ML20216B464
| ML20216B464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1998 |
| From: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Myers L CENTERIOR ENERGY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216B470 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-97-430, NUDOCS 9804130481 | |
| Download: ML20216B464 (3) | |
Text
A E84 qk UNITED STATES 3(
s j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. enana mang April 9, 1998 EA 97-430 Mr. Lew W. Myers Vice President - Nuclear Centerior Service Company P.O. Box 97, A200 Perry, OH 44081
SUBJECT:
ORDER IMPOSING civil MONETARY PENALTY - $50,000 PERRY NUCLEf.R POWER PLANT, UNIT 1
Dear Mr. Myers:
This refers to a letter dated December 18,1997, ori the letterhead of First Energy and on behalf of the Cleveland Electric illuminating Company, in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice) sent to Centerior Service Company by our letter
- dated November 18,1997. The NRC notes that Cente2 or holds NRC License No. NPF-58 which authorizes the operation of the Perry Nuclear Fower Plant, Unit 1. Therefore, this letter is sent to Centerior (licensee). Our letter and Notice described three violations identified during several NRC inspections conducted from November 2,1996, to August 27,1997.
To emphasize the importance of reactivity controls and the need for effective corrective actions following an event, a $50,000 civil penalty (Violation A of the Notice, EA 97-047) was proposed on November 18,1997, for failure to take adequate measures to determine the cause and corrective actions following an uncontrolled reactivity change, a significant condition adverse to quality. A second civil penalty was also proposed to emphasize the importance of promptly idontifying noncompliances and to ensure that safety reviews related to 10 CFR 50.59 are broad and sufficiently detailed. Specifical!y, a civil penalty of $50,000 was proposed on November 18,1997, for a change to the facility design regarding the use of Emergency Closed Cooling System surge tanks. This violation (Violation C, EA 97-430) represented an unreviewed safety question (USQ). The total civil penalties proposed for these Severity Level til violations was $100,000.
Violation A was admitted in the response dated December 18,1997, and $50,000 of the proposed $100,000 civil penalties was paid. In that same response, Violation C was denied and remission of the associated $50,000 civil penalty was requested.
' A civil penalty was not proposed for Violmucn B (114.96-542) concoming the Control Room Emergency Recircubtion Syetem. Corrective actions ict EA 96-542 were already described on the docket; therefore, a response to Violation B was not required.
After consideration of the December 18,1997 response, we have concluded, for the reasons given in the Appendix attached to the enclosed Order impocing Civil Monetary Penalty, that sufficient information was not provided to either withdraw the violation for EA 97-430 or remit the b
QM's 9804130481 980409 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0
Centerior Service Company _ civil penalty. Accordingly, we hereby serve the enclosed Order on Centerior imposing a civil mor.etary penalty in the amount of $50,000. As provided in Section IV of the enclosed Order,
. ayment should be made within 30 days of the date of this Order, by check, draft, money order, p
or electronic transfer, payable to the Treasurer of the United States and mailed to Mr. James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738. We will review the effectiveness of your corrective actions during a subsequent inspection.
The NRC accepted the explanation that the change of the description of the ECCS surge tanks did not involve a potentialincrease of the consequence of a design basis dose to the public.
Therefore, the violation is amended by removing the reference to the consequences of a design basis dose. However, that modification did not affect the validity or severity of the violation or the amount of the civil penalty. In addition, the NRC recognizes your intent for the change to the description was to provide clearer direction to the operators when system leakage would I
necessitate a plant shutdown; however, the method you adopted caused an unrecognized, unreviewed safety question.
- In your December 1P,1997 letter, you requested to meet with the NRC staff prior to the ultimate resolution of this ereforcemant ection.' During a telephone conversation with Mr. James L.
Caldwell, Deputy Regional Aaministrator, Region lil, on April 2,1998, you indicated you believed
- you had expressed your views sufficiently during earlier conversations and consequently a meeting prior to issuance of the Order was no longer necessary. However, you also indicated
- you reserved the right to request a meeting following receipt of this Order. If you desire such a meeting, the NRC will, as provided in the NRC Enforcement Manual, arrange a transcribed public meeting with you. In which case, please telephone me at (301) 415-2741 to arrange such a meeting,.
- In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and the l
enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Sincerely, h
ames Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement Docket No. 50-440
- License No. NPF-58 I
Enclosures:
As stated i
1
T l
1 i
Centerior Service Company 3-cc w/encis::
H. L. Hegrat, Manager, Regulatory Affairs 1
- T. S. Rausch, Director, Quality and Personnel Development R. Schrauder, Director, Nuclear Engineering Department W. R. Kanda, General Manager, Nuclear Power Plant Department H. W. Bergendahl, Director Nuclear Services Department Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
State Liaison Officer, State of Ohio Robert E. Owen, Ohio Department of Health C. A. Glazer, State of Ohio Public Utilities Commission 1
)
e