ML20054L558

Notice of Violation from Insp on 820314-0430

ML20054L558
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	06/23/1982
From:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054L556	List: IR 05000315/1982010 ML20054L555 ML20054L558
References
50-315-82-10, 50-316-82-10, NUDOCS 8207080238
Download: ML20054L558 (3)

Text

_ _ _ . - .

-. _ - _ _ . . - _ - . _ = _ -.

S I

j Appendix 1

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

- American Electric Power Service Docket No. 50-315

{ Corporation Docket No. 50-316 As a result of the inspection conducted on March 14 through April 30, 1982, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), the following violations were identified:

1. 10 CFR 50.72 requires notification of the NRC Operations Center within one hour of any accidental, unplanned, or uncontrolled radioactive release.

Contrary to the above, an unplanned, uncontrolled release occurred l on April 2, 1982, resulting in the evacuation of the Auxiliary l Building at 0723 EST. Notification of the NRC Operations Center l was not made until 1040 on April 2, 1982.

This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).

i 2. Technical Specification 6.5.1.6 states in part: "The PNSRC shall be responsible for:... Review of all proposed tests and experiments that

affect nuclear safety.,..."

I 10 CFR 50.59 states in part:(a) (1) The holder of a license authorizing i

operation of a production or utilization facility may (i) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make j changes in the procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety 4

analysis report, without prior commission approval, unless the pro-posed change, test or experiment involves a change in the technical e specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.

(2) A proposed change, test, or experiment shall be deemed to involve

, an unreviewed safety question (1) if the probability of occurrence or l consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be in-creased; or (ii) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created; or (iii) if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.

(b) The licensee shall also maintain records of tests and experiments carried out pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. These records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question, i

k 8207080238 820623 i PDR ADOCK 05000315 G PDR ,

{

Appendix 2 Contrary to the above, the licensee conducted tests and/or experiments on the Unit 2 CVCS Boron .nake up system from on or about April 19, 1982 through April 22, :932 when attempting to locate a recirculation flow blockage. These efforts were conducted without written procedures and without a written safety evaluation while the unit operated at 100*. power.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

3. Technical Specification 6.8.1 states in part: " Written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained...".

Contrary to the above, while Unit 2 was operated at 100*4 power:

a. Surveillance required by Technical Specification 4.5.4.la was not accomplished according to procedure 2-OHP4030.STP.030.

The boron injection tank (BIT) sample drawn on April 15, 1982, was not in accordance with normal sampling practices (no recir-culation flow) and this had the potential of degrading the operability of the BIT.

b. Chemical addition was made on April 22, 1982, without knowledge of the actual concentration of the BIT utilizing a higher concen-tration of boron than specified in procedure 12-OHP4021.007.001.

c. No written or approved procedures were utilized to control the maintenance testing and experimentation conducted on the BIT recirculation system nor were appropriate records of this activity maintained.

This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).

4. Technical Specification 6.8.1 states in part: " Written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained covering the activi-ties referenced below:

a. The applicable procedures recommended in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, November 1972.

Donald C. Cook's procedures for equipment control, PMI 2110 " Clear-ance Permit System" states in part: "When any Technical Specification identified equipment is to be removed from service or returned to service we will require independent verification of correct tagging )

and isolating or clearing...  ;

1 Contrary to the above, the Unit 2 East Centrifugal Charging Pump was  !

inoperable (breaker open, valved out) from April 2 through April 5, 1982, without the appropriate equipment controls. l This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I). .

1

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 statement or explanation in reply, including for each item of noncom-pliance: (1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) cor-rective 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.

'% - 21 1992.

Qmes-2 A h =^bn yhted G. KeppleV U egional Administrator I

f 4