ML103280255
| ML103280255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/2010 |
| From: | Khadijah West Region 3 Administrator |
| To: | Pacilio M Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
| References | |
| ea-10-187, IR-10-003 EA-10-187 | |
| Download: ML103280255 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000461/2010003
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
2443 WARRENVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210
LISLE, IL 60532-4352
November 23, 2010
Mr. Michael J. Pacilio
Senior Vice President, Exelon Generation Company, LLC
President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO), Exelon Nuclear
4300 Winfield Road
Warrenville IL 60555
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DISPUTED NON-CITED VIOLATION CLINTON STATION
INSPECTION REPORT NO. 05000461/2010003
Dear Mr. Pacilio:
On September 2, 2010, Mr. F. A. Kearney, Site Vice President, Clinton Power Station provided
a response to a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report issued on
August 3, 2010, concerning activities conducted at your facility. Specifically, the Exelon letter
contested the non-cited violation (NCV) related to the Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone
contained in the inspection report, namely NCV 05000461/2010003-04, associated with
the Inadequate Emergency Plan Augmentation Call-In Drills. By our letter dated
September 22, 2010, the NRC acknowledged your letter and advised you that we were
evaluating your reply and would inform you of the results of our evaluations. Based on
an independent review, we have determined that the Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.54(q) and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) violation occurred as stated in the
inspection report. The finding and NCV will remain as documented in the inspection report.
However, we are in agreement that the associated cross-cutting aspect is not warranted.
In the September 2, 2010, letter, your staff stated that you disagreed that there was a violation
of requirements because the Emergency Plan for the Clinton Power Station consisted of the
Exelon Nuclear Standardized Radiological Emergency Plan, the Station Annex Emergency Plan
Implementing Procedures, and associated program administrative documents, and that the plan
and its implementing procedures work in conjunction with each other to establish required
NRC technical report (NUREG)-0654 Table B-1 augmented staffing. You also disagreed with a
characterization that there was a cross-cutting aspect associated with the original NCV in the
area of self and independent assessments.
Your staff provided information to support these positions, including:
- several references contained in the plan where the Emergency Plan, in conjunction with the
Station Annex and implementing and administrative procedures, stated how planning
standards were met;
- that the plan specified two types of call-out drills, one quarterly involving no travel to the site,
and the other every six years, which did require all positions to travel to the site;
M. Pacilio -2-
- that while all positions requiring timely augmentation were not tested quarterly, the ability to
demonstrate augmented on-shift staffing had been successfully completed in two
unannounced six-year drive in drills in September 2004 and August 2010; and
- the implementation of the procedure that exempted certain personnel from the quarterly
call-out drills had been performed approximately seven years ago.
NRC Staff's Review:
The NRC staff reviewed the information you provided in the September 2, 2010, letter, to
determine not only whether the violation as stated in the inspection report was valid, but also
whether the cross-cutting aspect assigned was appropriate. The review was conducted by a
staff member independent of the initial inspection effort. The staff member reviewed several
documents including NUREG-0654, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Emergency
Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, Appendix E to
10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 50.54 (q) through (t), and the planning standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b).
After careful consideration of the information you provided, we have concluded that the violation
occurred as stated in the inspection report; however, we agree that a cross-cutting aspect is not
warranted. The basis for this determination is as follows:
1. The Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures are not considered part of the Emergency
Plan unless that specific section of the plan calls out the specific procedure that is desired to
be incorporated in the plan. Making such a procedure part of the plan also subjects that
procedure to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) - namely, no change can be made to
that procedure that decreases its effectiveness in ensuring the planning standards of
10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 are met unless
prior approval for that change has been obtained from the NRC. In the case of the
augmentation procedure in question, there is no immediate reference in the Emergency
Plan nor the Clinton Annex incorporating that procedure by reference as a part of the plan.
2. As stated in the letter of September 2, 2010, the plan requires two types of augmentation
drills - a quarterly unannounced off-hours emergency response organization (ERO)
augmentation drill where no actual travel is required; and a drill cycle (every six years)
off-hours unannounced activation of the ERO Notification System with actual response to
the emergency facilities. There is no distinction made in these two requirements regarding
personnel that will or will not be required to participate. As such, all members of the ERO
are covered by both of these drills.
3. The augmentation procedure at Clinton makes a distinction between personnel required to
implement the quarterly augmentation drill versus those required to implement the drill cycle
augmentation drill. However, as noted above, there is no distinction in the plan regarding
who is addressed by the two types of augmentation drills. Making this distinction reduces
the ability to demonstrate that the methods in place are sufficient to ensure that all members
of the ERO will be activated in a timely manner as required by not only the plan, but also
M. Pacilio -3-
10 CFR 50.47(b)(2), as noted in the inspection report. A performance flaw could exist for as
much as six years between activation drills before it would be detected for those staff not
required to participate in the quarterly tests.
4. The procedure change that eliminated certain ERO personnel from being part of the
quarterly augmentation drill was made seven years ago. Cross-cutting aspects are to reflect
current performance, which is defined in Inspection Manual Chapter 0305 as the last two to
three years. The NRC does consider it reasonable that annual reviews would focus on
changes that had been made to the response plan or organization since the last annual
review. As such, the reduction in the ability of your augmentation drill procedure to be able
to detect a response weakness for certain personnel from quarterly to every six years would
not be reasonably expected to have been detected on recent annual reviews. Therefore, it
is not reflective of current performance, and a cross-cutting aspect is not appropriate.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and
your September 2, 2010, response will be available electronically for public inspection in the
NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator
Docket No. 50-461
License No. NPF-62
cc: Distribution via ListServ
M. Pacilio -3-
10 CFR 50.47(b)(2), as noted in the inspection report. A performance flaw could exist for as
much as six years between activation drills before it would be detected for those staff not
required to participate in the quarterly tests.
4. The procedure change that eliminated certain ERO personnel from being part of the
quarterly augmentation drill was made several years ago. Cross-cutting aspects are to
reflect current performance, which is defined in Inspection Manual Chapter 0305 as the last
two to three years. The NRC does consider it reasonable that annual reviews would focus
on changes that had been made to the response plan or organization since the last annual
review. As such, the reduction in the ability of your augmentation drill procedure to be able
to detect a response weakness for certain personnel from quarterly to every six years would
not be reasonably expected to have been detected on recent annual reviews. Therefore, it
is not reflective of current performance, and a cross-cutting aspect is not appropriate.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and
your September 2, 2010, response will be available electronically for public inspection in the
NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator
Docket No. 50-461
License No. NPF-62
cc: Distribution via ListServ
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ORAIII\EICS\ENFORCEMENT\Enforcement Cases 2010\EA-10-185 - 187
Clinton Disputed\EA-10-187 Final Response Letter to Disputed Violation.docx
9 Publicly Available 9 Non-Publicly Available 9 Sensitive 9 Non-Sensitive
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with
attach/encl "N" = No copy
OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII OE RIII
NAME Lara for Peterson Boland Orth Hott for West
Phillips Campbell1
DATE 11/17/10 11/17/10 11/19/10 11/22/10 11/15/10 11/23/10
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
1
Concurrence from OE received via e-mail from C. Hott on November 15, 2010.
Letter to Michael J. Pacilio from Steven West dated November 23, 2010.
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DISPUTED NON-CITED VIOLATION CLINTON STATION
INSPECTION REPORT 05000461/2010003
DISTRIBUTION:
RidsSecyMailCenter
OCADistribution
Roy Zimmerman
Andrew Campbell
Greg Bowman
Eric Leeds
MaryAnn Ashley
Marvin Itzkowitz
Christopher Hott
Mark Satorius
Eliot Brenner
Hubert Bell
Cheryl McCrary
Daniel Holody
Caroline Evans
James Lynch
Patricia Lougheed
OEMAIL
OEWEB
RidsNrrDorlLpl3-2 Resource
RidsNrrPMClinton Resource
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource
DRPIII
DRSIII
Patricia Buckley
ROPreports Resource