IR 05000269/1990003
| ML15224A645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1990 |
| From: | Blake J, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15224A644 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-90-03, 50-269-90-3, 50-270-90-03, 50-270-90-3, 50-287-90-03, 50-287-90-3, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 9003210002 | |
| Download: ML15224A645 (7) | |
Text
F REGI UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.: 50-269/90-03, 50-270/90-03, and 50-287/90-03 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47, and and 50-287 DPR-55 Facility Name: Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Inspection on d-J nuary 22-26, 1990 Inspecto: (
- 1/
-7 n os Date igned Approved b :
7;
J
.Blae, Chief Date Signed a erials and Processes Section ngineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the area of review of licensee action(s) on open items (Units 1, 2, and 3).
Results:
By record review, interviews and observation the inspector determined that the licensee had taken sufficient corrective action(s) to justify closure of certain open items, including:
two notices of violation, 87-31-01 and 88-17-01; one unresolved item, 88-17-08; and five inspector followup item Within the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identifie IO02 900302 PDR ADOCK 0500026&9 PDC
REPORT DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- E. Anderson, Site Design Engineer
- C. R. Baldwin, QA Verification Manager
- H. R. Barron, Station Manager R. C. Brock, Associated Engineer I&E Engineering
- E. LeGett, Compliance Supervisor
- B. Millsaps, Maintenance Service Manager Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included technical administrative personne NRC Resident Inspectors P. H. Skinner, Senior Resident Inspector
- L. D. Wert, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2. Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
(Closed) Violation 269, 270, 287/88-17-01, Lack of Applicable Procedures for I&E Maintenance Activities The licensee's letters of response dated January 26, 1989 and February 5, 1990, have been reviewed and determined acceptable by the Region II staf The inspector held discussions with the Cognizant Engineers and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letters of respons The inspector concluded that the licensee had determined the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necessary follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude conditions of these problem Corrective actions taken included the following:
o Issued Procedure IP/O/B/300/24 and standing Work Requests -
55588B, 55589B, 55590B for annual reverification/recalibration of under voltage alarm relay Completion of work requests has been delayed temporarily, because of inability to calibrate detector(s) to within specified tolerance requirement The licensee has established, March 3, 1990, as the target date for completing these work requests on all three unit *
oIssued Procedure IP/O/A/3011/12 to verify specified torque on termination connections of circuit breakers in motor control centers and local panels. This work effort is scheduled to be performed at
the end of the upcoming outage for each of the three units and will be completed by April 1, 1991. A typographical error was identified in the licensee's original response which resulted in the revised response identified earlier in this paragrap O Issued reviewed Procedures MP/O/A/2001/13 and MP/O/A/2001/3C to allow for the proper monitoring of resistance/torque values and specify proper lubricants for safety related breaker A program to check all safety related breakers with the revised procedure has been established and all subject breakers will have been verified by January 1, 199 O Issued new procedure IP/O/B/3000/24 dated September 27, 1989, to calibrate and verify proper operation of battery, trouble alar Issued IP/O/A/3000/18 Change 4 dated July 31, 1989, to be used with above procedur Compatibility between battery ground alarm and battery ground, locating procedure has been established and was fully implemented as of September 30, 198 Because corrective actions have been established and have been either fully implemented or scheduled to be implemented at a time when plant conditions permit i.e. refueling outages, the subject violation has been close Records of required tests and completed subject procedures will be reviewed on a routine basis during future inspections in these area (Closed) Violation 269, 270, 287/87-31-01, As-Built Drawing Discrepancies Compared with As-Built Conditions The licensee's response/denial to the subject violation dated October 19, 1987, was evaluated and found that it met 10 CFR 2.201 requirement However, the acknowledgement letter which was dated December 23, 1987, stated that the bases for the denial would be evaluated and results forwarded to DPC at a later date. The licensee's corrective actions for discrepancies/examples identified in the notice of violation (NOV),
were reviewed during a later inspection, conducted between August 1-5, 1988, and documented in Report 269, 270, 287/88-2 The reviewer found the corrective actions adequate but requested that the licensee propose a resolution as a general solution for discrepancies between as-built drawings and as-found (as-built) condition The review concluded that the item would remain open pending the aforementioned resolutio No response to the denial has been issued. The licensee's basis for denial stated that the intent of the IE Bulletin 79-14 program for Oconee, as well as that specified in the subject bulletin, was to assure that the seismic analyses of safety related piping systems yield conservative result Therefore, Oconee's IE Bulletin 79-14 program was intended to verify that those elements associated with the piping stress analysis correctily existed in the fiel Accordingly, a screening process was established to identify significant deviations in piping and piping support construction which were not consistent with the piping analysis
performed on Seismic Category I piping system In reference to the dimensional discrepancy in the example cited in the NOV, the licensee's denial stated that visual approximations were used instead of actual measurements for some of the dimensions on supports which were not critical to the ability of the support to function as identified by the piping analysi Therefore, some minor discrepancies exist between support drawings and actual field condition However, these discrepancies do not affect piping analysis and hence, do not violate the intent of the IE Bulletin 79-14 progra With regards to the required resolution for a program to address discrepancies between support drawings and actual field conditions, the licensee's denial stated that "The Inservice Inspection (ISI),
program which is designed to identify service induced discrepancies, has documented a number of discrepancies, similar to the minor discrepancies identified in the NOV, between the as-built and support drawings in the existing support These discrepancies were evaluated as a group for possible generic problems concerning pipe supports not constructed in accordance with IE Bulletin 79-14 as-built drawing The evaluation, which were performed in accordance with the original design criteria, disclosed that the stresses acting on the pipe supports were within code allowable limit This program has continued through subsequent inspections on the other units and to date, none of the discrepancies found within the IE Bulletin 79-14 surveillance scope were safety significant."
In conclusion the licensee's denial stated that even though steps had been taken to correct the discrepancies noted in the alleged violation, a review of the subject supports had declared them operable in the as found conditio Also the conclusion stated that
"since the aim of the bulletin program was to identify significant deviations in piping and pipe supports relative to the piping stress analysis, and none of the discrepancies found as a result of the Inservice Inspection Program or those identified in this Violation which were within the bulletin surveillance scope have been safety significant, the discrepancies identified in the referenced inspection report do not constitute a violation."
Following an inspection of the licensee's corrective actions which was documented in Report 88-23, the licensee held a meeting at the Oconee Nuclear Station on August 11, 1989, to discuss QA Condition 1 piping Supports/Restraint, drawing discrepancies and the ISI progra The meeting was required by station management following the NRC Inspection in this are In a memorandum to file S/N #POSP-89-0065 dated August 25, 1989, Oconee's site management concluded that (1) no changes to the ISI program were warranted, (2) while drawing discrepancies for pipe support/restraints were acknowledged to exist, to date no conditions adverse to Nuclear Safety have been identified (3) any drawing discrepancies noted during future ISI or NRC inspection will be dealt with via the problem resolution mechanism (4) as such, a special program to correct drawing discrepancies was
not neede On the basis of discussions with cognizant personnel, programatic and extensive documents review, the inspector has determined that no further effort in this area in warranted and therefore this matter is close (Closed)
IFI 50-269, 270, 287/89-23-01, Maintenance Directives Need Administrative Review for Clarity This item was identified when, during the course of reviewing certain maintenance procedures, the inspectors noted that certain acronyms/abbreviations were not defined anywhere in the text of the procedure thus leaving it up to the reader to research their meanin This matter was discussed with the cognizant engineer who agreed to take appropriate action to address and correct this proble In reviewing the corrective action, the inspector noted that the licensee was revising Maintenance Directives 3. and 3.2.3-to provide the necessary guidance on handling acronyms and abbreviation which alleviates the proble (Closed) IFI 50-287/88-29-01, Weld QC Rejection Rates This item was identified because the inspector had observed, at the time of the subject inspection, that all four weld joints inspected by QC had been rejected for failure to meet acceptance criteri Observing these results, the inspector indicated that the craft and their respective supervisors, should have known that these welds were not acceptable and therefore should not have requested a QC inspectio Subsequently the inspector expressed a concern over the adequacy of craft training with regards to acceptance criteria in the are The licensee responded by performing an evaluation and issued the results in a memorandum dated February 14, 198 The memo indicated that the evaluation utilized data obtained through their Quality Measurement Program (QMP),
which had been implemented in May of 198 The QMP procedures are for trending of all QA inspections performed and the results obtaine Also, the response showed that weld rejection rates for the month of August 1988 or the time of the subject inspection was about 1.2 percent e.g. 19 weld rejection out of 1545 welds inspected. The percentage of rejections between May 1988 and January 1989 was reported as 1.3 percent. Because of these trend results, the licensee concluded that a significant problem did not exist in the weld area, but indicated that they would continue to monitor weld rejections through QMP and take necessary action(s) if adverse trends develop in the futur (Closed)
IFI 269, 270, 287/88-23-01. Pipe Supports Modifications Remaining for IEB 79-02 and 79-14 This item was identified for the purpose of tracking the modification effort of thirteen (13)
remaining supports in the three units at the Oconee Statio This information was obtained from a station status
reports, dated December 1, 1987, on the re-analyzes of piping and approximately 5900 pipe supports found to require some form of modification under the IEB 79-14 progra The inspector discussed the subject supports, the work performed and reviewed the revised drawings/sketches for completeness and accuracy as applicabl Of the 13 supports identified, two of them involved Unit-1, ten involved Unit-2 and one involved Unit-Work required on both Unit-1 supports was complete Of the ten supports in Unit-2, Design determined by analysis/evaluation to delete the requirement for four of the supports because of high radiation exposure consideration Two supports were found by analysis not to be required and were remove Two were inspected and found to be satisfactory and the remaining two which were scheduled for modification were evaluated and by analysis determined to be satisfactory for plant lif They will remain in the as-is condition because of existing radiological condition Work on the support in Unit-3 had been completed and the documentation was found in orde (Closed) IFI 50-270, 287/88-23-02, Final Summary Report for IEB 79-02 The licensee has completed the final summary report for the subjec Bulletin for Units-2 and - These documents were forwarded to Region II on August 9, 1989 and October 5, 1989, respectivel The licensee stated that the report for Unit-1 was in progress and would be forwarded upon completion to the Region in the same manne (Closed) IFI 50-270, 287/88-23-03, Final Summary Report for IEB 79-14 The licensee has completed the final summary report for the subject Bulletin for Units-2 and - These documents were forwarded to Region II on August 9 and October 5, 1989 respectivel The licensee stated that the report for Unit-1 was in progress and would be forwarded upon completion to the Region in the same manne (Closed)
(UNR)
50-269, 270, 287/88-17-08, Tech Spec Interpretation Allowing Supervisor of other Departments to Review Procedures This matter was identified during a maintenance team inspection when the review of maintenance procedure MP/O/A/2001/3C, procedure for checking bus bar connection for ITE Type HK metal-clad (switchgear),
disclosed the procedure was prepared and reviewed by individual in the electrical transmission Departmen The procedure had no cross-disciplinary review, but had been approved by the Station's Superintendent of Maintenanc The problem surfaced because Section 6.1.2.1.d, Technical Review and Control, of the Oconee Technical Specifications (TS)
states that Station procedures require review by a supervisor on the Station's staf The licensee had interpreted this requirements to include a trained, qualified reviewer in the Transmission Department assigned to the Oconee sit However, the NRC inspector's interpretation of this requirement was
that is did not include individual from other corporate departments
assigned to the Statio In an effort to settle this controversy the Station issued a TS Interpretation stating that Transmission Department personnel, as well as others, assigned to the Station are considered as qualified reviewer This interpretation was approved on December 12, 198. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 26, 1990, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abov The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding listed below. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection. Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.