ML19322A704
| ML19322A704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1971 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Thies A DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322A705 | List: |
| References | |
| 720121, NUDOCS 7911210750 | |
| Download: ML19322A704 (4) | |
Text
t o.. '
hf 4) t UNITED STATES
~ If'dY ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
. (he j*
DIVISloN oF CoMPLB ANCC
/
\\
REGION II - Su t T E 818
'4
/g 230 PE AC HT RE E ST RE ET. NORT HW EST
- 4tes O AT L. A NT A. GEORGI A 30303 In Reply Refer To:
January 21, 1972 CO:II:CEM 50-269/71-8
~
[
T.s Duke Power Company P-Attn:
Mr. A. C. Thies, Senior Vice President Production and Transmission Power Building h22 South Church Street Charlotte, Torth Carolina 28201 s
- n. 3 s*
Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. Murphy of this office and other Division of Compliance staff members on Septe=ber T-10,1971, of activities authorized by AEC Construction Permit No. CPPR-33 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Murphy with Mr. Smith and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection included a review of the documenta-tion of the results of preoperaticaal tests, adequacy of plant security, management audits of construction activities, qualification and training of quality control personnel, installation of safety feature instru=enta-tion, and equip =ent quality centrol records. Within these areas, the inspecticn consisted of interviews with plant personnel, selective examina-tions of procedures and representative records, and observations by the inspectors.
During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities appeared to be in ncncompliance with AEC requirements. These items and reference to pertinent requirements are listed in the enclosure to this letter. Please provide us within 30 days, in writing, with your co=ments concerning these items, any steps which have been or will be taken to correct them, any steps that have been or vill be taken to prevent recur-9 rence, and the date all corrective action or preventive measures were or vill be completed.
It is our understanding that ycur plant security require =ents vill be strengthened to preclude the entry of unauthorized personnel to the plant area.
I i
tensto 750 @
e
~r
(,
2-January 21, 1972 Duke Power Company During this inspection, the inspector requested to review the data relating to the calibration tests that had been conducted on the reactor i
coolant system flow sensing element and your evaluation of these tests.
It is our understanding that you have not completed your review of these tests, but that data and your evaluation will be made available to the inspector during a subsequent inspection.
Concerning the qualifications and training of the site quality assurance personnel, it is our understandin6 that steps will be taken to assure that the personnel become familiar with applicaole codes and regulations and that steps will also be taken to strengthen the quality assurance program.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, you may ec=municate directly with this office, ery truly yours, l
s*L-s,,
Jo n G. Davis Director l
Enclosure:
J Description of Items of Noncompliance 4
I I
i
o O.
ENCLOSURE DOCKET H0. 50-269 Certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with license requirements as listed below:
1.
Criterien XVIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, " Audits," requires, in part, that a ecmprehensive system of planned and periodic audits be carried out to verify compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program and to determine the effectiveness of the program.
These audits shall be performed in accordance with written procedures by appropriately trained personnel.
Contrary to the above, in discussions with Messrs. Rogers and Bean, our inspector was advised that such audits had not been made of the construction aspects of the quality assurance program.
2.
Criterion XI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, " Test Control," requires, in part, that test results be documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.
The deficiency documentation required by Duke Power Company's testing program was not prepared to show that the specified inspection of the valve seats was not accomplished during the performance of the
" Reactor Internals Vent Valve Inspection Test" (TP 1 A 200 1 1)..Also, the omission of the inspection was not evaluated.
3 Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, " Document Control," requires, in part, that measures shall be established to control the issuance of documents, such as instructions and procedures, including changes i
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 ac-tivity is performed.
Contrary to the above, our inspector's examination of preoperational test records shows that tests were perfor=ed prior to approval of the test procedures; that test data were not recorded as prescribed by procedures; that changes to approved procedures were not performed in accordance with Duke Power Company's approved " Guide for Conducting the Oconee Initial Test Program"; and, that discrepancies were not identified. Specific examples of the above deficiencies are as follows:
Log entries and data sheets indicate a significant portion of the a.
" Reference Vessel System Leak Test" (TP 1 B 150 9 3) an'd'part of O
4k 2-
" Reactor Building Pressure Wide Range Instrument Lalibration" (TP 1 B 1501 E) were performed prior to approval of the respec-tive test procedure.
b.
" Reactor Building Isolation Pneumatic Leak Test" (TP 1 A 150 6 2),
Sections 10,12.h, and calculation sheet specify that the tempera-ture at the barometer be recorded and the corrected barometer reading be used on the calculation sheet. The data sheets examined by our inspector did not contain readings of the temperature at the barometer and the inspector was advised by the test coordinator that the uncorrected barometer reading was used in making leak rate calculations.
" Reference Vessel System Leak Test" (TP 1 B 150 9 3), Section 10.3, c.
requir,s that temperature and pressure data be recorded hourly.
There was no documentation to indicate that this data had been recorded.
d.
Procedure changes indicated on the cover sheet of " Personnel and Emergency Lock Leak Rate Test" (TP 1 B 150 81) were not initialed to show approval and authorisation of the changes. Two of the indicated changes were not made in the body of the procedure. In addition, the last four changes listed on the cover sheet of
" Electrical Penetration 0-Ring Seal Leak Test" (TP 1 A 150 51) were made after July 30, 1971, and predated to July 2h,1971, on the cover sheet.
Some of the prerequisites for the " Reactor Internals Vent Valve e.
Inspection Test" (TP 1 A 200 1 1) were revised'during testing.
Some test steps were conducted prior to the revisions. These test steps were not redone; therefore, the-test as conducted was not in accordance with the approved procedure.
D a