IR 05000481/1996021

Discusses Insp Rept 50-481/96-21 on 961007-25 & Forwards Notice of Violation

ML20137M560
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek, 05000481
Issue date:	04/03/1997
From:	Merschoff E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Maynard O WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP.
Shared Package
ML20137M563	List: IR 05000481/1996021 ML20137M586
References
EA-96-470, NUDOCS 9704080121
Download: ML20137M560 (7)

Text

,

i

>

ke %g UNITED STATES l N

.7 % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• o b r R EGloN Iv i

• r J

?, f 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400

%....*/ AR LINGToN, TEXAS 760118064 April 3. 1997 I l

EA 96-470 l

Otto L. Maynard, President and l

Chief Executive Officer ,

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P.O. Box 411  !

Burlington, Kansas 66839 l SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -

$ 100,000 (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-482/96-21)

Dear Mr. Maynard:

This refers to the predecisional enforcement conference held on January 16,1997, in the )

'

NRC's Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. The purpose of the conference was to review the circumstances surrounding apparent violations described in the subject inspection

eport, which was issued on December 31,1996. The inspection reviewed the j effectiveness of the Wolf Creek Generating Station system and design engineering organizations. The onsite portion of this inspection ended on November 8,1996. The overall scope and results of the inspection were discussed with your staff on December 31,1996.

Based on the information developed during the inspection, the information that your staff provided during the conference, and the additional information provided in your staff's January 22,1997 letter, the NRC has determined that several violations of NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty. The circumstances surrounding them were described in detailin the subject inspection report. The first violation involves five examples of a violation of 10 CFR Appendix B, Criterion XVI. Specifically, while evaluating and responding to a Quality Assurance finding in 1994, your managers and staff failed to identify and correct conflicting positions between Wolf Creek's Technical Specification Clarifications (TSCs) and the actual Technical Specification requirement. As a result of your staff's use of some of these TSCs, Technical Specifications were violated.

Your staff stated that one cause was a " mind set" that permitted the use of operational knowledge in the application of Technical Specifications which, in some cases, compromised compliance. Although the actual safety significance of this violation was low, the circumstances surrounding it are of regulatory significance because of: (1) the i management involvement in the violation, and (2) the fundamental importance of complying with Technical Specification requirements. g The second violation involves an inappropriate application of the regulatory guidance for determining the frequency of Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) flywheel inspections. This is a violation of 10 CFR 50.59 because your staff changed a procedure described in the safety 9704000121 970403 PDR ADOCK 05000482 lEE%%%%%%ll

G PDR

- .

.

i Wolf Crook Nuclear Operating -2-Corporation analysis report without recognizing that it also involved a change to Technical Specifications. This violation is significant because it resulted in a violation of Technical Specifications.

The third violation involves the continuing existence of TSC 00194 after wo informed your staff at the prodocisional enforcement conference that the NRC considered it incorrect.

This TSC involved an incorrect interpretation of Technical Specification 3.3.1, Table 3.3-1, i Functional Unit 6.b, Action 5, associated with positivo reactivity additions in conjunction with an inoperablo sourco range nuclear instrumentation channel. Your staff's position at the conference was that this TSC did not conflict with the Technical Specification requirements. We continue to disagroo with your position regarding this TSC. This is of concern to us because your staff did not either rescind the TSC af ter the inspection, request formal clarification from the NRC, or request a change to the Technical Specifications. Although a situation to implomont the incorrect clarification has not occurred, this TSC was stillin offect and available for uso as of March 21,1997. In a tolophone conversation on that dato betwoon Mr. Bill Johnson of this office and Mr. Clay Warren of your staff, wo informed your staff that the NRC considered that the continued existonce of this TSC constituted a continuing violation. Subsequently, on March 21, 1997, the TSC was rernoved. We conclude that this incorrect interpretation of Technical Specifications, which remained in offect following our stated position at the prodocisional enforcement conference on January 16,1997 until March 21,1997, represents an inappropriato instruction for an activity potentially affecting quality and, as such, constitutos a violation of Critorion V of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

l Given the regulatory significance of these violations that resulted in noncompliancos with l Technical Specifications and f ailure to take correctivo actions, they are classified in the ;

aggregato in accordance with the "Goneral Statomont of Policy and Procedure for NRC l Enforcomont Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG 1600, as a Severity Lovel lli problem. j in accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty with a baso value of $50,000 is considered for a Soverity Lovel 111 problem. Because your f acility has boon the subject of I escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years', the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for /denti// cation and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty 1 assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. l In ovaluating whether credit is warranted for Corrective Action, the NRC carefully l considered all your correctivo actions. At the prodocisional enforcement conference, the time at which the judgoment of the adequacy of correctivo actions is normally mado, your j correctivo actions included: (1) conducting an extensivo evaluation of the existing TSCs '

and doloting or revising several, (2) the Chief Operating Officer issuing a letter to all personnel detailing expectations for compliance with requirements, (3) chartering an l

(

A $300,000 civil penalty was proposed for three Severity Level lli violations / problems on l

July 1,1990 (EA 96124) related to a frazilice condition which rendered one train of the l Emergency Service Water inoperable and the other train degraded, in addition to problems related to j a degraded turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump.

l n

l

'

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

-.

.

b Wolf Crook Nuclear Operating -3-Corporation incident Investigation Team, (4) changing the Onsito Review Committoo, and (5) arranging for an outsido audit of the plant's correctivo action program. Also, correctivo actions for the violation involving the RCP flywhool inspections included: (1) performing an operability evaluation, (2) requesting a licenso amendment, and (3) initiating a change to the Updated Safety Analysos Report.

Our deliberations on Corrective Action also considorod your staff's position in the enforcement conference that cortain TSCs "woro reviewed and found to not violate Technical Specification requirements and did not constituto a chango to the existing specifications." The inspection report identified thoso TSCs as examplos of the apparent :

Critorion XVI violation. Af ter the conference, your staff reiterated your position in a lotter dated January 22,1997. One of thoso involved TSC 002-96 (sourco rango power supplies). Your staff's initial position was that this TSC did not conflict with Technical Specification 3.8.2. Af ter questioning by NRC during the conference, your staff changed its position and agrood with the NRC that the interpretation was not conservativo. (This position was confirmod in your staff's letter dated January 22, 1997.) Thorofore, your correctivo actions woro not adoquato, in this examplo, to have identified your staff's nonconservativo position at the time of the conference.

Further, as stated above regarding the third violation, TSC 001-94 remained available for uso af ter tho NRC stated its conclusion that it conflicted with Technical Specifications.

Thus, our position is that your corrective actions were not prompt, in this examplo, I becauso you did not either: (1)immediately resolve the issue with the NRC, or (2) roscind the TSC until the issue was resolved with the NRC.

Based on the above two examplos, which involvo nonconservativo and erronoous interpretations of Technical Specifications (the basis for the citation), it appears your correctivo actions woro not sufficiently prompt nor comprehensivo. As a result, the NRC cannot justify giving you Corrective Action credit.

Thorofore, to emphasizo the importance of compliance with Technical Specifications and of prompt identification and comprehensivo correction of violations, and in recognition of your previous escalated enforcement action, I havo boon authorized, af ter consultation with the Director, Offico of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $100,000 for the Soverity Lovel lli problem.

At the conference, wo also discussed other apparent violations. The first involved four examplos of 10 CFR 50.59 violations. At the conferenco, your staff brought additional information to show that, although the documentation was weak, an ovaluation was performod of the Set Point Chango Roquest for the ossential service water self cleaning strainer. This is not a violation of 10 CFR 50.59 and is not cited. Wo have concluded that ;

the remaining 10 CFR 50.59 violations do not represent a programmatic failure and, except l the example involving the RCP flywhool inspections discussed above, are therefore cited at !

Severity Lovel IV.

l i

)

_

.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating -4-Corporation The second apparent violation discussed involved noncompliance with Technical Specification 3.5.4 which requires one centrifugal charging pump to be inoperable when in cold shutdown with the reactor vessel head on. Af ter evaluating all the information, we have decided that citing this as another example of the Criterion XVI violation is more appropriate.

