[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 203 (Friday, October 18, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54461-54466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26679]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NUREG-1600]
Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions; Departures From
FSAR
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Policy statement: Revision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions
(Enforcement Policy) to address issues associated with departures from
the Final Safety Analysis Report.
DATES: This revision is effective on October 18, 1996. Comments are due
on or before November 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: The Secretary of the Commission,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm, on
Federal workdays. Copies of comments may be examined at the NRC Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lieberman, Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555
(301)-415-2741.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As a result of increased regulatory
attention to Part 50 licensees' adherence to the Final Safety Analysis
Report and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), both
licensees and NRC have identified numerous failures to conform to these
documents. Given these findings, the Commission has reviewed the
current Enforcement Policy to determine if additional guidance is
needed to treat compliance issues associated with departures from the
FSAR. The Commission has concluded that the guidance in the current
Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600, published in the Federal Register (60
FR 34381; June 30, 1995) should be revised.
Many operating licenses contain a finding which states that the
licensed facility is as described in the FSAR, as amended and revised.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, the Commission allows licensees to
make changes to the facility or procedures described in the FSAR and to
perform certain tests or experiments not described in the FSAR without
prior NRC approval provided evaluations are performed to demonstrate
that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question and the
change does not conflict with a technical specification. Specifically,
10 CFR 50.59(a) provides:
The holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or
utilization facility may (i) make changes in the facility as
described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in the
procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii)
conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis
report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed
change, test, or experiment involves a change in the technical
specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety
question.
If an unreviewed safety question or a change to a technical
specifications is involved, 10 CFR 50.59(c) requires that the licensee
submit an application for a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90,
before making the change or departing from the FSAR.
Section 50.59(b) requires that the evaluation be documented in
writing and maintained and reports of the changes be submitted to the
Commission. Periodic updates to the FSAR are required by 10 CFR
50.71(e) to reflect changes made under 10 CFR 50.59.
The regulatory process is predicated on the assumption that when
the license is issued, the facility, procedures, tests, and experiments
will be as described in the FSAR. Thus, 10 CFR 50.59 is primarily a
prospective requirement. Section 50.59 requires a process to be
followed in evaluating proposed changes from the description of the
facility and its procedures described in the FSAR. However, 10 CFR
50.59 is also used to form the basis for citations when the facility or
procedures never met the description in the FSAR. These cases represent
de facto changes from the FSAR. A failure of the facility to conform to
the FSAR may also mean that the FSAR may contain inaccurate or
incomplete information, subjecting the licensee to enforcement action
for a violation of 10 CFR 50.9.
In addition, failure to meet a specific commitment in the FSAR
which
[[Page 54462]]
describes how the licensee was to meet a regulatory requirement, may be
a violation of that regulatory requirement. In some cases, the
departure from the FSAR, if it does not involve a change to the
facility, procedures, or tests or experiments described in the FSAR,
may not cause the licensee to be in violation of any legal requirement.
In such cases, the departure from the FSAR would not be a violation,
and only a Notice of Deviation may be warranted.
Thus, there are a variety of requirements that can be used to form
the basis for enforcement action to address departures from the FSAR.
Each potential enforcement case is reviewed on its merits to determine
which requirement, or set of requirements, is appropriate to base the
enforcement action on. Given a violation of NRC requirements, the next
step in the process is to determine the severity level of the violation
based on the safety and regulatory significance of the violation. The
Enforcement Policy provides definitions of severity levels (Section IV.
Severity of Violations) and examples (Supplements I-VIII) which are
used in categorizing the severity levels of violations.
Revisions to the NRC Enforcement Policy
Given the variety of discrepancies from the FSARs that have been
recently found, additional guidance has been developed to address
severity levels to categorize violations of 10 CFR 50.59 and 50.71(e)
and reporting requirements, application of the corrective action factor
in Section VI.B.2.c. of the Enforcement Policy, use of Section VII.B.3
of the Enforcement Policy, Enforcement Discretion for Violations
Involving Old Design Issues, and applying enforcement discretion to
increase sanctions in this area under Section VII.A.2 of the
Enforcement Policy.
In developing this guidance, the Commission considered the
following two principles: (1) The importance of licensees performing
appropriate evaluations to ensure that there are not unreviewed safety
questions or conflicts with technical specifications, and (2) the
importance of maintaining and controlling changes to the FSAR so that
both the licensee and the NRC understand the regulatory envelope that
has been established for the facility. The changes to the Enforcement
Policy described below should make it clear to licensees that the
Commission believes that failures in either area can be significant and
can justify substantial regulatory action.
