ML20196A163

Requests Commission Reconsider Amount of Proposed Fine for Imposed Civil Penalty for Violation Re Environ Qualification of Electrical Equipment Deficiencies.Proposed Fine Unreasonable for Plant Size & Age

ML20196A163
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	12/01/1988
From:	Hoffman D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
NUDOCS 8812050276
Download: ML20196A163 (4)

Text

- --

.c Consumers 0' 0 power pgwgggyc MKNIGAN'S P30GRE55 hvW P Hoffman sk, hesdre s-se cyra m Ger+rst tWes 1H5 W,st Pernell Rcel Jadwn, Mt 49201 e (517) 7%8 0453 December 1, 1988 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-155 - LICENSE DpR4 - BIC ROCF. POINT PLANT -

ANSWER TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL Qt'ALIFICATION DEFICIENCIES Ey letter cated September 22, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Conrission transmitted a Notice of Violation and Proposed Ieposition of Civil Penalty regarding environmental qualification of electrical equipeent deficiencies for Big Rock Point. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.205, an Antwer to the Netice of Violation is provided herein. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, a Reply to the Notice of Violation was submitted by our letter dated Dec*eber 1, 1988. Consumers Power Ccepany contends the amount of the proposed i ivil penalty is not justly warranted for the safety significance of the circuestances involved in the identification and resolution of the deficiencies. As stated in the transmittal letter, Censumers Power Ceepany was given some credit for application of best efforts to meet the equipeent qualification deadline, however, ve esintain our supporting analyses were not untieely ot unacceptable. Consumers Power Ceepany provides the folleving factors for consideration in support of cur contention.

A proposed fine of this nagnitu,'e is unreasonable for a generating plant the size and age of Big Rock Point, uepar19en of the Big Rock Point propored fine to an average sized modern plant r e sul t a in a f in e o f $ 2 717 /h"a' for Big Reck Point versus $220/W f or the average aired plant of approxinately 850 eegawatts electrical. To date, other proposed environmental qualification fines under the codified enforcement policy range f rem $24/W to $650/W. The impact of the preposed fine on Big Rock Point is twelve tires as great as it would be for an average sized plant. In fact, en a per megawatt basis, this may be the largest fine the Cc nission has ever proposed on a licensee, and the deficiencies were not even considered to be in the highest violatten category (i.e. Level I/ Category A).

During a visit by the Chairnan of the Nuclear Regulatory Cemission this past surrer, he challenged Big Rock Point and Consueers Power Ceepany to assist the 5312050276 881201 F_ E% ADOCE Ow001 r,5 V CDC O OC1188-0212-SLO 2

'j\

A C%iS OVERGY COMV V

[

Nuclear Rogulatory Commiscion 2 i Big Rock Point Plant  !

Answer to Notice of Violation December 1. 1988 I

nuclear industry and the regulator to show that an older, smaller plant can be operated safely and efficiently for the duration of its design lifetime. Even without payment of the proposed fine, recent industry analyses have shown Big ,

Rock Point's operating costs to be among the highest in the industry. Levying  ;

this large of a fine ceepromises our ability to meet the Commission Chairnan's i

challenge. Consumers Power Coepany continually veighs the sensitvity of all

]

Big Rock Point expenses against assured safe operation of the plant to arrive j at economically balanced solutions. The amount of the proposed fine upsets l this balance. Big Rock Point's environmentai qualification perfernance is i neither twelve tices verse than industry average, nor does it eerit a record f:.ne, in our opinion.

Taroughout the environmental equipment qualification process at Big Rock i I Point. Consumers Power Company was faced with many difficult decisions where I definitive ansvers were not available. Resolutions were not readily apparent 1 or obvious resulting in solutions based on maintaining an equitable balance i J between consideretions for nuclear safety and the econceic viability for

continued operation of the plant. The Commission has stated many times in the '

i past ic is not their intent that the economic impact of enforcement actions be I to force licensees of smaller, older plants to shut them down. ,

Big Rock Point is the smallest and second oldest operating commercial nuclear j generating plant. The plants small size and rural location is less of a potential hazard to public health and safety. Over the 3ast several years, j Big Rock Point's performance has been at or above industry averages in SALP ratings capacity factor and availability. These factors have been recognized i l by the Cenmission in other reFulatory contexts including annual fee. emergency [

! plenning zone, insurance requirements, backfitting rules and inspection i schedules.

J

[

Historically Big Rock Point has recognized the importance of environeental l

~

qualification concerns. As early as 1975. before there was an everall industry i

! general awareness of environmental qualification cencerns. Consumers Power l Company voluntarily shut down Rig Rock Point for six nonths to address electri- i cal cocponent environmental qualification issues. This long shut down was i initiated because of eur concerns for the continued operability of containment )

I equipment as a result of installing a reactor depressurization system which could duep live steam to the containeent environeent.

i

) Throughout our environeental qualification inplementation, the Coemission was i j kept well inforued with coeplete and accurate inforeation. In 1950. Consueers (

Power Coepany identified to the Commission that the noter actuator for M0-7068 [

l had undergone LOCA testing and was reinstalled in the plant. Thfu fact was -

reviewed by an NRC contractor in 1983 and no concerns were raised. The l

< Commission first expressed concerns for the ability of this valve operator to l

perform its function in an accident environcent during the September 1986  ;

audit, ten conths after the qualification deadline, i

1 t

) OCll88-0212-NLO2 l i

i'

e Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 Big Rock Point Plant Answer to Notice of Violation December 1, 1988 With respect to the cable issue, the Coemission raised concerns regarding our approach to qualification of the cables in 1983. During an in process environ-nental qualification audit conducted by the Commission in 19o4. Consumers Power Company was given two optiens to establish qualification. These were

"(t)he electrical cables reviewed... should be tested as originally planned, or a more positive effort to show qualifiention through testing already completed snould be initiated" (i.e. similarity). Consumers Power Company choose the second option. Again, it was not until the September 1986 audit, ten months after the qualification deadline, that the Commission raised specific concerns with our qualification documentation which ultimately resulted in Commission rejection of our similarity analyses.

For both of these issues Consumers Power Company was convinced the equipment was qualified for continued operation at and beyond the environeental equipment qualification deadline of November 30, 1985. If this vert not the case. Big Rock Point would have remained in the fall 1985 refueling and maintenance outage and stayed shut down until we assured ourselves of a safe plant. It was not until ten months after the deadline that the qualification of these componenta was questioned by the NRC.

Once specifie qualification concerns were identified. Consumers Power Company took tieely r,d acceptable corrective action. During the second day of the September 1986 audit. Consumers Power Coepany cemitted to replace the valve operator at the earliest shut dovn of sufficient duration, but not later than the refueling outage scheduled to begin three cenths later. Prior to the NRC inspectors leaving the plant site a valve operator Justification for Continued Operation was developed, submitted to and accepted by the Commission.

At the conclusion of the audit, the question of the cable qualification temained unresolved. The inspectors inforced Consumers Power Company NRC Reglen III would forward their specific concerns on cable qualification to hTC Headquarters for resolution. Forwarding of the concerns did not occur until lote February 1987, ten days prior to startup from our 1987 refueling outage.

Prior to startup from the outage, a cable qualification Justification for Continued Operation was developed, submitted to and accepted by the Comission.

We also committed to propose a long-term resolution for the Comission's concerns within 30 days. This led to cur decision to shut down the plant and replace the cables in June 1987. This was acceeplished within three conths of the Cemission rejecting our cable similarity analyses.

From a safety significance perspective. the Coenission accepted both of Big Rock Point's Justifications for Continued Operation. In neither ease was the plant operated for a long period of time before the concerns were acceptably resolved and corrective actier.s implemented.

It is our judgement that had these deficiencies been of the level of safety siF nificance indicated by the amount of the proposed fine. Big Lock Point.

OC1188-0212-NLO2

Nuclect Regulatory Commission 4 Big Rock Point Plant Answer to Notice of Violation December 1. 1988 through management initiative, vauld have shut down the plant ienediately to implement corrective actions. We replaced the valve operator not because we deternined the operator to be unqualified but rather, because we recognized we did not have adequate documentation to clearly show the extent of refurbish-cent of the valve operator following its LOCA test. We replaced the cables not because we determined then to be unqualified, but rather, because we had reached an impasse with the Cetmission and the nost economically viable solution to remove qualification doubts was to replace the cables. We did not consciously contiwte to operate the plant in violation of the rules. To the best of our ability, we were convinced ve had met the environmental equipment qualification regulations on the November 30, 1985 deadline.

Due to the circumstances that apply to the specifics of the Big Rock Point situation and the cotiplexity of the issues, the guidance of the codified enforcement policy is unduly punitive and not equitably applied. When considering the factors set forth above, ve contend the amount of the proposed civil penalty is excessive and inapprepriate for the significance of the deficiencies. We respectfully request Commission reconsideration of the amount of the proposed fine.

• tt:

5 David P Hoffman Vice President Nuclear Operations CC Administrator. Region III. NRC NRC Resident Inspector - Big Rock Point Director. Office of Fnforcement. NRC Deputy Executive Director. Fegional Operations. NFC 0C1188-0212-5102