ML20237G451
Text
- _ _ _ _ __
f
- UNITED STATES y .- q g
- NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WA$mG TO*W. O C. 70555
\; ' . . . . /
SEP 2 91996 EGM 86-05 MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. Murley, Regional Administrator, RI N. Grace, Regional Administrator, RI!
J. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Rill R. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIV J. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV FROM: James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
GUIDANCE FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS REGARDING INDIVIDUALS PURPOSE:
As indicated by the Commission in its memorandum of September 17, 1986 from S. Chilk tc V. Stello, this guidance has been approved by the Comission for use by regicaal offices when considering enforcement actions against individuals in connection with violations of NRC requirements at NRC-licensed power reactor facilities.
It is intended to reflect the importance the NRC places on high standards of performance by power reactor facility staff and to outline when enforcement action against an individual should be considered.
BACKGROUND:
The staff has been developing for some time guidelines fo'r when actions against individual operators should be taken. Since the question of actions against individuals was one of the issues referred to the Enforcement Advisory Committee, the staffform.
in final was waiting for the Comittee's report before putting the guidelines f described below.
The guidance and the principles upon which it is based are Q
g Generally, the agency's philosophy in this area has been that the primary responsibility for safe operation of a facility is on the facility license holder.
The facility licensee is expected to take appropriate remedial action when misconduct occurs including action to prevent its recurrence.
licensee fails to discipline, retrain, or reassign an unsatisfactory operator,If the facility the NRC can take appropriate enforcement action against the facility licensee.
Despite this philosophy, the NRC does issue licenses to operators and has many regulations that recognize that timely actions by NRC-licensed individuals are an important part of safety. Specifically, the regulations state that:
Generally, only licensed operators are permitted to manipulate the controls that directly affect reactivity (10 CFR 50.54(1)),
Licensed operators must be present at the controls at all times during the operation of the facility (10 CFR 50.54(k)),
QT, /) - F7-vr o h M;n O Q,
Regional Administrators EGM 86-05 Mechanisms anc apparatus, other than controls, the operation of which may indirectly af fect the power level or reactivity of a reactor, may be manipulated only with the knowledge and consent of an operator licensed in accordance with Part 55 (10 CFR 50.54(j)),
Licensed senior operators must be present at the facility during specified conditions, and available or on call at other times during operation (10 CFR 50.54(a)), and An NRC licensee individual must observe all applicable rules, regulations and orders of the Consnission, whether or not statec in the license (10 CFR 55.31(d)).
j The NRC has taken actions against individual licensed operators in certain instances where misconduct occurred. Generally, the staff policy has been that the NRC should defer to the licensee in the supervision of operators but should take action directly against licensed operators when their actions result in significant violaticos of NRC requirements involving incompetence or willfulness or where it appears operators are not competent to safely perform their duties. )
I Such an approach places primary responsibility for operator errors where it i belongs - with the facility licensee which is responsible for operator training and for developing adequate procedures to govern facility operations.
DISCUSSION: 1 j
\
Since enforcement actions against individuals are significant personnel actions, they should be closely controlled and judiciously applied. An enforcement action should be taken only when there is little doubt that the individual fully understood, or should have understood, his or her responsibility; knew, or should have known, the required actions; and knowingly, or with careless l disregard (i.e., with more than mere negligence) failed to take required actions which have actual or potential safety significance. Most transgressions of individuals at the level of Severity Level III, IV or V violations can and should be handled by citing only the facility licensee.
More serious violations, including those involving the integrity of an individual (e.g., lying to the NRC) concerning matters within the scope of the individual's responsibilities, should be considered for enforcement action against the individual.
Action against the individual, however, should not be taken if the improper action failures. The following examples by the individual was caused by management of situations illustrate this concept:
Inadvertent individual mistakes resulting from' inadequate training or ;
guidance provided by the facility licensee. '
Inadvertently missing an insignificant procedural requirement when the action is routire, fairly uncomplicated, and there is no unusual '
circumstance indicating that the procedures should be referred to and followed step-by-step.
__ _ ________-_ L
Regional Administrators EGM 86-05 Complionce with an express :irection of management, such as the Shift l
l Supervisor or Plant Manager, resulted in a violation unless the individual did not express nis or her concern or objection to the direction.
Individual error directly resulting from following the technical advice of an expert unless the advice was clearly unreasonable and the liter. sed individual should have recognized it as such.
l
- Violations resulting from inaoequate procedures unless the individual used a faulty procedure knovir,; it was faulty and had not attempted to 9et the procedure corrected.
Examples of situations which could result in enforcement actions against individuals include, but are not limited to, violations which involve:
Recognizing corrective a violation of procedural requirements and willfully not' taking action.
Willfully systems.
performing unauthorized bypassing of required reactor safety !
Willfully defeating alarms which have safety significance..
- )
Unauthorized abandoning of reactor controls.
- i Inattention to duty such as sleeping or being intoxicated while on duty.
Willfully taking actions that violate TS Limiting Co'nditions for Operation.
Falsifying licensee.
records required by NRC regulations or by the facility Willfully failing to take "immediate actions" of emergency procedures.
Willfully withholding safety significant information rather than making such information known to appropriate supervisory or technical personnel.
Any proposed enforcement action against individuals should be done with the concurrence of the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. The Director, Enforcement Staff, Office of Inspection and Enforcement should be notified as soon as any violation is identified that may lead to enforcement action against an. individual. The opportunity for an Enforcement Conference with the individual should be provided and a headquarters Enforcement Staff member should be involved.
Sanctions Examples of sanctions that may be appropriate against NRC-licensed operators d re e
i
SEP t" 355 Regional Admir.istrators EGM 86- 05 issuance of a letter of reprimand to be placeo in the operator's license file, issuance of a Notice of Violation, and suspension for a specified period, modification, or revocation of the license.
The sanctions. are listed in escalating order of significance. The particular sanction to be used should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
In the case of an unlicensed individual, an Order raodifying the facility license to require the removal of the individual from all nuclear-related activities for a specified period of time or indefinitely may be appropriate.
SUMMARY
In sumary, enforcement action against individual NRC-licensed operators should be used for serious misconduct such as that involving the integrity of an opera tor.
Enforcement action against individuals, as for any enforcement action, shuld be taken as soon as possible after the offending act for the action to be effective. Because enforcement actions against individuals are significant personnel
- actions, they should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine the most appropriate sanction for the particulars of the case under consideration. In deterinining whether to take simultaneous
/ enforcement action against a significant number of NRC-licensed operators at l
the same facility, sufficient options exist such that the consideration for action. staffing proper of the facility should not prevent taking the appropriate Nonetheless, in all cases, the standard for measuring any action taken I is the effect the action will have on assuring continued protection of the public health and safety or the common defense.
l This policy will be incorporated in a future revision to the IE Manual Chapter 0400.
s M. Taylo Director fice of Inspection and Enforcement cc: J. Lieberman, 0GC Enforcement Staff
_ _ _ _ _ - - -