ML18059A983
| ML18059A983 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1994 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18059A982 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-94-02, 50-255-94-2, EA-93-041, EA-93-41, NUDOCS 9405120286 | |
| Download: ML18059A983 (3) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Consumers Power Company Palisades Nuclear Plant Docket No.
50-255 License No.
DPR-20 EA 94--041 During an NRC inspection conducted from January 10 through February 11, 1994, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, 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:
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 8, Criterion XVI, "Corrective Action," requires, in part, that measures be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected.
In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
The identification of the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action shall be documented and reported to the appropriate levels of management.
Contrary to the above, as of January 27, 1994, the licensee had failed to promptly correct significant conditions adverse to quality as demonstrated by the following examples:
A.
The licensee identified on May 25, 1989, and documented in its Component Cooling Water (CCW) Safety System Design Confirmation (SSOC) report, that backup cooling to the Engineered Safeguards System (ESS) pumps from the Service Water System (SWS) could not be accomplished during a loss of coolant accident with a loss of offsite power because non-safety-related instrument air was required for valve actuation. This was a significant condition adverse to quality in that the failure to provide cooling water to the ESS pumps could result in eventual pump failure.
B.
The licensee identified on May 17, 1990, and documented in its SWS SSDC report that the non-critical header isolation valve, CV-1359, was not included in the leakage test program.
This was a significant condition adverse to quality in that leakage through valve CV-1359 could affect the SWS's capability to perform its intended safety-related function at elevated lake temperatures.
- c.
-The-licensee identiffed on January4, 1994, that the instrument tub.ing and unistrut supports located in front of the CCW heat exchangers were bent but failed to take prompt corrective action to evaluate the condition for seismic requirements.
As a result of this failure -and NRC prompting, the licensee's subsequent analysis, which was performed on January 24, 1994, determined that the tubing did not meet FSAR Section 5.7 requirements for allowable stress.
94051202Bb.~~g~~5)
PDR ADOCK
- -.
- PDR 1:
- ~.i Q
r -
_; ____ ~ - -
On May 4, 1990, the licensee identified and documented in its SWS SSDC report that the SWS inservice test pump reference values were not coupled to the SWS flow balancing test. The licensee failed to take prompt corrective action to address this condition which created the potential for the SW pump performance to degrade below minimum system flow requirements.
E.
On May 4, 1990, the licensee identified and documented in its SWS SSOC report that SWS test T-216, "Service Water Flow Verification," Revision 4, balanced flow to the CCW heat exchangers at or very.near their required flow rates.
The licensee failed to take prompt corrective action to ~ddress this condition adverse to quality which left little or no margin for reduced SWS flow that could result from SW pump degradation.
This i5 a Severity Level III problem {Supplement I) {01013).
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 vi.elation 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 answe~ 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
~I..
Notice of Violation 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 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 repetitio~. 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, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351, and with a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Palisades Nuclear Plant.
Dated at Lisle, Illinois this 6th day of May 1994