ML20236N040
| ML20236N040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/09/1998 |
| From: | Scott Moore NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Bangart R, Cool D, Cyr K, Martin T, Thompson H NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807140372 | |
| Download: ML20236N040 (6) | |
Text
- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
July 9, 1998 j
.y.
MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members:
f d'
i Hugh Thompson, EDO kD Y
Richard Bangart,OSP 'c
. Donald Cool, NMSS k
d' Karen Cyr, OGC -
r originial signed by S. Moore Thomas Martin, AEOD FROM:
{
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: APRll 16,1998 MEETING '
i
. Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on J
l April 16,1998. These minutes were approval at the July 8,1998, MRB meeting. The only change relates to a correction 'on the spelling of Mr. Quillin's name, if you have any questions, please contact me.
f
Attachment:
As stated i
cc:
R. Quillin, State of Colorado H. Miller, RI.
l R. Blough, RI i
' CONTACT: Scott Moore, NMSS/IMNS l'
301-415-7875 Distribution:
J NRC Central File -
!MNS r/f WKane DCool RUleck IMOB r/f PDR RBarrett GDeegan CMaupin JGreeves' JThoma JHickey -
WAxelson SMoore LRakovan JKi n an SMerchant GPangbum FCostello i
- WSilva,' State of Texas d
DOCUMENT NAME: G:impepri. min OFFICE IMCS. s l~E-b
\\
NAME SMoore )/ lW gb DATE 7/1098 u'T r
p 9907140372 980709 g,a f(}
eor onO t< =
eDR n:a'.
1 J
50 REQ
,/
O y
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
t WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001
'%..... p' July 9, 1998 l
MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members:
Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Donald Cool, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Thomas Martin, AEOD FROM:
Scott Moore, NMSS i enLG
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: APRIL 16,1998 MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on April 16,1998. These minutes were approval at the July 8,1998, MRB meeting. The only change relates to a correction on the spelling of Mr. Quillin's name. If you have any questions, please contact rne.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
R. Quillin, State of Colorado H. Miller, RI R. Blough, RI CONTACT: Scott Moore, NMSS/IMNS 301-415-7875
4
./
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 16.1998 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:
William Kane, NMSS Richard Bangart, OSP Karen Cyr, OGC Donald Cool, NMSS/IMNS Richard Barrett, AEOD Scott Moore, NMSS/IMNS Sally Merchant, NMSS/lMNS Cardelia Maupin, OSP Ron Uleck, NMSS/DWM John Greeves, NMSS/DWM John Hickey, NMSS/DWM Joe DeCicco. NMSS/IMNS George Deegan, NMSS/IMNS John Thoma, EDO Hubert Miller, RI William Axelson, RI George Pangburn, RI John Kinneman, RI Francis Costello, RI Bv ohone:
William Silva, Texas Robert Quillin, Colorado 1.
Convention. William Kane, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS),
Acting Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB), convened the video conference at 2:00 p.m. Participants were introduced.
2.
New Business. Region 1 Review. Scott Moore led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Region I (RI) review.
Status of items identified in Previous Reviews. Mr. Moore discussed the status of the 7 recommendations made during the 1996 IMPEP review. The team proposed that all but one recommendation from that review be closed. The one recommendation from 1996 that remained open (Recommendation 1 in Section 2.0 of the report) concemed RI conducting initial inspections within the time period specified in inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800. The team found 12 instances in the review period in which new licensees were not inspected in their first year. Section 3.1 of the report describes the protocol that was in place at the time of the IMPEP review. RI described the steps it had taken since then to correct the situation, which include intemal program audits. In response to a question from the MRB, Mr. Moore stated that there did D9_t appear to be a generallack of understanding of Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2800 on the part of Region I staff. The misunderstanding appeared limited to the IMC 2800 initial inspection timeliness requirements.
The MRB accepted the team's proposal to close the other recommendations, but retain this item.
Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Moore presented the findings regarding the first common performance indicator-Status of the Materials Inspection Program. His presentation corresponds to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP report. Mr. Moore reported that the IMPEP team found RI's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator. The review team had one recommendation for Region l-the open item from 1996 related to initial inspections (discussed above). The MRB agreed with the team's recommendation and found that RI's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
,/
i 2
)
William Silva discussed the second indicator - Technical Quality of Inspections. He i
summarized the findings in Section 3.2 of the report, which found RI's performance to be
" satisfactory". From a review of files, and a series of inspector accompaniments, the team determined that inspectors' perfomlance was satisfactory to adequately assess the radiological health and safety of RI licensees' programs. Inspectors were observed to 1
have performed in-depth examinations. The review team had one recommendation for l
this indicator. The team recommended that RI implement a process to ensure that each j
Notice of Violation (NOV) receives a licensee response in a timely manner. George i
Pangburn indicated that the situation described in the team's recommendation was believed to be limited in nature. In response to the finding, RI has its Licensing
)
Assistants tracking follow up on future licensee responses to NOVs. Following the 1
discussion, the MRB found that RI's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" I
rating for the indicator.
