Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enforcement Policy, 44165-44167 [2013-17641]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Notices
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
investments in research, development,
infrastructure, and capacity-building for
science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) learning outside
formal school settings. Informal science
experiences can serve to spark young
people’s interest in pursuing careers in
STEM fields as well as to improve
public engagement with STEM,
contributing to science learning for most
citizens. For over 40 years, NSF AISL
has supported efforts to engage the
public in science and science learning.
Since the last major evaluation of the
AISL program (COSMOS Corporation,
1998), the program has taken strategic
steps to support the growing maturation
of the informal science field, including
field-wide resources, such as the
InformalScience.org Web site and the
Center for the Advancement of Informal
Science Education. The program’s grant
solicitations have reflected a growing
professionalization for the informal
science community with new
expectations for rigorous research and
evaluation on implementation and
outcomes.
The AISL program evaluation will
characterize changes in the informal
science arena since 1999 and delineate
the role in those changes of the AISL
program between 1999 and 2010. The
evaluation will do so by analyzing
AISL-funded projects over that time
frame, attending in particular to the
impact on informal science
infrastructure, the rigor of individual
project evaluations, the learning
outcomes for diverse audiences, and the
features of exemplary projects. The
AISL program evaluation will employ a
mixed-method approach including
extensive document review of
solicitations, proposals, reports, and
published literature; qualitative and
quantitative analyses of surveys and
interviews with researchers and
practitioners in the field; and case
studies of influential projects,
initiatives, and ideas. This information
collection request will include a survey
instrument for principal investigators of
past and current AISL projects, a survey
instrument for project evaluators, and
protocols for follow-up interviews with
a sample of principal investigator and
evaluator survey respondents.
Estimate of Burden
Respondents: Individuals
Frequency: One time
Estimated Number of Respondents:
PIs and evaluator surveys will be
administered to individuals associated
with a sample of 200 (of 703 funded)
projects. In addition, 20 PIs and 20
evaluators will be purposively sampled
from survey respondents for interviews.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:40 Jul 22, 2013
Jkt 229001
Estimated Burden Hours on
Respondents: The following aspects of
the data collection add to respondent
burden: (1) One-time administration of
surveys to ISE-funded PIs and project
evaluators, and (2) interviews with
them. SRI anticipates that, including
reading notification emails and consent
forms, participating in the Web-based
surveys will require 0.5 hour (30
minutes) on average of each
respondent’s time. Average completion
time is estimated because completion
time may vary significantly according to
the duration and complexity of an
individual’s involvement with the NSF
ISE program. SRI estimates that
respondents who have a long history
with the NSF program may take much
longer to complete the survey, while a
PI or evaluator who has worked on one
or two projects may complete it in well
under 30 minutes. Average interview
participation will require no more than
60 minutes of each respondent’s time.
Respondents will not incur any
equipment, postage, or travel costs. A
total of 140 one-time burden hours are
estimated for the study. There are no
annually recurring burden hours.
Dated: July 18, 2013.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2013–17639 Filed 7–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Permits Issued Under the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978
AGENCY:
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under
the Antarctic Conservation of 1978,
Public Law 95–541.
ACTION:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) is required to publish
notice of permits issued under the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.
This is the required notice.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adrian Dahood, ACA Permit Officer,
Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755,
National Science Foundation, 4201
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
Or by email: ACApermits@nsf.gov.
On June 3,
2013 the National Science Foundation
published a notice in the Federal
Register of a permit application
received. The permit was issued on July
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44165
18, 2013 to: Dr. Jennifer Burns; Permit
No. 2014–003.
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Division of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013–17640 Filed 7–22–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2013–0159]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Enforcement Policy
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Enforcement policy; request for
comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is conducting an
assessment and seeking stakeholder
views on issues relating to a potential
revision to the Enforcement Policy
regarding issuance of orders banning
individuals from NRC-licensed
activities for less than 1 year and
expanding the use of civil penalties in
cases involving deliberate misconduct
by individuals.
DATES: Submit comments by September
23, 2013. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but the NRC staff is able to
ensure consideration only for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0159. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN–
6A44MP, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
R. Wray, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
44166
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Notices
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–1288; email:
John.Wray@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–
0159 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
information related to this document,
which the NRC possesses and is
publicly available, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0159.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publiclyavailable documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced. The
Enforcement Policy is available in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML12340A295.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
• NRC’s Public Web site: Go to
https://www.nrc.gov and select ‘‘Public
Meetings and Involvement,’’ then
‘‘Enforcement,’’ and then ‘‘Enforcement
Policy.’’
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2013–
0159 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:40 Jul 22, 2013
Jkt 229001
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS.
II. Background
In SECY–12–0047, ‘‘Revisions to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Enforcement Policy,’’ dated March 28,
2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12045A025), the staff recommended
that the Commission approve the staff’s
plan to revise the Enforcement Policy
with specific modifications which
addressed items from Staff
Requirements Memorandum (SRM),
‘‘Staff Requirements—SECY–09–0190—
Major Revision to NRC Enforcement
Policy,’’ dated August 27, 2010
(ADAMS Accession No. ML102390327).
The staff also indicated in SECY–12–
0047 that it was considering the merits
and potential implications of expanding
the use of civil penalties in cases
involving deliberate misconduct by
individuals (licensed or unlicensed) and
of issuing orders banning individuals
(licensed or unlicensed) for less than 1
year, and that, based on its evaluation,
the staff might propose to the
Commission future changes to the
Enforcement Policy. In SRM–SECY–12–
0047, ‘‘Revisions to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Enforcement
Policy,’’ dated November 28, 2012
(ADAMS Accession No. ML12333A301),
the Commission approved the staff’s
proposed Enforcement Policy changes
and, in addition, directed the staff to
evaluate potential future revisions of the
Enforcement Policy regarding issuance
of orders banning individuals from
NRC-licensed activities for periods of
less than 1 year and expanding the use
of civil penalties in cases involving
deliberate misconduct by individuals.
The Commission stated that the staff
should carefully consider the potential
implications and potential benefits of
such revisions to the NRC Enforcement
program, including:
• The risk of diminishing the impact
of imposing a ban, or imposing civil
penalties so small that they downplay
the seriousness of a violation;
• The difficulty in maintaining the
clarity, consistency, and certainty of the
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
process while attempting to weigh
different sets of circumstances to
determine appropriate periods of time
for such bans; and
• The fact that a ban of any length of
time may have serious consequences for
the individual who is banned.
III. Discussion
The NRC staff is considering the
merits and potential implications
associated with revising the
Enforcement Policy to endorse
expanding the use of civil penalties in
cases involving deliberate misconduct
by individuals and issuance of orders
banning individuals from NRC-licensed
activities for less than 1 year. As
described in Section 4.0 of the
Enforcement Policy, the NRC considers
taking enforcement action against
individuals who engage in deliberate
misconduct that causes a licensee to be
in violation of the regulations, an order,
or the terms and conditions of an NRC
license. In addition, the NRC considers
taking enforcement action against
individuals (licensed or unlicensed) to
whom the NRC has issued an order that
the individual subsequently violated. If
enforcement action is taken against an
individual, the staff normally issues
either a notice of violation (NOV) or an
order prohibiting involvement in NRClicensed activities (i.e., a ban). Except in
cases involving violations of Section
206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of
1974, the NRC normally does not
impose civil penalties against
individuals, consistent with a basic
tenet in Section 4.0 of the Enforcement
Policy that licensees are held
responsible for acts of their employees.
However, under section 234 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
the NRC has the authority to impose
civil penalties on individuals who
violate the NRC’s deliberate misconduct
rule.
The initial determination of the
duration of a ban is normally based on
the significance of the underlying
violation and the individual’s level of
responsibility in the organization. When
the NRC has, in the past, deemed that
banning an individual was warranted,
the length of the ban has typically been
for 1, 3, or 5 years, although longer bans
have been used in particularly egregious
cases. However, the Enforcement Policy
does not provide that level of specificity
but, instead, merely states that normally
the period of suspension would not
exceed 5 years.
The staff acknowledges that a ban of
a year or more can have a significant
effect on the responsible individual’s
livelihood, and that there is a significant
disparity between the impacts of an
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Notices
NOV and a 1-year ban. Therefore, the
staff believes that, depending on the
significance of an individual’s actions,
the use of other sanctions in individual
enforcement actions warrants further
review. For example, two possible
alternatives whose impacts would fall
between those of an NOV and a 1-year
ban could be issuing a civil penalty or
a ban of 6 months.
Therefore, the staff intends to evaluate
advantages and disadvantages of
expanding the use of civil penalties in
cases involving deliberate misconduct
by individuals and of issuing bans for
less than 1 year. In considering these
options, the staff is soliciting public
comment on both the concept and
possible specifics related to a potential
revision to the Enforcement Policy and
other program documents describing
these alternatives. Specifically, the staff
is seeking stakeholder input including
but, not limited to, the following:
• Given that an individual who has
engaged in deliberate misconduct is
offered the opportunity to participate in
the NRC’s Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) process, in which
modifications to an individual sanction
can include a ban for less than 1 year
or a civil penalty, is there a benefit to
modifying the Enforcement Policy?
• When individual action is deemed
necessary, how should the NRC
determine whether that action should be
an NOV, a civil penalty, or a ban?
• What is the risk of an employer
simply ‘‘reimbursing’’ an individual for
a civil penalty if production is put
ahead of safety? Should the NRC be
concerned with such a potential and, if
so, how would it be mitigated?
• Regarding the amount of a civil
penalty issued to individuals, how can
the NRC assure that the Enforcement
Policy would be applied in a fair and
consistent manner? Specifically, how
should the amount of a civil penalty be
determined? Should a set individual
civil penalty amount be used, or should
the individual civil penalty amount be
calculated based on specific factors:
Æ If a set individual civil penalty
amount should be used, what would be
the appropriate amount? Would it be
fair to propose the same civil penalty
amount on individuals regardless of
salaries?
Æ If a variable individual civil penalty
amount should be used, what factors
(e.g. salary level of individual, safety
significance of violation, benefit or
hardship to the individual, etc.) should
be considered, and how should they be
included in the calculation?
• With respect to the use of either
civil penalties or bans for less than 1
year, would there be any unintended
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:40 Jul 22, 2013
Jkt 229001
consequences the NRC should consider?
If so, provide examples.
Based on the written comments
received from stakeholders, the staff
may conduct a public meeting to
provide for further discussions. The
NRC will use any public input received
as part of its evaluation to determine the
merits and potential implications of
expanding the use of civil penalties in
cases involving deliberate misconduct
by individuals and of issuing bans for
less than 1 year, including the feasibility
of developing criteria to ensure their fair
and consistent application. Following
its evaluation, the staff may propose
changes to the Enforcement Policy to
the Commission for its consideration.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of July 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Roy P. Zimmerman,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2013–17641 Filed 7–22–13; 8:45 am]
A. Accessing Information
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2013–0158]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Background
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC)
is publishing this regular biweekly
notice. The Act requires that the
Commission publish notice of any
amendments issued or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from June 27,
2013 to July 10, 2013. The last biweekly
notice was published on July 9, 2013 (78
FR 41118).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2103–0158. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN–06A–
44MP, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
44167
Sfmt 4703
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–
0158 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
information related to this document,
which the NRC possesses and is
publicly available, by the following
methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0158.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Documents may be viewed in ADAMS
by performing a search on the document
date and docket number.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2013–
0158 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44165-44167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17641]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0159]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enforcement Policy
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Enforcement policy; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is conducting an
assessment and seeking stakeholder views on issues relating to a
potential revision to the Enforcement Policy regarding issuance of
orders banning individuals from NRC-licensed activities for less than 1
year and expanding the use of civil penalties in cases involving
deliberate misconduct by individuals.
DATES: Submit comments by September 23, 2013. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC
staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or
before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0159. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-6A44MP, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John R. Wray, Office of Enforcement,
U.S.
[[Page 44166]]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone:
301-415-1288; email: John.Wray@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0159 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0159.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is
referenced. The Enforcement Policy is available in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML12340A295.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
NRC's Public Web site: Go to https://www.nrc.gov and select
``Public Meetings and Involvement,'' then ``Enforcement,'' and then
``Enforcement Policy.''
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0159 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Background
In SECY-12-0047, ``Revisions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Enforcement Policy,'' dated March 28, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12045A025), the staff recommended that the Commission approve the
staff's plan to revise the Enforcement Policy with specific
modifications which addressed items from Staff Requirements Memorandum
(SRM), ``Staff Requirements--SECY-09-0190--Major Revision to NRC
Enforcement Policy,'' dated August 27, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML102390327). The staff also indicated in SECY-12-0047 that it was
considering the merits and potential implications of expanding the use
of civil penalties in cases involving deliberate misconduct by
individuals (licensed or unlicensed) and of issuing orders banning
individuals (licensed or unlicensed) for less than 1 year, and that,
based on its evaluation, the staff might propose to the Commission
future changes to the Enforcement Policy. In SRM-SECY-12-0047,
``Revisions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enforcement Policy,''
dated November 28, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12333A301), the
Commission approved the staff's proposed Enforcement Policy changes
and, in addition, directed the staff to evaluate potential future
revisions of the Enforcement Policy regarding issuance of orders
banning individuals from NRC-licensed activities for periods of less
than 1 year and expanding the use of civil penalties in cases involving
deliberate misconduct by individuals. The Commission stated that the
staff should carefully consider the potential implications and
potential benefits of such revisions to the NRC Enforcement program,
including:
The risk of diminishing the impact of imposing a ban, or
imposing civil penalties so small that they downplay the seriousness of
a violation;
The difficulty in maintaining the clarity, consistency,
and certainty of the process while attempting to weigh different sets
of circumstances to determine appropriate periods of time for such
bans; and
The fact that a ban of any length of time may have serious
consequences for the individual who is banned.
