IR 05000270/1972009
| ML19322A829 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1973 |
| From: | Jape F, Murphy C, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A828 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-270-72-09, NUDOCS 7911270289 | |
| Download: ML19322A829 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- ___ _______
' .. . . UNITED STATES T ,..s. g {, Qx f,yg ATOMIC ENERGY CCMMISSION p-v e .;j DI?20TORATE CF F2711ATORY CPIEAT*CN3 ' . . yf arsio~ n - sv. t re /e.
z ao o e c - a s s s-a r t, s :n,..e s.
+.y f' %n a A s a . cecac<a 3e ra ' " - * " * ' ' ' " " " ' RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/72-9 Licensee: Duke Power Conpany Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Facility Nane: Oconec Unit 2 Docket No.: 50-270 License No.: CPPR-34 'ategory: A3 C Location: Oconee County, South Carolina Type of License: B&W, PWR, 2452 Mw(t) Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: Novenber 14-17, 1972, and Decenber 12-14, 1972 Dates of Pre 71cus Inspection: October 3-6, 1972 Principal Inspector: R. F. Warnick, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Acconpanying Inspector: F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Facilities Iest. and Startup Branch Other Acconpanying Personnel: None /P [ b 4 w,[ /M r k Principal Inspector: R. F. Warnick, Reactor Inspector Dat e' Facilities Test and Startup Branch f f * // / / / l -
- . 4 7
%'/ d / ,e ?/~/ i' Reviewed by: e C'aief, Facilities Test and Startup 'Date C.E. Murphy, Acting / ' b-Branch i - - ~ ~ - -
.-. , . . ) \\
, I ', RO Report No. 50-270/72-9-2-p~. VJ , i SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ! I.
Enforcement Acticn None I II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations , The following items are closed: 1.
Criterion VI - Failure to Provide Approved Procedures for Electrical Ouality Control (See Letter to DPC Dated October 26, 1972, Item 1.a.)
All procedures for the Oconee Nuclear Station have now been approved by the Vice President, Ccnstruction.
This has - been verified by the inspector and the ites is _osed.
(See Details I, paragraph 2.)
2.
Criterion V - Failure to Inolement Approved Procedures for Control of Nonconforming Items (See Letter to DPC Dated October 26, 1972, Iten 1.b.)
Procedure Q-1 is being revised to eliminate the conflict of instructions which previoucly existed between procedures Q-1 and R-2.
The inspectc r teviewed the draf t copy which was being circulated for tpproval.
This item is closed.
(See Details I, paragraph 3.)
3.
Criterion VII - Installation of Cable Without Docuteittary Evidence That Cable Met Procurement Specification (See Letter to DPC Dated October 26, 1972, item 2.)
An electrical QC audit r2vealed that only one reel of cable out of 659 reels had not been properly released for installation and this one ites has since been - corrected. When QC documentation is not available at the site, it is obtained by telecopier prior to installa-tion.
This item is closed.
(See Details I, paragraph 4.). 4.
Criterion VI - Failure to Distribute Welding Procedures to Craft Personnel cr QC Field Engineers (See Letter to DPC Dated October 26, 1972, Item 3.a.)
The procedures have been distributed and site personnel instructed relative to timely distribution.
This is closed.
(See Details I, paragraph 3.)
. . a
- ne--
d
_ _ _. . . , , IU) Report No. 50-270/72-9-3- -
w 5.
Criterion XIV - Failure to Establish Measures to Indicate the Status of Cable (SeeLettertoDPCDatedOctober;$[~ 1972, item 4.)
Procedure S-2 was revised to specify the documentation to be turned over to operations at the time systems and QA documentation are transferred from construction to operations. All Unit 1 cable has been identified and all cable for Units 2 and 3 is identified and appropriately documented by the tire of the transfer. This item is closed.
(See Details I, paragraph 6.)
6.
Criterien VIII - Failure to Follcw Procedures Which Resulted in Use of Incorrect :Mterial in Class I Systems (See Letter to DPC Dated Cctober 26, 1972, Item 6.)
Because the techanical properties at the design tempers-ture are greater, DPC justified using Grade 316H stain-less steel piping ec ponents in lieu of Grade 304H stain-less steel.
This itea is closed.
(See Details I, para-graph 7.)
7.
Criterion XVI - Failure to Identifv and Report the Cause of Weld Defects (See Letter to DPC Dated October 26, 1972. Iten 7.)
Specific reporting instructions have been given and the defects have been corrected.
This iten is closed.
(See Details I, paragraph 8.)
8.
Criterion XVIII - Failure to Conduct Effective Audits of Electcical CC Activities (See Letter to DFC Dated October 26, 1972, Iten S.)
l Additional audit has been performed and the results reviewed by RO.
This iten is closed.
(See Details - I, paragraph 3.)
The following items remain open: 9.
Welding Progran Deficiencies (See Letter to DPC Dated >brch 8, 1972, Iten 5.)
DPC stated that their final report on velding deficiencies and i=provements in their welding program should be avail-able after December 23 for AEC inspection.
_. a y
. . RO Report No. 50-270/72-9-4 - . _. t .e 10. Criterien V - Failure to Document Final Inscection of Mechanical Congenents en Form S-2A as Recuired by Procedure S-2 (See Letter to DPC Dated December 1, 1972, Item 1.)
Awaiting response to R0 letter.
11. Criterion XIII - Failure to Identify and Perforn In-Storage Tests and Inspection (See Letter to DPC , Dated December 1, 1972, Item 3.)
Awaiting response to RO letter.
12. Criterion XV - Failure to Provide for Approcriate Segre;ation of Nenconforming '!aterial (See Letter to DPC Dated December 1, 1972, Item 4.)
Awaiting response to RO letter.
13. Failure to Return Unused k'elding Rod to the Issuing ' Station When No Loncer Recuired (See Letter to DPC Dated December 1, 1972, Ite 5.)
Awaiting response to RO letter.
III.
New Unresolved Items None IV.
Status of Previcusly Reported Unresolved Items 72-8/1 Itecs inspected during a receiving inspection are not completely documented on fora QC-31 (R0 Inspection Report No. 50-270/72-3).
This item will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
72-8/2 The quality centrol organi:ation's system for filing ' quality assurance docu=entation may not provide ade-quate retrievability of records (R0 Inspection Report No. 50-270/72-8).
This item vill be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
V.
Design Changes None -- . . .. . _. . -- .
__ . . R0 Report No. 50-270/72-9-5- , . , VI.
Unusual Occurrences None VII.
Other Significant Findings None VIII.
Management Interview , A management interview was held on December 14, 1972, at the conclusion of the inspection. The following people were in attendance: D. G. Bea: - Project Manager, Construction ' D. L. Freeze - Principal Field Engineer C. B. Aycock - Senior Field Engineer The status of all previously identified enforec ent matters as described in the Su=cary of Findings was discussed.
During the inspection of Nove ber 14-17, the status of previously identified enforectent matters was discussed with Freeze; however, since no new construction ite=s were inspected, no canagement interview (as such) was held.
l ~ .
. . I RO Report No. 50-270/72-9 I-l i
<. a ( w Details I Prepared by: [[[2.!7w;.c,[* /-/A%7 R. F. Warnick Date Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch . MfL /~ /5' N My%
- A
' F. Jape (/ Date Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: Nov. 11-17 and Dec. 12-14, 1972 /~ /1/ / i l.
' - - td 'i- ' ' / )./>> Reviewed by: ' C. E. Murphy-Date '
' Acting Chief Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals contacted R. L. Dick - Vice President, Construction W. H. Owen - Vice President, Design Engineering W. O. Parker - Assistant >bneger, Steam Production repartment K. S. Canady - Nuclear Engineer J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent J. W. Han.pton - Assistant Plant Superintendent O. S. Bradhan - Instrument and Control Engineer D. G. Beam - Proj ect >Mnager, Construction D. L. Freece - Principal Field Engineer C. B. Aycock - Senior Field Engineer K. W. Schmidt - Associate Field Engineer, Electrical 2.
Failure to Provide i.pproved Procedures for Electrical Ouality Control if The inspector reviewed all existing electrical quality control procedufes and verified that all have been approved by the Vice President, Construction.
This previously identified iten of noncompliance is closed.
1,/ See RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/72-7, Section II, paragraph 9.
i
, _.
. . . . RO Report No. 50-270/72-9 I-2 . 3.
Failure to Implement Approved Procedures for Control of Nonconforming Electrical iters _1_/ The inspector reviewed a draft copy of the recently revised procedure Q-1, " Control of Nonconforming Items." This procedure is now compatible with procedure R-2.
Procedure R-2 allows each inspection procedure to include methods of correcting and documenting nonconfornities which are observed during inspections. 'Jhen a method is not specified in an inspection procedure, procedure R-2 requires that forn Q-1A be used to document the nonconformity.
A problea of conflicting instructions had existed because the old procedure, Q-1, required those items which did not conform with QA procedures, field installation procedures, specifications, codes, or design drawings to be documented and reported on the Q-1A form, "Nonconforcing Ite: Reper Sheet."
This previously identified iten of noacompliance is now closed.
4.
Installation of Cable 'c?f thout Docurentary Evidence That Cable Met Procurement Specification 2/ The inspector was informed : hat all QC field engineers were instructed during a regular staff recting that whenever cable QC documentation is not available onsite, it is to be obtained by telecopier from DPC's Design Engineering office in Charlotte, ' 5 Carolina, prior to using the cable.
DPC's electrical QC conducted an audit on August 22, 1972, to deter-mine the percent of reels of safeguards cables, with jackets other than black, that were available onsite for use without having written approval onsite by DPC's Engineering Department to use these reels.
This audit revealed that caly one reel out of 659 reels had not been properly released for installation and that ene has since been corrected.
~ The inspector revicwed the audit and there are no further questions.
This previously identified item of noncompliance is now closed.
5.
Failure to Dist:ibute Welding Procedures to Crafe Personnel or QC Field Engineer 1/ All revised welding procedures were issued to the field forces on 1/ See R0 Inspection Report No. 50-270/72-7, Section II, paragraph 10.
2/ See RO Insoection Report No. 50-270/72-7, Secti n II, paragraph 15, 3/ See R0 Inspection Repvrt No. 50-270/72-7, Section II, paragraph 2.
.
-, . . > - . RO Report No. 50-270/72-9 l-3 -,. i '~ September 1, 1972, by the associate field engineer-welding in accordance with DPC's QA Procedure G-1, " Procedure for the Control of Documents."
DPC prepared, approved and issued on October 3, 1972, a QA procedure L-97, entitled " Welding Program, Oconee Nuclear Station." Section 5 of the procedure, entitled "I=plementation," requires the welding in-spectors and welding foreman to receive training on interpretation and understanding welding procedures.
. The welding procedures are now under the control of the QA program and are issued in accordance with QA procedure G-1, " Procedure for the Control of Documents."
This previously identified ite of noncompliance is now closed.
6.
Failure to Establish Measures to Indicate the Status of Cable 1/
Procedure S-2 (not S-1 as indicated by a typographical error in R0 Report Nos. 50-269/72-8, 50-270/72-7, and 50-287/72-5) was revised on November 6, 1972, to specify the dccu=entation that is required to be turned over to Cperations at the time systems and QA documentation are transferred from Construction to Operations.
As reported in the previous inspection,l/ the identification of cable at Unit 1 was not always known when systens and the QA , documentation were transferred.
The inspector was infor ed that all cable for Unit 1 has since been identified, and that ,
all cable for Units 2 and 3 is identif_ad and appropriately documented at the time of trr.nafer.
This previously identified ite of nonce:pliance is new closed.
7.
Failure to Follev Prc:edures Which Resulted in Use of Incorrect Material in Class I Svstars j/ The inspeccor reviewed DPC's Mechanical Design Group's Justification Request 47 which justified using Grade 316H stainless steel piping - components in lieu of Grade 304H because the mechanical properties at the contemplated design temperatures are greater.
It also j usti-fies and authorizies using Grade 303 or 3081 telding electrodes for joining dissimilar metals, Grades 304H and 316H.
The inspector has no further questions.
This previously identified ite of nonce:pliance is now closed.
1/ See RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/72-7, Section II, paragraph 14.
E/ See R0 Inspection Report No. 50-270/72-7, Sectron III, paragraph 5.
. .
. . . R0 Report No. 50-270/72-9 I-4 . , 8.
Failure to Identify and Renort the Cause of Weld Defects 1/ ' DPC's QA procedure E-1, "The Identificatica and Control of Field Fab-rication Pipe and Welds," requires the radiographic reviewers (Level II per SNT-TC-1A) to fill out the evaluation portion of form QC 30, " Radiographic Inspection Report," and at the end of the shift to summarize his findings on QC-61, " Radiographic Inspecticn Su==ary."
The associate field engineer-welding and associate field engineer-NDT are now reviewing Fora QC-61 for serious and repetitive defects and for repairs.
In addition, the welding inspectors have been verbally inatructed to discuss unusual or repetitive defects and repairs with the associate field engineer-welding.
This verbal instruction will be included in DPC's formal training program.
This previously identified item of nonccmpliance is closed; however, DPC's entire welding and nondestructive testing program will be reinspected af ter their ccasultant completes his ccmprehensive re-view of the welding progran and issues his final report.
This is currently scheduled for January 1973.
9.
Failure to Cenduct Effective Audits of Electrical Ouality Control 2/ On Novenber 8, 9, and 10, 1972, nine design, construction, and staff engineers from offsite conducted an in-depth audit of the Ocenee Nuclear Station ccastruction quality contrcl in the =echanical, civil, and electrical areas.
The audit was conducted according to a written procedure which included checklists.
It covered organization, pro-cedures, documentatsen, and field verification.
The RO inspector listened to the conference phone call report of the audit findings to the site construction and QC nanage=ent.
The inspec-tor noted the extent and the detail of the audit and observed that the audit findings were consistent uith the findings of AZC audits.
On December 7, 1972, DPC confiracd by telephone that the audit re-sults had been reported in writing and that corrective actions were being taken and would be docu=ented.
This previously identified item of noncompliance is now closed.
- 10. Reactor Vessel Internals 3/ B&W reports the previously reported difficulty in obtaining proper fitup between the lower grid and the flow distributor in Unit 2 has been allevfated by machining both cceponents to revised dimen-sions necessary for the desired fit.
1/ See R0 Inspection Report No. 50-270/72-7, Section III, paragraph 7.
2/ See R0 Inspecticn Report No. 50-270/72-7, Sectica II, paragraph 12, 3/ See RO Inspection heport No. 50-270/72-8, Details III, paragraph 2.
o
- _ . - .-. . .- . - _ , . '
. .
R0 Report No. 50-200/72-9 I-5 . . l 11. Copes-Vulcan Valves The inspector was inforced that there are no Cepes-Vulcan valves used at Oconee. This information was requested by the inspector after reading cf a possible generic problem at another reactor site.
, 12. Ventilatien Doctwork Material of Constructica
The inspector uas informed,that there is no Fiberglass Reinforced Polyester (FRP) ductwork at the Oconee reactors.
This infor=ation ' was requested by the inspector after reading of a fire, in newly installed FR? ductwork, in the AEC's Special Nuclear Material Operating Experience Report (M0E:72-1).
l
O f i % ! t o
> --e-., .,, - -. - , , . -,- ,., + -, . }}