ML19341A510
| ML19341A510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/12/1979 |
| From: | Strickler L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | Fortuna R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341A503 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-80-516 NUDOCS 8101260087 | |
| Download: ML19341A510 (1) | |
Text
80 -5 th
\\
hu 45 U
Mao,./r1y Ts. b3e FM~~
/
c Fr.~ : L. X. s&r ~k le r
- Eved # Le q 6,A, Laj e d :
Mrc ke_ '.ad de(,c
f.e.v;ew et krc Y
'v.)
m4.au.tYHmj fe
.<h r
4 1s, vm Rc.p <b. c k vc a :7
. L
.s.sL v!
~37'Lye..
~,
T k<
. s.r.. : O c.., a e.
J Y
a J lL,,,L/
+ \\ e. SAL.LGr.,
c L v; a r.e.
k ~ L ( A n o 4 :c:. :
c:lc.
f, e.- s e.
n.4e
%.k + L iLd> n NL 4 y
<,. u d.)-
n,{-
b ua)
'n,Tk w a. <.e -
o<
yn,
.s is a>ra;, tly Gudy pn:L,l
+.
e.
s-p g s;m cyi e.,
4
..m
,4 &k
-. O e L e i -5
<k,re-c N e k L drun,.k[.E:se.(_17 w e '-< -
. c cc.,o a.c,.
/ 1 - 71 i
a, UUn ED3TATEE s,
dh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hoc lJ3 N,: 7 7
l WASHIN G1ON. D.C. 2052
,[
August 24, 1979 S, g,-*
CFFicE OF THE COMMISSIONEpl Memorandum for Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations From:
Richard T. Kennedy gp
Subject:
01A IINESTIGATION REPORT, "MICHELSON REPORT --
EVENTS AND LFVELS OF REVIEW" g
The subject report provides valuable insight into the following areas of apparent weakness in NRC procedures which contributed to the lack of early and adequate staff attention to the Michelson Report:
1.
A lack of a forum, other than the ACRS, within the regulatory -
system through which safety related concerns expressed by individuals such as Dr. Miciielson can be addressed and resolved; 2.
A lack of formal written procedures or guidelines through which the ACRS or its members may request NRC staff review of a particular subject; 3.
A lack of adequate internal staff procedures to ensure that externally generated reports such as ACRS consultant reports are rigorously distributed, screened for safety concerns, and analyzed by the staff; 4.
A lack of adequate and timely exchange of pertinent safety related information between DSS and 00R.
libile I recognize that staff procedures addressing the above-mentioned areas may exist, based on the perceptions of those interviewed during the course of this investigation, it is clear that, if they do exist, they certainly have not been adequately disseminated or emphasized.
If such procedures do not currently exist, they should be developed and implemented without delay.
I would appreciate receiving your plan to correct this situation by September 7, 1979.
l Q Ql L) vuo g
g
N' 7'yN'y--[
]
9 UNITED STATES '
j-480 4 4 g
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON V
i*
I h
f.
.C l; -
g, WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
- (
,/
September 21, 1979
,N y
s s
MEHORANDUM FOR:
ConTnissioner' Kennedy FROM:-
Lee V.' Gossick f
d Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
OIA INVESTIGATION REPORT, "MICHELSON REPORT g
EVENTS AND LEVELS OF REVIEW" Your memorandum of August 24, 1979 noted four 'ireas of apparent weakness in NRC procedures which contributed to the lack of early and adequate staff a tention to the "Miche.lson Report."~ You requested a plan for development and implementation of new or improved procedures. We have the following coanents and plans with regard to each of the areas you
~
mentioned:
~
1.
A 1eck of a forum, cther than the ACRS, within the~
regulatory system through which safety related concerns expressed by individuals such as Dr. Michelson can be addressed and resolved;"
"2.
A lack of adequate internal staff procedures to ensure that externally generated reports such as ACRS consultant reports are rigorously distributed, screened for safety concerns, and analyzed by the staff;"
He acree tnet these weaknesses presently exist and should be corrected.
It is evident that it has not been sufficient to rely on the ad hoc distribution cr circulation of internally or externally cenerated concerns c
recorts to one or many members of a staff that is fully occupied with c:r.er priority work assignments, without a preliminary interdisciplinary re.is.e for pctential significance and without specific assignments for fciic up actions. This ceneral subject will be aridressed in the long ra ge reco menda: ions of the NRR Lessons Learned Task Force and I wculd e:cect it to be addressec by both the Presidential Ccamission and the
- .C Special Incuiry Group.
In the meantime, however, pending receipt of
- .e recommendatiens of those groups, I will request Mr. C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Ir.teri.? Director of the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, who has been recently detailed to that office, to develop and provide to me recommendations for immediate steps that can be taken to correct these weaknesses.
Specifically, I have asked him to cddress, from an agency viewpoint, the handling, initial screening, and subsequent disposition of safety-related concerns expressed by individuals (inside and outside of NRC) and by externally generated reports and to develop the procedures for assuring that such matters are systematically prccessed.
D**]D
- ]D0 0} L@
o o Ju o JuU UA
^
4 Comissioner Kennedy
- 2'-
"2.
A lack of fonnal written procedures or guidelines
- through' which the ACRS or its members may request NRC staff review of a-particular subject;"
In the past, requests by the ACRS or its members for NRC staff review of particular subjects have been made in a variety of ways.
Requests made by 1.he full coninittee are generally forwarded in memoranda from the ACRS Chairman of Executive Director to the EDO or the Director, NRR, or are included in the ACRS letter reports to the Chairman, HRC. The Comittee semiannually sumarizes such requests and the staff provides a status report to the Comittee.
Requests by individual members, or subcourittees, are sometimes forwarded (in writing or orally) by the ACRS member or an ACRS staff member to project managers, individual staff members or supervisors. These less formal requests sometimes do not receive widespread distribution, particularly to line management, and appropriate assignments for followup actions are not assured unless a written request is handled as controlled correspondence.
'I have requested the Interim Director, AE0D, to consult with the Executive Director, ACRS staff, and _the Director, HRR, and to prepare formal written procedures for the handling of Comittee requests and ACRS consultants' reports for consideration by the ACRS and me by the end of October.
"4.
A lack of adequate and timely exchange. of, pertinent safety related information between DSS and-DDR."
In July 1976 thedirector, DDR, established procedures for the systematic preparation and issuance of Operating Experience Memoranda and Operating Information Memoianda to provide feedback information and recommendations to DSS, DSE and DPM on matters arising in operating reactors and relevant to CP and OL licensing.
Information developed in the CP and OL licensing process having potential relevance to operating reactors is transmitted to DDR, both orally and,by-memoranda, but no systematic 7rocedures for documentation of.such information have been established.
The Director, "RR, has requested the Acting Directors of DSS, DSE and JPM to develop ar.d implement such procedures for their divisions by the end of October, ar.d to consider the initiation of regularly scheduled interface meetings bett.een the Directors and Assistant Director of the four "RR divisions fcr -he purpose cf exchanging safety-related information on a timely tasis.
l I will keep the Comission inforced of the results of the above plans for improvements.
./
l QML o
~/
- l.ee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations cc:
See next page.
g A Q ]g
- ]g
' D
~
h e s M e Ma }h e
.s.
'Comissioner K:nnedy '.
Chairman Hendrie cc:
Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne H. Denton,"NRR
.R. Fraley, ACRS A. Kenneke', OPE
'L. Bickwit, OGC C. Kamerer, OCA J. Fouchard, OPA S. Chilk, SECY W. Dircks, HMSS V. Stello, IE R. Minogue, SD
- 5. Levine, RES E. Case, RRR D. Vassallo, DPM D. Muller, DSE D. Eisenhut, DDR F. Schroeder, DSS R. Mattson, DSS D. Ross, DPM S. Hanauer, DSS
.N. Haller, MPA J. Heltemes, AEOD 9
9 l
D**0 A'
< A-o
~ - -
.+w
-an t: %,e z
. t::
/@
unnto si Ans FO-5l m
8-7
,p
~
+5 NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMisslON Vf
,C wasmucTon. p. c. rosss 1
U
- r. 4 e
I
,N g
i September 21, 1979
- k~%;s
~
f n
s
.}S D- '
& }b,
\\
\\' '
M
(
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Conmissioner' Kennedy <
d FROM:-
1.ee Y.' Gossick Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
DIA INVESTIGATION REPORT, "MICHELSON REPORT 4
c EVENTS AND LEVELS OF REVIEW" Your memorandum of August 24, 1979 noted four areas of apparent weakness in HRC procedures which contributed to the lack of early and adequate staff attention to the "Miche.lson Report."- You requested a plan for development and implementation of new or improved procedures.
We have the following cocrnents and plans vith regard to each of the areas you mentioned:
"h.
'A' lack of a forum, other than the ACRS, within the' regulatory-system through which safety related concerns expressed by individuals such as Dr. Michelson can be addressed and resolved;"
"2.
A lack 7f adequate internal staff procedures to ensure that externally generated reports such as ACP,5 consultant reports are rigorously distributed, screened for safety concerns, and analyzed by the staff;"
1.'e. acree that the'se weaknesses presently exist and should be corrected.
It is evident that it has not been sufficient to rely on the ad hoc distribution or circulation of internally or externally generated ' concerns ce reports to one or many members of a staff that is fully occupied with ed.er priority n,rk assignments, without a preliminary interdisciplinary review for potential significance and without specific assignaents for foliovup actions.
This general subject will be addressed in the long rar.pe recomendations of the NRR Lessons Learned Task Force and I would ex:ect it to be addressed by both the Presidential Commission and the M C Special Inquiry Group.
In the meantime, however, pending receipt of the recomencations of those groups, I will request Mr. C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Interic' Director of the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, who has been recently detailed to that office, to develop and provide to me recomendations for immediate steps that can be taken to correct these weaknesses.
Specifically, I have asked him to address, from an agency viewpoint, the handling, initial screening, and
[
subsequent disposition of safety-related concerns expressed by individuals l
. (inside and outside of NRC) and by externally generated reports and to-davalop the procedures for assuring that such matters are systematically I
processed.
,esM 6 MAl.$ lIL=
<::: :.j := f 1 -2 9.r?. :.
',,.; ~,; 5.% %;'..' 4'.. A \\jf ::,
s'
~ ~. w.:ic.
r.
~
Comissioner Kennedy.'_ W;,
M-4 -- =.:.g.-
- 2*-
~~
., l' V-y _..
"2.
A lack;of.fonnal. written procedures or guidelines
, ' through which the ACRS or its members may request NRC staff review'of a particular subject "
2:.'. c x.
In the past, requests'by the ACRS or its members for NRC staff review of particular subjects have been made in a variety of ways.
Requests made by the full coninittee are generally forwarded in memoranda from the ACRS Chairman of Executive Director to the EDO or the Director, NRR, or are The Committee included in the ACRS letter reports to the Chairman, HRC.
semiannually sumarizes such' requests and the staff provides a status report to the Comittee.1 Requests by individual members, or subcomittees, are sometimes foniarded (in writing or orally) by the ACRS member or an ACRS staff member to project mana'gers,'-individual staff members or These less formal requests sometimes do not receive widespread supervisors.
distribution, particularly to line management, and appropriate assignments for followup actions are not assured unless a written request is handled as controlled correspondence.
I have requested the Interim Director.
AEOD, to consult with the Executive Director, ACRS staff, and the Director.
HRR, and to prepare formal written procedures for the handling of Comittee requests and ACRS consultants' repor.ts for consideration by the ACRS and me by the end of October.
~
"4.
A lack of adequate and timely exchange of. pertinent safety related information between DSS and DOR."
In July 1976 the, Director, DDR, established procedures for the systematic preparation and issuance of Operating Experience Memoranda and Operating Information Memoranda to provide feedback information and recommendations to DSS, DSE and DPM on matters arising in operating reactors and relevant to CP and 01. licensing.
Information developed in the CP and OL licensing process having potential relevance to operating reactors is transmitted to DDR, both ora.11y and by memoranda, but no systematic procedures for The Director, documentation of such information have been established.
NRR, has requested the Acting Directors of DSS, DSE and DPM to develop and icplement such procedures for their divisions by the end of October, ar.d to consider the initiation of regularly scheduled interface meetings beti:2en the Directors and Assistant Director of the four NRR divisions for the purpose of exchanging safety-related information on a timely basis.
l I will keep the Comission inforned of the results of the above plans i
for improvements.
g &v -) /
/M/
,,-d ee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
,Seenextpage.[
p (,
cc:
-r
~, :.
~
f
. f. l-..~.
I.
u
-i.F-
.m _, _
?:e L. '.';,.'y.f..i-2 4. Y, l..
w-,
=
3 '-
Comissioner Kennedy.'
cc:
Ch'aiman'Hendrie Comissioner Gilinsky
~
Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne H. Denton, NRR R. Fraley, ACRS
=
A. Kenneke', OPE L. Bickwit, OGC C. Kamerer, OCA J. Fouchard, OPA S. Chilk, SECY W. Dircks, HMSS V. Stello, IE R. Minogue, SD S. Lev'ine, RES
' E. Case, HRR D. Vassallo, DPM D. Huller, DSE e
D. Eisenhut, DDR F. Schr.oeder, DSS R. Mattson, DSS D. Ross, CPM
~
J. Neltemes, AEOD TM 8
e e
e e
e D *
- lD
- lD 3)Y f e m M e n Jd n
_,