ML20197C757
| ML20197C757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/19/1998 |
| From: | Lance Rakovan NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Bangart R, Cool D, Miller 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 9809140190 | |
| Download: ML20197C757 (5) | |
Text
.-
~..
AljG 1919S8 MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
Hubert J. Miller, DEDR Richard L. Bangart, OSP Don A. Cool, NMSS Karen D. Cyr, OGC Richard J. Barrett, AEOD FROM:
Lance J. Rakovan, Health Physicist Original Signed By:
Office of State Programs Lance J. Rakovan
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: ARKANSAS JUNE 16,1998 MRB MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on June 16,1998, if you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2589.
Attachment:
As stated i
cc:
David Snellings, AR
]
Richard Ratliff, TX l
Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP01)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
KSchneider HThompson, EDO D(ave) Collins, Ril GDeegan, NMSS
/l MDibblee, OR TO'Brien FCameron, OGC TMartin, AEOD MKnapp, NMSS JHornor, RIV/WC
/
HNewsome, OGC FCombs, NMSS LMcLean, RIV Arkansas File DCool, NMSS CHackney, RIV DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\lMPEP\\AR.KMRB98. MIN T' receive a cop r of this documeM, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure *E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N" = No copy OF' ICE OSP fl l
l l
NA AE LRakovan:nb 7 P - (E 08/49 /98 OSP FILE CODE SP-AG-3 C 3 0 ".. :
T~
1innzo m%D soe :l -
eY "4UuJ A P d" w,~~--
9809140190 980819 PDR STPRG ESGAK PDR y
gsWt%
y 4.
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4001 o%, %o/
August 19, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Coard Members:
Hubert J. Miller, DEDR Richard L. Bangart, OSP Don A. Cool, NMSS Karen D. Cyr, OGC Richard J. Barrett, AEOD FROM:
Lance J. Rakovan, Health Physicistp' Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: ARKANSAS JUNE 16,1998 MRB MEETING Attached for are the final rninutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on June 16,1998. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2589.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
David Snellings, AR Richard Ratliff, TX
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 16.1998 I
3 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as following:
Hubert Miller, MRB Chair, Acting DEDR Richard Bangart, MRB Member, OSP Richard Barrett, MRB Member, AEOD Donald Cool, MRB Member, NMSS j
Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Lloyd Bolling, Team Lea' der, OSP j.
Thomas O'Brien, Team Member, OSP David Collins, Team Member, RIV Martha Dibblee, Team Member, OR Frederick Combs, NMSS i
David Snellings, AR By telephone:
Richard Ratliff, Agreement State Liaison, TX Bernard Bevill, AR 1.
Convention. Hubert Miller, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 10:30 a.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
2.
New Business. Arkansas Review introduction. Mr. Lloyd Bolling, OSP, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Arkansas review.
Mr. Bolling discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of Arkansas' response to the iMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted on March 23-27,1998. 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. The onsite portion of the review concluded with exit briefings with Arkansas management. The preliminary findings were also discussed with the Director of the Arkansas Department of Health, Dr. Sandra Nichols, and the Director of the Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Mr. Jerry Hill, on March 27,1998. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on May 1,1998; received Arkansas' comment letter dated May 26,1998; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on June 9,1998.
Common Performance indicators. Mr. Collins discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Status of the Materials Inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP report. The review team found Arkansas' performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory." Recommendations to continue the development of a civil penalty procedure and to incree.se reciprocity inspections were made by the team. Lengthy discussions were held on the development of j
Arkansas' escalated enforcement procedure with emphasis on the need for a section on l
civil penalties. After a brief discussion involving reciprocity, the MRB agreed that Arkansas' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Collins presented the findings for the performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections. He summarized the findings detailed in the Section 3.2 of the report. The
. review team found Arkansas' performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and i
made one recommendation, that the State review and update their compliance program guidance. Ms. Dibblee reviewed the State's Radiochemistry Laboratory portion of this j
l
indicator. She stated that the laboratory is well equipped, participates in a National 4
Quality Assurance Protocol, and is able to provide timely results on samples submitted for analysis. The MRB agreed that Arkansas' performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Bolling discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. He summarized the findings detailed in Section 3.3 of the IMPEP report. The review team found Arkansas' performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator. The State and the MRB discussed the importance of training and chronic staff tumover, especially as it relates to small programs. The State indicated that the retention of staff is linked to training, and allows staff to progress through the program's job categories and higher pay grades. The State also indicated that since the review, the Division has been reorganized and placed all materials activities in one branch.
Previously x-ray and materials licensing were in one branch, and x ray and materials inspections were in another branch. Increased program efficiency and continuity are expected based on the reorganization. The MRB asked about the State's licensing j
backlog. The State responded that the backlog is a long-standing problem, however, 1
they believe that adequate staff exists to reduce the backlog. The State inquired whether technical assistance in the licensing area was available from NRC due to two impending Mega-curie irradiator applications. The NRC staff noted that technical assistance, with NRC conducting the primary review, would be performed only on a reimbursable basis assuming that NRC had staff available to participate. The State indicated that it could not pay for the assistance. The Agreement State liaison to the MRB stated that the Texas radiation control program staff may be able to assist Arkansas on the irradiator applications. The MRB agreed that Arkansas' performance f
met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Ms. Dibblee discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. She summarized the findings in Section 3.4 of the report, whero the review team found Arkansas' licensing actions to be thorough, complete, and i'
of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. The IMPEP team found Arkansas to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made one 4
i recommendation as documented in the report. The MRB and the State discussed resources and staffing for the overall program, and specifically on the backlog of
. licensing casework. The State indicated that adequate resources and staffing were available. The MRB agreed that Arkansas' performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. O'Brien discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations. He summarized the findings in Section 3.5 of the report where the review team found Arkansas' actions met the performance criteria for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator, and made two recommendations. The MRB questioned the requirement to submit monthly reports to the NRC even though no events occur. After discussion, the MRB directed that the NRC delete this guidance from the National Materials Events Database (NMED) Handbook. The MRB also questioned the State as to specific problems involving the NMED system. The State commented that there are software compatibility problems. The MRB directed that NRC resolve the software compatibility issue surrounding the ute of NMED. The MRB 2
agreed that Arkansas' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this 3'
indicator.
Non-Common Performance indicators. Mr. Bolling presented the findings icr tha non-common performance indicator, Ler.islation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility. He summarized the find'ngs detailed in Section 4.1 of the report where the review tearn found Arkansas' performance to be " satisfactory." At the time of the review, the State had adopted all regulations required for compatibility. The review team did identify a number of regulations which will need to be promulgated in the near future.
The State indicated that they have a plan to adopt and implement the identified regulations by early 1999. The MRB agreed that Arkansas' performance met the p
standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. O'Brien discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Sealed l
Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program. He summarized the findings in Section 4.2 of the report where the review team found Arkansas' performance to be " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" and made two recommendations and one suggestion. The MRB questioned the review team on the basis for the rating. The team advised the MRB that the guidance in Part lli of Management Directive 5.6 was applied I
in the determination. The MRB discussed the guidance requirement for the State to i
perform root cause analysis, and directed that NRC revise the guidance to reflect that i
the burden of root cause analysis should lie with the manufacturer or licensee, i
Mr. Snellings indicated that Governor Huckabee would soon be signing a letter requesting that NRC reassert regulatory authority for evaluation of SS&Ds. The MRB directed the team not to rate the SS&D indicator if Arkansas requested NRC to reassert regulatory authority.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Bolling concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Arkansas' program was rated
" satisfactory" on the five common performance indicators and applicable non-common I
performance indicator. The MRB found the Arkansas program to be adequate to protect j
public health and safety and compatible. The IMPEP team recommended and the MRB l
agreed that the next IMPEP review for Arkansas be conducted in four years, i
Comments from State of Arkansas. Mr. Snellings stated that he was speaking for his staff and management in supporting the IMPEP process and thanked the team for the professional manner in which the review was conducted. He indicated that ut;lizing Agreement State personnel on the IMPEP teams and as advisors to the MRB was a benefit to the process, in closing, Mr. Snellings cautioned that any changes in the findings expressed at the time of the onsite exit meeting are difficult to explain to high-I level state management and, thus, should be made with great care. As a minimum, he indicated that the preliminary nature of the team's finding should be emphasized.
3.
Old Business. Due to the length of the MRB meeting, no further business was discussed.
j 4.
Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:35 p.m.
1 i
i,
4 4
.m