ML20198A055

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-369/85-32 & 50-370/85-29.Requests Description of Corrective Steps for Violations a & D within 30 Days

ML20198A055
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	05/15/1986
From:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8605200317
Download: ML20198A055 (3)

See also: IR 05000369/1985032

Text

,- - . /,./

i

Duke P r Company May 15, 1986

ATTN: r. H. B. Tucker, Vice President

Nuclear Production Department

422 South Church Street

Charlotte, NC 28242

1

Gentlemen: 1

SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 50-369/85-32 AND 50-370/85-29

Thank you- for your response of December 19, 1985, to our Notice of Violation

issued on November 19, 1985, concerning activities conducted at your McGuire

facility.

We have evaluated your response to examples b, c, and e of the violation and

found that it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201. We will examine the

implementation of your corrective actions during future inspections.

With respect to examples a and d of the violation, we have reviewed your response

and concluded, for the reasons presented in the enclosure to this letter, that

these examples of the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation.

Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201(a), please submit

to this office within 30 days of the date of this letter a written statement

that, for examples a and d of the violation describes the corrective steps

which have been taken and the results achieved, the corrective steps which will

be taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be '

achieved.

' Should you have any question concerning this letter, we would be happy to meet

with you and discuss the matter further.

Sincerely,

( original signed by)

J. Nelson Grace

Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Staff. Assessment of Duke Power Company

Denial of Violation Examples Related

to McGuire Nuclear Station

pc w/ encl:

VT. L. McConnell, Station Manager

.

bec w/ encl: (see page 2)

8605200317 860515

PDR ADOCK 05000369

G PDR

\

1rq

_ _ . _ . __ _ _

,

!

. ; ., - ., ,

. Duke-Power Company 2

May 15, 1986 -

._ pccw/ enc 1:

VD.. Hood, NRR l

- M cument Control Desk

QtateofNorthCarolina

i

4

i

e

i

t

Y

-

/ N

RII RII RII RII RII

HChristensen:cdg BDebs CJulian AGibson CBurger

4/ '/86 4/ /86 4/ /86 4/ /86 4/ /86

.

RII RII RII

VBrownlee GJenkins RWalker

4/ /86 4/ /86 4/ /86

L

q

_

s ,-

t +

7 .

.

Duke Power Company

ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President

Nuclear Production Department

422 South Church Street

Charlotte, NC 28242

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 50-369/85-32 AND 50-370/85-29

Thank you for your response of December 19, 1985, to our Notice of Violation

issued on November 19, 1985, concerning activities conducted at your McGuire

facility.

We have evaluated your response to examples b and c of the violation and found

that it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201. We will examine the

implementation of your corrective actions during future inspections.

With regards to examples a and d of the violation we have reviewed your response

and concluded, for the reasons presented in the enclosure to this letter that

t

these examples of the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation.

Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201, and within 30

days of the date of this letter, please resubmit your response to the notice.

Should you have any question concerning this letter, we would be happy to meet

with you and discuss the matter further.

Sincerely,

J. Nelson Grace

Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Staff Assessment of Duke Power Company

Denial of Violation Examples Related

to McGuire Nuclear Station

cc w/ encl:

T. L. McConnell, Station Manager

RIl RII RI RIV RII

P Y 1. - flLLL) (' ~ /

CByrger

HChristensen:cdg  ?.BDebs- CJul an f AG tbson

04/f/86

f 04/p86 04/jg/86 9 04/y/86 04/37/86

'

RI RII- RII

VBrownree GJenkins RWalker

04g/86 f//3/86 4/ /86

a . .

ENCLOSURE

Staff Assessment of Duke Power Company

Denial of Violation Examples Related to

McGuire Nuclear Station

Inspection Report Nos. 50-369/85-32 and 50-370/85-29

Region II has reviewed the licensee's response and concluded that there is

sufficient justification for consideration of these examples as violations.

Specifically:

a. With respect to example a, the licensee cited the Mechanical

Instrumentation and Controls Instrument Standards (ICS-A-11) as the

reason for not requiring a test tee replacement inspection. The standard

stated: "When a safety class materials identification flag is shown at

an instrument, the impulse line between the isolation or manifold valve

and the instrument is excluded from ASME Section III Code requirements";

but the standard also - states: "However, the appropriate safety class

fitting and tubing shall be used." Additionally, the. work request

instructions also required the mechanic to contact QC prior to

performing any tubing work. Duke Power's Administrative Policy Manual

Section 3.3, Maintenance, states: " Replacement material intended for

use in maintenance of electrical and mechanical equipment shall be

evaluated to ensure conformance with applicable rating and/or

specifications."

The licensee failed to perform this evaluation, and QC was not informed

prior to the test tee replacement. The violation remains as written,

b. With respect to example d, Procedure IP/0/B/3000/03, Revision 15 may

have been written, reviewed, and approved in accordance with Station

Directive 4.2.1, Handling of Station Procedures; however, the review

and approval process for this revision was inadequate. The revision

was reviewed and approved with a major deficiency. If appropriate

quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria had been established

for change reviews concerning calibration data, this error would not

.have occurred. Additionally, the calibration data was used in

February 1985, when performing the technical specification required

18-month calibration. The maintenance work request, that determined the

calibration error dated April 1985, was written as a corrective maintenance

request for the 'A' cold leg accumulator level loops. It was fortuitous

that the maintenance planner included all level transmitters in the

Section III job sequence description. The violation remains as written. _