ML18012A461

Informs of Recent Rev to NRC Enforcement Policy Re Predecisional Ecs.All Predecisional ECs Scheduled After 961210 Will Be Open to Public Observation W/Some Exceptions

ML18012A461
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	12/31/1996
From:	Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Robinson W CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 9701210424
Download: ML18012A461 (9)

Text

December 31, 1996 Carolina Power

& Light Company ATTN:

Hr.

W. R. Robinson Vice President

- Harris Plant Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. 0. Box 165, Hail Code:

Zone 1

New Hill, NC 27562-0165

SUBJECT:

RECENT REVISION TO THE NRC ENFORCEHENT POLICY REGARDING PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEHENT CONFERENCES

Dear Hr. Robinson:

This is to advise you of a change to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Enforcement Policy which is published as NUREG-1600, General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions.

The significant change involves how pr edecisional enforcement conferences will be conducted.

Effective December 10, 1996, all predecisional enforcement conferences scheduled after that date will be open to public observation with some exceptions.

This change was noticed in the Federal Re ister, 61 FR 65088, December 10, 1996.

This action culminates a trial program initiated on July 10,

1992, where select conferences were designated as open.

As stated in the referenced Federal Re ister notice "Opening predecisional enforcement conferences is consistent with the agency's principles of good regulation and normal agency olicy.

The intent of open conferences is not to maximize public attendance, ut to provide the public with an opportunity to observe the regulatory process."

Region II has conducted a significant number of open conferences during the trial period.

The staff has found that there has been little, if any, negative impact on their ability to engage in effective interactive communication 'with licensees during the conference.

Enclosed is a copy of the Federal Re ister notice for your information.

You should refer to the notice and Section V of the Enforcement Policy for discussion of those situations where predecisional enforcement conferences will be closed to public observation.

970i2i0424 96i231 PDR ADOCK 05000400 8

PDR

CP&L Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Bruno Uryc, Director, Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff, Region II, at either 1-800-577-8510 or 404-331-5505.

Sincerely Original signed by Stewart D. Ebneter Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator Docket No.:

50-400 License No.:

NPF-63

Enclosure:

Federal Re ister, 61 FR 65088, December 10, 1996 cc w/encl:

J.

Cowan, Manager Operations

& Environmental Support MS OHS7 Carolina Power

& Light Company P. 0. Box 1551

Raleigh, NC 27602 J.

W. Donahue Director of Site Operations Carolina Power

& Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. 0. Box 165, MC:

Zone 1

New Hill, NC 27562-0165 Bo Clark Plant General Manager

- Harris Plant Carolina Power

& Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. 0.

Box 165 New Hill, NC 27562-0165 T. D. Walt, Manager Regulatory Affairs Carolina Power 8 Light Company Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. 0.

Box 165, Mail Zone 1

New Hill, NC 27562-0165 W. D. Johnson, Vice President and Senior Counsel Carolina Power

& Light Company P. 0. Box 1551

Raleigh, NC 27602 cc w/encl continued:

See page 3

CPSL cc w/encl:

Continued Dayne H. Brown, Director Division of Radiation Protection N. C. Department of Environmental Health

& Natural Resources P. 0. Box 27687 Ral eigh, NC 27611-7687 Karen E.

Long Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina P. 0. Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602 Public Service Commission State of South Carolina P. 0. Box 11649

Columbia, SC 29211 Chairman of the North Carolina Utilities Commission P. 0. Box 29510

Raleigh, NC 27626-0510 Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff NCUC P. 0. Box 29520

Raleigh, NC 27626 Hargaret Bryant Pollard, Chairman Board of County Commissioners of Chatham County P. 0.

Box 87 Pittsboro, NC 27312 Distribution w/o encl:

See page 4

CP8lL Distribution w/o encl:

M. Shymlock, RII M. N. Miller, RII R. Aiello, RII N. Le, NRR J.

Lieberman, OE PUBLIC NRC Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5421 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, NC 27562-9998 SIGNATURE NAHE 8

rc al LReyes DATE COPY?

/ 96 12 /

/ 96 YES NO ES HO 12 /

/ 96 12 /

/ 96 12 /

/ 96 YES NO YES NO YES HO 12 /

/ 96 YES NO

65088 Federal Reguzter / Vol. S1. No. 238 / Tuesday, December 10, 1S96 /"No(lees to sathfy the plant Specificslly, the b still protect the b superstructure ccmsidezed the pl Hcansee contend Is not considered for xeportaL IHty none ofthe prind sariously degrad Hcensee does not condition was re information ava a

and there foze di violation.

