ML18344A412
| ML18344A412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1979 |
| From: | Youngdahl R Consumers Power Co |
| To: | Stello V NRC/IE |
| References | |
| Download: ML18344A412 (13) | |
Text
.--r t;;._,,-<_.,::;.;.* d G""enil Offices: 1945 Wnt Parn*U,Aoact. J*ckson, Michigan 49201 *Ar* Cod* 517 788*1880 November 29, l979 Mr Victor Stello, Jr, Director Office of Eliforceoent and Inspection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR-20 PALI SADES PLAlIT -
CONTAII'ENT ISOLATION NONCOMPLIANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES R. C. Youngdahl Executive Vice President Tb.is refers to you:r letter of November 9, 1979 to Mr R B DeWitt and constitutes Ccnsume~s Fower Company's reply to Appendix B of that letter (Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties) pursuant to 10 CFR §2.205.
Otir answer to Append.be A of that letter (Notice of Violation) pursuant to 10 CFR !2.201 is being pro-vided separately as requested.
As I:10re specifically described below, we are pretesting the civ-il penalties which you propose in your notice to i~pose, JY denying in part the items of noncompliance listed in the Notice of Violation, by showing err::ir in the Notice of Violation, and by showing other reasons *.;hy the penalties should net be i:zposed.
In addition to protesting the ci~"il penalties, we are requesting remission or mitigation of them.
- l. Denial of Nonco!IIOliance A3 stated in the Company's response to item 1 of Appendix A, which is in-corporated herein by reference, the evidence to date does tend to show that the containment isolation valves in question were opened to test a filter or.
April 6, 1978, when the reactor was in a cold shui;d.own condition.
If they were opened on April 6, 1978, that action did not ~riolate containment integ-rity requirements.
It is not disputed that the *alves in Question were ciis-covered. to be in a locked-open position on September ll, 1979, when the reactor was again in a cold shutdown condition.
This situation likewise did not
'riola.te containment integrity requirements.
It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the valves were open from April 6, 1978 to Septe~ber ll, 1979, or during any portion of that interval.
Any conclusion that this ~as the case rests upon an assum:ction that the Yalves were in fact O"Oened. for purposes of the filter test (ali;hough there we:::-e alternative way~ to sup:;:ily the r-=q_cired air flow for the test) and upon the lack of a si5r.-off after the test and be.fore starti.1p in 1978 Yerifying that the Ya.lves T..i"ere locked. in the closed position prior to startup.
ThilS, although our investigation is continuing, tnere is at this time no solid evidence demonstrating that the valves were open during a.ny period other than cold shutdown.
Although the 2Totice of Violation* flatly states that "the licensee en U.24 days (Appendb: D) during the period from April 19T8 to September 1979, operated the reac-::or in other than the cold sl:::t;.i;dowr.. condition with contair..me!lt integrit-;r violated,
you more correctly characterized the situation during "::he ZTove::!lber 9 :press conference at which the Notice of Violatior. was s.r..."lounced ( T::::- 9, Lines 2.0-15) :
- 1.
Denial of Noncomolia.nce (Contd)
"There is no wa:y that we can ascertain with certainty that these valves, in fact, have been open since April of last yea.r.
"Licensee believes that that is, in fact believe that that is, in fa.ct, the case.
positive means to do this since they are the case.
We But there is no manual valves."
See also IE Information Notice No 79-26 dated ifovember 5, 1979.
2 In short, the evidence to date does not conclusively demonstrate that any violation occurred.
And as stated by the Appeal Boa.rd in Atlantic Research Coruoration,.AL.AB 542, 9 NRC 611, 623 (1979) "Beyond doubt, the Commission staff office instituting the enforcement action must show (unless conceded by the licensee) that there has been, in fact, a violation of a regulatory requirement." Until such a showing is ma.de, or until we satisfy ourselves on the basis of our further investigations that a violation did occur, we contest noncompliance No. l listed in the Notice of Violation and accordingly believe that no penalty is warranted. Even if our further investigations demonstrate that containment integrity was impaired, resulting in a noncompliance, that noncompliance should be categorized as an "infraction" rather than a "violation," as discussed at greater length below.
While the Coln!lanY does not contest the facts upon which noncompliance items 2 and 3 were based, it does believe that noncompliance No 2 has been miscatego~ized, and requests remission or mitigation of the proposed penalties, for both items, *a.s hereinafter discussed.
- 2.
Errors in Notice of Violation A.
Although it is not so stated in Appendix A, the finding.or the categorization or the amount of the civil penalty for one or more of the cited noncompliances is evidently based upon a misconception of the potential accident consequences of leaving these two four-inch containment isolation valves open during power operation.
Your letter transmitting the Notice, your statements at the press conference of November 9, the NRC press release of November 9, and a statement of your resident inspector at Palisades, Mr. Jorgensen, during an exit interview on October 2, 1979, all indicate that you and your staff believe that the radiological consequences resulting from the occur-rence of a DBA while these valves were open could be greater than 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines by several or even many orders of magni-tude.
This is not correct.
The analysis referenced on page 3 of the attachment to our Licensee Event Report 79-037, Revision 1, dated October 31, 1979 (copies of which were infor~ally provided to your staff) was made for three-inch valves (on the assumption that the P&ID and the manufacturer's tag were correct, which has proven not to be the case). It indicated that in the event of a DBA with the valves open, 10 CFR 100 limits would not be exceeded if the purge line charcoal absorber is assumed 90% efficient for iodines.
T:~e analysis also indicated that if one assumed that the charcoal to be completely ineffective, total body doses vould still be less than
- 2.
Errors in Notice of Violation (Contd) 3 A.
(Contd) 10% of 10 CFR 100 limits, although the 2-hour thyroid dose at the closest site boundary could exceed 10 CFR 100 limits by a factor of anproxima.tely 1.4.
We have since redone the analysis to use four:inch valve nara.meters, and have refined the analysis.
The refined analysis: as of this date, shows that (1) the lowest charcoal efficiency at which the 10 CFR 100 guidelines would not be exceeded in the event of a DBA is a.bout 49%; and (2) in the event of a ~BA, charcoal efficiency would be approximately 34% with no credit taken for any flow reduction by the flow controller.
On the basis of these analyses, we conclude that total body doses would still be less than 10% of 10 CFR 100 limits.
The 2-hour thyroid dose at the closest site boundary could exceed 10 CFR 100 limits by a factor of annroximately 1.95 if 0% charcoal efficiency is assumed, and by a f~;tor of anproxima.tely 1.28 if the charcoal efficiency is 34%.
We espect t; make further refinements in the calculation using test data.
In any event, the DBA consequences with these valves onen would not exceed 10 CFR 100 limits by "several orders of
- t d magni u e.
B.
Even if we Here to concede the appropriateness of noncompliance No l or the appropriateness of any of the civil penalties, or the appropriateness of a continuing civil penalty for noncompliance No. 1, none of which we do concede, we believe you have incorrectly calculated the amount which may be levied under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act.
That statute provides, in pertinent part, that "in no event shall the total penalty payable by any person exceed
$25,000 for all violations by such person occurring within any neriod of 30 consecutive days."
We believe that the maximum amount which may be levied under that provision is $425,000, not the
$450,000 you have proposed, even if one uses an accurate tabulation of the dates during the period in question on which the reactor was in other than a cold shutdo'W!l condition.
There were 476 such dates during the period, rather than the 424 sho'W!l in Appendix D to your letter of November 9, A corrected version of ~ppendix D is attached hereto as Exhibit l. Because the statute speaks in terms of a $25,000 maximum for "any period of 30 consecutive days" rather than for consecu-tive 30-da.y periods beginning with the first day on which a penalty is le*ried, we conclude that the correct maximum is 17 X $25,000, not 18 x $25,000.
- 3.
rlRC Enforcement Criteria Not Followed The first paragraph of Appendix B states that "In proposing to i!:l.pose civil penalties..* and in fixing the proposed amount of the penalties, the factors identified in the Statements of Consideration published in the Federal Register with the rulemaking action which adopted 10 CFR 2.205 (36 FR 16894) August 26, 1971, and the 'Criteria for Determining Snforce-ment Actions,' ~hich was sent to NRC licensees on December 31, 1974, have been taken into account."
We believe that those statements of policy have been largely ignored in your proposed action, and that the categorization of the cited noncompliances and. the ::::ena.l.i:ies proposed to be assessed. for tl:.em are not in accordance with those statemen-:s
- ~ policy.
- 3.
NRC Enforcement Criteria Not Followed (Contd)
A.
The cited Statements of Consideration identify the types of cases for which the imposition of civil penalties is an appro-priate enforcement response.
All such cases involve either a will!"Ul violation, or a violation representing a threat to public health and safety or the common defense and security and involving willful or*chronic violations.
That is not the case here.
B.
In discussing the appropriateness of le*;ying continuing penalties, the Statements of Consideration state by way of illustration that:
"In a case where, despite the exercise of reasonable dili-gence, a licensee was not aware of the violation until brought to its attention by the Commission, the computation of the period of violation would normally begin at that time or after the time allowed the licensee for corrective action.
On the other hand, if the evidence showed that a licensee had knowingly permitted violations to continue, the computation of the period of violation might begin at the time the licensee permitted the violations to con-tinue."
Not only did the Company not knowingly permit a violation to continue, it voluntarily discovered and reported the condition and took inmediate corrective action. It is evident that the policy statement did not contemplate levying a continuing penalty in a situation such as ours.
C.
The 1974 Enforcement Criteria which you state you have taken into account distinguish, first of all, between violations having actual consequences and violations having only potential consequences:
"From the view:?oint of enforcement, a licensee failure that results in the potential for consequences is equally im-portant with the failure that results in the consequences -
both represent instanc~s of failure of the licensee to properly perform.
HoweYer, from the impact of health and safety, common defense and security, the protection of the environment, actual consequences - when the event did occur -
and potential consequences - when the opportunity for oc-currences exists but the event did not happen - of an item of noncompliance are quite different.
In reporting the more important items of noncompliance, those items that caused or resulted in actual consequences will be differentiated from those that me::.-ely provided the potential for the consequences."
That the proposed enforcement action fails to :nake this kind of differentiation is apparent when comparing, for example, the
$450,000 fine which you propose to impose on Consumers Power for t*..ro violations and an inf::-acticn, where there were no adYerse health and safety consequences,* *..ii.th the $155,000 fine you have reportedly proposed ::'.'or iL.8 separate violations. inf!"actions and deficiencies in connection wi. th the Three !0lile Island accident,
-which involYed both releases to the environs and employee oYer--
exposures.
"In fact, releases during the entire *::c:*:.a.:. :.n ::~_;estion a f ~a~oact i ~ri t:y
- ~:-
-.~ hG con tair..n!en~..
.... --- ----~.
5
- 3.
NRC Enforcement Criteria Not Followed (Contd)
D.
Under the Criteria it is also clear that a Notice of Violation alone,.
without civil penalties, would be considered sufficient enforcement action.
The Criteria state that such notices would generally be considered sufficient enforcement action in those cases where (1) items of noncompliance are readily correctable, or (2) items of noncompliance are not repetitive or numerous and do not constitute an immediate or serious threat to the health and safety of the licensee's employees or the public, to the environment, or to the common defense and security, and (3) there is no indication that appropriate corr~ctive action will not be taken.
We believe that to be the case here:
not only were the cited items of noncompliance readily correctable, but appropriate corrective action has already been taken, the items of noncompliance are not repetitive or nUI!!.erous, and they do not constitute an immediate or serious threat to health and safety, the environment, or the common defense and security.
E.
T"ne Criteria state that cases that are appropriate for the imposition of civil monetary penalties are those involving significant items of noncompliance and which represent a threat (although not necessarily immediate) to the health, safety, or interest of the public or to the common defense or security, or the environment, in cases which meet one or more of the following criteria.:
(a) tl:::llse cases of noncompliance with the same basic requirements that were brought to the attention of the licensee in a No~ice of Violation following a previous inspection;
.or (b) those cases of noncompliance in which the licensee failed to carry out in a timely manner the corrective action the licensee stated would be taken in response to a previous w-ritten notice; or (c) those cases involving the deliberate failure of a person to comply with regulatory requirements; or (d) those cases involving items of non-compliance in which (1) the licensee's history is one of chronic noncompliance, or (2) due to the nature and number of items of non-compliance, it is apparent that management, having been afforded an opportunity to correct previous items of noncompliance, is not con-ducting its license activities in conformance with regulatorJ require-ments; or (e) those cases where (1) a suspension order or a cease and desist order is issued to remove an immediate threat to health or safety, to the environment or to the common defense and security, and (2) punitive action is deemeC. necessary to assure the future compliance; or (f) those cases invol7ing activities under construction permits where there are repeated items of noncompliance with regulatory requirements; or (g) those cases where a.n item of noncompliance resulted in or contributed to the cause or the seriousness of an accident or an incident; or (h) those cases involving ite!.llS of noncompliance in tbe Violation* category: or ( i) those cases where the nature and nu.'iber of items of noncompliance with the regulatory reqt:.irements identified during an inspection *or investigation demonstrates that management is not conducting its licensed activities with adequate concern for the health, safety or interest of its employees or the public or the common defense and security; or (j) those cases where licensees knowingly c:.se
6
- 3.
