ML19275F626
| ML19275F626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/27/1980 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| FOIA-50-533 NUDOCS 8006030653 | |
| Download: ML19275F626 (3) | |
Text
fe.,;.gg,ny.,>rr pg,sg3a.g _g y> w;; p y g g.3.g;4,;;,4;g,,ggy,
y.
c :3-,.;,,
o j, y g,y.,, p, oa y gyu n
g.x.,g.,p, r.7 w.
y
.e g.._
.s..
m
.. w. s.w &.../s m s o
, y r ? w, s, '.
.a v6 N.eq,, - ~~
~y L.
fy g3;..}.g'.[.:.,Q;+*.[ p:.-['Q., y'}'y L'. ' yt. :y y l QM*,. q;,,
.,s p
.> J L.
e
,y 2:,74
~
~~
.'sx
,~.
- e,.
gggzg - ;9,3,gg J
w n
- ' c,
- a -
'. La 4. ;
,.. p g 3 7 1980 '
~
~ '.ym gg^
C --
- m + g j;..
=
0 9
~~
t ME.4.A'.D U.'
FUR:
V. Stello, Director, IE FN-R. 5. Mino;oe, Ulrcctor, SJ SbaJECT:
ENFORCEF.ENT POLICY AND CRITERIA i
l
&(' sr :
T!.a draft Coreission p'eder."NRC Enforcement Progra# and its enclosure,s
.g
-forwarded by your February 20,196:rumo. has received a quick SD, m.,
1 t
staf f rav1cw. :: J.,';+ &g,y+- -
.c e r, ;~g ^7,.;:::'.W<;w. A<c !..'.
M',
~
m', 2 ".,
- 9 ::; 7;.
w
- n,
..v "h
k,.:
L
~
' Ne support the basic cbjective of this paper, which is to publish a comprehensive enforce ent policy, and the overall program, which defines 1cvels of severity and the enfor m ent responses for each severity level. But, we feel that more i
trork is needed on this draft before it can be issued for public coment.
Conr.en d are attached.
a m
~.y n.
a 4, -
v.
- p,.,
- v.,. r. 3; < p, ;,
' 3;p...x g y
. L _3 3 -q y g_
y 3:
.e j.
- g.g. '
~] }/
,[2figM WS dgn'ed by R.
Such
': i
',~ '.,e: 'a's:y'l:y[%-l.
'{
..JNy.
h
~;.
m
..q,:,
- s..
,. Robert ~B. Hinoc.ue. Directo. r. '.
- s 1,
.s
,s y.pycG~r <>@~h.,,:;. Q:r Office of Standards DeV 4,, -
. r.,
~
^e.
o t
3 spC.
,. 1 s-3.gn[,,.g
., f; A, '>(<
,.j4.,.; f.:
Q[:g @"
j s g g M"' p _
h g, 4.1 hP, oT s g.
\\*
,p.
?
-iAttachmentt a
' Ccwants ;
" m + v p --
- q ; p
--?.
~
uva an
~'
\\
~.,
r
. w %.,.y-?. :. ~..
.;., e.,
~:
m.
s s
,,y t
t
. er j
o's -
< 3'
- s., n c.
x.
e s
4 1
.m N. ('.oseley,, IE
.c. '+,.&p.r cc:
c
- x. :, n ~,y c,.e a s '. ' 'M..
W-
~*
i e A.. >, $. ',
' CONTACT:
E. G. Arndt' 4
DISTRIBUTION:
m?-
, t]c. "
,n 443-5997 ~,tc 5
" W.
s,-
~
a c
^'
.v c.
Central Files UU N EN
- U
'I -!.
J. L.,e t[',M'.(
ISD R/S "y
.T T.
L
., A -
g r,. N' s
s SCSB R/S 4
- W C.
y g9 y
'<x, m'.,.
~.pf ~
1'; 4
-W e.
..y; +
j RByinogue T
.GAArlotto co. M.,
sc 9
g WMMorrison g, Afe m s,
,p
,( " '
J h. g, a '
WFAnderson i
EGArndt L
M" 9 e G 5 D p
ji. Wilb e
, tG x
r m
'S d N/A
+
n
~
' ~ o rs,'c e,
_D.ES.:JCS B_,,_
i
._'_DE_S. &.ADG 1.__ -_D S : DIR _ _ _. S__D.,: 0_? R, E__,l 9 :
J Fcs J-
,y.
RBM} Q _[
G,,,'..
L. n-y
.g
< 3 < sudwyk EUAr d :sp' NMor~i'i son.
G,'
tt
.. oggQ
,m, '- -- - - -- + :?,/* Q, ' '.
a.
i s-r
?r
. -we
.p
,3.
' +:t~,a s ;;
n ~g s.
~
l
'DATE > 2Lf.7/S0-_ '
~2/ /80_
. i2 /thBQ _ _ !_122 2h/80.
J -
t a
^L
- Ch NRC Form 318 (2-76) NRCM 02040
' 4 't.L s. co v E 4m n t e m nk i n c o r ric c :~t s 7e.a s 2
-3
.s.
c,
.' as? *,. '
"Y
.: A % w... K n % uA &.~r.k1y b A',;s; G.- m sav u.s. w A A. w. O 'a.:,,jun,5 b..ieAs..'$ d* M wi'Ad.$ W N.'
n r
s006030 (-;5 2
C0!C:ENTS ON PROPOSED IE C0" MISSION PAPER (2/20/80)
General - A table of contents and paragraph identification are needed.
Bases are needed for:
p.1 Why would a higher level of compliance be required for a problem of less public health and safety significance?
(last full sentence on page) p.2
" Underlying principle"'that "... civil penalties are not designed (para.1) to be. so*large ~ as to cause a -li~censee to go out of business."
p.2 Why is "... severity of enforcement actions not dependent on (para 2) direct safety significance alone"?
Why different actions against different types of licensees for a similar problem?
p.13 50% reduction in civil penalty for licensee self-reporting and (para 1) correction of a problem.
p.13
" Civil penalties will no'. be issued to licensed facility operators."
(para 3)
Table II - Percentages given.
5% medical maximum ($5,000) seems small for a large hospital with unsafe practices or equipment which may be endangering,the lives of patients and/or staff.
Appendices - The limits given in several places (3x, 5x, 10x tech spec limits, etc.)
e
4 2
Clarification is needed for:
p.2 Whether the Enforcement Policy and Criteria will be a new Part (Staff Paper) in 10 CFR or will be put into a new Part 2.
pp 3,5 Effective difference between a notice of violation and a notice of deviation.
p.5
" Notice of Deviation" and "immediate Action Letter" don't sound (para. 2,3) i.ke " informal actions."
p.7 Whether placing a violation in the closest applicable category
~
(para. 2) can be irrespective of whether it would increase or decrease the severity (go up or Jown).
Attachment A - It is not clear where the concept of " total loss of safety function",
as addressed by the TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force, fits in these definitions.
Attachments A & F - Since fuel reprocessing plants also have tech specs, equivalent wording should be present in both Appendices.
4 O
..