ML20033E992
| ML20033E992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1990 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033E990 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-89-200, NUDOCS 9003150230 | |
| Download: ML20033E992 (2) | |
Text
i APPENDIX A j
NOTICE OF VIOLATION TV Electric Docket:
50-445/89(200 Comanche Peck Steam Electric Station Permit: CFPR-126 -
Unit 1 Glen Rose, TX During an NRC inspection conducted January 22, 1990 through February 2,1990, violetions of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR j
P6rt 2 Appendix C (1989), the violations are listed below, A.
Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implemented by Section 1
16.0 (revision 1) of the TU Electric Quality Assurance Manual requires that conditions adverse to quality be promptly identified and corrected.
Contrary to the above, the applicant failed to take any corrective action in response to a finding by its operational quality assessment team (00AT) untti prompted by the NRC. This finding dealt with the failure to perform 1
independent verificaticns of lineups for safety-related instrumente en-the 1611ure to document performeface of the original instrument align;. ants.
This is e Severity Level IV violation (Suppbment I) (445/65203-Y-02) 8.
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implementea by rection 5.0 (revisior 3) of the TU Electric Ouality Assurance Manuai, requires tuat activities affecting quality shall be pres'~cribed by and accomplished in accordance with documented instructions, procedures, or drawings.
1.
Instrument and control administrative inanual procedure ICA-115 (revision 1) "Instruirent and Control Section Yerification Activi-ties," Section 6.1.10, stated that quality-related work activities required independent verification.
Section 6.1.3 of ICA-115 required the use of Form STA-606-12 or equivalent to document verification activities for which procedures or work orders did not provide for signoffs.
Contrary to the above, independent verifications of instrumentation lineups were not performed or documented for safety-related system alignments performed December 1989 through January 22, 1990. During this period, system alignments were performed in order to declare systems operable in preparation for fuel load.
l
((
D D
0 0
1 D
L
1 o
I*
1 2.
Station procedure STA-606 (revision 12), " Work Requests and Work Orders,"
section 6.6.2.10, required that the work crew ensure that the work package was revised if the intent of the work instructions was changed or if the j
scope of work was increased.
In addition, section 6.6.2.10. required that the revised work order receive the same level of review as the original work order. The work supervisor was required to notify the ogerations shift supervisor of the revised scope of work to allow the shLft supervi-sor to assess the impact on plant operations and to revise clearances that i
I applied to the work scope.
STA-606, section 6.6.2.14 and Attachment 8.E " Guidelines for Work Order In-Process Review," required reporting potential or actual adverse condi-tions in accordance with station procedure STA-421, " Operations Notifica-tion and Evaluation (ONE) Form." The following conditions required initiation of a ONE form:
an equipment malfunction, damage, or degrada-tion other than anticipated wear, or situations remediated by routine j
maintenance.
1 x
the scope of work order C90-0705 was increased
. Contrary to the above,f the shift supervisor daring troubleshooting of the without the approval o auto-cloce circuit of bus 1EA1. The work order tras revised to include a step to tighten P. loose cell switch likkage f.o devict /I in brealcer i
cub'cles (8) 1 APCS 1 end (9) 1AIRHl.
In addition, a ONE fora wn not initiated when the cel'l witch linkaps to oevice AE in the breakee 1
cuoicles were found icose.
)
Thi.eisaSeverityLevelIVriciation(SupplementI)(445/89200-V-07)
I Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201,10 Electric is hereby required to suomit a written stateant or explanatwn to the U.S. Nuclear Reyulatory Comission, ATTh: Docur.er.t Central Desk Was5ingtoa, OC 20555, with a copy to t
the Asd stant Director for Insoe xion Programs, Comanche reak Freject Division, Office cf i;uclear Leactor Regulatiun, within 30 days of the date of the letter i
transmitting this Hotice. 1his reply c5culd be clearly marke ei to a " Notice of Violation
- and should include for each violation:
(1) the reason for the j
violation,ifadmitted.(2)thecorrectivestepsthathavebeentakenandthe j
results achieved (3) the corrective steos that will be taken to avoid further violations,and(4)thedatewhenfullc'ompliancewillbeachieved.
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 wty such other action as may be proper should not be ta ken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the 1
response time, j
1 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (M'#
,J L M S O Q DennisM.CrutchIield,AssociateDirector for Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day of March 1990.
2 m
m
.