ML20247L279
| ML20247L279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247L203 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-98-04, 50-277-98-4, 50-278-98-04, 50-278-98-4, NUDOCS 9805220357 | |
| Download: ML20247L279 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
{
l I
NOTICE OF VIOLATION PECO Energy Company Docket Nos. 50-277:278 i
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 License Nos. DPR-44, Delta, PA DPR-56 During NRC inspections conducted March 9-13,1998, and March 30 to April 3,1998 violationa of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the l
violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR 50.54(i-1) requires that the facility licensee shall have in effect an operator requalification program wht::h must as a minimum, meet the requirements of 55.59(c).10 CFR 55.59(c) requires, in part, that in lieu of paragraph (c)(4) of this l
section, the Commission may approve a program developed by using a systems approach to training (SAT).10 CFR 55.59 (c)(4) requires, in part, that the facility licensee requalification program shall include comprehensive written examinations and annual operating tests which determine areas in which retraining is needed to upgrade reactor operator and senior reactor operator knowledge. Peach Bottom's SAT-based requalification program procedure POC-2.4, " Licensed Operator Requalification Training", requires in part, that subsequent examinations shall be designed to be greater than 40% different than previous examinations developed for the same annual operating test.
l Contrary to the above, from January 1998 to March 13,1998, the facility licensee administered the annual operating test to operators in a manner such that examination test item sample selection was not sufficiently comprehensive.
Specifically, there was a pattern of overlap in that every JPM set was used at least twice on two different crews on different examination weeks. This resulted in 0%
difference when comparing any two particular crews which got the overlapping JPM sets.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
B.
10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(ii) requires, in part, that the operating test will require the licensed senior operator to demonstrate the ability to perform the actions necessary to accomplish a comprehensive sample of items specified in part 55.45(a)(2) through (13) inclusive to the extent applicable to the facility.10 CFR 55.45(a)(11) requires, in part, the licensed senior operator to demonstrate the ability to execute l
the emergency plan.
Contrary to the above, operating tests administered from January to March 1997 and from January through March 13,1998, did not require licensed senior reactor Mmcators fulfilling the role of the Control Room Supervisor to demonstrate on a sa*npling basis their ability to execute the emergency plan.
I This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
i l
9805220357 980514 l
PDR ADOCK 05000277 l
G PDR 4
7_
l C
10 CFR 50.65(b) established the scope of the monitoring program for selection of safety-related and nonsafety-related structures, systems or components (SSCs) to be included within the maintenance rule program. The monitoring program shall include, in part, nonsafety-related SSCs that are used in the plant emergency l
operating procedures.
Contrary to the above, as of April 1,1998, the licensee failed to include the area l
radiation monitoring system within the scope of the maintenance rule program. The area radiation monitoring system is a nonsafety-related system used in the plant l
emergency operating procedures.
l This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, PECO Energy Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region 1, and a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of receipt of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Viola-
. tion" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time, if you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
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 redected copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the basis 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 is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 14th day of May 1998.
_~
_ _ -