ML19322A701
| ML19322A701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1972 |
| From: | Moseley N, Murphy C, Swan W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A700 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-71-09, 50-269-71-9, NUDOCS 7911210746 | |
| Download: ML19322A701 (15) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1971009
Text
_ _ _ _- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
%
UNITED STATES
[ h
'5
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
g
I el
e
e
l
DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE
REGION 11 - SulT E 818
g
2M PE ACHT REE STREET, NORTHWEST
Ts6spesons: 4404)924-4903
v
AT LANT A. GEORGI A 30303
TESTING AND STARTUP INSPECTION REPORT
C0 Report No.: 50-269/71-9
Duke Power Con:pany
Oconee 1
Docket No. 50-269
License No. CPPR-33
Category A3/B1
Seneca, South Carolina
Type of Licensee : PWR-2452 MW(t), B&W
Type of Inspection: Routine, Announced
Dates of Inspection: October 12-15, 1971
Noveder 3,1971
Dates of Previous Inspection: Septes er 7-10, 1971
Principal Inspector:
J/7 JP
C. f. Muhphf, R%ctor Inspector (Testing
hie
and Startup)
,
h//0/7L
N. C. Moseley, Senior factor Inspector
Date'
(Testing and Sta.
p)
Accompanying Inspectors :
d
L
02/7F
W. Bi Swan, Reactor Inspector
Date
(Construction)
1 7 /.d'.d
ahh.2
R. L. Cubitt , Reactor Inspector
Dste'
~
(Operations)
$
.]h IV
W
, i
H. L. Whitener, heactor Inspector
- a t'e
D
(Operations)
-Y911210ft/f
.
i
_.
. _ , . _ _ . .
_
. - . . . . . . .
.
$
.
km
1-l1l9 V
W. W. Peery, RaR ation Specialist
Date
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
/0/7L
Reviewed By:
,
N. C. Moseley, Senior Reac[r Inspector
Date'
(Testing and Startup)
,
Proprietary Information: None
j
i
i
,
f
4
m
4
S
-
-
r ., --
n
-
.-
r
.
. - -
. .-
-
-
-
'
.
.
.
s.
C0 Report No. 50-269/71-9
-3-
SECTION I
Enforcement Action
A.
Noncompliance Items
1.
Criterion II of Appendix B to.10 CFR 50.- Failure to review
the adequacy and status of the quality assurance program.
(See Section II, Paragraph 7.)
-
2.
Criterion.XVI of Appendix.B.co.10.CFR 50 - Failure to take
corrective action to prevent continued overloading of cable trays.
(See Section II, Paragraph 6.)
.
3.
Criterion XVI.of Appendix.B.to 10 CFR 50 - Failure to correct
weld procedure deficiencies.
(See Section II, Paragraph 7.)
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
,
The licensee requested and received a two-week extension in which
to reply to the items of noncompliance. discussed in C0 Report No. 71-7,
datt d October 21, 1971. The response was due on November 15, 1971.
Unresolved Items
Failure to document corrective actions.
(See Section II, Paragraph 4.)
.
i
.
--
. - . - -
.
- .
--
,
.
'
.
- '
.
'
CO Report No. 50-269/71-9
_4_
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
i
A.
The licensee plans to verify the wall thickness of all accessible
Crane-Chapman valves. Crane-Chapman will be centacted by the licensee
'
in an attempt to determine a resolution to the potential problem with
Limitorque valve operators.
(See Management Interview.)
B.
Correction of the turbine building welding is underway.
.
1
C.
The licensee has sent a report to the Division of Reactor Licensing
discussing the control rod drive problem and their proposed corrective
action.
'
a
D.
The licensee is instituting a training program to upgrade the
'
site construction staff's familiari6y with the applicable codes
and regulations.
