ML20203B581: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML20203B581
| number = ML20203B581
| issue date = 02/23/1998
| issue date = 02/23/1998
| title = Ack Receipt of 971001 Ltr & Check for $300,000 in Payment for Civil Penalties Proposed by NRC Ltr Dtd 970902
| title = Ack Receipt of & Check for $300,000 in Payment for Civil Penalties Proposed by NRC Ltr
| author name = Lieberman J
| author name = Lieberman J
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
Line 11: Line 11:
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = EA-97-222, EA-97-223, NUDOCS 9802240327
| document report number = EA-97-222, EA-97-223, NUDOCS 9802240327
| title reference date = 10-01-1997
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 3
| page count = 3
Line 25: Line 26:
           **....                                    February 23, 1998 EAs 97 222 and 97 223 Mr. O. Kingsley, President Nuclear Generation Group 9q <7 (
           **....                                    February 23, 1998 EAs 97 222 and 97 223 Mr. O. Kingsley, President Nuclear Generation Group 9q <7 (
Commonwealth Edison Company Executive Towers West til 92'50 [
Commonwealth Edison Company Executive Towers West til 92'50 [
1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Dear Mr. Kingsley; This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 1,1997 and your check for $330,000 in payment for the civil penalties proposed by NRC in a htter dated September 2,1997.
1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Dear Mr. Kingsley; This will acknowledge receipt of your {{letter dated|date=October 1, 1997|text=letter dated October 1,1997}} and your check for $330,000 in payment for the civil penalties proposed by NRC in a htter dated September 2,1997.
In your response, you denied Violation ll.C. Your primary argument for denying the violation was that you concluded the gas accumulation was not likely to have escaped detection, and therefore, was not reportable as a condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillment of a safety function. Your conclusion was based on: (1) the Unit 2 operators diagnosed the nitrogen accumulation in the reactor vessel head, and (2) the gas accumulation would have had to continue for 10 more days undetected before reaching the level of the reactor coolsnt system hot leg. In addition, you cited pcrtions of NUREG 1022 (including Supplement 1) to support your basis for denial of the violation.
In your response, you denied Violation ll.C. Your primary argument for denying the violation was that you concluded the gas accumulation was not likely to have escaped detection, and therefore, was not reportable as a condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillment of a safety function. Your conclusion was based on: (1) the Unit 2 operators diagnosed the nitrogen accumulation in the reactor vessel head, and (2) the gas accumulation would have had to continue for 10 more days undetected before reaching the level of the reactor coolsnt system hot leg. In addition, you cited pcrtions of NUREG 1022 (including Supplement 1) to support your basis for denial of the violation.
l 10 CFR Part 50.72(b)(2)(iii)(B) and 10 CFR Part 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B) requires that the licensee notify the NRC within four hours and submit a Licensee Event Report within 30 days, respectively, for any event or condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to remove residual heat, in addition, NUREG 1022,
l 10 CFR Part 50.72(b)(2)(iii)(B) and 10 CFR Part 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B) requires that the licensee notify the NRC within four hours and submit a Licensee Event Report within 30 days, respectively, for any event or condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to remove residual heat, in addition, NUREG 1022,

Latest revision as of 15:32, 7 December 2021

Ack Receipt of & Check for $300,000 in Payment for Civil Penalties Proposed by NRC Ltr
ML20203B581
Person / Time
Site: Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date: 02/23/1998
From: Lieberman J
NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
To: Kingsley O
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
EA-97-222, EA-97-223, NUDOCS 9802240327
Download: ML20203B581 (3)


Text

e

, ykm AfD% -

y+ 4 4,

4 y j

UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k

    • .... February 23, 1998 EAs 97 222 and 97 223 Mr. O. Kingsley, President Nuclear Generation Group 9q <7 (

Commonwealth Edison Company Executive Towers West til 92'50 [

1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 Dear Mr. Kingsley; This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 1,1997 and your check for $330,000 in payment for the civil penalties proposed by NRC in a htter dated September 2,1997.

In your response, you denied Violation ll.C. Your primary argument for denying the violation was that you concluded the gas accumulation was not likely to have escaped detection, and therefore, was not reportable as a condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillment of a safety function. Your conclusion was based on: (1) the Unit 2 operators diagnosed the nitrogen accumulation in the reactor vessel head, and (2) the gas accumulation would have had to continue for 10 more days undetected before reaching the level of the reactor coolsnt system hot leg. In addition, you cited pcrtions of NUREG 1022 (including Supplement 1) to support your basis for denial of the violation.

l 10 CFR Part 50.72(b)(2)(iii)(B) and 10 CFR Part 50.73(a)(2)(v)(B) requires that the licensee notify the NRC within four hours and submit a Licensee Event Report within 30 days, respectively, for any event or condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems that are needed to remove residual heat, in addition, NUREG 1022,

  • Licensee Event Report System," states that the intent of 10 CFR Part t 50.73(a)(2)(v)is to capture those events where there would have been a failure of a safety system to properly complete a safety function, regardless of when the failure were discovered or whether the system was needed at the time. Also, NUREG 10?? states that 10 CFR Part 50.73(a)(2)(v) covers an event or condition where redundant structures, components, or trains of a safety system could have failed to perform their intended function because of; one or more personnel errors, including procedure violations; equipment failures; or design, analys!s, 9 fabrication, construction, or procedural deficiencies.

We have reviewed your response and concluded that given the geometry and configuration of the facility, the plant conditions and the operating practices at that time, which included /

Inadequate procedural guldance, the potential existed for the undetected gas accumulation in the reactor coolant system to result in the residual heat removal pumps becoming airbound due 9802240327 980223 .

,ff

/

Commonwealth Edison Company 2+

the reactor coolant system to result in the residual heat removal pumps becoming altbound due to vortexing. As a result, the gas accumulation in the reactor coolant system could have alone prevented the safety function of a system needed to remove residual heat. Therefore, we consider Violation ll.C to be valid. Accordingly, it is expected that your corrective actions to this violation be docketed within 30 days of the date of this letter.

Sincerely, i

Mmes Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement Docket Nos. 50-2g5 and 50 304 License Nos. DPR 39 and DPR-48 cc:

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 Regulatory Services Manager Document Control Desk Licensing Richard Hubbard Nathan Schloss, Economist, Office of the Attorney General

e

  • l I

Commonwealth Edison Company DISTRIBUTION:

JLloberman, OE I TReis, OE BCleyton, Rlli l Day File EA File  !

s I

PDR NUDOCS O RA:Rlli b NRR D:Ohk kES) kESI 'ikeII^ =A $ b ' d fifO^n* RCaka kle)erman _

NO NO ifdO98 1' /98 - $//98 1/2n /98 $d/98 _

Doc Name: G:\0ECASES\97222.ACK

- . . _ . -