IR 05000237/1990017

Discusses Safety Insp Repts 50-237/90-17 & 50-249/90-17 on 900613-0731 & 50-237/90-22 & 50-249/90-22 on 900628-0920 & Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $37,500

ML17202U886
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	11/28/1990
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML17202U887	List: IR 05000237/1990017 ML17252A628
References
EA-90-168, NUDOCS 9012060123
Download: ML17202U886 (5)

Text

. ' '...

' "

.. (,b 1>\\"\\). ~**.

\\f.. \\~.

.

.L tJ :...

November 28, 1990 Docket Nos:

50~237 and 50-249 License No DPR-19 and DPR-25

.EA 90-168 Commonwealth Edison Co'mpany

..

ATTN:

• Mr. Corde lJ *Reed Senior Vice President*

Opos West III 1400 Opu~ Place Downers Grove, Illinois* 60515

• Gentlemen:- -

• SUBJECT:

~riTICE OF VIbLATibN AND pRciPOSED iMPOSITION 6~ tIVIL ~ENALTY - $37,500 *

(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO~. 50-237/90017(D~P); 50~249/90017(D~~);

50-237 /90022(DRP)? 50-249/90022(DRP) )_

..

This refers to the* special. safety. inspectibns conducted during th~ period of

• • June 13* through July 31, 1990 and* during the period of June 28 through

. September 20, 1990 at the D.r.esden Nuclear Power Station... During* these

.*. ins~ections a violation of NRC requirements was identified by your staff, and

.>*on October 12, 1990, a.. n enforcement conference was held in the Reg1on III office between Mr. D *. *Galle, *and _other members of your staff, ari*d Dr. C. J. Paperiello,.. **

• a.nd other members of the NRC staff. Copies o'f the inspection reports were.

• .mailed to jau on ~ug~~t.24, 1996 and Octobe~ 4, 1990, an~ a co~y of the

. enforcement conferenc~ repor;t was sent on October /24, 199 On June 28, 1990~ with.Units~ and 3 op~r~ting at 99% and 48% power respe~tively, duri.ng the review of a proposed revisfon to DRP 135.0-3 "Sa1T1pling the Drywell

.

Manifold System Us*ing the RaDeco Air Sampler", one of your employees, an Assi~tant Tecbnical Staff Supe~visor, ~iscovered *that obtainin~ the ~equi~ed

..

• daily air sampJe using th.is procedur~ both challenged the integrity of primary..

containment and potential]y violated Technical Specification (TS)

3.7~A.a.(3)

• primary containment' leaka.ge requirements. Specifically, this procedure addressed

• obtaining the required air sample by breaking. the.closed loop *On the drywell manifold air sample system and using a, temporary sample pump in lieu of th normal air sample pum In.this configuration and under this procedure, the.

temporary sample pump would run unattended for approximately one hour daily and*

exhaust into the secondary containment with no automatic isolation capabilit In addition, this represented a condition that could, by your own calculations, increase primary containment.leakage beyond the allowed leakage of J.6% per da (TS 3r7.A.a.(3)) by an.additional 4.73l per day fo~ a total leakage of 6.33%

. per da It is my understanding that.this method'of air sampling using the.

temporary sampling pump has been used as a secondary backup method to obtain the required air sample since approximately 197 We also understand that the r~quired air samples were originally obtained through the use of a continuous air monitor (CAM) with the drywell manifold air sample system as the pr.imary backu *

CERT! FI ED MAIL

• RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 9012060123 901128 PDR ADOCK 05000237 G

PNU

-..

.. -. ;._f

• . *'

--* ~. : '<*.

'.

Commonweal th Edi son Company..

\\

- 2 ~

November 28, 199 The root cause of this event was your failure to recognize that use of the temporary air pump constituted a design change that required the performance of a proper engineering review and the establishmerit qf proper:procedural controls prior to its impleme~tatio *

• Consequently, this resulted in a_ significant failure tb ineet the *requirements of 10 CFR 50.5 S_pecifically, each time that the temporary sample punip was used, you 'failed to* perform the evaluation necessary *to determine whether. the activity constituted a change in the TSs' and/or an unreviewed safety questio In this case, the use.of the temporary. sample pump effectively constituted a change in the TSs' allo'wable.leakage rate and represented an unreviewed safety

• .question in that the ~ddftional leakage rate (4.73%) nullified the margin of safety as defined. in the.basis to the TS This vio*lation is significant in that (based on-your*calculatio-ns using.design basis methodologies) both limits for the thyroid do*se for tontrol. room habitability and for the 30 day ttiyroi d dose at the low population zone would have been exceeded." Althou*gh you performed

- additional analyses that inditated that acceptable offsite and control room doses wo~ld have been obtained, those ~nalyses, that wefe based on assumptions that*

were less conservative 'than those 4sed.in the plant licensing basis, still wo"uld*

ha,ve required changes to.the Final Safety Anaiysis Report (FSAR), *TSs, and TS

bases.* However, the determination of the acceptability of such analyses is an NRt f~riction, and requires NRC approv~l prior to implementation of the change.*

• • Therefore,' in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for

• NRC Enforcement Actions,".. ( Enforc;enient Policy) 10 CFR Part 2 ~ Appendix C (1990),

this violation has been* categorized as a Severity Level II~ violatio *

The NRC recognizes that immediate.*co*rrective action* was taken when the violation was identified..

Jn"*. addition, the NRC was informed of your subsequent corrective actions during*t~e October 12, 1990 enforcement conf~rence. During this discus-*

sion, you *informed us that as part of your" corrective. action, for -this-e_vent,

• that you had identified that a 10 CFR 50.59 review had not be.en completed prior

.to disconnecting.the CAM in. the early 1980's~ despite the fact* that it was an

• FSAR requiremen I understand that you have reinstalled the CAM on Unit 3 and will reinstall it on Unit 2 prior to its startup from-its current refueling

• outage..

.,.

• commonwealth Edison Company

' - *3 -

N6vember 28, 1990

. *. -

However, thi~ ~iolation might have been identified earl.ier if an aggressive review. had taken place on several. prior occasions. First, in 1986, the * *

unreviewed safety question might have been identified _if your revisions to the

• ,*temporary alteration program had extended to cover use of.the temporary sample.

pump, either at that time or when use of the pump was:reinstated in 198 *

Secorid, in August 1988, when your temporary.alteration program was extended to

.

cover use *of mechanical equipment, the unreviewed. safety question might have been

• identified if you had recognized the use of the temporary pump as a temporary alteration. finally, in May 1989, when the procedure governing use of the temporary sample pump was created (in response to a third party reviewer's recommendation made in 1988)~ the unreviewed safety question inight have been.

identified if you had properly performed a safety evaluation as required by '

your own procedure~ Therefore, only p~rtial mitigation (25%) was.deemed warrantedfor*the ideritificatiori facto Fifty per~ent mitigation was applied due to the extensivenes~ of your corrective '.actions, once you recognized that an unreviewed.safety question existed~-

With respect to your past performance, the NRC notes. that you received two previous Severity Level IV violations

• .involving changes to.the facility ~ithout prior* evaluatio.n* and authorization in the past two years.. I recognize that the correcti~e action for those

• violations would not necessarily have ~re~ented the subject violatip In.

addition, the NRC has rioted a significant improvement in the performance of *

your technical.staff organization as ~videnced by your_latest'SALP rating in the area of E&TS; as well as the more aggress.ive scrµtiny that your employees are giving tri routine review Therefore~ 50% mitigatiori~was appli~d for past*

performanc However, I am especially concerned in thfs ease due to the number*

of years that the temporary s*ample pump was. regularly used on *a dai.ly basis and

• the potential for a significant offsite releas.. e.should a design bas.is LOCA have occur.red during those tiine In addition, ~the NRC is concerned that*, for a substantial number of years, jt appears that you,failed to properly understand *

and evaluate the intent and requirements of the cohtainment air sample system *

such.that the proper corrective actions for the system retjuirements could have

• been implemente Therefore, the base civil penalty was. escalated_ by 100%. based*_

on the duration facto The other factors of the Policy were considered and no forther adjustment to the base civil penalty was considered appropriat Therefore, based on the above, a civil penalty in the fi.nal amount of $37,500 is propose *

Yol! are required to respond to this letter and.should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your~esponse. In your re~ponse, *

you sho~ld document the specific actions taken and any additional ~ctions 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 w1 ll determine whether further NRC enforcemen.t aC:ti on is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirement * *

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of t~e NRC'~ "Rules of P~actice~~* a copy of

• this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC Publ.ic Document Room..

-....

'.-

~

. '

".

-.-

~.

. "* ;,

.). ' --

...

• .

~j

... *.

. coinmonwealth Eqison Compa~y 4 -

• November 28,.1990 *

The responses directed by thfs letter an*d the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance proce*dures of.the Office. of Management and Budget as required

• by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-51 *

Regional Adm~nistrator

..

,-

Enclosures:

-*

,.. L. * Notite*of Violation and Proposed

• *** *** *.

. Imposition of.Civil *:Penalty*

. *

..

_

2. * Jnspettion Report No ~237/90022(DRP);.

-*..

...

.

so.:.~49/90022(DRP)

.

..

..

.* * *

.

.

.. ~

- *.

.

, cc w/ enclosures:

~-

G~11e: Vice President -

BWR

• :.Operations*.

.*

':.*

T. K6vach, Nuclear

• Li.ceh.s i ng Manager

• *E. D. Eenigenburg, _Station Manager:*

.. 'DCD/DCB (RIDS)

'-

. OC/LfDCB

• .

.

.

.. *Resident Inspectors.'LaSalle-,: *

. r.

...

.*.

,.

. Dre~den, Quad Cities '~*

RiCha rd Hubba rd

*.*.... :.

~-' '

. J *. w. Mccaffrey, Chief, Public'.

Utflities Division Robert Newmann, Office of Public Counsel; State of Illinois Center O.

'.

~

(Rece'.d

. RPedersen **

11/21/90

. R~J

. * * LJUStieed/db 11/)J /90..

D.:OE vi a FAX)

bEDR...

• Jsniezek JL i eberman **.

. * 11/21/90

• * ll/23/90r I.,

.

&A~

3'1). ~~ller *

11""1/90.

d'kE!P

.

• Pederson *

. 11/.J? /90 R~I*.*

.*

p..

. Pa e iello 11/), 7/9.**.**

.,**

• ~~**

11/t7/90

.:.

-?.

• ~.....

• . *,

• -*.*:::**.

. -* *.':'-- *.

....

-.. *

. '

Commonwealth Edison Company DISTRIBUTION:

PDR

'LPDR SE Cf CA J.Sniezek; -DEDR

• . J.Lieberman, OE J.Goldberg, OGC T.Murley, NRR J~Partlow;.NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI; RiI, RIV~ R.

.F. Ingram, GPA/PA B.Hayes, OI D. W il l i ams, 0 I G E. Jordan, AEO *R.Pedersen; OE Day Fi 1 ~

EA File*

RAO:RIII PAO:RIII SLO:RIII IMS:RIII'

\\'

. ;

- 5..;.

November 28, 1990

. *.:..

• .. *,

~. '

• ..