ML19309A697
| ML19309A697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/10/1980 |
| From: | Haller N NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309A694 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-139, NUDOCS 8004010021 | |
| Download: ML19309A697 (2) | |
Text
- pf***'%g UNITED 2TATES O
g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 s
%...../
March 10, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:
Nonnan M. Haller, Director Office of Management and Program Analysis
SUBJECT:
ENFORCEMENT POLICY PAPER We have reviewed the March 6 staff version of your enforcement paper.
We endorse the underlying objective of developing a strong, explicit enforcement program in which the severity of sanctions corresponds consistently to the severity of licensee non-compliance. We likewise appreciate your consideration of the com-ments we had provided on previous drafts.
We believe that two major questions remain unanswered -- namely, (1) does your enforcement concept satisfy Commission guidance, and (2) what are its benefits and costs? We believe these questions must be answered before the paper is forwarded to the Comission and to the public for comment.
In the March 10 version of the Policf, Planning, and Program Guidance, the Com-mission states as policy that
".. NRC will emphasize prompt and vigorous enforcement... goal of the enforcement program will be compliance... enforcement programs should ensure that a licensee will not benefit by violating NRC regulations."
The Comission adds the following planning guidance:
... improve the enforcement program by (1) adopting an aggressive enforcement strategy that seeks more frequent use of stronger enforcement measures, such as NRC's increased civil penalty authority, when situations warrant, (2) processing enforcement cases much more rapidly, (3) assuring that non-compliance is more expensive than compliance, (4) examining the possibility of dele-gating certain enforcement activites to regional offices, and (5) assuring that NRC requirements are enforceable."
It is not possible to tell from your paper the extent to which your proposal satisfies or does not satisfy the above guidance. We believe you should add to the paper the following information:
- numbers, types, and estimated impacts (e.g. costs and benefits) of sanctions that would have been imposed had this enforcement 80040100M lN--
Victor Stello March 10,1980 concept existed in the past;
- additional resources, if any, that might be needed to process more rapidly the enforcement caseload arising from this con-cept; and
- discussion of the ability to delegate enforcement to the Regions under this concept.
If you would prefer to send the paper forward in its present form, please modify the coordination statement to reflect the fact that our views are expressed in this memorandum.
W orman M. Haller, Director ice of Management and Program Analysis cc:
W. J. Dircks l
l
e 6,, - 7
/
4 UNITED GTATE3
].
/
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION wAssmorow.o.c. zos4s g ( g- ] y December 31, 1974 To: All AEC Licensees h
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND CATEG0 RIES OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AEC REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS - MODIFICATIONS i
on November 1, 1972, the Commission issued criteria for enforcement actions to be taken for noncompliance with its rules and with license conditions in accordance with Sections 161, 186, and 234 of the Atomic i:.nergy Act and Subpart B of Part 2,10 CFR. On June 5, 1973, the Commission notified licensees that categories of violation with AEC regulatory requirements had been' established because the Commission and the nuclear industry recognized that the significance of violations varies in the potential for affecting the health and safety of the public, the common defense and security, and the environment.
Based on a review of the experience with the criteria for determining enforcement action and the categories of noncompliance, modifications of the use of these criteria and these categories are being made.
Commen::s explaining the modificatioris are enclosed as Attachments A and B.
The changes in the criteria and categories are primarily administrative
~
in nature and should result in a higher level of understanding of the enforcement program - and the results of the program - on the part of the public and the industry. The basic purpose of the enforcement program - enhancement of the health and safety of the public, the common defense and security, and the environment - remains the same.
The long standing practice of requiring corrective action for each identified item of noncompliance (Violations) is not changed. The enforcement program continues to emphasize corrective action where necessary,to assure that regulated activi' ties meet applicable requirements and are conducted with due regard for public health and safety, common defense and security and protection of the environment.
The modifica.tions clarify the enforcement criteria and categories of noncompliance in the areas of safeguards and environmental matters and provide more explicit deffnitions to aid in a better understanding of the enforcement program. These definitions make clear the applicability of the program in matters of quality assurance, u nagement control, and Also, because the Commission relies to a degree systems p or mnce.
ve action is on report rtant matters taken and DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire dccument previously entered into system under:
7f/dJ/ h y d 3
)
Q ANO No. of pages:
k
.=...m. ;..
.