ML19326D578
| ML19326D578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/10/1978 |
| From: | Volgenau E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Nelson J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007020698 | |
| Download: ML19326D578 (21) | |
Text
..
- NT THIS DOCUfdENT CONTAINS
'~.'_,c.-C j,w "%.,
POOR QUAUTY,.PIGES
/-
[g' j.$i[* j;' g f.Etenkidu5.
- s. s.' r,5 $;0N f
.-g v.e:mo i e,. n. c. mss 3
- ?.Re
- ;i' E
'g
,,)+
IG 1 0 1978
[
~
^h
(,
.1" c / -. ['
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jerome Nelson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel M
TROM:
Ernst Volgenau, Director j
4'#
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ON CIVIL PENALTIES
~
This is in response to your meuorandum of the same subject dated February 6,1978, and requesting IE to provide information for a response to certain questions in a survey being conducted by the Administrative Conference of the United States.
The answers to the questions are set out in the Enc'osure to this memorandum and they are listed in the same nu:r.erical sequence as those in the original questionnaire.
11e trust that this inforr.1ation will be responsive to your request.
/
%.Q.,%.f f:. N s
. ~
,, y
[.ErnstVolgenau
'/
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
J. G. Davis J. P. Murray T.11. Brockett 9
8007020 4 :
3 J
a.
ESCLOSURE 1.
Name of agency?
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2.c.
Other sanctions which may be imposed.
The formal actions available to the Commission in the exercise of it;s enforcement responsibii.cies are of three basic types: notice
==
of violation, civil penalties, and orders to " cease and desist" and orders to suspend, modify, or revoke a license.
The criteria for these sanctions is set out in " CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND CATEGORIES OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AEC REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS-MODIFICATIONS" which was sent to all licensees on December 31, 1974 and was noticed in the Federal Register (40 FR 820 January 3,1975),
see Appendix A.
Also, these sanctions, the criteria, and the guidance for their use are set out in the Inspection and Enforcement Manual Chapter MC 0800 - ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, See Appendix B.
This document is available in the Public Document Room.
l 2.f.
Frequency of use.
The civil penalty sanction is imposed under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act at a frequency of between five and 20 times per year. The 1egislative history of Section 234 of the Act is set out in Appendix C.
NRC also has authority to imposed civil penalties for failure to report certain safety defects under Section 205d the Reorganization Act of 1974 but no penalty has been imposed under this authorization.
4.
Does your agency provide a procedure for mitigating civil penalties?
The applicable regul6tions do provide for mitigating civil penalties both in the assessment and in the mitigation process.
These mitigating,
processes are described in Items E and 6 below.
5.a.
How is the process initiated?
5.b.
How is the alleged violation investigated?
The NRC has five Regional Offices which makes routine inspections to detennine that licensees comply with the regulations and the provisions of licenses and orders issued by the Commission. Also, investigations are made of matters reported to the NRC by the licensee or other persons and which involve health, safety or the safeguarding of materials. For items of noncompliance identified by inspectors of IE, enforcement action in the form of notices of violation are sent to licensees from the Regional Offices in most cases. About 2% of the cases involving items of noncompliance are referred to Headquarters for action. All civil penalty actions and orders.are issued from the Headquarters office.
The sanction for a given case is selected in accordance with the Criteria-for Enforcement Action and the guidance of MC 0800. The determination of the appropriate sanction is in the last analysis, however, a matter of judgment exercised in accordance with the established criteria and the guidance in MC 0800. The specific
acticn decided upon is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Factors bearing upon selection of the appropriate enforcement action include the total t' ems of noncompliance, the significanc.e of each individual item of noncompliance and the
-licensee's previous erforcement history. 'In selecting the appropriate
'ar sanction, emphasis is on corrective action and management controls to' assure continued compliance as distinguished from purely punitive action.
The Criteria for Enforcement Action outline eleven examples for which a civil penalty may be the appropriate sanction. Thus a civil penalty is considered where repetitive items of noncompliance with the same general requirement have been noted, where chronic non-compliance is found, where noncompliance has been deliberate, and also where a single instance of noncompliance of the significance level of a " violation"* occurs.
Orders are issued in instances of unauthorized uses or activities; where an immediate hazard exists regardless of whether there may be any associated noncompliance with regulatory requirements; in other instances where serious potential safety, security or environmental hazards must be removed; in instances where other enforcement actions have not been effective; in instances where deliberate violations have occurred; or in other similar instances.
The authority for imposing civil penalties was intended to be exercised for items of noncompliance which are tco significant for a mere notice of violation and yet not significanct enough to warrant the suspension or revocation of a license. A brief summary of the legislative history is set forth in Appendix C.
Procedures for the civil penalty action are found in 10 CFR 2.205 of the-Commission's " Rules of practice." After consideration of the various factors discussed above and a decision to issue a proposed civil penalty, a notice of violation is prepared citing the specific items of noncompliance and the sections of the regulations in Title 10, Code Federal Regulations, or license conditions with which the licensee was found to be in apparent noncompliance. Each item of noncompliance is classified either as a violation, an infraction or a deficiency and a dollar amount is assigned to each classification in accordance with guidance in MC 0800. This guidance sets out five types of licensees on the basis of the most credible incident that could occur and a
- ltems of noncompliance have been categorized into three levels of signif-icance: " violation" (most significant), " infraction", and deficiency" (least significant). These categories are elaborated on in Attachment B to Appendix A.
. monetary scale is estabitsbed for each of the three categories of noncompliance for each type of licensee (see page 0800-42). Since the Commission is authorized to impose a civil penalty of $5,000 for
.ach item of noncompliance, this system is a mitigating process with consideration for the type of licensee and the significance of the item of noncompliance. Also, for initial items of noncompliance the monetary penalty is taken,at the bottom of the scale, one repeated item is taken at the middle of the scale and the second repeat is taken at the top of the scale. A Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Pei.alties is also prepared by IE with concurrence of the Office of the Executive Legal Director..The appropriate Licensing Office is informed of the proposed action early in the consideration process.
A graphic portrayal of the process is contained in Appendix D.
5.c.
What opportunity is afforded the alleged violator to present evidence or arguments to the agency and at what stage?
The licensee is given twenty days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Violation and the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty to respond.
If no response is received in the twenty day period the penalties will be imposed in the proposed amount. The licensee nay protest the imposition of the penalties in whole or in part.
If he chooses to protest the penalties he may (a) deny the' items of noncompliance listed in the Notice of Violation, (b) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (c) show error in the Notice of Violation, or (d) show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed.
He may also request remission or mitigation of the penalties.
I When the licensee's response to the Notice of Violation and the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties is received in IE
{
Headquarters, copies are sent to the responsible Regional Office,
.the appropriate licensing office, the Office of the Executive Legal i
Director'and the Office of Public Affairs. After a review of the licensee's response, IE will either issue an order dismissing the proposed penalty or impose, mitigate or remit the civil penalties, Upon receipt of the Order Imposing Civil Penalties, the licensee may, within twenty days, pay the civil penalties or request a hearing cn the order. A number of licensees have requested hearings on civil penalty matters, however, these matters have usually been resolved in the prehearing stage. Only three cases have gone beyond the pre-hearing stage and these are currently in the hearing process
- It should be noted that if a hearing is requested, a hearing must be granted. The mechanism for convening a hearing is the issuance
- In addition there was the Virginia Electric and Power Company matter involving. a civil ' penalty. There as a result of a stipulation by all 1
parties the order imposing the civil penalty was initiated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rather than the staff. This proceeding was unique and is not pertinent to the present discussion.
E*
by the Comission of a Notice of Hearing.
The hearing is held by either an Administratiive Law Judge or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge or the ASLB, as appropr.iate, is appealable to the Appeal Bo,ard_at the request of either the license.e or the staff. The Appeal Board's decision may in turn be reviewed by the Commission at its discretton. Once the decision becomes final, a licensee may seek redress in the courts.
If payment is not made within the specified time following either the service of an order or the expiration of the time for requesting a hearing, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection through a civil action in District Court.
Under Section 234 of the Act, a licensee may refuse paynent and the matter may be processed directly in District Court without going through the Commission's adminstrative process.
The Attorney General has the exclusive power to compromise, mitigate or remit civil penalties which have been referred to him for action.
5.d.
Who in the agency has authority initially to assess a penalty?-
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Executive Director for Operations, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Director of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, and the Director of Inspection and Enforcement have authority to impose civil monetary penalties.
5.e.
Does your agency give the alleged violator a written statement of reasons for the assessment determination?
The letter which transmits the notice of violation and the not,ica of proposed imposition of civil penalty alto sets out the reasons for imposing the civil penalty.
5.f.
Are written reasons or summaries of assessnent decisions prepared and retained by your agency? Are they used as precedents for subsequent decisions? Are they available to the public?
The reasons for the imposition of a civil penalty are set out in the letter to the licensee which transmits the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.
Records are icpt of these actions, the amount of penalty imposed for each item of noncompliance and any remittance or mitigation.
Uniformity is gtnerally retained by the guidance, procedures and tables used in deiermining the amount of civil penalty. However, all mitigating circumstances are considered.
Civil penalties imposed on a certain type tr class of licensees are reviewed as precedents for subsequent decisions in the interest of uniformity. ~ However,.all mitigating circur. stances are considered in each case. The letters to licensees which set out the reasons for civil penalties are in the Public Docurent Room.
6 Oe o
. 5.g.
What form of administrative appeal from an initial assessnient decision is provided to an alleged violator, and to whom?
The appeal process is explained in Item 5.c. above.
6.
Describe the procedure used by your agency for the mitigation of civil penalties. In your, description, please address at least the following aspects of the process:
1 6.a.
How is the process initiated?
