ML19344A568

Forwards Response to NRC 800708 Ltr Re Noncompliances Noted in Notice of Violation & Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties.Requests Mitigation &/Or Remission of Proposed Penalties.Irradiated Fuel Movement Was Unique

ML19344A568
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	08/01/1980
From:	Andognini G BOSTON EDISON CO.
To:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
80-166, EA-80-038, EA-80-38, NUDOCS 8008210162
Download: ML19344A568 (9)

Text

_

g. .

i'a

. - 1 L -

j EA EDSTON EDISON . COMPANY . to-?& - ,

... . o - ... ... ..m . . ..

..,,. osi..

h ep.[eo

....... . 1

. \

s u.i. an .

u o.m =, ., August 1, 1980 av. m .r. . =., ., 1

'~

_ BECo Ltr. #80-166 i i

7 I

d. fr. Victor Stello,~Jr.. 1

_ Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 License No. DPR-35 Docket No. 50-293

References:

(A) Letter V. Stello, Jr. to G. C. Andognini

, dated July 8, 1980

-(B)-Letter B. H. Grier to G. C.'Andognini dated July 9,.1980; re: Inspection 50-293/80-09

Dear Mr. Stello:

This letter.is in response'to your letter dated July 8, 1980, concerning four apparent items of non-compliance relating to the movement of irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool at Pilgrim Nhclear Power Station on March 8,1980.

Appendix A~to'your July 8, 1980 letter, " Notice of-Violation", identified certain activities'as in apparent non-compliance with Technical Specifica-tions and station operating procedures. Our response to this Notice of Violation is submitted as Attachment A to this letter pursuant to the terms of the Notice and Section-2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice" Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix B to your letter, " Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties,"

proposes to impose civil penalties in the amount of thirteen thousand dellars (13,000)'for three of-the apparent items of non-compliance identified ~in

' Appendix A. Our response.to the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty and our requests for mitigation land/or remission of these proposed civil penalties is submitted as Attachment B to this letter pursuant to the terms

.of the Notice and Section 2.205 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice" Part 2, Title 10,' Code:of Federal. Regulations.

Appendices C and D to your letter contain copies of correspondence between

'yourself and two Senior Reactor. Operators, Messrs. O'Rork and Alukonis, who

are employed at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Their individual replies to those letters are being provided by them under separate cover.

N h; 8 -

c

-8008210l'62 h p

, , ,e v +me,, -<--m r- - m,n-,, - -< w~ =

n,_ ,

BOstDN EDCCN COMPANY-Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.

August 1, 1980 Page Two .

Your letter further expresses concern with the effectiveness of our managerial control of licensed activities, particularly in the areas of development of safety-related procedures and of controls for personnel actions related to procedure adherence, and requests that we give attention in our response to these areas of concern. Although we are not in agreement with the view expressed in your letter that there is a " chronic problem" in these areas,y especially inasmuch as the circumstances surrounding the movement of irradiated fuel, which was the basis for.the present Notice of Violation, were virtually

~

unique, we nevertheless fully share 'your concern with the proper development and implementation.of necessary procedures and will strive to improve our performance in this regard. We have, in response to this concern, initiated a full independent review of the Pilgrim Station Procedures Manual, the pur-pose being a complete modernization, stream-lining, consolidation and revision of our operating procedures. This task will specifically address the improve-ment of controls for procedural development, particularly including procedures addressing temporary off-normal situations and procedure adherence. These improvements will be incorporated in our training, supervision, inspection

-and audit functions. While we trust that these improvements will be fully responsive to the concerns you have raised, we further welcome any suggestions which you may have to offer.

Should you have any further comments or questions concerning this response, please contact us.

Very truly yours, cc: Mr. B. H. Grier '

Attachments:

(A) Response to Notice of Violation (B) Response to Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED i

i 1

In an. effort to ascertain the validity of the assertion regarding the existence of ,

a chronic problem, we : contracted with an outside agency as well as began an inter- ,

nal investigation-to determine the enforcement history in this area both at Pilgrim Station and at other operating nuclear facilities. The results of this investiga-tion _ revealed that Pilgrim Station has, in fact, received a number of items of non-compliance relative to _a failure to follow procedures or to a lack of required procedures during its operating _ history. However, the results also showed that

' Pilgrim Station's record does not significantly differ from that of the industry

.and in'many instances.is superior.

} .;.

BostDN EDCON COMPANY g

ATTACHMENT A' RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION Boston Edison Company Docket No. 50-293 License No. DPR-35 EA-80-38 Pursuant to Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice" Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Boston Edison Company hereby provides its re-sponse to the " Notice of Violation" dated July 8, 1980, issued in the above-captioned docket.

Each item or.sub-item of. alleged no'n-compliance contained in the Notice of Violation will first be set forth followed by the Company's detailed response.

Item I:

Technical Specification 3.7.C.1 requires that secondary containment integrity shall be maintained whenever irradiated fuel movement is iti progress.

Contrary to the above, irradiated fuel was moved within the spent fuel pool on March 8, 1980, without assuring secondary containment integrity existed.

This is a violation. (Civil Penalty - $5,000)

Response: s Boston Edison Company admits that on March 8, 1980, contrary to Technical Specification 3.7.C.l', two irradiated fuel elements were reoriented within the spent fuel pool without assuring that secondary containment integrity existed.

The direct cause of this occurrence was the failure of the Senior Reactor

- Operator, who was -at that time supervising operations on the refueling floor preparatory to the commencement of reloading activity, to realize that second-ary containment integrity was not assured. Contributing reasons for this failure included the lack of a specific check list to address requirements for fuel movement within the spent fuel pool as opposed to movement to or from the spent fuel pool, as well as the lack of an overall station-level review priorito fuel movement activities to assure that all applicable requirements have been* fulfilled. The Company believes that corrective actions responsive to these concerns have either been implemented or are now underway. ,

The basic' procedure utilized by Boston Edison Company to assure compliance with regulatory requirements, including Technical Specification 3.7.C.1, during fuel movement operations is Procedure 4.3, " Fuel Handling". The various requirements under this Procedure, including maintenance of secondary

-containment integrity, are summarized in checklist forms which are maintained

.as attachments to Procedur,e 4.3. &1 March 8, 1980, Procedure 4.3 (Revision 16

)

of Procedure 4.3 was in effect on March 8,1980) had as attachments checklists which addressed fuel movement from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel pool

.(unloading) and fuel movement from the spent fuel pool to che reactor vessel

. (reloading); however, 'there was no distinct checklist applicable solely to fuel movement within the spent fuel pool.

G t

BostDN EDi[DN COMPANY l

ATTACHMENT A Page Two on March' 8,'1980, while completing final preparations on the refueling floor for reloading the reactor vessel, directions were given for two fuel elements to be reoriented within the spent fuel pool in order to facilitate the expected reloading process. Prior to such movement, the Senior Reactor Operator super-vising the fuel handling had performed a routine evaluation of the availability of systems required for fuel handling to his satisfaction and had no reason to suspect the integrity of the secondary containment. Subsequently, the two fuel elements were moved without assuring that secondary containment integrity

' existed. It should be noted in this connection that a secondary containmen-leak rate test had been satisfactorily performed in January 1980, thereby demonstrating secondary containment integrity prior to fuel unloading. Sub-sequent thereto certain maintenance work had begun which necessitated further leak rate testing.'

Immediately following recognition of this f ailure (which occurred later the same day at a meeting of the Operations Review Committee (ORC) at which time the NRC was promptly notified), all further plans for fuel handling activity were sus-pended. A secondary containment leak rate test was immediately initiated to ascertain the existence of secondary containment integrity. To provide further control of fuel handling, the fuel handling equipment was locked out of service with the key controlled by the station manager. Subsequently, Procedure 4.3 was revised to incorporate the requirement that full ORC approval must be obtained prior to any fuel movement. Finally, prior to resumption of fuel handling man-euvers, all licensed operations personnel attended a training session which detailed the event and ihe circumstances surrounding its occurrence and which stressed the importance of assuring that all fuel handling prerequisites and requirements are verified prior to fuel movement.

As further corrective action, a new checklist which specifically addressed the movement of fuel elements within the spent fuel pool is in the process of being

' developed and is expected to be completed by September 1, 1980. In additien, the station-operator training and requalification programs are being revised to assure continual reinforcement of the concerns raised by this incident and special training sessions will be held immediately prior to the next scheduled refueling for all licensed personnel involved in fuel handling.

Item IIA:

Technical Specification 6.8.A states in part, " Written procedures and administrative policies shall be established, implemented and maintained that meet or exceed the requirements and recommendations of Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of ANSI N18.7 - 1972 and i- Appendix "A" of USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.22....."

i 1

A. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) Procedure 4.3, " Fuel Handling",

Revision 18, requires that prior to commencement of fuel handling operations, a meeting of the Operations Review Committee (ORC) shall be convened to review existing plant conditions to ensure that all requirements for fuel handling are met and, further, fuel movement may not being until the "on-duty" Watch Engineer receives approval from the ORC.

=

y3 + .~- ,_

n

. SOSTON[CC"IN COMPANY -

' ATTACHMENT"A' Page-Three '-

' Contrary to the;above, on March 8, 1980, a Senior Reactor Operator undertook fuel handling operations without the consent of the Operations' Review Committee.

This-is an-infraction.- .( Civil' Penalty'- $4,000)

Response:-

' Boston. Edison Company denies that this' infraction occurred. The basis for.this

' denial-is: the ; fact that on March 8,1980, Revision ~ 16 of Procedure 4.3 was in effect rather than -Revision 18 as alleged. Revision 16 did not contain a require-ment relative to prior. review by the Operations Review Committee (ORC).~ In fact,

, the above" stated' requirement for prior ORC review and approval was instituted' on March 20, 1980,.in Revision l_7_ to. Procedure 4.3 as part of the corrective

-action in response to the subject event.

l Consequently, Boston Edison Company denies the item of non-compliance alleged in Item IIA and' requests that'the proposed-infracticn be withdrawn.

Item IIB:

B.- PNPS' Procedure 1.3.4,." Procedures", Revision 20, requires that approved

. written procedures shall be adhered to and that these procedures shall cover all normal and foreseeable off-normal conditions.

Contrary to the above,;on March 8, 1980, the output breaker controls 'f the emergency diesel ~ generator were temporarily modified to prevent automatic closure and there was no written procedure for the startup, operation and shutdown of the emergency i power source in this. condition.

This is-an infraction.. (Civil penalty - $4,000)

Response

Boston; Edison Company' adisiits that on March 8,1980, the auto-close feature on both of the emergency.dieseligenerators were temporarily modified to. preclude a possibility of their closing on the/ bus out of: phase with the 23kV lines and that there was no written procedure for'the~startup, operation and shutdown of the generators in this condition.. It'should be noted that.this configuration existed only while the modifi-

' cation lof:the station's~345kV lines was in progress which modification was purposely e >

,f:.scheduledtobeperformed-duringtheperiodfuel'wasoutofthereactorvessel.

~

{

.kbility.inthisLease was the ftd movemert within the spent fuel pool which was the

subject :of Item 'I of the Notice of Violation.. This : fuel movement 'sh'ould not have -

^ 'taken. place for reasons ~already discussed in response to Item I and was clearly not-

" foreseeable"~in the context of Procedure 1.3.4. Consequently, the Company submits 7that,this was not the type of circumstance for which an approved written procedure Twas required by Procedure l.3.4.

r

-s y- ,%., _

-g -, ,, .,e ,gy- - ,, ,,-n,, ,,g

BDstDN EDIT ~ N COMPANY m ,- .-

ATTACHMENT B RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY

-Boston-Edison Company Docket No. 50-293 License No. DPR-35 EA-80-38 Pursuant to Section'2.205 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10,-

Code of Federal Regulations, Boston Edison Company hereby protests the impos-ition of civil penalties as set forth in the Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties dated July 8,1980, issued in the above-captioned docket.

The basis for this protest for each.of the three items of alleged non-compliance for which civil penalties have been proposed is set forth below.

Item I:

That section of Attachment A containing the Company's ." Response" to Item I (i.e. .pp.1&2) . is hereby incorporated by reference herein.

As admitted in the " Response" irradiated fuel was moved within the spent fuel pool on March 8,1980, without assuring secondary containment integrity. While Boston Edison Company admits being thereby in non-compliance with the Technical Specification, it is submitted that the circumstances surrounding the event ,

make the imposition of a civil penalty inappropriate.

In particular, reference is made to the Commission's " Criteria for Determining Enforcement Action" dated December 31, 1974. The Company submits that the event.in question is much more nearly described by the criteria for which it is stated that " generally a ' notice of violation' may be considered sufficient enforcement" as opposed to the criteria listed as causing a civil penalty to be "the appropriate enforcement action." With respect to the Notice of Violation criteria, the. Company would note that the events underlying this item of non-compliance were.almost unique and could hardly be termed repeated or chronic.

The violation was readily correctable and, in fact, appropriate corrective action was promptly undertaken. Furthermore, the Company does not believe that the incident could_be fairly characterized as constituting an "immediate or serious' threat to health, safety, the environment or the common defense and security." With respect to the civil penalty criteria, it is similarly urged that~they cannot fairly be deemed descriptive of this item of non-compliance.

Consequently, it is respectfully requested that the proposed civil penalty of

, ' $5,000 be withdrawn or, in the alternative, that it be reduced or mitigated.

Item IIA:

l That portion of Attachment A containing the Company's " Response" to Item IIA (i.e. , pp. '2) is hereby incorporated by reference herein.

As indicated in the " Response" the procedural requirement for ORC review and approval prior to fuel handling was not-in effect at the time of the event.

Therefore, inasmuch'as there was no non-co=pliance, we respectfully request that the proposed civil. penalty of $4,000 be withdrawn.

f 7

m, ,

--]

-. BO^J ON EpisON COMPANY'

• ATTACHMENT B Page Two Item IIB:

~

That portion of Attachment A containing the Company's " Response" to Item IIB

'(i.e. pp. 3) is hereby incorporated by reference herein.

- As admitted in the Response" on approved written procedure had not been implemented to specifically address the special alignment of the emergency power supply. The Company submits, however, that it is highly questionable whether Procedure 1.3.4 required a formal written procedure in this unique and non-foreseeable situation. Even if this should be considered a technical violation though the Company believes that a civil penalty is inappropriate under the Commission's " Criteria for Determining Enforcement Action." In particular, the Company points out that it had recognized the uniqueness of the situation presented by the special alignment of the diesel generators and, further, that all operations personnel were made cognizant of the alignment and instructed as to the single manual action required by them to load the generators to the buses in the event of an auto start. All other facets of the operation of the emergency diesel generators were .: overed by existing procedures. It is clear that at no time was there an, immediate or serious threat and the matter was quickly remedied when the improper fuel handling activities ceased.

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the civil penalty of $4,000 be withdrawn or in the alternative that it be reduced or mitigated.

9

• tum.

4 h

V '; 1

. .BDaTON Ell'Z N COMPANY ATTACHMENT A Page Four Even if thic should be deemed a situation where an approved written procedure were required by Procedure 1.3.4, it is submitted that the full intent of the written procedure requirement was met and adequate procedural steps had been established and communicated to operating personnel to assure emergency power source availability during this period despite the absence of an approved written procedure. It is the Company's firm belief that although an approved written procedure had not been specifically created to address the special diesel generator alignment, the techniques actually employed demonstrate a reasonable and operationally sound approach.

All control room licensed operators had been informed of the special diesel alignment ,' and they were cognizant of the actions required by them should an auto start of the emergency diesel generator occur. If the emergency diesel generators had started while so aligned, the control room licensed operator had the following actions to perform:

A. Visually t 'termine that the 23kV brea'kers had all opened. (The indica-i tion is on tanel C-3 in the main control room).

l E. Manually close the "D" feed breaker once the emergency diesel generators reached full speed.

All other facets of control during startup, operation and shutdown of the emergency power source were unchanged and required no special instruction. Further, a description of the alignment and a schematic diagram was maintained with the applitable maintenance request in the main control room and the maintenance re-quest had been approved by members of the Operations Review Committee (ORC).

The modification itself was scheduled when the operability requirements for the emergency diesel generator would be least impacted. The emergency diesel generator had also satisfactorily passed the operability surveillance test prior to beginning the 345kV modification.

It is submitted that the intent of the requirement for approved procedures addressing I all special or off-normal conditions is to assure that the appropriate individuals are cognizant of the existence of special conditions and to provide any needed specific guidance to them so they may continue to operate that system in a safe l

and reliable manner. It is Boston Edison Company's position that the actions which were implemented, though not an " approved written procedure" satisfied the intent of such a procedure and ensured the continued safe cperation of the emergency diesel generator. Therefore, it is requested that this infraction be withdrawn.

l Icem IIC:

C. PNPS Procedure 1.3.7, " Records", Revision 17, requires the Operating Super-visor and Control Room Operator to log in the Station Operations Log a minute-by-minute account of the operation of the plant, and that this should include everything that is happening in the plant.

n. -- --

T -)BodTON E ljON CZMPANY g.

ATTACHMENT A-

. .Page Five

~

' Contrary to' the :above, the movement of irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool, nthe violation ofLTechnical Specification 3.7.C.1 and the notification of NRC of.the' incident were not logged in the Station Operations Log.on March 8, 1980.

Thisjid a' deficiency'. (No Civil Penalty)

Response

Boston Edison Company admits that the three specified items were not logged in the Station Operations Log on March 8, 1980.

The Company-submits that the failure to log these three items in the Station Operations Log resulted from a difference of interpretation of the requirements of Procedure 1.3.7 ' and should not be considered to be in non-compliance with that' Procedure.

With. respect to the failure to log the movement of irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool on March 8,1980, it should be pointed out that, due to the complexity and numbar.of. tasks and.on-going activities in the plant during a refueling out-

-age, Pilgrim Station maintains an additional operations log during refueling outages - the Refueling Floor Supervisor's/ Coordinator's Log. The practice of keeping this additional log was initiated during Refuel 2 in 1975, and has been utilized during'each subsequent refueling outage including the one occurring in 1980. This log is maintained in the main control room and an account of all licensed refueling floor activitfes is documented in this log by the individuals super-vising activities on the refueling floor. A review of this log revealed that on March 8,1980, the movement of irradiated fuel in the spent fuel pool, was logged by the Senior Reactor Operator in charge of the refueling floor as re-quired. Although we believe this practice fully satisfied the intent of Procedure 1.3.'7, in order to expressly delineate the practice of, utilizing

'this additional log during refueling outages, Procedure No.1.3.7, " Records",

will~be revised to explicitly reference the refueling log. It is expected that this revision will be implemented by September 1, 1980.

-With respect to the violation of Technical Specification 3.7.C.1 and the subsequent notification of the NRC, it is submitted that the failure to' log these items is based upon a differing interpretation of wnat constitutes " operations of the plant."

On Saturday, , March 8,1980, the Operations Review Committee (ORC) met to evaluate

.the fuel movement incident. It was during this meeting that the determination was made that. Technical-Specification 3.7.C.1 had, in fact, been violated and that the event should be promptly reported. The NRC was immediately notified by a member: of the ORC from an administration building office. There was not control room involvement in the ascertainment of the technical specification violation and the subsequent telephone report to the NRC. Though the control room was notified by the 9KC of the results of the meeting ' and the notification to the NRC, these events were1oot construed as being part of the " operations of the plant"

-and as'such, were not entered into the control room Station Operations Log.

It is the Company's position therefore that classifying the failure to log these items in the Station Operations Log as a deficiency is unwarranted.

M. -

v:

. - -- ,_