ML20238C394

Advises of Changes in Review & Comment Process by Headquarters of Proposed Escalated Enforcement Cases, Responding to Concerns of Over Iteration Raised at NRC 851205-06 Mgt Meeting in Region I

ML20238C394
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/03/1986
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Grace J, James Keppler, Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20237G454	List: IA-87-450, Provides Guidance on Use of Civil Penalties Vs Use of Orders.Many Orders Recently Issued by Regions Involve Violations Not Previously Noted.Orders Apply Only to Repeated Uncorrected Violations ML20237G451 ML20238C386 ML20238C394 ML20238C409 ML20238C494 ML20238C527 ML20238C550 ML20238C574 ML20238C597 ML20238C646 ML20238C694 ML20238C739 ML20238C764 ML20244B382 ML20244B522 ML20244B551 ML20244B638 ML20244B641 ML20244B915 ML20244D163 ML20244D267 ML20244D288
References
FOIA-87-450 EGM-86-01, EGM-86-1, NUDOCS 8712300251
Download: ML20238C394 (2)

Text

y pm) l s

• 8# [p K8cg[o g UNITED STATES' *

,,,.., g NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONMISSION

E WASHINGTote. D C. 20555 ,

9, / .

t ;

% . .. . . / .s

> mE .i

. l gi 3 EGM 86-01 A l MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator, RI J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, RII James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, RIII Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIV .

John B. Martin, Regional Administratiy, RV i FROM: James M. Taylor, Director l Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

REVISEDREVIEWANDCOMMENTPROCESSFORE5CALATED ENFORCEMENT CASES BY HEADQUARTERS i

During the NRC management meeting held on C.ecember 5-6, 1985 in Region I, concern was raised with regard to the review process by headquarter of proposed escalated enforcement cases. Specifically, the Soncern.centared around assuring that comments and changes made at headquarters reflectedN consolidated position when sent to the regions for their review. -t '

Because there was a perception that the process was overly iterative, we have taken a look at the process and have implemented the following changes to 's reduce the number of drafts reviewed by the regions and to ensure that the drafts reflect a consolidated headquarters positiori. sN From this date forward, proposed enforcement cases will be reviewed by IE, ELD, ,k^

and the appropriate program office staff and the comments incorporated into one draft which will be resubmitted for final concurrence to the regions. The revised i7 case will be simultaneously submitted to ELD and to the Director, IE/ES for final concurrence. The Director, IE/ES will resolve any additional corrnents that arise during the final concurrence process. {s/4 V

This change in the review process should reduce the frustration = ,in 45e

~7 disposition of escalated enforcement cases without sacrificing anai ,cy or 3 timeliness. .t

&e f, %

/ I

/' o mes

- L

.T or, Director

)w(3 ffice of nspection and Enforcement '

\

E I

Forn- t'M

• G/r5 hh23pg1g73pp4 GUILD 87-450 PDR l --______ - -

")

q

.x, Distribution RVollmer, IE  !

JAxelrad, ES JLieberman, ELD '

BBeach, ES ,.-

EFlack, ES ,:

EHoller, ES TPoindexter, ES PRobinson, ES l{

DHolody, R1 ti GJenkins, Ril

.BSchultz, Rlll l 0 Powers, RIV AJohnson, RV I

., 'l

% I

t. ,

4 .;

V l

t

'\ '

.\

4 1

1 I

l l l l g , { <

h ,\ +'o ('

IE:ES 15: I PRobi son JLieberman ' xelrad '

mer y

J aylor '-

1p/86 1/J(/81 /g/86 ,/l/86 3 1 /86 j

i l

V y, s!

4

).

l h

. i

! g'i

'i i

[. -l

(.

I

) ,J Fl

!