ML20235Y075

Responds to Denying Occurrence of Violations B, C.2.a,C.2.b & D.2.Ack Receipt of Payment of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000.Basis for Determination That Violations Occurred as Stated Encl

ML20235Y075
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	07/23/1987
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
EA-87-008, EA-87-8, TAC-59848, NUDOCS 8707250066
Download: ML20235Y075 (6)

Text

_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _

Dc5

.,'o UNITED STATES g

8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%, * *,* * ) -

JUL 2 31987 Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370 License Nos. NPF-9, NPF-17 EA 87-08 Duke Power Company ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Department 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

NRC RESPONSE TO LICENSEE DENIAL OF VIOLATIONS This refers to your letter dated April 3,1987, in response 'to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty sent to you by our lettcP dated March 6, 1987. Our letter and Notice described several apparent viola-tions identified as a result of an NRC inspection.

In your response, you paid the $50,000 civil penalt; in full but denied the occurrence of violations B, C.2.a C.2.b, and D.2. After consideration of your response, we have concluded for the reasons given in the enclosure to this letter that the above violations occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty dated March 6, 1987. We will examine the effectiveness of your corrective actions during a subsequent inspection.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Sincerely, t f ames [Ta

. r e

Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations.

Enclosure:

Evaluations and Conclusions i

' cc w/ encl:

T. L. McConnell, Station Manager fl Senior Resident Inspector - Catawba

• CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Q (p .

8707250066 870723 PDR ADOCK 05000369 y 6 ' Ik

ENCLOSURE

, EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS On March 6, 1987, a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition:of Civil Penalty (Notice) was issued for violations identified during an NRC inspection.

Duke Power Company (DPC) responded to the Notice on April 3, 1987. The licensee paid the $50,000 civil penalty in full but denied the occurrence of violations B, C.2.a, C.2.b, and D.2. The NRC's evaluation and conclusion ~for the violations whicn were denied by DPC are as follows:

Restatement of Violation 8 10 CFR 50.59 requires in part that the holder of a license authorizing opera-tion of a production or utilization facility may make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report without prior Commission approval, unless the proposed change involves a change in the Technical Specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.

Shared systems are designated in the Technical Specifications by an asterisk (*)

in the margin adjacent to the associated Technical Specification requirement.

Contrary to the above, on October 7, 1985, the licensee prepared a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and performed actions which were inten6ed to cross-connect the 1A and 2A nuclear service water system trains. The conclusion of the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was in error in that the cross-connection would have placed the RN system in a configuration which would involve a change to the Technical Specifi-cations. Because Technical Specification 3.7.4 was not designated by an asterisk to indicate a shared system, cross-connecting the 1A and 2A trains was not appropriate.

Summary of Licensee's Response The licensee denies this violation on the assertion that the 50.59 evaluation  ;

was correct and did not present an unreviewed safety question in the cross-connection of RN trains IA and 2A. Additionally, the licensee asserts that the RN system is not shared in its entirety. Technical Specification 3.0.5.a was also cited in regard to the Limiting Condition for Operation for systems or components which are shared by both units to support their assertion that the RN system is not shared in its entirety between units.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Resoonse The two crucial elements ia a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation are whether the change involves (1) a change in the technical specifications or (2) an unreviewed safety question. While DPC asserts that an unreviewed safety question did not exist, this violation focused on the fact that the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was in error in that the cross-connection would have placed the RN system in a configuration which would involve a change to Technical Specification 3.7.4. The attempted j cross-connection of.1A and 2A RN trains should have received prior NRC review and approval. Technical Specifications 3.0.5 and 3.0.5.a support the NRC position that the RN system was not a designated shared system in that the ACTION requirements are not indicated to apply to Units 1 and 2 as is the case for shared systems. Therefore, Technical SpNification 3.7.4 applied to each unit individually.

_ _ A

y

A 1

Enclosure 1 .

Restatement of Violations C.2.a and C.2.b 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, requires that a test program shall be established to assure that all . testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will. perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed .h accordance with written test procedures which . incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in. applicable design documents.

The test program shall include, as appropriate, proof tests prior to installa-tion, preoperational tests, and operational tests during_ nuclear power plant operation, of structures, systems, and components. Test results shall be -

documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.

-2. - Contrary to the above, test results indicated that systems or components, ,

as shown below, were not able to perform as intended, and the results were  !

not properly documented and evaluated,

a. On December 17, 1985, testing indicated that the Unit 1 "A" train containment spray beat exchanger, control room chiller heat exchanger, charging pump oil cooler, spent fuel pool pump room air handling .

unit, and containment spray pump room air handling unit flows were -

less than their requisite FSAR flow values. It was not until January

.1986 that the licensee formally prepared 'a " written" evaluation to determine the acceptability of the test data, when requested by the NRC.

-b. While performing a quarterly performance test of the 1A containment spray heat exchanger on October 7,1985, the as-found RN flow rate of 800 gallons per minute (gpm).for that heat exchanger was identified, a value significantly below previous as-found test data. This condition was not evaluated by the licensee until requested by the

-NRC on March 24, 1986. Additionally, during the test, an RN flow of 4600 gpm for the 1A containment spray heat exchanger was achieved i rather than the 5000 gpm as specified by the procedure. The inability to perform the test at 5000 gpm was not formally evaluated by the licensee until requested by the NRC on October 15, 1985.

Summary of Licensee's Response A. DPC denies the violation based on its contention that the test performed ,

on December 17, 1985 was intended as an "infomation only" test to  !

determine the best method to conduct a flow' balance test. At that time,  ;

a determination was made that the various components were in a degraded mode, but were not inoperable. A DPC design operability statement as of 1 January 1986 confinned the operability of the components that indicated '

low flow in December 1985.

B. DPC denies this violation because the test procedure, (PT/1A/4403/04) was being used to determine differential pressure across the containment spray and decay heat removal air handling unit heat exchanger on a quarterly basis to trend for fouling. It was never intended to evaluate flow rates or flow balances of the RN system. DPC also considers that the 800 gpm I

1 j l

Enclosure t flow recorded during the October 1985 test to be an unusr.ble data point ,

with respect to determining system operability because of the manner in '

which the RN system was functioning at the time. The RN system was not in an ESF alignment at the time of the test. The as-found flow Pate of 800 gpm is significant only in that the throttle valve was closed more than required in an accident. Also, the test specified that approxi- ,

mately 5000 gpm is required therefore, 4600 gpm would have been acceptable. {

NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Wesponse A. The NRC's view remains that the results of the December 17, 1985 test should have been promptly and formally evaluated. Any tests that cast ,

doubt upon the operability of any component or system should be promptly {

evaluated. An operability determination should be made in a time frame that is consistent with the safety importance of the system, as measured by the requirements of Technical Specification Liriting Condi',1on for Operation. A system should be declared inoperable pending completion of evaluation when there is substantial evidence that it will not perform as assumed in the plant design basis.

B. Again, the NRC emphasizes to DPC the importance of a timely evaluation of '

test results when such results indicate degraded conditions. This '

violation is based upon the requirement that a test program incorporate acceptance limits based upon applicable design documents (i.e., FSAR), and that when the requirements have not been satisfied, for whatever the reason, that the data be evaluated. Data was found which indicated flow rates to be degraded and DPC failed to properly perform an evaluation of the results.

The fact that the test procedures lacked acceptance limits or that DPC considered the unusable data point unimportant with respect to accident analysis is not a mitigating factor.

, Restatement of Violation D.2 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily ,

accomplished.

Contrary to the above:

2. The licensee's quarterly performance test of the 1A containment spray heat exchanger, PT/1/A/4403/04, conducted periodically between June 1983 and October 1985, lacked qualitative and quantitative acceptance criteria which resulted in significant, undetected fouling and degradation of that heat exchanger.

i. ] . -

Enclosure- Summary of Licensee's Response :

DPC denies the violation.and states that the procedure, PT/1/A/4403/04, was used - 1 for component delta pressure data collection.only and not for evaluation of RN -

system flow requirements.

NRC Evaluation of Licensee's Response As previously discussed.in Violation C, DPC was performing a test on the 1A containment spray ~ heat exchanger and the test procedure had no' quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria. This test procedure was performed in October.1985 and the differential pressure'across the 1A containment spray heat exchanger had increased by 45 percent over the value initially recorded when the program began in June 1983. The licensee ascribes this f ouling to 1cke

. turnover, yet there was no provision in the test procedure for evaluating the data should the differential pressure reach a value that could signify problems.

This-test was established in response to an NRC Bulletin and the NRC considers the results. safety significant and acceptance criteria essential.

FRC Conclusion-A sufficient basis was not provided for withdrawal of Violations B, C.2.a.

C.2.b, and D.2.. The NRC staff has' concluded that the violations occurred as

. stated in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty.

.. .=

~- '

JUL 2 31987 L

~-

Duke. Power. Company.

bec w/ enc 1:-

NRC Resident'Inspecto'r lt -. D. Hood, NRR Document Control Deck State of North Carolina.

J. Lieberman, OE'

. H. Wong, OE J. Goldberg, OGC-DE Files-DC5 l4 fn ppg,,a , 9+ M res-

+/t.tn V' ##"" /

W NQes.o r &f,. \

OE- RII .OGC JGoldberg

D@/ r J

HWong JNGrace Jbieberman i 6/f g/87 6/,j/87 6/(/87 f f/[p87 7/ 37

~ . . . . . . .. _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _