ML23151A531

PR-002 - 58FR14308 - Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions: Policy Statement (Modification)

ML23151A531
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/17/1993
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
PR-002, 58FR14308
Download: ML23151A531 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 03/17/1993 TITLE: PR-002 - 58FR14308 - POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR NRC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS; POLICY STATEMENT (MODIFICATION)

CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-002 58FR14308 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PR-2 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME: POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR NRC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS; POLICY STATEMENT (MODIFICATION)

PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 58FR14308 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 03/17/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 2 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 04/16/93 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 58FR14308 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 03/17/93 NOTES ON FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

STATUS OF RULE THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-2 RULE TITLE: POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR NRC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS; POLICY STATEMENT (MODIFICATION)

ROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE

~ECY PAPER: 92-395 SRM DATE: 03/04/93 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 03/06/93 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 03/06/93 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: JAMES LIEBERMAN MAIL STOP: 7-H-5 PHONE: 504-1336 CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-2 (58FR14308)

In the Matter of POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR NRC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS; POLICY STATEMENT (MODIFICATION)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

- 03/ 11/93 03/ 10/93 POLICY STATEMENT Y04/12/93 04/01/93 COMMENT OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE (RICHARD P. SEDANO, COMMISSIONER) ( 1) 04/12/93 04/05/93 COMMENT OF DAN W. WILLIAMSON ( 2)

l,J (, Kr., L' USNfC Apr i l 5 , 19 9 3

• 93 ~PR 12 P6 :07 Dan W. Williamson 271 Glenlyon Drive Orange Park, FL 32073

Subject:

Comments on Rule Change to 10 CFR Part 2 Dated March 17, 1993 To Whom It May Concern The comments provided in the attachment to this letter are a result of review by a concerned citizen. This commentor has previously held and maintained Senior Reactor Operator Licenses (most recently

1. 43160; Operator Docket# 55-20106). The comment may reflect widely held opinions within this peer group, although no specific effort has been made to seek written concurrence.

Item 5 of the subject Rule change affected Appendix C,Section VIII of 10 CFR Part 2. I am especially concerned that the Commission would enforce such a revised policy against individuals. The policy itself is of dubious validity (as specifically commented on in the attachment), and could result in such overly conservative actions by Licensed Operators as not to be in th~ best interest of the public health and safety.

Your consideration of this comment is appreciated.

Dan W. Williamson IAY 111993 Acknowledged by card ...........................,.:::-;*

'*tit flUCLE/\R REGULATORY COMM:SSIOt-.

DOCV.ETING ~ SERVICE SECTION OFr!CE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISS!ON

COMMENTS ON MODIFICATION TO 10 CFR PART 2 ISSUE One portion of the amendment to Appendix C,Section VIII, "Enforcement Actions Involving Individuals," i'ncfudes the provision: "Willfully taking actions that violate Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation or other license conditions... "

BACKGROUND As utilized in the Technical Specifications, the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) typically represent the requirement for the complete complement of installed protective equipment to be operable, which ensures sing le-fa i 1 ure capability to respond to analyzed events. When circumstances are such that an LCO is not met (or is "violated" using terminology from the proposed amendment stated above), the Technical Specifications provide Actions that must be taken. In the majority of violations of an LCO, single-failure protection may be lost, but the ability to adequately respond to an event remains. These Actions meet the intent of 10 CFR 50.36{c)(2): "When [an LCOJ. .. is not met, the licensee shal 1 . . . fol low any remedial action permitted by the technical specification. The Technical Specification Actions represent an approved course of compensatory and/or corrective actions and

• appropriate time frames for completing these action. Compliance with these Actions is such that an acceptable level of safety is maintained for some period of continued operation of the nuclear power fac i 1 i ty (consistent with the specific a 11 owances of the action(s)). In fact, both 10 CFR 50.36 and the Technical Specifications themselves require compliance with these Actions when an LCO is "violated" - whether willfully violated or as a result of unplanned occurrences.

COMMENT There are a myriad of circumstances that could lead to "willfully taking actions that violate Technical Specification LCOs."

Performance of Technical Specification required Survei ! lances often requires intentional, willful removal of components from an operable status. Performance of periodic preventative maintenance procedures often requires intentional, wi 11 ful removal of components from an operable status. On occasion special activities (inspections; minor corrective maintenance of deficiencies which did not in themselves render the component inoperable; troubleshooting of anomalies not directly related to the system/component, but that require deactivating that system/component; etc.) may be intentionally and willfully undertaken resulting in a violation of an LCO and entry into the associated Actions.

COMMENTS: 10 CFR 2 1 4/5/93

Furthermore, issues can ari s e which lead to the declaration of inoperability of a system (e.g., violation of an LCO>, which on subsequent review are determined not to be LCO violations. In this circumstance the system could have been removed from service to commence repairs, prior to the subsequent determination. From this it could be argued (granted, hopefu 11 y unsuccessful) y >. that the individual making the determination that an LCO violation existed, "willfully" took actions that violate a Technical Specification LCO.

It would seem plausible that individuals may react to this Rule change in a fashion that would limit the usually-deemed-conservative-action of declaring systems inoperable ( declaring a "viol ation of the LCO"l and invoking the associated Actions.

It would seem to be a significant departure from existing industry practice, and from the current NRG position, to impose enforcement action (especially "directly against the individual "!> for voluntary entry into Actions (that is, voluntary violation of an LCOl provided this does not result in redundant systems/components being inoperable, or does not result in Technical Specification 3.0.3 being entered. Specifically, the NRC I&E Manual, Chapter 9900 has contained a position, "Voluntary Entry into Action Statements" dated 1/1/82, which states that the NRC endorses voluntary entry into the actio n statements, and that the Technical Specifications have been structured to permit the licensee to exercise this judgement. Additionally, the discussions and proposed Bases presented in Generic Letter 87-09 acknowledge that voluntary or intentional violation of the LCO is justified for testing, maintenance and repair. Substantial recent guidance on entry into Specification 3.0.3 as a result of intentiona l-vi-elation of an LCO exists, but no guidance reviewed by this commenter has been found to extend that t o ~ willful violation of an LCO.

PROPOSED CHANGE Based on the variety of circumstances that may potent ially present themselves, and the existing guidance on voluntary entry into Specification 3.0.3, this example should be deleted.

Any direction from the Commission, such as found in this Rule modification, should receive further scrutiny, and certainly wider visibility to the Licensed Operators than just the Federal Register.

COMMENTS: 10 CFR 2 2 4/5/93

DOCKET NUMBER PR ~

fl .t,PO ED RULE ,,L ----- -

(5<1'F f<. ll./:, OJ;) , _r,t. i L~

J::>NhC STATE OF VERMONT *93 APR 12 P5 :Q 7 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE 120 ST ATE STREET MONTPELIER, VT 05620-2601 ,_.f. t II':  !" .... I\~

TEL.: (802) 828-2811 l. JLI' L I I

• FAX: (802) 828-2342  :*i.,~h1

• TTYffDD (VT): 1-800-734-8390 April 1, 1993 (j)

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, o.c. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments on Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement (58 FR 14308, March 17, 1993)

The following are comments on the Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement referenced above. The Federal Register notice provides the opportunity for comment and we ask that the following be considered . We believe that situations may occur which could warrant exercise of enforcement discretion. However, the implementation of this discretion in this policy statement is badly flawed. We suggest a more reasonable method of implementation.

The referenced policy permits the exercise of enforcement discretion in certain instances where licensees do not comply with Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCOs). This policy appears to codify an existing practice of granting Temporary Waivers of Compliance.

First, establishing this policy in the proposed manner sends the wrong message. our Vermont experience in the last five years has been that whenever an LCO completion time is approached, a temporary waiver of compliance is granted to avoid a shutdown.

Although the Vermont Yankee diesel generator TS requires cold shutdown within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of exceeding 7 days of inoperability, an expectation has developed that the time would be extended rather than the plant shutdown. The message the licensee, NRC resident inspectors and the public receive is that the LCO completion times do not really mean what they say.

Second, the policy wrongly implies it is safer not to comply with the TS. The policy includes the statement, "[T)his exercise of enforcement discretion is intended to minimize unnecessary MAY 1 1993 Acknowledged by card ......'"'""'-~

IJ.S. *t_:-:- .; * * '. r;;_H.. ATORY COMMISS:Ot--.

[.C~ :< * * ,, , . .*, s:::r=:V!CE Sl:CTION o ;- *~/: Ur THE S!:CRETARY Cf fHf.: COMMISSION

plant transients with the accompanying operational risks and impacts." The term, "unnecessary plant transients," is not defined, but our experience indicates it refers to plant shut-downs. The impression is left that it is more acceptable (safer) to remain in the degraded LCO condition than to comply with the LCO. This cannot be; otherwise the LCO needs to be changed.

The policy also allows enforcement discretion to avoid "unnecessary delays in plant startup." This discretion would presumably allow startup in a degraded safety condition. While we welcome economical operation, we rely on NRC to be concerned with safety. An LCO that prevents startup for safety reasons should be enforced; otherwise the LCO needs to be changed.

Third, establishing this policy begs for its overuse. There is little comfort in the policy statement, " [ I ) t is expected that the NRC staff will exercise enforcement discretion in this area infrequently." Our experience is that exceeding LCOs occurs infrequently, but each time th is does occur, discretion is exercised.

The root of the problem with this policy is the meaning of LCO completion times. We are unaware that firm bases exist for these completion times. For examp l e, while the Vermont Yankee TS for diesel generator inoperability is 7 days, the recently issued Standard TS for BWR/4s (NUREG-1433) has a 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LCO time.

Which is "correct" and why the difference?

We believe that risk assessment methodology has been developed such that it should be used for the implementation of this policy. Threshold risk guide l ines should be established as a basis for LCO completion times. Risk assessments should be made to compare the risk of degraded safety systems with the risk of "unnecessary plant transients." If shutdowns are more risky, the LCO statements should be changed. Risk assessments should be prepared to determine the overall t ime during a year it is acceptable to exist in LCO (degraded safety) conditions. Any policy of enforcement discretion should then be based on established risk thresholds. The present policy relies on judgement which could be susceptib l e to the "keep the plant running" philosophy of the plant operators.

Finally, we would like to ask that any policy of enforcement discretion include a statement establishing notification of appropriate state officials whenever enforcement discretion is exerci sed.

Sincerely, (Zz~rft:<=

Richard P. Sedano Commissioner State Liaison Officer

D ~* "'=T '1J. BE r ,. l JL ---

csa FR J'-/308: [7590-0l 0nJ ETED USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 2 *93 M 11 All :04 RIN 3150-AE57 Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions; Policy Statement AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

- ACTION: Policy Statement: Modification.

SUMMARY

The NRC is modifying its Enforcement Policy to describe more fully the circumstances in which it may exercise enforcement discretion. This policy is codified at Appendix c to 10 CFR Part 2 (57 FR 5791; February 18, 1992).

') / l 1 [qJ DATES: This modification is effective on [Insert date of Publication in the Federal Register]. Comments received by

'-1111,(1:>

(30 days of the date of publication) will be considered.

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but t he Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received during the 30-day period following issuance.

l

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Copies of comments received may be examined at: the NRC 4lt Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lieberman, Office of Enforcemen~, telephone (301) 504-2741 or J. Randall Ball, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone (301) 504-1336, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In July 1985, the NRC staff issued internal guidance to address situations where a reactor licensee's compliance with a Technical Specification (TS) or other license condition may cause an unnecessary plant transient or unnecessarily prevent plant startup and where, in such instances, the temporary exercise of discretion by the NRC not to enforce compliance may be 2

appropriate. That guid~ce has been revised periodically with the latest revision having been made in February 1990.

The circumstances in which the NRC staff may exercise enforcement discretion have been generally described in Section VII of the Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C). In order to consolidate the description of all circumstances where enforcement discretion may be exercised into one location, the Commission has determined that a discussion of the possibility of enforcement discretion for TS or other license condition compliance should also be placed in Section VII of the Enforcement Policy. In addition,Section VIII of the Enforcement Policy is being modified to make it clear that actions taken by licensee employees pursuant to such an exercise of discretion will not result in enforcement action against the individuals involved. Finally, to reflect the information collection requirements of this change, 10 CFR 2.8 is being amended to reference that fact.

The Commission believes that the exercise of enforcement discretion in this area is warranted to avoid unnecessary plant transients, to reduce both operational and shutdown risk, and to avoid unnecessary delays in plant startup where the course of action involves minimal or no safety impact and the NRC staff is clearly satisfied that the exercise of discretion is consistent with the public health and safety.

3

Exercise of enforcement discretion is appropriate only where the exercise of discretion is temporary and nonrecurring. The appropriate Regional Administrator or his designee might exercise discretion where the expected noncompliance is of such short duration that a license amendment could not be issued before the need no longer exists, making it impractical to amend the license. It may also be appropriate to exercise discretion for the brief period of time it requires the NRC staff to process an emergency or exigent TS amendment under the provisions of 10 CFR

- 50.91(a) (5) or (6). Enforcement discretion in these cases would be exercised by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or his designee.

A licensee who requests the NRC to forego enforcement of a TS or other license conditon must document the safety basis for the request, including an evaluation of the safety significance and potential consequences of the proposed course of action, a description of compensatory measures, a justification for the duration of the request, the basis for the licensee's conclusion that the request does not have a potential adverse impact on the public health and safety, and does not involve adverse consequences to the environment, and any other information the NRC staff deems necessary before making a decision to exercise discretion.

4

In each case where the NRC staff has decided to exercise its enforcement discretion, enforcement action will normally be taken for the root causes, to the extent violations were involved, that led to the noncompliance at issue. Such enforcement action is intended to emphasize that licensees should not rely on the NRC's authority to exercise enforcement discretion as a routine substitute for compliance or for requesting a license amendment.

Since this action concerns a general statement of policy, no

- prior notice is required and, therefore, this modification to the Enforcement Policy is effective [Date of publication in the Federal Register].

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This Policy Statement contains information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 u.s.c. 3501 et seq). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3150-0136.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send 5

comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, (3150-0136) Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.

PART 2 - RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS

1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 u.s.c. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 u.s.c. 5841); 5 u.s.c. 552.

Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 u.s.c.

6

10134(f)); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 stat. 853, as amended (42 u.s.c. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 u.s.c. 5871). sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 stat. 2073 (42 u.s.c.

2239). sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 161b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5846).

- Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 u.s.c. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 u.s.c. 554. Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 u.s.c. 557. section 2.764 and Table lA of Appendix c also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 u.s.c. 10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 stat. 936, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2133) and 5 u.s.c. 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 5 u.s.c. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under 5 u.s.c. 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat.

955 (42 u.s.c. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 u.s.c. 10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2239). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L.91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 u.s.c. 2135). Appendix B also issued under sec. 10, Pub. L.99-240, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 u.s.c.

2021b et seq.).

7

2. In §2.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

§2.8 Information collection requirements: 0MB approval.

(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in Appendix c.

3. In Appendix c, a heading reading "Table of Contents" is added directly before the table of contents and a new heading for Section VII.C is added to read:

Appendix c - General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions Table of Contents

c. Exercise of Discretion for an Operating Facility

4. In Appendix c,Section VII, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

VII Exercise of Discretion 8

c. Exercise of Discretion for an Operating Facility on occasion, circumstances may arise where a licensee's compliance with a Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation or with other license conditions would involve an unnecessary plant transient or performance of testing, inspection, or system realignment that is inappropriate with the specific plant conditions, or unnecessary delays in plant startup without a corresponding health and safety benefit. In these circumstances, the NRC staff may choose not to enforce the applicable TS or other license condition. This enforcement discretion will only be exercised if the NRC staff is clearly satisfied that the action is consistent with protecting the public health and safety. A licensee seeking the exercise of enforcement discretion must provide a written justification, or in circumstances where good cause is shown, oral justification followed as soon as possible by written justification, which documents the safety basis for the request and provides whatever other information the NRC staff deems necessary in making a decision on whether or not to exercise enforcement discretion.

