ML20101S646
| ML20101S646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1984 |
| From: | Larson C NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8502050569 | |
| Download: ML20101S646 (2) | |
Text
-
lf Y
~
j 3
Northem States Power Company 414 N(ol!ct Matt Menneapohs Minnesota 55401 TeWphone (612) 330 5500 December 20, 1984 Mr W D Shafer, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 2, Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcement US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants Docket No. 50-282, License No. DPR-42 Docket No. 50-306, License No. DPR-60 In response to your letter of November 28, 1984, which transmitted Inspection Reports No. 50-282/84-11 (DRP) and 50-306/84-11 (DRP), the following information is offered.
Violation 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2) states, in part,
"...the licensee shall notify the NRC.... within four hours of the occurrence of any of the following:
(ii) Any event or condition that results in manual or automatic actuation of any Engineered Safety Feature, including... However, actuation of the ESF, including the RPS, that results from and is part of the preplanned sequence during testing or reactor operation need not be reported."
Contrary to the above, the unplanned start of the D-1 diesel generator was not reported to the NRC Operations Center within four hours.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).
l 8502050569 841220 PDR ADOCK 05000282 O
PDR nEC31 1034 Ffdl lD t
&T -
r.-
' O ['s..s. Mr W D. Shnfsr,. Rigica III, I&E December 20, 1984 '
.Page 2 Northem States Power Company
Response
The night of September 5,1984 one diesel generator was found running.
It was not immediately known whether it had been left running from
_ previous testing that evening or if it was running as.the result of an unplanned start;'in fact, that investigation took several hours. The morning of September 6th it was concluded that it was indeed an unplanned start,'and the event was reported within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of the time that conclusion was reached.
Since there.will be ~ noteworthy plant events _ whose reportability status cannot be determined within the 10CFR 50.72 time frames, instructions have been _ issued urging conservatism in the use of the Emergency Notifica-tion System. Full compliance has been achieved.
Violation Technical Specification.6.5 states, in part, " Detailed written procedures, s including the applicable checkoff lists and instructions, covering areas listed below shall be prepared and followed... A. Plant Operations..."
Contrary to the above, on October 2,1984,'the voltage restoration scheme for Bus' 25 was not placed-in manual prior to transferring D.C. control power as required by operating procedure C 20.9 Rev. 7 as modified' by temporary memo 84-47.
< This is 'a. Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).
Response
~
'Cause of the event was simply verbal communication misunderstanding y 9 between those doing the work. - The' investigative report of the event was
-routed'to' personnel in the involved groups. Full compliance has been -
l achieved. '~
l C E Larson
.Vice President-Nuclear Generation c: : Resident Inspector, NRC G.'Charnoff
+
t '
s
.,m-
-m.-m,----,n,v