ML20154A283
| ML20154A283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Dresden, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Fermi, Kewaunee, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Oyster Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Callaway, Duane Arnold, Farley, Clinton, San Onofre, Cook, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, La Crosse, Fort Calhoun, McGuire, LaSalle, 05000000, Fort Saint Vrain, Shoreham, Trojan, Crane |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1986 |
| From: | Axelrad J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Blaha J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H783 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-868 NUDOCS 8809120137 | |
| Download: ML20154A283 (13) | |
Text
'
i, OEC 13 NES MEMORANDUM FOR:
James L. Blaha, Director Program Support and Analysis Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcerent FROM:
Jana A. Axelrad, Director Enforcement Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
MIDYEAR REGIONAL ASSESSMENT Enclosed are assessments by the Enforcement Staff of regional performance in the enforcement area from July 1 through November 30, 1985.
Areas in which regional performance can be improved are stated briefly in the enclosures.
Wa will discuss these areas further with appropriate regional management.
8809120137 000017 Jane A. Axel rad, Di rector PDR FOIA Enforcement Staff CONNOR87-860 PDR Of' ice tf Inspectdon and Enforcement
Enclosure:
as stated cc:
R. Vollmer E. Jordan J. Partlow B. G r i r-e s Distribution
?
Poindextec ES File s
a
i i
O REGI'ONAL ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT (JULY 1 - NOVEMBER 30, 1985) - REGION I SCOPE:
The Enforcement Staff (ES) has assessed regional enforcement actions submitted to IE for concurrence between July 1 and November 30, 1985 and routine enforcement actions that were not submitted to IE for concurrence because they did not involve escalated enforcement action.
The cases submitted for IE concurrence were evaluated on the basis of technical adequacy, conformance to established policy, guidance, and precedents, and timeliness.
The assessment included an evaluation of the overall quality of packages with regard to the above-described factors and an evaluation of regional cooperation in the enforcement process. Routine enforcement actions involving reactor operations that were not submitted to IE for concurrence were evaluated on the basis of conformance with the enforcement policy, guidance, and precedents.
CASES REVIEWED:
Proposed Enforcement Actions Submitted To IE For Joncurrence*
1.85-075 Philadelphia Electric Co. - Peach Bottom **
2.85-078 Syncor International 3.85-079 Gennantown Hospital 4.85-083 Geo. Tech **
5.85-086 Astratech, Inc.
6.85-090 Foundation for Blood Research**
7.85-098 Metro Health Center 8.85-102 Baltimore Gas & Electric - Calvert Cliffs 9.85-104 Boston Edison Co. - Pilgrim
- 10.85-105 Vennont Yankee - Vennont Yankee
- 13.85-110 Institute for Medical Research
- 14.85-118 GPU Nuclear - TMI-!!**
- 15.85-119 Vennont Yankee - Vennont Yankee
- 16.85-126 GPU Nuclear - Oyster Creek **
- 17.85-129 Quality Assurance Labs
- 18.85-130 E.L. Conwell
- 19.85-034 Pittsburgh Testing Lab (revised pkg. ree'd 8/28/85)"
Civil Penalty impositions and Responses to Orders **
1.85-086 Astrotech 2.85-098 Metro Health Insoection Reports 1.
50-277/85-23 and 50-278/85 Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 2.
50-220/85 09 - Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 3.
50-244/85 R. E. Ginna 4
50-213/85 Haddam Neck Plant
- Cases omitted from evaluation because of special circumstances:
85-112 Pennsylvania Power & Light
.Susquehanna (fire protection);85-122 Pesses Co.
- Reviewed for content, timeliness not evaluated. Only escalated enforcement actions were evaluated for timeliness. Severity Level IV's and special cases were excluded.
p~,yA fy.py n/n
' 5.
50-271/85 Vemont Yankee 6.
50-272/85-15 and 50-311/85 Salem 7.
50-387/85-21 and 50-388/85 Susquehanna 8.
50-293/85 Pilgrim 9.
50-322/85 Shoreham
- 10. 50-443/85 Sobrook Station, Unit 1
- 11. 50-245/85 hillstone, Unit 1
- 12. 50-293/85 Pilgrim
- 13. 50-278/85 Peach Bottom Unit 3
- 14. 50-334/85 Esaver Valley, Unit i 15, 50-309/85 Maine Yankee 16, 50-244/85 R. E. Ginna 17, 50-293/85 Pilgrim
- 18. 50-271/85 Vement Yankee
- 19. 50-289/85 Three Mile Island, Unit 1 20, 50-219/85 Oyster Creek FINDINGS:
During the assessment period. Region I submitted for IE concurrence very high quality enforcement packages that were technically accurate and substantially conformed in substance and format to established policy, guidance, and precedents; Packages contained thorough analysis of the issues and were supported by the inspection reports.
Transmittal memoranda provided good explanations of the facts and the rationale for the proposed actions. Astrotech EA 85-086; Vermont Yankee,85-119; and Pittsburgh Testing Labs,85-034 were particularly well prepared.
In several cases, e.g., Gemantown Hospital, Metro Health Center, and Vermont Yankee (85-105), changes in format and boilerplate were required.
The Region should consult Appendices A-E of Chapter 0400 of the Inspection and Enforcement Manual for correct femat and boilerplate. All Regional personnel were very cooperative in resolving controversial issues.
A review of twenty enforcement actions selected at random from inspection reports issued by Region ! during the period July 1 - November 30, 1985 in the reactor operations area was conducted.
This review of enforcement actions issued at Severity Level IV and/or V indicated that the actions generally confomed with the enforcement policy, guidance, and precedents. The findings were usually well-supported by the facts detailed in the inspection reports and the violations were evaluated at the appropriate severity levels. However, consistent fomat and boilerplate should be used for all Notices of Violation.
TIMELINESS:
The Comission has established a goal of issuance of escalated actions within an average of eight weeks from identification of a violation.
To meet this goal, packages must be submitted by the Regions for IE concurrence within six weeks of identification of a violation.
The average time for submittel of escalated enforcement actions to IE for concurrence was 5.1 weeks which meets the goal of six weeks.
REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT (July 1 - November 30, 1985) - REGION II SCOPE:
The Enforcement Staff (ES) has assessed regional enforcement actions submitted to IE for concurrence between July 1 and November 30, 1985 and routine enforcement actions that were not submitted to IE for concurrence because they did not involve escalated enforcement action. The cases submitted for IE concurrence were evaluated on the basis of technical adequacy, conformance to established policy, guidance, and precedents, and timeliness.
The assessment included an evaluation of the overall quality of packages with regard to the above-described factors and an evaluation of regional cooperation in the enforcement process. Routine enforcement actions involving reactor operations that were not submitted to IE for concurrence were evaluated on the basis of conformance with the enforcement policy, guidance, and precedents.
CASES REVIEWED:
Proposed Enforcement Actions Submitted To IE For Concurrence
- 1.85-068 North Anna (revised pkg. rec'd 11/13/85)**
2.85-074 Florida Power Co. - Turkey Point 3.85-076 Florida Power Co. - Turkey Point -
4.85-080 Florida Power Co. - Turkey Point 5.85-081 Ouke Power - McGuire**
6.85-088 Ouke Power - McGuire**
7.85-091 Virginia Electric & Power Co. - North Anna 8.85-113 Duke Power Company - Oconee 9.85-115 Babcock & Wilcox**
- 11.85-121 South Carolina Electric & Gas - Summer
85-04 Met-Lab i
Inspection Reports 1.
50-325/85-16 and 50-324/85 Brunswick 2.
50-348/85-25 and 50-364/85 Farley, Units 1 and 2 1
3.
50-348/85-30 and 50-364/85 Farley, Units 1 and 2 4.
50-302/85 Crystal River 5.
50-302/85 Crystal River 6.
50-321/85-24 and 50 366/85 Hatch, Units 1 and 2 7.
50-335/85-20 and 50-389/85 St. Lucie 1 and 2 8.
50-335/85-17 and 50 389/85 St. Lucie 1 and 2 9.
50-327/85-27 and 50 328/85 Sequoyah, Units 1 and 2 l
- 10. 50-269/85-25, 50-270/85-25 and 50-287/85 Oconee 1, 2, and 3
- 11. 50-338/85-16 and 50 339/85 North Anna Units 1 and 2
- 12. 50-395/85 Sunmer Cases omitted from evaluation because of special circumstances: 85-101 Summer (fire protection)
Review for content, timeliness not evaluated. Only escalated enforcement actions were evaluated for timeliness.
