ML17290A775
| ML17290A775 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17290A774 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-93-23, NUDOCS 9312030113 | |
| Download: ML17290A775 (2) | |
Text
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Washington Public Power Supply System WNP-2 Docket No. 50-397 License No.
NPF-21 During an NRC inspection conducted during the period of September 20-24,
- 1993, two violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions",
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, Test Control, states, in part, A test program shall be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems and components will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in, accordance with written procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents...
Test results shall be documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.
Washington Public Power Supply System procedure WPPSS-(A-004, "Operational guality Assurance Program Description," requires that test procedures incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents.
Washington Public Power Supply System "Hotor Operated Valve Program Plan," Revision 1, dated April 4, 1991, identified testing in response to Generic Letter 89-10 to demonstrate that the MOVs would perform satisfactorily under worst case design basis conditions.
The Program Plan required that valves that were not practical to test under full design basis conditions would be qualified by using extrapolations to full design basis conditions.
Contrary to the above, on September 26,
- 1991, 13 safety related motor operated valves (HOVs), tested at less than full design basis conditions in accordance with the licensee's,.NOV Program Plan, were returned to service without the test data having been extrapolated to full design basis conditions.
A documented evaluation of the test results to assure satisfactory performance under worst case design basis conditions was not performed until September 1993.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
Since the licensee identified acceptable corrective action for this violation during the inspection, no response to this violation is required.
9312030113 931029 PDR ADOCK 05000397 8
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Instructions, Procedures and Drawings", states, in part, Activities "affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings...and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Plant Procedure Number 1.3.12, "Problem Evaluation Request" (PER),
Paragraph
- 6. I, requires any person who observes an actual problem or perceives a potentially significant problem to initiate a
PER.
Paragraph 2.1. 1; defines a "problem" as follows:
A physical or performance characteristic of a system, component or part which does'not conform to the'equirements of design documents, applicable standards, procurement documents, or regulatory requirements for the item.
Contrary to the above, as of September 21,
- 1993, a
PER was not initiated
'o identify that the torque switch setting of 22390 lb. thrust for motor operated valve RHR-V-16A did not meet the minimum thrust setpoint requirement of 39770 lb.
As a result, the basis for the continued operability of the HOV with the torque switch setting less than the minimum requirement was not evaluated and documented.
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, ATTN:
Document Control
- Desk, Washington, D.C; 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region V, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at WNP-2, 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 Violation B: (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'e achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in" this Notice, the Commission may issue an order or a demand 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 Creek, California this 2'f day of October, 1993.