IR 05000725/2008031

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000.Violation Noted:Unit in Mode 1,2 or 3 from 850725-0831 & 1007-1127 W/One Channel of Automatic Actuation Logic for MSIV Inoperable
ML20215E401
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000, 05000725
Issue date: 02/12/1986
From: Martin J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215E267 List:
References
FOIA-86-197 EA-86-004, EA-86-4, NUDOCS 8610150279
Download: ML20215E401 (3)
v • d • e


Text

,

.

W

,

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND

-

PROPOSED IMPOSITI6N OF CIVIL PENALTY Pacific Gas and Electric Company Docket No. 50-323 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 License No. DPR-82 San Francisco, California 94106 EA 86-04 During an NRC special inspection conducted during the period of December 30, 1985 through January 7, 1986, a violation of NRC requirements was identifie The violation involved a failure of one channel of the automatic actuation logic for a main steam isolation valv In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985), 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, PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205. The violation and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.2 requires that [e]ngineered Safety Features

_ Actuation System (ESFAS) instrumentation channels and interlocks shown in Table 3.3-3 '

11 be OPERABLE..." Action statement b. of TS 3.3.2 specifies that "[w]ith an ESFAS instrumentation channel or interlock inoperable, take the ACTION shown in Table 3.3-3." Tabis 3.3-3 requires both channels for the automatic actuation relays of the " Steam Line Isolation" function to be operable in modes 1 through 3. Table 3.3-3 ACTION 22 for the " Automatic Actuation Logic and Actuation Relays" of the " Steam Line Isolation" function requires that "[w]ith the number of OPERABLE Channels one less than the Minimum Channels OPERABLE requirement, be in at least HOT STANDBY within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in a least HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />..."

Contrary to the above, Diablo Canyon, Unit 2 was in mode one, two or three '

from July 25, 1985 until August 31, 1985 and again from October 7, 1985 until November 27, 1985 with one channel of the autcmatic actuation logic for main steam isolation valve FCV-44 inoperable and did not achieve HOT STANDBY within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> nor HOT SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement I).

(Civil Penalty $50,000)

i Pursuant"to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Pacific Gas & Electric Company is i hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555 with a copy to the l Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V, within !

30 days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation, including:

(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that 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. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order to show cause 8610150279 861003 PDR FOIA HOLMES86-197 PDR

J

.

.

E Notice of Violation -2-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 affirmatio Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Pacific Gas & Electric Company may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Should Pacific Gas & Electric Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above. Should Pacific Gas & Electric Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, 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 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 penalt In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C 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. Pacific Gas a Electric Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 16 ~JR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalt Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which has been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provistor.s 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. .

$

John B. Martin Regional Administrator Dated at Walnut Creek, California thisf/ day of February 1986 l

l j

.

.

+ - - . . _ - - - , - . . . - . , - - - - - - - , . ._x , . , - - . . . - . - - , - , - _ . , . - , . - , - - . ~ , - - , - - - - - . _ , . . - . , . -, + - . -

-

,.

,

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Dietribution F6W '

NSIC -

LPDR SECY CA

'

JMTaylor, IE RVollmer, IE JAxelrad, IE

<

TPoindexter, IE JBMartin, RV JLieberman, ELD

' Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV FIngram, PA VStello, DED/ROGR JCrooks, AEOD SConnelly, OIA BHayes, OI

'

EJordan, IE BGrimes, IE HDenton, NRR HSchierling, NRR ,

RDodds, RV JBurdoin, RV MMendonca, RV IE:ES File IE:EA File EDO Rdg File DCS State of CA Attorney General California PUC

'

IE:ES ELD ! RV ES:D IE:DD IE:D TPoindexter JLieberman ! JB rtin JAAxelrad RVollmer JMTaylor 2/ /86 2/ /86 2/ /86 2/ /86 2/ /86 2/ /86 RV:nh'NY\

M. Mendonca RVTo @dds _

RV RV[

Kirsch A. / Johnson 2/ 7 /86 2/ / /86 2/;l/86 2/// /86 l l

"

!

. .

.-~v- , + - - - , , , -

c.,-- , - , , - - - - - - , ,- r - ~- -- n ----, y e

.

E+*'

,

[p P" ctig,\' 'n UNITED STATES g, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a

REGION V

o, a 1450 MARIA LANE. SUITE 210 oU

WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 s,,,e .

-

MAR 1 4 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR: Diablo Canyon Allegation File FROM: Allegation Review Board SUBJECT:

DIABLO CANYON ALLEGATION REVIEW BOARD MEETING An Allegation Review Board, comprised of the individuals listed below, was convened on March 13, 1986, to examine and disposition the items listed below as follows: OI Case No. QS-83-017, allegation number 23 was closed by OI:RV with issuance of a Report of Inquiry dated June 29, 1984 as noted in SSER-2 Per memorandum from OI dated February 5,1986, allegation numbers 591 and 1612 (ATS numbers RV-84-A-052 and RV-84-14-A-115) are duplicates of allegation number 23 and are, therefore, considered CLOSE I OI Case No. 5-84-023, allegation number 223, ATS number RV-84-A-046 was closed by 01:RV with issuance of Report of Investigation dated December 7, 1984. An Allegation Review Panel on December 17, 1984 subsequently closed the allegation requiring no further action. Allegation number 1546 (ATS-84-A-115) is a duplication of allegation number 223 and is, therefore, considered CLOSED. Copy of synopsis of investigation will be forwarded to the alleger in response to a letter of inquiry dated February 28, 198 *

III. OI Case No. QS-85-045, Diablo Canyon Unit No. 1 - Termination of an electrician by Bechtel Construction, Inc. for being a "whistleblower".

OI case CLOSED without further action since the discharge of the employee related to a question of following procedures for only accounting and scheduling purposes that do not involve NRC regulatory requirement I OI Case No. 5-85-042, Allegation No. 1717 (ATS No. RV-85-A-026):

Former document QA reviewer for Pullman Power Products was discriminated against for raising safety concern The 01 investigation disclosed that the former QA Document Reviewer, a non-Pullman contract employee, while in the capacity of a draftsperson for Pullman's Engineering As-Built Group, did point out deficiencies in Pullman's documentation of hangar packages. To do such was part the assigned responsibilities. Subsequent personnel transfers of the draftsman was at the alleger's request. Termination of employment with Pullman was due to a decline in the as-built work load and the alleger's refusal to accept another position at a reduction in pay as a Pullman direct employee. The alleger had the following two technical concerns that were not addressed by investigation:

.

..s The alleger indicated that final approval of Pullman's piping system isometric packages was being lef t to Pullman Engineering, believing this to be a violation regulating requirements that call for final '

sign off of such packages by Q The Region's/ contractor's inspections have shown this not to be the case. The final review of these packages is required to be accomplished by PG&E engineering. Further, the NRC does not require QA to be the final approval authority on this activity but rather, they are responsible for auditing conformance to program requirement The alleger indicated that Pullman and Bechtel wanted to minimize the highlighting of deficiencies by utilization of a computerized

.,

tracking system but was discouraged from this by Bechte The Region's/ contractor's inspection determined that Bechtel controlled the master completion list that was a complete listing of all outstanding deficiencies to assure their proper closure. The inspections of piping systems, including pipe supports, showed that these deficiencies were properly tracked and dispositioned by P0&E General Construction (Bechtel). No significant deficiencies were identified during the NRC inspections in this are Based on the above, the OI case and assodicated allegation with concerns are CLOSE V. OI Case Nos. QS-85-012 (ATS Nos: RV-84-A-064 and RV-84-A-115; Allegation Nos: 912, 1615, 1616 and 1618), QS-85-016 (ATS No:

