EA-99-010 - Nine Mile Point 1 (Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation)
June 29, 1999
Mr. John H. Mueller
Chief Nuclear Officer
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station
Operations Building, 2nd Floor
Post Office Box 63
Lycoming, New York 13093
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC Office of Investigation Report No. 1-98-33)
Dear Mr. Mueller:
This letter refers to the NRC investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) after you had identified and reported to the NRC that an unqualified Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) assumed the position of Assistant Station Shift Supervisor (ASSS) at Unit 1 on June 16, 1998. The SRO who assumed the watch was not considered qualified in that he had not completed remedial training after failing an evaluated requalification scenario the previous day. In a letter dated April 13, 1999, we informed you that the OI investigation found that the SRO had deliberately violated license conditions and caused Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) to be in violation of Technical Specification (TS) requirements. In that letter, we offered you the opportunity to either request a predecisional enforcement conference (conference) to discuss the apparent violation or to respond to the apparent violation in writing. You declined the offer for a conference and responded to the apparent violation in a letter dated May 10, 1999.
Based on the information developed during the investigation conducted by OI and the information provided in your response, one violation of NRC requirements is being cited as described in the enclosed Notice. The violation involved a failure to adhere to the requirements of your Technical Specifications in that the licensed SRO stood watch as the ASSS without first being remediated following his examination failure. The violation existed for approximately four hours while Unit 1 was at 100% power. The specific requirements that were violated required that a minimum of two senior reactor operators (SROs) be on duty for each operating shift, and that at least one licensed SRO be in the control room during power operations. Because the specific SRO in question had not been remediated, the shift had only one qualified SRO on shift for that four hour period. Furthermore, he was the only SRO in the control room for approximately 45 minutes during that period. As a result, the minimum shift staffing requirements of TS 6.2.2.a and TS 6.2.2.e were not met.
In your May 10, 1999, response, you admitted that the violation occurred;
however, you contended that the violation was not willful or deliberate.
After further review of the available information, the NRC determined
that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the violation was
deliberate on the part of any of your employees. Nonetheless, the NRC
is concerned that officials in your organization were aware of the requirement,
and had knowledge of the examination failure, yet failed to prevent the
violation of the Technical Specification staffing requirements. Specifically,
both the SRO and the General Supervisor of Operations (GSO) were aware
that a licensed operator could not stand watch following a requalification
failure without being remediated. Although the SRO knew that he had failed
the requalification evaluation, he contended that he did not think about
the requirement prior to standing watch. In addition, the GSO was told
on June 15, 1998, when he was entering the training center to be an evaluator
in the afternoon, that a crew had failed the requalification evaluation
that morning. However, he neither recognized, nor took action to determine,
whether the SRO was a member of the crew that had failed when he asked
the SRO to stand watch. Further, the training supervisor was also aware
of the requirement and aware that the SRO had failed the evaluation, yet
he granted permission for the SRO to miss training on June 16, 1999, so
that he could work in the plant without questioning whether the SRO would
be standing watch. Therefore, given the importance of having qualified
control room operators, this violation is of significant regulatory concern
and is classified at Severity Level III in accordance with the "General
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 is considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because your facility has been the subject of escalated enforcement action 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 warranted for identification because you identified, investigated, and promptly reported the violation. Credit is also warranted for corrective action because your corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive. These actions, which were described in a Licensee Event Report (LER) submitted to the NRC on July 17, 1998, and in your response dated May 10, 1999, included, but were not limited to: (1) remediation of the crew that failed the evaluation; (2) communication of lessons learned from the event via a memorandum and Night Orders: (3) revision of procedures to clarify the requirements regarding requalification evaluation failures; (4) plans for additional training to emphasize the importance of license qualification requirements; and (5) counseling of the individuals involved in the event.
Therefore, to encourage prompt identification and comprehensive correction of violations, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, not to propose a civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a civil penalty.
The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, and the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence is already adequately addressed on the docket in your LER No 98-14, dated July 17, 1998 and in your response, dated May 10, 1999. Therefore, you are not required to respond to this letter unless the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, the enclosed Notice, and any response, if you chose to provide one, will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
|ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
JAMES T. WIGGINS
|FOR||Hubert J. Miller
Enclosure: Notice of Violation
G. Wilson, Esquire
M. Wetterhahn, Winston and Strawn
J. Rettberg, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation
P. Eddy, Electric Division, Department of Public Service, State of New York
C. Donaldson, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, New York Department of Law
J. Vinquist, MATS, Inc.
F. Valentino, President, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
J. Spath, Program Director, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
|NOTICE OF VIOLATION
|Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Nine Mile Point, Unit 1
|Docket No. 50-220
License No. DPR-63
During an investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations
(OI), between July 1, 1998 and December 11, 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 violation is listed
|Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) Technical Specification
(TS) 6.2.2.a, Table 6.2-1, specifies, in part, that two on shift senior
reactor operators (SROs) are the minimum staffing required for one
operating nuclear unit. TS 6.2.2.e states, in part, that a licensed
senior reactor operator shall be required in the control room during
10 CFR 55.59, requires, in part, that the licensed operator shall successfully complete a requalification program as developed by the facility licensee. NTP-TQS-102 Rev. 6, which implements the NMP requalification program, requires, in part, in Section 3.5.7.b.3, that remediation of simulator evaluation failures by operators shall be completed before the individual can resume licensed duties.
Contrary to the above, for approximately four hours on June 16, 1998, with NMP1 at full power, a senior reactor operator assumed the Assistant Shift Supervisor (ASSS) position, one of the two required SRO positions, and was the only SRO in the control room for approximately 45 minutes during that four hour period, even though he had failed a simulator examination on June 15, 1998, and had not at the time completed remediation of the simulator evaluation failure. As a result, the individual was not qualified for that position, and therefore,
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I).
The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation,
the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and
prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance was achieved is
already adequately addressed on the docket in your Licensee Event Report
No 98-14, dated July 17, 1998, and in your response, dated May 10, 1999.
However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not
accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case,
or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a "Reply to
a Notice of Violation," and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a
copy to the Regional Administrator, Region 1, and a copy to the NRC Resident
Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30
days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
If you choose to respond, your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). Therefore, to the extent possible, the response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
Dated this 29th day of June 1999
1. A $55,000 civil penalty was issued on January 22, 1998 (EA 97-530) for a Severity Level III violation associated with transportation of radioactive waste.