States members has voting privileges on the Management Review Board (MGB). It has for some time been NRC's approach to interactions with Agreement States that it p not appropriate to extend a decision making role to Agreement States with respect to mattep that concern NRC's evaluation of the adequacy and compatibility of an Agreement State's program (see, e.g., SECY 94-264). That activity involves a statutorily-based decision making funclion that is most appropriately discharged by the NRC itself. On most other issues involving Agreerpent State interaction, however, NRC now strives to achieve early and substantive Agreement State input and participation in NRC decision making, where appropriate.
To ensure that an MRB had access to the Agreement State perspective on IMPEP reviews, an Agreement State Liaison position to the MRB was approved by the Commission in 1995. Although the Agreement State liaison is not a formal membef of the MRB and does not vote on matters before the MRB, the Liaison participates in discussjons of the program under review, including questioning the review team and offering opinions on matters under consideration by the MRB.
I in response to comments two and three, similar concerns were raised in the October 1997 All Agreement States Meeting. In All Agreement Statfs Letter SP-98-026, we committed to revising the procedure for MRB meetings to clarify the process and actions of the MRB, including the executive sessions. The revision of the Office of State Programs MRB procedure was transmitted in All Agreement States Letter, SP 98-073 for comr'nent. We are presently finalizing this procedure.
If you have any additional questions or comme s, please contact Kathleen Schneider at 301-415-2320.
Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs Distributier}:
DIR RF (8S193)
DCD (SP08)
SDroggitis PDR (YES_f_ NO
)
Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KXS\\TEXPEAR.KNS
- See previous concurrence.
Ts receive a copy of thle document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy wtth attachment / enclosure
'N' = No copy OFFICE OSP OSP:DD OGC OSP:D l
NAME KSchneider:kk PHLohaus
/
FCameron M%$ RLBangart DATE 07/21/98*
07/21/98*/
09/2V98 09/ /98
/
OLD gw eM
/
Mr. Dan Pearson, Executive Dircctor Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087
/
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for your comments on the draft revision to Management Directiy and Handbook 5.6, Part IV of the Integrated Materials Evaluation Program (IMPEP) dat June 19,1998.
With regard to your recommendation that Organization of Agreeme,n States members have voting privileges on the Management Review Board (MRB), this i sue was addressed in the 9
1995 Commission paper (SECY 95-047) on implementation of MPEP after the pilot program.
The Federal Advison/ Committee Act (FACA) imposes constra)ints on the use of A State personnel in NRC activities. These constraints werefiscussed in SECY-94-264, the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Agreement State Pa'rticipation in NRC Activities (see All Agreement States Letter SP-94-73). Full membership,a,nd voting privileges by an Agreement State representative would require compliance with FACA requirements and would not fall within the " operational committee" exemption identiffed in SECY-94-264. To ensure that the MRB had access to the Agreement State perspective on IMPEP reviews, an Agreement State Liaison position to the MRB was approved by th'e Commission in 1995. Although the Agreement State Liaison is not a member optfie MRB and does not vote on matters before the MRB, the Liaison participates fully in the discussions of the program under review, including questioning the review team and offering' opinions on matters under consideration by the MRB.
in response to comments 2 and 3, sim/
ilar concerns were raised in the October 1997 All Agreement States Meeting. In Al[ Agreement States Letter SP-98-026, we committed to revising the procedure for MRB including the executive sessions, meetings to clarify the process and actions of the MR
. We will consider your comments in our revision.
if you have any additional q/
/ uestions or comments, please contact Kathleen Schneider at 301-415-2320.
/
,/
Sincerely, Richard L. Bangart, Director
/
Office of State Programs
/
/
/
Distribution:
.DIR RF (8S193)
DCD (SP08)
' SDroggitis PDR (YF9f_ NO
)
Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\lMPEP\\8S193.WPD
/
Te receive a copy of this document. indicate in the bor: 'C' gop[wtthqut attachment / enclosure *E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N"- No copy OFFICE OSP /'6 C/l O ( PJ @,/ l OSP.D l
l l
NAME KSchneider:nb PHLo%uP RLBangart l
DATE 07/] /98 07/d198 07/ /98 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27
=.
g.
- 7..
EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>
i l l l
TASK # - 8S193
- ;,-- - DATE - 07/01/98 MAIL CTRL. - 1998 TASK STARTED - 07/01/98 TASK DUE - 07/15/98 TASK COMPLETED -
/
/
~~~~ -~~~~~~
~~~~~ --
~~~~~ -~~~~~~~
TASK DESCRIPTION - 6/19/98 RESPONSE TO SP-98-005 COMMENTS ON DRAFT REV. TO
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PART IV OF IMPEP MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE AND HANDBOOK REQUESTING OFF. - TNRCC REQUESTER - D.
PEARSON WITS -
0 FYP - N
~~~~~~~-~~-----
~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~
~~~
PROG.- LJR PERSON -
STAFF LEAD - W PROG. AREA -
-~~~
-~~~
~~~~~~
. -~~~~~~~
PROJECT STATUS -
PLANNED ACC.
-N LEVEL CODE -
1 I
l l
l
- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - -
l:,...
DU O
$$?hh g.
g Barry R.McBee,Chsirman A
66 0 R. B. " Ralph" Marques, Commissioner h
/Y j
(-
John M. Baker, Commissioner
(
Q
~
Dan Pearsors ExecutiveDirector W
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION E
\\
N
.a Protecting Texas by Reducing andPreventing P6flution D
'J)*
2',;
' June 19,1998 m
w Mr. Richard L. Bangart, Director l
Office of State Programs L
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
l Washington, DC 20555-0001 l~
l
Dear Mr. Bangart:
j l
This is in response to your letter (SP-98-005), dated January 26,1998, requesting Agreement State comments on a draft revision to Part IV of the Integrated Materials Evaluation Program i
(IMPEP) Management Dire'ctive and Handbook 5.6,'which incorporates the guidance in decision making for the Management Review Board (MRB).
)
l As you knowithe State of Texas radiation control program review was conducted by Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission (NRC) IMPEP teams in June 1997. The final IMPEP report covering the review has recently been issued by the NRC, with a cover letter dated January 26,1998, from Mr. Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs. During the 1997 program review the staff of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) had occasion to get familiar with the MRB decision making process.
' We have the following comments on the draft revisions to the guidance submitted with SP 005. Our comments ensue from our participation in the MRB decision making process as part of Texas program review. We sincerely hope that you will consider these in making revisions to l.
the guidance.
L-1.
Constitution of the MRB: While we like the inclusion of a member of the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) on the MRB to represent the Agreement State viewpoints, we strongly recommend that the OAS member should have voting privileges. Having a State voting member does not undermine the decision making ability of the MRB. On the other hand, it provides an opportunity to document the State's perspective in any final decision making and assures that the comments offered by the State's representative have been appropriately considered.
2.
Guidance for conducting MRB executive session meetings and decision making: We
[
recommend inclusion of specific guidance regarding decision making by the MRB in an executive session and its documentation. We think that an open decision making process o
is important and in accord with standard NRC policy. Alternatively, if such guidance cannot be provided, we strongly recommend avoidance of executive sessions altogether.
6P-A-4 L
P.O. Box 13087
- 512/239-1000
- Internet address: www.tnrec. state.tx.us amnmwm y
,n
o..
- l l'.(
i Mr. Richard L. Bangart, Director Page 2 June 19,1998 l
3.
Honoring of statements of acquiescence made by MRB members in the open forum: The l
guidance should include a specific protocol for considering and honoring statements of acquiescence made by MRB members in the open forum.
For example, during I
consideration of the Texas IMPEP review, one MRB member conceded that creating a i
computerized training database for less than 50 staff members was not necessary. But the recommendation in the final MRB report reiterated the earlier standard requirement that the TNRCC must computerize training records of the meager 13 members of its radiation control program staff, if a specific vote of MRB members is required, the guidance should state so and the MRB chairman should assure that each decision item is called for a vote.
l We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft document. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Alice Rogers at (512) 239-6846, or contact her by e-mail:
l arogers@tnrce. state.tx.us.
Correspondence can be mailed to the letterhead address, and include mail code, MC131.
l Si cerely, I
n Pearsd, Ex
' 74irector DP/CDR/jb cc:
Mr. Richard A. Ratliff, Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control Ms. Alice Hamilton Rogers, TNRCC, URW IAURW\\CRAo\\CoMENT51.AGR j
1