ML20197H669

Approves Draft Minutes of Mgt Review Board Meeting for State of Nevada on 971118

ML20197H669
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/28/1997
From:	Cool D NRC
To:	Lance Rakovan NRC
Shared Package
ML20197H619	List: ML20197H614 ML20197H662 ML20197H669
References
NUDOCS 9712310344
Download: ML20197H669 (1)

Text

.,. _ _ _..

.._m_

_..._.-. -. ~.

-m_m._._._

I 4-I i

=c r

-- Poems. -

' Donald Cool

[

"~

ges-kne; ljr2

antes 11/20/97-11

$7em-subjoet:

. Nevada MRS Minutea I

t

- i. Kathy:-

3 have reviewed the draf t minutes of the Managemer.t Review Board meeting held for the f

State'of Nevada on November 18,,1997.

I have identified no c w ts,-asid therefore j

approve.of these minutes becoming the final minutes of that MRB.

I

' c. Donald A. Cool-i 1-

'oci

. swm -

)

i 4

. I i

i I

4

'i r

r 3

~

i

+

t

' I 4

' i I

l

/

i

.< y.}_

j fi',*

mx

{

,m 971231034497 PM nWR0 m _.

--DR

W

,as

>s s

,s.,

a

,mt,

n n

.~.

+

rn

-a,-

--n-ww-w---

_ _ =..

it

• Paseg 3.

k umiso STATES p.

s NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION 8

'g WASHINGTON, D.C. 3000HW1 December 18, 1997 MEMORANDUM To:

Management Review Board Members:

Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Don Cool, NMSS Francis Cameron, OGC Thomas Martin, AEOD FROM:

Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project anager Office of State Programs

SUBJECT:

FINAL MINUTES: NEVADA NOVEMBER 18,1997 MRB MEEllNG Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meetir.g held on November 18,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415 2320, e-mail

- KXSONRC. GOV, or Lance Rakovan at 415-2589, e-mail LJR2@NRC. GOV.

Attachment:

As stated cc:

Stan Marshall, NV Steve Collins, IL

i f

}

. s MINI)TES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW SOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18.1997 l

i These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:

l Richard Bangert, MRB Member, OSP Thomas Martin, MRB Member, AEOD 2

Don Cool, MRB Member, NMSS FrancP Cameron, MRB Member, OGC f

Stan Marshall, NV Richard Blanton, OSP John Thome, EDO Kathleen Schneider, OSP l

Paul Lohaus, OSp Lance Rekovan, OSP l

Cardelia Maupin, OsP Brenda Unitton, OSP Carolyn Lauron, NMSS l

By telephone:

Jack Homor, RIV/WC Donald Bunn, CA

Steve Collins, Agreement State Liaison, IL I

e 1.

Convention. Sichard Bangart, Acting Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB),

l

- convened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.

2.

' New Business. Nevada Review introduction. Mr. Richard Birntom, Office of State i

Programs, led the Integrated Material 6 Performance Evaluation Fngam (IMDEP) team

{

for the NWada review.

Mr. Blanton discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a j

review of Nevada's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. Inspector accompaniments were conducted the week of August 11 18,1997. The onsite review was conducted i

August 25 29,1997. The onsite review included an entrance interview, detailed audits of a representative sample of completed licensing actions and inspections, and foliow up discussions with staff and management. The onsite portion of the review concluded with exit briefings with Nevada management. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on September 30,1997; received Nevada's comment letter dated October 27,1997; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on November 8,1997. Mr.

l Blanton summarized the findings of the review, and noted that all recommendations from previous reviews had been closed, Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Blanton discussed the findings for the common

'~

pe formance indicator, Status of the Materials inspection Program, on behalf of Mr.

Bunn. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP report. -The review

team found Nevada's performance with respect to this Indicator " satisfactory" and made

+

one recommendation as documented in the report. The MRB discussed with Mr.

Marshall specific details about the general distribution _ of reciprocity inspections, specifically problems associated with conducting inspections in rural areas. The MRB questioned the IMPEP team on the type and priority of inspections reviewed. After this i

- discussion, the MRB agreed that Nevada's performance met the standard for a

' " satisfactory" rating for this indicator, u

I

-t

l j

q Mr. Blanton presented the findmps regarding the common performance indicator, j

i '~

Technical Staffing and Trolning. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of the l

IMPEP report.. Mr. Blanton reported that the IMPEP review team found that Nevada's j

poiformance with respect to the indicator to be "satisfadory,' and made one i

recommendation and one suggestion as documented in the report _ The MRB noted that i

the suggestion involving the NRC-OAS joint working group on training recommer dations was no longer timely. Thus, the MRB directed that the report reflect this discussion and that the suggestion be removed from the report. The MRB discussed with the IMPEP j

team and Mr. Marshall the staffing level of Nevada's program, and the staffing l

requirements demanded by the Beatty site. The MRB questioned Mr. Marshall about l

the growth of the program over the last 25 years. The MRB agreed that Nevada's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator, j

1 Mr. Blanton presented the findings regarding the common performance ind6cator, Technical Quality of Lloonsing Actions, on behalf of Mr. Homor. He summarized the l

findings in Section 3.3 of the report, where the review team found Nevada's licensing l

actions to be generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of eoooptable quality with health and safety issues property addressed. The IMPEP team found Nevada's performance to be "setisfrictory" for this indicator, and made no comments. Mr. Blanton commented that two possible good practices discussed at the exit meeting with the State were not included in the proposed final report. The review team discussed with l

the MRB Nevada's policy of tioing every new or renewed license through license 2

l condition to en attached cover letter which clearly explains the licensee's responsibilities when transmitting l6 censes. The MRB directed the IMPEP team to identify this policy as j

a good practice in the final report. Ader this discussion, the MRB agreed that Nevada's performance met the standard for a "satisfaclory" rating for this indicator.

l t-Mr. Blanton, on behalf of Mr. Bunn, discussed the findings for the common performance j

indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, which are summarized in Section 3.4 of the i

report. The team found that Nevada's performance with respect to this indicator was

" satisfactory," and made one suggestiory The MRB questioned Mr. Marshall and the j

IMPEP team about Nevada's policy of conducting unannounced inspections. The MRB discussed whether the suggestion that the State provide a letter, or a short form similar to the NRC Form 591 indicating that no violations had been found, be elevated to a recommendation. Mr. Marshall described the process for tracking violations in Nevada that ensure no letter communicating inspection findings or licensees' retoonses were lost. After this discussion, Mr. Marshall committed to implement a method to inform l

- licensee 6 of inspections where no violations had been found and the MRB agreed it was not necessary to change this suggestion to a recommendation. After this discussion,

[

the MRB reached consensus that Nevada's performance met the standard fou

" satisfactory" rating for this indicator, j

i 1he common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, was the -

final common performance indicator discussed. Mr. Blanton led the discussion in this area. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found Nevada's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made one recommendation. The MRB questioned Mr. Marshall on Nevada's Nuclear Materials Events Database (NMED) _,

L 1.

m m

m

_.-.l_,_____.-

s.

reporting Mr. Marshall commented that Nevada staff is in the process of training for using the NMED system, a xf that staff has already completed the task described in the -

recommendation. The MRB detected the IMPEP team to note the completion in the final report and that no additional response would be required from the State on this recommendation. The MRB agreed that Nevada's perform &nce met the standard for a

• satisfactory" rating for this ind6cator, i

Non. Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Blanton led the discussion of the non-common performance indicator, Legislation and Regulations, which is summarized in Section 4.1 of the report. The team found Nevada's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory,* and made one recommendation. Mr. Blanton noted that this recommendation was not discussed at the onsite exit meeting with the State, but had contacted Nevada by telephone once the decision was made to include the

.l recommendation in the draft report. Mr. Blanton stated that Nevada has no overdue regulations at this time. The MRB discussed with Mr. Marshall the interpretation of the 3-two decommissioning regulations Nr ada had adopted as license conditions only. The MRB agreed that Nevada's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.

Mr. Blanton, on behalf of Mr. Homor, led the discussion for the non-common performance indicator, Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evalu9 tion Program, which is summarized in Section 4.2 of the report. The team found Nevada's performance

= relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory," and made no comments. The MRB briefly discussed with Mr. Marshall Nevada's provisionary plan for SS&D evaluation. The MRB agreed that Nevada's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.

Mr. Blanton, on behalf of Mr. Homor, led the discussion for the non-common performance indicator, Low Level Radioactive Weste (LLRW) Disposal Program, which is summarized in Section 4.3 of the report. The team found Nevada's performance relative to this indicator to be

• satisfactory,' and made no comments. The MRB discussed the use of contractors and other State staff for expertise outside the Nevada program, and performance assessments by the State. The MRB agreed that Nevada's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.

3.

MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Blanton concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Nevada's program was rated

" satisfactory" on all five of the common performance indicators and each of the applicable rion-common performance indicators. The MRB found the Nevada program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and ccmpatible. The tsam recommended and the MRB agreed that the next IMPEP review be conducted in four years.

4.-

Comments from the State of Nevada. Mr. Marshall had no comments.

. 5.

Old Business. Approval of the New Mexico MRB Minutes. At the completion of the New Business, the revised New Mexico draft MRB minutes were offered for us MRB.

i l.

i approval. The revised draft minutes will be formally sent to the New Mexico MRB members for review and comment.

l The MRB discussed possible revisions to the output measures for the IMPEP program prior to the OSP program review. The MRB supported the use of a timeliness measure i

that wouki establish a goal for 80% of the IMPEP reports to be issued by 104 days after the last day of the on site IMPEP team review.

t 6.

Status of Remaining Reviews. Mrs. Schneider briefly reported on the status of the remaining IMPEP reviews and reports.

7.

Adjournment. The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 3:25 p.m.

i I

4