IR 05000374/2005002
| ML060300119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/2006 |
| From: | Pederson C Division of Reactor Safety III |
| To: | Crane C Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
| References | |
| 3-2005-007, EA-06-022 IR-05-002 | |
| Download: ML060300119 (7) | |
Text
January 27, 2006EA-06-022Mr. Christopher M. CranePresident and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear Exelon Generation Company, LLC 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555SUBJECT:LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT 2 - NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTIONREPORT NO. 05000374/2005002 AND NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONSREPORT NO. 3-2005-007
Dear Mr. Crane:
This refers to a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) occupational radiation safetyinspection conducted in February 2005 and an NRC Office of Investigations (OI) investigationof an event involving an apparent violation of the Technical Specifications on February 13, 2005, at LaSalle County Station, Unit 2. The purpose of the OI investigation wasto determine if a contractor pipefitter foreman and two contractor pipefitters willfully entered aposted high radiation area (HRA) without receiving the required HRA briefing. The OI investigation was completed on October 27, 2005, and based on the information developedduring the investigation, the OI substantiated the issue. The enclosed Summary ofInvestigation summarizes the results of the investigation. Additionally, we consider the foreman as a licensee official in accordance with Section IV.A.4 of the Enforcement Policy.Based on the results of the inspection and investigation, one apparent violation was identifiedand is being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the Enforcement Policy. The current Enforcement Policy is included on the NRC's Web site at www.nrc.gov
- select What We Do , Enforcement , then Enforcement Policy
.On February 13, 2005, a contractor pipefitter foreman and two contractor pipefitters entered aposted HRA in the Unit 2 condenser pit to conduct repairs to a sprinkler head and did not sign the required HRA radiation work permit (RWP) or receive the radiation protection technician (RPT)-provided HRA briefing required for work in a HRA. The HRA was properly posted and barricaded with a fence gate and with a swing gate to preclude inadvertent entry. A licensee contractor RPT identified the contractor pipefitter foreman and pipefitters inappropriate entry into the HRA. The contractor pipefitter foreman and pipefitters actions were an apparent violation of Technical Specification 5.4.1.a and Exelon Procedure RP-AA-460, Revision 4.
C. Crane-2-The NRC became aware of the event during the occupational radiation safety inspection. Thecircumstances surrounding this apparent violation, the significance of the issues, and the needfor lasting and effective corrective actions were discussed with members of your staff at the preliminary exit meeting on February 18, 2005. Additionally, your root cause investigation report, associated corrective actions, and other pertinent documents were obtained during the OI investigation. As a result, we have concluded that neither a written response nor a pre-decisional enforcement conference are necessary to enable the NRC to make an enforcementdecision. In addition, because you identified the violation and based on our understanding of yourcorrective actions, a civil penalty may not be warranted in accordance with Section VI.C.2 of the Enforcement Policy. However, before the NRC makes its enforcement decision, we are providing you an opportunity to either: (1) respond to the apparent violation within 30 days of the date of this letter or (2) request a pre-decisional enforcement conference. If a conference is held, it will be transcribed and closed to public observation because it involves the findings of anNRC OI report which has not been publicly disclosed. Please contact Steven Orth, HealthPhysics Program Manager, at (630)829-9827, within 7 days of the date of this letter to notify us of your decision.If you choose to provide a written response, it should be clearly marked as a "Response to anApparent Violation, EA-06-022" and should include: (1) the reason for the apparent violation or,if contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation; (2) the corrective steps that havebeen taken and the results achieved; (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid furtherviolations; and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response mayreference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response.In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of the apparent violationdescribed may change as a result of further NRC review. You will be advised by separatecorrespondence of the results of our deliberations on this matter.As an alternative to a written response or pre-decisional enforcement conference, the NRCwould normally offer you the opportunity to request alternate dispute resolution (ADR) with the NRC as a part of our pilot program for resolving issues involving apparent willful violations. However, the topic of unauthorized HRA entries was recently the subject of a successful ADR mediation between the NRC and Exelon Nuclear for a previous violation (reference LaSalleEA-04-170). (NOTE: This ADR mediation took place after the occurrence of the currentviolation (EA-06-022)). Therefore, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement,the NRC believes we have each had ample opportunity to share our views and interests on thisissue and that further use of ADR is unnecessary. If you have any additional information or views contrary to the above, we would consider your request for ADR.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter,its enclosure, and your response (if you choose to provide one) will be made availableelectronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the C. Crane-3-NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To the extent possible, your responseshould not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction.
Sincerely,
/RA by Anne T. Boland Acting for/Cynthia D. Pederson, DirectorDivision of Reactor SafetyDocket No. 50-374License No. NPF-18Enclosure: Investigation Summary