ML20028E216
| ML20028E216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1983 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028E214 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-82-50, 50-374-82-17, NUDOCS 8301210080 | |
| Download: ML20028E216 (2) | |
Text
.
Appendix NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-373 Docket No. 50-374 As a result of the inspection conducted on October 4-28, 1982, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982),
the following violations were identified:
1.
Technical Specification 6.2, Plant Operating Procedures and Programs, states, " Detailed written procedures including applicable checkoff li,ts covering items listed below shall be prepared, approved, and adhered to:" specifically including, " Actions to be taken to correct specific and foreseen potential malfunctions of systems or components including responses to alarms...."
Contrary to the above, procedures LOA 1(2)PM06J A209.R3, and
~
LOA 1(2)PM06J B102.R1, written to provide the appropriate response to i
" door open" alarms for the Reactor Building watertight doors at eleva-l tiop 673'4", failed to adequately specify the actions to be taken for a door alarm. The actions specified did not indicate or reflect the importance of the doors in assuring the operability of safe shutdown equipment at this elevation in the event of plant flooding due to internal water sources. This contributed to the lack of appropriate corrective action to alarm conditions during the period evaluated (September 8, 1982 to October 5, 1982). During this period, the alarm printout records indicated that one or more watertight doors in Unit 1 were not closed for over fifty percent of this time.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
2.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI states," Test procedures shall include provisions for assuring that all prerequisites for the given test have been met, that adequate test instrumentation is available cnd used...."
LaSalle County Station Startup Manual, LSU 100-2, Revision 12, dated February 23, 1982, " Construction - Operating Turnovers and Releases,"
requires that, "After the release boundaries are agreed upon, Project Construction and Site QA shall make a detailed verification of all items in the System and Equipment List for completeness, conformat.ce to specification, and receipt of required documentation. Deficiency Reports shall be prepared for all deficient conditions in accordance with LSU 200-1, Pre-Turnover Deficiencies."
l 8301210080 820106 PDR ADOCK 05000373 PDR O
t
Appendix 2
Contrary to the above, the Unit 2 High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) system was transferred for testing without the HPCS flow measurit:3 orifice installed and without this being identified by Project Construction or Site QA as a deficient condition. The deficiency was only recognized when the associated flow instrument channel failed to respond when called on to take HPCS flow test data during a preoperational test.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II).
With respect to Itec 1, the inspection showed that actions had been taken to correct the identified item of noncompliance and to prevent recurrence.
Consequently, no reply to this item of noncompliance is required and we have no further questions regarding this matter. With respect to Item 2, pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201 you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or expla-nation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance:
(1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
t Dated ptJJ. E. Norelius, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Programs o