ML20247N694

Notice of Violation from Safety Insp on 890512-0707. Violation Noted:Secondary Containment Integrity Did Not Exist Due to Internal Conduit Seals Not Installed in Conduit Penetrations Through Secondary Containment Per Design

ML20247N694
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	07/25/1989
From:	Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247N684	List: IR 05000461/1989018 ML20247N678 ML20247N694
References
50-461-89-18, NUDOCS 8908030115
Download: ML20247N694 (2)

Text

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

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Illinois Power Company Docket No. 50-461 Clinton Power Station License No. NPF-62 As a result of the inspection conducted on May 12 through July 7,1989, 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 3.6.6.1 required that SECONDARY CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY be maintained in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3, and when irradiated fuel was being handled in the secondary containment and during CORE ALTERATIONS and operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel. Technical Specification Definition 1.3.8 defined SECONDARY CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY as existing when, in part, the sealing mechanism associated with each secondary containment penetration, e.g., welds, bellows or 0-rings, was OPERABLE.

Contrary to the above, from initial plant operation on September 29, 1986, until April 14, 1989, for 5 penetrations, and until June 24, 1989, for 4 other penetrations, SECONDARY CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY did not exist because internal conduit seals were not installed in the conduit penetrations through the secondary containment per design. The plant was operated extensively in the above OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS during that time period.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)

(50-461/89018-01(DRP)).

2. a. Technical Specification 4.4.4.c.1 required that when no contanaous conductivity monitors were available ir OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, and 3, in-line conductivity measurements be taken at least once per four hours.

Contrary to the above, the plant entered OPERATIONAL CONDITION 2 at 1:53 p.m. on May 21, 1989, with no continuous conductivity monitors OPERABLE. An in.line conductivity measurement was not performed until 7:50 p.m. cn May 21.

b. Technical Specification Table 4.3.6-1, Notation (c), required that the Rod Pattern Control System Rod Withdrawal Limit High Power Setpoint Channel Functional Test be conducted as each power range is entered for the first time during any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period during power increases or decreases. <

Contrary to the above, the plant went above the Low Pcwer Setpoint during a power increase for the first time in a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period on June 21, 1989, and the High Power Setpoitat Channel Functienal Test was not perforp.ed.

l 8908030115 890725 PDR O ADOCK 05000461 PDC

_ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - l

Notice'of Violation 2

c. Technical Specification Table 4.3.1.1-1 required that the Average Power Range Monitor Flow Biased Simulated Thermal Power - High and Neutron Flux - High Channel Calibrations be performed prior to entry into OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1.

Contrary to the above, the plant entered OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1 on June 26, 1989, and possibly on previous occasions without performing the required Channel Calibrations.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)

(50-461/89018-02(DRP)).

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 taken and theinresults including:(2)(1) reply,achieved; thethe corrective actions that have been corrective actions that will 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.

WUL 2 5 989 1 Dahm. N.

aw Dated Edward G. Gre6nmEfi, Directiar)

Division of Reactor Projects l

l l

l.

. _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _