ML20198A055
| 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
ADOCK 05000369
G
\\
1rq
_ _ . _ .
__ _ _
,
,
. ; ., -
.,
. Duke-Power Company
2
May 15, 1986
-
pccw/ enc 1:
._VD.. Hood, NRR
- 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
these examples of the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation.
t
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)
(' ~
/
HChristensen:cdg
?.BDebs-
CJul an
f AG tbson
CByrger
04/f/86
04/p86
04/jg/86
9
04/y/86
04/37/86
f
'
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.
_