ML19250B620
| ML19250B620 | |
| 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.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911010203 | |
| Download: ML19250B620 (2) | |
Text
{ lb f[g'* * }oq'C, A
UNITED STATES yy y/; j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- li, E E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
. " 5.hlf~ !
CUT.1 1979 Virginia Electric and Power Company Docket No. 50-281 Attn:
Stanley Ragone, President License No. OPR-37 Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Gentlemen:
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 admits 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 Lir
- sing Appeal Board's decision on the Atlantic Pesearch appeal (ALAB-542, dated May 2, 1979),
a case which took pains "'.o stress that the result we reached is founded entirely upon the specific - and in some respects perhaps unique - facts before us."
The incident which occurred at your facility is readily distinguishable from the Atlantic Research matter.
Unlike Atlantic Research, this incident involved
" management" as the employee here was the senior member of yoJr staff on site at the time of the incident.
Moreover, the. incident was in part caused by the failure of the communication between the shift supervisor and the senior reactor operator on call.
Tne Appeal Board noted that "more could be demanded in the instance of the operation of a nuclear power reactor."
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 ecoloyees.
Your argument that this incicent resulted from a single employee dis-regarding established proceoures and recuirements does not relieve VEPCO of the respunsibility to assure that NRC requirements are met.
With regard to your comments about redundant penalties for a single incident, the penalties were asscssed 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 of August 1,1979) reflecting a formal decision by the Commission to review the Appeal Board's findings.
1273 333 g3 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7D11 010
DCT 1 1379 or license condition shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 for each such violation.
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 penaltie> ire appropriate because the regulations and Technical Specifications provide for a number of measures, each designed to prevent overexposure from occursing and each of which was violated here.
Your response also 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 VEPC0 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 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 of your employees.
~
An order imposing the proposed civil penalties is enclosed.
The specific corrective measures detailed in your response to the items of noncompliance will be reviewed during subsaquent irspection. to determine ~your effectiveness in preventing additional noncompliance.
Sincerely,
/
Victor Stello,.Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Order Imposing Civil Penalties cc w/ encl:
W.
L. Proffitt, Sehior Vice President P. O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 232f1 W. L. Stewart, Manager P. O. Box 315 Surry, Virginia 23883 1273 334
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf' In the matter of
)
Docket No. 50-281
)
Virginia Electric and Power Company
)
Facility Operating P. O. Box 26666
)
License No. DPR-37 Richmond, Virginia 23261
)
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES I.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, P. C. Box 26666, Richmend, Virginia 23261, (the " Licensee") is the holder of Facility Operating License No. OPR-37 (the
" license"), which auth'orizes the licensee to operate Surry Power Station Unit 2 at Surry County, Virginia, under certain conditions specified therein.
The license was issued on January 29, 1973, and is due to expire on June 25, 2008.
II.
An inspection of the licensee's activities under the license was conducted on April 15-19, 1979, at the Surry facility.
As a result of the inspection, it 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 " Standards For Protection Against Radiation," Part 20, Title 10, Code of Fede al Regulations.
A written Notice of Violation was served upon the licensee by letter dated August 15, 1979, specifying the items of non-compliance in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201.
A Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalt'ies dated August 15, 1979, was served concurrently upon the licensee in accordance with Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Wf
~
1273 335 g
- aG73m
(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 provisions of NRC regulations and license conditions with which the licensee was in noncompliance.
Two letters, each dated September 4, 1979, in response to the Notice of Violation aad Notice of proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties were received from the licensee.
III.
Upon consideration of the answer received and the statements of fact, explanation and argument for remittance contained therein, the Director of the Office of
_ Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the penalties proposed for the items of noncompliance designated in the Notice of Violation as Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 should be imposed.
IV.
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 licensee pay civil penalties in the total amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) within twenty (20) days of-the date of receipt of this Order, by check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director of the Office of Inspection.
and Gnforcement.
i273 336
4.
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 designating the time and place of hearing.
Upon failure of the licensee to request a hearing within twenty (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 General for collection.
VI. -
_ In tne event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such a hearing shall be:
4 (a) whether the licensee was in noncompliance with the Commission's regulations and the conditions of the license in the respe_ts set forth as Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Notice of Violaticr referenced in Section II above; and (b) whether, on the basis of such items of nonccmpliance, the Order shoula be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,q p-f-?.', l Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Datad at Bethesda, MarylandJ 3 this ? % day of JGM979 I U}}