ML20195H333
| ML20195H333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/16/1999 |
| From: | Merrifield J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195H255 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-99-087-C, SECY-99-87-C, NUDOCS 9906160330 | |
| Download: ML20195H333 (3) | |
Text
~
NOTATION VOTE
{
RESPONSE SHEET l
TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD i
i
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-087 - PROPOSED STRATEGY TO REVISE THE l
ENFORCEMENT POLICY TO ADDRESS THE PROCESS FOR ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE AND ASSIGNING SEVERITY LEVELS OF NONCOMPLIANCES (INCLUDING l
REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE AND RISK)
ApprovedX in part Disapproved x in part Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
~ ~ ' ~
SIG/4MdRE
~
April 16, 1999 DATE Entered on "AS" Yes x
No 28'2e8sn Tae" CORRESPOtMNCE POR,
t._
r
' COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD'S COMMENTS ON SECY-99-087 I approve in part, and disapprove in part, the recommendations presented in SECY-99-087.
I support Recommendation 1, The Policy should be amended to specifically state that risk considerations can be used to increase or decrease the severity level of a violation described in an example in the Supplements to the Policy; LI support Recommendation 2. -The term " regulatory significance" should be deleted from the Policy. I agree with many of our stakeholders that believe
- regulatory significance" is subjective in nature and lacks a clear nexus to safety. Consistent with my previous votes on other matters, I am also opposed to terms that lack sufficient definition. Therefore, I applaud the staff for their recommendation on this matter.
I support Recommendation 3 with the following exception. in its discussion of Potential Safety Consequences, the staff proposes continuing to consider those cases where the cumulative effect of a number of less significant related or recurring violations appear to present a greater risk than the individual violations treated separately. As I will discuss in my comments on
. Recommendation 4, I am opposed to the concept of aggregating less significant violations.
Furthermore, the staff should ensure the process for assessing " potential" safety consequences is disciplined so that only credible scenarios with potential consequences are considered.
I support Recommendation 4 with the following exceptions:
i in my opinion, aggregation of less significant violations in the enforcement arena leads to subjective and inconsistant regulation. If the staff has concerns about a licensee's performance as a result of a large number of less significant violations, the current assessment process provides the regulatory tools necessary to address these performance concerns. Therefore, I disapprove amending Section IV.A. (Aggregation of Violations) of the Policy. Rather, the references to l
aggregation in the Enforcement Policy should be deleted.
I note that violations can still be escalated in cases of careless disregard. My vote today in no way should be read to eliminate this aspect of the Enforcement i.
l Policy.
I agree with Commissioner Diaz that it is unclear what the staff is recommending regarding repetitive violations, However, I do not agree with concept of
' escalating the severity level of repetitive violations as a means to " acknowledge the added significance of the situation based on the licensee's failure to impbment effective corrective action from the previous violation." Again, my concern is that such a practice leads to subjectiva and inconsistent regulation.
As l' stated with regard to aggregation, if the staff has concerns aoout a licensee's performance as a result of repetitive violations, the current assessment process provides the regulatory tools necessary to address those performance concerns.
t1
0e*
Consistent with my above comments, I support Recommendation 5. Changes should be made to the Commission's Statement on Safety and Compliance to delete references to." regulatory i
. significance",
11 disapprove Recommendation 6. Consistent with my comments on Recommendation 4, I disapprove revising Example C.7 'of the Policy's Supplement I and similar examples in the other Supplements to focus on the potential consequences associated with related or recurring..
. violations. Again, references to aggregation should be deleted.
I Finally, I approve Recommendation 7. The staff should forgo risk-informing the reactor.
j Supplemente to the Policy in view of the proposals to risk-inform the enforcement process as part of the integrated reactor oversight effort.
Y l
O I
l' I
i I
b.m.
g o'
- puery*
UNITED STATES
['
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
E WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 June 15, 1999 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary g -g
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-99-087 - PROPOSED STRATEGY TO REVISE THE ENFORCEMENT POLICY TO ADDRESS THE PROCESS FOR ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE AND ASSIGNING SEVERITY LEVELS OF NONCOMPLIANCES (INCLUDING REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE AND RISK)
The Commission has approved Recommendation 1 that the Enforcement Policy be modified to state that risk considerations can be used to raise or lower the severity of the examples provided in the Supplements to the Policy.
h[
The Commission has approved Recommendation 2 to delete the term " regulatory significance" from the Policy.
The Cenmission has approved Recommendation 3, with the exception noted btlow, to base the b /
significance of a particular violation on a) actual safety consequences; b) potential safety consequences, including the consideration of risk information; c) potential for impacting the ability of the NRC to perform its regulatory function; and d) any willful aspects of the violation.
The Commission has disapproved the concept of aggregating less significant violations into one of higher significance and the use of repetitive violations to increase the severity of a given violation.
With respect to Recommendation 3, the staff should ensure the process for assessing " potential" safety consequences is disciplined so that only credible scenarios with potential consequences are considered. The staff should develop cnteria for assessing the credibility of postulated scenarios for management's use in monitoring the implementation of the revised enforcement policy for agency-wide consistency.
l The Comr.lission has approved Recommendation 4 that Section IV of the Policy be amended to address the subjects covered by significance as described in item 3, except for the aggregation of less significant violations into one of higher significance and the use of repetitive violations to increase the severity of a given violation. If the staff has concerns about a licensee's performance as a result of a large number of less significart violations, or repetitive violations based on ineffective corrective actions, the current and future assessment process provides the regulatory tools necessary to address these performance concerns. The staff should keep in h
bY
r l
e mind that, should it find an extraordinary situationiff which a pattern of violations constitutes, in aggregate, a significant risk to public health and safety, it should approach the Commission with a recommendation for an equally extraordinary regulatory response.
With respect to Recommendation 4, if staff is concerned with material licensees receiving less frequent inspections than reactor facilities, then it may be appropriate for staff to increase inspection activities of thosp specific licensees of concern in order to determine the adequacy of their actions, rather then malntaining an infrequent inspection schedule and using aggregation or repetition to artificial!y raise the level of concern.
The Commission has aoproved Recommendation 5, consistent with the above comments on Recommendation 4, to change the Commission's Statement on Safety and Compliance in Appendix A of the Policy and in the inspection Manual to delete references to regulatory significance.
' The Commission has disapproved Recommodation 6 to change example C.7 of the Policy's Supplement I, Reactor Operations, and similar examp!cc in the other supplements, to increase their emphasis on potential safety consequences. References to aggregation in the Enforcement Policy, including its Supplements, should be deleted.
The Commission has approved Recommendation 7 to forgo risk-informing the reactor Supplements to the Policy in view of the proposals to risk-inform the enforcement process as part of the integrated reactor oversight effort.
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus l
Commissioner Diaz l
Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC CIO CFO
-OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions,' ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) j PDR j
DCS i
l 2
E j