ML061810013

EA-06-081, Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Final Significance Determination for a White Finding and Notice of Violation (NRC Inspection Report Nos. 05000456/2006012; 05000457/2006012)

ML061810013
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	06/29/2006
From:	Caldwell J Region 3 Administrator
To:	Crane C Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
References
EA-06-081, FOIA/PA-2010-0209, IR-06-008, IR-06-012 ea-06-081
Download: ML061810013 (9)

See also: IR 05000456/2006012

Text

June 29, 2006EA-06-081Mr. Christopher M. CranePresident and Chief Nuclear Officer

Exelon Nuclear

Exelon Generation Company, LLC

4300 Winfield Road

Warrenville, IL

60555SUBJECT:FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A WHITE FINDING ANDNOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 05000456/2006012;05000457/2006012 (DRS)); BRAIDWOOD NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2Dear Mr. Crane:

The purpose of this letter is to provide you the final results of our significance determination ofthe preliminary White finding identified within Inspection Report 05000456/2006008(DRS);

05000457/2006008(DRS). The inspection finding was assessed using the Significance

Determination Process (SDP) and was preliminarily characterized as a White finding, which

may require additional NRC inspections. This White finding involved multiple failures by yourstaff to adequately evaluate the radiological hazards associated with the leaks from the

circulating water blowdown line vacuum breakers and to assess the environmental impact of the

resultant onsite and offsite tritium contamination. In a telephone conversation with Ms. A. Boland of the NRC, Region III office, on J

une 2, 2006,Mr. K. Polson of your staff indicated that Exelon Nuclear did not contest the characterization ofthe significance of this finding and that you declined your opportunity to discuss this issue in a

Regulatory Conference or provide a written response.The NRC recognizes the extensive, recent monitoring performed by your staff to identify theextent of the contamination from the circulating water blowdown line vacuum breaker historicalleaks. In this case, the contamination was limited to a single radionuclide, tritium. Tritium is a

low energy beta emitter and represents a very low radiological risk as compared to other

radionuclides. Based upon the current radiological conditions and the concentrations of tritium

identified in the vicinity of the Braidwood site, the NRC estimated that the doses from thecontamination to be a very small fraction of the NRC's limit for doses to members of the publicand insignificant relative to the normal background radiation dose. Additional information

relative to tritium, its properties, and its radiological characteristics may be found at

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html

.

C. Crane-2-Despite your recent monitoring activities to address the groundwater issue, we concluded thatyour staff did not perform adequate, timely radiological evaluations following the historical leaks,

which impacted your ability to assess the environmental impact from the releases

and tomitigate the releases; did not account for the potential public impact; and did not adequatelycontrol licensed material. After considering the information developed during the inspection, the

NRC has concluded that the inspection finding is appropriately characterized as White. TheNRC's Public Radiation Safety SDP was developed to assess the risk of noncompliance withregulatory requirements and licensee programs and procedures. In this case, the significance

of the inspection finding was not based on the risk from offsite doses. Instead, the significance

of the inspection finding was based upon an evaluation of the adequacy of your controls to

preclude and to assess environmental impact of releases of radioactive material. Specifically,

the Public Radiation Safety SDP also considers the potential impact of program breakdowns.

In developing the Reactor Oversight Program, the NRC recognized that a licensee's control ofradioactive material is of interest to members of the public, even when, as in this case, very low

levels of radioactive material are involved. Consequently, the NRC integrated a deterministicfactor into the Public Radiation Safety SDP, which provides for a higher level of significance

than would be warranted based solely on the risk from exposure to the radioactive material. You have 30 calendar days from the date of this letter to appeal the staff's determination ofsignificance for the identified White finding. Such appeals will be considered to have merit onlyif they meet the criteria given in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 2.The NRC also determined that the inspection finding involved three violations of NRCrequirements, as cited in the attached Notice of Violation (Notice). The three violations involved

your staff's failure to: 1) perform adequate radiological surveys, as required by

10 CFR 20.1501; 2) adequately implement a program to assess the cumulative dose

contributions, as required by Technical Specification 6.8.4.e.5; and 3) conduct an adequateenvironmental monitoring program to provide data on measurable levels of radiation and

radioactivity in the environment resulting from the releases, as required by Technical Specification 6.9.1.6. The circumstances surrounding the violations are described in detailwithin NRC Inspection Report 05000456/2006008; 05000457/2006008 (DRS). In accordancewith the NRC Enforcement Policy, the Notice of Violation is considered an escalated

enforcement action because it is associated with a White finding.You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in theenclosed Notice when preparing your response.Because plant performance for this issue has been determined to be in the regulatory responseband, we will use the NRC Action Matrix to determine the most appropriate NRC response forthis event. We will notify you, by separate correspondence, of that determination.The NRC also determined that two other apparent violations, as discussed in NRC InspectionReport 05000456/2006008; 05000457/2006008 (DRS), represented violations of NRC

requirements. Specifically, your staff's failure to maintain complete records of the spread of

contamination from the vacuum breaker valve leaks was determined to be an inspection finding

of low safety significance (Green). This inspection finding was also determined to be a violation

C. Crane-3-of 10 CFR 50.75(g), which requires licensees to maintain records of information important tothe safe and effective decommissioning of the facility. In addition, your staff's failure to fullyreport the leaks from the vacuum breaker valves in annual reports submitted to the NRC, as required by your Technical Specifications, was determined to be a Severity Level IV violation of

NRC requirements. This finding was evaluated using the NRC's traditional enforcement process because inspection findings that involve reporting requirements are considered to have

the potential to affect the NRC's ability to perform its regulatory function. The violationassociated with the Green inspection finding, which was characterized by the SDP as having

very low significance, and the Severity Level IV violation are being treated as Non-Cited

Violations (NCVs), consistent with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy. The

violations have been entered into your corrective action program. If you contest these NCVs,

you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this letter, with the basis for your

denial, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN.: Document Control Desk, Washington

DC 20555-0001; with copies to the Regional Administrator and the Enforcement Officer,

Region III; the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Braidwood NuclearPower Plant.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, itsenclosure, and your response, if you choose to respond, will be made available electronicallyfor public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system

(ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Tothe extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or

safeguards information so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction. TheNRC also includes significant enforcement actions on its Web site at www.nrc.gov; select WhatWe Do , Enforcement , then Significant Enforcement Actions

.James L. CaldwellRegional AdministratorDocket Nos. 50-456; 50-457License Nos. NPF-72; NPF-77Enclosure: Notice of Violation

DISTRIBUTION:See next page

1 OE concurrence received on 06/28/2006 by D. Solorio per e-mail from D. StarkeyC. Crane-3-of 10 CFR 50.75(g), which requires licensees to maintain records of information important tothe safe and effective decommissioning of the facility. In addition, your staff's failure to fullyreport the leaks from the vacuum breaker valves in annual reports submitted to the NRC, as required by your Technical Specifications, was determined to be a Severity Level IV violation of

NRC requirements. This finding was evaluated using the NRC's traditional enforcement process because inspection findings that involve reporting requirements are considered to have

the potential to affect the NRC's ability to perform its regulatory function. The violationassociated with the Green inspection finding, which was characterized by the SDP as having

very low significance, and the Severity Level IV violation are being treated as Non-Cited

Violations (NCVs), consistent with Section VI.A.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy. The

violations have been entered into your corrective action program. If you contest these NCVs,

you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this letter, with the basis for your

denial, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN.: Document Control Desk, Washington

DC 20555-0001; with copies to the Regional Administrator and the Enforcement Officer,

Region III; the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555-0001; and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Braidwood NuclearPower Plant.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, itsenclosure, and your response, if you choose to respond, will be made available electronicallyfor public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system

(ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Tothe extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or

safeguards information so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction. TheNRC also includes significant enforcement actions on its Web site at www.nrc.gov; select WhatWe Do , Enforcement , then Significant Enforcement Actions

.James L. CaldwellRegional AdministratorDocket Nos. 50-456; 50-457License Nos. NPF-72; NPF-77Enclosure: Notice of Violation

DISTRIBUTION:See next pageDOCUMENT NAME:E:\Filenet\ML061810013.wpdPublicly Available

G Non-Publicly Available

G SensitiveNon-SensitiveTo receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copyOFFICERIIIRIIIRIIIOERIIIRIIINAMEPPelkeCPedersonKO'BrienDSolorio

1BBersonGGrant for JCaldwellDATE06/28 /200606/28/200606/28/200606/28/200606/28/200606/28/2006OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

C. Crane-4-cc w/encl:Site Vice President - Braidwood StationPlant Manager - Braidwood Station

Regulatory Assurance Manager - Braidwood Station

Chief Operating Officer

Senior Vice President - Nuclear Services

Vice President - Operations Support

Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

Director Licensing

Manager Licensing - Braidwood and Byron

Senior Counsel, Nuclear, Mid-West Regional

Operating Group

Document Control Desk - Licensing

Assistant Attorney General

Illinois Emergency Management Agency

State Liaison Officer

Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission

Letter to C. Crane from J. Caldwell dated June 29, 2006SUBJECT:FINAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A WHITE FINDING ANDNOTICE OF VIOLATION ADAMS Distribution

ADAMS (PARS)

SECY

OCA

L. Reyes, EDO

W. Kane, DEDR

M. Johnson, OE

D. Solorio, OE

D. Starkey, OE

J. Caldwell, RIII

G. Grant, RIII

L. Chandler, OGC

B. Jones, OGC

J. Dyer, NRR

S. Richards, Chief, IIPB, NRR

M. Tschiltz, Chief, SPSB, NRR

D. Merzke, NRR

J. Stang, NRR

D. Holody, Enforcement Officer, RI

C. Evans, Enforcement Officer, RII

K. O'Brien, Enforcement Officer, RIII

K. Fuller, Enforcement Officer, RIV

R. Pascarelli, Enforcement Officer, NRR

M. Cheok, RES

E. Brenner, OPA

H. Bell, OIG

G. Caputo, OI

J. Schlueter, OSTP

P. Pelke, RIII:EICS

J. Strasma, RIII:PA

R. Lickus, RIII

J. Lynch, RIII

S. Ray, RIII

OEWEB

OEMAIL

DXC1

MXB

RidsNrrDirsIrib

CAA1

DRPIII

DRSIII

PLB1

ROPreports@nrc.gov

NOTICE OF VIOLATIONExelon NuclearDocket No.: 50-456; 50-457Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant License No.: NPF-72; NPF-77

Units 1 and 2EA-06-081During an NRC inspection completed on May 25, 2006, violations of

NRC requirements wereidentified. In accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, the violations are listed below:1. 10 CFR 20.1501 requires that each licensee make, or cause to be made, surveys thatmay be necessary for the licensee to comply with the regulations in Part 20 and that are

reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation levels,concentrations or quantities of radioactive materials, and the potential radiological

hazards that could be present. Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1003, survey means anevaluation of the radiological conditions and potential hazards incident to the production,use, transfer, release, disposal, or presence of radioactive material or other sources of

radiation. 10 CFR 20.1301 requires the licensee to conduct operations so that the total effectivedose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does

not exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year.Contrary to the above, as of March 2006, the licensee did not make surveys to assurecompliance with 10 CFR 20.1301, which limits radiation exposure to 0.1 rem. As

examples, in November 1996 and December 1998, failed vacuum breakers in the

licensee's radioactive waste discharge line resulted in large volumes of liquid

contaminated with radioactive material to leak in an uncontrolled manner to the

unrestricted areas. Following identification of the leaks of radioactive material, the

licensee failed to perform adequate surveys to identify the extent of radiation andcontamination levels and the potential hazards associated with the radioactive materialand to take actions necessary to control the material. This violation is associated with a White Significance Determination Process finding forUnits 1 and 2.2. Technical Specification 6.8.4.e requires, in part, that the cumulative dose contributionsfrom liquid effluents for the current calendar quarter and the current calendar year be

determined in accordance with the methodology and parameters in the Offsite DoseCalculation Manual (ODCM) at least once per 31 days. Contrary to the above, between November 1996 and March 2006, the licensee did notdetermine the cumulative dose contributions from liquid effluents inadvertently leaked toon-site and off-site locations resulting from failed vacuum breakers along the radioactive

waste discharge line in 1996, 1998, and 2000 in accordance with the methodology and

parameters in the ODCM within 31 days of the leaks. Specifically, the licensee did not

determine the dose resulting from a: 1) November 1996 release from a Vacuum Breaker

No. 1 leak of 250,000 gallons of water that included radioactive material to the

Notice of Violation-2-groundwater pathway; 2) December 1998 release from a Vacuum Breaker No. 3 leak of3 million gallons of water that included radioactive material to the ground water pathway;and 3) November 2000 release from a Vacuum Breaker No. 2 leak of 3 million gallons ofwater that included radioactive material to the groundwater pathway. This violation is associated with a White Significance Determination Process finding forUnits 1 and 2.3. Technical Specification 6.9.1.6 requires, in part, that the Annual RadiologicalEnvironmental Operating Report include summaries, interpretations, and analyses of

trends of the results of the radiological environmental monitoring program for the

reporting period and that the material shall be consistent with the objectives outlined inthe Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), and in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I,

Sections IV.B.2, IV.B.3, and IV.C. 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section IV.B.2 states the licensee shall establish an appropriatesurveillance and monitoring program to provide data on measurable levels of radiation

and radioactive materials in the environment to evaluate the relationship between

quantities of radioactive material released in effluents and resultant doses to individuals

from principal pathways of exposure.Contrary to the above, as of March 2006, the licensee did not establish an appropriatesurveillance and monitoring program to evaluate the relationship between quantities of

radioactive material released in effluents and resultant doses to individuals from

principal pathways of exposure. Specifically, the radioactive material released in the

1996, 1998, and 2000 vacuum breaker leaks constituted new principal pathways of

exposure (i.e., the groundwater pathway) which the licensee had not adequatelyevaluated with the existing Radiological Effluent Monitoring Program (REMP).This violation is associated with a White Significance Determination Process finding forUnits 1 and 2.Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Exelon Nuclear is hereby required to submit awritten statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: DocumentControl Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with copies to the Regional Administrator and

Enforcement Officer, Region III, and to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Braidwood NuclearPower Plant, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).

This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation; EA-06-081" and should

include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis fordisputing the violation or severity level, (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 includepreviously docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required

Notice of Violation-3-response. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an orderor a Demand for Information may be issued as to why the license should not be modified,

suspended, or revoked, or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.

Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time. If youcontest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with the

basis for your denial, to the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.If you choose to respond, your response will be made available electronically for publicinspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the NRC's document system (ADAMS),

accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Therefore, tothe extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards

information so that it can be made available to the public 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 aredacted 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 havewithheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the

disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide theinformation required by 10 CFR 2.390(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.In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two workingdays. Dated this 29

th day of June 2006