ML20133B868
| ML20133B868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1996 |
| From: | Barron H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701060243 | |
| Download: ML20133B868 (4) | |
Text
.. _. _.
_ __ _=_.__,
ll l
a i
DbkeIbarr Company (M)8754000 AkGuireNudearStation 12700Hagers Ferry Road l
Hunterstille. NC280789310 l
DUKEPOWER December 30,1996 i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 4
{
Subject McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 NRC Inspecten Report No. 50-369,370/96-07 Violaton 50-369,370/96-07 05 Supplemental Reply to a Notice of Violation Gentlemen:
j_
Enclosed is a supplemental response to a Notice of Violation dated October 2,1996 conceming failure to perform an adequate 50.59 safety evaluation. The initial response dated Octot.er 24,1996 stated that a reading package will be provided to all McGuire Qualified Reviewers by December 31,1996 to address the lessons leamed as a result of the inadequate review and emphasize the importance of performing conservative 50.59 safety evaluations. Due to delays in training package development and the
?
unavailability of some Qualified Reviewers, approximately 80 percent of all Qualified Reviewers have completed this training. The completion date has been extended to January 31,1997 to allow the remaining Qualified Reviewers sufficient time to complete this training.
a Should there be any questions conceming this supplemental response, contact Randy Cross at (704) 875-4179.
Very Truly Yours, 4
1.
H. B. Barron Attachment I
j occe3o 9701060243 961230 PDR ADOCK 05000369 G
PDR new wamma
l
't m..
j
?
1 l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 30,1996 xc:
(w/ attachment)
Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. Scott Shaeffer i
I Regional Administrator, Region ll Senior Residentinspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission McGuire Nuclear Station 101 Marietta St., NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Victor Nerses U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commasion Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
One White Flint North, MailStop 9H3 i
Washington, D. C. 20555 l
l l
l l
l h
l t
l f
I l
t
9 McGuire NucleCr Station Supplemental Reply to a Notice of Violation Violation 50-369.370/96-07-05 10 CFR 50.59 (a)(1) authorizes the licensee to conduct tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report without prior commission approval, unless the proposed test or experiment involves a change in the technical specifications incorporated in the license or an unreviewed safety question.
10 CFR 50.59 (b)(1) requires the licensee to maintain records of the conduct of tests and experiments not described in the safety analysis report. These records must include a written safety evaluation that provides the basis for the determination that the test or experiment did not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Contrary to the above, on August 6,1996, the licensee conducted a test not described in the FSAR to verify an operability determination that a water hammer event would not occur with the presence of steam-voids in auxiliary feedwater piping. An adequate 50.59 safety evaluation to provide the basis for the determination that the test did not involve an unreviewed safety question was not performed prior to conducting this test.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
]
Supplemental Reply to Violation 50-369.370/96-07-05 1.
Reason for the violation:
The reason for the violation is inappropriate Action. The Reviewer that reviewed l
restricted change 60A to procedure OP/1/A/6250/02, Auxiliary Feedwater System Operating Procedure, for Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) applicability incorrectly determined that the procedure change was not a test and therefore, the change would not result in a test or experiment not described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
2.
Corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved:
a) The 50.59 evaluation was immediately reviewed by Engineering personnel to determine its adequacy. The review indicated that the 50.59 screening for Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ) consideration had been inappropriate. The review did confirm that Engineering personnel had correctly determined that no USQ existed under the test conditions. The 50.59 was revised to document the information known to Engineering personnel at the time the 50.59 was performed. This corrective action was completed on November 25,1996.
b) The inadequacy of the 50.59 was immediately discussed with the Engineering supervisors involved in the August 6,1996 CA system operability evaluation. The Qualified Reviewer that actually performed the 50.59 evaluation was counseled on August 21,1996.
c) On August 20,1996, the inadequate 50.59 evaluation and the related Problem Investigation Process (PIP) was discussed during a McGuire Systems Engineering group meeting as a lesson learned.
1
Mc2uire Nucle:r Station Supplemental Reply to a Notice of Violation d) A review of Nuclear System Directive (NSD) 209,10 CFR 50.59, was performed to determine if additional guidance to Qualified Reviewers is needed. This review was completed on November 26,1996. NSD-209 will be revised to include additional guidance.
No similar events have occurred since implementation of these corrective actions.
3.
Corrective steos that will be taken to avoid further violations:
A reading package will be provided to all McGuire Qualified Reviewers to address the lessons learned as a result of the inadequate review and emphasize the importance of performing conservative 50.59 safety evaluations. The reading package will be completed by all McGuire Qualified Reviewers by January 31,1997.
4.
Date when full cornoliance will be achieved:
McGuire Nuclear Station is now in full compliance with 10 CFR 50.59 requirements. All corrective actions will be completed by January 31,1997, i
s i
l l
2