ML20137Y042
| ML20137Y042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/14/1994 |
| From: | Ignatonis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Selewski V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137Y003 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9704220300 | |
| Download: ML20137Y042 (6) | |
Text
-
V 5efews 14 m ' 4//
Ignatonis (AJI)
From:
Algis J.
To:
VGS Date:
Wednesday, Decemb 1994 1:44 pm
Subject:
RII-94-A-0105
-Reply
- h. lc i
The alleger's name is not f amiliar to me, and because of the way we set-up the files, we no longer have the capability to do a search of names by computer.
However, I will check the ALLEGATIONS LOG by subject matter for concerns that may have been brougth to us by the same alleger before RII-94-A-0105.
i I
l
,l V
information in this record was deleted jh in acccice -a "Ah ite Freedom of Information
//
Act, exempuca __ _-
94 WI F0lA-
~"
j )
,,, /
9704220300 970417 2 E PDR FOIA
/ /).
(<-
t BINDER 96-485 PDR
l V
ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT PANEL I
QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE AVAllABLE FOR ENFORCEMENT PANEL I
c PREPARED BY:
DATE PREPARED:
May 16.1995 NOTE: The Section Chief is responsible for preparation of this questionnaire and its distribution to attendees prior to an Enforcement Panel.
(This information will be used by EICS to prepare the enforcement letter and Notice, as well as the transmittal memo to.the Office of Enforcement explaining and justifying the
]
Region's proposed escalated enforcement action.)
i 1.
Facility:
St. Lucie Unit (s):
1 Docket Nos:
50-335 License Nos:
OpR-67 Inspection Dates:
NA Lead Inspector:
NA 2.
NOTES:
A.
A draft Notice of Violation, including the recommended severity level for each violation, should be enclosed.
The violation (s) in the Notice should be Carefully considered by both the inspector and Section chief, and should be complete regarding the specific requirement to be cited and the appropriate level of specificity as i
to how and when the requirement was violated.
i B.
Copies of applicable Technical Specifications or license conditions cited in the Notice should be enclosed.
3.
Identify the reference to the Enforcement Policy Supplement (s) that best fits the violation (s) (e.g., Supplement I.C.2) 1.C.3 or I.D.4 4.
What is the apparent root cause of the violation or problem?
coanitive operator action -- failure to inform the facility licensee the he had manipulated the wrono valve while oerformina a procedure
--This document contains predecisional information--
It can not be disclosed outside NRC without the 3
aprpval Mow.aLeia ih, rtot ws ghe Regional Adninistrator
/p in eccoidance with{.e freedom of Information Act, exemplict F01A-
1 5.
State the message that should be given to the licensee (and industry) through this enforcement action.
_ honesty is the best policy 6..
Factual information related to the following civil penalty escalation or mitigation factors (see attached matrix and 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C,.
Section VI.B.2.):
a.
IDENTIFICATION: (Who identified the violation? What were the facts and circumstances related to the discovery of the violation? Was it self-disclosing?
Was it identified as a result of a generic notification?)
this was identified by the facility licensee's investiar. tion of the events surroundina a temocrary loss of decay heat removal b.
CORRECTIVE ACTION:
Although we expect to learn more. information regarding corrective action at the enforcement conference, describe preliminary information obtained during ' the inspection and exit' interview.
the operator involved voluntarily terminated his employment with FP&L and his NRC operator's license was terminated What were the immediate corrective actions taken upon discovery of the violation, the - development and implementation of long-term corrective action and the timeliness of corrective actions?
NA
--This document contains predecisional information--
It can not be disclosed outside NRC without the approval of the Regional Adninistrator
l
?
4.
t What was tie degree of licensee initiative to address the violation i
and the adequacy of root cause analysis?
the facility' licensee was vert aaressive in determinina the root cause at +he event.
The root cause analysis appears thorouah.
i l
c.
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE:
This factor takes into account the last two years or the period within the last two inspections, whichever is longer.
l List past violations that may be related to the current violation
-(include specific requirement cited and the date issued):
NA a
1 l
Identify the applicable SALP category, the rating for this category l
and the overall rating for the last two SALP periods, as well as any L
trend indicated:
i NA l
l d.
PRIOR OPPORTUNITY TO IDENTIFY:
Were there opport.it'es for the l
licensee to discover the violation sooner such as through normal t-surveillances, audits, QA activities, specific NRC or industry notification, or reports by employees?
i j
there were no orior opportunities to identify this i
i
--This document contains predecisional information--
It can not be disclosed outside NRC without the approval of the Regional Adninistrator I
i 1
I I
1 e.
MULTIPLL OCCURRENCES: Were there multiple examples of the violation identified during this inspection?
If there were, identify the number of examples and briefly describe each one.
NA j
d f.
DURATION:
How long did the violation exist?
g.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS / NOTES:
l
--This docum'ent contains predecisional information--
It can not be disclosed outside NRC without the approval of the Regional Adninistrator
I NOTICE OF VIOLATION Utility Florida Power and Light Docket Nos. 50-335 Unit (s) 1 License Nos.DPR-67 During an NRC inspection conducted on violation (s) of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Action,10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violation (s) is listed below:
10 CFR 50.5, Deliberate misconduct requires that any employee of a licensee may not: deliberately submit to a licensee information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC.
Contrary to the above, on March 4, 1995, a licensed operator, docket number xxxxxx, operated a valve that caused a temporary loss of shutdown cooling at St.
Lucie Unit 1, repositioned the valve to restore shutdown cooling, and failed to inform licensee management that his operation of the valve was the cause of the loss of shutdown cooling.
This is a Severity Level III Violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to toe U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, ar.1 a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to the Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an nrder or Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extend the response time.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this day of January 1993
,