ML20125C735

Discusses Safety Insp Rept 50-301/92-18 on 920824-1012 & Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $75,000 for Severity Level III Problem. Enforcement Conference Held on 921106.Record Copy

ML20125C735
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/08/1992
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Link R WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
References
EA-92-205, NUDOCS 9212140054
Download: ML20125C735 (5)

See also: IR 05000301/1992018

Text

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ .

.

, ,', DC 0/Oc.6

5I Decembei 8, 1992

Docket No. 50-301

License No. DPR-i~.

EA 92-205

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

ATTH: Mr. R. E. Link, Vice President

fluclear Power

231 West Michigan Street - P379

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

Dear Mr. Link:

, _

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AllD PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL

PENALTY - $75,000

(NRC INSFECTION REPORT 50-301/92018)

This refors to the safety incpection conducted during the period

from August 24, 1992, through October 12, 1992, at the Point

Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 2. During this inspection, significant

violations of NRC requirements were identified, and on ~

November 6, 1992, an enforcement conference was conducted in the

Region III office. Attending the enforcement conference were -

you, Dr. Carl Paperiello, Deputy Regional Administrator, and

other members of our respective staffs. The report documenting

the inspection was sent to you by letter dated October 30, 1992.

The report summarizing the enforcement conference was sent to you

by letter dated November 18, 1992.

During performance of an annual containment spray leakage

reduction test on the "A" train for Unit 2 on September 17, 1992,

the discharge pressure of containment spray pump P-14A was -

observed by operators to be lower than that for containment spray

pump P-14B. During the quarterly containment spray pump test on

the "A" train for Unit 2 on September 18, 1992, operators

observed abnormally low discharge pressure and noises on

containment spray pump P-14A. Subsequent disassembly of the pump

revealed a foam disk wrapped in duct tape blocking the impeller

of the pump.

! ')'

Plant personnel believe that the disk was inserted into an

l ; existing section of piping when it was cut to install a "T"

! k . connection for modification IWP 88-098 which was performed during

0 the fall 1991 refueling outage. This modification allows full

l 7

flow testing of containment spray (CS), safety injection (SI),

and residual heat removal (RHR) systems as recommended by NUREG-

/dhb

g

0578. The modification consisted of 6-inch diameter (15 cm)

_

CESTJJlRD_MML

RECEIPT REQUESTED

11001a g=gg'

,

- m ,

- - _ _ _ _ _ -- ____-___ _ __--_ . . _ _ _ _

-

-

' ' '

'

,

, l

.

I

Wisconsin Electric -2 -

Deumber 8, 1992  !

Power Company J

piping connecting the various pump discharges to the refueling l

water storage tank (RWST). Post-modification testing had i

'

verified that all newly installed pipe was free of blockage.

However, the existing piping that was not modified as part of the

.

,

full flow test line modification was not tested.

t

In addition to being used to perform the annual containment spray

leakage test, this line is used during the recirculation mode of

safety injection. Therefore, the disk remaining in the system I

following the modification rendered the "A" train safety

,

injection system piping inoperable.

i

The violations are described in the enclosed Hotice of Violation -

and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) and involve the

'

failure to ensure that foreign material exclusion requirements

were adequately implemented during modification activities

associated with the fall 1991 refueling outage. The Notice also

pertains to restarting the-plant and operating it for nearly a ~

year with one train of the safety injection system piping being

inoperable in violation of technical specifications (TS). The- t

violations in the aggregate represent a significant safety

concern and are ca+egorized as a Severity Level III problem in

accordance with the General Statement of Policy and Procedure

for NRC Enforcement Actions," (EnDircement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2, >

Appendix C.

The root cause of leaving the foam di k in the system was

inadequate procedures for material exclusion control. You

indicated at the enforcement confere:.cc that inserting such

foreign material exclusion disks in piping systems during

modification work is not prohibited'by plant procedures, and that

the decision to use these was left up to the craft personnel

doing the work. In this case, the contract craft personnel

performing the worP chose to use a disk, but neither their

procedures nor QC inspection personnel identified that the disk

remained in the system upon completion of the modification.

Additionally, your personnel had not reviewed the contractor's-

procedure prior to its use to verify if it contained adequate:

controls. Therefore, the plant was in violation of the TS that-

prohibits plant startup unless all valves and~ piping associated ,

with the safety injection system that are required to function'

during accident conditions are operable. The plant was made

critical in November 1991 and operated until the problem was

- discovered in September 1992.-

The staff recognizes that immediate corrective actions were taken

when the problem was identified. You formed an incident

"

.'

investigation team to thoroughly review the event and performed

- extensive radiographic and boroscopic examinations of as much of -

the CS, RHR, and SI systems for both Units-1 and 2 as were

c er-yr+ - -r- :y -- e-e q- mv gyr e- + ,ew-

' 'g-e-t+J+-*TM'1l-?'

. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ____._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i. .,

. ,

&

{

Wisconsin Electric -3 - December 8, 1992

Power company '

i

accessible. In the longer term, you are revising your procedures

to better control such work (using INPO good practices ,

guidelines) and are creating and implementing an enhanced foreign i

material exclusion program. Also, the maintenance group's job

observation checklist will be revised to include observation of  ;

foreign material exclusion practices on the job.  !

