ML060320360
| ML060320360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/31/2006 |
| From: | Luehman J NRC/OE |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC Region 1, NRC/RGN-II, NRC/RGN-III, NRC Region 4 |
| Fretz R | |
| References | |
| Download: ML060320360 (6) | |
Text
January 31, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Attendees FROM:
James G. Luehman, Deputy Director /RA/
Office of Enforcement
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT COUNTERPART MEETING, NOVEMBER 1 - 3, 2005 On November 1 - 3, 2005, a meeting was held between members of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Enforcement (OE), and Regional Enforcement Coordination staffs. The purpose of the meeting was to provide training, share information, and discuss relevant issues that currently impact the NRCs enforcement program. The counterpart meeting was an internal staff meeting and, thus, not open to public participation or observation.
A list of attendees is provided in Attachment 1.
The Deputy Director of OE opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and participants.
Mr. Luehman noted that there have been numerous changes within the OE staff since the last counterpart meeting and that this gathering provided the first opportunity for many of the newer OE staff members to meet their fellow staff members from the regions. The counterpart meeting was highlighted by opening day remarks from Commissioner Gregory Jaczko.
Commissioner Jaczko offered his perspectives of OE, noting that the Office is involved in a number of programs that extend beyond enforcement (e.g., allegations, safety culture and differing professional opinions). The commissioner offered that perhaps OE should be referred to as the Office of Public Confidence. Following his talk, Commissioner Jaczko opened the floor up to questions from the staff.
Presentation topics for the counterpart meeting included:
Tuesday, November 1, 2005 OE Budget Process (Nick Hilton)
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) & Sensitive Non-classified Information (Cathy Holzle)
Privacy Act & Individual Action Review (Bob Fretz)
Safety Culture Overview (Isabelle Schoenfeld)
Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) Overview (Lisa Jarriel)
Wednesday, November 2, 2005 Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) (Nick Hilton)
Changes to Enforcement Action Tracking System (EATS) (Bob Fretz)
Yucca Mountain (Wil Smith)
OI Assessment Report/Other items of interest (Kris Monroe)
Meeting Attendees Wednesday, November 2, 2005 (cont.)
Dirty War Video (Jim Luehman)
Status of Enforcement Manual revisions (Maria Schwartz)
Thursday, November 3, 2005 Factual Summary Audit Findings (Russ Arrighi)
Brainstorming Session: Ways to Improve Enforcement Process (Chris Nolan)
NSIR - plans/activities regarding enforcement/allegation program coordination and execution (Glenn Tracy)
During the brainstorming session, the staff identified a number of issues as candidates for possible process improvements. These issues were later prioritized by the staff. Among the top issues included the need to: (1) improve the enforcement panel process, (2) followup on licensee actions agreed-to at ADR sessions, and (3) review the delegation of certain Severity Level III (no CP) enforcement actions at the regional level. The top 3 candidate issues are shown in Attachment 2 as items 11 - 13.
Prior to closing the meeting the Director, Office of Enforcement, reviewed a list of comments and action items stemming from the meeting. These comments and action items are provided in Attachment 2. Significant action items will be captured and tracked in OEs Action Item Tracking System (AITS).
cc: M. Johnson, OE G. Caputo, OI J. Dyer, NRR J. Strosnider, NMSS R. Zimmerman, NSIR S. Collins, RI W. Travers, RII J. Caldwell, RIII B. Mallett, RIV
Meeting Attendees Wednesday, November 2, 2005 (cont.)
Dirty War Video (Jim Luehman)
Status of Enforcement Manual revisions (Maria Schwartz)
Thursday, November 3, 2005 Factual Summary Audit Findings (Russ Arrighi)
Brainstorming Session: Ways to Improve Enforcement Process (Chris Nolan)
NSIR - plans/activities regarding enforcement/allegation program coordination and execution (Glenn Tracy)
During the brainstorming session, the staff identified a number of issues as candidates for possible process improvements. These issues were later prioritized by the staff. Among the top issues included the need to: (1) improve the enforcement panel process, (2) followup on licensee actions agreed-to at ADR sessions, and (3) review the delegation of certain Severity Level III (no CP) enforcement actions at the regional level. The top 3 candidate issues are shown in Attachment 2 as items 11 - 13.
Prior to closing the meeting the Director, Office of Enforcement, reviewed a list of comments and action items stemming from the meeting. These comments and action items are provided in Attachment 2. Significant action items will be captured and tracked in OEs Action Item Tracking System (AITS).
cc: M. Johnson, OE G. Caputo, OI J. Dyer, NRR J. Strosnider, NMSS R. Zimmerman, NSIR S. Collins, RI W. Travers, RII J. Caldwell, RIII B. Mallett, RIV ACCESSION NO. ML060320360 OFFICE OE/ES OE/DD OE/D NAME RFretz JLuehman MJohnson DATE 01/06/06 01/10/06 01/11/06 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT COUNTERPART MEETING ATTENDEES NOVEMBER 1 - 3, 2005 OE (HQ) Staff NRR Michael Johnson F. Paul Bonnett James Luehman Lisamarie Jarriel*
Chris Nolan NMSS Russ Arrighi Greg Morell Nick Hilton Robert Fretz Deani Riffle Andrea Kock*
Isabelle Schoenfeld*
Roberta Rossi*
Sue Bogle Michael Burrell Audrey Hayes Sally Merchant Renée Pedersen*
Maria Schwartz Doug Starkey Leigh Trocine Region I Daniel Holody Rick Urban John Wray Region II Carolyn Evans Scott Sparks Region III Ken OBrien Chuck Weil Region IV Karla Fuller Michael Vasquez
- Attended certain portions of the meeting
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT COUNTERPART MEETING ACTIONS Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) 1.
Review result/outcomes of the early ADR program to identify any insights regarding:
(Nick Hilton) the efficiency and effectiveness of early ADR (% of industry engaged in early ADR; % of early ADR of reactor vs material cases) differences between materials and reactor cases (e.g., agreed to mediate, settlements, etc.)
scheduling issues 2.
Issue results of ADR lessons learned formally after regional input. (Nick Hilton) 3.
Discuss with OGC the possibility of giving up the review of Confirmatory Orders coming out of ADR once an approved boilerplate has been developed. (Nick Hilton)
Allegations Program 4.
Provide comments directly to Andrea Kock regarding recent guidance on Chilling Effect Letters (CEL). (All Enforcement Specialists and Coordinators)
EATS 5.
Establish an implementation schedule that includes establishment of business rules, training, rollout, etc. (Bob Fretz) 6.
Set up a meeting with OIS and regional representatives to discuss regional needs for EATS. (Bob Fretz)
Office of Investigations 7.
Region II currently receives electronic copies of OI reports as part of a test case. OI currently not planning on expanding the issuance of electronic versions of OI reports due to concerns that copies may get into the wrong hands, and all the unintended consequences associated with distributing via email. Therefore, explore various opportunities and determine if there are other ways to address OIs concerns (i.e.,
encrypt OI reports using PGP software as was done with the security plans review team). (Mike Burrell)
Enforcement Manual 8.
Incorporate an instruction on how to handle disputed violations (non-escalated) into the current update of the Enforcement Manual. The procedure should have an independent review as needed. (Maria Schwartz) 9.
Include instructions on obtaining formal concurrences for material and reactor cases.
(Maria Schwartz) 10.
Review our timeliness goal metrics to determine if we should we re-zero the clock if new information comes in (Maria Schwartz)
Areas for Improvement 11.
Enforcement Panel Process Ensure that there is appropriate attendance from the program offices at enforcement panels. Additionally, ensure that an appropriate level of management (decision maker) is present at SERP panels. Person should have the authority to speak for the office. (A suggestion was offered that attendance may be improved if we combine all panels (i.e., Enforcement, SERP and SFRP) on one day for each Region.) (Chris Nolan)
Clarify current procedures (as necessary) to indicate when the regional offices are given approval to proceed on an enforcement action (i.e., when the strategy form is signed, or when agreement is reached at the enforcement panel). (Chris Nolan)
Consider the suggestion to delegate authority to the regions to issue Severity Level III violations (w/ No CP) for certain materials cases. The regional offices apparently used to take care of certain materials-related action once we paneled the case. (Chris Nolan) 12.
ADR Follow-up Actions Review current procedures related to the ADR process and provide guidance on verifying licensee compliance with commitments made during ADR sessions. These commitments are normally documented by a confirmatory order. The guidance should include expectations on how many (%), and who/which confirmatory order commitments do we inspect. (Nick Hilton) 13.
Knowledge management Review the need to develop an Enforcement/Allegations Specialist qualification guide and/or tool box for new personnel or staff members on rotation to OE. The review should consider OE functional areas in addition to enforcement (e.g., allegations, safety culture, FOIA, and administrative) and how information on our processes is provided.
(lead person to be assigned).