ML20197C958
| ML20197C958 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/19/1997 |
| From: | Schneider K NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Bangart R, Paperiello C, 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 9712240308 | |
| Download: ML20197C958 (5) | |
Text
-- -
DEC 19 1397 MEMORANDUM'TO:
Management Review Board Members:
i Hugh Tho:npsen, EDO l
Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Thomas M'artin, AEOD FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Pro 5ct Manager C"isin"1 ciceM 1 8 7
K E' N"0 N
'Nfice af State Programs
SUBJECT:
FIN /.L M NUTES: NEW HAMPSHIRE NOVEMBER 13,1997 MRE MEETING Attached are the minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on November 13,1997. If you have any questions, pleave contact me at 415-2320, e-mail KXS@NRC. GOV, or Lance Rakovan at 415-2589, e-mail LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Diane E. Tefft, NH Robert Quillin, CO.
240319 sw-
~<w Distribution:
. DlR RF
.DCD (SP04 I
SDroggitis POR (YES/)'
PLohaus SMoore, NMSS I
l GDeegan, NMSS DWhite, RI HNewsome, OGC I
CGordon, RI CMaupin, OSP RBlanton WPassetti, FL JThoma, EDO New Hampshsire File FCameron, OGC 1
- DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\KXS\\NHMRBMIN. FIN T.,.ew.. con, or w. e cum.ne.==.e. in e,. tion: c cm mout.e.unn nwww. -r com -m.w..+.;;.em v No em f.
l OSPG6 L..
OFFICE.
OSP NAME --
LRakovan:nb $
KNSchneider.
DATE 12/lF/97 12/M/97 -
eOSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-18L
- - n ea rW 1p u
,f hflf kk1kn 1:j ;
d il I L IlhI{hi 9712240308 971219 i
f lil h j
PDR STPRO ESONH a.
- D PDR
c.
s** *80ug4 UNITED STATES g.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WA$HINGTON, D,C. 30M6-0001 4,*****,[
December 19, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Mt.nagement Review Bos rd Members:
Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS 5W
.Th ma art n AEOD FROM:
Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES: NEW HAMPSHIRE NOVEMBER 13,1997
~ MRB MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on November 13,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2320, e-mail KXS@NRC. GOV, or Lance Rakovan at 415-2589, e-mail LJR2@NRC. GOV.
Atta:hment:
As stated cc:
Diane E. Tefft, NH Robert Quillin, CO
+.
)
i MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13.1997
. These minutet are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were at follows:
Richard Bangart, MRB Member, OSP Thomas Martin, MRB Member, AEOD Carl Paperiello, MRB Member, NMSS Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Diane Tefft, NH Cardelia Maupin, OSP Craig Gordon, RI William Passetti, FL John Thoma, EDO Kathleen Schneider, OSP Paul Lohaus, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP Duncan White, RI Richard Blanton, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP By telephone:
Robert Quillin, Agreement State Liaison, CO Dennis O'Dowd, NH Kathy McAllister, NH Maric innaccone, NH 1,
Convention. Richard Dangart, Acting Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB),
convened the meeting at 9:35 a.m. Introduc' ions of the attendees were conducted.
2.
New Business. New Hampshire Review introduction. Ms. Cardelia Maupin, Office of State Programs, led the integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the New Hampshire review.
Ms. Maupin discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of New Hampshire's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. Inspector accompaniments were performed July 10 and 24,1997. The onsite review was conducted August 18-22,1997. 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 mancgement. The onsite portion of the review concluded with exit briefings with New Hampshire management. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on September 22,1997; received New Hampshire's comment letter dated October 23,1997; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on November 6,1997.
Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Gordon discussed the findings for the comrron performance indicator, Status of the Materials inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP repot The team made two recommendations and two suggestions as documented in the report. Due to ti,e number of overdue core inspections at the time of the review, the review team initially found New Hampshire's performance with respect to this inoicator met the
" unsatisfactory" criterion of Management Directive 5.6. In New Hampshire's response to the draft IMPEP report, the State indicated that six of the eight overdue core inspections had been completed, and the State further commented to the MRB that the remaining two inspections had been performed.. Based upon the State's comments and noting the expected changes in seneduling of inspecti,: ras and the inspections performed, the
review team revised their finding with respect to this indicator to be ' satisfactory with recommendations for improvement.' Mr. Gordon noted that in their response to the draft report, New Hampshire requested that the State be rated
- satisfactory
- for this indicator to reflect the additional staff effort in the inspection area. The MRB discussed wf.h the IMPEP team and the State specific details about the overdue inspectior's. b addition, the MRB discussed a fina', report dispatched 10 months after the inspecJon was performed (Dartmouth College). The MRB directed the IMPEP team to remove the word ' overdue
- from the sen.ence 'dentifying the number of core licenses in New Hampshire. The MRB agreed that New Hampshire's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations for linprovement" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Passetti presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of the IMPEP report. Mr. Passetti reported that the IMPEP review team found that New Hampshire's performance with respect to the indicator to be " satisfactory,' and made one recommendation and one suggestion as documented in the report. The MRB and the State discussed New Hampshire's policy of rotating their inspectors on a monthly basis. The MRB directed the IMPEP team to revise the recommendation involving the effectivanma of monthly rotations to read: "The review team recommends that the State e 4: ate the number of staff need$d to implement the program." The MRB agreed that Niw Hampshire's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Passetti presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical C,ua! sty of Licensing Actions. He summarized the findings in Section 3.3 of the report where the review team found New Hampshire's licensing actions to be generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. The IMPEP team found New Hampshire's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, and made no commenta. The MRB agreed that New Hampshire's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Gordon discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, which are summarized in Section 3.4 of the report. The team found that New Hampshire's peiformance with respect to this indicator was
" satisfactory " and made one recommendation, two suggestions, and identified one good practice. The MRB discussed with the State and the IMPEP team the suggestion involvit,g severity levels and civil penalties, a finding noted in a previous NRC review.
Following this discussion, the MRB directed the IMPEP team to remove this suggestion from the final report. The MRB and the State briefly discussed the State's policy of rotating inspectors. After this discussion, the MRB reached consensus Dat New Hampshire's pvrformance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
The PJ"t3 also agreed that New Hampshire's use of a violation response review checWt was a good practico. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _
o The common performance indicator, Response to incidente and Allegations, was the final common performance indicator discussed. Ms. Maupin led the discussion in this area. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found New Hampshire's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory" and made no comments. The MRB discussed with the IMPEP team and the State, New Hampshire's policy for documenting incidents. The MRB agreed that New Hampshire's performance met the standard for a
- satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
Non-Common Performance Indicators. Ms. Maupin led the discussion of the non-common performance indicator, Legislation and Regulations, which is summarized in Section 4.1 of the report. The team found New Hampshire's performance relative to this indicator to be " satisfactory," and made no comments. The MRB agreed that New Hampshire's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
3.
MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Ms. Maupin concluded, based on the discussion and direction of the MRB, that New Hampshire's program was rated
\\
" satisfactory" on four common performance indicators and the applierble non common performance indicator, and ' satisfactory with recommendations for improvement' for one common performance indicator. The MRB found the New Hampshire program to be adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible. The team recommended to the MRB that the next IMPEP review be conducted in three years. The MRB decided that the next IMPEP review for New Hampshire would be conducted in four years.
4.
Comments irom the State of New Hampshire. Ms. Tefft stated that the current IMPEP review process is an improvement over the manner in which State reviews were formally conducted. She thanked the IMPEP team for their work in the review and stated that the there was a great deal of communication between the team and New Hampshire staff. Ms. Tefft commented that the finding of adequate and compatible is due to the excellent work of her staff.
5.
Old Business. Approval of the New Mexico MRB Minutes. At the completion of the New Business, the New Mexico draft MRB minutes were offered for the MRB approval.
The minutes were approved as wrinen by the attending members of the MRB. The minutes will be finalized once approval has been received from both the EDO's office and the State.
6.
Status of Remaining Reviews Mrs. Schneider briefly reported on the status of the temaining IMPEP reviews and reports.
7.
Ad.lournment. The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 11:00 am.
3-
._ ____-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _