ML18009A922
| ML18009A922 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1991 |
| From: | Verrelli D NRC Office of Inspection & Enforcement (IE Region II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18009A921 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-91-09, 50-400-91-9, NUDOCS 9106110040 | |
| Download: ML18009A922 (2) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Carolina Power and Light Company Shearon Harris Unit 1
Docket No. 50-400 License No.
NPF-63 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 20 -
May 17,
- 1991, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
(1991), the violation is listed below:
Technical Specification 6.8. l.a requires that written procedures be established and implemented covering procedures outlined in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978.
Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, paragraphs 8 and 9, require procedures for the conduct
. of surveillance testing and maintenance/modification activities.
Maintenance Surveillance Test procedure MST-I-0494, Diesel Generator 1B-SB Fuel Oil Instruments Calibration, step 7.6.9 requires that process tubing associated with differential pressure switch PDS-01DG-2465B2V be reconnected following component calibration.
Additionally this step requires that this action be independently verified.
Corrective Maintenance procedure CM-E0014, Initial Checkout of Electric Motors, section 7.4 contains directions for verifying the correct rotation direction for replaced motors.
Modification procedure MOD-204, Modification Implementation, step 5.8. l.e, requires that plant drawings affected by a modification be annotated with the plant change request 'number before the modified system is returned to operations control.
Contrary to the above, 1.
On April 27,
- 1991, procedure MST-I-0494 was not properly. implemented in that the instrument process tubing was not reconnected, nor properly verified reconnected, before the instrument was returned to service.
2.
During the performance of maintenance to replace the motor for the "B" auxiliary feedwater pump on May 7,
- 1991, procedure CM-E0014 was not adequate to establish the correct direction for motor rotation in 9106110040 910524 PDR ADQCK 05000400 G
Carolina Power and Light Company Shearon Harris Unit 1
Docket No. 50-400 License No.
NPF-63 that the procedure only addressed the rotation of the driven equipment and not the direction specified by the motor technical manual and drawings.
This inadequacy resulted in the pump being functional tested and accepted for operation with the motor blower installed in an incorrect configuration which would not have provided sufficient air cooling.
3.
On May 14,
- 1991, plant drawing 2165-S-1300 was not annotated for modifications on the reactor vessel head vent and an installation of a
new standpipe level transmitter prior to turnover of this system to operations control, on May 8, 1991.
This is a Severity Level IV violation '(Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Carolina Power and Light Company is
'ereby 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 if applicable, a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, 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 David M. Verrell
, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 1
Division of Reactor Projects Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this y g day of May 1991