ML20057A650
| ML20057A650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057A643 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-93-064, EA-93-64, NUDOCS 9309150103 | |
| Download: ML20057A650 (5) | |
Text
. -. - - - -. _.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Commonwealth Edison Company Docket Nos.
50-295; 50-304 Zion Station License Nos.
DPR-39; DPR-48 Units 1 and 2 EA 93-064 During NRC inspections conducted from July 27, 1992 through March 23, 1993, and on June 24, 1993, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1993), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205.
The particular violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:
1.
Violation Assessed a Civil Penaltv 10 CFR 50.59, " Changes, Tests and Experiments," allows a licensee to make changes to the facility as described in the safety analysis report (SAR), without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves an unreviewed safety question or a change to the license technical specifications.
A proposed change is deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if, among other things, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR may be increased.
10 CFR 50.59 also requires that the licensee maintain records of changes to the facility, including a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for determining that the proposed change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Final SAR Section 9.10.2, " Auxiliary Building Ventilation System Design and Operation," and, subsequently, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 9.4.3.2, " Auxiliary Building Ventilation System Description," state that the exhaust fans for the auxiliary building are controlled to maintain the auxiliary building at a nominal %-inch of water of negative pressure with respect to the outdoors.
Contrary to the above:
A.
In August 1989, without prior Commission approval, the licensee made a facility change that involved an unreviewed safety question, and a written safety evaluation was not performed.
Specifically, the licensee kept the auxiliary building missile door L-10 open for an extended period, rendering the exhaust. fans incapable of maintaining a nominal %-inch of water of negative pressure with respect to the outdoors, and thereby increasing the potential consequences of a previously evaluated accident (i.e.,
increasing the'off-site doses that could result from dropping a spent fuel assembly onto the spent feel floor).
B.
On August 24, 1992, the licensee completed a 10 CFR 50.59 safety 9309150103 930909
.7 PDR ADOCK 05000295 f G.
PDR. Oh
d Notice of Violation evaluation of keeping the auxiliary building missile door L-10 open, and the evaluation failed to provide the bases for determining that this change did not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Specifically, the evaluation incorrectly assumed that the auxiliary building exhaust fans could maintain a nominal %-
inch of water of negative pressure relative to the outside with door L-10 open, and failed to consider the effect of the open door on a previously evaluated accident (i.e., increasing the off-site doses that could result from dropping a spent fuel assembly onto the spent fuel pool floor).
l This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement 1).
Civil Penalty - $50,000.
II.
Violations Not Assessed a Civil Penalty A.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V states:
Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative _or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
Contrary to the above:
1.
As of March 23, 1993, the licensee had failed to prescribe by procedure that auxiliary building missile door L-10 should be normally closed, an activity affecting quality (in protecting safety-related equipment 'against loss of function due to flooding, as prescribed by UFSAR Section 2.4.5.3).
2.
As of March 23, 1993, Procedure TSGP-35, Revision 1, dated May 18,1990, " Cubicle Differential Pressure Surveillance,"
a procedure affecting quality, failed to use appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria to ensure that potentially contaminated cubicles or pipe chases would be maintained at a nominal negative pressure of %-inch of water relative to the auxiliary building (as prescribed by UFSAR Section 9.4.3.1).
3.
As of March 23, 1993, Procedure PT-0, Revision 6, dated June 21,1992, " Surveillance Checklist and Periodic Test," a procedure affecting quality, failed to use appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria to ensure that the auxiliary building would be maintained at a nominal i
Notice of Violation negative pressure of %-inch of water relative to the outdoors (as prescribed by UFSAR Section 9.4.3.2).
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
B.
10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(v)(D) requires that the licensee report within 30 days of discovery any event or condition that alone could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or.
systems that are needed to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
Contrary to the above, as of June 24, 1993, the licensee had failed to report that missile door L-10 being in the full open position resulted in the auxiliary building ventilation system test failure on December 9,1992, a condition which could increase l
the actual off-site doses for the postulated accident involving dropping of a spent fuel assembly onto the spent fuel pool floor (UFSAR Section 15.7.4.1.5), and therefore could have alone prevented fulfillment of a safety function of a structure needed to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
C.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, states, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected.
Contrary to the above:
1.
After becoming aware of a condition adverse to quality in September 1992, when the inspector identified that the 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation dated August '24,1992 used an invalid assumption (that the auxiliary building ventilation system could maintain a nominal %-inch of water of negative pressure with respect to the outdoors with door L-10 open),
the licensee failed to promptly correct the condition adverse to quality (it was not corrected until December 9, 1992, when door L-10 was partially closed to the half open position).
2.
As of April 29, 1993, the licensee had failed to promptly identify and correct a condition adverse to quality, in that nine auxiliary building cubicle differential pressure gauges (used in activities affecting quality).had been inoperable for periods ranging from 6 to 18 months.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
D.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XII, " Control of Measuring and Test Equipment," requires, in part, that measuies be established
Notice of Violation to assure that. gauges used in activities affecting quality are properly calibrated and adjusted at specified periods to maintain' accuracy within necessary limits.
Contrary to the above, as of June 24, 1993, the licensee had not specified a calibration frequency for the auxiliary building' individual cubicle differential pressure gauges, gauges used in activities affecting quality.
Further, five gauges had not been calibrated since 1978.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison Company (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement of 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" and should include for each alleged violation:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violation, (2) the reasons for the violation 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 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 to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other actions 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 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 j
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 answer 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 the penalty'should not be imposed.
In addition to protesting the civil penalty in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.
-j In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in Section VI.B.2 of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, should be addressed.
Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the i
Notice of Violation 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 234c of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282c.
The responses noted above (Reply to Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to:
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137, and with a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Zion Station.
Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this 9th day of September 1993
)
i