ML20133E998
| ML20133E998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1985 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508080090 | |
| Download: ML20133E998 (3) | |
Text
.
g.
DUKE POWEIt GOMPAhT P.O. DOX 31318D C11AHLOTIE, N.C. 28242 HALB. TUCKER TELEPHONE vice emessonst (704) ONJ31 a'=^=' ==="
June 28, 1985 Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 5
101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 r-Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Re: RII:PKV/PHS li N
50-414/85-14 c.o
Dear Dr. Grace:
N Please find attached responses to Violation No. 414/85-14-02 and Violation No. 414/85-14-03 as identified in the above referenced inspection report.
Very truly yours, lh Hal B. Tucker LTP/mj f Attachment cc: NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station Robert Guild, Esq.
P. O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29205 Palmetto Alliance 2135h Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Mr. Jesse L. Riley Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 8508080090 850628 PDR ADOCK 05000414 Ol G
4 DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION VIOLATION:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI and Duke Power Comapny QA Topical Report, " Quality Assurance Program," Duke-1-A (Amendment 7), Section 17.2.11, require that test results be evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.
Contrary to the above, the licensee did not adequately evaluate the results on Instrument Procedure IP/0/A/3710/08, Vital Battery and terminal Post Inspection performed on May 9, 1984, July 25, 1984, and July 30, 1984, in that the data recorded did not meet the specific acceptance criteria; however, neither the review by management nor Quality Control identified that the acceptance criteria was not met.
Response
1.
Duke Power Company admits the violation.
2.
The violation occurred due to the fact that the resistance readings taken on 1 EBB on July 30, 1984 (W/R-2684IAE) were recorded as micro chms instead of milli ohms as required by the procedure data sheet.
The decimal point of the number was overlooked during the review process.
On May 9, 1984 (W/R-1856IAE), and July 25, 1984 (W/R-2656IAE) there was no inadequate review performed because when these work requests were reviewed additional work requests were written to correct the high connector resistance problem.
3.
When the resident inspector brought the problem to our attention we immediately took corrective action by issuing W/R-3947IAE (I/R inter-row and inter-step connector resistance for 1 EBB) and W/R-3950IAE (I/R inter-row and inter-step connector resistance for lEBC). Also lEBB was declared inoperable.
It was found after measuring the connector resistance that they were out of tolerance but not by the amount indicated on W/R-2684IAE.
The out of tolerance connectors were repaired and the battery was declared operable again.
4.
Results of tests will be reviewed with greater care to avoid further violations in this area 5.
Catawba is in full compliance at this time.
IPF 1
DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION VIOLATION:
Technical Specification (TS) 3.0.4 states that entry into an Operational Mode or other specified condition shall not be made unless the conditions for the limiting conditions for operation are met without reliance on provisions contained in the action requirements.
TS 3.4.1.4.2 requires two residual heat removal (RHR) loops to be operable and at least one loop in operations when in Mode 5 with the reactor coolant loops not filled.
Contrary to the above, two RHR loops were not operabl6 when the plant entered a condition of Mode 5 with reactor coel. int loops not filled, in that on April 20, 1985, loop 1A of RHL was declared inoperable and reactor coolant loops were drained on April 22, 1985, while the RHR loop was still in an inoperable status.
RESPONSE
1.
Duke Power Company admits the violation.
2.
The violaticn occurred because the responsible supervisor in Operations believed that since corrective action was being taken to repair one of the Residual Heat Removal pumps that Technical Specification 3.4.1.4.2 could be entered.
3.
The supervisor has been made aware of the requirements of Technical Specification 3.4.1.4.2.
4.
A Technical Specification interpretation will be issued concerning this activity to avoid further violations in this area.
5.
Full compliance will be achieved by July 12, 1985.