IR 05000336/2015008
| ML15041A162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/2015 |
| From: | Dan Dorman Region 1 Administrator |
| To: | Heacock D Dominion Nuclear Connecticut |
| Crisden C | |
| References | |
| EA-14-126 IR 2015008 | |
| Download: ML15041A162 (8) | |
Text
February 10, 2015
SUBJECT:
MILLSTONE POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 - NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000336/2015008 AND 05000423/2015008
Dear Mr. Heacock:
This letter provides you the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) enforcement decision for the apparent violation identified during a special inspection conducted on June 2, 2014, through July 15, 2014, at the Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Dominion) Millstone Nuclear Power Station (Millstone). The special inspection was conducted in response to the May 25, 2014, dual-unit reactor trip and loss of offsite power event. The apparent violation, which involved Dominion making a change to the Millstone facility without completing an evaluation required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.59 and without obtaining prior NRC approval, was discussed during an exit meeting conducted on July 15, 2014, with Mr. Matt Adams, Plant Manager, and other Dominion staff. The apparent violation was also described in the NRC inspection report accompanying our letter dated August 28, 2014 (ML14240A0061).
In the letter transmitting the inspection report, we provided you with the opportunity to address the apparent violations identified in the report by either attending a predecisional enforcement conference, by providing a written response, or requesting Alternative Dispute Resolution, before we made our final enforcement decision. We requested additional information from Dominion regarding why its staff did not conduct the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and how future corrective actions would prevent similar situations. In a letter dated October 14, 2014 (ML14288A481), you provided a response to the apparent violation that included a description of the corrective steps taken to address and prevent recurrence.
1 Designation in parentheses refers to an Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number. Documents referenced in this letter are publicly-available using the accession number in ADAMS. Based on the information developed during the inspection and that you provided in your October 14, 2014, letter, the NRC has determined that a violation of NRC requirements occurred. The violation is cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding it are described in detail in the subject inspection report.
Specifically, on December 20, 2012, Dominion removed the Millstone severe line outage detection (SLOD) special protection system without completing a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and without submitting the proposed change to the NRC for review and approval. The SLOD system was described in the Millstone Unit 2 and Unit 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSAR) Sections 8.1 and 8.2, respectively, as being credited for meeting the requirements of General Design Criterion 17 such that the system would protect a single transmission line during potential grid instability conditions, and would ensure the availability of the offsite power to both units.
The SLOD system was owned by the transmission system owner (Northeast Utilities (NU)). This system was removed after NU and Dominion determined that the modifications implemented to Millstones transmission lines negated its need. Prior to the removal of SLOD, Dominion completed a 10 CFR 50.59 screening for the change, and concluded that a full 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not required. The NRC concluded that, with the removal of SLOD, the facility no longer met the offsite power description in the UFSAR and, therefore, the change required a full 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation (and, likely, prior NRC approval) before implementation.
Dominions failure to complete a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and obtain Commission approval prior to implementing the removal of SLOD impacted the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the significance of the 10 CFR 50.59 violation was characterized at Severity level (SL) III in the traditional enforcement process based on a greater than low-moderate consequence and overall safety significance of the May 25, 2014 event. If SLOD was installed or if the licensee had taken actions to appropriately limit combined unit output, both units would have been protected against a situation which resulted in only a single line of off-site power available. However, since SLOD was removed and station output was not limited, that protection was lost and the result was a dual-unit loss of off-site power (LOOP) which required the proper operation of emergency AC power. The conditional core damage probability given a grid related LOOP at each unit was in the range of 1E-5, as documented in Inspection Report numbers 05000336/2014011 and 05000423/2014011.
In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $70,000 was considered for a SL III violation. Because Millstone has not been the subject of escalated traditional enforcement action within the last two years or two inspections, the NRC considered only whether credit was warranted for Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy. Dominions corrective actions taken to address the failure to conduct a full 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation when one was required included conducting a root cause evaluation, revising procedural guidance, providing training, and completing an extent of condition review. With regards to the above, the NRC concluded that these actions were adequate to address the implementation of the 10 CFR 50.59 review process.
Dominion has also initiated corrective actions to address the discrepancy with the UFSAR facility description as a result of Millstone no longer having SLOD in place. Initial actions included conducting an immediate operability determination and issuing interim guidance for operator actions that provide similar protection to SLOD. The NRC has determined that these initial actions promptly addressed any technical impact of the removal of SLOD. However, the NRC acknowledges that correcting the discrepancy with the UFSAR will entail significant technical evaluation and coordination with NU and other entities, and warrant additional time to finalize the plan. In a telephone conversation between Ray McKinley, Chief, NRC Region I Division of Reactor Projects Branch 5, and Lori Armstrong of your staff on October 29, 2014, your staff committed to notifying the NRC no later than March 31, 2015, regarding Dominions plan and schedule for correcting the licensing basis discrepancy.
The NRC Enforcement Policy provides the Commissions Policy to the staff for considering whether a licensee's response to a violation of 10 CFR 50.59 warrants corrective action credit.
Specifically, Section 2.3.4 of the Enforcement Policy states that corrective actions for a violation of 10 CFR 50.59 would normally be considered prompt and comprehensive only if the licensee makes a prompt decision on operability and either makes a prompt evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59 or promptly initiates corrective actions to restore the facility to its original configuration. Of the two criteria identified to address the facility change, one should be satisfied to generally consider the licensee's corrective actions to be prompt and comprehensive. In this instance, until the plan for correcting the licensing basis discrepancy is finalized, the staff cannot determine whether either criterion is satisfied and therefore the staff is unable to conclude that corrective action credit is warranted. However, in light of the technical evaluations and offsite coordination necessary to resolve the issue, the staff has concluded that the licensee's actions to date are reasonable for the circumstances surrounding this violation.
Therefore, based on the licensees corrective actions to date, the technical complexities of resolving this issue, and in recognition of the absence of previous escalated enforcement action, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, I have been authorized to exercise enforcement discretion in accordance with Section 3.5 of the Enforcement Policy and refrain from proposing a civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil penalty. In addition, issuance of any SL III violation constitutes escalated enforcement action that may subject you to increased inspection effort.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. Your response, as noted above, should include Dominions plan and schedule for correcting the licensing basis discrepancy and should be received no later than March 31, 2015. If you have additional information that you believe the NRC should consider, you may provide it in your response to the Notice. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRCs document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your response, if you choose to provide one, should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such information, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld, and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g.,
explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.390(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information).
The NRC also includes significant enforcement actions on its Web site at (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/).
Sincerely,
/RA Original Signed by/
Daniel H. Dorman Regional Administrator
Docket Nos.
50-336, 50-423 License Nos. DPR-65, NPF-49
Enclosure:
As stated
cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