ML20236N033

Discusses Investigation Repts 4-97-022S & 4-98-014 on 980331 & Forwards NOV & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000

ML20236N033
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	07/10/1998
From:	Merschoff E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	James M. Levine ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
Shared Package
ML20236N036	List: ML20236N033 ML20236N038
References
EA-98-131, NUDOCS 9807140369
Download: ML20236N033 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - - _ . _ ._

ya 'n coq g

{j' e k g UMTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

n# nE GION IV 3, y [c 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SulTE 400

%'"v *****

f ARUNGTON TEXAS 70011-8064 July 10, 1998 EA 98-131

-James M. Levine, Senior Vice President, Nuclear  !

Arizona Public Service Company I P.O. Box 53999 l Phoenix, Arizona 85072-3999 i

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -

$50.000 (NRC Investigation Report Nos. 4-97-022S and 4-1998-014) 1

Dear Mr. Levine:

This refers to the above-cited investigations conducted by the NRC's Office of Investigations (01), and the predecisional enforcement conference conducted with Arizona Public i Service (APS) Company on March 31,1998, in the NRC's Region IV office in Arlington, Texas.  ;

The conference was held to discuss an apparent falsification of a surveillance test record at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS). An investigation conducted by Ol found that on or about March 10,1993, four licensed reactor operators failed to perform a required surveillance test in compliance with the Action Statement associated with Technical Specification 3.8.1.1 within the required one hour time limit, and that the control room log entries were falsified to reflect the action having been conducted within the required time frame. This falsification was not detected until December 16,1997, as a result of Ol's investigation In addition, the falsified logs resulted in the failure to report to the NRC that the surveillance had 1 not been conducted within the required one hour time frame, as required by 10 CFR 50.73.

These findings were discussed with you and members of your staff on March 18,1998, and were documented in our letter to you dated March 20,1998 Further, Ol reviewed the circumstances involving a former APS employee who provided information to APS, in May 1996, that alluded to this falsification (Oi investigation Report 4-1998-014). By letter dated April 22,1998, APS stated that it acted responsibly in its

- response to the May 1996 information and took appropriate action at the time. 01 found no wrongdoing related to APS' actions in May 1996 and the NRC has identified no additional violations related to Ol's follow-up investigation. However, since the follow-up investigation is related to this falsification issue, information obtained by Ol was considered in this enforcement j action. '

l\

1 in addition, I would like to note that the NRC appreciates the fact that APS agreed to waive the i statute of limitations applicable to this matter. That waiver permitted the agency to engage in a more' reasoned dialogue with APS officials and to reach an informed enforcement decision following a normal deliberative process.

( Based on the information developed during the investigations and our review of the information provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements l_ occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Vio!ation and Proposed 9907140369 990710 DR ADOCK0500gG r _ _ _ - _

i 2-Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice).- These violations involved the failure to comply with 1

. Technical Specification 3.8.1.1, which requires that when an emergency diesel generator is out of service, operators must verify the availability of offsite power sources within one hour and

. every eight hours thereafter, in this case, when four members of the Unit 3 control room crew, including the shift supervisor and assistant shift supervisor, recognized that they had not verified 1 t

the availabihty of offsite power within one hour, they discussed what actions to take. The surveillance requirement was written in such a way that the crew cou!d not take credit for verification of offsite power immediately prior to removing an emergency diescl generator out of  ;

service. Apparently, the crew developed a rationale that they had been performing the surveillance test continuously, since the status of offsite equipment had not changed during the shift. As a result, the crew entered an erroneous time in the record to make it appear that the surveillance had been performed within the one-hour time frame, and did not document in the  !

- Unit log that the surveillance had been late.  ;

The violations in the enclosed Notice include failures to: (1) perform a required surveillance i within the required timeframe, (2) maintain required records complete and accurate in all material respects, and (3) report the missed surveillance to the NRC as required by 10 CFR 50.73.

This event also raised questions about the work environment in 1993 that would lead a control room crew to attempt to cover up a missed surveillance. During the conference, your position

was that APS had made improvements in the working environment following violations of

-10 CFR 50.7 that had occurred prior to this event, and that the work environment in 1993 was in

. a state of transition from one of blaming to one of learning from mistakes.1he involved operators who attended the March 31 conference confirmed that they felt comfortable raising ,

safaty issues in 1993, but acknowledged that the work environment was better today than that  ;

which existed in 1993.: Your staff concluded that this event was an isolated instance based on:

(1) discussions with the involved operators, (2) the programs in place at the time and the results achieved, and (3) similar missed surveillance that had been reported via Licensee Event l

Reports.

The failure to perform the surveillance within the required one-hour timeframe had low risk i:

significance and resulted in no safety consequences. Nonetheless, the NRC considers this a matter of significant regulttory concern based on the lack of integrity shown by individuals entrusted with operating the plant in accordance with all requirements. Four licensed-

[- individuals, two of whom were the shift supervisor and the assistant shift supervisor, the most l

senior individuals responsible for plant operations during night' shifts, were involved in falsifying information required by the NRC. Therefore, these violations are classified in the aggregate in 7

accordance with the " General Statement of Po! icy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level ill problem.

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy in effect in 1993, a civil penalty in the base amount of

$50,000 was considered for this Severity Level til problem. Because the violations involved willfulness, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. In this case, the violations were identified by the NRC during the conduct of I.

p

an Ol investigation. We also note that in May 1996, APS did receive information from a former employee, albeit vague, which, if aggressively pursued, might have resulted in the earlier ,

' identification of this incident. As a result, no identification credit was warranted. I APS' corrective actions, as discussed during the Marcn 31 conference, focused on disciplinary action against the individuals. These included removing all the involved individuals from licensed operator duties and terminating their 10 CFR Part 55 licenses, demoting all the individuals, removing commensurate bonuses, giving them time off without pay, imposing 2 years probation, requiring the individuals to conduct individual events training for certain PVNGS departments regarding this event, and enhancing management oversight and quarterly performance reviews for the next year. Based on the facts that the individuals admitted their involvement and appeared remorseful, the significant disciplinary action taken, the additional oversight of the individuals, and their desire to remain members of the PVNGS team, APS concluded that it had reasonable assurance that the individuals would conduct their current duties in compliance with NRC requirements. The NRC has concluded that APS' actions were sufficient to warrant corrective action credit.

Therefore, to emphasize the seriousness of willful violations and the importance of prompt identification of violations, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty

- (Notice) .in the base amount of $50,000 for the Severity Level lll problem. This proposed civil penalty was determined to be consistent with the Enforcement Policy that was in effect in 1993.

I note that in determining the sanction in this case, the staff considered the age of the violation, the low significance of the record falsified, and the improved work environment since 1993.

However, we concluded the civil penalty is warranted because several licensed operators including supervisors were involved and the operators allowed the falsified records to remain

- uncorrected.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Sincerely,

/

Ellis W. Mersc Regional Admi istrator

Enclosure:

(See next page)

_- _ . _ _ . _ A

W ,

5.

- Docket Nos.: ~ 50-528 50-529 50-530 License Nos.: NPF-41 NPF-51 NPF-74.

Enclosure:

Notice of Violation and

< Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty I

cc (w/ encl): J

~Mr. Steve Olea l Arizona Corporation Commission

' 1200 W. Washington Street l Phoenix, Arizona 85007 l

! 1 Douglas K. Porter, Senior Counsel .;

Southern California Edison Company  !

Law Department, Generation Resources l P.O. Box 800 Rosemead,' California 91770 Chairman

- Maricopa County Board of Supervisors  !

301 W. Jefferson,'10th Floor i Phoenix, Arizona 85003

. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40 Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040

'Angela K. Xrainik, Manager

. Nuclear Lice nsing Arizona Public Service Company

' P.O. Box ti?O34 i Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 John C; Horne,'Vice President l' Power Supply

!~ El Paso Electric Company 2025 N. Third Street, Suite 220

' PhoeniA, Arizona 85004 l-

5-Terry Bassham, Esq.

General Counsel s El Paso Electric Company 123 W. Mills ElPaso, Texas 79901 Mr. Robert Burt Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Southern California Public Power Authority 111 North Hope Street, Room 1255-8 Los Ar-geles, California 90051 Mr. David Summers Public Service Company of New Mexico 414 Silver SW, #1206 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Mr. Brian Katz Southern California Edison Company 14300 Mesa Road, Drop D41-SONGS San Clemente, California 92672 Mr. Robert Henry Salt River Project 6504 East 'ihomas Road Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

7_-_____________-___-_-___-___

4 l

l

.e.

i bcc w/

Enclosure:

PDR IE 14 J ~

LPDR NUDOCS SECY EC's: RI, Ril, Rill

'CA PA (0-2G4) 1 EDO (0-17G21) OlG (T-5D28) i DEDO (0-17G21) LIEBERMAN, OE (0-7H5)

OE:EAFile (0 7H5) Ol (0-3E4)  ;

CHANDLER, OGC (0-15B18) GOLDBERG, OGC (0-15B18)  !

NRR (0-12G18) BOGER, NRR/ADP (0-12G18)-

NRR PROJECT MANAGER OC/DAF (T-9E10)

AEOD (T-4D18) RWise RA Reading File GSanborn-EAFile RIV Files MIS Coordinator j PAO-Henderson RSLO (Hackney) j LWilliamson, Of DRP Branch Chief )

I E-MAIL DISTRIBUTION:

OEMAIL JDyer (JED2)

TPGwynn (TPG) EMerschoff (EWM) l GSanborn (GFS) WBrown (WLB  !

BHenderson (BWH) CHackney (CAH)

DKunihiro (DMK1) GMVasquez (GMV)

Art Howell (ATH) Chamberlain (DDC)

KPerkins (KEP) PHarrell (PHH)

' SENIOR RESIDENT KBrockman (KEB)

DKirsch (DFK) SRothsteir, (SAR2) '

DNelson (DJN)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EA\ FINAL \EA98131.FNL R:\# ENFORCE \EACASES\EA98131.FNL (when issued)

'Y=

y }

OE ph Ok [ DRPW/hp OGhkh $/ N gg O[:D N

SRomstMn MShrius MFictdsh JGol5d5 EMemch@ Jbeberman 07/ /98 07/[ 8 . h/k/98  ; Ok//[/98 h/30/98 07/ /98 140021

- - - - - - - - -