ML19262D228
| ML19262D228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/18/1980 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262D230 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-533, REF-SSINS-6020 NUDOCS 8004250139 | |
| Download: ML19262D228 (6) | |
Text
.
3.;;
e u
p
~
.qy o.u.)
/
M i 81980 HEHORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr., Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
COPHISSION PAPER ON ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM Your memorandum of March 14, 1980, requested that MPA's March 10, 1980 connents on the enforcement policy paper be addressed.
MPA's concerns were focused on whether the proposed policy meets the March 10, 1980 draft version of the P&licy. Planning, and Program Guidance. This guidance provided that:
"... NRC will emphasize prompt and vigorous enforcement...
enforcement programs should ensure that a licensee will not benefit by violating NRC regulations."
The guidance also stated:
"... improve the enforcement program by (1) adopting an aggressive enforcement strategy that seeks more frequent use of strunger enforcement matters, such as NRC's increased vivil penalty authority, when situations warrant, (2' processing enforcement cases more rapidly, (3) assuring that noncompliance is mori expensive than compliance, (4) examining the possibility of delegating certain enforcement activity to regional offices, and (5) assuring that NRC requirements are enforceable."
It is clear that the proposed policy presents a more ' aggressive enforcement program with a goal of increasing the standard of compliance with Comission requirements. It will make noncompliance in the long term more expensive than compliance. However, the policy, the purpose of which was to establish the standards and criteria for utilizing the enforcement options available to the Comission, did not address the timing of enforcement action, regional delegation, OPPICE >
sunnau s >
DaTE M NLC FORM SIS (9-76) NRCM 0240 fr u. a. eovannuant paintine crrica, s,T,..as.es4
/39.
+
n n
4 APR 1 5 130 2-William J. Dircks nor the enforceability of NRC requirements. Nevertheless, the proposed policy by its nature should be easier to apply than the existing policy and therefore the timing of processing enforcasent actions should continue to improve. In addition, the proposed policy should lend itself in time to some regional delegation. Assuring the enfon:eability of NRC requirements is outside the scope of this policy.
You also requested that I respond to the following questions:
'~
"What numbers, types, and estimated impacts (e.g., costs and benefits) of sanctions would have been imposed had this enforce-ment concept existed in the past? What additional msources might be needed? What additional resources might be needed to process mom rapidly the enforcement case load arising from this concept?
What would be the ability to delegate enforcement to the rggions under this concept?"
In order to fully respond to your first question, a number of man-years of effort will be necessary to review all inspection reports and analyze them applying the pmposed policy. However, my staff has reviewed selected cases and the enclosures to this memorandum provide examples where escalated action was not taken under the current policy but would be taken under the proposed policy, as well as cases showing how the proposed policy would modify past escalated actions. Considaring it was the Condission which sought the increased civil penalty authority from the Congress, I believe that the enclosure meets the need to show the impact of the pmposed policy and it is unnecessary to expend the rescurces necessary to provide a further detailed response to this question.
The benefit of the proposed policy is obvious. Higher sanctions regularly employed should increase the standard of compliance in the nuclear industry with resulting benefit of increased safety. However, there will be costs to such a program. An aggressive enforcement program utilizing severe sanctions such as license revocation and high civil penalties with a potent 2 of amounts of more than a million dollars will require careful administration by persons exercising sound judgment and discretion.
I expect that the increased resources to process the case load resulting from the proposed policy will be three man-years in FY 1980 and five man-years in FY 1981 fmm my Office and one man-year in FY 1980 and two man-years in FY 1981 by the Office of Executive Legal Director. Moreover, higher sanctions and more aggressive enforcement may increase the potential for litigation tying up precious staff resources. However, this proposed policy by being published as part of the Comission's regulations, should provide clear guidance to both licensees and the Commission's adjudicatory bodies and therefore either minimize or at least simplify the litigation. The actual amount of increases litigation cannot be estimated, oPFICE &
SumMAtsE &
D ATs >
NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 Tr u: s. oovsanteswr paintime orrics sore eaus4
d.
.x
[
William J. Dircks APR 181980 Finally, as I indicated abc.ve. the proposed enforcement policy lends itself to delegation of some enforcement responsibility to tie Regional Directors.
I will propose to the Connission that I be given the authority to delegate where appropriate enforcement action as has already been given to the Directors of NRR and NHSS. However, I would not propose to delegate higher level enforce-ment matters to the Regional Directors until experience of about a year has been gained implementing this enforcement policy and the IE Manual has been revised to provide the necessary guidance in implementing the proposed policy to enstre uniformity and consistency between the five Reginal Offices.
I would also want to be assured that prior to delegating enforcement authority to the regions that a mechanism will exist to assure that the Regional Directors get the necessary legal advice as well as the advice from the Offices of NRR and HMSS as appropriate in taking escalated enforcement action.
I trust this is responsive to both your concerns and the concerns of MPA.
Please advise me if you believe that a more detaildd analysis is warranted.
Original Signed by V, Stallo Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
IE Files s
'fE Readfiig' ROI Reading V STello NC Moseley ELD
.DD.;.I E_ht'
_D;JE D:R0I:IE ELD o,,ic.
NC Mdseley.
~
.h
. R4 Y, ng.
._Vp$no_.
eu.....
3/18/80. c.d..
_3/ i.../80..
3Ls.t._18.0.
_3h f//80_
o.n
- NRCPORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 W us e. eovsanusur painvine arrica. sete-ese.ea4
PROPOSED PROGRAM LICENSEE PROBLEM ACTION TAKEN StVC9ITY ACTION Toledo Edison Diesel generators were not Notice of Violation III
$ 50,000 (Davis-Besse) operable under condition of loss of off-site power j
Ame[p Containment spray systems Notice of Violation II.
- '850,000 ican Electric (D.C. Cook 1) valved out of service for 17 days; identified, reported and corrected by licensee Niagara Mohawk Whole body exposure greater Notice of Violation III ISO,000 (Hine Mile Point) than 3 Rem / quarter Cleveland Breakdown in QA multiple Notice of Violation II f100,000 Electric items of noncompliance (Perry)
Consolidated failure to control access Notice of Violation III 50,000 Edison (Indian to a protected area Point 1&2)
Metropolitan Vital area doors not Hotice of Violation III 50,000 1
Edison (Three locked Mile Island 1&2)
Lehigh Testing Whole body exposure greater Notice of Violation III 5,000 Company than 1.25 Rems t
8
~
PROPOSED PROGRAM LICEtiSEE PROBLEM ACTI0ft TAKEf1 SEVERITY ACTION Vennont Yankee Accidental criticality
$ 15,000 I
$100,000 and Order Suspending Operations-Consolidated Exposure of 10 Rems 20,000 II 100,000 Edison (Indian plus management Point) weaknesses Connecticut Breakdown in HP controls 27,500 IV &
80,000 Yankee (previous management V
meeting)
Palisades Containment integrity 450,000 II 21,200,000 breached Nine Mile Inspector gained undetected 18,000 II 100,000~
Point access to a protected area Shelwell Services Unshielded source fell from 1,000 I
5,000 and Order truck and was temporarily
. Suspending Operations lost
- G.E. Vallecitos VitM area and material access 6,000 II h0,000 area not protected by two barriers Exposure over Part 20 limits 6,500 III
!5,000 and show cause order for suspension
- Pittsburgh-Whole body exposure greater 2,000 II 50,000 Des Moines than 5 Rems Steel Co.
(assume >500 Extremity exposure greater than 7,000 I
50,000 and order for people employed) 375 Rems immediate suspension and order to show caus for revocation
PROPOSED PROGRAM LICEtlSEE PROBLEM ACTI0ff TAKEf1 SEVERITY ACTI0ti
- Pilgrim Person entered vital area
$ 5,000 I
$100,000 and order undetected from outside of for suspension facili ty.
Excessive radiation from Pending III 50,000 and show cause order for transportation package suspension m
- Public Service Breakdown in QA in one flotice of Violation III
_ 50,000 of Indiana construction area (Marble Hill)
Breakdown in QA in Order to suspend II 100,000 and multiple construction construction and same orders as areas
. show cause order under existing modifying construction program pennits t
- These involve repetitive severity I, II or III violations which occurred within a one-year period.
O
- W e are