OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT

ANNUAL REPORT

Fiscal Year 2000

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OE Annual Report

- CONTENTS -

Contents .......................................................... i

Abstract ........................................................ v

Introduction & Overview ......................................................... vii

Office of Enforcement .. ........................................................ xi

1. Enforcement Policy Changes . ................................................. 1

A. November 9, 1999: Assessing Significance; Elimination of Regulatory Significance;

10 CFR 50.59; Responsibilities . ................................................. I

B. May 1, 2000: Reactor Oversight Process; Interim Policy for Performance

Indicator (PI) Data; 10 CFR 50.59; Inaccurate or Incomplete PI Data; Failure to Secure

Licensed Material . ........................................................... 1

2. Initiatives, Staff Guidance, & Implementation ......... ......................... 2

A. Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) .............. ................................... 2

B. Discrimination Task Group ................. .................................... 2

C. Enforcement Actions Against Individuals .......................................... 3

D. Materials Program Support & Initiatives ........................................... 3

E. Reactor Program Support & Initiatives ............................................. 4

F. Alternative Dispute Resolution ............... .................................... 5

G. Increasing Public Confidence ................ .................................... 5

H. Revision 3 of NRC Enforcement Manual ........................................... 7

I. Enforcement Guidance Memoranda (EGMs) ........................................ 7

J. Enforcement Training . ......................................................... 7

K. Audits . ..................................................................... 8

3. Escalated Enforcement and Administrative Items ........... .. 111................. 

A. Escalated Notices of Violation (Without Civil Penalties) ............................. 12

B. Civil Penalty Actions . ........................................................ 12

C. Orders .................................................................. 13

-I-
OE Annual Report

D. Demands for Information ................................................... 13

E. Escalated Enforcement Trends .................................................. 13

4. Cases Involving Exercise of Discretion ........................................ 13

5. ActionsAgainst Individuals, Vendors, & Certificate Holders .................. .. 15

A. Actions Against Licensed Individuals . ........................................... 16

B. Actions Against Non-Licensed Individuals ................ ........................ 16

C. Actions Against Vendors and Certificate Holders ............ ....................... 16

6. Cases Involving Discrimination .............................................. 16

7. Hearing Activities............................................................ 17

8. 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions .............................. 17

- ii -
OE Annual Report

- TABLES -

1. Escalated Enforcement Items by Type of Licensee, Vendor, or Individual ...... ............. 20

2. Civil Penalty Information .................................................. .. 23

- FIGURES -

1. Escalated Enforcement For FY 2000 ........................................ 1........ I 1

2. Timeliness Trends ................... ................................. 12

3. Escalated Enforcement By Region .................................................. 19

4. Escalated Enforcement By Type .................................................... 21

5. Escalated Enforcement Trends ..................................................... 25

6. Escalated Enforcement Based on Discrimination .............. ......................... 27

- APPENDICES -

A. Summary of Escalated Notices of Violation (Without Civil Penalties) ....... ............... 29

B. Summary of Proposed Civil Penalties ................................................ 37

C. SummaryofOrders ..................................................... 41

D. Summary of Actions Against Individuals (Licensed & Non-Licensed) ....... ............... 43

E. Summary of Actions Against Vendors and Certificate Holders ........ .................... 47

F. Summary of Hearing Activity .................................................... 49

G. Summary of 10 CFR 2.206 Activity ................................................. 5 S1

- iii -
OE Annual Report

-iv -
OE Annual Report

Abstract

This annual report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Enforcement

describes enforcement activities occurring during fiscal year 2000 (October 1, 1999 through

September 30, 2000). The report addresses significant policy changes, new initiatives, staff

guidance, and implementation issues for the agency's enforcement program. It also highlights

significant enforcement actions, and includes summaries of cases involving exercise of

discretion, discrimination and actions involving individuals. A variety of statistical tables and

figures are also included.
OE Annual Report

-vi-
OE Annual Report

Introduction & Overview

NRC Enforcement Program - A Time of Change

Starting with its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, the NRC has always had some type of

enforcement program. The Commission's first public statement of policy on enforcement (the first

Enforcement Policy) was published in 1980. Since that time, the Enforcement Policy has been revised

numerous times to reflect experience and stakeholder input. Throughout these changes, two goals of the

enforcement program remain unchanged-to emphasize the importance of compliance with regulatory

requirements, and to encourage prompt identification, and prompt, comprehensive correction of

violations.

In recent years, numerous stakeholders have voiced concerns that the enforcement program should be

modified to have a more appropriate focus on those issues with the most safety significance.

Additionally, the enforcement program was viewed as driving the performance assessment process, being

overly burdensome, and being too reliant on civil penalties.

Starting in 1998, the enforcement program began a process of significant change. During the past fiscal

year, the enforcement program continued to change to support new initiatives in the agency's oversight

programs in conjunction with meeting the agency's performance goals of:

maintaining safety;

reducing unnecessary burden;

making NRC activities and decisions more effective, efficient, and realistic; and

increasing public confidence.

Changes in the enforcement program have stemmed from changes in inspection initiatives (e.g., revised

reactor oversight process (ROP)) as well as from changes within the enforcement program itself (e.g.,

eliminating the practice of aggregating multiple low significance violations into escalated enforcement,

and establishment of management-level review group to evaluate the processes for handling

discrimination issues). The enforcement program will continue to change based on new initiatives in the

inspection programs and new initiatives from within the enforcement program itself. This process

reflects the NRC's extensive efforts to address industry and other stakeholder concerns and demonstrates

the agency's commitment to more risk-informed, performance-based regulatory and enforcement

programs.

Successful communication between both external and internal stakeholders is vital to ensure that the

enforcement program is both understood and acknowledged as an integral, valuable piece of the agency's

regulatory programs.

Key Principles of the Enforcement Program

* Consistent with the agency's overall safety mission in protecting the public and environment,

enforcement actions should be used as a deterrent to emphasize the importance of compliance with

regulatory requirements, and to encourage prompt identification, and prompt, comprehensive

correction of violations.

* Enforcement actions are issued commensurate with the significance of the violation. In assessing the

significance of a violation the NRC considers: (1) actual consequences, (2) potential safety

-vii -
OE Annual Report

consequences, (3) the potential for impacting the NRC's ability to perform its regulatory function,

and (4) whether there are any willful aspects.

' Risk insights are used to assess the significance of violations whenever possible. As individual

inspection programs become more risk-informed and performance-based, so too will the respective

enforcement program.

* Enforcement is one part of the overall regulatory process. Enforcement should not be viewed as a

punitive tool to promote good performance. Enforcement is integrated with other regulatory tools to

respond to performance issues.

Compliance remains important to safety. Although changes in inspection oversight processes may

result in fewer civil penalties being imposed and fewer Notices of Violations being issued (i.e.,

greater use of Non-Cited Violations), this does not mean that the agency has reduced its emphasis on

the importance of compliance. Violations will continue to be identified and documented and

licensees will have the responsibility for taking corrective actions to restore compliance and prevent

recurrence.

Overview of the Enforcement Program

Violations are identified through inspections and investigations. All violations are subject to civil

enforcement action and may also be subject to criminal prosecution. After an apparent violation is

identified, it is assessed in accordance with the Commission's Enforcement Policy. The Policy is

published as NUREG-I 600, "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"

to foster its widespread dissemination. As a living policy statement, revisions are noticed in the Federal

Register. The NRC's Office of Enforcement maintains the current policy statement on its homepage on

the Internet at wwwv.nrc.eov/OE. Because it is a policy statement and not a regulation, the Commission

may deviate from the Enforcement Policy as appropriate under the circumstances of a particular case.

There are three primary enforcement sanctions available: Notices of Violation, civil penalties, and

orders. A Notice of Violation (NOV) identifies a requirement and how it was violated, formalizes a

violation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, and normally requires a written response. A civil penalty is a

monetary fine issued under authority of Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) or Section 206 of

the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA). Section 234 of the ABA provides for penalties of up to $100,000

per violation per day; but that amount was adjusted by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 to

be $110,000. The Commission's order issuing authority under Section 161 of the AEA is broad and

extends to any area of licensed activity that affects the public health and safety. Orders modify, suspend,

or revoke licenses or require specific actions by licensees or persons. NOVs and civil penalties are

issued based on violations. Orders may be issued for violations, or in the absence of a violation, because

of a public health or safety issue.

The NRC first assesses the significance of a violation by considering: (I) actual safety consequences;

(2) potential safety consequences; (3) potential for impacting the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory

function; and (4) any willful aspects of the violation. Violations are either assigned a severity level,

ranging from Severity Level IV for those of more than minor concern to Severity Level I for the most

significant or are associated with findings assessed through the reactor oversight process's Significance

Determination Process (SDP) that are assigned a color of green, white, yellow, or red based on increasing

risk significance.

- viii -
OE Annual Report

The manner in which a violation is dispositioned is intended to reflect the seriousness of the violation

and the circumstances involved. Most of the violations identified in the nuclear industry are of low risk

significance. Provided certain criteria in Section VI.A of the Enforcement Policy are met, the NRC will

normally disposition Severity Level IV violations and violations associated with green SDP findings as

Non-Cited Violations (NCVs). NCVs are documented in inspection reports (or inspection records for

some materials licensees) to establish public records of the violations, but are not cited in NOVs which

normally require written responses from licensees. Dispositioning violations in this manner does not

eliminate the NRC's emphasis on compliance with requirements nor the importance of maintaining

safety. Licensees are still responsible for maintaining safety and compliance and must take steps to

address corrective actions for these violations. Even minor violations must be corrected. However,

given their limited risk significance, they are not subject to enforcement action and are not normally

described in inspection reports. This approach for violations that have low risk significance is consistent

with the agency's performance goals.

A predecisional enforcement conference or a regulatory conference may be conducted with a licensee

before making an enforcement decision if escalated enforcement action appears to be warranted, and if

the NRC concludes that it is necessary or the licensee requests it. (Escalated enforcement action is

defined as action involving Severity Level I, II, or I violations; violations associated with white, yellow,

or red findings evaluated by the SDP; civil penalties; or orders.) If the NRC concludes that a conference

is not necessary, it may provide a licensee with an opportunity to respond to the apparent violations

before making an enforcement decision. The purpose of the conference is to obtain information that will

assist the NRC in determining the appropriate enforcement action, such as: (1) a common understanding

of facts, root causes and missed opportunities associated with the apparent violations, (2) a common

understanding of corrective action taken or planned, and (3) a common understanding of the significance

of issues and the need for lasting comprehensive corrective action. The decision to hold a conference

does not mean that the agency has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action

will be taken. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, conferences are normally open to public

observation.

Civil penalties are normally assessed for Severity Level I and II violations and knowing and conscious

violations of the reporting requirements of Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act. Civil penalties

are considered for Severity Level III violations. Although civil penalties will not normally be used for

violations associated with the ROP, civil penalties (and the use of severity levels) will be considered for

issues that are willful, that have the potential for impacting the regulatory process, or that have actual

consequences.

The NRC imposes different levels of civil penalties based on a combination of the type of licensed

activity, the type of licensee, the severity level of the violation, and (1) whether the licensee has had any

previous escalated enforcement action (regardless of the activity area) during the past 2 years or past two

inspections, whichever is longer, (2) whether the licensee should be given credit for actions related to

identification; (3) whether the licensee's corrective actions are prompt and comprehensive; and

(4) whether, in view of all the circumstances, the matter in question requires the exercise of discretion.

Although each of these decisional points may have several associated considerations for any given case,

the outcome of the assessment process for each violation or problem, absent the exercise of discretion, is

limited to one of the following three results: no civil penalty, a base civil penalty, or twice the base civil

penalty.

If a civil penalty is to be proposed, a written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil

Penalty is issued and the licensee has 30 days to respond in writing, by either paying the penalty or

-ax-
OE Annual Report

contesting it. The NRC considers the response, and if the penalty is contested, may either mitigate the

penalty or impose it by order. Thereafter, the licensee may pay the civil penalty or request a hearing.

In addition to civil penalties, orders may be used to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses. Orders may

require additional corrective actions, such as removing specified individuals from licensed activities or

requiring additional controls or outside audits. Persons adversely affected by orders that modify,

suspend, or revoke a license, or that take other action may request a hearing.

The NRC issues a press release with a proposed civil penalty or order. All orders are published in the

Federal Register.

Fiscal Year 2000 Highlights:

* two Enforcement Policy revisions

* 67 escalated Notices of Violation without civil penalties

* 16 proposed civil penalties ($446,600)

* 7 orders

* 4 orders imposing civil penalties

-1-
OE Annual Report

Office of Enforcement

The Office of Enforcement (OE) exercises oversight of NRC enforcement programs, provides

programmatic and implementation direction to regional and headquarters offices conducting or involved

in enforcement activities, and ensures that regional enforcement programs are adequately carried out.

The Office of Enforcement reports to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) through the Deputy

Executive Director for Reactor Programs and coordinates enforcement actions involving materials

licensees with the Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research and State Programs.

The Office of Enforcement has 15 full-time employees (FTEs) assigned for headquarters activities and

10 FTEs assigned for regional activities (although these FTEs report to the Regional Administrators).

-xi-
OE Annual Report

- xii -
OE Annual Report

1. Enforcement Policy Changes

This section describes the two revisions to the Enforcement Policy that were made during fiscal year

(FY) 2000.

A. November 9, 1999: Assessing Significance; Elimination of Regulatory

Significance; 10 CFR 50.59; Responsibilities

On November 9, 1999, the Commission published a complete revision of its Enforcement Policy in

the Federal Register (64 FR 61142). The revision to the Enforcement Policy eliminated the term

"regulatory significance" and with it the practice of escalating the severity level of a violation based

on aggregation or repetitiveness. Under the revised Enforcement Policy, the NRC will consider the

actual and potential safety consequences of a violation, whether it was willful, and its potential for

impacting the NRC's ability to perform its regulatory function. The latter term encompasses a

variety of reporting failures such as the failure to provide complete and accurate information to the

NRC or the failure to notify the NRC of changes in licensed activities. In considering potential

safety consequences, the revised Policy specifically states that risk information will be used

whenever possible to increase or decrease the severity level of a violation. The revision made

additional changes, including changes to conform to recent revisions to the requirements of

Part 50.59 of the Commission's regulations, "Changes, tests and experiments," as well as editorial

corrections and language clarification to assure consistency with recent policy changes. The intent of

this Policy revision was to move towards a more risk-informed and performance-based approach.

B. May 1, 2000: Reactor Oversight Process; Interim Policy for Performance

Indicator (PI) Data; 10 CFR 50.59; Inaccurate or Incomplete PIData; Failure

to Secure Licensed Material

On May 1, 2000, the Commission published a complete revision of its Enforcement Policy in the

Federal Register (65 FR 25368). The major aspect of this revision incorporates the Interim

Enforcement Policy that was used during the revised reactor oversight process (ROP) pilot plant

study into the main body of the Enforcement Policy as permanent guidance.

The ROP's significance determination process (SDP) will be used to evaluate the actual and potential

safety consequences of issues in a risk-informed framework and will provide an input into the

enforcement process. Under this process, violations will normally be dispositioned as Non-Cited

Violations (NCVs) for green SDP findings and be cited in Notices of Violation (NOVs) for white,

yellow, or red SDP findings. Given the risk significance, NOVs associated with white, yellow, or red

SDP findings will be considered escalated enforcement actions and will be posted on the Office of

Enforcement's (OE's) website and included in OE's annual report. Civil penalties will not normally

be used for violations associated with the ROP.

However, civil penalties (and the use of severity levels) will be considered for issues with actual

consequences. Civil penalties and severity levels will also be used to address violations that are

willful or that have the potential for impacting the regulatory process.

Because the submittal and review of performance indicator (PI) data is a new process as part of the

ROP, this revision includes an interim Enforcement Policy for exercising enforcement discretion for

inaccurate or incomplete PI data.

-1-
OE Annual Report

The new Policy makes additional changes, including: changing examples of violations for

10 CFR 50.59; adding examples of violations for inaccurate or incomplete PI data; changing

examples of violations involving the failure to secure, or maintain surveillance over, licensed

material; and editing existing guidance to assure clarity of existing policy and consistency with the

intent of the Interim Enforcement Policy used during the revised ROP pilot.

2. Initiatives, Staff Guidance, & Implementation

This section addresses enforcement initiatives during FY 2000 (including ROP activities), new staff

guidance, enforcement training, and enforcement program audits.

A. Reactor Oversight Process (ROP)

On August 9, 1999 (64 FR 43229), the NRC published an Interim Enforcement Policy that was used

during the revised ROP Pilot Plant Study. The policy was developed as an integral part of the

revised ROP and was designed to complement the structured performance assessment process by

focusing on individual violations. After being successfully implemented through the pilot plant

study, the NRC published a revised Enforcement Policy that incorporated the interim policy on

May 1, 2000.

OE was significantly involved in the development of the revised ROP, including working groups that

developed the Significance Determination Process (SDP) and baseline inspection program and

implementation of the pilot program. Given the staff's experience, OE assumed the lead for

developing implementing procedures for the SDP in Inspection Manual Chapter 0609. Similarly,

enforcement staff are serving as process facilitators in enforcement/SDP panels, regulatory

conferences, and caucuses.

In fiscal year 2000, OE participated in external stakeholder workshops, including the lessons learned

workshop conducted 1/10 - 1/13/00, and revised ROP workshops in:

Lisle, IL; 2/22 - 2/24/00 Arlington, TX; 3/14 - 3/17/00

Atlanta, GA; 3/6 - 3/8/00 Philadelphia, PA 3/21 - 3/23/00

OE has and will continue to support the Technical Training Center and NRR in presenting course

G-200, "Reactor Inspection and Oversight." During FY 2000, OE participated in the following

sessions:

11/15 - 11/19/99 02/14 -02/18/00 03/06-03/09/00 03/27 -03/30/00

01/24 - 01/28/00 02/22 - 02/25/00 03/13 - 03/18/00 04/03 - 04/08/00

02/07 - 02/11/00 02/28 - 03/03/00 03/21 - 03/24/00 04/17 - 04/21/00

B. Discrimination Task Group

On July 27,2000, the NRC established a management-level review group (Discrimination Task

Group) to: (1) evaluate the Agency's handling of matters covered by its employee protection

standards, (2) propose recommendations for improvements to the Agency's process for handling such

matters, including revisions to guidance documents and regulations as appropriate, (3) to ensure that

the application of the NRC enforcement process is consistent with the objective of providing an

-2 -
OE Annual Report

environment where workers are free to raise safety concerns in accordance with the Agency's

employee protection standards, and (4) to promote active and frequent involvement of internal and

external stakeholders in the development of recommendations for changes to the process. The NRC

announced the establishment of this group in a Federal Register notice that also stated that the group

planned to hold several public stakeholder meetings in various areas of the country to solicit input on

areas of improvement in the Agency's handling of discrimination issues.

Three public meetings were conducted during FY 2000:

September 5, 2000, at the US NRC offices in Rockville Maryland.

September 7, 2000, at the US NRC Technical Training Center, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

September 14, 2000, at the Embassy Suites Hotel, San Luis Obispo, California.

In a continuing effort to promote active and frequent involvement of internal and external

stakeholders, OE established a website off of its homepage to address the activities of the

Discrimination Task Group. This website includes a variety of information about the Discrimination

Task Group, including the announcement of its formation and its charter, as well as information

about upcoming meetings and background information on the subject of discrimination. The website

also includes an Online Form for public comments. This Online Form is also included in the

agency's collection of Online Forms accessible from the Public Involvement icon.

The Discrimination Task Group plans on conducting additional public meetings in FY 2001 and

plans on issuing a final report with recommendations in the summer of 2001.

C. EnforcementActionsAgainstIndividuals

Enforcement actions involving individuals is an area that the agency takes very seriously. This issue

is currently addressed in Section VIII of the Enforcement Policy. The enforcement staff has

established an internal working group to evaluate and propose recommendations for improvements to

this section of the Enforcement Policy, including clarification on the thresholds for issuing individual

enforcement sanctions. The working group plans on soliciting internal and external stakeholder

comments in the development of recommendations for changes to the Enforcement Policy.

