ML13169A030
| ML13169A030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/2013 |
| From: | Mccree V Region 2 Administrator |
| To: | Skaggs M Tennessee Valley Authority |
| References | |
| IR-13-614 EA-13-019 | |
| Download: ML13169A030 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000391/2013614
Text
June 18, 2013
Mr. Michael D. Skaggs
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Generation Development and Construction
Tennessee Valley Authority
6A Lookout Place
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -
$70,000, NRC INSPECTION REPORT NUMBER 05000391/2013614
Dear Mr. Skaggs:
This letter refers to the inspection conducted between December 3 and 7, 2012, and between
January 10 and February 14, 2013, at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 (WB2). The purpose
of the inspection was to perform a focused problem identification and resolution sample of
Tennessee Valley Authoritys (TVA) corrective actions for a previously noted violation
associated with your commercial grade dedication program (see NRC Inspection Report 05000391/2011610, ADAMS Accession # ML12034A202). The results of this inspection,
including the identification of three apparent violations (AVs), were discussed with you on
February 14, 2013.
At your request, a predecisional enforcement conference was held at the NRCs Region II office
on May 7, 2013, to discuss TVAs views on these issues. A meeting summary was issued on
May 14, 2013, which included copies of the slide presentation made by TVA (ML13134A398).
During the meeting, your staff described TVAs assessment of the significance of the findings,
the corrective actions planned and taken, and the results of your root cause evaluations of the
findings.
Based on our review of the information developed during the inspection, the information that you
provided during and after the conference, as well as our independent evaluation, the NRC has
determined that three violations of NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in
the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice). The circumstances surrounding them are described in
detail in NRC Inspection Report No. 05000391/2013611 (ML13085A258), issued March 26,
2013.
The first violation involved a breakdown of the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B quality assurance
(QA) program in the single work area of commercial grade dedication (CGD). Specifically, since
at least 2008, TVA failed to translate or include the 10 CFR Part 21 definition of critical
characteristic in its procedure NEDP-8, Technical Evaluation for Procurement of Materials and
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
245 PEACHTREE CENTER AVENUE NE, SUITE 1200
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-1257
M. Skaggs
2
Services. As such, TVA was not verifying critical characteristics for an unknown number of
safety-related items procured for the WB2 project starting from the resumption of construction
activities in 2008. A still undetermined total number of these items were installed in the facility.
A second violation involved a failure to report the aforementioned breakdown in the QA program
as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e)(4) and (5). An extent of condition analysis completed in May
2012 provided sufficient information to reasonably indicate that a significant breakdown in the
QA program had occurred. However, it was not until January 3, 2013, that TVA submitted its
initial report on the CGD QA program (Event Notification 48646), and that initial report
failed to indicate that a significant breakdown had occurred. The apparent cause of this
violation was the failure of procedure NC-PP-13, Reporting Requirements, Rev. 0 to require a
significant breakdown of the QA program be reportable whether or not the breakdown actually
resulted in a defect. The third violation involved the failure to identify a significant condition
adverse to quality related to the previously mentioned breakdown in the QA program. The
corrective action program entry for this issue was originally categorized as a C level problem
evaluation report (PER) in July 2011, which adequately reflected the understood circumstances
as a condition adverse to quality. Following the extent of condition analysis in May 2012, the
corrective action categorization was required to be reevaluated in accordance with procedure
NC-PP-3, Watts Bar Unit 2 Corrective Action Program, Rev. 15, because the condition was
found to be more significant than originally reported. However, it was not until December 6,
2012, after prompting by NRC inspectors, that TVA rescreened the issue as an A level
concern, which adequately reflected the issue as a significant condition adverse to quality.
The NRC evaluated the significance of these violations using the Enforcement Policy. For
facilities under construction, the NRC considers the potential consequences of the violations on
the quality of construction and its resulting effect on the safety and security of the facility. For
reactor construction projects, the Enforcement Policy emphasizes the effectiveness of the QA
program. The emphasis on effective implementation of the QA program reflects the lessons
learned by the industry and the NRC during the original construction of the current operating
fleet, as documented in NUREG 1055, Improving Quality and the Assurance of Quality in the
Design and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants." The Enforcement Policy for operating
reactors has been revised over the years to de-emphasize the programmatic aspects of the
QA program as the operating fleet matured. Aspects of the mature nature of the operating fleet
typically include stable workforces of highly trained and experienced staff who perform generally
repetitive tasks and have performance indicators that allow continuous tracking of the plants
performance, including system and component functionality. Construction projects, however,
involve large numbers of workers, many of whom rotate through the project and do not have the
opportunity to gain experience that staff at operating reactors have. Aspects of the QA program
are often delegated to contractors and subcontractors for implementation. There are many
activities being performed concurrently, and there are few performance indicators that can
provide quick indication of potential inadequacies in construction. For these reasons, the
additional emphasis on the effective implementation of the QA program during reactor
construction contained in the Enforcement Policy was carried into the recently created
Construction Reactor Oversight Process, as documented in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter
2519P, Construction Significance Determination Process - Pilot.
The NRC acknowledges that the testing you have completed to date has not indicated that there
would have been a loss of safety function as a result of the incorrectly dedicated components.
However, the potential consequences of the QA breakdown in the work area of commercial
grade dedication were credible and significant because a majority of commercially dedicated
items to be used in safety-related applications were of an unknown quality at the time of
inspection. Additionally, the breakdown in the QA program was not reported to the NRC when
M. Skaggs
3
that information was reasonably apparent. In this case, had TVA formally reported the QA
breakdown as required, the NRC may have conducted substantial further inquiry at a time well
before the December 2012 inspection. Finally, the failure to identify the QA breakdown as a
significant condition adverse to quality represented a lack of oversight in the implementation of
TVAs corrective action program. Based on their interrelated nature, these violations have been
characterized collectively as a severity level III problem in accordance with the Enforcement
Policy.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $70,000 is
considered for a severity level III problem. Because your facility has been the subject of
escalated enforcement within the past two years1, the NRC considered whether credit was
warranted for identification and corrective action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment
process in Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy. With regard to the factor of identification,
the NRC has concluded that credit is not warranted because the violations and the
programmatic nature of the CGD issues were identified during the NRCs December 2012
inspection, and formally communicated to TVA as three AVs during the NRCs
February 14, 2013 exit.
With regard to the factor of corrective action, the NRC has concluded that credit is warranted
based on the following corrective actions taken by TVA which included, but were not limited to:
1) review of 100 percent of all CGD packages applicable to the WB2 project; 2) revision of all
CGD packages needing technical revision; 3) review of contractor audit coverage and issuance
of a QA surveillance/audit schedule; 4) review of CGD packages for material purchased or
installed; 5) revision of the CGD procedure to reflect the 10 CFR Part 21 definition of critical
characteristic; 6) training of staff to industry CGD standards; 7) creating and staffing a new
position with CGD responsibilities; 8) suspending procurement and installation of items obtained
using the originally defined CGD process; 9) revision of the reporting requirements procedure;
10) review of A and B level PERs for indications of reportable significant programmatic
breakdowns; 11) review of C level PERs for additional evaluation of significant potential
programmatic breakdowns; and 12) revision of corrective action documents to reflect a
significant condition adverse to quality and take additional actions in accordance with the
corrective action program. The NRC also noted that TVA continues to complete testing for
safety function of procured or installed items.
Therefore, to emphasize the importance of maintaining effective commercial grade dedication
that fully incorporates design control requirements, promptly reporting breakdowns in the quality
assurance program, and promptly identifying significant conditions adverse to quality, I have
been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the
enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the base amount of
$70,000 for the severity level III problem.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. If you have additional information you believe
the NRC should consider, you may provide it in your response to the Notice. The NRCs review
of your response to the Notice will also include a determination regarding whether further
enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
If you disagree with the violation and proposed imposition of a civil penalty, you may either
follow the instructions in the attached NOV or request alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with
1 A confirmatory order was issued to WB2 on June 18, 2012 (EA-12-021).
M. Skaggs
4
the NRC. ADR is a general term encompassing various techniques for resolving conflict outside
of court using a neutral third party. The technique that the NRC has decided to employ is
mediation. In mediation, a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority helps parties
clarify issues, explore settlement options, and evaluate how best to advance their respective
interests. The mediators responsibility is to assist the parties in reaching an agreement.
However, the mediator has no authority to impose a resolution upon the parties. Mediation is a
confidential and voluntary process. If the parties to the ADR process (the NRC and TVA) agree
to use ADR, they select a mutually agreeable neutral mediator and share equally the cost of the
mediators services. Additional information concerning the NRCs ADR program can be
obtained at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr.html. The Institute on
Conflict Resolution (ICR) at Cornell University has agreed to facilitate the NRCs program as an
intake neutral. Intake neutrals perform several functions, including: assisting parties in
determining ADR potential for their case, advising parties regarding the ADR process, aiding the
parties in selecting an appropriate mediator, explaining the extent of confidentiality, and
providing other logistic assistance as necessary. Please contact ICR at (877) 733-9415 within
10 days of the date of this letter if you are interested in pursuing resolution of this issue through
ADR.
For administrative purposes, this letter is issued as a separate NRC Inspection Report, No.
05000391/2013614. Accordingly, AVs05000391/2013611-01, 05000391/2013611-02, and 05000391/2013611-03 are updated consistent with the regulatory positions described in this
letter. Therefore AV 05000391/2013611-01, Commercial Grade Dedication Program
Breakdown is updated as VIO 05000391/2013611-01; AV 05000391/2013611-02, Failure to
Make a Required 10 CFR 50.55(e) Report, is updated as VIO 05000391/2013611-02; and AV 05000391/2013611-03, Failure to Identify Significant Condition Adverse to Quality, is updated
as VIO 05000391/2013611-03. As discussed above, these violations have been characterized
collectively as a severity level III problem in accordance with the Enforcement Policy.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter, its
enclosures, and your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the
NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from
the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The NRC also includes
significant enforcement actions on its Web site at
(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/).
M. Skaggs
5
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Randy Musser at
(404) 997-4603.
Sincerely,
/RA by Frederick D. Brown for/
Victor M. McCree
Regional Administrator
Docket No. 50-391
Construction Permit No. CPPR-92
Enclosures:
1. Notice of Violation and Proposed
Imposition of Civil Penalty
2. NUREG/BR-0254 Payment Methods
(Licensee only)
M. Skaggs
5
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Randy Musser at
(404) 997-4603.
Sincerely,
/RA by Frederick D. Brown for/
Victor M. McCree
Regional Administrator
Docket No. 50-391
Construction Permit No. CPPR-92
Enclosures:
1. Notice of Violation and Proposed
Imposition of Civil Penalty
2. NUREG/BR-0254 Payment Methods
(Licensee only)
- For pervious concurrence see attached page
- PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
NON-PUBLICLY AVAILABLEG SENSITIVE
- NON-SENSITIVE
ADAMS: # Yes
ACCESSION NUMBER: ML13169A030
- SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE
OFFICE
RII:DCI
RII:DCI
RII:DCI
RII:ORA/DRAC
RII:EICS
HQ:NRR
HQ:NRO
SIGNATURE
/RA/ ECM2*
/RA/ RXM1*
/RA/ JTY
/RA/ FDB
/RA/ CFE*
/RA/ MKG1
/RA/ VXH
NAME
E. Michel
R. Musser
J. Yerokun
F, Brown
C. Evans
M. Halter
V. Hall
DATE
5/28/2013
5/28/2013
5/ /2013
5/31/2013
5/29/2013
06/03/2013
06/05/2013
E-MAIL COPY?
YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO
OFFICE
HQ:OE
HQ:OGC
RII:ORA
SIGNATURE
/RA/ RXF
/RA/ MLB9
/RA/ FDB for
NAME
R. Fretz
M. Barkman
V McCree
DATE
6/13/2013
6/13/2013
6/18/2013
E-MAIL COPY?
YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO
OFFICIAL
RECORD
COPY DOCUMENT
NAME:
G:\\CCI\\INSPECTION
REPORTS\\WATTS
BAR\\2013\\WBN2 FINAL ENFORCEMENT PACKAGE 2013-614\\EA-13-019 WB2 SLIII WITH CP FINAL.DOCX
M. Skaggs
6
cc w/encl:
Mr. Gordon P. Arent
Senior Manager, Licensing
WBN Unit Two
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 2000
Spring City, Tennessee 37381
Mr. O. J. Zeringue, General Manager
Engineering and Construction
WBN Unit Two
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 2000
Spring City, Tennessee 37381
Mr. R. A. Hruby, General Manager
Technical Services
WBN Unit Two
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 2000
Spring City Tennessee 37381
Ms. Donna Guinn, Manager
Licensing and Industry Affairs
WBN Nuclear Plant
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 2000
Spring City, Tennessee 37381
Mr. Preston D. Swafford
Chief Nuclear Officer
and Executive Vice President
Tennessee Valley Authority
1101 Market Place
3R Lookout Place
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
County Executive
375 Church Street
Suite 215
Dayton, Tennessee 37321
Mr. Dave Gronek
Plant Manager, WBN Nuclear Plant
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 2000
Spring City, Tennessee 37381
Mr. R. R. Baron, Senior Manager
Nuclear Construction Quality Assurance
WBN Unit Two
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 2000
Spring City, Tennessee 37381
Mr. Joseph Shea, Vice President
Nuclear Licensing
Tennessee Valley Authority
1101 Market Street
3R Lookout Place
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
Mr. E. J. Vigluicci
Assistant General Counsel
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
6A West Tower
Knoxville, Tennessee 37402
Mr. Lawrence E. Nanney, Director
Tennessee Department of Environmental
Health & Conservation
Division of Radiological Health
3rd Floor, L&C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1532
Mr. T. P. Cleary
Site Vice President
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 2000
Spring City, Tennessee 37381
County Mayor
P.O. Box 156
Decatur, Tennessee 37322
Ms. Ann P. Harris
Public
341 Swing Loop
Rockwood, TN 37854
M. Skaggs
7
cc email distribution w/encl:
Greg Scott
Tennessee Valley Authority
Electronic Mail Distribution
Watts Bar 2 Licensing
Tennessee Valley Authority
Electronic Mail Distribution
M. Skaggs
8
Letter to Michael D. Skaggs from Victor M. McCree dated June 18, 2013.
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -
$70,000, NRC INSPECTION REPORT NUMBER 05000391/2013614
Distribution w/encl:
R. Borchardt, OEDO
R. Zimmerman, OE
N. Hilton, OE
R. Fretz, OE
E. Julian, SECY
B. Keeling, OCA
Enforcement Coordinators, RI, RIII, RIV
E. Hayden, OPA
C. McCrary, OI
H. Bell, OIG
E. Leeds, NRR
M. Halter, NRR
P. Milano, NRR
J. Quichocho, NRR
J. Poole, NRR
A. Hon, NRR
V. Hall, NRO
C. Scott, OGC
M. Barkman Marsh
D. Decker, OCA
V. McCree, RII
F. Brown, RII
L. Wert, RII
R. Croteau, RII
T. Reis, RII
J. Yerokun, RII
J. Munday, RII
R. Haag, RII
S. Shaeffer, RII
S. Sparks, RII
C. Evans, RII
L. Douglas, RII
Region II Regional Coordinator, OEDO (J. Cassidy)
ConE_Resource@nrc.gov
OEMAIL
RIDSNRRDIRS
PUBLIC
Enclosure 1
AND
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Docket No. 50-391
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2
Construction Permit No. CPPR-92
Spring City, Tennessee
During an NRC inspection conducted between December 3 and 7, 2012, and between
January 10 and February 14, 2013, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In
accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the NRC proposes to impose a civil penalty
pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282,
and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
A.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, requires, in part, that measures
be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements are correctly translated
into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions; and that measures be
established for the selection and review for suitability of application of materials, parts,
equipment, and processes that are essential to the safety-related functions of the
structures, systems, or components (SSCs).
10 CFR 21.3 defines the dedication process to be undertaken to provide reasonable
assurance that a commercial grade item to be used as a basic component will perform
its intended safety function and, in this respect, is deemed equivalent to an item
designed and manufactured under a 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, QA program. This
assurance is achieved by identifying critical characteristics of the items and verifying
their acceptability by inspections, tests, or analysis. 10 CFR 21.3 defines critical
characteristics, in part, as those important design, material, and performance
characteristics of a commercial grade item that, once verified, will provide reasonable
assurance that the item will perform its intended safety function.
Contrary to the above, prior to December 2, 2011, the applicant failed to assure that 10
CFR Part 21 regulatory requirements for commercial grade dedication (CGD) were
correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions; and failed
to adequately establish measures for the selection and review for suitability of
application of materials, parts, equipment, and processes that are essential to the safety-
related functions of the SSCs. Specifically, the applicant failed to translate the 10 CFR
21.3 definition of critical characteristics into NEDP-8, Technical Evaluation for
Procurement of Materials and Services, Rev. 0018, which resulted in insufficient
measures for the selection of material, parts, and equipment essential to safety-related
functions. As such, TVA was not verifying critical characteristics for all safety-related
items procured for the Watts Bar, Unit 2 facility, starting from the resumption of
construction activities in 2008. A still undetermined number of these items were installed
in the facility.
B.
10 CFR 50.55(e)(4)(iii) states that, The holder of a facility construction permit subject to
this part, combined license, or manufacturing license, who obtains information
reasonably indicating that the quality assurance program has undergone any significant
breakdown discussed in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(C) of this section must notify the
Commission of the breakdown in the quality assurance program through a director or
2
responsible officer or designated person as discussed in paragraph (4)(v) of this
section.
10 CFR 50.55(e)(5) requires the notification required by 10 CFR 50.55(e)(4), be filed,
initially, to the NRC Operations Center within 2 days following receipt of the relevant
information, and to the NRC Document Control Desk within 30 days of receipt of the
information.
Contrary to the above, in May 2012 the applicant obtained information reasonably
indicating that the quality assurance program had undergone a significant breakdown
which could have produced a defect in a basic component and did not notify the
Commission. The applicant submitted an initial event notification report to the
Headquarters Operations Officer on January 3, 2013 (Event Notification 48646),
and two interim reports on January 31, 2013, and May 6, 2013 (ML13037A455 and
ML13129A176). None of these reports explicitly acknowledged or stated that a
significant programmatic breakdown had occurred.
C.
10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, requires, in part, that
measures shall be established to assure that in the case of a significant condition
adverse to quality (SCAQ), the cause of the condition is determined and corrective
action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of a SCAQ, the cause of the
condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to the
appropriate levels of management.
TVA procedure NC-PP-3, Watts Bar Unit 2 Corrective Action Program, Rev.15,
paragraph 3.2.2.15 requires that, If during the development of the corrective action plan,
extent of condition, apparent cause or RCA, the condition is found to be more significant
than initially reported or additional scope needs to be added to the problem description,
then the PER shall be returned for screening and PRC/CCMRC review for upgrading.
Additionally, the Appendix A definition of a Significant Condition Adverse to Quality
includes, A programmatic or process breakdown thatplaces doubt on the integrity of
the affected program.
Contrary to the above, the breakdown in the CGD process was not identified as a SCAQ
following the May 2012 extent of condition review. It was not until December 6, 2012,
after prompting by NRC inspectors, that the applicant rescreened the issue to
adequately reflect that it was a significant condition adverse to quality.
This is a Severity Level III problem (Enforcement Policy Sections 6.5 [A], and 6.9 [B]).
Civil Penalty - $ 70,000. (EA-13-019)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, TVA is hereby required to submit a written
statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of
Civil Penalty. This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation:
(EA-13-019)" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the
alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the basis for denying
the validity of the violation; (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results
achieved; (4) the corrective steps that will be taken; and (5) the date when full compliance will
be achieved.
3
Your response may reference or include previously docketed correspondence, if the
correspondence adequately addresses the required response. If an adequate reply is not
received within the time specified in this Notice, the NRC may issue an order or a Demand for
Information requiring you to explain why your license should not be modified, suspended, or
revoked or why the NRC should not take other action as may be proper. Consideration may be
given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Within the same time provided for the response required under 10 CFR 2.201, TVA may pay the
civil penalty proposed above, in accordance with NUREG/BR-0254 and by submitting to the
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a statement indicating
when and by what method payment was made, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in
whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within 30 days of the date
of this Notice, the NRC will issue an order imposing the civil penalty. Should TVA elect to file an
answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such
answer should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the
violations listed in this Notice, in whole or in part; (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances;
(3) show error in this Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission
or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the response should address the factors
addressed in Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy. Any written answer addressing these
factors pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205, should be set forth separately from the statement or
explanation provided pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201
reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The
attention of TVA is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for
imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty which subsequently has been determined in accordance
with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 to be due, this matter may be referred to the
Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be
collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
The responses noted above, i.e., Reply to Notice of Violation, Statement as to payment of civil
penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation, should be addressed to: Roy Zimmerman,
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Senior Resident
Inspector at Watts Bar Unit 2.
Because your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC
Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), to the extent possible, it
should not include any personal privacy or proprietary information so that it can be made
available to the public without redaction. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If personal privacy or proprietary information is
necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your
response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your
response that deletes such information. If you request that such material is withheld from public
disclosure, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have
withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim (e.g., explain why the disclosure of
4
information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information
required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or
financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable
response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working
days of receipt.
Dated this 18th day of June, 2013