IR 05000269/1980034
| ML19339D112 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, Cherokee  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339D098 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-80-34, 50-270-80-30, 50-287-80-27, 50-369-80-30, 50-370-80-16, 50-413-80-30, 50-414-80-30, 50-491-80-06, 50-491-80-6, 50-492-80-09, 50-492-80-9, 50-493-80-09, 50-493-80-9, NUDOCS 8102170267 | |
| Download: ML19339D112 (32) | |
Text
,
[ga acco,%
UNITED STATES s
T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]u#
)7,g/r g
REGION 11 e
f 101 MARIETTA ST.. N.W., SUITE 3100 o
<<
ATLANTA, G EORGIA 30303 o
.....
Report Nos. 50-269/80-34, 50-270/80-30, 50-287/80-27, 50-369/80-30, 50-370/80-16, 50-413/80-30, 50-414/80-30, 50-491/80-6 50-492/80-9, and 50-493/80-9 Licensee: Duke Power Company P. O. Box 2178 Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name: Oconee 1, 2&3; !!cGuire 1&2; Catawba 1&2; and Cherokee 1, 2&3 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287, 50-369, 50-370, 50-413, 50-414, 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55, CPPR-83, CPPR-84, CPPR-116, CPPR-117, CPPR-167, CPPR-168, and CPPR-169 Meeting at Duke Corporate Offices, Charlotte, NC Attending Personnel: See Det. ils
~
Approved by:
[. d.
Zh[8/
R. C. Lewis, Ac(ing Chief, RONS Branch Dat'e Signed SUMMARY Meeting conducted October 24, 1980 This special, announced management meeting was conducted to discuss the results.
of NRC's evaluation of Duke's regulatory performance as concluded in the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program.
Results A summary of the licensee performance evaluation was presented. Areas of concern were discussed with corporate management. Duke's performance is considered to be acceptable although three areas were identified for increased inspection emphasis'.
a
?1R2170 W
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Personnel Attending Meeting Duke Power Company D. B. Blachnon, Design Engineer K. S. Canady, Manager, Licensing and Projects J. W. Cox, Licensing and Projects Engineering, Catawba L. C. Dail, Vice President Design Engineering, Engineering and Construction R. L. Dick, Vice President, Construction J. W. Hampton, Station Manager, Catawba W. O. Henry, Quality Assurance Manager, Construction M. D. McIntosh, Station Manager, McGuire W. H. Owen, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Construction W. O. Parker, Jr., Vice President, Steam Production N. A. Rutherford, Systems Engineer, Licensing W. M. Sample, Licerc 'ng and Proj ect Engineer, McGuire J. E. Smith, Station Manager, Oconee A. C. Thies, Senior Vice President, Production and Transmission H. B. Tucker, Manager, Nuclear Production Division M. S. Tuckman, Superintendent, Technical Services, Catawba G. Vaughn, Assistant Station Manager, Oconee J. R. Wells, Corporate Quality Assurance Manager Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. P. O'Reilly, Director, Region II R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch C. E. Murphy, Chief, RC&ES Branch J. C. Bryant, Section Chief, RC&ES Branch R. D. Martin, Section Chief, RONS Branch l
J. M. Taylor, Deputy Director, Program Development and Appraisal, IE:HQ l
NRC Resident Inspector l
T. J. Donat, Senior Resident Inspector, McGuire F. Jape, Senior Resident Inspector, Oconee
--
D. O. Myers, Resident Inspector, Oconee l
W. T. Orders, Resident Inspector, Oconee i
i 2.
Areas Discussed a.
A brief summary of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance j
(SALP) was presented to include the basis for the evaluation and its l
purpose.
i
.
%
-2-b.
The results of the SALP evaluation of the licensee's performance were discussed. Duke's performance to date is considered acceptable; although three areas were identified for increased inspection emphasis by the NRC.
The SALP evaluations are contained in Enclosures 1 through 6 to this report.
c.
Items of concern were discussed with corporate management to include those areas where the hRC considers additional licensee management attention may be warranted.
-
,
%
Enclosure 1 s
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR DUKE POWER COMPAhT l
O
.
1-1 Region II UTILITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Utility: Duke Power Company Units: Oconee 1, 2, 3 (Operating)
McGuire 1 (Preoperational) 2 (Construction)
Catawba 1, 2, (Construction)
Cherokee 1, 2, 3 (Construction)
Appraisal Period: May 1, 1979 - April 30, 1980.
Review Board Members:
R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch R. D. Martin, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2 C. M. Upright, Acting Chief, Nuclear Support Section 2 M. Fairtile, Licensing Project Manager NRR*
R. Birkel, Licensing Project Manager NRR*
C. Moon, Licensing Project Manager, NRR*
- By Telephone Background SALP evaluations for each site were, generated as prerequisites to the NRC identi-fying the general performance level of each utility with NRC license.
These evaluations are forwarded to an ir.teroffice review board formed of senior members from all Offices of the NRC involved in licensed activities. The board will, by.
virtue of receiving all SALP' evaluations, form a national perspective of licensee perfo rmance. Additionally, the evaluations will provide a means of highlighting l
areas of NRC program that may require changes or redirection.
i l
In developing the site evaluations it was determined that an overall evaluation l
of the utility's performance in its nuclear activities was_ desirable. Additional enclosures document the individual site evaluations.
,i i
i l
The utility and site evaluations.were presented in a meeting with senior corporate i
management in order to provide the decision makers of each utility with the NRC's evaluation of -;its overall performance in' nuclear: activities.
'
1-2 A.
Areas of Good Performance Duke is generally responsive to NRC regulations and to findings of noncom-pliance.
Their health physics program is above average.
Their licensee event input submittals contain above average event descripticas.
B.
Areas Where Improved Performance is Warranted The poor performance of Duke sites under construction clearly reflects the need for improved corporate control of safety related functions. This will involve upgrading of the quality assurance programs.
The operating units exhibit a higher than average personnel error rate.
There are recurring problems of missed or late surveillance.
These matters need prompt management attention.
C.
Overall Evaluation Duke is, in general, responsive to NRC requirements, findiags of noncompliance, and information requests from the NRC.
Improvement is anticipated in the areas of the corporate quality assurance program as related to construction sites.
Co rpo rate involvement at the operating sites is needed to improve the rate of personnel errors.
I ef*
i
%
ENCLOSURE 2 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION l
!
I o
l
!
l l
l I
l l
<
.
, -_
...
_
. - _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _
_ _. _. _ _. -
__ _ _ _. - -.
_.. - _
__
_
-
-
.,
'
.,
2-1
!
t l
REGION II
,
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (OPERATIONS)
.
- -
Facility:
Oconee Nuclear Station l
Licensee:
Duke Power Company
,
!
j Unit Identification:
.
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance Unit Noz
j 30-269 DPR-38 2/6/73 l'
50-270 DPR-47 10/6/73
50-287 DPR-55 7/19/74
Reactor Information:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
W4t 2568 2568 2568
.
l Appraisal Period:
May 1, 1979 through April 30, 1980.
These dates were used to provide a comparable basis for all operatir.g reactors in Region II.
Significant
'
events or enforcement items occuring after these dates were considered in arriving
!
at the indicated conclusions.
.
l l
Appraisal Completion Date: October 9. 1980 Review Board Members:
l l
R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch R. D. Martin, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2 F. Jape, Senior Resident Inspector M. Fairtile, Licensing Project Manager (contacted by telephone 10/6/80)
a
'
i-l l
!
l l
1.
l.
'
.. -..
.
.
..
-
.
. -
-_
.
_
-
_
_
-
.
,
'
,
)
2-2 A.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance category:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 i
Violations
0
Infractions
11
,
Deficiencies
4
Areas of Noncompliance:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 (List Areas as Required)
(Points)
(Points)
(Points)
.
Security
44
Radiation Protection
10
Administrative
40
Procedure
24
Total Points 148 118 158
,
Deviations Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
4
Evaluation of the above tabulation:
Throughout the report period, DPC has responded to each item of noncompliance and deviation as requested. On several occasions, due to misunderstandings, resolution required additional review and contact with licensee personnel.
On these occasions satisfactory resolution resulted.
B.
Number and Nature of Licensee Event Reports (LERs)
Type of Events:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Mechanical
6
Personnel
2
'6 Design
1
_
Total
9
Personnel errors noted above resulted in the immediate action letter discussed
-
in paragraph C.
The other LER's were attributed to equipment malfunctions or failure. One chronic problem has been identified concerning the High Pressure Service water pump.
This equipment has been declared out of service five times during the report period due to motor cooler leaks. The long term fix is to replace the coolers.
Original design coolers are no longer available so a modification is unde rway for new coolers.
The ' modification was completed in August 1980.
-
.
-
-.
.__
-
.
_
--.
-
.-.
.
,
2-3
!
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties None Orders TMI related orders. Short term item completed.
.
i Immediate Action Letters Two immediate actio'n letters were issued during the report period. These are discussed below.
An immediate action letter concerning personnel errors leading to incorrectly
positioned valves was issued October 25, 1979. A meeting with DPC corporate
<
management was held November 30, 1979 in Region II to review and discuss the concerns expressed by NRC.
DPC presented their corrective action program and results of the audit requested by NRC.
During an inspection on January 23-30, 1900, a problem with the integrated leak rate testing program being performed on Unit 2 was identified by the inspectors.
A Confirmation of Action Letter followed on February 1, 1980, summarizing NRC's understandings regarding resolution of the matter.
D.
Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months No enforcement conferences were held during the report period.
j, E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope Surveillance Testing Actual performance of the surveillance tests has been generally good.
However, several problems have arisen involving scheduling, including missed and late surveillances.
Therefore, increased attention to the management controls of the surveillance program is recommended.
,.
Fire Protection l
Recent modifications.to the Oconee fire protection system do not appear to comply with the National Fire Protection Association standards or with the KRC guidelines.
Inspectors have conferred with KRR, and an increased
,
l ef fort will be necessary in this area to rectify the. discrepancies between the Oconee systems and industry codes.
'
t
.
.
.
2-4 F.
Comparison of Units to Each Other A comparison of Unit 1, 2 and 3 did not indicate any appreciable differences between those units in the areas evaluated.
G.
Overall Evaluation The licensee performance is judged to be acceptable and above average during this assessment period. The number of noncompliances identified were below the regional average. LER frequency was below average and descriptive content was above average. No increase in the scope or frequency of inspections is necessary. The routine inspection program will include increased emphasis in the areas of surveillance program control and fire protection. Good communications exist between the licensee and the NRC.
!
l l
sr
I
.
APPENDIX A 2-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Operations)
Inspection Frequency and/or Scope
.
FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease Management Control X
7, Plant Operations X
3, Refueling Operations and Activities X
3.
Maintenance X
4,
-
Surveillance and Precoerational Testing X*
a.
-
X Training 6.
Radiation Protection X
7, Environmental Protection X
3, X
Emergency Planning 9,
Fire Pr tection X*
10.
X Security and Safeguards
,
!
X Design Changes and Modifications 12.
- P #
"I 13.
X QA Auditn o
l Committee Activities X
'
15.
0""
Y
l 16.
X Procurement g,
l
- Increased emphasis f C,,
i BRANC}I CHIEF
//z-6/ et DATE
.
ENCLOSURE 3 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FOR MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1
-
3-1
REGION II
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (OPERATIONS)
Facility:
McGuire Nuclear Station Licensee:
Duke Power Company Unit Identification:
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance Unit No.
50-369 NA
Reactor Information:
Unit 1 NSSS Westinghouse MWt 4311 Appraisal Period:
May 1, 1979 through April 30, 1980.
These dates were used to provide a comparable basis for all operating reactors in Region II.
Significant events or enforcement items occuring after these dates were considered in arriving at the indicated conclusions.
Appraisal Completion Date: October 9, 1980 Review Board Members:
R. C. Lewis, Acting Chief, RONS Branch R. D. Martin, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2 F. Jape, Acting Project Coordinator T. Donat, Senior Resident Inspector at McGuire (contacted by telephone on October 6, 1980)
R. Birkel, Licensing Project Manager (contacted by telephone October 7, 1980)
,
.
.
3-2 A.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance category:
Unit 1 Violations
Infractions
Deficiencies
Areas of Noncompliance:
Unit 1 (List Areas as Required)
(Points)
Procedure Compliance
Quality Assurance
Total Points
Evaluation of the above tabulation indicates that procedure compliance might be a problem area.
