ML20199F091
| ML20199F091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/11/1997 |
| From: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Weidler M NEW MEXICO, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711240109 | |
| Download: ML20199F091 (8) | |
Text
_ . -
<;/, ,.
" = '
paarsg p
t UNITED SYATES f
?
- 5 j e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001
- / .
Novenber 11, 1997 -
Mr. Mkrk E. Weldier, Secretary -
New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive P.O. Box 20110 Santa Fe, NM 87502 4
Dear Mr. Weidlet,
This letter is to confirm a meeting with you and other New Mexico Environment Department representatives that is requested by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The meeting will discuss the results of the July 14 - 18,1997 New Mexico Integrated Materials Performance
, ' Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the implamentation of your regulatory responsibilities authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Richard Bangart, Director of NRC's Office of State Programs, has coordinated with Benito Garcia, Chief of your Hazardous and Radioactive Materials Bureau, to schedule and plan this meeting. My understanding is that Mr. Bangart and I will r.ieet in the Runnels Building with you, Mr. Garcia, and Dr. Ed Kelley, Director, Water and Waste Management Division, at 9:00 a.m. on December 4,1997.
i-t Due to the number of recommendations and suggestions in the draft IMPEP report, the review l team recommended that the New Mexico program be placed on probation. The team did not l change this recommendation after receiving and reviewing your October 10,1997 letter to Mr. Bangart. A Management Review Board (MRB) meeting was conducted on October 23,
! 1997 to review the team's recommended findings, to make an overall determination about the l adequacy and compatibility of the New Mexico Agreement State program, and to make an initial L decision about the need to place New Mexico's Agreement State program in a probationary l
status. For your information, an Agreement State representative was a member of the IMPEP review team and an Agreement State Radiation Control Program Director served as an l
Organization of Agreement State liaison member of the MRB. The MRB found New Mexico's l_ program to be adequate, but needs improvement, and compatible, but decided to delay the initial decision on whether to place the New Mexico Agreement State program on probation until after a meeting with New Mexico Environment Department management officials to discuss this l matter. Please find a copy of the draft minutes of the October 23,1997, MRB neeting
- l. enclosed for your information.
i
- The MRB identified three significant issues associated with the New Mexico Agreement State program for specific discussion at this meeting
- (1) level of program staffing and amount of j resource support, (2) staff technical expertise and training needs, and (3) level of management support, involvement, and oversight of the New Mexico Agreement State program activities. I have incorporated these items into the enclosed draft meeting agenda, which has been I developed in close crordination with Mr. Garcia. We welcome the addition of any agenda L topics that you may vnsh to discuss. k 9711240109 971111 PDR STPRG ESGNM PDR '
mm r. J y y K %r _ _1 ,j Z p y lllll % El p gs-q d 0010
- Mark E. Weidler -- 2 Please notify us if our understanding about any of the meeting arrangements is incorrect. if you -
have any questions about this meeting.: please contact Mr, Bangart at (301) 415 3340, or e-mail et RLB2@NRC. GOV.- .;
Sincerely, _
6 h.l$
agh L. Tt'ompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs
Enclosures:
As stated l
7
- - - - = , - . ~ - _ = -.
l-Mark E. Weidler 2 Please notify us if our understanding about any of the meeting arrangements is incorrect. If you have any questions about this meeting, please contact Mr. Bangart at (301) 415-3340, or e-mail at RLB2@NRC. GOV.
Sincerely, Samuel J. Collins for Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
SDroggitis CPaperiello, NMSS PDR (YESf NO _)
PHLohaus RBarrett. AEOD TFrazee, WA KSchneider TMartin, AEOD SMoore, NMSS LRakovan JLynch, Ritt DCool, NMSS SWoods, EDO JHomor, RIV/WC FCombs, NMSS New Mexico File 1.Howell, RIV DOCUMENT: G:\NMMTG2.RB2 TC FWCtt W G C00y Of this docurnent. If1dich in the DOx "C" a $0py wit - attachfTWtUenckMurg "P e C00y with attachmenVenChturg "K's No rer OFFICE . OSP k fh [ $$Dft p I-HLW NAME RLBangart:kli DATE 11/f/97 11/tV97
~
MINtJTES MANAGEhfENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 23.1997 There m!nutes 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, OSP Richard Barrett, AEOD Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Geoffrey Sloan, NM William Floyd, NM James Lynch. Rill ,
Jack Homor, RIV/WC Scott Moore, NMSS 1 Teiry Frazes.WA Don C:ol, NMSS Linda Howell, RIV - Fred Combs, NMSS Susanne Woods, EDO Paul Lohaus, OSP Kathleen Schnt.ider, OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP By telephone:
Benito Garcla, 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 14-18,1997. Tia ensite review included an entrance interview, detailed audits of a representative sample of completed ilcensing 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; seeived New Mexico's comment letter dated October 10,1997; and subm'tted a proposed final report to the MRB on October 15,1997.
Due to the significance and number of deficiencies found in the New Mexico report including an " unsatisfactory" for one indicator and "sotisfactory with secomme.1dations 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 A!!egations and Technical Quality of Inspections, the review team presented results from these two performance indicators first.
/
/
./ 7,a The commort performance indicatoriRecponse to incidents and Allegations, wts the first common performance indicador discussed.- Mr. Homor led the discussion in this -
area. As discussed in Secilon 3.5 of the report, the team found New Mexico's performanoa relative to this indicator to be " unsatisfactory" and made six :
recommendations and two suggestions. Mr. Homor discussed details involving the -
specific incidents, allegations, and misadministrations reviewed that appeared worthy of an onsite response. The MRB discussed with Mr. Homor the root causas f:,r New 1 Mexico's handling of incident and allegations. The State commented that the insin ,
problem was documentation, stated that they are working on solving the problem, and referred the MRB to a new incident invastigation form now in use. The MRB and the State discussed the lack of documentation in the incident files. *ie State and the MRB discussed what steps the State was taking to properly handle irx , dents and allegations.
