ML20083L969
| ML20083L969 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1984 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083L960 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404170425 | |
| Download: ML20083L969 (2) | |
Text
Duxe POWER GOMPANY P.O.1,0X 133180 CilAHIMITE. N.C. 28242 IIAL II. Tt!GKEH ten.zenown
..;r.:::=-
B4 MAR 2 All : 39 March 29, 1984 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: RII:MDH 50-413/84-13 50-414/84-09
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Please find attached a response to Violation No. 413/84-13-01,414/84-09-01, as 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, d
Hal B. Tucker LTP/php Attachment cc: NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law P. O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Palmetto Alliance 21351 Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 PDR s
r JP0/HBT/LTP Duke Pow:r Company March 29, 1984 Catawba Nuclear Station
~~
Response to_ Violation No. 413/84-13-01,414/84-09-01 Violation 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion X as implemented by Duke Power Company Topical Report, Duke 1, requires that a program for inspection activities affecting quality shall be established and executed to verify conformance with the documented instructions, procedures, and drawings for accom-plishing the activity.
Contrary to the above, the program controlling the activities of the Transmission Department do not require:
- 1) QC inspection of protective relay setting activities
- 2) QC verification that the data recorded during the activity meets the acceptance criteria
Response
1.
Duke Power admits to the violation.
2.
The reason for this violation was the failure of Duke Power to accu-rately document current practice for these activities.
Protective relay settings are applied by a relay test crew, usually consisting of two members and a supervisor.
The two crew members must concur that the test data represents the settings to be applied to the relay being tested.
The test crew is identified on the data sheet but each member did not sign the data sheets.
This practice gave the appearance that only one individual was checking the data but in fact there were two.
Subsequent to the test a review of the completed procedure is made by the supervisor and another designated individual in Transmission.
This review assures that the procedure is complete and verifies that the data recorded meets the parameters specified for the relay tested.
This review is documented on a " Completed Procedure Record of Approval" Form.
This review had not been performed at the time of the inspection.
3.
To provide assurance that the nuclear safety-related ' protective relays associated with Unit 1 at Catawba have been properly set and tested, a retest, by a routine test procedure for all those relays for which adequate documentation cannot be provided, has been initiated. Retests will be completed by June 15, 1984.
4.
For future work relay test crews have been instructed to provide signatures, in ink,. of both crew members on the test data sheets to indicate that each concurred with the performance of the acti-vities and the results obtained.
QA Procedures have been revised to specifically require QA surveillance of Transmission Department activities.
5.
Full compliance will be achieved by June 15, 1984.
.