ML16148A526

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notice of Violation from Insp on 910526-0629.Violation Noted:Unit 2 Not Maintained in Accordance W/Approved Procedures,On 910530 Low Pressure Injection Flow Instrument 2FT-4A Found Isolated During Pump Performance Test
ML16148A526
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/16/1991
From: Herdt A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML16148A525 List:
References
50-269-91-12, 50-270-91-12, 50-287-91-12, NUDOCS 9108120220
Download: ML16148A526 (2)


Text

ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Duke Power Company Docket Nos. 50-269, -270, and -287 Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 License Nos. DPR-38, -47, and -55 During an NRC inspection conducted on May 26 - June 29, 1991, violations of NRC requirements were identified.

In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy.and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1991), the violations are listed below:

A. Technical Specification 6.4.1 requires that the. station be operated and maintained in accordance:with approved procedures.

Station Directive 2.2.2, Independent Verification, states that independent verification applies to the removal from operability and restoration to operability of all components which affect the ability of a system to perform a safety related function.

Maintenance Directive 7.5.3, Work Request Implementation, requires that opening/closing of instrument valves be documented and independently verified.

Contrary to the above, Unit 2 was not operated and maintained in accordance with approved procedures in that, on May 30, 1991, Low Pressure Injection flow instrument. 2FT-4A was found isolated during a pump performance test. The instrument had been independently verified as being returned to service after calibration approximately one week earlier.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement 1) and applies to Unit 2 only.

B. Technical Specification 6.4.1 requires that the station be operated and maintained in accordance with approved procedures and that the procedures contain appropriate check off lists and instructions.

Operations. Management Procedure 1-9, Use of Procedures, Section 6.3 requires that no deviation from the original intent of the procedure shall be allowed without an approved procedure change.

Contrary to the above, Unit 3 was not operated and maintained in accordance with approved procedures in that, on May 25, '1991, during the performance of Operating Procedure OP/3/A/1104/01, Core Flooding System, to makeup to the "B" Core Flood Tank, the procedure could not be performed as written and a procedure change was not initiated or approved prior to sluicing the "A" Core Flood Tank to the "B" Core Flood Tank which deviated from the intent of Operating Procedure OP/3/A/1104/01.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement 1) and applies to Unit 3 only.

9108I2022O 910716 PDR ADfC:(

0500026'9

Duke Power Company 2

Docket Nos. 50-269, -270, and -287 Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3 License Nos. DPR-38, -47, and -55 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, 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. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause 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.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Alan R. Herdt, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 16th day of.July 1991 0II