ML20205E356

PNS-III-78-004:on 780110,during Physical Security Insp,Lack of Positive Access Controls to Reactor Bldg Discovered. Portions Deleted (Ref 10CFR2.790).Related Draft Documents Encl

ML20205E356
Person / Time
Site:	Dow Chemical Company
Issue date:	01/16/1978
From:	Donahue J, Hind J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205E202	List: IA-85-259, Notice of Violation from Insp on 780110-12.Portions Deleted (Ref 10CFR2.790) IR 05000264/1976001 IR 05000264/1978001 ML20205E198 ML20205E231 ML20205E245 ML20205E268 ML20205E311 ML20205E335 ML20205E345 ML20205E356 ML20205E536 ML20205E558 ML20205E573
References
FOIA-85-259 PNS-III-78-004, PNS-III-78-4, NUDOCS 8510170273
Download: ML20205E356 (25)

Text

l PART 2.790(d) INFORMATION EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.790(d)

PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION A sl No: PNS-RIII M Date: January 16, 1978 Facility: Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan, TRIGA Reactor (DN 50-264)

Subject:

LACK OF POSITIVE ACCESS CONTROLS TO REACTOR BUILDING On January 10, 1978, two inspectors from Region III (Chicago) corunenced a physical security inspection at the Dow TRIGA Reactor.

The reactor is situated in a block square fenced-in area shared by

~

several other buildings which are not interconnected. The inspecto_rs entered the fenced-in " limited area" through the without any challenge. They entered the Reactor uilding, which is within the " limited area," through , proceeded through the control room into the reactor room. Although seen by at least five building occupants, their presence was not challenfed.

They had not registered with the building receptionist in the fro'nt lobby and had not been badged as visitors. After about 10 minutes of unencumbered access, the inspect' ors asked to see the reactor superviser and identified themselves.

, _The licensee is authorized to possess 3.4 kg U-235, 20% enrichgt.

M he reactor was not in operation.

An Immediate Action Letter was sent the licensee on January 13, 1978, to assure the institution of positive access controls in the Reactor Building. Enforcement action pending.

This incident was disclosed by an inspection on January it, 1978.

Contact:

.f. l I}J.F.Donahue b h.d.

. F.

%1 Donahue. b g.J. A. Hind Prepared By Section Chief Branch Chief

}

PART 2.790(d) INFORMATION g.p3.yp-l3 8510170273 851004 Copy _c h c., _ copies PDR FOIA KOHNOS-259 PDR i ,Pue s .

_'IHIS DCOE!E!!T IS !!OT TO 1;E REPRODUCEDL*IIgUISFICITIC

7 t

40 1

% lL 4 0-< ,

.m asou UNITED ST ATES

• [*,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i r, nEcloN til e f 799 ROOSEVELT RO AD t g clew ELLvn. stumois esist 8

% . .

• do s

),

f. lt~ Executive Officer for Operatio's MEMORANDUM FOR: E. L. Jordan, n Support, IE f: K Cheries-E. Ncrelius, Assioi ui<e the Director FROM:

SUBJECT:

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY - RECOMMENDED CIVIL PENALTY During a recent security inspection at the subject licensee's TRIGA Reactor facility, two RIII inspectors gained unchallenged access from outside the licensee's facility through a limited control access area and into the licensee's reactor building and reactor room, areas which are required to be controlled by the licensee's security plan. Af ter about ten minutes inside the security area, they identified themselves to licensee personnel _.

This is considered to be an item of noncompliance in the violation category. A second item of noncompliance relating to access control was also identified. Nonco=pliance with this same area of access control was found during the previous security inspection at this facility. Because of the significance of the one item of noncom-pliance and the repetitive nature of items related to access control, we recommend that a civil penalty be issued to the subject licenses.

Upon completion of the inspection we issued an Immediate Action Letter on January 13, 1978 (copy attached). A reply from the licensee (copy attached) did not indicate a full response, but during the enforcement conference held at the licensee's facility on February 7,1978, it was confirmed that the licensee did, in fact, take prompt steps to carry out the items set forth in the immediate action letter.

e

( l

.o I o**

• e E. L. Jordan -

2-4 Attached for headquarters use is a letter to the licensee with the appropriate notice of violation, proposed imposition of civil penalties, and history of noncompliance.

Charles E. Norelius Assistant to the Director Attachments:

1. Draft Itr w/ Appended Notice of Violation and Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties

2. Inspection Report

3. Immediate Action Letter dtd 1/12/78 and licensee's response dtd 1/19/78 cc w/ attachment 1 only:

E. Volgenau. Director J. G. Davis, Deputy Director cc w/all attachments:

N. 4hdder, SI j.a

• +

I.

O

,,v-,

.U

.- r Docket No. 50-264

-s Dow Chemical Company ATTN: James H. Hanes Vice President and General Counsel Building 1403 - -

Midland, MI 48640 Gentlemen:

During an inspection of the TRIGA Research Reactor facility on January 10, 1978, inspectors from our Region III (Chicago) office entered the security area of the reactor building from outside the limited access area without being challenged regarding their identity. This constitutes a violation of your security plan. This item and two other items of noncompliance identified during the inspection, are set forth in Appendix A to this letter. One of the other items also relates to the matter of inadequate access control. In view of the significance of these items and the finding of a noncompliance similar in nature during a previous inspection in January 1976, we plan to impose civil penalties in the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) as set forth in Appendix B. In responding to this letter, you should follow the instructions in Appendix A.

We acknowledge that following the inspection, you took . 1;21.ie action to limit access to the reactor building according to the steps outlined I in the January 13, 1978, letter from Region III. In addition to describing the specific action you have taken to correct the specific

items of noncompliance, your response should focus on the long range i

management control actions being taken to assure continued compliance

, _ . with the requirements of your security plan.

5. -

, . .. ., -,.-.--n,,, , , .,- - -- - - , , -~-

r t ,

Dow Chemical Company The information in Appendixes A and B concern a subject matter which is exempt from disclosure according to Section 2.790 of the NRC's Rules of Practice, Part 2, Title 10,- Code of Federal Regulations. Accordingly, our report of the January 10-12, 1978 inspection (50-264/78-01), the enclosedAppendiIesAandB,andyourresponsetotheitemslistedin Appendix A, will not be placed in the Public Document Room.

We wish to reiterate the necessity of taking prompt management action to assure full compliance with NRC requirements in the future. We plan to continue to conduct unannounced inspections to determine whether such action has been taken. Our findings and your reply,to this letter will determine whether any further enforcement action, such as additional civil penalties or orders, are required.

Sincerely, E. Volgenau Director, IE

Enclosures:

1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation .

2. Appendix B, Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties I' "" '

cc w/encis:

Central Files k Mf d%

/P

,g t,J- h

/ Reproduction Unit NRC 20b .

/ G 4,

[ 4.;

l. w/o encis: w i- %7 ,

,s

. %w

• I

Part 2,700(d) Inforestion f.

. Appendix A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Dow Chemical Company ,

Docket No. SD-264 This refers to the inspection conducted by representatives of the Region III (Chicago) office at the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor Facility, Midland, Michigan, of activities authorized by NRC License No. R-108.

During this inspection conducted on January 10-12, the following apparent items of noncompliance were identified. Item 1 is considered to be a violation. Item 2 is considered to be an infraction. Item 3 is con-sidered to be a deficiency.

10 CFR 73.40 requires that each licensee shall provide physical pro-tection against industrial sabotage and against theft of special nuclear material at the fixed sites where licensed activities are conducted. To this end, security plans submitted to the Commission for approval shall be followed by the licensee after March 6, 1974. The Dow TRIGA Research Reactor Facility Security Plan was submitted to the Directorate of Licensing by letter dated January 3, 1974 and was subsequently found acceptable as amended August 28, 1974. The revised Security Plan for the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor Facility submitted to NRC by letter dated February 24, 1976 was approved by NRR on April 2, 1976.

~-

\w,

[ Fart 2.700(3) Inferestion _

j

j 4

Pert 2.733(d) Information Appendix A -

i

/ 1. Section 3.3.7(B) of the revised Security Plan for the Dow TRIGA l l

Reactor Facility which was approved April 2, 1976 describes the l

limited access area and provides that access to this area is con-I I

trolled by entry through a j which border the limited access area. Access to  ; is

entrolled through the front entrance of the building.

Contrary to the above, access to gwas not contro11e(

on January 10, 1978 in that NRC inspectors gained undetected and unchallengedaccessthroughthe{ into the limited access area and further into the 'and the reactor room.

This violation had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence related to security.

(Civil Penalty - $1500)

2. Section 3.3.7(C)(1) of the revised Security Plan for the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor Facility which was approved April 2. 1976 requires that Dow employees, other than those normally employed in, I who enter the building are required to carry identification b'

Part 2.790(d) Information J

i

, Part 2.7DO(d) Int ort ation.

( Appendix A bade,ec with photographs and must identify themselves as Dou employees when entering the building. The sign-in procedure at the receptionist's desk at the front entrance to the is the accepted method for other than permanently assigned employees to identify ther.aelves.

Contrary to the r*sove, it was observed on January 10, 1978 by RIII inspectors that a Dow employee in the Iother thanapermanent\ employee, was not carrying his Dow photo identity badge and had not identified himself as a Dow employee by signing in as he entered the building.

V (Civil Penalty - $500)

3. Section 3.2.5(5) of the revised Security Plan for the Dow TRIGA Reactor Facility which was r roved April 2, 1976 requires that officers of the plant protection and security force will be requalified on a semiannual basis throuBh review secsions.

Contrary to the above, according to training records and interviews,  !

officers of the plant protection and security force have attended requalification sessions only on an annual basis.

Part 2.790(d) Informatism ,

i ~

Part 2.730ld) Information Appendix A '

- 4 *- s In addition to the above items, it was determined during the inspection that the intrusion alarm in the reactor room, while activated, required anl by the inspectors to cause the device to alarm, making the detector -inef fective. We understand that you had the detectors checked for operability shortly before the inspection, but were not aware of the criteria used to determine the operability of the detectors. In your response, please describe your action to assure that your intrusion alarm system will effectively respond tok Include your plans for frequency of testing and criteria for determining effective operability.

The " Criteria for Determining Enforcement Action " which was provided to NRC licensees by letter dated December 31, 1974, delineated the enforcement options available to the NRC as including administrative actions in the form of written actices of vioistion, civil monetary penalties, and orders pertaining to the modification, suspension or L

revocation of a license. After careful evaluation of the nature and i

number of items of noncompliance and the rapetitive nature of one such 1

item, thin office proposes to impose civil penalties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (42 USC 2282) f i

and 10 CFR 2.205, in the cumulative amount of two thousand fi Scc.J =4 i

eec

- ' ff!67 ao11 ara ($2.660), as set forth in the " Notice of Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties," enclosed herewith as Appendix 5.

kkf

• l l

l

,

• Part 2,790(d) Information

,me-- - y , . +. . .- - - , - , -,,e,,-,-,---.w--y .- ,- ,-w..,-- w.*..-.r-,, - r----e---- , - -- - . = - - +

f f -

. Part 2.790(d) Information Appendix A .

('

This notice of violation is sent to Dow Chemical Company pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulation. Dow Chemical Company is hereby required to submit to this office, within twenty (20) days of its receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance; (1) admission or denial of the alleged item of noncompliance; (2) the reasons for the items of noncom-pliance if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

N. . -

Part 2.790(d) Inforestion

a Appendix B

(

NOTICE OF PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES Dow Chemical Company ,

Docket No. 50-264 This office proposes to impone civil penalties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2882), and to 10 CFR 2.205 in the cumulative amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) for the specific items of noncompliance set forth in Enclosure A to the cover letter. In proposing to impose civil penalties pursuant to this section of the Act and in fixing the proposed amount of the penalties, the factors identified in the statements of consideration published in the Federal Register with the rule making action which l adopted 10 CFR 2.205 (36 FR 16894) August 26, 1971, and the " Criteria I

for Determining Enforcement Actions," which was sent to NRC licensees on December 31, 1974, have been taken into account.

Dow Chemical Company may, within twenty (20) days of receipt of this notice, pay the civil penalties in the cumulative amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) or may protest the imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer. Should Dow Chemical Company fail to answer within the time specified, this office will issue an order imposing the civil penalties in the amount proposed above. Should Dow Chemical Company elect to file an answer protesting the civil penalties, such answer may (a) deny the items of noncompliance listed (i. :

- - - - - - ..n,- ,.,n .-, ,w,., ~ , . - ,.nr ,,,-

/' Appendix B  %

in the Notice of Violation in whole or in part, (b) demonstrate exten-unting circumstances, (c) show error in the Notice of Violation, or (d) show other reasons why -the penalties should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalties in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate by specific reference (e.g., giving page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.

Dow Chemical Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of

,. 10 CFR 2.205 regarding, in particular, failure to answer and ensuing orders; answer, consideration by this office, and ensuing orders; requests for hearings, hearings and ensuing orders; compromise; and collection.

Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which has been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2282).

I

-nc-i t

Docket No. 50-26 v

• Dow Chemical Company ATTN: Dr. Ralph Langner Chairman, Radiation Safety Committee Building 1803 Midland, MI 48640 Gentlemen:

This letter refers to the inspection which was conducted at the Dow TRICA Research Reactor Facility on January 10-12, 1978, by i Messrs. J. J. Dunleavy and T. J. Madeda of our Region III office.

The findings from this inspection were discussed by the inspectors with Mr. k' estover and others of your staf f on January 12, 1978.

The major concerns identified during this inspection were also reviewed during a telephone conversation on January 13, 1978 between Mr. James F. Donahue of Region III and Mr. Oswald Anders, Reactor Supervisor. A final management meeting to discuss the e findings and the corrective action proposed in response to the NRC Immediate Action Letter dated January 13, 1978, was held on by Mr. , , Region III and , Dow Chemical.

The area examined during this inspection was the program for pro-tecting against sabotage of the reactor facility and safeguarding special nuclear material pursuant to applicable provisions of 10 CFR 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities;"

Part 73, " Physical Protection of Plant and Materials," to include the implementation of the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor revised Security Plan approved by NRR on April 2, 1976.

k'ithin the areas identified above, the inspection consisted of selectiveexaminationsofprocedures,interhewswithpersonnel, and observation by the inspector. During this inspection it was found that certain of your activities appeared to be in non-compliance with NRC requirements. The items and reference to the O pertinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewith as Appendix A. Failure to meet the requirements of the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor Facility revised security plan as identified J. i i . . :

i .i t ~

yr -

• l

l 1 .

.- w Q 4m A f"i" Dow Chemical Company " '

in the Notice of Violation, Appendix A, substantially increases the risk of sabotage to your facility and may adversely affect the public health, safety, or interest.

The information in Appendices A through concern a subject matter which is exempt from disclosure accordir..t to Section 2.790 of the NRC's Rules of Practice, Part 2, Title ::. Code of Federal Regulations.

Accordingly, our report of the January ;!-12,1978 inspection (50-264/78-01), the enclosed Appendices A through , and your response to the items listed in Appendis 1, will not be placed in the Public Document Room.

We wish to reiterate the necessity of tsi g prompt management action to assure full compliance with NRC requirements in the future. We plan to continue to conduct unannounced i spections to determine 9 whether such action has been taken. Oc findings and your reply to this letter will provide a basis to det#-- se whether any further enforcement action is called for, such u idditional civil penalties

, or suspension, modification or revocati: :f any of your licenses.

Sincerely.

2 E. Volegocr Director, 2

Enclosures:

p 1. Appendix A Notice of Violation f:

(Part 2.790(d) Information)

2. Appendix B, Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties

3. Appendix C, Noncompliance History (Part 2.790(d) Information) 4 4. IE Inspection Report No. 50-264/78-01 (Part 2.790(d) Information)

I,*  ;

Y'

_y

ii L..w- ,

ec w/encls:

Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b I

cc w/o encis:

j PDR 9

0

4. . . . '

sup.

pp p rr=

- L . .. ..

Appendix A ,

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Dow Chemical Company Docket No. $0-264 This refers to the inspection conducted by representatives of the Region III (Chicago) of fice.ofen the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor Facility, Midland, Michigan, of activities authorized by NRC License No. R-108.

During this inspection conducted on January 10-12, 1978, the following apparent items of noncompliance were identified.

IW5cAf -FA w mtsapr /M t 6 a. AJ /e

1. Section 3.3.7(B) of the revised Security Plan for the Dow %

TRIGA Reactor Facility which was approved April 2, 1976 states in part: "The enclosed plan drawings and sketches

- - - of the facility depict the limited access area con-sisting of the fenced-in city block borderg by - - -

Austin, Pershing, Barth, and Washington. j lAccessis gained through the doors of the building N the limited access area, including and a'

. J "The front entrance of the building is of controlled access. Other access to the building is through the above limited ac. cess area."

