ML20199F631
| ML20199F631 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/23/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199F616 | List: |
| References | |
| 15000016-97-03, 15000016-97-3, NUDOCS 9802040064 | |
| Download: ML20199F631 (16) | |
See also: IR 015000016/1997003
Text
.
. .
b
i
-
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
REGION II
!
Docket No.: 150-00016
I
Report No.: 150-00016/97-03
4
Licensee: Ground Engineering and Testing Service Inc.
'
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Dates: December 12 and 18, 1997
i
,
Inspector: David J. Collins, Health Physicist
Approved by: Charles M. Hosey, Deputy Director '
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety
- ,
,
f
,
x
k
Enclosure 1
4
9992040064 990123
! Pm STPRO ESOK
<
_ . _. ;- _ . .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . , _
.
- _ _ - _ __ _ _ _ __
. -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ground Engineering and Testing Services. Inc.
NRC Inspection Report No.- 150-00016/97-03
This routine, unannounced inspection included discussions with cognizant
licensee representatives, reviews of-documents, and direct observations of
licensed activities. The inspection included a review of management
oversicht, organization of the licensed program, activities conducted in areas
of NRC jurisdiction in 1997, transportation of byproduct materials and conduct
of the radiation safety program.
B3naaement Oversiaht
The licensee's management oversight of its radiation safety program was not
adequate with respect to conduct of activities in NRC jurisdiction. Three
examples of failure to obtain reciprocal recognition of the Kentucky Agreement
State license in calendar year 1997 were identified, and the licensee exceeded
the authorized time in a calendar year for use of materials in an area of
exclusive federal jurisdiction within Agreenent States and in non-Agreenent
States.
Oraanization and Scooe of the Licensed Procram
The licensee is authorized under its Kentucky license to use portable
moisture / density gauges at temporary job sites. The organization of the
facility was found to be in accordance with the license.
Personnel Radiation Protection
The licensee's personal monitoring program was found to be adequate.
Transoortation
The licensee's transportation program was being conducted in accordance with
NRC and Transportation (DOT) requirements.
Attachment:
List of Persons Contacted
Inspection Procedures Used
List of Items Opened, Closed and Discussed
List of Acronyms
_
Enclosure 1
. . .
. .
.. . . . _ _ _ _ _ - -
.
.
81 PORT DETAILS
01. ManagementOversight(87100)
a. icgat
'
The ins)ector reviewed the licensee's organization and management
oversig1t to determine whether the organization and staffing were
as required by the license. The inspector reviewed the licensee's
activities in areas of NRC jurisdiction to determine whether
licensed activities had been conducted.in calendar year 1997 in
areas of hRC jurisdiction, and that recognition of the Kentucky
license had been requested by the licensee and granted by NRC.
b. Observations and Findinas
The licensee's Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) was named to the
license in September 1997, and the Construction Materials Manager
was previously the Radiation Safety Officer for the licensee.- The
current RSO has the authority to carry out his licensed duties.
The Construction Materials Manager stated in the exit telephone
call on December 18, 1997 that he had understood that the
corporate office in Birmingham Alabama in 1996 was to apply for an
NRC license, but had not inquired further, nor had he applied for
reciprocal recognition of the Kentucky Agreement State license to
conduct licensed activities in Non-Agreement States and areas of
exclusive federal jurisdiction. In discussion with the current
RSO, the inspector determined that he had limited knowledge of the
prior record-keeping associated with the license. The RSO
acknowledged that the licensee had performed licensed activities
in the States of West Virginia and Indiana, and at identified-
sites of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction at the Fort
Knox, Kentucky US Army facility. The activities at the Buffalo,
West Virginia location were conducted from March 23 - December 19,
1997. The activities at the Clarksville /Jeffersonville, Indiana
location were conducted October 18 - 21, 1997. The activities at
the Fort Knox landfill facility were conducted on various dates
from January 1 - December 18, 1997. The Construction Materials
Manager stated that to his knowledge, no reciprocal recognition
documents had been filed with NRC Region II-for activities at Fort
Knox (an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction) nor the non-
-Agreement States of Indiana and West Virginia. The licensee could
not find any documents in their files which would indicate that
they had filed for reciprocity in 1997.
Enclosure 1
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
-
.
r
2
i
4
The periods of time included: !
Days Cumulative !
Month Used Location Days in 1997 i
"
January 21 Fort Knox, KY landfill) 21
'
March 9 Toyotaplant, Buffalo,WV) 30
April 30 Buffalo, WV 60
May 31 Buffalo, WV 91
June 30 Buffalo, WV 121
'
July 31 Buffalo, WV 152
August 31 Buffalo,WV31;Ft. Knox 3) 183
September 30 Buffalo, WV 30; Ft. Knox 7) 213
October 28 Buffalo, WV 28; Ft. Knox 9;
- GEA Distribution construction site,
Clarksville /Jeffersonville IN 7) 241
November 30 (Buffalo,WV30) 271
December 19 (Buffalo, WV 19; Ft. Knox-1) 290
Kentucky is an Agreement State issuing licenses for the use of '
4
'
byproduct materials used within its borders, excepting areas of-
federal legislative jurisdiction in Kentucky, License Number 201-
i
431-51 is issued to Ground Engineering-and Testing Services, Inc.
Amendment 17 was issued on September 18, 1997 Amendment 16,
September 4, 1997 contains identical information. License
,
condition 11 states.that " radioactive materials may be used at ;
temporary job sites, in areas not under exclusive federal-
Jurisdiction, anywhere in the Comonwealth of Kentucky where the
cabinet maintains jurisdiction for regulating the use of
. radioactive material. (This condition does not ~ prohibit use in
-
other states under reciprocity privileges which may be granted by
the regulatory agency having jurisdiction.)" (emphasis added).
Fort Knox, Kentucky is an exclusive federal jurisdiction area, and
'
NRC regulates the use of byproduct material there. West Virginia
and Indiana are non-Agreement States where NRC regulates byproduct
materials use. NRC regulations in 10 CFR 150.20 state that upon
notifying the appropriate NRC regional office, three days in
,
'
advance, with the correct number of copies of NRC Form 241, the
Agreement State license authorizing temporary job sites, and the
proper fee, an Agreement State licensee may perform licensed
_
i
activities for not more than 180 days in a calendar year. An
, additional notification and fee are required for subsequent added i
L job sites. NRC regulations at 10 CFR 30.3 state in part that no
person shall possess or use byproduct material exce)t as
e authori .ed by a specific or general license issued )y the NRC. ~
, The Manager of Construction Materials stated that his
understanding was the Corporate office in Birmingham was to obtain
Enclosure 1
t.
, . _ , . , , , _ _ . . . . _ _ . , _ - - _ . , _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
.
'
3
an NRC license in 1996. In December 1997, he stated, he was
informed that no such application had been made and no NRC license
'
existed. The licensee filed the appropriate documents during
calendar year 1995 for reciprocity recognition of work being
performed at Fort Knox, KY. The letter to the licensee dated
One 9,1995 in the licensee's files carries a subject line and a
clear statement that the recognition is for calendar year 1995
only and may not exceed 180 days, ,
c. Conclusions
Based on those discussions and reviews, the inspector concluded
that the licensee's management oversight of its radioactive
materials use program in NRC jurisdiction areas was inadequate.
Based on those discussions and reviews, the inspector concluded
that the licensee:-
!
(1) Had not filed the appropriate documentation and fee to
obtain recognition of its Kentucky Agreement State license
at least three days prior to beginning _ licensed activities
at Fort Knox, KY, an area of exclusive federal legislative
jurisdiction;
(2) Had not obtained NRC acknowledgment of two additional
tem
WV)porary in non-Agreement job site locations (Clarksville, IN and Buffalo,
States; and,
(3) Had exceeded the 180 days in a calendar year (1997) which
would have been authorized had recognition of the Agreement
State license been sought.
