IR 05000269/1972007
| ML19322A718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1972 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Thies A DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A703 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911210758 | |
| Download: ML19322A718 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_ ~. _.
_.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
..
.... _ _. _
.____ _
..
.._
(D u)
.
.
.
.-
UNITED STATES
.
,'
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
.
'
M
$ /
-
.* REGION st = Su tT E 918 230 P E AG M T R E E Si n d 61, PeQR T H n EST Uffl %% p
,
g v
AT k. A NT A. GEORGl A 30303
,
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS In Reply Refer To:
August 30, 1972 RO:II:CEM
';
50-269/72-7 50-270/72-6 50-287/72-k
.
.
s Duke Power Company Attn: Mr. A. C. Thies, Senior Vice President Production and Transmissica
";ver Building h22 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Gentlenen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. Murphy of this office i
en June 27, 1972, and July 18-21, 1972, of activities authorized under AEC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-33, 3h and 35, and to dis-cussions of our findings held by Mr. Murphy with Mr. Smith and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas eva-4ned during this inspection included a review of your eval-ustion of het functional test results, a review of your progress in upgrading the velding and nondestructive testing quality assurance programs, a review of the progre.as in modifying the reactor coolant system ec=ponents and a review of the status of items requiring ces-pletion prior to fuel loading and/or power operation. Within these areas, the inspectica censisted of selective exaninations of proce-dures and representative records, interviews with plant persennel, and observations by the inspector.
During this inspection, it was found 4, hat certain of your activities
-
appeared to be in noncompliance with AEC requirements. Specifically, it was found that revisions to documents had not been =ade according to precedures and approved by authorized perscnnel. These ite=s 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 these items, any steps that have been or vill be taken to correct the deficiencies in the implementation of your que Lity assurance program so as to prevent recurrence of this type of deficiency, and the date all corrective action or preventive =easures were or vill be ec=pleted.
~
.
.T 911210 7E8'
.
...
-
- - - -
- -..
.
t
'
!
,
'
..
Duke Power Company-2-August 30, 1972
,
Concerning our review of your. evaluation of test results during this I
inspection, it is our understanding that additienal infor=ation is to be obtained relative to the apparent reactor coolant system flov
,,
'
i fluctuations to justify the installation of snubbers in the instru-
'
mentation lines. In addition, it is our understanding that if as presently calculated the core coolant flow exceeds the a=ount speci-
'
fied in the FSAR and the safety analyses, the acceptability of the higher flow rate vill be justified.
Regarding the fuel for Unit 1, it is our understanding that a proce-
,
!
dure vill be developed and the fusi vill be inspected prior to the commencement of initial fuel loacing operations.
Regarding the emergency plan for Oconee, it is our understanding that the effectiveness of the public address system when used to assemble site personnel vill be demonstrated during the high noise level period accompanying hot functional testing.
As relates to the items of noncompliance brought to your attention in our letters dated July 19, 1971, October 1, 1971, January 21, 1972,
<
and March 16, 1972, this is to advise you that we have no further questions regarding these ite=s.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we vill be glad to discuss them with you.
Very truly yours,
-
John. Davis Director Enclosure:
Description of Item
,
.
of Noncompliance
.
...
-
_
.-
.-
.
.
_.
..
... _.
.. _
_.
.
._
'
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
f
.
ENCLOSURE DOCKET nos. 50-269 50-270 50-287
',
Certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix 3, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," as indicated below:
Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, " Document Control,"
I requires, in part, that documents, including changes, are re-viewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel.
Contrary to these requirements, from discussions with = embers of your staff and a reviev of your documents, it appears that memoranda have been issued in lieu of obtaining approval of procedures revisions by authorized personnel. Two Mechanical Memoranda numbered 8-72 dated April h,1972, and a memorandum dated January h,1972, relating to attachment velds, are examples of this practice.
t
.
.
O
%
w
1 l
i
-...
.