DD-90-06, Forwards Director'S Decision DD-90-06 Dtd 900925,for Info

Forwards Director'S Decision DD-90-06 Dtd 900925,for Info

ML20059M707
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	09/27/1990
From:	Hall J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Lyster M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
References
DD-90-06, DD-90-6, NUDOCS 9010050206
Download: ML20059M707 (2)

Text

-

\ ~

O ,

' Septes er 27, M Docket No. 50-440 Mr. Michael Lyst'er, Vice President Nuclear Group The Cleveland Electric illuminating Company 10 Center Road

. Perry, Ohio 44081'

SUBJECT:

DIRECTOR'S DECISION DD-90-06 DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 Enclosed for your information is a copy of Director's Decision DD-90 o dated September 25, 1990. The decision was issued in response to a Petition pursuant to Section 2.206 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations that was filed by Ms.-Susan L. Hiatt-on behalf of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc.

A copy of the decision has been filed with the Secretary of the Commission fortheCommission'sreviewinaccordancewith10CFR2.206(c). .

Sincerely, odginalsignedby James R. Hall, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-3 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page DISTRIBUTION N i PDIll-3 r/f NRC & Local PDRs DCrutchfield JZwolinski

-PKreutzer JRHall OGC EJordan(MNBB3302)

ACRS(10) PDIII-3 Gray EGreenman(R-Ill)

DOCUMENT NAME: COVER LTR 2.206 9

PDilb3/LA PDIII- PDIl1 /PD

. PltfWtrer JRHall JHaN n y /jf /90 7/16/ q /90 1

'\\

~

glp@S$5588E$p P

k. -

A.-Am:_. _mm _a_a -

mmm_ m2_ -_m2.i___m:_. _ _ --____.m._m.aum_-m__a_a._:m_- _ _ . _m_.-__-. _m-m-______.m_____._:_._.-____.._.m_._.__._____=___.u-.__m..w.--am__-. _.

,x

Mr. Michael D. Lyster Perry Nuclear Power Plant l .The Cleveland Electric Unit 1 l

Illuminating Company cc: Jay E. Silberg, Esq. Mr. James W. Harris, Director Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Division of Power Generation 2300 N Street, N.W. Ohio Department of Industrial  :

Washington, D.C. 20037 Relations '

P. O. Box 825  :

David E. Burke Columbus, Ohio 43216 The Cleveland Electric illuminating Company The Honorable Lawrence Logan P.O. Box 5000 Mayor, Village of Perry i Cleveland, Ohio 44101 4203 Harper Street Perry, Ohio 44081 1 Ret.ident Inspector's Office i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Honorable Robert V. Orosz I Parmly at Center Road Mayor, Village of North Perry .

Perry, Ohio 44081 North Perry Village Hall 1 4778 Lockwood Road Regional Administrator, Region 111 North Perry Village, Ohio 44081 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 799 Roosevelt Road Attorney General Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Department of Attorney General 1 30 East Broad Street  !

Frank P. Weiss, Esq. Columbus, Ohio 43216 l Assistant Prosecuting Attorney l 105 Main Street Radiological Health Program l Lake County Administration Center Ohio Department of Health  :

Painesville, Ohio 44077 1224 Kinnear Road Columbus, Ohio 43212 Ms. Sue Hiatt -

OCRE Interim Representative Ohio Environmental Protection 8275 Munson Agency i Mentor, Ohio 44060 DERR--Compliance Unit PO Box 1049 Terry J. Lodge, Esq. 1800 Watermark Drive N. Michigan Street ATTN: Zack A. Clayton Suite 105 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149  ;

Toledo, Ohio 43624 Mr. Phillip S. Haskell, Chairman John G. Cardinal, Esq. Perry Township Board of Trustees Prosecuting Attorney Box 65 Ashtabula County Courthouse 4171 Main Street Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Perry, Ohio 44081 Robert A. Newkirk State of Ohio ,

Cleveland Electric Public Utilities Commission Illuminating Company 180 East Broad Street Perry Nuclear Power Plant Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 ,

P. O. Box 97 E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081 w - - - .,, . - , - , . . . - . , - a. r v. ,--~..--..--,---n-,, - - - - - - , . , , - , . - , - ,

- _ . - - . . . - .. .__ - - . - _ - ~ -. . _ . -. - _ ~ .

omw C i

+ g

, UNITED STATES  !

f .$ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  ;

4 5 -

• WASHINGTON, D. C. 20f46

. p i t

%, .' . . . . /,5  !

Septster 25,1990 , ,

l Ms. Susan L. Hiatt l Ohio Citizens 3 for Responsible Energy, Inc.  !

8275 Munson Road Mentor, Ohio 44060 i

~

Dear Ms. Hiatt:

l On April 6,1990, you submitted a Petition pursuant to Section 2.fC J  !

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) that sought .o y, v < ,

shutdown of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, and the issuance a '# . .

of Violation and imposition of- a civil penalty, based upon the as.,n : - i that from November 1989 to April 6, 1990, Perry was operated in vio!.r e M  ;

the conditions of-its operating license as defined by the plant techn;-tr specifications.

By letter of May 29 1990 I acknowledged receipt of your petition and i denied the request for an,imediate shutdown. I also stated that we would -

take action on your request within a reasonable time. For the reasons-stated in the Director's Decision (Enclosure 1) under 10 CFR 2.206, (DD-  !

90-06 -), your request has been denied. A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Comission for the Comission's review in accord-ancewith10CFR2.206(c). As provided by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the Comission 25 days after the date of.

issuance of the Decision unless the Comission, on its own motion, insti-tutes a review of the Decision within thi.t time. Copies of this. Decision also will be placed in the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L. Street, ,

N. W., Washington, D. C. 20555, and in the local public document room located -

at the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, Perry, Ohio 44081. For your >

information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice filed with the Office of the Federal Register for. publication regarding this Decision.

L Sincerely,  !

@= - { s Thomas E. Murley, Director i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation '

Enclosures:

1. Director's. Decision (DD-90-Oti )

2. Federal Register Notice .

N E 2/7 %

C DD 06 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (Thomas E. Murley, Dimetor)

In the Matter of Docket No. 50-440 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. 10 CFR 2.206 *

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant i Unit 1)

DIRECTCR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

1. INTRODUCTION By Petition of April 6,1990, Ms. Susan Hiatt, on behalf of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc., (Petitioner), requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) order dic :hetdown of the Perry Nuclear

• Power Plant, Unit 1. (Perry) and issue a Natice of Violation and . impose a civil penalty on Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (licensee).

By letter of May 29,1990, the NP.0 acknowledged receipt of the Petition and denied Petitioner's request for imediate shutdown of Perry.-  !

The Petitioner asserts that in November 1989, the licensee failed to -

return one of two redundant trains of the ess?ntial service water (ESW) system to an operable status within the time limit spec fied by the technical specifications, and subsequently failed to commence a shutdown of the plant as required by the technical specifications. The Petitioner asserts that Perry has been operating in this plant condition since I

l

2 November 1989. The Petitioner asserts that because the licensee failed to comply with the provisions of the technical specifications, the licensee operated Perry in violation of its operating license during the period from November 1989 to April 6, 1990.

The NRC has reviewed the Petition regarding the 6 eged operation of the ESW system during the specified time period, and concludes that the licensee did not operate Ferry in a manner contrary to that permitted by the tocrating license, as defined by the requirements of the technical specif8 cations. My formal decision in this matter follows.

11. BACKGROUND On April 3, 1990, the licensee declared an " alert" in accordance with the Perry Emergency Plan because of the declared inoperability of both loops I "A" and "B" (also known as Divisions 1 and 2, respectively) of the ESW system.

While conducting a surveillance test of the Division 1 emergency diesel generator on April 3, 1990, the licensee declared that the "A" loop of the ESW system was inoperable when a manway gasket failed on the pumo's discharge strainer at 12:35.a.m. The resulting water spray wet several electrical components in the immediate vicinity of the discharge strainer, including the motor centrol center of ESW screen wash pump "A", causing the loss of that pump. At the time of the event, screen wash pump "B" for the Division 2 l

y% , ' '

.&h ' 5 p'> .,

b;. J'

'ESW traveling screen was out of service for, maintenance and had been out of i service since November 1989. -At 2:32 a.m., as a result of both screen wash I pumps being inoperable, the licensee considered both traveling screens to be-  !

inoperable because, of the loss of automatic packwash capability. With both of the. redundant traveling-screens considered inoperable, the~ licensee i

declared Divisions-1 and 2 of the ESW system inoperable as well.as.the 5 systems which they 1,upported. At 2:37 a.m., the licensee declared an " alert" '

in accordance with its emergency plan. At 6:01 a.m., the licensee terminated [

the " alert" after restoring ESW loops N " and "B" and their support systems to operable s'.atus, and after consulting with officials of the State of Ohio- '

and of the local'cout.ty, r.

III. DISCUSSION 1

The Petition is based on the assumption that'in November 1989, Division f

2 of the ESW system could not perform its required safety function when its i screen wash pump was removed from service, and as such, Division 2 and the '

systems which it supports should also have been declared inoperable. Based f .on this assumption, Petituner asserted that the licensee had 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to .

restore the Division 2 ESW system screen wash pute to service, and failing j:-

.to do so,. should have placed /erry, Unit 1 in hot shutdown within.the next -

1 12 esdrs and in cold shutdown within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> as required by  ;

f~'

.the technical specifications.for the sw 'rted systems. The Pctitioner -

u q, d

o

XJ i

i

i :. , , , __

uc: ,

j

~

i 1

asserted that by not shutting down the plant as required, the licensee oper -

- ated Perry, Unit' 1, in violation of its license during the period November 1989 to April 6, 1990. As a result, Petitioner requested an immediate shutdown of Perry, Unit 1, and enforcement action against the licensee. By '

~

letter of May 29., 1990, I denied Petitioner's request for an inanediate shutdown. -I The staff has' determined that Petitioner's assumption is incorrect regarding the inability of Division 2 of the ESW systein to perform its I required safety function wh63 its screen wash pump is inoperable,  ;

The ESW system supplies cooling water to the plant frcn Lake Erie and j operates during hot standby, cold shutdown, and accident conditions. The.

ESW system is a safety-related system consisting of three independent and redundant cooling loops. Loops "A" and "B" provide cooling water to the.

)

heat exchangers of the emergency diesel generato,s, the emergency closed cooling system, the residual heat removal systm, and the fuel poo'r cooling ,

system. Loop "C" 'srovides cooling water to the heat exchanger for the higt

. pressure core spray (HPC5) diesel _ generator and to the HPCS pump room cooler.

Each loop includes a full capacity pump located in the ESW pumphouse, which t

takes suction from a common foreba '. Two parallel, independent,:and redun-dant full capacity traveling screens located in the forebay are provided for rough filtration and debris removal. Uebris that Occumulates on the tray- 1 1

eling screens is removed by water spray from their respective screen wash o ]<

[ ' p u..,. . . The'ESW system pumps are not normally operating. Instead; all loops l i

of the system are-initiated manually or are initiated automatically by .l I

.)

i l,

{

a i

, 9 ,.-p. p .w,- - . , - e __- -

t

.4 5-loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) signals or by the loss of power to the- -i associated electrical bus. The ESW system is dee.igned such that any two of the three loops can provide all necessary cooling to meet the requirements in the technical specifications during emergency and accident conditions. <

The technical specifications require tt each of the ESW loops ~be operable and that, if a loop becomes inops..tble which is associated with system (s) or component (s) required to be operable,' then those associated system (s)-or component (s) be ceclared inoperable and that action required by those applicable specifications be taken, In November 1989, at the time ESW screen wash pump "B" was taken out af service, the operability of loop "B" of the ESW system was not affected.

-The for6 bay area of the.ESW pumphouse-can serve the simultaneous needs of both Units 1 and 2 (although Unit 2 is currently not operational), i.e., the _

needs of the six E5W pumps and the respective unit's fire pumps. The two

~

travelirig . screens located .in the pun.phouse structure' are arranged in par-allel; the screen wash pump designations "A" and "B" correspond to their respective traveling screen only, and do~not denote their~ alignment to ESW

'.dJps "A" or "B." Each of the traveling screens is of sufficient size to independently supply the ESW flow reouirement under emergency conditions for all six ESW pumps (i.e., ESW loops "A", "B", and "C" for Perry, Units 1 and 12). Because traveling screen "A" and its screen ws.sh pump were still oper-

-able when ESW screen wash pump "B' was removed from service, the ability of ESW loops "A" and "B" to perform their requit.ed safety. function was not. '

t i3 i

b

+

., .=  ;

1 0

adversely.affected. Hence, ESW loops "A", "B" and 'C' remained operable.

Consequently, there is no basis for any NRC enforcement action on the alle-gation of a violation of technical specifications. On August 16, 1990, the

-i NRC did issue a Severity Level IV violation (no civil penalty) for the

' licensee's failure to take prompt corrective action to repair ESW screen wash pump "B", as required by-10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI.-

i .

IV. CONCLUSION 'I Based on the foregoing discussion, I have determined that the .

L Petitioner's claim that the licensee violated the terms and conditions of i i l the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 license, as defined _ by the plant

_ technical specifications, is not supported. Thus, the Petition provices [

no basis for ordering the shutdown of Perry, Unit 1, or for the issuance of .

t

> enforcement action. I hereby deny the Petitioner's request to suspend operation of Perry, Unit 1, and to take enforcement action against the i-licensee, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

In-accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) a copy.of this decision will be_ filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ '

Thomas E. Murley, Director  !

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th - day of_ September 1990 i  :

i i

l

?') -

' *' 7590 ,

M TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 ISSUANCE-OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER'10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a decision concerning a Petition submitted to the 4

Comission by Susan Hiatt, on behalf of Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy.

1The Petition requested that the Comission order the imediate shutdown of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, and pursue enforcement action + pinst Cleveland

' Electric 111uminatirig Cor 3ased upon the assertion that the facility, from November 1989 tol April 6, o90, had operated in a condition centrary to that t

permi.tted by its operating license, as defined'by.the plant technical

' specifications.

The Director,: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation .has determined to deny.the' request. The reasons for this decision-are explained in'the " Director's Decision Under 10. CFR 2.206," DD-90-06 , which is available for public inspection ~in the Comission's oblic-.

u Document! Room,2120L-Street,N.W.,

Washington, U.C., and at the Local Public Document Room for the Perry Nuclear-Power Plant located at the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, Perry,.

y I  : Ohio 44081.

L i

I I T V

[

m ,

- i h l o

t

. r-

. 2-A copy of the Decision has' been filed with the Secretary of the Comission for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As provided in this regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action .ot the Comission 25 days after issuance, unless the Comission, on its own motion, institutes review of the Decision within'that time period.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,p g k NA ^

[

Thomas E. Murley, Director l

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation L

Dated at Rockville, Mary 1rnd  !

this 25th day of September 1990 l

l-L l-l=

i l

I l'

l: -

l a 1

i h

1

-- t 1: e , ,]

w. ']

.