ML20029E735
| ML20029E735 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/06/1994 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Lieberman J SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029E736 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9405200014 | |
| Download: ML20029E735 (2) | |
Text
N hbS
[pa atog "o
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
May 6. 1994 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Chairman, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Senator Lieberman:
This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1994, raising a number of questions concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's policies and practices for the exercise of enforce-ment discretion for violations of nuclear power plant technical specifications and license conditions.
The Commission wishes to assure you that we agree with the regulatory principles which underlie the concerns raised in your letter.
We have programs in place to review, evaluate, and update licenses.
The Commission has not in any sense adopted a policy of routinely excusing licensees from compliance with the requirements of their licenses or the plant technical specifica-tions for operation.
Nor is the use of enforcement discretion a procedural device invoked by the agency as an avenue for avoiding the procedures for amending a license.
It is our expectation that licensees will comply with the terms and conditions of their licenses, will seek amendments to their licenses in accordance with established procedures when those terms or conditions are no longer appropriate, and will be subject to enforcement action when their operations deviate from the established requirements.
But we are clearly acting within our authority and consistent with good safety practicos if, in certain limited circumstances, we deem it appropriate to take no enforcement action where a technical specification or license condition has been or will be violated if that violation is neutral or positive from the point of view of safety.
As you requested, we have reexamined the issue of whether to make publicly available the pre-decisional, attorney / client privileged SECY paper from the General Counsel which discussed the agency's use of enforcement discretion and recommended adoption of the current agency policy on its use.
Given the fact that the policy
~
itself has been published as a part of our enforcement policy guidelines, we believe that the adverse impact on future legal advice to the Commission, which the precedent or practice of release of the SECY paper could create, outweighs the benefits of such release.
Consequently, we cannot approve release of the document.
9405200014 940506 PDR COMMS NRCC I
CORRESPONDENCE PDR 1.ucoo i
1
.. -. --...-.... -..-. ~
b l.
2-The responses to the specific questions contained in your April 20 letter will be provided shortly in separate correspondence from the NRC staff.
Sincerely, y' l/
Ivan Selin cc:
Senator Alan K. Simpson 5
i
+
y e,.
y
.-e.
- y.,
..,,,y.._.
,m.,%
y-m
.w,
.,~,,
v.
- i