ML20133E206
| ML20133E206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1997 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Danni Smith PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133E209 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-96-370, NUDOCS 9701100242 | |
| Download: ML20133E206 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000277/1996007
Text
.
S'
a nos
f
&
UNITED STATES
3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
%
ij
REGloN 1
g
,o*#
475 ALLENDALE ROAD
g
KING oF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415
January 3,1997
EA 96 370
Mr. D. M. Smith, President
PECO Nuclear
Nuclear Group Headquarters
Correspondence Control Desk
Post Office Box 195
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETlON
(NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-277/96-07 and 50-278/96 07)
Dear Mr. Smith:
'
This letter refers to the NRC inspection conducted at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant.
between August 5 9, 1996, for which the exit meeting was held on August 9,1996. The
inspection report was sent to you on October 9,1996. Based on the inspection, an apparent
violation of NRC requirements was identified. On November 15,1996, a predecisional
l
enforcement conference was conducted with you and members of your staff to discuss the
apparent violations identified during the inspection, their causes, and your corrective actions.
Based on our review of the inspection findings, and information provided during the
conference, one violation is being cited and is described in the enclosed Notice of Violation
(Notice). The violation involves the failure to establish, for several structures, systems, and
components (SSC), adequate performance criteria to monitor the effectiveness of preventive
maintenance, as required by 10 CFR 50.65(a)(2). For those criteria that were established,
several were found that you had not justified as adequate for monitoring of SSCs in
accordance with the Maintenance Rule. Specifically, although you had indicated that you
would fo!!ow Regulatory Guide 1.160 and the guidance in NUMARC 93-01, entitled, " Industry
Guideline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants," as the
method by which PECO Nuclear demonstrates the effectiveness of preventive maintenance,
you did not implement that guidance in the selection of performance criteria for certain classes
of systems, nor did you justify an alternate approach. For example, at the time the inspection
was performed, you did not have availability criteria for numerous systems, such as the
'
reactor protection system, and did not use the appropriate criteria of unplanned capability loss
factor for some systems. The details of the violation are described in the enclosed Notice.
Since this violation involved multiple exqmples of f ailures to establish, or adequately establish,
performance criteria pursuant to 50.65(a)(2), and these f allures indicate a programmatic f allure
k
j
to implement a key aspect of the Maintenance Rule, the violation has been categorized at
Severity Levellilin accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy), NUREG 1600.
ph
9701100242 970103
ADOCK 05000277
G
.
_,.
. . -
. .
_ _ .
- .
.
, - - - -
_-__
-.
- , _ .
.
a
PECO Nuclear
2
These findings demonstrated that management had not taken effective action to assure
adequate implementation of new requirements atthe f acility. Additionally, theinspection team
found weaknesses in nearly all parts of your Maintenance Rule implementation program.
The Commission determined that a Maintenance Rule was necessary to assure licensees
continuously monitor the effectiveness of maintenance to minimize the likelihood of failure of
safety-significant equipment that could initiate or adversely affect a transient or accident.
Even though the final rule was issued in July 1991, it did not become effective until July
1996. Within this five year period, the Commission provided the staff and the industry the
first two years to develop implementation and inspection guidance and the remaining three
years for licensees to implement the requirements such that by July 10,1996, all
requirements would be satisfied.
During the five years of guidance development and implementation, the staff and the industry
worked in concert to assure licensees had developed good guidance and clearly understood
the manner in which NRC would inspect implementation, once the rule became effective. This
was accomplished through multiple public workshops and a pilot inspection program. Results
from these activities were documented and shared with the industry.
Although the NRC has previously assessed overall maintenance performance at Peach Bottom
to be excellent, and the material condition of the systems examined was generally very good,
your actions taken to implement the Maintenance Rule were weak, in that the Rule was not
fully integrated into the existing maintenance program at Peach Bottom. For example, while
system managers frequently possessed thorough knowledge of their systems and performed
very good management of their systems' material conditions, the performance criteria that
were established by your staff,in accordance with the Rule, were not always fully understood
by the system managers. As discussed above, there was a general problem of not fully
'
documenting a justification when Maintenance Rule methods and processes did not follow the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.160 and NUMARC 93-01.
At the conference, you
acknowledged program deficiencies and noted that implementation of the Maintenance Rule
program did not meet your expectations.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 is
considered for a Severity Level ll1 violation. Your facility has been the subject of escalated
enforcement actions within the last two years, (namely, a Severity Level til violation without
a civil penalty was issued on January 13,1995, for violations of 10 CFH Part 26 (EA 94-254).
Therefore, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for identification and Corrective
Action, in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section V1.B.2 of the
Enforcement Policy. Credit is not warranted for identi// cation because the violations were
identified by the NRC. Credit is warranted for Corrective Actions because your corrective
actions, once the violations were identified by the NRC, were considered prompt and
comprehensive. These actions, which were discussed during your presentation at the
conference, include, but are not limited to (1) revision of your governing document for the
Maintenance Rule to reflect the guidance in NUMARC J3-01;(2) revision and validation of the
Maintenance Rule program, including revision of performance criteria, and additional review
and documentation of the bases for Rule compliance;(3) transfer of program ownership from
the maintenance program core team to the system managers, and reinforcing expectations that
__
I
'
.
PECO Nuclear
3
the system managers own the Rule and the core team acts as a consultant to the system
managers; (4) consideration of integration of existing programs for trending declining
equipment performance (such as the Performance Enhancement Program and the Equipment
Performance and Material Condition Focus List) into the Maintenance Rulo; (5) plans to
perform an independent assessment of the program by April 1997; and (6) plans to benchmark
the program by June 1997, against plants recognized by the NRC as having good programs.
Therefore, to encourage appropriate implementation of the Maintenance Rule, a civil penalty
in the amount of $50,000 would normally be issued for this violation. However, I have been
authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy
Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations, and Research, to
exercise enforcement discretion and not propose a civil penalty for this violation because of
the overall excellent materialcondition of the plant and because Peach Bottom has a verygood
performance record in the maintenance area. For exampla, during the last SALP issued on
December 5,1995, you received a Category 1 rating in the maintenance area, and the letter
transmitting the SALP report noted that site management's aggressive attention to
maintenance and surveillance activities continued and contributed to excellent performance.
That letter also noted strengths in the planning and execut, ion of corrective maintenance,
equipment outages, and on-line maintenance. In addition, the NRC has observed good results
in region-based and resident inspections, including limited and well-managed maintenance
backlogs, and few examples of performance-based maintenance problems. Therefore, by
exercising discretion and not proposing a civil penalty in this case, the NRC is balancing your
programmatic failure to comply with the Maintenance Rule with your strong overall
performance in the maintenance area.
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 willdetermine whether further NRC enforcement action
is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 cf 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).
Sincerely,
.
/'
H ert J. Miller
Regional Administrator
Docket Nos. 50-272, 50-311, 50 354
License Nos. DPR-70, DPR 75, NPF 57
Enclosure: Notice of Violation
,
,
.
PECO Nuclear
4
cc w/ encl:
G. Hunger, Jr., Chairman, Nuclear Review Board and Director, Licensing
T. Mitchell, Vice President, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
G. Rainey, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations
D. Fetters, Vice President, Nuclear Station Support
i
T. Niessen, Director, Nuclear Quality Assurance
C. Schaefer, External Operations - Delmarva Power & Light Co.
G. Edwards, Plant Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
G. Lengyel, Manager, Experience Assessment
J. Durham, Sr., Senior Vice President and General Counsel
P. MacFarland Goelz, Manager, Joint Generation, Atlantic Electric
B. Gorman, Manager, External Affairs
R. McLean, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations
J. Vannoy, Acting Secretary of Harford County Council
R. Ochs, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition
J. Walter, Chief Enginuer, Public Service Commission of Maryland
L. Jacobson, Peach Bottom Alliance
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
State of Maryland
TMI - Alert (TMIA)
.
._
PECO Nuclear
DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC
SECY
CA
JTaylor, EDO
JMilhoan, DEDR
JLieberman, OE
HMiller, Rt
FDavis, OGC
FMiraglia, NRR
RZimmerman, NRR
Enforcement Coordinators
RI, Ril, Rlli, RIV
BBeecher, GPA/PA
GCaputo, 01
DBangart, OSP
i
HBell, OlG
EJordan, AEOD
OE:EA (2)
NU90CS
DScrenci, PAO RI
NSheehan, PAO RI
LTremper, OC
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident inspectors - Peach Bottom
e-
100004
l
i
J