ML18010B132
| ML18010B132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1993 |
| From: | Stohr J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Vaughn G CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307230071 | |
| Download: ML18010B132 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000400/1993003
Text
Docket No. 50-400
License
No. NPF-63
Carolina
Power
and Light Company
ATTN:
Mr. G.
E. Vaughn
Vice President
Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant
P. 0.
Box 165
- Mail Zone
1
New Hill, NC
27562-0165
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NRC
INSPECTION
REPORT
NO. 50-400/93-03
Thank you for your response
of March 26,
1993, to our Notice of Violation
issued
on February
25,
1993,
concerning activities conducted
at your Shearon
Harris facility.
We have evaluated
your response
and found that it meets
the
requirements
of 10 CFR 2.201.
After reviewing your letter,
we agree with your conclusion that Violation A,
Example
1, did not constitute
a violation.
We also agree that Violation B
should
be changed
from a Severity Level
V Violation to
a Non-Cited Violation.
Accordingly,
we will adjust our records to reflect that no cited violation of
regulatory requirements
occurred with respect to Violation A, Example
1 and
Violation B.
In your response,
you denied Violation A, Example 2.
You stated
as the bases
for your denial that
an alternate
means of transmitting plant operating data
to the Technical
Support Center
(TSC)
and
Emergency Operations Facility (EOF)
was available
and, that the problem that ultimately would cause
the non-
operational
state
noted
by the inspector
had
been recognized
on January
21,
1993.
After careful consideration of the bases for your denial of Violation A,
Example 2,
we have concluded, for the reasons
presented
in the enclosure to
this letter, that the violation occurred
as stated
in the Notice of Violation.
Therefore,
in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.201(a),
please
submit to this office
'ithin
30 days of the date of this letter
a written statement
describing
steps
which have
been taken to correct Violation A, Example 2,
and the results
achieved,
corrective steps
which will be taken to avoid further violations,
and the date
when full compliance will be achieved.
We will examine the implementation of your actions to correct the violations
during future inspections.
930723007i
930610
ADOCK 05000400~
8
PDR .
~go I
Carolina
Power
and Light Company
2
The responses
directed
by this letter
and its enclosure
are not subject to the
clearan
e procedures
of the Office of Management
and Budget
as required
by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
Pub.
L.
No 96-511.
We appreciate
you cooperation
in this matter.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Evaluations
and Conclusions
J. Philip Stohr, Director
Division of Radiation Safety
and Safeguards
cc w/encl:
W.
R. Robinson
Plant Manager
Harris Nuclear Plant
P. 0.
Box 165
New Hill, NC
27562-0165
Mr. H.
W. Habermeyer,
Jr.
Vice President
Nuclear Services
Department
Carolina
Power
8 Light Company
P. 0.
Box 1551
- Mail OHS7
Raleigh,
NC
27602
C,
S. Olexik, Jr.,
Manager
Regulatory Compliance
Harris Nuclear Project
P. 0.
Box 165
New Hill, NC
27562
H.
Ray Starling
Vice President
- Legal
Department
Carolina
Power
and Light Co.
P. 0.
Box 1551
Raleigh,
NC
27602
Dayne
H. Brown, Director
Division of Radiation Protection
N. C. Department of Environment,
Health
5 Natural
Resources
P. 0.
Box 27687
Raleigh,
NC
27611-7687
cc w/encl:
(Cont'd
on page
3)
Carolina
Power
and Light Company
(cc w/encl:
cont'd)
Hs. Gayle
B. Nichols
Staff Counsel
SC Public Service
Commission
P. 0.
Box 11649
Columbia,
SC
29211
bcc w/encl:
H. Christensen,
RII
S. Vias, RII
N. Le,
Document Control
Desk
NRC Resident
Inspector
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Route
1,
Box 315B
New Hill, NC
27562
RI
5
P'93
II
arr
A+93
S
RII:D P
line
@ah
sstensen
5/[93
5/s
93
RII:DRSS
RI
B
a
ett
5/~i/93
5/
ENCLOSURE
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
On February
25,
1993,
a Notice of Violation (Notice)
was issued for violations
identified during
a routine
NRC inspection.
Shearon
Harris responded
to the
Notice on March 26,
1993.
In the licensee's
response
to the Notice, -the
Violation was denied
because
there were alternate
means of transmitting plant
data
and because
the ultimate source of the problem which made the
Emergency
Response
Facility Information System
(ERFIS) terminal fail to operate
had
been
recognized
several
days before the
ERFIS terminals
were found by the
NRC to be
Restatement
of Violation A
Exam le
2
states
that
a licensee
authorized to possess
and operate
a
nuclear
power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect
an emergency
plan
which meets
the standards
and the requirements
of
Appendix
E to
10 CFR 50.47(b)(8) requires that adequate
emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency
response
are
provided
and maintained.
Section 3. 1 of the Shearon
Harris Emergency
Plan,
which implements
states
that adequate
emergency facilities, communication,
and equipment to support
emergency
response
are provided
and maintained.
Section 3.5.3.b of the Shearon
Harris Emergency
Plan identifies
ERFIS
consoles,
capable of displaying plant data,
Safety
Parameter
Display System
(SPDS),
and Radiation Monitoring System
(RMS),
as
Emergency Operations
Facility (EOF) equipment to be maintained.
Contrary to the above,
when
an operational
demonstration
was requested
by the
inspector,
EOF ERFIS terminals
1, 2,
and
3 did not operate.
Summar
of Licensee's
Res onse:
The licensee
stated "It is true that when
an operational
demonstration
was
requested
by the inspector
on January
26,
1993, the
EOF ERFIS terminals
1, 2,
and
3 did not operate."
The licensee
also
argued that alternate
means of
transmitting plant operating data to the Technical
Support .Center
(TSC)
and
EOF was available.
In addition, the licensee
stated that the problem that
ultimately would cause
the non-operational
state
noted
by the inspector
had
been recognized
on January
21,
1993,
and that
a work ticket was initiated at
that time.
The licensee
stated
the
EOF equipment
had
been operating properly
just prior to the
NRC inspection
but that
a component failed to operate
.
properly when actuated
as part of the upgrade to the
ERFIS.
The licensee
stated
the
EOF equipment
was placed
back on line within 30 minutes the day
after the equipment
was identified by the
NRC as being out of service.
The
licensee
contends
the issue is not
a violation in that the problem
had
been
self-identified
and the ability to place the equipment
back on line was
available
and demonstrated.
Encl.osure
NRC Evaluation
The licensee
agreed that the
ERFIS terminals failed to operate
when requested
by NRC.
The
NRC inspector
was
aware that
an alternate
means of transmitting
plant operating data to the
EOF was available
and concluded that such measures
should
be taken to compensate
for the loss of the
ERFIS terminals.
However,
the violation was concerned with the maintenance
of the
ERFIS terminals.
Compensatory
measures
are not
a substitute for adequate
maintenance
of
required equipment.
The
ERFIS system
has
a history of problems.
During a previous inspection in
June
1991,
a similar problem occurred with the
ERFIS.
Specifically, all of
the
EOF ERFIS terminals failed to function on
command
and required technical
assistance
to activate.
At that time,
a work request
had
been
issued to
attempt to identify the problems.
That failure of the terminal to operate
was
subsequently
classified
by
NRC as
a non-cited violation based
on licensee
planned corrective action to upgrade
the system.
During this inspection,
the
ERFIS terminals
again failed to operate
when requested
and the immediate
attempt to trouble shoot the system
was unsuccessful.
To examine the
maintenance
history of the
ERFIS system,
the inspector
requested
a current
listing of work requests
on the
ERFIS system.
That listing indicated that
a
substantial
number of work requests
were awaiting completion.
The work
request list indicated that
ERFIS needed
increased
attention to assure
the
system
was maintained
in an operable state consistent
with its emergency
response
function.
Also,
on February
6,
1993, following the subject
NRC
inspection,
the licensee
met
an established
emergency
action level
and
declared
a Notification of Unusual
Event when the
ERFIS computer failed to be
operable for more than four hours.
The licensee
stated that they maintain technical
personnel
capable of working
on the
ERFIS system
and they have the ability to rapidly return the system to
operational
status.
The
NRC noted that
a technician initially wrote
a work
ticket on the January
21,
1993,
which identified the failed "switcher."
The
work ticket did not prevent another technician
from activating the "switcher"
on the morning of January
26,
1993, which,
as stated
by the licensee,
was the
source of the
ERFIS terminal failure.
The Specialist
contacted
on the
evening of January
26,
1993,
was unable to activate the
EOF ERFIS terminals.
Neither the Specialist
nor the technician contacted
by the Specialist
were
aware of the defective
equipment.
The equipment
was not returned to service
until the following day after
a review by the technician
who normally works
on
the equipment.
The activation of the "switcher" by a technician resulted
in
the
EOF ERFIS terminals
being inoperable for a period of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
NRC Conclusion
The inspector
concluded that the long standing
problems with the
ERFIS system
had not been
adequately
resolved in the intervening years
between
June
1991
and January
1993.
After careful
review and consideration
of the licensee's
basis for the denial
of Violation A, Example 2, the
NRC has concluded
the violation as stated
is
valid.
l: