ML20235V356

Notice of Violation from Insp on 860728-0801.Violation Noted:Qualification Not Established for Moore (Eaton) Polyvinylchloride Insulated Cable & Rockbestos Firewall SR Silicon Rubber Insulated Cable

ML20235V356
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	10/05/1987
From:	Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235V346	List: IR 05000369/1986020 ML20235V356
References
50-369-86-20, 50-370-86-20, NUDOCS 8710150105
Download: ML20235V356 (2)

Text

. _ -

_.,7

, '

*. . ]

Y ' s-LG ,

g -

u . ( .

0Q .)s t

'v

+

l>

\

4 4

$ k ENCLOSURE 1 h hi 5- ~

s s 4 .

, , NOTICE OF. VIOLATION.s .,

s ,i Duke-Power Company Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370 McGuire 1.icqnse'Nos. NPF-9, NPF-17

. s, ,

Durintsthe Nuclear Regulatory Cdmission (NRC) insheition conducted on July 28 ,'

August' 1,1986, a violation of NRC requirements was) identified. : ~ The violation '

involved failure to comply with the requirements"of 10 CFR 50.49 and/or NUREG 0588. In accordance with the " General Statement.of Delicy and Procedure .l for NRC Enforcement Actions," ;0 CFR'Part 2,' Appendix C (1986), the violation  !

is listed below: '

y ,

t g 10 CFR 50.G(f) and (k) respectively rec &a, in part, that (1).tacF. item  ;

equipment important Ro safst#shall be qualifidd by issting of-of, electric or eveq,ience w:ith, fpenticQ t or simfiar equipment, and the qualifi-s '

cation be qualiftedstQ1isinclu.ib y stpporting endeptableu )analysi'equipment and (2 eject',ic to show that important the. equipment to safety to which was prev'gsly cualified 1;iaccorddnce with NUREG 0588 (for comment version), "Interimi Stsffi Position no Environmental Qualification of ,'

Safety-Related Esectek O i EqdWeent," deed ncWhes requaYified to t l

10 CFR 50.49. 'i L l

\' ' ( , ' , ')

Contrary30, November to1985:

the above,j at the time of,Qthe insp'ectio( .c s and as far back as ,,

s

1. The qualificat(on documentation fo) MmN.orque MOVs - (TAG Nos.: l 1VX0001A, IVX00dB, IPSSV5570, ICA0Q$0Bn1CA0054AC, and ICA0066AC) I b did.. net, establish similarity betweeCinstalled MOVs and those tested fn that, ur.like" those tetted, 'tlle .geam case gr< ease reliefs on the, g inst _altaff MOVs were covardd etWhippinc ' caps. w. j

2. Qu lifid tion was not estabHshed for Samuel Moore (Eaton) poly-dt!ylchMride (PVC) insulated cable in 'that the basis for qualifi- ,

cation taas the presumption of generic material similarity between the 1

' Samuel Moore PVC and Brand Rex PVC '(for which a qualification. test  !

report was in the '

Samuel Moore EQ file) without supporting a61ysis i or tgst Ota. ' ^

't I

\1 '

\

3. Qualif,1 cation 'was not established for Fcdoestos "FirewaU SR" ' + l silicon rubber insulated cable in that tha cable's qualification was 1 based soM1y on existing Rockbestos test reports which are considered )

i Woncludive (as discdsed in IE Information Notice 84 ,44) and there we no additional .information or analysis in the file to augment the '

L or.iginni test reports or demonstrate qualification indel s h otly. )

t.

L j  ;.

'  ! '1 ,

i i \.

\ h

}

8710150105 871005 9 '

\

s S

l OR ADOCK 050 l l Y L i 1

1 ld

. Duke Power Company 2 Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370 McGuire License Nos. NPF-9, NPF-17 l'

Qualification documentation for generic Cable files did not 4.

demonstrate that the cables met performance requirements for their i plant applications in that the appropriate functional performance requirements were not established and the required analysis was missing from the files, n 5. Duke had not established qualification for safety-related Barton 386A pressure transmitters in that there was no analysis to show simi-larity between the 386A and the qualified 764 transmitter.

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

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 i 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 1 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 COPfilSSION 4 71 Alan R. Herdt, Chief Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety I

i Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this f day of Ochigi 1987 i

_ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _