ML20050C099
| ML20050C099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1976 |
| From: | Hauspurg A CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. |
| To: | Volgenau E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050C088 | List: |
| References | |
| 60814, NUDOCS 8204080135 | |
| Download: ML20050C099 (3) | |
Text
Arth r H;uspurg hnomi
(
=
Consolidated Edison Cornpany of New York,Inc.
4 Irving Place, New York, N Y 10003 Telephone (212) 460 3726 July 9, 1976 Dr. Ernst Volgenau, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
License Nos.
DPR-5 (Unit No. 1)
DPR-26 (Unit No. 2)
Inspection Nos. 76-05 (Unit No.1) 76-08' (Unit No. 2)
' Docket Nos.50-003 (Unit No. 1) 50-247 (Unit No. 2)
Dear Sir:
This refers to your letter dated June 21, 1976 and constitutes the z.nswer of the Consolidated F.dison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) to Appendix B of that letter (Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties) pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205.
Our reply, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.201, to Appendix A of that letter (Notice of Violation) is being provided sepa-rately as requested.
Con Edison requests remission or mitigation of the civil penalties proposed for. items 3, 4b, 5 and 6 of the Notice of Violation.
With regard to parts oi items 3 and 5 of the Notice of Violation relating to the authorization of certain activities, APPENDIX II 8204080135 760621
{DRADOCK05000
$ Qgg
i i
2
--2 we believe that the Notice of Violation is in error.
As dis-I cussed in our letter pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 at page 10, l
l the outage coordinator was autho'rized to issue the Radiation Work Permit cited in item 3 of the Notice of Violation.
S imi-larly, the individual referred to in item 5 of the Notice of ll' Violation was authorized, as a Nuclear Plant Operator, to have l'
I the master key in his possession (see our letter pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 at page 18).
The Notice of Violatio'n refers in item 4b to a I
nituation where we were technically not in compliance with our Controlled Area Sign-In Procedure.
The occurrence cited in the Notice is discussed in our letter pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 at pages 13-14.
The procedure did not involve the con-trol of individual exposures and thus the noncompliance did
{
not contribute to any occurrence adversely affecting health and safety.
Item 6 of the Notice, as well as item 7 for which no civil penalty was proposed, refers to asserted noncompliance with 10 CFR 20.203.
This reflects an apparent difference between Con Edison's interpretation of these parts of the regu-lations and that implied in the Notice of Violation.
For example, we do not believe it is necessary or reasonable for us to separately identify, post and control access to isolated l
APPEiOIX II
t
..s
-3_
"High Radiation Areas" within a larger area specified as a
)
The situation is discussed in our letter pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201'at pages 19-21.
Con Edison's management will seek an opportunity to discuss these interpretations of 10 CFR 20.203 with the NRC with a view to developing reasonable and practicable methods for satisfying the letter and the spirit of the regulations.
In further support of Con Edison's request for remis-
~
sion or mitigation of the civil penalties, it should be noted that, although the previous Notices of Noncompliance cited in your letter dealt with similar ite'ms, the corrective action Licensee stated would be taken.:bt response to those Notices has* been taken.
The corrective action indicated in the letter pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 goes beyond prior commitments in these areas.
Very truly yours,
/-l1) 6. L c >.:.c Ll {I in,.)
{j,y(Lc
/
Arthur Hauspurg President l
APPEllDIX II me