ML20059N012
| ML20059N012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1990 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059N011 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-90-10, NUDOCS 9010090031 | |
| Download: ML20059N012 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ -
M e
Y U
.[..
4 o.
Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-155
_ Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant License No. OPR-6 As a result of the ' inspection conducted on July 23 through 27, and August 6 through 10, 1990, and in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C General!
Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (1990),-the-following violations were identified:
1.
10 CFR-50, Appendix B, Criterion.Y as implemented by the Consumers Power Company, " Quality Assurance Topical Report, CPC-2A", Section 5.0, Revision 10, requires that activities affecting quality be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, and that those.
activities be accomplished in accordance with the instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Contrary to the above:.
a._
Procedure 77-EPS-202-13, " Diesel Generator Trip Modification,"
issued on August 22, 1977, required implementation of coincident logic in the diesel generator overcurrent trip circuitry and that the scheme be tested.
One phase of the overcurrent protection was not wired in accordance with the design drawings, which resulted in a "one out of one" generator trip logic rather than a~ "two out of three" logic as designed.
Other problems identified with the implementation of the design-modification were as follows:
(1)
The connection drawing 0740E30869, SH 3, Revision m and the schematic diagram 0740JG0kl869, SH 2, Revision p, were not
-updated to reflt:t the as-built configuration.
(2)
Testing was inadequate since procedure 77-EPS-202-13 only required testing of the x-y logic but not the y-z or the x-z logic where the above wiring error occurred.
(3)
There was no record that procedure 77-EPS-202-13 was properly implemented since the procedure data blocks were not completed (155/90010-01A(DRS)).
i b.
Procedure T180-01C, " Personnel and Equipment Lock Powell Check Valves Leak Rate," Revision 33 required that the valve leak rate be less than 2.0 lbs./24 h"s.
On February 22, 1990, the leak rate.
test was terminated after 6.5 minutes and the leak rate was incorrectly calculated based on a 30 minute test. This resulted in an incorrectly calculated leak rate of 0.691bs./24 hrs, based j
on a 30 minute test while the actual leak rate was 3.181bs/24 hrs.
as calculated on the correct 6.5 minute interval.
As a result, the valve test recalts were not rejected and the valve was not repaired as required by procedure (155/90010-OlB(DRS)).
This is a Severity level IV violation (Supplement 1).
9c10090031 900928 PDR ADOCK 05000155 0
i{-
9 0
.e Notice of Violation 2
2.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI_as implemented by.the Consumers Power Company " Quality Assurance Topical Report, CPC-2A," Section 16.0, Revision 10, requires that conditions adverse to quality be promptly identified and corrected.
Contrary to the above:
a.
Action was not taken to correct or prevent the use of expired shelf life parts in safety related-systems, even tt sugh inadequate control of shelf life items was ideri ified by previous audits'in 1982, and recently in Activity inspection _ Report 88-005 dated!in June 1988. On July 25, 1930, Buna-N seals, which had exceeded the shelf life, were observed to be installed in reactor depressuriza-tion system control valve CV-4182 (155/90010-02A(DRS)).
b.
As of July 23, 1990 action had not been taken to correct a defective melamine torque switch-that was installed in the operator of valve M0-7080 even though a 10 CFR 21 report was issued by the manufacturer on November 3, 1988,-stating that the-change'should be made as soon as possible.
This resulted in an
-increased potential for valve failure due to torque switch failure
~
(155/90010-02B(DRS)).
This is Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
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 violation:- (1) the corrective actions that have been taken and the results achieved; (2) the corrective actions that will be'taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full
~
compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given-to extending your response time for good cause shown.
lst.)Grnbedft9<)O NY $
l
/
k
' Da t e'd H.J.Miyr, Director i
Division of Reactor Safety _
n i
i i
.