IR 05000269/1972001
| ML19322A693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1972 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Thies A DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A673 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911210736 | |
| Download: ML19322A693 (3) | |
Text
. _ _
_. __. - - - _ _ _ __.
-
-
. _..
[
h;
.
~
UNITED STATES
'
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
,
,
\\
g.
v
. l DIVISION OF cOMM.! ANCE
'
,
REGION 18 - Su s T E 818 f,
430 PE ACHT RE E $7 A E ET. NCRT HWEST s
T t tt e.sht ; 4 04 S26 49C3 qg AT L A t4T A. GEORGI A 30303
.
/
In Reply Refer To:
March 16, 1972 CO:II:CEM 50-269/72-1 Duke Power Company
-
Attn: Mr. A. C. Thies, Senior Vice President Production and Transmission Power Building h22 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Gentlemen:
.
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. Murphy of this office and
'
other Division of Compliance staff me=bers on January 18-21, 1972, of activities authorized by AEC Construction Permit No. CPPR-33 and to dis-cussions of our findings held by Mr. Murphy with Mr. Hampton and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection included a review of the status of the preoperational test program, FSAR test requirements, documentation of the results of preoperational tests, =anagement audits of construction activities, implementation of the velding program, and equipment quality control records.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of inter-views with plant personnel, selective examinations of twelve preoperational test procedures, the examination of the results of nineteen test procedures and representative records, anf 6bservations by the inspectors.
_
During this inspection, it was found that cer'-in of your activities appeared to be in noncompliance with AEC reqt
- =ents.
These items and reference to pertinent requirements are listed in the enclosure to this letter.
Please provide us within 30 days, in writing, with your comments
'
concerning the~se items, any steps which have been or vill be taken to cor-
,
rect them, any steps that have been or will be taken to prevent ' recurrence, and the date all corrective action or preventive measures were er vill be completed.
'922no736
,
.
-
-
-
_
-.
-.. -_
. -.
-
.
,
,
._..
- -
,
.
.
,
(
'
Duke Power Company-2-March 16, 1972 It is our understanding that you will review all tests conducted of safety feature or safety-related systems to assure tha+, applicable FSAR commit-ments have been met.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, you may consninicate directly with this office.
'
Very truly yours,
< k AI.
,,
John G. Davis Director i
Enclosure:
Description of Items of Noncompliance
,
%
i f
i
.~-
e:.y,g
,
,
_
.
-w-
,
.-n-
-
!
_
_
-
,
.
.
.
-
t ENCLOSURE DOCKET NO. 50-269 Certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with license requirements as listed below:
1.
Criterion XVIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, " Audits," requires, in part, that a comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits be carried out to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program and to determine the effectiveness of the program.
These audits shall be performed in accordance with written procedures by appropriately trained personnel.
Contrary to the above, in discussions with a member of the audit team and a site quality staff member, our inspector was advised that vritten procedures were not used during the conduct of audits of the construc-tica aspects of the quality assurance program.
2.
Criterion XI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, " Test Control," requires, in part, that test results be documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.
Contrary to the above requirement, test results are not being evaluated to assure that test requirements are being satisfied. The inspector examined eight completed tests which had been reviewed and evaluated, and the completion approved by the plant superintendent, and identified apparent deficiencies in two of them. In particular:
a.
TP-1B-200-3A - Hydrostatic Test of Vent Plues For Incore Instrument Piping Closure Assembly Fifty-tvc valves were tested and proved to be leakfree. Subse-quently, seventeen valves were replaced, because of thread damage, without being leak tested. Acceptance criteria required all valves to be shown to have zero leakage.
b.
TP-1A-201-5, Rev. 2 - Core Flood System Flov Test
-
The B core flood tank level instru=entation appeared to be indi-cating improperly in that the B tank level instrument indicated a level decrease below the level of the lover impulse line.
l
.
l-