ML20198J846
| ML20198J846 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198J816 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801140225 | |
| Download: ML20198J846 (165) | |
Text
1 4
=
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT T
Fiscal Year 1997 4
C N10109 Commission hhhh j3, PDp
- CONTENTS -
Ce nt ent s.........................................................
1 A bs t r act........,................................................. y Overview of NRC Enforcement Program...................................
vil Office of Enforcement.............
.................................lx 1.
Enforcement Policy Changes...................................
1 A.
October 11, 1996: Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties..............
1 B.
October 18, 1996: Departures From the FSAR......................
1 C.
December 10, 1996: Commission Consultation; Open Enforcement Conferences; NCVs; Risk.................................... 1 4
D.
December 10, 1996: Part 20, Exceedance of Dose Constraints............ 2 E.
December 26,1996: Correction to Exercise of Dkcretion............... 2 F.
February 12, 1997: Gaseous Diffusion Plants; NRC Organizational Changes; Commission Consultation
............,................2 G.
March 24,1997: Participation in Predecisional Enforcement Conferences involving Discrimination..............,.........,... 2 H.
May 28,1997: Part 34, Radiography, Examples of Potential Violations........................................ 2 1.
June 19,1997: Editorial Corrections 3
J.
Octohr 8.1997: Clarification on Release of 01 Repons Associated With Conferences Involving Discrimination and Role of the Complainant.................................. 3 2.
Implementation, Staff Guidance, & Initiatives.....................
.3 A.
Continuation of Sescrity Level Review
...........................3 B.
Two-Year Review of the Enforcement Policy
..... 3 C.
NRC Enforcement hianual Change Notices..............
.4 D.
Enforcement Guidance Memoranda (EGMs)........................4 E.
Enforcement Training...........
.. 6 F.
NRC Er.forcement hianual on the LAN........................... 6 G.
Enforcement Information on the Intemet
.6
.i.
iiii i
3.
Escalated Enforcement and Administrative items................... 7 A.
Escalated Notices of Violation (Without Civil Penalties)................. 8 B.
. Civil Penalty Actions.......................................
8 -
C.
O rd ers................................................ 9 -
D.
Denwxis for Information.................................... 9 E.
Summary of Significant Actions................................ 9 F.
Enforcement Trends.................
14 4.
Cases involving Exercise of Discretion...........................
15 S.
Actions Against Individuals & Other Non-Licensed Persons...........
16 A.
Actions Against Licensed Individuals............................
16 B.
Actions Against Non-Licensed Individuals 17 C.
Actions Against Non-Licensed Persons Other Than individuals....................................
17 6.
Cases Involving Discrimination................................
17 7.
Hearing A ctivities..........................................
17 8.
10 CFR 2.206 Petitions......................................
17
_w
- TABLES --
~ 1. <
Escalated Enforcement items and Dernands for Information...... :.... -._,,...... f19-2.-
Escalated Enforcement items by Type of Licensee, Vetidor, or Individual..,.... -.-,. - 21
- 3. -
1 Civil Penalty Information.... -._........ -..-.............. -...........
23 :-
4.L Civil Penalty Ranges -. -...... _... _...... :.................:,... _..... _. f 25 5.-
2 Year Escalated item History for Reactor Sites,. '............-............. 27
[
- FIGURES -
L 1.1 Analysis of Escalated items Processed Under Civil Penalty Assessment Process........................ -...........
31
[2.5 Analysis of Escalated Reactor items Processed Under
- Civil Penalty Assessment Process...................................
33 3.-
1 Analysis of Escalated Materials items Processed Under Civil Penalty Assessment Process -...................................
35 4.
Civil Penalty Process - Path A.....................................
37 5.
Civil Penalty Proce ss - Path B.....................................
39
- _6.
Civil Penalty Process - Path C................ -,....................
41
- 7. -
Civil Penalty Process - Path D. :....................................
43 8.
Civil Penalty Proc ess - Path E.....................................
45 9.
Civil Penalty Process - Path P.....................................
47
-10..
Civil Penalty Process - Path G...............................,...... 49
-11.
- Civil Penalty Process - Path H.....................................
51 12, - - Civil Penalty Process - Path l....................................
53 13.
Civil Penalty Process - Path J.....................................
55
-14.
- Civil Penalty Process - Path K.....................................
57 15.
Civil Penalty Pro:ess - Path L....................................
59
- til -
- - - ~ _. -. _ - _ - - - _ - _.. _. - -
1 t
APPENDICES -
1 i
A.
. Summary of Escalated Nodces of Viohtion (Without Civil Penalties) 61
- B.
' Summary of Proposed Civil Penalties.:.,.... -...................... '.,. 83 -
C.
Sununary of Orders 107-D.
Sununary bf Demands for Information '..........................'...... Ii1 i
E.
Summary of Cases involving Exercise of Discretion....................... I13 F.
Summary of Actions Against Licensed Individuals.......................
135 '
G.
Summary of Actions Against Non-Licensed Individuals..,.................. 137
'H.
Summary of Actions Against Non-Licensed Persons 4
Other Than individuals.......................................
149
^
'l~
Summary of Cases involving Discrimination.
151-
- J.-
Sununary of Hearing Activity..........................,.......,. ' 153 K.
Summary of 10 CFR 2.206 Activity................................
155 4
. lv.
-<-em+
--,,,--r-
- w
Abstract
+
Ihis annual report of the U.S. Niichar Regulatory Commission's Office of Enforcement describes enforcement activities occurring during fiscal year 1997 (October 1,1996 through September 30,1997). The report addresses significant policy changes, highlights significant enforcement actions, and includes summaries of cases involving exercise of discretion, discrimination and - actions involving individuals.
It also : addresses implementation, staff guidance, and initiatives for the agency's enforcement program.
A variety of statistical tables and figures are also included.
4 6
enelle
V
l
}
1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
. vi.
!bverview of NRC Enforcement Program
'the Commission has developed an enforcement program and Enforcement Policy to support the NRC's overall safety mission in protecting the public and the environment. Consistent with that purpose, enforcement action should be u.ed as a deterrent to emphasize the importance of compliance with regulatory requirements, and to encourage prompt identification and prompt, comprehensive correction of violations.
Violations are identified through inspections and investigations. All violations are subject to civil enforcement action and may also be subject to criminal prosecution. After an apparent violation is identified, it is assessed in accordance with the Commission's Enforcement Policy. The Policy is published as NUREG-1600, " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Erforcement Actions,"
to provide widespread dissemination. Because it is a policy statement and not a rerilation, the
-Commission may deviate from this statement of policy and procedure as appropriate undet the circumstances of a particular case.
There are three primary enforcement sanctions available: Notices of Violation, civil penalties, and orders. A Notice of Violation (NOV) identifies a requirement and how it was violated, and formalizes a violation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201.
A civil penalty is a monetary fine issued under authority of Section 234 of the Atomic Ene gy Act (AEA) or Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA).
Section 234 of the AEA provides for penalties of up to $110,000 per violation per day. The Commission's order issuing authority under Section 161 of the AEA b broad and eatends to any area of licensed activity that affects the public heahh and safety. Orders modify, suspend, or revoke licenses or require specific actions by licensees or persons. As a result of a rulemaking in 1991, the Conunission's regulations now provide for issuing orders to persons who are not themselves licensed. NOVs and civil penalties are issued based on violations. Orders may be issued for violations, or in the absence of a violation, because of a public health or safety issue.
The first step in the enforcement process is assessing the severity of the violation. Severity Levels range from Severity Level 1, for the most significant violations, to Severi:y Level IV for those of more than minor concern Minor violations are not subject to formal enforcement action. Severity levels may be increased for cases involving a group of violations with the same root cause, repetitive violations, or willful violations.
A-predecisional enforcement conference is normally conducted with a licensee before making an enforcement decision if escalated enforcement action (i.e., Severity Level 1,11, or 111 violations, civil penalties or orders) appears to be warranted, and if the NRC concludes that it is necessary or the licensee requests it. If the NRC concludes that a conference is not necessary, it will normally provide a licensee with an opportunity to respond to the apparent violations before making an enforcement decision. The purpose of the conference is to obtain information that will assist the NRC in determining the appropriate enforcement action, such as: (1) a common understanding of facts, root causes and missed opportunities associated with the apparent violations, (2) a common understanding of corrective action taken or planned, and (3) a common understanding of the significance of issues and the need for lasting comprehensive corrective action. The decision to hold a conference does not mean that the agency has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, conferences are normally open to public observation.
- vil -
i l
Civil penalties are considered for Severity Level til violations and are normally assessed for Severity Level I and 11 violations and knowing and conscious violations of the reporting requirements of Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act.
The NRC imposes different levels of civil penalties based on a combination of the type of licensed activity, the type of licensee, the severny level of the violation, and (1) whether the licensee has had any previous escalated enforcement action (regardless of the actWity area) during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, whichever is longer; (2) whether the licensee should be given credit for actims related to identification; (3) whether the licensee's corrective actions are prompt and comprehensive; and (4) whetl.er, in view of all the circumstances, the matter in question requires the exercise of discretion.
Although each of these decisional points may have several associated considerations for any given case, the outcome of the assessment process for each violation or problem, absent the exercise of discretion, is limited to one of the following three results: no civil penalty, a base civil penalty, or twice the base civil penalty, if a civil penalty is to be proposed, a written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty is issued and the licensee has 30 days to respond in writing, by either paying the penalty or contesting it. The NRC considers the response, and if the penalty is contested, may either mitigate the penalty or impose it by order. Thereafter, the licensee may pay the civil penalty or request a hearing, in addition to civil penalties, orders may be used to modify, suspend, or revoke licenses. Orders may require additional corrective actions, tmch as removing specified individuals from licensed activities or requiring additional controls or outsib audits. Persons adversely affected by orders that modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or that take 'her action may request a hearing.
The NRC issues a press release with a proposed civil penalty or order. All orders are published in the Federal Register.
9
- vili -
j
u-;
i Office of Enforcement The Office of Enforcement (OE)-exercises oversight of NRC enforcement programs, provides programmatic and inw!ementation direction to regional and headquarters offices conducting or involved in enforcement activities, and ensures that regional enforcement programs are adequately carrkd out.
The Omce of Enforcement repons to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) through the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness.
The Office of Enforcement has 12 full-time employces (FTEs) assigned for headquaners activities and
- 8 FTEs assigned for regional activities (although these FTEs report to the Regional Administrators),
k i
e 4
- lx -
~.
.a..
a,a.
,~am...a.s,u.+_mn~~+
.4+.
~
s-.
4
^s r
. I p
k h
t
> \\' T,
i i
- ,+
,',f m
,EE h
t
, -. ' +
f w
e
=
w
- I e
+
6 i
?
3
- f a
i g
4 h
l 1
.9 h
e 4
i b'
a Er S
a e
i s
h.
9' b'
4' 5
E i
4
'i t
- i. 7 9.
I "r
a
'wr.
W'I w-d
&#r 4 u w-i ' s W
-g M
'z-ypy gr'
-t mvf-T---Tt9-'&'Mi-N-
- 'afm'M 19 9-'7'#f-T" f'eF*
1 1
'b
OE Annual Report 1.
Enforcernent Policy Changes This section describes the 10 revisions to the Enforcement Policy that were made during fiscal year 1997.
A.
October 11,1996: Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties (61 FR 53557)
On September 27, 1996, the Commission approved amending the regulations to adjust the maximum amounts of civil penalties under statutes within the jurisdiction of the NRC. The changes were mandated by Congress in the Federal Civil Penalties inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. The Commission also approved conforming changes to the Enforcement Policy such that the nuximum penalty amount was increased to $110,000 per violation per day and the civil penalty amounts in Table 1 A were increased by 10%. These changes were subsequently published in the Federal Register on October 11, 1996, and were effective on November 12, 1996.
i B.
October 18,1996: Departures From the FSAR (61 FR 54401)
On October 18,1996, the Commission published revisions to the Enforcement Policy to address departures from the FSAR in violation of 10 CFR 50.59 and for failures to update the FSAR in i
violation of 10 CFR 50.71(c). The revision provides more guidance in categorizing violations by severity level and more guidance concerning the effect of corrective action, reporting requirements, and old design issues. The changes are intended to encourage licensety to voluntarily take the inhiative to identify and correct FSAR discrepancies that might be identified through current surveillance and quality assurance activities.
C.
December 10, 1996:
Commission Consultation; Open Predecisional Enforcement Conferences; NCVs; Risk (61 FR 65088)
On December 10, 1996, the Commission published revisions to the Enforcement Policy that addressed four issues. The first modification revised the list of enforcement matters on which the NRC staff must consult with the Commission Based on experience in implementing the Policy Section 111 of the Policy was modified to reduce the number of situations on which the staff must consult with the Commission prior to taking action. The second modification revised the Policy to provide that most predecisional enforcement conferences will be open to public observation. The decision to modify Section V of the Policy came at the end of a trial program that began on July 10, 1992, that provided for conducting approximately 25 percent of all conferences open for public observation. The third modification clarified the circumstances in which a licensee-identified violation will be treated as a Non-Cited Violation. The criterion in Section VII.B.l(a) was modified by Aleting the reference to licensee-identification through an event to make it clear that use of dis.W. ion is not automatic if the violation is identified through an event. The forth modification included additional guidance that stated that risk was an appropriate consideration in developing enforcement sanctions.Section IV was modified to state that in considering the significance of a violation, that risk is an appropriate consideration.
Section Vll.A.l(e) was also modified to state that exercise of discretion shofd be considered in situations where the violation has resulted in substantial increase in risk, including cases in which the duration of the violation has contributed to the substantial increase.,
OE Annual Report D.
December 10, 1996:
Part 20, Exceedance of Dose Constraints i
On Deceraber 10,1996, the Commission published a revision to the Enforcement Policy that reDected 'he Commission's final rule amending 10 CFR Part 20 to add i 20.1101(d), that t
establishes the requirements for reportit., and taking corrective action. Supplement IV of the Policy was modified to add an example of a violation categorized at Severity Level IV involving the failure to remrt an exceedance of the dose constraint established in i 20.110lM), or failure to take corret <e action for an exceedance.
E.
December 26, 3)6: Correction to Exercise of Discretion (61 FR 68070)
On December 26, 1996, the Commission published a correction to the revision of the Enforcement Policy that was published on December 10, 1996, involving Commission consultation. This correction modified Section Vil to reDect the appropriate policy as to notification to the Conmssion when the staff exercised discretion in enforcement matters.
F.
February 12, 1997:
Gaseous D((fusion Plants; NRC Organizational Changes; Commission Consultation (62 FR 06677)
On February 12,1997, the Commission published revisions to the Enforcement Policy that were consistent with the Commission's final rule amending regulations governing Gaseous Diffusion Piants (GDPs). Table 1A was modified to add GDPs to category "a," such that the base civil penalty for a Severity Level I violation at a GDP would be $110,000 and Supplement VI was modified to provide additional examples for categorizing severity levels of violations. In addition, the Policy was amended to reflect recent FRC organizational changes. The changes redesignate which NRC officials are delegated the responsibility for performing certain enforcement functions. Section !!! was modified to clarify that Commission consultation was appropriate if the staff proposed to impose a civil peaalty for a single violation orproblem that is greater than 3 times the Severity Level t value shown in Table 1 A for that class of licensee.
G, March 24,1997: Panicipation in Predecisional Enforcement Conferences involving Discrimination (62 FR 13906)
On March 24,1997, the Commission published revisions to the Enforcement Policy regarding predecisional envrcement conferences that are based on findings of discrimination. For appropriate cases, the revision allows some degree of participation by the complainant in the predec!sional enforcement conference.
11.
May 28,1997: Part 34, Radiography, Examples of Potential Violations (62 FR 28974)
On May 28,1997, the Commission published revisions to the Enforcement Policy that were consistent with the Commission's final rule amending 10 CFR Part 34. Supplement VI of the Policy was revised to add examples for categorizing the significance of violations of 10 CFR Part 34, Licensees for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requiremems for Radiographic Operations.
2 w
OE Annual Regxw1 1,
June 19,1997: Editorial Corrections (62 FR 33447)
On June 19, 1997, the Commission published a correct' a to the revision of the Enforcement Policy that was published on May 28,1997, involving extaples of violations of 10 CFR Part 34.
The correction was necessary to correct paragraph numbering and removing unnecessary language.
1, October 8,1997: Clarification on Release of Of Reports Associated With Conferences involving Discrirnination and Role of the Cornplainant (62 FR 52577)
On October 8,1997, the Commission published a revision to the Enforcement Policy that clarified the procedures associated with predecisional enforcement conferences based on repons of the NRC Office of Investiptiom (01) associated with discrimination. On March 24,1997, the Conunission published changes to the Enforcement Policy concerning predecisional conferences based on discrimination. Consistent with the Statement of Consideration for those changes,Section V of the Policy was modified to reflect that the 01 report may be made public.
Also, additional language was added to clarify that the purpose of the complainant's participation in a conference is to provide information to the NRC to assist the staff in its deliberations.
2, implementation, Staff Guidance, & Initiatives This section addresses implementation initiatives and changes during fiscal year 1997, including a 2 year review of the Enforcement Policy, staff guidance and training, and availability of enforcement information on the internet.
A. Continuation of Severity Level Review in PS, the staff initiated a review of the severity level examples in the supplements of the Enforcement Policy. The purpose of the review was to ensure that the examples were appropriately focused on safety significance, including consideration of actual safety consequence, potential safety cu 'equence, and regulatory significance, he to staffing constraints in OE, this review has not been completed. OE intends to continue its review efforts on this initiative.
B, IWo-Year Review of the Enforcernent Policy On June 30,1995, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a complete revision of the Enforcement Policy (60 FR 34381), in approving the 1995 revision to the Enforcement Policy, the Conunission directed the staff to perform a review of its implementation of the Policy after approximately 2 years of experience and to consider public comments.
OE issued a Fedeml Register notice on February 5,1997, to solicit public commenu on the 1995 revisions to the Enforcement Policy. The agency received three responses, including: (1) a response from the Nuclear Energy Institut.:(NEI) (2) a response from members of the Region IV 3
l
OE Annual Report Utility Group (RUG IV), and (3) a response on behalf of the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR). In addition, subsequent to the conunent period, the agency received a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) on September 9,1997, recommending that the agercy perform a review of the Enforcement Policy aimed at (1) curtailing its. 'bjectivity (i.e., improving consistency), and (2) improving the timeliness for enforcement actions. Although the UCS request was made beyond the comment period, the staff considered UCS's mmments within its review of the Enforcement Policy. OE was fmalizing its review at the end of the fiscal year.
C NRC Enforcement Manual Change Notices Because the enforcement process changes from time to time, the NRC Eqforcement Manual (Manual) was designed to incorporate future supplements through the issuance of Change Notices.
During fiscal year 1997. OE issued one Change Notice to the Manual.
Change Notice No.3 was issued in November 1996, and included the incorporation cf five Enforcement Guidance Memoranda that addressed issues such as the maintenance rule, steam gercrator tube inspections, the change in civil penalty amounts, and enforcernent issues associated with the FSAR.
D, Enforcement Guidance Memoranda (EGMs)
The normal method for the Director. OE, to issue additional enforcement guidance is through the issuance of an EGM. EGMs may add guidance for Enforcement Policy application, revise existing guidance on processing enforcement actions, or transmit temporary guidance.
1 Eighteen EGMs were issued in fiscal year 1997.
EQM 96 004 was issued on October 21, 1996, to highlight modifications to the Enforcement Policy that addressed increases in the civil penalty amounts.
EGM 96-005 was issued on October 21, 1996, to highlight modifications to the Enforcement Policy that addressed licensee departures from the Final Safety Analysis Renort (FSAR).
EGM 97-001 was issued on January 13, 1997, to highlight modificauons to the Enforcement Policy that addressed vioations of new regulations on control of altborne effluents of radioactive material (61 FR 65120).
EGM 97 002 was issued on February 5,1997, to provide guidance concerning failure of an Agreement State licensee to file with the NRC for reciprocity before working in an area under exclusive Federal juriviiction.
EGM 97-003 was issued on February 7,1997, to highlight modifications to the Enforcement Policy that addressed: (1) open predecisional enforcement conferences; (2) consultation with the Commission on enforcement actions; (3) risk significant violations; and (4) non-cited violations.
4
OE Ammuel M9 ort i
EGM 97 004 was issued on February 7,1997, to provide guidance concerning a review panel established to help ensure that 10 CFR 50.66, Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants" (the maintenance rule) would be enforced in a consistent manner.
EGM 97-005 was issued on March 3,1997, to disseminate a set of opening remarks suitable for use at predecisional enforcement conferences with licensed operators.
EGM 97-006 was issued on March 14, 1997, to provide guidance on processing enforcement actions specific to various scenarios involving failure of an Agreement State licensee to fi:e with the NRC for reciprocity before working in an area under exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
EGM 97-006A was issued on May 6,1997, to provide a forrn letter to be sent to the head of the relevant Federal facility in cases where the NRC issues an enfcreement action against an Agreement State licensee for working in an area under exclusive Federal jurisdiction without filing with the NRC for reciptccity.
EGM 97-007 was issued on March 17, 1997, to provide guidance for dispositioning violations of the Clarification of Decommissioning Funding Assurance Rule (60 FR 38235).
EGM 97 008 was issued on March 17. 1997, to highlight modifications to the Enforcement Policy that: (1) added base civil penalties for gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) and examples to assist in categorizing the severity levels of violations at GDPs; (2) clarified the requirement for Commission consultation in enforcement actionst and (3) reflected a new principal enforcement officer, the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, Investigations, and Enforcement.
EGM 97 009 was issued on May 8,1997, to disseminate changes to the Enforcement Manual after tb Commission approved the NRC staff's request to delete the requirement for the staff to notify the Commission when the enforcement staff disagrees with the conclusions of an Office of Investigations (01) report, except when the Director, 01, believes that consultation with the Commission is warranted.
EGM 97 010 was issued on June 3,1997, to highlight modifications to the Enforcement Policy that addressed violations of new regulations on radiography safety requirements (61 FR 28948).
EGM 97-011 was issued on June 6,1997, to provide guidance for considering how the risk significance of events should be factored into staff decisions on enforcement actions.
EGM 97-012 was issued on June 9,1997, to provide additional guidance on the use of non-cited violations for Severity Level IV violations.
EGM 97-012A was issued on June 26,1997, to provide a flow chart that graphically represents the decisional points to consider in determining whether a Severity Level IV violation should be dispositioned as a Non Cited Violation.
i OE Asinual bpo 1 aussuuuuuuuut.
EGM 97 013 was issued on July 14, 1997, to provide additional guidance on how to issue a citation for non-compliance whh Technical Specifications Limit ng Conditions for i
Operation and ACTION statements.
EGM 97-014 was issued on July 14, 1997, to provide guidance on exercising enforcement discretion for situations beyond the licensee's control.
EGM 97 015 was issued on July 17,1997, to provide guidance on compliance with the Small Business Reg
- tory Fairness Act.
EGM 97-016 was issued on September 25,1997, to clarify enforcement guidelines for violations involving deliberate misuse of licensed material.
E, Raforcement Training The Office of Enforcement routinely provides training on the enforcement program through several NRC trahting courses. During fiscal year 1997 OE provided comprehensive enforcement training in the Fundamentals of Inspection Course (FOIC) in April 1997.
The regions also provided training on the enforcement prograrn in the regional offices.
F. NRC Enforcement Manual on lAN A " read only" electronic text of the Manual continues to be included on the agency's AUTOS LAN to provide wide-spread dissemination of enforcement guida. ce to all NRC personnel who are regularly involved in enforcement activities. The Manual can be accessed by selecting the Agency Wide icon and then selecting the Enforcement Manual program.
G. Enfqrcement information on the internet To ensure timely and widespread public dissemination of enforcement information, OB continues to electronically publish enforcement information on the Internet. A home page for the enforcement program was established on the World Wide Web in May 1996. The home page includes a general description of the enforcement program and its mission, enforcement contacts, the Enforcement Policy (NUREG.1600), the NRC Enforcement Manual (NUREG/BR-0195), the policy statement for " Nuclear Employees Raising Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retallation,"
a link to Department of Labor (DOL) adjudicatory decisions, and upcoming predecisional enforcement conferences. It also includes a copies of significant enforcement actions that the agency has issued arranged by reactor, materials, and individual actions. The Internet address for OE's home page is: www.nrc. gov /OE/.
6-i
-9 1
1s-nm T-
=cr--
---?
OE Ammuel Report 3.
Escalated Enforcement and Administrative items During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued 264 individual escalated enforcement items. Escalated enforcement items include individual civil penalties, orders (other than orders imposing civil penalties),
and Notices of Violation for Sevetity Level I, II, or til violations. Note that an enforcement case or enforcement action issued to a licensee may include more than one individual enforcement item. Table 1 includes a numerical breakdown of escalated enforcement items and Demands for Information issued by each regional office.
Table 2 includes a statistical summary of escalated enforcement items based on the type of licensee, vendor, or individual.
nmeliness of Enforcement Actions The average time to issue escalated enforcement actions (excluding orders) is a performance measure used by the NRC. For actions that do not involve an investigation, the measurement period begins on the date of the inspection exit meeting. For actions that involve an investigation, but no referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the measurement period begins on the date of issuance of the repon of investigation. For actions that involve an investigation and referral to DOJ, the measurement period b*iq v the date DOJ infonns the NRC that the NRC may proceed with civil action. For actions that im* MMination and Department of Labor (DOL) proceedings, the measurement period begins who.. m 4 an appropriate decision in the DOL process or sufficient evidence from the NRC's processes to support actions.
On the basis of the defined measurement period, escalated enforcement actions (excluding orders) are to be issued within an average of no more than 90 days. During fiscal year 1997 this standard was met, with enforcement actions issued in an average time of 88.5 days. During fiscal year 1996, enforcement actions were issued in an average time of 84.5 days.
Cisil Penalty Assepment Process: Determining Whether a Civil Penalty Should Be Proposed if the NRC concludes that a violation should be categorized at Severity Level I, II, or III, the staff then considers whether (for a licensed facility), a civil penalty should be proposed for the violation. For the majority of cases, in accordance with Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy, the civil penalty assessment process considers: (1) whether the licensee has had any previous escalated enforcement action (regardless of the activity area) during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, whichever is longer; (2) whether the licensee should be given credit for actions related to identification: (3) whether the licensee's corrective actions are prompt and comprehensive; and (4) whether, in view of all the ciretunstances, the matter in question requires the exercise of discretion. Depending on the outcome of the civil penalty process, the staff will conclude whether an escalated Notice of Violation should be issued with or without a civil penSty. Figure 1 of this report includes a graphic representation of the civil penalty-process and includes a statistical breakdown of the 189 individual enforcement issues or enforcement items assessed under the process, it should be noted that an enforcement case er enforcement action issued to a licensee may ixtude more than one individual enforcement item it should also be noted that this raunber does not directly correlate to the 236 escalated Notices of Violation issued with and without civil penalties in Table I because the civil penalty assessment process only applies to licensees and because not all cases were assessed under the civil penalty assessment process.
-1
=_
OE Annual Report Total Escalated NOVs issued Enforcement Enforcement Heyond NOVs w/o penalty to Individuals Discretion Discretion Statute of and civil penalties Section Vll.A Section Vll.H.6 Limitations 236 20 21 5
1 189
=
Specifically,20 Notices of Violation were issued to individuals,21 enforcement issues were based solely on an exercise of discretion in accoruance with Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy (Escalation of Enforcement Sanctions), five issues were based solely on an exercise of discretion in accordance with Section Vll.H.6 of the Enforcement Policy (Violations involving Special Circumstances), and one case was beyond the 5 year Statute of Limitations for issuing civil penalties. Figure 2 of this report includes a graphic representation of the civil penalty process and includes a statistical breakdown of the 92 individual reactor enforcement issues or enforcement items assessed under the process. Figure 3 includes the statistical breakdown of the 97 individual materials enforcement items. Figuren 4 through 15 include the statistical breakdown of enforcement issues based on the 12 possible paths of the civil penalty assessment process flowchart.
A, Escalated Notices of Violation (H'ithout Civil Penalties)
During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued 124 escalated Notices of Violation (without civil penalties). (This number reflects the number of individual enforcement issues versus the number of enforcement cases issued during the year.) Twenty of these items were issued to individuals and other non-licensed persom. See Section 5 for more information on enforcement items issued to irxtividuals and other non-licensed persons. Appendix A includes a short summary description of each of the enforcement issues as well as a summary of the civil penalty assessment process, i.e., why a civil penalty was not proposed.
