[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