IR 05000369/1985045

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Proposed Actions to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-369/85-45 & 50-370/85-46.NRC Evaluation of Util Denial of Violation Encl.Violation Stands

ML20205G646
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	08/07/1986
From:	Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8608190577
Download: ML20205G646 (2)

Text

a

'

W 'U. % k r(

.

AUG 0 71986 , .:

Duke Power Company ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President

,

Nuclear Production Department 422 South Church Street -

Charlotte, NC 28242

,

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 50-369/85-45 AND 50-370/85-46 Thank you for your response of April 22, 1986, to our Notice of Violation issued on March 24, 1986, concerning activities conducted at your McGuire Unit 1 facility. We have evaluated your response and found that it meets the require-ments of 10 CFR 2.20 The staff finds that an evaluation to determine the status of the pressurizer heaters was not accomplished, as required, prior to start-up. Therefore, the violation stands. Your proposed corrective actions will be examined for adequacy during future inspection We appreciate your cooperation in this matte

Sincerely, M b

. IV. &

J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Enclosure:

Staff Evaluation of Denial to Report 50-369/85-45 and 50-370/85-46 cc w/ enc 1:

3: L. McConnell, Station Manager bec w/ encl:

641RC Resident Inspector i8. Hood, NRR Document Control Desk State of North Carolina RII R RII RII RII RII CBurger:er Peebles ' VBrownlee en j s Lleyes Rya ker ,

07/31/66 01/f /86- 05/ \ /86 " f/5/86 07/(o/86 OB/(g /86 l

..-.- ,

.

"

8608196577 860807 i

-

PDR ADOCK 05000369 G Ib D \

,

- ____

• .

ENCLOSURE

.

Staff Evaluation of Denial to Report 50-369/85-45, 50-370/85-46 Inspection report 50-369/85-40, 50-370/85-41, detailed, in part, our analysis of the post-trip review conducted for the reactor trip on Unit 1 of November 2, 1985. The inspector documented the list of performance anomalies and that one group of heaters in pressurizer heater bank A was out for'1.5 minutes during the transien Subsequent review of the event by the resident was documented in Inspection Report 50-369/85-45 and 50-370/05-46. It revealed that the heater malfunction was not. thoroughly evaluated prior to restarting the unit. The Post Trip Review judged the alarm to be erroneous because: it had lasted only 1.5 minutes; operators had told the personnel performing the Post Trip Review that the alarm had been energizin'g from time to time; and that there ,was an outstanding work ~

request relative to the problem. The NRC staff states that the above should have been more reason to thoroughly evaluate the problem to see if, indeed, the alarm -

was the harbinger of a significant proble During this same trip, pressurizer heater group B failed to operat Moreover, it was subsequently determined that the alarm was not-erroneous, but ,

was caused by a blown fuse to one group of heaters in pressurizer heater bank Our review of your analysis revealed that the requirement per Station Directive 3.1.10 that an "...in depth evaluation and resolution..." of the heater

"

group which had exhibited ...other than expected performance..." was not-performed. No effort was made to verify that the alarm was valid or invalid, nor to confirm that the heater group had 150KW capacity. Rather, since the alarm had exhibited itself previously, and there, was an outstanding work request to investigate the problem at some future time, it was judged to be erroneou . Based on the above, the inspector concluded that the Post Trip Review preceding Unit I reactor startup of November 2, 1985 was inadequate as described above and did not comply with the requirements of McGuire Nuclear Station Directive 3.1.1 Based on our evaluation of your denial, we find no basis to after the original

'

Violatio i

_

g

? .

e (______.__________.________.________.___________________.___._________________i___.___