ML20198S526
| ML20198S526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1997 |
| 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 9711140045 | |
| Download: ML20198S526 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ - _ _ - - __ ..e: OCT 3 0195/ i MEMORANDUM TO: M:nagement R; view Board Members: Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Frank Congel, AEOD FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager :'c - - %...., Office of State Programs
- :r
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: TEXAS SEPTEMBER 22,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the final nunutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on September 22,1997. If you have any questions, plean contact me at 415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated cc: Richard Ratliff, TX Alice H. Rogers, TX Robert Quillin, CO Distribution: DIR. RF DCD (SP07) SDroggitis PDP (YES/) \\ PLohaus SMoore, NMSS jl RWoodruff, Ril HNewsome, OGC WOlmsted, OGC CGordon, RI MBurgess, NMSS JThoma, EDO JMyers LRakovan RBarrett, AEOD EDrinnon (GA) TO'Brien TCombs, CA MThaggard, NMSS DCool, NMSS Texas File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KXS\\TXMRBFIN. MIN f t receive a cop i of two document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copt with attachment /enclosur) 'W" a No copy OFFICE OSPx 6 l NAME KNSchneider:gd DATE 10/,9/97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-27 9711140043 9710m PDR STPRQ ESGTX PDR 72 l rm;,gph./191-ll llllll lll ll llllll pyg gn t: tksEO k AL na.i)v... ,p A
gea atN, [ UNITED STATES g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -e t WASHINGTON, D.C. 30eeH001
- s.,..../
October 30, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members: Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Ca:1 Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Frank Congel, AEOD ,& p FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: TEXAS SEPTEMBER 22,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the fina', minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on September 22,1997. If you nave any questions, please contact me at 415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated cc: Richard Ratliff, TX Alice H. Rogers, TX Robert Quillin, CO
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22.1997 j These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were 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 Ratliff, TX Elizabeth Bourbon, TX Richard Woodruff, Rll Mark Thaggard, NMSS Craig Gordon, RI Michele Burgess, TX Tom O'Brien, TX Elizabeth Orinnon, 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: Robert 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. Richard Woodruff, RSAO Region 11, 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 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 entrance interview with each agency, 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 __-_______.___._..___.__.._._._.m____
with exit briefings with Texas management. Following the review, the teim issued a (i draft report on July 15,1997; received Texas' comment letters dated August 26,1997 and August 29,1997; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on September 15,1997. Non-common Performance Indicators. Based on the extensive comments sent by the State on the non-common performance indicators for Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program and Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program, the review team presented results for the non-common performance indicators first. Mr. Thaggard led the discussion on 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 teport. Mr. Thaggard noted that TNRCC made a number of comments on the team's review of this indicator, but that the review team did not accept a number 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 tae y MRB tnelt opposition to the finding of " satisfactory with recommendations for ' improvement" and the tone of the discussion in Section 4.3. TNRCC stated thee belief that the Texas' program was " satisfactory" and that TNRCC had conducted its evaluation in accordance with 10 CFR Part 61. All noted that there were some 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 " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator. However, the MRB 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 suggestions 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's recommendations and suggestions about performance assessment sensitivity analysis and completeness of documentation will further strengthen the basis for the State's licensing action. The MRB directed the staff to share the revision of Section 4.3 with the State for 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 recommeridation 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 State if there is 2-
--{: f e an orphan waste created by the definition.- T"o MRB reached a consensus that Texas' - performance satisfied the " satisfactory" critori 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 .3" 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 21,1997 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 indicator, Sealed Source and Device ~ Evaluation Program. The findings for this indicator are summarized in Section 4.2 of the report. The 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 e " satisfactory with recommendations for improvements." Msi Burgess noted that the team's finding was based on the technical deficiencies found in one casework and the - lack of a concurrence review as defined in the latest version of MD 5.6, which has not yet been published. The team believes that a more effective concurrence review would have identified the deficiencies in the spxific case. TDH staff indicated that they had 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 1 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 the review team used the draft guidance, the MRB disagreed with the review team's finding for this indicator. Following this discussion, the MRB directed that Texas' performances for inis indicator are revised to meet the standard for a ' satisfactory" rating. The three recommendations and three suggestions remained unchanged. Common Performance Indicators. Due to the time constraints, the MRB asked the L review team if there were any issues to be discussed or changes to the report on L 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 fer 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.
.,a 9 " 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 appreciated the efforts of IMPEP's review team for their work in the review Ms. Rogers stated that she appreciated the review process. Mr. Ratliff noted that the issues discussed et the MRB are complicated and the time and exchange at the MRB improve the IMPEP process. 5. Old Business. Approval of Region 111 MRB Minutes. At the completion of the New Business, the Region lli draft MRB mirutes were offered for the MRB approval. The draft minutes were approved as written. 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. ~ 4 _ _ _ - _ _ - _}}