ML19322A680
| ML19322A680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1972 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Thies A DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A673 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911210731 | |
| Download: ML19322A680 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1972001
Text
.
.
. . . .
.
t
'
,,
.
00'
- %~[*'$$'" ca.'*gATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
UNITED STATES
/;
roccatnxxsthetxxx
.
,
necioNn - suite ew
,
, ,.
O
230 P E AC HT R E C ST R E ET. N Q AT HW EST
f
YgLgo o g: (4 C418 2 4 4 5 G3
ATLANTA.GEoRG A M303
p
DIRECTORATE 0[REGULATORYOPERATIONS
'
In Reply Refer To:
August 24, 1972
RO:II:CEM
.
50-269/72-1
"
50-270/72-1
-
50-287/72-1
.
Duke Power Company
Attn: Mr. A. C. Thies
Senior Vice President
Production and Transmission
Power Building
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
28201
Gentlemen:
.
This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. Murphy, Kelley
and Devlin of this office on June 20 through 23, 1972, concerning the
alteration o' radiographs of welds to increase the apparent sensitivity.
This was re: crted by you on June. 6,1972, by telephone and on June 22,
1972, in writing as a preliminary notice of the matter.
Our investigation consisted of a review of your investigation findings,
interviews with pertinent personnel, examinations of pertinent procedures
and records, and observations by our inspectors. Our findings were
,
discussed with Messrs. W. S. Lee and R. L. Dick of your organization
'
by Messrs. N. C. Moseley, C. E. Murphy and me.
With regard to identi-
fication of the single individual who altered these radiographs, our
investigation revealed no new information suggesting that other individua,1s
'
had altered radiographs.
During our investigation, it was found that ce.rtain of your activities
appeared to be in noncompliance with AEC requirements.
The items and
references to pertinent requirements are on the enclosure to this letter.
We have particular concern about this matter since the alterations
were the direct result of the actions of one o.f your first-level super-
visors and since it involved an individual within your quality control
organization.
In addition, another first-level supervisor and several
operator-level personnel knew of this practice over a period of several
mouths but did not report it to higher managemer? nor did management
detect the alterations through reviews and audits.
.
'911 sio 737
.-
.-
-
-
.
-.
-
.
.
'
. .
= ,.
.
Duke Power Company
-2-
August 24, 1972 ,
Please provide us within 20 days, in writing, with your comments
concerning these deficiencies any steps that have been or will be
-
taken to correct them, any steps that have.been or will be taken
to prevent recurrence, and the date all corrective actions or pre-
ventive measures were or will be completed. Your reply should emphasize,
in particular, any appropriate changes that have been or will be
made to improve the effectiveness of your management control system.
.
4
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, you may communicate
directly with this office,
ry truly yours,
.
Jo
G.
a'vis
Director
i
Enclosure:
Description of Items
of Noncompliance
.
b
%
4
N
%/
e
,. -
__ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.. ..
.
'
.
,
- -
,-
ENCLOSURE
a
DOCKET NOS.
50-269, 270 AND 287
Certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear
.
Power Plants," as listed below:
.
'
Criterion I, " Organization," requires that the individual assigned
1.
the responsibility for inspecting shall have organizational freedom
and is independent of the group performing the activity.
Contrary to the above, one of your first-level quality control
supervisors responding to what he stated was pressure for pro-
duction from his supervisor, altered radiographs to make them
This demonstrates an insufficient independence
more casily readable.
of this quality control supervisor from the demands for production.
Criterion XVIII, " Audits," states that a comprehensive system of
2.
audits shall be carried out to verify compliance with all aspects
-
of the quality assurance program and to determine the effectiveness
,
{
of the program.
i
Contrary to the above, a first-level quality control supervisor
j
altered large numbers of radiographs over a period of approximately
l
j
two years without detection by your audit system.
i
Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedure, and Drawings," states that
!
3.
activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented
procedures and shall be accomplished in accordance with those
4
procedures.
.
Contrary to the above, in your program to identify altered radio-
graphs, you did not follow your procedures for testing personnel
,
who were to be assigned to review radiographs alterations in that
i
two individuals who were accepted by you as being qualified as
reviewers did not successfully complete the tests for qualifications ,
as described in your procedures.
In addition, your qualification
test data sheets for personnel to be utilized as reviewers of
radiographs to detect alterations were not signed and dated by the
authorized persons conducting and grading the tests as required
by your procedures.
-
.
O
e
4
s
/
.
m