ML20211C815
| ML20211C815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/28/1976 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Roy G NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211C804 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.017, RTR-REGGD-1.017 NUDOCS 8610220029 | |
| Download: ML20211C815 (2) | |
Text
__
s.
v s.n n an. u a i. A s u n )
W..*.'. s h b e U N REGION 111 799 E.oS5tvtLT GonD
$ lcm eLLYN. ILLitJ215 64137 September 28, 1976
)
G. W. Roy, Chief. Field Coordination and Enforcement Branch.
Headquarters ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATORY CUIDES We recently encountered a situation where a licensee (Kewaunee),
in submitting a security plan for approval by licensing, indicated that they would meet the intent of the provisions of Reguintory cuide 1.17.
This wording was accepted by -Licensing. During a recent security inspection of this licensee, it was determined that the licensee was not meeting a provision of the guide reisted to alar:a systems.
The licenmee's response was that the mittcr in question was stated in the guide as something that "should be accomplished".
That is, it was interpreted as a recommendation rather than a requirement.
To resolve this particular question, we replied to the licensee, with ELD's concurrence, that the licensee was not aceting the intent of the Regulatory Guide and therefore corrective action on their part was required.
This avoided, at least for the current time, a decision as to whether a "should" statement in a Regulatory Guide is enforceable when the licensee commits to following the " intent" of that guide. -
The specific example given in the previous paragraph is typical of difficulties which the Regions face in enforcement of the provisions of regulatory guides.
In cases where a licensee states in his application that he " generally" plans % rollow a reguln-tory guide or that he plans to " meet the intent" of a regulatory guide, it is not clear as to the enforceability of that ~ guide.
This is further complicated when the NRC Regulatory Guidc embraces an industry standard which specifically identifies action which
-"Eall" be accomplished (required), which "should" be accomplished (recom:nended), and which "may be accomplished" (permissive).
In general, this problem has appeared to surface primarily with regard to secr.:ity requirements.
To aid the Regions in determining whether or not licensee failurs to follow practices endorsed in regulatory guides constitute
~
noncomplianca, ve suggest that the following action be taken:
k j
a-()
m D
t**
8 8610220029 770217 PDR I&E MISC PDR e
C. V. Rsy 2
September 28, 1976 1.
Convey to Licensing the importanpe of defining clearly licensee commitments with respect to Regulatory Guides.
2.
Develop and publish a complete polfey position with regard to the enforcer.ent of regulatory guides.
It is our view that a statement of such an IE policy would be useful to
' the licensees as well as to the regional offices.
Please let me know if you have any questions on this matter.
~
h{a.1 -b.
FisM Charles E. Norelius Assistant to the Direct,or cc: Dudley Thompson, Acting i
Director. DID W. Porter Ellis, IE:HQ Regional Enforcement Coordinators I, II, IV, V i
l l
4 l
. --~ -.
.