ML20205S071
| ML20205S071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1988 |
| From: | Blake J, Girard E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205S063 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-88-25, 50-370-88-25, NUDOCS 8811100239 | |
| Download: ML20205S071 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000369/1988025
Text
..
.
.
,
-
/p* **:c ,
aA,
p*
UNITED STATES
.
{
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
e
REOlON il
\\*
[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
e,,,.j
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323
Report Nos.: 50-369/88-25 and 50-370/88-25
Licensee:
Duke Power Company
-
422 South Church Stree't
Charlotte, NC 28242
,
Docket Nos.: 50-369 and 50-370
License Nos.: NPF-9 and HPF-17
Facility Name: McGuire 1 and 2
Inspection Conducted: August 16-18, 1988
'
.-
Inspector:
.[ M
72
-
C.
ard
Date Si
ed
.
e
Approvedbf:.
7 g 66
u
J. J./Blale', Chief
Ua'te 51gned
M teffals and Processes Section
g>neering Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
SU W RY
o
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted to obtain informa-
tion to aid NRC Region II in resolving findings previously identified
in an NRC Otagnostic Evaluation Team (OET) Report. The status of the
.
licensee's written response to the OET Report was reviewed and a
meettne was attended between the licensee and the NRC Office of
l
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).
This meeting was being held
t
pursuant to evaluation and approval of the licensee's Inservice
-
Testing (IST)ProgramforPuipsandYalves(AsignificantDETfinding
involved apparent deficiencies in the IST Program and the lack of NRR
approval of the Program).
Results:
The licensee has provided a response to the DET Report which was
obtained by the NRC inspector during the inspection.
NRC Region !!
review of the report was initiated but has not been completed.
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identi-
fled.
$$k1
Ob
'__
Q
CIG:: aid CF.IGINAL
Certified Er /f/Anf
L/8
N
---
-
- ----- ,_--___._ _ __
'.
'.
-
.
.
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- N. Atherton, Production Specialist !!I, Compliance, McGuire Nuclear
Station (MNS)
G. Galbreath, Nuclear Production Department (NPD), General Office (GO),
Performance
- G. Gilbert, Assistant to Station Manager, MNS
- B. Hamilton, Superintendent of Technical Services, MNS
M. Hutcheson, NPD, GO, Performance
- T. McConnel, Station Manager, MNS
S. Morales, Associate Engineer Performance, MNS
M. Nazar. Test Engineer, Performance, MNS
B. Nardoci, licensing Engineer, NPD
J. Oswald, Lead Engineer, Performances, MNS
R. Revels Design Engineering, NPD
- R. Sharpe, Compliance Engineer, Cumbliance, MNS
D. Smith, Test Engineer, Performance, MNS
R. Smith, NPD, G0, Performance
- J. Snyder, Performance Engineer, Performance, MNS
H. Tucker Vice President, NPD
Other Organizations
B. Stockton, EG and G Incorporated
T. Cook, EG and G, Incorporated
D. Hood, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
T. McLellan, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
NRC Resident Inspector
- D. Nelson, Resident inspector
'
- Attended exit interview
2.
NRC Diagnostic Evaluation Team (DET) Report Findings (92701) Units 1 and 2
This inspection continues Region !! followup of the NRC diagnostic
evaluation of licensee performance for McGuire Nuclear Station.
The
diagnostic evaluation referred to was conducted between November 1987 and
January 1988 and a repo-t of the evaluation was transmitted to the
licensee in a letter dated April 8, 1988. The letter requested a written
licensee response to the findings.
Regional followup of the DET report
..-- . - _ - _ .
--.
. _ _ __-.
'.
.
0
.
'.
'
2
-
.
findings was initiated during NRC Inspection 369,370/88-13.
In that
insnection one Violation (88-13-03) and two Unresolved Items (88-13-01 and
-02) were identified which related to the DET findings.
The licensee's
response to the violaticn, which has been reviewed and accepted by
Region !!, provides for corrective actions which will not be fully
implemented until mid 1989.
Therefore, it is not being addressed during
the current NRC inspection.
The two unresolved items involved apparent deficiencies in the licensee's
(1) Inservice Testing (IST) program for pumps and valves and their
(2) failure to provide ISI for many safety-related relief valves.
Region II plans to inspect these unresolved items following evaluation of
the licensee's written response to the related DET findings.
In addition to the DET findings covered by the violation and unresolved
items described above, there were other DET findings identified, which
were considered to be of lesser importance.
Region II has also delayed
f'arther inspection of these findings pending review of the licensee's
response to the DET report.
The inspection described herein was conducted to determine the status
of the licensee's response, which had been requested over four months
previously and to attani and participate in a meeting between licensee and
NRR perconnel which was being held pursuant to a safety evaluation of the
IST program.
It was a'ticipated that information provided in the meeting
would provide useful pt espective to subsequent review of the DET identi-
fied IST program defics ..tes.
The NRC insps " to-
findings with regard to these matters are described
below:
a.
Status of Licensee's Response to DET Report Findings
The inspector determined that the licensee's response was contained
in a letter from H. Tucker (Duke Power Company) to V. Stello (NRC)
in a letter dated April 8,1988.) port was transmitted to the licensee
dated Aegust 11, 1988.
(The DET Re An NRC Regicn !! review of the
response was initiated by the inspector.
This review will be
cwapleted at a later date.
b.
NRR/ Licensee Meeting On the McGuire Inservice Testing Program for
Pumps and Yalves (Held August 16 and 17, 1988)
A list of issues and concerns regarding the licensee's program had
been prepared by NRR and transmitted to the licensee in a letter
dated June 16, 1988, to serve as an agenda for the meeting. At the
beginning of the meeting the licens?e provided a written response
addressing each of the issues and concerns.
Subsequently, each of
.
..-
,
_
.
l
~
i
'.
3
.
.
these was discussed.
This discussion was documented and will be
issued by NRR in minutes of the meeting. This information, together
with the licensee's response to the DET Report referred to in 2.a
above, will be utilized by Region !! in subsequent inspection
following up on the DET findings.
3.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and results were sumarized on August 18, 1988, with
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector expressed concern that the licensee had been slow in
providing a response to the DET report findings. The licensee responded
that at the end of the DET inspection they had been informed that
their performance appeared above average and that no response would be
required.
The response was subsequently requested in the April 8,1988,
letter that formally documented the DET findings.