ML20198R459
| ML20198R459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/10/1997 |
| 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 9711130282 | |
| Download: ML20198R459 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ - _ -
l MEMORANDUM TO:
- M:nagement R; view BoM M:mbers:
Hugh Thompson, EDO
- CT 10.n Richard Bangart, OSP
- Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC -
o Frank Congel, AEOD
%gg egea dy:
}
t, ::. se.noldor FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager Office of State Programs l
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: TEXAS SEPTEMBER 22,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on September 22,1997. These minutes are submitted for your approval at the October 23, i
1997 MRB meeting, if you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Richard Ratliff, TX Alice H. Rogers, TX Robert Quillin, CO l
9711130282 971010 PDR STPRO E800EN PDR Distribution:
DIR. RF
'DCD (SP07)
-SDroggitis.
PDR (YES/)-
g
-PLohaus SMoore, NMSS i
RWoodruff, Ril HNewsome, OGC l WOlmsted, OGC h
CGordon, RI MBurgess, NMSS JThoma, EDO JMyers LRakovan RBarrest, AEOD EDrinnon (GA)-
TO'Brien TCombs, CA -
MThaggard, NMSS DCool, NMSS Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:tKXS\\TXMRBDFT. MIN n=*..e
.m. e.e w, men ni.im: c em m.=own.nv.noce. r cor m.nemonv a v % em OFFICE OSPK6 l-l l
[
NAME KNSchneideriib/gd DATE 10/ bl97 -
i j gggr 5 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27 1
u ss ggpgGun.,brV E R PR,R,s.
s
+**too
+
u UNITE 3 STATEC
-}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMWi!SulON g-WASHINGToit, D.c. sose6-cooi 4*****;&
October.10, 1997 9
MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Memters:
Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, MMSS Karen Cyr, OGC g
Frank Congel, AEOD i
FROM.
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project anager Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: TEXAS SEPTEMBER 22,1997 MR9 MEETING Attached are the draft minutes of the Managemunt Review Board (MRB) meeting held on September 22,1997. These minutes are submitted for your approval at the October 23,
'1997 MRB meeting._ If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2320.
Attachment:
. As stated cc:
Richard Ratliff, TX Alice H. Rogers, TX Robert Quillin, CO
l
=p MINUTESi MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22.1997 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items sore discussed in the
. meeting._ The attendees were as follows:
Hugh Thompson, DEDR -
Karen Cyr, OGC Richard Bangart, OSP Richard Barrett, AEOD Carl Paperiello, NMSS
. Alice Rogers, TX.
' Richard Rstliff, TX.
Elizabeth Bourbon, TX Richard Woodruff, Ril-Mark Thaggard,' NMSS Craig Gordon, RI -
Michele Burgess, TX
. Tom O'Brien, TX -
Elizabeth Drinnon, GA John Thoma, EDO Kathleen Schneider, OSP
. Don Cool, NMSS Keith McConnell, NMSS John Greeves, NMSS Margaret Federline, NMSS
= John Hickey, NMSS Robert Nelson, NMSS --
Cardelia Maupin, OSP Stephen Salomon, OSP Thomas Combs, OCA
' Members of the public:
Peter Wiley,' State of Maine Laura Scheele, Afton Associates
- By phone:
Robe,t Quillin, CO Ruth McBumey, TDH Wes Dunn, TDH Arthur Tate, TDH Floyd Hamiter, TDH
. Cindy Cardwell, TDH Russ Meyer, TDH William Silva, TDH Robert Free, TDH -
Gary Smith, TDH -
Steve Etter, TNRCC George FitzGerald, TNRCC Will McCabe, TNRCC 1.
Convention. Hugh Thompson, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB),
convened the meeting at 2:00 p.m! Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
' 2.
'New Business. Texas Review introduction. Mr. Rchard Woodruff, RSAO Region ll, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the
- Texas review.
' Mr. Woodruff discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a p
_ review of Texas' response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite reviews were conducted June 16-20,1997 for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
- (TNRCC) and June 23-27,1997 for the Texas Department of Health (TDH). The onsite review included an entmnce interview with each agency, detailed audits of a repres+ntative sample of completed licensing actions and inspections, and follow-up idiscwsions with staff and management. The onsite portion of the review concluded I
~
p t
I
[:
- with exit briefings with Texas management. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on July 15,1997; received Texas' comment letters dated August 26,1997 and August 2g,1997; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on September 15,1997.
Non common Performance Indicatora. Based on the extensive comments sont by the State on the non-common performance indicators for Low Level Radioactive Weste
- (LLRW) Disposal Program and Sealed Source and Device (SO&D) Evaluation Program, the review team p esented results for the non-common performance indicators first.
Mr. Thaggard led the discussion or; the non-common indicator, LLRW Disposal Program. The findings for this indicator are summarized in Section 4.3 of the report.
