ML20059G207

Notice of Violation from Insp on 930819-0929.Violation Noted:Licensee Cycle 10 Radiochemistry Testing Did Not Positively Identify Failed I-series Fuel

ML20059G207
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	10/25/1993
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML18059A489	List: IR 05000255/1993020 ML20059G207
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.

Contrary to the above, the licensee's 50.59 evaluation of extended I 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 '.

u y

Notice of Violation 2 )

I l

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

Contrary t'o-the above, on July 7,1993, the chainfalls were '

l tightened to a combined load of 2300 pounds.  !

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

\

m

4

e W

4 1 -l Notice of Violation 3 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