ML19280D527
| ML19280D527 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1983 |
| From: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19280D524 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-83-020, EA-83-20, NUDOCS 8308040187 | |
| Download: ML19280D527 (7) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No.
50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Station)
)
Construction Permit No. CPPR-95
)
EA 83-20 ORDER IMPOSING A CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I
Long Island Lighting Company,175 East Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York, 11801 (the " licensee") is the holder of Construction Permit CPPR-95 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") which authorizes the licensee to construct the Shoreham Nuclear Station in Suffolk County, New York.
The Construction Permit was issued on April 14, 1973 and was due to expire on March 31, 1983.
A request for an extension to December 31, 1983 was filed with the NRC by the licensee on February 25, 1983.
II An inspection of the licensee's activities under the Construction Permit was conducted between November 30, 1982 and December 31, 1982 at the Shoreham Nuclear 8308040187 830715 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
2 Station in Suffolk County, New York.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that the licensee did not conduct its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements.
A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty was served upon the licensee by letter dated April 12, 1983.
The Notice states the nature of the violation, the provision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements which the licensee had violated, and the amount of civil penalty proposed for the violation.
The licensee responded with two letters dated May 12, 1983 to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.
III Upon consideration of the answers received and the statements of fact, explana-tion, and argument for remission or mitigation of the proposed civil penalty contained therein, for the reasons set forth in the Appendix to this Order, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement has determined that the penalty proposed for the violation designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty should be imposed.
IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295), and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
3 The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) within thirty days of the date of this Order, by check, draft or money order, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
V The licensee may within thirty days of the date of this Order request a hearing.
A request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC, Washington, D.C. 20555. A copy of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, USNRC, Washington, D.C.
20555.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing.
If the licensee fails to request a hearing within thirty days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order chall be effective without further proceedings; if payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee violated NRC requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty; and
4 (b) whether, on the basis of such violation, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W1 eoung,[! rector Richard C.
Office of ection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of July, 1983 I
APPENDIX EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS For the violation and associated civil penalty identified in the NRC's April 12, 1983 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, the violation is restated, the licensee's response is summarized, and the NRC's evaluation and conclusion regarding the licensee's response a-e cresented.
The licensee's response was provided in two letters, both dateu nay 12, 1983, from William J. Museler, Director, Office of Nuclear, Long Island Lighting Company, to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
The NRC staff evaluations and conclusions are based on the May 12, 1983 letters.
Statement of Violation FSAR paragraph 17.2.11 and the LILC0 Quality Assurance Manual, Section 11 which implement the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, requires that a test program be establ bhed to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that systems will perf a satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with writ en test procedures, which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits colta ned in applicable design documents.
Test results shall also be documented a,a evaluated to assure that test require-ments have been satisfied.
Shoreham FSAR paragraph 14.1.3.7.24, Test Method, Item 8, states that during the preoperational test program, the diesel generators shall be tested in accordance with paragraph C.2.a of Pegulatory Guide 1.108, Rev. 1, which requires that the preoperational test program demonstrate the full-load-carrying capability of the diesel generators for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, of which 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> is at a load equivalent to the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating of the diesc1 generator.
Specification SH1-89, Rev. 1, " Diesel Generator Sets," in Section 2, Design Data, Item 1.d specifies the 2-hour rating as 3,900 KW (kilowatts).
PT.307.003B,
" Emergency Diesel Generator 102 Electric Preop Test," paragraph 10.4, acceptance criteria, specifies the diesel generator be capable of carrying a rating of 3,900 KW for at least two hours.
Paragraph 8.5.4 of Procedure PT 307.0038 specifies running the diesel generator at a load between 3,850 and 3,900 KW for at least 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
Data to demonstrate that the criteria are satisfied is logged every 15 minutes for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, resulting in nine readings.
FSAR paragraph 14.1.1.1 states that the Joint Test Group reviews and approves completed preoperational tests.
Centrary to the above, the test program, as implemented, did not assure that testing was performed in accordance with procedures or that test requirements had been satisfied.
On May 26, 1982, a preoperational test was performed to demonstrate the 2-hour rating of Diesel Generator 102.
The results of this test were approved by the Joint Test Group on October 12, 1982 even though the
Appendix (continued) 2 test was not conducted in accordance with the test procedure requirements and the test results did not demonstrate this rating.
Of the nine readings recorded at 15 minute intervals during the performance of the test, all nine readings were below 3,900 KW and six of the readings were below 3,850 KW.
Specifically, one reading was 3,500 KW, two readings were 3,700 KW, three readings were 3,800 KW and three readings were 3,850 KW.
This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement II).
Civil Penalty - $40,000 Summary of Licensee Response By letter dated May 12, 1983, written pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, the licensee admits that the statement of facts contained in the Notice of Violation is essentially correct.
In another letter dated May 12, 1983, written pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205, the licensee requests reclassification of the violation at a lower severity level (IV or V), and also requests remission or mitigation of the prcposed penalties.
The licensee contends that tests of the diesel generator confirm that the design safety requirements have been met and later tests reconfirm this.
The licensee also indicates that two required reviews of the test results had not been completed at the time the violation was identified by the NRC, and no other examples of approval of unacceptable test results were disclosed during other NRC reviews or during an independent review by Torrey Pines Technology.
For these reasons, the licensee contends that a lower severity level classification of the violation is appropriate and a civil penalty is not warranted for a violation at the lower severity level.
The licensee also states that if the NRC maintains, after review of the licensee response, that the severity level of the violation is appropriately classified at severity level III, then the proposed civil penalty should be reduced because of the licensee's unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions.
The licensee indicates that these actions included establishment, prior to the identification of the violation by NRC, of a subcommittee of the Review cf Operations committee to review test results prior to review by the Joint Test Group.
The licensee also indicates that they responded to the NRC within three weeks after the NRC documented the violation in an inspection report, even though no response was required since a Notice of Violation did not accompany the inspection report.
NRC Evaluation of Licensee Response After reviewing the licensee's response, the NRC staff has concluded the violation did occur and no mitigation of the civil penalty is warranted.
ihe violation is appropriately classified at severity level III bcause approvals of test results, particularly by the Test Engineer and the Joint Test Group, when the results did not satisfy acceptance criteria is cause for significant concern.
The Joint Test Group is the primary licensee group
Appendix (continued) 3 tasked with review and approval of preoperational test results.
Assurance thet design safety requirements are satisfied is not provided unless adequate tests are performed and properly evaluated, and also identified problems are appropriately dispositioned.
Inadequate review and approval of test results of a safety related system is cause for significant concern and constitutes a violation appropriately clas-sified at severity level III, notwithstanding the fact that two specified reviews had not yet been performed at the time the violation was identified by the..NRC, and notwithstanding the licensee's contention that these reviews would hav~e-identified the problem.
It is not reasonable to assume, as the licensee contends, that further reviews would have identified this problem.
The staff has already considered the licensee's statement that strip chart recorder data was relied upon by the Test Engineer to accept the test results.
The additional data utilized by the Test Engineer, namely strip charts, were not a part of the initial test package and were reviewed in response to NRC action.
Although the licensee contends that the initial review was extensive, the results of the strip charts were not evaluated by the Joint Test Group prior to NRC identification of the violation.
The substitution of other data for formally designated readings of record, without notation or comment in the test record, is a serious deviation from basic testing practice and test procedure requirements.
The staff does not consider the licensee's corrective actions un'usually prompt and extensive, in that there was no licensee corrective action evident for about two weeks after the licensee was first informed of the violation by the NRC.
Also, the licensee did not commit completely to reperform this preoperational test until requested to do so by the NRC in late March 1983.
Therefore, no mitigation of the penalty is warranted.
NRC Conclusion This violation did occur as originally stated and assessment of a $40,000 civil penalty for this violation is appropriate.
The information in the licensee's response does not provide a basis for modifying the enforcement action because the licensee's corrective actions are not considered unusually prompt and extensive.