ML20012B851
| ML20012B851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1990 |
| From: | Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Leslie Liu IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT |
| References | |
| EA-89-214, NUDOCS 9003160474 | |
| Download: ML20012B851 (6) | |
Text
h.
K J' l
.\\
umTEo states
[
b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
o 5
W ASHING TON, D. C. 20666
\\,..... /
MAR 141000 i
i Docket No. 50-331 i
~ License No. DPR-49 EA 89-214 1
Iowa Electric Light and Power Company-l ATTN: Mr. Lee Liu President and Chief Executive Officer 1
IE Towers Post Office Box 351 I
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406 l
Gentlemen:
j
SUBJECT:
IOWAELECTRICLIGHTANDPOWERCOMPANY(DUANEARNOLDENERGYCENTER) f
-WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY i
This refers to your letter dated February 9 1990, in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) sent to you by our letter dated January 10, 1990. The Notice describes a violation associated i
with an inadequate secondary containment surveillance procedure in that the procedure was unable to ensure that the Standby Gas Treatment System could maintain the Reactor Building at the required negative pressure. This matter t
was reviewed by the NRC during an inspection conducted at your facility during the period September 20 through October 16, 1989.
j r
In your response, you admitted the violation occurred as stated, but noted that~ the NRC may refrain from proposing a civil-penalty for a Severity Level III violation that does not involve'an overexposure or release of u
l, radioactive material provided a licensee meets the criteria specified:in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section V.G.3.
After careful consideration of f
your response, we have concluded, for the reasons set forth in the enclosed l
- Appendix,~ that you did meet these criteria and that a sufficient basis was l
provided for allowing an additional 50 percent mitigation of the base civil penalty for this Severity Level III violation. Accordingly, the base civil g
l penalty has been mitigated by a full 100 percent and the proposed $25,000 l
civil senalty has been withdrawn. Our records will be changed to reflect s
l that tie proposed civil penalty has been modified as described above.
No response to this letter is required since Iowa Electric Light and Power i
E Company responded to the Notice in its February 9,1990 letter and described I
corrective actions that had been taken and will be taken. We will review the effectiveness.cf these corrective actions during future inspections.
L l.
o l
(\\
9003160474 900314 0
\\
.PDR-ADOCK 05000331
- v
-Q PDC
- )
~
Iw lowa Electric Light and Power Company i In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ' Rules of Practice," Part C, Title 10 laced in the NRC's Public Document Room. Code of Federal Regulations, a copy will be p 1
Sincerely, 1k up1.. Thompson r
puty j
N cutive Director Nuclear j
Materials Safety, Safeguards, and j
Operations Support
Enclosure:
tppendix I
i i
t i
u l
~
L h
t v
i s
I i
$4 APPENDIX EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION I
In its February 9,1990, response to the 'anuary 10, 1990, Notice Of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for the Duane Arnold Energy Center, lowa Electric Light and Power Company (IELP) admits that the seccodary containment surveillance test procedure in place on September 20, 1989, was not adequate to ensure that the Standby Gas Treatnent System could maintain 3
the Reactor Building at the required 1/4 inch of water vacuum. However, the licensee believes that the circumstances surrounding the violation meet the criteria as outlined in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, Section V.G.3., and requests that the NRC refrain from imposing a Civil feralty.
The violation is restated.
below, followed by a sunmary of the licensee's response, the NRC's evaluation, and the conclusion.
1.
Restatenant of Violation i
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, Criterion XI. Test Control, requires, in part, that a test program be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance l
limits contained in applicable design documents.
TechnicalSpecificationLimitingConditionforOperation(LCO)3.7.C.1 requires secondary containment integrity to be maintained during all modes of plant operation unless specific o ception criteria are met.
In addition, Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.7.C.1.c req; ires that the Standby Gas Treatment System capability to maintain 1/4 inch of water vacuum under calm wind (500 SCFM, shall be demonstrated
( 5 MPH) conditions with a filter train flow rate of not more than 4, at each refueling outage prior to refueling.
Contrary to the above, from 1974 until September 20, 1989, the licensee failed to establish an adequate surveillance test to demonstrate that the Standby Gas Treatment System could maintain 1/4 inch of water vacuum under calm wind conditions with a filter train flow rate of not more than 4000 SCFM. The surveillance test was inadequate in that interaction with other ventilation systems was not properly considered.
2.
Summary Of Licensee's Response In Attachment 1, to the licensee's February 9,1990, response, IELP admits that a violation of the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, Test Control; Technical Specification Limiting Condition For Operation (LCO) 3.7.C.1; and Technical Specification Surveillance
4, g.
Appendix Requirement 4.7.C.I.C occurred as stated.
In addition, the licensee provides:
reasons for the violation; the corrective steps that hase been j
taken and it.e results achieved; corrective steps that will be taken to J
avoid further violations; and date when full compliance will be achieved.
l i
In Attachment 2, the licensee provides an answer to the proposed Imposition i
of Civil Penalty and presents its position that the NRC should reconsider
)
the imposition of a civil penalty based on the criteria of 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C, Section V.G.3. which states:
The NRC may refrain from proposing a civil penalty for a Severity Level Ill violation not involving an overexposure or release of radioactive material that meets all of the following criteria, a.
It was identified by the licensee and reported; i
i b.
Comprehensive corrective action has been taken or is well underwey I
within a reasonable time following identification; c.
It was not a violation that either (1) was reasonably preventable by' the licensee's action in response to a previous regulatory concern t
identified within the past two years of the inspection or since the last. two inspections whichever is longer or (ii) reasonably should have been corrected prior to the violation because the licensee had prior notice of the probi m involved; and d.
It was not a willful violation or indicative of a breakdown in management controls.
The licensee continues with an explanation of how each of the above criteria were met.
Further, the licensee suggests that the NRC may have a misperception regarding Iowa Electric's investigation of the basic problem and its timeliness in developing a comprehensive corrective action and provides clarification of several points. To this end, the licensee presents a chronology of events from the discovery of the hole in the ventilation duct on Septenter 20, 1989, to plant restart on October 22, IS89. The licensee relates two occurrences during this period in which the NRC may have perceived a less than responsive ttttitude on the part of the licensee by its failure to make verbal commitments on procedural or design changes to the system.
IELP asserts that although investigations and testing were proceeding in a timely manner, at the time of these NRC interfaces it did not have sufficient information assimilated to perform the required safety evaluation.
Subsequently, appropriate procedural and design changes were made prior to plant restart and the licensee committed to further long term corrective actions to preclude recurrence.
I.
+
s.,
Appendix Tinally, IELP enumerates the steps of its evaluation process includl%:
systera interactions evaluated, other test procedures reviewed, t\\eiuation of system testing, concerns resolved, and the fortality and attention to detail of its procedural change process.
3.
NRC Evaluation Of Licensee's Response The NRC staff has carefully reviewed the licenste's response and verified the extensiveness of the licensee's corrective actions.
The licensee has provided information that was not previously considered in determining the assount of the Proposed Civil Penalty.
j Whether determining the amount of a Civil Fehait) ty utilization of the l
escalation / mitigation factors vuclinec in Paragraphs I through 6 of 10 CFR Part'2, Appendix C,Section V.B. or determining the merits of refraining from Proposing a Civil Penalty as requested by the licensee, une of the bases for determination is the extent and coraprehensivenese of the licensee's corrective actior.s.
1 As stated above the NRC did not hate all of the information presented g
in the licensee s response at the time this escalated enforcement action was being considered.
In its January 10, 1990, Notice Of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, the NRC stated that:
"With regard to your corrective actions, we note that you promptly repaired the defective SBGT duct as well as the degraded seals and were then able to nieet technical specification requirements.
However, your corrective t.ctiuns were narrowly focused on the identified SBGT surveillance test prob 1cri end did not include a comprehensive re-evaluation of the design or test procedure of other HVAC systems that had the potential to interact with secondary containment, therefore, on balance, neither mitigation nor escalation is warranted for your corrective action."
?
It appears from our further review of your corrective actions, that you did re-evaluate the design and test procedures of other HVAC systeris, I
l that you considered system interactions as a result of procedural l
l changes, and that you have included boot and airlock door seals in your l
Preventive Maintenance Program.
Based on this additional information and considering the fact that the plant tes not operating during this time period it appears that our statement that your corrective actions werenarrowlyfocusedirayhavebeeninerror.
i
-4.
f1RC Conclusion The licensee has povided an adequate basis for on additional 50f mitigation of the base civil penalty for comprehensive corrective actions. Therefore, the NRC has concluded t1at no Civil Penalty is warranted.
l i
- o.
.s' s
Iowa Electric Light and Power Company Distribution L
~
PDR LPDR
~SECY CA l
JMiaylor, EDO HThompson, DEDS
.JLieberman,.0E E
ABDavis, RIII TMurley, NRR e
JPartlow NRR=
l' WTroskoski, OE JGoldberg, OGC Enforcement Coordinators RI.RII, RIII, RIV RV Fingram, PA P
F BHayes, O!
-Day File.
%ff g y-OEM/w OGO RIII O:
D WTroskoski JGoldberg ABDavis JLT berman H o pson i
3/ 7/90 3/ 7 /90 3/7 /90 3/ /90 3/ g90
,,l, o
,~.aw c
~/ $.Le e b *
- y, $4, 3p. vu %
no tryet o s;<J....
l
._