ML20036B610
| ML20036B610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20036B607 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-060, EA-93-60, NUDOCS 9305260121 | |
| Download: ML20036B610 (3) | |
Text
__
?
{
AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Gulf States Utilities Docket No. 50-458 River Bend Station License No. NPF-47 EA 93-060 During an NRC inspection conducted February 25 - March 30, 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, 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 i
associated civil penalty are set forth below:
A.
10 CFR Section 50.59 states, in part, that the holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, without prior commission approval, unless the proposed change involves an unreviewed safety question.
A change is deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an cccident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased.
The River Bend Station Updated Safety Analysis Report, Section 3.8.2.1.3.1, Personnel Air Lock, states in part, that the air lock doors are electrically coupled and mechanically interlocked, so that one door l
cannot be opened unless the other door is closed and sealed.
Contrary to the above, on October 25, 1991, the licensee failed to perform an adequate safety evaluation prior to the permanent removal of the electrical interlock on the drywell and containment airlock doors.
The removal of the electrical interlock was a change to the facility as described in the Upaated Safety Analysis Report and involved an unreviewed safety question, i.e., an increase in the probability of a malfunction of the airlock. The change was made without prior Commission approval.
l B.
Technical Specification 3.6.1.4 states, in part, that each primary containment air lock shall be operable in Operational Conditions 1, 2, 3, and when irradiated fuel is being handled in the primary containment and during core alterations and operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel.
Technical Specification 3.6.1.4 Action Statement b.
requires, in part, wi+' +'e in+arlock mechanism incperable, that the ascensee maintain at ieast one operable air lock door closed and either 2
return the interlock to service within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or lock one operable air lock door closed; and, that personnel entry and exit through the air lock is permitted provided one operable air lock door remains locked at all times and an individual is dedicated to assure that two doors are not open simultaneously.
9305260121 930521 i
i PDR ADDCK 05000458 g
PDR l
i
to the above, from October 1990 to March 11, 1993, with the i Operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3 at various times, the ck mechanism on both containment airlock doors was inoperabl e
se the licensee had removed power from the electrical portion, and e
ficensee did not return the interlock to service within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or M one operable airlock door closed or control personnel entry and Itthroughthecontainmentairlockwithanindividualwhowas jicatedtoassurethattwodoorswerenotopensimultaneously hnical Specification 4.6.1.4 states, in part, that each primary lock shall be demonstrated operable at least once per 6 months by
- rary to the above,
! perform a surveillance test that was adequate to verify that onlfrom October 1
- door in each airlock could be opened at a time.
y Surveillance Test 9057-0401, which was used to test the safety-related containment
.ock interlocks, was inadequate because the electrical portion of the rlock was identified as optional and was not tested when de-gized.
!ations represent a Severity Level Ill problem (Supplement I).
!1ty - 550,000 o the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Gulf States Utilities (Licensee) required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Dffice of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission e date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil
, within 30 atice).
an" and should include for each alleged violation:This reply should be clearly ma
- he alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if(1) admission or
.nd if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be oid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will ate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice demand for information may be issued as to why the license should ied. suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be d not be taken.
e for good cause shown. Consideration may be given to extending the
.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath orUnder the authority of Section iame time as provided for the response required above under
,, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to r, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with jft, money order, or electronic transfer payabi d States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed aboveto the Treasurer
, or the
'emmuu i
t
. i l
cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is l
proposed, 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 i
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 exten-l uating 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 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 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 234(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
The response 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. 2055S with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011 and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at River Bend Station.
Dated at Arlington, Texas, this 21st day of May 1993
l Contrary to the above, from October 1990 to March 11, 1993, with the plant in Operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3 at various times, the interlock mechanism on both containment airlock doors was inoperable because the licensee had removed power from the electrical portion, and i
the licensee did not return the interlock to service within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or lock one operable airlock door closed or control personnel entry and exit through the containment airlock with an individual who was dedicated to assure that two doors were not open simultaneously.
C.
Technical Specification 4.6.1.4 states, in part, that each primary airlock shall be demonstrated operable at least once per 6 months by verifying that only one door in each airlock can be opened at a time.
Contrary to the above, from October 1990 to April 1993, the licensee did not perform a surveillance test that was adequate to verify that only one door in each airlock could be opened at a time. Surveillance Test STP-057-0401, which was used to test the safety-related containment airlock interlocks, was inadequate because the electrical portion of the interlock was identified as optional and was not tested when de-energized.
These violations represent a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
Civil Penalty - $50,000 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Gulf States Utilities (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 i
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 i
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 demar.d for information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action 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 affirmat ion.
i Within the same time as provided for the response required above under I
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 payabl to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the
?
a cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more tFan one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil ptralty, 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, aa 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 exten-uating 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 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 saparately 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 de17rmined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this mat +.ur may be referred to the Attorney General, and the. penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
The response 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 i
Administrator, U.C. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011 and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at River Bend Station.
Dated at Arlington, Texas, this 21st day of May 1993 l
i
-