ML20247J226
| ML20247J226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1998 |
| From: | Hehl C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Danni Smith PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247J230 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-352-98-02, 50-352-98-2, 50-353-98-02, 50-353-98-2, NUDOCS 9805210370 | |
| Download: ML20247J226 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000352/1998002
Text
"
e
=0
,
1
May 11, 1998
I
Mr. D. M. Smith, President
PECO Nuclear
Nuclear Group Headquarters
Correspondence Control Desk
l
P. O. Box 195
Wayne, PA 19087-0195
SUBJECT:
NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 50-352/98-02,50-353/98-02
Dear Mr. Smith:
This refers to the inspection conducted on January 20,1998, through March 16,1998, at
your limerick Units 1 and 2 reactor facilities. The enclosed report presents the results of
this inspection.
During the eight-week inspection period covered by this report, the conduct of activities at
Limerick Units 1 and 2 was generally characterized by safe and conservative operations
and decision making. Overall your operators' response to the loss of shutdown cooling
event was appropriate and timely. The Unit 1 startup was well controlled with appropriate
operator response to anomalous plant conditions.
However, we identified examples of deficient operability assessments indicating
weaknesses in your operability determination process. For example, operators accepted
the intermittent cycling of the residual heat removal minimum flow valve. They failed to
promptly assess the impact of potentially degraded transistors in safety-related applications
and incorrectly assessed the high pressure coolant injection turbine exhaust valve as
i
Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC
requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation
(Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject
inspection report. The first violation is of concern because your corrective actions from a
/
previous violation were inadequate and your locked valve controls are not yet effective.
The second violation is of concern because it involves configuration control of technical .
specification required equipment and your evaluation incorrectly concluded that your staff's
I
actions were consistent with the Operations Manual procedures. 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, to determine
whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with regulatory
requirements.
'
9905210370 990511
'
-
ADOCK 05000352
G
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
IE:01
w_________________
_ _ _ _ _ _
__ __
,
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
=
D. M. Smith
2
In addition, four apparent violations were identified in this report and are being considered
for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and
Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600. Repeat
failures of the 1B RHR minimum flow valve and the high pressure coolant injection turbine
exhaust valve, combined with the corrective action issues discussed in NRC Inspection
report 352:353/97-09.th::t involved the D21 emergency diesel generator catastrophic
failure, in aggregate indicate a corrective action problem. The failure to identify and
resolve the underlying degraded conditions led to inoperable systems or failed equipment.
Accordingly, no Notice of Violation is presently being issued for these inspection findings.
In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of apparent violations
described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of further NRC review.
An open predecisional enforcement conference to discuss these apparent violations has
been scheduled for May 27,1998. The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement
conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or
that enforcement action will be taken. This conference is being held to obtain information
to enable the NRC to make an enforcement decision, such as a common understanding of
the facts, root causes, missed opportunities to identify the apparent violation sooner,
corrective actions, significance of the issues and the need for lasting and effective
corrective action. In addition, this is an opportunity for you to point out any errors in our
inspection report and for you to provide any information concerning your perspectives on
1) the severity of the violation (s),2) the application of the factors that the NRC considers
when it determines the amount of a civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance with
Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Pol lcy, and 3) any other application of the Enforcement
Policy to this case, including the exercise of discretion in accordance with Section Vll.
You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our deliberations on this
matter. No response regarding these apparent violations is required at this time.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter,
its enclosure (s), and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR).
Sincerely,
Original Signed by:
Charles W. Hehl, Director
Division of Reactor Projects
Docket Nos.: 50-352,50-353
l
l
Enclosures:
1.
2.
NRC Inspection Report 50-352/98-02,50-353/98-02
u---______________________________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _
.
$
I
D. M. Smith
3
cc w/encis:
l
G. Edwards., Chairman, Nuclear Review Board and Director - Licensing
J. VonSuskil, Vice President - Limerick Generating Station
'
J. L. Kantner, Manager, Experience Assessment
Secretary, Nuclear Committee of the Board
,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
-
l
I
l
l
l
!
I
i
(
!
-
i
!
!
l
l
1
l
l
l
1
i
i
'
!
l
i
i
.
(
,
---
__--_.-_--___-.__.--.--__-.-____n_-_.
_- _ . _ _
_
_ _ _ _
_ . _ _ . .
- . . . , .
_
J
_
,.
. _ _ _ _
__
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
i
.
D. M. Smith
4
Distribution w/encis:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
H. Miller, RA/W. Axelson, DRA (irs)
C. Anderson, DRP
D. Florek, DRP
R.Junod,DRP
NRC Resident inspector
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
PUBLIC
Distribution w/encis: (Via E-Mail)
8. McCabe, OEDO
R. Capra, PDI-2, NRR
Inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
l
DOCDESK
i
l
l
)
!
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ BRANCH 4\\ LIM \\ LIM 9802.lNS
'See previous concurrences
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without
attachment / enclosure
"E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure
"N" = No copy
OFFICE
- Rl/DRP
l
- Rl/DRP
l
NAME
CAnderson
CHehl
DATE
05/
/98
05/ /98
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.
.
D. M. Smith
5
l
Distribution w/encls:
i
Region i Docket Room (with concurrences)
i
H. Miller, RA/W. Axelson, DRA (irs)
C. Anderson, DRP
D. Florek, DRP
R.Junod,DRP
NRC Resident inspector
Nuclear Safety information Center (NSIC)
PUBLIC
Distribution w/encis: (Via E-Mail)
B. McCabe, OEDO
j
R. Capra, PDl-2, NRR
inspection Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)
B. Buckley, PD 1-2, NRP.
DOCDESK
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ BRANCH 4\\ LIM \\ LIM 9802.lNS
To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without
attachment / enclosure
"E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure
"N" = No copy
OFFICE
Rl/DRP
l
Rl/DRP,
NAME
CAnderson c$4
CHehlV
DATE
05/ 0 /98
05/ ///98
l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
!
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _