ML20058L814
| ML20058L814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1990 |
| From: | Baker E NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Fernandez W POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| References | |
| EA-90-055, EA-90-55, NUDOCS 9008080191 | |
| Download: ML20058L814 (4) | |
Text
I D
ik l#f o
UNITED STATES r
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
n
- [
- f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
\\*****/
AUG 06.1990 Docket No. 50-333 License No. DPR-59 EA 90-055 New York Power Authority' idames A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant ATTH:' Mr. William Fernandez Resident Manager Post Office Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 Gentlemen:
Subject:
RESPONSE TO " NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PP,0 POSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY" (NRC:IllSPECTION N0. 50-333/90-12)
We have> reviewed your letter dated June '11,1990, in response to-the Notice of Violation and Proposed _ Imposition-of Civil Penalty sent to you with our letter-dated May 10, 1990. Our letter and flotice described violations identified.
during the NRC inspection _ conducted 'during the period of March 14-15, 1990.
In your: response' to the Notice, you (1): indicated that funds in.the amount of
$75,000 were -transferred electronically to the treasurer of. the United States civil penalty was proposed; and (3)y; (2)_ admit the violations for. which the _
in full payment.of the civil penalt requested that NRC review the decision basis for the portion 'of the civil penalty above the base amount. After careful consideration:of your response,1as described below, the NRC has decided that a sufficient basis.was not provided for an adjustment in the civil penalty amount.
Below~is our explanation for this position.
Regarding the factor that has to do with' identification and reporting, in our-transmittal. letter of May 10, 1990, we stated' that "Although you promptly repot ted this; incident to the NRC, you did not identify several significant contributin5 deficiencies'in the planning and preparation for this evolution....Specifically, you did _not identify that '.nadequate protective clothing requirements in the RWP contributed to the e ntamination, nor did you identify that a contamination s
control: step in the wcek procedure had not been followed.". In your June 11, 1990: letter to us ysu asserted that this statement is incorrect. Your support of this assertion was that at the time the incident was reported to the NRC, the investigation was ongoing and incomplete and that the reports to the NRC were made as soon as practical following discovery of the potential significance of the event.
While the NRC agrees that you did promptly notify the NRC of the incident, when the specialist inspector arrived onsite approximately six days after the inci-dent, your analysis of the incident still did not identify violations associated with the contamination incident as specified in the transmittal letter of May 10, l
$388 $3h$h $$$)hg3 (0
SB:M
s, AUG 0 61990 New York Powar Authority 1990.
In accordance with the guidance given in Appendix C of 10 CFR Part 2, the completeness aid promptness of your identification of the violation was evaluated and it was determined that your identification of the violation did not warrant mitigation of the base amount based on promptly identifying all significant aspects of the violation.
By the time of the inspection we would have expected that,all significant aspects of the violation would have been identified in order for NRC to-consider mitigation in this area. Accordingly, the NRC maintains that mitigation based on this factor is inappropriate.
Regarding the factor that has to do with corrective action to prevent recurrence, we have considered your June 11, 1990, letter in which you emphasize that long-term corrective actions require time to develop to be sufficiently comprehensive 1
Lto address the deficiencies identified in this event in addition to other recent events. You further stated that due to the complex nature of some of the issues
, identified, it was inapproariate to propose specific corrective actions that i
might not have been compre1ensive. We agree that long-term corrective actions should be comprehensive and that they may take time to develop. Nevertheless, the long-term actions you outlined during the enforcement-conference were not considered prompt and comprehensive because they did not-deta11 specific actions
.to address the noted weaknesses in the radiation work permit procedure and the ALARA review process.
For us to consider mitigation as appropriate in this factor, the presentation of specific long-term comprehensive corrective actions is expected during the enforcement conference. Therefore, the NRC maintains that mitigation based on this factor is inappropriate.
Regarding the factor that has to do with past performance, you did not provide any information that would have any bearing on it, hence, 50% escalation of the 1
base civil penalty is maintained.
2 Your letter also questioned the appropriateness of using 7mg/cm for dose i
determination. This value is referred to'in the instructions for NRC Form 5.
10 CFR.:0.401(a) requires that radiation exposure records be kept in accordance with those instructions. Notwithstanding, the data you provided during the enforcement conference regarding the actual thickness of the individuals skin
- was taken.into consideration for the-proposed enforcement action as indicated in paragraph 4 of our [[letter::05000333/LER-1990-014, :on 900410,primary Containment Isolation Check Valve Declared Inoperable Due to Missing Spring.Caused by Personnel Error.Performance of HPCI Turbine Exhaust Drain Sys Will Be Monitored During HPCI Testing|May 10, 1990 letter]] to you.
We have reviewed the corrective actions set forth in your response dated June
~11; 1990, and no further response is required. We will examine implementation
.of these actions during a subsequent inspection.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Edward T.
aker, Deputy Director Office of Enforcement cc: See Next Page u
.f-New York Power Authority cc:-
'J. Bayne, President J. Brons, Executive Vice President - Nuclear Generation A. Klausmann, Senior Vice President - Appraisal and Compliance Services R. Patch, Quality Assurance Superintendent G. Wilverding, Manager Nuclear Safety Evaluation G. Goldstein, Assistant General Counsel R. Beedle, Vice' President Nuclear Support S. Zulla, Vice President Nuclear Engineering R. Burns, Vice President Nuclear Operations J. Gray, Director Nuclear Licensing - BWR Dept. of Public Service, State of New York State of New York, Department of Law-PublicDocumentRoom(PDR)(LPDR)
Local Public Document Room NuclearSafetyInformationCenter(NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector State of New York, SLO Designee
s, k.' e s D
1
,AUG 0 61990 '
n,.
4 New-York ~ Power Authority-DISTRIBUTION:!
SECY CA JTaylor, ' ED0 '
HThompson,'DEDS TMartin,-RI
-JGoldberg, OGC-TMurley, NRR 1
JPartlow,'NRR.
' Enforcement Coordinators
-RI,'RII, RIII, RIV, RV c
Resident Inspector FIngram,GPA/ PAL
~BHayes, 01 DWilliams, OIG e
EJordan, AE0D
..WTroskoski, OE-Day Filei EA-File
~DCS-
.)
Regio'n:1DocketRoom(w/ concurrences)
Management' Assistant, DRMA GMeyer DLaBarge, NRR r
i.
i t
.l t
r
, j g '.
OE +r b
-R WTroskoski TMartin' EBaker 8/4/90
'8/4,/90 8g/90 MW w/kchist,In
'(
L
-,