ML19327C128
| ML19327C128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1989 |
| From: | Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19327C124 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-89-29, 50-414-89-29, NUDOCS 8911200179 | |
| Download: ML19327C128 (3) | |
Text
f
(
o b
'e ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Duke Power Company Docket Nos.:
50-413. 50-414 Catawba Units 1 and 2 License Nos.: NPF-35. NPF-52 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on September 3.1989 through October 6.19E9. violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions." 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C. (19891. the violations are set forth below:
A.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures be established, implemented, and maintained covering the activities referenced in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33. Revision 2. February 1978.
Implicit in this is the stipulation that the procedure be adequate for the task being performed.
Maintenance Management Procedure (MMP1 1.0 states that a functional verification will demonstrate that a component or components operate as designed and a retest will demonstrate that a component or components meet the minimum acceptance criteria as defined in Technical Specifications or other regulatory docurents.
The retest must adeountely test all components on which maintenance or incidental adjustments were performed if a reasonable possibility exists that the paraneter to be tested was affected by the maintenance.
[
f Contrary to the above. section 4.9.10 of MMP 1.0 which outlines the program for post maintenance testing of circuit breakers was inadequate to assure proper operation of equipment following circuit breaker replacement, in that on May 12. 1989 the electrical circuit breaker for i
the 2A Hydrogen Skimmer Fan Motor was replaced and the fan was not started to verify operability nor was an evaluation of the instantaneous overcurrent trip characteristics of the breaker performed.
The breaker subsecuently tripped on instantaneous overcurrent upon the first start attempt on June 19. 1989.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation and applies to Unit 2 only, j
(Supplement 11 B.
10 CFR 50. Appendix B. Criterion III. Design control, requires in part that measures be established to assure that applicable regulatory r
requirements and the design basis, for structures. systens, and components l
are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions.
It is further required that these measures provide for verifying the adequacy of design. such as by the performance of design reviews, by the use of calculational methods, or the performance of a testing program.
' 5911250179 E91103 PDR ADOCK 05000413 Q
(
i w
s i
i Duke Power Company 2
Docket Nos.:
50-413. 50-414 Catawba Units 1 and 2 License Nos.: WPF-35. NPF-52 l
Contrary to the above, design control measures were inadecuate to ensure that the Annulus Ventilation System could perform its required safety i
function.
In September 1989, it was found that the Annulus Ventilation i
Systems on both units had been inoperable since initial licensing.
It was found that the Annulus Ventilation systems were unable to produce and maintain a negative pressure of 0.5 inches water gauge throughout the annulus under all possible outsf de air temperatures following a loss of coolant accident, j
This is a Sev
'y Level IV Violation (Supplement 1).
i C.
10 CFR 50. Appendix B. Criterion XI. Test Control, recuires in part that a test program be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that structures. systems. and components will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the reouirements and acceptance l
limits contained in applicable design documents.
The test program shall include, as appropriate, proof tcsts prior to installation, preoperational test, and operational tests during nuclear power plant operation, of i
structures. Systems, and components, i
Contrary to the above. the test progrem established at Catawba to assure that all testing required to demonstrata that the Control Room Ventilation system would perform satisfactorily in service was inadequate. Applicable test procedures failed to adequately specify system conditions and test i
acceptance criteria to initially flow balance the system and to i
periodically demonstrate that the system would perform satisfactorily in service such that the control room would remain pressurized to 1/8 inch water gauge from one source of outside uncontaminated air. This resulted in the inoperability of Train "A" of Control Poom Ventilation since initial licensing until September 1989 in that it was unable to maintain adequate cc.ntrol room pressure from one source of outside air.
ThisisaSeveritylevelIVViolation(SupplementI).
t Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201. Duke Power Company is hereby i
required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission. ATTN: Document Control Desk. Washington. DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, region II. and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector within thirty (30) days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice.
This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) admission or denial of the violation.
(2) the reason for the violation if admitted. (3) the corrective steps which have been taken end the results echieved. (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Where good cause is shown. consideration will be given to
p.
,m y. -.m
- r,
i.
ce,
- / *.' 4
- ,.th ; '
Duke Power Company.
3~
Docket Nos.:
50-413, 50 414 Catawba-Units 1 and 2 License Nos.:
n.
i extencing the response ' time,. If an adequate reply 'is not received within the
, time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action l
as may be proper should not be taken, i
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULA10RY COMMIS$10N I
hbk]w!rdt, Chi i&
Alan R. H Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Dated at Atlanta, Georgia Ethis 3rd day of Nov.
1989 t
i b
li ?;