ML19281D506
| ML19281D506 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/14/1980 |
| From: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Thompson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-533, REF-SSINS-6025 NUDOCS 8009120027 | |
| Download: ML19281D506 (4) | |
Text
.,,
f 2
vo-f ss11S 50.
1 J
i TERA _
J J
i j
July 14, 1980 g,tuPT _
i t
?,
MEMORANDUM FOR: Dudley Thocipson. X005 i.
^.
l FRON:
J. H. Sniezek, Director, Division of FFMSI I
t
SUBJECT:
REVISED-NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY t
I As we discussed on July 9. enclosed are FFMSI cocoents on the subject i
i document. Several members of my staff reviewed the document and exhibited mixed reactions regarding the degree of goodness or badness of the document.
Their cocuents, which I endorse, are included in the enclosed cocnents.
.J. H. Sniezek, Director Division of FFMSI
Enclosure:
Connents on NRC -
[
J. G. Keppler, RIII J. Lieberman, ELD N. C. Moseley, IE f
1 -
.8009120 n 2 7.
IE:EF S
- D
...(/
J omes >
ev== = = >
..JHS
',.e,k.;nn..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7
.... 7. /. /.80......
=w>
- v.s. e.vs== essa, eersreises oresca s e ese see - re e
, N N 318 (9 76).WW 0240
COMMENTS ON NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY Page 5, second paragraph - The second sentence should be changed to read
" Severity Level IV violations involve degradation of engineered systems or management controls systems designed to assure proper construction or to detec't, prevint, or mitigate an event. " Unanimously, the FFMSI staff reviewing the document indicated that it was not at all obvious that the word " systems" by itself could reasonably be deemed to include management control systems.
Likewise, it is believed that it is as important to detect a situation leading up to an event as well as prevent and mitigste the event.
Page 5, last paragraph - the titles of the appendices in this paragraph are not consistent with the titles on the appendices themselves.
It is recommended that the titles on the appendices be applied to this section.
Page 6, the first full paragraph should be reworded to indicate that the violations identified in the aopendices are merely examples of levels of significance which will be treated at the various severity levels.
Page 7 - It is stated that licensees are not ordinarily cited for violations resulting from equipment failures, etc.
I reccmmend that the paragraoh be reworded to more clearly indicate that licensees are not ordinarily cited for violations which results ?rcm matters beyond the control of the licensee.
In this respect, I believe that the paragrach should state that licensees are cited for violations resulting from equipment failures which result from matters under the control of the licensees such as inadequate maintenance, inadequate procedures, inadequate surveillance, etc. The paragraoh should then go on to say that licensees are not ordinarily cited for violations resulting from failures beyond their control such as acts of nature and failures that occur despite licensee having taken all reasonable action.
Page 8, footnote 5.should be reworded to reflect that for materials licensees the NRC will consider civil penalties for violations that occurred subsequent to the previous inspection if the inspection interval is greater than one year.
Page 10, the last paragraph states that Table I identifies hcw the penalty will be reduced by 50"..
Table I does not show this.
Page 11, first full paragraph - This paragraph requires more discussion to shcw that if there are multiple events or multiple problems; for example, inadequate personnel dosimetry programs, inadequate orogram for conduct of radiation surveys, and faulty interlock mechanism on radicgraphic source, it would be teated as three separate events and/or problems. Although all three items relate to the general area of health physics, the three areas are specific and separable areas of concern.
_2_
Page 11, near the bottom of the second full paragraph it discusses that a continuing violation for a Severity I or II violation is generally not to exceed three times the maximum at a Se"erity I level.
I infer that this means that the maximum could not exceed $300,000 without obtaining scecific Ccamission approval.
I believe that this paragraph needs clarification.
Page 14, the last paragraph indicates that Circulars and Information Notices establish obligation and comitments on the part of licensees.
This is not true. The paragraph should be rewritten to more clearly reflect the interaction between the various types of enforcement action identified in the paragraoh.
Page 17, second full paragraph states that the progression of enforcement action for recurring violations will be based on violations under a single license.
This paragraph as written does not recognite the existence of material licensees many of which have multiple licenses at the same facility.
When inspections are conducted most of these licenses are inspected at the same time and many of the licenses are not broad in scope. This paragraph should be rewritten to indicate that multiple material licensees at the same site and under the control of the same basic management will be treated as a ccmcosite license for the ourpose of enforcement.
Page 18 - It is stated that the staff provides prior notification to the Ccamission on all elevated enforcement actions involving civil penalties or orders. There should be an exception to this statement if the urgency of the situation dictates i=ediate action by the staff.
Table I - I question if the monetary penalties established for the total group of Materials Licensees provides sufficient flexibility to really acoly tne
" ability to pay" policy.
For example, many large Material Licensees such as Union Carbigde, major pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors are large corporations and have an ability to pay.
The same may be said for hospitals and other institutiens.
Table II - The heading regarding the Number of Similar Violations Within 1 Year should be modified to reflect 'since the previous inspection if the interval is greater than 1, year for, Materials Licensees."
Am~ ~sw Appendix I*- Wherever l e term "a system designed to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event" is used, it should be changed to read "a pnysical cr management control system designed to detect, prevent, or mitigate a safety event." The reason for the recomended change is to prevent any ambiguity regarding what is meant by the word" system"and to assure that CEcple under-stand that the detection of the possibility of a sericus safety event is included within the word " prevention".
Appendix I, Severity Level III - An additional example shculd be used in C2. to insure that everyone understands that a breakdown in procedures can be classified as a system cesigned to orevent or mitigate a serious safety event.
I recc=end the example be failure to imolement site emergency procedures uncer ccnditions wherein a site emergency exists.
. Someplace in a discuss' ion prior to the appendices it should be very clearly pointed out that the appendices only contain examples indicating the 5.ignificance level _(dilar severity from a safety standpoint will be coded each of the severity categories. Violations deemed to constitute a si against the same severity levels.
In addition, it should be explained that Appendix I, VI and VII are meant to pertain to the operations of the facility as described in the license, technical specifications, and application for a license.
Appendice IV and V are meant to apply to conditions beyond those discussed in the license, technical specifications, and application for a license.
9