The licensee descripUon ofthe l4OUce ofViolatio discussion ofthe txaasadttal ILL ttero is applying a re4 posiUon regarding numerical values Specifically, the li appcLazs that the statemeats and co UPSAR as "stand The licensee furth statLLd in the socon two of the NOV not dted as such i violations. it ap considers that t e panels to function pressure oi'5 psf ofregulatory zequ'eportable situatio disagrees with thi IcLgsl significance icipating with stitute (NH) to the NRC regarding generic issue. The that notwithstaa agreement on wha information in the the licensee believ the NRC's regulato inconsistent with guidance on repo in the licensee's re

6. NfiCZva/uotion The NRC agrees based on its anon October 1993. con presslue reHef pan relief at values %el turbine building s pzcLssuze of 80 psf.

dearly should hav pressure relief pan relief at values abo suprstzcLczlue p ca culation had rfozmLLd, it ls al

'censee could not that it was not aw should have been esign basis.

wout panels would din gs'ailure. which was t desigzl jmsis. The that tbe 45 psf value e plant design basis ideraticms aad e safety barriers was Therefore, the adder that this le given the le in October 1993, with this I

notes that the+

iohtion in the and particularly, the olation in the that the NRC ly zecent xegulatozy e status of thin the UFSAR..

see states that it C is considering all mitments in the one" requirements.

notes that while paragraph on page smittal letter. but any ofthe that the NRC lure ofthe blowout t the UFSAR stated

, in itself, a violation ments and a

. The licensee

'ezpzetation ofthe the UFSAR. and is e Nudear Energy

'Uate a dialogue with e resoluUon of this

'censee further states its efforts to reach e interpzetaUon of SAR should be, s that it is clear that interpretation is e previously issued bilitvas referenced ponse.

fLicensee Besporise t the licensee.

us calculations ia uded that the ls would provide the reactor and rstructlue failure hile the Hcensee been aware that the ls would provide e the 80 psf ifthe adequately dear that the port a condiUon of. even though it ofthe coa'dition. Noneth aware that the values calcu4ted the stated valuer of UPSAR at which supposed to p~vi maintains thatithe ofita desiga'bksis margia to the building fail an deviation from the been'zeportedfto The NRC main notwithstaacUng ccmteaUon that th NUREG-102Z.wo ccmdIUon was not believes that he H th NUREG-~

energy subsequently Q required for p

basis. Is not a H

reliefpanels, a provides a si protecUng the uil in the event of ofthe reactor

7. MICCocle/

TheNRCcon u

has aot pzovi mitlgaUag the AccozcHngly, th that a monetary amount of$50, forthe vio4ti

18. 1998 NOUce.

licensee has not basis for the wi ILBin the Noti (FR Dac. Q6-313 F

, the Qcinsee was

'ressure zeHaf 1993 were above 5 psf stated in the panels were reHOL The NRC censee was outside d decreased the that would cause

, therefoxe. the should have

'RC.

this position, Hceasee's

'dance in suggest that the le. The NRC misinterpreted dance aad in so the sub)act C. Simply stated, the fa missing high

t. which yxed as aot being ce withthe design le to the presslue e compcment which t function in supexstructl1ze ezpressure transient e bui)dings.

es that the Hcensee adequate basis for ty.

hasdetexmined I penalty in the ould be imposed SecUon I ofthe June ddIUon, the vided an adequate wal ofVio4tion ed 12-LL-Qe; 8:As aLLLI Policy and Procedure for Ezzforcement AOUona; Policy Statement AOEHCYz Nudear Regulatory Commission.

ACAON:PoHcy statemeat: Revision.

ZLLNNSAZLYZThe Nudear Regulatozy Commission (NRC or Commission) is amending its General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions (Enforcement Policy) to revise the list of ecLfozcement matters on which the NRC staff must consult with the Commlssioar to the Policy to provide that most p

'oaal enforcemeat conferences willbe open to public observation, to darify the cQcumstlulces ia which a Hceasee-ideatified violaUon wIIIbe treateci as a

)e gtcaz FOR fVR1l%7lleLOINAYNHCONTACT:

James Liebezman, Dixecfor. Office of Eafozcecaeat, US. Nudear Regu4tory Commissian, Washington, DC 20555

($01) 415-2741.

4UPILERIENziztYMvswATNH:The "Ceasel Statement ofPoHcy and Pxoceduze forNRCEnforcemeat AcUoas" (Eafozcameat Policy or PoHcy) was first Issued on September 4, 1980.

Since that thne, the Enforcement Policy has been xevised oa a number of occasions. On June 30, 1995 (80 FR 34381), the Eaf'orcemaat Policy was revised ia its entirety aad was also pubHshed as NUREG-1800. The Policy ly addressee vio4tions by aad certain noa-Hcensed persozLs. as dlscLLssed fuxther in footnote 3 to Section I. Iatroduction aad Purpose.

and in SacUon X:Enfozcement hction Against Noa-Hceasees. As described below, the Cozzunissioa is amending thcL Enforcement PoHcy to address issues zegarcHag coasuitaUoa with the Coauaissioa. open pzedecisional eaforcameat conferences, aoa-cited violatioas, and risk~ficant violaUons.

Coauni~ocz CoczsclltaQoa Most enforcement dedsions aze made at the NRC staff IeveL'However, based on guidance in SecUon 111 ofthe Eafomanent PoHcy "RespoasibiiiUes,"

certain cases require formal Commissioz coasultaUOLL. The pzecUce of Commission coasultaUon has existed since the Enforcemeat PoHcy was first publhhobas aa Interim POHcy in 1980.

After 1980, the number of cases requirin this type ofconsultation hss moze than doLLblecLMost ofthe criteria forcocLsuttaUoa were adopted many years ago. to address pexticlll&r non&ted violation, aad consideration ofrisk in developing sanctions.

0ATELTMs revision ia effecUve on December 10. 199K Comments are due on or before Januaxy 9, 1997. The change to Part Vofthe Enfozcement PaHcy opea pzeded sioaal exdazcement does not apply tocaafeieaces that were announced priorto the affecUve date ofthi's revision.

~

~

AOOtteSSKSX Send written coaunents to:

The Secretcuy ofthe Commission, U.S.

Nudear Regulatory Commission.

Wasldngton. DC 20555, ATTN:

Docketing aad Sarvtoe Branch. Deliver amments tcc 11555 Rockville Pike, RockvIHa, Maryland 20852. between 1L45 am aad 455 pza, cax Federal workdays. cayfea ofcomazents may be cacamiaed at the NRCPublic Document Room, 2120 LStreet. NW. (Lower" Level Was bin DC.

ENCIDSURE

Federal Reghter / Va). 61, No. 238 / Tuesday.

December 10, 1996 / Notices 65089 Coznmissioaer concerns or areas where the NRC staff had little expmience. The NRC staff has had substantial experience in implementing the ob)ectives ofthe Enforcement POUcy. lt

. h xelativeiy rare that the Commission devistes fram the recommended NRC staNappzoach. Thus. thee is less need formandatoty Commission involvement In many enforcement znattsrs.

Based on these factors and amsidering the signi6cant effort caxxeatly expended in providing Commission conan) tation on

~aforcement matters, the Commission has giiven the NRC staff more QexibiHty to decide what enfozcemeat issues should be brought to the Commission'i attention became ofpoHcy sigalficancs, amtzovetsy, or known Commission Intszest.

Section HI ofthe Enfotcement PoUcy h being modified to delete the specific tequitsmeats for consultation with the.

Commission before the NRC stsK Issues eafotcement actions involviag material false statemants, orders or civil penalties to unlicensed individuals. or dvilpenalties to licensed reactor opezatots. Because ofthe egregious nature ofmaterial false statetnent cases.

ith logical that they would be conside ted vary significant regulatory concerns and be categorized at Severity Level I and requite Commission consu) !ation on that basis (Section III(3) ofthe Enfotcement Policy). The Commission believes that consultation zegatding individual actions should be based on the merits ofthe particular case. Further, under the curtsnt PoUcy, dvil penalties are not normally issued to unlicensed individuals or operators.

These aues would receive Commission consultation at the request of the Executive Director for Operations (EDO). The Commission receives advance notification of all orders, Induding those issued to unlicensed individuals.

In addition, consultation willno longer be requited when the NRC staff exstcises discretion under Section VlLE2' and re&sins &om taking enforcement action for certain vioiatioas idsntified during extended shutdowns.

The Commission willreceive advance notification thxough Enforcement Notifications (ENs) for the 6rst exercise ofdiscretion for a plant meeting the criteria of Section VI1.B.2. Notification.

not consultation, willbe required when ths NRC stsff exercises discretion under

'ection V1I.h.1 in matters in which the civilpenalty lo be proposed deviates

~ Aber uLs issosacs of NUREG-15xs, Sscuoa VElLXofWEa~

Po ffey was rsa ambled ss Sea loa vtl$2.

fmm mots than two times the amount ofthe base civilpenalty. Hovnnntr. item (2) of Section IIIoftbe POUcy is being dari6ed to require consu)t'ation when'hs NRC staff propoesa a dvil penalty greater than 3 times the Severity Level Ivalues shown In sI'e 14 for a Idngle violation or pzoblam, The NRC staffwill amtinue to provide nod5cation to ths Commission foxall civilpenaltha and otdezs.

Pxedecisioaal Eaforcesilat Coafitzxmcsa HhtoricaHy, the Eafoccement PoHcy has provided that enforcement amfezeaces aze d oaed xaeetings between the NRC and Ilcenseea to exchange infozxaation on safety issues. Section Vo the current Enforcement Policy states that coafezencss, "aze aot noztaally open to the pubHc obsezvatimt.'" However, on July 10, 1992. the Commission established s 2-year trial program to detsrtnine ifthe POUcy should be changed to mate mast enforcement con&itences open to the pubUc. On July 19, 1994, the NRC announced that the trial program would be continued until the Commission had acted on the enforcement teview team's recommendations.

The announcement ofthe trial pxogram explained that the Commission's daMon on whether to establish a pezmanent policy formaking eafotcemcnt conferences open would be based on an assessmeat ofthe following criteria:

(1) Whether the Eeet that the confotsacs was open impacted the NRC's ability to conduct a meaningful conference and/or implement the NRC's enforcement program; (2) Whether the open conference impacted the licensee's participation ia the conference; (3) Whether the NRC expended a

significant enount of zesouzcss in making the conference public: and (4) Ths extent ofpublic interest ia opening the enforcement confarsnce.

Under the trial program, approximately 25 pezcsnt ofall eUgible eaforceaent confatencss were open to public obssnration. Open enforcement conferences were amducted in sech zegioaal office and with vazious types of

'ceasees.

Members ofthe public attended 40 of the 113 open conferences conductecL Ia most cases, three or fewer members ofthe public attended. The Commissioa received and evaluated comments &om Hcsnsees and members ofthe pubUc..

The most signi6caat concern in allowing pubUc observation at enforcement confitxsncss was that open conferences cauld inhibit open and candid discussioas between the NRC aad Hceztsses. limitthe &se.exchange of in&nnation, xsd uce amfeteacs e8ectivensss, aad negatively Impact ths enforcement pzogtsm. hlthough industry xeitstatsd this caacern during

'he trial program. the Commission has not found that open ea&txcement conferences conducted daring the trial pxogram were substantially Ieas &ank and open. nor was the NRC prevented

&om obtaining the infozxzttrdon requited tn Imp}etaent its eakixaemeat pxogram.

In some cases. the NRC staNneeded to aak H additional questions, but the infoxmaticmukimately provided was always sufBdent to meet pzedecisioaal

~afazcemeat conferee P

enforcement is consistent with the agency's priadploa of xegulstion and normal agency po

("Staff Meetings Open to the c: Final POUcy Statemeax." 39 FR 4e340; September 20. 1994). The intent of open con.'stances is not to maximize public attendance, but to provide the public with an opportuaity to observe the reguhtoxy procxiss. hfthough mating y technical meetings open to the Uc exposes paztfdpants to the risk that Information may be misunderstood or miscot tstzusd, the Gmtmission does aot 6nd that the riaLoutweighs the pubHc amfidence gained by allowing open obssnratioa ofNRC pred ecisiona1 enfozcsmeat conferences.

~ Msr considerin the impact on the NRC's abilityto axardse its zegulatoty aad safety tespottsihIUtiea. the impect an the candor and openness of communications during enforcement amfezeacss, the impact on NRC tssources. aad the beaefit to the public.

the Commission has dedded to modify the Enforcement,POUcy to provide that most caafetsaces willbe open to public

'observation. However. as for any public meeting. the NRC retains the discretion to close the confezence for a sped fic case. The criteria fordosing conferences anr currently addressed in Section V of the Enforcement PoUcy. With two additions, these cxiteria wlU continue to be usscL The changes involve opening a amfereace ifith based cm an NRC OfBce ofInvestigations (01) report that has been pubUdy cUsdosed and pxovidiag fiexibil{tyto open or dose a conference withthe approval ofthe Executive Director forOperations. The Enfotceneat Policy willcontinue to emphasize that predecisional eafoxcement conferences aze open for public obeenration and not participation canshtent with the NRC's policy on open meetings. T1te change to the Enfozcemeat PoUcy that opens pxedscisioaal eafotcemeat confetencss

55090 Federal Register / VoL 61. No. 238 / Tuesday, December 10, 2996 / Notfces willbe applied to amfezences forwhich the date is announced afier the effective date ofthis revision.

NoeZlted VlolaUoas The Enforcement PoHcy provides examples ofwhen dhcretion generally should be amsidered for departing from the normal approach under the Policy.

SecUon VILB.1.addresses noamted violations (NCVs) which are used to recognize the exhtence ofa legal violaUon but aze not formal violaUons.

NCVs are used to provide an incentive to lkensees to idenUfy and correct viohUons. Criterion 1.(a). In Section VILB.1.is a Severity Level IVvioiaUon that was "ideatified by the licensee, induding identification through an event."

This discretion is nozmally used when the Hcensee identifies and cmzects a non-recurring violation.

However, this provision is not normally used for violaUons that meat the criteria forSeverity Level IIIviolations, and where the circumstances justify characterizaUon at Severity Level IV.