RV-84-A-115; Allegation Nos: 1570, 1579, 1580, 1581, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607 and 1608), QS-85-017 (ATS No: RV-84-A-064, Allegation Nos:

970, 972, 973, 978 and 979), and QS-85-026 (ATS Nos: RV-84-A-019, RV-84-A-020, RV-84-A-071, RV-84-A-090 and RV-84-A-115, Allegation Nos:

156, 157, 1198, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1601, 1630, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1639, 1640 and 1641)

The subject OI cases and associated allegations were examined during a ABM on February 12, 1986 and it was determined that the technical and quality related concerns related to these allegations have been appropriately resolved and that the identified technical issues were unsubstantiated. Based on this information OI has declared these cases and associated allegations to be closed, pending the receipt of any new information. Accordingly, the Board considers these cases and associated allegations to be CLOSED.

.

y - - - - . . . , , . . - - , , , - - - - , . - - - -

l

- ..

l

.

V ATS No. 84-A-114, Allegation No. 1524 - PG&E management would not take '

-corrective action on the problem of the inadequate support. clamps on hydrogen gas system line The Allegation Review Board has reviewed relevant documentation and evaluated the PG&E responses to the allegations provided in DCL-85-144, dated April 8, 1985, and concludes that the potential technical issues have been adequately addressed and that the licensee did take corrective action following the allegations by walking the system down and determining through evaluation that "unistrut" clamps were adequete for the two lines in which they were used. This allegation is CLOSE VII. ATS No. 85-A-999. Allegation No. 1702 - Calculation packages had quotas imposed on the number of packages processed daily by personnel at off-site consultants, that could have overridden quality concern Allegation Review Board has reviewed relevant documentation and evaluated the PG&E responses to the allegations provided in DCL-85-212 dated June 13, 1985, and concludes that the potential technical issues have been addressed and that the licensee exercised sufficient control over the consultant by reviewing support design packages prepared by consultants to assure compliance with the procedures and design criteria. The calculation packages were reviewed and accepted only after reviewers were assured that project criteria had been met. The licensee never found any instances where production " overrode quality concerns" by offsite consultants. Accordingly, this allegation is CLOSED.

,

VIII.ATS No. RV-84-A-115, Allegation No. 1544 - Stainless steel pipe fittings, silver braised on Unit 1 boric acid tanks, leaked and were not repaired This item was previously responded to by the licensee in DCL-85-077 and was accepted as being properly dispositioned in ABM of March 26, 1985, SSER 28. In DCL-86-062 dated March 10, 1986, the licensee indicated additional silver-brazed fittings were discovered on Unit 2 capillary systems. As a result, additional walkdowns were conducted and a fitting changeout program initiated and completed. Analysis of the one line considered to be Class IB indicates that it would not have faile Accordingly, this item remains CLOSE I ATS No. RV-84-A-064, Allegation No. 1109 - PTGC-OVID does not indicate the valve number that should be secured if you get a break in a sight glass or other equipment failur Inspection report 84-11, in paragraph 10, discusses the staff's examin-ation of the utilization of OVIDs sad P&lDs in response to a number of allegations that adequately addresses this concern. Allegation CLOSE _ ., -_ -- - , _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ - - - _ - _ - . - .

"

...o l Case No. QS-84-022, allegation numbers 1445 and 1578, was transferred '

by OI:RV to Region V in memorandum dated August 15, 1985, for evaluation of technical significance. This case, and associated allegations, were subsequently closed without further action in an Allegation Board Meeting held December 16, 1985. Allegation 1224 (ATS No. RV-A-071) is directly related to these allegations and is therefore considered CLOSE .

O

~

D. F. Kirsch H. Schiet' ling "

/

R. T. D s, f

. A. Meeks, OI Consultant to the Board

.

A. D. Jo

-

,

on

/

Allegat o Coordinator

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000725/2008031&oldid=3237232"