ML13354B806
| ML13354B806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/2013 |
| From: | Michael Scott Division Reactor Projects I |
| To: | Ventosa J Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| Burritt A | |
| References | |
| EA-13-076 1-2012-036, IR-13-011 | |
| Download: ML13354B806 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000247/2013011
Text
December 18, 2013
Mr. John Ventosa
Vice President, Operations
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Indian Point Energy Center
450 Broadway, GSB
P.O. Box 429
Buchanan, NY 10511-0249
SUBJECT:
INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER UNITS 2 & 3 - NRC INSPECTION REPORT
NOS. 05000247/2013011 & 05000286/2013011 AND NRC OFFICE OF
INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 1-2012-036
Dear Mr. Ventosa:
This refers to an investigation initiated on March 30, 2012, by the NRC Office of Investigations
(OI) to determine if the Chemistry Manager at Entergy Nuclear Operations (ENOs) Indian Point
Energy Center Units 2 and 3 (IP), deliberately falsified data pertaining to IPs Emergency Diesel
Generator (EDG) fuel oil storage tanks. IP Technical Specifications (TS) require implementation
of a diesel fuel oil testing program to verify the acceptability of the fuel oil in the onsite fuel oil
storage tanks (FOSTs) and in the reserve fuel oil storage tank (RFOST), which is a common
tank for both IP operating units. Per the TS, the fuel oil is sampled every 92 days and analyzed
to determine if it: (1) is within limits for parameters such as viscosity and sulfur content; and, (2)
has a total particulate concentration of 10 mg/l. If the particulate concentration is out of
specification, the parameter must be restored to within limits within 7 days for an FOST and 30
days for the RFOST, or the licensee must immediately declare the associated EDGs inoperable
(for the RFOST, because all the IP EDGs would be affected, this would require a dual unit
shutdown).
In January and February 2012, the IP Engineering Department conducted a self-assessment in
preparation for an upcoming NRC Component Design Bases Inspection, which included a
review of EDG fuel oil delivery systems and storage tanks. The assessment team identified
that: (1) RFOST samples taken on June 17, 2011, and December 1, 2011 had not been entered
into the Chemistry Department database until July 14, 2011, and January 23, 2012,
respectively; (2) both samples had exceeded the TS particulate limits; and (3) no condition
reports had been written in response to the out of TS condition and, evidently, no re-sampling
performed.
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
2100 RENAISSANCE BOULEVARD, SUITE 100
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406-2713
J. Ventosa
2
On February 2, 2012, the assessment team leader sent an email to the Chemistry staff
specialist who had entered the sample results in the database (and copied the Chemistry
Manager on the email), and questioned how the TS condition had been met, since it did not
appear resampling had been performed and the EDGs had not been declared inoperable. The
Chemistry specialist responded that he had been unaware of the TS limit and, therefore, had
not recognized that it had been exceeded. Subsequently, on February 5, 2012, database
entries were made to indicate that RFOST resamples for June 17, 2011, and December 1,
2011, had actually been performed on June 29, 2011, and December 9, 2011, respectively (i.e.,
within the 30 day period allowed by TS), and that the re-samples were within the TS limits.
These entries were coded in the database as being made by the Chemistry Manager, and the
re-samples as being taken by one of the Chemistry technicians. In response to a condition
report written by the assessment team leader, the Chemistry Manager indicated that the re-
samples had been taken but had not been timely entered into the database. Subsequently, in
response to questions from IP staff about why no paperwork from the offsite laboratory that
usually analyzes such samples existed for the resamples, the Chemistry Manager wrote a
condition report in which he stated that the re-samples had been analyzed in-house.
The NRC recognizes that ENO next initiated an investigation into this issue, and that the
Chemistry Manager did not comply with requests to be interviewed by ENOs investigators and
abruptly retired. However, the Chemistry Manager subsequently submitted to an interview with
OI and, during that interview, admitted that the two RFOST re-samples had actually not been
obtained and that he had, instead, created false information to show an acceptable result based
on historical sample results. The Manager also admitted to OI that, during this same timeframe,
he had similarly provided false information for one of the onsite storage tanks (the 22 EDG
FOST) after learning that the TS particulate for a November 18, 2011, sample had been
exceeded, by indicating a re-sample had been taken that was within limits when, in fact, no re-
sampling was performed. The Manager further admitted that the information pertaining to the
supposed resamples that he had entered into the aforementioned condition reports had been
false. A Factual Summary of the OI report is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
Based on the NRC investigation, the NRC identified two apparent violations that are being
considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy.
The current NRC Enforcement Policy is included on the NRCs Website at www.nrc.gov/about-
nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html. The apparent violations involve: (1) operating IP
Units 2 and 3 in violation of site TS requirements after the Chemistry manager identified that the
fuel oil in the 22 FOST and the RFOST exceeded limits; and, (2) failing to initiate a condition
report or otherwise report the condition such that a Licensee Event Report could be written.
These apparent violations are described in detail in Enclosure 2, Apparent Violations Being
Considered for Escalated Enforcement.
Since the NRC has not made a final determination in this matter, a Notice of Violation is not
being issued at this time. In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of
apparent violations described herein may change as a result of further NRC review. Before the
NRC makes its enforcement decision, the NRC would like to discuss the apparent violations and
ENOs corrective actions at a pre-decisional enforcement conference (PEC). In particular, the
NRC is interested in discussing actions taken by ENO to address the Chemistry managers
apparent deliberate misconduct. The NRC decision to hold a PEC does not mean that the NRC
J. Ventosa
3
has determined that violations have occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather,
this conference is being requested to assist the NRC in making an enforcement decision. The
conference will also include an opportunity for you to provide your perspective on these matters
and any other information that you believe the NRC should take into consideration in making an
enforcement decision. In presenting your corrective actions, you should be aware that the
promptness and comprehensiveness of your actions will be considered in assessing any
potential civil penalty for the apparent violations.
In lieu of a PEC, you may also request alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with the NRC in an
attempt to resolve this issue. ADR is a general term encompassing various techniques for
resolving conflicts using a neutral third party. The technique that the NRC has decided to
employ is mediation; a voluntary, informal process in which a trained neutral mediator works
with parties to help them reach resolution. If the parties agree to use ADR, they select a
mutually agreeable neutral mediator who has no stake in the outcome and no power to make
decisions. Mediation gives parties an opportunity to discuss issues, clear up
misunderstandings, be creative, find areas of agreement, and reach a final resolution of the
issues. Additional information concerning the NRC ADR program can be obtained at
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/adr.html. The Institute on Conflict
Resolution (ICR) at Cornell University has agreed to facilitate the NRC program as a neutral
third party. Please contact ICR at 877-733-9415 within 10 days of the date of this letter if you
are interested in pursuing resolution of this issue through ADR.
Either the PEC or the ADR mediation session will be closed to public observation because the
NRCs preliminary findings are based on an NRC OI report that has not been publicly disclosed.
However, the time and date of the PEC or ADR will be publicly announced. Please contact Art
Burritt, Chief, Projects Branch 2, Division of Reactor Projects, at 610-337-5069 within 10 days of
the date of this letter to notify the NRC whether you will be attending a PEC or electing to
engage in ADR, and to discuss when the meeting will occur. Either the PEC or ADR should be
held in our office in King of Prussia, PA, within 30 days of the date of this letter.
J. Ventosa
4
No written response regarding the apparent violations is required at this time. In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosures will
be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room and
from the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible
from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Michael L. Scott
Acting Division Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1. Factual summary of OI Investigation Report
No. 1-2012-036
2. Apparent Violations Being Considered for
Escalated Enforcement Action
3. Brochure NUREG/BR-0317, The Nuclear Regulatory
Commissions Post-Investigation ADR Program:
Alternative Dispute Resolution Administered by
Cornell Universitys Institute on Conflict Resolution
Docket Nos.
50-247 and 50-286
License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64
cc w/encls:
Distribution via ListServ
J. Ventosa
4
No written response regarding the apparent violations is required at this time. In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosures will
be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room and
from the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible
from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Michael L. Scott
Acting Division Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Enclosures:
1. Factual summary of OI Investigation Report
No. 1-2012-036
2. Apparent Violations Being Considered for
Escalated Enforcement Action
3. Brochure NUREG/BR-0317, The Nuclear Regulatory
Commissions Post-Investigation ADR Program:
Alternative Dispute Resolution Administered by
Cornell Universitys Institute on Conflict Resolution
Docket Nos.
50-247 and 50-286
License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64
cc w/encls:
Distribution via ListServ
Distribution:
See next page
DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\Enf-allg\\Enforcement\\Proposed-Actions\\Choice Letters\\IP Chem Mgr LIC PEC LETTER EA-13-
076.doc.docx
ADAMS Accession No. ML13354B806
X
SUNSI Review/
X
Non-Sensitive
Sensitive
X
Publicly Available
Non-Publicly Available
OFFICE
RI/ DRP
RI/ DRS
RI/ RC
RI/ORA
NAME
S Rutenkroger/ SPR*
R Lorson/ RKL*
J Teator/ JAT*
J Farrington/ JSF*
D Holody/ DJH*
DATE
7/30/13
8/01/13
8/12/13
8/05/13
8/02/13
OFFICE
NRR/ C Sanders
NAME
C Sanders via email
R Carpenter via email
M Lemoncelli via email
M Scott/MLS
DATE
12/12/13
12/11/13
12/06/13
12/18/13
Letter to Mr. John Ventosa from Michael L. Scott, dated December 18, 2013
SUBJECT:
INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER UNITS 2 & 3 - NRC INSPECTION REPORT
NOS. 05000247/2013011 & 05000286/2013011 AND NRC OFFICE OF
INVESTIGATIONS REPORT NO. 1-2012-036
Distribution: (w/encls)
R. Carpenter, OE
C. Sanders, NRR
M. Lemoncelli, OGC
M. Scott, DRP
R. Lorson, DRS
J. Trapp, DRS
N. Hilton, OE
A. Burritt, DRP
T. Setzer, DRP
J. Scott Stewart, SRI
D. Tifft, ORA
N. McNamara, ORA
N. Sheehan, OPA
D. Screnci, OPA
M. McLaughlin, ORA
E. Monteith, ORA
B. Bickett, ORA
C. Crisden, ORA
D. Bearde, ORA
R. Zimmerman, OE
Enclosure 1
Factual Summary of NRC Office of Investigations Case No. 1-2012-036
In January and February, 2012, the Indian Point (IP) Engineering Department conducted a self-
assessment in preparation for an upcoming NRC Component Design Bases Inspection. The
self-assessment included a review of IPs Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) fuel oil delivery
systems and storage tanks. The assessment team reviewed EDG fuel oil sample data
maintained in an IP Chemistry Department database and identified that: 1) samples taken from
the reserve fuel oil storage tank (RFOST) on June 17, 2011, and December 1, 2011, had not
been entered into the database until July 14, 2011, and January 23, 2012 (respectively); 2) both
samples had exceeded the Technical Specifications (TS) particulate limits; and 3) no condition
reports (CRs) had been written in response to the out of TS condition and, evidently, no re-
sampling performed.
On February 2, 2012, the team leader sent an email to the Chemistry staff specialist who had
entered the sample results in the database (and copied the Chemistry Manager), and
questioned how the TS condition had been exited. The Chemistry specialist responded that he
had been unaware of the TS limit and, therefore, had not recognized that it had been exceeded.
Subsequently, on February 5, 2012, database entries were made to indicate that resamples for
the RFOST samples taken on June 17, 2011, and December 1, 2011, had actually been
performed on June 29, 2011, and December 9, 2011, respectively (i.e., within the 30 day period
allowed by TS), and that the re-samples were within the TS limits. These entries were coded in
the database as being made by the Chemistry Manager, and the re-samples as being taken by
one of the Chemistry technicians. In response to a condition report written by the assessment
team leader, the Chemistry Manager indicated that the re-samples had been taken but had not
been timely entered into the database. Subsequently, in response to questions from IP staff
about why no paperwork from the offsite laboratory that usually analyzes such samples existed
for the resamples, the Chemistry Manager wrote a condition report indicating that the re-
samples had been analyzed in-house.
The Chemistry Manager, who retired at the time the licensee requested to interview him as part
of its own investigation, admitted during an interview with the NRC Office of Investigations, that
re-samples had not been obtained and he had, instead, simply created values based on
historical sample results. The Manager testified that he believed the results of the original June
17, 2011, and December 1, 2011, samples were incorrect because IP was, at the time,
obtaining samples from the bottom of the RFOST and shipping them in a tin-coated can, both
practices that were specifically not recommended by newer American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) guidance. The Manager said that he falsified the data because he needed
more time to prove his theory and incorporate new test methods, and he had not wanted the
plant to unnecessarily shut down. The Manager also admitted to OI that, during this same
timeframe, he had similarly provided false information for one of the onsite fuel oil storage tanks
(the 22 EDG FOST) after learning that the TS particulate for a November 18, 2011, sample had
been exceeded, by indicating a re-sample had been taken that was within limits when, in fact,
no re-sampling was performed. The Manager further admitted that the information pertaining to
the supposed resamples that he had entered into the aforementioned condition reports had
been false.
Enclosure 2
Apparent Violations Being Considered for Escalated Enforcement
1. Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 (IP2) Technical Specifications (TS) 5.5.11 and Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3 (IP3) TS 5.5.12, Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program, in part,
require verification every 92 days that total particulate concentration of the fuel oil in the
onsite and reserve storage tanks is less than or equal to 10 mg/l.
IP2/3 TS 3.8, Electrical Power Systems, Section 3.8.3, Diesel Fuel Oil and Starting Air,
requires that whenever the total particulate concentration of fuel oil in the fuel oil storage
tanks (FOSTs) exceeds the limit, it must be restored within limits within 7 days (30 days for
the reserve fuel oil storage tank (RFOST)), otherwise, the associated diesel generators must
be immediately declared inoperable.
IP 2/3 TS 3.0.3 states that when a TS Limiting Condition of Operation is not met and the
associated Actions are not met, action shall be initiated within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to place the unit, as
applicable, in: MODE 3 within 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />, MODE 4 within 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />, and MODE 5 within 37
hours.
Contrary to the above, on or about February 2, 2012, Entergy Nuclear Operations (ENO)
identified that test results for a November 18, 2011, fuel oil sample from the IP 22 FOST and
for a December 1, 2011, fuel oil sample from the IP RFOST, indicated total particulate
concentration for both tanks was in excess of the Technical Specification limits of 10 mg/l.
Although the total particulate concentration for these systems had not been demonstrated to
be within limits within 7 days and 30 days, respectively, ENO did not declare the associated
diesel generators inoperable and did not place the units in MODE 3 within 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />, MODE 4
within 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />, and MODE 5 within 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br />.
2. 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(B) requires the holder of an operating license to, within 60 days after
discovery, submit a Licensee Event Report to the NRC for any operation or condition which
was prohibited by the plants Technical Specifications.
IP2 TS 5.5.11/IP3 TS 5.5.12, Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program, in part, require verification
every 92 days that total particulate concentration of the fuel oil in the onsite and reserve
storage tanks is less than or equal to 10 mg/l.
IP2/3 TS 3.8, Electrical Power Systems, Section 3.8.3, Diesel Fuel Oil and Starting Air,
requires that whenever the total particulate concentration of fuel oil in the reserve fuel oil
storage tank (RFOST) exceeds the limit, it must be restored within limits within 30 days,
otherwise, the associated diesel generators must be immediately declared inoperable.
IP 2/3 TS 3.0.3 states that when a TS Limiting Condition of Operation is not met and the
associated Actions are not met, action shall be initiated within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to place the unit, as
applicable, in: MODE 3 within 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />, MODE 4 within 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />, and MODE 5 within 37
hours.
2
Enclosure 2
TS 5.4, Procedures, Section 5.4.1, states, in part, that written procedures shall be
established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable requirements and
recommendations of Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2 (except as provided
in the quality assurance program described or referenced in the Updated FSAR for Unit 2).
RG 1.33, Rev.2, App A recommends chemical and radiochemical control procedures to
prescribe the nature and frequency of sampling and analyses. Implementing Procedure EN-
CY-101, Chemistry Activities, includes guidance related to chemistry sampling and
analysis. Section 5.5 states that out of specification conditions should be identified and
corrective actions initiated as quickly as possible. Implementing Procedure 0-CY-1210,
Organization and Responsibilities of the Chemistry Department, includes guidance related
to chemistry sampling and analysis. Step 4.1.4 requires a condition report to be initiated to
report any condition exceeding any procedural limits.
Contrary to the above, on or about February 2, 2012, ENO staff identified that, on two
occasions: 1) fuel oil sample test results had been received indicating total particulate
concentrations that exceeded TS limits of 10 mg/l; 2) the total particulate concentration for
these systems had not been returned to within limits within the TS-required timeframe; and
3) the associated diesel generators had not been declared inoperable or the units placed in
the appropriate operating modes. However, the ENO staff did not initiate condition reports
or otherwise report the condition such that a Licensee Event Report could be written.
Specifically the ENO staff identified that: 1) on July 13, 2011, Entergy received an RFOST
sample result indicating total particulate concentration of 13.4 mg/l, and the parameter was
not restored to within limits until September 2, 2011; and, 2) on December 30, 2011, Entergy
received an RFOST sample result indicating total particulate concentration of 13.2 mg/l,
and, as of February 5, the parameter had not been restored to within limits. The NRC was
not informed via an LER that the plant was operating in a condition prohibited by its TS until
August 20, 2012, more than 60 days after discovery by the ENO staff.