ML20113E462
| ML20113E462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1985 |
| From: | Andrews R OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| IEB-82-02, IEB-82-2, LIC-85-138, NUDOCS 8504160301 | |
| Download: ML20113E462 (11) | |
Text
.
Omaha Pubilt Power District 1623 Harney Omaha. Nebraska 68102 402/536-4000 April 9, 1985 LIC-85-138 Mr. James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Reference:
(1) Docket No. 50-285 (2) Letter from OPPD (W. C. Jones) to NRC (J. T. Collins) dated August 2, 1982 (LIC-82-269)
I (3)
Letter from OPPD (R. L. Andrews) to fiRC (J. T. Collins) dated July 2, 1984 (LIC-84-209)
(4) Letter from OPPD (R. L. Andrews) to NRC (R. D. Martin) dated December 27, 1984 (LIC-84-434)
(5)
Letter from NRC (R. D. Martin) to OPPD (R. L. Andrews) dated March 8,1985 (EA-84-63) l
Dear fir. Taylor:
IE Inspection Report 84-12 Notice of Violation The Or:1aha Public Power District received IE Inspection Report 84-12 and Reference (5) both dated March 8, 1985.
These documents identified a potential material false statement and violation of f1RC requirements relative to the District's re-sponse to flRC IE Bulletin 82-02.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, please find attached l
the District's response to these allegations.
Sincerely,
/ ' /2, ' ;gn.
/
j-R. L. Andrews Division flanager Nuclear Production RLA/CWil/dao Attachment g4160301050409 0
ADOCK 050002G5
/
/ (0 PDR
,,. e.,.., gg,;,..., o
LIC-85-138 Page 2 cc:
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Mr. James R. Miller, Chief Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011 Mr. E. G. Tourigny, NRC Project Manager Mr. L. A. Yandell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector i
1 l
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Omaha Public Power District
)
Docket No. 50-285 (Fort Calhoun Station,
)
Unit No. 1)
)
AFFIDAVIT R. L. Andrews, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is Division Manager - Nuclear Production of the Omaha Public Power District; that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the attached response to the Notice of Violation identified in the Commission's letter dated March 8,1985 (EA-84-63); that he is familiar with the content thereof; and that the matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
Ah IVW R. L. Andrews Division Manager Nuclear Production STATE OF NEBRASKA ss COUNTY OF DOUGLAS Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Nebraska on this 1
day of April,1985.
I m uutaguar-emmeen.n.
0sme/ h.htk&t*
EF Y
g Nop'ry Public
ATTACHMENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION OPPD Response Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 In accordance with Reference 5 and as required therein, the District is responding to the subject Notice of Violation associated with OPPD's initial response to IE Bulletin 82-02 (Reference 2).
VIOLATION The NOTICE OF VIOLATION attached to Reference 5 states:
The following is a material false statement within the meaning of Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
In the August 2,1982, response to NRC IE Bulletin No. 82-02,
" Degradation of Threaded Fasteners in Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundaries in PWR Plants," the licensee stated, in part, that "The Fort Calhoun Station approved maintenance procedures call for the use of NEVERSIEZE (sic) (Pure Nickel iP65) on all threaded fasteners."
Contrary to the above statement:
Special Maintenance Procedure SP-RC-11, Revision 1,
" Reactor Coolant Pump Assembly," (effective between May 24, 1980, and March 1,1983) designated no specific lubricant on the reactor coolant pump (RCP) studs.
Discussions revealed that it had been common practice to use molybdenum disulfide lubricant on both the RCP and reactor vessel studs. Revision 6 of Special Maintenance Procedure SP-RC-11, dated March 16, 1984, specifically required the use of " Super-Holy" (molybdenum disulfide) on RCP Studs.
Maintenance Procedure RC-2-1-B, Revision 12. "S/G Primary Manway Replacement," (effective between June 9,1981, and January 20,1983) designated a mixture of 50% oil and 50%
graphite to be used on manway studs.
1 The August 2,1982, statement was false in that contrary to the statement, a number of different types of lubricants were utilized at Fort Calhoun Station, including " Super-Moly" (molybdenum disulfide).