Contrary to the above .the NRC inspectors were able on January 10, 1978 at 1:40 p.m. to gain undetected and un-challanged access ,into the above mentioned limited access area through the Further, the NRC inspectors were able to proceed across the , limited access area into the i

and then to accomplish un-

. In t f.7 * ) h f:r- tic:.

c . - - .. . . . _ . . . -

w . . ....

\

.j i.._.on.. i b w .c ' s c3 8 challanged access to the reactor control room and to the reactor room itself.

~

This violation had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence related to security - (Civil Penalty .$1500)

S-F3 Copy of copies Pages.

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF RIII t

a O

• • e.,

{. ,,r *- e * % . t e o =* a { s*

l-t , , , . . . . . . . ... , . . . ,

w $m ,_ .

^'*

, is't;

• I. . ,

, t ,

s *..--sg., Jg u ,, .. .

Appendix A - .

-10 CFR 73.40 requires that each licensee shall provide physical protection against industrial sabotage and against theft of special nuclear material at the fixed sites where licensed activities are conducted. To this end, security plans submitted to the Commission for approval shall be followed by the licensee after March 6, 1974. The Dow gi TRIGA Research Reactor Facility Security Plan was submitted W

I to the Directorate of Licensing by letter dated January 3, ff 1974 and was subsequently found acceptable as amended ic 4 August 28, 1974. The revised Security Plan for the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor Facility submitted to NRC by letter dated

, February 24, 1976 was approved by NRR on April 2,1976.

2. Section 3.3.7(c)(1) of the revised Security Plan for the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor Facility which was approved April 2, 1976 states in part: j "Other Dow employees entering the building are also required to carry identification badges with photographs and must identify themselves as Dow employees when entering the buildinc." 'Jhe sign-in procedug at the recep-tionists' desk at thefrontentrancJtothe{ j is the accepted method for other than, fpermanentlyassigned

~

employees to identify themselves. Su f 9$ M r .

, entrarytotheabove,itwasrevealedthroughaJestofthe intrusion alarm system that the intrusion alarm in the Reactor Room was not effectively activated (O

k in that it failed to detect the preseqce of the inspec i during a series of tests. Only after by the inspector did the intrusion alarm effectively activate.

p 3 O

+Q L  ; . :.

-L-

. . ..., y

• r r . ~: *1 o r. ..o,,, n, "~

This is an infraction - (Civil Penalty - $500) -

3. Section 3.3.7(c)(3) of the revised Security Plan for the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor Facility which was approved April 2, I

1976 states:

and Section

/

3.3.7(c)(5) of the revised Security Plan el for the Dev TRIGA ResearchReactorTacilitystatesinpart:f e n5 t$ f p fqL &

This is an infraction - (Civil Penalty - $500)

S-F3 Copy of copies Pages.

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF RIII O

b

.. .

• i - - d O' ass- )

• T.

1:

, 3.y, - * } ) . 4 . . . . q .. 8 c: s. .. ..

Appendix A ,

(, Contrary to the above, it was observed on January 10, 1978 ,

by RIII_ inspectors that s'Dow employee, other than a per-d0 manent y employee, was performing maintenance on equipgent in the It was revealed through g

1 an interview with the individual by the inspectors that he jhad not signed-in and he wap not carrying his Dow photo identity badge, both of which are required for access to the The receptionist was unaware. ,that _ .

this ,

worker was in the building as he entered through

( l r

4. Section 3.2.5(5) of the revised Security Plan for the Dow TRIGA Reactor Facility which was approved April 2, 1976 states in part: " Fifteen officers of the plant protection and security force have received instruction in health physics to use radiation monitoring equipment and follow the procedures in effect pertaining to radioactivity and guarding the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor. They are requalified on a semiannual basis through review sessions supervised by Health Physics."

Contrary to the above, it was revealed through a check of I training records and an interview with the supervisor of Health Physics that requalification sessions pertaining to I: radioactivity and guarding the Dow TRIGA Research Reactor are 4 4. a

- being conducted only on an annual basis.

This is a deficiency - (Civil Penalty - $50) a *.

The " Criteria for Determining Enforcement Action," which was pro-vided to NRC licensees by letter dated December 31, 1974, delineated

, . r- , . . . . .. . .

_t_

.. , ' .' . r- , ~' ~

3r *r.-t$ct

)

the enforcement options available to the NRC as including adminis-trative actions in the form of written notices of violation, civil o

monitary penalities, and orders pertaining to the modification, suspension or revocation of a license. Af ter careful evaluation of the nature and number of items of noncompliance and the repetitive nature of one such item, this office proposes to impose civil pen-alties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (42 USC 2282) and 10 CFR 2.205, in the cumulative amount of two thousand five hundred and fifty dollars ($2,550), as set forth in the " Notice of Proposed Ieposition of Civil Penalties," enclosed herewith as Appendix B. y g,,1 r,,7 S-F3 Copy copies Pag .

THIS DO NT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUpDWITHOUTSPECIFIC APPRO\'A,L OF R111 e e

'r- i rt '.T') Irrer--tle-

. 'e e

,e ( -

r- , -

• . -,4 - ,

e - e -, 3 ,. 7 9' ,

4' L  %. w- -

Appendix A '

This notice of violation is sent to Dow Chemical Company pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice,"

Part 2, Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations. Dow Chemical Company is hereby required to submit to this office, within twenty (20) days of its receipt of tilis notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance; (1) admission or denial of the alleged item of noncompliance; (2) the reasons for the items of noncompliance if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

S-F3 Copy of copies Pages.

- THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF RIII e

o b

. .b o

5 g .

g .' '- - n - s , . a . . . . q' . .

~

-lo -

_-D-s- - .

r .

.r. p'a

. 's-e Appendix B Lu. bJ b

$.

• Dow Chemical Company Docket No. 50-264 This office proposes to impose civil penalties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2282),

and to 10 CFR 2.205 in the cumulative amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($2,550) for specific items of noncom-pliance set forth in Enclosure A to the cover letter. In proposing to impose civil penalties pursuant to this section of the Act and in fixing the proposed amount of the penalties, the factors identified in the statements of consideration published in the Federal Register with the rule making action which adopted 10 CFR 2.205 (36 FR 16894) August 26, 1971, and the " Criteria for Deter-mining Enforcement Actions," which was sent to NRC licensees on December 31, 1974, have been taken into account.

Dow Chemical Company may, within twenty (20) days of receipt of this notice pay the civil penalties in the cumulative amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred and Fif ty Dollars ($2,550) or may protest the imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer. Should Dow Chemical Company fail to answer within the time specified, this office will issue an order imposing the civil penalties in the amount proposed above. Should Dow Chemical Company elect to file an answer protesting the civil penalties.

such answer may (a) deny or in part, (b) demonstrate extenuating

- . circumstances, (c) show error in the Notice of Ciolation, or (d)

- show other reasons why the penalties shob1d not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalties in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties.

Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pur-suant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate by specific reference (e.g., giving page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.

>=

-p-h* * ' -

as ',

, g

• 8 Dow Chemical Company's attention is di-ected to the other pro-visions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding, in particular, failure to

> answer and ensuing orders; answer, consideration by this office, f and ensuing orders; requests for hearings, hearings and ensuing orders; compromise; and collection.

Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which has been sub-sequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless co= promised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 USC 2282).

9 l

3 0

h b

a fu "g? ?

hI W

e so e, . .

l.'.

• 2:.rt ; i : l' ) I r.f'?~ ~ M " j' s , s ,.

i.' . .

\

- Appendix C s

i- Noncompliance History - January, 1976 to January, 1978 l

l i

l Items Dates Found

1. Access Control January, 1976 January, 1978 (2)

( 2. Communications Capability January, 1976

3. Intrusion detection system January, 1978

4. Guard Training January, 1978 s ..

l-l' l

l l

l i

[- 5-F3 Copy of copies l Page.

l i THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE l REPRODUCED WITHOUT SPECIFIC APPROVA1. OF RIII l

t

$ i l h: . IC't P*Y?Olo) Irrer. tgen l3- .. .

'u.

L . . .,- ..L ; . . . . .

... . . ,