OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT

ANNUAL REPORT

Fiscal Year 1998

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OE Annual Report

- CONTENTS -

Contents ...................... i

Abstract .................... v

Overview of NRC Enforcement Program ............................ vii

Off ice of Enforcement .............................. ix

1. Enforcement Policy Changes .................................................. I

A. October 8, 1997: Clarification on Release of 01 Reports Associated With

Conferences Involving Discrimination and Role of the Complainant ...... ............... I

B. January 13, 1997: Deliberate Misconduct Rule ...................................... I

C. May 13, 1998: Multiple Revisions Based on 2-Year Review ........................... I

2. Implementation, Staff Guidance, & Initiatives .................... . I

A. Two-Year Review of the Enforcement Policy .......... ............................. I

B. Revision of NRC Enforcement Manual ............. ............................... 4

C. Enforcement Guidance Memoranda (EGMs) ........... ............................. 2

D. Enforcement Training .......................................................... 3

E. Enforcement Information on the Internet ............ ............................... 3

3. Escalated Enforcement and Administrative Items ................ . 3

A. Escalated Notices of Violation (Without Civil Penalties) ............................... 5

B. Civil Penalty Actions .......................................................... 5

C. Orders . ........................................................... 5

D. Demands for Information ....................................................... 5

E. Summary of Significant Actions . .................................................. 6

F. Enforcement Trends ........................................................... 9

4. CasesInvolvingExerciseofDiscretion ........................................ 10

-i-
OE Annual Report

5. Actions Against Individuals & Other Non-Licensed Persons ........ 11............ 1

A. Actions Against Licensed Individuals ................... ......................... 11

B. Actions Against Non-Licensed Individuals .............. .......................... 12

C. Actions Against Non-Licensed Persons Other Than Individuals ....... ................. 12

6. Cases Involving Discrimination .............................................. 12

7. Hearing Activities .................................. 12

8. 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions ...................... ........................ 12

9. Withdrawn EnforcementActions .............................................. 12

- ii -
OE Annual Report

- TABLES -

1. Escalated Enforcement Items and Demands for Information ............... ............... 13

2. Escalated Enforcement Items by Type of Licensee, Vendor, or Individual ....... ............ I5

3. Civil Penalty Information ...................................... 17

4. Civil Penalty Ranges ...................................... 19

5. 2-Year Escalated Item History for Reactor Sites ....................................... 21

- FIGURES -

1. Analysis of Escalated Items Processed Under

Civil Penalty Assessment Process ............. .......................... 25

2. Analysis of Escalated Reactor Items Processed Under

Civil Penalty Assessment Process ............ .......................... 27

3. Analysis of Escalated Materials Items Processed Under

Civil Penalty Assessment Process ................................................... 29

4. Civil Penalty Process - Path A ...................................................... 31

5. Civil Penalty Process - Path B ...................................................... 33

6. Civil Penalty Process - Path C ...................................................... 35

7. Civil Penalty Process - Path D ...................................................... 37

8. Civil Penalty Process - Path E ...................................................... 39

9. Civil Penalty Process - Path F ...................................................... 41

10. Civil Penalty Process - Path G ...................................................... 43

11. Civil Penalty Process - Path H ...................................................... 45

12. Civil Penalty Process - Path I ...................................................... 47

13. Civil Penalty Process - Path J ...................................................... 49

14. Civil Penalty Process - Path K ...................................................... 51

15. Civil Penalty Process - Path L ...................................................... 53

- iii -
OE Annual Report

- APPENDICES -

A. Summary of Escalated Notices of Violation (Without Civil Penalties) ........ .............. 55

B. Summary of Proposed Civil Penalties . ............................................... 79

C. Summary of Orders . ........................................................ 95

D. Summary of Demands for Information . ............................................... 99

E. Summary of Cases Involving Exercise of Discretion .......... ......................... 101

F. Summary of Actions Against Licensed Individuals .......... .......................... 121

G. Summary of Actions Against Non-Licensed Individuals ................................ 123

H. Summary of Actions Against Non-Licensed Persons Other Than Individuals ..... ........... 127

1. Summary of Cases Involving Discrimination ............. ............................ 129

J. Summary of Hearing Activity ............................... 131

K. Summary of 10 CFR 2.206 Activity .................................. 133

L. Summary of Withdrawn Enforcement Actions . .................................. 135

- iv -
OE Annual Report

Abstract

This annual report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Enforcement describes

enforcement activities occurring during fiscal year 1998 (October 1, 1997 through

September 30, 1998). 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.

- V -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- vi -
OE Annual Report

Overview 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 used 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 (except minor 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, Rev. 1, "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement

Actions," to provide widespread dissemination. Because it is a policy statement and not a regulation, the

Commission may deviate from this statement of policy and procedure as appropriate under 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 Energy Act (AEA) or Section 206 ofthe Energy Reorganization Act (ERA). Section 234 ofthe AEA

provides for penalties of up to $ 100,000 per violation per day; but that amount has been adjusted by the Debt

Collection Improvement Act of 1996 to be $1 10,000. The Commission's order issuing authority under

Section 161 of the AEA is broad and extends to any area of licensed activity that affects the public health and

safety. Orders modify, suspend, or revoke licenses or require specific actions by licensees or persons. The

Commission's regulations 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 ofthe violation. Severity Levels range from

Severity Level 1, for the most significant violations, to Severity 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 may be conducted with a licensee before making an enforcement

decision if escalated enforcement action (i.e., Severity Level 1, 11, or III 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 may provide a licensee with an opportunity to respond to the

apparent violations before making an enforcement decision or issue the enforcement action if a civil penalty

is not warranted. 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.

Civil penalties are considered for Severity Level III 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.

- vii -
OE Annual Report

The NRC imposes different levels of civil penalties based on a combination of the type of licensed activity,

the type of licensee, the severity level of the violation, and (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 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, such as removing specified individuals from licensed activities or requiring

additional controls or outside audits. Persons adversely affected by orders that modify, suspend, or revoke

a license, or that take other 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.

- viii -
OE Annual Report

Office of Enforcement

The Office of Enforcement (OE) exercises oversight of NRC enforcement programs, provides programmatic

and implementation direction to regional and headquarters offices conducting or involved in enforcement

activities, and ensures that regional enforcement programs are adequately carried out.

The Office of Enforcement reports to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) through the Deputy

Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness.

The Office of Enforcement has 16 full-time employees (FTEs) assigned for headquarters activities and

12 FTEs assigned for regional activities (although these FTEs report to the Regional Administrators).

- ix -
OE Annual Report

1. Enforcement Policy Changes

This section describes the 3 revisions to the Enforcement Policy that were made during fiscal year 1998.

A. October 8, 1997: Clarification on Release of 01 Reports Associated With

Conferences Involving Discrimination anidRole oftie Complainant (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 reports of the NRC Office

of Investigations (01) associated with discrimination. On March 24, 1997, the Commission 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.

B. January 13, 1997: Deliberate Misconduct Rule (63 FR 1982)

On January 13, 1997, the Commission published revisions to the Enforcement Policy to conform to

modifications to the Deliberate Misconduct Rule. These modifications extend that Rule to applicants for

NRC licenses, applicants for, and holders of, certificates of compliance, early site permits, standard

design certifications, or combined licenses issued under part 52, applicants for or holders of certificates

of registration, quality assurance approvals, and the employees, contractors, subcontractors, and

consultants of those persons. By a separate action published in this issue of the Federal Register, the

Commission also issued a final rule amending 10 CFR parts 30, 32, 40, 50, 52, 60,61, 70, 71, 72, 110,

and 150.

C. Aay 13, 1998: Multiple Revisions Based on 2-Year Review (63 FR 26630)

On May 13, 1998, the Commission published a complete revision of the agency's Enforcement Policy

(NUREG- 1600, "General Statement of Policy and Procedure forNRC Enforcement Actions") based on

(1) a 2-year review of the revised Enforcement Policy, that was effective June 30, 1995, and (2) a

consolidation of changes to the Enforcement Policy since June 30, 1995.

2. Implementation, Staff Guidance, & Initiatives

This section addresses implementation initiatives and changes during fiscal year 1998, including completion

of a 2-year review of the Enforcement Policy, staff guidance and training, and availability of enforcement

information on the Internet.

A. Two-Year Review of the Enforcement 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

- 1 -
OE Annual Report

Commission directed the staff to perform a review of its implementation of the Policy after

approximately 2 years of experience and to consider public comments.

The staff completed this review in November of 1997, and the review was subsequently published as

NUREG-1622 in April 1998. The report included 20 recommendations ranging from program

implementation issues to Enforcement Policy revisions.

B. Revision of NRC Enforcement Manual

The NRC Enforcement Manual (Manual), is designed to assist the NRC staff in implementing the

Commission's enforcement program. The Office of Enforcement published a full revision ofthe Manual

as NUREG/BR-0195, Rev. 2 in August 1998. The changes reflected in the revision were based on

revisions to the Enforcement Policy and previous Enforcement Guidance Memoranda.

C 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.

Thirteen EGMs were issued in fiscal year 1998.

* EGM 97-016 - Clarification of Guidelines for Violations Involving Deliberate Misuse of Licensed

Material - Reissued November 4, 1997.

* EGM 97-017 - Enforcement Discretion Pertaining to Violations of 10 CFR 70.24, Criticality

Accident Requirements at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants - Issued October 10, 1997.

* EGM 97-018 - Coordination of Disputed Enforcement Actions with the Office of Enforcement -

Issued October 10, 1997.

* EGM 97-019 - Revision of Potential 10 CFR 50.59 Violations - Issued October 24, 1997.

+ EGM 97-020 - Modification to Standard Forms for Notice of Violation and Modification of EGM

97-018 - Issued December 17, 1997.

* EGM 98-001(T) - Loss or Improper Disposal of sources (Enforcement Manual, Section 8.6.2) -

Issued February 5, 1998.

* EGM 98-002 - Disposition of Violations of Appendix R, Sections III.G and III.L regarding Circuit

Failures - Issued March 2, 1998.

* EGM 98-003 - Guidance on the Release of 01 Synopses in Discrimination Cases - Issued

March 25, 1998.

* EGM 98-004 - Categorizing the Severity Level of Violations Involving Security and Control of

Licensed Material - Issued April 24, 1998.

-2 -
OE Annual Report

* EGM 98-005 - Guidance for Dispositioning Violations of the Timeliness in Decommissioning of

Material Facilities Rule - Issued July 9, 1998.

* EGM 98-006 - Interim Guidance for Severity Level IV Violations - Issued July 27, 1998.

* EGM 98-007 - Extension of Exercise of Discretion for FSAR Discrepancies Identified While the

Licensee has a Defined Program for Identifying Such Discrepancies - Issued September 15, 1998.

* EGM 98-008 - Interim Guidance for Severity Level IV Violations - Materials Licensees - Issued

September 15, 1998.

D. Enforcement Training

The Office of Enforcement routinelyprovidestrainingon the enforcementprogram through several NRC

training courses. During fiscal year 1998, OE provided comprehensive enforcement training in the

Fundamentals of Inspection Course (FOIC) in June 1998 and the "NRC: What It Is and What It Does,"

in August 1998.

The Office of Enforcement also provided extensive training on the treatment of Severity Level IV

violations (as addressed in EGM 98-006) by way of video conferencing and regional counterpart

meetings.

The regions also provided training on the enforcement program in the regional offices.

E. Enforcement Information on the Internet

To ensure timely and widespread public dissemination of enforcement information, OE 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, Rev. 1),theNRC Enforcement Manual (NUREG/BR-0195, Rev.2), the policystatement

for "Nuclear Employees Raising Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation," 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: %wvv.nrc.gov/OE/.

3. Escalated Enforcement and Administrative Items

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued 200 individual escalated enforcement items. Escalated

enforcement items include individual civil penalties (76), orders (other than orders imposing civil penalties)

(16), and Notices of Violation for Severity Level I, II, or III violations (108). Note that an enforcement case

or enforcement action issued to a licensee may include more than one individual enforcement item. Table I

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.

-3 -
OE Annual Report

Timeliness of EnforcententActions

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 report of investigation. For

actions that involve an investigation and referral to DOJ, the measurement period begins on the date DOJ

informs the NRC that the NRC may proceed with civil action. For actions that involve discrimination and

Department of Labor (DOL) proceedings, the measurement period begins when there is 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 1998 this standard was met, with

enforcement actions issued in an average time of 80.6 days. During fiscal year 1997, enforcement actions

were 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.

Civil Penalty Assessment Process: Determining Whether a Civil Penalty Should Be Proposed

If the NRC concludes that a violation should be categorized at Severity Level 1, II, or III, the staff then

considers whether (for a licensed facility), a civil penalty should be proposed for the violation. For the

majority ofcases, in accordance with Section VI.B.2 ofthe Enforcement Policy, the civil penalty assessment

process considers: (1) whether the licensee has had any previous escalated enforcement action (regardless

ofthe 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 circumstances, 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 penalty. Figure 1 of this

report includes a graphic representation of the civil penalty process and includes a statistical breakdown of

the 154 individual enforcement issues or enforcement items assessed under the process. It should be noted

that an enforcement case or enforcement action issued to a licensee may include more than one individual

enforcement item. It should also be noted that this number does not directly correlate to the 184 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.

Total Escalated NOVs Issued NOV Issued Enforcement

NOVs w/o penalty to Individuals to a Vendor Discretion

and civil penalties

184 - 17 - I - 12 = 154

Specifically, 17Notices of Violation were issued to individuals, 1 Notice of Violation was issued to a vendor,

and 12 enforcement issues were based solely on an exercise of discretion in accordance with Section VIL.A

of the Enforcement Policy (Escalation of Enforcement Sanctions) or Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement

Policy (Violations Involving Special Circumstances). Figure 2 ofthis report includes a graphic representation

of the civil penalty process and includes a statistical breakdown of the 68 individual reactor enforcement

issues or enforcement items assessed under the process. Figure 3 includes the statistical breakdown of the

-4 -
OE Annual Report

86 individual materials enforcement items. Figures 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 (Without Civil Penalties)

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued 108 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.) Eighteen of these items were issued to individuals and other non-licensed

persons. See Section 5 for more information on enforcement items issued to individuals and other nonlicensed 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.

B. Civil PenaltyActions

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued 76 individual civil penalty issues. Appendix B includes a

short summary description of each of these items, as well as a summary 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 penalties for both reactor and materials

licensees. As stated before, an enforcement action may include more than one individual civil penalty

issue.

During fiscal year 1998, two enforcement actions included civil penalties in excess of $300,000. These

actions included:

1. $2,100,000- Northeast Utilities: Millstone, (EAs 96-034, 96-067, 96-086, 96-106)

2. $330,000 - Commonwealth Edison Company: Quad Cities (EA 97-591)

The $2,100,000 civil penalty issued to Northeast Utilities was the largest civil penalty proposed since the

$1,250,000 civil penalty issued to Peach Bottom in 1988 for operators being inattentive to duties in the

control room.

C. Orders

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued 16 orders. Seven of these orders were issued to licensees

while nine 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 includes a short summary

description of each ofthe eight orders issued to licensees. In addition, six civil penalty imposition orders

were issued.

D. Demands for Information

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued three 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 Demands for Information issued to individuals.)

-5-
OE Annual Report

E. Summary of Significant Actions

The NRC considers violations categorized at Severity Level I and II to be very significant. The agency

also considers enforcement actions consisting of multiple Severity Level III violations to be very

significant. During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued two enforcement cases including two individual

Severity Level I issues. The agency issued six enforcement cases including 10 individual Severity

Level 11 issues. The agency issued 10 multi-action enforcement cases including 25 individual Severity

Level III issues. These significant cases are listed below. Case summaries are included in the referenced

appendix.

SEVERITY LEVEL I CASES

Construction Products Research, Inc., Fairfield, CT EA 97471

Five Star Products, Inc

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level I violation was issued on January 16, 1998, based on

discrimination against an individual for raising safety concerns. (Appendix A.)

Mallinckrodt Medical Incorporated EA 97-342 & 97-355

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $55,000 was issued

on December 17, 1997, based in part on a Severity Level I problem involving failure to limit the annual

shallow-dose equivalent of an occupational worker to 50 rems and failure to make or cause to be made

surveys to assure compliance with 10 CFR Part 20. (Appendix B.)

SEVERITY LEVEL II CASES

Breitling USA Watch Co., EA 98-163

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $26,400 was issued

on July 10, 1998, for two Severity Level II problems that involved the possession and use, as well as

distribution, of NRC licensed material without possessing NRC licenses authorizing these activities.

(Appendix B.)

Colon-Vaquar, Jose, M.D., Manati, PR EA 98-184

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,400 was issued on

May 22, 1998, for a Severity Level II problem that involved two misadministrations, a Severity Level III

problem, and a Severity Level III violation. (Appendix B.)

-6-
OE Annual Report

Commonwealth Edison Co., Quad Cities EA 98-231

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $88,000 was issued on

September I 1, 1998, for a Severity Level II problem that involved 16 violations that represented

inadequacies in the licensee's capability to shutdown the facility following a postulated design basis fire.

(Appendix B.)

Department of the Army, Tank- Automotive and Armaments Command EA 97-350

Supplement IV& VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $16,000 was issued

on November 12, 1997, for two Severity Level II problems including failures to: (1) properly store

licensed material, conduct annual inspections and inventories, provide training, conduct tests by

persons authorized to do so, conduct surveys, and perform maintenance in accordance with procedures;

and (2) provide notifications to the NRC. (Appendix B.)

Duke Power Company, Oconee EA 98-268

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level II violation was issued on August 5, 1998. The action was

based on: (1) the failure to implement the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, to

incorporate design basis requirements into drawings and procedures; and, (2) the failure to maintain

Technical Specification (TS) equipment in an operable condition. (Appendix A.)

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone, Units 1,2 &3 EA 96-034, 96-067, 96-086, & 96-106

Supplement I

ANotice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of$2,100,000 was issued

on December 10, 1997, for three Severity Level 11 and one Severity Level III problems. (Appendix B.)

MULTIPLE SEVERITY LEVEL III CASES

Commonwealth Edison Company, Quad Cities, Units 1&2 EA 97-591

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $330,000 was issued

on March 12, 1998. This action is based on two Severity Level III problems. (Appendix B.)

Consolidated Edison Company, Indian Point, Unit 2 EA 97-367

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $1 10,000 was issued

on October 7, 1997. The action was based on a Severity Level III problem and a Severity Level III

violation. (Appendix B.)

-7 -
OE Annual Report

Consolidated Edison Company, Indian Point, Unit 2

Supplement I

EA 97-576, 98-056, & 98-192

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $1 10,000 was issued

on July 6, 1998. The action was based on a Severity Level III problem and two Severity Level III

violations. (Appendix A and B.)

Frontier Production Logging

Supplement VI

EA 97-327

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on

November 7, 1997. The action was based on a Severity Level III violation and a Severity Level III

problem.

GPU Nuclear Incorporated, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station

Supplement I

EA 97-421

A Notice of Violation was issued on November 17, 1997, for three Severity Level III violations.

(Appendix A.)

GPU Nuclear Corporation, Three Mile Island, Unit I

Supplement I

EA 97-070,97-117,97-127

& 97-256

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $210,000 was issued

on October 8, 1997, for four Severity Level III problems and a Severity Level III violation.

(Appendix B.)

Haines & Kibbleho use, Inc., Skippack, PA

Supplements IV& VI

A Notice of Violation for two Severity Level III problems. (Appendix A.)

EA 97-556

Ohio State University

Supplement VI, V &VI

EA 97-258

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $13,000 was issued

on October 23, 1997, for a Severity Level 11 problem and two Severity Level III problems.

(Appendix B.)

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Hope Creek

Supplement I

EAs 97-144 & 97-563

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 for a Severity

Level III violation and a Severity Level III problem was issued on March 20, 1998.

-8-
OE Annual Report

York Hospital, York, PA EA 97-427

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem and a Severity Level III violation was issued on

March 4, 1998.

F. Enforcement Trends

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued 200 escalated enforcement actions (108 escalated NOVs,

76 civil penalties, and 16 orders) versus 264 for fiscal year 1997, 191 for fiscal year 1996 and 159 for

fiscal year 1995. This represents an approximate 24% reduction from fiscal year 1997 and a 5% increase

over fiscal year 1996 and 20% increase over fiscal year 1995.

Statistical comparisons between fiscal years 1997, 1996, and 1995 are included in each of the tables of

this report. However, it should be noted that direct correlations between fiscal year 1995 and the other

fiscal years is difficult because of the major policy change that occurred in June of 1995.

Table 5 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 penalty

amounts assessed and the largest total number of combined civil penalty 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 to provide perspectives on performance and enforcement activity. Two years is

also the time period used in the Enforcement Policy for reviewing past performance. This table also

provides enforcement data for the last 12 months at each of the sites listed. Unlike other tables that

include data based on proposed actions, the data in this table accounts for any withdrawals or

modifications from the original proposed action.

During the 2-year period between fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the agency issued a total of 191 individual

civil penalties and individual Severity 1, 11, and III Notices of Violation without civil penalties to 57 (or

80%) of the reactor sites. Fourteen sites did not receive any escalated enforcement action during this

period. Of the 57 sites, 16 sites received I escalated enforcement item (16 issues), 11 sites received

2 individual escalated enforcement items (22 issues), and 30 sites received more than 2 individual

escalated enforcement items (153 issues). Thus, 30 sites (or 42%) accounted for 153 (or 80%) of the

escalated actions issued.

Of the 191 individual escalated items, 117 were civil penalties issued to 47 (or 66%) of the 71 reactor

sites. Twenty-four (or 34%) of the sites did not receive a civil penalty.

Of the 47 sites that did receive a penalty, 19 sites had I civil penalty item (19 civil penalties) 9 sites had

2 individual civil penalty items each (18 civil penalties), and 18 sites had more than 2 individual civil

penalty items (80 civil penalties) for a total of 117 individual civil penalties. Thus, 18 sites (or 25%)

accounted for 80 (or 68%) of the civil penalties issued.

A summary of civil penalty trends for reactor licensees over the last four fiscal years is included on the

next page.

-9-
OE Annual Report

Civil Penalty Trends for Reactor Licensees

Fiscal Year 1998

* 42 licensees did not receive a civil penalty (CP)

* 29 licensees received civil penalties (46 individual CPs)

* 5 licensees had more than 2 civil penalties (20 individual CPs) EW 43% of CPs

* 2 licensees had 2 CPs (4 individual CPs) w 9% of CPs

* 22 licensees had I CP (22 individual CPs) sw 48% of CPs

Fiscal Year 1997

* 36 licensees did not receive a civil penalty (CP)

* 35 licensees received civil penalties (70 individual CPs)

* 9 licensees had more than 2 civil penalties (35 individual CPs) ow 50% of CPs

* 9 licensees had 2 CPs (18 individual CPs) cw 26% of CPs

* 17 licensees had I CP (17 individual CPs) rw 24% of CPs

Fiscal Year 1996

* 42 licensees did not receive a civil penalty (CP)

* 29 licensees received civil penalties (50 individual CPs)

* 5 licensees had more than 2 civil penalties (21 individual CPs) ca 42% of CPs

* 5 licensees had 2 CPs (10 individual CPs) ca 20% of CPs

* 19 licensees had I CP (19 individual CPs)gw 38% of CPs

Fiscal Year 1995

* 56 licensees did not receive a civil penalty (CP)

* 15 licensees received civil penalties (25 individual CPs)

* 4 licensees had more than 2 civil penalties (14 individual CPs) fW 56% of CPs

* 0 licensees had 2 CPs

* 11 licensees had I CP (I I individual CPs) mt 44% of CPs

4. Cases Involving Exercise of Discretion

Section VII of the Enforcement Policy addresses those cases where, notwithstanding the normal 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 ensure 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 1998, 69 escalated cases involved an exercise of

discretion. Sixty of the cases were for reactor licensees and nine cases were for materials licensees.

