ML20041D319
| ML20041D319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1982 |
| From: | Stephen Burns NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| EA-81-063, EA-81-63, NUDOCS 8203050209 | |
| Download: ML20041D319 (20) | |
Text
-..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE C0!NISSION In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-293 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY (EA 81-63)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) k8 i
e
\\;
C f,~_ n.",%,
~;
r NRC STAFF'S L;SWEP, OPPOSING REQUEST
'dd
'a7j Q' A, z'..
J ^. -27 FOR A HEARING BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
,~
/
0F THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
,\\&y,.
..]/
w_ _. '
1 Stephen G. Burns Counsel for NRC Staff March 2,1982 l
3-
- DESIGNATED OEIGIEAL
/
Can*ficiF7_l&
2)s o - 7
.1 8203050209 820302 PDR ADOCK 05000293
/ /
G PDR I
i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY Docket No. 50-293 (PilgrimNuclearPowerStation)
)
(EA81-63)
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER OPPOSING REQUEST FOR A HEARING'BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS In one of the most significant enforcement actions ever taken by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement has proposed a fine of $550,000 and issued an immediately effective Order Modifying License that requires extensive corrective actions by the licensee, Boston Edison Company, at its Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.
Boston Edison Company is not contesting the Order Modifying License and is currently taking measures to comply with its terms. None-theless, though he does not oppose the imposition of the order, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has requested that the Com-mission hold a hearing on the order.
Because the holding of a hearing is neither required by law nor a sensible expenditure of Commission resources in this instance, the Attorney General's petition should be denied.
I.
PROCEDURAL SETTING On the basis of NRC inspection findings, the appraisal of Boston Edison Company in the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance j
(SALP) program, and the licensee's enforcement history, the Director of l
l l
4
. the Office of Inspection and Enforcement ordered Boston Edison Company on January 18, 1982, to
" submit to the Administrator of Region I of the NRC, for review and approval a comprehensive plan of action that will yield an independent appraisal of site and corporate management organizations and functions, recommendations for improvements in management controls and oversight, and a review of previous safety-related activities to evaluate com-pliance with NRC requirements.
The plan shall include
'~
a description of the actions to be taken, required implementing staff and their qualifications, docu-mentation requirements, and the plan schedule with important milestones." 47 Fed. Reg. 4172 (Jan. 28, 1982) (enclosed as Exhibit 1).
The order also describes the elements that must be included in the plan.
Because the Director determined that public health, safety and interest required initiation of the ordered actions, the Director made the order immediately effective, thereby requiring Boston Edison Company to immediately embark on the steps necessary to comply with the order.
Boston Edison Company requested a 30 day extension for submission of the plan required by the order so that it could obtain additional information and complete other necessary activities affecting the submission of the plan. On February 16, 1982, the Director granted the licensee's request for extension to March 19, 1982.
See Exhibit 2 (enclosed).
Boston Edison Company has not requested a hearing on the Order Modi-fying License.1/ See Licensee's Response to Petition of the Massachusetts
~
-1/
Boston Edison Company has until March 19, 1982, to respond to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties that was issued pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205.
In all events, the licensee's i
response to the proposed civil penalty has no bearing on whether the licensee must comply with the Order Modifying License.
l
(
I
. t Attorney General, a,t 3 (Feb. 26,1982). On February 17, 1982, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a petition requesting a hearing on the Order Modifying License, contending that he is entitled under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to intervene and to require the Commission to hold a hearing on the order.
For the reasons that follow, the Commission should deny the
, Attorney General's request for a hearing on the Director's enforcement order.
II.
THE COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO HOLD A HEARING ON THE ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE.
A.
The Order Was An Immediately Effective Enforcement Action That Imposed New Restrictions on the Pilgrim License In Accordance With Applicable Procedural Requirements.
At the outset, it should be understood that the Director's Order Modifying License is an enforcement action. The Commission has a variety of enforcement sanctions at its disposal to compel licensees to cure violations of the Comission's regulatory requirements and to abate hazards that jeopardize public health and safety.
Enforcement sanctions include notices of violation, civil penalties, and orders to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, as well as informal actions to ensure compliance.
See Proposed General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforcement Actions, 45 Fe.d. Reg. 66754-57 (Oct 7, 1980).
The Director's Order Modifying License is just such an enforcement sanction.