The team found Texas' performance to be ' satisfactory with recommendations for improvement,"_ and made three suggestions and one recommendation, as stated in the.
report.- Mr. Thaggard noted that TNRCC made a number of comments on the term's review of this indicator, but that the review team did not accept a nurr.ber of the TNRCC comments on the draft report Mr. Thaggard discussed with the MRB and TNRCC representatives several of the comments in Attachment B of the TNRCC letter dated August 29,1997 that were not accepted. Ms. Rogers and her staff discussed with the MRB their opposition to the finding of " satisfactory with recommendations for -
Improvement" and the tone of the discussion in Section 4.3. TNRCC stated their belief that the Texas' program was " satisfactory" and that TNRCC had conducted its evaluation in accordance with 10 CFR Part 61. A!! noted that there were soms instances of professional judgment differences about the extent of detail and specificity that should be used in _ independent regulatory, confirmatory reviews of the low-level-waste disposal site applicant's performance assessment. After this discussion with the review team and State, the MRB met for a short period of time in an executive session.
The MRB supported the team's finding that Texas' performance met the standard for
- "satisfa'; tory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator. However, the MF.B directed the review team to revise Section 4.3 to clearly identify that NRC has reviewed the Texas program from the national program perspective and to remove any sugpstions that the low-level waste site in Texas was not suitable based on the -
performance assessment. The MRB noted that NRC realizes that Texas is continuing to work on documentation of their actions and findings and believes that NRC recommendations and suggestions about performance assessment sensitivity analysis a,1d completeness of documentation will further strengthen the basis for the State's Scensing action. The MRB directed the staff to share the revision of Section 4.3 with the State ior comments.-
' Mr. Myers led the discussion of the non-common indicator, Legislation and Regulations, which summarized Section 4.1 of the report. The team found Texas' performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and the team made one recommendation regarding the definitions of transuranic waste and waste containing materials with radioactive half-lives greater than 30 years in State law, as documented in the report.
Ms. Rogers noted that the change to the legislation would be reintroduced in 1999.
Ms. Bourbon stated that Texas can send low-level waste outside of the Stato if there is l
}
4:
I...
en orphan waste created by the definition. The MRB reached a consensus that Texas' performance satisfied the " satisfactory" criteria rating for this indicator.
Mr. Woodruff led the discussion on the non-common indicator, Uranium Recovery Program. The findings for this indicator can be found in Section 4.4 of the report. The.
- team found Texas' performance to be ' satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" and made one recommendation, as stated in the report. Mr. Ratliff noted that the uranium recovery program had been transferred from TNRCC to TDH on July 21,19g7 and that TDH had begun to address the issue of the overdue inspections.
The MRB agreed that Texas' performance satisfied " satisfactory" criteria for this indicator.
Ms. Burgess led the discussion of the non-common ind: ator, Sealed Source and Device h
Evaluation Program. The findings for this indicator are sui,marized in Section 4.2 of the E
report. Tne team found Texas' performance to be ' satisfactory with recommendations for improvement," and made three recommendations and three suggestions, as stated in the report. Ms. Burgess noted that TDH disagreed with the review team's finding of
" satisfactory with recommendations for improvements." Ms. Burgess noted that the team'u finding was based on the technical deficiencies bund in one casework and the
. lack of a concurrence review as defined in the latest version of MD 5.6, which tw not
- yet been published. The team believes that a more effective concurrence review would have identified the deficiencies in the specific case. TDH staff indicated that they h.id addressed the comments identified in the specific case. However the review team noted that the applicant's response was still deficient.' The MRB discussed with the :
review team the draft criteria for the SS&D indicator used by the team. TDH stated that a special NRC review of their SS&D evaluation program was conducted by staff of-NRC's Sealed Source and Device Section in recent years and that their SS&D review
. process was acceptable at that time and had not changed.- Since thc ;eview team used.
the draft guidance, the MRB disagreed wita the review team's finding for this indicator.
Following this discussion, the MRB directed that Texas' performances for this indicator
- are revised to meet the standard for a ' satisfactory" rating. The three recommendations and three suggestions remained unchanged.
' Common Performance Indica 5rs. Due to the time constraints, the MRB asked the review team if there were any issues to be discussed or changes to the report on
- Section 3, Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Woodruff stated that there were no unresolved issues and the review team recommended that all the common performance be found satisfactory. The MRB agreed that Texas' performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for all common performance indicators.
.- 3.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Woodruff concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Texas' program was rated
" satisfactory" on the five common performance indicators and two non-common performance indicators, Legislation and Regulations and Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program. The LLRW non-common performance indicator was found u
'. satisfactory with recommendations for improvement' overall.- The MRB found the Texas program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible. The team recommended and the MRB agreed that the next IMPEP review for Texas be conducted in four years.
- 4.
- Comments from the State of Texas. Ms. Rogers and Mr. Ratliff appreclated the efforts of IMPEP's review team for their work in the review. Ms. Rogers stated that she appreciated the review process. Mr. Ratliff neted that the issues discussed at the MRB are complicated and the time and exchange at the MRB improve the IMPEP process.
l 5.
Old Business. Approval of Region lli MRB Minutes. At the completion of the New
- Business, th;. Region 111 draft MRB minutes were offered for the MRB approval. The l
draft minutes were approved as written.
l 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 5:45 p.m.
I i
) l
)
1