ML20238A004

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $80,000.Noncompliance Noted:On 870424,change Made at Facility as Described in Updated SAR Resulted in Condition Contrary to Tech Specs

ML20238A004
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	08/24/1987
From:	Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237L792	List: ML20237L789 ML20238A004
References
EA-87-092, EA-87-92, NUDOCS 8708280269
Download: ML20238A004 (7)

Text

_

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITich DF CIVIL PENALTY GPU Nuclear Corporation Docket No. 50-219 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-16 EA 87-92 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 24 - May 6, 1987, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with tne ' General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to 5:.ction 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFfi 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalties are set forth below:

I. VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH INOPERABLE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER - ORYWELL  ;

VACUUM BREAMERS i A. 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) allows a licensee to make changes in the far:ility or procedures as described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission appreval, unless the proposed change involves a i change in the technical s specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.

The Oyster Creek Updated Final Safety Aralysis Report, Section 6.2.1, describes that fcr a design basis loss of molant accident, the i reactor coolant discharged into the drywell is vented through vent tubes to the suppression chamber (torus) where it is effectively condensed for pressure reduction purposes by the suppression pool.

Technical Specification limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.5. A.3 requires that primary containment integrity be maintained at all times when the reactor is critical or when the reactor water ,

temperature is above 212 F and fuel is in the reactor vessel, except i for certain limited conditions. Technical Specification LC0 3.5.A.5 '

requires that, whenever primary containment is required, all suppres-sion chamber - drywell vacuum breakers be operable except in certain conditions. Technical Specification LCO 3.5.A.S.2 specifies that one of the conditions required for operability of the vacuum breakers is that the valve disk close by gravity when released after being opened by remote or manual means.

Contrary to the above, between 3:30 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. on April 24, 1987, a change was made at the Oyster Creek facility as described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report which resulted in a condition that was contrary to the technical specifications and involved an unreviewed safety question, and the change was made without prior Commission approval, Specifically, during that time, two suppression chamber-drywell vacuum breakers (Nos. V-26-9 and V-26-10) were tied open at the direction of the Group Shift Supervisor while the reactor was at 23% power with all vacuum breakers required to be operable.

8708200269 870824 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYSTER CREEK 8/19 - 0005.0.0 PDR ADDCK 05000219 08/21/87 0 PDR

a 2

This condition was contrary to the description in the Updated Safety Analysis Report and Technical Specification LC0 3.5. A.5 and also involved an unreviewed safety question in that opening of these breakers resulted in bypassing of the suppression pool and the degradation of the pressure suppression capability provided by the suppression chamber required in the event of a loss of coolant accident. This degradation could lead to a possible rupture of the containment structure and thus created the possibility for increased consequences of an accident analyzed in the safety analysis report.

This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement I).

Civil Penalty - $80,000.

l B. 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(ii) requires that the licensee notify the NRC Operations Center within one hour of the occurrence of any event or condition during operation that results in the plant being in an unanalyzed condition that significantly compromises plant safety, a cundition outside the design basis of the plant, or a condition not covered by the plant's operating and emergency procedures.

Contrary to the above, after identification on April 24, 1987 of the event in which the suppression chamber-drywell vacuum breakers were tied open while the reactor temperature was above 212 F, notifi-cation of the NRC Operations Center was not made until April 27, 1987, significantly exceeding the one hour reporting requirement. This event was required to be reported within one hour since it resulted in the plant being in an unanalyzed condition that significantly compromised primary containment integrity in the event of a loss of coolant accident, was outside the design basis of the plant, and was a condition not covered by the plant's operating and emergency i procedures.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

II. VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH TEMPORARY VARIATION PROCEDURES Technical Specification 6.8 requires that written procedures be established, implemented and maintained that meet or exceed the requirements of Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, which specifies the need for procedures for control of equipment and modifications of the facility.

A. Station Procedure 108, Equipment Control, Section 6.3.3, requires that the Group Shift Supervisor perform a safety evaluation before authorizing installation of a temporary variation. Station Procedure 130, Conduct of Independent Safety Reviews and Responsible Technical Reviews by Plant Review Group, used to perform the safety evaluation, specifies in Section 5.1.1 that the rignature of the Responsible OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYSTER CREEK 8/19 - 0005.1.0 08/21/87

3 i

Technical Reviewer (RTR) signifies concurrence that (1) an unreviewed safety question does not exist, (2) a technical specification change is not required, (3) technical and safety considerations have been properly addressed, (4) any associated safety determinations or safety evaluations are accurate and complete, and (5) the RTR was appropriately independent of the originator. Section 5.1.2 specifies that the signature of the Independent Safety Reviewer signifies concurrence that safety considerations have been adequately evaluated and are properly addressed in any associated safety determination or safety evaluation and that the reviewer is appropriately independent of the originator and RTR.

Contrary to the above, temporary variations were made between September 1986 and April 1987, for which the safety evaluations required were not performed as required by Station Procedure 108. Specifically, (1) for Mechanical Temporary Variations Nos. 37-7, 87-12 and 87-33, the safety evaluations documented on Form 130-3 indicated that written safety evaluations were not required when they were in fact required in that unreviewed safety questions did exist and/or a change to technical specifications were required; (2) for Mechanical Temporary l Variations Nos.86-508, 86-510, 87-7, 87-8, 87-12, and 87-13, the

! Form 130-3s had the same signature as preparer and PTR indicating that the RTR was not independent of the originator; and (3) for Mechanical Temporary Variations Nos.86-455, 86-456,86-472, 86-480,86-482, 87-15, and 87-17, the written safety evaluations did not have the appropriate reviews performed as demonstrated by the presence of only one or two signatures rather than the three required signatures.

B. Station Procedure 108, Equipment Control, Section 6.3-.1, requires

that, prior to installation of a temporary variation, the Group Shift l Supervisor (GSS) review the function and effects of the temporary i

variation and the method of installation with the appropriate maintenance supervisor and Shif t Technical Advisor (STA). Steps 17 l and 18 of the Instructions for Preparing Temporary Variation Check-l Off Sheets of Station Procedure 108 require that the maintenance l supervisor and Shif t Technical Advisor sign the check-off sheet to indicate that the requirements of Section 6.3.1 have been met to review the functions and effects of the variation.

Contrary to the above, on several occasions between August 1986 and April 1987, for Mechanical Temporary Variations Nos.86-508, 86-510, 87-7, 87-8, 87-12, 87-13, 87-14, 87-17, and 87-33, the GSS did not have a review of temporary variations performed by the appropriate maintenance supervisor. Instances were noted where the GSS signed for the maintenance supervisor. In addition, the STA signed and thereby approved the check-off sheet for Mechanical Temporary j Variation 87-33 even though it resulted in a violation of technical specification requirements.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYSTER CREEK 8/19 - 0006.0.0 08/21/87

I i'

4 i

i C. Station Procedure 108, Equipment Control, Section 6.4.2, requires the originator of a temporary variation obtain from the Plant Engineering Department, either before installation or as soon as '

practical after installation, various determinations relating to checks and testing to be performed on temporary variations.

Contrary to the above, between August 1986 and April 1987, for Mechanical Temporary Variations Nos.86-404, 86-448,86-473, 86-482,86-484, 86-508, 87-6, 87-10, 87-12, 87-23, 87-24, and 87-33, the i Plant Engineering Department had not completed the requirements I

specified in Section 6.4.2 in that requirements for post-instal-lation, periodic, and post-restoration checks, and testing after temporary variations were not provided, or commented upon, by the i Plant Engineering Department.  !

D. Station Procedure 108, Equipment Control, Section 6.19, requires that the Operations Department forward a copy of the applicable temporary variation check-off sheet to the safety review manager who shall initiate any follow-up action he deems necessary.

Contrary to the above, between September 1986 and April 1987, for j Mechanical Temporary Variations referenced in Violations II.A, II.B,  !

and II.C, the safety review manager did not adequately review these check-off sheets, identify procedural deficiencies, and initiate needed follow-up action. The applicable check-off sheets were j improperly completed vith regard to procedure requirements, including  !

the requirement for responsible technical reviews. I i

E. Station Procedure 107, Procedure Control, Section 5.1.3 requires I that, should any procedure prove to be inadequate, it shall be l revised temporarily if necessary, so that the station is operated 1 in complitnce with approved procedures at all times i Contrary to the above, Station Procedure 108, Equipment Control, had not been revised to reflect that, for temporary variations since September 1986, the safety determinations and reviews were documented using Station Procedure 130 and Form 330-3 rather than the previous specific requirement for a safety evaluation. l These violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity l Level III problem (Supplement 1).

Cumulative Civil Penalty - $50,000 (assessed equally among the violations).

!!I. VIOLATION ASSOCIATED WITH INOPERABLE REACTOR BUILDING - SUPPRESSION CHAMBER VACUUM BREAKERS 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) allows a licensee to make changes in the facility or i procedures as described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change invo h es a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unrevte.wed  !

safety question. J OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYSTER CR E K B/19 - 0007,0,0 08/21/87 i

l 5

l The Oyster Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Section 6.2.1.1 {

describes the reactor building-suppression chamber (torus) vacuum relief 1 l

system as permitting gas flow only inward from the atmosphere to the containment.

1 Technical Specification limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.5.A.3  ;

requires that primary containment integrity be maintained at all times l when the reactor is critical or when the reactor water temperature is above 212 F and fuel is in the reactor vessel, except for certain  !

conditions. Technical Specification LCO 3.5,A.4 requires the two reactor J l building - suppression chamber vacuum breakevs in each line be operable at I l all times when primary containment integrity is required. Further, if a  ;

vacuum breaker is inoperable, it shall be locked closed, l Contrary to the above, during numerous deinerting evolutions conducted )

since April 1977 while the reactor temperature was greater than 212 F and primary containment integrity was required, a change was made to the facility as described in the Updated Safety Analyris Report. Specifically, during deinerting of the suppression chamber, a Reactor Building-Suppression Chamber vacuum breaker was manually tied open to permit air flow into the I suppression chamber. This created the potential for containment air to  !

flow to the atmosphere, contrary to the description in the Updated Safety Analysis Report, and resulted in a condition that was contrary to the technical specifications and involved an unreviewed safety question, and the change was made without prior Commission approval. This condition was contrary to Technical Specifications and involved an unreviewed safety question since it resulted in a loss of redundant isolation capability.to I

l assure that radioactivity would not be released from primary containment l through this pathway in the event of a loss of coulant accident, and thus '

created the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type i than evaluated previously in the safety analysis report.  !

This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement I).

Civil Penalty - 575,000. ,

i Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, GPU Nuclear Corporation (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation  ;

to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued 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 affirmation.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYS 9 CREEK 8/19 - 0008.0.0 08/21/87

l 6

Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount of the civil panalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer J dressed to the Director,  !

Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. anocid the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice cf Violation" and may:

(1) deny the violation (s) listed in this Netice 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, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors addressed

in Section V.8 of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately l 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. The attention of the Licensee is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for ,

imposing a civil penalty.

Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subseg'ently has been determined {

in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may l 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. 2282c.

The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a i Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, ar.d a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, at the Oyster Creek facility which is the subject of this Notice.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OriginaI Signed By WILLIAM T. INSSELL William T. Russell Regional Administrator ing of Prussia, Pennsylvania DatedatgdayofAugust1987 this f9/ y 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG OYSTER CREEK 8/19 - 0009.0.0 08/21/87 1

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

• 9 q

/y C ..

Y#q9

\ 9. c B c: $

l q9l'N,Oq Yg'j e ,

-'}se d B, [ 'l

%s

- - - - - -