ML18037A330
| ML18037A330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1981 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C484 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103300498 | |
| Download: ML18037A330 (8) | |
Text
0 e
UNITED STATES OF A'1ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO."'!ISSION In the l'atter of
)
NIAGARA HOHAMK POMER CORPORATION (Nine Hile Point Nuclear Station)
)
Docket No. 50-220 MITHDRAWAL OF ORDERED EDIFICATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINCS THEREON C
The Niagara Hohawk Power Corporation
(=he licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No.
DPR-63, w'.".ich authorizes the licensee,o operate the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Sta;i.n (.he facility) at power levels no.
'.n excess o
1850 megawatts thermal
(."
ed power).
The acility is a
boi1ing water reactor located at the licensee's site in Oswego
- County, New York.
II On November 26, 1980 the Director of the Office of Inspection and En-forcement, issued an "Order for f1odification of License (Effective Irme-dIately) and Order to Show Cause" (here-Inaf er "the 5!ovember 25 orders")
to the licensee based upon certain actions by emp1oyees of the licensee in responding to regulatory requirements imp sed upon the licensee by the Nuclear Regulatory Comrission as a consec ence of the Three 'iile Is1and Unit 2 accident on March 28,
- 1979, a11 as more oarticuIarly set out in the November 26 orders.
I r
4 ~
V Various responses to the November 26 orders have bee'n submitted by the licensee and one of the a
ected employees.
Several meetings have been held with the licensee and the employee and their representatives.
Further investigations have also been conducted.
Based upon all of the information thus gathered, the impact the November 26 orders have already
. had, and the licensee
~ s willingness to pay reduced civil penalties of
$213,000, I have concluded that Parts YI.A.(1) ~nd B of the, previously ordered license amendment and the order to show cause should be withdrawn and the proceedings thereon terminated.
I,'i h respect to the wi hdrawal
'of the amendment which removed the former General Superintendent-,
- Nuclear, Nr. T. J. Perkins, from involvement in nuclear matters, I have concluded that this employee, while making an error in judgment, did not do so to knowingly deceive the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:or to impair public health and safety.
I conclude that he generally.
felt the degree o
implementation achieved by the licensee on December 31,
- 1980, was adequate and that the absence of the cave did no't affect implementation of item 2.1.8.b.
This employee, in
- effect, concluded the cave was not significant with respect to he performance o
the effluen.
mon.'.oring system under accident conditions.
Anc, while his judgment in this matter was without sound engineering
- basis, his action was caused by mistaken judgment rather than an intent to willfullywithhold ordeceive.
J
Nr. Perkins has been in the service of the 1 icensee for 27 years ano has been involved in its nuclear activities since
- 1960, a period of l7 years.
During this time:span, his involvement with nuclear matters has been extensive and his performance in dealing with nuclear matters and with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been good.
There is no evidence to
.suggest that his mistaken judgment with respect to his actions in this instance was other than an isolated occurrence.
There is an absence of a pattern of conduct on the part of this employee which would indicate ny deficiency with res ect to his credibil it In view of all of. the a
P above considerations I believe his restoration to duty is consistent with the public health and safety.
This judgment is supported by the attitude o,
.he employee exhibited to the NRC personnel from my office who conducted the inspections and investigations into this matter.
Throughout that
- process, he exhibited a forthright and frank attitude at all times.
At no time was there any evidence that he sought to conceal either the actions he with the candor and integrity which I view as essential to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to carry out i s public health an8 safety mandate.
Accordingly, I have concluded that the four-month removal of Nr. Perkins from his du.ies has been adequate to emphasize the need for co...piete accuracy in dealing with the Commission.
took, or the reasons behind them.
His actions in this regard are consistent Hy'decision to withdraw the show cause order involving the Executive Vice President, Nr. James Bartlett, is based upon the 1icensee's and his
C C
g
~
l
- 09. ition that more Gil igence must be appii ec In verify ing the compl e e
accuracy of documents supplied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This recognition is reflected in the implementaiion of new procedures, specifically, "Nuclear Generation Staff Procedure Preparation of NRC Submittals For Nine Mile Point Unit 1" (effective December 31, 1980) and "Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Site.Administrative Procedures, Procedure No. APN-16" (effective December 31, 1980), which should prevent the recurrence of inaccurate or incomplete submittals.
TY In view of the foregoino, and pursuant to secTion l6l(i) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
- amended, those portions of the November 26 Orders pertaining to Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bartlett (Parts YI.A(1) and B) are hereby w'i.hdrawn and the proceedings thereon termina
.ed e> ective this date.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION actor Sttl io, Di c or Office of Inspec ion and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20 day of March
, 1981
r
~
~
~
S c v