ML061790189

NRC Response to Entergy Operations, Inc. Denial of Noncited Violation 05000458/2005005-02

ML061790189
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend  (NPF-047)
Issue date:	06/22/2006
From:	Howell A NRC/RGN-IV/DRP
To:	Hinnenkamp P Entergy Operations
References
EA-06-154, IR-05-005
Download: ML061790189 (7)

See also: IR 05000458/2005005

Text

June 22, 2006

EA-06-154

Paul D. Hinnenkamp

Vice President - Operations

Entergy Operations, Inc.

River Bend Station

St. Francisville, LA 70775

SUBJECT:

NRC RESPONSE TO ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. DENIAL OF NONCITED

VIOLATION 05000458/2005005-02

Dear Mr. Hinnenkamp:

On February 13, 2006, the NRC issued NRC Integrated Inspection Report 05000458/2005005

documenting the results of NRC inspection activities for the period October 1 through

December 31, 2005. During this inspection, as documented in the report, the NRC identified a

noncited violation of Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.1.A for the failure of River Bend Station

personnel to shut down one reactor recirculation loop within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of determining that the

recirculation loop jet pump flow mismatch was greater than 5 percent while operating at greater

than 70 percent of rated core flow. In a letter dated March 24, 2006, you informed the NRC that

Entergy Operations, Inc. was contesting this violation. Entergys position was that River Bend

Station complied with the requirements of TS 3.4.1; therefore, a violation did not occur. The

NRC reviewed your letter dated March 24, 2006, and determined that Noncited Violation

05000458/2005005-02 was appropriate in that on October 31, 2005, a violation of TS 3.4.1,

Condition A, did occur. This letter documents our basis for this decision.

On October 31, 2005, the Reactor Recirculation Flow Control Valve B hydraulic power unit

tripped due to a blown control power fuse, causing Flow Control Valve B to drift open.

Operators throttled closed Flow Control Valve A to maintain reactor power at 100 percent,

resulting in a recirculation loop jet pump flow mismatch of approximately 8.2 percent. The

operators entered TS 3.4.1, Condition A, because the reactor recirculation loop jet pump flow

mismatch exceeded 5 percent with the plant operating at greater than 70 percent rated core

flow. Two hours later, operators exited TS 3.4.1, Condition A, and entered TS 3.4.1,

Condition D, which required that the reactor be placed in Mode 3 in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. The flow

mismatch existed for 4.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> before repairs were completed and recirculation loop jet pump

flow was restored to normal.

In your March 24, 2006, letter, you requested that the NRC reconsider our conclusion and find

that a violation of TS 3.4.1 did not occur. Your letter indicated that the basis for contesting the

violation was that the NRC Enforcement Manual and previous enforcement precedence

Entergy Operations, Inc.

- 2 -

concludes that no violation of TS exists unless all actions are not completed within all applicable

completion times. You stated that, in this instance, River Bend Station met the Limiting

Condition for Operation (LCO) requirements prior to the required completion time of Action D.

Entergy agreed that the operators had an alternative to restore recirculation flow mismatch

within limits or shut down a recirculation loop to satisfy TS 3.4.1.A, Condition A, Required

Action A.1; however, Entergy did not believe this was the most prudent course of action allowed

by the River Bend Station TS, citing operator training to not make decisions in haste that may

lead to nonconservative actions. The NRC agrees that operators should operate the nuclear

plant in a deliberate and conservative manner. However, TS are required to be followed and

licensees do have the option to request enforcement discretion if compliance with TS would

involve an unnecessary plant transient.

Upon receipt of your letter, NRC staff, including members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation and the Office of Enforcement, initiated a review of the circumstances and

documents related to this issue, including your bases for concluding that a violation did not

occur. Based on this review, the NRC concluded that the violation, as documented in NRC

Integrated Inspection Report 05000458/2005005, occurred as described.

Your basis for contesting the violation was primarily based on the premise that the NRC

Enforcement Manual and previous enforcement precedence indicate that a TS violation does

not exist unless all actions are not completed within all applicable completion times. Our review

found that the NRC Enforcement Manual, Section 8.1.1.b, provides guidance on how to cite a

violation for equipment inoperability. The guidance assumes that a licensee, upon entering an

LCO required action, takes the necessary steps to complete the required TS action within the

allotted completion time. If, for some reason (e.g., equipment malfunction or inaccessible

equipment), a licensee attempts, but is unable, to complete the required action in the allotted

completion time, the licensee would then enter the next appropriate TS required action.

However, in response to the flow mismatch, River Bend Station personnel made a conscious

decision not to take action to shut down one recirculation loop within the 2-hour completion time

but, instead, at the end of the 2-hour period, entered Required Action D in lieu of completing

Required Action A.1. The guidance in the Enforcement Manual was not intended to apply to a

situation in which the licensee chooses not to meet the required action in the required

completion time.

With respect to previous enforcement precedence, you cited an apparent violation documented

in NRC Inspection Report 50-458/96-12 associated with an emergency diesel generator being

inoperable for greater than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. In this example, a diesel generator was restored to

service 83 hours9.606481e-4 days <br />0.0231 hours <br />1.372354e-4 weeks <br />3.15815e-5 months <br /> after it was declared inoperable. This exceeded the 72-hour action time

allowed by TS. You stated that the NRC, in a letter dated October 11, 1996, reconsidered its

position on this violation stating that the apparent violation was withdrawn as the NRC agreed

with Entergys position that the TS, in this case, allowed a total of 84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br /> to place the plant in

Mode 3 and that a violation did not occur.

In the above scenario, River Bend Station personnel, upon discovery of the condition, took

actions to repair the emergency diesel generator and restore it to an operable status prior to

entering Mode 3. The NRC appropriately agreed with the licensees determination that a total

Entergy Operations, Inc.

- 3 -

of 84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br /> was allowed by TS to place the plant in Mode 3 and that a violation did not occur.

The current disputed noncited violation differs from this example in that River Bend Station

personnel made no attempt to correct the flow mismatch or shut down one recirculation loop

during the 2-hour completion time, despite the fact that it was within their capability to do so.

Two hours after entering Required Action A.1, the flow balance was not restored and operators

chose to enter Condition D. Personnel elected not to take the actions described in Required

Action A.1, as opposed to the above scenario in which the licensee was unable to restore

operability of the emergency diesel generator within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

In your letter, you cited TS 1.3 as providing guidance for the use of completion times in the

action section of individual LCOs and that the basis for the NRC noncited violation seemed to

be in conflict with TS Section 1.3, Example 1.3-6. Based on the NRCs review, we determined

that Example 1.3-6 clearly states that entry into Condition A offers a choice between Required

Action A.1 or A.2. If Required Action A.1 is followed and the action is not met within the

completion time (plus the extension allowed by SR 3.0.2), Condition B is entered. If Required

Action A.2 is followed and the completion time of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> is not met, Condition B is entered. If

after entry into Condition B, Required Action A.1 or A.2 is met, Condition B is exited and

operation may then continue in Condition A. There is no implication that a choice exists to

move from Condition A to Condition B. TS actions which offer a choice are designated by an

or statement. In this example, the actions listed in Condition A.1 or Condition A.2 are required

to be completed. If they cannot be completed, then the actions of Condition B must be

completed. The noncited violation concerns LCO 3.4.1 required actions in Conditions A and D.

Unlike Example 1.3-6, there is no or connecter in LCO 3.4.1. Upon discovery that a specified

condition exists, required actions must be completed. In this case, operators were required to

take the actions required by TS 3.4.1.A.1 to shut down one recirculation loop within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

The bases section of the RBS TS emphasizes this requirement and provides the following

basis: With both recirculation loops operating but the flows not matched, the recirculation

loops must be restored to operation with matched flows within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. If the flow mismatch

cannot be restored to within limits within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, one recirculation loop must be shutdown.

The bases section further states that: The 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Completion Time is based on the low

probability of an accident occurring during this time period, on a reasonable time to complete

the required action, and on frequent core monitoring by operators allowing abrupt changes in

core flow conditions to be quickly detected. The required action for Condition A should have

been completed within the 2-hour completion time to avoid operating the plant in an unanalyzed

condition as defined in the bases of TS 3.4.1. An additional action available to the operators

was to restore the flow balance between the recirculation loops.

You stated that LCO 3.0.2 provides the applicability rules related to application of LCO required

actions when an LCO is not met. You described your response to the flow mismatch as being

supported by LCO 3.0.2. Based on the NRCs review, we determined that the bases for

LCO 3.0.2 establish that, upon discovery of a failure to meet an LCO, the associated actions

shall be met. The completion time of each required action for an action condition is applicable

from the point in time that an action condition is entered. The required actions establish those

remedial measures that must be taken within specified completion times when the requirements

of an LCO are not met. The Bases for LCO 3.0.2 states that the reasons for intentionally

relying on the actions include, but are not limited to, performance of surveillances, preventive

maintenance, corrective maintenance, or investigation of operational problems. Entering

Entergy Operations, Inc.

- 4 -

actions for these reasons must be done in a manner that does not compromise safety. On

October 31, 2005, Condition A was entered at 3:06 p.m. The operating log indicates that the

operators did not attempt to shut down one recirculation loop within the 2-hour completion time,

thus allowing the plant to enter into an unanalyzed condition as defined in the Bases of

TS 3.4.1. At 5:06 p.m., Condition D was entered. Because the required actions of Condition A

had not been met in the required completion time, the plant remained in an unanalyzed

condition for another 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> until the recirculation flows were matched within TS limits.

You stated that Entergys overarching concern is the potential for precedence setting if the NRC

upholds this violation in that licensees would not be able to follow time tested principles used to

implement TS actions and that upholding the violation would be a significant shift in industry

and regulatory practice. As discussed above, proper implementation of TS requires licensees

to implement the required actions when LCOs are not satisfied. This is a fundamental concept

of TS implementation and compliance. In addition, a licensee has the option to request an

exigent TS change or enforcement discretion if compliance with TS would involve an

unnecessary plant transient. In this case, TS 3.4.1, Required Action A.1, was required to be

completed within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of the flow mismatch. The bases for this action, and the 2-hour

completion time, were described in the Bases for TS 3.4.1. Required Action A.1 was an action

that was within the operators ability to complete within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. Additionally, operators could

have taken actions to restore the recirculation loop jet pump flow mismatch within TS limits and

restore compliance with TS 3.4.1.A. In this case, operators incorrectly determined that these

actions were not required. The NRCs position is that upholding the violation is consistent with

the principles and precedence regarding the proper implementation of TS.

You characterized the action required by Required Action A.1 as a compensatory action.

Actions required to be implemented when LCOs are not satisfied are required actions that must

be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the specific TS.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and

your response (if any) will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC

Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the

NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/ by AVegel

Arthur T. Howell III, Director

Division of Reactor Projects

Docket: 50-458

License: NPF-47

Entergy Operations, Inc.

- 5 -

cc:

Senior Vice President and

Chief Operating Officer

Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 31995

Jackson, MS 39286-1995

Vice President

Operations Support

Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 31995

Jackson, MS 39286-1995

General Manager

Plant Operations

Entergy Operations, Inc.

River Bend Station

5485 US Highway 61N

St. Francisville, LA 70775

Director - Nuclear Safety

Entergy Operations, Inc.

River Bend Station

5485 US Highway 61N

St. Francisville, LA 70775

Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway

P.O. Box 651

Jackson, MS 39205

Winston & Strawn LLP

1700 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006-3817

Manager - Licensing

Entergy Operations, Inc.

River Bend Station

5485 US Highway 61N

St. Francisville, LA 70775

The Honorable Charles C. Foti, Jr.

Attorney General

Department of Justice

State of Louisiana

P.O. Box 94005

Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005

Entergy Operations, Inc.

- 6 -

H. Anne Plettinger

3456 Villa Rose Drive

Baton Rouge, LA 70806

Bert Babers, President

West Feliciana Parish Police Jury

P.O. Box 1921

St. Francisville, LA 70775

Richard Penrod, Senior Environmental

Scientist

Office of Environmental Services

Northwestern State University

Russell Hall, Room 201

Natchitoches, LA 71497

Brian Almon

Public Utility Commission

William B. Travis Building

P.O. Box 13326

1701 North Congress Avenue

Austin, TX 78711-3326

Entergy Operations, Inc.

- 7 -

Electronic distribution by RIV:

Regional Administrator (BSM1)

DRP Director (ATH)

DRS Director (DDC)

DRS Deputy Director (RJC1)

Senior Resident Inspector (PJA)

Branch Chief, DRP/C (KMK)

Senior Project Engineer, DRP/C (WCW)

Team Leader, DRP/TSS (RLN1)

RITS Coordinator (KEG)

K. S. Fuller, RC/ACES (KSF)

M. R. Johnson, D:OE (MRJ1)

OE:EA File (RidsOeMailCenter)

Division Secretary, DRP (LAO)

SUNSI Review Completed: __kmk___

ADAMS:  : Yes

G No Initials: __kmk_

Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive

Non-Sensitive

R:\\_REACTORS\\_RBS\\2005\\RB2005-05 Denial Response.wpd

ML

RIV:C:DRP/C

ACES

D:DRP

KMKennedy;df

GMVasquez

ATHowell III

/RA/

/RA/

/RA/ by AVegel*

6/21/06

6/21/06

6/22/06

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax

• Note: Response discussed with B. Mallett on 6/22/06