ML20244E436

Notice of Violation from Insp on 890316-0530.Violations Noted:Improper Mounting of Diesel Generator Svc Water HX, Failure to Adequately Control Svc Air Sys & Failure to Bypass Thermal Overload Protection on Valves

ML20244E436
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	06/12/1989
From:	Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20244E428	List: IR 05000461/1989014 ML20244E424 ML20244E436
References
50-461-89-14, NUDOCS 8906200338
Download: ML20244E436 (3)

Text

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

' nG '

q:

t, NOTICE OF VIOLATION l:

Illinois Power Company Docket No. 50-461-L' Clinton Power Station License No. NPF-62'

.c As a result of the inspection conducted on March 16, 1989, through May 30,-

1989, and in accordance with the " General Policy and Procedure for NRC

, Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the following violations were identified:

1.' Technical Specification 3.8.1.1.b required that in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, and 3 three separate and independent diesel generators be OPERABLE. Technical Specification 3.5.1 further required that in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, AND 3 ECCS-Division III-(High Pressure Core Spray) be OPERAELE.

Contrary to the above, from initial plant startup on February 27, 1987, until March 2, 1989, the 1C diesel generator was inoperable-because it did not meet its design basis as stated in Section 3.2 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report which required that the diesel

generator, including its cooling system, be designed to withstand the effects ofLa safe shutdown earthquake. During the time period above, three of the four mounting bolts for the IC diesel generator service water heat exchanger were not properly installed and the heat exchanger may have failed during a safe shutdown earthquake. Failure of.the 1C diesel. generator during a loss of offsite power event would have rendered the High Pressure Core Spray System inoperable. The plant ~was operated extensively in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, and 3 during the time period above.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)

(50-461/89014-01(DRP)).

12. Technical Specification 6.8.1.a required that written procedures be established, implemented, and maintained covering the Authorities and Responsibilities for Safe Operation and Shutdown. Administrative Procedure CPS-No. 1401.01, " Conduct of Operations," required, in part,~that prior to removing a system from service the Shift Supervisor / Assistant Shift Supervisor evaluate the impact on other equipment and on plant operations.

Contrary to the above, on March 20, 1989, the Shift Supervisor / Assistant Shift Supervisor ordered that service air to the containment be removed from service without correctly evaluating the impact on other equipment and plant operations. This resulted in the loss of air to the steam dryer storage gate pool seal and the draining of approximately 40,000 gallons of water into the drywell.

h e

NN

..'? .. i Notice of Violation 2 This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)

(50-461/89014-03(DRP)).

3. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criteria III stated, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the  ;

design basis as specified in the license application are correctly l translated into specifications. I Contrary to the above, Updated Safety Analysis Report, Paragraph 8.1.6.1.19, which stated the licensee's commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.106, which required that motor operated valves have their thermal overloads continuously bypassed in the safety direction, and Table 6.2.47 which identifies the-cafety position of motor operated valves, were not properly i translated in Technical Specification Table 3.8.4.2-1, in that several  !

motor opercted valves (listed in Paragraph 5d) did not have their thermal  ;

overload protection bypassed when required to perform an active safety i function.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1)

(50-461/89014-04(DRP)).

1

4. Technical Specification 6.8.1.a required that written procedures be j established, implemented, and maintained covering equipment control 1 (e.g., locking and tagging). Administrative Procedure CPS No. '1401.01,

" Conduct of Operations," required, in part, that the Shift Supervisor /

Assistant Shift Supervisor authorize the manipulation of a locked valve, ,

through either the safety tagging program, or an approved operating or l surveillance procedure that contains the proper controls to ensure that the valve is returned to its proper position and relocked. ,

4 l Contrary to the above, at some time between April 11 and April 20, 1989, 12 lo::ked valves in the Scram Discharge Instrument Volume were  ;

onlocked without proper controls to ensure they were relocked. 1 This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)

(50-461/89014-06(DRP)).

i

[ 5. Technical Specification 6.8.1.d required that written procedures be j

j. established, implemented, and maintained covering surveillance and test activities of safety-related equipment.

Contrary to the above, the licensee did not properly establish surveillance and test procedures for the control of a reactor coolant system leakage test and control rod scram time testing. The procedures were inadequate in that they did not provide cautions concerning the conduct of operations which could result in pressure i

)

I i

,, o X

j Notice of Violation 3

'transientsiduring the tests. The result was that during the tetting -I the licensee experienced a loss of pressure control, lifting of i l;, . safety relief valves, and a group I containment. isolation.- '

V -

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement _I) l -(50-461/89014-07(DRP)).. ,

i With respect to item 1, the inspection showed that actions had been taken L to correct the identified violation and to prevent recurrence.

Consequently,.no reply to the violation is required and we have no further.  ;

i

. questions regarding this matter. With respect'to the remaining items, j L pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to- submit to  !

this of fice within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in: reply, including: (1) the corrective actions that have been taken and.the results. achieved; (2) the corrective actions that will be taken to avoid furtherLviolations; and (3) the date when full I compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your  !

response. time for good cause shown. l 1

JUN l's 1999 Dated. h Edward G. Greerlmain, DiredWr Mkb l DivisionofReactor-Projects l l i

l .

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