The mitigating process is initiated in considering the size of the licensee, the significance of the item of noncompliance, the nature and number of items of noncompliance, the licensee's past performance, the frequency of noncompliance, the length of time noncompliance has existed, whether items of noncompliance are repetitive of the same or similar requirements, the steps taken to correct the items of noncompliance, the licensee's stated intentions or performance in correcting them promptly, and such other items of context that may be presented in the particular circumstances of each individual case.
6.b.
How is the alleged violation investigated, and by what unit and level of agency staff?
Items of ncncompliance or alleged items of noncompliance are investigated by inspectors and investigators from the five regional offices of NRC.
These individuals have been trained in inspection and investigativt techniques and in the technical aspects of the nuclear industry.
Investigations of alleged noncompliance with regulatory requirements or of apparent health, safety, or safeguards matters are conducted, interviewing the principals which may have knowledge of such matters, reviewing records of operations, and by direct observations and physical examinations.
6.c.
Uhat opportunity is afforded the alleged violator to present information or arguments to the agency, and at what stage?
When items of noncompliance are identified, a' notica of violation is prepared and dispatched to the licensee, setting out the apparent items of noncompliance.
If the case fits the criteria for civil penalty, a Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty may also be sent to the licensee at the same time.
The licensee generally has 20 da to respond and'(1) admit or deny the items of noncompliance,-(.2)ys explain why the itens occurred, (3) indicate what corrective measures have been taken, (4) indicate what additional corrective measures will be taken, and (5) when all measures will be completed to correct all
. items of noncompliance and to assure that such noncompliance does
.not occur :in the future. At the same time the licensee is given an opportunity to explain why the proposed penalty should be withdrawn, remitted, or mitigated. After careful consideration of the licensce's response, an order to pay civil penalties will be issbed unless there
.was sufficient reason to withdraw or remit the penalty. Penalties may be mitigated if just reasons are established.
Further opportunity
to present information or arguments may be submitted during the hearing process or in court as explained in Item 5 above.
6.d.
Who in the agency has authority to, mitigate a penalty?
The office which issues the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty has the authority to mitigate the penalty. Also, the penalty nay 'e mitigated by the Hearing authority,.the Appeals Board, or the Commission, if the case reaches these levels.
6.e.
Does your agency give the alleged violator a written statement of reasons for its mitigation decision?
The NRC informs licensees in writing of the reasons for withdrawing, remitting, or mitigating proposed civil penalties.
6.f.
Are written reasons or summaries of mitigation decisions prepared.
This question was answered in Item 5 above.
6.g.
The appeal process is explained i.n Item 5.c.
7.
To the extent your agency has discretion in setting the amount of the penalty to be assessed, what are your criteria? What are the criteria used by your. agency for determining whether. and by what amount, to mitigate a civil penalty?
If the mitigation criteria
. differ from the assessment criteria, please explain why.
The criteria and guidance for setting the amount of penalty is set out in MC 0800 and generally involves consideration of the type of licensee, the significance of the item of noncompliance, and the licensee's history of repetitive or chronic noncompliance.
In determining whether to mitigate a civil penalty, the NRC will remit the penalty if the licensee can provide information to show that the finding of noncompliance was in error. Other mitigations from the proposed penalty are irade as a matter of judgment of such factors as those mentioned in Item 6.a.
Reasons to mitigate the penalty proposed for an item of noncompliance are frequently associated with factors which mitigate the potential scfety consequences that appear to result from an item of noncompliance.
It may then be said that the assessment criteria does differ frca the mitigation criteria in that in the proposed assessment process NRC considers the type of licensee, the safety significance of the item of noncompliance, and the licensee's performance history. The mitigation criteria on the otherhand should show that there were sound mitigating cit 6cmstances and/or that safety was not compromised.
e i
l l
-7 8.
To what extent are the assessment and mitigation procedures (questions 5 and 6) and criteria (question 7) used by your agency:
The enabling legislation Section 234 of the Act provides only the areas for which civi'l penalties may be imposed and the limits of
$5,000_per item of noncompliance for each day that the nonccmpliance exists and a limit of $25,000 for all items of noncompliance which occur in any 30 day period.
The rule in 10 CFR 2.205 sets out the types of situations that will be considered for civil penalty.
"The Criteria for Determining Enforcement Actions" was published to all HRC licensees and noticed in the Federal Register. HRC Inspection and Enforcement Manual Chapter 0800 contains the guidance for such assessments and mitigations and is a matter of public record - in the Public Document Room.
11.
Does your agency regularly compile statistics on the volume (caseload and/or dollar volume) of its civil penalty assessment, mitigation or collection activities?
Yes, such a compilation is attached as Apperdix E.
The first civil penalty action was proposed on October 29, 1971, and the most recent action was proposed on January 31, 1978.
Of the 70 cases listed, two are'still pending receipt of response from the licensee as a result of the proposed action. Another case was issued an Order Imposing Civil Penalties on February 7, 1978. There are three cases on the list where the licensees have requested hearings and these matters are presently pending before the Administrative Law Judge.
12.
Provide the following information about each mitigation request process to completion.
To consider the most recent fif.ty civil pen:lties cases, we would begin with Item 21 on Page 3 of the encloset Appendix E.
Of these cases, fourteen licensees have chosen to pay the full penalties on receipt of the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties and i
these cases are designated by the entry " Paid Without Imposition Order" under the " Imposed Amount" column. Phere licensees have requested mitigation or remission of the per:alties after the 20 day limit from the receipt of the Hotice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, various reasons have been siven by the licensees for these requests, such as (1) prompt corrective action was taken by the licensee concerning the items of non:ompliance, (2) the licensee management was not involved nor responsible for the items of noncompliance, (3) inability of the litersee to pay the pqna.ities, (4) the past good record of the licensee for compliance with the regulations and the license ccnditions, and (5) questions concerning the authenticity of the citation of noncompliance against the licensee. A difference in the imposed amour.t from the proposed amount denotes those cases where valid reastns have been given for the remission or mitigation of the penalties.
Generally, penalties 6
7 9
, 8-were remitted if the licensee provided additional facts to substantiate, compliance and remittances were made in those cases where the licensee demonstrated that health, safety or safeguards was not compromised to a lesser degree by existing circumstances or operating procedures.
a),The_ statutory authority under which the penalties were assessed is in all cases Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
- l as amended, which was, enacted in 1969.
b) The amount of the penalties initially proposed for each case is listed under the column " Proposed Amount" and the date of the action is in parentheses under the amount proposed.
c) The amount of the penalties finally assessed is indicated in the column designated " Imposed Amount" and the date of the action-is in the column " Order of Imposition."
d) The amount of civil penalties finally collected is indicated in the column entitled " Payment Date."
If a date is inserted the penalty was paid in full as imposed.
l e) Of the 50 cases, thirty-nine have paid the imposed penalties by i
check in full on the payment date indicated. The two most recent cases are still pending receipt of response to the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties.
Case 68, which was issued an Order Imposing Civil Penalties on February 7,1978, has 20 days from receipt of the Order to pay the penalties or request a hearing.
Case 31 paid $1,150 in settlement of the imposed $1,950 amount after a preliminary proceeding but prior to a formal hearing.
Case 52, 53 and 58 were permitted, due the financial condition of the licensee, to pay the imposed penalties in twelve consecutive equal monthly installments, and Case 65, as a result of a requested hearing agreed to, withdraw the hearing request and pay the penalties in 24 equal monthly installments.
Cases 56, 57 and 59 have requested hearings in the civil penalties matters and these cases are presently pending before the Administrative Law Judge.
13.
Does your agency have a quality control system whereby civil penalty assessment and/or mitigation decisions are checked for accuracy, consistency and conformity to agency policy?
If so, please describe.
If possible, please provide an example of how the system has been used to improve your agency's civil penalty administration.
The proposed civil penalty action is not only reviewed by the Regional Branch Chief after it is written by the inspector but there is a very comprehensive review program and quality control system at..the Headquarters level. All proposed civil penalty actions are reviewed by the appropriate Division Office at Headquarters to determine that all items of noncompliance are technically correct and that they are properly substantiated. The Executive Legal Director makes a review to determine whether the case is legally correct. The Executive Officer for Operations Support makes a review to determine that the proposed action meets with the policy of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, s
o
-9
~
that the amount of civil penalty imposed is correct, that the classification of items of. noncompliance is ' correct and that the sanction meets the established critieria. The reviews and concurrences have been somewhat time consuming but the thoroughness of this process
- has resulted in only one Hearing to date with two additional such cases pending.
Consequently, itimay be argued that such careful
-p reviews may in the long run save time but in order to expedite our i
enforcement actions, we are now making reviews and-changes in i
comnittee meetings where all groups are represented.
g
- 15. Please give the name and telephone number of the person to be contacted with any follow-up questions.
i W. P. Ellis, Office < f Inspection and Enforcement'-- 492-7246 J. Lieberman, Office of the Executive Legal Director -- 492-7991 I
e 4
e e
/
e g
~
LE3ISLATIVE HISTORf OF SECTION 2% OF_
i
'l~riE ATOMIC ENEFGY ACT OF 195L, AS AMENDED Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (Act), is the Commission authority for imposing civil penalties. Prior to the enac,tment.
~w
~
in 1969 of section 234 of the Act, the Comnission's enforcement authority was limited to notices of violation and orders to cease and desist and to modify, suspend or revoke licenses.
The legislative history of section 234 'of th.e Act indicates that the i.
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was concemed that revocation or suspension of a license in some instances "may be 'too harsh a penalty" and "may penalize the licensee's employees throu'gh loss of ' income without, having any significant impact on the licensee itself."
S. Report 91-553, M. Report 91-691, at 9,10.
Civil penalties could be imposed "without depriving a licensee o'f his means of livelihood or without requiring the cessation of an authorized activity which might be of material benefit to the public." M at 10.
l!
The Joint Committee emphasized that civil penalties would not be I
appropriate for all violations. For example, "where the violation is one that seriously, threatens the health or safety of an employee or a member of.the public" a civil penalty should not be used. M at 10.
- However, penalties could be imposed in cases where license suspension or revocation is not in the public interest, but in which the impcrtance of full adherence to regulatory requirements shoilld be emphasized by core than a. notice of violation or a cease and desist order.
Hearines before JCAE, AEC Omibus f
Lerrislation - 1969_, 91st Cong.,1st sess., 28 (September 12, 1969).
"The purpose of the grant of authority to impose civil penalties is to provid,e the Commission with enforcement flexibility to deal with items of noncompliance of varying severity'thereby " materially assist [ing] the Commission in carrying out its program to protect public health and safety and assure the common defense and security." S. Rept.91-553,' at 10'..
It should be noted that the Joint Committee stated that "the penalties authorized are civil only and are remedial in nature as opposed to punitive." id at 16. This statement is somewhat ecigmatic since civil pen'alties inevitably have punitive aspects.
CCrainlSSION DECISIC,*J PROCESS INVOLVEMENT INSPECTION.INVESTiG ATION NOT'CE OF VIOLATION C0taMISS10N INF ORTAED BY ENFORCEtJENT N0ilFICATION BY REGION FINDINGS AND FROPOSED civil (EN) 5 WORKING DAYS faEET CRITERIA FOR
.f PENALTY PREPARED PRIOR TO ISSU ANCE A civil PENALTY MEETING IE CRITERIA -
i 1r 1 r LICENSEE INFORMED BY.
EN TO COMMISSION RECEIVED IN IE: HQ STAFF d
REGION VIA TELEPHONE INFORMING OF ISSU ANCE
+
D ECISION TO ISSUE OF IMPOSITION ORDER' PROPOSED civil PEtiAi.TY -
0F civil PENALTY ACTION 7'
DN D ATE OF MAILING l
TRANSMITTED TO SECRETARY OF COMTAISSION l
LICENSEE RESPONSE 1
i REVIEWED BY REGION PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT F OR SIGNATURE AND IE: HQ DECISION M ADE LOCAL.LY BY P.A.
TO DISMISS, IMPOSE OR TWO DAYS AFTER MAILING i
e REMIT PENALTIES 1
COMM!SSION AUTHORIZES LICENSEE H AS 20 D AYS ADMIN. L AW JU DG E OR y
DISMISS IMPOSE.
FROM D ATE OF RECEIPT ATOMIC SAFETY AND MITIGATE TO RESPOND LICENSING BOARD TO PERFORM REVIEW FUNCTION I -
OR REMlT l l
PENALTIES I
LICENSEE MAY PAY ~l l
PENALTY WITHOUT l
APPEAL BO ARD DESIGNATED
~
If4 POSIT 10N ORDEH _g COTAMISSION REVIE ORD E R IMPOSING L DECISION AT ITS DISCRETIONg PENALTIES, AS MITIG ATED OR REMITTED
[ PENALTY]
LICENSEE
~
y 8
^
8 LICENSEE HAS 20 D AYS I
R DRESS 0
FROM DATE OF RECEIPT 1
IN DISMISSEDJ L
TO PAY PENALTIES OR COURTS REQUEST A HEARING l
U V
V
- ii:-
j LICENSEE LICENSEE LICENSEE DOES PAYS REQUESTS l
NOTHING PENALTY HEARING l
U REFERRED TD NOTICE OF HEARING
_._T DRAFTED WITH THE ATTORNEY CONCURRENCE GENERALFOR OF ELD COLLECTION 1
v q
HEARING ATTORN. G EN.
MAY COT / PROMISE, y
P MITIG ATE OR REMIT PENALTIES DISMISS
- IMPOSE, APPEAL MITIGATE l
OR REMIT
~
PENALTIES n
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~
~~
~~
~
^
civrt_ -ramsa T ra g C 1 - "-' ~~ -
Licanden Prepo sd Amount Imponad Amount Order of Impositten Peyment Dien 1
Universal Testing Company
$ 1,000
$ 1,000 11-30-71 2-4-72 Salt Lake City, Utah (10<29-71)
License No. 43-11213-01 2.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory 2,500 Paid without 2 10-72 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1-28-72)
Imposition License No. 37-276-25 Order 3.
New England Nuclear 2,000 1,700 6-1-72 6-23-72 Boston,' Massachusetts (4-6-72)
License Nos. 20-320-9;-13 20-11868-01 4.
