ML20140J206
Text
(
[d[# %,
A UNLTED STATES f
4-7i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHING TO N. D. C. 20$55 gv /
c December 6, 1984 jfu if N 14 9
2 The Honorable Richard L. Ottinger, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Committee on Energy and Comerce United States House of' Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for your information is an announcement that the Nuclear Regulatory Cocnission staff has preposed a $50,000 civil penalty against Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for alleged violations of MRC security requirements at the the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.
It is planned to mail this information to the news media, today, December 6, 1954.
J(*
p~., I 1
Carlton s, erer, Director ffice of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead IDENTICAL LETTER SENT TO:
Sen..Simpson/cc: Sen. Hart Rep. Udall/cc: Rep. Lujan Rep. Markey/cc: Rep. Marlenee Sen. Denton Sen. Heflin Rep. Flippo 9
8510230312 851004 PDR F01A JACDB585-478 PDM
?
UNITED STATES fyi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
'i., $f'f Office of Public Affairs Washington, D.C. 20555 i
No.84-140 FOR Ifit!EDIATE RELEASE Tel.
301/492-7715 (Thursday, December 6, 19B4) hRC STAFF PROPOSES TO FINE TVA $50,000 FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS AT BROWNS FERRY The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has preposed a $50,000 civil penalty against Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for alleged violations of NRC security requirements at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens, Alabama.
Th se violations were found August 20-24 in a routine safeguards inspection, which disclosed that, in two instances, vital plant equipment
~
1acked the level of protection required by the fiRC-approved physical security plan for Browns Ferry.
In both cases, vital area barriers had not been
~
installed and adequate access control measures had not been maintained.
Safeguards regulations prohibit public disclosure of any further details of the equipment involved in this enforcement acton.
In his letter informing TVA of the acticn, James P. O'Reilly, NRC Regicnal Administrator in Atlanta, said HRC could have increased the proposed penalty as much at 100 percent because of TVA's " prior poor performance" in the safeguards area. But NRC did not take this action, he said, because of improvements TVA is making in the security area at Browns Ferry in accordance with commitments made to NRC carlier this year and confirmed in a formal crder in July.
TVA has 30 days to pay the civil penalty or to protest it, in whole or in part.
l t
L
b# /
o ne w]o, UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
3m t
WASHING TON, D. C. 20$$S o
%, -...../
IUG 12 SE Y 0 The Honorable Jeremiah A. Denton, Jr.
United States Senator Suite 510 101 Governor's Dr., S.E.
Huntsville, AL 35801
Dear Senator Denton:
Thank you for your letter of July 1,1985. Your letter requested a response to questions received by you from Mr. Fred E. Wells pertaining to enforcement actions taken by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission against Tennessee Valley Authority. Our reply to Mr. Wells' questions is as follows.
Mr. Wells expresses a concern over the issuance of civil penalties to the Tennessee Valley Authority and the potential that the ratepayer will have to l
pay these fines. One of the reasons that civil penalties are used in enforcement is to emphasize to licensee managers the importance NRC attaches to the violations for which enforcement sanctions are proposed. The NRC also believes that civil penalties are effective in achieving increased compliance with regulatory 3
requirements. The NRC has no control over the manner in which a civil penalty is funded by the licensee. That is determined by state public utility commissioners.
Even though a civil penalty is passed through to the ratepayers or stockholders, the NRC believes that corporate officials will take steps to avoid such penalties and that they therefore have deterrent value. We do believe that enforcement is necessary to ensure the overall safe operation of nuclear facilities.
Mr. Wells asked why the NRC does not punish individuals for violations.
He states that individuals are apt to be careless if they know that they will not be held accountable for their acts. The NRC can and does take actions against individuals in appropriate cases, normally those involving some deliberate violation of requirements. However, generally, the NRC holds the facility licensee responsible for ensuring compliance with NRC regulations and license conditions and for the acts of its employees.
The NRC encourages the licensee to take an aggressive approach in ensuring the full performance of all employees to make sure the facility is operated in a safe manner.
Please let me know if we can provide any further assistance.
Sincerely, PWny r,4 r+,
lov j
N William J. Dircks gg Executive Director for Operations k
5
O I
Senator Denton Distribution EDO 868 EDO Rdg File SECY CA l
POR JMTaylor, IE i
RVollmer, IE JAAxelrad IE GKlingler, IE JLieberman, ELD GCunningham, ELD l
1 HDenton, NRR NGrace, RII Copy to Senator Denton United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 r
i i
i i
I t
i i
- l j
A
- )
.9
_. V O
f7/
fj9 IEJ%
EDO IE:ESYf.(
ELD
- T GRKlingler cdLieberman xelrad R M Imer J
y1 r WJDircks 8/9/85
- 8/S /85 8/g /85 8/q /85 8
/8 8/ /85 (i
l
+ 't l
%\\'1 i
a i
i 1
' JEREMION A. DENTON, JO.
3(11i(CD M{dICS Mettale 1'
W ASHINGTON. D C. 20910 i
1 July 1985 l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Congressional Liaison Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: NRC Policy
Dear Director:
)
Because of the desire of this office to be responsive j
to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested.
i j
Please try to respond within two (2) weeks.
YOUR FINDINGS,,
AND VIEWS, IN DUPLICATE, ALONG WITH RETURN OF THIS MEMO PLUS ENCLOSURE, WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
i S%cerely,
'\\
w,xdv Un J
emiah Denton United States Senator i
JD/sd Enclosure Please reply to:
Suite 510 l
101 Governor's Dr., S.E.
Huntsville, AL 35801 1
1 l
i i
6 t" //$2 A 'j v ~ Y v "Y f h'
l l
r Constituent Inquiry U.S. Senator Jeremiah A. Denton, Jr.
Inquiring Party:
NAME:
Fred E. Wells ADDRESS:
2107 9th Avenue Huntsville. AL 359n5 TELEPHONE 20s/s34 2433 Mr. Wells would like to know why, whenever TVA does something it shouldn't, NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Comm. ) fines TVA.
(that way the public, i.e. taxpayers have to absorb the fine).
Why doesn't the Nuclear Regulatory Commission punish the individual (through TVA) that is responsible for the act.
(Removal or fine that the individual has to pay).
If individuals are careless and know that they will not be held accountable, then they are more likely to be careless.
Thank you.
l
\\
cey
..~-
7. -..
L.
b23W.
f The Honorable Virginia Smith United States House of Representatives liashington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congresswoman Smith:
This letter is in reply to your note dated March 4,1985, requesting infor-nation on which to base a reply to the inquiry of fir. George A. Whitehead.
In his letter dated February 22,1985, fir. 9hitehead questioned the appropri-ateness of using a civil penalty as an enforcement tool considering the effects a civil penalty may have on the ultinate cost of electricity to the consumer.
In addition, Mr. Whitehead questioned the existence of a scientific basis supporting the current industry and NRC standards for protection against -
radiation.
One of the NRC's motives in using a civil penalty as an enforcenent tool is to emphast:e to Itcensee nanagers the importance we attach to the problem for which enforcenent sanctions are proposed. A civil penalty is intended to be remedial rather than punitive.
It achieves its remedial purpose by oroviding licensees with an incentive for future compliance in order to avoid (1) the financial impact. (2) the adverse publicity associated with civil penalties.
(3) the creation of a negative reputation within the industry, and (4) the escalating nature of sanctions that may result in further enforcement actions (including license suspension) if the civil penalty is not effective in achieving compliance.
We believe that civil penalties are effective in achieving increased r.om-p11ance with regulatory requirements. At the same time, we understand fir. Whitehead's concern about the economic burden a civil penalty may impose on the ratepayers. Whether a civil penalty is passed through to ratepayers or borne by the stockholders of a utility is decided by State public Utility Comissions. The NRC has,o control over this state determination and, since NRC's paramount interest is in ensuring protection of the public health and safety, the NRC does not take this factor into account when assessing a civil penalty.
In some states, pass through to the ratepayers is permitted.
Mr. Whitehead may wish to contact his State Public Utility Comission for additional information on this subject.
1 lith regard to radiation Ifmitation requirements, Part 20 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations establishes the standards for protection against radiation hazards arising out of activities under licenses issued by the NRC.
The linits in Part 20 are based on radiation protection limits recomended by both national and ipternational radiation protection authorities.
These recomendations are based on studies of data from animal and human exposures to radiation.
E M/M P go, Ll1 Il c~">
W
.m>
.c c e o = m n o s oi u c u o 4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- w 8 " " " -' " ' '
__ _. = -. -
- w _
i.
r, w
i In the past, radiation dose limits were based on recomendations of two groups, the International Comission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and 4
the National Council on Radiation Protection Measurements (NCRP).
Both j
include in their momberships recognized experts in science and nedicine.
i The ICRP's recomendations on radiation protection have been widely adopted
^
i and form the basis for radiation protection practices throughout the world.
l In the United States, the NCRP, which is federally chartered, provides l
recomendations for interested industries and Federal and State agencies.
The first recomended radiation exposure limits were offered in 1925, when I
scientists sugge:ted limiting exposures of radiation workers to 0.5 roentgen i
per week from x-rays.
(A " roentgen" is a unit of measure similar to a rem but used only for x-or gama radiation.)
In 1934 the ICRP recomended a naxinum of 1 roentgen per week and the NCRP 0.5 per week, in 1949-50 the two I
groups recommended 0.3 ren per week, and in 1956-57 they recomended 5 rems 1
per year.
This latter recomendation still stands as the basis of today's i
l occupational linit. All of these recommended dose limits were in addition
~
to radiation doses fron natural background and medical sources.
l l
In 1959, with atnospheric weapons testing underway and with the growing use of nuclear energy under the Atoms for Peace Program, President Eisenhower established the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) to provide guidance with respect to all radiation matters directly or indirectly affecting health,
)
I including guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards for protection of humans from radiation. When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was forned in 1970, this responsibility was trans-ferred to that agency.
In addition, the responsibility for establishing a
generally applicable environmental radiation standards for uses of man-nade radioactive materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act also was trans-ferred to EPA. The NRC has responsibility for imple.menting and enforcing these standards.
A principal feature of the FRC guidance was the definition of Radiation Protection Guides and Radiation Concentration Guides which are similar to the previously discussed radiation linits.
These guides establish naximun values for annual radiation doses and concentrations of radioactive material in the environment, and the FRC, with the approval of the President, has stated that i
these Ilmits should not be exceeded without careful consideration of the reasons for doing so. The FRC also provided guidance concerning the surveil-lance and control actions that should be undertaken if radiation levels in the i
environment becane such that individuals could receive more than a certain i
fraction of the Radiation Protection Guides.
\\
In addition, the,FRC, as well as the flCRP and ICRP, reenmended several fur-I ther limitations, including:
(1) that no single source of man-made radiation i
! "*"'I one) 3 j a:,c:w miio.o uacu o 4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY. - -
- *S o
-*
- 8 '
- ' -.1 %
- c. - -.
4.
a g
.3 should be allowed to consume the total dose limits and (2) that all exposures to radiation should be kept as far below the recorrnended limits as is reason-ably achievable.
Federal agencies such as the NRC are responsible for ensuring that ifcensees under their regulatory control keep radiation levels,as low as is reasonably achievable and within the limits recommended by FRC and any generally appli-cable envirormental standards established by EPA.
We hope this information will be of assistance to you in responding to Mr. Whitehead. Your itarch 4,1985 note and tir. Whitehead's letter dated February 22, 1985, are enclosed as requested.
Sincerely, F(Signed) T. A.Rehm
.NilliamJ.Dircks
} Executive Director for Operations 9
Enclosure:
Note dated 3/4/85 and incoming attached thereto DW/MARTY/LTR. TO CONGRESSWOMAN SMITH d.P.A..S..:.T..O..S.B..g./).
..N..R..R..:.D..D..........
. N. R..R..:.D.............
..E..D. O................
...O..CA
.P..P. A..S..:.T..O..S.B.g 9
oerics >
--*> ' M.Y.i.rsU.i.9.mI.. 9M.i.5.9n.......'
.....ug c,h,q,s,,,,,,,,g,1,s,93,u,t,,,,, H,Qgn,Qn,,,,,,,,,,,y,Q,ig k,s,,,,,,,,
h
. 3. /.. [/. 8. 5.........
.. 3. /.... /. 8. 5........
3./...../. 8 5.........
. 3../.... /. 8. 5........
... 3./...../. 8 oes) 3./. 2.1./. 8. 5.......
. 3./. N.../. 8 5..........
A ces;:=si io..ciunc=osso OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- u.s.am isn-4ao.14
t I
I DISTRIBUTION:
EDO Ticket # 000431 Central File NRC POR w/ incoming i
i E00 # 000431 EDO Reading File W. Dircks l
D. Eisenhut/H. Denton i
G. Edison /TOSB Reading File M. Virgilio
(
J. Funches SECY(85-194) oc>
i K. Bowman, P-428 # 000431 R. Minogue J. Taylor G. Cunningham l
i I
T t
i l
l 1
s i
j l
k I
l l
I i
i i
L 1
t i
f
(
i f
L 4
h l
I r
t H.
AE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.
WASHINGTON. 0.C.
. A L -, 1.. 4.~..... d.,i9. &
A%x, o u.9 C m I. h Ca~~su k a
My Nw In
' l*ll1 ' k Sfre.O Q km W
- 0* $0$$$
p The attached communication is sub-mitted for your consideration. and to ask
~
that the request made therein be complied with,if possible.
If you will advise me of your action in this matter and have the letter returned to me with your reply,I will appreciate it.
}9 )mA L hob wo2
[. b*
QakuI
- zos'/.s' As
- G-;
Very truly yours, M.C.
.............................. D i s t ri ct.
p i
l
aa u
/
i I
l rebruary 22, 1985 Dear Congresswcman firginia Smith IN regards to the enclosed newspaper article, I would like to initiate some consideration toward a change in the means of obtaining compliance with Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission regulations.
j Since it is the users who eventually have to cough up any FINE money charged to obtain compliance, it appears to me that these users who are also taxpayers are NOT quilty of the non-compliance.
SOME individual or individuals were derelict in their duties.
There should be a suspension from duties, or if what they did endangered human life perhaps a jail sentence, but a fine eventually levied on the users is certainly not just.
In conjunction with NRC and the Nuclear Dewer Industry, it appears to me from some of the enclosed material and other studies and books.
I have read, the radiation limitation requirements of the NRC are not scientifically accurate, and the Nuclear Power Industry is being unduly harrassed and caused to expend enormous amounts of money to meet these requirements.
Perhaps a staff member of yours could look into some of the research papers done by Dr. Peter Beckmann and Galen Winsor and you could initiate some action that would correct some of the unnecessary restrictions.
I hope that after Mr. Winsor makes his tour that you and many other Congresspersons will receive a lot of mail on this subject and that we i
can have a great increase of nuclear power plants in this countryr thus reducing the cost of electricity by a considerable sum.
I will be very interested in your reaction on this matter.
1 i
Sincerely yours, 1008 E. Phoenix ave.
(
Grand Island, No. 68801 George
. Whitehead t
l l
eP REMOVE RIDICULOUS
~ REGULATIONS "Electnary could be available in such copious amounts that it would not be economical for unlities to meterit.
"Using the best source of steam, in the most efhcient manner, is the challenge to industnes concemed with supplying plennful and cheap quanndes of electncal energy. They are going to have to work diligently to get the shackles off Nuclear Steam Supply Systems (NSSS).
"The generanon of electncity by NSSS has been constrained by many factors and people. Many of those who impose the restraints have positions within the bureaus and commissions of the Federal Govemment. These restraints have been imposed unknowingly in some instances, but in others they have been intended to halt the unlizanon of this safe, efhcient and acceptable aid to living.
"The old Atomic Energy Commission, nying to be cautious, built a paper facade that can be blown away--ond should be. They established a system of controls that was intended to denne rules that took on the force of law when they were only intended to be guides.
"We hnd ourselves saddled with regulacons that equate exposure exceeding hve rems per year of whole body, industrially incurred exposure to ionizing radianon (a pinfully small amount of heat about equal to a mdlionth of a calone) with malfunc-tions in a nuclear reactor.
"Another example is a stronnum 90 wand, a source of electrons. Commercially available and mildly radioacave, it can be applied to a diseased human eye to heal it; but if picked up by the wrong end, it becomes the cause for a Federal lnvestiganon.
"The Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion have set up limits that are wrong by a factor of a mdlion! Yet they have taken on so much undue importance, that when they are exceeded or even approached, the incident becomes a focus of attennon not merited in relation to health and safety.
"This misplaced emphasis then gwes rise to the thought, hat, if it exceeds a Federally imposed guideline, it must be important and is indeed newsworthy, even though one could absorb a million times that much of that kind of electromagnetic energy without detectable damage to his health."
Galen H. Winsor see odwe side
j TO REDUCE THE HIGH COST OF ENERGY
~
$y "The American people need to know e
that the cost of electricalenergy is l
i j
ten times whatit wouldbeif today's scientifically unsound government l
regulations were removed. These suppressive regulations, that are
\\
often based on scientificfalsehoods, cost every segment of the United States economy and must be exposed and overturned orpoverty j
will extend throughout the land."
I I
Hear GALEN WINSOR ten why we need f
l A FREE NUCLEAR ECONOMY l
l
, Galen Winsor is eminer.tly qualified to unveil this technological travesty. Wnsor received his degree in chemistry from l
Brigham Young University in 1951. He is a poneer in the nuclear industry, startng at the Manhattan project at the Hanford Research Center in Washington and working in vanous capactues at facilites across the country. Galen is a senior health physost in radiadon waste handling techniques. Dunng his thirty three years, he worked in I
every phase of nuclear and commercial uulizacon cycles. In the fall of 1983, he testfled before the Energy and l
NaturalResources the U.S. Senate. His expose of popular falsehoods that have been spread about nuclear waste disposalis most and encouraging He brings a refreshing look at how America could and should j
benefit from oollution-free nuclear oower l
Tuesday, March 12,1985 - 7:30 p.m.
I Midtown Holiday Inn 2503 So. Locust Grand Island, NE Sponsored By The Local Chapter of John Birch Society For Tickets & Information - 384-9631 Tickets 83.00 Donation l
WWE I
l l
l l
l l
... m._..-
XPPD Faces 325,06.,.,0F Tst
~
ob ~ ;k' kh na t
'B Ri hL d y c a en Vast are seu d a ese d WM ter the 8 emisannes sent sme, tertes that geser to tan commenton's The federal Nuclear terY tismenmaanties;,W-a5 esher M a8ew @
=
Commasatan nottfled the Pum-sources are unneashes. Wiener ensa..
.lle Power Dismet W
'thet it In a letter to NPPD, Regles 4 Aemisk goMod-n which 5 he cut he hat, faces a 521.000 fine for cose-letrator Ashort D. tierta sam. "The
.c misston regulatuts on teettig td a fasaure to demonstrate a' NPPDhYb to rosysed to de backup power syvem at the Cooper No-the battery syssen whka he proposedM.
c!eer station nest Brownvee. Neb.
needed undercertain ceae.
NPPO cas,emer pay the w as-During a November 150 eens.... brtngs tese aP==n==
tech.
te commente that M U
the commissaan found that rec-
'nical adequacy of.the surventense. test N damal to tile tile ords showed tnat the utsty tid faaet to pan. reesce the fine is past er he
.to conduct savaiuance testa for
' program at Cosquer fluctant Seeseen.
Afser the Nuclear R batteries in a way that sW the h4,.y a hearieg,te es-l tem would operate as regelsed try ele m
, ygeg, ag, gp osas tite anM.
cornmasuvi's techn6 cal spectftcations.
couraged Dy the w to MPPD W Rom seM.
Clyde Winner. =paha====a for the assacy's concerne.
anM maammes cdDeals haywi1 soma com>
' commission's Region IV office a Ar.
saw waler way would correct the stem.
W Anor de,he said.
langton. Texas, sad NPPD reconds ' ties.
didn1 show anythmg wrong with the NPPD has since conthseted unit hat, they pine to roepend the W umt batter *es. However, he ud. the tery tests accarilhs to the====4a==
perted.
records atu14cated that NPPD edn't en-requirements and has W This is the second time the cour tabitsh that the battery system wouW that the batg systate would hecttaa misseos has unposed a fine on NPPD.
t i
L I
i 1
l 4
f
[
t
[
t
---,w-----w-+-,..,--
---,e,.,-w.e-~-.--~n---
- - + -, - - - - - - - - - - -
'o UNITED STATES
~,
l'
,(
'g
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
wAssimoToN. o. c. 20sss t
o
'+9..... $
March 22, 1985 cwAmmaN
?. It '
)e s
'7
}
The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to your letter of March 8,1985, I am writing to advise you that the NRC staff is issuing the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties to Mississippi Pcwer and Light Company for violations involving material false statements regarding technical specifications at the Grand Gulf nuclear plant.
This enforcement action is taken in connection with violations discussed in SECY-84-419 which was previously provided your staff. Matters discussed in SECY-84-420, also previously provided, are still pending before the Department of Justice.
Sincerely, AL
/ f(.'('a s$. vw-Nunzio J. Palladino
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead e e A ir n en L Gwpf I 7'
"/[
y
v' y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHING TON, D. C. 206S5
( s.,...../
MAR 211985 s
Docket No. 50-416 EA 84-75 Mississippi Power and Light Company ATTN: William Cavanaugh, III President P.O. Box 1640 Jackson, MS 39205 Gentlemen:
i The Comission has reviewed your submittals with regard to the technical specifications for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
As you are aware,
' these submittals contained numerous errors regarding plant-specific design features. The Consnission has concluded that the submittals contained several material false statements which are described below.
On December 15, 1980, you submitted a markup of the Standard Technical
. Specifications for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors (NUREG-0123) which you stated reflected plant-specific design features. This statement was false because, as described in detail in Item A in the enclosed Notice of Violation (NOV), the technical specifications did not reflect plant-specific design features described in the FSAR.
This statement was material in that had the NRC known of the errors in the technical specifications, it would not have issued the license without requiring changes to the technical specifications.
The second violation invo h es a markup of the technical specifications submitted on June 26, 1981. This submittal contained the same errors as were contained in the December 15, 1980 submittal. Additional submittals and changes were transmitted in letters dated December 31, 1981, January 12, February 25 March 23, April 5, 6, 7, and 30 May 26 June 1, 9 (two letters), and 10, 1982.
On June 16, 1982, NRC issued a low power (5%) license to MP&L for Grand Gulf Unit I with appended technical specifications based upon the licensee's submittals.
The errors contained in the December 15, 1980 submittal were reflected in the technical specifications issued with the license. Each of these submittals was a separate opportunity to discover and correct the false submittal of December 15, 1980. Your failure to do so constitutes a material false statement by omission.
The statement was false because you failed to correct your initial false submittal i
and to ensure that the technical specifications ultimately issued with the license reflected plant-specific design features. The statement was material because the NRC would not have issued the license with erroneous technical specifications.
CERTIFIED MAIL ENCLOSED RECEIPT REQUESTED JY Q Q. i w; &
a
, f',
s i
Mississippi Power and Light Company l
The third violation invo'Ives a letter to Harold Denton dated June 14, 1983, in which Mississippi Power and Light provided additional proposed changes to j
the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications which you stated were " intended, in general, to enhance clarity er provide consistency with the plant design and operation." Certain statements in this letter were false because:
i a.
With reference to Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.1.b the submittal i
stated, "There is no automatic transfer from the normal to alternate circuit since this bus search and automatic transfer feature was deleted from the load shedding and sequencing (LSS) panel by a pre-operating license design change.
?
Section 8.3 of the FSAR no longer contains a description of the bus search and automatic transfer feature of the LSS panel." However, the LSS panel still perfoms a search and automatic transfer function even though it is prohibited from auto-transfer hookup to another off-site power source by other features. _
b.
With reference to Technical Specification 6.5.2.2, the submittal stated that the Manager of Systems Nuclear Operations, Middle South Services, will be replaced by a qualified representative of,6ystem Nuclear Operations.
- However, the organizational entity, Systems Nuclear Operations, did not exist.
i The statements were material because an agency reviewer might have made the requested changes to the technical specifications had the reviewer not known j
that the bases for the changes were wrong.
The fourth violation involves a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Coonission 1
staff dated June 23, 1983, in which Mississippi Power and Light p avided additional proposed changes to the Grand Gulf Technical Specificitions which MP&L stated were " intended, in general, to enhance clarity or provide consistency with the plant design and operation." A statement in this letter was false because the submittal stated, with reference to Technical Specification I
Table 4.3.7.5-1, that a note requiring channel calibration does not apply to the instruments used at Grand Gulf and should be deleted.
However, the footnote i
fully applied to the Grand Gulf instruments. The false statement was material because the reviewer might have made the requested change to the technical specifications based upon incorrect information.
The fifth violation involves a letter to Harold Denton dated August 5, 1984, in which Mississippi Power and Light certified that the Grand Gulf Technical i
i Specifications transmitted to the NRC up to and including Amendment 13 accurately reflected the plant, the FSAR and supporting documents, and the SER 1
in all material respects. The statement was false because the technical specifications did not reflect existing plant-specific design features as evidenced by the fact that in a letter to the NRC dated August 14, 1984, MP&L requested additional changes to the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications to add l
circuit breakers to the list of those circuit breakers performing primary containment penetration conductor overcurrent protection functions for which surveillance was required. The false statement was material because the NRC believed the list of circuit breakers requiring surveillance was complete and might have issued the license with erroneous technical specifications, had the licensee not subsequently corrected the error.
l
.-,,. -~
,m.
--,.m
..-r..
,,,. - _. - ~ _
___.-,---.-.~.,.__-.,.-.- -
^
Mississippi Power and Light Company t
Two inspections of surveillance procedure compliance with technical specifications were conducted between license issuance and the conmencement of initial criticality 1
l on August 18, 1982. Both of these inspections in the areas of operations and fire protection identified additional technical specification errors requiring f
correction prior to initial criticality. The NRC was informed by MP&L management l
at that time that the errors were isolated instances and had all been corrected prior to initial criticality.
t During the period of September 27 to October 8,1982, Region II inspectors identified additional problems with technical specification surveillance f
requirements. As a result, an enforcement conference was held with MP&L in the Region II Office and a Confirmation of Action Letter was issued by the Region II Regional Administrator confirming licensee consitments to prepare and submit license amendment requests to the NRC. The amendments were to correct administrative and technical deficiencies in the facility technical -
l specifications, as well as to establish a formal Quality Assurance program to assure compliance with the technical specifications, including the associated surveillance requirements. Even after these efforts, submittals regarding technical specifications still contained errors up to and including a submittal of August 5, 1984.
The primary responsibility for ensuring that the license contains appropriate f
technical specifications clearly rests with the licensee. Your failure to fulfill your obligation to thoroughly know and understand the technical specifications which are a part of your license cannot be excused. The material false statements listed in the Notice are indicative of'a failure I
~
to exercise your responsibility to ensure the accuracy and completeness of I
each and every submittal of information made or required to be made as part of the licensing process.
The violations have been categorized as Severity Level III violations in accordance i
l with the General Statement of_ Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions, r
Each of the five material false statements constitutes e separate violation of NRC requirements.
To emphasize to you and to other t
licensees the importance of ensuring that technical specifications accurately l
i
[
reflect plant-specific design features, I have been authorized, after consultation j
with the Commission, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed i
i Imposition of Civil Penalties in the a:nount of One Hundred and Twenty-five l
l ThousandDollars($125,000).
I considered proposing a civil penalty of Two l
of the fact that the informality of the NRC's pr,1ations.
Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars for these vio However, in recognition i
l ocess for review of technical specifications contributed to the problem, I havh mitigated the penalty by 50%.
i You are required to respond to the enclosed Notide and you should follow the instructions specified therein when preparing your response.
The NRC will closely monitor MP&L's corrective actions and failure to carry them out may lead to further enforcement action.
I As noted above, numerous inspections involving these matters have been conducted by the NRC and also several management meetings and Enforcement Conferences have l
been held which concerned these 1 % s.
Written connitments have been made by i
1 1
Mississippi Power and Light A-Company MP&L as a result of these meetings and inspection reports.
In your response to the enclosed Notice of V'iolation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, appropriate reference to these previous submittals (by page or paragraph nur' as appropriate) is acceptable.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Pyj '.
Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and N e.*Lyne will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and accompanying Notit
.P? cor 4 mJect tb the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Bu v t ef. "a#;d by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Sincerely y j
f mes M. T or, Director ffice of nspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties l
I j
i i
5 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND 3ROPOSEDIMPOSITIONUFCIVILPENALTIES i
Mississipni Power and Light Company Docket No. 50-416 l
Grand Gulf License No. NPF-13 1
EA 84-75 l
1 As a result of review of your submittals for the period from December 15, 1980
[
to August 14, 1984, several material false statements were identified.
j These false statements are representative of over four hundred errors discovered e
in the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications. The technical specifications did not reflect plant-specific design features despite the fact that the licensee j
had numerous opportunities over a four year period to ensure that they did.
