ML20059G207
| ML20059G207 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18059A489 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-255-93-20, NUDOCS 9311080036 | |
| Download: ML20059G207 (3) | |
Text
.
.c-NOTICE OF VIOLATION
{
t Consumers Power Company Docket-No. 50-255 Palisades Nuclear Plant License No. DPR-20 During an NRC inspection conducted on July 8 through July 20, and August 19 through 27, 1993, 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.
10 CFR 50.59 (b)(1) requires in part that the licensee.have a-l written safety evaluation which provides'the bases for determination that a change in the facility as described in the Safety Analysis Report does nnt involve an unreviewed' safety -
question. Section 3.3.2.6 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report describes use of hafnium poisoned assemblies as part of a-neutron
-i fluence reduction program.
I Contrary to the above, the licensee's 50.59 evaluation of extended use of hafnium poisoned 1-series fuel assemblies for cycles 10 and 11 did not provide complete bases for the determination that there was no unreviewed safety question.
Specifically, the evaluations did not include consideration of the effects of the neutron spectrum at the periphery of the core (which was proportionally..
higher in " fast" neutrons and lower in " thermal" neutrons compared a
to non-periphery locations) on mechanical properties of the assemblies. These evaluations were therefore incomplete.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
1 i
B.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, requires that a test program 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.
i Contrary to the above, the licensee's' Cycle 10 radiochemistry testing did not positively identify failed I-series fuel, nor was additional testing performed between cycles 10 and 11 to assure I-series fuel would perform satisfactorily for a sixth cycle, which constituted a unique fuel performance demand.
l' This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
C.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, requires in part that measures be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected.
In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality the measures shall i
assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
l 93110B0036 931027 J
PDR ADOCK 05000255 1
O PDR
x N '.
y u
)
Contrary to the above, when the upper guide structure (UGS) was j
lifted from the reactor on July 6, 1993, and a fuel bundle from core location Z-ll stuck onto the UGS, it marked the third u
occasion for this.same interference between core components.
]
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
D.
Technical Specification 6.8.1.b requires that written procedures -
be established, implemented and maintained for activities covering refueling operations.
1.
Licensee procedure RVI-M-1, Revision 16, " Removal'and j
storage of the Upper Guide Structure," provided instructions for installation for a TI-2000 load cell readout device only.
Contrary to the above, on July 6,1993, while lifting the UGS, a J-300 load cell readout device was used.
{
l 2.
Licensee procedure RVI-M-1, Revision 16, " Removal and
-l storage of the Upper Guide Structure," Section-5.3.6.g, j
includes a stipulation to follow Work Order No. 24301781 for t
steps to use a load cell.
Step 3.3.A.7 of the work order j
requires that the load cell readout device be zeroed.
- 'l Contrary to the above, on July 6,1993, while performing i
procedure RVI-M-1, the load cell. readout device was not -
zerced.
3.
Licensee procedure RVI-M-1, Revision 16, " Removal and storage of the Upper Guide Structure," Section 5.3.14, 1
specifies an upper load limit of 62,000 pounds.
1 Contrary to the above, on July-6,1993, while performing procedure 'RVI-M-1, af ter the UGS was raised approximately six inches, indicated load reached 62,800 pounds, which is in excess of the upper load limit.
4.
Licensee procedure FHS0-18, " Recovery of Bundle SAN-8,"
-l requires in steps 4.2.6 and 5.2.1 that chainfall tension be
- l limited to a combined load of 1500 - 1600 pot'!ds.
J 1
l Contrary t'o-the above, on July 7,1993, the chainfalls were tightened to a combined load of 2300 pounds.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement ~I).
f
\\
m
4
e W
1
-l 4
l Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Palisades Nuclear Plant. is hereby j
required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear j
. Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C.'20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy:to the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation-a (Notice). 1This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of ~
l' Violation" and should include for each violation:
(1) the' reason for the.
violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the' violation, (2) the l
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 to show cause why the license 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 i
DatedaggGlen Ellyn, Illinois this,7__5 day of October 1993 9
4 i
I