Interstate Laundry & Decontam-5,000 5,000 12-26-72 1-11-73 ination Service (11-10-72)
- Sante Fe,'New Mexico I License No. 30-7655-1 5.' Virginia Electric and Power 40,000 38,000 6-26-73 7-12-73 (Surry liand 2)
(5-15-73)
Richmond, Virginia DPR-32, DPR-37 6
X-Ray Engineering Company 5,750 5,750 8-23-73 9-23-75 (Paid $2,875. as compromised with the San Mateo, California (6-11-73)
U. S. Attorney's License No. 04-616-04 Office in No. Calif.
7.
T. R. Schwalm, Inc.
1,250 1,250 10-12-73 11-1-73 Lancaster, Pennsylvania (9-6-73)
License No. 37,-09385-01 8.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co.
15,000 15,000 2-1-74 2-5-74 (Vermont Yanke'e)
(12-27-73)
Green Bay X-Ray Services, Inc 5,500 5,000 2-19-74 9-3-74 ($1,000)
Creen Bay, Wisconsin (12-26-73) 9-25-74 ($1,000) 12-2-74 ($2,000)
License No. 48-12397-01 12-31-74 ($1,000) 10, Value Engineering Company 8,000 8,000 6-25-74 7-15-74 Alexandria, Virginia (5-29-74)
License No. 45-10927-02
CIVIL PEMALTIES - P ga 2 Licensee Proposed Amount Imposed Amount ' Order of Imposition Payment Date s
- 11. Nuclear Materials and
.$13,720
$12,170 8-12-74 6-12-74 Equipment Corporation (6-5-74)
Apollo, Pennsylvania License Nos. SNM-145 /. ?.S
& SNM-414 12 Eastern Testing and 2,600 2,300 8-12-74 9-10-74 (insufficient funds)
Inspection, Inc.
(6-25-74) 10-29-74 (replacement check)
Pennsauken, New Jersey License No. 29-09814-01
- 13. Consumers Power Company 19,000 Paid without 9-3-74 (Palisades)
(8-13-74)
Imposition Jackson, Michigan Order License No. DPR-20
- 14. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
8,000 Paid without 9-23-74 (Nine Mile Point 1)
(9-13-74)
Imposition Syracuse, New York Order 4
License No. DPR-17'
- 15. Tennessee Valley Authority 4,000 WITHDRAWN (Browns Ferry 1)
(9-13-74)
Chattanooga, Tennessee License No. DPR-33 16.
University of II,11nois 2,000 2,000 11-20-74 12-11-74 at the Medical Center (10-4-74)
Chicago, Illinois License No. 12-00088-06 17.
Isomedix, Inc. -
2,050 Pald'Otthout 10-15-74 Parsippany, New Jersey (9-23-74)
Imposition License No. 29-15364-01 order
- 18. Metropolitan Edison Company 4,000 3,500 11-19-74 12-17-74 (Three Mile Island 1)
(9-23-74)
Reading, Pennsylvania License No. DPR-50
.o CIVIL PENALTIES - Page 3_
' Order of Imposition ' Payment Date_
Proposed Amount Imposed Amount Licensee _
111 1-74
- i Paid without
- 19. Brigham YounE Universityi
$1,000 (10-24-74)
Imposition
.I si Provo, Utah Order License No. 43-09234-13 11-15-74 Paid without 4,000 Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
(10-30-74)
Imposition 20, West Valley, New York Order License No. CSF-1 12-26-74 1-8-75 5,000 5,000 General Electric. Company (10-25-74) 21.
(Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant-Morris, Illinois)
San Jose, California License Nos. SNM-1265; CSF-2 12-13-74 12-30-74 7,500 6,000
- 22. General Electric Company (10-30-74)
(Vallecitos)
San Jose, Cali fornia License No. SNM-960 2-6-75 3-3-75 2,350 2,350 s
- 23. Dayton X-Ray Company (11-27-74)
Dayton, Ohio License No. 34-0694-01 12-19-74 Paid without 2,000 Texas Instruments, Inc.
(12-9-74)
Imposition 24.
Attleboro, Massachusetts Order License No. SNM-23 12-20-74 I
Paid without 25,500
- 25. Commonwealth Edison company (12-11-74)
Imposition (Dresden 1, 2,'S)
Order Chicago, Illinois License Nos. DPR-2;-19;-25 2-21-75 2-6-75 2,100 2,100
- 26. Transnuclear Inc.
(12-17-74)
White Plains, New York License Nos. XSNM-578 et al 1-10-75 Paid without 3,400
- 27. CIS Radiopharmaceuticals (12-19-74)
Imposition Bedford, Massachusetts Order License No. 20-13695-01 e
- ~
CIVIL PENALTIES - Peg 14 Licensee Proposed Amount Imposed Amount Order of Imposition Payment Date 28.
Walworth Company
$2,500
$2,500 3-5-75 3-25-75 Bala-Cynwyd, Pennsylvania (1-2-75)
License No. 37-02445-01
- 29. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.
7,250 4,000 3-20-75 4-15-75 (Maine Yankee)
(1-18-75)
Augusta, Maine License No. DPR-36
- 30. Virginia Electric & Power Co.
12,000 10,000 3-19-75 4-8-75 (Surry 1 and 2)
(1-18-75)
Richmond, Virginia License Nos. DPR,-32; -37
- 31. Gladstone laboratories, Inc.
1,950 1,950 4-24-75 12-19-75 (Paid $1,150, as Cincinnati, Ohio (2-27-75) mitigated by NRC Order Accepting Stipulation and License No. 34-01764-02 Terminating Proceeding dated 11-6-75.)
32 General Electric Company 6,500 6,500 5-10-75 2-20-76 (Vallecitos)
(3-14-75)
' San Jose, Californf a License Nos. R'-33; TR-1
- 33. X-Ray Industries 1,800 1,800 5-9-75 5-16-75 Detroit, Michigan (3-31-75)
License No. 21-05472-01
- 34. Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.
11,500 7,500 7-18-75 8-11-75 (Millatone Point)
(4-10-75) liartford, Connecticut License No. DPR-21 3$.
Boston Edison Company 12,000 12,000 7-23-75 8-4-75 (Pilgrim 1)
(5-20-75)
Boston, Massachusetta License No. DPR-35
~
36 Cleveland X-Ray I-
- ction Inc.'
1,300 Paid without 7-14-75 Cleveland, Okla' (6-25-75)
Imposition License No. 35-1
,-01 Order
Lir-~~ n Prspo'ed Amount _Inpeacd Amount Ordxr cf Impo11 tion Paymett Datn
- 37. Darrill Industries Inc.
$2,500
$1,800 9-23-75 10-22-75 Springfield, New Jersey (7-30-75)
J (formerly licensed under License No. 12-14918-01)
- 38. International Testing Labs. Inc.
4,050 2,250 10-22-75' 11-13-75 Newark, New Jersey (8-6-75)
License No. 29-14027-01
- 39. Rochester Cas & Electric Corp.
10,000 Paid without 9-24-75 (R. E. Ginna, Unit 1)
Rochester, New York (Lic. DPR-18) (8-23-75)
Imposition Order 40 Commonwealth Edison Company 25,000 Paid without 10- 8-75 (Quad Cities, Unita.1 & 2)
(8-28-75)
Imposition Chicago, Illinois Order License Nos. DPR-29; DPR-30
- 41.. United States Testing Company,Inc.
3,550 Paid without 9-18-75
-Hoboken, New Jersey (8-29-75)
Imposition License No. 20-02477-03 Order 42 Carolina Power & Light Company 7,000 5,000 2-18-76 3-5-76
.(Brunswick, Unit 2)
(9-23-75)
Raleigh,' North Carolina License No. DPR-62
~
43 Associated Piping and Engineering 6,500 Paid without 4-2-76 Company (3-10-76)
Imposition Clearfield, Utah Order License No. 43-15119-01
- 44. Metropolitan Edison Company 8,000 8,000 4-23-76 5-24-76 (Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
(3-15-76)
Reading, Pennsylvania Docket 50-289, License DPR-50 45.
Babcock and Wilcox Company 26,500 19,000 7-23-76 8-12-76 Nuclear Hhterials Division (4-14-76)
Lynchburg, Virginia (Apollo and Leechburg, Pa.)
License Nos. SNM-145 and SNM-414
f CIVIL PERALTTES - Pag, 6 Liennene Propsend Amount Imposed Amount Ordar of Imp oitten Pnyment Dito
- 46. Commonwealth Edison Company
$13,000 Paid without 6-14-76 Chicago, Illinois (5-20-76)
Imposition (Zion Nuclear Plant. Unit 1)
Order Docket No. 50-295 License No. DPR-39
- 47. Exam Company 7,800 7,800 8-11-76 8-26-76 Tulsa, Oklahoma (6-8-76)
License No. 35-16191-01
- 48. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y, 23,000 20,850 8-23-76 9-13-76 New York, N. Y.
(6-21-76)
(Indian Point Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-3 & 50-247 License Nos. DPR-5 & DPR-26
- 49. Jersey Central Power and Light 8,000 Paid without 7-14-76 Company (6-28 76)
Imposition Horristown, New Jersey Order (Oy.,ter Creek Nuclear Cenerating Station)
Docket No. 50-219 License No. DPR-16
- 50. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 21,000 18,000 8-31-76 9-21-76 Syracuse, New York (7-16-76)
(FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant)
Docket No. 50-333 License No. DPR-59
- 51. NuclearI'E'nergy Services, Inc.
11,300 11,300 10-20-76 11-12
',6 Conam Inspection Division (8-23-76)
Danbury, Connecticut License No. 42-16559-01
..a
- 52. Astrotech, Incorporated 6,600 6,600 12-20-76 1-4-77 ($550) '9-6-77($550)J Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (11-8-76) 2-10-77 ($550) S0-17-77(3550; License No. 37-09928-01 3-8-77 ($550)
'4-5-77 ($550)11-23-77($
~
5-2277 ($550) L2-6-77($
6-6-77($550)
- [
i 7-1-77,(3550) a_a ny res<n3
CIVIL PENALTIESI-P g7 7 Licxn m Propord Amount Importd Amount Ordar of Imp nitiem P yuest Dst, 12 77($700) 3-1-77($700) 7-1-77($70
- 53. Globe X-Ray Services, Inc.
$ 8,400
$ B,400 1-5-77 Tulsa, Oklahoma (12-1-76) 3-8-77 ($700) 8-10-77($70 4-29-77 ($700,)9-1-77($70 License No. 35-15194-01 s
10-1-77($700
' 11-1 77($700)
- 54. Virginia Electric & Power Co.
$31,900
$31,900.
2-4-77 2-23-77 Richmond, Virginia (12-6-76)
Docket Nos. 50-338 & 50-339 License Nos. CPPR-77 & CPPR-78 (North Anna, Units 1 & 2)
- 55. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company $15,000
$15,000 1-21-77 2-2-77 Hartford, Connecticut (12-20-76)
Docket No. 50-245 License No. DPR-21 (NL11 stone, Unit No. 1) 56 Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. $ 2,000
$ 2,000 2-25-77 Hearing requested Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1-5-77) by ltr dtd 3-11-77 License No. 37-02607-02 57 ;Radia.uon Technology, Inc.
$ 4,800
$ 4,800 3-14-77 Hearing requested Rockaway, New Jersey (1-5-77) by ler dtd 4-6-77 License No. 29-13613-02
_1 58 Arnold Creene Testing Labs. Inc.$ 4,500
$ 4,500 3-28-77 4-19-77($375) 9-22-77($375:
Natick, Nassachusetts (2-2-77) 5-16-77($375) 10-26-77($372 License No. 20-01074-02 6-17-77($375) 11-28-77($372 7-18-77($375) 12-16-77($373
- 59. Atlantic Research Corporation
$ 8,900
$ 8,600 3-28-77 Hearing requested Alexandria, Virginia (2-14-77) by ler dtd 4-4-77 License No. 45-02808-04 60 Luminous Processes, Inc.
$'3.,250
$ 3,250 5-12-77 5-24-77 New York, N. Y. (Ottawa, Ill.)
(3-7-77)
License No. 12-03231-03 61.
Duke Power Company
$21,500
$16,000 6-13-77 6-21-77 Charlotte, North Carolina (3-30-77)
Docket Nos. 50-269;50-270;50-287 (Lic. Nos. DPR-38;DPR-47;DPR-55)
(Oconee Nos. 1, 2 and 3) s
4tvrs,rennaaa m r rann.
Lic~asm Propovd Amount Imponsd Amount Ord-r of Impositim Pcyme t Dato
- 62. Nuclear Puel Services Inc.
$53,000
$53,000
. 8-11-77 8-29-77 Erwin, Tennessee (4-12-77)
Docket No.70-143 License No. SNM-124 5-10-77
- 63. Pittsburgh Testing laboratory
$ 2,000 Paid without a
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (4-25-77)
Imposition License No. 37-00276 Order
- 64. Public Service Co. of Colo'rado
$ 8,000 Paip without 5-27-77 Denver, Colorado (5-1b77)
Imposition Docket No. 50-267 Order License No. DPR-34 (Ft. St. Vrain)
- 65. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
$ 7,500 Paid without 5-26-77 San Francisco, California
.(5-17-77)
Imposition Docket No. 50-133 order
, ' License No. DPR-7 (thsaboldt Bay Unit No. 3)
- 66. J. G. Sylvester Associates, Inc. $ 6,000
$ 6,000 10-17-77 Hearing requested Ibckland, Massachusetts (8-11-77) by ltr dtd 10-28-77*
License No. 20-00302-02 67.' Commonwealth Edison Company
$21,000 Paid without 10-17-77 Chicago, Illinois (9-30-77)
Imposit ion Docket Nos. 50-295; 50-304 Order License Nos. DPR-39; DPR-48 (Zion, Units 1 & 2)'
- 69. CERAC, Incorporated
$ 3,750
$ 3,750 2-7-78 Milwaukee, Wisconsin (10-3-77)
License No. STB-1027
- 69. Dayton X-Ray Company
$ 6,100 Dayton, Ohio (1-3-78) s License No. 34-06943-01
- 0rder Accepting Stipulation anu 'fo1 win d.ina Proceeding issued 1-19-78 Licensee agreed F
to pay the penalties in 24 enual en+M.*
inst.allments, conpencing 2-1-78.,
- m 7 7. _ _...,.. -
CIVIL PENALTIES - Prg, 9 e
Licensee Pmposed Amount Imposed Amount _
Order of Imposition Payment Date
- 70. Pittsburgh - Des Moines Steel 0 7,000 e
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1-31-78)
License No. 37-02607-02 h
e e
l e
e O
e 9
4 e
e d
S
(
e e
O e
y e
9 e
e
%9. r/4
.