ML20217F888

Discusses 980418 Request That NRC Exercise Discretion Not to Enforce Compliance W/Actions Required in TS Action Statement 3.8.2.1.a.Concludes That NOED Warranted & NRC Satisfied That Action Involved No Safety Impact to Public

ML20217F888
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	04/21/1998
From:	Hehl C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Mueller J NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
Shared Package
ML20217F892	List: ML20217F888 ML20217F949
References
NUDOCS 9804280295
Download: ML20217F888 (9)

Text

s April 21. 1998 Mr. John H. Mueller Chief Nuclear Officer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Operations Building,2nd Floor P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093

SUBJECT:

EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION FOR NIAGARA MOHAWK

' POWER CORPORATION REGARDING NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 (NOED No. 98-1-003)

Dear Mr. Mueller:

By letter dated April 18,1998, you submitted a written request that the NRC exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with the actions required in Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Technical Specification Action Statement (TSAS) 3.8.2.1.a. That letter documented information previously discussed with the NRC in a telephone conversation held at approximately 4:30 p.m., on April 17,1998. During the teleconference you stated that on April 17,1998, at 2:07 p.m., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) discovered that Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.1.d had not been met. That Surveillance Requirement requires that the capacity of the Division i DC electrical power source 125-volt battery must be determined to be adequate at least once per 18 months, during a shutdown, by performance of a battery service test. Since the required service test had not been performed, Nine Mile Point Unit 2 declared the Division i 125-volt battery inoperable and entered TSAS 3.8.2.1.a, which requires the inoperable Division i power source be returned to operable status within two hours or be in Hot Shutdown 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 within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, in order to preclude the plant shutdown required by the TSAS, you requested that a Notice of Enforcement  !

Discretion (NOED) be issued pursuant to the NRC's policy regarding exercise of discretion l for an operating facility, set out in Section Vll.c, of.the'" General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, and be effective for the period beginning at 6:45 p.m. on April 17,1998, and ending with the next ,

Unit 2 entry into Cold Shutdown, but no later than May 3,1998.

NMPC determined that the Division I DC System is capable of performing its intended function, despite the missed surveillance test, and that the enforcement discretion would not be inconsistent with protecting public health and safety. NMPC's basis for their determination was based on a number of factors, including: the length of duration of the /

condition; the design margins inherent in the DC system batteries; the successful ,

completion of a service test on an identical battery in the Division ll DC System; the j j relative newness and improved design of the Division I battery; and the events of I i

March 28,1998,in which the Division I battery adequately provided power to those ,

9004280295 980421 PDR .ADOCK 05000410 IE:0g P 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY PDR

John H. Mueller 2 ,

required critical systems that require emergency power. NMPC determined, based on analysis of the plant's Probability Risk Assessment, that if the battery failed to function a minimalincrease in Core Damage Probability would result. NMPC had evaluated the extension of the period that the Division i 125-volt battery would be considered inoperable against the probability of a design basis accident and believed the risk associated with this condition to be of small consequence due to the short duration and the availability of other mitigating equipment. NMPC considered the possibility of significant hazards associated with this period of noncompliance with Technical Specifications and determined that there were no significant hazards considerations.

As compensatory measures during the period of noncompliance, NMPC will maintain the Division ll and Division 111 batteries operable and will perform resistance checks on the Division i battery every seven days. NMPC justified the duration of the enforcement discretion based on their plans to shut down Unit 2 for Refueling Outage 6 on May 3, 1998; once in Cold Shutdown, the Division I battery is no longer required to be operable to meet Technical Specification requirements and the discretion will no longer be needed.

On the basis of the staff's evaluation of your request, the staff concluded that an NOED is warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involved minimal or no safety impact and had no adverse radiological impact to the public's health and safety.

Therefore, we have exercised discretion not to enforce compliance with TSAS 3.8.2.1.a for the period from 6:45 p.m. on April 17,1998 to 11:59 p.m. on May 3,1998. This letter documents our telephone conversation on April 17,1998, when we verbally issued this notice of enforcement discretion at 6:45 p.m.

As stated in the Enforcement Policy, the NRC will normally take action, to the extent that violations were involved, for the root cause that led to the noncompliance for which this NOED was necessary.

Sincerely, Original Signed by:

Charles W. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-410 NOED No. 98-01-003

g John H. Mueller 3 cc:

I G. Wilson, Senior Attorney l M. Wetterhahn, Winston and Strawn J. Rettberg, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation P. Eddy, Electric Division, Department of Public Service, State of New York C. Donaldson, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, New York Department of Law J. Vinquist, MATS, Inc.

F. Valentino, President, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority J. Spath, Program Director, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority f

l I

l i

i I

d John H. Mueller 4 Distribution:

H. Miller, RA/W. Axelson, DRA (1)

B. Boger, ADPR, NRR J. Goldberg, OGC J. Lieberman, OE (OEMAIL)

D. Holody, EO, RI B. Fewell, RC D. Screnci, PAO N. Sheehan, FPAO Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC)

PUBLIC NRC Resident inspector Region l Docket Room (with concurrences)

L. Doerflein, DRP S. Barr, DRP M. Oprendek, DRP R. Junod, DRP NOED File Distribution: (VIA E-MAIL)

B. McCabe, RI EDO Coordinator B. Norris - Nine Mile Point S. Bajwa, NRR D. Hood, NRR M. Campion, RI Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)

DOCDESK DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ BRANCH 1\NMPNOED.WPD

'See previous concurrences To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE *Rl/DRP l *Rl/ ORA l 'Rl/RC l

• Rl/DRP *NRR/DRPE l NAME LDoerflein/SB for DHolody/DH BFewell/BF CHehl/CH SBajwa/via phone DATE 04/21/98 04/21/98 04/21/98 04/21/98 04/21/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

O John H. Mueller 4 Distribution:

l H. Miller, RA/W. Axelson, DRA (1) l B. Boger, ADPR, NRR J. Goldberg, OGC J. Lieberman, OE (OEMAIL)

D. Holody, EO, RI B. Fewell, RC D. Screnci, PAO N. Sheehan, FPAO Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

_ PUBLIC l NRC Resident inspector Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

L. Doerflein, DRP j S. Barr, DRP j M. Oprendek, DRP j R.Junod,DRP NOED File i

Distribution: (VIA E-MAIL)

B. McCabe, RI EDO Coordinator B. Norris - Nine Mile Point S. Bajwa, NRR D. Hood, NRR M. Campion, RI inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)

DOCDESK DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ BRANCH 1\CCNOED.WPD

'See previous concurrences To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy b /[V

~

-i OFFICE *Rl/DRP - l 'Rl/ ORA l 'Rl/RC l Rl/DT jl NAME LDoerflein DHolody BFewell CHehV Q-DATE 04/ /98 04/ /98 04/ /98 04/ '/98 yg ,

L.

John H. Mueller 4 ,

Distribution:

H. Miller, RA/W. Axelson, DRA (1) '

B. Boger, ADPR, NRR J. Goldberg, OGC J. Lieberman, OE (OEMAIL)

D. Holody, EO, RI B. Fewell, RC D. Screnci, PAO N. Sheehan, FPAO Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

PUBLIC NRC Resident inspector Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

L. Doerflein, DHP S. Barr, DRP M. Oprendek, DRP R.Junod,DRP NOED File Distribution: (VIA E-MAIL)

B. McCabe, RI EDO Coordinator B. Norris - Nine Mile Point S. Bajwa, NRR D. Hood, NRR M. Campion, RI inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)

DOCDESK ft,W DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ BRANCH 1\CCNOED.WPD h To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without M attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy he;(p YFFICE Rl/DRP LDoerflein g &

lC Rl/ ORA r [1j Rl/RC ggf l Rl/DRP ,l l'//h:t NAME DHolodyb /' BFewellyn CHeflV l OW DATE 04/v /98 04AJ /98 04/3 /9)U 04/g/98 ]

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• g UNITED STATES E g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'j REGloN I o, p 475 ALLENDALE ROAD KING oF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19404 1415 g . . . . ,d April 21, 1998 Mr. John H. Mueller Chief Nuclear Officer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Operations Building,2nd Floor P.O. Box 63 J Lycoming, NY 13093

SUBJECT:

EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION FOR N!AGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION REGARDING NINE MILE POINT UNIT 2 (NOED No. 98-1-003)

Dear Mr. Mueller:

i By letter dated April 18,1998, you submitted a written request that the NRC exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with the actions required in Nine Mile Point Unit 2 ,

Technical Specification Action Statement (TSAS) 3.8.2.1.a. That letter documented i

information previously discussed with the NRC in a telephone conversation held at I approximately 4:30 p.m., on April 17,1998. During the teleconference you stated that on April 17,1998, at 2:07 p.m., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) discovered that Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.1.d had not been met. That Surveillance Requirement requires that the capacity of the Division i DC electrical power source 125-volt battery must be determined to be adequate at least once per 18 months, during a shutdown, by performance of a battery service test. Since the required service test had not been performed, Nine Mile Point Unit 2 declared the Division i 125-volt battery inoperable and entered TSAS 3.8.2.1.s, which requires the inoperable Division I power source be returned to operable status within two hours or be in Hot Shutdown 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 within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. In order to preclude the plant shutdown required by the TSAS, you requested that a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) be issued pursuant to the NRC's policy regarding exercise of discretion for an operating facility, set out in Section Vll.c, of the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, and be effective for the period beginning at 6:45 p.m. on April 17,1998, and ending with the next Unit 2 entry into Cold Shutdown, but no later than May 3,1998.

NMPC determined that the Division i DC System is capable of performing its intended function, despite the missed surveillance test, and that the enforcement discretion would

! not be inconsistent with protecting public health and safety. NMPC's basis for their.

! determination was based on a number of factors, including: the length of duration of the  ;

l condition; the design margins inherent in the DC system batteries; the successful completion of a service test on an identical battery in the Division ll DC System; the relative newness and improved design of the Division I battery; and the events of March 28,1998,in which the Division i battery adequately provided power to those l

i l

l l John H. Mueller 2 .

required critical systems that require emergency power. NMPC determined, based on analysis of the plant's Probability Risk Assessment, that if the battery failed to function a l

minimalincrease in Core Damage Probability would result. NMPC had evaluated the extension of the period that the Division i 125-volt battery would be considered inoperable against the probability of a design basis accident and believed the risk associated with this l condition to be of small consequence due to the short duration and the availability of other l mitigating equipment. NMPC considered the possibility of significant hazards associated l

with this period of noncompliance with Technical Specifications and determined that there l

were no significant hazards considerations.

As compensatory measures during the period of noncompliance, NMPC will maintain the Division 11 and Division 111 batteries operable and will perform resistance checks on the Division I battery every seven days. NMPC justified the duration of the enforcement discretion based on their plans to shut down Unit 2 for Refueling Outage 6 on May 3, 1998; once in Cold Shutdown, the Division I battery is no longer required to be operable to meet Technical Specification requirements and the discretion will no longer be needed.

On the basis of the staff's evaluation of your request, the staff concluded that an NOED is I warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involved minimal or no safety impact and had no adverse radiologicalimpact to the public's health and safety.

Therefore, we have exercised discretion not to enforce compliance with TSAS 3.8.2.1.a for the period from 6:45 p.m. on April 17,1998 to 11:59 p.m. on May 3,1998. This letter documents our telephone conversation on April 17,1998, when we verbally issued this notice of enforcement discretion at 6:45 p.m.

l As stated in the Enforcement Policy, the NRC will normally take action, to the extent that violations were involved, for the root cause that led tc the noncompliance for which this NOED was necessary.

Sincerely, l

Charles W. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects Docket No. 50-410 NOED No. 98-01 003

9 John H. Mueller 3 cc:

G. Wilson, Senior Attorney M. Wetterhahn, Winston and Strawn J. Rettberg, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation P.' Eddy, Electric Division, Department of Public Service, State of New York C. Donaldson, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, New York Department of Law J. Vinquist, MATS, Inc.

F. Valentino, President, New York State Energy Research j and Development Authority J. Spath, Program Director, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority i

i l

I

.