ML20149H121
| ML20149H121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1988 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-RIA, TASK-SE SECY-88-033, SECY-88-33, NUDOCS 8802190122 | |
| Download: ML20149H121 (22) | |
Text
r y -.
i
<j
\\,...../
RULEMAKING ISSUE g
??
(Affirmation)
Q January 29, 1988 SECY-88-33$
For:
The Comissioners I
From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
RECONSIDERATION OF ENFORCEMENT POLICY PROVISION INVOLVING RE0PENING CLOSED CASES
Purpose:
To obtain Comission approval of a modificatien of the Enforcement Policy in regard to reopening of closed enforcement cases.
Sumary:
During the October 20, 1987 testimony before the Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation, Chairman Zech, in response to questions from Senator Breaux, comitted to reexamine the provisions in the General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions (Enforcement Policy) on reopening closed cases.
The staff has reconsidered the policy consistent with the Chairman's testimony and proposes that the Comission adopt and publish the modification described in this paper, eackground:
In SECY 86-74 (February 7,1986) the staff recomended that the Comission adopt a policy for reopening of closed enforcement cases stating:
"The staff believes that if additional information indicates that a previously closed enforcement action was inappropriate, the original action should be withdrawn and the appropriate action taken unless the deterrent benefits associated with such action would be outweighed by the prejudice to the recipient."
In SECY 86-234 (August 7, 1986) the staff, recognizing the reopening issue occurs so infrequently, concluded that the reupening issue should not be in the policy but sought the Comission's approval of the following guidance:
"If significant new infonnation is received by the NRC which indichtes that an enforcement sanction was incorrectly applied, that action could be reopened to correct the record.
For example, if new information shows that a violation was less serious than originally (x20741)
(
- C~2/90/2 b [ w
']y[,k -
Contact:
James Lieberman, OE
Th'e C issioners believed, the record could be changed to reflect a lesser sanction.
If, on the other hand, significant new information indicates that the sanction was not severe enough to provide adequate deterrent effect, the record could be reopened to increase the sanction.
However, if the licensee would be severely or unjustly prejudiced by a change in the enforcement sanction, then the need to correct the record and deter future misconduct would be balanced against this negative effect. Reopening an enforcement action is expected to occur only rarely and would require specific prior approval of the Director, IE."
The Comission on September 17, 1986 disapproved reopening to impose greater sanctions but agreed that reopening is appropriate if new information demonstrates a need to require additional remedial action to abate the effects of the prior violation.
Comissioner Bernthal believed that reopening should be handled on a case-by-case basis. The Commission adopted the following language for publication in the Enforcement Policy:
"If significant new information is received by the NRC which indicates that an enforcement sanction was incorrectly applied, that action could be reopened to correct the record.
Reopening should occur only (1) if remedial action, e.g., in the form of an order, is necessary to abate the continued harm of a violation to the public health and safety, the comon defense and security, or the environment or (2) if new information shows that a violation was less serious than originally believed or that it did not occur.
Enforcement action would not be reopened where the only change to the prior actic.4 would be to increase the severity level of a vialation or to impose or increase a civil penalty.
Reopening an enforcement action is expected to occur only rarely and would require specific approval of the Director. IE."
The Comission, on September 10, 1987 in response to i
SECY 87-152 (June 22, 1987), directed in regard to the reopening issue that the third sentence be revised to state, "Enforcement actions would normally not be reopened where the only change to the prior action would be to increase the severity level of a violation...." (emphasis added).
The policy was published on September 28, 1987 j
with that change.
Eleven coments were received in response to the September Federal Register Notice, two of which addressed the reopening issue.
Kerr-McGee Corporation stated that it was appropriate to provide a provision in the policy for reopening a closed l
I j
The Commissioners enforcement action but thought it was appropriate to hold a conference with the licensee before reopening a closed case. The staff would expect in most cases, if a sanction would be increased, an enforcement conference would be appropriate under the Enforcement Policy. Bishop. Cook, Purcell and Reynolds, on behalf of eighteen power reactor licensees, supported the provision as published, emphasizing the importance of "finality to enforcement actions."
Discussion:
Senator Breaux questioned the basis for reopening a case based on new information if a sanction would be reduced but not if a sanction would be increased.
The Chairman stated that the word "normally" was intended to put judgment into the decision and that if new evidence showed that a matter was more severe than we thought, we could increase the severity level and make a more severe penalty.
The Chairman committed to look into the matter and let the Connittee know the result of the reevaluation.
The relevant transcript pages are in Enclosure 1.
Whether or not to reopen a completed enforcement action requires the exercise of sound discretion and judgment.
It is difficult in the absence of a specific case to establish what action, if any, should be taken as a result of new information.
Considerations in making a determi-nation to reopen a closed case might include: whether the licensee knew or should have known of the information at the time the original action was closed, the time that has passed since the action was closed, whether the doctrine of res judicata applies, the apportunities available to learn of the information eariter and the reason for NRC not obtaining it earlier, the significance of the new information, the extent of the change to the enforcement action warranted by the new information, the resources necessary to reopen the case, the need fcr an increased sanction to provide additional deterrence for the impacted licensee and other similar licensees, whether the licensee acquiesced to the original enforcement action, whether remedial action is needed to abate the effect of the original violation, whether the original violation in fact occurred, and whether the licensee would be severely or unjustly prejudiced by a reopening decision (apart from receivingamoreseveresanction).
Recognizing that this is an issue which has arisen very infrequently in the past and should continue to arise very infrequently and that there are many considerations relevant to a reopening decision on the basis of new information, the staff recommends that the Commission not set out in advance the circumstances when the Connission believes it is appropriate to reopen a case.
We would then have the
The Counissioners flexibility to increase or decrease sanctions as appropriate on the basis of new information.
Therefore, section V.F. of the Enforcement Policy should be modified to make it clear 6 hat the decision to reopen a case is to be made on a case-by-case basis. A draft notice to so modify the policy is set forth in Enclosure 2.
Coordination:
The Office of General Counsel has no legal objection to this paper.
Recommetida tion:
That the Comission approve for publication in the Federal Reaister the modification to the Enforcement Policy set forth in Enclosure 2.
Note:
Upon resolution of this issue, the Congressional Comittees will be informed.
- l xf tor Stello, Jr Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
10/20/87 Transcript 2.
Federal Register Notice Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, February 17, 1988.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, February 10, 1988, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of February 22, 1988.
Please refer to the appropriate Week)y Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners EDO OGC (H Street)
OGC (WF)
OI ACRS OIA ASLBP GPA ASLAP REGIONAL OFFICES SECY l
. EM: \\ w wa L y
7*g UNITED STATES y h 3.-
s 'p.. "dl ;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- /-
- WASilNGTON, D C. 20555
'%,,',',/gl December 18, 1987 t
B NOTE T0:
Jim Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement FROM:
Mike Callahan [
Congressiona A fairs, GPA
SUBJECT:
TRANSCRIPT OF 10/20/87 BREAUX HEARING - REVIEW OF ENFORCEMENT POLICY As you requested, here is the portion of the subject hearing transcript
)
which covers Sen. Bree.ux's request to review a portion of the NRC's enforcement policy and the Chairman's committment to do so.
l-t L
?
r l
l
.,_,-,=,.v_,-n~,,,
,,,,n,
f-.
\\_
~ 20 1
give you an e xampt e of just a coupte of them.
2 First of alL, did the Licensee itsetf report the 3
viotation, or was it ne ce s sa ry f or us to find out whe+
4 about the viotation?
If the Licensee it set f reported the 5
violation, it does sake a difference.
It depends on what 6
he said, how long it had been taking place and whether 7
th e.*e w as a good-f ai th effort to take action immediately.
8 If he repor ted himself, if he took insediate action to 9
correct it, those things are consi de r ed i n bh* a iti ga ti ng 10 4+ a possibt e pe nal ty.
In addi ti on, th e pe rf ormance of +be 11 operatee ov e r time is conside red.
Some of our plants do
<*n 12 operate in a truly out standi ng m anne r ov er many, many 13 years, and if a violation is alL eged to be in the 14 "understandabte mistake" area or something that was not 15 certainty comptetely ca reless and nest isent, that woutd be, 16 perhaps, aitigating ci r cum st ance s.
'So I as saying that k
-@ M 17
- e : 2 et we Look at on a casejbasis.
o 18 There are times when it se em s th at common sense and 19 th e good j udgment woutd dictate siti ga ti on.
20 Senator Breaux.
In that same rev ised policy 21 statement, you set out a statement that indicates that th e I
22 Commission wilL reope n prev iously-close d i nv e sti ga ti ons 23 when new inf ormation is made av ai t a bl e regarding that 24 inv esti ga ti on to th e Consission, indi ca ti ng that some 25 rem edi al action is needed to protect the human health and
f..
A 21 1
the saf ety.
That is fine.
2 But it goe s on to say, "or it can be reope ned w hen 3
there is an indication that a severi ty Level of th e 4
violation shoutd be dow ngr ade d. "
But the Consission has 5
also stated that in the situation where new ev ide nce 6
indicates that an increase in the sev erity Lev el of the 7
violation or the imposition of an increase of an 8
al ready-asse ssed civ il pe nal ty is warranted, that 9
"e nf or cem ent a ction woutd normalLy not be re ope ne d. "
10 What I need is some explanation of the rationale that 11 say s you hav e the authori ty and wilL, in fact, reope n 12 inv estiga ti ons w hen it is de'termined that a Less severe 13 pe nal ty may be requi red w hich you w ilL not do so w hen the 14 ev i de nce indicates that a greater penalty should be 15 a s se s se d.
It makes no sense to se at atL.
Aa ! r e a di ng it 16 wrong, or do y ou hav e a rationale fo'r that?
17 Admiral Zech.
You are reading it right, Mr. Chairman.
i L :t 4 us @..; 3 :
18 it is a judgment call, I think.
Most of 19 expe rience we hav e had w ith enf or cement is not alL that 20 sa ti sf act ory.
We try to make enf or cement pr om pt and f ai r, 21 but w e don' t make it as pr ompt as w e wout d L ike to.
22 Often, enf or cement ca se s come up several years af ter 23 th e incident.
At that ti me, it has been two years or 24 perhaps Less or pe rhaps more from the incident.
W e s +a4 ct sLi w
25 r e t e a se s, w e h av e signed a civil pe nal ty.
It alrett r eope ns i
k-22 1
th e pubt ici ty and the case again.
Everyone is inyolved and 2
conce rned about a plant that may hav e been, f or two years, 3
ope rati ng y ery welL; we are talking about something that 4
was two-years old.
5 It causes a lot of, pe r haps, unne ce s sa ry concern.
But 6
we feel th a t av en though it is not as timely as we like, it 7
is responsibte action on our part to call attention to W
ia
+h=t aat&N&
8 these a c c i d: r t-e.
If that statement p44y:
"Y 9
en+ i t doe s come up that perhaps it w as more severe than it n
10 might hav e been, in my judgment, perhaps the attention that k&
net,((fthere i,s 11 has been brought to itg.',f-the ut'lity h::
12 no new inf ormation that w o ul'd cause us to be concerned
&+
L M M& A thw 13 abeet more sev ere 2 cident: er more sev er e action, in my 3
p61+
14 judgment, t h e a c t i o n, h a s, b e e n t a'k e n g and '+ i s suf f i ci ent.
15 Senator Breaux.
Admiral, I understand that, but. w i th
~
16 alL respeet to th e Commission, I think it is almost 17 ludicrous for you to have a policy statement that says that 18 if new evidence is submitted that j ustifies opening an l
19 i nv e s t i ga ti on, that that evidence indicates w e ough t to l
l
[
20 reduce the penal ty; w e wil L reope n that i nv e s t i ga ti on.
We l
21 probably wilL hav e no problen s v ith that.
22 But to follow it up by saying, "How ev er, if the 23 evidence indi ca tes th at an increase in the penalty shoutd 24 be considered, we are not going to open it up."
25 Admiral Zech.
If I recall, the wording, I think it
p.,
L T 23 1
says, if new ev ide nce is introduced, then it is a new bal(
2 game.
If there is new ev ide nce introduced, then, of 3
cour se, we coutd make a more sev ere penal ty.
4 But if there is not new ev ide nce --
5 Senator sceaux.
But the policy statement, I don't 6
read it like that.
The policy statement said: If new i
7 evidence is not great enough, then we are going to reopen 8
the investigation.
I read it as saying that if new 9
evidence indicates that the penal ties w ere too sev ere, that 10 we wilL Look at it.
But if the evidence indicates an 11 increase in the pe nal ti e s shout d hav e been j usti f ied, t h e n.
12 we are net going to look int'o it.
13 Admiral Zech.
No, sir.
It is ay understanding that 14 if new evidence is introduced or new ci rcumstance s present 15 themselves, we can sta rt a whole new proceeding.
16 Sena tor B reaux.
Let se read nhat it say s, and you can 17 interpret this, because I don' t read it like that.
