ML20207L774
| ML20207L774 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1999 |
| From: | Berkow H NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Gordon Peterson DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NOED-99-6-003, NOED-99-6-3, TAC-MA4948, TAC-MA4949, NUDOCS 9903180265 | |
| Download: ML20207L774 (5) | |
Text
_
m/m z..
W4 9\\
UNITED STATES l
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION bf WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 l
.....[
March 15,1999 g
3 Mr. G. R. Peterson Site Vice President.
Catawba Nuclear Station Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road
. York, South Carolina 29745-9635'
SUBJECT:
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 - NOTICE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION (NOED NO. 99-6-003) (TAC NOS. MA4948 AND MA4949)
Dear Mr. Peterson:
By letter dated March 11,1999, you requested that the NRC exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with the actions required by Catawoa Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) 3.3.7 and 3.3,8. These LCOs govern the Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS) and the Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System (ABFVES) actuation instrumentation. Your letter documented 4-information previously discussed with the staff in a telephone conversation on March 11,1999, at 1:00 p.m. (H. Berkow, P. Tam, H. Garg, C. Ogle, C. Casto and D. Roberts were present).
You stated that following discovery that the surveillances could not be performed as specified, you invoked the 24-hour allowance of Surveillance Requirement 3.0.3 for a missed surveillance.
j You requested that a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) be issued pursuant to the NRC's policy regarding exercising discretion for an operating facility, set forth in Section Vll.c, of the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actionsi(Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, and that the NOED be effective for the period ending at the iss;.sance of a j
related TS amendment.
g In your letter you indicated that you will propose to delete all surveillance requirements from J
Section 3.3.7 and 3.3.A The basis for this deletion is that Sections 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 do not
(/l correctly reflect the design of the Catawba CRAVS and ABFVES contrrJ systems. At Catawba, the Solid State Protection System (SSPS) provir!.1 input to the diesel generator load sequencer, which, in tum, provides input to the CRAVS ano.i3FVES. Thus, the CRAVS and ABFVES are not directly act aated by the SSPS. However, the surveillance requirements (actuation logic test,
- master relay test, slave relay test) currently specified by LCOs 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 are written on the assumption that the CRAVS and ABFVES are directly actuated by the SSPS. Catawba TS
' Table 3.3.2-1, Function ib, already correctly specifies all the necessary requirements that apply to the automatic actuation logic and actuation relays insofar as SSPS testing is concemed.
' Accordingly, the load sequencer output signal is tested as part of the engineered safeguards testing, which is conducted during refueling outages. Thus, the automatic start capability of these systems is appropriately tested. We agree with your justification for deleting Sections 3.3.7 and 3.3.8
- You pointed out that TS Sections 3.7.10 and 3.7.12, which are not the subject of this NOED, will
' continue to specify mechanical requirements for the CRAVS and ABFVES Further, you pointed eT I @ ! M 13 CR S
e m
w --.
~ -
i.%
..,.a
l
.s
]
i G. R. Peterson March 15,1999 out that the Catawba CRAVS and ABFVES are not actuateu by high radiation, and chlorine detector circuit testing had been previously moved out of the TS; thus, not performing the 1
J
' surveillance requirements of LCOs 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 will have no impact on the operability or testing requirements pertaining to these detectors.
On the basis of the preceding information, we have determined that compliance with LCOs 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 is not necessary, in that these LCOs are incorrectly written for the Catawba CRAVS an.
- ABFVES instrumentation design. There are no negative safety consequences associated with not performing the surveillances specified by these LCOs, and thus, no compensatory measures have been proposed by you.
We have reviewed your request and justification for the issuance of the NOED and agree that it satisfies criterion 1(a) of the staff's guidance, and that failure to implement the surveillance requirement of TS Sections 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 should not result in the forced shutdown of the Catwba units. We conclude that the issue does not create any concerns regarding the capability of any structures, systems, or components to perform their intended safety functions.
On the basis of our evaluation of your request, we have concluded that a NOED is warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involves minimal or no safety impact, is consistent with the enforcement policy and staff guidance, and has no adverse impact on public
. health and safety. Therefore, it is our intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with LCOs 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 for the period from 6:05 p.m. on March 11,1999, until issuance of a related amendment to delete the subject LCOs. By letter dated March 15,1999, you requested such an amendment. This letter confirr1s issuance of the NOED, which was verbally communicated to you on March 11,1999, by Mr. Darrell J. Roberts, Senior Resident inspector at Catawba.
As stated in the Enforcement Policy, action will be taken, to the extent that violations were involved, for the root cause that led to the noncompliance for which this NOED was necessary, i
Sincerely, Original signed by:
Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate 112 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-413 and 50-414 Distribution BBoger OGC 6 Docket File 9 JZwolinski 2ACRS cc: See next page PUBLIC -
.JLieberman HGarg, O-9 D4 PDil-2 RF' SCollins/FMiraglia HThompson COgle, Rll e-mail BSheron ~
NRCWEB NOED WBeckner DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\ CATAWBA \\C4948LTR.WPD To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the bor.: *E' = Copy N" = No copy *See previous concurrence OFFICE PDll-2/PM l PDil-2/LA l HICB/BC l All PDil-2/D NAME PTam:cn*
CHawes*
JMauck*
COgle*
HBerkow*
DATE 3/15/E3 3 /15 /99 3 / 15 /99 3/15/99 3/15/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
4 G. R. Peterson out that the Catawba CRAVS and ABFVES are not actuated by high radiation, and chlorine detector circuit testing had been previously moved out of the TS; thus, not performing the surveillance requirements of LCO: 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 will have no impact on the operability or p
' testing requirements pertaining to these detectors.
On the basis of the preceding information, we have determined that compliance with LCOs 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 is not necessary, in that these LCOs are incorrectly written for the Catawba CRAVS
{
and ABFVES instrumentation design. There are no negative safety consequences associated with not performing the surveillances specified by these LCOs, and thus, no compensatory measures have been proposed by you.
We have reviewed your request and justifi:ation for the issuance of the NOED and agree that it satisfies criterion 1(a) of the staff's guidance, and that failure to implement the surveillance requirement of TS Sections 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 should not result in the forced shutdown of the Catawba units. We conclude that the issue does not create any concerns regarding the capability of any structures, systems, or components to perform their intended safety functions.
On the basis of our evaluation of your request, we have concluded that a NOED is warranted because we are clearly satisfied that this action involves minimal or no safety impact, is i
consistent with the enforcement policy and staff guidance, and has no adverse impact on public j
health and safety. Therefore, it is our intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with LCOs 3.3.7 and 3.3.8 for the period from 6:05 p.m. on March 11,1999, untilissuance of a related amendment to delete the subject LCOs. By letter dated March 15,1999, you requested such an amendment. This letter confirms issuance of the NOED, which was verbally comrnunicated to you on March 11,1999, by Mr. Darrell J. Roberts, Senior Resident inspector at Catawba.
As stated in the Enforcement Policy, action will be taken, to the extent that violations were involved, for the root cause that led to the noncompliance for which this NOED was necessary.
Sincerely, Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate Il-2 Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 cc: See next page
Catawba Nuclear Station cc:
Mr. Gary Gilbert North Carolina Electric Membership Regulatory Compliance Manager Corporation Duke Enerry Corporation P. O. Box 27306 4
4800 Concord Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 York, South Carolina 29745 Senior Resident inspector Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
Legal Department (PB05E) 4830 Concord Road Duke Energy Corporation York, South Carolina 29745 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Virgil R. Autry, Director Division of Radioactive Waste Management Anne Ctsttington, Esquire Bureau of Land and Waste Management Winston and Strawn Department of Health and Environmental 1400 L Street, NW Control Washington, DC 20005 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 i
North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1 L. A. Keller 1427 Meadowwood Boulevard Manager-Nuclear Regulatory i
P. O. Box 29513 Licensing Raleigh, North Carolina 27626 Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street i
County Manager of York County Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 York County Courthouse York, South Carolina 29745 Saluda River Electric P. O. Box 929 i
Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Laurens, South Carolina 29360 121 Village Drive Greer, South Carolina 29651 Mr. Steven P. Shaver Senior Sales Engineer Ms. Karen E. Long Westinghouse Electric Company Assistant Attorney General 5929 Carnegie Blvd.
North Carolina Department of Justice Suite 500 P. O. Box 629 Charlotte, North Carolina 28209 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Elaine Wathen, Lead REP Planner Division of Emergency Management 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-1335 I
' Catawba Nuclear Station l
cc:
Mr. T. Richard Puryear Owners Group (NCEMC)
. Duke Energy Corporation 4800 Concord Road
' York, South Carolina 29745 Richard M. Fry, Director Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 3825 Barrett Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 i
1 l
bm '