ML19322A655
| ML19322A655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1972 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Thies A DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A656 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911210717 | |
| Download: ML19322A655 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1972008
Text
i
.
. -
.
.,
'
,
.
,
e
s
Ltr to Duke Power Comper.y
dtd 10/26/72
DISTRIEUTIO?f:
J. B. Hendersen, RO
J. G. Keppler, R0
RO Office of Operations Evaluatien
R0 Asst. Dir. for Precedures
R0 Asst. Dir, for Inspection & Enforcement
L, DD for Resctor Projects
R0 Files
.
E Central Files
-
" Local PDR
- ?iSIC
- DTIE
- To be dispatched with licensee respcnse.
-
F
.
nd /7
g
you
.
.- .
.
5 h5
UtHTED STATES
'
. M'S
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
.
E1MUMMM
l
- ,
\\
,
- >
rE5 2s i1 --
3. . T K t' ?
y-
'
W P C A C * T H E E 57 a C E 7. NC A T M * EST
'
v
r ue. as ;
,4 :4: u s.4 m
At _ ANT A. OCO AG' A KM3
DIRECT 0PATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
In Reply Refer To:
October 26, 1972
RO:11:CEM
50-269/72-8
50-270/72-7
50-287/72-5
Duke Power Company
-
Attn:
Mr. A. C. Thies, Senior Vice President
Production and Transmission
Power Building
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201
Centlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. Murphy and other members
of this office on August 22-25, 1972, of activities authorized by AEC
Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-33, 34, and 35, and to the discussions of
our findings held by Mr. Murphy and other members of this office with
Mr. Dick and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined d':-ing this inspection included reviews of repairs to Unit
i reactor coolrit system components, the program for resolving alteration
of radiographs, documentation of Class I piping, electrical component
and cable installation for Units 2 and 3, health physics and environmen-
tal monitoring programs for Unit 1, and preoperational testing programs
for Units 1 and 2.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selec-
tive c:caminations of quality control, test, and welding procedures and
representative records, interviews with plant personnel and observations
by the inspectors.
During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities
,
appear to be in noncompliance with AEC requirements. These items and
j
reference to pertinent requirements are listed in Enclosure A of this
letter. Regarding item 5, it is our understanding that steps have been
\\
-.
l
_
C*"
am
W ri
..
.
,
.
Iluke Power Company
-2-
October 26, 1972
'
,
taken to correct the documentation involved. No reply on this item is
For all other items, please provide us within 30 days, in
necessary.
writing, with your comments concerning these items, any steps which have
been or will be taken to correct them, any steps that have been or will
be taken to prevent recurrence, and the dates all corrective or preven-
.
tive measures were or will be completed.
Our inspection of the vaste handling systems, radiation protection, and
environmental protection areas revealed cany items that remain to be
completed. These items were discussed with you. It is our understanding
that these items will be completed sufficiently prior to Unit 1 fuel
loading, to permit our review and evaluation.
,
In regards to the items of noncompliance brought to your attention in our
letter, dated April 21, 1972, this is to advise you that we have no further
questions at this time regarding these items
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to
discuss them with you.
Very truly yours,
7
l
!
e
NA./)f :,4 e
f
\\
"
John C. Davis
,
' Director
Enclosure:
Description of Items
of Noncompliance
i
-
.
t
.
..
,
4
l
<
.4
_ . _ _ _ .
_
_
..
.
'
.
,
s
1
ENCLOSURE A
DOCKET NOS. 50-269
50-270
50-287
Certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliace with
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power
Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants," as listed below:
1.
Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings" requires in
part that " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by
documented instructions, procedures, or drawings .
. and shall
.
be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures
or drawings."
,
Contrary to the above, the inspector determined during dis-
a.
cussions with your field engineers that several procedures
which had not received approval according to your Quality
Assurance Program, Plan A are used by the electrical quality
cont ol group at Oconee. Examples of these are the storage
maintenance procedures for motors and for batteries.
b.
Contrary to the above, the inspector determined through discussions
with your field engineers and observations that Procedure Q-1,
" Control of Nonconforming Items," issued December 20, 1971, has not
been fully implemented by the electrical quality control group at
Oconee.
2.
Criterion VII, " Control of Purchased Material, Equipment, and Serviccs,"
requires in part that measures shall be established to assure that
purchased material, equipment, and services conform to procurement
specifications. Also, the documentary evidence that material and
equipment conform to procurement requirements shall be available
at the site prior to installation or use of such material and
equipment.
Contrary to the above, the inspector determined in discussions with
your field engineers that electrical cable has been installed prior
to receipt at the site of quality assurance documentation or receipt-
the site of certification that such documentation had been received
at
by you from the vendor
3.
