ML20237J953
Text
_
l s
(,.-
+g *8cg'o, UNITED STATES
[,
j NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
. r,,
j
%...../
Mc i v 1986 HEMOPANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
OIA REPORT REVIEW: OIA FILE NO. 86-10 This memorandum contains my proposals for dealing with the implications of the OIA Report's findings.
In this regard. I reserve the right to propose and take additional or alternative actions as I explore the matter more thoroughly.with the staff.
The OIA report is broken into three main sections. Each section pertains to one of the allegations as generally formulated by OIA. The allegations and my recommendations are as follows:
A11eaation 1:
" Region IV management harassed and intimidated inspectors to pressure them to downgrade or delete proposed inspection findings at CPSES."
This allegation was not substantiated by OIA. There was no evidence of such action by Region IV management.
Indeed, upon examination of the record, it is clear that, insofar as particulars go, the allegation was directed solely at one supervisor by one inspector.
The review by OIA of the several specific technical issues which were in contention between certain inspectors and this supervisor does not provide a definitive determination as to first, their safety significance, and second, the appropriateness of their handling. To provide me an independent e
view on these matters, I request that you convene a suitable, high level
[J review group, supported by appropriate technical staff, to do a comprehensive review of each issue in contention. To support that effort, I will temporarily detail Messrs. Westerman and Phillips from their present duties to be at the disposal of that review group on a full-time basis until the review of the issues is complete. Other Region IV personnel, as identified by the review group, will be made available as requested.
Upon completion of that review-group effort, I will be able to finalize my recommendations as to any further actions.
However, there are a number of issues in the report which are sufficiently developed to make clear the appropriate corrective actions.
In this regard, I have initiated the following actions:
8708260379 B70819 ENCLOSURE 1 PDR FOIA I
BAUMAN87-A-14 PDR
{
J
l t
Re-training of all technical staff and supervision will be conducted on Regional Policy Guide 2201, which was issued in August 1986, and which affirms the positive obligation on both the staff and supervision / manage-ment to escalate disagreements promptly to achieve resolution. This should, if followed, preclude protracted discussions on such issues in the future.
1 have instructed the Director of my Division of Resource Management and Administration to develop en improved inspection report tracking system that will identify those reports that are experiencing unacceptable delays in the various stages of their preparation, review, approval, and distribution. This is to be operational by February 15, 1987, and will alert senior regional management to possible instances of protracted review.
Training for ali Region IV supervisors will be conducted to remind them of their proper supervisory responsibilities, including the need to give adequate direction and guidance, and identify and document weaknesses they discern in their subordinates.
Supervisors will also be held accountable for developing, in such cases, suitable Individual Development Plans to address the problems. The assistance of the Office of Administration will be requested in conducting training in this area.
Where training and guidance is indicated. I intend to pursue same with The OIA report and its attachments are being reviewed appropriate vigor.
again to identify those several inspection 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 supervision.
A11eaation II:
"The Region IV QA inspection program at CPSES was inadequate."
I believe that this conclusion can be accepted as written.
It reflects adequately one of the very purposes of the effort now underway at Comanche Peak which is to establish an adequate confidence level about the design and construction of the Comanche Peak Units.
Based on the available information. 01A 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 make sus a determination. Consequently, OIA states that it " appears" that it would not be possible to rely on the Region IV QA inspection effort as evidence of the safe construction of CPSES.
This will necessitate reliance largely on the detailed technical inspections of various structures, systems, and components that have recently been conducted by the NRC at CPSES.
0.er the past several ycars, NRC has become increasingly concerned about TUGC0's OA program at CPSES and, as a result, a number of steps were begun When this to address those concerns culminating in the present review effort.
present revier effort is completed, there should be reasonable assurance that CPES has been constructed in compliance with safety regulations irrespective of earlier QA problems.
I A11ecation III:
" Data documented in Region IV's NRC Fom 766 Inspector's Report was inaccurate."
OIA found that, based on the information it developed, the data recorded on
-the NRC Form 766 pertaining to CPSES were inaccurate and unreliable.
In order to establish the significance of this finding, an analysis of the history, purpose, maintenance, and limitations of the 766 system would be needed.
I do not believe the significance of this subject warrants further efforts because substantive agency safety decisions are not based on the information contained in the 766 system.
Sumary I am satisfied that the report basically reflects a series of prolonged disagreements between a supervisor and his subordinate. While future reviews may suggest the supervisor may not have always been right, no intimidation or harassment has been substantiated.
