ML20009D928

Forwards Response to NRC 810209 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-269/81-01,50-270/81-01 & 50-287/81-01. Corrective Actions:Search of Nine Areas Conducted by Trained Engineers.Ltr Supersedes 810306 & 0403 Ltrs

ML20009D928
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	05/22/1981
From:	Thies A DUKE POWER CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20009D916	List: ML20009D928 ML20009D947
References
NUDOCS 8107240507
Download: ML20009D928 (2)

Text

..

', OFFICIAL COPY m .

. f,g Dcxt,!"cWEn.

v* ..

COMPANY

^':

Powza Burs.orwo, .

4aa SouTu Cuunca Srazzi, CuAmtarrz,N. C. asson JI ruY 27 ^ d : 3'J A. C. THIES P. O. Box a17e ssNIom VICE PRESIDENT PnocuCTION AND TRANSMISSION May 22, 1981 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director U.1,. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: RII:JJL 50-269/81-01 50-270/81-01 50-287/81-01 >;(!

8

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Per conversation with Mr. Joe Lenahan of your office, Duke Power Company is resubmitting its response to the eubject inspection report-to specifically address the five points requested by the NRC. This letter supercedes my letter submitted to your effice (,n March 6, 1981, and the one submitted to your office on April 3,.1981 by William O. Parker, Jr.

Duke Power Company does not consider the information contained therein to be proprietary.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the statemen: o set forth herein are true_and correct to the best of my knewledge, executed on May 22, 1981.

Very truly yours,

4

[.

A. C. Thies ACT:pw 8107240507 810710 PDR ADOCK 05000269 O PDR L - . . .- . . -

.. ~

J

l DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION Revised Response to IE Inspection Report 50-269/81-01, -270/81-01, -287/81-01 Violation 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by Duke Power Company Topical Report Section 17.1.5, requires in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appro-priate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.

Contrary to the above, the procedures developed to implement IE Bulletin 80-11 requirements were not appropriate in that the procedures were not adequate to

-assure that all masonry walls in the vicinity of safety-related equipment would be identified and re-evaluated for their conforcance to design requirements.

This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement I.E.).

Response

1) Admission or cenial of the alleged violation:

Duke Power admits that the procedures developed to implement.IE Bulletin 80-11 requirements were not appcopriate-in that the procedures were not adequate to assure that all masonry walls in the vicinity of safety-related equipment would be identified and re-evaluated for their conformance to design requirements.

2) Reasons for the violation:

A review of the events leading up to.the initial surveillance revealed that nine areas in the plant were not surveyed because no masonry walls were found in an office search of drawings showing these areas. Subsequent

. review of these drawings showed the existence of five masonry wells which had not been surveyed.

3) Corrective actions taken and results:

An exhaustive search of the nine areas concernea was conducted by trained engineers during the period of January 13-16, 1981. No masonry walls other than the fiva which are shown on the as-built plaat drawings were found. The five additional walls were surveyed in acccrdance with esta-blished procedures and vill be included in the review of all masonry walls at Oconee Nuclear Station.

4) Corrective actions to be taken to avoid further violations:

No further corrective actions are deemed necessary.

5) Date when full compliance will be achieved:

Full compliance has already been achieved.

. d' 6- l