ML20205T196

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $200,000.Violations Noted:Reactor Operator Withdrew Control Rod 10-23 Rather than Rod 02-23 During Reactor Startup

ML20205T196
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	06/09/1986
From:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205T187	List: ML20205T182 ML20205T196
References
EA-86-059, EA-86-59, NUDOCS 8606130071
Download: ML20205T196 (3)

Text

1

.o. '.

NOTICE Of VIOLATION AND PROPO$ED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES Philadelphia Electric Company Docket No. 50-278 Peach Bottom, Unit 3 License flo. CPR-56 EA 86-59 During an NRC inspection conducted on March 18-21, 1966, in response to an incident identified by the licensee and reported to the NRC, two violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C (1985), the Nuclear Regulatory Comeission proposes to impose civil penalties pursuant to section 234 of the Atotaic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"),

42 U.S.C. 2282. PL 96-265, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and the associated civil penaltjes are set forth below.

I.A. Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written proceduros shall be established, irgplemented, anti craintained covering the activities of Appendix A of Regulatcry Guide J.33, November 1972, Appendix A of Reguhtory Guide 1.33 states in part that the activity of "flot Standby to Minimum Load (nuclear startup)" requires proceduras.

Techtitcal Specification 6.8.1 ls implemented by the P,each Bottom Cencral Procedure GP-2, Appendix 1, Revision 3, "Startup Rod Withdrawal Sequence Insttuctions." Step 13 of GP-2 requires the reactor operator to withdraw contr.ol rod 02-23.

Contrary to the above, at 3:28 a.rg. on March 18, 1986, while at step 13 of GP-2, Appendix 1, the reactor operator withdrew control rod 10-23 rather than rod 02e23 and incorrectly documented that rod 02-23 had been withdrawn. +

0. Technical Specification limiting Conditi6n for Op9 ration 3.3,B.3.b requires that whene,er the reactor is in th9 startup or run mode belev 25% rated pcWer, the Rod Worth Minim 1zer shall be operable or a second licensed operator shall verify that the operator at the reactor console is following the control rod prugram.

Contrary to the above, at 1:28 a.m. on March 16, 1986, while the reactor was in the startup mode below 20% power and the Rod Worth Minimizer was inoperable, the sec6nd licensed operator did not verify adherence to the  ;

cut! trol rod program and idericify that a wrong control rod (10-23) was withdrawn. The second licensed operator also incorrectly documented that rod 02-23 had been withdrawn.

ThisisaSeverityLevelIIIproblem(SupplementI).

(Civil Penalty - $100,000, assossed equall/ among the violations).

860613oo71 860609 8 ppft ADOCK 0500 ICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG PB REV 5 - 0005.0.0 0 06/06/86

o, 2

II. A. Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.B.3.a and 3.3.A.2.d require that whenever the reactor is in the startup or run mode below 21% rated power, the Rod Sequence Control System (RSCS) shall be operable, and no position switches shall be bypassed unless the control rods are moved in sequence to their correct position and the actual rod position is known.

Contrary to the above, between 2:30 and 2:55 a.m. on March 18, 1986, when a Group 3 rod withdrawal was attempted while the reactor was in the startup mode below 21% rated power, a rod block occurred. The RSCS position switch for rod 02-23 was bypassed to the full-out position by the Shift Supervisor and Shift Superintendent when in fact the rod was full-in.

B. Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.3.A.2.d requires that a second licensed operator verify a control rod is in its correct position before the RSCS function is bypassed.

Contrary to the above, on March 18, 1986 when the RSCS function was bypassed for control rod 02-23, the second licensed operator failed to verify that control rod 02-23 was in the correct position.

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

(Civil Penalty - $100,000, assessed equally among the violations).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Philadelphia Electric Company is hereby required to submit to the Ofrector, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, USNRC Region I, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement of explanation in reply, including for each alleged violation, (1) admission or dental of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation, if admitted, (3) 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. Consideration may be given to exteriding 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, Philadelphia Electric Company may pay the civil penalty in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer. Should Philadelphia Electric Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an Order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above. Should Philadelphia Electric Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer 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.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG PB REV 5 - 0005.1.0 06/06/86

g . . ,

3 In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty. In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors contained in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, should be addre: sed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth ceparately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but inay incorporate by specific reference (e.g. , citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of Philadelphia Electric Company 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 has been subsequently 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 puhuaot to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Origfnal syyq bu3 E. Murley Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, i this day of June 1986.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG PB REV 5 - 0006.0.0 06/06/86