ML20140E508

Forwards Draft St Lucie EA

ML20140E508
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	08/30/1996
From:	Boland A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Landis K, Mark Miller NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20140E502	List: ML20140E497 ML20140E508 ML20140E514 ML20140E519 ML20140E524 ML20140E530 ML20140E536 ML20140E541 ML20140E557 ML20140E573 ML20140E580 ML20140E590 ML20140E594 ML20140E620 ML20140E652 ML20140E659 ML20140E667
References
FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9704290011
Download: ML20140E508 (14)

Text

,

Ig From: Anne Boland j AjRc;qq '

D  :

8/ 0)96 9 21a "9

^ - "" RA> Mar Mider,A;kc.:22

Subject:

Draft St. Lucie EA attached j l

i 3

Y l

l 1

9704290011 970423 PDR FOIA BINDER 96-485 PDR /> .

. __ _ . _ , _m . _ _ _ __ . _ _ _ _

e e Mr UNITED STATES og'k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g "

REGION 11 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900

. O j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303230100

\...../

l MEMORANDUM T0: James Lieberman. Director Office of Enforcement FROM: Stewart D. Ebneter. Regional Administrator

SUBJECT:

EA 96-236 AND 96-249: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY. .

ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT - NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (Special Inspection Report i j Nos. 50-335/96-12 and 50-389/96-12)

Attached for your review and concurrence is the proposed enforcement action for the subject case. Although this case meets the criteria for issuance as a Regional action, it is being provided to you for formal review as a result of an agreement during the )ost conference caucus and the caucus consensus that the severity of the 10 C R 50.59 violation be reviewed and reaffirmed. The .

l . issues discussed herein were identified during an inspection completed on July  :

j 12, 1996.

j As discussed in detail in the proposed enforcement action, we propose that a

Notice of Violation (Notice) be issued to the licensee comprised of a Severity i Level III violation and two Severity Level IV violations. The Severity Level III violation related to the licensee's failure to obtain Commission approval '

prior to implementing a change to the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Fuel '

011 Transfer System which was determined to involve an unreviewed safety question. The Severity Level IV violations involved four instances where the licensee failed to incorporate facility changes into annunciator response

procedures or plant drawings. In addition, a non-cited violation is proposed for one of the configuration management violations which was licensee identified and promptly corrected.

A closed, predecisional enforcement conference was conducted with the licensee on August 19, 1996. At the conference, the licensee admitted the violations associated with configuration management as well as one exam)1e of the 10 CFR 50.59 violation (setpoint issue). However, for the t1ree remaining examples of the 10 CFR 50.59 violation (temporary fire pump, control element

drive control system enclosure, isolation of EDG fuel oil line valve) the licensee stated that 10 CFR 50.59 did not apply or NRC position was employing 3

a position contrary to standard industry practice.

On August 19 and 22. 1996, enforcement caucuses were conducted between Region II and the Office of Enforcement. It was determined that the 10 CFR 50.59 violation regarding the EDG Fuel Oil Transfer system constituted d.

an unreviewed safety question and met the criteria for a Severity Level III violation. Application of the civil penalty assessment process resulted in a base civil penalty because the license had been subject to escalated

, enforcement action previously, the violation was identified by NRC, and corrective actions were appropriate. The remaining three examples of 10 CFR 50.59 violations were determined not to be valid examples. In 2 addition, the configuration management violations were recharacterized into I

I l

l

e two Severity Level IV violations and an non-cited violation. The draft letter -

end Notice to the licensee provided as Attachment 1. are consistent with this agreed upon approach.

In reviewing the proposed violation and civil penalty in Part I of the draft -

Notice you should be aware that there were discussions between the licensee and NRC at the time the licensee implemented the valve position change in ,

question. Specifically, on July 7.1995, the day following completion of the licensee's 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, a conference call was conducted between the licensee. Region II (K. Landis and M. Miller), and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (J. Norris).. During this telephone call, the licensee '

discussed their plans.to reposition the valve, their safety evaluation, their planned additional administrative controls, and the environmental benefits of the change. Based on the recollection of several of the NRC participants in ,

this call, it is not unreasonable that the licensee believed that there was a mutual understanding Gf the minimal safety significance of the change. given the specified compensatory measures, and that reasonable actions were being i taken to both maintain the EDG operable while precluding an adverse environmental impact. This discussion was mentioned by the licensee at the conference: however, they did not provide any view as to the impact this discussion had with their failure to perform an adequate 10 CFR 50.59  ;

evaluation. There are views among the staff that based on this NRC knowledge.

and involvement, the safety significance of the violation, and the age of the violation (prior to increased NRC sensitivity to the UFSAR and 10 CFR 50.59) .

that mitigation of the civil penalty or severity level would be appropriate.

No additional reference materials are being provided to with this submittal as  ;

all information was previously provided to you in preparation for the initial '

enforcement panel and conference.

This action is not exempt from the Office of Enforcement's timeliness  !

requirements.  !

I

Attachment:

Draft Letter and Notice

]

cc w/ attachment: R. Zimmerman. NRR J. Goldberg. OGC l

1 I

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE

e e

i i

e

$fND T1 PUBLIC 00CtMENT R00M7 YES NO OFFICE RII:0RP Ril:0RS RII:EICS RII:0RA RII:0RA

$1GNATURE NAME JJohnson AGibson BUyrt CEvans LReyes [

OATE 01 / / 97 01 / / 97 01 / / 97 01 / / 97 01 / / 97 r COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OFFICIAL RECORD COP) DOCUMiNT NAME: H:\1960 PEN.ENF\96236STL.DIR\PKGT00E f

l I

i 1

.I THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION . NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OE

a 4

30 ateg UNITED STATES 4,4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p REGION 11 e S 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 5 -l ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303234199

%,...../

EA 96-236 and EA 96-249 Florida Power & Light Company ATTN: T. F. Plunkett President - Nuclear Division P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach FL 33408-0420

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -

$50,000 (NRC Special Inspection Report Nos. 50-335 and 50'-389/96-12)

Dear Mr. Plunkett:

This refers to the inspection completed on July 12, 1996, at your St. Lucie facility. The inspection included a review of selected aspects of your configuration management and 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation programs. The results of our inspection were sent to you by letter dated July 26, 1996. A closed, predecisional enforcement conference was conducted in the Region II office on August 19, 1996, with you and members of your staff to discuss the apparent violations, the root causes, and your corrective actions to preclude recurrence. A letter summarizing the conference was sent to you by letter dated ------ .

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation'(Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject inspection report.

The violation in Part I of the Notice involves your failure to recognize an unreviewed safety question related to the implementation of a valve lineup change to the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) fuel oil transfer system.

Specificalb in July 1995, the licensee implemented a change to the 2B EDG system to permit closing of a manual isolation valve from the Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tank to the day tanks in order to minimize in ground fuel oil leakage in the between the two tanks. As part of the change, the licensee instituted administrative measures including dedication of a non-licensed operator and procedural revisions to assure timely opening of the valve following an EDG start. Although a safety evaluation was performed which concluded that a six percent increase in the probability of loss of the 2B3 emergency buss resulted

. from the change. it erroneously concluded that no increase in the probability of a component failure was created. The NRC has concluded that two new failure modes were introduced by the change: potential failure of the THIS DOCUMENT CGNTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION . NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE

l

[o l FPL 2 operator to unisolate the fuel oil line and failure of the marmal isolation valve to open. Therefore, both the possibility for a malfunction of a l

different type than any evaluated previously in the UFSAR was introduced, and

, the probability of a failure of a component important to safety was increased, i representing a valid unreviewed safety question.

1 At the conference, you stated that a safety evaluation was prepared for this change consistent with Florida Power and Light Company procedures and industry l guidance (NSAC-25). However. NRC's )osition with respect to an " increase in probability" differs. Although the 4RC reco probability of component failure was small,a normally gnizes that the component passive increase in was made active and an absolute increase in probability was realized.

Notwithstanding the small probability increase, the violation in Part I of the l Notice is of significant regulatory concern because a change was made to the EDG system resulting in the emergence of an unreviewed safety question for which a license amendment and NRC approval was not sought. Further, such l failures to com]ly with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 resulted in facility

o>erations whic1 depart from the licensing and or design bases described in l r tie Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (USFAR). Therefore, the violation in

Part I of the Notice is classified in accordance with the " General Statement l of Policy and Proceires for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy).

NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level III violation.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount  ;

l of $50,000 is considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because your I

facility has been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last l 2 years , the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for' Identification 4 l and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process l described in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. In this case..the NRC concluded that it is not appropriate to give credit for Identification because i the violation was discovered by the NRC. With regard to consideration for .

Corrective Action, at the conference you stated that your actions related to the violation in Part I of the Notice included revision of engineering 10 CFR 50.59 guidance to clarify the definition of an increase in probability I and issuance of a technical alert to all engineers regarding this issue.

Further, although not directly related to this violation, additional emphasis has been placed on the importance of 10 CFR 50.59 and the UFSAR. Your recent action in this regard include

(1) 10 CFR 50.59 reviewer certification: (2) additional 10 CFR 50.59 training for designated staff: (3) 10 CFR 50.59 procedural enhancements; and (4) implementation of'the UFSAR Review Project.

l I A Severity Level III problem and proposed civil penalty of $50,000 were issued on '

March 28. 1996 (EA 96-040) related to a dilution event. A Severity Level III violation and proposed civil penalty were issued on November 13. 1995 (EA 95-180) related to inoperable power operated relief valves.

, THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION NOT FOR PUBLIC

' DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE l

i

f FPL- 3 Based on the above, the NRC determined that credit was warranted for l Correct 1ve Action, resulting in the base civil penalty.

l Therefore, to emphasize the importance of performing of safety evaluations for facility changes affecting safety and of prompt identification of violations and in consideration of your previous escalated enforcement actions, I have  !

l been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement.

to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil  ;

Penalty (Notice) in the base amount of $50.000 for this Severity Level III

• violation. -

Violations A and B described in Part II of the Notice have been categorized at  ;

Severity Level IV. The violations involve four instances where you failed to 1 i effectively incorporate design changes into plant operating procedures or  :

drawings. These violations were NRC identified and are of concern because of l l the potential for misleading operators and the similarity of the violations to '

l annunciator res)onse procedure. deficiencies identified during previous inspections. T1e fifth apparent example of the configuration management violation discussed at the conference involved your failure to properly incorporate the spent fuel pool heat load calculation into operational  !

l procedure limitations prior to initiating core off-load. For this issue, the '

l NRC has decided to exercise discretion and characterize the violation as non-cited (NCV 50-335/96-12-01) in accordance with Section VII.B.1 of the

! Enforcement Policy. Specifically, you identified the violation and promptly instituted appropriate corrective action.

NRC has concluded that no violation occurred with respect to the three i additional apparent failures to comply with 10 CFR 50.59 addressed in the l l subject-inspection report and discussed at the conference. Specifically.

(1) the Unit 2 Control Element Drive Mechanism Control System Enclosure was i not required to be included in the UFSAR. and installation and subsequent  !

l modifications did not require 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations: (2) the

! configuration of a temporary fire pump placed in stand-by during the 1996 Unit 1 refueling outage did not require a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation in that the configuration was as described in the UFSAR (i.e... the discharge valve was l closed and the pump was isolated from the system): (3) the failure to perform i a 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation to change the setpoints and procedures for

operating the fuel hoist was identified and corrected by you prior to actual fuel movement. This letter closes any further NRC action on these matters.

1 You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions ycu plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice. 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.

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC l

! DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR. OE

I * .

j FPL 4 3

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice." a copy of

, this letter. Its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public i Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include any. personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.

1 i Sincerely. '

s e i I Stewart D. Ebneter <

i..

Regional Administrator i Docket Nos. 50-335. 50-389 l License Nos. DPR-67. NPF-16 1-i

Enclosure:

Notice of Violations and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

! cc w/ encl:

, J. A. Stall

! . ' Site Vice President 5

St. Lucie Nuclear Plant'

P. O. Box 128

j Ft. Pierce. FL 34954-0128 i i

! H. N. Paduano. Manager i Licensing and Special Programs

! Florida Power and Light Company -

- P. O. Box 14000 l Juno Beach. FL 33408-0420

! J. Scarola i t Plant General Manager i St. Lucie Nuclear Plant i P. O. Box 128 i Ft. Pierce. FL 34954-0128 3- E. J. Weinkam i Plant Licensing Manager 4 St; Lucie Nuclear Plant i P. O. Box 128 Ft. Pierce. FL 34954-0218

cc w/ encl

(Cont'd on Page 5)

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION . NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OE

{

r _= -

FPL 5

cc w/ encl-(Cont'd)

J. R. Newman. Esq.  ;

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius i

. 1800 M Street. NW i Washington. D. C. 20036 j

'F

. John T. Butler. Esq.

C Steel. Hector and Davis  !

4000 Southeast Financial Center  !

Miami. FL 33131-2398 Bill Passetti  !

Office of Radiation Control  !

I De)artment of Health and Rehabilitative Services >

1317 Winewood Boulevard i Tallahassee. FL 32399-0700 1 Jack Shreve. Public Counsel 4

Office of the Public Counsel

c/o The Florida Legislature 111 West Madison Avenue. Room 812 -

l Tallahassee FL- 32399-1400 l

l Joe Myers. Director ,

Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community Affairs  !

2740 Centerview Drive ,

Tallahassee FL 32399-2100 Thomas R. L. Kindred i

County Administrator l i- St. Lucie County  ;

1 2300 Virginia Avenue i Ft.' Pierce. FL 34982 Charins.B. Brinkman

Wastangton Nuclear Operations

~

ABB Combustion Engineering. Inc.

12300 Twinbrook Parkway. Suite 3300 Rockville. MD 20852 l

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION . NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR. OE I

' ~

FPL 6 Distribution w/ encl:

PUBLIC EJulian, SECY BKeeling, CA JTaylor EDO JMilhoan, DEDR RZimmerman, NRR SEbneter, RII LChandler, CGC JGoldberg, 0GC JLieberman, OE Enforcement Coordinators RI, RIII, RIV EHayden, OPA EJordan AE0D PRabideau, OC DDandois OC GCaputo, 01 HBell OIG OE:EA File (B. Summers OE) (2 letterhead)

MSatorius OE AGibson, RII JJohnson, RII CEvans, RII Buryc, RII KClark, RII RTrojanowski, RII CCasto, RII KLandis, RII JNorris, NRR ABoland, RII NRC Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm, 1 7585 South Highway A1A i Jensen Beach, FL 34957-2010 l l

Sf ND TO PUPt f( 00CtMFNT RW VE$ NO OFFICE Ril:DRP R!l.DRS Ril:E!CS Ril:0RA Ril:0RA

$1GNATURE NAME JJohnson AGibson Buyrc CEvans LReyes DATE 01 / / 97 01 / / 97 01 / / 97 01 / / 97 01 / / 97 COPY? YES NO YES NO VES NO VES NO YES NO I 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMiNT NAME: H:\l960 PEN.ENF\96236STL.DIR\PKGT00E I l

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR. OE ,

o  ;

I NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND i PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY j

i Florida Power and Light Company Docket Nos. 50-335, 50-389 .

St. Lucie Nuclear Plant License Nos. DPR-67. NPF-16 l

'EA 96-236 and 96-249  :

t As a result of an_NRC inspection completed on July 12. 1996. violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), i NUREG-1600, the Nuclear Regulatory Consission )roposes to impose a civil- .

penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended i (Act). 42 U.S.C. 2282. and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and. .

associated civil penalty are set forth below: l I. Violations Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 CFR 50.59 " Changes. Tests and Experiments." provides, in part, that the licensee may make changes in the facility as described in the safety

- analysis report (SAR) without prior Commission approval, unless the j proposed change involves an unreviewed safety cuestion. A proposed  ;

change shall be deemed to involve an unreviewec safety question if the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR may be increased, if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the SAR may be created, or if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is 1 reduced.

Contrary to the above, in July 1995, the licensee made a change to the facility which involved an unreviewed safety question without prior Commission approval. Specifically, the 2B Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) fuel 011'line was manually isolated to secure a through-wall fuel 1 oil leak. In taking this action, the licensee introduced two new  ;

failure modes for the 2B EDG, which both increased the probability of j occurrence of a malfunction of the EDG above that previously evaluated i in the SAR and the possibility for malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the SAR. resulting in an unrev.iewed safety question. (01013)  !

This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I) .

Civil Penalty - $50,000 II. Violations Not Assessed a Civil Penalty 10 CFR 50. Appendix B. " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants." Criterion III requires, in part, that measures be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis for safety-related structures.  ;

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR. OE

w Notice of Violation and Proposed 2 Imposition of Civil Penalty systems, and components are correctly translated into specifications.

drawings, procedures, and instructions.

l l Florida Power and Light Company Topical Quality Assurance Report.

TOR 3.0. Revision 11-implements these requirements. Section 3.2.

" Design Change Control." provides, in part. that design changes shall be .'

i. reviewed to ensure that implementation of the design changes is

, coordinated with any necessary changes to operating procedures. In '

addition. Section 3.2.4. " Design Verification." provides, in part, that design control measures shall be established to independently verify the design inputs, design process, and that the design inputs are correctly  ;

incorporated into the design output.

! A '. Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to coordinate design '

, changes with the.necessary changes to operating procedures as

follows

1 1 1 1. Plant Change / Modification (PC/M) 109-294. Setpoint Change to i the Hydrazine Low Level Alarm (LIS-07-9) was completed on January 6,1995. without assuring that affected Procedure ONOP 2-0030121'. Plant Annunciator Summary, was revised.  ;

1 This resulted in annunciator S-10. HYDRAZINE TK LEVEL LO. ,

i showing an incorrect setpoint of 35.5 inches in the j procedure.

2. PC/M 268-292. Intake Cooling Water Lube Water Piping Removal

and Circulatory Water Lube Water Pi)ing Renovation, was completed on February 14. 1994. witlout assuring that affected Procedure ONOP 2-0020131. Plant tanunciator  :

j.

Summary, was revised. This resulted in annunciator E-16.

CIRC WTR PP LUBE SPLY BACKUP IN SERVICE. incorrectly  ;

requiring operators to verify the position of valves MV 21-

4A and 4B following a safety injection actuation system signal were deenergized and had no control room position indication.

l 3. PC/M 275-290. Flow Indicator / Switch Low Flow Alarm and i Manual Annunciator Deletions, was comaleted on October 28.

! 1992. without assuring that affected 3rocedure ONOP 2-l 0030131. Plant Annunciator Summary was revised. This

! resulted in safety-related annunciators LA-12. ATM STM DUMP MV-08-18A/18B OVERLOAD /SS ISOL, and LB-12. ATM STM DMP MV-08-19A/19B OVERLOAD /SS ISOL incorrectly requiring operators to check Auto / Manual switch or switches for the manual position. (02014) {

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION NOT FOR PUBLIC {

DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIREClOR. OE

O Notice of Violation and Proposed 3 Imposition of Civil Penalty B. Contrary to the above, the licensee failed t'o assure that the design of the Circulating and Intake Cooling Water System was correctly translated into plant drawings. Specifically, during implementation of PC/M 341-192. Intake Cooling Water Lube Water Piping Removal and Circulatory Water Lube Water Piping Renovation, the as-built Drawing No. JPN-241-192-008 was not incorporated into Drawing No. 8770-G-082. Flow Diagram Circulating and Intake Cooling Water System. Revision 11. Sheet 2. issued May 9, 1995, for PC/M 341-192. This resulted in Drawing No. 8770-G-082 erroneously showing valves 1-FCV-21-3A and 3B and associated piping as still installed. (03014)

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201. Florida Power and Light Company (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 Im]osition

of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation:

i (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 why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why i 4

such other action 6: may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be i 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 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 the United States .in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one c'ivil penalty is 3roposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part.

)y a written answer addressed to the Director. Office of Enforcement. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the l time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should I 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 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 imposed. In addition to protesting the i

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE

4-a i' ;

Notice of Violation and Proposed 4 Imposition of Civil Penalty 1

civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or 3 mitigation of the penalty. -

Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth 2

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.

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 referted 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 3enalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to:

James _1eberman Director. Office of Enforcement. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Rike. Rockville. MD 20852- 1 2738. with a copy to the Regional Administrator. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1 Commission. Region II and to the Resident Inspector at the St. Lucie facility.

Because your. res>onse will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the. extent possiale, it should not include any personal privacy'. 3roprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed 1n the PDR witlout redaction. However. if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR. and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public.

1 Dated at Atlanta. Georgia this ---- day of September 1996 i

l 4

l I

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PREDECISIONAL INFORMATION . NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, OE j

'