Mr. Moore discussed the third performance indicator - Technical Staffing and Training, Section 3.3 of the report, and the non-common indicator on Resource Utilization, Section 4.1.2 of the report. Mr. Moore reported to the MRB that RI was in an overhire situation because of a program shrinkage and a low rate of attrition. He noted that RI has a good l
mix of inspectors and license reviewers, with nearly all technical staff members fully-qualified as inspectors. In his discussion of the region's training efforts, he noted that RI l
was updating its intemal tracking records to monitor staff qualification progress. The MRB discussed a comment in the team's report about the inadequacy of an Agency training database to assess training and qualification status of RI staff. Mr. Kane asked NMSS to convey to the Office of Human Resources, the comments and concerns regarding the need for regions to maintain training records locally, due to the lack of, or inadequacies in, an Agency-wide system.
Mr. Moore had two recommendations. The first concemed the availability of the " Finance for Non-Financial Professionals" course, and the " Environmental Transport" course. The second was a recommendation for NMSS to reexamine its requirements for decommissioning inspectors and technical reviewers. John Hickey and John Greeves indicated that the Division of Waste Management, NMSS, would work to resolve the issues in a timely fashion. Mr. Quillin asked that the States be kept informed of any changes to the qualification requirements in this area, and NMSS agreed to do so.
Mr. Moore indicated that the team found RI's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and the MRB supported this finding.
Sally Merchant led the discussion of the fourth indicator - Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, which summarized Section 3.4 of the report. Based upon the review of 20 licensing files, the team found the actions to be thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable or higher quality, with health and safety ;ssues properly addressed. The team recommended that RI's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made no recommendations. The MRB concurred on the review team's recommendation that RI's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Cardelia Maupin led the discussion of the final common performance indicator-Response to incidents and Allegations, which summarized Section 3.5 of the report. The team recommended that RI's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," based on the team's review of 15 incidents, and 16 allegations. There were no recommendations 1
i
J 3
for RI for this indicator. The team identified RI's periodic audits of selected allegations as a good practice. The MRB asked whether or not the Agency's allegation program audits, as conducted by Ed Baker of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, overlapped with IMPEP allegation reviews. George Pangburn pointed out that Mr. Baker's reviews were intended to focus primarily on procedural handling of allegations, whereas the IMPEP reviews were designed to review the adequacy of regional technical responses to alegations, commensurate with the health and safety significance of the alleged events.
The MRB asked that NMSS and OSP take another look at the possible overlap of these reviews, and develop the most resource-effective approach. Following the discussion, the MRB reached consensus that Rl's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Non-common Performance indicators. Mr. Moore led the discussion of the non-common indicator on Operating Plan Performance, which summarized Section 4.1 of the report.
He discussed the change in focus in regional Operating Plans, and the continued progress of RI in reducing its licensing backlog.
Ron Uleck discussed the non-common indicator on the Site Decommissioning Management Plan, which summarized Section 4.2 of the report. He descrioed his review methodology and indicated that the review team found RI decommissioning staff to be knowledgeable about the process and procedures of decommissioning, and found RI using them accordingly for each site. In response to an MRB question about RI's self audit of its decommissioning financial assurance inventory, Mr. Uleck indicated he was satisfied with the results of RI's audit and Rl's response to its self-identified findings. The team recommended that RI's performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made the recommendations cited earlier with respect to training. Following this discussion, the MRB accepted the team's recommendation of a " satisfactory" performance rating for this non-common indicator.
3.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of report. The MRB concurred on the team's individual and overall recommendations and found the RI program adequate to protect public health and safety.
4.
Comments from Region 1. Hubert Miller thanked the team. He said that intemal program reviews, such as IMPEP, are healthy processes, compared IMPEP to a licensee-self assessment, and commented on the constructive nature of such reviews. Mr.
Pangbum also thanked the team, and commented on its professionalism. He found the State participation to be highly-beneficial, and commented on the maturation and refinement of IMPEP over the past four years.
5.
Old Business. No draft minutes were approved at this meeting. The minutes from the Massachusetts IMPEP will be approved during the Arizona MRB meeting, scheduled for April 28.
6.
Status of Remaining Reviews. Mr. Moore indicated that the Region 11 (Rll) MRB meeting was scheduled for April 23. A proposed final report for the Ril review was provided to MRB members on April 2. The Ril MRB meeting will also be a video conference. Mr. Kane, and others, found the RI video conference to be highly-successful and cost-effective. Mr. Moore indicated that States may require additional administrative funding support (approximately $100) to participate in future video u----------------..-_--
f 4
j conferences. The MRB suggested that OSP offer this support, if requested, especially since it is likely to be less expensive than traveling to NRC Headquarters.
OSP circulated a table with the status of the IMPEP reviews and reports for the remainder of fiscal year.
l 7.
Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 pm.
l
[
I l
. - _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - - -. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _. - _ - -. -