ML20137H098

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Imposition of Civil Penalty on Dow Chemical Co for Failure to Properly Protect Facility on 780110, Inappropriate.Noncompliance Can Be Classified No Higher than Infraction Based Upon Encl NRR Position.W/O Encl
ML20137H098
Person / Time
Site: Dow Chemical Company, 05000000
Issue date: 05/19/1978
From: Howard E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20136D183 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-256, FOIA-85-258, FOIA-85-259, FOIA-85-261 NUDOCS 8508280162
Download: ML20137H098 (2)


Text

r

)

w~

/

UNITED STATES

[571

,y t

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

]Q

' clf VF h

5I-

' et.

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 3D NJS j[

g%

filel /I MAY 191978 hB10RANDlN FOR: James G. Keppler, Director Region III FRGl:

E. Morris Howard, Director Division of Safeguards Inspection, IE SUIUECT:

DOW OB!ICAL CGIPANY - RECONENDED CIVIL PENALTY This is in response to your memorandum of March 2,1978 in which you re-comended that a civil penalty be imposed on the DOW Chemical Company for failure to properly protect their TRIGA Reactor on January 10, 1978.

The recomended civil penalty raised generic issues concerning public health and safety and NRC security requirements at non-power reactors.

Correspondence which identified and analyzed these issues was provided J. Hind on April 14, 1978. NRR's fomal written position is attached.

The issues which primarily focused on the potential threat to public health and safety from other than " radiological" sabotage were not addressed by NRR. We will continue our efforts to clearly resolve these remaining issues.

We have detemined that imposition of a civil penalty on DOW Chemical Company, as recommended, is now inappropriate.

Based upon NRR's fomal position, it would appear that nonempliance with physical security re-quirements at non-power reactors of this size and smaller (based on SMI inventory and power level) can be classified no higher than an Infraction.

Although this seriously weakens our ability to enforce and therefore ensure cmpliance, we must continue to inspect and report our findings.

As stated above, we hope to' resolve the issues in the next few months, CONTACT:

L. L. Bush (492-8080)

J-3L E W 3 41978 8508280162 850712

~'

PDR FOIA PDR KOHN85-256

r-

~, ?'

J. G. Keppler either in conjunction with the current development of 73.xx (proposed rule for the physical protection of non-power reactors), or separately.

7. 9.wwg:- L>

f'4E.M.Howard, Director

. Division of Safeguards Inspection Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

As Stated cc: Boyce Grier, Region I James O'Reilly, Region II Glenn Madsen, Region IV Robert Engelken, Region V John Davis, IE Norman Moseley, IE Harold Thornburg, IE Leo Higginbotham, IE Edward Jordan, IE Leonard Cobb, IE Victor Stello, NRR James Miller, hRR e