October 23, 2001

EA-01-188 (Peach Bottom)

EA-01-189 (Limerick)

Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley, President

Exelon Nuclear

Exelon Generation Company, LLC

200 Exelon Way, KSA 3-E

Kennett Square, PA 19348

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION

(NRC Office of Investigations Report 1-2000-033)

(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station / Limerick Generating Station)

Dear Mr. Kingsley:

This letter refers to an investigation initiated by the NRC's Office of Investigations (OI) on

September 27, 2000, at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) and the Limerick

Generating Station (LGS). The purpose of the investigation was to determine if two former

Exelon Infrastructure Services (EIS) maintenance technicians fabricated siren testing

maintenance records, performed deficient siren tests on the offsite emergency preparedness

response sirens, and intentionally installed jumper wires in the siren boxes disabling important

system functions. The investigation was initiated after you identified the issue and reported it to

the NRC. 

Based on the evidence developed during its investigation, OI substantiated that two former EIS

technicians deliberately falsified siren maintenance records to reflect that required activities had

been performed, when, in fact, they had not been performed. OI also substantiated that one of

the former EIS technicians installed jumper wires in the siren boxes to bypass failure detection

circuitry. These conclusions were noted in a factual summary of the OI report that was sent to

you in a letter dated August 15, 2001. 

In our August 15, 2001, letter, we provided you the opportunity to address the OI findings and

the apparent violations before we made our final enforcement decision by either attending a

predecisional enforcement conference or by providing a written response. On October 1, 2001,

a conference was conducted with Mr. J. Hagan and other members of your staff in the Region I

office (King of Prussia, PA) to discuss the apparent violations, their significance, root causes,

and your corrective actions. At the conference, your staff described its investigation, root cause

evaluation and corrective actions. Your staff agreed that there was a failure to maintain

complete and accurate maintenance and testing records as required by 10 CFR 50.9, but they

contended that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and (b)(8) were met because the

emergency preparedness planning standards were met. Further, your staff maintained that as

a result of a population coverage analysis, the safety significance of this issue was low because

more than 95% of the populace in the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZ) for LGS and PBAPS

would have been notified. The slides that Exelon used during the enforcement conference
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley 2

have been entered in the NRCís document system (ADAMS) and are accessible from the NRC

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html under Accession Number

ML012840024. 

After careful consideration of the information developed during the investigation and the

information that you provided during the conference, the NRC has concluded that violations of

NRC requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation

(Notice). The first violation involved creation of inaccurate and incomplete records by two

former EIS contractors. Specifically, both individuals falsified a number of ìSiren Report -

Routine Maintenance Checklistî records indicating that they had completed all of the

maintenance steps, when in fact they had not. The second violation involved deficiencies with

providing early notification to the populace surrounding PBAPS and LGS in the event of an

emergency. Specifically, siren failure detection circuitry in 10 of 97 sirens surrounding PBAPS

and 4 of 165 sirens surrounding LGS were intentionally bypassed by installing jumpers. As a

result, a false indication was provided that the sirens were working properly when, in fact, they

were not. One of the former EIS contractors admitted to installing approximately ten jumper

wires in LGS and PBAPS siren boxes between November 1999 and September 2000 to

specifically bypass the failure detection circuitry. Therefore, despite your contention that

10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) was met, the NRC determined that as a result of these deliberate acts, the

original design of the siren system was modified. Installation of the jumpers compromised the

ability to detect, for certain sirens, any malfunction of this system which is used to provide early

notification to the populace surrounding PBAPS and LGS. The siren system was compromised

in that the jumpers prevented detection of certain inoperable sirens, which would have delayed,

or possibly precluded you from taking compensatory actions to alert certain areas of the local

populace in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the NRC maintains that 50.47(b)(5) was not

met. 

The safety significance of the violations was low because you estimated that you maintained

over 95% siren coverage of the population in the vicinity of LGS and PBAPS. Therefore, these

violations would normally be categorized at Severity Level IV. However, because the violations

were caused by the willful actions of contractor employees, these violations have been

categorized collectively in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for

NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600 as a Severity Level III problem. 

In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $55,000 is

considered for a Severity Level III violation or problem. Because the Severity Level III problem

was deliberate, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for Identification and

Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in Section VI.C.2 of

the Enforcement Policy. In this case, the NRC decided that credit for Identification is warranted

because you identified the misconduct and informed the NRC. Credit for Corrective Action is

also warranted because your corrective actions were considered prompt and comprehensive

and included testing and corrective maintenance to restore sirens to a fully operable condition,

performing a root cause evaluation, and terminating the employment of both contract

technicians. 
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley 3

Therefore, to encourage prompt identification and corrective actions of problems that existed, I

have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, to not

propose a civil penalty in this case. However, significant violations in the future could result in a

civil penalty.

You are not required to respond to this letter because the NRC has sufficient information on the

docket concerning this issue, including details in a combined NRC inspection report dated

August 30, 2001 (50-277/01-012; 50-278/01-012 and 50-352/01-013; 50-353/01-013), and your

slides from the conference. These slides, as well as your presentation, provided your

immediate and long term corrective actions to prevent recurrence of the violation. Your

immediate corrective actions were described above, while your long term corrective actions

included, but were not limited to: (1) the development of a training program and procedure for

contract owners; (2) the strengthening of licensee procedures and terms for contracts; (3) the

development of guidelines for monitoring contracts; (4) the development of a Siren Program

Manual; and (5) the correction of performance indicator data submitted to the NRC. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its

enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document

Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCís document system

(ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/

index.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,

/RA/ James T. Wiggins Acting For

Hubert J. Miller

Regional Administrator

Enclosure: As Stated 

Docket Nos. 50-277,50-278; 50-352, 50-353

License Nos. DPR-44, DPR-56; NPF-39, NPF-85
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley 4

cc w/encl:

J. J. Hagan, Senior Vice President, Exelon Generation Company, LLC

W. Bohlke, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Services

J. Cotton, Senior Vice President - Operations Support

J. Skolds, Chief Operating Officer

G. Hunger, Chairman, Nuclear Review Board

M. Gallagher, Director - Licensing, Exelon Generation Company, LLC

J. Benjamin, Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

W. Levis, Vice President - Limerick Generating Station

R. C. Braun, Plant Manager, Limerick Generating Station

K. Gallogly, Manager, Experience Assessment

Chief - Division of Nuclear Safety

Secretary, Nuclear Committee of the Board

E. Cullen, Vice President, General Counsel

Correspondence Control Desk

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

J. Doering, Vice President, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station

G. Johnston, Plant Manager, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station

P. Chabot, Director, Nuclear Oversight

A. F. Kirby, III, External Operations - Delmarva Power & Light Co.

A. A. Winter, Manager, Experience Assessment

J. W. Durham, Sr., Senior Vice President and General Counsel

H. C. Kresge, Manager, External Operations, Connectiv

N. J. Sproul, Manager, Financial Control & Co-Owner Affairs, Connectiv

R. McLean, Power Plant Siting, Nuclear Evaluations

D. Levin, Acting Secretary of Harford County Council

R. Ochs, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition

J. H. Walter, Chief Engineer, Public Service Commission of Maryland

Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Hiebert, Peach Bottom Alliance

Mr. & Mrs. Kip Adams

State of Maryland

TMI - Alert (TMIA)
Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley 5

DISTRIBUTION w/encls:

ADAMS (PARS)

SECY

CA

OEMAIL

OEWEB

WTravers, EDO

WKane, DEDR

FCongel, OE

DDambly, OGC

LChandler, OGC

SCollins, NRR

JJohnson, NRR

MSykes, NRR

Enforcement Coordinators RII, RIII, RIV

BBeecher, OPA

HBell, OIG

PLohaus, OSTP

GCaputo, OI

LTremper, OC 

KGibson, NRR

DLoveless, OEDO

EAdensam, NRR

CGratton, PM, NRR

JBoska, PM, NRR (Backup)

HMiller, RA

JWiggins, DRA

WLanning, DRS

DScrenci/NSheehan, PAO-RI

BFewell, RI

DHolody/RUrban, RI

GMatakas, RI

MShanbaky, DRP

ABurritt, DRP - Senior Resident Inspector

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

RConte, DRS

RJunod, DRP

AMcMurtray, DRP - NRC Resident Inspector

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 4.0\PDF Output\ML012960548.wpd

After declaring this document ìAn Official Agency Recordî it will be released to the Public.

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy

OFFICE RI/ORA RI/ORA RI/OI RI/DRS RI/DRP

NAME Rurban (RJU) Dholody (DJH) Bletts (MAA for) Rconte (RJU for) Rblough (BEH for)

DATE 10/ 09/01 10/16/01 10/11/01 10/10/01 10/12/01

OFFICE RI/DRS RI/ORA HQ/OE RI/RA

NAME Wlanning (WDL) Bfewell (JBF) Fcongel (RJU for) * Hmiller (JTW for)

DATE 10/15/01 10/15/01 10/18/01 10/23/01

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

* Concurrence by J. Luehman via e-mail from P. Prescott
NOTICE OF VIOLATION

Exelon Generation Company, LLC

Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Docket No. 50-277; 50-278

License No. DPR-44, DPR-56

EA-01-188

Limerick Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-352, 50-353

License No. NPF-39, NPF-85

EA-01-189

During an investigation conducted by the NRC Office of Investigations, violations of NRC

requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and

Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violations are listed below: 

A. 10 CFR 50.9 states, in part, that information required by the Commission's regulations,

orders or license conditions to be maintained by a licensee shall be complete and

accurate in all material respects. 

10 CFR 50.54(q) states, in part, that a licensee authorized to possess and operate a

nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet

the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b). 

Exelonís Nuclear Emergency Plan describes the philosophy, organization, facilities, and

equipment necessary to ensure preparedness for emergencies at PBAPS and LGS. 

Section 5.2.14 describes the Public Alert/Notification System as a siren system that is

maintained and tested regularly by Exelon to ensure its operability. 

Common Emergency Preparedness Administrative Procedure EP-C-7, ìThe

Maintenance and Testing of the Offsite Alert and Notification (Siren) Systems,î Rev. 3,

requires, in part, that routine maintenance and corrective maintenance shall be

performed by the service provider on LGS and PBAPS siren systems at the direction of

the Manager-EP; corrective maintenance shall be generated by the results of daily siren

and county controller polls and failures that are indicated by full scale tests; and the

records of routine testing shall be maintained by the site Nuclear Records Management

Systems. 

Contrary to the above, records of routine maintenance and testing performed on sirens

in various locations surrounding LGS and PBAPS were not complete and accurate in all

material respects. Specifically, from April/May 2000 until October 2000, two former

Exelon Infrastructure Services (EIS) contractors falsified numerous ìSiren Report -

Routine Maintenance Checklistî records indicating that they had completed all of the

routine maintenance steps, when, in fact, they had not. 
Notice of Violation 2

B. 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) states, in part, that means to provide early notification to the

populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone have been

established.

Contrary to the above, for an undetermined period of time prior to October 2000, 10 of

97 sirens surrounding PBAPS and 4 of 165 sirens surrounding LGS contained jumpers

that bypassed failure detection circuitry, thereby demonstrating that those sirens were

working properly when, in fact, they were not. Therefore, the means to provide early

notification to the populace within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning

Zone would have been compromised because the jumpers prevented detection of sirens

that were not working properly, which would have delayed or possibly precluded alerting

certain portions of the local populace. 

These violations have been categorized collectively as a Severity Level III problem.

(Supplement VIII)

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, the corrective

actions taken and planned to correct the violation and prevent recurrence and the date when

full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed on the docket in a combined

NRC inspection report dated August 30, 2001, (50-277/01-012; 50-278/01-012 and 50-352/01-

013; 50-353/01-013), and Exelon slides used during the October 1, 2001, predecisional

enforcement conference. However, you are required to submit a written statement or

explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not accurately reflect your

corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your

response as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation," and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the

Regional Administrator, Region I, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that

is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of

Violation (Notice).

If you contest 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 public

inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS)

component of NRCís document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web

site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). 

Therefore, to the extent possible, the response should not include any personal privacy,

proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be made available to the Public without

redaction.

In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working

days.

Dated this 23rd day of October, 2001