ML16341F554
| ML16341F554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1990 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341F553 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-89-241, NUDOCS 9002220619 | |
| Download: ML16341F554 (6) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2
Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 License Nos.
DPR 80 and DPR 82 EA 89-241 During an NRC inspection conducted from October 17 through December 11, 1989, violations of NRC requirements were identified; In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1989), 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 violations and the associat'ed civil penalty are set forth below:
A.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, requires in part, that measures be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defec-tive material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected.
FSAR Section 6.2.3.2.2. 1, Containment Recirculation Sump, states in part, that a baffle arrangement surrounds the sumps to prevent floating debris or anything larger than 3/16 inch from entering the sumps.
FSAR Figure 6.2-11 shows the configuration.
Contrary to the above, on August 2, 1985, the licensee identified a condition adverse to quality related to gaps in the Unit 1 recirculation sump in excess of the dimensions described in the FSAR.
The licensee's corrective actions were inadequate to identify and correct all of the nonconforming conditions.
Additional gaps in excess of the dimensions described in the FSAR were discovered on November 26, 1989.
B.
Diablo Canyon Technical Specification 3.5.2 states in part that:
"Two Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystems shall be OPERABLE with each subsystem comprised of:
...e.
An OPERABLE flow path capable
.of taking suction from the Refueling Water Storage Tank on a Safety Injection signal and manually transferring suction to the containment sump during the recirculation phase of operation."
Technical Specification 1.21, in defining the terms OPERABLE and OPERABILITY, provides in part:
"a system, subsystem,
- train, component or device shall be OPERABLE or have OPERABILITY when it is capable of perfor-ming its specified safety-related function(s).
Implicit in this definition shall be the assumption that all necessary...auxiliary equipment that are required for the system, subsystem=,
- train, component or device to perform its safety-related function(s) are also capable of performing their rated support function(s)."
With more than one ECCS subsystem inoperable, Technical Specification 3.0.3 applies, which states:
90022206i9 9002i3 p
PDR ADOCK 05000275 Q
PNU
Notice of Violation "When a Limiting Condition for Operation is not met, except as provided in'the associated ACTION requirements, within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> action shall be initiated to place the unit in a MODE in which the specification does not apply by placing it, as applicable, in a.
At least HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, b.
At least HOT SHUTDOWN'ithin the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />, and c.
At least COLD SHUTDOWN within the subsequent 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />."
Contrary to the'above, two emergency core cooling system subsystems were inoperable for periods of about 10 to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> each while Unit 2 was in Mode 1 operation on October 12; 1987 and August 23, 1988 and while Unit 1 was in Mode 1 operation on September 7, 1988, and May 11, 1989.
On those dates, the containment recirculation sump was rendered inoperable because the screened access hatch was opened to allow the addition and pumpdown of borated water with hoses for calibration of the sump level detectors.
With the sump access hatch
- open, the screening structure was not fully capable of performing its rated support function.
During the stated periods, no action was'initiated to reduce the reactor power to enter a lower mode of operation.
C.
Technical Specification 4.5.2.c requires in part that a visual inspection be performed of all accessible areas in the containment prior to establishing containment integrity to verify that no loose debris (rags, trash, clothing, etc.) is present in the containment which could be transported to the containment sump,and cause restrictions of the pump suctions during a
LOCA condition.
Contrary to the above, on May 11, 1989, the licensee performed an inadequate inspection of the Unit 1 containment sump for loose debris which could be transported within the containment sump and cause restrictions of the pump suctions during a LOCA condition.
Even though containment integrity had been established, there was debris
.in the sump from at least the time of the last licensee inspection of May ll, 1989, until October 17, 1989 when the debris was discovered and removed.
Violations A through C have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement j.).
Civil Penalty - $50,000 (assessed equally between the violations).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Pacific Gas and Electric 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.
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, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results
- achieved, (4) the corrective steps that wi 11 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 may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be
4
Notice of Violati on FEB 1 3
$S90 taken.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 74 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 civi 1 penalty by letter to the Director',
Office of-Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed
- above, 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 violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (2) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1989),
should be addressed.
Any written answer in accordance w'ith 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,'2 U.S.C.
2282c.
The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a 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, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, California
- 94596, and a copy to the Senior Resident Inspector, at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p>~ 3o artin Regional Administra Dated at Walnut Creek, California this A%day of February 1990