It imposes additional requirements on Boston Edison Company's pre-existing authorization under License No. DPR-35 to operate the Pilgrim plant.
Because the Director had found that public health and 9
. safety so required, the Order Modifying License was made immediately effective and, as discussed below, the order requires compliance with its terms pending the outcome of any challenge to the imposition of the order.
Unless Boston Edison Company complies with the Director's Order, the licensee may be subject to civil penalties or additional orders, such as an order to suspend operation, to ensure compliance.E An important aspect of the Order Modifying License is its imme-diate effectiveness. The significance of an enforcement order's imediate effectiveness is that the licensee must embark on compliance with the order, notwithstanding the licensee's right to contest the imposition of the order. Under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission must hold a hearing on enforcement orders that modify (f.e., amend), suspend, or revoke a license upon the
-2/
To avoid any confusion on this point, it should be underscored that the Order Modifying License does not suspend operation of the Pilgrim plant and does not prevent by its terms restart of the plant after the current outage.
The Director did not determine that this more drastic action was required to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety while the licensee undertook the measures required by the Order flodifying License. Nonetheless, NRC Region I has secured the commitment of Boston EJison Company to take action on certain matters, many of which go beyond the scope of the Order Modifying License, before the plant resumes operation.
See Confirmatory Action Letter 82-05 (Feb.18,1982)
(enclosed as Exhibit 3). Confirmatory Action Letters, which were previously called Immediate Action Letters, are an infortnal enforcement mechanism used to confirm a licensee's commitment to take certain actions to resolve safety concerns.
See 45 Fed. Reg.
66756 (Oct. 7, 1980). Of course, the Director can always take any necessary additional enforcement action in the future to ensure safe operation of the Pilgrim plant.
i
O demand of the licensee or any other person who has an interest affected by the order.3_/ Ordinarily, an enforcement order does not take effect until the licensee consents to the order or fails to request a hearing on the order within the allowed time for such requests or until the conclu-sion of any necessary quasi-judicial processes required to sustain the order.
See 10 CFR 2.204. Although "[t]he norm for administrative action modifying outstanding licenses embraces a prior opportunity to be heard,"
the Comission may take sumary action in exceptional circumstances before the licensee or others with a right to a hearing on the order are heard. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-73-38, 6AEC1082,1083(1973).1/ This principle is embodied in section 9(b)
-3/
With respect to the Order Modifying License at hand, it must appear that a person is adversely affected by the imposition of the terms of the enforcement order for a person to compel the Comission to hold a hearing on the order. See Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-80-10, 11 NRC 438 (1980). The licensee has not contested the Order Modi-fying License, and the Attorney General has not shown that he is adversely affected by the Order Modifying License.
For further elaboration of this point, see section II.B. infra.
-4/
Accord, Nuclear Engineering Co., (Sheffield Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), CLI-79-6, 9 NRC 673, 677 (1979); Licensees Authorized to Possess... Special Nuclear Materials, CLI-77-3, 5 NRC 16, 20-21 (1977). The law has long recognized the power of agencies of government to take sumary action before hearing under compelling circumstances to protect public health or the public interest. See Fahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245 (1947); North American Cold StorageTo. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908); R. A. Holman & Co.
- v. SEC, 299 F.2d 127, 131 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 911 (19T27
O
. of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which prohibits administrative agencies from taking action to restrict licenses without providing the licensee with a prior notice and opportunity to be heard, "except in cases of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or safety require otherwise."5_/ The Commission's regulations governing the issuance of enforcement orders incorporate the provisions of section 9(b) of the APA.
See10CFR2.202(f)and2.204.
Thus, when an enforcement order for modification of license contains the finding that public health, safety or interest requires immediate action, the order may be made immediately effective and the licensee will be required to comply with its terms upon issuance. The Director's Order Modifying License contained, of course, the requisite public health and safety finding and, as a consequence, was made effective.upon issuance. Moreover, no further action is required to sustain the order or to assure that the licensee is bound by its terms, because the licensee has not demanded a hearing on the order.
An understanding of these principles is important, because the Attorney General suggests that "[t]he Commission has arguably failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 189(a) in that it has not provided thirty days' notice in the Federal Register of its intent to
-5/
5 U.S.C. 558(c).
The APA is made generally applicable to the NRC by section 181 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 9(b) of the APA is specifically applicable by virtue of section 186b of the Atomic Energy Act.
42 U.S.C. 2231 and 2236(b).
l
. amend the Pilgrim license to allow for notices of intervention and hear-ing requests." Petition at 4.
Although section 189a requires the Commission to hold a hearing on the demand of any person who is adversely affected by an enforcement order, section 189a does not impose any particular notice and timing requirements for the holding of a hearing on an enforcement action.6_/ As discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Comission may take immediate enforcement action in exceptional circumstances to modify or suspend the existing authority under a license.
The Attorney General's suggestion to the contrary is based on a misread-ing of the third sentence of section 189a. When read in context with the fourth sentence of section 189a, it is clear that the third sentence of section 189a does not apply notice and publication requirements on Comission-initiated enforcement actions modifying licenses, but applies such requirements only to Commission action with respect to certain licensee applications for amendments, i.e., those amend.nents which the Comission determines involve a significant hazards consideration:
"In cases where such a construction permit has been issued following the holding of such a hearing [on d construction permit application], the Comission may, in the absence of a request therefor by any person whose interest may be affected, issue an operating license or an amendment to a construction permit or an amendment to an operating license without a hearing, but upon thirty days' notice and publication once in the Federal Register of its intent to do so. The Comission may dispense with such thirty days' notice and publication with respect to any application for an 6/
In all events, as discussed in section II.B., the Attorney General
~
is rot entitled as a matter of right to a hearing on the Order Modifying License.
\\
+ )
amendment to a construction permit or an amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that the amendment j
involves no significant hazards consideration." 42 U.S.C. 2239(a)
(emphasisadded).
To accept the Attorney General's suggestion would mean that the Commission is powerless to take immediate emergency action to ensure adequate pro-tection of public health and safety. Common sense and unbroken past practice under the Commission's rules governing enforcement actions belie
- this notion. The Attorney General's viewpoint in this regard is particu-larly surprising in light of his professed interest in assuring the safety of Massachusetts citizens and his apparent belief that the Com-mission was justified in taking the ordered actions against Boston Edison Company.
The Attorney General also demands that the Commission or the staff take "no further action in this matter pending his admission as a party" to the proceeding.
Even if the Attorney General were entitled to a hearing as a matter of law, the Commission would not be constrained from taking actions to review Boston Edison's corrective actions, to O
e
0 0 impose additional requirements, or to accept, at least on a tentative basis, the licensee's plan and schedule for implementation.7,/
B.
The Attorney General Is Not Adversely Affected by thf Order And Is Therefore Not Entitled to A Hearing on the Order.
Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, requires the Commission to grant a hearing upon request of any person who has an interest affected by any proceeding for the granting, suspending, revoking, or amending of a license.
In enforcement proceedings, as in licensing proceedings, the Commission applies judicial concepts of standing in determining rights to a hearing under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act.
Public Service Co. of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Stations, Units 1 & 2), CLI-80-10,11 NRC 438, 439 (1980)(hereinafter Marble Hill); Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 (1976).
See also
--7/
Cf. Consumers Power Co., supra, 6 NRC at 1083, in which the Commission found that the Director of Regulation could rescind an immediate suspension without a prior hearing where public health and safety no longer required an immediate suspension.
In Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-79-7, 9 NRC 680 (1979), the Commission declined to prevent restart of a facility that was shut down as a result of an NRC order even though requests for a hearing had been made by other persons.
On review, the Ninth Circuit declined to disturb the Commission's decision.
United States, 600 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1979).
In analogous circumstances, courts have refused.to enjoin agencies from con-tinuing to exercise their investigatory powers merely because an adjudication of related matters was underway.
See Atlantic Richfield Co. v. FTC, 398 F.Supp. 1, 15-17 (S.D. Tex. 1975),
aff'd, 546 F.2d 6TE-(5th Cir.1977); Sutro Bros. & Co. v. SEC, 139 F.Supp. 438 (S.D. N.Y. 1961).
. 10 CFR 2.714(a)(2) & (d).
To satisfy this test of " standing" in the context of an enforcement action like the Order Modifying License, it must appear that the petitioner has been or will be injured in fact by the order and that the petitioner's interest is within the zone of interests protected by the Atomic Energy Act. Marble Hill, supra,11 NRC at 439. The injury-in-fact aspect of the standing test has been described as a test of "whether a cognizable interest of the petitioner might be adversely affected if the proceeding has one outcome rather than another."
Nuclear Engineering Co. (Sheffield Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978).
In this case, the Order Modifying License was effective upon issuance and the licensee has net contested the imposition of the order. Therefore, to be granted a hearing as of right on the Order Modifying License, the Attorney General must show that he has an interest adversely affected by the imposition of the terms of the order itself.8/ Marble Hill, supra,11 NRC at 439; Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), CLI-81-32 CCH Nuclear Reg. Rep. 1 30,645 (Nov.25,1981); Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Plant, Units 3
& 4), CLI-81-31, CCH Nuclear Reg. Rep. 1 30,648.
(Nov. 25, 1981).
~~8/
The Attorney General invokes section 189a as the source of his right to a hearing on the Director's order.
The provisions of 10 CFR 2.715(c) which permit participation by representatives of "an interested State" in NRC hearings are not applicable here and are not relied upon by the Attorney General. A request under 10 CFR 2.715 does not itself trigger a hearing on NRC enforcement actions.
See Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1),
CLI-80-36, T2 NRC 523, 527 (1980) (views of Chairman Ahearne and Corrnissioner Hendrie).
. l The Attorney General has not alleged, however, that he or the inter-ests that he represents are adversely affected by the imposition of the Order Modifying License.
The Attorney General has requested a hearing "to protect the interests of the Commonwealth and his constituents in the safe operation of the Pilgrim plant." Petition at 2.
His petition does not specify any harm to these interests that results from the order's requirements.
Indeed, the Attorney General appears to agree that the Director had an adequate basis for issuing the order and was justified in imposing the order's restrictions on the Pilgrim license.
See Petition at 2-3, 5-6.
The Director's order requires steps to improve plant safety, a consequence that is consonant with the Attorney General's interests.
The Attorney General's request for a hearing is based on a "sub-stantial interest in the subject matter of this Order." Petition at 3 (emphasis added). An interest in the " subject matter" of an order is not, however, an adequate basis for demanding a hearing as of right on Commission actions.
Nuclear Engineering Co., supra, 7 NRC at 741-43; Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 421-23 (1976).
Undoubtedly, the Attorney General, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and its citizens are con-cerned with adequate protection of public health and safety in the operation of nuclear power plants.
That general concern, in the absence of an allegation that the Director's order has harmed such interests, l
l i
. does not require the Commission to hold a hearing at the Attorney General's request.9/ Marble Hill, supra,11 NRC at 439; Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-536, 9 NRC 402, 404 (1979).
The Attorney General states that, without his participation, "the public can have no assurance that continued operation of the facility will not jeopardize their health and safety." Petition at 3.
This statement implies that the Commission and the Director will not perform their statutory responsibilities unless the Attorney General not only participates in the NRC's review of Boston Edison Company's corrective actions, but also does so in the context of a formal adjudicatory hearing.
Not only is this alleged infidelity to duty unsupported by the Attorney General's petition, but this proposition is all the more startling in view of the Director's action in issuing the order in the first place.
In view of his list of issues for hearing, the Attorney General apparently believes that a hearing should be held to determine, among other things, whether the Director's enforcement action was sufficient or whether additional requirements should be imposed once Boston Edison 4
Company's plan has been submitted and reviewed by the NRC staff. A hearing on such issues is not available under the Director's order. The
-9/
Assuming that the Attorney General is entitled to represent the interests of his " constituents," it is not at all clear that these constituents deem themselves adversely affected by the Director's actions to improve safe operation of the Pilgrim facility. As the Appeal Board has observed, all persons who live near a facility may not deem themselves potentially aggrieved by Commission proceedings.
Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Sta-tion, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 393 (1979).
. Order Modifying License only contemplates a hearing, if one is required, on the issue of whether there is an adequate basis to sustain the order:
1.e., whether the licensee should submit a plan and implement the plan upon approval by the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I.
Put another way, the order offers a hearing on the necessity for the ordered correc-tive actions, but the order does not offer a hearing on the need for some additional enforcement action beyond that actually imposed.
See Marble Hill, supra,11 NRC at 440; Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), CLI-80-32, 12 NRC 281, 289 (1980,',
That the Conmission may restrict the scope of a hearing on an enforce-ment order to the question of whether a particular remedy should be imposed is beyond question.
The Commission has discretion to control intervention and the scope of its proceedings.
BPI v. AEC, 502 F.2d 424, 427 (D.C.
Cir.1974).
In enforcement matters, the Commission "is empowered to develop that enforcement policy best calculated to achieve the. ends contemplated by Congress and to allocate its available funds and personnel in such a way as to execute its policy efficiently and economically."
Moog Industries v. FTC, 355 U.S. 411, 413 (1958), cited ;il Marble Hill, j
supra, 11 NRC at 441. Moreover, courts have not required the Commission to hold hearings to determine whether it should exercise its discretion to initiate enforcement proceedings.
See Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, Inc., v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363,1369 (D.C. Cir.1979);
People of the State of Illinois v. NRC, 591 F.2d 12, 14 (7th Cir. 1979).
Thus, the Commission is not required to hold a hearing on the Order
. Modifying License to determine whether additional remecies are required as a result of further staff review.E This limitation on the scope of enforcement proceedings is reasonable, because, as the Commission has observed, "public health and safety is best served by concentrating inspection and enforcement resources on actual field inspec-tions and related scientific and engineering work, as opposed to the conduct of legal proceedings.
This consideration calls for a policy that encourages licensees to consent to, rather than contest, enforcement actions.
Such a policy would be thwarted if licensees which consented to enforcement actions were routinely subjected to formal proceedings possibly leading to more severe or different enforcement actions."
Marble Hill, supra, 11 NRC at 441. These considerations have particular force here, because a hearing is not necessary to sustain the Director's order and to assure that the licensee is bound by its terms. A hearing
(
would re-direct agency resources from the conduct of project inspections and related engineering reviews at the Pilgrim plant and other facili-ties to the conduct of an adjudicatory proceeding.
C.
The Commission Should Not Order a Hearing as a Matter of Discretion.
The Comission has the discretion to hold hearings where such action is not strictly required as a matter.of law. Marble Hill. supra, 11 NRC at 442; Portland General Electric Co., supra, 4 NRC at 614-15.- In circum-stances like these in which the licensee has not contested imposition of an order, the Commission has indicated that such discretion should be exercised sparingly. Marble Hill, supra, 11 NRC at 441.
In Portland
--10/
In Commission practice, requests for additional enforcement action may be brought under 10 CFR 2.206.
As elaborated on in section II.C. of this brief, this option is available to the Attorney l
General here.
l I
. General Electric Co., supra, 4 NRC at 616, the Commission noted factors that weigh in favor of allowing discretionary intervention (expected contribution of the petitioner to a sound record, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the effect of any order entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest) and factors that weigh against discretionary intervention (availability of other means of relief, the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by other parties, and the extent to which the petitioner's participation will inappropriately broaden or delay the proceeding).
Consideration of these factors does not lead to the conclusion that a discretionary hear-ing is appropriate in this instance.
In a decision to permit participation in a proceeding or to hold a hearing on a discretionary basis, the most important factor to be considered is the extent of the contribution which might be expected of the petitioner.
Id. at 617. Although the nature and extent of the information that the Attorney General would contribute is not apparent on the face of his petition for a hearing, it should be emphasized again that no issues of law or fact are required to be resolved to sustain imposition of the order's terms.
The order is effective.
The licensee has not contested the order, and the Attorney General does not oppose the imposition of the order. The Attorney General has not shown that the interests he represents are adversely affected by the order. A hearing would divert Commission resources from inspections and engineering reviews to the conduct of an adjudicatory proceeding when such a proceed-ing is not required.
I
J
. The Attorney General expresses concern that the licensee's correc-tive actions may not be sufficient and the staff may not take appropriate measures to assure adequate implementation of the plan or correction of future problems identified as a result of the plan's implementation.
These concerns are at best speculative at the present time, and the Attorney General does not aver that the Director failed to adequately address the operational problems at Pilgrim by issuance of the Order Modifying License.
If the Attorney General is dissatisfied with the
' staff's future actions or the licensee's steps to comply with the Director's order, the Attorney General may file a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206 on the basis of specific facts that demonstrate a need for further NRC action. See Marble Hill, supra,11 NRC at 442-43. The licensee's submissions to the NRC and the staff's approvals of the corrective steps will be matters of public record, available to the Attorney General and others who may believe that, on the basis of those documents, the NRC should take further action.
The use of 10 CFR 2.206 procedures, not the holding of a discretionary hearing, should be the means by which a member of the public, including the Attorney General, should cause the Commission to evaluate the need for future enforcement action.
III.
CONCLUSION The Attorney General has not established that he has a right to a hearing on the Director's Order Modifying License.
Because the licensee has not contested imposition of the order, no hearing is necessary to I
. sustain the order. A discretionary hearing would not be a wise comit-ment of the Comission's resources. The Attorney General has the right under 10 CFR 2.206 to require the Comission's consideration of future actions.
For these reasons, the Attorney General's petition for a hearing l
l on the Order Modifying License should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
' ' ' 'A Stephen G. Burns Counsel to NRC Staff 1
Enclosures:
Exhibits 1-3 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 2nd day of March, 1982.
l t
1 e
l l
l l
l
Fehr:1 Regist:r} Vcl. 47, Ns.19 / Thursday, January 28, 1982 / Notic:s 4171 Sube:mmittse en Aircraft Controls cad TiMc 9.00 c.m. until l:00 p.m.
sid by the licenses) for th2 licensee's 1
~ '
Cuidtr.co.
ruReosc Gener:1 meeting to discuss Ilure to comply with NRC regulations '
CATE AND TIME:Februkry17,1982,8.30 " status of on-going Commission studies; pertaining to the shipment of radio
'c.m.13 4:30 pm; February 18,1982,8:30. to release a background paper on the,
active materials. On the third occasion..
o.m. In 4:30 pm; February 19,1982,8:30, Cuaranteed Student lean Program; and July 8,1960, a $13.000 civil penalty was -
c.m.1211c.m.
.. r.i.-
to establish Commission priodties for.
proposed (which was subsequently paid -
AcoREss: NASA Ames Research Center, the remainder of the year.
. ~ f's - oy the licensee) for the licensee's failuref Bullding 200, Committee. Room, Moffett FOR FURTHER INFORMAT10N CONTACT:
to maintain secondary containment Field, CA.
Richard T, Jerue Executive Director, integdty while moving irradiated fuel..
F2R FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(202) 472-9023.
and for the failure to operate the Dr.Heanen A.Rediess, National
. This meeting was called by the auxiliary electrical system in.
Aeron:utics and Space Administration, Commission Chairman on January it, cecordance with plant procedures.s These events revealinadequacies in Code RTE-8, Washington, DC 20546 1982.
Submitted the 20th day of January,1ea2.
Boston Edison Company contmls in (202/755-3237).
Y*
sVPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:%e Richard T. lerus, Inf:rmal Advisory Subcommittee on hecut/replisctor.
III Aircraft Controls and Cu! dance was tru oor. sm ru.a.c.aa nes -
~
%eresults ofNRCinspec ons
- stablished to assist the NASA in an.tneo coca semec.es
- sussing the overall program. Particular conducted between June 15 and Se tember 30,1981, reveal a series of emphasis is placed on the F
resp:nsivenesa to the criticalneeds, NUCLEAR REGULATORY br akdowns in control of engineering and design review activities, revision of,
afsnificant technology gaps and pofent 6 g..:
. COMMISSION
- ~ ~
{
operating procedures, facility j
'I "" "3' *"" ".a m,
' maintenance acdvidu nouncadons N -
Iben f s.
e ubco ttee, '. EA 81-8 ch: Ired by Mr. Duane McRuer,is the NRC about safety problems, and c:mprised of 9. members.The meeting Boston Edhson co., Pilgrim Nuclear' o[*[,, yen
' ^'
e dro e
will be open to the public up to the Power Station; Order Modifying operation of the facility in violation of scattig capacity of the room L! cense Effective immediately. -
NRC combustible gas contml system '
[ approx!mately 30 persons including the.
Subcommittee members and y
. standards.%ese standards were. h.
imposed on November 27,978 throug pr.rticipants).
%e Boston Edison Com any (the
" licensee")is the holder ofFacility NRC regulation 10 CFR 50.44.ne
% olm**dns Operating I.lcense No.DPR-35 (the -
Purpose of the regulation was to n;,.
.e.
D en P
Wy
" license") which authorizes the enhance the safety of operation of those pbrus717*ne2
., *r : ' operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power light water rectors fueled with oxide 4enda
~~- s,., s.
Station at steady state reactor core t$a m.-Satcommittee Business powerlevels not in excess of1998 Pellet withincylindricalzircaloy adding, such as at the Pilgrim facility, megawatts thermal (rated power) The by assuring the capability to malsta!n m
ASA ft n and' license was originally issued on hne 8,'
. containment integrity following a Gald:nca Research and Technology Plan 1972 and will expire on August 28,2008, postulated loss of coolant accident.
l pm-Proposed Simulation Vahdation De facility consists of a boiling light
.( OCA).However, as a result of an Techr. ology Review Task
'. water moderated and cooled reactor apparent failure to control safety-related.
t pm-MASA Controls and Culdancs '.
(BWR), located at the licensee's site at actMuu, fuH compHance with thue Pmgram tasues plymouth, Massachusetts.
. standards at the Pilgrim facility was not -s s
L30 pm-Adjourn achieved until June 5,1981. Specifically, 4bruary18.1982 -
II i
. control.of combustible gas L30 cm-NASA Controls and Guidance -
Over the past several years, this concentrations within the containment Program 1:spes Continued facility has been cited for a number of
- after a postulated LOCA had not been i pm. --Adjourn Violations of regulatory requirements.
'. assured.
r bruary19 toe 2
. He recent Systematic Assessment of
'In April 1979 Operating Procedure No. '
e t30 am.--Subcommittee Deliberstions Licensee Performance (SALP) resulted in 2.2.70 for the primary containment l1am.-AdN n a below average rating for this facility.
atmosphere control system, the system
., gg
, ne SALPidentified weaknesses in the, relied upon to control post-LOCA areas of refueling, reporting. radiation
' combustible gas concentrations with the le AssociateAdministratorforhtemol protection, emergency preparedness and, containment, was revised by the onsite enucry 21 19e.
management controls..
staff to reposition the manually..
Escalated enforcement action was operated nitro 8en supply makeup block t
- ** rGai m **8 =1
. taken on three occasions in the past 2%
valves from the " locked open" to the -
""o ec o me years. On one occasion. October 28, 1979, a civil penalty of $5000 was -
" closed" position during power operation.%is revision was not WR8 eQuen y Paid. refle.cted in the system drawing. P&ID IATIONAL COMMISSION ON fy e ensed r a sa eguards M 8-227 norin Ge emergency
- TUDENT FINANCIAL. ASSISTANCE..
occurrence in which the licensee failed procedure provided for post-WCA
.2M-to maintain the required level of security c containment nitrogen purgmg.He Nblic Meeting A
at the main vehicle access gate to the onsite safety review committee, -
PAm February 10.1982..
protected area. On the second occasion. - consisting of station management e.nd TACO 357 Russell Senata Office M
February 1;,1980, a $5000 cM! penalty technical personnel.had reviewed end' '
tuilding. Washington DC.
. was proposed (which was subsequently accepted this revision. Access to these p
g l
s.
6 28, 1982 / Notic:s Feder:1 Register / Vol. 47. No.19 / Thursd;y, Dnu ry J'4172
/
forreview cnd approvclo I.OCA situ: tion.M onsite aafety '.
comprehensive plan of ccti:n that w!Il e :lve c:uld notbe assuredin allcasesreview committee reviewed and because cf the. likelihood of high accepted the system modification yield an independent appraisal of site v
l rediatirn IIvels."Ihe significance of th!s completed in May 1980 and yet failed to and corporate management
- f proc: dure changewhich in effect ensure that all proceduralrevisions.
organizations and functions.,
recommendations for improvements in prevented remote operation of the necessary to ensure system operability -
system f:r post-LOCA containment management controls and oversight, and purging, was not recognized until June of had been made.In July 1980 the containment nitrogen' a review of prevlous safety-related
' 1981. In early 1979 (inspeetion report 50 purging system was further disabled activities to evaluate compliance with ;
293/79-09), an NRC inspector noted, as when the nitrogen makeup supply pipes NRC requirements.'Ite plan shad.
cn item af noncompliance, that were cut off and closed with pipe caps.
include a description of the actions tobe centrinment nitrogen supply block (A Notice of Violation. dated August 11.
taken,requiredimplementing staff and v*lves were tagged closed when they 1981, was issued for the quality their qualifications. documentation l
were required to be in the opposite assurance violation associated with that requirements, and the plan schedule.
positi:n.In response to this issue, maintenance activity.)The system with important milestones.Upon Boston Edison Company statedin a remained disabled until June 5.198f. approval, the plan shall be implemented letter to the NRC on October 2.1979 that Another event concerned operation of and the scheduled times for the cll 2.2-series procedured for safety the facility in violation of a Technical milestones may be shortened but sha!!
systems had been checked against the Specification for the contain.nent not be extended without prior written P&ID's cnd that all safety systems were integrity limiting condition for operation. approvalby the Region 1 Administratar.
in compif*.nce.
On September 12.1981, during the The licensee shall submit to the Region I On October 19.1979. Boston Edison conduct of electrical maintenance AdmWstrator a copy of the independent Company informed the NRC that the
, activities,o ersting personnelde-evaluation required by paragraph (1) and all other evah.ations required by Pilgrim facility complied with 10 CFR50.44.This was not true. Exclusive of the, energized e ectricalp paragraphs (2) through(6).
p sa e
failure is note the value lineup change g
}
ct i drcui The plan shallinclude atleast the mentioned above, erroneous for two containment isoladon valves b elementsitemizedbelowr
- essumptions in the engineering analysis the steam supply pipe to the reactor core (1) An independent organization isolation tooling system.This resulted in. retained by the licensee shall evaluate aloss of redundancy providedin the current organizational responsibilities, Ys emin c ed es tem co e
relizbly put into operation after a IDCA. design of the electrical circuits to assure management controls, staffmg levels automatic closure of these valves during tht e design certain Postulated accidents. Failure of snd ccmpetence, training and retraining i
condition required by Criterion 41 of these valves to close whenrequired ^
programs, communications, and a
a cpe at n A endix A to to CFR Part 50, e u!d result in the release of significant operating practices both at the facility, i
personnelhad to manually open air, amounts of rad!oactive materials into and the corporate office.This.
eperated valves inside the reactor the environment.The facility was -
organization shall be directed to make
. building,near the containment. Access operatedin this condition until recommendations forchanges in the to th:32 values could not be assured in September 16,whenthe misoperation aforementioned areas that will assist the cllcasesbecause of thelikelihoodof was discoveredby the NRCResident licensee in meeting NRC requirements, including the requirement for high radiation levels. This limitation on Inspector.
production. engineering and quality personnel accessibility was previously
'IV ccknowledged in the design criteria 8
o Ifl gt wit d"
' dt
~
a e a ed janua 1974 de e b e
regarding post-LOCA combustible gas the weaknesses described in Section II.
rec mme d. rpm de soIutiono control systems.
reveal substantial serious breakdowns (2) A program that will assure that On hhrch 28.1900. Boston Edison in Boston Edison Com any's future information supplied by Boston managementcontrols elatedtothe Edison Company to the NRC pertaining Company engineering personnel documented the error regardin8 Pilgrim facility. Continued operation of to analyses, derigns, and the compliance personnel access and initiated a the Pilgrim facility requires significant of systems important to safety.is modification to permit remote operation changes in Boston Edison Company's-c mplete and accurate, and that of the containment nitrogen purging control oflicensed activities.
Previously submitted information is system.However NRC was not notified Accordingly I have determined that the either complete and accurate or af the error nor of the apparent false actions set forth below are required by corrected so as to be complete and statement of October 19.1979 the public health, safety, and interest, accurate.
concerning compliance with 10 CFR and therefore, should be imposed by an (3)The licensee shall review, evaluate c
sa44.
Immediately effective order.
and modify as necessary,the program for the development. approval and '
In hiay.1980, modification of the V
system was completed. However, since In view of the foregoing. pursuant to implementation of facility modifications the modification did not include revision Sections 103 and16t[i) of the Atomic and design changes in order to ensure cf Prscedure No.2 2.70 to change the.
Energy Act of 1954. as amended, and the compliance with the provisions of10 CFR 50.59. Included in this review sha!I position of the block valves from
" closed" to "open", remote operation of. Commission's regulations in to CFR Part be an evaluation of whether any '
l the system was essentially precluded 2 and to CFR Part 50.It is hereby
~ previous facility modifications made during subsequent operating periods.
ordered effective immediately that:
without prior Commission approval.
Consequently, there was not reasonsble Within 30 days of this Order, the casur:nce that the purging system conid licensee shall submit to the
' involved an unreviewed safety question AdmWatrator of RegionI of the NRC, as defined by 10 CFR 50.59.
i I
b;ve been usedif neededin a post.
't j
4 j
- - -