IR 07100021/2011020
| ML20238D278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, 07100021  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1987 |
| From: | Brownlee V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238D228 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-87-41, NUDOCS 8801040181 | |
| Download: ML20238D278 (2) | |
Text
.
.
__
_
,
.
l
.
.
-
.-
!
ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Duke Power Company Docket No. 50-369 McGuire Unit 1 License No. NPF-9 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on October 21 - November 20, 1987, a violation of NRC requirements was identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the violation is
,
identified below:
Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.1 requires that written procedures be established, implemented, and maintained covering the operation and maintenance of safety related plant equipment.
Station Directive 3.2.2, " Identifying and Performing Plant Retesting",
requires that "...all Q. A. Condition - 1, 2, 3 or 4 components, Security Systems and Technical Specification related components shall receive a functional verification prior to returning component to service."
Station Directive 4.2.1, " Handling of Station Procedures", requires that
" Station activities shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the applicable approved procedure (s)."
TS 3.5.2 requires that two independent Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystems (e.g. Residual Heat Removal (ND) pumps) shall be OPERABLE in MODES 1, 2, and 3.
Contrary to the above:
1.
On August 28, 1987, licensee personnel performed work on the flow instrument controlling ND pump 1B recirculation valve,1N0678, using a procedure that did not identify the component as being safety related and did not require functional verification subsequent to maintenance.
Additionally, the personnel performed corrective maintenance on the component following completion of the routine maintenance without using a procedure or repeating the ap311 cable portions of the completed procedure.
These actions _ ult mately allowed the technicians to leave the instrument isolated, rendering the ND train inoperable.
The ND train remained inoperable until September 5, 1987.
During the first six days of this period the unit was in MODES 1, 2, and 3, and thus exceeded the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> time period allowed by TS 3.5.2.
2.
On September 16, 1987, licensee personnel performed post modification testing of Unit 1 main electrical busline lockout relays on which wiring modifications had been performed.
The personnel conducting i
8801040181 871228 PDR ADOCK 05000369
- _ _ _ _
___ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _.
_-
._
- _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ - _ _
_ - - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ - _ _ _ _
.
.
.
-
.
-
,
Duke Power Company
Docket No. 50-369 McGuire Unit 1 License No. NPF-9 the tests elected to test beyond the scope and boundaries of the applicable approved procedure.
These tests resulted in the actuation of the lockout relay associated with the supply busline to Unit 1, resulting in a loss of offsite power.
The loss of the incoming busline also led to a reactor trip on Unit 2 due to a loss of instrument air.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I) and is appifcable to Unit 1 only.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company hereby required to submit a written statement of explanation to the Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region'II, and a
,
'
copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, McGuire, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice.
This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include:
(1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective. steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, I
and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time.
Response l
specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the
'
license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or _why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f.4. /hebim f Virgil L. Brownlee, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this day of December 1987 C__.__________
_.. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ -