ML20199K168

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $100,000.Violation Noted:As of 961109,licensee Failed to Take Adequate Measures to Determine Cause of Significant Condition Adverse to Quality

ML20199K168
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	11/18/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199K119	List: ML20199K115 ML20199K168
References
50-440-96-16, 50-440-96-17, 50-440-96-18, 50-440-97-08, 50-440-97-8, EA-96-482, EA-96-542, EA-97-047, EA-97-430, EA-97-47, NUDOCS 9712010033
Download: ML20199K168 (5)

Text

.

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Centerior Service Company Docket No. 50-440 Perry Nuclear Power Plant License No. NPF-58 EAs96-482,96 542,97-047,97-430 During NRC inspections conducted from December 28,1996 to February 3,1997, and from July 21 through August 27,1997, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the NRC proposes to impose a 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.

yjolation Assessed a Civil Penalty Associated with Reactor Recirculation System Flow Control 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, " Corrective Actions," requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective materials and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. In the case of significant conditions adv9rse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.

Contrary to the above, as of November 9,1996, the licensee failed to take adequate measures to determine the causes of a significant condition adverse to quality and failed to take corrective action to preclude repetition. Specifically, on July 27,1994, an uncontrolled reactivity change, a significant condi!!on adverse to quality, occurred during unintended movement of a reactor recirculation flow control valve. As of November 9, 1996, when a similar event occurred, the licensee had not determined the causes of the July 24,1994 event, and the licensee had not implemented adequate corrective actions to preclude repetillon of an uncontrolled reactivity change caused by movement of a reactor recirculation flow control valve. Further, (1) Operator training following the July 27,1994 ovent failed to adequately inform the operators of the potential consequences of a hydraulic power unit (HPU) subloop operate / isolate solenoid valve failure, and (2) on November 9,1996, when a blown fuse was found in an HPU while the reactor recirculation 'A' flow control valve (FCV) was being retumed to service, the shift supervisor authorized the HPU to be retumed to service with a blown fuse based on a misunderstanding that a mispositioned solenoid valve would have no impact on the FCV even though the July 27,1994 event demonstrated that a mispositioned solenoid valve could cause a positive reactivity addition by allowing the reactor recirculation FCV to open further. (01013)

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

Civil Penalty - $50,000, 9712010033 971110 PDR ADOCK 05000440 PDR m,

_ _ _~.

Proposed Notice of Violation and -

Imposition of Civil Penalty B.

Violation Associated with the Control Room Emergency Recirculation System Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.7.2', Action A.,

requires with the unit in operational conditions (Modes) 1,2, or 3, with one Control Room Emergency Recirculation (CRER) subsystem inoperable, the inoperable subsystem must be restored to operable status wnhin 7 days or be in hot shut down (Mode 3) within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in cold shutdown (Mode 4) within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

TS LCO 3.7.3, Action D fequires when two CRER subsystems are inoperable with the unit in Modes 1,2, or 3 TS LCO 3.0.3 must be entered immediately.8 Once entered, TS LCO 3.0.3 requires action to be initiated within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to place the und in Mode 4 within 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br />.

TS LCO 3.0.4 prohibits entry into an opeisting mode when an LCO is not met and the associated action statements do not permit continued operation in that operating mode.

Contrary to the above, the listed TS LCOs were not met for varying periods of time due to a miswired breaker causing motor control center (MCC) No. EF-1-D-09, which supplies CRER Train B, to be inoporable.

1.

Between March 10 and September 17,1996, with the unit in Mode 1, an incorrectly wired power supply breabr for MCC EF-1 D-09, which supplies power to CRER Train B subsystem, caused the CRER subsystem to be -

Inoperable, The CRER subsystem was not restored to operable status within the allowed outage time specified in the applicable TS LCO (3.7.2 or 3.7.3) action statement and the unit was not taken to the appropriate Mode, Mode 4, as required.

2.

For about 41 hours4.74537e-4 days <br />0.0114 hours <br />6.779101e-5 weeks <br />1.56005e-5 months <br /> from August 5 to 6,1996, two CRER subsystems were inoperable (CRER Train A due to maintenance and CRER Train B due to the Inoperable MCC), and TS 3.0.3 action to place the unit in Mode 4 was not initiated.

3.

On Jun710 and 11,1996, contrary to TS LCO 3.0.4, the unit entered operating Modes 2 and 1, respectively, with the CRER Train B subsystem inoperable,-

4 On July 14,1996, the licensee replaced TS 3.7.2 with improved TS 3.7.3. Improved TS LCO 3.7.3.. Action A.1 requires that an inoperable Control Room Emergency Recirculation (CRER) subsystem be restored to operable within 7 days. TS Actions 0.1 and 8.2, further require the Unit be placed in Mode 3 within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in Mode 4 within the next 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> if the CRER subsystem is not restored to operable status.

- 8 The licensee implemented improved TS LCO 3.0.3 on July 14.1996.

I

.a

Proposed Notice of Violation and Imposition of Civil Penalty 1

when TS LCO 3.7.2 was not met and the associated action statements did not permit continued operation in Operating Modes 1 and 2. (02013)

This is a Severity Level lli problem (Supplement 1).

1 C.

Violation Assessed a Civil Penalty Associated With Emeroency Closed Cooling Systems Surge Tanks l

10 CFR 50.59, permits the licensee, in part, to make changes to the facility and procedures as described in the safety analysis report without prior Commission approval provided the changes do nnt involve an unreviewed safety question. Records of these changes must include a wiltten safety evaluatioit which provides the bases for the determination that the changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question.

10 CFR 50.59 (a)(2)(i) states, in part, that a proposed change shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident er malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased.

Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 9.2.2.3

• Emergency Closed CooEng System - Safety evaluation" states, tne emergency closed cocling surge tanks are designed to maintain a 7-day supply of water with normal system leakage without the need to provide makeup water.

Contrary to the above, Safety Evaluation No. 96128 prepared by the licensee on October 10,1996, and approved on October 21,1996, evaluated a change in the design basis for tne emergency closed cooling system surge tanks. The licensee changed the sizing basis of the surge tanks from a 7-day supply as stated in USAR Section 9.2.2,3 to a 30-minute supply, and the licensea's analysis failed to identify that the change was an unreviewed safety question. Specifically, the safety evaluation did not adequately assess the increased probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety associated with an increased potential for operator error as operators replenished the surge tanks on a 30-minute post accident basis instead of the previously evaluated period of 7 days. The safety evaluation also failed to recognize the increased consaquences of a design basis loss of coolant accident associated with an increased projected dose to the operators as they refilled the surge tanks on an increased frequency. (03013)

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

Civil Penalty - $50,000, The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reasons for Violation B, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in Licensee Event

\\

Proposed Notice of Violation and j Imposition of Civil Penalty Report (LER) No.96-008, dated November 4,1996. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, if the description there does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation," and send it to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washrgton, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region lil, Suite 255,801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351, with a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Centerior Service Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation for Violations A and C to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply tAould 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, and if denied, the reasons why, (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 compilarice will be achieved, if an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as rney 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.

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 addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or may prot 1st 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 fall 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 of Violation" and 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 answers may request remission or mitigation of the penalty, in requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section VI.8,2 of the Enforcement Policy 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. The attention of the Licensee is

1 Proposed Notice of Violation and 5-Imposition of Civil Penalty 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 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. 2282c.

The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

. Commission, Region lil, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351, and a copy to the NRC Resident inspecter at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction, if personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.

Dated at Lisle, Illinois this 18th day of November 1997

,--~+w~

_n

_, _,