| |
|||
| Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us | |
||
EA-96-327 - Washington Nuclear 2 (Washington Public Power Supply System)EA 96-327 J. V. Parrish, Chief Executive Officer
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL
PENALTY - $100,000
(NRC Inspection Report No. 50-397/96-19)
Dear Mr. Parrish: This refers to the matters discussed with Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System) representatives at the predecisional enforcement conference conducted on October 22, 1996, in Arlington, Texas. As noted in NRC Inspection Report 50-397/96-19, issued September 23, 1996, the conference was conducted to discuss several apparent violations of Technical Specification requirements at the Washington Nuclear Project-2 facility, Richland, Washington. Based on the information developed during the inspection, and the information that you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements did occur. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice), and the circumstances surrounding them were described in detail in the subject inspection report. Briefly, the violations involved: 1) shifting plant operational modes with one train of the control room emergency filtration system inoperable; 2) shifting plant operational modes without conducting required equipment surveillances (four examples); 3) not having an adequate procedure to assure that a required stroke-time test of reactor core isolation cooling containment isolation valves was performed prior to a mode change and in accordance with established procedures; and 4) failing to conduct required equipment surveillances during plant operations (two examples). These violations appear to have been caused by ineffective processes and procedures for verifying completion of required surveillance tests, and, in part, a poor understanding of the involved requirements for completing surveillance tests prior to mode change. At the conference, the Supply System expressed no disagreement with the apparent violations; described a number of specific and broad corrective actions to address the root causes; noted that the Supply System had identified all but one of the issues; and pointed out the similarity between two of the current violations and previous violations and stated that the corrective actions from the previous violations had been less than fully effective. Additionally, despite the number of violations, the Supply System stated its perspective that the violations did not indicate a systemic degradation in Nuclear Operations performance. Finally, the corrective actions described by the Supply System to address the current violations included the implementation of process and procedural enhancements, establishment of a surveillance and post-maintenance testing team, discussions of the events with operating crews, and lessons-learned training. Although these violations did not result in actual safety consequences, the NRC considers the regulatory significance of the violations high. Taken collectively, the violations indicate that the Supply System did not maintain an effective program for assuring that required operational checks of equipment were performed at the appropriate times and in accordance with the Technical Specifications. The number of violations, and the fact that they occurred over a relatively short period of time, suggest a serious weakness in this very fundamental and important area. In addition, similar violations were cited in August 1995, as part of a Severity Level III problem that resulted in a $50,000 civil penalty being assessed (EA 95-096). As you acknowledged at the conference, your corrective actions for the previous violations focused on human performance and did not address the process-related weaknesses that were at the root of the current violations. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, these violations are classified in the aggregate as a Severity Level III problem. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty with a base value of $50,000 is considered for a Severity Level III problem. Because your facility has been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years, as noted above, the NRC would normally consider whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in determining whether a civil penalty should be assessed, as described in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. As discussed above, the Supply System identified most of the violations and has taken corrective actions which we consider prompt and comprehensive. We believe it is important to note that the Supply System identified most of the current violations, and important to recognize that this is, in and of itself, a sign of improved performance on the part of the Supply System. However, the fact that these violations occurred, particularly in light of the NRC having taken escalated enforcement action in 1995 for violations with similar root causes, remains a significant regulatory concern. The NRC takes escalated enforcement action infrequently and does so, in part, to encourage prompt and comprehensive corrective action to prevent potentially significant violations from recurring. Thus, notwithstanding the Supply System's efforts in identifying and correcting the current violations, and to emphasize: 1) the significance of taking corrective actions that are effective in precluding similar violations; and 2) the fundamental importance of having an effective program for assuring that surveillances are performed as required, I have been authorized, after consulting with the Director, Office of Enforcement and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research, to issue the enclosed Notice proposing a $100,000 civil penalty in accordance with the discretion described in Section VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy. 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. 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 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). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
Sincerely,
/s/
L. J. Callan
Regional Administrator
Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Docket No.: 50-397 cc w/Enclosure: Olympia, Washington 98504-3172 Chairman Mr. Paul R. Bemis (Mail Drop PE20) Mr. Rodney L. Webring (Mail Drop PE08) Mr. Greg O. Smith (Mail Drop 927M) Mr. David A. Swank (Mail Drop PE20) Mr. Al E. Mouncer (Mail Drop 396) Ms. Lourdes C. Fernandez (Mail Drop PE20) Mr. Malcolm H. Phillips, Jr., Esq.
AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY
Washington Public Power Supply System Docket No. 50-397
Washington Nuclear Project-2 License No. NPF-21
EA 96-327
During an NRC inspection conducted on June 28 through September 4, 1996, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, 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 violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below: A. Technical Specification 3.0.4 states, in part, that entry into an OPERATIONAL CONDITION or other specified condition shall not be made unless the conditions for the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met without reliance on provisions contained in the ACTION requirements. The above violations represent a Severity Level III problem (Supplement
I). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Washington Public Power Supply System is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps 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 or a Demand for Information may be issued as 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 above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, 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 answer should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violations 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 answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty. In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy 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 directed to the 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 determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c. The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: James Lieberman, Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at WNP-2. Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. However, if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public. Dated at Arlington, Texas, |
|
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |