Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |
EA-96-273 - Point Beach 1 & 2 (Wisconsin Energy Corporation)EA 96-273 Mr. R. A. Abdoo SUBJECT: POINT BEACH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES -$325,000 (NRC Integrated Inspection Report Nos. 50-266/96006; 50-301/96006 and 50-266/96007; 50-301/96007) Dear Mr. Abdoo: This refers to the inspections conducted from June 12 through August 23, 1996, at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. The inspections included a review of the conduct of control room activities, plant configuration control, post-maintenance and inservice testing, and conduct of dry cask storage activities. The reports documenting the inspections were sent by letter dated September 5, 1996, and November 6, 1996, and an open pre-decisional enforcement conference was conducted on September 12, 1996. Based on the information developed during the inspections and the information that was provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding the violations are described in detail in the subject inspection reports. The issues we identified reflect significant weaknesses in the areas of operations, maintenance, and engineering at your Point Beach facility which involve all levels of your organization. While these issues are of significant regulatory concern, we are also concerned by the inadequate response (and sometimes the lack of a response) by your staff to most of these issues. This indicates to us that there is a need for greater attention to: (1) what Technical Specifications (TS), NRC regulations, and Point Beach procedures require; and (2) the importance of full compliance with these safety requirements. The violations in Section I of the Notice involve three separate occasions when licensed operators were inattentive to their duties, in addition to examples of inadequate on-shift staffing. On July 15, 1996, an NRC inspector observed on-shift control room watchstanders viewing a training videotape in the control room. Further review determined that viewing videotapes in the control room was a routine practice that had been ongoing for several years. On July 31, 1996, an NRC inspector observed that a Unit 1 Control Operator had left his normally assigned watch station to get a cup of coffee without a required short-term watch relief. We are particularly concerned that when the Duty Shift Supervisor was questioned about these incidents, he incorrectly informed the inspectors that these activities were allowed by plant procedures. On August 14, 1996, an NRC inspector observed the Unit 1 Control Operator fail to respond to a control board alarm until prompted by a senior reactor operator. When we discussed this observation with the Operations Manager (in the presence of the Site Manager), he indicated that he was not concerned because operators have good teamwork in the control room and an operator will occasionally miss an alarm. Finally, your staff identified that on August 14, 1996, the Duty Technical Advisor left the site while on duty, and, although capable of responding to the control room within the minimum time specified in the TS, being offsite was contrary to TS. This apparently had been an accepted practice for the past five years. The violations in Section I of the Notice represent inattentiveness to duty on the part of licensed personnel. This does not appear to be an isolated problem at Point Beach and is a significant regulatory concern. Therefore, the violations have been classified in the aggregate in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level III problem. The violations in Section II of the Notice involve the: (1) failure to maintain adequate configuration control of the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system following maintenance on the turbine-driven AFW pump resulting in taking the reactor critical with the pump's discharge valves closed, in violation of TS; (2) failure of the inservice testing program for the safety injection pumps to incorporate appropriate design basis acceptance criteria; and, (3) failure to require testing gages to be accurate within acceptable limits. During the 1996 Unit 1 refueling outage, the turbine-driven AFW pump governor valve stem was replaced. Testing procedures conducted following the stem replacement did not provide for restoration of the pump's discharge flow path valve lineup following the maintenance activity. Additionally, the work order associated with the stem replacement specified a cold fast start test as part of the required operability post-maintenance testing. Despite this requirement, the reactor was taken critical without the cold fast start test having been performed and with the pump discharge valves closed, which rendered the pump's flowpath inoperable. The violations in Section II of the Notice represent a breakdown in control of licensed activities and have been classified in the aggregate in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, as a Severity Level III problem. The violation in Section III of the Notice involves your staff failing to take prompt corrective action following the identification of a condition adverse to quality. Specifically, after completion of a calculation in April 1996, your staff concluded that the number of service water pumps required to mitigate a design basis accident was greater than the number specified in both the Final Safety Analysis Report and TS. Your staff implemented administrative controls to increase the required number of service water pumps necessary for safe operation. However, this action was not adequate because you did not promptly request an amendment to the TS. As a result, the TS did not accurately specify the lowest functional capability or performance level of the service water system required for safe operation of your facility as required by 10 CFR 50.36. This violation represents a significant failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, and has been categorized in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, as a Severity Level III violation. The violations in Section IV of the Notice are based on the results of an inspection performed by an Augmented Inspection Team following the hydrogen ignition event which occurred during welding on a VSC-24 spent fuel cask. Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210, the Wisconsin Electric Power Company has been granted a general license to store spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation at its Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. The inspection of activities conducted under that general license, found that the weight of the multi-assembly sealed basket (MSB) shield lid was not appropriately translated from the safety analysis report into several procedures and there was an inadequate procedure for placing the MSB transfer cask into the spent fuel pool. In addition to these findings, it was determined that the use of Carbo Zinc 11 paint, in a borated water environment was not properly assessed by you and your vendor, Sierra Nuclear Corporation. The paint generates hydrogen in a borated water environment and adequate controls to deal with the hydrogen were not provided. Several opportunities to identify the generation of hydrogen during previous cask loading operations had been missed. Finally, a safety evaluation was not performed for improperly sized rigging utilized for lowering the MSB into the ventilated concrete cask, and a safety evaluation for weighing the MSB shield lid while in place was not adequate. These violations of the requirements of 10 CFR Part 72 represent a breakdown in control of licensed activities associated with dry cask storage activities and have been classified in the aggregate in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, as a Severity Level III problem. During the enforcement conference, your staff identified a number of root causes for these violations including weaknesses in: (1) questioning attitudes, (2) management expectations, (3) resolution of issues, (4) attention to detail, (5) communications, and (6) organizational design. Numerous corrective actions were described to address these root causes. In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 for power reactors was considered for each Severity Level III violation or problem in Sections I, II, and III of the Notice. A base civil penalty in the amount of $12,500 for independent spent fuel installations was considered for the problem in Section IV of the Notice. Because your facility has been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years1, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. Credit was not warranted for identification because the NRC identified the Severity Level III problems in Sections I, II, and IV of the Notice and the Severity Level III violation in Section III of the Notice. After consideration of the factor of corrective action, NRC has determined that credit was not warranted for the violations associated with licensed operator inattentiveness noted in Section I of the Notice because of your failure to recognize the unacceptability of the NRC identified operator performance issues and the resulting failure to properly initiate corrective actions. As to the violations in Section II of the Notice, although you presented a number of corrective actions in LER No. 96-002, in response to the April 1996 AFW configuration control event, we note that following testing in August 1996, the Unit 2 service water valve SW-104 was found out-of-position by the NRC, indicating your corrective actions in response to configuration control inadequacies were not comprehensive. Finally, your staff's corrective actions for the inservice testing and post-maintenance testing violations were not prompt because they were only initiated just prior to the enforcement conference, despite these issues having been identified by the NRC at least a month earlier. In addition, credit is not warranted for your corrective actions taken in response to the violation described in Section III of the Notice, involving your staff's failure to take prompt corrective action to request an amendment to your TS. At the time of the pre-decisional enforcement conference, your staff had not requested an amendment to assure that the required number of service water pumps for safe operation of the facility were accurately listed in the TS, and an amendment was not requested until September 30, 1996. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that credit is not warranted for the factor of corrective action for the Severity Level III problems in Sections I and II, and the Severity Level III violation in Section III of the Notice. Therefore, after consideration of the factors of identification and corrective action, a civil penalty of $100,000 is being assessed for each of the Severity Level III problems and violations in Sections I, II, and III of the Notice. As to the violation described in Section IV of the Notice, NRC considered your corrective action prompt and comprehensive. With no credit warranted for the factor of identification, as described above, normal application of the Enforcement Policy would result in a base civil penalty of $12,500 being assessed for the violations associated with the VSC-24 spent fuel cask. However, because of the need to stress the importance of (1) properly conducting spent fuel cask loading operations; (2) being attentive to the indications of hydrogen generation that would have alerted your staff to the need for adequate controls during welding operations; and (3) ensuring that cask design details, such as paint, are thoroughly evaluated for interactions with materials in the plant environment by cask vendors and plant engineering, I have been authorized to exercise enforcement discretion and double the proposed base civil penalty. The penalty for the violation associated with the VSC-24 spent fuel cask is $25,000. Therefore, to emphasize the need for full compliance with NRC regulatory requirements, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement to issue the enclosed Notice in the total amount of $325,000 for the Severity Level III violation and problems described in the Notice. You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with 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). Sincerely, /s/ A. B. Beach A. Bill Beach Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301; 72-005 Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties cc w/encl:
AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTIES Wisconsin Electric Power Company Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301; 72-005 Point Beach Nuclear Plant License Nos. DPR-24; DPR-27 Units 1 and 2 EA 96-273 During NRC inspections conducted on June 12 through August 23, 1996, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the NRC proposes to impose civil penalties 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 penalties are set forth below: I. Violations Associated with Licensed Operator Inattentiveness and On-Duty Shift Staffing 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Instructions, Procedures and Drawings," requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures or drawings. This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I) II. Violations Associated with the Auxiliary Feedwater and Safety Injection Systems A. TS 15.3.4.A.2.a requires for two-unit operation when the reactor is heated above 350·F, that the reactor not be taken critical unless all four auxiliary feedwater pumps together with their associated flow paths and essential instrumentation are operable. This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I). Civil Penalty - $100,000. III. Violation Associated with the Service Water System TS 15.3.3.D requires that neither reactor be made or maintained critical unless four service water pumps are operable, two from each train. The basis for TS 15.3.3.D states, in part, that a total of six pumps are installed, only two of which are required to operate during the injection and recirculation phases of a postulated loss-of-coolant accident. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, "Corrective Action," requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as deficiencies, deviations, and nonconformances are promptly 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. This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I). IV. Violations Associated With Dry Cask Storage Activities A. 10 CFR 72.212(b)(7) requires the licensee to comply with the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Compliance for each cask model used for storage of spent fuel. This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement VI). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) 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 Penalties (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 penalties 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 penalties proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalties 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 penalties will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, in whole or in part, such 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 penalties should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalties in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties. In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, 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 civil penalties. Upon failure to pay any civil penalties 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 penalties, 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 penalties, 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 III, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice. 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. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. Dated at Lisle, Illinois 1. A Severity Level III violation (identified in July 1995) was issued on October 11, 1995 (EA 95-158). |
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |