ML20214U358

Notice of Violation from Insp on 861001-1107

ML20214U358
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	11/26/1986
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214U327	List: IR 05000213/1986027 ML20214U323 ML20214U358
References
50-213-86-27, NUDOCS 8612090240
Download: ML20214U358 (2)

Text

,. } :.!

APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Docket No.

50-213 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 License No. DPR During inspection from October 1 - November 17, 1986, and in accordance with the

" General Statement of Policy'and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (Enforcement Policy 1986), the following violations were found:

1.

Technical. Specification 6.8 requires written procedures to be established,

. implemented and maintained.

Surveillance Procedure SUR 5.1-4, Hot Functional Test, requires the high pressure safety injection combined loop recirculation stop valve SI-V-865 to be reclosed prior to the completion of the test.

Contrary to the above, valve SI-V-865 was not reclosed upon completion of surveillance test SUR 5.1-4 on October 2, 1986, and remained open until November 3, 1986.-

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

Since acceptable cor-rective actions have been initiated, no reply is required at this time.

2.

Technical Specification 6.8 requires written procedures to be established, implemented and maintained.

Surveillance Procedure SUR 5.7-19, Inservice In-spection Pump Surveillance, requires the pressure gauges used for the test to be calibrated quarterly and the associated calibration data sheets to be attached to the procedure.

Contrary to the above, the Auxiliary Feedwater System pressure gauges used for the SUR 5.7-19 surveillance performed on November 5, 1986 were not cali-brated quarterly.

Also, the associated calibration data sheets were not attached to the SUR 5.7-19 procedures performed on August 5 and November 5, 1986.

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

Since acceptable cor-rective actions have been initiated, no reply is required at this time.

3.

10 CFR 50.54(o) and 10 CFR 50 Appendix J require leak rate tests to be per-formed following the replacement of components which are part of the contain-ment boundary.

Contrary to the above, on May 3,1986, component cooling system check valve CC-CV-885, the containment boundary valve for the neutron shield tank cooling water supply line, was replaced and no post-maintenance leak rate test was performed to measure the associated containment boundary leakage upstream of this valve.

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

Since acceptable cor-rective actions have been initiated no reply is required at this time.

~

8612090240 861126ADOCK 05000213 PDR PDR G

9,'$.

4 o

Appendix A 2

4.

Technical Specification 3.11, Containment, requires containment integrity to be maintained whenever the reactor coolant system (RCS) is above 300 psig and 200 F.

Technical Specification 1.8, Containment Integrity, requires that all pene-trations required to be closed during accident conditions be either: a) cap-able of being closed by OPERABLE containment automatic isolation valves, or b) closed by manual valves, blind flanges, or deactivated automatic valves secured and locked in their closed positions.

Contrary to the above, on October 8,1986, with the RCS greater than 300 psig and 200 F, normally locked closed manual containment isolation valve CC-V-884 was opened to fill the neutron shield tank.

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

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company is hereby re-quired to submit to this office. within thirty days of the letter which transmitted this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply to Violation No. 4 above, including: (1) the corrective steps taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps to be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compli-ance will be achieved.

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