ML20211K402
| ML20211K402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/21/1996 |
| From: | Nader Mamish NRC |
| To: | Brach E, Ten Eyck E NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008B475 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR6664, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-76 AF56-2-029, AF56-2-29, NUDOCS 9710090223 | |
| Download: ML20211K402 (2) | |
Text
l'[, s-. .
hb(.
Ap56-x 4
'Nader Mamish From '
j To: TWD2.TWP8.2WB, TWD2.TWP8.EQT 1 Dates: 11/21/96 12:28pm ..
Subject:
Insert- Into Comn. Paper (Part 76) -- Increase of CP i-
-Jim would like NM3S to review the' attached draft insert and provide us with
.your comments. Thank you.: i 1
. CC ' WND1.WNPl.HLT 1
1-l- l
- i i
r
(
la 5
a 9710090223 971003..
PDR PR
.L, p7. 2 ,62,F ,R6664
.PDR -
~.~
q _
Amendment to OE's Comments to Direct final rulemakino USEC orivstization act Commission Paper (Attachment 31:
- 1. Page 4: Revise the last bullet of the discussion section to read ".. . area of gaseous diffusion plant operations, in addition, Table 1 A of the policy, which establishes base civil penalties for different types of licensees,is being modified to add a new category. The amended table will provide that the base civil penalty for a Severity Levell violation of the Commission's requirements by GDPs will be at the statutory limit of $110,000. In accordance with Table 1B, civil penalties for Severity Levels ll acd til violations would have lesser amounts. in determining the proper civil penalty amount, the staff considered the structures of these tables, which generally take into account the gravity of the violation as a primary consideration and the ability to py as a secondary consideration.
GeneraDy, operations involving greater nuclear materist inventories and greater potential consequences to the public and licensee employees receive higher civi penalties. In the case of GDPs, the staf f notes that there are large number of workers at the sites, significant source term present (i.e., inventory of licensed material), and l various chemical and toxic substances used as part of the GDPs operations. Thereft,re,in the avent of an accident, there is significant potential from both radiological and non radiological hazards to members of the public, site employees, safety equipment, and the environment.
With regard to the secondary factor of ability to pay,it is not the NRC's intention that the economic impact of a civil penalty be so severe that it puts the licensee out of business or adversely affects a licensee's ability to safely conduct licenrad activities. The deterrent effect of civil penalties is best served when the amount of penalties take into account a licensee's ability to pay, in this case, the staf f believes that issuing a civil penalty of less than
$110,000 to the Corporation for a significant violation would be dispreportionate to the Corre9 tion's significant revenues, in other words, a civa penalty of $110,000 for a Soverity Levell violation would be financially appropriate, but not financiaHy crippling. In addition, a penalty based on this amount should get more attention from the Corporation and should create a greater deterrent effect.
In considering civil penalty amounts,it is recognized that the Commission retains the authority to issue en order to the Corporation to shut down its GDPs in the event that the public health and safety is threatened, However, given the nature of GDPs operations (i.e., restart of operations following shut down would be quite difficult), a shut down may not be in the nationalinterest. Therefore, given the financial resources of GDPs,it is appropriate to utilize significant civil penalties to provide sa etfective deterrence from violating the Commission's requirements such that the likelihood of performance necessitating a shutdown order would be minimal, in conclusion, a base civil penalty at the proposed amount is appropriate in view of the potential consequences during an accident, the ability to pay, and the nature of GDPs operations. In addition, establishing the base civil penalty at the statetory limit would provide, at the outset, a clear message conceming the cost of noncompliance and additional mativation to maintain safety and compliance. A number of the above points may argue for higher civil penalties for fuel cycle f acilities. The staff is considering whether higher penalties for such f acilities should be sought."