ML20058L667
| ML20058L667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/10/1993 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NRRL-908, NUDOCS 9312170133 | |
| Download: ML20058L667 (7) | |
Text
t p* *f cg L
2
$ 'l N S
UNITED STATES g i p"o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
wassinaTou o.c. 2oss54003 5,,;. o j 3
December 10, 1993 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
All NRR Employees FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
NRR OFFICE LETTER NO. 908, REVISION 1,
" PROCESSING OF ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT CASES INVOLVING 10 CFR PART 50 AND PART 55 LICENSEES" PURPOSE This office letter establishes the Office of Nuclear Reanor Regulation (NRR) procedures for processing of escalated enforcement actions involving 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 55 licensees and coordinating reviews with the Office of Enforcement (OE) and the regional offices. The principal objective of the NRR review is to ensure that the significance of the violation with respect to reactor safety has been properly evaluated from an overall Agency perspective.
The NRC's policy on enforcement is published in 10 CFR 2, Appendix C,
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions". The NRC Enforcement Manual, issued by the Office of Enforcement, contains i
implementation guidance.
This revision supersedes NRR Office Letter 908 dated October 19, 1988.
P RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITl[ji 1.
The Associate Director for Projects is designated to implement this process for 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 55 licensees. The Associate Director for Projects:
Is the principal NRR contact for enforcement matters involving 10 CFR a.
Part 50 and 55 licensees.
CONTACT:
E. Baker, NRR 504-1386 0
14003ti g~qS 9312170133 931210 l
) )
i 6
All NRR Employees December 10, 1993 i
b.
Reviews all escalated enforcement actions submitted to headquarters for 10 CFR Part 50 and 55 licensees to ensure that the violations have been adequately established and that the significance of the violations has been properly evaluated from an overall agency perspective.
c.
Upon completing the review in paragraph (b), submits comments to the Director, OE, normally within 5 days of receipt of the proposed enforcement package.
d.
Ensures that project managers attend enforcement conferences, as appropriate.
e.
Recommends to the Director, OE, as appropriate, initiation of proposed enforcement action.
f f.
Recommends to the Director, OE, as appropriate, changes to the Enforcement Policy or guidance within the Enforcement Manual.
2.
The Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment is responsible for providing technical support for the review of proposed escalated enforcement actions.
3.
The Chief, Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch (SPSB) is responsible for supporting assessment of the safety significance of the event (s) on which the enforcement action is based.
Such support will include Accident Sequence Precursor calculations, where appropriate.
4.
The responsible NRR project manager (PM) leads the NRR review for proposed escalated enforcement actions. The responsible PM:
a.
Reviews the enforcement action package.
b.
Obtains technical support from other NRR divisions and other NRC offices as needed.
c.
Prepares a memorandum to the Director of the Office of Enforcement from the NRR Associate Director for Projects that documents the results of the review of the enforcement action package.
7
i All NRR Employees December 10, 1993 BASIC RE0VIREMENTS (I)
Upon receiving early notification by the regional section chief of a potential escalated enforcement issue, the project manager (PM) obtains all information available from reports (e.g., the inspection report, the licensee's event report, or 01 report) and any continuing NRC followup 1
activities. The PM should also ask to participate by telephone in any significant deliberative discussions begun in the regional office while researching the case. During this early review, the PM should discuss with the regional staff whet 5er n Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) calculation would provide any akitional insight into the safety significance of the underlying event.
If either party believes additional insight is needed, the PH will consult with the Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch staff on the usefulness of an ASP calculation.
If the SPSB staff believes that an ASP calculation would provide useful insights into the safety significance of the underlying event, then the results of the calculation will be provided to the PM prior to the enforcement conference, if at all possible.
(2)
The PM, with his or her project director, determines whether or not information from technical branches is needed, determines which technical personnel should be contacted, and prepares the appropriate work request for Priority Level 2 work. Time should be recorded against Regulatory Information Tracking System (RITS) IPE Code BA2, " Escalated Enforcement," on the RITS Staff Input Report Form. A technical assignment control (TAC) number should ng1 be established.
The docket number and the inspection report number should be entered on the RITS form.
(3)
The PM and other technical reviewers, as necessary, should attend all significant enforcement conferences. However, in cases involving sensitive management issues, the NRR project director and the technical reviewer's branch chief may also need to attend the conference.
Adequate travel t1me must be allowed for NRR personnel to attend the discussions before and after the conference.
(4)
As early as possible in preparing the enforcement action, the PH should inform his or her management of the planned enforcement action, including severity level, and any significant safety or regulatory issues or differences among the NRC staff that need to be resolved for NRR to concur on the enforcement package.
All NRR Employees December 10, 1993 (5)
In accordance with OE guidance, the enforcement conference is normally conducted approximately 4 weeks after completion of the inspection. The regional office transmits the escalated enforcement package to OE, with copies to NRR and the Office of the General Counsel, approximately I week after the enforcement conference.
Upon receiving the enforcement package, NRR has 5 days to review it and provide comments on it. NRR's principal role is to ensure that technical and regulatory assessments are sound and accurate and that the significance of the violation with respect to reactor safety has been properly evaluated.
The PM should also verify that the package has been appropriately marked to indicate limited distribution. The PM will prepare a memorandum to the Director, Office of Enforcement, from the Associate Director for Projects, NRR, giving NRR's comments. Th PM is to consult with the technical staff, if appropriate, and note the consultation in the memorandum. This memorandum must express the general position of NRR, not the separate positions of the projects staff and the technical staff.
Every effort should be made to resolve differences before issuing the memorandum. A copy will be sent to the project manager, the appropriate regional administrator, and the appropriate regional enforcement officer. An example of the memo to the Director, OE and a list of the questions that must be addressed in reviewing the package are enclosed to assist the PM and the technical staff in performing their review and to help prepare recommendations on the draft enforcement action.
(6)
If the licensee contests the proposed civil penalty because the licensee believes that the violation (s) did not occur and, to a lesser extent, if a licensee argues for mitigation of the proposed civil penalty, NRR will need to review the case to ensure that the regulatory decision is sound with regard to the merits of the licensee's arguments. NRR will normally receive a copy of the licensee's response from the licensee, the regional office, or OE.
The NRR project manager should work closely with the NRR technical staff, if appropriate, and regional personnel to form an appropriate viewpoint about the licensee's arguments.
The regional office will send OE a draft response, usually an Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty and an appendix describing NRC's conclusions in detail, with copies to NRR and 0GC. The process is then the same as that described in item (5) for a proposed enforcement package.
i j
F All NRR Employees December 10, 1993 3
EFFECTIVE DATE This office letter is effective immediately.
N)l*
',/homasE.
- erley, irector qu 0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation S
Enclosure:
l 1.
Example of memo to OE 2.
List of Standard Questions cc:
J. Taylor, EDO L. Callan, NRR W. Russell, NRR T. T. Martin, RI S. Ebneter, RII J. Martin, RIII J. Milhoan, RIV B. Faulkenberry, RV D. Holody, RI G. Jenkins, RII R. DeFayette, RIII G. Sandborn, RIV R. Huey, RV
-NRC PDR J. Lieberman, OE SECY I
I e
SENSITIVE - PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION - INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ONLY
[
),,
UNITED $TATES y )y o g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
R WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 g
ENCLOSURE I Docket No. 50-XXX License No. DPR-XX EA 92-XXXX MEMORANDUM FOR: James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement FROM:
L. J. Callan Acting Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED LEVEL XXX VIOLATION - (PLANT NAME, UNIT NO.)
The Division of has reviewed the Regional Enforcement Recommendation regarding (PLANT NAME). We concur with the action proposed by the Region.
The review was performed to ensure that the violations were properly evaluated from an overall agency perspective, and has the concurrence of [ INSERT NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED) of the (DIVISION NAME) technical staff. NRR believes that the proposed enforcement action is appropriate and supports it.
Our specific comments on the Enforcemer.t Action are enclosed [0R ARE PROVIDED BELOW].
L. J. Callan Acting Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated CONTACT:
[PM Name, NRR and extension]
SENSITIVE - PRE-DECISIONAL'INFORMATION - INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ONLY
. T~~ 7 -
SENSITIVE - PRE-DECISIONAL INFORMATION - INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ONLY ENCLOSURE 2 NRR COMMENTS ON REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATION EA-Were the violations technically and legally accurate and factual?
Were the root causes of the violations identified and are the corrective actions adequate?
Were the licensee's prior and current performance and prior opportunities for identifying the violations properly reflected?
Is the safety significance of the violations or root causes properly evaluated?
Is the licensee's position regarding the violations, if known, properly reflected?
Is the message given to the licensee appropriate to the situation?
Is a significantly different type of enforcement action appropriate (Order, Suspension, etc.) and if so, why? [not amount of penalty or severity level].
Any other comments on factual or technical issues:
Project Manager:
NRR Technical Reviewer (if appropriate):
Date:
i l
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM DIRECTOR. OE
.