ML20211H596

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Declines to Comment on Encl Util Appeal of Enforcement Action EA-86-63 Re Imposition of Three $40,000 Civil Penalties for Violation of 10CFR50 App B,Criterion 1.Persons W/Legal Training Should Perform Investigation.W/O Encl
ML20211H596
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 06/18/1986
From: Holahan G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Axelrad J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20211H601 List:
References
FOIA-86-453, FOIA-86-A-122 EA-86-063, EA-86-63, NUDOCS 8606240492
Download: ML20211H596 (1)


Text

.

f

'o UNITED STATES v

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jj 3

o E

WASHtNGTON, D. C. 20555

/ VU

}

6g w d at June 18,1986 L6;-

g-fM-MEMORANDUM FOR: Jane Axelrad, Director Enforcement Staff Office of Inspection and Enforcement

{

FROM:

Gary M. Holahan, Director Operating Reactors Assessment Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

ENFORCEMENT ACTION 86-63, COMANCHE PEAK The NRR staff has reviewed the enclosed licensee appeal of Enforcement Action 86-63 concerning the imposition of three $40,000 civil penalties for violation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion 1.

The licensee has chosen not to contest the first of these (Violation A), but has stated that Violations B and C did not occur and requests mitigation of the civil penalties.

The appeal of Violation B hinges on the licensee not having a copy of OI Report 4-84-050 and, therefore not knowing who made the allegation. Furthermore, the licensee states that their investigation failed to disclose a QA auditor who would admit to being prevented from carrying out his or her job. The appeal of Violation C hinges on contradictions between information contained in the synopsis of 01 Report 4-84-039 and testimony at the Licensing Board proceeding with regard to the inspector's understanding of material fact.

The evaluation of the licensee appeal must be based on a comparison of many documents and transcripts. This work involves the adjudication of conflicting testimony, investigation findings, and opinion with regard to matters of fact.

We believe that such evaluations could be more efficiently accomplished by persons with legal training and, because they do not appear to in.olve technical matters, we respectfully decline the opportunity to conren: on these issues.

yb Gary M. Holahan, Director Operating Reactors Assessment Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As Stated CONTACT:

R. Scholl, ORAS (X28443) g nf cs

-