ML20128B058
| ML20128B058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1993 |
| From: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128B029 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-92-033, EA-92-33, NUDOCS 9302020389 | |
| Download: ML20128B058 (9) | |
Text
. -. . . . - -
. - . . - . . . . . _ . . . - - . - ~ - = , -
UNITED STATES
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ;
1 In the Matter of _
l NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY Docket No. 50-333 1 FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant License No. DPR-59 Scriba, New York EA 92-033 l
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES '
I I
l l
The New York Power Authority (Licensee), previously named the l Power Authority of the State of New York at the time of issuance of the license on October 17, 1974, is the holder of License No.
DPR-59 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The license authorizes the Licensee to operate the FitzPatrick nuclear power plant in Scriba, New York, in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
II Inspections of the Licensee's activities were conducted at the facility between-December 2, 1991, and May 1, 1992. The results of these inspections indicated that the Licensee had-not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written Notice-of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice) was served 1upon the Licensee by letter dated September 15, 1992. -The Notice states-the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the Licensee had violated, and the amount of 9302020389 930129 gDR ADOCK 05000333 PDR
~ . . . . - . . . - - - .- . . - . - _ . - . -
4 the civil penalties proposed for the violations. The Licensee responded to the Notice on October 15, 1992. In its response, the Licensee admitted the violations, but requested full mitigation for the civil penalties for the reasons stated in the Appendix.
III After consideration of the Licensee's response and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation contained therein, the NRC staff has determined, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, that the Licensee has not provided an adequate basis for full mitigation of the proposed penalties.
However, the NRC staff has decided, for the reasons given in the Appendix, to exercise broad discretion and partially mitigate the.
proposed penalties.
IV I
In view of the foregoing and pursuant to-Section 234 of the L Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act)., 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Licensee pay civil penalties in the amount of l $300,000 within 30 days of the date of this Order, by l check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and L mailed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document. Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555.
I l
l'
i
! V The Licensee may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this order. A request for a hearing should be clearly marked as a " Request for an Enforcement Hearing" and shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555. __
Copics also shall be sent to the Assistant General Counsel for
.iearings and Enforcement at the same address and to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. If the Licensee fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings. If payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
-4 -
In the event the Licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether on the basis of the violations admitted by the licensee, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' .,,,cA l . , we cf.
ames H. Sniezek Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research Dated at Rockville, Maryland this g()Dday of January 1993 4
i APPENDIX' l
EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSION 8 l
On September 15, 1992, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice) was issued for violations identified during NRC inspections. New York Power-Authority (Licensee) responded to the Notice on October 15, 1992. In its response, the licensee admitted the violations, but contended that full mitigation of the civil penalties is warranted. The NRC's evaluation and conclusion regarding the licensee's request are as follows:
- 1. 8ummary of LiceDsee's Response Re_questJna Mitiaation of the Civil Penalties In its response, the licensee stated that the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C) notes that the NRC may exercise discretion to reduce the amount of a proposed civil penalty, notwithstanding the outcome of the normal assessment process, to ensure that the penalty reflects the NRC's concern and conveys the appropriate message. While the licensee did not deny the actual violations and also acknowledged that the NRC exercised such discretion in limiting the civil penalty for each of the five violations or problems, the licensee contended that the actual collective regulatory impact of the proposed penalties is still disproportionate to the current situation at FitzPatrick. In support of its contention, the licensee stated that (1) the violations resulted from, and were symptomatic of, the same underlying causes of an overall performance decline at FitzPatrick; (2) the licensee has undertaken comprehensive measures to address that past decline, the root causes, and contributing factors, including development and implementation of a comprehensive program to correct the root causes of the performance decline; and (3) the licensee believes that enforcement action designed to send a message at this late date is neither timely, necessary, nor warranted, noting that the related costs and other actions by the NRC have already sent a clear message to the Licensee and the industry, and imposition of the penalty would not convey any additional message and would only have a punitive effect upon the licensee.
The licensee further noted that it had already paid a substantial price for the decline in performance, stating that FitzPatrick (1) voluntarily shut down the facility for nearly a year to improve operations and address specific concerns, such as those related to fire protection, and this shutdown and the resulting improvement plan have resulted in significant costs to the Licensee; (2) was included on the NRC Watch List, resulting in increased NRC scrutiny, adverse public perception, and a shift in licensee resources to
Appendix -2 -
FitzPatrick improvement programs; and (3) was the subject of senior management changes to improve management control of plant operations, including a new site management team and organizational structure at the Resident Manager, General Manager, Technical Services Superintendent, and Headquarters Fire Protection supervisory levels.
The licensee also maintained that specific enforcement discretion, pursuant to Section VII.B(3) of the existing Enforcement Policy, was applicable to the fire protection and Appendix R violations, stating that they were identified during the extended shutdown. In support of that specific request, the licensee stated that the shutdown was due in part to the licensee's identification of programmatic Appendix R and fire protection violations, which reflected the licensee's desire to implement a comprehensive program to correct these conditions, including a complete safe shutdown reanalysis and numerous plant modifications, the violations were not willful, and the licensee had agreed to correct these deficiencies prior to restart. The licensee also asserted that the Appendix R/ fire protection violations at FitzPatrick are similar to those noted at the Boston Edison Company's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (
Reference:
EA 88-263), where enforcement discretion was exercised for fire protection-related violations identified during an extended shuc down, and no violation was cited. Therefore, the licensee claims that it had met all of the required criteria set forth in Section VII.B of the policy for the exercise of enforcement discretion, and such discretion would not be unprecedented, and contended that the proposed civil penalties for the fire protection and Appendix R violations should be fully mitigated.
Furthermore, the licensee also asserts that the civil penalty for the violation of 10 CFR 50.9 (providing inaccurate information to the NRC) should be mitigated because it was not willful, and the licensee is implementing measures to provide additional accuracy.
- 2. NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response Recuestinc Mitication of the civil Penalties The NRC has evaluated the licensee's response, and based upon that evaluation, concludes that partial mitigation of the proposed civil penalties is warranted. However, the NkC has determined that full mitigation of the $500,000 is not warranted.
The NRC acknowledges the licensee's general arguments that the underlying causes of the violations in the Notice were symptoms of the same overall performance decline that led to l
1
Appendix the shutdown at FitzPatrick. The NRC also recognizes that extensive corrective actions have been taken, and significant costs have been incurred as a result of the extended shutdown and related corrective actions. However, the NRC staff concluded in assessing the proposed civil penalty that a pervasive and longstanding decline in performance existed at the FitzPatrick facility, and that the New York Power Authority management did not act promptly to identify and correct this condition. Although the licensee's arguments for mitigation are partially persuasive, the NRC maintains that issuance of a significant enforcement action is warranted to (1) emphasize the need for the corrective actions taken or planned to be longlasting, and (2) to send a clear message to both this licensee, in particular, and the industry, in general, that in addition to the costs of corrective actions, licensees also face the additional costs of enforcement sanctions for significant safety violations or problems. As to the licensee's argument that this is not needed, the licensee l did not heed the message to avoid performance problems following the extended shutdowns of other plants such as l Peach Bottom, Nine Mile Point, Pilgrim and Calvert Cliffs.
This penalty is issued to emphasize that while corrective action is important, it is also important for licensees to prevent significant performance problems from occurring. In addition, the NRC determined that full mitigation of the civil penalty amount was not warranted because of the number, nature, and egregiousness of the violations described in this action, and to further emphasize that conditions such as that which existed at FitzPatrick cannot and will not be tolerated by the NRC.
The NRC also recognizes the licensee's specific arguments for mitigation of the penalties associated with the fire i protection and Appendix R requirements. With respect to the fire protection program deficiencies (which included the
, fire brigade training. as well as the failure to correct i promptly the deficiencies identified in Quality Assurance audits dating back to 1983), these program violations were identified by the NRC and broad in scope (unlike the situation that existed at Pilgrim, which the licensee references in its response). In particular, though QA audits were identifying. deficiencies related-to fire protection at the facility for an extended period of time, licensee nanagement failed to act on that information.to determine the true scope of the problem and implement appropriate corrective actions in a timely manner.
Therefore, full mitigation of the civil penalty is inappropriate. With respect to the Appendix R deficiencies, the NRC acknowledges that they were identified by a licensee contractor prior to the NRC Diagnostic Evaluation Team (DET)
{
Appendix -
4 -
inspection in September and CctoDer 1991. However, the licensee audits of 1982 and 1985 were inadequate to identify these deficiencies. In addition, the licensee's review of the additional regulatory guidance provided in Generic Letters 85-01 and 86-10 was also insufficient to identify the deficiencies. Due to the significance of the Appendix R violations, their longstanding nature and the prior opportunities the licensee had to identify and correct them, the NRC has decided not to fully mitigate the civil penalty.
With regard to_the violation of 10 CFR 50.9.for incomplete and inaccurate information, the NRC recognizes that the violation was not willful and that the licensee has now
- implemented corrective action. Had the violation been willful or the licensee failed to develop appropriate corrective action to address the problem, the NRC would have considered taking stronger actions. Because the NRC identified the inaccurate information which the licensee's review process should have identified, no enforcement discretion on this basis is deemed warranted.
- 3. NRC Conclusion The NRC has concluded that the violations oc:urred as stated and that the licensee has not provided an adequate basis to warrant full mitigation of the civil penalties. However, in recognition of the extensive corrective action taken by the licensee, as exemplified by the deliberate startup process, management changes and recent improved performance, the NRC has concluded that partial mitigation of the proposed civil penalties is warranted. These positive actions on the part of the licensee are sufficiently significant that the NRC has exercised broad discretion under the Enforcement Policy l to reduce the amount of the civil penalties to $300,000.
l l
l
JMi 2 9 6 l
!!cw York Power Authority i
III.J'ERI BUTION PDR SECY CA Jtaylor, EDO Jsniezek, DEDR J11eberman, OE Tmartin, RI Jgoldberg, OGC Tnurley, NRR Jpartlow, NRR Enforcement Coordinators ,
RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV Fingram, GPA/PA .<
Dwilliams, OIG Ejordan, AEOD Wtroskoski, OE
- Day File
r
/
b
_ __-..D_ _
^
OE M/ P1 OGC /4[/[ D:bh./ DEDK WTreskoski TMartin JGoldberg J[borman NSchzek 6 01//7/93 01/t,@/93 01/ 6/93 01/M/93 01 M\/93 g s%. S.L.
Doc Name: G:\OECASES\FITZIMPR.WT
_ _ _ _