ML20133C397

Notice of Violation from Insp on 960829-1016.Violation Noted:On 961011 & 12,plant Operator Documented Incorrect Standby Liquid Control Tank Level in Surveillance 0090, Standby Liquid Control Sys Checks

ML20133C397
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	12/27/1996
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133C394	List: ML20133C391 ML20133C397 ML20133C408
References
50-263-96-08, 50-263-96-8, NUDOCS 9701070175
Download: ML20133C397 (1)

Text

) ,

l l

\

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

. Northern States Power Company Docket No. 50-263 Monticello Station License No. DPR-22 l l

During an NRC inspection conducted on August 29 through October 16,1996, a )

violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General  :

Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600 '

(60 FR 34381: June 30, 1995), the violation is listed below.

I i

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, " Test Control." stated in part that i a test program shall be established to assure testing is performed in l' accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in design documents, Test results shall be i documented and evaluated to assure test requirements have been satisfied.  !

Contrary to the above,

a. On October 11 and 12, 1996, a plant operator documented an incorrect standby liquid control tank level in surveillance 0090, " Standby Liquid Control System Checks." The documented values exceeded the acceptance criteria and were not identified during subsequent review by operations shift management.

b. In May and September 1996, a mechanic performed test 0319. " Fire Protection System - Yard Hydrant Inspection " and documented that several feet of water was left in the #1 fire hydrant barrel. The acceptable condition as stated in test 0319 was less than 2 inches of standing water in the hydrant barrel. Also, operations shift management and the system engineer did not identify the May 1996 unacceptable test results.

c. On February 10, 1994, the licensee revised surveillance test 0085,

" Standby Liquid Control System Operability Test," Revision 20 using an unapproved calculation to determine flow rate and did not recognize that the revised calculation differed from the IST program commitments.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Northern States Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington. l D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and a copy 1 to the NRC Resident Inspector at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation I (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the ceason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the 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 may be issued to show cause why the lic;nse 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.

Dated at Lisle, Illinois this 27th day of 1996 9701070175 961227 PDR ADOCK 05000263 0 W . . . - - .

NOTICE OF VIOLATION i Northern States Power Company Docket No. 50-263 Monticello Station License No. DPR-22 During an NRC inspection conducted on August 29 through October 16, 1996, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions " NUREG-1600 (60 FR 34381: June 30, 1995), the violation is listed below:

10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, Criterion XI, " Test Control " stated in part that a test program shall be established to assure testing is performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in design documents. Test results shall be documented and evaluated to assure test requirements have been satisfied.

Contrary to the above,

a. On October 11 and 12, 1996, a plant operator documented an incorrect standby liquid control tank level in surveillance 0090. " Standby Liquid Control System Checks." The documented values exceeded the acceptance criteria and were not identified during subsequent review by operations shift management.

b. In May and September 1996, a mechanic performed test 0319. " Fire Protection System - Yard Hydrant Inspection," and documented that several feet of water was left in the #1 fire hydrant barrel. The acceptable condition as stated in test 0319 was less than 2 inches of standing water in the hydrant barrel. Also, operations shift management and the system engineer did not identify the May 1996 unacceptable test results.

c. On February 10, 1994, the licensee revised surveillance test 0085,

" Standby Liquid Control System Operability Test," Revision 20 using an unapproved calculation to determine flow rate and did not recognize that the revised calculation differed from the IST program commitments.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Northern States Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear 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 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice). This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) the reason for the violation, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation (2) the 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 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.

Dated at Lisle, Illinois this 27th day of 1996 M Olblb-n2f gh