ML20237L121

From kanterella
Revision as of 08:51, 24 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notice of Violation from Insp on 870621-0731.Violation noted:PT/0/A/4200/02C Not Properly Implemented on 870531-0602 & 0607-08 Because Manual Valves 2CF-179,180,181 & 182 Closed But Not Documented
ML20237L121
Person / Time
Site: McGuire, Mcguire  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/14/1987
From: Reyes L
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237L098 List:
References
50-370-87-21, NUDOCS 8708270429
Download: ML20237L121 (2)


Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Duke Power Company Docket No. 50-370 McGuire Unit 2 License No. NPF-17 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on June 21

- July 31, 1987, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985), the violation is identified below:

Tecnnical Specification 6.8.1 requires that written procedures be established, implemented, and maintained covering activities recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978.

Regulatory Guide 1.33 requires that implementing procedures be developed for each surveillance inspection listed in the Technical Specifications.

PT/2/A/4200/02C, the " Containment Integrity Verification During Core Alterations" performance test, implements the Technical Specification 4.9.4.1 requirement to determine that containment building penetrations are in their required conditions prior to commencing core alterations.

Step 12.2.1.4 of that procedure requires that any manual valve which must ,

be physically closed to isolate the penetration be documented on Enclosure 13.7.

PT/2/A/4600/03F, the " Containment Cleanliness Inspection" performance test, implements the Technical Specification 4.5.3.1 requirement to verify that no loose debris is present in the containment which could be transported to the containment sump and cause restriction of pump suctions during loss of coolant accident conditions.

PT/0/A/4200/04, the " Divider Barrier Hatch Seal Inspection" performance test, implements the Technical Specification 4.6.5.5.1 requirement to verify the personnel access door between the containment's upper and lower compartments to be closed prior to increasing the reactor coolant system average temperature above 200 degrees Fahrenheit.

Contrary to the above:

1. PT/2/A/4200/02C was not properly implemented on May 31 - June 2,1987 and again on June 7-8, 1987, in that manual valves 2CF-179, 180, 131 and 182 were closed but not documented as such by completing Enclosure 13.7 of the procedure.
2. PT/2/A/4600/03F was not thoroughly implemented between June 24-27, 1987, in that several rags and other unacceptable materials were found in the upper and lower containment compartments during NRC inspector walkthroughs conducted on June 29 and July 1,1987.

8708270429 870814' PDR ADOCK 05000369 G PDR

l l

1 Duke Powne Company 2 Docket No. 50-370 I I McGuire Unit 2 License No. NPF-17

3. PT/0/A/4200/04 was proven inadequate on June 29, 1987 when an NRC inspector found that the personnel access door between the upper and lower containment compartments was open (with an intact tamper seal) despite the documented completion of the performance test on June 27, 1987.

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

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company is hereby required to submit to this Office within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply including, for each violation: (1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.

Where good cause is shown, consideration .will be given to extending the response time.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

{u Luis A. Reyes, Director pc Division of Reactor Projects I

Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this 14thday of August 1987 4

I

)

l l

}

J