97-11724. Northeast Utilities; Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 24671-24673]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-11724]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    [Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336, 50-423]
    
    
    Northeast Utilities; Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, 
    and 3; Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
    
        Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
    Regulation, has taken action with regard to a Petition dated October 
    28, 1994, as supplemented January 15, February 8 and 20, and October 
    14, 1995, submitted by Mr. Anthony J. Ross. The Petition pertains to 
    Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.
        In the Petition, the Petitioner raised concerns regarding 
    violations at the Millstone Station involving procedure compliance, 
    work control, and tagging control and requested that ``accelerated'' 
    enforcement action be taken against Northeast Utilities for these 
    violations. As grounds for this request, the Petitioner asserted 
    violations in these areas had increased significantly, that many of 
    these violations had never been assigned a severity level by the NRC, 
    and that when these violations are considered collectively, escalated 
    enforcement action is warranted because of the repetitive nature of the 
    violations.
        The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has 
    granted the Petition, in part. In other respects, the Petition is 
    denied. The reasons for this determination are explained in the 
    ``Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-97-11), the 
    complete text of which follows this notice and is available for public 
    inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
    Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC and at the local public 
    document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers 
    Community-Technical College, New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, 
    as well as at the temporary local public document room located at the 
    Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, 
    Connecticut.
        A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the 
    Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 
    2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. As provided for by this 
    regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the 
    Commission 25 days after the date of issuance unless the Commission, on 
    its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision in that time.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 1997.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Samuel J. Collins,
    Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    
    Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206
    
    I. Introduction
    
        On October 28, 1994, Mr. Anthony J. Ross (Petitioner) filed a 
    Petition with the Executive Director for Operations pursuant to Section 
    2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.206). By 
    letter dated December 15, 1994, the NRC informed the Petitioner that he 
    had not provided a sufficient factual basis to warrant action under 10 
    CFR 2.206. The NRC stated that if the Petitioner wished the staff to 
    take action under 10 CFR 2.206, he needed to provide more information 
    describing the specific technical violations that he alleged the NRC 
    had not adequately addressed. By letters dated January 15, February 8, 
    and February 20, 1995, the Petitioner supplemented his Petition by 
    submitting lists of alleged violations. In the Petition, the Petitioner 
    requested that ``accelerated enforcement action'' be taken against 
    Northeast Utilities (NU) for violations at Millstone \1\ involving 
    procedure compliance, work control, and tagging control. As a basis for 
    his request, the Petitioner asserted that since August 1993, violations 
    in these areas had increased significantly, that many of these 
    violations had never been assigned a severity level by the NRC, and 
    that when all of the violations are considered collectively, escalated 
    enforcement action is warranted because of the repetitive nature of the 
    violations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO/licensee), an 
    electric-power operating subsidiary of NU, holds licenses for the 
    operation of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        On February 23, 1995, the NRC informed the Petitioner that the 
    Petition had been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 
    and that action would be taken within a reasonable time regarding the 
    specific concerns raised in the Petition.
        NU responded to the NRC on May 12, 1995, regarding the issues 
    raised in the Petition; the Petitioner submitted a response on July 11, 
    1995, regarding issues raised in the NU submittal.
        On October 14, 1995, the Petitioner submitted a Petition requesting 
    that the NRC take immediate enforcement action consisting of immediate 
    suspension of the licenses to operate the three units at the Millstone 
    Station, and immediate imposition of the maximum daily civil penalty 
    allowed because of the numerous continuing and repetitive violations 
    committed by the licensee since early 1989. The NRC informed the 
    Petitioner by letter dated November 24, 1995, that because his October 
    14, 1995, Petition did not contain any new information but merely 
    raised again the same issues as in his previous Petition, his October 
    14, 1995, Petition would be considered as an additional supplement to 
    his January 15, 1995, Petition.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\ The Petitioner also asserted in his October 14, 1995, 
    Petition that, since many of the violations had been substantiated 
    by the NRC inspectors and/or the licensee, but have not been 
    identified as violations by the NRC, the Office of the Inspector 
    General (OIG) should conduct a full investigation of the NRC's 
    neglect. In its November 24, 1995, letter, the NRC informed the 
    Petitioner that this assertion would be referred to the OIG. In 
    addition, in this letter, the Petitioner's request for immediate 
    action was denied. The Petitioner's assertion of neglect by the NRC 
    was referred to the OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    II. Discussion
    
        The Petitioner requested that ``accelerated enforcement action'' be 
    taken against NU for violations at Millstone involving procedure 
    compliance, work control, and tagging control. As a basis for his 
    request, the Petitioner alleged that since August 1993, violations in 
    these areas had increased significantly, that many of these violations 
    had never been assigned a severity level, and that when these 
    violations are considered collectively with violations that had been 
    assigned a severity level, escalated enforcement action is warranted 
    because of the repetitive nature of the violations. In his October 14, 
    1995, supplement to the Petition, the Petitioner requested that the NRC
    
    [[Page 24672]]
    
    suspend the licensee's licenses to operate all three Millstone units, 
    and impose a daily civil penalty until the licensee can assure the 
    public and NRC that there will be no more violations in certain areas.
        In the Petition and its supplements, the Petitioner provided 
    numerous examples of what he believed were violations in the areas of 
    procedure compliance, work control, and tagging control. The NRC had 
    been aware of the examples described by the Petitioner. These examples 
    were taken from NRC inspection reports dating back to 1989 and from 
    other NRC documents. The NRC considered whether enforcement action 
    should be taken for these violations in accordance with the guidance 
    provided in the ``General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC 
    Enforcement Actions'' (Enforcement Policy) in effect at the time that 
    the violations occurred.\3\ As provided in the Enforcement Policy, the 
    basic enforcement sanctions available to the NRC include Notices of 
    Violation (NOVs), civil penalties, and orders of various types, 
    including Suspension Orders. As further provided in the Enforcement 
    Policy, for those cases in which a strong message is warranted for a 
    significant violation that continues for more than one day, the NRC may 
    exercise discretion and assess a separate violation and attendant civil 
    penalty for each day that the violation continues.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ The Enforcement Policy in effect at the time that the 
    violations occurred was set forth at 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C. The 
    Commission's present Enforcement Policy is described in NUREG-1600.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In accordance with that guidance, some of the examples cited by the 
    Petitioner were violations for which the NRC issued a NOV, but for the 
    majority of the examples, no NOV was issued. In some instances in which 
    no NOV was issued, the example was considered to be of only minor 
    safety significance because it was not a violation that could 
    reasonably be expected to have been prevented by the licensee's 
    corrective actions for a previous violation, it was or will be, 
    corrected within a reasonable time, and it was not willful, and 
    therefore, was not cited in accordance with the above mentioned 
    Enforcement Policy. With regard to other instances, the examples cited 
    by the Petitioner did not constitute violations of NRC regulatory 
    requirements, but instead were deviations from established procedures 
    in non-safety-related areas, or simply constituted certain equipment 
    problems or weaknesses in certain areas, which required further 
    clarification or the attention of licensee management.
        Nonetheless, the NRC shares the Petitioner's concern about the 
    number and duration of these examples of failures in the areas of 
    procedural compliance, work control, and tagging control. If the NRC 
    were to reassess the examples provided by the Petitioner, it is 
    possible that many could be classified as repetitive violations under 
    the Enforcement Policy.\4\ However, the NRC has determined that these 
    examples are indicative of a more significant problem; specifically, a 
    programmatic breakdown in management at the Millstone facility.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\ Section IV.B of the Enforcement Policy defines a repetitive 
    violation as a violation that reasonably could have been prevented 
    by a licensee's corrective action for a previous violation normally 
    occurring (1) within the past 2 years of the inspection at issue, or 
    (2) during the period within the last two inspections, whichever is 
    longer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The NRC has been aware of weaknesses in the licensees operations at 
    Millstone, and has taken significant regulatory action as a result. 
    Specifically, programmatic concerns in the areas of procedural 
    compliance, work control, and tagging control, were among the 
    programmatic weaknesses common to all three Millstone units, which were 
    identified in the most recent systematic assessment of licensee 
    performance (SALP) report of August 26, 1994. These weaknesses included 
    continuing problems with procedure quality and implementation, the 
    informality in several maintenance and engineering programs that 
    contributed to instances of poor performance, and the failure to take 
    proper corrective action at the site. Based on these identified 
    weaknesses, the NRC continued its increased inspection and oversight 
    activities at the facility.
        On November 4, 1995, the licensee shut down Millstone Unit 1 for a 
    scheduled refueling outage. During an NRC inspection of licensed 
    activities at Millstone Unit 1 in the fall of 1995, the NRC identified 
    refueling practices and operations regarding the spent fuel pool 
    cooling systems that were inconsistent with the updated Final Safety 
    Analysis Report (UFSAR). The NRC sent a letter to the licensee on 
    December 13, 1995, requiring that, before the restart of Millstone Unit 
    1, it inform the NRC, pursuant to Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act 
    of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), of the actions taken to 
    ensure that in the future it would operate that facility according to 
    the terms and conditions of the plant's operating license, the 
    Commission's regulations, and the plant's UFSAR.
        In January 1996, the NRC designated the units at Millstone as 
    Category 2 plants. Plants in this category have weaknesses that warrant 
    increased NRC attention until the licensee demonstrates a period of 
    improved performance. In February and March 1996, the licensee shut 
    down Millstone Units 2 and 3, respectively, due to design issues. In 
    response to: (1) A licensee root-cause analysis of inaccuracies in the 
    Millstone Unit 1 UFSAR that identified the potential for similar 
    configuration-management conditions at Millstone Units 2 and 3; and (2) 
    design configuration issues identified at these units, the NRC issued 
    letters to the licensee, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), on March 7 and 
    April 4, 1996. These letters required that the licensee inform the NRC 
    of the corrective actions taken regarding design configuration issues 
    at Millstone Units 2 and 3 before the restart of each unit.5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\ By letter dated April 16, 1997, the NRC clarified the 
    information it needed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In June 1996, the NRC designated the units at Millstone as Category 
    3 plants due to additional inspection findings regarding design bases 
    and design control, some of which were similar to the examples the 
    Petitioner raised. Plants in this category have significant weaknesses 
    that warrant maintaining them in a shutdown condition until the 
    licensee can demonstrate to the NRC that it has both established and 
    implemented adequate programs to ensure substantial improvement. Plants 
    in this category require Commission authorization to resume operations.
        On August 14, 1996, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order directing 
    the licensee to contract with a third party to implement an Independent 
    Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP) to verify the adequacy 
    of its efforts to establish adequate design bases and design controls. 
    The ICAVP is intended to provide additional assurance, before each of 
    the three Millstone units restart, that the licensee has identified and 
    corrected existing problems in the design and configuration control 
    processes.
        The guidelines for approving the restart of a nuclear power plant 
    after a shutdown resulting from a significant event, a complex hardware 
    issue, or a serious management deficiency are found in NRC Inspection 
    Manual Chapter (MC) 0350, ``Staff Guidelines for Restart Approval.'' MC 
    0350 states that the staff should develop a plant-specific restart 
    action plan for NRC oversight of each plant startup. The restart action 
    plan is to include those issues listed in MC 0350 that the NRC restart 
    panel has deemed applicable to the reasons for the shutdown. In the
    
    [[Page 24673]]
    
    case of Millstone, the restart action plan will include those issues 
    which the Petitioner has raised; specifically, procedure compliance, 
    work control, and tagging control. Therefore, the NRC staff will 
    thoroughly review these areas prior to the restart of each unit.
        Following a determination that the relevant issues have been 
    identified and corrected by the licensee, the NRC staff will make its 
    recommendation for restart approval to the Commission regarding restart 
    for each Millstone unit. Upon receipt of the staff's recommendation, 
    the Commission will meet to assess the recommendation and vote on 
    whether to approve the restart of the unit.
        In addition, during eight NRC inspections conducted between October 
    1995 and August 1996, more than 60 apparent violations of NRC 
    requirements were identified at Millstone, some of which were similar 
    to the examples the Petitioner raised. These apparent violations were 
    discussed with the licensee at a public pre-decisional enforcement 
    conference held at the Millstone site on December 5, 1996. During the 
    meeting, the licensee stated that management failed to provide clear 
    direction and oversight, performance standards were low, management 
    expectations were weak, and station priorities were inappropriate. 
    Following its evaluation of the information presented at the 
    enforcement conference, the NRC will determine whether further 
    enforcement action is warranted for these apparent violations.
        In sum, the issues raised by the Petitioner are indicative of a 
    more fundamental problem of inadequate management oversight at the 
    Millstone facility. The NRC has been aware of this programmatic problem 
    and weaknesses in numerous areas of the licensee's program, including 
    the areas of procedural compliance, work control, and tagging control, 
    and has taken extensive regulatory action. In particular, as a result 
    of action taken by the NRC, all three units at Millstone will remain 
    shut down until the Commission approves restart of operations. Prior to 
    such approval, the licensee is required to submit a response to the 
    NRC's 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter dated April 16, 1997, identifying what 
    actions the licensee has taken to ensure that in the future it would 
    operate that facility according to the terms and conditions of the 
    plant's operating license, the Commission's regulations, and the 
    plant's UFSAR. This response will encompass the areas identified by the 
    Petitioner and will be thoroughly reviewed by the NRC. In addition, the 
    NRC is currently reviewing the apparent violations which have been 
    identified as a result of inspections conducted at the facility between 
    October 1995 and August 1996, and, following its review, will take such 
    enforcement action as it deems is warranted.
        These actions go beyond those requested by the Petitioner. 
    Therefore, to the extent that the Petitioner has requested that the NRC 
    take action against the licensee for violations at Millstone involving 
    procedural compliance, work control, and tagging control, the Petition 
    has been granted. Given the action already taken by the NRC, the NRC 
    has determined that the additional enforcement action requested by the 
    Petitioner is not warranted at this time.
    
    III. Conclusion
    
        The staff has completed its review of the information submitted by 
    the Petitioner in his Petition and its supplements. The staff has 
    concluded that the actions taken by the NRC against NU are appropriate 
    and encompass the Petitioner's examples of violations in the areas of 
    procedure compliance, work control, and tagging control. To this 
    extent, the Petitioner's requests for enforcement action against NU is 
    granted, in part. In other respects, the Petition is denied. As 
    provided for in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be filed 
    with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review. This 
    Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days 
    after issuance unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes 
    review of the Decision in that time.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 1997.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Samuel J. Collins,
    Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 97-11724 Filed 5-5-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
05/06/1997
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
97-11724
Pages:
24671-24673 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336, 50-423
PDF File:
97-11724.pdf