ML20138N675
| ML20138N675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1997 |
| From: | Grant G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Wadley M NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138N678 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-97-032, EA-97-32, NUDOCS 9703030094 | |
| Download: ML20138N675 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000263/1996009
Text
_
_
_
o
t
l
$
,
February 20,1997
EA 97-032
Mr. M. D. Wadley
Vice President, Nuclear Generation
,
Northern States Power Company
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
i
l
SUBJECT:
NRC SYSTEM OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE INSPECTION (SOPI) REPORT
50-263/96009(DRS)
!
Dear Mr. Wadley:
This refers to the system operational performance inspection (SOPI) completed January 8,
1997, at the Monticello Nuclear Generating facility. The inspection team assessed the
residual heat removal (RHR) system's operational performance by a detailed review of the
RHR's design, maintenance, operation, and surveillance and testing. The enclosed report
presents the results of this inspection.
,
i
Overall the results of the SOPl inspection raised concerns about an apparent gradual
erosion of the Monticello plant's design and licensing basis. While engineering personnel
appeared competent, the team's review of calculations identified a lack of rigor and
j
attention to detail that did not correlate with our previous view of Monticello's
performance. Safety evaluations, performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, were not
always explicit in stating facts that supported the conclusion that an unreviewed safety
question did not exist. In one case, an unreviewed safety qJestion apparently did exist
and was not identified by your engineering staff. Although the Design Basis Documents
have long been considered a good effort on your part, the way your staff resolved
concerns identified during the design basis reconstitution appears to have been less than
'
adequate in some cases.
Additionally, we are concerned about the continuing problems with test control, especially
incorporation of correct design limits. We have brought test control issues to your
j
attention in several inspection reports over the last year, including 50-263/96005, 96006,
and 96008. The continued occurrence of prc Mms eppears to indicate that broader
i
corrective actions are required to resolve the issues.
The team did note knowledgeable performance by auxiliary operators and good adherence
j
to procedures in the operations area. Additionally, the team judged maintenance to be
(
generally well performed, although procedures were considered to be weak.
I
I
'
9703030094 970220
ADOCK 05000263
G
rJeo(
womme
o
i
'
M. D. Wadley
-2-
February 20,1997
1
l
Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC
requirements occurred. These violations are cited in the enclosed Notice of Violation
(Notice) and the circumstances surrounding them are described in detail in the subject
'
inspection report.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the
enclosed Notice when preparing your response. The NRC will use your response, in part,
to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with
regulatory requirements.
1
In addition, an apparent violation was identified and is being considered for escalated
enforcement action !n accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for
NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600. This apparent violation
involves an inadequate safety review item performed in 1995 which did not identify that
the change involved an unreviewed safety question. The safety review item concluded
that no unreviewed safety question existed when changing the required post accident
emergency core cooling pump configuration, even though (1) the technical specifications
and technical specification bases explicitly defined the post accident ECCS pump
configuration, (2) the containment temperature increased by ten degrees shoit term and
two degrees long term, and (3) a different, unapprov3d, computer code was used in the
analyses although the safety analysis report had specifically noted that the previous code
was approved by NRC. Accordingly, no Notice of Violation is presently being issued for
this inspection finding. In addition, please be advised thet the number and characterization
of apparent violations described in the enclosed inspection report may change as a result
of further NRC review.
An open predecisional enforcement conference to discuss this apparent violation has been
I
scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 5,1997. The decision to hold a
j
predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that the NRC has determined that a
l
violation has occurred nr that enforcement action will be taken. This conference is being
held to obtain information to enable the NRC to make an enfor.:ement decision, such as a
common understanding of the facts, root causes, missed opportunities to identify the
apparent violation sooner, corrective actions, significance, of the issues and the need for
lasting and effective corrective action. In particular, we expect you to address the
changes necessary to improve the safety evaluation process to ensure that, in the future,
issues involving unreviewed safety questions are properly characterized and appropriately
submitted to the NRC. Ir: ddition, this is an opportunity for you to point out any errors in
our inspection report and for you to provide any information concerning your perspectives
on 1) the severity of the violation,2) the application of the factors that the NRC considers
when it determines the amount of a civil penalty that may be assessed in accordance with
Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy, and 3) any other application of the Enforcoment
Policy to this case, including the exercise of discretion in accordance with Section Vll.
Following the conference, you will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of
our deliberations on the apparent violation. Therefore, no response regarding the apparent
violation is required at this time.
e
.
M. D. Wadley
-3-
February 20, 1997
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter,
its enclosure (s), and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by Geoffrey E. Grant
Geoffrey E. Grant, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No. 50-263
Enclosures:
2. Inspection Report 50-263/96009(DRS)
cc w/encis:
Plant Manager, Monticello
John W. Ferman, Ph.D.
Nuclear Engineer, MPCA
State Liaison Officer, State
of Minnesota
Distribution:
Docket File w/enci
SRIs, Monticello
CAA1 w/ encl
PUBLIC IE-01 w/enct
Prairie Island w/enci
J. Lieberman, OE w/en l
OC/LFDCB w/ encl
LPM, NRR w/enct
J. Goldberg, OGC w/ encl
DRP w/ encl
A. B. Beach, Ritt w/enci
R. Zimmerman, NRR w/ encl
DRS w/enci
W. L. Axelson, Rlll w/ encl
Rlli PRR w/enci
Enf. Coordinator, Rlll w/enci
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\DRS\\ MON 96009.DRS
To reoolve a copy of this document. Indicate in the box:
'C" = Copy w/o attachment / enclosure 'E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N' = No copy
0FFICE
RIII:DRS
lg
Rlll:DRS
lE
RIIIM
. mM RIII:EICS le
RIII:DRS_
.
NAME
Lougheed/kjc M
Rincr A
Jaq6bsoNW\\
Cl ayton g,,c_
Leach /GrWW
DATE
02//3 /97
02/ s q /97
02/ b /fC)
02// 4 /97
02/ 2.0 //9 7 )
0FFICIALREC0%f0PY)
W