ML20059J954
| ML20059J954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059J847 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-233, NUDOCS 9311150122 | |
| Download: ML20059J954 (4) | |
Text
_
NOTICE OFLVIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY' Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-155 Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant-License No.'DPR EA 93-233 During an NRC inspection conducted from August-24 to September 14, 1993,:
violatiocs of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the-
" General b+atement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 -
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:
A.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires, in part, that activities affecting quality be prescribed in documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the. circumstances, and be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Technical Specification 3.6 requires, in part, that containment sphere integrity shall be maintained during shutdown, refueling,.and cold shutdown, except as specified by a system of procedures or controls to be established for occasions containment must be breached during cold shutdown.
Surveillance Procedure TR-96/T7-29, " Control Rod Withdrawal ' Interlocks Test," Revision 7, Step 3.0.a, requires as a prerequisite-to initiating the surveillance that plant conditions'be such that the mode switch may be placed in REFUEL or RUN.
Surveillance Procedure TV-10, " Pressure Test of Nuclear Steam Supply.
System," Revision 46, Step 2.2.3.b requires in part that when flange and wall temperatures are above 130 F, hydrostatic test pressure shall not exceed 1535 psig.
1.
Contrary to the above, draining of the feedwater line, an activity affecting quality, was performed on June 27, 1993 using' Switching and Tagging Order 93-0375.
This order was an instruction not appropriate to the circumstances, in that it caused containment sphere integrity to be inadvertently breached when the plant was in cold shutdown, and established no controls for such a breach'.
(01013) 2.
Contrary to the above, as of September 14, 1993, the licensee's-surveillance for containment isolation, an: activity affecting quality, was prescribed by Procedure 0-TGS-1, Checklist A-9, Revision 24. This procedure was not appropriate to the circumstances, in that it failed to identify valve VFW-185 as a containment isolation valve required to be closed or cappe~d to' effect containment integrity. (01023) 9311150122 931109 PDR ADDCK 050001551 0
PDR_
l
- Notice of Violation-j
.'i 3.
Contrary to the above, on June 29',.1993, the ' control. rod L
~
i withdrawal interlocks test, an-acti~vity affecting-quality, was'not accomplished in accordance with: Procedure TR-96/T7-29, in that the.
surveillance was initiated and performed with conta~inment.-
I integrity' breached, a plant condition-that did not permit.the. mode; switch to be placed in REFUEL. (01033)
~~
q 4.
Contrary to the above, at 1:00 a.m. on August 24,,1993,-the I
hydrostatic test of the primary. coolant system,' an activity affecting quality, was not accomplished in accordance with l
Procedure TV-10 in that, with the flange and wall temperature; approximately 249cf throughout the test, the hydrostatic test pressure was permitted to reach 1570 psig.'(01043)-
l.;
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, requires, in part, that-the cause of a significant condition adverse to quality be promptly identified and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
1 l
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to take corrective actionsL to preclude repetition of a significant condition adverse to' quality, in that, after a January 10, 1992 failure. caused by a; shift supervisor release of work procedures without determining the. resultant effection plant conditions, and a May 6,1992 loss of DC: power caused by-1 implementing an inadequate switching and tagging order (together-resulting in a July 22,1992 f4RC Notice of Violation), the licensee's~
corrective actions failed to prevent a similar. failure.
Specifically, an inadequate switching and tagging order was implemented on' June.27, 1993, without determining the resultant effect on. plant conditions.
(01053)
~
C.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion II, requires, in part, that training and indoctrination shall be provided as necessary to personnel performing activities affecting quality to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved.and maintained.
Contrary to the above, on August 13, 1993,- due to-insufficient training and-indoctrination, suitable proficiency had not been maintained by -
.t personnel performing the hydrostatic test of the ' primary coolant system, 1
an activity affecting quality, in that they were not. aware of'the ~ rapid l
effects of a running hydrostatic test pump on solid plant.. pressure.
In-addition, the auxiliary operator assigned to the pump was not proficient in the ability to establish a blowdown pathway, if necessary, to reduce f
pressure. (01063)
These violations represent a Severity Levei III problem (Supplement I).
Civil Penalty - $50,000.
l Pursuant-to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201,' Consumers Power Company (Licensee) j is hereby-required to submit a written statement of explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 j
D
t
'l r
days 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 i
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 j
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 actions 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 l
Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this respt,..se 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 ir, the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part, by a written i
answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission.
Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time a
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 l
the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked i
as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may:
(1) deny the violations l
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
-l the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil i
penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation i
of the penalty.
in requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in
')
Section V.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 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.
lq 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 i
matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless i
compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
j 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:
I
J,,_.
~~
^
"^
+
Notice of Violat' ion ' r P*
f;
- Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S._ Nuclear Regulatory _ Commission, ATTN:
- Document. Control' Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555.with a Jcopy to the Regional ~
Administrator,< U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,' RegionL III, 799 Roosevelt
' Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137, and with a copy to the NRC_ Resident
~
Inspector at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant.
t Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this_9th day of November 1993 9
t r
'i w-
.s 4
[
'-