ML20212B310

Notice of Violation from Insp on 970628-0808.Violations Noted:Licensee CA for NOV Issued on 970124 Re Inadequate Instructions for Performing Manual Backwash,Were Not Adequate to Preclude Repetition

ML20212B310
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	10/15/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212B296	List: IR 05000373/1997011 ML20212B294 ML20212B310
References
50-373-97-11, 50-374-97-11, NUDOCS 9710280044
Download: ML20212B310 (3)

Text

.. .

l NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket Nos. 50 373; 50-374 LaSalle County Station License Nos. NPF 11; NPF 18 Units 1 :nd 2 During an NRC inspection conducted on June 28 through August 8,1997, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the

• General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG 1600, the violations are listed below:

1. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI," Corrective Action,' requires that in the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and correctlye action .eken to preclude repetition.

Contrary to the above, the licensee's corrective actions for a Notice of Violation issued on January 24,1997, concerning inadequate instructions for performing a manual backwash, were not adequate to preclude repetition. Specifically, on February 17,1997, the licensea identified that the manual backwash procedure could not be performed as written and did not correct the procedure until July 9,1997, when the operability of the strainers was questioned by the inspectors.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement l} (50-373/9701101).

2. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, " instructions, Procedures, and Drawings,"

requires that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with instructions and procedures appropriate to the circumstances.

LaSalle Administrative Procedure 220 5," Equipment Operability Determinations,"

Revision 5, Step E.4.a requires that the initial operability determination be completed promptly by appropriate operating shift personnel (usually within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />). In some cases, it may require up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for completion.

LaSalle Administrative Procedure 100-40," Procedure Use and Adherence Expectations,"

Revision 11, Step B 0.2, requires that all numbered steps in an operating surveillance be performed in sequence.

Contrary to the above:

a. The shift manager did not perform a prompt initial operability evaluation of the impact of unsecured equipment on the main control room (MCR) panels during a seismic event until July 15,1997, although the inspectors had notified the shift manager on July 10,1997, of the concern. In addition, the shift manager did not perform an operability assessment of unsecured equipment in plant switchgear rooms until July 29,1997, five days after being notified by engineering personnel of the potential operability concem.

b. On July 29,1997, inspectors identified that operations personnel did not perform Step 16.e of LaSalle Operating Surveillance (LOS) HP-Q1,"High Pressure Core Spray System inservice Test," Revision 34, Attachment 1.

This is a Severity LevelIV violation (Supplement I) (50 373/9701102; 50 374/97011-02).

i 9710200044 97101S i PDR ADOCK 05000373 G PDH i

Notice of Violation 2

3. Technical Specification 6.2.A.f requires that written procedures be established, implemented, and maintained to support the implementation of the Offsite Dose Calc'Jlation Manual.

The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Chapter 12. " Radioactive Effluent Technical Standards," Table 12.2.12, requires that radioactive liquid effluent monitoring Instrumentation on the residual heat removal service water effluent lines be source checked monthly.

The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Chapter 12. " Radiological Effluent Technical Standards," Table 12.1 1, requires that each surveillance requirement be performed within the specified surveillance Interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified Interval.

Contrary to the above, the licensee did not source check the residual heat removal service water effluent monitor within the required monthly test interval and maxirnum allowable extension. LaSalle Operational Surveillance PR M2,"Gervice Water, RHR Service Water, and RDCCW [ reactor building closed cooling water) Process Radiation Monitors Source Check," Revision 6, was performed on June 11,1997, and 47 days later on July 28,1997, which was not within the required monthly test interval plus 25 percent maximum allowable extension.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) (50 373/9701104i 50 374/9701104).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Commonwealth Edison Company is hereby regulred to submit a written statement of explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region ill, and a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the LaSalle facility, within 30 days of the date of the lettsr 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 violati:.n, or, if contested, the basis for disputing the violation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (3) the correct,.e steps that will be taken to avoid further vlotations, 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 as to 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.

Because your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), to the extent possible, it should not melude any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction. If personal privacy or proprietary infumation is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then please provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that dQtes such information. If you request withholding of such material, you mWJJ specifically identify the portions of your response that you seek tc have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withhviding (e.g., explain why the disclosure of information will

i 1

i i

Notice of Violation 3

)

i create an unwarranted invaslot, of privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR l'.790(b)

! to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial information). If safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, please provide the level of protection described in 10 CFR 73.21. -[

i t

Dated at Lisle, Illinols th!s 15th day of October,1997 P

i 7

i 2

8 l

l

+

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

. _