ML20202J136

Informs of Intention to Exercise Discretion Not to Enforce Compliance with SR 3.8.1.7 Until Exigent TS Amend Request to Revise Rs 3.8.1.7,submitted 990122,processed

ML20202J136
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	01/22/1998
From:	Carpenter C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Protsch E IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT
References
NOED-99-6-001, NOED-99-6-1, TAC-MA4563, NUDOCS 9902090045
Download: ML20202J136 (5)

Text

_ _. . . _ _ . . - . . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ ~ _ ....__ .._._

SP- % l l

,i f,,:%

%* UNITED STATES

j. (y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON, D.C. 30e06 0001 o

]

January 22, 1998

, Mr. Eliot Protsch

! President IES Utilities Inc.

200 First Street, SE P.O. Box 351

! Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0351 i

l

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION FOR IES UTILITIES INC.

l REGARDING DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER, NOED 99 6-001

[ (TAC NO. M/.4563) 4

Dear Mr. Protsch:

By letter dated January 21,1999, your staff requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with the actions required in Technical

. Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.7. Your staff's letter documented information previously discussed with the NRC in a telephone conversation on January 20 at ,

approximately 11:00 a.m. (EST). The principal NRC staff members who participated in that telephone conference included C. Carpenter, Director, Project Directorate ill-1; J. Luehman, Acting Chief, Technical Specifications Branch; R. Laufer, Project Manager for Duane Amold; G Grant, Director, Region ill Division of Reactor Projects; R. Lanksbury, Rlll Projects Branch Chief for Duane Amold; and Paul Prescott, Senior Resident inspector for Duane Amold. Your staff stated that at 4:50 a.m. (CST) on January 20,1999, the Duane Amold Energy Center (DAEC) entered TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1, Condition E which required the plant to

. be in Mode 3 within 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 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> of that time. Condition E was entered due to the failure to restore at least one diesel generator (DG) to operable status within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> as required by TS LCO 3.8.1, Condition D. Your staff 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, until an O' exigent TS amendment can be processed to revise SR 3.8.1.7. This letter documents our telephone conversation on January 20, at 11:25 a.m. (EST) when we orally granted this NOED.

The events leading up to the request for the NOED involved the declaration of both DGs inoperable after they had failed SR 3.8.1.7. On January 19,1999, the DAEC determined that [

the then-existing Surveillance Test Procedure (STP) used to demonstrate compliance with TS SR 3.8.1.7, STP # 3.8.1-06, Rev. 3, did not fully satisfy the TS requirements. Specifically, DAEC

' TS SR 3.8.1.7 verifies every 184 days (nominal) that "... each DG. starts from standby condition and achieves, in s 10 seconds, voltage ? 3744V and5 4576V and frequency 2 59.5Hz and_<

60.5Hz." The STP did not account for potential "ove'rshoot" in voltage during initial DG startup or frequency outside the stated allowed limits due to the DG being tested in an unloaded condition.

It just confirmed that the DG initially reached the required minimum voltage and frequency value in the stated time limit off 10 seconds and did not confirm that the voltage and frequency

, ,, .s d 9902090045 990122 PDR ADOCK 05000331 f ,

- - . - . . = - - . . - - - - - . . - - . - . - - - - - - _ - - _- - . ~

. s*

Eliot Protsch .

remained within the stated band within the 10-second limit. Pursuant to TS SR 3.0.2, the Surveillance was declared not met and the " grace period" of SR 3.0.3 was entered at 2:30 p.m.

(CST) on January 19,1999, to allow opportunity for the STP to be revised properly and the Surveillance re-performed prior to entering the Required Actions for TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1 for the DGs, as allowed by SR 3.0.1. The STP was rewritten to properly time the DG in accordance with the SR and the Surveillance was performed again. Both DGs subsequently failed to satisfy the revised STP and were declared inoperable and SR 3.0.3 was exited. LCO 3.8.1, Condition E was subsequently entered at 4:50 a.m. (CST) on January 20, 1999, requiring the plant to be in MODE 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and MODE 4 within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> of that time, due to failure to restore at least one DG to OPERABLE status within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> as required by LCO 3.8.1, Condition D.

Your staff stated that the current situation was caused by an inappropriate TS surveillance criteria that can not be satisfied. Your staff noted that this SR underwent significant changes near the end of the NRC review of the DAEC conversion to the improved TS (ITS). From the associated correspondence, it is clear that the DAEC did not intend for the basic requirements for this testing to be different from that contained in the old TS (CTS 4.8.A.2.a.2), when in fact, a significant change was introduced due to the adoption of the wording of the Standard TS (STS)

-(NUREG-1433). Because this was not recognized, the previous STP was not correctly revised as part of the ITS implementation process. This condition has been recognized, subsequer.t to the DAEC ITS conversion, and a change to the STS, Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change 163, Rev.2, has been approved by the NRC to correct this SR. Therefore, your staff concluded that it is inappropriate to cause the power plant to shutdown due to a recognized deficiency in the TS.

