ML20043A942
| ML20043A942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1990 |
| From: | Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043A937 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-90-09, 50-413-90-9, NUDOCS 9005230318 | |
| Download: ML20043A942 (2) | |
Text
b q
i
~!
ENCLOSURE'1 NOTICE-0F VIOLATION 1
\\
Duke-Power Company Docket No. 50-4131 l
Catawba Unit 1 License No. NPF-35' During ithe Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) inspection conducted on-March 4,1990: through April 13,1990, sviolations of : NRC requirements-were -
for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10,CFR Part 2,_ Appendix-C,L(1989)y and Procedure
-identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement =of=Polic
,-the violations-are set forth below:-
]
Technical ~ Specification 6.8.1 requires'that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the - activities referenced in Appendix: A of Regulatory Guide 1.'33, Revision-2 February.
4 1978'.
Implicit' in this requirement,is.the stipulation that the procedure be adequate for the task being performed.-
- i d
Station Directive - 3.1.14, ~ Operability Determination, ! requires.: thatiif.
1 responsible _ personnel believe a' component' operable: but-have concerns-relative to its - continued - operation, ' necessary actions L shall' be'- taken-4 expeditiously to - resolve the: concerns and confirm operability. '.These actions include the performance of' an-engineeririgl evaluation.1 l
Contrary to the above:
a l
1.
On March 23, 1990, an operator: failed to follo'w procedural. require-
]
l-ments while performing 0P/0/A/6450/11, Control Room Area-Ventila'-
tion / Chilled Water System, Enclosure 4.'8, Shifting Power Supplie's on j.
Control Room' Area Chiller's, item 2.2.4, in_ that heHlifted the power ll lead to.the runningL chiller which placed :the Unit in,TS:3.0.3.-
j 2.
Test procedure IP/1/A/3231/01, Incore Thermocouple and :RTD Cross Calibration, was' inadequate _in that on April 9, 1990, performance of-the test resulted -in the licensee-rendering all; four channels of ESF
'j instrumentation required for Mode 3 operation: inoperable.-
'j 3.
Surveillance procedure PT/1/A/4200/09, Engineering. Safeguards-Features Actuation Periodic Test, was inadequate in that it failed to a
provide the necessary steps to ensure that the resulting injection 1
flow through 1NI-9, Centrifugal Charging Pump Cold Leg Injection j
l-Isolation Valve, did not result in_ excessive temperature changes to 1
L the pressurizer.
As a result of the procedure' inadequacy, on 1
March 25 an 26, 1990, the pressurizer was subjected to two cooldown transients which exceeded 200*F in less~than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and two subse-f quent heatups which exceeded 100 F in less than 1-hour.
I 9005230318 900510 PDR ADOCK 05000413 i
O PDC
'f o
a :1
.t I
L~'
Duke' Power Company-Docket No. 50-413 Catawba Unit 1 License No. NPF-35 1
4.
- On March 25, 1990, following a rapid cooldown -and heatup of the
. pressurizer, which exceeded Technical ' Specification allowable l limits, i
the: Shift Supervisor failed to take action to. initiate 'an engineering:
]J evaluation to determine the effects onithe'structura1Lintegrity and acceptability :for continued operation of the - pressurizer.
This a
contributed toi a decision to continue with testingt ni progress which -
i resulted in a second similar pressurizer transient on March 26, 1990,
-which again: exceeded the cooldown;and heatup limits..
-This is=a Severity Level IV. Violation'. -(SupplementI)
Pursuant.to'the1 provisions-of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company :is-hereby' re-q quired to submit a written statement or-explanation to the Nuclear Regulatory j
Commission ATTN:- Document Control Desk,-- Washington,:.DC -20555, with a; copy-to; the' RegionalL Administrator, iRegionL II, and a copya to < the NRC-' Resident.
- j s
Inspector, Catawba, :within : thirty 1(30) -days-of. the date-of theDietter 4
transmitting"this: Notice. This' reply should be clearly marked:as a " Reply to, a j
Noticedof Vio'lation" and should include: (1)L admission or denial of. the i
violation, (2) the. reason for the violation if admitted, (3).the: corrective:
- l steps which have been-taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective stepsi
'l which will be-taken to avoid further violations.and (5); the date!when--full' i
compliance will be achieved.. Where good.caus'e;is shown, consideration will be
-j given to extending the response time.
If an adequate lreplytis not received -
within the time specified-in thisl Notice, an order may-benissued to show-cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not'be taken.
~
1 FOR THE; NUCLEAR REGULATORYLCOMMISSION
- j
/)'l 1
- Alan R. Herdt, Chief j
Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor-Projects Dated et Atlanta, Georgia j'
this 10tii day of May
.1990
^!
1 4
4