ML20128E753
| ML20128E753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/04/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-025, SECY-93-25, NUDOCS 9302110058 | |
| Download: ML20128E753 (4) | |
Text
,.......................
RELEASED TO THE PDR p.
3//7/95 A.,
l f""%,s
~~
cw irMs POLICY ISSUE February 4, 1993 SECY-93-025 (Informat,on) i j
f,gE :
The Commissioners from:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations g
,Subiect :
DELEGATIO!1 OF AUTHORITY TO REGIO!1AL ADMI!11STRATORS
Purpose:
To provide a report to the Commission concerning the delegation of authority to the Regional Administrators to issue routine Severity Level III Notices of Violation (NOV), with or without civil penalties.
Ba ckciround:
On December 4, 1991, the staff issued a report to the Commission (SECY 91-353) regarding the efficiency of the delegation of authority to Regional Administrators for the issuance of j
routine NOVs in the nuclear materials enforcement program.
This report was requested by a Staff Requirements Memorandum ( Smi), COMJC-90-07, dated December 19, 1990, which temporarily approved a one-year trial period for the delegated authority.
On December 27, 1991, the Commission approved the continued use of the delegated authority and requested a similar report after the staff had gained another year of experience in the use of the delegated authority.
Discussion:
As previously described in SECY-91-393, the staff has established a process to ensure reasonable consistency among the five Regions in implementing the delegation of authority.
When possible, OE participates in the Regions' pre-enforcement conference, the enforcement conference, and the NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE yk)
IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE j
DATE OF THIS PAPER O
Contact:
J. Lieberman, OE 504-2741 1
190000
I
?-
The Commissioners post-enforcement conference discussions, to ensure that the proposed escalated enforcement action is consistent with the NRC Enforcement Policy and those actions previously issued for similar violations.
Normally this participation is by phone.
Neither OE nor NMSS reviews Regional enforcemenc actions prior to their issuance.
After an enforcement action is issued by a Region, the OE staff reviews the action to enuure that the severity level of the violation is appropriate, that the escalation and mitigation factors were adequately supported, and that the standard escalated enforcement formats were used.
In the last year (January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992) 37 escalated enforcement cases have been issued under the delegation involving 24 civil penalty cases and 13 Severity Level III NOVs without civil penalties (list enclosed).
Twelve other Severity Level III cases were within the scope of the delegation, but were not issued under the delegation.
Of those 12 cases, ten were submitted to OE because they either involved complex or unique issues or involved willful violations.
Only two cases were submitted to OE due to a disagreement on the appropriateness of the action contemplated by the Region.
Although there were initial disagreements on several other cases, final agreement was reached on the proposed action and these cases were issued under the delegated authority after further discussions.
Based on this experience, the staff's position is that the current use of delegation has not adversely affected the consistency, uniformity, or quality of escalated enforcement actions issued under the delegation.
There has been good communication between OE and the regions.
The staff has maintained the improvement in the timeliness of the delegated cases.
The 1992 timeliness for escalated cases issued under the delegation is an average af 37 days for 37 cases (38 days for 25 cases in 1991) compared to 48 days for 55 cases for routine non-delegated cases (56 days for 42 cases in 1991) and 90 days for 98 cases for all non-delegated cases including those involving OI issues (142 days for 81 cases in 1991).
Although there have been a few cases where the clarity of citations could have been improved or the civil penalty may have been different if the action had been formally submitted for OE
L l'
The Commissioners
-3 review and concurrence, overall the benefit of the delegated authority clearly outweighs these minor differences.
In light of this experience, the Office of Enforcement intends to further reduce its involvement in the more routine cases prior to their issuance.
With respect to resources saved for use in inspections as a result of the delegation, while some resources may be saved, these are not appreciable.
There is also some savings in headquarters reneurces due to the lack of HMSS and OGC involvement in most delegated cases and the limited OE involvement.
However, the staff is not able to quantify the savings of these resources.
While appreciable recource savings have not resulted from the delegation, there clearly is an improvement, as described above, in the timeliness for the issuance of delegated cases in comparison to non-delegated cases.
Lastly, with respect to Item 5 of the SRM, the staff does not have a recommendation concerning a request for any additional resources necessary to provide inspection coverage in the materials area at this time.
This issue will be separately addressed as part of ongoing evaluations of the effectiveness of the materials program.
J'
///
f ales M.
'aylor E ecutive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
1.
List of Escalated Cases DISTRIDUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA OPP REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ASLBP SECY l
t
t
/
LIST OF DELEGATED ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT CASES o
91-146 Ketchikan General Hospital (RV)
CP $ 1,000 91-192 Lone Pine Coal Company (RII)
CP $ 2,375 92-004 Thomas Jefferson University (RI)
CP $ 8,750 92-012 Alonso & Carus Iron Works, Inc. (RII)
CP $ 2,500 92-022 Raritan Bay Medical Center (RI)
SL III NOV 92-026 Shared Medical Technology (RIII)
CP $ 2,500 92-027 District of Columbia (RI)
CP $ 6,550 92-031 Century Inspection, Inc. (RIV)
SL III NOV 92-032 Hoochst Celanese Corporation (RII)
CP-$
250 92-038 Hospital De Damas (RII)
CP $ 3,750 z
92-042 Oakland University (RIII)
CP $ 5,000 92-051 ATEC Assoc., Inc. (RIII)
CP $ 2,375 92-052 Yale-New Haven Hospital (RI)
=
92-064
_ Taylor Hospital (RI)
CP $ 1,250-92-068 Globe X-Ray Serv., Inc. (RIV)
CP $ 2,500 92-069 Harper Hospital (RIII)
SL III NOV 92-070 Bothwell Regional Health Conter (RIII)
SL III NOV 92-080 Sibley Memorial Hospital (RI)
CP $ 2,500 92-082 Ashford Presbyterian Comm. Hospital (RII)
CP $ 3,750 92-099 Cardi Corporation (RI)
CP $ 1,250 92-121 Frances Mahon Deaconess (RIV)
CP $ 5,625 92-125 Western Stress, Inc. (RII)
CP $ 7,500 s92-141 Grinnell Corp. (RI)
CP $25,000 92-144 Howard Noodles Tammen & Bergendoff (RIII)
CP $
875 92-147 W.
H. Brady Co. (RIII)
SL III NOV 92-154 Consolidated Engineering (RV)
CP $ 5,000 92-162 Army, Department of the (RIII)
CP $15,000 92-173 Ciba-Geigy Corp. (RI)
SL III NOV 92-176 G. Heileman Brewing (RIII)
SL III NOV 92-180 Navy, Department of the (RII)
SL III NOV 92-186 Triad Engineering Consultants, Inc. (RII)
CP $
375 92-188 Diamond Engineering & Testing, Inc. (RII).
SL III NOV 92-189 Connecticut Health Center _(RI)
SL III NOV 92-199 Geotechnology, Inc. (RIII)
SL III NOV 92-202 Kaiser Aluminum (RIII)
CP $
625 92-203 Capital Materials Testing (RI)
CP $ 7,500 92-242 Department of the Army
-SL III Nov _..