18 "R eope ni ng closed enf or cement actions." That first 19 paragraph states the general statement of what we are 20 doing, and I as reading free the Federal Regi ster of l
)
21 Monday, September 28, 1987, Rutes and Regulations.
22 "The Commission believ es that r e ope ni ng a previously 23 closed enf or cement action may be appropriate under certain 24 ci rcum st ance s.
If si gni f ica nt new information is received l
25 by the NRC which indicates that an enf or cement sanction was e
r 1
i i
i
.C' L
24 1
incorrectly applied, th a t action could be r eope ne d to 2
correct the record."
No probles.
3 R e o pe ni ng shoutd occur only:
One, if the remedial 4
action in the form of an order i s ne ce ssa ry to aba te the 5
continued harm of the viot ation to the public health and 6
safety, the conson def ense and security or the environment; 7
or, two, if new inf ormation shows that a violation was Less 8
se rious than originally believed or that it did not occur.
9 Enforcement action would normally not be reopened where the 10 only change to the prior action woutd be to increase the 11 severity lev el of a violation or to impose or increase its.
12 civ il pe nal ty."
13 That sounds pretty elear to se that you are proposi ng 14 a regulation that say s:
If we think that we did too much, 15 we are going to reopen it, but if we think and evidence 16 indicates that the change would be to increase the sev erity 17 Level of the viotation or to impose or increase a civil 18 pe na l ty, we are not going to do it.
19 That is what that tells me.
20 Commissioner Bernthal.
Mr. Chairman, Let me make a 21 consent here.
The insertion of th e word "norm ally" th ere 22 was a modification that I believ e I proposed.
I did not 23 endorse the original form of this document, which, I think 24 you are quite right, wout d hav e ca tegori cal Ly excluded ever 25 reopening a civ il pe na l ty or a case where such re ope ni ng
f..
\\._
~
25 1
woutd be in the interest of ma ki ng the original finding 2
more sev er e.
3 The insertion of the word "norm ally" there certainty 4
set some of my obj ections to the original wording, and at 5
Least, I think, th at does allow some room for judgment, 6
now, on the pa rt of r e o pe ni ng, even in a case where a 7
matter might be reope ned to impose more sev ere penal ti es.
8 But the original version I found unacceptabte.
It 9
would have' categorically excluded reopening under cLng 10 ci rcum st a nce s.
11 Senator Breaux.
I think back.
Every ti me I read it,,
12 it is Ludicrous, it realLy i s, be cause w e are saying, "A
13 closed enf orcement action is going to be reo pe ne d if we are 14 going to reduce the pe na l ty, but it is not going to be 15 reopened if there is any prospeet f or increase d pe nal ty."
16 I f w e a re goi ng t o reope n th ea', we ought to ope n th en 17 to increase pe nalties or to downgrade them.
This is a 18 total lack of batance i n w h i c t. we are w e opening hearings.
i 19 This, in my civilian Lcok at i t, from my po si ti on, is 20 that you can' t justify that.
PLease telL se how you do.
21 Admiral Zech.
There is no intention for th e r e to be a 22 Lack of batance, Mr. Chairaan.
The intention that I read 23 into it, and w e alL agree with the w or d "norm al Ly" is to i
24 put judgment into it, and we intend, if there is new 25 ev ide nce that shows that it is more sev ere th an we thought, l
i
r-
\\--
t
.~ 2 6 1
we could open a whose new hearing and go to a much higher s e v e r h++ L ev el.
f 2
n 3
Senator Breaux.
But that doesn't say th a t, though.
i 4
It doesn't say th a t you have the judgment.
5 Admiral Ze ch.
It should, Mr. Chairman.
That is what 6
is meant by it.
Perhaps we shoutd look at the wording 7
again.
It was my feeling that we had a very sensibt e 8
policy statement in that regard, very sensibt e wording.
9 But if it reads that w ay to you, and pe rhaps it is 10 something, of course, that we shoutd L ook at.
The 11 intention is if new ev i d,e n c e is there, we can start over P
12 again.
That is the intention.
If it doesn't say that --
13 Senator Breaux.
New ev ide nce, because this doesn't 14 say that.
I think we can alL take a vote here and agree 15 that this se ts a different standa rd f or reopening an 16 investigation if the ev idence indicates that the penal ti es 17 shoutd be increased or that the requirement should be 15 increased.
That is what it says.
19 Admiral Zech.
We wilL certainly take a Look at the 20 wor di ng, Mr. Ch ai rm an.
If that is the w ay you read it, 21 that is important.
That is not what we intend.
If there 22 is new ev ide nce, it is clear to me we can reopen it.
If it 23 is not clear to y ou, I can telL you we wilL take a Lcok at I
24 it.
i 25 Consissioner Bernthal.
Mr. Chairman, I hav e got to l
I e
{
t l
I
\\
rt'
\\-.
~ 27
~
1 stress, the or i gi nal f orm of th a t w as mor e eggregious than 2
the present form.
I think the be st com pr om i se we were abte 3
to get w as the inse rtion of the word "normalLy".
4 Senator treaux.
Are you say ing this same thing w as 5
discussed at some point within the Commission?
6 Commis sioner Bernthat.
There is no que stion it was V
7 discussed, at Least by paper; it was discussed on tote 8
sh ee t s.
9 But I woutd L ike to point out the other side of this 10 story, and that is that I think the outcome here is 11 indi ca tiv e of a problen that seem s to be gr ow ing w here we,
12 try and def ine ev ery conceiv'abt e ci r cum st a nce for a 13 procedure or a rute or a policy in this Commission instead 14 of taking rather rare cases on a ca se-by-ca se ba si s and 15 making the be st judgment that we can.
16 There were a number of com pt ai'nt s on th e pa r t of 17 various Commissioners, and my se L f inctuded f rom t i m e-t o-ti m e, that in a very late and untinely manner, the 18 19 Commission woutd come in with a decision on a violation 20 that might have been sitting bef ore the staf f or perhaps 21 before the Commission for a year or a year and a hatf, 22 sometimes ev en L onger.
23 This, we felt, wasn't fair.
And I think that is the l
L tes behind the L anguage which w as originally l
24 sense that 25 pr opo se d, which I felt went too far, and the compromise
\\
1 1
L.
7 28
~
~
1 bef ore you does at L east allow us a Loophole now, I think.
2 Senator Breaux.
Is it imprope r j ust to say th a t the 3
Consission has the authority to reopen an investigation if 4
new evidence indicates that the incident w as Less serious 5
or more serious or that the penalties should be more or 6
Less on equal f ooting?
7 Admiral Zech.
No, not at alL.
And as I say, 8
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that if new ev ide nce 9
is there, we do hav e that authority, but we wilL certainty 10 Look at th at w ordi ng agai n.
11 Senator Breaux.
Look at i t, and plea se let the 12 Committee know what is going to be done as a result of 13 that.
14 Admiral Zech.
Yes, si r; w e wilL do that.
15 Senator Breaux.
I think that it should be approached 16 in a batanced manner.
This wording, to me, is elearty not 17 batanced, and appa rently, discussions w ere het d w ith regard 18 to that very poi nt.
19 My final question on this enf orcement po l i cy statement 20 relates to the ty pe of violations that fall within the 21 various severity categories.
I think w e have five 22 categories, that the commission is saying that for Category 23 I through V, Category I wilL be the most serious v iot ations 24 down to Category V, and ce rtain proposed type s of pe na l ti e s 25 with rega rd to viot ations at fautt within those categories t
I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 2 GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
ACTION:
Modification to policy statement
SUMMARY
The NRC is publishing a minor modification to its Enforcement Policy to revise its policy on reopening closed enforcement actions. The policy statement describes the policy which the Commission intends to apply in taking enforcement actions.
This policy is codified as Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 2.
DATES:
This modification to the Enforcement Policy is effective upon publication.
Comments may be submitted on or before ADDRESSES: Send comments to:
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555. ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Hand deliver comments to:
Room 1121, 1717 H Street, NW., Washingsce, DC between 7:30 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m.
Copies of comments may be examined at the NRC Public Document,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555(301-492-0741).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Commission on September 23, 1987 issued a revised Enforcement Policy (52FR36215, September 28,1987) in which Section V.F. addressed reopening closed enforcement actions.
Section V.F. provided that if significant new information is received which indicates that a previous enforcement sanction was incorrectly applied, the action could be reopened.
However, the policy provided that (1) reopening should occur only if remedial action is necessary to abate a continued harm or if the new information shows that the violation was less serious than originally believed or that the violation did not occur, and (2) normally actions would not be reopened where the only change to the prior action would be to increase the severity level of a violation or to impose or increase a civil penalty.
While comments submitted in response to the September 28, 1987 Federal Register Notice were generally favorable to the wordina of section V.F. the Commission has reconsidered this policy because it implies that an enforcement action would not normally be reopened to increase a sanction even if such action was warranted.
For example, reopening may be warranted to increase a sanction such as a civil i
penalty on the basis of new information if the reason NRC did not have the information initially was because the licensee misled the NRC by providing false information or withholdirg the information from the NRC.
In such a case, any prejudice to the licensee is the result of its own action.
Reopening would be justified to provide the appropriate sanction. Not to do so would reward a licensee's failure to cooperate with the NRC, which of course cannot be accepted l
l or tolerated.
l
i i
It should be noted that the issue here is reconsidering the existence of the 4
original violation or the circumstances and severity of the original violation.
If the new information supports a different violation, then reopening is not the issue because a new and different enforcement action can be taken.
i Whether or not to reopen a completed enforcement action requires the exercise l
of sound discretion and judgment.
It is difficult in the absence of a specific case to establish what action if any should be taken as a result of new information.
Consideratinns in making a determination to reonen a closed case might include: whether the licensee knew or should have known of the information at the time the original action was closed, whether the doctrine of res judicata applies, the opportunities available to learn of the information earlier and the reason for NRC not obtaining it earlier, the significance of the new information, l
the extent of the change to the enforcement action warranted by the new information, the resources necessary to reopen the case, the need for an increased sanction l
to provide additional deterence for the impacted licensee and other similar licensees, whether the licensee acquiesced to the original enforcement action, whether remedial action is reeded to abate the effect of the original violation, whether the original violation in fact occurred, and whether the licensee would j
be severely or unjustly prejudiced by a reopening decisicn (apart from receiving a more severe sanction).
i Recognizing that this is an issue which occurs very infrequently and that there l
are many considerations relevant to a reopening decision on the basis of new I
1 l
information, the Commission has determinea it is inappropriate to set out in J
advance the circumstances when the Commission believes it is appropriate to reopen a case. Therefore Section V.F. of the Enforcement Policy is being modified to make it clear that the decision to reopen a case is to be made on a case-by-case basis.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedura, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Sex discrimination Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set cut in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic i
Erargy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is cdopting the following modification to its statement of Enforcement Policy in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 2.
1
)
Part 2 - Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings l
l 1.
The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:
i Authority: Sees. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C.
2241);sec.201,88 Stat.1242,asamended(42U.S.C.5841);5U.S.C.552.
I r
I
w Q ).
a Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, asamended(42U.S.C.2073,2092, i
2093,2111,2133,2134,2135);sec.102, Pub.L.91-190,83 Stat.853,as amended (42U.S.C.4332;sec.301,88 Stat.1248(42U.S.C.5871).
Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs.102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955 Ls amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2233, 2239).
Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L.97-415,96 Stat.2073(42U.S.C.2239).
Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 186, 234, 68 Stat. 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat.1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846).
Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat.
853 as amended (42 U.S.C, 4332).
Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. SE4.
Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557.
Section 2.790 elso issued under sec.103, 68 Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 552.
Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553 and sec. 29 Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat, 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039).
Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134 Pub. L.97-425,96 Stat.2E30(42U.S.C.10154). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6. Pub. L.91-580, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135). Appendix B also issued under sec. 10, Pub. L.99-240, 99 Stat. 1842 (42 U.S.C. 2021b etseq.).
2.
Section V.F. of Appendix C - General Statement of Policy oc d Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions is revised as follows:
V.
Enforcement Actions 5
Reopening Closed Enforcement Actions If significant new information is received or obtained by NRC which i
indicates that on enforcement sanction was incorrectly applied, consideration may be given, dependent on the circumstances, to re-opening a closed enforcement action to increase or decrease the severity of a sanction or to correct the record.
Reopening decisi";ns will be made on a case-by-case basis, are expected to occur rarely, and require the specific approval of the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, f
Dated at Washington, DC, this day of 1988.
f For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission i
I l
l Samuel J. Chilk I
Secretary of the Comission l
l i
i I
l l
t i
l I
b l
I i
t I.
...... -., _ - - -, _ -,.,.. - -.., _ _,, _ - -.. _ _. _. _ _ _... - _ _,,. _,. -.,. -.,.. -.. _. _. -. _ - _ _ _ _.. _., _., - - _, _ _ _ _ _.., - - - -,,. - ~ _