ML20207K857

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 880816 Request for NRR Assistance Re Potential Enforcement Issues Associated W/Plant 880309 Oscillations Event.Licensee Did Not Intentionally Deviate from Compliance W/Gdc 12.Util Failed to Provide Operating Procedures
ML20207K857
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 10/07/1988
From: Holahan G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Davis A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20207K859 List:
References
GL-86-02, GL-86-2, IEB-88-007, IEB-88-7, NUDOCS 8810170062
Download: ML20207K857 (4)


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _-

  1. pa 8849'o, UNITED STATES

[ ' 3 ,, 'g NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION

; WAJHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,a....,/ October 7,1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: A. Bert Davis, Regional Administrator Region 111 L FROM: Gary M. Holanan, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects !!!,

IV, Y, and Special Projects

SUBJECT:

RFQUEST FOR NRR AS"STANCE REGARDING POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT ISSUES ASSOCIATED fH THE LASALLE UNIT 2 POWER OSCII'ATIONS EVENT H MARCH 9, uS8 In response to your August 16, 1988 memorandum, NRR has completed its review of potential enforcement issues of the LaSalla oscillations event with respect to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A Criterion 12,10 CFR Part 50 i Appendix B Criterion ll, and possible false statement by omission.

Based on our review, we ao not believe that the license (or its contractor) intentionally ceviated from approved licensing methodology when performing the l stability decay ratio calculations to assure compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, l Appendix A Criterion 12. As a result of the powet oscillations event, hRC '

Bulletin 88-07 was issued and the Bulletin no longer allows decay ratio calculations to be accepted to demonstrate corrpliance to GDC 10 and 12.

With regard to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B Criterion !!!, we believe that a simplified core model used for the cycle specific calculations degraded the quality of the calculations to an unacceptable accuracy 11 comparison to calculations submitted for the NRC methodology review. Also, the sensitivity of the calculation results to the radial power distribution modeling should have been identified by the licensee (or its contractor) during the licensing of Unit 1 Cycle 2 reload (Amendment 40) if a more thorough analysis hao been perforned in response to questions concerning large differences in decay ratio results for similar cores. Thus, reasures to establish ' Design Control' were deficient in this case. This finding can be used to challenge confomance to the 'Desigit Control' requiremcnts of 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix B Criterion 11: without an inspection audit of G.E. methods of licensing calculations since the event proved there was a difference of 0.4 in the value of core decay ratio. '

Because the Jtability calculation apparently .ontributed to the licensee's failure to provide adequate procedures for "esponse to the "no pumps operating" condition, we extended our review to determine the evolution of requirements relating to the natural circulation operating condition. We concluded that the licensee was negligent in its failure to provide operating procedures which were responsive to GL 86-02, GE SIL No. 380 Rev. 1, and the LaSalle Technical Specification restricting natural circulation operation. The absence of explicit operating procedures resulted in operator rosponse to the recirculation pumps trip event by trying to restart the pumps (a non-priority action that is prohibited by the GE b!L) even though Technical Specifications required that steps to shut down the reactor be initiated irrediately.

881017006~ 831007 PDR ADOCK 05000374

[NI P PDC /

y(

, *', October 7, 1988 A. Bert Davis ,

In sunnery. NRR concludes that the licensee (1) did not intentionally deviate from comp' nce with GDC 12 (2) did not provide complete and correct informatio in accordance with Appendix B Criterion III and (3) was negligent in its failure to provide operating procedures which were responsive to GL 86-02, GE SIL No. 380 Rev. 1, and the LaSalle Technical Specification restricting natural circulation operation. Items 2 and 3 above, are considered to be potential enforcement issues.

Gary M. Holahan, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects III.

IV, V, and Special Projects DISTRIBUTION cc: J. Sniezek 1R M T 7TEF(Yellow 0009159)

F. Miraglia NRc & LOCAL PDRs'- w/ incoming L. Shao PDIII-2 R/F A. Thadani MVIRGILIO M. W. Hodges GHOLAHAN L. Phillips DFULLER H. Richings PSHEMANSKI - w/ incoming D. Crutchfield LLUTHER G. Holahan DMossburg - w/ incoming M. Virgilio M. Muller E. Greenman W. Forney M. Ring R. Lanksbury R. Kopriva P. Shemanski i

{

'See previous concurrence PM:PDI!!-2 LA:PDIII-2 D:PDl!!-2 (A)AD:DRSP35

  • PSHEMANSK!:dmj *LLUTHER *DMULLER *MVIRGILIO 9/14/88 9/14/88 9/14/88 9/14/88 (A)D: 4836dchY
  • GHOLAHAN 10/5/88 OI*I

'fi

A. Bert Davis In sumary, NRR concludes that the licensee (1) did not intentionally deviate from cortpliance with GDC 12 (2) did not provide complete and correct infornation in accordance with Appendix B Criterion !!! and (3) was negligent in its failure to provide operating procedures which were responsive to GL 86-02, GE SIL No. 380 Rev. 1, and the LaSalle Technical Specification restricting natural circulation operation. Items 2 and 3 above, are considered to be potential enforcement issues.

7 Gary M. Holahan, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects !!!,

IV, V, and Special Projects cc: J. Sniezek F. Miragl*4 L. Shao A. Thedant M. W. Hodges L. Phillips H. Richings D. Crutchfield M. Virgilio D. Muller E. Greenman W. Forrey M. Ring R. Lanksbury R. Kopriva P. Shemanski e

9

c , . t

> 8

.* f*,, UNITED S TATES I e e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , ,

I;*

$ f WASHINGTON. D. C. 20$t>5  !

  • s.,...../  ;

t 1 [

i H40M Ok l Glf UiL DUE Dl 09/1J,66 11Cl.L I IJU: va8vlb4 I

DUG LT 06/1cs/00

) a. IEril I4Vlu ra,'M rCVD De7 E Ou/.'.o iu

h t. i s l Of 4 111 i 1

l 1v3 1>

I. E. fiUFilEi

)

i Ll's l_5 18 d.4ll W t4 & $1 1 ; i. t6  !

q l 2 * {

I

-' f W j -

,t t 1

l 's  ;

! W[, /Wfi/)& W h Ut ii l l t';

I t . Ls .I l LC 4 _ ' . :: i.,.. t ,: ,,l s . : 1 l ' , i o :11j i j n. IL r i..  !!j i i t f j

j Ll4 11 '

t. : . it ! 1;' t ei .1 : . . . !i WJ 4:. ..J- e, ,s r . 61 b,.t.].
, !t _,,i:i'., i . ' . io m , i 61 .

rK t j, i -

l

) *

. 4- .. . .L'. i * .6 4 ,, l; i j [Rs0 C Rt lT CHr. ! LL u  ;

i  :

I i

I I l 1 I

... < . .....n c .1. s. . . .. ,

s. ,

r i, n. ,6. w .. .. < , ..c . . ... ., . , . . o . . m

. .<e. o ,.

  • * , ,t. .: en s t * ,i,' t e i  ;., * * ,-t. . lT,e- cD 19 i . l i,a, l

[+ 1 lai' 6 p p i' G = 491 r "Ls~ i 1_ l q t- Of ih r(j iF 1 < \ (* **h Y D C 4 e ( P L'l 5 4lC ICaf Of ( 4. T . l i .+ p t.' t y D 1 r W t. r,- c re ct smist I l i c j ( gi g4 6 vc4id ,j u s t t t 1 r a t 1 Cr. ,

C Orit AC t.

1 j

I4I h (Det& 4l'U ud. t. 6 t I n (i n t- ASev d Li es ditti (DOrif d'ID h ti b Lti Q. A

  • 2 24.C 2 ) ,

f ,..~

61 {

4. w da i . c. t cerry e m c.o r i

.*n c e p e t 6 % <- t to Directors oittec 3

  • l l althout +1rst gonnQ through t he tJh k n.a t i re.nm, ,

m._ A i

l pu.;no 9 M' l E ACTION  !

l

- nf'E "

DUE TO NRR 01P,ECT07 By A. , g .. jkL r( m2 4 -

t 4

i