IR 05000413/1989036
| ML20011E042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1990 |
| From: | Hopkins P, Lesser M, William Orders, Shymlock M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E041 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-89-36, 50-414-89-36, NUDOCS 9002070100 | |
| Download: ML20011E042 (10) | |
Text
U; l
,
-d
'
j ' *
jSt h80 UNITED ST".TES
,
/
'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON
- ,d
..
f REGION il
'f G
g
.101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
- t ATLANT A, CEoRGI A 30323 i
99**..+,
Report Nos.'
50-413/89-36 and 50-414/89-36 J
Licensee: Duke Power Company
422 South Church Street
'
Charlotte, N.C.
28242
. Docket Nos.: 50-433 and 50-414 License Nos.: NPF-35 and NPF-52
'
Facility Nar.e: Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 i
n-
!
Inspection Conducted: December 3 - 30, 1989 l
Y Inspectorsyh f)A/L/f./
/tf/> ~fD W. E Ofders, Senior /esident Inspector Date Signed l
N llA$(f
/~dN ~90
>
g'M.7.'Le'ssr.Respentinspector Date Signed
- am/L no - ce>
T Hopkins, R ident Inspector
' Date Signed
.
Approyed by:
/A/f/
(-
/~84 //8 M. B. Shyml{pK., Section Chief Date Signed i
Projects Branch 3 i
Division of Reactor Projects i
SUMMARY t
Scope:
This routine, resident inspection was conducted on site inspecting in.
the areas of review of plant operations; surveillance observation; maintenance observation; review of licensee event reports; followup of previously identified items; Fitness For Duty Program Training Implementation; and compliance with boron dilution mitigation
-
requirements.
Results:
In the areas inspected, the licensee's programs were determined to be
,
adequate.
One strength was identified involving the identification of a technical specification violation by the Quality Assurance Department
.
and their persistence in ensuring the item was properly reported.
This resulted in a non-cited violation.
(paragraph 2c)
9002070100 900126 PDR ADOCK 03000413 Q
&
-
- -. -
p, 7 y :,;
<,;,
,
j.,
'., >
_
y>
- y,,
,
,
e c..
'
.r,
.s. ~
.
o7y
J
. y g-.
u g
-
,,
.
y%
-...
.
- --
.;
.
A second non-cited violation was identified involving an inadequate
{
' '
-safety evaluation.of a Safety Injection System valve lineup which r
'
'1 resulted in the potential for offsite doses to exceed previously:
-
S analyzed FSAR values following an accident.-
(paragraph 6b)-
j i
'
. A weakness was identified involving inadequate methods to maintain i
'
c.
,
-
km<
tools required for venting the Residual Heat Removal piping-in the'
i
. event of.a. loss of decay heat. removal capability.. (paragraph 2d)
pl,
.
'
'
+
{:o
.
.b w
p
"
^
u.,
-
.
, 1 r
.>y,
..
.
0.
,
s
'. '
n,
,
)
n
-
p 4-
%
l.%
L
-
y.
[L'i i.;
,
h
.
~
,
h[..
- (f.'.
,
.
',
f
'l
- .
-
,
l: _ ' ; '
(
,
(Cl
<
Q$
Y
'l
'
9,.
.
G,g,; (,.;f id *
A n.
k-p REPORT DETAILS f
1.
persons Contacted u.
[
Licensee' Employees N
h W Beaver, Performance Engineer
'
B. Caldwell, Station Services Superintendent R. Casler, Operations Superintendent T. Crawford, Integrated Scheduling Superintendent
,
4, J. Forbes,-Technical Services Superintendent
- R. Glover, Compliance Engineer
- L T. Harrall Design Engineering.
R. Jones, Maintenance Engineering Services Engineer F. Mack, Project Services Engineer W. McCollum, Maintenance Superintendent
?
- T. Owen, Station Manager
,
Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel, t
p-NRC Resident. Inspectors
"
V
- W. Orders
'
- M. Lesser
,
P.' Hopkins
- Attended exit interview.
L 2.
Plant Operations Review (71707 and 71710)
t.
F a.
The inspectors reviewed plant ~ operations throughout the reporting period to-verify conformance with regulatory requirements, Technical Specifications (TS), and administrative controls.. Control Room logs, ir
+
N 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 approved procedures.
Daily plant status meetings were routinely e
attended.
The inspectors verified by observation and interviews, that the measures taken to assure physical protection of the facility met O'
current requirements. Areas inspected included the security.
organization, the establishment and maintenance of gates, doors, and h-isolation zones in the proper conditions, and that access control and badging were proper and procedures followed.
L
'
p.
-
.&
,
,
e
,
'
In addition to the areas discussed above, the areas toured were observed for fire prevention and protection activities and radiological control practices.
The inspectors reviewed Problem Investigation Reports to determine if the licensee was appropriately
'
- .
documenting problems and implementing corrective actions.
'
b.
Units 1 and 2 Summary Both Units 1 and 2 maintained power operation'for the entire report R
period with no major problems.
On. December 4, 1989 Unit 2 achieved J
100 days of continuous power operation for the first time.
F'
c.
On-August 25, 1989 during a reactor shutdown of Unit 2, the-power reduction exceeded a 15% change during a one hour period. Technical F
Specification 4.4.8 requires that an isotopic analysis of reactor coolant be taken for iodine between 2 and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> following a power cha'nge exceeding 15% within one hour. Operators failed to properly
,,
respond to a computer alarm indicating the rate of change and failed
[
to request the iodine' sample.
L'
This error was identified on September 20, 1989 by Duke Power Quality Assurance (QA) Surveillance Group during routine review. On October 13, the Catawba Safety Review Group (CSRG) in thier review of the E
event'which was based primarily on interviews with operators, determined the event to be not reportable as a. Technical Specifi-3O cation violation.
This decision was founded on-the operator's belief that a 15% power change had not occurred within one hour.
g
?
On or about November 29, QA formally disagreed with the conclusion of CSRG, stating "there is substantive evidence that a greater than 15%
power level change within a one hour period was exceeded."- Printouts L
of rector thermal power as recorded by a computer point showed power
to change from 36.6% to 20.2% from 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., a 16.4%
change.
The inspectors were informed by the licensee on December 4, that the event would be reported. The inspectors' consider the initial-CSRG review of the event to have been weak.
Although some contradictory
-
evidence existed, the CSRG conclusion was unfounded. The persistence of QA is considered to be a strength in this matter, in both identifying the violation and rejecting.the CSRG conclusion.
This s
licensee identified violation is not being cited because criteria specified in Section V.G.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy were
>
,
'.
satisfied.
This is identified as Non-Cited Violation 414/89-36-01:
Failure to Sample For Iodine Following Power Reduction.
d.
While touring portions of the mechanical penetration rooms the inspectors noted that tools required for venting the Residual Heat Removal (ND) piping in the event of a loss of decay heat removal yo i.t k
n L f ki
,
.
V
'
...
,
J
g
.
"
capability were not available. Although a sign was clearly posted on
a column stating not to_ remove the tools,- they had apparently been i
E
. removed anyway.
Staff personnel stated that this had occurred in the i
past because the tools were stored in a, bag which was mistaken for, trash and, therefore, cleared out by_ cleaning crews.
Corrective
,
y actions appeared to have been ineffective following the first
!
incident and is considered to be a weakness.
Licensee corrective m
L actions include an evaluation of all equipment for periodic
,
L inventories and a permanent' storage method.
,:
One non-cited violation was identified in paragraph 2c.
3.. ' Surveillance Observation (61726)
i i
a.
During the inspection period, the inspector verified plant operations I
!
were in compliance with various TS requirements.
Typical of these requirements were confirmation of compliance with the TS for reactor
!
coolant chemistry, refueling water tank, emergency power systems,
't safety injection, emergency safeguards systems, 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 affected equipment-was accomplished, test results met acceptance criteria _and.were reviewed by personnel other than the individual directing the test, and that any deficiencies identified during the testing were properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management personnel,
,
i'
b.
The inspectors witnessed and/or reviewed the following surveillances:
)
!
F PT/1/A/4600/03A Monthly Surveillance Items PT/1/A/4200/07A Charging Pump 1A Performance Test PT/2/A/4200/09C Boron Dilution Mitigation Test PT/1/A/4550/04 D/G FD Tank Water Inspection-PT/1/A/4600/02A Mode 1 periodic Surveillance PT/1/A/4600/05A Incore/Excore Calibration PT/1/A/4400/02C Nuclear Service Water Valve Verification
- PT/1/A/4450/16 VQ System Cumulative Purge Test PT/1/A/4150/010 NC Leak Calibration PT/1/B/4250/04A CF Pump Turbine Weekly Test PT/1/B/4250/04B CF Pump Turbine Stop Valve Movement Test PT/1/A/4200/21A KC Valve Inservice Test PT/1/A/4450/09A VF Train A Operability Verification
!
,
w
-
.
I'
[
.g,
,L
_
,
PT/2/A/4150/02 Mode 1 Periodic Surveillance L
PT/2/A/4200/01E Upper Containment Air Lock Test
'
PT/2/B/4250/04A FWPT Weekly Test h
PT/2/B/4250/02E Extraction Check Valve Test PT/2/A/4150/01C NC System Controlled Leak Verification
,
PT/2/A/4550/04 DG Fuel Oil Storage Tank Inspection No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Maintenance Observations (62703)
a.
Station maintenance activities of selected systems and components
'
were observed / reviewed to ascertain that they.were conducted in accordance with the requirements.
The inspector verified licensee conformance to the 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 materials used were properly certified. Work requests were reviewed to determine status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority was assigned to. safety-related equipment maintenance which may effect system performance, b.
The inspectors witnessed or reviewed the following maintenance activities:
0095 Replace Valve IKF-7 7330 SWR Turbine Building Sump Repair 003636 SWR Perform Analog Channel Operational Test OP/1/A/6700/03 Operation With OAC Out of Service No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Review of Licensee Event Reports (92700)
The Licensee Event Reports (LER) listed below were reviewed to determine
,
if the information provided met NRC requirements.
The determination included: adequacy of description, verification of compliance with Technical Specifications and regulatory requirements, corrective action taken, existence of potential generic problems, reporting requirements satisfied, and the relative safety significance of each event. Additional in plant reviews and discussion with plant personnel, were conducted for:
all reports reviewed.
The following LERs are closed:
413/89-17 Manual Reactor Trip Due to Torn Gasket of Main Feedwater Valve Positioner Control Air Manifold, l
i i
i
.
i
-
...
'
. :,: -
>-
_
413/89-23 Technical Specification 3.0.3 Entered As a Result of Both
,
t, Trains of Control Room Area Ventilation Being Inoperable i
'
Due to Incomplete Testing Procedure.
413/89-26-Unexpected Hydrogen Skimmer Fan Breaker Trip Due to a Defective Westinghouse HFB Breaker.
414/89-17 Potential Tech. Spec. Violation Due to'Inoperability of the b
Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Due to Control Valve Stem Corrosion.
,
~414/89-19 Three Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps Inoperable Due to Defective Procedure and Inappropriate Actions.
No violations or deviations were identified, b
6.
Followup on Previous Inspection Findings (92701 and 92702)
a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 413/86-27-01:
Followup of Analysis of Bussman Type FNA Fuses For Reliability.
Followup of this item was conducted in Inspection Report 413/88-38.
The licensee identified a'
replacement fuse for the FNA fuses.
Safety related fuses on Unit 2 have been replaced.
Unit I safety related fuses are scheduled for replacement during the next refueling cutage which starts in late January 1990.
Non-safety related fuses will also be replaced in upcoming outages.
The licensee continues to perform periodic visual inspections of all safety related FNA fuses until replacement is complete.
Based on planned corrective action by the licensee, this.
item is closed, b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 414/87-10-02: Review of Possible Safety Significant Problem Involving Safety Injection System. This issue involves actions taken by Operations personnel to depressurize piping
.in the Safety Injection (NI) System due to pressure boundary check valve leakage.
The licensee identified the _ valve lineup as_ having the potential for unmonitored offsite doses through the Refueling Water Storage Tank.
Corrective action included piping modifications to minimize leak off flow rate and to route water back to in plant holding tanks.
Evaluation of the potential consequences was conducted by Design Engineering.
In a December 21, 1989 letter to W.
A. Haller, Design Engineering concluded that offsite doses as reported in the FSAR could have been exceeded by 10*J, had a design I
basis accident occurred.
Doses would have remained below 10CFR100
'
limits.
This appears to have been a violation of the requirements of 10CFR50.59 in that the consequences for a change to the NI System were inadequately evaluated.
This licensee identified violation is a
not being cited because criteria specified in Section V.G.1 of the NRC Enforcement policy were satisfied and is identified as Non-cited Violation NCV 414/89-36-02:
Inadequate Evaluation of the Consequences of Depressurizing the NI Discharge Piping.
-
,
I L
!
V,'
.c
,
.
.o
,
..
'?
,y.-
,
n,
'
c.
.(Closed) Violation 413, 414/88-14-01:
Inadequate Surveillance on Backup Supply to Auxiliary Fecdwater.
The licensee responded to the violation in correspondence dated July 13, 1988.
Corrective actions
. included the establishment of periodic flushes in systems.with stagnant legs of raw water to remove clam larvae.
Further long term corrective actions ~and evaluation are being conducted by a Duke Power
'
Company Raw Water Task Force, wSich is also responding to actions recommended by Generic Letter 69-13, Service Water System Problems
![
Affecting Safety Related~ Equipment.
Based on this the violation is closed.
d.
(Closed). Inspector Followup Item 413,414/88-25-03: Weakness Regarding Management of Technical Specification Compliance. The licensee instituted measures to enhance the ability of operators to implement the requirements of Technical Specifications.
Technical Specification interpretations and guidance documents on support equipment were compiled into one working document to alleviate the
'
need for multiple references.
The Compliance Manager also advertises a " Tech Spec. Hotline" number for immediate support when questions arise. Based upon a review of recent enforcement actions it appears that sensitivity has been increased and the number of incorrect
,
interpretations by operators has been reduced. This item is closed, e.
(Closed) Violation 413,414/89-07-03:
Failure to Follow Procedures on Three Occasions Resulting in Safety Injections. The licensee responded to the violation in correspondence dated May 19, 1989.
Corrective actions included the addition of a requirement for
independent assessment of planned actions during troubleshooting, a procedure change to require blocking low pressurizer pressure actuations during normal cooldown at a higher steam pressure and the f
installation of protective shrouds on specified control board switches.
Based on these actions the item-is closed, f.
(Closed) Violation 413, 414/88-33-01:
Failure to Follow Procedures For Post Maintenance Testing.
The licensee responded to the violation in correspondence dated November 16, 1988.
Corrective actions included the submission of a Technical Specification change, procedure revisions and training.
Based on this the iten is closed, g.
(Closed)
Inspector Followup Item 413,414/88-22-02:
Algae Buildup in SNSWP. The licensee documented concerns associated with the lube injection strainers to the Nuclear Service Water (RN) Pumps clogging when aligned to the Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond (SNSWP) in Problem-Investigation Report 0-C88-212.
As part of the corrective actions, two simplex strainers were installed for pump lube injection under modification CN 50386.
This arrangement will permit on line
'
cleaning of the strainers.
Based on this the item is closed, l.
w,
Q,>
+
_.
.
,
r
&
. g,J
,
n t
t
'
y
,
,
h.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 414/89-15-03:
Consequences of 2NI-208 Remaining Open Following a LOCA..The licensee determined that it is
desirable but not required that'2NI-208 be closed following a Loss of'
i
L Coolant Accident. An' August 15, 1989 memo to R. M. Glover from L
K. L. Ashe, concluded that the consequences of not isolating 2NI-208 L
would be some additional flow in the valve stem leakoff header,
.
!
however, the design is such that header back pressure results_in the
,
line being about 20*4 full of water.
The memo, therefore, also
- L concludes that auxiliary building dose rates would remain unchanged.
The licensee also concurred with the inspector's concern that the
,
valve was too high to. be accessed and committed to install a method
!
L to access the valve.
Based on this the item is closed, j
L
'
One Non-cited violation was identified in paragraph 6b.
7.
Fitness For Duty:
Inspection of Initial Training Programs (TI 2515/104)
The purpose-of this inspection was to attend selected licensee Fitness For Outy (FFD) training to determine whether required training is being
G conducted to implement the program and to provide information to NRC
'
management to determine acceptability of general industry FFD program i
implementation. The inspectors attended licensee FFD training sessions and determined that training of personnel was being conducted,- The
.
"
e training was effective in covering the objectives of the program,
>
responsibilities of personnel, licensee policies and drug and alcohol l
testing requirements.
Specific information in^the format of a questionnaire was forwarded to NRC management.-
,
8.
Verification of Licensee Changes Made to Comply With PWR Moderator t
Dilution Requirements (TI '2515/94).
The purpose of this inspection was to verify that all licensee actions i
!
with regard to the PWR moderator dilution issue have been completed to
~~
allow closeout of this action item under Multi-Plant Action Item B-03.
The Catawba SER Supplement 3 Section 15.2.4.2 described the licensee's initial actions to address inadvertent boron dilution. The licensee subsequently installed the Boron Dilution Mitigation System (BDMS) for
>
- which the safety evaluation is described in Amendment 17 to the Unit 1 r
l Facility Operating License dated October 24, 1986 and ammendment 31 to the
'
Unit 2 License dated February 16, 1988.
The safety evaluation describes
- the BDMS system.
ne system includes two trains of seismically qualified
'
~
source range monitors which provide input to Shutdown Margin Monitors, i
annunciators, and isolation functions for the reactor makeup water pumps
,
and valves.
Based upon installation of the BDMS and Technical
'
Specification changes the staff concluded that the BDMS system is
"
acceptable for use in mitigating the consequences of the boron dilution
,
event.
Based upon this the item is closed.
l D
h
Q,?'
'
'
'
w
,
%es..
.
,
.
gG 3
. g *a
- .
.w. c.
O'
l l,-#
B
'
,.
,
,
~
.
,
[
i
F 9..
Exit' Interview
- "
i
>
..
.
.
\\
, '
Ir
"'v
~ The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 5, 1990, with j
L.f s.
those persons; indicated in paragraph 1..The; inspector described the areas
F '.
inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below..
j na +
No dissenting comments.were-received from the licensee
.The licensee did j
.
'
not-identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to'or reviewed
';
by the inspectors during this inspection.
g7
,
.
?..
Item Number
. Description and Reference
!
\\
.1.
.NCV 414/89-36-01 Failure to Sample For Iodine Following w
E J
Power Reduction. (paragraph 2c)
_
.
'
h
.NCV 414/89-36'-02 Inadequate Evaluation of the Consequences-I
'
i of Depressurizing NI Discharge Piping
<
f (paragraph 6b.)
-
&
V
N:
__k.
l vi
' r
'
r f
'
- .
V
,
Ct
,
%"
.
'f.'
i
.
[; ['
,
i, ' :- o.
. t t
+
,
s
{
I
?
,
.
(
-
i
- (
-
-; b'
s t
,,
, i
[
-,
,
.)
\\
'
<~
^
a b '
,
e
>
k-f Q.Rm
.i if.I
[
i
}9g p
-
- ;
-
'
=
, -.
.
..
... -.
-
1