ML20012C621
| ML20012C621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1990 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012C620 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-89-255, NUDOCS 9003220291 | |
| Download: ML20012C621 (3) | |
Text
-
1 i
)
PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY AND i
)
' Commonwealth Edison Company Docket Nos. $0-295 and 50-304 Zion Nuclear Station License Nos. DRP-39 and DRP-48 j
EA 89-255 During an NRC inspection conducted on November 21, 1989 December 13-15, 1989, and January 5,1990, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions " 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1989), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205.
The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
A.
10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(iv) requires, as a condition of the facility operating license, that the facility licensee shall have a person holding a senior operator license or a senior operator license limited to fuel handling present during fuel transfer to directly supervise the activity.
10 CFR 55.53(e) requires, as a condition of the senior operator license, that if the licensee has not been actively performing the functions of a senior operator, the licensee may not resume activities authorized by the senior operator license except as permitted by 10 CFR 55.53 (f).
10 CFR 55.53(f) requires, before resumption of functions authorized by a L
senior operator licensc limited to fuel handling, that the facility licensee shall certify that the senior operator licensee has completed a
. minimum of one shift under the direction of a senior operator.
L Contrary.to the above, from September 19 through September 21,1989, a senior operator licensee limited to fuel handling who had not been actively performing those functions was assigned duties during a fuel transfer to directly supervise the activity without having completed a minimum of one shift under the direction of a senior operator.
B.
10 CFR 50.54(1-1) requires, in part, that the licensee shall have in effect an operator requalification program which must as a minimum, meet the requirements of Section 55.59(c) of this chapter.
10 CFR 55.59(c) requires, in part, that the requalification program must be conducted for a continuous period, not to exceed two years, and upon conclusion must.be promptly followed, pursuant to a continuous schedule, by successive requalification programs. The requalification program must include preplanned lectures on a regular and continuing basis throughout the license period.
l Contrary to the above, from May 26, 1987 to January 5, 1990, the licensee l
failed to establish an adequate requalification program. The requalifica-tion program was inadequate in that it did not require mandatory attendance at the preplanned lectures and it lacked provisions to ensure that I
l 9003220291 900314 l
PDR ADOCK 05000295 i
1.'
O PDC l'
l:
.4
. s Notice of Violation 2
i operators make up missed lectures. This is evidenced by the failure of 12 operators to attend required lectures as more fully described in NRC Inspection Reports 50-295/89040 and 50-3(4/89036, Section 4.
Violations A and B have been classified as a Severity Level Ill Problem (Supplement 1).
Cumulative Civil Pennity - $50,000 (assessed equally among the violations)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each alleged violations. (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, and if denied, the reasons why, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cauce shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2232,
(
this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the Licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter addressed to the Director Of fice of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear
. Regulatory Commission. Should the licensee fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an " Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may:
(1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances. (3) show error in this Notice, or (4) show other reasons why the penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1989), should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may
l incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g.,
citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the licensee is directed to the cther provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty, Upon failure-to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or. mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
J The response noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter With payment of i
civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to:
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ch A. B. Davis Regional Administrator Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this 14 day of March 1990.
L I
l e
l l
L l
([
t y
43 3
i U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tNISSION REGION III.
1 Reports No:
50-295/89040; 50-304/89036 i
Docket Nos.:
50-295; 50-304 Licenses No. DPR-39; DPR-48 EA 89-255 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Zion Generating Station - Units 1 & 2 Inspection At: Zion, IL 60099 Inspection Conducted: November 21, 1989, December 13-15, 1989, and January 5, 1990.
l //o/90 Inspectors: _ D. Vamon Date N
4 ll9l90 irtz Date/ /
K.su m Ihot90 K. Shembarger U
Date
//
Approved By:-
bIl]M/
/ //o/90
/G. Ci Wr ght, CMitf Dafe r
Operations Branch.
Inspection Suninary Inspection on November 21, 1989, December 13-15, 1989, and January 5, 1990 (Reports No. 50-304/89040; 50-304/89036)
Areas Ins >ected: Reactive unannounced inspection follow up on event LER-89-16-00 l
for Zion Generating Station Unit 1 in which a licensed senior reactor operator limited to fuel handling supervised a core off-load during a time when his license failed to meet the requirements as described in 10 CFR 55.53(e).
The areas covered included review of licensee programs and controls to preclude similar occurrences as well as licensee actions to identify and correct any root cause for the event. The inspection was conducted in accordance with Inspection Procedure 92700.
Results: Four apparent violations were identified: (1) a senior operator limited to fuel handling performed licensed duties during a time when his A eo M o197 " opy.
4
V
(
I y'
license failed to meet the requirements as described in 10 CFR 55.53(e) regarding maintaining active status of license; (2) the licensee permitted-manipulation of the controls by operators whose licenses failed to meet the requirements as described in 10 CFR 55.53(h) regarding completion of a.
requalification program; (3) a senior operator was responsible for directing the licensed activities of licensed operators during a time when his license l
-failed to meet the requirements as described in 10 CFR 55.53(h) regarding-completion of a requalification program; (4) the licensee permitted j
manipulation of the controls by operators whose licenses failed to meet the 1
requirements as described in 10 CFR 55.53(1) regarding biennial medical examinations. These apparent violations are discussed in Sections 3 and 4 of this report.
In addition to the above apparent violations, the inspectors also identified the following concerns regarding control and tracking of individual Part 55 licenses:
?
1.
Licensee corrective action for event LER 295/89-16-00 was limited to precluding recurrence of this event for SR0's with limited SRO licenses.
This action would not prevent similar occurrences in other licensed l
positions.
l-2.
'No formal measures exist to ensure that all licensed operators meet all the conditions of their licenses as stated in 10 CFR 55.53.
l-y
!^
1; t
l 2
i,'
(
(
~
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Zion Nuclear Power Station
- T. P. Joyce, Zion Station Manager
- C. Schultz, Quality Control i
- P. LeBlond,-Assistant Superintendent, Operations
- R. J. Budowte, Services Director
- R.'D. Thornton, Operator Training
+*T. Saksefski, Regulatory Assurance
- H. Logaras, Operator Training
+ G. Tryzna Training Supervisor.
K. Petersen, Operator Training D. Kent, Training Administrative Assistant
.j D. Egger, Operations Scheduler L. Thorsen, Regulatory Assurance, Fuel Handling Supervisor j
T. Reick Technical Superintendent M. Carnahan, Operations Engineer T. Koleno, Operator Training T. Egger, Shift Supervisor G. Armstrong, Shift Supervisor W. Demo, Operating Engineer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (US NRC)
- R. J. Leemon, Resident Inspector, Zion Station J. D. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector, Zion Station
- Denotes those personnel in attendance at the exit interview on December 15, 1989.
D L
+ Denotes those perso_nnel in attendance at the exit interview on January 5, 1990 2.
Purpose nf Inspection The purpose of this inspection was to follow up on LER 89-16-00 at Zion
~
l Generating Station Unit 1 to review the itcensee's formal program L
controls that would preclude similar events from occurring.
In addition, h
the inspection was to verify that LER 89-16-00 was an isolated case and that other licensed individuals were not performing licensed duties during a time when they failed to meet the conditions of their license as stated in 10 CFR 55.53.
This was accomplished by performing a review of the following records for randomly selected individual licenses:
(1) attendance at scheduled requalifica-tion training sessions during the period from January 1 through December 8, 1989, including subsequent requalification examination results for 20 individual licenses; (2) Control Room Shift Engineer (SE)/ Shift Foreman (SF) and Nuclear Station Operator (NS0) logs to determine the amount of time 3
h.
1 l'
b,,*-
(l
(
,..,s y
spentonshNt to December 11, performing licensed duties during the p(eriod from January 1 1989 for 13 individual licenses; and 3) medical examination dates for the last 2 examinations received for 21 individual' licenses.. Control Room SE/SF and NSO logs were also reviewed for four o
Individuals during the time period that the individual licensees initially failed the NRC administered requalification examination on September 15 1989, until they were notified of subsequent successful completion of the examination on November 17, 1989. The inspectors also conducted a review of the licensee's system for tracking individual Part 55 license condition requirements as well as Training Instruction (TI) 202, Licensed Operator Retraining /Requalification Program.
In addition, interviews with Training-Department personnel and licensed operators were conducted, j
3.
Zion Generating Power Station LER 89-16-00 Summary:
Zion Generating Station Unit 1 LER 89-16-00 involved a licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) limited to Fuel Handling (SROL) who assumed fuel-It handling supervisor duties during the period of September 19 thru l
September 21, 1989. The duties assumed by the SROL required an active license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 55. On October 16, 1989, the individual licensee realized that he had not met the condition of his license as stated in 10 CFR 55.53 Paragraph (e) at the time licensed duties were performed.
10 CFR 50.54m(2)(iv) states, in part, as a condition of the facility i
operating license, that the licensee shall have a person holding a senior y
operator license limited to fuel handling (SROL) present during fuel i
transfer to directly supervise the activity.
10 CRF.55.53 (e) states, in part, "If a licensee has not been actively-performing the functions of an operator or senior operator, the licensee may not resume activities authorized by a license issued under this part except as permitted by paragraph (f) of this Section."
10 CFR 55.53(f) states, in part, "If Paragraph (e) of this section is not met, before resum> tion of functions authorized by a license issued under this part; an aut torized representative
- of the. facility licensee shall certify the following:
- 1) that the qualifi-cations and status of the license are current and valid; and 2) that the licensee has completed a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift functions under the direction of an operator or senior operator as appropriate and in the position to which the individual will be assigned.
.. for senior operators limited to fuel handling under Paragraph (c) of this section, one shift must have been completed."
The SROL was assigned fuel handling supervisor duties without completing L
one shift of licensed duties under the instruction of an SRO holding an active license. Assigning an SROL fuel handling supervisor duties during a time when his license failed to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.53 is l
an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.54(2)(iv). (295/89040-01; 304/89063-01)
The inspectors found no evidence that the individual licensee failed to meet any other license conditions during this same period.
l i
l 4
(
(
The inspectors found that the corrective actions taken by the facility were limited to SR0s assigned to fuel handling duties. The corrective actions taken consisted of adding a caution and a signature requirement to the fuel handling procedures to ensure that the Fuel Handling Supervisor's-license is active prior to any fuel movement. This event was identified by the facility in LER 50-295/89-016-00.
4.
Results a.
Attendance at Scheduled Requalification Training 10 CFR 50.54(1) states, as a condition of the facility operating license, in part, "... the licensee may not permit the manipulation of the controls of any facility by anyone who is not a licensed operator or senior operator as provided in Part 55 of this chapter."
10 CFR 55.53(h) states, as a condition of the individual license, "The licensee shall complete a requalification program as aescribed i
by 55.59."
The inspection identified that 12 of the 20 individual licensee records reviewed had failed to attend all-scheduled requali-fication training sessions which are required by 10 CFR 55.59(c)(2).
The facility records provided no evidence that these individuals made up all of the missed lectures. Failing to attend requalification lectures precludes successful completion of the requalification program. Of these 12, 6 individual licensees who were normally assigned licensed duties in the control room had the following 1
requalification training attendance records:.
j t
One Shift Engineer attended only 2 of the 11 scheduled sessions.
L One Shift Engineer attended only 7 of the 11 scheduled sessions.
4 One Shift Foreman attended 10 of the 11 scheduled sessions.
One NSO attended only 7 of the 11 scheduled sessions.
Two NS0s attended 10 of the 11 scheduled sessions.
Assigning these six individual licensees licensed duties in the control room which would permit manipulation of the facility controls during the time when their licenses failed to meet the condition of the licenses as stated in 10 CFR 55.53(h) is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.54(1).
The inspectors found no evidence of any formal administrative requirement on the part of the licensee which would mandate attendance at requalification training, nor was there any evidence of a program requiring making up missed lectures. Additionally,-there were no formal controls in place which would preclude a licensed operator who had failed to attend all required requalification training from being assigned licensed i
duties.
l 5
y y. '
'(}
(
s
- ~
b.
Control Room Logs The Control Room SE/SF and NSO logs were reviewed for four individuals who had been informed of their failure to satisfactorily complete the NRC administered requalification examination during the week of September 10, 1989.- The facility was notified of these failures by.
the NRC and agreed not to return these individuals to licensed duties prior to their. reexamination by the NRC. The individuals were reexamined and successfully completed the NRC administered requali-fication examination during the week of November 12, 1989.
10 CFR 50.54(1) states, as a condition of the facility operating license, in part, that the licensee shall designate individuals licensed as senior operators pursuant to Part 55 of this chapter to be responsible for directing the licensed activities of licensed operators.
10 CFR 55.53(h) states, as a condition of the individual license, "The licensee shall complete a requalification program as described by 55.59."
10 CFR 55.59(a)(2) states, that each licensee shall " pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and-an annual operating test."
The inspectors identified that one SR0 who failed the NRC administered requalification examination during the week of September 10, 1989, was logged onto the Control Room SE/SF logs as one of three SF for one shift on September 24, 1989.
This was prior to the date of successful completion of the second NRC administered requalification examination. This is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.54(1).
_ 295/89040-03;.304/89036-03)
(
c.
