ML20234E954

Ack Receipt of 870902 Response to Violation Noted in Insp Rept 50-298/87-18.Addl Info Re Corrective Actions Planned or Completed to Provide Training in Reporting Requirements of 10CFR50.72 & 73 Requested within 30 Days of Ltr Date

ML20234E954
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	09/18/1987
From:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Trevors G NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 8709220578
Download: ML20234E954 (2)

See also: IR 05000298/1987018

Text

_

l

.. .

SEP181997

In Reply Refer To:

Docket: 50-298/87-18

Nebraska Public Power District

ATTN: George A. Trevors  !

Division Manager - Nuclear Support

P. O. Box 499

Columbus, NE 68601

Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letter of September 2,1987, in response to our letter l

and the attached Notice of Violation dated August 4, 1987. As a result of

our review we find that your response asked questions, which we shall

address herein. The information in this letter was discussed with your

Messrs. G. Trevors and D. Tarczom, by telephone, on September 16, 1987.

Although you admit not reporting the isolation of the reactor water clean up i

(RWCU) system, you state your belief that ti.is was not reportable because it

was only a failure to follow procedures. You cite NUREG 1022, Supplement 1,

Question and Answer 2.7 as the basis for this position. We note that this

reference states, inter alia, " . . . whether it is reportable depends upon if

it results in a condition covered by the rule." The resultant condition, in

this case, was a RWCU system isolation; this is an actuation of an engineered

safety feature (ESF). The regulations (10 CFR, Part 50.73) state that ESF

actuations are reportable. NUREG 1022 also discusses this in detail. We also ,

understand that you were conducting a test when the RWCU isolation occurred;

however, RWCU isolation was not a desired result of the test. We additionally

note that this occurrence should have been reported under the provisions of

10 CFR 50.72 at the time of occurrence.

Your letter also cited Question and Answer 11.3 of Supplement 1 to

NUREG 1022. This concerned the issue of a disagreement between an inspector

and the licensee as to whether or not an LER is required. The answer given is i

that the regional office will provide the staff position. Your letter

requests this office to provide such a position in this instance. The

issuance of the violation constituted the regional office position, for

inspectors do not issue violations; the region issues them.

,

870922057s 870918

PDR ADOCK 05000298

G PDR

-

I

l

m

ol

l y

i

\

'

C:RP8/A r RPB D:DRSP

JPJaudon:cs !f >C:

JEGagliardo LJCallan A

9/O/87 \ 9/ O'/87 9/lV87

g

I I

__ ______-__-_ -

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

a .

Nebraska Public Power -2-

I District

You further stated that you would submit an LER within 30 days following

receipt of the Region IV position. This position was provided by telephone to

your Messers. Trevors and Torczom on September 16, 1987.

In summary, we find that additional information is needed. Specifically, we

request that you inform us of your corrective actions, planned or completed,

to provide appropriate training in reporting requirements (10 CFR, Parts 50.72

and 50.73). We also expect that the licensee event report on this event would

address the reasons that the surveillance test was not successfully performed

and remedial actions taken.

Please provide the supplemental information within 30 days of the date of this

letter.

Sincerely,

/$

L. J. Callan, Director

D vision of Reactor Safety

and Projects

cc:

Guy Horn, Division Manager

of Nuclear Operations

Cooper Nuclear Station

P. O. Box 98

Brownville, Nebraska 68321

Kansas Radiation Control Program Director

Nebraska Radiation Control Program Director

bec distrib. by RIV:

RPB DRSP

RRI R. D. Martin, RA

Section Chief (RPB/A) D. Weiss, RM/ALF

RPSB RSB

MIS System Prcject Inspector, RPB

RIV File R. Hall

RSTS Operator W. Long, NRR Project Manager

-- -

,u , i

e

.

• COOPER NUCLEAR STATION

Nebraska Public Power District " " "d", *o"~;M Uf"f,'T^ "'"

-

I

CNSS876042

September 2, 1987 $@$bb

5 '

SEP ~ 81987 ,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "

Document Control Desk

Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject: Response to IE Inspection Report No. 50-298/87-18

Gentlemen

This letter is written in response to your letter dated August 4, 1987,

transmitting Inspection Report No. 50-298/87-18. Therein you indicated that

one of our activities was in violation of NRC requirements.

The following is the statement of the violation and our response in accordance

with 10CFR2.201:

Statement Of Violation

Failure to Report as Required by 10CFR50.73

10CFR50.73(a)(2)(iv) requires the licensee to submit events as licensee

event reports (LERs) for, "Any event or condition that resulted in manual

or automatic actuation of any Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) . . . ."

Contrary to the above, an ESF isolation of Reactor Water Clean Up (RWCU)

occurred on May 5, 1987, which was not reported as an LER.

This is a Severity Level IV violation. (Supplement II) (298/87108-01)

Reason For The Violation

Based upon the alleged violation provided in Appendix B, Paragraph 4 of the

Inspection Report, the District acknowledges NRC assessment that closure of

RWCU H0-15 constitutes an event to be reported as a Licensee Event Report

(LER). Previously, based upon District evaluation of the situation and our

understanding of the reporting requirements pres'cribed in 10CFR50.73, the

conclusion had been reached that valve closure occurring, subsequent to

,

satisfactory completion of actuation circuitry surveillance testing did not

l constitute an event or condition that resulted in manual or automatic

l actuation of an ESF. Instead, the closure occurred when a procedural step was

I not correctly executed during system restoration, not as a result of logic

'

initiation and subsequent valve actuation. In accordance with the response to

Question 2.7 provided in NUREG 1022. Supplement 1, procedural violations are

not necessarily reportable. Therefore, believing this to be a procedure

violation only and not an ESF actuation, the situation was not reported as an

LER. k

.M9 /2.5 / 4%M*d FP - --

.

....Mai

.

.Documsnt Control Dssk

.. . September 2, 1987

, Page 2

Corrective Steps Which Have Been Taken And The Results Achieved

As provided for in NUREG 1022, Supplement 1, in the response to Question 11.3,

the District understands that where there may be a disagreement regarding LER

submitta1' requirements, we will be advised of the NRC Region IV position and

proper action to be taken. In light of the foregoing explanation,.the fact

that a non-conformance report was previously written against the event,-and

the NUREG provided provisions regarding disagreements that may arise, the

District requests that Region IV Office re-assess their position and advise us

~

as to their determination. Based upon our understanding of reporting time

limits provided in the response to Question 14.2 (NUREG 1022, Supplement 1),

we would then have 30 days from the date of your response to submit the

required LER, prior to being considered in violation of LER reportinp;

requirements.

Corrective Steps Which Will'Be Taken To Avoid Further Violations

The Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) will continue to evaluatt those

events that~ appear to be questionable under the deportability requirements of

10CFR50.73 utilizing guidance provided in 10CFR50.73, NUREG~1022, Supplements

to NUREG'1022, and other documents, as applicable, such as Generic Letter 87-09. In the future, if,-after initial SORC review and evaluation, che

deportability requirement for an event is questionable, the NPPD Nuclear

Licensing and Safety Department will be contacted for guidance and

interpretation. In all situations, however, it is assumed that the g.tidance

provided in NUREG 1022, Supplement 1. Question 11.3, is valid and that, should

a disagreement regarding LER submittal requirements arise, the District, where

necessary, will pursue the NRC Region IV position, including proper actiors to

be taken by the District.

With respect to the cited incident, SORC will review the guidance to be

provided by NRC Region IV, in committee, and will utilize said guidance when

evaluating the deportability of future similar events.

Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved

Full compliance will be achieved, via LER submittal, within 30 days following

receipt of the NRC Region IV position.

Sincerely,

G. . Trevors

Division Manager - #

Nuclear Support

GAT:GRH:ya j

cc: S.' Region Office

Region IV

Resident Inspector

Cooper Nuclear Station

1

_ _a