ML21048A360: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:ÿÿÿÿ
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
012345ÿ712847749                                            ÿ!"#$"%ÿ&'ÿ&
7()(*&#xff;+,-+./012 34)567&#xff; 8&#xff;9:;<=%:;>
5 ??6(&#xff;@*&#xff;!"#$"%&#xff;&'&#xff;&
7*A?6&#xff;3BC&#xff;D !
@ 5(&#xff;EFG:&&:&H
EFG&#xff;I+>0"JK +2&#xff;0<-J%
5 ??6(&#xff;96&#xff;EFG:&&:&H:&&&
EFG&#xff;I+>0"JK +2&#xff;0<-J%&#xff;"0L01,&#xff;L0<-J%&#xff;12$2K +2&#xff;"M-1-0+N&#xff;F O#12&#xff;>0"&#xff;J0KK +2P
@ *?6(&#xff;EFG:&&:&H:QFRS:&&&T G0KK +2&#xff;0+&#xff;F&#xff;Q0J&#xff;U&#xff;&&:HHT; 7*A?((4&#xff;464?)(6
)?&#xff;I<<+&#xff;V-+1!".&#xff; 7*A?((4W&#xff;C46()(&#xff;X$-2<-+&#xff;F 90<$&#xff; 947)6Y)(6&#xff;E#J<$"&#xff;I+".%&#xff;Z+12-2#2&#xff;
[64)\&#xff;5 ??6(
] &#xff;$22$J^,&#xff;>-<_1`
(()a?6(
E#J<$"&#xff;I+".%&#xff;Z+12-2#2&#xff;G0KK +21&#xff;0+&#xff;"0L01,&#xff;F M-1-0+1&#xff;20&#xff;2^&#xff;EFG&#xff;I+>0"JK +2&#xff;0<-J%&#xff;_Q0J92&#xff;ZQ EFG:&&:&H`
 
ELLEN C. GINSBERG Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004                                                                                                      NUCLEA R ENERGY INSTITUTE P: 202.739.8000 ecg@nei.org nei.org February 1, 2021 Mr. George A. Wilson Director, Office of Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re:        Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on Proposed Revisions to the NRC Enforcement Policy (Docket ID NRC-2020-0261)
 
==Dear Mr. Wilson:==
 
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1 is pleased to provide comments in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) notice 85 FR 78046 (December 3, 2020), wherein the agency proposes various revisions to the NRC Enforcement Policy.
Our comments are set forth in the Attachment to this letter.
Were happy to answer any questions or provide additional information. Thank you in advance for consideration of these comments.
Sincerely, Ellen C. Ginsberg Attachment NEI Comments on Proposed Revisions to the NRC Enforcement Policy 1
NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry.
NUCLEAR . CLEAN A IR ENERGY
 
COMMENTS OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY Docket ID NRC-2020-0261 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments in response to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notice at 85 FR 78,046 (December 3, 2020), which solicits comments on various proposed revisions to the NRC Enforcement Policy.
NEIs comments are organized in the following table. NEI provides comments on specific areas of the proposed revisions and suggested changes where applicable.1 Section/Page                        NRC Text                              NEI Comment                  NEI Suggested Change 2.2.1(c) and      2.2.1(c): The existence of a regulatory      Originally, 1(a) considered the  Consistent and clear language is 2.2.1(d)          process violation does not automatically      actual consequences and 2(b)      needed here to discuss the different (see page 10-    mean that the issue is significant to safety  considers potential consequences, concerns. Specifically, 2.2.1(c)
: 11)              or security. In determining the significance  but now (1)(c) and (d) consider  suggested revisions:
of a violation, the NRC will consider        actual or potential appropriate factors for the particular        consequences. NEI suggests using  The existence of a regulatory regulatory process violation. These factors  consistent language when          process failure violation does not may include the significance potential or    discussing types of concerns. The automatically mean that the either actual consequences of the underlying        NEI suggested changes to 2.2.1    the regulatory process failure or issue, whether the failure actually impeded  (c) and (d) are to clarify the    the underlying issue is significant or influenced regulatory action, the level of distinction between the reporting to safety or security. In individuals involved in the failure and the  or willfulness issues and the    determining the significance of a reason why the failure occurred given their  underlying non-compliance.        regulatory process violation, the position and training, and whether the                                          NRC will consider appropriate failure invalidates the licensing basis.                                        factors for the particular regulatory process violation failure. These 2.2.1(d) In determining the significance of                                    factors may include the potential or a violation involving willfulness, the NRC                                      actual consequences of the will consider such factors as the position,                                    underlying issue, whether the 1
Red text indicates NRC revisions; Green text indicates NEI suggested revisions; Black strikeout indicate NEI edits to existing Enforcement Policy language.
1
 
training, experience level, and                                              failure actually impeded or responsibilities of the person involved in                                    influenced regulatory action, the the violation (e.g., licensee official or                                    level of individuals involved in the nonsupervisory employee), the                                                failure and the reason why the significance potential or actual                                              failure occurred given their consequences of any underlying violation,                                    position and training, and whether the intent of the violator (i.e., careless                                    the failure invalidates the licensing disregard or deliberateness), and the                                        basis.
economic or other advantage, if any, gained as a result of the                                                    Replace 2.2.1(d)NEI suggested violations                                                                    revisions:
In determining -  the
                                                                                                                  - -significance
                                                                                                                      - - - - - - - -of whether to escalate a violation involving willfulness, the NRC will consider such factors as the position, training, experience level, and responsibilities of the person involved in the violation (e.g.,
licensee official or nonsupervisory employee), the potential or actual consequences of any underlying violation noncompliance, the intent of the violator (i.e., careless disregard or deliberateness), and the economic or other advantage, if any, gained as a result of the violation.
2.2, 2.2.4, and 2.2.4: Related violations may be          Section 2.2 preserves the position Section 2.2.4 and the associated Footnote 2      dispositioned in parallel within both the  that violations are dispositioned  footnote 2 require clarification.
(see page 8 &  traditional and ROP/cROP process. The      under either the cROP/ROP or      Specifically, NEI suggests the NRC
: 13)            SDP will inform but may not necessarily    traditional enforcement, but the  revise the example in footnote 2 to determine the severity level, while the    changes to 2.2.4 confuses this    more clearly state the NRCs intent severity level or civil penalty amount    point. Section 2.2.4 includes the  on enforcing related violations.
should not influence the SDP.              concept of a related violation which as described, appears to    At a minimum, NEI suggests endorse a sort of double-counting  adding to the end of the last 2
 
FN 2: In this context, the term related      when dispositioning a violation    parenthetical of footnote 2 as an refers to violations that have a cause and    by permitting both traditional      impact to a performance effect relationship or directly related to the and SDP enforcement for the        indicator.
same event. For example, a willful failure    same event.
to adequately perform a quality-related work order (dispositioned using traditional    Further, the example provided to enforcement) that results in an inoperable    define the term related in structure, system or component                footnote 2 does not flow from (dispositioned using ROP or cROP).            2.2s logic.
Specifically, a willful failure to adequately perform a quality related work order should be dispositioned entirely through traditional enforcement.
Equipment that became inoperable due to that willful failure is part of the same violation and should not be considered separately.
2.2.2.c & d  (c) SL III violations are those that resulted  The explanation of these revisions NEI recommends the NRC keep (see page 12) in or could have resulted in moderate          in the Summary Document (item the original language.
safety or security consequences (e.g.,        320) does not relate to the violations that created a potential for        suggested revisions.
moderate safety or security consequences or violations that involved systems not        The proposed addition is vague, being capable, for a relatively short period,  and it is unclear exactly what type of preventing or mitigating a serious safety  of influence or impediment a or security event). Additionally, violations  licensee official would need to involving licensee officials that either      undertake to result in a SLIII or actually impeded or influenced a specific      SLIV violation.
regulatory action such as a licensing decision or inspection activity that would have likely resulted in a different regulatory decision or that were committed 3
 
willfully are typically assigned at least a SL III significance. [320]
: d. SL IV violations are those that are less serious, but are of more than minor concern, that resulted in no or relatively inappreciable potential safety or security consequences (e.g., violations that created the potential of more than minor safety or security consequences). Additionally, violations that impeded or influenced a specific regulatory action such as a licensing decision or inspection activity but would likely not have resulted in a different regulatory decision are typically assigned a SL IV significance. [320]
2.3.4 (b)(2)(c) If the NRC identified the violation but        NEI is concerned that this          NEI recommends the NRC keep (see page 23)  concludes that, under the circumstances,      supposed clarity may actually be  the original language.
the licensee could not have reasonably        walking back the application of identified the problem earlier, the matter    the 'not reasonably identifiable' would be treated as NRC may still give        credit to licensees. There is a identification credit licensee identified for  difference in application between purposes of assessing the civil penalty.      may be given consideration and
[334]                                          would be treated as licensee identified.
2.3.4 (c)      If the corrective action is judged to be      The original language included      NEI recommends the NRC keep (see page 26)  prompt and comprehensive, an NOV              normally should be issued        the original language.
normally should be issued with no              which allowed for some associated civil penalty. If the corrective    discretion in the application of action is judged to be less than prompt and    civil penalties for discrimination comprehensive, the NOV normally should        cases where deemed necessary.
be issued with a base civil penalty.
When a licensee voluntarily informs the        The revised language removes NRC that a violation of NRC employee          that discretion and instead, favors 4
 
protection regulations has occurred for a    the issuance of civil penalties, discrimination issue in which the NRC did    with exception only in cases not perform an investigation; a civil        where:
penalty is not proposed if corrective action is judged to be prompt and                        1. Licensee voluntarily comprehensive. If the corrective action is            informs the NRC of judged to be less than prompt and                      violation (could eliminate comprehensive, the NOV normally should                cases of request for be issued with a base civil penalty.                  information prompted internal assessment findings);
: 2. NRC does not investigate; and
: 3. NRC determines the corrective action taken is prompt and comprehensive.
6.4 (c)(5) A non-willful compromise (see 10 CFR          The wording of this revision will      Revise (a) to say (see page  55.49, Integrity of Examinations and        result in violations that have little (a) in the case of initial operator
: 57)        Tests) of an application, test, or          to no consequence being                  licensing, contributes to an examination required by 10 CFR Part 55,      classified as Severity Level III          individual being granted an Operators Licenses, or inaccurate or      violations. The action of                operator or senior had the incomplete information inadvertently          contributing to an individual            information been provided provided to the NRC, subsequently            being granted an operator                completely and accurately, the contributes to the NRC making an              license is left vague and open to        individual would not have been incorrect regulatory decision, such as the    interpretation.                          granted an operator license or following and has any of the following effects:                                      NEI suggests adding clarity to the Similarly, revise (b) to say:
(a) in the case of initial operator      revision by adding the                (b) in the case of operator licensing, contributes to an        requirement that the violation            requalification, contributes to individual being granted an          has or could have had moderate            an individual being had the operator or senior operator license, safety or security consequences,          information been provided or                                  consistent with the definition of a      completely and accurately, the (b) in the case of operator              severity level III violation.            individual would not have been requalification, contributes to an                                            permitted to continue to individual being permitted to 5
 
continue to perform the functions                                            perform the functions or an of an operator or senior operator,                                            operator or senior operator.
(c) contributes to a medically unqualified individual performing the functions of a licensed operator or senior operator.
6.4 (d)(1)(d) (d) an individual operator who met          The addition of the phrase who      NEI recommends for consistency (see page    ANSI/ANS 3.4, Section 5, the applicable      did not perform the functions of a  with section 2.2.2 and for clarity,
: 58)          industry standard as certified on NRC        licensed operator is overly        the NRC should delete, who did Form 396, required by 10 CFR 55.23, but      restrictive and not consistent with  not perform the functions of a who did not perform the functions of a      the definition of a Severity Level  licensed operator.
licensed operator failed to report a        IV violation as defined in the condition that would have required a        Enforcement Policy section 2.2.2.
license restriction to establish or maintain medical qualification based on having the    Section 2.2.2(d) states that SL IV undisclosed medical condition.              violations are those that resulted in inappreciable potential safety or security consequences.
Section 2.2.2(c) also states that SL III violations are those that resulted in or could have resulted in moderate safety or security consequences.
However, the condition described in (d)(1)(d) of Section 6.4 is one where a licensed operator failed to report a license restriction, but was found to be in compliance with that condition. Since the operator was found to be in compliance with the industry standard, it is not necessary to require an additional restriction to say that the operator did not perform the functions of a 6
 
licensed operator during the time in question.
6.16(a)  6.16 Independent Spent Fuel Storage            NEI requests the examples in      Delete 6.16(a)(1-3)
(see page Installations [337]                            (a)(1-3) be deleted. These
: 85)                                                      examples cannot occur at an
: a. SL I violations involve, for example:        ISFSI and new examples should be written to reflect actual
: 1. A violation that resulted in loss of fission scenarios at an ISFSI.
product barriers (e.g., fuel cladding and confinement) resulting in a member of the public receiving a radiation dose in excess of regulatory limits;
: 2. A violation that resulted in significant contamination to the environment; or
: 3. A violation that resulted in an inadvertent criticality event.
6.16(b)  b. SL II violations involve, for example:      NEI has modified example (b)(1)    Revise example (b)(1) to read:
(see page                                                to more accurately reflect what    b. SL II violations involve, for
: 85)      1. A violation that resulted in or could have  occurs at an ISFSI. Specifically,  example:
resulted in loss of fission product barriers    the loss of fission product (e.g., fuel cladding or confinement);          barriers is not a meaningful term 1. A violation that resulted in or with respect to cladding in dry    could have resulted in loss of
: 2. A violation that resulted in loss of a      storage. What the design is        fission product barriers (e.g., fuel system designed to prevent or mitigate a        intended to do is limit gross    cladding or confinement) unable to serious safety event; or                        rupture, which is not the same as perform their design function; a defect in the individual rod. We
: 4. A violation that resulted in a significant  have added language to example 1  2. A violation that resulted in loss loss of criticality margin.                    to reflect that fact.              of a system designed to prevent or mitigate a serious safety event; or
: 4. A violation that resulted in a significant loss of criticality margin.
7
 
6.16(c)  c. SL III violations involve, for example:  NEI modified example 1 as        Revise example (c)(1) to read:
(see page                                            indicated in green. Revising an  1. A licensee fails to obtain prior
: 85)      1. A licensee fails to obtain prior        evaluation should not have the  Commission approval as required Commission approval as required by 10      same consequences as having to  by 10 CFR 72.48 for a change that CFR 72.48 for a change that caused the      significantly revise the actual  caused the NRC to undertake a NRC to undertake a further inquiry such    change being evaluated. The      further inquiry such that a that a significant revision to either the  former should be evaluated under significant revision to either the licensees change or evaluation was        6.16(d).                        licensees change or evaluation was required;                                                                    required;
: 2. A licensee fails to adequately oversee contractors as required by 10 CFR 72.154, which results in the use of services or products important to safety that are significantly defective or of indeterminate quality; 8}}

Revision as of 04:25, 18 January 2022

Comment (004) of Ellen C. Ginsberg on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on PR-1 - NRC Enforcement Policy
ML21048A360
Person / Time
Site: Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date: 02/01/2021
From: Ginsberg E, Rekola K
Nuclear Energy Institute
To: George Wilson
NRC/OE, NRC/SECY/RAS
SECY/RAS
References
NRC-2020-0261
Download: ML21048A360 (10)
v • d • e


Text

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML21048A360&oldid=3400415"