ML20245J997
| ML20245J997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1988 |
| From: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245J994 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-346-88-12, NUDOCS 8907030242 | |
| Download: ML20245J997 (2) | |
Text
.
A o
j NY i
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Toledo Edison Company Docket No. 50-346 As a result of the inspection conducted on May 4, through August 2,1988, and in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C - General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions (1988), the following violations were l
identified:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," requires in part that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with appropriate procedures. This requirement is implemented by the Toledo Edison Company Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual, Section 5, Paragraph 5.4.1.1 which states in part that activities that affect quality shall be accomplished in accordance with procedures.
A.
Nuclear Group Procedure NG-DS-205, " Plant Maintenance," dated November 25, 1986, Paragraph 6.7.4, " Scope of Work," states, in part, that the Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance, shall ensure that only work specified in the Maintenance Work Package is to be performed.
Contrary to the above, on February 7,1987, the Assistant Plant Manager failed to ensure that only work specified in the Maintenance Work Package was performed in that after plant staff unsuccessfully attempted to perform a functional check of the timing sequence of the oil failure safety control switch, PSL-2807, and associated timer for the control room emergency ventilation system condensing unit per Maintenance Work Order 3-87-1174-01, they obtained an uncontrolled manufacturer's instruction for testing the time delay and conducted this test prior to incorporating it into the work package.
B.
Quality Assurance Division Procedure (QADP) No. 2.2 (QA-QC-07002.02),
" Qualification and Certification of Personnel Performing Quality Control Activities," Revision 1, dated October 16, 1987, Paragraph 6.4.3, requires, in part, that individuals who meet the education and experience requirements for a specific level and discipline, and who have been previously certified in that discipline shall be qualified based on, among other things, completion of Generic and Discipline qualification cards.
Contrary to the above, on July 14, 1988, the inspector determined that several Davis-Besse certified QC inspectors had not completed the qualification cards.
C.
Toledo Edison Company procedure, NMP-QA-702 R1, dated May 25, 1986,
" Potential Condition Adverse to Quality Reporting," Section 6.2.3, f
" Processing," states in part that, "Following supervisory review, all PCAQ reports shall be hand carried to the shift supervisor for numbering, logging, completion of those sections of part 1 that apply, but were not l
addressed, and determination of their deportability."
fDR907030242 880922 ADOCK 05000346 g
PNU
r)
O 1
x_.
3 4
Section 6.3.3, " Technical Support Department Review," states in part that, "following deportability determination, the.PCAQ report shall be forwarded to the Plant Technical Support Department for review and submittal to the PCAQ Review Board."
1.
Contrary to the above, on May 14, 1987, a Potential Condition Adverse to Quality Report (PCAQR) was written by a Quality Control inspector concerning the HP E-7-1 Condenser internal steamline.
weld and pipe cracks. The PCAQR was reviewed by his supervisor, but not delivered to the shift supervisor or to the PCAQR Review Board for review and processing.
2.
Contrary to the above, on July 10, 1986, a PCAQR was written
.by a QC inspector concerning deficiencies with Raychem splice documentation identified in MWO 1-86-0991-04. The PCAQR was reviewed by the QC supervisor, but not delivered to the shift supervisor or to the PCAQR Review Board for review and processing.
This is a Severity Leve1 IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each violation:
(1) corrective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
9In/a Gn Mw Dated Edward G. Greehman, Director Division of Reactor Projects I
e_--____-_-__-_--_
l