ML18136A114
| ML18136A114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1979 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Coleman M VIRGINIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910300042 | |
| Download: ML18136A114 (6) | |
Text
.. '
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 The Honorable Marshalr Coleman Attorney*General Commonwealth *of Virginia Supreme Court Building Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Coleman:
OCT 1 7 1979 e
,~
I,.-
\\
/...,_,......
Enclosed for your information is a copy of an Order Imposing Civil *Penalties in the amount of $15,000, which was issued by* the U. S. Nuclear*Regulatory Commission to the Virginia Electric* and**-f>ower Company, Richmond, *Virginia, on October 1, 1979.
Enclosure:
Order Imposing Civil P-enalties Sincerely, CTiginal signeq b1
-~*~c:tcr Stello
- Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement 7 91 03 00 tJ l/ ;L
- --~
- '-a I
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM1SSl9N WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 C~T,
7979 Virginia Electric and Power*Company Attn; Stanley Ragone, President Post Office Box 26666 R i chmon.d, Virginia 23261 Gentlemen:*
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 c~reful consideration of y9ur September 4, 1979 response, we conclude that the items of noncompliance did occur as described in the Notice of Violation.
Your response does not'.9ispute the citations and admits they are correct a~ stated.
You ask, however,. that the proposed civil penalties be remitted i~ 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 11to stress that the result we reachE;!d is founded entirely upon the specific - and in some respects perhaps unique - fa*cts before us.
11
- \\..
~
The incident which occurred at your facility is readily distinguishable from the Atlantic RJsearch matter.
Unlike Atlantic Research, this incident involved 11managernent 11 as the*employee here was the senior member*of your*staff on**site at the time of the incident.
Moreover, the incident wa~ in part. caused by the failure*of the communication between the shift supervisor and the senior reactor operator on cal1.
The Appeal Board noted that "more could be demanded in the
~nstance of the operation of a nuclear power *reactor.
11 Tberefore, we do not believe that the Ap~eal Board's decision, is contro1ling iri this instance.}/
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 redundan; 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 a*ny person who viol ates any rule, regulation, 1/ As you.may know, this decision was the subject of aCommission order (Order of August 1, 1979) reflecting a formal decision by the Commission to review the Appeal Board's findings.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETUR~I RECEIPT REQUESTED
e e
OCT l 1979*, ;:
2 -
or license condition shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for each such vidlation.
While each of the four items of noncompliance with assessed penalties was directly related to a'single overexposure, each item is a violation of a separate and distinct NRC requirement.
The civil penalties are appropriate because the regulations and Technical Specifications provide for a numbeF of measures, each designed to prevent overexposure from occurring and each of which was violated here.
t Your response also stated that issuing civil. penalties for identified items would hot serve a discernible remedial purpose.
As was stated in our lette~
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, ~s a restilt, 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 particular* instance." The imposition of civil penalties is intended here to once again impress on your organization, your employees, and other nuclear facilities and their employees, the significance and importance of strict adherence to basic radiation safety requirements designed to assure the health and safety ofJour employees.
An order imposing the proposed civil penalties is enclosed.
The specific correctiv~ measures detailed in your response to the items of no~compliance will be r~viewed during subsequent inspections to determine your effectiveness in preventing additional noncompliance.
Enclosure:
Order Imposing Civil Penalties cc w/encl:
W. L. Proffitt, Senior Vi~e President P. 0. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 W. L. Stewart, Manager
.P. 0. Box 315 Surry, Virginia 23883 Sincerely,
(.....
Victor Stello, -Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
. **-- -~-**_* -___._ -...... ----*-
~
\\
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of Virginia Electric and Power Company P. O.*Box 26666
)
)
)
}
)
Docket No. 50-281 Facility.Operating License No. OPR Richmond,, Virginia 23261 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES I.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, P. 0. Box 26666, Richmond, Virgin.ia 23261, (the 11 Licensee 11
) is the hold~r of Facility Operating License No. DPR-37 (the 11 license 11 ), which authorizes-the licensee. to operate Surry Power Station Unit 2 at Sur_ry County, Virginia, un.der certain conditions specified therein.
The license was is*sued on Januar)' 29, 1973, and is due to expire on June 25, 2008.
IL An inspection of the licensee's activities ~nder the license was conducted orr April J.5-19, 1979, at the Surry facility.
As a result of"the inspection, it i
appears that the licensee has.not conducted its activities in full compliance with the conditions of the license and with the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 11Standards For Protection Against Radiation," Part 20,
~
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
A written Notice of Violation was served upon the lj censee by letter dated. August 15, 1979, specifying the i terns of non-cornp l i ance in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201.
A Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties dated August 15, 1979, was served concurrently.upon the licensee in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act-of 1954, a*s -amended,
-*----- ___.. ---------* _.. zr~~-~z¢2d., c; _. _
e
-i -- (42 U.S.C. 2282); and 10 CFR 10 2... 205, incorporating by reference the Notice of Violation, which stated the nature of the items of noncompliance and the provis-ions of NRC regulatfons and *license conditions. with which the licensee was in noncompliance.
Two letters, each dated September 4,--1979, in response to the.Notice of Violation and Notice of proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties were received from the licensee.
III.
Upon consideration of tha answer received and the statements of fact, explanation and ar~ument for remittance contained therein; the Director of the Office of Inspe':=t ion and Enf orfement has determined that the perra l ti es proposed for the*
items of noncompliance designated i~ the Notice of Violation as Items l, 2, 3~
and. 4 should be imposed*..
IV.
.~.... *t In view of the foregoing and pursuant to. Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 U.S.C 2282), and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The 1 i censee pay civil pena lti-es in the tota 1 amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars* ($15,000) within twenty (20) days of the da:te of receipt of this Order,'"" ~y check,a-Araft, or money o~:d.e.r -payable to -the -Treasurer--of..the United.States and mailed to the Oire,tor of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
- - _; __..... : *-*----~--* --- -
-. ____,. ___. --* ---~------
~-----.-
=---~-.~----.. *~--..,__. ____.,.z
*-.*~-*-. ____ -!'_* - -
. ~ ~*
0 e
3 -
V.
The licensee may, within twenty (20) days of the receipt of this Order request a hearing.
If a hearing is-requested, the Commission will issue an Order de~ignating the time and place of hearing~
Upon failure o~the licensee to request a hearing within tw~nty (20) days of the date of.receipt of -this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings and, if payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney Gener.al for collectton.
VI.
In the event the lic..ensee requests a hearing as prov-j.ded above, the issues to be considered at such a hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee was in noncompliance with'.:{he Commission's regulations and the conditions-of the- 'license in the respects i
set forth as Items 1, 2, 3, and._ 4.in the.. Notice. of Violation teferenced in Section II.above; and (b) *whether, on the basis of such items of noncompliance, the Order should be sustained.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this --2 o* day of_J$;...J.:*;J.979 t.f..
__.,._..;__---~*-*- *---
~OR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- /
I---.*
..--/.---*,-.,*
""'/
./_.*
\\
I
/
/
Victor Stello, Jr.
~
Di rector ** *.
- Office of Ins~ection.. ~nd Enforcement
--*---------.. --.---~---
- *-*-**--~***~***->>*-- -~-- -*----