ML20202A718
| ML20202A718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/01/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199M059 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-256-C, NUDOCS 9901280264 | |
| Download: ML20202A718 (4) | |
Text
-
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET t
TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-256 - PROPOSED REVISION TO THE ENFORCEMENT POLICY TO ADDRESS SEVERITY LEVEL IV VIOLATIONS AT POWER REACTORS Approved X Disapproved Abstain l
l Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
r URE
!/' IJ l/
SIGN $T,O ['I, l')N y
DAT$
l Entered on "AS" Yes No i
7'J2**8'es Eg;22 CORRESPONDENCE PDR 99wz9'62Sf
i Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-98-256 I would like to commend the staff for its significant and timely effort in preparing this important change to the NRC's Enforcement Policy.
I also praise the-staff for taking an important step toward risk-informing this policy. This change should significantly reduce unnecessary licensee and NRC burdens associated with the administration of non-risk significant Level IV violations. Therefore. I approve this change to the NRC's Enforcement Policy with the following comments and editorial changes.
Comments The Enforcement Policy currently defines Level IV violations as " violations of more than minor concern which, if left uncorrected, could lead to a more j
serious concern." This definition may not be entirely consistent with the many references in the proposed Appendix to Level IV violations as being "non-risk significant." For example, one might ask how can a violation be "of more l
than minor concern" if it is "non-risk significant"?
Such questions will need to be addressed as the agency continues to reshape its assessment and enforcement processes.
I agree with Chairman Jackson's comments - significant communication challenges are implicit in times of change, especially when long-standing core processes are involved.
I also join with the Chairman in endorsing the first three actions proposed by Commissioner Diaz. and I agree that the fourth item should be re-evaluated as part of the six month report.
For the moment. I remain of the view that there is substantial value in the documentation of Level IV violations even if they are closed within the same inspection report by noting that the licensee placed them in a corrective action program.
I am particularly troubled by the proposed third exception regarding repetitive violations identified by the NRC.
The staff notes that use of this exception ~may be reconsidered based on the outcome of the assessment process." At a minimum we should do that.
I go beyond Commissioner Diaz's comments on this exception to propose to delete the second element. namely i
cases where ~ corrective action for the previous violation wasn't taken in a time frame commensurate with its safety significance ~
If a violation is non-l risk significant. tren how does the staff determine the " time frame commensurate with its safety significance?"
Is it really a useful exercise to second-guess the pr,ority a licensee assigns to correction of a non-risk significant violation in its corrective action program?
I have strong doubts that it is.
I also propose to delete the word "normally" in the last sentence l
. of exception three.
If the violation is self-disclosing. NRC did not identify it.
Inclusion of the adverb ~normally" allows the staff to take credit for identifying a self-disclosing Level IV violation which they are particularly upset about and let others go to the licensee.
I again don't think that this discretion on identification credit for non-risk significant Level IV's is necessary or even useful.
I would encourage the Office of Enforcement to continue to provide oversight in enforcement panels involving use of the exceptions. particularly exception three, to issue Level IV violations.
I also join Commissioner Diaz in looking forward to the completion of the staff's ongoing work regarding the definition of " regulatory significance" and the further clarification of the threshold between ~ minor" and Level IV violations.
Editorial Chances to Federal Reaister Notice 1.
Add the following sentence to page 6. line 10. following the sentence ending ~
effectiveness of the corrective action program."
"If such inspections identify significant weaknesses in a licensee's corrective action program, broader and more in depth inspections will be carried
?ut until the corrective action program's effectiveness has been restored." This and a similar change on page 9 are an attempt to deal with the question of what the NRC will do if a corrective action program is judged to be ineffective, given our reliance on it under this policy change.
2.
Add the following sentences to the end of the full paragraph on page 7.
section 2.
"The NRC recognizes that there are violations that do not require substantial efforts to prevent recurrence.
In such cases. a corrective action process that includes: 1) restoring compliance. 2) evaluating the need for additional corrective actions to prevent recurrence, and 3) maintaining records that may be inspected at a later time. would be adequate to avoid an NOV." This comes from the discussion of UEI comments on page 7 of the SECY.
3.
On page 9. line 6 change " lower risk significant" to "non-risk significant" to be consistent with the terminology elsewhere in the notice.
l l,
l 4.
On page 9. add this sentence to the first full paragraph just before the last sentence. "As stated above. if such inspections identify significant weaknesses in a licensee's corrective action program.
l broader and more in depth inspections will be carried out until the corrective action program's effectiveness has been restored."
l O
J l
l i
I 1
1 i
>