ML20217H353

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $110,000.Violation Noted:Con Edison Did Not Operate within Restrictions of TS Figure 3.1.A-3,in That Pressurizer Level Was Greater than 30%

ML20217H353
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	10/07/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20217H335	List: IR 05000247/1997008 ML20217H353
References
EA-97-367, NUDOCS 9710150148
Download: ML20217H353 (4)

Text

_ _ _ -- _ _ __--- _ -_-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ENCLOSURE NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Docket No. 50-247 Indian Point 2 Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR 26 EA 97 367 During an NRC inspection conducted from June 16,1997 to July 21,1997, for which an exit meeting was held on July 29,1997, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose civil penalties 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 penalties are set forth below:-

1. y1QJ.ATIONS RELATED TO INOPERABLE OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION SYSTEM A. Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.A.4.a. states, except as permitted by Table 3.1.A 2,the overpressure protection system (OPS) shall be armed and operable when the RCS temperature is less than or equal to 305'F. TS Table 3.1.A 2 states that-OPS is not required to be operable at or below 305'F if the conditions of Column I are met fer the specified conditions. Column I requires, that with a maximum number of 3 charging pumps and one safety injection pump energized, operating restrictions identified in TS Figure 3.1.A-3 shall be observed. Use of TS Figure 3.1.A 3 requires pressurizer levelless than or equal to 30%.

TS 3.1.A.4.b. states,in part, that if both power operated relief va!ves (PORVs) and their associated block valves are inoperable, action chall be initiated immediately to place the reactor in a condition where OPS operability is not required. i Contrary to the above, between 2:30 a.m. on June 15 until 10:15 a.m. on June 17,1997, Con Edison did not operate within the restrictions of TS Figure 3.1.A-3, in that pressurizer level was greater than 30% (as high as 80%) with the OPS inoperable and Con Edison did not initiate immediate actions to place the plant in compliance with the TS until the NRC raised questions about the OPS TS curves. (01013!

B. Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures be established covering activities referenced in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.35, November 1972. HeNatory Guide 1.33, Section 3.A, requires, in part, written procedures for fil9ng and venting the Reactor Coolant System.

9710150140 971007 PDR ADOCK 05000247 G PDR

A Enclosure - 2 Contrary to the above, as of June 17,1997, an adequate written procedure for filling and venting the Reactor Coolant System was not established, in that System Operating Procedure SOP 1.1.1, " Vacuum Filling and Venting the Reactor Coolant System," Revision 35, did not refer to, nor require verification of, the operability of OPS during an RCS fill evolution. As a result, after vacuum filling and venting the RCS on June 14,1997, when the OPS was inoperable, while the system was maintained within the pressure and temperature limits imposed by TS Figure 3.1.A 3, the pressurizer level wai

• outside the requirements of TS Figure 3.1.A 3. (01023)

C. Tt,chnical Specification surveillance requirement 4.18.C., states that, when .

pressurizer pressure and level control is being used for overpressure protection, as permitted by TS 3.1.A.4, then these parameters shall be verified to be within their limits at least once per shift. '

i Contrary to the above, between June 15 and 17,1997, while the OPS was inoperable and pressurizer pressure and level control were being used~ for overpressure protection, operators did not adequately verify parameters were within limits, in that pressurizer level was not maintained less than or equal to .

Its limit of 30% (01033)

These violations are classified in the aggregate at Severity Level lli (Supplement 1).

Civil Penalty - $55,000 ll. VIOLATION RELATED TO DEGRADED RECIRCULATION PUMP FLOW 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, " Corrective Action," requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that condiru.s adverse to quality, such as failures, rieficiencies, and deviations, defective material and equipment are promptly identified and corrected.

Contrary to the above, between September 1995 and May 1997, a condition adverse to quality existed at the facility, namely, degradation of the performance of the No. 21 recirculation pump. The degradation involved reduced pump differential head as determined during the periodic refueling outage surveillance test, which was very near the lower limit of 475 feet when tested in 1995. Subsequently, during the same test in May 1997, the pump f ailed its surveillance test, in that pump differential head was found to be 471 feet. Following examination of the pump internals, a rubber hose was found wrapped around the impeller, and was believed to have been drawn into the pump prior to or around 1989. Under certain conditions, this pump would not have been able to perform its post-accident safety function and thus would have been inoperable, contrary to Technical Specification 3.3.A.1.f. This adverse condition to quality was not identified despite prior opportunities to do so, in that:

1. priono 1989, pump differential head, as identified during the surveillance test conducted each outage, was in the range of 520 feet. Beginning with the 1989 test thru the 1995 test, differential head war determined to be around 480 feet, providing clear evidence of some pump degradation; and

0 Enclosure 3

2. following the pump test in 1995, an engineer brought a concern to management's attention regarding the degraded pump performance since 1989, and also predicted that the pump ' tould not pass the next test in 1997, yet the engineer's concern wt.s not entered into the problem identification system to ensure a fonnal review of the concern was performed. (02013)

This violation is classified at Severity Level lli (Supplement 1).

Civil Penalty - $55,000 lli. VIOLATIONS RELATED TO RCS PRESSURIZER CODE SAFETY VALVE 3' LIFT SETPOINTS BEING ABOVE TS LIMITS Tochtical Specification 4.2.1 requires, in part, that inservice testing of pumps and valves whose function is required for safety shall be performed in accordance with the applicable edition and addenda of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Since 1994, the applicable edition and addenda of Section ~

XI for indian Point 2 has been the 1989 edition. ASME Section XI (1989 edition) section IWV-1100, Valve Test, refers to ASME/ ANSI OM 1987, Part 1. Paragraph 8.1.1.5 of this document states that the operating environment shall be simulated during set pressure testing of safety veives. The implementing procedure to test P pressurizer s;fety valves is PT-RSA, Hot Setting of Pressurizer Safety Valves by Wyle Labs.

Contrary to the above, in April 1995, during performance of PT RSA, Con Edison failed -

to implement the provisions of ASME/ ANSI OM-1987 part 1, paragraph 8.1.1.5,in that the operating environment was not adequately simulated during set pressure testing.

Specifically, ambient conditions surrounding the pressurizer code safety valves were not incorporated into procedure PT-R5A (03014)

This violation is classified Severity Level IV (Supplement 1).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Consolidated Edison Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement,.U.S. Nuclear Regul story Commission, within 30 days of the receipt of this Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalties (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, 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 compliance 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 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.

l .. . ..

I

s Enclosu o 4 Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalties 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 penalties proposed above, or may protest imposition of the civil penalties, in wl ole 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 penalties will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, 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) demons

• rate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this i Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed.rin addition to _.

protesting the civil penalties in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or

[_ mitigatiori of the penalties, in requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties, the factors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy should be addressed. Any written answer in accordar. :e with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separstely 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 We procedure for imposing a civil penalty.

Upon f ailure to pay any civil penalty due that 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: Mark Satorius, Deputy 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 I, and a copf o t the NRC Senior Resident inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice.

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. If redactions are required, a proprietary version containing brackets placed around the proprietary, privacy, and/or safeguards information should be submitted, in addition, a non-proprietary ve slon with the information in the brackets redacted should be submitted to be placed in the PDR.

Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 7th day of October 1997

< t

, e