ML20147E592
| ML20147E592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1986 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147E473 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-677 NUDOCS 8803070106 | |
| Download: ML20147E592 (8) | |
Text
f, 'J V e* *' %, UNITED STATES
} l* -
\W
'ih x t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ih .
]s k
REGION IV
[f*
'+, y,, , / ARL NG o . T X s DRAFT--PREDECISIONAL DEC 121996 -
MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr. ,
Ex cutive Director for Operations FROM: Robe t D. Martin Regi al Administrator
SUBJECT:
01A REP RT REVIEW: OIA FILE NO. 86-10 I have reviewed the subject port and its attachments. To better understand the report and to speed the ac uisition of an accurate perspective, we* met and discussedthereportwiththeaghor,GeorgeMulleyofOIA. The discussion was very informative.
As a result of that meeting, I understand that the intent of the report was to sumarize the raw investigative material and, based on that material, to reach certain findings of fact. While the latter have been labelled as "conclusions" in the report, Mulley made it clear tha they are intended only to be findings of fact. True conclusions are lef t for thers to reach.
l This memorandum contains my preliminary views of the matters treated by the report, as well as my initial proposals foA dealing with the implications of the report's findings. In this regard, I r serve the right to propose and take additional or alternative actions as I explo e the matter more thoroughly with the staff.
The OIA report is broken into three main secti ns. Each section pertains to one of the allegations as generally formulated y OIA. My comments are focused on the portions of the report identified as con lusions. The allegations and my respective comments are as follows: .
- Alleaation I
- "Region IV management harassed and intimidated inspectors to pressure them to downgrade or delete proposed insp tion findings at CPSES."
This allegation was not substantiated by O!A. There as no evidence of such action by Region IV management. Indeed, upon examination of the record, it is l
clear that, insofar as particulars go, the allegation was directed solely l \\
\
- IwasassistedinthereviewofthisreportbyP.S. Check,bhputyRegional Administrator, and W. L. Brown, Regional Counsel.
Arn !7-4 77
- !R 78iR68802o3 AIROZOO7-677 PDR y
l
.. c .
CEC 121986 -
. Victor Stello, Jr., EDO ORAFT--PREDECISIONAL towards one first-level manager, Thomas Westerman. Moreover, the allegation with respect to Westerman was also unsubstantiated as the report states.
However, I offer the following oments on each of the findings of fact under Allegation.-l.
The first finding states that Wes ennan had lengthy disagreements with Shannon Phillips regarding the downgrading pf inspection findings. Westerman has acknowledged that he had lengthy dityussions with Phillips. The finding went on to give a one sentence characteritetion of what "one witness" observed with respect to one of those lengthy discus'1l ion sessions. It is important to note that Mulley confirmed in conversation with us that there were no other Yet, the pejorative terms of witnesses "grilled" andto"badgered" characterize usedsuch sessions.'k by that so witness were adopted as part of the finding even though they only reflected t subjective observation of one person. The use of such pejorative termin logy in the finding is particularly disturbing because OIA had obviously found, as stated in the next finding, that the harassment charges were not substantiat d.
Nevertheless, as a result of this finding, I intend to conduct further detailed training on Regional Policy Guide No. 2201, ,evision 0 (copy attached) which provides guidance on how disagreements over ' spection findings are to be handled in Region IV. This Policy Guide was eyeloped shortly after these allegations came to my attention but its issuince was delayed, by request, until the OIA case had progressed to the poin that all interviews were completed.
The second finding clearly indicates that the alleged harassment was limited to comments made by one manager, Westerman. Pull ey was emphatic on this point.
There were no broader findings pertaining to R egion IV management in general.
It is also clear in the finding that the alleg Ltion was denied by Westerman and OIA "could not substantiate" it through indepe ident sources. I believe this is the pivotal finding, an opinion with which Mul ey agreed. No action is required as a result of this finding.
The third findins is undisputed. Certainly, wi hout ouestion, citations of violations shoulc be reasonably correct. By wa of background, and as .
l reflected in the transcripts, Westerman had pre iously been the Region's
( Enforcement Officer, as had Johnson been before im, and he was keenly aware of the importance of being precise and correct in b th inspection reports and notices of violation. I am convinced that backgr und influenced his thinking l and rightly so. Moreover, each report was being refully reviewed by NRR and ELD (now OGC), and the regulatory conclusions had o be defensible and consistent with positions taken by other NRC organ ations on related matters.
However, it is my view that to raise the standard to one of perfection is not practical. I intend to issue guidance and provide t ining to the technical staff emphasizing the need to be precise and correct en citing a violation using a standard of "reasonably correct" rather than o of "absolutely
\
CEC 121986 Victor Stello, Jr., EDO DRAFT--PREDECISIONAL correct." This of course, will be developed consistent with the reouirements of IE Manual Chapter 0400 and the specific review and endorsement of the guidance by IE will be pu ued.
The fourth, fifth, and sixt findings pertain to the handling of violations and unresolved items by Westerma It is undisputed that there were some proposed violations and unresolved item that were either downgraded or deleted.
However, Mulley made it clear t t such downgradings and deletions were "enforcement neutral"; i.e., he 'd not perceive a pattern of helping or .
protecting the licensee. Thus, it as not a situation of inappropriately doing something to help the licensee, but ather it was a situation where Westerman's "rationale" for doing what he did was "faulty" according to OIA. In fact, in a number of the cases, Mulley stated tha the downgradings did not go far enough; i.e., instead of some violations being owngraded to unresolved items, they probably should have been deleted entire . Mulley said that at times Westerman did the right thing for the wro g reason. There is no evidence of improper intent on the part of Westerman. Westerman has continually been insistent that Phillips was producing bad ork and required the actions he took. (Westerman believes that if he had t e opportunity to reflect on his rationales and put them in writing rather t an have to ccre up with them under an interrogator's pressure, he could provid much more satisfactory explanations. Indeed, Westerman felt under uch pressure during his OIA interview that he complained about it en the record. See, for example, pages 414 through 416 of Westerman's transcript.)
It is worth noting that Phillips's inspection reports have been independently reviewed by IE since June 1986, shortly after bese allegations and tne OIA investigation came to light. I have not, at t is point, had discussions with IE on their experience reviewing Phillips's re orts for technical sufficiency and clarity when enforcement findings are invol ed. This will be done now that the OIA report has been issued.
This important area, and the findings, mora ver he allegation itself, clearly indicates the need for improved training and mana ement oversight. The actions I plan include:
- Training will be conducted on Regional Po icy Guide 2201, which '
affirms the positive obligation on both th staff and supervision / management to escalate disagree ents promptly to achieve resolution. This should, if followed, preci e protracted discussions on such issues in the future. Th training is also referred to in response to the first finding.
To alert senior regional management to possible i stances of protracted review, I have instructed the Director my Division of l Resource Management and Administration to develop an improved inspection report tracking system that will identify ose reports that are experiencing unacceptable delays in the variods stages of
(
DEC 12 96 Victor Stello, Jr., EDO ORAFT--PREDECISIONAL their preparation, review, approval, and distribution. This is to be operational by February 15, 1987. It should be noted that a decision was made in Febraury 1986 to prepare inspection reports at Comanche Peak by NRC work group rather than comprehensive reports covering all NRC site activities. This previously taken action should enhance the effee tveness of the revised tracking system described above.
By memo ndum dated August 7, 1986, I requested the Director, IE to establis a review group to perform an ad hoc review of the issues in contention to provide an independent assessment for all parties involved. had proposed to the Director of 0!A that this be permitted to forward then so that the region and OIA could both be provided the re its for their separate use. When OIA declined, I requested the ass tance be held in abeyance until the OIA investigation was e cluded. I new plan to exercise that request.
The seventh finding pertains to i dequate direction and cuidance from Westerman to Phillips. While the e pies given in this finding of inadequacy are disputed by Westerman, the fact r ains that if a subordinate employee is not doing what is necessary to do his job properly, he should be counselled on how he can do better. Phillips was previ sly a GG-15 section chief, and should not have always required such direc on and guidance. However, according to Mulley, Phillips appeared to be a person who got so tied up in minutia that he missed the big picture. He, herefore, required more guidance and direction than what might otherwise have en expected for one of his grade level.
This finding indicates the need to initiate tra ing for supervisors to remind them of their proper supervisory responsibilitie , including the need to give adequate direction and guidance, and identify and document weaknesses they discern in their subordinates. Supervisors will a so be held accountable for developing, in such cases, suitable Individual Dev oprent Plans to address the problems. Such training shall be initiated for all egion IV supervisory staff. The assistance of the Office of Administrati . will be requested in conducting training in this area.
The eighth finding pertains to the delay by Westerman an Johnson of two snemoranda to NRC headquarters. The first memorandum conc ning Bisco fire j penetration seals was poorly drafted and improperly address d by Phillips.
However, a delay of more than four months in getting such a morandum out appears unreasonable. Poor drafting and procedural problems ould not cause
, unreasonable delays for substantive memoranda. While this situ tion had no apparent adverse safety ramifications, I intend to see that such roblems do
( not recur in the future through clear guidance on this subject. T second remorandum pertaining to the CB&l records shipment issue was determ d to be l a moot issue by Johnson and he subsecuently exercised his managerial abdgment l in not sending the memorandum forward. This decision was based on later
DEC 12 %
Victor Stello, Jr., E00 DRAFT--PREDECISIONAL information which showed that the records had been shipped in an approved container. Therefor it is Johnson's positio~n that there was no longer a regulatory issue. H wever, as noted for the fourth, fifth, and sixth findings, I plan to request tha IE now initiate an independent review of all the issues.
In the ninth finding, A states that Westeman deleted proposed violations from draft inspection re. orts based on information received from the utility well after completion of he inspections. The original issue and the additional inspection acti ity was not documented in the final inspection reports. While this was co sistent with Region IV policy, it was not consistent with IE policy ac ording to OIA. Yet, on the bottom of page 32 of the report, James G. Partlow, Director, Division of Inspection Program, IE, states the opposite. He said, "there are instances where it would be appropriate to accept the addit onal information and delete the proposed violation frem the inspection re rt." Partlow went on to explain the IE position of the matter. I am con ident that Region IV practice has been consistent with the policy as stat \ by Partlow.
The example given in Finding 9 by O!A\was not a good one. It seems to imply that TUGC0 had not documented their audit of the CB&l records facility on April 11, 1985. This is not the case. As was alluded to beginning on page 292 of Westerman's O!A Interview transcript, t e CB&I audit states in the "Audit Scope" that an audit of quality assurance r cords using Appendix B, Criterion XVII, and the QA Manual occurred o April 11, 1985. What was missing from the audit report was a statement in the Audit Summary" regarding QA records. TUGC0 stated during the period prio to issuerte of the NRC Inspection Report 50-445/85-14 and 50-446/85-1 that it had been omitted due to an administrative oversight during preparation f the sumary section. The January 9, 1986, memorandum referred to in the e ample was intended to amend the "Audit Sumary." Thus, the finding was ney ive. The issue was in the judgment of Westerman of minor significance arj s mply an administrative oversight. There appears to be a proper exer;ise f managerial judgment. The actions I propose to take with regard to this issue and others of this kind, are generally outlined in my concluding sumary.
The tenth finding stated that Westerman and Johnson a nowledged the .
inspectors' disagreements with the manner in which prop sed inspection findings were deleted or downgraded in final inspection reports. The report further states that Westerman and Johnson were also aware that Ph llips and Norman did not concur with changes made and sigred the reports only b ause management wanted them to do so. Westerman and Johnson, according to 0 A, accepted this situationandtooknoactiontoaddresstheinspectors'disa(geements.
It is undisputed that all parties acknowledged disagreements con.trning the downgradings or deletions of proposed inspection findings. Howevet, it is not clear that Westerman and Johnson were aware that Phillips and Normansonly signed the reports because management wanted ther to do so. For exam'pTe, en page 10 of the report, Westerman stated that while Norman indicated that he may
DEC 12 IB6 Victor Stello, Jr., EDO ORAFT--PREDECISIONAL.
not fully agree with downgrading the violation in question, if that was what management wanted to do, then he "concurred." Westerman took this to mean that while Norman might rr:omend othenvise, he accepted management's legitimate decisionmaking role ,tn deciding that the violation should be downgraded.
However, if an NRC ttaff member feels strongly enough and still rejects the management decision, that person is encouraged to file a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) in acc rdance with NRC Manual Chapter 4125. I have frequently reminded my staff of heir rights and responsibilities in this area. Neither Phillips nor Norman f1 ed DP0s.
Region !Y now has Region Policy Guide 2201 covering such situations which was issued to clear up any pre ent confusion on the matter. However, as I've already stated in my comen under the first finding, I intend to order further training in this area Allegation II: "The Region IV . inspection program at CPSES was inadequate."
Based on the available information.t0!A finds that it appears that at CPSES Region IV did not satisfy the frequency requirements for the IE Manual Chapter 2512 QA inspection procedures.. OIA noted that the requirement changes over the years made it difficult to mak such a determination and the Region IV managers who were interviewed could only onjecture as to how the Region IV inspection program complied with the manua chapter. Coasequently, OIA states that it "appears" that it would not be poss ble to rely on the Region IV QA inspection effort as evidence of the safe ce struction of CPSES. This will necessitate reliance largely on the detailed echnical inspections of varicus structures, systems, and components that have ecently been conducted by the NRC at CPSES.
This type of finding probably should be attempte only after obtaining more senior NRC input than it had. Interviews with se ral inspectors and supervisors are not sufficient to determine the ex nt to which the NRC's ability to draw a concision about the construction o Comanche Peak may have been compromised by any flaws in Region IV's inspecti of TUGCO's QA program.
In addition, the finding ignored the sumary of Westerm 's testimony on the top of page 40 of the report which is significant. Never eless, in late 1983 and early 1984, both Region IV and NRC headquarters became creasingly concerned about TUGCO's QA program at CPSES and, as a result, number of steps were begun to address those concerns. As indicated in the OIA inding, a very intensive review program has been put in place and has continued inte that I
time.
, I recomend that this matter be studied carefully by the NRR Comanche P k project group to determine what if any weaknesses exist in the case beino' developed by the staff for a cecision on licensing Comanche Peak.
DEC 12 M Victor Stello, Jr., EDO OPAFT--PREDECISIONAL Allegation !!!: "Data documented in Region IV's NRC Form 766 Inspector's Report was inaccurate."
OIA found that, basert on the information it developed, the data recorded on the NRC Form 766 pertain' ng to CPSES were inaccurate and unreliable. The cause of the discrepancies ap ears to be a lack of understanding on the par
- of NRC inspectors as to the roper method of completing the forms according to OlA.
In order to gain a suit le ;erspective on the 766 system, and therefore the significance cf this fin ng, there would need to be a rather detailed discussion of the history, urpose, maintenance, and limitations of the 766 system. This has been the s ject of multiple discussions between the regions and IE for many years. I do t believe the significance of this subject warrants such an effort.
N In my opinion, the 766 system has never been considered totally accurate for all individual entries. It is gener' ally accepted that because of its size, averaged data are useful indicators oF program resource requirements, and as a bookkeeping tool, it is generally useful for individual plant inspection program tracking. Most importantly, how er, must be the recognition that substantive agency safety decisions are n based on the information contained in the 766 system.
Nevertheless, the lack of understanding of s inspectors noted by OIA indicates the need to conduct inspector train g on 766 data input. Such training will be initiated in the near future.
Sumary:
I am satisfied that the report basically reflects series of prolonged disagreements between a supervisor and his subordin e. While future reviews may suggest the supervisor may not have always been ght (reasonable men will differ), no intimidation or harassment has been substa tiated. No improper intent or wrongdoing has been shown. While there were me derogatory coments made by several people other than Phillips, such coments are totally unsubstantiated and, in my opinion, without merit. The ov helming majority of Region IV personnel interviewed had no such problems in t eir dealings with management.
As indicated in my coments, where training and guidance is indi ted, I intend to pursue same with appropriate vigor. In this regard, and in ad (tion to earlier specific comitments in this memorandum, the O!A report and\its attachments are being reviewed again to identify those severel inspebtion
, practices for which further detailed guidance and retraining of technical staff is indicated. These consist of practices about which the transcripts and other attachments clearly show non-uniform understanding by members of Region IV staff and supervisio'n.
1 i
l l
l DEC 12 E06 Victor' Stello, Jr., EDO DRAFT--PREDECISIONAL I have not dealt in thifietter with a review of the technical matters contained in the OIA repprt. I have indicated my intention to request IE to initiate a review of the Moreover, I understand that a reviewisinprogressby\handlingoftheissues.
RR of the extent to which these issues were redundant to issues already identif ed to the licensee through letters and supplementary Safety Evaluation Reports. I support this action.
I am prepared to discuss mykonclusions with you at your earliest convenience so that, with your concurrenet I may go forward with my recomended actions and return to a normal mode of\, upervision and con 6 Jct of the Region's inspection activities at Comanc Peak.
N Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
Attachment:
Regional Policy Guide No. 2201 N 4 N
% un iual tw,
/
T I
l
)
.