ML20198B148
| ML20198B148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1984 |
| From: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198B117 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-584, FOIA-86-A-8, FOIA-86-A-8E 2.206, 20206, NUDOCS 8605210542 | |
| Download: ML20198B148 (1) | |
Text
b l
(#
,[ O C f c,o o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION umN,,
r e,y,
)
101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
et ATLANTA', GEORGI A 30323
'+
NOV 0 51984
+
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:
James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
ENFORCEMENT ACTION REQUEST, DUKE POWER COMPANY I have enclosed a draft of the recomended response to GAPS letter of September 27, 1984, to you. That letter, as you know, is being treated as a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
LO ' h '
I
%ames P. O'Reilly
Enclosure:
i Recomended Response to GAP
~
cc w/ encl:
V. Stello, DEDROGR f J. Lieberman, R0ED G. Johnson, ELD 8605210542 860505 PDR R86-A-BE U-3 x
,g.. w m.a ~
\\
R2 %,5
p tsop UNITED ST ATES g'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,. g casamu 5
tensAnseTTAsrassv.m.w.
7 ATtamva,esono:A 30303 AUG 3 01983 Regional Office Instruction No. 0912 Rev. 2 EVALUATION OF VIOLATIONS INVOLVING ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ACTION A.
Purpose:
To inform the staff of procedures to be followed when issues arise, during _
an inspection or as a consequence of an event at a facility, that appear to warrant comprehensive enforcement actions such as issuance of a Confirmation of Action 1.etter or institution of escalated enforcement proceedings.
B.
Ofscussion:
When substantive findings are revealed during an inspection or following an event at a licensed facility, the Region must take steps to assure that the licensee's corrective action is comprehensive and that it addresses the apparent basic issues. Unless'such steps are taken, the Reg ~ ion will in fact
- ~
be sharing responsibility, by passive concurrence, in corrective actions that may be superficial or inadequate.
_l While it is recognized that the licensee bears the primary responsibility for corrective actions, the Region cannot fail to recognize its shared obligation.
Inadequate corrective action by a licensee should be viewed as e
an adverse reflection on the performance of the Regional staff as well.
The
(
Regional staff directly and indirectly concurs in corrective actions in that they are aware of them or accept them.
We must not only assure that the licensee's corrective actions are sound and comprehensive; but, of equal importance, we must assure that our enforcement response is incisive ~and prompt. Our actions must follow swiftly and deliberately; imposition of escalated sanctions on a licensee months after the commission of a significant violation is unacceptable. The effective-l ness of escalated enforcement actions in assuring continued compliance is substantially enhanced when actions are timely. -This can only be accom-plished by coordination of information between divisional personnel and the Regional Enforcement Specialist.
~
If a licensee has taken comprehensive and effective actions to correct a violation and to prevent its recurrence several months before receiving our Notice of Violation, it may appear to the licensee, and to third parties, l
that the NRC's concern for health and safety is commensurate wi.th its tardy reaction. Additionally, these delayed thrusts (escalated enforcement actions) by the NRC frustrate the licensee's ongoing programs, cause over-reaction by his staff, and project a ponderously bureaucratic image of the NRC.
To prevent such situations from being caused by staff delcys, the actions outlined below are to be followed whenever findings are identified which appear to call for escalated enforcement.
~
\\
/!
~
Q.-
Q
y E-Region'al Office Instruction 2
No. 0912, Rev. 2 C.
Action:
1.
Immediate Actions to be taken upon discovery of a significant' finding:
a.
When the need for comprehensive corrective actions and/or esca-lated enforcement is identified by an inspector or other regional personnel, the cognizant Section Chief shall be notified immediately.
Telephone notification to the Region by the inspec-Oor before the end of the inspection should be made as soon as the essential information is obtained.
It is imperative that regional management, including the enforcement staff, have early knowledge of this type event to ensure timely and proper action is taken.
b.
The responsible Section Chief shall brief the cognizant Division Director and the enforcement' staff as soon as practicable after the details of a significant finding are made known to him.
2.
The responsible Division Director will establish a meet ~1ng'as scon as
- ~
practicable to review the issue. This meeting will involve, at a minimum, the following individuals:
a.
Division Director b.
Cognizant Branch Chief e
c.
Cognizant Section Chief
~
d.
Enforcement Specialist e.
Other members of the regional technical staff with expertise in 1
areas related to the nature of the findings (the selection of these staff members should be done with the broadest possible perspective to assure that the views of a wide spectrum of disciplines are brought to bear on the issues involved).
- f. If a power reactor is irvolved, a PRP Division representative will i
attend the meeting.
3.
The purRase' of this meet %3 i-che following:
a.
Identify the immediate ccrrective actions required by the Region in terus of. Confirmation of Action Letter or other mechanisms to give reasonable assurance.that a recurrence will not take place; tr4 which are appropriate given the circumstances and the apparent seriousness of the problem.
b.
Give preliminary consideration to the identification of appro-priate longer term corrective actions that may be appropriate.
(It should be noted that the primary purpose for this group is to assure that the Region has a proper perspective upon which to base
?
z
AUG 3 01983 Reg 16nal Office Instructica 3
No. 0912, Rev. 2 recommendations to the Regional Administrator for the establish-ment of prompt corrective actions hy the licensee and escalated enforcement to be taken.)
c.
Identify those additional issues about which more must be known, including additional inspection effort if required, to establish a l
proper perspective within which to evaluate the findings for the application of escalated enforcement.
4.
After the Division Director has formulated his recommendations, the Enforcement Director will brief the Office of I&E and obtain recom-mendations or comments from the Director, Enforcement Staff, IE. The Regional Administrator will then be-briefed by the Division Director and Enforcement Director on the views and recommendations of the Regional Staff.
5.
If concurrence is obtained from the Regional Administrator, the
- ^
cognizant Division Director will then be responsible for coordinating actions and resources to (1) obtain the necessary additional informa-tion, (2) get the report prepared, and (3) provide the enforcement specialist with a copy of the draf t inspection report, when the report is submitted for divisional concurrence by the inspector.
6.
These actions will facilitate the timely issuance of the enforcement package. The package typically cont'ains an enforcement letter and
(.,
notice of violati,on with a proposed imposition of civil penalty, together with the inspection report and its letter of transmittal.
Note:
Supplemental information which may change the perspective that should be applied to the event will be brought to the attention of the Regional Administrator.
D.
Contact:
Questions or comments regarding this Instruction should'be directed to the Deputy Regional Administrator at extension 5610.
E.
Effective Date:
This Instruct'I~on is effective upon issuance and replaces Regional Office l
Instruction No. 0912, Rev. 1 issued on September 7, 1982.
g ames P. O'Reilly gional Administrat Distribution List A t
j i
~,
i I
e
w.
p
'ILEALREADYMADE B4-Licensee ___
F C A TA #--
t'*KE A liEi FILE Date 1/ EA E4 -9)
DP E4 -
MA 64 -
FREVIOUSLY C01 TROLLED
! C0!iTROL
]Assignto: 0
$D w
1 Due date; WA4 FILE AT
// COPIES FOR:
V Lieberman SS RH KC LC SC ALL J
Reviewer ROUTE TO:
Cunning ham /Murr ay 53 RH KC LC SC ALL Regional Counsel (!
)
I II III IV V
ALL AFTER ROUTIliE:
Ciastead FILE Ragan EETURN TD s'
Chris te nbury Axeirad h40.x)dL'A4h 0$Y gg9399 COPME:'TS:
l~N James Lieberman G0 Tz E & s f 5 - 5 N AA ^ A a
w
Wh j
Licensee fish to:
Betty and Reviewer
&'j k_
f 17 gf s
e Please MAKE a new FILE ASSIGN EA i g
FILE ORIGINAL IN:
[/
[k T]
fGKE COPIES FOR:
ELD ( LIESERMAN)
Reviewer (2 copies)
V AXELRAD d
DeYoung v'
Tayior
/
- Jordan
/
- Grace J
- Gacliardo
- D. Chapell(NP.SS)
- E. Case (NP.R)
- W. Eaass Assign to:
1_
MOOm Special Instructions:
Thank You, Jane A. Axelrad For Information:
If you have comments, please contact reviewer or Axelrad within five days if at all possible.
I
.u.:.vv..s.v
.m.m.,
r..,.x g,.,,
Nueco UNITED STATES y~
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- t
?,
WASHINGTON D.C.20555 yo, j
~%,*****/y
.g gg W Docket No. 50-413/50-414 Mr. Albert V. Carr, Jr.
Duke Power Company Legal Department P.O. Box 33189 IN RESPONSE REFER
, Charlotte, NC 28242 TO F01A-85-584
Dear:
Mr. Carr:
This is the fifth partial response to your letter dated August 19, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Infonnation Act (FOIA), copies of all records related to and underlying Enforcement Action No. EA-84-93 regarding the Catawba Nuclear Station.
The document identified on the enclosed Appendix T is being placed in the Public Document Room in Washington, DC, and the NRC Local Public Document Room in South Carolina.
f.,
The records identified on the enclosed Appendix U are being denied in their entirety because they contain predecisional information consisting of advice, opinions and recommendation of the staff. Disclosure would inhibit the frank and candid exchange of communications in future deliberations and thus would not be in the public interest. This predecisional information is being withheld pursuant to Exemption (5) of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(5) of the Comission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the NRC's regulations, it has been determined that the infonnation withheld is exempt from production or disclosure and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and Mr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, RII.
k a)
- l
m,...
Mr. Albert V. Carr, Jr. This denial may be appealed to the NRC's Executive Director for Operations
_within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. A,s provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."
We will communicate with you further regarding additional records related to your FOIA request.
Sincerely, MY.*
D Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated
(*
r-
'Re: F01A-85-584
~(Fifth Response)
APPENDIX T Released Record-
_,.r 1.
. 11/28/84-Memorandum-from~dishinski to Eisenhut
Subject:
Status of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Partial Initial Decis' ion Requirements for Catawba Nuclear Station.
(1 page) 4 4
)e
r :;:
..._s
- ....,s.:
,..~..i.,,~.~....,..~-ss.-~.
- ~ ~. = ~.. ~ ~ ~. ~. - - -. ~. - ~ _ _. ~ _,., ~ ~.,.,,.
Re: FOIA-85-584 (Fifth Response)
APPENDIX U Records Denied in Entirety - Exemption 5 1.
07/13/84 Memo from O'Reilly to DeYoung,
Subject:
Section 2.206 Request on Catawba filed by Robert Guild w/ enclosure:
Changes 'to letter to Mr. Guild.
(2 pages) 2.
09/12/84 Memo from Puckett to Axelrad,
Subject:
Severity Level III Violation - Duke Power Company (
References:
ASLBP #81-463-060:
NRC 01 Case No. 2-83-038; And Inspection Report Nos.
50-413/84-79 and 50-414/84-34).
(1 page) 3.
11/05/84 Memo from O'Reilly to DeYoung,
Subject:
Enforcement Action Request, Duke Power Company (1 page) w/ enclosure: Letter to Ms. Garde (5 pages) and Attachment, Appendix A, RIII Communications Concerning Welder "B" Issue.
(2 pages) 4.
12/13/84 Memo from O'Reilly to Taylor,
Subject:
Proposed Catawba Enforcement Action (2 pages) w/ enclosures:
a.
08/30/83 Evaluation of Violations Involving Escalated Enforcement Action.
(3 pages) b.
12/13/84 Memo from Region II to 0'Reilly,
Subject:
Proposed Civil Penalty.
(3 pages) 5.
04/26/85 Memo from Grace to Taylor,
Subject:
Proposed Enforcement Action and 2.206 Response on Harassment at Catawba.
(2 pages) 6.
Undated Routing slip with attachments:
a.
Draft memo from Puckett to Axelrad,
Subject:
Severi ty Level III Violation - Duke Power Company.
(2 pages) b.
Draft letter to Duke Power. Company,
Subject:
Notice of Violation Involving Illegal Protected Activity Discrimination.
(5 pages) c.
Draft Notice of Violation to Duke Power Company.
(2 pages) d.
Draft Report Nos. 50-413/84-79 and 50-414/84-34 Catawba 1 and 2.
(14 pages)
~ ~ - ' - ~
~ ~ - - - - - - -.
A J
Duxu Pownn Goulwxy LEGAL DEPARTMENT c,2v2 e on.ere,u.s.
MJ,"/,' c".0"f."' "' '"
P. O.13ox como
-m 2570
- "It%C o'."*s"U"s.
GH AHLOTTE. N. G. uneae
"/"I^"Xc"ET.lo o"."s a C"a";t'":"E.~
" '. * *". o; ug v c,.gs,.
August 19, 1985 E010 ' I.E^."' '"
FREE)0M OF WFORMADON ACT REQUEST fo.Q $2Y J. M. Felton, Director
[g h bd Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re:
Freedom of Information Act Request Regarding Enforcement Action EA 84-93
Dear'Mr. Felton:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC S552) and the NRC's implementing regulations thereunder (10 CFR S9.3 et seq.) I hereby request on behalf of Duke Power Company all documents related to and underlying Enforcement Action No. EA 84-93 being taken against Duke Power Company.
This enforcement action is reflected in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty issued August 13, 1985.
This request extends not only to all relevant documents at NRC Headquarters relating to the enforcement action and the events surrounding Mr.
Gary E.
" Beau" Ross, but also to all such documents within NRC Region II including any such documents reflecting any communications between Region II and NRC Headquarters. This request includes, but is not limited to, all documents reflecting, underlying, or otherwise relevant to:
1.
Any communications between NRC employees and/or representatives and members and/or representatives of Palmetto Alliance, the Government Accountability Project and/or any other outside group or individual concerning possible enforcement action based on the events surrounding Mr.
Ross and/or the concerns expressed by the welding inspectors at Catawba Nuclear Station, and/or alleged harassment and/or intimidation of any quality control / quality assurance inspector at the Catawba Nuclear Station.
2.
The June 4, 1985 Director's Decision (DD-85-9), including alternative drafts or proposals, and including all documents reflecting any independent fact-finding investigation conducted by NRC in connection with the enforcement action or concerning Mr. Ross.
3.
Any decision to engage or not to engage in any independent fact-finding in connection with the enforcement action and Mr.
Ross.
4.
Deliberations regarding whether the record developed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was adequate to support a finding of discrimination within the meaning of 42 USC 55851 and/or 10 CFR 550.7.
This request also extends to any documents reflecting deliber tions w e er the
.. _,..,,,,........... ~
. 's. '
J. M.'Felton, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 19, 1985 Page two record developed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was adequate to support the Board's finding of discrimination.
5.
Deliberations regarding the appropriate severity level to be assigned the alleged violation.
6.
Any communications between representatives of the NRC and representatives of the Department of Labor relating to this enforcement action or the events surrounding Mr. Ross.
7.
The Commission's decision not to review D0-85-9, including documents underlying and reflecting the majority votes 'of Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Bernthal and Asselstine, and documents underlying and reflecting the dissenting views of Commissioners Roberts and Zech.
8.
The August 13, 1985 Notice of Violation including alternative drafts or proposals.
9.
The August 13, 1985 Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, including alternative drafts or proposals.
I would appreciate your prompt response to this request within the ten I
working day period provided in 10 CFR 59.9.
Duke Power Company's deadline for responding to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.is September 12, 1985.
The documents I am requesting could well prove to be significant to that response.
Accordingly, I hope that this request will be met as expeditiously as possible.
If you cannot meet this request within the period set out in the regulations, please notify me as soon as possible, and tell me when you will be able to respond.
Sincerely, i
.c Albert V [arr, Jr.
c: James N. Taylor Jane A. Axelrad i
s