ML18038A290
| ML18038A290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1990 |
| From: | Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18038A291 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-89-80, EA-89-179, NUDOCS 9003130058 | |
| Download: ML18038A290 (4) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Nine Mile Point, Unit 1
- Oswego, New York Docket No.
50-220 License No.
DPR-63 EA 89-179 On August 22-28,
- 1989, an NRC Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) inspection was conducted at Nine Mile Point, Unit 1, to establish and evaluate the facts associated with the licensee's use of the Radwaste Processing Building sub-basement as a liquid waste retention facility.
Based on evaluation of this event and the findings of the AIT inspection, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Action," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C,
( 1989) (Enforcement Policy), the particular violation is set forth below:
10 CFR 50.59(a)(l) permits the holder of a license to make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves a change in the technical specifications or an unreviewed safety question.
10 CFR 50.59(b)( 1) requires, in part, that records of these changes be maintained, and these records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the basis for the determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Section III.C.2. 1 of the Nine Mile Point I Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) states that the north section of the Radwaste Processing Building (which includes the 225'levation sub-basement area) is for storing of solid radioactive waste in metal drums until it is suitable for offsite shipment.
The FSAR also states that the designed control for spilled liquid is to allow the liquid to seek a lower level and thus be accom-modated by the
- sumps, which contain the fluid and pump it directly to storage tanks.
Contrary to the above, changes were made to the facility as described in the FSAR in that
( 1) in July 1981, the 225'levation sub-basement area of the.Radwaste Processing Building was used as a temporary liquid radioactive waste storage
- area, in addition to the storage of the solid radioactive waste contained in metal
- drums, and (2) in October
- 1981, a determination was made by the licensee to use the 225'levation sub-basement as a long term liquid radioactive waste storage area; however, prior to causing these
- changes, the licensee did not develop a wriHen 'safety evaluation to provide a basis for a determination that these changes did not involve unreviewed safety questions.
An analysis was needed to consider, for example, the limits for flooding the sijb-basement area to:
(a) prevent a challenge to the water-tight integrity of the sub-basement and the possibility of unanalyzed releases of radioactivity to the environment; (b) assure that the water level would not topple the solid radioactive waste
- drums, 9003130058 900223 PDR ADOCK 05000220 0
oar.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION substantially thus possibly result during drums were to increasing the radioactivity present in the water and increasing occupational radiation exposure which would a cleanup of the contamination which could result if the topple.
This is a Severity Level III violation.
(Supplement I)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I within 30 days of the date of this 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, (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 may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OrXgfnaI SigneiX 'By NZUMU T.. MSSELQ Milliam T. Russell Regional Administrator Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this/3 day of February 1990