Your staff also conducted a review of the last performance of SR 3.8.1.13 (May 1998) which confirms that the DG meets the committed performance as discussed in UFSAR Sections 1.8.9 and 8.3.1.4. The DGs start, accelerate to the minimum required voltage and frequency within  !

the required time of 10 seconds in the accident analysis, accept the supported loads in the proper sequence, recover the bus voltage and frequency within their design limits between loads  ;

and ultimately achieve and maintain the required steady-state voltage and frequency conditions.

In addition, a review of the most recent data (Jan. 20,1999) shows that the DGs reach the required minimum voltage and frequency well within the 10-second limit and achieve the required steady-state performance on voltage and frequency. Based upon this performance, your staff has concluded that the DGs are capable of performing their intended safety function, as assumed in the accident analysis, and therefore, should be considered OPERABLE and meeting their LCO requirements.

The NRC evaluated your safety rationale for the requested NOED and verified that your request not to enforce compliance with SR 3.8.1.7 until the revision to SR 3.8.1.7 is processed involves minimal increase in risk to the safe operation of the DAEC. The DGs were demonstrated to pass SR 3.8.1.7 as it existed prior to DAEC's conversion to the ITS and to pass SR 3.8.1.7 as it will be revised per your exigent amendment request. The proposed revision will adopt an NRC approved change to the STS. Based on these considerations, the staff concluded that Criterion 1 of Section B and the applicable criteria in Section C.4 to NRC Manual Chapter 9900,

" Technical Guidance, Operations - Notice of Enforcement Discretion," were met. Criterion 1 of

' - ~

fi ,.

Eliot Protsch January 22. 1998 l I

Section B states that for an operating plant, the NOED is intended to avoid an undesirable transient as a result of forcing compliance with the license condition, and thus minimize the potential safety consequences and operational risks.

On the basis of the staff's evaluation of your request, we have concluded that an NOED is warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involves minimal safety impact, is consistent with the enforcement policy and staff guidance, and has no adverse impact on public 1 health and safety. Therefore, it is our intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with SR 3.8.1.7 until the exigent TS amendment request to revise SR 3.8.1.7, which you 1 submitted on January 22,1999, is processed. The staff plans to complete its review and issue l the license amendment within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.

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

l Sincerely, Original signed by:

1 1

Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director  !

Project Directorate ill-1 Division of Reactor Project Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No: 50-331 j i

cc: See next page 1 Distribution: l Docket File PUBLIC )

PD33R/F S. Collins /R. Zimmerman B. Sheron B. Boger T. Hiltz J. Dyer, Rill E. Adensam J. Lieberman j W. Beckner M. Boyle  ;

J. Luehman R. Lanksbury, Rlli l P. Prescott, SRI OGC ACRS email "NOED" '

email"NRCWEB" DOCUMENT NAME: G:\PD3

.._.._.__ _._-3\DUANEARN\NOED199.WPD

. c, _ ._._._ . . co ._ ._ . . . _, _

OFFICE LA:PD32 C PM:PD31 lC BC:TSB Rlll:DRP 1 PD:PD31 (

NAME EBarnhill @ RLaufer CL, WBecknertv* GGrant CAR CCarpenteCW .

l DATE 01/A/99 01/1999 01/q%9 01 M 9 P' 01/yg99 l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY '/ 3 49 WW45p .

i

3 Eliot Protsch '

l Section B states that for an operating plant, the NOED is intended to avoid an undesirable transient as a result of forcing compliance with the license condition, and thus minimize thc potential safety consequences and operational risks.

On the basis of the staff's evaluation of your request, we have concluded that an NOED is warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involves minimal safety impact, is consistent with the enforcement policy and staff guidance, and has no adverse impact on public health and safety. Therefore, it is our intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with SR 3.8.1.7 until the exigent TS amendment request to revise SR 3.8.1.7, which you l submitted on January 22,1999, is processed. The staff plans to complete its review and issue l the license amendment within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.

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

Sincerely, I

(h b ^r" 4, -

Cynthia A. Carpenter, Director Project Directorate lll-1 Division of Reactor Project til/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No: 50-331 cc: See next page i

I

Mr. Eliot Protsch Duane Arnold Energy Center IES Utilities Inc.

cc:

Jack Newman, Esquire Al Gutterman, Esquire Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius 1800 M Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20036-5869 i

Chairman, Linn County Board of Supervisors Cedar Rapids,IA 52406 IES Utilities Inc.

ATTN: Gary Van Middlesworth Plant Superintendent, Nuclear 3277 DAEC Road Palo,IA 52324 John F. Franz, Jr.

Vice President, Nuclear Duane Amold Energy Center 3277 DAEC Road Palo,IA 52324 Ken Peveler Manager of Regulatory Perfermance Duane Amold Energy Center 3277 DAEC Road Palo,IA 52324 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspector's Office Rural Route #1 Palo,IA S2324 Regional Administrator, Rlli U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4531 .

Parween Baig

' Utilities Division Iowa Department of Commerce Lucas Office Building,5th floor Des Moines,IA 50319

. __