[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 147 (Monday, August 2, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41975-41978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19699]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-245]
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Millstone Nuclear Power
Station, Unit 1; Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR
2.206
Notice is hereby given that the Director of the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation has issued a Final Director's Decision with regard
to a Petition dated August 21, 1995, and supplemented on August 28,
1995, submitted by George Galatis and We the People, Inc. (the
Petitioners), requesting action under
[[Page 41976]]
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206 (10 CFR
2.206). The Petition pertains to Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit
1, operated by Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (licensee).
The Petitioners requested that the NRC (1) suspend the license for
the Millstone Unit 1 facility for a period of 60 days after the unit is
brought into compliance with the license and the design basis; (2)
revoke the operating license until the facility is in full compliance
with the terms and conditions of its license; (3) perform a detailed
independent analysis of the offsite dose consequences of the total loss
of spent fuel pool water; and (4) take enforcement action pursuant to
10 CFR 50.5 and 50.9. As bases for their requests, the Petitioners
raised the following three issues: (1) the licensee has knowingly,
willingly, and flagrantly operated Millstone Unit 1 in violation of
License Amendment Nos. 39 and 40; (2) License Amendment Nos. 39 and 40
for Millstone Unit 1 are based on material false statements made by the
licensee in documents submitted to the NRC; and (3) the license
amendment proposed in a letter dated July 28, 1995, should be denied
and the licensee should be required to operate in full conformance with
License Amendment No. 40. By letter dated October 26, 1995, the staff
informed the Petitioners that Issue 3 was determined to be a request
for a licensing action and therefore, was beyond the scope of 10 CFR
2.206.
In a Partial Director's Decision dated December 26, 1996, the
Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation partially
granted Requests 1, 2, and 3 of the Petition on the basis of the
staff's technical review of the core offloading issues presented by the
Petitioners. The reasons for that decision were explained in the
``Partial Director's Decision Pursuant to10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-96-23).
As stated in the Partial Director's Decision, the staff noted that
the focus of the Petition was on assertions of wrongdoing on the part
of the licensee in certain of its actions and, at the time, that the
assertions were still being reviewed by the staff. The staff has
completed its review in this area and for the reasons given in the
``Final Director's Decision Pursuant 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-99-09), Request
4 of the Petition is partially granted.
Additional information is included in the ``Final Director's
Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-99-09), the complete text of
which follows this notice and which is available for public inspection
at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555-0001, and at the local public
document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers
Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich,
Connecticut 06360 and at the Waterford Library, Attn: Vince Juliano, 49
Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut 06385.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Final Director's
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 within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of July 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Final Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206
I. Introduction
On August 21, 1995, George Galatis and We the People, Inc.
(Petitioners), filed a Petition with the Executive Director for
Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to
Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR
2.206). A supplement to the Petition was submitted on August 28, 1995.
These two submittals will hereinafter be referred to as the
``Petition.''
The Petition raised three issues regarding the Millstone Nuclear
Power Station, Unit 1 (Millstone Unit 1), operated by Northeast Nuclear
Energy Company (NNECO or the licensee). First, the Petitioners asserted
that the licensee has knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly operated
Millstone Unit 1 in violation of License Amendment Nos. 39 and 40.
Specifically, Petitioners asserted that NNECO had offloaded more fuel
assemblies into the Millstone Unit 1 spent fuel pool (SFP) during
refueling outages than permitted under these license amendments.
Second, Petitioners asserted that License Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 for
Millstone Unit 1 are based on material false statements made by the
licensee in documents submitted to the NRC. Third, Petitioners asserted
that the license amendment proposed by the licensee under cover of a
letter dated July 28, 1995, regarding offloading of the entire core of
spent fuel assemblies at Millstone Unit 1, should be denied and the
licensee should be required to operate in full conformance with License
Amendment No. 40.
On the basis of these assertions, the Petitioners requested that
the NRC (1) institute a proceeding under 10 CFR 2.202 to suspend the
license for the Millstone Unit 1 facility for a period of 60 days after
the unit is brought into compliance with the licensing basis and the
design basis, (2) revoke the operating license for the Millstone Unit 1
facility until it is in full compliance with the terms and conditions
of its license, (3) perform a detailed independent analysis of the
offsite dose consequences of the total loss of SFP water, before
reinstatement of the license, and (4) take enforcement action against
NNECO pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.9. Finally, Petitioners requested
that the proposed license amendment sought by NNECO be denied.
In the supplement to the Petition dated August 28, 1995, the
Petitioners made additional assertions in support of their first and
third issues. Specifically, in support of Issue 1, the Petitioners
asserted that the licensees for Millstone Units 2 and 3 and Seabrook
Unit 1 also performed full core offloads in violation of their
licenses. In support of Issue 3, the Petitioners asserted that there is
a material false statement in a submission used to support a previous
Millstone Unit 3 license amendment request, and that there is an
unanalyzed condition in the Millstone Unit 3 Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report in that system piping had not been analyzed for the
full core offload normal end-of-cycle event. Also, with regard to
Seabrook Station Unit 1, the Petitioners asserted that there are
Technical Specification violations related to criticality analysis and
gaps in Boraflex material.
By letter dated October 26, 1995, the NRC informed the Petitioners
that the Petition had been referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations for
preparation of a response. The NRC also informed the Petitioners that
the NRC staff would take appropriate action within a reasonable time
regarding the specific concerns raised in the Petition. Additionally,
the NRC staff informed the Petitioners that their request with regard
to issues associated with the requested license amendment (i.e.,
Petitioners' third issue) was not within the scope of 10 CFR 2.206 and
thus was not appropriate for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206.
In a Partial Director's Decision (DD-96-23) dated December 26,
1996, the staff documented its technical review of the full core
offload issue at Millstone Units 1, 2, and 3 and Seabrook Unit 1.
[[Page 41977]]
The staff concluded that Millstone Units 1 and 3 and Seabrook Unit 1
could safely offload full cores. Additionally, the staff found that
Millstone Unit 2 was not routinely performing full core offloads as
asserted by the Petitioners. However, the staff's followup of SFP
issues raised by the Petitioners led, in part, to the identification of
a broad spectrum of configuration management concerns that had to be
corrected before the Commission allowed restart of any Millstone unit.
On August 14, 1996, the NRC staff issued a Confirmatory Order
establishing an Independent Corrective Action Verification Program
(ICAVP) for each Millstone unit to ensure that the plant's physical and
functional characteristics were in conformance with its licensing and
design basis. The ICAVP was performed and completed for Millstone Units
2 and 3 to the satisfaction of the NRC before the Commission allowed
the plants to restart.1 To the extent that Millstone Unit 1
permanently ceased operation, as stated in the Partial Director's
Decision, the staff determined that the Petitioners' requests for
suspension and revocation of the Millstone Unit 1 operating license was
partially granted. The staff further stated that it had evaluated spent
fuel accidents beyond the design bases and, to this extent, the
Petitioners' request to perform analyses of such accidents was also
partially granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The staff notes that by letter dated July 21, 1998, the
licensee informed the NRC of its decision to permanently shut down
Millstone Unit 1. Upon the permanent shutdown of Millstone Unit 1,
the staff determined that the requirement to perform an ICAVP at
Millstone Unit 1 was no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Partial Director's Decision, the staff stated that since the
Petitioners' letter of August 28, 1995, contained assertions relating
to the third issue (that the license amendment proposed by the licensee
under cover of a letter dated July 28, 1995, should be denied) and that
the issue was not appropriate for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206, the
staff would forward its findings to the Petitioners by separate
correspondence. In a letter to the Petitioners dated July 1, 1999, the
staff addressed these assertions.
In the Partial Director's Decision, the staff stated that it was
still considering the Petitioners' assertions that the licensee
knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly operated Millstone Unit 1 in
violation of License Amendment Nos. 39 and 40 and submitted material
false statements to obtain License Amendment Nos. 39 and 40 (as they
support the Petitioners' fourth request). As explained below, the NRC
staff has taken actions that, in part, grant the Petitioners' request.
II. Discussion
Request for Enforcement Action Against NNECO Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5
and 50.9
The Petitioners based their requests on their assertion that the
licensee has knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly operated Millstone
Unit 1 in violation of License Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 and that
License Amendment Nos. 39 and 40 for Millstone Unit 1 are based on
material false statements. Specifically, the Petitioners stated that
the licensee conducted full core offloads as a routine practice when
its licensing basis analyses assumed one-third core offloads as the
normal refueling practice. In their supplemental letter of August 28,
1995, the Petitioners asserted that the licensees for Millstone Units 2
and 3 and Seabrook Unit 1 also performed full core offloads in
violation of their licenses. The Petitioners further contend that the
licensee's actions subjected the public to an unacceptable risk.
As explained in the Partial Director's Decision, the staff
concluded that Millstone Units 1 and 3 and Seabrook Unit 1 could safely
offload full cores. Additionally, the staff found that Millstone Unit 2
was not routinely performing full core offloads as asserted by the
Petitioners.
In a letter to the licensee dated May 25, 1999, regarding a Notice
of Violation and Exercise of Enforcement Discretion, the staff stated
that it had completed the investigations concerning the performance of
fuel offloads at Millstone Unit 1. Regarding the Petitioners' assertion
concerning the Millstone Unit 1 full core offload practice, the NRC has
drawn a distinction between routinely conducting full core offloads and
conducting any offloads before the delay times assumed in the Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The NRC has concluded that enforcement
action is not warranted at Millstone Unit 1 and other nuclear
facilities for conducting full core offloads on a routine basis. The
NRC determined that the use of the terms ``abnormal'' and ``emergency''
in describing the full core offload scenario in the FSAR did not appear
to be presented by the licensee nor understood by the staff as a
commitment to limit the frequency with which full core offloads were
conducted at Millstone Unit 1. In this regard, the licensee informed
the NRC staff of its practice of offloading the full core at Millstone
Unit 1 in a meeting on June 16, 1988, associated with the License
Amendment No. 40 request pertaining to SFP reracking. Further, although
the analytical constraints and assumptions for the full core offload
were generally less restrictive than those for a partial core offload,
in licensing actions (typically rerack amendments) for nuclear plants,
including Millstone Unit 1, the NRC found the plant design for removing
the full core acceptable. Finally, as a way of addressing shutdown
risk, the NRC encouraged, and still does, the practice of full core
offloads. Thus, consistent with the conclusions drawn for all other
plants that routinely performed full core offloads, enforcement is not
being proposed for the Millstone Unit 1 full core offloading practices.
The staff's followup of spent fuel pool issues raised by the
Petitioners, however, led, in part, to the identification of a broad
spectrum of configuration management concerns that had to be corrected
before the Commission allowed restart of any Millstone unit. On the
basis of information developed during the investigation by the NRC's
Office of Investigations, the NRC cited the licensee for four
violations of NRC requirements. Specifically, the NRC determined that,
in careless disregard of NRC requirements, the licensee (1) performed
both partial and full core offloads before the delay times assumed in
the FSAR without the appropriate engineering analysis; (2) utilized
unapproved and unanalyzed system configurations to augment SFP cooling
during refueling outages, without procedures to govern those
activities; and (3) in two instances, submitted incomplete and
inaccurate information to the NRC (violations of 10 CFR 50.9(a))
related to the performance of fuel offloads that were actually
commenced before the delay times assumed in the analysis submitted to
the NRC.
In its May 25, 1999, letter transmitting the Notice of Violation,
the NRC also stated that these violations, which existed for a long
time, appeared to be the result of the deficient safety culture, which
contributed to the shutdown of all three Millstone units for an
extended period and resulted in a number of other violations for which
the NRC issued a $2,100,000 civil penalty to the licensee on December
10, 1997. That penalty was based, in part, on (1) the licensee's
failure to ensure that the plant was maintained in the configuration as
designed and specified in the licensing basis and (2) the licensee's
failure to promptly correct nonconforming conditions. The NRC concluded
that the failure of licensee management to
[[Page 41978]]
establish standards to ensure that the plant was maintained and
operated as designed, and to ensure that nonconforming conditions were
promptly identified and corrected, constituted careless disregard of
requirements. As such, the violations that resulted from that deficient
safety culture, which fostered such disregard, were considered willful
in accordance with the ``General Statement of Policy and Procedures for
NRC Enforcement Actions NUREG-1600'' (Enforcement Policy).
In its May 25, 1999, letter, the NRC further stated that in
consideration of (1) the undesirable consequences of performance of
unanalyzed core offloads and the licensee's failure to ensure that SFP
heat removal was conducted in accordance with approved procedures; (2)
the significance of the licensee's providing incomplete and inaccurate
information to the NRC; and (3) the significance that the NRC places on
careless disregard of its requirements, the four violations had been
classified, in the aggregate, as a Severity Level III violation in
accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy. For the reasons outlined in
its letter of May 25, 1999, the staff exercised enforcement discretion
and did not issue a civil penalty for the violations. In its letter,
the NRC staff stated that discretion is appropriate because the
licensee already implemented corrective actions to address the
underlying performance problems at Millstone and further enforcement
action is not necessary to achieve additional remedial actions.
In their Petition, the Petitioners requested that the NRC take
enforcement action against the licensee pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5 and
50.9. Although not specifically for the reasons cited by the
Petitioners (the Petitioners based their requests on their assertion
that the licensee has knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly operated
Millstone Unit 1 in violation of License Amendment Nos. 39 and 40 and
that License Amendment Nos. 39 and 40 for Millstone Unit 1 are based on
material false statements), the NRC did find that in two instances the
licensee submitted incomplete and inaccurate information to the NRC
related to the performance of fuel offloads that were actually being
commenced before the delay times assumed in the analysis submitted to
the NRC. Therefore, for the reasons previously given, the NRC's actions
constitute a partial granting of the Petitioners' request regarding
enforcement action pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5 and 50.9.
III. Conclusion
The staff has completed the investigations concerning the
performance of fuel offloads at Millstone and has taken enforcement
action as outlined in its letter and Notice of Violation to the
licensee dated May 25, 1999. Therefore, to this extent, Petitioners'
request for enforcement action against NNECO pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5
and 50.9 is partially granted.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Final Director's
Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the
Commission's review. This Final Director's Decision will constitute the
final action of the Commission (for Petitioners' Request 4) 25 days
after its issuance, unless the Commission, on its own motion,
institutes review of the Decision within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of July 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-19699 Filed 7-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P