ML20236T205
| ML20236T205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1998 |
| From: | Linville J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Keiser H Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| 50-354-98-05, 50-354-98-5, NUDOCS 9807280032 | |
| Download: ML20236T205 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000354/1998005
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
. - .
.
t
,
.
l'
I
July 21,1998
l
Mr. Harold W. Keiser
l
Executive Vice President
i
Nuclear Business Unit
l
Public Service Electric & Gas Company
l
PO Box 236
l
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-354/98-05
Dear Mr. Keiser:
!
This letter refers to your July 6,1998 correspondence (LR-N980316),in response to our
June 4,1998, letter regarding the Hope Creek facility.
Thank you for informing us of the corrective and preventive actions for the Notice of
Violation, as documented in your letter. The Notice of Violation identified four examples of
violations of NRC requirements. One violation involved the failure to maintain the residual
l
heat removal system available during a 1990 refueling outage when the reactor was off-
loaded. The remaining three violation examples were related to a modification that was
installed during the Fall 1997 refueling outage and was associated with ventilation system
safety related chillers.
Your response to the violation indicated that you have corrected the specific violations and
have initiated measures to prevent recurrence. Your response to the violations will be
examined during a future inspection.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
l
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
l
James C. Linville, Chief
Projects Branch 3
'
Division of Reactor Projects
/
l
Docket No. 50-354
9007290032 990721
f
ADOCK 05000354
G
fi:D
E_
--
- - - - -
-
-
-_
)
-_ - _ - _-- -_-__ _ _ __-__ __-_.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
l
.
.
j
-
.
I
Mr. Harold W. Keiser
2
!
l
l
.
cc:
l
L. Storz, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations
E. Simpson, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering
E. Salowitz, Director - Nuclear Business Support
l
M. Bezilla, General Manager - Hope Creek Operations
J. McMahon, Director - QA/ Nuclear Training / Emergency Preparedness
i
D. Powell, Director - Licensing / Regulation & Fuels
A. C. Tepert, Program Administrator
,
,
cc w/cy of Licensee's Letter:
A. F. Kirby,111, External Operations - Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co.
,
J. A. Isabella, Manager, Joint Generation
Atlantic Electric
R. Kankus, Joint Owner Affairs
Jeffrey J. Keenan, Esquire
Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate
l
William Conklin, Public Safety Consultant, Lower Alloways Creek Township
l
State of New Jersey
State of Delaware
i
,
I
l
l
i
<
<___m_m_.____
_ _.___ . _ . _ _ _ _ .
_
___ ___ ___ - _ - - - ____-
!
.-
.
..
_,
.
I
I
Mr. Harold W.' Keiser
3
l
- Distribution w/ copy of Licensee's Response Letter:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
' J. Linville, DRP
S. Barber, DRP
C. O'Daniell, DRP
!-
- D.' Screnci, PAO
!
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
l
NRC Resident inspector
B. McCabe, OEDO
R. Ennis, Project Manager, NRR
R. Capra, PD1-2, NRR
inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
jl
R. Correia, NRR
F. Talbot, NRR
l-
DOCDESK
l
PUBLIC -
i
l
-
1
l.
i
r
j
I
.
l
!
!
!:
~
f-
'
!
l
l
,
~ DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\BHANCH3\\1-HC\\9805 RESP.lR
, TJ receive e copy of this doonmert. Indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy without ettechmerWenclosure
- E" = Copy with ettschment/ enclosure
"N" = No
copy
f
.
0FFICE
RI/DRP.
l
RI/ORP
,3/fl
/
l
l
l
NAME --
Pindale/meo
Linville\\fI
DATE
07/21/98
07/1
/988
07/
/98
07/
/98
07/
/98
'
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
i
E
-
-
-
e
g
.
.
,
-
e
i
.
.4 .". 4*
Public Service
j
Electric and Gas
Company
H r:ld W. Keiser
Pubhc Service Electne and Gas Company
PO Box 236, Hancocks Bndge. NJ 08038 609-339-1100
Chief Nuclear Officer & President
Nuclear Business Unit
LR-N980316
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Document Control Desk
Washington, DC 20555
Gentlemen:
REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION
INSPECTION REPORT 354/98-05
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION
j
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57
j
DOCKET NO. 50-354
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Public Service Electric and Gas Company
!
(PSE&G) hereby submits a reply to the Notice of Violation (NOV) issued to the Hope
Creek Generating Station in a letter dated June 4,1998.
l
The PSE&G response for this violation is contained in the Attachment to this letter. If
you have any questions or comments on this transmittal, please contact Paul Duke at
(609) 339-1466.
,
i
Sincerely,
/
\\
M
l
Attachment
l
l
[
MO 7/@WQ
,
- - - - - - - _ _ - - . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
,
,-
.
,
'
JUL 061998
.
I
Document Co@pi Desk
-2-
- LR-N980316
C
Mr. H. Miller, Administrator - Region l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
475 Allendale Road
King of Prussia, PA '9406
Mr. R. Ennis, Licensing Project Manager - Hope Creek
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
One White Flint North
11555 Rockville Pike
Mail Stop 14E21
Rockville, MD 20852
i
Mr. S. Pindale (X24)
USNRC Senior Resident inspector- HC
l
Mr. K. Tosch, Manager IV
i
Bureau of Nuclear Engineering
P. O. Box 415
,
I
Trenton, NJ 08625
-
,
'
l
l
l
'
l
f
t
f
L
,
. _ _ .
.__ _______ _ - _ _ _
e
-
.
J
!
.
'
JUL 061998
Document. Content Desk
-3-
LR-N980316
CNO & President - NBU (N09)
Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering (N19)
Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations (XO4)
Genere! Manager - Hope Creek Operations (H07)
i
Director- QA/NT/EP (X01)
J
Director- System Engineering (H16)
Director- Design Engineering (N23)
Director - Engineering Assurance (N25)
Director - Licensing / Regulation and Fuels (N21)
Manager - Financial Control & Co-Owner Affairs (N07)
-
Operations Manager - Hope Creek (H01)
Manager - Hope Creek Maintenance (H07)
' Manager - Hope Creek System Engineering (H18)
Mechanical Design Manager (N24)
Manager-Quality Assessment-NBU (X16)
Program Manager - Nuclear Review Board (N38)
Manager- Hope Creek Licensing (N21)
J. Keenan, Esq. (N21)
Records Management (N21)
.
Microfilm Copy
File Nos.1.2.1,3.1 (HC iP,354/98-05)
i
!
!
F-
1
-
-
.
-
.
l*
l
j
. -u
ATTACHMENT
.
l
'
RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION
INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-354/98-05
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION
DOCKET NO. 50-354
1
A.10 CFR 50.59 Violation
l
1. Description of the Notice of Violation
10 CFR 50.59, " Changes, tests and experiments," in part, permits the licensee to
make changes to its facility and procedures as described in the final safety
analysis report (FSAR) and conduct tests or experiments not described in the
safety analysis report without prior Commission approval provided the change
does not involve a change in the technical specifications or an Unreviewed
Safety Question (USO). The licensee shall maintain records of changes in the
l
facility and these records must include a written safety evaluation which provides
the bases for the determination that the change does not involve a USQ.
"
FSAR Section 9.1.3.2.3 establishes that the design and operation of the fuel pool
cooling and cleanup systems for the decay heat associated with a full core
offload is based, in part, on the operation or availability of the residual heat
removal (RHR) system to augment the fuel pool cooling and cleanup (FPCC)
system.
Contrary to the above, during refueling outage a F03 in December 1990, the
i
licensee did not maintain the RHR system in operation or available to augment
l
the FPCC system which represented a change to the facility as described in the
FSAR and did not perform a review of this change to demonstrate that the
l
change did not involve a USQ.
l
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
2. Reply to Notice of Violation
PSE&G agrees with the violation.
l
3. Reason for the Violation
!
PSE&G attributed the cause for this violation to inadequate procedures for
outage reviews and controls. Altemate means of decay heat removal were
evaluated before the RFO3 full core offload to ensure sufficient decay heat
removal capacity. However, the requirement to compare the alternate decay
heat removal methods with those described in the Hope Creek Up6;ted Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and to evaluate deviations in accordance with
10 CFR 50.59 was not recognized.
Page 1 of 6
.
- - - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ .
_
L*
1
.
.
Attachment'
LR-N980316
-
'4
. .. .w .
l
4. Corrective Steps that Have Been Taken and Results Achieved
The interschon among Nuclear Fuels, System Engineering and Outage
(.
Management has been proceduralized. The station outage risk management
l
procedure was revised to include guidance on the development of decay heat
l
load estimates and heat-up curves for outage planning. The guidance includes
l
verification of adequate decay heat removal capability throughout the outage
j
schedule.
i
For the full core offload performed during refueling outage RFO7, completed in
December 1997, the decay heat removal method was evaluated in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.59 and found not to involve an Unreviewed Safety Question.
5. Corrective Steps that Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations
No additional corrective actions are planned.
i
6. Date When Full Compliance Will be Achieved
i
Hope Creek achieved full compliance when the RHR system was returned to
l
available status and the core reload was completeu during RFO3.
l
[
B.10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion XI Violation
1. Description of the Notice of Violation
10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion XI requires, in part, that all testing required to
demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily
in service be identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures
,
which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in
l
applicable design documents. The test program shall include, as appropriate,
proof tests prior to installation and operational tests during nuclear power plant
operation of structures, systems, and components.
l
Contrary to the above, two examples of inadequate testing requirements
l
associated with a design change modification to the Hope Creek safety-related
control area chilled water system chillers were identified as follows:
1
(1) As of April 7,1998, a complete proof test prior to installation and an
operational test had not been performed to verify that check valves 1KBV-
1243 through 1KVB-1250 [ sic) would provide a relatively leak tight boundary
and ensure that the backup safety-related pneumatic supplies for the chiller
condenser cooling water pressure control valves would remain available for
four hours after a loss of power event.
(2) On April 8,1998, the backup safety-related pneumatic preseure regulators
(1KBPCV-11464, -11466, and -11467) for the chiller condenser cooling water
l
Page 2 of 6
)
L
__
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
____
_-
!
.
. Atta:hment
LR-N980316
.
I
I
pressiird'c6ntrol valves were found set below minimum design requirements.
Operational tests had also not been performed to ensure that pressure
regulators 1KBPCV-1164 (sic] through 1KBPV-1171 [ sic] would remain
property set in accordance with design requirements.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
2. Reply to Notice of V%Iation
i
PSE&G agrees with the violation.
.
l
3. Reason for the Violation
Example (1)
PSE&G attributed the cause of the failure to establish inservice testing (IST)
!
. requirements and to periodically perform ISTs to personnel error. Personnel
preparing the design change package (DCP) and performing design specialty
reviews did not ensure the DCP was reviewed by the IST group. Deficiencies in
the standard DCP format contributed to the violation. The design interface
record had a single signoff for IST and for valve programs.
As part of the post-modification testing, an external leak check was perfomied
l
and the valves were functionally tested. Both tests were satisfactory. However,
l
since the design change packages that added the check valves for the backup
pneumatic supply were not reviewed by the IST group, IST requirements for the
valves were not established.
Example (2)
,
l
PSE&G attributed the cause of the failure to maintain the backup pneumatic
pressure regulator settings to personnel error, most likely after the modification
j
was completed. The regulator settings were verified as part of the post-
modification testing. The most likely scenario is misadjustment by an operator
l
i
during rounds or during a routine maintenance activity. Deficiencies in the
!
procedure changes and in operator training for the design change package
contributed to the violation.
4. Corrective Steps that Have Been Taken and Results Achieved
Example (1)
a. The check valves were tested satisfactorily.
b. IST procedures for the check valves have been developed.
c. The format for the design change interface record was revised to require a
separate signoff for the IST review.
l
Page 3 of 6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _
r.
Atta:hment
LR-N980316
-
,
,
. . .u
L
d. A detailed roll out of this event and its implications was provided to affected
j
design engineering personnel.
e. Personnelinvolved were counseled concerning performance in this event.
l
I
I
l
Example (2)
a. The backup pneumatic supply regulator settings were restored to their
required values,
b. Interim guidance on the operation of the backup pneumatic supply system
was provided to operators.
l
c. IST procedures for the check valves have been developed. The procedures
include periodic verification of the pressure regulator settings for the backup
pneumatic supply.
5. Corrective Steps that Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations
Example (1)
No additional corrective actions are planned.
Example (2)
l
a. This violation will be incorporated in operator continuing training by
- .
l
September 1,1998.
i
b. Lessons leamed from this violation will be communicated to Engineering
personnel by September 30,1998.
6. Date When Full Compliance Will be Achieved
l
Example (1)
Hope Creek achieved full compliance on April 8,1998 when the inservice testing
was performed satisfactorily on the backup pneumatic supply check valves. The
valves have been added to the IST program.
Example (2)
Hope Creek achieved full compliance on April 8,1998 when the backup
pneumatic supply regulator settings were restored to their required values.
Page 4 of 6
I
L
_ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ - _
-_ _ - -
.
.
. Atta:hment
LR-N980316
.
l
C.10 CFR 50-Appendix B Critorion XVI Violation
1. Description of the Notice of Violation
)
l
10 CFR Appendix B Criterion XVI (Corrective Action) requires, in part, that
measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such
l
as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, and nonconformances are
promptly identified and corrected.
Contrary to the above, on December 10,1997, PSE&G engineers determined
that the minimum cooling water inlet temperature for the safety-related control
area chilled water system chillers should be changed in a more limiting direction
to 70 degrees Fahrenheit from 55 degrees Fahrenheit. On April 9,1998, the
operations department management, still unaware of any necessary change to
the minimum allowed cooling water temperature, used 55 degrees Fahrenheit as
I
a basis for determining inoperability when they made a four-hour event
i
notification to the NRC. Hope Creek abnormal operating procedure, Loss of
Instrument Air and/or Service Air, HC.OP-AB.ZZ-0131(Q) - Rev.14, and pending
1
change, HFSAR 97-080, to the Hope Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) also incorrectly stated that 55 degrees Fahrenheit was the
i
minimum cooling water temperature below which the safety-related backup
i
pneumatic supply needed to remain operable. The change in minimum cooling
water inlet temperature to a more limiting value was not corrected until May 7,
1998, when guidance was provided to operators specifying the new 70 degrees
Fahrenheit minimum cooling water temperature.
l
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
I
2. Reply to Notice of Violatior
!
PSE&G agrees with the violation.
3. Reason for the Violation
i
PSE&G attributed the cause for this violation to personnel error. In December,
1997, the responsible engineer concluded that the minimum Safety Auxiliaries
,
Cooling system (SACS) temperature for Control Room chiller operation with full
SACS flow is higher (more limiting) than the minimum temperature used for
design of the backup pneumatic supply modification. The 55 degrees Fahrenheit
i
temperature was an appropriate limit for a fully loaded chiller; but it is more
conservative to assume that the chiller is lightly loaded. The responsible
engineer, who is no longer employed by PSE&G, recognized the need for
corrective action but did not initiate an Action Request as required by PSE&G's
Corrective Action Program to ensure the non-conservative design assumption
was reviewed for its effect on chiller operability.
Page 5 of 6
___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
'
Atta hment
LR-N980316
,
.
a
,.
,
4. CorrectidSteps that Have Been Taken and Results Achieved
a. An Action Request to document this condition was initiated.
b. The backup pneumatic supply was restored and the Control Room chillers
were retumed to OPERABLE status on April 8,1998.
c. A detailed roll out of this event and its implications was provided to affected
design engineering personnel.
5. Corrective Steps that Will Be Taken to Avoid Further Violations
a. An evaluation to determine the correct minimum SACS temperature for chiller
operation without the Instrument Air system or backup pneumatic supply will
be completed by August 21,1998. Temporary administrative controls are in
place to ensure the backup pneumatic supply remains in service when SACS
temperature is less than 70 degrees Fahrenheit (for Control Room chillers) or
62 degrees Fahrenheit (for 1E Panel Room chillers).
b. Operating procedures will be revised as necessary by September 18,1998 to
include the results of the evaluation described above.
c. Lessons learned from this violation will be communicated to Engineering
personnel by September 30,1998.
6. Date When Full Compliance Will be Achieved
Hopi Creek achieved full compliance on April 8,1998 when the backup
pneumatic supply to the chiller pressure control valves was restored.
.
i
!
!
Page 6 of 6
.
.
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _