IR 05000302/1985015
| ML20209H816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1985 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Wilgus W FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511110232 | |
| Download: ML20209H816 (3) | |
Text
=i\\.
pyg
'~*
.
h Novenberh,1985'
'
-
Florida Power Corporation s
/ ATTN:. Mr. W. S. Wilgus
,,,
Vice President Nuclear Operations
.3 P. O. Box 14042, M.A.C. H-2-St. Petersburg, FL 33733
'
'
Gentlemen:
\\'
SUBJECT:
REPORT N0. 50-302/85-15 Thank you for your supplemental response of September \\17, 1985, to our Notice of
'
Violation issued on.May 17, 1985, concerning activities conducted under GC" Operating License No. DPR-72.
We.will examine the, implementation of y0ar i program enhancements during future inspections.
No additional response to this letter is required.
We have' reviewed your response to Violation _1 and hdve concluded, for the reasons
presented in the enclosure to this letter, that the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation.
t
Sincerely, b
- 0RlGR 7.L 3
- GNED DV ljJOHN A. OLSHINSKI J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrater Enclosure
Staff Evaluation of Licensee Response
,
e
'
cg w/ enc 1:
L4. M. Howard, Director Site Nuclear Operations
- F. McKee, Nuclear Plant Manager g. R. Westafer, Manager Nuclear Operations Licensing ar.d Fuel Management bec w/ enc 1:-
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE 4RC Resident Inspector Document Control Desk State of Florida
.
RII RII RII RII RII RII RII o ABelisle:dr * CJulian * AGibson * VPanciera VBrownlee'*R'.4alker Ge ns 10/ /85 10/ /85 10/ /85 10/ /85 10/ /85 10/ /85 1///./85 RII 2Ak 0511110232 851105
'
JA0HWinski '
G PDR PDR ADOCK 05000302 lj/g/65 g
_I; o/
'
-
_
..
_ _ _ _. _ _ _
_-
_
_
_
- .,.
-+
.>
%L-N-
'
..,
N 4.
&
m
%:
Florida, Power Corporation
ATTN:
Mr. W. S. Wilgus Vice President Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 14042, M.A.C. H-2 St. Petersburg, FL 33733 i
Gentlemen:
-
S ECT: ' REPORT NO. 50-302/85-15
,
N s}
Tha k you for.your supplemental response of September 17, 1985, to our Notice of
>
<. ( y Violation issued on May 17,.1985, concerning activities conducted under NRC
"
Operating License No. DPR-72.
We have reviewed your response to Violation 1 and have concluded, for the reasons
,9 resented in the enclosure to this letter, that the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation.
,
..
_[ 3
Sincerely,
'
<.
'
.N J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Enclosure:
Staff Evaluation of Licensee Response
,
cc w/ encl:
E. M.- Howard, Director yn S te Nuclear Operations v. Pr F. McKee, Huclear Plant Manager
.
( G. R. Westafer, Manager
Nuclear Operations Licensing
'
- and Fuel Management
Necw/ encl:
'
NRC Resident Inspector N,
Document Control Desk
'
State of Florida
- p
- Q'
R I RII R
RI(
RII R
RII
,
-
Be i le:dr C
an son iera VB niee lker GJenkins 10/3o /85 10//g/85 10/22/8@ V
^
/85 10/p/85 10/p /85 10/ /85 I
- \\
,
'3II p
?..
,
i JA01shinski.
'
'
-
10/ /S5 fy '
y
,
z
,
v.'
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
__
_
+.
.
ENCLOSURE STAFF EVALUATION OF LICENSEE RESPONSE
,
DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 Our assessment of your reasons for denial of the violation is as follows:
You make the following statement in your denial:
FPC has evaluated the staff's response to our June 14, 1985 denial of this proposed violation and continues to believe that this violation is not warranted.
You state in your August 28, 1985 letter to FPC:
"We acknowledge that there are no NRC escalation guidelines and that the specific guidelines stated as part of the cited violation are not formal regulatory requirements." We agree with your conclusion that no regulatory requirement has been violated.
The inspector stated " lack of acceptance criteria of the type discussed above resulted in failure to achieve prompt corrective action on several
\\
QA audit findings."
The finding of specific items of alledged [ sic]
noncompliance does not, however, demonstrate a noncompliance in the program for controlling those activities.
FPC's June 14, 1983 [ sic]
response to the Notice of Violation specifically addressed each of the points sited [ sic] by the inspector and demonstrated how FPC's program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI.
Our response dated August 28, 1985, states the following:
We acknowledge that there are no NRC escalation guidelines and that the specific guidelines stated as part of the cited violation are not formal regulatory requirements.
However, we observed and documented in the inspection report that several QA audit findings had not been resolved on a timely basis.
Therefore, we conclude that your previously established measures were not adequate to meet 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI.
The fact that QA audit findings (conditions adverse to quality) were identified as not being promptly resolved was specifically identified in Inspection Report No. 50-302/85-15.
From this fact came the conclusion that established measures were not effective. Your responses dated June 14 and September 17, 1985, did not address the established measures' effectiveness.
We recognize that measures had been established but these measures were not effective; consequently, they did not meet 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI requirements.
In conclusion, it is our position that the violation occurred as stated.
However, your revised response dated September 17, 1985, stated several program enhancements.
These program enhancements will be reviewed during future inspections.
---
-
___