However, increased inspections in this area have not resulted in additional citations.
B.
Number and Nature of Licensee Deficiency Reports Type of Events:
Unit 1 Personnel Error
Design Defect
Improper Installation
Vendor Supplied Item
Miscellaneous
Vendor Analysis Error
Licensee Significant Deficiency Reports SD-369/79-01 through SD-369/80-06 Evaluation of above tabulation:
Adequate corrective action appears to have been taken in al'. instances.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions s
Civil Penalties None Orders None Immediate Action Letters None
.
3-3 D.
Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months None E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring an Increase in Inspection Frequencv/ Scope The facility is in preoperational testing phase.
Fuel loading is scheduled for January 1981.
The normal program for a plant in this phase is considered to be sufficient.
F.
Comparison of Unit I with Unit 2 A comparison of Unit 1 (in pre-operational testing) with Unit 2 ( in construction) is not useful for the period of this evaluation.
As Unit 2 progresses through construction an appropriate comparison for similar periods may be valuable.
However, the offset in time between the completion phases may render such comparisons invalid.
This will have to be reviewed when such a comparison is attempted.
G.
Overall Evaluation Licensee performance for this assessment period is acceptable.
The pre-operational testing program for this plant has been protracted but no adverse results have been observed.
The licensee is responsive to NRC concerns.
'
s
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
l APPE.VDIX A 3-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (Operations)
Inspection Frequency and/or Scope FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease Management Control X
,
Plant Operations X
Refueling Operations and Activities X
3, X
Maintenance
,
Surveillance and Precoerational Testing X
.
'
b.
X Training i
6.
Radiation Protection X
,
1.
Envir amental Pr tecti n X
3.
X Emergency Planning 9,
Fire Pr tection X
10.
X Security and Safeguards 7,
X Design Changes and Modifications 12.
X Reporting 13.
X QA Audits
j.
,
X Committee Activities 15.
t X
Quality Control 16.
X Procurement 77,
__.
R.c.
BRANCH CHIEF
/h6/a/
DATE
-. -.
-.
--.
.
.-
.
..
..
..
. -..
-
_ -
.
ENCLOSURE 4 i
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORS\\NCE FOR MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2
l
,
.
4-1
REGION II
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (CONSTRUCTION)
Facility:
McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Licensee.
Duke Power Company Unit Identification:
Docket No.
License No./Date ct Issuance Unit No.
.
50-370 CPPR-84/ February 28, 1973
Reactor Information:
Unit 2 NSSS Westinghouse MWt 3411 Appraisal Period:
September 1, 1979 through August 31, 1980 Appraisal Completion Date: October 9, 1980 Review Board Members:
C. E. Murphy, Chief, RC&ES Branch J. C. Bryant, Chief, Projects Section #1 T. E. Conlon, Chief, Engineering Support Section #1 C. R. McFarla>.d, Project Inspector R. A. Birkel, Licensing Project Manager (By Telephone)
1
!
l l
I I
l s
l l
4-2 A.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance category:
Unit 2 Violations
Infractions
Deficiencies
Areas of Noncompliance:
Unit 2 (List Areas as Required)
(Points)
Design Control
Instructions, Procedures, & Drawings 114 Test Control
Audits
- Total Points 144
- 50 points common to McGuire 2,
_:tawba and Cherokee.
These 50 points represent noncompliance generic to : ke design and QA work.
The board in its delibration of noncompliance items considered that the timing of the noncompliances did not indicate a trend that would indicate any major breakdown in the licensee's QA program. The licensee's responses to the nonce.npliances has been found to be adequate and timely.
B.
Number and Nature of
.ee Deficiency Reports (CDR)
7 - Electrical 8 - Mechanical 2 - Welding Only one (welding) related to site work. Other CDRs related to design and component manufacturing problems.
The licensee has exercised care in evaluating the CDRs and the reports have been acceptable.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions None during this audit period.
-
D.
Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months None E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope (See evaluation sheet)
The licensee's performance does not warrant an increase in the inspection frequency.
The construction activities have increased to the point that within the next twelve months, windows of opportunities should open for all modules.
A backlog of outstanding items for the electrical and mechanical inspectors is noted in the following tabulation of the numbers of items for each discipline:
.
.
4-3 Noncompliance (s)
IEBs 55(e)
L3I IFI Electrical
3
1
. Mechanical
6
0
F.
Comparison of Unit I with Unit 2 A comparison of Unit 2 (in construction) with Unit 1 (in pre-operational testing) is not useful for the period of this evaluation.
As Unit 2 progresses through construction an appropriate comparison for similar periods may be valuable.
However, the offset in time between the completion phases may render such comparison invalid. This will have to be reviewed when such a comparison is attempted.
G.
Overall Evaluation Licensee perfo rmance for this assessment period is adequate but below average for the region.
Most noncompliances are due to inadequate procedures or failure to follow procedures.
No increase in inspection f requency is warranted at this time.
The licensee is responsive to h7C Concerns.
I eW
L
.
APPENDIX A 4-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (CONSTRUCTION)
Inspection Frequency and/or Scope FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease 1.
Quality Assurance, Management & Training X
2.
Substructure and Foundations X
X 3.
Concrete 4.
Liner (Containment and Others)
X X
5.
Safety-Related Structures 6.
Piping & Hangers (Reactor Coolant & Others)
X 7.
Safety-Related Components (Vessel, Internals and HVAC)
X X
8.
Electrical Equipment 9.
Electrical (Tray and Wire)
X 10.
Instrumentation X
11.
Fire Protection X
X 12.
Preservice Inspection X
s l
Reporting
f
,
-
w /
/
Branch Chief
/
/
-
l
/lL4lT!
f
'
'
Date l
l
.
'
.
EFCLOSURE 5 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMEh~r OF LICENSEE PERFOR.W CE FOR CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION
.
.
.
5-1
REGION II
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (CONSTRUCTION)
Facility:
Catawba Nuclear Station Licensee:
Duke Power Company Unit Identification:
Docket No.
License No./Date of Issuance Unit No(s).
.
50-413 CPPR-116/8/7/75
50-414 CPPR-117/8/7/75
Reactor Information:
Unit 1 Unit 2 NSSS Westinghouse Westinghouse MWt 3425 3425 Appraisal Period:
September 1, 1979 through August 31, 1980 Appraisal Completion Date: October 9, 1980 Review Board Members:
C. E. Murphy, Chief, RC&ES Branch J. C. Bryant, Chief, Projects Section #1 T. E. Conlon, Chief, Engineering Support Section #1 C. R. McFarland, Project Inspector J. Matore, Licensing Project Manager (By Telephone)
i
,
.
5-2 A.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance category:
I'ni t 1 Unit 2 Violations
0 Infractions
12 Deficiencies
12 Areas of Noncompliance:
Unit 1 Unit 2 (Points)
(Points Control of Procedures, Drawings 108
Handling, Storage
12 Design
22 Corrective Action
10 Records
2 Nonconforming Materials
2
- Total Points 166 144
- 50 points common to McGuire 2, Catawba and Cherokee.
These 50 points represent noncompliance generic to Duke design and QA work. The licensee's response to the noncompliances have been found to be adequate and timely.
B.
Number and Nature of Licensee Deficiency Reports (CDR)
Unit 1 Unit 2 Design
5 Vendor Error
6 Component Failure
2 Radiography
0 The licensee has exercised care in evaluating CDRs and reports have been acceptable.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions
"
None during this audit period.
D.
Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months l
l A management meeting was held on October 24, 1980 to discuss with the licensee to results of this evaluation.
E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring
,
l an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope (See evaluation sheet)
i An increase in inspection frequency is recommended for this l
Item No. 1
-
area due to the number and nature of concompliances.
A trend analysis l
l indicates that a closer control of quality assurance, management and training is needed in order to reduce the number of noncompliance.
.
5-3 F.
Comparison of Units to Each Other A comparison of Units 1 and 2 did not indicate that appreciable differences exist between units.
G.
Overall Evaluation The licensee's performance is adequate but below average for the region.
Catawba has been responsive in taking corrective action on identified noncompliances.
Most noncompliances, though found at the site, are of design or corporate origin and corrective action is needed in this area.
An increase in inspection frequency in the areas of quality assurance is needed.
-
.
.
APPENDIX A 5-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (CONSTRUCTION)
Inspection Frequency and/or Scope i
FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease
.
1.
Quality Assurance, Management & Training X
2.
Substructure and Foundations X
3.
Concrete X
4.
Liner (Containment and Others)
X 5.
Safety-Related Structures X
6.
Piping & Hangers (Reactor Coolant & Others)
X 7.
Safety-Related Components (Vessel, Internals and EVAC)
X 8.
Electrical Equipment X
9.
Electrical (Tray and Wire)
X 10.
Instrumentation X
11.
Fire Protection X
t 12.
Preservice Inspection X
'"
13.
Reporting X
Y Nb Branch Chief' '
,wn Date
'
.
.
ENCLOSURE 6
.
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERF0PmMANCE
.
FOR CHER0l'EE TJCLEAR STATION
h d
.
6-1
REGION II
LICENSEE PERFORE\\NCf. EVALUATION (OPERATIONS)
Facility:
Cherokee Nuclear Station Licensee:
Duke Power Company Unit Identification:
Docket No(s).
CP No(s)./Date of Issuance Unit No(s).
50-491 CPPR-167/12/30/77
50-492 CPPR-168/12/30/77
50-493 CPPR-169/12/30/77
Reactor Information:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 NSSS Combustion Engineering CE CE MWt 3800 3800 3800 Appraisal Period:
September 1, 1979 through August 31, 1980.
Appraisal Completion Date: October 9, 1980 Review Board Members:
C. E. Murphy, Chief, RC&ES Branch J. C. B ryant, Chief, Projects Section #1 (
T. E. Conlon, Chief, Engineering Support Section #1 C. R. McFarland, Project Inspector C. W. Moon, Licensing Project Manager (By Telephone)
l
-
l l
,,
6-2 A.
Number and Nature of Noncompliance Items Noncompliance category:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Violations
0
Infractions
6
Deficiencies a
2 (Units 2 and 3 noncompliances applied to all 3 units.)
Areas of Noncompliance:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 (List Areas as Required)
(Points)
(Points)
(Points)
. Design Control
20
Instructions Procedures and Drawings
34
QA Records
Audits
10
- Total Points
64
~ 50 points common to McGaire 2, Catawba and Cherokee.
These 50 points represent noncompliances generic to Duke Design and QA work.
The board in its delibration of Noncompliance Items considered that the timing of the noncompliances did not indicate a trend that would indicate any major breakdown in the licensee's QA program. The licensee's responses to the noncompliances has been found to be adequate and timely.
B.
Number and Nature of Construction Deficiency Reports (CDRs)
None during this appraisal period.
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actions None during this appraisal period.
D.
Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months A management conference was held on October 24, 1980 to discuss with the licensee the results of the evaluation.
d E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope No change in frequency or scope.
Work on site limited to Unit 1 only.
Work has been restricted to structural concrete and steel for the contain-ment vessel and nuclear service water system, welding piping for underground and embeded lines, and installing electrical cable trenche '.
.
6-3 F.
Comparison of Units 1, 2 and 3 A comparison of Unit 1, 2 and 3 is not useful for the period of this evalua-tion as construct on has been halted on Units 2 and 3.
G.
Overall Evaluation Licensee pe rfo rmance for this assessment period has been adequate and average for the region.
No increase in inspection frequency is warrantec at this time, i
.
i t
APPENDIX A 6-A-1 FUNCTIONAL AREAS (CCNSTRUCTION)
Inspection Frequency and/or Scope FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase No Change Decrease 1.
Quality Assurance, Management & Training X
2.
Substructure and Foundations X
3.
Concrete X
4.
Liner (Contain=ent and Others)
X X
h 5.
Safety-Related Structures 6.
Piping & Hangers (Reactor Coolant & Others)
X 7.
Safety-Related Components (Vessel, Internals and HVAC)
X X
8.
Electrical Equipment 9.
Electrical (Tray and '41re)
X 10.
Instrumentation X
l 11.
Fire Protection X
i X
12.
Preservice Inspection l
X 13.
Reporting
,.
W 2A
-
~3 ranch ChiefL J'
/
f
/u /e-Date /