[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50117-50119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24059]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-213].
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.; Issuance of Director's
Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, has issued a Director's Decision concerning a petition
dated March 11, 1997, filed by Rosemary Bassilakis pursuant to Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206), on
behalf of the Citizens Awareness Network and the Nuclear Information
Resource Service (Petitioners). The petition requested that the NRC (1)
commence enforcement action against the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power
Company (CY) by means of a large civil penalty to assure compliance
with safety-based radiological control routines; (2) modify CY's
license for the Haddam Neck Plant, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, to
prohibit any decommissioning activity, which would include
decontamination or dismantling, until CY manages to conduct routine
maintenance at the facility without the occurrence of any contamination
events for at least 6 months; and (3) place the Haddam Neck Plant on
the NRC Watch List.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, determined that
a decision on the first request listed above should be deferred and
that the second and third requests should be denied for the reasons
stated in Partial Director's Decision DD-97-19, issued on September 3,
1997. Subsequently, the Director has determined that the first request
listed above should be granted in part and denied in part for the
reasons stated in the ``Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-
99-11) the complete text of which follows this notice and is available
for public inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Document
Room, the Gelman Building, 2210 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, and at
the local public document room located at the Russell Library, 123
Broad Street, Middletown, Connecticut.
A copy of the decision will be filed with the Secretary of the
Commission for the Commission's review. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206(c),
this decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25
days after issuance, unless the Commission, on its own motion,
institutes a review of the decision within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of September 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 Completion of Previously
Issued Partial Director's Decision
I. Introduction
On March 11, 1997, Rosemary Bassilakis submitted a petition
pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206
(10 CFR 2.206), on behalf of the Citizens Awareness Network and the
Nuclear Information Resource Service (Petitioners) requesting that the
NRC (1) commence enforcement action against the Connecticut Yankee
Atomic Power Company (CY, or licensee) by means of a large civil
penalty to assure compliance with safety-based radiological control
routines; (2) modify CY's license for the Haddam Neck Plant, pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.202, to prohibit any decommissioning activity, which would
include decontamination or dismantling, until CY manages to conduct
routine maintenance at the facility without any occurrence of
contamination events for at least 6 months; and (3) place the Haddam
Neck Plant on the NRC Watch List. The Petitioners stated that their
particular concern was the inability of CY management to maintain
proper radiological controls at the Haddam Neck Plant.
In support of their requests, the Petitioners noted three
radiological deficiencies that occurred at the Haddam Neck Plant. The
first occurred on various dates in 1996 and involved inadequate
calibration of various
[[Page 50118]]
detectors in the radiation monitoring system. The second occurred in
November 1996 and involved two individuals who received an unplanned
exposure while working in the fuel transfer canal. The third occurred
in February 1997 and involved the release of contaminated video
equipment to a nonlicensed vendor.
The Petitioners' requests and the NRC's evaluation and conclusions
are discussed in the sections below. The Background section provides
relevant information on NRC oversight and enforcement activities at
Haddam Neck and briefly describes the Partial Director's Decision sent
to the Petitioners in September 1997. The Discussion section describes
the enforcement actions taken in response to the events noted in the
petition and explains the purpose of assessing civil penalties. The
Conclusion section presents the Director's Decision.
II. Background
CY submitted certifications of permanent cessation of operations at
the Haddam Neck Plant and permanent defueling of its reactor on
December 5, 1996. Prior to that date, the NRC identified a number of
significant regulatory concerns regarding the licensee's performance.
The NRC took a number of actions over the next few months to bring the
licensee into compliance with applicable regulations. The actions most
relevant to the Petitioners' requests and concern were the issuance of
Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) No. 1-97-007 on March 4, 1997, a civil
penalty of $650,000 on May 12, 1997, and a supplement to the CAL on
November 17, 1997. The CAL was issued in response to weakness in
managing and controlling radiological work at the Haddam Neck Plant.
The three events noted in the petition were identified in the CAL as
examples of radiological weaknesses. The civil penalty did not
specifically address radiological issues, but did identify programmatic
weaknesses that required prompt and comprehensive correction of
violations. In the November 17, 1997, supplement to the CAL, the NRC
found, after conducting several inspections, that CY had achieved
radiation program improvement in several areas. Subsequently, on May 5,
1998, the NRC found that the licensee had completed all the commitments
listed in the CAL and that it could safely conduct significant
radiological work.
The NRC issued a Partial Director's Decision (DD-97-19) on
September 3, 1997, in response to the three requests contained in the
petition. The first request, to take enforcement action and impose a
large civil penalty on the licensee, was deferred until inspections and
investigations could be completed and enforcement actions evaluated for
the deficiencies noted. The Partial Director's Decision did not
consider the May 12, 1997, civil penalty to be a response to the
Petitioners' first request because radiological issues were not
included in the notice of violation. The second request, to impose a 6-
month moratorium on decommissioning activities, was denied because (1)
on the basis of experience, there was no reason to expect that 10 CFR
Part 20 dose limits would be exceeded at the Haddam Neck Plant, (2) a
senior resident inspector was on site to monitor and inspect the
licensee's performance on a day-to-day basis, and (3) a confirmatory
action letter was issued to CY on March 4, 1997, to document the
licensee's commitments to improve its radiation protection program. The
third request, to place Haddam Neck on the NRC Watch List, was denied
on the basis that the inspection program in place at the plant was
sufficient to monitor licensee performance at a permanently shutdown
and defueled reactor.
III. Discussion of Petitioners' Deferred Request
The three radiological deficiencies noted by the Petitioners have
been inspected and investigated. In considering the Petitioners'
deferred request, the NRC determined whether violations of NRC
requirements occurred. Identified violations were then dispositioned in
accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy.
The first deficiency, involving inadequate calibration of various
detectors in the radiation monitoring system (RMS) during 1996, was
identified as a violation by NRC letter dated January 15, 1998. The NRC
determined that a violation of regulatory requirements occurred in that
the licensee failed to establish and implement RMS test procedures as
required by Technical Specification 6.8. Such programmatic deficiency
on the part of a licensee would normally be subject to escalated
enforcement action. However, the NRC determined that the provisions of
Section VII.B.2, ``Violations Identified During Extended Shutdowns or
Work Stoppages,'' of the Enforcement Policy applied, and it decided to
exercise enforcement discretion in this case. Therefore, the NRC did
not issue a notice of violation or propose a civil penalty. This
decision was made on the basis that (1) the events leading to the
violation took place before the permanent shutdown of the plant in
December 1996 and (2) the licensee had already been issued a $650,000
civil penalty on May 12, 1997, for technical and safety review program
inadequacies that led to the inadequate RMS calibrations and other
violations.
The second deficiency, involving an unplanned radiation exposure,
resulted in a notice of violation issued to the licensee on April 5,
1999. The NRC identified several violations that occurred during the
event and classified them in the aggregate as a Severity Level III
violation. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty
is normally considered for a Severity Level III violation or problem.
However, the NRC determined that Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement
Policy, ``Violations Involving Special Circumstances,'' applied to the
event, and it exercised enforcement discretion to not impose a civil
penalty in this case. Therefore, the NRC did not propose a civil
penalty because (1) the violations occurred before CY's decision, in
December 1996, to permanently shut down and defuel the Haddam Neck
facility and (2) CY had already been issued a $650,000 civil penalty on
May 12, 1997, to address poor performance that existed before the
decision was made to permanently shut down the reactor.
The third deficiency, involving release of contaminated equipment,
was the subject of two enforcement actions, both issued on May 12,
1999. The first enforcement action was issued as a notice of violation
to an individual on the basis that he attempted to conceal the release
of contaminated video equipment to a nonlicensed vendor. The NRC
classified the violation as Severity Level III. The NRC considered
issuing an Order to the individual to prevent him from engaging in
licensed activities at NRC licensed facilities. The NRC did not issue
an Order to the individual because, among other factors, he was not in
a management or supervisory position at the facility, and was no longer
employed in, nor seeking work in, the nuclear industry. The second
enforcement action was issued to CY for failure to perform an adequate
survey, with subsequent loss of control of material. However, CY
promptly achieved compliance by retrieving the contaminated equipment.
CY then investigated the cause of the release and took corrective
actions to prevent recurrence. Therefore, because the release of the
contaminated material and the resultant loss of control of material
were not willful on the part of the licensee, the NRC classified the
violation as Severity Level IV and treated it as a noncited violation
in accordance with Appendix C of the Enforcement Policy. Violations
treated
[[Page 50119]]
in this manner are not subject to a civil penalty.
As discussed above, although the events noted by the Petitioners
constituted violations of the NRC's regulations and certain enforcement
actions were taken, a civil penalty was not assessed on the licensee.
This result partially fulfills the Petitioners' request to take
enforcement action against the licensee. With regard to imposing a
civil penalty, the NRC Enforcement Policy (NUREG-1600, Revision 1,
Section VI.B) states, ``Civil penalties are used to encourage prompt
identification and prompt and comprehensive correction of violations,
to emphasize compliance in a manner that deters future violations, and
to serve to focus licensees' attention on violations of significant
regulatory concern.'' Based on numerous inspections, the NRC has
concluded that the licensee has taken timely and comprehensive
corrective actions to improve its radiation protection program, has
achieved adequate compliance in the time after the events occurred, and
has focused its attention on maintaining adequate radiological
controls. An additional civil penalty is unnecessary in light of the
improvement in the licensee's performance. Consequently, consistent
with the Enforcement Policy, discretion was exercised to not impose
civil penalties for these violations. Therefore, the request to take
enforcement action by means of a large civil penalty on CY in response
to the events noted in the petition is granted in part, in that
enforcement action has been taken against the licensee, and denied in
part, since no civil penalty was imposed.
IV. Decision
For the reasons stated above and in Director's Decision DD-97-19,
issued September 3, 1997, the petition is granted in part and denied in
part. The decision and the documents cited in the decision are
available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2210 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of the decision will be
filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review.
As provided by this regulation, the decision will constitute the final
action of the Commission 25 days after issuance, unless the Commission,
on its own motion, institutes a review of the decision within that
time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of September 1999.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-24059 Filed 9-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P