Text

Forwards Documentation QC Checklist,Per Request
	ML20012D983
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/16/1990
From:	Lieberman J; NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
To:	Englishbee H; NUS CORP.
References
	NUDOCS 9003290184
	Download: ML20012D983 (8)
	v • d • e

-. :'

' MAR 161990 -

O.

NUS' Corporation.

. ATTN: Harry Englishbee:

2650 McCormick Drive Clearwater, Florida 34619-

Dear Mr. Englishbee:

~

In response to your request, enclosed please find _a copy of the _ Documentation Quality Control Checklist.

-3

.If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call Ed Baker at

.(301)492-0747.

Origlealsigned By

_ James Lieberman James Lieberman, Director l-Office of' Enforcement

Enclosure:

. As Stated-b DISTRIBUTION:

JLieberman, OE RPerfetti', OE-EBaker, OE-Day File.

PDR 1

r

.\\

0 Q;hk OE%R Y

p RPerfetti JLieberman t\\l 3/ 6 /90-3/ ~/90

\\\\

9003290184 900316 m

PDR-TOPRP EECNUS

{[8 r

C PDC

mwwy T

y s e If,.

l

.L

[

T5,;]

+

APPENDIX D-m

' Documentation Quality Control Checklist' F

JInstruction's for use.

)

1.

. Answer yes or-no for those questions indicated (*) and place an "X" in the appropriate column where the additional, answer /information is located.

2.

Place an "X" in:the appropriate, column (s) or N/A-if the. issue is not applicable to the case.

When an issue is N/A'd, the supporting documenta-e tion should support the conclusion'.that the issue is not applicable. '.In

. addition,._information located in more than one document should be marked accordingly.

~ NOTE:, Letters = preceding questions indicate the document where the

[

information is normally<found, i.e., I for inspection report, C for conference report,-N for Notice, L for Letter to licensee, and M for

-. memorandum to OE.

-Where Located H Yes. l Insp 1-Conf l Draft IDraftlCoverl Information or-No*

Rept Rept Nov Ltr Memo;l l

.I.1.

What requirement.was violated?

l l

ll l

l l

-l

'If the requirement was condi-l l

l l

l tional, how were the conditions l l

l l

l i,

satisfied which made the l

l l

l

'l requirement applicable?-

- I. 2.

How was the requirement l

l l

4 violated?

l l

I. 3.-

When the requirement was l

l l_

l l

l

.-l'

~

violated and what was-the l

l l

l

-l-aduration of the violation?

l>

.l l

,I.4.

By whom was it violated?

l.

7 - ~

I.5.

How and by whom (be' specific) l l

l l

-l l'

1:

a.

4 was theiviolation discovered?

.l 4'

J' l

','i

I.'6.

Wast the violation required to l

l l

l l-be reported and,'if so, what l

l l

l 1;

c-,

'was the applicable reporting l

l l

l

.l J

requi'rement?

I'-

ff.

,l.

I. 7.-

_ as the violation reported and, I l

l l

l W

if so, when and by whom was it l l

l l

l

-l l

. reported?

I I

l l

l g

n

fk Where Located l Yes l Insp l< Conf:lDraft IDraftl Cover l-Information or No Rept Rept Nov Ltr-Memo l-

._n l

1.8.

.If the violation was reported, l-l l

-l.

l l

l.

but=the report was late,-why l

l l

-l~

l l

l.

was the report late?

l l

. ~

I.9; Was the report complete _and

-l l

l l

l accurate?

l l

l_

-(

l l

l'

-l t

I.10.--What.,was.the apparent root l

l l

l l.

Iv l=

Y factors-for the violation?

';l causetand contributing causal l

l l-l l

lc l

p%

tif l

' '*Il11. Were~ there multiple examples II l

l l

4 l

l

+

R, y

of,the' violation?

l;

, im J.

l~^

I;12. Is the violation indicative _of l

l-l --

l l

l' l

,. - w' programmatic problems or _is it l l

l l

l l'

l :s

D i,

'an' isolated case?

l F

R{ '

j.,

).

-l'

'f=

" *I:13. Was " management aware.or should l l

.l l'

I l.. ' g l.

it l

l l

E v ;(

m.L 7

A vio;have been aware of the lation?

I g(l","*61.14.

What'were the opportunities l'

l l

1 l

l l

n,

'l' a

and when_did they exist for.

l l

l 37-licensee staff and management l

l l

4Hf to be aware of the violation?

I pt:

n a*,

.l

I.15. Is there' evidence that-l-

l 1

l l

l l-management was involved l

l l.

l-l-

l

.l-4 -

directly or indirectly in the l

l l

violation and to what extent?

l l

1.16.

What were the circumstances l

l l

surrounding the violation, such l l

l l

l as system configuration and l

l

[

l l

operational conditions.for l

l l

l-l

-reactor' cases, which effect the l l

l

'l l

l

.l significance of the violation?

l l

I.17. Are there other circumstances l

l l

l

-1 l-l surrounding the violation which l l

l l

l

~ increase or decrease its l

l l

significance?

l l

1.18.

