ML20196L115
| ML20196L115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1999 |
| From: | Merrifield J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196L093 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-146-C, NUDOCS 9907120301 | |
| Download: ML20196L115 (4) | |
Text
.
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-146-INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR USE DURING THE NRC POWER REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS PILOT PLANT STUDY Approved.., u,u/bisapproved a e,.s 4bstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
k a +1. e 4 c) co n ~,s,
YW/
S p f(E
/"
3 t/lA c DATE
/
Entered on "AS" Yes No 3?A " !8 4 7J8C
- CORRESPONDENCE PDR 9'90 ?/Z P30 /
F1.
' COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD^S COMMENTS ON SECY 99-146 I approve l'n part, and disapprove in part, publication of the Federal Register Notice announcing the interim changes to the Enforcement Policy which will be in effect during the pilot study of.
the new NRC reactor oversight process.
When I approved SECY-99-007A, it was my understanding that violations evaluated by the Significance Determination Process (where the Agency Action Matrix will determine appropriate action) would be categorized as either " Violations of Low Significance" or "Significant
' Violations". While the staff discussed "particularly significant violations" in that SECY, it did not characterize such violations in the context of a separate category. Instead, I understood the staff to be saying that some violations within the "Significant Violations" category may be significant enough to warrant civil penalties. I believe that having a separate category of "Particularly Significant Violations" is unnecessary and confusing, and adds complexity to a process to which we are,trying to bring greater clarity. Therefore, I believe Section I.C (Particularly Significe' /iolations) should be deleted from the Federal Register Notice. The language that reserves the use of discretion to assess civil penalties for particularly significant violations can be retained in Section I.B.
As i expressed in my vote on SECY-99-007A, for those particularly significant violations where it is appropriate to have a civil penalty, the staff should ensure that clear guidance is developed which provides discipline to the process associated with determining the amount of the civil penalty.
The Federal Register Notice and the revised Enforcement Policy identify the group of violations to which the current Enforcement Policy, including use of severity levels and civil penalties, will continue to be applied. This group includes violations which involve actual consequences. The revised Enforcement Policy lists several examples, including (1) an overexposure to the public or plant personnel, (2) failure to make required notifications that impact the ability of federal, state and local agencies to respond to an actual emergency preparedness or transportation event, or (3) a substantial release of radioactive material. These examples represent a high threshold for violations considered to involve actual consequences. As the staff assesses future violations to determine whether they meet the " actual consequences" standard, they should ensure that a similarly high threshold is implemented, consistent with the examples provided.' The staff should also reassess the suitability of the language in example #3. The term " substantial" brings with it a degree of subjectivity not present in the other examples and could be misinterpreted by agency stakeholders.
Overall, while I believe that SECY-99-146 is substantially consistent with what the staff already presented in Attachment 4 of SECY-99-007A, it struck me when I reviewed SECY-99-146 that the revised enforcement policy is likely going to be confusing to many of our stakeholders and has a degree of complexity that may not be necessary. Specifically, the revised policy characterizes violations as "violati6ns of low significance", "significant violations", "particularly significant violations", "norFcited violations", and " severity level I, ll,111, and IV violations". Even if the Commission votes to eliminate the "particularly significant violations" category as part of the process on SECY-99-146, I believe additional improvements, which bring greater clarity and simplicity to the policy for the benefit of both our staff and our stakeholders, are warranted.
Given that the pilot plant study of our new reactor oversight process is already underway, I believe these additional improvements should be addressed as part of a longer-term initiative.
Specifically, the staff should integrate clarifying and simplifying changes to the Enforcement Policy with any changes resulting from lessons learned during the pilot plant study process.
Finally, I support the editorial changes proposed by Commissioner Diaz and attach one additional editorial change.
)
k Commissioner Merrifield's Editorial Change to SECY-99-146 discuss performance,10CFR50.54(f) letters, Demands for information, Confirmatory Action Letters, and Orders as agency responses.
They evaluate individual compliance findings for significance under each process.
