ML20046C219
| ML20046C219 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1993 |
| From: | Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Antony D NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20046C220 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308100008 | |
| Download: ML20046C219 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000282/1993010
Text
beb bme
i
"
,
.
AUG 0 4133
Docket No. 50-282
i
Docket No. 50-306
Northern States Power Company
ATTN: Mr. D. D. Antony
Vice President, Nuclear
Generation
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Dear Mr. Antony:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Messrs. M. Dapas and
R. Bywater of this office from June 1 to July 19, 1993, of activities at the
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC
'
Operating Licenses No. DPR-42 and No. DPR-60, and to the discussion of our
findings with Mr. K. Albrecht and other 7 embers of your staff at the
conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during
the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and
interviews with personnel.
Based on the results of this inspection, certain of your activities appeared
to be in violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice of
Violation (Notice). The violation cited in Item A of the enclosed Notice,
regarding the failure of a licensed operator to obtain a required medical
evaluation, is of concern because prior notification of problems with licensed
operator medical examinations was provided in NRC Information Notice 91-08,
issued February 5,1991, and su had ample opportunity to identify
,
discrepancies in your own medical evaluation program. While we recognize and
encourage your initiative to review information from other sites which led to
the discovery of discrepancies in your own program, the criteria of Section
VII.B of the Enforcement Po'jicy (non-cited violations) was not applied since
you had prior notice of shilar problems and thus could have identified your
program discrepancies much earlier.
In addition, we request that you convey
to each licensed operator that they have an individual responsibility to
ensure that required 5redical examinations are obtained.
,
With respect to ti.e violation cited in Item B of the enclosed Notice regarding
the failure to perform a required 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation for the main steam
dump system, this violation is of concern because once you identified that the
modification you made to the steam dump system resulted in a steam flow
capacity that was less than the capacity stated in the Updated Safety Analysis
Report (USAR), and thus constituted a change to the facility as described in
lI
9308100008 930804'.
ADDCK 05000282
G
PDR_
g
i
's
r
.
t
04 W
Northern States Power Company
-2-
the USAR, you did not recognize the need for a 50.59 evaluation.
You
concluded that a 50.59 evaluation was not required because the main steam dump
system is a non-safety related system and you intended to restore this system
to its original configuration during your next outage.
It was only after
discussion with the resident staff that you understood the need to perform a
safety evaluation to determine if an unreviewed safety question existed during
the interim. The resident inspectors have reviewed your corrective actions in
response to this violation and have concluded that you have taken appropriate
!
action to address this issue. Therefore, no response is required with respect
to Item B of the enclosed Notice.
,
Notwithstanding your performance in the areas involving violations, several
strengths were identified during this inspection period. Your response to
plant flooding conditions, your actions to avert a shutdown transient upon the
loss of instrument air to containment, the involvement of your system
engineers in diesel generator surveillance testing, and your efforts to
address steam generator tube degradation, were noted strengths.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions
specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response to Item A.
In
your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any
additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your
response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions, and the
results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC
'
enforcement action is necessary to en.,ure compliance with NRC regulatory
'
requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of
this letter and its enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
-
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not
subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
W. D. Shafer, Chief
Reactor Projects Branch 2
Enclosures: Notice of Violation
Inspection Reports
No. 50-282/93010(DRP);
No. 50-306/93010(DRP)
j
See Attached Distributdon
.
I /
RII Vfp
RIII
I III
JMH
McCWe (
RIII TjQ
Ring
Pir
Sha r
Schweibinz
(para. I d
t\\ g
.
pg
j
c
- - _ .
..
.
r
.c
.
,
Northern States Power Company
-3-
AUG 0 41993
I
Distribution:
I
cc w/ enclosure:
E. L. Watzl, Site Manager,
Prairie Island Site
,
M. Wadley, Plant Manager
,
t
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspector, RIII Prairie
,
Island
Resident Inspector, RIII Monticello
'
John W. Ferman, Ph.D.,
Nuclear Engineer, MPCA
State Liaison Officer, State
of Minnesota
State liaison Officer, State
of Wisconsin
-
'
bec:
PUBLIC
IE 01
l
,
E
,
f
-
- -
.
.
c