ML20058H487
| ML20058H487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058H474 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-239, NUDOCS 9312130092 | |
| Download: ML20058H487 (4) | |
Text
_
b NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY l
Entergy Operations, Inc.
Docket No. 50-382 Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 License No. NPF-38 EA 93-239 During an NRC inspection conducted September 14 through October 7, 1993, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 i
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 associated civil penalty are set forth below.
i A.
Technical Specification 3.6.2.1 requires, in part, that with the plant l
ln Modes 1, 2, and 3, two independent containment sprav systems be operable with each spray system capable of taking suction from the Refueling Water Storage Pool on a containment spray actuation signal.
i With one containment spray system inoperable, T.S. 3.6.2.1 requires:
that the inoperable containment spray system be restored to operable
}
status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or that the plant be in at least hot standby (Mode 3) within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />; that the inoperable spray system be restored to operable status within the next 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> or that the plant j
be in cold shutdown (Mode 5) within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.
t Contrary to the above, from February I to September 30,'1993, with the plant in Modes 1, 2 and 3 at various times, one of the two independent contair. ment spray systems (Train A) was inoperable and the actions described above were not taken.
Specifically, Train A of the i
containment spray system was inoperable because valve CS-125A, a normally closed containment spray header isolation valve, would not have opened under all conditions that would have required a containment spray i
system actuation. (01013) i i
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI requires, in part, that measures be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, i
such as failures and malfunctions, be promptly identified and corrected.
I 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 j
the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported.to appropriate levels of management.
1.
Contrary to the above, on February 1, 1993, valve CS-125A in Train l
A of the containment spray system failed to open on demand, a j
significant condition adverse to quality, and the measures established by the licensee did not assure that the cause of the condition was determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. Specifically, valve CS-125A failed to open due to high differential pressure across the valve, no action was taken to correct this condition or prevent a repetition, and valve
$2130092932207 ADOCK 050003B2.
G PDR
i-O
~
k# l~
i CS-125A failed under similar conditions on September 13, 1993.
(01023) i i
2.
Contrary to the above, on September 13, 1993, valve CS-125A in i
Train A of the containment spray system failed to open on demand, and the measures' established by the licensee did not assure that l
the condition was promptly identified and corrected. Specifically, valve CS-125A was declared operable prior to taking any action to address the conditions that caused the failure of the valve to open, i.e., the circumstances that were causing a high j
differential pressure to exist across the valve. The fact that the valve would not operate under certain conditions was not l
identified until September 24, 1993. (01033)
These violations represent a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
Civil Penalty - $25,000.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Entergy Operations, Incorporated (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 i
i of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to j
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, (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 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.
l 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
'l 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 Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer-payable to the Treasurer of l
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 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 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 mayi (1) deny the violation (s) 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 l-1 l
l
e 4
I J 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 f
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 oage and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
The attention of the License 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 234c 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 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 the Waterford Steam Electric Station.
Dated at Arlington, Texas this 7th day of December 1993 r
.2