R. Civil Penalty Actions During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued 112 individual civil penalty issues. Appendix B includes a short summary description of each of these items, as well as a sununary of the civil penalty assessment process, i.e., why a civil penalty was proposed. Table 3 includes statistical information on civil penalties and Table 4 includes a statistical analysis of the range of civil penahics for both reactor and materials licensees. As stated before, an enforcement action may include more than one individual civil penalty issue.
During fiscal year 1997, six enforcement actions included civil penalties in excess of $300,000.
These actions included:
- 1. $900,000 - Thermal Science, Inc. (EA 95-009)
- 2. $650,000 - Commonwealth Edison Company: LaSalle (EA 96-325)
- 3. $650.000 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company: Haddam Neck (L.i 96-001)
- 5. $330,000 Commonwealth Edison Company: Zion (EAs 97 222,97 223)
- 6. $330,000 - Duke Power Company: Oconee (EAs 97 297,97-298),
= -.. -
OE Annual Regwet C, Orders During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued 28 orders. Eight of these orders were issued to licereces while 20 of the orders were issued to individuals. (See Section 5 for more information on enforcement actions issued to individuals and other non licensed persons.) Appendix C ircludes a short sununary description of each of the eight orders issued to licensees. In addition, 10 civil penalty imposition orders were issued.
D, Demandsfor information During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued 10 formal Demands for Information to licensees.
Appendix D includes a short summary description of each of these actions. (See Section 5 for more information on Denunds for Information issued to individuals.)
E, Summary of Significant Actions
'the NRC considers violations categorized at Severity Level I and 11 to be very significant. The agency also considers enfor.ement actions consisting of multiple Severity Level til violations to be very significant. During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued four enforcement cases including 13 individual Severity Level 1 issues. The agency issued 23 enforcement cases including 25 individual Severity Level 11 issues. In addition, seven of these 23 cases were issued in conjunction with Severity level 111 issues. The agency issued 13 multi-action enforcement cases including 29 individual Severity Level 111 issues. These significant cases are listed below. Case summaries are included in the referenced appendix.
SEVERITY LEVEL I CASES Nelson Excavating, Inc., Thomas, West Virginia EA 96 308 Supplement I and IV A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued on January 27,1997, for a Severity Level I violation. (Appendix B.)
Power inspection, Inc., Wexford, l'ennsylvania EA 95-025 Supplements Viand Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $40,000 was issued on February 18, 1997, for a Severity Level I violation and a Severity Level I problem.
(Aptwndix B.)
Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah, Units 1 & 2 EA 95199 Supplement Yli A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penahy in the amount of $100,000 was issued on January 13, 1997, for a Severity Level I violation. (Appenda B.)
9-
OE Annual Repart Dermal Science, Inc., St. Louls, Missoud EA 95-009 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $900,000 was issued on October 1,1996, for nine Severity Level I violations. (Appendix B.)
SEVERITY 1.EVEL 11 CASES Baltimore Gas & Elecide Company, Calrcrt O(ffs, Units 1 & 2 EA 97192 Supplement lY A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amant of $176,000 was issued on August 11,1997, for a Severity Level !! problem. (Appendix B.)
Barnett industdal X Ray, Inc., Stillwater, Oklahoma EA 96 $02 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,000 was issued on February 24,1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem. (Appendix B.)
Centerior Serdce Company, Perry, Units 1 & 2 EA 96 253 Supplement 171 A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $160,000 was issued on October 9,1996, for a Severity Level !! violation. (Appendir B.)
Commonwealth Edison Company, LaSalle, Units 1 & 2 EA 96-325 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $650,000 was issued on January 24,1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem and a Severity Level III problem.
(Appendix B.)
Conam inspection, Inc., Itaska, IL EA 97 207 Supplements IVand 17 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $16,000 was issued on June 9,1997, for a Severity Level !! problem. (Appendix B.)
Connecticut lankee Atomic Power Company, lladdam Neck EA 96-001 Supplenents 1 & Vill A Notice of Violation arxl Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $650,000 was issued on May 12, 1997, for three Severity Level 11 problems, one Severity Level 111 problem not assessed a civil penalty, and numerous Severity Level IV violations. (Appendix B.)
10 -
DE Annual Repor1 ConnellIJmited Partnership,1kisa, OLlahoma EA 96-536 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $8,800 was issued on March 6,1997, for violations classified at Severity Level 11. (Appendix B.)
CTI, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska EA 96 232 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $13,000 was issued on October 31,1996, for a Severity Level 11 problem and a Severity Level 111 problem.
(Appendix B,)
Duke Power Company, Oconte, Units 1 & 2 EAs 97 297 & 97 298 Supplement 11 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $330,000 was issued on August 27,1997, for a Severity Level 11 violation and a Severity Level 111 violation.
(Appendix B.)
Subhash Khullar LA 97-031 A Notice of Violation and Demand for Information for a Severity Level 11 violation was issued on March 21,1997. (Appendix G.)
Fernande:, Af.D., Jose, San Juan, PR EA 97-137 Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $8,000 was issued on June 11,1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem. (Appendix B.)
17orida Power Corporation (Pritt-hicEnany Roofing, Inc.)
EA 96-336 Supplement Yli A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 11 violation was issued on December 5,1996.
(Appendix A.)
[7orida Power Corporation, Crystal River, Unit 3 EAs 96 365,96-465 Supplement !
& %-527 A Notice of Violation and Exercise of Enforcement Discretion was issued on March 12,1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem, and two Severity Level 111 violations. (Appendix A.)
Grand View ilospital, Sellersville, Pennsyh'ania EA 97-309 Supplement V A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,400 was issued on August 13, 1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem. (Appendix B.),
DE Ann'aal Report _
lionolulu Medical Group, lionolulu, llamall FA 95 006 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 11 violation was issued on January 23, 1997.
(Appendix A.)
fillnois Power Company, Olnton FAs96-412, 97-001, Supplements I and IV 97-002, & 97 060 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of civil Penalty in the amount of $450,000 was issued on June 9,1997, for one Severity Level !! pmblem consisting of two violations and four Severity Level til problems consisting of 28 violations. (Appendix B.)
Koppel Steel Corporation, Reaver Falls, Pennsylvania E4 96-498 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $8,000 was issued on March 19,1997, for a Severity Level 11 violation. (Appendix B.)
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturer Center, St. Paul, Minnesota FA 96-403 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $8,000 was issued on January 7,1997 for a Severity Level 11 violation.
Pennsylvania Power & light Company, Susquehanna, Units 1 & 2 FAs 96 270 &
Supplements I and Vil 96-347 A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $210,000 was issued on June 20,1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem and a Severity Level 111 violation.
(Appendix B.)
Philadelphia F2rctric Company, IJmerick, Units 1 & 2 EA 97 050 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $80,000 was issued on August 5,1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem. (Appendix B.)
Public Service Flectric and Gas Company, Salem, Units 1 & 2 FA 96177 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $80,000 was issued on December 9,1996 for a Severity Level 11 violation. (Appendix B.)
i Sadovsky, (DVM), Roy, North flills, New Jersey FA 97150 Supplements IV, V, & VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $4,000 was isstxl on May 1,1997, for a Severity 1.evel 11 problem. (Appendix B.),
OE Annual mpoet United Nuclear Corporation, Gallup, New Mexico EA 93170 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation ard Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on February 13,1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem. (Appendix B.)
i MULTIPLE SEVERITY LEVEL Ill CASES Carolina Power and 11;ht Company, Brunswick, Units 1 and 2 EA 96 354 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $150,000 was issued on November 19,1996, for two Severity Level 111 violations. (Appendix B.)
Commonwealth Edison Company, Byron, Units 1 & 2 EA 96 508 Supplement i A Notice of Violation ard Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $100,000 was issued on Febmary 27,1997, for four violations categorized as two Severity Level til problems.
(Appendix B.)
Commonwealth Edison Compa,;y, Zion, Units 1 & 2 EAs 97 222 & 97 223 Supplement til i
A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $330,000 was
. Issued on September 2,1997, for three Severity Level 111 violations. (Appendix B.)
Consolidated Edison Company, Indian Point, Unit 2 EAs 96 509, 97 031, Supplement i 97-!!3, & 97 191 A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $205,000 was issued on May 27, 1997, for three Severity Level Ill violations and one Severity Level 111 problem consisting of four individual violations. (Appendix B.)
Duquesne IJght Company, Beaver Valley, Unit i EAs96-462 & 96-540 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and 1% posed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $160,000 was issued on March 10,1997, for a Severity Level til violation and a Severity Level til problem.
(Appendix B.)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point EAs96-474, 96 475, Supplement !
& 96 541 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $200,000 was issued on April 10, 1997. The action was based on three Severity Level til violations / problems.
(Appendix B.)
13 -
k OE Annual Report Public Service Dectric and Gas Company, flope Creek, Unit 1 EA % 225 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $f 50,000 was Issued on October 23,1996, for three Severity Level 111 problems. (Appendix B.)
Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Salem, Units 1 & 2 EA % 344 Supplement !!!
A Notice of Violation and Proposed Im*>osition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on December 11,1996, for two Severity Level 111 violations. (Appendix B.)
St. Francis llospital, Escanaba, Michigan EA % 491 Supplements IV, VI, & Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $2,500 was issued on May 1,1997, for a Severity Level til violation and a Severity Level 111 problem.
(Appendix A and Appendix B.)
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsytrania EA %455 Supplement IV A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $10,000 was issued on December 31,1996, for two Severity Level Ill violations. (Appendix B.)
T:nnessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah, Unit 2 EA %414 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $100,000 was issued on December 24,1996, for two Severity Level Ill violations. (Appendix B.)
Washington llospital Center, Washington, D.C.
EA % 385 Supplements IVand Yi A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued on April 10, 1997, for two Severity Level 111 roblems. (Appendix B.)
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-075 Supplement i Notices of Violatiori for three Severity Level 111 problems were issued ot. August 8,1997.
(Appendix A.)
F. Enforcement Trends During fiscal year 1997, enforcement workload and activities increased, as evidenced by the number of items that were issued. Specifically, the agency issued 2M escalated enforcement j
actions (124 escalated NOVs,112 civil penalties, and 28 orders) during liscal year 1997, versus 1
l.
14
OE Annual Neport i
191 for fiscal year 1996 and 159 for fiscal year 1995. This reprc'.ents an approximate 38%
increase over fiscal y:ar 19% and 66% increase over fiscal year 1995.
Statistical comparison > between fiscal years 1997,1996, and 1995 are included in each of the tables of this sepon. Ilowever, it should be noted that direct correlations between the fiscal years is difficult because of the major policy cht,nge that occurred in June of 1995.
Table 7 of this report includes a 2 year history of individual escalated enforcement items by specific reactor sites. Based on a 2 year period, reactor sites are ranked in order of the largest civil peruity amounts assessed and the largest total number of combined civil penahy items and escalated Notices of Violations without civil penalties issued. A 2 year period is used for this ranking because it represents a sufficient time frame ta provide perspectives on performance and enforcement activity. Two years is also the time period used in the Enforcement Policy for 4
reviewing past performance. This table also provides enforcement data for the last 12 months at each of the sites listed.
During the 2 year period between fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the agency issued a total of 197 individual civil penalties and individual Severity 1, II, and ill Notices of Violation without civil penalties to 58 (or 82%) of the reactor sites. Thirteen sites did not receive any escalated enforcement action during this period. Of the 58 sites,11 sites received I escalated enforcement item (11 issues),14 sites received 2 individual escalated enforcement items (28 issues). and 33 sites received more tha12 individual escalated enforcement items (158 issues). Thus,33 sites (or 46%) accounted for 158 (or 80%) of the escalated actions issued.
Of the 197 individual escalated items,119 were civil penalties issued to 46 (or 65%) of the 71 reactor sites. Twenty five (or 35%) of the sites did not receive a civil penalty.
Of the 46 sites that did rect ive a penalty, il sites had I civil penalty item (18 civil penalties) 10 sites had 2 individual civil penalty items each (20 civil penalties), anu 18 sites had more than 2 individual civil penalty items (81 civil penalties) for a total of !!9 individual civil penalties.
Thus,18 sites (or 25%) accounted for 81 (or 68%) of the civil penalties issued.
4.
Cases inroh'ing Exercise of Discretion Section Vil of the Enforcement Policy addresses those cases where, notwithstanding the nomul guidance contained in the Policy, the NRC may choose to exercise discretion and either escalate or mitigate enforcement sanctions within the Commission's statutory authority to er ure that the resulting enforcement action appropriately reflects the level of NRC concern regarding the violation at issue and conveys the appropriate message to the licensee. During fiscal year 1997,70 escalated cases (including
% individual issues) involved an exercise of discretion.
Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy provides that the NRC may increase a sanction up to its full enforcement authority where the action is warranted without applying the normal civil penalty assessment process (Section VI.B.2). During fiscal year 1997, eig' cases (including 21 individual issues) involved this exercise of discretion.
. t5
OE Annual Report Section Vll.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy provides fer either increasing the amounts of civil penalties or proposing civil penahies where the normal process would result in no civil penalty. During fiscal year 1997,14 cases (including 14 individual issues) involved this exercise of discretion.
Section Vll.II.) provides that NOVs need not le issued for Severity Ln al IV violations that meet specific criteria. Cases that are subject to this enforcement discretion are not described in this report.
Section Vil.II.2 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations identified during extended shutdowns or work stoppages if they are licensee identified, based upon activities prior to the events leading to the shutdown, non-willful, and not categorized at Severity Level I. This exercise of discretion provides that the licensee's decision to restart the plant requires NRC concurrence. During fiscal year 1997, four cases (including nine individual issues) involved this exercise of discretion. Two of the cases involved seven individual Severity Level IV issues.
Section Vll.II.3 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for old design issues that are licensee identified and corrected and were not likely to have been identified earlier through routine surveillance. During fiscal year 1997,12 cases (including 14 individual issues) involved this exerc.se of discretion.
Section VII.II.4 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations identified due to previous escalated enforcement action if the violation was licensee identified, it has a similar root cause as a previous escalated action, it does not substantially change the regulatory concern out of the initial action, arxl it was corrected. During fiscal year 1997, one case (including one individual issue) involved this exercise of discretion.
Section Vll.II.5 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations involving discrimination issues if they are licensee identified and corrected. During fiscal year 1997, no cases involved this exercise of discretion.
Section Vll.II.6 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations involving special circumstances. During fiscal year 1997,31 cases (including 37 individual issues) involved this exercise of discretion.
Appendix E includes a summary of the escalated cases issued during fiscal year 1997 that involved an exercise of discretion.
5.
Actions Against Individuals & Other Non-Licensed Persons During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued 66 actions against individuals and other non-licensed persons.
The following sections provide a breakdown of the actions based on whether the actions were issued to licensed or non-licensed individuals, as well as other non-licensed persons (e.g., vendors). The section on orders includet orders that were issued to individuals that prohibited or limited their activities in NRC-licensed activities during the fiscal year.
A. Actions Against Licensed Individuals During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued 2 NOVs to licensed individuals. Appendix F includes a short summary description of these actions.
16 -
=.
I OE Annual Reort 1
it. Actions Against Non ficensed Individuals During fiscal year 1996, the agency issued 20 orders,18 NOVs and 26 DFis, to non licensed individuals. Appendix 0 includes a short summary description of each of these actions.
C. Actions Against Non 12 censed Persons Other Than individuals During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued one civil penalty to a non licensed person (vendor) other than an individual. Appendix 11 includes a short summary de:scription of this action.
6.
Cases involving Discrimination During fiscal year 1997, the agency issued six enforcement actions for violations involving i
discrimination. Appendix 1 includes a short description of each of the six actions involving discrimination that were issued during the fiscal year, 7.
Hearing Activities During fiscal year 1997, four cases had some type of hearing activity, i.e., hearing request, settlement, dismissal, discovery, hearing proceeding, appeal, etc. Appendix J includes a short summary of each of these cases.
4 8.
10 CFR 2.206 Petitions During fiscal year 1997, one case had some type of petition activity pending before the Office of Enforcement during the fiscal year, i.e., petition request, NRC staff review, Director's Decision, etc.
Appendix K includes a short summary of this case.
- -.. - = _..
OE Annel R,po,1 t
I r
t PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK a
t 18 -
p
,_y.-
OE Ammunt keport TABLE 1: ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ITEAIS &
DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION Region Region Region Region Other' Total Total Total I
Il 111 IV FY97 FY %
FY 95 Pre-decisional Enforcement 66 29 48 35 3
181 143 117 Conferences Escalated NOVs w/o 42 29 21 31 1
124 96 76 Civil Penalties Proposed Civil Penalties 40 16 37 17 2
112 78 56 Imposed Civil Penalties 2
2 2
3 1
10 9
10 Civil Penalties Paid 41 17 30 18 2
108 56 47 Orders 14 7
4 3
0 28 17 22 Demands for information 25 2
5 2
1 35 7
8 Total 230 102 147 109 10 597 405 339
' This category includes actions initiated by the Office of Enforcement (OE), and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)
OE issued i escalated NOV with a civil penalty and 1 Demand fcr Information.
NMSS issued 1 escalated NOV without a civil penalty,1 escala'ed NOV with a civil penalty, imposed the civil penalty, and received payment for the civil penalty.
19.
,..,.c-.-
y
,-w
,e
.e..
OE Annual Report i
i i
P l
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Q
4
- 20 c.
Of: Annul Resuv1 TABLE 2: ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ITEMS HY TYPE OF LICENSEE, VENDOR, OR INDIVIDUAL Escalated Type of NOVs Civil Total Total Total 1.icemee (w/o penalty)
Penalties Orders FY97 FY 96 FY 95 Acadernic I
2 0
3 5
3 Physician 5
2 2
9 3
2 Fuel Facility 3
2 0
3 i
Gauge User 18 12 1
31 23 29 Ilospital 23 10 0
33 13 12 Irradiator 1
0 0
1 0
0 Radiographer 2
7 0
9 12 11 Pharmacy 0
0 0
0 1
3 Operating Reactor 41 70 1
110 87 50 Materials Distributer 0
1 0
1 2
0 Mill 1
0 0
1 1
0 Other 9
4 4
17 10 11 Well legger 0
1 0
1 0
0 Vendor 0
1 0
1 8
5 1.icemed Individual 2
0 0
2 6
7 Non Licemed Individual 18 0
20 39 19 23 Total 124 112 28 264 191 159 21 -
i OE Annual Report s._.
....,,-m_.
l 4
1 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK i
?
I
?
22 -
r v
,.,n c--
I
\\
)
l OE Anmel Newt TABLE 3: CIVIL PENALTY INFORMATION FY97 FY %
FY 95 Number of Proposed Civil Penalties 112 78 59 Number of imposed Civil Penalties 10 9
10 Number of Civil Penalties Paid 108 56 47 Amouat of Proposed Civil Penalties 7,422,300
$3.832,500
$2,263,950 Amount of imposed Civil Penalties
$285,250
$44,500
$615,250 Amount of Civil Penalties Paid 6,657,300
$3,014,000 52,265,949 NOTF.:
This table includes information based on individual civil penalty assessments, An enforcement action may include more than one individual civil penalty.
23
OE Annual Report r
r s
4 4
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK t
4 C
I 24 -
OE Annual Report TABLE 4: CIVIL PENALTY RANGES Reactor IJcensees Number of Number of Number of Civil Penalty Amounts Penalties Penalties Penaltics FY 97 FY %
FY 95
< $50,0000 1
0 3
$50,000 - 55,000 41 24 7
$55,001 $99,999 2
5 3
$100,000 110,000 17 21 9
$110,001 $200,000 6
0 3
$200,001 $300,000 2
0 0
> $300,001 1
0 0
Total 70 50 25 Materiallicensees Number of Number of Number of Civil Penalty Amounts Penalties Penalties Penalties FY 97 FY %
IN 95 0 - $2,500 12 18 9
$2,501 - $5,000 17 2
12
$5,001 - $7,500 2
1 3
$7,501 - $10,000 5
4 3
$10,001 - $25,000 4
3 6
$37,500 0
0 1
S100,000 1
0 0
$200,000 -
0 0
0 Total 41 28 34 l
NOTE:
This table includes information based on individual civil penalty assessments. An l
cnforcement action may inciale more than one individual civil penalty. In addition, this l
table does not include the $900,000 penalty issued to a vendor.
25 -
DE Annual Repwt PAGE INTENT 10NALLY LEFT BLANK 4
26
OE Annual Regxv1 TABLE 5: 2-YEAR ESCALATED ITEM IIISTORY FOR REACTOR SITES FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1997 Civil Escalated Civil Escalated Penalty Civil NOVs Penalty Civil NOVs Facility Amount Penalties (w/o Amount Penalties (w/o penalty) penalty)
Salem
$780,000 9
0 5180,000 3
0 lladdam Neck 650,000 3
1 650,000 3
1 LaSalle 650,000 2
0 650,000 2
0 Zion 630,000 8
1 480.000 5
1 Clinton 560,000 6
0 560,000 6
0 Crystal River 550,000 7
8 50,000 1
7 Wolf Creek 400,000 4
1 100,000 1
0 Oconee 380,000 3
0 330,000 2
0 South Texas 360,000 3
1 0
0 1
Sequoyah 330,000 5
1 250,000 4
1 Nine Mile Pt.
330,000 5
0 200,000 3
0 Point 11each 325,000 4
4 325,000 4
3
[Sttsquehanna 310,000 3
0 210,000 2
0 Calvert Cliffs 276,000 3
0 176,000 1
0 llope Creek 250,000 4
2 150,000 3
1 Indian Point 2 205,000 4
1 205,000 4
0 St.1.ucie 200,000 4
2 100,000 2
1 11eaver Valley 160,000 2
3 160,000 2
2 Perry 160,000 1
1 160,000 1
1 Waterford
!$5,000 3
1 105,000 2
1 j
Millstone 155,000 2
2 1
0 Ginna 155,000 2
0 155,000 2
0 s
i 27
OE Annual Report TABLE 5: 2-YEAR ESCALATED ITEM IIISTORY FOR REACTOR SITES - CONT, FY 1996 FY 1997 I
FY 1997 Civil Escalated Civil Escalated Penalty Civil NOVs Penalty Civil NOVs Facility Amount Penalties
(,v/o Amount Penalties (w/o penalty) penalty)
Ilrunswick 150,000 2
5 150,000 2
2 Quad Cities
!$0,000 3
0 50,000 1
0 Indian Point 3 105,000 2
1 55,000 1
0 Dresden 100,000 2
2 0
0 2
Byron 100,000 2
1 100,000 2
0 Arkansas Nuclear 100,000 2
0 50,000 1
0 One Braidwood 100,000 1
1 0
0 0
Fermi 100,000 2
0 50,000 1
0 WNP2 100,000 1
1 100,000 1
1 Palo Verde 100,000 1
0 0
0 0
Turkey Point 100,000 1
0 0
0 0
Limerick 80,000 1
3 80,000 1
3 Browns Ferry 80,000 1
1 0
0 0
Surry
$5,000 1
2 55,000 1
0 Ft. Calhoun 55,000 1
1 55,000 1
0 Cooper 50,000 1
5 0
0 3
l Kewaunee 50,000 1
2 50,000 1
1 Davis Besse 50,000 1
1 50,000 1
0 Diablo Canyon 50,000 1
1 0
0 0
Prairie Island 50,000 1
1 50,000 1
1 Vermont Yankee 50,000 1
1 0
0 0
l Trojan 50,000 1
1 0
0 0
28
i 0E Annual Report TABLE 5: 2-YEAR ESCALATED ITEM HISTORY FOR REACTOR SITES - CONT.
FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1997 Escalated Escala*.d Civil NOVs Civil NOVs Facility Penalty Civil (w/o Penalty Civil (w/o Amount Penalties penalty)
Amount Penalties penalty)
Farley 50,000 1
0 50,000 1
0 Palisades 50,000 1
0 0
0 0
McGuire 0
0 3
0 0
1 Vogtle G
0 3
0 0
1 Tiuee Mile Island 0
0 2
0 0
0 Peach Bottom 0
0 2
0 0
2 D.C. Cook 0
0 2
0 0
0 111 Rock Point 0
0 1
0 0
1 8
Pilgrim 0
0 1
0 0
1 River llend 0
0 1
0 0
1 Robinson 0
0 1
0 0
0 Ft. St. Vrain 0
0 1
0 0
0 liarris 0
0 1
0 0
1 Monticello 0
0 1
0 0
0 l,
i i
OE Annual Report PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4
M
N,
OE Annual Report '
FIGURE 1: ANALYSIS OF ESCALATED ITEMS PROCESSED UNDER CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS 9
93 D
YES 84 72 Cp YES CA
% nREDIT 0
m 189 wittrut sun 39 NO IN YES 18 2Y/21 14 sass 63 10 CP 9., '
59 D
NO YES 117 78 NO CA 1
CREDIT
't D
BASE NO CP 18 19
+1m %
189 individual enforcement items were evaluated in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process, in 72 instances, the item was the first non-willf"1 Severity Level Ill enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, in 117 instances, the item was NOT the first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement issue that the licensee had during the pc.st 2 years or past 2 inspections.
Of the 117 applicable items, the licensee was given credit for actions related to identification in 39 instances and NOT given credit in 78 instances.
Of the total 189 b xus, the licensee was given credit for corrective actions in 152 instances (approximately 80% of the items; and NOT given credit in 37 instances.
Discretion was exercised in 24 instances (15 times und:r Section VII.A.1 and 9 times under VII.B.6).
This represents approximately 13% of the individual enforcement issues.,
l OE Annual Report PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4.
OE Annual Report FIGURE 2: ANALYSIS OF REACTOR ITEMS PROCESSED UNDER CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS 3
30 YES 8
27 9
CP YES CA CREDIT 0
?
1st NON-92 wittrut SLlli 32 NO IN YES 11 2Y/21 12 sASE 41 ID CP 42 h
I NO
?
YES I
83 51 NO CA 0
CREDIT
?
D BASE NO CP 9
9
+1M%
92 individual reactor enforcement items were evaluated in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process. In 9 instances, the item was the first non-willful Severity Level 111 enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections.
In 83 instances, the item was NOT the first non-willful Severity Level 111 enforcement action that the licensee hao during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections.
Of the 83 applicable iten the licensee was given credit for actions related to identification in 32 instances and NOT given (.dit in 51 instances.
Of the total 92 items, the licensee was given credit for corrective actions in 72 cases (approximately 78%
of the items) and NOT given credit in 20 instances.
Discretion was exercised in 15 instances (9 times uuJer Section VII.A.1 and o times under Section VII.B.6). This repretents approximately 16% of the individual reactor enforcement issues.,
OE Annual Report PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-M-
OE Annual Report FIGURE 3: ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS ITEMS PROCESSED UNDER CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS 6
63 D
YES 57 63 CP YES CA CREDIT 0
7 1st NON-97 WILLFUL SLlli 7
NO IN YES 7
2Y/21 2
BASE 22 ID CP NO 17 YES 34 27 NO CA 1
CREDIT
?
D 8ASE NO CP 9
10
+1 m 97 individual reactor enforcement items were evaluated in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process, in 63 instances, the item was the first non-willful Severity Level 111 enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections.
In 34 instances, the item was NOT the first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement action that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections.
Of the 34 applicable items, the licensee was given credit for actions related to identification in 7 instances and NOT given credit in 27 instances.
Of the total 97 items, the licensee was given credit for corrective actions in 80 cases (approximately 82%
of the items) and NOT given credit in 17 instances.
Discretion was exercised in 9 instances (7 times under Section VII.A.1 and 2 times under Section VII.B.6). This represents approximately 9% of the individual materials enforcement issues. '
OE Annual Report l
1 i
i i
1 4
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
OE Annual Report FIGURE 4: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATH A D
Y 58 CP N CR Drr
?
1st NON-WILLFUL SL lli NO IN YES 2Y/21 BASE ID CP hD CREDIT NI YES l
NO CA CREDIT
?
D BASE NO CP
+100%
In 58 instances, the item was the first non-wil'fut Severity Level III enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspecti>ns and the licensee received credit for corrective actions.
3 of the items were for reactor licensees.
55 of the items were for materials licensees.
OE Annual Report PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT SLANK 38
OE Annual Report FIGURE 5: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATHB 4
D YE l
e CP i
CA CREDIT 7
1st NON.
WILLFUL SL lli NO lN YES 2Y/21 BASE ID CP CREDIT NO 1
YES NO CA CREDIT
?
BASE NO CP
+100%
In 4 instances, the item was the first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections and notwithstanding the fact that credit was warranted for corrective actions, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued a civil penalty.
All 4 of these itents were for materials licensees..
-~
OE Annual Report PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9
40 -
OE Annual Row FIGURE 6: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATH C YES j
e CP YES CA CREDIT ist D
NON.
WILLFUL SLlli IN YES 2Y/21 BASE 10 ID CP CREDfT 7
YES NO CA CREDIT
?
BASE NO CP
+100%
In 10 instances, the item was the first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections and the licensee di..ot receive credit for corrective
- actions, 6 of the items were for reactor licensees 4 of the items were for materials licensees.
- 41
OE Annual Report PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BL ANK
f OE Annual Report FIGURE 7: CWIL PENALTY PROCESS PATH D YES O
CP YES CA CREDIT 0
1st D
NON.
YES NO CA CREDIT
?
NO C
+100%
There were no items assessed on this path.
43
OE Annual Report PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
}
e
]
i l
i i
44
OE Annual Report FIGURE 8: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATII E D
Y G
Cp 26 YES CA CREDIT
?
Ist NON-WILLFUL SL111 NO IN YES 2Y/21 BASE ID CP CREDIT NO 7
YES NO CA CREDIT
?
D BASE NO CP
+100%
In 26 instances, the item was not the first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, the licensee received credit for actions related to identification, and the licensee received credit for corrective actions, 24 of the items were for reactot licensees.
2 of the items were for materials licensees.
OE Annual Report PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK e
O 46 -
l OE Annul Report FIGURE 9: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATH F 5
D Y
1 0
CP YES CA CREDIT 1st NON-WIL'.FU L SL lil NO IN YES 2Ytti BASE ID CP CREDIT NO
?
YES NO CA CREDIT N?
BASE NO CP
+100%
In 5 instances, the item was not the first non willful Severity Level ill enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, the licensee received credit for actions related to identification, and notwithstanding the fact that credit was warranted for corrective actions, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in at.cordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued r; civil penalty.
3 of the items were for reactor licensees.
2 of the items were for materials licensees.,
^'
-*,SA 1
.JL OE Annual Report k
W f
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK s
i
- 48 l
?
I OE Annual Report FIGURE 10: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATH G YES O
CP YES CA CREDIT ON.
WILLFUL SL lll N
IN YES 2Y/21 BASE 8
10 CP REDIT NO
?
YES i
NO CA CREDIT
?
BASE NO CP
+100%
In 8 instances, the item was not the first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, the licensee received credit for actions related to identification, and die licensee did not receive credit for corrective actions.
l 5 of the items were for reactor licensees.
l 3 of the items were for materials licensees.
)
OE Annual Report 4
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK e
i 50 9
.r-e v
m
OE Annual Report FIGURE 11: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATH H 1
YES S
CP YES CA CREDIT 0
1st D
NON-WILLFUL SLI!!
N IN YEE SYtti BASE ID CP CREDIT 7
YES NO CA CREDIT
?
BASE NO CP
+100%
There were no items assessed on this path.
l '
l i
OE Annual Report F
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1
e.
OE Annual Report FIGURE 12: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATH I YES O
CP YES CA CREDIT
?
Ist NON-WILLFUL SL lil NO IN YES 2YI21 RASE iD CP 45 CREDIT D
NO
?
Y N
CA CREDIT
?
O BASE NO CP
+100%
In 45 instances, the item was not he first non-willful Severity Level 111 enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, se licensee did not receive credit for actions related to identification, and th( licensee received cmlit for corrective actions.
30 of the items were for reactor licensees.
15 of the items were for rnaterials licensees.
OE Annual Report I
I I
E I
II I I I t
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 54
OE Annual Report FIGURE 13: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATH J YES I
e CP
'IES CA CREDrr
?
1st NON-WILLFUL SLlll NO IN YES 2Y/21/
j
/
/
14 BASE ID CP CREDIT D
NO 7
YES NO CA CREDIT
?
D BASE NO CP
+100%
In 14 instances, the item was not the first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, the licensee did not receive credit for actions related to identification, and notwithstanding the fact that credit was warranted for corrective actions, in 6 instances the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII. A.1 and issued more than the base civil penalty and in 8 instances the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 and refrained from issuing a civil penalty.
12 of the items were for reactor licensees. (6 items under VII.A.1 and 6 items under VII.B.6.)
2 of the items were for materials licensees. (Both items under VII.B.6.)
- SS -
OE Annual Report s
PAGS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
i OE Annual Report FIGURE 14: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATH K
-YES O
CP YES CA CREDIT
?
Ist NON-WILLFUL SLlli NO IN YES 2Y/21 BASE 10 CP CREDIT NO
?
YES CA CREDIT
?
D BASE NO CP 13
+100%
i In 18 instances, the item was not the first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, the licensee did not receive credit for actions related to identification, and the licensee did not receive credit for corrective actions.
9 of the items were for reactor licensees.
9 of the items were for materials licensees.,
OE Annual Repwt PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEIT DLANK i
r 38 v. - -
DE Annual Repw1 FIGURE 15: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS PATII L YES O
CP YES CA CREDIT
?
Ist NON-WILLFUL SL lli NO IN YES 2Y/21 BASE ID CP CREDIT NO 7
YES NO CA j
CREDIT
?
D BASE N
cp
+100%
In I instance, the item was not the first non-willful Severity Ixvel 111 enforcement issue that the licensee had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections, die licensee did not receive credit for actions related to identification, and notwithstanding the fact diat credit was not warranted for corrective actions, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.13,6 and reduced the amount of the civil penalty.
This item was for a materials licensee.
59
l OE Annual Report
)
i l
t i
i i
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK i
t 60 1
--y
k Appendix A l
APPENDIX A:
SUMMARY
OF ESCALATED NOTICES OF VIOLATION (WITHOUT CIVIL PENALTIES)
A. Z. Bullitt Avenue ild. Partnenhly, Jeanette, pennsylvania EA 96 476 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity level 111 viciation was issued on January 31,1997. The action was based on the licensee not ; atifying the NRC nor completing the decommissioning of its facility in Jeannette, Pennsylvania. Despite the licensee not conducting principal activities at the Jeannette facility since 1983, the licensee remained in possession of two 5 curis cesium 137 glass gauges, and decanmissioning should have been completed by Octoter 15,1996. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit $vas warranted for corrective action.
Aber Corporate Research Center, Union, New Jeney EA 97 285 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on September 10, 1997. The action was based the licensee selling its facility to Selrite Millworks Corporation (Seirite), and in so doing, transferred to Selrite three "FXIT" signs (containing between 10 and 25 curies of tritium gas), that are devices generally licensed by the NRC. Ilowever, although the signs remained in use at that location, Abex did not give Selrite a copy of 10 CFR Part 31, and, did nt. Inform the NRC of the manufacturer's name and model number of the device transferrM, the name and address of the transferee, and the name and/or position of an individual who wouW -anstitu~ a point of contact between the NRC and the transferee. A civil penalty was not proposed in this case because it was beyond the 5 year Statute of Limitations.
Ambric Engineering, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvant.1 EA 97 357 Supplement !Y A Notice of Violation for a Severity 1.evel 111 violation was issued on August 22,1997. The action was based on the licensee not controlling and maintaining constant surveillance of licensed material that was in an unrastricted area and not in storage. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Anderson Cos'umbia Construction, Inc., Lake City, Florida EA 96 314 Supplement Vi A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on October 2,1996. The action was based on an inspection concerning the use of millicurie quantities of Ceslundl37 and Americium-241 to perform' moisture density activities at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, without either a specific or general license issued by the NRC. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
61
Appendix A l
Arctic Slope inspection Senices, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska M %-48 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on February 18, 1997. The action was based on seven violations, including the failure to conduct surveys to determine radiation levels in an unrestricted area to ensure compliance with dose limits for individual members of the public. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
l Babcock & Wilcox Company, Park Township Site M 97 378 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on September 4,1997. ne action was based on: (1) the failure to implement ALARA practices to evaluate decontamination methods prior to implementation, (2) the failure to use engineering controls to limit the airborne concentrations of radioactive material and prevent the spread of contamination, and (3) the failure to adequately moni or t
concentrations of airborne activity in the vicinity of vorkers. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 yet.rs, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Berwick Hospital, Berwick, pennsylmnia M 97 360 Supplement til A Notice o.' Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on September 25,1997. De action was based on the licensee not securing from unauthorized removal or limit access to licensed material, nor did the licensee control and maintain constant surveillance of this licensed material. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
BJ Rtan Senices, Houston, Texas M 97174 Supplement IV A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on June 12, 1997. The action was based on the licensee's failure to secure gauges containing licensed material from unauthorized removal as requitec. by 10 CFR 20.1801. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Boston Edison Company, pilgrim, Unit i EA 96-271 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem based on two violations was issued on October 21,1996. The first violation involved the failure to maintain primary containment integrity iu accordance with Technical Specifications, in that two electrical containment penetrations were not properly protected due to improper trip-settings of 12 electrical penetration circuit breakers. The second violation involved the failure to identify and correct the above condition sooner, even though it existed as early as 1988 (and nay have existed as far back as 1972). Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
62 -
,--n-
~
r
,. ~ -
Appendix A Carolina Power and light Company, Brunswick, Units 1 and 2 EA 9H42 Eupplement !
A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem based on two violations was issued on December 13,1996. De first violation involved the failure to operate Unit 2 within steady state reactor core power level limit of 2436 (MW) in accordance with the license. The second violation involved the failure to maintain the calculated Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate within the limits v1 Technical Specifications. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-056 Supplements illand Vil i
A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on April 24,1997. The action was based on tr jtiple failures to implement various aspects of the licensee's Access Authorization and Fitness-for Duty programs. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) crtdit was warranted for corrective action.
Carolina Power & IJght Company, liartis, Unit i EA 97-057 Supplements illand Vil A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til problem was issued on April 24,1997. The action was based on multiple failures to implement various aspects of the licensee's Access Authorization and Fitness-for Duty programs, ne civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Centre Community Hospital, State College, Pennsylvania EA 97 284 Supplement V A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on July 8,1997. The action was based on the use of Iridium-192 in a High Dose Rate afterloader for surface treatment of skin cancer without its NRC license authorizing such use. The civil penalty was fully mitis tied because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Cerac, Inc. Milwaukee, Wisconsin EA 97-040 Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on April 4,1997. The action was based on a number of violations involving effluent monitoring and release that collectively represented a breakdown in control of the licensed program. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
63 -
--x
-m u
-.r 7--,
Appendis A Othens Memorialllospital, Bolivar, Missourt EA %445 Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on January 28, 1997, for eight violations, considered in the aggregate to represent a significant breakdown in control of the radiation safety program. Although twice the base civil penalty would be proposed under the normal assessment i
process (because this was not the first escalated issue in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was not warranted for corrective action), the staff exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty because the licensee requested termination of the license.
Gereland Qinic Foundation, Gereland, Ohio EA 96 289 Supplement lY and VI A Notice of Violation was issued on December 20,1996, for a Severity Level til violation based on the failure to secure and limit accc a to licensed materials stored in five unattended research laboratories. The civil penaky was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the rirst escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action. This action also included a $5,000 civil penalty for a Severity Level 111 problem (see Appendix B).
Orreland Electric illuminating Company, Perry, Units I and 2 E4 %367 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued ori Movember 6,1996. The action was based on an inspection reviewmg the circumstances surrounding the loss of both trains of the Emergency Closed Cooling (ECC) system and the loss of both trains of Control Room Emergency Recirculation due to low ECC temperature. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warunted for corrective action.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Dresden, Units 2 & 3 EA %391 Supplement i A Notice of Violation fo: a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on May ),1997. The action was based on the primary containment leakage being greater than 60 percent of leakage accident due to leakage past the Unit 3 main steam line drain primary containment isolation valves.
Although this was not the first escalt,ted action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Dresden, Units 2 & 3 EA %532 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on May 21,1997. The action was based on the licensee's discovery that the original design modification test and subsequent smveillance tests of the control room heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system failed to ensure that the requirements and acceptance limits specified in the UFSAR were met. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty 'vas fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
64
~
Appendix A Commonwealth Edison Company, Zion, Units 1 & 2 FJs 97424 Supplement til A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on September 12, 1997. The action was based on failure to compensate for the unfiltered ventilation flow during fuel handling building ventilation system testing created by the routine removal of the block shield wall between the containment hatch area ard the fuel hardling bul' ding during refueling outages. Additionally, movement of irradiated fuel with the block shield wall removed was in violation of Technical Specifications due to a portion of the flow twing allowed to bypass filters. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penaky was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Connecticut Health Center, University Of, Farmington, Connecticut EA 96454 Suppnement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level Ill violation was issued on November 29,1996. The action was based on a failure, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1802, to secure from unauthorized removal or access, licensed materials that was stored in controlled or unrestricted areas. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, ar.d (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, lladdam Neck EA 96-001 Supplement Vill A Notice of Violation was issued on May 12,1997, for a Severity Level 111 problem involving inadequate implementation of the emergency preparedness program during the August 1996 exercise. The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement policy and refrained from l
issuing a civil penalty. Discretion was ivarranted because other civil penalties were issued conjunction with the action (see Appendix B), the agency does not normally issue civil penalties for failures during an emergency exercise, and because the facility was going to shut down.
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., Escondido, Cal (fomia EA 97-037 Supplements Viand Vil A Notiet. of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on March 17, 1997. The action was based on possession and use of byproduct material in areas under exclusive Federal jurisdiction within an Agreement State without a valid NRC license and without filing for reciprocity. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Consumer Power Company, Big Kock Point EA 97497 Supplements I & IV A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on August 12, 1997. The action was based on several incidents of failure to properly evaluate the extent of radiation levels and the potential radiological hazards to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 20.1201(a)(1). Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fuliy mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
65 a
1 Appendix A Ikna Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts FA 97-067 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on MarcF 28,1997. The action was based on failure te vcure licensed material located in laboratory areas against unauthorized removal and failure to contrc',,; cess. The civil pena'ty was fully mitigated b:cause: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
4
- 1) uke Power Company, McGuire, Unit FA 97411 Supplement til A Notice of Violation for a Seve.ity Level 111 problem was issued on September 26,1997. The action was based on multiple failures to follow procedures for security badge and access control. Although this was not the first (scalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Duquesne IJght Company, Bearer Valley, Units 1 & 2 FA 97 076 Supplement !
A Notice of Vinlation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on March 24,1997, for numerous failures to follow procedures and implement appropriate work controls involving configuration control,
' failure to take appropriate corrective actions for past configuration control problems, and for operators inadvertently deenergizing the waste decay tank oxygen analyzers. Although this was not the first escalated action m 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Duquesne light Company, Reaver Valley, Units 1 & 2 FA 97 255 Supplement I A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on July 3,1997. The action was based on the failure to comply with Technical Specification requirements for surveillance testing of safety equipment, namely (1) emergency diesel generators, (2) icactor coolant system pressure isolation valves, (3) hydrogen recombiners, (4) reactor proixtion system and engineered safety feature actuation system logic and interlocks (5) control room emergency bottled air pressurization subsystem discharce trip valves, and (6) boron irgjection flowpaths. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Entergy Operations, Inc., River Bend, Unit i FA 96-329 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on November 7,1996. This action was based on the licensee feling to perfonn required surveillances on: (1) a safety related station battery within the required frequency (2) the drywell air lock seal system and (3) certain motor-operated valves.
The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
i 66
Appendis A Entergy Operations, Inc., Waterford, Unit 3 EA 96-255 Supplement i A Notice of Violation was issued on December 26,1996, for a Severity Level 111 violation. The action was based on an inspection performed at the licensee's Waterford 3 facility that identified violations involving the inservice test (IST) program. The violation involved the licensee's failure to promptly evaluate and correct known discrepancies in the IST program. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action. A $50,000 civil penalty was also issued with this action for a Severity Level til violation that involved the actual design configuration of the containment vacuum relief system being different from that described in the plant's Final Safety Analysis Report, which resulted in certain valves not being properly tested to ensure they fulfilled the containment isolation function (see Appendix B).
Equimed, Inc., Exton, Pennsylmnia EA 96 247 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on November 7,1996. This action was based on the failure to follow the medical quality management program which led to misadministrations during high dose rate brachytherapy treatment of two patients. Specifically, a required check did not identify an error in the data entry for source positions. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
170rlda Power and IJght Company, St. Lucie, Units 1 & 2 EA 96-457 Supplement til A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on January 10, 1997. The action involved violations of significant regulatory concem associated with the engineering / modification process, security, and emergency preparedness at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. The action includes a problem for -
inadequate design control and independent review of a modification to excore nuclear instrumentatiot, and software used for calibration of incore nuclear instrumentation, and inadequate resolution of an adverse condition related to miswiring of the excore nuclear instrumentation. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit wss warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Flodda Power Corporation (Pntt4fcEnany Roofing, Inc.)
EA 96 336 Supplement Yli A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 11 violation was issued on December 5,1996. This action was based on a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 which prohibits, in part, discrimination by a contractor of a Conunission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Specifically, the discrimination included the discharge of a security escort as a result of the escort reporting a violation of security escort requirements.
-_L.
n--
1 Appendh A l
Rorido Power Corporation, Crysts! River, Unit 3 EAs96-365, 96-465, Supplement I
& 96 527 A Notice of Violation and Exercise of Enforcement Discretion was iss'acd on March 12,1997. The violations identified indicated a broad spectrum of problems at the facility. The actica included: (1) a Severity Level 11 problem for failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 in six ct.ses; (2) a Severity Level Ill violation for failnre to ensure that regulatory and plant design basis requirements are met; and, (3) a Severity Level ill violation for untimely and inadequate corrective actions resulting in the failure to identify significant unreviewed safety questions and containment integrity issues. The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 and refrained from issuing civil penalties (see Appendix E).
Morida Power Corporation, Crystal River EA 97-094 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Exercise of Enforcement Discretion was issued June 6,1997. The action was based on failure to report significant conditions to the NRC in the time frames required by the regulations, and failure to follow required plant procedures for ensuring timely evaluation of a potentially reportable event. A civil penalty was not propos<.J because the facility was shut down for an extended period which contributed to the reporting deficiencies.
Rorida Power Corporation, Crystal River EA 97161 Supplement til A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level ill problem was issued on May 29,1997. The action was basexi on two instances where the staff at the facility failed to control safeguards information adequately to assure access by authorized sns only. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, T
the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Rorida Power Corporation, Crystal River EA 97162 Supplement !
A Notice of Violation and Exercise of Enforcement Discretion was issued June 5,1997. The action was based on (1) the failure to identify that the addition that required operator actions to mitigate a design basis small break LOCA constituted an unreviewed safety question, and (2) the subsequent failure to obtain NRC review and approval of that mitigation strategy. A civil penalty was not proposed because
.ne NRC detennined that discretion was appropriate in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 because the facility was shut down for performance reasons, including engine ring violations such as the ones in this instance.
-M.
Appendit A Horida power Corporation, Coystal River, Unit 3 EA 97 330 Supplem:nt til A Notice of Violation and Exercise of Enforcement Discretion was issued on September 5,1997 for a Severity level Ill problem. The action was based on the fallute to perform an adequate safety evaluation for a 1987 modification that added five protective trips to each ernergency diesel generator and for failure to update the Final Safety Analysis Report to describe the added protective trips. The added trips were not bypassed during emergency operation and were not installed with two out of three coincidence logic.
A single failure in the added circuitry would increase the probability of failure of the emergency diesel generators, creating an unreviewed safety question. The NRC refrained from issuing a civil penalty in accordance with Section Vil.B.6 because: (1) the facility was in an extended shutdown for performance reasons, (2) the facility was scheduled to remain shutdown until completion of a comprehensive program of improvements in the engineering area, (3) the facility demonstrated that remedial actions were being taken to ensure the reestablistunent of design margins foi plant systems prior to restart, (4) the NRC issued previous action that included engineering violations, and (5) the licensee's decision to restart required the NRC's concurrence.
Geomechanics, Inc., Elizabeth, Pennsyl unia EA 97-042 Supplements IVand VI A Nctice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on April 8,1997. The action was based on failure to secure licensed material against unauthorized removal or control access to it. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Georgia Power Company, Vogtle, Unit 2 EA 96-479 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til problem was issued on December 31,1996. The action was based on the licensee failing to establish adequate procedural guidance to assure tiie correct assembly and di: assembly of safety related motor coolers. As a result, the gasket for a safety injection pump inboard motor cooler was installed backwards and the plenum on the outboard motor cooler was reversed rendering 6e pump inoperable since September 1991. Reversed plenums were also found on four other safety related pumps. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective ection,
- 11. C, Nutting Company, Cincinnati, Ohio EA 96-468 Supplement IV A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on January 9,1997. The action was based on the licensee limiting access and facility to secure access to a moisture / density gauge containing NRC-licensed material. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
69 p
Appendit A Il&G Inspection Company, Inc., llouston, TX EA 97-158 Supplement IV A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on July 1,1997. The action was based on the licensee not limiting the annual occupational dose to an adult radiographer's 4ssistant to 5 rems, total effective dose equivalent. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Ilealth & iluman Services, Inc., Rockville, Maryland EA 97-680 Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on March 20,1997. The action was i
based on numerous violations which Indicated a programmatic breakdown in licensed activities. The,:ivil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Ilonolulu Medical Group, lionolulu, llawa!I EA 95-0U Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 11 violation was issued on January 23,1997. The action was taken because the licensee discruninated against an employee for engaging in protected activities by terminating the individual's employment. Although a base penalty would be warranted under the normal assessment process (because the violation is categorized at Severity Level 11, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.II.6 and refrained from issuing a civil penalty because of: (1) the licensee's willingness to comply with the Department of Labor's initial finding that discrimination had occurred, (2) the licensee's willingness to settle the matter prior to an adjudicatory hearing, (3) the ultimate resolution of the matter in the settlement agreement that was reached between the licensee and the complainant, and (4) the absence of any further complaints of discrimination against the licensee since the matter arose in 1992.
Ilouston 11ghting & Power Company, South Texas EA 96 500 Supplement i A Notice of Violstion for a Severity Level til violation was issued on March 27,1997. The action was based on excessive leakage from an emergency core cooling system valve, a significant condition adverse to quality, that existed and was not promptly identified and corrected, in that, a condition report documenting valve leakage.in the system was not evaluated for possible adverse safety consequences nor was the valve repaired. Further, the licensee continued to operate the facility with a degraded condition that was not evaluated to determine whether the condition constituted a change to the facility as described in the UFSAR resulting in an unreviewed safety question. Specifically, leakage from an emergency core cooling system valve, approximately 20 times greater than that allowed by UFSAR Table 15.6-12, was identified and not properly evaluated. Although a base penalty would be warranted under the normal assessment process (because the violation was not the first escalated action in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), discretion was exercised in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 and the NRC refrained from issuing a penalty. Discretion was warranted because the events that led to the escalated actions involving discrimination in October 1995 70
Appendix A rrd September 1996 occurred more than 2 years prior to the discovery of the violations at issue in this case.
ilurt & Proffitt, Inc., Lynchburg, Pennsylvania EA 97 209 Supplements Vand VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on June 24,1997. The action was b.ued on multiple failures to corxtuct leak testing of the sealed sources contained in the licensee's portable nuclear gauges at the required six-month frequency. The civil penalty was fully mitigeted because:
(1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Isom~ dix, Inc., Vega Alta, Puerto Rico EA 97-173 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on May 20,1997. The action was based on an irradiator operatur not being onsite for approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> while the irradiator was operated using an automatic product conveyor system. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because:
(1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, arxl (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
J. C. Blair Alemorialllospital, fluntingdon, Pennsylvania EA 97459 Supplement !!!
A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on September 25,1997. The action was based on the licensee t.ot securing from unauthorized removal or limit access to licensed material, nor did the licensee control and maintain constant surveillance of this licensed material. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the fhst escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Jaworski Grotech, Inc., hianchester, New flampshire EA p7-438 Supplements IV, V, VI A Notice of Violation for a Seventy Level Ill violation was issued on September 25,1997. The action was based on the licensee not securing from unauthorized removal or limit access to a portable moisture / density gauge at a temporary jobsite, which was an unrestricted area. nor did the licensee control and maintain constant surveillance of this licensed material. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Kapl*olant llealth Care System, lionolulu, llawall EA 96-523 Supplement IV A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level Ill violation was issued on March 5,1997. The action was taken because on November 18, and 20,1996, laboratories in which microcurie quantities of lodine-125 or phosphorus-32 were stored were not locked when not occupied. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action..
l Apper. dis A Kenn*dy Memorialllospitals Untrersity, Stratford, New Jersey FA 97-006 Supplements lY and Yi A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on January 31,1997. The action was based on sit violations that included: (1) failure to maintain dose rates in contiguous unrestricted patient rooms below 2 mr in any 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />; (2) failure to perform dose estimates for patients in unrestricted patient rooms where the dose rates exceeded 2 mr in any I hour; (3) reassignment of a therapy patient's room with removable contamination greater than 200 dpm per 100 square centimeters; (4) failure to adequately train personnel on the applicable regulations, license conditions, and radiation safety procedures; (5) failure to establish a quorum at the Radiation Safety Committee meetings; and (6) failure to decay in storage byproduct material for ten half lives prior to disposal in ordinary trash. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Lee, J. W. Philip, AfD FA 97-038 Supplement 17 A Notice of Vhlation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on April 16, 1997. The action was based on the licensee not having a written proccdure for performing decay-correction calculations required to detennine treatment times for treatments performed using a strontium-90 ophthalmic applicator. As a result,17 treatment times were incorrectly calculated. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because:
(1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Lucent Technologies, Lee's Summit, blissouri FA 96-233 Supplement Viand Vil A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level !!! violation was issued on November 1,1996. The action was based on a violation involving failure to provide accurate and complete information in all material respects, and the failure to identify that contaminated equipment remained in AT&T Microelectronic's possession for more than 2 years after its NRC license had been terminated. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because> (1) t.his was the first escalated issue in 2 year,, and (2) credit was warrantad for corrective action.
Af& W Soils Engineering, Inc., Charlestown, New flampshire FA 97465 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on February 19, 1997. The action was based on a violation where the New llampshire licensee used three portable nuclear density gauges containing approximately 9 millicuries of Cesium 137 and 44 millicuries of An ericium-241 per gauging device at approximately 12 sites in the State of Vermont, a non-Agreement State, without filing for reciprocity. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Afassachusetts Generalllospital, Boston, biassachusetts FA 96497 Supplements lY and VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on January 27,1997. The action was based on a violation which involved two instances of the licensee failing to secure from unauthorized.
Appendis A removal or limit access to licensed materitd. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Massachustus Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusens E4 97-N9 Supplements lY and VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level Ill violation was issued on February 28,1997. The action was based on two examples of a failure to secure from unauthorized remova' or limit acce.s to licensed insterial in an unrestricted area. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Maul Memorialllospital, Wailuku, Maul, llawail E4 96 525 Supplement Yi A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on March 5,1997. The action was based on a violation which involved the licensee not securing from unauthorized removal or access licensed material stored in a controlled area. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Merck & Company, Inc., Rahway, New Jersey E4 97 24!
Supplement IV A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on June 26,1997. The action involved: (1) the improper disposal of 880 microcuries of iodine-125 at a municipal waste inemerator, and (2) the failure to perform a radiation survey of the pa:kage containing the material prior to releasing it for disposal. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Midwest imaging Diagnostic /inc./LTD E4 97-111 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on May 1,1997. The actior.
s based on six violations that collectively represent a breakdown in control of licensed program, includmg unauthorized use of iodine 131 and failure to establish a medical quality management program. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Mountainside llospital, Montclair, New Jersey E4 97 245 Supplement V A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued June 27,1997. The action was based on the failure to follow the licensee's Quality Management Program for High Dose Rate Afterloading treatment program in that certain activities required to be performed by the licensee's Medical Physicist were at times being perfomied by another individual. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because:
(1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
l 73 i
l w
vv
-.--w
._. _ _ _ ~ _ _. - - - - _ _ _. _
r Appendis A Nasy, Department of the, Nasy Drug Screening Lah EA 97143 Supplements IV, V, & VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on May 7,1997. The action was based on the failure of the licensee to prepare a limited quantity package such that it would maintain its integrity during transport. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
i NDC Systems, Irwindale, California EA 96 539 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity level Ill violation was issued on January 13, 1997. The action was based on a willful violation in which, from 1989 to November 1995, the licensee delivered Eauging devices containing 150 millicuric americium-241 sources for transport, by air, to foreign countries in excepted packaging rather than in Type A packaging. Although a base civil penalty was warranted under the normal assessment process (because the action was willful, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective actions), the NRC exercised discretion and refrained from issuing a penalty because of a Confirmatory Order Modifying License that was issued in conjunction with this action (see Appendix C).
Nebraska Public Power INstrict, Cooper, Unit i EA 96.n.
Supplement til l
A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on November 20,1996. The action was based on eight apparent violations of access authorization requirements, most of which had been identified by the licensee following a change in management of the security program in late 1995.
Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully taitigated because:
(1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Nebraska Pubile Power District, Cooper, Unit i EA 96-488 Supplement !
A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on December 20,1996. The action was based on a licensee discovery that the reset function for the RCIC turbine trip / throttle valve, was powered by an ac, not a de motor. As a result, during certain conditions, reactor vessel level could not be automatically controlled by the RCIC system resulting in a challenge to core cooling. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Nebraska Public Power District, Cooper l'uclear Station EA 97-017 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Exercise of Discretion was issued June 25,1997. The action was based on the failure to update the USAR as required by 10 CFR 50.71(c), and the failure to perform adequare written safety evaluations in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. A* hough a base civil penalty was warranted under the normal assessment process (because the violation was not the first in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective actions), discretion was exercised in accordance with Section VII.B.6 and a civil penalty was not proposed. Discretion was based on:
i I
l 74 l
l Appendix A (1) consideration of the generally low safety significance of the violations, (2) the comprehensiveness of the licensee's corrective actions, (3) the fact that the inspections were occurring at about the same time i
ti.at the Policy was revised, and (4) recognition that communications with the NRC may have inadvenently contributtd to delaying the licensee's USAR upgrade program.
New Bdtain General llespital, New Britain, Connecticut EA W3%
(
Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til vialation was issued on December 20,1996. The action was based on a violation concerning the licensee's failure to provide to the NRC information that was complete and accurate in all material respects.
Specifically, the then Chief Nuclear Medicine Ttchnologist, a first-line supcivisor, made inaccurate entries into the licensee's dose calibrator constancy record. Although the violation was considered willful, the civil gnalty was fully mitigated because:
I (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
- New England Medical Center llospital, Boston, Massachusetts EA % 398 i
Supplements IVand V A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on November 13,1996. The action was based on a violation in which radiation levels exceeded 200 millirem per hour on the external surface of a package in transport. Specifically, the licensee shipped a package containing 44 millicuries of iridium 192 by common carrier vehicle (not designated as exclusive use) and the radiation level measured at a point on the extemal surface of the package was approximately 400 millirem per hour. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
NJS Engineering, Spearfish, South Dakota EA % 450 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on January 8,1997. The action was based on a violation where the licemee did riot control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material. Specifically, a moisture / density gauge had been stored in an unlocked case inside an unlocked vehicle at a temporary jobsite without the licensee maintaining constant surveillance of the gauge. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Northern States Power Connpany, Prairie Island Station, Unit 2 EA 97-073 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity lavel til violation was issued on April 30,1997. The a+on was based on a heavy load being moved without written procedures. Although this was not the first acalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
75 -
Apswedis A Nuclear Inunging, LM EA 97 263 Supplement lY A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level Iil violation was issued on July 31,1997. The action was based on the licensee failed to secure or keep under constant surveillance and immediate control all byproduct material when in transit.
Specifically, a shipping package contuning approximately 300 millicuries of technetium-99m was placed in a vehicle compartment for transport. The package was not locked or otherwise secured and this resulted in the package falling from the vehicle during transit.
The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
P & W Excavating, Inc., Warfordsburg, Pennsylvania EA 97 227 Supplements IV and V A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on June 17, 1997. The action was based on the failure to control and maintain constant surveillance of three gauges containing licensed material not in storage in controlled areas at the licensee's Warfordsburg facility. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylmnia EA 96 499 Supplements IV, Y, and VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level Ill violation was issued on December 30,1996. The violation involves several examples of failure to secure licensed radioactive material or limit access to material at the facility. The unsecured material included: (1) an unopened package containing licensed material in an unrestricted area; and (2) liquid waste containing licensed material in an unrestricted area. At the time cach example was identified, the areas were not controlled nd constant surveillance was not maintained over the licensed '.terial. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Pennsylvania Testing Isboratory, West Pittston, Pennsylvania EA 97126 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on June 13, 1997. The action was based on the possession of licensed radioactive material at unauthorized locations, incomplete and inaccurate information, and failure to leak test sealed sources and detector cells containing licensed material, in addition, the license was terminated based on the fact that the company no longer possessed licensed radioactive material. The NRC found the commitments listed in a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) issued on April 17,1997, were met and no further response was required regarding this CAL.
Pensacola Testing Ishs., Inc., Pensacola, Florida EA 96-315 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level Ill violation was issued on October 23,1996. The action was based on tio use of licensed material to perfomi moisture density activities at various military installations l
(areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction) without either a specific or general license issued by the NRC
- 76 w-.
.,..,~.-.---.--,-- - -- ----
Appendix A x
and without filing Form 241 with tue NRC. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Philadelphia Drctdc Conpany, Umedek, Unit i E4 96 209 l
Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity 1.evel Ill violation was issued on October 17, 1996. This action was based on the circumstances surrounding the substantial accumulation of debris on the Unit I suppression pool suction strainer and the subsequent inoperability of one train of the residual heat removal (RHR) system due to a collection of fibrous material and corrosion products on the RHR pump's suction strainers. *lhe civil penaky was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) erMit was warranted for cor ective action, Philadelphia Doctdc Company, Umedek, Units 1 & 2 E4 97 340 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on September 29,1997. The action was based on the licensee not implementing atxt maintaining in effect certain provisions of the approved Fire Protection Program as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for the facility in that a temporary cable to provide power to the Unit 2 ADS solenoid pilot valves did not exist; and the pathways for the installation of the temocrary cables for both Unit I and Unit 2, areas to which access may be needed for manual actuation of safe shutdown equipment, were not provided with fixed self contained lighting units with individual 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> battery power supplies. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action Philadelphia Doctdc Company, Prach Bottom, Units 2 & 3 E4 96 243 and Umedck, Units 14 2 Supplement til A Notice of Violation for two Severity Level Ill violations was issued on February 3,1997. The actions wer? based on two failures to control safeguards information. In the first case, for a period of approximately 3 weeks, an electronic copy of the Limerick Physical Security Plan, which contains Safeguards Information, was located on the PECO Nuclear Local Area Network (LAN), and the document was not under the control of an authorized individual and was available to personnel who were not authorized access to Safeguards Information. In the second case, from approximately 1988 through 1996, approximately 150 items (including aperture cards, film cartridges, and hard copies of drawing change information), that contained design features of the physical protection system that contained
(
Safeguards Information (concerning both the Limerick and Peach Bottom sites), were stored in an l
uncontrulled manner at various PECO sites. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Philadelphia Decide Company, Prach Bottom, Units 2 & 3 E4 96-370 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on January 3,1997. The action was based a Maintenance Rule base line inspection that determined PECO Nuclear was not adequately monitoring the performance of numerous systems and components against established goals, nor had l
I 77
Appendis A PECO Nuclear demonstrated the effectiveness of preventive maintenance on these systems and coniponents. Both of these deficiencies were requirements of the Maintenance Rule. Although a base civil penalty would have been warranted under the normal assessment process (because this was not the first escalated issue in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 and refrained from issuing a civil penalty (see Appendix E).
Power itesources, Inc., Casper, E4 97J18 Suppleurent VI c
A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on July 29,1997. The action was based on lack of management oversight that resulted in multiple violations, involving monitoring, posting, and reporting. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Proftssional Service industries, Inc., lansing, Michigan E4 %490 Supplement lY A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on February 28,1997. The action was based on a violation where the licensee did not secure from unauthorized removal or limit access to a Campbell pacifu Nuclear moisture / density gauge containing NRC licensed material (nominally 10 millicuries (370 Mt>q) of cesium 137 and nominally 50 millicuries (1850 Mbq) of americium-241 in sealed sources) at a construction site in Detroit, Michigan, nor did the licensee control and maintain constant surveillance of this licensed material. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 yeats, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Professional Service industries, Inc., Bristol, Virginia E4 97-093 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on May 22, 1997. The action involved: (1) failure to ensure that two technicians were properly trained and ce:.;fied prior to using moisture / density gauges; (2) a failure to ensure that a technicien received required, formal classroom training by a certified Radiation Safety Officer / Instructor; (3) the storage of a moisture / density gauge at a technician's residence contrary to license prohibitions on such storage; and (4) the performance of maintenance on a moisture / density gauge contrary to license prohibitions on such activities. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first esedated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
PuNic Service Electric and Gas Company, flope Creek, Unit i E4 % 281 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severi*y Level !!! violation was issued on October 23,1996. The action was based on a violation where from November 1992 until March 17,1996, the service water flow throttle valves to safety related heat exchangers were improperly set following modification ectivities. As a result, the flow path vss not capable of transferring sufficient cooling water from the ultimate heat sink to the heat exchange,s for certain design basis postulated operating conditions. Although th!s was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
i 78
l Appendix A Roberts Construction Company, Louisa, Kentucky EA 96-480 Supplement IVand VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity level III violation was issued on January 17, 1997. The action was based on a violation where the licensee failed to secure from unauthorized rernoval or access a portable density gauge containing licensed material located in an unrestricted area at a temporary job site in War, West Virginia. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska EA 96 446 Supplement IVand VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on January 13, 1997. The action was based on the licensce's failure to: (1) limit the annual dose to a member of the public to 0.1 rem total effective dose equivalent; and (2) make surveys to assure compliance with 10 CFR 20.1301(a). The civil penaky was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Soldiers & Seilus Memorialllospital, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania EA 97 358 Supplement IV A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on September 25,1997. The action was based on the licensee not securing from unauthorized removal or limit access to licensed material located in the Nuclear Medicine prep roorn/ hot lab, which was an unrestricted area, nor did the licensee control and maintain constant surveillance of this licensed material. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) nedit was warranted for corrective action.
Somerset County Engineen'ng, Somenet, New Jersey EA 97-043 Supplements IV, V, and VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on April i1,1997. The action was based on four violations that collectively represented a bicakdown in control of the licensed program for moisture density gauges. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
St. Francis llospital, Escanaba, Michigan EA 96 491 Supplements IV, VI, & Vil A Notice of Violation was issued on May 1,1997. The action was based a Severity Level 111 problem consisting of failure to mori or the extemal surface of a Yellow 11 package for radioactive contamination, t
failure to perfomi a dose calibrator constancy check at the beginning of each day of use, failure to detennine the molybdenum-99 concentration prior to administering doses to patients, failure to measure the radiation levels of a Yellow 11 package, and failure to provide annual refresher training. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, ana (2) credit was warranted for corrective action. A civil penalty was also proposed in conjunction with this action (see Appendix B).
79
,-w--
l Appendia A St. Francis Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawail EA 96 524 Supplement lY A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on March 5,1997. The action was based on a violation in which the licemee did not secure from unauthorized removal or access licensed i
material stored in a controlled area. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
St. Peter's Medical Center, New Brunswick, New Jersey EA 97-#6 Supplement til A Notice of Violation for a Severity J.evel III problem was issued September 25,1997. The action was bar.ed on four violations that collectively represented a programmatic breakdown in the control of licensed activities. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah, Unit i EA 97 232 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on July 10, 1997. The action was based on the failure to establish menures to assure that a significant condition adverse to quality was protaptly identified and corrected and corrective action was taken to preclude repetition. The licensee failed to adequately control reactor coolant system inventory during reduction in pressurizer level.
Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because:
(1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
U.S. Enrichment Corporation, Paducah, Kentucky EA 97 267 Supplement til A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 problem was issued on September 22,1997. The action was based on the licensee's failure to: (1) provide the Commission complete and accurate information, and (2) imdement various aspects of the Security Plan of the priucah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The civil penalty was fully miti sted because: (1) it was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was E
warranted for corrective actions.
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland EA 97116 Supplement IV A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on May 2,1997. The action was based on the failure to secure licensed material against unauthorized removal or control access to it. The civil penaky was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the flat escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
80
L Appendit A
[
m.._ _....... _ _ _.. _....,,.
Yeterans Administration Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylmnia EA %i82 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on September 25,1997. The action was based on discrimination against the Radiation Safety Officer (R50). This action was origir ally categorized at Severity Level 11 arx! was issued with a $8,000 civil penalty on September 16,1996. The NRC subsequently determined that the violation was more appropriately categorized at Severity Level 111 and exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 and refrained from imposing the civil penalty. Nscretion was warranted because: (1) the chastisement did not substantially affect the conditions of employment, an apology was issued, and the individual renuins the RSO, (2) the Department of Labor (DOL) concluded that the licensee inet the terms and conditions of outlined remedies, and (3) investigations conducted by DOL and the NRC's Office of Investigations did not substantiate continued discrimination against the RSO for contacting the NRC.
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Wilmington, Delaware EA 97146 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til problem was issued on May 2,1997. The action was based on violations involving: (1) failure to prepare written directives prior to the administration of iodine-131 doses greater than 30 microcuries, (2) failure to measure, each 6 months, the ventilation rates available in areas of use of radioactive gas, (3) failure to conduct reviews to verify compliance with all aspects of the quahty management program at intervals no greater than 12 months, and (4) failure to estab!bb a quomm at the RSC meetings. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Houston, Texas EA % 534 Supplement lY A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level !!! violation was issued on March 10, 1997. The action was based on a violation in which the licensee transferred and subsequently disposed of a 130 microcurie americium 241 scaled calibration source (Model AMCK599) contained in a liquid scintillation counter by a means other than transfer to an authorized person. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because:
(1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Washington PDic Power Supply System, WNP.2 EA 96 267 Supplement iJ A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on October 1, 1996. The action was based on a violatio: involving failure of the licensee to ensure operability of equipment for systems cecessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown cointitions or provide alternate or dedicated safe shutdown capability. Specifically,16 motor operated valves, necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions, were potentially unable to perform their post-fire safe shutdown function because their control circuits were susceptible to fire induced hot shorts. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
81
Appeedh A Westinghouse Electric Company, Columbia, South Carolina EA 97 244 Supplement VI
- A Notice of Violation for a Seventy Level 111 violation was issued on July 28,1997. De action was based on the licensee's failure to: (1) properly notify the NRC regarding material control and accounting discrepancies; (2) provide adequate training for certain employees that handle Special Nuclear Materials; (3) provide adequate procedures for handling and testing lead-filled rods; (4) comply with Department of Transportation requirements; and (5) adequately implement Westinghouse's Material Control and Accounting Program. De civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-075 Supplement i Notices of Violation for three Severity Level 111 problems were issued on August 8,1997. The action was based on: (1) failure of the corrective action system to assure adequate corrective actions were taken for conditions adverse to quality (2) unreviewed safety questions tnat were created when the Residual lleat Removal and the Auxiliary Feedwater systems were operated in a manner not described in the Final Safety Analyses Report, and (3) failure to properly implement Technical Specification requirements, including correcting deficiencies and appropriately testing portions of the emergency power supply system. Although three base civil penalties would have been warranted under the normal assessment process (because this was not the first escalated isst,e in 2 years, credit was not wnranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Scetion Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy. Enforcement discretion was exercised to not issue a civil penalty because: (1) the NRC had already issued a $325,000 civil penalty (EA 96-273 dated December 3,1996) to emphastre performance problems, (2) the licensee entered into a Confirmatory Action Letter which provided that the licensee would not operate its facility until it addressed the subject violations as well as other performance problems and met with the NRC to justify restart, (3) the licensee implemented comprehensive corrective actions, and (4) although the NRC identified a number of these issues as a result of its inspections, the NRC determined that Wisconsin Electric Power Company dedicated significant resourcea to successfully address the performance issues and substantially improve Point Beach's conduct of operations.
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Kewaunee EA 97-235 Supplement i A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on August 6,1997. The action was based on a design error that occurred during the installation of the reactor vessel level indication system that rendered the system inoperable. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty war fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
l 82
Appendix B APPENDIX B:
SUMMARY
OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTIES Anheuser Busch, St. Louis, Missouri FA 97-291 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on September 24, 1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 111 problem involving unauthorized
- 0. posal of licensed material. Although a penalty would not have been issued under the normal assessment process (because this was the first escahted issue in 2 years, and credit was wanant,ed for identification), the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 and issued a base civil penalty because the licensed material was not controlled and was found in the public domain.
R&W Fuel Company, Lynchburg, Virginia FA % 538 Supplements V and VI A Notice of Violation arxl Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $12,500 was issued on March 4,1997, for a Severity Level III problem. The action was based on five violations involving an event in which a low enriched, unirradiated fuel assembl> was inadvertently returned in its original shipping container to its point of origin in Germany. The violations include B&W's failure to: (1) follow its procedures for the downloading operation, (2) provide adequate procedures for the dowrdoading operation, (3) conduct a reasonable survey of the shipping container, (4) comply with numerous transportation requirements, and (5) adequately implement material control and accounting procedures to verify the presence of the fuel assembly. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because:
(1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Baltimore Gas & Dectric Company, Calvert Ol(fs, Units 1 & 2 FA 97192 Supplement lY A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $176,000 was issued on August 11,1997. The action was based on three violations constituting a Severity Level 11 problem involving inadequate radiological controls surrounding a spent fuel pool diving effort that very nearly caused a substantial radiation exposure in excess of regulatory limits when a diver inadvertently acctma an unauthorized and unsurveyed area of the spent fuel pool adjacent to fresh irradiated fuel. Ten other nonecalated violations were identified related to other inadequate radiological controls ::.d inadequate control of refueling activities. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed in this casi : ecause: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for ident%ation, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action..
Appendis il Barnett industria! X Ray, Inc., Stillwater, Oklahoma Ea 96-502 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,000 was issued on February 24,1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem. The action was based on: (1) a deliberate failure of a radiographer and an assistant radiographer to wear personal radiation monitoring devices, including alarm ratemeters; (2) a willful failure to conduct a survey to assure that the source had been returned to its shielded position; and (3) a willful failure on the part of the radiographer to adequately supervise his assistant. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment process (because this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, credit wcs not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), discretion was exercised in accordance with Section VII.A.1 and a penalty was proposed to emphasize: (1) the responsibility of ensuring that employees meet basic radiation safety requirements, and (2) the significance of the willful violations.
Carolina Power and light Compan: Brunswick, Units I and 2 EA 96-354 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $150,000 was issued or, clovember 19, 1996, for two Severity Level 111 violations. The action wt.s based on: (1) a failure to implement the environmental qualification (EQ) program in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 and (2) a longstanding failure to implement the corrective action program with regard to EQ deficiencies. A base penalty of $50,000 was is:;ued for the first violation because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action. Although a base penalty was warranted under the normal assessment process for the second violation (because this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), discretion was exercised in accordance with Section VII.A.1 and twice the base civil penalty was proposed because of the inadequacies identified in the past implementation of the licensee's co.rective action program in the area of EQ.
Cartier, Inc., Shelton, Connecticut EA 97145 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $7,500 was issued on June 18,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 111 violation myolving distribution of approximately 16.000 timepieces containing up to 4.6 millicuries of tritium without an NRC license.
Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment process j
(because the violation was the first escalated action within 2 years and the licensee took good corrective l
action), the NRC exercised enforcement discredon in accordance with Section Vll. A.1 of the Enforcement Policy, and proposed a penalty at three times the base amount. Discretion was warranted because of:
(1) the regulatory significance, (2) the inabi:ity of the NRC to conduct inspections of the licensees activities (3) the duration of the violation (12 years), and (4) the costs of maintaining an NRC license that the licensee avoided during the period of noncompliance.
l l
)
1 l
M.
1
Appendix B Centerior Service Company, Perry, Units I & 2 Et % 253 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $160,000 was issued on October 9.1996, for a Severity level 11 violation. The action was based on a problem involving two violstions of 10 CFR 50.7, " Employee Protection.' As determined in the DOL Administrative Law Judge's (AU) Recommended Decision and Order in case 96-ERA-6, dated June 11,1996, the licensee instructed its contractor to terminate one insulator from his employment at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and banned him and five additior 1 insulators from working at any Centerior facility in retallation for the insulators filing a civil complaint adc< te Atomic Energy Act. The violation is categorized at Severity Level 11 because it appears from J AU's decision that management above first line supervision was involved in the discrimination. Twhw the base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Develand Ginic Foundation, Oeveland, Ohio E4 %289 Supplement IV and VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amouut of $5,000 was issued on December 20,1996, for a Severity Level III problem. This action was based on deliberate violations of license conditions that require annul radir.tlon safety refresher training for radiation workers and annual audits of the licensed program. The violations occurred because resources available to the radiation safety officer were not adequate, and the available resources were used to address more pressing safety significant issues in the licensed program. Because the violations were willful, the NRC identified the violations, and the corrective actions were not considered prompt and comprehensive, the NRC proposed twice the base civil penalty. Ti.is action also included a Severity Level til violation without a civil penalty (see Appendix A).
4 Commonwealth Edison Company, Byron, Units 1 & 2 E4 96 508 Supplement i A Notice of Vic'ation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $100,000 was issued on February 27,1997; for four violations categorized as two Severity Level 111 problems related to the identification of excessive silt accumulation in the essential service water (ESW) cooling tower basins and the river screen house intake channel. The first problem involved the failure to (1) translate design configuration information into volumetric requirements for the ESW cooling tower makeup calculation and (2) develop an appropriate acceptance criteria for surveillance procedures to assure ESW operability.
The second problem 14wolved two failures to take appropriate corrective actions for conditions adverse to quality involving the silt accumulation and degraded ESW trash racks. A base civil penalty was proposed for each of the problems because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Commonwealth Edison Company, LaSalle, Units I & 2 Et % 325 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $650,000 was issued on January 24,1997, for violations of very significant regulatory concern associated with the potential common mode failure of the ultimate heat sink caused by repetitive fouling of the service water system 85
Appendix 15 due to the injection of foam sealant material for the repair of minor cracks in the safety related service water intake tunnel at 12Salle County Station. The action includes: (1) a Severity Level 11 problem for inadequate procec'ures and a failure to follow procedures during the application of the sealant, and inadequate corrective actions in response to repetitive fouling of the service water system and (2) a Severity Level.Ill problem for five inadequate procedures related to testmg, backwashing, and cleaning strainers in the safety related emergency core cooling water, residual heat removal, and non-essential service water systems, in addition to the failure to complete safety evaluations regarding strainer backwash flow and mesh size being different than that described in the FSAR. The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with frection Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy for the Severity Level 11 problem and proposed a $600,000 civil penalty because of the particularly poor performance in the event. A base civil penalty was proposed for the Severity Level 111 problem because, although the issue was the first escalated issue in 2 years credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Quad Cities, Units 1 & 2 EA 96 530 Supplement !
A Netice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on June 24,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level ill problem consisting of violations involving design control of the facility's secondary containment structure's blowout panels and exterior siding. A I
base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 yeais, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Zion, Unirs 1 & 2 EA 96-35S Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $100,000 was issued on March 12, 1997 for a Severity Level III problem. The action is based nn multiple violations that involved failures to: (1) perform adequate 10 CFR 50.59 analysis for modifications on safety-rdated systems; (2) follew procedures in the areas of modifications, correcti,e actions, operations and maintenance; (3) conduct tests to demonstrate systems would perform satisfactorily following modification; and (4) take prompt corrective action for significant conditions adverse to quality involving repetitive out-of-tolerance settings for containment spray system sodium hydroxide spray additive tank level indication and repetitive failures of a 4KV breaker. Although a base penalty would have been warranted under the normal assessment process (based on the fact that the problem was not the first escalated activa within 2 years, that the NRC identified the problem, and that the corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive), discretion was exercised and twice the base penalty was proposed. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the root causes of the problem existed for an extended duration, and (2) the past corrective actions were ineffective.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Zion, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-048 Supplement V A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposit!nn of Civil Penaky in the amount of $50,000 was issued on Jute 17,1997. The action was based on one Severity Level til problem involving multiple violations that collectively constituted a tireakdown in control of the licensee's program for the transportation of radioactive material. These violations included failing to train personnel in accordance with procedures, inadequately maintaining radioactive material shipping procedures, inadequately implementing radiation control procedures, and exceeding the radiation limits specified in 49 CFR 173.425 for a shipment of 86 -
Appendix B 9
radioactive material. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first
- escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Zion, Units 1 & 2 EAs 97 222 & 97 223 Supplement til A Notic., of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $330,000 was issued on September 2,1997. The action was based on three Severity Level 111 violations pertaining to reactivity management problems r id command / control problems that occurred during the February 21,1997 plant shutdown; the nitrogen gas displacement of reactor coolant from the reactor vessel on March 8,1997; and th( failure of the corrective action program to implement effective and lasting actions for shnitar previous events. While the actual safety consequence of each eyes was low, die events were clearly indicative of the licensee's failure to establish effective oversight of control room activities as well as a fauure to learn from past mistakes'of its own and industry events. Since the licensee demonstrated particularly poor performance in allowing their occurreace, Q violations were
-directly attributable to managememi ineffective development and implementation of corrective actions for previous events, and management was responsible for allowing control room conditions to degrade to a point where execution of control room responsibilities was impaired, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII,A of the Enforcement Policy and doubled the civil penalties for each of the three issues.
Ccs;am inspection, Inc., Itaska, Illinois EA 97 207 Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $16,000 was issued on June 9,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 11 problem involving: (1) a failure to secure the sealed source assembly in the shielded position, (2) a failure to perform an adequate survey after each radiographic exposure, (3) a failure to limit the annual occupational dose to an adult radiographer to 5 rems, (4) a failure to submit a 30-day written report concerning a dose in excess of the occupational dme limits, and (5) a fail. ire to wear a film badge and pocket dosimeter at all times when working with ionizing radiation. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was a Severity Level 11 problem, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck EA 96-001 Supplements I & Vill A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $650,000 was issued
- on May 12,1997. Ti.:s action was based on three Severity Level 11 problems consisting of multiple individual violations, one Severity Level Ill problem not assessed a civil penalty, and numerous Severity Level IV violations. The violations were grouped into a number of broad categories, namely, numerous longstanding deficiencies in engineering programs and practices. including plant design, design control, and engineering support, some of which led to significant safety equipment being inoperable or degraded for extended periods; numerous operational deficiencies, including inadequate procedures, failure to follow pro;edures, and inadequate corrective actions, which led to an event in which nitrogen gas was allowed to intrude into the reactor coolant system; and inadequate implementation cf the emergency preparedness program during the August 1996 exercise. The NRC exercised civil penalty discretion in.
>+
- Appendix B accordance with Section Vll.A and issued $200,000, $150,000, and $300,000 penalties for the three Severity Level 11 problems.
Connelllimited Partnership, Tulsa, Oklahoma EA % 536 Supplemnu VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $8,800 was issued on March 6,1997, for violations classified at Severity Level II. The action was based on three violations of radiography safety requirements that resulted in a radiation exposure in excess of NRC's li: nits. The exposure occurred to 'a radiographer employed by another licensee, Tulsa Gaiama Rav, Inc., who conducted radiography in Connell's facility. The exposure associated with the incident was 6.465 rems total effective dose equivalent, resulting in an exposure to the radiographer of 8.3 rems, exceeding the annuallimit of 5 rems. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years. (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Consolidated Edison Company, Indian Point, Unit 2 EAs96-309, 97-031, Supplement i 97 113, & 97-191 A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $205,000 was issued on May 27,1997. The action was based on three Severity Level 111 violations and one Severity Level 111 problem consisting of four individual violations. Two of the Severity Level 111 violations and the Severity Level Ill problem was for the licensee's failure to identify and take corrective actions for significant conditions adverse to auality related to the introduction of abrasive grit into the main feedwater system, inadvertent actuation of fire dampers, and other instances which could have resulted in degradation or inoperability of safetr mlated equipment. The third Severity Level til violation involved a condition in which fire protectic-7eatures were not provided to limit fire damage so that one train of a system necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown was free of fire damage. A base civil penalty was proposed in three of the cases because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action. A base civil penahy was proposed in the other case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was warranted 0:r identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
CTI, Inc., A.,'wrage, Alaska EA % 232 Supplement V A Notice of Violation and Proposed Impositicn of Civil Penalty in the amount of $13,000 was issued on October 31, 1996. The action was based on: (1) a Severity Level 11 problem involving a failure to perform an adequate survey of a radiographic device, a failure to check the operability of an alarm ratemeter prior to use, a failure to immediately notify the licensee's radiation safety officer about the potential malfunction of a radiographic device and the off-scale discharge of a pocket dosimeter, and a failure to immediately send for processing a radiographer's film badge after the pocket dosimeter assigned to him discharged beyond its range; and (2) a Severity Level 111 problem concerning a willful failure to post a 1sgh radiation area and failure to maintain complete and accurate records regarding the posting of such areas. Base civil penahies were issued for each issue because: (1) these issues were considered willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for the corrective actions.
I I
l
-M-
I Appendix B Detroit Edison company, Fermi, Unit 2 FA 97-201 i Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on September 23,1997. The action was based on one Severity Ievel Ill violation pertaining to the licensee's failure to implement timely and effective corrective actions to resolve electrical switch preventive maintenance (cleaning, lubricating, and cycling) problems. The' failure to implement an effective preventive mainterance program resulted in the failure of several electrical disconnect switches installed in safety related and non-safety related systems. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case Wause:
(1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for idnatfict.6 ion, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Duke Power Compmy, Oconee, Units 1 & 2 EAs97-297 & 97-298 Supplement 11 A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $330,000 was issued on August 27,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 11 violation, identified during a Unit 2 shutdown on May 2,1997, involving the high pressure injection system being found in a condition where it would be unable to perform its intended function and a Severity Level 111 violation involving the failure to properly implement a required augmented inspection program for identifying cracks in the high pressure injection system piping that resulted in an unisolable reactor coolant leak on April 21,1997, The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.A of he Enforcement Policy and a t
$220,000 civil penalty was proposed for the Severity Level 11 violation and a $110,000 civil penalty was proposed for the Severity I.evel Ill violation. Disc ~& n was warranted because of: (1) the high potential safety consequence of the inoperable high pressure injection system, (2) the duration of the violation, and (3) the prior opportunities the licensee had to identify the cause of the inoperability, Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Va: ley, Unit 1 EAs96-462 & 96-540 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $160,000 was issued ou March 10,1997. The action was based on (1) a Severity Level III violation related to the licensee's failure to correct an adverse condition to quality at Unit 1 involving the operation of the reactor with two out of three pressurizer power operated relief valve (PORV) block valves shut for 13 years, and (2) a Severity Level III problem related to deficiencies associated with inadequate control of leak sealant repairs on the Unit 2 reactor head vent system (llVS). A base civil penalty was proposed in the first case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action. Although a base civil penalty would have been warranted for the second case (because this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), the NRC exercised discretion in accordarce with Section VII.A.1 and doubled the civil penalty (see Appendix E).
Entergy Operatiens, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One EA 96-512 Supplement I A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on April 9,1997. The action was based on violations related to an October 17,1996 containment building fire at the company's Arkansas Nuclear One facility. The action is based on a Severity Level III problem.
er
Appendix B consisting of: (1) a failure to maintain an adequate lube oil collection systera for reactor coolant pumps, which resulted in oil accumulation on fibrous insulation, creating the potential for a fire; and (2) a failure -
in two instances to take prompt action to identify and correct conditions which resulted in the fire. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Waterford, Unit 3 EA 96 255 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in die amount of $50,000 was issued on December 26, 1996, for two Severity Level III violations. The action was based on an inspection performed at the licensee's Waterford 3 facility that identified violations involving the inservice test (IST) program. The first violation involved the actual design configuration of the containment vacuum relief system being different from that described in the plant's Final Safety Analysis Report, which resulted in certain valves not being properly tested to ensure they fulfilled the containment isolanon function. A base civil penalty was proposed for this violation because: (1) it was not the first escalated issue in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective aaion. The civil penalty was fully mitigated for the second violation that involved the failure to promptly evaluate and correct known discrepancies in the IST program (see Appendix A).
Entergy Operations,Inc., Waterford3 EA 97-099 Suppleme.~J l A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the arnount of $55,000 was issued on May 9,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level III problem consisting of: (1) a failure to assure containment fan cooler flows met Technical Specification surveillance acceptance requirements, (2) a failure to properly translate design basis information into accident Analyses and specifications, (3) a failure to test containment fan cooler flows under post-accident conditions, and (4) a failure to take prompt action to resolve discrepancies between design basis documents and attained flows. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Environmental Protection Agency, Barrigada, Guam EA 97-122 Supplement 17 A Notice of Violatior and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on September 11,1997. This action was based on an inspection conducted in February 1997, that identified a Severity level 111 problem involving the licensee's storage and use of a gas chromatography unit. One of the violations, involving the failure to maintain adequate security over licensed material, was a repeat violation, and all the violations in the aggregate indicated a lack of management oversight of licensed activities. Although this was the first escalated action in 2 years, a base civil penalty was proposed in this case because credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, Fairbanks, Alaska EA 96 50S Supplement 17 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on April 1,1997. This action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving, deliberate failure to l
l
!.ppendix B obtain the signature of the physician authorized user on a written directive before administering a dosage of I 131 of greater than 30 microcuries to a patient. The dosage administered was approximately 6.6 millicuries instead of the intended 100 microcuries, which constitutes a misadministration. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment process (because the licensee identified and corrected the violation), discretion was warranted to propose a base penalty because of the deliberate nature of the violation, the involvement of the radiation safety officer, and the potential for patient harm.
Fernandez, Af.D., Jose, San Juan, Puerto Rico EA 97-137 Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $8,000 was issued on June 11,1997. The action involved numerous violations associated with the licensee's failure to implement various aspects of his brachytherapy program (strontium-90 opthamological treatments) and the failure to comply with all aspects of the ' Order Modifying License No. 52-25114-01, issued on October 21,1996. Specifically, nine violations were identified involving the failure to (1) establish a Quality Management Program, (2) appropriately secure licensed material, (3) prohibit use of l!::ensed material by an authorized user, (4) notify patients of misadministrations within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, (5) provide patients written reports of misadministrations within 15 days, (6) leak test sealed sources, (7) inventory seal sources, (8) transfer licensed material to an authorized recipient, and (9) transfer licensed material within the time specified in the October 21,1996 Order. The violations were categorized as a Severity Level 11 problem based on the NRC's conclusion that they were reflective of a significant lack of program oversight and careless disregard for regulatory requirements. Several of the violations stemmed from the failure to assure that one of the license: i eye applicators containing Sr-90 and used for patient eye treatment was appropriately calibrated. As a consequence, more than 200 misadministrations (of greater than two times the intended dose) cccurred. The ultimate health impact of the overexposures to the patients is not fully known at this time; however, patient follonup has been coordinated with the Puerto Rico Depanment of Health. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was a Severity Imel 11 issue, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective actbn.
Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie, Units 1 & 2 FA 96-458 Supplement til A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $50,000 was issued on January 10, 1997, for a Severity Level 111 violation. The action involved violations of significant regulatory concern associated with the engineering / modification process, security, an:1 emergency preparedness at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. The action included a problem for the failure to limit access to plant protected and vital areas and to notify the NRC, A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie, Units 1 & 2 EA 96-464 Supplement ill A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $100,000 was issued on January 10,1997, for three Severity Level III violations. The action involved violations of significant regulatory concern associated with the engineering / modification process, security, and emergency.
Appendix 11 preparedness at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. The action includes a problem for multiple failures to implement the Radiological Emergency Plan. The violations, although unrelated, are reflective of particularly poor overall licensee performance. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because:
(1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identifiotion, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River, Unit 3 EA 97-012 Supplement til A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civi! Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on February 28,1997, for violations that were categurized as a Severity Level 111 prob!cm. The action involved multiple violations related to the implementation of the licensee's Physical Security Plan (PSP).
Specifically, six violations were identified involving the failure to:
(1) maintain adequate PSP implementing procedures, (2) properly respond to a protected area alarm, (3) employ the capability to assess more than one protected area alarm at a time, (4) maintain a physical barrier to the protected area,
- (5) appropriately control and safeguards weapons stored in the armory, and (6) properly submit PSP changes to the NRC as required by 10 CFR 50.54(p). A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
GCME, Inc., Depere, Hisconsin EA 96-256 Supplement IV, V, VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued on October 4,1996. 'Ihe action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving failure to: (1) ensure that users of byproduct material were issued film badges, (2) secure licensed material from anauthorized removal, (3) provide training to users of byproduct material, and (4) transport licensed material in accordance with DOT requirements. Twice the b se civil penalty was proposed in this case because:
(1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Grand View flospital, Sellersville, Pennsylvania EA 97-309 Supplement V A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,400 = isoed on August 13,1997. The action is based on a Severity level 11 problem involving: (1) the licensee's failure to ensure that radiation safety activities were being performed in accordance with apr <ed procedures and regulatory requirements, and (2) the shipment of a Class 7 (radioactive) materim package, which had removable radioactive contaminants on the external surfaces of the package in excess of 270 timea the allowable regulatory limits. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was a Severity Level 11 problem, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Grandin Testing Lab, Inc., Los Lunas, New Mexico EA 96-382 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 for a Severity Level ill violation, was issued on January 6,1997. This action was based on the use of gauges in areas l,
'I l
Appendix B of exclusive Federaljurisdiction without proper authorization from the NRC. The NRC concluded that the violation resulted from careless disregard for the applicable requirements. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1)'this was considered willful, (2) credit was not warranted for-identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
H.H. Holmes Testing Laboratorie.r, Wheeling, Illinois EA 97 237 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on August 22,1997. The action is based on a Severity Level Ill violation involving willful failures to file an NRC Form 241. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was considered willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Hagerstown Construction, Hagerstown, Maryland EA 97-193 Supplements V & V7 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on July 1,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 111 violation involving numerous failures, in careless disregard to Commission requirements, to file NRC Form 241 for work involving moisture density gauges performed under an Agreement State license in States where NRC has licensing authority.
'Ihe failure to file Form 241 resulted in NRC being unaware, for an extended period of time, that licensed activities were being conducted in NRC jurisdiction. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was considered willful. (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
HTP, Inc., Sharon, Pennsylmnia EA 97-226 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,500 was issued on June 18,1997. The action was based on HTP's continued possession of sealed sources even though the llTP license expired in January 1995 and HTP was required to complete decommissioning within 26 months of that date. The violation was considered willful and was categorized at Severity Level III because IITP was given adequate notice and had not complied. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was considered willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action. The Notice provided that the NRC would withdraw the civil penalty if the licensee transferred the byproduct material to an authorized recipient within 30 days and complied with other requirements of 10 CFR 30.36. The NRC subsequently withdrew the Notice on August 18,1997, because the licensee transferred the material and complied with other requirements.
Appendh B lilinois Power Company, Clinton EAs96-412, 97-001, Supplements I and IV 97-002, & 97-060 A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $450,000 was issued on June 9,1997. The action was based on one Severity Level 11 problem consisting of two violations and four Severity Level 111 problems consisting of 28 violations. The Severity Level 11 problem involved two significant procedure violations that occurred on September 5,1996, when the licensee's actions to obtain single loop operation resuhed in reactor coolant leakage considerably exce Png allowed Tecimical Specification leakage limits that required a plant shutdown. The Severity Levet 111 problems involve (1) the use of procedures, (2) implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, (3) inoperability of an emergency diesel generator that exceeded the allowed out of service time, and (4) inoperable feedwater penetrations. The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy and issued the maximum statutory amount ($200,00) for the Severity Level 11 problem and issued $100,000 for the Severity Level 111 problem involving use of procedures. Discretion was warranted to emphasize: (1) the importance af strong management oversight and direction from both the site and utility in maintaining clear focus on operational safety violations, (2) the need for plant personnel to challenge and investigate discrepancies, (3) the need to adequately plan safety significant activities, (4) the need to take timely and effective corrective actions, and (6) the need for a strong self-assessment program. Base penalties were proposed for the other three Severity Level 111 problems because credit was not warranted for the licensee's corrective actions.
filinois Power Company, Ginton EA 97-132 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $110,000 was issued on August 1,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level Ill problem involving failure to properly maintain safety-related electrical breakers. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first en!ated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis. Indiana EA 96-248 Supplement 111 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on October 24,1996, for a Severity Level III problem involving two deliberate violations for allowing an unauthorized trainee to use a moisture density gauge without completing the requisite training and for providing a thermoluminescent dosimeter, which was assigned to a project engineer, to the same unauthorized trainee. A base civil per.alty was proposed in this case because: (1) it was considered willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Indianapolis, City of, Indianapolis, Indiana EA 97-166 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Impesition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on May 30,1997. This action was based on a Lwerity Level 111 problem it.volving several violations that in the aggregate rcpresented a breakdown in control over the licensed program for moisture density gauges. Although this was the first escalated action in 2 years, a base civil penalty was proposed in this case because credit was not warranted for corrective action.
94 -
I i
Appendix B Koppel Steel Corporation, Beaver Falls, Penn>
mia EA 96 498 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of C. il Penalty in the amount of $8,000 was issued on March 19,1997, for a Severity Level II. The action was based on discrimination against a former Radiation Safety Officer after he provided information to an NRC inspector during an April 1996 inspection. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was a Severity Level 11 violation, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Lower Bucks Hospital, Bristol, Pennsylvania EA 97-005 Supplement VI A Notice of' olation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on May 27,1997. This action was, based on a Severity Level III problem involving failure to retrieve a cardiac pacemaker from a neighboring hospital where it was explanted. The pacemaker ended up in the normal (non-radioactive) waste stream. Although this was the first esc alated action in 2 years, a base civil penalty was proposed because credit was not warranted for corrective action.
hiallinckrodt Medical, Inc., hiissouri Afaryland Hospital EA 97-155 Supplement V A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $13,750 was issued on May 30,1997. This action is based on one violation of NRC regulations involving ;hipment of a M&99/Tc-99m generator for medical use where the radiation level at the surface of the package exceeded 200 millitems. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated issue in 2 years, (2) credit was warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
hiinnesota hiining and blannfacturer Center, St. Paul, hiinnesota EA 96-403 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $8,000 was issued oa January 7,1997, for a Severity Level 11 violation. This action was based on failure to have an operator present during certain periods when the Brookings, South Dakota, facility irradiator was operated using an automatic product conveyor system. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was a Severity Level 11 violation, (2) credit was warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Nelson Excavating, Inc., Thomas, West Virginia EA 96 308 Supplement I and IV A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued on January 27,1997, for a Severity Level I violation. The action was based on a problem that included use of a moisture density gauge after the license had been suspended, supplying inaccurate information as to the Radiation Protection Officer (RPO), and failure to have an RPO for over 8 years. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was net warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action..
Appendix B New York Power Authority, Indian Point 3 EA 97-294 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the unount of $55,000 was issued on August 19, 1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 111 violation involving three examples of design basis information not being correctly translated in Emergency Operating Procedures and appropriate direction not being provided to operators to ensure that adequate ultimate heat sink cooling was promptly available in certain accident scenarios. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Niagara biohawk Power Corporation, Nine Afile Point EAs96-474, 96-475, Supplement i
& 96-541 A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $200,000 was issued on April 10, 1997. The action was based on three Severity Level III violations / problems involving inadequate design controls and corrective actions, including corrective action deficiencies associated with a reactor pres ure vessel overfill event. Two of the issues were issued base penalties because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed for the other issue because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Millstone, Units 1, 2, & 3 EA 97-104
^
Supplement 111 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on June 11,1997. The action was based on violations related to implementation of the licensee's physical security plan for the Millstone facility. The action is based on a Severity Level III problem consisting of: (1) inuitiple examples of failure to control safeguards information at the facility, and (2) multiple examples of failure to control vehicles in the protected area in that keys were left in the ignition. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Northern States Power Company, Prairie Island, Units 1 & 2 EA 96-402 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on January 23,1997, for a Severity Level III violation. This action was based on a violation involving an unreviewed safe:y question (USQ). The USQ was created by the licensee when they took credit for the use of a non-seismic intake canal and manual operator action in an evaluation performed to address the failure of the emergency intake line to meet the FSAR design basis requirement. The use of operator action to meet the requirements of the FSAR created a USQ because it introduced the potential for creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated previously in the FSAR. The use of the non-seismic intake canal introduced the potential for increasing the probability of the consequences of the accident. Although this was the first escalated action in 2 years. a base civil penalty was proposed in this case because credit was not warranted for corrective action.
- 96
.m
Appendix B Omaha Public Power Di,trict, Ft. Calhoun EA 91251 Supplement 1 -
A Notice of Violation a*x! Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on July 30,1997, The action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving violations of fire protection requirements at the licensee's Fort Calhoun Station facility. The violations involved:
(1) failure to protect an emergency diesel generator speed sensing circuit, (2) failure to have in place a y x:edure to enable operators to cope with a cable spreading room fire, (3) an inadequate lubricating oil
- ollection for reactor coolant pumps, (4) failure to post firewatch personnel and, (5) failure to adequately train fire brigade members. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Overlook Hospital, Summit, New Jersey EA 97-246 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in ths amount of $2,750 was issued on August 21,1997. The action was based on a Severity level III problem involving: (1) failure to prepare a written directive prior to administering iodine-131 as sodium iodide to a patient, and (2) failure to instruct an individual in the licensee's medical quality management program. These violations contributed to a misadministration in which 7 millicuries of iodine-131 was administered instead of the intended 2 millicurie dose. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first ucalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, ar.d (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Susquehanna, Units 1 & 2 EAs96-270 &
Supplements Iand Vil 96-347 A Notice of Violation and Proposed ImpositMn of Civil Penalties in the amount of $210,000 was issued on June 20,1997. The action was based t d)
- Severity Level 11 problem involving an inoperable emergency diesel generator, the failure to follow procedures, inadequate procedures, and incomplete and inaccurate information, and (2) a Severity Level III violation involving an inoperable containment isolation valve. The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued twice the base penalty for the Severity Level Il problem. Although the normal civil penalty process would have fully mitigated the penalty based on the fact that the licensee identified and corrected the problem, discretion was warranted because of the particularly poor licensee performance as evidenced by: (1) the nature of the violations associated with the Severity Level 11 problem, (2) the extensiveness of the problem with inaccurate records, and (3) the management and supervisory failures demonstrated by the violations. A base civil penalty was proposed for the Severity Level 11 violation because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
97
Appendix B l
Philadelphia Electric Company, lime ;ck, Units I & 2 EA 97-050 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $80,000 was issued on August 5,1997. The action was base on a Severity Level 11 problem that ine'aded two violations involving instances of record falsification at the Limerick Generating Station. In the first violation, a chemistry technician and a former chemist, at the direction of the former chemistry manager, deliberately falsified a record of the time a grab sample was taken from the Reactor Enclosure Cooling Water system.
The former chemistry manager also pressured the technician and chemist to lie about their actions to licensee security personnel investigating the matter. In the second violation, a fire protection technical assistant deliberately failed to perform a fire hos.. station visual inspection surveillance test, yet falsified the suncillance test document to indicate the test was performed. Although the licemee's identification and correction of the problan would fully mitigate the civil penalty under the normal assessment process, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 and issued twice the base penalty, Discretion was warranted because the. violations were considered willful.
Power inspection, Inc., Wexford, Pennsylvania EA 95-025 Supplements Viand Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $40,000 was issued on February 18,1997, for a Severity Level I violation and a Severity Level I problem. The Severity Level I violation (which involved vendor-related issues), was issued for four examples of a deliberate failure to provide complete and accurate information to two NRC licensees. The Severity Level I problem (which involved radiography-related issues), was issued for deliberate failures to provide the NRC complete and accurate information and for numerous safety violations. The staff exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued $20,000 for each Severity Level I issue because of the egregiousness of the violations, the extensive record falsification, and the fact that management was directly involved in the deliberate misconduct.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Hope Creek, Unit 1 EA 96-125 Supplement !
A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $150,000 was issued on October 23,1996, for three Severity Level 111 problems. The action was based cn two inspections being performed at the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station that identified six violations involving:
(1) two violations of failures to plan appropriate surveillance testing for control rod drive systems, (2) two violations of failures to promptly identify and correct conditions adverse to quality regarding reactor building ventilation supply duct backdraft isolation dampers and control rod withdrawal speeds being iri excess of the values assumed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, (3) one violation of a failure to obtain Conunission approval prior to making changes to the facility's service water system design that involved an unreviewed safety question, and (4) one violation involving the failure to maintain the service water system in accordance with the Technical Specifications. A base civil penalty was proposed for each of the issues because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.,l
Appendix B -
)
Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Salem, Units 1 & 2 EA 96-177 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $80,000 was issued on December 9,1996, for a Severity Level 11 violation. The action was based on a problem involving a former manager of the licensee's Nuclear Safety R: view Group who discruninated against a former Onsite Safety Review Engineer (OSRE) and a Safety Review Engineer {SRE) at the Salem Generating Station in late 1993 and early 1994. By virtue of negative comments in the OSRE's Performance Assessments, he was harassed and retaliated against by this former manager due to his involvement in events associated with e December 3,1992 event for which the licensee was issued a separate $80,000 civil penalty (EA >4-239). By virtue of an involuntary transfer to the liope Creek Safety Review Group, the SRE was harassed and retaliated against by this former manager, as a result of raising a safety issue during the December 3,1992 event. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Public Service Bectric and Gas Company, Solem, Units 1 & 2 EA 96-344 Supplement til A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on December 11,1996, for two Severity Level III violations. The action involved three violations related to two specific events concerning the failure to akptely control access to the facility. The first violation involved a keycard photobadge station problem that could have resulted in an unauthorized individual gaining access to the protected and vital areas of tre stations. The second event invo!ved two violations where a contractor individual accessed the protected area without an adequate search after the individual had, on three occasions, alarmed two separate metal detectors at the station't access control point. A base civil penalty was proposed for each of the violations because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Robco Produ, Aogging, Inc., Snyder, Texas EA 96-378 Supplement V and VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $1,100 was issued on January 2,1997 for a Severity level 111 violation. The action was based on a violation involving use of licensed material by a Texas licensee in NRC jurisdiction without filing NRC Form 241. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment process (because the violation was the first escalated action in 2 years, and the corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive), discretion was exercised in accordance with Section VII.A.1 and a penalty was proposed to emphasize the importance of taking action to preclude further violations.
Rochester Gas and Electric Company, Ginna, Unit i EA 96-282 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on December 13, 1996, for a Severity Level 111 violation. The action was based on an inspection performed at the licensee's Ginna Nuclear Power Station that identified two violations involving the failu:e to adequately validate design inputs for the residual heat removal system motor-operated core 99
Appenalz B deluge valves, as well as the failure to adequately correct this condition following its identification.
Ahhough a base penalty would have been warranted under the normal assessment process (because this was not the first escalated issue in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), the NRC exercised discretion and doubled the base in order to emphasis the importance of ensuring proper analysis of design inputs for these motor-operated valves and the unacceptability of not taking appropriate steps to verify adequate design margin, given the importance of the valves to plant safety.
Rochester Gas & Electric Company, Ginna EA 97 339 Supplement 111 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on August 15,1997. The action was based on two violations of security requirements that. are cltssified in the aggregate at Severity Level III. Each violation involves inadequacies in the vehicle barriers deployed outside the outer isolation zone to prevent the malicious use of a vehicle to gain entry to the protected and vital areas.
A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Racine, Wisconsin EA 97-338 Supplements IV & VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on September 3,1997. The action was based on loss of control of licensed material. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment process (because this was the first escalated action in 2 years and the corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensise),
discretion was exercised and a base civil penalty was proposed because control over the licensed material was lost and it is believed to be in a landfill in the public domain.
Sadovsky, (DVM), Roy, Nonh Hills, New Jersey EA 97-150 Supplements IV, V, & VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $4,000 was issued on May 1,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level Il problem involving: (1) deliberate use of licensed material at a L ation not authorized on the license, (2) failure to secure from unauthorized removal or access licensed materials that were stored in an unrestricted area, (3) failure to perform radiation surveys, (4) failure to supply and require the use of an individual monitoring device, (5) failure to conduct operations so that the dose in any unrestricted area from external sources does not exceed 2 millirem in any one hour, and (6) several failures to comply with Department of Transportation requirements. Civil penalty discretion was warranted given the deliberate nature, and the potential safety consequences, to the public.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Farley, Units 1 & 2 EA 96 410 Supplement 1 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on December 4,1996, for a Severity Level Ill violation. The action involved a violation related to the implementation of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix R and the licensee's Fire Protection Program. Specifically,
- 100 -
l Appendix B three examples were identified in which the licensee failed to assure that 1-hour fire barriers, in this case Kaowool enclosures, were installed on Unit 1 electrical cables associated with systems required for safe shutdown. Although this was the first escalated action in 2 years, a base civil penalty was proposed in this case because credit was not warranted for corrective action.
St. Fras.cis Hospital, Escanaba, Michigan EA 96-491 Supplements IV, VI, & Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $2,500 was issued on May 1,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 111 violation for a deliberate failure to maintairs emnplete and accurate information. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because:
(1) this was a r;Cful issue, (2) credit was warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action. A Notice of Violation was also issued in conjunction with this action (see Appendix A).
St. Joseph 's llospital and Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, EA 97-066 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed hnposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was is.ued on March 25,1997, for a Severity Level 111 problem involving several violations that in the aggregate represented a lack of adequate attention to the licensed program. Although this was the first e:calated action in 2 years, a base civil penalty was proposed in this case because credit was not warranted for corrective action.
St. Mary's Hospits 4 alue Spring, Blue Springs, Missouri EA 97-234 Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violaticn and Proposed Imposition of Civil 1 enalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on July 23,1997. The action was based on a number of violations that were considered in the aggregate to represent a Severity Level 111 problem involving careless disregard of Commission requirements.
Specifically, a nuclear medicine technologist as a result of careless disregard failed to perform certain NRC-required tests and procedures through compla,:ency, rather than through mistske or error. The omissions occurred particularly when the technologist worked on weekends. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this issue was considered willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Temple Univenity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania EA 96-455 Supplement IV A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $10,000 was issued on December 31, 1996, for two Severity Level 111 violations. This action was based on violations involving security of licensed material and willful failure to perform monthly spot (calibration) checks on high dose rate (llDR) brachytherapy equipment. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed for each of the two cases because: (1) the action was considered willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit w.s not warranted for corrective action.
- 101 -
Appendix B Tennessse Valley Authority, Sequoyah, Units 1 & 2 EA 95199 Supplement 171 A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on January 13, 1997, for a Severity Level I violation. The action was based on a violation of 10 CFR 50.7. A former Vice-President of Nuclear Operations discriminated against a former corporate manager of Chemistry and Environmental Protection, on April 5,1993, when the manager was forced to resign from TVA because he had engaged in protected activities. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) it was a Severity Level I issue, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Tennessee Valley AutLaity, Sequoyah, Units 1 & 2 EA 96-269 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on November 19, 1996, for a Severity Level III violation. The action involved fout violations at the Sequoyah Plant related to the fire protection program, including: (1) 12 examples in which the licensee failed to implement effective and/or timely corrective actions, (2) an inoperable carbon dioxide fire suppression system for the computer room, (3) failure to perform the required surveillances for the certain penetrations in high radiation areas, and (4) failure to demonstrate the operability of the fire hose stations in the reactor buildings. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah, Unit 2 EA 96-414 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $100,000 was issued on December 24,1996, for two Severity Level 111 violations. The action involved two problems at the Sequoyah Plant, Unit 2, related to: (1) failure to implement effective and/or timely corrective actions resulting in poor plant material condition that caused and complicated recovery from a plant trip, and (2) a breakdown in the control of licensed activities involving failures in Operations, Maintenance, and Engineering activities related to replacement of an inoperable reactor trip breaker. A base civil penalty was p oposed for each issue because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warrant ~3 for corrective action.
Testing Laboratories, Inc., Alamogordo, New Mexico EA 96-447 Supplement 17 A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on January 6,1997, for a Severity Level 111 violation. This action was based on using gauges in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction without proper authorization from the NRC.
Based on previous correspondence between NRC and the licensee regarding the need to obtain NRC authorization before conducting activities in exclusive Federal jurisdiction, the NRC has concluded that the violation resulted l
from at least careless disregard for the applicable requirements. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this issue was considered willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
- 102 -
3 Appendix B
. Thermal Science, Inc., St. lauis, Missouri EA 95-009 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $900,000 was issued on October 1,1996, for nine Severity Level I violations. The action was based on an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General, in addition to several inspections performed by NRC staff, that identified nine Severity Level I violations. All of the violations were cited against 10 CFR 50.5
" Deliberate Misconduct,' due to TSI having deliberately and repeatedly provided inaccurate or incomplete infonnation to the NRC conceming TSI's fire endurance and ampacity testing programs for Thermo-Lag fire barriers.
Toledo Edison Company, Davis-Besse, Unit i EA 96 304 Suoplement !!!
