IR 05000295/1996011

Discusses Insp Repts 50-295/96-11 & 50-304/96-11 on 960722- 0822 & Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penatlty in Amount of $100,000

ML20136G604
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	03/12/1997
From:	Beach A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Mueller J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20136G608	List: IR 05000295/1996011 ML20136G625
References
EA-96-355, NUDOCS 9703180116
Download: ML20136G604 (6)

Text

- = - . - - - . . _ - . . -- -_ - . - . - . __ - ~~ - - - . __ =- -

"

.

(

'

1. " "%g UNITED STATES

_, fg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a S REGION 111 j E "' 4j 801 WARRENVILLE ROAD j [ USLE. ILLINOIS 60532-4351

. March 12, 1997

, EA 96-355 Mr. J. Site Vice President

'

Zion Station Commonwealth Edison Company

101 Shiloh Boulevard

! Zion,'IL 60099

i SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY -

$100,000 (NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-295/96011; 50-304/96011)

.

Dear Mr. Mueller:

This refers to the engineering and technical support inspection conducted from July 22 j through August 22,1996, at the Zion Nuclear Generating facility. The inspection included a review of engineenag processes and modifications. Tt.e repon dot.umenting this inspect 6n was sent to you by letter dated October 22,1996. A closeo predetasional enforcement conference was conducted in Region lli on November 11,1996.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and the information that you provided during the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC requirements occurred. _ These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject inspection report.

The violations in Section I of the Notice involved: 1) examples of a failure to perform adequate 10 CFR 50.59 analyses for modifications on safety-related systems; 2) examples ,

of failure to follow procedures in the areas of modifications, corrective actions, operations I and maintenance; 3) examples of failure to conduct tests to demonstrate systems would perform satisfactorily following modification; and 4) examples of failure to take prompt corrective action for significant conditions adverse to quality involving repetitive out-of-tolerance settings for containment spray system sodium hydroxide spray additive tank levelindication and repetitive failures of a 4KV breaker.

These violations provide examples where your staff's processes for performing engineering activities on safety-related and non-safety-related structures, systems and components were either weak or were not adequately implemented. NRC identified that a number of 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations for modifications were inadequate, the process for

. / hl

i !

9703180116 970312 1glpglR55,555

PDR: ADOCK 05000295 (D PDR

_. . - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . - . - _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _

\

i

.

J. I closing modification packages was deficient, and that the status of post-modification j testing was, in many cases, indeterminate. For example, 9 safety-related and 19

'

non-safety-related modifications .were installed cnd placed in service from the mid-1980s through 1996 without verifying that the modification packages were completed. For the

majority of these packages, the status of post-modification testing could not be determined i because the documentation in the package regarding post-modification testing was j inadequate or missing entirely. The NRC also identified weak operability assessments,.

i inapprcpriate Technical Specification interpretations, and that the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report conformance review deficiencies were not properly documented in the corrective action program.

Of further concern was the fact that internal assessments by your Safety Assessment and Quality Verification (SAQV) organization had documented similar 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation i and engineering process problems and that corrective actions to the findings were either untimely or not implemented at all. The root cause of these problems was attributed to weak management involvement and oversight, a lack of a questioning attitude in both the operations and engineering staffs, and a poor corrective action program associated with engineering problems. 1 Your staff indicated at the predecisional enforcement conference that the individual I violations were not safety significant and that safety consequences were minimal.

However, your staff acknowledged that the violations had regulatory significance because of the fact that safety-related systems were modified and returned to service without adequate safety evaluations, completion of the modification packages, or knowledge of the status of post-modification testing. Lacking this important information regarding the modifications, Commonwealth Edison Company could not establish that the modified systems would function as expected and would not impact other safety-related systems with regard to their ability to perform as intended. In addition, weak operability assessments, inappropriate Technical Specification interpretations and poor followup of Final Safety Analysis Report conformance issues further questioned the ability of systems to perform as intended.

Collectively, the NRC considers that these violations represent a significant breakdown in the control of licensed activities ! ~Ning a number of violations that are related and represent a significant lack of , w 0 i by your staff toward engineering activities.

Therefore, in accordance with a eral Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforceri.ma rolicy), NUREG-1600, these' violations are classified in the aggregate as a Severity Level 111 problem.

!

~= - - -

_ _ . .-- _

-

J. , In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 l is considered for a Severity Level lil problem. Because your facility has been the subject of l escalated enforcement actions within the last two years,' the NRC considered whether l credit was warranted for /dentification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil  ;

penalty assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. Credit was not I warranted for /dentification because the NRC identified the violations. As to the factor of Corrective Action, credit was warranted because your corrective actions, once the violations were identified by the NRC, were considered prompt and comprehensive. These actions, which were discussed during the conference, included: 1) a review of 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations for quality and content and a review of operability evaluations for i consistency; 2) clarification of management expectations for the operations and engineering staffs; 3) addition of several checks and balances for reviewing engineering )

activities including additional in-line reviews and initiation of a Safety Evaluation Review '

Committee; 4) initiation of a dual independent review of system engineering tests during the Unit 2 refueling outage; 5) revision of relevant procedures; and 6) improvements in training for the operations and engineering staffs regarding operability evaluations and engineering activities related to modifications and post-modification testing.

In acdordance with the civil penalty assessment process, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 would normally be issued in this case. However, I have been authorized af ter consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, investigations, and Enforcement, to exercise discretion and escalate the base civil penalty in accordance with Section Vll.A.1 l of the Enforcement Policy. The NRC is taking this discretionary action because of: 1) the '

fact that the root causes of the problem existed for an extended duration and 2) past ,

ineffective corrective action, including failures to effectively address several of these same I root causes when they were identified by your own organization. Therefore, to emphasize the importance of performing thorough engineering activities in accordance with NRC l requirements, responding to findings of your own self-assessments with effective '

,

corrective actions, and providing appropriate management oversight of your engineering organization, a civil penalty of $100,000 is being proposed.

The violation described in Section 11 of the Notice addresses a failure to indicate by the use of a suitable process the status of tests for safety-related systems, structures and components. This violation was classified in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, as a Severity Level IV violation.

' A Severity Level 111 violation with a $50,000 civil penalty was issued on August 23,1996 (EA 96-216)

for a series of eight operational errors and unplanned changes to the status of safety related equipment; and a

$50,000 civil penalty was issued on February 21,1996, (EA 95-283) for failure to properly maintain emergency lighting.

- . . . - . . - - - . . . - . - . - . . . _ - - _ . . - . - ~ . . . . - - - . - . - , , . . - . . .

\

i.

.J. i

, You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part, j to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with

regulatory requirements.

b in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, i its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

I j

Sincerely,

[

.e v i

t A. Bill Beach i Regional Administrator

,

l Docket Nos. 50-295;50-304 l License Nos. DPR-39; DPR-48 i

l Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Proposed j Imposition of Civil Penalty cc w/ encl: T. J. Maiman, Senior Vice President l Nuclear Operations Division 1 D. A. Sager, Vice President

,

Generation Support i H. W. Keiser, Chief Nuclear j Operating Officer i R. Starkey, Plant General Manager

- R. Godley, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor 1. Johnson, Acting Nuclear l Regulatory Services Manager i

Richard Hubbard Nathan Schloss, Economist

'

Office of the Attorney General Mayor, City of Zion

State Liaison Officer, Wisconsin j State Liaison Officer i Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission j Document Control Desk - Licensing i

d i

k

!

1

.

,

__ _ _ . _ _ .- _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

. %

J. H. Muslisr -4 i

You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified ir.he enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part.

to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, j. its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

l

Sincerely, Original signed by A. Bill Beach

.

l A. Bill Beach Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-295; 50-304 License Nos. DPR-39; DPR-48

i Enclosure: Notice of Violation and Proposed

.

Imposition of Civil Penalty a

cc w/ encl: T. J. Maiman, Senior Vice President i Nuclear Operations Division D. A. Sager, Vice President -

Generation Support

H. W. Keiser, Chief Nuclear

Operating Officer R. Starkey, Plant General Manager R. Godley, Regulatory Assurance

, Supervisor 1. Johnson, Acting Nuclear d

Regulatory Services Manager

{ Richard Hubbard

'

Nathan Schloss, Economist Office of the Attorney General Mayor, City of Zion

'

State Liaison Officer, Wisconsin State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission Document Control Desk - Licensing

i DOCUMENT NAME: G:\EICS\HQ96-355.CP

!

To receive a copy of this docurnent, indicate in the bos "C" = Copy without attachrnent/ enclosure "E* = Copy with attachrnent/ enclosure

"N' = No copy OFFICE Rlil C Rill l Rllig j RllfL NAME HClayton:nh foc GGranb$/ JQg!(jVell AEjebch DATE 03/)l /97 03/)\ /p?[ 03/ (V/97 03/n /97 d

OFFICIAE RECORD COPY

. .

J. ' -5-j DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC M SECY CA LCallan, EDO EJordan, DEDO LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, OGC SCollins, NRR RZimmerman, NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI, Ril and RIV Resident inspector, Zion RCapra, NRR CShiraki, NRR JGilliland, OPA HBell, OlG GCaputo, Of LTremper, OC Dross, AEOD MSatorius, OE OE:EA (2)

RAO:Rlll SLO: Rill PAO:Rlli OC/LFDCB DRP Docket File

-