Unusual Occurrences - None
Persons Contacted
l-
4
Duke Power Company
l
W. S. Lee - Senior Vice President, Engineering and Construction
'
A. C. Thies - Senior Vice President, Production and Transmission
J. E. Smith -Superintendent, Oconee Station
J. C. Rogers - Project Engineer, Oconee and McGuire
D. G. Beam - Assis tant Project Engineer, Oconee
D. L. Freeze - Principal Field Engineer
J. W. Hampton - Assistant Superintendent, Oconee Station
M. D. McIntosh - Reactor Engineer
R. M. Koehler - Technical Support Engineer
L. E. Summerlin - Staf f Engineer
Management Interview
A. - Site
The following subjects were discussed with Smith, Brown, .Koehler,
Summerlin, Thames , Bradham, Wyke, - Beam, and Freeze at the Management
Interview on October 14, 1971.
,
,
t
4
r
-
.J ,
c-
. . - - . - -
-
- - - -
.
-
.
.
l
I
'
C0 Report No. 50-269/71-9
-5-
1.
The inspector advised Beam that the procew. ?-
for the use of
Variation Notices, Form QR-1, did not provide a method to assure that
Beam and W' ke agreed to
affected design drawings would be corrected.
y
initiate action to correct this deficiency.
2.
The inspectors advised Smith and Beam that in the audit of the
QC records, the inspectors had found references to problems
without corresponding references to the resolution of the problems.
The inspectors will provide Duke with a. list of these records and
examples of the problems and Duke.will be expected to document the
resolution of all problems contained in these records. Smith and
Beam agreed that this would be done.
(See Section II, Paragraph 4.)
3.
The inspector stated that.it was his understanding that Operations
was in .iating a work order system by.which the shift supervisor will
identify the problems appearing in the logs and issue a work order for
each -p roblem.
A. leg entry will be made in the. log referencing the work
order number.. .The work orders will. be kept in a suspense file until
cleared. They will. then. go .in. the. permanent.QA. file. This system will
.be.initiaten.rithin approximately . thirty days . . . Smith concurred in the
inspector's understanding.
(See Section II, Paragraph 5.)
4.
The inspectors advised Beam that. contrary.co the letter Compliance
had. received. from. Duke stating.that 12o cables .would.be pulled into
. overfilled . trays , . a review.of the . cable. pulling sheets . revealed that
. additional. cable.had.been pulled.in these . trays. .The. failure to take
corrective. action appeared to be. contrary to the. requirements of
Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
(See Section II, Paragraph 6.)
5.
The inspector advised Beam.and . Freeze , that . contrary to the requirements
of Criterion II of. Appendix B to.10 CFR 50, his discussions with the
field. engineers. indicated that management had not conducted supervisory
7 -
. reviews o f . their . QA/QC . functions .
(On October 19, 1971, the inspector
received a telecon from Freeze in which he stated that a program of
reviews had been instituted.)
6.
Wyke advised the inspector.that the licensee.would measure the wall
thickness of _ those Crane-Chapman . valves . that were accessible.
In
addition, he would . meet .with Crane-Chapman on.che Limitorque problem.
In response to Wyke's questions, . the inspector advised Wyke that his
present. instructions were that he should seek to get a commitment for
the measurement of the wall thicknesses of all the valves in question.
_
-
..
.
, -
CO Report No. 50-26"/71-9
-6-
7.
The inspector advised Rogers and Beam that the failure to correct
the welding procedures appeared to be contrary.to the requirements of
Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50. The inspector was advised
by Freeze that the procedures would be corrected within four weeks.
(See Section II, Paragraph 7.)
B.
Corporate Office
A second management interview was held at the Duke Power Company
corporate offices on November 3,1971, with Lee and Thies. The purpose
of this meeting was to discuss the failure of Duke to observe the quality
assurance criteria of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50. Moseley reviewed the
role of Compliance in auditing the licensee's operations to ensure
that the licensee observed the requirements of the . applicable codes,
license conditions, and regulations. Murphy .then discussed in detail
the . deficiencies .found by Compliance . inspectors.in the licensee's
implementation of Appendix B.
. Murphy pointed out the repetitive
nature of the deficiencies and stated that this was indicative of the
failure.of management to properly audit the work _being done and also
was . indicative of poor . communication up .through the management structure.
Lee indicated that steps .would be taken_ to. strengthen the licensee's
quality assurance. program and stated.that management changes were
planned for December 1971 that should help eliminate.the types of
deficiences described by Murphy. Thies . stated that he would review the
. implementation of the test. program.and determine.what c'ould.be done to
strengthen . the QA. program.#.a.this . area. . .thi said.that.without further
. . study, he would not be able to discuss specific steps that would be
taken.
I
e
.
_
_
_.
-
__
_
.
.
_.._
l
.
C0 Report No. 50-269/71-9
-7-
SECTION II
Prepared By:
C. E. Murphy
Reactor Inspector
ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS. INSPECTED,.NOT. IDENTIFIED IN SECTION I, WHERE NO
DEFICIENCIES OR UNRESOLVED ITEMS WERE FOUND.
None
DETAILS OF FUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN SECTION I
1.
Records Review
The insp'ectors reviewed the .following .0conee. records that contained
references to construction-related problems. The-purpose of the review
was .to determine if.the. record. identifying a problem also indicated
.the.resolutic of the problem. . Numerous . problems (See Exhibit A)
,
'
were identif
whose resolutions were not discussed in the records.
... ... .
Construction Records
Discrepancy Worksheets (Electrical)
October 30, 1970, to
October 4,1971
Discrepancy Worksheets (Instrumentation)
February 1970 to
June 1971
QC Random Inspection Worksheets
Number I-001 to I-237
Variation Notices (Instrumentation)
All
Electrical Cable Pull Sheets
Spot Check of Files
.
Daily Cogression Tesc Record-Form QC-6
May 1, 1970, to
October 9, 1971
Cadweld Splice Record - Form QC-10
All
Daily Record of Welding Defects - Form QC-22.
All
Daily Welcing Inspection - Form QC-17
October 1970 to
October 1971
l
l
i
<
. _ .
..._
_
_ . _ . _
.
.
.
. 3
' ~
00 Report No. 50-269/71-9
-8-
Hartford Insurance Reports
. . July 21,1971, to
September 24, 1971
Concrete Plant Logbook
Complete
Mechanical Inspector's Hanger Sketches
Spot Check
Civil Punch List
September 22, 1971, to
Present
Mechanical Punch List
Current List
Bechtel and Grinnell Hanger Surveillance
All
,
Sheets
"
Graph of Concrete Strength Breaks
All
Isometrics of Piping Systems
Spot Check
Cadweld Splice Summary - Form QC-13
All
Ultrasonic Inspection of Welds - Form QC-20
All
Compression Test Records - Form QC-3
November 28, 1969, to
October 12, 1971
Radiographic Inspection Report - Form QC-30
Spot Check
l
Operations Logs
Shif t Supervisor's Logs
June 22,1970, to
October 13, 1971
Duty Supervisor's Log
May 4, 1971, to
October 11, 1971-
Maintenance Log
January 5,1970,to
October 11, 1971
Electrical Log
June 12,1970, to
October 11, 1971
.
.
d
. . . . . -
-
-
.
CO Report No. 50-269/71-9
-9-
Babcock and Wilcox Field Service Log
. April 22, 1971, to
Augus t 28, 1971
Test Working Group Minutes
December 16, 1970, to
October 1971
Penetration Test Log
April 12, 1971, to
October 12, 1971
Instrument Work Group Kinutes
February 19, 1971, to
Oc tober 12, 1971
Control Room Logs
2.
Operations Work Orders
Upon completion of the review of the operating group's logs, the inspectors
discussed their. findings with Smith. . Smith agreed that .the logs did not
contain adequate documentation of .the . resolution of . problems. He stated
.that he was . planning .to . establish a work . order . system for use by his
people. A .special form with . serial . numbers .had been. ordered. Any
problem. identified by -a. member of.the operating.. group would be entered
on a work order. One copy would be given. co .the appropriate group for
correction of the problem. The original would be retained in a suspense
file until the problem was corrected. Upon completion, the forms would
be placed in the QA file. Smith stated that _the . system would be in
operation within thirty days. The inspector plans to follow up on this
item.