New Mexico pointed out that the proposed fnal report states that no specific examples of pubic heatQ and safety degradation were identified by the review team. The Stats also commented that they era dedicated to fixing all the problems found by the IMPEP team and do not believe that probation is warranted. The MRB egreed that New Mexico's performance met the standard for an " unsatisfactory" rating for this indicator, and decided to postpor'c 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 Section 3.4 of the report. The team found that New Mexico's performance with respect to this indicator was "st.tisfactory with recommendations," and made seven recommendations and four suggestions. The MRB and the IMPEP team discussed the recommendations involving increasing the rigor and breadth of inspections and conducting ex!t interviews with upper management.
Mr. Moore stated that possible root causes for the problems included lack of training, mir;agement, and culture for detailed inspe::tions. The MRB and the State discussed the steps t'ew 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 *unsatilfactory' for this indicator. The IMPEP team commented that the criteria for this indi::stor were
! closely followed, and that the accompaniments completed by the team all received a min! mum 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 met the standard for a "setisfactory with recommendations" rating for this indicator.
i_ ; Mr. Lynch discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Status of the l' Materials Inspection Program. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.1 of the L IMPEP report. The review team found New Mexico's performance with respect to this l
indicator " satisfactory with recommendations," and made four recommendations as documented in the report. After a brief discussion on inspection priorities, the MRB s
agreed that New Mexico's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory with L, recommendations" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Lynch presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator,-
1 Technical Staffing and Training. His presentation corresponded to Section 3.2 of the 2-
[. .9
- IMPEP report. Mr. Lynch reported that the IMPEP review t m f und that N;w
- Mexico's performance with respect to the indicator to be " san letory with -
recommendations,' and made three recommendations. The U 18 and the State discussed New Mexico adopting a formal trainirig program, arx: :he status of their '
hz training budget. New Mexico assured the MRB that they could make the necessary improvements to tholt program, including the use of innovative approaches to address
^ staff training needs. The MRB agreed that New Mexico's performance met the standard
- for a " satisfactory with recommendations" rating for this indicator.
Mr. Frazee presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summartzed the findings in Section 3.3 of the report, where the review team found New Maxico's licensing 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 indicator, and r,)ade one suggestion, that oocumentation of license reviewers' actions be maintained in license files. The MRB agreso that New -
Mexico's performance met the standard for a "catisfactory" rating for tNs indicator.
Non Common Performance indicatore. Mr. Homor led the discussian of the non--
- 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 "satisfaciory" and made one recommendation and one suggestion as documented in the report. Th6 State commented that all past due rules as well as a number of other rules would be adopted by May 30,1998. The MRB and the State i discussed New Mexico's request to retum their SS&D program to the NRC. The MRB reached the consensus that New Mexico's performance met the standard for a
" satisfactory" rating for this indicator.
- 3. MRB Consultation / Comments on lasuance of Report. Mr. Lynch summarized that New Mexico's program was rated " satisfactory" on one common performance indicator ,
and the applicabla non-common performance indicator, " satisfactory with
- recommendations
- for three common performance indicators, and " unsatisfactory" for the fhial common performance indicator. The review team recommended that New Mexico's program be put on probation and believes that heightened oversight is -
warranted.
l 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,
. (2) technical quality of staff and training needs, and (3) level of management suppc,rt, ,
l involvement, and oversight of New Mexico Agreement State program activities. The MRB found the_ New Mexico program to be adequate, but needs improvement, and 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 program. The final report will not be issued until a decision on probation has been reached by the MRB.
l
- 3-b f -
. ,y ,g...-. , .,, ,. .,
___..._._n.
_ _ . _ _ _ -- , -n , ,,,
. s 1
- 4. Comments from the State of New Mexico. Mr. Floyd and Mr. Sican thanked the j IMPEP team for their work in the review. Mr. Garcia omphasized the resource '
limitatiens 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 commtted to working with New Mexico staff to jointly developing an agenda. ,
1
- 5. Old Business. Ma'ryland Good Practice issue. At the completion of the New !
Business, the Maryland Good Practice issue was discussed. The MRB stated that the good practice in question should be removed from the Good Practice Rsport at this time, and that the Good Practice Report should be cornpleted.
Approval of the Texas MRB Minutes. The Texas final MRB minutes were offered for the MRB approval. The minutes were approved as written.
Tsxas LLRW Revisions. 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 p'~~ DRAFT l
NRC/NEW MEXICO DRAFT MEETING AGENDA.
. DECEMBER 4,1997 '
9:00 a.m.
- 1. NRC AND NEW MEXICO AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES PURSUAN7 TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
- 11. OVERVIEW OF INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (IMPEP) 111.
SUMMARY
OF NEW MEXICO lMPEP REVIEW FINDINGS AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PROBATION FOR AN AGPC,EMENT STATE PROGRAM IV, KEY ISSUES RELATED TO THE INITIAL PROBATION DECISION A. LEVEL OF PROGRAM STAFFING AND AMOUNT OF RESOURCE ,
- SUPPORT B. STAFF TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND TRAINING NEEDS C. LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT SUPPORT, INVOLVEMENT, AND OVERSIGHT OF AGREE!V.cNT STATE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES V. FUTURE ACTIONS VI.
SUMMARY
AND CLOSING 4
i l
-q 4 7 tw-