Such cases nonnaHy are the more significant Severity Level IVviolaUons.

In addition, the NRC has considered whether this exercise of discreUon should normally be used in cases involving violations identified through an event. Ifthe root cause ofthe event is obvious or the Hcensee had prior opportunity to identify the problem but failed to take action that would have prevented the event. the licensee should not be rewarded by the NRC's exercising dhcretion not to cite the violation. On the other hand, there may be cases when. notwithstanding a self-disclosing violation. the licensee demonstrated inithtive in identifyIngthe violeUon's root cause. Irt such a case, an NCV may be appropriate.

Ia general. when the Hcensee's identification is through an event.

dhcretion should only be exercised when the licensee has demonstrated initiative. Further, the violation should be cited ifit caused the event, the cause is obvious. or a clear opportunity existed to identify the violation and take action to prevent the event. The Commission believes that the Enforcement Policy should be clariTied by deleting the reference to identification through an event in the uitarion in Section VILB.1.(e) to make it clear thttt use ofdiscretion is not automatic ifthe violation is idanUfied through a se) fdisclosiztg event.

Rhk-significant Violatioas In evaluating violations for enforcement, the higher the risk from a violaUon, the greatttr the severity level and NuicUon should be. However, the amvezse is aot necessarily true: low risk should not necessarily resu)t in an sanction or a minor vicdaUon being citecf. This is because many violations, although having lowrisk significsnae..

may indicate tt broader golem, often indicative ofa programmaUc Hceaaee failure to comply with NRC requizemeats and, thmefore, have a high dtozy slgnffiatncee e Enforceateat PoHcy cunently does not address zisk expHCitl, except in SecUon VILA.i.e,which addresses the esathUon ofenforcement sancUons in situations wbea the excessive duzaUtm ofa pzobleal has resulted fn a substt tnUal increaee in risk. Although there is inherent dhuetion in the Eaforazmeat Polka to Increttae Severity Leve)a and sanctions baaed an zhk. the Commissioa believes itis appropriate to m

the PoHcy to state the amsi tion ofrisk aspects more dearly.

In analyzing risk. the NRC recotiztizes the uncertt tiaties associated withrisk asaesamtmt. Qmentlly, quaHtative rather than quantitative risk assessments are made given the number ofvariables associated withrisk assessment.

Risk should be e considentUon in pzoposhz enforcement acUons. but not necessarily detezminatative. Ia developing higher civilpenalties, the Commission.inteads to consider, where appropriate, assessing separate civilpenalties for each violaUon that is aggregated into a Severity Level IIproblem.

Therefore. to provide sttffident disueUon to be able to appropriately

'onsider risk in enforcemeat decisions, Section IVofthe PoHcy is being modified to state that in considering the significance ofa violation. the NRC considers the technical significance. i.e..

'ctual and potenUtt 1 consequences, and the regulatory significance; and that in evaluating the technical significance, riak is an appropriate consideration.

Further. SecUon VILA.1.(e)ls being modified to state that exercise of discretion should be considered in situations where the violation has

'esulted in a substantial inuease in risk.

inducHng cases in which the duzaUon of the viobtUon has contzibuted to the substantial increase.

Paperwork ReducUoa Act Statemeat Thh policy statement does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduaion Act of 1995 (44 UB.C. 3501 et seq.). Exi requirements were approved by the Office ofMaziagemeat and Budget, approval numbm 3150-0011. The approved infozznation coHeclion requirements amtained in this policy statement appear in Section VILC.

PabHc I~cUoa Notification The NRC zoay not umduct or sponsor.

and a person is not required to respond to, a collecUaa ofinformation unless it displays a cuneatly vaHd OMB control zzzzmber.

Scaall Baahxm Ragalatmy Eafozcezaeut Fafzzteaa Act Ia eccmxhmce withthe Small Business Regulatmy Enforcement Fairness Actof1996. the NRC has determined that this acUoa h not a major rule and has verified this detazmfnaUon withthe Office of IafarmaUon aad Regulatory~'of OMB.

Aaoordfngly, tbe NRC Eafmcemeat PoHcy h azaeaded by revising Section BLthe Grat paragraph fn Section IV, SecUoa V, and SecUons VII'.1.(e) and VILB.I(a)to read as Mlows:

GKNI94Q Sl'ATKMKNTOF POLICY

'ND PROCEDURE FOR NRC KNFORCEMWl'CXIONS

~

p I

~

The ExecuUve Director forOperations (EDO) and the prindpal enforcement officers ofthe NRC. the Deputy ErecuUve Director forNudear Material Safety, Safeguazds and Operations Support (DEDS), and the Deputy Executive Dizectm far Nudear Reactor Regulation. Regional OpentUons, and Research (DEDR), have been delegated the authority to approve or issue all eecalated enfozcemeat actions'.4 The DEDS is responsible to the EDO for the NRC enforcement progzttms. The Offica ofEnforcement (OE) exercises oversight ofand implements the NRC enforcement proipams. The Director, OE. acts for the Deputy Executive Directors in eafozatment matters in their absence or as delegated.

Subject to the oversight and direction ofOE. aad with the approval of the appropriate Deputy Executive Director, where necessary, the regional offices nonnafiy issue NoUces ofViolation and proposed civilpeaalUes. However, sttbject to the Mine oversight ss tbe regional offices. the Office ofNuclear Reactor Reguhtioa (NRR) and the Office ofNudear Material Safety and Safeguttrds (NMSS) msy also issue Notices ofViolation and proposed civil peaalUes for certain activities.

4 The term"sscslstsd snlorosrosnt salon" ss ttssd ln thh yollc7 rnssns n Notke ol Vlolsiion or otvil~it7ms~~z l lb a.or al lnostlon (or pooblNnl or sn7 ordsr bsssd npon s rlolotlon.

Federal Register / VoL 61, Na. 238 / Tuesday.

December 10, 1996 / Notices 65091 Enfazcttttt tmt orders are normally issued by e Deputy Executive Director or the Director. OE However, orders may also be fsstted by the EDO. especially those involving the more significant mattezs.

The Directors of NRR and NMSS have also been delegated authority to issue orders. but it Is expected that normal Lzse ofthis authority by NRR and NMSS willbe confined to acUons not assoaatsd withcompHance issues. The Director. Office ofthe Controller. has been delegated the autharity to issue orders whttze licensees violate Commission zegulaUons by nonpaymtsnt ofHcense and fnspecUOQ fees.

hz xecogniUOQ that the regulation of nudaar LLCUviUes in many cases does not lend itselfto a mechanfsUC tzeatment. judgmttnt and cHsczeUOQ must be exercised in determining the severity levels ofthe violations and the

~ppropriate enforcement NmcUons.

fnchtdlng the decision to issue a Notice ofViolation, or to pmpose or impose a civilptLLLaltyand the amount ofthis peaalty, afier considering the general principles ofthis statement ofpolicy and the technical significance ofthe vialsUons and the suzmundfng clxcttmstltztces.

Unless Commission consultation or notifictttion is nquired by this policy.

the NRC staff may depazt. where wananted in the public's interest, from this policy as provided in Sttct ion VII.

"Exercise of Enfozcttmttnt Disczetion."

The Commission willbe provided written notification ofall enfozcernttnt

~ctions involvingcivilpenalUes or orders. The Commission willalso bts provided notice the fiat time that discrtLUOLL is exercised for a plant meeting the criteria of Section VII.B.2.

In addiUOLL. the Commission willbe consulted prior to taking action in the fofiowingsilttafions (unless the urgency ofthe situation dictates immediate action):

(1) hn action affecting a licensee's operation that requires balancing the public health and safety or common defense ttnd security implications of not

, operating with the polenUal radiologlcttl or other hazards associated with continued operation:

(2) Proposals to impose a civilpenalty greater than 3 times the Severity Level I values shown in Table 1h for e single violaUon or problem:

(3) htty proposed enforcement action that involves a Severity Lovel I viobttiotL; (4) hny ttctfott the EDO beHeves warrants Commission involvement:

(5) hny proposed enfozcetnent case involving an Office of Investigations (01) zttpon where the NRC staff (othttr than the OI staff) does not anive at the same conclusions as those in the OI zepozt concerning issues ofintent ifthe Director ofOI concludes that Comtlnfssioa consczltation is wananted:

tmd

{6)hny pmposed enfozcement action on which the Commission asks to be consul ted.

IV.Seventy ofViolaUoas Regtllatory rtsquizemente s have vaxying degrees ofsafety, safeguazds. or environmental significance. Therefore.

the relative impoztance ofeach violaUOQ, including both the technical signfficance and the regula! Ory signHIcance. fs evaluated as the first step in the enfoxaunent process. In considering the sfipzfficance ofa violaticm, the staff amsidezs the tadznfasi signfficanoe, Leactual and potential cxuzsettueaces, and the regulatory sfgnfficance. In eraluatfng the technical sfgnificance, risk is an appropriate coasidezetion.

V. Pred ecisional Enftsrcttzntmt Cozsfexezsces Whenever the NRC has leazned ofthe existence ofa potential violation for which escalated enforcement action appears to be wananted, or zecurring nonccmfonnanc>> on the part of a vendor, the NRC may provide an opportunity for a pztsdecisional enforcement conference with the Hcensee, vendor. or other person before taking enforcement aclicm. The purpose ofthe confbzence is 'to obtain informafion that willassist the NRC in determining the appropriate enfozcemttnt acUOQ, such as: (1) a coznmon understanding of facts, zoot causes and missed opportunities assoaated withthe apparent violations.

