IR 05000413/1985041

Insp Repts 50-413/85-41 & 50-414/85-40 on 850826-0925.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Followup of Licensee & NRC Identified Items & Maint & Surveillance Observation for Unit 1

ML20198B549
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	10/18/1985
From:	Dance H, Skinner P, Vandoorn P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198B521	List: IR 05000413/1985041 ML20198B515
References
50-413-85-41, 50-414-85-40, NUDOCS 8511060522
Download: ML20198B549 (11)

Text

UNITED STATES

/ Ipa afcg%', Pu'UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

+^

. ., REGION ll h ,' h 101 MARIETTA STHEET. *

• j ATL ANT A, GEORGI A 30323 g ss.....f Report Nos.: 50-413/85-41 and 50-414/85-40 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket No and 50-414 License Nos.. NPF-35 and CPPR-117 Facility Name: Catawba 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: August 26 - September 25, 1985 Inspectors: _

P. K. VanDo rn ff2 _ _ _/ _ Da

/_O /

e Su ned_

diiise y

-

~

P /

Approved by: $~u H. C. Dance, bection Chief jd_ j D e S gned Division of Rea,ctor Projects SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection involved 196 resident inspector-hours on site in the areas of followup of licensee and NRC identified items (Units 1 and 2); plant operations review (Unit 1); maintenance observations (Unit 1); surveillance observation (Unit 1); design, design changes, and modifications (Unit 1); offsite review committee (Units 1 and 2); preoperational test program procedure review and observations (Unit 2); comparison of as-built plant to FSAR description (Unit 2); fuel receipt and storage (Unit 2); informa-tion meetings with local officials (Units 1 and 2); and review of licensee events (Units 1 and 2).

Results: Of the 11 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000413 G PDR

. _ _ __ -. -- __ . . _ . - i

.

.

.

REPORT DETAILS

, Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

*J. W. Hampton, Station Manager H. L. Atkins, QA Engineering Supervisor

• H. B. Barron, Operations Superintendent W. H. Bradley, QA Surveillance 8. F. Caldwell, Station Services Superintendent

J. W. Cox, Superintendent, Technical Services T. E. Crawford, Operations Engineer L. R. Davison, Project QA Manager J. R. Ferguson, Assistant Operating Engineer R. C. Futrell, Chairman, Nuclear Safety Review Board

• G. Goodman, QA Engineer C. L. Hartzell, Licensing and Projects Engineer D. D. Isenhour, Hanger Technical Support R. A. Jones, Test Engineer C. S. Kelly, Instrumen,tation/ Electrical Technical Support

• P. G. LeRoy, Licensing Engineer W. W. McCollough, Maintenance Engineer C. E. Muse, Operating Engineer

• T. D. Mills, Construction Engineer, Electrical D. B. O'Brien, Administrative Methods Supervisor G. T. Smith, Maintenance Superintendent D. Tower, Operating Engineer R. E. White, Chairman, Catawba Safety Review Group

• E. G. Williams, Project QA Technician

Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen,

technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office

] personnel.

'

• Attended exit interview l Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 25, 1985, '

with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The unresolved item and inspector followup item described in paragraphs 7 b and 13 were discussed in detai The licensee acknowledged the findings and had no dissenting comments. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspectio ,

I

..

-. -

- ..

,

1  ;

i

!

l 2

!

!

, The inspectors noted at the exit meeting that NRC had been informed that the r

,

Project QA Manager would be transferred to the corporate office en October 1 .

,

j 1935, and the Operations QA Manager would assume supervision of the remaining >

construction QA personnel during the remainder of the constructien/ operations !

QA transition for Unit 2.

I l

3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92702) (Unit 1)

} (Closed) Violation 413/83-55-01, 414/83-41-01: Failure to Fully j Implement Regulatory Guide 1.58. Revision 1. ANSI N45.2-6-1978, '

i

SNT-TC-1A-1975 and SNT-TC-1A-19S The response to this item was submitted on February 24, 1984 In addition, Revision 9 to tne Duke .

! Power Company Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program Duke 1-A, dated ;

l July 30, 1985, addressed the matte The inspector reviewed this j response and the associated changes in Revision 9, verified the ;

implementation of corrective actions and considers licensee action to j be acceptabl ;

,

) (Closed) Violation 413/85-04-02: Failure to Maintain Firewatch and Log f j on an Impaired Fire Barrier. The response to this item was submitted

on March 28, 1985. The inspector reviewed this response and verified !

implementation of corrective actions and considers licensee action to .

I be acceptabl [

]

! (Closed) Violation 413/85-20-03: Failure to Maintain Cleanliness !

i Control In the Diesel Generator Room. The response to this item was

! submitted on August 9, 1985. The inspector reviewed this response and j verified implementation of corrective actions and considers licensee

action to be acceptabl i i (Closed) Violation 413/85-26-02: Failure to Follow Procedure :

i Associated with Safety Injection Pump Operations. The response to this '

l item was submitted on August 14, 1985. The inspector reviewed this j response and verified implementation of corrective action and considers ,

l licensee actions to be acceptable.

t

[

i (Closed) Unresolved Item 413/85-35-02: Documentation of Furmanite ,

3 Injection Into an Operating System. The licensee has provided to the i inspector procedures that detail the process of injecting Furmanite ;

! compound into a system. This procedure had been reviewed as required !

) by 10 CFR 50.59. In addition, management had fully discussed this i

!

injection process with the Duke design engineering group and with i j Furmanite representatives. Based on this information this item is .

'

close !

(Closed) Unresolved Item 414/85-25-01: Evaluation of Instrumentation j Cable Separation Problem. Further review of this problem which has '

been documented on Itcensee Nonconforming Item Report 19,773 disclosed that this was an isolated problem with no technical $tgnificance. The inspector reviewed licensee documentation and held discussions with

licensee design, OA and technical support personnel. Licensee actions ,

i are considered acceptable.

J

,

-

. . _ . . . _

- - - - _ - _ . . - ~ _ . - - - . .. - _ - - _ - - . - . - - -- -

'

]

i -

. ,

1 3 {

i l 1  !

l l! (0 pen) Unresolved Item 413/85-20-01, 414/85-16-01: Verification of  !

Adequate Installation of Instrumentation. This item involved questions in six areas relative to installation of instruments. The inspector f, reviewed and is satisfied that licensee actions are adequate relative .

l to training of insulators and heat tracing personnel, affects of I j insulation on instrument loops (shown to be insignificant), inspection  !

l of instrumert mounting (sufficient inspections had been performed and '

j were reverified and an error on an inspection form had been corrected),

{ and evaluation of slope discrepancies (shown to be construction damage j not affecting operability of the loops). This item remains open

pending further evaluation of additional question No violations or deviations were identifie . Unresolved Items *

A new unresolved item is identified in paragraph ' Licensee Identified Items 50.55(e) (99020) (Unit 2) (Closed) CDR 414/84-01: Leaking Socket Weld in Residual Heat Removal :

Syste Reports for this item was submitted on February 13, 1984; )

April 20, 1984; October 30, 1984 and December 11, 198 The inspector +

reviewed the reports and verified implementation of corrective actions identified in the reports and considers licensee actions to be l

, acceptabl Further review of vibration of the affected portion of j j piping will be performed on Unit 1 and resulting corrective actions

' [

will be implemented on both units, i (0 pen) CDR 414/85-06: Overpressurization of the Volume Control Tank.

