ML17229A765
| ML17229A765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17229A764 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-98-06, 50-335-98-6, 50-389-98-06, 50-389-98-6, NUDOCS 9806160213 | |
| Download: ML17229A765 (6) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Florida Power and Light Company St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2
Docket Nos. 50-335.
50-389 License Nos.
DPR-67, NPF-16 During the NRC inspections conducted during the period of'arch 29 through May 9.
1998, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions."
NUREG-1600, the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.8. 1 requires the licensee to establish, implement, and maintain the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33.
Appendix A recommends procedures for equipment control (e.g.,
tagging and locking).
Procedures for equipment control were contained in ADM-09.04, Revision
- 3. "In-Plant Equipment Clearance Orders."
ADM-09.04, Section 3.8.3.
required Electrical Department Personnel to "Verify that any grounding device is documented on the Equipment Clearance Order Form as a step with no tag.
ADM-09.04, Section 6.8.4.A, required the Nuclear Plant Supervisor, Assistant Nuclear Plant Supervisor, the Work Control Center-Assistant Nuclear Plant Supervisor, or the Nuclear Watch Engineer to "verify the adequacy of the information contained in the Request section of'he Equipment Clearance Order Control Form."
ADM-09.04. Section 6.9.2.C, required the Reactor Control Operator to "Verify [the3 boundary using controlled documents.
ADM-09.04, Section
- 6. 11. 1.A, required the Nuclear Plant Supervisor, Assistant Nuclear Plant Supervisor, the Work Control Center -Assistant Nuclear Plant Supervisor, the Nuclear Watch Engineer, or other Senior Reactor Operator to "Verity the specified Equipment Clearance Order boundary satisfies the requi rements specified in the Equipment Clearance Order request."
ADM-09.04, Section 6. 12.20.A, required the Equipment Clearance Order Controller to sign the Equipment Clearance Order Control Form indicating they find the Equipment Clearance Order acceptable.
Section 6
~ 12.20.B stated "Signing the Acceptance Block on the Equipment Clearance Order Form (Figure 1) indicates concurrence that the Equipment Clearance Order boundary is adequate for the work to be pertormed."
ADM-09.04, Section 6. 12.23.A, required'the workers to perform a
"verification of the Equipment Clearance Order boundary utilizing available reference materials."
'F806i602i3 980608 PDR ADGCK 05000835 8
NOV Contrary to the above:
1.
On February 17, 1998, the licensee issued Equipment. Clearance Order 1-98-01-202S to isolate the 1B1 Reactor Coolant Pump safely a.
The Reactor Control Operator failed to verify adequately the boundary prior to issuance.
b.
The Work Control Center-Assistant Nuclear Plant Supervisor failed to verify that the Equipment Clearance Order satisfied the requirements for the Clearance request.
c.
The Equipment Clearance Order Controller failed to verify the adequacy of the Equipment Clearance Order boundary for
.the work to be performed.
d.
Hultiple maintenance workers failed to verify the Equipment Clearance Boundary prior to beginning work.
On March 30, 1998, the licensee issued Equipment Clearance Order 2-98-03-005 to isolate.the 2C Intake Cooling Water pump.
Electrical Maintenance personnel failed to verify that the grounding device installed was documented in the clearance order prior to starting the work.
3.
On March 31, 1998, the licensee issued Equipment Clearance Order 2-98-03-058 to allow routine maintenance of the 2B Waste Gas Compressor.
a.
The Work Control Center-Assistant Nuclear Plant Supervisor failed to verify the adequacy of the clearance request.
The Reactor Control Operator failed to verify adequately the boundary of the Equipment Clearance Order prior to issuance.
The Equipment Clearance Order Controller failed to verify the adequacy of the Equipment Clearance Order boundary for the work to be -performed.
d.
The Maintenance workers failed to verify the Equipment Clearance Boundary prior to beginning work.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) applicable to both Units.
10 CFR 50 Appendix B. Criterion XVI, Corrective Action, requi res that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to
~
~
~
~
~
uality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, efective material and.equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and cor rected.
In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
The
0
~ov identification of the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition.
and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported'to appropriate levels of management.
Contrary to the above:
1.
Corrective action was not completed in a timely manner for 1996 Condition Reports (CRs) that identified 29 procedure revisions needed to correct deficiencies.
Plant Nanager Action Items had been opened in 1996 to make these procedure revisions and were still open in April 1998.
Corrective action taken for a significant condition adverse to quality. that was identified in February 1997 in Quality Assurance Audit QSL-CA-96-20 and documented in CR 97-282, was not adequate to prevent repetition.
CR 97-282 documented that multiple CRs contained assigned corrective actions that did not adequately address the deficient conditions.
A followup audit in December 1997, Quality Report 97-2271, found that five out of 29 Condition Reports again contained assigned cor rective actions that did not adequately address the deficient conditions.
3.
Corrective action root cause evaluations requi red by procedure AP-0006130.
Revisions 7-12.
"Condition Reports," were not performed for issues identified in Condition Report 98-0112.
This was similar to findings identified in Quality Assurance Audit QSL-CA-96-20.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) applicable to both Units.
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.
20555-0001, 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 or severity level.
(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 requi red 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
's shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
0,
NOV 4
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ATTN: Director. Office of Enforcement.
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.
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 safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
If personal privacy or proprietary information is necessary to provide an acceptable response,'hen please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a
redacted copy of your response that deletes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you must specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information's necessary'to provide an acceptable response.
please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 8th day of June 1998