ML20045A820
| ML20045A820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045A814 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-93-18, NUDOCS 9306150029 | |
| Download: ML20045A820 (2) | |
Text
.
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Nebraska Public Power District Docket: 50-293 Cooper Nuclear Station License: DPR-46 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 26-30 and May 10-14,_1993, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR 2, Appendix C, the violations are listed below:
A.
Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, states, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, deficiencies and nonconformances, are promptly identified and corrected; and that measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
Contrary to the above, historical measures taken upon failure of a safety-related control room ventilation radiation monitor did not assure
'that the cause of conditions were determined and that corrective actions precluded repetition; for instance:
(1) frcm 1987 to 1989 inadequate procedures that allowed unintended high voltage to be admitted to the monitor either were not corrected or were not corrected in a timely manner, and (2) from 1990 to 1993 the monitor's filter paper drive belt experienced repeated failures.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (298/9318-01) (Supplement I).
B.
In part, 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) states, that a license may make a change in the facility, as described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves an unreviewed safety question.
In part, 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) states, that a proposed change shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if the consequences of an accident evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased.
In part, 10 CFR 50.59(b)(1) states, that the licensee shall maintain 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, on October 30, 1992, the licensee approved 1
proposed Design Change 90-0226 modification to a drywell ventilation radiation monitor.
The change, which was not placed in service, would have replaced the old monitor with a new monitor that did not meet the design basis accident pressure rating, and, therefore, would have-increased the consequences of the design basis accident and, therefore, constituted an unreviewed safety question. Specifically in the event of a design basis accident, the new radiation monitor would have failed and:
1.
Breached primary containment; t
G n
w
t l-2.
Subjected personnel inside secondary containment to high radiation; 3.
Delayed reentry to secondary containment; and 4.
Increased the likelihood of radiation exposure to the general public.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (298/9318-02) (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2.201, Nebraska Public Power District is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTH: Document Control Desk, Washington, D. C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, 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). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation or if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (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.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or 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.
Dated at Arlingt
, Texas this 9tday of 1993 r
4
+