[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43229-43232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20396]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NUREG-1600, Rev. 1]
Interim Enforcement Policy for Use During the NRC Power Reactor
Oversight Process Pilot Plant Study
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Policy statement: Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
``General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement
Actions,'' NUREG-1600, Rev. 1, by adding Appendix F. This amendment
revises the treatment of violations of 10 CFR Part 50 and associated
license conditions during the pilot plant study of the new NRC power
reactor oversight process. The Commission is applying this new
oversight process to the nine reactor sites that are part of a pilot
plant study scheduled to begin in June 1999.
DATES: This amendment becomes effective on (the implementation date of
the pilot plant study). Comments on this amendment should be submitted
by September 8, 1999 and will be considered by the NRC as it evaluates
lessons learned from the pilot plant study.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: T6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555. Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville,
Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Copies of
comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120
L Street, NW, (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. William Borchardt, Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555-0001, (301) 415-2741.
[[Page 43230]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described in NUREG-1600, Revision 1,
``General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement
Actions,'' the purpose of the Commission's current enforcement program
is to support the NRC's overall safety mission in protecting the public
and the environment. The Enforcement Policy provides that prompt and
vigorous enforcement action should be taken when dealing with
licensees, contractors, and their employees who did not achieve the
necessary attention to detail and did not achieve the high standards of
compliance that the Commission expects. Enforcement actions have been
used as a deterrent to emphasize the importance of compliance with
requirements and to encourage prompt identification and prompt,
comprehensive correction of violations.
The current Enforcement Policy successfully focuses attention on
compliance issues to improve safety. The process uses enforcement to--
(1) Assess the safety significance of individual inspection
findings and events;
(2) Formulate the appropriate agency response to these findings and
events;
(3) Emphasize good performance and compliance;
(4) Provide incentives for performance improvement; and
(5) Provide public notification of the Commission's views on
licensees' performance and actions.
The Commission has made substantial changes to the Enforcement
Policy since 1980. However, the Commission has continued to employ a
basic theory of using sanctions, including the use of civil penalties,
to deter noncompliance. Escalated enforcement actions have provided
regulatory messages to encourage improved licensee performance.
However, the Commission has not always integrated decision making in
the performance assessment program with the enforcement program. This
has resulted in mixed regulatory messages regarding performance and
approaches to improve it. Further, the enforcement process has been
criticized as being difficult to understand, subjective, inconsistent,
unpredictable, and not being sufficiently risk-informed. Licensee's
have indicated that this has resulted in setting high priorities for
issues of low risk significance at the expense of more risk-significant
items.
The Commission has developed a new reactor oversight process and is
applying it to nine reactor sites as part of a pilot plant study
scheduled to begin in June 1999. The new reactor oversight process
which includes a structured performance assessment process and
evaluates the significance of individual findings provides an
opportunity to reconsider the existing Enforcement Policy. In
considering a new approach to enforcement, the Commission is not
suggesting that the existing policy which used civil penalties has not
served the agency or is ineffective. However, because of the new
oversight process, a greater agency focus on risk and performance, and
the overall improved industry performance, an opportunity now exists to
better integrate the enforcement policy and the reactor oversight
process. Based on the following, the new assessment process and the
current Enforcement Policy provides similar functions:
Both the current enforcement and the new oversight
processes result in formulating NRC responses to violations and
performance issues. The enforcement process uses sanctions such as
citations and penalties. Both use actions such as meetings to discuss
performance, 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters, Demands for Information,
Confirmatory Action Letters, and Orders as NRC responses.
They evaluate individual compliance findings for
significance under each process.
Both processes provide incentives to improve performance,
compliance and deterrence since licensees normally strive to avoid
regulatory actions and enforcement sanctions.
Both approaches give the public the Commission's views on
the status of licensee's performance and compliance.
Given the similarities in the purpose of the two programs, the
Commission seeks to discontinue having two separate and independent
processes. The interim Enforcement Policy will complement the
assessment program by focusing on individual violations. The Agency
Action Matrix 1 will dictate the Commission's response to
declining performance whether caused by violations or other concerns.
The result will be a unified agency approach for determining and
responding to performance issues of a licensee that--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Agency Action Matrix as described in SECY-99-007,
``Recommendations for Reactor Oversight Process Improvements,''
provides guidance for consistent agency action in response to
licensee performance. These actions are graded across the range of
licensee performance and are triggered by threshold assessments of
the performance indicators and inspection findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Maintains a focus on safety and compliance;
(b) Is more consistent with predictable results;
(c) Is more effective and efficient;
(d) Is easily understandable; and
(e) Decreases unnecessary regulatory burden.
In most cases, this approach should provide similar deterrence to
that provided by issuing civil penalties. Having a more consistent
approach should also promote public confidence in the regulatory
process.
The new assessment process will use a Significance Determination
Process (SDP) to characterize inspection findings based on their risk
significance and performance impact. The SDP will assign a color band
of green, white, yellow, or red to each violation (or plant issue) to
reflect its significance. To support a unified approach to
significance, the Enforcement Policy will use the results of the SDP,
where applicable, to disposition violations.
The enforcement approach for the pilot program divides violations
into two groups. The first group includes violations that the SDP can
evaluate, where the Agency Action Matrix will determine appropriate
action. The second group includes violations associated with actual
consequences; violations that the SDP does not evaluate, such as
willful violations; and those that may impact the regulatory process
for oversight of reactors.
I. Violations Evaluated by the Significance Determination Process
The first group consists of those violations that the SDP
evaluates, where the Agency Action Matrix will determine appropriate
action. Violations will be either cited or non-cited. Normally,
severity levels and civil penalties will not be used.
A. Violations of Low Significance
Violations that the SDP has evaluated as of low significance (i.e.,
green) will be information for the assessment process and considered
within the licensee response band according to the Agency Action
Matrix. These violations will be documented in inspection reports as
Non-Cited Violations (NCVs). However, a Notice of Violation (NOV) will
be issued for the following three exceptions:
(1) The licensee fails to restore compliance within a reasonable
time after identification of the violation;
(2) The licensee fails to place the violation into the corrective
action program; or
(3) The violation was willful. An NCV may be appropriate if the
violation meets the criteria in Section VII.B.1.(d) of the Enforcement
Policy which addresses the exercise of enforcement discretion for
certain willful violations.
The guidance of Appendix C: Interim Enforcement Policy for Severity
Level
[[Page 43231]]
IV Violations Involving Activities of Power Reactor Licensees (64 FR
6388; February 9, 1999), is applicable to these three exceptions.
B. Significant Violations
Violations that the SDP evaluates as risk significant (i.e., white,
yellow, or red) will be information for the assessment process and
considered in the regulatory response band according to the Agency
Action Matrix. Such violations, being risk significant, will result in
issuing a formal NOV requiring a written response, unless sufficient
information is already on the docket. The Agency Action Matrix and not
the Enforcement Policy will guide the agency response, to determine
root causes if warranted, and to emphasize the need to improve
performance for safety significant violations. The Agency Action Matrix
will specify whether regulatory conferences and other actions will be
taken if merited by the specific violations or overall licensee
performance. The Commission reserves the use of discretion for
particularly significant violations (e.g. an accidental criticality) to
assess civil penalties in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
II. Violations Not Evaluated by the SDP and Those Having Actual
Consequences
The current Enforcement Policy will be applied for the second group
of violations. This includes the use of severity levels to characterize
the significance of violations and the use of civil penalties or other
appropriate enforcement action. Three categories of violations are
within this group:
(A) Violations that involve willfulness including discrimination;
(B) Violations that may impact the NRC's ability for oversight of
licensee activities, such as those associated with reporting
requirements; failure to obtain NRC approvals, such as required by 10
CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 50.54(a), 10 CFR 50.54(p); and failure to provide the
NRC with complete and accurate information or to maintain complete and
accurate records ; and
(C) Violations that involve actual consequences. These violations
include an overexposure to the public or plant personnel, the failure
to make the required notifications that impact the ability of federal,
state and local agencies to respond to an actual emergency preparedness
or transportation event, or a substantial release of radioactive
material.
The guidance in Appendix C: Interim Enforcement Policy for Severity
Level IV Violations Involving Activities of Power Reactor Licensees,
will be applicable to Severity Level IV violations in this group.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This policy statement does not contain a new or amended information
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0136.
Public Protection Notification
If a means used to impose an information collection does not
display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information
collection.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a
``major'' rule and has verified this determination with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
Accordingly, adding Appendix F amends the NRC Enforcement Policy as
follows:
General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actioins
* * * * *
Appendix F: Interim Enforcement Policy for Use During the NRC Power
Reactor Oversight Process Pilot Plant Study
The Commission is issuing this Appendix to revise the Policy and
Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (Enforcement Policy) NUREG
1600, Rev. 1. The Appendix affects violations of the requirements of
10 CFR Part 50 and associated license conditions at nine power
reactor sites participating in the NRC reactor oversight process
pilot plant study beginning in June 1999. The Commission is issuing
as an appendix to the Enforcement Policy and characterizing this
policy amendment as interim because the Commission may make
additional changes to the Enforcement Policy following a review of
the results from the pilot plant study. Then, assuming an acceptable
outcome from the pilot plant study, the Enforcement Policy for all
power reactors will be changed. This Appendix revises the NRC's
Enforcement Policy for the plants participating in the pilot plant
study by dividing identified violations into two groups.
I. Violations Evaluated by the Significance Determination Process
The first group consists of those violations that the Reactor
Oversight Program's Significance Determination Process (SDP) can
evaluate. For these violations, the SDP will determine the
significance of the violation and the Agency Action Matrix will
determine the appropriate agency response. These violations will be
cited or non-cited. Normally, no severity levels and civil penalties
will be used to characterize these violations.
A. Violations of Low Significance
Violations that the SDP evaluates as not being risk significant
(i.e., green) will be described in inspection reports as Non-Cited
Violations (NCVs) and be categorized by the assessment process
within the licensee response band. However, a Notice of Violation
(NOV) will be issued:
(1) The licensee fails to restore compliance within a reasonable
time after they identified the violation;
(2) The licensee fails to place the violation into the
corrective action program; or
(3) The violation was willful. An NCV may be appropriate if the
violation meets the criteria in Section VII.B.1. (d) of the
Enforcement Policy.
The three exceptions are consistent with items (1), (2), and (4)
of Appendix C: Interim Enforcement Policy for Severity Level IV
Violations Involving Activities of Power Reactor Licensees (64 FR
6388; February 9, 1999).
B. Significant Violations
Violations that the SDP evaluates as risk significant (i.e.,
white, yellow, or red) will be assigned a color band related to its
significance for use by the assessment process. Because of being
risk significant, an NOV will be issued requiring a formal written
response unless sufficient information is already on the docket. The
Commission reserves the use of discretion for particularly
significant violations (e.g. an accidental criticality) to assess
civil penalties in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended.
II. Violations Not Evaluated by the SDP and Those Having Actual
Consequences
In the second group of violations, the Enforcement Policy will
be retained, along with severity levels and the potential for the
imposition of civil penalties or other appropriate enforcement
action. Three categories of violations are within this group:
(A) Violations that involve willfulness including
discrimination,
(B) Violations that may impact the NRC's ability for oversight
of licensee activities such as those associated with reporting
issues, failure to obtain NRC approvals such as for changes to the
facility as required by 10 CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 50.54(a), 10 CFR 50.54
(p), and failure to provide the NRC with complete and accurate
information or to maintain accurate records, and
(C) Violations that involve actual consequences such as an
overexposure to the public or plant personnel, failure to make the
required notifications that impact the ability of federal, state and
local agencies to respond to an actual emergency preparedness or
transportation event, or a substantial release of radioactive
material.
To the extent the above does not modify the NRC Enforcement
Policy, the
[[Page 43232]]
Enforcement Policy remains applicable to power reactor licensees.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of August, 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-20396 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