The Commission recognizes that not every unreviewed safety question
is a significant safety issue. However, until the question is reviewed
and understood, there is an uncertainty in the basis for the
Commission's safety decision in licensing the plant. Therefore, the
failure to follow the regulatory process established by 10 CFR 50.59,
regardless of the actual safety significance of the change, when there
is an unreviewed safety question or a conflict with a technical
specification, is a significant regulatory concern. Licensees must
ensure that they are in conformance with the FSAR as it was a key
element for the basis for the Commission's decision in licensing the
plant and continues to be an important consideration in current
licensing actions. The enforcement process is a tool that the
Commission intends to use to emphasize the importance of achieving this
conformance and deter violations from continuing in this area.
1. Severity Levels
The definitions and examples of severity levels in the current
Enforcement Policy provide sufficient guidance to cover most potential
violations. Additional guidance is needed to address violations of 10
CFR 50.59 and 50.71(e) which are the requirements that likely will most
often be used to address departures from the FSAR. Currently, two
specific examples are provided to categorize violations of 10 CFR 50.59
in Supplement I, Reactor Operations and no examples specifically
address violations of 10 CFR 50.71(e).
The first example, I.C.5, provides that a Severity Level III
violation would involve:
A significant failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59,
including a failure such that a required license amendment was not
sought.
This example includes changes involving unreviewed safety questions
and conflicts with technical specifications. It also includes
situations not involving an unreviewed safety question where the
licensee would need to perform a detailed evaluation before it would
have had a reasonable expectation that an unreviewed safety question
was not involved without the performance of a detailed evaluation. This
is significant because of the importance of licensees using the
required process for maintaining and operating the facilities in
accordance with the design and procedures described in the FSAR when
there is uncertainty as to whether an unreviewed safety question is
present. An after-the-fact evaluation that demonstrates that an
unreviewed safety question was not involved would, in general, not
mitigate the regulatory significance of failing to perform an
appropriate evaluation prior to implementation of the change.
The second example, I.D.2, provides that a Severity Level IV
violation would be a failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59
that does not result in a Severity Level I, II, or III violation.
Revised Examples of Severity Levels
Consistent with the above two principles, the changes to the
Enforcement Policy provide additional examples to categorize severity
levels for violations associated with failures to meet the FSAR. The
current two examples described above are deleted and the following ten
examples are being added to the policy:
Severity Level II
One example of a Severity Level II problem (the term ``problem'' is
used here since more than one violation is involved) is proposed.
Example I.B.4 1 addresses inspection findings involving a number
of failures to meet 10 CFR 50.59 including several unreviewed safety
questions, and/or conflicts with a technical specification, involving a
broad spectrum of problems affecting multiple areas, some of which
impact the operability of required equipment. This situation is a very
significant concern, the definition of a Severity Level II problem,
because of the breadth of the process failures and the impact on
equipment operability as well as the licensing envelope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The examples are numbered in accordance with the numbering
used in the changes to the Enforcement Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to Severity Level II violations or problems, the Enforcement
Policy provides that the base civil penalty for a Severity Level II
violation or problem is $88,000. However, Section VII.A.1.a of the
Policy provides that discretion should be considered for Severity Level
II cases. In assessing civil penalties for cases meeting the above
example, discretion will be considered, consistent with the Policy,
based on the number and nature of the violations and the breadth of the
problem that warranted the Severity Level II categorization in
determining whether civil penalties substantially in excess of the base
amount are warranted. This will include consideration of assessing
separate civil penalties for each violation that is aggregated into the
Severity Level II problem.
[[Page 54463]]
Severity Level III
Four examples of Severity Level III violations are added that
demonstrate a significant regulatory concern, the definition of a
Severity Level III violation:
Example I.C.10 involves an unreviewed safety question, and/or
conflict with a technical specification. Example I.C.11. addresses the
failure to perform the required evaluation under section 50.59 prior to
implementation of the change in those situations in which an extensive
evaluation would be needed before a licensee would have had a
reasonable expectation that an unreviewed safety question did not
exist. The fact that a post-implementation evaluation demonstrated that
no unreviewed safety question existed would not mitigate the regulatory
significance of the failure to perform the required evaluation prior to
implementation of the change. These two examples encompass the prior
example I.C.5. Example I.C.11 is set out as a separate example to give
clearer notice.
Example I.C.12 addresses programmatic failures (i.e., multiple or
recurring failures) to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 and/or
50.71(e) which show a significant lack of attention to detail resulting
in a current safety or regulatory concern about the accuracy of the
FSAR or a concern that 10 CFR 50.59 requirements are not being met.
This example addresses a current programmatic failure or past
programmatic failure of current concern to meet 10 CFR 50.59 or
50.71(e). Application of this example requires weighing factors such
as: a) the time period over which the violations occurred and existed,
b) the number of failures, c) whether one or more systems, functions,
or pieces of equipment were involved and the importance of such
equipment, functions, or systems, and d) the potential significance of
the failures.
Example I.C.13. addresses the failure to update the FSAR as
required by 10 CFR 50.71(e) where the failure to update the FSAR
resulted in an inadequate decision that demonstrates a significant
regulatory concern. This example addresses a significant failure
associated with 10 CFR 50.71(e) where the violation adversely impacted
other decisions such as whether or not a license amendment is needed or
whether or not an NRC licensing action should be taken. An example of
such a violation would be the failure to update the FSAR to delete a
reference to equipment that had been properly removed from the
facility. As a result an inadequate decision was made that an
unreviewed safety question was not present for a subsequent change to
the facility based on the presumed presence of equipment that the FSAR
erroneously indicated was still present in the plant.
Severity Level IV
Four examples of Severity Level IV violations are added that
demonstrate violations of more than minor concern which left
uncorrected, could become a more significant concern, the definition of
a Severity Level IV violation.
Example I.D.5 addresses relatively isolated violations 2 of 10
CFR 50.59 not involving severity level II or III violations that do not
suggest a programmatic failure to meet 10 CFR 50.59. Example I.D.6
addresses a relatively isolated failure to document an evaluation where
there is evidence that an adequate evaluation was performed prior to
the change in the facility or procedures, or the conduct of an
experiment or test. Example I.D.7 addresses a failure to update the
FSAR as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e) where an adequate evaluation under
10 CFR 50.59 had been performed and documented. These three examples
are, by their nature, less significant than a Severity Level III
violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Relatively isolated violations or failures would include a
number of recently discovered violations that occurred over a period
of years and are not indicative of a programmatic safety concern
with meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 or 50.71(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example I.D.8 addresses a past programmatic failure to meet 10 CFR
50.59 and/or 10 CFR 50.71(e) requirements not involving Severity Level
II or III violations that does not reflect a current safety or
regulatory concern about the accuracy of the FSAR or a current concern
that 10 CFR 50.59 requirements are not being met. This example is
similar to example I.C.12. However, it is less significant because it
does not involve a current performance issue nor does it have a current
impact. This would address past programmatic issues where both the
cause and the impacts have been corrected.
The determination of whether a violation or grouping of violations
should be considered a severity level III or IV matter will require
exercise of judgement to determine if the failures are sufficiently
broad and programmatic to warrant a finding of significant regulatory
concern. To maintain consistency and fairness, the regions will
coordinate with the Office of Enforcement on severity level IV cases
where there is a potential to categorize the violations at a severity
level III.
Minor Violations
An example is added to address minor violations which are not
subject to formal enforcement action under the Enforcement Policy and
are not normally addressed in inspection reports. Example I.E addresses
a failure to meet 10 CFR 50.59 requirements that involves a change to
the FSAR description or procedure, or involves a test or experiment not
described in the FSAR, where there was not a reasonable likelihood that
the change to the facility or procedure or the conduct of the test or
experiment would ever be an unreviewed safety question. The example
also addresses a failure to meet a 10 CFR 50.71(e) violation, where a
failure to update the FSAR would not have a material impact on safety
or licensed activities.
This example is provided because 10 CFR 50.59 covers the complete
FSAR. However, there are some descriptions in the FSAR of the facility
or procedures that have very little or no relevance to safety and are
of little or no regulatory concern. Nevertheless, by the specific terms
of the regulation, changes to the facility as described in the FSAR
must be evaluated. Violations in these areas are by definition minor
and if included in an inspection report would be non-cited pursuant to
section IV of the Enforcement Policy such as a change to the location
of sanitary sewer lines (in contrast to natural gas pipelines) in owner
controlled areas. The focus of this example is on plant equipment,
procedures, tests, or experiments described in the FSAR that would not
reasonably have any impact on safety regardless of the change. If the
change involves equipment, procedures and tests that have some safety
purpose the violation should normally be considered to be of more than
a minor concern.
2. Corrective Action
Corrective action is a key element in considering the appropriate
sanction. The discussion of corrective action in Section VI.B.2.c. of
the Enforcement Policy has been expanded to provide that in response to
violations of 10 CFR 50.59, corrective action should normally be
considered prompt and comprehensive only if the licensee (1) makes a
prompt decision on operability, and either (2) makes a prompt
evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59 if the licensee intends to maintain the
facility or procedure in the as found condition, or (3) promptly
initiates corrective action consistent with Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B if it intends to restore the facility or procedure to the
FSAR description. It is important for
[[Page 54464]]
licensees to recognize the need for these actions because until such
actions are taken the violation continues unabated.
3. Reporting
Section IV.D. of the Enforcement Policy provides that unless
otherwise categorized in the Supplements, the severity level of a
violation involving the failure to make a required report to the NRC
will be based upon the significance of and the circumstances
surrounding the matter that should be reported. The Policy has been
clarified to make it clear that failure to make a required report under
10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, if the matter not reported involves (i) an
unreviewed safety question (ii) a conflict with a technical
specification or (iii) any Severity Level III violation, is a
significant regulatory concern. The NRC needs such information
concerning significant issues to carry out its regulatory
responsibilities.
4. Old Design Issues
Section VII.B.3, Violations Involving Old Design Issues, of the
Enforcement Policy addresses enforcement discretion for old design
issues and may be applicable to some 10 CFR 50.59 violations to the
extent that voluntary action by a licensee identifies a past problem,
such as in engineering, design, or installation. This discretion
addresses violations that would not likely be identified by routine
licensee efforts such as normal surveillance or quality assurance
activities. Identification of past violations through required efforts
would be treated using the normal policy.
This provision was originally adopted to encourage voluntary
initiatives to establish design reconstitution programs such as
licensee initiated safety systems functional inspections to identify
and correct past design errors. This section places a premium on
licensees identifying issues before degraded equipment is called upon
to work. Similarly, application of this provision in the policy to past
FSAR issues could encourage licensees to establish programs with goals
to ensure full compliance with the FSAR licensing basis and determine
if there are unknown unreviewed safety questions that have not been
identified and addressed. To justify the exercise of Section VII.B.3
discretion, licensees must take comprehensive corrective action. The
policy provides that licensees should expand their reviews, as
necessary, to identify other failures from similar root causes. Thus,
in applying this discretion, as with any significant violation
associated with 10 CFR 50.59 and 50.71(e), the licensee should be
taking broad corrective action to ensure that the licensee is meeting
its licensing basis. The corrective action should have a defined scope
and schedule.
The Commission intends to utilize Section VII.B.3 of the
Enforcement Policy to provide incentives to encourage licensees to
identify and correct violations which are not normally identified
through current surveillance and quality assurance activities.
Enforcement action would normally not be taken against a licensee if
the licensee identifies violations up to and including Severity Level
II associated with the FSAR by a voluntary initiative (including either
a formal program or informal effort where issues are identified through
a questioning attitude of an employee), provided the licensee takes
comprehensive corrective action and appropriately expands the scope of
the voluntary initiative to identify other failures with similar root
causes. If this enforcement discretion is utilized, the licensee's
voluntary initiative must be described in writing and be publicly
available. The staff will reference and summarize the licensee's
voluntary initiative, including the scope and schedule for corrective
action, in an inspection report and will follow the licensee's
corrective action until complete as an inspection report open item.
Section VII.B.3 discretion would not normally be applied to
departures from the FSAR if:
(a) The NRC identifies the violation unless it was likely in the
staff's view that the licensee would have identified the violation in
light of the defined scope, thoroughness, and schedule of the
licensee's initiative (provided the schedule provides for completion of
the licensee's initiative within two years of this policy change);
(b) The licensee identifies the violation as a result of an event
or surveillance or other required testing where required corrective
action identifies the FSAR issue;
(c) The licensee identifies the violation but had prior
opportunities to do so (was aware of the departure from the FSAR) and
failed to correct it earlier;
(d) There is willfulness associated with the violation;
(e) The licensee fails to make a report required by the
identification of the departure from the FSAR; or
(f) The licensee either fails to take comprehensive corrective
action or fails to appropriately expand the corrective action program.
The corrective action should be broad with a defined scope and
schedule.
Applying this discretion should further the objectives of the
Enforcement Policy to encourage identification and correction of
violations as well as provide deterrence for future violations.
The Commission recognizes the importance to provide licensees with
incentives to embark on voluntary initiatives to identify and correct
FSAR discrepancies. However, licensees should be designing and
implementing their programs with goals to have these discrepancies
identified in the near term. Therefore, it is not appropriate to
continue indefinitely the granting of enforcement discretion in cases
where the NRC identifies the violations. As provided above in item a,
for NRC identified violations use of Section VII.B.3 enforcement
discretion for FSAR discrepancies will consider the schedule for the
licensee's voluntary initiative and when NRC identified the violation.
The two year period will provide a reasonable time period and incentive
for licensees to plan and conduct appropriate reviews to ensure that
their facilities meet the descriptions in the FSAR and take necessary
corrective action. The staff will continue to document in inspection
reports the results of its inspections against the FSAR and other than
the exception noted in item a, above, will continue enforcement for
NRC-identified violations.
Following this two year period, if a Severity Level II ($88,000) or
III ($55,000) violation is identified, the Commission intends to use
its discretion to increase the fine and could assess civil penalties
for each violation or problem of $110,000 which may be further
escalated after considering the number and nature of the violations,
the severity of the violations, whether the violations were continuing,
and who identified the violations (and if the licensee identified the
violation, whether exercise of Section VII.B.3 enforcement discretion
is warranted), rather than the normal assessment factors. This approach
is intended to increase the incentive for licensees to take timely
action to ensure that their facilities match the FSAR. For example, if
a single Severity Level III violation is identified by the NRC and it
lasted for more than one day, a civil penalty of $220,000 could be
assessed. If the licensee identified the same violation and application
of enforcement discretion under Section VII.B.3 was not warranted, a
civil penalty of $110,000 ($55,000 x 2 days) could be assessed for
the example cited above which will provide some recognition of the
licensee's efforts. Section VII.A.1 of the
[[Page 54465]]
Enforcement Policy is being amended consistent with this approach.
In summary, to encourage licensees promptly to undertake voluntary
initiatives to identify and correct FSAR noncompliances, the NRC is
modifying Section VII.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy to provide for:
(1) The exercise of discretion to refrain from issuing civil
penalties and, in some instances, citations for a two year period where
a licensee undertakes voluntary initiative to identify and correct FSAR
noncompliances that will be completed within that two year period, and
(2) The exercise of discretion to escalate the amount of the civil
penalties for FSAR/50.59 noncompliances identified by the NRC
subsequent to the two year voluntary initiative period.
Amounts of Penalties
The amounts of penalties reflected in this Notice and the
accompanying Policy Statement are based on the current Policy Statement
that was revised on October 4, 1996 and published in the Federal
Register on October 11, 1996 (61 FR 53557). The revised penalty amounts
apply to violations occurring or continuing after November 12, 1996.
Otherwise the amounts in the Policy Statement at the time of the
violation will be used in assessing any civil penalty.
Paperwork Statement
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. The
approved information collection requirements contained in this policy
statement appear in Section VII.C.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
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 of OMB.
Accordingly, the NRC Enforcement Policy is amended as follows:
GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR NRC ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS
1. In Section VI., add the following language at the end of
paragraph B.2.c.
VI. Enforcement Actions
* * * * *
B. Civil Penalty. * * *
2. Civil Penalty assessment. * * *
c. Credit for prompt and comprehensive corrective action * * *
In response to violations of 10 CFR 50.59, corrective action should
normally be considered prompt and comprehensive only if the licensee
(i) Makes a prompt decision on operability; and either
(ii) Makes a prompt evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59 if the licensee
intends to maintain the facility or procedure in the as found
condition; or
(iii) Promptly initiates corrective action consistent with
Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B if it intends to restore the
facility or procedure to the FSAR description.
* * * * *
2. In Section VII., add the following language as paragraph h. at
the end of paragraph A.1.g.:
VII. Exercise of Discretion
A. Escalation of Enforcement Sanctions. * * *
h. Severity Level II or III violations associated with departures
from the Final Safety Analysis Report identified after two years from
October 18, 1996. Such a violation or problem would consider the number
and nature of the violations, the severity of the violations, whether
the violations were continuing, and who identified the violations (and
if the licensee identified the violation, whether exercise of Section
VII.B.3 enforcement discretion is warranted).
