ML20215C874
| ML20215C874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1986 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215C870 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-86-059, EA-86-59, NUDOCS 8612150486 | |
| Download: ML20215C874 (7) | |
Text
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket No. Se-278 License No. DPR-56 Philadelphia Electric Company EA 86-59 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit-3) )
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES I
Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 (licensee), is the holder of License No. DPR-56 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Comission/NRC). This license authorizes the licensee to operate the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3 Delta, Pennsylvania in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
I s
II During March 18 - 21, 1986, an NRC inspection was conducted at Peach Bottom to review the circumstances associated with an event that occurred at Unit 3 involving the withdrawal of a control rod during reactor startup in a sequence different from that specified in the control rod program. As a result of the J inspection, it was found that the licensee has not conducted its activities in full complieqce with NRC requirements. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was served upon the licensee by letter dated June 9, 1986. The Notice states the nature of the violations, the provisions of the Comission's requirements that the licensee has violated, and the amount of civil penalties proposed for the violations.
8612150486 861212 0 DR ADOCK 050
~ ;p ,
y >31 i ' , -
N
. b <
x 2-i
'An answer. dated-July'23, 1986 to -the Notice _of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties was received from the licensee. ,
.III
- After' consideration of the statements df fact, explanation, and argument for mitigation of the_ proposed civil penalties contained in your response and as set forth in the Appendix to this _ Order, the Director, Office of-Inspection and E.forcement, has determined that the penalties proposed for the violations
. designated in the Notice of Violation and. Proposed Imposition of Civil' Penalties should be imposed.
l IV
-In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 96-295), and 10.CFR 2.205, IT IS
~
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The licensee pay civil penalties in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) 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.
. . . - _ - _ . . . _ . . _ _ , . . - -_ . _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . - _ . _ . . - _ __.._ _._ _ . ~ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . -
- # ~
.v a~
[e. i.
n y. %
p 3-
.V
-The licensee may, within thirty days of,the date of this Order, request a hearing. A request.for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director, Office of-Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, Washir.gton,
.D.C. 20555. A copy of the hearing request also shall be.sent to the Assistant u
- General Counsel'for Enforcement, Office of General Counsel','U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555. If a hearing.is requested, the
' Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of hearing. If the licensee fails to request a hearing within thirty _ days of the date of this Order, the provisions of this Order shall be effective without further proceedings and,1,f payment has not been made by that time, the matter may be referred to the _ Attorney 1 General for collection.
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 Penalties and (b) whether, on the basis of such violations, this Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/)
\b@
^
, s J ms M. Taylor y irector fice of Inspe tion and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda, Maryland thisp%dayofDecember1986
V- .
a I- .
q APPENDIX s EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION In Philadelphia Electric Company's' July 23, 1986 response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice) dated June 9,1986, the licensee acknowledges'the occurrence of the. violations. stated in the Notice but requests mitigation of the civil penalty amount from $200,000 to $100,000.
Provided below are-(1) a restatement of.the violations, (2) a summary of the licensee's response including their reasons for requesting mitigation, and-(3) the NRC evaluation of the licensee's response.
Restatement of Violations I.A. Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the activities of Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972. Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 states in part that the activity of " Hot Standby to Minimum Load (nuclear startup)" requires procedures.
Technical Specifications 6.8.1 is implemented by the-Peach Bottom General Procedure GP-2, Appendix 1, Revision 3, "Startup Rod Withdrawal Sequence Instructions." Step 13 of GP-2 requires the reactor operator to withdraw control rod 02-23.
Contrary to the above, at-1:28 a.m. on March 18, 1986, while at step 13 of GP-2, Appendix 1, the reactor operator withdrew control rod 10-23 rather than rod 02-23 and incorrectly documented that rod 02-23 had been withdrawn.
B.. Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.8.3.b requires that whenever the reactor is in the startup or run mode below 25% rated power, the Rod Worth Minimizer shall be operable or a second licensed operator shall verify that the operator at the reactor console is following the control rod progrem.
< Contrary to the above, at 1:28 a.m. on March 18, 1986, while the reactor was in the startup mode below 25% power and the Rod Worth Minimizer was inoperable, the second licensed operator did not verify adherence to the control rod program and identify that a wrong control rod (10-23) was withdrawn. The second licensed operator also incorrectly documented that rod 02-23 had been withdrawn.
This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
(Civil Penalty - $100,000, assessed equally among the violations).
R :--
c -
y.
-Appendix 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 se -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 posi-ition 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 veri.fy 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, assessedequallyamongtheviolations).
Summary of Licensee's Response The licensee acknowledges the occurrence.of the violations as stated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, but requests that the proposed ' penalties in the cumulative amount of $200,000 be reduced to the base civil penalty amount of $100,000. The licensee states that the increase of the base civil penalty amount in this case is excessive, unwarranted, and.does not properly consider the mitigation and escalation factors set forth in the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 ~CFR Part:2. Appendix C.
The licensee contends that the NRC-basis for escalating the amount of the proposed civil penalties, namely, the licensee's history of personnel errors involving failures to adhere to procedures and not paying attention to detail, is-insufficient. Also, the licensee argues that two of the civil penalties issued'to Peach Bottom in the past three years were mitigated based on the licensee's corrective actions. Fu ther, the licensee maintains that the NRC, in considering its request for mitigation, should consider the prompt managerial actions in identifying and reporting the event, as well as the comprehensive corrective actions taken subsequent to the event.
~
e
E ..
j*y , .
9 y _
4 '
EAppendix NRC Evaluation The NRC staff carefully reconsidered the mitigation and escalation factors
~ identified in the Enforcement Policy. In evaluating the licensee's request for mitigation of the civil penalties based on prompt identification and reporting the NRC 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, numerous opportunities had existed for four licensed
-operators to identify and correct the problem had they been more attentive to the details of their duties, including adherence to safety procedures. Since these errors were not~ promptly identified by personnel who have a significant role in the safe operation of the plant, mitigation cf the civil penalties based on this factor is not appropriate.
'The NRC staff also recognizes the corrective actions taken by the licensee-subsequent to the event, including disciplinary actions, restructuring and reassigning certain nuclear station management, and reviewing the incident" with station operations personnel. While the NRC staff acknowledges the need for these actions, the' NRC~ staff does not view them as sufficiently extensive
, to' warrant mitigation, since the licensee focused narrowly on the failure of certain individuals'through minor disciplinary actions of an administrative
! nature rather than on the broad management responsibility in overseeing personnel performance. The-licensee has taken the position that no additional emphasis is needed to improve management oversight and contends that a pattern of i inattention to detail or failure to adhere to procedural requirements does not exist at Peach Bottom. The NRC staff disagrees with the licensee's assess-ment, particularly in light of the licensee's enforcement history. Improved management involvement and oversight is~ needed at the Peach Bottom facility to o preclude the recurrence of significant personnel errors in the future. Since the licensee failed to undertake vigorous and extensive corrective actions in this regard, mitigation is inappropriate.
The licensee contends that its past performance did not warrant escalation of the civil penalty. To the contrary, the enforcement history in the area of personnel performance has been poor. Therefore, escalation of the civil penal-ties by 100 percent is appropriate and warranted in this case. As described in i the NRC letter dated June 29, 1986 transmitting the Notice of Violation and i Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties, three previous civil penalties issued for violations of technical specifications involved violations that resulted from personnel errors. Although the licensee is correct in stating that one j of these previous civil penalties, as well as a civil penalty issued on May 30,1985 for violation of radiation protection requirements, were partially 1- mitigated based on the licensee's corrective actions, the NRC staff considers it appropriate to escalate the current civil penalty because those previous corrective actions were not fully effective in precluding recurrence of such personnel errors. In addition, the NRC staff evaluated the licensee's claim that the enforcement conference conducted on June 29, 1986 involved an issue of " fitness for duty" rather than the inattentiveness of a licensed operator.
i The NRC staff believes this example also demonstrates an attitude of inattention to duties in the control room for which corrective actio'ns were not effective
- and further reinforces the necessity for effective management involvement in the area of personnel performance of their duties.
t i
g ; .
~
v.
[ ,
' Appendix - 4L-NRC Conclusion The violations occurred asforiginally stated. The NRC staff concludes that the
. licensee's corrective actions were not sufficiently extensive nur was the identification of the problem sufficiently prompt to warrant mitigation of the proposed penalties. Rather, the staff concludes that it is appropriate to d ' escalate the base civil penalties based on the licensee's prior poor perfonnance
. in the area of adherence to procedures. .Given the number of licensed operators. .
-including two supervisors involved, a significant civil-penalty is warranted.
Accordingly, the civil penalties in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
'($200,000) should be imposed.
c
\
t i
_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _