ML20058C729
| ML20058C729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1990 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Fitzpatrick E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058C732 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-90-148, NUDOCS 9011050036 | |
| Download: ML20058C729 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000219/1990080
Text
I
gg
o
-
t. . ,
.,,
.
October 24, 1990
3
,
Docket No.
50-219
License No. DPR-16-
EA 90-148
<
GPU Nuclear Corporation
ATTN: Mr. Eugene E. Fitzpatrick
Vice President and Director
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
P.O. Box 388
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
Gentlemen:
.
i
Subject:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -
575,000 (NRC Team Inspection Report No. 50-219/90-80)
This letter refers to the special training program team inspection conducted
between June 25 and June 29, 1990, at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
]
Station, Forked River, New Jersey, and continued in the Region I Office until
1
July 10, 1990 to review, in part, the status and implementation of your
!
requalification training program for licensed and senior licensed operators,
t
The inspection report was sent to you on August 20, 1990.
During the inspec-
tion, a-violation of NRC requirements was identified.
On September 17, 1990,
I
an enforcement conference was conducted with you and other members of the GPU
i
Nuclear Corporation staff to discuss the violation, its causes and your
l
corrective actions.
i
The violation, which is described in the enclosed Notice, involved two licensed
reactor operators performing licensed duties at the cont ols of the operating
1
reactor for a pe-iod in excess of one year without haviag successfully passed
!
the biennial recualification written examination admiristered by your staff in
!
May and June,1989. Although the~two individuals had received passing grades
1
on the examinations, a subsequent NRC review during this inspection of these
!
two examinatioas, as well as the examinations taken by six other individuals,
I
revealed ths.t the answers to the examination questions were not always graded
-in accordance with the answer key. The individuals received credit for answers
that were incorrect or. incomplete. Upon regrading of those eight examinations
-
- the NRC determined, and your staff agreed, that two individuals, in fact, should
5
-not have received passing grades on those written examinations.
- The NRC recognizes that your subsequent review by the QA department of the
!
performance by these two individuals.did not reveal indications of inadequate
l
performance, and the two operators subsequently entered an: accelerated requali-
'
fication program and received passing grades on a written examination.
How-
ever, you also determined, upon further review of all 43 requalification
- written examinations administered in May and June 1989, that 41 examinations
,
n .v
- "
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
CP PKG OYSTER CREEK - 0001.0.0
10/22/90
/g
9011050036 901024
q
ADOCK 05000219
f
i
1
G
PNV
- ._
_ -.
V
P'
GPV Nuclear Corporation
2
had been graded incorrectly. Twenty-eight (28) examinations were graded higher
uan they should have been. Although there were no other instances of indi-
.viduals improperly passed,- these findings nonetheless demonstrate a breakdown
in-the control and implementation of the licen; ; operator requalification
program. Therefore, the violation is classified at Severity Level III in
recordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforce-
ment Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (Enforcement Policy) (1990).
The NRC recognizes that subsequent to the inspection, corrective actions were
initiated to effect improvement in the control and implementation of the
licensed operator requalification program.
These actions, which were described
in your July 11, 1990 letter to NRC, and/or at the enforcement conference,
included improvements in the written examination banks as well as planned
publication of an operator training examination administration procedure which
will be used as a basis for the preparation, administration and grading of
f
examinations. Notwithstanding these actions, to emphasize tne importance of
proper implementation of the requalification program, I have been authorized,
after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy
Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and
Research, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of
Civil Penalty (Notice) in the amount of $75,000 for the Severity Level III
violation set forth in the enclosed Notice.
The-base civil penalty amount for a Severity Level III violation is $50,000,
The escalation and mitigation. factors set forth in the enforcement policy were
considered as follows:
(1) both examples of the violation were identified by
the NRC, and although you were notified on June 27 of the NRC finding that one
individual should not have received a passing grade on the requalification
examination, you did not promptly review the other examinations administered
- to the other individuals, and did not become aware of the second example of the
violation until it was reported to you following identification by the NRC on
.
July 10; 1990; therefore, 50% escalation of the base civil penalty on this
1
factor is warranted; (2) your corrective' actions, as described herein, were not
considered prompt and comprehensive (the actions were solely focused on the
written examination, and do not include actions to ensure-that the operating
portions of the requalification examinations are being properly graded, and
your planned short term action, specifically the publication of the examination
administration procedure, is not scheduled to be completed prior to the requali-
fication examinations scheduled to be~ administered in October 1990), and therefore,
3
no adjustment of the base civil penalty on this factor is warranted; (3) although
'
your past performance in this area has not been reviewed, your overall performance
';
at Oyster Creek, which primarily involved Category 2 ratings in most areas during
the last SALP assessment, does not warrant mitigation of the base civil penalty
on this factor; (4) this case did not involve prior notice, and therefore, no-
adjustment of the civil penalty on this factor is warranted; and (5) the NRC
!
considered increasing the civil penalty because the violation involved two
i
examples, both of which existed for an extended period. However, since these
factors were considered in determining the severity level of the violation, the
NRC has decided that further escalation based on these factors is not warranted.
Therefore, based on the above, the base civil penalty has been increased by 50%.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
CP PKG OYSTER CREEK - 0004.1.0
10/22/90
.
.
. - .
,
--
.
, . .
,
!
!
GPU Nuclear Corporation
3
,
I
!
You are required to respond to the enclosed Notice and, in preparing your
-
response, you should follow the instructions specified therein.
In your
response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this
!
Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, and the results of future
!
inspections, the NRC will determine whether further enforcement action is
necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title
10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will
i
be placed in tha NRC's Public Document Room.
'
'
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosure are not subject to the
clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L.96-511.
Sincerely,
!
OrWal cit itt..
Thomas T. f,ialiin
1
1
Thomas T. Martin
l
Regional Administrator
l
a
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty
!
cc w/ enc 1:
c
P. Clark, President
!
P. Fiedler, Vice President, Quality Assurance
i
M. Laqgart, BWR Licensing Manager
!
Licen,ing Manager, Oyster Creek
Public Document Room (POR)
l
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
!
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector
State of New Jersey-
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
CP PKG OYSTER CREEK - 0005.0.0
10/22/90
.' *
, , -
GPU Nuclear Corporation
4
DISTRIBUTION:~
POR
SECY
CA
JMTaylor, EDO
HThompson, DEDS
JLieberman, OE
'TMartin, RI
JGoldberg, OGC
,
TMurley, NRR
JPartlow, NRR
Enforcement Coordinators
RI, RII, RIII, RIV,.RV
1
FIngram, GPA/PA
BHayes, 01
VMiller, SP
DWilliams, OIG
EJordan, AE00
OE:Chron
OE:EA
,
'f
a
I
RI:E0
I DRS
R
'R :DR
~
Holody/geb
pConte }9
Bettenhausen
Hodges
09/N/90
09/ I)'90
09FM90
09/)f/90
9/ M90
d
Yog
f e*'g*g g/9a
...e
h
'
RI:RC ///
RI;[
R :F3A
DEOS _
Smith (J
Kd(e
M rtin
Lieberman
Sniezek
09
/90
09/.1I/90
09/d/90
09/ /90
09/ /90
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
CP PKG OYSTER CREEK - 0007.0.0
10/22/90