ML20042F522

Disapproved Ballot Re SECY-90-094 Concerning Public Comments Received on Enforcement Policy Rev Involving maint-related Root Cause

ML20042F522
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/27/1990
From:	Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 9005090023
Download: ML20042F522 (3)

Text

--.

n t

A-F F I R-M A T I'0 N

.V'.O T E RELEASED TO THE PDR RESPONSE SHEET *-

67W9o cA dats Initi

........ '...........e.ft l

TO:;

SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE'COtetISSION

~

FROM:

C0MISSIONER CURTISS

SUBJECT:

SECY-90-094 - PUP.LIC COMENTS RECEIVED CONCERNING THE ENFORCEMENT POLICY REVISION INVOLVING MAINTENANCE-RELATED ROOT CAUSE APPROVED DISAPPROVED x

ABSTAIN i

NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMENTS:

See attached comments.

i

/4m SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE

/x/

March 27, 1990 c

DATE WITHHOLD VOTE

/

/

p

'ypo%

ENTERED ON "AS"-

YEs x

NO

$88598228188827-t$

CORRESPONDENCE PDR

\\

,;m

r

^

Fi w 2:

+

c

'>t Commissioner Curtiss' comments on'SECY-90-94:

-Having effectively rebutted the four. principal' arguments advanced l

by those who commented on Vie revised maintenance enforcement policy _, the staff proceeds uo-recommend that the Commission D91 proceed with the proposed revision.

I am at a loss to understand the basis for the staff's recommendation..

.I am particularly troubled with abandoning _this approach at this time for three reasons

[

First, we are, at this very moment, encouraging the industry to devote greater attention and resources to maintenance,-through a

-variety.of different means.

In my view, we need to keep.that pressure on if we are to expect results -- and an enforcement policy that placeo special' emphasis on maintenance problems can

be a most offective' tool to achieve the desired results.

Indeed, i

I fail to understand the concern that1 our actions in this area-would cause licensees to divert their resources and attention to' i

maintenance.- I thought that was exactly.what we wanted licensees-to do, given the interest that we have in seeing improvements in the maintenance area.

To step back from this initiative at'this point, shortly-after the Commission deferred action on a L

maintenance rule, will send exactly the wrong signal to industry, i

Second,_ the problems identified by the commenters, when examined carefully, simply are not persuasive.

The staff's responses in the subject SECY paper need not be repeated here. 'But suffice it q

to say that each of the four objections has been fully addressed

'by the staff.

-Finally,.to the extent that there exists some residual concern over matters such as the ability to demonstrate a programmatic I

failure or the prospect that licensees will mount vigorous defenses on the ground that there is no underlying regulation upon which to base the enforcement action, I would simply note

)

that these-concerns do not arise out of the particular approach that was originally proposed in SECY-89-325, but instead raise _a.

'more geheral'que'stion'about our abi'lity to't'ake esforcement

~

action where we discover maintenance problems.

I personally

-think that Appendix B is sufficiently clear on the subject of maintenance to provide an adequate basis to_take enforcement i

action.. Indeed, we have successfully done so, for violations

-both-on the primary side of the plant as'well as on the balance-L of-plant side.

Accordingly, I find the staff's arguments to rescind the maintenance enforcement policy unpersuasive.

But if thoicommission were to reject the concept of escalating enforcement actions for maintenance violations on these a

F particular grounds -- where there is no particular nexus'between i

L the specific policy proposed here and the argument for rejecting it,--

it leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is some question about our more general authority to take enforcement action in the maintenance area.

l l.

( h l[

t

p i

X o.

In summary, for the! reasons-advanced by the staff in the original SECY paper (SECY-89-325), as well as.in the-subject SECY paper, I-

.y continue.to believe that we should proceed with the revised maintenance enforcement policy originally _rccommended by the

-staff. ' With the understanding that. enforcement actions taken

' pursuant to this policy-would first be submitted to.the 3

Commission for review, such an approach provides the necessary safeguards to ensure that_ it is implemented in an effective and.

. reasonable manner. -Accordingly, I disapprove the staff's

' recommendation in SECY-90-94 to rescind the policy and-would, instead, direct the staff to proceed with implementation of the revised maintenance enforcement policy.

i e

i

' T C

l 4

,y-,

_y,,

w.

e l

(

-4 l

.o i

4 I

.