IR 05000155/1986013

Fowards Insp Rept 50-155/86-13 on 860915-19 & Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $187,500 & Generic Ltr 88-07

ML20154N455
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point  File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	09/22/1988
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Hoffman D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
Shared Package
ML20154N458	List: ML20154N455 ML20154N468
References
CIVP-A-091, CIVP-A-91, EA-87-080, EA-87-80, GL-88-07, GL-88-7, NUDOCS 8809290311
Download: ML20154N455 (4)

Text

• '

. . -

'lkLDfDd.C ('tiO Sh

'

, ,

ZE/Y I

.

i September 22, 1988  ;

Docket No. 50-155 License No. DPR-06 EA 87-80 Consumers Power Company ATTN: David P. Hoffman Vice President Nuclear Operations 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY (NRC INSPECTION REPORT N0. 50-165/86013(DRS))

This r:;fers to the NRC inspection conducted on September 15-19, 1986, at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant of activities authorized by NRC License No. DPR-0 The inspection was conducted by a special environmental qualification (EQ)

inspection team to assess the program implemented at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant to meet the EQ requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. As a r7sult of the September 15-19, 1986 inspection, a violation of NRC regulatory requirements was identified. NRC concerns relative to this violation were discussed during Enforcement Conferences that were held on July 7, 1987 and July 21, 198 The violation described in the ent.losed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) involved examples of failures to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. The first example involved a Limitorque Motor Actuator that was removed from service after 13 years of operation and was then subjected to a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) test on April 23, 197 The actuator was reinstalled and returned to service. It continued to be used following the November 30, 1985 deadline for environmental qualification of equipment important to safety without being qual 1fied by testing and/or analysis to evaluate aging as well as potential degradation due to the LOCA test. The second example involved the use of environmentally unqualified butyl rubber and polyethylene insulated cables in Class 1E systems including the Main Steam Isolation Valve, the Core Spray System, the Containment Spray System, and the Reactor Depressurization Syste The NRC staff believes that Consumers Power Company (CPCo) clearly should have known about the EQ deficiencies described above. For Limitorque Actuator MO-7068, it should have been clear that the actuator was unqualified because the maintenance documentation provided by Limitorque following the 1975 LOCA testing of the valve actuator did not provide evidence that any refurbishment of the degradable materials had been accomplished or any evidence that such h92gCKc5000155 li eso9pp G

PNu t . _ _ _ _ .__ . -

. ___ . . _ _ - . .

4 , ,

.

.

. ,

• Consumers Power Comany 2 September 22, 1988 i

2 t

refurbishment had been considered and found unnecessar At the Enforcement l Conferences, CPCo took the position that analysis showed qualification of the -

! actuator for 40 years but the NRC staff has concluded that the data used to

}

support that conclusion did not consider the case in which an actuator had already undergone a once-in-a-lifetime LOCA test and CPCo should have recognized that fact.

. With regard to the unqualified cables inside the containment, CPCo was informed l in an NRC Inspection Report dated August 8, 1984 that the NRC staff had concerns l about the qualification of the cables and that report stated that those concerns !

could be addressed by testing the installed cable or by showing qualification

'

through testing already completed. CPCo decided to show qualification of the j cables by demonstrating similarity of the installed cables to cables already i i tested. It is the NRC staff's position that CPCo clearly should have known that ;

the similarity analysis that was performed by CPCo for the polyethylene  !

) insulated cable as well as the one it performed for the butyl rubber insulated I cable were deficient. In the case of the polyethylene insulated cable, the !

insulation formulation (which includes material, manufacturing process and i j

fabrication) was not shown to be similar to that of the tested cable. In the i i case of the butyl rubber insulated cable, the insulation formulation differed !

from that of the cable cited in the test report relied on by CPCo and the test !

{ conditions used in the cited test report were unstated and therefore could not !

j be shown to be equivalent to the conditions that the installed cable would be subjected to in a LOC [

j

!