* * * * *
3. In Section VII. add at the end of paragraph B.3:
B. Mitigation of Enforcement Sanctions. * * *
3. Violations Involving Old Design Issues. * * *
* * * * *
Section VII.B.3 discretion would not normally be applied to
departures from the FSAR if:
(a) The NRC identifies the violation unless it was likely in the
staff's view that the licensee would have identified the violation in
light of the defined scope, thoroughness, and schedule of the
licensee's initiative (provided the schedule provides for completion of
the licensee's initiative within two years after October 18, 1996;
(b) The licensee identifies the violation as a result of an event
or surveillance or other required testing where required corrective
action identifies the FSAR issue;
(c) The licensee identifies the violation but had prior
opportunities to do so (was aware of the departure from the FSAR) and
failed to correct it earlier;
(d) There is willfulness associated with the violation;
(e) The licensee fails to make a report required by the
identification of the departure from the FSAR; or
(f) The licensee either fails to take comprehensive corrective
action or fails to appropriately expand the corrective action program.
The corrective action should be broad with a defined scope and
schedule.
4. In Supplement I, paragraphs C(5) and D(2); are removed and
paragraphs B(4), C(10), C(11), C(12), C(13), C(14), D(5), D(6), D(7),
D(8) and E are added to read as follows:
Supplement I--Reactor Operations
B. Severity Level II--Violations involving for example:
* * * * *
4. Failures to meet 10 CFR 50.59 including several unreviewed
safety questions, or conflicts with technical specifications, involving
a broad spectrum of problems affecting multiple areas, some of which
impact the operability of required equipment.
C. Severity Level III--Violations involving for example:
* * * * *
5. [Reserved]
* * * * *
10. The failure to meet 10 CFR 50.59 where an unreviewed safety
question is involved, or a conflict with a technical specification,
such that a license amendment is required;
11. The failure to perform the required evaluation under 10 CFR
50.59 prior to implementation of the change in those situations in
which no unreviewed safety question existed, but an extensive
evaluation would be needed before a licensee would have had a
reasonable expectation that an unreviewed safety question did not
exist;
12. Programmatic failures (i.e., multiple or recurring failures) to
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 and/or 50.71(e) that show a
significant lack of attention to detail, whether or not such failures
involve an unreviewed safety question, resulting in a current safety or
regulatory concern about the accuracy of the FSAR or a concern that
[[Page 54466]]
10 CFR 50.59 requirements are not being met. Application of this
example requires weighing factors such as: (a) the time period over
which the violations occurred and existed, (b) the number of failures,
(c) whether one or more systems, functions, or pieces of equipment were
involved and the importance of such equipment, functions, or systems,
and (d) the potential significance of the failures;
13. The failure to update the FSAR as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e)
where the unupdated FSAR was used in performing a 10 CFR 50.59
evaluation and as a result, an inadequate decision was made
demonstrating a significant regulatory concern; or
14. The failure to make a report required by 10 CFR 50.72 or 50.73
associated with (a) an unreviewed safety question, (b) a conflict with
a technical specification, or (c) any other Severity Level III
violation.
D. Severity Level IV--Violations involving for example:
* * * * *
2. [Reserved]
* * * * *
5. Relatively isolated violations of 10 CFR 50.59 not involving
severity level II or III violations that do not suggest a programmatic
failure to meet 10 CFR 50.59. Relatively isolated violations or
failures would include a number of recently discovered violations that
occurred over a period of years and are not indicative of a
programmatic safety concern with meeting 10 CFR 50.59 or 50.71(e);
6. A relatively isolated failure to document an evaluation where
there is evidence that an adequate evaluation was performed prior to
the change in the facility or procedures, or the conduct of an
experiment or test;
7. A failure to update the FSAR as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e)
where an adequate evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59 had been performed and
documented; or
8. A past programmatic failure to meet 10 CFR 50.59 and/or 10 CFR
50.71(e) requirements not involving Severity Level II or III violations
that does not reflect a current safety or regulatory concern about the
accuracy of the FSAR or a concern that 10 CFR 50.59 requirements are
not being met.
E. Minor Violations:
A failure to meet 10 CFR 50.59 requirements that involves a change
to the FSAR description or procedure, or involves a test or experiment
not described in the FSAR, where there was not a reasonable likelihood
that the change to the facility or procedure or the conduct of the test
or experiment would ever be an unreviewed safety question. In the case
of a 10 CFR 50.71(e) violation, where a failure to update the FSAR
would not have a material impact on safety or licensed activities. The
focus of the minor violation is not on the actual change, test, or
experiment, but on the potential safety role of the system, equipment,
etc. that is being changed, tested, or experimented on.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 11th day of October 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-26679 Filed 10-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P