ML20237H992
| ML20237H992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/1987 |
| From: | Hind J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Sjoblom G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237H486 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-402 NUDOCS 8708170450 | |
| Download: ML20237H992 (2) | |
Text
_ ,
-. .- p
. s y .. r '
UNITED ' 8TATES
-,: p ra299 7
[ k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l )
" " REOlON til i ig 799 ROOGEVELT RO AD
/
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOtt 60137
..... I i 1.n j
5 MEMORANDUM FOR: Glen L. Sjoblom, Deputy' Director, Division of Fuel Cycle, 1 Medical,. Academic and Commercial Use Safety, MMSS l FROM: Jack A. Hind, Director, Divisen of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Region III
SUBJECT:
DRAFT INSPECTION PRCCEDURE 89100, 'USE OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TO IDENTIFY LICENSEES FOP (NHANCED ' INSPECTION /
ATTENTION" j
This is in response to your memorandur. dated April 21, 1987, requesting all- J regions to review Draft Inspection Procedure 89100. : legion Ill fully supports l I
the conce program copy(ptattached) of performance indicators e - the materials or staff.
inspection " redThe flags" andcfhas purpose that-initiatedj program is to gather da9 u the various indicators and.to determine 1 appropriate thresholds nr which NRC actions are necessary.- Nothing in this program would pre-empt our enforcement policy or practices. The concept would
]y be to identify and correct problems ~before they' lead to' incidents or escalated' -)
enforcement actions.
! With regards to the fuel facility' performance indirators provided by Region II, )
- we feel that additional work-is necessary. We suggest that
- representatives-from each region meet to-discuss the items-proposed by Region 11 and any other I proposals to determine if performance indicators can.be identified that are ;
less sub$ active.
With regards to the performance indicators for materials licensees, we feel that the items described in the Draft Inspection Procedure are, appropriate but l should be expanded to include the following -
]
- allegations which have been substantiated and have safety significance; j
- insufficient staffing for licensed program workload;
- financial instability of licensee; I
- 1ack of senior management involvement in licensed activities; -l 1
' excessive number of repeat violations; ^
- .* excessive number of 10 CFR Part 20 reportable events.
I
. - - - - ._ hf 3 o) _
B708170450 870012 l PDR FDIA POTTERS 7402 - PDR :
C'D r "t 1g _j _
t ,
?,..-
+
l
' DUN 11 W l l
Glen L. Sjoblom 2 l
In addition to the above we feel that the following items need !
clarification / incorporation into the Inspection Procedure.
- 1. The Regional Project Manager is defined in Section 03.03, yet is not i i
mentioned anywhere else in the body of the Inspection Procedure. This persons' responsibilities should be described in greater detail and incorporated into the body as a specific requirement. Also, this concept needs to be incorporated into our budget process. i
! 2. The Inspection Procedure should incorporate measures other than counseling that regions can tcke once a potential problem is fVentified.
This may include, but not be limited to Orders, adding license conditions which may incorporate _ requirements in the license, and requesting licensee comitments to improve perfomance. Thess measures were successful
'i at Region III where it was identified.that licensees were. !
deficient'in therapy Q.A. programs (Christ Hospital, Henry F6rd Wuspital, j
Washington University).
(
We will periodically keep you informed of the progress of our i trial program and notify you of any si~nificant g findings that may arise fram . j the progrrm. d 1
(
ack A. Hind. Director ;
i l
Division of Radiation Safety l l and Safeguards
.i
Attachment:
As stated cc:w/attachmert j
'i R. W. Cooper, Regional Coordinator, EDO T. T. Martin, RI J. P. Stohr, RII L R. L. Eengart, RIV t
! R. A. Scarano, RV li l
l 9
. .- - - - . . - -w. ~ . . , . . .r-. --
l l
I . _ - _ ____ _ _ _ ~