ML19350C040
| ML19350C040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1981 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350C039 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103240757 | |
| Download: ML19350C040 (3) | |
Text
i o
t o
DUKE POWER COMPANY
2 0p-Powra Burtotwo g
422 SouTa Cauncu SrazzT,CaAntorrz,N.C.asa4a
'l ' a j e 08.
WI W AM O. PAR K ER. J R, March 10,'1981 VtCC PetSiOtNT TELEPoeONE* ARI A 704 STEAas PkOOuCTION 373-4083 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director U. S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: RII:TJD 50-369/80-32
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Please find attached a revised response _to Infraction No. 80-32-02 and Deficiency No. 80-32-01 which were identified in the above referenced Inspection Report. Duke Power Company does not consider any information contained in this inspection report to be proprietary.
Very truly yours, M /Jh k m 0- lA r/'f6 k William O. Parker, Jr.
/
RWO:ses Attachment l
l 5
- 810824 0-M7 L
L
_ _ ~
o f
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION RESPONSE TO IE INSPECTION REPORT 50-369/80-32 A.
As required by 10CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions.
. and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions. The accepted QA program (Duke 1-A), Section 17.2.5, requires that with regard to specific operational activities associated with nuclear safety-related structures, systems, and components, it is required that such activities be accomplished in accordance with procedures... appropriate to the nature of the activities being performed. Administrative Policy Manual (APM), Section 4.2.4.1, requires that major changes (other than typo-graphical or editorial) be documented. TP/1/A/1250/05, Main Steam Safety Valve fetpoint Test, Prerequisite 8.2, requires main steam header pressure to be 955 + 35 psig.
Contrary to the above, for the testing in July, 1980 of 11 of 20 main steam safety valves, main steam header pressure ranged from 1005 to 1025 psig and no change was submitted to TP/1/A/1250/05 as required by APM, Section 4.2.4.1.
4
Response
1.
The increase of the main steam header pressure noted above was done upon the recommendation of a vendor representative assisting with the performance 4
of the test. The test coordinator' felt a. procedure change was unnecessary since the prerequisite had been met prior to the test and the increase in pressure actually enhanced the significance of the test.
l The test coordinator in question has been counseled on the importance of j
documenting any variance from a test procedure. In addition, other station supervision responsible for the conductance of preoperational tests were contacted. They stated that the test-coordinators in their organizations were aware of the requirement for documenting any deviation from a test procedure with a procedure change.
2.
Based on the discussions with the other station groups, responsible for conduct of preoperational. tests, it is felt that this was an isolated incident and no additional actions are needed to avoid further noncom-(
pliance in this area.
l 3.
It is concluded that the station is presently in full compliance.
B.
As required by 10CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, test results shall be i
documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied. ~The accepted QA program (Duke 1-A) Section 17.2.11, states that requirements are also established for verification of test completion and for determining acceptability of test results.
l Contrary to the-above, preoperational test, TP/1/A/1250/05, Main Steam Safety Valve Setpoint Test, performed in July, 1980,' did.not have an acceptable verification of test results in that the test was performed at a pressure of 1005 psig to 1025 psig while prerequisite 8.2 required a
,.j'
-pressure of 955 + 35 psig.and-the test was signed off as being completed and acceptable by the test coordinator and the maintenance supervisor.
n-
/
Response
1.
The reasons for the procedure in question passing through the review process without the discrepancy being noted are the same as stated in response to Item A.
The maintenance superintendent was also cogni at of the vendors representative's recommendation. A memorandum documenting the circumstances discussed above has been added to TP/1/A/1250/05.
Other station supervision responsible for review and approval of test procedures.were contacted on this matter. They stated that they were aware of the requirement for meeting prerequisites for the entire duration of the test and of the necessity of documenting any variance from the procedure by initiating a procedure change.
2.
Based on the discussions with station supervisors, it is concluded that this was an isolated incident and no additional actions are needed to avoid further non-compliance in this area.
3.
It is concluded that the station is presently in full compliance.
e
-