ML20203D269
| ML20203D269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/09/1998 |
| From: | Lance Rakovan NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Bangart R, Miraglia F, Scott Moore NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9902160127 | |
| Download: ML20203D269 (5) | |
Text
- ._ . . _
E December 9, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Managemerit Review Board Members:
Frank J. Miraglia, Jr., EDO Richard L. Bangart, OSP i Scott W. Moore, NMSS ,
Stuart A. Treby, OGC Stuart D. Rubin, AEOD FROM: Lance Rakovan, Health Physicist Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: MAINE DECEMBER 1,1998 MRB MEETING
. Attached for your review and concurrence are the draft minutes of the Management l
Review Board (MRB) meeting held on December 1,1998. If you have any questions, please l
contact me at 415-2589, or Kathleen Schneider at 415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated i
cc: Jay Hyland, ME Steve Collins, IL 1
'I Distribution: ,
DIR RF 4
. DCD (SP01) _
l SDroggitis 'PDR (YES/) 7 1
JLynch, Rlli ADWhite, RI BJSmith, MS TMartin, AEOD ;'
CPap3riello, NMSS KCyr, OGC HN:wsome. OGC FCameron, OCG g DMirtin, EDO TO'Brien, OSP 1 (Maine File] ,
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\lMPEP\MEMRB98. MIN Te recahe a cop r of thle document,inalicate in the box: *C' = Copy Mthout attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE OSP /,l OSP _ l 1 NAME LRakovan:gd C-- KSchneideri/D DATE 12/4 /98 12/7 /98 4 7 ,,,,,,,,
' OSP FILE CODE:SP-AG-13 w i
O$g {, ( kI 9902160127 981209 !
a ..:.. . .
9 pu uruq g* 1 UNITED STATES j j 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20066 4001
, o o
%,, * * * *
- g December 9, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members:
Frank J. Miraglia, Jr., EDO e
Richard L. Bangart, OSP Scott W. Moore, NMSS Stuart A.Treby, OGC Stuart D. Rubin, AEOD FROM: Lance Rakovan, Health Physicist g i Office of State Programs J
SUBJECT:
DRAFT MINUTES: MAINE DECEMBER 1,1998 MRB MEETING Attached for your review and concurrence are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on December 1,1998. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2589, or Kathleen Schneider at 415-2320.
Attachment:
As stated cc: Jay Hyland, ME Steve Collins, IL l
/
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 1.1998 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:
Richard Bangart, MRB Member, OSP Scott Moore, MRB Member, NMSS Stuart Rubin, MRB Member, AEOD Stuart Treby, MRB Member, OGC Dan Martin, EDO Kathleen Schneider, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP Thomas O'Brien, OSP Paul Lohaus, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP By videoconference:
James Lynch, Team Leader, Rlil Duncan White, Team Member, RI By telephone:
Steve Collins, Agreement State Liaison, IL BJ Smith, Team Member, MS Jay Hyland, ME Shawn Seeley, ME
- 1. Convention. Richard Bangart, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB),
convened the meeting at 10:10 a.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
- 2. New Business. Maine Review introduction. Mr. James Lynch, Rlli, led the Integrated Materials Performace Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Maine review.
Mr. Lynch discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of Maine's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted September 15-18,1998. 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 October 21,1998; received Maine's comment letter dated November 15,1998; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on November 23,1998.
Common Pedormance Indicators. Mr. Smith 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 Maine's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement," and made two recommendations. The MRB, the team, and the State discussed the basis for the " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" finding with the team. Mr. Lynch stressed that the State had no overdue inspections at the time of the review, and that only a sampling of inspections were reviewed. The MRB and the State discussed the factors involved in running a small program, the State's current staffing level, and the impact of the recent new hire. The MRB directed that the report language be revised to specify the State's awareness of the overdue inspections and cctions to eliminate them as the reasons for the ' satisfactory with recommendations for
3 d
improvement" rating for this indicator, and to stress the importance of the State maintaining current staff levels. The MRB agreed that Maine's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Smith discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, which are summarized in Section 3.2 of the report. The team found that Maine's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made one suggestion as documented in the report. Mr. Smith stated that the inspection accompaniments of the two Maine inspectors indicated good performance-based inspection techniques. The MRB discussed the lack of exit meeting documentation in inspection field notes with the team and the State. Mr. Smith commented that the issue was discussed with the State, and thus no suggestion was made in the report. After a brief discourse about supervisory review of inspection findings, the MRB agreed that Maine's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Lynch presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.3 of the IMPEP report. The team found that Maine's performance with respect to this indicator was " satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB and the State discussed the impact of the new hire and current staffing level of the program.
The MRB directed that the report be revised to note that the new hire had been issued a qualifications journal. The MRB directed that the report include a suggestion that the State evaluate staffing needs to ensure its long term ability to address regulations and timely completion of inspections. The MRB agreed that Maine's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator. l Mr. White presented the findings regarding the common performance indicatcr Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3.4 of the report. The IMPEP team found Maine's performance to be " satisfactory" for th s indicator and made no recommendations or suggestions. After a brief conversati';n about the documentation of telephone calls and the availability of the NUREG-1556
, series, the MRB agreed that Maine's performance met the standard for a "satir,tactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. White presented the findings regarding the final common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found Maine's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made 1
two recommendations as documented in the report. The MRB, the team, and the State discussed the number of incidents that took place in Maine during the review period and l that no incidents were required to be reported to NMED. The MRB directed that the team further investigate exactly how many incidents occurred in Maine during the review period, and which of these incidents should have been reported to NMED. The MRB >
agreed that Maine's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
?
I
, l Non-Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Lynch led the discussion 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 Maine's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement," and made ene recommendation. The MRB commented on the importance of adopting regulations. The MRB and the State discussed the impact of the-new hire on regulation Woption. The MRB directed that the report be revised to include clarifying language about the impact of the new hire and to include the full title of the Commissioner, Department of Health Services. After a brief discussion about the use of legally binding requirements, the MRB agreed that Maine's performance for this ,
indicator met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Lynch concluded, based ,
on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Maine's program was rated
" satisfactory" on four of the common performance indicators and " satisfactory with ,
recommendations for improvement" on one common performance and one non-common performance indicator. The MRB found the Maine program to be adequate to prctect public health and safety and compatible. The IMPEP teern and MRB agreed that the next IMPEP review for Maine be conducted in four years, with the stipulation that Maine's periodic meetings would be used to monitor the program's status.
Comments from the State of Maine. Mr. Hyland thanked the MRB and apologized for not being able to participate in the meeting in person. He stated that the IMPEP process is a significant improvement over the way reviews were previously conducted.
After commenting on the usefulness of the good practice paper, Mr. Hyland thanked the team for their involvement. He commented on the problems facing small programs, and talked about including NARM reviews in the IMPEP process.
Comments fram IMPEP Team Members. Mr. Smith stated that being involved with
! IMPEP has been a benefit to the Mississippi program, and inat Maine would also benefit l from participation.
l l 3. Status of Remaining Reviews. Mrs. Schneider briefly reported on the status of the current and upcoming IMPEP reviews and reports.
j 4. Adjournment. The meoting was adjourned at approximately 12:15 p.m.
i l
I 4
.- -- . - _ _ - - . . -