ML20126E859
| ML20126E859 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1985 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Kaler R GADSBY & HANNAH |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-650 NUDOCS 8506170243 | |
| Download: ML20126E859 (1) | |
Text
.
d-(e>
- [pnan
- oq%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
o 3
l WASmNGTON. D. C. 20555
,g/g
~g...../
MAR 251985 Robert J. Kaler, Esquire Gadsby & Hannah One Post Office Square IN RESPONSE REFER Boston, MA 02109 TO F01A-84-650
Dear Mr. Kaler:
This is in response to your letter dated August 1, 1984, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Infomation Act (F0IA), a copy of a document of approximately 237 pages in length authored by George Hill submitted in connection with NRC proceedings related to Waterford III.
Upon review of your request by NRC staff, this is to inform you that t.ie NRC can neither affirm nor deny that the agency has such a document.
Sincerely,
. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration i
j ggg61 g 3 850325 MALER84-650 FI)g
EXHIFIT A
)-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFNISSION i
~
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-382
~
)
Construction Permit No.
LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
CPPR-103 (Waterford Steam Electric
)
EA B2-109 Station Unit 3)
ORDER IMPOSI'NG A CIVIL MONETARY P NALTY I
Louisiana Power and Light Company,142 Delaronde Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70174 (the " Licensee") is the holder of Construction Permit CPPR-103
,r (the "CP") issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission ("NRC" or the "Comission").
The Construction Permit authorizes construction of the Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3 facility in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
The Construction Permit was issued on November 14, 1974, and i.s due to expire on October 31, 1983.
1 II 6,
An inspection of the licensee's activities under the CP was conducted at the Waterford plant by NRC Region IV inspectors during the period May 16 through July 15, 1982.
As a result of the ins'pection, the NRC inspectors determined i
that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with q
with NRC regulations.
A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty was served upon the licensee by letter dated Cecember 6,1982.
s.
=
g-
= _
~
~~
.z.
(,)
The Notice stated the nature of the violation, the pr vision of the NRC re'gula -
tions viol.ated, and the amount of the civil penalty imposed for the violation.
The licensee responded to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in two letters, both dated January 4,1983.
III Upon consideration of the licensee's reply to the Notice of Violation and argu-ments for remission of the p~roposed civil penalty, the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement','for the reasons set forth in the Appendix to this Order, has determined that the penalty proposed for the violation designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty should be imposed.
IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295), and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
i The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars (520,000) within 30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, or money order, payable to the Treasurei of the United States and mailed to s,[i the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC, Washington, Ot', 20555.
~ _,
~ -
i 1{ i V
The licensee may within 30 days of the date of this' Order request a, hearing.
A
]
request for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
If a hearing is requested, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing.
Upon failure of the licensee to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings; if payment has not been mace by that time, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.
'~
l VI
.(-.
In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
(a) whether the licensee violated NRC regulations as set forth i'n the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.
l (b) whether, on the. basis of such violation, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
W Richard C.,[e oung, hrector Office of lospection and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 16 day of March 1983
~
APPENDIX EVALUATI(N5 AND CONCLUSIONS D
~
For the violation and associated civil penalty identified in the Notice of.
Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for Louisiana Power and Light Company's ("LP&L") Waterford Steam Electric Station (Unit 3) dated December 6,1982, the original violation is restated, the licensee's responses dated January 4,1983 are summari, zed and the.NRC's evaluation and conclusions
)
regarding this response are prese'nted.
j Statemsjt of Violation 10 CFR SO Appendix B, Criterion 'II, requires that, "Tbe quality assurance program shall provide control over activities affecting the quality of the identified structures, systems, and components, to an extent consistent with their importance to safety.
Activities affecting quality shall be accomplished uncer suitably controlled conditions."
Contrary to the above, Louisiana Power and Light Company failed to adequately control activities affecting.the quality of safety-related work.
Specifically LP&L failed to ensure that Ebasco Services, Inc., as construction manager,.was, adequately controlling the' quality of safety systems and providing the complete and accurate documentation of quality required for these systems.
This failure is illustrated by the fact that on April 30, May 20, May 22, and June 22, 1982,
.-(
were ready for turnover to LP&L.Ebasco QA signed four ASP-IV-50-6 forms indic These safety systems were containment spray, low pressure safety injection, safety injection tanks, and high pressure safety injection.
The pertinent fabrication and ' installation records specified that these systems were ready for turnover.
Subsequently, the LP&L c.onstruction QA and startup organizations rejected all four system turnover packages due to numerous findings which the quality records and exception lists did not accurately identify.
These findings included previously unidentified installa-i tion errors, as-built drawings that did not match actual field installation, field installations which included work that was not in compliance with procedures and specifications, QC inspections that had not identified unacceptable field installations, and QC records that were not consistent with current as-built drawings.
These deficiencies in the control of activities i
affecting qu,ality should have been identified by LP&L prior to system turnover.
I This is a Severity level III violation (Supplement II) 1 Civil Penalty - $20,000.
Evaluation of Licensee's Response The licensee's response acknowledged that there was a partial breakdown in the Quality Assurance Program at the Waterford Unit 3 sub-tier levels involving contractor / subcontractor organizations.
l l
- 3. ;:
.Arpendix,
' The licensee argue,d in its letters of January 4,1983g that a civil penalty was not warranted. To support its position, the licensee argued that civil penalties are not nor::ially assessed for Severity Level III violations.
The l'icen'see also ergued that since it identified the deficiency, reported ~it to the NRC, took prompt corrective action and the violation was not the subject of any prior Noiice of Violation, complete mitigation should be allowed.
The licensee's assertion that a civil penalty is not nonnally assessed for a Sever'ity Level III violation is incorrect.
The Enforcement Policy states that civil penalties are considered and usually imposed for Severity Level III violations (see Paragraph IV.S.,.47 FR 9987, 9991 (March 9,1982)).
The base civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation is usually assessed at 540,000.
However, in reviewing the circumstances associated with this violation, the staff considered mitigating circumstances in making a determination as to the level of civil penalty to be proposed.
The staff concluded that the broad corrective action taken by the licensee and the licensee's role in identifying and reporting a breakdown in the quality assurance program were such that a 50% mitigation of the civil penalty was warranted.
The staff rejects the argument that additional miti'gation is appropriate since this violation has not been the subject of a previous Notice of Violation.
The Enforcement Policy provides for up to 25% escal~ation of a civil penalty where a licensee has prior notice of similar events.
It does not provide for mitigation where a licensee had no prior notice.
Had a similar breakdown in quality assurance
('
programs occurred earlier, it too, could have been the subject of a civil
\\
penalty and, when repeated would have caused the staff to seek stronger sanctions in t!)e instant case, up to and including an order.
Indeed, in this case, two out of three levels of the licensee's quality assurance program broke down before the problem was identified by a third level.
The licensee
'should have known' of the breakdown earlier.
Therefore, further mitigation is not appropriate.
Conclusions The licensee's letters of January 4, 1983 contain no information regarding the violation that was not previously known by the NRC during the enforcement conference or during t.he special site visit by Region IV and Office of Inspection and Enforcement staff.
Accordingly, the staff concludes no further mitigation of the civil penalty is warranted.
l t
e 9
e
_-,3-,.,
.-,-.y
- m. - -.,. -
s-----m,
pcs
,.. f,,
MAR 16'$3 gg Docket:
50-382/82-14
(,'
EA B2-109 2 3.w:. ;
. ; D Co..
\\
Louisiana Power and Light 1-ATTN:
L. V. Maurin, Vice President NRC DISC N Nuclear Operations 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 1/31/84 Gentlemen:
This refers to your letter of January 4,1983, which responded to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty of December 6,1982.
This action was based upon a significant violation of NRC requirements as illustrated by your failure to adequately control activities affecting the quality of safety-related work.
The circumstances are contained ib NRC Inspection Report 50-382/82-14.
Based upon careful consideration of your reply, and'for the reasons given in the Appendix to the enclosed order, we have concluded that the violation occurred as set forth in the Notice of Violation and the Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.
We have also given careful consideration to your request for additional mitigation of the civil penalty and have concluded that no adequate reasons have been stated as to why the penalty should be further reduced or mitigated.
Accordingly, we hereby serve the enclosed Order on Louisiana Power and Light Company, imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $20,000.
<(
In accordance with 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Pa'rt 2, Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely.
" Original Signed By R. C. Detounge Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
1.
Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty 2.
Appendix - Evaluation and Conclusion
_ CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I' W IE:ES
/ RIV ELD erad'hD IE:
GKlin er JCollins b4Lieberman
. MtTezek.R g
3/ol/3 3/,5/83 9 3//$/83
//p/83 3A h/83
. C. '
3/ u'83
/
g, g' an A x erj N tlL 3304o4656r 33ost*
PDR ADOCK 05000382 G
v, Louisiana Power and Light Co.
(..-
Distribution PDR NSIC LPDR ACRS SECY CA RCDeYoung, IE JHSniezek, IE JAxelrad IE JCollins, RIV JLieberman, ELD VStello, DED/ROGR Enforcement Directors RI, RII, RIII.RIV, RV FIngram, PA JCumings, CIA BHayes, 01 HDenton, NRR JCrooks, AE00 Resident Inspector Waterf6rd GKlingler, IE JTaylor, IE EJordan, IE
'U.
CThayer, IE IE:ES IE:EA DCS William Guste, Jr., Attorney General Department of Justice P.O. Box 44005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Ed Kennon, Chmn.
i Public Service Comission 1630 One American Place Baton Rouge. LA 70825 p
e 9
r---
.----.-----,--m..--e,
-.m
,7 c,.---.-----
-,