~
(4). Had not obtained an NRC specific _or general license.
Failure of Ground Engineering to obtain reciprocal recognition of
the Kentucky Agreement State license prior to conducting licensed
activities in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction was
identified as an apparent violation of 10 CFR 150.20 and
10 CFR 30.3. [EEI 150-00016/97-03-01]
02. Organization and Scope of the Licensee Program (87100)
a. Scope
Kentucky license 201-431-51 authorizes Ground Engineering and
roperties of
Testing
engineering to perform materials measurements to determine p/ density gauges.
using portable moisture The
license authorizes use of these devices at temporary job sites.
Specific individuals are named as users on the license.
~
b. Observations and Findinas
-
Enclosure 1
- . - - . . - - .- - _ . - .. - _-
.
.
4
The inspector reviewed records of inventory and use of 5 separate
portable gauges which had been used in calendar year 1997 in areas
of NRC jurisdiction. Areas of 1RC jurisdiction where the gauges
were used included the landfill at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the Toyota
automobile plant at Buffalo, West Virginia, and the GEA
Distribution Center construction site at
Clarksville /Jeffersonville. Indiana. The gauges were signed out
to the locations by authorized individuals, based upon the
initials of the individuals, and the return inventory,
c. Conclusiqnt
The inspector determined that the named individuals conducted
operations and the RSO possessed the authorization to carry out
licensed functions. The inspector concluded that the organization
and scope of the program was as described in the Kentucky license.
03. Personnel Radiation Protection (83822) ,
a. hops
The inspector reviewed licensee dosimetry documents, and discussed
radiation ex)osures with the RSO to determine if the licensee
complied wit 1 personnel radiation protections requirements in
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector detennined that each individual identified on the
license, and each user of the portable gauges had been issued a
dosimetry device, and that the vendor was properly qualified. No
individual in 1996 or 1997 had received an exposure in excess of
the limits allowable.
c. Conclusions
The inspector determined that the licensee conducted its radiation
protection program in accordance with regulatory requirements.
04. Transportation (86740)
a. hopg
The inspector observed the portable gauges packaged for transport,
and the documentation meant to travel with them. Discussion was
held with the RSO as to the location of documents during
transport. No vehicles were available containing byproduct
_
material.
Enclosure 1
4
5
b. Observations and Findinas
The ins?ector observed the packages and the transport documents.
The pac < ages and determined that they were properly and legibly -
labeled for transport. The documents indicated they were to be
carried in plain view. The RSO was knowledgeable of the transport
requirements.
c. Conclusions
.The inspector determined that the licensee conducted its
radioactive material transportation program in accordance with-
regulatory requirements.
EXIT MEETING SUMMARY
The inspector presented the inspection results to the Construction Materials
Manager at the conclusion of the inspection by telephone on December 18, 1997.
The construction Materials Manager stated that he would request the Corporate
office for assistance in correcting the failure to file for reciprocal
recognition of the Kentucky license. Licensee representatives did not
identify any documents or processes as proprietary in nature. Dissenting
connents were not-received from the licensee. i
_ --_ =
Enclosure 1
-.
. -
.
-
.
-
.
.
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
-
,
!
l
-ATTACHMENT i
'
LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED '
!
'
Licensee: '
James Brewer, Radiation Safety Officer and Technician Supervisor :
2
- Dennis Duerr, Construction Materials Manager- by telephone December 18, 1997 :
'
- Exit meeting conducted by telephone on December 18, 1997
-
!
'
4
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
'
IP 87.100 - Licensed Materials Program
IP 83822 - Radiation Protection .
IP 86740 - Inspection of Transportation Activities
4
'
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED.-CLOSED . AND DISCUSELQ
-Item Number Status DescriptioD
150-00016/97-03-01 Open EEI - Failure to file Report of Proposed
Activities in Non-Agreement States
.
. LIST OF ACHONY11
LCFR Code of Federal Regulations
> DOT Departnent of Transportation ,
EEI Escalated Enforcement Item
, RS0- Radiation Safety Officer #
1
VIO -Violation ;
,
I *
a
9
Enclosure 1
i
!
,,- y-%m r-----,
-was A--,, , ,_- - . - -9, ,:c-, --i._,.,m. ,mu_,.m,, , , ,_.rm -- - -
m_ - .7 r.,
.
> .
4
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
0FFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
May 1, 1996
' NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 96-28: SUGGESTED GUIDANCE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION
t
2
addressees
All material and fuel cycle licensees.
Purnose
!
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information
notice to provide addressees with guidance relating to development and
implementation of corrective actions that should be considered after
identification of violation It is expected that
recipients will review this(s) information of NRC requirements.
for applicability to their facilities
and conLider actions, as a)propriate, to avoid similar problems. However,
suggestions contained in t11s information notice are not new NRC requirements;
- therefore, no specific action nor written response is required.
l BAckoround
On June 30, 1995, NRC revised its Enforcement Policy (NUREG-1600)1 60 FR
34381, to clarify the enforcement program's focus by, in part, em)hasizing the
importance of ' identifying problems before events occur, and of ta(ing prompt,
comprehensive corrective action when problems are identified. Consistent with
,
the revised Enforcement Policy, NRC encourages and expects identification and
prompt, comprehensive correction of violations.
'
_
- In many cases, licensees who identify and promptly correct non-recurring
Severity Level IV violations, without NRC involvement, will not be subject to
formal enforcement action. Such violations will be characterized as "non-
cited" violations as provided in Section VII.B.1 of the Enforcement Policy.
Minor violations are not subject to formal enforcement action. Nevertheless,
the root cause(s) of minor violations must be identified and appropriate
corrective action must be taken to prevent recurrence.
If violations of more than a minor concern are identified by the NRC during an
inspection, licensees will be subject to a Notice of Violation and may need to
, provide a written response, as required by 10 CFR 2.201, addressing the causes
of the violations and corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence. In some
1
cases, such violations are documented .
Form 591 (for materials licensees)
9604290193
? ' Copies of NUREG-1600 can be obtained by calling the contacts listed at
the end of the Information Notice,
r
NtREG/BR 019$ C 29 Rev 6/96
'
--
Enclosure 3
.. --
4 v g ne+. m --,,--gm-s ,ny,--,-. .-
.
. .
s'
May 1, 1996
Page 2 of 6
l
which constitutes a notice of violation that requires corrective action but !
does not require a written response. If a significant violation is involved, )
a predecisional enforcement conference may be held to discuss those actions.
The quality of a licensee's root cause analysis and plans for corrective
actions may affect the NRC's decision regarding both the need to hold a
predecisional enforcement conference with the licensee and the level of
sanction proposed or imposed.
Discussion .
.
Comprehensive corrective action is required for all violations. In most
cases, NRC does not propose im)osition of a civil penalty where the licensee
promptly identifies and compre1ensively corrects violations. However, a
Severity Level Ill violation will almost always result in a civil penalty if a
licensee does not take prompt and comprehensive corrective actions to address
the violation.
It is important for licensees, upon identification of a violation, to take the
necessary corrective action to address the noncompliant condition and to
prevent recurrence of the violation and the occurrence of similar violatiora.
Prompt com)rehensive action to improve safety is not only in the public ,
interest, sut is also in the interest of licensees and their employees. In ;
addition, it will _ lessen the likelihood of receiving a civil penalty. Compre-
hensive corrective action cannot be developed without a full understanding of
the root causes of the violation.
Therefore, to assist licensees, the NRC staff has prepared the following
guidance, that may be used for developing and implementing corrective action.
Corrective action should be appropriately comprehensive to not only prevent
recurrence of the violation at issue, but also to prevent occurrence of
similar violations. The guidance should help in focusing corrective actions
broadly to the general area of concern rather than narrowly to the specific
violations. The actions that need to be taken are dependent on the facts and
circumstances of the particular case.
The corrective action process should involve.the following three steps:
1. Conduct a comolete and thorouah review of the circumstances that leC to
the violation. Typically, such reviews include:
- Interviews with individuals who are either directly or indirectly
involved in the violation, including management personnel and
those responsible for training or procedure development / guidance.
Particular attention should be paid to lines of communication
between supervisors and workers.
.
.
'
Rm.6/96 C-30 NUREG/BR 4195
--
'l ,_ _ .
- - - _ _ _ _ _ ___
.
'
May 1, 1996
Page 3 of 6
-
Tours and observations of the area where the violation occurred,
particularly when those reviewing the incident do not have day-to-
day contact with the operation under review. During the tour,
individuals should look for items that may have contributed to the
violation as well as those items that may result in future
violations. Reenactments (without use of radiation sources, ;f
they were involved in the original incident) may be warranted to
better understand what actually occurred.
-
Review of programs, procedures, audits, and records that relate
directly or indirectly to the violation. The program should be
reviewed to ensure that its overall objectives and requirements
are clearly stated and implemented. Procedures should be reviewed
to determine whether they are complete, logical, understandable,
and meet their objectives (i.e., they should ensure compliance
with the
current requirements). Records should be raviewed to determine
whether there is sufficient documentation of necessary tasks to
provide an auditable record and to determine whether similar
violations have occurred previously. Particular attention should
be paid to training and qualification records of individuals
involved with the violation.
2. Identify the root cause of the violation.
Corrective action is not comprehensive unless it addresses the root
cause(s) of the violation. It is essential, therefore, that the root
cause(s) of a violation be identified so that appropriate action can be
taken to prevent further noncompliance in this area, as well as other
potentially affected areas. Violations typically have direct and
indirect cause(s). As each cause is identified, ask what other factors
could have contributed to the cause. When it is no longer possible to
identify other contributing factors, the root causes probably have been
identified. For example, the direct cause of a violation may be a
failure to follow procedures; the indirect causes may be inadequate
training, lack of attention to detail, and inadequate time to carry out
an activity. Tnese factors may have been caused by a lack of staff
resources that, in turn, are indicative of lack of management support.
Each of these factors must be addressed before corrective action is
considered to be comprehensive.
NUREG/BR 0195 C 31 Rev. 6/96
'
..
44
____.._._._._________m_
._ _ _. _ _ _ . _ . . ._ _ _._
,
- .
'
'
May 1, 1996 ;
Page 4 of 6
3. Take oromot and comorehensive corrective action that will address the
immediate concerns and orevent recurrence of the violati m
It is important to take immediate corrective action to address the
specific findings of the violation. For example, if the violation was
issued because radioactive material was found in an unrestrictea area,
.im t1111a corrective action must be taken to place the material under
. licensee control in authorized locations. After the immediate safety
concerns have been addressed, timely action must be taken to prevent
future recurrence of. the violation. Corrective action is sufficiently
comprehensive when corrective action is broad enough to reasonably
prevent recurrence of the specific violation as well as prevent similar
violations.
In evaluating the root causes of a violation and developing effective,
corrective action, consicier the following:
1. Has management been informed of the violation (s)?
2. Have the programmatic implications of the cited violation (s) and the
'
potential presence of similar weaknesses in other program areas been
considered in formulating corrective actions so that both areas are
adequately addrened?
3. Have precursor events been considered and factored into the corrective
actions?
4. In the event of loss of radioactive material, should security of
radioactive material be enhanced?
5. -Has your staff been adequately trained on the applicable requirements?
6. Should personnel be re-tested to determine whether re-training should be
emphasized for a given area? Is testing adequate to ensure
,
understanding of requirements and procedures?
7. Has your staff been notified of the violation and of the applicable
corrective action? ,
8. Are audits sufficiently detailed and frequently performed? Shnald the
frequency of periodic audits be increased?
C 32 NUREGIBR.4195
Rev. 6/96 ,
_
..
-
r -,
-
s
t
IN 96-28 _
n
'
May 1, 1996
Page 5 of 6
-
4. Is-there a need for retaining an independent technical consultant to
audit the area of concern or revise your procedures?
- 10.- Are the procedures consistent with current NRC requirements, should they
be clarified, or should new procedures be developed?
11. Is a sys'em in place for keeping abreast of new or modified NRC
requirements?
12, Duo.; fv'r ttaff app.reciate the need to consider safety in approaching
daiWasignments?
13.: Are resources %bquate to perform, and maintain control over, the
licensed activities? Has the radiation safety officer been provided-
sufficient time and resources-to perform-his or her oversight duties?
14.. Have work hours affected the employees' ability to safely perform the
job?
15. Should oroanizational changes be made (e.g., changing the reporting
relation'.aip of the radiation safety officer to provide increased
independence)?
, 16. Are management and the radiation safety officer adequately involved in
oversight and implementation of the licensed activities? Do supervisors
adequately observe new employees and difficult, unique, or new
oper:tions?
17 . - = Has management established a work environment that encourages employees
to raise safety and compliance concerns?:
18. -Has management placed a premium on production over compliance-and
safety? Does management demenstrate a commitment to compliance and
safety?
19. Has management communicated its expectations for safety and compliance?
20. Is there a published discipline policy for safety violations, and are 1
employees aware of it? Is it being followed?
___
Y
NUREG/BR4195 C.33 Rev. 6/96
,
.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ . - _ _ _ - - - - - - - -
_ . . . ._.. . _ __ _ -___ _ _ . _ _. _ _ .__.. _ _ _. _ _ _ ___ .__ _ ..._. _ .
,
-
. ,
May 1, 1996
Page 6 of 5
l
This information notice requires no specific action nor written response. If l
you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact
one of the technical contacts listed below,
i
Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck, Director Donald A. Cool, Director
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety Division of Industrial
and Safeguards and Medical Safety
Office of Nuclear Material Safety' Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards and Safeguards
Nader L. Hamish, OE Daniel J. Holody, RI ;
Technical contacts:
(301) 415-2740 (610) 337-5312
Internet:nl.m9nrc. gov internet:djh9nrc'. gov
Bruno Uryc, Jr., Ril Bruce L. Burgess, Rlll
(404) 331-5505 (708) 829-9666
Internet:bxufnrc. gov Internet: bib 9nrc. gov
>
Gary F. Sanborn, RIV
(817) 860 8222
Internet:gfs9nrc. gov
&
I'
e
P
v
f'
I
C44 NUREGIBR4195
Rev. 6/96
i
I
e9
' e
-
- - - .
.
. .
, *
.
Com lation of NRC Enforcement PoHey es of September 10.1H7
the conference will be open to public For a case in which an NRC Office of there is a full adjudicatory record
observation. Comistent with the investigations (01) report finds that bafore the Department of Labor. If a
agency's policy on open meetings, discnmination as defined under 10 CFR conference is held in such cues,
'Staf f Meetin6s Open to Public.* 50.7 (or similar provisions in Pans 30,40, generally the conference wtll focus on
published September 20,1994 (59 FR 60,70, or 72) has occurred, the 01 report the licensee's corrective action. As
48340), the NRC intends to announce may be made public, subject to withholding with discrimination cases bued on Of
open conferences normally at least 10 certain information (i.e., after appropriate investigations, the complainant may be
working days in advance of conferences redaction), in which cue the associated a!1 owed to participate,
through (1) notices posted in the Public predecisional enforcement conference will Members of the public attending open
Document Room,(2) a toll free normally be open to public observation. In conferences will be reminded that (1)
- telephone recording at 800-952 96?4, a conference where a particular individual the apparent violations discussed at
(3) a t:ll free electronic bulletin botrd is being considered potentially responsible predects;osal enforcement conferences
at 800 952 96 6, and on the World for the discrimination, the conference will are subject to further review and may
Wide Web at the NRC Office of remain closed, la either case (i.e., whether be subject to change prior to any
Enforceteent homepage the conference is open or closed), the resulting enforcement action and (2)
(.sww.ntc. gov /OI 1. In addition, the employee or former empioyee who was the the statements of views or expressions
NRC will also issue a press release and supiect of the alleged discrimination of opinion made by NRC employees at
notify appropriate State liaison of ficers (hereafter referred to as ' complainant') predecisional enforcement conferences,
that a predecisional enforcement will normally be provided an opportunity to or the lack thereof, are not intended to
conference has been scheduled and that panicipate in the predecisional enforcement represent final determmations or
it is open to public observation. conference with the licensee / employer, beliefs.