3.
Cable Tray Fill
During a DRL meeting at the site on September 16, 1971, the inspector
,
had observed that - cable trays that had been previously identified
as being overfilled 1/ appeared. to contain more cable than had been
previously observed. This was pointed. out to.P. .H.
Barton, Manager of
Nuclear and Technical Services for the licensee.and co A. Schwenaerof DRL.
The inspector commented that.the overfilled tray would appear not to
meet the requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50. Schwencer concurred
and included this item in his . discussions with Barton. During this
inspection, the inspector requested a list of cables that had been
1,/ - C0 Report No. 50-269/71-5
.
'
.
00 Report No. 50-269/71-9
-10-
pulled in . trays which had.been.previously identified.as overfilled.
This list. contained approximately sixty. cables.that had been pulled
af ter Duke management had statedi .that no more cables would be installed
in these trays. After further discussions.with Aycock,.the inspector
was shown a copy of a. letter written by Beam.co C. .E.
Watkins, Vice
President, Construction, objecting.to .the. installation of cable in
.these trays. . .The inspector. discussed this . item.in. the management
interview and. stated.that.he would review .this - problem with Compliance
management. He . advised. Beam that.the. failure to take corrective action
appeared to be contrary to the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
4.
Inadequacies in QA Supervision
The . inspector asked Blaisdell.if work.had.been. completed on correcting
the deficiencies in the welding pro 9edures that_had.been previously
observed by. compliance. inspectors.2( Blaisdell. advised the. inspector
.that , '.because .of .other work, .very little. progress .had been made on
correcting the procedures. .The inspector. asked Blaisdell if he had
discussed the status of the. procedures with his supervision and he
. stated that.be. had not. The inspector then. questioned Blaisdell to
determine the . extent of the supervision .which he received.
In this
discussion, Jun indicated that his supervisor had.never discussed with
him his duties and. responsibilities, the duties .of.his unit, the
. procedures, . codes and regulations to be. observed in his work, the
status of his . work, or the . status of the . deficiencies. The inspector
.then questioned each of the. remaining field engineers concerning the
supervision which they had received. Each of the engineers answers
agreed totally with the answers given by Blaisdell. The inspector
. advised Beam that this appeared to be contrary to the requirements of
. Appendix B to.10 CFR 50 and would be discussed in the letter to the
licensee. This lack.of supervision was discussed in the management
interview.
(The inspector. received.a telecon.from Freeze on
'
October 19. 1971, in which Freeze stated.that a. system.of management
properly performing their functions.)2phat the QC. supervisors were
review was being instituted. to assure
The inspector also advised
1/ Letter from A. C. Thies, Senior.Vice President, Duke Power Company
to J. .G. Davis , CO:II, dated May 13, 1971.
2/ 00 Report 50-269/69-8; Letters from A. C. Thies, Senior Vice President
Duke Power Company, to J. ~ G. Davis, dated March 13, 1970 and June 18,
1971.
3/ Telecon from Duke (Freeze) to C0:II (Murphy) dated October 21, 1971.
I
,
1
_ _ _
. _ . _ . _ . _ _
-
- _ .. ._ _ _ . _
_ ..
_ __
.
_ ._
. . . _
.
..
.__.
'
es we # v
a
.
.
!
'
.
.
'
'~
CO Report No. 50-269/71-9
-11-
,
_
l
Beam .that the continued failure.to. take. action to correct- identified
.
welding procedure deficiencies. appeared to be contrary to the
i
requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
I
1
i
i
i
h
,
4
'
I
i
t
f
a
&
'
f
,
!
!
!
.
4
1
-
!
!
i
I
a
!
<
[
!
.
4
1
4
t
e
i
f
l.
'
4
s
, - _ , -
5,- r .
.c
,.%.6-
,<-e
. _ _.
_,'my.
,
4 <-.
.
-,
, . . - . . . .
_ . - - ,
.,,,.....-.,e_
e v
-+,
..r
e
_ _ .
.
. - - _ .
-
. . .
.
-
,
)
CO Report No.
50-269/71-9
-12-
s
SECTION III
Prepared by:. W. . W. Peery
Radiation Specialist
Reviews were made. in a _ number.of _ specific . areas.of the . health physics
program. . Because of the incomplete status of. the. majority of these
items, no significant. inspection. itenc.were completed. The entire
subject. area will.be. reinspected.at.a.later time and these items
j
will be covered in a subsequent inspection.
4
. Attachments :
Exhibit A
.
1
'
.
e
_
_ _ . _ _ _ .
'
__
. . _ _ _
~
.
.
EXHIBIT A
' '
RESULTS OF RECORDS REVIEW
1.
Records that indicated the status or resolution of identified
problers .
Record Title
Dates or Serial Nos.
Inspector
Daily Compression Test Record
5/1/70 - 10/9/71
Swan
(Form QC-6)
Compression Test Record (Form QC-3) 11/28/69 - 10/12/7 L
Swan
Civil Punch List
All
Swan
Mechanical Punch List
All
Swan
Bechtel Hanger Surveillance Sheets All
Swan
Grinnell Hanger Surveillance
All
Swan
Sheets
Cadwald Splice Record
All
Swan
(Form QC-10)
Inspector's Isometrics Book (Welding) All
Swan
Daily Welding Inspection Record
10/70 - 10/71
Swan
(Form QC-17)
Radiographic Inspection Report
Spot Check
Swan
(Form QC-30)
Discrepancy Worksheets
10/70 - 10/71
Murphy
(Electrical)
Discrepancy Worksheets
2/70 - 6/71
Murphy
(Instrumentation)
Random Inspection Worksheets
I-001 to I-237
Murphy
(Form QC-53)
Cable Pull Sheets
Spot Check
Murphy
'
/
._ ._
- _ - _ .
M
s
'M
..
.
.
EXHIBIT A CONTINUED
Record Title
Dates or Serial Nos.
Inspector
Instrumentation States Logs
Sp'ot Check
Murphy
Control Room Logbook
Spot Check
Whitener
Maintenance Log
1/5/70 - 10/11/71
Cubitt
Electrician's Log
6/12/70 - 10/11/71
Cubitt
2.
Records that listed problems whose resolutions were not documented
with the entry.
,
Daily Record of Welding Defects All
Swan
a.
!
(Form QC-22)
Arc strike on transfer tube
9/17/71
Laminations in liner plate.
b.
Report of Hartford Steam
7/2/71 - 9/24/71
Swan
Boiler and Insurance . Company
Inspections.1/
The reports did not list the
resolution of any of the
identified problems.
c.
Test Working Group. Minutes
12/16/70 - 10/71
Whitener
Resolution of identified
probless not documented.
d.
Penetration Test Log
4/12/71 - 10/12/71
Whitener
Hydrostatic Test on
penetration no. 3 was
not successful.
(6/21/71)
e.
Instrument Working Group
2/19/71 - 10/12/71
Whitener
Meeting
Resolution of identified
problems not documented.
1/ These inspections are ensite audits made by Hartford people under
contract with Duke.
k
_
,
_
_
_.
__,
4
'
, s
>
,
e
's
EXHIBIT A CONTINUED
,
f.
Duty Supervisor's Log
5/4/71 - 10/11/71
Cubitt
Decay heat cooler deficiencies 10/11/71
(5/16/71)
,
g.
Shift Supervisor's Log
6/22/70 - 10/13/71
Cchitt
Resolution of identified
j
problems not documented
h.
B&W Field Service Log
4/22/71 - Present
Cubitt
Resolution of identified
problems not documented.
)
+
l
)
/
2
t,
s
'.-
'
.
1
i
i
!
.
Q '"
,
f
-
- . - - . .
I
,
w.
_
. -
,