D. Materials Program Support & Initiatives

OE reviews and concurs on rulemakings related to the materials program to ensure the proposed and

final rules and the Enforcement Policy and procedures are consistent. In doing so, OE makes any

necessary changes to the Enforcement Policy or procedures. Significant rulemakings completed in

FY 2000 include the revisions to 10 CFR Part 35, "Medical Use of Byproduct Materials" and

10 CFR Parts 30, 31, and 32 concerning distribution and use of general licensed devices. OE

participated on working groups for these rulemakings and developed related changes to the

Enforcement Policy and Enforcement Manual. Also, OE served as a working group member on the

proposed rulemaking regarding event reporting for unintended exposures to an embryo/fetus or to a

nursing child under non-medical circumstances.

During this fiscal year, OE recommended changes the Enforcement Policy to increase the value of

civil penalties for cases involving loss or unauthorized disposal of licensed sealed sources. The

recommended policy change provides that cases involving loss of a sealed source will normally result

in assessment of a civil penalty of at least three times the cost of authorized disposal. This change

-3-
OE Annual Report

was necessary to support the NMSS initiative to improve licensees' accountability of sealed sources

and devices. The Commission approved the Policy revision on July 11, 2000. The Policy will

become effective in the next fiscal year in conjunction with the final rule.

As necessary, OE serves as a member of 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Boards, Allegation Review

Boards, and NRC Bankruptcy Review Teams to provide guidance and support on associated

enforcement issues.

E. Reactor Program Support & Initiatives

In addition to activities associated with the ROP, the enforcement staff have supported other

initiatives in the reactor program.

OE reviews and concurs on rulemakings related to the reactor program to ensure the proposed and

final rules and the Enforcement Policy and procedures are consistent. In doing so, OE makes any

necessary changes to the Enforcement Policy or procedures.

During fiscal year 2000, the enforcement staff worked with NRR in developing an enforcement

approach to address revisions to 10 CFR 50.59, "Changes, tests, and experiments," that would be

consistent with the ROP framework. Enforcement staff successfully worked with NRR in developing

an approach that was consistent with the agency's performance goals of reducing unnecessary burden

and improving efficiency and effectiveness, while simultaneously improving public confidence by

developing a methodology that was predictable. OE assisted NRR in commenting on the industry's

guidance on the new rule, which was eventually endorsed by the Commission for publication as

Regulatory Guide 1. 187. OE has provided training to both internal and external stakeholders on

enforcement of the new rule. OE has and will continue to conduct review panels with NRR, OGC,

and the region to evaluate all potential 10 CFR 50.59 violations during the transition period between

the new rule and the old rule.

OE also continues to conduct review panels with NRR, OGC, and the region to evaluate all proposed

violations of 10 CFR 50.65, "Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at

nuclear power plants" (the Maintenance Rule). The performance-based nature of this rule poses a

continuing challenge to inspectors in identifying violations. These panels ensure a high level of

consistency for determining when violations of the Maintenance Rule have occurred. OE will

continue to conduct these panels as the additional section of the Maintenance Rule requiring risk

assessments prior to maintenance becomes effective. Based on lessons learned by these panel

activities, OE established a working group of OE, NRR, OGC, and regional representatives to

develop comprehensive Maintenance Rule enforcement guidance that would eliminate the need for

the panels to ensure consistency and identification of Maintenance Rule violations. The working

group plans on soliciting internal and external stakeholder comments in the development of this

guidance that would be placed in the Enforcement Manual.

Another challenge facing the agency is the appropriate treatment and regulatory response to security

matters at nuclear facilities. Physical protection against the threat of radiological sabotage or theft of

nuclear material is a fundamental obligation of all licensees. Drills using mock adversaries (forceon-force exercises, such as Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations (OSREs)) are an important

method for evaluating the effectiveness of licensee's protective strategies. When the staff proposed

the revised ROP, bench marking and feasibility reviews were completed for the SDPs, including the

physical protection SDP. However, the bench marking and feasibility for the physical protection

-4 -
OE Annual Report

SDP did not include detailed consideration of OSREs or other force-on-force exercises. In

evaluating the first OSRE to be performed under the ROP, the SDP produced a significance

determination that was substantially inconsistent with past positions (in that it was more significant)

and did not appear appropriate for the circumstances. OE took an integral part in developing a

recommendation to the Commission to address this issue. OE will continue to work with NRR in

developing and implementing any necessary guidance based on the Commission's decision on this

matter.

F. Alternative Dispute Resolution

The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (Act) of November 15, 1990, requires, in part, that

agencies examine alternative means of resolving disputes in connection with enforcement actions.

As required by the Act, the agency developed a policy in 1992 (57 FR 36678) to address what has

come to be known as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The policy states that opportunities

may arise for use of ADR in enforcement.

The enforcement staff is actively working with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to explore

the use of an ADR policy in the NRC enforcement arena. A proposal is due to the Commission in

2002.

While it appears that other agencies have used ADR in the area of civil enforcement, its use in the

NRC enforcement process poses significant challenges. Specifically, the use of ADR appears to

cause conflict between two of the agency's performance goals: increasing public confidence and

making activities and decisions more effective, efficient, and realistic. While some efficiency may

be gained, public confidence may be eroded by the confidentiality premises of ADR.

The enforcement staff is evaluating these issues, along with others, as they work to propose an ADR

policy for the Commission. The enforcement staff plans on soliciting internal and external

stakeholder comments in the development of recommendations for an ADR policy.

G. Increasing Public Confidence

The NRC views building and maintaining public trust and confidence that the NRC is carrying out its

mission as an important performance goal for the agency. To reach this goal, the NRC must be

viewed as an independent, open, efficient, clear and reliable regulator. This will be accomplished by

providing our stakeholders with clear and accurate information about, and a meaningful role in, our

regulatory programs.

Since its initial publication in 1980, the NRC Enforcement Policy has been structured to emphasize

the importance of compliance with regulatory requirements, and to encourage prompt identification,

and prompt, comprehensive correction of violations. However, because of the recent significant

changes and the somewhat complex and esoteric nature of enforcement, the general public, and many

of our stakeholders do not fully understand how the enforcement program works.

The Commission took a major step to be more open in 1996 when it published a revision to the

Policy to provide that most predecisional enforcement conferences will be open to public

observation. Since then, the NRC has taken additional steps to provide meaningful opportunities to

participate in the enforcement program.

-5-
OE Annual Report

OE wants to actively engage stakeholders to educate them on how the enforcement program is

changing to support new initiatives in the agency's oversight programs in conjunction with meeting

the agency's performance goals of maintaining safety; reducing unnecessary burden; making NRC

activities and decisions more effective, efficient, and realistic; and increasing public confidence. OE

has and will continue to conduct more stakeholder meetings to address the enforcement program and

enforcement issues. In addition to the ROP workshops and Discrimination Task Group public

meetings, enforcement staff have participated in the following enforcement stakeholder activities:

The Director, OE, served as a panelists in two breakout sessions at the 12th annual Nuclear

Regulatory Information Conference (RIC). On March 28, 2000, he addressed enforcement issues

during the Revised Reactor Oversight Process session and on March 29, 2000, he addressed the

enforcement process for discrimination issues during the Work Environment Issues session.

The enforcement staff provided a presentation on the changes to the Enforcement Policy

involving 10 CFR 50.59, "Changes, tests, and experiments," at a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

licensing issues workshop April 10-11, 2000.

The Region III enforcement staff provided training for new DOL and OSHA investigators on the

NRC's allegation and enforcement processes and the interactions with DOL and OSHA on

discrimination cases on May 11, 2000.

The Region HI enforcement staff provided a presentation at a regional OSHA investigator

counterpart meeting on the NRC's allegation and enforcement processes and the interactions

with DOL and OSHA on discrimination cases in June 2000.

* The enforcement staff provided a presentation on the materials enforcement program at a

workshop for doctoral students from the Medical University of South Carolina on June 7, 2000.

The enforcement staff in Region IV provided a presentation on the recent changes to the

Enforcement Policy to the American Society for Quality, Energy & Environmental Division on

August 29, 2000.

In addition to these activities, in a continuing effort to collaborate with the international nuclear

community, the enforcement staff participated with OGC in a week long exchange of information

with technical and legal representatives of the nuclear regulatory body of Ukraine in June 2000. This

Lisbon Initiative activity provided the Ukrainian representatives with detailed information on the

NRC enforcement program as a potential basis for a similar program for the Ukraine.

To provide accurate and timely information to all interested stakeholders and enhance the public's

understanding of the enforcement program, OE continues to electronically publish enforcement

information on its home page on the Internet, including the current Enforcement Policy; copies of

significant enforcement actions issued to reactor and materials licensees and individuals since 1996;

and upcoming predecisional enforcement conferences. During FY 2000, OE modified the web site to

include a web page to address information and activities of the Discrimination Task Group. OE also

provides summaries of significant enforcement actions issued to materials licensees through the

NMSS Newsletter.

In an effort to increase stakeholder involvement in Enforcement Policy and guidance development,

OE established a public participation page on the enforcement web site. OE has and will continue to

.6-
OE Annual Report

use this site as a way for interested stakeholders to provide input on various enforcement issues (such

as the Discrimination Task Force) through online comment forms. The Internet address for OE's

home page is: www.nrc.gov/OE.

H. Revision 3 of NRC Enforcement Manual

On June 1, 2000, OE issued a complete revision of the NRC Enforcement Manual (Manual) on its

website. This Manual supercedes the previous version, NUREG/BR-0195, Rev.2 in its entirety and

incorporates the majority of Enforcement Guidance Memoranda (EGMs) previously listed on the

web.

The Manual reflects NRC organizational changes; changes in enforcement and agency practices; and

recent Enforcement Policy revisions; including the elimination of regulatory significance, and the

addition of the reactor oversight process (ROP) and the Significance Determination Process (SDP).

Although specific guidance on the ROP is included in the NRC Inspection Manual, enforcementrelated aspects are included in the Manual (including a standard format letter for issuing escalated

Notices of Violation that are associated with white, yellow, or red SDP findings; Form 3-II in

Appendix B). The Manual and EGMs remain the governing documents for enforcement-related

activities.

I. Enforcement Guidance Memoranda (EGMs)

Because the enforcement process changes from time to time, temporary or expedited enforcement

guidance may need to be issued. The normal method for the Director, OE, to issue this enforcement

guidance is through the issuance of an EGM. EGMs are normally used to transmit temporary

guidance, but may also be used to transmit expedited guidance for Enforcement Policy application or

enforcement program implementation.

Three EGMs were issued in fiscal year 2000.

* EGM 99-008 - Enforcement Discretion Pertaining to Violations of Technical Specifications That

Apply to the Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal - Issued December 8,

1999.

* EGM 99-006, Rev. I - Extension of the Guidance for Implementation of the Interim Enforcement

Policy for Use During the Reactor Oversight Pilot Program - December 20, 1999.

* EGM 00-001 -Application of the Enforcement Policy in Conjunction With the Revised Reactor

Oversight Process - Issued March 30, 2000.

J. Enforcement Training

Successful communication for internal stakeholders is vital to ensure that the enforcement program is

both understood and acknowledged as an integral, valuable piece of the agency's regulatory

programs. OE has and will continue to conduct training to address the enforcement program and

emerging enforcement issues. In addition to the training provided in G-200, "Reactor Inspection and

Oversight," headquarters enforcement staff have provided internal stakeholders with the following

training:

-7-
OE Annual Report

* Enforcement staff provided training on recent changes to the Enforcement Policy and program to

Region RI management in October 1999.

Enforcement staff provided training on recent changes to the Enforcement Policy and program to

Region IV management in October 1999.

Enforcement staff provided training as part of NRR's presentation on the RROP to Region RI

staff in February 2000.

* Enforcement staff provided training as part of NRR's presentation on the RROP to Region I staff

in March 2000.

* The Director provided training on recent changes to the Enforcement Policy and program to

participants at the health physics counterpart meeting in June 2000.

The regions also provided training on the enforcement program in the regional offices.

Region I enforcement staff provided training to Region I Division of Nuclear Materials Safety in

May 2000. The training addressed a number of issues, including: (1) handling and

documentation of Severity Level IV violations, (2) use of NRC Form 591, (3) handling of minor

violations, (4) enforcement for violations involving the loss of security of radioactive material,

and (5) consideration of Agreement State enforcement for licensees operating under reciprocity.

Region II enforcement staff provided training on changes to the Enforcement Policy and the new

ROP to the Division of Reactor Safety inspectors in March 2000 and to the resident and regionbased inspection staffs at the Regional Counterpart Meeting in September 2000.

Region III enforcement staff provided training to Region III Division of Nuclear Materials Safety

on July 27, 2000. The training addressed coordination with O0 on O cases and processing

resulting enforcement actions. The training incorporated lessons learned from audits and

previous cases in Region m.

Region IV enforcement staff provided training to Region IV staff on a number of occasions to

address the changes to the Enforcement Policy, including the elimination of "regulatory

significance," and the process of aggregation and the ROP. Training for the Division of Nuclear

Materials Safety was conducted on October 7, 1999, and training for the Division of Reactor

Safety was conducted on November 9, 1999. All technical staff were provided training on

December 1 and December 7, 1999. Resident inspectors were provided training in three different

sessions in March 2000.

K. Audits

OE staff lead specific topic focused audits of the Regional and program office enforcement programs

to identify inconsistent application of the Enforcement Policy and enforcement guidance.

-8-
OE Annual Report

Audit of Reactor Non-Cited Violations - 3/15/00

OE with the assistance of the regional offices performed an audit of Non-Cited Violations (NCVs) to

determine the level of consistency in documenting NCVs in accordance with the guidance in the

Enforcement Policy, EGM 99-002, and NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0610. The audit placed

particular attention on whether each NCV writeup adequately and clearly stated the regulatory

requirement and how the requirement was violated. A total of 38 inspection reports from non-pilot

oversight inspection plants were reviewed. Those reports covered inspection periods from October

through December 1999.

The audit determined that, for the most part, NCVs are documented consistent with NRC guidance.

The audit identified that 14 of the 38 reports reviewed contained one or more findings related to

NCV documentation. Some of the findings represented deviations from NCV documentation

guidance while other findings were more editorial or administrative in nature. The audit identified

five NCVs which did not adequately or correctly state the regulatory requirement and/or how the

requirement was violated. None of those five findings were considered to be significant.

Audit of NRC Form 591, "Safety and Compliance Inspection" - 6/30/00

OE with the assistance of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) and the

regional offices, performed an audit of the use of NRC Form 591 to determine whether inspectors are

using the NRC Form 591 for its correct purpose, whether Form 591s are correctly completed, and

whether other inspections could have utilized a Form 591. NRC Form 591 may be used for certain

inspections of materials licensees. Form 591 summarizes the findings of an inspection related to

radiation safety and compliance and depending on the circumstances, indicates that: (1) no

violations were identified, (2) NCVs were identified, or (3) violations were identified. If used to

indicate the existence of violations, Form 591 serves as the official NOV.

A total of 106 inspections where a Form 591 was issued were audited. In addition, 26 inspections

involving non-escalated enforcement, where a Form 591 was not issued, were audited.

The audit report included the following conclusions and recommendations:

* Documenting Corrective Actions in Inspection Records. The requirement to document corrective

actions in inspection records is included in Manual Chapter 2800. However, it was deleted from the

last revision of the Enforcement Manual. By the end of September 2000, unless NMSS or the

Regions express specific concerns, OE plans to revise the Enforcement Manual to include this

requirement for use of NRC Form 591. Documenting corrective actions in inspections records was

the only concern with the use of Form 591s identified as a result of the audit. Fourteen percent

(15/106) of all Form 591s reviewed were deficient in that they did not have a description of

corrective actions in the inspection records. Therefore, inspectors should ensure that they are

documenting corrective actions for violations in inspection records when they issue a Form 591.

* Trackina Non-Escalated Enforcement Actions. There is no formal mechanism for tracking nonescalated enforcement actions for materials licensees. NMSS may want to consider having a tracking

system for non-escalated actions. NRR is already tracking similar actions for its licensees. In the

interim, NMSS may want to consider standard formats for ADAMS that would allow some level of

tracking of non-escalated actions.

-9-
OE Annual Report

While there are no conclusions about the extent of utilization of Form 591s, Regional management

may want to consider encouraging use of Form 591s to improve inspection efficiency.

Audit of Headquarters Part 71 Inspections - 9/27/00

OE and NMSS performed an audit of the Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO) 10 CFR Part 71

inspections to determine whether inspectors in SFPO were documenting and dispositioning 10 CFR

Part 71 inspection findings in accordance with the Enforcement Policy and Manual.

SFPO identified seven inspections performed over the last two years and provided to the auditors

copies of the inspection reports, including cover letters, Notices of Violations, and Notices of

Nonconformances, and the licensees' responses. The auditors met with SFPO staff on September 25,

2000, to discuss the inspections, the procedures that SFPO is using to disposition inspection findings,

and preliminary audit results. The results, conclusions, and recommendations were subsequently

discussed with the staff.

The audit report included the following conclusions and recommendations:

Dispositioning Findings in Accordance with the Enforcement Policy and Manual. The auditors

identified three areas where SFPO is not following the guidance in the Enforcement Policy or

Manual when dispositioning Nonconformances. First, SFPO is following the policy for

dispositioning Severity Level IV violations for reactor licensees to disposition Nonconformances.

Specifically, though not provided for in the Enforcement Manual, SFPO is dispositioning some

Nonconformances in a manner similar to non-cited violations for reactor licensees. Second,

consistent with the Enforcement Manual, SFPO is not assigning severity levels to Nonconformances.

However, SFPO is rating the significance of Nonconformances in the inspection reports using the

undefined terms minor, low, and moderate. Third, SFPO is not using the standard formats in the

Enforcement Manual for cover letters forwarding inspection reports and finding.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the OE Enforcement Specialist, NMSS Enforcement

Coordinator, and SFPO staff meet to determine whether any changes are needed to the Enforcement

Policy or Manual in order to support the SFPO inspection program. If it appears changes are

necessary, OE and NMSS should coordinate with the Quality Assurance, Vendor Inspection,

Maintenance, and Allegations Branch (IQMB), NRR, and the NRR Enforcement Coordinator, in

order to ensure a consistent approach to dispositioning Nonconformances.

Citing Violations Versus Nonconformances. The criteria for dispositioning a finding as a violation

versus a nonconformance is not clear. This may have led, or could lead, to incorrectly dispositioning

a nonconformance or violation. SFPO makes the decision of whether to disposition a finding as a

violation or nonconformance on a case-by-case basis using verbal guidance provided by OGC and, in

some cases, choosing to disposition a finding as a nonconformance when it could be a violation.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the OE Enforcement Specialist, NMSS Enforcement

Coordinator, and SFPO staff work with OGC to develop written guidance for determining when a

finding is a violation versus a nonconformance. The guidance should be included in inspection

procedures or the Enforcement Manual. The guidance should state that if a finding is a violation, it

is dispositioned as a violation and not a nonconformance. The criteria used to distinguish between

violations and Nonconformances should be based on the applicable section in Part 71, whether it

-10-
OE Annual Report

involved a licensee or certificate holder, and the circumstances surrounding the finding (e.g., whether

a shipment of material occurred).

Including Observations in Inspection Reports. The inspection reports include observations.

However, the inspection reports do not clearly state that these issues are neither violations nor

Nonconformances.

Recommendation: It is recommended that SFPO clearly indicate that issues are neither

Nonconformances nor violations to ensure that licensees and certificate holders do not incorrectly

perceive discussion of the issues as not complying with regulatory requirements.

Regional Audits

In addition to the headquarters lead audits, the regional enforcement staff also conducted audits of

the region's enforcement program. During this fiscal year, the regions routinely reviewed nonescalated reactor and materials enforcement actions to determine: (1) if enforcement issues were

adequately described in the inspection reports and if they were properly dispositioned in accordance

with the Enforcement Policy and applicable enforcement guidance; and (2) if violations were

properly documented and received the appropriate significance categorization either by SDP color or

severity level. The audits determined that, for the most part, non-escalated actions were properly

dispositioned in accordance with NRC guidance. Some issues that were identified included

insufficient documentation, failure to follow process procedures in soliciting OE review, and failure

to use standard language in enforcement correspondence.

During this fiscal year, Region I enforcement staff also performed a self-assessment of Region Is

handling of Task Interface Agreement requests completed by NRR during fiscal year 2000. Region

II enforcement staff routinely participated in Division led peer reviews of inspection reports to ensure

inspection report clarity, compliance with Agency policies and procedures (e.g., Manual Chapter

0610*), and whether inspection findings were adequately supported by the report details. In addition

to audits, Region IV's enforcement staff participated in nearly all inspection debriefings for reactor

and materials inspections to assure that violations of requirements were being properly dispositioned.

3. Escalated Enforcement and Administrative Items

During fiscal year 2000, the agency issued 94 Escalated Enforcement For FY 2000

individual escalated enforcement items.

Note that an enforcement case or enforcement action

issued to a licensee may include more than one

individual enforcement item (e.g., a civil penalty and

an escalated NOV without a civil penalty).

Escalated NOVs are individual Severity Level L IL or

III violations issued without a civil penalty and

individual violations associated with white, yellow, or

red SDP ROP findings.

* Escalated NOVs * Civil Penalties

Figure 3 on page 17 includes a numerical breakdown 0 Orders * Imposboris

of escalated enforcement items issued by each regional Figure 1

- 11 -

Cn'
OE Annual Report

office. Figure 4 on page 19 provides a breakdown of escalated enforcement items based on the type of

licensee, vendor, or individual.

Timeliness of Enforcement Actions

Timeliness Trends

The average time to issue escalated enforcement

actions (excluding orders) is a performance measure

used by the NRC. 80.

For actions that do not involve an investigation, the

measurement period begins on the date of the 40.

inspection exit meeting. For actions that involve an 40-

investigation, but no referral to the Department of

Justice (DOJ), the measurement period begins on the 20 4 '- __

date of issuance of the report of investigation. For 1/

actions that involve an investigation and referral to FY 98 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00

DOJ, the measurement period begins on the date DOJ

informs the NRC that the NRC may proceed with civil * Aveae Number of Days to Isue Aton

action. For actions that involve discrimination and Figure 2

Department of Labor (DOL) proceedings, the

measurement period begins when there is an

appropriate decision in the DOL process or sufficient evidence from the NRC's processes to support

actions.

On the basis of the defined measurement period, escalated enforcement actions (excluding orders) are to

be issued within an average of no more than 90 days.

During fiscal year 2000 this standard was met, with enforcement actions issued in an average of

46.1 days.

A. Escalated Notices of Violation (Without Civil Penalties)

During fiscal year 2000, the agency issued 67 escalated Notices of Violation (without civil

penalties). (This number reflects the number of enforcement issues versus the number of

enforcement cases issued during the year.) Twenty two of these items were issued to individuals and

one was issued to a vendor. See Section 5 for more information on enforcement items issued to

individuals and other non-licensed persons (i.e., vendors and certificate holders). Six of these issues

were associated with a white SDP finding from the ROP. Appendix A includes a short summary

description of each of the enforcement issues issued to licensees.

B. Civil Penalty Actions

During fiscal year 2000, the agency issued 16 civil penalty issues. Appendix B includes a short

summary description of each of these items. Table 2 includes statistical information on civil

penalties. As stated before, an enforcement action may include more than one individual civil

penalty issue.

-12-

c~Y2- --- 
OE Annual Report

C. Orders

During fiscal year 2000, the agency issued seven orders. Four of these orders were issued to

licensees while three were issued to individuals. (See Section 5 for more information on

enforcement actions issued to individuals, vendors, and certificate holders.) Appendix C includes a

short summary description of the four orders issued to licensees. In addition to these orders, four

civil penalty imposition orders were issued.

D. Demands for Information

A Demand for Information is an administrative enforcement tool issued to a licensee or other person

that enables the NRC to determine whether an order or other enforcement action should be issued.

OE did not issue any Demands for Information (DFI) during fiscal year 2000.

E. Escalated Enforcement Trends

During fiscal year 2000, the agency issued 94 individual escalated issues. Figure 5 show graphical

representations of enforcement trends since fiscal year 1995. Table 2 also shows civil penalty

statistical comparisons.

It should be noted that direct correlations between the fiscal years is difficult because of the major

policy changes that have occurred over the years. The reduction in the number of escalated

enforcement actions is the result of the agency's efforts in establishing an Enforcement Policy that

strives to be more risk-informed and performance-based.

4. Cases Involving Exercise ofDiscretion

Section VII of the Enforcement Policy addresses those cases where, notwithstanding the normal guidance

contained in the Policy, the NRC may choose to exercise discretion and either escalate or mitigate

enforcement sanctions within the Commissions statutory authority to ensure that the resulting

enforcement action takes into consideration all of the relevant circumstances of the particular case.

During FY 2000, nine cases that would be considered escalated involved an exercise of discretion.

Section VII.A

Section VI.A of the Enforcement Policy provides that the NRC may increase a sanction up to its full

enforcement authority where the action is warranted without applying the normal civil penalty

assessment process (Section VI.C.2). It also provides for either increasing the amounts of civil penalties

or proposing civil penalties where the normal process would result in no civil penalty. During FY 2000,

two cases involved this exercise of discretion.

Spectrum Pharmacy, Inc EA 00-071

Although application of the civil penalty assessment process would not normally have resulted in a civil

penalty, the NRC exercised discretion and proposed a civil penalty of $2,750 because of the licensee's

particularly poor performance during the vial rupture and subsequent evaluation of facility, staff and

package contamination.

-13 -
OE Annual Report

Tennessee ValleyAuthority EA 99-234

Although application of the civil penalty assessment process would have resulted in a $88,000 civil

penalty, the NRC exercised discretion and proposed a civil penalty of $110,000 (the maximum allowable

penalty) to emphasize the significance of the particular case of employment discrimination.

Section VII.B.1

This section is currently marked as "reserved" in the Enforcement Policy.

Section VII.B.2

Section VII.B.2 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations identified during

extended shutdowns or work stoppages if they are licensee-identified, based upon activities prior to the

events leading to the shutdown, non-willful, and not categorized at Severity Level I. This exercise of

discretion provides that the licensee's decision to restart the plant requires NRC concurrence. During

FY 2000, no cases involved this exercise of discretion.

Section VII.B.3

Section VII.B.3 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for old design issues that are

licensee-identified and corrected and were not likely to have been identified earlier through routine

surveillance. During FY 2000, one case involved this exercise of discretion.

U.S. Enrichment Corporation EA 99-176

Although the design deficiency associated with the calibration setpoint for the criticality accident alarm

system would normally be considered for significant enforcement action, the NRC exercised discretion

and refrained from issuing an action because it was an old design issue that met the criteria for discretion.

Section VII.B.4

Section VII.B A provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations identified due to

previous escalated enforcement action if the violation was licensee-identified, it has a similar root cause

as a previous escalated action, it does not substantially change the regulatory concern out of the initial

action, and it was corrected. During FY 2000, no cases involved this exercise of discretion.

Section VII.B.5

Section VII.B.5 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations involving

discrimination issues if they are licensee-identified and corrected. During FY 2000, no cases involved

this exercise of discretion.

Section VIL.B.6

Section VII.B.6 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations involving special

circumstances. During fiscal year 2000, six cases involved this exercise of discretion.

- 14-
OE Annual Report

Alonso & Carus Iron Works, Ina EA 99-292

The NRC exercised discretion (as discussed in Information Notice 99-22) and refrained from issuing

enforcement action for the licensee's failure in allowing an individual to act as a radiographer without

required certification because of the licensee's good-faith effort to comply with the regulations.

Commonwealth Edison Co. EA 99-288

The NRC exercised discretion and refrained from issuing an enforcement action for inaccurate historical

.performance indicator data in accordance with the interim policy regarding the completeness and

accuracy of performance indicator information.

Hawaiian Eye Clinic and Sugicenter EA 00-059

Although the normal civil penalty assessment process would have resulted in a civil penalty, the NRC

exercised discretion and did not propose a penalty because the licensee voluntarily suspended use of

licensed material (Sr-90 eye applicators), transferred the material, and requested termination of the NRC

license.

Northern States Power Co. EA 99-208

The NRC exercised discretion and refrained from issuing an enforcement action for inaccurate historical

performance indicator data in accordance with the interim policy regarding the completeness and

accuracy of performance indicator information.

Northern States Power Co. EA 99-295

The NRC exercised discretion and refrained from issuing an enforcement action for inaccurate historical

performance indicator data in accordance with the interim policy regarding the completeness and

accuracy of performance indicator information.

United States Enrichment Corporation EA 99-110

Although the normal civil penalty assessment process would have resulted in a $166,000 civil penalty,

the NRC exercised discretion in recognition of the broad measures the Corporation took and planned to

take to improve the nuclear safety conscious work environment and issued a $88,000 civil penalty.

5. Actions Against Individuals, Vendors, & Certificate Holders

During FY 2000, the agency issued 26 actions against individuals, vendors, and certificate holders. The

following sections provide a breakdown of the actions based on whether the actions were issued to

licensed or non-licensed individuals, or vendors or certificate holders. The section on orders includes

orders that were issued to individuals that prohibited or limited their activities in NRC-licensed activities

during the fiscal year.

-15-
OE Annual Report

A. Actions Against Licensed Individuals

During FY 2000, the agency issued three NOVs to licensed individuals. Appendix D includes a short

summary description of these actions.

B. Actions Against Non-Licensed Individuals

During FY 2000, the agency issued three orders and 19 NOVs to non-licensed individuals.

Appendix D includes a short summary description of each of these actions.

C. Actions Against Vendors and Certificate Holders

During FY 2000, the agency issued one NOV to a vendor. Appendix E includes a short summary

description of this action.

6. Cases Involving Discrimination

The NRC vigorously pursues enforcement action against licensees or licensee contractors who

discriminate against their employees for raising nuclear safety concerns. Acts of discrimination include

discharge and other adverse actions that relate to an employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment.

The NRC places a high value on nuclear industry employees being free to raise potential safety concerns,

regardless of the merits of the concern, to both licensee management and the NRC. Unlawful adverse

actions taken against employees for raising safety concerns may create a "chilling effect" on the

employee or other workers who may wish to raise concerns. That is, the employees may not feel that

they are free to raise concerns without fear of retaliation.

Therefore, one of the goals of the NRC's enforcement program is to ensure, through appropriate

enforcement action against a licensee or licensee contractor (and when warranted, against the individual.

personally responsible for the act of discrimination), that adverse employment actions taken against

licensee or contractor employees for raising safety concerns do not have a chilling effect on the

individual or others who may wish to report safety concerns.

During FY 2000, the agency issued 11 enforcement actions for violations involving discrimination. Six

actions were issued to licensees, four were issued to individuals, and one was issued to a vendor. These

cases are listed here and discussed further in the appropriate appendix.

American Electric Power Company NOV EA 99-329

Commonwealth Edison Company NOV EA 99-313

Commonwealth Edison Company $110,00 CivilPenalty EA 98-518

Tennessee ValleyAuthority $110,000 CivilPenalty £4 99-234

United States Enrichment Corporation $88,000 CivilPenalty EA 99-110

V. A., Philadelphia Department of $5,500 Civil Penalty EA 00-086

Rob Grant NOV IA 00-038

Jorge A. Labarraque NOV IA 99-059

-16-
OE Annual Report

Wilson C McArthur NOV IA 99-043

Thomas J. McGrath NOV IA 99-044

Numanco, LLC NOV EA 99-314

Figure 6 on page 25 includes escalated enforcement trends since fiscal year 1995 for discrimination

cases.

7. Hearing Activities

During FY 2000, one case had some type of hearing activity, i.e., hearing request, settlement, dismissal,

discovery, hearing proceeding, appeal, etc. Appendix F includes a short summary of this case.

8. 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

During FY 2000, there were two case that had some type of petition activity pending before the Office of

Enforcement during the fiscal year, i.e., petition request, NRC staff review, Director's Decision, etc.

Appendix G includes a short summary of each of these cases.

-17-
OE Annual Report

-18-
OE Annual Report

Escalated Enforcement By Region

25

20

15

10

5

0

.

Co) 

Region I Region II Region IlIl Region IV

* Escalated NOVs

C Orders

U

U

Civil Penalties

Impositions

Figure 3

M - M

- 19-
OE Annual Report

TABLE

BY TYPE

1: ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ITEMS

OF LICENSEE, VENDOR, OR INDIVIDUAL

Type of Escalated NOVs Civil Penalties Orders Impositions Total FY 00

Licensee (w/o penalty)

Acadenmc 0 1 0 0 1

Physician 0 0 2

Fuel Facility I I 0 0 2

Gauge User 7 2 2 2 13

Hospital 12 2 0 0 14

Irradiator 0 0 0 0 0

Radiographer 4 2 0 0 6

Pharnacy 1 2 1 0 4

Operating 18 3 1 2 24

Reactor

Research 0 0 0 0 0

Reactor

Materials 0 0 0 0 0

Distributer

Mill 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0

Waste Disposal 0 0 0 0 0

Well Logger 0 2 0 0 2

Vendor I 0 0 0 1

Licensed 3 0 0 0 3

Individual

Non-Licensed 19 0 3 0 22

Individual

Total 67 16 7 4 94

-20 -
OE Annual Report

Esca

Academic -

Physician -

Fuel Facility -

Gauge User -

Hospital -

Irradiator -

Radiographer -

Pharmacy -

Operating Reactor -

Research Reactor -

Materials Distributer -

Mill -

Other -

Waste Disposal -

Well Logger -

Vendor -

Licensed Individual -

Non-Licensed Individual -

alated Enforcement By Type

I-I---- I-I-II - m

mm: . W-M

M

I1IZZ

0 5 10 15 20 25

U

DEscalated NOVs

Orders

U

U

Civil Penalties

Impositions

Figure 4

-21 -
OE Annual Report

-22 -
OE Annual Report

TABLE 2: CIVIL PENALTY INFORMATION

lIFY __ _Y99 FY_98 FY97 FY96 FY 95

Number of 16 24 76 112 78 59

Proposed

Civil Penalties

Number of 4 5 6 10 9 10

Imposed

Civil Penalties

Number of Civil 16 21 68 108 56 47

Penalties Paid

Amount of $446,600 $1,062,600 $5,206,600 $7,422,300 $3,832,500 $2,263,950

Proposed

Civil Penalties

Amount of $231,550 $913,750 $115,650 $285,250 $44,500 $615,250

Imposed

Civil Penalties

Amount of Civil $430,500 $1,070,850 $6,493,573 $6,657,300 $3,014,000 $2,265,949

Penalties Paid l_

NOTE: This table includes information based on individual civil penalty assessments. An enforcement

action may include more than one individual civil penalty. In addition, a civil penalty may be

proposed in one fiscal year and paid or imposed in another fiscal year.

-23 -
OE Annual Report

- 24 -
OE Annual Report

Escalated Enforcement Trends

140

120

100 X

80

60

20-.A 40

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00

* Escalated NOVs C Civil Penalties

D Orders * Impositions

Figure 5

-25-

Cos
OE Annual Report

-26 -
OE Annual Report

Escalated Enforcement Based on Discrimination

25 -

20-

15t

10

5

0

FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY 99 FY 00

D Vendors * Individuals * Licensees

Figure 6

-27--
OE Annual Report

-28-
Appendix A

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF ESCALATED NOTICES OF

VIOLATION (WITHOUT CIVIL PENALTIES)

American Electric Power Company EA 99-329

DC Cook, Michigan

On May 5, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

discrimination against an employee for engaging in protected activities.

Burning Rock Coal Company EA 00-119

Daniels, West Virginia

On June 30, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level II violation involving the

deliberate operation of a fixed gauging device (containing 20 millicuries of cesium-137 and

300 millicuries of americium-241) without a required specific or general license issued by the NRC.

Caribbean Quality Control Services, Inc. EA 00-090

St. Croix, US. Virgin Islands

On May 31, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on the failure

to control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed materials. Specifically, the action involve the

transfer of a portable moisture-density gauge containing licensed material to a person not authorized to

possess or use such byproduct material. During the time the person possessed the gauge, an untrained

technician was allowed to operate it.

Clara Maas Medical Center EA 96-047

Belleville, New Jersey

On April 26, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation involving the

failure to include written policies and procedures in the quality management program to meet the specific

objective that any unintended deviation from a written directive is identified and evaluated.

Commonwealth Edison Company EA 00-010

Braidwood Station, Illinois

On May 18, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m1 violation based on a radiation

protection technician's deliberate failure to follow required procedures when he activated the alarms on

the portal monitors a total of 14 times and failed to contact the radiation protection department before

leaving the station.

Commonwealth Edison Company EA 99-313

Dresden Station, Illinois

On September 6, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level mH violation based on

discrimination against a radiation protection technician for engaging in protected activities.

-29 -
Appendix A

Consolidated Edison Company EA 00-155

Indian Point 2 Station, New York

On August 9, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for three violations that were associated with three

white SDP findings. These white findings involved failures to meet NRC emergency planning standards

for: (1) the timely augmentation by the emergency response organization, (2) the timely accountability of

onsite radiation emergency workers, and (3) the factual and consistent dissemination of information to

the media and a local official. These failures contributed to emergency response deficiencies that were

exhibited during the course of the steam generator tube failure (SGTF) Alert event.

Cooperheat-MQS, Inc. EA 99-206

Houston, Texas

On April 27, 2000, a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level m violation was issued based on the failure

to make surveys to evaluate the extent of radiation levels and the potential radiological hazards present

during a radiography source change.

David Blackmore & Associates EA 00-124

Pottstown, Pennsylvania

On May 17, 2000, a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level m violation was issued for failure to control

and maintain constant surveillance of licensed materials.

Detroit Edison Company EA 99-263

Fermi, Michigan

On December 15, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level mH violation based on the

licensee's failure to comply with their Commission-approved physical security plan that resulted in a

loaded handgun being entered into the protected area of the facility.

First Energy Nuclear Operating Company EA 99-212

(previously named Duquesne Light Company)

Beaver Valley 2, Pennsylvania

On October 21, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m problem involving failure

to implement corrective actions to prevent biofouling of the service water system, and failure to provide

adequate acceptance criteria in the procedure for chemical treatment of the service water system.

First Energy Nuclear Operating Company EAs 00-045 & 00-053

(previously named Duquesne Light Company)

Beaver Valley 2, Pennsylvania

On May 3, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for two Severity Level m violations and one Severity

Level m problem involving: (1) the failure to correct a condition adverse to quality involving the service

water and river water pump vacuum break check valves, (2) the failure to perform an adequate design

review of a temporary modification to the filtered water system, and (3) design deficiencies associated

with the seal water supply to the river water pumps and the failure of the river water pump testing

program to identify one of those deficiencies.

-30 -
Appendix A

Entergy Operations, Inc. EA 00-081

Arkansas Nuclear One, Arkansas

On June 15, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

(I) inadequate design control over changes made to the pump bearing housing material and the viscosity

of the bearing lubricating oil; and (2) the above changes resulting in the pumps being inoperable from

January 28 to February 5, 2000, when service water cooling temperatures were below 42 degrees F.

Entergy Operations, Inc. EA 99-305

Grand GulfNuclear Station, Mississippi

On February 22, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m problem based on

(1) failure to comply with the technical specification for operating the emergency diesel generator,

(2) failure to establish adequate alarm response instructions; (3) failure to review a work package, and

(4) failure to initiate condition reports for Nonconformances.

Entergy Operations, Inc EA 99-158

River Bend Station, Louisiana

On October 5, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level HI violation based on

inadequate work instructions for the emergency diesel generator fuel booster pump that rendered the

generator inoperable.

Fox Chase Cancer Center EA 99-294

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

On November 30, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level Im violation involving the

failure of the Radiation Safety Committee to provide required training to all physicians to administer

radioactive material.

Hawaiian Eye Clinic and Surgicenter EA 00-059

Wahiawa, Hawaii

On July 25, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level II problem involving: (1) failure

of quality management program (QMP) to assure that final treatment plans and related calculations were

in accordance with written directive; and (2) failure of QMP to identify and evaluate deviations from

written directives.

Hayes Testing Laboratory, Inc. EA 00-089

Louisville, Kentucky

On June 9, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level HI violation involving the

performance of radiography in areas of NRC jurisdiction without filing an NRC Form 241, the failure to

file revisions, and the failure to clarify a May 4, 1999, NRC Form 241 to identify new job sites and to

include dates for performing radiography that were not previously submitted.

-31 -
Appendix A

Holy Redeemer Hospital and Medical Center EA 99-246

Meadowbrook, Pennsylvania

On November 3, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation involving

misadministration by failure to properly implement the Quality Management Program (QMP) by the

licensee in that no written directive was prepared prior to the administration of iodine-131.

International Testing & Inspection Services, Inc. EA 00-211

-Belle Chasse, Louisiana

On September 22, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level HI violation based on the

company's failure to obtain reciprocity from the NRC prior to conducting licensing activities in an area of

exclusive Federal jurisdiction within an Agreement Statement.

Jersey City Medical Center EA 00-014

Jersey City, New Jersey

On February 22, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m problem involving:

(1) failure to secure, limit access to, or maintain constant surveillance of licensed material stored in the

Nuclear Medicine Department (NMD) Hot Laboratory and four research laboratories, (2) failure to

follow procedures for receiving and opening packages of licensed material and (3) failure to provide

required training.

Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. EA 99-322

Maryland Heights, Missouri

On January 11, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on failure

to comply with the licensee's Emergency Plan, when the licensee did not notify the U.S. NRC Operations

Center and the State of Missouri Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology within one hour of declaring an

Alert.

Material Testing Consultants, Inc. EA 99-253

Grand Rapids, Michigan

On November 22, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level HI violation involving the

failure to maintain control and surveillance of licensed material that was in an unrestricted area and

failure to follow emergency procedures.

Maxim Technologies of New York, Inc. EA 00-002

Mechanicsville, New York

On January 10, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level Im violation based on failure

to comply with 10 CFR 34.43(a)(1); when the licensee permitted two individuals to act as radiographers

without required radiographer certification.

-32 -
Appendix A

MidMichigan Medical Center

Midland, Michigan

EA 99-215

On November 26, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m problem involving

failures to (1) consult a written directive before administering a therapeutic quantity of iodine-131 to a

patient, (2) report a misadministration in a timely manner, and (3) provide the NRC inspector with

complete and accurate information.

New York Power Authority

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, New York

EA 99-325

On March 20, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a violation in conjunction with a white SDP

finding involving a high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system overspeed event. The violation cited

the licensee's failure to identify and correct problems with the HPCI system.

Ohio State University

Columbus, Ohio

EA 99-175

On October 7, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level III violation involving the

release of a patient who had been administered radiopharmaceuticals without ensuring that the total

effective dose equivalent to any other individual exposed to the patient was below required limits.

PECO Nuclear

Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania

EA 00-125

On August 3, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a violation that was assessed as a white SDP

finding involving the improper classification of radioactive waste for shallow land burial.

Pocatello Regional Medical Center EA 99-332

Pocatello, Idaho

On March 3, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m problem involving:

(1) failure to secure a generator from unauthorized removal, (2) failure to limit the external dose from the

generator, (3) failure to provide the NRC with a written report in accordance with requirements, and

(4) failure to conduct adequate surveys and to evaluate potential contamination.

-33 -
Appendix A

Public Service Electric and Gas Company EA-00-018

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, New Jersey

On February 14, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for failure to comply with a fire protection

license condition. It was cited in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy for use during the

NRC Power Reactor Oversight Process Plant Study. The violation was associated with a finding (failure

of the Unit 2 416OVac switchgear room carbon dioxide fire suppression system to achieve required

concentration) that the SDP characterized as white.

Southern California Edison Co. EA 99-242

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, California

On December 15, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level Iml violation based on the

licensee's failure to comply with the technical specifications when the plant staff did not recognize a

condition that rendered one diesel generator and more than one battery charger inoperable.

Southeastern Plastics Corporation EA 99-297

New Brunswick, New Jersey

On December 29, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

failure to comply with 10 CFR 31.5(c)(6); when the licensee abandoned an Ohmart gauge containing

1200 millicuries of krypton-85.

St. John Hospital & Medical Ctr. EA 99-289

Detroit, Michigan

On December 20, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation for failure of

two qualified individuals to verify the correct dose of iodine-131 prior to administering it, which resulted

in a misadministration.

St. Peter's Community Services EA 99-245

Helena, Montana

On November 5, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level HI violation involving a

failure to maintain control and surveillance of licensed material that was in an unrestricted area.

Turabo Corporation EA 00-088

Caguas, Puerto Rico

On June 12, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level III violation involving the failure

to secure the portable moisture density gauge from unauthorized removal and failure to limit the dose in

an unrestricted area.

V. A., Department of EA 99-284

Hines, Illinois

On December 15, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level III problem involving two

failures to follow the medical quality management program that resulted in a therapeutic

misadministration.

-34 -
Appendix A

V.A., Department of EA 99-174

Iowa, IA

On October 14, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level El[ violation involving

(1) failure to assess dose consequences to members of the public following the administration of

Sn-I 17m to two human research subjects and (2) failure to provide the released subjects with written

instructions on how to maintain doses to others as low as is reasonably achievable.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation EA 00-165

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vermont

On September 18, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on a

former mechanical maintenance manager deliberately causing a violation of the procedure implementing

the requirement to control contracted services during the 1998 refueling outage.

ictor E. Rivera Associates/Geotechnical Engineers EA 99-269

Ponce, Puerto Rico

On November 23, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation involving the

failure to maintain control and surveillance of licensed material that was in an unrestricted area.

Hirginia Commonwealth University EA 00-040

Richmond, Virginia

On April 24, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level Im problem based on the loss of

licensed material (a brachytherapy strand containing seven seeds of iridium-192) and the failure to

immediately report to the NRC the loss of licensed material.

Wisconsin Public Service Corp. EA 99-138

Kewaunee Plant, Wisconsin

On October 19, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation involving the

failure to ensure full implementation of the NRC-approved plant security manual and falsification of

security-related records.

-35 -
Appendix A

-36 -
Appendix B

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED

CIVIL PENALTIES

Allegheny Wi reline Services EA 99-034 andEA 00-005

Weston, West Virginia

On February 8, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of

$5,5000 was issued for a Severity Level m problem involving (1) the failure to conduct radiation surveys

at well sites; and (2) the failure to maintain complete and accurate records of these surveys, as required

by License Condition 21 and 10 CFR 30.9; and a Severity Level HI violation involving the failure of the

Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) to provide adequate oversight concerning the completion of radiation

surveys and radiation survey records as required by License Condition 21.

Bass Energy, Inc. EA 00-118

Bruceton Mills, West Virginia

On June 30, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty of $8,800 was issued

for a Severity Level I problem involving the failure to: (1) obtain written consent from the NRC prior to

transferring control of licensed material to unlicensed companies on two occasions; (2) secure or

maintain constant surveillance of licensed material from unauthorized access; and (3) provide

information to the NRC that was complete and accurate in all material aspects.

Braun Intertec Corporation EA 00-147

Minneapolis, Minnesota

On August 14, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty of $5,500 was

issued for a Severity Level m violation based on the failure of the licensee to have two qualified

individuals present when conducting radiographic operations at temporary job sites.

Buxeda-Dacri, M.D., Roberto EA 00-141

Santurce, Puerto Rico

On July 14, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty of $2,750 was issued

for a Severity Level III violation involving the failure to test an eye applicator source, containing

approximately 31 millicuries of Strontium-90, for leakage at proper intervals.

Commonwealth Edison Company EA 98-518

Zion Station, Illinois

On November 3, 1999, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$110,000 was issued for a Severity Level II violation involving discrimination against a Senior Reactor

Operator for raising nuclear safety issues.

-37 -
Appendix B

Consolidated Edison Company EA 99-319

Indian Point 2 Station, New York

On February 25, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$88,000 was issued for a Severity Level II problem involving: (1) failure to translate design basis

requirements into procedure of the 480 Volt (V) vital bus degraded voltage relays, which led to loss of

offsite power to the vital busses; (2) failure to ensure that procedures used to calibrate the breaker trip

units for the emergency diesel generators (EDGs) were adequate, which led to the inoperability of one

EDG, and (3) failure to take corrective actions for a significant condition adverse to quality involving

repetitive problems with the reactor protection system over-temperature/delta temperature circuitry,

which led to initiation of a reactor trip.

Glendive Medical Center EA 00-076

Glendive, Montana

On June 29, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty of $2,750 was issued

for a Severity Level Iml violation involving the failure to control and maintain constant surveillance of

licensed materials (molybdenum-99/technetium-99m generators).

Professional Service Industries, Inc EA 99-194

Lombard, Illinois

On October 22, 1999, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$8,800 was issued for a Severity Level II problem involving failures to: (1) conduct radiography with at

least two qualified individuals to observe operations; (2) supervise a radiographic assistant while

performing radiographic operations; and (3) maintain control and constant surveillance of licensed

material that was in an unrestricted area.

Spectrum Pharmacy, Inc EA 00-071

Mishawaka, Indiana

On September 21, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$2,750 was issued for a Severity Level III problem was based on: (1) failure to ensure surface

contamination on shipping packages was within regulatory limits; (2) failure to follow emergency

procedures; and (3) failure to perform surveys that may be necessary to ensure compliance with the

requirements in 10 CFR Part 20.

Syncor International Corporation EA 00-060

Woodland Hills, California

On June 28, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty of $2,750 was issued

for a Severity Level HI problem involving: (1) failure to block and brace properly a package of

radioactive material and (2) failure to maintain constant surveillance of licensed radioactive material.

-38 -
Appendix B

Tennessee ValleyAuthority EA 99-234

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Tennessee

On February 7, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$110,000 was issued for a Severity Level II violation involving employment discrimination against a

former corporate employee for engaging in protected activities.

United States Enrichment Corporation EA 99-110

Bethesda, MD

On December 20, 1999, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$88,000 was issued for a Severity Level II violation based on discrimination against the former Manager

of Quality Systems for raising safety concerns.

Western Soil, Ina EA 99-262

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued for a

Severity Level m violation involving the licensee's failure to maintain surveillance of licensed material.

West Virginia University EA 99-300

Morgantown, WV

On February 4, 2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$2,750 was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on failure to secure, limit access to, or maintain

constant surveillance of licensed material stored in the Civil Engineering Building and four research

laboratories.

V. A., Department of EA 00-086

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

On July 20,2000, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$5,500 was issued for a Severity Level III violation based on discrimination against a former employee

for raising safety concerns.

-39 -
Appendix B

-40 -
Appendix C

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF ORDERS

IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY ORDERS

Bass Energy, Inc. EA 00-118

Bruceton Mills, West Virginia

On September 29, 2000, June 30, 2000, an Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in the amount of

$8,800 was issued. Based on the nature of the violations, the licensee's failure to pay the proposed civil

penalty or respond to the Notice, and the NRC's numerous attempts to discuss this matter with the

licensee and their attorney, the NRC concluded that the civil penalty in the amount of $8,800 for the

violations described in the Notice should be imposed.

Commonwealth Edison Company EA 98-518

Zion Station, Illinois

On June 12, 2000, an Orider Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in the amount of $110,000 was issued.

The NRC considered the licensee's February 3, 2000, response and concluded that the violation occurred

as stated in the November 3, 1999, Notice, and neither an adequate basis for withdrawing the violation,

reducing the severity level, or mitigating or rescinding the civil penalty was given.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company EA 99-012

(previously named Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.)

Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Ohio

On August 12, 2000, an Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in the amount of $ 110,000 was issued.

The action was based on a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$110,000 that was issued on May 20, 1999, for a violation of the employee protection requirement. The

Licensee's February 25, 2000, response denied the violation and requested that the violation be

withdrawn and the civil penalty rescinded. After considering the licensee's response, the NRC

concluded that the violation occurred as stated and that there was not an adequate basis for withdrawing

the civil penalty.

Western Soil, Inc. E4 99-262

Mayaguez, Puerto Rico

On April 12, 2000, an Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued. The

NRC considered the licensee's December 20, 1999, and February 16, 2000, responses and concluded that

the violation in the November 24, 1999, Notice occurred as stated and that the proposed civil penalty

remained valid.

-41 -
Appendix C

CONFIRMATORY. MODIFICATION. SUSPENSION. AND CEASE & DESIST ORDERS

Alfonso DeLeo, Jr. EA 99-217

Ardmore, Pennsylvania

On December 13, 1999, an Order Modifying Order Suspending License and Order Revoking License was

issued based on: (1) the failure to comply with an Order suspending the license that was issued February

12, 1996; (2) the failure to pay required annual fees; and (3) the willful failure to comply with the

decommissioning rule.

Entergy Operations, Inc. EA 00-093

faterford-3

On August 4, 2000, an immediately effective Confirmatory Order was issued to confirm commitments

made by the licensee concerning the implementation of corrective actions for the physical security

program at the Waterford 3 facility.

Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc. EA 00-143

Maryland Heights, Missouri

On June 22, 2000, a Confirmatory Order was issued requiring the company to review and improve its

radiation protection program and its training for workers as a result of radiation overexposures to several

employees in the past two years.

Roof Survey and Consultants, Inc. EA 99-223

Roanoke, VA

On October 4, 1999, an Order Revoking License was issued based on the failure to pay annual fees and

failure to comply with the terms of the April 3, 1997, Order Suspending License.

-42 -
Appendix D

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF ACTIONS AGAINST

INDIVIDUALS (LICENSED & NON-LICENSED)

ORDERS

Randall G. Falvey IA 99-049

On October 19, 1999, an Order prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued based on

failure to ensure full implementation of the NRC-approved plant security manual and deliberate

falsification of security-related records.

Jasen Mallahan IA 99-047

On October 22, 1999, an Order prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued based on

deliberate failure to conduct radiography with at least two qualified individuals to observe operations and

supervise a radiographic assistant while performing radiographic operations.

John Urban IA 99-053

On November 26, 1999, an Order prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued based

on deliberate misconduct by willfully failing to consult the physician's written directive prior to

administering a therapeutic dosage to a patient, altering the written directive and providing incomplete

and inaccurate information to the NRC inspector, which caused in part, the licensee to file an untimely

report.

NOTICES OF VIOLATION (NOVs)

Walter Anderson IA 99-046

On October 1, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on violation

of NRC requirements governing fitness-for-duty as a licensed operator.

Henry Carter IA 00-019

On May 18, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on deliberate

failure to follow required procedures when he activated the alarms on the portal monitors a total of 14

times and failed to contact the radiation protection department before leaving the station.

Daniel Cosentino IA 00-017

On July 19, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on deliberate

failure to perform visual inspections of portable fire extinguishers and fire hose stations and falsified the

associated data sheets.

-43 -
Appendix D

Leonard Frye IA 99-050

On February 8, 2000 a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level Ill violation of 10 CFR 30.10

(Deliberate Misconduct) involving deliberate failure as an RSO to provide oversight sufficient to ensure

the completion of radiation surveys and radiation survey records required by License Condition.

John R. Godwin IA 99-060

On December 22, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

violation of NRC requirements governing fitness-for-duty.

Rob Grant IA 00-038

On September 6, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level Im violation based on

discrimination against a radiation protection technician for engaging in protected activities.

MichaelHibbens IA 99-048

On October 22, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

deliberate failure to have qualified individuals to observe operations, and maintain control and constant

surveillance of licensed material that was in an unrestricted area.

Clarence E. Jones IA 00-029

On May 24, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m of 10 CFR 50.5 by

deliberately attempting to subvert the fitness-for-duty test and conceal the use of illegal drugs.

Essence L A. Kegler IA 00-018

On April 28, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation of 10 CFR 50.5 by

deliberately attempting to subvert the fitness-for-duty test and conceal the use of illegal drugs.

Jorge A. Labarraque IA 99-059

On December 20, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level II violation based on

deliberate misconduct for discrimination against the former Manager of Quality Systems for raising

safety concerns.

Wilson C. McArthur IA 99-043

On February 7, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level II violation based on

deliberate misconduct for discrimination against the former employee for raising safety concerns.

Thomas J. McGrath IA 99-044

On February 7, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level II violation based on

deliberate misconduct for discrimination against the former Manager that cause a licensee to be in

violation of NRC requirement, 10 CFR 50.7.

-44 -
Appendix D

Byrce E. Miller IA 00-036

On August 15, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR Part 55, fitness-for-duty, by admitting using illegal drug

(cocaine).

Ross H. Stromberg IA 99-055

On November 23, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

violation of NRC requirements governing fitness-for-duty.

LarryE. Taylor IA 99-061

On December 27, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

violation of NRC requirements governing fitness-for-duty as a licensed operator.

Steve Templeton IA 99-051

On January 31, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level III violation based on

deliberate misconduct when the individual: (1) deliberately caused work in progress to violate a

protective requirement specified on a radiation work permit (RWP); and (2) intentionally failed to survey

the steam generator platform prior to decontamination activities.

John D. Tipton IA 99-054

On November 23, 1999, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

violation of NRC requirements governing fitness-for-duty.

DavidJ. Understahl IA 00-026

On September 20, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level El[ violation based on

deliberate misconduct by submitting inaccurate and incomplete information under the NRC-required

fitness-for-duty program at Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant (adulterated test specimen).

Billy R Watts IA 00-027

On September 20,2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

deliberate misconduct by submitting inaccurate and incomplete information under the NRC-required

fitness-for-duty program at Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant (adulterated test specimen).

Thomas Whelan IA 00-035

On September 22, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level HI violation based his

deliberate actions when he entered a high radiation area without receiving authorization from cognizant

work supervision.

-45 -
Appendix D

AnthonyXenakis IA 00-037

On August 31, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level III violation based on

violation of NRC requirements governing fitness-for-duty as a licensed operator.

Joseph Zelaya IA 00-005

On February 24, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

deliberate misconduct for submitting incomplete information to Florida Power and Light Company (FPL)

on the personal history questionnaire for unescorted access to the Turkey Point plant.

DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION (DFIs)

None.

-46 -
Appendix E

APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF ACTIONS

AGAINST VENDORS AND CERTIFICATE HOLDERS

IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY ORDERS

None.

ORDERS

None.

CIVIL PENALTIES

None.

NOTICES OF VIOLATION (NOVs)

Numanco, LLC

Tulsa, Oklahoma

EA 99-314

On September 6, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level m violation based on

discrimination against a radiation protection technician for engaging in protected activities.

DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION (DFIs)

None.

-47 -
Appendix E

-48 -
Appendix F

APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF HEARING ACTIVITY

Western Soil Inc. EA 99-262

On June 6, 2000, the licensee requested a hearing in response to an April 12, 2000, Order Imposing Civil

Monetary Penalty. The Imposition was based on the licensee's failure to maintain control and

surveillance of licensed material. On August 24, 2000, the NRC and the licensee filed a settlement

agreement for approval by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that, among other things reduced the

civil penalty from $2,750 to $500. The Licensing Board approved the settlement on August 29, 2000.

-49 -
Appendix J

-50-
Appendix G

APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF 10 CFR 2.206 ACTIVITY

Petition Regarding Hydro Nuclear Services/WYestinghouse

A petition was received on July 18, 2000, regarding Hydro Nuclear Services/Westinghouse and/or its

successors, requesting: (I) that the NRC immediately ban Westinghouse from doing business in the

nuclear industry for willfully failing to comply with a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) order, (2) that a

fine immediately be assessed against Westinghouse commensurate with a Severity Level I violation; and

(3) that each day of noncompliance count as a separate violation, with its own fine. The petitioner

asserted that Westinghouse's failure to comply with a DOL order created a chilled environment in the

nuclear industry. The staff concluded in a letter to the petitioner on October 18, 2000, that there was no

support for such an allegation in the petition and therefore, concluded that further review was not

warranted.

Petition Regarding Nine Mile Point I and 2

A petition was received on May 10, 2000, regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear Units I & 2. The

petitioner requested that the NRC take enforcement action against Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation

(NMPC) and its senior nuclear managers for willfully submitting falsified documents to the NRC and to

the DOL in conjunction with a May 10, 1996, enforcement conference concerning discrimination against

an employee for engaging in protected activities. Although the petition did not address the 1996

discrimination case, the NRC staff did conclude that NMPC had violated 10 CFR 50.7 and issued a

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $80,000 on July 24, 1996.

The petitioner had previously submitted a petition on April 5, 1999, requesting that the NRC take action

against NMPC and its senior nuclear and corporate management for allegedly altering and causing public

release of documents about the individual's performance, and for misrepresenting the findings of an

Administrative Law Judge in the related DOL discrimination case. In Director's Decision 99-13, dated

October 28, 1999, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, determined that the petition should

be denied for reasons stated in the decision. After review of the May 10, 2000, petition, as well as

additional information submitted by both the petitioner and NMPC, the staff concluded in a letter to the

petitioner dated August 10, 2000, that significant new information did not exist and further pursuit of the

issue was not justified.

-51 -