No improper intent or wrongdoing has been shown. While there were some derogatory coments made by several people other than the involved inspector, such comments are, in :ny view, unwarranted.
The overwhelming majority of Region IV personnel interviewed had no such problems in their dealings with management.
I an prepared to discuss my conclusions with you at your earliest convenience.
In the meantime, I will go forward with my current recomended actions. When the review group completes its efforts I will be prepared to carry out any appropriate actions that are identified by that review.
/s/
Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator l
I l
l L
i ENCLOSURE I f
_______________------____-----2
4 x
e e
f
((g>*8tGp jo, UNITED STATES
- w. ( j 'g
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
WASHINGTON, D, C. 20665 j
g j
%,,,,.+
DRAFT 12/17/86-A l
4 KEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert Martin Regional Administrator, RIV FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
OIA REPORT REVIEW - OIA FILE #86-10 I have reviewed your memo to me of December 17, 1986, which outlines your proposals for dealing with actions necessary to respond to the points raised in the subject report.
By separate memo (see Enclosure 1) I have established a Review Group, with John Davis, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards as Chairman to conduct the review of technical issues as you recomended.
I 1
approve your suggestion to detail T. Westerman and H. Phillips full-time to be at the disposal of the Review Group until their work is complete on or about January 30, 1987.
I I approve the actions you recommend in regard to initiating remedial action within Region IV staff to assure a proper understanding of regional policies 1,n regard to resolution of staff / supervisor problems, supervisory responsibilities and to develop an improved inspection report tracking
'4 system.
You will advise me separately of specifics of implementation of these actions.
4 t
I agree with your comments in regard to the OIA conclusions on Allegation III (Data documented in Inspectors Reports).
I am withholding a decision on Allegation I (Management issues) and Allegation II (the adequacy of the i
inspection program at CPES) until the completion of the Review Group's efforts.
i Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated i
J I
ENCLOSURE 2 1
w-
'p 8
t4 a
u
" DRArT PRESS. RELEASE-i NRC'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APPROVES ACTIONS AT REGION IV 0FFICE IN COMANCHE PEAK MATTER
. Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations of the Nuclear 1
Regulatory Commission, has approved a series of actions to deal with the-findings of a report from the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor on the performance of officials at the agency's Region IV Office at Arlington, Texas, concerning the handling of safety issues involving' the Comanche Peak Nuclear-Powef Plant at Glen Rose, Texas. The Commission has approved these actions,
{
and is continuing its review of the matter.
The Office of Inspector and Auditor completed its report on November 26.
]
It deals with allegations made by an NRC inspector at the Region IV office. A q
summary of this report, with deletions, was made public on December II.
lt'-
Mr. Stello has formed a special review group headed by John Davis.
Director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, to review the technical details of the OIA report to determine (I) the safety significance of the issues for Comanche Peak and whether actions should be taken to rectify any unsafc conditions; (2) whether the issues when identified by Region IV were appropriately handled; (3) whether the current augmented NRC review and inspection effort at Comanche Peak is sufficient to make a finding of reasonaole assurance on the safety of construction without relying on Region IV's previous inspection program.
The NRC inspector at Region IV and his supervisor have been detailed temporarily from their present duties to.be at the disposal of the review
-group until the work of the group is complete.
"I have appointed this special review group, headed by a senior NRC official, to get an independent view of the matters covered by the OIA
. report.
I have requested a report to ne by January 30, 1987," Mr. Stello said.
['
f i
.. \\
l In addition, Mr. Stello has approved recommendations from Robert Martin, Region IV Administrator, that regional technical staff and supervisors be retrained concerning regional policies which set out the obligation of both the staff and supervisors and management to escalate disagreements promptly so that they can be resolved. Mr. Martin also has directed that an improved j
inspection report tracking system be developed to identify those reports that are unacceptably delayed in the various stages of preparation, review, l
approval and distribution..This new system is to be in operation by February 15, and will alert senior regional management of possible instances of protracted review of reports. Training will be conducted for all Region IV supervisors to remind them of their proper supervisory responsibilities, including the need to give adequate direction and guidance, and to identify and document weaknesses they discern in their subordinates. Supervisors will be held accountable for developing suitable individual development plans to address any problems.
l l
l i
j I
.se==---p
y r-
~
~
UNITED STATES f"""%
=
! %c /,,2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
~.
Office of PubIlc Affairs N';th/ I u
. Washington, D.C. 20666 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE No.86-173' (Friday, December 12,1986)
Tel. 301/492-7715 STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN LANDO W. ZECH, JR.
The Commission has requested recommendations from its Executive Director for Operations and its General Counsel concerning a report from the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor on the performance of officials at j
our Region IV office at Arlington, Texas, on the handling of safety issues The Office at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant at Glen Rose, Texas.
It dealt of Inspector and Auditor completed its report on November 26.
with allegations made by an NRC inspector at the Region IV office.
The Comission will take appropriate action on those recommendations as soon as possible after they are received.
I regard our inspectors and our inspection program as vital elements in our efforts to protect public health and safety.
If corrective actions are needed, they will be taken.
(
h Y
-=
~
~
U.S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC MANUAL Volume:
4000 Personnel RM Part 4100 Federal CHAPTER 4125 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS 4125-01 COVERAGE
[<
This chapter and appendix comprise NRC policy, objectives, procedures, 4 hi responsibilities and other basic requirements and definitions established to
(
provide for the expression and resolution of differing professional opinions concerning matters related to the agency's mission, 4125-02 POLICY AND OBJECTIVES p
k 021 Policy It is the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and fC the responsibihty of all NRC supervisory and managerial personnel, to maintain a working environment that encourages employees to make known their best
!;4 professional judgments even though they may differ from a prevailing staff view, disagree with a management decision or polic.v position, or take issue with proposed or established agency practices.
Each differing professional opinion of an NRC employee will be evaluated on its own merit. Further, each differing professional opinion will be pursued to resolution and the employee's of differing professional opinion, together with the agency's final statement response, will be made available to the public to ensure the openness of NRC decisions that may affect the public.
is not only the right but the duty of all NRC employees to make known Ittheir best professional judgments on any matter relating to the mission of the Moreover, both the general public and the Nuclear Regulatory Com-agency.
mission benefit when the agency seriously considers NRC employees' differing professional opinions that concern matters related to the agency's mission. This is intended to assure all employees the opportunity to express policy differing professional opinions in good faith, to have these opinions heard and considered by NRC management, and to be protected against retaliation in any form.
l 022 Objectives.
To define differing professional opinions.
a.
b.
To distinguish between differing professional opinions and the differences of views and opinions routinely raised and resolved staff members in the ordinary conduct of agency business.
l
(
among J
l l
Approved: July 23,1985
~
~
l
.)
- [to* *'C
$\\,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
UNITED STATES
'~
- {
g WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 7
.j 0,,
e
'4 4
,o OFFICE OF THE November 2,;1976 CHAIRM AN MEMORANDUM FOR:
Lee V. Gossick Executive Dire for Operations O
FROM:
M cus ow en Chairman
SUBJECT:
NRC's Regulatory Mission I believe it highly desirable to continuously remind ourselves and our staff of the regula. tory ethic of this agency and of the operational climate needed to nourish that ethic.
The mission of the NRC is to protect the public in the uses of nuclear facilities and materials. That is the reason for our existence--the reason NRC was established as a separate and independent nuclear reg-ulatory agency. Our mission encompasses protection of the public health
.and safety and the environment, safeguarding of nuclear materials and facilities, and assuring consistency with this nation's anti-trust laws.
This mission is the guiding force in establishing policies, conducting searching reviews of proposed and actual operations of nuclear facilities and issuing or denying licenses.
It is inevitable that in a complex and highly technical field such as nuclear power, there will be differing viewpoints among capable and qualified persons within our organization as to what constitutes sound regulatory judgment. As we have emphasized throughout our agency life, diversity of viewpoint is a strength of our regulatory process, not a weakness; and we must maintain an agency climate which encourages qualified staff to speak their best judgment in carrying out their job.
An inevitable aspect of such a process is that some viewpoints will not l
prevail. Nevertheless, because of the importance we attach to our obligations to the public, we believe that it is.not.only the right but the duty, of a member of the NRC management and staff to make known prom'p'Dy to appropriate management levels any situation which he or she
<:onsiders to be unacceptable from the standpoint of protection of the O
,Ablic. And it is the responsibility of NRC management to assure that h
all its amployees are afforded that opportunity, The Commission is intent that there be nbisunderstanding our connit-oy ment to these basic principles; that staff be able and expected to make O
known their best professional judgment, whether or not it corresponds e 3 with the views of other staff or management; and that this can be done a
with the assurance of no recrimination or retribution.
c 3 b >
l I ask you to assure that a copy of this memorandum be given to each NRC i
employee and to every new employee upon joining this agency.
-