ML20141H011

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000.Violation Noted:Licensee Failed to Establish Test Program for Periodic Insp of Reactor Bldg Interior Siding blow-out Panels

ML20141H011
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities, 05000365
Issue date:	06/24/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20141H009	List: ML20141H005 ML20141H011
References
EA-96-530, EA-96-531, NUDOCS 9707140266
Download: ML20141H011 (5)

Text

-- .- ___ .- - ... - . - .

l l NOTICE OF VIOLATION l AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Commonwealth Edison Company Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265 ,

l Quad Cities Station License Nos. DRP-29; DPR-30 I l Units 1 and 2 EAs96-530; 96-531 j i

l During two NRC inspections conducted from October 27 through December 6, 1996, i violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"

NUREG-1600, the NRC proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 l

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR l 2.205. The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth 1 below:

! I. Violations Assessed a Civil Penalty l <

A. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, " Design Control"

requires, in part, that measures be established to assure that the i design basis of structures, systems, and components are correctly l translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and i instructions.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, " Test Control" requires, in part, that a test program be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that structures will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures that incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents. l Section 3.3.1.1.1, " Wind and Tornado Loadings-Reactor Building" of l the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) stated, in part, that the reactor building, including the steel superstructure, formed ,

the secondary containment.

Section 6.0.1.1, " Secondary System-Containment Systems" of the USAR stated, in part, the secondary containment system limited the

! release of radioactive materials to the environment.

Section 6.2.3.1.E, " Secondary Containment-Design Basis" of the '

l USAR stated, in part, the reactor building was designed to contain l

a positive pressure of 7 inches water-gauge without structural failure and without pressure relief.

l 1

1 9707140266 970624 '"

PDR ADOCK 05000254 G PDR

. . . ~__ _ _ _ _ ._.___ _._ _ ____..._ _ _____ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _.

i

. l Notice of Violation and Proposed  !

[ Imposition of Civil- Penalty j j

, 1. Contrary to the above, as of October 4; 1996,! measures  !

, established to ensure that the design basis of the reactor l 4

building (including interior siding blow-out panels that are  ;

I part of the secondary containment boundary) was correctly  ;

t translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and  !

instructions were inadequate.- Specifically, on October 4, l 4

1996, the inspectors identified rigid pipe supports  !

installed on the reactor building siding blow-out panels i without the appropriate analysis, procedures, or  !

instructions that. documented the pipe supports' effect on l

l the secondary containment's design ability to relieve l pressure beyond a positive pressure of 7 inches water-gauge.

2. Contrary to the above; as of June 9, 1996, the licensee l

failed to establish a test program for periodic inspection

of the reactor building interior siding blow-out panels to l ensure that they would perform their pressure-relieving i j safety function. Specifically, on June 9,1996, the I

licensee found that specially notched " explosive" bolts on j the reactor building blow-out panels were damaged. The  !

damaged bolts existed for an extended period of time without

being identified or corrected. The damaged bolts would have  :

4 permitted the blow-out panels to relieve at a differential

! pressure less than the design-basis value of 7 inches i water-gauge during certain postulated high-energy line  ?

$ breaks, resulting in the secondary containment system not '

i limiting the release of radioactive material to the I environment. j l

B. 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1), " Changes, Test, and Experiments" requires, in  !

. part, that a licensee may make changes to the facility as j described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission- l approval, unless the proposed change involves a change in the l technical specifications-or an unreviewed safety question. j 1

10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) defines, in part, that a proposed change shall l be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created.

Section 3.3.2.2.2, " Wind and Tornado Loadings-Pressure Drop )

Effects" of the USAR stated, in part, the side of the reactor j building was designed to remain intact up to a wind velocity of l 170 mph or 75 lbs/sq ft except for special sections. The special ]

sections are designed to blow off at a pressure of 70 lbs/sq ft. j 1

1

Notice of Violation and Proposed -

3-Imposition of Civil Penalty l Section 6.2.3.1.E, " Secondary Containment-Design Basis" of the .  !

USAR stated, in part, the reactor building was designed to contain  !

a. positive pressure of 7 inches water-gauge without structural  :

failure and without pressure relief. ,

Contrary to the above, the licensee's safety evaluation (USAR l l

update Tracking No. 97-3, performed in mid-May of 1996) improperly

concluded that a change to the facility did not involve an.

unreviewed safety question. The change involved removal of the 1

-reactor. building exterior siding which decreased the reactor  ;

I building's ability to~ remain intact with high winds'and decreased  ;

! its ability to contain a positive pressure, thereby creating the  !

, possibility for an accident or malfunction of a type not. ,

previously evaluated in the USAR.  ;

l This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I). l Civil Penalty - $90,000.. j l ~

l II. Violations Not Assessed a Civil Penalty l

l A. Technical-Specification 3.8.0 requires operability of the control i 1

room emergency ventilation system while the plant is.in Modes 1, 2, or 3.

Section 6.4.4.1, " Control Room-Radiation Protection" of the USAR l stated a positive pressure of 2 1/8 inch water gauge is maintained between the control room emergency zone and adjacent areas.

L Contrary to the above, between September 24, 1996 (the date that Technical Specification 3.8.D. was implemented), and November 3, 1996, while both Units 1 and 2 were in Mode 1, the control room emergency filtration system was inoperable because the required 2-1/8 inch water gauge positive pressure between the control room and adjacent areas -- as stated in section 6.4.4.1 of the USAR -- ,

did not exist. 1 l

! This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

B. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, " Test Control" requires, in part, that a test program be established to assure that all J testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents.

4 .

i I

l w . ums n.. m >,-r.a.n - & -4 -. + .pse. .. . -i1 w ..- y.-+, e-

r '

i L

I Notice of Violation and Proposed ' Imposition of Civil Penalty  ;

i Section 6.4.4.1,." Control Room-Radiation Protection" of the USAR l stated a positive pressure of 2 1/8 inch water gauge is maintained I between the control room emergency zone and adjacent areas.

Contrary to the above, since the control room ventilation was

' modified in 1985, the test program of the control room emergency ventilation system failed to verify _ that the control room ~ '

emergency ventilation system could maintain the 21/8 inch positive pressure that was specified in section 6.4.4.1 of the USAR.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).  !

l l 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" ar.d should include for each alleged violation: (1) admission or denial of tiie alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the viol _ation 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 I 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 or a Demand for Information may be issued as to 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 cause 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, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check,' draft, money order, or electronic transfer payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or '

may protest imposition of the civil penalty, 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 answers 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 L

l L  !

a l

i

._ J

Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty the penalty should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answers may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy should be addressed. Any written l 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 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 other 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 234e of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c. The response noted above (Reply I to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a l Notice of Violation should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement, l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, l D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Quad Cities facility.

Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you mut specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases i for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the ,

information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding '

confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information 4 is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.

Dated at Lisle, Illinois this 24th day of June 1997 l

l l

,