IR 05000483/1997005

Discusses Insp Rept 50-483/97-05 on 970624 & Forwards Nov. Violation Involved Three Instances Which Appeared That SEs Required by 10CFR50.59 Had Not Been Performed for Changes to Facility as Described in Fsar,As Listed

ML20212B688
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	10/22/1997
From:	Merschoff E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Randolph G UNION ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20212B693	List: IR 05000483/1997005 ML20212B711
References
50-483-97-05, 50-483-97-5, EA-97-168, NUDOCS 9710280172
Download: ML20212B688 (7)

Text

. ~ , ~ ~ . .- ~ .

-~ , .- . . . _ . . . . . ..

,

,: ,

i p' "'%g ' UNITf o STATES

4 .. .% [s-

)

.

?-

t s

NUCLEAR RFGULATORY COMMISSION l

.t

.I~ ' N I' $-

.

R EGloN lv ,

k -

611 RY AN PLAZA oRIVE, SulTE 400 k'***** ' / ARLINGTON. If X As 76011-8064 -

October-22.:1997

$

EA 97-168 Garry L Randolph,-Vic6 President and Chief Nuclear Officer Union Electric Company  :

-P.O. Box 620 Fulton, Missouri 65251 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50 483/97 05)

Dear Mr. Randolph:

,

This is in reference to the predecisional enforcement conference conducted with you and

_

other Union Electric Company representatives on August 15,1997, in the NRC's Arlington, Texas office, and subsequent requests for additional information, as discussed below. The conference was conducted to discuss three apparent violations of NRC requirements related to the Callaway Plant. The apparent violations were identified during an NRC inspection completed on June 24,1997, and were described in an inspection report issued June 26,1997,. Following receipt of the inspection report, which indicated that the NRC

.

was considering escalated enforcement action for these apparent /iolations, Union Electric requested a predecisional enforcement conference.

The apparent violations involved three instancer in which it appeared that safety evaluations required by 10 CFR 50.59 had not been performed for changes to the facility as it is described in the Final Safety Analysis Report, including: 1) a Technical Specification interpretation (TSI) and related procedures that permitted manual operation of

' diesel generator bui' ding supply fans: 2) a TSI that modified overload and load reduction trip setpoints for the refueling machine; and 3) a modification that required manual operation of the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS). With respect to manual l

'

operation of diesel generator building supply f ans, the NRC's concerns included whether /

this change resulted in an unreviewed safety question (USQ), which would have required

<

NRC approval prior to the change, and whether emergency diesel generator technical .

.

f specifications may have been violated when the diesel generator building supply fans were in the . manual ti.e., pull-to lock)-mode of operation. .

At the conference, Union Electric: acknowledged that the diesel generator building supply fan issue had not been subjected to a safety evaluation from 1985 to 1987; characterized

~

the PASS issue as an isolated f ailure to implement 10 CFR 50.59; and denied any violation related to the refueling machine issue. Union Electric also stated that: 1) none of the changes involved USQs; 2) no technical specification violations had occurred; and 3) there

.

twas no safety significance to any of the issues. Following the conference, the NRC-

~

requested additional technicalinformation from Union Electric regarding its position that the 9710290172 971022

, k

. . - _ - .. __ .

. .. . . . - - - . -- . . -- - - - . . . -.

>

.

,

Union Electne Company 2-operability of the emergency diesel generators would not be affected with the building supply f ans in the " pull to-lock" mode. Union Electric provided additional information in letters dated Septernber 15 and October 2,1997.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and our review of the information that you provided during and subsequent to the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred in each instance discussed above.

The violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice); the circumstances surrounding the violations were described in the subject inspection report, Although the NRC believes in each case that safety evaluations were not performed as required by 10 CFR 50.59, we view these as isolated failures to assure consistency with the FSAR and not indicative of a programmatic concern. In addition, there were no actual safety consequences as a result of any of these changes. Therefore, each of the violations has been classified at Severity LevelIV in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600.

Nonetheless, it is important for Union Electric to understand that changes to the f ac"ity or to procedures described in the FSAR that are not subjected to safety evaluations may result in unrecognized USOs. Until such changes are subjected to safety evaluations and are well understood, there is uncertainty in the basis (the FSAR) upon which the NRC made a decision to license the facility. Thus, if changes are made that result in unrecognized USQs, the NRC would consider the failure to follow the regulatory process established by 10 CFR 50.59 as a significant regulatory concern.

With regard to the diesel generator building supply f ans (Violation A), described in the FSAR as automatically starting when room temperatures exceed 90 F and shutting down automatically when room temperatures fall below 86 F, Union Electric's position at the conference was that a safety evaluation had been performed in late 1986 which showed that the supply fans were not needed as long as outside air temperatures were below 65*F. This analysis resulted in TSI No. 35 in February 1987 which allowed diesel generators to be considered operable with the supply fans out of service and outside temperatures less than 65 F. Union Electric's position, therefore, was that from February 1987 forward, sufficient guidance existed to operators to preclude placing the f ans in pull-to lock if outside temperatures were above 65 F. Union Electric also stated that a recent analysis showed that operability of the diesel generators would not be affected even if supply fans were inoperable and outside temperatures were at 97aF, the maximum outside temperature assumed in the FSAR.

Notwithstanding Union Electric's position on this issue, the f act remains that at the time of the NRC's on site inspection in February 1997, TSI No.18 and Procedure OTN NE-0002 (and superceded procedures OTN NE-0001 A and OTN-NE-0001B) permitted placing the supply f ans in pull to-lock "... provided it is still under the total control of the Reactor Operator." The TSI and procedure indicated that this was based on hdministrative controls that allow the operator to maintain the room temperature below the FSAR (and former

.

Technical Specification) !imit of 119 F. This provision, which appears to have permitted

!

l~

l'

I l

- . . - .- . -- - -

._.

.

_ Union Electric Company -3-placing the fans in pull to lock regardless of outside temperatures, was inconsistent with the FSAR and was not subjected to a safety evaluation, as required by 10 CFR 50.59, Union Electric's position on the refueling machine issue (Violation B)is that the trip setpoints were in accordance with applicable vendor guidance and interpretations, and, therefore, that there was no change to the description in the FSAR._ This position is based on an interpretation _that the trip setpoints were aporopriately set based on the heaviest and lightest loads, and not on the " suspended loads" as indicated in Section 16.9.2.1 of the FSAR The NRC disagrees with this interpretation because the FSAR descripti_on of these trip setpoints indicates an expectation that the actual or estimated weight of the ,

suspended load is considered in setting the trip points by referring to the overload trip l setpoint in relation to the "... indicated suspended weight." Therefore, we conclude that TSI No. 25 was inconsistent with the description in the FSAR and that this change had not been subjected to a safety evaluation.

With regard to the PASS issue (Violation C), Union Electric agreed that a modification to the PASP was made which altered the operation of the system from that described in the FSAR, ard that elimination of computer-controlled operation of the system had not specifically been subjected to a safety evaluation. Union Electric attributed this to a mistalren belief, when the actual modification was made, that all changes from the FSAR had previously been analyzed.

As previously stated, the NRC does not view these violations as an indication of a programmatic concern with respect to the implementation of 10 CFR 50.59 at the Callaway Plant. But there are lessons to be learned, nonetheless. For example, as discussed at the conference, an FSAR description that requires a carefully worded interpretation, as in the case of the refueling machine trip setpoints, should be revised.

_

With regard to the diesel generator building supply f an TSI, the guidance that was provided to operators was confusing, at best, and seemed to serve little purpose after 1990 when the hardware problem that was the genesis for TSI No.18 was fixed. The NRC supports Union Electric's stated plan to eliminate as many TSis as possible.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specifiad in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

-

Sincerely, i

Ellis W. Merse Regional Administrator

.- , .-

_.

.-

Union Electric Company 4-Docket: 50-483 License: NPF-30 Enclosure: Notice of Violation cc w/ Enclosure:

.,

Professional Nuclear Consulting, Inc.

.19041 Raines Drive Derwood, Maryland 20855 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N. Street, N.W.

Washington,-D.C. 20037 H. D. Bono, Supervising Engineer Site Licensing Union Electric Company P.O. Box 620 Fulton, Missouri 65251 Manager - Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission 301 W. High P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Ronald A. Kucera, Deputy Director Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Otto L. Maynard, President and Chief Executive Officer Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 ,

Dan I. Bolef, President Kay Drey, Representative i Board of Directors Coalition for the Environment 6267 Delmar Boulevard University City, Missouri 63130 l

I l

. .

.

Union Electric Company -5-Lee Fritz, Presiding Commissioner-Callaway County' Court House

- 10 East Fifth Street Fulton, Missouri 65151 Alan C. Passwater, Manager Licensing and Fuels Union Electric Company -

P.O. Box 66149 St. Louis, Missouri 63166 6149

- J.'V. Laux, Manager Quality Assurance Union Electric Company P.O. Box 620 Fulton, Missouri 65251 f'

- -

Union Electric Company -6-bec w/ Enclosure: [

I rt 4 PDR LPDR 4UDOCS SECY EC's: RI, Ril, Rlli CA PA (0 2G4)

EDO (017G21) OlG (T-5D28)

DEDO (017G21) OE (0-7H5)

OE:EAFile (0-7H5) 01 (0 3E4)

OGC (015B18) OGC (0-15818)

NRR (0-12G18) NRR/ADP (0-12G18)

OC/DAF (T-9E10) OC/LFDCB (T-9E10)

AEOD (T-4D18)

RA R3ading File GSanborn-EAFile RIV Files MIS Coordinator PAO RSLO RIV Files TStetka E-Mall DISTRIBUTIQN:

OEMAIL JDyer (JED2)

EMerschoff (EWM) WBrown (WLB)

GSanborn (GFS) GMVasquez (GMV)

AHowell (ATH) DChamberlain (DDC)

WJohnson (WDJ) TStetka (TFS)

PGwynn (TPG) KBrockman (KEB)

DPasschl (DXP) WBateman (WHB)

KThomas (KMT)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EA\ DRAFT \EA97168.DFT To receive copy of document, indicate in box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "t** = No copy EO C:EB D:DRS RC b(iA

'SANBORN ' STETK A ' AHOWELL "WBROWN JDYQR 10/17/97 10/20/97 10/20/97 10/21/97 10/ /B7 h RR/PD4-h n\@RA~ '{g { l l l l BATEMAN%'g MER9dROFF 10fA97 ggcq 10 ( )97 '

• previously cdh6urred D~FFICIAL RECORD COPY

,.

,

e Union Electric Lompany -6-bec w/ Enclosure:

PDR IE 14 LPDR NUDOCS SECY EC's: Rl,Ril,Alli CA PA (0 2G4)

EDO (017G21) OlG (T-5D28)

DEDO (017G21) OE (0-7H5)

OE:EAFile (0-7H5) 01 (0-3E4)

l OGC (0-15B18) OGC (015B18)

NRR (012G18) NRR/ADP (012G18)

OC/DAF (T 9E10) OC/LFDCB (T 9E10)

AEOD (T-4D18)

RA Reading File GSanborn-EAFile RIV Files MIS Coordinator PAO RSLO RIV Files TStetka E Mall DISTRIBUTION:

OEMAll JDyer (JED2)

EMerschoff (EWM) WBrown (WLB)

GSanborn (GFS) GMVasquez (GMV)

AHowell (ATH) DChamberlain (DDC)

WJohnson (WDJ) TStetka (TFS)

PGwynn (TPG) KBrockman (KEB)

DPassehl (DXP) WBateman (WHB)

KThomas (KMT)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EA\ DRAFT \EA97168.DFT To receive copy of pcument, inscete in box: ac = copy weout fnclosures *E" = Copy we enposures "N" = No copy EO ff/\, C:EB , D:DRS M RC /R% DRA SANBO W1G STETKAq% ,_ AHOW ELV WBROWNV JDYER 10ff/97 10/po/9749910GQ97 10/p/97 10/ /97 RA l MERSCHOFF __

10/ /97

~

OFFiClAL RECDRD COPY