ML20213D670
| ML20213D670 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1986 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611120185 | |
| Download: ML20213D670 (4) | |
Text
,.
3M6
\\E o \\
NOV 7 1986 Docket No. 50-454 Docket No. 50-455 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed Vice President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:
This refers to the investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations on March 15, 1985, through July 24, 1986, of the circumstances surrounding your Project Engineering Department approval of the reactor coolant pump flow coastdown startup test results.
Enclosed for your information is the synopsis of the Office of Investigations Report No. 3-85-007.
I will be contacting you to arrange a time for us to meet and discuss the results of this investigation.
Please call me with any questions you have concerning this investigation.
Sincerely, M ic: 1 c % j ?,..
E
'..r:n c, 1
.7 James G. Keppler Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
As stated See Attached Distribution E
E*on.
Og
'ia n s:
18 NS
- 5. h tje5 g
O RI I R
I OI H RIII RII RIJI RIIIk
/h Nof. fA aw dlius B
n Davis Keppler I (
robT/jg F rt a 11/ 7-/86.
11/ /86 1/6/86 11/ 6 /86 11
/86 11/7 /86 11/ 7/86
Comonwealth Edison Company
. NOV 7 1986 Distribution cc w/ enclosure:
D. L. Farrar, Director of Nuclear. Licensing V. I. Schlosser, Project Manager Gunner Sorensen, Site Project Superintendent R. E. Querio, Plant Manager DCS/RSB(RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Byron Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office, Environmental Control Division D. W. Cassel, Jr., Esq.
Diane Chavez, DAARE/ SAFE L. Olshan, NRR LPM H. S. Taylor, Quality Assurance Division R. Fortuna, 01:HQ E. T. Pawlik, 01:RIII
i l
l l
SYNOPSIS l
On March 15, 1985 NRC Region III (RIII) requested that an investigation be initiated into an allegation that material false statements were made to the NRC by the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) Project Engineering Department (PED). The investigation was requested to determine if Ceco willfully made material false statements in violation of the Byron Operating License conditions. The Operating License required NRC: Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) approval and the filing of a revision to the Byron Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) prior to making any changes to the acceptance criteria of Startup Test RC 63.32, " Reactor Coolant Flow Coastdown" (flow coastdown).
In February 1985, a RIII reactor inspector, during several routine safety inspections of the Byron startup test program, discovered that the flow coastdown startup test had been approved by PED. This approval utilized a new acceptance criteria without first receiving NRC:NRR approval. The actual flow coastdown startup test was performed on January 23-25, 1985, and approved on January 31, 1985.
Initial criticality was achieved two days later on February 2, 1985.
As a result of the RIII reactor inspector's findings during his inspection, CECO's PED contacted the Rill staff on February 25, 1985. The PED indicated that based upon the NRC inspector's concerns, both PED and Westinghouse, the consultant on the flow coastdown startup test, had detemined that the new acceptance criteria devised by Westinghouse did not provide verification of the FSAR uirements as originally reported. Prior to contacting the NRC, repared a memo to file dated February 25, 1985.
In the reiterated that the revised Westinghouse method of
- memo, the flow coastdown startup data was employed to evaluate the test.
valu n
also claimed that Byron met its FSAR comitment. After reviewing this memo, the NRC reactor inspector determined that this was a false statement.
. The Office of Investigations (01) investigation of this allegation revealed that PED had received a Westinghouse letter (CAW 8456) dated January 17, 1985, which provided a revised acceptance criteria. The letter also stated that a revised FSAR would be provided.
After the flow coastdown test was perforr3ed on January 23-25, 1985, the data obtained from the test was analyzed by Westin house. On January 30, 1985, the Westinghouse representative at Byron notified in a handwritten letter of the results of their analysis of the data.
In this letter, it states that the results of the test did not meet the FSAR acceptance criteria, but n
ri ria described approved the results of the test based upon a new acc in CAW 8456.
In a letter dated January 31, 1985, approved the results of the flow coastdown startup test based upon the acceptance criteria described in the Westinghouse letter (CAW 8456) of January 17, 1985.
In his approval letter of the test, M recognized that the Byron license required NRC approval prior to changing the acceptance criteria, but he incorrectly claimed that the new analysis provided by the Westinghouse letter of January 17, 1985, provided a new technique to compare the test results as Case No. 3-85-007 1
t written in the FSAR. This was determined by the NRC reactor inspector to be a material false statement.
claimed that as a result of his communication with the est ng ouse s te engineer, it was his clear understanding at the time he approved the test that the results of this test met the acceptance criteria established in the FSAR.
The investigation detennined that Mmade no other attempt to clarify the issue of a difference in acceptance criteria with the Westinchouse e ineers, who had initiated the January 17, 1985, letter; nor didllllllbll express any concerns about this difference to his supervisor. The also knew, during these events, nyest gation confirmed that that he was required to notify the NRC of any change in acceptance criteria of the flow coastdown test.
Although the approval of the flow coastdown startup test was required rior to criticality, which was achieved two days after the PED approval, lllllllland his subordinates denied being under any pressure to approve the test.
The investigation found that M made false statements to the NRC in his letters of January 31 and February 25, 1985.
It was also determined that 6 had knowledge of the Byron licensing conditions and that he knew of the requirement to obtain NRC approval prior to changing the acceptance criteria as set forth in the FSAR for the flow coastdown test.
In addition, it was found during the investigation thatMas advised in the Westinghouse letter conveying the revised flow coastdown acceptance criteria, that a revision to the FSAR would b r vided. The Westinghouse consultant at Byron also advised that the results of ?.he flow coastdown test did not meet the original acceptance criteria in writing.
never pursued this matter further, but rather approved the ow coast own test results based upon his interpretation of the situation.
l l
l l
Case No. 3-85-007 2
-