ML20246P248

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $75,000.Noncompliance Noted:Failure to Maintain Containment Refueling Integrity While Core Alterations Being Performed

ML20246P248
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	07/12/1989
From:	Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20246P232	List: ML20246P227 ML20246P248
References
EA-89-107, NUDOCS 8907200137
Download: ML20246P248 (4)

Text

. _ . . - _

-= _ __ - _ _

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY

'Balcimore Gas and Electric Company Docket Nos. 50-317; 50-318 Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-53;.DPR-69 EA 89-107 During an NRC inspection conducted between April 17-27, 1989, NRC inspectors reviewed the circumstances associated with two examples of a violation of containment refueling integrity and six examples of plant modifications made.

without required safety evaluations.

In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Action," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, 53 Fed. Reg 40019 (October 13, 1988) (Enforcement Policy), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set'forth below:

A.

Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.9.4.c requires, in part, that during core alterations, each containment penetra-tion providing direct access from the containment atmosphere to the out-side atmosphere shall be either (1) closed by an isolation valve, blind flange or manual valve, or (2) be capable.of being closed by an operable automatic containment purge valve. Technical Specification LCO Action Statement 3.9.4 specifies that if the Technical Specification requirements can not be met, all operations involving core alterations shall be suspended.

Contrary to the above, between 2:15 p.m. and 3:50 a.m. on April 17, 1989, and between 4:25 p.m. and 6:35 a.m. on April 19, 1989, core alterations (involving the uncoupling of control element assemblies) were performed in the Unit 2 containment, even though some containment penetrations providing direct access from the containment atmosphere to tne outside atmosphere-were neither (1) closed by an isolation valve, blind flange or manual valve, nor (2) capable of being closed by an automatic containment purge valve.

Specifically, a direct access path existed from the containment atmosphere through the drained service water supply header for the No. 21 Containment Air Cooler (via three automatic vent valves No. 2-SRW-249, 2-SRW-245, and 2-SRW-244) to the outside atmosphere (via either an open valve or an open flange), as set forth below:

1. on April 17, 1989, the direct access path from the service water piping to the outside of containment was via either (a) open control valve (No. 2-CV-1582) and open vent valve (No. 2-SRW-470), or (b) an open flange where butterfly valve 2-SRW-138 had been removed; and

2. on April 19, 1989, the direct access path from the service water i

header to the outside of containment was via open butterfly valves 2-SRW-138 and 2-SRW-139, and vent valve 2-SRW-470.

1 8907200137 890707 PDR I&E EN-89-068 F,DL_.

. , p - i-p ,

yg; '

e

. + . .

l'

• 1 Notice of Violation' l 4

B.

.10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) states, in part, that.the licensee may make changes to the facility as described in the Final . Safety Analysis: Report -(FSAR) pro-vided the changes.'do not involve an unreviewed safety ouestion. 10 CFR. 50.59(a)(2) states,,in part, that a change shall.be deemed to involve an

.unreviewed safety question if the proposed change may.~ increase the proba -

• bility of an occurrence or the consequences of an~~ accident previously.

evaluated in-the:FSAR. -10 CFR'50.59(b)(1) requires, in part, that records

..of. changes be' maintained, and must include a' written safety. evaluation-which provides the basis for the determination that the change did not;

. involve an unreviewed safety question.

' ' Technical Specification 6.5.1.6. requires that all proposed changes'or modifications to plant ' systems or equipment that effect nuclear' safety shall be reviewed by the Plant Onsite Safety. Review Committee (POSRC).

Contrary to the above, between February 24, 1987 and ' February 18, 1989,.

six-temporary modifications made to plant equipment (involving changes to the facility as described in the FSAR and which affected nuclear safety)'

were made without a written safety evaluation and without the changes first being reviewed by the POSRC to ensure that the changes did not.

involve an unreviewed safety quastion. The specific changes' involved:

1. No. 1-87-47,' installed May 7, 1987, on the Unit 1 0xygen Analyzer;

2. No. 1-88-54, installed April 22, 1988, on the Refueling Machine;

3. No. 1-88-145, installed August 2, 1988, on the Unit 1 No. 11B Reactor Coolant Pump low lift pump pressure alarm;

4. No.- 2-89-6, installed February 18, 1989, on Unit 2 to encapsulate a steam leak on a.feedwater heater valve;

5. No. 2-89-8, installed February 22,.1989, on a Unit 2 secondary steam valve; nd

6. No. 1-87-24, installed February 24,1989, on the Unit 1 0xygen Analyzer.

Further, one of the changes, No. 1-88-54, involved an unreviewed safety question in that the change allowed a Refueling Machine limit switch to be bypassed which in turn would allow a spent fuel assembly to be lowered onto the upender while the upender was not completely vertical, thereby increasing the probability of a fuel handling accident.

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

Civil Penalty - $75,000 (assessed equally between the violations).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is hereby required to submit a written statement of explanation to the

, .m_,.__ m.,___- _ - - - . -- - - - - - - - - - " - " ^ "--

Notice of Violation Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 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 was or 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 oc why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to ev.;ending 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.

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 t'he amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the licensee fail to answer issued _

within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be '

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 of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuat-ing 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 penal.ty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, 53 Fed. Reg. 40019 (October 13,1988)

(Enforcement Policy) should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explana-tion 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 subsequently has been deter-mined in accordance 4th the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to tre Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigatsa, 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 Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, L______._

g. - --- -

y

,- . 7% ,;p a.

. ;n g 3:,. .

'N

.a _

b l.'[4: .. : Notice of Violation. d p,',, ' -

g

~ _.'DC-20555, a. copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 3; Commission, 475 Allendale. Road, King of Prussia, PA, 19406 and a copy,to the i n ..-NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Calvert Cliffs.

~

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' I

(

Q h eDP -

' William T. Russell-Regional Administrator Dated gt King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this/gMday of July .1989

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