ML20211C899
| ML20211C899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/18/1999 |
| From: | Lance Rakovan NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Lohaus P, Miraglia F, Virgilio M 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 9908260129 | |
| Download: ML20211C899 (6) | |
Text
pe l
AUG 181999
(
MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
Frank J. Miraglia, Jr., EDO Paul H. Lohaus, OSP l
Martin J. Virgilio, NMSS i
Karen D. Cyr, OGC l
FROM:
Lance Rakovan, Health Physicist Original signed by.
Office of State Programs Lance Rakovan I
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: MARYLAND JUNE 22,1999 MRD MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on June 22,1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2589.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Roland Fletcher, MD Steven Collins, IL Distribution:
DlR RF DCool, NMSS DCD (SP01) t FCombs GDeegan, NMSS PDR (YES/)
il.
SDroggitis RWoodruff, Ril KSchneider, OSP BSmith, NMSS JDeCicco, NMSS i
i WSilva, TX SMoore, NMSS CP;periello, NMSS DMartin, EDO I
l STreby, OGC HNewsome, OCG DWhita, RI TO'Brien, ASPO Maryland File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\lMPEP\\MD99MRBMIN.FNL T' receive e copy of this document. Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachmentienclosure 'E". Copy with attachment / enclosure *N" = No copy OFFICE OSP
/p l l
l l
NAME LRakovan:kk4 i
DATE 08/8/99 OSP FILE CODE:SP-AG-14 nnn 70 1
9908260129 990818 i
g]
PDR STPRC ESOM j
i e
p~.
[.
AR REI k
UNITED STATES g
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 4001
/
August 18, 1999 l
MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
l Frank J. Miraglia, Jr., EDO Paul H. Lohaus, OSP Martin J. Virgilio, NMSS Karen D. Cyr, OGC FROM:
Lance Rakovan, Health Physicist u
e Office of State Programs
//
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: MARYLAND JUNE 22,1999 MRB MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on June 22,1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2589.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Roland Fletcher, MD Steven Collins, IL
j.
MINUTESi MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 22.1999
. These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:
l Frank Miraglia, MRB Chair, EDO -
Paul Lohaus, MRB Member, OSP Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Martin Virgilio, MRB Member, NMSS Richard Woodruff, Team Leader, Ril Brain Smith, Team Member, NMSS Duncan White, Team Member, RI Joseph DeCicco, Team Member, NMSS Roland Fletcher, MD -
Annie Marie DeBlase, MD
- Carl Trump, MD Fred Combs, NMSS Frank Costello, RI Scott Moore, NMSS.
Greg Sackett, NMSS.
Tim Johnson, NMSS -
Dan Martin, EDO' Kathleen Schneider, OSP
' Lance Rakovan, OSP.
Brenda Usilton, OSP By telephone:
Steven Collins, OAS Liaison,IL William Silva, Team Member, TX 1.
- Convention. Frank Miraglia, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened the meeting at 1:00 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
2.
New Business. Maryland Review introduction. Mr. Richard Woodruff, Rll, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Maryland review.
. Mr. Woodurff discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary y ork included a
)
review of Maryland's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was i
conducted March 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 repost on April 26,1999; received Maryland's comment letter dated June 3,1999; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on June 10, 1999.
Status of items' identified in Previous Reviews." Mr. Woodruff'briefly commented on i
the open recommendations from previous reviews. In their response to the draft report, Maryland requested that the recommendation involving Sacred Heart Hospital be
- closed. Mr. Woodruff and the MRB agreed with the State's request to close this recommendation. One recommendation, involving the definition of the word " person"in Maryland regulations, remains open.' Mr. Woodruff stated that the open recommendations involving the State's sealed source and device (SS&D) program would be addressed during the discussion of that indicator.
Common Performance indicators. ' Mr. DeCicco oiscussed 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 Maryland's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory," and made no.
1
p.
l l
l I
recommendations or sugge%ons. After a brief discussion involving source exchange licensees, the MRB agreed '1at Maryland's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this. adicator.
j Mr. Silva discussed tN fi Jings for the cominon performance indicator, Technical Ouality of Inspections, wnich are summarized in Section 3.2 of the report. The team found that Maryland's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made one recommendation involving management oversight of inspection reports. The MRB directed that the final report include language detailing that health and safety issues were properly addressed in the inspection casework. After v. discussion involving items of non-compliance, the MRB found Maryland'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 Maryland's performance with respect to this indicator was " satisfactory," and made one recommendation. The MRB and the State discussed Maryland's training program including the importance of having a list of qualification standards for license reviewers and inspectors, as well as SS&D reviewers.
The NRC agreed to share allinformation on SS&D reviewer qualifications with the State as standards are established. The MRB agreed that Maryland's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. White 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 Maryland's performance to be " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" for this indicator and made one recommendation.
l The MRB and the State discussed Maryland's plan to reduce the backlog of licensing actions. The State commented that they are training a third staff member to complete license reviews. Maryland's general step in completing licensing actions, including a second review of completed licensing actions, was addressed by the MRB and the State. The MRB agreed that Maryland's performance met the standard for a i
" satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Woodruff 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 Maryland's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made one recommendation involving the State's allegation procedures. After a brief discussion of the recommendation, the MRB E. greed that Maryland's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
i Non-Common Performance Indicators. Mr. White led the discussion of the i
non-common performance alicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for Compatibility, which is summarized in Section 4.1 of the report. The team found Maryland's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory," and made no recommendations or suggestions. The MRB, Mr. White, and the State discussed Maryland's progress in adopting regulations. The State commented that a new individual would be assigned to oversee the adoption of regulations upon the retirement of the staff member that currently has the responsibility. The MRB agreed that Maryland's performance for this indicator met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating.
Mr. Smith 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 Maryland's performance relative to this indicator to be
" satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" and made three recommendations. The MRB and the State discussed the actions taken by Maryland involving the two Petit Applied Technologies devices. The State completed its review of one of the sheets identified by the review team and commented that they did not find any health and safety issues during this review. The State identified that the same staff members that reviewed the sheets initially would complete the current review of these devices.
The MRB, Mr. Smith, and the State discussed the status of the recommendation from previous reviews involving reviewing all registration sheets by the State. Mr. Smith stated that the recommendation should be left open since the State had not completed the intended work. The MRB, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Scott Moore discussed NRC's policy for expecting Agreement States to incorporate current NRC guidance.
The MRB requested that the team revise appropriate portions of the SS&D section to reflect meeting discussions. Many of those MRB discussions were directed at understanding the review team's decision to recommend a satisfactory with recommendations for improvement rating as opposed to an unsatisfactory rating for this indicator. The MRB commented that based on the criteria in Management Directive 5.6, an unsatisfactory rating for this indicator appeared to be a possibility and questioned each team member concerning the satisfactory with recommendations for improvement rating. Given the significance of the comments made on the SS&D casework reviewed by the team, the MRB recommended that the State respond to all of the review team's comments in Appendix F of the final report. The MRB, the review team, and the State agreed that a follow-up review in one year focusing on the State's SS&D program would be appropriate. Due to similar findings involving the State's pedormance with respect to the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, the MRB also directed that the follow-up review include the State's licensing program.
The MRB directed that guidance should be written as to how open recommendations from previous reviews should be handled during IMPEP reviews. The MRB accepted the team's recommendation that Maryland's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Woodruff concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Maryland's program was rated
" satisfactory" for all but two performance indicators. The State was found " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" for the indicators, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions and Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program. The MRB found the Maryland program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible, and declared that a fotbw-up review focusing on the State's licensing and SS&D programs would be conducted in one year. The IMPEP team and MRB agreed I
3-
E,
i that the next full IMPEP review for Maryland be conducted in four years.
l Comments from the State of Maryland. Mr. Fletcher thanked the team for their l
professionalism. He stated that the review was a positive experience and that IMPEP is a beneficial partnership between the Agreement States and the NRC. He also thanked the MRB for their participation.
3.
Approval of Florida MRB Minutes. The minutes from the Florida MRB meeting were approved pending concurrence from William Passetti.
4.
Status of Remaining Reviews. Ms. Schneider briefly reported on the status of the current and upcoming IMPEP reviews and reports.
5.
Adjournment. The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 3:40 p.m.
L l l
!