IR 05000413/1993013
| ML20036C344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1993 |
| From: | Hopkins P, Lesser M, William Orders, John Zeiler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20036C341 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-93-13, 50-414-93-13, NUDOCS 9306160140 | |
| Download: ML20036C344 (10) | |
Text
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.
.e
.
"D UNITED STATES g
c,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
[
REGION ll o
$
$
101 MARIETTA STRE ET, N.W.
- 1" ATLANTA, GEORGl A 30323
.
,o
Report Nos.:
50-413/93-13 and 50-414/93-13 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, N.C.
28242 Docket Nos.:
50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.:
NPF-35 and NPF-52 Facility Name: Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: April 11, 1993 - May 8, 1993 66!
M e E7 Inspector:
m l
[gzW. T. Orders,Aenior@sident Inspector
~ TiR'e Signed Inspector:
89bh t
.
J
/cd P. C. H6pKins, J4sideqtJnspiet' tor Date Signed Inspector:
h
?) % 2/
S/Alf 3 y
/Lc J. Zeilef, ResidenJ/InspecyN Date/ Sigrfed
'
I Approvedbf:
-
s-/y7 /93 Flark S. Lesser, Section Chief Date Signed Reactor Projects Branch 3A
!
Division of Reactor Projects SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, resident inspection was conducted in the areas of review of plant operations; surveillance observations; maintenance observations; review of the licensee's program for evaluating changes to the environs around the plant (TI 2515/112); and licensee event reports.
Results:
One Inspector Followup Item was identified involving weaknesses in the licensee's process for identifying, evaluating, and documenting changes in the environs around the plant (paragraph.
6).
L f:
9306160140 930528 DR ADOCK 05000413 PDR
_ - - _ _ __- __-___- ______- ______-____- - _-_ _ _ -
...
~.
.
.
,;
f REPORT DETAILS l
1.
Persons Contacted
!
Licensee Employees S. Bradshaw, Shift Operations Manager
- J. Forbes, Engineering Manager
- R. Futrell, Regulatory Compliance Manager
!
- T. Harrall, Safety Assurance Manager
-
- J. Lowery, Compliance Specialist
- W. McCollum, Station Manager
,
W. Miller, Operations Superintendent i
M. Tuckman, Catawba Site Vice-President Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.
l NRC Resident Inspectors
'I
- W. Orders
- P. Hopkins
- J. Zeiler Accompanying NRC personnel
- A. R. Herdt, Chief, Division of Reactor Projects, Branch 3
- R. J. Freudenberger, Resident Inspector, _ Crystal River Plant t
- Attended exit interview.
Acronyms and abbreviations used in this report are listed in the last l
paragraph.
,
2.
Plant Status
<
v Unit 1 Summary Unit 1 began the report period operating at 100 percent power. On April
[
27, power was reduced to 30 percent to facilitate repair of a main
!
condenser tube leak. The unit was returned to full power on the morning i
of April 29 and operated there for the remainder of the report period.
For details concerning the condenser tube leak, refer to paragraph 3.b.
Unit 2 Summary
'
Unit 2 operated at 100 percent power for the entire report period with
-
no major problems.
,
,
F
~
.
'
.
.
.
>
t c
3.
Plant Operations Review (71707)
a.
General Observations The inspectors reviewed plant operations throughout the report
period to verify conformance with regulatory requirements, TS and
'
administrative controls. Control Room logs, the Technical Specification Action Item Log, and the R&R log were routinely
reviewed.
Shift turnovers were observed to verify that they were conducted in accordance with approved procedures. The complement
'
of licensed personnel on each shift inspected, met or exceeded the requirements of Technical Specifications.
Further, daily plant status meetings were routinely attended.
+
Plant tours were performed on a routine basis. The areas toured I
included but were not limited to the following:
Turbine Buildings Auxiliary Building Units 1 and 2 Diesel Generator Rooms Units 1 and 2 Vital Switchgear Rooms Units I and 2 Vital Battery Rooms Standby Shutdown Facility During the plant tours, the inspectors verified by observation and interviews that measures taken were proper and procedures were followed to assure that physical protection of the facility met current requirements. Areas inspected included the security organization, the establishment and maintenance of gates, doors, and isolation zones in the proper conditions, and access control.
badging.
In addition, the areas toured were observed for fire prevention and protection activities and radiological control practices. The inspectors also reviewed PIRs to determine if the licensee was appropriately documenting problems and implementing corrective actions.
r b.
Unit 1 Condenser Leak On April 20, the licensee detected that Unit I had experienced a small loss of efficiency. After investigation, it was determined that there was a probable leak from the "E" extraction steam line expansion joint assembly located in the "C" condenser resulting in
,
a decrease in the efficiency of the condenser. On April 27,
'
chemical analysis revealed a main condenser tube leak.
Power was reduced to 30 percent to facilitate inspection in the
"C" water box.
Two tubes were found to be leaking and were plugged. The unit returned to full power on the morning of April 29. The tube
.
leaks were not related to the leaking expansion joint which will continue to be monitored and will be repaired at a later date.
!
-
.
4
c.
Ground Level Monitoring System During this report period, the licensee's groundwater level monitoring system was examined. TS 3.7.12 requires that groundwater level be maintained at or.above the top of the adjacent floor slabs of the Reactor Containment and Auxiliary Buildings at all times. The inspectors verified that the monitoring system was operating properly; this was accomplished by performing an examination of the instrumentation located at the wells, a review of both the Control Room and local monitoring panel alarm status boards, verifying-that the TS surveillances were being conducted at the required frequency, and reviewing preventative maintenance performed to ensure proper functioning of the system.
Besides one item regarding the adequacy of the TS surveillance for the system, discussed below, the results of these
_
activities indicated that the monitoring system was being properly maintained.
TS surveillance 4.7.12 requires weekly determination of the groundwater level by monitoring the water level and by verifying the absence of alarms from the six groundwater monitoring wells.
During the inspector's review of procedures to accomplish this surveillance, it was noted that the licensee _only verifies the absence of Control Room and local monitoring panel alarms, and does not monitor the level by reading the actual level from the local monitoring panel located in the Auxiliary Building.
Following discussions with the licensee, the licensee planned-to revise their surveillance procedures to include the actual reading of the level gauges as part of the determination of groundwater level. The inspectors determined that no further action was warranted for this item.
No violations or deviations were identified.
i
4.
Surveillance Observation (61726)
a.
General During the inspection period, the inspectors verified that plant
'
operations were in compliance with various TS requirements.
Typical of these requirements were confirmation of compliance with the TS for reactivity control systems, reactor coolant systems, safety injection systems, emergency safeguards systems, emergency i
power systems, containment, and other important plant support systems. The inspectors verified that:
surveillance testing was performed in accordance with 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 any deficiencies identified during the testing were
,
1
.
'
i
,
j
properly reviewed and resolved by appropriate management j
personnel.
b.
Surveillance Activities Reviewed The inspectors witnessed or reviewed the following surveillances:
PT/0/A/4400/0lX Essential Area Sprinkler Alarm Test PT/0/A/4400/01C Fire Suppression System Monthly Test
,
PT/0/A/4450/08A VC/YC Filter A Test i'
PT/0/B/4350/08 Heat Trace Alignment Verification PT/1/A/4400/03 VE Train lA Operating Test PT/1/A/4150/010 NC System Leakage Calculation i
PT/1/B/4250/02A Main Turbine Weekly Trip Test PT/1/A/4450/13B Unit 1 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Room C02 Tests PT/1/A/4600/02 Periodic Surveillance Test
,
PT/1/A/4600/02A Mode 1 Periodic Surveillance Test Items Review PT/2/A/4200/02A Monthly Outside Containment Integrity Verification J
PT/2/A/4200/20 Refueling Water Valve Inservice Test PT/2/A/4250/02B Weekly Main Turbine Valve Movement
'
PT/2/A/4350/03 Electric Power Source Alignment
'
Verification PT/2/A/4600/02A Mode 1 Periodic Surveillance Items IP/1/A/3240/14 Incore Excore Calibration
,
'
IP/2/A/3240/04D N-31, N-32 Analog Channel Operational Test
,
and Calibration of Source Range
- r No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Maintenance Observations (62703)
a.
General Station maintenance activities of selected systems and components were observed / reviewed to ensure that they were conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements. The inspectors verified licensee conformance to the requirements in the following areas of inspection:
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 the.
status of outstanding jobs and to assure that priority was
<
assigned to safety-related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
o
.
.
.
.
b.
Maintenance Activities Reviewed The inspectors witnessed or reviewed maintenance activities associated with the following maintenance W0s:
93029014-01 Analog Channel Operational Test 93022774-01 Investigate / Repair Train A VC/YC Chiller Sequencer Start No discrepancies were identified.
c.
Review of Welding Activities During this report period, the inspectors reviewed aspects of the licensee's welding program and reviewed a sample of welding records to determine whether they were prepared, evaluated, and maintained in accordance with the ASME Code requirements and the licensee's procedures. The welding activities associated with the following WO packages were reviewed:
93005237-01 NSM to replace valve 2NC-33A 93001487-01 NSM to replace valve 2NV-291 93005238-01 NSM to replace valve 2NC-35B 91070182-01 NSM to install valve 2NVA-09 This review included verification of the following:
-
welders were qualified to the welding tasks,
-
weld process control sheets were complete and accurate, welding inspections were performed in accordance with ASME
-
Code requirements, and,
-
correct welding filler material was used and appropriately controlled as evidenced by records of the material issue slips.
Within the areas inspected, no discrepancies were identified.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Review of Licensee's Program for Evaluating Changes to the Environs Around the Plant (TI 2515/112)
The objective of the inspection for this TI was to review the licensee's program for identifying, evaluating, and documenting changes that may have occurred since the plant was originally licensed in population distributions, or industrial, military, or transportation hazards on or near the site. As part of this inspection, the licensee's program for updating the FSAR was reviewed.-
The FSAR is required to be updated annually according to 10 CFR 50.71(e). The inspector reviewed Compliance Manual procedure 3.7 which describes the licensee's program for ensuring the updates are complete,
6 I
In accordance with this procedure, it is incumbent on the Technical Sponsors assigned responsibility for the various sections of the FSAR to
solicit, review, and forward proposed FSAR revisions to the Compliance Technical Editor who has the overall responsibility for submitting the FSAR updates to the NRC. The inspectors noted that the guidance provided in the procedure for identifying required FSAR changes was limited, in that it did not cover many of the types of changes that require FSAR updates.
Personnel using this guidance could overlook changes that may have occurred which require an FSAR update.
Based on discussions with the licensee, there is no formal program to periodically review changes in population or industrial, military, or transportation hazards to ensure that the effects from potential changes are identified and evaluated if necessary.
The inspectors reviewed applicable chapters of the licensee's updated FSAR dealing with demography and site proximity hazards.
For the most part, Chapter 2 of the FSAR, Site Characteristics, contains the majority
.
of the information on these subjects.
The inspectors reviewed the
'
information in Chapter 2 and compared this with the corresponding information from the licensee's SERs, which were based on the original FSAR; it was noted that very few, if any, FSAR updates had been made in i
these areas. For example, with regard to demography, the FSAR provides details of population distributions around the site based on data from the 1980 census, as well as, population projections in ten year intervals up to the year 2020. This information has not been updated since the original FSAR submittal, yet, it was evident, following a-review of data from the 1990 census, that the population and population distributions have increased greater than the licensee had originally predicted. However, as part of the licensee's Radiological Emergency Response program, demographic changes are reviewed periodically to update estimates of the time required to evacuate personnel from the emergency planning zones around the site. The latest evacuation time estimate study was conducted based on the 1990 census data.
The licensee also indicated that a review of some of the external site hazards that were originally considered when the plant was licensed has been performed in association with their IPE study. The Catawba IPE was
,
submitted to the NRC in September 1992, and included an analysis of external initiating events such as; aircraft impact, industrial or
,
military facility accidents, gas pipeline ruptures, and transportational accidents.
Based on discussions with personnel involved in the IPE
'
study, a review of potential changes in these areas was conducted in 1985 when data was gathered for this section of the IPE.
The inspectors selected several areas to review in greater detail to determine if any significant changes had occurred that may have warranted evaluation and FSAR update. The results from this review are discussed below:
a.
Aircraft Accidents:
The inspectors contacted the Federal Aviation Administration to determine if there had been any
.
"
.
.
significant changes in the proximity and usage of aircraft routes within the 5 mile radius of the plant.
It was learned that since the plant was licensed, several of the low-altitude airways have been re-routed further from the plant, or the airways are now used less frequently. These changes would tend to decrease the already low aircraft crash frequency for Catawba.
Conversely, the inspectors also learned that a military training route existed with its centerline located approximately 3 miles South of the pl ant. This route had a 20 mile width which could potentially take the aircraft directly over the plant.
Based on the high altitude and infrequent use of this route, the inspectors did not expect this route to be a concern; however, since the FSAR and SER did not acknowledge the existence of this route, the licensee was requested to evaluate the potential impact of this route on the plant.
The inspectors will review the results of this evaluation when completed. This item will be tracked as part of IFI 413, 414/93-13-01: Review Licensee Evaluations of TI 2515/112 Weaknesses.
b.
Gas Pipeline Ruoture:
When Catawba was licensed, two high pressure natural gas pipelines were located 6.5 and 4.3 miles South of the plant. The licensee and NRC evaluations of the two pipelines indicated that they would not significantly affect the station. The inspectors contacted the local gas companies in the area to determine whether any significant changes or pipeline additions had occurred since the plant was licensed.
It was learned that in 1990, a 4-inch plastic line was installed approximately 4.0 miles North of the plant between the cities of Clover and Lake Wylie along South Carolina Highway 49. This pipeline was very low pressure and could be isolated if a break occurred; therefore, the inspectors determined that it would not have any significant affect on Catawba.
Based on discussions with the licensee, however, they were not aware of this pipeline addition.
c.
Industrial Accidents: When Catawba was licensed, two small manufacturing plants were located within the 5 mile radius of the pl ant.
The potential hazard to Catawba from these two plants was reviewed by the licensee and the NRC and determined to be insignificant.
The inspectors contacted one of the firms to verify that there had been no changes in their operating practices which could impact Catawba.
On May 5, the inspectors toured a portion of the area within the 5 mile radius of the plant to determine whether any new manufacturing, military, medical, or institutional facilities have been added that could potentially impact the plant.
In addition, the inspectors contacted the Chambers of Commerce for several of the closest cities to determine if any new facilities have established residence in the area.
There were no concerns identified from these activities.
Based on the inspection activities discussed above, there were no changes discovered which would have significantly affected the plant;
_
_ - _ - _ _ _ - _
-
.
.
.
however, the licensee was apparently unaware of these changes and had not evaluated their impact.
Since there is not a mechanism in place to periodically identify such items, the potential exists for more significant changes to occur without being evaluated. The licensee indicated that they would evaluate their existing program for updating the FSAR. The inspectors will review the results of this evaluation upon completion. This item is identified as part of IFI 413, 414/93-13-01:
Review Licensee Evaluations of TI 2515/112 Weaknesses.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Review of Licensee Event Report (92700)
The LER listed below was 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 l
relative safety significance of each event.
l
'
(Closed) LER 414/91-10:
Technical Specification Required Shutdown Due to an Inoperable Standby Diesel Generator.
This LER reported the 2A Diesel Generator failure on September 10, 1991, during required testing. This resulted in the shutdown of the unit to conduct repairs to the engine. The failure of the engine was determined to be caused by the malfunction of an engine cooling water valve. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective actions for this event and determined that all actions had been completed. One of the corrective actions was to investigate possible enhancements to the engine's chart recorder used to record important operating parameters. The inspectors noted that this investigation had been completed, resulting in plans to replace the chart recorder with a newer model.
These replacements are scheduled to be completed by June 1994, prior to Unit 2 End-of-Cycle 6.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 12, 1993, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
Item Number Description and Reference IFI 413, 414/93-13-01 Review Licensee Evaluations of TI 2515/112 Weaknesses (paragraph 6).
f.. '.. -
'
.
,
9.
Acronyms and Abbreviations ASME -
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
'
CFR
-
Code of Federal Regulations FSAR -
Final Safety Analysis Report IFI
-
Inspector Followup Item IPE
-
Individual Plant Examination LER
-
Licensee Event Report NC
-
-
Operating Procedure PIR
-
Problem Investigation Report PT
-
Periodic Procedure NRC
-
Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSM
-
Nuclear Station Modification R&R
-
Removal and Restoration SER
-
Safety Evaluation Report TI
-
Temporary Instruction TS
-
Technical Specifications VC/YC -
Control Room Ventilation and Chilled Water System VE
-
-
Work Request
,
b