ML20246M099
| ML20246M099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1989 |
| From: | Lieberman J, Luehman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| EA-89-091, EA-89-91, EN-89-067, EN-89-67, NUDOCS 8907190059 | |
| Download: ML20246M099 (1) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
Da July 6, 1989 EN 89-67 I 0FFICE OF ENFORCEMENT i
NOTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT ACTION Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (EA89-91)
Perry Unit 1 Docket No. 50-440 a i
Subject:
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $37,500 f This is to inform the Commission that a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500) will be issued on or about July 11, 1989 to Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. This action is based on a violation for the licensee's failure to take proper corrective actions in response to a previous civil penalty for violations of the environmental qualification requirements of 10 CFR 50.49.
Specifically, following the licensee's response to the 10 CFR 50.49 civil penalty additional examples of three of the violations previously cited were discovered.
,' Overall, the base civil penalty was reduced by 25 percent after determining that 25 percent escalation was appropriate for NRC identification of two of the issues and 50 mitigation was appropriate for the licensee's extensive corrective actions.
It should be noted that the licensee has not been specifically informed of the enforcement action. The schedule of issuance and notification is:
Mailing of Notice July 11, 1989 Telephone Notification of Licenses July 11,1989 The State of Ohio will be notified.
The licensee has thirty days from the date of the Notice in which to respond.
Following NRC evaluation of the response, the civil penalty may be remitted, mitigated, or imposed by Order.
Contact:
J. Luehman, OE, 23280 J. Lieberman, OE, 20741 Distribution
/ ' -
MNBB Il3D Chairman Carr ED0 RM Comm. Roberts DEDR AE00 Comm. Rogers DEDS Comm. Curtiss OE SECY NMSS 4
, MAIL ADM: Doc. Mgt, Dr.
P.eg[ionalOfficesRII RI J RV 3' 3 i PDR /g[ RIV Fr RIII #: 3> RES DIG PRELIMINARY !NFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNTIL PUBLICLY ANN 0UNCED 8907190059 890706 k
4 UNITE 3 STATES
, je[M '- 8'88
%. NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION n S REGION III
- r. "j' 7ss noosevett noAo
_l OLEN ELLYN, ILUNol5 60M7 l July 11, 1989 Docket No. 50-440
- License No. NPF-58 EA 89-091 The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ATTN: Mr. Alvin Kaplan, Vice President Nuclear Group 10 Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $37,500 (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-440/89011(DRS))
This refers to the inspection conducted during the period March 20 through April 19, 1989, at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit One. The report of this inspection was sent to you on May 5,1989. During the inspection, the inspectors reviewed your corrective actions regarding previously identified environmental qualification findings. NRC concerns relative to the inspection
' findings were discussed with you and your staff during an enforcement conference conducted in the NRC Region III office on May 11, 1989.
The violation described in the enclosed Notice of Violation demonstrates significant weaknesses in your corrective action program with respect to violations identified during our 1987 EQ inspection. The previous inspection findings identified in 1987 involved significant deficiencies in the EQ program and resulted in a $25,000 civil penalty. As a result of that action, you conunitted to a review of equipment which required sealing from moisture intrusion and stated that Limitorque actuators contained either Marathon 300 terminal blocks, GE-EB-5 terminal blocks, or butt splices. Additionally, you comitted to expansion of the content and application of EQ training to address the inspection findings.
In response to our 1987 findings, your March 1988 response identified two operators containing unqualified terminal blocks which were reworked with acceptable Marathon 300 terminal blocks. The 1989 NRC inspection also identified a further example of an unqualified terminal block in a Limitorque actuator which resulted in a 100% walkdown by your staff. The walkdown resulted in 65 additional findings of wrong terminal blocks installed in Limitorque actuators. Additionally, you identified nine Motor Operated Valves (MOV) which did not contain "T" drains !
for moisture drainage.
With respect to Target Rock solenoid valves, the inspectors identified loose screws on one enclosure cover and subsequently found that seven of twenty solenoid valve covers had loose screws which might allow moisture intrusion.
You attributed the current deficiencies to a lack of detailed torque instructions, dt 9 ^
0 _ _ _ _ _
h.
4 _
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating 2 July 11, 1989 Company The NRC is concerned that serious deficiencies existed in the corrective action program which followed the identification of EQ problems. In addition to your corrective actions being inadequate and their scope very narrow, the
- . quality of certain portions of your response to the civil penalty was, in retrospect, poor. In particular, the portion of the response relating to the terminal block issue was of concern because it failed to explain that the review that was performed as part of your corrective actions was not based on l additional inspection and evaluation but rather on a 1983 review which at the l time of the civil penalty should have been judged to be of questionable accuracy. In addition, while you accurately stated that the locations of "T" drains on Limitorque operators were reviewed, your staff apparently failed to question why certain Limitorque operators did not have "T" drains. Separate 1 enforcement action for the quality of your response was deemed inappropriate l because it appears that the quality of the response is a direct result of the poor corrective actions which are the subject of the enclosed Notice.
To emphasize the need to take thorough corrective actions as well as to emphasize the need to properly communicate the extent of those actions to the NRC, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation j and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500) for the violation described in the enclosed ;
Notice. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for i NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C, 53 Fed. Reg. 40019 (October 13,1988) (Enforcement Policy), the violation described in the enclosed Notic; has been classified at a Severity Level III.
The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered.
With respect to identification and reporting 25 percent escalation was found '
appropriate given that the NRC identified two of the three problems. In the case of corrective actions a 50 percent reduction in the base civil penalty was found appropriate because of your extensive actions to correct not only the identified problems but your corrective action program as well. After considering your past 1 performance and the issue of prior notice the NRC staff has concluded that further .
adjustment of the base civil penalty is not appropriate. A good enforcement history in the area of corrective actions was balanced by recent concerns with your root cause analysis raised in inspections such as the Diagnostic Team Inspection and the prior notice of the issues contained in the Notice that was provided by the earlier civil penalty action. We would have expected that the previous civil penalty action would have generated a more comprehensive analysis of the scope of the underlying EQ problems and, consequently, identified and corrected the violations at issue. Therefore, an overall reduction of the base civil penalty by 25 percent is appropriate.
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 e
V
. c'.. .
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating 3 July 11, 1989 Company -
actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
' Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 Dub. L., No.96-511.
Sincerely,
<CN __
kW A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposi' .an of Civil Penalty
- 2. Inspection Report No. 50-440/89011(DRS) cc w/ enclosure:
F. R. Stead, Director, Nuclear Support Department M. D. Lyster, General Manager, Perry Plant Operations Department R. A. Newkirk, Manager, Licensing and Compliance Section S. S. Kensicki, Director, Perry Plant Technical Department Harold W. Kohn, Ohio EPA Terry 3. Lodge, Esq.
James W. Harris, State of Ohio
' Roger Suppes, Ohio Department of Health State of Ohio, Public Utilities Commission n
.f, ,
t'-
The Clevelan'd Electric Illuminating '4 July 11, 1989 Company DISTRIBUTION:
PDR LPDR SECY CA:
HThompson. DE00 JMTaylor. DEDR JLieberman, OE
~ABDavis, RIII JGoldberg, OGC.
TMurley, NRR JPartlow, NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV Resident Inspector FIngram, GPA/PA BHayes, 01 MMalsch, OIG-EJordan, AE0D JLuehman, OE OE:Chron OE:EA DCS State of Ohio l
l
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Docket No. 50-440 Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 License No. NPF-58 EA 89-091 During an NRC inspection conducted during the period March 20 through April 19, 1989, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, 53 Fed. Reg. 40019 (October 13,1988)
(Enforcement Policy), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violation and the associated civil penalty are set forth below:
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, " Corrective Action," requires that measures be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as nonconformances, are identified and corrected. In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.
A Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice)
(EA 87-206) was issued on February 11, 1988 which, in part, identified the following significant conditions adverse to quality:
- 1. Unqualified terminal blocks installed in Limitorque valve motor operators.
- 2. Target Rock solenoid operated valves with covers not installed in the environmentally qualified test configuration.
- 3. Limitorque valve motor operators with "T" drains improperly located to assure proper moi ~ure drainage.
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to assure that the above significant conditicns adverse to quality were promptly identified and corrected in that further examples of these problems were identified that had not been corrected as a result of actions taken in response to the Notice.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supple:nent I).
Civil Penalty - $37,500 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Cleveland Electric Illuminating j
Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or pp c 7
pp
l Notice of Violation 3 l
explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective actions that have been taken and the results achieved; (4) the corrective actions that will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an Order may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an Order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such an answer should be clearly marked as an
- Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violation listed in this Notice in whole or in part; (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances; (3) show error in this Notice; or (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such an answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g.,
citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the Licensee is di'ected r to other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been detennined in accordance with the applicable provision of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of l
I l
- - _ ----_9
(- .,-
. . . Notice of Violation 5 Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk,
. Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137.and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
FOR THE. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4W A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this lith day of July 1989 l
9
4
'( f
,...w.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION j REGION III
(
Report No. 50-440/89011(DRS)
Docket No.-50-440 . License No. NPF-58 Licensee: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 10 Center Road Perry, OH 44081 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, Ohio Inspection. Conducted: March 20 through April 19, 1989 f.W M. J. Kopp V 5/5/89 Inspector:
Reactor Inspector Date Also participating in the inspection and contributing to the report were:
B. Drouin, Region III A. Nolan, EG&G W%bW 6 6/U
]
Approved By: Ronald N. Gardner, Chief ,
Plant System Section Date I Inspection Sumary ;
Inspection en March 20 through April 19, 1989 (Report No. 50-440/89011(DRS)
Areas Inspected: Routine announced safety inspection of previously identified _3 findings regarding environmental qualification of electrical equipment within j the scope of 10 CFR 50.49, weep holes in terminal boxes, ASCO MSIV solenoids, i and Regulatory Guide 1.97 comitments (Modules 30703 and 92701).
Results: Within the area inspected, one apparent violation was identified regarding the licensee's apparent failure to take adequate corrective actions in regards to a previously identified EQ violation and one unresolved item was identified regarding environmental qualification. A deviation to a RG 1.97 l' comitment was also identified. The unresolved item and the deviation are sumarized below: ;
.gGJ %>kh
-C' 9