ML20149G270

Responds to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-369/87-42 & 50-370/87-42.Corrective Actions Detailed in LER 369/87-35

ML20149G270
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	02/15/1988
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
NUDOCS 8802180209
Download: ML20149G270 (3)

Text

F {

DUKE POWER GOMPANY

, P.O. BOX 33180 CitARLOTTE, N.C. 28242 HAI, H. TUCKER trLzPnoxe  !

YK F Perm 4DF.T (704) 373-4S31 Wl( LEA R Peopt t fton I

February 15, 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

McGuire Nuclear Station l Docket Nos. 50-369, -370 NRC/0IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-369/87-42 and 50-370/87-42 Reply To Notice Of Violation )

l Gentlemen:

i Pursuant to 10CFR 2.201, please find attached the response to violation 369/87-42.r1 identified in the subject inspection report. Please note that the l Notice of Violation incorrectly stated that 10CFR 50.73(a)(1)(c) requires a lic- )

ensee event report to be issued within thirty (30) days of discovery of any basis deviation from Plants Technical Specifications. The Notice of Violation should <

read that the report is required pursuant to 10CFR 50.73(a)(1) and (d), and 10CFR I

50. 73 (a) (2) (1) (B) .

Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please contact S.E. LeRoy of Duke's Licensing Staff.

Very truly yours,

,* ./

f LJ U"tsc Hal B. Tucker' SEL/227/jgc Attachment xc: Dr. J. Nelson Grace Mr. Darl Hood Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 101 Marietta St., NW, Suite 2900 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atlanta, GA 30323 l Mr. W.T. Orders NRC Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station I

8802180209 880213

. PDR ADOCK 05000369 )

Q DCD I,

a. ':

4 DUKE POWER COMPANY McGU1RE NUCLEAR STATION REPLY TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION During the NRC inspection conducted on December 15-18, 1987, the following violation was identified:

Violation 50-369/87-4 2-01 and 50-370/87-42-01 10CFR 50.73(a)(1)(c) requires a licensee event report be issued within 30 days of discovery of any basis deviation from the plants Technical Specifications.

Technical Specification 1.25 defines the plants rate thermal power (RTP) as 3411 Mwt of core power delivered to the coolant.

Contrary to the above, in the period May 22 to June 11, 1987, there were several occasions during which core thermal power averaged slightly in excess of 3411 Mwt for eight hours or more on each occasion. The licensee took prompt and ef fective corrective action to preclude occurrence, but did not report he findings within 30 days of discovery.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

RESPONSE

1. Admission or denial of violation:

Duke admits the violation occurred; however,'the 10CFR section referenced above is incorrect and should be 10CFR 50.73(a)(1) and (d), and 10CFR

50. 73(a) (2) (1) (B) .

2. Reason for the violation if admitted:

The reportability evaluation was in error in that McGuire did violate thermal rated power as was confirmed by the NRC evaluation later.

In an investigation initiated on June 11, 1987, Duke Power Company personnel identified possible occurrences of eight-hour averages exceed-ing 100% RTP. This was for the period May 20 to June 11, 1987. This was suspected due to an error that was found in the thermal outputs program.

The incident was initially determined to be reportable under 10CFR 50.73(a)(2)(1)(B) and an investigation was initiated at that time.

Upon further evaluation of the data and our power history, it was deter-mined to our satisfaction during the investigation that we had not averaged over 100% RTP during the period in question. As a result, there was no evidence available to support a deviation from Technical Specifi-cations and our reportability determination was based upon this determin-ation.

A Licensee Event Report (LEB) was initiated based upon discussions with a Region II inspector at an NRC exit. This inspection was directed toward this issue. This LER initiation was based upon the regional and resident inspectors' qualitative concerns about the validity of the statistical analysis. At a time subsequent to the exit, a statistical evaluation was 3 provided by the NRC inspector to support his position. Prior to this '

time, there was still no firm evidence to support the inspector's con-cern.

E, g Page 2 Y

3. Corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved:

On January 5,1988, Duke submitted to the NRC LER 369/87-35 pursuant to 10CFR 50.73 Sections (a)(1) and (d), in accordance with 10CFR 50.73(a)(2)(1)(B) that reported the subject evant and corrective actions taken by Duke Power Company.

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

In the future, McGuire will perform more thorough evaluations.

5. The date when full compliance will be achieved:

Duke is in full compliance at this time.

l l

l 1

I l

T l

1

)

._.._,..,.._..I