ML20199D734

Summary of 971023 Mgt Review Board Meeting Held in State of Nm.Draft Minutes Encl

ML20199D734
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/05/1997
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 9711200407
Download: ML20199D734 (6)

Text

_ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _

4 4 .

NOV 0 51397 .

4 MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members:

'I ,

Hugh Thompson, EDO ,

,- Richard Gangart, OSP l Carl Paperiello, NMSS "

Karen Cyr, OGC .'

Richard Barrett, AEOD ceiginal, nicnod by:

K.18. Cchno.%r ,./ '

!, - FROMf , Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager ,

,,3 Office of State Programs  ;

SUBJECT:

DRAFT MINUTES: NEW MEXICO OCTOBER 23,1997 MRB MEETING ,

f

. Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held ,

I on October 23,1997. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2320, or Lance Rakovan at 415 2589.

Attachment:

As stated cc: William Floyd, NM Benito Garcia, NM Geoffrey Sloan, NM Ray Paric, OR Distribution: ,.

DIR RF DCD (SP01)

SDroggitis . PDR (YES/)

PLohaus SMoore NMSS'~

JLynch, Rlli JHornor, RIV/WC

- Terry Frazee, WA DCool, NMSS TMartin, AEOD FCombs, NMSS SWoods, EDO GDeegan, NMSS CHackney, RIV s.,

n.,n3 CMaupin LHowell, RIV '""

New Mexico File

,  ; r i

I DOCUMENT NAME: G:\L.lR\NMMRB.DFT

to ~. . a,cy e.. e-ni m.t. ., % c . cm eoui .usim.nts.noow. r . cm e .=asm.nte.u. v . wo e OSPgal OFFICE ' OSP l l NAME LRakovan: GAS.k KNSchneid6r' ~

DATE 11/g/97 UK. 11/(/97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-19, y..

/ '

_ m , ['; 9 f [_1

TdIlN N i dLai 1ki , ,g'{l.l(fkh,h 4

4711200407 971105 i

• PDR STPRG ESGNM PDR *

~

. .. _ _ = _ _ - - _ = _

On Raoug y* \

UNITED STATES s* j NUCLEAR RE!ULATORY COMMIS813N WASHINGTON, D.C. aceewoot

% ,,,,,* November 5, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members:

Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Richard Barrett, AEOD g FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager Office of State Programs

SUBJECT:

DRAFT MINUTES: NEW MEXICO OCTOBER 23,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on October 23,1997, if you have any questions, please contact me at 41!i-2320, or Lance Rakovan at 415 2589.

Attachment:

As stated cc: William Floyd, NM Benito Garcia, NM Geoffrey Sloan, NM Ray Paris, OR N og

MINtJTES: MANAGEMENT RFVIEW RQARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 23 1991 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:

Hugh Thompson, DEDR Richard Bangart, USP Richard Barrett, AEOD Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Geoffrey Sloan, NM William Floyd, NM James Lynch, Rlli Jack Homor, RIV/WC Scott Moore, NMSS Terry Frazee, WA Don Cool, NMSS Linda Howell, RIV Fred Combs, NMSS Susanne Woods, EDO Paul Lohaus, OSP Kathleen Schneider, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP By telephone:

Benito Garcia, NM Margaret Lopez, NM

1. ' Convention. Hugh Thompson, Chair of the Management Review Board (MRB),

convened the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.

2. New Business. New Mexico Review introduction. Mr. James Lynch, Regional State Agreements Officer (RSAO), Region ill, led the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the New Mexico review.

Mr. Lynch discussed how the review was conducted. Preliminary work included a review of New Mexico's response to the IMPEP questionnaire. The onsite review was conducted July 1418,1997. The onsite review included an entrance interview, detailed I audits of a representative sample of completed licensing actions and inspections, and follow-up discussions with staff and management. The onsite portion of the review concluded with exit briefings with New Mexico management. Following the review, the team issued a draft report on August 8,1997; received New Mexico's comment letter dated October 10,1997; and submitted a proposed final report to the MRB on October 15,1997.

Due to tne significance and number of deficiencies found in the New Mexico report including an ' unsatisfactory

• for one indicator and ' satisfactory with recommendations for improvement

• for three indicators, the review team recommended probation for the New Mexico program. Mr. Lynch stated that in their response to the draft report, New Mexico had no exceptions to the findings, yet commented that probation was not necessary.

Common Performance Indicators. Based on the number of recommendations and

. suggestions involving the common performance indicators, Response to incidents and Allegations and Technical Quality of Inspections, the review team presented results from these two performance indicators first.

~

The common performance indicator, Response to Incidents and Allegations, was the i first commoa performance indicator discussed. Mr. Homor led the discussion !n this 1 area. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found New Mexico's performance relative to this indicator to be "unsatisf actory" and made six 1 recommendations and two suggestions. Mr. Homor discussed details involving te specific incidents, a!!egations, and misadministrations reviewed that appeared worthy of an onsite response. The MRB discussed with Mr. Homor the root causes for New Mexico's handling of incident and allegations. The State commented that the main problem was documentation, stated that they are working on solving the problem, and referred the MRB to a new incident investigation form now in use. The MRB and the State discussed the lack of documentation in the incident files. The State and the MRB  !

discussed what steps the State was taking to properly b andle incidents and allegations.  !

New Mexico pointed out that the proposed final report states that no specific examples of pubic health and safety degradation were identified by the review team. The State also commented that they are dedicated to fixing all the problems found by the IMPEP team and do not believe that probation is warranted. The MRB agreed that New Mexico's performance met the standard for an " unsatisfactory" rating for this indicator, and decided to postpone discussing placing the State on probation until all of the indicators were discussed.

Mr. Moore discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections, which are summarized in S : tion 3.4 of the report. The team found that New Mexico's performance with resMet to this indicator was " satisfactory with recommendations," and made seven recommendations and four auggestions. The MRB and the IMPEP team discussed the recommendations involving increasing the rigor and breadth of inspections and conducting exit interviews with upper management.

Mr. Moore stated that possible root causes for the problems included lack of training, management, and culture for detailed inspections. The MRB and the State discussed the steps New Mexico is taking and plans to take to fully train their staff. The MRB questioned the IMPEP team on their decision to not find the State " unsatisfactory

• for this indicator. The IMPEP team comrnented that the criteria for this indicator were closely foll owed, and that the accompaniments completed by thu team all received a minimum of a " passing grade." The MRB then discussed with the team the appropriateness of the steps New Mexico is taking to solve these problems. After this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that New Mexico's performance mat the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendat5ns" rating for this indicator.

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 New Mexico's performance with respect to this indicator " satisfactory with recommendations," and made four recommendations as documented in the report. After a brief discussion on inspection priorities, the MRB agreed that New Mexico's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations" rating for this indicator.

Mr. Lynch presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of the l l' t

l t

l l

m u . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __.

V.

n _

IMPEP report. Mr. Lynch reported that the IMPEP review team found that New '

Mexico's performance with respect to the indicator to be " satisfactory with recommendations," and made three recommendations. The.MRB and the State discussed New MeFico adopting a formal training program, and the status of their '

r training budget.' New Mexico assured the MRB that they could make the necetsary.  !

. improvements to their program,' including the use of innovative approaches to address -- - 1 staff training needs. The MRB agreed that New Mexioc's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations" rating for thii, mdicator.' j Mr. Frazee presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He_summarlud the findings in Section 3.3 of.

the report, where the review team found New Mexico's licansing actions to be generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues property addressed. The IMPEP team found New Mexico's performance -

to be " satisfactory" for this hdicator,' and made one suggestion, that documentation of license reviewers' actions be maintained in license files. The MRB agreed that New -

Mexico's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator, ,

Non Common Performance Indicators.. Mr. Homor led th6 discussion of the non-i

.y common performance indicator, Legislation and Regulations, which is summarized in Section 4.1 of the report. The team found New Mexico's performance relative to this Indicator to be " satisfactory" and made one recommendation and one suggestion as documented in the report. The State commented that all past due rules as well as a i- - number of other rules would be adopted by May 30,1998. The MRB and the State discussed New Mexico's request to retum their SS&D program to ine NRC. The MRB reached the consensos that New Mexico's performance met the standard for a

!- " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.

3. MRB Consultation / Comments on issuance of Report. Mr. Lynch summarized that New Mexico's program was rated " satisfactory" on one common performance indicator and the applicable non common performance indicator, " satisfactory with recommendations' for three common performance indicators, and " unsatisfactory" for the final common performance indicator. The review team recommended that New Mexico's program be put on probation and believes that heghtened oversight is warranted.

The MRB met for a short period of time in an executive session. Upon retuming, the MRB stated that there were three main issues New Mexico had to clearly address in terms of implementation: (1) level of program staff and amount of resource support, 4 (2) technical quality of staff and training needs, and (3) level of management support, involvement, and oversight of New Mexico Agreement State program activities. The MRB found the New Mexico program to be adequate, but needs improvement, and 1

compatible. - The MRB stated that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Bangart would meet with upper management of the New Mexico program before the MRB voted on the .

recommendation for probationary status for the New Mexico prog:am. The final report will not be issued until a decision on probation has been reached by the MRB.

J p ,

5 \

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._A__ _. - _ . , ~ ~ -. .~ . _ . _ , _ , . , ,, _ . . . _ . , _ , - _.m.,,

r, -

4. Comments from the State of IJew Mexico. Mr. Floyd and Mr. Sloan thaned the IMPEP team for their work in the review. Mr. Garcia emphasized the resource limitations of the New Mexico program and discussed with the MRB their expectations for the meeting with New Mexico upper management. Designated as contact for the '

meeting, Mr. Bangart committed to working with New Mexico staff to jointly developing an agenda. -

5. Old Business. Maryland Good Practice issue. At the completion of the New Business, the Maryland Good Practice lasue was discussed. The MRB stated that the good practice in question should be removed from the Good Practice Report at this time, and that the Good Practice Report should be completed.

Approval of the Texas MRB Minutes. The Texas final MRB minutes were offered for the MRB approval. The minutes were approved as 'vritten.

Texas LLRW Rev: cions. OGC concurred on the proposed revisions to Section 4.3 of the Texas final report. Issuance of the final report is pending NMSS concurrence.

6. Status of Remaining Reviews. Mrs. Schneider briefly reported on the status of the remaining IMPEP reviews and reports.

7. Adjournment. The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 4:45 pm.

4

D5*Ae 4.J.% w A -F A 5 a + ,r-a4q2

_ 4 ,ya t !c3

w *

.Q'

, g _.

. -g. _.

1 f I

h 6

j k'

> g-h

~

5( -

g r

h 9

t.u .

• 4g 'y&

1

+u...

t- .;

I

.q- .

l s

'. - 1 i ..ij r

I.'

c' I

__________,.i._;___..__s. ._ - _ . . . - . . _ _ ..-.4 ~ - , . . . , . . . . . . . . . .