ML19256D632
| ML19256D632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1975 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D629 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-75-01, 50-289-75-1, NUDOCS 7910190592 | |
| Download: ML19256D632 (3) | |
Text
.
ENCLOSURE 1
( )f NOTICE OF VIOLATION Metropolitan Edison Company s
P.O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Docket No. 50-289 Lic anse No. DPR-50 Based on the results of an AEC inspection conducted on January 6-9 and 17, 1975 it appears that certain activities were not conducted in full com-pliance with conditions of your AEC license as indicated below:
1.
Criterion VI, Appendix B,10 CFR 50 states in part that, " Measures shall be established to control the issuance of... procedures...in-cluding changes thereto, which prescribe all activities af fecting quality.". The FSAR Section lA, Operation Quality Assurance Plan,Section VI states in part that, "...the Generation Division document control procedure further requires that each Manager and Station
~~
Superintendent provide in their procedures measures:
...to ensure that approved changes be promptly transmitted for incorporation into documents; and to ensure that obsolete or superseded documents are eliminated f rom the system and not used.... "
Contrary to the above, on Nove=ber 19-20, 1974 plant heatup was per-
.I formed using a controlled copy of OP 1102-1, Rev. 4 which contained 4 TCN's that were invalid.
Additionally, on January 7, 1975 the Control Room File copy of 0F 1102-1, Rev. 4 still contained the 4 invalid TCN's and did not contain the one valid TCN issued af ter the November 19-20, 1974 plant heatup evolution.
It was determined that the 4 invalid TCN's were not followed during the heatup. evolution.
This infraction was identified by the inspector and had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence of safety significance.
This infraction is also a repetitive item of noncompliance, as des-cribed in a letter dated June 21, 1974 following inspection number 50-289/74-25.
The immediate corrective actions taken by the license and the licensee's cocmitment regarding disposition of existing TCN's were reviewed during this inspection.
We have no further questions regarding this aspect of this repeat infraction at this time.
1452 180 m
7910100 $ V 2 e
~
2.
10 CFR 50.59b states in part; "... the licensee shall maintain records s
of changes in the facility...made pursuant to this section, to the extent that such changes constitute changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report...these records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the deter-
. mination that the change,...does not involve an unreviewed safety question." 10 CFR 59a states in part; "that a proposed change...
shall be deemed to involve ar. unreviewed safety question (1) if the probability of an accident...is increased (2) if a possibility for an accident...may be created or (3) if the cargin of safety...is reduced...."
Centrary to the above the licensee's written safety evaluations for nine design changes completed in 1974, did not provide an adequata bases for the determination that an unreviewed safety question was not involved, in that the ite=s constituting an unreviewed safety question, as defined above, were not addressed.
E This infraction was identified by the inspector and had the potential for causing or cont-buting to an occurrence with safety significance.
3.
Criterion XVIII, Appendix B,10 CFR 50, states in part, "a comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits shall be carried out... audit results shall be documented and reviewed by management having respon-i 3
sibility in the area audited...." The FSAR Section lA, Operating
( ~~~
Quality Assurance Plan Section XVIII, states in part;
...aucit reports
/
are transmitted...to the responsible managers or outside organizations..."
Contrary to the above two audits conducted by the licensee (Audit Nos.
74-13 and 74-27) were not documented and distributed to canagement having responsibilities in the areas audited.
Additionally, audit reports for ti o audits (Nos. 74-25 and 74-29) which were conducted on September 16, 1974 and October 28, 1974, respectively had not been issued as of January 9, 1975; period of 115 days and 73 days, respectively following audit performance.
This infraction was identified by the inspector and had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence with safety significance.
4.
Criterion XVI, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50, states in part;
...that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as..., deficiencies, deviations...and non-conformances are 1452 181
~
w
~
b promptly identified and corrected." The FSAR Section lA, Operating Quality Assurance Plan Section XVI, states in part;
...the corrective action procedures include provisions for...the responsibility for timely disposition and followup action for nonconformances...."
Contrary to the above several of the licensee's nonconformances identi-fied during his audits of the. quality assurance program have not re-caived prompt corrective action.
For example, Audit Findings No. 74 1=
4, 74-11-6, and 74-12-3 were targeted for completion by July 20, 1974; however, these were still open as of the date of the inspection, a period of about 6 months.
=
This infraction was identified by the inspector and had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence with safety significance.
5.
Technical Specification Section 6.1.I.3.e.8) states that "The General Office Review Board (G0RB) will review audits and audit program of the Generation Division."
Contrary to the above, the GORB has not perform 2d this review since the issuance of an operating license on April 19,1974 (a period ex-ceeding 9 months) although the GORB held 7 meetings during the period April - October 1974.
.}
This deficiency was identified by the inspector.'
4 One infraction identified through your internal audit program and which was reported in a timely manner and corrective action was initiated is set out in this inspection report.
This infraction is also a repetitiv2 item of noncompliance, as described in a letter dated July 1,1974 follow-ing inspection number 50-289/74-26.
This item will be reviewed for ti=eli-ness of your corrective action during a subsequent inspection.
No additi tal response is needed for this item at this time.
E I
1452 182 i
N W