ML20207U021

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000.Violation Noted:Failure to Adequately Establish & Maintain Operability of Stations Nuclear Svc Water Sys

ML20207U021
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	03/06/1987
From:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207T990	List: ML20207T989 ML20207U021
References
EA-87-008, EA-87-8, TAC-59848, NUDOCS 8703240517
Download: ML20207U021 (4)

Text

.

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IPPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Duke Power Company Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 McGuire Units 1 and 2 License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-7 EA 87-08 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (flRC) inspection conducted on October 15-17, 1985 and January 27-31, 1986, violations of NRC requirements were identified.

In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("the Act", 42 U.S.C. 2282, PL 76-295, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

A. Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.4 requires that two independent nuclear service water loops be operable for modes 1, 2, 3, and 4 With only one loop operable, both loops must be restored to an operable status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or the unit be in hot standby within the next six hours and cold shutdown within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.

Contrary to the above, as of January 27, 1986, the RN system was not operable in that the system was not capable of providing the McGuire Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) specified flow rates to certain heat exchangers under design basis accident conditions of a seismic event causing loss of Lake Norman. This condition had existed from March 1983 to January 1986. During this period the units were operated in modes requiring the RN system to be operable.

R. 10 CFR 50.59 requires in part that the holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves a change in the Technical Specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.

Shared systems are designated in the Technical Specifications by an asterick (*) in the margin adjacent to the associated Technical Specifications requirement.

Contrary to the above, on October 7, 1985, the licensee prepared a 10 CFR 50.S9 evaluation and performed actions which were intended to cross-co .nect the 1A and 2A nuclear service water system trains. The conclusion of the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was in error in that the cross-connection wculd have placed the RN system in a configuration which would involve a change to the Technical Specifications. Because Technical Specification 3.7.4 was not designated by an asterick to indicate a shared system, cross-connecting the 1A and 2A trains was not appropriate.

0703240517 B70306 PDR ADOCK 05000369 G PDR

i Notice of Violation '

C. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, requires that a test program shall be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perfom satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents. The test program shall include, as appropriate, proof tests prior to installation, preoperational tests, and operational tests during nuclear power plant operation, of structures, systems, and components.

Test results shall be documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.

I 1. Contrary to the above, preoperational testing of the RN system did not include simultaneous alignment of both RN trains to the standby nuclear service water pond, a design basis accident configuration described in the FSAR.

y 2. Contrary to the above, test results indicated that systems or components, i as shown below, were not able to perform as intended, and the results were not properly documented and evaluated,

a. On December 17, 1985, testing irdicated that the Unit 1 "A" train containment spray heat exchanger, control room chiller heat exchanger, charging pump oil cooler, spent fuel pool pump room air handling unit, and containment spray pump room air 1 handling unit flows were less than their requisite FSAR flow values. It was not until January 1986, that the licensee formally prepared a " written" evaluation to detemine the acceptability of the test data when requested by the NPC.

l b. While performing a quarterly performance test of the 1A containment spray heat exchanger on October 7, 1985, the as-found RN flow rate of 800 gallons per minute (gpm) for that heat exchanger was identified, a value significantly belcw previous as-found

test data. This condition was not evaluated by the licensee until requested by the NRC on March 24, 1986. Additionally, l during the test, an RN flow of 4600 gpm for the 1A containrrent i spray heat exchanger was achieved rather than the 5000 qpm as specified by the procedure. The inability to perform tne test i at 5000 gpm was not formally evaluated by the licensee until ,

requested by the NRC on October 15, 1985. -

D. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include sppropriate quantitative or qualita-

. tive acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been I

satisfactorily accomplished, i

i l

l

Notice of Violation Contrary to the above:

1. Throttle valve positions associated with RN components set during preoperational testing were not incorporated into the appropriate operating and surveillance procedures. As a result, the actual valve throttle positions differed from the pre-operational test positions and operating procedures. This condition existed from February 1981 through January 1986.

2. The licensee's quarterly performance test of the 1A containment spray heat exchanger, PT/1/A/4403/04, conducted periodically between June 1983 and October 1985, lacked qualitetive and quantitative acceptance criteria which resulted in significant, undetected fouling and degradation of that heat exchangers.

3. Licensee's procedure TT/1/A/9100/105 requires that valve IRN73A, 1A train service water diesel generator heat exchanger outlet isolation valve, be returred to its normal position at the completion of that test. On January 28, 1986, the NRC discovered that the procedure was not followed in that valve IRN73A had not been returned to its normal condition at the completion of the test earlier that day.

4. Licensee emergency operating procedures for safety injection (EP/1/A/5000/01,EP/2/A/5000/01) and for transfer to cold leg recir-culation (EP/1/A/5000/2.3, EP/2/A/5000/2.3) did not provide specific operator actions to assure proper nuclear service water flow through the diesel generator cooling water heat exchanger and containment spray heat exchanger during accident conditions in that required flow rates were not specified.

Collectively, these violations have been evaluated as a Severity Level III problem.(SupplementI).

Cumulative civil penalty - $50,000 (assessed equally among the violations)

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company is hereby required to submit to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II,101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, within 30 days of the date of this notice a written statement or explanation including for each violation:

(1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further viola-tions, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirtration.

F Notice of Violation Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Should Duke Power Company fail to answer within the time specified, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, will issue an order imposing the civil penalty in the amount proposed above. Should Duke Power Company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, such answer may: (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show 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.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2 Appendix C, should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. Duke Power Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.

Upon failure to pay the penalty due, which has been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter 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 Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original signed by J. Nelson Grace J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 6 day of March 1987