ML20148H288

Provides Guidance for Considering How Risk Significance of Events Should Be Factored Into Staff Decisions on EAs

ML20148H288
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/06/1997
From:	Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
To:	Beach A, Miller H, Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
References
EGM-97-011, EGM-97-11, NUDOCS 9706090358
Download: ML20148H288 (5)

Text

. _ . _ _ . _. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

~

s %

} CJ

,g

[ g$

g j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k

g WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666 4 001 i l o,Q*es++ f -

June 6, 1997 EGM 97-011

MEMORANDUM T0: Hubert J. Miller, Regional Administrator i

Region I i

Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator  ;

Region II '

A. Bill Beach, Regional Administrator Region III 1

Ellis W. Merschoff, Regional Administrator Region IV Roy Zimmerman, Associate Director for

. Pro.jects, NRR )

Thomas T. Martin, Acting Associate Director for )

i Inspection and Technical Assessment, NRR Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS 4

Donald A. Cool, Director, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS

• John T. Greeves, Director, Division of Waste Management, NMSS l' FROM: James Lieberman, Director ' b i

{ Office of Enforcement j I

SUBJECT:

ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM - CONSIDERATION OF RISK IN 4

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS This Enforcement Guidance Memorandum (EGM) is being issued to provide guidance for considering how the risk significan staffdecisionsonenforcementactions.geofeventsshouldbefactoredinto This EGM reflects the December 4, 1996 revision to the Enforcemint Policy published on December 10, 1996 at 61 FR 65088.

Section IV of the Enforcement Policy provides that the first step in the enforcement process is determining the technical and regulatory significance of a violation. Risk is an appropriate consideration in evaluating the technical significance of a violation, i.e., the potential and actual i consequences. Section VII.A.1(e) of the Enforcement Policy also provides that  ;

exercise of discretion should be considered in situations where the violation {

has resulted in a substantial increase in risk, including cases in which the '

duration of the violation has contributed to the substantial increase. Risk is therefore a relevant consideration in enforcement decisions concerning This gui6ance s written to focus primarily on reactor licensees.

However, it is equally applicable tc NMSS licensees where warranted, e.g.,

Fuel Cycle Facilities.

nonn4n g gi.g.*g g Hi p+ o 9706090358 970606 PDR I&E

~

.. 7 yRD. g s

MISC PDR a

s l

k t

severity levels, appropriateness of sanctions, and the exercising of -

enforcemeht discretion. .

The uncertainties associated with risk assessment are recognized as PRA models utilized by the staff and licensees vary in quality, creating the potential for differing views on the risk significance of events. In addition, some PRA limitations do exist, particularly in the area of human reliability analysis.

In utilizing the results of PRA, the staff should not generally base an {

enforcement decision wholly on quantitative risk numbers; rather, risk {

significance should be an input in the consideration of the final enforcement i action.

In determining the appropriate enforcement action, the staff should continue to balance risk information against the guidance currently provided in the {

Enforcement Policy and the Enforcement Policy Supplements. The staff should routinely conside escalated action.p the risk implication Depending of each reactor on the circumstances of case considered the case, this for k l

assessment may be qualitative, relying primarily on engineering judgment based on qualitative rQ insights; or quantitative risk analysis, or some combination of th two. However, if the staff is to use specific, .

quantitative PRA results or qualitative risk. insights to support an l

enforcement decision, it should be reviewed by an NRC PRA specialist prior to {

issuance of the action, generally the Senior Reactor Analysts (SRAs). The t Regional SRA is the preferred point for this review, due to the plant specific l design and operational information available to the regional staff. In addition, any quantitative PRA results provided as a basis for an enforcement action should explicitly reference the source (e.g., IPE, specific analysis) so that all assumptions, conditions, and methods are retrievable for subsequent review, if needed. The basis for qualitative assessment should be i

briefly described. j Judgment must be exercised in the use of risk significance as a factor in )

decisions regarding the appropriateness of the sanction. There may be cases i where, due to increased risk signifjcance, it is appropriate to bath escalate l the severity level Andn the sanction in order to convey the correct l regulatory message to the licensee and the use of enforcement discretion may be warranted to reach the proper enforcement action. Based on risk l

2 i Some reactor cases involve issues or events that do not lend themselves  !

to PRA insights. For example security, health physics, and emergency l preparedness issues are typically not amenable to current methods of risk assessment. In these cases, risk insights from a PRA perspective will not be needed.

3 The Supplementary Information section to the December 1996 policy change stated that "[I]n developing higher civil penalties, the Commission intends to consider, where appropriate, assessing civil penalties for each violation that is aggregated into a Severity Level II problem.

k i

i

4

, f a

S4 ,

information it may be warranted to treat violations normally considered a l l Severity Level IV violation at a higher severity level.

4 While a higher severity level and sanction is warrranted for violations that {

have greater risk significance; lower risk does not mean that severity levels should be reduced from that provided in the Supplements. Low risk does not excuse noncompliance. If a licensee believes an issue is of low risk and not worthy of being a requirement, the licensee may seek a change to the requirement. However, until the requirement is changed, compliance is

required. ,

At each weekly enforcement panel meeting, OE will ask whether the violation involves a risk significant issue.' The region is expected to have a position on risk significance or be able to describe what steps shoulp be taken to obtain a view on risk if the matter may be risk significant. While i' risk is to be considered for all cases, each enforcement case that is considered a "significant event" at the weekly event assessment meeting i chaired by the Events Assessment and Generic Communication Branch of NRR, should be specifically evaluated for the risk impact on the enforcement decision. To the extent known, the licensee's position on risk for the i violations at issue should be discussed. While regional input is normally the first step in the considerations, this should not be considered only a

' l regional responsibility. NRR should also be prepared to provide a view of i risk.

l 1 Following the decision at the Enforcement Panel to pursue escalated

enforcement on a particular issue where risk may be relevant to the

{ enforcement decision, an assignment will be made to obtain additional risk 3

information as necessary. A repanel will be held as warranted.

l Assuming the event is of sufficiently increased risk significance to warrant escalated action, the issue of risk significance should normally be addressed in the correspondence with the licensee that arranges a pre-decisional enforcement conference or in the choice letter, i.e., we should note that the

' There is not a specific CDF number that is considered the threshold for i- risk significance. This is a judgment call that should consider not only the CDF associated with the violation but the percentage of overall CDF the

violation contributes at the facility, i 5 After completion of training, and when made available on a full-time basis, the region should, to the extent practical, use the Senior Reactor Analysts to assist them. These individuals should be consulted for risk

, significance insights prior ,t_q each respective Regional Enforcement Panel, in order for the panel to have some assessment of the risk significance of the

events discussed. To the extent these individuals are not available, risk i insights should be gathered from the Events Assessment and Generic Communications Branch in the weekly meeting, IPE's, and core PRA knowledge.

Assistance from AE0D and Research should be sought as needed. OE is available l to assist the Region in obtaining Headquarters assistance in this effort.

4

!,o I t

j-V _4 apparent violations appear to be risk significant and that if the licensee _ j 4

differs in that. view, the licensee should provide a brief explanation of its  !

position. . Conferences should normally be held for risk significant cases.  !

\

cc: L. J. Callan, EDO I E. L. Jordan, DEDE H. L. Thompson, DEDR l J. Goldberg, OGC F. Gillespie, NRR 4

6 l

1

_ _ , _ , _ _ , _ - _ _ _ - c -- - - -

- i

- . 4

,

.k l

.t -

i <

DISTRIBUTION: I

JLieberman,.OE

j. OE Staff:

J' Enforcement Coordinators- -

i RI, RII, RIII, RIV-

)

i' EGM file '

Day File l

'PDR I i- NUDOCS'-

1-i.

i i

1 4

1 a

1 a

v.

I 1

1 1,

3 Y

T t

P i

i i

h

DE />b, OD B-

MSatorius dLjeberman 6/6/97. '6/[/97.

,f - ' Doc Name: -' G:\EGMRISK4.JL f

f.

i

'7

+

t-= r- w w g .r - -- yq~-- 1 +i-- t-e .

m-- -. y 4 ------ v