The inspector participated in a meeting on August 27, 1985 to discuss '

j further licensee actions being taken relative to this ite The }

licensee documented this meeting in a letter to T. F. Wyke, Design i Engineer, from E. M. Couch, Project Manager, dated September 3,198 The meeting primarily addressed how additional documentation would be f j accomplished as described in NRC Report No. 414/85-31. The inspector I

requested the licensee to consider making all documentation a part of l

{ f ne Nonconforming Item Reports (NCI's) on tnis subject. The inspector j 1 reviewed licensee evaluation of hangers damaged during this incident [

} documented in NCI 19,642 and in a Memorandum to File from i

D. D. Isenhour dated September 12, 1985 which will be attached to the l NCI. Licensee actions on evaluation of hangers is acceptable. This

'

1 item remains open pending further licensee action, i

( (0 pen) CDR 414/85-08: Overpressurization of the RHR system. Followup  !

inspection described in paragraph 5.b. above also applies to this ite !

> >

No violations or deviations were identifie j l  !

} *An unresolved Ttem is a matter about which more infortration is required to determine whether it is acceptable or may involve a violation or deviatio ;

1 i l I i i

!  ;

i

. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ ____ _ .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

'

j 4 i i  !

,

6. previously Identified Inspector Findings (92701) (Units 1 and 2)

l l (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 413/85-09-01, 414/85-06-01: Evaluation of i Gaps between S/R Station Batteries and Battery Racks. Licensee evaluation ,

i of these items was completed resulting in LER 85-39 and CDR 85-07 being '

l reported to the NRC. Further inspection will be conducted against the LER and CD i

!

i No violations or deviations were identifie '

l

7. plant Operations Review (Unit 1) (71707 and 71710)  ! The inspectors reviewed plant operations throughout the reporting !

'

period to verify conformance with regulatory requirements, Technical Specifications (T/S), and administrative controls. Control room logs,

!

danger tag logs, Technical Specification Action Item Log, and the

! removal and restoration log were routinely reviewed. Shift turnovers were observed to verify that they were conducted in accordance with ,

,

apprcved procedure '

i The inspectors also verified by observation and interviews, that measures taken to assure physical protection of the facility met

current requirements. Areas inspected included the security organiza-

, tion, the establishment and maintenance of gates, doors, and isolation

zones in the proper condition, that access control and badging were

proper, and procedures followed.

4 r l

In addition to the areas discussed above, the areas toured were :

observed for fire prevention and protection activities. These included '

i i

such things as combustible material control, fire protection systems and materials, and fire protection associated with maintenance and

! construction activities,

!

[

The inspector reviewed Operations Olvision Nonconforming item Reports !

(NCI's) to determine if documentation was clear and complete and

} whether appropriate resolution and corrective action was specified.

l NCI CN-304 describes a situation where wrong covers were found on

] environmentally qualified transmitter The resolution of this NCI

!'

appears incomplete in that the cause of the problem was not identified, Justification for considering the instance to be isolated was j incomplete, and a possible vendor problem was not evaluated relative to

-

the vendor. The licensee was requested to review this problem and has indicated that operations Instrument and Electrical Section should have been involved in the evaluation process. Further review is necessary

,

'

to determine the significance of this problem. This is Unresolved Item j 413/85-41-02, Evaluation of Instrument Problem Identified on NLI CN-30 ,

! '

i No violations or deviations were identifie '

'

j t

i '

!

l i

_ _ -

. _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ __ _- =_ . . .

l l

,

!

! Maintenance Observations (62703) (Unit 1)

i

.

"

Station maintenance activities of selected systems and components were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they were conducted in accordance with the requirement The inspector verified licensee conformance to the i requirements in the following areas of inspection: the activities were accomplished using approved procedures, and functional testing and/or calibrations were performed prior to returning components or systems to service; quality control records were maintained; activities performed were accomplished by qualified personnel; and, parts and materials used were

'

properly certified. Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority is assigned to safety-related

.

equipment maintenance which may effect system performance. Examples of this

! observation was work performed to replace a faulty cell in a battery,

, troubleshooting to correct a primary loop temperature monitoring instrument, and repairs to the meteorological instrumentatio No violations or deviations were identifie . Surveillance Observation (61726) (Unit 1)

During the inspection period, the inspector verified plant operations were in compliance with various Technical Specifications requirements. Typical

of these requiremencs were confirmation of compliance with the Technical

'

Specifications for reactor coolant chemistry, refueling water tank, emergency power systems, safety injection, emergency safeguards systems, i

control room ventilation, and direct current electrical power sources. The -

inspector verified that surveillance testing was performed in accordance with the approved written procedures, test instrumentation was calibrated,

, limiting conditions for operation were met, appropriate removal and restoration of the af fected equipment was accomplished test results met 3 requirements and were reviewed by personnel other than the individual ( directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing l were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personne Typical of the surveillance items that were witnessed in part or in full j were various calibrations of portions of the nuclear instrumentation, radiation monitoring systems, manual operation of TDAFWP (Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump), and turbine control valve movemen No violations or deviations were identifie . Design, Design Changes, and Modifications (37700 and 37701) (Unit 1)

!

j! The inspectors reviewed the process established by the utility to assure j that design changes and modifications (NSM's) are being developed and

, processed in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Specifica-

! tions (TS) and 10 CFR 50.59. Specific attributes reviewed were: review and i approval was performed in accordance with established procedures; post-

modification testing was performed where specified; associated procedure changes were made as required; as-built drawings were changed to reflect the

'

.

-_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - -

.

'

.

NSM's; training on the NSM's was being provided to the operations personnel in a reasonable timeframe depending on the NSM; and, changes are planned to be on or were listed on the required 10 CFR 50.59 annual report to the NR In addition, the licensees program for temporary modifications, lif ted leads and jumpers was reviewed to verify: procedures are established to require the review and approval in accordance with TS and 10 CFR 50.59; detailed procedures are used when installing tnese modifications; a forpal , record is maintained of these modifications; testing is required for the ;.bdifications where required; and periodic reviews are conducted to confirm that the temporary modification is still neede ,

The specific NMS's reviewed were as follows:

CN-00018 Waste Gss System Traps T-01 and T-04 Modifications

'

CN-10036 Relocate Thermocouples on Auxiliary Feedwater Piping at Steam Generators CN-10137 Replace Upper Head Injection Differential Pressure Trans-mitters-i CN-10212 Deletto,n of Vent Valve 1FW78

~

CN-10503 Removal of Vent Valve INC268 and Cap Line No violations or deviations were identified. Modifications 11. Offsite Review Comnittee (40701B and 40301) (Units 1 and 2)

.

The inspector performed a review of the-Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB)

at corporate of fices in Charlotte, North Carolin The inspector reviewed the NSRB membership qualifications, forum requirements, meeting frequency, -

and various records as required by -TS for Catawba, McGuire and Utonee Nuclear stations. The revibw consisted of a review of NSRB meeting tinutes for Catawba for 1984 and to date 1985, for McGuire to date 1985, and for Oconee to date 1985. The inspector selected approximately thirty items (ten from each station) and verified that those personnel participating in the reviews possessed expertise in the areas involve Also reviewed were audits and audit frequencies speci fied ( by the TS, Records of NSRB acti* ities were reviewed and found to be taintained as required by the T Since the NSRB functions for all Duke Power Company nuclear stations, review activities were selected to include items for each plan No violations or deviations were identifie ,

%

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

1 Precperational Test Program Implementation (70302 and 71302) (Unit 2) The inspector conducted tours to verify that turned over equipment was adequately protected and controlled. This review included observation of construction activities, observation for fire hazards and observa-tion of security boundarie The inspector observed conduct of the Hot Functional Test portion of the preoperational test progra This included attendance at coordination meetings, discussions with the test program director and test engineers, general observation of testing and operations in the control room and observation of specific tests described in paragraph 13 below. This inspection was performed to assess whether the licensee was conducting a well organized prog *am, personnel had a good understanding of responsibilities and conduct of specific tests, control of organizational interfaces was good, procedures were properly approved control of test schedule was adequate and current drawings and manuals were by the license During general control room observation the inspector observed operation of the positive displacement charging pump against a closed valve in the Safety Injection System. The operations personnel on shift were apparently not aware of the closed valve (closed for a test). This problem was evaluated by the licensee and determined to be a communication problem between Unit 2 operations shifts. Appropriate pecple were reinstructed concerning this problem. Evaluation by the licensee concerning a short section of overpressurized piping described in Nonconforming Item Report 19,920 showed the piping to be acceptabl Licensee actions are considered acceptabl No violations or deviations were identifie '

13. Preoperational Test Witnessing (70435 and 70447) (Unit 2)

The inspector observed specific test being conducted to determine if requirements were being met relative to NRC requirements such as contained in Regulatory Guide 1.68 and the Final Safety Analysis Repor The following attributes were verified in this review:

-

Tests were performed in accordance with approved procedure Latest revisions of the approved test procedures were available and in use by personnel performing the test Test equipment required by the procedures was calibrated and installe Test data were properly collected and recorde Adequate coordination existed among personnel involved in the tes Test prerequisites were met.

__.________.__._______________.______.___.________m___._____.________.______a

.

-

Proper plant systems were in servic Temporary modifications such as jumpers were installed and tracked in accordance with administrative control Problems encountered during testing were properly documente The following tests were witnessed:

-

TP/2/A/1250/05, Preoperational Test of Unit 2 Main Steam Coded Safety Relief Valves. This test was witnessed for Valve Nos. 2SV22, 2SV23 and 2SY24

-

TP/2/A/1100/02A, Diesel Generator 2A Preoperational Functional Tes The inspector witnessed the portion of Section 13.5 for the High Temperature Bearing Alarm Tri TF/2/A/1600/08, Pressurizer Dynamic Response Functional Test. The inspector witnessed performance of Sections 12.2, Demonstration of the Response, Stability, and Control Characteristics of the Pressurizer Pressure Control System; 12.4, Demonstration of the Response, Stability, and Control Characteristics of the Pressurizer Level Control System, and 12.7, Pressurizer PORV Response Time and Leak Integrit The inspector noted during the Diesel Generator Test that an additional trip alarm was received along with the one being tested. The licensee appropriately identified this as a discrepancy and initiated a Work Request to evaluate the syste During the pressurizer testing the inspector questioned acceptance criteria relative to the opening setpoint of PORV NC34A since clear criteria were not in the procedure. The licensee indicated that this PORV opened based on a rate of change of pressure and that a strip chart recording would be reviewed after completion of the test section. The inspector questioned whether clear criteria was necessary since pressurizer PORV's are scheduled to be upgraded to safety-related valves. The inspector further questioned what the licensee had done relative to testing of the corresponding Unit 1 valve, INC34A. Further followup is necessar This is Inspector Followup Item 413/85-41-01, 414/85-40-01: Evaluation of Testing of PORV NC34 . Preoperational Test Procedure Review (70335) (Unit 2)

The inspector reviewed procedure TP/2/A/1250/05 to verify NRC requirements l were being met relative to testing of Main Steam Coded Safety Relief Valve The procedure was reviewed for conformance to acministrative controls. This included verifying that pertinent prerequisites were identified, initial test conditions and acceptance criteria specified, the required reviews were performed, and management approval was indicate No violations or deviations were' identified in the areas inspecte l

l

!

_ _ _ _ -_ _-._ _ . _ _

- - _ . _ ._ _= - . _ - -. . - - - -

.

"

15. Comparison of As-built Plant to FSAR Description (37301) (Unit 2)

!

