ML20056G642
| ML20056G642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G641 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-176, NUDOCS 9309070007 | |
| Download: ML20056G642 (4) | |
Text
-
l NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Cleveland Electric Illuminating Docket No.
50-440 Company License No.
NPF-58 Perry Nuclear Power Plant EA 93-176 Unit 1 During an NRC inspection conducted from May 1 through June 23, 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 Regula' tory 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:
I.
Violation Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, 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:
A.
On July 17, 1989, and May 22, 1992, following the identification of debris in the suppression pool, and on May 22, 1992, following observation of debris on the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) A and B strainers, significant conditions adverse to quality, the licensee failed to promptly identify the cause for the poor cleanliness of the suppression pool and strainer fouling and failed to take adequate corrective action to prevent repetition.
Further, the debris and strainer fouling were not documented and reported to the appropriate levels of management.
B.
Subsequent to the identification of RHR A and B strainer deformation on January 16, 1993, and identification of debris entangled with fibrous material as observed in video tapes of the strainers taken in February 1993, significant conditions adverse to quality, the licensee failed to identify the presence of fibrous material in the suppression pool as the cause of the strainer fouling and failed to take 9309070007 930831 PDR ADOCK 05000440 i
i G
- PDR,
-2 adequate corrective action to remove the fibrous material from the suppression pool, drywell, and containment.
C.
After identifying the strainer fouling in May 1993 the licensee undertook a drywell cleanup effort and during that effort and the subsequent inspection in the drywell failed to identify a condition adverse to quality.
Specifically, on May 25, 1993, following the licensee's efforts, numerous discrepancies, which constituted a condition adverse to quality, were idedtified during an NRC inspection of the drywell using the licensee's cleanliness standards.
For example, the NRC identified numerous items loose in the drywell that could have impacted the performance of the suppression pool including tools, nuts, bolts, plastic bags, rags, tape, a sign, a bottle, a tube of lubricant, and dirt and dust accumulations behind ventilation units.
Furthermore, the licensee had not identified the containment rattle space as an area requiring cleaning.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I).
Civil Penalty - $200,000.
II.
Violation Not Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V,
" Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," requires, in part, that activities affecting quality be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances.
Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
Contrary to the above, on April 15, 1993, Work Order 930011944, for performing a test run of Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pump "B" to monitor suction pressure (with known debris on the suction strainer), an activity affecting quality, was not appropriate to the circumstances in that it did not specify expected suction pressure values or what action to take upon observation of abnormal suction pressure values.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement of explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days l
I
-3 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 violation 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 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 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 wri9 ten 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 fi]e 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 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 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 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 i
10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney l
[
l
+
-4 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 f
Administrator, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 799-Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137, and a copy to the NRC Resident Tnspector at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
l Dated at Glen Ellyn,. Illinois this 31st day of August 1993 i
t l
l l-
.-.