A Notice of Violation and Proposed Impositicu of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on October 22,1996, for a Severity Level III violation. The action was based on an inspection conducted at the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station concerning: (1) certain motor operated valves potentially being unable ta perform their post-fire safe shutdown function and (2) degraded radiant energy shields in the contairtnent and containment annulus. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalatal action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
United Nuclear Corporation, Gallup, New Mexico EA 93-170 Supplement Yli A Notice of Violation and Praposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on February 13, 1997, for a Severity Level Il problem. The action involved the failure to comply with an NRC order to set aside certain funds for decommissioning funding and providing incomplete and inaccurate information regarding the handling of those funds and the ownership of an account. The NRC exercised its full civil penalty authority and proposed a $100,000 penalty to emphasize: (1) that the NRC must be able to have full confidence in the honesty and integrity of licensees (especially senior licensee officials), and (2) the licensee's willingness to comply with NRC orders and regulations and to provide accurate information to the NRC. The matter was settled with the licensee paying $99,000.
Virginia Electric Power Company, Surry, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-055 Supplement ill A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on August 29,1997. "Ihe action was based on one Severity Level Ill problem consisting of three violations related to the railure to meet the requirements of the Maintenance Rule. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
Washington Hospital Center, Washington, D.C.
EA 96-385 Supplements IV and VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued on April 10,1997. The action was based on two Severity Level III problems involving: (1) mul:iple 4
- 103 -
/
Appendis B l
instances of failure to measure employee thyroid burdens, and failure to provide adequate training in this area; and (2) the loss of ar iodine 125 seed, failure to perform an adequate survey in an attempt to recover the missing seed, ard failure to notify the NRC of the loss of the material. A base civil penalty was proposed in one cass because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was warranted for identificarbn, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action. A base civil penalty was proposed in the cAer case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted ;or identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Hashington Public Power Supply System, WNP-2 EA 96-327 Stpplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on November 26,1996, for a Severity Level III violation. The action was based on several instances in which required surveillances were not performed. In some cases, mode changes were made without assurance that required equipment was operable, and in one cm, a mode change was made with one train of the control room emergency filtration system inoperable. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment process (because the licensee identified and corrected the violation), the NRC exercised discretion to propose a civil penalty. The root causes of the violation was similar to previous violations. Discretion was appropriate to emphasize the failure of the licensee's previous corrective actions to preclude similar violations from occurring, and to emphasize the fundamental importance of having an effective program for assuring that surveillances are performed as requ' 1 Western Colorado Testing, Grand Junction, Colorado EA 96-459 Supplement VI A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on June 13,1997. "Ihe action was based on a Severity Level 111 violation involving a willful failure to file for reciprocity prior to conducting licensed activities in non-Agreemen: States. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this issue was considered willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and-(3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach, Units,1 & 2 EAs96-215 &
Supplement I 96 273 A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $325,000 was issued on December 3,1996. The action was based on two inspections performed at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. 'Ihree Severity Level Ill problems were cited for failing to adequately: (1) conduct control room activities; (2) maintain plant configuration control; and (3) conduct independent fuel dry cask storage activities. In addition, a single Severity Level 111 violation was cited for the licensee failing to take prompt corrective actions following the identification that the Technical Specifications for the safety-related service water system were non-conservative. Although a tuse civil penalty of $12,500 was warranted under the normal assessment process for the independent fuel dry cask storage prot.lem (because this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, it was NRC identified, and the corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive), discretion was exercised and the base civil penalty was doubled to emphasize the importance of properly conducting spent fuel cask loading operations.
Because this was not the first escalate.d actior in 2 years, the violations were NRC-identified, and
- 104 -
Appendix B corrective actions were not prompt and comprehensive, the base civil penalties were doubled for each of the Severity Level 111 issues.
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Kewaunee EA 97-087 Supplement i A Ihtice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on July !!.1997. The action was based on a Severity Level til problem for three violations identified by the NRC in which Kewaunce failed to meet the criteria established in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, " Test Control." Specifically, Kewaunee failed to maintain the acceptance criteria for both the residual heat removat and the auxiliary feedwater flow tests consistent with plant accident analyses assumptions, and failed to use an adequate methodology to calculate instrument accuracy for in-service testing measurements. The failure io meet the test control criteria existed from the origination of the in-service testing program until Jara.ary 1997. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because:
(1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, :nd (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.
Wo{f Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Wo{f Creek, Unit i EA 96-470 Supplement i A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on April 3,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 111 problem consisting of three violations involving: (1) the failure to correct erroneous Technical Specification clarifications after being alerted of their existence by licensee Quality Assurance findings, (2) the continued existence of an erroneous Technical Specification clarification after being informed by the NRC that it was incorrect, and (3) an unauthorized change to the Technical Specifications. Twice the base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.
- 105 -
Appendix B PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK G
i l
M%
- 106 -
Appendix C APPENDIX C:
SUMMARY
OF ORDERS IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY ORDERS Barrett industrial X Ray, Stillwater, Oklahoma E4 % $02
- Supplement VI An Order impoJng Civil Penalty in the amount of 54,000 was issued on May 23,1997. This action was based on a Severity Level 11 problem involving: (1) a deliberate failure of a radiographer and an assistant radiographet to wear personal radiat!on monitoring devices, including alarm ratemeters; (2) a willful failure to conduct a survey to assure that the source had been returned to its shielded position; and (3) a willful failure on the part of the tr.diographer to adequately supervise his assistant.
Chemetron Corporation, Newburgh Heights, Ohio EA 93 271 Supplement VI An Order Imposing Civil Penalty in the amount of $10,000 was issued on July 28,1997. The action was
-based on a Severity Level III violation involving the licensee's failure to submit a complete site remediation plan on time for two sites in Ohio as required by a license condition.
Ilealth & Human Services, Depanment of, Bethesda, Maryland EA %027 Supplements IV & VI An Order Imposing Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on May 20,1997. This action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving the failure to secure from unauthorized removal, or limit
- access to, licensed materials present in unattended areas.
Innovative Weaponry, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico EA %!35 Supplement b7 An Order imposing Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on April 10, 1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 111 problem involvinb violations of license conditions by distributing sealed light sources from a manufacturer not authorized by the license and distributing tritium sources in gunsights in configurations not authorized by the license.
Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri EA 97-15S Supplement V An Order imposing Civil Penalty in the amount of $13,750 was issued on September 9,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving shipment of a Mo-99fic-99m generator for medical use where the radiation level at the surface of the paclage exceeded 200 millirems.
- 107 -
Appendix C Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 EA 96-079 Supplement I An Order Imposing Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on December 3,1996, for a Severity Level Ill violation. This action was based on a problem comprised of two violations involving a safety vulnerability and operation in a manner outside the design basis set forth in the FSAR, in that the reactor and turbine building blov>out panels would not have relieved until a pressure in excess of the structural design pressure for the building was reached. The licensee recognized the departure from the FSAR in 1993, but did not take adequate corrective action until 1995.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah, Units 1 & 2 EA 96 269 Supplement i An Order imposing Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on March 17,1997, for a Severity.
Level 111 violation. The action involved four violations of the fire protection program including:
(1) 12 examples in which the licensee failed to implement effective and/or timely corrective actions, (2) an inoperable carbon dioxide fire suppression system for the computer room, (3) failure to perform the required surveillances for the certain penetrations in high radiation areas, and (4) failure to demonstrate the operabilliy of the fire hose stations in the reactor buildings.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah, Unit 2 EA 96-414 Supplement I An Order Imposing Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on May 23,1997. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem related to the failure to implement effective and timely corrective actions resulting in poor plant material condition that caused and complicated recovery from a plant trip.
The Dial Corporation, London, Ohio EA 96-041 Supplement IV An Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on October 31,1996, for a Severity Level III violat on. This action was based on a violation involving loss of control of a gauge containing byproduct material.
Washington Public Power Supply System, WNP-2 EA 96-327 Suppleneent i An Order imposing Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 was issued on February 14,1997, for a Severity Level III violation. The action was based on sever;:1 instances in which required surveillances were not performed, in some cases, mode changes were made without assurance that required equipment was operable, and in one case, a mode change was made with one train of the control room emergency filtration system inoperable.
- 108 -
Appendix C CONFIRMATORY. MODIFICATION. SUSPENSION. AND CEASE & DESIST ORDERS i
Apgre Corporation, Aliquippa, Pennsytrania EA 96-246 A Confirmatory Order was issued on June 26,1997. The action was based on violations involving distribution of scaled source devices that did not conform to an NRC Scaled Source and Device Registry Certificate.
Army, Depanment of The, U.S. Army Tank Automotive and EA 97-059 Armaments Command A Confirmatory Order Modifying License (effective immediately upon issuance), was issued on March 26,1997. The action was based on the findings of NRC inspections conducted between June 1992 and March 1997, which demonstrate that programmatic problems exist, such as extensive loss of control of licensed material and poor communication between the Rock Island radiation protection officer and other Department of Defense installations.
Capital Engineering Services, Inc., Dover, Delaware EA 97-202 An Order Revoking License and an Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (effective immediately), was issued on May 15, 1997. The actions were based on inspection and investigation which concluded that: (1) the president of CES, an un:icensed individual, deliberately violated the conditions of an order suspending CES' license by continuing to use moisture density gauges on numerous occasions; and (2) the licensee failed to test sealed sources for leakage and/or contamination.
Envirocare of Utah, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah EA 97-303 A Confirmatory Order was issued on June 25,1997. The action was based on the NRC identifying that Envirocare had received, and had caused to be present on site, special nuclear material in excess of the 350 gram limit defm' ed by the formula in 10 CFR 150.11. Specifically, the inspection revealed that Envirocare had caused to be present on site more than 2,400 grams of uramum 235 that had not been disposed of.
Fernande:, M.D., Jose, San Juan, Puerto Rico EA 96-154 Supplement 17 An Order Modifying License was issued on October 21,1996. This action was based on the results of two inspections, which revealed numerous violations, including the licensee's failure to: (1) establish and maintain a quality management program which resulted in at least 104 Strontium-90 misadministrations, (2) maintain the secaity of byproduct material, (3) perform quarterly physical inventories of byproduct material, (4) test sealed sources for leakage at 6-month intervals, (5) notify individuals of a misadministration within 24-hours of discovery, (6) provide written reports to individuals within 15 days of discovery of a misadministration, (7) maintain misadministration records, and (8) amend its license prior to permitting an individual to work as an authorized user.
- 109 -
Appendfx C NDC Syst;ms, Irwindale, Cal (fornia EA 96-342 A Confirmatory Order Modifying License (effective immediately upon issuance), was issued on January 13, 1997. The action is based on a violation involving a willful failure to package, prior to export, gauging devices containing americium-241 in accordance with the Department of Transportation requirements.
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Millstone, Units 1, 2, & 3 EA 96-439 An Order was issued on October 24,1996, requiring independent third-party oversight of the licensee's implementation of resolution of station employee's safety concerns. The action was based upon the iicensee's inability to effectively implement corrective actions for problems identified by its employees.
Roy Sadovsky (DVM), Florda! Park, New York EA 97-019 A Notice Denying License Renewal was issued on May 1,1997. The action was based on deliberate use oflicensed material at a location not authorized on the license and numerous safety violations including failure to secure from unauthorized removal or access licensed materials that were stored in an unrestricted area.
4 110 -
Appendix D APPENDIX.0:
SUMMARY
OF DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION Conam inspection, Inc., Itasca, Illinois EA 96441 A Demand for Information was issued on March 10,1997, to obtain additional information that would clarify apparent inconsistencies identified in documents provided by the licensee during an NRC inspection and investigation and the transcript from a predecisional enforcement conference.
D & B Tool Company, hiilford, Connecticut EA 96477 A Demarri for Information was issued on December 11, 1996, in light of concerns that the licensee had failed to dispose of radioactive waste, to request information as to the licensee's financial condition and as to the licensee's assertion that it had an agreement with a customer to take back waste from operations performed fo. the customer.
GChiE, Inc., Depere, Wisconsin EA 96 377 A Demand for Information was issued on October 4,1996, in light of numerous violat'..is of NRC requirements, some of which were repetitive, and ineffective corrective actions. The Demand requested, in part, that the licensee: (1) describe the steps taken to ensure that sufficient management resources are available to properly conduct oversee the NRC-licensed program, (2) provide a statement as to why the NRC should conclude that the licensee is able or willing to comply with the Commission requirements, and (3) provide a statement as to why the NRC should not suspend the licensee's license.
Illinois Power Company, Clinton EA 97-435 A Demand for Information was issued on September 26, 1997, due to continuing NRC concerns regarding the licensee's effectiveness in identifying, evaiuating, and resolving potential safety problems.
The Demand required the licensee to submit, under oath and affirmation: (1) the corrective actions, both taken and planned, necessary to achieve substantial improvement in the Clinton Povcer Station's corrective action programs, and (2) the basis for confidence, in view of demonstrated corrective action program deficiencies, that deficiencies affecting the function of safety-related equipment had been identified and corrected.
Newark hiedical Associates, P.A., Newark, New Jeney EA 97-308 A Demand for Information was issued on July 31,1997, to provide Newark Medical Associates, P.A.,
the opportunity to describe why its NRC license should not be suspended or revoked.
Taylor Diagnostics Imaging, Novi, hitchigan EA 97-167 A Demand for Information was issued on June 9,1997, to obtain information concerning the location of l
two calibration sources containing, respectively,247 microcuries of cesium-137 and 304 microcuries of barium-133, 111 -
i
)
Appendiz D The Wackenhut Corporation, Pensacola, Florida EA 96-384 A Demand for Information was issued on January 13,1997 as a result of an investigation to determine whether company personnel were involved in committing deliberate violations of NRC access authorization requirements. The Demand sought assurance that Wackenhut and its employees understood their responsibilities for compliance with NRC requirements, and information on corrective actions taken as a result of an incident involving violations of access authorization procedures at Cooper Nuclear Station in October 1995.
Vectra Technologies, Inc., San Jose, California EA 96-492 A Demand for Information was issued on January 13,1997, as a result of inspection findings concerning VECTRA's Quality Assurance Program. The Demand sought information concerning VECTRA's management of design control and design changes.
Hittnauer Worldwide, L.P., Cayey, Puerto Rico EA 97-344 A Demarx! for hifonnation was issued on August 22,1997, to show why the NRC should not terminate Wittnauer's license or reduce possession limits below those requiring financial assurance due to the lack of progress in complying with regulatory requirements.
- 112 -
l
Appendix E
- APPENDIX E:
SUMMARY
OF CASES INVOLVING EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
)
)
Section VH.A - Escalation of Enforcement Sanctions i
Commonwealth Edsson Company, LaSaL, Units 1 & 2 EA 96 325 Supplement l l
The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice cf Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $650,000 on January 24,1997, for violations of vety significant regulatory concern associated with the potential common mode failure of the ultimate heat sink caused by repetitive fouling of the service water system due to the injection of foam sealant material for the repair of minor cracks in the safety-related service water intake tunnel at LaSalle County Station. The action included: (1) a Severity Level 11 problem for inadequate procedures, failure to follow procedures, and inadequate corrective actions in response to repetitive fouling of the service water system; and (2) a Severity Level 111 problem for five inadequate procedures related to testing, backwashing, and cleaning strainers in the safety-related emergency core cooling water and residual heat removal systems and non-essential service water systems and the failure to complete unreviewed safety question evaluations regarding strainer backwash flow and mesh size being different than that described in the FSAR. The NRC exercised discretion for the Severity Level 11 problem and pronosed a $600,000 civil penalty because of the particularly poor performance in the event.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Zion, Units 1 & 2 EAs97-222 & 97-2L Supplement 111 The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $330,000 on September 2,1997. The action was based on three Severity Level III violations pertaining to reactivity management problems and cor.unand/ control problems that occurred during the February 21,1997 plant shutdown, the nitrogen gas displacement of scactor coolant from the reactor vessel on March 8,1997, and the failure of the corrective action program to implement effective and lasting actions for similar previous events. While the actual safeiy consequence of each event was low, the events were clearly indicative of the licensee's failure to establish effective eversight of control room activities as well as a failure to learn from past mistakes of its own and industry events. Since the licensee demonstrated particularly poor performance in allowieg their occurrence, the violations were directly attributable to management's ineffective development and implementation of corrective scuons for previous events, and management was responsible for allowing control room conditions to degrade to a point where execution of control room ttsponsibilities was impaired, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion and doubled the civil penalties for each of the three issues.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck EA 96-001 Supplements Iand 1711
'the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $650,000
. on May 12,1997. This action was based on three Severity Level 11 problems consisting of multiple individual violations, one Severi y Level 111 problem not assessed t. civil penalty, and numerous Severity t
- 113
Appendis I:
Level IV violations. Le violuions were grouped into a number of broad categories, namely, numerous longstanding deficier,cles in engineering programs and practices, inchding plant design, design control, ard engireering support, some of which led to significant safety equipment being inoperable or degraded for extended periods; nurnerous operational deficiencies, including inadequate procedures, failure to follow procedures, and inadequate corrective actions, which led to an event in which nitrogen gas was allowed to intrude into the reactor coolant system; and inadequate implementation of the emergency preparedness program during the August 1996 exercise. Civil penalty discretion was warranted (i.e.,
Severity Level 11 problerns assessed at $200,000, $150.000, and $300,000) because of: (1) the high regulatory significance that the NRC attached to the violations, (2) the importance of emphasir.ing the need for effective rnanagement and oversight during the decommissioning process, as well as effective management and oversight of the licensee's Millstone and Seabrook facilities, and (3) the importance of emphasizing to other reactor licensees the need for effectiw oversight of their nuclear power plants.
l> uke Power Company, ocoare, Units 1 & 2 EAs 97497 & 97 298 Supplement 11 The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy ard issual a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $330,000 or August 27, 1997. The action was based in a Severity Level 11 violation identified during a Unit 2 shutdown on May 2,1997, involving the hign pressure injection system being found in a condition where it would be tmable to perfomi its intenacd function ard a Severity Level til violation involving the failure to properly implement a required augmented inspection program for identifying cracks in the high pressee injection system piping that resulted in an unisolable reactor coolant leak on April 21,1997.
Discretion was warranted and a $220,000 civil penalty was proposed for the Severity Level 11 violation and $110,000 civil penalty was proposed for the Severity Level 111 violation because of: (1) the high potential safety consequence of the inoperable high pressure injection system, (2) the duration of the violation, and (3) the prior opportunaes the licensee had to identify the cause of the inoperability.
Illinois Power Company, Clinton EAs96-112, 97-001, Supplements ! and IV 97-002, & 97 060 The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Not!ce of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $450,000 on Ame 9,1997. The action was based on one Severity Level 11 problem consisting of two violations and four Severity Level til problems consisting of 28 violations. The Severity Level 11 problem involve / m significant procedure violations that occurred on September 5,1996, when the licensee av. ions to c;.41n single loop operation resulted in reactor coolant leakage considerably exceeding allowed technical specification leakage limits that required a plant shutdown. The Severity Level 111 problems involved:
(1) the use of procedures, (2) implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, (3) inoperability of an emergency diesel generator that exceeded the allowed out of service time, and (4) inoperable feedwater penetrations, The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy and issued the maximum statutory amount ($200.00) for the Severity Level 11 problem and issued $100,000 for the Severity level ill problem involving use of procedures. Discretion was warranted in these two instances to emphasize: (1) the importance of strong management oversight and direction from both the site and utility in maintaining clear focus on operational sa?) violations, (2) the need for plant personnel to challenge aid investigate discrepancies, (3) the need to adequately plan safety significant activities (4) the need to take timely and effective corrective actions, and (5) the need for a strong self-assessment
- 114
,w,
m
,v-..-
+-,-r
Appendis E program. Base penalties werv proposed for the other three Severity I.cVel 111 problems because credit was not warranted for the licensee's corrective actions.
Power inspection, Inc., We.rford, Pennsylvania EA 95-025 Supplements Viand Vil
'the staff exercised discretion in accordance with Sectiori Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $40,000 on February 18,1997, for a Severity Level I violation and a Severity Level I problem. The Severity Level I violation (which involved vendor related issues), was issued for four examples of a deliberate failure to 4
provide to two NRC licensees complete and accurate infortnation. The Severity Level I problem (which involved radiography.related issan), was isst.ed for deliberate failures to provide the NRC complete and accurate informa',lon and for numerous safety violations. The staff exercised discretion and issued
$20,000 for each Severity Level I issue because of the egregiousness of the violations, the extensive record falsification, and the fact that management was directly involved in the deliberate misconduct.
Sadonky, lloy (DVhi), North lillis, New Jersey EA 97150 Supplements IV, Yand VI
'the staff exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy to assess a civil penalty in the amount $4,000 for a Severity Level 11 problem involving: (1) deliberate use of licensed material at a location not authorized on the license, (2) failure to secure from unauthorized removal or access licensed materials that were stored in an unrestricted area, (3) fLilure to perform radiation surveys, (4) failure to supply and require the use c' an individual monimring device, (5) failure to conduct operations so that the dose in any unrestricted area from external sources does not exceed 2 millirem in any I hour; and (6) several failures to comply with Department of Transportation requirements.
Discretion was warranted given the deliberate nature, and the potential safety consequences, to the public.
Thernal Science, Inc., St. lauls, Missourt FA 95 009 Supplement Vil.
The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amennt of $900,000 on October 1,1996, for nine Severity Level I violations. The action was based on an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General, in addition to several inspections performed by NRC staff, that identined nine Severity Level I violations. All of the violations were cited against 10 CFR 50.5, ' Deliberate Misconduct." due to ' Thermal Science, Inc. (TSI) having deliberately and repeatedly provided inaccurate or incomplete infotmation to the NRC cory :rning TSI's fire endurance and ampacity testing programs for Thermo-Lag fire bstriers. Enforcement discretion was warranted because the staff considered the egregious, deliberate, and repeated nature of these violations, and because the staff considered this matter to constitute a very signiticant regulatory concern which necessitated a sign ficant enforcement action.
2 The civil penalty was escalated to the maximum statutory limit of $100,000 for each of the nine Severity Level I violations.
- 115
AppmHs E United Nuclear Corporation, Gallup, New hiexico M 93170 Supplement Vil The NRC exercised its full civil penalty authority and issued a Notice of Viciclon and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 on February 13, 1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem. The action involved the failure to comply with an NRC order to set aside certain funds for decommissioning funding and providing incomplete and inaccurate information regarding the handling of those funds and the ownership of an account. Discretion was appropriate to emphasize: (1) that the NRC must be able to have full confidence in the honesty and integrity of licensees (especially senior licensee officials), and (2) the licensee's willingness to comply with NRC orders and regulations and to provide accurate information to the NRC. The matter was settled with the licensee paying $99,000.
S ction VII.A.] - Civil Penalties Anheuser Busch, St. Inuls, hiissouri EA 97 291 Supplement VI The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.! and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 on September 24,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 111 problem involving unauthorized dispo al of licensed material. Although a penalty Jould not have been issued under the normal assessment process (because the violation was the first escalated issue in 2 years and the corrective actions were prompt), discretion was exercised and a base penalty was proposed because the licensed material was not controlled and was found in the public donuin.
Barnett indust,talX. Ray, Inc., Stillwater, Oklaha., n EA 96-502 Supplement VI The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,000 on February 24,1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem.' The action was based on: (1) e deliberate failure of a radiographer and an assistant radiographer to wear personal radiation monitoring devices, including alarm ratemeters, (2) a willful failure to conduct a survey to assure that the source had been returned to its shielded position, and (3) a willful failure on the part of the radiographer to adequately.upervise his assistant. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment process, discretion was exercised and a penalty was proposed to emphasize: (1) the responsibility of ensuring that employees meet basic radiation safety requirements, and (2) the significance of the willful violations.
Carolina Power and11ght Company, Bnmswick, Units 1 and 2 EA 96 354 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accodance with Section Vll.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $150,000 on November 19, 1996, for two Severity Level 111 violations. The action was based on an inspection perfo med concerning: (1) a failure to implement the environmental qualification (EQ) program in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 and (2) a longstanding failure to implement the corrective action program with regard to EQ deficiencies. Although a base civil penalty would have normally been warranted (because this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, credit was not
- 116
Appendix E warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), the civil penalty was doubled because of the inadequacies identified in the past implementation of the licensee's corrective action program in the area of EQ. A base civil penalty was proposed for the second penalty in accordance with the normal assessment process.
Cartier, Inc., Shelton, Connecticut E4 97145 Supplement VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.! of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $7,500 on June 18,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 111 violation involving distribution of approximately 16,000 timepieces containing up to 4.6 millicuries of tritium without an NRC license.
Ahhough the civil penalty would normally have been fully mitigated under the normai process (because the violation was the first escalated action within 2 years, and credit was warranted for corrective action),
discretion was exercised and a penalty at three times the base amount was proposed because of: (1) the regulatory significance, (2) the inability of the NRC to conduct inspections of the licensees activities, (3) the duration of the violation (12 years), and (4) the costs of maintaining an NRC license that the
- licensee avoided during the period of noncompliance.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Zim<, Units 1 & 2 E4 W 35$
Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy on March 12,1997, and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 for a Severity Level 111 problem. The action was based on multiple violations that involved failures to: (1) perforan adequate 10 CFR 50.59 analyses for modifications on safety.related systems; (2) follow procedures in the areas of modifications, corrective actions, operations and maintenance; (3) conduct tests to demonstrate systems would perform satisfactorily following modification; and (4) take prompt corrective action for significant cc.nditions adverse to quality involving repetitive out.of-tolerance settings for containment spray system sodium hydroxide spray additive tank level indication and repetitive failures of a 4KV breaker. Although a base penalty would have been
~,
warranted us, der the normal assessment process (based on the fact that the problem was not the first escalated action within 2 years, that the NRC identified the problem, and that the conective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive), discretion was exercised and twice the base penalty was proposed. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the root causes of the problem existed for an extended duration, and (2) the past cortc;;tke rtns were ineffective.
Duquesne light Company, Beaver Valley, Units 1 & 2 E4 %.5N Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.! of the Enforcement Policy i
and issued a NN. ice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $110,000 on March 10,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level til problem related to deficiencies associated with inadequate cont o! of leak sealant repairs on the Unit 2 reactor head vent system. Although a base penalty would normally be warranted under the normal civil penalty assessment process, discretion was exercised and the civil penalty was doubled because the violations represented particularly poor performance by the licensee's quality assurance and maintenance staffs regarding activities performed by the vendor.
117-
_.m,
+, - -
- n
=--
l Appendis E Faltbanks hitmorialllospital, Fairbanks, Alaska EA 96 505 j
Supplement VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy
)
and Isa.ned a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amcunt of $2,500 on April 1,1997, Die action w s based on the failure to prepare a written directive in accordance with the medical quality assurance program. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the nonnal assessment process (because the licensee identified and corrected the violation), discretion was warranted to propose a base penahy because of the deliberate nature of the violation, the involvement of the radiation safety officer, and the potential for patient harm.
{
Pennsyhenia Power & Light Company, Susquehanna, Units 1 & 2 EA 96470 Supplements ! and Yli The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll. A.1 of the Enforcement Policy ard issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $160,000 on June.),1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 11 problem involving an inoperable emergency diesel generator, die failure to follow procedures, inadequate procedures, and incomplete and inaccurate information. Ahhough the normal civil penalty process would have fully mitigated the penalty based on the fact that the licensee identified and corrected the prcblem, the NRC exercised discretion and issued twice the base penalty. Discretion was warranted because of the panicularly poor licensee performance as evidenced by: (1) the nature of the violations associated with the Severity Level 11 problem, (2) the extensiveness of the problem with inaccurate records, and (3) the management and supervisory failures demonstrated by the violations.
Philadelphia Flectric Company, Limerick, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-050 Supplement Vil lhe NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy ard issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $80,000 on August 5,1997. The action was based on a Severity Level 11 problem that included two violations involving instances of record falsification at the Limerick Generating Station. Although the licensee's identification and correction of the problem would fully mitigate the civil penalty under the normal assessment process, The NRC exercised discretion and issued twice the base penalty because the violations were considered willful.
Robco Production Iogging, Inc., Snyder, Texas EA 96-378 Supplement Vand VI The NRC exercised enfcrcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $1,100 on January 2,1997, for a Severity Level til viol 4 tion. The action was based on a violation involving use of licensed material by a Texas licensee in NRC jurisdiction without filing NRC Form 241. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment process (because the violation was the first escalated action in 2 years, and the corrective actiom were considered prcmpt and comprehensive),
discretion was exercised and a penalty was proposed to emphasize the importance of taking action to preclude funher violations.
