ML20195F848
| ML20195F848 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1986 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Gibson H H & G INSPECTION CO., INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155H265 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-224 NUDOCS 8611040154 | |
| Download: ML20195F848 (2) | |
Text
s g
Harry W. Gibson, President H&G Inspection Coepany, Inc.
P. O. Box 721856 Houston, Texas 77272 0FT 2 s 126
Dear Hr. Gibson:
This is in response to your September 17, 1986 letter in which you refer to three separate enforcement actions taken by this office against NRC licensees and request a "clarification of the two standards of enforcement of NRC regulations and reporting requirements."
The NRC goes to great lengths to achieve uniformity and consistency in its enforcement practices. All of its actions are based on a Comission-a enforcement policy, which is published and available to our licensees.pproved Within the bounds of this policy each case is decided on its own merits.
classifies violations acco,rding to severity and establishes base amounts forThis policy civil penalties. The enforcement policy is quite specific in regard to the size of a civil peralty for a particular violation and a particular category of licensee. Each significant enforcement action including all civil penalty proposals, is reviewed not only at the reg,ional level but also by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and the Office of Gereral Counsel, both in NRC Headquarters.
The enforcement policy provides flexibility, when circumstances warrant, to adjust the an.ount of proposed civil penalties above or below the base amounts and specifies the factors that may be considered when r.aking these adjustments.
These factors are: prompt identification and reporting, corrective action to prevent recurrence multiple occurrence,s.past perfomance, prior notice of similar events and Accordinsly, in your corpany's case, we decided, based on your prompt and extensive corrective actions, to reduce the base amount of the proposed civil penalty by 50 percent. In the case of Houston Lighting & Power, to which you refer, we conddered not only the company's prompt and extensive corrective actions, but also its "overall good perforr.ance in the general area of concern for the past several years," and decided that no civil penalty should be assessed.
In the case of Texas A&M University, we reduced the base amount of the proposed civil penalty by 50 percent because of "good prior performance" and "extensive corrective actions." This discretion is clearly pemitted in our enforcement policy. In regard to the consistency of enforcement actions (Al86-421)
RIV:R GFSan.4)n:.ic E0 DAPcwers D/
RLBangart W8each
10@/86 10/y1/86 10/pB6 10/;f/86 1C '.r//86 10/g/86 NIEO 8610:9 g j w
.s
, Harry W. Gibson, H&G Inspection Company OCT 2 9 FES applied to radiography corpanies, NRC has proposed civil penalties in r'ost cases where an overexposure occurs for Severity Levels I, II or !!!
violations, l
One cannot compare enforcement actions solely on the basis of what is stated in an NRC press release or in a news article keeping in mind that the latter is something over which we have no control. ,Neitier of these sources contains sufficient information to r.ake a reasoned judgement that a "double standard" exists. One can not arrive at such a judgement without a thorough review of all of the documentation that accompanies each case. Our actions in the three cases that you brin enforcement policy.g to our attention were in accord with our writtenNRC has not been p licensees.
Sincerely, CRIGINAL SIGNID BT ;
ROBERT D. IAAMLN l
Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator bec:
EDO OCA RHartin Drewers JAxelrad, IE Ctalsner ,
JLieberman, OGC RLBangart I
l l
1 l
l l
i
. . _ _ _ .