ML20149J263

From kanterella
Revision as of 13:56, 11 December 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Insp Rept on 900108-12 & Forwards NOV & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $220,000
ML20149J263
Person / Time
Site: Millstone Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 07/13/1994
From: Martin T
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To: Fox B
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
Shared Package
ML20149H858 List:
References
FOIA-97-223 EA-91-127, NUDOCS 9707280137
Download: ML20149J263 (9)
v • d • e


Text

- - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ .

d 4

S # "'No, ye .*, UNirto sf aits

i a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 I s toioN i f / 471 atttNoatt 804o mc os eaussia et%%suvasia isum ms

%, v...../

July 13, 1994 i

Docket No. 50-245 License No. DPR 21 EA 91 127 Mr. Dernard M. Fox, President and Chief Executive Of0cer Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270

Dear Mr. Fox:

Subject:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES

$220,000 AND DEMAND FOR INFORMATION (NRC Office of Investigations Report 1 90-008)

" Itis letter refers to the NRC inspection conducted on January 8 12, 1990, as well as the subsequent investigation by the NRC Office ofInvestigation (OI). The inspection report, u well as the synopsis of the O! investigation, were sent to you on September 10, 1993. Based on the results on the inspection and investigation, the NRC hu identified violations of NRC r::quirements. Specifically, the violations consist of (1) a deliberate delay in taking corrective l actions for a condition adverse to quality at the facility in 1989 (namely a deliberate delay in the

, determination of the operability of the feedwater coolant injection (FWCI) System) which constitutes a continuing violation over the period from June 1989 to November 1989; and i (2) discrimination by the then Unit 1 Engineering Manager against an engineer who was i involved in that determination. The two violations are described in the enclosed Notice of l Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties.

In October 1989. Eliot Abolafia, one of your senior engineers, wu assigned to implement a FWCl system modification that involved the installation of air bottles on the FWC1 pump minimum flow v.Jves. Installation of the tir bott!cs was deemed warranted by your staff based on a June 1989 review that indicated the potential for the reactor feedwater pumps minimum l

flow valves to fall open on a loss of instrument air. Such a failure would in turn divert flow from the reactor vessel. l CERTIFTED MAIL RETURN RECEWT REOUESTT.D l,

/

NUREG-0940, PART I B-55 a

9707280137 970723 PDR FOIA HAVENST97-223 PDR i

~

Northeast Nuclear Enerty Company 2 While researching the system modification, Mr. Abolafia (who had been temporarily usigned from the Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) office to the Millstone, Unit ! site engineering organization in August 1989, with the understanding that the usignment would become permanent) raised a concern about the ability of the FWCI system to inject design buis flow (8000 gpm) under all conditions. Mr. Abolafia also questioned why a Reportability Evaluation Form (REF) had not been initiated when the condition wu first identified in June 1989. Although Mr. Abolafia initiated a REF on October 10,1989, it wu later returned to him

< to perform the neceasary technical evaluation of this issue. After completing his technical analysis on or about October 30,1989, Mr. Abolafia concluded that the FWCI system wu not in accordance with its design buis and wu, therefore, inoperable. Notwithstanding this conclusion, it wu not until November 17,1989, that your Generation Mechanical Engineering department reported that it could not refute Mr. Abolafta's finding, and (1) the FWCI system wu declared inoperable, (2) tfe plant entered a seven-day Limiting Condition of Operation (l.CO), and (3) you notified the NRC. On November 22,1989, a Plant Design Change Request wu implemented on the FNCI system, it wu declared operable, and the licensee exited the Unit ILCO.

. In an April 9,1990 letter to the NRC, you stated that you had not been timely in the nctification and reporting of the FWCI issue to the NRC. In that same letter, you also stated that the IMCI REF should have been initiated as a result of the June 15, 1989 meeting, and if it had, you would have reached an earlier reportability conclusion. During the O! investigation, ten of eleven individuah at a November 14,1989 meeting to discuss the FWCI matter testified that Mr. Raymond Vogel, the then Engineering Manager, did not want the FWCI system declared inopera Ac, and his statements supporting his position were inappropriate. In addition, six of those individuals indicated that Mr. Vogel's reuons were that it would negatively a.ffect the Systenutic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP), or would generate an additional Licensee Event Report (LER), and he linked LERs to SALP scores.

The failure to provide appropriate attention to a potential safety concern at the facility represents a significant regulatory concern. Of part)cular concern was the motivation of the then engineering manager in not providing such attention to resolve the concern because it had the ,

potential to adversely affect the SALP. Equally troubling is the fact that the resolution of the l FWCI operability determmation was deliberately delayed by this enember of your staff after questions about operability surfaced in June 1989. The failure to take prompt action to revive this potential safety concern constitutes a violation of the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI. Because cf the willfulness involved with delaying the resolution of this issue, the violation is classified at Severity Level II in accordance with the *Oeneral -

Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcernent Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendu C (Enforcement Policy). Because the delay in resolving the operability question began in June 1989 and continued until November 1989, this is a continuing violation. 'The violation is set forth in Section I of the enclosed Notice.

I 1

l NUR(G-0940, PART I B-56 -l l

884Wmu

l Northeast Nuclear Energy Compa:sy 3 In addition to this violation, the NRC is also concemed about the actions that Mr. Vogel took l against Mr. Abolafia after Mr. Abolafia raised concems regarding the operability of the FWCl i system. Speci6cally, Mr. Vogel discnminated against Mr. Abolana by not selecting him for l the permanent position at the site, even though it wu Mr. Abotafia's and other members of the )

Unit I engineering staff's understanding when Mr. Abolafia was sent to the site on a temporary  ;

assignment, that the position would be made permanent for Mr. Abolalia. It appears clear that  !

Mr. Abolafia's usignment to the position in Unit ! Engineering was intended, at least initially, l to be permanent because he wu: (!) sent to hot license school (reflecting an expensive, long-term commitment to his personal developnient for a Unit 1 position); (2) advertised in Unit 1 Engineering department meetings by Mr. Vogel u assuming a permanent position there; (3) assigned responsibility for plant systeris (which is typically only assigned to a permanent engineer); and, (4) we!J qualified to fill the Personnel Vacancy Request (PYR) which w1ts stated to have been written in a manner to fit hit experience. In addition, three Unit 1 engineers testified that they personally heard Mr. Vorel state at Engineering Department meetings that Mr. Abolafia would be assuming a permancat position in Unit I and Mr. Abolafia testified that Mr. Vogel promised him the permanent position. In fact, the then Vice President, Nuclear Operations in your corporate facility, to whom Mr. Abotafia reported via the Supervisor, Nuc! car Operations, had indicated that he and the Unit i Superintendent had expectations that if Mr. Abolafia liked working in Unit 1, and his performance wu acceptable, he would probaMy become an employee there, and he also discussed such a possibility wnh the Station Superintendent. The refusal to hire Mr. Abolifia in the permanent position at the site wu discrimination for Mr. Abolalia's engaging in protected activities and constitutes a violation of 10 CFR 50.7. Because the discrimination was committed by a manager above the level of first-line supervision, the violation is c!nsified at Severity Level !! in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Pan 2, Appendix C (Enforcement Policy). The violation is set forth in Section II of the enclosed Notice.

De NRC recognizes that these violations occurred in the 1989-1990 time frame, and tbt in the intervening years, you have attempted to implement improvements in programs for addressing employees concerns without the employees' fearing retaliation. Some of these actians have included establishrnent of a Nuc! car 5afety Concerns Program (NSCP); designatioc. of peer evaluators who can receive concerns f om their peer employees and provide them to the NSCP Director in confidence; creation of a differing professional opinion procedure; trurung of supervisors and managers on how to properly handle employee concerns, both administratively and on an interpersonal Sasis; and the reorganization of the management and supervisory team at Northeut Nuclear Energy Company. Further, the NRC recognizes that you have instituteq a number of management changes within your organization within the past several months. The NRC also considered the fact thrt a $100,000 civil penalty wu issued to your company on May 4,1993, for a 10 CFR 50.7 violation that occurred in the same tirne frame.

Notwithstanding these prior actons both by you and the NRC, u well u the time that hu elapsed since these violations occurred, the NRC hu decided that enforcement action is warranted to reinforce the message to your present organization in particular, that (1) potential safety issues must be vigorotsly addressed in a timely manner and a deliberate delay in NUREG-0940. PART I B-51

F i

l l

l Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 4 addreuing such issues will not be tolerated, (2) linking the pursuit of a potential safety issue to the effect it could have on SALP scores is unacceptable, and (3) discrimination against any individual who raises such issues is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the NRC.

nerefore, to emphuize the imporunce of prompt resolution of potential safety concems when they exist, u well as ensuring that appropriate controls exist to preclude discrimination of employees who raise such concem, I have been authorized, after consultation with the l 1

Commission, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties in the cumulative amount of $220,000 for the two violations set forth in the Notice.

The bue civil pena.. mount for a Severity Ixvel D violetion is $80,000, ne civil penalty for the first Severity Level U problem wu escalated by 50% because this violation was identified by the NRC. The other adjustment factors were considered and no further adjustments were deemed appropriate for this problem. Accordingly, the adjusted civil penalty for this violation is $120,000. De penalty is in excess of $100,000 because the violation is considered to be continuing and, therefore, lasted more than one day - substantial questions as to the operability of the FWCI system requiring prompt resolution were identified in mid4une 1989 and an operability determination wu delayed for a number of months until the system wu fuully declared inoperable on November 17,1989. For each day during this period, you failed to take action to address the condition of operability of the FWCl system.

I The civil peralty for the second Severity Level D violation was also escalated by 50% because the violatfor. was identified by the NRC. The other adjustment factors were considered for this l violation and no further adjustments were deemed appropriate. His second Severity Level U 1 violation is a single violation; the statutory rnaximum civil penalty for a sing!c violation is

$100,000. Consequently, the civil penalty for this problem will be limited to $100,000.

In addition to the proposed civil penalty, pursuant to Sections 161c,161o,182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, u amended,10 CFR 2.204 and 10 CFR 50.54(f), in order for the Comminion to determine whether your license should be modified or other actions taken, yov are required to submit to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminion, Wuhington, D.C. 20555, within 30 days of the date of this Demand for Information (DFI), in writing and under oath or affirmation, an explanation as to why the NRC should not issue an Order that would modify your license to preclude Mr. Vogel from any involvement in the future in licensed activities at your facilities.

You are required to respond to this letter and the enclosed Notice, and you should follow the instructions specified herein and in the enclosed Notice when prepanng your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice and DFI, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine wherher further NRC enforcement action is nwmry to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.

NUREG-0940, PART I B-58 l

' ~ '

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 5 in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice,' a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget u required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.

Sincerely, Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties i

NUREG-0940, PAR 1 1 B-59 i

i i

l

1 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 6 l cc w/ encl
:

J. Opeka, Executive Vice President Nuclear g S. Scace, Vice President Nuclear Operations Services j l D. Miller, Serdor Vice President, Millstone Station l

J. Stetz, Vice President Haddam Neck Plant l  !

H. Ilaynes, Nuclear Unit Director - Unit I R. Kacich, Director, Nuclear Planning, Licensing and Budgeting J. Solymossy, Director, Nuclear Quality and Assessment Services i G. Garfic!d, Esquire l

N. Reynolds, Esquire K. Abraham, PAO-RI (2) l Public Document Room (PDR) )

Local Public Document Room (LPDR) l Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) l l 4

NRC Resident Inspector J

State of Connecticut SLO )

E. Abolafia R. Vogel i

4' i

l i

t e

)

{

i i

1 I

NUREG 0940, PART 1 B-60 m :

.-.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20149J263&oldid=3359882"