ML20214W484
| ML20214W484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1987 |
| From: | Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Jim Hickey GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3729 CIV-PEN, EA-84-137, NUDOCS 8706160045 | |
| Download: ML20214W484 (4) | |
Text
$Nf a
/
'o, UNITED STATES y } '3, ( ',g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DJ' KEi to
%,*%#l?j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 U s 8;p :'
5,*' \\
,el June 8, 1987
'87 JUN 11 P3 :08 OFr:
00Cr<
r' y;
- 2. Patrich I!!ckey, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 In the Matter of GPU Nuclear Corporation (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2)
Docket No. 50-320 License No. DPR-73 EA 84-137 (Civil Penalty)
Dear Mr. Hickey:
As a follow-up to our conversation of last week, I have enclosed nine stipulations of fact which the Staff would have sought to establish through the testimony of A. Bill Beach.
Please call if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further.
Sincer ly, ge E Johnson Counsel r NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/o enclosure:
service list l
l l
r 8706160045 870600l
~
PDR ADOCK 05000320 Q
4' STIPULATION OF FACTS The NRC Staff proposes stipulation by the parties for all purposes in this proceeding to the following facts:
1.
That on February 17, 1983, Richard Parks, pursuant to his assignment to review the polar crane load test procedure, submitted to the Polar Crane Task Force leader comments on the polar crane load test procedure raising safety issues and asserting violations of applicable administrative procedures AP 1047 and AP 1043.
2.
That on February 18, 1083, Mr. Parks went to the TMI-2 offices of the NRC and spoke to Joel Wiebe, Senior Resident Inspector, and informed Mr. Wiebe that Mr. Parks was being threatened with transfer for raising safety concerns about the polar crane load test procedure.
3.
That on March 10, 1983, Mr. Parks, accompanied by Carl Hrbac, went to the TMI-2 site offices of the NRC and spoke to Mr. Wiebe, reporting to Mr. Wiebe that management at TMI-2 was attempting to retaliate against Mr. Parks by implicating him in a conflict of interest charge concerning Quiltec because he had raised safety concerns.
4.
That on March 23, 1983, Mr. Parks commenced a Department of Labor (DOL) proceeding pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.7, by means of a complaint and affidavit conveyed to DOL and made pubHc that day.
t.
5.
That in.his assigned day-to-day activities at TMI-2 during January -
March - 1983, Mr. Parks had responsibility for performance and review of safety-related and other activities subject to NRC license, and that the information Mr. Parks conveyed to TMI-2 management on February 17, 1983, to the NRC Senior Resident Inspector on February 18 and March 10, 1983, and in the March 23, 1983 complaint and affidavit filed with the DOL and made public that day, grew out of safety concerns arising from Mr. r' arks' assigned activities.
6.
That the Notice of Violation (NOV) issued February 3, 1984 to GPU Nuclear Corporation was based on NRC investigation and verification of the safety allegations by Mr. Parks and other members of TMI-2 Site Operations that GPU Nuclear was in violation of administrative procedures required to be followed by the TMI-2 Technical Specifications (AP 1047, "Startup and Test Manual;" AP 1021, " Engineering Change Memorandum;" and AP 1043, " Work Authorization Procedure").
7.
That GPU Nuclear Corporation, by letter dcted February 28, 1984 to Richard C. De Young from P. R. Clark, admitted Counts I, II, aned VI of the February 3,1984 NOV, and acknowledged a basis for the violations found in Counts IV and V.
8.
Should the facts establish a violation of 10 C.F.R.
I 50.7 by GPU Nuclear Corporation or Dechtel management at a level above first-line supervision arising from any of the personnel actions taken against Mr. Parks
O L enumerated in the second indented paragraph of the NOV and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (EA 84-137), a Severity Level II violation was the applicable severity level to impose snder 10 C.F.R., Part 2, Appendix C, Suppl. VII,1983 ed.
D.
Should the basis for a Severity Level II violation be established, $64,000 is the applicable base level amount for such a violation under the above policy and there was no basis for escalation or mitigation of the penalty amount.
e r.
l l
l
!