ML20198L444

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Insp Rept 50-440/97-08 on 970721-0827 & Nov. Violation of Concern Due to Issues Previously Identified to Site Through Earlier Assessment,But Still Remain.Violations Include Design Control,Ca & Updating USAR
ML20198L444
Person / Time
Site: Perry, 03000440
Issue date: 09/23/1997
From: Grobe J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Myers L
CENTERIOR ENERGY
Shared Package
ML20198L449 List:
References
05-440-97-08, 5-440-97-8, EA-97-430, NUDOCS 9710270044
Download: ML20198L444 (6)


See also: IR 05000440/1997008

Text

c-

September 23,1997

EA 97 430

Mr. Lew W. Myers

Vice President - Nuclear

Centerior Service Company

P.O. Box 97, A200

Perry, OH 44081

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-440/97008(DRS) AND NOTICE OF

VIOLATION

Dear Mr. Myers:

This refers to the inspection conducted on July 21 through August 27,1997, at your Perry

Nuclear Power Plant The purpose of the inspection wo to follow up on issues identified

during the NRC Design Inspection conducted from February 17 through March 27,1997,

and documented in inspection report 50 440/97201. The enclosed report presents the

results of this inspection.

Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC

requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation

(Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject

inspection report. The violations are of concern because many of the issues had been

previously identified to the site through earlier assessments, yet the issues remained. The

violations include design control, corrective actions, safety reviews of changes to the

facility, and updating the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). Based on the number of

examples we found for specific violations, the issues are not isolated cases and require

appropriate attention. We will review your response to these violations and evaluate the

need to discuss the issues at a future management meeting. Also, deviations from

commitments were identified. The deviations are of concern as your staff assumed their

actions were equivalent to the commitment made to the NRC and did not pursue changing

"

the commitment before taking the * equivalent ach is.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the

enclosed Notices when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part,

to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure complicnce with

regulatory requirements.

In addition, one apparent violation (Paragraph E8.17) was identified and is being considered

for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and

Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG 1600. A change to

the emergency closed cooling surge tank from a 7-day supply to a 30-minute supply was

made_without recognizing the change involved an unreviewed safety question (USQ). No

Notice of Vlolation is ,iresently being issued for this inspection finding. Please be advised

that the number and characterization of this apparent violation described in the enclosed

-

Inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review.

I

9710270044 970923

f

'

PDR

ADOCK 05000440

J b' a' l

a

eoa

l.! l.l! I.li1.1ll. If

'

I ll

.

,.

L W. Mysrs

2

Stptsmber 23,1997

An open predecisional enforcement conference to discuss this apparent violation has been

scheduled for October 7,1997. The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or

that enforcement action will be taken. This conference is being held to cbtain information to

enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision, such as a common understanding of the

facts, root causes,

missed opportunities to identify the apparent violation sooner, corrective actions,

significance of the issues and the need for lasting and effective corrective action. In

particular, we expect you to address how the safety review process failed to identify the

USQ despite the multiple levels of review involved in the process. Include a discussion of

your corrective actions concerning the recent 10 CFR 50.59 violation identified in inspection

report 50-440/97002. We note that your staff was slow to recognize the USQ following

NRC identification, although your staff finally recognized it at a later date. We do not

consider this issue limited to the Engineering Department. In addition, please discuss the

actions you have taken or planned to improve your staff's sensitivity to identifying potential

USQs early in the safety review process.

This is an opportunity for you_to point out any errors in our inspection report and for you to

provide any information conceming your perspectives on (1) the severity of the violation (s),

(2) the application of the factors that the NRC considers when it determines the amount of a

civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance with Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement

Policy, and (3) any other application of the Enforcement Policy to this case, including the

exercise of discretion in accordance with Section Vll.

You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this

matter. No response regarding the apparent violation is required at this time,

in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of tnis letter, its

enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Sincerely,

John A. Grobe, Acting Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No. 50440

-

License No. NPF-58

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. Notice of Deviation

3. Inspection Report 50-440/97018(DRS)

See Attached Distributiqr,t

--

l

__

. _ . . .

_

. _.__ . _ . _ _.- _ .. _ ._ - . _ . _ _ _. .._ . _

_ . _ _

.._ .

L W.- My2rs -

3-

Srpt;mber 23,1997

r

. .

4

cc w/encls: H. L Hegrat, Manager, Regulatory Affairs

T. S. Rausch, Director, Quality and

Personnel Development

R. W. Schrauder,' Director, Perry _

,

Nuclear Engineering Department.

W, R. Kanda, General Manager,

Nuclear Power Plant Department

N. .L Bonner, Director, Nuclear

Maintenance Department

H. W. Bergendahl, Director

Nuclear Services Department

.

Terry L. Lodge, Esq.

State Liaison Officer, State of Ohio

-

Robert E, Owen, Ohio Department of Health

C.. A. Glazer, State of Ohio

'

Public Utilities Commission

Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.

.

i

)

.

- . . , -

c

. .. --.

-

~

,-

-

.

~

-_ -

--

!

EA 97-430

i

Mr. Lew W. Myers

Vice President Nuclear

Centerior Service Company

P.O. Box 97, A200

Perry, OH 44081

SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT S0-440/97008(DRS) AND NOTICE OF

VIOLATION

Dear Mr. Myers:

'

This refers to the inspection conducted on July 21 through August 27,1997, at your Perry

Nuclear Power Plant. The purpose of the inspection was to follow up on issues identified

during the NRC Design inspection conducted from February 17 threonh March 27.1997,

and documented in inspection report 50-440/97201. The enclosed report presents the

results of this inspection.

Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC

requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation

(Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject

inspection report. The violations are of concem because many of the issues had been

previously identified to the site through earlier assessments, yet the issues remained. The

violations include design control, corrective actions, safety reviews of changes to the

facility, and updating the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). Based on the number of

examples we found for specific violations, the issues are not isolated cases and require

appropriate attention. We will review your response to these violations and evaluate if we

need to discuss the issues at a future management meeting. Also, deviations from

commitments were identified. The deviations are of concern as your staff assumed their

actions were equivalent to the commitment made to the NRC and did not pursue changing

the commitment before taking the ' equivalent actions."

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the

enclosed Notices when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part,

to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with

regulatory requirements.

In addition, one apparent violation (Paragraph E8.17) was identified and is being considered

for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and

Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600. A change to

the emergency closed cooling surge tank from a 7-day supply to a 30-minute supply was

made without recognizing the change involved an unreviewed safety question (USO). No

Notice of Violation is presently being issued for this inspection finding. Please be advised

that the number and characterization of this apparent viohtion described in the enclosed

inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review.

-

- - - -

_ _ _ _

--

-

. - -

- - -

.-

.

..

..-.

l

L. W. Myers

2

An open predecisional enforcement conference to discuss this apparent violation has been

scheduled for October 7,1997. The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occwred or

that enforcement action will be taken. This conference is being held to obtain Information to

enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision, such as a common understanding of the

facts, root causes,

missed opportunities to identify the apparent violation sooner, corrective actions,

,

significance of the issues and the need for lasting and effective corrective action. In

particular, we expect you to address how the safety review process failed to identify the

USQ despite the multiple levels of review involved in the process. Include a discussion of

your corrective actions conceming the recent 10 CFR 50.59 violation identified in inspection

report 50-440/97002. We note that your staff was slow to recognize the USQ following

NRC identification, although your staff finally recognized it at a later date. We do not

- consider this issue limited to the Engineering Department. In addition, please discuss the

actions you have taken or planned to improve your staff's sensitivity to identifying potential

USQs early in the safety revlew process.

This is an opportunity for you to point out any errors in our inspection report and for you to

provide any information concerning your perspectives on (1) the seventy of the violation (s),

(2) the application of the factors that the NRC considers when it determines the amount of a

civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance with Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement

Policy, and (3) any other application of the Enforcement Policy to this case, including the

'

exercise of discretion in accordance with Section Vll.

You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this

<

matter. No response regarding the apparent violation is required at this time.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its

enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).

Sincerely,

John A. Grobe, Acting Director

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No, 50-440

License No. NPF 58

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation

2. Notice of Deviatlon

3. Inspection Report 50-440/97018(DRS)

See Attached Distribution

DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\\PER97008.DRS

1..

..

om..m

mm

me,.- v.em..=%

new.v.cm

..

new.v.re

OFFICE

Rill

l

Rill

Rlli

Rill

Rlli

l

NAME

MMillerjp/lc

MRing

GWright

BClayton

JGrobe

DATE

10/ /97

10/ /97

10/ /97

10/ /97

10/ /97

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

l

r

.

. .

_--

-

-

-

. . - -

_

- - - - . .

-..

L. W.L Myers

3

cc w/encis: H. L. Hegrat, Manager, Regulatory Affairs

T. S. Rausch, Director, Quality and

Personnel Development

R. W. Schrauder,' Director, Perry . .

<

Nuclear Engineering Department-

,

W. R. Kanda, General Manager,

Nuclear Power Plant Department

N. L. Bonner, Director, Nuclear

Maintenance Department

H. W. Bergendahl, Director -

Nuclear Services Department

Terry L. Lodge, Esq.

State Liaison Officer, State of Ohio

Robert E. Owen, Ohio Department of Health

C. A. Glazer, State of Ohio

Public Utilities Commission

Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esq.-

,

Qistribution:

Docket File w/encls

Rlll PRR w/encls

Rill Enf. Cooidinator

w/encls

PUBLIC iE 01 w/encls

SRI, Perry w/encls

TSS w/encls

OC/LFDCB w/encls

LPM, NRR w/encls

DOCDESK w/encls

DRP w/encls

A. B. Beach, Rill w/encls

CAA1 w/encls

DRS w/encls

J. L. Caldwell, Rill w/encls

J. Lieberman, OE w/encls

J. Goldberg, OGC w/encls

R. Zimmerman, NRR w/encls

4

i

._

__