Also, one example of the apparent violation of 10 CFR Part 50 Criterion XVIinvolved TSC 026-85 (quadrant power tilt ratio IOPTRI). Your staff's position, as described in your January 22,1997, letter, is that, " Action statements ITechnical Specification 3.2.4] a.3, and thus a.4, should not be entered until just prior to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after exceeding the OPTR limit." We have reevaluated this issue and have determined that the wording of the Technical Specification supports your position. As such, this issue is not a violation of a legally binding requirement. However, we continue to believe that your interpretation is nonconservative. If, for example, an unknown stuck rod situation were to occur, your position would not require operators to "li]dentify and correct the cause of the out-of-limit condition prior to incr asing THERMAL POWER..." until just prior to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after exceeding the OPTR limit. Your position is nonconservative because it could allow for power increases that. could ultimately lead to fuel f ailure. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will dir, cuss our concern with you further in separate correspondence.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the inst,uctions specified in the I enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to p; event recurrence. With regard to the Critorion XVI violation, we note that your staff and the NRC team identiiied several examples of conflicts between your TSCs and the Technical Specifications. We limited the citation to the more imoortant issues, those examples that actually resulted in violations of the Technical Specifications. Nevertheless, your corrective actions should be sufficiently comprehensive to identify and correct all other conflicting interpretations so that no future Technical Specification violations occur from this problem. 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 (PDR).

'

Sincerely,

.

• Ellis W. Merscho I Regional Admini rator Decket: 50-482 License: NPF-42 Enclosure: (see next page)

.. . - -

.

. . _ . . .

.

,

.

~.

.}

!

!

!

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 5- j

- Corporation -  ;

!

!

Enclosure: _ Notice of Violation and

_

!!

- Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty  ;

I cc w/ Enclosure: j Vice President Plant Operations i

. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp. ]

P.O. Box 411 - l Burlington, Kansas 66839 t

Jay Silberg,' Esq.  ;

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge  ;

2300 N Street, NW i

Washington, D.C. 20037

.

q l

Supervisor Licensing i Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.

P.O. Box 411-Burlington, Kansas 66839 Supervisor Regulatory Compliance Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.

P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839

.

Chief Engineer Utilities Division Kansas Corporation Commission 1500 SW Arrowhead Rd.

Topeka, Kansas 66604-4027

Office of the Governor ]

State of Kansas ,

Topekai Kansas 66612 j i

'

Attorney General Judicial Center 301 S.W.10th 2nd Floor  ;

Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597 j i

County Clerk _

Coffey County Courthouse Burlington. Kansas 66839-1798

, _ ~,

_

.

Wolf Crook Nucioar Operating -6-Corporation Public Health Physicist Division of Environment Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Air & Radiation Forbes Fiold Building 283 Topeka, Kansas 66620 Mr. Frank Moussa Division of Emor00ncy Preparodness 2800 SW Topeka Blvd Topeka, Kansas 66611-1287

-

.

- -

-

., (

'

!

i

!

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating -7- l Corporation ,

,

!

DISTRIBUTION:  !

PDR - IE 14 LPDR Enforcement Coordinators l SECY Bl, Ril, Rlli l CA . JGilliiand, PA (0-2G4) *

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

GCaputo, 01 (0-3E4) [NODOCS D y I JLieberman, OE (0 7H5) EJordan, DEDO (0-17G21) l LChandler, OGC (0-15B18) LTremper, OC/LFDCB (T-9E10)  !

JGoldberg, OGC (0-15B18) OE (2 copies) (0-7H5) l Director, NRR (0-12G18) OE:EA (0 7H5)

RZimmerman, NRR/ADP (0-12G18) JStone, NRR/PDIV-2 (0-13E16)

RIV DISTRIBUTIO'N:  !

E-mail to:

I OEMAIL DChamberlain (DDC) FRingwald (JFR1)

CHackney (CAH) BHenderson (BWH) MHammond(MFH2)  :

WBrown (WLB) JDyer(JED2) PGoldberg (PAG) l KPerkins(KEP) KBrockman (KEB) TPGwynn (TPG) l CVandenburgh (CAV)

'

AHowell (ATH) WJohnson (WDJ)

RAzua (RVA)

Copies to:

RIV Files MIS Coordinator RA> Reading File GSanborn > EAFile PAO (Henderson) RSLO (Hackney)

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EA\ FINAL \EA96470. FIN To roccive copy of document. Indicate in box: "C" = Copy wrthou' enclyres *E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy OE- pf 4, NRRJ.74 1 , D:DRP  %/ D:DRS f yf/ DRA DNelson ,4WA RZimmerliiaf" PGwynn M g, AHowjil6 JDyer $/#

03/t//97 03/I2/97 03g97 ' f 03 @ 7 03&(/97 RA g) D:OE Aydf ,

EMerscho[fg/ JLiebermant "

0374/97 " 03/t197 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY