View source for NUREG-1525, Summary of 971205 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re NRC Enforcement Policy & Enforcement Program.List of Attendees,Summary of Meeting & Handout Provided at Meeting Encl

{{Adams
| number = ML20203H382
| issue date = 12/12/1997
| title = Summary of 971205 Meeting in Rockville,Md Re NRC Enforcement Policy & Enforcement Program.List of Attendees,Summary of Meeting & Handout Provided at Meeting Encl
| author name = Lieberman J
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
| addressee name = Callan L
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
| docket = 
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| case reference number = RTR-NUREG-1525, RTR-NUREG-1600
| document report number = NUDOCS 9712180392
| package number = ML20198D280
| document type = MEETING MINUTES &amp; NOTES--CORRESPONDENCE, MEETING SUMMARIES-INTERNAL (NON-TRANSCRIPT)
| page count = 12
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:..
U,J. l 5 Dec<mber 12, 1997
, {.4 g MEMDRANDUM TO:
L. J. Callan Executive Director for Operations
,h @
FROM:
James Lieberman, Director
/d*
Office of Enforcement

==SUBJECT:==
==SUMMARY==
OF DECEMBER S,1997, OUBLIC MEETING 01, THE NRC'S ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM On December 5,1997, a publin meeting was conducted at the NRC's offices at Two Whita Flint North in Rockville, MD. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss NRC's Enforcement Policy and enforcement program. The meeting was arran9ed at the request of David Lochbsum, representing the Union of Concemed Scientiets (UCS), in response to my letter of October 14,1997, responding to UCD's letter of September 9,1997. Ralph Beedle, representing the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl), was also a scheduled participant. Attachmen: 1 provides a summary of the meeting, Attachment 2 is a handout that NEl provided at the rnesting,
, Attechment 3 is a list of meeting attendees, Attachment 4 is a copy of the October 1#,1997 letter, and Attachment 5 is a ccpy of the {{letter dated|date=September 9, 1997|text=September 9,1997 letter}}.
Comments from this rueeting (not previously provided) will be considered in the 2 year review of the Enforcement Pnlicy.
Attachments: As stated oc:
A. Thadsini, DEDE H. Thompson, DEDR S. Collins, NRR R. Zimmerman, NRR S. Bums, OGC J. Goldberg,000 plSTRIBUTION:
JLloberman, OE Regional Admbistrators SBums,OGC JGoldb6ig, OGC LChandler, OGC SComns, NRR
[1RZimmerman, NRR PSantiago, OEDO MSatorious OE RPedersen, OE C-l Q
# r-DNelson, OE RCroteau, NRR Day File PUBLIC
}
h.f D:91 7 OE RPedersen JLTeberman 12N97 126h7 UJ Doc Name: G:\\ MEETINGS.RP fMhffl'l.l' e
9712180392 971212
[oo PDR

t a
j u
ATTACHMENT 1 i
UCC Commente i
i UCS reiterated ito conoom from its {{letter dated|date=September 9, 1997|text=September 9,1997 letter}} that NRC enforcement must I
be timely and consistent. (UCS subsequenWy stated that recent enforcement actions,
- with a few exceptions, have been more timely than past actions.)
UCS voiced the concem t%t the enforcement program was not a review elems.nt in the l
agency's self assessment program.
UCS disagreed with the conclusion in NUREG 1526 that the revised Enforcement Policy j
was property structured to focus on safet/.
UCS postulated that the reason for inconsistency in enforcement actions was based on
-i the fact that (1) safety significanos is not well defined and that (2) the NRC ourrently l
views safety significance in inrms of broader, licensee performance issues, j
UCS recommended that safety signhicanos, as used in the enforcement program, be a
limited to actual consequence and potental consequence, and that it should not include regulatory significanos.
UCS raised its conoom about the NRC's appropriateness and consistency in making e
conclusions about " programmatic breakdowns?
{
UCS stated that the issue of potential consequence be " reasonably
* evaluated, j
UCS stated that NRC enforcemert should not be based on a licensee's
* regulatory e
s'anding?
UCS stated that it did not believe that NRC enforcement is a deterrent at the worker level.
UCS stated that the Enforcement Policy was not meeting its objective of enforcement actions
* sending the appropriate regulatory message," because of the inconsistencies.
UCS stated that a licensee's corrective actions should not be a basis to mitigste a civil penalty because corrective actions are necessary to restore compliance.
UCS recommended that olvil penalties be issued for all safety significant issues as a means of ensuring consistency.
NG Comments i
NEl stated its belief tht.t nuclear workers are "trying to do the right thing" and that'this I
woik ethic overddes any concem about whether or not their actions could cause the
- NRC to take an enforcement action.
NEl stated its view that issuing civil penalties for issues that are licensea identified and i
{
,.,,__.._a,.._.,_.,,,-,.
. ;, a,.-
-m.-...

i i
I
^
ATTACHMENT 1 correoled may discourage licensees from identWying issues. NEl did not explain the ~
l apparent inconsistency with its view that workers are not influenced by enforcement l
action.
1 NEl stated that it believed that corrective action programs have improved, in that more l
problems are being identified.
NEl stated its view that the NRC should refrain from issuing any enforooment action for l
leeues that are (1) identified and reported, (2) not willful, (3) not safety an nif cent, and l
o t
(4) correoled. (NEl suggested that this approach was similar to FAA's enforcement i
approach for certificate holders.)
NEl agreed with UC8 that safety significancs, as used in the enforooment program, be limited to autual consequence and potential cor.sequenos, arvi that it should not include regulatory signwioanoe.-
NEl agrood with UC8's conoom about the NRC's appropriatences and consistency in making conclusions about " programmatic breakdowns.'
NEl agrood with UCS that the issue of potential conesquence be tr-W/ evaluated, j
o e
NEl went on to say that it believed that there was a difference between potential t
I consequences and an extrapolated set of circumstances.
i NEl stated that licensee's should not be subject to enforcement for issues thU NRC 4
inspectors did not find, t
NEl stated that enforcement should accommodate the fact that peoplo make mistakes and that " defense-in<fopth" should allow isolated errors.
NEl voiced its concem about how issues were raised to the Office of Enforcement level, i
NEl was particularly concemed that some inspectors may be overly emphasizing issues i
that would not even bs addressed at a different facility.
NEl stated that the industry spends almost as much time respond!ng to non escalated actions (Severity Level IV Nntices of Violation (NOVs)) as it dows for escalated actions (Severity Level 1, ll, and ill NOVs with and without civil penalties). NEl also stated that it was their perception that many non escalated actions are time consuming because licensees spond considerable time with NRC inspectors debating whetteer or not a.
violation occurred.
NEl recommended more training for inspectors.
i 1
NEl recommended a higher threshold for significance.
- NEl stated that civil penalties do not serve a deterrent eMect. NEl further stated that civil penalties do not have a big impact on utilities. NEl stated that inspections (especially
- teams) represented a huge impact on utilities.
i 2
I 1
7 O..
__.._~,-.~_.-_,.,.,_.,.._.w..,,,_,,--_,--.,
+ -,

.~. -
l 1
l ATTACHMENT 1
~
i NEl agrood with UCS ' hat NRC enforcement should sat be based on a licensee's
* regulatory starufing.'
c NEl stated that N was more satisfied with the consistency c4 escalated enforoomer*t l
actions than non escalated enfotoement actions.
i AMC CommeMs i
+
- NRC discussert its enforownent philosophy in terms of serving as a deterrent and providing incentives for licensees to identify and correct violations. -
i NRC stated that it was in the final stages of its 2 year review of the Enforcement Po! icy and that it would be publicly available.
i NRC stated thot it was sensitiw to NEl's conoom aoout how enforcement may be used
- i in cases where regulatory interpretations may have changed, NRC rollerated that it had established a multi-office panel to review potential violations of i
4 10 CFR 60.59, i
NRC made the cbeervation that all parties egreed that enforooment was appropriate for safety significant issues, but that not all parties could agree on what constitutes a safety signif6 cant issue.
NRC stated that it plans on developing addit!onal guidance for the staff in establishing severity levels, Muding the use of terms, actual consequence, potential consequence, i
and regulatory significance. -
i NRC stated that it plans on, performing more audits to hsip ensure the consistency of
+
non-est.nlated actions.
NRC stated that OE is now obtala!ng copies of all disputed NOVs.
1 I
- h A
3
~
y-
,.+-,.m-n, o c,-
,-,~i.+--,wymw-..
4,w y-y
.-....w w w-
,p
,,...--,,N%,,w,,+,.my,,-n,,.m,,,w,,rvv ws c,.wwwrc.v,+--,.,--w+-.:,+r,-v,-

,lql I
Il.
le i
'i:
l;1ll i'
,y!
7-Y C
IL O
P T
N E
M ECR O
FNE CR N
1!,
l i!!i'
!:i!!l ll l
\\l,1ll!i l

Purpose i
Discuss the Role of Enforcement and the impact I
i it Has in the Regulatory Process Discuss Alternative Approaches to Strengthen
=
Enforcement Policy Effectiveness i
l i
i 1

^
_3
~
l l
l Framework t
Regulations l
=
l
. Identify safety focused requirements
'1 Inspection
=
. Verify compliance with requirements and identify safety issues i
i Enforcement
=
/i
. Provide penalties for non-comp!!ance where appropriate g
a

l
~
[
M J...
fl i
i 1
l Rationale for Change i
i Current Process Consumes Industry and NRC
=
Resources Disproportionate to Safety Benefit Current Process Discourages Rigorous Self l
Assessment i
Need for Deterrent Effect is Diminished
=
i
. Improving safety performance trend
. Maturity ofindustry
. Competitive environment provides incentives for strong safety performance

j!.
t 1
l Enforcement Program Objectives
(
Ensure licensees identify and promptly. correct
=
non-compl.iances t
c l
Ensure licensees promptly communicate non-
=
compliances to NRC 1
l Ensure licensee and NRC resources are l
focused on safety-significant issues Ensure Process is:
l
=
b
. Fair and consistent
[
. Not tied to changing regulatory
[
interpretations
. Balanced between incentives and sanctions QEI j
L l
i i

A More Productive Enforcement Process ij-Enforcement Action Should Be Reserved For
=
Situations Where:
i 5
i
. Licensee failed to identify or report non-compliance
. Non-compliance was willful
)
. Non-compliance was safety significant i
i l
. Licensee failed to take prompt corrective action to restore compliance l
i
'1F '
\\

^
Benefits Focuses Licensee and NRC Resources on
=
Safety Significant Matters Promotes More Timely Communications
=
Between Industry and NRC on Potential Safety i
Issues l
Encourages More Aggressive Licensee Se#
=
Assessments j
Strengthens Significance of Enforcement Action j
4
=
\\Nhen Taken Strengthens Credibility of Regulator
=
i t

NITACfD!ENT 3 12/5/97 PUBLIC MEETING ON NRC ENFORCEMENT PROGAM & POLICY PARTICIPANTS ORGANIZATION JimLe w
# 4/o E i
L i J 3. D k I:, n A '. c,k g hLnt Ibwlttf
.Titsth #fA-TAe 1.oe r~m
_ V...s e e e c..<.... A S W.i e dutce Cbacma+
set 2cu lB a l,k /
//
Jsm F o i po< d.
^> o s/Ltc WtwD C2crEke Mc/ttca DedTa-%elo W E'E i
Timu fE flch i
/V9T Sk!}AJ V az Nanur MT as s;.
va, -
ca n N> 3 1mui MRc/rc:,c Pet kk_
i.Ac/teao
.s,
.}}