118 n
e
Appendix E Rochester Gas and Electric Company, Ginna, Unit :
EA 96 282 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement (tiscretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 on December 13,1996, for a Severity Level 111 violation. The action was based on an inspection performed at the licensee's Ginna Nuclear Power Station that identified two violations involving the failure to adequately validate design inputs for the residual but removal system motor-operated core deluge valves, as well as the failure to adequately correct this condition following its identification. Ahhough a base penalty would have been warranted under the normal assessment process (because this was not the first escalated issue in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), the NRC cxercised discretion and doubled the base in order to emphasis the importaace of ensuring proper analysis of design inputs fer these motor-operated valves and the unacceptability of not taking appropriate steps to ver;fy adequate design margin, given the importance of the valves to plant safety.
S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Rc~ine, Wisconsin EA 97 338 he NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Irnposition of Civil Penalty in the amcunt of $2,500 on September 3,1997. The action was based on unauthorized disposal of licensed material. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment process (because this was the first escalated action in 2 years and the corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive), discretion was exercised and a base civil penalty was proposed because control over the licensed material was lost and it is believed to be in a landfill in the public domain.
Washington Public Power Supply System, WNP 2 EA 96 327 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 on November 26,199's, for a Severity Level III violation. The action was based on several instances in which required surveillances were not performed. In some cases, mode changes were made without assurance that required equipment was operable, and in one case, a mode change was made with one train of the control room emergency filtration system inoperable. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated based on the normal assessment procesJ (because the licensee identified and corrected the violation,t the NRC exercised discretion to propose a civil penalty. The root causes of the violation was similar to previous violations. Discretion was appropriate to emphasize the failure of the licensee's previous corrective actions to preclude similar violations from occurring, rmi to emphasize the fundamental importance of having an effective program for assuring that surveillances are performed as required.
-119-
Appendis E F
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach, Units,1 & 2 EA %215 Suppleme.11
'Ihe NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.A.! of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $25,000 on December 3,1996. The action was based on failing to adequately conduct independent fuel dry cask storage activities. Altnough a base civil penalty of $12,500 was warranted under the normal assessment process (because this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, it was NRC identified, and the corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive), di:,cretion was exercised and the base civil penalty was doubled to emphasize the importance of properly conducting spent fuel cask loading operations. Three $100.000 civil penalties were also !ssued with this a,ction (see Appendix B).
Section VH.B.2 - Violations Identified During Extended Shutdowns or Work Stoppages Commonwealth Edison Company, laSalle, Units 1 & 2 EA 97 214 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue citations for four Severity Level IV violations. A letter describing the action was issued en May 27,1997. These issues satisfy the appropriate criteria in Section VII.B.2, namely (1) although the staff identified some of the violations, enforcement action was not considered necessary to achieve remedial action, (2) the violations are based on licensee activities that occurred prior to the licensee implementing an extended shutdown of the station, in December 1996, (3) the violations would not be categorized at Severity Level I, (4) the violations were not willful, and (5) actions specified in Confirmatory Action Letter Rill %008B requires NRC concurrence prior to the licensee restarting the station.
Commonwealth Edison Company, LaSalle, Units 1 & 2 EA 97 215 Supplement a The NRC exercised enfortement discretion in accord.mce with Section VII.B.2.snd refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation for three potential Severity Level IV violations of NRC requirements. Two of the violations involved surveillance testing (appropriate testing controls and testing acceptance criteria), md one involved fire protection (identification of an adequate safe st'utdown path). Discretion was exercised because the violations were based upon activities prior to events !eading to an extended plant shutdown.
PuMic Service Electric Company, Salem, Units 1 & 2 EA %548 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy on December 31.1996, and refrained from issuing enforcement action for a potential Severity Ixvel 111 violation. The violation was identified during a Licensing Bases Team inspection. Enforcement discretion was warranted because the violation resulted from licensed activities prior to the shutdown period an:1 have since been addressed by broad comprehensive licensee programs underway at Salem to identify and correct such problems.
i I
120
Appendis E Public Sernce Bectric Company, Salem, Units I & 2 EA 97 052 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy on May 8,1997, and refrained from issuing enforcement action for several potential Severity Level 111 violations. The violations were identified daring a Safety System Functional Inspection. Enforcement discretion was warranted because the violations resulted from licensed activities prior to the shutdown period and have since been addressed by broad comprehe*uive licensee programs underway at Salem to identify and correct such problems.
Section Vil,B.3 - Violations involving Old Design issues Ca:olina Power & ilght, Shearon liarris FA 97488 Supplement i In accordance with Section Vll.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy, the NRC issued an Exercise of Enforcement Discretion letter on July 22,1997, and refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation for a potentist Severity level !!! violation involving an FSAR failure to accurately reflect the EDO protection logic Discretion was appropriate because: (1) the licensee identified the design discrepancy. (2) the issue was anpropriately reported (3) prompt actions were taken to declare the EDGs inoperable, (4) the design change was submitted to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR50.59(c) and 50.90, (5) the installation and testing of the modification to the EDO circuitry was timely, and (6) the design discrepancy was not likely to be identified by routine licensee efforts.
Carolina Pner & ilght, Robinson FA 97140 Supplement i In accordance with Section VII.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy, the NRC issued an Exercise of Enforcement Discretion letter on April 24,1997, and refrained from issuing enforcement action for a potential Severity Level Ill violation involving an FSAR failure to accurately reflect spent fuel cask handling activitics'. Discretion was appropriate because: (1) the movement of the spent fuel cask with all sleeve nuts detensioned and all but four of the 32 sleeve nuts removed was considered an old design issue in that the falhtre to analyze the cask in the subject configuration had existed since plant licensing, and there had been no prior notice so that the licensee could have reasonably identified the violation earlier, (2) the licensee was unaware of the FSAR departure, but its followup on the generic NRC questions was thorough resulting in identification of the USQ, (3) the licensee's corrective actions were comprehensive and timely, (4) routine surveillance or quality assurance reviews of the cask activity would not likely have identified the issue, (5) the licensee's FSAR review program would likely have identified the violation in light if the defined scope, thoroughness and schedule, and (6) the licensee promptly reported the condition to the NRC, Ccasolidated Edison Company, Indian Point 2 FA %-509 Sspplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Notice of Violation for a potential Severity Level 111 violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, involving the potential hot shorts as a result of fire damage to cables associated with both the pressurizer power operated relief valve (PORV) and block valves. This discretion was based on the 121 -
Appmdia E fact that this case involved an old design issue that: (1) was identified as a result of a voluntary initiative by engineering to resolve a potential discrepancy noted during an IPE evaluation; (2) was corrected, including the plarmed addition of an interlock to the PORV block valves and the scheduled installation of isolation switches for the PORVs in the AIM building; and, (3) was not likely to be identified (after the violation occurred) by routine licensee efforts such as normal surveillance or quality assurance activities.
IMe Power Company, Catawba, Units 1 & 2 EA 97 036 Supplement i The NRC exercised Enforcement Discret;on in accordance with Section Vll.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy on February 18,1997, and did not issue a Notice of Violation for a potential Severity Level 111 violaiion involving a design deficiency associated with the auxiliary feedwater system. Discretion was r
warranted because: (1) the issue was licensee identified during a licensee-initiated design review (2) the licensee implemented timely and effective corrective action and delineated appropriate long term corrective actions to review and identify any similar design deficiencies, (3) the design deficiency was not likely to te identified by routine licensee efforts, and (4) the initial design error occurred more than 5 years ago and is not linked to present performance.
IMe Power Company, Oconte, Units 1 & 2 EA 97 324 Supplement !
The NRC exercised Enforcement Discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy on July 18,1997, and refrained from issuing enforcement action for a potential Sevenity Level til violation involving an old design issue involving the low pressure service water system. Discretion was appropriate because: (1) the licensee identified the design deficiency (2) the deficiency was not likely to be identified through routine surveillance or audit activities, (3) the issue was appropriately reported, (4) prompt actions were taken to initiate a license amendment, and (5) the overall scope of the licensee's UFSAR reviews for other plant modifications was appropriate.
Duquesne light Company, Beaver Valley, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-375 Supplement !
The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.3 and refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation for three potential Severity Level til violations related to design issues. The violations involved: (i) reactor protection system trip functions that failed to meet certain design requirements, (2) non seismic emergency diesel generator fire suppression system actuation relays, and (3) cont dnment isolation check valves that did not meet their design basis requirements. Discretion was exercised because: (1) the violations were identified by the licensee's staff who exercised good questioning attitudes during voluntary initiatives, (2) corrective actions were comprehensive and timely.
(3) the condition was subtle in nature and not likely to be disclosed through routine surveillance or quality assurance activities, and (4) tne violations were not reasonably linked to current performance.
Florida Power & light Company, St. Lucie, Unit 2 EA 97176 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Notice of Viobtion for a potential Severity Level 111 violation involving a design 122-
.=.
Appendis E deficiency for the Unit 2 reactor coolant pump penetratioc, fault protection that represented an unreviewed safety question. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the issue was licensee identified during a licensee-initiated design review, (2) the licensee implemented timely and effective corrective action, (3) the design deficiency was not likely to be identified by routine licersee efforts, and (4) the initial design error occurred mor0 than 5 years ago and is not linked to present performance.
Northern States Power Company, Monticello EA 97 333 Supplement I ne NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.3 and refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation for a potential Severity Level III violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion 111,
- Design Control." The violation involved an error in strainer headioss specified in the original design bar*s. Discretion was exercised because: (1) the violation was identified by the licensee's staff, who exercised good questioning attitudes during a voluntary butiative, (2) corrective actions were comprehensive and timely, (3) the condition was subtle in nature and not likely to be disclosed through routine surveillance or quality assurance activitics, and (4) the violation was not reasonably linked to current performance.
Northern States Power Company, Prairie Island, Units 1 & 2 EA 96 266 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy on October 1,1996, and did not issue a Notice of Violation for a potential Severity Level 111 violation involving maintaining adequate design control for a modification installed on the auxiliary feedwater system. Discretion was warranted because the matter was based on an old design issue that: (1) was identified by the licensee as a result of a voluntary initiative that consisted of a review of the licensees 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation program, (2) was promptly and effectively corrected by the licensee, (3) would have limited risk consequence for a relative small number of postulated LOCA events, and (4) would not likely have been Identified by routine licensee efforts such as normal surveillance and quality assurance activities.
Pac (fic Gas & Electric :encpany, Diablo Canyon, Units 1 & 2 EA 96 501 Supplement i The NRC exercised Enforcernent Discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy on January 17,1997, and did not issue a Notice of Violation for a potential Se/erity Level 111 violation involving the operability of the component cooling water system under certain degraded voltage conditions. Discretion was warranted because the licensee discovered this condition, which was not likely to be discovered as the result of routine surveillance or quality assurance activities, and the licensee took prompt and comptchensive corrective actions.
Philadelphia Electric Company, limerick, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-051 Supplement i ne NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.3 and refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation for a potential Severity Level 111 violation of the license regarding fire protection.
The violation involved a reduction in the licensee's ability to achieve safe shutdown in the event of a fire, in that instrument gas might not be available to operate the main steam relief valves due to postulated 123-
Appendix E damage. Discretion was exercised because: (1) the violation was identified by the licensee's staff as a resuit of special efforts as part of the licensee's Thermo Lag reduction project, (2) the violation was not likely to be identified by routine licensee efforts, (3) the violation was caused by conduct that occurred over 12 years ago and is not reasonably linked to present performance, and (4) the violation was the subject of prompt and comprehensive corrective actions.
Toledo Edison Company, Davis Besse EA 97-072 Supplement i The NRC axercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VILB.3 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Notice of Violation for an old design issuc. involving errors in original calculations prepared to support the design and operation of the control room emergency ventilation system.
Discretion was warranted due to the licensee's identification of the issive, which was not likely to be discovered as the result of routine surveillance or quality assurance activities, and the prompt and comprehensive corrective actions.
Section Vll.B.4 - Violations identified Due to Previous Escalated Enforcement Action Duquesne 11ght Company, Braver Valley, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-416 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.4 and refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation for a potential Severity Level 111 problem involving non-seismically qualified fire suppression system actuation switches and relays on emergency diesel generators and supplemental leak collection and release systems. Discretion was exercised because the violations: (1) were identified by the licensee's staff as part of the corrective action for a previous issue with non-seismically qualified relays in the fire protection system for the Unit I emergency diesel generator, (2) had the same root cause as the previous inue, (3) did not substantially change the safety significance or the character of the regulatory concempising out of that finding, and (4) were the subject of comprehensive and reasonable corrective actions.
Section Vll.B.S - Violations involving Discrimination There were no cases that invowed an exercise of this type of enforcement discretion during this fiscal year.
Section VII.B.6 - Violations invoiring Special Circumstances Applied Research Associates, Inc., Albuquerque, New hiexico EA 97 259 Supplement VI
'Ihe NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Motice of Violation for a potential Severity Level 111 viciation involving an Agreement State Licensee conducting unauthorized activities in NRC jurisdiction. Discretion was warranted because the gauges had not been used at the site, the state license specifically authorized storage at that site, and the licensee was not aware that the locatiot, was exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
- 124 1
Appendix E Army, Department of The, Tooele, Utah EA 97181 Supplement VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcetaent Policy by refraining frora issuance of a Notice of Violation involving unauthorized demolition of depleted uranium. Discretion was warranted because the licensee identified and reported the violation to the NRC, and took comprehensive corrective action to prevent recurrence.
Bally Engineering and Testing, Inc., Pensacola, Rorida EA 26-312 Supplement VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordan ath Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Notice of Violation for use of port, te nuclear gauges in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within the Agreement State of Florida with t an NRC li:ense. Discretion was warranted because Baily did not intentionally fall to obtain an NRJ license, did not understand the regulatory requirements that pertain to areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and was not informed by the Fe.serk!
facility that the work was within areas of exclusive Federaljurisdiction.
Carco Construction, Randolph, New Jersey EA 97-287 Supplement VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Notice of Violation for hnproper transfer nr r.bandonment of enerally licensed tritium E
" EXIT" signs at a site where Carco owned and was demolishing a building. Discretion was warranted because the signs had been improperly transferred to Carco when Carco purchased the building ud Carco was therefore unaware that the signs contained NRC licensed material.
Citizens hiemorialllospital, Bolivar, hilssouri EA 96-445 Supplements lY and VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for a Notice of Violation issued on January 28,1996. The action was based on eight victations, considered in the aggregate to represent significant breakdown in control of the radiation safety program. Although twice the base civil penalty would be proposed under the normal assessment process (because this was not the first escalated issue in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was not warranted for corrective action), the staff exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty because the licensee requested termination of the license.
Commonwealth Edison Company, LaSalle, Units 1 & 2 EAs96-392 & 97-021 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcen. cat discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing enforcement action for three potential Severity Level III issues. The first problem involved repair activities associated with replacement of the Unit 2 "A" RilRSW pump impeller.
The secorwl problem involved inadequate corrective awtions to resolve precursors that led to a rupture disk Dilure for the reactor core isolation cooling system, suppression pool foreign material problems, breaker alignment problems, and control switches that prematurely degraded. The third problem involved
- 125 v
.,_,__m
.- - -.. _ __ - _ _ - _ = -
Appendis E control room and suxiliary electric equi; ment room habitability problems. Discretion was exercised atter considering the following: (1) significant NRC enforcement action (EA 96 325) was imposed agaitst the lice 6ee for a service water sealant intrusion event for which the licensee's corrective actions encompass the root causes for these apparent violations, (2) the licensee voluntarily shut down both units to address wide ranging performance problems that encompass the causes for the apparent violations, (3) the apparent violations were not willful, (4) the apparent violations were related to activities before the shutdown, (5) the apparent violations would not be classified at a level higher than Severity Level !!,
(6) actions specified in the Confirmatory Action Letter effectively prevented the licensee from starting the facility without NRC approval, and (7) although the NRC identified a number of the issues because of its inspections, the NRC determined that the licensee dedicated significant resoure:s to address performance issues and improve the conduct of its operations, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, lladdam Neck EA 96-001 Supplement Vill The NRC crercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for a Notice of Violation that was issued on May 12, 1997.
The action was based on a Severity Level til problem involving inadequate implementation of the emergency preparedness program during the August 1996 exercise. Discretion was warranted because other civil penalties were irsued conjunction with the action (see Appendix B), the agency does not normally issue civil penalties for failures during an emergency exercise, and because the facility was going to shutdown.
1)erlin Tool itentals, lafayette, Loulslana EA 97417 Supplement VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Notice of Violation for a violation of 10 CFR 30.18 that involved incorporating exempt quantities of cobalt.60 into steel tubes for depth control markers. Discretion was warranted because the company misunderstood the regulatory requirements as a result of a dialogui with representatives of 4he Agreement State of Louisiana.
- 1) uke Power Company, Catawba, Units 1 & 2 EA C6-I04 Supplement !
The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.D.6 of the Enforcement Policy on February 21,1997, and did not issue a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation involving an unrecognized, unreviewed safety question concerning circuit breaker coordination in the 125 VDC systems. Discretion was warranted because: (1) although an error did exist m the safety evaluation that concluded that no USQ existed, a safety evaluation was completed in response to a 1992 Notice of Deviation and UFSAR changes were submitted to the NRC for formal review, (2) the NRC review of these changes took almost 2 years and the licensee was not notified of the USQ issue until September 1996, (3) upon notification of the existence of the USQ the licensee implemented prompt and appropriate action, including delay of restart of the Catawba units and submittal of an operating license amendment, and (4) appropriate guidance to the licensee staff to increase the level of awareness of 10 CFR 50.59 issues has been provided and a policy of management review of potential USQs has been instituted.
- 126
Appendix E 1
Edward M. Chadborne, Pensacola, Florida EA %-310 Supplement VI
.The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy on October 7,1996, and did not issue a violation for failure to file NRC Form 241 or obtain an NRC license before using a gauge containing licensed material within the physical borders of an Agreement State but in an area under exclusive Federal jurisdiction (an Air Force base). The company had relied on the Air Force base for information about applicable requirements and believed that the work was covered under the company's Agreement State license.
17orida Power Corporation, Crystal River 3 EA 96-335 Supplement Vil The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy on December 5,1996, and did not issue a violation. The action was based on an investigation that substaatiated that a contractor of the licensee discriminated against a contractor employee for engaging in protected activities. The violation normally would have been categorized at Severity Level 11:
however, enfor emeri discretion was warranted in this case due to the licensee's overall performance in knmediately attempting to correct the contrrctor's adserse action. Therefore, no violation was issued to the licensee in this macter.
Modda Power Corporation, Crystal River 3 EAs 96 365,96-465 Supplement I
& 96-527 The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy arx! did not issue civil penalties for violations involving a broad spectrum of problems in the engineering program at Crystal River Unit 3. The action includet (1) a Severity Level 11 problem for failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 in six cases, (2) a Severity Level Ill violation for failure to ensure that regulatory and plant design basis requirements are met, and (3) a Severity Level til violation for untimely and inadequate corrective actions resulting in the fallute to identify significant unreviewed safety questions and containment integrity issues. Discretion was warranted in that: (1) NRC issued a 5500,000 civil penalty on July 10,1996 (EA 95-126), that included sanctions for engineering violations; (2) following NRC identification of the current issues, FPC voluntarily extended the shut down of the Crystal River facility and developed a comprehensive program for problem identification and correction; (3) FPC demonstrated tl.at remedial action would be taken to ensure reestablishment of design margins for plant systems prior to plant restart; and (4) FPC's decision to restart the Crystal River facility required NRC concurrence in accoriance with a Confirmatory Action Letter issued on March 4,1997.
Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River 3 EA 97-0N Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy on June 6,1997, and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for a Severity Level 111 problem involving multiple failures to report significant conditions to the NRC within required time-frames. Discretion was appropriate because: (1) the facility was shutdown for an extended period, (2) the NRC issued previous enforcement actions and civil penalties, and (3) the licensee's decision to restart the facility required NRC concurrence.
127
_m.
7-
f Appendis E
[Tonida Power Corporation, Crystal River EA 97162 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy ard refraired from issuing a civil penalty for a Notice of Violation at Sevetity Level 111. ne violation involved: (1) the failure to identify that the addition of required operator actions to mitigate a design basis small break LOCA constituted an unreviewed safety question (USQ); and (2) the subsequent failure tv obtain NRC review and approv&! of that mitigatior, strategy. Discretion was exercised because:
(1) the facility was shutdown for performance reasons which involved a Severity Level 11 problem for failure to perform adequate reviews pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59; (2) the facility would remain shutdown ursil completion of a comprehensive program of improvements in the engineering area; (3) the licensee had demonstrated that remedial action we.s being taken to ensure reestablishment of design margins for plant systems prior to plant restart; (4) NitC issued a 5500,000 civil penalty on July 10, 1996 '
(EA 95-126), that included sanctions for engineering violations; and (5) the licensee's decision to restart the facility would require NRC concorrence in accordance with a Confirmatory Action Letter issued on March 4,1997.
ITorida Power Corporation, Crystal River 3 EA 97 330 Supplement i De NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.13.6 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a civil penalty for one Severity Level 111 problem involving failure to perform an adequate safety evaluation for a 1987 modification that added five protective trips to each EDG and for not updating the FSAR to describe the added EDO protective trips. Discretion was warranted in that:
(1) NRC issued a $500,000 civil penalty on July 10,1996 (EA 95-126), that included sanctions for engineering violations; (2) following NRC identification of the current issues, FPC voluntarily extended the shut down of Qe Crystal River facility and developed a comprehensive program for problem identification and correction, (3) FPC demonstrated that remedial action would be taken to ensure reestablishment of design margins for plant systems prior to plant restart; and, (4) FPC's decision to restart the Crystal River facility required NRC concurrence in accordance with a Confirmatory Action Letter issued on March 4,1997.
Gu{f Asphalt Corporation, Panama City,17arida EA 96-47!
Supplement VI The NRC exercised of Enforcement Discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B 6 of the Enforcement Policy on December 10,1996, and refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation for the failure to obtain a specific NRC license or file for reciprocity prior to using licensed material in areas under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. A Notice of Violation was not issued because the licensee did not understand the regulatory requirements pertaining to work in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction and was unaware that it was conducting operations in such areas, llealth & Services, Depanment of, Bethesda, Maryland EA 97 238 Supplement IV The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Notice of Violation for deliberate misuse of licensed material that resulted in contamination and overexposure to a pregnant researcher and a member of the public at the National
_ _. _.. - - ~ ~ -
P
- 128 -
Appendix E Institutes ofIleahh (Nill). Discretion was warranted because Nill fully cooperated with the subsequent investigation, there is no evidence that Nill contributed directly or indirectly to the deliberate misuse of the licensed rnaterial, and Nill could not reasonably foresee that an employee or employees would maliciously misuse radioactive material.
lionolulu Afedical Group, lionolulu, llawail EA 95-006 Supplement Vil The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 11 violation that was issued on January 23,1997. The action was taken because the licensee discriminated against an employee for engaging in protected activities by terminating the individual's employment. Although a b&se penalty would be warranted under the normal assessment process (because the violation is categorized at Severity Level 11, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), the NRC exercised discretion ind refrained from 5 tuing a civil penalty because of:
(1) the licensee's willingness to comply with the Department of Labor's mitial finding that discrimination had occurred (2) the licensee's willingness to settle the matter prior to an adjudicatory hearing, (3) the uhlmate resolution of the matter in the settlement agreement that was teached between the licensee and the complainant, and (4) the absence of any further complaints of discrimination against the licensee since the matter arose in 1992, llouston Lighting & Power Company, South Texas
'A 96-500 Supplement i The NRC exercised discretion in accordan,e with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation that was issued on March 27,1997. The action was based on excessive leakage from an emergency core cooling system valve, a significant condition adverse to quality, that existed and was not promptly identified and corrected, in that, a condition repart documenting valve leakage in the system was not evaluated for possible adverse safety consequences nor was the valve repaired. Further, the licensee continued to operate the facility with a degraded condition that was not evaluated to determine whether the condition constituted a change to the facility as described in the UFSAR resulting in an unreviewed safety question.
Specifically, leakage from an emergency core cooling system valve, approximately 20 times greater than that allowed by UFSAR Table 15.6-12, was identified and not properly evaluated. Although a base penalty would be warranted under the normal assessment process (because the violation was not the first escalated action in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), discretion was exercised and the NRC refrained from issuing a penalty. Discretion was warranted because the events that led to the escalated actions involving discrimination in October 1995 and September 1996 occurred more than 2 years prior to the discovery of the violations at issue in this case.
J & hl Testing labs, Inc., Tampa, Florida EA 96-472 Supplement VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy on December 10, 1996, and refrnined from issuing a Notice of Violation for the failure to obtain a specific NRC license er file far reciprocity prior to using licensed material in areas under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. A Notice of Violation was not issued because the licensee did not understand the
- 129 -
l l
Appendix IL l
teg'datory requirements pertaining to work in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction and was unaware that it was conducting operations in such areas.
larry hi, Jacobs & Associates, Pensacola, FTorida EA 96-313 Supplement VI 71e NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy on October 7,1996, and did not issue a violation for failure to file NRC Form 241 or obtain an NRC license before using a gauge containing licensed material within the physical borders of an Agreernent State but in an area under exclusive Federal jurisdiction (an Air Force base). Discretion was appropriate tecause the company had relied on the Air Force base for information koout applicable requirements and believed that the work was covered under the company's Agreement State license.
NDC Systems, Irwindale, California EA 96-539 Supplement VI The NRC exercised discretion in acccrdance with Section Vll.B.6 and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for s Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation that was issued on January 13, 1997.
The action was based on a willful violation in which, from 1989 to November 1995, the licensee delivered gauging devices containing 150 millicurie americium 241 sources for transpon, by air, to foreign countries in exceped packaging rather than in Type A packa3 ng. Although a base civil penalty 1
was warranted under the normal assessment process (because the action was willful, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective actions), the NRC exercised discretion and refrained from issuing a penalty because of a Confirmatory Order Modifying License that was issued in conjunction with this action (see Appendix C).
~
Nebra ska Public Power District, Cooper Nuclear Station EA 97-017 Supp'iment i The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Exercise of Discretion on issued June 25,1997. The action was based on the failure to update the USAR as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e), and the failure to perform adequate written safety evaluations in acconlance with 10 CFR 50.59. Although a base civil penalty was warranted un:ler the normal assessment process (luause the violation was not the first in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credii was warranted for corrective actions), discretion was exercised and a civil penalty was not proposed. Discretion was based on: (1) consideration of the generally low safety significance of the violations, (2) the comprehensiveness of the licensee's corrective actions, (3) the fact that the inspections were occurring at about the same time that the Policy was revised, and (4) recognition that communications with the NRC may have inadvertently contributed to delaying the licensee's USAR upgrade program.
Okaloosa Aspha!!, Inc., Shalimar, ITorida EA 96-311 Suppisment VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B 6 of the Enforcement Policy on October 7,1996, and did not issue a violation for failure to file NRC Form 241 or obtain an NRC license before using a gauge containing licensed material within the physical borders of an Agreement State but in an area under exclusive Fe#:aljurisdiction (an Air Force base). Discretion of appropriate 130 -
Appendix E because the company had relied on the Air Force base for information about applicable requirements and believed that the work was covered under the company's Agreement State license.
Pennsylvania Testing Esboratory, West Pittston, Pennsylvania EA 97126 Supplement VI The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy on June 13,1997, and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for a Severity lael 111 violation based on the possession of licensed radioactive material at unauthorized locations, incomplete and inaccurate information, and failure to leak test sealed sources and detector cells containing licensed material.
Discretion was warranted in this case because the license was terminated based on the fact that the company no longer possessed licensed radioactive material.
Philadelphia Electric Company, Peach Bottom, Units 2 & 3 EA 96 370 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Notice of Violation on January 3,1997, for a Severity Level til violation. The action was based on a Maintenance Rule base-line inspection that determined that the licensee was not adequately monitoring the perfonnance or condition of numerous systems and components against established goals, nor had the licensee demonstrated the effectiveness of preventive maintenance on these systems and comporots. Both of these deficiencies were in noncompliance with the Maintenance Rule. Although a base civil penalty would have been u. mted under the normal assessment process (because this was not the first escalated issue in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, and credit was warranted for corrective action), the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 and refrained from issuing a civil penalty. Enforcement discretion was warranted because: (1) the overall excellent material condition of the Peach Bottom facility arvi(2) the very good performance record that the licensee had demonstrated in the maintenance area, evidenced by few examples of performance-based maintenance problems. By proposing to exercise discretion and not propose a civil penalty in this case, the staff is balancing the licensee's programmatic failure to comply with the Maintenance Rule with its strong overall performance in the maintenance area.
Public Service Electric Company, Salem, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-204 Supplement i The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.D.6 of the Enforcement Policy on June 6,1997, and refrained from issuing additional violations or civil penalties related to the findings of a March 31, 1997, Office of Investigations report (1-95-013) that concluded the licensee willfully operated outside its design basis and failed to notify the NRC in a timely manner of the situat%n. The issue involved a 1993 notification from the Nuclear Steam Supply System vendor that nonconservatisms existed in the setpoint methodology for the Pressurizer Overpressure Protection System (POPS). The licensee took 9 months to ijdress the significant condition adverse to quality and when the condition was addressed, the licensee's torrective actions relied on actions that would have required NRC review and approval. Such approval was not sought. Partly as a result of this performance, significant enforcement action was taken on October 16,1995, (EAs95-062,95-065 & 95117) and a $600,000 civil penalty was issued. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the 01 lindings were the result of, or closely related to, the violations for which civil penalties were already assessed as part of the October 1995 significant enforcement action; (2) the 01 findings were matters that occurred in 1993 and 1994 prior to the extended 131 -
Appediu E shutdown which began in 1995 aM were not indicative of current perfonnance; (3) there were significant changes in the management team and personnel at Salem, and significant positive changes in the approach to identification and correction of problems; and (4) the 01 conclusion did not involve a conclusion of deliberate wrongdoing.
Srivite blillworks Corporation, Union, New Jersey EA 97 286 Supplement 17 The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and did not issue a Notice of Violation for improper transfer of generally licensed tritium " EXIT" signs at the time of sale of a building owned by Selrite. Discretion was warranted because the signs had been improperly transfeited to Selrite when Seltite purchased the building and Selrite was therefore unaware that the signs contained NRC licensed materid.
Tri State Testing, Tampa, Rorida EA 96-473 Supplement 17 The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy on December 10, 1996, and refrained froin issuing a Notice of Violation for the failure to obtain a specific NRC license or file for reciprocity prior to using licensed material in areas under exclusive Federal jurisdiction. Discretion was appropriate because the licensee did not understand the regulatory requirements pertaining to work in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction and was unaware that it was conducting operations in such areas.
Veterans Administration bledical Center, Philadelphsa, Pennsylvania EA 96-182 Supplement Vil The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in t.ccordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy on September 25, 1997, and refrained form imposing a civil penalty for a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation based on discrimination against the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO). This action was originally categorized at Severity Level 11 and was issued with c. $8,000 civil penalty on September 16, 1996. The NRC subsequently determined that the violation was more appropriately categorized at Severity Level 111 and exeicised discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B 6 and refrained from imposing the civil penalty. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the chastisement did not substantially affect the conditions of employment, an apology was issued, and the individual remains the RSO,(2) the Department of Labor (DOL) concluded that the licensee met the terms and conditions of outlined remedies, and (3) investigations conducted by DOL and the NRC's Office of Investigations did not substantiate continued discrimination against the RSO for contacting the NRC, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach, Units 1 & 2 EA 97-075 Supplement !
The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VILB.6 and refrained from issuing civil penalties for three Notices of Violation that were issued on August 8,1997. The three Severity Level ill problems were based on: (1) failure of the corrective action system to assure adequate corrective actions were taken for conditions adverse to quality, (2) unreviewed safety questions that were created when the Residual lleat Removal aM the Auxiliary Feedwater systems were operated in a manner not described in the Final Safety Analyses Report, and (3) failure to properly implement Technical
- 132 -
Appendix E J
Specification requirements, including correcting deficiencies and appropriately testing portions of the emergency power supply system. Although three base civil penalties would have been watranted under the normal assessment process (because this was not the first escalated issue in 2 years, credit was not warranted for identification, knd credit was warranted for corrective action), the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy. Discretion was exercised because: (1) the NRC had already issued a $325,000 civil penalty (EA 96 273 dated December 3,1996) to emphasize performance problems, (2) the licensee entered into a Confirmatory Action Letter which provided that the licensee would not operate its facility until it addressed a e subject violations as well as other perfonnance problems and met with the NRC to justify restart, (3) tne licensee implemented comprehensive corrective actions, and (4) although the NRC identified a number of these issues as a result of its inspections, the NRC determined that Wisconsin Electric Power Company dedicated significant resources to successfully address the performance issues and substantially improve Point lleach's conduct of operations.
4
.EWR
- 133
Appendix E E
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK b
134-b'
l Appendix F APPENDIX F:
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS AGAINST LICENSED INDIVIDUALS ORDERS AND DFMANDS FOR INFORMATION (DFis)
None NOTICES OF VIOLATION (NOVs)
Roger E. Jones IA 96-073 A Notice of Viclation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on November 19,1996, as a result of the licensed operator's failure of a chemical test for drugs.
James P. Ryan lA 97-007 A Notice s' me.sation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on January 31,1997, as a result of the licerned's operator's failure of a chemical test for drugs.
-135 C___
1 Appendis F I
I PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK O
s IM.
Appendix G APPENDIX G:
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS AGAINST NON-LICENSED INDIVIDUALS ORDEIG Jeffrey Barnhart lA 97 049 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licemed Activities was issued on June 23,19W. ~ne action was bt.ed on an investigation that concluded that Mr. Bamlart deliberately falsified intunnation provided on an application to obtain access authorization. The Order Prohibits hir. Barnhart's involvement in NRC licemed activities for a peri.d of 5 years and was based on hir. Barnhart's assumption of the identity of his deceased brother and his providing false statement regarding his history of drug use and past conviction for possession of illegal drugs The false infonnation he submitted was material to the NRC in that verification of an individual's true identity, an individual criminal history and suitability for the granting of unescorted access are essential elements of the licemees access authorization program tequired by 10 CFR 73.56.
Daniel R. Baudino IA 97-032 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC 1.icemed Activities for a period of 5 years was issued on hiay 27,1997. The action was based on an investigation that concluded that hit. Baudino deliberately violated 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate hiisconduct) by submitting false infonnation as to his criminal history on his personal history questionruires. The Order tirohibits hir. Baudino's involvement in NRC licensed activi'les,.
Aharon Ben llaim lA 97-065 An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licemed Activities (Effective immediately) Pending Further Order was issued on July 31,1997. The action was based on evidence obtained during an Office of Investigations inv,estigation that indicated that Dr. Den-llaim, acting in the capacity of consultant to Newark hiedical Associates, deliberately prepared an inaccurate application for an NRC license for that entity. The application listed an individual as the sole authorized user and radiation safety officer (RSO) even though that individual had no knowledge of the application and had never agreed to fulfill those functions. After a liceme was granted that named the irdividual as the authorized user and RSO, Newark hiedical Associates conducted licensed activities, with the knowledge of Dr. Ben-liaim in his capacity as consultant, even though the named individual did not ever serve as authorized user or RSO.
Aharon Ben liiam lA 97-068 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC 1.icensed Activities (Effective immediately) for a period of 5 years was issued on August 27, 1997. This action was based on evidence obtained during an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) that Dr. Ben-flaim, acting in the capacity of consultant to Newark hiedical Associates (linnsee): (1) deliberately prepared an inaccur te application for an NRC liceme by naming as the physlaan authorized user and radiation safety officer (RSO), an irdividtul who had in knowledge of the application and who had never agreed to fulfill those functions; and (2) assisted the licensee in the conduct of licensed activities with the knowledge that the named huividual did not ever serve as authorized user or RSO. The NRC staff concluded that Dr. Den liaim's actions constituted violations of 10 CFR 30.10, " Deliberate hiisconductJ' Therefore, the NRC modified
- 137
l Appendis G the Order to: t!) further address the findings of the O! investigation; (2) supplement the findings in the Order; (3) continue the prohibition against involvement in NRC licensed activities on the pan of Dr. Ben-lialm for a period of 5 years from July 31,1997 (Effective immediately).
Sue A. R!acklock IA 97-0%9 An Order Prohibiticg involvement in NRC-L! censed Activities for a period of 5 years was issued on August 5,1997, The action was based on an investigation conduction by the Office of Investigation, that determined that Ms. Blackloci; deliberately directed falsification of Reactor Enclosure Cooling Water sample documentation on February 7,1996.
Joseph R. Bynum lA 96101 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective ImmcJiately) was issued on January 13,1997, to the Vice-President of Fossil Operations for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
The action was based on an NRC investigation and testimony before the Department of Labor. In reviewing this case, the NRC conchided that Mr. Bynum deliberately violated Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate Misconduct), the deliberate misconduct causing the licensee to be ha violation of 10 CFR 50.7 (Employee Protection), by Mr. Bynum ordering the forced resignation of Mr. Jocher, a former corporate manager of Chemistry and Environmental Protection, based upon Mr. Jocher's engaging in protected activities. The Older removed Mr. Bynum from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 5 years from May 1,1993.
blagdy Damir LA 97-064 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licened Activities (Effective immediately) Pending further Order was issued on July 21,1997. The action was based on evidence obtained during an Office of Investigations (01) investigation that indicated that Dr. Elamir, the owner of Newark Medical Associates, deliberately submhted an inaccurate application for an NRC license for that entity. The application listed an individual as the sole authorized user and radiation safety officer (RSO) even though that irxilvidual had no knowledge of the application and had never agreed to fulfill those functions. After a license was granted which named the individual as the authorized user and RSO, Newark Medical Associates conducted licensed activities even though the named individual did not ever serve as authorized user or RSO.
Stagdy Damir LA 97-070 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effectiw immediately) for a period of 5 years was issued on September 15, 1997. The action was based on evidence obtained during an investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations (01) that Dr. Elamir: (1) submitted an inaccurate application for an NRC license by naming as the physician authorized user and radiation safety officer (RSO), an individual who had no knowledge of the application and who had never agreed to fulfill those functions; and (2) caused and permitted the licensee to conduct licensed activities without any physician authorized user or RSO. The NRC concluded that Dr. Elamir's actions constituted violations of 10 CFR 30.10, " Deliberate Misconduct." Therefore, the NRC issued a second Order to further address the findings of the 01 investigation and to continue the prohibition against Dr. Elamir's involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 5 years from July 31,1997 (Effective immediately).
- 138 -
Appendix G David Johns IA 97-026 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) was issued on May 15,1997. The actions was based on inspection and lavestigation which concluded that Mr. Johns, an unlicensed individual who is the president of CES, deliberately violated the conditions of an order suspending CES' license by continuing to use moistare density gauges on numerous occasions.
Krishna Kumar IA 97-011 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) was issued on February 18, 1997, to an unlicensed individual that was the President of Power inspection, Inc., (P,')
an NRC licensee. The action was based on an inspection and investigation that concluded that Mr. Kumar engaged in deliberate misconduct by deliberately submitting to NRC licensees inaccurate information concerning: (1) eddy current qualification certification examination results and personnel cenification sununaries; and (2) the trustwonhiness and reliability of two individuals, when Mr. Kumar knew that the individuals had used illegal substances. In addi; ion, Mr. Kumar engaged in deliberate misconduct by directing P1 employees to fabricate source utilir.ation logs for radiography performed and by providing to the NRC a letter which contained inaccurate hJormation relating to whether corrective actions had been taken in response to violations listed in a previous Notice of Violation.
John hiaas lA 96-100 A Confinnatory Onter Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) was issued on December 12, 1996. The action was based on an inspection and a plea of guilty in U.S.
District Coun, on the which the NRC concluded that Mr. Maas deliberatelv violated the Deliberate Misconduct rule (10 CFR 30.10) while serving as President of National Circuits Caribe, Inc. by abandoning devices containing byproduct material at the licensee's facility in Pueno Rico. The Order prohibits Mr. Maas from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 5 years, hir, Darryl D. bicNeil IA 97-001 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) was issued on March 24,1997, to an unlicensed individual who formerly worked as a security officer at Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River site. The action was based on an investigation conducted by the Office of Investigation, that detennined that Mr. McNeil deliberately conspired to cover up the loss of control of a security badge. The Order removes Mr. McNeil from engaging in NRC licensed activities for a period of ' year.
James hiulkey EA 97-012 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) was issued on February 18, N97, to an unlicensed individual who was the Vice President / Radiation Safety Officer of Power Inspection, Inc. (PI), an NRC licensee. The action was based on an inspection and investigation that concluded that Mr. Mulkey engaged in deliberate misconduct oy: (1) submitting to NRC licensees inaccurate infonnation concerning eddy current qualification cenification examination results and personnel cenification sununaries; (2) providing to the NRC a letter which contained inaccurate information relating to whether corrective actions had been taken in response to a previous Notice of 139-
Appnedis G Violation; and (3) providing false information to the NRC during a telephone discussion with a representative of the NRC.
James C. Nelson IA 97-004 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective immediately) was issued on January 27,1997. The action was based on deliberate misconduct, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10 of the Conunission's regulations. Specifically, Mr. Nelson deliberately permitted use of a ports' moisture density gauge containing NRC licensed material while under an Order Suspending License (Effective immediately) prohibiting use and caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.34. Further, Mr. Nelson deliberately provided informatiori to the NRC regarding the identity of the Radiation Protection Officer on the license tenewal applicWn that he knew was inaccurate. Based on these deliberate actions, the Order prohibits involvemere in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 5 years.
Robert J, Nelson IA 97-033 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities for a period of I year was issued on August 18,1997. The action was based on an investigation conducted by the Office of Irn tstigations, that determined that Mr. Nelson deliberately falsified a quality assurance document describing the replacement of a valve gasket on January 3,1996. Furthermore, this action was warranted because Mr. Nelson was not forthright in providing information to both the licensee and the NRC.
Steven F Nevin IA 97 060 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Ucensed Activities for a period of 3 years was issued on August 5,1997. 'The action was based on an investigation conducted by the Office of Investigation, that detennined that Mr. Nevin deliberately falsified records of Reactor Enclosure Cooling Water sample documentation on February 7,1996.
Cecil Ray Owen IA 96-103 An Order Prohibithig involvement in NRC. Licensed Activities for a period of 1 year was issued on January 2,1997, to an unlicensed individual who formerly worked as a contract millwright at the North Anna Power Station. The action was based on an investigation conducted by the Office of Investigation, that detennined that Mr. Owen completed a background questionnaire for a position at North Anna and deliberately did not identify his previous employment where he was terminated for a positive dmg test.
Roy Sadovsky EA 97-0N An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-licensed Activities (Effective Inunediately) was issued on May 1,1997.
The action was based on an inspection and investigation, that determined that Dr. Sadovsky was deliberately engaged in violations of NRC requirements.
Derek Stephens IA 97-008 A Confimtatory Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC Licensed Activities, effective immediately upon
(
issuance, was ssued on April 15, 1997. The action was based on inspection and investigation that concluded that Mr. Stephens deliberately violated 10 CFR 30.10 and 10 CFR 34.33(a) by failing to wear 140
Appeedis G personal monitoring devices (i.e., alarming raterneter, film badge, and pocket dosimeter) wlille conducting radiographic activities. In addition, the NRC concluded that Mr. Stephens failed to supen'ise his assistant as the assistant approached the exposure device without a survey instrument and attempted to diussemble the equipment. The NRC concluded that diis latter instance represented careless disregard for NRC requirements, fannte Randell Wilson IA 97-050 An Order Prohibiting involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued on June 26,1997. The action was based on deliberate falsification of information provided on an application to obtain access authorization. 'the Order prohibits Mr. Wilson's involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 5 years and was based on false information regarding whether he had ever tested positive for dmgs or ever been removed or denied access to a nuclear power plant.
Robert C. Allen IA 96-065 A Notice of Violation was issued on October 18,1996, for a Severity Level 111 violation. The action was based on deliberate violation of approved, detailed written procedures for the venting of the Unit i pressurizer relief tank.
Robert Beltran lA 96-074 A Notice of Violation was issued on November 21,1996, for a Severity Level til violation. The actLu was based on submitting false employment information claiming employment with an employer for 5 years, when in fact, he had never been employed by said employer.
Richard M. Grceln lA 96-052 A Notice of Violation was issued on December 19,1996, for a Severity Level til violation. The action was based on deliberately pro,lding information to an NRC inspector and to licensee representatives that was inaccurate, Jon R. Gar:a IA 97-038 g
A Noti 2 J Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on July 30, 1997. The action was based on Mr. Garza providing the NRC with incomplete and inaccurate information. Contrary to station requirements, Mr. Garza withheld information from his employer that was material to his continued employment.
David A. liarris IA 96-062 A Notice of Violation was issued on October 22,1996, for a Severity Level 111 violation. The action was based on submitting a urine sample that had been altered or tampered with in that its temperature was significantly elevated in excess of 20'F above normal body temperature.
9
- 1 11 -
Appendix G Jeffrey W, liolybee lA 97-072 A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on September 12, 1997. The action was based on Mr. liolybec submitting information that was inaccurate, and such information was material to the NRC. The information concerned inaccurate information on an access authorization application.
Subhash h7m!!ar LA 97-031 A Notice of Violation and Demand for information for a Severity Level 11 violation was issued on March 21,1997. The trtion wu based on the licensee certified, on a Form NRC-314 dated February 26,1990, that all byproduct material had been disposed of when, in fact, all byproduct material had not been disposed of.
David Kirkland IA 97-010 A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level Ill violation was issued on April a,1997. The sction was cased on tue individual caiaing the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 35.25(a)(2) by administering 6.6 millicuries of iodirn-131 to a patient without first obtaining the signature of an authorized user on a written directive, even though he knew that the licensee's medical quality management program required a signed written directive prior to the administration of >he dosage.
Afichael S. Krivnanich IA 97-014 l
A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on February 18, 1997. The action was based on a violation of 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 34.27. Specifically, the licensee's utilization logs maintained at the licensee's Wexford, Pennsylvania, office were inaccurate because they were neither
" current" nor created on the date of use of the source, but in fact, were created at a later time in order to address questions asked by the NRC during s. pievious NRC inspection.
Lee Afyers, Ph.D.
IA 97-017 A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level Ill violation was issued on March 7,1997. The action,
based on the individual causing the licensee to be in violation of a license requirement by allowing patient treatments to continue without monthly calibration checks of the high dose rate afterloader, even though he knew that the checks were required.
hiichael Afusxvnski IA 96-067 l
A Notice of Violation was issued on December 20,1996, for a Severity Level Ill violation. The action was based on deliberately submitting to the licensee information that was incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC.
John R. Raskovsky EA 97-037 A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on June 18,1997. The action was be ed on a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). Mr. Raskovsky deliberately falsified access authorization documents in order to obtain unescorted access to numerous NRC regulated nuclear power plants.
I i
- 142 -
?
i
Appendix G Krily N. Ross IA 97-075 A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level til violation was issued on September 16, 1997. The action was based on Mr. Ross submitting information that was inaccurate, and such information was material to the NRC. The information concemed inadequate information on an access authorization application.
Randall L. Rumley EA 97-071 A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III viola 90n was issued on September 12, 1997. The action was based on the fact that Mr. Rumley: (1) defeated a breathing zone air sampler by placing a rubber glove over the air sampler at the respective work station, (2) transferred an unknown (uncertain weight) quantity of low enriched uranium powder from a container into another container of enriched uraniura powder, and (3) transferred the same without using a ventilated enclosure. Mr. Rumley's actions caused the licensee to be in violation of the above procedural requirements.
Marvin N. Shook IA 97-073 A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 111 violation was issued on September 12, 1997, The action was based on Mr. Shook submitting information that was inaccurate, and such information was material to the NRC. The inaccurate information concerned the omission of material information on an access authorization application.
Donald Smith IA 97-056 A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level Ill violation was issued on July 23,1997. The action was based on Mr. Smith, a Bums Contract alarm station operator, providing his management with inaccurate information related to his triggering of tamper alarms at the St. Lucie secondary alarm station.
George W. Stewart IA 97-015 A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on Feb-uary 18, 1997. The action was based on a violation of 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 34.27. Specifically, the licensee's utilization logs maintained at the licensee's Wexford, Pennsylvania, office were inaccurate because they were neither
" current" nor created on the date of use of the source, but in fact, were created at a later time in order to address questions asked by the NRC during a previous NRC inspection.
RonaldStewart JA 97-018 A Notice of Violation for a Schrity Level III violation was issued on April 4,1997. The action was based on the deliberate failure to provide complete and accurate information during the preemployment process.
Specifically, Mr. Stewart failed to include his history of criminal convictions on the Personal History Questionnaire, that was used as the basis for granting him unescorted access. This information was material to the NRC in that verification of an individual's criminal history and suitability for the granting of unescorted access is an essential element of the licensee's access authorization program required by 10 CFR 73.56.
- 143 -
Appendix G DLMANDS FOR INFORMATION (DFis)
Michael Bath LA 96-077 A Demand for Information was issued or. December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Surquehanna Steam
- 2)ectric Station.
Finis Scott Bandy EA 97-057 A Demand for Information was issued on July 22,1997, to obtain information as to why the NRC should not take enforcement action against Mr. Bandy for deliberately omitting certain criminal history information on an application for unescorted access to the Fort Calhvun Station.
Jeffrey Lee Barnhart IA 97-022 A Demand for Information was issued on April 24,1997, as a result of the NRC staff's conclusion that Mr. Barnhart deliberately falsified information on his security questionnaire, including statements regarding past drug use, and worked under the assumed name of his deceased brother.
Ron Brown IA 96-084 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquelumna Steam Electric Station.
Louis Coraz:a IA 96-078 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susqueharum Steam Electric Station. -
Ronald Dalmas IA 96-088 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly perforr.ed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
John Evans IA 96-079 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
l
- 144 -
Appendix G Michael Tedorca IA 96-085 A Demand for Infonnation was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Carl Gentilesco IA 96-080 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual'c involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Mark flalle IA 96-093 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involveme't in station rounds not ueing properly perfonned at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Thomas Kinsey EA 96-089 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information.egarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
hiichael Kr4s IA 96-092 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric St:. tion.
biark Lindsey IA 96-081 A Demand for information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information ngarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Anthony Afaruca IA 96-095 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Dino bia:,arki IA 96-097 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
- 145 -
1
Appendix G Bernard McGaugh IA 96-094 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the indivdual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Su'.quehanna Steam Electric Station.
Craig Merlu:d LA 96-082 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Glenn Miller IA 96-091 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Stevn Electric Station.
Lee Myers, Ph.D.
IA 96-114 A Demand for Infonnation was issued on December 31, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in allowing patient therapy treatments to continue even though the individual knew that the liigh Dose Rate Applicator had not received its required monthly checks for 4 months.
Daniel Torres Ortiz IA 97-025 A Demand for Information was issued on April 25, 1997, for facts surrounding strontium-90 source verification service provided by Mr. Ortiz.
George Paresa IA 96-086 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquelumna Steam Electric Station.
Alan Shaffer LA 96-098 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Wilbur Shaffer IA 96-090 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
- 146 -
Appendix G John Sorenson IA 96-083 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvecent in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehet Steam Electric Station.
Ricardo Tomasacci IA 96-087 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station rounds not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
Andrew Ulitney LA 96-096 A Demand for Information was issued on December 10, 1996, to request information regarding the individual's involvement in station romxis not being properly performed at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
4 147 -
1
D Appendix G PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
't
- 148 -
Appendix H i
APPENDIX II:
SUMMARY
OF ACTIONS i
AGAINST NON-LICENSED PERSONS OTIIER THAN INDIVIDUALS NOTICES QF VIOLATION (NOVs)
None CIVIL PENALTIES Thermal Science, Inc., St. Louis, bibscuri EA 95-009 Supplement Vil The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A of the Enforcement Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Propc.,ed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of 5900,000 on October 1,1996, for nine Severity Level I violations. The action was based on an investigation by the Ohice of the Inspector General, in addition to several inspections performed by NRC ;taff. that identified nine Severity Level I violations. All of the violations were cited against 10 CFP 50.3, " Deliberate Misconduct," due to Thermal Science, Inc. (TSI) having deliberately and repeatedly provided inaccurate or incomplete information to th. NRC concerning TSI's fire endurance and ampacity testing programs for Thermo-Lag fire barriers. Enforcement discretion was warranted because the staff considered the egregious, deliberate, arxl repeated nature of these viol.itions, and because the staff considered this matter to constitute a very significant regulatory concern which necessitated a significant entorcement action.
The civil penalty was escalated to the maximum statutory limit of $100,000 for each of the nine Severity Level I violations.
- 149 -
a e
=.
- ~
. Appendit H I
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9
eeemme 150 -
4
Appendix I APPENDIX I:
SUMMARY
OF CASES INVOLVING DISCRIMINATION Cleveland Dectric illuminating Company, Perry, Units I and 2 FA % 253 Supplement VII A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $160,000 was issued on Odober 9,1996, for a Severity level 11 violation. The action was based on a problem involving two violations of 10 CFR 50.7, " Employee Protection." As determined in the DOL Administratlve Law Judge's (AU) Recommended Decision and Order in case 96-ERA-6, dated June 11,1996, the licensee instructed its contractor to terminate one insulator from his employment at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and banned him and five additional insulators from working at any Centerior facility in retaliation for the insult. ton filing a civil complaint under the Atomic Energy Act. The violation is categorized at Severity Level 11 because l' appears from the AU's decision that management above first line supervision was involved in the discrimination.
Morida Power Corporation, Crystal River 3 EA %335 Supplement Vil The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy on December 5,1996, and did not issue a violation. The action was based on an investigation which substantiated that a contractor of the licensee discriminated against a contractor employee for engaging in protected activities. The violation normally would have been categorized at Severity Level II; however, enforcement discretion was warranted in this case due to the licensee's overall performance in immediately attempting to correct the contractor's adverse action. Therefore, no violation was issued to the licensee in this matter.
Florida Power Corporation (Pritt McEnany Roofing, Inc.)
EA 96 336 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation was issued on December 5,1996 for a Severity Level 11 violation. This action was based on a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 wh'ch prohibits, in part, discrimination by a contractor of a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Specifically, the discrimination included the discharge of a security escort as a result of the escort reporting a violation of security escort requirements, lionolulu Medical Group, lionolulu, llawail EA 95-006 Supplement Yli A Notice of Violiuon for a Severity Level 11 violation on January 23, 1997. The action was taken because the licensee discriminated against an employee for engaging in protected activities by terminating the indivL*,al's employment.
Koppel Steel Corporation, Bea - Falls, Pennsylvania EA 96-498 Supplement Vil-A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $8,000, for a Severity Level 11 violation, was issued on March 19, 1997. The action was based on discrimination agait-t a
- 151 -
Appendix I former Radiation Safety Officer after he provided information to an NRC inspector during an April 1996 inspection.
Public Senice Electric and Gas Company, Salem, Units 1 & 2 EA %-177 Supplement Vil A Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of S80,000 was issued on December 9,1996, for a Severity Level II violation. The ac*lon was based on a problem involving a former manager of the licensee's Nuclear Safety Review Group who discriminated against a former Onsite Safety Review Engineer and a Safety Review Engineer at the Salem Generating Station in late 1993 and early 1994.
- 152 -
Appendix J APPENDIX J:
SUMMARY
OF IIEARING ACTIVITY Barnett industria!X Ray, Inc.
A request for ; hearing dated June 16, 1997, was submitted by Banett X-Ray, Inc., a radiography ll:ensee, regarding an Order imposing Civil Monetary Penalr/ for three violations that involved a substantial potential for the whole body exposure to a radiographer to be in excess of NRC limits. On October 15,1997, the staff and the licensee filed a jeint settlement agreement for approval by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and the Licensing Board approved the settlement and distaissed the proceeding on Gctober 24,1997.
Ben flaim, Aharon, Ph.D.
A request for a hearing and a request to stay the immediate effectiveness of an Order were received on August 19, 1997. The Order prohibits the irdividual from involvement in NRC-licensed activities. On September 18,1997, the Licensing Board ruled that it would not rescind the immediate effectiveness of the Order. The hearing on the Order is pending.
Damir, Magdy, M.D.
A request for a hearing was received on October 4,1997, regarding an Order prohibiting the individual from involvement in NRC-licensed activities. The hearing is pending.
1
- 153 -
a A
Appendix J -
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
~ 1M -
l
' Appendix K APPENDIX K:
SUMMARY
OF 10 CFR 2.206 ACTIVITY Director: Decision 97-07 A petition wa received on May 30,1996, on Westinghouse Electric Corporatien requesting the staff to i
take immediate action and issue a Show Cause Order or civil penalty pertaining to Westin; house's allegedly providing false information to a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge concerning qualifications for health physics technicians. This issue was addressed in Director's Decision-97-07,-
dated March 20,1997.
G
- 155 -
,