ML20197C799

Forwards Final Minutes of 971023 New Mexico Mgt Review Board Meeting

ML20197C799
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/18/1997
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 9712240274
Download: ML20197C799 (6)

Text

.

• I DEC 181397 i

MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members, l l

Hugh Thompson, EDO , )

Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS  :

Karen Cyr, OGC Richard Bc.rrett, AEOD n,.g nni eigenn

..:.. tar.oider FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager Office of State Programs

SUBJECT:

FINAL MINUTES: NEW MEXICO OCTOBER 23,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on October 23,1997. If you have any questions, please ce fact me at 415-2320, INTERNET:

KXS@NRC. GOV, or Lance Rakovan at 415-2589, INTERNET: LJR2@NRC. GOV.

Attachment:

As stated ec: William Floyd, NM Benito Garcia, NM Geoffrey Sloan, NM Ray Paris, OR p,

1. >

( 3 P,

t

[ I i

' \

D.ininbution i DlR RF DCD (SP01) t SDroggitis PDR (YES/) ,t

~

PLohaus SMoore NMSS C SWoods, EDO JHornor, RIV/WC f .

JLynch, Rlli GDeegan, NMSS b- DCool, NMSS E , ~, ~~

CHackney, RIV Terry Frazee, WA CMaupin TMartin, AEOD FCombs, NMSS LHowell, RIV New Mexico File llllllll]l

==*** lllll {lall-l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\LJR\NMMRB.FNL To receive e copy of thin document mdica!O in the box' "C" e Copy w@ cut attachment / enclosure *E' e Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" a No coer OFFICE - OSP r, l OSP l NAME LRakovan:kk P KNSchneider DATE 12/tF/97 12/l1/97

! 9712240274 971218 i' OSP FILE CODE: SP-AG-19 PDR STPRC ESGNM l

PDR

,pa ascoq

,y=- It UNITED STATES j* }t NUCLEAR REG'JLATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. 3066Mc01

%9,,,,,,f December 18, 1997 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Management Review Board Members:

Hugh Thompson, EDO Richard Bangart, OSP Carl Paperiello, NMSS Karen Cyr, OGC Richard Barrett, AEOD ,5 FROM: Kathleen N. Schneider, Senior Project Manager Office of Stato ?'rograns

SUBJECT:

FINAL MINUTES: NEV/ MEXICO OCTOBER 23,1997 MRB MEETING Attached are the final minutes of the Management Review Board (MRB) meeting held on October 23,1997, if you have any questions, please centact me at 415-2320, INTERNET:

KXS@NRC. GOV, c' Lance Rakovan at 415-2589, INTERNET: LJR2@NRC. GOV.

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

MINUTES: MANAGEMENT REVIEW BOARD 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, MRB Member, DEDR Richard Bangart, MRB Member, OSP Richard Barrett, MRB Member, AEOD Carl Paperiello, MRB Member, NMSS Karen Cyr, MRB Member, OGC . Ray Paris, Agreement State Licison, OR Geoffrey Sloan, NM William Floyd, NM James Lynch, Rlil Terry Frazee, WA Jack Hornor, RIV/WC Scott Moore, NMSS Don Cool, NMSS Fred Combs, NMSS Linda Howell, RIV 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 ll!, 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. Inspector accompaniments were performed on June 16-18,1997. The onsite review was conducted July 1418,1997. The onsite review included an entrance interview, detailed audits of a representative sample of completed licensing actions ant' 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 raport to the MRB on October 15,1997.

Due to the significanca and number of deficiencies found during the review and stated in the New Mexico report, including an " unsatisfactory" for one indicator and " satisfactory with recommendations for improvemer;t" 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, nesponse to Incidents and Allegations, was the first common performance indicator discussed. Mr. Hornor led the discussion in this area. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the report, the team found New Mexico's performance relativa 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 causes for New Mexico's handling of incidents and allegations. The State commented that the main problem was documentation, and that NRC had reviewed and approved the approach in previous reviews. New Mexico 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 IPCK of documentation in the incident files. The State and the MRB discussed what steps the State was taking to properly handle 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 indicctor at the time of the team's review. The MRB noted that the new procedures appeared adequate to address the concerns, and if these procedures are appropriately implemented, New Mexico would receive a rating of ' satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" for this indicator. Due to the fact that no incidents have been reported since the new procedures were put into place, the question of implementation remains.

The MRB decided to postpone a final position on whether the State's program should be placed 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 Sectica 3.4 of the report. The team found that New Mexico's performance with respect to this indicator was ' satisfactory with recommendations for improvement," 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 exit interviews with upper management. Mr. Moore stated that possible root causes for the problems included lack of training, management, and cultare 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 commented that the criteria for this indicator were closely followed, and that the accompaniments completed by the 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 probierns. After this discussion, the MRB reached consensus that New Mexico's performance met the standard for a " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" rating for this indicator.

2  ;

l 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 j indicator " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement," 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 l

" satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" 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 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 for improvement," and made three recommendations. The MRB and the State discussed New Mexico adopting a formal training program, and the status of their training budget. New Mexico assured the MRB that they could make the '

necessary improvements to their 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 for improvement" rating for this indicator.

Mr. Frazee presented the findings regarding the common performance indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions. He summari:ed the findings in Section 3.3 of the report, where the review team found New Mexicds licensing actions to be generally thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable quality with health and safety issues properly addressed. The IMPEP team found New Mexico's performance to be " satisfactory" for this indicator, 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 "satif. factory" rating for this indicator.

Non-Common Performance Indicators. Mr. Homor led the discussion of the non-common performance indicator, Legislation and Flegulations, 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 number of other rules would be adopted by May 30,1998. The MRB and the State discussed New Mexico's request to return their sealed source and device (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 indicater.

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 indicater, " satisfactory with recommendations for improvement" for three common performance indicators, and

• unsatisfactory" for the final common performance indicator. Based on the findings of the review, the review team recommended that New Mexico's program be put on probation and believes that heightened oversight is warranted.

3

I

- , . o

' The MRB met for a short period of time in an executive session.1 Upon retuming, the MRB stated that there were three main issues New Mexico had to clearly address in tenns of programmatic changes and procedure implementation: (1) level of program staff and amount of resource support, (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 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 ;;robation has been ree:hed by the MRB. '

4. Comments from the State of New Mexico. Mr. Floyd and Mr. Sloan thanked the -

IMPEP team for their work in the review. Note: During the MRB, Mr. Floyd did offer additional information on specific cases, such as that the incident on the University lost ,

j -- sources was determined to be only an inventory problem which has been addressed by  ;

4 the licensee. 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 develop an agenda.

5. Old Business. Maryland Good Practice lasue. 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 Report at this time, and that the Good Practice Report should be completed.

i Approval of one Texas MRB Minutes. The Texas final MRB minute.s were offered for

- the MRB approval. The minutes were approved as written.

Texas LLRW Revisions. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) concurred on the proposed revisions to Section 4.3 of the Texas final report. Issuance of the final report is pending the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (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 adjourned at approximately 4:45 pm.

4

,; 4

- - - - ,