[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