ML20134H661
| ML20134H661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1985 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134H653 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-85-10, 50-370-85-11, TAC-59698, TAC-59699, NUDOCS 8508290080 | |
| Download: ML20134H661 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000207/2007003
Text
,_
_ _ _ _ _ .
.
--
4
'
.
'
.
ENCLOSURE 1
.
Duke Power Company
Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370
McGuire Nuclear Station
The following violations were identified during an inspection conducted on
February 7 - July 3,1985. The Severity Levels were assigned in accordance with
the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2,~ Appendix C).
A.
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.2.1 requires that all four DC sources be
operable in Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
TS 4.8.2.1.2b states that once per 92 days each 125-volt battery connected
cell demonstrate that the float voltage is greater than or equal to 2.13
volts. TS 4.8.2.1.2a requires the float voltage be checked for each pilot
cell each seven' days.
TS 4.8.2.1.2d states that each 18 months each 125-volt battery bank be
demonstrated operable by verifying that it will supply a dummy load of at
least 440 amperes for 60 minutes.
Contrary to the above:
1.
Contrary to TS 3.8.2.1 and TS 4.8.2.1.2b, battery EVCA was technically
inoperable from May 29, 1982 until February 5, 1985 because the actual
battery float voltage was not monitored for cells 29 and 45.
The
apparent surveillance discrepancies were identified on February 1, 1985
and corrective action on battery EVCA was not initiated until February 5,
1985.
2.
Contrary to TS 3.8.2.1 and TS 4.8.2.1.2d, on February 7, 1985, all four
Vital DC sources were found to be technically inoperable because
surveillance testing performed failed to demonstrate system operability
in that the March and April 1984 service discharge tests for batteries
EVCA, EVCB, EVCC and EVCD were not performed at the current and time
specified by TS 4.8.2;1.2d.
~
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
B.
Technical Specification 6.8.1 requires that procedures be established,
implemented and maintained covering the operation and maintenance of
safety related equipment.
Installation drawing MCM 1350.01-1, Rev. A, dated March 12, 1976, specifies
a minimum clearance of one eighth inch between the end cells and the battery
rack.
h6
8085h)815
O
CK 05000369
'
i
.,
_ . _ _
. . _ . _ , , .
.-
- - - - -
- - -
r
F
.
.
.
Duke Power Company
2
Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370
McGuire Nuclear Station
Contrary to the above, procedures related to battery surveillance and
maintenance were inadequate in th't:
1.
Instructions / guidance relevant to monitoring and duration of single
cell charging were not provided resulting in the battery being changed
at a voltage higher than recommended by the Vendor for a period of two
years.
2.
Procedure IP-0-A-3061-01, 125 Volt Vital Battery Weekly / Monthly
Inspection and Prevention Maintenance, provided inadequate guidance
which allowed the inclusion of an unattached cell in battery EVCA six-
cells average temperature calculation on February 23,
1984 and
May 19, 1984.
3.
Procedure IP-0-A-3061-01 was not followed on January 17, 1985, when the
temperature variance of the six cells varied by 9F, exceeding the SF
acceptance criteria of the procedure, and corrective action was not
taken. Additionally, water was added to battery EVCA and an equalizing
charge was not performed as specified.
4.
Procedure IP-0-A-3061-18, Installation and Removal of Jumpers on
Battery Cells, was inadequate in that post-modification testing of the
newly configured battery was not specified.
Additionally, the proce-
dure referred to Drawing MC 1705-01 for technical justification for
jumper installation.
Drawing MC 1705-01 had been revised in July 1984
and was no longer applicable.
5.
Batteries were installed and/or maintained such that end cells were
pressing against the battery rack end plate and did not have the
1/8-inch clearance specified by MCM 1350.01-1.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I)'.
C.
10 CFR 50.59 requires written safety evaluations of changes in the facility
as described in the Safety Analysis Report which provides the bases for the
determination that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety
question.
Contrary to the above, the written safety evaluation performed for Operation
of Single Cell Battery Charger, that was employed for attaching single cell
chargers to cells 29 and 45, was deficient in that it did not include the
bases for seismic considerations, maintaining voltage at higher potential
than recommended by the vendor, or maintaining independence of class IE
equipment.
This information was necessary to determine whether an
unresolved safety question was present.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within 30
days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply,
including:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged violations; (2) the reasons
for the violations if admitted; (3) the. corrective steps which have been taken
and the re'sults' achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid
further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
I
,
.-
.
.
Duke Power Company
3
Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370
McGuire Nuclear Station
,
,
P
Security o r.
safeguards information should be submitted as an enclosure to
facilitate' withholding it from public disclosure as required by 10 CFR 2.790(d)
or 10 CFR 73.21.
- Date:
.
9
0