>

To emphasize the importance of (1) management attention to, and control of, the l 3 EQ program, and (2) aggressive management action to ensure that problems are !

I promptly identified and corrected, I have been authorized, after consultation 1 l with the Director, Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations, tc issue the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition {

,

, of Civil Penalty (Enclosure 1) in the amount of One Hundred and Eighty-Seven l J Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($187,500) for the violation described in the [

]

enclosed Notice. In accordance with the "Modified Enforcement Policy Relating t i to 10 CFR 50.49," contained in Generic Letter 88-07 (Enclosure 2), the violation !

i described in the enclosed Notice has been determined to be moderate and to l have affected some systems and components, and therefore is considered to be !

an EQ Category B violation. The base value of a Civil Penalty for an EQ  :

Category B violation is $150,000.

!

l j In determining the civil penalty amount, the NRC considered the four factors j set forth in the "Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49," for ;

! escalation and mitigation of the base civil penalty amount. These factors i consist of (1) identification and prompt reporting of the EQ deficiencies l 3 (150%); (2) best efforts to complete EQ within the deadline (150%); j

! (3) corrective actions to result in full compliance (150%), and (4) duration l l of a violation which is significantly below 100 days (-50%), i l

With rr N ' to the first factor, no escalation or mitigation is warranted f since a. g W ral issues regarding qualification of cable were clearly  !

recogi i by 'he NRC staff and CPCo well prior to the November 30, 1985 l {

!

i

!  :

i

,

l

-- - -- ._ - - _-

I ,

• * *

l , .

.

' '

! i Consumers Power Company 3 September 22, 1988

!

.

!

deadline and a violation occurred in this case because CPCo failed to take !

adaquate corrective action. With respect to the second factor, 25 percent !

y mitigation is warranted because best efforts were applied by the licensee to i

complete EQ within the deadline. However, full mitigation for those efforts is l not appropriate because, notwithstanding the NRC staff's continued concerns ;

j with an issue as fundamental as cable qualification, CPCo did not satisfactorily l j resolve the issue prior to the deadlin With respect to the third factor, j

! 50 percent escalation is war.' anted since the licensee's efforts to make an !

operability or qualification determination were not timely and the quality of i i the supporting analyses were unacceptabl With respect to the fourth factor, (

j mitigation is inappropriate since the EQ violation existed in excess of 100 day ;

After reviewing these factors, the base civil penalty has been increased by ,

' 25 percen ;

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions L

'

. specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your i response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional l 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 requirement

j In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, '

i Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures l

) will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roo l The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject j to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required j by the Paper.<ork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-51 I I

Sincerely, g

OricinM ei- .d t'/  !

A Bert Davis  !

! A. Bert Davis '

j Regional Administrator J

"

Enclosures:  ! Notice of Violation and Proposed i 1 Imposition of Civil Penalty I l Generic Letter 88-07 l I Inspection Report l

<

No. 50-155/86013(DRS) -

1 l

! See Attached Distribution  !

j g

RIII a/ r 1 [db Gg RIII b;Q$

Schgtz RIII O Papert lg !

j IQ OE W OGC [g OE:D (97 DEORO (py

,

a is Luehman Chandler Lieberman Taylor

'

y 9-1-0 9-2M 9-s48 3+p

,

,

-

. - _ _ _ - _ , ,

4* 4

,

.

.

.. .

' Consumers Power Company 4 September 22, 1988 Distribution cc w/ enclosures:

Mr. Kenneth W. Berry, Director Nuclear Licensing Thomas W. E1 ward, Plant Manager '

Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan Department of Public Health PDR LPOR SECY l

CA OGPA g 0CO/DCB (RIOS) .

J. M. Taylor, OEDRO l J. Lieberman, OE L. Chandler, OGC T. Murley, NRR J. Luehman, OE RAO: RIII PAO:RIII SLO:RIII M. Stahulak, RIII Enforcement Coordinators, RI, RII, RIV, and RV E. Jordan AE00 B. Hayes 01 S. Connelly, OIA OE File EA File

.

o

-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - -