ML20203B129
| ML20203B129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1998 |
| From: | Beach A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Grigg R WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203B135 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-97-10, 50-266-97-22, 50-301-97-10, 50-301-97-22, EA-97-347, EA-97-505, NUDOCS 9802240212 | |
| Download: ML20203B129 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000266/1997010
Text
_-__________-_____-__-_-_-__ _ _ _ _ - -
/pn as:
UNITED STATES
V
.
'o
NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMIS$10N
M
~ , ,
8
REGION ill
3
lj
801 WARRENvlLLE ROAD
Q
f
LISLE. ILL'NOIS 60532 4351
k..../
February 18, 1998
\\
o
EA 97-347
EA 97 505
Mr. Richard R. Grigg
President and Chief Operating Officer
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
231 W. Michigan
Post Office Box 2046
,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
SUBJECT:
EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT
NOS. 50-266/97010(DRS); 50-301/97010(DRS) AND 50-266/97022(DRP);
50-301/97022(DRP))
l
Dear Mr. Grigg:
This refers to two inspections conducted at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant. The first
i
inspection was completed in June 1997 and was documented in Inspection Report
l
No. 50-266/97010(DRS); 50 301/97010(DRS). The June inspection identified 4 apparent
violations associated with 2 Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted in May and June 1997.
By letter dated C stober 15,1997, Wisconsin Electric acknowledged the 4 apparent violations and
indicated that a pre-decisional enforcement conference was not necessary. The second
inspection was completed on February 3,1998, and reviewed the circumstances associated with
20 LERs submitted from September 1996 to December 1997. Inspection Report
No. 50-266/97022(DRP);50-301/97022(DRP), describing the results of the second inspection, is
attached. During the exit meeting on February 3,1998, the Wisconsin Electric staff members
present acknowledged the 20 apparent violations associated with the 20 LERs.
The NRC determined that 24 violations of NRC requirements occurred. This determination was
based on the information documented in the LERs, identified during the inspections, and
discussed at the exit meetings. The details of the violations are contained in Inspection Reports
No. 50-266/97010(DRS); 50-301/97010(DRS) and 50-266/97022(DRP); 50-301/97022(DRP).
Examples included 1) equipment and systems relied upon for safe shutdown in the event of a fire
that did not conform to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, * Fire Protection
Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1,1979? due to design errors;
2) safety-related protective features in the Auxiliary Feedwater System which would not have
performed their safety functions under all accident scenarios due to design errors;
3) safety-related equipment in the Emergency Core Cooling Systems which would not have
performed their safety functions under all accident scenarios due to design control errors; and
4) operation of safety-related systems in a manner which could have prevented performance of
required safety functions due to inadequate safety evaluations or procedures. Each of these
conditions had existed for an extended period of time without being identified by the facility's
testing or assessment programs.
k)
[h k/
9002240212 980218
ffIfff[{fff
{,,
fff
ADOCK 05000266
h
G
$
j
i
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _
_ _ _ .
.
'
.
6
R. Grigg
-2-
The NRC understands that most of the conditions reported in the LER3 were identified as the
result of corrective actions implemented by Wisconsin Electric in response to Enforcement
Actinns (EAs)96-273 and 97 075'. These corrective actions included changes in facility
management, training for facility staff to increase awareness of the facility's design and licensing
bases, improvements in the engineering and quality assuranco functional organizations, and a
lower threshold for problem identification. Further, Wisconsin Electric has committed to
complete system-level design basis reconstitution, to update the Final Safety Analysis Report so
that it more accurately reflects the design bases of the facility, and to implement an improved
safety evaluation process to ensure that hardware and procedural modifications do not result in
problems such as those discussed in the 22 LERs. These corrective actions are in addition to
the specific corrective action described in each LER. For the cases where NRC questions led to
discovery of the specific conditions documented by Wisconsin Electric in an LER, the NRC has
concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the conditions would have been identified as a
result of the corrective actions discussed above.
The 24 violations were classified at the Severity Level ill Levelin accordance with the NRC's
NUREG 1600," General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
(Enforcement Policy). The violations represent a significant regulatory concern because they
demonstrated that the Point Beach Nuclear Plant staff was not sufficiently rigorous in ensuring
that the facility's design basis was adequately incorporated in the design, installation, testing, and
operation of some structures, systems, and components affecting quality. Normally, such
violations would be subject to civil penalties. However, I have been authorized after consultation
with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to exercise enforcement discretion in accordance with
Section Vll.B.6, " Violations involving Special Circumstances," of the Enforcement Policy and not
issue Notices of Violation or propose civil penalties in this case. The decision to apply
enforcement discretion was based on consideration of the following: (1) significant NRC
Enforcement Actions (EAs96-273 and 97-075) were taken against the Wisconsin Electric Power
Company for several programmatic breakdowns - such as design control and procedure
adequacy - for which the licensee's corrective actions encompassed the root causes for these
violations; (2) the violations were related to activities before '.he previous enforcement actions
were issued; (3) all inoperable safety-related equipment and systems were modified or corrected
prior to unit restart; (4) subsequent to the previous enforcement actions, Wisconsin Electric
Power Company removed both units from service for an extended period of time to determine the
scope of the problems and to initiate corrective actions; (5) the violations were not willful; (6) the
violations would not be classified 't a severity level higher than Severity Level lil; (7) the NRC
has confidence that the Wisconsi ' betric Power Company would have identified allitems
'
EA 96-273 issued a $325,000 civil penalty on December 3,1996, for issues pertaining to
inattentiveness to duty on the part of licensed personnel; equipment inoperability associated with the
auxiliary feedwater and service water systems involving inadequate procedures, inadequate test controls,
failure to control test equipment, and failure to take prompt corrective action following the identification of
conditions adverse to quality; and problems in the implementation of dry cask storage. EA 97-075 issued a
Severity Level ill violation and a Severity Level til problem with no civil penalty on August 8,1997, for issues
pertaining to prompt identification and the twely resolution of conditions adverse to quality; the importance
of an effective 10 CFR 50.59 process; and the need to correctly implement Technical Specification
surveillance requirements.
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _.--___ ________
-
.
R. Grigg
3-
without NRC prompting; and lastly (8) Wisconsin Electric Power Company's corrective action
program is much improved as a result of this and the other NRC Enforcement Actions
(EAs96-273 and 97-075) and the NRC Manual Chapter 0350, " Staff Guidelines for Restart
Approval," process. Nonetheless, the NRC must emphasize that failure to achieve effective
performance improvement could lead to more significant regulatory sanctions.
As stated above, the NRC has concluded that information documented in the LERs already
adequataly addressed on the docket the reasons for the violations, the corrective actions taken,
the corrective actions planned to prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance will be
'
achieved. No response to this letter is required. If you choose to respond, clearly mark your
i
response as a " Reply to Exercise of Enforcement Discretion NRC Inspection Report
No. 50-266/97022; 50-301/97022" and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATTENTION: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional
Administrator, Region lil, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, within 30 days of the date of
the letter transmitting this Notice. Under the outhority of Section 182 of the Act,42 U.S.C. 2232,
this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. Because the response will be placed
in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any
personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR
without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an
acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the
'
information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such
information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the
portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your
claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information would create an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a
request for withholding confidential commercial or financialinformation). If safeguards
information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of
protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
In accordance witn 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its
enclosure will be placed in the NRC PDR.
Sincerely,
/s/A. Bill Beach
A. Bill Beach
Regional Administrator
,
Docket Nos.: 50-266, 50-301
Enclosure:
NRC Inspection Report
No. 50-266/97022(DRP);
50-301/97022(DRP)
See Attached Distribution
DOCUMENT NAME: R:\\insprpts\\ powers \\poin\\ poi 97022.dpr
To receive e copy of thle document. Indicate in the boa 'C' s Copy without ettechment/ enclosure 'E' s Copy with ettschment/ enclosure
u . N. e py
Rik
OFFICE
Rlll
6
Rlll
6
Rill
Rlli g A
j
NAME
Kunowski:dpM JMcBg6
Clayton[A Grobkhh Bb
,
DATE
NI/d
7
hd M
02/i/98 4
02/ /98 h 02/6'98
p
8
OFFICIAL RECORD CO
0-
hMV
dd
--
-
-
-
-
--
.
..
. _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .
_ _- _ _ _ _ . __.- . _.._.._... _ _ .-
_ _ _ . . _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
<
.
,
'
- R. Grigg
4
cc w/ encl:
S. A. Patulski, Site Vice President
4
A. J. Ceyla, Plant Manager
B. D. Burks, P.E., Director
i
i
Buroeu of Field Operations
-)
Cheryl L. Parrino, Chairman
Wisconsin Public Service
Commission
State Liaison Officer
i
Distnbution
Docket File w/enci
SRI Point Beach w/ encl
PUBLIC IE-01 w/enci
Rlli Enf. Coordinator w/enct
A. B. Beach w/enct
CAA1 w/enci(E mail)
Deputy RA w/enci
DRP w/enci
'
Project Manager, NRR, w/enci
DRS (2) w/enci .
Rlli PRR w/saci
DOCDESK (E mail)
TSS w/ enc;
J. Lieberma ., OE
,
R. Zimmerman, NRR
J. Goldberg, OGC
4
4
L
i
!
!
I
.
t
r
!
_ . - _ _ . _ _ , _ . . . _ . . - . _ . . - . . _ _ . . _ .
_ . .
_ . . _ . , .
,
. ..
. -
. - .
~ . - . .