ML20035H603
| ML20035H603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035H601 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-93-05, 50-458-93-5, NUDOCS 9305060060 | |
| Download: ML20035H603 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Gulf States Utilities Docket: 50-458 River Bend Station License: NPF-47 St. Francisville, Louisiana During an NRC inspection conducted on January 31 through March 13, 1993, two violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the
" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, the violations are listed below:
A.
Failure to Conduct Postmaintenance Testing 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, " Test Control," states, in part, that 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 test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents.
Contrary to the above, on February 24, 1993, all testing required to demonstrate that Control Building Instrument Air Solenoid Operated Valve lIAS*SOV36A would perform satisfactorily was not identified and performed in that maintenance that could have affected seat and bonnet leakage integrity was performed and the postmaintenance test did not verify that the leakage integrity of the valve was adequate.
In addition, the maintenance performed included disassembly and adjustment of the valve position indicating reed switches, but the postmaintenance test did not verify the appropriate position indication which caused the stroke time test to be invalid.
This is a severity Level IV violation.
(458/93005-1) (Supplement 1)
B.
Inadequate Inservice Testing Program Imple.menting Procedures Technical Specification 6.8.1.d states that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering surveillance and test activities of safety-related equipment.
Contrary to the above, two inservice testing program surveillance procedures were not properly established or maintained in that they contained instructions that were in conflict with the ASME Code, but no specific relief request had been submitted by the licensee and approved by NRC:
1.
On February 10, 1993, Surveillance Test Procedure STP-410-6312, Revision 0, " Control Building Chilled Water System Quarterly Pump and Valve Operability 9305060060 930430 PDR ADOCK 05000458 G
Test Division II," (including Change Notice 93-0027) was technically inadequate in that, for Pump IHVK*PID, it allowed establishing pump differential pressure over a range of 93 to 102 percent of the reference value instead of equal to the reference value as required by Procedure IWP-3100 in Section XI of the ASME Code.
For Pump lHVK*PIB, the procedure had a note which allowed the operator to vary the pump differential pressure without regard to the reference value as long as the flow was satisfactory, thus defeating the purpose of inservice testing for early detection of pump degradation.
1 2.
On March 10, 1993, Surveillance Test Procedures STP-309-6301,
-2, and
-3, Revisions 4, 5, and 4A, I
respectively, " Division I, II, and III Diesel Generator ISI Pump Operability Test," were technically inadequate in that
~
they directed the operators to measure pump flow rate using the day tank level indicator and a stop watch, when i
paragraph IWP-4600 of the ASME Code requires flow rate to be l
measured using a rate or quantity meter installed in the l
test circuit.
l This is a Severity Level IV violation.
(458/93005-2)(Supplement I) l Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2.201, Gulf States Utilities 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 IV, and 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 clearly be 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 or demand for information may be issued as to why the license should not l
be modified, suspended, or revoked, or why such action as may be proper should not be taken. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to j
extending the response time.
Dated a lington, Texas this ay of 1993 l
l