IR 05000482/1996021
| ML20137N085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1997 |
| From: | Merschoff E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Maynard O WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137N090 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-96-470, NUDOCS 9704080249 | |
| Download: ML20137N085 (6) | |
Text
.
g* 'IG%
UNITED STATES
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF civil PENALTY -
$ 100,000 (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-482/96-21)
Dear Mr. Maynard:
This refers to the predecisional enforcement conference held on January 16,1997, in the NRC's Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. The purpose of the conference was to review
,
the circumstances surrounding apparent violations described in the subject inspection report, which was issued on December 31,1996. The inspection reviewed the effectiveness of the Wolf Creek Generating Station system and design engineering i
organizations. The onsite portion of this inspection ended on November 8,1996. The i
overall scope and results of the inspection were discussed with your staff on Dece nber 31,1996.
Based on the information developed during the inspection, the information that your staff provided during the conference, and the additional information provided in your staff's January 22,1997 letter, the NRC has determined that several violations of NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty. The circurnstances surrounding them were described in detail in the subject inspection report. The first violation involves five examples of a violation of 10 CFR Appendix B, Criterion XVI. Specifically, while evaluating and responding to a Quality Assurance finding in 1994, your managers and staff failed to identify and correct conflicting positions between Wolf Creek's Technical Specification Clarifications (TSCs) and the actual Technical Specification requirement. As a resolt of your staff's use of some of.these TSCs, Technical Specifications were violated.
Your staff stated that one cause was a " mind set" that permitted the use of operational knowledge in the application of Technical Specifications which, in soma cases, l
compromised compliance. Although the actual safety significance of this violation was low, the circumstances surrounding it are of regulatory significance because of: (1) the management involvement in the violation, and (2) the fundamental importance of complying with Technical Specification requirements.
The second violation involves an inappropriate application of the regulatory guidance for determining the frequency of Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) flywheel inspections. This is a violation of 10 CFR 50.59 because your staff changed a procedure described in the safety 9704080249 970403 PDR ADOCK 05000482 O
PDR g,
_.
,
,
l Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating-2-Corporation analysis report without recognizing that it also involved a change to Technical Specifications. This violation is significant because it resulted in a violation of Technical Specifications.
The third violation involves the continuing existence of TSC 001-94 after we informed your staff at the predecisional enforcement conference that the NRC considered it incorrect.
This TSC involved an incorrect interpretation of Technical Specification 3.3.1. Table 3.3-1, i
Functional Unit 6.b, Action 5, associated with positive reactivity additions in conjunction with an inoperable source range nuclear instrumentation channel. Your staff's position at
'
the conference was that this TSC did not conflict with the Technical Specification requirements. We continue to disagree with your position regarding this TSC. This is of concern to us because your staff did not either rescind the TSC af ter the inspection, request formal clarification from the NRC, or request a change to the Technical I
Specifications, Although a situation to implement the incorrect clarification has not occurred, this TSC was stillin effect and available for use as of March 21,1997. In a
'
telephone conversation on that date between Mr. Bill Johnson of this office and Mr. Clay Warren of your staff, we informed your staff that the NRC considered that the continued existence of this TSC constituted a continuing violation. Subsequently, on March 21, j
1997, the TSC was removed. We conclude that this incorrect interpretation of Technical i
Specifications, which remained in effect following our stated position at the predecisional
enforcement conference on January 16,1997 until March 21,1997, represents an inappropriato instruction for an activity potentially affecting quality and, as such, constitutes a violation of Criterion V of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
Given the regulatory significance of these violations that resulted in noncompliances with Technical Specifications and failure to take corrective actions, they are 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 lil problem.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty with a base value of $50,000 is considered for a Severity Level lll problem. Because your f acility has been the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years', the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for /dentification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy.
In evaluating whether credit is warranted for Corrective Action, the NRC carefully considered all your corrective actions. At the predecisional enforcement conference, the
'
time at which the judgement of the adequacy of corrective actions is normally made, your corrective actions included: (1) conducting an extensive evaluation of the existing TSCs and deleting or revising several, (2) the Chief Operating Officer issuing a letter to all personnel detailing expectations for compliance with requirements, (3) chartering an i
A $300,000 civil penalty was proposed for three Severity Level 111 violations / problems on July 1,1996 (EA 96124) related to a frazilice condition which rendered one train of the Emergency Service Water inoperable and the other train degraded, in addition to problems related to a degraded turbine driver auxiliary feedwater pump.
-
.
.
-
- _.._~
l
.
.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating-3-Corporation incident Investigation Team, (4) changing the Onsite Review Committee, and (5) arranging for an outside audit of the plant's corrective action program. Also, correat6c actions for the violation involving the RCP flywheel inspections included: (1) perforr.nng an operability ovaluation, (2) requesting a license amendment, and (3) initiating a change to the Updated
'
Safety Analyses Report.
Our deliberations on Conective Action also considered your staff's position in the enforcement conference that certain TSCs "were reviewed and found to not violate Technical Specification requirements and did not constitute a change to the existing
,
!
specifications." The inspection report identified these TSCs as examples of the apparent Criterion XVI violation. Af ter the conference, your staff reiterated your position in a letter dated January 22,1997. One of these involved TSC 002-96 (source range power supplies). Your stafl's initial position was that this TSC did not conflict with Technical Specification 3.8.2. After questioning by NRC during the conference, your staff changed its position and agreed with the NRC that the interpretation was not conservative. (This position was confirmed in your staff's fetter dated January 22,1997.) Therefore, your corrective actions were not adequate, in this example, to have identified your staff's nonconservative position at the time of the conference.
Further, as stated above regarding the third violation, TSC 00194 remained available for j
use after the NRC stated its conclusion that it conflicted with Technical Specifications, i
Thus, our position is t.iat your corrective actions were not prompt, in this example,
'
because you did not either: (1)immediately resolve the issue with the NRC, or (2) rescind
the TSC until the issue was resolved with the NRC.
Based on the above two examples, which involve nonconservative and erroneous interpretations of Technical Specifications (the basis for the citation), it appears your corrective actions were not sufficiently prompt nor comprehensive. As a result, the NRC cannot justify giving you Conective Action credit.
Therefore. to emphasize the importance of complience with Technical Specifications and of prompt identification and comprehensive correction of violations, and in recognition of your previous escalated enforcement action, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 for the Severity Level ll1 problem.
At the conference, we also discussed other apparent violations. The first involved four examples of 10 CFR 50.59 violations. At the conference, your staff brought additional information to show that, although the documentation was weak, an evaluation was performed of the Set Point Change Request for the essential service water self cleaning strainer. This is not a violation of 10 CFR 50.59 and is mot cited. We have concluded that the remaining 10 CFR 50.5B violations do not represent a programmatic failure and, except the example involving the RCP flywheel inspections discussed above, are therefore cited at Soverity Level IV.
- _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _. _ - _. _. _ - _. _. _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _....
,
'
)
,
-,
>
!
I
.
l Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating-4-
Corporation
!
The second apparent violation discussed involved noncompliance with Technical Specification 3.5.4 which requires one centrifugal charging pump to be inoperable when in cold shutdown with the reactor vessel head on. After evaluating all the information,'we l
have decided that citing this as another example of the Criterion XVI violation is more l
appropriate, i
Also, one example of the apparent violation of 10 CFR Fart 50 Criterion XVIinvolved l
TSC 026 85 (quadrant power tilt ratio [QPTRl). Your staff's position, as described in your
{
January 22,1997, letter, is that, " Action statements [ Technical Specification 3.2.41 a.3,
!
and thus a.4, should not be entered until just prior to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after exceeding the OPTR limit," We have reevaluated this issue and have determined that the wording of the l
Technical Specification supports your position. As such, this issue is not a violation of a legally binding requirement. However, we continue to believe that your interpretation is i
nonconservative, if, for example, an unknown stuck tod situation were to occur, your
90siti9n would not require operators to "[ildentify and correct the cause of the out-of-limit
'
condition prior to increasing THERMAL POWER..." until just prior to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after exceeding the OPTR limit. Your position is nonconservative because it could allow for power increases that could ultimately lead to fuel failure. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will discuss our concern with you further in separate correspondence.
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. With regard to the Criterion XVI violation, we note that your staff and the NRC team identified several examples of conflicts be; ween your TSCs and the Technical Specifications. We limited the citation to the more important issues, those examples that actually resulted in violations of the Technical Specifications. Nevertheless, your corrective actions should be sufficiently comprehensive to identify and correct all other conflicting interpretations so that no future Technical Specification violations occur from this problem. 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,
.
Ellis W. Merscho)
Regional Admini rator Docket: 50-482 License: NPF-42 Enclosure: (see next page)
A j
I
-
,.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating-5-Corporation j
.
.
Enclosure: Notice of Violation and '
i Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ Enclosure
'
' Vice President Plant Operations i
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.
j P.O. Box 411 i
'
~ Burlington, Kansas 66839 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge J
'2300 N Street, NW l
Washington, D.C, 20037
,
Supervisor Licensing
'
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.
P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Supervisor Regulatory Compliance-Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.
P.O. Box 411
Burlington, Kansas 66839 Chief Engineer Utilities Division Kansas Corporation Commission 1500 SW Arrowhead Rd.
Topeka, Kansas 66604-4027 Office of the Governor State of Kansas Topeka, Kansas 66612 Attorney General Judicial Center 301 S.W.10th 2nd Floor
,
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597 County Clerk Coffey County Courthouse-Burlington, Kansas 66839-1798 A
.
...
.
.
.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating-6-Corporation Public Health Physicist Division of Environment Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Air & Radiation Forbes Field Building 283
Topeka, Kansas 66620 Mr. Frank Moussa Division of Emergency Preparedness 2800 SW Topeka Blvd Topeka, Kansas 66611-1287 i
\\
%_
.
's Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating-7-Corporation DISTRIBUTION:
LPDR Enforcement Coordinators SECY RI, Rll, R!Il CA JGilliland, PA (0-2G4)
EDO (0-17G21)
HBell, OlG (T-5D28)
GCaputo, 01 (0-3E4)
NUDOCS JLieberman, OE (0-7H5)
EJordan, DEDO (0-17G21)
LChandler, OGC (015B18)
LTremper, OC/LFDCB (T-9E10)
JGoldberg, OGC (0-15B18)
OE (2 copies) (0-7H5)
Director, NRR (012G18)
OE:EA (0-7H5)
RZimmerman, NRR/ADP (0-12G18)
JStone, NRR/PDIV-2 (0-13E16)
BlV DISTRIBUTION:
E-mail to:
OEMAIL DChamberlain (DDC)
FRingwald (JFR1)
CHackney (CAH)
BHenderson (BWH)
MHammond(MFH2)
WBrown (WLB)
JDyer(JED2)
PGoldberg (PAG)
KPerkins(KEP)
KBrockman (KEB)
TPGwynn (TPG)
AHowell (ATH)
CVandenburgh (CAV)
WJohnson (WDJ)
RAzua (RVA)
Copies to:
RIV Files MIS Coordinator RA> Reading File GSanborn > EAFile
'
PAO (Henderson)
RSLO (Hackney)
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\EA\\ FINAL \\EA96470. FIN To receive copy of document, indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclogares
- E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy OE by 4, l
NRRAy Q,_
D:DRP K/ D:DRS fy l DRA fy DNolson Jrv/4 RZimmerfhaf" PGwynn yM 5, AHowjitC JDyer Ft/[
'
03/t//97 03/12/97 03g97
/ 03Qp7 034(/97
[ iia M
D:OE Aydd,
l l
l EMerscho[fj(//
JLieberman/f 0371/97 "
03/zf97
"'~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 080008 i \\
sipKEMINilllM