ML20195E491
| ML20195E491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1986 |
| From: | Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| 1673K, EA-85-099, EA-85-99, NUDOCS 8606090106 | |
| Download: ML20195E491 (3) | |
Text
_
1)CJ
, +6
,\\ Commonw=lth Edison C ) One First National Plaza. Chicago, lihnois O'
Address Rep!y to. Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 June 2, 1986 1
Mr. James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC. 20555
Subject:
Byron Station Unit 1 Order Imposing A Civil Monetary Penalty EA-85-99 NRC Docket No. 50-454 References (a):
October 2, 1985 letter from J.G.
Keppler to J. J. O'Connor (b):
November 21, 1985 letter from C.
Reed J.M. Taylor (c):
May 2, 1986 letter from J.M. Taylor to J.J. O'Connor
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Reference (a) transmitted a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty concerning radiation protection violations which occurred at Byron Station between April and July of 1985.
Commonwealth Edison's response to the Notice of Violation was provided in reference (b).
The response stated that the violations were wrongfully classified as a Severity Level III problem and, at a minimum, the proposed civil penalty should be fully mitigated.
i The NRC's reply to this response is documented in reference (c).
The violations have been reclassified under Supplement IV of the NRC Enforcement Policy and the civil penalty has been mitigated by 50 percent.
In reclassifying the violations under Supplement IV, the NRC has revised the basis for issuing the civil penalty.
I For reasons discussed below, Commonwealth Edison believes the Order imposing the civil penalty is deficient.
The Order violates Commonwealth Edison's right to due process because it imposes a penalty for an alleged violation for which the NRC did not provide proper prior notice to Commonwealth Edison.
Fundamental fairness and the Commission's. regulations require that a licensee be-given an opportunity to respond to an alleged violation before the Commission can impose a civil penalty.
h 8606090106 860602 l
PDR ADOCK 05000454 I
PDR I
O G
'i Since the initial Notice of Violation was not based on a Severity Level III violation under Supplement IV, Commonwealth Edison's original response did not address the correctness of such an alleged violation.
The response addressed the safety significance of the event only because we believed the NRC had not made the regulatory finding necessary to support a Severity Level c
III violation, i.e. a substantial potential that exposures would
(
exceed regulatory limits.
We also expressed our belief that such a finding could not be made, but did not elaborate on that because it was not necessary for responding to the stated basis for the Notice of Violation.
That such a finding is required to support imposing a civil penalty is illustrated by the Notice of Violation issued to Florida Power & Light Company with regard to EA 86-38.
There, a finding of substantial potential for exceeding regulatory limits was based on a worker's entry into a radiation field which exceeded a level of 1 R/hr and which was within a foot of a field of 65-70R/hr.
At Byron, none of the incidents involved fields anywhere near these radiation levels.
Thus, the basis for this civil penalty appears inconsistent with the basis for a comparable penalty in another region.
The appendix accompanying the Order now contends that because all three events occurred in areas with significant radiological hazards, all three events presented the potential for personnel to receive radiation doses in excess of NRC limits.
In
(
addition, it is stated that all three incidents occurred because Byron personnel failed to follow established radiological safety procedures, yet it was concluded that the underlying cause of these events was a lack of adequate control of the radiation safety program.
With respect to these incidents being caused by failures to follow procedures, it has not been shown how that indicates a lack of adequate control of the radiation safety program.
Moreover, it is not clear to us what is meant by " control of the program".
It appears to be an indirect reference to the original Supplement I basis for the ciolation which has since been disavowed by the NRC.
Additionally, since that term does not appear in the Policy Statement, it cannot provide the basis for a Severity Level III violation without a showing of how lack of control of the program is comparable to other lapses which do support a Severity Level III violation.
a
. Although Commonwealth Edison continues to believe the deficiencies described above have resulted in an unfair, unjustified penalty in this case, we have decided to pay the reduced penalty.
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $25,000, payable to the Treasurer of the United States.
Very truly yours, Dennis L.
Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing encl.
cc:
J. G.
Keppler - Region III 1673K i
...,... _. - -.... _ _...