ML20207L917

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000.Violations Noted:During Refueling Operations on 880408-13,3/8-inch Containment Pressure Sensing Instrument Line Left Open to Outside Atmosphere

ML20207L917
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	10/12/1988
From:	Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207L909	List: ML20207L905 ML20207L917
References
EA-88-145, NUDOCS 8810180024
Download: ML20207L917 (4)

Text

_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

r

• ' (CT 12 p

~ ,

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IPPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Omaha Public Power District Docket No. 50-285 Ft. Calhoun Station License No. OPR-40 EA 88-145 During an NRC inspection conducted during the period April 6 through May 13, 1988, violations of NRC requirements were identified. in accordance with the "General Statemer.t of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR e Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the Nuclear Regulatory Connission proposes to impose i

< civil penalties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as j amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

A. Safety Injection and Refuelino Water Tank level Switches ,

i 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, Test Control, and the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Appendix A,  ;

Approved Quality Assurance Program, require a test program be established i

to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily in service is  ;

identified and performed. Also, the test program shall include, as appropriate, preoperational and operatioral tests during plant operation. ,

Contrary to the above, as of April 1988, the li:ensee had not established ,

an ad6quate program to assure that certain chet.k valves were tested to demonst' rate these valves would perform satisfactorily in service. Specifi-l cally, check valves associated with the air-operated Safety injection and Refueling Water (SIRW) tank low ISvel switches (A/, 8/, C/, and D/FIC-383) l were not tested during operation to assure that they would perform their ,

I i intended safety. function under certain accident conditions. When tested in April 1988, these check valves were found to leak excessively, j t

B. Loss of Containment _ integrity

1. Technical Specification 2.8, "Limiting Conditions for Operation-  !'

Refueling Operations," requires certain conditions be satisfied during any refueling operations, including the requirement that all l automatic containment isolation valves shall be operable or at least  !

j one valve in each line penetrating containment shall be closed.

s r

l Contrary to the above, refueling operations occurred during the period April 8 13, 1987, with a 3/8-inch containment pressure sensing l instrument line lef t open to the outside atmosphere. This line had been open since March 27, 1987, when a maintenance technician  !

1 performing Surveillance Test ST-CONT-3 removed and did not replace a ,

i  !

seio130024 881012 j PDR ADOCK 0500 i Q

1

.> ., j t

TCTl2tm  ;

i Notice of Violation l i- test cap on this line. There is neither an automatic containment  !

isolation valve for this instrument line nor was manual Isolation Valve A/HCV-742 closed such that no valve in the instrument line [

could be automatically closed or was maintained closed to prevent  :

an open path from the containment. .

2. Technical Specification 2.6(1),a, "Limiting ;ondition for Operatitins-  !

Containment Systems," requires that containment integrity not be 1

violated unless the reactor is in cold siiutdown condition.

Technical Specification, Definitions-Containment Integrity, defines ,

containment integrity, in part, by requiring that "(5) The uncontrolled containment leakage satisfies Specification 3.5." l l

Technical Specification 3.5(4).c "Surveillance Requirement-Containment  !

Tests," requires, in part, that "The combined leakage rate of all

]

penetrations and valves subject to Type B and Type C tests shall be l

{ less then or equal to 0.6 La." ,

l 4

Contrary to the above, during the period May 28, 1987 to April 19, f 1988, while the reactor was not in a cold shutdown condition, the l

leakage rate (as calculated by the licensee) through the uncapped j containment pressure sensing inttruNnt line connected to Penetra- g t

tion M-38, subject to Type C tenting, during a design basis accident l would have exceeded 0.6 La by a factor of approximately seven [

3

' (418,000 vs. 62,451 standard cut ic centimeters per minute based on l

l 0.6 La). i I

! 3. Technical Specification 2.15 ani associated Table 2-3, Footnote f, "Lir.iting Condition for Operatitns - Instrument Operating Requirements f l

foi Engineered Safety Features" require, with regard to the contain- -

e ment high pressure channels, that if one channel becomes inoperable.

i that channel must be placed in the tripped or bypassed condition j

within eight hours from the time of discovery of loss of operability. ,

Contrary to the above, when the test cap for the containment pressure l L

instrument sensing line connected to Penetration M-38 was discovered I nissing on Aaril 18, 1988, at approximately 3:15 p.m. by licensee l  !

' persannel, tie engineered safety features channel associated with redundant Instruments A/PC-742-1 ano A/PC-742-2 wt.re placed in a  !

l tripped or bypassed condition. The missing test cap was not replaced until approximately 9:45 a.m. on April 19, 1988. l l \i l Violations A and B have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity level 111 problem (Supplement 1). j civil penalty - $50,000 (assessed equally between the violations). I l I 1

l i 1

i

s .

OCT l 2 t y l t

Notice of Violation  :

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Omaha Puolic Power District (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to

, the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, 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)thedatewhenfullcompliancewillbeachieved, if an adequate reply is not received within the tire 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 he proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good '

causo snown. 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 l Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, with a check, draft or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in theamountoYthecivilpenaltyproposedabove,orthecumulativeamountofthe civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest j j imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer i

?

addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory [

Comission. Should the Licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an i i order imposing the civil penalties will be issued. Should the Licensee elect )

to file an answsr in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty  :

i in whole or jn part, such answer should be c.learly marked as an "Answer to a j Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part, u ) demonstrate extenuating circumstances (3) show error in j 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  ;

j may request remission or mitigation of the penalty. l i

!. In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the five factors addressed in  :

1 Section V.B of 10 CFR, Part 2, Appendix C (1988) should be addressed. Any '

i written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately j from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may i 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 t

is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure (i 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 penelty, unless I compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant {

to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.  ;

t

{

i

n ': 6, r.

Notice of Violation -4 t

e The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcerent, noted above (Reply is 3 Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcenent, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, and a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the fort Calhoun Station.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (g 4 .. .

Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator Dated at Arlington, Texas this I?th day of October 1988

.