ML18059A385
| ML18059A385 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1993 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Hoffman D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18059A386 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-178, NUDOCS 9309210015 | |
| Download: ML18059A385 (9) | |
Text
I
- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION Ill Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20 EA 93-178 Consumers Power Company 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN EUYN, IWNOIS 60137-5927 September 14, 1993 ATTN:
Mr. David P. Hoffman Vice President - Nuclear Operations*
1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -
$50,000 (INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-255/93016(DRP))
This refers to the special inspection conducted from June 15 through 25, 1993, at Palisades Nuclear Plant.
The inspection included a review of the circumstances surrounding your failure to uncouple one control rod prior to removal of the reactor vessel head.
The report documenting this inspection was sent to you by letter dated July 9, 1993.
During the inspection, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
You voluntarily reported this ev~nt to the NRC Operations Center on the day it occurred, June* 15, 1993, and subsequently submitted a written report by letter dated June 19, 1993.
An enforcement conference was held on August 10, 1993, to discuss the apparent violations, their causes, and your corrective actions.
The report summarizing the enforcement conference was sent to you by letter dated August 20, 1993.
On June* 15, 1993, after lifting the reactor vessel head seven feet in preparation for refueling, you identified that one of forty-five control rods was still coupled to its-drive mechanism and was lifted with the reactor vessel head.
.Previously, on June 10, 1993, two teams, each consisting of a licensed operator and an auxiliary operator, had performed the control rod uncoupling evolution.
The evolution was unorganized; and difficult working conditions, perceived schedule pressure, and a strained relationship between the operators and the Shift Supervisor were evident.
Furthermore, the Shift Supervisor CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 9309210015 930914 PDR ADOCK 05000255 0
Consumers Power Company 2
sensed some problems with the evolution, but failed to recognize a significant failure to comply with procedures.
The enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) describes five violations involving failure of the Shift Supervisor to brief the auxiliary operators prior to the uncoupling evolution, failure of the auxiliary operators to conduct a dry run on the mock-up prior to the evolution, failure to notify the control room after each control rod drive mechanism was uncoupled, failure.to retain the working copy of the procedure, and an inadequate procedure for verifying the rods were uncoupled during removal of the reactor vessel head.
These violations represent a breakdown in the controls that are essential for the safe conduct of important activities.
Any uncontrolled addition of positive reactivity is a significant safety concern even though, in this case, the reactor remained substantially subcritical and there were no adverse consequences to the public.
Furthermore, the unorganized manner in which this evolution occurred is unacceptable for nuclear power plant operations; under other.circumstances, such performance might have.resulted in more significant consequences.
In addition, our review of this matter disclosed broader weaknesses including a general lack of critical self-assessment of important activities and indications of organizational strife within the plant operations department.
Although these broader issues go beyond the scope of this individual enforcement action, they mandate your prompt attention and resolution.
Collectively, the violations in the enclosed Notice represent a potentially significant lack of attention or carelessness toward licensed responsibilities.
Therefore, in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix c, these violations are classified in the aggregate as a Severity Level r:r_r Pr<?bl_em.
We acknowledge your corrective actions which included issuing a memorandum to all site supervisory personnel on lessons learned, monitoring of plant activities by onsite senior management until the plant returned to service, instituting a pre-job briefing checklist, revising refueling procedures, and communicating expectations to workers and supervisors by the Operations Manager and Operations Superintendent.
We also acknowledge your planned actions to develop and implement a number of Nuclear Operations Department, Plant Management, and Operations Department action plans.
To emphasize the need for increased management attention to licensed activities and strict adherence to procedures, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor
Consumers Power Company 3
Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research to issue the enclosed Notice in the amount of $50,000 for the Severity Level III problem.
The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III problem is $50,000.
The adjustment factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered.
While the event itself was self-disclosing, the NRC took the initiative in identifying the violations that were involved here, and we believe that no mitigation is warranted for the identification factor.
Mitigation of the base civil penalty would have been appropriate for your comprehensive corrective actions and that mitigation would have resulted in a reduction in the amount of the civil penalty by 50 percent.
Thus, a civil penalty of $25,000 could be proposed in a matter such as this.
However, the NRC is concerned about the breakdown in the controls that are essential for the safe conduct of important.activities that occurred in this case.
In order to reflect the level of concern with which the NRC views your failure to instill in individuals a proper regard for strict procedural compliance and to emphasize the need for careful attention to the control and conduct of the licensed activities involved here, I have decided, pursuant to Section VII.A.l*of the Enforcement Policy, to exercise discretion and propose a civil penalty in the amount of the base civil penalty for this Severity Level III problem notwithstanding the application of the mitigation factors.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow. the instructions speciiied in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your response, you should document the specific action taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence.
After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Consumers Power Company 4
The response directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No.96-511.
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/enclosure:
Gerald B. Slade, General Manager David w. Rogers, Safety and Licensing Director OC/LFDCB Resident Inspector, RIII James R.
~adgett, Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan Department of Public Health Palisades, LPM, NRR SRI, Big Rock Point John B. Martin Regional Administrator
Consumers Power Company DISTRIBUTION PDR SECY CA JTaylor, EDO JSniezek, DEDR JLieberman, OE LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, OGC TMurley, NRR JPartlow, NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIV, RV Fingram, GPA/PA DWilliams, OIG BHayes, OI EJordan, AEOD Day File EA _File
'.,---bes.. \\i
- gfate of Michigan RAO:RIII SLO:RIII PAO:RIII IMS:RIII 5
t 0
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Consumers Power Company Palisades Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-255 License No. DPR-20 EA 93-178 During an NRC inspection conducted from June 15-25, 1993, 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 (1993), the Nuclear Regulato~y 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 violitions and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
Technical Specification 6.8.1.a requires, in part, that written procedures be established, implemented and maintained covering the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2 (February 1978), Quality Assurance Program Requirements, as endorsed by CPC-2A, Quality Program Description.
The Quality Program Description in CPC-2A endorses, among other things, the following applicable procedures listed in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33:
Authorities and Responsibilities for Safe Operation and Shutdown (Section 1.b); Record Retention (Section 1.h); Preparation for Refueling and Refueling Equipment Operation (Section 2.k); and Removal of the Reactor Head (Section 9. d ( 6) ).
A.
Administrative Procedure 4.00, "Operations organization, Responsibilities, and Conduct," Revision 10, Step 4.4.1.h, established to implement the procedure listed in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 1.b, requires, in part, that the Shift Supervisor explain plans, procedures and safety precauti9ns to shift operating personnel prior to unusual or infrequent operations.-
Contrary to the above,.on June 10, 1993, the Shift Supervisor failed to explain plans, procedures, and safety precautions to the auxiliary operators assigned to perform the control rod drive mechanism uncoupling evolution, an infrequent operation.
B.
Special Operating Procedure CRD0-1, "Disconnecting Control Rods from CRDMS," Revision 8, Step 3.4, established to implement the procedure listed in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 2.k, requires that persons performing this activity complete a dry run of this procedure using the control rod drive mechanism disconnecting mock-up.
9309210019 930914 PDR ADOCK 05000255 0
PD~
Contrary to the above, on June 10, 1993, the auxiliary operators performing control rod drive mechanism uncoupling had not completed a dry run of Procedure CRD0-1 using the control rod drive mechanism disconnecting mock-up.
- c.
Special Operating Procedure CRD0-1, "Disconnecting Control Rods from CRDMS," Revision 8, Step 5.1.3, established to implement the procedure listed in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 9.d(6), requires the notification of the control room to record on Attachment 1 the control rod drive mechanism which has been disconnected.
Contrary to the above, on June 10, 1993, during the uncoupling of control rod drive mechanisms, operators repeatedly failed to notify the control room after each control rod dri~e mechanism was disconnected, but only notified the control room after groups of control rod drive mechanisms were disconnected.
D.
Special Operating Procedure CRD0-1, "Disconnecting Control Rods from CRDMS," Revision 8, Step 7.2.3, established to implement the procedure listed in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 1.h, requires that the control room working copy of this procedure be retained.
Contrary to the above, after completion of the control ~od drive mechanism uncoupling evolution on June 10, 1993, the control room working copy of the procedure was not retained.
E.
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, Section 9, as endorsed by CPC-2A, Quality Program Description, requires, in part, that maintenance be properly performed in accordance with written procedures appropriate to the circumstances.
Contrary to the above, as of June 15, 1993, Maintenance Procedure RVG-M-2, "Removal of the Reactor Vessel Head,"
Revision-- 2-4, a portion of which-serves to verify that all rack extensions are uncoupled, was inappropriate to the circumstances in that Steps 5.20.18 through 5.20.20 were not adequate to verify that all rack extensions were uncoupled.
This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
Civil Penalty -
$50,000.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Consumers Power 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 actions 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 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 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, (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 V.B.2 of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1993),
~hould be addressed~ Any written.answe~ in accor~ance-with 1~
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 responses 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 Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137, and with a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Palisades Nuclear Plant.
Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this 14th day of September 1993