The public attending open conferences This participation will normally be in the When needed to protect the public
may observe but may not panicipate in form of a complainant statement and health and safety or common defense
the conference, it is noted that the comment on the licensee's presentation, and security, escalated enforcement
followed in turn by an opponunity for the action, such as the issuance of an
purpose of conducting open conferences
is not to maaimize public attendance, licensee to respond to the complainant's immediately effective order, will be
but rather to provide the public with presentation. In cases where the taken before the conference, in these
opportunities to be informed of NRC complainant is unable to attend in person, cases, a conference may be held after
activities consistent with the NRC's arrangements will be made for the the escalated enforcement action is
ability to exercise its regulatory and complainant's parucipation by telephone or taker..
safety responsibilities. Therefore, an opponunity given for the complainant to
members of the public will be allowed submit a written response to the licensee's VI. ENf0RCDtENT ACTIONS
access to the NRC regional offices to presentation. If the licernee chooses to
attend open enforcement conferences in forego an enforcement conference and, This section desenbes the
accordance with the ' Standard instead, responds to the NRC's findings in enforcement sanc. inns available to the
Operating Procedures for Providing writing, the complainant will be provided NRC and specifies the conditions under
Security Suppon For NP.C Hearings and the opportunity to submit written comments which each m:.y be used. The basic
Meetings," published November 1,1991 on the licensee's response. For cases enforcement sanctions are Notices of
($6 FR $6251). These procedures involving potential discrimination by a Violation, civil penalties, and orders of
provide that visitors may be subject to contractor or vendor to the licensee, acy various types. As discussed funher in
persoenel screening, that signs, banners, associated predecisional etdorcement Section VI.D related administrative
posters, etc., not larger than 18' be conference with the contracter or vendor actions such as Notices of
permined, and that disruptive persons would be handled similarly. These Nonconformance Notices of
may be removed. The open conference arrangements for complainant panicip:. tion Deviation, Confirmatory Action
will be terminated if disruption in the predecisional enforcement conference Letters, Letters of Reprimand, and
interferes with a successful conference. are not to be conducted or viewed in any Demands for Information are used to
NRC's Predecisional Enforcement respect as an adjudicatory hearing. The supplement the enforcement program.
Conferences (whether open or closed) purpose of the complainant's panicipation in selecting the enforcement sanctions
is to provide information to the NRC to or administrative actions, the NRC will
normally will be held at the NRC's
assist it in its enforcement deliberauons, consider enforcement actions taken by
regional offices or in NRC Headquarters
Offices and not in the vicinity of the A predecisional enforcement conference other Federal or State regulatory
licensee's facility, may not need to be held in cases where bodies having concurrent jurisdiction,
6
. _
- - - . --- -. -.- - - - - - - . - - - -- -_.
. .
competetson emC EMweement PoHey as of Septomaer 10.1Hf
,,,, ___
or non supervisory employee), the Whenever the NRC has learned of the the regional offices and are normally
significance of any underlying violation, eaistence of a potential violation for which open to public observation.
the intent of the violator (i.e., careless escalated enforcement action appears to be Conferences will not normally be open
disregard or deliberateness), and the warranted, or recurring nonconformance on to the public if the enforcement action l
being contemplated: ;
, economic or other advantage, if any, the part 9f a vendor, the NRC may provide
gained as a result of the violation. The an opponunity for a predecisiont.1 (1) Would be taken against an l
relative weight given to each of these etforcement conference with the licensee, individual, or if the action, though not l
factors in arnving at the appropriate vendor, or other person before taking taken against an individual, turns on l
severity level will be dependent on the enforcement action. He purpose of the whether an individual has committed
circumstances of the violation, conference is to obtain information that will wrongdoing:
However, if a licensee refuses to correct assist the NRC in determining the (2) Involves significant personnel
a minor violation within a reasonable appropriate enforcement action, such as: failures where the NRC has requested
time such that it willfully continues, the (1) a cortan understanding of facts, root that the individual (s) involved be
violation should be categorized at least causes and missed opponunities associated present at the conference;
- at a Seventy Level IV. with the apparent violations (2) a common (3)is based on the findings of an
understanding of corrective actions taken or NRC Office of Investigations report
D. Violations of Reponmg planned, and (3) a cornrnon understanding that has not been publicly disclosed; or
Requirements of the sigmficance of issues and the need (4) Involves safeguards information,
for lastmg comprehensive corrective action. Privacy Act informanon, or
The NRC expects licensees to provide If ths NRC concludes that it has sufficient information which could be considered
complete, accurate, and timely information to make an informed proprietary;
information and repons. Accordingly, enforcement decision, a conference will not in addition, conferences will not
,
unless otherwise categonzed in the normally be held unless the licensee normally be open to the public if:
l Supplements, the seventy level of a requests it. However, an opportunity for a (5) The cor.ference involves medical
violation involving the failure to make a conference will normally be provided misadministrations or overcaposures
required repon to the NRC will be before issaing an order based on a violation and the conference cannot be conducted
based upon the significance of and the of the rule on Deliberate Misconduct or a without disclosing the exposed
circumstances surrounding the matter civil penalty to an unlicensef Jerson, if a individual's namet or
that should have been reponed. conference is not held, the licensee will (6) The conference will be conducted
liswever, the seventy level of an normally be reyested to provide a wntten by telephone or the conference will be
untimely repon, in contrast to no report, response to an inspection repon, if issued, conducted at a relatively small
may be reduced dependmg on the as to the licensee's views on the apparent licensee's facility,
'
circumstances surrounding the matter, violations and their root causes and a Notwithstanding meettng any of these
A licensee will not normally be cited for desenption of planned or implemented criteria, a conference may still be open
a failure to repon a condition or event corrective actions. if the conference involves issues related
unless the licensee was actually aware of During the predecisional enforcement to an ongoing adjudicatory proceedmg
the condition cr event that it failed to conference, the licensee, vendor, or other with one or more interrenors or where
repon. A licensee will, on the other persons will be given an opponumry to the evidertiary basis for the conference
hand, nonnally be cited for a failure to provide infonnanon consistent with the is a matter of public record, such as an
report a condition or event if the purpose of the conference, includmg an adjudicatory decision by the
licensee knew of the information to be explanation to the NRC of the immediate Depanment of 1. abor, in addition,
notwithstanding the above normal
'
reported, but did not recernize that it corrective actions (if any) that were taken
was required to make a report, following identification of the potential criteria for opening or closing
violation or nonconformance and the long- conferences, with the approval of the
V. PREDECISIONAL ESTORCEMEST term comprehensive actions that were taken Executive Director for Operations,
CONTERENCES or will be taken to prevent recurrence, conferences may either be open or
Licensees, vendors, or other persons will closed to the puolic after balancing the
be told when a rnecting is a predecisional benefit of the public's observation
enf reement conference. against the potential impact on the
organizational structure and the
A predecisional enforcement conference is agency's decision-making process in a
individual's responsibilities relative 'o
a meeting between the NRC and the panicular case,
the oversight of licensed activities and to
licensee. Conferences are normally held in ne NRC will notify the licensee that
the use of licensed matenal.
.$.