ML20137C920

Forwards Documentation of Meeting Conducted in Region 4 Office on 970225 to Discuss NRC Enforcement Policy as Applied to Nonescalated Enforcement

ML20137C920
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde, Wolf Creek, Grand Gulf, Columbia, River Bend, Callaway, Waterford, South Texas, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/20/1997
From:	Michael Vasquez NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
NUDOCS 9703250171
Download: ML20137C920 (17)

Text

.. -- - . -- . . _ - - .. -.

t>" R8009 UNITED STATES

y. . $'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 $ REGloN IV

'44

- [ 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SulTE 400 9..++/ AR LINGToN, TEXAS 76011-8064 March 20, 1997 MEMORANDUM FOR: File FROM: Michael Vasquez, Enforcement Specialist

SUBJECT:

MEETING BETWEEN THE REGION IV UTILITY GROUP (RUG)

AND NRC This documents the meeting conducted in the Region IV office on February 25,195 between the RUG and the NRC. This meeting was held at the RUG's request to dis .s the NRC's Enforcement Policy as it is applied to nonescalated enforcement. The RUG expressed its intent to comment on the NRC's Enforcement Policy. No decisions were  ;

made at this meeting. l I

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rule of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this memorandum, with the attachments, will be placed in the NRC's public Document Room.

Any questions should be addressed to the NRC Region IV enforcement staff.

Enclosures:

1. Attendance List

2. RUG Presentation Handout l

l i

\

4 l

9703250171 970320  %,EEE%!%E,E.EEE l

PDR ADOCK 05000382 '

l g PDR

~

j ...

l

[

Distribution:

DMB. (IE~45)) ' OEDO RIV Coordinator (17G21)

ORA File' RIV File ,

DRP File i .

(-  !

l l

l l

l I

l l

l 1

i l DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EA\ DRAFT \ RUG-SUM. FIN To receive copy of document, indicate in box:"c"-

Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy ES o, _ L EO AA l 277W MVasquez GFSanbBr1K) i 3/fo/97 3 /Jd 97 l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

750001 -

4 REGION IV UTILITY GROUP MEETING February 25, 1997. 8 a.m.

Region IV Training Conference Room Arlington. TX NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ORGANIZATION TITLE 1

Crny SAnmu #cescriou4 Enfouc w r Orecee l Lour oes Fe_ftawne2. _%.pri.y Synen . W WP-2. L , c e M S ,sa c,- M 4 a u , ,,t.

Cella u<

hus tJ U M\ O*O (YCcWC ?IL W W W

\ l ba vu2_ . Y v- fe. t/ h/e. C' Rur=, G _ c m a ~

lkh k Nm/n i

t% $ s 0 So^* Sa , c 4 g. , 513 s S ,u m e g; yy Q /ri,&c~

Ta xa S L4T:I;T:q, Sk1,; . Rasu laT5aftL*,o JSmdienee RaserD,tUa,IKu w..u r.1sua-sz,u en-eg o -8m 4/o/fCree.t hs /t), mas})ek h/C.A>oc S e atse Dc w %

/ Ea % ope w r.s , l Wtaat B //a vsan, Gu J G s 4- bah +, t05 5 04- l i

l'(j( () U b A h' Nb fN,JH I e 4, W ^b$$ l' I f!f A$ !YY

/

/ /

O M lk Q 6% M ' lCALS1  %-

(2, J /d k &k.i pck - k % bis %4f/,.dma n & A R J,u a y % pee p c m l y n o ur p >

Avaa K &aa s vaao, as iran ~r/wsa JL<or Swavfl&eie

/ /

40 (Aew Abelaa Awmuce/%rae '

le< % eis NPC -262 EEcr Q t>jEc,&

Page of ~~

dam L / el'c' d # p g c -(Jc'- p vaiTce, o[ft(+ [

y;u %[a s n ec- se . v, s,a me spaatar E"f "' "'""

f%+ G wfa~ ee 7eN byer

Background t-e January 29-30,1996, American Nuclear Society sponsored " Utility-NRC  :

Interface Workshop - Region IV"- finding that although the NRC has successfully established a clear framework and detailed guidance for escalated enforcement actions, a non-escalated enforcement policy has not been sufficiently developed.

e ' March 19,1996, Region IV Utility Group (RUG IV) special committee on non-escalated NRC enforcement policy assessment process formed to provide input to the NRC on non-escalated enforcement (Severity Level IV, Non-Cited Violations :NCVs], and Minor Violations).

o Currently 95% of all NRC enforcement actions (approximately 600- Og fall into the category of non-escalated enforcement. /

4+ ,

' #pf

,gy

O O

Consistent Policy e Enable informed individuals at all levels [public, licensee, inspectors, licensee management, NRC management] to understand enforcement actions which are applied to specific events / conditions

• " . ..the [NRC] believes the [ enforcement] process can be simplified to improve the predictability of decisions making and obtain better consistency between regions." - Section ll!.C, " Conclusions," NUREG-1525, Assessment of the NRC Enforcement Program.

e "...the [NRC:lG] noted the enforcement policy does not appear to have been uniformly applied between regions... "and" ... [NRC organizational structure]

contributes to inconsistent program implementation, particularly in the use of j violations. " - Report, Office of the inspector General, Factors p Contributing to inconsistency in the Operating Reactor inspection [ 7 Program, (OlG/95A-C4).

A- ps

l Non-Escalated Enforcement Policy Assessment Process The NRC Enforcement Policy,Section VI.B.2, " Civil Penalty Assessment,"

contains a flow chart which is a graphical representation of the civil penalty ,

l assessment process. Similarly, the following flow chart is a graphical l

representation of the entire enforcement policy assessment process: ,

l Facts / Safety No ssues = "' Significanc r Minor Circumstances Yes n I

Escalated

~

Go To Level I, il or 111 Yes Level IV u .

Yes Non-Cited 6""

No Response No  ?

• Cited Level IV = Mitigation Violat. ion Requ. ired ,

Definitions ,

. Improvement and/or Consistent Application in Enforcement Definitions

- Safety Significance

- Potential Safety Significance

- Regulatory Significance / Concern

- Minor Violations L

l p:v

G 6

Safety Significance The Enforcement Manual, Section 3.5.a, " Safety Significance," States in part:

" Safety significance, as used in the enforcement program, involves consideration of three factors: (1) the actual safety consequences (e.g.,

overexposure, offsite release, loss of safety system), (2) the regulatory significance, and (3) the potential safety consequences of a violation. In other words, consideration is given to the matter as a whole in light of the circumstances surrounding the violation. There may be cases where the actual safety consequence of a violation represents a minor concem but the regulatory significance or the potential safety consequences represents a significant concem." .

/

4 y

/.

,gr

m Safety Significance The following definition from the Enforcement Policy is proposed:

Actual Safety Significance The event must cause an actual overexposure in excess of NRC regulatory limits (10CFR20), offsite release of radioactivity in excess of NRC regulatory limits (10CFR20), or result in the actual loss of the safety function of a safety system (inability of the safety system to perform its safety function as described in the UFSAR, as credited in the Chapte 15 Accident Analysis). p gk e

. ,y

t Potential Safety Significance Evaluate Use of Existing Definitions Such as 10 CFR 50.72 & 73 and NUREG-1022

- Not all NUREG-1022 Examples are Violations Illustrate Using Examples of Escalating Severity Level Violations

/?

s(

Potential Safety Significance 10 CFR 50.72,50.73, and NUREG-1022

, 50.73 (b) l

- Reasonable and Credible Alternative Conditions -

Power and Mode 5'O.73(aX2XiXB)

- Operation of the Plant Prohibited by Tech Specs

• aa-

,s#

.i l

l Potential Safety Significance 10 CFR 50.72,50.73, and NUREG-1022 (continued) ]

50.73(aX2Xii)

- Principle Safety Barrier Seriously Degraded

- Unanalyzed Condition Significantly Compromised Plant Safety l

- Being Outside Design Basis

• 50.73{aX2Xv) '

- Condition Alone Could Have Prevented Fu!fillment of Safety Function of Systems Necessary to .

- Shutdown Reactor pg

- Remove Residual Heat

- Control Release e

/

- Mitigate Consequence ,e

.i Regulatory Significance The NRC Enforcement Policy,Section IV, I

" Severity of Violations," states in part, '

Therefore, the relative importance of each violation, including both the technical and regulatory significance is evaluated... In some i cases, special circumstances may warrant an adjustment to the ,

severity level categorization... A. Aggregation of Violations... B.

Repetitive Violations... C. Willful Violations... D. Violations of Reporting Requirements..."

Therefore, the following definition from the En"orcement Policy is proposed:

[

Regulatory Concern w 4 .4,#

The event involves the special circumstances of any of thfe '.J*~ ^

f following: aggregation, repetition, willfulness, or reporting /

NUREG-0195

b. Severity Level, as used in the enforcement program, involves consideration of the safety significance of a violation and categorization at one of four levels. Normally, all violations are categorized in terms of severity level. Severity Level I and 11 violations are the most significant and represent very significant regulatory concerns for which escalated enforcement action is normally taken. Severity Level 111 violations are cause for significant regulatory concern for which escalated enforcement action is normally taken.

Severity Level IV violations are less serious than Severity Level lli violations, but are of more than minor concem. If left uncorrected or repetitive, a Severity Level IV violation could lead to a more serious concern warranting a Severity Level lli categorization.

c. Minor violations (previously categorized at Severity Level V) are not the subject of formal enforcement action and are not usually described in inspection reports. To the extent such violations are described, they are noted as Non-Cited Violations. (See Section 3.7 for additional guidance on documenting minor violations in inspection reports.)

A test of whether a violation should be categorized as a minor violation is whether, if it recurred several times, it would still be of minor concern. Such violations normally are characterized by (1) having no actual impact and little or no potential for impact on safety, (2) being isolated, not evidencing programmati weaknesses, and (3) relating to licensee administrative limits rather than to NRC regulatory limi an inspector identifies a violation, the determination of whether the violation is minor shoul' he following questions:

Does the violation have any actual impact (or any realistic potential for impact) on safe. _ g4

- Does the violation suggest a programmatic problem that could have a realistic pota Wafety'6r regulatory impact? g #

- Could the violation be viewed as the possible precursor to a significant event-?' '

k NUREG-0195 (continued)

If the violation recurred, would its recurrence be a more significant concern?

- If inadvertently left uncorrected, would this violation become a more significant safety and regulatory concem?

Are there associated circumstances that add regulatory concern to this violation (e.g.,. apparent willfulness, licensee refusal to comply, management involvement, etc.)?

If the answer to all of these questions is "no," the violation should be considered a minorviolation. If, on the other hand, the answer to any one of these questions is "yes," the violation should not be considered a minor violation.

An isolated record-keeping failure may be a minor violation. However, where record-keeping problems interfere in the ability to monitor or audit activities or identify performance problems, the failures are more significant and should not be considered a minor violation.

NUREG/BR-0195 page 6

,per

l -

BOnef..ITS Clarity - Public, Licensees, inspector Focused ~o n Safety Efficient Use of Resources (NRC & Licensee) by Focusing on Significant Issues - Improve Overall Safety Consistent Implementation - Less

/f  !

My 4

Confrontation ff

^

Actions Taken e Report Sponsored by RUG IV e Report Presented to Region IV (Joe Callanf e Report. Presented to Office of Enforcement (Jim Lieberman) e Report presented to RUG I/II and RUG 11, and to NEl

- Consensus Endorsement e RUG IV will meet with Lieberman and Dyer on February 24,1997, to review report.

Future Action -

'/f o Public Comment Period on NUREG-1600 fp-%

l

__ - _