ML20126D327
| ML20126D327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/10/1980 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Macmillan J BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126D330 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900400 NUDOCS 8004280136 | |
| Download: ML20126D327 (3) | |
Text
g--
M f[..
g
\,
j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
. -r%
j
% 8
%.onesPOT / APR 101980 The Babcock & Wilcox Company Nuclear Power Generation Division ATTH: Mr. J. H. MacMillan Vice President Post Office Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Gentlemen:
~
We have completed our investigations into the matters related to the collection, evaluation, and reporting of knowledge and information available to B&W before the TMI-2 accident involving factors that may have contributed to the accident. ' !
We have also reviewed the relevant information generated by the President's Commission on Three Mile Island and NRC Special Inquiry Group. On the basis of our review, we have concluded that B&W did not have an effective system for collection, review and evaluation, and reporting of important safety informa-tion.
These matters certainly were important to safety based on our present insights
- derived from the THI-2 accident and should have been disseminated to NRC
. r- licensees and reported to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21. It distresses us to note that B&W technical personnel stated that some of these matters should not be reported to NRC licensees or to the NRC because of fear of overreaction on the part of NRC. We will examine further the question of withholding of information from the NRC.
As indicated above, your organization failed to collect, evaluate and report this safety information in a timely manner so that action could have been taken to avoid or reduce the effects of the TMI-2 accident. The provisions of 10 CFR 21 require evaluation and reporting of significant' safety information.
In our view, the implementation of ycur existing procedures and the attitudes ,
of your senior technical personnel did not contribute to accomplishing that l end.
It is important for all firms, such as B&W, subject to Part 21 to be sensitive to the reporting threshold set forth in the regulations. This stems not only from the need to promptly communicate important safety matters to the Commission )
and to affected facilities but also from the need not to report matters lacking j genuine safety significance. Obviously, it would be counterproductive to !
dilute genuine safety matters with matters insignificant to safety. We recognize ;
the need to exercise discrimination to avoid unwarranted reporting, but we do 1 not consider that the instances cited in Appendix A to this letter could I
1 CE'RTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 8004280136
. The Babcock & Wilcox Company APR 101980 reasonablyhahebeenconsideredinsignificant. As can be clearly seen in this #
case we are not asking for unevaluated suspicions that an item is a safety >
matter. In this case the firm had over a year to react to, to evaluate, and to report safety concerns brought forth by key technical personnel.
We believe that you must provide assurance that youchave developed a system for the timely and effective collection, evaluation, and dissemination of significant safety information. This system must ensure the proper under-standing and handling of all requirements in NRC regulations associated with the reporting of matters affecting safe operation of nuclear power plants to '
the NRC. ,
Based on the results of the NRC investigations conducted on May 29, and November 6-8,1979 (copies of both reports are enclosed), and review of the official transcripts of sworn testimony before the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island (copy of Investigation Report dated September 18, 1979 enclosed), it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements as set forth in the Notice of Noncompliance enclosed herewith as Appendix A to this letter. You ,
are required to respond to the Notice of Noncompliance and in preparing your response you should follow the instructions in Appendices A and B. As indicated in Appendix B, we intend to impose civil penalties in the cumulative amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars for the items of noncompliance. ,
J As indicated'in Appendix A to this letter, the noncompliance is considered to be continuing, and the civil penalty is .to be assessed on a daily basis.
December 4', 1978, is considered to be the starting date for the purpose of calculating the civil penalty because it is our judgment that, at least by that date, B&W had in its possession all of the information that should have '
been collated, evaluated and reported. On that date an extended conference call took place with representatives of TVA to discuss B&W's analysis of the small break accident. Furthermore, we believe that that date provides a very generous period of time for B&W to have analyzed and ~ reported on these matters.
l In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, - I Title 10, code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures l will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely )
I l ctor Stello, Jr. h';
Director Office of Inspection 0 and Enforcement l
Enclosures:
(See next page) l k
?
I
Tha Babcock & Wil.ox Company APR 101980
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A, Notice of Noncompliance
- 2. Appendix B, Notice of Proposed 1
. Imposition of Civil Penalties 1
- 3. Investigation Report dated 1 June 26, 1979
- 4. Investigation Report dated January 24, 1980
- 5. Investigation Report dated September 18, 1979 l
i l
1
. . .} -
?
l l
\i 1
l l
e
- - - m y-