ML20207T231

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-413/86-45 & 50-414/86-48.Requests Supplemental Response to Notice, Including Actions Taken or Planned.Response Evaluation Encl

ML20207T231
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	03/10/1987
From:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8703230331
Download: ML20207T231 (3)

See also: IR 05000413/1986045

Text

-- --

A

t

h h lh t N l $ 6)> f .

.

-

. March'10', 1987_

v

.

Duke Power Company.

.

ATTN: Mr. H.-B. Tucker' Vice President

( Nuclear Production Department

,422 South Church Street ~

LCharlotte, NC 28242

-

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION

(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. . 50-413/86-45 AND 50-414/86-48)

Thank you for your response of January 16, 1987, to our Notice of Violation

issued on December 17, 1986, concerning activities conducted at your Catawba

-facility.

In regard to - Violation 50-413/86-45-01, failure to use calibrated

instrumentation for Techr ical Specification required surveillance, we have

evaluated your response ' and found that it meets the requirements of

10 CFR 2.201. We will examine the implementation of your corrective actions

during future inspections.

We have reviewed your response to Violations 50-413/86-45-02 and 50-414/86-48-01,

.

failure to provide adequate procedures for nuclear service water valve

,

verification, and have concluded, for the reasons presented in the enclosure to

this letter, that the violations occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation.

The NRC documented in the inspection report that manual valves in the service

water system were not verified in their correct position at least once per 31

l days, and these valves were not locked, sealed, or otherwise secured as required

by the Technical Specifications. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements

l of 10 CFR 2.201, and within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a

( supplemental response to the Notice. This response should include actions that you have

taken or planned to assure the adequacy of other valve verification surveillance

checklists.

.Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we would be happy to meet

with you and discuss the matter further.

Sincerely.

U.1 3 At E lE0 BYi

J. iiEt'iEl GU.06

J. Nelson Grace

Regional Administrator

. Enclosure:

Staff Evaluation of Response

cc w/ enc 1:

jJ.W.Hampton,StationManager

bec: (See Page 2)

8703230331 870310

PDR ADOCK 05000413

G PDR

J t? ct

_- - __-

-_

,

'

..

.

Duke Power Company. 2 March 10, 1987

^becw/ encl:

VK. N. Jabbour, NRR

G. Belisle, DRS

M.-Shannon, DRS

..R. Gibbs DRS

.lNRC Resident Inspector

Document Control Desk

State of. South Carolina

/

'

/ 87 / .

c, 8

RII

t

3/c) /87

_ - - _ - _ - _

• -

.

,

ENCLOSURE

STAFF EVALUATION OF LICENSEE RESPONSE

DATED JANUARY 16, 1987

Violation "A" cites Technical Specification 4.7.4.a which requires that at least

two nuclear service water loops shall be demonstrated operable at least once per

31 days by verifying that each valve (manual, power operated, or automatic)

servicing safety-related equipment that is not locked, sealed, or otherwise

secured in position, is in its correct position.

The Duke Power Company response denies this violation on the following

contentions. The Operations Management Procedure 2-19, Rounds Sheets,. requires

verification of pump seal, lubrication, and cooling water flows to operating

pumps twice each day. This verification does not ensure that adequate flow

would be supplied to the non-operating pump on an emergency start. The denial

states that inservice pumps are frequently rotated and that a review of plant

records for the last four months have confirmed this. Objective evidence was

not presented that pumps were rotated at a frequency that would meet technical

specification requirements or that a valve lineup was performed that would

ensure proper valve position. The denial also states that operators routinely

verify lubrication and . seal water flow rates to non-operating pumps. This'is

not documented and cannot be considered an acceptable alternative for valve

verification. The denial further states that indication exists in the control

room to warn the operator in the event that a nuclear service water pump is

started without adequate cooling water supply. The indication is a high

temperature alarm and this may not be adequate to prevent damage to the pump

seals and bearings if the pump was started without cooling and seal water.

As stated in the inspection report, the seal water supply valves were not

included in the monthly valve verification procedure PT/1/A/4400/02C change 7.

The valves were not administratively controlled to ensure compliance with

Technical Specifications.