Severity Level IV's and special cases were excluded.
' 13. 50-369/85-32 and 50-370/85 McGuire, Units 1 and 2
- 14. 50-369/85-21 and 50-370/85 McGuire, Units 1 and 2
- 15. 50-369/85-20 and 50-370/85 McGuire, Units 1 and 2
- 16. 50-250/85-30 and 50-251/85 Turkey Point. Units 3 and 4 17, 50-250/85-24 and 50-251/85 Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4
- 18. 50-250/85-13 and 50-251/85 Turkey Point. Units 3 and 4
- 19. 50-416/85 Grand Gulf
- 20. 50-259/85-33, 50-260/35-33, and 50-296/85 Browns Ferry FINDINGS:
During the assessment period, Region II submitted for IE concurrence enforcement packages of average quality. The packages generally conformed in substance to established policy and guidance. However, analyses of the issues in the packages were sometimes unclear or unsupported by the details in the inspection reports. As a result, extensive rework of some of the packages was required.
Examples of such cases were 85-80, Turkey Point and 85-121, Summer.
Citations were sometimes legally deficient in that they did not contain sufficient facts, they contained superfluous requirements, the requirement were contained in the "contrary to" paragraph, or the facts did not confom to the requirements cited.
Examples of such cases included 85-76. Turkey Point and 85-68, North Anna and the enforcement actions associated with Inspection Reports 50-369/85-20 and 50-370/85-21, and 50-250/85-13 and 50-251/85-13, and 50-302/85-15.
Transmittal mencranda have provind improved expimations and rationales for the proposed actions.
However, in some cases, the rationale for deviations from the policy was not adequately explained.
For example, in North Anna EA 85-91, the Region proposed a Soverity t.evel III violation with 60% mitigation of the civil penalty. The explanation for 60% mitigation was inadequate.
In addition, an examination of precedents would indicate that the percentages in the erforcement policy (50% or 100%) are closely followed.
The Enforcement Coordination staff has been very cooperative in resolving controversial issues.
A review of wenty inspection reports telected at random from reports isse ey Region !! during the period July 1 - November 30, l
1985 in the reactor operations area was conducted.
This review I
of enforcement actions issued at Severity Level IV and/or V indicated that in general, the actions conformed with enforcement l
policy, guidance, and precedents.
However, Inspection Report 50-395/85 28 contained a violation that could be characterized at a Severity Level III. It addressed the inoperability of both Trains "A" and "B" of the Emergency Core Cooling Systems.
This action should have at least been submitted to IE for concurrence under MC 0400. In addition, in Inspection Report 50 416/85-28, the details provided in the report suggest that the licensee failed to recognize that the HPCS was inoperable and that an LCO action statement had been entered. If the licensee did not recognize that it had entered an LCO, it is l
i t unclear why they were cited for failure to prepare an LCO report.
Inspection Report 50-327/85-27 and 50-328/85-28 cited a violation due to a leak in the letdown system as a result of an inadequate NDE liquid penetrant test.
In this case the licensee had identified a crack on the same line on Unit 2 as a result of a leak and had ordered the NDE of Unit 1.
The test was not performed in en adequate manner and the Unit 1 line subsequently leaked.
The cause of both leaks was inadequate design of the system supports.
This violation was similar to a Severity Level III citatioa issued recently to Rancho Seco of which the Region should have been aware.
It has also been brought to our attention that in four cases in which licensee responses were received during this period, the Region subsequently withdrew the citations after evaluating the licensee's response. We have not identified similar examples in other Regions at this frequency.
TIMELINESS:
The Commission has established a goal of issuance of escalated actions within an average of eight weeks from identification of a violation.
To meet this g* cal, packages must be submitted by the Regions for IE concurrence within six weeks of identification of a violation.
The average time for submittal of escalated enforcement actions to If for concurrence was 6.7 weeks which does not meet the six week goal.
l l
i l
l
}
e t
30, 1985) - REGION !!!
REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT (July 1 - November SCOPE:
Tne Enforcement Staff (ES) has assessed regional enforcement actions submitted to IE for concurrence between July 1 and Movember 30, 1985 and routine enforcement actions that were not submitted to IE for concurrence because they did not involve escalated enforcement action. The cases submitted for IE concurrence were evaluated on the basis of technical adequacy, conformance to established policy, guidance, and precedents, and timeliness. The assessment included an evaluation of the overall quality of packages with regard to the above-described factors and an evaluation of regional cooperation in the enforcement process. Routine enforcement actions involving reactor operations that were not submitted to IE for concurrence were evaluated on the basis of confonnance with the enforcement policy, guidance, and precedents.
CASES REVIEWED: Proposed Enforcement Actions Submitted To IE For Concurrence
- 1.85-071 Toledo Edison Co. - Davis Besse 2.85-084 Christ Hospital 3.85-089 Hurley Medical Center 4.85-093 Calumet Testing 5.85-094 Indiana & Michigan Electric - 0.C. Cook 6.85-095 Commonwealth Edison - La Salle 3
7.85-096 Kay Ray, Inc.
O.85-099 Comonwealth Edison - Byron 9.85-111 McDonnell Douglas"
- 10.85-114 Commonwealth Edison - LaSalle
- 11.85-116 Quality Assurance Testing
- 12. 85c124 Del Monte Civil Penalty Impositions and Responses to Orders **
1.
85-52 Comonwealth Edison Co. - Byron 2.
85-47 American can Co.
Inspection Reports 1.
50-454/85025 - Byron, Unit 1 2.
50-341/85038 - Fermi, Unit 2 3.
50-483/85012 - Callaway 4
50-483/85014 - Callaway 5.
50-409/85009 - Lacrosse 6.
50-254/85017 and 50-265/85019 - Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2 7.
50-282/85015 and 50-306/85012 - Prairie Island, Units 1 and 2 a
8.
50-315/85021 and 50-316/85021 - D.C. Cook, Units 1 and 2 9.
50-315/85029 and 50-316/85029 - 0.C. Cook, Units 1 and 2
- 10. 50-373/85024 and 50-374/85025 - LaSalle, Units 1 and 2 i
11 50 373/85027 and 50-374/85028 - LaSalle, Units 1 and 2 l
- 12. 50-237/85029 and 50-249/85024 - Oresden, Units 2 and 3
- 13. 50 237/85033 and 50-249/85029 - Dresden, Units 2 and 3 Cases omitted from evaluation because of special circumstances:
85-107 l
l Toledc Edison - Davis-Besse.
Review for content, timeliness not evaluated. Only escalated enforcement actions were evaluated for timeliness.
Severity Level IV's and special l
cases were excluded.
6 14. 50-255/85017 - Palisades
- 15. 50-255/85018 - Palisades
- 16. 50-255/85024 - Palisades
- 17. 50-331/85017 - Duane Arnold
- 18. 50-331/85026 - Duane Arnold
- 19. 50-440/85053 - Perry, Un.,1
- 20. 50-461/85048 - Clinton FINDINGS:
During the assessment period, Region !!! submitted for IE concurrence draft proposed enforcement actions of good quality that were generally technically accurate and substantially conformed in substance and format to established policy, guidance, and precedents.
Packages, particularly in the materials and safeguards areas, generally contained thorough analysis of the issues and were supported by the inspection reports.
Improvements in this regard could be made in the reactor operations cases.
For example, one package, LaSalle 85-045, contained technically inaccurate and incomplet_e information which was also contained in the inspection report.
Some rework was also necessary on 85-71, the $100,000 case involving Davis-Besse.
All Regional personnel were very cooperative in resolving controversial issues.
A review of twenty inspection reports selected at random from reports issued by Region III during the period July 1 -
November 30, 1985 in the reactor operations area was conducted.
This review of enforcement actions issued at Severity Level IV
.and/or V indicated that the findings were usually supported by the facts detailed in the inspection reports and the violations evaluated at the appropriate severity levels. However, we found from this review that the requirements were not always adequately defined in the citatinns (see e.g. Inspection Reports 50-341/85038, 50-483/85014, 50-237/85029 and 50-249/85024).
We would reconenend that the guidance and the standard boilerplate provided in MC 0400 be used when issuing these routine enforcement actions. We also noted that violations regarding the design control process at Palisades documented in Inspection Report 50-255/85018 might have been more appropriately characterized at a Severity Level !!! when evaluated in the context of the violations documented in Inspection Report 50-255/85017 issued on September 5,1983 relating to additional design change deficiencies.
TIMELINESS:
The Commission has established a goal of issuance of escalated actions within an average of eight weeks from identification of a violation.
To meet this goal, packages must be submitted by the Regions for IE concurrence within six weeks of identification of a violation.
The average time for submittal of escalated enforcement actions to IE for concurrence was 6.2 weeks which does not meet the six week goal.
1 REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT (July 1 - November 30, 1985) - REGION IV SCOPE:
The Enforcement Staff (ES) has assessed regional enforcement actions submitted to IE for concurrence between July 1 and November 30, 1985 and routine enforcement actions that were not submitted to IE for concurrence be ause they did not involve escalated enforcement action.
The cases submitted for IE concurrence were evaluated on the basis of technical adequacy, conformance to established policy, guidance, and precedents, and timeliness.
The assessment included an evaluation of the overall quality of packages with regard to the above-described factors and an evaluation of regional cooperation in the enforcement process. Routine enforcement actions involving reactor operations that were not submitted to IE for concurrence were evaluated on the basis of conformance with the enforcement policy, guidance, and precedents.
CASES REVIEWED:
Proposed Enforcement Actions Submitted To IE For Concurrence **
1.85-085 Pathfinder 2.85-092 Met Chem 3.85-109 Western Stress 4.85-125 Exam Co.
5.86-127 Wolf Creek Civil Penalty impositions and Responses to Orders **
1.
85-58 Frances Mahon Hospital Inspection Reports 1.
50-298/85 Cooper 2.
50-298/85 Cooper 3.
50-285/85 Fort Calhoun 4
50-267/65 25 - Fort St. Vrain 5.
50-313/84 Arkansas Unit 1 6.
50-313/85-22 and 50-368/85 Arkansas, Units 1 and 2 7.
50-482/85 Wolf Creek 8.
50-482/85 Wolf Creek 9.
50-382/85 Waterford, Unit 3
- 10. 50-458/85 River Bend FINDINGS:
The data base for assessment of Pegion IV was small during the rating period. During the assessment period, Region IV submitted for IE concurrence enforcement packages of reasonable quality.
Packages generally contained adequate analysis of the issues and were supported by the inspection reports.
Transmittal memoranda provided adequate explanations of the facts and the rationale for the proposed actions.
However, in one case Met Chem, supplementary information was requested to justify the proposed Severity Level !! and the violations were subsequently evaluated at Severity level !!!.
In each case, legal deficiencies were Cases omitted from evaluation because of special circumstances: 85-10 Louisiana Power & Light - Waterford.
Review for content, timeliness not evaluated.
Only escalated enforcement actions were evaluated for timeliness.
Severity Level IV's and special cases were excluded.
1 4
2 identified in some of the citations. Review by the Regional Counsel might prevent these deficiencies. Regional staff has been generally cooperative in resolving controvertial issues.
A review of ten enforcement actions selected at random from reports issued by Region !Y during the period July 1 -
November 30, 1985 in the reactor operations area was conducted.
This review of enforcement actions issued at Severity Level IV and/or y indicated that most of the reports were supported by the facts detailed in the inspection reports and were evaluated at the appropriate severity levels. However, we note from this review that one report and the accompanying enforcement action that documented a routine inspection was issued long after the inspection was completed. Inspection Report 50-382/85-04 contained two Severity Level IV violations that were not issued until almost eight months after the inspection was performed. Another report (Inspection Report 50-267/85-25) contained a reporting violation that could have been characterized at a Severity Level III.
The violation cited-in 50-267/85 25 relates to a repeat violation for failure to meet the four-hour reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72.
Under the enforcement policy, repeat violations could be categorized at a higher severity level.
TIMELINESS:
The Consnission has established a goal of issuance of escalated actions within an average of eight weeks from identification of a violation.
To meet this goal, packages must be submitted by the Regions for IE concurrence within six weeks of identification of a violation.
The average tirne for submittal of escalated enforcement action; to IE for concurrence was 5.1 weeks which meets the goal of six weeks.
t l
f l
REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT (July 1 - November 30, 1985) - REGION V SCOPE:
The Enforcement Staff (ES) has assessed regional enforcement actions submitted to IE for concurrence between July 1 and November 30, 1985 and routine enforcement actions that were not submitted to IE for concurrence because they did not involve escalated enforcement action.
The cases submitted for IE concurrence were evaluated on the basis of technical adequacy, conformance to established policy, guidance, and precedents, and timeliness.
The assessment included an evaluation of the overall quality of packages with regard to the above-described factors and an evaluation of regional cooperation in the enforcement process. Routine enforcement actions involving reactor operations that were not submitted to IE for concurrence were evaluated on the basis of conformance with the enforcement policy, guidance, and precedents.
CASES REVIEWED:
Proposed Enforcement Actions Submitted To IE For Concurrence **
1.85-082 VA Hospital (San Diego) 2.85-087 Palo Verde 3.85-097 GA Technologies 4.85-103 Rancho Seco
~
5.85-128 San Onofre Civil Penalty impositions and Responses to Orders **
None
[n,spectionRoports 1.
50-344/85 Trojan 2.
50-344/85 Trojan 3.
50-344/85 Trojan 4
50-344/85 Trojan 5.
50-397/85-17 WNP-2 6.
50-397/85 WNP-2 7.
50-397/85 WNP-2 8
50-206/85 14, 50-361/85-13, and 50-362/85 Sen Onofre 9
50-206/85-20, 50-361/85-19, and 50-362/85 San Onofre
- 10. 50-528/85-26 and 50-529/85 Palo Verde. Units 1 and 2 FINDINGS:
The data base for assessment of Region V was small during the rating period. During the assessment period, Region V submitted for IE concurrence enforcement packages that were generally technically accurate and substantially confomed in substance and fomat to established policy, guidance, and precedents.
Region V's approach, which differs from the other regions, is to get IE on board on the proposed action before the package is sent in and to share early drafts with IE.
Therefore, it is Cases omitted from evaluation because of special circumstances:
None Review for content, timeliness not evaluated. Only escalated enforcement actions were evaluated for timeliness.
Severity Level IV's and special cases were excluded.
r
~
' difficult to assess the quality of the Regfon's packages which have not received the level of management review that those of other regions receive before submittal to IE. Regional personnel were cooperative in resolving controversial issues. However, the frequent absence from the office of the Enforcement Coordinator because of inspection duties sometires made expeditious resolution of issues difficult.
A review of ten inspection reports selected at random from reports issued by Region V during the period July 1 - November 30, 1985 in the reactor operations area was conducted. This review of enforcement actions issued at Severity level IV and/or V indicated that the findings were usually supported by the facts detailed in the inspection reports.
Violations were evaluated at the appropriate Severity Levels in most cases. We note, however, that in one case, a higher Severity Level may have been more appropriate for the violations identified.
In Inspection Report 50-344/85-20, the Notice of Violation describes weaknesses in the licensee's In-service Testing (IST) program for valves with two examples in which none of the Residual Removal Heat System relief valves satisfied the test acceptance criteria.
Although the Region noted improvements in the IST program, documentation and procedural deficiencies involving the adequacy of the licensee's program were also identified.
These problems may have been more appropriately characterized as a Severity Level !!! problem.
TIMELINESS:
The Commission has established a goal of issuance of escalated actions within an average of eight weeks from identification of a violation. To meet this goal, packages must be submitted by I
the Regions for IE concurrence within six weeks of identification of a violation. The average time for submittal of escalated i
enforcement actions to IE for concurrence was 3.6 weeks which meets the goal of six weeks.
I t
i I
m
$ C, E - Q d % ~~
(
gae b
c_. Orders Issued 1981-84 by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Tabulated by NRC Region Wherein the Affected Licensee is Located 1981 1982 1983 1984 Region !
3 (3/0) 1(0/1) 2 (2/0) 10(2/7)
Region 11 0
3(2/1) 0 2(0/2)
Region !!!
4 (3/1) 3* (2/1) 4 (3/1) 4 (3/1)
Region IV 0
2 (1/1) 4 (3/1) 6(6/0)
Region V O
O 1(1/0) 0 I
TOTAL 7
9 11
,22 l.
Note:
Parenthetical references following the numbers in the list indicate the number of orders issued to materials and reactor k
licensees:
1.e., (materials licensees / reactor licensees).
' Includes order to show cause and order suspending license proposed by NRC Region 111 and the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, but issued by Comission itself.
..l..
f*I A ~'1' N V 6//A v--
e
,n_
e._.
.-