ML18136A078
| ML18136A078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Ragone S VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18136A079 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910220215 | |
| Download: ML18136A078 (2) | |
Text
'
,.. fl
- ocr o 1 1979 Virginia Electric.and Power Company Attn:
Stanley Ragone, President Post Office Box 26666 Richm~nd, Virginia 23261 Gentlemen:
e.,
.:i-..
/
Docket No. 50-281 License No. DPR-37 This is in response to your letter dated September 4, 1979, which was in response to the Notice of Violation and Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties sent to you with our letter dated August 15, 1979.
The Notice of Violation accompanying our August 15, 1979 letter identified five items of noncompliance involving an incident 'at Surry Power Station in which a worker received an exposure to radiation of approximately 10 rems.
After *careful consideration of your September 4, 1979 ~response, we conclude that the items of noncompliance did occur as described in the Notice of Violation.
Your response does not dispute the citations and-admi-ts they are correct as stated.
You ask, however, that the proposed civil penalties be remitted in their entirety.
In support of this request, you cite the recent Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's decision on the Atlantic Research appeal (ALAB-542, dated May 2, 1979),
a case which took pains "to stress that the result we reached is founded entire-ly upon the specific - and_ in some respects perhaps unique - facts before us.
11 The incident which occurred at your facility is readily distinguishable from the Atlantic Research matter.
Unlike Atlantic Research, this incident involved 11management 11 as the employee here was the senior member of your staff on site at the time of the incident.
Moreover, th~ incident was in part caused by the failure of the communication between the shift supervisor and the senior reactor operator on call.
The Appeal Board noted that 11more could be demanded in the instance of the operation of a nuclear power reactor.
11 Therefore, we do not believe that the Appeal Board's decision, is controlling in this instance. 1/
It continues to be our view that licensees are responsible for the acts of their employees.
Your argument that this incident resulted from a single employee dis-regarding established procedures and requirements does not relieve VEPCO of the responsibility to assure that NRC requirements are met.
With regard to your comments about redundant penalties for a single incident, the penalties were assessed in conformance with established policies described in our correspondence to all licensees dated December 31, 1974.
Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act states that any person who violates any rule, regulation, 1/ As you may know, this decision was the subject *of"a Commission order (Order cc.p of August 1, 1979) reflecting a formal decision by the Commission to review the Appeal Board's findings.
e or license condition shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for each such violation. While each of the tour items of noncompliance with assessed penalties was directly related to a single overexposure, each item is a violation of a_separate and distinct NRC reqtiirement.
The civil penalties are appropriate because the regulations and Technical Specifications provide for a number of measures, each designed to prevent overexposure from occurring and each of which was violated here.
Your response a1so stated that issuing civil penalties for identified items would. not serve a discernible remedial purpose.
As was stated in our letter to you dated August 15, 1979, we attach particular significance to the fact that it was a senior VEPCO operations representative on site who failed to comply with the NRC requirements and, as a result, was overexposed when he entered the incore instrument room.
This incident occurred after IE Circular 76-03 was issued and after civil penalties were issued for similar incidents at other nuclear power reactors.
Thus, we do not find that there existed "unique circumstances in this-~articular instance. The imposition of civil penalties is intended here to once again impress on your organization, your employees, and o~her nuclear facilities and their employees, the significance and importance of strict adherence to basic radiation safety requirements designed to assure the health and safety of your employees.
~n ofder imposing the proposed civil penalties is enclosed.
The specific corrective measures detailed in your response to the items of noncompliance will be reviewed during subsequent inspections to determine your effectiveness in preventing additional noncompliance.
Enclosure:
Order Imposing Civil Penalties cc w/encl:
W.
L. Proffitt, Senior Vice President P. 0. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 W. L. Stewart, Manager P. 0. Box 315
\\,~\\
Surry, Vi rgi ni a._?388~ Sv>\\{Y'"
WPU:SD Office X~~
9/26/79 Surname ~yder Job A Date 9/~/79 i
Si ncerie ly,
\\j.l
~
~~~,
Vict,or St~lo, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and tnforcement