ML20197C626

Requests That Comments on Encl Draft Minutes of 971113 New Hampshire Mgt Review Board Meeting Be Submitted by 971212.If No Comments Received Draft Minutes Will Be Finalized

ML20197C626
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/24/1997
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 9712240234
Download: ML20197C626 (5)

Text

,

'NOV,2 4 O MEMORANDllM TO: Management Review Board Members:

Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Thomas Martin, AEOD

' Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager D'S1 Afcec4 by FROM:

Office of State Programs * #* U#*1de2'

SUBJECT:

DRAFT MINUTES: NEW HAMPSHIRE NOVEMBER 13,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on November 13,1997. Please res 'ew and comment oy December 12,1997. If no comments 4

are recieved by that date, the draft minutes will be finalized as is, if you have any questions, please contact me af d15-2320, e-mail KXS@NRC. GOV, or Lanco Rakovan at 415-2589, e-mail LJR2@NRC. GOV.

Attschment:

As stated

'ec: Diane Tefft, NH Robert Quillin, CO

- Qiptribution: _

DlR RF DCD (SP01)

! SDroggitis . PDR (YES/) 3 PLohaus SMoore, NMSS GDeegan, NMSS DWhite, RI ,

CGordon, RI n_, CMaup.a, OSP WPassetti, FL'  % '

JThoma, EDO 7 ,

FCameron, OGC ~~~'

HNewsome, OGC DChawaga, RI New Hampshire File RBlanton DOCUMENT NAY.E: G:\LJR\NHMRB.DFT T' receive a cop r of tNo document, Indicate in the box *C" a Copy without attse ...Jiemure *E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N" a No copy ,

OFFICE' OSP e l - OSP /ft) l - l l NAME- LRakovan:kk % KNSchneider DATE 11/t//97 y 11/.11/97 OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-18

. gpg {""['

m e2<oaa

,s;;; M

{]Q% -

PDR STPRO ESGNH PDR

gga aseuq\ UNITED STATES g- ]- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAsHINaTON, D.C. seseHe01

' % ,,,g # November 24, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members:

Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP -

Carl Paperiello, NMSS .

Karen Cyr, OGC Thomas Martin, AEOD 5

FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior oject Manager Office of State Prugrams -

SUBJECT:

DRAFT MINUTES: NEW HAMPSHIRE NOVEFBER 13,1997 MRB MEETjNG

- Attached are the draft minutes of the Management Review BoaH (MRB) meeting held on November 13,1997. Please review and comment by December 12,1997, if no comments are recieved by that date, the draft minutes will be fin 0lized as is. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-2320, e-mail KXS@NRC. GOV, or Lance Rakovan at 415-2589, e-mall LJR2@NRC. GOV,

Attachment:

As stated -

cc: Diane Terft, NH -

Robert Quillin, CO t .

i i~

MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF November 13.1997 These minutes are presented in the same general order as the items were discussed in the meeting. The attendees were as follows:

rUchard Bangart, MRB Member, OSP Thomas Martin, MRB Member, AEOD tr1 Paperiello, MRB Member. NMSS Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC Diane Tefft, NH Cardelia Maupin, C'SP Craig Go: don, RI William Passetti, FL John Thomu, EDO Kathleen Sc'ineider, OSP Paul Lohaus. OSP Lance Rakovan, OSP Duncan White, Rl Richard Blanton, OSP Brenda Usilton, OSP By telephone:

Robert Quillin, CO Dennis O'Dowd, NH Kathy McAllister, NH Mario lannaccone, NH

1. Convention. Richard Bangart, Acting Chair of the Management Review Board (MRD),

convened the meeting at 9:35 a.m. Introductions of the attendees were conducted.

2. New Business. New Hamn.Mrs Review !ntroduction. Ms. Cardelia Maupin, Office of Late Programs, led the Integrated Materials Performarace Evaluation Program (IMPEP) team for the New Hampshire review. l Ms. Maupin discussed how the review was conducted. Preiiminery work included a review of New Hampshire's respor se to the IMPEP questionnaire, inspector accomoaniments were perforn ed July 10 and 24,1997. The onsite revir.w 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 management. The onsite portion l of the review conc'uded with exit oriefings 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 Parformance Indicators. Mr. Gordon discussed the findings for the common performance indicator, Status of the Materials inspection Program. His presente"on corresponded to Section 3.1 of the IMPEP rept,rt. The team made two recommendations and two suggestions as documented in the report. Due to the number of overdue core inspections at the time of the review, the review team initially found New Hampshire's performance with respect to this indicator met the

" unsatisfactory" criterion of Management Directive 5.6. In New Hampshire's response to the draft IMPEP report, the fnate indicated that slx of the eight overdue core inspections had been completed, and ht State further commented to the MRB that the remaining two inspections had been prformed. Based upon the State's comments and noting the expected changes in scheduling of inspections and the inspections perfonned, the

review team revised their finding with respect to this indicator to be ' satisfactory with recommendations.' Mr. Gordon noted that in their response to the draft report, New Hampshire requested that the State be rated ' satisfactory

• for th!s indicator to reflect the additional staff effort in the inepection are. The MRB discussed with the IMPEP team and the State specific details about the overdue inspections. In addition, the MRB discussed a final report dispatched 10 months after the inspection was performed (Dartmouth College). The MRB directed the IMPEP team to remove the word ' overdue' from the sentence idontifying the number of core licenses in New Hampshire. The MRB agreed that New Hampshire's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations" rating for this indicator.

Mr. Passetti presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Staff;ng 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,' ar.J made one recommendation and one suggestion as documented in the report. The MRB and 4 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 effectiveness of monthly rotations to read: 'The review team recommends that the State evaluats the number of staff needed to implement the program.' The MRB agreed that New Hampshire's performance met the standard for a "eatisfactory" rating for this indicator.

Mr. Passetti presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality 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 comments. The MRB agroed that New Hampshire's performance met the standara 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 performance 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 involv.ag severity levels and civil penalties, a finding noted in a previous NRC reviews.

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 that New Hampshire's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.

The MRB also agreed that New Hampshire's use of a violation response review checklist was a good pmetice.

2-

The common performance indicator, Response to incidents 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 standerd for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.

Non-Common Performance indicators. Ms. Maupin led the discussion of the non- i common performance inoicator, Legislation and Regulations, which is summarized l 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 Now Hampshire's performance met the standr,rd for a " satisfactory" rating for this indicator.

3. MRS Consultation /Lomments on lesuance of Report. Ms. Maupin concluded, based i on the discussion and directior, of the MRB, that New Hampshire's program was rated

" satisfactory" cn four common performance indicators and the applicable non-common performance indicator, and " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement

• for one ,

1 common performance indicator. The MRB found the New Hampsh!re program to be adequate ;o 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 from 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 written 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 remaining IMPEP reviews and reports.

7. Adjoumment. The meeting was adjoumed at approximately 11:00 am.

3-

. - - . - . . - _ .