IR 05000413/1979010
| ML19249E435 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1979 |
| From: | Bryant J, Mcfarland C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249E431 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-79-10, 50-44-79-10, NUDOCS 7910010386 | |
| Download: ML19249E435 (4) | |
Text
,
.
.
[pa arc,,(o o
UNITED STATES
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
3..,,
g
,
. L REGION 1!
~ * "
o,
[
101 MARIETTA sT., N.W., SUITE 3100
%
e
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-413/79-10 and 50-414/79-10 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name:
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 License Nos. CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 Inspection at Catawba site near Rock Hill, South Carolina Inspector:
[
7-T-//
'
C. R. McFarland Date Signed Approved by:
h,,5y 7///19 J
rfastgection Chief, RCES Branch
'Date Signed
.
SUMMARY Inspection on June 12-14, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 18 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of containment structural concrete procedures and records, welding records, welder qualfications, control of nonconforming items on Unit 1, storage of plant materials for Units 1 and 2, housekeeping for Unit 2 and IE Bulletins for Units 1 and 2.
Results Of the seven areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1059 329 001e M 6 791
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees D. G. Beam, Project Manager
- D. L. Freeze, Project Engineer
- S. W. Dressler, Senior Construction Engineer W. G. Rixon, Senior Planning and Facilities Engineer J. R. Wells, Corporate QA Manager W. O. Henry, QA Manager, Construction Division
- R. A. Morgan, Senior QA Engineer (QAE)
- J. C. Shropshire, QAE Mechanical, Welding
- H. D. Mason, QAE Civil, Electrical P. L. Atkins, QAE Civil E. C. Wall, General Superintendent R. S. Morrison, Assistant General Superintendent L. R. Davison, Senior QC Engineer J. D. Bradley, Utility Foreman, Reactor Building #2 Other licensee employees contacted iceluded various construction craftsmen, technicians, and office personnel.
Other Organizations Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and insurance Company
- J. W. Kosko, Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI)
- C. F. Toegel, ANI
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summari ed on March 16, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. No new items of noncompliance or unresolved items were identified in the areas inspected.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Findings a.
(Closed) Deficiency 50-413/79-04-01, Signof f of misnumbered welds, (Unit 1). The inspector reviewed the DPC April 19, 1979 response to Region II and the corrective action taken by DPC relative to the deficiency. There has been no repetitive deficiences and DPC considers the item to be a unique case. The requirements of the DPC procedure M-4 " Visual Inspection and NDE of Welds (ASME III)" are being documented and are being reviewed by QA. Documentation of recent representative welds were reviewed by the inspector.
'
1D59 330
.
.
.
.
.
-2-
.
b.
(Closed) Infraction 50-413/79-04-02, Inadequate corrective action concerning storage of safety related piping, (Unit 1). The inspector reviewed the DPC April 19, 1979 response to Region II and the corrective action taken by DPC relative to the infraction. The inspector observed the new storage area used for piping assembly storage and discussed the procedure used to administratively control the materials entering and leaving the new storage area. The inspector observed that the
~
"old" storage area related to the infraction is not being used for storing piping assemblies at this time.
c.
(Closed) Infraction 59-413/79-05-02, Containment spray heat exchanger storage requirements (Units 1 and 2). The inspector reviewed the DPC May 7, 1979 response to Region II and the corrective action relative to the infraction. The inspector observed the heat exchangers in the storage yard; a 10 psig nitrogen blanket is being maintained. Two of the heat exchangers have been moved into the Auxiliary Building for Unit 1.
The inspector reviewed the applicable P-3A forms for documenting the surveillance of the storage of these items.
d.
(closed) Infraction 50-413/79-06-01, Failure to follow concrete inspection procedures - voids in dome concrete, (Unit 1). The inspector reviewed the DPC May 25, 1979 response to Region II and the corrective action taken by DPC relative to the infraction. The inspector reviesed the DPC investigation report of concrete pour 32 on the reactor building dome, Unit 1, signed April 30, 1979, and attached to Nonconforming Item Report (NCI) 5252 (referenced in reports 50-413/79-06 and 79-07).
The inspector also reviewed concrete specification CNS1109.00-1; the honeycomb repair procedure CP 63; drawings of the dome CN-1091-9,10 and 15, and CN 1043-1; and the final concrete inspection log for pour 32. The inspector observed the completed work on pour 32 (the first lift, 12 inches thick), pour 33 (the second lift 15 inches thick) and pour 34 (a 27 inch thick plug with an access opening). The voids on the outside surface have been chipped out and repairs have been made as documented by engineeering, QC, and QA on NCI 5252. The second lift of the dome pour, pour 33, was observed by an NRC inspector (reference report 50-413/79-8).
Since the forms have been removed from the inside surface of the dome (pour 32) honeycombed concrete and other apparently deficient sections are evident to the inspector and the DPC QC aad QA staff. No QC inspection of the inside surface is expected to be made until craf t personnel can te scheduled to repair the inside surface. Since they haven't been chipped out, the extent of the deficiency can't be categorized, hence there is no NCI report on the deficiencies. This area is identified as Inspector Followup Item 413/79-10-01, Repairs to concrete dome inside surface, Unit I reactor building.
e.
(Closed) 50-414/79-06-01, Failure to follow housekeeping procedures, Unit 2.
The inspector reviewed the DPC May 25, 1979 response to Region II and the corrective action relative to the deficiency. The 1059 33I
.
....
.
3-
'
inspector observed the area in c.uestion around the refueling canal and housekeeping was satisfactory. The inspector also reviewed documentation of the training record of the general superintendents instructing the various assistant general superintendents and superintendents of crafts of the need for cleanliness and for maintaining designated zones to the proper housekeeping requirements. Discussions with craft
.
personnel inside the Unit 2 containment confirmed that housekeeping is an important part of the work prcgram.
f.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item 50-413/79-08-01, Control of specification changes, Unit 1.
The inspector was informed that procedure G-1 " Document Control" has been revised to meet the concerns relative to the use of superceded information, and the draft revision is being circulated for comment.
g.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 50-413/79-08-02, Records for containment penetrations, Unit 1.
The inspector reviewed documentation relative to containment sleeve MR IM406. All sleeves were received from Newport News Industrial, Incor-porated (NNI) the fabricator of the containment vessel. Traceability of the sleeve in question is through the steel heat number, QCNNI-256, as identified at the site and in the engineering records. The sleeves for Units 1 and 2 were cut from plate material with the same heat number. The unit number was added to the sleeve in the fabrication shop, but it is not required as a traceable marking. The QCNNI number 256 appears in the documentation package for each plate.
4.
Unresolved Items do new unresolved items were identified during this inspection.
5.
IE Bulletins (IEB)
(Closed) IEB 79-04 Incorrect weights for swing check valves manufactured by Velan Engineering Corporation, Units 1 and 2.
DPC letter dated April 24, 1979 informs Region II that Velan valves are not used at Catawba.
6.
Independent Inspection The inspector toured the l'ait I and 2 facilities, observed work inside the reactor buildings, the a t miary building and, the control room, talked to various craf t personnel and discussed the schedule for work to be performed with the project engineer and the senior planning and facilities engineer.
1059 332
.