ML20236L879
| ML20236L879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1987 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236L881 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8711110096 | |
| Download: ML20236L879 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000413/1987023
Text
.
' -
.2
~
.l
uJ
i,t;.
f1d
c g;
l
'
51
'G'
.l i ;
,
.t
h
g
o
UNITED STATES
'
p
,'
f
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
5
E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -
,
kg * * * * * *of
'NOV
6l1987
-
< .
'
Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
'
n
.;
'
-Duke' Power Company
'
ATTN:' Mr. H. B. Tucker
Vice President
.
i
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
>
Gentlemen:
~
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION OF CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
,-
INSPECTION REPORT N0. 50-413/87-23, 50-414/87-23
,
,
,
h
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. W. M. Hill, Jr., T. rA.
j
Cooper, L. :S. Mellen, W. T. Orders, J. D. Smith, and J. G. Spraul of the NRC
j
on July 13 through July 24,1987, 'of activities authorized by NRC License
It-also refers to the discussion of' our findings held
'j
,
with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the . inspection.
!
a
..
r
.i
The inspection evaluated the effectiveness of your (1)' quality verification
'
organizations in the identification, resolution, and prevention of safety
1
significant' technical deficiencies and (2) line management in ensuring that
'
these deficiencies are responded to promptly and completely.
The inspection
focused on the following three disciplines: operations, modifications, and
maintenance.
1
<
in the area of operations, the inspectors raised a concern about the design
'
and operation of the. Nuclear Service Water System.
It appears that during
certain modes of operation it is necessary to realign the system to the
l
Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond to ensure that two of four pumps are
!
-
available to. remove heat during certain accident conditions. Our review
i
indicates that the design meets General Design Criteria 5 and 44, but
!
realignment is necessary to ensure two pumps are available during these modes.
l
Your response to our concerns indicated that procedures have been changed and
l
that Technical Specifications will be revised. However, there may have been
f
periods when the system was not realigned and two pumps were not available as
l
described in the Final Safety Analysis Report. During these occurrences, the
plant was in a unanalyzed condition. As a result, you should have promptly
i
-
(1) performed a safety evaluation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 to determine
I
if an unreviewed safety questien existed and (2) notified the NRC as required
!
by'10 CFR 50.72.
j
,
In the area of modifications, the inspe; tors reviewed some previous events
!
that were related to problems with modifications and post-modification
i
testing. One event resulted in depressurizing Unit 2 following modifications
!
i
871111009 g7hI13
'
A
O
!
'
$
y
RKg R7
}
,
k
A
g ;'
,
,
,
,
>
,
'
.
<<
,
,
-
.c
,s
pq
,
' g.
3
'
d h,
,
i
'
,,
e
/
.
Duke Power Comp;any
.
x
2-
J
.(,
V
i
T'
.!
'
.to the Auxiliary Shutdown Panels. . ' Another event' involved the3 pressurizer
L
_ .
!C
'
-
PORVs that were improperly connected to.thetbackup'nitrogeR supply and failed
1
L.
1,
[ Review: Committee was established to evaluate.certain modifications to-Follow
1
to receive adequate' testing.
t
-
-K
determine if
- meni.loned abo;apr,ropriate testing was performed.; In dddition to the events
1
ve, their review documented numerous'other prod ems with post-
modification ~ testing. ; Examples of their findings include J1) several
]
. safety-relatedi motor operated valves'which did not remive adequate testing.
following' modifications and (2) Unit 1 Au"iliary Shutdown Panels ,which did-not'
'{
.
1
haYe adequate' tests to demonstrate proper operation of <certain functions and
j
'
interlocks. The-findings of your Testing Review Committee indicated that
j
weaknesses existed in the area of post-modification tetting.
1
.
J,
!
In the area of maintenance, the inspectorsLreviewed the mintenance programs
, for portions'of.the'dle @l g,enerator, auxiliary feedwaters n'd main feedwater
n
,
systems .'
Nonsignificant problems were identified.
'
'
'
' As discussed above, our! inspection indicated 'that significant problems existed
1
in-two cf the three areas examined.
For at least the problems described in
.the enclosed report and discussed briefly above, your quali,ty verification
j
'
. organizations, particularly Quality Assurance, were not very effective in
'+
their identification'and prompt resolution of problems.
Based on our. review
t
of your Quality Assurance audit and surveillance reports,.we found'that they-
.were not, technically oriented. While we recognize that.you are-attetpting to.
i
upgrade the technical. capabilities of the QA organization, further attention
is required to ensure that'they contribute meaningfully to the safe and-
l
reliable operatf on of Catawba. All of your organizations which ' perform
I
quality. verificationishould be staffed with technica11y' credible-people so
>
that they can contribute to the prompt identification and resolutien of
I
significant' safety issues.
j'
1
The inspection team recognized the emphasis you place on achieving' quality
within the line organization and the tecunical resources you placed,within
those organizations, particularly the operations and maintenance. departments.
The NRC strongly endorses thif policy. .However, once these problems,
described in the enclosed report, were identified, your line- organizations
l
were slow in responding with~ appropriate corrective-actions.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure
+
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
q
,
The Technical Specifications changes will be reviewed by NRR. The remaining
'
items will be referred to NRC Region II for appropriate follow-up.
,
,
.;
!
A
'
a
,
t
f
l
-
_
. - _ _ _
_
_
__
_
. _ _ _ - .
__
_
_ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ -
,
,
4 ,
- l
G.,. '
<
, ,
-
.g
+
,,
. r-
,
.a
..:
, .
'
' " ^
=
,
'"
+
,
p
g
Duke Power Company ~
3-
-
,
. 1
'
i
-
Should you have'any. questions'concerning this inspection, we will gladly-
. discuss them with'you.
'
Sincerely,
j
,
'
'A
A
[
-
. Va'
a,
. rector
!:
Division of. React
ojects I/II
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures: .
InspectionReport(Nos. . 50-413/87-23,50-414/87-23)
cc: w/enci
. ,
W. Hampton,' Station' Manager
!
.
-
'
~
It~
t
.
I
- - ,
\\
l
,
+
i
e
\\
_ _ _
_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - .