ML20079F233
| ML20079F233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079F227 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-363, TASK-PII, TASK-SE SECY-82-064, SECY-82-64, NUDOCS 8203050118 | |
| Download: ML20079F233 (2) | |
Text
.
c s..
~
fg-1 e rzgi s 3..f.r!
l 3
Ng
~
A POLICY ISSUE l
February 12, 1982 (InfOrmatiOn)
SECY-82-64 For:
The Comission dlQF O - 2[3 From:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Purcose:
To provide the Comissioners with a description of how the proposed civil penalty for the Boston Edison Company's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station was calculated.
Discussion:
In a memorandum dated January 13, 1982, from the Secretary to the EDO, it was recommended that the staff prepare a description of how the civil penalty proposed for the Boston Edison Ccapany in the NRC Notice dated January 18, 1982 was calculated.
Item I of the Notice of Violation (NOV) concerned the operation of the Pilgrim facility from 11/27/78 to 6/5/81 without the combustible control system capability recuired by 10 CFR 50.44.
Item II involved a material false state-ment made by the licensee with respect to compliance with 10 CFR 50.44 and the failure to notify the Comission in accordance with Pilgrim's Technical Specifications.
Item III involved a violation of a Technical Specification limiting condition for operation.
These three events indicated a need for aggressive involve-ment of higher licensee management in assuring safety of operations at the Pilgrim facility.
In arriving at the amount of a proposed penalty, the staff sought an amount significant enough to get management attention but an amount that was not out of line with the significance of the violations in this case as compared with those violations by other licensees where civil penalties were imposed. We also considered the fact that the duration of the events described in Items I and II fell under both the December 1974 criteria and the Interim Enforcement Policy published October 7, 1980.
In assessing the proposed civil penalty, the staff first ch1culated a penalty based on the Dece~tber 1974 criteria and Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as it read before it was amended in June 1980. The civil penalty assessed
Contact:
J. Lieberman, IE (QpV %,'oli EEM ho3ofo XA Copy Has Been Sent to PDR m
9 The Comission !
under that approach was in the order of $600,000. We then caiculated a civil penalty based on the amended civil penalty authority and the Interim Enforcement Policy for violations occurring after October 7, 1980. Under that approach, a civil penalty in the order of 9 million dollars could be proposed. We then considered that the largest civil penalty proposed had been the $450,000 penalty on Consumers Power Company which was settled for $225,000.
After considering these assessment schemes and all the circumstances surrounding Items I and II, including the duration of the items, the sum of $500,000 was determined to be an appropriate penalty. While the events described in Items I and II addressed different concerns, both were significant and unacceptable. The amount was divided equally, assessing $250,000 for each event.
In the case of Item III, the Interim Enfor ;ement Policy was followed and this item was classified as a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement I).
Normally a civil penalty of $40,000 is assigned for events of this nature.
However, since the licensee could have reasonably been expected to prevent occurrences of this nature, an increase of 25% was added, making a total penalty for Item III of
$50,000.
The sum of the penalties for the three events was thus calculated at $550,000.
/
L William J' Dircks Executive Director for Operations
..