ML20199K341

Ack Receipt of 851014 Response to 850919 Notice of Violation from Insp Repts 50-269/85-25,50-270/85-25 & 50-287/85-25. Denial of Violation Not Substantiated by Addl Info Provided. NRC Assessment of Response Encl

ML20199K341
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	04/03/1986
From:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.F.1, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8604100086
Download: ML20199K341 (2)

See also: IR 05000269/1985025

Text

a

'

April 3, 1986

' Duke Power Company

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

Nuclear Production Department

422 South Church Street

Charlotte, NC 28242

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 50-269/85-25, 50-270/85-25 AND 50-287/85-25

Thank you for your response of October 14, 1985, to our Notice of Violation

issued on September 19, 1985, concerning activities conducted at your Oconee

facility.

We have evaluated your response and found that your denial of the violation is

not substantiated by any additional information which you have provided.

Enclosed is the staff's assessment of your response.

You are to submit to this office within 30 days of the date of this letter, a

supplemental response which will include the reasons for the violation; the

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

which will be taken to avoid further violations; and the date when full

compliance will be achieved.

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by

Roger D Walker /for

4

J. Nelson Grace

Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

Staff Assessment

cc w/ encl:

f t.f S. Tuckman, Station Manager

jbccw/ encl:

NRC Resident Inspector

/H.Nicolaras,NRR

Document Control Desk

State of South Carolina i

4

C in A

BDe

01/ 01/ /86 01/ /86 CBurger VBrownlee R e

y/86 yvu 2Mn f '"' y y y

,

}8'

RIL

- RJen ins 8604100096 h69

pnR

'

y (/86 PDR ADOCK

G tk

.Z6ol }

.

e-

ENCLOSURE

Staff Assessment of Duke Power Company's

Denial of a Violation Related to

Oconee Nuclear Station

Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/85-25, 50-270/85-25, and 50-287/85-25

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

sufficient justification for considering the violation as stated. Specifically:

1. NRC Region II agrees with the licensee that specific operability and

surveillance requirements for the Reactor Building (RB) Hydrogen Monitoring

System are not included in the 10 CFR 50.44(b) or NUREG-0737, Item II.F.1.6;

however, the requirement for the system and its purpose is clearly stated.

It is clear that while Duke Power Company is awaiting NRC approval of a

proposed Technical Specification, the licensee is obliged to provide

compensatory measures in the event of system failure to ensure operability

of the RB Hydrogen Monitoring System, thereby providing reasonable assurance

that the system will perform its intended purpose accurately and effectively

under accident conditions. Although the licensee states that RB Hydrogen

Monitoring System's operability and surveillance requirements are contained

in proposed Technical Specifications and are presently being administered as

binding by the licensee, the staff understands that these specific controls

, were not in place at the time the violation occurred. As stated in the

inspection report, the system was not technically operable under the existing

administrative controls in place at tne time of the violation. For a

safety-related system such as the RB Hydrogen Monitoring System which

provides indication that is used to trigger certain manual emergency responses,

it is reasonable and sound that that indication be available and accurate for

the system to be considered operable and not simply functional.

2. The staff recognizes Duke Power Company's response as an opinion rather

than a presentation of additional information which would alter the details

of the event as we understand them. After due consideration, the staff

concludes that your denial of the violation is not substantiated. The

violation remains as written.

.