ML20151Z317

From kanterella
Revision as of 09:09, 24 October 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notice of Violation from Insp on 851201-860112
ML20151Z317
Person / Time
Site: Hope Creek PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 02/06/1986
From:
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20151Z286 List:
References
50-354-85-61, NUDOCS 8602140134
Download: ML20151Z317 (2)


Text

.

APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION i Public Service Electric and Gas Company Docket No. 50-354 Hope Creek Generating Station License No. CPPR-120 As a result of the inspection conducted on December 1,1985 - January 12, 1986, and in accordance with NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR 2, Appendix C),

the following violations were identified:

A. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that activities t affecting quality be accompitshed in accordance with documented procedures.

I Startup Administrative Procedure 24 (SAP-24), Revision 10, states that changes in testing sequence, excluding testing sequence changes allowed i

in the test procedure, require use of a Change Notice (CN) or On-The-Spot-Change (OTS). SAP-24 states that retesting is required when maintenance or modification has been performed on equipment whose operation is an acceptance criterion, and that this retesting shall be referenced on the Test Endorsement Record and performed using CN/0TS procedures. SAP-24 requires Quality Assurance approval of test changes which add, delete or alter a QC Mandatory Witness Point (MWP).

4

. Contrary to the above, during performance of Preoperational Test 1

Procedure PTB-AB-1, Revision 0 (Main Steam System) on December 12,- 1985, t the test sequence was changed, retesting was performed, and Quality Control Mandatory Witness Pointi, were deleted without proper' documentation and approval as required by Startup Administrative 4

Procedure 24. ,

This is Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II) r B. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V requires that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with documented instructions, procedures or drawings. Listed below-are examples of failure to follow

, procedures for conducting quality control inspections:

1. Bechtel Quality Control Instruction 10855/P-1.10, Revision 8, Piping l Subassembly Fabrication, Installation and Rework, requires inspection of completed piping system component installation or rework to verify its compliance with applicable design criteria.

< Contrary to the above, on November 3, 1985, a non quality bolt was '

observed within the quality boundary of the core spray system in the  ;

core spray pump D discharge flange. Final Quality Control inspection had been completed on September 5, 1985 and had not identified the discrepancy.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IR HC 85 0005.0.0 11/29/80

Appendix A 2

2. Bechtel Quality Control Instruction 10855/P-2.10, Revision 12, Inspection of Pipe Support Installation, requires inspection of completed pipe supports to verify proper staking.

Contrary to the above;

a. On December 12, 1985 retaining pins on Main Steam Line Snubber 1-AB-031-H04(Q) were observed to have not been properly installed. The Final Quality Control inspection had been completed and approved without exception on October 23, 1985.
b. On December 14, 1985 required retaining clips on support 1-P-EG-173-H44(Q) in the auxiliary safety coding system had not been installed. Final Quality Control inspection had been completed and approved without exception on June 13, 1985.

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

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Public Service Electric & Gas Company is hereby required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of the letter which transmitted this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) the corrective steps which have been taken and results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

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

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IR HC 85 0006.0.0 11/29/80