ML20202D237

Forwards Insp Rept 50-293/97-13 on 971111-980106 & Notice of Violations Involving Ineffective Corrective Actions to Ameliorate Erratically Operating Reactor Vessel Flange Temp Elements

ML20202D237
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	02/06/1998
From:	Hehl C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Olivier L BOSTON EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20202D240	List: IR 05000293/1997013 ML20202D237 ML20202D244
References
50-293-97-13, EA-97-615, EA-98-052, EA-98-52, NUDOCS 9802170023
Download: ML20202D237 (4)

See also: IR 05000293/1997013

Text

.. . . . . - . . - . . . _ _ . _ -

.T;

i

4

February 6,1998

EA 97 615

EA 98 052

Mr. Leon J. Olivier

Vice President - Nuclear Operations / Station Manager

Boston Edison Company

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station

600 Rocky Hill Road

Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 5599

SUBJECT: PILGRIM INSPECTION REPORT 50 293/97-13 AND NOTICE OF

VIOLATION

Dear Mr. Olivier:

On January 6,1998, the NRb completed an inspection at the Pilgrim Nucleer Power

Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The enclosed report presents the results of that

inspection.

During the seven weeks covered by this inspection period, the conduct of activities at the

Pilgrim facility was characterized by safe operations. However, two violations of NRC '

requirements were identified that are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation. The first

violation involved ineffective corrective actions to ameliorate erratically operating reactor

vessel flange temperature elemente. Your staff identified that the temperature indication of

the differential, between the reactor vessel flang. ind adjacent shell, exceeded the

technical specification limit of 145 degrees. Although later your staff determined that the

145 degree limit was not actually violated, our review of the maintenance history for the

temperature elements ident;fied three opportunities in 1997 to resolve loose or detached

temporary temperature elaments. The erratic operation of these temperature elements

challenged the operating crew during power ascension. The second violation involved a

self-disclosing event where an electrical relay of the wrong voltage rating was installed into

an anti::ipated transient without scram (ATWS) system cabinet that subsequently

overheated. For this latter violation, we chose not to exercise discretion due to the  !

multiple errors involved, and also in part due to a similar NRC observation involving '&C j

technicians staging a wrong part for use in the field during anc+'er work activity this same I

inspection period. We remain concerned that your staff did not detect and correct these

problems at an earlier stage.

included in this report is the closeout of the criticality monitor issue involving the potential

violation of 10 CFR 70.24, Criticality Accident Requirements. We havo determined that

'

- your facility was in violation of this regulation in that you did not have in place either a

criticality monitoring system for storage and handling of new (non-irradiated) fuel or an

NRC approved exemption to the regulation.

}, lI' f, i ,l ' (

'

9802170023 900206 ,

'

, . . .'

h

DR ADOCK0500g3

. _ _ .

.

.

L. Olivier 2

Thus, as described in the inspection report, your facility was in violation of 10 CFR 70.24.

Numerous other f acilities have similar circumstances. The NRC has reconsidered this

violation and concluded based on the information discussed in the report that, although a

violation did exist, it is appropriate to exercise enforcement discretion for Violations

involving Special Circumstances in accordance with Section Vil B.6 of the " General

Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy),

NUREG 1600. The bases for exercising this discretion are the lack of safety significance of

the failure to meet 10 CFR 70.24;the failure of the NRC staff to recognize the need for an

exemption during the licensing process; the prior NRC position concerning the lack of a

need for an exemption; and finally, the NRC's intention to amend 10 CFR 70.24 through

rulemaking to provide for administrative controls in lieu of criticality monitors.

Therefore, I have been authorized after consultation with the Director, Office of

Enforcement, to exercise enforcement discretion and not issue a violation for this matter.

Pending the amendment to 10 CFR 70.24, further enforcement actior' will not be taken for

failure to meet 10 CFR 70.24 provided you obtain an exemption to this regulation before

the next receipt of fresh fuel or before the next planned movement of fresh fuel.

We also reviewed and closed your program implemented under Generic LetM (GL) 8910,

" Safety-Related Motor-Operated Valve Testing and Surveillance." Closure is based on:

your demonstration of the design-basis capability of each GL 8910 program motor-

operated valves, and your commitment, documented in a letter dated December 11,1997,

to obtain as part of your long-term program additionalindustry information or analyses to

validate certain valve factor assumotions. Also, there are nine MOVs with relatively small

design margins which should be addressed for long term consideration.

.

Also, during our review of LER 97-15, an apparent violation 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.

This violation involves the reliability of the salt service water (SSW) pump operation.

Specifically, with a single SSW pump operating and supplying one coolant loop, under

degraded voltage. the SSW breaker overload heater protection relay for the pump could trip

rendering the pu..ip inoperable. We recognize the positive nature of the self identification

and resolution of this issue. Because this is an apparent violation, no Notice of Violation is

presently being issued for tnis inspection finding. You will be advised by separate

correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter. No response regarding

this apparent violation is require at this time.

You are required to respond to this letter and should fo!Iow the instructions specified in the

enclosed Notice when preparing your respinse. In your response, you should document

the specific actions taken and any additiorul actions you plan to prevent recurrence. Your

response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence if the

correspondence adequately adresses the required response. 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.

_ __ ___ _

.. . . - . . . - .- - - . . .- -_ - . . - . .-... . . .-. - - - .

,

.

.

L. Olivier. 3 3

in accordance Nith 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter

and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent

'

possible, your response should not include and personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards

information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.

The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the .

clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the

i

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96.511,

1

Your cooperation with us is appreciated.

.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By:

Cherles W. Hehl, Director

j~ Division of Reactor Projects

I

Docket No.: 50 293

License No.: DPR 35

Enclosures: 1. Notice of Violation

2. Inspection Report 50-293/97-13

3. BECo Handout at Enforcement Conference on November 21,1997

cc w/ encl:

C. Goddard, Plant Manager

N. Desmond, Regulatory Relations

D. Tarantino, Nuclear Information Manager

R. Hallisey, Department of Public Health, Commonwealth of Massachusetts-

The Honorable Therese Murray

B. Abbanat, E,epartment of Public Utilities

Chairman, Plymouth Board of Selectmen

'

Chairman, Duxbury Board of Selectmen

Chairman, Nuclear Matters. Committee

Plymouth Civil Defense Director

Paul W. Gromer, Massachusetts Secretary of Energy Resources

James Shaer, Legislative Assistant

J. Fleming

A. Nogee, MASSPIRG

Regional Administrator, FEMA

Office of the Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality

"

Engineering

Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Mass:chusetts

T. Rapone, Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety

Chairman, Citizens Urging Responsible Energy

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, SLO Designee

- ,

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

-

e

.-

L. Olivier 4

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences) l

PUBLIC

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident inspector

H. Miller, RA/W. Axelson, DRA

C. Cowgill, CRP

R. Summers, DRP

C. O'Daniell, DRP

J. Wiggins, DRP

i

- L. Nicholson, DRS

C. Miskey, DRS

,

R. Zimmerman, NRR

J. Goldberg, OGC

J. Lieberman (OEMAIL), OE

D. Holody, EO, RI

Distribution w/enci (VIA E-MAIL):

B. McCabe, OEDO

R. Eaton, NRR

A. Wang, NRR

R. Correia, NRR

F. Talbot, NRR

DOCDESK

'

Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)

.

DOCUMENT NAME:G:\ BRANCH 5\PIL9713.lNS

To ,ocehre e copy of this document. ete in the boa: *C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure -

'N' = No copy -

,

~

OFFICE Rl/DRP (f ,f Rl/DRP //" l / /

NAME RLaura V '/ \ CCowgill

DATE 01/29/98 ( 01/3/98

'

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

. - .