IR 05000413/1983020
| ML20024F221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1983 |
| From: | Brownlee V, Dance H, Long F, Long F, Vandoorn P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024F199 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-83-20, 50-414-83-18, NUDOCS 8309090080 | |
| Download: ML20024F221 (4) | |
Text
.
.
_
_..
_ _ _.
O O
ne u m
'
.
.
.
Duke Power Company
cc w/ encl:
J. W. Hampton, Station Manager J. C. Rogers, Project Manager bec w/ encl:
Document Management Branch
,
NRC Resident Inspector State of South Carolina
,
f i.
.
I RII RII VB nye:dr HD e
8/}/83 8//g/83
.
t 8309090080 830816
,
PDR ADOCK 05000413
'
G PDR
. -...,,,.-
-.
,,..,,,,., _, -..... -,.,.,,,. _., - - -... -.,, -.. - -,.,..,,,, - - _. _ - - - - - -, -..., -, - - - - - _,., = _,,.
>3 840 UNITED STATES i
9'
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
REGION ll o
c 101 MARIETTA STREET. N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303
\\...../
Report Nos.: 50-413/83-20 and 50-414/83-18 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.:
50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.: CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 Facility Name:
Catawba 1 and 2 Inspection at Catawba site near Rock Hill, South Carolina Inspectors: [ lae, Is!Y3
'
F.~J. Sn'g Da'te Signed kh1.WO $
)oh3 V. L. Bro niee Dat(Si@ned
.
P. K.
anDoorn ~tw J tw 7 !// f
../l
/
Datd Sidned Approved by:
/t u
Y /a-
H.' C. Dance, Thief Date Signed Project Branch No. 2 Division of Project and Resident Programs SUMMARY Inspection on July 7-8, 1983 Areas Inspected Assessment of the licensee's performance with regard to a Self Initiated l
Evaluation (SIE) program sponsored by INPO.
!
Results
.
In the area inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
i
_ _ _.. _...
.__
_ _ _
_ _ _. _ _ _
., _ _.
'
.
REPORT DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. C. Rogers, Project Manager
- H.
L. Atkins, QA Surveillance Supervisor, site
- R. L. Medlin, QA Department, Corporate Headquarters
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview
<
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 8,1983, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters No previous enforcement matters were inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Review of the Utility Self Initiated Evaluation - Construction a.
General A special onsite review was conducted by a team of inspectors which included the cognizant resident inspector and section chief, accompa-nied by the Assistant to the Regional Administrator. The purpose of this special inspection was to assess the effectiveness of the licensee's performance with regard to the Self Initiated Evaluation (SIE) program sponsored by INPO.
The procedures, criteria, guidance, and format were developed by INPO. Training of team members in preparation for the SIE was done by INPO. The SIE differs from the direct INP0 evaluation process in that the evaluation teams are composed of selected licensee personnel and personnel on loan from other licensees and/or contractors.
In the SIE, the evaluation was conducted by a team of individuals from Tennessee Valley Authority and Duke Power Company (DPC). The SIE report was submitted to INPO for their critical review and evaluation.
The SIE is a very resource intensive program, in preparation and scheduling, in collection and evaluation of facts, in determining and implementing corrective actions, and in QA monitoring of corrective actions. Although many corrective actions are one shot types, there
_.
_
.
.
.
,
-are a number of ongoing actions which require continuing followup in order to determine effectiveness.
'The SIE report consists essentially of the objectives, scope of each area of evaluation, the findings, conclusions, corrective actions, and estimated completion dates.
This particular SIE covered work being done by the Design, Construction and Quality Assurance Departments.
b.
Inspection Efforts The procedure used by the Region II team to conduct this SIE review was in accordance with NRC guidance developed specifically for this purpose. Team members and other regional personnel in preparation for this exercise performed a comprehensive review of the report, selecting items for.*urther discussion with the licensee. The team met with the
'
licensee staff for a briefing on the SIE exercise.
This briefing included the licensee's effort involved, qualifications of the evaluators, and the status of corrective measures. At this time, the NRC team briefed the licensee on the purpose of the exercise and
'
followup plans. - During this briefing, the licensee provided the team with a current copy of the Integrated Surveillance Audit Program Implementation.
Following a comprehensive review of this document and comparison with the SIE report, the team met again with the licensee staff for further clarification and confirmation of the status of-selected items.
In particular, the team stressed the necessity for timeliness in completing committed actions and management review of the effectiveness of actions that were implemented. The licensee was further informed of NRC plans for continued review of their progress on
,
completion of actions and the effectiveness of these actions.
The inspectors held detailed discussions with the licensee's representatives regarding fifteen of the specific findings. These
,
discussions dealt with how the specific areas of inspection were l
l performed, what the exact findings were, the evaluation conclusions and l
accepted corrective actions, and how DPC was assured that the problems
'
were corrected and that the root causes of the problems were also identified and corrected.
The inspectors selected several items for subsequent follow-up. The primary basis for selection of these items was the possibility of
!
problems developing later. The following items were identified under l
Inspector Followup Item No. (50-413/83-20-01 and 50-414/83-18-01):
DC.1-1 Design Input - Commitments Identified in the PSAR Are Met.
i i
DC.1-3 Design Input - Information Not Always Provided in a
Controlled Manner.
t l
DC.1-5 Design Input - Seismic Response Spectra.
l l
t
_ _
_ _
-__
_
.
. -_
_ _.. _
-.
-
. _ _.
-
.
. _ _
_ _ -
-.
-
--
- *
.
,
DC.4-2 Design Input - Program for Determining and Assuring Review for Constructability. Maintainability and Operability is i
Conducted.
CC.1-1 Construction Engineering - Adherence to Plant Policies and Procedures.
CC.3-1 Site Receiving Inspection.
CC.3-5 Material Control - Storage of Materials.
CC.3-6 Material Control - Preventive Maintenance.
CC.4-1 Construction Processes - Adherence to Plant Policies and Procedures.
CC.5-1 Construction Quality Assurance - Clarity of Inspection Requirements.
CC.5-3 Construction Quality Assurance - Inspection Requirements for HVAC Contractor.
CC.7-1
. Test Equipment Control - Adherence to QA or Construction Procedures.
QP.4-1 Corrective Action - R-2A Forms, Root Causes.
TC.1-2 Test Program - Definition of the Systems Group Mission and Responsibilities.
TC.2-3 Test Group Organization and Staffing - Experience and
,
j Qualification Requirements.
l TN.1-1 Training Management Support - Determine Training Organizational Needs.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l
.c.
Conclusion-The Self Initiated Evaluation was a broad, vigorous and well managed effort. The primary focus was on known industry and DPC problem areas.
Evaluation findings and associated commitments are computerized for
.
' closeout, and when closed out, the QA Department incorporates the items l'
for verification during subsequent QA audits. The evaluation findings are reviewed for proper handling within the formal amanagement control systems and for NRC reportability.
All indications received by the inspector during this review is that DPC top management is very supportive of this type of effort and that it is a valuable adjunct to the DPC management control systems.
i j
.,,
\\
' '
/
g.
%
~
~m