9

The appropriate Regional Administrator, or his designee, may exercise discretion where the noncompliance is temporary and nonrecurring when an amendment is not practical. The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or his designee, may exercise discretion if the expected noncompliance will occur during the brief period of time it requires the NRC staff to process an emergency or exigent license

• amendment under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(S) or (6). The person exercising enforcement discretion will document the decision.

For an operating plant, this exercise of enforcement discretion is intended to minimize the potential safety consequences of unnecessary plant transients with the accompanying operational risks and impacts or to eliminate testing, inspection, or system realignment which is inappropriate for the particular plant conditions. For plants in a shutdown condition, exercising enforcement discretion is intended to reduce shutdown risk by, again, avoiding testing, inspection or system realignment which is inappropriate for the particular plant conditions, in that, it does not provide a safety benefit or may, in fact, be detrimental to safety in the particular plant condition. Exercising enforcement discretion for plants attempting to startup 10

is less likely than exercising it for an operating plant, as simply delaying startup does not usually leave the plant in a condition in which it could experience undesirable transients. In such cases, the Commission would expect that discretion would be exercised with respect to equipment or systems only when it has at least concluded that, notwithstanding the conditions of the license: (1) the equipment or system does not perform a safety function in the mode in which operation

• is to occur; (2) the safety function performed by the equipment or system is of only marginal safety benefit, provided remaining in the current mode increases the likelihood of an unnecessary plant transient; or (3) the TS or other license condition requires a test, inspection or system realignment that is inappropriate for the particular plant conditions, in that it does not provide a safety benefit, or may, in fact, be detrimental to safety in the particular plant condition.

The decision to exercise enforcement discretion does not change the fact that a violation will occur nor does it imply that enforcement discretion is being exercised for any violation that may have led to the violation at issue. In each case where the NRC staff has chosen to exercise enforcement discretion, enforcement action will normally be taken for the root causes, to the extent 11

violations were involved, that led to the noncompliance for which enforcement discretion was Used. The enforcement action is intended to emphasize that licensees should not rely on the NRC's authority to exercise enforcement discretion as a routine substitute for compliance or for requesting a license amendment.

Finally, it is expected that the NRC staff will exercise enforcement discretion in this area

• infrequently. Although a plant must sh~t down, refueling activities may be suspended, or plant startup may be delayed, absent the exercise of enforcement discretion, the NRC staff is under no obligation to take such a step merely because it has been requested. The decision to forego enforcement is discretionary. Where enforcement discretion is to be exercised, it is to be exercised only if the NRC staff is clearly satisfied that such action is warranted from a health and safety perspective.

5. Appendix C,Section VIII is amended by revising the last example under the paragraph involving individual enforcement actions. For the convenience of the user, the introductory 12

paragraph concerning individual enforcement actions is reprinted without change.

VIII. Enforcement Actions Involving Individuals Listed below are examples which could result in enforcement actions involving individuals, licensed or unlicensed. If the actions described in these examples are taken by a licensed operator or taken deliberately by an unlicensed individual, enforcement action may be taken directly against the individual.

However, violations involving willful conduct not amounting to deliberate action by an unlicensed individual in these situations may result in enforcement action against the licensee that may impact the individual. The situations include, but are not limited to, violations that involve:

Willfully taking actions that violate Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation or other license conditions (enforcement action for a willful violation will not be taken if that violation is the result of action taken following the NRC's decision to forego enforcement of the Technical Specification or other license condition or if the 13

operator meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54 (x), i.e., unless the operator acted unreasonably considering all the relevant circumstances surrounding the emergency.)

~

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this /J:;;_ day of March 1993.

ar egulatory Commission.

• k, e Commission.

14