Nevertheless, due to the safety significance of this violation,

and to emphasize the importance of ensuring that modification

activities performed on safety systems are properly implemented  ;

and erecuted under strict compliance with foreign material

exclusicn requirements, and that adequate contractor oversight is

provided, 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 Hotice of Violation and Proposed

Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $75,000 for the

Severity Level III problem.

,

The base civil penalty for a Severity Level III problem is

$50,000. The escalation and mitigation factors in tbc

Enforcement Policy were considered. Mitigation of 25 percent was

appropriate for your initiative in identifying the root cause of-

this self-disclosing event. Mitigation of 2S percent was also

appropriate for your corrective actions that involved procedural,

job observation checklist, and work control _ improvements and a

significant effort to verify the scope of the potential problem

through testing and inspection. The Enforcement Policy permits

50 percent mitigation for corrective actions but the full

allowance for this factor was not appropriate because you did not

broadly address the issue of contractor oversight (i.e., training

and supervision). Specifically, you have taken corrective

actions for future contractor work involving foreign material

exclusion which will prevent problems similar to those in this

-

event. However, you have not addressed whether there'is a

broader problem in maintaining overcight of contractors.- Thel

civil penalty was escalated 100 percent because of the-duration

of this avoidable and safety significant problem that resulted in

operating the plant for nearly a year with one train of the SI

system piping inoperable. The other factors in the Enforcement

Policy were considered and no further adjustment was appropriate.

Based on the assessment of the civil pensity adjustment factors,

the base civil penalty was escalated 50 percent.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the _

instruction.specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your

response. 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

.

'

'. .',

-

-

.

Wisconsin Electric -4 - December 8, 1992

Power Company

including your proposed corrective actions and the results of

future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC

enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC

regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practico,"

a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC

Public Document Room.

The response directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are

not subject to the clearance procedures of the office of

Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980, PL 96-511.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please

contact us.

Sincerely,

d zSv6b2 i

A. Bert Davis

Regional Administrator

Enclosure: Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

cc w/ enclosure:

DCD/DCB (RIDS)

G. J. Maxfield, Plant Manager

OC/LFDCB

Resident Inspector, Point Beach

Virgil Kanable, Chief

Boiler Section

Charles _ Thompson, Chairman

Wisconsin Public Service

Commission

Robert M. Thompson, Administrator

WI Div. of Emergency Govt.

.,

-- . = _ _ . - - _ - . .. . . _ .

', ; .. , ,

'

.

December 8, 1992

Wisconsin Electric-

Power Company

DISTRIBUTION:

SECY

CA

JSniezek, DEDR

ADDavis, RIII

JLieberman, OE

LChandler, OGC

JGoldberg, OGC

TMurley, NRR

JPartlow, NRR

Enforcement Coordinators

RI, RII, RIV, RV

FIngram, GPA/PA

DWilliams, OIG

BHayes, OI

EJordan, AEOD

JLuchman, OE

LTran, OE

Day File

EA File

-DCS

RAO:RIII

SLO:RIII

PAO;RIII

IMS;RIII

'kg

R:pL IL. DtOE* RII

'e

De I a e/pb G man an Davis

12/ /92 12/q/92 12//:/92 12///92

• Concurrence received via fax. N , p[3 g1

N.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

AND

PROPOSED ,T(POSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Docket No. 50-301

Point Beach Nuclear Plarit License No. DPR-30

Unit 2 EA 92-205

During an inspection conducted from August 24 through October 12,

1992, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In

accordance with the " Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC

Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the Nuclear

Ragulatory 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. Technical Specification 15.3.3.A.1.g requires, in part, that

a reactor shall not be made critical, except for low

temperature physics tests, unless al) valves and piping

_

associated with the safety injection system components that

are required to function during accident conditions are

operable.

Contrary to the above, on or about November 13, 1991, the

Unit 2 reactor was made critical, not in connection with low

temperature physics tests, while the piping associated with

train A of the containment recirculation mode of safety

injection, which is required to function during accident

conditions, was inoperable. Specifically, a foreign

material exclusion disk had been left in a section of the

system piping leading to the suction of the train A safety

injection pump.

-

B. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, " Instructions,

Procedures, and Drawings", requires, in part, that

activities affecting quality be prescribed by procedures of

a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall include

appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria

for determining that important activities have been

satisfactorily accomplished.

Contrary to the above, on or about October 17, 1991,

Procedure QAP-105-PB, " Cleanliness Inspection of Fluid

Systems and Components," Revision 1, a procedure affecting

quality, did not include appropriate guidance or acceptance

criteria to ensure that debris was not left inside the

safety injection and containment spray pump suction during

performance of modification IWP 88-098.

'this is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).

Civil Penalty - $75,000

]mm. 7

_

af3- .. -

.

..J

- .

6

Notice of Violation -2 -

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Wisconsin Electric

Power 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 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

violations (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 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 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 Licenseo 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 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

i 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

I imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or

in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the

penalty.

1

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.

=

d

_ . - . - _ . _ _ _ . _ . - _ . . ~ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ . -

.. . ,

. i

l

.

Notice of Violation -3- ,

C

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 responses noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter *

with payn.ont of civil penalty, and Answer to a Hotice 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 III,

799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137, and a copy to the +

NRC Recident Inspector at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

,

, a) "

A. Bert Davis _

,

T<egional Administrator

Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illincip

this 8th day of December l'392

=>

r

.,

'

2