ML083390390

Allegation Process-Related Enhancements Resulting from Peach Bottom Lessons Learned - Memo to R. W. Borchardt

ML083390390
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	01/23/2009
From:	Lisamarie Jarriel NRC/OE
To:	Borchardt R NRC/EDO
Jarriel L
References
Download: ML083390390 (5)

Text

January 23, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt Executive Director for Operations THRU: Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director Office of Enforcement /RA/

FROM: Lisamarie L. Jarriel, Agency Allegation Advisor Office of Enforcement /RA/

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATION PROCESS-RELATED ENHANCEMENTS RESULTING FROM PEACH BOTTOM LESSONS LEARNED The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you that on December 29, 2008, Allegation Guidance Memorandum (AGM) 2008-001, Interim Guidance in Response to Lessons Learned from the Allegation Assessment of Inattentive Security Officers at Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, was issued to the regional offices, the technical program offices, and the Office of Investigations. The AGM addresses allegation process-related lessons learned regarding the handling of allegations in March 2007 and September 2007 of inattentive security officers at Peach Bottom. Agency direction was provided in COMSECY-08-0009, Report of the Senior Executive Review Panel (SERP) - Peach Bottom Lessons Learned, dated March 5, 2008, the Staff Requirements Memorandum for COMSECY-08-0009, dated June 9, 2008, and your memorandum to the regional administrators and technical program office directors dated July 21, 2008, entitled Implementation of Actions in Response to Peach Bottom Lessons Learned.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) also conducted an Event Inquiry and issued a report on August 22, 2008, identifying findings in four areas. A reconvened SERP determined that actions identified in the March 5, 2008, SERP report, and approved by the Commission, addressed the four areas of findings in the OIG report. A summary of the actions addressing each OIG finding was provided in your memorandum to the Commission dated October 2, 2008, entitled, Senior Executive Review Panel - Evaluation of Offices of Inspector General and Investigations Reports on Peach Bottom.

The AGM was developed in coordination with and/or as a result of internal stakeholder discussions among NRC allegation staff and supervision from headquarters and the regional offices during periodic team teleconferences and during internal workshops held on February 26-27, 2008, and September 17-18, 2008. The AGM addresses each allegation process-related recommendation contained in the documents noted above, with limited exception. The enclosure to this memorandum provides the basis for any exceptions or differences.

With the issuance of AGM 2008-001 as interim process guidance, discussions will be held with external stakeholders, as directed by the SERP and affirmed by the Commission, to gauge their understanding of the process enhancements outlined in the AGM and to solicit feedback. Any additional allegation process enhancements derived from the external stakeholder discussions CONTACT: Lisamarie Jarriel, OE (301) 415-8529

R. W. Borchardt 2 will be implemented by future interim process guidance, and will ultimately be incorporated, along with the guidance from AGM 2008-001, into a forthcoming revision of Management Directive 8.8 and the newly developed Allegation Manual.

Enclosure:

As stated

R. W. Borchardt 2 will be implemented by future interim process guidance, and will ultimately be incorporated, along with the guidance from AGM 2008-001, into a forthcoming revision of Management Directive 8.8 and the newly developed Allegation Manual.

Enclosure:

As stated Electronic DISTRIBUTION:

B. Mallet, DEDR M. Virgilio, DEDMRT R. Zimmerman, NSIR C. Carpenter, OE E. Leeds, NRR D. Solorio, OE C. Evans, RII K. OBrien, RIII W. Jones, RIV D. Vito, OE OACs OE r/f Allegation Files: AGMs V. Ordaz, AO J. McMillan, OIG D. Holody, RI ML083390390 OFF OE: SAS OE: OD OE:AAA DEDR NAME D. Vito C. Carpenter L. Jarriel B. Mallett DATE 12/04/2008 01/23/2009 01/23/2009 01/23/2009 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AGM 2008-001 AND PEACH BOTTOM LESSONS LEARNED RECOMMENDATIONS AGM 2008-001 addresses each allegation process-related recommendation contained in COMSECY-08-0009 (SERP Report), SRM COMSECY-08-0009, and the EDO Memoranda of July 21, 2008, and October 2, 2008, with limited exception or differences. The bases for the exceptions or differences are described below.

1. SERP Report Items A.2.c. and C.2.b Both items recommended improvement of the Allegation Management System (AMS) so that it can be used more effectively to review allegation history and trends and areas targeted for inspection. No specific changes were made to the current version of AMS because it is already functionally able to generate reports that are reflective of allegation history and trends, and allegations related to functional areas. Responsible management will work with the OACs to assure that periodic AMS reporting in the regions and program offices meet these needs.

Efforts to implement a mandated update of the AMS database are tentatively scheduled to begin in 2009. The AMS update is being mandated because of database information security matters, and conversion of the database from client-server architecture to web-based architecture, not because the current database has problems with data derivation. However, the staff will ensure that the updated AMS is also effective in providing the ability to review the allegation history and areas targeted for inspection to the appropriate staff.

2. SERP Report Item A.5.a This item recommended that the Branch Chief level conduct the review of a licensees response to a referred allegation. AGM 2008-001 contains a Checklist for NRC Assessment of Licensee Response to RFIs. (Request for Information (RFI) is a new allegation-process term for what was formerly called an allegation referral.) The RFI review checklist is intended for use by technical staff assigned to review the licensees RFI response. The reviewer is instructed to contact the responsible NRC branch chief and the OAC with the results of his/her review. If the RFI response is determined to be insufficient, inaccurate or otherwise unacceptable, the branch chief, with support of the OAC, will determine subsequent action. While the branch chief may not necessarily perform the initial review against the RFI review checklist, he/she will be informed of the results of the technical review and will ultimately review the allegation file and concur in the allegation closure letter or closure memorandum.

3. SERP Report Item A.5.b This item recommended that the checklist to be developed for review of a licensees RFI response include guidance for determining if NRC needs to conduct independent inspection due to an inadequate licensee response. This recommendation is addressed in the section of AGM 2008-001 entitled Checklist for NRC Assessment of Licensee Response to RFIs, but not in the checklist itself. Since the branch chief may not necessarily perform the initial review of the licensees response against the RFI review checklist, the last item on the checklist directs the staff reviewer to inform the branch chief and the OAC of the results of his/her review. It is from this point that the branch chief determines subsequent action (with input from the Allegation Review Board (ARB), if appropriate). If the licensees response is inadequate, the AGM indicates that the staff should document that finding in the AMS database and outlines subsequent agency action to include asking supplemental questions of the licensee, preparing a supplemental RFI, or conducting an independent NRC inspection or an OI investigation or assist.

Enclosure

4. SERP Item B.1.b This item recommended that the alleger should be contacted when a concern is closed, even when the alleger has requested no further contact with NRC. However, subsequent SERP Item B.1.c recommends that an allegation closure memorandum document any instance when a decision is made not to contact an alleger upon allegation closure, suggesting that there are circumstances that could inhibit contacting an alleger upon allegation closure. This issue is addressed in the AGM under the section entitled, Contacting Allegers. This section recognizes that if an alleger requests no further contact with the NRC, another attempt will be made to contact the alleger to explain the advantages of continued involvement in the allegation process. It also recognizes however, that if the alleger reiterates his or her desire not to participate in the allegation process, the Agency should honor the request and not provide the alleger with further correspondence, but only consider contacting the alleger during the course of the evaluation if additional information is needed to evaluate the concerns raised.

5. SERP Item B.2.b This item recommended that stakeholder feedback be obtained on the best way to share the basis for closure of an allegation with others who may have the same concern. Internal stakeholder discussions recommended that action in response to this recommendation be deferred until the results of external stakeholder discussions about this recommendation are obtained. A public meeting to solicit input from external stakeholders is expected early in calendar year 2009, based on the availability of stakeholders already indicating a desire to participate.

Currently, the only means by which specific allegation closure information is shared externally with individuals other than the alleger are if the alleger personally chooses to share the information, or if allegation closure information is provided in response to a FOIA request.

When requested under the FOIA, personal identifying information and other information that could potentially identify the alleger are redacted from the information that is released. There are also unique circumstances that could potentially prompt wider distribution of specific allegation closure information (e.g., when an allegation is raised in front of a large audience in a public setting, when a member of congress submits an allegation on behalf of an alleger and requests that the response be issued publicly).

6. SRM COMSECY-08-009, Item 4, and July 21, 2008, EDO Memo Item 1.c These items recommended that the staff consider additional management involvement and whether a senior review team should review NRC conclusions when questions come up regarding the allegation process or review outcomes. Based on the collective wisdom of the OACs, this item is addressed in the Alleger Responses After Closure (RAC) Section of AGM 2008-001, and suggests discussion of such matters with senior management at an ARB rather than formation of a senior review team. A RAC is defined as a verbal or written communication from the alleger to the NRC staff indicating that the NRC=s closure of the allegation was, in some way, insufficient, inaccurate, or otherwise unacceptable. Since alleger surveys were stopped in 2002, RACs have been recorded in AMS, and have been evaluated during the annual allegation program assessments and self-assessments at each region and program office. Generally, the staff has evaluated and responded to RACs thoroughly, professionally, and in a timely manner. Since each RAC provides indication that the alleger believes that the NRC response was inappropriate in some aspect, it is appropriate for the staff to engage NRC senior management in a discussion regarding the agencys response to each alleger providing a RAC. The AGM indicates that an ARB will be held in each case involving a RAC to discuss with senior management (the ARB chair) the appropriate follow-up to the information provided by the alleger.

2