(
Some of the errors were significant enough to require correction by Order even for low power operation.
The number of errors and the duration of the problem i
indicate that MP&L has failed to exercise its responsibility to ensure the completeness and accuracy of submittals to the NRC. In accordance with the i
General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Action, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, 49 FR 8583 (March 8,1984), and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295, and i
10 CFR 2.205, the violations and associated civil penalties are described below:
l A.
On December 15, 1980 a markup of the Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors (NUREG-123), revision 2 August 1979 was submitted. The transmittal letter contained the statement that J
the markup reflected plant specific design features for Unit 1 of the j
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.
6 Contrary to Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, I
this statement was a material false statement. The statement was i
false because, in the following respects, the technical specifications did not reflect existing plant specific design features.
l 1.
In the markup, Technical Specification Table 3.3.5-1, Reactor Core
[
Isolation Cooling System Actuation Instrumentation, pages 3/4 3-45
}
and 3/4 3-46, specified the minimum operable channels per trip system as "2" and referred to " Action 50." Action 50 stated "with the number of operable channels less than required by the Minimum Operable l
Channels per Trip System requirement:
[
i a.
For one trip system, place the inoperable channel in the tripped condition within one hour or declare the RCIC system-inoperable.
b.
For both trip systems, declare the RCIC system inoperable.
The initiation logic of RCIC at Grand Gulf Unit 1 is arranged as one trip system with four water level signals feeding a one-out-of-two-i twice logic. The technical specification requirement of 2 minimum operable channels per trip system would not result in RCIC initiation unless the correct two channels are operable. The minimum operable channels per t:ip system should have been four. Also, the Action j
$ M0k Ub-S
Statement was. intended for a 2-trip system design instead of the one-trip system design at Grand Gulf.
2.
In the markup, Technical Specification 3.9.1 stated:
"The reactor mode switch shall be OPERABLE and locked in the Shutdown or Refuel position. _When the reactor mode switch is locked in the Refuel position:
a.
A control rod shall not be inserted or withdrawn unless the Refuel position one-rod-out interlock is OPERABLE.
I b.
CORE ALTERATIONS shall not be performed using equipment associated with a Refuel position interlock unless the following associated Refuel position interlocks are OPERABLE for such equipment:
4 1.
All rods in.
2.
Refuel platform position.
3.
Refuel platform hoists fuel-loaded.
4.
Fuel grapple position.
5.
Source range monitor countrate."
However, Grand Gulf does net have a fuel grapple position interlock.
3.
In the markup, Technical Specification 4.5.lb ECCS surveillance requirements for operability stated the required flow and discharge i
pressure to be:
i a.
LPCS pump develops a flow of at least 7115 gpm against a test line pressure greater than or equal to 128 psid.
b.
LPCI pump develops a flow of at least 7450 gpm against a test line pressure greater than or equal to 111 psid.
t c.
HPCS pump develops a ficw of at least 7115 gpm against a test line pressure greater than or equal to 200 psid.
j
.These technical specification discharge line pressure requirements for operability were subsequently changed to read respectively 290 psid, 125 psid, and 445 psid.
The original discharge pressure requirements for operability were not consistent with the assumptions in the safety analysis.
4.
In the markup, Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.1, Electrical Power Systems Surveillance Requirements, stated:
"Each of the above required independent circuits between the offsite transmission network and the onsite Class IE distribution system shall be:
b.
Demonstrated OPERABLE at least once per 18 months during i
I
~
shutdown by transferring manually and automatically, unit power supply from the nonnal circuit to the alternate circuit."
Grand Gulf Station did not have the automatic transfer feature for offsite to onsite AC power sources.
The false statement was material because if the NRC had known of the errors in the technical specifications, the NRC would not have issued the license with erroneous technical specifications.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII). Civil Penalty - $25,000.
B.
On June 26, 1981 a second markup of the Standard Technical Specifications for General Elec.tric Boiling Water Reactors (NUREG-123), revision 2, August 1979 was submitted. This submittal contained the same errors as were contained in the December 15, 1980 submittal. Additional submittals -
i and changes were transmitted in letters dated December 31, 1981, January 12, February 25, March 23, April 5, 6, 7, and 30, May 26, June 1, 9 (two letters) and 10, 1982. On June 16, 1982, NRC issued a low power (5%) license to MP&L for Grand Gulf Unit I with appended technical specifications based upon the licensee's submittals. The errors contained in Item A were reflected in the technical specifications issued with the license.
Each of these submittals was a separate opportunity to discover and correct the false submittal of December 15, 1980. The licensee's failure to do so constitutes a material false statement by omission.
The statement was false because the licensee failed to correct its i
initial false submittal and to ensure that the technical specifications ultimately issued with its license reflected plant-specific design features. The statement was material because the NRC would not have issued the license with erroneous technical specifications.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII).
Civil Penalty - $25,000.
C.
In a letter to Harold Denton dated June 14, 1983, Mississippi Power and Light provided additional proposed changes to the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications which MP&L stated were " intended, in general, to enhance i
clarity or provide consistency with the plant design and operation."
Contrary to section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act, this letter contained material false statements. The statements were false as shown below:
l l
1.
With reference to Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.1.b, the submittal l
stated, "There is no automatic transfer from the normal to alternate circuit I
since this bus search and automatic transfer feature was deleted from the load shedding and sequencing (LSS) panel by a pre-operating license design change. Section 8.3 of the FSAR no longer contains a description of the bus search and automatic transfer feature of the LSS panel."
l
s l
l Notice of Violationf..
However, the LSS panel still performs a search and automatic transfer function even though it is prohibited from auto-transfer hookup to another off-site power source by other features.
2.
With reference to Technical Specification 6.5.2.2, the submittal stated that the Manager of Systems Nuclear Operations Middle South Services, will be replaced by a qualified representative of System Nuclear Operations.
However, the organizational entity, Systems Nuclear Operations, did not exist.
The statements were material because an agency reviewer would not have made the requested changes to the technical specifications had the reviewer kncwn that the bases for the changes were wrong.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII). Civil Penalty - $25,000.
D.
In a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff dated June 23, 1983 Mississippi Power and Light provided additional proposed changes to the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications which MP&L stated were " intended, in general, to enhance clarity or provide consistency with the plant design and operation."
Contrary to Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act, this letter contained a material false statement. The statement was false as shown below:
The submittal stated, with reference to Technical Specification Table 4.3.7.5-1, that a note requiring channel calibration does not apply to the instruments used at Grand Gulf and should be deleted.
However, the footnote fully applied to the Grand Gulf instruments.
The false statement was material because the reviewer might have made the requested change to the technical specifications based upon incorrect information.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII). Civil j
Penalty - $25,000.
E.
In a letter to Harold Denton dated August S. 1984 Mississippi Power and Light certified that the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications
)
transmitted to the NRC up to and including Amendment 13 accurately i
reflected the plant, the FSAR and supporting documents and the SER in j
all material rerpects.
t Contrary to Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this statement was a material false statement. The statement was false because the technical specifications did not reflect existing plant-specific design features as shown below.
In a letter to the NRC dated August 14, 1984, MP&L requested additional changes to the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications to add circuit breakers to the list of those circuit breakers j
l
r Notice of Violation. i perfoming primary containment penetration conductor overcurrent protection i
functions for which ' surveillance was required. The false statement was material because the NRC believed the list of circuit breakers requiring i
surveillance was complete and might have issued the license with erroneous i
technical specifications, had the licensee not subsequently corrected the l'
error.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII). Civil Penalty -
$25,000.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Mississippi Power and Light Company is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment, USNRC, Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, t
Region II, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation, including for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of l
the alleged violations; (2) the reasons for the violations if admitted;.(3) the -
l corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to l
extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of i
Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, the response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
i Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Mississippi Power and Light Company may pay the civil penalties in the amount of One Hundred and Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($125,000) for the violations, or may protest imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer. Should Mississippi Power and Light Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalties in the amount proposed above.
Should Mississippi Power and Light Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, such answer may:
(1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part; (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances; (3) show error in this Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalties in whole or in part, such answer may request 1
remission or mitigation of the penalties. In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the five factors addressed in Section IV(B) of 10 CFR Part i
2, Appendix C should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 l
l CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. Mississippi Power ud Light Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2. A 5 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
l I
i
Upon failure to pay the penalties due, which have been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalties, unless compromised, remitted, i
or mitigated may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2282.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
//
I
't _ W i
mes M. Tay1
, Director 7
Office of Inspection and Enforcement i
Dated at Bethesda.. Maryland this4/May of March 1985.
r I
[
i
CongrtWW of tfje Einitch States Npouse of Representatbes Counnittee en Caergy ant (asumerce Raout 2125. Ray 6sts Seese Ofke BeGbtes W as6(ngtsu. B.C. 20515 March 8, 1985 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Dear Chairman Palladino I have received the commission's January 8,1985 responses to -
my July 2, 1984 and August 24,1984 'etters regarding apparent material false statements by the Mir,31ssippi Power and Light Company about the Grand Gulf nuclear power plant.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I continue to have great interest in this matter.
Consequently, I would request to be informed as soon as the Commission has decided on a final enforcement action and prior to the actual issuance of any enforcement action to the licensee.
As you suggested in your l
response to my August 24, 1984 letter, I believe that our correspondence on this matter should be made publicly available at that time.
I am greatly disappointed that it took the Commission so long to respond to my inquiries and that information responsive to my request was not provided sooner.
I expect to be kept fully and currently informed on this matter in the future.
Sincerely, "v
Edward J. Marke Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power EJM:mb In A L Ahl o c n.1 v -" 4 ( 'Tf'*i 19
.