ML20054B042
| ML20054B042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1982 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054B027 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-82-11, NUDOCS 8204160291 | |
| Download: ML20054B042 (3) | |
Text
r Appendix NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-373 As a result of the inspection conducted on February 9-12, 16-19, 23, 24, and March 5, 1982, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), the following violations were identified:
1.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states, in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented... procedures...of a type appropriate to the circumstances..."
Commonwealth Edison Company Topical Report No. CE-1-A, Revision 15, Section 5, states, in part, "The quality assurance actions carried out for... construction, testing... activities will be described in documented... procedures...
These documents will assist personnel in assuring that important activities have been performed."
Contrary to the above, appropriate procedures had not been developed to prescribe Motor Control Center (MCC) breaker setting activities.
As a result, of the two safety related MCC's inspected, nine breaker settings were observed which did not conform to MCC breaker setting requirements.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II).
2.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, states, in part, " Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as...
deficiencies, deviations...and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected."
Commonwealth Edison Company Topical Report No. CE-1-A, Revision 15, Section 16, states, in part, "A corrective action system will be used to assure that such items as... deficiencies, deviations...and noncon-formances which are adverse to quality and might affect the safe operation of a nuclear generating station are promptly identified and corrected."
Contrary to the above, the following instances of failure to promptly identify and correct deficiencies, deviations or nonconformances were identified:
8204160291 820413 PDR ADOCK 05000373 O
l Appendix 2
a.
Measures were not established to assure that the use of unapproved MCC breaker settings was promptly identified and corrected. This is exemplified by the continued use 9f unapproved MCC breaker set-tings pertaining to MCC 143-1.
No nonconformance report had been initiated to identify and control this nonconforming condition and the licensee had not submitted data pertaining to these settings to Sargent and Lundy for approval.
b.
Measures were not established to assure that deviations from MCC nameplate data requirements were promptly identified and corrected.
This is exemplified by the three incorrect nameplates installed on MCC 135X-1 and the one incorrect nameplate installed on MCC 143-1.
c.
Measures were not established to assure that deviations from DC Distribution Panel breaker requirements were promptly identified and corrected. This is exemplified by the 60 amp breaker in-stalled in lieu of the required 15 amp breaker in position 20 on DC Distribution Panel 112Y.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II).
3.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X, states, in part, "A program for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be established and executed by or for the organization performing the activity to verify conformance with the documented instructions, procedures, and drawings for accomplishing the activity."
Commonwealth Edison Company Topical Report No. CE-1-A, Revision 15, Section 10, states, in part, " Quality assurance inspection...will be conducted...during construction...to verify conformance to applicable drawings, instructions, and procedures as necessary to verify quality."
Contrary to the above, the QC inspections of instrument sensing line on February 17 and October 7, 1981, failed to verify conformance to the " Fabrication Requirement" on Morrison isometric drawings which states, in part, " Slope shall be 1/2" per foot (min)..." and I
Amendment 4 to Sargent and Lundy Specification J-2530 which states, in part, "Under no circumstances should a slope of less than 1/4" per foot of run be applied without approval from Consulting Engineers."
As a result, three instances were observed in which the violation of the instrument sensing line slope requirements were not identified.
I This is a Severity Level VI violation (Supplement II).
I l
L
l Appendix 3
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 state-ment or explanation 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 com-pliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
H 8' Original cim.d by Gen U. Roy Aph 13 G92 Dated C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Programs l
i i
l
{
i l
r
_