IR 05000271/1983037

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-271/83-37.Violation Occurred as Stated & Sufficient Basis Not Provided for Withdrawal of Violation.W/Evaluation & Conclusion

ML20149L663
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	12/16/1987
From:	Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Murphy W VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
References
EA-84-007, EA-84-7, NUDOCS 8802240355
Download: ML20149L663 (5)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-

,i (      .
       ;

December 16, 1987 Docket'No. 50-271 License No. DPR-28 EA 84-7 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation ATTN: Mr. Warren P. Murphy Vice President and Manager of Operations RD 5, Box 169

,  Ferry Road Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 Gentlemen:

Subject: Notice of Violation (Inspection No. 50-271/83-37)

       '
       '

This refers to your letter dated August 14, 1987, in response to the Notice

'  of Violation sent to you with our letter dated June 15, 1987. Our letter and Notice described five examples of a violation of fire protection program requirements at Vermont Yankee. The violation was classified at Severity  l Level III, but a civil penalty was not propose .'

In your response, you requested withdrawal of the violation for three stated reasons, as summarized in the enclosed Appendix, After care ^J1 consideration

       '

of your response, we have concluded, for the reasons provided in the Appendix, that the violation occurred as stated and a sufficient basis was not provided for withdrawal of the violatio ' Thank you for informing us of the corrective and preventive actions documented in your letter. These actions will be examined during a future inspection of

,

your licensed program, i ! In accordance with Section 2.790, of the NRC's "Rules of Procedure", Part 2, i Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in ! the NRC's Public Document Roo

Sincerely,

OrMhal Sign?d By  ;

UHM/ : ?. n; = LL - William T. Russell Regional Administrator i Enclosure: ' l As stated l

       '

l i 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RL VY 83-37 - 0001. /11/87 g\ 8802240355 871216 1

       ,

PDR ADOCK0500g2 . a geo l _ _ - - _ .- . .. _ - _ _ _ _ _, -

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

.. s l Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor l cc w/ encl:

R. W. Capstick, Licensing Engineer J. Gary Weigand, President and Chief Executive Officer J. P. Pelletier, Plant Manager , Donald Hunter, Vice President Cort Richardson, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, In ! Gerald Tarrant, Commissioner, Department of Public Service l Public Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LPOR) Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) NRC Resident Inspector State of New Hampshire State of Vermont f P. Agnes, Mass. Office of Public Safety i 1 i l l l [ I l t 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RL VY 83-37 - 0002. /11/87

-   -
,   ..
,
, ,,
.
**

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor ' bec w/ encl:

. Reg i oC I ; Doc ket: Room?.(wi thiconcu rrence s)T'

Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o enc 1) Section Chief, DRP H. Eichenholz, SRI, Yankee V. Rooney, LPM, NRR Robert J. Bores, DRSS 0. Holody, R1 J. Lieberman, OE J. Goldberg, OGC F. Miraglia, NRR , s a & Q(fy RI:hc 0RS RI.DRS RI:DRS RI:DR5 JMDRP *P Pullani/mjh/sh Anderson Durr Johnston QWiggins - ns 11 Y /87 11/b7 11/n /87 11//1/87 11/[[/87 i L ( 16 { 07 l BP RI p1 [L,ehe, man e e.l.e, ,, sob an ussell 11 Al /87 11/ /87 1/z l '/87 11/d/87 lig/87 11/ /87 gM 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 5)\$l1 RL VY 83-37 - 0002. k (V ' 11/05/87 b I[ b >

       '\p

*s I

Appendix Evaluation and Conclusion In a letter dated August 14, 1987, the licensee responded to a Notice of Violation issued on June 15, 1987 concerning the failure to adhere to certain fire protection requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R. In its response, the licensee requests withdrawal of the violation, claiming that (1) the 1983 inspection report upon which the violation was based indicated a concern regarding interpretation of certain specific Appendix R requirements, but did not indicate any significant safety concerns associated with Vermont Yankee's fire protection capability or compliance efforts; (2) responsive and extensive efforts were made, both preceding and following the subject inspection, to ensure full compliance with the requirements set forth 10 CFR 50, Appendix R; and (3) the four year delay in issuance of this Notice of Violation, pending staff resolution of issues and interpretations pertaining to Appendix R requirements, as well as their implementation and enforcement, is unwarranted and unf ai Provided below is a summary of each of the licensee's arguments in support of withdrawal of the violation, and the NRC response to each of those argument . NRC EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S FIRST ARGUMENT FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE VIOLATION The licensee stated that the 1983 inspection report, upon which the Notice of Violation is based, indicated a concern regarding interpretation of certain specific Appendix R requirements, but did not state significant safety concerns associated with Vermont Yankee's fire protection capability or compliance efforts. Although the inspection report states that the modifications made by the licensee and the separation of trains that did exist tended to minimize the safety significance of the licensee's failure to meet specific requirements, the licensee did not meet the minimum Appendix R requirement for providing required protection for redundant equipment in the reactor building to achieve plant shutdown. The rule requires that in evaluating safe shutdown capabi!ity, the licensee must consider a loss of all shutdown equipment in any fire area in the event of a fire, and a concurrent loss of offsite power. Guidance regarding these issues was provided to all licensee's in Generic Letter 81-12 dated February 20, 1981. The licensee was unable to demonstrate an ability to achieve safe shutdown under those conditions. The licensee's failure to properly respond to the rule was considered by the NRC to be a serious concern. Therefore, this argument does not provide a basis for withdrawal of the violatio . NRC EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S SECOND ARGUMENT FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE VIOLATION , The licensee stated that its actions were responsive and extensive preceding and following the NRC inspection to ensure full compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R. While a licensee's 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RL VY 83-37 - 0003.0,0 12/11/87

.
-. .

<

responsiveness to violations may be considered for mitigation or escalation of a civil penalty, it is inappropriate to use this as a basis for withdrawal of a violation. Although the NRC recognizes that extensive efforts were made by the licensee to provide alternate shutdown capability in selected plant areas prior to the adoption of the require-ments contained in Appendix R and prior to the inspection, these efforts were not sufficient for certain plant areas, such as the Reactor Buildin During the inspection, the NRC found that the licensee's lack of an Appendix R analyses and an associated circuits analyses for the Reactor Building reflected an inadequate effort on its part to upgrade the fire protection features in this area to a level that was in compliance with Appendix Further, although a management meeting was held with the licensee in Region I on November 2, 1983 and an enforcement conference was conducted on January 10, 1984, it was not until the Spring of 1984 that the licensee initiated efforts to correct these specific deficien-cies and implemented interim compensatory measures, af ter such measures were requested by the NRC in May 1984. Therefore, this argument does not provide a basis for withdrawal of the violatio The NRC notes that a difference of opinion existed between the NRC and licensee regarding the timeliness of corrective action, and so noted this difference in a SALP report dated May 28, 198 Further, the NRC also recognizes that following the Appendix R workshop on April 18, 1984, the licensee vigorously pursued resolution of these deficiencie . NRC EVALUATION OF LICENSEE'S THIRD ARGUMENT FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE VIOLATION The licensee stated that the four year delay in the issuance of the violation is unwarranted and unfair. Although the Notice of Violation was delayed for four years pending Commission review of Appendix R violations for consistent application of enforcement criteria, and to allow the Commission time to review questions regarding requirements, this delay does not alter the fact that a violation occurred, and therefore, does not provide a basis for withdrawal of the violatio NRC Conclusion The violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation dated June 15, 1987. Although the three arguments set forth by the licensee are relevant to determining the amount of a civil penalty based upon the violation, these arguments do not provide a basis for withdrawal of the violation. The con-siderations set forth by the licensee were, in part, the basis for not proposing a civil penalty in this cas i 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RL VY 83-37 - 0004. /11/87 }}