ML20128C681
| ML20128C681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/11/1985 |
| From: | Long F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128C665 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-50FR1142, RULE-PR-2 NUDOCS 8505280374 | |
| Download: ML20128C681 (2) | |
Text
.. .
. . .. ., , . . ENCLOSURE 2, ,, ,, . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , _ ,,-
p2CECgg UNITED STATES jo NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
- '[**
., REGION 11 j$' 1 .I 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
- ATi. ANT A, G EOR GI A 30323 j
J AN 11 G85 MEMORANDUM FOR: James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator FROM: F. J. Long, Technical Assistant to the Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
ENFORCEMENT POLICY The following are my coments on the ten limited issues identified in the letter from the Chairman of the Enforcement Policy Review Committee to Mr. Dircks, dated December 19, 1984, enclosed with SECY-84-479 dated December 21, 1984.
- 1. The Comission should be primarily concerned with safety and accord-ingly, any and all incentives of a positive nature should be heavily emphasized in Comission policy. The attitude prevailing in the Com-
..w.
.r..... mis;ip.n..seems . to.Ae,.that.,cana)1.anc.e, con,tplues ,to be a.sgtpys.,4,rpbles.,.
. Th'e fact . is that' th.e compliance " record of the nuclear industry has- .
v- *
.- < greatly' improved'and c6nt'inues to'tWfar'bette'r thhn"ainy:bthe'r 4 tid 05tr'y' ~' --
in the United States. At the same time, that positive incentives are
- v. .9 . w .. : ; (y"k" M.3."k"N.%.ay,e,$,o9yst)e,g,gn,,ho,
,j,g,i p,y, go of,,,,, ,uy ,_, .,
- 2. The table of civil penalties is not appropriate. The practice has been to impose the maximum civil penalty that can be arrived at without
. regard to severity. levels and base penalties in the table. Since the same severity levels are not of the same safety significance in dif-ferent functional areas, there is no uniformity or logic to the dollar' values. A low severity violation at a power reactor may be a higher severity violation under materials or transpo'rtation. Civil Penalties for Severity Level III violations e.g., often exceed the civil penal-ties for Severity Level I and II violations. ,.
3r corrected, Prompt reporting of violations identified by the licensee and promptly should seldom if ever result in escalated enforcement (civil
. penalties). While criteria need not be the same for all severity -
r' levels, the concept of automatic civil penalties should be abolished.
<. t
, 4 .' ' Minor violations should be resolved at the lowest level possible within h the Comission. Minor violations have often been the basis for poor SALP ratings which makes the term " minor" a misnomer. We should eliminate minor violations from all SALP evaluations and all escalated enforcement. Minor vinlations should generally be resolved at the inspector' level, being reported routinely along with descriptions of-adequate corrective actions, in the inspection reports.
s 8505290374 850404 PDR PR 2 50FR1142 PDR
n- ,
. , , . . . . .. . , . . . .. ,..a.. . . . . . . . . . . . .
James P. O'Reilly 2
- 5. For licensed individuals, willful violations should be punished by suspension of licenses either permanently or for some set period of time. Civil penalties should never be used against individuals, whether or not they are licensed.
- 6. Regionalization has had little effect on enforcement since this func-tion has not actually been. decentralized. Nationwide consistency (uniformity) of enforcement is certainly both necessary and desirable to the extent that the enforcement policy must be applied uniformly by all. However, there has been a noticeable lack of uniformity between the Regions and Headquarters in applying the policy. Flexibility in use of the policy has been promoted by 5ieadquarters offices which has been little more than a scheme to abandon the policy and treat each case separately.
- 7. The stated root causes are seldom validated. Within documentation packages on single escalated enforcement cases, the stated root causes
',..... .. ..u .,..,aret..of,ter),,corlf1.1,ctjpg a,od ,meanin.gle;s,. ,,,Tqo ,off.pn .:th.e. y;not, ca.us,t. ap. .,. ' ,.,.,.,
stated, .is no more etimes wonder just. , ' ' -
... ; .._. ...i. . e whatwe mean. .Lefs onsthan a cliche' learned . . Licensees in ' enforcement 'som,.
< cases;+1 finny',*1 ire'.seldomM N-generalized to the industry.
.fcr.c.',,--c.,'..w 9) N WRCWS%b1 Ryis EtatH1y'-thef' f ittiWaWd' AMbun~iihMMsithy'."@.9'I' abusive. Merely limiting the use of the tern to Severity'I' violations will'not eliminate the abuse. Civil penalties should seldom, if ever, be imposed for unintentional errors or omissions whether written or oral. -
Licensee self-identification has never been a problem. Essentially all 9.
serious violations are in fact identified, corrected, and reported by the licensees. Most 'escal!tted enforcement results from licensee identified and reported violations. Gre'atly in' creased reliance can and should be placed on licensee initiatives in this area, however, with assurances that NRC will not stifle enthusiasm by prompt escalation. of enforcement. The more violations that .are identified and corrected.
- / the safer the plant will be. '
. 10.' I do not know what system, if any, we are using. If we are using such f 'a system, then it has not worked and changes are certainly required.
4~ f i In summary,' in my opinion the enfcrcement policy has not, worked well. It is, in h fact, time for a complete change in policy. '
i k N7 % -
.: F. J. Long
.