Section VII.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). It also provides for either increasing the amounts of civil penalties or proposing

civil penalties where the normal process would result in no civil penalty. During fiscal year 1998, 11 cases

-10-
OE Annual Report

involved this exercise of discretion. Six cases were for reactor licensees and five cases were for materials

licensees.

Section VII.B. I provides that NOVs need not be issued for Severity Level IV violations that meet specific

criteria. Cases that are subject to this enforcement discretion are not described in this report.

Section VII.B.2 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations identified during

extended shutdowns orwork stoppages if they are licensee-identified, based upon activities priorto 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 1998,

19 cases involved this exercise of discretion. Eighteen eases were for reactor licensees and one case was for

a materials licensee.

Section VII.B.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 1998, 16 cases involved this exercise of discretion. All 16 cases were for

reactor licensees.

Section VII.B.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,

and it was corrected. During fiscal year 1998, two cases involved this exercise of discretion. Both eases

were for reactor licensees.

Section Vll.B.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 1998, no cases involved

this exercise of discretion.

Section VII.B.6 provides that civil penalties or NOVs need not be issued for violations involving special

circumstances. During fiscal year 1998, 21 cases involved this exercise of discretion. Eighteen cases were

for reactor licensees and three cases were for materials licensees.

Appendix E includes a summary of the escalated cases issued during fiscal year 1998 that involved an

exercise of discretion.

5. Actions Against Individuals & Other Non-Licensed Persons

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued 31 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 includes orders that were issued to individuals that prohibited or limited their activities in NRClicensed activities during the fiscal year.

A. ActionsAgainstLicensedIndividuals

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued 7 NOVs to licensed individuals. Appendix F includes a short

summary description of these actions.

- 11 -
...

OE Annual Report

B. Actions Against Non-Licensed Individuals

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued 9 orders, 10 NOVs, and 2 DFls, to non-licensed individuals.

Appendix G includes a short summary description of each of these actions.

G. ActionsAgainstNon-LicensedPersonsOthlerTlan Individuals

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued one NOV, one civil penalty, and one DFI to a non-licensed

person (vendor) other than an individual. Appendix H includes a short summary description of this

action.

6. Cases Involving Discrimination

During fiscal year 1998, the agency issued three enforcement actions for violations involving discrimination.

The NRC subsequently withdrew one of the actions. Appendix I includes a short description of each of the

three actions involving discrimination that were issued during the fiscal year.

7. HearingActivities

During fiscal year 1998, 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 ofthese

cases.

8. 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

During fiscal year 1998, there were no cases that had some type of petition activitypending before the Office

of Enforcement during the fiscal year, i.e., petition request, NRC staff review, Director's Decision, etc.

9. Withdrawn and Modified EnforcementActions

During fiscal year 1998, two civil penalty enforcement actions were completely withdrawn and four civil

penalties were withdrawn. Appendix L includes a short summary description of the two withdrawn cases that

were proposed in fiscal year 1997. The other cases are described in either Appendix A or Apendix B and

include the basis for withdrawal.

- 12 -
OE Annual Report

TABLE 1: ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ITEMS &

DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION

Region Region Region Region Other' Total Total Total Total

I II III IV FY 98 FY97 FY 96 FY 95

Conferences 48 24 28 21 1 122 181 143 117

Escalated

NOVs w/o 36 22 28 20 2 108 124 96 76

Civil Penalties

Proposed Civil

Penalties 35 8 21 11 1 76 112 78 56

Imposed Civil

Penalties 2 1 2 1 0 6 10 9 10

Civil Penalties

Paid 28 6 23 11 0 68 108 56 47

Orders 5 4 2 5 0 16 28 17 22

Demands for

Information 2 0 2 2 0 6 35 7 8

Total 156 65 106 71 4 402 597 405 339

' This category includes actions initiated by the Office of Enforcement (OE), the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation (NRR), and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). During this fiscal year:

* NRR conducted one conference and issued 2 escalated NOVs.

* NMSS issued I escalated NOV with a civil penalty.

- 13 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 14 -
OE Annual Report

TABLE 2: ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT ITEMS

BY TYPE OF LICENSEE, VENDOR, OR INDIVIDUAL

Escalated

Type of NOVs Civil Total Total Total Total

Licensee (w/o penalty) Penalties Orders FY98 FY97 FY 96 FY 95

Academic 1 3 0 4 3 5 3

Physician 4 2 1 7 9 3 2

Fuel Facility 1 4 1 6 5 3 1

Gauge User 18 6 2 26 31 23 29

Hospital 10 3 0 13 33 13 12

Irradiator 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Radiographer 6 1 1 8 9 12 11

Pharmacy 1 0 0 1 0 1 3

Operating

Reactor 33 47 1 81 112 87 50

Research

Reactor 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

Materials

Distributer 0 2 0 2 1 2 0

Mill 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Other 12 7 0 19 17 10 11

Well Logger 2 1 1 4 I 0 0

Vendor 1 0 0 1 1 8 5

Licensed

Individual 7 0 0 7 2 6 7

Non-Licensed

Individual 10 0 9 19 38 19 23

Total 108 76 16 200 264 191 159

- 15 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 16 -
OE Annual Report

TABLE 3: CIVIL PENALTY INFORMATION

FY98 1 Ii FY97 | FY 96 FY 95 ]

Number of Proposed 76 112 78 59

Civil Penalties l

Number of Imposed 6 10 9 10

Civil Penalties

Number of Civil 68 108 56 47

Penalties Paid l

Amount of Proposed $5,206,600 $7,422,300 $3,832,500 $2,263,950

Civil Penalties

Amount of Imposed $115,650 $285,250 $44,500 $615,250

Civil Penalties l

Amount of Civil $6,493,573 $6,657,300 $3,014,000 $2,265,949

Penalties Paid _

NOTE: This table includes information based on individual civil penalty assessments. An enforcement

action may include more than one individual civil penalty. In addition, a civil penalty may be

proposed in one fiscal year and paid or imposed in another fiscal year.

- 17 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 18 -
OE Annual Report

TABLE 4: CIVIL PENALTY RANGES

Reactor Licensees

Number of Number of Number of Number of

Civil Penalty Amounts Penalties Penalties Penalties Penalties

FY 98 FY 97 FY 96 FY 95

<$50,0000 0 1 0 3

$50,000- 55,000 35 41 24 7

$55,001 - $99,999 2 2 5 3

$100,000 - 110,00 6 17 21 9

$110,001 - $200,000 0 6 0 3

$200,001 - $300,000 1 2 0 0

> $300,001 3 1 0 0

Total 47 70 50 25

Material Licensees

Number of Number of Number of Number of

Civil Penalty Amounts Penalties Penalties Penalties Penalties

FY98 FY 97 FY96 FY95

0- $2,500 3 12 18 9

$2,501 - $5,000 1 0 17 2 12

$5,001 - $7,500 4 2 1 3

$7,501 - $10,000 4 5 4 3

$10,001 - $25,000 3 4 3 6

$27,500 2 0 0 1

$55,000 3 0 0 0

$100,000 0 1 0 0

$200,000 0 0 0 0

Total 29 41 28 34

NOTE: This table includes information based on individual proposed civil penalty assessments. An enforcement action

may include more than one individual civil penalty. In addition, this table does not include the $900,000

penalty issued to a vendor in fiscal year 1997.

- 19-
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 20 -
OE Annual Report

TABLE 5: 2-YEAR ESCALATED ITEM HISTORY

FOR REACTOR SITES

z FY 1997- FY 1998 FY 1998 l

Civil Escalated Civil Escalated

Penalty Civil NOVs Penalty Civil NOVs

Facility Amount Penalties (Nv/o Amount Penalties (Nv/o

penalty) || penalty)

Millstone $2,210,000 6 1 $2,155,000 5 1

Haddam Neck 650,000 3 2 0 0 1

LaSalle 650,000 2 0 0 0 0

Zion 590,000 6 1 110,000 I 0

Clinton 560,000 6 0 0 0 0

Quad Cities 523,000 5 0 473,000 4 0

Indian Point 2 425,000 8 1 220,000 4 1

Oconee 330,000 2 1 0 0 1

Point Beach 325,000 4 3 0 0 0

Nine Mile Point 305,000 5 0 105,000 2 0

Susquehanna 265,000 3 0 55,000 1 0

Perry 260,000 3 2 100,000 2 1

Sequoyah 250,000 4 2 0 0 1

Calvert Cliffs 231,000 2 1 55,000 1 1

Pilgrim 220,000 4 1 220,000 4 0

Beaver Valley 215,000 3 2 55,000 1 0

Waterford 215,000 3 2 110,000 1 1

Three Mile Island 210,000 4 2 210,000 4 2

Hope Creek 205,000 4 3 55,000 1 2

St. Lucie 188,000 3 3 88,000 1 2

Salem 180,000 3 2 0 0 2

Fort Calhoun 165.000 2 0 110.000 1 0

-21 -
OE Annual Report

TABLE 5: 2-YEAR ESCALATED ITEM HISTORY

FOR REACTOR SITES - CONT.

FY 1997 - FY 1998 FY 1998

Civil Escalated Civil Escalated

Penalty Civil NOVs Penalty Civil NOVs

Facility Amount Penalt ies (w/oAmount Penalt ies (w/o

l penalty) penalty)

Byron 155,000 3 1 55,000 1 1

Ginna 155,000 2 0 0 0 0

Brunswick 150,000 2 2 0 0 0

Limerick |135,000 2 3 55,000 1 0

Cooper Station 110,000 1 3 110,000 I 0

Indian Point 3 110,000 2 0 55,000 1 0

Prairie Island 100,000 2 1 50,000 1 0

WNP-2 100,000 1 3 0 0 2

Wolf Creek 100,000 1 0 0 0 0

Oyster Creek 55,000 1 4 55,000 1 4

Peach Bottom 55,000 1 2 55,000 1 0

Braidwood 55,000 1 1 55,000 1 1

Palisades 55,000 1 0 55,000 1 0

River Bend 55,000 1 1 55,000 1 0

Station l

Robinson 55,000 1 1 55,000 1 1

Shearon Harris 55,000 1 1 55,000 1 0

Surry 55,000 1 1 0 0 0

Vermont Yankee 55,000 1 0 55,000 1 0

Crystal River 50,000 1 7 0 0 0

ANO 50,000 1 1 0 0 1

Kewaunee 50,000 I I 0 0 0

Davis-Besse _ _____ 0 0 o0 0

- 22 -
OE Annual Report

TABLE 5: 2-YEAR ESCALATED ITEM HISTORY

FOR REACTOR SITES - CONT.

J FY 1997- FY 1998 FY 1998

Escalated Escalated

Civil NOVs Civil NOVs

Facility Penalty Civil (w/o Penalty Civil (w/o

| Amount Penalties penalty) Amount Penalties penalty)

Farley 50,000 1 0 0 0 0

Fermi 50,000 1 0 0 0 0

Palo Verde 50,000 1 0 50,000 1 0

Dresden 0 0 3 0 0 1

Big Rock Point 0 0 1 0 0 0

Catawba 0 0 1 0 0 1

Cook 0 0 1 0 0 °

McGuire 0 0 1 0 0 0

SanOnofre 0 0 1 0 0 T

Seabrook 0 0 1 0 0 1

South Texas Project 0 0 1 0 0 0

Vogtle 0 0 1 0 0 0

WattsBar 0 0 1 0 0 T 1

-23 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 24 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 1: ANALYSIS OF ESCALATED ITEMS

PROCESSED UNDER CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

6

154 individual enforcement items were evaluated in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process.

In 64 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.

In 90 instances, the item was NOTthe first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement issue that the licensee

had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections.

Of the 90 applicable items, the licensee was given credit for actions related to identification in 28 instances

and NOT given credit in 62 instances.

Of the total 154 items, the licensee was given credit for corrective actions in 141 instances (92% ofthe items)

and NOT given credit in 13 instances.

Discretion was exercised in 13 instances (11 times under Section VII.A. I and 2 times under VII.B.6). This

represents approximately 8% of the individual enforcement issues.

- 25 -
...

OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 26 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 2: ANALYSIS OF REACTOR ITEMS

PROCESSED UNDER CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

68 individual reactor enforcement items were evaluated in accordance with the civil penalty assessment

process.

In 7 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.

In 61 instances, the item wasNOT the first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement action that the licensee

had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections.

Of the 61 applicable items, the licensee was given credit for actions related to identification in 22 instances

and NOT given credit in 39 instances.

Of the total 68 items, the licensee was given credit for corrective actions in 63 cases (approximately 93% of

the items) and NOT given credit in 5 instances.

Discretion was exercised in 6 instances (5 times under Section VII.A.1 and I time under Section VII.B.6).

This represents approximately 9% of the individual reactor enforcement issues.

-27 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-28 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 3- ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS ITEMS

PROCESSED UNDER CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

3

86 individual reactor enforcement items were evaluated

process.

in accordance with the civil penalty assessment

In 58 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.

In 28 instances, the item wasNOTthe first non-willful Severity Level III enforcement action that the licensee

had during the past 2 years or past 2 inspections.

Of the 28 applicable items, the licensee was given credit for actions related to identification in 5 instances

and NOT given credit in 23 instances.

Of the total 86 items, the licensee was given credit for corrective actions in 78 cases (approximately 91% of

the items) and NOT given credit in 8 instances.

Discretion was exercised in 7 instances (6 times under Section VII.A.1 and I time under Section VII.B.6).

This represents approximately 8% of the individual materials enforcement issues.

- 29 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 30 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 4: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH A

60

In 60 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 received credit for corrective actions.

6 of the items were for reactor licensees.

54 of the items were for materials licensees.

-31 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 32 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 5: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH B

In 3 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.

I of the items was for a reactor licensee.

2 of these items were for materials licensees.

- 33 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-34 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 6: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH C

2

In 2 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 did not receive credit for corrective actions.

Both of the items were for materials licensees.

- 35 -
.. .

OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-36 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 7: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH D

There were no items assessed on this path.

-37 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-38 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 8: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH E

In 21 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.

19 of the items were for reactor licensees.

2 of the items were for materials licensees.

- 39 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 40 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 9: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH F

3

In 3 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 notwithstanding the fact that credit was warranted for corrective actions, theNRC exercised enforcement

discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued a civil penalty.

2 of the items were for reactor licensees.

I of the items was for a materials licensee.

- 41 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 42 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 10 CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH G

2

In 2 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 did not receive credit for corrective actions.

I of the items was for a reactor licensee.

I of the items was for a materials licensee.

- 43 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-44 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 11: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH H

In 1 instance, 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 notwithstandingthe fact that a base civil penalty would have been warranted because the licensee did not

receive credit for corrective actions, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section

VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and issued twice the base civil penalty.

The item was for a materials licensee.

-45 -
. .. OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 46 -
OE Annual Report -

FIGURE 12: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH I

49

In 49 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 received credit for corrective actions.

33 of the items were for reactor licensees.

16 of the items were for materials licensees.

- 47 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

-48 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 13: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH J

In 6 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 3 instances the

NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.A. 1 and issued more than the base civil penalty and

in 3 instances the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 and refrained from issuing

a civil penalty.

2 of the items were for reactor licensees. (I item under VII.A.I and I item under VII.B.6.)

4 of the items were for materials licensees. (2 items under VII.A.I and 2 items under VII.B.6.)

-49-
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 50 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 14: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH K

7

In 7 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.

3 of the items were for reactor licensees.

4 of the items wvere for materials licensees.

- 51 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 52 -
OE Annual Report

FIGURE 15: CIVIL PENALTY PROCESS

PATH L

In I instance, 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 not warranted for corrective actions, the NRC

exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.I and doubled the amount of the civil

penalty.

This item was for a reactor licensee.

-53 -
OE Annual Report

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 54 -
Appendix A

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF ESCALATED NOTICES OF

VIOLATION (WITHOUT CIVIL PENALTIES)

Allied-Signal Incorporated, Metropolis, IL EA 98-171

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem based on nine violations was issued on May 5, 1998.

This action was based on the licensee's failure to: (1) evacuate a line on the No. 2 low boiler condenser and

close the appropriate valves; (2) shut down the Distillations Hastings Heater as required; (3) maintain a

standby generator; (4) report the loss of the standby generator; (5) prohibit the release of items contaminated

with natural uranium in levels exceeding license requirements; (6) calibrate radiation survey instruments at

the required intervals; (7) comply with the requirements for performing a chemical hazard assessment;

(8) execute the response measures for a uranium hexafluoride release; and (9) have a mechanical integrity

program in place before beginning operation of the Deconversion of Uranium Hexafluoride Pilot plant. 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.

American Electric Power Company, D.C. Cook, Units 1&2 EA 97-113

Supplement V

A Notice of Violation and for a Severity Level III problem was issued on April 21, 1998. This action was

based on the failure to provide shipping papers and emergency response instructions for a shipment of

contaminated objects. Specifically: (1) the licensee offered radioactive material consisting of two packages

labeled as surface contaminated objects to a carrier for transport and did not include with the shipment a

shipping paper describing the material, and (2) the licensee offered radioactive material for transport without

the required emergency response information. Although this was not the first escalated action in two years

the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted for identification, and (2) credit was

warranted for corrective action.

- 55 -
Appendix A --

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 & 2 EA 98-106

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on March 20, 1998. The action was based

two violations related to the licensee's failure to establish radiological controls for work in the reactor cavity

during cleaning of the reactor flange. Specifically, (1) the licensee did not make necessary and reasonable

surveys to comply with the requirements and (2) the licensee did not post an airborne radioactivity area when

required. Although a base civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 is considered for Severity Level III issues,

the staff exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained

from proposing a civil penalty in this case. The decision to exercise discretion was made because the

violations related to the cavity event occurred approximately one month after the diving event in April 1997,

and appeared to be the result of the same fundamental performance deficiencies. (See Appendix E.)

Bittner Engineering, Inc., Escanaba, Michigan EA 97-512

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on November 24, 1997. The action was

based on the failure to control licensed material in an unrestricted area. As a result of this failure, a gauge

containing 8 millicuries of cesium-137 and 40 millicuries of americium-241 was run over by construction

machinery and damaged. 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.

Bowser-Morner, Inc., Dayton, O1io EA 97-391

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on October 8, 1997. The action was based

on the failure of the licensee to control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material and secure

from unauthorized removal or limit access to a Troxler moisture/density gauge containing 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.

BP Chemicals America, Inc., Lima, Ohio EA 97-507

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on December 16, 1997. The action was

based on eight violations which indicated a failure to fully implement the QA/QC plan as required by license

conditions and requirements. 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.

Brucker Engineering, St. Louis, AO EA 98-326

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on July 20, 1998. The action was based

on the licensee's failure to control licensed material in an unrestricted area. Specifically, a moisture/density

gauge containing 11 millicuries of cesium-137 and 44 millicuries of americium-241 was unaccounted for

between May 29 and June 3, 1998, because the operator could not find his vehicle. 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.

- 56 -
Appendix A

Cardinal Surveys Co., EA 98-347

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on July 20, 1998, for a failure to file an

NRC Form 241 for proposed activities in non-Agreement states in accordance with 10 CFR 150.20. 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.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Robinson EA 98-050

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on March 4, 1998. The action was based

on the licensee's failure to verify the adequacy of a design change to the safety injection (SI) system. The

design change disabled the automatic start feature for one of the three SI pumps resulting in the SI system

design failing to meet the operability requirements of Technical Specification. 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 the factor of corrective action.

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Perry EA 96-542

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on November 18, 1997. The action was

based on a Severity Level III violation for a miswired circuit breaker causing control room emergency

ventilation components to be inoperable on several occasions. 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.

Colon-Vaquar, Jose, M.D., Manati, PR ,lA 98-184

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation was issued on May 22, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation that involved the use

of licensed material when the license was expired, and a Severity Level III problem that involved seven

violations that collectively demonstrated the licensee's inability or unwillingness to develop and maintain the

required oversight of the use of licensed material. The civil penalties for the Severity Level III violation and

problem were fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was

warranted for corrective action. A civil penalty action was also issued at the same time based on a Severity

Level 11 problem that involved two misadministrations. (See EA 98-184 in Appendix B.)

Commonwealth Edison Company, Braidwood, Units 1&2 LA 97-110

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on October 2,1997. The action was based

on a violation involving five examples of the failure to provide adequate fire protection for safe shutdown

equipment. These examples existed since initial plant operations, and were resolved in 1996 while

performing additional fire protection modifications. 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.

- 57 -
Appendix A

Commonwealth Edison Company, Byron, Units 1&2 LA 97-446

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on November 25, 1997. This action was

based on one violation that involved seven examples ofthe failure to provide adequate fire protection for safe

shutdown equipment. These examples existed since initial plant operations, and were resolved in 1996 while

performing additional fire protection modifications. This violation was caused by an inadequate post-fire

analysis for protection of safe shutdown capability. 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.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Dresden EA 96-493

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on September 18, 1998. This action was

based on the willful activities of two individuals that caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 55.49,

which prohibits license applicants and facility licensees from engaging in any activity that compromises the

integrity of an NRC operator licensing examination. 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.

Conam Inspection, Inc., Kapolei, Hawaii EA 98-404

Supplement IV, VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on September 14, 1998. This action was

based on the failure to secure from unauthorized removal, access, or tampering and maintain constant

surveillance of licensed material (a radiography camera containing a nominal 55 curie iridium-192 sealed

source) in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1801, 10 CFR20.1802 and 10 CFR 34.35. 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.

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck EA 97-366

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on October 9,1997. The action was based

on two violations associated with corrective actions for an old plant design discrepancy in the service water

system which created the potential for waterhammer in the supply to the spent fuel pool cooling system and

a maintenance error that led to minor emergency diesel generator damage. The NRC exercised discretion

in accordance with section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty. In

addition, a third violation was identified related to the licensee's failure to perform an adequate 10 CFR 50.59

safety evaluation for a change in which an operator was used to compensate for feedwater regulating valves

that could not perform their intended design function under certain circumstances. This violation resulted

in an unreviewed safety question which would be considered for escalated enforcement and be subject to a

civil penalty. The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy

and did not issue a Notice of Violation or propose a civil penalty for this violation. (See Appendix E)

-58 -
Appendix A

Consolidated Edison Company, Indian Point, Unit 2 EA 98-192

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation was issued on July 6, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation. The action was based

on the failure to ensure that all testing required to demonstrate that systems and components will perform

satisfactorily in service as specified in the TSs was incorporated into surveillance test procedures. Although

this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (l) credit was

warranted for identification and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action. Two base civil penalties were

also issued based on the failure to perform certain surveillance testing activities, the creation of inaccurate

documents to indicate that these activities had been performed, and the failure to determine the cause and take

adequate corrective actions to preclude repetition of a significant condition adverse to quality involving 480

volt (V) safety-related circuit breakers. (See EAs 97-576 and 98-056 in Appendix B.)

Construction Products Research, Inc., Fairfield, CT EA 97-471

Five Star Products, Inc

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level I violation was issued to this vendor on January 16, 1998. The

action was based on a violation of 10 CFR 50.7, which prohibits discrimination against employees for

engaging in protected activities. Specifically the discrimination of the employee included: (1) placing him

on an involuntary leave status; (2) instructing other employees not to discuss the ongoing NRC

investigation of CPR and Five Star with him; (3) denying him access to his office and other facilities in the

companies; and (4) terminating him from employment.

Defense Logistics Agency, New Cumberland, PA EA 97-465

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on October 31, 1998. This action was

based on a violation involving the failure to maintain security of tritium sources located in an outside area,

not enclosed by a fence, which was easily accessible by personnel inside the facility. As a result of this

failure to maintain security, an individual employee, who was not involved in NRC licensed activities,

gained access to seven tritium sources and took them to his residence. In the process, the individual broke

one of the glass encapsulated sources resulting in contamination of his residence. 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.

De Leon, M.D., Dr. Jose N., Asla Verde, PR EA 97-627

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued on

April 28, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation involving the failure to establish and maintain a written

quality management program to provide high confidence that the strontium-90 eye applicator would be

administered as directed by an authorized user, that resulted in 9 misadministrations. The NRC exercised

enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A of the Enforcement Policy and proposed twice

the base civil penalty. Discretion was warranted because the NRC considered the violation to be

particularly egregious because Dr. Le6n was directly responsible for 9 misadministrations at his facility.

In addition, Dr. Le6n failed to identify a significant change in treatment time calculated by a Health Physics

Consultant or to take further action to verify the accuracy of the calculations prior to treatment of patients.

- 59 -
Appendix A

The NRC subsequently withdrew the civil penalty based on an agreement by the licensee to transfer the

strontium-90 eye applicator in accordance with regulations.

Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii EA 98-237

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on July 21, 1998. The action was based

on two instances of failures to adequately secure gauges containing licensed material from unauthorized

removal or access. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (I) this was the first escalated issue in two

inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, San Francisco EA 97-529

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on January 15, 1998. This action was

based on two violations involving: (I) a failure to verify that the contents of a package containing three P-32

vials agreed with the packing list and to survey the package for contamination'before it was disposed to

normal trash, and (2) the unauthorized disposal of a single P-32 vial to normal, non-radioactive trash. The

civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in two inspections, and

(2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Duke Power Company, Catawba EA 98-208

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity level III problem was issued on June 11, 1998. The action was based

on five violations involving: (1) failure to implement the seven-day restoration actions of TS 3.7.7

following a failure to satisfy Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement 4.7.7.b.3 for the Unit

2 "A" train VA system; (2) failure to take prompt corrective action in accordance with 10 CFR 50,

Appendix B, Criterion XVI, associated with a low flow condition on the Unit 2 "A" train VA system; (3)

failure to follow procedures for system operability determinations following surveillance testing of the Unit

2 A-train VA system; (4) failure to verify, as required by procedure, that all activities described by Minor

Modification CNCE-790 1 had been implemented in the field before closing the modification; and (5) failure

to ensure that adequate prerequisites for surveillance testing of the VA system were established as required

by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the

first escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit wvas warranted for corrective action.

Duke Power Company, Oconee EA 98-268

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level II violation was issued on August 5, 1998. The action was

based on: (1) the failure to implement the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, to

incorporate design basis requirements into drawings and procedures; and, (2) the failure to maintain

Technical Specification (TS) equipment in an operable condition. The NRC exercised discretion in

accordance with Section VII.B.3 and refrained from issuing a civil penalty because: (1) the violation

involved a past problem in design that the licensee identified as a result of a voluntary effort, (2) corrective

actions were comprehensive, and (3) routine licensee efforts were not likely to have identified the

deficiencies.

- 60 -
Appendix A

Engineering Surveys and Services, Columbia, MD EA 98-386

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation was issued on July 24, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation involving the failure

to secure or maintain constant surveillance of licensed material at a temporary jobsite. This failure

contributed to a gauge, containing 8 millicuries of cesium-137 and 40 millicuries of americium-241, being

run over and severely damaged by a construction vehicle. 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.

Entergy Operations Incorporated, Arkansas Nuclear One EA 97-382

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on November 18, 1997. This action was

based on violations involving: (I) inservice inspections of Unit I steam generators that were not

appropriately controlled and accomplished to identify tube defects that exceeded the technical specification

plugging limit, and (2) Unit 2 steam generator tubes, with defects greater than the technical specification

plugging limit, that were improperly considered operable. 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 Incorporated, Waterford EA 97-589

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on February 5, 1998. This action was

based on six violations related to a failure to return a valve controller to automatic operation following use

which went unrecognized for 15 hours, rendering Train A of the auxiliary component cooling water system

inoperable. Operators compounded this error by removing Train B ofthe auxiliary component cooling water

system from service for routine maintenance without first physically verifying the operability of Train A.

Both trains of this system remained inoperable for approximately 7.5 hours. 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.

Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie, Units 2 & 3 EA 97-501

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on December 11, 1997. This action was

based on three violations which included: (1) the failure to maintain two trains of containment cooling

operable as required bytechnical specifications; (2)the failure to followthe procedure fora post maintenance

test (PMT) of a containment cooler fan, and, (3) the failure to assure that appropriate testing was identified

and performed to demonstrate that the Unit 2 containment cooler fans would perform satisfactorily while

operating in the emergency configuration. 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.

-61 -
Appendix A

Florida Power and Light Comnpany, St. Lucie, Units 2 & 3 EA 98-064

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on April 3, 1998. This action was based

on a violation that involved two examples of the. failure to comply with the Physical Security Plan.

Specifically, a plant security officer failed to inactivate the keycards and hand geometry for two terminated

employees after being notified that the two individuals had been terminated, and access authorization was

to be withdrawn. 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.

Frontier Production Logging EA 97-327

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation was issued on November 7, 1997, for a Severity Level III problem consisting of

multiple violations concerning the failure to: (a) conduct operations so that the dose in any unrestricted

area from external sources does not exceed 2 millirem in any 1 hour, (b) make adequate surveys of

radiation levels in unrestricted areas, utilize authorized shipping containers while transporting radioactive

material, (d) monitor, upon receipt, the external surfaces of Department of Transportation (DOT) labeled

packages for radioactive contamination, and (e) properly post areas in which licensed materials are stored.

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. A civil penalty in the amount of $2,750 and a Confirmatory Order

were also issued in conjunction with the action. (See Appendix B and EA 97-457 in Appendix C.)

Geotechnical Consultants, Westerville, OH EA 98-385

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation was issued on August 27, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation involving the

failure to control licensed material in an unrestricted area. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because:

(1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Globe X-Ray Services, Inc., Tulsa, OK EA 98-224

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation was issued on June 29, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation involving the failure

to wear radiation monitoring equipment during radiography operations. 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.

GPUNuclear Incorporated, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station EA 97421

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation was issued on November 17, 1997, for three Severity Level III violations involving

failures in the design and modification processes. Specifically, these failures consisted of: (1) not adequately

considering the compatibility of materials in the design specifications for the emergency service water (ESW)

pumps when certain component material specifications were changed in 1993; (2) revising a procedure to

allow periodic opening of a reactor water cleanup (RWCU) system primary containment isolation valve at

reactor pressure without considering the maximum differential pressure against which the valve would have

- 62 -
Appendix A

to close; and (3) not ensuring that degraded voltage relay setpoints for the vital station electrical busses

provided acceptable voltage conditions to the safety buses on a sudden loss of output power. The civil

penalty for each of the three Severity Level III violations was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first

escalated issue in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

GPU Nuclear Incorporated, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station EA 97-617

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on February 8, 1998. This action was

based on three violations involving failures to perform safety evaluations prior to downgrading the quality

classifications of plant components and systems that were described in the Final Safety Analysis Report

(FSAR). These violations were identified at Oyster Creek after programmatic weaknesses in the equipment

downgrading process, which was common to both Oyster Creek and Three Mile Island, were identified

at Three Mile Island. 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.

GPU Nuclear Corporation, Three Mile Island, Unit 1 EA 97-070,97-117,97-127

Supplement I & 97-256

A Notice of Violation was on October 8, 1997, for a Severity Level III violation involving the failure to take

timely and appropriate corrective actions for conditions adverse to quality that existed at the facility,

including conditions related to the Decay Heat Removal system, to the quality assurance findings regarding

inappropriate equipment classification downgrades, and to the environmental qualification (EQ) deficiency.

Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because:

(I) credit was warranted for identification and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action. A Proposed

Imposition in the amount of $210,000 was also issued for four Severity Level III problems involving:

(I) inadequate engineering design controls, and inadequate safety evaluations prior to making design

changes; (2) poor implementation ofthe process for classifying components, resulting in a number of nuclear

safety-related components being downgraded to a lower classification without an appropriate safety

evaluation; (3) failure to ensure the emergency cooling fans were environmentally qualified; and

(4) inadequate implementation of the emergency preparedness program (see Appendix B).

GPUNuclear Incorporated, Three Mile Island EA 97-533

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on January 27, 1998. This action was

based on the pressurizer power operated relief valve (PORV) being returned to service without performing

an in-service test to verify proper valve operation after the PORV was replaced. As a result, a wiring error,

that prevented the PORV from opening in response to an automatic or manual signal, was not detected.

Consequently, the PORV was inoperable for the operating cycle from October, 1995, until September, 1997.

Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because:

(I) credit was warranted for identification and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

- 63 -
Appendix A

Haines & Kibbleho use, Inc., Skippack, PA EA 97-556

Supplements IV& VI

A Notice of Violation for two Severity Level III problems was issued on December 22, 1997. The first

problem was based on security violations involving: (1) failure to lock, or place in a locked outer

container, a nuclear gauge, and (2) failure to maintain direct control of the gauge while not in storage. The

second problem involved ten violations that indicated a significant lack of control and attention to licensed

activities. Of particular concern was the storage of gauges at permanent locations not listed on the license,

without first obtaining NRC approval, and without any evaluation of the radiation exposure a member of

the public would receive from licensed material being stored at those additional locations. The civil penalty

for each Severity Level III problem was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in

the last 2 inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Harper Hospital, Detroit, MI EA 98-196

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on April 4, 1998. This action was based

on a written quality management program (QMP) that failed to clearly address the verification procedures

to be used to ensure that each administration was in accordance with a written directive. As a result, a

misadministration to a patient occurred. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first

escalated issue in the last 2 inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Hospital Metropolitino, San Juan, PR EA 97-513

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on January 16, 1998. This action was

based two violations related to the licensee's control of radioactive sources. Specifically, (1) the licensee did

not control and maintain constant surveillance of a 7.6 millicurie source of cesium-137 left in a patient's

room, which was an unrestricted area, and (2) after removing the cesium-137 brachytherapy sources from

a patient, the licensee did not promptly return the sources to the storage area and count the number returned,

until approximately 55 hours later. In addition, on four other occasions, after removing cesium- 137 sources

from patients and returning them to the storage area, the licensee did not promptly count the number of

sources returned. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (I) this was the first escalated issue in the

last 2 inspections or tvo years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Hospital San Pablo, Bayaman, PR EA 97498

Supplements IV & VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on December 23,-1998. The action was

based on three violations associated with work performed which involved the demolition and relocation

of the room used to store radioactive waste held for decay-in-storage. Specifically: (1) the failure to secure

licensed materials from unauthorized removal; (2) unauthorized disposal of the licensed materials; and

(3) the failure to monitor, with a radiation survey meter, radioactive waste held for decay-in-storage prior

to disposing of it. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in

the last two inspections or 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

-64 -
Appendix A

Indiana & Michigan Electric, Cook EA 98-113

Supplement V

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 1II problem was issued on April 21, 1998. The action was

based on violations involving failure to provide shipping papers and emergency response instructions for a

shipment ofcontaminated objects. 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.

Intergrated Industrial Systems, Inc, Yaleville, CT EA 97-393

Supplement V

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on November 7, 1997. This action was

based on five violations that involved: (1) manufacturing and distribution of certain nuclear gauges in a

manner that was not in accordance with the registration certificate; (2) making modifications to the devices,

without the required approval by the Technical Director; (3) failure to maintain records of test results of

the devices; (4) approval of a nonconforming part as acceptable for use, without the Production Manager,

Technical Director, and the assigned Engineer indicating their approval, as required; and (5) the failure

to perform required annual audits. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first

escalated issue in the last two inspections or 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Knob Testing, Inc., Knob Noster, A10 EA 98-377

Supplements IV& VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on July 20, 1998. This action was based

on violations that involved: (1) failure to maintain control of licensed material; (2) licensed material used

by an unauthorized person; (3) failure to wear a film badge; and (4) failure to follow emergency procedures

as required. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (I) this was the first escalated issue in the last

two inspections or 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Law Engineering, Inc, Tulsa, OK EA 97433

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on November 17,1997. This action was

based on a violation involving a failure to maintain surveillance and control of a portable moisture/density

gauge containing NRC-licensed material. Specifically, the violation occurred when a gauge user

inadvertently left a portable gauge at a construction site with the source rod still in the extended position.

The gauge was out of the licensee's control for approximately 5 hours. The civil penalty was fully

mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in the last two inspections or 2 years, and (2) credit

was warranted for corrective action.

Mallinckrodt Veterinary Incorporated, St Louis, MO EA 97-582

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III Problem was issued on February 6, 1998. This action was

based on three violations which involved failure to: (1) provide timely notification to the NRC that no

principal activities were conducted for a period of 24 months in areas unsuitable for release in accordance

with NRC requirements, (2) certify disposition of all licensed material for Buildings 3 and 84 which were

- 65 -
Appendix A

demolished, (3) assign a new Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and amend the license when the authorized

RSO left, and (4) receive prior written consent from the NRC regarding a change of ownership. 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.

MedCentral Health System, Mansfield, OH EA 98-023

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation fora Severity Level III problem was issued on March 6, 1998. This action was based

on five instances involving failure to follow specific items in the licensee's quality management program

(QMP). The violations included the failure to perform reviews of modified wvritten directives to ensure that

all of the information was correct and on the record prior to administering the third patient treatment. As a

result ofthese failures to fully implement the QMP, a misadministration occurred. 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.

Met-Chem Testing Laboratories of Utah, Salt Lake C0ty, UT E4 98-362

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation was issued on July 31, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation involving a failure to

control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material that was in a controlled or unrestricted area

and that was not in storage. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (I) this was the first escalated

issue in two inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Michigan Department of Transportation EA 97-508

Supplements IV&VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on December 5, 1998. This action was

based on the failure to control and maintain constant surveillance of gauges containing licensed material.

In one case, the gauge operator placed a gauge in front of his vehicle, forgot it and ran it over causing

damage. In another case, a gauge was damaged when it was run over by construction equipment while the

operator was othernvise occupied and did not maintain constant surveillance over licensed material. The civil

penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in the last 2 years or inspections,

and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Mobile Dynamic Imaging, Inc., Englewood, NJ EA 97-500

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on December 31, 1997. This action was

based on five violations that involved: (I) failure to establish and implement written policies and procedures

to ensure that radiation safety activities were performed in accordance with approved procedures and

regulatory requirements; (2) failure to notify the NRC prior to commencement of licensed activities after

issuance of the license; and (3) three violations involving the failures to perform dose calibrator accuracy

tests, geometry dependance tests, and linearity tests, at installation and priorto dose administration. The civil

penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in the last 2 years, and (2) credit

was warranted for corrective action.

- 66 -
Appendix A

Norcon Incorporated, Anchorage, Alaska EA 97-538

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on January 23; 1998. This action was

based on violations involving failures to: (1) secure the consent of NRC before transferring control of the

license, (2) inform the NRC of new locations where material would be possessed, (3) conduct physical

inventories every 6 months to account for all sources and/or devices received and possessed under the

license, and (4) inform the NRC that the individual described as responsible for the radiation safety

program, the radiation safety officer (RSO), was not employed for about 17 months. The civil penalty was

fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in two inspections, and (2) credit was

warranted for corrective action.

Nordion International, Kanata, CN EA 97-541

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation was issued for a Severity Level III problem on January 23, 1998. This action was

based four violations involving modifications to devices without obtaining NRC approval prior to the

modifications. Specifically, after having submitted requests to the NRC for evaluation of radiation safety

information about its product and for its registration, the licensee manufactured and distributed certain

sealed sources and devices containing licensed material in a manner that was not in accordance with the

provisions of the registration certificate. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first

escalated issue in the last 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, Seabrook Station EA 98-073

Supplement 1

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on April 1, 1998. This action was based

on three violations involving the failure to promptly identify and/or correct conditions adverse to quality at

the facility. Specifically: (1) the licensee identified potential leakage from stainless steel piping in the

vicinity of the "B" Residual Heat Removal pump suction relief valve but did not promptly correct the

condition, (2) the control building air conditioning (CBA) compressors were degraded resulting in multiple

compressor failures since 1993, with no action not taken until December 1997, and (3) a caution tag on the

control switch for the Positive Displacement Charging Pump indicated that the pump could trip after starting

due to an oil leak from the pump's sensing line, however, a modification was canceled without resolving the

condition. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in the last

2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone EA 98-179

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on May 6, 1998. This action was based

on the failure to maintain an adequate PASS program that ensured the capability to obtain and analyze

samples under post accident conditions. Although a civil penalty could have been proposed forthe licensee's

failure to take corrective action to prevent recurring failure of the PASS and the failure to fully identify and

correctthe weaknesses in the PASS program duringthe licensee's internal audit, theNRC decided to exercise

enforcement discretion pursuant to Section VII.B.2 of the EnforcementPolicyand not propose a civil penalty

in this case. The decision to exercise discretion was made because the facility had been in an extended

shutdown, the NRC had taken significant enforcement action for the performance issues that led to the

- 67 -
Appendix A

shutdown and considering that the violation was: (1) based on licensee practices prior to the shutdown;

(2) not classified higher than Severity Level 11; and (3) not willful.

NTH Consultants, Ltd, Exton, PA EA 98-060

Supplement IV

ANotice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on March 16, 1998. This action was based

on the licensee not securing against unauthorized removal or limiting access to a moisture/density gauge

containing sealed sources located at a temporaryjobsite in an unrestricted area. The licensee did not control

and maintain constant surveillance ofthis licensed material in that the gauge was left unattended atthejobsite

for approximately one minute during which the gauge was destroyed when it was run over by a bulldozer.

The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in the last 2 years, and

(2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Overhoff Technology Corporation EA 96-242

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on

April 16, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem that involved shipment of devices

containing tritium in excess ofthe exempt quantity, in violation ofthe Licensee's distribution license. A base

civil penalty was proposed because: (1) this violation involved careless disregard, (2) credit was not

warranted for identification and, (3) credit was warranted for corrective action. However, on

August 19, 1998, after reconsideration of the types and quantities of material involved in the violations,

together with the fact that Overhoff constitutes a small entity for purposes of the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and withdrew the civil penalty. The Notice of Violation for the

Severity Level III problem remained valid.

Professional Services Industries, Incorporated, Lombard, IL EA 97-373

Supplements IV&VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem and a Severity Level III violation was issued on

November 5, 1997. This action was based on violations involving: (1) failure to directly supervise an

assistant radiographer performing radiographic operations within a fixed facility on the licensee's premises;

(2) unauthorized use of radioactive material on one occasion by a trainee; (3) failure to provide a film badge

to the trainee during that use. The civil penalty for both Severity Level III issues was fully mitigated because:

(1) this was the first escalated issue in the last 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Hope Creek EA 97-160

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III Violation was issued on October 20, 1997. This action was

based on a violation that involved inadequate safety evaluations for a modification of cross-tie piping

between the A and C RHR loops downstream of the RHR pumps. The safety evaluations were inadequate

because: (1) the change involved an unreviewed safety question (USQ) since the change introduced the

possibility of a loss of independence of the low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) loops due to an erroneous

valve lineup; and (2) the cross-tie isolation valves needed to be included in the monthly emergency core

cooling system (ECCS) flow path verification required by Technical Specifications (TS). Although this was

- 68 -
Appendix A

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.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Hope Creek EAs 97-144 & 97-563

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation was issued on March 20, 1998, for a Severity Level III problem that involved two

violations: (1) the failure to include certain systems, components and functions within the scope of the

maintenance rule; and (2) the failureto adequatelydemonstrate that the performance orcondition of a number

of systems, components and functions is being effectively controlled through the performance of appropriate

preventive. A civil penalty was not proposed because: (1) credit was warranted for identification and,

(2) credit was warranted for corrective actions. A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil

Penalty in the amount of $55,000 for a Severity Level III violation was also issued with this action. (See

Appendix B.)

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Salem Units 1&2 EA 97-182

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Exercise of Enforcement Discretion for a Severity Level III problem was issued

on October 8, 1997. This action was based on two violations involving: (1) changes made to a procedure

and to the UFSAR to reflect changes in refueling water storage tank drain down time and operator response

time that resulted, in certain cases, the interruption of emergency core cooling flow to the reactor, resulting

in an unreviewed safety question, without prior Commission approval, and (2) failure to notify the NRC

within one hour or submit a Licensee Event Report within 30 days, of a condition in which the time available

to complete switchover of reactor coolant system cold leg recirculation cooling from the refueling water

storage tank to the containment sump was not sufficient to ensure that emergency core cooling system flow

to the reactor core would not be interrupted, which was outside the design basis of the plant. The NRC

refrained from issuing a civil penalty in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy. (See

Appendix E.) TheNRC also exercised discretion and refrained from issuing actions for violations involving

RHRpump runoutand crediting forcontainmentoverpressure and forviolations involvingthe failure to meet

alternative shutdown. (See EA 97-182 and EA 97-257 in Appendix E.)

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Salem Units 1&2, Hope Creek EA 97422

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on April 24, 1998. This action was based

on a violation that involved inaccurate security records created by twvo Wackenhut security personnel

indicating that compensatory measures were in place within the required time (10 minutes) following the

failure of the security computer. -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.

QSL Inspection, Inc., Trainier, PA EA 97-611

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on January 23, 1998. This action was

based on a violation involving the failure by two radiographers to appropriately secure a radiography device,

containing74 curies of iridium-192. Specifically, inspectors observed that after the tvo radiographers arrived

- 69 -
Appendix A

at the temporaryjobsite, they exited the unlocked vehicle which contained the radiography device and entered

a building leaving keys in the ignition that would open the vehicle's darkroom as well as the overpack that

was securing the radiography device. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first

escalated issue in the last 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

The Rosel Company, Liberal, KS EA 98-017

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level I1 violation was issued on March 2, 1998. This action was based

on a licensee ofthe State of Kansas utilizing weill logging devices containing americium-24 1 and cesium-1 37

in the state of Oklahoma, a non-Agreement State, without a specific license issued by the NRC and without

filing Form 241 with theNRC. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated

issue in the last 2 years or inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Servicing Imaging Systems International, Montclair, NJ EA 97-540

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on December 31, 1998. This action was

based on eightviolations involving: (I) failuretoperform daily surveys in areas where radiopharmaceuticals

were routinely prepared for use or administered; (2) failure to perform a linearity check of the dose calibrator

for the 3rd quarter of 1997; (3) failure to conspicuously note on the survey instrument the apparent exposure

rate from a dedicated check source at the time of calibration; (4) failure to check the survey instrument for

proper operation with the dedicated check source each day of use; (5) failure to provide a personnel finger

monitor to an individual who handles radioactive material on a regular basis; (6) failure to perform leak tests

of sealed sources; (7) failure to perform inventories of sealed sources; and (8) failure to perform an annual

reviewofthe radiation protection program. The civil penaltywas fully mitigated because: (1)this was the

first escalated issue in the last 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Southern California Edison Company, San Onofre, Units 2 & 3 EA 97-585

Supplement III

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on February 18, 1998. This action was

based on a violation involving the discovery that a copy of the composite safeguards contingency plan was

lost and not under the control of an authorized individual or locked in a locked security storage container.

The plan was missing from the safeguards storage container in the security operations office, located outside

the protected area. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in the

last 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital/Caribbean Nuclear

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ponce, PR EA-97-620

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on January 30, 1998. This action was

based on seven violations that included: (1) the failure to conduct surveys to demonstrate compliance with

radiation dose limits for individual members of the public as a result of emissions of iodine-131 through a

fume hood exhaust; (2) three separate examples of the failure to perform adequate surveys to demonstrate

compliance with occupational radiation dose limits; (3) the failure to perform sealed source leak tests; (4) the

failure to possess a required thyroid uptake probe; (5) the failure to calibrate radiation survey instruments;

- 70 -
Appendix A

(6) the failure to perform a quarterly dose calibrator linearity test, a repeat finding from an inspection

conducted on January27,1997; and (7) the failure to perform an adequate dose calibrator linearity test which

indicated a programmatic breakdown in the control of licensed activities. The civil penalty was fully

mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue since original licensing of the facility, and (2) credit

was warranted for corrective action.

Temple University, Philadelphtia, PA EA 97-426

Supplement VI& VII

A Notice of Violation was issued for two Severity Level III problems on February 20, 1998. The first

problem included the failure to conduct a weekly wipe survey of the Nuclear Medicine Lab in September

1996, and the deliberate creation of an inaccurate NRC-required record by entering survey data on the survey

sheet even though the survey was not done. The second problem included: (1) the release of patients treated

with temporary implants of cesium- 137 and iridium- 192, as well as patients treated with the High Dose Rate

Afterloader, without performing a radiation survey of the patients to confirm that all sources had been

removed, (2) the failure to return cesium- 137 brachytherapy sources to the storage area and count the number

returned, after such sources were used; and (3) the failure to determine the accuracy of source positioning

for the HDR source on a monthly basis in 1996. Although this was not the first escalated action in 2 years

the civil penalty for each Severity Level III problem was fully mitigated because: (1) credit was warranted

for identification and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah, Units 1&2 EA 97-409

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

December 8, 1997. The action was based on one Severity Level III problem consisting of three violations

related to a failure to maintain a direct current vital battery channel energized and operable. A base civil

penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within

2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification because prior opportunities to identify the violations

existed, ad (3) credit was determined to be warranted for corrective action. The NRC subsequently

withdrew the civil penalty on February 5, 1998, based on a conclusion that credit for identification was

warranted. The Notice of Violation for the Severity Level III problem remained valid.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar EA 98-201

Supplement III

A Notice of Violation was issued on June 18, 1998, for a Severity Level III problem involving the physical

security program including: (1) the failure of tvo metal detectors to detect a test weapon during a test on nine

occasions, (2) the failure of closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras in nine zones to provide adequate

visual surveillance of the perimeter barrier, the perimeter intrusion detection system, and those portions of

the isolation zones necessary to enable assessment of alarm stimuli, and (3) the failure of microwave

equipment to detect an individual jumping over the transmitter/receiver microwave field six times in five

locations. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in the last

2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

-71 -
Appendix A

Theilsch Engineering, Inc., Bridgeport, CT EA 98-161& 98-162

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for two Severity Level III violations was issued on April 23, 1998. The first Severity

Level III violation involved the failure to file with the NRC, Form-241, "Report of Proposed Activities in

Non-Agreement States," prior to engaging in activities in Connecticut, a Non-Agreement State. The second

Severity Level III violation involved the failure to keep an unauthorized individual out of a restricted area

when radiography was being performed. The civil penalty was fully mitigated for each Severity Level III

violation because: (1) this was the first escalated action in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for

corrective action.

Tri-State Area Nuclear Plharmacy, Huntington, YWV EA 97-595

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on January 8, 1998. The action was based

on: (1) two examples of the failure to secure licensed materials against unauthorized removal or access as

required by 10 CFR 20.1801, and (2) the transfer of licensed material to a person who was not authorized to

receive such material. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (I) this was the first escalated issue

in 2 years, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Unified Testing Services, Woostock, IL EA 98-222

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation was issued on June 16, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation involving the failure

to secure from unauthorized removal or access and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material in

an unrestricted area, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1801 and 10 CFR 20.1802. 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. In addition, due to the special circumstances of the case, the NRC exercised discretion

in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a Notice of

Violation for a failure to train radioagraphers in accordance with required procedures.

Union Camp Corporation, Franklin, VA EA 97-575

Supplements IV& VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem -was issued on February 5, 1998. This action was

based two violation involving: (I) the failure to ensure that relocation of affixed gauge containing a sealed

source was performed by persons specifically licensed to perform such services as required, and (2) the

failure to conduct radiological surveys or ensure that surveys were performed by licensed personnel during

relocation of fixed gauges containing sealed sources. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (I) this

was the first escalated issue in 2 years or two inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Union Electric Company, St. Louis, MO EA 97-480

Supplements IV& VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on October 28, 1997. This action was

based on two violations involving: (1) removal of licensed material by unauthorized individuals, and

(2) failure to secure licensed material from unauthorized removal. The civil penalty was fully mitigated

- 72 -
Appendix A

because: (1) this was the first escalated issue since original licensing of the facility, and (2) credit was

warranted for corrective action.

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI EA 98-155

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a.Severity Level III violation was issued on May 13, 1998. This action was based

on a failure to adequately perform a required 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation for a modification involving

installation of a new primary cooling pump and motor and removal of a pump discharge valve internals. The

civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (I) this was the first escalated issue in the last 2 years, and

(2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN EA 98-149

Supplements IV& VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on April 10, 1998. This action was based

on three violations involving the failure to ensure that all sources taken from the storage area were returned;

failure to secure and control licensed material; and failure to ensure that dose in unrestricted areas from

external sources did not exceed two millirem in any one hour. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because:

(1) this was the first escalated issue in the last 2 inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective

action.

University of South Dakota, School of Medicine EA 97-509

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on December 22, 1998. This action was

based on violations involving failures to: (1) secure radioactive materials against unauthorized removal;

(2) conduct quarterly radiation safety program reviews with the university president; (3) assure, through the

appointed radiation safety officer (RSO), that activities were being conducted in accordance with all

requirements; (4) hold radioactive waste for 10 half-lives prior to disposal; (5) use only radiation survey

instruments calibrated at six-month intervals; (6) conduct physical inventories of radioactive sources at

six-month intervals; (7) assure that all purchases of radioactive materials were approved in advance by the

RSO; (8) provide annual radiation exposure reports to workers; and (9) provide radiation safety training to

housekeeping and security personnel. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first

escalated issue in the last two inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI EA 98-100

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on March 27, 1998. This action was

based on seven violations that demonstrated a programmatic breakdown of control over licensed activities.

The root cause ofthis breakdown stemmed from the lack of program oversight by the Radiation Safety Office

and university management. In addition, the radiation safety program personnel changes which occurred in

September 1997, directly affected the continuity of program activities. The civil penalty was fully mitigated

because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in two inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective

action.

- 73 -
Appendix A

Virginia Commonwealth University EA 97-417

Supplements IV& VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on October 28, 1998. This action was

based on a violation involving two examples of the failure to secure licensed materials against unauthorized

removal or access. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in

2 years or two inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Surry, Units 1&2 EA 97474

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on December 24, 1997. This action was

based on two violations involving: (1) the failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R,

Section III.G, for vital bus isolation, and (2) the failure to take adequate corrective action for the issue in a

timely manner. 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.

Virginia Power Company, Chester, VA EA 97-419

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on October 29, 1997. This action was

based on aviolation involving the unauthorized removal of agenerally licensed fixed gauge containing about

'72 millicuries (mCi) of cesium 137 (Cs-137) from its permanent mounting to a fly ash hopper by a contract

worker who was neither trained nor licensed to perform such activities. The civil penalty was fully mitigated

because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years or two inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for

corrective action.

ViroMed Laboratories, Inc., Minneapolis, MN EA 98-276

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on May27,1998. The problem was based

on multiple violations involving failures to: (I) perform required radiation surveys when handling

iodine-125; (2) obtain the appropriate approvals prior to ordering licensed material; (3) make the appropriate

notifications upon receipt of radioactive material; (4) follow package receipt and survey procedures;

(5) monitoremptypackage material priorto discard; (6) perform monthly laboratory surveys; and (7) monitor

the radioactive storage room on a monthly basis. The civil penalty was fully mitigated because: (1) this was

the first escalated issue in two inspections, and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Washington Public Power Supply System, WNP-2 EA 97-138

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on February 20, 1998. This action was

based on four violations involving the failure to test the response time of various plant instrumentation

systems in accordance with existing requirements, and the failure to obtain approval from the NRC, as

required by 10 CFR 50.59, before ceasing response-time testing required by technical specifications.The

NRC refrained from issuing a civil penalty in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy

(see Appendix E).

- 74 -
Appendix A

Washington Public Power Supply System, WVNP-2 EA 97-573

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on June 1, 1998. This action was based

on multiple violations including failures to: (1) perform a safety evaluation in accordance with

10 CFR 50.59 prior to downgrading the RCIC system from a safety-related system to a non-safety-related

system, a change which constituted an unreviewed safety question, and (2) maintain the acceptance criteria

for the opening stroke-time testing of six RCIC System valves and the failure to maintain inservice testing

of Valve RCIC-V-45 as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(f). Given prior escalated enforcement action, and

the NRC's identification of these violations, a civil penalty would have resulted following the normal civil

penalty assessment process described in VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. However, in accordance with

Section VII.13.6 of the Enforcement Policy, the NRC exercised discretion and refrained from issuing a civil

penalty in this case. (See Appendix E.)

Windham Community Memorial Hospital, Inc./

Hatch Hospital Corp, Willimantic, CT EA 97-392

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on February 6, 1998. This action was

based on two violations involving the creation of false records. One violation involved the creation of

approximately two months of inaccurate records of the daily dose calibrator constancy test by a former

Nuclear Medicine Technologist (NMT); and the other violation involved the creation of inaccurate records

associated with the disposal of aerosol kits by the NMT Supervisor. The civil penalty was fully mitigated

because: (1) this was the first escalated issue in 2 years or two inspections, and (2) credit was warranted

for corrective action.

Windsor Services, Inc., Reading, PA EA 97-596

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on December 22, 1997. This action was

based on four violations involving: (1) failure to notify the NRC, and secure NRC consent in writing, prior

to a change in ownership which transferred control of the license, (2) failure to obtain a license amendment

prior to using a new RSO, (3) failure to perform a review of the radiation safety program content and

implementation, and (4) failure to provide annual refresher training to gauge users. The civil penalty was

fully mitigated because: (I) this was the first escalated issue in two inspections, and (2) credit was warranted

for corrective action.

Wyatt-Jaykim Engineers, Spokane, WA EA 98-157

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation was issued on June 19, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation. This violation was

based on the fact that on numerous occasions in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Wyatt Engineering, aka

Wyatt-Jaykim Engineers, a licensee of the state of Washington, used cesium-137 and americium-241 sealed

sources in portable gauges in the state of Idaho, a non-Agreement State, without filing Form-241 with the

NRC. The civil penaltywas fully mitigated because: (1) this wasthe first escalated issue intwo inspections,

and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action.

- 75-
Appendix A

York Hospital, York, PA EA 97427

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem and a Severity Level III violation was issued on

March 4, 1998. The Severity Level III problem was based on three violations involving the transport of

radioactive material(technetium-99m) between two facilities on numerous occasions between 1988 and 1995

without shipping papers accompanying the shipment; without examination or testing of the shipment to

ensure radiation and contamination levels were within limits; and without properly securing the material to

prevent shiftingduringtransport. The SeverityLevel III violation wasbased on aformeremployee providing

inaccurate information to an NRC inspector during the inspection. Although the violations associated with

the Severity Level III problem were determined to be willful, the civil penalty was fully mitigated because:

(1) credit was warranted for identification and (2) credit was warranted for corrective action. A civil penalty

would have been warranted for the Severity Level III violation under the normal assessment process, in that

(1) it was willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective

action. However, the NRC refrained from issuing a civil penalty in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the

Enforcement Policy. (See Appendix E.)

-76 -
Appendix A

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 77 -
Appendix B

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED

CIVIL PENALTIES

Alaron Corp., Walpum, PA EA 98-144

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,5000 was issued on

June 3, 1998. The action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving a willful failure to dispose

of waste at the licensee's your facility that had been in storage for more than 2 years. A base civil penalty

was proposed for this violation because: (1) this was a willful violation, (2) credit was not warranted for

identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Altoona Hospital, Altoona, PA EA 98-194

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on

May 14, 1998. The action was based on a Severity Level III violation of the quality management program

involving failure to have written directive for administering Iodine- 131. A base civil penalty was proposed

for this violation because: (1) this was the first escalated action in 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for

corrective action.

Arizona Public Service, Palo Verde EA 98-131

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on

July 10, 1998. The action was based on a Severity Level III problem that included three violations for

failures to: (1) perform a required surveillance within the required time frame, (2) maintain required records

complete and accurate in all material respects, and (3) report the missed surveillance to the NRC as required

by 10 CFR 50.73. A base civil penalty was proposed for this violation because: (1) this was a willful

violation, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., Calvert Cliffs EA 98-280

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

September 2, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem consisting of three violations

that involved multiple failures to adhere to radiological control procedures during replacement of nuclear

instrumentation (NI) detectors in the reactor annulus. These violations included: (1) the failure of workers

to wear alarming dosimetry when entering the reactor annulus; (2) the failure of radiation protection

personnel to stop work when unexpected alarms and radiological conditions were encountered; and (3) the

failure to properly determine worker stay times for work in a high radiation area. Although the civil

penalty would have been fully mitigated under the normal assessment process (based on the fact that the

problem was not the first escalated action within 2 years, that credit was warranted for identification and

corrective actions), discretion was exercised in accordance with Section VII.A. 1 of the Enforcement Policy

because: (1) of particularly poor previous performance, and (2) failure to preclude recurrence of the

violations.

-78 -
Appendix B

Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim EAs 97-482, 9 7-525

Supplement I 98-255, 98-052

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $165,000 was issued on

April 27, 1998. This action is based on two Severity Level III violations and one Severity Level III problem

involving seven violations of failure to identify and/or take prompt and comprehensive corrective action for

conditions adverse to quality associated with the design of safety-related cooling water systems, the

emergency core cooling systems (ECCS), the emergency diesel generators (EDGs), and other electrical

equipment important to safety. The violations involved deficiencies in BECo's design control and safety

evaluation. Base civil penalties were proposed in each 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. Additionally, during a follow-up review of EDG loading, a deficiency was identified with thermal

overload relay trip settings that could have resulted in an inadvertent trip of the pumps and a loss of all SSW

cooling. The NRC exercised enforcement discretion and did not issue a Notice of Violation and did not

propose a civil penalty for this issue. (See Appendix E.)

Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim EA 98-191

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

May 19, 1998. This action is based on a Severity Level III violation involving multiple examples of

equipment failures associated with the protected area assessment system used by security personnel to

continuously monitor and assess the security status at the facility. A base civil penalty was proposed for this

violation because: (I) 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.

Breitling USA Watch Company, EA 98-163

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $26,400 was issued on

July 10, 1998. The action is based on two Severity Level II violations involving the possession and use, as

well as distribution, of NRC licensed material without possessing NRC licenses authorizing these activities.

In addition, since the licensee received the timepieces (watches) from its parent company in Switzerland and

distributed them tojewelry shops in the United States, the licensee did not qualify for the exemption set forth

in 10 CFR 30.1 5(a) regarding such activities. After considering the regulatory significance of the violations,

which included the inability of the NRC to conduct inspections of the licensee's activities, the duration of the

violations, the costs of maintaining NRC licenses which the licensee avoided during the period of

noncompliance, and the licensee's failure to promptly contact the NRC once it had indications that the need

*for a license was likely, the NRC determined, in accordance with Section VII.A.1.(a) of the Enforcement

Policy, that it was appropriate to exercise enforcement discretion in this case and issue separate civil penalties

in the amount of $13,200 for each of the two violations, resulting in a cumulative civil penalty of $26,400.

The NRC arrived at the $13,200 amount for each civil penalty by tripling the base civil penalty amount of

$4,400 for a Severity Level II violation listed in Tables 1A and 11B, Base Civil Penalties, of the Enforcement

Policy.

- 79 -
Appendix B

Carolina Power and Light Company, Robinson EA 97-490

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

December 12, 1997. The action is based on one Severity Level III problem consisting of two violations

including: (1) the failure to identify promptly and correct a mispositioned EDG output breakercontrol switch;

and, (2)the failure totake adequate corrective action to preclude repetition of position control errors affecting

the EDG local control panels. The potential safety and regulatory significance of the event were high

because, under certain accident scenarios, the "B" EDG had been incapable of automatically energizing the

emergency bus fora significant period oftime and because a similarescalated enforcement action was issued

in 1994 which should have alerted CP&L to the need to place comprehensive configuration controls on

components that are not alarmed when they are out of the safeguards position. 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 corrective action.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Shearon Harris EA 98-020

Supplement III

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

March 26, 41998. The action involved a Severity Level III violation for two examples in which individuals

were inappropriately granted unescorted access to the protected and vital areas of the plant. Although the

civil penalty would have been fully mitigated under the normal assessment process (based on the fact that

the violation was not the first escalated action within 2 years, and that credit was warranted for

identification and corrective actions), discretion was exercised in accordance with Section VII.A. 1 of the

Enforcement Policy because of the failure to preclude recurrence of the violations.

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Peny EAs 97-047, 97430

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of$100,000 was issued on

November 18, 1997. The action was based on two Severity Level III violations involving (1) an

inadvertent reactivity addition that was not prevented by corrective actions for a similar prior event

associated with flow control valves for the reactor recirculating water system(EA -047), and (2) a violation

of 10 CFR 50.59 for changes to procedures involving the Emergency Closed Cooling System (component

cooling) that resulted in an Unreviewed Safety Question (EA 97-430). Base civil penalties were proposed

because: (1) this was not the first escalated action in last 2 years, (2) credit for identification was not

warranted, and (3) credit for corrective action was warranted. A Notice of Violation for third Severity

Level III (EA 97-542) violation was also issued with this action (see EA 97-542 in Appendix A) and

discretion was exercised for a fourth potential Severity Level III violation (see EA 96-482 in Appendix E).

Colon-Vaquar, Jose, M.D., Manati, PR EA 98-184

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,400 was issued on

May 22, 1998. The civil penalty action was based on a Severity Level II problem that involved two

misadministrations. Abase civil penalty was proposed forthe SeverityLevel II problem because: (1) it was

a Severity Level II issue, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for

corrective action. A Notice of Violation was also issued for a Severity Level III violation that involved the

- 80 -
Appendix B

use of licensed material when the license was expired, and a Severity Level III problem that involved seven

violations that collectively demonstrated the licensee's inability or unwillingness to develop and maintain the

required oversight of the use of licensed material. (See EA 98-184 in Appendix A.)

Commonwealth Edison Company, Braidwood, Units 1&2 EA 97-265

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

October 3, 1997. This action is based on a Severity Level III violation involving the failure to comply

with technical specifications. Specifically, the centrifugal charging system pump casings and discharge

piping high points were not vented at least once every 31 days as required by technical specifications. A

base civil penalty was proposed because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within the

past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective

action.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Byron, Units 1&2 EA 97-264

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

October 3, 1997. This action is based on a Severity Level III problem involving two violations of failing

to comply with technical specifications. The first violation consists of two examples of failing to vent

emergency core cooling system pump casings and discharge piping high points at least once every 31 days.

The second violation consists of two examples of failing to perform a continuity check on Containment

Isolation Phase "A" Isolation Valves on a quarterly basis. A base civil penalty was proposed because:

(1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within the past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted

for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Commonwealth Edison Co., Quad Cities EA 98-231

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $88,000 was issued on

September 11, 1998. The action was based on a Severity Level 11 problem that involved 16 violations that

represented inadequacies in the licensee's capability to shutdown the facility following a postulated design

basis fire. A base civil penalty was proposed because: (I) 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.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Quad Cities, Units 1&2 EA 97466

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

March 3, 1998. This action is based on a Severity Level III problem consisting of multiple violations

involving the failure to adequately implement 10 CFR 50.65, "Requirements for Monitoring the

Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" (the Maintenance Rule). While the actual safety

consequence of each violation was low, they have high regulatory significance in that they represent a lack

of effective oversight and a programmatic breakdown in the implementation of the Maintenance Rule. A

base civil penalty was proposed because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within the

past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective

action.

- 81 -
Appendix B

Commonwealth Edison Company, Quad Cities, Units 1&2 EA 97-591

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $330,000 was issued

on March 12, 1998. This action is based on two Severity Level III problems consisting of two violations

involving performing reactor coolant pressure boundary leakage testing at 12% power, in violation of

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, "Fracture Toughness Requirements" and six violations involving the failure

to perform adequate ASME Code visual testing of the pressure boundary. In accordance with the normal

assessment process, a base civil penalty was warranted for the first problem because: (1) this was not the

first escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification and

(2) credit was not warranted for corrective action. Twice the base civil penalty was warranted for the

second problem because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was

not warranted for identification and (3) credit was not varranted for corrective action. However, the NRC

determined that discretion was warranted in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy

for both problems to double each civil penalty due to the particularly poor performance as manifested in

the poor management oversight of these plant activities.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Zion, Unit 1&2 EA 97-249

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $110,000 was issued on

January 15, 1998. The action is based on a Severity Level III problem involving the implementation of

the Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) program at the Zion Station. In particular, two supervisors noticed alcohol on

the breath of employees and the supervisors failed to send the employees for FFD testing. Also, the FFD

procedures for recalling employees to the station were not implemented on two occasions. Twice the base

civil penalty was proposed because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within the last

2 years, (2) credit for identification was not warranted because the individual issues were identified

through allegations and the NRC identified the programmatic problems with the FFD program, and

(3) credit for corrective action was not warranted because the licensee's corrective actions failed to address

the programmatic aspects of the problem.

Consolidated Edison Company, Indian Point, Unit 2 EA 97-367

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $1 10,000 was issued on

October 7, 1997. This action is based on a Severity Level III violation and a Severity Level III problem. The

Severity Level III problem, which was identified through NRC questioning during observation of control

room activities, involved two violations related to the Overpressure Protection System (OPS) being

inoperable. The Severity Level III violation, identified as a result of a test failure, involved the poor response

by management to a significant reduction in the observed differential head of one of the recirculation pumps

in 1989, and to an engineer's identification in 1995 of this reduction in performance. Base civil penalties

were proposed for each case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years,

(2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

- 82 -
Appendix B

Consolidated Edison Company, Indian Point, Unit 2 EA 97-576 & 98-056

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $ 110,000 was issued on

July 6,1998. The action was based on a Severity Level III problem and a Severity Level III violation. The

Severity Level III problem included two violations associated with the failure by the licensee's staff to

perform certain surveillance testing activities, and the creation of inaccurate documents to indicate that these

activities had been performed. The Severity Level III violation involved the failure to determine the cause

and take adequate corrective actions to preclude repetition of a significant condition adverse to quality

involving 480 volt (V) safety-related circuit breakers. Base civil penalties were proposed for each case

because: (I) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted

for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action. A Notice of Violation was also issued

for a Severity Level III violation for failure to ensure that all testing required to demonstrate that systems and

components will perform satisfactorily in service as specified in the TSs, was incorporated into surveillance

test procedures. (See EA 98-192 in Appendix A.)

Consumers Power Company, Palisades EA 97-569

Supplement I

ANotice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on April

2, 1998. The action was based on six violations that represent a Severity Level III problem. The violations

refer to both conduct of operations errors made by a shift operating crew and failures to follow maintenancerelated procedures by maintenance personnel when power was removed from all of the control rod drives

during power operation to facilitate the repair ofa single control rod drive. A base civil penalty was proposed

in this case because: (I) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years,(2) credit was not

warranted for identification and (3) credit was given for corrective action.

CTI., Incorporated, Anchorage, AL EA 97-539

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,500 was issued on

January 20, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem for approaching a radiography

exposure device containing a 192-curie source before the source was moved to its shielded position and

failing to use an operable survey instrument to perform a radiation survey of the same device. A base civil

penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within

2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification and (3) credit was given for corrective action.

De Leon, M.D., Dr. Jose N., Asla Verde, PR EA 97-627

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued on

April 28, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation involving the failure to establish and maintain a written

quality management program to provide high confidence that the strontium-90 eye applicator would be

administered as directed by an authorized user, that resulted in 9 misadministrations. The NRC exercised

enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A of the Enforcement Policy and proposed twice

the base civil penalty. Discretion was warranted because the NRC considered the violation to be

particularly egregious because Dr. Le6n was directly responsible for 9 misadministrations at his facility.

In addition, Dr. Le6n failed to identify a significant change in treatment time calculated by a Health Physics

- 83 -
Appendix B

Consultant or to take further action to verify the accuracy of the calculations prior to treatment of patients.

The NRC subsequently withdrew the civil penalty based on an agreement by the licensee to transfer the

strontium-90 eye applicator in accordance with regulations.

Department of the Army, Rock Island, IL EA 97-350

Supplement IV& VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $16,000 was issued on

November 12, 1997. The action was based on two Severity Level II problems including failures to:

(1) properly store licensed material, conduct annual inspections and inventories, provide training, conduct

tests by persons authorized to do so, conduct surveys, and perform maintenance in accordance with

procedures; and (2) provide notifications to the NRC. Many of the violations were repeat violations. Base

civil penalties were proposed for each Severity Level II problem 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.

Duquense Light Company, Beaver Valley EA 97-517

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

January 6, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation. This action was based on the failure to take adequate

action to correct a significant condition adverse to quality involving gas binding of the high head safety

injection (HHSI) pumps at both units. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was

not the first escalated enforcement action within the past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for

identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Entergy Operations Incorporated, River Bend Station EA 97-497

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

December 23, 1997. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving the failure to ensure

shutdown cooling systems were adequately maintained and the to establish adequate procedures for

operation of shutdown cooling. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not

the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification and

(3) credit was warranted for corrective actions.

Entergy Operations Incorporated, Waterford EA 98-022

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $110,000 was issued on

June 16, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving multiple violations

associated with HPSI flow issues, including: the failure to adequately consider test instrument uncertainties

and valve position variability when performing surveillance testing ofHPSI; the failure to identify and correct

this concern despite several indications of the problem at various points in time; and the failure to make

timely reports to the NRC and develop a corrective action plan within the required time frame. Twice the

base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action

within 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective

actions. The NRC also exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 for a potential Severity

84 - -
Appendix B

Level III violation of 10 CFR 50.59 associated with reduced flow rates for EFW. Discretion was warranted

based on the specific circumstances of the case and consideration of the information that was presented at

the conference.

Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie, Units 1&2 EA 98-009

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $88,000 was issued on

March 25, 1998. The action was based on a Severity level II problem involving two violations associated

with the licensee's failure to properly calibrate the Refueling Water Tank (RWT) level bistables. This

condition resulted in a Recirculation Actuation Signal (RAS) bistable setpoint below the required Technical

Specifications (TSs) requirements. This incorrect setpoint would cause ECCS pump air entrainment

resulting in the licensee not having reasonable assurance that the ECCS systems would remain operable

under all postulated accident scenarios. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated under

the normal assessment process (because (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years,

(2) credit was warranted for identification and (3) credit was warranted for corrective actions),the NRC

exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A. I of the Enforcement Policy and issued

a base civil penalty. (See Appendix E.)

Frontier Production Logging EA 97-327

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750was issued on

November 7, 1997. The action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving a willful failure to

file the necessary documentation to receive NRC approval prior to vacating an authorized radioactive

material storage location. A base civil penalty was proposed because: the violation was willful, (2) credit

was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action. A Notice of

Violation for a Severity Level III problem and a Confirmatory Order were also issued with the action (see

Appendix A and EA 97-457 in Appendix C).

GPU Nuclear Corporation, Oyster Creek EA 98-220

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

June 15, 1998, for a Severity Level III problem involving the inoperability of automatic depressurization

valves as well as design errors and apparent qualification concerns that contributed to the inoperability. A

base civil penalty was warranted because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within the

past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification and, (3) creditwas warranted forcorrective action.

GPU Nuclear Corporation, Three Mile Island, Unit 1 EA 97-070,97-117,97-127

Supplement I & 97-256

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $210,000 was issued

on October 8, 1997, for four Severity Level III problems involving: (1) inadequate engineering design

controls, and inadequate safety evaluations prior to making design changes; (2) poor implementation of the

process for classifying components, resulting in a number of nuclear safety-related components being

downgraded to a lower classification without an appropriate safety evaluation; (3) failure to ensure the

emergency cooling fanswere environmentallyqualified; and (4) inadequate implementation ofthe emergency

- 85 -
Appendix B

preparedness program. Base civii penalties foreach ofthe SeverityLevel III problems because: (I) this was

not the first escalated enforcement action within the past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for

identification and, (3) credit was warranted for corrective action. A Notice of Violation was also issued for

a Severity Level III violation involving the failure to take timely and appropriate corrective actions for

conditions adverse to quality that existed at the facility, including conditions related to the Decay Heat

Removal system, to the quality assurance findings regarding inappropriate equipment classification

downgrades, and to the environmental qualification (EQ) deficiency. (See Appendix A.)

Ground Engineering and Testing Service Incorporated EA 98-021

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,500 was issued on

March 25, 1998. The action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving the willful failure of

this Agreement State licensee to file for reciprocity before conducting work in NRC jurisdiction. A double

base civil penalty was proposed because: (1) this violation was associated with careless disregard,

(2) credit was not warranted for identification and, (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.

Koch Engineering Company Incorporated EA 98-061

Supplement V

ANotice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty intheamount of$4,400 wvas issued on March

13, 1998. The action was based on a Severity Level II violation involving failure to ensure, by examination

or test, that each closure device of a package containing radioactive material was properly installed, secured,

and free of defects before transportation. A base civil penalty was proposed because: (1) the violation was

classified as a Severity Level II, (2) credit for identification was not warranted, and (3) credit for corrective

action was warranted.

Mallinckrodt Medical Incorporated EA 97-342 & 97-355

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

December 17, 1997. The action was based on: (1) a Severity Level I problem involving failure to limit the

annual shallow-dose equivalent of an occupational worker to 50 rems and failure to make or cause to be made

surveys to assure compliance with 10 CFR Part 20; and (2) a Severity Level III violation for delivering to

a carrier for transport licensed material in two packages that arrived at their destinations with contact

radiation levels that exceeded 200 millirem. Although the civil penalty would have been fully mitigated for

the Severity Level I problem because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement within the last 2 years,

(2) credit was warranted for identification and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action, the NRC

exercised discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy by proposing a base civil

penalty. As for the Severity Level III violation, a base civil penalty would have been proposed because:

(I) credit for identification was not warranted, and (2) credit for corrective action was warranted. However,

the NRC also exercised discretion pursuant to Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy to issue a civil

penalty at twice the base amount. (See Appendix E.)

- 86 -
Appendix B

Mattingly Testing Service EA 97-180

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $10,000 was issued on

October 31, 1997. The action was based on a violation of 10 CFR 30.7(a), which prohibits discrimination

by a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activity. Specifically, the

employee was terminated from his position because he identified violations ofNRC requirements totheNRC.

A double base civil penaltywas proposed because: (I) thisviolation was notthe first escalated enforcement

within the last 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification and, (3) credit was not warranted for

corrective action. This action was subsequently withdrawn on September 15, 1998, based on the underlying

facts of the case, the licensee's response to the proposed action, and the differing O0 reports and DOL

decisions.

Moisture Protection Systems EA 97-605

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,500 was issued

May20, 1998 for a Severity Level III violation based on the company's failure to pay annual fees and failure

to afford the NRC the opportunity to inspect. The NRC had attempted three inspections at various licensee

locations, but never located the licensed material and had been unable to reach the licensee president and

authorized user. A double base civil penalty was proposed because: (1) this violation involved careless

disregard, (2) credit was not warranted for identification and, (3) credit was not warranted for corrective

action. An Order Modifying Order Suspending License and Order Revoking License was also issued in

conjunction with this action. (See EA 98-213 in Appendix C.)

Nebraska Public Power District, Cooper Station EA 97424

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $1 10,000 was issued on

December 1, 1997. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving numerous violations

of failure to either identify or correct conditions adverse to quality. The most significant examples were

failure to identify and correct water retention in the offgas system holdup line, potentially rendering both

standby gas treatment trains inoperable, and failure to identify and correct significant fouling of a residual

heat removal system heatexchanger. A double basecivil penaltywas proposed in this case because: (I)this

was not the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification,

and (3) credit for corrective action was not warranted.

New York Power Authority, Indian Point 3 EA 98-336

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

August 19, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving the failure, following a

design modification in October 1997, to have adequate design measures to ensure that the emergency diesel

generator (EDG) auxiliaries would perform within the design basis. A base civil penalty was proposed in

this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was not

warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

- 87 -
Appendix B

Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point EA 97-007

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on

November 5, 1997. The action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving two violations with

multiple failures to meet the requirements of the Maintenance Rule, 10 CFR 50.65. These violations,

collectively, represented a programmatic breakdown in the development and implementation ofthe program

to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements of the Maintenance Rule. A base civil penalty was

proposed because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action with 2 years, (2) credit was not

warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point EA 97-530

Supplement V

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

January 22, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving four violations of

transportation requirements during four different shipments of radioactive material. While the actual safety

consequence of the violations was low in each case, the violations indicate a lack of adequate oversight of

theradioactivematerials handlingand transportation program. In addition, theviolations demonstrateaclear

potential for greater safety consequences, as evidenced by the fact that three of those shipments occurred

during a 2-month period in 1997. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not

the first escalated enforcement action within the past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification,

and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone, Units 1,2 &3 EA 96-034, 96-067, 96-086, & 96-106

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $2,100,000 was issued

on December 10, 1997. The action was based on three Severity Level II and one Severity Level III problems

consisting of: (1) 31 violations involving substantial and longstanding failures to meet design control

requirements and to maintain the licensing bases, (2)18 violations involving longstanding unsatisfactory

performance in identification and correction of significant conditions adverse to quality, (3) eight violations

of technical specifications involving inoperable equipment and degraded conditions, and (4) 11 failures in

implementing various aspects of the quality assurance program. In assessing the penalty in this case,

consideration was given to the varying degrees of significance and duration of the violations as well as the

number of examples of the violations. The penalty was comprised of $500,000 for the violations related to

inadequate engineering; $1,000,000 for the violations related to inadequate corrective actions; $500,000 for

the violations related to violations of technical specifications; and $100,000 for the violations of quality

assurance. In arriving at the cumulative amount of the civil penalties, the staff to exercised enforcement

discretion in accordance with section VII.A of the Enforcement Policy.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone, Units 1,2& 3 EA 97-562

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

March 9, 1998. The action was based on one Severity Level III violation regarding failure to take adequate

corrective actions with respect to the potential for air in certain portions of the recirculation spray system to

be swept into the suction of the charging and safety injection pumps during the recirculation phase of a loss-

- 88 -
Appendix B

of-coolant accident. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first

escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit

was warranted for corrective action. The NRC also exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and not issue a civil penalty or a violation for a potential Severity

Level III violation regardingthe potential forvalve leakage from systems containing highly radioactive water

to leak outside containment to the refueling water storage tank following a postulated accident for which.

(See Appendix E.)

Northern States Power Company, Prairie Island Station EA 97-290

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on

October 14, 1997. This action was based on a SeverityLevel III problem involving four violations pertaining

to the Prairie Island staff's failure to establish an Inservice Test (IST) procedure acceptance criteria that

would not compromise the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system design basis requirements, to implement

corrective actions when incorrect acceptance criteria for a safety injection pump IST procedure were

identified, to analyze a discrepancy betveenthe Updated SafetyAnalysis Report (USAR) and the anticipated

AFW flow, and to maintain the fidelity of the USAR. A base civil penalty was proposed int his case because:

(1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for

identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Ohio State University EA 97-258

Supplement VI, V& VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $13,000 was issued on

October 23, 1997. This action was based on: (1) a Severity Level II problem involving willful violations

of inventory and waste storage requirements that occurred due to lack of adequate resources ($8,000); and

(2) two Severity Level III problems involving violations of reporting requirements and failure to secure

licensed material ($2,500 each). A base civil penalty was considered for the Severity Level 11 violation

because: (1) escalated enforcement action had been taken within the past two inspections, (2) credit was

warranted for identification, and (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action. However, discretion in

accordance with Section VII.A.1 was warranted to double the base civil penalty because the violations were,

in part, repetitive and reflected particularly poor licensee performance. A base civil penalty was proposed

for each of the two Severity Level III problems because: (1) credit for identification was not warranted and

(2) credit for corrective action was warranted. Additionally, a Demand for Information was issued with the

action to obtain further assurance that the licensee's corrective measures will be long-lasting.

Omaha Public Power District, Fort Calhoun Station EA 97432

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $110,000 was issued on

October 24, 1997. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving the disabling of the

containment spray system. Under the normal assessment process, a base civil penalty was appropriate for

this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was not

warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective actions, which were prompt and

comprehensive. However, discretion was exercised due to the similarity to past events to assess a penalty

at twice the base value. (See Appendix E.)

- 89 -
Appendix B

Overhoff Technology Corporation EA 96-242

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on

April 16, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem that involved shipment of devices

containing tritium in excess ofthe exempt quantity, in violation ofthe Licensee's distribution license. A base

civil penalty was proposed because: (I) this violation involved careless disregard, (2) credit was not

warranted for identification and, (3) credit was warranted for corrective action. However, on

August 19, 1998, after reconsideration of the types and quantities of material involved in the violations,

together with the fact that Overhoff constitutes a small entity for purposes of the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and withdrew the civil penalty.

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, Susquehanna, Units 1&2 EA 97-472

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

January 9, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving the failure to establish

adequate controls for activities affecting the quality and operability of the emergency diesel generators

(EDGs). Specifically, PP&L failed to adequately control the position of the EDG Woodward governor

controls and, as a result, one of the required EDGs was inoperable for an indeterminate period of time. A

base civil penalty was proposed for this case because: (I) this was not the first escalated enforcement action

within -the past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for

corrective action.

Philadelphia Electric Co., Limerick EA 98-141

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

July 7, 1998. This action wvas based on a Severity Level III problem involving two violations wvhere the

licensee failed to identify and correct conditions adverse to quality resulting in the inoperability of the high

pressure coolant injection turbine exhaust valve and the residual heat removal minimum flow valve. A base

civil penalty was proposed for this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action

within the past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for

corrective action.

Philadelphia Electric Co., Peach Bottom EA 98-221

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

June 11, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving the failure to establish

adequate instructions and procedures to prevent foreign material from entering the core spray subsystem

and the failure to maintain the core spray subsystem operable. A base civil penalty was proposed for this

case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within the past 2 years, (2) credit was

not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

- 90 -
Appendix B

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Hope Creek EAs 97-144 & 97-563

Supplement I

ANoticeofViolation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amountof$55,000 fora SeverityLevel

I11 violation was issued on March 20, 1998. The violation involved the failure by an operating crew to follow

procedures and act conservatively during a test, while the reactor was shutdown, to demonstrate core

shutdown margin. A base civil penalty was proposed in the case because: (1) this was not the first escalated

enforcement action within the past 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was

warranted for corrective action. A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was also issued in

conjunction with this action (see Appendix A). The Severity Level III problem involved two violations:

(1) the failure to include certain systems, components and functions within the scope ofthe maintenance rule;

and (2) the failure to adequately demonstrate that the performance or condition of a number of systems,

components and functions is being effectively controlled through the performance of appropriate preventive.

The civil penalty was not proposed because: (1) credit was warranted for identification and, (2) credit was

warranted for corrective actions.

Stroh Brewery Company EA 97-486

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,400 for a Severity

Level II violation was issued on December 19, 1997. The violation involved the unauthorized disposal of

a Gamma Model 101 fill-level gauge (containing 100 millicuries ofamericium-24 1) by transferring the gauge

to a scrap recycler. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was a Severity Level 11

violation, (2) credit was not warranted identification because the loss was discovered as a result of an event,

and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

Tennessee Valley A uthority, Sequoyah, Units 1&2 EA 97-409

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

December 8, 1997. The action was based on one Severity Level III problem consisting of three violations

related to a failure to maintain a direct current vital battery channel energized and operable. A base civil

penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within

2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification because prior opportunities to identify the violations

existed, ad (3) credit was determined to be warranted for corrective action. TheNRC subsequentlywithdrew

the civil penalty on February 6, 1998, based on a conclusion that credit for identification was warranted.

Terracon Companies Incorporated E4 97425

Supplement V& VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued on

November 17, 1997. The action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving a deliberate failure

to assure that gauge operators received a manufacturer's safety/training course, as committed to in the

company's license application. A double base civil penalty was proposed because: (1) the violation was

willful, (2) credit was not warranted for identification and, (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action.

- 91 -
Appendix B

Terracon Companies Incorporated EA 98-124

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on

May 15,1998. The action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving the failure to maintain

adequate control of a portable moisture/density gauge, resulting in its theft. A base civil penalty was

proposed because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within the past 2 years, (2) credit

was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective action.

United States Enrichment Corporation, Paducah EA 97-431

Supplement III

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

December 8, 1997. The action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving 5 examples of failure

to maintain control of classified matter (documents, drawings, videotapes, etc.) at the Paducah facility. A

base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) the Paducah facility had been the subject of

escalated enforcement actions within the last two inspections, (2) credit for identification was warranted, and

(3) credit for corrective action was not warranted.

United States Enrichment Corporation, Portsmouth EA 98-012

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 wvas issued on

March 19, 1998. The action was based on a Severity Level III problem for 16 violations involving major

deficiencies in the nuclear criticality safety and self-assessment programs at USEC's Portsmouth facility.

A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) the Portsmouth facility had not been the subject

of escalated enforcement actions within the last two inspections, and (2) credit for USEC's corrective action

was not warranted because significant NRC effort was necessary to focus USEC's corrective action processes

in order to obtain comprehensive corrective actions.

United States Enrichiment Corporation, Portsmouthi EA 98-249

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

July 14, 1998. The action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving a programmatic deficiency

in the maintenance and surveillance program for air-operated, safety-related air-to-close autoclave

containment valves at the Portsmouth plant. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (1) the

Portsmouth facility had been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last two inspections,

(2) credit for identification was not warranted, and (2) credit for corrective action was *warranted.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Vermont Yankee EA 97-531

Supplement I

ANotice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 for a Severity Level

III problem was issued on April 14, 1998. This action was based on violations involving the Technical

Specification (TS) limit for maximum torus operating temperature being inconsistent with the plant design

basis. The licensee failed to ensure that the design basis was correctly translated into specifications when

the TS amendment request was submitted in 1982, failed to promptly evaluate and correct the discrepancy

-92 -
Appendix B

between the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the TS when it was identified in 1994, and failed to

report operation of the plant in a condition outside of the design basis. A base civil penalty was proposed

in this case because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within the past two years,

(2) credit was not warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective actions.

Washington Hospital Center EA 97-145

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on

April 28, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving six violations related to the

control of radioactive waste at the facility. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case because: (I) this

was not the first escalated enforcement action within the past two years, (2) credit was not warranted for

identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective actions.

Westinghouse Electric Company EA 97-442

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $13,750 was issued on

January 6, 1998. This action was based on eight violations involving criticality safety controls considered

in the aggregate to represent a Severity Level III problem. A base civil penalty was proposed in this case

because: (1) this was not the first escalated enforcement action within the past two years, (2) credit was not

warranted for identification, and (3) credit was warranted for corrective actions.

Wood River Medical Center .EA 97-613

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on

April 27, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving 21 violations indicative

of a breakdown in control of licensed activities. The more significant programmatic violations included

failures to: (I) ensure that an individual under the supervision of an authorized user was adequately

instructed, and to periodicallyreviewthe supervised individual's use of licensed material and the records kept

to reflect this use, (2) maintain management oversight and control ofthe radiation safety program, (3) ensure

that the RSC met quarterly, (4) conduct quarterly reviews of occupational radiation doses of certain

personnel, (5) perform annual reviews of the radiation safety program, (6) provide radiation safety refresher

training, (7) notify the NRC of the discontinuation of an authorized user's duties, (8) seek amendment to the

license prior to relocating an area of use, and (9) the failure to maintain records that were complete and

accurate. Three of the cited violations are repetitive from the previous NRC inspection conducted on

November 2, 1993. Mitigation of the civil penalty was warranted because: (I) the licensee has not been

subject to escalated enforcement action within the last two inspections, and (2) credit for corrective action

was warranted. However, discretion was applied to assess a base civil penalty of $2,750 because of the

particularly poor licensee performance reflected by the numerous violations. (See Appendix E.)

- 93 -
Appendix C

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF ORDERS

IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY ORDERS

Centerior Service Company, Perry, Unit I EA 97-430

Supplement I

An Order Imposing Civil Penalty in the amount of $50,000 was issued on April 9, 1998. On

November 13, 1997, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$100,000 had been issued to Centerior Service Company. This action was based on two Severity Level III

violations. The first violation involved an inadvertent reactivity addition that was not prevented by corrective

actions for a similar prior event. The second violation, cited against 10 CFR 50.59, involved changes to

procedures involving the Emergency Closed Cooling System (component cooling) that resulted in an

Unreviewed Safety Question. Civil Penalties in the amount of $50,000 were proposed for each of the

Severity Level III violations. The licensee paid the civil penalty for the violation involving the inadvertent

reactivity addition. The licensee denied the violation associated with 10 CFR 50.59 and requested remission

of the associated $50,000 civil penalty. After careful consideration of the licensee's response, the staff

concluded that the licensee did not provide an adequate basis for either the violation to be rescinded or the

civil penalty to be mitigated.

Conam Inspection Incorporated EA 97-207

Supplement IV& VI

An Order Imposing a Civil Penalty in the amount of$ 16,000 was issued on November 6, 1997. This action

was based on a Severity Level II problem involving failure to: (1) secure the radiographic device in the

shielded position; (2) perform an adequate survey after each radiographic exposure; and (3) limit the annual

occupational dose to an adult radiographer to 5 rems. The licensee admitted the first violation but denied the

others and requested remission or full mitigation of the civil penalty. After careful consideration of the

licensee's response, the staffconcluded that: (I) the violations occurred as set forth in theNotice, and (2)the

licensee did not provide an adequate basis for reduction of the Severity Level or mitigation of the civil

penalty.

Ground Engineering and Testing EA 98-021

Supplement VI

An Order Imposing a Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,750 was issued on June 15, 1998. A Notice of

Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,500 was issued on March 25, 1998.

The action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving the willful failure of this Agreement State

licensee to file for reciprocity before conducting work in NRC jurisdiction. A double base civil penalty

was proposed because: (1) this violation was associated with careless disregard, (2) credit was not

warranted for identification and, (3) credit was not warranted for corrective action. The licensee admitted

the violation occurred as stated but denied that the violation was the result of careless disregard and

requested that the civil penalty be mitigated based upon prompt corrective action. After careful

consideration of the licensee's response, the staff concluded that: (1) the failure to obtain an NRC license or

file for reciprocity represented careless disregard, and (2) credit was warranted for prompt corrective action.

Therefore, the NRC imposed a base civil penalty in the amount of $2,750.

- 94 -
Appendix C

Kocht Engineering Company Incorporated EA 98-061

Supplement V

An Order Imposing a Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,400 was issued on June 12, 1998. A Notice of

Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $4,400 was issued on March 13, 1998.

The action was based on a Severity Level II violation involving failure to ensure, by examination ortest, that

each closure device of a package containing radioactive material was properly installed, secured, and free

of defects before transportation. A base civil penalty was proposed because: (I) the violation was classified

as a Severity Level II, (2) credit for identification was not warranted, and (3) credit for corrective action was

warranted. The licensee admitted the violation but disputed the Severity Level II categorization. After

careful consideration of the licensee's response, the staff concluded that the licensee did not provide an

adequate basis for reducing the Severity Level of the violation or for withdrawal of the civil penalty.

Power Inspection Incorporated EA 95-025

Supplement VI & VII

An Order Imposing a Civil Penalty in the amount of $40,000 was issued on February 3, 1998. This action

was based on 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 deliberate failure to provide complete

and accurate information to two NRC licensees. The Severity Level I problem, which involved radiographyrelated issues, was issued for deliberate failures to provide the NRC complete and accurate information and

for numerous safety violations. After careful consideration of the licensee's response to the Notice, the staff

concluded that: the licensee did not provide an adequate basis for reduction of the Severity Level or

mitigation of the civil penalty.

Western Colorado Testing EA 96-459

Supplement VI

An Order Imposing a Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500 was issued on October28, 1997. This action was

based on a Severity Level III violation involving willful failure to file for reciprocity before conducting

activities in areas under NRC jurisdiction. After careful consideration of the licensee's response to the

Notice, the staff concluded that: (I) the violation did occur as set forth in the Notice, and (2) the licensee did

not provide an adequate basis for mitigation of the civil penalty.

CONFIRMATORY. MODIFICATION. SUSPENSION. AND CEASE & DESIST ORDERS

Colon-Vaquer, Jose, M.D. EA 98-183

Supplement VI

A Confirmatory Order Modifying License was issued on April 21, 1998, to require that the use of a

strontium-90 eye applicator cease and that the device be placed in storage. The device had been used after

the license expired and two misadministrations occurred.

Frontier Production Logging EAs 97-327& 97-457

Supplement VI

ANotice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of$2,750 and a Confirmatory

Order Modifying License was issued on November 7, 1997. These actions were based on: (1) a Severity

-95 -
Appendix C

Level III violation involving a willful failure to file the necessary documentation to receive NRC approval

prior to vacating an authorized radioactive material storage location; and (2) a Severity Level III problem

concerning failure to: (a) restrict doses in unrestricted areas to 2 millirem in any 1 hour, (b) make adequate

surveys of radiation levels in unrestricted areas; utilize authorized shipping containers while transporting

radioactive material, (d) monitor, upon receipt, the external surfaces of Department of Transportation (DOT)

labeled packages for radioactive contamination, and (e) properly post areas in which licensed materials are

stored. The staff issued the Confirmatory Order to confirm the licensee's commitments to obtain radiation

safety training and independent audits of the radiation safety program.

J&L Testing Company, Inc. EA 96-110

Supplement VI

An Order Revoking License was issued April 10, 1998. This action was based on an inspection and

investigation which found deliberate and widespread wrongdoing, including unauthorized use of byproduct

material, submission of inaccurate information to NRC, violations of license conditions and destruction of

records.

Moisture Protection Systems EA 98-213

Supplement VI

An Order Modifying Order Suspending License and Order Revoking License was issued on April 20, 1998.

The order was based on the company's failure to pay annual fees, failure to afford NRC the opportunity to

inspect, and the apparent careless disregard of Commission requirements on the part of the licensee's

principal officer. A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,500

was also issued with the order. (See EA 97-605 in Appendix B.)

NDT Services, Inc. EA 98-108

Supplement VI

An Order Suspending License was issued March 27, 1998. This action was based on numerous violations

identified during an inspection and investigation which indicated that the licensee was either unwilling or

unable to comply with NRC requirements for the safe conduct of industrial radiography.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas 1 EA 97-341

Supplement VII

A Confirmatory Order Modifying License was issued on June 9, 1998. The order modified the license to

ensure that the licensee's process for addressing employee protection and safety concerns will be enhanced.

The NRC also exercised enforcement discretion pursuant to Section VII B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and

refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation or a civil penalty for discrimination violations. (See

Appendix E.)

- 96-
Appendix C

U. S. Energy Enrichment Corporation

Supplement IV

EA 98-156

A Confirmatory Order Modifying Certificate was issued for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant on

April22, 1998. The Orderwas issued to confirm commitments on the part ofthe Certificate holder to install

seismic modifications required to bring the facility back into compliance with the Safety Analysis Report.

-97-
Appendix D

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF DEMANDS

FOR INFORMATION

O1tio State University EA 97-258

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties and a Demand for information were issued

on October 23, 1998. These actions were based on failure to correct known or suspected problems in a timely

manner, which were considered to represent careless disregard for NRC requirements by those responsible

for program activities at OSU. The DFI required further assurance concerning the ability of OSU to

effectively conduct activities as a broadscope licensee.

Siensens Power Corporation - Nuclear Division EA 97-495

A Demand for Information and a Notice of Nonconformance were issued October 27, 1997, based on an

inspection that identified safety-significant issues with regard to the design and manufacture of nuclear fuel,

including failure to comply with established methodologies to verify the adequacy of critical power

correlation and its application to a fuel assembly design. The DFI was issued to determine whethertheNRC

should have confidence in the company's engineering capabilities and whether the company will, in the

future, conduct its activities in accordance with NRC-approved generic design criteria, without requiring

NRC approval of new fuel designs.

Sierra Nuclear Corporation EA 97-441

A Demand for Information was issued October 6, 1997, based on an inspection which found significant

failures of the company's qualityassurance (QA) and corrective action (CA) programs to identify and correct

design and fabrication deficiencies for spent fuel storage casks. The DFI sought information as to why the

NRC should not suspend the company's fabrication of ventilated dry storage casks until the problems that

were identified were resolved.

-98 -
Appendix D

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 99 -
Appendix E

APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF CASES INVOLVING

EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

Section VII.A - Escalation of Enforcement Sanctions

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., Calvert Cliffs EA 98-280

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

September 2, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem consisting of three violations that

involved multiple failures to adhere to radiological control procedures during replacement of nuclear

instrumentation (NI) detectors in the reactor annulus. These violations included: (I) the failure of workers

to wear alarming dosimetry when entering the reactor annulus; (2) the failure of radiation protection

personnel to stop work when unexpected alarms and radiological conditions were encountered; and (3) the

failure to properly determine worker stay times for work in a high radiation area. Although the civil penalty

would have been fully mitigated under the normal assessment process (based on the fact that the problem was

not the first escalated action within 2 years, that credit was warranted for identification and corrective

actions), discretion was exercised in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy because:

(1) of particularly poor previous performance, and (2) failure to preclude recurrence of the violations.

Breitling USA Watch Co., EA 98-163

Supplement VI

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was issued on July 10, 1998, for two

Severity Level 11 problems. The violations involved the possession and use, as well as distribution, of NRC

licensed material (tritium in watches) without possessing NRC licenses authorizing these activities. After

considering the regulatory significance of the violations, which included the inability of theNRC to conduct

inspections ofyour activities, the duration of the violations, the costs of maintainingNRC licenses which you

avoided during the period of noncompliance, and your failure to promptly contact the NRC once you had

indications that the need for a license was likely, the NRC has determined, in accordance with

Section VII.A.L .(a) ofthe Enforcement Policy, that it is appropriate to exercise enforcement discretion in this

case and issue separate civil penalties in the amount of $13,200 for each of the two violations, resulting in

a cumulative civil penalty of $26,400. The NRC arrived at the $13,200 amount for each civil penalty by

tripling the base civil penalty amount of $4,400 for a Severity Level 11 violation listed in Tables IA and IB,

Base Civil Penalties, of the Enforcement Policy.

Carolina Power and Light Company, Shearon Harris EA 98-020

Supplement III

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $55,000 was issued on

March 26, 1998. The action involved a Severity Level III violation for two examples in which individuals

were inappropriately granted unescorted access to the protected and vital areas of the plant. Although the

civil penalty would have been fully mitigated under the normal assessment process (based on the fact that

the violation was not the first escalated action within 2 years, and that credit was warranted for identification

and corrective actions), discretion was exercised in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement

Policy because of the failure to preclude recurrence of the violations.

- 100 -
Appendix E

Commonwealth Edison Company, Quad Cities, Units 1&2 EA 97-591

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A. I of the Enforcement Policy

and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties in the amount of $330,000 on

March 12, 1998. This action was based on two Severity Level III problems consisting of two violations

involving performing reactor coolant pressure boundary leakage testing at 12% power and six violations

involving the failure to perform adequate ASME Code visual testing of the pressure boundary. Although

a base civil penalty and double base civil penalty would have been assessed under the normal process, the

NRC determined that discretion was warranted to double each civil penalty due to the particularly poor

performance as manifested in the poor management oversight of these plant activities.

DeLeon, M.D., Dr. Jose N EA 97-627

Supplement VI

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy

and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 on

April 28, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III violation involving failure to establish and

maintain a written quality management program to provide high confidence that Sr-90 will be administered

as directed by an authorized user, which resulted in 9 misadministrations of radiation dose to 9 patients.

Discretion was warranted because: (1) Dr. Le6n was directly responsible for 9 misadministrations at his

facility, and (2) Dr. Le6n failed to identify a significant change in treatment time calculated by a health

physics consultant or to take further action to verify the accuracy of the calculations prior to treatment of

patients.

Florida Power and Light Company, St. Lucie, Units 1&2 EA 98-009

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy

and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for a Severity Level II in the

amount of $88,000 on March 25, 1998. The action involved two violations associated with the licensee's

failure to properly calibrate the Refueling Water Tank (RWT) level bistables. Although the civil penalty

would have been fully mitigated under the normal assessment process (because: (I) this was not the first

escalated enforcement action within 2 years, (2) credit was warranted for identification and (3) credit was

warranted for corrective actions), the NRC exercised enforcement discretion. Discretion was warranted

because: (1) the violations resulted in a significant increase in risk over the more than 4 year period, (2) the

violations were not associated with old design issues, and (3) better quality assurance of engineering activities

at the time of the setpoint change could have prevented the violation.

Mallinckrodt Medical Incorporated EA 97-342 & 97-355

Supplement IV

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Sections VII.A.1. of the Enforcement Policy

and issued a Severity Level I problem in the amount of $55,500 on December 17, 1997. The action was

based on: (I) a Severity Level I problem involving failure to limit the annual shallow-dose equivalent of an

occupational worker to 50 rems and failure to make or cause to be made surveys to assure compliance with

10 CFR Part20; and (2) a SeverityLevel I11 violation for delivering to a carrier for transport licensed material

in two packages that arrived at their destinations with contact radiation levels that exceeded 200 millirem.

- 101 -
Appendix E

Notwithstanding credit for the licensee's identification and corrective action, enforcement discretion was

warranted for the Severity Level I problem because of the excessive dose received by the individual, which

was clearly preventable. As for the Severity Level III violation, discretion was exercised to issue a double

base civil penalty to ensure that the civil penalty reflected the repetitive nature of the violation, the

significance ofthe circumstances, and the need forthe licensee to take actions on information indicating that

transportation problems continued to exist.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone, Units 1,2 &3 EA 96-034, 96-067, 96-086, & 96-106

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.l of the NRC Enforcement

Policy and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of

$2,100,000 on December 10, 1997. The action was based on three Severity Level II and one Severity

Level III problems consisting of multiple individual violations. Discretion was warranted because of:

(1) the degree of noncompliance with NRC requirements, (2) the high regulatory significance that the NRC

attaches to the significant conditions adverse to quality that existed at Millstone, and the importance of

effective management and oversight to ensure compliance with NRC requirements and achievement of a

safety conscious environment that encourages employees to bring forth and resolve concerns, (3) the need

to ensure that similar management oversight was maintained at Seabrook, and (4) the importance of sending

a similar message to the nuclear industry regarding the importance of such oversight.

Ohio State University EA 97-258

Supplement VI, V &VI

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A. 1 of the Enforcement Policy

and issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $13,000 on

October 23, 1997. This action is based on: (1) a Severity Level II problem involving willful violations

of inventory and waste storage requirements that occurred due to lack of adequate resources, and (2) two

Severity Level III problems involving violations of reporting requirements and failure to secure licensed

material. Additionally, a Demand for Information was issued with the action to obtain further assurance

that the licensee's corrective measures will be long-lasting. For the Severity Level II problem, discretion

was exercised to double the base civil penalty because the violations were, in part repetitive and reflected

particularly poor performance, and the licensee allowed the violations, to continue after initial

identification, demonstrating careless disregard for NRC requirements

Omaha Public Power District, Fort Calhoun Station EA 97432

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A. 1 of the Enforcement Policy

to assess a penalty at twice the base value for a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil

Penalty in the amount of $110,000 that was issued on October 24, 1997. This action was based on a

Severity Level III problem involving the disabling of the containment spray system. Discretion was

warranted because of the similarity of this incident to a March 1996 incident and the significance of two

such events occurring within 18 months. In addition, the NRC considered the fact that corrective actions

for the previous incident should have prevented this error or caught this error soon after it occurred.

- 102 -
Appendix E

Wood River Medical Center EA 97-613

Supplement VI

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy

to assess a base civil penalty foraNotice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount

of $2,750 that was issued on April 27, 1998. This action was based on a Severity Level III problem involving

21 violations indicative of a breakdown in control of licensed activities. Although full mitigation of the civil

penalty was warranted under the normal assessment process (because: (1) the licensee has not been subject

to escalated enforcement action within the last two inspections, and (2) credit for corrective action was

warranted), discretion was applied to assess a base civil penalty of $2,750 because of the particularly poor

licensee performance reflected by the numerous violations.

Section VII.B.2 - Violations Identified During Extended Shlltdowns

or Work Stoppages

Commonwealth Edison Company, LaSalle County Station EA 98-217

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated May 9, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section

VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation for six

violations that would be classified at Severity Level III involving licensee identified engineering design

deficiencies identified during an extended shutdown. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the violations

were licensee-identified as a result ofa comprehensive program for problem identification and correction that

was developed in response to the shutdown; (2) the violations were based upon activities which took place

prior to the events leading to the shutdown of the facility; (3) the violations were not wilful; (4) the facility

was shutdown for performance reasons including engineering and design issues such as these, and in

enforcement actions issued September 29, 1997 which involved a Severity Level III problem for the failure

to adequately control design changes to the residual heat removal service water system and the control room

radiation monitoring system; (5) the licensee's decision to restart the facility requires NRC concurrence;

(6) the licensee had demonstrated that remedial action was being taken to ensure adequacy of design margins

prior to restart of the facility; and, (7) the NRC issued a $650,000 civil penalty on January 24, 1997, which

included sanctions for engineering violations related to the failure to understand the design functions and

performance characteristics of safety-related systems.

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck EA 97-079

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated January 15, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance

with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of

Violation for a Severity Level III violation involving the calibration of effluent radiation monitoring system

components. Discretion was warranted because the violation was based on events prior to the plant

shutdown, and the NRC had already taken a significant enforcement action on May 12, 1997, for the

technical and safety review program inadequacies that led to this and other violations.

- 103 -
Appendix E

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck EA 97-366

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy

and did not issue a Notice of Violation or propose a civil penalty for a violation related to the licensee's

failure to perform an adequate 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation for a change in which an operator was used

to compenfsate for feedwater regulating valves that could not perform their intended design function under

certain circumstances. This violation resulting in an unreviewed safety question. Discretion was exercised

because the violation was based on events prior to the plant shutdown, and significant enforcement action

had been taken for the technical and safety review program inadequacies that led to this and other

violations.

Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River EA 97-565

Supplement I

In a letter to he licensee dated December 29, 1997, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of

Violation for numerous violations described in 44 Licensee Event Reports including some at Severity Level

III involving noncompliances in design control, 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations, procedural

adequacy/adherence, reportability, and corrective actions. Discretion was warranted because: (1) most

of the issues were identified by the licensee and enforcement action is not considered necessary to achieve

remedial action for those issues identified by the NRC; (2) the violations, for the most part, were based

upon activities which took place before the events leading to the shutdown of Crystal River Unit 3; (3) the

violations were not considered to be willful and would not be categorized at a Severity Level higher than

Severity Level II; (4) the Crystal River facility is shut down for performance reasons including similar

violations for which significant enforcement action was previously taken and will remain shut down until

completion of a comprehensive program of improvements in the engineering area; (5) the licensee has

demonstrated that remedial action is being taken to ensure reestablishment of design margins for plant

systems prior to plant restart; (6) the licensee's decision to restart Crystal River Unit 3 requires NRC

concurrence; and, (9) the licensee has made substantial progress in resolving the issues and they will be

appropriately considered in the restart decision.

Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River EA 98-040

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated January 29, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.13.2 of the Enforcement Policyand refrained from issuinga civil penalty oraNotice of Violation

for six violations described in Licensee Event Reports including some at Severity Level III. Discretion was

warranted because: (I) most of the issues were identified by.the licensee and enforcement action is not

considered necessary to achieve remedial action for those issues identified by the NRC; (2) the violations,

for the most part, were based upon activities which took place before the events leading to the shutdown of

Crystal River Unit 3; (3) the violations were not considered to be willful and would not be categorized at a

Severity Level higher than Severity Level II; (4) the Crystal River facility is shut down for performance

reasons including similar violations for which significant enforcement action was previously taken and will

remain shut down until completion of a comprehensive program of improvements in the engineering area;

(5) the licensee has demonstrated that remedial action is being taken to ensure reestablishment of design

margins for plant systems prior to plant restart; (6) the licensee's decision to restart Crystal River Unit 3

- 104-
Appendix E

requires NRC concurrence; and, (9) the licensee has made substantial progress in resolving the issues and

they will be appropriately considered in the restart decision.

Illinois Power Company, Clinton EA- 98-189

Supplement I

On March 27, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.2 and

refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation or civil penalty for a potential Severity Level III violation of

10 CFR 50, Appendix B. Specifically, the violation involved several issues concerning procedural adequacy

and adherence, corrective actions, design control, and safety evaluations for system testing. These violations

were not cited because they stemmed from licensed activities prior to the shutdown period and were

addressed by broad comprehensive licensee programs underway at Clinton identify and correct such

problems.

Illinois Power Company, Clinton EA- 98-266

Supplement I

On May 11, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.2 and

refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation or civil penalty for a potential Severity Level III violation of

IOCFR50 Appendix B. Specifically, the violation involved several issues concerning adherence to

requirements in the technical specifications associated with ventilation filter testing program and corrective

actions. These violations were not cited because they stemmed from I icensed activities prior to the shutdown

period and were addressed by broad comprehensive licensee programs underway at Clinton identify and

correct such problems.

Illinois Power Company, Clinton Power Station EA 98-403

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated August 7, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty oraNotice of Violation

for violations that could be classified at Severity Level III concerning the failure to take adequate corrective

actions for a long-standing, nonconforming condition involving excessive service water flow to the residual

heat removal heat exchanger bypass line, and concerning an inadequate testing program for 48OVac molded

case circuit breakers. Discretion was warranted because: (1) significant enforcement action was taken

against the licensee for corrective action program problems; (2) additional enforcement action was not

considered necessary to achieve remedial action for the violations due to Clinton Power Station's

commitments in its Plan for Excellence to take actions to address the corrective action program issues prior

to restart; (3) the violations were related to problems which were present prior to the events leading to the

shutdown; (4) the violations were not wilful; and (5) under the terms of the restart of the facility, the NRC

will thoroughly review the adequacy of the licensee's corrective action program prior to restart.