The inspector compared the latest as-built field drawings for selected systems to the FSAR drawings and descriptions and the draft Technical

- Specifications to determine if these documents were in agreement regarding piping, components and control and logic instrumentation. This review The systems

'

included flow diagrams and electrical one line drawing selected were the Containment Purge and Ventilation System, Drawing CN-2576-1.0, Rev. 2; Safety Injection Cold Leg Accumulators, Drawing CN-2562-1.1, Rev. 3; Safety Injection System, Drawings W-2562-1.2, Rev. 3 and CN-2562-1.3, Rev. In addition, the inspector performed a detailed field walkdown inspection to determine if the system was as described in the as-built drawings for

, Train A of the Safety Injection System up to containment 0 valve 2NI121A shnwn on Drawing CN-2562-1.2, Rev. 3.

l During this review, the inspector noted that Note 2 on Drawing CNEE-25/-0/-15, Rev. 4 for Safety Injection Cold Leg Accumulator Isolation Valve 2NIO65B indicated that contact K604 closed upon a Safety Injection 1'

(SI) signal. This contact should open on an SI signal to prevent manual closing of the valv The licensee reviewed this problem including observation of field wiring and determined that this was a drawin.g error

'

only. The inspector reviewed the drawings for the other three isolation valves and found no similar problems. The licensee issued a Station Problem Report to correct the drawing. This appears to be an isolated minor error and licensee actions are considered adequat No violations or deviations were identified.

.

1 Fuel Receipt and Storage (605018) (Unit 2)

The inspector observed receipt of fuel modules in progress to verify that

'

the licensee was meeting requirements of approved procedures and Materials License SNM-1949. Attributes considered in this review included personnel training, housekeeping / cleanliness control, health physics controls,

security, receiving inspection and documentatio No violations or deviations were identifie . Information Meetings With Local Officials (94600) (Units 1 and 2)

Two separate meetings were held with local government officials during this period. These meetings were conducted to familiarize local officials with this mission of the NRC, to introduce key NRC personnel associated with Catawba, to discuss lines of communications available between local

officials and the NRC, and to discuss status of the facility and related i

'

community concerns with the local officials. A copy of general information was provided to the attendees.

i

- -- .~, , - - - - ,_ , .. _. - _ , - _ _ , _ . _ _ _ - _ , _ - - _ . . . . . _ , . - . , . - , . , _

_- . - --, . .. - . .- - ... - -. .

-

.

.

. 10

l j

I The first meeting was held on September 23, 1985, in the Fort Mill Mayors office at Fort Mill, South Carolina. The following personnel participated ,

in this meeting:

Mr. Charles E. Powers, Mayor, Town of Fort Mill

Mr. J. M. Sizemare, Town Manager, Fort Mill

>

The second meeting was held on September 24, 1985, in the York County Managers offic The following personnel participated in the meeting:

j Mr. Eugene Barnwell, Mayor of York l Mr. J. E. Klugh, York County Manager Mr. Steve Thomas, Director of General Services

3 18. Review of Licensee Nonroutine Event Reports (92700) (90711) (Units 1 and 2)

l The below listed Licensee Event Reports (LER) were reviewed to determine if the information provided met NRC requirement The determination included: adequacy of description, verification of compliance with

Technical Specifications and regulatory requirements, corrective action  !

l taken, existence of potential generic problems, reporting requirements l l satisfied, and the relative safety significance of each event. Additional ,

{ inplant reviews and discussion with plant personnel, as appropriate, were i

conducted for those reports indicated by an asterisk (*). The following i- LERs are close *LER 85-38 Retest Not Performed Following Corrective Maintenance on Isolation Valve j *LER 85-39 Removal of Seismic Spacers on Vital Battery Banks

LER 85-40 Failure to Verify Alternate Power Source Availability LER 85-41 Manual Reactor Trip Due to Main Feedwater Pump Trip

,

! *LER 85-45 Reactor Trip Due to Isolation of Incorrect Transmitter No violations or deviations were identifie i I.

,

i

,

!

J

, .--, ,, ,ne .--,e -. , --,-- -,, - -v--n.,,- , , - , -rwm-~..-+---,,,,,w- -----. ens- -,-w ,.-.,r.vr, ,,,,,,,,nwe---,