ML20045B510
| ML20045B510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1993 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045B508 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-93-16, 50-374-93-16, NUDOCS 9306180025 | |
| Download: ML20045B510 (2) | |
Text
.
s NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-373; 50-374 LaSalle County Nuclear Station License No. NPF-ll and NPF-18 Unit I and Unit 2 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 12-30, 1993, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of i
Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1993), the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires, in part, that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished according to these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Contrary to the above:
1.
The procedure for, " Alternate Boron Injection," LGA-RT-03, Revision 1, dated July 2,1992, was inappropriate to the circumstances in that (1) the on-site supply of sodium pentaborate was insufficient to achieve cold shutdown as the procedure directed, (2) no method was provided to measure a 30-pound sodium pentaborate batch, (3) no method was provided to protect the operator from chemical toxicity, and (4) no documentation was t
provided to demonstrate that an additional quantity of sodium pentaborate was on-site if reactor pressure vessel emergency depressurization was needed.
i 2.
The procedure for " Alternate Rod Insertion," LGA-NB-01, Revision 1, dated May 12, 1992, was inappropriate to the circumstances in that the hose provided for venting the hydraulic control unit overpiston area was fitted on both ends with quick disconnects which were incompatible with the drain line; and replacement fuses needed were not provided as the procedure directed.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, deficiencies and deviations, are promptly identified and corrected.
Contrary to the above, between February 8, 1991, and April 30, 1993, conditions adverse to quality existed at the LaSalle County Nuclear Station in that the conditions identified in the 1991 E0P Inspection 9306180025 930611 PDR ADOCK 05000373 G
l l
Report (No. 50-373/91003 and 50-374/91003) were not promptly corrected.
The licensee's correction actions were either not performed or partially performed for correction of procedural E0P errors that were tracked in Action Item Request (AIR) No. 373-100-91-00302 dated March 22, 1991.
j This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)-
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Commonwealth Edison Company 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region Ill, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector at the LaSalle County Nuclear Station within 30 days of the date of l
the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for I
each violation:
(1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis i
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 a demand for information may be issued as to why the license
-l 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.
1 0,b b N
Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois T. O. Martin;' Acting Directcr this utday of June,1993 Division of Reactor Safety i
6 i
l
_