ML20155G912
| ML20155G912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/1998 |
| 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 9811090252 | |
| Download: ML20155G912 (6) | |
Text
.
OCT 2 21998 MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
Hugh L. Thompson, EDO Richard L. Bangart, OSP Carl J. Paperiello, NMSS Karen D. Cyr, OGC Thomas T. Martin, AEOD g
g FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior PrbjeNa$Yer Office of State Programs i
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: KANSAS SEPTEMBER 9,1998 MRB MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on September 9,1998, if you have any questions, please contact Kathleen Schneider at 415-2320.
Attachment:
l As stated i
cc:
Gary Mitchell, KS Ron Hammerschmidt, KS Vick Cooper, KS Robert Quillin, CO
)
\\
\\
Distribution:
l DIR RF LBolling/ ASP 0 DCD (SP01)
SDroggitis GDeegan, NMSS PDR (YES/)
LR;kovan 7,r,, JCameron, 0GC Jllci,- r, TilWWGFO-U u
'JiRewsome, 0GC c
4 )g
- JThompson, AR ca LMcLean, RIV LHowell, RIV
~
JJoh:nsen, NMSS
~ _
~
. Kansas File
' DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\lMPEP\\KSMRBMIN.FNL To receive a copy of thle document, Indicate in the box: "C* = Copy without attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N* = No copy l OFFICE OSP(A) l l
lNAME KSchneider:gd
'lDATE 10/. A /98 9011090252 981022 OSP FILE COO!L fiP-AG-10 PDR STPRQ ESOKS
a e
encaro j
y
'a UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30eeH001
^
October 22, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
Hugh L. Thompson, EDO Richard L. Bangart, OSP Carl J. Paperiello, NMSS Karen D. Cyr, OGC Thomas T. Martin, AEOD
- 5dn FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Proje t Manager Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
FINAL M!NUTES: KANSAS SEPTEMBER 9,1998 MRB MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on September 9,1998. If you have any questions, please contact Kathleen Schneider at 415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Gary Mitchell, KS Ron Hammerschmidt, KS Vick Cooper, KS Robert Quillin, CO t
4
_ _.. _ _ _._.. _. _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9.1998 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:
Hugh Thompson, MRB Chair, DEDR Richard Bangart, MRB Member, OSP Thomas Martin, MRB Member AEOD Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Carl Paperiello, MRB Member, NMSS Ron Hammerschmidt, KS Vick Cooper, KS Jack Homor, Team Leader, RIV/WCFO Jenny Johansen, Team Member, NMSS Jared Thompson, Team Member, AR Lance Rakevan, Team Member, OSP Linda McLean, RIV Linda Howell, RIV Paul Lohaus, OSP Fred Combs, NMSS Tom O'Brien, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP John Thoma, EDO l
By telephone:
Robert Quillin, OAS Liaison to the MRB, CO Gary Mitchell, KS Tomas Conley, KS Pam Watson, KS 1.
Convention. Hugh Thompson, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB),
convened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
2.
New Business. Kansas Review introduction. Jack Hornor, RIV/WCFO, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Kansas review.
Mr. Hornor discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of Kansas' response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted June 15-19,1998. The 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. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on July 22,1998; received Kansas' comment letter dated August 20,1998; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on j
. August 28,1998.
Common Performance Indicators. Ms. Johansen 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 Kansas' performance with respect to this indicator " unsatisfactory," and made three recommendations as documented in the report. Ms. Johansen stated that the team's recommendation for an " unsatisfactory" rating for this Indicator was due to the number of overdue inspections completed over the review period. The State is currently up to date on all inspections. The State commented that the new database tracking system should be fully operational by 10/1/98, and that increased management oversight will prevent another inspection backlog problem from forming. After a brief discussion on inspection priorities, the MRB found Kansas' performance met the standard for a 4
- m. _ ___
i
" satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator. The MRB also directed that existing guidance for reviewing the Status of Materials inspection l
Program common performance indicator be evaluated and revised, as necessary. The j
final report should note the State's identification of overdue inspections prior to the IMPEP review and Kansas' actions taken to eliminate the inspection backlog.