What short term corrective and l

l l

remedial action was taken and l

l l

1 l

. hen was it-taken?

I l

l l

1 l

l w

2

.c c

'b:

3

?

Where Located

/

d..

l Yes l Insp 1 Conf =l Draft IDraftlCoverl 4-

.g,,, f T Information-or No Rept Rept Nov Ltr-Memo l 7

.-l 4

M

*I.19. Did NRC have to intervene to..

I l-l

-l-l

_l l.-

+

~

accomplish satisfactory short l

l l

H lt

+

7

c,

term correction and remedial l

l l

P

'l.

, y ;R s

7 7

action?)

l i

! * ' *I.20. Wereittiere previous similar NRC l I

cL m

,e l

l l

l'

- l ', i l7>

+

l inspection or licensee audit l-l l

l l

l.;

~

u s*

i.

~findinds-and, if'so, should the l l

l l

/

corrective actions from those l

l l-1.

l 1

- l$

s findings have prevented this l

l l

l ll9 e if g

j violation?

- l

~

l S

- *l.21..Was there careless disregard of l 1

-l l

l l.

N4

+M NRC. requirements orsindications H l

l 1

l

.l-

'l i?

i

-that a requirement.was will-I d

I fully or knowingly violated?

I l

C.1.

A-listing of the enforcement l

l l

l l'

-l l

conference' attendees from the l

l l

1 l

NRC and: licensee.

-l

.l

C,2.

Are there.any additions or I

l'-

1

- l' l

l-1-

corrections _to the factual l

l l

l 1

information in the inspection l

l l

'l l

l l-report? If:so, describe, 1

-l

C.3.

'Does the licensee takes issue l-

.I l

l l

with.the violations? If so, l.

l l

describe the licensee's-l l

l-1 l

-l l

position.

I l

C.4..

Is there any additional l

l 1

l l

information which effects the l

l l

l-

.I regulatory or safety signi-l l

l l.

l l

l ficance of each violation? If I l'

i l

l l

l so, describe.

'l l

C. S. - Is there any additional infor-l l

l l

l l-l

-mation on correction and l

l l

l

.I remedial actions the licensee l

l l

has implemented or has com-l l

l l

l mitted to implement?.If so, I

l l

describe.

l I

N.1.

A concise, clear statement of l

l l

the requirement appropriately l

l l

referenced, paraphrased, or l

l l

l 1

quoted, l.

l w,

3 e

t t.

4 8.E [. A_\\

7

s Where Located l Yes l Insp l Conf l Draft (Draft lCoverl Information or No Rept Rept Nov Ltr Memo l N.2.

A brief statement of the l

circumstances of the violation l

l l

including the dates of the l

l l

violation and the facts neces-1 i

l l

l sary to demonstrate that one l

l l

or more elements of the l

l l

requirements were not met.

l 1

N.3.

The severity level proposed for l l

l l

l 1

I the violation.

l I

N.4.

The applicable supplement of I

i l

l l

the Policy under which the l

l l

violation is categorized.

l l

N.S.

The civil penalty proposed for l l

l l

l the violation.

l l

L.1.

When and where an inspection l

l l

was conducted.

'l l

L,2.

When and where an enforcement l

l 1

I 1

l l

conference was conducted and l

l l

l who were the lead NRC and l

l l

l I

l l

licensee representatives.

l l

L. 3.

When reports of the inspection l

l l

1 l

l l

7, and enforcement conference l

i l

l l

1 I

results were provided to the l

l 1

l l

licensee.

I l

L.4.

A description of the violations,l l

l l

l including who identified the l

l l

violations, and the apparent l

l l

root cause of the violations, l

l l

and any other major attributes i

l l

of the violations necessary to l

l l

support the safety and regula-l l

l l

l tory significance of the l

l l

violations.

I l

L.S.

Recognition of the status of l

l l

1 l

1 I

compliance or corrective l

l l

actions to date, or date when l

l l

compliance will be achieved.

l l

l If compensatory measures were l

l l

1 l

implemented, they should be l

l l

addressed.

l l

l 4

', ?U r

0 =

t Where located I Yes l Insp i Conf IDraft l Draft lCoverl Information or No Rept Rept Nov Ltr Memo l l

L. 6.

A statement of the results l

l l

which we expect to achieve l

l l

through issuance of the l

l l

proposed enforcement action l

l l

focusing on correction of the l

l l

underlying problems disclosed l

l l

by the violation.

l l

L. 7.

A description of the proposed l

l l

enforcement sanctions including l l

l l

l severity level and civil l

l l

penalty amount.

I l

L. 8.

An analysis of any factors l

l l

which caused the severity level l l

l l

l to be different from the normal l l

l l

l severity level for the type of l

l l

involved violations, for l

l l

example programmatic deficien-l l

l l

l cies or willfulness.

I I

I L.9.

A discussion of the applica-l l

l l

l tion of the six adjustment l

l l

factors in the Policy, includ-l l

l 1

l l

l ing the reasons for mitigation l

l l

or escalation of the base civil l l

l l

l penalty.

l I

M.1.

