ML20104A179

Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-369/84-32 & 50-370/84-29.Corrective Actions:Audit Schedule Reviewed Against Tech Specs & Dates Changed as Necessary to Ensure Audits Performed Every 6 Months

ML20104A179
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	12/28/1984
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20104A173	List: ML20104A179
References
NUDOCS 8502010145
Download: ML20104A179 (2)

Text

_

0-

' g.

,o.

DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. HOX 33180 CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28242 HAL B. TUCKER ratep,io3g EuTE[E g4 g g. g mber 28, 1984 N )" * *"'

Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta,-Georgia 30323

Subject:

McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370

Reference:

RII: GAB NRC/0IE Inspection Report 50-369/84-32 and 50-370/84-29

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Pursuant to 10 CFR,2.201, please find attached a response to violation 50-369/84-32-01, 50-370/84-29-01 which was identified in the above

~

referenced' inspection report. Duke Power Company does not consider any information contained in this report to be proprietary.

Very truly yours, X.4 k. - r

'H. B.cTucker-PBN/mjf Atta'chment'E cc:

Mr. W. - T. Ords rs Senior' Resident Inspector - NRC

.McGuire Nuclear Station 8502010145 850122 PDR ADOCK 05000369 g

PDR

'y.y.a mg-

- +

ay.-

m

-e-

~

7

'l S.I-Lc sc DUKE POWER' COMPANY McGuire Nuclear Station Rdsponse to NRC/0IE Inspection Report 50-369/84-32 and 50-370/84-29 cViolation 50-369/84-32-01, 50-370/84-29-01, Severity Level V:

_ Technical' Specification.6.5.2.9 and 6.5.2.9.c collectively require that audits of' unit activities shall be performed under the cognizance of the-JNuclear Safety Review Boar.l.(NSRB). They further require auditing results Jof actions taken to correct deficiencies occurring in unit equipment, structures, systems, or method of operation that effect nuclear safety

.at least once per six months.

' Contrary;to the above,. corrective action audits.were not performed at least

once-per six months. LTwo audits conducted to meet this requirenent were NP-83-12(MC)_and NP-84-l'(MC).

These audits were performed June 27 - 28, 1983, and January.16f-30, 1984, respectively.. This latter audit was not performed within the six~ month Technical Specification requirement.

Response:

,.1. LAdmission or denial of the alleged violations:-

Duke Power Company agrees'that the violation occurred as stated.

2. ' Reasons-for the violations if admitted:

The violation occurred because Nuclear Safety Assurance.(NSA) thought that time relaxation was permissible for Technical Specification audits as well as surveillances..

3.

Corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved:

y

~

.The' audit schedule has been reviewed against Technical Specifications and scheduled dates changed as necessary.to ensure audits and performed

. at least once. per six months.-

'4.-

^ Corrective steps which will be taken to. avoid further violations:

. Future yearly audit schedules will be prepared such that audits are performed at least once per.six months.without regards to any " grace-

-period"Jin.accordance with the. technical specifications. Documentation

~

hasibeen placed in appropriate files indicating the fact that " grace periods" are.not. allowed for these technical specification audits.

5'

Date when full compliance will be achieved:

-Duke Power'CompanyLis presently in full compliance with Technical:

Specification audit schedule requirements in this area.

~

h-t a

..w_-

_