Molycorp, York, Pennsylvania EA 98449

Supplement VI

In a lettertothe licenseedated September29, 1998,theNRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance

with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation for a

Severity Level III violation involving the failure to conduct decommissioning activities in accordance with

an NRC approved decommissioning plan. Discretion was warranted for the violation because: (1) the

- 105 -
Appendix E

licensee had submitted a decommissioning plan to the NRC; (2) the NRC had inspected the licensee four

times during its decommissioning activities and concluded that the licensee's decommissioning program was

being implemented safely; and (3) the reason why the licensee did not wait for the NRC to approve its

decommissioning plan prior to starting decommissioning activities was because the licensee mistakenly

thought that it was required to complete all decommissioning activities within 24 months of submitting its

plan to the NRC rather than within 24 months of the NRC approving the plan.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone EA 96-183

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated April 16, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance

with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of

Violation for a Severity Level III violation involving inaccurate information given to the NRC concerning

the design basis capability of certain motor operated valves in Unit 2. Discretion was warranted because

the facility had been in an extended shutdown and the NRC had taken significant enforcement action for

the performance issues that led to the shutdown. Further, the violation was: (1) based on licensee

practices prior to the shutdown, (2) not classified higher than a Severity Level II, and (3) not willful.

Additionally, plant restart required NRC concurrence. Although the violation was NRC identified,

discretion was appropriate because the NRC had in place a formal restart plan that provided a broad-based

evaluation of Millstone readiness for restart that confirmed that corrective actions for this issue was taken.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone EA 96-352

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated April 16, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance

with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of

Violation for Severity Level III violations involving (1) the failure to provide troubleshooting plan

guidelines, (2) the Unit 1 control rod drive system was not brought into design requirements within the

required time period, (3) procedure inadequacies that resulted in the failure to lock open the Unit 2

refueling drain valves during an operating cycle as required by the FSAR, and (4) the failure to implement

corrective actions stated in certain licensee event reports. Discretion was warranted because the facility

had been in an extended shutdown and the NRC had taken significant enforcement action for the

performance issues that led to the shutdown. Further, the violations were (1) based on licensee practices

prior to the shutdown, (2) not classified higher than a Severity Level II, and (3) not willful. Additionally,

plant restart required NRC concurrence. Although some aspects of the violations were NRC identified,

discretion was appropriate because the NRC had in place a formal restart plan that provided a broad-based

evaluation of Millstone readiness for restart that confirmed that corrective actions for these issues were

taken.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone Unit I EA 97-205

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated June 1, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a formal Notice of Violation and

proposed civil penalty for violations involving a failure to identify and correct LPCI heat exchanger fouling.

Discretion was warranted because the violations: (1) were related to past performance inadequacies which

predated the licensee's extended shutdown; (2) would not have been characterized at a severity level higher

- 106-
Appendix E

than Severity Level 11; and (3) were not willful. In addition, the licensee was prohibited from restarting its

plant without NRC concurrence.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone Unit 1 EA 97-206

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated June 1, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a formal Notice of Violation and

proposed civil penalty for violations involving a failure to adequately perform leak rate testing of certain

containment isolation valves. Discretion was warranted because the violations: (1) were related to past

performance inadequacies which predated the licensee's extended shutdown; (2) would not have been

characterized at a severity level higher than Severity Level II; and (3) were not willful. In addition, the

licensee was prohibited from restarting its plant without NRC concurrence.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone EA 97-304

Supplement I

In a lettertothe licensee dated April 16, 1998, theNRCexercised enforcementdiscretion in accordance with

Section VII .B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation involving deficiencies in procedures used for technical specification

required surveillances in Unit 2. Discretion was warranted because the facility had been in an extended

shutdown and the NRC had taken significant enforcement action for the performance issues that led to the

shutdown. Further, the violation was (1) based on licensee practices prior to the shutdown, (2) not classified

higher than a Severity Level 11, and (3) not willful. Additionally, plant restart required NRC concurrence.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone EA 97-377

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated April 16, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with

Section VIl.B.2 ofthe Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation involving potential vortexing and water hammer in the recirculation spray

and quench spray systems in Unit 3. Discretion was warranted because the facility had been in an extended

shutdown and the NRC had taken significant enforcement action for the performance issues that led to the

shutdown. Further, theviolationwas: (I)based on licensee practices prior to the shutdown, (2) not classified

higher than a Severity Level 11, and (3) not willful. Additionally, plant restart required NRC concurrence.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone EA 97-561

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated April 16, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation

for Severity Level III violations involving functional deficiencies in the setting of Unit 3 throttle valve

positions and failure to identify and analyze trends in the corrective action program. Discretion was

warranted because the facility had been in an extended shutdown and the NRC had taken significant

enforcement action for the performance issues that led to the shutdown. Further, the violations were:

(1) based on licensee practices prior to the shutdown, (2) not classified higher than a Severity Level II, and

(3) not willful. Additionally, plant restart required NRC concurrence. Although some aspects of the

violations were NRC identified, discretion was appropriate because the NRC had in place a formal restart

- 107-
Appendix E

plan that provided a broad-based evaluation of Millstone readiness for restart that confirmed that corrective

actions for these issues were taken.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone, Units 1,2& 3 EA 97-562

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing enforcement action for a potential Severity Level III violation involving the

inadequacy in the technical specification required program to minimize leakage outside the containment.

Specifically, the program did not account for potential valve leakage from systems which could carry highly

radioactive water to the refueling water storage tank following a postulated accident. Discretion was

warranted because the violation involved an old design issue that preceded the plant shutdown. This

discretion was issued in conjunction with a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in

the amount of $55,000 on March 9, 1998. (See Appendix B.)

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone EA 98-179

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing a civil penalty in conjunction with a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III

violation that was issued on May 6, 1998. This action was based on the failure to maintain an adequate PASS

program that ensured the capability to obtain and analyze samples under post accident conditions. Although

a civil penalty could have been proposed for the licensee's failure to take corrective action to prevent

recurring failure of the PASS and the failure to fully identify and correct the weaknesses in the PASS

program during the licensee's internal audit, the NRC decided to exercise enforcement discretion pursuant

to Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy and not propose a civil penalty in this case. The decision to

exercise discretion was made because the facility had been in an extended shutdown, the NRC had taken

significant enforcement action for the performance issues that led to the shutdown and considering that the

violation was: (1) based on licensee practices prior to the shutdown; (2) not classified higher than Severity

Level 11; and (3) not willful.

Public Service and Gas Company, Salem Units I & 2 EA 97-182

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation for Severity Level III violations involving

the potential RHRpump runout condition and the crediting ofcontainment overpressure in RHR pump NPSH

calculations. These violations were not cited because they stemmed from licensed activities prior to the

shutdown period and were addressed by broad comprehensive licensee programs underway at Salem to

identify and correct such problems. This exercise of discretion was issued in conjunction with a Notice of

Violation that was issued on October 8, 1997. (See Appendix A.)

- 108-
- Appendix E

Section VII.B.3 - Violations Involving Old Design Issues

Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim EA 98-411

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated August 7, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or aNotice of Violation

for a violation that could be classified at Severity Level III concerning incorrect plant configuration during

torus inerting operations that could have led to the suppression pool being bypassed during a simultaneous

design basis accident. Discretion was warranted because: (I) the violation was identified by the licensee's

good questioning attitude during a voluntary initiative; (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) the violation was not reasonably linked to current performance.

Boston Edison Company, Pilgrim EA 98-387

Supplement I

On August 28, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.3 and

refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation or civil penalty for a potential Severity Level III violation of

10 CFR 50 Appendix B. This violation involved the identification by the licencee of degraded voltage time

delay relay setting being set non-conservatively. Discretion was exercised because: (1) the issue was

discovered by the licensee during design basis reviews, (2) the conditions were subtle in nature and not likely

to be disclosed through routine surveillance or quality assurance, (3) corrective actions following

identification were comprehensive and timely, and (4) the violation was not reasonably linked to current

licensee performance.

Carolina Power & Light Company, H. B. Robinson EA 97-489

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated November 7, 1997, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with Section

VII.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation for a

Severity Level III violation for unauthorized movement of a spent fuel cask. Discretion was warranted

because: (I) the movement of the spent fuel cask in the unauthorized configuration was considered an old

design issue; (2) the licensee was unaware of the departure from the safety analysis report until a similarerror

was identified at another facility at which time the licensee identified an unreviewed safety question; (3)

corrective actions were comprehensive and timely; (4) the issue was not likely to be identified by routine

surveillance or quality assurance activities; and, (5) the condition was promptly reported to the NRC.

Carolina Power and Light Company Brunswick Steam Electric Plant EA 97-521

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated December 10, 1997, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penaltyoraNotice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation for unauthorized movement of a spent fuel cask. Discretion was warranted

because: (1) the movement of the spent fuel cask in the unauthorized configuration was considered an old

design issue; (2)the licenseewas unaware ofthe departure from thesafetyanalysis report until a similarerror

was identified at another facility at which time the licensee identified an unreviewed safety question;

- 109-
Appendix E

(3) corrective actions were comprieiensive and timely; (4) the issue Wis niiot likely to be identified by routine

surveillance or quality assurance activities; and, (5) the condition was promptly reported to the NRC.

Centerior Service Company, Perry EA-482

Supplement I

On November 18, 1997, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.3 and

refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation or civil penalty for a potential Severity Level III violation of

10 CFR 50 Appendix R. This violation involved the identification of a two year period when a means had

not been established to protect cables and equipment of a least one redundant train of safe shutdown

equipment from hot shorts during a postulated control room fire. Discretion was exercised because: (I) the

issue was discovered by the licensee, (2) the initial evaluation by plant staff of NRC Information Notice (IN)

No. 92-18, "Potential for Loss of Remote Shutdown Capability During a Control Room Fire," dated

March 28, 1992, was adequate based on the available information, (3) corrective actions following

identification of additional information in 1996 were adequate, (4) modifications were made to all affected

equipment, (5) improved processes for multi-disciplined design change reviews were made, and (6) this issue

was not linked to current performance.

Conimonwealth Edison Company, Dresden Nuclear Station EA 96-388

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated December 30, 1997, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.3 ofthe Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penaltyoraNotice of Violation

for a Severity level III violation involving the failure to adequately protect safe shutdown motor operated

valves from mechanical damage from fire induced circuit failures. Discretion was warranted because of the

widespread confusion within the industry concerning the requirements of this issue and the facts that the

vulnerabilities were identified and corrected by the licensee.

Common wealth Edison Company, Quad Cities Nuclear Station EA 96-389

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated December 30, 1997, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII .B.3 of the Enforcement Policyand refrained from issuing a civil penaltyoraNotice of Violation

for a Severity level III violation involving the failure to adequately protect safe shutdown motor operated

valves from mechanical damage from fire induced circuit failures. Discretion was warranted because of the

widespread confusion within the industry concerning the requirements of this issue and the facts that the

vulnerabilities were identified and corrected by the licensee.

Duke Power Company, Oconee EA 98-268

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level 1I violation was issued on August 5, 1998. The action was based

on: (I) the failure to implement the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, to incorporate

design basis requirements into drawings and procedures; and, (2) the failure to maintain Technical

Specification (TS) equipment in an operable condition. The NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.3 and refrained from issuing a civil penalty because: (1) the violation involved a past problem

in design that the licensee identified as a result of a voluntary effort, (2) corrective actions were

comprehensive, and (3) routine licensee efforts were not likely to have identified the deficiencies.

- 110-
Appendix E

Duquesne Light Company, Beave)r Valley Power Station EA 98-072

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated March 9, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.3 ofthe Enforcement Policyand refrained from issuing acivil penalty ofaNotice of Violation

for a violation that could be classified at Severity Level III involving a design deficiency with certain

electrical circuit cards that had the potential, under certain conditions to cause safety-related equipment to

malfunction. Discretion was warranted because: (I) the design deficiency was identified by the licensee's

staff; (2) corrective actions were comprehensive and timely; (3) the design deficiency was subtle in nature

and not likelyto be disclosed through routine surveillance orqualityassuranceactivities; and (4)theviolation

was not reasonably linked to current licensee performance.

Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley, Unit 2 EA- 98-138

Supplement I

On March 17, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.3 and

refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation or civil penalty for a potential Severity Level III violation of

10 CFR 50, Appendices A and B. This violation involved the identification by the licencee of the Unit 2

control room emergency ventilation system design being inadequate in that the system function was

vulnerable to failure from a single active failure from a single active component failure. Discretion was

exercised because: (I) the issue was discovered by the licensee, (2) the conditions were subtle in nature and

not likely to be disclosed through routine surveillance or quality assurance, (3) corrective actions following

identification were comprehensive and timely, and (4) the violation was not reasonably linked to current

licensee performance.

Florida Power and Light Company, Turkey Point, Units I and 2 EA 98-394

Supplement I

On August 14,1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.3 and

refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation or civil penalty for a potential Severity Level III violation of

10 CFR 50, Appendix B. This violation involved the identification by the licencee of a past failure to

adequately separate non-safety and safety-related electrical loads, which resulted in the potential for a loss

of power to motor-operated valves in a train of the residual heat removal system. Discretion was exercised

because: (1) the issue was discovered by the licensee through a self-initiated audit of instrument busses,

(2) the issue was not likely to have been identified by routine surveillance or quality assurance reviews,

(3) actions were promptly completed to provide power for the affected relays from properly protected

safety-related power supplies, (4) the violation was not reasonably linked to current licensee performance,

and (5) the issue was reported to the NRC.

GPU Nuclear Corporation, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station EA 97-473

Supplenment I

In a letter to the licensee dated October 9, 1997 the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or aNotice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation involving a licensee identified deficiency in the engineered safeguards

actuation system that affected the ability of the building spray and low pressure injection pumps to maintain

adequate net positive suction head after a design basis loss of coolant accident with a single failure of a DC

bus. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the violation was identified by the licensee staffs good

- IlI -
Appendix E

questioning attitudes during voluntary initiatives; (2) corrective actions, both taken and planned, 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) the violation is not reasonably linked to current

performance.

Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point EA 97-228

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated March 13, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.3 ofthe Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation

for violations that could be considered at Severity Level II or III involving the failure to adequately protect

safe shutdown motor operated valves from mechanical damage from fire induced circuit failures. Discretion

was warranted because: (I) the violations were identified by the licensee, (2) corrective actions taken were

comprehensive and timely, (3) the conditions were subtle in nature and not likely to be disclosed through

routine surveillance or quality assurance activities, and (4) the violations were not reasonably linked to

current performance.

Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Susquehanna EA 98-352

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated July 31, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.3 ofthe Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation

foraviolationthatcould be classified at SeverityLevel III involving the licensee's identificationthatmultiple

4.16KV safety-related breakers were not seismically qualified while in the racked out position which

rendered the switchgear busses inoperable at times. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the violation was

identified by the licensee's staff during voluntary initiatives; (2) corrective actions were comprehensive and

timely; (3) the conditions were subtle in nature and not likely to be disclosed through routine surveillance or

quality assurance activities; and, (4) the violation was not reasonably linked to current performance.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Farley EA 98-351

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated July 10, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section V1I.B.3 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation involving a licensee identified design deficiency that could have rendered

safety-related motor operated valves incapable of being controlled at the hot shutdown panel in the event of

a fire induced circuit failure. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the licensee's identification of the

deficiencyduring non-routine inspections; (2) the licensee's prompt extent of condition review and corrective

actions; (3) the issue was the result of an old design error which was not likely to be identified through

routine licensee efforts; (4) the issue was not reflective of current licensee performance; and (5) the

deficiency was appropriately reported to the NRC.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Hatch Facility E4 98-209

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated April 21, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.3 of the Enforcement Policyand refrained from issuing a civil penalty ora Notice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation identified by the licensee involving an original installation deficiency that

- 112 -
Appendix E

degradedthe performanceoftheMain Control Room Environmental Conirol system and undercertain design

basis accident conditions could have resulted excessive radiological doses being received by control room

personnel. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the licensee identified the subtle deficiency; (2) licensee

promptly declared both trains of equipment inoperable and took appropriate actions required by Technical

Specifications; (3) immediate corrective actions were comprehensive; (4) the deficiency was considered an

old design issue, was not likely to be identified through routine licensee efforts, and was not reflective of

current licensee performance; and, (5) the issue was promptly reported to the NRC.

Section VII.B.4 - Violations Identifled Due to Previous Escalated

Enforcement Action

Boston Edlison Company, Pilgrim EA 98-052

Supplement I

TheNRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with the Section VII.B.4 ofthe EnforcementPolicy

on April 27, 1998, and did not issue a Notice of Violation and did not propose a civil penalty for a Severity

Level III violation involving trip settings for the salt service water (SSW) pumps. Specifically, during a

follow-up review of EDG loading, conducted as a result of the violations identified during a NRC design

inspection, a deficiency was identified associated with the thermal overload relay trip settings for the SSW

pumps that could have resulted in an inadvertent trip of the pumps and a loss of all SSW cooling. Discretion

was warranted because: (1) the violation was identified by the licensee as part of corrective action for

violations that were subject to escalated enforcement action; (2) the violation had a similar root cause as the

other design deficiencies for which escalated action was being issued; (3) it did not substantially change the

safety significance or the character ofthe regulatory concern arising from the initial violations; (4) immediate

corrective action was taken to reset the trip setpoints; and (5) the licensee planned long term corrective

actions to address the root cause of the violation.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Vermont Yankee EA 97453

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated October 16, 1997, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.4 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of

Violation for violations of fire protection requirements that could have been considered at Severity Level

II or III. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the violations were identified by the licensee as part of

corrective actions for a previous violation; (2) the violations had the same root cause as the previous issue;

(3) the violations did not substantially change the safety significance or the character of the regulatory

concern arising from the previous finding; and (4) corrective actions were comprehensive.

Section VII.B.5 - Violations Involving Discrimination

There were no cases that involved an exercise of this type of enforcement discretion during this fiscal year.

- 113 -
Appendix E

Section VII.B. 6- Violations Involving Special Circumstances

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Calvert Cliffs, Units I & 2 EA- 98-106

Supplement IV

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem that was

issued on March 20, 1998. The action was based two violations related to the licensee's failure to establish

radiological controls for work in the reactor cavity during cleaning ofthe reactor flange. Specifically, (1) the

licensee did not make necessary and reasonable surveys to comply with the requirements and (2) the licensee

did not post an airborne radioactivity area when required. The decision to exercise discretion was made

because the violations related to the reactor cavity event occurred approximately one month after the diving

event in April 1997, and appear to be the result of the same fundamental performance deficiencies.

Commonwealth Edison Company, Zion Power Station EA 97-606

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated August 10, 1998 the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation

for a Severity Level III problem involving cross-tying 125 volt direct current (125 Vdc) buses from Unit I

to Unit 2 without declaring the buses inoperable. Discretion was warranted because: (1) several significant

NRC enforcement actions were issued against the Zion power station for which corrective actions would

encompass the root causes for these violations; (2) the licensee voluntarily shut down both units to address

wide ranging performance problems that encompass the causes for these violations and eventually decided

not to restart either unit; (3) the violations were not willful; (4) the violations related to activities before the

shutdown; (5) the violations wvould not be categorized at a severity level higher than Severity Level II; and

(6) the issue was identified by a licensee engineer during a voluntary initiative.

Consumers Energy Company, Big Rock Point Ed 98-319

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated August 25, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 ofthe Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation

for a violations that would be classified at Severity Level 11 involving the licensee's discovery, upon

dismantlement of the facility, that the liquid poison system had not been functional for a substantial portion

of the operating life of the facility. Discretion was warranted because: (1) the unique design of the liquid

poison system made the failure difficult to detect; (2) consideration that, while surveillance testing was unable

to identify the failure, the NRC concluded that the testing performed was reasonable based, in part, on the

design of the system; (3) the licensee's prompt identification and critical assessment of the significance of

this condition; (4) the licensee's notable corrective actions which involved evaluating its operating Palisades

Nuclear Power Plant for similar vulnerabilities and communicating the safety significance and potential

vulnerability to the rest of the nuclear industry; (5) the fact that the liquid poison system was no longer

required to be operable in the decommissioning phase of the facility; and lastly, (6) the licensee's immediate

notification to the NRC of this potentially generic safety issue.

-114 -
Appendix E

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck EA 97-366

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for a Severity Level III problem was issued on October 9, 1997.

The action was based on two violations associated with corrective actions for an old plant design

discrepancy in the service water system which created the potential for waterhammer in the supply to the

spent fuel pool cooling system and a maintenance error that led to minor emergency diesel generator

damage. Discretion was warranted because the NRC had already issued enforcement action for

inadequacies in the corrective action program and these violations were additional examples of the same

performance problems.

Enterg Operations Incorporated, Waterford EA 98-022

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation for a potential Severity Level III violation

of 10 CFR 50.59 associated with reduced flow rates for EFW. Discretion was warranted based on the

specific circumstances of the case and consideration ofthe information that was presented at the conference.

The NRC addressed this issue in conjunction with a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil

Penalty in the amount of $1 10,000 that was issued on June 16, 1998, for a Severity Level III problem

involving multiple violations associated with HPSI flow issues. (See Appendix B.)

Illinois Power Company, Clinton Power Station EA 97-133

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated January 8, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance

with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of

Violation for a Severity Level III violation involving procedure adherence and adequacy problems.

Discretion was warranted because: (1) significant NRC enforcement action was recently taken against the

Illinois Power Company for several programmatic breakdowns for which the licensee's corrective actions

encompassed the root causes for this violation; (2) the violation was related to activities before the significant

enforcement action was issued; (3) the violation would not be classified at a severity level higher than

Severity Level III; and (4) the facility was placed under increased NRC oversight prior to restart and the

corrective actions will be reviewed prior to restart.

Illinois Power Company, Clinton Power Station EA 97-467

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated January 8, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII .B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penaltyoraNotice of Violation

for several violations that would be classified as a Severity Level III problem pertaining to inadequate

corrective action and maintenance that caused indicating lights to be improperly connected which could have

resulted in a loss of control power to safety-related equipment. Discretion was warranted because:

(1) significant enforcement action was taken against the licensee for several programmatic breakdowns for

which the licensee's corrective actions encompassed the root causes for these violations; and (2) the facility

was placed under NRC oversight for restart approval and the corrective actions for such violations will be

reviewed and approved by the NRC prior to restart.

- 115 -
Appendix E

Illinois Power Company, Clinton Power Station EA 98-248

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated June 12, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or aNotice of Violation

for A Severity Level III problem involving violations of the Maintenance Rule. Discretion was warranted

because: (I) significant NRC enforcement action was previously taken against the licensee for violations

with similar root causes; (2) the violations were related to management oversight problems which were

present prior to the events leading to the shutdown; (3) the violations were not classified at a severity level

higher than Severity Level II; (4) the violations were not willful; (5) the violations were licensee-identified

as a result of a comprehensive Quality Assurance audit; and (6) significant NRC reviews are required prior

to restart.

Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation, Nine Mile Point EA 97-185

Supplement VII

In a letter to the licensee dated April 28, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 ofthe Enforcement Policyand refrained from issuing a civil penalty oraNotice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation involving the deliberate alteration by two contract employees of the NRC

required Fitness for Duty random access selection program. Discretion was warranted because the licensee

identified the scheme to alter the program, thoroughly investigated the issue, and took prompt, broad

corrective actions. The individuals involved in the alteration were dismissed by the licensee and received

Orders barring them from employment in the nuclear industry from the NRC.

Northeast Nuclear Energy, Millstone E;4 96-146

Supplement I

In a letterto the licensee dated April 16, 1998, theNRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or aNotice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation involving the Unit 3 recirculation spray and quench spray systems being

outside of the design basis. Although the violation may have been willful, discretion was warranted due to

the age of the event which occurred prior to licensing of Unit 3 and the fact that the responsible person is no

longer with the company. Further, the corrective actions to resolve these spray systems issues has been

adequate.

Northern States Power, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant EA 97-032

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated April 20, 1998, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty oraNotice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation for failure to obtain Commission approval for a change that involved an

unreviewed safety question. The change involved the crediting containment overpressure in ensuring

adequate net positive suction head to emergency core cooling system pumps. Discretion was warranted

because: (I) the net positive suction head requirements were not clear in licensing basis documents; (2) the

condition was subtle in nature and not likely to be disclosed through routine surveillance or quality assurance

activities; (3) the NRC identified a generic concern regarding use of containment overpressure; and

(4) corrective actions were comprehensive and timely.

- 116 -
Appendix E

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Salem Unit 1&2 EA 97-182

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing a civil penalty fora SeverityLevel III problem that was issued on October 8, 1997.

This action was based on tvo violations involving changes to a procedure resulting in an unreviewed safety

question without prior Commission approval, and failure to notify the NRC within one hour, or submit a

Licensee Event Report within 30 days, of a condition which was outside the design basis of the plant.

Discretion was warranted because: (I) a significant enforcement action had already been taken based on

similar deficiencies, and (2) corrective actions were prompt and effective.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Salem Unit 1&2 EA 97-257

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing a civil penalty or a Notice of Violation for a potential Severity Level III violation.

The NRC determined that the licensee's reliance on repairs for post-fire alternative shutdown systems; the

failure to consider one or more circuit failures (e.g., hot shorts, shorts to ground, open circuits); and the

insufficient protection of motor-operated valves (MOVs) constituted a violation of the Unit 2 license

condition and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R. However, the violation was not cited based on Section VII.B.6

oftheNRC Enforcement Policy. Even though the licensee was notified in January 1996, that it's alternative

shutdown system did not meet regulatory requirements, theNRC concluded that the violation stemmed from

activities prior to the shutdown period and was addressed promptly when brought to the attention of licensee

management in March 1997. Corrective actions were taken for Unit 2 and were planned for Unit 1. The

NRC also considered the potential generic aspects of compliance with the "hot shorts" provisions of

Appendix R in making the decision to exercise discretion.

Ryder Memorial Hospital EA 97-626

Supplement VI

In a letter to the licensee dated April 24, 1998, the NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with

SectionVII.B.6 ofthe EnforcementPolicyand refrained from issuingacivil penalty oraNotice of Violation

for a Severity Level III violation for a failure to establish and implement a quality management program for

use of strontium-90. Discretion was warranted because the licensee took reasonable steps to cease using

licensed material at its facility.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas 1 E4 97-341

Supplement VII

A Confirmatory Order Modifying License was issued on June 9, 1998. The order modified the license to o

ensure that the licensee's process for addressing employee protection and safety concerns wvill be enhanced.

The NRC also exercised enforcement discretion pursuant to Section VII B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and

refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation or a civil penalty for discrimination violations. Discretion was

warranted because: (1) the licensee settled the four employee protection complaints prior to an evidentiary

hearing before, and prior to a finding that discrimination had occurred by, the United States Department of

Labor; (2) the licensee took appropriate corrective actions; and (3) the licensee has planned actions to monitor

the safety environment and to promote an atmosphere conducive to the raising of safety concerns by

employees without fear of retaliation.

- 117 -
Appendix E

Unified Testing Services, Woostock, IL EA 98-222

Supplement IV

A Notice of Violation was issued on June 16, 1998, for a Severity Level III violation involving the failure

to secure from unauthorized removal or access and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material in an

unrestricted area, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.1801 and 10 CFR 20.1802. 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. In addition, due to the special circumstances of the case, the NRC exercised discretion in accordance

with Section VII.B.6 ofthe Enforcement Policyand refrained from issuingaNoticeofViolation fora failure

to train radioagraphers in accordance with required procedures.

Washington Public Power Supply System, WNP-2 EA 97-138

Supplement I

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for aNotice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem that was

issued on February 20, 1998. The action was based on four violations involving the failure to test the

response time of various plant instrumentation systems in accordance with existing requirements, and the

failure to obtain approval from the NRC, as required by 10 CFR 50.59, before ceasing response-time testing

required by technical specifications. Discretion was warranted because (1) the NRC considered the

apparent misinterpretation of NEDO-32291 guidance, which was generically approved and which appeared

to have resulted in three other boiling water reactor licensees making the same series of mistakes, (2) the

fact that all of the instruments in question were tested and would have performed their intended functions,

and (3) the fact that the response time verification portion of the calibration methodologies employed by

the Supply System were ultimately accepted by the NRC.

Washington Public Power Supply System, WNP-2 EA 97-573

Supplement I

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III problem was issued on June 1, 1998. This action was based

on multiple violations including failures to: (1) perform a safety evaluation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59

prior to downgrading the RCIC system from a safety-related system to a non-safety-related system, a change

which constituted an unreviewed safety question, and (2) maintain the acceptance criteria for the opening

stroke-time testing of six RCIC System valves and the failure to maintain inservice testing of Valve

RCIC-V-45 as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(f). Given prior escalated enforcement action, and the NRC's

identification of these violations, a civil penalty would have resulted following the normal civil penalty

assessment process described in VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. However, in accordance with

Section VI1.B.6 ofthe Enforcement Policy, discretionwas warrahted because: (I) theNRC's determination

that the reason for these violations (i.e., the misinterpretation of industry guidance documents) was similar

to the reasons fortheseviolations related to response-timetesting procedures (EA 97-138) forwhichtheNRC

recently issued enforcement action, (2) thecorrectiveactions forEA 97-138 encompass the corrective actions

for this issue, and (3) the fact that the Supply System continued to meet the Technical Specification

surveillance requirements even after RCIC was downgraded.

- 118 -
Appendix E

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant EA 97-347

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated February 18, 1998 the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policyand refrained from issuing acivil penaltyoraNotice of Violation

for four violations classified at Severity Level III involving licensee identified deficiencies in their fire

protection program. Discretion was warranted because: (1) significant enforcement actions had recently

been taken against the licensee for several programmatic breakdowns for which the licensee's corrective

actions encompassed the root causes for these violations; (2) the violations were related to activities before

the previous enforcement actions were issued; (3) all inoperable safety-related equipment and systems were

modified or corrected prior to unit restart; (4) the licensee voluntarily removed both units from service to

determine the scope of its problems; (5) the violations were not willful; (6) the NRC had confidence that the

licensee would have identified all items without NRC prompting; and, (7) the licensee's corrective action

program was much improved.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Point Beach Nuclear Plant EA 97-505

Supplement I

In a letter to the licensee dated February 18, 1998 the NRC exercised discretion in accordance with

Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and refrained from issuing a civil penalty oraNotice of Violation

for 20 violations classified at Severity Level III predominantly involving licensee identified design

deficiencies. Discretion was warranted because: (1) significant enforcement actions had recently been taken

against the licensee for several programmatic breakdowns for which the licensee's corrective actions

encompassed the root causes for these violations; (2) the violations were related to activities before the

previous enforcement actions were issued; (3) all inoperable safety-related equipment and systems were

modified or corrected prior to unit restart; (4) the licensee voluntarily removed both units from service to

determine the scope of its problems; (5) the violations were not willful; (6) the NRC had confidence that the

licensee would have identified all items without NRC prompting; and, (7) the licensee's corrective action

program was much improved.

York Hospital EA 97-427

Supplement VII

The NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy

and refrained from issuing a civil penalty for a Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was

issued on March 4, 1998. This action was based on a violation involving a former employee providing

inaccurate information to an NRC inspector during the inspection. Discretion was warranted because: (1) of

the seriousness with which the licensee viewed the inaccurate information, (2) the aggressive investigation

ofthe underlying transportation violations, including documenting them in the records ofthe Radiation Safety

Committee that were available forNRC inspection, and (3) the frank and open communication with the NRC

throughout.

- 119-
Appendix F.

APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF ACTIONS AGAINST

LICENSED INDIVIDUALS

ORDERS AND DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION (DFIs)

None

NOTICES OF VIOLATION (NOVs)

Altman, John T. IA 97-085

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued October 29, 1997. The action was based

on Mr. Altman's use of an illegal drug, cannabinoid, as evidenced by a confirmed positive drug test.

Steven D. DeNise IA 97-077

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued October 10, 1997. The action was based

on Mr. DeNise's use of an illegal drug, marijuana, as evidenced by a confirmed positive drug test.

Harvey J. Hyde, Jr. IA 98-036

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued July 10, 1998. The action was based on

Mr. Hayd's use of illegal drugs, amphetamines, as evidenced by a confirmed positive drug test.

Stephen M. Jozwiak IA 97-086

ANotice of Violation fora SeverityLevel I11 violation was issuedNovember7, 1997. The action was based

on Mr. Jozwiak's use of an illegal drug, marijuana, as evidenced by a confirmed positive drug test.

Charles R. Laddl, Jr. - IA 98-023

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued April 23, 1998. The action was based on

Mr. Ladd's use of an illegal drug, marijuana, as evidenced by a confirmed positive drug test.

Stephen W Ryan IA 98-015

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued July 10, 1998. The action was based on

an investigation which found that Mr. Ryan, while acting in a supervisory capacity as the shift supervisor,

participated with other licensed reactoroperators in recording an incorrect time fora surveillance testto make

it appear that the surveillance had been performed within the required one hour time frame.

Leo C. Zell IA 98-016

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued July 10, 1998. The action was based on

an investigation which found that Mr. Zell, while acting in a supervisory capacity as the assistant shift

supervisor, participated with other licensed reactor operators in recording an incorrect time for a surveillance

test to make it appear that the surveillance had been performed within the required one hour time frame.

- 120 -
Appendix F

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 121 -
Appendix G

APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF ACTIONS AGAINST

NON-LICENSED INDIVIDUALS

ORDERS

Finis Scott Bandy IA 97-087

An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued November 19, 1997. The action

was based on an inspection and investigation which concluded that Mr. Bandy deliberately violated

10 CFR 50.5 ("Deliberate Misconduct") by falsifying information and making false statements about his

criminal history in order to gain unescorted plant access. The Order prohibits Mr. Bandy from engaging in

NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years, and requires, for a period of five years, that Mr. Bandy

notify the NRC of his first involvement in NRC-licensed activities following the prohibition period.

John Boschuk, Jr. IA 98-019

An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued April 10, 1998. The action was

based on an inspection and investigation which concluded that Mr. Boschuk engaged in a pattern and practice

of willfully violating NRC requirements, including unauthorized transfer of byproduct material, inaccurate

statements made to the NRC, and destruction of records. For a period of five years, the Order prohibits

Mr. Boschuk from engaging in NRC-licensed activities and requires him to provide a copy of the Order to

any prospective employer or business partner who engages in NRC-licensed activities. Additionally, the

Orderrequires that Mr. Boschuk notifytheNRC ofhis first involvement inNRC-licensed activities following

the prohibition period.

Lourdes T. Boschuk

An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued April 10, 1998. The action was

based on an inspection and investigation which concluded that Ms. Boschuk engaged in a pattern and practice

of willfully violating NRC requirements, including inaccurate statements made to the NRC and destruction

of records. For a period of five years, the Order prohibits Ms. Boschuk from engaging in NRC-licensed

activities and requires him to provide a copy of the Order to any prospective employer or business partner

who engages in NRC-licensed activities. Additionally, the Order requires that Ms. Boschuk notify the NRC

of his first involvement in NRC-licensed activities following the prohibition period.

LelandH. Brooks EA 98-024

An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued July 24, 1998. The action was

based on an investigation which concluded that Mr. Brooks deliberately omitted information about his

criminal record and failed to provide copies of required court records, in order to gain unescorted plant

access. The OrderprohibitsMr. Brooks from engaging inNRC-licensedactivitiesforaperiod of five years.

Additionally, for a period of five years after the prohibition period, Mr. Brooks is required to notify the NRC

the first time that he engages in NRC-licensed activities.

- 122 -
Appendix G

Thomas C. Johnson IA 98-002

An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued April 28, 1998. The action was

based* on an investigation which concluded that Mr. Johnson violated 10 CFR 50.5, ("Deliberate

misconduct") by his deliberate involvement in a scheme which altered a computer code intended to assure

that individuals are selected for fitness-for-duty testing in a statistically random and unpredictable manner.

As a result, several individuals were excluded from the random testing. The Order prohibits Mr. Johnson

from engaging in NRC-licensed activities fora period of five years. Additionally, for a period of three years

after the five years have expired, Mr. Johnson is required to notify the NRC of his acceptance of each

employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities.

Julian H. AMcGriff IA 97-067

An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued February 23, 1998. The action

was based on an investigation which determined thatMr. McGriffdeliberatelyfalsified records of inventories

of emergency equipment. The Order prohibits Mr. McGriff from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for

a period of three years, and requires, for a period of one year, that Mr. McGriff notify the NRC of his first

involvement in NRC-licensed activities following the prohibition period.

DavidlMilas IA 98-047

An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued September 18, 1998. The action

was based on an investigation which concluded that Mr. Milas deliberately compromised the integrity of an

NRC operator licensing examination by obtaining a photocopy of the NRC examination for his personal use

prior to the date that the examination was to be administered. The Order prohibits Mr. Milas from engaging

in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years. Additionally, for a period of five years after the

prohibition period, Mr. Milas is required to notify the NRC each time that he engages in NRC-licensed

activities.

Albert M. Nardislico IA 98-001

An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued April 28, 1998. The action was

based on an investigation which concluded that Mr. Nardslico violated 10 CFR 50.5 ("Deliberate

misconduct") by his deliberate involvement in a scheme which altered a computer code intended to assure

that individuals are selected for fitness-for-duty testing in a statistically random and unpredictable manner.

As a result, several individuals were excluded from the random testing, including Mr. Nardslico. The Order

prohibits Mr. Nardslico from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years. Additionally,

for a period of three years after the five years have expired, Mr. Nardslico is required to notify the NRC of

his acceptance of each employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities.

Darrel T. Rich iA 97-074

An Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities was issued January 5, 1998. The action was

based on an investigation which determined that Mr. Rich deliberately falsified records ofroutine radiological

surveys. The Order prohibits Mr. Rich from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for a period of three years.

In addition, subsequent to the three year period, the Order requires Mr. Rich to notify the NRC the first time

before accepting employment involving NRC-licensed activities.

- 123 -
Appendix G

NOTICES OF VIOLATION (NOVs)

Lloyd W. Chesser IA 98-030

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued May 15, 1998. The action was based on

an inspection and investigation which found that Mr. Chesser deliberately failed to document a welding

deficiency, created when he burned a hole in service water system pipe, and made a base metal weld repair

to the pipe without a completed repair plan.

Gary L Cowan IA 98-008

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation and a Demand for Information were issued

March 11, 1998. The actions were based on an investigation which determined that Mr. Cowan deliberately

took seven 3-curie tritium sources to his residence. One of the glass encapsulated sources broke, resulting

in minor contamination.

Kent Dvorak IA 97-079

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued November 17, 1997. The action was

issued becauseMr. Dvorak deliberately allowed individuals to use nucleargaugeswithoutthe required formal

training.

Charles H. Hardison, Jr. IA 98-012

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued March 13, 1998. The action was based

on an investigation which found that Mr. Hardison deliberately altered an air sample'survey result to make

it appear that it did not exceed an administrative limit.

Nathan Hougas IA 97-080

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued February 4, 1998. The action was based

on an investigation which found that Mr. Hougas falsely reported that he found an open padlock to a vital

area barrier when, in fact, he was the individual that had opened the padlock.

Michael Redlln IA 97-088

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued December 8, 1997. The action was based

on an investigation which found that Mr. Redlin deliberately omitted information about his use of marijuana

in order to gain unescorted plant access.

Jaromir Stipek IA 98-007

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued on July 6, 1998. The action was based

on Mr. Stipek's deliberate failure to perform an inspection of diesel generator related areas and subsequent

falsification of records to indicate that he had.

- 124 -
Appendix G

Jack- D. Taylor IA 98-010

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued July 2, 1998. The action was based on

an investigation which determined that Mr. Taylorhad consumed alcohol within three hours priorto reporting

for work involving unescorted access at a commercial power reactor.

Lanny R. Tiirnan IA-97-089

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued December 1, 1997. The action was based

on an investigation which concluded that Mr. Tillman deliberately performed a weld repair on a valve without

authorization. The unauthorized repair was intended to cover the fact that work had been performed on the

wrong valve initially.

Les Weibley IA 98-003

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level III violation was issued March 4, 1998. The action was based on

an investigation which concluded that Mr. Weibley deliberately disregarded requirements for transporting

radioactive material, directed other technologists to transport material without following regulations, and

provided inaccurate information to an NRC inspector.

DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION (DFls)

Willaim H. Clark IA 98-045

A Demand for Information was issued August 26, 1998, based on Mr. Clark allegedly providing false

information about a prior denial of unescorted access and a prior positive test for illegal drug use to NRC

licensees in orderto gain unescorted access to their nuclear facilities. The DFI was issued to fully understand

Mr. Clark's views on the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegedly false information.

GaryL. Cowan IA 98-008

A Notice of Violation and a Demand for Information (DFI) were issued March 11, 1998, based on an

investigation which determined that Mr. Cowan deliberately took seven 3-curie tritium sources to his

residence. One of the glass encapsulated sources broke, resulting in minor contamination. The DFI requires

that Mr. Cowan provide the NRC with written notice at least two weeks prior to becoming involved in any

NRC-licensed activity.

- 125 -
Appendix H

APPENDIX H: SUMMARY OF ACTIONS

AGAINST NON-LICENSED PERSONS

OTHER THAN INDIVIDUALS

NOTICES OF VIOLATION (NOVs)

None

CIVIL PENALTIES

None

DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION (DFIs)

Duke Engineering & Services Company, and EA 97-387

Yankee Atomic Electric Company

A Demand for Information was issued December 19, 1997, to obtain information to enableNRC to determine

whether the companies should continue to provide engineering analyses, particularly Loss of Coolant

Accident (LOCA) analyses, toNRC power reactor licensees, and whether inadequate analyses were the result

of willfulness. An investigation had concluded that the preparation of inadequate analyses caused an

apparent violation of the part of a power reactor licensee.

- 126-
Appendix H

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 127 -
Appendix I

APPENDIX I: SUMMARY OF CASES INVOLVING

DISCRIMINATION

Construction Products Researclh, Inc., Fairfield, CT EA 97-471

Five Star Products, Inc

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation for a Severity Level I violation was issued to this vendor on January !6, 1998. The

action was based on a violation of 10 CFR 50.7, which prohibits discrimination against employees for

engaging in protected activities. Specifically the discrimination of the employee included: (1) placing him

on an involuntary leave status; (2) instructing other employees not to discuss the ongoing NRC investigation

of CPR and Five Star with him; (3) denying him access to his office and other facilities in the companies; and

(4) terminating him from employment.

Mattingly Testing Service EA 97-180

Supplement VII

A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $10,000 was issued on

October 31, 1997. The action was based on a violation of 10 CFR 30.7(a), which prohibits discrimination

by a Commission licensee against an employee for engaging in certain protected activity. Specifically, the

employee was terminated from his position because he identified violations ofNRC requirements to theNRC.

A double base civil penalty was proposed because: (1) this violation was not the first escalated enforcement

within the last 2 years, (2) credit was not warranted for identification and, (3) credit was not warranted for

corrective action. This action was subsequently withdrawn on September 15, 1998, based on the underlying

facts of the case, the licensee's response to the proposed action, and the differing 01 reports and DOL

decisions.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas 1 EA 97-341

Supplement VII

A Confirmatory Order Modifying License was issued on June 9, 1998. The order modified the license to o

ensure that the licensee's process for addressing employee protection and safety concerns wvill be enhanced.

The NRC also exercised enforcement discretion pursuant to Section VII B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and

refrained from issuing a Notice of Violation or a civil penalty for discrimination violations. Discretion was

warranted because: (I) the licensee settled the four employee protection complaints prior to an evidentiary

hearing before, and prior to a finding that discrimination had occurred by, the United States Department of

Labor; (2)the licensee took appropriate corrective actions; and (3) the licensee has planned actionsto monitor

the safety environment and to promote an atmosphere conducive to the raising of safety concerns by

employees without fear of retaliation.

- 128 -
Appendix I

- 129 -
Appendix J

APPENDIX J: SUMMARY OF HEARING ACTIVITY

Ben-Haint, Aiharon, 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 individual 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 was held May 27-29, 1998. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has

not yet issued a decision.

CONAMInspection, Inc.

On December 1, 1997, CONAM Inspection, Inc., a radiography licensee, submitted a request for a hearing

regarding an Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty issued for three violations that involved a whole body

exposure to a radiographer in excess of NRC limits. On December 14, 1998, the staff and the licensee filed

ajoint settlement agreement for approval by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The Licensing Board

approved the settlement and dismissed the proceeding on December 17, 1998.

Elanmir, 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. A settlement agreement was approved by the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board on October 8, 1998. The decision became final agency action on November 17, 1998.

NDTServices, Inc.

OnApril 14,1998,NDTS Services, Inc., submitted a request forahearing and a request to stay the immediate

effectiveness of an Order Suspending License. On July 6,1998, the Licensing Board ruled that it would not

rescind the immediate effectiveness of the order and dismissed the proceeding.

- 130-
Appendix J

- 131 -
Appendix K

APPENDIX K: SUMMARY OF 10 CFR 2.206 ACTIVITY

There was no 10 CFR 2.206 activity this fiscal year.

- 132 -
Appendix J

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

- 133 -
Appendix L

APPENDIX L: SUMMARY OF WITHDRAWN

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

Guam EPA, Barrigadla, Guam EA 97-122

On November 4, 1997, the NRC withdrew a $2,750 civil penalty included in a Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) issued byNRC in a letter dated September 11, 1997. The case

was originally proposed for violations relating to possession of a gas chromatograph. The NRC withdrew

the penalty based on the licensee's agreement to return the device to the manufacturer and it's request to

terminate it's license.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah EA 95-283

On April 16, 1998, the NRC withdrew a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

(Notice) issued byNRC in a letterdated February20, 1996. The case was originallyproposed forviolations

relating to discrimination. The withdrawal was based on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals and the

fact that neither complainant nor the DOL requested a rehearing,

- 134 -