ML20217J935
| ML20217J935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Snowe O SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217J941 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804300352 | |
| Download: ML20217J935 (3) | |
Text
1
%R
\\
UNITED STATES f{.
p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566 4001 p
i i e
April 21, 1998 l
CHAIRMAN i
l l
The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe l
United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-1903
Dear Senator Snowe:
i This is in reference to your April 13,1998, letter to me requesting that the predecisional enforcement conference with representatives of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPCo), scheduled for April 23,1998, in our Region i office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania,
' be moved to Wiscasset, Maine. Additionally, you requested responses to a number of questions associated with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) enforcement process concerning MYAPCo.
The issues that are the subject of this predecisional enforcement conference are based on the findings and conclusions of three investigations conducted by the NRC's Office of Investications l
(01) involving potential wrongdoing by MYAPCo, employees of MYAPCo, or its contractors. A copy of the NRC correspondence to MYAPCo that transmitted the subject matter of the l
predecisional enforcernent conference, dated December 19,1997, and MYAPCo's response to the apparent violations contained in that correspondence, dated April 3,1998, are provided as enclosures to this letter.
The NRC policy is that a predecisional enforcement conference is a meeting between the NRC and the licensee and is normally held in the regional office and normally open to public observation. The policy does note, however, that conferences will not normally be open to the public if the enforcement action being enntemplated is based on the findings of an NRC 01 report that has not been publicly disclosed, unless the 01 report finds discrimination as defined under 10 CFR 50.7 has occurred; a circumstance not present in this case. In this case, the enforcement action being contemplated involves the three Ol reports described above that have not been publicly disclosed. The basis for keeping an OI-related predecisional enforcement conference closed is that these cases routinely involve potential wrongdoing on the part of individuals; it is inappropriate for the NRC to discuss issues associated with the alleged wrongdoing, including the identity of the individuals involved, in public before an agency enforcement decision is made. Therefore, it is consistent with NRC policy that this predecisional enforcement conference be closed to public observation. I hope this assists in your understanding of why the conference will be closed.
As to your request to move the conference from the regional office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, to another location, the NRC Enforcement Policy specifies, as noted above, that predecisional enforcement conferences are normally held in the regional office. Such a policy is based on resource considerations given that the NRC conducts about 150 to 200 enforcement conferences per year. Furthermore, since the NRC considers a closed conference
\\ \\
in this case appropriate and consistent with NRC policy, there would be no merit in moving the location of the conference.
sq\\n\\
71 f.
9804300352 990421 y
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
2 Your second question asked what stepa remain, after the predecisional enforcement conference but before a judgment is made. The predecisional enforcement conference is the last step in the enforcement process prior to the NRC making an enforcement decision. The NRC communicated what it considered to be apparent violations in its December 19,1997, correspondence (Enclosure 1) to MYAPCo. MYAPCo responded to the apparent violations and explained why it agreed or disagreed with them in its April 3,1998, correspondence (Enclosure 2). The predecisional enforcement conference will be a final opportunity for the licensee to communicate its position on the apparent violations and for the NRC to ask any questions of the licensee prior to making an informed enforcement decision. - Although most enforcement decisions involving predecisional enforcement conferences are issued 30-45 days following the conference, due to the complexity of this case, it is. expected that a final enforcement decision will be made within 60-90 days following the predecisional enforcement conference.
Your third and fifth questions asked if the public will be able to review any of this information prior to a judgment being made and if not then, when. The public can cerkialy access the j
NRC's December 19,1997, transmittal and the licensee's April 3,1998, response. Normally, j
the underlying Ol reports are not released until after enforcement action is taken and a specific request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, for the documents is made. The NRC plans, however, based on previous requests on behalf of your constituents and consistent with a December 31,1997, letter to you from Mr. L. Joseph Callan, Executive Director for Operations, to place 01 Reports 1-95-050,1-96-025, and 1-96-043 (after appropriate redaction) in the Public Document Room once the NRC issues its enforcement action in the matter.
Apart from your direct questions, I believe it is important to note how the public will know how MYAPCo's presentation at the predecisional enforcement conference influenced the NRC's enforcement decision. After the conference, the NRC will make an enforcement decision based on the information it has acquired. This information includes (1) the 01 reports, (2) the apparent violations transmitted in the December 19,1997, correspondence, (3) the licensee's April 3, 1998, response, and finally, (4) the information provided by the licensee at the predecisional enforcement conference. Based on this information, the NRC will communicate its enforcement decision in a publicly available document that will provide the basis for our decision.
Your fourth question asked what occurs after a judgment is made by the NRC The NRC may determine that no violations of regulatory requirements occurred, that violations occurred that are subject to civil penalties, or that violations occurred that are not subject to civil penalties. If the NRC determines that violations occurred, a Notice of Violation (Notice) will be issued, and the licensee will have thirty days to respond to the Notice pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201. This regulation requires the licensee to address specific issues but essentially provides it the opportunity to admit or deny the violations, and if admitted, describe the corrective actions it has taken, or will take, to preclude recurrence. If the NRC determines that civil penalties are warranted, they will be proposed concurrent with the Notice. The licensse has the opportunity to either pay the proposed civil penalties within thirty days or contest the civil penalty pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205. If the civil penalties are contested, the NRC will review the licensee's position and the civil penalties will either be mitigated, remitted, or imposed. If a civil penalty is imposed, the process provides the licensee an opportunity for a public hearing.
i
~.
3 l;
While I believe that, consistent with NRC policy, the subject predecisional enforcement conference should be closed and held in the NRC Region I office, I recognize the importance of I
the NRC being open to the public. In this regard, the NRC staff has held or participated in i
numerous public meetings in Maine where performance issues at Maine Yankee have been fully aired. For example, following the Independent Safety Assessment Team (ISAT) inspection conducted in July and August,1996, the NRC held an exit meeting at Wiscasset Middle School on October 10,1996, which was open to the public. In addition, the enforcement conference l
held on March 11,1997, to discuss those ISAT findings was held in Wiscasset and was open to l
the public. Further, the Region i Administrator, Mr. Hubert Miller, testified before the Maine Legislature in 1997; and, the Region I Chief of the Decommissioning and Laboratories Branch, Dr. Ronald Bellamy, and other NRC staff testified before the Maine Joint Legislative Committee on Utilities And Energy in March 1998.
l l hope that I have been responsive to your request and your questions on this matter of j
importance to you and the people of Maine.
]
Sincerely, b
Enclosures:
1.
Letter from the NRC to MYAPCo dated 12/19/97
- 2. Letter from MYAPCo to the NRC dated 4/3/98 l
l l