ML17290A466
| ML17290A466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17290A465 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-93-01, 50-397-93-1, NUDOCS 9306240033 | |
| Download: ML17290A466 (4) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Washington Public Power Supply System Washington Nuclear Project No.
2 Docket No. 50-397 License No.
NPF-21 During an NRC inspection conducted on March 30 through May 10,
- 1993, 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, the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V states, in part:
"Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished."
Section 6.8. I of the Technical Specifications
- states, in part:
"Written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the activities referenced below:
- d. Surveillance and test activities of safety-related equipment."
Paragraph
- 5. 1.2 of Plant Procedures Manual (PPH) 1.2.3, Revision 19, "Use of Controlled Plant Procedures,"
- states, "plant personnel are responsible for operating, maintaining, and testing plant equipment and systems per applicable plant procedures at all times."
PPH 1.2.3, Revision 19, Paragraph
- 5. 1.5, states, "if an existing procedure
[which] addresses the activity to be performed is incorrect...
it shall be corrected per PPM 1.2.3 or PPM 1.2.4 and then used."
PPH 1.2.3, Revision 19, Paragraph 5.3.5 states, "Completion [of the procedure]
consists of the following...
e.
A thorough review by the Shift Manager to ensure... all signoffs are complete and all required data has been taken, or marked N/A and appropriately documented...
and all acceptance criteria has been met or appropriate Technical Specifications Action Statements have been entered."
Contrary to the above:
l.
In PPM 7.4.3.7.4. 10, Revision 4, performed on April 7, 1993, the craftsman entered as-found and as-left values of 11. 1 feet in Table 7.la and 11.0 feet in Table 7. lb (data tables for two level instruments associated with the "B" spray pond),
although the table lists the acceptable range as 11.75 to 12.25 feet (an incorrect range the acceptable range should have been listed as 10.75 to 9306240033 930h09 PDR ADOCK 05000297-Q PDR
11.25 feet).
The craftsman signed off step 7 of Sections
- 7. 1 and 7.2 of the procedure, respectively, signifying that all values in Tables
- 7. la and 7. lb were within the stated tolerance.
The Shift Manager and craft supervisor reviewed and signed the procedure to indicate complete and satisfactory test performance.
2.
In PPM 7.4.8. 1. 1.2. 1, Revision 19, performed on April 4,
- 1993, section 7.5, steps 80 and 81 required the operator to record the level of DO-TK-lA in feet and inches and then convert this value to
- gallons, based on the table in Attachment 9.4.
The operator entered ll feet zero inches, which corresponds to 57,251 gallons in the table of Attachment 9.4.
However, the operator entered 57,635 gallons in step 81, a non-conservative value that was not found anywhere on the Table in Attachment 9.4.
The Shift Manager and craft supervisor reviewed and signed the procedure to indicate complete and satisfactory test performance.
3.
In PPH 7.4.8.2. 1.20, Revision 10, performed on April 7, 1993, the craftsman entered comments that stated that electrolyte level was high and an engineer's concurrence was necessary to determine if the battery cell was satisfactory.
No resolution to these comments was documented.
The Shift Manager and craft supervisor reviewed and signed the procedure to indicate complete and satisfactory test performance.
4.
In PPM 7.4.8.2. 1.20, Revision 10, performed on April 7,
- 1993, the craftsman entered comments stating that sedimentation levels were high for battery cells 6 and ll, and that an engineer's concurrence was necessary to conclude that the battery cells were satisfactory.
No resolution was provided for these comments.
The Shift Manager and craft supervisor reviewed and signed the procedure to indicate complete and satisfactory test performance.
This is a Sevefity Level IV violation. (Supplement I)
B.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, and section 5.2. 1 of the WPPSS Operational l}uality Assurance Program Description (0(APD) require that activities affecting quality be prescribed by drawings appropriate to the circumstances.
WNP-2 Drawing E797.implements these requirements for the standby service water (SSW) pumphouse electrical'chases.
Contrary to the above, on April 16,
- 1993, an act'ivity affecting quality existed that was not described by drawings appropriate to the circumstances, in that Thermolag System 330 fire retardant material was used to protect cabling in the SSW pumphouse, but was not reflected in Drawing E797.
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
(Supplement I).
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, AT'FN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region V, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmit-
0 tl
ting 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 viola-
- tions, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, the Commission may issue an order or a request for information 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 Walnut C eek, California this ~~day of 1993