ML20046C223

Notice of Violation from Insp on 930601-0719.Violation Noted:On 930212,licensee Identified That Mod Made to Units 1 & 2 Main Steam Dump Sys Resulted in Condition Where Steam Flow Capacity Was Less than That Stated in USAR

ML20046C223
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	08/04/1993
From:	Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20046C220	List: IR 05000282/1993010 ML20046C219 ML20046C223
References
50-282-93-10, 50-306-93-10, NUDOCS 9308100011
Download: ML20046C223 (2)

Text

..

L NOTICE OF VIOLATICN Northern States Power Company Docket Nos. 50-282, 50-306 Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-42, DPR-60 During an NRC inspection conducted on June 1 through July 19, 1993, two violations of NRC requirements were identified.

In accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"

10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violations are listed below:

A.

10 CFR Part 55.53(1) states that, "The licensee shall have a biennial medical examination."

Contrary to the above, during the period from March 22, 1989 to April 1, 1993, one of your operators, licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55, did not receive a medical examination. During this period of time, the subject operator performed licensed duties at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant as authorized under license number OP-30720, issued effective July 10, 1989.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I).

B.

10 CFR Part 50.59 states, in part, that the licensee "may (1) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report, without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change, test, or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question."

Contrary to the above, on February 12, 1993, the licensee identified that the modification it made to the Unit I and Unit 2 main steam dump systems (around 1977) resulted in a condition where the steam flow capacity of the main steam dump system was less than the capacity stated in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR), and did not perform a safety evaluation to determine if this condition involved an unreviewed safety question until July 19, 1993, after the NRC inspectors informed the licensee that the existing condition of the main steam dump systems constituted a change to the facility as described in the USAR.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I).

With respect to Item B, the inspection showed that steps had been taken to correct the identified violation and to prevent recurrence. Consequently, no reply to the violation is required and we have no further questions regarding this matter.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Northern States Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.

20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy to the 930B100011 930804 PDR ADOCK 05000282 G

PDR_

Notice of Violation AUG 0 41993 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 the violation cited in Item A:

(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 a demand for information 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. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

b Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois W. D. Shafer Chief this qtb day of August 1993 Reactor Projects Branch 2 l

t

.