ML20247N734
| ML20247N734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/15/1988 |
| From: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Davis A, Ernst M, Russell W 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 | |
| ML20247N685 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-89-108 EGM-88-08, EGM-88-8, NUDOCS 8904060309 | |
| Download: ML20247N734 (4) | |
Text
._____ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -_ _.
posa
- ug% " ' a UNITED STATES ,
!" o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,,
- y WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 l k****+,/ NOV 15 TM EGM 88-03 MEMORANDUM FOR
- William T. Russell, Regional Administrator, RI Malcom L. Ernst, Acting Regional Administrator, RII 1 A. Bert Davis, Regional Administrator, RIII 1 Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, RIV John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV FROM: James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement
SUBJECT:
INTERIM GUIDANCE ON VARIOUS TOPICS PURPOSE:
This EGM is to provide guidance in several areas concerning development of enforcement actions, particularly in the areas of identification and documentation of violations.
BACK6ROUND:
Several recommendations cone rning the handling of enforcement actions were made by the Comanche Peak Rmrt Review Group (CPRRG) and by the Office of the Inspector ano Auditor in their TVA Lessons Learned and Thimble Tube studies.
These recommendations have been examined by 0E and several were addressed in the recent changes to the Enforcement Policy approved by the Commission and published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1988. The remaining recommendations are to be addressed'in guidance issued by OE in the form of an Enforcement Manual, successor to 18E MC 0400. This EGM promulgates interim guidance on these remaining subjects until they are incorporated in the OE Manual. While the topics are derived from varying sources, they are addressed here in the sequence in which they will be encountered in the enforcement process.
.0ISCUSSION:
Exercise of Discretion:
If a licensee fails to comply with a legally binding requirement, the non-compliance is a violation of Commission requirements. The Enforcement Policy provides that usually whenever a violation of NRC requirements is identified, enforcement action is taken. The Policy sets out certain exceptions for which ,
the staff may exercise discretion as to whether to issue a citation.
Section V.A. of the Policy has been expanded to provide that in isolated Severity Level V violations, a notice of violation will not be issued, regardless of who identifies the violation, provided that the licensee has initiated appropriate corrective action before the inspection ends. The
$40$g9890403 UNNERST89-200 pga
l j
1 1
Regional Administrators inspection report or official field notes document the violation. However, in cases of willful violations, if past corrective actions have not been j sufficient to prevent recurrence, or if the circumstances warrant increasing i the severity level above Severity Level V, a notice of violation should be 1 issued. l Section V.G. item 1 discusses licensee-identified, Severity Level IV and V i violations and has been adjusted to reflect the changes noted in the preceding paragraph. Regional Administrators may delegate authority to the appropriate supervisory level within the Region; however, exercise of this discretion should not be delegated bElow the highest management positior, that signs the ;
inspection report describing the matter. The inspection report should describe the violation for purposes of developing a record for tracking the licensee's performance and determining whether violations are j'ecurring. To distinguish licensee-identified violations for which a citation will be issued from violations that will not be cited, the term " licensee-identified item" should be used when l referring to the latter in inspection reports and other documents.
For those violations that are cited, the safety significance of the violation should be given considerable weight. A violation that involves the performance of work by a craftsman resulting in clearly a minor, isolated concern should be assessed at Severity Level V. However, if the Region's observations indicate l i
that further evaluation is required to assure that the safety function is not affected, then it should be assessed at Severity Level IV. In summary, if the violation ir, substantive, that fact and any impact on hardware should be noted, and the violation should be assessed at least as Severity Level IV. An ialated QA violation involving documentation, where the QA audit was performed, may be assessed at Severity Level V.
Actions under Section V.G, items 2-5 should be coordinated with OE, and NRR or NMSS, as appropriate, to maximize agency wide consistency. These actions require the concurrence of OE.
Consideration of all relevant information:
The changes to Section V.B. of tte Enforcement Policy make clear that in preparing an enforcement action, careful consideration must be given to all relevant sources of information associated with the licensee. Escalation is appropriate for repeated violations. Similarly, for corporations (utilities or companies) with multiple licenses, the NRC should evaluate performance throughout the corporation where it is reasonable to expect the licensee to take action to prevent problems similar to those found elsewhere and of which the licensee was made aware. This latter point is emphasized in Section V.B.4.
The importance of this point is reinforced by the increase from 50% to 100% in the prior notice factor of the Enforcement Policy. In considering prior performance of the licensee, it is important to consider whether the matter is an isolated incident or a recurring problem.
9
(
l Regional Administrators tiultiple Examples:
Multiple examples of the sane noncompliance with a specific requirement during a period covered by an inspection snould be included in one citation, provided that each example by itself is not a Severity Level III violation or higher.
When the examples of the violations are numerous, sufficient examples should be cited to convey the scope of the violation and to provide a basis for assessing the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective actions. Normally three to five examples should be adequate.
Where there are multiple examples of a violation, each of which is by itself a Severity Level III violation, normally each example should be separately cited.
As a related matter, numerous examples of an individual Severity Level Ik violation should be considered for assessment as a single Severity Level III problem if the examples are indicative of a management breakdown of licensee activities. The policy has added a new example in various supplements to address multiple violations. For purposes of civil penalty assessments, the circumstances of the case will dictate whether to have separate assessments.
Citations Against 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B:
Citations for QA issues which are violations of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B should be constructed with a clear statement of the aspect of the Appendix B criteria, which is the applicable requirement, and how the requirement was r.ot met. Normally, it is not necessary to include a reference to 10 CFR 50.54(a) or 50.55(f) as the root regulation because Appendix B does include adequate discussion of the regulation. In addition, it is also normally not necessary, although acceptable, to reference that portion of the licensee's approved QA program which implements Appendix B, unless the licensee's approved QA program significantly differs fro.m thet of Appendix B. in most circumstances, the licensee's QA program is consistent with and amplifies the provisions of Appendix B and therefore a reference to the licensee's QA program is not normally necpsary. If there is a cocflict betweer an approved QA plan and 1 Appendix B, tne matter should be discussed with OE and NRR before issuing a violation.
in the case of operating reactors where the Technical Specification (TS) administrative requirements may encompass certain Appendix B requirements, such as procedures, the TS, normally being the more specific, should be citeti.
However, it may be appropriate in a particular case to utilize Appendix B for 2 the citation if broader corrective action is appropriate.
Transmittal Letters for NOVs:
Pending additional guittance, if the Severity Level of a violation is not obvious from the Enforcement Policy, a brief discussion of the basis for that determination should be provided in the letter to the licensee.
The Inspection Manual, IM 0610, concerning inspection reportc, has been revised and provides that the results of an inspection will be summarized in the cover page. This sunnary is to include general conclusions regarding the adequacy,
1 Regional Administrators ~strenghts, or-weaknesses of the licensee's programs, based on the inspector's findings in the areas inspected. These general conclusions should be discussed in the transmittal letter to the extant that they bear on violations covered ,l in the enforcement action or are relevant to the overall issue the enforcement action is addressing.
Licensee Responses to NOVs:
, The regions are responsible for the followup on enforcement actions and the adequacy of the responses to enforcement actions. In examining licensee responses to NOVs, careful consideration should be given to proper licensee identification of the root causes in determining whether appropriate corrective action has been taken, q
SUMMARY
This guidance is effective immediately. Please submit to OE any recommendations for change, as this guidance will be incorporated in the OE Manual, e
mes Lieberman, Director _
Office of Enforcement cc: Regional Enforcement Coordinators l J. H. Taylor, DEDR0 L. Chandler, OGC !
D. Crutchfield, NRR !
R. Cunningham, NMSS Enforcement Staff F. Hebdon, NRR !
l
\
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .