ML20217J398

Notice of Violation from Insp on 970408-0805.Violations Noted:From 960814-970311,licensee Did Not Assure That Significant Condition Adverse to Quality Was Promptly Corrected

ML20217J398
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	10/09/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20217J396	List: IR 05000213/1997003 ML20217J392 ML20217J398
References
50-213-97-03, 50-213-97-3, EA-97-366, NUDOCS 9710210068
Download: ML20217J398 (2)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Docket No. 50-213 Haddam Neck Plant License No. DPR-61 EA 97 366 During NRC inspections conducted on April 8 August 5,1997, violations of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (60 FR 34381; June 30,1995) the violations are listed below.

10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion XVI, " Corrective Actions," requires 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 assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition.

1. Contrary to the above, from August 14,1996 to March 11,1997, the licensee did not assure that a significant condition adverse to quality was promptly corrected.

Specifically, the licensee was notified by a consulting engineering firm report TM-1788a dated August 14,1996 that potential water hammer in the SW cooling lines to the SFP system could occur following a loss of normal power event, and that the operability of the SW supply lines, and thus the SFP cooling system, could not be assured contrary to Technical Specification 3.9.15. Licensee actions to address this issue were neither timely or effective until March 11,1997, when a design change was developed to correct the design discrepancy and the matter was reported to the NRC (01013)

2. Contrary to the above, as of May 21,1997 the licensee did not assure that the '

cause of a significant condition adverse to quality was determined and that corrective actions preciuded repetition. Specifically, on November 27,1996, an operator failed to follow procedure PMP 9.1-31 which resulted in the operation of emergency diesel EG-2B with the Jacking tool installed but no engine damage resulted. The licensee response to this significant condition adverse to quality was neither timely nor thorough to resolve the cause and preclude repetition (personnel errors and/or procedure noncompliance). On May 21,1997, an operator again failed to follow procedure PMP 9.131, which resulted in the operation of emergency diesel EG-2A with the jacking tool installed and damage to the engine.

(01023)

These violations have been categorized in the aggregate as a Severity Level lli problem

, (Supplement 1).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Connecticut Yankee Atomic 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 I, 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

~

9710210068 971009 PDR ADOCK 05000213 G PDR I

2 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. Your response may reference or include previous docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required response. 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, f

J 1

Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this cf October 1997.

l