ML20154A293
| ML20154A293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/08/1986 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Martin R NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H783 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-868 NUDOCS 8809120143 | |
| Download: ML20154A293 (12) | |
Text
.
- p ..,, UNITE 3 STATES
! % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W A SHING TON, D. C. 20656 O-
!*.,*****/
JUL 8 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert D. Msrb)
Regional Ac V .trator FROM: James M. Taylor, Director Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
IE APPRAISAL OF REGION IV AND REGION IV'S
!E PROGRAM OFFICE ASSESSMENT Enclosed is the response of the Ofrector of the Enforcement Staff to the j Region IV consnents on the IE assessment of the Regional Enforcement Program and Region IV's IE program office assessment of June 13, 1986.
/
If you have any questions, please contact me or Jane Axelrad.
/ .
a s M. To or, Director pspectionandErforcement As Stated cc: V. Stello J. Sniezek '
D. Powers t
{
8809120143 000017 '
PDR Foln CONNORB7-060 PDR F# M -t?-FAf '
A//>
z l 3 -
i or '
F5
$ Response to Reginn JV Coments on IE Assessment of the Regional Enforcement Program In several telephone calls to IE management, Region IV staf f raiseo questions regarding certain minor points made in the Enforcement Staff's (ES) a:sessment of Region IV's implementation of the enforcement program. The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify these points and to discuss certain issuer concerning Region IV's input to the E00's appraisal of the Director, IE's perfomance with regard to enforcement.
The Enforcement Staff's assessment indicated that IE management directed Region IV to transcribe a particular enforcement conference and the Region failed to transcr,1be the meeting. The Region comented that it was not clear that IE management "directed" that the meeting be transcribed and IE has agreed that the word should be changed to "requested." We would note that even with this expression of interest from the Director 6nd Deputy Director of IE, the decision not to transcribe the meeting was not further discussed with IE management.
The Enforcement Staff's assessment also stated with regard to safeguards inspection reports that "Several examples of apparent failures to cite a violation were observed." After discussions with the Region, the Enforcement Staff has agreed that the sentence should more appropriately read "One example" to reflect the one examole found during the last six month period. As was explained to the Region IV Enforcement Coordinator, additional examples were found during the ES review that occurred during 1985 but were not within the period since the Interim Assessment Report.
We also noted and discussed the Region's concern that the timeliness statistics given reflect the ES practice of considering enfuisement packages received when they are actually received with complete riocumentation (especially the inspection report) in IE. This resulted in excess time attributed to the Region of in some cases three days, if a package was sent late Friday and not printed until Monday, and in other cases, as much as 8 days if the inspection report was not
' sent with the package. The ES believes its practice is reasonable and that it should give priority to packages that arrive in substantially completed fom during nomal business hours. In any event, as the Coordinator acknowledged, adopting the P.egion's statistics makes a difference of less than .5 weeks which is not significant when the Region is six weeks over the established six week goal. The Enforcement Coordinator, Region IV, in discussions with the Director.
ES indicated that given the statistics he did not disagree with the overall ES rating of Region IV's enforcement program as minimally successful.
Finally, the ES would like to respor.d to the Region IV rating The only of made coment the IEto support Enforcement Program as "Minimally Successful."
this rating was that the Enforcement Staff members a:e not able to confidently convey what the Director's opinion will be on various The policy matters Enforcement and guidance Staff provides enforcement issues. This is not correct.
daily to Region IV and the other Regions on interpretation of the policy and significant information with regard to precedents to achieve consistency.
I ,
e i . . .
However, many of the cases involve complex and unique questions of enforcement policy which requ1re management input often by the Director, ES and sometimes by the Deputy Director and Director, IE. The fact that Enforcement Staff members seek out this. guidance is, we believe, a positive rather than a negative practice.
The .S does not believe it is realistic for the Region to expect IE guidance on novei questions of enforcement policy without management involvement; similarly we would not expect that major policy decisions would be made by non-supervisory personnel in the region. In this regard, we have noted that the Enforcement Coordinator is not empowered to give Regional concurrence even when minor changes are made to enforcement cases oy the Director ES after the Region has concurred, but must send the entire package back through Regional management for concurrence.
Please note that the Director, IE will not accept an enforcement package for concurrence without first having obtained Regional concurrence.
As was indicated previously, this was the only example given to support the "Minimally Successful" rating of IE. The Enforcement Staff was disappointed that the Region did not apparently conduct any review, let alone an objective review, of the Enforcement Staff's efforts. To assess Region IV the Enforcement Staff conducted a review of about 13 cases submitted for IE review by Region IV including an examination of the changes that were required during the review.
In addition, ES reviewed 10 inspection reports in the reactor operations area and 5 inspection reports in the safeguards area. Finally, ES calculated the timeliness of Region IV's submittals. It is from this review that the ES rating of the Region IV's implementation of the enforcement program was derived.
An objective review of IE's performance in the enforcement area would certainly have reflected the significant efforts on the Comanche Pean TRT and harassment and intimidation cases and on the Waterford case. These cases took more than three staff months of IE effort and produced high quality packages in a timely manner. This work should have been done by the Region and the job done by IE on these packages alone would have been sufficient to justify a higher rating.
(L( .
Jane A. Axelrad. Director g Enforcement Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement n' -
~ - - - - - -
).
,, n!
t ,
[ydGfd AA' ENFORCEMENT STAFF . %d 8 *' ', g[* f/j u f g4 m.
JANE AXELRAD _
/Y SA '
mucx .a u_.m 4[3
GEORGE BAR8ER
'#
- 7 e
/mJA4
--y ~ %[
g A, .
m -
/d 't JERRY XLINGLER Mkj2 -7 h S4 Q bi e fM2 b Wt I Y8' '
/
DICX ROSMO [
4(i
-m QoT
'Y! ,
-y- , . . . .
ACTION:
RETURN TO ENFORCEMENT FILES:
FILE UNDERt.
DESTROY AFTER CIRCULATING I fu14- t9- K t Alr
s f/ W Ag,T. V A.aM}P U.S. Mwcleep tegulatory Cameission RCtf71NG $L19 arganization GUI;4 ;F ;Np G 7;ca Aa3 (3F04 L= tat Name T3l l lNIi!AI. ATE Rienarc C. Oefoung. Director James H. $nietes. Oeowty Director James M. Taylor. Directar. Division of Quality Assurance, Sefeguarca anc losoection PP*gress Arten % 3rtmes. :eowty 3trectar. Jivision of Qwality Assurance 34fegwarcs. anc taseect9ea 8me'ses
'towere L. Jorcan, Director, Division of toergency 8*ecareoness anc Engineering tesconse
'Shelcon A $cowartz. eowty Director. Division of
_luergeecy.erecarecross see i,gieserieg tesconse s
)* Y l Jane A. Ameirac, Acting Director g -
\ JAforcement $taff
) Charles 's. Thayer. Director ~
Tecnnical Training Center J e t. Si wa, casef erogram $wooert Iranca g4 f TJ Wd ,
'e M T4ut 8 bt 4 # '
wA t l M f get) s-L,dta, ,5LGtt . % (a $au~tt L ~n atL a
$ l t
A k a w/c i bz:.lk. A . O b <MM b ch [t ctc c,
,a =
mut a/.mw m Zw-s dcy ff~T. 3 ras i innec8tzart 4cT::= ,y 7 As lequestec g::w37aan.43 n s : ucass ;
- 6 ifile 18erOaaversatism
~ ~
incoroval/$1;matwre l I:nforsation i$ee "o a aament/Cancar-ence j i Mecessary Act.1an l$ignature af
- ar ection -
i i ,et. ana :estr.,
i c
- inne.or,a ee-(ie, . r or i w
!<.t. an eetwer .
- " '" ><
- 9 W e a,':hief ) ;"'** progra. Smort ir..;; ;* ""2 i
l I L
l
- - - ~ - - - -
e
!.' FORMAL ASSESSMENTS LEAD A. SALP Taylor B. Reactor Security Taylor C. CAT / PAT Taylor D. Reactive Vendor Taylor E. Physical Security at Fuel Facilities Taylor F. Radiological Safety Taylor G. Emergency Response Capability Jordan H. Enforcement Policy Implementation Axelrad
!!. QUANTITATIVE MEASURES Training Grades / Participation A. Thayer ,
B. Inspector Utilizstion Blaha C. Staffing Levels Blaha D. Timeliness of Inspection Reports Blaha E. Percent of Inspection Program Complete Blaha O,F. Allegation Closs-Out Blaha (N Timeliness of Enforcement 51:h:dh Up" , m... ..... v.
m m _____,,.___ .
m>.. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . iu uan .
=
M >. m
. . .. s .g w <
t III. QUALITATIVE APPRAISALS A. Bulletin Followup Jordan B. Events Followup Jordan C. Inspection Repo. ts Taylor D. Technical / Regulatory Judgment Taylor / Jordan /Axelrad E. Adequacy of Program Performance Taylor / Jordan /Axelrad F. PN Preparation Jordan G. Daily Report /Comunications Taylor / Jordan /Axelrad 4
, - - - - - - - , - . . - - - . - ,-.--,-.-.,,.--_,,-,,,,-w --.-.----,.,,-,,m- . , , - - , , , - , - > - --.-,m.,m --------p,
Fdrmal Assessments (Currently Completed or in Progress)
A. SALP. Assess each Regional Office's performance in the SALP process, including adherence to agency guidance and IE Manual Chapters.
Contact:
P. McKee, DQASIP.
- 8. Reactor Security. Assess each Regional Office's performance of inspection procedures related to power reactor security.
Contact:
W. Fisher, DQASIP.
I C. CAT / PAT. That element of a CAT or PAT inspection that independently assesses Two CAT inspectiors Regional (Regions IIperformance at aPAT and IV) and one specific inspection facility (.
Region I) will be available.
D. Reactive Vendor. Assess Region IV's performance of reactive inspections of vendor activities.
Contact:
M. Peranich, DQASIP.
E. Physical Security at Fuel Facilities. Assess the physical protection inspection program for Group 1 Fuel Facilities and for SNM in transit.
Only Region II and V were assessed.
Contact:
L. Cobb, DQASIP. -
r F. Radiological Safety. Assess each Regional Office's radiological safety inspections of Fuel Facilities and Materials Licensees.
Contact:
L. Cobb, DQASIP.
G. Emerger;y Response
- Capability. Assess each Regional Office's response capability activities in accordance with IE oral and written guidance.
Contact:
E. Weinstein, DEPER.
H. Enforcement Policy Implementation. Assess each Regional Office's implementation of the current enforcement policy with emphasis on enforcement level categorization.
Contact:
J. Axelrad. ES s
i I
l j
i
, , . - , . _ , - , - _ . - - - - -r - - - - -
- b Quantitative Measures !
A. Training Grades /Partici pation. Measure each Regional Office's staff qualifica-tions as indicated by tie average grade achieved and/or by the amount of inspector participation for training sponsored by or given at the TTC.
B. Inspector Utilization. Measure each Re to perform IE inspection (by programs)ingional Office's accordance withuse of available Budgetary inspectors Guidance.
C. Staffing Levels. Measure each Regional Office's staffing (i.e.. FTE's) of IE Program personnel: resident inspectors, region-based inspretors, other professionals, etc.
D. Timeliness of Inspection Reports. Sample inspection records to measure each Regional Office's timeliness in issuing inspection reports (by program).
E. Percent of Inspection Program Complete. Measure each Regional Office's completion of the routine (i.e., scheduable) inspection program (by program).
F. Allegation Close-Out. Measure each Regional Office's close-out of identified allegations. , ,
G. Timeliness of Enforcement. Sample inspection records to measure each Regional Office's timeliness in issuing enforcement actions (by program).
H. Rate of Non-Compliance Identification. Measure rates with which each Regional Office identifies noncompliance (by program) in comparison to inspection effort.
1 l
/
. Cualitative Appraisals A. Bulletin Followup. Appraise each Regional Office's followup on active IE Bulletins.
B. Events Followup. Appraise each Regional Office's followup on licensee-reported events.
C. Inspection Reports. Sample inspection reports to appraise each Regional Office's documentation and description of completed inspections.
D. Technical / Regulatory Judgments. Subjectively appraise the technical and other regulatory judgments made by each Regional Office in the performance of IE programs.
E. Adequacy of Program Performance. Subjectively appraise the adequacy of program performance of each Regional Office.
F. PN Preparation. Appraise each Regional Office's preparation of PNs.
G. Daily Report / Communications. Subjectively appraise the daily reports and other communications from each Regional Office to keep IE informed about inipection issues and concerns.
e I
a m w n. M W M E UR7 YABLE (A Fictional Strawnan)
- Need f
.. . Reg. I Reg. 11 Reg. III Reg.IV Reg. V IE Act INSPECTION PROGRAMS Formal Assessments
- Reactor Security Outst. Min. Sat. Ful. Sat. Min. Sat. Exc.
- CAT / PAT Ful. Sat. Exc. N/A Ful. Sat. N/A See en
- Reactive Vendor N/A N/A N/A -
Ful. Sat. N/A
- Fuel Fac Phys. Sec. N/A Ful. Sat. N/A N/A Exc. See en
- FF&M Rad. S vety Unsat. Ful. Sat. Cul. Sat. Min. Sat. Exc.
Quantitative Measures
- Inspector Util. Ful. Sat. Oust. Exc. Unsat. Ful. Sat.
- Timeli. Inspec. Reports Ful. Sat. Exc. Ful. Sat. Min. Sat Ful. Sat.
- % Inspec. Prog. Complete N/A N/A N/A N/A Ful. Sat.
Qualitative Appraisal
- Inspection Reports Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat. Min. Sat. Ful. Sat.
- Tech. Reg. Judgment Exc. Ful. Sat.. Ful. Sat. Min Sat. Ful. Sat.
- Adeg. Program Performance Ful. Sat. Exc. Ful . Sat. Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat.
- Daily report / communications rul. Sat. Min. Sat. Exc. Min. Sat. Ful. Sat.
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM -
Fomal Assessments.
- Enf. Policy Implementation Min. Sat. Ful. Sat. Min. Sat. Ful. Sat. Exc. See er Quantitative Measures
- Timeli. Enforcement Ful. Sat. Exc. Exc. Ful. Sat. Exc.
- Rate-Non w gi .nw I n nt .- Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat. Min. Sat. Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat. See er Qualitative Appraisal
- Tech. Reg. Judgment Ful. Sat. Exc. Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat.
- Ade:;. Prog. Performance Ful. Sat.
Ful. Sat. Min. Sat. Min. Sat. Exc.
- Dafly report /comunications Exc. Exc. Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat. Exc. See er DEPER PROGRAMS Fcr ai Assessments
- Emerg Respons. Capability Exc. Outst. Exc. Outst. Ful. Sat.
Quantitative Measures (none proposed)
Oealitative Appraisals
- Bulletin Followup Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat. Min. Sat. Unsat. Ful. Sat.
- Events Followup Outst. Ful. Sat. Outst. Exc. Exc.
- PN Preparation Ful. Sat. Exc. Exc. Min. Sat. Ful. Sat.
- Ta:n. Reg. Judgment (DELER) Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat. Ful .Sa t. Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat.
- Aceq. Prog. Perf. (DEPER) Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat. Exc. Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat.
- Daily report /Com. (DEPER) Min. Sat. Ful. Sat. Ful. Sat Exc. Ful .Sa t.
Other A s_essments t
Quantitattve Measures
- Training Grades /Partie. Ful. Sat. Outst. Outst. Exc. Exc.
- Staffing Levels Exc. Outst. Ful .Sa t. Exc. Exc.
- Allegation Close-Outs Outst. Ful. Sat. Min. Sat. Outst. Ful. Sat. See er Grades: "Oust" = Outstanding; "Exc." = Excellent; "Ful. Sat" = Fully Satisfactory; "Min. Sat" - Minimally Satisfactory; "Unsat" = Unsatisfactory; "N/A" = not assessed.
t ,, .
GRADES OUTSTANDING - Perfonnance consistently exceeded perfonnance standards to an exceptional degree EXCELLENT - Performance frequently exceeded that expected FULLY SATISFACTORY - Performance consistently met that expected MINIMALLY SATISFACTORY - Performance occasionally was less than that expected UNSATISFACTORY - Performance was normally below that expected.
4 gggayae"T' 1
'O I *
- REGIONAL ASSESSMENT DESCR!pTION AND FINDINGS SJATEMENT (Fictional Strawman)
INSPECTION ASSISTANCE FOLLOWUP - A Qualitative Appraisal
Description:
Regional Offices are supposed to perfom specific inspection procedures and/or obtain information in response to IE Divisional requests. DQASIP staff reviewed available infomation on requests made during six months ending in March 1983 and qualitatively appraised Regional perfomance.
Rating Region A Responded in a timely way to most requests. Minimally Satisfactory Never completed specific inspections raquested for over-greased valve issue Region B Responded quickly and completely to all Excellent requests. Only a few requests were made of this Region Region C Usually responded in a timely way to most Fully Satisfactory information requests. Completed all special inspection requests in requested time. Received significantly more requests than any oth G Region Region D Responded quickly to all requests for Minimally Satisfactory infomation and special inspections.
Sometimes infomation was inadequate and a second or third request had to be made IE Action: Consider establishing file or log for requests made and responses / actions received.
__--_._ _____ _ _