IR 05000409/2005006
| ML20129H254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse, Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1985 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129H250 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-85-09, 50-255-85-9, NUDOCS 8506070529 | |
| Download: ML20129H254 (1) | |
Text
-
'
.
.
Appendix NOTICE OF VIOLATION Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-255 As a result of the inspection conducted on April 9 through May 6,1985 and in accordance with the General Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C), the following violation was identified:
10 CFR 50.59 specifies that changes may be made in the facility "...as described in the safety analysis report...without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change... involves...an unreviewed safety question." Furthermore, "...the licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility...made pursuant to this section, to the extent that such changes constitute changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report....
These records shall include a written safety
!
evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change...does not involve an unreviewed safety question...."
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 review evaluating the safety significance of leaving the hst Safeguards Room air cooler isolated from March 6, 1985 until repairs to the cooler could be made.
Isolation of the cooler (described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) as operating automatically) constituted an unreviewed change from the FSAR in that cooler operation would have required operator action (i.e., it would not have operated automatically)
to be placed in service.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance:
(1) cor-rective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extending your response time
for good cause shown.
JUN 3 1985 g
Date C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Reactor Projects i
i 8506070529 850603 PDR ADOCK 05000255 G
PH t
!