ML20246H941

Forwards Insp Rept 50-440/89-11 on 890320-0419 & Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $37,500

ML20246H941
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/11/1989
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Kaplan A CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
Shared Package
ML20246H945	List: ML20246H941 ML20246H975
References
EA-89-091, EA-89-91, NUDOCS 8907170245
Download: ML20246H941 (4)

See also: IR 05000440/1989011

Text

_ _ _ _ .

- __

'

, ,

1 M

.

,

YEB (407)

..

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 VIOLATIN AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $37,500

(NRC INSPECTION REFORT NO. 50-440/89011(DRS))

This refers to the inspection conducted during the period March 26 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 a' c tions regarding previously identified

environmental qualification firdings. 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

committed 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 -

committed to expansion of the content and application of EQ training to address

the inspection findings.

1

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 unqualifieti terminal block in a Limitorque actuator which

resulted in a 100% walkdown by your staff. The wilkdown 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 drainape.

<

With respect to Target Pock 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. i

You attributed the current deficiencies to a lack of detailed torque instructions.

na>>nna r;6

0

he 'c i

L _____ - _- _ - .Y

- -_ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ . _

l

q J i

'

l

.

,

1

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

additional inspection and evaluation but rather on a 1983 review which at the

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, yuur staff apparently failed

to question why certain Limitorque operators did not have "T" drains. Separate

enforcement action for the quality of your response was deemed inappropriate

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

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

NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, 53 Fed. Reg 40019

(October 13,1988) (Enforcement Policy), the violation described in the

enclosed Notice 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

ap;ropriate because of your extensive actions to correct not only the identified

problems but your corrective action program as well. After considering your past

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 raise 0 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

j response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional

l

l

l

_ . _ _ _ - _

) '

,

4

The Cleveland Electric 111uminating 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, Pub. L., No.96-511.

Sincerely.

0:2::'-3 ' 4

A. Een : e'a

A. Bert Davis I

Regional Administrator

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition

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

Dept.rtment

Harold W. Kohn, Ohio EPA

Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

James W. Harris, State of Ohio

Roger Suppes, Ohio

Department of Health

State of Ohio, Public Utilities Commission

df

\

pr

[M .

Rlli h D$ Rlli Rlli R I

BStapleton/mj hompson Miller n CPap (iello A ,v,i s

.p S/7 $ $ w

I

-

!

g ..

.

.

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating 4 July 11, 1989

Company

DISTRIBUTION:

PDR

.

'

LPDR

SECY

l CA

HThompson, DEDS

JMTaylor, DEDR

JLieberman, OE

ABDavis, RIII

JGoldberg, 0GC

TMurley, NRR

JPartlow, NRR

Enforcement Coordinators

RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV

Resident Inspector

FIngram,GPA/PA

BHayes, 01

MMalsch, OIG

EJordan, AEOD

JLuehman, OE

DE:Chron

OE:EA

'DCSC. ~

Sthte of Ohio

"-

I

I

I

!

!

-

.

1

_ _ - _ _ ._ __

___

_ _ = _

M*

gg,4

v- Age

l

IMAGE EVALUATION

<

9,

6,

tO v 's

TEST TARGET (MT-3) </

//o//p;(j%k#

g/ &  %,'[g,f[" ,t

+  %

l.0 2

,_ lt$,g*22

,_.

?: i::

l,l ') '"' hb

I.8

1.25 1.4 1.6

4 150mm >

4 6" >

e + sA

A<>

, ,r 3.-

%4

,

- - -

1. p3c;::,

s

y,; 7/ <<

4pv

o;,  ;

ge

4

% _ _ _ _ _

_ , _ _ . _ . - . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ , _ - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , - - _ _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ _

.. \$? %h^ $Q

IMAGE EVALUATION

xxxxq/oJ l'4}4 TEST TARGET (MT-3)

//// c d$;p

+ .

I,0 Ea E

,= m g n

tm

C lll!N

l,l

l!L

l.25 1.4 1.6

4 150mm >

• 6" >

.>

4lllf{;y%g,,gppf

,

-

,_ f)+sp'g

g

,

y

Oh _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_____ _ - _ - _ _ _ _

sk

o-Q<*h*a

-

$0

e V. g#y q

't 9 IMAGE EVALUATION ,t @,

//g// 1,[ %k* TEST TARGET (MT-3) /

,

1

/,7' ([g,,4F/ #g1

Y*& * 24*<h*

l.0 iW M

, i_ m g=n

a

1.1

b tu llQ=2 =

l 1.8

<__

l.25  ! l.4 'l

l . . ~_ ~~

. l s.6 G

4 150mm >

4 6" >

k  %, <$' 'b

,

.

-

< g ////4

gp$7773j,

o y

w

_ _ _

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

0*Q)f

+o +A %s$',

%

o

g l0

s.

t IMAGE EVALUATION

4- 6" > >>  % ef% ' */ ,y , - _

. .

_ fh+sp~$ $; Sfj; . gc> 9 ,, - - -