ML20155K532
| ML20155K532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1998 |
| From: | Baker E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811130282 | |
| Download: ML20155K532 (2) | |
Text
-- -
5 k
p 1
UNITED STATES i
,s s
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 4001
\\.....
t October 30,1998 4
3
' MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Travers Executrve Director for O rations THROUGH:
Hugh L Thompson, Jr.
ut Executive Directo r Regulato rograms FROM:
EdwafdY e
e Advisor j
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
FOIA ACTION PLAN ITEM 3.1.10, ' REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL PROCESSES" 1
FOIA Action Plan item 3.1.10 requested that the regions and Offices of the Executive Director l
for Operations (OEDO), Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), and State Programs (OSP) review correspondence control processes and office correspondence processes to determine if additional controls or guidance were needed lL to identify issues to be handled as allegations. The review was also to determine the practical ability to recover documents containing alleger identifying information.
4 i
To accomplish the review, the regions and designated offices were requested to review their i
correspondence control processes and ticketed correspondence received in a 30 day period.
i As a result of the review of the processes, NRR, Region ll, and Region 111 determined that their processes could be improved to better ensure that allegation-related correspondence is identified and protected and they made appropriate changes. The process reviews also
' determined that documents could be retrieved or identified and appropriately protected.
The review of ticketed correspondence resulted in Identifying one instance in which correspondence conceming an alleger was not identified as such by the SECY or EDO staff, in j
this particular instance, the correspondence was from a Congressman forwarding a letter from
' a constituent. Region ll had been copied on the letter from the constituent to the Congressman and had opened an allegation to address the issues. Upon receipt of the ticketed correspondence from the EDO's staff, Region ll staff recognized the constituent's name and the i
. issues, contacted the EDO's staff, and informed them that the issues were being handled as an -
allegation. The EDO's staff then took appropriate action to protect the alleger's identity, 1
including notifying recipients of distributed copies to control the ticketed correspondence as an I
allegation.
g The possibility of this occurring was considered in developing current guidance and training on this topic. Because the regions and program offices are more familiar with allegation issues 4
, and the identity of.allegers, there will be instances in which they identify correspondence as r o/
.being allegation-related that was not recognized as such by the SECY or EDO staff. The N
regional and program office allegation coordinators have been instructed to contact the EDO or SECY staff, as appropriate, and inform them that a particular piece of corresp.andence is being
- treated as an allegation.- Training for the EDO and SECY staffs has included guidance on what h'? NE
'h fo.H y :rt4 M h k p o
~.
.e
\\
2 to do when notified and experience to date indicates these processes bue been working effectively. Based on recent experience, it does not appear that addit'onal process changes are j
warranted.
However, the staff needs to consider the current level of protectica as business rules are developed for implementing ADAMS. To the extent that the prote :tive features in ADAMS are not defeated by printing and distributing hard copies, ADAMS prosides a higher level of protection from inadvertent release of allegation-related correspondence. By maintaining the correspondence in a single electronic location and controlling who has access to the correspondence, limiting access to and retrieving correspondence that is subsequently determined to involve allegation-related materialis a much smaller problem. As the staff develops more detailed business rules for implementing ADAMS, I will continue to work with the them to ensure that allegation-related correspondence is adequately protected once ADAMS is implemented.
DISTRIBUTION:
FILE CENTER /PUBLIC SCollir.s FMiraglia 1
CMohrwinkel JHoyle DMossberg MBridgers MTschiltz
- HMiller LReyes JCaldwell i
EMerschoff
)
DVito ODeMiranda JHopkins RWise JLee RO'Connell CMaupin To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\fola3-1.10
]
OFFICE AAA:NRR E
DEDP EDO EBakerMh HThdn Whve NAME on
's 8/
/98 1Q[h/96 d
DATE
'10/30/98 OFFICIAL FILE COPY c.
1 r*--*
r
-m
+
w, e - - - -
a w-s
=
n
-- - -