ML20210G279
| ML20210G279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/12/1999 |
| From: | Schneider K NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210F536 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908030048 | |
| Download: ML20210G279 (7) | |
Text
-.
.. : i p@ **% '
- , UNITED STATES
[
j t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. ensam my
\,**e*** f March 12, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: IMPEP Team leadem IMPEP Team Membezs
/
,O,D~-
^
FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider Senior Project Manager for IMPEP Coordination Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
REVISED MATERIALS FOR THE 1999 IMPEP ORIENTATION AND TRAINING MANUAL Enclosed are the following revised materials for the 1999 IMPEP Orientation and Training l Manual (1) The February 4,1999 revision of NRC Management Directive 8.8, l Management of Allegations. This document replaces the May 1,1996 version found under Tab P in your manual.
(2) A corrected copy of the map of Agreement States. This map replaces the map found under Tab F in.your manual.
As a reminder, the next quarterly IMPEP teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday, May 18, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. EST.
If you have any questions about this material, please contact me at 301-415-2320, or Lance Rakovan at 301-415-2589.
Enclosures:
As stated L
l l
9908030048 990721 PDR STPRG ESOSC PM L
n . 1 l x. '; ".
~
l L )
p.
\
MINUTESI MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1.1999 l
l -
\
- . These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the
!= meeting. The attendees were as follows:
( Frank Miraglia, MRB Chair, EDO Kathleen Schneider, MRB Member, OSP Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Scott Moore, MRB Member, NMSS j
[ Stuart Rubin, MRB Member,IRO - Roland Fletcher, OAS Liaison, MD I l ,
James Lynch, Team Leader, Rlli . Mike Weber, Team Member, Rlli )
, LeRoy Person, Team Member, NMSS Merri Hom, EDO l James Kennedy, NMSS - John Hickey, NMSS l Lance Rakovan, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP By videoconference:
. Linda McLean, Team Member, RIV Mark Shaffer, RIV t
- By telephone:
L William Sinclair, UT Craig Jones, UT Julie Felice, UT Allen Grewe, Team Member,TN
- 1. Convention. Frank Miraglia, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
- 2. New Business. Utah Review introduction. Mr. James Lynch, Rill, led the Integrated
- Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Utah review.
l Mr. Lynch discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of Utah's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted November 16-20,1998. 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 December 16,1998; received Utah's comment letter dated January 12,1999; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on January 20, 1999.
Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Growe 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 Utah's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory," and made one recommendation involving reciprocity inspection frequencies. The MRB, the State, and the team
. discussed Utah's plans to meet the reciprocity inspection frequencies established in NRC Inspechon Manual Chapter 1220, including the difference between using the frequencies as a " goal" as opposed to a " requirement." After this discussion, the MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a ' satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
4 I
ENCLOSURE 2
Mr ' Grows discussed the findings for :he common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, which are summarized in Section 3.2 of the report. The team found that Utah's performance on this indicator was "satisfactcy," and made no recommendations or suggestics. The team recommended that Utah's use of an inspection compliance history form both for the materials program and the low-level radioactive waste disposal program be considered a good practice. The MRB and the State discussed the use of the compliance history form, including its benefits in licensing and licensee compliance. The MRB found Utah's use of their inspection compliance history form a good practice, and agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a
' satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Ms. McLean presented the findings regarding the common performance indicuor, Technical Staffing and Training. Her presentation corresponded to Section 3.3 of the IMPEP report. The team found that Utah's performance with respect to this indicator I was ' satisfactory," and made one recommendation invoMng brachytherapy and I irradiator training. The MRB, the team, and the State discussed the recommendation j and its impact on the Utah program. The team stated that they believed the training was !
necessary. The State commented that the recommendation was not perfortrance l based and that their resources might be better utilized given the availability of NRC training. The team noted that the State's performance in the licensing of an HDR using a peer review and NRC Region IV assistance was appropriate. The State and the MRB discussed management oversight of the training program and attemative methods of training. The MRB directed that the report be revised to include more language involving the quality of Utah's performance in handling brachytherapy and irradiator inspections and licensing actions, and the possibility of using altamative methods of training. The MRB also directed that the recommendation be changed to a suggestion i in the final report. Utah stated that they are committed to obtaining more instruction I involving brachytherapy and irradiators. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Weber presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3.4 of the report. The IMPEP team found Utah's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Ms. McLean 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 Utah's performance relative to this indicator to be ' satisfactory" and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB and Ms. McLean briefly discussed the incident invoMng Life Time Products and the steel contaminated with cobalt-60. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
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 Utah's performance relative to this indicator to be ' satisfactory," and made no 2-
< j
rr . -.-
4 9 d recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance for this indicator met the standard for a "satisfactorf rating.
Mr. Person presented the findings regarding the non-common performance indicator, !
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the report, the team found Utah's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made no recommendations or suggestions. The team stated that Utah's use of the licensee compliance history form was also very helpful in interacting with Envirocare.
The MRB and the State discussed the conflict of interest requirements for the State's radioactive waste oversight board and the results of having an increased presence at the Envirocare facility. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
MR8 Consultation /Commsnts on Iseuance of Report. Mr. Lynch concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Utah's program was rated " satisfactory"-
for all common and applicable non-common performance indicators. Tha MRB found the Utah program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible.
The IMPEP team and MRB agreed that the next IMPEP review for Utah be conducted in four years.
Comments from the State of Utah. Mr. Sincialr commented that volunteering to be the first Agreement State to participate in 1994 during the IMPEP pilot period aided the i State in their performance. He thanked the team for being honest and helpful.
- 3. Status of Remaining Reviews. Mr. Rakovan briefly reported on the status of the current and upcoming IMPEP reviews and reports.
- 4. Adjournment. The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 2:55 p.m.
e 3-t
- _ . . - .. ~ . .
l MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF MAY 20.1999 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:
Frank Miraglia, MRB Chair, EDO Paul Lohaus, MRB Member, OSP Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Martin Virgilio, MRB Member, NMSS Duncan White, Team Leader, RI Joseph DeCicco, Team Member, NMSS Tom O'Brien, Team Member, OSP Dan Martin, EDO Frederick Sturz, NMSS Scott Moore, NMSS Lance Rakovan, OSP Kathleen Schneider, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP By video conference:
Richard Woodruff, Ril By telephone: 1 Edgar Bailey, OAS Liaison, CA Steven Gavitt, Team Member, NYCH l l
i
- 1. Convention. Frank Miraglia, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted. ,
- 2. New Business. Florida Review introduction. Mr. Duncan White, RI, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Florida l review.
Mr. White discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of Florida's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted February 22-26,1999. 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 March 19,1999; received Florida's cornment letter dated April 6,1999; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on May 12,1999.
Common Performance Indicators. Mr. DeCicco discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Status of the Materials inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Se: tion 3.1 of the IMPEP report. The review team found Florida's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory," and made one recommendation !nvolving reciprocity inspection frequencies. The MRB, the State, and <
the team discussed the reciprocity inspection frequencies established in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1220. Mr. Passetti commented that the State is putting more resources into completing reciprocity inspections. The MRB discussed the need to re-evaluate the IMPEP criteria for reciprocity inspections. The MRB suggested and the IMPEP team ,
agreed to remove the recommendation involving reciprocity inspections from the report.
After this discussion, the MRB agreed that Florida's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
ENCL.0SURE 3
Mr. White discussed the findings for the common performanca indicator, Technical 1 Quality of Inspections, which are summarized in Section 3.2 of the report. The team found that Florida's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made two recommendations. The MRB commented that the report did not reflect that safety issues were fully addressed by the State in the Technical Quality of Inspections section as it is discussed in the Technical Quality of Licensing Actions section. Mr. Woodruff indicated that State inspectors concentrated on performance and addressed health and safety issues during inspection accompaniments. Ms. Schneider agreed to update the language used in IMPEP reports to properly describe the level of health and safety issues addressed by State and Regional inspectors. The MRB, the team, and the State discussed the recommendation involving transmitting field notes to the Tallahassee office. Due to the few instances of field notes not being property transmitted, the MRB directed the team to remove this recommendation from the report. After a brief discussion on the State's irradiator field notes, the MRB found Florida's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. DeCicco 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 Florida's performance with respect to this indicator was " satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. The team did identify one good practice involving a basic health physics training module used by the State. The MRB agreed that Florida's health physics module be found a good practice.
The MRB alse; agreed that Florida's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Gavitt presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3.4 of the report. The IMPEP team found Florida's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that Florida's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. O'Brien 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 Florida's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made one recommendation involving the State's incident and allegation procedures.
Mr. Passetti commented that the State does report incidents to NMED and that no performance issue exists. The issue of complete documentation was discussed with the team and the State. The MRB directed that this recommendation be revised to reflect the need for complete documentation in the State's procedures. The MRB agreed that Florida's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
l 4
F .
. 1 l Non Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Woodruff led the discussion of the i non-common performance indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for l Compatibility, which is summarized in Section 4.1 of the report. The team found l Florida's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that Florida's performance for this indicator met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating.
Mr. Woodruff presented the findings regarding the non-common performance indicator, Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the report, the team found Florida's performance relative to this indicator to be
" satisfactory" and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that Florida's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. White concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Florida's program was rated
" satisfactory" for all common and applicable non-common performance indicators. The
. MRB found the Florida program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and i compatible. The IMPEP team and MRB agreed that the next IMPEP review for Florida
( be conducted in four years.
l l l Comments from the State of Florida. Mr. Passetti commented that the IMPEP I l process is a step in the right direction in focusing on performance. He thanked the tearn i and MRB for their support. !
- 3. Status of Famaining Reviews. Ms. Schneider briefly reported on the status of the current and upcoming IMPEP reviews and reports. Ms. Schneider and Mr. White discussed the timing of the Massachusetts SS&D IMPEP review with the MRB. The .
1 MRB directed that the review be placed on the FY 2000 IMPEP schedule as long as the State completes a sufficient number of SS&D evaluations prior to the IMPEP review.
- 4. Adjournment. The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 11:25 a.m.
l l
i L
E t t im .
T. Pearce O'Kelley, Chief 1 Radiological Health Branch l Department of Health and i Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201
Dear Mr. O'Kelley:
As discussed I have enclosed information pertaining to the Integrated Materials Performance
- Evaluation Program (IMPEP) and Management Review Board (MRB) meetings. The 1999 IMPEP Orientation and Training Manual (Enclosure 1) includes a copy of OSP Procedure SA-106, Management Review Boards under Tab J. This document details the general procedures followed for the preparation and conduct of an MRB meeting. I have also enclosed copies of minutes from the Utah and Florida MRB meetings (Enclosures 2 and 3) to give you a general idea of what transpires at an MRB meeting.
If you have any further questions, please cc,1 tact me at (301)415-3340 or Lance J. Rakovan of my staff at (301) 415-2589. l 1
We look forward to ,ou participating as an Agreement State liaison on future MRBs.
i Sincerely, OriginalSigned Br.
PAULH.LOHAU$ i Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
' As stated
- Distribution:
DIR RF SDroggitis DCD (SPO a KSchneider PDR (YES/)
Ssuth Carolina File IMPEP File
- see previous concurrence DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LJR\O'Kelley.it{Copywit%utattachmen To seceive e cop r of this document, Indicate in the box: N f _
- r = Copy with attachmenvenclosure *Dr a No copy OFFICE .OSP l OS$lliQd OS$D/j.J l l l NAME LJRakovan:gd FConlig ~*r PHLohaus' '
DATE 07/21/99* 07/ 2( /99 07/2 i/99 OSP CODE: SP-AG-25, SP-l-2
. hdd w
ga N@s wm
o o ne l
l p UNITED STATES
.g P; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i g wAswinaTow, o.c. sones-cooi
{
.,,,,* July 21, 1999 l
T. Pearce O'Kelley, Chief Radiological Health Branch Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 1
Dear Mr. O'Kelley:
As discussed I have enclosed information pertaining to the Integrated Materials Performance ;
Evaluation Program (IMPEP) and Management Review Board (MRB) meetings. The 1999 l lMPEP Orientation and Training Manual (Enclosure 1) includes a copy of OSP Procedure SA-106, Management Review Boards under Tab J. This document details the general procedures followed for the preparation and conduct of an MRB meeting. I have also enclosed copies of minutes from the Utah and Florida MRB meetings (Enclosures 2 and 3) to give you a general idea of what transpires at an MRB meeting.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at (301)415-3340 or Lance J. Rakovan of my staff at (301) 415-2589.
We look forward to you participating as an Agreement State liaison on future MRBs.
Sincerely, f -
M . .
haul H. Lohaus, Director A
Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated l
1.
nanee; I
.g {
g k UNITED STATES g
] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 30eeMo01
.g, February 3, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: IMPEP Team Leaders IMPEP Team Members FROM: .
Kathleen N. Schneider f .
kN Senior Project Manager for IMPEP Coordination Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
IMPFo ORIENTATION AND TRAINING MANUAL FOR 1999 l Enclosed please find the IMPEP Orientation and Training Manual for 1999. This manual was i given out during the January 25,1999 training for new IMPEP team mernbers, and ~ replaces the manual that was handed out at the December 2,1997 training in its entirety.
The new manual is organized into seven sections:
(1) Course Information and Activities (Tabs A-C). These materials were used during the January 25,1999 IMPEP training. They have been included for ;
completeness only.
(2) General Information (Tabs D G). Included in tab 'G"is a list of documents on the disk accompanying the manual.
(3) IMPEP Policy and Procedure (Tabs H K). Included under Tab 'K' is the new Management Directive (MD) 5.10, Formal Qualifications for IMPEP Team Members.
(4) Common Performance Indicators (Tabs L-P).
(5) Selected Non-Common Performance Indicators (Tabs O-S). Information pertaining to the non-common performance indicators Legis!ation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, Sealed Source & Device Evaluation Program, and the indicator related to Regional operating plans and resource utilization.
(6) Sample Documents (Tabs T & U).
(7) Miscellaneous (Tabs V-Y). Tab "Y" is provided as a convenient place to keep IMPEP-related communications.
If you hav6 any questions about this manual or any of the material within, please contact me at 301-415-2320, or Lance Rakovan at 301-415 2589.
Enclosure:
As stated .
ENCLOSURE 1
@ M6/ IONS
IXTEGRATED MATERIALS 1 PERFORMAXCE !
EVALUATIOX PROGRAM (IMPEP) l L
.sw a:ufMu geew m "$b
~ w"
.e .
- g E
}&
\
})gg: N b: 'T3M e
% ~ . , _,
jpg 1 2 Mm .
ti - ~@
l't '" ~
_;. s.
ik f I;k IP.: a ,a ps:~f4R$wf a .
1
.] wl+.-l. _ y..
',9
' :.. [ikI7 5f I# u 4 y.u_. . m
.. . p
- 4. g,
~
ORIENTATIO:5' AXD TRAI: SIS"G JAXUARY 25,1999
I
. \
e n atuq g k UNITED STATES p
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 4001
\p**@if ***
March 12, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: IMPEP Team Leaders IMPEP Team Members
,(
3L FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider Senior Project Manager for IMPEP Coordination Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
REVISED MATERIALS FOR THE 1999 IMPEP ORIENTATION AND TRAINING MANUAL Enclosed are the following revised materials for the 1999 IMPEP Orientation and Training Manual:
(1) The February 4,1999 revision of NRC Management Directive 8.8, Management of Allegations. This document replaces the May 1,1996 version found under Tab P in your manual.
(2) A corrected copy of the map of Agreement States. This map replaces the map found under Tab F in your manual.
As a reminder, the next quarterly IMPEP teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday, May 18, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. EST.
If you have any questions about this material, please contact me at 301-415-2320, or Lance Rakovan at 301-415 2589.
Enclosures:
As stated
._ . . . . . __i
p -
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1.1999
~
These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the !
meeting. The attendees were as follows: )
Frank Miraglia, MRB Chair, EDO Kathleen Schneider, MRB Member, OSP l Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Scott Moore, MRB Member, NMSS l Stuart Rubin, MRB Member,IRO Roland Fletcher, OAS Liaison, MD
, James Lynch, Team Leader, Rill Mike Weber, Team Member, Rlli LeRoy Person, Team Member, NMSS Merri Hom, EDO James Kennedy, NMSS John Hickey, NMSS Lance Rakovan, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP By videoconference:
Linda McLean, Team Member, RIV Mark Shaffer, RIV By telephone:
l William Sinclair, UT Craig Jones, UT l . Julie Felice, UT Allen Growe, Team Member,TN ,
l l
- 1. Convention. Frank Miraglia, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened
- j. the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
l
' 2. New Business. Utah Review introddlon. Mr. James Lynch, Rlli led the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Pryram (IMPEP) team for the Utal. :: view.
Mr. Lynch discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of Utah's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted l November 16 20,1998. The onsite review included an entrance interview, detailed l audits of a representative sample of completed licensing actions and inspections, and
! follow-up discussions with staff and management. Following the review, the team l Issued a draft report on December 16,1998; received Utah's comment letter dated l January 12,1999; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on January 20, 1999.
l l Common Performance indicators. Mr. Grews discussed the findings for the common l performance indicator, Status of the Materials inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP report. The review team found Utah's performance with respect to this indicator ' satisfactory," and made one recommendation invoMng reciprocity inspectiori frequencies. The MRB, the State, and the team
. ~ discussed Utah's plans to meet the reciprocity inspection frequencies established in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1220, including the difference between using the frequencies as a " goat" as opposed to a " requirement. After this discussion, the MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
ENCLOSURE 2
- w. - . - ..
Mr. Growe 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 Utah's performance on this indicator was ' satisfactory,' and made no recommendations or suggestions. The team recommended that Utah's use of an inspection compliance history form both for the materials program and the low-level radioactive waste disposal program be considered a good practice. The MRB and the State discussed the use of the compliance history form, including its benefits in licensing and licensee compliance. The MRB found Utah's use of their inspection compliance history form a good practice, and agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a
'satistactory" rating 1or this indicator.
Ms. McLean presented the findings regarding the common pedormance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. Her presinntation corresponded to Section 3.3 of the IMPEP report. The team found that Utah's performance with respect to this indicator was " satisfactory," and made one recommendation invoMng brachytherapy and i irradiator training. The MRB, the team, and the State discussed the recommendation and its impact on the Utah program. The team stated that they believed the training was necessary. The State commented that the recommendation was not performance based and that their resources might be better utilized given the availability of NRC training. The team noted that the State's performance in the licensing of an HDR using a peer review and NRC Region IV assistance was appropriate. The State and the MRB discussed management oversight of the training program and attomative methods of i training. The MRB directed that the report be revised to include more language L involving the quality of Utah's performance in handling brachytherapy and irradiator l I
Inspections and licensing actions, and the possibility of using altamative methods of training. The MRB also directed that the recommendation be changed to a suggestion in the final report. Utah stated that they are committed to obtaining more instruction involving brachytherapy and irradiators. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a "satisfactoly" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Weber presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3.4 of the report. The IMPEP team found Utah's performance to be ' satisfactory" for this indicator and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Ms. McLean 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 Utah's performance relative to this indicator to be ' satisfactory" and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB and Ms. McLean briefly discussed the incident involving Life Time Products and the steel contaminated with cobatt 60. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Non-Common Performance indicatora. 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 Utah's performance relative to this indicator to be ' satisfactory,' and made no 2-
p... . . - . . . . . . .
>f .
recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance for this indicator met the standard for a " satisfactory' rating.
Mr. Person presented the findings regarding the non-common performance indicator, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the report, the team found Utah's performance relative to this indicator to be ' satisfactory" and made no recommendations or suggestions. The team stated that Utah's use of the licensee compliance history form was also very helpful in interacting with Envirocare.
The MRB and the State discussed the conflict of interest requirements for the State's radioactive waste oversight board and the results of having an increased presence at the Envirocare facility. The MRB agreed that Utah's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
MRB Consultationicomments on lasuance of Report. Mr. Lynch concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Utah's program was rated " satisfactory" for all common and applicable non-common performance indicators. The MRB found the Utah program to be adequate to protect public health und safety and compatible.
The IMPEP team and MRB agreed that the next IMPEP review for Utah be conducted in four years.
Comments from the State of Utah. Mr. Sincialt commented that volunteering to be the first Agreement State to participate in 1994 during the IMPEP pilot period aided the State in their performance. He thanked the team for being honest and helpful.
- 3. Status of Remaining Reviews. Mr. Rakovan briefly reported on the status of the i current and upcoming IMPEP reviews and reports.
- 4. Adjournment. The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 2:55 p.m.
e 3-
F. . . .t . . . .. c . _ . _ . . ;
v A
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF MAY 20.1999 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attandees were as follows:
Frank Miraglia, MRB Chair, EDO Paul Lohaus, MRB Member, OSP Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Martin Virgilio, MRB Member, NMSS Duncan White, Team Leader, RI Joseph DeCicco, Team Member, NMSS Tom O'Brien, Team Member, OSP Dan Martin, EDO Frederick Sturz, NMSS Scott Moore, NMSS Lance Rakovan, OSP Kathleen Schneider, OSP Brenda Usliton, OSP By video conference: ,
Richard Woodruff, Rl! l By telephone:
Edgar Bailey, OAS Liaison, CA Steven Gavitt, Team Member, NYCH
- 1. Convention. Frank Miraglia, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Introductions of the attendees were condacted.
- 2. New Business. Florida Review introduction. Mr. Duneen White, Rl, led the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Florida ;
review. I Mr. White discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of Florida's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted 4 February 22-26,1999. 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 March 19,1999; received Florida's comment letter dated April 6,1999; and ;
submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on May 12,1999.
Common Performance Indicators. Mr. DeCicco 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 Florida's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory," and made one recommendation involving reciprocity inspection frequencies. The MRB, the State, and the team discussed the reciprocity inspection frequencies established in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 1220. Mr. Passetti commented that the State is putting more resources into completing reciprocity inspections. The MRB discussed the need to re-evaluate the IMPEP criteria for reciprocity inspections. The MRB suggested and the IMPEP team agreed to remove the recommendation involving reciprocity inspections from the report.
After this discussion, the MRB agreed that Florida's performance met the standard for a ,
"satisfacto,y" rating for this indicator.
ENCLOSURE 3
p .
i o
Mr. White 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 Florida's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made two i recommendations. The MRB commented that the report did not reflect that safety I
issues were fully addressed by the State in the Technical Quality of Inspections section as it is discussed in the Technical Quality of Licensing Actions section Mr. Woodruff indicated that State inspectors concentrated on performance and addressed health and safety issues during inspection accompaniments. Ms. Schneider agreed to update the language used in IMPEP reports to properly describe the level of health and safety issues addressed by State and Regional inspectors. The MRB, the team, and the State i
discussed the recommendation involving transmitting field notes to the Tallahassee l office. Due to the few instances of field notes not being properly transmitted, the MRB l directed the team to remove this recommendation from the report. After a brief l discussion on the State's irradiator field notes, the MRB found Florida's performance :
l met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator, i l l Mr. DeCicco 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 Florida's performance with respect to this indicator was " satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. The team did identify one good practice involving a basic health physics training module usad by the State. The MRB agreed that Florida's health physics module be found a good practice.
The MRB also agreed that Florida's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
1 Mr, Gavitt presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3A of the report. The IMPEP team found Florida's performance to be " satisfactory"for this indicator and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that ;
Florida's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. O'Brien 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 Florida's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made one recommendation involving the State's incident and allegation procedures.
Mr. Passetti commented that the State does report incidents to NMED and that no performance issue exists. The issue of complete documentation was discussed with the team and the State. The MRB directed that this recommendation be revised to reflect the need for complete documentation in the State's procedures. The MRB agreed that Florida's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
l
1, . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - .-. . . . .- .
l Non-Common Performance indicators. Mr. Woodruffled 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 Florida's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that Florida's performance for this indicator met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating.
Mr. Woodruff presented the findings regarding the non-common performance indicator, 1 Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program. As discussed in Section 4.2 of the report, the team found Florida's performance relative to this indicator to be i
" satisfactory" and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB agreed that l
Florida's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
1 ,
l MR8 Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. White concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Florida's program was rated
" satisfactory" for all common and applicable norn,ommon performance indicators. The l MRB found the Florida program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and l compatible. The IMPEP team and MRB agreed thrI the next IMPEP review for Florida ;
be conducted in four years. l l l Comments from the State of Florida. Mr= Passetti commented that the IMPEP process is a step in the right direction in focusing on performance. He thanked the team and MRB for their support.
- 3. Status of Remaining Reviews. Ms. Schneider briefly reported on the status of the current and upcom!ng IMPEP reviews and reports. Ms. Schneider and Mr. White discussed the timing of the Massachusetts SS&D IMPEP review with the MRB. The MRB directed that the review be placed on the FY 2000 IMPEP schedule as long as the State completes a sufficient number of SS&D evaluations prior to the IMPEP review.
l
- 4. Adjoumment. The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 11:25 a.m.
l I
l . i i
l 1