NRC Enforcement Criteria Not Followed (Contd) materials which are not authorized by the license or utilize authorized materials for uses which are not authorized; or (k) those. cases where sign~ficant matters were not reported to the Commission in a timely manner as required by the regulatory requirements.
Civil penalties may also be assessed for comparable cases.
The only one of the fore-going categories that is applicable, in our View, is (h), cases involving items of noncompliance in the Violation category.
Two of the noncompliances cited in the Notice of Violation are categorized as "violations."
As stated above, we are contestil;lg the first item of noncompliance, and in any event disagree that either of them should be categorized as a "violation," as discussed in the following para-graph.
F.
The Enforcement Criteria, in addition to describing the tY!JeS of cases appropriate for civil penalties, set forth the criteria for the various categories of noncompliance.
The "violation" category is described as an item of noncompliance of the tYJ;>e listed in the criteria, or an item of noncompliance which has caused, contributed to or aggravated an incident of one of the listed types, or an item of noncompliance which has a substantial potential for causing, contributing to or aggravating such a.n incident or occurrence (-e.g., a situation where the preventive capability or controls were removed or otherwise not employed and created a substantial potential for an incident or occurrence *..rith actu~l or potential consequences of the types listed).
The only possibly applicable listed tYJ;>es of incidents, in our view, a.re the following:
(b)
Radiation levels in unrestricted areas which exceed 50 times the regulatory limits.
(c)
Release of radioactive materials in amounts which exceed specified limits, or concentrations of radio-active materials and effluents which exceed 50 times the regulator/ limits.
(d)
- operation of a Seismic Catego!"'/ I system or structure in such a manner that the safety function or integrity is lost.
(f)
Exceeding a safety limit as defined in technical specifications associated with facility licenses.
(j)
A breakdown in management or procedural contrDls as evidenced by items of noncompliance in se,;eral areas of the G,A cr~teria and license requirements.
(k)
Other similar items of noncompliance having actual or potential consequences of the same magnitude.
- 3.
NRC Enforcement Criteria Not Followed (Contd)
On the other hand, the Criteria define an "infraction" as an item of noncompliance of a listed type or an item of noncompliance which resulted in a reduction of preventive capability below requirements where redundant controls preclude a noncompliance of the "violation" category, or -an item of noncompliance which caused, contributed to 7
or aggravated an incident of a listed type, or an item of noncom-pliance which has a substantial potential for causing, contributing to or aggravating such an incident or occurrence (e.g., a situation where the preventive capability or controls were removed or other-wise not employed and there was substantial potential for an accident or occurrence with actual or potential consequences of one of the listed types).
Of the listed types of incidents, we believe the following are pertinent and should be contrasted with the corres-ponding items in the "violation" category:
(b)
Release of radioactive materials in concentrations or rates which exceed permissible limits but in amounts less than permissible limits.
(d)... operation of a Seis~ic Category I system of structure in such a manner that safety function or integrity is imnaired.
(e)
Exceeding limiting conditions for operation (LCO).
(f)
Inadequate management or procedural controls.
(j)
Other similar items of noncompliance having actual or potential consequences of the same magnitude.
In our case, the noncompliances cited did not involve any detectable release of radiation or radiation exposure.
While they did involve "inadequate management or procedural controls," they did not manifest a "breakdown in such controls as evidenced by noncompliance items in several areas of the Q,A criteria and license requirements."
Non-compliance No. 1, even if it were conceded (which we do not), involved at most an impairment of the integrity of a Seismic Category I structure as opposed to loss of integrity of the structure,* and involved a situation in which a limiting condition for operation rather than a safety limit was exceeded.
Moreover, as stated above, the accident conseauences of noncompliance No. 1, even if conceded and even in the event of a DBA, would not have exceeded 10 CFR 100 limits by the amount necessary to bring it within the release or potential-release criteria for a "violation."
Thus, even if further investi-gations should adequately support the first noncompliance, it should nevertheless be classified as an "infraction" within
- And the criteria this addresses arguably refer only to seismic character-istics rather than all safety functions and integrity.
For purposes of argument only, we are attributing the more comprehensive meaning to them.
8
- 3.
NRC Enforcement Criteria Not Followed (Contd) the Enforcement C~iteria, and the Criteria indicate that a civil penalty would be inappropriate in such case.
Noncompliance No. 2 is clearly an infraction at most u.~der the categorization criteria, and a penalty would likewise be inap]>ropriate.
Although a case could be made that noncompliance No. 3 is a "deficiency" rather than an "infraction," we believe that it was correctly categorized as an infraction because it reflects inadequate management or procedural 0 controls in addition to personnel error, and our corrective action in this area reflects that belief.
G.
Not only does your proposed action fail to follow tae Statements of Consideration and the Enforcement Criteria, but your action and accompanying public announcements indicate the Commission's intent to shift the course of its enforcement policy toward one of generally higher penalties, and penalties for types of noncompliances other than those delineated in the published guidelines as being appropriate cases for penalties, and to do so without publishing new guidelines.
While the Statements of Consideration setting forth the Commission's enforcemen~ policy with respect to civil penalties did indicate that that policy might change over time, it also indicated that changes would be published:
"As experience in the use of civil penalties for enforcement purposes is gained, the Commission may develop ~
nublish additional criteria for the determination of the amounts of civil penalties for specific types of violations."
(Emphasis added.)
Heretofore, the Commission has in fact published changes to this policy by disseminating written criteria to all licensees.
Criteria were published in September 1972 and amended in June 1973, and were further amended by the Enforcement Criteria you have cited, published on December 31, 1974.
It is inappropriate and unfair for the Commission to shift course in enforcement policy without prior revision of its published criteria and thereby to make a retroactive change in settled enforcement policy.
In proposing to levy civil penalties against this Company, you convened a press conference on November 9, 1979 at which the Chairman of the Commission announced the proposal, announced that all of the Commissioners had been informed of and were agreeable to the action, and took pains to allude to criticism of NRC's past enforcement practices and to emphasize that the Commission was "sending a message" to its lice".lsees:
"CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: * *
- This afternoon I wish to announce that the NRC staff is proposing to fine the ConsUl!lers Power Company of Jackson, Michigan, a civil penalty of $450,000.
That is the largest civil penalty which the HRC or its predecessor regulators have ever levied. * * * (A)ll of the Commissioners have been informed and are agreeable to the action going forward at this time.
"In carrying out its enforcement actions, the NRC, and in particular, in connection with levying of penalties for violations, the ~me has been criticized in ti!:les -past for seeming to, on the one hand, look for rather lower amounts to be levied for a violation tha.~ even the present law would allow; but also, it seemed to ta.~e an extremely long time to finally arrive at a. determination and to take the forna.l act ion of le*r1ing the penalty.
- 3.
NRC Enforcement Criteria Not Followed (Contd)
"I think those criticisms are valid, and one of the rea-sons that I have chosen to announce today's civil penalty myself is to make it clear that that is certainl~ not going to be the case in the future. * * *
" * *
- We a.re going to do everything v.--e can, and I think the penalty going forward today emphasizes that, to make sure that this message comes through in the strongest possible terms to the operating utilities." (Tr 2-4)
Later on in the press conference, you echoed Chairman Hendrie's intention:
" * *
- I would like to emphasize that enforcement actions that are ta.ken, al though they a.re taken with regard to this particular license, I believe that these actions also are important in that they send a message to the rest of the industry to assure that that message in this particular case is received by the proper levels of manage-ment within the opera.ting utilities.
"I will be sending a letter to *executi,re officers in eac!l of the operating utilities to make sure that they under-stand the problem. * * *
"I am persuaded that that will serve to get their attention and ca.use them to look very carefully a.t their own systems and make sure that this kind of a situation doesn't develon in their own plant. "
(Tr ll-12)
You did in fact send such letters, which stated in part:
"Enclosed is a copy of a recent enforcement action against Consumers Power Company.
I am for..;a.rding a copy of this action to chief executives of all utilities with a power reactor operating license or a construction permit.
This is being done to notify licensees that I intend to use the limit of our enforcement authority, when the circum-stances warrant, to obtain safer operation of licensed facilities. * *
- I f serious breaches of safety such as this occur at your facilities, you ma.y expect enforcement actions of this tY}'.le or even more stringent."
ii.
Besides being an attempt to establish new enforcement policy by ex-ceeding its own guidelines in an individual case, without the prior publication of new criteria, contrary to settled policy and practice, your proposed action, if carried out, would be arbitrary a.nd canri-cious when contrasted with the many instances involv"ing similar-eYents, where licensees have :J.Ct been cited at all for nonccmnliance or where, if cited, they ha're been penalized at a much lower ievel.
'::.1.e recently proposed ci-ril penalties for the Three Mile Island.
s.ccident are only the nost obvious exa.nple.
During the 9recedi:::l.g 9
10
- 3.
NRC Enforcement Criteria Not Followed (Contd) five yea.rs, there were approximately 30 instances of civil penalties being levied against power reactor operators.
The average a.mount paid slightly exceeded $15,000, and in no case did the penalty assessed exceed $35,000.
Many of them involved releases of radio-activity or overexposures, and most of them were violations of radiation protection or security procedures.
To summarize, Consumers Power Company believes that (1) there is insufficient evidence to support noncompliance No. 1, which should be stricken along with the civil penalty proposed to be assessed for it; (2) noncompliance No. 2 should be reclassified from a "violation" to an "infraction" and the penalty remitted to its entirety; (3) the penalty proposea to be assessed for non-compliance No. 3, an "infrac'tion," should be remitted in its entirety; (4) if continuing investigations do in fact disclose evidence leading to a finding that noncompliance No. 1 did occur, the noncompliance should be classified as an "infraction" to which no civil penalty should attach; ( 5) if noncompliance No. 1 should be retained and continued to be classified as a "violation" and a penalty assessed for it, accumulation of daily penalties is nevertheless in-appropriate under Commission policy as reflected in the Statements of Consider-ation accompanying the adoption of the civil penalty regulations.
~ 4.
Mitigating Factors In addition to the foregoing, the following factors are offered for your consideration in mitigation of any civil penalties you nevertheless determine to assess:
- 1.
- 2.
- 3. -
The facts upon which the cited noncompliances are based were dis-covered by Consumers Power Company and were voluntarily and timely reported, as noted in your letter and in the NRC's November 9 press conference.
There is no evidence of the Company's bad faith or '..rillfulness in connection with the cited noncompliances; although the fa.ct that noncomoliances occur without a licensee's knowledge is not a defense to the-noncompliance itself, this factor is appropriately recognized in mitigation of civil penalties.
Extensive corrective action, including independent reviews, was under-taken promtltly and :£)rior to receipt of the Notice of Violation.
As has be~n discussed with your Sta.ff, there has been and continues to be extensive high level na.nagement involvement in the corrective and p::-eventiYe action.
- 4.
The cited noncompliances are not representative of chronic violation3.
Al though within the pa.st tvo yea.rs we have filed a total of eight.
LERs nerta.ining to containment integrity at Palisades, the corrective actio~ to which we committed ourselves has been or is being ca:ried out.
No notices of violation were issued with respect to these LERs other than the one that is the subject of this filing.
11
- 4.
Mitigating Factors (Contd)
- 5.
The cited noncompliances did not, in fact, adversely affect public health or safety, or the environment, or the common defense or security.
- 6.
No remedial purpose would be served by levying the proposed civil penalties. First, appropriate corrective action was undertaken immediately, prior to the proposed imposition of penalties, aithough the Palisades Management Review* Task Force mentioned in paragraph (7) page 4 of our response to Appendix A of your letter was not appointed until after November 9.
Your notices a.nd the accompanying order did not alter the substance of the corrective action being ta.ken, although they did affect the repcrtability and timing of some of the action.
- Second, the purpose of civil penalties, as we understand them, and particularly of continuing civil penalties, is to provide. a meaningful deterrent to v-:i.olations and to a.void a "cheap license" for wrongdoing from which a transgressor can profit.
Here, the Company was unaware of any noncompliance until its discoYery of the reported facts in September 1979, and undertook corrective action immediately.
The Company had nothing to gain and every-thing to lose by opera.ting with containment isolation va.l Yes open.
We therefore regard the penalties, a.nd particularly the continuing penalty for cited noncompliance No. l, as solely punitive in nature.
Ey filing this response to Append.ix B of your letter a.nd the accompanying response to Appendix A, Consumers Power Company does not intend to waive a.ny argument it mE:Y later wish to assert to the effect that its administrative remedies in this case are inadequate or una.Yailing because the Commission, as evidenced by state-ments ma.de by Chairman Hendrie at the Commission's press conference on November 9, 1979, has prejudged the matter.
Consumers Power Company is as desirous as your office of assuring that the Palisades containment integrity requirements are met at all times, and we are taking appropri-ate and extensive steps to that end.
We also recognize that you must Carr"'/ out, in an effective way, *:he enforcement "!:asks with which you are charged.
Eowe'rer, this Company will not willingly be pilloried to enable NRC to demonstrate to its post-
~1I critics that it has become a vigorous enforcer.
Yours ve r".f truly,
/s/ R C Youngdahl R C YoungC.ahl Executive Vice President
Ap1'1*11d i 11 O -
CORRECTED EXHIBIT 1
PAGI; 1 l>ay:; r.1cility Ua:: Op(H'.'.\\lccl In Olh1H' l11an Cold Shul.1luu11 Mude r c r i o ii J\\ Jl. r il 1 2, 1 9 7 B t o s* c fl L c 111 b c r 11, 1 9 7?
Con:;unu*r!; rower Company Docket No. 50-255 197R 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Day!;
APRIL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x )( x 19 MAY
)(
- * * * "*
- x x x x x x* x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
-a.1-2 8 JUNE x x x x x *x
- x x x x x x x x x* x x ~ x x x x x x x x x *
-?:7-2 9 JULY
- x x x x x* x x x
- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 30 AUGUST
- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
-?:3--
2 6 SEPTEMBER
- U
- i}
- it x x
- XXXXXXX* **XXXXX 4-2 3 OCTOBER x x it*XXXX*
- 1t
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2-2 7 NOVEMOER X X X X X X
)(. X X X
X X
)(
X X X X X X X X X X X X * * *
- 29 DECEMBER X * *
- X X X. X X X X X X X X
X X X.X X.X
-rs-2 5 SLID TOTAL t-9 2 36 i'
r I
L t I
!' I I*
l i' ' '
~
~ r
~
f I I 1* l i r f
J.
,l
/-
<:1111::111111*1*:: 1'm.i1*1* Cnmpuny
'l'}/Q 1
2 3
- .i 6
JANllA11Y x x x x x
)(
r rn11uAn v
)(
)(
)(
x
)(
)(
MJ\\Rf.11 x x x
)(
x x
,'\\PRIL
- x x x x x x MAY 7
v I\\
)(
x x
fl x
)(
)(
J\\pp1*1uli>< ll CC1rnl i111wd>
CORRECTED EXIHBIT l
PAGE 2 l>od.d Nu.
'..iU-l!5~
? 10 11 1~ 13 14 1~ i6 11 1a 19 20 21
~~ 2J ~4 :~ ~6 21 ~u ~9 3U J1 XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)<XXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX x x x x )(
)( x )(
)(
)(
)(
)(
)(
)(
)(
)( x )( x )(_ x )(
)(
)(
x )(
)(
)(
)( x x )( x x x x x x x it x x x *
- * * * )( x )( )(*)( x x x )(
)( x lli1y ~
31 28 31 26~ 30
- H-18
.11 IN E X
X X. X X
X X
X
- X X
X X
)(
X X X X X X X X X X X X X. X X
)(
)(
30 JULY X
X
)(
X X
X
)(
X X
X X X X X,X X X X X X x*
X X X X. X X X
)(
X X 31 AllGLJST X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 31 s 1:1* r urn rn x x x x x x x x jf n i o S U D T 0 T A L 2 2 L1 0 T 0 T Al D A Y S
-ir?:lr L1 7 6 r
I'*..
\\ I !
.f
~: '
t: '
I,*.
I~
f,
~ r
. t.;
i'.
~
v I' '
i