The Enforcement Action (EA) l I

l l

I number.

l l

M.2.

The referenced inspection l

l l

report numbers.

l l

M.3.

A summary of the nature of l

l l

the violation (s).

l 1

M.4.

A summary of the root l

l l

cause(s)/ problem area (s) l l

l l

l represented by the l

l l

violation (s).

l I

M.S.

A description of the regulatory l l

l l

l and Technical Safety signifi-l l

l l

l cance of the violation (s)/

l l

l problem area (s), including l

l l

considerations such as l

l l

operational configuration, l

l l

supervision / management l

l l

involvement, and willfulness.

l l

l 5

3 gr 1,

J.

1 t

4^

Where Located sq InYes l Insp l Conf IDraft l Draft lCoverli Information.

or No Rept Rept Nov Ltr Memo l' e r t

yey. t '

ls

.E t,;

M.6.E.A-description!of the purpose of I l

l l

l.

l~

4the enforcement action.and the l

l l

l lL l

. l.

6d N

message we intend to send to.

l l

()

+

r

,the. licensee and industry.

l.

n#

. l; b;

A' description of the rationale l l

l.

l l

-l 4 l-M.7;

-2 for,the recommended severity l

l l.-

I.

l l

E l-r.

jf ) 1* i, level!and grouping of the-l l

l.

l l

1"

{

_ violations including ~ reference l l

l l

l.

to the relevant sections of the l l

l.

l l

l>.

?*

='

s

/

.[R-

-Enforcement Policy and OE l

l l

l1

lY

,o i L' guidance and prior EA's.

l l-

~ X>

lM.8.

A description of the. rat.ionale 1 l-l l

l l.

l f

for the recommended. civil-l l

l.

l l

l-Oc penalty addressing all six

l l

l

-l l

l Enforcement Policy escalation.

l l;

l l

and mitigation factors as well l=

.I l

-l-l l

as wi11 fulness,-ability to pay l l

l l

ll l-l and prior EA's which are l

l l

similar.

l l

M 9.

An a'nalysis: of the licensee's l

l 1

l

[

.l'

-l

' position'on.any aspect of-the l

l l

l

-l.

violations ~or application-of l

l l

-l l

l l

the Enforcement Policy to=

l l

l l.

l thos'e: violations which is ini l

l l

l

.I l

l' substantial disagreement with l

l-l

'l.

1 l

l 1the regiona1Lproposal.

l l

M.10.-Has the Regional' Counsel-l

.I l

l l

l l'

concurred?. What:were his or l'

.l; l

l l

her views of any significant l

l

.l l

l-l l

1egal aspects and litigative l

l l

l~

l

-risk associated with the l

l

-l l

l l

l 1

proposed actions.

I l

' M.11.' - Describe any facts and l

l l

-l l

circumstances that address the l

l l

l

'l

-l l-aspects of negligence, careless l l

l l

l

" disregard, willfulness, and l'

l l

l j

-management involvement.

l I

l l

l

M.12. Was there economic or other.

personal or corporate gain l

l l

associated with the. violation?- l l

l l

l

. s,

6

,j m

M

3

, Af

~

U g

' [y

+

p.

o

-1 m.r r :.

a n.4 3

m, 3

s' g J'}'.j'h+j>

7g

'7, jf { {p r'

$5

_ y7 i 8 4.

g.j

..' l4 1;:

4 q.'

4 (t<iu 9

s f-

" : g-;

,. (-

o<.y=

<~

y k :- N Nis $ 4,9 4'4

' A

/

+

.h.. I ~ a,-.

s

u Where located x

s; s

}.,'yV ::l. ' g3, 7.; p' -

a'^i. -

p

- l Yes.l'Insp l. Conf 10 raft l Draft l Cover l 4

{

% ? m :"

Information or No-Rept Rept-Nov

-Ltr Memo'l

' l

!# L h 4 + *H.13. Are there any,.other regulatory - l -

.-l ll-l 1

L l

n.fi 7",'

. t~

framework factors that-need to l l

l l

l

-l

. l-s' 7:*i l

~

be considered.in review of the l-lJ l :-

l

-ll

'l

. l case; such as, pending licen-l l.

-l l

l l

l sing issuance..or-renewal l

l-

l.

l

-l action,^and commission l

l-l' l

l-.

l-l.

l-l' meetings?.

l~

l l

l

'l I

l-

[

4

f. -

t.

E h

(-

t I

1 i

)

3 IT

.j i

's 4

1 c~'

+

(

k

's,

?

31 m

~,

s.. v.

s i. ', e li

-o r

j

-f

')

2:

s

, y x

- r_

- h.

s-

,k

.,p I',

., p c~ e v

, r; a.. j 6

.-)

- J

- I.

9 5, -

.w 4

,, L -_

'j '

,,}

u

("p

-

ML20012D983

Text

Dear Mr. Englishbee:

Enclosure:

Navigation menu

Search