ML20080L997
| ML20080L997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1983 |
| From: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080M000 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-83-064, EA-83-64, NUDOCS 8310030411 | |
| Download: ML20080L997 (2) | |
Text
i-NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Texas Utilities Generating Company Dockets:
50-445/83-03 Comancha Peak Steam Electric Station 50-446/83-01 Permits:
CPPR-126 CPPR-127 EA 83-64 Based on the results of an investigation and hearing conducted by the Depart-ment of Labor (DOL Case 82-ERA-9) and the resulting Decision and Final Order of the Secretary of Labor dated June 10, 1983, in the case of complainant Charles A.
Atchison, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C), 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), the NRC has determined that a significant violation of its regulations has occurred.
In order to emphasize the need for an applicant to assure that the quality assurance program is being properly executed, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) for the violation set forth in this Notice.
In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 USC 2282 and 10 CFR 2.205, the particular violations and the associated civil penalty are set forth below:
VIOLATION ASSESSED CIVIL PENALTY i
l 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion I, states that construction permit holders are responsible for the establishment and execution of a quality assurance program, that they may delegate this work to others such as contractors, but they retain the responsibility for the program.
Criterion I further states that persons performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems; initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions.
l Brown & Root, Inc. (Brown & Root) is the prime contractor for construction of the Comanche Peak facility and has thus been delegated quality assurance functions by the licensee.
Brown & Root QA Manual describes Quality Control Inspectors as members of the Quality Assurance Division and states that the Quality Assurance Division has been assigned sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems.
Contrary to the above, the Brown & Root Quality Assurance Program did not provide Quality Control Inspectors sufficient organizational freedom to identify quality problems in that a Brown & Root Quality Control Inspector was transferred and discharged on April 12, 1982 for filing nonconformance reports identifying quality problems.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement II) l (Civil Penalty - $40,000) 8310030411 830829 PDR ADOCK 05000445 l
G PDR n'
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Texas Utilities Generating Company is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enfor_ement, USNRC, Washington, D.C., 20555, within 20 days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation, including for the alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Texas Utilities Generating Company may pay the civil penalty in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer.
Should the Texas Utilities Generating Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above.
Should the Texas Utilities Generating Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer may: (1) deny the violation listed in this Notice in whole or in part; (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances; (3) show error in this Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factorr contained in Section IV.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C should be addressed.
Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
The Texas Utilities Generating Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due, which has been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigatec may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$$ bad John T. Collins Regional Administrator Dated at Arlington, Texas this 29 day of August 1983
. -