NRC Thinks Non Compliance to Rules (Moral Hazard) Is No Big Deal

They are improperly using The Risk-Informed Approach.

They have no proof the “Risk-Informed Approach is accurate or is qualified for safety relativeness.

All big accidents and institutional failures emerge from insignificant operability issues. Can the NRC distinguish between accident creating compliance issues from insignificant compliance issues.  

You notice how the agency never asked the question if the non-compliance was intentional or malicious.  

Basically the industry and the NRC  are saying something like a bank robbery under $500 isn't a enforceable crime. It creates insignificant harm to the bank and society at large. So they don't enforce bank robberies under $500? 

In economics, moral hazard occurs when one person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of one party may change to the detriment of another after a financial transaction has taken place. 

Moral hazard occurs under a type of information asymmetry where the risk-taking party to a transaction knows more about its intentions than the party paying the consequences of the risk. More broadly, moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information.

Remember the NRC and industry were fighting like hell to keep the leaking Davis Besse up at power. There is a lot of black swans out there that disproves the insignificance  not compliance issue. The NRC had that a small LOCA and increasing pressurizer level was a problem before TMI. They defined it as insignificant safety issue.  The operator's not have a real time indication of PWR vessel level and a malfunctioning pressurizer relief valve (PORV) would never lead to a meltdown.

The agency would have to prove that insignificant compliance issues never leads to significant safety problems.       

WIKI: Moral hazard also arises in a principal–agent problem, where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent usually has more information about his or her actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually cannot completely monitor the agent. The agent may have an incentive to act inappropriately (from the viewpoint of the principal) if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned.

But what about the moral hazards   

‘Operability Meeting’ A Risk-Informed Approach for Addressing Low Risk Compliance Issues Robert Elliott, Branch ChiefTechnical Specifications BranchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionFebruary 3, 2016  Section 1.5 of the NRC Enforcement PolicyStates: – “The NRC also has the authority to exercise discretion to permit continued operations—despite the existence of a noncompliance—where the noncompliance is not significant from a risk perspective and does not, in the particular circumstances, pose an undue risk to public health and safety. When noncompliance with NRC requirements occurs, the NRC must evaluate the degree of risk posed by that noncompliance to determine whether immediate action is required.“ – “Since some requirements are more important to safety than others, the NRC endeavors to use a risk-informed approach when applying NRC resources to the oversight of licensed activities, including enforcement activities.” • The NRC is considering development of a new process to facilitate resolution of low risk/low safety significance compliance issues that could affect operability.
 – When engaging a licensee on a degraded or nonconforming condition operability issue, the licensee/staff would assess the risk associated with the licensee’s condition. – If the condition is demonstrated to be low safety/risk significance, the staff would engage the licensee on a timetable for corrective action and appropriate interim compensatory measures.