Difference between revisions of "ML20133A041"

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Latest revision as of 21:50, 1 August 2020

Discusses Insp Repts 50-382/96-09 & 50-382/96-20 on 961120 & Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty
ML20133A041
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 12/26/1996
From: Callan L
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Sellman M
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
Shared Package
ML20133A043 List:
References
Download: ML20133A041 (8)


See also: IR 05000382/1996020

Text

l*, o

l .- efa i E D S T A T E S

,

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-

3 \f. -

611 R v AN Pli.Z A L)RIV F SUIT E 400

t AH L6NG T ON 1 E v. AS 700118064

.....

December 26, 1996

EA 96-255

Michael B. Sellman. Vice President

l Operations - Waterford

l Entergy Operations. Inc.

! P.O. Box B

l Killona. Louisiana 70066

SUBJECT: NDTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -

$50.000

(NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-382/96-09 and /96-20)

Dear Mr. Sellman:

This refers to the predecisional enforcement conference conducted on

l November 20. 1996. with you and members of your staff in the NRC Region IV

! office in Arlington. Texas. The conference was held to discuss the

l circumstances surrounding three apparent violations discussed in the subject

inspection reports. These apparent violations were identified to your staff

l during a telephonic exit meeting on October 9. 1996. The inspection reports

were issued on July 24. 1996 (96-09) and October 24, 1996 (96-20).

l

l Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information

I

that you provided at the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of

l NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice

l of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) and the

circumstances surrounding them were described in detail in the subject

l inspection reports.

l Violation I in the attached Notice involves the actual design configuration of

l the containment vacuum relief (CVR) system being different from that described

l in the Waterford 3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The required written

safety evaluation to substantiate that the change did not involve an

unreviewed safety question was never performed. Specifically, the CVR

, instrument lines did not terminate at a location within the controlled

i ventilation area system (CVAS) (or within any other filtration system) as

l described in the response to FSAR Ouestion 480.36. As a result of the

erroneous information. valves CVR 302A(B) and 402A(B) were inadequately test 1

to ensure they fulfilled the containment isolation function in accordance with

General Design Criterion 56.

When appropriately tested in July 1996. valves CVR 302A(B) and CVR 402A(B)

failed to close. Thus, containment isolation would not have been adequate in

the event of a design basis event. Due to its design. the failure of CVR

402A(B) had the potential to result in both control room dose limits and

offsite dose limits being exceeded during a design basis loss-of-coolant

9612300050 961226

PDR ADOCK 05000392

l

l

G PDR l

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

_ _.

'

i

.

Entergy Operations. Inc. -2- t

Waterford 3

accident. Therefore, this violation is classified in accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions"

(Enforcement Policy). NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level III violation.

Violation II.A in the Notice, involves a failure to promptly evaluate and

correct known discrepancies in the IST program. The circumstances surrounding

this violation involved known discrepancies between an Inservice Testing (IST)

Design Basis Document (DBD-024). issued in March 1994, and the IST )lan in

existence at the time. In May 1994. Entergy formed an IST Plan Tasc Force to i

'

resolve these discrepancies and to determine if the IST plan met all ASME Code

requirements. In November 1994, the task force issued its final report

stating that the addition of the 39 valves to the IST plan would be ,

" enhancements" and that the company was in compliance with applicable t

requirements without the addition of these 39 additional valves. This

determination was incorrect and the valves were not added to the IST plan. It

was not until about December 1995 that this condition adverse to quality was I

identified, when Waterford 3 personnel began identifying that these valves I

should be included in the IST program and began developing a schedule for

reviewing the discrepancies.

At the pre-decisional enforcement conference. Entergy personnel stated that

the root causes for this violation involved: (1) the inappropriate assigning

of responsibility for the IST program to the shift technical advisors (STA).

l (2) the perception that management was not receptive to additional testing.

(3) inadequate and ineffective corrective action tracking. (4) inadequate

'

coordination between the IST bases document and the IST plan. (5) inadequate

guidance concerning how long DBD open items may remain o)en, and (6) the

failure to enter in the corrective action program the su) sequent items

i

identified in an earlier review. At the conference, your staff stated that

!

there was no saMy significance associated with the identified plan

discrepancies, and that the violation should be classified at Severity Level !

IV. We agree that, exce)t for the CVR 402A(B) valves discussed in Violation ;

! I the consequences of t1is violation, with the valves in their as-found !

condition, would have been minimal. However, these IST issues involve known

discrepancies in the IST program that were not addressed in a timely manner

! and, as a result, a larce number of valves were not being tested to assure

they would perform their safety function. Therefore, this violation has been

l categorized in accordance with the Enforcement Policy at Severity Level III.

l In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a civil penalty of $50.000 is ;

! considered for a Severity Level III violation. Because your facility has been j

the subject of escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years , the

NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and Corrective

! EA 96-025 issued on March 25. 1996. invoh ed a $50,000 civil penalty

for a failure to implement effective actions to preclude repetition of a

significant condition adverse to quality.

1

i

l

'

>

-- . - - - -.- .- --.--- -.- --.- - - -

l

.

b

(

-

!

1

Entergy Operations. Inc. -3-

Waterford 3 l

l

.

Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section !

VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. In reviewing the Identification factor for i

Violation I. NRC noted an important missed opportunity to earlier :

identification of the violation. This occurred during the review of Condition !

Report CR-96-0272, initiated March 1,1996, involving the operability of

certain valves, including CVR-302A(B). Also, during several discussions with i

NRC inspectors through July 20 your staff continued to depend on the j

erroneous information in the FSAR and stated the intent to remove the valves

from the inservice test (IST) program. Although we recognize that your staff I

i ultimately identified the FSAR discrepancy associated with the CVR 302A(B) and j

402A(B) valves. NRC has determined that it as unlikely_that your staff would

have identified this violation absent NRC's involvement Therefore. the NRC

l

has determined that credit for the Identification factor is not warranted for

l Violation I. As to Violation II, the NRC has determined that credit for the

Identification factor is warranted because Entergy identified the problem.

In evaluating the Corrective Action factor, the NRC has determined that credit

is warranted for both Violation I and II because the corrective actions to

these violations were sufficiently prompt and comprehensive. Corrective

actions for Violation I included: (1) promptly replacing and retesting failed

valves. (2) performing a root cause analysis. (3) isolating and

administratively controlling the non-essential lines until a plant

! modification and license amendment could be implemented. (4) promptly

submitting a license amendment request. (5) reviewing other containment

penetrations'for similar problems, and (6) implementing a FSAR fidelity

assessment. The corrective action for Violation II included: (1) developing a

,

'

schedule to resolve the discrepancies between the IST plan and the DBD.

(2) testing the valves which had not been previously tested or which had been

inadecuately tested. (3) controlling changes to the IST plan with the DBD by

procecure and (4) comprehensively reviewing the ASME valves and current IST

l

plan to facilitate development of a second 120-month interval plan.

l At the predecisional enforcement conference, your staff asserted that the NRC

should exercise discretion for Violation I because it was an old design issue.

'

, After careful consideration, we have determined that, because of the NRC's

involvement in the identification of the violation, this problem was not

identified by a voluntary initiative on Entergy's part (Entergy was moving to i

-

remove the CVR 302A(B) valves from the IST 3rogram until NRC's questioning,

and most likely would not have identified t1e same problem with CVR 402A(B)).

As such, the exercise of discretion is not warranted in this case.

Therefore, to emphasize the importance of ensuring that the plant is operated

in accordance with its FSAR and the importance of prompt identification of l

non-conforming conditions. I have been authorized. after consultation with the '

! Director. Office of Enforcement, to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and

! Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) in the base amount of $50,000

i for the Severity Level III violation discussed in Section I of the Notice. In i

addition to encourage your efforts to identify and correct problems and

,

noncompliances. I have also been authorized to issue a Severity Level III ,

j violation without a civil penalty, for the Severity Level III violation ;

!

!

l

)

--

. - - _- - . - - -. - . - - .-. . - - . --- --

.

.,

l .

I

Entergy Operations. Inc. - 4-

Waterford 3

! described in Section II.A of the Notice. However. significant violations of i

this nature could, in the future, result in a civil penalty. ,

The third violation. discussed in Section II.B of the Notice, involved a

failure to fully close a centainment spray valve. Entergy personnel

identified this condition in November 1995, promptly corrected it, and l

performed en operability determination of the Containment Spray System.

During discussions concerning IST issues in March 1996. design engineering

personnel realized that the earlier operability evaluation did not consider

backleakage to the refueling water storage pool. This realization :

demonstrated a good questioning attitude by plant staff. Using very '

l conservative calculations. Entergy Jostulated the consequences of the i

l condition to be that Control Room t1yroid dose limits would be exceeded. '

!

However. a more realistic analysis including a review of the plant's routine

monitoring program, showed that Control Room thyroid dose problems would have

been identified before dose limits would have been exceeded. Given the

circumstances of the violation. the NRC determined that this violation is

appropriately classified at Severity Level IV.

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions

specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. In your

response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional

actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this

Notice. including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future

inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is

necessary to ensure compliance with NRC 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). To the extent possible, your response should not include ,

any personal privacy proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be I

placed in the PDR without redaction. I

Sincerely.

- ;

f

L. Callan

l

Regional Administrator

l

l

'

Docket No. 50-382

License No. NPF-38

Enclosure: Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

\

i

I

._, . . . ____ - - - -. - - - - - - - .-- - - .. .- . . . - _. - . . - -

'

.

.

Entergy Operations Inc. -5-

Waterford 3

cc (w/ enclosure):

Executive Vice President and

Chief Operating Officer

Entergy Operations. Inc.

P.O. Box 31995

Jackson. Mississippi 39286-1995

Vice President. Operations Support

Entergy Operations. Inc.

P.O. Box 31995

Jackson. Mississippi 39286-1995

Wise. Carter. Child & Caraway

P.O. Box 651

Jackson, Mississippi 39205

General Manager Plant Operations

Waterford 3 SES

Entergy Operations. Inc.

P.O. Box B

i Killona. Louisiana 70066

Manager - Licensing Manager

Waterford 3 SES

Entergy Operations. Inc.

P.O. Box B

Killona Louisiana 70066

Chairman

Louisiana Public Service Commission

One American Place. Suite 1630

Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70825-1697

Director Nuclear Safety

Waterford 3 SES

Entergy 03erations. Inc.

P.O. Box 3

Killona. Louisiana 70066

l

William H. Spell. Administrator

'

Louisiana Radiation Protection Division

P.O. Box 82135
Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70884-2135

i

Parish President

i St. Charles Parish

4

'

P.O. Box 302

Hahnville. Louisiana 70057

!

,

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

i.

..

Entergy Operations. Inc. -6-

Waterford 3

Mr. William A. Cross

Bethesda Licensing Office

3 Metro Center

Suite 610

Bethesda. Maryland 20814

Winston & Strawn

1400 L Street. N.W.

Washington. D.C. 20005-3502

i

I

I

l

l

n

.

l

l

l

!

!

l

l

l

l

'

i

I

l

I

i

!

l

I ,

! l

l

>

i

-, . . _ . . -

. . . _ , - - , . . _ . - . ,

. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ - . - . --_ . . - . _ _ _ _ - .. _ . . - -

..,

,

i

"* Entergy Operations. Inc. !

Waterford 3

bcc:

DISTRIBUTION:

PDR IE 14

LPDR Enforcement Coordinators

SECY RI. RII. RIII

CA JGilliland. PA (0-2G4)

JTaylor. EDO (0-17G21) HBell. OIG (T-5028)

JMilhoan. DEDR (0-17G21) GCaputo OI (0-3E4)

JLieberman. OE (0-7HS) EJordan. AE00 (T-4018)

LChandler OGC (0-15B18) LTremper. OC/LFDCB (T-9E10)

JGoldberg. 0GC (0-15B18) OE: (0-7H5)

Director. NRR (0-12G18) OE:EA (2) (0-7H5)

RZimmerman. NRR/ADP (0-12G18) NUDOCS -

CPatel. NRR (0-13H3)

RIV DISTRIBUTION:

E-mail to:

0EMAIL 0 Chamberlain (DDC)

SJCollins (SJC1) BHenderson (BWH)

CHackney (CAH) WBrown (WLB)

JDyer(JED2) KPerkins(KEP)

AHowell (ATH) LKeller (LAK)

PHarrell (PHH) KBrockman(KEB)

TPGwynn (TPG) DPowers (DAP)

LEllershaw (LEE 1) GMVasquez (GMV)

Copies to:

RIV Files

MIS Coordinator

LJCallan> Reading File

GSanborn>EAFile

BHenderson

CHackney

l

DOCUMENT NAME:

To receive co n of docurnent. Indicay JMyox: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy

ES EF l E0 (Q4F C:MB lE' DD:DRS l 4/ D:DRS , l y/ ;

MVasqubz GFSdn66hf DPowers M KEBrockmanfin PGwynnly,,/e

$

12/if/86

'

12/ /96 12/ /96 12/q /96 12/

mas == m s=mussummhemesse minian

0:DRP /

, RC 'L

, DE un & bier DRA , FJA

JEDyer d'$ W WLBrpwn' JLieberman F SJCdTlins L'JOBTlan

l 12/\\ /96 12/lb/96 12/n /96 12/* /96 / 12/\5/96

l '

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

.

i e

/

33E N h l1

? l

300001

I

,

.

I

^~

Entergy Operations. Inc.

Waterford 3 !

l

bcc: .

!

DISTRIBUTION:

PDR IE 14 l

LPDR Enforcement Coordinators 1

SECY RI. RII. RIII ,

CA JGilliland. PA (0-2G4)

JTaylor. EDO (0-17G21) HBell. OIG (T-5D28) l

JMilhoan. DEDR (0-17G21) GCaputo. OI (0-3E4)

JLieberman. OE (0-7H5) EJordan. AEOD (T-4D18)

LChandler. OGC (0-15B18) LTremper. OC/LFDCB (T-9E10)

JGoldberg. 0GC (0-15B18) DE: (0-7H5) !

Director. NRR (0-12G18) OE:EA-(2) (0-7H5)

RZimmerman. NRR/ADP (0-12G18) NUDOCS

CPatel. NRR (0-13H3)

RIV DISTRIBUTION:

E-mail to:

0EMAIL DChamberlain (DDC)

SJCollins (SJC1) BHenderson (BWH)

CHackney (CAH) WBrown (WLB)

JDyer(JED2) KPerkins(KEP)

AHowell (ATH) LKeller (LAK)

PHarrell (PHH) KBrockman(KEB)

TPGwynn (TPG) DPowers (DAP)

LEllershaw (LEE 1) GMVasquez (GMV)

Copies to:

RIV Files

MIS Coordinator

LJCallan> Reading File

GSanborn>EAFile

BHenderson

CHackney

DOCUMENT NAME:

To receive copy of document. Indicate 54pc "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy

ES 8/h/ l EP (Q/jf- C:MB l E' DD:DRS l 4/ D:DRS ,lv

MVasqubz GFSa'n56M DPowers M KEBrockmanfin PGwynn i 6 0

$

12/$/96 12/ 6 /96 , 12h1 /96 12//g196 12/f / /66

D:DRP /) , RC '4h "

OE pu & bice DRA M SA

JEDyer d6 W WLBrpwn JLieberman F SJC6111ns QtMTlan

12/t\ /96 12/lb/96 12/n /96 12/* /9 V 12/\$/96

y,

'

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

,i n