IR 05000269/1981029

IE Insp Repts 50-269/81-29,50-270/81-29,50-287/81-29, 50-369/81-35,50-370/81-19,50-413/81-25,50-414/81-25, 50-491/81-04,50-492/81-04 & 50-493/81-04 on 811102-06.No Noncompliance Noted

ML15224A469
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, McGuire, Cherokee
Issue date:	12/09/1981
From:	Debbage A, Lenahan J, Merriweather N, Upright C, Wright R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML15224A468	List: IR 05000269/1981029 ML15224A467
References
50-269-81-29, 50-270-81-29, 50-287-81-29, 50-369-81-35, 50-370-81-19, 50-413-81-25, 50-414-81-25, 50-491-81-04, 50-491-81-4, 50-492-81-04, 50-492-81-4, 50-493-81-04, 50-493-81-4, IEB-79-14, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8112310487
Download: ML15224A469 (22)

Text

0R 0UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-269/81-29, 50-270/81-29, 50-287/81-29, 50-369/81-35, 50-370/81-19, 50-413/81-25, 50-414/81-25, 50-491/81-04, 50-492/81-04 and 50-493/81-04 Licensee:

Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name:

Oconee, McGuire, Catawba and Cherokee 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, NPF-9, CPPR-84, CPPR-116, CPPR-117, CPPR-167, CPPR-168 and CPPR-169 Inspection at Engineering Design Offices, Charlotte, North Carolina Inspectors:

1_2_

'.z R. W. Wright Date Signed J. J. Lenahan Date Signed A. G. Debbage Date'Signed N. Merriweather D te"Signed Approved by:

/Z C. M. Upright, S 'ion C ef teSgd Engineering Ins ction(ranch Date Signed Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on November 2-6, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 128 inspector-hours at licensee headquarters in the areas of quality assurance program, design, procurement, audits, training, records, IE Bulletins, and licensee action on previous inspection finding Results Of the eight areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000269 G-PDR1

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• L. C. Dail, Vice President, Design Engineering

'-J3 R. Wells, Corporate QA Manager

• J M. Frye, Senior QA Supervisor, Audit Division

• L. R. Davison, QA Manager, Projects Division

• W. 0. Henry, QA Manager, Technical Services

• J M. Curtis, QA Manager,-Vendors Division

• R. T. DeMuro, Staff Engineer, Electrical Division

• C. J. Wylie, Chief Engineer, Electrical Division

• N. Rutherford, Jr., System Engineer, Licensing

• R. S. Bodenheimer, Staff Engineer, Civil-Environmental Divison

• D. B. Blackmon, Senior Engineer, Design Engineering

• D. L. Rehn, Senior Engineer, Civil -

Environmental Division

• S. B. Hager, Chief Engineer, Civil -

Environmental Division W. H. Bradley, QA Manager, Administrative Services Division S. Derrick, Assistant Supervisor of Records Control, General Services L. Gaskey, Clerk, Corporate Vault 0 S. Owen, QA Engineer Training, Administrative Services Division

• I. W. Pierce, Principal Engineer, Civil-Environmental Division D. R. Kulla, Design Engineer, Civil-Environmental Division 3. M. McConaghy, Assistant Design Engineer, Civil-Environmental Division A. S. Daughtridge, Design Engineer, Civil-Environmental Division G. L. Green, Design Engineer, Civil]-Environmental Division J. B. Reeves, Senior Engineer, Civil-Environmental Division C. Q. Reeves, Senior Engineer, Civil-Environmental Division H. A. Guice, Design Engineer, Civil -Environmental Division M. C. Green, Design Engineer, Civil-Environmental Division J. Akers, QA Supervisor, Vendors Division M. W. Thompson, Senior QA Specialist, Vendors Division A. W. Roy, QA Supervisor, Vendors Division B. M. Rice, Principal Engineer, Electrical Division T. C. McMeekin, Principal Engineer, Control Systems Engineering Section D. M. Clark, Senior Engineer, Power Systems Engineering D. W. Murdock, Senior Engineer, Control Systems R. G. Mallaney, Technical Specialist, Technical Support I. F. Moss, Supervisor, Catawba Control Engineering N. C. Jain, Design Engineer, NSSS Electronic & Protection Systems K. R. Caraway, Project Engineer, Catawaba Power Systems Engineering A. E. Current, Engineer, NSSS Electronic & Protection Systems NRC Resident Inspector

• Bemis, Senior Resident Inspector, McGuire

• Attended exit interview

2 Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 6, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abov.

Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed) Infraction (369/80-08-06, 370/80-05-06, 413 and 414/80-09-06, 491/80-07-07, 492 and 493/80-06-07):

Errors/Omissions in Civil Design Calculations. The inspector reviewed calculation numbers CKC 1112.12 00-0002, MCC-1112.06-00-0004, and P81C-1144.03-00-0017 and verified that they had been revised to correct the deficiencies as stated in the licensee response dated August 15, 198 Following the May 1980 inspection, individuals who check and approve design calculations were given additional training on procedure PR-101, Engineering Calcula tion The inspector reviewed the records which documented the attend ance at the training of Civil-Environmental Division personnel which included checking and approval of design calculation (Closed) Infraction (491/80-07-06, 492, 493/80-06-06):

Use of Curing Compound on Construction Joints. The licensee's corrective actions for this infraction are stated in the licensee's letter to NRC Region II dated August 15, 198 The inspector examined a memorandum dated October 17, 1980, Subject:

Duke Nuclear Stations ACI Code Requirements Shear Friction. This memo addresses the value of the coefficient of friction to be used in design of construction joint The memo concludes that the application of a curing compound on a roughened construction joint would not change the coefficient of friction value used in application of shear friction theory in design of the construc tion joint. The inspector examined Cherokee calculation number P81C 1144.02-00-0015, Reactor Building Complex:

Shield Building Rechecking of Shear Friction Calculation. In this calculation a reduced coeffi cient of friction value was conservatively used in reanalysis of construction joints using shear friction method The inspector reviewed Cherokee Specification P81S-1109.00-00-0001 which has been revised to clarify preparation and curing of construction joints. The licensee has discontinued use of curing compound on construction joint (Closed)

Violation (269/81-01-02, 270/81-01-02, and 287/81-01-02):

Inadequate Procedure for Identification of Masonry Wall The licensee's corrective actions for this violation are stated in the licensee's letters to NRC Region II dated March 6, April 3, and May 22, 198 The inspector reviewed Memo to File OS-14.3 dated January 21, 1981, Subject:

Oconee IE Bulletin 80-11 Masonry Wall Inspection and Surve This memo states that, as a result of the violation additional review of the IEB 80-11 program by the licensee disclosed that areas of the Oconee plant covered by nine drawings had not been surveyed to determine if there were any masonry walls, affected by IEB 80-1 Review of these drawings resulted in identification of an additional

five walls requiring design re-evaluation in accordance with IEB 80-11 requirement Licensee engineers performed a field walkdown in these areas and verified that there were no additional walls other than the five shown on the drawings. The inspector reviewed the records docu menting the field walkdown inspection.

Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio.

Quality Assurance Program (35060B, 35993B) General The purpose of the inspection was to complete an overall review of the effectiveness of licensee management and the implementation of the DPC Corporate QA program for control of on-going activities of design, procurement, audits, record keeping and training activitie Duke Power Company (DPC.)

Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program, Duke-1-A, Amendment 5, was accepted by the NRR Quality Assurance Branch by letter dated July 14, 1981. The Duke QA Program commits to appli cable regulatory requirements such as 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and to approved industry standards such as ANSI N45.2-1977 and corresponding daughter standards, or to equivalent alternatives. The DPC QA program commits to the regulatory position of the NRC Regulatory Guides listed in Table 17.0-1 of Duke-1-A with the exception of the clarifications, modifications and alternatives stated in the tabl The procedures for control of QA/QC activities within DPC Design Engineering, Construc tion, QA and Steam Production Departments are embodied within the respective department QA manual QA Program Changes Amendment five to Duke-1-A resulted in the Quality Assurance Department expanding from five to six divisions. The old Engineering and Services Division was split into two divisions, the Administrative Services Division and the Technical Services Division. Administrative Services is responsible for department general administration, control of supplies, QA records, the QA training program and the issue of QA procedure Technical Services absorbed the responsibility for placing and approving QA requirements on procurement documents; the surveil lance of the design process; the review, approval and control of vendor design; procurement QA records; the development and maintenance of QA manuals and QC inspection procedures; review and interpretation of codes and standards, and analysis of trends affecting qualit The subject divisional split has enhanced the QA department's overall effectiveness in that the increased responsibilities and tasks for one manager to oversee were becoming increasing diversified and the number of personnel to supervise rather cumbersom.

The QA Manager, Construction Division changed its title to QA Manager, Projects Division and assumed responsibility for all site QA/QC activities during the construction of nuclear stations.,Prior to amendment 5 to Duke-i-A the Project Manager, Construction Department was responsible for the QC activities at his site. The QA effective ness of this organizational change is unknown; however, the change on paper gives the appearance of increased independence in that site QA/QC now reports both functionally and administratively to one QA Divisio Discussions with the Corporate QA Manager revealed that staffing levels since RII's last construction corporate QA inspection (May 1980) have remained relatively stable although names of personnel within the divisions may have changed due to routine promotions or transfer Divisional QA Managers interviewed stated they were meeting the required QA program with current staffing levels and the inspector found no evidence to dispute this statemen The below listed QA procedures were examined for changes (revisions)

implemented to verify that these changes were approved at appropriate management levels and to ensure that document control (distribution)

requirements had been effectively complied with:

QA-102, R1 Storage of Radiographs QA-210, R11 Departmental Audit Procedures MPR-140, R4 As-Built Verification of Duke Class A, B, and C Systems EPR-360, R5 Procedure for Transferring Cable and QA Documentation PR-302, R19, Procurement The changes made to the above identified procedures were found to conform to the following respective applicable procedures:

QA-100, R5 Preparation and Issue of QA Procedures PR-821, R11 Control of QA Procedures and Manuals The inspector discovered the latest change to the procedure controlling revisions (QA-100, Re ) was approved by the QA Manager Technical Services rather than by the Corporate QA Manager as specified in this procedure. However, the licensee had a memorandum to QA files dated March 11, 1981 designating the QA Manager Technical Services to approve Design, Construction, NDE and QA Department QA procedure The 1981 Joint Utilities Management Audit also revealed this finding and the subject procedure (QA-100) will eventually be revised to state approval of QA procedures will be accomplished by the Corporate QA Manager or his designe Licensee Review of QA Program Effectiveness Duke corporate management is continually involved in activities affecting quality and quality assurance requirement The Senior Vice-President, Engineering and Construction, reviews minutes of all

project review meetings which are -held regularly and include quality assurance matters on the agenda, holds regular staff meetings which include the Corporate QA Manager, and directs and reviews Corporate Audits of all areas performing activities affecting qualit The inspector examined the August 6, 1981, quarterly meeting notes pertaining to the July 29, 1981 management review of Duke's QA progra This review of status and adequacy of the QA program was conducted by the Corporate QA Manager for the Senior Vice President of Engineering and Construction and the Senior Vice President of Production and Transmissio In addition to the quarterly review of the QA program, Duke's manage ment utilizes Projects and Technical Services QA Division's trend analysis reports, the code inspector's input, ASME audit team surveys and corporate audits conducted by an independent joint utility organi zation to help assess the effectiveness of and to assure that Duke is instituting a meaningful QA program that complies with Appendix B. The inspector reviewed the 1980 corporate audit, Joint Utility Management Audit (JUMA) dated October 6-10, 1980 which was performed by qualified auditors from Alabama Power Company, Public Service of Oklahoma, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. The inspector conducted discus sions with the Senior QA Supervisor Audit Division concerning the 1981 JUMA which was just concluded prior to this inspection (October 26-30, 1981).

d. Corporate QA-Site QA Interface All construction QC site surveillances are conducted on each major work activity at least once each calendar quarter. Copies of reports which indicate problems are provided to the Project Manager and the Projects Division QA Manager for their revie The following Catawba checklists and reports were examined for implementation in accordance with proce dure QA-300, Construction Surveillance:

SURVEILLANCE CHECKLIST WORK ACTIVITY FREQUENCY PERFORMED MWN-3, Rev 1 NDE Monthly 8/31/81 CE1-4, Rev 1 Electrical Monthly 8/26/81 MC-2, Rev 3 Surveillance of Quarterly 6/30/81 Bahnson Service C MWN-4, Rev 1 Welding Monthly 6/30/81 CE 1-2, Rev 1 Pipe Support Monthly 5/22/81 Activities CE 1-1, Rev 0 Civil Quarterly 3/03/81

In addition to the above surveillance the Project QA Engineer in accordance with procedure QA-304 is responsible for analysing records and documents for recurrent problems to determine if trends exist or are developing. Copies of these trend. analysis reports are provided to the Construction Project Manager and to the QA Manager, Projects Division. The Projects QA Manager is required to review these reports of unfavorable trends and recommends to the Corporate QA Manager which trends should be brought to the attention of the responsible department hea The inspector reviewed the following Catawba project trend analysis reports:

REPORT N SUBJECT PREPARED R-27 Review of Variation Notices 1/19/81 0-8 Nonconforming Item Trend 1/27/81 Additionally, the QA Manager, Technical Services is also responsible for analysis of trends affecting quality. The inspector reviewed the following Catawba project trend analysis reports by this divisio REPORT N SUBJECT PERIOD 80-6 Nonconforming Item Reports 11/1/79 - 04/30/80 80-12 NCIRs 05/1/80 -

10/31/80 81-6 NCIRs 11/1/80 -

05/01/81 Within this area, no violations or deviations were identifie. Electrical Engineering Design Review (35060B and 37990B through 37993B)

a. Documents Examined PR-100, R4 Application of Quality Assurance Program PR-101, R11 Engineering Calculations PR-130, R13 Engineering Drawings PR-140, R3 Engineering Correspondence PR-201, R12 Variation Notices PR-202, R2 Design Nonconformance PR-301, R14 Specifications EPR-101, R4 Nuclear Safety Related System Description Control

EPR-130, R7 Electrical Division Special Documents PR-860, R8 Quality Assurance Training EDP-3.16, R4 Manufacturer/Vendor Test Reports Coordination/Review, Approval, and Processing b. QA Program Requirements Duke Power Company (DPC)

Topical Report Duke-i-A, Section 17.0.2 states that the licensee's quality assurance program for design conforms to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.64, R2 and ANSI N45.2.11-1974 with clarification (i.e., the immediate supervisor can perform design verifications where he is the only individual competent to perform the verification).

The procedures listed in paragraph 6.a were reviewed for compliance with regulatory requirements and Duke-i-A commitment Within this area no violations or deviations were identifie Personnel Interviews The inspector reviewed the licensee's organizational structure to determine which organizations were responsible for design assurance and interviewed responsible licensee representatives in the Control Systems Engineering Section, Electrical Design Section and Power Systems and Equipment Section to discuss the following items:

(1) Their understanding of design verification (2) Their interface with design assurance and QA (3) Their implementation of design verification (4) Means of dispositioning design verification findings (5) Criteria for competency of design verifier The Control Systems Engineering Section is responsible for the prelimi nary design, detailed design support, installation test and start-up of the control complex and of electrical monitoring and control systems for generation facilitie The Electrical Design Section supports preliminary engineering design and provides detailed design of elec trical monitoring, control systems, station control rooms, and asso ciated cable spreading complexe The Power Systems and Equipment Section perform equipment engineering for power equipment used in generation facilities. Within these three sections identified three groups were selected to perform this inspection on design assuranc The inspector discussed design control activities with personnel in Catawba Control Engineering Group, Design Technical Support Group and Catawba Power Systems Engineering Grou Design packages for the safety injection and 600 volt essential auxiliary power systems were reviewed.with the cognizant designers to determine how the design

inputs were received and established, design assumptions developed, interfaces with other disciplines and how design changes are controlle The inspector discussed verification methods with engineers to determine their understanding of design verification and knowledge of the procedures controlling design verification activitie Within these areas no violations or deviations were identifie Design Verification The following design drawings were reviewed to determine if design verification documentation conforms with procedural controls and that design verifiers are independent of the designer Drawings Reviewed:

DWG. No. 8761DO4, R5 Process Control Systems External Sheets 2-5 Connection Diagram DW No. CNEE-0150-01.16,R3 Elementary Diagram Reactor Coolant System (NC)

Solenoid Valves INCSVO250, INCSVO340, INCSVO580 DW No. CNEE-0150-01.15, R5 Elementary Diagram Reactor Coolant System (NC)

Solenoid Valves INCSVO320 and INCSVO360 DW No. CN-1499-NI-1, RI Instrument Detail Boron Injection Tank Pressure DW No. CN-1562-1.1, R3 Flow Diagram of Safety Injection System NI DW No. CN-1703-01.01, R2 One Line Diagram 600V Essential Auxiliary Power System (EPE)

Load Center 1ELXA &

1ELXC DWG. No. CN-1702-05-02, R6 One Line Diagram Essential and Blackout Auxiliary Power Systems 4.16KV/600V DWG. No. CNEE-0112-01.03 Elementary Diagram 600 V Load Center

1. 1ELXA Compt. #4D Spare DWG. No. 1717-01.14, R9 Outline Diagram Area Terminal Cabinet 1EATC14 DWG. No. 0112-01.18, R5 Elementary Diagram 600V Load Center

1. 1ELXB Alternate Incoming Breaker Compartment #6B Undervoltage Circuit Compartment #6A

r

DW No. CNLT-1752-01.03 Electrical One-Line List Other Documents Reviewed:

Design Change Authorization Nos. MSYS-183 & ECSC-001 Bill of Material No. 413B111-12 Variation Notice No. 20842 Design Calculation No. CN-1381.05-14, RI Protective Relay Setting No. CNRS-0112-0 Within this area, no violations or deviations were identifie.

Civil Engineering Design Review (35060B and 37990B through 37993B)

a. Documents Examined PR-101, Engineering Calculations PR-130, Engineering Drawings PR-140, Engineering Correspondence PR-160, Nuclear Station Modifications PR-201, Variation Notices PR-202, Design Nonconformance Reports PR-220, Nonconforming Item Report PR-301, Specifications PR-840, Internal Audits PR-901, Document Control b. QA Program Duke Power Topical Report 1-A describes the quality assurance program for all phases of design, construction, and operation of Duke's nuclear power plants. Section 17.13 through 17.1.7 of the Topical report

• specifies the QA requirements for design control; procurement document control, instructions, procedures and drawings; document control; and control of purchased material, equipments, and service The Topical Report commits to the requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.64 and ANSI Standard N45.2.11-197 The procedures listed in paragraph above are the controlling procedures and documents for control of civil engineering design and procurement activities in accordance with the requirements of NRC, industry standards, and the Duke Topical Repor c. Civil - Environment Division Organization The Civil-Environmental Division, which is responsible for civil design activities, is organized into three design sections and an Environ mental/Architectural Sectio The majority of nuclear safety related civil design activities is accomplished within the three design section Each of these sections is supervised either by a principal engineer or a senior engineer who report to the Chief Engineer of the Civil-Environmental Division. Each section is responsible for its own design assurance activitie QA Program Implementation in Civil Design Activities The inspector reviewed various ongoing civil design projects to verify that civil design activities were being accomplished in accordance with the procedures listed in paragraph 7.a abov The projects examined are listed in the paragraphs belo (1) IE Bulletin 80-11-Masonry Wall Design The inspector examined the design critera and calculations for the design re-evaluation of masonry walls in the Oconee Nuclear Station as required by IE Bulletin 80-1 Documents examined were as follows:

Specification Number OS-027B.00-00-002, Specification for the Seismic Displacements and Response Spectra for the Turbine, Auxiliary, Reactor, and Standby Shutdown Facility Building Calculation Number OSC-1288, IE Bulletin 80-11 Design Parameter Calculation Number OSC-1429.008, Qualification of Wall N A3-809.2-NP-9394-0630 Under NRC IEB 80-11 Calculation Number OSC-1419.008, Qualification of Wall N A2-809.3-7576-WX-1309 Under NRC IEB 80-11 Calculation Number OSC-1433.024, Qualification of Wall N A3-838.0-8990-RS-0586 Under NRC IEB 80-1 Calculation Number OSC-1420.003,

"Qualification of Wall N Al-822.0-MN-6970-1400 Under NRC IEB 80-11 Calculation Number OSC-1558.014, Qualification of Wall No KO-675.3-0102-CD-0061 and KO-675.3-0102-DE-0062 Under US NRC IEB 80-11

(2)

Design of Embedment Plates in Primary Shield Wall in Catawba Reactor Containment Building The inspector examined the design review of embedment plate design in the Catawba RB primary shield wal This review is being conducted by civil design personnel to determine the adequacy of embedded plates to support reaction from piping load The piping loads are provided to the civil design personnel by the Mechanical Engineering Divisio Documents examined were as follows:

Drawing Number CN-1684-N1-001-B, Reactor Containment Building Pipe Rupture Protection for Piping Problem No NI-01 Revision 25 to Calculation Number CNC-1144.03-07-0001, Reactor Building Interior Structures - Ebedment Calculations Design sketch for Hanger Number 1-R-NC-1511, 1513, 1517, and 1519 (3) IE Bulletin 79-14, Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety Related Piping Systems The inspector examined design criteria and calculations for design re-evaluation of Oconee Nuclear Station piping supports and restraints (S/R)

required by IEB 79-1 Documents examined were as follows:

Specification number OS-0027.00-00-0001, Design Specification for QA Condition 1 Pipe Supports and Restraints Calculation Number. OSC-0976-02-0001-S/R number 1-55-1-0-493B DE 002 Calculation Number OSC-0976-02-00011-S/R number 1-55-0-437B JLS-2901 Calculation Number OSC-0976-02-0009-S/R Number 1-55-1-0-444-SR 22 Calculation Number OSC-0976-02-0008-S/R Number 1-55-1-0-439-B SR 14 Calculation Number OSC-0966-01-0005-S/R Number 1-13-7-0-400A-H 11 Calculation Number OSC-0966-03-0005-S/R Number 1-13-0-400B-SC 3 Calculation Number OSC-0966-01-0002-S/R Number 1-13-7-0-400A-SR 7 Specification Number OS-0027.00-00-0002, Procedure, Supplemental Requirements, and Tolerances for Fabrication and Erection of Pipe Supports and Restraints

(4)

Catawba Cable Tray Design The inspector examined design criteria and calculations used in review and disposition of variation notices (VN's) associated with cable tray installation at the Catawba sit The variation notices were originated by* Catawba construction personne Documents examined were as follows:

-

Design Procedure entitled Cable Tray Support Analysis and Design (Catawba and McGuire Nuclear Stations)

-

Variation Notices (VN's) 20944, 21751, 23141, and 24381

-

Drawing number CN-1915-10, Electrical Equipment Layout, Reactor Building, Cable Tray Hanger, Section and Details

-

Revision 29 and 30 to Calculation Number CNC-1139.14-13-0007, Catawba Cable Tray Calculation. Revision 29 is for disposi tion of VN 23141 and Revision 30 is for disposition of VN 2438 Personnel Interviews

(1) The inspector conducted informal interviews with supervisors (principal engineers, senior engineers, and supervisory design engineers)

in the Civil Projects Section and the Structural Analysis/Design Section of the Civil-Environmental Division and discussed the following:

(a) Design Verification (b) Means to disposition design verification findings (c) Competency of design personnel (d) Resolution of disagreement between designers and design verifiers (checker)

(e) Design interfaces with other design disciplines (f) Design changes These interviews disclosed that the design organization managers are cognizant of QA design verification procedures and the imple mentation of these procedures in their section The personnel performing design verification (design review and checking) have qualifications and design experience equal to or greater than the original designe (2) The inspector conducted informal interviews with assistant design engineers and civil engineers in the Civil Projects Sectio These discussions disclosed that these engineers were cognizant of the procedures for the control of the design proces Conclusions The inspector concluded that civil design engineering procedures meet the requirements of NRC, industry standards, and the Duke Topical Report. The procedures are an effective method of controlling civil design activities and are being implemente No violations or deviations were identifie.

Procurement (35060B and 38990B through 38995B) Procurement Organization Controls The Vice President-Design Engineering is responsible for the design specification a.nd procurement for the nuclear project Mill Power Supply Company has responsibility for the purchase procurement required by Duke Power Compan The Quality Assurance Manager, Technical Services, is responsible for placing and approving quality assurance requirements on procurement documents and control of procurement quality assurance records. The Quality Assurance Manager, Vendors, is responsible for the evaluation of vendor quality assurance programs, development and approval of approved supplier lists, and surveillance of vendor quality assurance programs. The Senior Quality Assurance Supervisor, Audit, is responsible for the Quality Assurance Department audit progra Procedures controlling the above activities were examined to ensure that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by the Quality Assurance Manager. The proce dures were reviewed to determine consistency with the commitments of Duke Power Company Topical Report and to also verify that these proce dures were available to the persons performing the quality related activity. The procedures included the following:

Chapter 4, RO Procurement Document Control Chapter 7, RO Control of Purchased Material, Equipment and Services Chapter 13, RI Handling, Storage and Shipping Chapter 15, RO Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components Chapter 16, RO Corrective Action

Chapter 17A, R1 Quality Assurance Records Management Program DEQAP, R11 Department Quality Assurance Plan PR-100, R4 Application of Quality Assurance Program PR-160, RO Nuclear Station Modification PR-201, R12 Variation Notices PR-220, R10 Nonconforming Item Reports PR-301, R14 Specifications PR-302, R19 Procurement PR-303, R9 Procurement of Services PR-360, R5 Transfer of Items EPR-302, R4 Procurement of Electrical Safety Standard Equip ment/Material QA 601, R4 Vendor Evaluation QA 602, R6 Vendor Surveillance Procedure Procurement Document Control Several procurement packages were reviewed to ensure that:

.

Applicable regulatory requirements, design basis, and other requirements were included or referenced

.

Procurement document changes were subjected to the same level of control as used in the original preparation

.

Scope of work to be performed by the vendor identified

.

Technical requirements referenced the appropriate documents

.

Test, inspection and acceptance criteria identified

.

Vendors had a documented QA program and were required to incorporate QA requirements in subcontract documents

Special instructions/requirements were included for activities such as designing, identification, fabrication, cleaning, erecting, packaging, handling, shipping and extended storage

.

Documents identified which were to be sent to Duke Power Company for review and approval

.

Nonconformance reporting and control specified

.

Access to the vendor's facilities and records for inspection or audit incorporate The procurement packages reviewed included the following:

CNS-1148.00-2A Nuclear Safety Related Tanks CNS-1205.05-1A Nuclear Service Water Pumps CNS-1205.00-8A ASME Section III Stainless Steel Gate, Globe and Check Valves CNS-1361.00-1A Medium Voltage Power Electrical Penetrations CNS-1366.03-00 Ventilated Cable Tray CNS-1205.12-00 Main Steam Isolation Valves Procurement package CNS-1361.00-1A was originated by purchase order C5572. A change to the purchase order increasing the quantity required and stipulating 'B'

level storage was issued under CNS 607 An additional purchase order F 10678-32 specified special storage require ments with monthly storage inspections; 10 CFR Part 21 was incorpo rated. The special storage requirements were later revised with change order C5573-32-002. Specification CNS-1361.00-00-001, Medium Voltage Power Electrical Penetration, was included in the procurement packag The specification required the vendor QA Manual to be maintained, all records to be traceable to the manufactured article, certification of welders and procedures; and the manufacturing sequence to identify steps for inspection points, test points and QC audit point Other documents in the procurement package included discrepancy reports, deviations requests and vendor surveillance report Procurement package CNS-1148.00-2A was originated by purchase order C 2359 The purchase requisition included the specification for fabricating and furnishing safety related pressure vessels and tank The completed vendor surveillance reports were filed in the procurement package. Procurement package CNS-1205.12-00 was originated by purchase order G712 with subsequent amendments F3354 and A73413. QA documenta tion required, 10 CFR Part 21 provisions, storage level and the tech nical specification were include Other procurement packages examined were found to be adequately reviewed, incorporated 10 CFR Part 21 provisions and contained satis factory surveillance reports on the vendor Transfer requisitions were also examined to determine that they had received the proper level of review and approval, and that the docu mentation to identify the materials was adequat Transfer requisition 1354.02-00-0018 concerned the transfer of armored electrical cable from project McGUIRE to project CATAWBA 1 and 2. This material had been ordered to specification MCS-1354.02-03 on purchase order A-75451. The QA documentation was required with the shipment and the original purchase order and specification was attached. Transfer requisition 7310-801524 concerned the transfer of tinned copper elec trical cable from project CATAWBA to project OCONE This had been ordered to specification CNS 1354.02-00-0001, Multi-Conductor Station Control Cabl Several purchase orders had been generated for this material and two vendors had delivered the materia The original purchase order E 344896 had Samuel Moore and Company as the approved vendor and the latest purchase order F 42760 had Okonite Company as the approved vendo In all cases 10 CFR Part 21 was required, the QA documentation and vendor surveillance adequat Supplier Evaluation The overall supplier audit program for the period January through October 1981, was examined. During this time 128 audits were con ducted, 114 vendor surveys made and 456 vendor surveillances performe Several of each of these supplier evaluations were examined. A vendor evaluation was conducted on Cajun Company, Macedonia, O Based on ASME certification QSC 443 and on a satisfactory surveillance history, the company was recommended to be maintained on DPC's approved vendor's list as a supplier of small socket weld fitting The approved vendors list showed the evaluations as an ASME certificate holder and approval code L (ASME Section III QSC supplier).

Vendor evaluation of Crawford Fitting Company, Solon, OH was conducte This company held ASME certification QSC 444 and was listed in the CASE register; based on this and satisfactory surveillance history, the company was recommended to be maintained on DPC's approved vendor's list. Fifteen similar evaluations were made during the three weeks preceding this inspectio A Quality Assurance survey was conducted on C. M. Kemp, Glenn Burnie, M The survey identified a deficiency in weld rod control and apparent lack of gage calibration traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. This was corrected and a subsequent Vendor QA Evaluation report recorded a satisfactory surve An audit was made of Unibraze Corporation, Covington, OH. This company held ASME certification; however, the audit revealed three items of concern. Following rectification of these items, Unibraze Corporation was approved as a potential source of welding materials within the scope of their ASME QSC 420 authorizatio The qualifications of auditors performing vendor evaluations were examine They were found to be well experienced with good backgrounds and several years of participation in vendor audits. Certification of the auditors and their training records were adequately documente Duke Power Company's approved vendor list is maintained by the QA Vendor's division and updated monthly. It lists current suppliers with QA contracts as well as those recommended to be maintained as approved potential vendor Notes provided with the vendor list adequately define the certification levels used in the vendor lis Nonconforming Items and Audits Mill Power Service Company contract C-56366 is for ITT Grinnell Corporation to provide component supports for the nuclear project Handling of nonconformance reports with subsequent corrective action in this contract was examined. Nonconforming item reports 11954, 11934, 11576, 11741, and 11061 and correspondence relating to these were reviewed. Disposition of these was found to be satisfactor Vendor surveillance reports on ITT Grinnell were examined and observed that surveillance was increased when increasing problems were identified; during the period April through October 1981, surveillance reports were issued approximately every two week Audits conducted by Duke Power Company to verify implementation of their in-house QA program were reviewe The most recent QA Department Audit DE-81-6 was conducted 9/28 - 10/8/8 This audit was conducted to verify implementation of the Design Engineering procedures including the procurement activities. No deficiencies were identified during the conduct of this internal audi Within this area, no violations or deviations were identifie. Audits (35060B and 40990B)

a. Audit Program The inspector examined the following controlling QA Department and Corporate QA procedures, Design Engineering Department QA procedures and American National Standards:

QA-130, R6 Qualification and Training of Lead Auditors QA-160, RO Performance of Corporate QA Audits QA-210, R11 Departmental Audit Procedure QA-230, R8 Departmental Audit Scheduling and Followup QA-300, R8 Construction Surveillance

18 QA-412, R8 Surveillance of Design Activities PR-840, R10 Internal Audits DPCCQAP,Chapter 18, Rev. 2, Audits ANSI N45.2.23, Draft 3, Rev. 0, Qualification of QA Program Audit Personnel for Nuclear Facilities ANSI N45.2.12, 1977, Requirements for Auditing of QA Programs for Nuclear Power Plants Duke Power Company QA Topical Report, Amendment 5, Section 17.1.18 discusses QA Programs for Audits. An audit is performed at least every six months or as directed by the Corporate QA Manager in the Design Engineering Department, Construction Project, and Operating Nuclear Station. Corporate audits are initiated and directed by the Senior Vice President-Engineering and Construction and performed at least once in each calendar year on the QA Department. The QA Vendors Division maintains surveillance and performs audits on NSSS supplier's QA programs including the activities of their vendors and subvendor Audit schedules for the years 1980 and 1981 were examined and the QA Audit Division Supervisor was interviewed to ascertain that the corporate QA audit program encompasses all internal and external organizations and extends to all elements of the QA program at a reasonable frequency. The audit team size, composition and use of specialists routinely assigned from other organizations was discussed with QA management. The inspector examined auditor training, experi ence and certifications of Audit Division personnel and found the auditors all qualified to the requirements of ANSI N45.2.23, Draft 3, Revision b. Audit Reviews The following audits and respective audit plans were examined to determine applicability to the QA element audited qualification of audit team members, that audit findings were reported to upper manage ment and the organization audited, that corrective actions as required are being initiated, and that there is followup and re-audit by QA as necessary:

Audit E-80-6 Records Storage Facility Audit E-80-4 Proper Identification of Engineering Drawings Audit C-80-7 Catawba Nuclear Station - Civil and Electrical Activities

Audit C-80-5 Cherokee Nuclear Station - Preventive Mainten ance Audit E-80-5 Variation Notices and Nonconforming Items Report Corporate Audit 1980 Joint Utility Management Audit Plan (JUMA)

Within this area, no violations or deviations were identifie. Training (41990B)

a. Documents Examined QA-112, R1 Certification of QA Analysts QA-130, R6 Qualification and Training of Lead Auditors QA-131, R4 Quality Assurance Training QA-140, R2 Quality Control Inspector Training PR-860, R8 Quality Assurance Training Duke Topical QA Program Manual, Section 17.1.2, Quality Assurance Program b. QA Program Duke Power Company QA Program Topical Report Section 17.1.2 specifies QA program commitments for trainin Duke Topical commits to ANSI N45.2.6 -

1973Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI N45.2.6 -</br></br>1973" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.. Duke Corporate Quality Assurance Program, Chapter 2, delineates requirements for QA trainin Various Duke QA Department and Design Engineering procedures provide instructions for QA trainin Implementation The inspector reviewed the referenced documents to ascertain that procedures had been prepared and approved by DPC to prescribe a system for personnel training activities which is consistent with the licensee's commitments of the QA Progra The inspector selected training records for 18 personnel (Vendor, Audit, Administrative Services, Technical Services, and Projects Division QA personnel) to assure that QA indoctrination, training in necessary approved proce dures, regulations, codes and standards and retrianing had been performed as required. The inspector held discussions with personnel responsible for QA training and attended a portion of Engineering Design's training conducted 11/3/81 on QA Condition 4 and affected procedure Within this area, no violations or deviations were identifie K200 1 QA Records (39900B)

a. Documents Examined QA-101, R3 QA Records Storage Vault (General Office -

Corporate Vault)

QA-1201, R1 Storage of Radiographs QA-111, R2 Interdivisional Transfer of QA Records QA-301, RO Management of Construction QA Records QA-410, R6 Processing of QA Records for Purchased Items QA-411, R6 Filing of a QA Records for Purchased Items PR-930, R6 Supplier QA Records, Review Approval and Storage PR-931, R6 Design QA Records Collection, Maintenance, and Storage GS10101E -

11 & 12, Corporate Records Procedures ANSI N45.2.9 - 1974, Requirements for Collection, Storage and Maintenance of QA Records for Nuclear Power Plants Duke Topical QA Program Manual, Section 17.1.17, QA Records b. QA Program Duke Power Company QA Program Topical Report Section 17.1.17 specifies QA Program commitments for quality record Duke Topical Section 17.1.17.4 commits to ANSI N45.2.9-197 Various Duke QA Department and Design Engineering Department procedures provide instructions for quality record Implementation The inspector reviewed the referenced documents to ascertain that procedures have been prepared and approved by the licensee to prescribe a system for control of QA Records which is consistent with the licensee's commitments in the QA progra The inspector performed a walk-thru inspection of the corporate records vault and examined temporary records storage locations in the QA and General Services (Design) Departments. A sampling of vendor surveillance records, QA training records, audits, design documents and calculations were retrieved and examined by the inspector from these various storage location Within this area, no violations or deviations were identifie SD 11/17/5 Draft 3 0