III. Discussion
The NRC staff is considering the merits and potential implications
associated with revising the Enforcement Policy to endorse expanding
the use of civil penalties in cases involving deliberate misconduct by
individuals and issuance of orders banning individuals from NRC-
licensed activities for less than 1 year. As described in Section 4.0
of the Enforcement Policy, the NRC considers taking enforcement action
against individuals who engage in deliberate misconduct that causes a
licensee to be in violation of the regulations, an order, or the terms
and conditions of an NRC license. In addition, the NRC considers taking
enforcement action against individuals (licensed or unlicensed) to whom
the NRC has issued an order that the individual subsequently violated.
If enforcement action is taken against an individual, the staff
normally issues either a notice of violation (NOV) or an order
prohibiting involvement in NRC-licensed activities (i.e., a ban).
Except in cases involving violations of Section 206 of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, the NRC normally does not impose civil
penalties against individuals, consistent with a basic tenet in Section
4.0 of the Enforcement Policy that licensees are held responsible for
acts of their employees. However, under section 234 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the NRC has the authority to impose
civil penalties on individuals who violate the NRC's deliberate
misconduct rule.
The initial determination of the duration of a ban is normally
based on the significance of the underlying violation and the
individual's level of responsibility in the organization. When the NRC
has, in the past, deemed that banning an individual was warranted, the
length of the ban has typically been for 1, 3, or 5 years, although
longer bans have been used in particularly egregious cases. However,
the Enforcement Policy does not provide that level of specificity but,
instead, merely states that normally the period of suspension would not
exceed 5 years.
The staff acknowledges that a ban of a year or more can have a
significant effect on the responsible individual's livelihood, and that
there is a significant disparity between the impacts of an
[[Page 44167]]
NOV and a 1-year ban. Therefore, the staff believes that, depending on
the significance of an individual's actions, the use of other sanctions
in individual enforcement actions warrants further review. For example,
two possible alternatives whose impacts would fall between those of an
NOV and a 1-year ban could be issuing a civil penalty or a ban of 6
months.
Therefore, the staff intends to evaluate advantages and
disadvantages of expanding the use of civil penalties in cases
involving deliberate misconduct by individuals and of issuing bans for
less than 1 year. In considering these options, the staff is soliciting
public comment on both the concept and possible specifics related to a
potential revision to the Enforcement Policy and other program
documents describing these alternatives. Specifically, the staff is
seeking stakeholder input including but, not limited to, the following:
Given that an individual who has engaged in deliberate
misconduct is offered the opportunity to participate in the NRC's
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, in which modifications to
an individual sanction can include a ban for less than 1 year or a
civil penalty, is there a benefit to modifying the Enforcement Policy?
When individual action is deemed necessary, how should the
NRC determine whether that action should be an NOV, a civil penalty, or
a ban?
What is the risk of an employer simply ``reimbursing'' an
individual for a civil penalty if production is put ahead of safety?
Should the NRC be concerned with such a potential and, if so, how would
it be mitigated?
Regarding the amount of a civil penalty issued to
individuals, how can the NRC assure that the Enforcement Policy would
be applied in a fair and consistent manner? Specifically, how should
the amount of a civil penalty be determined? Should a set individual
civil penalty amount be used, or should the individual civil penalty
amount be calculated based on specific factors:
[cir] If a set individual civil penalty amount should be used, what
would be the appropriate amount? Would it be fair to propose the same
civil penalty amount on individuals regardless of salaries?
[cir] If a variable individual civil penalty amount should be used,
what factors (e.g. salary level of individual, safety significance of
violation, benefit or hardship to the individual, etc.) should be
considered, and how should they be included in the calculation?
With respect to the use of either civil penalties or bans
for less than 1 year, would there be any unintended consequences the
NRC should consider? If so, provide examples.
Based on the written comments received from stakeholders, the staff
may conduct a public meeting to provide for further discussions. The
NRC will use any public input received as part of its evaluation to
determine the merits and potential implications of expanding the use of
civil penalties in cases involving deliberate misconduct by individuals
and of issuing bans for less than 1 year, including the feasibility of
developing criteria to ensure their fair and consistent application.
Following its evaluation, the staff may propose changes to the
Enforcement Policy to the Commission for its consideration.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of July 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Roy P. Zimmerman,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2013-17641 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P