ML20203H937
| ML20203H937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/1999 |
| From: | Calhoun D NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9902230158 | |
| Download: ML20203H937 (8) | |
Text
,
s.
/m 7D rt -
p UNITED STATES j
s
].
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. seess 4001
.i February 19,'1999 MEMORANDUM TO:
James Lieberman, Director i
Office of Enforcement Offi of Nnfo ce
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF FEBRUARY 9,1999 MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) AND THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS (UCS) REGARDING APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE IN THE ENFORCEMENT POLICY On February 9,1999, representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), met with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and other NRC staff members to further discuss the use of the concept of regulatory significance in the NRC's Enforcement Policy.
This meeting was a continuation of previous meetings between the NRC, NEl and UCS regarding NRC Enforcement Policy changes from both regulatory and risk significance perspectives. The Director, Office of Enforcement, began the meeting by specifying that three types of cases (impact on NRC's ability to carry out its mission, integrity, and aggregation) were being considered in determining when to apply regulatory significance to the enforcement process. The Director, Office of Enforcement determined that the meeting would focus on the aggregation case, and proceeded to discuss two particular escalated enforcement actions from 1998 for which regulatory significance had been applied. These specific escalated enforcement actions along with all escalated enforcement actions issued in fiscal year 1998 had been previously provided to NEl and UCS for their review in determining the appropriateness of NRC's use of the concept of regulatory significance in those cases.
The two specific cases discussed involved the inappropriate actions by a licensed operator which rendered the containment spray system inoperable and inadequate corrective actions to prevent unplanned radiological exposures to plant personnel. The Director, Office of j
Enforcement, communicated that regulatory significance was appropriate in both cases for the following reasons, in the first case, the operator's unauthorized valve manipulations and the failure of the remaining crews to identify the condition indicated broad deficiencies and subsequent crew's performance was very poor. In the second case, the occurrence of three
. substantive exposure incidents, within a relatively short time period, was indicative of a lack of effectiveness in the licensee's corrective actions for previous events.
NEl disagreed with applying regulatory significance to either case based on its position that the significance of all issues should be based on the actual and realistic potential consequences of the as-found conditions. The remaining concems for which the NRC applied regulatory
. significance were performance issues which would be better addressed through an assessment process. The UCS offered that it did not believe the NRC followed its enforcement policy in the 230042 t
j l
/
9902230158 990219
{/l PDR REVOP ERONUMRC f
g y 8 d,I PDR y OM&Q
_ ~
2 l
first case and stated that in the second case civil penalties obviously had not been effective and an alternate regulatory approach may have been more appropriate.
l After thorough discussions between all parties, it was clear that neither NEl nor UCS' supported the concept of regulatory significance for aggregation but that they did support its use for integrity issues and for concerns which impeded the regulatory process. All parties recognized the need to make the enforcement and assessment processes more complimentary to eliminate or minimize inconsistencies between the two processes.
As in previous meetings, the concept of making enforcement decisions which are more risk informed was discussed at some length. A milestone that needs to be achieved in accomplishing this objective is how to categorize the risk significance of structures, systems, and components at facilities of diverse desigris in an acceptable manner. Categorization based on existing maintenance rule standards and other classification schernes was discussed.
Additionally, the current efforts to align the enforcement and assessment processes, as well as a concept that civil penalties should be reserved for those cases that were not covered by the assessment process, were discussed. Both NEl and UCS thought that such alignment was desirable and that this approach to the implementation of civil penalties might be acceptable.
Attachments: As stated
- cc:
M. Knapp, DEDE Ellen Ginsberg, NEl David Lochbaum, UCS Public Document Room i
i a
-y-e.-.-ea
-,.4 e
e m
-r-ry-g v-u-
-vw-y
~
PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE i
AND RISK IN THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS February 9,1999 f
i l
Agenda j
i INTRODUCTIONS i
Regulatory Significance l
t t
- discussion of FY98 cases i
l Stakeholder comments on Regulatory Significance f
Discussion of using risk information in enforcement decisions Approaches for changes to the Enforcement Policy j
N G
I II n
I j
?
REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE EGM 98-009 3 TYPES OF CASES i
Impact on NRC's ability to carry out its mission i
completeness and accuracy 30.9,50.9
[
changes, tests, experiments 50.59,76.68
[
reporting 50.72,50.73,30,50 i
Integrity deliberate misconduct 50.5,30.10 discrimination 50.7,30.7 completeness and accuracy 30.9,50.9 i
Aggregation grouped due to common root cause problem must have safety, safeguards or environmental significance f
(grouping without significance does not warrant SLill) r DEDE and OE will review all future regulatory significance cases that result in SLill violation l
b
,,, ~. -.
- it ilt lik !(
lliril j'
l r!I!{llj!
t w
es e
n d
n e
n l
r u
n c
i o
i o
i n
l tc w
a m
o a
r t
i i
e s
e o
p r
r s
t f
e e
r i
w s
c c
s c
e e
o s
x 7
n u
r g
o e
0 s
p n
r r
n s
c e
0 o
i s
ts o
h i
i t
9 d
g h
t i
9 e
n t
x o
(
e e
n i
s y
d w
se a
Y-a lr n
b e
a o
n s
C e
a l
s d
b l
l eV n
o c
d E
v S
eO u
e f
i e
l s
d s
a t
n N
r n
l l
y o
o u
e e
E ot r e
s r
iio s
p o
c u
t C
t r e
s w
n a
e ies d
s e
N n vV u
r d
a c
b e
c A
o sC a
r n
e d
if N
c N
c o
a u
l i
e t
b n
s u
C O
dss o
t a
g s
o e
I I
l F
T n aa o
u s
s f
c i
i A
ue or s r
g n
y s
i IN G
f cn s
e o
r e
on l
r
- no s
p o
v G
E si 1
i e
n s
t i
r ni) e a
e t
R a
t a
oa I
l d
osyr u
y o
S G
nt l
l l
G odico yd ec g
t i
i Y
A de via peieey e
r vV t
i l
so s c r
ed VO l
R F
e sVoo Onpnh vnI s uI pt f
N f e o
o e al O
O aelen d
o cwecp sbeg T
T bbvo e t
sliei v
r p
e eein eis nl o e
s N
t t r l
t u A
E ve oLa n
nt sLr efionic c
a n i
s yu n
L M
e yo s mdn ga l
n er ot ne o
c pi q l
t i U
T dive eeoir c
r e A
yl r sit nser c
ueVo e
t aV e
ievy l
G E
r t
i ovI uprI v
o e c r
r E
R ewel p eoel r
3 t rSi R
T v
Se t
b pe e
o l
en vt s
dov s
et o
l R
so ne n r
r t
aap idi e
e al u ole hsL r
f l O
ht i
gud r
ym s out e P
i e gi o F
s at t s a
e ey i
igsis wc si e vt t
r r
3 gric S
1 lbeor 2
e r
a n e g
da N
n ag pee t
s vs n
mVl e v n
Atone O
o s gi e s o
aOpc o
I r
SNeie I
i i
EADSA i
T t
rLS t
t P
p p
p A
8 O
O O
O 3
3 3
i
n-
,.a February 9,1999 Name Organization Address Phone number ll"ry re u.-
Ntc /of /xiti Mic> ) s.tr> g n y f
t/QEL DaCLEY Acts
'tts-S tii8 k r M'reik.
oe 4t(9h Si4 'i,teuse-- exc w re at)/5?t' Mek'ndeThr,,a3 HRC. fDRS,fR1[
?N0kDNQ-4478 e
COkhul Rup.
11 Rc / o ru I T4TE-(StN 8(.o-BM7_
hue AleIn
&ll C /o G~
3 of 4e5-52-t'O l'./keDM A/ftL/2M3f Sat- #f--/03;L 04.8/}W$cTEE' MAC / Olff 301-ilf.D77 T]E.\\5 hfRc /OE.
%I ~ 41$*. 3MJ
%/q GoIJbmj N/2 c / 06-t-Sc'r -2// r-I gn np rNa n na b/wu dy c loe o,c,a gic_v g(
g s
l%gm (J a me on.n M?o /br cP
?v h Hiw-!!aLL
~~TI~ Rc 14Cc/ nisP sol 'los -in]
$/bw )'/A0IsoN
.Niec /0/5P (3n)WS'-M98 Diu we,e a u,e.~
se tsu wis-scse b e b $ O%os o /
AllC.lAff).
$D/ Wl5IE=Yl T. LkLe~
c e.
soi vi:r 2.7f(
3.dorbrdd CE 2 0 /. *// 4~~ >.7f /
g.co,kso-su/~erleas pw nsee Aoa L w a y,, ur, u m...., /vo reo v'y e g -F i r 9
- tAvtb 'Ps t*
L Ak9v.%/4 zo?.J su - 57 h h^-
M16YM h$[
2 739 flYO i
s%Ai 11swo sim umsuo WA)\\ NC&tl.
$.0 Y Pf0h O LKY~
l Yl4-4% 9
%&%k
& hute so:- Atsm4z i
L
I o
i f
l l
February 9,1999 l
l l
)
Name Organization Address Phone number Italt P SN'** Nw 3'8'h1 20L 322. c q pe Dav.o n.Leth b aven Oma.rcam,mj Q,g;g, v>A8baarea DC 7005(o i
OwwoJVuutus Tl/b9 4*'"[X=fu%"
(423)&sz-71, bil/W h4d6 WsV2*z55 u 2-w 7 M s-~ 4-s aus - zs 22MP ni-osr-am y
j 1
\\
i 1
1 l
l l
1 i
l l
l l
4
n 3
DISTRIBUTION:
J. Lieberman, OE R.W. Borchardt, OE M. Satorius, OE T. Reis, OE R. Pedersen, OE D. Nelson, OE B. Westreich, OE D. Calhoun, OE M. Banerjee, NRR J. Goldberg, OGC PDR Day File r
halhoun T.
ib J. deb'erman 02/// /99 02/// /99 02/ '7/99 G:DCTR.wpd i