ML16161A874
| ML16161A874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1987 |
| From: | Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16161A873 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-87-31, 50-270-87-31, 50-287-87-31, NUDOCS 8709240312 | |
| Download: ML16161A874 (2) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Duke Power Company Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 Oconee License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on July 27-31 and August 3-7,
- 1987, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The violations involved discrepancies when comparing as-built drawings with as-built conditions and inadequate pipe support calculation. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986),
the violation are listed below:
A.
10 CFR Appendix B, Criterion X, requires that examination, measurements, or test of material or products processed shall be performed for each work operation where necessary to assure quality.
Oconee Nuclear Station Specification No. OS-0020.00-00-0002, USNRC I&E Bulletin 79-14 and 79-02 Pipe Configuration and Pipe Support Surveillance Procedure required dimensions, gap sizes, member sizes, weld detail, anchor bolt edge distances, damage and general physical configuration to be verified for conformance to the S/R Design Drawing.
Contrary to the above, five supports of 39 QC accepted pipe supports were found with deviations from the documented requirements.
- 1. Support No. 1-03A-1-0-400A-H38 was found with a lug at the bottom of the pipe which was not shown on drawing.
- 2.
Support No.
1-03A-400A-ADM-0200 was found with 1-1/2" and 1-3/4" anchor bolt edge distances existing in field instead of 2 7/8" and 3 1/8" shown on Section A-A of drawing.
This exceeded the 1" tolerances specified by the surveillance procedure.
A 1/16" gap between the bottom of the pipe attachment and the supporting steel was found in the field but not shown in the drawing.
- 3. Support No. 1-03A-401B-MB-0701 was found with the sway strut bent.
- 4. Support No.
1-14B-4001-LRM-0601 was found with extra welds in the field at the connections between top flange of Item No.
13, TS 3" X 2" X 1/4" and Item No.
12, TS 2" X 2" X 1/4".
- 5. Support No.
3-07A-0-2400A-R1 had a 1/4" gap, not shown in drawing, between the top flange of Item No. 5, W6 X 20, and the vertical member. The bottom flange at the same end was rounded off in field.
8-7 0 92 n
oO bR
Duke Power Company 2
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 Oconee License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
B. 10 CFR, Appendix B, Criterion V as implemented by Duke Power Company, Design Engineering Department QA Manual requires that activities affecting quality shall be accomplished in accordance with instructions, procedures or drawings appropriate to the circumstances.
Oconee Design Specification No. OS-0027.00-00-0001, Design Specification for Class A, B, C, D, and F Pipe Supports and Restraints requires the design drawings to be used for the design calculations.
Contrary to the above, Design Calculations for Support No. 3-07Al-0 2400A-R1 used the member properties of a 6-inch beam (W6 X 20) in the computer model and analysis (STRUDL) for Item No. 7, while the actual size of the member was a 4-inch beam, (W4 X 13) as shown on the design drawing and verified in field.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company is hereby required to submit to this Office within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply including (for each violation): (1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the response time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[5I Alan R. Herdt, Chief Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety Dated 4 Atlanta, Georgia thisa 7n!ay of September 1987