ML20195B566

Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $25,000 Based on Problem Re Emergency Diesel Generator Inability to Perform Design Basis Functions

ML20195B566
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	10/31/1988
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	FLORIDA POWER CORP.
Shared Package
ML20195B560	List: ML20195B555 ML20195B566
References
EA-88-034, EA-88-34, NUDOCS 8811020076
Download: ML20195B566 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ __. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

s i '

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN Ir. the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-302 Crystal River Unit 3 ) License flo. OPR-72 Crystal River, Florida ) EA 88-34 ORDER It! POSING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY I

Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River, Florida (Itcensee) is the holder of Operating License No. OPR-72 (license) issued by the fluelear Regulatory Comis-i sion (Comission or NRC) on January 28, 1977. The license authorizes the licensee to operate the Crystal River facility in accordance 'ith the condi-tions specified therein.

II An NRC inspection of the licensee's activities under the license was conducted on November 30 - December 4,1987 The results of tnis inspection indicated j that the licensee had not conducted its activities in full ccepliance with NRC requiru ents. A written Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil The

- Penalty (Nutice) was served upon the licensee by letter dated May 4, 1988.

Notice stated the nature of the violation, the provision of the NRC's require-rents that the licensee had violated, and the arount of the civil penalty proposed for the violation. The Itcensee responded to the Noti:e of Violation j and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty by letter dated June 2, 1988. In its

, response, the licensee admits the violation and does rot take issue with the Severity Level, but requests nitigation of the civil penalty on the basis that the nitigation factors in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C Section V.B. were not appropriately applied in assessing the penalty.

I 9811010076 G:31031 PDR ADOCK O*!000302 o PDC

--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ -

r- =-----------------,

%' 7 i .

-2

v; I!!

I After consideration of the licensee's response and the statements of fact, r .- r explanations, and argum nt for mitigation contained therein, the Deputy Execu-tive Director for Regional Operations has determir.ed, as set forth in the Appendix to this Order, that the original penalty proposed for the violation .

designated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Impo'ition of Civil Penalty should be mitigated by 50%.

IV l.

l In view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2282, FL 96-295) and 10 CFR 2.205, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The licensee pay a civil penalty in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) within 30 days of the date of this Order, by check, craft, or money order, payable to the Treasurer of the United States f and mailed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Docueent Control Desk, Washington, D.C. j 20555.

I l

V j A

The licer.see may request a hee:ing within 30 days of the date of this Order.  !

request for a hearing shall be cicarly rarked as a "Request for an Enforcement

s J

3 Hearing" and ' ball be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcerrent, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Det k, Washington, D.C.

20555, with a copy to the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcernent, the Regional Adtninistrator, Region 11, and to the NRC Resident inspecter, Crystal River, Unit ,'.

If a hearing is requested, the Cero,ission will issue an Order designating the titre and place of the hearing. If the licerste fails to request a hearing within 30 days of the date of this Order, the provisions to this Order shall be effective witnout further proceedings. If payrrent has not been made by L.',at time, the natter may be referred to the Attorney General for collection.

In the event the licensee requests a hearing as provided above, the issue to be censidered at such hearing shall be:

whether en the basis of the violatioris set forth in the flotice cf Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty referenced in Section !! above, which the licensee has admitted, this Orcer should tie sustained.

FOR THE tlUCt. EAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION

- l h "C Ty , Deputy Executive Director V for Operatlons Dated at Reckville,flaryland thisjl4dayofCctober1988

I l

APPENDIX EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION On May 4, 1988 a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Pendity  !

(Notice) was issued for violations identified during an NRC inspection. Florida Power Corporation responded to the Notice on June 2, 1988. The licensee admits the violation, but request 3 mitigation of the civil penalty. t Restatement of Violation >

(

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterinn XVI, requires measures be established to j

assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions,  ;

deficiencies, deviations, defective materials and equipment, and none i cenformances are promptly identified and corrected. i Contrary to the above, from May 1980 until October 1987, the licensee failed to  ;

assure that a condition adverse to quality, nanely, a potentially overloaded l emergency diesel generator (EDG), was promptly identified and corrected.

Specifically: (a) the load on EDG/A, for certain design basis events, would l

have been approxfnately 3545 kw which is above the manufacturer's published ,

l 30-minute rating of 3300 kw; (b) on several occasione, the licensee performed the 18-month surveillance testing of both A and B diesel generators with loads  ;

above the 3000 kw rating, and the licensee failed to identify and perform, ,

af ter each such run, the manufacturer's recomended inspection of certain

• critical components; and (c) the licensee had not identified that surveillance

' testing was performed at a maxirum of 3100 kw even though the worst case design  !

basis accident load given in the Final Safety Analysis Report is 3180 kw.

Sumary of 1.f censee's Response

\

f Florida Power Corporation (FPC) admits that the violation occurred and does I not take issue with its Severity level. However, FTC requests mitigation of  ;

the civil penalty on the basis that the mitigation factors in 10 CFR Part 2 l l

Appendix C,Section V,B., were not appropriately applied in assessing the l penalty, its argunents in support of mitigation r e that its corrective 1

actions were timely and aggressive, that it identified the violation, and ,

! that proper credit was nat given for its Configuration Management Program. i l

i NRC Evaluation

! Under the NRC's Enforcement Policy, in ef fect at the time of the violation l was identified, reductions of up to 50% of the base civil penalty may be given l when a licensee identifies the violation and promptly reports it to the NRC. f

)

i in weighing this factor, consideration will be given to, among other things,  :

I j the length of time'the violatinn existed prior to discovery, the opportunity  !

available to discuver the violation, the ease of discovery and the promptness and completeness of any required report. In addition, the staff gives credit i for effective comprehensive licenset programs for detection of prcblems that I may constitute, or lead te violation of regulatory requirements. [

t With respect to the problem as described in the NOV, the staff credits the ,

licenste with identifying the problen. The staff recognizes that the problem l 1

existed for approximately seven years as a result of a fundamental error that l i was incorporated at the tire of a design modification (January 1980), but notes l

' that there was not a reasonable opportunity to discover the problem prior to f

r

.. j J

Appendix ,

the time when the licensee began a detailed review of the EDG loading in J'ine 1987. The staff has reconsidered the complexity of the problem as it related to the length of time that it took the licensee to fully realize and understand the extent of the problem, and the premptness and completeness with 4

which the licensee submitted the required reports. While the licensee argues that mitigation for identification is appropriate based on their comprehensive Ccnfiguration Managerent Program (CHP), the FF,C notes that in the case of this violatten, the problem was not discovered fron the CHP, but rather while determining the setting for an emergency diesel generator directional power relay which was being added to correct prcblems disclosed during an event described in LER 84-003-00. Nevertheless, the staff has concluded to mitigate the original civil penalty by 507, for this factor.

l Mitigation of 50% may also be given for corrective actions which are unusually arompt and extensive. On the other hand, the civil penalty may be increased

)y as much as 50% if inHietion of currective action is not prompt or if the corrective action is only minimally acceptable. In weighing this factor, J

consideration will be given to, among other things, the timeliness of the corrective action, degree of licensee initiative, and the comprehensiveness i

of the corrective action--such as whether the action is focused narrowly to the

! specific violation or broadly to the general area of concern.

Alt 5nugh the special testing which was conducted to empirically confirm the

loading calculations was an important part of the licensee's corrective action, the performance of these tests was only done at the insistence of the NRC to f support the licensee's request foi en exemption from the requirements of GDC-17.

Furthermore, while the licensee is complying with the terms of the exemption, the licensee has not yet impicmented the long-term solution to bring the facility into cocpliance with GDC-17. As noted in the staff's h0V, the CMP represents a positive comitment to programatic cor. figuration enhancement; however, weaknesses still exist and need to be remedied in your planned efforts to improve the effectiveress of the CMP for prompt corrective action in the resolution of design problems. Therefore, tesed en .1 review of the above considerations for the factor of corrective actions, the base ancunt was not citigated or escalateo.

NPC Conclusi:n for reasons set forth herein, the NRC Staff has concluded that the licensee has provided an adequate basis for mitigation of the civil peralty by 50%.

Consequently, the civil penalty in the amount of $25,000 shculd be imposed.

..o. ,

Florica Power Corporation  :

DISTRIBUTION:

, PDR LPDR 7 SECY CA i JTaylor, DEDRO JNGrace, Rll i

-JLieberman, OE RPerfetti, OE LChandler, OGC Fingram, PA GJohnson, RM Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RI!!, RIV, RV TMurley NRR [

DCrutchfield, NRR

• L BHayes, O!

SConnelly, OIA  !

EJordan, AE00  :

CA file  !

ES File State of Florida DCS l l

I l

l 2

I i

l l

t E

I i

pp tl P 'L O d,

fl>

OE DD

0E RA:RI OGC OE:D v.c 10 ,

RPerfetti HWong HLErnst LChander JLieberman aflor 10/15/88 10/2 T/88 104W88 10h5/88 10L y/88 1/g/88 j i

I J