United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment

EA-98-191 - Pilgrim 1 (Boston Edison Company)

May 19, 1998

EA 98-191

Mr. Leon J. Olivier
Vice President - Nuclear Operations/Station Manager
Boston Edison Company
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
600 Rocky Hill Road
Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360-5599

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY
- $55,000 (NRC Inspection Report No. 50-293/98-03)

Dear Mr. Olivier:

This letter refers to the NRC inspection conducted on March 2-5 and 11-12, 1998, at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station to assess your security force's capability to protect the facility against radiological sabotage and to determine whether your security program met requirements. During the inspection, an apparent violation of NRC requirements was identified, as noted in the inspection report sent to you on April 3, 1998. On April 27, 1998, a predecisional enforcement conference was conducted with you and members of your staff to discuss the apparent violation, its causes, and your corrective actions.

Based on our review of the inspection findings, and information provided during the conference, one violation is being cited and is described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). The violation involves multiple examples of equipment failures associated with the protected area assessment system used by your security personnel to continuously monitor and assess the security status at the facility. The details of this violation, which contain Safeguards Information, are described in the enclosed Notice.

The NRC is concerned that deficiencies related to your protected area assessment aids had been identified during audits conducted by your Quality Assurance staff in 1996 and 1997, as well as during NRC inspections between 1995-1997, and adequate action was not taken to correct the deficiencies. As a result of the failure to address the identified deficiencies, the assessment aids further degraded, resulting in the violation. At the enforcement conference, you indicated that there was inadequate management oversight regarding the quality of the assessment aids, and there was insufficient senior management support to properly maintain the capability of the assessment aids. You further stated that it was not until after the NRC inspection that senior management determined that there were known problems with the assessment aids that had been previously documented. Those problems had been documented on work lists rather than problem reports, and although maintenance requests had been issued, they were reissued under new numbers when deadlines were not met, which prolonged the period that the assessment aids were degraded.

This violation represents a significant lack of attention, by security staff, supervision, and management, to an important aspect of the security program at Pilgrim. The failure to ensure these aids were maintained operable resulted in a degradation of your overall system for protecting the facility from security threats. These aids are needed to provide a capability to observe the protected area barrier and isolation zone to limit exposure of responding personnel to possible attacks. Therefore, the violation has been categorized at Severity Level III in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 is considered for a Severity Level III violation. Since your facility has been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years(1), the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. Credit is not warranted for Identification because the violation was identified by the NRC. The NRC also considered your corrective actions, as described at the enforcement conference. These actions included, but were not limited to, (1) establishing compensatory measures for the degraded assessment aids; (2) assignment of additional maintenance staff to assist with maintenance of security assessment aids; (3) reinforcement of expectations by the Vice President and Group Manger; (4) providing "on-the-job" training to Central Alarm Station and Secondary Alarm Station operators; (5) creation of a checklist to surveill equipment by operators and supervisors; and (6) replacement of equipment with new, "state-of-the-art" equipment. Credit is warranted for Corrective Action because these actions, at the time of the enforcement conference, were considered prompt and comprehensive.

Therefore, to emphasize the importance of maintaining appropriate security at the facility, and promptly responding to indications of degraded conditions, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to propose a civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 for this Severity Level III violation.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should also describe actions taken or planned, to ensure appropriate attention is given to resolution of maintenance requests in a timely manner. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, without safeguards information, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
HUBERT J. MILLER

Hubert J. Miller
Regional Administrator

Docket No. 50-293
License No. DPR-35

Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of
                   Civil Penalty


NOTICE OF VIOLATION
AND
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY

Boston Edison Company
Pilgrim
Docket No. 50-293
License No. DPR-35
EA 98-191

During an NRC inspection conducted on March 2-5 and 11-12, 1998, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violation and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

License Condition 3.g of License No. DPR-35 requires that the licensee fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved physical security plan, including amendments made pursuant to provisions of 10 CFR 73.55.

SGI

SGI

SGI

SGI

SGI (01013)

This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement III).
Civil Penalty - $55,000.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Boston Edison Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty, in whole or in part, by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violation 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 penalty should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.

Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.

The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Director, Special Projects Office, NRR, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice.

Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.

Dated at King of Prussia, PA
this 19th day of May 1998


1. For example, on April 27, 1998, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $165,000 was issued for several violations of NRC requirements. (Reference: EAs 97-482 and 97-525)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 29, 2012