ML20210C897

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000.Violation Noted:Incorrect Breaker Alignment Rendered Component Cooling Water Sys Loop B Inoperable for Approx 100 H

ML20210C897
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	09/17/1986
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210C890	List: ML20210C886 ML20210C897
References
EA-86-045, EA-86-45, NUDOCS 8609190010
Download: ML20210C897 (8)

Text

_

a i

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY )

Docket No. 50-395 (V. C. Summer)

)

License No. NPF-12

)

EA 86-45 ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) is the holder of Operating License No. NPF-12 (the license) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the NRC or Commission) on August 6, 1982. The license authorizes the licensee to operate the V. C. Summer facility in accordance with conditions specified therein.

II A safety inspection of the licensee's activities under the license was conducted by the NRC on February 1-28, 1986. As a result of this inspection, it appeared that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was served upon the licensee by letter dated April 15, 1986.

The Notice stated the nature of the violations, the provisions of the NRC's requirements that the licensee had violated, and the amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violations. The licensee responded to the Notice by letters dated May 15 and 23, 1986.

860919oo10 860917 ADOCKOSOOOg5 PDR

2 III Upon consideration of the licensee's responses and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for reduction'oY the severity level for Violation I and for mitigation or remission of the proposed civil penalty contained therein, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, has determined that the violations occurred as stated, that the Severity Level III categorization was appropriate, and that the civil penalty.

proposed for Violation I 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 USC 2282, PL 96-295), and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars l

l

($50,000) within thirty days of the date of this Order by check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the l

Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

i l

2 III Upon consideration of the licensee's responses and the statements of fact, explanation, and argument for reduction lot the severity level for Violation I and for mitigation or remission of the proposed civil penalty contained therein, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, has determined that the violations occurred as stated, that the Severity Level III categorization was appropriate, and that the civil penalty,

proposed for Violation I 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 USC 2282, PL 96-295), and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars

($50,000) within thirty days of the date of this Order by check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

l

k 3

V The licensee may, within thirty days of the date of this Order, request a hearing.

A request for a hearing shall be addresse'd to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, at the above address. A copy of the hearing request also shall be sent to the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement, Office of the General

)

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

If a hearing is requested, the Comission will issue an Order designating the time and place of the hearing. Upon failure of the licensee to request a hearing within thirty days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings.

If payment has not been made by that time, the l

matter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.

l l

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 requirements as set forth in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty, and (b) whether, on the basis of such violations, this Order should be sustained.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt11SSION

/

m

...(

J mes M. Taylo Director jf)ffice of Inspection and Enforcement v

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland thisfr/t_kdayofSeptember1986

__ _ J

s s

APPENDIX On April 15, 1986, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations of NRC requirements. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's (SCE&G) responses to the Notice were provided in letters dated 4

May 15 and 23, 1986. A restatement of the violations, a sumnary of the licensee's responses, the NRC evaluation of the licensee's responses and its conclusions are set forth below.

Restatement of the Violations I.

Violations Assessed a Civil Penalty A.

Technical Specification 3.7.3 requires that two independent component cooling water (CCW) loops be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The action statement states that with one loop inoperable, restore at least two loops to operable status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or be in at least hot standby within the next six hours and cold shutdown within the follow-j ing 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.

Contrary to the above, an incorrect breaker alignment rendered loop B of the component water cooling water system inoperable from January 30, 1986, until February 3, 1986. The loop was inoperable for approximately 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> while the reactor was in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.

B.

Technical Specification 3.7.4 requires that two independent service water (SW) loops be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The action statement states that with one loop inoperable, restore at least two loops to operable status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or be in at least hot standby within the next six hours and cold shutdown with the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.

Contrary to the above, loop B of the service water system was tech-nically inoperable from January 30, 1986, until February 2,1986, for a period of approximately 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> because post maintenance testing had not been completed on pump C, which was aligned to and supplying service water to this loop. Under the system design, pump B was incapable of starting automatically upon a safety injection signal because of the electrical alignment required for the operating C pump, t

C.

Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, 1978, be established and implemented. Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 states that safety-related system procedures should include instructions for startup, shutdown, and changing modes of operation as appropriate.

System Operating Procedure (SOP) 117 for the service water system and 50P 118 fur the component cooling water system implement this require-ment.

Contrary to the above, as of February 3, 1986, S0P 117 and S0P 118 did not provice adequate instructions for the startup and shutdown of the

o t

Appendix 2

CCW and SW systems in that they did not specify the correct electrical alignment for the swing pump under eaci possible operating configura-tion.

D.

Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2,1978, be established and implemented. Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 states that safety-related system procedures should include instruc-tions for startup, shutdown, and changing modes of operation as appropriate. Station Administrative Procedure SAP 200 Conduct of Operations, requires that the Shift Supervisor, Control Room Supervisor and Reactor Operator review the Removal and Restoration (R&R) log and be aware of the status of plant systems.

Contrary to the above, even though the R&R log was reviewed by the Shift Supervisor, the Control Room Supervisor, and the Reactor Operator between January 30, 1986 and February 3,1986, they were not aware of the status of the "C" service water pump (i.e., the pump had been l

running without being declared operable) until notified by the NRC Inspector on February 3, 1986.

These violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).

(Cumulative Civil Penalty - $50,000 assessed equally between the violations).

Summary of the Licensee's Re conses SCE&G admits that the violations occurred as stated in the Notice but objects to the severity level of Violation I and requests mitigation or remission of the associated civil penalty.

The licensee believes that the in idents involved in Violation I did not create an adverse safety condition and ttat CCW and SW system equipment maintained their functional capability or wera capable of performing their intended functian via manual control board actuation. The licensee asserts that the i

practical safety significance of the failure of the Train B CCW pump to i

automs.tically start was minimal because of the procedural steps which required verification of two train flow following a safety injection signal. The licensee also states that, "Overall the events did not result in consequences which led to a substantial safety concern and therefore did not represent such a signifi-cant Technical Specification violation as to warrant a Severity Level III categorization."

In addition, the licensee contends that mitigating factors addressed in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C were not considered for the Severity Level III problem and associated civil penalty. SCE8G believes that extenuating and relevant circumstances surrounding the events combined with its prompt corrective actions establish the basis for mitigation of the proposed civil penalty. The licensee refers I

to its prompt identification and reporting of the violation involving the CCW system and its confidence that the violation involving the SW loops would have been self-identified and reported once design information was relayed to operations personnel. SCE&G believes that its corrective actions were prompt, fully comprehensive, and sufficient to prevent recurrence and argues that its

6 1

Appendix 3

past performance was not poor nor indicative of difficulties in the general area of understanding system design bases. The licensee does not believe the factors of prior notification of similar events or multiple occurrences to be an issue in this civil penalty.

The licensee's supplemental response of May 23, 1986 states that the correc-tions to the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) issued by Region II on May 8,1986 imply that the N,RC's reference to prior poor perform-ance in the cover letter for the Notice'was based, "in large measure, if not entirely, on what has been acknowledged to be an inaccurate SALP assessment."

]

The licensee concludes that the proposed civil penalty was not warranted or that the proposed civil penalty should at least be substantially mitigated.

NRC Evaluation of the Licensee Responses While the licensee contends that the incidents which resulted in Violation I did not create an adverse safety condition, one of two trains for each of two safety related systems was inoperable for approximately 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> while the reactor was in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4.

During this time, the affected trains would not have automatically started in response to a safety injection signal. The staff recognized that redundant trains of the CCW and SW systems remained operable and that the verification of the operation of two trains upon the initiation of safety injection is required by SCE&G procedures.

However, the NRC does not typically acknowledge manual operator actions in design basis accident analyses that require the CCW or SW systems to operate automatically.

In addition, these conditions are similar to the example found in Supplement I, 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C in which one component is inoperable for a time period in excess of that allowed by the technical specification action statement. Therefore the staff believes that Violation I was appropriately classified as a Severity Level III problem and l

reduction in severity level would not be appropriate.

J i

Regarding mitigation or remission of the civil penalty, the mitigation and escalation factors addressed in the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure

[

for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985) were considered in the staff's determination of the proposed civil penalty.

In evaluating mitigation for prompt identification and reporting, the staff considered, among other things, the length of time the violations existed prior to discovery, the opportunity available to discover the violations, and the promptness and completeness of any required reports.

In this case, one CCW loop was inoperable for 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />. Although SCE&G identified and reported the problem involving the CCW system, SCE&G did not recognize that one of two SW loops was technically inoperable for the same period of time until questioned by the NRC. Although SCE&G is confident it would have identified and reported the problem once design information was relayed to operations personnel the NRC staff cannot allow mitigation of the civil penalty based on actions the licensee believes it would have been taken had it recognized the problem.

i

6 4

Appendix 4

In evaluating mitigaticn based on SCE&G's prompt and extensive corrective actions, the staff recognizes that there was adequate basis for mitigation of the civil penalty.

However, there was also a basis for escalation of the civil penalty because of SCE&G's prior poor performance in the area of plant operations. Although SCE&G believes its past performance was not indicative of difficulties in the general area of understanding system design bases, understanding system design bases is fundamental to understanding plant opera-tions. In this case, prior poor performance was evidenced by the civil penalty of $50,000 issued on January 6,1986 concerning system aligonent errors which resulted in both Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system flowpath, being inoperable and the most recent Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance \\SALP)

Category 3 rating in plant operations. Although the licensee argues that the staff's perception of poor prior performance was based on a SALP assessment subsequently acknowledged to be inaccurate, changes were made to the SALP assessment only to clarify the findings of a September 1985 inspection and to accurately describe the scope of eddy current testing conducted during twc outages. No enange.s were made to the evaluation in the area of plant operations and the Category 3 rating.

Therefore, in summary, bases for both mitigation, for prompt ano extensive corrective actions, and escalation, for prior poor perfonnance, existed. The staff maintains that, on balance, neither mitigation nor escalation is appro-priate. The NPC staff agrees with SCE&G that there is no basis for escalation of the civil penalty based on the factors of prior notice of a similar event or multiple occurrences of the 'iolation.

Conclusion The violation occurred as stated in the hotice and the licensee has not provided any new information to support a reduction in the severity level of the violation or for mitigating or remitting the proposed civil penalty. Therefore, a civil penalty in the amount of Fifty Thousand Collars ($50,000) has been imposed.

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Distribution hTOfeTident Inspector J. Hopkins, Project Manager, NRR Document Control Desk State of South Carolina PDR LPDR ACRS SECY CA JMTaylor. IE RStarostecki, IE JAxelrad, IE l

hWong, IE JhGrdce, RII JLieberman, 0GC i

FIngram, PA Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV GJohnson, RM BHayes, 01 Sconnelly, DIA i

JCrcoks, AE00 i

HDenton, NRR EA File ES File i

t 4

fs Me*~Y

/e7Rn.a-f dh

.f L.in s,es,g g.

k c re 8

r t

//3al N3W 4 W 64 h,

3 IE:ES RII OGC

'IE:DC I h.h 4 i

HWong JNGrace JLieberman

)

ad RStarostecki J$ % lod 09/t/86 09/1/86 09/r/86 09/// /86 09/jN86 Ol/g /86 4

- -