ML20043E245
| ML20043E245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1990 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043E240 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-90-066, EA-90-66, NUDOCS 9006120192 | |
| Download: ML20043E245 (3) | |
Text
P,
[d l
NOTICE OF VIOLA'l ION
,.~
AND PROPOSED IMPOSITIDT 0F CIVIL PENALTY Duke Power Company Docket No. 5U-413 Catawba Nuclear Station License No NPF-35 L
Unit 1 EA 90-066 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on March 22-26, 1990, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accord-ance with the " General Statement of Policy)and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, (1990, 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 associated civil penalty are set forth below:
1 Violations Assessed A Civil Penalty 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIV, Inspection, Test and Operating Status, as implemented by Duke Power Company Topical Report Quality Assurance Program, Duke-1-a, requires in part, that measures be established to indicate the status of inspections and tests performed upon-individual items of the nuclear power plant. These measures shall provide for the identification of items which have satisfactorily passed required inspections and tests, where necessary to preclude the inadvertent bypassing of such inspections and tests. Measures shall also be established for indicating the operating status of structures, systems, and components of the nuclear power plant, such as by tagging valves and switches, to prevent inadvertent operation.
A.
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to establish adequate measures to accurately indicate the operating status of systems and components required to be operable in modes 5 (cold shutdown) and 6 (refueling),and for plant condition changes within modes 5.and 6.
On March 20,1990, a Unit 1 plant condition change was initiated by performing the initial pressurization of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) in preparation for plant startup while 'in mode 5.
The current status of the wide range RCS pressure transmitters, a component
-required to be unisolated for this evolution, was not correctly identified as isolated.
B.
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to adequately establish measures to indicate the status of tests performed upon individual items of the nuclear power plant and preclude the inadvertent bypassing of such tests when they are required to support plant condition changes within a mode. Technical Specification 4.4.9.3.1, Analog Channel Operational Test, is required to be performed within 31 days prior to entering a condition requiring Power Operated Relief Valve (PORV) operability.
On March 20, 1990, Unit 1 entered a condition which required PORV operability without performing the Analog Channel Operational Test within the prior 31 days.
The test had not been performed when originally scheduled, and measures were not implemented to reschedulo or prevent the inadvertent bypassing of the test prior to entering a condition requiring PORV operability.
9006120192 900529 ADOCK0500g3 DR
P-
,0 2
j
,1 Notice of Violation 2
This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
Cumulative Civil Penalty - $100,000 (assessed equally among the two violations).
II.
Violation Not Assessed A Civil Penalty Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures shall be s
established, implemented, and maintained covering the activities referenced in Appendix A of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978.
^
Catawba Nuclear Station Operations Management Procedure 1-12, Revision 8 Operations Modification Implementation Process, dated September 29, 1989, requires in part that, changes due to nuclear station modifications be incorporated into existing procedures, drawings, and essential training for licensed individuals as applicable.
Contrary to the above, essential training for licensed individuals was not conducted for station modification CN-10942, which changed the "B" train residual heat removal (RHR) suction valve control circuit operating interlock prior to the March 20, 1990 event. This resulted in the control room operators being unaware of the new operating characteristics of the RHR suction valve and their inability to electrically open it during the March 20, 1990, event.
This is a Sdverity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke 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. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1)admis-sion or denial of the violation, (2) the reasons' for the violation if admitted.
(3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which 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 may be issued to show cause 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 sof 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 above 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 Conrnission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer
a
-f Notice 01 Violation 3
addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to l
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 i
Notice of Violation" and may:
(1) deny the violation (s) listed in this Notice in whole or in part (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error inthisNotice,orf4)showotherreasonswhythepenal,tyshouldnotbe 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 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 e
statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 but may incorporate i
parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraphnumbers)toavoidrepetition.
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 the 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, remit-ted, 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 a 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 Conmission.
ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Region 11 and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Catawba Nuclear Station.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Stewart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator i
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this day of May 1990 l
l t
i i
f i-