Ms. Johansen discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Technical i
Quality of Inspections, which are summarized in Section 3.2 of the report. The team found that Kansas' performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made three recommendations and one suggestion, as documented in the report. The MRB, the i
State and Ms. Johansen discussed the unusually small number of violations j
documented in Kansas inspection files. Mr. Cooper stated that Kansas has a good j
rapport with their licensees. The MRB and the State discussed the importance of root cause training for inspectors. After a brief discussion on the recommendations in i
Section 3.2 of the report, the MRB directed these recommendations be revised to reflect
[
NRC's policy for inspectors and include mention of the current management oversight of the inspection program. The MRB reached a consensus that Kansas' performance met
~
i the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Rakovan presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Sect,on 3.3 of the IMPEP report. The team found that Kansas' performance with respect to this indicator i
was " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement," and made one recommendation and one suggestion. The MRB, the tcan, and the State discussed the cost of training, the State's fee system, and the cooperation between the EPA and State's laboratory. The MRB and the State discussed the current staffing level of the j
Kansas program. The State commented that they are concerned about long term stability and mentioned a proposal that would bring fees directly into the program. The i
MRB directed that the language of the report be revised to properly reflect the tasks of
{
staff members at the time of the review. The MRB also directed that the report include language stating that Kansas' staffing levels are below those of NRC Regions.
Mr. Rakovan explained the recommendation involving Kansas' training qualification form, and Mr. Cooper and the MRB discussed the State's future training plans. The L
MRB directed that the recommendation In Section 3.3 be revised to mention the l
"NRC/OAS Training Working Group Recommendations for Agreement State Training
?
Programs." The MRB agreed that Kansas' performance met the standard for a j
' satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Jared Thompson presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3.4 of the report. The IMPEP team found Kansas' performance to be ' unsatisfactory' i
for this indicator and made five recommendations. The State and the review team discussed the two cases reviewed by the team that had potential health and safety concems. Mr. Cooper stated that no potential health and safety issues resulted from the licenses, and that all of the documentation missing from the licensing files during the review was found in house. Mr. Homor commented that this documentation was not t
provided to the review team during the review. The MRB and the State discussed the
[
unusually small number of deficiencies in Kansas licenses, and some of the casework l'
2-l t
reviewed by the IMPEP team. The State commented that it is not policy to complete pr6 licensing visits, and the MRB directed that the report be revised to reflect this. The
(
MRB reached consensus that Kansas' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.
The common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, was the final common performance indicator discussed. Mr. Homor led the discussion. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found Kansas' performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement." Four recommendations were made. Mr. Hornor stated that the State has sent in allincident close-out information as requested in the report. The MRB and Mr. Hornor discussed the " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator. The MRB discussed the general hand!ing of allegations with the State. The MRB reached consensus that Kansas' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Non Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Rakovan led tim ciscussan of the non-common performance indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, which is summarized in Section 4.1 of the report. The team found Kansas' performance relative to this indicator to be ' satisfactory," and made two recommendations. After a brief discussion on the radiographic equipment rule, the MRB agreed that Kansas' performance for this indicator met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating.
Mr. Hornor led the discussion of the non-common performance indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, summarized in Section 4.2 of the report. The State does not have an active SS&D program at this time, and thus the IMPEP team did not review this Indicator.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Hornor summarized that Kansas' program was rated " satisfactory" on the three performance indicators and
" satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" for three performance Indicators.
The MRB found the Kansas program to be adequate, but needs improvement and compatible with the NRC program. The IMPEP team recommended that a follow up review take place approximately one year from this review. MRB directed that the next IMPEP review for Kansas be a follow-up review focusing on the State's licensing actions, and be conducted in one year. The timing of the next full IMPEP report wi!! be decided at that time.
Comments from the State of Kansas. Mr. Cooper requested that the Kansas Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO) and Agreement State Project Officer visit the Kansas program before the next review. Mr. Hammerschmidt thanked the IMPEP team for their efforts. He commented that a Kansas internal review was being scheduled, and requested aid from the Office of State Programs on the scope and focus of that review. Mr. Mitchell thanked the team for identifying areas that need attention.
3-
_==
Comments from IMPEP Team Members. Mr. Jared Thompson stated that participating on an IMPEP team is a difficult and rewarding task. He also commented that IMPEP operates well and is a positive approach. Mr. Homor stated that this review was his 11*, and final acting as a team leader. He stated that States should be made awase of recommendations that appear to be common to many programs.
3.
Status of Remaining Reviews.. Mr. Rakovan briefly reported on the status of tha current and upcoming IMPEP reviews and reports.
S.
Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:05 p.m.