ML20148H736

Notice of Violation from Insp on 880126-0225.Violations Noted:On 880123,RCS Pressure Allowed to Exceed 1,955 Psig & on 880109,equipment Operator Designated to Remove Safety Tag 410 Removed Tag & Repositioned Switch W/O Approval

ML20148H736
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	03/10/1988
From:	Brownlee V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148H733	List: IR 05000413/1988008 ML20148H728 ML20148H736
References
50-413-88-08, 50-413-88-8, 50-414-88-08, 50-414-88-8, NUDOCS 8803300073
Download: ML20148H736 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ ._

ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Duke Power Company Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 Catawba 1 and 2 License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52 During the "uclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on January 26, 1988 through February 25, 1988, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions",10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the violations are listed below:

A.

Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable proce-dures recommended in Appendix A to Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2.

1.

OP/1/A/6100/01, Controlling Procedure for Unit Startup, step 2.60 cautions the operator not to exceed 1955 psig reactor coolant system pressure prior to steam generator pressure being greater than or equal to 725 psig as this will cause a safety injection on low steam pressure.

Contrary to the above, on January 23, 1988, reactor coolant system pressure was allowed to exceed 1955 psig prior to steam generator pressure being greater than or equal to 725 psig. This resulted in a safety injection on Unit 1.

2.

Catawba Nuclear Station Directive 3.1.1 Safety Tags and Delineation tags sections 5.3.5 and 8.4.4 requires the person designated to remove a safety tag to receive the completed tag stub from the recalling authority, obtain recall approval from the recall authority, take the stub to the equipment and verify the tag number and stub number agree prior to removing the tag.

Contrary to the above, on February 9,1988, an equipment operator designated to remove safety tag #410 of tagout number 28-223 or, the SSPS Output Relay Mode Selector Switch, removed the tag and reposi-tioned the switch without having received the completed tag stubs and without having obtained recall approval from the recall authority (Assistant injection onShif Unitt 2.

Supervisor). This resulted in an inadvertent safety These examples in the aggregate are a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I).

8803300073 880310 PDR ADOCK 05000413 Q DCD

r-

)

Duke Power Company 2 Catawba 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414 License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52

8. 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8, Criterion XVI as implemented by Quality Assurance Program (Duke 1-A, Amendment II) Section 17.2.16 requires that measures be established to assure that the cause of significant conditions adverse to quality be determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition and items of the same type be evaluated to determine whether or not they can be expected to continue to function.

Contrary to the above, corrective action measures to preclude repetition of a significant condition adverse to quality were

<nadequate in that during the implementation of Temporary Station 11odification correct Work Request 5831 IAE and Exempt Change CE-0840, to faulty motor mounting hardware for 2ND-368, the licensee

1. ailed to properly evaluate applicability of the modification to 2ND-2A.

Being that the modification was not applied to 2ND-2A, this contributed to the motor of 2ND-2A ejecting from the actuator when aperated on February 1,1988.

This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement I).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company is hereby Commissid , submit a written statement or explanation to the Nuclear Regulatory requbed to ATTil. C) .ument Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector witF'n thf rty (30) days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice.

ibis repl,s should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) admission or dental of the violation, (2) the rea.;on for t).e violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have be been taken ',o taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will will be achieved.avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance extending the response Wheretime.good cause is shown, consideration will be given to If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an 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.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W V OW Virgi L. Brownlee, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 j

Division of Reactor Projects Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 4 day of March 1988 i

.