IR 05000413/1980007
| ML19318B627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1980 |
| From: | Maxwell G, Rausch J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B621 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-80-07, 50-413-80-7, 50-414-80-07, 50-414-80-7, NUDOCS 8006270231 | |
| Download: ML19318B627 (5) | |
Text
~ -..
.
.
/
UNITED STATES
4'f, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
,a REGION il
.~
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
- .:,+*
liAY 2 0 1980 Report Nos. 50-413/80-07 and 50-414/80-07 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 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 Cata site ear Rock Hill, South Carolina Inspector:,.
/, (du o (
~
'N
-
,
{ GJ MaxweF1 y
Date Signed Approved by: /
L-
< 1./
I' M Y#
/Rausch, Acting Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Reporting Period: April 1-30,1980 Areas Inspected This routine resident inspection involved 50 inspector-hours on site in the areas of concrete placement, steel structures and supports, reactor vessel storage, mechanical equipment and application of coating materials.
Results Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-
fled in four areas; one item of noncompliance was found in one area (Deficiency -
failure to follow drawing requirements).
8008270 M I
..
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- D. G. Beam, Project Manager
- D. L. Freeze, Project Engineer
- R. A. Morgan, Senior QA Engineer
- L. R. Davison, Senior QC Engineer
- S. W. Dressler, Senior Construction Engineer J. C. Shopshire, QA Engineer
- H. D. Mason, QA Engineer
- E. C. Wall, General Superintendent
- R. P. Curry, Civil Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included ten construction craftsmen, five technicians, operators, two mechanic, two security force members, and seven office personnel.
- Attended exit interviews 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 10 and 30, 1980 with those persons indicated in paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations. A new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 9.b.
5.
Concrete Placement Units 1 & 2 The inspector observed delivery, placement testing and partial placement of
)
concrete placed at:
Reactor Vessel cavity unit 1, placement number W103A (E-1 design mix a.
was used).
b.
Diesel generator building unit 2, placement W262 (B-1 design mix was used).
.
~~
y.
_.
__-
.. -. - -
-
-. - -
..
.
.
.
-2-
.
Reactor containment unit 1, steam generator enclosure, placement c.
number 37 (C-1 design mix was used).
Documents used for reference were: DPC procedure M-2, ACI 301-72, ACI 309-72 and ASTM C94.
,
In the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
6.
Steel Structures and Supports - Units 1 & 2 The inspector observed the installation inspection and installed condition of the support steel located in the auxiliary building at elevation 594'
column 10154 through 1D156 and noted:
DPC procedures M-11 and M-18 were being appliced by the responsible a.
DPC QC inspection personnel. Both drawings CN-1205-1 revision 5 and CN-1205-2 revision 10 were being used by the QC inspectors to aid them in assuring that the support steel was of the correct type and was in the correct location. The NRC inspector made selective measurements and determined the supports to be in their correct locations, using as a reference an established mark on column HH-54.
b.
There were marks near the various site applied support welds indicating that the welds had been inspected and accepted as satisfactory by the site welding inspectors (a requirement of DPC procedure M-21, paragraph 4.1.3).
The NRC inspector selectively inspected the welds and found them to be of the prescribed type and dimensions. There were no indications of cracks, excessive undercut or incomplete fusion.
In the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
7.
Reactor Vessels - Units 1 and 2 Observed the placement of unit 2 reactor vessel head into a temporary a.
storage area located between the south end of the auxiliary service building and unit I fuel building. After the placement, temporary heaters were installed in the temporary storage area.
b.
Observed craftsmen, witnessed by DPC QC inspection personnel, taking initial measurements on unit 2 reactor vessel internals. The measure-ments and checks were required to assure that the internals, stored on
,
temporary supports, do not deform due to its' own weight or possibly the settlement of the temporary supports (reference form P-3A, M-256 revision 0).
In the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
.
..
,-
.
..
.
-3-
.
8.
Mechanical Equipment Installation Units 1 and 2 The inspector observed the installed condition of fuel pool cooling a.
pumps numbered 1A and IB. During the observation the following inspec-tion points were evaluated by the NRC inspector:
(1) Pump location (auxiliary building, approx. elevation 577).
(2) Identification (pump serial numbers only).
(3) Hounting and supports.
(4) The status and results of site DPC inspections which have been completed on these pumps.
(5) Installation documents used by DPC workers and inspectors during the installation.
b.
As a result of the above evaluations the inspector observed:
(1) Drawing CN 1226-22, which was referenced on the applicable equip-ment grout inspection forms (M-5 forms) and also referenced on the mechanical inspection forms (M-9B forms), depicted the equip-ment grout to be extended to the edges of the pump concrete support blocks. The NRC inspector observed that the installed grout for these two pumps is short of extending to the edges of the pump support blocks by approximately 21/2" (on all sides and ends of the support blocks). The inspector brought this concern to the attention of the Senior QA Engineer who required a noncon-formance report (NCI 8169, dated April 10, 1980).
The disposition of the NCI " accept as is" the as built condition of the pumps'
grout pads and required that drawing CN1226-22, be revised on April 25, 1980 to agree with the as built condition.
The inspector informed the licensee that failure to conduct work in accordance with the applicable detailed drawing (CN12126-22)
is contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B, to 10 CFR 50, as imple-mented by Duke's Topical Report, paragraph 17.1.5.2.
This is an item of noncompliance.
It is identified as deficiency 413/80-07-03.
A written response is not required as sufficient corrective action was taken prior to the end of this inspection period.
(2) One of the documents reference'd on the applicable mechanical inspection forms (M-9B forms), CNM 1201.05-268, was stamped by the site document control as "NOT NUCLEAR SAFETY-RELATED".
The document is the manufacturers manual for the aforementioned pumps which are listed on the projects QA list as safety-related equip-ment. The inspector informed the licensee that the incorrect classification of the above document is a similar example of the unsatisfactory item identified as item 413/414/80-05-03 in IE
--
- - -
.
- -
-- -
-- -. -
- - -
p
l
,>
\\
-
-4-
.
report 413/414/80-05. This item will be further evaluated after RII receives a written response from DPC concerning item 413/414/80-05-03. This is identified as an inspector follow item, 413/414/80-07-01, The inspector selected fourteen (14) quality documents being utilized c.
by the mechanical workers in the areas adjacent to the fuel pool cooling pumps (auxiliary building, elevation 577'). The documents were checked against the master list located in the site document control center and were found to be of the most current revisions.
Except as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviation vere identified in the areas inspected.
i 9.
Coatings Application Units 1 & 2 The inspector evaluated the DPC site coating procedures (DP12-I, 17-1, a.
34-I, DP 35-I, DP 69-I, DP 71-I and DP 80-1); the site procedures for the cleaning of surfaces that are to be coated (DPSPI-I, DPSP2-I, DPSP3-I, DPSPS-I and DP-SP25-I);
the DPC specifications for coating of nuclear safety-related materials (specifications numbered 1001-I, 1002-I, 1003-I, 1004-I, 1005-I, 1006-I, 1007-I, 1008-I, 1009-I and 1010-1) and sections FM1-13 and FMI-14 of the DPC Coating Systets Manual for service level I coatings.
b.
The inspector discussed, with the responsbile DPC QA personnel, the afore mentioned procedure and specification requirements. As a result, the inspector could not determine how DPC assures that site applicators are qualified to apply the various coating materials which have been specified for use at the Catawaba site. The inspector was advised by the Senior QA Engineer that this concern and the applicable ANSI 101.4 section 5.2.3.1 (which requires that application procedures provide information relative to the qualification of application personnel) is currently being discussed within the DPC QA and Construction Departments and that further information will be available within the month of May, 1980. This item is identified as an unresolved item 413/414/80-07-02.
In the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
,
se b
,~v
'*