ML20035G588

Discusses Status of Staff Implementation of Oia Recommendations Re NRC Backfit Procedures

ML20035G588
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/29/1991
From:	Blaha J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20033D942	List: ML20033D941 ML20035G570 ML20035G574 ML20035G588 ML20035G591 ML20035G595 ML20035G597 ML20035G598
References
FOIA-92-402 NUDOCS 9304280128
Download: ML20035G588 (14)

Text

AUG 2 91991 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data FROM:

James L. Blaha Assistant for Operations, OEDO

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF STAFF IMPLEMENTATION OF OIA RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING NRC BACKFIT PROCEDURES On April 27, 1988, the EDO responded to an OIA (OIG) audit of plant-specific backfit procedures. The ED0's response (Enclosure I) provided specific action-for the eight 01A recommendations. The EDO Staff has recently completed a planned periodic review of implementation of SIG audit recommendations which include this audit. The results of the backfit review (Enclosure 2) ir.dicates that three of the eight recommendations were not fully implemented and that further improvement is possible for one recommendation. With AE00 having responsibility for oversight of the backfit process, you are requested to provide a written response to this review regarding actions AEOD has or will take to fully implement the CIA recommendations. The response should be forwarded to this office by September 20, 1991.

Original Signed by Jn:es L. Maha,.

James L. Blaha Assistant for Operations, OEDO

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

J. Taylor, EDO Distribution:

JSniezek HThompson JBlaha VWilso Q r/f l

pocument Name: Backfit.ce3 A0/0EDO JBlaha 8/ /91 Il 9304280128 930204 f

PDR FOIA LEN92-402 PDR I

pO ' VM q,.9*? " -

i

d 1

bg

, f "'ag y

7 fg UNITED $TATES 3 ti,

')~.r,(

p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

gf WAsstuctow. o. c.2ons

'%,',,,, /

AUG 2 91991 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Edward L. Jordan, Director MNh Office for Analysis and Evaluation

/

-a of Operational Data h-

- 94'

& m W 'Y I

FROM:

James L. Blaha Assistant for Operations, OEDO M-<.

gh

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF STAFF IMPLEMENTATION OF OIA RECOMMENDATIONS

/

REGARDING NRC BACKFIT PROCEDURES On April 27, 1988, the ED0 responded to an OIA (OIG) audit of plant-specific backfit procedures. The ED0's response (Enclosure I) provided specific action y

for the eight DIA recomendations. The EDO Staff has recently completed a i

planned periodic review of implementation of OIG audit recommendations which include this audit. The results of the backfit review (Enclosure 2) indicates that three of the eight recomendations were not fully implemented and that further improvement is possible for one recomendation. With AEOD having l

responsibility for oversight of the backfit process, you are requested to

p. v ;de a v ritter..esponse to this review regardir;9 ectio'is At'GD r'ies or will fully im;:lerent MMWet4ank) The response shocic be tat t::

forwarded to this o cebySeptembNC,19917 I

/

ames L. Blaha f

9.,AssistantforOperations,OEDO Enclosure-As stated cc:

J. Taylor, EDO l

a i

[

I t

.. 7 i

t t

i

)

I l

ENCLOELmE r

t

+

1.

e June 5.

1Gol.

tremorencum, tne EDO announced clans to cericolcsil, review cur imp l e T.en t s ti on of the Insoector General's

[

t sudit recommendations.

One cf the Insoector Gener+1's reports

.i selected f or audit is the June 1969 recort to the Commission ' titlec L!

" Review of the I mO l e Tie 9 t a t i on of the F] ant-Soecific Eackfit l

-l Prececures".

i t

In tnis recort. tne Office cf Inspector end Auditer made eacnt

-ecommenc=ticns "to elleviate weetnesses Identitled 19 the c!ent-1Ececific cactf:- process'.

Frior to final issuance, e crait j

cces c+

the reocet

-as sent tc the EDO. who += reed with the i

reccmmencat;.cns and cascusseo elens for their imolementation in a

'I memorsncum catec Acr11 27. 198E.

I T*'=

raonrt discusses *Me status of the imolemanta+,mn nf +5a i

i reccmme9 cations of the 014

recort, as of 'Jule lo91.

E. cr.

l re cc on.en c a 'l an is ctateo. followeo by a discussion cf its ca r-e r.1 i

st td2. am wo!! es recommencations. where accroor..ta, for ut"-=

i work in this area.

