ML20057A413
| ML20057A413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1990 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Cunningham R, Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C202 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309140169 | |
| Download: ML20057A413 (34) | |
Text
e gDA Qto UNITED STATES ug
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION all
- [
799 ROOSEVELT $tO AD g
- j corn ettvu. itu~oi5.o m FEB 2 81990
---v~-,.,..
MEMORANDUM FOR:., Richard E.itunningham, Director.. Division;C~ndustr.ial and Medical Nuclear _ Safety, NMSSL'~
James E. Lieberman, Director, ' Office of Enforcement FROM:
Charles E. Norelius, Director, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Region III
SUBJECT:
1990 NATIONAL PROGRAM REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE In response to Mr. Cunningham's January 23, 1990 memorandum to me, we have compiled the enclosed responses to both the NMSS and OE questionnaires for your use.
The responses are numbered to correspond with the questions in the questionnaires.
Y uud n
Charles E. Norelius, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
1.
Response to NMSS Questions 2.
Response to OE Questions cc w/ enclosures, w/o attachments:
M. R. Knapp, RI J. P. Stohr, RII A. B. Beach, RIV R. A. Scarano, RV H. L. Thompson, EDO R. M. Bernero, NMSS G. A. Arlotto, NMSS 1
1 9309140169 930830 Attschment 3
,e
~
PDR STPRC ESGGEN "U i r?
!g)f pgp
s Response to NMSS Questions 1.
Question:
Using the current version of your regional staffing plan related to the NMSS program, specify the approximate percentage of time that each individual spends on the following activities:
fuel cycle licensing, fuel cycle inspection, materials licensing, tterials inspection, safeguards activities, and inspections of decommisstoned facilities and reactors.
Response: is an organizational chart of the Division in which the fuel cycle and material safety programs are conducted.
All staff and responsibilities related to NMSS functions are contained in the Nuclear Materials Safety Branch with the minor exception of inspection of emergency preparedness and safeguards issues at fuel facilities.
Threc key changes we have made this year are:
Moving administrative support for typing materials licensing a
documents to the Administrative Management Branch in the Division of Resource Management and Aaministration in an effort to reduce the direct administrative burden performed by the materials licensing staff and to create 1 FTE in addition to the budgeted FTEs for reviewer positions.
b.
Transferring one of the FTEs provided for allegation and enforcement followup to the Enforcement, Investigation and Coordination Staff to provide staff dedicated to writing materials enforcement packages and tracking of incoming allegations.
Hiring 3 new inspectors and 3 new reviewers and filling vacancies in c.
senior inspector positions te put together a fully staffed team to meet Operating Plan goals.
rae aggressive hiring has corrected the situation noted in last year's report whereby the region's on-board inspection staff was 4 inspectors below the budget.
The following is a list of individuals in the staffing plan for fuel cycle and materials, and the percentage of time they spend on each activity.
Percentage of Time on Name Ti tle Grade Activities C. E. Norelius
- Director, SES 70% Materials & Fuel Cycle D. G. Wiedeman Tech. Asst.
15 10% Materials Inspection to Director 60% Action Items Related to Materials i
i i
1 a
~ - -
B. S. Mallett Chief, NMS 15 75% Materials Inspection Branch 25% Materials Licensing G. M. McCann
- Chief, 15 5% Materials inspection Materials Licensing Section 5% Decommissioning Licensing 90% Materials Licensing P. J. Pelke Senior Reviewer 14 5% Materials Inspection 95% Materials Licensing J. R. Madera Senior Reviewer 14 5% Materials Inspection 90% Materials Licensing 5% Decommissioning Licensing J. D. Jones Reviewer (New 13 100% Materials Licensing Hire)
(as of July 1989)
C. F. Frazier Reviewer 13 100% Materials Licensing 1
L. J. Hueter Reviewer 13 100% Materials Licensing W. J. Adam f.eviewer 13 100% Materials Licensing K. G. Null Reviewer 12 100% Materials Licensing P. M. Vacherlon Reviewer 11 100% Materials Licensing R. Gattone Reviewer (New 9
100% Materials Licensing Hire)
(as of December 1989)
D. Ince Reviewer (New 7
100% Materials Licensing Hire)
(as of January 1990)
R. J. Caniano Chief, NMS 15 100% Materials Inspection Section 2 G. L-t.
Senior 14 100% Materials Inspection Inspector E. R. Matson Inspector 13 100% Materials Inspection J. L. Lynch Inspector 13 100% Materials Inspection j
(Rotation Assignment to State Agreements from 10/89 - 1/90)
J. R. Mu11auer Inspector 13 100% Materials Inspection J. W. Patterson Inspector 13 100% Materials Inspection S. J. Mulay Inspector 12 100% Materials Inspection 2
i 1
R. M. Pankratz Inspector 9
20% Materials Inspection 30% Expired Licenses 20% Insp. Admin. Functions, 30% F0IAs B. A. Parker Inspector 7
100% Materials Inspection D. J. Sreniawski Chief, NMS 15 75% Materials Inspection Section 1 20% Fuel Cycle Inspection 5% Decommissioning Sites W. J. Slawinski Senior 14 100% Materials Inspection Inspector (as of September 1989)
'T.
