ML20237K717: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:I | {{#Wiki_filter:I e | ||
DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. BOX 33189 - | |||
CHARLOTTE, N.O. 28242 : | CHARLOTTE, N.O. 28242 : | ||
IIAL D. TUCKER | IIAL D. TUCKER TELEPHONE vwe earnionst (704) 373-4501 SF110LRAM PRUD00710N August 27, 1987 1 | ||
i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 l | i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 l | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
. Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 RII:PKV/MSL Violation 413.414/87-14-01 l | |||
l l | |||
l l | |||
==Dear Sir:== | ==Dear Sir:== | ||
Attached is Revision 1 to our response to the subject Violation which we transmitted to you on July 9, 1987. This revision is being submitted in response to your request of August 5, 1987. | Attached is Revision 1 to our response to the subject Violation which we transmitted to you on July 9, 1987. This revision is being submitted in response to your request of August 5, 1987. | ||
Very truly yours, | Very truly yours, V ks p | ||
( | ev Hal B. Tuclier LTP/86/sbn Attachment xc Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator | ||
( | |||
fY A2Qg;$,P | U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia.30323 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn NRC Resident Inspector l | ||
fe/ | Catawba Nuclear Station | ||
] | |||
fY A2Qg;$,P fe/ | |||
o | |||
4 | 4 | ||
/ | |||
RESPONSE 'IT) V10LATION 413, 414/87-14-01 Revision 1 Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires written procedures to be established, implemented..and maintained covering implementation of the Security Plan. | RESPONSE 'IT) V10LATION 413, 414/87-14-01 Revision 1 Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires written procedures to be established, implemented..and maintained covering implementation of the Security Plan. | ||
Contrary to the above, on April 10. 1987, written operations procedures were inadequate to implement applicable portions of the Security Plan from appro.ximately 8:20 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. when inoperability of the Unit 1 Standby Makeup Pump caused a degraded Standby Shutdown Facility. | Contrary to the above, on April 10. 1987, written operations procedures were inadequate to implement applicable portions of the Security Plan from appro.ximately 8:20 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. when inoperability of the Unit 1 Standby Makeup Pump caused a degraded Standby Shutdown Facility. | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
(1) Admission or Denial of Violation Duke Power Company admits the violation, however, Duke Power Company disagrees ' hat written procedures failed to require implementation of the Security Plan under degraded SSF conditions. | (1) Admission or Denial of Violation Duke Power Company admits the violation, however, Duke Power Company disagrees ' hat written procedures failed to require implementation of the Security Plan under degraded SSF conditions. | ||
(2) Reason for Violation if Admitted Personnel error was the cause of this violation. The Unit Supervisor failed to carry out instructions of the Shift Supervisor to notify Security of the degraded SSF condition. | (2) Reason for Violation if Admitted Personnel error was the cause of this violation. The Unit Supervisor failed to carry out instructions of the Shift Supervisor to notify Security of the degraded SSF condition. | ||
l | l (3) Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved (a) The individuals involved have been counselled as to the importance of complying with Security Plan requirements and completing assigned tasks. | ||
l | I 1 | ||
l (b) This violation was discussed at the Shift Supervisor's Meeting on May l | |||
15, 1987. | 15, 1987. | ||
l | l (4) Corrective Actions to be Taken to Avoid Further Violations l | ||
A Technical Specification Interpretation has been issued to instruct the Shift Supervisor to notify Security any time the SSF is degraded or inoperable. This is a controlled document. | A Technical Specification Interpretation has been issued to instruct the Shift Supervisor to notify Security any time the SSF is degraded or inoperable. This is a controlled document. | ||
(5) Date of Full Compliance Duke Power Compeny is now in full compliance. | (5) Date of Full Compliance Duke Power Compeny is now in full compliance. | ||
l l}} | l l}} | ||
Latest revision as of 06:42, 2 December 2024
| ML20237K717 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1987 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709040493 | |
| Download: ML20237K717 (2) | |
Text
I e
DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. BOX 33189 -
CHARLOTTE, N.O. 28242 :
IIAL D. TUCKER TELEPHONE vwe earnionst (704) 373-4501 SF110LRAM PRUD00710N August 27, 1987 1
i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 l
Subject:
. Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 RII:PKV/MSL Violation 413.414/87-14-01 l
l l
Dear Sir:
Attached is Revision 1 to our response to the subject Violation which we transmitted to you on July 9, 1987. This revision is being submitted in response to your request of August 5, 1987.
Very truly yours, V ks p
ev Hal B. Tuclier LTP/86/sbn Attachment xc Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator
(
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia.30323 Mr. P. K. Van Doorn NRC Resident Inspector l
Catawba Nuclear Station
]
fY A2Qg;$,P fe/
o
4
/
RESPONSE 'IT) V10LATION 413, 414/87-14-01 Revision 1 Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires written procedures to be established, implemented..and maintained covering implementation of the Security Plan.
Contrary to the above, on April 10. 1987, written operations procedures were inadequate to implement applicable portions of the Security Plan from appro.ximately 8:20 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. when inoperability of the Unit 1 Standby Makeup Pump caused a degraded Standby Shutdown Facility.
RESPONSE
(1) Admission or Denial of Violation Duke Power Company admits the violation, however, Duke Power Company disagrees ' hat written procedures failed to require implementation of the Security Plan under degraded SSF conditions.
(2) Reason for Violation if Admitted Personnel error was the cause of this violation. The Unit Supervisor failed to carry out instructions of the Shift Supervisor to notify Security of the degraded SSF condition.
l (3) Corrective Actions Taken and Results Achieved (a) The individuals involved have been counselled as to the importance of complying with Security Plan requirements and completing assigned tasks.
I 1
l (b) This violation was discussed at the Shift Supervisor's Meeting on May l
15, 1987.
l (4) Corrective Actions to be Taken to Avoid Further Violations l
A Technical Specification Interpretation has been issued to instruct the Shift Supervisor to notify Security any time the SSF is degraded or inoperable. This is a controlled document.
(5) Date of Full Compliance Duke Power Compeny is now in full compliance.
l l