Manual Chapter 0514 "NRC Procram for Menseement of Flant-i Scecific Backfittino of Nuclear Power Plants". Drovides the basic i

NFC cuidance in this ' area.

In November 1997. the EDO assioned 9,

resconsibilltv for develoolna oversicht procedures and monitorino

'j olent-scecific backfits to the Director. Office for' Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data.

l In order to cerform this review.- the documents listed-in Table 1 were reviewed.

Discussions were held with the. Decole i

listed in Table 2.

a t

r i

s e

e 1

h a

v a--

-]

I 1

1 1

1 i

r., c_ e_ n_ ~ Me_ t min a T. T.'.n.'

t.

P EstaD1:sn orceecu-== te be esec by the EDO's ettice to m nitor j

1molemeret, tion et = lent-sce:111: baci. fit issues.

I r

D19UE510N j

In Aor: 1 27. ICE 9.

the EDO commented on a drett DIA report en elant-scerif::

tect1.ttinc orecedures.

In addressine th s e:Ommencst:an the EDO stete tnat Menual Checter 0514 carecreo-j t.C2 assions r e s o cn s i b 111 t'.'

for cevelopino oversicht crocedures

?:--

the scency to AEOD.

l Althouch AEOD is enercisino oversicht rescons b111tv. there-l s-e no fermal (or intermell AECD crecedures for this test.

j r

i The need.+cr s crocedure was discussee with t e AE0D c:-ne; e

i whr. s t a t ec the t it would be reistivelv s tre it t-t-f orwerd to orepar a f

r sUCN & o r C t e d L.r e.

)

i This recommendation is therefore not vet imolenented.

i 1

h i

I h

i

. f g!

I t

L}

tr r

I 1

i h

i

-=

~.

i l

i t

i l

i

)

CE OF*ENDATICN ::

Assure sut ticient resources are assioned in the EDO's ' ot ti ce t:

e T f e c t i v e l ', monitor the inclementation of Manual Chaoter i.'512

~

DIECUEEICN The EDO's Aor11 17.

1999, memerendum to CIA stateo that AEOD I

i woule crevide the resources to imolement the recuired oversicht, r

It went Cn to state that "1-view ct the severe limitat Cr.s in r e s otc r c s s ". AECD was Icotinc t:r cest-effective ways of moniterl l

the olant-soecific cac6 tit :rocess.

Annual cuestionnaires to licensee's in addition to review of all Osckfit appeals frem i

licensees were belno considered.

aECD

%=

a=signec txe

-d

'1t..-l.

't c-:+c-cll-t-scec:11:

l bact fit amolementation. T5ese individuals era a l so r==nen= s ele d ne -

succortino the CFGP and c'5e-tas&s essociated with ceneric

?

back1ittino.

i t

Pecause of the workload of these individuals, they have taken j

the sooroach of conducting relatively frecuent training f or NRR and reolonel staff on the orecer orocedures and considerations essociated with clant-soecific backfits and conductino audits of documented backfits.

The coal accears to be to enhance-the.

ef f ectiveness of the staf f in perf ormino olent-soecific be ckfits by j

providina guidance to the staff involved with backfittino, rather I

than reviewine the details of each backfit cacksoe themselves, i

t Very little time is spent in reviewing the data in the Flan, Saecific Backfit System.fPSES). although this. too. is done.

t This accroach spoears reasonable.

It is f l e::i b l e enouch to utilize the resources where they sopear to be needed and it accears to be workino effectively since the number of appeals and comolaints is low.

c f

This recommendation has been satisfactorily implemented.

'h l

i i

i

.m

r t

1 t

i.

(

r

?

I i

i 1-t i

j-l c:rr.uscr~inar m N ~.

x.

zs = ~

t The EDO should essure tnat Menval Chaoter 0514 is 11nall:ec an: incluced in the IJPC Manuel.

4 f

4 1

1 DIECUSSICN i

At tne time of tre CIA review. Manuel Chaoter.0514 was not in:

'{

final form and it was not clear which version was ccrrect.

}

.I i

Manual Chaoter 0514 has teen finall:ed and in c lu.ded in '

.e NE C l

6 Manual.

The current version is dated Auaust 16.

1968.

This i

reccmmendaticn has been satisfactor:lv implementec.

j t

e I

a j

i

)

1

.w..

