ML20217N149

Notice of Violation from Insp on 990720-29.Violation Noted: as of July 1999,licensee Did Not Take Adequate Measures to Assure That Condition Adverse to Quality Involving Macro Biological Fouling of Service Water System Corrected

ML20217N149
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	10/21/1999
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20217N147	List: IR 05000412/1999007 ML20217N149
References
50-412-99-07, EA-99-212, NUDOCS 9910280123
Download: ML20217N149 (2)

Text

r ENCLOSURE NOTICE OF VIOLATION Duquesne Light Company - Docket No. 50-412 Beaver Valley Unit 2 Power Station License No. NPF-73 EA 99-212 During an NRC inspection completed on July 29,1999, violations of NRC requirements were identified.- In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violations are listed below:

A.' 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, requires, in part, that measures be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as deficiencias, deviations, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected.

Contrary to the above, as of July 1999, the licensee did not take adequate measures to assure that a condition adverse to quality involving macro biological fouling (biofouling) of the service water system was promptly identified and corrected, despite prior opportunities to do so. Specifically:

1. Between 1990 and 1995, the licensee identified the potential for zebra mussel infestation in plant systems and developed a plan for preventive and corrective actions. However, these actions were not fully integrated into procedures and, as a result, the actions were not fully implemented.

2. In Febmary 1998, zebra mussels were identified in the plant intake pump bays; however, no revisions were made to the plan to control zebra mussel infestation and no action was taken to ensure that the planned actions were effectively implemented.

The failure to consistently perform routine biocide treatments in 1998 and 1999, coupled with the performance of ineffective bulk blocide treatments during this period, allowed zebra mussels to accumulate in the service water system. As a result, following a bulk blocide treatment in July 1999, the heat exchanger for Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) 2-2 became fouled with zebra mussels which significantly degraded the cooling water flow through the heat exchanger. (01013)

B. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings, requires, in part, that procedures shall include acceptance criteria for determining that

- important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.

9910200123 991021 PDR ADOCK 05000412 e PDR

4 Enclosure 2 Contrary to the above, as of July 7,1999, Operating Procedure 2OM-30.4.M, "BV-2 Asiatic Clam Chemical Treatment Program," Revision 7, did not include adequate acceptance criteria for determining that important activities had been satisfactorily accomplished. Specifically, the procedure did not contain quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for verifying service water flow through all of the heat exchangers, nor did the procedure require post-treatment monitoring of the heat exchangers for indication of flow degradation. Consequently, use of the procedure on July 7,1999, to clean the service water piping of zebra mussels resulted in biofouling of the 2-2 EDG service water heat exchanger and restricted the water flow to 1070 gpm, which was below the design basis minimum requirement of 1170 gpm. This flow degradation remained undetected until an EDG surveillance test was conducted on July 14,1999.

(01023)-

These violations constitute a Severity Level ill problem (Supplement 1).

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violations, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when full compliance will be achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in a letter from the Duquesne Light Company (Licensee), dated October 7,1999. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein

- does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation," and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.

20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice),

if you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. If you choose to provide a response, under the authority of Section 182 of the Act,42 U.S.C. 2232, the response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

If you choose to respond, your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). Therefore, to the extent possible, the response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards inforr.1ation so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.

t in accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working days.

l Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

l. this 21st day of October 1999 i-i