ML20141E264
| ML20141E264 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1997 |
| From: | Merschoff E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Horn G NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141E270 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-96-24, 50-298-96-31, NUDOCS 9707010018 | |
| Download: ML20141E264 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000298/1996024
Text
,
,
_=
-
.
. .
_
. - -
-.
...
.
-.
- . - .
_
t '
l
I
nnacOg
UNITED STATES
'
i
+
t
E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
o
- !
$
REGloN IV
f
E
611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. sulTE 400
+0
ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-8064
...s
June 25. 1997
EA 97-017
1
G. R. Horn, Senior Vice President
'
of Energy Supply
Nebraska Public Power District
141415th Street
Columbus, Nebraska 68601
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION
(NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-298/96-24 and 96-31)
.
Dear Mr. Horn:
.
,
This refers to inspections conducted at the Nebraska Public Power District's (NPPD)
"
Cooper Nuclear Station which were documented in the subject NRC inspection reports.
.
These inspections identified several apparent violations related to the accuracy of Cooper's
j
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) and the adequacy of certain analyses performed
under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. The results of the inspections and our concerns
were discussed with Mr. Phil Graham and others of your s:aff on February 19,1997. The
,
inspection reports were issued on February 25,1997, and February 28,1997,
respectively. A predecisional enforcement conference was held in Arlington, Texas on
April 15,1997, to discuss the apparent violations. The issues discussed during the
predecisional enforcement conference also included a review of NPPD's January 24,1997,
,
letter (reference the NRC's letter to you dated February 28,1997), and a review of
whether Cooper's LER 96 14-01 identified a loss of control of the license basis (reference
NRC's letter to you dsted April 8,1997). The NRC issued a meeting summary related to
'
the topics discussed at the predecisional enforcement conference in a letter to you dated
May 14,1997.
i
Based on the information developed during the inspections and the information that you
provided during the conference, as well as communications with your staff on specific
issues following the conference, the NRC has determined that violations of NRC
requirements occurred. These violations are cited in Enclosure 1, the Notice of Violation
(Notice), and the circumstances surrounding them were described in detail in the subject
inspection reports and above referenced letters. The first violation contains eight examples
of a failure to update the USAR as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e). The second violation
contains three examples of a failure to perform adequate written safety evaluations in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
l
During the conference, your staff contested five of the examples that the NRC had
identified as apparent violations. The NRC has reviewed NPPD's reasons for contesting /
these five examples, and has decided in three cases not to include the examples in the
Notice of Violation. Our basis for this decision and our decision that violations did occur in
the remaining two contested examples, are discussed in detailin Enclosure 2.
lllllllllllff.fllf.lllllflll
"
9707010018 970625
ADOCK 05000298
..
.
O
-
u
.
l
'
I
l
Nebraska Public
-2-
!
Power District
l
In 1996, your staff determined that Cooper's USAR had many inaccuracies. However,
your staff delayed in addressing the problem such that by the time of our inspection in
October 1996, our inspectors identified further examples of USAR discrepancies in addition
to those which your staff had identified and had not yet corrected. None of the issues
impacted current operability, and the safety significance for these violations is low.
Nonetheless, in the aggregate, these two violations are of regulatory significance because
they represent a programmatic failure to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e) and
10 CFR 50.59. This shows a significant lack of attention to detail on your part and has
resulted in our current regulatory concern about the accuracy of the USAR. Therefore,
these violations are classified in the aggregate in accordance with the " General Statement
of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600
as a Severity Level 111 problem.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy, a base civil penalty in the amount of $50,000
is considered for a Severity Level 111 problem. Because your facility has been the subject of
escalated enforcement actions within the last 2 years', the NRC considered whether credit
was warranted for identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty
assessment process in Section VI.B.2 of the Enforcement Policy. The NRC has determined
that credit is not warranted for identification because (1) although your staff identified the
general problem of USAR inaccuracies in May 1996, the issues were not addressed in a
timely manner, and (2) most of the specific issues that were the subject of the
]
predecisional enforcement conference were identified by the NRC. However, the NRC
1
determined that credit is warranted for Corrective Action. This determination is based on
i
the numerous and comprehensive corrective actions you have undertaken to address the
underlying cauea of the problem. Some of the corrective actions include: the USAR has
been changed or clarified for the identified items; an audit has been conducted on-site to
verify the accuracy of the USAR; Cooper management has increased the focus on using
Problem identification Reports (PIRs) to identify USAR inconsistencies; training has begun
on conducting evaluations required by 10 CFR 50.59; additional management oversight of
'
the evaluations will be provided; Cooper's procedures for performing the evaluations have
been upgraded; Cooper has developed an action plan to review potential unauthorized
modifications that have resulted from past maintenance activities; and Cooper has
developed a USAR rebaselining project, which includes developing a database of design
and licensing basis documentation that will facilitate performance of more comprehensive
10 CFR 50.59 evaluations.
The normal civil penalty assessment process in this case would result in a $50,000 civil
penalty being proposed. However, af ter consultation with the Director, Office of
Enforcement, I have been authorized not to propose a civil penalty in this case in
accordance with the provisions provided in Section Vll.B.6 of the NRC's Enforcement
Policy. This decision is based on: (1) consideration of the generally low safety significance
f
l
' The most recent case involved a Severity Level 111 violation issued on December 20,
'
1996 (EA 96-488), with no civil penalty, for a f ailure to meet station blackout
requirements.
. . ,
. - . - .
_ . . . -
- ~ . - . - - . . -
- - . . - . - . - -
-
. - . - . . . . _ .
_
-
.
i
.
!.
4
Nebraska Public
~-3-
l
Power District
i
.
of the violations; (2) the comprehensiveness of NPPD's corrective actions; (3) the f act that
the inspections were occurring at about the same time the NRC's Enforcement Policy was
!
revised to place additional emphasis on USAR accuracy problems; and (4) our recognition
l
that communication: with the NRC may have inadvertently contributed to delaying your
2
USAR upgrade progr0m . However, significant violations in the future could resu!t in a civil
j
penalty.
l
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
i
regulatory requirements.
a
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the.NRC's " Rules of hm.
,e," a copy of this letter, -
its enclosures, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR).
Sincerely,
h Ellis W. Merschoff
Regional Administrator
Docket No. 50-298
License No. DPR-46
)
Enclosures: As stated
cc w/ enclosures: (see next page)
l
l
? NPPD planned to update the USAR to include all safety basis information and
eliminate nonsafety basis information using 10 CFR 50.59. NRC concerns about the
acceptability of removing nonsafety basis information (i.e., the basis for using 10 CFR 50.59 was being questioned) resulted in NPPD placing the project on hold pending
resolution of these questions. During a May 9,1996 meeting (reference NRC
Memorandum dated May 20,1996), the licensee informed the NRC that the overall USAR
upgrade program was on hold. Additionai guidance on the use of 10 CFR 50.59 to remove
j
information from the USAR was not available at the time of the meeting.
, _ .
- - _ - . _
.
i
j
Nebraska Public
-4-
Power District
cc w/ enc!osures:
John R. McPhail, General Counsel
Nebraska Public Power District
P.O. Box 499
Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499
l
P. D. Graham, Vice President of
Nuclear Energy
Nebraska Public Power District
j
P.O. Box 98
l
Brownville, Nebraska 68321
B. L. Houston, Nuclear Licensing
and Safety Manager
Nebraska Public Power District
P.O. Box 98
Brownville, Nebraska 68321
R. J. Singer, Manager-Nuclear
Midwest Power
907 Walnut Street
P..O. Box 657
Des Moines, Iowa 50303
Mr. Ron Stoddard
Lincoln Electric System
11th and O Streets
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
Randolph Wood, Director
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
Chairman
Nemaha County Board of Commissioners
Nemaha County Courthouse
1824 N Street
Auburn, Nebraska 68305
. ,
_. .- . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _
_ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . . - _ _ _
. _ _
_ . _ .
_ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ .
-
l
,
j
Nebraska Public
-5-
Power District
4
Cheryl Rogers, LLRW Program Manager
'
Environmental Protection Section
Nebraska Department of Health
301 Centennial Mall, South
P.O. Box 95007
e
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007
Dr. Mark 8. Horton, M.S.P.H.
,
Director
.
Nebraska Department of Health
P.O. Box 950070
Linco;n, Nebraska 68509-5007
.
4
i
R. A. Kucera, Department Director
i
of Intergovernmental Cooperation
j
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
1
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Kansas Radiation Control Program Director
,
!
l
l
f
e
e
i
.
6
i
.
- '
.
--
- . ,
-
--
,
m
.
s
!
Nebraska Public
-6-
Power District
I
bec w/ Enclosures:
'W
l
LPDR
NUDOCS
SECY
EC's: Rl, Rll, Rlli
CA
PA (0-2G4)
EDO (0-17G21)
OlG (T-5D28)
DEDO (0-17G21)
OE (0-7H5)
OE:EAFile (0-7H5)
01 (0-3E4)
OGC (0-15818)
OGC (0-15B18)
NRR (0-12G18)
NRR/ADP (0-12G18)
JRHall, NRR (0-13H3)
OC/DAF (T-9E10)
OC/LFDCB (T-9E10)
AEOD (T-4D18)
GFSanborn > EAFile
RIV Files
EMerschoff-RA Reading File
E-mail Distribution:
OEMAll
JDyer (JED2)
TPGwynn (TPG)
WBrown (WLB)
AHowell ( ATH)
DChamberlain (DDC)
KPerkins (KEP)
KBrockman (KEB)
ECollins (EEC)
CVandenburgh (CAV)
LSmith (LJS)
BHenderson (BWH)
MVasquez (GMV)
IBarnes (IXB)
MMiller (MHM)
CSkinner (CES1)
1
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\EA\\ FINAL \\EA97017.FNL
A
RC
h
D:DRh
QE h $My ,#; ok j
c(o
4
ruan
k
WBrown
ATHowell
MI/97
h4k97
-- __
\\
D'.DOMOL O
ICIAL RECORD COPYg
f?
}d4R
j
6 bc>m p ,n
f/w ~