ML20107A432
Text
..
. ',' '. g
'O
- j
}
m 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 J. P. O'Reilly, Director gp 11 JERSET CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OTSTER CREEK 1 DOCKET No. 50-219 LICENSE NO. DPR-16 IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY I have given this case careful review and I concur with Cantre11's recommendation that the licensee be given the maximas fine for the violation. The civil penalty is warranted under Ph Manual Chapter Q
0820.02; specifically under the last sentence of the paragraph. The violation falls within the definition of Severity Category. II in that the violation. "if not corrected, may lead to or contribute to an I q occurrence, incident, or situation involving radiation exposure to
\\,
employees or the public in excess of permissible limits (and) the j
release of radioactive materials in effluents in excess.of permissib1M limits". The vange of tuonetary penalty applicab.le to Severity Category
& violations incurred by power reactors is $500 - 4,000.
I recommend that we propose the maximum limit of $4,000. An imposition.
of less than the maximum penalty would be considered, by interested persons, to be "sof t" in view of our prompt issuance of a bulletin that cost the industry hundredo of thousands of dollars. By taking a hard-nosed position is this case, we will be able to emphasise the
-iniportance of prompt evaluation and reporting of all abnormal occurrences.
I believe that the licensee can present no reasonable denial or statement of extenuating circismatances.
R. T. Carlson, Chief Facility Operations Branch 9604120290 960213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR omer >. CRESS: I CoNehpss skn
.ca SM>
.h...
Feen ABC-SIS (Rev.5-53) ABCM eH6 9 h D6f lI D D O
a
_D_ _R _A.F _T License No. DPR-16 a
Jersey Central Power and Light Company ATTN:
Dr. S. Bortnoff, President Madison Avenue and Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Gentlemen:
This letter refers to the inspection conducted on August 3 and 6, 1973, of your activities authorized by AE0 Facility License No.
DPR-16 at the Oys er Creek Power Station in Forked River, New Jersey and to the discussion of the inspection findings held with !!r. J. T.
Carroll on August 6, 1973.
During the inspection, it was found that one of your activities appeared to be in violation of AEC requirements. The item and references to the pertinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation, enclosed herewith as Appendix A.
The violation occurred during the period from April 15 to Augus t 6,1973.
The violation identified in Appendix A describes your failura to notify the AEC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of your discovery that two-thirds of your installed shock and sway arrestors were incapable of performing their intended safety function. This matter is of scrious concern to the AEC in that the AEC considers reporting requirements contained in its Regulations, Licenses and Technical Specifications to be an integrel part of the Nuclear Reactor Safety program.
The seriousness is indicated by the action we took when we becane aware of similar malfunctions at another nuclear power station 60 days af ter the occurrence at your facility.
As You know, as soon as we became aware of these nalfunctions
_ - ~ -
r V
Jersey Central Power.and
!.ight Company we issued a Regulatory Operations Bulletin to alf operating nuclear power plants. This Bulletin directed the operating nuclear twer plants to examine all suspect shock and sway arrestors within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
1 In a meeting held on-April 24, 1973, between the Director of 4
our Regional Of fice and Dr. Bartnoff and his staff, you were informed that the AEC was concerned about the adequac'y of your
~ management control systems. Your failure to notify the AEC J
of inoperative rhock and sway arrestors indicates that your management control systems in this area are not adequate.
I As you are aware from the " Criteria.for Determining Enforcement I
4 Accion", which was provided to you by our letter dated November 1, l
1972, the enforcement actions available to us in the exercise of our regulatory responsibility include administrative actions in the form of written notices of violation, civil mone'tary penalties, and' orders pertaining to the modification, suspension, or revocation of an operating license. After careful examination of the license j
1 violation idcatified in Appendix A, this office proposes to impose 1
a civil penalt'y pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (42 USC 2282), and 10 CFR 2.20'5, in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) as set forth in the Notice of i
i Proposed Imposition of Civil Penaltics enclosed herewith as i
Appendix B.
j l
E y
i 1 Jersey Central Pow a.d Light Company.
In addition to the need for corrective action to, avoid further violations of. the specific deficiency identified in Appendix A, we are concerned about'the implementation of your management control system that permitted this deficiency to_ occur.
Consequently, in your reply, you sh< uld describe in particular, those actions taken or planned to improve the effectiveness of your management control systems for
. reporting, review
- and classifying abnormal occurrences.
While the violation identified in Appendi:: A does not present an immediate threat to the health and safety of the public and thereby necessitate suspension of plant operations, it is necessary that management action be taken pronptly _ to assure full compliance' with AEC requirements in tlie future. We plan to continue strict surveillance of your program for handling abnormal occurrences to ascertain whether such action has been taken. Our findings and your reply to this letter will provide a basis for us to determine whether any further enforcement action is called for, such as suspension, modification, or revocation of your license.
Sincerely, Donald F. Knuth Director of Regulatory Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation
- 2. -Appendix D, Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties
S e
License No. DPR-16 APPENDIX A Jersey Central Power and Light Company ATTS:
Dr. S. Bortioff, President
?!adison Avenue and Punch Bowl Road
?!orristoun, New Jersey 07960 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Gentlemen:
Based on the results of an AEC. inspection conducted on August 3 and 6,1973, it appears that certain of your-activities were.not conducted in full compliance with conditions of you'r AEC Facility License No.
DPR-16 as indicats
- below:
\\
Paragraph 6.6.2 of the Technical Specifications requires that you notify the Director of the Regional Regulatory Operations Of fice i
in the event of an abnormal occurrence and that this notification be made by telephone and telegraph within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of your recognition of the unusual occurrence. It also requires that i
you submit a written report of the occurrence to the Director j
of Licensing within 10 days. An abnormal occurrence is defined, i
in.Section 1.15 of the Technical Specification, as a failure of one or more components of an engineered safety feature or plant protection system that causes or threatens to cause the feature or system to be incapab1r of perforn.ing its intended function.
Contrary to this requirenent, you failed to notify the Director of the Regional Regulatory Operations Office, or report to the J
Appendix A -.Page 2 Dirt ctor of Licensing, within the prescribed time limits, that
.88_ of _132 hydraulic shock and sway arrestors had been found defective between April 15 and June 5,1973.
.Again on July 22, 1973 you failed to make timely notification and to submit a timely report when you discovered that.8 of the reconditioned arrestors had again been found to be defective.
(Severity Category II)
(Civil. Penalty = $4,000)
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions < f Section 2.201 of the'AECis " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 2.201 T'equires you to submit to this office within twen,ty (20) days of your receipt of this notice a written statement or explanation in reply including:
(1) corrective steps which have been taken by you and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date i
when full compliance will be achieved. Ilowever, in this instance we have received your letter dated August 6,1973 to the Director of Licensing covering the first (1) and third (3) parts of the required reply. - Accordingly, in your reply to this notice you need only describe the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations.
FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY C0!S!ISS10N Donald.F. Knuth Director of Regulatory Operations
j d
t
- APPENDIX B
. Jersey Central Power ~and Light Company ATTN:.Dr. S. Bortnoff., President
-Madison Avenue'and Punch Dowl Road' Morristown, New Jersey 07960 NOTICE OF PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PI'NALTY Gentlemen:
This office proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 l
of the Atomic Energy. Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2282), and to
-10 CFR 2.205 in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for the specific violation set forth in Appendix A to the coier letter.
In proposing to. impose a civil penalty pursuant to this Section of' the I
Act and in fixing the proposed amount of the penalty, the factors identified in the statement of considerations published in the Federal l
Register with the rule making action which adopted 10 CFR 2.205 (36 FR 16894) Augus t 26, 1971, have been taken into account.
You may, within twenty (20) days of the date of this notice, pay the 4
civil penalty in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) or you
. may protest the imposition of the civil penalty in whole, or in part, j
by a written answer.- Should you fail to, answer within the time specified, i
this office will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount propos ed - ab ove. Should.you elect to file an answer protesting the 4
civil penalty. such answer ~may (a) deny the violation listed in the.
Notice of: Violation in whole or in part, (b) demonstrate extenuating r-v.
"f r e.'
j
,z,. 6 e
Appendix B.- Pace 2' circumstances, (c) show error in the Notice of Violation orf(d) show -
,l
.other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from your statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but you may incorporate by specific reference (e.g...
i giving page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition.
Your attention is directed-to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205
]
regarding, in particular, failure to answer and ensuing orders; answer,
\\
i consideration by this office, and ensuing orders; requests for hearings, 1
hearings and ensuing orders; compromise; and collection. Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which has'been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, the matter i
may be referred to the Attorney General, and the. penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2282).
FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION i
.l Donald F. Knuth Director of Regulatory Operations i
.l'
. l
a e.
p
.?
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Oe nscTOR ATE OF R;GULATOstV OPER AYlONS REGION f
{ d
=
t 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia,. Pennsylvania 19406 J. P. O'Reilly, Director 19
~~
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK 1 DOCKET N0. 50-219 LICENSE NO. DPR-16 IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY I have given this case careful review and I concur with Cantrell's recommendation that the licensee be given the maximum fine for the violation. The civil penalty is warranted under R0 Manual Chapter 0820.02; specifically under the last sentence of the paragraph. The violation falls within the definition of Severity Category II in that the violation "if not corrected, may lead'to or contribute to an occurrence, incident, or situation involving radiation exposure to employees or the public in excess of permissible limits (and) the release of radioactive materials in effluents in excess of permissible limits". The range of monetary penalty applicable to Severity Category II violations incurred by power reactors is $500 - 4,000.
]
I recommend that we propose the maxigtum limit of $4,000. An imposition l
of less than the maximum penalty would be considered, by interested persons, to be "sof t" in view of our prompt issuance of a bulletin j
that cost the industry hundreds of thousands of dollars. By taking a i
hard-nosed position is this case, we will be able to emphasize the
-importance of prompt evaluation and reporting of all abnormal occurrences.
I believe that the licensee can present no reasonable denial or statement i;
of extenuating circumstances, j'
/
//
A.,.
/, L 2m.m R. T. Carlson, Chief Facility Operations Branch i
I O
t i
i
j-
. + -
-)
.s
.y r.
Tot Janes P.;O'Reilly Directorate of Regulatory Operations Begion I 631 Park Avenue King of Prusslar Pennsylvania,19406 From
^ Jersey Central Power & Light Company -
Oyster Creek Nucicar, Generating Station Docket #S0-219 Forked Rivero Now Jersey 08731 4
Subjectt.
Abnormal Occurrence Report 73-22 The following is a. preliminary report being submitted
'in compliance with the Technical Specifications paragraph 6.6.2.
Prelintinary Approvait
/I$lA
'/10/73
- f. T. Carroll, Jr. lY Date cc Mr. A. Giambusso 0
4 s.
n o s~i w r ie
Time:
11:00'p.m.-
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' "
- }
dBNORMAL OCCURRENCE b:
. REPORT NO. 73-22
SUBJECT:
. Violation of the Technical Specification, paragraph 1.'15.E.,
excessive leakage through Main. Steam Isolation Valve NS03B...
i
'!his event is considered to be an abnormal occurrence 'as defined:
f in the Technical Specifications, paragraph 1.15.E.. Notification l
- of this event as required by the Technical Specifications', para-graph 6.6.2.a, was' made to AEC Region I, Directorate of Regulatory i
Operations, by telephone on Monday, September 10, 1973, at 9:45 a.m., and personally to Mr. B. Greenm'an on Monday, September 10, 1973.
l' SITUATION:
The reactor was'shu'tdown (scrammed) on September 8,1973 at
.0656. At 2255 on September 9,1973, NS03B was tested for leakage and found to be in excess of 100 SCFil.
The limit, as detailed in the Technical Specifications, is 9.95 SCFH -(5% of Leo [20]).
An estimate of the leak rate is. now being formulated and is conser-vatively expected to be =200 SCFil.
~CAUSE:
Unknown at this time.
REMEDIAL ACTION:
Prior to disassembly of the valve, stem measurements are being taken 'on all four. valves to check - for confonnity.
In addition, the following organizations have been. contacted, informed of the situation, and asked for comments. Their comments will be incor-
. porated.into our, decision on further action.
t
+
e
..'d
,a.
.o
-)
j-gso'rsal0ccurrence
( )
September 9,197h Rehrt No. 73-22 '
e REMEDI AL ACTION _ (Con't).'
Atwood-Morrill (vendor)
General Electric Company MPR Associates l
SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE:
The rate of pressure buildup in the reactor was compared. to a graph of pressure buildup where 'at-least one valve in each steam line was. leak tight. These plots compared favorably. This implies that one valvo in the "B" Main Steam Line (i.e., NSO4B) was leak tight. This was confirmed.when pressure buildup between the valves was observed to be approximately the same as the reactor pressure. The redundancy feature will be ascertained only upon successful co"mpletion of the NSO4B leak' test.
O e
O D
e e
a d
Prepared by:
Date:
9/10/73' 7
- ,. e-y '
'e
(.,.
)
4.
1
[
(
i
.I l
i Tot James P. O'Reilly Directorate of Regulatory Operations l
Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406 I
4 Front Jersey Central Power & Light Company Oyster Creek Nuc1 car Generating Station Docket 550-219 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Subject Abnortal Occurrence Report 73-21 l
Following is a preliminary report being submitted in compliance with the Technical specifications paragraph 6.6.2.
Preliminary Approyait
)
0A i/?/14f h 9/10/73 T. Carroll, Jr. V 'Dato cca Mr. A. Glairbusso h
a se sivazrs s sg.
s.
Date: 9/10/73 l
~
Time: 3:00 a.m.
'~
.l.
.g.
- l'
/: - '
ABNORMAL OCCURRENCE s
REPORT NO. 73-21 i.
Failure of 21 liydraulic Shock and Sway Arrestors on piping
SUBJECT:
4 systems.in the Drywell, including units on both Core Spray and both
[
Isolation Condenser loops.
i i
This event is considered to be an abnormal occurrence as defined Notification in the Technical Specifications, paragraph 1.15.D.
of this event as required by 'the Technical Specifications, para-graph 6.6.2.a, was made to AEC Region 1, Directorate of Regulatory l'
c Operations, by telephone on Monday,' September 10, 1973, at 12:45 p m., and personally to Mr. E. Greeman on Monday, September 10, 1973.
SITUATION:
The pl, ant was shutdown on September 8,1973 for the purpose of
-inspecting the Hydraulic Shock and Sway Arrestors located on piping systems throughout the Drfwell.
6 CAUSE:
The snubbers were made inoperabic due to a loss of hydraulic fluid.
REMEDI AL ACTION:
The failed !!ydraulit Shock and Sway Arrestors were replaced using snubbers
- rebuilt wi,th seal kits supplied by the Bergen Paterson Pipe Support Company. The new seals are of a different. type, which according to.Bergen Paterson, will provide a longer seal life.
9 4
m
I-
s.
)
Abnomal Occurrence
(
September 10, 1973
-, * ~
Report No. 73-21
's SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE:
The loss of snubber operability resulted in a redun. ion in the.
ability of the plant to safely survive a design bases earthquake.
1he failures were such that they affected both Core Spray and both Ensrgency Condenser Systems.-
0 4
e 8-e she 9
I e
e 4
e i
G b
e 4
+
W 9
Prepared by: [I *,_de,2 / //
t7142 Date:
9/10/73 d
1 1
- 'g Y
9-*
?
f.0 -
,)'
(
y it Tot James P. O'Reilly Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region I,
~<
631 Park Avenue.
King of Prussiao Pennsylvania 19406 From:
Jersey Central Power' G Light Company Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket #50-219 Ibrked River, New Jersey 08731 Sub. ject:
Abnormal Occurrence Report 73-20 The following is a preliminary report being submitted in compliance with the Techn.f cal Specifications paragraph 6.6.2.
Preliminary Approvait T
//ft ;f $',h/10/73 T. Carroll, Jr.
Dato cct Mr. A. Giambusso 4
73 0 5 I wO 3 0 sq.
4 l
(
, Timet is43 p.c.
).
g ABNORMAL OCCURRENCE REPORT NO. 73-20 SUBJECT Failure of Isolation Condenser NE0:A Condansate Return Valve V-14-34 to operate during the last stages of a plant cooldown.'
This event is considered to be an abnormal occurrence as defined in the Technical Specifications, paragraph 1.1SD.
Notification of this event as required by the Technical Specifications, para-graph 6.6.2.a, was made to AEC Region I, Directorate of Regulatory Operations, by telephone on Sunday, September 9s 1973, at 12:45 p.m.,
and personally to Mr. E. Greenman,'on. Monday, September 10, 1973.
SITUATION: During the last stages of a plant cooldown, an attengt was made to initiate the "A" Isolation Condenser.
The condensate return valve V-14-34, however, failed to operate. Pertinent data is as followst Valve Manufa' turert Crane c
Size:
10" Wedge Gate Operator Manufacturert Philadelphia Gear Company /
Peerless Electric Operator Typct SNV Size 2 Motor Rating:
4.3 h.p. @ 1900 rpm,12S volts DC, 35 amps I
Prior to this failure, the valve had been operated successfully with no failures on previous operability surveillance tests and also had been used several times during the initial stages of the l
i plant cooldown.
CAUSE Both overloads for the starting contactor were found tripped, j
l I
s I.
?
~
- Abnormal Occurrence g
Report No 73-20
~2-September 8,1973 REMEDIAL ACTION:
The overloads were reset and the valve was operated electrically with no prior manual operation.
It was fully stroked open and closed twice, operating satisfactorily. A trace of currents drawn by the motor was taken and compared with a trace taken the previous Thursday (September 6,1973). No differences were detected.
SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE:
The significance of this event is the loss of redundancy of the Isolation Condenser System, one of which is, reqdited to act as a means for heat removal as detailed in Amendment 67 to the FDSAR.
4 t
Prepared by:
%: w.
Date 9/10/73
(/
4
l-
.;/
d'
(
y o.;'
g 4
s Tot Jarnos P. O'Rafiiy Directorate of Regulatory Oparations Region 1
)
631 Par.% Avonuo King of Pttrosta, Pentasylvania 19406 Jotscy Central Power & liiglet botegany froest Oyster crack'Hucicat ceneratitty Station Docket !!SO4 H Yorked RLvoro tioW Jersey Ott/ 32
~
Subfcctt Abitortual Oct;urrenco Roport 73-19 The folicuitsg is a prelittinhty topo *t heitty submitt.ed its compliance with the Technical Specificationu paragrar# 6.6.2.
Prellinittary Approvalt Q#
'A$
/
. $bQ/73 T/ ' Lute T. Carroll Jr.
i cca Mr. A. Giawhusso
~~ c s c
e
. Date 9/8/73 Time' )6:55 c.c.
ABNORMAL OCCURRENCE REPORT NO. 73-19
SUBJECT:
Violation of the Technical Specification, paragraph 3.7.A.2, in that although both startup transformers were energized to carry power to the station 4160V AC buses, neither transformer could be considered operable due to an improper setting on the C base differential monit-oring relay.
Additionally, this event is considered to be an abnormal occurrence as defined in the Technical Specificationsi paragraph 1.15G, in that proper procedural controls were not implemented with respect to pro-tective relay testing, which resulted in the development of"an unsafe condition in connection with the operation of the plant.
Notification of this event, as required by the Technical Specifications, paragraph 6.6.2,a, was made to AEC Region I, Directorate of Regulatory Operations, by telephone on Saturday, September 8,1973, at 10:15 a.m.,
i and by telecopier on Monday, September 10, 1973, at 1:30 p.m.
l SITUATION _:
A plant shutd.own had progressed to the point where, with electrical output-st approximately 90 M(e, a transfer of station loads from the i
i Auxiliary Transformer to the Startup Transformers was attempted. When l
a closing signal was applied to the S1A breaker, a loss of power occurred the the "1A" 4160V AC bus, which among other things caused two circula-tory water pumps, three reactor recirculation pumps and the operating condensate and feedwater pumps to trip.
Diessi Generator #1 started i
o
..,y
-+.
4..
)
Abnormal Occurrence September 8,1973 Report No. 7319 f
in the " Fast Start" mode, reenergizing the 4160V "1C" bus and the req-An attempt was n,nde to start the n quisite safeguard power supplies, i
and C condensate pumps, but before either pump could be started, th Automatic transfer to the reactor scrammed due to low water level, but later in attempting to start a SIB transformer was accomplished, condensate pump powered-from the "18" 4160V bus, SIB tripped in l
The second CRD pump the " Fast Start" sequence on Diesci Concrator #2, 7
was started to assist in monitoring ren'ctqr water level which dropped The reactor was isolated to prevent s
to 9 feet above the active fuel.
d as water inventory loss and the emergency condensers were initiate g
The point at which reactor. isolation -
neede'd to remove decay heat, occura and the emergency cooling system is initiated was g reache l.
The problem was traced to an incorrect setting of the current trans-CAUSB:
former ratio matching tops for the c phase differential relay on both l
In attempting to either carry a sizeablo load or startup transformers.
start a large loud, a dlfferentlat fault was sensed, tripping the out-i put breakers.
REWOIAT. ACTION:
The current transfomer ratio matching taps were set up properly an 1
~
The company Relay Department station loads were returned to normal.
was contacted and load checks were conducted in each of the startup All checks were satisfactory.
transformor phase differentini relays.
?
a l
Abitorsal Occurrenco Report No. 73-19 Septecher 4,1973 a
SMT.TY SIGNIFICANCEI
'Ihc significance of this event is that the designed redundancy of power supplies for the station 4160V buses was not present and, in fact, had not been pre.5ent since July 30, 1973 when the relay test was made. However, both diesel-generators did function properly upon the loss 'of power. Consequently, plant safety was not endangered, e
a O
t 4
4 j
6
<g
.