ML20011E916
| ML20011E916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/20/1989 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E902 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-90-34 NUDOCS 9002230052 | |
| Download: ML20011E916 (4) | |
Text
_ _. _. - -. __ -_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._
(
uutteestAres NUCLEAR REOULATCRY COMMISSION ammasseren.e.s.seses
-\\,.....
m e mi i
MEMORAletM FOR:
Martin G. Malsch InspectorGeneral(Acting)
Office of the Inspector General j
Flpt:
Victor Stallo, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations SLSJECT:
DRAFT REPORT ON REVIEW 0F NRC's ENFORCDENT PROGRAM This is in reference to your memorandum of June 6 198g transmitting the above dreft report and providing an opportunity to provide comments thereon. The purpose of this esserendum is to address the recommendattens of the draft t
report.
i l
The report addresses areas where further staff actions consistent with available resources are appropriate to taprove the enforcement program and oversight. Our 1
specific comments to your recommendations follow:
l
$cossendation 1 1
i Institute a procedure to verify. on a sampling basis, whether the regions adequately and consistently follow enforcement policy for enaluating enforcoserit histories when issuing severity Level IV violations.
_Rt199Mt Agree.
This is an area where, within available resources, more effort should be expended. Given the 11stited resources available, the staff focuses,its Headquarters efforts on escalated cases.
However as the report notes, OE hss provised limited oversight of regional activities,by reviewing inspection findings for appropriate severity level findings.
OE has not developed a mothed to monitor regional evaluation of licensee's enforcement history.
However, the report should note that the regions do this routinely for reactors as part of the SALP process and for material licensees as part of the prepara-tion for inspections.
In addition prior enforcement history is considered as part of the review recess for esca, lated cases.
It should also be noted that the staff is deve ing a Master Inspection Plan System that replaces the 766 System. This is de igned to better track violations and their root causes.
The purpose of those changes was in part to improve the ability te consider post enforcement history.
OE intends to issue guidance to each Regional Administrator to develop regional instructions to assure that relevant enforcement history is evaluated for both reacter and enterials licensees to determine which severity Level IV or V violations should be escalated to Severity Level III management breakdowns or which repetitious Severity Level IV violations warrant a civil penalty.
In l
9go22pgg29002n UNNERSTA90-34 PDR
i Martin G. Malsch
' l additten. OE totonds to sample restenal cases to assess whether repetitive
[
violattens are properly seasidered in accordance with the Enforcement policy.
Caspletten estes Meme to Regional Administrators - August 31, 198g e
~
perform audit - portedically ever the next year
{
Recommendation !
Clarify and redefine the responsibilities for OSC and OE with respect to the i
reviews of escalated enforcement actions ene incorporate the result of this effort into a revised manual chapter for:the enforcement progree..
g Agree that a revised OE Manual Chapter is needed. Oneperson(fulltise)has heen assigned to acosaptish this task. Neuever the role and responsibilttles of OGC are appropriately detailed in the existi Manual Chapter. The current language in the laspection and Enforcement Manua Chapter 0400-04(geotedat page 13), although clearly requiring u to to substitute *0GC' for *0EL.D." is otherwise adequate to assure that OSC s what its responsibilities are.
On page 13 of the report it is noted that OGC performs five functions in its review of enforcement actions. These functions are the classic functions performed by counsel and, indeed, are the routine functions performed by OSC in connection with all legal services provided (suitably tailored of course to reflect the program activity in regard to which the legal advic,e is being.
provided).
These functions and responsibilities are well known by the attorneys.
in OGC who provide advice and counsel to the NRC's enforcement program.
The report suggests, however, that "some of 0GC's objectives in reviewing l
enforcement packages appear to be primary responsibilities of DE." giving, as an example, considering the consistency of an action with the Enforcement Pclicy. Without doubt, me technical and policy decisions regarding enforce-ment actions rest with the staff.
But assessing the legal sufficiency of a proposed action in terms of the several functions ioontifico in the report is the responsibility of 0GC.
With respect to this example, then while the staff indeed is responsible for deciding how to apply the Enforcem,ent policy.
it is wholly appropriate that 0GC review that determin6 tion to assure that the rationale for such action is defensible consistency with prior actions taken (from a policy standpoint) is one element in that legal judgment.
In connection with the enforcement issues which the staff considers. 0GC comments concerning the policy choice and lep11 cations provide a usefbl insight.
0GC's thoughts are the policy determination itself should not be rejected simply because the staff has the ultimate responsibility. While there may be times that the line between legal and policy comments is blurred, the relationship between OE and 0GC has effectively assured that the estters are appropriately resolved.
Completion date:
December 31,1989.
Attessiteds. tion 3 Reassess the role of the regional counsel in the enforcement review process.
j Startin 4. Maisch 3RRIEk!
p Agree.
OE 1 steeds to send a esmerandum to each Regional Aaministrator requirin that regional egensel review each escalated enforcement action recessenettien, g t
in either draft er final form except when region counsel is unavailable.
The l
Regional Administrators and CIC will be requested to incorporate and sodify as necesssary, the job description and the applicable standards and elements fo,r
'the regtenal counsels to specify their role in the enferessent process for the I
next rating period.
i Caspletten dates: MemotoRegionalAdministratorsandOGC-Segus't 31, 1983 Recessundation 4 j
l Require the regiums to use the existing documentation checklist er other procedure as OE deems appropriate.
191893&R
)
Agree. However we question the view, at page 11 that the checklist is not consistently use,d. While it.may not be provided in every case, we believe it is more accurate to state that it is provided in the enjority of the cases..
Attention has been places on the checklist because with its use the quality of asterial provided by the regions has 1sproved.
The revised OE Manual Chapter will require the use of the checklist.
Ceepletion date: December 31, 1989.
lI Recossendation 5 l
i Consider requiring the OE staff to highlight or otherwise indicate all changes
)
to enforsement packages when OE returns the package to the regions for E
j.
concurrence.
32129212 l
Agrwe. OE is evaluating using the Display Write 4 program to indicate changes to the enforcement packages for a 4 month perios. After the trial period OE will assess whether this or another system is necessary.
Completion date: November 30, 1983 Rosagelgad411efL6
\\
Institute a procedure to track the status of each enforcement action through i
various offices and milestones in the Headquartars' review process in oreer to identify delays and evaluate the effectiveness of the process.
$$12E19 Agree in part. Tiemliness of Headquarters is clearly an issue that continues to receive annagement attention.
Headquarters timeliness is tracked and any
i flartin 4. Malsch !
stentfteent schedultag problem is promptly Wntified to the Otrector, OE.
i Therefore, it is est clear how such more effort should be expended to track 8
tiaaliness of the indivtema) allestones at Needguarsers such as revtes ana terevleus for OSC, program off tees. OE staff OE Otrector, and DE05, and time for reglens to issue.
As the report notes, Neuever, the issue is how should the data on more for a trial perted.
200 asses be analysed. A cesputer program will need to be developes to consider the data since EAT 5 eues not have the capability to consider indtwhal allestones.
Keeping track of the individual data points will considerably tecrease the data entry probles. OE has only two secretaries who work at a full pace. This is at. area that will be addressed at least for a trial parted but from a cost-benefit view it is not clear whether the benefits of a perennent tracking sy'or a trial period rather than perasnently.
stem will be worth the cost. We suggest that the recommendation theuld be
~
A tracking fore has been generated and the OE staff has begun recording this data.
OrW signed by Vctor Steno, Jr.
l Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Otractor for Operations o
ac:
H. Thompon DEDS g
J. Scinto kC Rentonalddministrators l
RL, RII, RI!!, RIV. RV
}
l l
l l
l
\\
i I
)
L
.