Medical Examinations 10 CFR 50.54(1) states, as a condition of the facility operating
- license, in part,
... the licensee may not permit the manipulation of the controls of any facility by anyone who is not a licensed operator or senior operator as provided in Part 55 of this chapter." 10 CFR 55.53 (i) states, as a condition of the -individual license, "The licensee shell have a biennial medical examination."
The inspection identified that 14 of the 21 individual licensee records reviewed had failed to have a medical examination within the required 2 year period of their license.
Of these 14, 8 had medical examinations that were administered at least 30 days after the required date with 1 medical examination administered 61 days beyond L
the required date. Additionally, six individuals were assigned licensed duties in the control room which would permit manipulation of the facility controls during a time period when their license did not meet the required conditions as stated in 10 CFR 55.53(1). This L
is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.54(1) (295/89040-04; 304/89036-04).
It is noted that the results of medicals, when given, did not indicate any conditions not previously known.
l
b l
s..
,e The licensees system for tracking medical examination re uirements is an informal system which is maintained by the Training Administra-tive Assistant. There is no formal administrative requirement in place, and the informal method presently utilized is inadequate as evidenced by the above mentioned 14 of 21 individual licensees who exceeded the 2 year requirement for medical examinations.. This o
apparent violation is the direct result of the lack of formal administrative controls governing 10 CFR 55.53(i) on the part of the licensee.
d.
Training Instructions The review of TI-202, Licensed Operator Retraining /Requalification i
Program, provided evidence that this Training Instruction contains guidance for returning operators to licensed duties when the operator was removed from licensed duties for observed deficiencies.. Training Department personnel consider an operator with an inactive license to have a " Duty Performance Deficiency," and thus is subject to the requirements of this instruction prior to resuming licensed duties.
However, the requirements for returning an operator with an inactive license to active status were not specifically addressed in this instruction.
e.
Personnel Interviews Interviews with several licensed operators revealed that the operators assume that the status of all Part 55 licenses is tracked by the Training Department. Interviews with Training Department personnel revealed that the Training Department tracks only the status of individuals assigned to the Training Department for annual, remedial, or upgrade training.
Once the individual returns L
to the Operations Department, the Part 55 license is no longer tracked. Interviews with Shift Supervisors revealed that when an individual is assigned to shift for purposes of reactivating a license, the Shift Supervisor is often unaware that the individual has an inactive license and is not allowed to perform licensed duties without being accompanied by an operator or senior operator with.an active license. The inspectors found no evidence of formal admini-strative controls for preventing a licensed operator with an inactive license from performing licensed duties on shift in the Control Room.
The inspectors found that the Operations Scheduler, in an informal agreement with union personnel, tracks the status of licensed union members which include the NS0s. The Scheduler assures that the NS0s will be scheduled for the minimum shift time required by 10 CFR 55 during each calendar quarter in order to maintain part 55 licenses in an active status. Non-union licensed operators are not tracked-l_
by the Operations Scheduler.
It appears that the status of active versus inactive SR0 licenses is tracked largely by corporate memory or 7
?.
j relieso'ntheindividualPart55licenseetonotifymanakhereisno ement'of an inactive license prior to resuming licensed duties.
formal administrative procedure to govern scheduling which would
)
ensure that each licensed individsal would maintain his/her license active or to ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 55.53(f) are met prior to resumption of licensed duties.- This lack of formal administrative controls governing 10 CFR 55.53(e) on the part of the licensee relates directly to the before mentioned LER-(See Section 3).
5.
Sumary.
As noted in Sections 3 and 4 of this report, there are four apparent-violations of various paragraphs of 10 CFR 50.54. These apparent violations j
are the direct result of the lack of formal administrative controls and tracking for Part 55 licenses.
In addition, two concerns were identified by the inspectors regarding (1) the lack of in depth corrective actions taken by the licensee for LER 295/89-16-00, and (2) lack of formal administrative controls to ensure individual licensees are satisfying the-conditions of their license as stated in 10 CFR 55.53.
During the inspection, the following positive attributes were identified:
Procedure FHI-00 Fuel Handling Administrative Controls, was revised to add a caution stating that licensed operators supervising fuel movement must have an active license.
Procedure FHI-33, Fuel Shuffle, was revised to include.a signature on the check-off sheet to ensure that the Fuel handling Supervisor has an active license. This check-off sheet must be completed prior L
to fuel movement.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives denoted iri Section 1 on December 15, 1989 and January 5, 1990. The inspectors summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection, and the likely information content of the inspection report. The licensee acknowledged this information and did not identify any proprietary information.
[
8 e