ML15224A712
| ML15224A712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1990 |
| From: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15224A713 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-90-119, GL-88-14, NUDOCS 9008270246 | |
| Download: ML15224A712 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1990017
Text
AUG 16 1990
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
License Nos.
EA 90-119
Duke Power Company
ATTN:
Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President
Nuclear Production Department
Post Office Box 1007
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1007
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $25,000
(INSPECTION REP.ORT NOS. 50-269/90-17, 50-270/90-17 AND 50-287/90-17)
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted by
the Resident Inspectors at the Oconee Nuclear Station during the period May 20
June 16, 1990. The inspection included a review of the circumstances surrounding
the apparent design error in the Reactor Building Penetration Room Ventilation
System (PRVS) that could render the system inoperable under specific conditions
that were identified by the NRC during a detailed walkdown of the PRVS. The
report documenting this inspection was sent to you by letter dated June 27, 1990.
As a result of this inspection, a significant failure to comply with NRC regula
tory requirements was identified, and accordingly, NRC concerns relative tothe
inspection findings were discussed in an Enforcement Conference held on July 12,
1990. The letter summarizing this Conference was sent to you on July 18, 1990.
The two violations in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition
of Civil Penalty (Notice) involve the issues surrounding your failure to ensure
that an Engineered Safeguards (ES) system (the PRVS) would be able to perform
its intended safety function and your failure to respond completely and
accurately to an NRC Generic Letter (GL).
Violation I in the Notice deals with an NRC Resident Inspector's discovery on
June 12, 1990, (with Unit 1 at 97 percent and Units 2 and 3 at 100 percent full
power) that two pneumatic throttle valves on each unit would fail closed on a
loss of instrument air versus failing open as indicated in the FSAR. It appears
that this condition has existed since before the plant was licensed in 1973. The
NRC believes the root cause of this problem was an original design deficiency,
including deficient documentation, and that it was compounded by your failure
to recognize the significance of the problem and to take appropriate corrective
action. Specifically, in 1982 in a document titled, "Loss of Instrument Air,"
you identified that for instrument air pressure dropping from 100 to 70 psig,
"PR-13 (PR Fan "A" Inlet Control) closes and PR-17 (PR Fan "B" Inlet Control)
closes which prevents operation of the Penetration Room Ventilation System."
However, despite this observation, you failed to recognize the significance of
.
the problem and correct it. Furthermore, in another instrument air study in
98))::27C246 90:8 13
I
i,+
0FPDC
Duke Power Company
- 2 -
AUG 1 6 70
1984, you referenced the 1982 document and reiterated that a loss of instrument
air would prevent operation of the PRVS. In this case, the report was routed
to high level management at Duke and the significance of the issue was still
not recognized and corrective action was still not taken. In addition, you had
at least two other opportunities in which you should have recognized and
corrected this problem. Specifically, in 1987 during a design study initiated
to identify active valves, you should have recognized that valves PR-13 and
PR-17 were active valves in that they would need to be repositioned after a
loss of instrument air to enable the PRVS to perform its intended function. The
NRC believes that if you had properly classified these valves during this
review, you should then have been able to subsequently identify the deficiency
of the system configuration and the discrepancy with the FSAR. In August 1988,
during your review in response to NRC Generic Letter 88-14 (GL 88-14), "Instru
ment Air Supply System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment," a review
directed at identifying this type of discrepancy, you should have recognized
that these two valves are considered safety-related and that, per the instruc
tions in GL 88-14, should have been verified as being able to function as
intended on a loss of instrument air.
Although from a technical standpoint, the resulting dose from the unavailability
of the PRVS may not have been above the 10 CFR Part 100 limit, the ventilation
system was clearly degraded. From a regulatory standpoint, the NRC considers
this problem to be a serious regulatory concern because of your failure to take
appropriate corrective action despite the numerous opportunities you had to
.recognize
the significance of this problem. Therefore, in accordance with the
"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
(Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C (1990), Violation I has been
categorized at Severity Level III.
The staff recognizes that you took prompt action and declared both trains of the
PRVS inoperable on all three units upon the NRC Resident Inspector's identifica
tion of the problem and placed all three units in a Technical Specification
action statement requiring the units to be shutdown within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. We were
informed promptly of your temporary modifications to the valves and of your
ongoing review of the issue. The staff also recognizes the promptness of your
corrective actions with respect to your incomplete response to GL 88-14,
including your review of the responses to GL 88-14 for both the McGuire and
Catawba facilities. In addition, the staff commends you for your thorough and
frank Licensee Event Report (LER) 269/90-10, to the extent that it clarified and
traced the history of this issue.
However, to emphasize the importance of taking prompt corrective action, I have
been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement,
and the Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional
Operations and Research, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed
Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the amount of $25,000 for Violation I.
The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level III violation is $50,000.
The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered.
Escalation of the base penalty was considered for Violation I because the NRC
identified the problem and because of the numerous opportunities you had to
identify and recognize the significance of the problem. However, the NRC
Duke Power Company
- 3.
- AUGI 8
y
considered your thorough investigation into the issue after it was identified,
and determined that on balance, the base penalty was neither escalated nor
mitigated for identification and reporting. The base penalty was mitigated by
50 percent for your prompt and extensive corrective action once you fully recognized
the problem, including your subsequent review of all air operated safety-related
valves. Several issues were considered with respect to your past performance.
On December 13, 1988, you received a civil penalty for a Severity Level III
violation associated with the high pressure injection "piggyback" mode of
operation. This violation was compounded by a breakdown in your communications
that hindered the resolution of the problem once it was already identified.
However, your past performance in this area has been satisfactory, as evidenced
by your SALP Category 2 ratings in the areas of engineering/technical support
and safety assessment/quality verification. Therefore, on balance, the base
civil penalty was neither escalated nor mitigated for your past performance.
The multiple occurrences factor was considered, but was not deemed applicable
to the circumstances of this case. Escalation for both the prior notice and
duration factors was considered, but was not applied because the duration of
the violation and the prior notice (including GL 88-14 and the numerous oppor
tunities you had to recognize and correct the problem) were considered in
categorizing the violation at Severity Level III.
Violation II in the Notice involves your response to GL 88-14. The generic
letter requested, in part, that verifications be performed to ensure that all
safety-related equipment will function as intended on loss of instrument air
.and
components be identified that cannot accomplish their intended safety
function as a result of this review. Your responses to this generic letter,
dated May 8, 1989 and July 20, 1989, did not completely address this request in
that your review only considered "active" valves rather than all safety-related
valves. Furthermore, your responses did not identify valves PR-13 and PR-17 as
being active valves, even though they would need to be repositioned (throttled
open) to enable the PRVS to perform its intended function on loss of instrument
air. The NRC considers this oversight to be more than a minor regulatory
concern and therefore, in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, this violation
is categorized at Severity Level IV.
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. After reviewing your response to this Notice,
including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections,
the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to
ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosure
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Duke Power Company
- 4 -
AUG
The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the
clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Stewart D. Ebneter
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed
Imposition of Civil Penalty
Duke Power Company
-
5 -
AUG 1
.0
cc w/encl:
H. B. Barron
Station Manager
Oconee Nuclear Station
P. 0. Box 1439
Seneca, SC 29679
A. V. Carr, Esq
Duke Power Company
P. 0. Box 1007
Charlotte, NC 28201-1007
County Supervisor of Oconee County
Walhalla, SC
29621
Robert B. Borsum
Babcock and Wilcox Company
Nuclear Power Generation Division
Suite 525, 1700 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds
1400 L Street, NW
Washington, 0. C. 20005
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Heyward G. Shealy, Chief
Bureau of Radiological Health
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Manager, LIS
NUS Corporation
2536 Countryside Boulevard
Clearwater, FL 33515
Paul Guill
Duke Power Company
P.O. Box 1007
Charlotte, NC 28201-1007
Karen E. Long
Assistant Attorney General
N. C. Department of Justice
.P.O.
Box 629
Raleigh, NC
27602
State of South Carolina
Duke Power Company
-
6 -AUG
161990
DISTRIBUTION:
POR
LPDR
SECY
CA
HThompson, DEDS
'JSniezek, DEDR
JLieberman, OE
SEbneter, RII
JGoldberg, OGC
TMurley, NRR
JPartlow, NRR
Enforcement Coordinators
RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV
RPedersen, OE
-Resident Inspector
FIngram, GPA/PA
BHayes, 01
DWilliams, OIG
EJordan, AEOD
Pay File
EA File
III)I
Efd?
RII
RXp
SGRJe
ins
JLMilhoan
F Redersef
SEbnet
/90
8//ebermA
190
~ 8V3~9O8//0/90
/P
90
S/L/9