ML20129G283
| ML20129G283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1985 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129G285 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-1.A.1.3, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8507180004 | |
| Download: ML20129G283 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1984016
Text
'
fe//w
- '
,
,
March 20, 1985
Duke Power Company
ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: REPORT N05. 50-269/84-16, 50-270/84-15, AND 50-287/84-26
We have evaluated your response of December 21, 1984, to our Notice of Violation
issued on November 23, 1984, concerning activities conducted at your Oconee
facility under NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55.
After careful review, we find you have presented no new information to change our
findings regarding Violations 1 and 2.
Our comments related to your response are
enclosed. We have evaluated your responsa to Violations 1 and 2 and found that
it does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201; therefore, a supplemental
response is required. This supplemental response should be submitted within 30
days of the date of this letter.
Violation 3 is withdrawn; however, we request that your response to this letter
include a description of actions you plan in response to our comments relative to
this item in the enclosure.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
\\
f
g %
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Staff Assessment of Duke Power
Company Denial of Violation
for Oconee
cc w/ enc 1:
M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager
8507180004 850320
ADOCK 050002 9
bec w/ encl:
$DR
NRC Resident Inspector
Document Control Desk
State of South Carolina
gc
RII
RII
RII
RII
CJulian:aw
AFGibson
PBemis
HDance
02/ /85
02/ /85
02/ /85
02/ /85
RII
RII
RII
g [
~
VBrownlee
RWalker
J01shinski
% O[
02/ /85
02/ /85
02/ /85
_
,
.
-
.
.
.
Duke Power Company
ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 50-269/84-16, 50-270/84-15, AND 50-287/84-26
We have evaluated your response of December 21, 1984, to our Notice of Violation
issued on November 23, 1984, concerning activities conducted at your Oconee
facility under NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-38 DPR-47 and DPR-55.
After careful review, we find you have presented no new information to change our
findings regarding violations 1 and 2.
Violation 3; however, is withdrawn. Our
comments related to your response are enclosed. We have evaluated your response
and found that it does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201; therefore, a
supplemental response is requested based on our evaluation.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Staff Assessment of Duke Power
Company Denial of Violation
for Oconee
cc w/ encl:
M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager
i
bcc w/ encl:
NRC Resident Inspector
Document Control Desk
State of South Carolina
Sn
W*"" /t %"'2'~
,
RII
RII
RII
CJulian:aw
AFGiason
PBemf
HDance
02/ /85
Ojl/ '\\ /85
ff/ /85
02/ /85
43
RII
RII
RII
RII.
h
C )
h#\\,c, W
VBrownlee
M Wal er
J0 hinski TM
wW
l
,A2/6/85
Oj/ /85
r3/85
of /g
g 2.5
f
g
L
}
7
_
~
.
-
~.
.
- ,
,
Duke Power Company
ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REPORT N05. 50-269/84-16, 50-270/84-15, AND 50-287/84-26
We have evaluated your response of December 21, 1984, to our Notice of Violation
issued on November 23, 1984, concerning activities conducted at your Oconee
facility under NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55.
After careful review, we find you have presented no new information to change our
findings regarding violations 1 and 2.
Violation 3; however, is withdrawn. Our
comments related to your response are enclosed. We have evaluated your response
and found that they do meet the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201; however, a supple-
mental response is requested based on our evaluation.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
4
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Staff Assessment of Duke Power
Company Denial of Violation
for Oconee
cc w/ encl:
M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager
bec w/ encl:
NRC Resident Inspector
Document Control Desk
State of South Carolina
ggg fff yted.S
Coseusci;.es
1
ON
[
I
!
RII
RII
RII
RIIy [ - ""2/27
f
l
4
l
CJulian:aw
AFGib on
PBemis
HDance
!
02/ /85
W g/85
02/ /85
02/ti/85
kf'P
l
RII
RII
RII
>
VBrownlee
RWalker
J01shinski
02/ /85
02/ /85
02/ /85
!
L
m.
,
-
"
.
.
.
.
Duke Power Company
ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 50-269/84-16, 50-270/84-15, AND 50-287/84-26
We have evaluated your response of December 21, 1984, to our Notice of Violation
issued on November 23, 1984, concerning activities conducted at your Oconee
facility under NRC Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55.
After careful review, we find you have presented no new information to change our
findings regarding violations 1 and 2.
Violation 3; however, is withdrawn. Our
comments related to your response are enclosed. We have evaluated your response
and found that they do meet the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201; however, a supple-
mental response is requested based on our evaluation.
We appreicate your cooperation in this matter,
,
Sincerely,
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Staff Assessment of Duke Power
Company Denial of Violation
for Oconee
cc w/ enc 1:
M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager
bec w/ enc 1:
NRC Resident Inspector
Ducument Control Desk
State of South Carolina
RII
RII
RII
RII
CJulian:aw
AFGibscn
PBemis
HDance
02/g/85
02/ /85
02/ /85
02/ /85
RII
RII
RII
RII
VBrow[hlee
]
RWalker
J01shinski
JPuckett
02/p/85
02/ /85
02/ /85
02/p/85
.
.
ENCLOSURE
STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY DENIAL OF VIOLATION FOR OCONEE
We have evaluated your response to the violations stated in NRC Inspection Report
Nos. 50-269/84-16, 50-270/84-15, and 50-287/84-26 and have concluded the
following:
Violation 1:
We acknowledge the excerpts from NRC and Duke Power Company correspondence refer-
enced in your denial. We had considered them and other correspondence prior to
the issuance of the violation. We originally found that the aforementioned
correspondence supports the violation as written for the following reasons:
One aspect of the intent of NUREG-0578 (Section 2.2.la), Shift Supervisors'
Responsibilities, was to prevent distraction of the Shift Supervisor by
administrative duties. This aspect of the intent was adequately addressed
by Duke Power Company and accepted by the NRC. Another aspect of this
item's intent is " administrative functions that detract from or are subordi-
nate to the management responsibilities for assuring the safe operation of
the plant shall be delegated to other operations personnel not on duty in
the control room."
We have observed that subordinate administrative functions have been delegated to
on-duty personnel in the control room at your Oconee Station. This situation is
clearly contrary to the intent of the aforementioned item.
We observe that apparently Duke Power Company has recognized the aforementioned
intent in regards to the operation of your McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations
since operating crews have been provided with shift clerks at both stations. We
also note that your control room staffing at your McGuire Station exceeds that
required by their Technical Specifications as is the situation at your Oconee
Station. This situation is commendable but does not justify assigning adminis-
trative duties to the SRO in charge of control room activities.
After thorough review of the information provided, we conclude your denial of
this violation does not support your conclusion and, therefore, the violation
remains as written.
Violation 2:
After our evaluation of your denial of the violation concerning Technical Speci-
fication Figure 6.1-1, we have concluded that you have not presented any informa-
tion which would merit withdrawal or modification of the violation as written.
We are further concerned that Duke Power unilaterally and without informing the
NRC, as was done by Boston Edison Company, modified the STA program such that the
STA and control room SR0 functions are combined, based upon Duke Power Company's
agreement with a draft Commission policy. Of additional concern is that you
modified your STA program knowing that your Oconee STAS are non-degreed
. .-
_.
-
_
.-. - . _ _
_-
__
_
.
.
Enclosure
2
personnel.
You are cautioned that the NRC, in good faith, accepted your previ-
ously described STA program contingent on a commitment by Duke Power Company to
provide degreed Shift Engineers by September 1985.
It is our understanding that
the combined SR0/STA concept was approved at Boston Edison based on those indi-
viduals holding a degree.
It is our understanding that the Oconee counterparts
do not hold degrees.
-
Violation 3:
Regarding your denial coacerning NUREG-0737, Item 1.A.1.3, the NRC did accept, in
error, your program to limit overtime.
Based on our review of the pertinent
documentation, apparently the initial acceptance evaluation concerned itself
solely with operating personnel and did not consider key maintenance personnel
and health physicists or other plant staff'who perform safety-related functions.
Since your program was accepted by NRC, we withdraw the violation as written;
however, your action is now required to ensure that overtime restrictions for all
plant staff who perform safety-related functions are consistent with the letter
and intent of this NUREG-0737 action item.
- - -
-
.