Both processes provide incentives to improve performance, compliance and deterrence since licensee's normally strive to avoid regulatory actions and enforcement sanctions.
r-,,
Both approaches give the public the Commission's views on the status'of licensee's i
performance and cornpliance.
hc.nmne 5 6 c ks 4o ch s, m f,%.
Given the sirhil&rities in the purpose of the two programs, the*goal wameNocontinue a-having two separate and independent processes. The interim Enforcement Po! icy will complement the assessment program by focusing on individual violations. The Agency Action Matrix' will dictate the Commission's response to declining performance whether caused by violations or other concerns. The result will be a unified agency approach for determining and responding to performance issues of a licensee that (a) maintains a focus on safety and compliance, (b) is more consistent with predictable results, (c) is more effective and efficient, (d) is easily understandable, and (e) decreases unnecessary regulatory burden. In most cases, this approach should provide similar deterrence to that provided by issuing civil penalties.
Having a more consistent approach should also promote public confidence in the regulatory process.
'The Agency Action Matrix as described in SECY-99-007, " Recommendations for Reactor Oversight Process improvements," provides guidance for consistent agency action in response to licensee performance. These actions are graded across the range of licensee performance and are triggered by threshold assessments of the performance indicators and inspection findings.
j
i j#""*$4g%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
].
j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 i
/
i July 8,1999 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
William D. Travers 7
Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-99-146 -lNTERIM ENFORCEMENT POlJCY FOR USE DURING THE NRC POWER REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS PILOT PLANT STUDY The Commission has approved publication of the proposed changes to NUREG-1600, Rev 1,
" General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions"in the Federal f
Rerister subject to incorporation of the comments and changes provided in the attachment.
]
These changes are interim changes to be used during the pilot plant study of the new power i
reactor oversight process.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
7/30/99)
Attachment:
,hanges and Comments on Proposed Changes to Enforcement Policy cc:
Chairman Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC CIO CFO OCA OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) i POR DCS 1
l l
i t
CyC)40 C23 $
.2[
F
~
Attachment Changes and Comments on Proposed Changes to Enforcement Policy 1.
The Commission has disapproved the use of a separate category for "Particularly Significant Violations."Section I.C of the FRN should be deleted. (Pages 7 and 11) 2.
On page 3,1" full paragraph, revise the sentence in lines 7 through 9 to read 'However,
~
on opportunity ic bcticr inicgicic the enforccmcat pc!!cy cad th; :ccici cycrcight piccccc cit: duc togibiiDierof the new oversight process, a greater agency focus on risk and performance, and the overall improved industry performaneggagppo@nity DogeRistsito etterintegratelthe'ehforcement)olicy.'and_the^reactorloyeIsightprocess.
J 3.
On page 4,1" full paragraph (after the bullets), revise line 1 to read *... the two programs, the gcci wcc not to continuc;Conynisslogseeksjo; disc' ontir10e having two....'
4.
On page 5, delete the 1" sentence (To ensure a... Involving violations.)
5.
On page 5, in line 3 from the top, replace '(SPD)' with '(SDP).'
6.
On page 7, line 2, add the following to the end of the paragraph: 'The Commission reserves the use of discretion for particularly significant violations (e.g., an accidental criticality) to assess civil penalties in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.'
7.
On page 8,2nd full paragraph, delete the 1" two sentences.
8.
On page 11, paragraph B., add the following to the end of the paragraph: 'The Commission reserves the use of discretion for particularly significant violations (e.g., an accidental criticality) to assess civil penalties in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.'
9.
The staff should continue to seek improvements which integrate clarifying and simplifying changes to the Enforcement Policy with any changes resulting from lessons teamed during the pilot plant study process.
e L
f...
]
/*# "*%
UNITED STATES.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
E g
WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 i
- s, f.
,i'
(
OFF4CE OF THE SECRETARY July 9, 1999 I
l NOTE TO:
i kN l
FROM:
Darlene Wright
SUBJECT:
SRM & VOTING RECORD FOR SECY-99-146 l
l Please replace your previous copies with the ones attached.
'I Thanks.
l 1
l.
Attachments j
i t
\\
i i
l
\\
)
1 i
I I
L.