(2) a common understanding of corrective action taken or planned, and (3) a common understanding of the significanc ofissues and the njstld for lasUng comprehensive conective action.

Ifthe NRC concludes that it has sufficient information to make an iaformed enforcement decision. a conference willnot normally be held unless the Hcensee requests it. However.

an opportunity for a conference will normally be provided befoxe issuing an order based on a violation ofthe rule on Deliberate Misconduct or @civil penalty to an un Hcensed person. Ifa conference is not held. the licensee willnormally be requtrsted to pmvide a written response to an insptLCUon zeport, if s'nre term "rertutreraem" ss treed la tbfs policy meeas ~ leesllr btodlrrS rertaireroeot sacb es e ststote. recelstloa. ltceoee aoarltt too. eocbalael spedltastloa. ar artier.

issued, as to the Hcensee's views on the apparent violations and their root causes and a description ofphtnned or imxslemintttd conective ecUon.

the pzedecfsional enforcement anzfertmce, the Hcensee. veador, or other pexstazs wHIbe given an opportunity to pzovide InfonzzaUOQ coasfstent wfth the purpose ofthe caafezeace. Includfng an expiantLUOQ to the NRC ofthe immedhte canecUve actions (ifany) that were taken follawiag idenUfication ofthe potential violatfoa or nonconformance and the 1~ann campxehensive acUona that were taktm or wfHbe taken to prevent zecuneace.

Licensees, vendors, or other pezsocss willbe told when a meeting is a pzedecfsional enfozcemeat conference.

Apxedecisfonal enfozcemeat amfereace fs a meeUQg betweea the NRC and the liceasee. Ccmfereaces are ncexzsally hsid in the regional offices aad are normally open to pubHc observation. Conferences willnot normally be open to the pubHc ifthe

~aforcement action being amtemplated:

. (1) Would be taken against an IntHvfdLLai.orifthe acUon. though Qot taken agttfnst aa indivfduaL turns on whether an individual has committed wrongdoing.

(2) Involves sfgnfficant ptsxeonnel faHuxes whtsze the NRC hai requested that the fntHvidLLal(s) Invo}ved be present at the conference:

(3) Is based on the finding ofan NRC Qffice ofIavesUgaUons report that has not been pubHciy disclosed; or (i)Involves sttfeguszds infoznsaUOLL.

Privtscy hct information. or infozmalion which could be considered proprietary:

la addition, conf'erences willnot nmmaHy be open to the pubHc if:

(5) The conference involves medics) mfsadministzaUons or overexposuzta snd the cottfttrence cannot be conducted without CHsclosing thb exposed individual's name: or (6) The cottfezence willbe cond uaed by telephotse or the conference willbe

.amducted at a relatively small Hcensee's fsciHty.

Notwithstanding meeUng any of these criteria, a amfttzence may still be open ifthe conference involves issues related to an ongoing adjudicatory proceeding with one or more intezvtsttozs or where the evidentiary basis forthe conference is a matter ofpublic rttcozd, such as an adjudicatory decision by the Depttztment ofLabor. In addition, notwithstanding the above normal czitezia for optmlng or Closing conf'ezetsctts, with the approval ofthe Executive Director forOperations, conferences may either be open or closed to the pubHc after balaztclng the banefit ofthe public obserration against

p i

~

Federal Rey'ster / Vol. 61, No. 238 / Tuesday, December

10. 1996 / Notices the potential impact on the agency's decision-making process in a particular cacao

'Ihe NRC willnotifythe licensee that the conference willbe open to public observation. Consistent withthe agency's policy on open meetingp. "Staff Meetings Open to Public," pubUshed Septemlxa 20, 1994 (59 FR 48340), the NRC intends to announce open conferences nortnally at least 10 working days in advance ofconferences through (1) notices posted in the Public Document Room. (2) a toll-free telephone recording at 800-952-9674.

(3) a toll-free electzonic bulletin baud at 800-952-9676. and on the World Wide Web at the NRC Of6ce ofEnforcement homepage (www.nzc.gov/OE). In addition. the NRC normally willalso Issue a press release and notify appropriate State Uaison officers that a zedecisional enforcement conference s been scheduled and that it is open to public observation.

The pubUc attending open conferences may obierve but not partidpate in the conference. Itis noted that the purpose ofconducting open conferences Is not to maximize public attendance, but rather to provide the pubUc with opportunities to be informed ofNRC activiUes consistent withthe NRCs ability to exercise its reguhltory and safety responsibilities.

Therefore, members oftha public will be allowed access to the NRC regional o6ices to attend open enforcement conferences in accordance with the "Standard Operating Procedures for Providing Security Support for NRC Hearings and Meetings," puMshed November 1, 1991 (56 FR 56251). These procedures provide that visitors may be subject to personnel screening, that signs. banners, posters. etc., not larger than 18" be permitted, and that disruptive persons may be removed.

The open conference willbe terminated ifdisruption interferes with a successful conference. NRC's Pzedecisional Enforcement Conferences (whether open or c1osed} normally willbe held at the NRC's regional offices or in NRC Headquarters Offices and not in the vicinityofthe licensee's facility.

Members ofthe public attending open conferences willbe reminded that (1) the apparent violations discussed at pzedecislonal enforcement conferences aze subject to further review and may be subject to change prior to any resulting enforcement action and (2) the statements ofviews or expressions of opinion made by NRC employees at pzedecisional enforcement conferences.

or the lack thereof. are not intended td represent final detezzninations or beliefs.

e

~

~

(e) Situations when the violation results in a substantial increase in risk.

indudlng cases in which the duration of the violation has contributed to the substantial Increase; B. Mitigation ofEnforcement Sanctions

1. Licensee-Identified Severity Level IVViolations. The NRC, withthe approval ofthe Regional Administzator or his or har deaf gnee, may refrain Ann Issuing a Notice ofViohtion for a Severity Level IVviolation that is documented in an inspection report (or oKdai fiaMnotes for some material cases) and described therein as a Non-Cited Violation (NGV) provided that the hlspection report indudes a brief description ofthe corrective action and that the violation meets all of the foOowing criteri:

(a) It was identified by the licensee; e

Dated at Rockvtile. MD. thta 4th day oi December. l996.

For lhe Nudear Regulatory Commission.

John C Hoyle, Secretary ofthe Coaunisaion.

iFR Doc. 96-31319 Filed l29-96; a%5 ainj salsKI cooa ~IM POSTAL RAT%

8unehine Act HAI%oF AoKHCT:P Commission.

TSK Ala) OATE: 2:

9, 1996.

PLACE: Conference NW., Suite 300, W STATUa Closed.

lcATTERS TO tzE Docket No. C96-1.

COHTACT PERSOH Margaret P.

Rate Commisgon.

stal Rate p.m. on December

, 1333 H Street, gton. DC 20268.

ZCORE ~RMATlOIC w, Secretary, Postal uite 300, 1333 H When needed to protect the pub bc health and saFety or common defense and security, escalated enforcement action. such as the issuance ofan hamediateiy eifective order. willbe taken before the conference. In these cases, a conference may be held after the escalated enforcement action is taken.

VILExazcise ofDiscrtitioa

~

e e

e

~

A. Escalation ofEnjoicement Sanctions POSTAL Surtehfne Act Ocw em'oticeoF Vote to Atits meeting the Board of States Postal Servi to duce to bllc meeting In Washington, be briefed on: (1)

Prices; (2) a p Postal Rate (3) willconsider International The meeting Is attended by the fo Governors Al

Dyhrkopp, McWhezter, Rider Postmaster I'octmaster Gen to the Board Couzlsel Et cane, Aa to the Grat Board determined section 552b(c)(3)

States Code, and

39. Code ofF portio ofthe the open meeting Government in th US.C. 552b(b)]

disdose infozmati proamUngs und

39. Uniled States with postal za dassiQcatlon and services). which Is exempted from 410(c) oftitle 39, The Board has d pursuant to cacti United States thI 39,~ofF discussion is exe to speci6caUy con the Postal Service proceeding invol on the record alt hearing.

Aa to the third t detezzziined that 552b(c) (3) and (1 States Code; and (3) oftide 39. Unit section74 (c) and Fedezal Regulatio rtg; Board of Meet ng December 2, 199 t ofthe United voted unanimoc rvation its forJanuary 6, 199 The members wi m Publicau Mng with the on for Parcels; a ding appioval fol Centers.

ed to be

'ng persons:

, Daniels, del Juni

, Mackie, d Winters; Runyon. Deputy Coughlin, Secreta:

, and General second item, the t pursuant to ftitle 5, United on 7.3(c) oftitle Regulations, this g is exempt from ent of the Sunshine Act 15 use it is likely to in connection wi~

pter 36 oftitle e (having to do

, mail ges in postal

'ally ocuze by section States Code.

ezmined further th 552b(c)(10) of title and section 7.3(j) c eral Regulations, t}

because it is likel partid pation of a civilaction or a determination ppoztunity for a

, the Board t to section oftitle 5, United on 410(c) (2) and States Code; and

) oftitie39.Code of

, the meeting is Street, NWWashington, DC 20268-0001, Telephone (202) 789-6840.

hgazgazet P. Genehaw, Secreairy.

(FR Doc. 96-31405 Flied 12-6-9s: 10:50 i