Criterion VI, " Document Control," states in part, " Measures shall be
established to control the issuance of . . . procedures, . . . including
changes thereto, which prescribe all activities affecting quality.
These measures shall assure that documents, including changes, are
reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel
and are distributed to and used at the location where the prescribed
activity is performed."
m_.
_ - _ .
.-
.
.
--
-
-
--
-
.,
.
,
..
.
-2-
o
1
g
Contrary to the above, the measures required by this criterion had
not been accomplished. Specifically:
Welding procedures revised and approved in June 1972 had not
a.
been distributed to the craft personnel or the field engineers
responsible for quality control.
b.
Test procedure TP 250/6, "HPSW Hydrotest," was approved by the
operating engineer on June 13, 1972, rather than by the plant
superintendent.
t
Two changes made to TP 202/7, "HPI Operational Test," were major
c.
changes according to the definition as given in the " Guide for
-
Conducting the Oconee Preoperational Test Program." These were
handled as t'nor changes. The first change is labeled as
Change No. 3 and added a section "to assure proper valve alignment
of HPI Pump "C" before operation", and the second is labeled as
Change No. 5 and added a requirement to check the CRD dilution
interlock.
d.
Changes made to TP 255/2, Loss of Instrument Air, were identified-
-
i
in the body of the procedure. Change No. I was not listed anywhere
within the procedure and Change No. 3 could not be found on pages
i
10,13, and 18 as stated on the cover sheet of the procedure.
4.
Criterion XIV, " Inspection, Test, and Operating Status", requires
in part that " Measures shall be established for indicating the
1
~
operating status of structures, systems, and components
. ."
..
Contrary to the above, the inspector determined through discussions
with your field engineers that the identification of cable involved
in the turnover of safety related systems was not always known and
4
was not identified in turnover records.
5.
Criterion XV, " Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components", requires
v
in part that " Measures shall be established to control materials. .
. .
which do not conform to requirements in order to prevent their inadver-
'
tent use or installation."
Contrary to the above, the inspector observed quality control documen-
tation which cleared a defective reel of cable for installation in
safety.related systems. This reel,' Serial No. 04521, did not meet the
cable specifications-for color coding of the conductor insulation.
Your representative agreed to correct the documentation and prohibit the
use of this cable in safety related systems.
w
,
_
_
-.
_
-
i
.
j-
. .
.
l
-3-
,
.
_s
i
!
!
6.
Critorion VIII, " Identification and Control of Materials, Parts and
l
Components," states in part, " Measures shall be established for the
I
identification and control of material . . . . These identification
I
and control measures shall be designed to prevent the use of incorrect
. . . material . . . ."
f
Contrary to the above, 316 stainless steel pipe and fittings were
!
installed in systems.where 304 stainless steel is specified.
-
I
7.
Criterion XVI, " Corrective Action," states in part, " Measures shall
.
!
be estab'ished to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as
j
. . . nouconformances are promptly identified and corrected. In the
-
case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall
,
assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective
.
action taken to preclude repetition . . ."
Contrary to the above, one spool piece of fabricated. pipe for the core
,i
flood system contained eleven defective areas in four welds or eighteen
!
linear inches that did not meet code requirement. The four velds had
!
a total length of approximately 168 inches and the defects, therefore,
involved over 10% of the linear weld. The welding inspectors,
though aware of the defects, had not advised the field engineers
'
who were responsible for quality control. No action had been planned
i
i
to identify and correct the condition causing the deficiency and to
j
preclude its repetition.
I
8.
Criterion XVIII, " Audits", requires ro part that "A comprehensive
,
i
system of . . . audits shall be carried out to verify compliance with
all aspects of the quality assurance program and to determine the
effectiveness of the program."
Contrary to the above, the inspector noted during his review of an audit
of the Oconee electrical quality control program that the audit team
.did not identify the limited scope of their audit, determine the basis
for electrical equipment storage requirements, inspect for instrument
calibrations, inspect documentation of corrective actions or noncon-
,'
forming itens, or complete their check list for the audit. , In addition,
the check list used did not reference governing codes, regulations, or
procedures or otherwise provide acceptance criteria,
9.
Criterion XI, Test control, states, in part, "A test program shall be
,
established'. . . (and) . . . test,results shall be documented . . ."
.
- ;
Contrary to the above, in test procedure, TP 250/6 HPSW Hydro Test,
Section 12.1, item 9 had not been initialed or signed off as required
_'
l
by administrative procedures to indicate that the item had been
completed for those portions of the system coded orange and purple.
'
s-
,
l
l
i
.-
a
L