L. Simmons Inspector 13 100% Materials Inspection C. C. Casey Inspector 13 100% Materials Inspection (Moved to Licensing for 100% November 1989-June 1990)
W. P. Reichhold Inspector 13 100% Materials Inspection :
D. R. Gibbons Inspector 13 45-70% Materials Inspectioi' (25% Fuel Facility Inspection backup & %5 Decommissioning Sites as of February 1989)
G. M. France Inspector 13 90% Fuel Facility Inspections 5% Fuel Facility Licensing 5% Decommissioning Sites W. T. King Inspector 100% Materials Inspection (New Hire)
(as of July 1989)
K. J. Lambert Inspector 100% Materials Inspection (New Hire)
(as of May 1989)
From Groups Outside Branch J. E. Foster Inspector 14 Less than 2% on Emergency Plans for Fuel Facilities J. P. Patterson Inspector 13 Less than 2% on Emergency Plans for Fuel Facilities J. M. Ulie Inspector 14 Less than 2% on Fire (Reactor Safety Division)
Protection for Materials Facilities 3
9
~.
3 Individuals Inspectors 0.1 FTE In Supper + for Materials from-Reactor Safety Drill at Fallinckrodt and Branch (Greger)
Drill as part of Fuel Facility Team Inspection to be held at CE in July 1990 Individuals from 13 1 FTE in Support of Investioation and Materials Enforcement Staff Administrative Support M. M. Meenan Division 8
30% on Items-Related to Secreta ry Materials Program J. E. Loser NMS Branch 7
75% Materials Inspection Secretary 10% Materials Licensing 15% Fuel Facilities and Decommissioning Sites I. P. Detloff Office 6
100% Materials Licensing Assistant and Inspection (Emphasis on Processing License Applications)
R. V. Rozhon Office 6
100% Materials Licensing T
Assistant and Inspection (Emphasis on Coordinating License and Inspection Documents)
O. A. Hersey Office 5
38% on Materials Licensing Assistant and Inspection S. Negron LMS Contractor Materials Licensing and Inspection.
Data Entry into LMS.
L. M. Kerlin Mail &
Office Services Section to File Clerk Maintain Files on Fuel Facilities and Materials License Files A. S. Pudio Branch 7
Less than 2% as Backup for Secretary (Reactor Programs)
NMS Branch Secretary Staff in Data Under Carole Ariano (DRMA)
Equivalent to 1 FTE for Management Section Typing License Documents and Some Portion of an FTE for Typing Materials & Fuel Facility Inspection Reports i
4
1 a
2.
Question:
Provide a summary of actual expenditures and accomplishments as compared to operating plan / budgeted expenditures and accomplishments, for FY89 and FY90 to date.
Response
(For FY89) contains the requested informatior. for FY89.
In total, NMSS provided the Region approximately 28.5 FTEs and the Region expended 25.3 FTEs, as a result of not being fully staffeo.
~
(For FY90)
Excluding Section Chief time, the materials licensing program has expended 2.4 versus 2 6 budgeted FTEs total through the first quarter of FY90.
For this same period, the materials inspection program has expended 3.9 versus 4.1 FTEs.
The slight deficit in licensing is due to having 2 less onboard staff than budgeted for the first quarter.
Due to aggressive hiring, these 2 FTEs were brought on board December 1989 and January 1990.
If the FTE expended on the materials inspection program by the enforcement coordination staff (0.3 FTE) is added in, the materials inspection program actually expended 4.2 versus 4.1 budgeted FTEs.
The expenditures for fuel facilities and decommissioning sites were 0.5 FTE versus 0.5 FTE budgeted for the first quarter of FY90. contains tables and graphs depicting the Region's accomplishments toward achieving op,erating plan goals for the materials, fuel facility, and decommissioning program for FY90.
Some of the most noteworthy of the Operating Plan accomplishments thus far this year are:
a.
Timeliness:
(1) Maintaining all pending casework for new, amendment, and renewal actions at less than the timeliness goals established on November 1, 1988 (except those actions exempted per agreement with NMSS).
(Goal for new and amendments is 80% of actions less than 90 days, goal for renewals is 80% of actions less than 180 days.)
1 1
j 5
t
2 (2) Issuance of inspection recorts for materials inspection at an average of 22 days for FY90 through January 1990. This value is significantly less than the goal of 30 days in the manual chapter.
(3) Completion of closecut actions on an average of 117 days versus a goal of 180 days.
b.
Completion of Program:
(1) Reduction of overdue inspections from 198 at the beginning of the fiscal year to 142 as of January 1990.
This was accomplished by continuing Section Chief emphasis on overdue inspections.
(2) Managing the workload to achieve completion of 90% of the licensing casework received while having two staff less than budgeted for the first quarter of the fiscal year and losing 0.15 FTE for OSHA training in December.
(3) Making decisions upfront at Section and Branch Chief levels to assign inspection workload to complete 82% of the inspection casework while at the same time handling 17 escalated enforcement cases through January 1990, losing 0.14 FTE for OSHA training in December, and responding to multiple, unplanned events.
c.
Significant Reactive Efforts:
(1) Responded to numerous materials related events requiring immediate actions.
Some examples are:
Poplar Bluff Hospital -
abandoned material; Testmaster potential overexposure to radiographer; St. John's Mercy Hospital - lost cesium-137 source; Ball Memorial Hospital - therapeutic misadministration; St. Louis University - therapeutic misadministration; William Beaumont - lost brachytherapy sources; Omni-Source Corporation -
unidentified radioactive material in public domain, American Radiolabeled Chemicals - contaminated laboratory and mislabeling products; St. Louis Testing - radiography firm with multiple violations including an unreported overexposure.
(2) Materials licensing uncovering l'ack of qualified radiation safety officers at facilities through aggressive pursuit of possible problems when licensees requested license amendments to change authorized staff.
Some exampler are: Midwest Research Institute; Scientific Associates.
6
3.
Question Are there changes needed in the estimate of workload projection (licensing actions and inspection conducted) for the current fiscal year? If so, please provide your suggested changes with justification. Are there any foreseeable barriers to completing inspection modules in accordance with Manual Chapters 2600 and 28007
Response
From October - December 1989, the Materials Licensing Section onboard staff was 2 FTEs below the FY90 budget mark (which was an increase of about 2 FTEs over the FY89 mark). These staff were aggressively pursued and the licensing section is fully staffed as of January 1990.
Not having these staff and their training may affect the work that can be completed for FY90. We have been following the section's progress toward completion of projected casework and will make an adjustment request at mid year (March 1990), if necessary.
We are also monitoring other factors that may also cause us to request a lower workload projection for materials licensing. They are:
Two senior, fully-trained reviewers will be lost for at least a.
3 months each due to maternity leave, 1 in March and 1 in April.
To minimize the impact of this on the region's licensing effort, we have transferred an experienced materials inspector to the licensing section for this same period. We are also hiring 1 FTE over the budget for reviewers and pursuing assistance from the Agreement States Of ficer, who is a trained license reviewer. The Materials Licensing Section Chief has also accelerated training to ensure that other reviewers are fully trained to review the type cases the senior reviewers were reviewing.
b.
Starting in July 1990, all licensees must address the Decommission Rule requirements.
Since the rule was passed, no financial certifications and/or decommissioning funding plans have been received for review by Region III.
It appears that licensees have opted to reduce their possession limits or simply wait until the required submission date, which means there exists a good potential that a significant number of decommissioning plans and/or financial certifications may be received near the end of the fiscal year. Due to their complexity, the fact that they are a "first of a kind" review and the number of licensees in Region III yet to file a pl'an, we expect to expend a significant number of FTEs in this area during the latter part of the year. We will closely monitor expenditures to note if it is more than the 0.5 FTE budgeted.
The section has received s,ignificantly fewer renewal applications c.
7
1 than projected for the first quarter of the fiscal year.
If this trend continues, the region will modify the completions projected to be more in line with the actual number of receipts.
The region spent about 2 more FTEs than budgeted in FY89 to reduce the backlog of renewals to less than 100 by the end of the fiscal year.
d.
The State of Ohio has required all contractors who lay asphalt for the State to purchase a specific moisture density gauge and also to amend their licenses to allow State inspectors to use the licensee's gauges at the licensee's construction sites. The State of Ohio estimates that approximately 300 Ohio contractors will be affected.
This means the region may expect to see, within the next 1-4 months, a significant rise in the receipt of new and amendment applications which may exceed the NMSS projections.
Per milestones established by the L6w-Level Radioactive Waste Policy e.
Amendment Act of 1985, the waste compact states in Region III need to certify that licensees within their states are able to store radioactive waste pending establishment of a permanent disposal site.
This certification must be done by June 1, 1990. We have begun to receive requests from states to review our files to assist them in their certification process.
This will require the review of approximately 130 files to determine if these licensees currently are authorized to possess and have adequate facilities for the long-term storage of low-level radioactive waste.
Region III has agreed to perform this task which is expected to expend 0.1 FTE.
In the fuel facilities and decommissioning inspection program, there has been an increase in the FTE required to track and force movement on decommissioning of contaminated sites in the region.
This trend is expected to continue; the region is planning some reorganization to better handle this increase workload.
However, this may require an adjustment to the FTEs currently budgeted for this effort.
In the materials inspection area, the region has aggressively hired staff and is fully staffed with the budget mark.
The region is also recruiting additional staf f in an effort to hire 1-2 FTEs over the budget mark. We are monitoring several factors that may impact our ability to meet workload projections for materials inspections. They are:
A significant number of escalated enforcement cases, over 17 from a.
October 1989 through January 1990.
b.
The training of 3 new inspectors.
c.
OSHA training in December 1989.
d.
Reactive response to multiple events.
Significant FTE efforts on resolution of major health and safety e.
issues (for example, University of Cincinnati, 3M, AMS, RSI, ARC, Photon Field).
8 i
_=
Enclos; ire 1 We have been evaluating the effect this will have on the completion of the Operating Plan and plan to make any needed adjustments at mid year (March 1990). We have improved-completion output per inspector; as a result, 108 inspections were completed in January 1990 versus 78 budgeted.
e d
9
4.
Question Are regional administrative support functions performed in a timely manner? Are changes needed in the manner in which these support functions are performed? If so, please be prepared to discuss the changes needed which could result in optimal administrative support for the programs.
Response
The Materials Inspection (16 inspectors, 2 Section Chiefs) and Licensing (10 reviewers,1 Section Chief) Sections currently have 2.38 FTE available for their administrative support functions, with occasional backup provided by the Region III Nuclear Materials Safety Branch secretary.
In September 1989, we decided to transfer typing of license documents from administrative support in the licensing section to the region's Data Management Section (DMS).
DMS thus types all licenses and license deficiency correspondence. Attachment 4 contains some of the agreements for DMS' typing of license documents. We did this workload changa in order to use the FTE to overhire one reviewer in the Materials Licensing Section.
We are monitoring this move to note any adverse effects on the regiin's materials licensing and inspection programs. With this move, we base noted that license documents are typically typed and returned within 4 days, with mailout and distribution within another 3-4 days.
Processing of incoming licensing actions are done, in general on the same day of receipt. Materials inspection reports are issued on an average of 22 days from date of completion and are usually typed within 5 days on the average. We have noted some problems as follows:
It has been necessary to authorize overtime for administrative a.
support periodically in order to ecet timeliness goals. This is the first time significant administrative overtime has been necessary since approximately March 1989.
b.
With one less staff to answer incoming calls, telephone coverage has begun to significantly interfere with the performance of routine administrative duties.
During a busy day the section averages over 100 calls.
At an average of 3 minutes per call, this translates into a loss of 5 administrative hours per day.
The ability to cross train administrative staff has become extremely c.
difficult since the current administrative staff has less time for training than when there was one additional person.
d.
With one less staff, work typically " backs-up" and overtime is required to " catch up" when one administrative person is on leave.
4 10
Enclosure'l 5.
Question Please provide your comments on the programs for interaction of Headquarters with your Region.
Please include your comments on the usefulness of the conference calls, licensing workshops, executive management seminars, inspection accompaniments, telephone calls on case reviews, technical assistance provided on a day-to-day basis, standard review plans, guides, etc.
Include in your comments your suggestions and recommendations for modifications, changes, improvements, etc., in the interaction programs.
Response
Interaction between Headquarters and the region continues to be strong, however, it appears staff in the region and Headquarters have less time than in previous years for communication on issues due to increasing workloads. This increased workload has caused a decrease in daily telephone contact on licensing issues and participation in the conference call topics has decreased.
Daily contacts on events, however, have increased. Whenever it has been necessary to seek Headquarters advice, it has been generally timely and of gooo quality.
The strongest area of communications continues to be the licensing and inspection workshops.
The NMSS workshop in Region III was a success story and should be repeated. The division of the meeting into groups based upon areas of common interest was excellent and should be continued.
The weakest area of communication appears to be in the coordination of efforts on fuel facilities and contaminated sites for rcutine issues.
Coordination during events and response to significant issues is excellent as exemplified by the Augmented Inspection Team and NRC response to the Combustion Engineering release of uranium event.
Since it appears that the best interaction between staffs is during face to face encounters, i.e., workshops and training courses, where the individual is removed from his/her day-to-day job responsibilities, NMSS should consider sponsoring another licensing training series for new reviewers and more frequent working staff level workshops.
The purpose of these meetings would be to improve and assure communications between Headquarters and the Regions. To reduce the impact on NMSS staff, instructors should be drawn from experienced senior NMSS and Regional Staffs.
Both the region and NMSS have improved communications by creating rotational assignments between managers in the two organizations this past year. John Hickey functioned as the Division Director in Region III.
Norm McElroy functioned as a Section Chief in Region III and Darrel Wiedeman functioned as a Section Chief in Headquarters.
11
i j
6.
Question:
Summarize regional initiatives to improve the quality of inspections and license reviews, particularly those aimed toward preventing licensee safety problems or those aimed at licensees performing their transportation activities in a safe manner.
Response
Region III's materials and fuel facility inspections and materials licensing programs have with few exception achieved a high standard of quality. As was accomplished in previous years, we periodically review our overall performance and initiate certain steps in order to assure that this performance continues.
Some steps that have been taken this past year which have improved our quality and/or safety are as follows:
We have continued our use of the Performance Evaluation Factor a.
Program (PEF) in Region III even though the Temporary Instruction is no longer in effect awaiting its implementation in the routine inspection effort. This program in Region III is routinely assessed at the Division level. We feel that the use of this program has been valuable in assessing licensee performance and has precluded
.significant safety issues from occurring.
Examples where' problems were found at licensees using the Performance Evaluation Factors are as follows:
2 1.
St. Louis University 2.
St. John's Medical Center 3.
Baraga Hospital 4.
VA Des Moines 5.
Pemiscot Hospital 6.
Chaffee Memorial Hospital In most of the aforementioned cases, the factors identified were related to staffing; RSO involvement in the program; and management effectiveness issues. Action taken by the Region included management control concerns addressed to the licensee in either a telephone conference or an~ area of concern in the transmittal letter to the licensee.
In some cases where other problems were identified, actions included escalated enforcement actions.
In all cases, the licensees were scheduled for early reinspections.
b.
The Materials Licensing and Inspection Section Chiefs have been routinely (approximately every two weeks) meeting with their respective staffs to convey methods of improving the quality of inspections and license reviews.
In addition, both inspection and i
12
4M%.6 am,an-2 n
.b mneS,k-.
m---
64=-
+ - - >
4 +=M S
-w a
-3Kaa anam licensing sections periodically meet together to discuss similar issues.
Examples of recent inspection meeting minutes are attached for your review.
(This was a recommendation from last year's program review.)
Emphasis has been conveyed to the inspection staff on the c.
identification of root causes why many licensees are finding themselves in violation of our requirements.
In addition, we have been routinely conveying the message to our inspectors that they are to spend more time during the' inspection effort observing licensed activities and talking to licensee personnel rather than spending the majority of time reviewing records.
This type of inspection is that which is also being stressed at the Inspecting for Performance course.
d.
Region III will be holding a medical workshop in the Chicago area this coming spring. We feel that these type workshops are beneficial to both licensees and the Commission.
We have initiated a program in Region III to perform periodic e.
telephone inquiries of our lower priority licensees who have either never been inspected or have been inspected infrequently.
We have identified a number of concerns and obtained corrective actions, thus precluding larger problems at a later date. This procedure was formally implemented in May 1989 (Attachment 5). We have committed to continue its use and are planning on completing at least 50 of these inquiries per year.
f.
An inspector's guidance book was recently put together for our inspectors which provides a quick reference book for many of our every day tasks such as documenting PNs and morning reports, responding to incident notifications and procedures for escalated enforcement cases.
(A copy of the. Table of Contents is enclosed for your review.) We feel this has been of great benefit to our inspectors and our license reviewers who may get telephone notifications of events and on occasion, allegations.
g.
For Priority I licensees, we have initiated an inspection plan which I
must be approved at the Branch level and filed prior to the inspection.
This has been a valuable asset on concentrating on key areas during the inspection. We also prepare written inspection plans for non-routine issues such as' followup on misadministrations, etc.
h.
We are planning on continuing our efforts on completing 1-2 team inspections per year at our major licensees.
These inspections will be conducted in accordance with the newly developed Manual. Chapter on team inspections.
For FY 90 we are going to complet isam inspections at Combustion' Engineering and at the University of Michigan.
l 13 n
j 1.
The region continues to utilize experiences such as the response to D. Cohen and Son (contaminated material at a scrapyard) to train for future similar events. As a result of the event, the region conducted training sessions on sample techniques and transportation issues regarding carrying those samples. This training in this case was useful and was a key factor in responding successfully at the subsequent Omni Company event in Fort Wayne.
J.
All of our routine materials inspections'are now scheduled by the Section Chiefs for an entire month. We feel this is an asset not only from a planning perspective but also for concentrating on the e
backlog of some of our higher priority licensees.
k.
Materials inspectors routinely debrief with their Section Chief upon return to the office from an inspection trip.
This immediate debriefing is valuable in order to " flush issues up" as quickly as possible in order to alleviate safety concerns.
1.
Region III recently took an initiative to draft an information notice to our materials licensees addressing their responsibilities for compliance with 10 CFR Part 21. This was based upon recent findings at 3M and comments from our staff that many materials licensees may not be aware of the requirements set forth in Part 21.
Region III also continues to assist NMSS in providing periodic articles for incorporation in the NMSS newsletters.
Recent examples pertained to misadministration reporting and the 3M Heyman Applicator recall.
The region also provided necessary information which led to the issuance of Information Notice 90-09 on interim low level waste storage.
The region has continued the Project Management concept which was an m.
initiative last year for those licensees requiring focused attention.
In addition, we are also continuing the use of MAPS for fuel facilities and periodic contaminated sites updates.
The region has initiated several self-audit programs to improve n.
quality of inspection reports and adequacy of licensee's responses to notices of violation.
For example, the Branch Chief audits at least two reports per month for cases normally signed by the Section Chiefs (Severity level IV and V violations).
The Division Director is also scanning all Notices of Violation that are issued.
The Deputy Regional Administrator randomly reviews narrative inspection renorts on a monthly basis.
The Acting Deput'y Division Director perforn.ed an audit in January 1990 of adequacy of licensee responses to violations.
The region has improved access to PCs by the materials staff.
Four o.
computer work stations are now available to the staff and another is on order. A sign-up system has been established to assure equitable usage and to develop a data profile for use in determining the justification for the purchase of additional machines.
(This was a recommendation from last year's program review.)
14
p.
The Materials Licensing Section Chief is reviewing the checklists used by section reviewers. A new checklist has been developed for use in reviewing license applications for teletherapy service companies. The next project is to develop a generic checklist for use in evaluating bioassay and related survey programs.
q.
An Emergency drill will be performed at Combustion Engineering Hematite facility with the licensee in an effort to note if the licensee has improved deficiencies noted in its program during August 1989 Augmented Inspection Team.
t 9
15 t
y--
7.
Question:
Summarize the total number of inspections of transportation activities at MC 2800 program licensed facilities, including average staff hours per inspection and brief summary of most typically observed violations, including any escalated enforcement actions (Procedure 86740).
Summarize the number of referrals (from Regions II and V) which were processed by your region regarding enforcement action against licensee shippers in your region who made errant shipments to either.of the three commercial low level waste burial sites. Summarize the completion status of the annual inspections of transportation activities at MC 2600 licensed fuel facilities and a brief summary of findings.
Describe whether transportation activities were included on any of the major team inspections of fuel facilities.
Summarize the completion status of inspections of transportation activities at MC 2500 (2515 & 2545) licensed reactor facilities.
(MC procedures 86721, 86740, or 83750).
Please provide your evaluation of whether Core Inspection Procedure 83750 has been adequate in providing sufficient effort in the inspection of transportation activities.
If possible, please provide a summary of the staff hours expended on transportation as a percent of the staff hours expended against Procedure 83750.
Response
The following provides a list of the number of inspections conducted in tranportation areas in Region III since October 1989 and the types of violations identified:
a.
Materials (2800 Program)
Total No. of Inspections = 60 Average-No. of Staff Hours per Inspection
=1 Total No. of Violations = 9 (8 Severity Level IV and 1 Severity Level V)
Summary of Violations t
5 associated with shipping papers 2 associated with packaging 2 associated with labels b.
Reactor Program (2500 Program)
Of the 29 units and 20 sites in Region III, no inspection effort was credited to modules 86721 or 86740 in FY90; however, beginning in FY89, these modules were deployed for the Regional Initiative Program
)
only.
Core Module 83750 is currently used for both shipping / transportation and occupational exposure.
Less than 10% of the staff hours allotted 16
+
to this module are expended on reviewing shipping / transportation activities.
The shipping / transportation aspects of this module'has been completed at 6 sites and partially completed for another site during FY90.
?
Core Module 83750 appears to be adequate to provide sufficient effort in the inspection of shipping / transportation activities.
If programmatic weaknesses are noted or suspected in this area, supplemental Modules 86721 or 86740 may be utilized for further review as part of the Regiona1' Initiative Program.
c.
Fuel Facilities (2600 Program)
Since the last program review, the following is a list of fuel facilities inspected with regard to Transportation Module 86740.
Facility Date Inspected Findings Allied-Signal 5/15-19/89 No Violations 6/27-30/89 No Violations 10/23-27/89 No Violations 10/30-11/2/89 No Violations Battelle 1/16-18/90 No Violations-Combustion Engineering 11/13-17/89 No Violations G.E. Morris 2/27-3/3/89 One Violation Shipping 2 Spent Fuel Casks with' Surface Contamina-tion Exceeding DOT Limits Cimarron Corp.
4/3-4/4/89 No Violations 17
4 4
8.
Question Provide a training summary for each inspector and reviewer in tabular fo rm.
For each inspector, state which courses listed in Manual Chapter 1245 a.
have been completed, when oral boards were completed, what types of inspections the inspector is certified for, and which courses were waived and the reason.
Response
See Attachment 6.
NOTE:
To date, we have not waived a course for an inspector.
b.
For each license reviewer, state which courses listed in Manual Chapter 1245 have been completed, and which types of licenses the reviewer is authorized to sign.
Response
Please refer to Attachment 7 for completed courses and signature authority.
e 18 4
o v
,-w.
~--.
u---
.-w.
r w - er a-r
Response to OE Questions 1.
Question What types and frequency of training is' conducted by the regions in enforcement matters? Training for new employees and regional personnel?
How is enforcement guidance / instruction given out to regional personnel?
Has training been given, especially on repetitive violations, enforcement discretion under V.G.1 and Severity Level V violations?
Response
Training on enforcement matters is generally provided on a quarterly basis by either the Director, Enforcement and Investigation Staff (EICS) or a member of his staff.
In addition, the Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch, has provided training sessions to members of his staff on enforcement and investigation on an annual basis.
This training has included proper documentation of Notices of Violations, and a presentation of case studies of both good and poor examples of violations and associated documentation. The Chiefs of the Nuclear Materials Safety Sections also provide training on enforcement during their section meetings.
With regard to the training of new employees each inspector is required, as part of his/her qualification journal, to review and discuss applicable enforcement related documents such as 10 CFR Part 2 and Regional procedures regarding enforcement with his/her Section Chief. This review is documented in the individual's training journal and is reviewed during the employee's oral board certification. In addition, each new inspector is required to interview with the Director, EICS. These interviews include a review of the entire enforcement policy and applicable regional procedures pertaining to enforcement.
The most recent enforcement training provided by the Director, EICS, occurred in December 1989 and covered the areas of repetitive violations, enforcement discretion and Severity Level V violations as well as an overview of the entire enforcement policy and process. Training has also been provided by the Chiefs of our Nuclear Materials Safety Sections in November 1989 and February 1990.
In addition to this direct training, the Director, EICS, reviews every issued Severity Level IV and V violation,'and, if concerns are identified with the NOV or supporting documentation, interfaces directly with the inspector and Section Chief to provide training.
With regard to the distribution of enforcement guidance / instructions, the Region has numerous channels as summarized below:
i The regional policy on enforcement is part of the Regional a.
Procedures. These procedures are reviewed and updated on an annual l
1 l
1
basis and_are maintained by the Nuclear Materials Safety Branch Secreta ry.
In addition, a co'py of the Regional Procedure on j
enforcement and the Manual Chapter on enforcement is provided to t
employees in conjunction with their training journals. The Regional l
Procedures on enforcement are also' included as part of a recently established inspector guidance book put together by the Chiefs of our Nuclear Materials Safety Sections.
b.
When Enforcement Guidance Memoranda or other enforcement guidance are issued from Headquarters or revisions / changes have been made to Regional Enforcement Procedures, the Director, EICS, distributes copies to all technical supervisors.
These are typically discussed at Section and Branch meetings and a copy is maintained by the Nuclear Materials Safety Branch secretary.
The Director, EICS, includes this revised guidance in the quarterly training sessions.
The region also has standard boilerplates for the documentation of c.
both escalated and nonescalated enforcement activities.
These boilerplate; are readily available to our staff who routinely use them during preparation of enforcement documents.
i 2
. - - +
2.
Question Are repetitive violations being identified?
a.
To licensee during close out?
b.
To.section chief during discussion of inspector findings?
Response
Our inspectors routinely address repeat violations to licensees during the exit meeting.
Confirmation of this is then addressed in the transmittal letter to the licensee where we reiterate the repeat violation.
(See for an example of a transmittal letter addressing repeat violations.) With regard to question 2.b, repeat violations are always a topic of discussion during inspector debriefings with section chiefs upon return to the office following an inspection trip.
}
)
-v 3
3.
Question How are repeat violations beings documented?
a.
Is there a paragraph in cover letter?
b.
Are they identified in NOVs as repeats?
If other violations, is an enforcement conference held?
c.
Response
With regard to Questions 3.a. and 3.b., please refer te the response to question 2 and th<. Ttteched example of a transmittal letter addressing the issue of a repea' v
'ation (Attachment 8).
With regard to Item J.c., the region is following the guidance provided in Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) 89-09 regarding repeat violations.
To date, there have been only a few cases where the repeat violation has led to additional actions (i.e., enforcment conference) since the last program review. An example is General Electric.
1 I
E 4
.~.. - -.
-=
4.
Question When a repeat violation is repeated a third time what action should be taken?
Response
We will follow the guidance set forth in EGM 89-09 and will more than likely, depending on safety significance, have a meeting with the licensee with a potential for escalated enforcement.
Although we typically do not see third time repeat violations, we recently had a case involving Magna Chek, Inc.
Ir this case, we reviewed EGM 89-09 with a member of our enforcement staff and addressed the repeat violation to the licensee in the transmittal letter.
In this case, no further action was warranted since the repeat violation led to the licensee taking voluntary measures to rectify the situation. A copy of the transmittal letter used to relay the repeat violation to the licensee is attached for your information (Attachment 9). A case where we did take further escalated enforcement was with General Electric as stated in the response to Question 3.
r 5
l
.,--m
+ -
r.-r-
s 5.
Question Have inspectors had cases of repeat violations in inspections since new guidance issued by OE?
Response
We have identified repeat violations since OE guidance has been issued.
However, there have been only a few occasions where a third time repeat violation has occurred.
Our followups to repeat violations are consistent with the OE guidance as reflected in our response to question 3.
i 7:
I l
l 6
9 6.
Question How have inspectors exercised ciscretion under V.G. 1. during inspections of licensees?
Response
All inspectors were recently given guidance by the Section Chiefs on the exercise of discretion. Although this is not a common practice since many of our licensees typically do not self-identify problems, we have used the exercise of discretion on a few occasions. When it is used, we follow the criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 2 and document our rationale for using it in the inspection report.
We also address the issue in the transmittal letter to the licensee which we feel is important to provide positive reinforcement for licensee identifica':.fon of problems.
An example of a transmittal letter to a licensee where we used our exercise of discretion is attached for your information (Attachment 10).
In addition to addressing the discretion in the transmittal letter and inspection report, 3
i it is also identified on the 766 form as a non-cited violation (ncy).
/
e 7
x
'e
.e A,
j gO s
o
,L ': "
o IMAGE EVALUATION
g'
/
s Y/
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
_JJJi Q, N
'l$$'
I/f g
?
y r
+
<e I.0
- 22 l,l lllll2g US l.25
! l.4 jLll 1.6 l
i 4
. - ---- - 15 0 m m
. --- 6 " - - - - - - - -
[ ^%
4(,[4',)
,y o
,ge 1
~
,ny4
/[j
- q't et)x h
///// /
gJ
?g IMAGE EVALUATION O
qT,.
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
////7 V 4, y,p' sq v
I.0 I
'2'
" p2 llilal 2.0 l,l ll! u?
hl'l E:i-2 l.8 j,
I.25 l
i.4
- mll===
w!! i.6 w
- --- 15 0 m m --
l 4
6~
Q z:
jg ggg
//4k d[
j y#,,
+ j///p n
,l>f:gl 0
,y l
Mk J[j
.a
7 dk
.13
'\\., *
/ (0 f
g
/jj///j v
V IMAGE EVALUATION 3
Q 4#
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
[?
g, I?fp M
l.0 o
- 2.2 l,l
, =E-.
I.25 i
1.4
!!1.6 l===a l l m:.2 i
Lo
-- --.-- 1 5 0 m m - - - - - - - -
l l4 6"
%u ff*
- w
,e/ +,A 4yf o
R;g$s
$j/
- . ~ f' 7
oy v
!N~
- g gidh
, ][]
s 7.
Question When and for what types of violations are 591s being used?
Response 1 is a copy of guidance given to inspectors for issuing NRC Form 591s. Most 591s are issued in the field at the conclusion of the inspection; however, if there is a question, some of them are issued from the Region III office after inspector discussion with the appropriate Section Chief.
In general, NRC Form 591s are used for Severity Level IV and V violations that the licensee corrected while the inspector was onsite or no response to the NRC is determined te be necessary.
8
8.
Question How are repetitive violations, non-cited violations and open items tracked?
Response
j For repeat violations in both the materials and the fuel facility inspection programs, the violations are documented in the current inspection report and cover letter'to the licensee. There is no need for 2
a special tracking system for these licensees due to the simplicity of the licenses;. however, inspectors review these repeat violations by examining the license file and past inspections prior to the next inspection.
Non-cited violations are documented in the inspection reports, the cover-letter to the licensee, and indicated in the NRC 766 system.
They are not tracked for any special followup.
Open items for the materials license inspection program are usually of short duration and tracked by entering into the Nuclear Materials Safety Branch Significant Issues Tracking System until closure. These are also documented in the inspection report and cover letter to the licensee.
Open items for the fuel facility inspection program are documented in the inspection report and cover letter to the licensee.
They are tracked in the regional Master Activities Plan (MAP) for fuel facilities and the regional open items list tracking system until closure.
J 9
t
9.
Question If there is a tracking system, do inspectors review output prior to inspection and close out old violations and flag repeats?
Response.
Materials inspectors review inspection history in the license file prior to performing an inspection.
They document followup on previous violations in the inspection report'.
If there is a repeat violation, it is noted in the report and Notice of Violation and cover letter to the licensee.
If special followun is noted in the branch tracking system, the Section Chief formulates a pre-inspection plan with the inspector to include this followup.
The MAP for fuel facilities is reviewed by inspectors each quarter, as a minimum, and the inspectors and Section and Branch Chiefs use it to ensure followup and closure of previous violations and open items.
Fuel facility inspectors also review open items from previous inspections and the MAP track prior to an inspection to include followup for closure in the inspection plan, 4
1 I
f t
i 10 1
~
--n-.
m.-,--
~
t t
- 10. Question Could OE have a copy of tracking system output of example licensee?
Response
, 2 is a copy of the fuel facilities' MAP for the first quarter of FY90.
9 h
i L
I I
i.
I i
l i
e 11
- 11. Question Who does audit on tracking systems to assure input by?
Response
The Section Chiefs and Branch Chief meet at least biweekly to review the items on the Nuclear Materials Safety Branch Significant Issues Tracking System. Open items tracking system in the MAP for fuel facilities is reviewed by the lead fuel facility' inspector.
Audit for followup and closure was discussed in the answer to Question 8.
t e
h I
12 9 -
t
- 12. Questions and 13.
How many Severity Level IV and V violations were disputed by the licensee during the current FY? How many Severity Level IV and V violations were withdrawn during the current FY?
There have been no disputed cases in FY90. There have been several cases where licensees submitted additional information to indicate that the violation did not occur.
In these cases, the response is reviewed by the Section Chief and withdrawel of the violation is indicated in a letter to the licensee. Examples of these cases for FY90 are:
Central Medical Center and Iron County General Hospital (see Attachment 13).
Since the last program review in 1989, the Region has had two major disputed violations (American Testing and Inspection and Ellis Fischel).
Although these violations individually represented Severity Level IV violations, collectively, they were part of escalated Severity Level III enforcement actions.
I f
l 5
13 i
4
- 14. Question Do the regions perform internal audits, other than the normal concurrence process of inspection reports and severity Level IV and V violations?
Response
In 1989, the Division conducted a special audit of documentation of Severity Level IV and V violations.
The results of this audit were reviewed with inspectors and used to set up ongoing audits.
In addition to concurrence, the Branch Chief pulle at least two completed inspection reports per month for auditing.
The main focus of the audit is twofold:
(1) are the Severity Level IV and V violations supported by the inspection results and written in accordance with NRC procedures and (2) are safety issues detected and resolved.
The Division Director also scans all Severity Level IV and V violations issued in letters to licensees.
The Deputy Regional Administrator and Director, EICS, has also started monthly audits of inspection reports where there has been a Notice of Violation sent to the licensee for Severity Level IV and V violations.
In addition, the Director, EICS, receives copies of all issued Severity Level IV and V violations and review them on a routine basis.
During FY90, the Division Director initiated an audit of the adequacy of Regional review of licensee responses to Severity Level IV and V violations.
Responses to these violations are normally reviewed by the Section Chief. Both the Branch Chief and Division Director also perform independent reviews of these responses.
t 4
I t
t 14
J.~
a DIVISION OF' RADIATION SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS Ofrector C. E. Morellus Deputy Ofrect'or VACANT tech. Asst.
O. C. uledemen Secretary M. Meenen Reactor Programs trench L. 4. Creger..Chlef Wuclear Materlets safety Orench Reactor Programa Spec., VACANT
- 5. S. Mellett. Chief A. Pudte, Secretary J. E. Loser. Secretary i
Redlologicet Controts &
Redlological Controts 1 Safeguards tection.
Meterials Licensing Nuclear Noterlate Safety Nucteer Meterlate Sefety Cheeletry Section teer. Prep. Section section Section 1 section 2 i
I I
I i
I M. C. Schunecher, Chief V. 8. Snett, Chief J. R. Creed, Chief C. M. McCann, Chief
- 0. J. Srenlawski, ihlef R. J. Conlano, Chief-K. t. Andre D. M. terse J. L. Selenger
- u. J. Adnee C. C. Casey J. L. Lych" R. 8. Mottamen J. t. Foster Ci M. Christoffer
- t. P. Dettoff C. M. France E. R. Meteen J. t. House C. 7. Ollt J. R. Kniceley C. f. Trealer
- 0. R. Cibbone 8.'J. Mutey A. C. Janueke V. S. Grant T. J. Medede R. C. Cottone W. 1. Klog
- 4. M. Penkratt
,(
M6 A. Kunouekt R. L. LaFrenlere, C. L. Plrtte D. E. Miller J. P. Petterson-
- 0. A. Hersey K. J. Lembert
- 8. A.'Perker L. J. Mueter J. R. Mutteuer J. W. Petterson R. A. Paul YACANT T. J. Ploekt J. O. Jones W. P. Reichhold G. L. Sheer J. R. Madere T. L. Siemens K. C. Null W. J. Stewinskt P. J. Pelke j
R. W. Rothon P. M. Vecherton.
]
Detalled to Poeltlen 9
N
" Obligeted
- Rotettonal Assigreent to E
os needquarters O
.]' =I.
n l-1, r+
l.
5
,8, ~
1l i
.t l
O l
i(
1 a
s t
.-