ML20062A101

Notice of Violation from Insp on 900803-0905.Violation Noted:Shift Supervisor Failed to Follow Procedural Requirements

ML20062A101
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	10/03/1990
From:	Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062A098	List: IR 05000413/1990024 ML20062A095 ML20062A101
References
50-413-90-24, 50-414-90-24, NUDOCS 9010190076
Download: ML20062A101 (2)

Text

-

- 9 9

kw ..

1 p .

H ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE-0F VIOLATION Duke Power Company Docket No. 50-414 Catawba ~ Unit 2 License No. NPF-52 ij During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on j August 3,1990 through September 5,1990, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, (1990), the violation is listed below: .j Technical Specification 3.9.2.1 -requires that two trains 'of the Boron Dilution Mitigation System (BDMS) be operable and operating in Mode 6.

With one or both trains of BDMS inoperable, two Source Range Neutron Flux

-(SRNF) Monitors must be operable and operating .with continuous visual indication in-the control roomL and audible indication in the Control Room ' l; and. Containment, Technical . Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures be j established, implemented, and maintained covering the activities. .I referenced in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Ruision 2, February  ;

1978. I Contrary to the above:

1. Procedure OP/2/A/6100/02, Controlling Procedure for. Unit Shutdown, ~;

Enclosure 4.3, Step 2.9, requires in part that either two. trains of l the BDMS system be verified to be operable and operating or two SRNF l monitors :with visual indication in the control room and audible - l E

indication in the control room and containment be operable and ,

operating prior to entering Mode 6. ;j On July 22, 1990, the Shift Supervisor failed to follow procedural w requirements in that with the BDMS system inoperable, the Shif t

' Supervisor signed off procedural steps verifying that two SRNF l monitors were operable and operating with visual indication in the control' room and audible indication in the control room and

~

containment when in fact the audible indication for both the control room and containment was -inoperable. This resulted in .the. unit operating in Mode 6 with the BDMS and both SRNF audible indications n inoperable.

2. PT/2/A/4600/19F, Premode 6 Periodic Surveillance Items, L Enclosure 13.3, Step 1,. requires in part that prior to the unit )

being placed in Mode 6, the control room operator verify that both SRNF monitors are operable and operating with visual indication in the control room and audible indication in the control room and containment if the BDMS is operable, n

9010.190076 DR 901oo3 1 ADOCK 05000413 f PDC L::

g <

h ^i ! 'V' r .

Duke; Power Company 2. ' Docket No. 50-414-C Catawba Unit 2 License No. NPF-52 o

On July 23, 1990,- the control room operator' failed to follow ,

procedurali requirements in that with the BDMS system inoperable, the control' room operator signed off the procedure step verifying that 1 two SRNF monitors' were operable and operating with visual inoication. I in the' control room and audible indication in the control room and -

containment when-in fact the audible: indication-for both the control room and containment was inoperable. This resulted in the unit entering in Mode 6 and commencing core alternation with the BDMS and; both SRNF audible indications inoperable.

1 This is a Severity Level' IV Violation and applies to- Unit 2 only.

(Supplement I).

Pursuant l to the- provisions of 10' CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company is hereby required to submit a written statement 'or explanation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the= Regional Administrator,. Region II, and if applicable, a copy .c to the NRC, Resident transmitting Inspector, this Notice within of Violation 30 day)s (Notice of the

. This date of .the reply.should beletter clearly' marked - as a " Reply' to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation:- (1) the l reason for the violation, or, if contested the basis for disputing therviolation, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the.

results-achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further. 1

. violations, and -(4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an- i order 'may be-issued 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. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the-1 response. time. -

l-FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMJSSION

/

./ <

gnLuisA.Reyes,Direco[ .

Division of Reactor Projects l t  ;

-Dated at Atlanta, Georgia  ?

this ' T'* day of Cb.isec 1990 e

f i

]