The false statement was material in that one of the purposes of IE Bulletin No. 82-02 was to find out which licensees used " Super-Moly" (molybdenum disulfide) as a fastener lubricant and what plant experience the licensee had with stress-corrosion cracking of fasteners using molybdenum disulfide lubricants. At the time IE Bulletin 82-02 was issued, the NRC thought that molybdenum disulfide might havo 1
VIOLATION (Continued) a pronounced tendency to decompose in the presence of high temperature and moisture conditions to release sulfide, a known promoter of stress-corrosing cracking. Although the NRC subsequently found molybdenum disulfide lubricant to be acceptable, this fact was not known when the licensee sub-mitted its' response.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII).
(No Civil Penalty)
DISTRICT'S RESPONSE 1.
Admission or Denial of the Alleged Violation The District admits that its August 2,1982 response was incomplete, but denies that the alleged violation is a material false statement.
Supplement VII to 10 CFR, Part 2, Appendix C provides that:
A false statement caused by an inadvertent clerical or similar error involving information which, had it been available to NRC and accurate at the time the infomation should have been submitted, would probably not have resulted in regulatory action or NRC seeking additional information is a " Severity IV violation."
The complete text of that portion of the District's August 2,1982 response that led to the Notice of Violation is as follows:
Request Identify those closures and connections, if any, where fastener lubricants and injection sealant materials have been or are being used and report on plant experience with their application particularly any instances of SCC of fasteners.
Include types and composition of materials used.
District's Response Maintenance records indicate that injection sealant compounds have never been used on any of the RCPB enclosures within the scope of IE Bulletin 82-02 at the Fort Calhoun Station.
l The Fort Calhoun Station approved maintenance proce-dures call for use of NEVERS!EZE Pure Nickel #65 on all threaded fasteners. To date, the District has ex-perienced no problems related to use of the NEVER$1EZE lubricant.
2-L
1.
Admission or Denial of the Alleged Violation (Continued)
In essence, the District furnished three categories of information to the NRC:
(1)
Injection sealant compounds used, (2)
Lubricants used on threaded fasteners, and (3)
Plant experience with sealants and lubricants, particularly instances of stress corrosion cracking of threaded fasteners.
Infomation furnished undar Category 1 was accurate; infomation under Category 2 was incomplete and therefore inaccurate; and infomation under Category 3 was accurate. The District believes that its answer in Category 3 must be considered to determine whether there was any material false statement.
The District accurately reported that it had experienced no problems. That infomation was correct with respect to all lubricants used, even though the lubricants themselves were not all listed. Had the other lubricants been identified, no different conclusion con-cerning their effect would have been presented. Therefore, con-trary to the Notice of Violation, the statement was not material.
If complete and accurate information had been included in the District's 1982 response of IE Bulletin 82-02, it "would probably not have resulted in regulatory action or NRC seeking additional infomation."
Since the NRC acknowledges that the District's incomplete response was not intentional and was not intended to conceal or mislead, we also believe it is appropriate to classify it as " inadvertent."
In addition, the Commission has determined that " materiality" should be contingent upon the safety significance of the infomation (47 Fed.
Reg. 8584 (1984)).
Based upon the above discussion, the District has concluded that the incomplete response has no safety signiff-cance. For all of these reasons, the District submits that its 1982 response was not a material false statement and that classification as a Severity Level III is not warranted.
2.
Reasons for the Violation j
Reference 3 described the steps taken to correct the District's response to Item 5 of IE Bulletin 82-02. Reference 3 also identi-fled the procedures which were in effect in 1982 when the initial i
l response was prepared. Further, the inspection conducted by the NRC's Office of Investigations during June and July of 1984 defines the causes for the occurrence. The results of the NRC's inspection are summarized in the third paragraph of Reference 5.
The submis-sion of the statement occurred due to failures on the part of the District including inadecuate review of documentation, failure to adequately coordinate anc discuss the matter with knowledgeable personnel in the specific area of concern, failure of management to assign the response to an experienced employee, and failure of
-3
~
- 2..
Reason for the Violation (Continued) management to identify the incomplete statement during the required procedural review of all. the responses to the NRC. The circum-stances associated with the preparation of the response to the NRC-indicated a specific lack of emphasis and attention to detail by a number of levels of management and supervision within the District.
3.
Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved As described in the District's presentations to Mr. P. S. Check and other members of the NRC Region IV staff during the December 20, 1984 Enforcement Conference, corrective measures have been taken in three areas:
(1)
Review of the qualifications of those responsible for preparing NRC responses for the years 1983 and 1984.
(2)
Revision of the training program for new technical employees.
(3)
Establishment of internal procedures for checking sub-mittals to the NRC and independently reviewing submittals i
l requiring oath or affimation and as otherwise deemed l
appropriate prior to management review.
j These measures and the results achieved are summarized below.
l (1)
Review of Preparer's Qualifications An undocumented review and evaluation of correspondence i
submitted under oath or affirmation for the last two years (1983-1984) was conducted to address the following functions:
a.
Were the individuals who prepared responses experienced in the area of the response?
b.
Is it necessary to perfom a technical review of any responses submitted during 1983 and 1984?
l.
c.
Is it necessary to conduct a review and evaluation of correspondence submitted prior to 19837 I
The results of that review and evaluation are as follows:
Items submitted under oath or affimation fit into three general categories:
Technical Specification Amendment Applications (both initial applications and revisions to previously filed applications)
Proprietary Infomation Declarations IE Bulletin and Generic Letter Responses 3.
Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved (Continued)
Technical Specification Amendment Application The review and evaluation concluded that since Technical Specification Amendments were reviewed and approved by the Plant' Review Committee and the Safety Audit and Review Committee, the detailed reviews and approvals of these two groups was sufficient to ensure that the information was correct.
In addition, the Commission approved such appli-cations in the fom of Amendments to the District's Technical
.Speci fications. Based on the above, the District believes that no additional review is necessary for the Technical Specification Amendments submitted during 1983-1984. The review and evaluation also concluded that it is highly un-likely that a similar situation to the IE Bulletin 82-02 response could occur with Technical Specification Amendment applications.
It was also detemined that it was not neces-sary to do additional reviews on the Technical Specification Amendments submitted prior to 1983 since they were handled in a similar manner as the 1983-1984 applications.
Proprietary Information Declarations The review and evaluation concluded that Proprietary Infor-mation Declarations are not normally of a type where safety significant information is provided to the Commission.
Therefore, no additional review of Proprietary Information Declarations submitted during 1983-1984 was needed nor was it necessary to review such submittals prior to 1983..The review and evaluation also concluded that it is highly un-likely that a similar situation to the IEB 82-02 response could occur with Proprietary Information Declarations.
IE Bulletin and Generic Letter Responses l
The review and evaluation concluded that the personnel who l
initially prepared IE Bulletin and Generic Letter responses submitted under oath or affirmation during 1983-1984 were l
sufficiently experienced to prepare such responses. These IE Bulletins and Generic Letter responses were processed through the District's management review cycle. As described in Item (3) on Page 7 of this response, the District procedure for pro:essing of NRC and other regulatory correspondence (DAS-L-03) was revised in September 1984 to incorporate an independent review and checking function. Since that revi-sion, IE Bulletins and Generic Letters submitted under oath of affirmation have been independently reviewed as required.
For 1983 and 1984 IE Bulletins and Generic Letter responses that were submitted prior to September 24, 1984, the following action was taken.
l :
(
i
o 3.
Corrective ~ Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved (Continued) a.
Many of the personnel responsible for preparing these responses _have been interviewed in order to determine if. additional review is required. During these interviews, personnel were asked to describe the steps they used in preparing the response with the intention of determining whether the necessary steps were taken. Based on these interviews it was determined that the necessary steps were taken; consequently, no additional review was required.
b.
Some responses were discussed at several meetings where sufficient qualified personnel were present and extensively discussed the subject matter. The responses were then prepared based on those discus-sions and the documents were subsequently processed through the District's correspondence review cycle.
c.
Some of the IE Bulletins or Generic Letter re-sponses have subsequently been reviewed by the Commission and closed.
Based on the above infonnation it has been concluded that it is not necessary to conduct further reviews of the IE Bulletin and Generic Letter responses submitted for the 1983-1984 period or made before 1983.
This review provides confidence that it is unlikely that a similar situation to the IEB 82-02 response could nccur with the IE Bulletin and Generic Letter responses submitted before or during the 1983-1984 period.
The District cannot positively state that all responses submitted to the Commission are 100% complete and accurate; however, the District can state there is a high degree of assurance that responses submitted to the Commission are complete and accurate based on past reviews and the results of the review and evaluation which was conducted prior to the December 20, 1984 Enforcement Conference.
(2)
Revision of the Training Program for New Technical Employees Training of new tehnical employees has been upgraded by the availability of additional courses in reactor and power plant fundamental s.
Further, availability of training materials and resources has been formalized and implemented by the Nuclear Production Division (NPD) as described in the NPD Policy /
Procedure No. C-3, R0 2/15/85, " Orientation / Training of Newly Hired Technical Employees Perfonning Safety-Related Activi-ties." Policy / Procedure C-3 training of managers and super-visors in NPD and managers in the Engineering Division was.
4
~I.
a 3.
Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved (Continued) completed on February 12, 1985. New technical employees in the Nuclear Production Division will be trained under this upgraded training and orientation policy. These improve-ments improve employee awareness of existing documentation, resources, and information prior to preparation of responses.
Also, utilization of this policy encourages communication between the supervisor and new employee to provide the supervisor with a thorough understanding of the employee's capabilities.
The improvement of the training program and fomal establish-ment of an NPD training policy for new employees has resulted e
in increased managerial and supervisory awareness that indivi-duals preparing responses must be properly qualified prior to being assigned as a preparer. Similar policies ai a in effect in the Engineering Division.
(3)
Establishment of Internal Procedures for Checking and Independently Reviewing Submittals to the NRC.
The District's Nuclear Regulatory & Industry Af fairs depart-mental procedure for processing of NRC and other regulatory correspondence (DAS-L-03) was revisea in September 1984 to incorporate appropriate Independent Review requirements es l
well as Checks of responses.
In accordance with the prcce-dure as revised, NRC submittals now undergo a Check which is generally an intradepartmental review of the orig'nating NRC F-document against the submittal to confim that items are adequately addressed, properly stated and the responses are complete. A Check is normally done by a knowledgeable perton or the preparer's supervisor or manager.
Correspondence from the NRC is reviewed upon receipt to deter-mine if a response is required and if that responso should be independently reviewed.
Review of such response; are assigned to an OPPD organization separate from the initial preparer's for an Independent Review, which is generally an interdepart-mental review of the NRC originating document against the -
submittal to confirm that all items are adequately addressed, properly stated and the responses are complete and technically t
correct. The Independent Reviewer confirms that information-in the subruittal is accurate and correct. Also, che Indepen-i dent Reviewer confirms.that the supporting data in the sub-mittal ^ supports the submitted conclusion.
Either a Check or the Independent Review are completed prior to management review of the proposed NkC response. These Checks assure that the preparer and the preparer's super-visor have reviewed appropriate documentation and available resources so that responses are complete and accurate in
- I
. ~, _
m 3.
Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken and the Results Achieved (Continued) detail.
Independent Reviews add these same features plus the review of a knowledgeable third party.
The District's experience since revision of DAS-L-03 has indicated that Independent Reviews and Checks are providing a thorough review of the responses, thereby reducing the likelihood of further similar violations.
4.
The Corrective Steps Which Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations Experience with the process of Independent Reviews and Checks of responses indicates that additional corrective steps are not neces-sary; however, the training programs for new and seasoned employees are anticipated to improve as further training resources become available and supervisors become better acquainted with application of these training resources to their employees' training and re-training needs.
5.
The Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved The District is currently in full compliance.
I 1.
l l
.