ML20057A369
| ML20057A369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1990 |
| From: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C202 | List:
|
| References | |
| 0903, 903, NUDOCS 9309140094 | |
| Download: ML20057A369 (4) | |
Text
.
w%
o
.a k
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 FEB 221980 Regional Office Instruction No. 0903 Rev. 1 ACTION REQUIRED FOR SIMILAR (REPEAT) SEVERI1Y LEVFL IV OR V VIOLATIONS i
A.
Purpose:
To provide revised instructions for evaluation and action to be taken when similar, e.g., repetitive Severity Level IV and V violations are identified.
B.
Discussion:
Similar violations, comonly referred to as repeat violations, are defined in the HRC Enforcement Policy as those violations which could have been reasonably expected to have been prevented by the licensee's corrective action for the previous violation.
For purposes of this Instruction, similar Severity Level IV or V violations that occur after the date of the last inspection or within two years, whichever period is greater, are to be considered.
j i
One area of the NRC's Enforcement Policy that has been highlighted in recent DIA, GA0 and OIG audit reports concerns repetitious violations and the NRC assurances that the Enforcement Policy was being consistently followed with regard to these violations.
These reports recognized that
[.
the Enforcement Policy allows civil penalties to be considered for repeti-tious Severity Level IV violations and questioned whether there was adequate assurance that the Policy was being consistently followed.
Consequently, the Director, Office of Enforcement, has requested that Regional offices develop written instructions to assure that Severity Level IV or Y violations are properly reviewed to determine whether they represent a significant management breakdown (SL-III problem) or are repetitious and, if so, appropriate enforcement actions are considered.
He further specified that there should be an auditable record to den-onstrate that repetitive violations were considered, actions taken, and the basis for not escalating the issue further.
Repetitious violations are of concern because we expect corrective actions to be effective.
The NRC must expect licensees to learn from their past failures and not depend on our audit inspection program.
Therefore, special attention is appropriate for these violations and escalated enforcement action should be considered.
At the same time, it is recognized that there are many different circianstances that need to be considered.
Section V.B of the Enforcem'ent Policy states that civil penalties may be i
imposed for SL-IV violations which are similar to previous violations.
Implicit in this provision is that other administrative actions, such as management meetings, enforcement conferences, and strongly worded letters i
may also be used if a civil penalty is not warranted.
i 9309140094 930830 STPRCESGGg PDR iP-
\\
Regional Office Instruction 2
CE"D 9 9 M(M)
No. 0903, Revision 1 F L u =
- ww In the past, Region II has routinely used a standard paragraph calling the licensee's attention to a first repeat violation and requesting that their response address root cause and corrective action.
Because this practice may not have involved sufficient management evaluation of potential escalated enforcement nor documented the basis for not escalating enforcement action, it is no longer adequate.
C.
Action:
1.
Inspectors and supervisors are to maintain familiarity with the recent history of facilities inspected in their area of expertise, including other facilities under the control of the same licensee, in order to be able to recognize similar violations when they occur.
This awareness should include violations that were licensee identified or otherwise not cited in a Notice of Violation.
To assist this evaluation, DRMA will provide, monthly and upon special request, listings of all NCVs for the previous 2 years to all Regional Section Chiefs.
2.
When a similar violation is identified, and it is the first repeat, the issue should be brought to the attention of the responsible Division Director.
After evaluation, the Division Director will decide if potential escalated enforcement is indicated.
Some of the appropriate factors to consider include:
I Pervasiveness of the problem Similarities in the violations or parts of the licensee organiza-tion involved in the violations (i.e., engineering procedures and safeguards procedures, or I&C personnel and operations personnel)
Adequacy of the past corrective actions, including implementation (i.e., broad, narrow, comprehensive, or timely)
Time since the past violation Extent of prior notice given (i.e., licensee audits or QC findings)
Significance of the violations Whether past violation was included in an escalated enforcement action Adequacy of corrective actions after repeat violation identified If the Division Director determines that potential escalated enforce-ment is indicated, an enforcement pre panel should be held.
If the Division Director determines that escalated enforcement is not warranted, the enforcement letter should include a paragraph that
Regional Office Instruction 3
ggb M
No. 0903, Revision 1 addresses the similar violation. Regional Office-Instruction No.- 0915
" Standard Paragraphs for Enforcement Letters," provides a paragraph discussing a similar violation.
In addition, the Division Director should complete the enclosed memorandum and forward it to the Director, EICS, at the time the enforcement letter and Notice of Violation is provided for concurrence. The memorandum will be retained by EICS as the documented basis for not escalating enforcement action.
The enforcement letter should be signed by the Division Director, after concurrence by the Director, EICS.
3.
When a similar violation is identified as a second, or more, repeat, or when multiple violations ~ from one inspection are found to be repeats, an Enforcement Pre-Panel should be convened to consider the need for escalated enforcement.
Normally, this will result in an enforcement conference and consideration of a civil penalty for a second repeat, and consideration of a civil penalty or Order, or both, for three or more repeats.
D.
Contact:
Questions or comments concerning this Instruction should be directed to the Director, Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff.
E.
Effective Date:
This Instruction is effective upon issuance.
d Stewart D. Ibneter Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Form Memorandum Distribution List 8
~., - -
t MEMORANDUM FOR: George R. Jenkins, Director, EICS FROM:
, Director DR_
SUBJECT:
SIMILAR (REPEAT) SL-IV OR SL-V VIOLATION; NO ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT PROPOSED FACILITY:
INSP: RPT. NO.:
The inspectica referenced above identified a similar violation, as defined in the NRC Enforcement Policy.
I have evaluated the Branch Chief's recommendation and concluded that escalated enforcement is not warranted, based on the f6ctors checked below:
/
/ Pervasiveness of the problem
/
/ Similarities in the violations or parts of the licensee organization involved in the violations (i.e., engineering pro-cedures and safeguards procedures, or I & C personnel and operations personnel)
/
/ Adequacy of the past corrective actions, including implementation (i.e., broad, narrow, comprehensive,ortimely)
/
/ Time since the past violation
/
/ Significance of the violations
/
/ Adequacy of corrective actions after repeat violation identified
/
/ Other:
An enforcement letter and Notice of Violation has been prepared for my signature in accordance with Regional Office Instruction No. 0903,
" Action Required for Similar (Repeat) Severity Level IV or V violations."
cc: Director DRP (if insp. of power reactor by DRS or DRSS)
.