ML20138F678

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of Util s Responding to 830722 Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty. Characterization of Violation in Item a Re Jr Floyd Certification of 830722 Notice as Willful Is Correct
ML20138F678
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 10/21/1985
From: Taylor J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: Phyllis Clark
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
References
EA-82-124, NUDOCS 8510250322
Download: ML20138F678 (3)


Text

m 9-%

SCS

. $2c,oq d o

  • , UNITED STATES

.  !" ,, j NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g c W ASHING TON, 0. C. 20555 o  !

\...../ OCT 211965 Docket Nos. 50-289, 50-320 Licensee Nos. DPR-50, DPR -73 EA 82-124 GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. P. R. Clark, President 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Gentlemen:

This refers to three letters dated April 15, 1985 from GPU Nuclear Corporation and Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty sent to you with our letter dated July 22, 1983.

Your April 15, 1985 response referred us to an April 15, 1985 response from Met-Ed, the licensee at the time the violations specified in the Notice of Violation took place, for admission or denial of the violations. I have carefully considered that response and have reached the conclusions set forth below.

In its April 15, 1985 response, Met-Ed admitted the violation set forth in item B of the Notice of Violation. Met-Ed further stated its belief that although violations occurred, they were not as set forth in Item A of the hotice of Violation. Notwithstanding this view, Met-Ed paid the proposed civil penalty but requested modification of Item A to eliminate the characterization of " willful" and mitigation of the civil penalty on the basis that the violation in Item A was not willful.

The basis for the violation cited in Item A of the Notice of Violation was an August 3,1979 letter from the licensee concerning the certification of James R. Floyd and a November 15, 1979 license renewal application from Floyd. Met-Ed focused on the statements in the August 3, 1979 letter regarding the Section A test score, the number of areas of demonstrated weakness reported, and on whether Floyd was actually retested on Category A materials. Met-Ed admits that the August 3,1979 letter contained false information in that it identified only two of the three weak areas in the Operator Requalification Program that required additional training but argues that the false statement was not significant because Floyd was recertified after successful ccmpletion of an Accelerated Requalification Program. This response misses the point in the citation that the recitation of the score as 89.1 on Section A implied that Floyd had done well on that section and did not indicate that he achieved that score by using someone else's work. The citation stated that the omission in the August 3 and November 15, 1979 letters of any reference to the cheating which occurred was material in that the staff would have required additional evidence of retesting on those sections on which Floyd cheated. Therefore, Met-Ed has not convinced us that the violation was not as set forth in Item A of the Notice of Violation.

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECE!PT REQUESTED 0510250322 051021 PDfi ADOCK 05000209 G PDR

y OCT 3. W5 GPU Nuclear Corporation Met-Ed suggests that the infomation in the 01 Report shows that the submission of this false information resulted from delegation of the task of draf ting the

' letter without adequate instruction and also from shortcomings on the part of the Station Manager in reviewing the letter for accuracy and completeness.

Met-Ed argues that the submission was not intentionally made and, therefore, was not " willful".

The NRC staff does not agree with the conclusions that Met-Ed draws from the facts contained in the Of Report. Based on all the information developed in the 0! report, it is clear that the Station Manager was aware that Floyd had cheated on the FSR quizzes and had not, in fact, achieved the score of 89.1 using his own work. Thus, when the Station Nanager signed the letter he knew that the information in it was false. Furthermore, Floyd knew when he signed the November 15, 1979 letter that he had cheated on some part of his operator requalification program. A false statement need not have been made with the intent to deceive to be considered a willful material false statement. If the person making the statement knew at the time it was submitted that it was false, then the statement is a willful material false statement. The staff has concluded that the characterization of the violation as willful was appropriate.

Regarding mitigation of the civil penalty, the NRC finds no basis for such action. The violation involved a willful material false statement by senior plant managers. As stated in the NRC's July 22, 1983 letter to the licensee, the purpose of the civil penalty is to emphasize the need for complete and accurate communication with the Comission.

For the above reasons, I have determined that the characterization of the violation as willful in Item A of the July 22, 1983 Notice of Violation is correct and that mitigation of the proposed civil penalty paid on behalf of GPU Nuclear Corporation by Met-Ed on April 15, 1985 is not appropriate.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Sincerely, d

, u .h b mes M. Taylo lWrector ffice of Ins ction and Enforcement v

Copy to:

F. J. Smith, Met-Ed

. s 007 21 Egg GPU Nuclear Corporation Distribution:

Distribution J. Taylor, IE R. Vollmer, IE J. A. Axelrad. IE B. Snyder, NRR W. Travers, NRR E. Holler, IE W. Russell, NRR T. Murley, RI J. Lieberman, ELD PDR LPDR DCS IE:ES File IE:EA File

..r! f s ' >.e ,e cb 4 IE:ES ELD [r 1 NRR

. Ih I .

EHoller JLieberman WRussell elrad R6 er Ja or 10/'//85 10/p'/85 10/7 /85 )0/ 0/85 10/[0/85 1 /,7 /85 0

-_