ML17053C483
| ML17053C483 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1981 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Donlon W NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C484 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103300496 | |
| Download: ML17053C483 (4) | |
Text
gg'R fxjoy, 0
+g qO xI xI.*~4
)"
UNITEDSTATES NUC EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 20, 1981 Oy 4 PD~
Doc l(eg tVo.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Mr. William J.
Donlon, President 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202 Gentlemen:
xfg~
+l)Tgpg
~
,~198 8
ewg~~o~
We have reviewed your submittals of December 19 and 29, 1980 'and those of January 3 and 22 and March 20, 1981 regarding our enforcement action of November 26, 1980.
In addition, we have met with representatives of Niagara Mohawk on several occasions within the past few weeks to discuss this matter.
It is important.to clarify the underlying reasons for our enforcement actions.
When we received your January 22, 1980 Answer to Show Cause order, stating that Item 2.1.8.b had been completed on December 31, 1979, the NRC relied on your submittal of December 31, 1979 as describing how you were meeting this requirement.
Notwithstanding a series of communications concerning Category A items, we did not learn that you did not implement Item 2.1.8.b as stated in the December 31, 1979 letter until the Health Physics Appraisal Inspection some n'ine months after the January 22, 1980 answer.
If we had known in January what you had actually done to meet Item 2.1.8.b, operation of the Nine Mile Point facility would not have been permitted without further modification.
I therefore. concluded that strong enforcement actions were necessary to assure that'iagara Mohawk appreciated the need to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC on matters relating to health and safety.
Your initial written responses suggested that you still did not appreciate the importance we attach to the accuracy and completeness of communications provided to the NRC, and the reliance we place on them.
Subsequent meetings and your March 20 response have convinced me that you now understand our
- concern, and in light of that, we have reduced the civil penalties to
$215,000, which you have agreed to pay.
On February 23,
- 1981, a sworn affidavit was submitted to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, in which Mr. Perkins provided further explanation of his actions and errors that led to our November 26, 1980 Order.
In this affidavit, Mr. Perkins expressed recognition of those mistakes and. his commitment toavoid recurrence of those errors in the future.
Subsequently, we conducted our own investi gation into the reliability and past performance of Mr. Perkins.
)
sxosaoolfqj
V V
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation March 20, 1981 Based on the results of our investigation, we have determined that Mr. Perkins possesses the necessary character and reliability to be rein-stated to a position of responsibility in the nuclear industry. 'urther, we have concluded that the mistaken statement made in this instance resulted from poor management control over the flow of information within the Licensee's organization, and not from any intent to willfullywithhold or deceive.
In an isolated case of mistaken judgment on his part, Mr. Perkins did not verify completion of work committed to in the December 31, 1979
. letter and failed to recognize the flawed January 22, 1980 response.
The
'anagement control system within the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation failed to detect Mr. Perkins'rror when the response to the January 2, 1980, Order to Show Cause was prepared.
Since December 31, 1980, the company has been following appropriately revised procedures in this area to avoid such errors in the future.
The adequacy of implementation of those procedures will be verified in NRC inspections.
Your responses, provide adequate cause for allowing Hr. James Bartlett to continue involvement with nuclear matters, as we have concluded:
(1) that he relied on the management chain of the Niagara Mohawk o'rganization in signing the January 22, 1-980 Answer; (2) that the corporate staff relied on the information submitted from the site which it did not question based on the concurrence of the site staff; (3) that there was no intent by Mr. Bartlett to deceive the Commission; and (4) that you have adopted procedures that should prevent the recurrence of further erroneous submittals.
Accordingly, the show cause proce'eding with respect to Mr. Bartlett is terminated, and the order restricting Mr. Perkins from engaging in nuclear matters is:withdrawn, as provided in the attached Order.
Sincerely, Victor Stel
, J Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Withdrawal of Ordered Modification and Order to Show Cause and Termi.nation of Proceedings Thereon