ML20059D090

Notice of Violation from Insp on 930823-0930.Violation Noted:Written Safety Evaluation Not Performed for Changes to Facility in Listed Cases

ML20059D090
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	10/22/1993
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059D079	List: IR 05000373/1993020 ML20059D076 ML20059D090
References
50-373-93-20, 50-374-93-20, NUDOCS 9311020131
Download: ML20059D090 (2)

Text

_ _ _ . _ .__ .

r h

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 License Nos. NPF-11; NPF-18 F

During an NRC inspection conducted on August 23 through September 30, 1993, 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:

1. 10 CFR 50.59 requires the licensee to maintain records of changes in the facility and procedures described in the safety analysis report including a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.

t LaSalle Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Section 6.4.4, states the emergency makeup air filter trains and control room shielding were designed to limit the occupational doses below levels required by Criterion 19 of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A.

LaSalle UFSAR, Section 10.4.7.5, states that an automatic dump to condenser action on high feedwater heater level was provided.

LaSalle UFSAR, Appendix H.3.5.1, states that the steel beams supporting i the ceiling slab at elevation 794 feet - 0 inches in fire zone 5Al was protected to a rating of three hours. .

Contrary to the above, a written safety evaluation was not performed for_ ,

changes to the facility in the following cases:

a. A change to the control room ventilation radiation monitors was completed on April 20, 1993, such that the emergency make-up air filter trains and control room shielding would not limit the occupational doses below levels required by Criterion 19 of 10 CFR 4 50, Appendix A, while in the purge mode. (50-373/93020-Ola(DRP)) -

b. A Unit 2 emergency drain valve for feedwater heater 26B was taken  ;

out-of-service on March 12, 1992, for an entire operating cycle

~

which defeated the automatic dump to condenser action on high level in the feedwater heater. (50-374/93020-Olb(DRP))

Contrary to the above, a written safety evaluation conducted on January 23, 1992, for removal of fire proofing material on steel beams ,

supporting the ceiling slab at elevation 794 feet - 0 inches in fire zone 5Al did not provide an adequate basis for the determination that the change did not involve an unreviewed safety question. Fire ,

protection concerns were not addressed in the safety evaluation. (50-373/93020-Olc(DRP))

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).

9311020131 931022 PDR ADOCK 05000373 O PDR .i

_j

r .

- = * .

Notice of Violation 2

2. Technical specification 6.1.G.2.a(4) states that the onsite review and investigative function personnel shall be responsible for conducting reviews of all proposed changes or modifications to plant systems or equipment that affect nuclear safety. -

Contrary to the above, no onsite review was conducted for a proposed change and modification completed on April 20, 1993, that affected nuclear safety by increasing the control room ventilation radiation monitors' delay time through alteration of capacitors and resistors on an electronic circuit board. (50-373/93020-03(DRP))

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison 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 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 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 resnonse time.

6 Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this 22adday of October 1993 ,

i e + r-  % v - p w q