IR 05000604/2007015
| ML17291A966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia, 05000604  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1995 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17291A965 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-95-20, NUDOCS 9508220160 | |
| Download: ML17291A966 (2) | |
Text
"
ENCLOSURE
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Washington Public Power Supply System Washington Nuclear Project
Docket:
50-397 License:
NPF-21 During an NRC inspection conducted on June 4 through July 15, 1995, three violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the
"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
FR 34381, June 30, 1995, the violations are listed below:
A.
B.
CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states
"procedures shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished:"
Contrary to the above, on June 6,
1995, Plant Procedure Manual (PPM) 3. 1. 1, "Master Startup Checklist," did not contain appropriate qualitative or quantitative acceptance criteria to assure proper installation of the control rod housing support which resulted in the housing support being installed improperly (a jam nut was missing and gaps were not properly adjusted).
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) (397/9520-01).
Technical Specification 6.8. l.d requires that surveillance procedures be implemented.
Surveillance procedure PPH 7.4.3.7.5 '8, Revision 6, Steps 7.3.2 and 7.3.3 required technicians to identify and lift leads for Terminal Block E51A-SRU-1 in the rear of Cabinet H13-P612.
Contrary to the above, on July 12, 1995, while performing surveillance Procedure PPH 7.4.3.7.5. 18, Revision 6, Steps 7.3.2 and 7.3.3, technicians did not identify and lift leads for Terminal Block E51A-SRU-1 in the rear of Cabinet H13-P612 and lifted the incorrect lead.
C.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) (397/9520-02).
CFR 50.59(b)( 1) states
"The licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility.
.
.
made pursuant to this section, to the extent that these changes constitute a change to the facility and described in the safety analysis report.
These changes must include a
written safety evaluation which provides a basis for determination that the change, test, or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question."
Contrary to the above, as of July 3, 1994, Temporary Modification Request (TMR)95-030 resulted in a change to the facility as described 9508220l60 9508l6 PDR ADQCK 05000397 PL ann
in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), but a written safety evaluation was not performed.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) (397/9520-03).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Washington Public Power Supply System is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, O.C.
20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, 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.
Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order or a
Demand for Information may be issued as to 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 response time.
Dated at Arlington, Texas, this 16th day of August 1995