[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9220-9221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-397; License No. NPF-21 EA 96-327]
In the Matter of Washington Public Power Supply System Washington
Nuclear Project-2; Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty
I
Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System or Licensee)
is the holder of reactor operating license NPF-21 issued by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) on April 13, 1984. The
license authorizes the Licensee to operate Washington Nuclear Project 2
(WNP-2) in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
II
An inspection of the Licensee's activities was conducted June 28
through September 4, 1996. The results of this inspection indicated
that the Licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance
with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed
Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon the Licensee by
letter dated November 26, 1996. The Notice described the violations,
including the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the Licensee
had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the
violations.
The Licensee responded to the Notice in a letter dated December 23,
1996. In its response, the Licensee admitted that the violations had
occurred but requested reconsideration of the proposed civil penalty,
citing the following reasons: (1) A penalty of $50,000 would be more
consistent with the purposes of the NRC's enforcement policy; (2) there
was no systemic breakdown in operational activities at WNP-2; (3)
additional credit should be given for corrective actions; and (4) the
enforcement action placed too much emphasis on a previous surveillance-
related violation.
III
After consideration of the Licensee's response and the statements
of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein,
the NRC staff has determined, as set forth in the Appendix to this
Order, that the Licensee has not provided a basis for mitigation of the
civil penalty and that the penalty proposed for the violations in the
Notice should be imposed.
IV
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205,
It is hereby ordered that:
The Licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000 within
30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, money order, or
electronic transfer, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and
mailed to James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738.
V
The Licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of
this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to
extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of
time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555, and include a
statement of good cause for the extension. A request for a hearing
should be clearly marked as a ``Request for an Enforcement Hearing''
and shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the
Commission's Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also
shall be sent to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and
Enforcement at the same address and to the Regional Administrator, NRC
Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76055.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order
designating the time and place of the hearing. If the Licensee fails to
request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order (or if
written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing
has not been granted), the provisions of this Order shall be effective
without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time,
the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the Licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the
issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
Whether, on the basis of the violations admitted by the Licensee,
this Order should be sustained.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of February 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James Lieberman,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
Appendix--Evaluation and Conclusion
On November 26, 1996 a Notice of Violation and Proposed
Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations
identified during an NRC inspection. The Washington Public Power
Supply System (Supply System or Licensee) responded to the Notice on
December 23, 1996. The Supply System admitted the violations but
requested reconsideration of the amount of the civil penalty. A
summary of the Licensee's reasons for a reduction in the amount of
the civil penalty and the NRC's evaluation of those reasons follow:
Summary of Licensee's Request for Reconsideration and NRC
Evaluation
1. The Supply System stated that, given the NRC's recognition of
the Supply System's identification of most of the violations and its
prompt and comprehensive corrective actions, a more appropriate
regulatory message would be a penalty at the base amount of $50,000.
The Supply System cited the intent of the NRC's Enforcement Policy
(General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement
Actions, NUREG-1600) to encourage prompt identification and prompt,
comprehensive correction of violations.
NRC Response: The NRC recognized that the Supply System
identified most of the violations and that its corrective actions
were prompt and comprehensive. In fact, as the Supply System noted
in its response, the NRC characterized this as a sign of improved
performance. Had the NRC considered no
[[Page 9221]]
additional information, no civil penalty would have been assessed
for these violations, in accordance with the civil penalty
assessment process described in VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
However, the NRC utilized its enforcement discretion, as described
in Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy, to assess a civil
penalty in the amount of $100,000. This section of the policy
permits the NRC to assess a penalty where none might otherwise be
proposed, or to increase the amount of a civil penalty, to reflect
the safety or regulatory significance of the violations. In this
case, the NRC utilized its discretion to propose a $100,000 civil
penalty for two primary reasons. First, the Supply System had been
cited in August 1995, for violations in the Supply System's
surveillance requirements program as part of an escalated
enforcement action (EA 95-096). The number of similar violations
that occurred over a relatively short period of time in 1996
demonstrated serious weaknesses in the Supply System's surveillance
requirements program and showed that the Supply System's 1995
corrective actions had not gone far enough to address these
weaknesses. Secondly, the NRC utilized discretion to emphasize the
fundamental importance of the surveillance program and to express
its concern that, at this stage in the operation of this facility,
weaknesses would exist as serious as those evidenced by the numerous
violations forming the basis of this enforcement action. The NRC
determined that a civil penalty larger than the $50,000 civil
penalty assessed in 1995 was warranted in these circumstances and
proposed a $100,000 civil penalty for this matter.
2. The Supply System stated that there was no systemic breakdown
in operational activities.
NRC Response: The NRC accepts this statement, but it has little
relevance to the current enforcement action. The NRC based its
action on the serious weaknesses in the surveillance program at WNP-
2, as evidenced by several surveillance-related violations occurring
over a relatively short period of time, and the ineffectiveness of
previous corrective actions to preclude recurrence. These violations
were considered collectively as a Severity Level III problem in
accordance with Supplement I of the Enforcement Policy. The Supply
System's assertion that these violations did not represent a
``systemic breakdown'' in operational activities does not affect the
NRC's perspective or the enforcement action. There was clearly a
programmatic issue.
3. The Supply System stated that additional credit should be
given for its prompt and comprehensive corrective actions.
NRC Response: As stated above, the NRC recognized that the
Supply System took prompt and comprehensive corrective actions. The
penalty was not based on any perceived shortcomings in the Supply
System's corrective actions for the current (1996) violations. The
NRC's concern about corrective actions was based on the
aforementioned 1995 enforcement action (EA 95-096), in which
surveillance-related violations made up part of a Severity Level III
problem that resulted in a $50,000 civil penalty being assessed. In
EA 95-096, issued on August 17, 1995, nine violations were
considered in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem.
Violations E(1), E(2) and F of EA 95-096 involved changing
operational conditions (modes) with equipment inoperable, a
violation of the Technical Specifications. In the current
enforcement action, the violations involved changing modes with
equipment inoperable and changing modes without having conducted
required surveillances. All of these violations involved the
programs and processes in place to assure that equipment was
operable and that required surveillances had been conducted prior to
changing modes. In taking its action in 1995, the NRC specifically
stated that it had limited the civil penalty to $50,000 ``in
recognition of the fact that you have proposed comprehensive
corrective actions.'' Since those actions were not effective with
respect to surveillance-related problems that form the basis for
this enforcement action, as well as to emphasize the fundamental
importance of surveillance program compliance, the NRC proposed a
civil penalty ($100,000) that was larger than the civil penalty
proposed for EA 95-096 ($50,000). The NRC notes that the Supply
System's corrective actions for the 1995 enforcement action did not
extend to its processes for assuring compliance with surveillance
requirements and that, as of the occurrence of the violations in
1996, no checklist or other verification method existed to ensure
that surveillances had been completed prior to changing modes, a
commonly used method of verifying compliance.
4. The Supply System stated in its response that the enforcement
action placed too much emphasis on the prior surveillance-related
violation, noting that only one current violation was similar to a
previous violation only in that it involved errors in LCO tracking
prior to plant mode changes.
NRC Response: The NRC does not agree that the similarities
between the 1995 and 1996 enforcement actions are limited to one
example. As noted above, Violations E(1), E(2) and F in the 1995
enforcement action involved making mode changes with required
equipment inoperable. In the current enforcement action, Violations
A, B (with 3 examples) and C involved changing modes without having
conducted required surveillances to show equipment operable. The NRC
placed emphasis on this similarity, and in fact relied upon it as
one of the primary reasons for utilizing enforcement discretion, to
emphasize that escalated enforcement action had been taken in August
1995, less than one year prior to the current violations occurring.
The NRC's expectation is that licensees who receive escalated
enforcement action will take corrective action that is broad and
comprehensive such that a recurrence of the violations is precluded
or minimized. In this case, it was apparent that the Supply System's
previous corrective actions did not address weaknesses in WNP-2's
programs for assuring that surveillances were conducted and that
equipment was operable prior to changing plant modes. Thus, the NRC
does not agree that too much emphasis was placed on the similarities
between the 1995 and 1996 enforcement actions. In addition, as
discussed in response to other arguments above, the NRC exercised
discretion to emphasize its concern about serious weaknesses in such
a fundamental aspect of complying with plant Technical
Specifications.
NRC Conclusion
The NRC concludes that its use of enforcement discretion to
propose a $100,000 civil penalty was appropriate and in accordance
with the Enforcement Policy's emphasis in Section VII.A.1 of
assuring that the enforcement action reflects the significance of
the circumstances and conveys the appropriate regulatory message.
Consequently, the proposed civil penalty in the amount of $100,000
should be imposed by order.
[FR Doc. 97-5000 Filed 2-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