_..-,,.,..._..,&__,_%._,__...,_m.m...m._.m1,,m'

~

1 EEC C'"ENDAT I ON 4:

The EDO should assure that the office /reolon procedures are revised as necessary to orovide soecific and consistent cuidance for recordino data on end trackino plant soecific backfits in accordance with MC 0514.

DISCUSSION As cart of this review. the Recion III procedure was reviewed fcr consistency with Manual Chaoter 0514.

The oracedure was consistent in almost all resoects.

The two areas which did not accear. at first. to be consistent weret (1) the name of the trechi. ; ri s to... d :t c t ? ? E rs d fferent.

lth:tch f urther revior-7 verified that the Plant Soecific Backfit System IPSBS) was being used. and f2) the procrcures for "immediate imoosition" of a b a c t. f i t are differents however, they are not contradictory.

S ne l

Region III crocedure describes a crocedure for rapidly cerforming a backfit determination while the Manual Chaoter does not contain such a crocedure and discusses the use of an order in such a case.

The AEOD coordinator stated that the regional orocedures have been reviewed f or consistency and.theY are satisf actorY.

Audits of the regions' olant-soecific backfits are scheduled again for this t

fall and the procedures will be reviewed again.

This recommendation has been satisfactorily imolemented.

l 6

I f

i i

e h

i I

e

[

G_ECOMMENDATION 5:

l MC 0514 should include soecific crocedures for assessino-olant-soecific backfit issues for generic imo11 cations.

5 t

DISCUSSICN Manual Chacter 0514 states: " A statement of the consideration of the crocosed olent-soecific backfit as a cotential generic backfit" shall be included in the staff evaluation of a bace. fit.

l There+ ore. this recomnencation is imolemented.

i i

2 l

1 e

t 9

t 0

t

t i

i I

t-I r

FECOMMENDATION 6:

i The EDO should assure that the current status of ective and I

t clcsed issues is both timely and accurately recordec in the f

PSBS.

i

. I DI..SCUSSI OtJ l

The AEOD contact stated that this was done on an audit basis.

Problems identified are discussed with the approorlate office or realen and are usually correctec in a reasonable time.

t Review of the PSBS found that the data base was generally up l

to date.

However.

there were some items for which credicted l

closino dates were not civen and the current status was not clear:

~

for example. Issue RRFARL190001. which is a backfit concernino coerating shift overtime at Farley Unit 1.

i This recommendatica was imolemernted and the psi'.5 ec:aracv has Amoroved. However, there remains room f cr additional imrrnvement.

I I

l i

i i

a i

h y

f t

i RECOMMENDATION 7:

The EDO should establish and imolement criteria to assure that licensees are closed only clant-soecific bacFfits imoosed on after NRC acceots licensee ccmmitments and verifles that actions have been taken.

D I S C U S S I._O. N Manual C;)acter 0514 does not address this concern nor did the Recicn III backfit crocedure.

Some discussicn has taken place between OIG and AEOD.

and a draft procosal to satisfy this l

recommendation was orecared however. no orocedure is now in place The EDO's resoonse to this item stated that close to handle this.

be develooed wh1Ch are short of verification bV out crocedures maY

+h'+

NRr, e -m'.t=

in%Doctions.

The draft nrnoo=Al did not rece$ra everv item be inspected for final closure.

AEOD hes errviously made a recommendation. which nas hearn the O1G staf f.

to acceot discussed with and inf ormally agreed to by a written commitment from the licensee that the action will be The action would then be listed as closed in the PSBS.

cerformed.

Subsecuently. rather than continuing to track the item with the PSBS until the action has been completed. the item would be tracked by another aopropriate NRC tracking system. such.as SIMS. until comolete.

In this way the PSBS is kept more concise and the item is carried along with all other open licensee commitments in one unified tracking system (e.g..

SIMS).

j This approach, or another which is acceotable to both the OIG and the staff. should be agreed to and imolemented to satisfy the OIG recommendation.

1 l

3 l

i a

1 I

a i

i

F

~

l t

t GECOMMENDATION 9:

?

The EDO snoula estadlisn controls to eliminate unnecessary access into the FSES (Plant Soecific Backfit Systems.

k DISCQSSION Manual Chacter 0514 states:

to make chances to the system will be limited to

" Access those desicnated within each Office and Realon."

resconsible for this system stated that there The IRM contact was no special control. such as a " read-oniv" orovision. ano that i

anYone who Could aCCOss the NIH Oc,truter and the PSBS orocram could make chances.

The IRM contact stated tliat it would be relativelY easy to out in such a control feature.

i This reccamendation is not Yet imolemented.

1 f

f f

e i

f f

i'l f

r 5

P 4

b

W-SUMMAFV In summary.

Fecommendations 1.

7.

and B have not' been imclemented bv the staff anc reautre further staff action.

While-considered ' to have been imolemented. there l

Recommendation 6 1s amorovement in the recordinc of status remains room f or additional for active and closed issues in the FSBS.

1

?

i 1

l 1

1 1

1 1

l i

9

. m

..mm. i

fi y

~

i i

+

TABLE 1: Documents Reviewed Manual Chaoter 0514 NRC Procram for Manecement of Fil an t-Soecific Backd ittinc of Nuclear Power Plants 10CFFS0.109 Backf:ti:no D.P. Allison. et al.. Backfiting Guidelines. NUREG 1409. July 1990 Rccion : :I "cnuel. Regic..1 Ir ocedurc OS14A. P l a.. : Sweu i._

Dackfit Dr.f t Memorandum f rom Edward L. Jordan. Director. Gif.ce tne Analysis and Evaluation of Ocerational Data to Thomas E.

Murley. Director NRR. and regional Administrators of Regions I - V.

Never sent.

Precared amoroximately February 1990.

Run Date 04-25-91.

Listing of the Plant-Soecific Data Base.

Memorandum for Robert M.

Bernero. Director. NMSS. Thomas Murley. Director. NRR. Edward L.

Jordan. Director. AEOD.

Gerald F. Cranf ord. Director. IRM. and Patricia G. Norry. ADM.

t from James M.

Taylor. Executive Director for Ooerations.

"Imolementation of' Past DIG Audit Recommendations". June S.

1991.

the Imolementation of the Report to the Commission. Review of Plant-Soecific Backfit Procedures. Of fice of the Insoector and Auditor. June 1988.

Memorandum for Sharon R. Connelly. Director. Of,fice of the Insoector and Auditor.

from Victor 'Stello Jr..

Executive the Imolementation of the I

Director for Operations. Review of April 27. 1988..

Plant-Soecific Backfit orocedures.

l t

I

?

i i

a F

. st i

t

{

- ae

?

?

t

.i l

e t

TAELE 2:

Personnel-Centacted Dennis F.

Allison. AECD 1

Tu T.

Tren. IRM i

Richard Donovan. DIG j

i James H.

Conran Sr..

AEOD

[

l i

e f

i t

i

'. i b

e f

l 1:

.4 t

f i

h I

t f

?

e

?

ky p[

UNITED STATES y

.3 5~,(/( g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W A$mNGTON. D. C. 20555 k

l

' r.

g

,\\ *' /

September 20, 1991 (Jc q 6 zi p f IAL m._

MEMORANDUM FOR:

James L. Blaha Y

Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations FROM:

Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF STAFF IMPLEMENTATION OF OIA RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING NRC BACKFIT PROCEDURES This is in response to your memorandum of August 29, 1991 on the same subject.

Your review indicated that Recommendations 1, 7, and.8 were not implemented and that further improvement was possible for Recomendation 6.

You requested a description of the actions AEOD will take regarding these items.

AEOD will take actions to implement Recommendations 1, 7, and 8 as described in the enclosure.

It is expected that these actions will be completed by December 30, 1991. AE0D will also take action to effect improvement regarding Recommendation 6 as described in the enclosure.

It is expected that the improvement will be apparent by December 30, 1991.

f/00p07 We will provide a followup report on these actions by December 30, 1991. p/g gg 7

/

i dwa d Jordan, Director Office or Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data

Enclosure:

As stated cc/w enclosure:

J. Taylor, EDO j

T. Murley, NRR Regional Administrators i

1

~ 9304280132 9302d4 PDR FOIA LEN92-402 PDR t

1

September 20, 1991

{

MEMORANDUM FOR:

James L. Blaha Assistant for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations FROM:

Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF STAFF IMPLEMENTATION OF OIA RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING NRC BACKFIT PROCEDURES This is in response to your memorandum of August 29, 1991 on the same subject.

Your review indicated that Recommendations 1, 7, and 8 were not implemented and that further improvement was possible for Recommendation 6.

You requested i

a description of the actions AE00 will take regarding these items.

1 AEOD will take actions to irclement Recommendations 1, 7, and 8 as described i

in the enclosure.

It is expected that these actions will be completed by December 30, 1991. AE00 will also take action to effect improvement regarding Recommendation 6 as described in the enclosure.

It is expected that the improvement will be apparent by December 30, 1991.

We will provide a followup report on these actions by December 30, 1991.

Original Signed by:

E. L Jordan Edward L. Jordan, Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation j

of Operational Data

Enclosure:

As stated cc/w enclosure:

J. Taylor EDO T. Murley, NRR Regional Administrators Distribution AEOD R/F DChamberlain, EDO LJCallan, RIV ELJordan PCota, NRR AJohnson, RV DFRoss DHolody, RI AE00 91-106 JSniezek LWatson, Ril DPAllison RDovovan, OlG CPederson, Rill JConran j

%OI CRGR:AEOD R D0:AE00 l

DPAllison 1 DF s

LJordan 9/q/91:jr 9/

1 9p/91

t l

t I

Enclosure I

f AE0D Actions RECOMMENDATION 1:

i Establish procedures to be used by the ED0's office to monitor implementation i

of plant-specific backfit issues.

OEDO DISCUSSION (8/29/91) b On April 27, 1988, the EDO commented on a draft DIA report on plant-specific i

backfitting procedures.

In addressing this recommendation the EDO stated that i

Manual Chapter 0514 paragraph 032 assigns responsibility for developing r

oversight procedures for the agency to AE0D.

Although AEOD is exercising oversight responsibility, there are no formal-(or

}

informai) AEOD procedures for this task.

I The need for a procedure was discussed with the AE00 contact who stated that

.l it would be relatively straightforward to prepare such a procedure.

This recommendation is therefore not yet implemented.

AEOD RESPONSE I

AE00 will issue a procedure to document its activities in monitoring plant-specific backfitting.

It is expected that this will be done by October 30,-

1991.

i 2

-i I

i I

t i

I

{

- e-1 J

l

~

RECOMMENDATION 6:

The EDO should assure that the current status of active and closed issues is both timely and accurately recorded in the PSBS.

f 0E00 DISCUSSION (8/29/91) i The AEOD contact stated that this was done on an audit basis.

Problems identified are discussed with the appropriate office or region and are usually corrected in a reasonable time.

1 Review of the PSBS found that the data base was generally up to date.

However, there were some items for which predicted closing dates were not given and the current status was not clear: for example, issue RRFARL190001.

t which is a backfit concerning operating shift overtime at Farley Unit 1.

This recommendation was implemented and the PSBS accuracy has improved, However, there remains room for additional improvement.

AE00 RESPONSE The procedure discussed in response to Recommendation I will specify frequent reviews of the tracking system and we will place more emphasis on conducting the reviews as scheduled. When combined with appropriate feedback and followup, this should further improve the timeliness and accuracy of the i

tracking system entries.

I It is expected that the improvement will be evident by December 30, 1991.

i l

k

!a I

I

[

l

[

P j

i l

RECOMMENDATION 7:

~

The EDO should establish and implement criteria to assure that plant-specific I

backfits imposed on licensees are closed only after NRC accepts licensee commitments and verifies that actions have been taken.

OEDO DISCUSSION (8/29/91)

Manual Chapter 0514 does not acdress this concern nor did the Region III j

backfit procedure.

Some discussion has taken place between 0IG and AE00, and a draf t proposal to satisfy this recommendation was prepared; however, no procecure is now in place to handle this The ED0's response to this item stated that close out procedures may be developed which are short of verification by NRC onsite inspections.

The draft proposal did not require that every item be inspected for final closure.

AEOD has previously made a recommendation, which has been discussed with and informally agreed to by the O!G staff, to accept a written commitment from the licensee that the action will be performed.

The action would then be listed as closed in the PSBS.

Subsecuently, rather than continuing to track the item with the PSBS until the action has been completed, the item would be tracked by another appropriate NRC tracking system, such as SIMS until complete.

In j

this way the PSBS is kept more concise and the item is carried along with all r

other open licensee commitments in one unified tracking system (e.g., SIMS).

l This approach, or another which is acceptable to both the OIG and the staff, i

should be agreed to and implemented to satisfy the OIG recommendation.

AE00 RESPONSE h

We will request each office add a provision, similar to the fellowing, to its plant-specific backfit procedure.

+

"With regard to closure:

For backfits being imposed on a licensee, the closure information should -

(

include a reference to a written licensee commitment to implement the backfit (or an order to implement the backfit).

It should also include one of the following:

(1)

Reference to a specific item in another tracking system which will track l

licensee implementation and/or any NRC verification of implementation determined to be appropriate, or I

(2)

Reference to a written licensee statement that the backfit has been j

implemented and/or any NRC verification of implementation determined to i

be appropriate."

t The current status of the office procedures is as follows:

Region I Procedure recently revised. Does not require a change meet this provision.

t i

4 e

Region II Draft procedure revision recently submitted for AE0D review.

Will be requested to add this provision in the final procedure.

L Region III Draft procedure revision recently submitted for AEOD review.

Will i

be requested to add this provision in the final procedure.

Region IV Draft procedure revision recently reviewed by AE00. Will include this provision in the final procedure.

Region V Draft procedure revision being prepared. Will include this provision.

NRR Craft procedure revision being prepared. Will include this provisien.

It is expected that all of these revisions can be accomplished and issued in final form cy December 30, 1991.

t l

l l

I i

i l

I L

J l

-j RECOMMENDATION 8:

I The EDO should establish controls to eliminate unnecessary access into the PSBS (Plant Specific Backfit System).

l OEDO DISCUSSION (8/29/91)

Manual Chapter 0514 states:

" Access to make changes to the system will be limited to those designated within each Office and Region."

5 The IRM contact responsible for this system stated that there was no special control, such as a " read-only" provision, and that anyone who could access the NIH computer and the PSBS program could make changes. The IRM contact stated i

that it would be relatively easy to put in such a control feature.

This recommendation is not yet implemented.

AE00 RESPONSE IRM has been requested to establish password protection with regard to making changes.

It is expected that this will be implemented by November 30. 1991.

i I

I s

4 l

f.. 'k_(vy]

';'{h 1.i m p m L.-.-. ~.6 4... _. __,

3. M w

,W

(

h'/["'#

.. n n

/

'o UNITED STATES N

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[

W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 1,

,E DEC 11 1991 p nymfs/ -

%,...../

U 7

,,_ c_

MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor g

Executive Director for Operations 7-y t u b-

~

? DN

.~ s FROM:

James L. Blaha Assistant for Operations, OEDO (h

/

.2,.

f EDO FOLLOWUP REVIEW OF STAFF IMPLEMENTATI0ft OF OIA/0!G.

RECOMMENDATIONS

,q,,e 'g'. " M:}d

SUBJECT:

,f' s

As you are aware, the EDO Technical Assistants did a followup review of

.c designated OIA/0lG audit recommendations to determine whether they had been Most recommendations implemented and the effectiveness of the implementation.

had been effectively implemented; however, several had not been implemented (see Enclosure 1 for status). contains a discussion of recommendations which still needed to be implemented at the time of the audit In areas where we found that action had not been taken on a followup review.

recommendation, we have followed up with the offices and have gotten a commitment of when action will be completed. These are being tracked in WITS.

In order to ensure that future recommendations are being implemented, we will conduct audit followup reviews on a periodic basis.

J mes L. Blaha f sistant for Operations, OEDO

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

J. Sniezek, DEDR H. Thompson, DEDS T. Barchi, OIG Office Directors

./

9304280135 930204 PDR FOIA LEN92-402 PDR is Y

f e

ED0 Audit Followup Review r

Number Not Imple-mented at

+

Time of Number of OIG Number Followup Audit Title Office Recommendations implemented Review Review of Technical NRR 3

3 0

Specifications for Near Term Operating Licenses Review of the Imple-AE0D 8

4 4'

-mentation of the Plant Specific Backfit Procedures Review of the Rela-NMSS 2

2 0

t tionship between NRC and DOE in Implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 2

l Review of Regulatory NRR 12 11 1

Effectiveness Review for Operating Power Plants 3

Review of Control and IRM 6

4 2

l Management of Personal Computers t

Review of NRC's ADM 7

7 0

Contract Operations TOTAL 38 31 7

l 4

'While Recommendation #6 has been implemented, there remains _ room for improvement in the tracking system.

' Closed by memo dated 11/6/91 from Sniezek to Williams.

3These were partially implemented.

RECOMMENDATIONS NOT IMPLEMENTED AT TIME OF EDO AUDIT FOLLOWUP REVIEW Review of the Implementation of thd Plant-Specific Backfit Procedures--Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) of the eight recommendations, all were implemented except l

recommendations 1,

6, 7,

and 8.

AEOD responsed to these by memorandum dated September 20, 1991.

Recommendation 1:

Establish procedures to be used by the EDO's office to monitor implementation of plant-specific backfit issues.

RESPONSE

AEOD will issue a procedure to document its activities in monitoring plant-specific backfitting by December 30, 1991.

Recommendation 6:

The EDO should assure that the current status of active and closed issues is both timely and accurately recorded in the PSBS (plant-specific backfit system).

RESPONSL:

AEOD stated that the procedures to be prepared in response to Recommendation 1 will specify frequent review of the tracking system and will place more emphasis on conducting the

.l reviews as scheduled.

When combined with appropriate feedback and l

followup, this should further improve the timeliness and accuracy of the tracking system entries.

Projected completion date is December 30, 1991.

i Recommendation 7:

The EDO should establish and implement criteria to assure that the plant-specific backfits imposed on licensees are closed only after NRC accepts licensee commitments and verifies that actions have been taken.

RESPONSE

AEOD will request each office to add a provision j

addressing the plant-specific backfit procedure.

These revisions are expected to be issued in final by December 30, 1991.

Recommendation 8:

The EDO should establish controls to eliminate unnecessary access into the PSBS (plant specific backfit system).

RESPONSE

AEOD indicated that IRM had been requested to establish '

password protection with regard to making changes.

It is expected

4 that this will be implemented by December 30, 1991.

Review of Regulatory Effective Reviews for Operating Power Plants--

Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

Twelve recommendations were reviewed concerning the April 1984 audit of NMSS's RER program.

Eleven of the recommendations were implemented and closed.

Recommendation 4 was still open at the time of the EDO followup review.

Recommendation 4:

Review of the Vital Area Committee (VAC) Report by the CRGR for the purpose of issuing a Generic Letter.

RESPONSE

The RER program has been completed and now a new program, " Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations (OSRE), a 15-month program, has replaced RER.

It appeared that the impact of implementing OIG's recommendation would have significant effects with limited safety benefits. NRR management decided that no further action was necessary until the issuance of the Commission Paper on OSRE in December 1992.

Subsequently, the staff ceased work on a generic backfit to implement the VAC recommendations and, therefore, CRGR review is not appropriate.

In a November 6,

1991 memorandum to Dave

Williams, J.

Sniezek indicated that the recommendation is now closed.

Review of Control and Management of Personal Computers--Information Resources Management (IRM)

At the time of the EDO followup review, only four of the six recommendations had been implemented.

The two recommendations which were partially implemented are as follows:

Recommendation 1 Develop procedures to increase the accountability and control over PC software to include (a) separating responsibility for ordering i

and checking in software purchases; (b) assigning the j

accountability and control of a particular PC and its software to l

I one individual; (c) not allowing transfer of software between PCs unless coordinated with ORANDB; (e) evaluating software returned to ORANDB to determine whether it is usable and redistributing that which is and destroying that which is not; and (f) maintaining a record of software which has been destroyed or turned in to a vendor for upgrades.

Item (d) was implemented.

\\

l l

t e

Recommendation 2 Implement procedures to improve the knowledge of current and new PC users of agency policy and procedures relating to microcomputers.

One way to accomplish this recommendation would be for IRM to computer manual which would be provided with each PC prepare a installation to include such items as agency policy, yellow i

announcements and memorandum relating to PCs, security, backup, contact points for problems, simple troubleshooting procedures, available training both at the support center (self-directed tutorials) and through the training lab, and other items as they i

deem necessary relating to the use of PCs.

Updates of the manual could be provided to the ADP Coordinators for dissemination through their respective offices.

RESPONSE

By an October 1,

1991 memorandum to Hugh Thompson,

[

Gerald Cranford indicated that the above recommendations have now been implemented.

However, by memorandum dated December 9,

1991, Hugh Thompson to Gerald Cranf ord, items Ib, ic, le, and 2 need additional action.

I r

'l f

i

...