ML20247K850
| ML20247K850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/01/1998 |
| From: | Lance Rakovan NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Kane W, Lohaus P, 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 9805220222 | |
| Download: ML20247K850 (6) | |
Text
,
MAY - 1 1993
' MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
Hugh L. Thompson, EDO l
Paul H. Lohaus, OSP William F. Kane, NMSS Karen D. Cyr,.OGC Thomas T. Martin, AEOD FROM:
Lance J. Rakovan, Health Physicist
/s/ Lance J. Rakovan l
Office of State Programs SUBJ5Gi:
FINAL MINUTES: MASSACHUSETTS APRIL 6,1998 MRB MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on April 6,1998.
you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2589.
Attachment:
As stated I
cc:
Robert Hallisey, MA Salifu Dakubu, MA Ray Paris, OR l
}
Distribution:
)OOO( '
DIR RF DCD (01) -
SDroggitis PDR (YES/).
N. ['
RBangart CPaperiello, NMSS JLynch, Rlli DWhite, RI Cynthia Sanders, GA MBurgess, NMSS RBlanton, OSP DCool, NMSS JThoma, EDO HNewsome, OGC Massachusetts File FCameron, OGC DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\lMPEP\\MRBMIN. FIN To receive a cop 1 of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l
l f.
NAME LRakovan:nb $
DATE 05/ / /98 g5 g
1 i"
- OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-30~
pg
a nauq At UNITED STATES g
g
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
'C WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566-0001 l
' +,..
,o May 1,1998 l
i MEMORANDUM TO:
Management Review Board Members:
Hugh L. Thompson, EDO Paul H. Lohaus, OSP William F. Kane, NMSS t
Karen D. Cyr, OGC Thomas T. Martin, AEOD
!h FROM:
Lance J. Rakovan, Health Physicist am Office of State Programs i
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: MASSACHUSETTS APRIL 6,1998 MRB l
MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on April 6,1998. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2589.
l
Attachment:
j As stated cc:
Robert Hallisey, MA Salifu Dakubu, MA Ray Paris, OR i
i
?
l l
t
l
- 1 1
MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 6.1998 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the l
meeting. The attendees were as follows:
1 Hugh Thompson, MRB Member, EDO Thomas Martin, MRB Member, AEOD l
Paul Lohaus, MRB Member, OSP William Kane, MRB Member, NMSS Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Ray Paris, A.greement State Liaison, OR James Lynch, Team Leader, Rlli Richard Blanton, Team Member, OSP Michelle Burgess, Team Member, NMSS Cynthia Sanders, Team Member, GA i
Duncan White, Team Member, RI Robert Hallisey, MA I
Salifu Dakubu, MA John Thoma, EDO Don Cool, NMSS Cardella Maupin, OSP Kevin Hsueh, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP By telephone:
Robert Gallaghar, MA Michael Whalen, Jr., MA Jean Coulombe, MA Richard Fairfull, MA Christine Albright Dahrooge, MA 1.
Convention. Hugh Thompson, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB),
convened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.
2.
New Business. Massachusetts Review introduction. Mr. James Lynch, RSAO Region Ill, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the Massachusetts review.
Mr. Lynch discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of Massachusetts' response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted January 12-16,1998. 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. The onsite portion i
of the review concluded with exit briefings with Massachusetts management. Following l
the review, the team issued a draft report on February 10,1998; received l
Massachusetts' comment letter dated March 16,1998; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on March 25,1998.
Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Lynch 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 Massachusetts' performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory," and made two recommendations and one suggestion as documented in the report. The MRB discussed with the IMPEP team and the Commonwealth the recommendations. The l
Commonwealth stated that since the IMPEP review, they are working to improve their timeliness of inspections. The MRB and the State discussed the difficulties involved with completing initial inspections of new licensees as well as Massachusetts' fee policy.
1 J
I After this discussion, the MRB agreed that Massachusetts' performance met the i
standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
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 i
i found that Massachusetts' performance on this indicator was " satisfactory," and made l
one recommendation as documented in the report. After a brief discussion involving inspection field notes and inspector accompaniments, the MRB reached consensus that Massachusetts' 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 Massachusetts' performance with respect to this indicator was " satisfactory," and made two recommendations as documented in the report. The MRB and the IMPEP team discussed the recommendation involving the Commonwealth's management of their training program. The Commonwealth discussed with the MRB their plans to fill three vacant pxitions, the position l
qualifications, and their use of both training courses given by the NRC and other sources. The Commonwealth discussed their interest in bringing training courses to j
New England with the help of other radiation control programs in the area. The MRB agreed that Massachusetts' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Blanton presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, l
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3.4 of the report, where the review team found Massachusetts' licensing actions to be generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. The IMPEP team found Massachusetts' performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made no comments. The MRB agreed that Massachusetts' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
The common performance indicator, Response to incidents and Allegations, was the final common performance indicator discussed. Mr. White led the discussion in this area. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found Massachusetts' l
performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made one j
recommendation. The MRB discussed with the IMPEP team and the Commonwealth a number of events that do not appear in the Nuclear Material Event Database (NMED) system. The MRB directed AEOD, OSP, and the Commonwert.h to work together to bring the NMED system up to date on events that have taken place in Massachusetts.
The MRB also discussed the Commonwealth's process of handling allegations. The MRB agreed that Massachusetts' performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Non-Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Blanton led the discussion of the non-common performance indicator, Legislation and Program Elements Required for i
f Compatibility, which is summarized Section 4.1 of the report. The team found Massachusetts' performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory," and made no comments. After a discussion about the Commonwealth's process for adopting regulations, the MRB agreed that Massachusetts' performance for this indicator met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating.
l
' Ms. Burgess led the discussion of the non-common performance indicator, Sealed l
Source and Device Evaluation Program. The findings for this indicator are summarized in Section 4.2 of the report. The team found Massachusetts' performance to be
" satisfactory with recommendations for improvement," and made two recommendations and one suggestion, as stated in the report. Ms. Burgess commented on the limited amount of casework available to review due to the short period of time between Massachusetts becoming an Agreement State and the review. She noted that the team also examined casework involving NARM, but reviews completed in that area were of a l
routine nature and did not contribute substantially to the IMPEP team's assessment of the program. Ms. Burgess discussed the need for concurrence reviews by qualified staff, the need for clear designation of signature authority, and the Commonwealth's use l
of a team of reviewers to address all SS&D review areas. She noted the change in the criteria involving concurrence reviews with issuance of the November 25,1997 revision to MD 5.6.
l The MRB discussed with the IMPEP team the differences between the old and new l
criteria for this indicator in Management Directive 5.6, and when States were informed of l
the change. Ms. Burgess expressed the team's concern on the Commonwealth's ability
)
to perform two complete independent reviews. The MRB discussed with both the l
Commonwealth and the IMPEP team Massachusetts' procedures for completing SS&D evaluations, their policies involving signature authority and concurrence review, and the possibility of conducting SS&D reviews utilizing a " team review." The MRB agreed that an SS&D review where one of two comprehensive reviews is completed by a group of qualified reviewers is a viable option as long as the responsibilities for all reviewers are established prior to the review. A second independent concurrence review would always also be necessary by an individual qualified to complete a full review. The MRB l
directed NMSS and OSP to revise IMPEP guidance to reflect the " team" approach to SS&D reviews. Following this discussion, the MRB agreed that Massachusetts' performance for this indicator met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating.
l 3.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Lynch concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that Massachusetts' program was rated
" satisfactory" on the five common performance indicators and one non-common performance indicator, and " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" for the non-common performance indicator, Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program.
The MRB found the Massachusetts program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible. The IMPEP team and MRB agreed that the next full IMPEP review for Massachusetts be conducted in four years. The MRB stated that Massachusetts' sealed source and device evaluation program should be reviewed prior to a full IMPEP review. The need for this review will be assessed using the l
i l
l l
l I
l Commonwealth's responses to the recommendations made in the final IMPEP report, l
and information gathered at the annual meeting to be held FY 99.
The review team and the Commonwealth commented that one year after becoming an 4
Agreement State was too soon to conduct an IMPEP review of a new Agreement State program. The MRB directed OSP to reconsider the current process of completing an IMPEP review for a new Agreement State within one year of the signing of the agreement. One alternative discussed was to hold a meeting with a new Agreement State 3-6 months within the effective date of the agreement, and schedule a full IMPEP within 18-24 months.
l 4.
Comments from IMPEP Team Agreement State Member. Cynthia Sanders stated that participating on an IMPEP review has been very beneficial to her, particularly in having an opportunity to observe another Agreement State program.
5.
Comments from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mr. Hallisey and Dr. Dakubu thanked the MRB and the review team for their participation in the IMPEP process and their feedback. They stated that they support the IMPEP process and would be seriously addressing the recommendations made in the report. Mr. Hallisey offered three specific comments: (1) that draft IMPEP reports sent to states for comment should be directed to the radiation control program director; (2) that NARM experience should be included in IMPEP reviews; and (3) that the initial IMPEP review for new Agreement States should be performed at a minimum of 18 months.
6.
Status of Remaining Reviews. Mr. Rakovan briefly reported on the status of the current and upcoming IMPEP reviews and reports. The handling of the New York review was discussed.
l 7.
Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:10 pm.
l - _ _ _ _