ML17229A373
| ML17229A373 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17229A372 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-97-04, 50-335-97-4, 50-389-97-04, 50-389-97-4, NUDOCS 9706100035 | |
| Download: ML17229A373 (3) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Docket Nos. 50-335, 50-389 License Nos.
DPR-67, NPF-16 Florida Power and Light Company St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2
During the NRC inspections conducted during the period of March 30 through May 10, 1997, violations of NRC requi rements were identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
NUREG-1600, the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.8. l.a requires that written procedures be established, implemented, and maintained covering the activities recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2,.
February.
1978.
Appendix A, paragraph l.d includes administrative procedures for procedural adherence.
Procedure QI 5-PSL-l, Revision 1, "Preparation.
- Revision, Review/Approval of Procedures,"
Section 4.7. 1 requires verbatim compliance to procedures by all personnel.
Contrary to the above, during the period of April 19 to April 29, the licensee failed to follow Operating Procedure
- 0010122, Revision 68, "In-Plant Equipment Clearance Orders,"
as evidenced by the following examples:
1.
Section 8. 15.9.B of the subject procedure states "The Clearance Controller shall return to the appropriate shop to obtain approval for the Clearance Boundary Modification from all Clearance Holders presently signed into the Clearance Control Form."
Contrary to the above.
on April 19, a Maintenance Supervisor released a clearance to allow the boundary modification of an Equipment Clearance Order on the Circulating Water System and failed to inform the Mechanical
- Foreman, the clearance holder Section
- 8. 15.6 of the subject procedure states, in part, that
"...A boundary modification NOT requiring a work stoppage shall only be performed in a manner that does NOT create any unsafe conditions for the personnel working within the boundaries."
Contrary to the above.
on April 19, a boundary modification was executed on the Circulating Water system that allowed work to continue near a pump without its associated motor breaker tagged open for approximately six days.
This was a.potentially significant unsafe working condition.
Section 8. 15.11 of the subject procedure requi res that the review and approval cycle for hanging new tags "shall be performed in the same manner as the original Clearance Order."
Section 8.9. 1.C requir es that the Reactor Controls Operator or qualified operator shall "...Verify boundary using controlled documents (i.e.,
prints, procedures)
- and, as necessary.
the assistance of the requestor."
9706l00035 970530 PDR ADOCK 05000335 8
Contrary to the above, on April 25, a boundary modification on the Emergency Diesel Generator was executed without adequately verifying that the new boundary sufficien'tly isolated all open work on the system.
This led to the DC soakback pump inadvertently starting while the lube oil system was drained for ongoing maintenance.
Contrary to.the above, on April 28, the licensee began to execute a clearance order (ECO 2-97-03-423R) to deenergize wiring to allow removal of Thermolag in the Reactor Auxiliary Building.
The verification of'he boundary was inadequate in that it tagged open the wrong breakers.
This was identified when the Containment Evacuation Alarm sounded when one of the containment radiation monitors was deenergized.
Contrary to the above, on April 29, the licensee executed a
boundary modification on a Shutdown Cooling System clearance, 2-97-291R, without adequate veri fication of the boundaries as evidenced by a vent valve and a drain valve inadvertently left open.
This led to the loss of several hundred gallons of reactor coolant to the safeguards sump.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) applicable to
~
~
~
Unit 2.
B.
St. Lucie Unit 1 and 2 Technical Specification 6.2.2.f states, in part, that adequate shift coverage shall be maintained without routine heavy use of overtime except in the case of unforeseen circumstances.
Contrary to the above, from December, 1996, through Apri 1 14, 1997, the licensee employed the routine heavy use of overtime on the part of Reactor Control Operators to overcome a shortage of licensed operators.
The shortage was the result of a lack of prior planning and management decisions to relocate licensed operators elsewhere in the organization and was, therefore, not unforeseen.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201. the Florida Power 8 Light 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. and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, 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.
Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguar ds information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
However. if you find it necessary to include such information, you should clearly indicate the specific information that you desire not to be placed in the
- PDR, and provide the legal basis to support your request for withholding the information from the public.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia
-thiS Sath day Of "ay 1997.