ML20206C560

Notice of Violation from Insp on 861211-870110.Violations Noted:Foreman & Group Supervisor Responsible for Activities of Work Re Maint Work Requests 141322,141323 & 141324 Failed to Control Quality of Work Performed

ML20206C560
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	03/27/1987
From:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20206C490	List: ML20206C488 ML20206C560
References
50-348-86-29, NUDOCS 8704130087
Download: ML20206C560 (3)

Text

_ _ . . . . ._ .. _ _ . . _ _ _- . . _ . _ __

~

4 NOTICE OF VIOLATION 1

l Alabama Power Company Docket No. 50-348 i Farley Unit 1 License No. NPF-2 1 During the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) inspection conducted on

! December 11, 1986 - January 10, 1987, violations of. NRC requirements were

, identified. The violations involved procedural and Technical Specification violations which were identified by the licensee and reported to the NRC. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforce-i

. ment Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986), the violations are listed below:

i' A. Technical Specification 6.8.1.a requires that procedures be established,  !

implemented, and maintained covering the activities referenced in Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision-2, 1978.

l Section 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.33,- Appendix "A," Revision 2, 1978, t- requires that administrative procedures be established for equipment control.

1. Administrative Procedure AP-52, Equipment Status Control and Main-tenance Authorization, requires that work be performed in accordance

with the specified work sequence on the Maintenance Work Request

! (MWR) and that any changes to the MWR must be reviewed and approved by the group supervisor.

Contrary to the above, on October 13, 1986, technicians erroneously.

installed electrical jumpers on the Residual Heat Removal System isolation circuitry that was not in accordance with the specified work sequence on the MWRs. This change in the MWR work sequence was not reviewed and approved by the group supervisor.

2.

i Administrative that the first line Procedure AP-31, supervisor Quality)

(foreman haveControl the primary Measures, requires responsi-bility for controlling the quality of work being performed by those

> over whom he has supervisory responsibility. It also requires the <

! group supervisor to have the primary responsibility for identifying problems of quality within his area of responsibility, for taking .

. appropriate immediate corrective action for correcting quality  !

q problems, and for taking further corrective action to eliminate or reduce the probability of rec';rrence.

Contrary to the above, on October 13 and 30,1986, the. foreman and  ;

2 group supervisor responsible for activities of work related to MWRs 141322, 141323, and 141324 failed to control the quality of work i i

l 87041300g7 870327 i gDR ADOCK 05000348

) PDR i 2

Notice of Violation 2 performed, to identify a problem of quality (the improper installa-

, tion of the jumpers on the Residual Heat Removal System isolation circuitry), and to take appropriate corrective action.to correct the problem.

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

B. - Technical Specification 3.5.3 requires one Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be operable while the Unit is in Mode 4. Action State-ment a of this Technical Specification states that if no ECCS subsystem is operable because of the inoperability of either the centrifugal charging pump or the flow path from the refueling water storage tank, the licensee is required to restore at least one ECCS subsystem to operable status within one hour or be in Cold Shutdown within the next 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> if at least one Residual Heat Removal loop is operable.

Technical Specification 3.5.2 requires two independent ECCS subsystems to be operable while the Unit is in Modes 1, 2, or 3.

Technical Specification 3.0.3 requires that when a Limiting Conditions, for Operation (LCO) is not met, except as provided in Action requirements, that within one hour action shall be initiated to place the unit in a Mode in which the specification does not apply by placing it, as applicable, in at least Hot Standby uithin the next six hours, at least Hot Shutdown within the following six hours, and at least Cold Shutdown within the subsequent twenty-four hours.

Technical Specification 3.0.4 prohibits entry into an operational Mode unless the conditions of the LCOs are met without the reliance on provi-sions contained in the Action requirements.

Contrary to the above, at 4:40 p.m. on November 17, 1986, the unit operat-ing mode was changed from Mode 5 to 4 while dependant upon Action Statement a of Technical Specification 3.5.3, and at 11:44 p.m. on November 18, 1986 the unit was changed to Mode 3 while both ECCS subsystem flow paths were not operable. The Residual Heat Removal System loop suction valve's automatic isolation feature was defeated by electrical jumpers. On November 17, 1986, action was not taken to replace one ECCS subsystem to operability within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> or to place the unit in Cold Shutdown within the next 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />. From November 18 to 3:42 a.m. on November 20, 1986, action was not taken to place the unit in a mode in which Specification 3.5.2 did not apply.

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

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Alabama Power Company is hereby required to submit to this Office within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply including for each violation: (1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken

Notice of Violation 3 l

and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid

^; further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved..

Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' Criginal signed by

. . Nelson Grace J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator

Dated at Atlanta, Georgia i

this y/ day of March 1987

}

I i

l i

l r

i l

4 1

. , , - , - - . . , . . - , . --. -.=

, , - - . - , , - , . - . - - , . . , , - - , - , - , , ~ . , . - - - - - - - - . - , . , , , , , - , - - , , , - - , - - . - .