ML20207T394
| ML20207T394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1987 |
| From: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207T389 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-414-87-05, 50-414-87-5, NUDOCS 8703230519 | |
| Download: ML20207T394 (2) | |
Text
~
ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Duke Power Company Docket No. 50-414 Catawba 2 License No. NPF-52 4
During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on January 26 - February 25, 1987, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The violations involved failure to follow procedure resulting in a violation of Tecnnical Specification 4.0.2 and 4.0.4 and failure to comply with Technical
. Specification 3.6.3 associated with an inoperable containment isolation valve.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986), the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures shall be established, implemented, and maintained covering the applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A to Regulatory Guide 1.33, Pevision 2, February 1978.
Technical Specification 4.0.2 requires each surveillance requirement to be performed within the specified time interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25% of the interval.
Technical Specification 4.0.4 prohibits entry into an Operational Mode unless the surveillance requirements associated with the Limiting Condi-tion for Operation have been performed within the stated surveillance interval.
Contrary to the above, on February 2,1987 the licensee failed to perform PT/2/A/4600/19C, Pre-Mode 3 Surveillance Items, as required by step 2.14 of enclosure 4.1 of OP/2/A/6100/02, Controlling Procedure for Unit Shut-down.
This resulted in the failure to perform various surveillance requirements within a specified time interval of at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> resulting in a violation of Technical Specification 4.0.2 and Technical Stecification 4.0.4.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I) applicable to Unit 2 only.
B.
Technical Specification 3.6.3 requires the containment isolation valves specified in Table 3.6-2b to be operable with isolation times as shown.
The action statement requires an inoperable valve to be restored to operable status within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> or isolation of the affected penetration within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> or the reactor be in Hot Standby within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
B703230519 870309 ADOCK0500g3 DR
Duke Power Company 2
Docket No. 50-414 Catawba 2 License No. NPF-52 Contrary to the above, on February 4,1987 with the unit in Operational Mode 1, valve 2BB-8A failed to close within the maximum isolation time and was not returned to operational status within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, nor was the affected penetration isolated within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> nor was the reactor placed in Hot Standby within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I) applicable to Unit 2 only.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company is hereby required to submit to this Office within thirty (30) days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply including: (1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORIG;NAL S!CMED DY VIRGIL L. GROWNLEE Luis A. Reyes, Director Division of Reactor Projects this 6*3t Atlanta, Georgiaday of hVek 1987 Dated
-