ML20198L992
| ML20198L992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/15/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dodd C, Gejdenson S, Lieberman J HOUSE OF REP., SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198L999 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710270271 | |
| Download: ML20198L992 (6) | |
Text
...
"P3)fL.
/
UNITED STATES
.g
(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINoToN, o C. 2066H001
.g e
October 15, 1997 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd United Sta'es Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Dodd:
I am writing in response to your letter of September 5,1997, in which you requested a status
- report on your request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) work with the Connecticut Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (NEAC) with regard to the use of supplemental projects in mitigation of proposed civil penalties against NRC licensee Northeast Utilities.
Your letter notes the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) settlement policy related to supplemental environmental projects as a possible model for NRC action.
In prior correspondence with NEAC, the Comrr.ission has explained the limits of the agency's discretion in this area in lig.1t of an opinion of the Comptroller General that the NRC may not redirect civil penalties otherwise assessed to fund research or similar projects as an attemative sanction for regulatory violations. See Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Authority to Mitigate Civil Penalties, B 238419,70 Comp. Gen. 17 (1990). If a licensee chooses to pay a proposed penalty, the NRC is not authorized to do anything other than transfer those funds to the general treasury, Thus, as the NRC informed NEAC in a letter dated July 2,1997, the money already paid to the NRC by NU in response to the proposed
$650,000 civil penalty against NU's Haddam Neck facility could not be diverted for other purposes once received by the United States Govemment.
The Commission is aware of the EPA's settlement policy under which ptituters subject to civil penalties may offer to undertake an environmental project in mitigation or remediation of the l
penalties. Although the Commisslan has not found it necessary to adopt a similar detailed policy as part of its enforcement program, we note that our existing enforcement policy
/
1 includes consideration of a licames's corrective actions '.i the agt.ncy's determination of proposed civil penalties. Like EPA's policy, a nexus between the corrective action and the
/)f violations at issue is essential to consideration of mitigation or remediation of any proposed penalty under the Commission's enforcement policy. In earlier correspondence with NEAC, the Commission has noted the difficulty posed by NEAC's specific proposals to satisfy this requirement.
' Additionally, any proposal to tats such action with regard to a future civil penalty would have to be put forth by the affected licensee in the context of a response to a " Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty" cr in related settlement negotiations, not a third
_ party such as NEAC. It is for that reason that we have advised NEAC that it may wish to 9710270271 971015 PDR COMMS NRCC I
l CORRESPONDENCE PDR
- m. ityngs m 2-L
,+ s l
2 discuss its proposals with NU directly. The agency would consider NU's response to any future proposed penalty in determining whether mitigation of the penalty is appropriate in accordance with our enforcement policy.
Sincerely, b
l l
l l
1
[
%~-
UNITED STATES k-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(_
g
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066H001 :
g October 15, 1997=
CHAMMAN The Honoiable Joseph I, Lieberman
. United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Lieberman:
I am writing in response to your letter of September 5,1997, in which you requestcd a status -
report on your request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) work with the Connecticut Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (NEAC) with regard to the use of supplemental projects in mitigation of proposed civil penalties against NRC licensee Northeast Utilities.
' Your letter notes the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) settlement policy related to supplemental environmental projects as a possible model for NRC action, in prior correspondence with NEAC, the Commission has explained the limits of the agency's discretion in 'his area in light of an opinion of the Comptroller General that the NRC may not redirect civil penalties otherwise assessed to fund research or similar projects as an attemative sanction for regulatory violations. See Nuclear Regulatory Comm/ssion's Authority to Mitigate Civi/ Penalties, B-238419,70 Comp. Gen. 17 (1990). If a licensee chooses to pay a proposed penalty, the NRC is not authorized to do anything other than transfer those funds to the general treasuryc Thus, as the NRC informed NEAC in a letter dated July 2,1997, the muney already paid to the NRC by NU in response to the proposed
$650,000 civil penalty against NU's Haddam Neck facility could not be diverted for other purposes once received by the United States Govemment.
The Commission is aware of the EPA's settlement policy under which polluters subject to civil penalties may offer to undertake an environmental project in mitigation or remediation of the
-penalties Although the Commission has rot found it necessary to adopt a similar detailed policy as part of its enforcement program, we note that our existing enforcement policy includes consideration of a licensee's corrective actions in the agency's determination of proposed civil penalties, Like EPA's policy, a nexus between the corrective action and the violations at issue is essential to consideration of mitigation or remediation of any proposed penalty under the Commission's enforcement policy, in scriier correspondence with NEAC, the Commission has noted the difficulty posed by NEAC's specific proposals to satisfy this requirement.
Additionally, any proposal to take such action with regard to a future civil penalty would have to. be put forth by the affected licensee in the context of a response to a " Notice of Violation
&nd Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty" or in related settlement negotiations, not a third party such as NEAC. It is for that reason that we have advised NEAC that it may wish to l
l l
I
e.
2-
- discuss its proposals with NU directly. The agency would consider NU's response to any
- future proposed penalty in determining whether mitigation of the penalty is appropriate in accordance with our enforcement policy.-
Sincerely, b
6 5
4 d
2
[
%g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p-p WASHING 1oN, D C, 206%-0001 g
y
\\.....p October 15, 1997 CHAMMAN
-The Honorable Sam Gejdenson United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. - 20515
Dear Congressman Gejdenson:
.I am writing in response to your letter of September 5,1997, in which you requested a status report on your request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) work with the Connecticut Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (NEAC) with regard to tho use of supplemental projects in mitigation of proposed civil penalties against NRC licensee Northeast Utilities.
Your letter notes the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) settlement policy related to supplemental environmental projects as a possible model for NRC action.
In prior correspondence with NEAC, the Commission has explained the limits of the agency's discretion in this area in light of an opinion of the Comptroller General that the NRC may not redirect civil penaltics otherwise assessed to fund research or similar projects as an attemative sanction for regulatory violations. See Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Authority to Mitigate Civil Penalties, B-238419, 70 Comp. Gen. 17 (1990). If a licensee chooses to pay a proposed penalty, the NRC is not authorized to do anything other than transfer those funds to the general treasury. Thus, as the NRC informed NEAC in a letter dated July 2,1997, the money already paid to the NRC by NU in response to the proposed
$650,000 civil penalty against NU's Haddam Neck facility could not be diverted for other
. purposes once received by the United States Govemment.
The Ccmmission is aware of the EPA's settlement policy under which polluters subject to civil penalties may Mer to undertake an environmental project in mitigation or remediation of the penalties. Although the Commission has not found it necessary to adopt a similar detailed
- policy as part of its enforcement program, we note that our existing enforcement policy includes consideration of a licensee's corrective actions in the agency's determination of proposed civil penalties. Like EPA's policy, a nexus between the corrective action and the violations at issue is essential to consideration of mitigation or remediation of any proposed penalty under the Commission's enforcement policy. In earlier correspondence with NEAC, the Commission has noted the difficulty posed by NEAC's specific proposals to satisfy this requirement.
Additionally, any proposal to take such action with regard to a future civil penalty would have to be put forth by the affected licensee in the context of a response to a " Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty" or in related settlement negotiations, not a third party such as NEAC, it is for that reason that we have advised NEAC that it may wish to I
r 2-discuss its proposals with NU directly. The agency would consider NU's response to any future proposed penalty in determining whether mitigation of the penalty is appropriate in accordance with our enforcement policy.
Sincerely,
' [",&