ML20100C471
| ML20100C471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1984 |
| From: | Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| EA-84-059, EA-84-59, NED-84-585, NUDOCS 8412050476 | |
| Download: ML20100C471 (2) | |
Text
hN O
Georgia Power Company 333 Piedmont Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30308
- Tetephone 404 526-7020 Maihng Address.
Post office Box 4545 Atlanta. Georgia 30302 Georgia Power the southem elecinc system J. T. Beckham, Jr.
Vice Prescent and Gereral Manager Nuclear Generation Novmber 27, 1984 Director, Office of Inspection and Enforc sent U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.
20555 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EIMIN I. HA'ICH NUCLEAR PIANT UNITS 1, 2 PAYMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY: EA 84-59
. ATTENI' ION: Mr. J ees M. Taylor, Deputy Director, Office of Inspection and Enforement Gentleen:
Your letter dated Novmber 1,1984, transmitted an " Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty" in the mount of sixty-thousand dollars ($60,000) for the violation designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, EA 84-59. By this letter, we are transitting to you a check for payment thereof in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205.
Although Georgia Power Capany (GPC) is paying the fine as ordered, we go on record as objecting to the imposition of a civil penalty in this case and to the NRC's ~ decision not to mitigate the penalty.
GPC is paying the fine,' rather than requesting further legal review, because we recognize that the application of the enforement policy is a matter within the discretion of the NRC to which reviewing bodies will undoubtedly defer.
'Ihe a; plication of a civil penalty to the subject violation is unnecessary and does not further the objectives of the enforement policy.
'Ite particular facts of the case simply do not rise to the level of potential seriousness that deserves the inclusion of a significant monetary penalty to the enforement action. GPC would clearly have responded to the violation in exactly the see manner had the penalty not beer. imposed.
GPC believes that the NRC should have exercised its discretion not to impose a monetary penalty for this violation.
G lO
- 1. -
=
Geo.rgia Power A Director, Office'of. Inspection and Enforceent U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Carnission Noveber 27, 1984 Page 'IWo Furthermore, GPC does not agree with the NRC response to our penalty mitigation argments. We actual security violation was episodic in nature, and the resultant effect of the violation lasted only slightly more than an
_ hour. In fact, the only actual evidence of the violation are the reports by the persons involved.
Wus,. it does not see material to the concept of prompt reporting whether this event was reported in one hour or eight hours, or wb' ther the situation was reported to the Cmpany by one sployee or four '
eployees. What'is important is that the event was indeed discovered by the licensee and reported the see day, which was certainly sufficient time to
.begin addressing the event. With respect to the NRC's discussion of how the licensee learned of the event, GPC believes it is a matter of the NRC seeing a glass as being half epty rather than half full.. We believe that GPC should have been given credit for the fact of prmpt self-identification.
Sincerely, J. T. Beckham, Jr.
NEB:SCR/mb
Enclosure:
Check for $60,000.00 xc:
L. T. Gucwa H. C. Nix, Jr.
J. P. O'Reilly (NRC-Region II)
~
Senior Resident Inspector i
l
.