ML20126A919
| ML20126A919 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1992 |
| From: | Tuckman M DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212210295 | |
| Download: ML20126A919 (5) | |
Text
-
.o.
t gg l
, kke Ibuvr Corgany Af 5 Tecnn n:tauta Mulsar Genenttien (*erurtment Yke finident 44W O.nand Road (M3)S313:03 O!hce Wik SC Piti (M3}Kil 3426 fu DUKE POWER December 15,1992 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I.
ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 Reply To A Notice Of Violation NRC Inspection Report 50-413/92-26 and 50-4-14/92-26 Attached is Duke Power's response to the Level IV violation cited in the Notico of Violation by subject irispection Report dated November 20,1992.
The violation involved a failure to properly perform a required Unit 2 surveillance activity and failure to identify the omission of performing the required procedure steps during the review of the completed procedure.
Very truly yours, a
\\W
\\-a u%
i M.S. Tuckman f
JLL/
i Attachment 9212210295 921215 PDR ADOCK 05000414 G
.f 001
.,,. m..
ll)
. U.S. Nuclear Regulaury Commission.
December 15,1992
- Page 2 xc:
S.D. Ebneter Regional Administrator, Region ll R.E. Martin, ONRR W. i~. Orders Senior Resident inspector i
n t
4 b
t 4
+
v v ru
.m
< e
+
m.
k
'(;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Occomber. 15,-1'992-Pago 3 bxc:
R.L. Gill 3
R.O. Sharpo M.E. Patrick 7--
A.V. Carr D.B. Cook NCMPA-1 NCEMC SREC PMPA Group File: CN-815.01 (92-26)
Document Control: 815.01 t
4
.y 3
r r
' i o<.
.,;g 6
I p
L y
[ -f J
m a
DUKE PCWER COMPANY REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION 414/92 26-01 Technical Specification 4.2.2.2.e requires actions to be taken whan the ratio Ff(r)/K(z) increases from one monthly surveillance to the next. The minimum actions required are implemented by steps 3 to 6 of Enclosure 13.8 to procedure PT/0/A/4600/05, Core Power Distribution.
Contrary to the above, on June 16,1992, performance of procedure PT/0/A/4600/05, Core Power Distribution, indicated that the ratio had increased since the previous surveiHance, but steps.3 to 6 of Enclosure 13.8 were not performed.
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
8ERORSI:
NOTE: The Unit 2 Core Power Distribution procedure number cited in the Notice of Violation (PT/0/A/4600/05) is incorrect. The correct procedure number is PT/2/A/4150/05.
r 1.
B91 mon For vMa.tista This incident was caused by inadequate attention to detail, in that the individual perfonning Enclosure 13.8 of PT/2/A/4150/05 (Core Power Distribution) did not recognize that the ratio of F[Q)/K(z) had increased from the last surveillance, even though both ratios (previous and current Ff(z)/K(z) ratios) had been properly recorded on Enclosure 13.8. Consequently, steps 3 to 6 of Enclosure 13.8, required when the ratio Ff(z)/K(z) increases from one monthly surveillance to the next, were not performed.
The omission of performing the required procedure steps was not identified by the individual performing the review of the completed procedure. The completed procedure review was performed by an individual who had not been properly trained on performing independent verification of calculations which are performed for verification of procedure acceptanco critaria or required surveillances.
)
.N.
N
- i..
DUKE POWER COMPANY REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION 414/92-26 01 2.
Corrective ActLqnslak_no And Results AchigyJd On October 22, 1992, immediately upon discovery of failure to properly complete Enclosure 13.8 of PT/2/A/4150/05 (Core Power Distribution), the subject Enclosure was performed again. Procedure steps of Enclosure 13.8, required for an increasing Fo"(z)/K(z) ratio, were performed. These steps increased the measured Fo by 2% and verified that the adjusted F remained a
below the surveillance limit. Therefore, the unit did not operate nutside of any limits during the period from June 16,1992.
On October 28,1992, " Review of Verification Requirements" training was provided to all current members of the Reactor Engineering group. This training involved the review of Station Directive 4.2.2 (Independent Verification), with emphasis on the. responsibilities and qualification requirements for those personnel performing independent verification of calculations performed for verification of acceptance criteria or required surveillances. No other similar problems have since been encountered.
3.
Conctive ActionLTpJ_qleken To Avoid Further viola 1.ip_oa M
The Technical Specifications requirements for an increasing Fo h)/KW) ratio are in the process of being changed. These changes are based on Duke Power's methodology for F surveillance. These methods include an extrapolatitn of a
current core power distribution results to 31 EFPD into the future. Based on the results 'of this extrapolation, penalties or. additional surveillance may be required. These calculations are all perforrned in a certified safety-related computer program rather than by hand.This will preclude any recurrence of this type of problem when performing these surveillances.
This change was implernented on Catawba Unit 1 at the beginning of Cycle 6, which occurred on June,1991 and will be irnolemented on Catawba Unit 2 at the beginning of Cycle 6, currently scheduled for April,1993.
4.
DJ.te Of FyP_'?omniiancg i
Duke Power is now in full compliance.
I i
-..