ML19341D656
| ML19341D656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341D657 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104080351 | |
| Download: ML19341D656 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1980036
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:r . t**"'Co g '4 'o, UNITED STATES ' j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j f 1,3 REGION H
- .h'
e - ! 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., Sulf E 3100 o, 8 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 %/ 0 ..... In Reply Refer To: ggg ., , g ,' ^" it : dim ~ r 50-269/80-36 x s
' 50-270/80-32 N 9 J -287/80-2 p o ~ 10j i g' C A <l i' m Duke Power Company d 8/ ATTN: W. O. Parker, Jr. M %g % U/' Vice President, Steam Production %_ $ P. O. Box 2178 'W [7ITh Charlotte, NC 28242 Gentlemen: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1981, regarding the apparent items of noncompliance concerning activities under NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 brought to your attention in our letter of February 5,1981. With regard to your response to Item A, it is our understanding that your basis for denying this item of noncompliance is that you consider the QA/QC audits and on-site survey by the corporate Quality Assurance Department to have satisfied the intent of Technical Specification 6.4.1. You also provided the information that the on-site survey " included a review of appropriate procedures". Based on this infornation, this item of noncompliance will be changed to an unresolved ' item and will remain unresolved pending our further review of this area. Our records will be revised to reflect the change from a violation to an unresolved item. For your information in this regard, please note that Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs, Rev.1,1979, describes a program acceptable to the NRC for assuring the quality of the results of effluent measurements. If authority for the review and approval of procedures by the plant review comittee is delegated to the corporate quality assurance staff and this is accomplished by means of an audit, this process should mect the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 4.15 including the following: ' 1. The audit methodology (including audit plans with checklists and schedules) and results should be documented. 2. The audit should include a review of the vendor / contractor procedures to the same general degree as required by the plant for review of their procedures. The review should include personnel with expertise in the subject area being audited. @10408O W Q
' ~ ' !W l f ' Duke Pow:r Company -2- . ,. 3. Periodic quality control checks (blind replicates, spiked samples, etc.) on the vendor / contractor performance should be included as a continuing review methodology, as is expected when the analyses are performed by plant staff. With regard to Item B, your response was discussed with T. E. Cribbe, C. Yongue, and S. L. Morgan of your staff by telephone on March 16, 1981, by Dr. D. Montgomery of this office. Mr. Cribbe agreed to submit a supplemental response regarding quality control checks for liquid scintillation counting by April 1,1981. Sincerely, ~ [[ Richar . Lewis, Acting Division Director Reactor Projects and Resident Inspector Division cc: J. E. Smith, Station Manager l }}