ML20003D830
| ML20003D830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003D812 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-81-01, 50-269-81-1, 50-270-81-01, 50-270-81-1, 50-287-81-01, 50-287-81-1, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8104010080 | |
| Download: ML20003D830 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1981001
Text
.
}%g?
jo
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
($
/
n
E
REGION 11
2
o,
f
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
ATt.ANTA. GEORGIA 30303
...../
%
' Report Nos. 50-269/81-01, 50-270/81-01, and 50-287/81-01
Licensee: Duke Power Company
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Facility Name: Oconee Nuclear Station
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
.
License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55
Inspection at Oconee site le r Se ca, South Carolina
k~
Inspector:
- I
a.~ -
J. J. Lenahan
g
Date Signed
Approved by:
.[
2[f[g/
T. E. Co'nlon,'Secfion Cg", i{,C/ES Branch
Dat'e Signed
C
SUMMARY
Inspection on January 6-9, 1981
Areas Inspected
This special, announced inspection involved 27 inspector-hours on site in the
areas of
s up on IE Bulletin 80-11, structural concrete QA'QC controls and
quality
's
for the standby shutdown facility, and the Un'ts 1-3 reactor
buildings
1.
. don surveillance program.
Results
Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in two
areas; one viola tion was found in one area (Inadequata procedure for identifi-
cation of masonr." walls
paragraph 7).
l
810.4010 TOT
,
'
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- J. E. Smith, Station Manager
- T. L. Mathews, Licensing Technical Specialist
P. Earnheardt, Technical Specialist
D. Kulla, Design Engineer, Engineering Design
J. M. McConaghy, Assistant Design Engineer, Engineering Design
R. Burton, Senior Laboratory Technician, Jocassee Materials Lab
R. J. Brackett, Station Senior QA Engineer
- B. R. Justice, QA Engineer
- R. T. Bond, Licensing and Projects Engineer
- G. E. Rothenberger, Mechanical Maintenance, Supervisor
A. Barr, Performance Test Section Supervisor
R. B. Priory, Principal Engineer, Engineering Design (Telephone
conversation)
Other Organizations
J. Campbell, Mechanical enjineering Technician, Babcock & Wilcox
NRC Resident Inspector
F. Jape
D. Myers
- W. T. Orders
- Attended v.xit interview
2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 9,1980 with
those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
The violation described in
paragraph 7 was discussed.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Iten.3
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to
determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or
deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are
discussed in paragraph 5.
.
--
-
.
.-
_
.
9
7,
,
2
5.
Independent Inspector Effort
a.
The inspector examined the materials testing laboratory at Jocassee-
^
Dam.
This - laboratory is used for testing of soils and concrete
materials from Oconee and several
other nuclear projects.
The
inspector examined the currentness of calibration of the laboratory
testing equipment, reviewed soil testing and laboratory equipment
calibration procedures, and discussed the procedures with the senior
laboratory technician,
b.
The inspector examined procedure numbers PTIA 0150-14, PT2A 0150-14,
and PT3A 0150-14, " Reactor Building Tendon Surveillance" to determine
,
if the procedures complied with
the
requirements
of Technical
Specification 4 . 4 .- 2 .
These procedures specify the requirements for
inspection and' testing of the containment building post-tensioning
'
systems for Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
"
The inspector reviewed the following tendon inspection records:
(1) Results of Unit 1 tendon surveillance inspection performed fror...
June 28, 1977 through December 28, 1977
i
(2) Results of Unit 2 tendon surveillance inspection performed from
July 8,1977 through June 16, 1978
(3) Results of Unit 3 tendon surveillance inspection performed from
Jul, 26,1977 through May 10, 1979
Review of .the above procedures and reports disclosed the following
unresolved item:
The method of calibrating the stressing rams used to measure the
4
j
liftoff force in the tendon during the surveillance inspections is
questionable.
The force delivered by the rams was determined by
.
'
multiplying the theoretical ram area by the pressure . in the ram's
4
hydraulic fluid.
(The pressure in the ram's hydraulic fluid was
measured using calibrated pressure gauges).
However, there was no
testing performed to verify that the actual force delivered by the
stressing rams is equal to the product of the theoretical ram area and
.
the ram's hydraulic fluid pressure.
This appears to be in conflict
l
with industry standards (ASTM Standard Test Method E-4) and the
requirements of ' 10 CFR 50, Appendix
B,
Criterion XII.
This was
identified
to
the
licensee
as
Unresolved
Item
269/81-01-01,
(
270/81-01-01, and 287/81-01-01, " Calibration of Stressing Rams" pending
,
f urther review by NRC Region II.
i
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
e
!
_ _ _
_
. _ - . . - - .
m
._
_
.
- - ~
_
-
.
_
eM
d.
.
3
6.
Structural Concrete (A/QC Controls and Quality Records for the Standby
Shutdown Facility
a.
Structural Concrete QA/QC Controls
The inspector examined the following procedures and specifications:
(1)
Procedure QCC-1 " Inspection of QA Condition Concrete"
(2) Specification number 05-160-1 " Specification for the Procurement
of Concrete for Nuclear Safety Related Structure"
(3) Specification number OS-160-02 " Specification .for Receiving and
Placing Concrete for Nuclear Safety Related Structures
(4) Concrete Surface Defect Repair Procedure
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear in Section 17 of
the DPC Topical Report, Duke 1-A.
b.
Structural Concrete Quality Records
The inspector reviewed the following quality records:
,
(1) Batch plant scale calibration records for scale calibration
!
performed on 12/10/80
(2) Results of mixer efficiency tests performed on concrete truck
mixer numbers 68 and 79 on 12/4/80.
(3) prepour inspection records, concrete batch tickets, concrete batch
plant inspection records, and concrete test data (air, slump,
unconfined compression tests)for pour numbers M-4,
M-6,
M-13,
M-14, W-1E, .W-2E, W-2F, W-4G2, W-50, and W-6E'
i
(4) Concrete curing records for pour numbers W-1B, W-1C, W-20, W-2D-1,
W-3D, W-3E, W-3F, W-40, W-50, W-60, W-6E and W-6F
(5)
Results of ASTM C-33 testing, (LA Abrasion, soundness, reactivity,
and flat and elongated particles) performed on coarse aggregates
sampled in April,1050
,
(6) Nonconformance report numbers NCI-430, NCI-443, NCI-356,
and
NCI-369.
(7) Concrete mix designs C-1 and A-2
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspectar were those procedures
listed in paragraph 6.a.
..
-
-
.-
-,
, -
--
-
- -
._.
.
_
_
_
_
_
.,
V,
.
4
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
-7.
(0 pen) IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Desig - Units 1, 2, and 3
a.
Summary of Licensee's Response to IE Bulletin 80-11
Duke Power Company sul,mitted its 60 day IE Bulletin 80-11 response to
NRC Region II for Oconee Units 1-3 in a report attached to a letter
dated July /, 1980.
The report contained a listing of the masonry
walls, their re evaluation priority, and a preliminary schedule for
completing the design re-evaluation.
In a letter dated October 28, 1980, Duke requested an extension of the
deadline for completion of the IEB 80-11 design re-evaluation from
November 8,
1980, to the end of December, 1981.
Duke submitted a
partial response to IEB 80-11 to NRC Region II in a report attached to
a letter dated November 8,1980. Inis rrport discusses the function of
the masonry walls, the construction pr6ctices employed in construction
of the walls, and criteria used in the design re-evaluation.
The
report states that the re-evaluation has been completed for 146 of 172
Priority I walls.
.
b.
Review of Procedures for Accomplishment of IE Bulletin 80-11 Require-
i
ments
The inspector examined the following procedures - which address the
!.
requirements
for accomplishment of
field
inspection
activities:
(1) Masonry wall Inspection Procedure for USNRC Bulletin No. 80-11
(2)
IE Bulletin 80-11 Masonry Walls - Inspection Training Program
(3) Training Outline and Inspection Guide for Electrical Personnel for
(4)
IE Bulletin 80-11 Surveillance - Summary of Guidelines
for
Mechanical Team Members
During review of the above procedure, the inspector noted that the
procedures referred to identification and documentation of designated
walls only.
Discussions with licensee engineers disclosed that the
designated walls were initially
idqntified during
a
review
of
"as-built" drawing in the Duke Designt offices 1.n Charlotte. After a
wail was identified during the "as-built" drawing review, a field check
was made to determine if any safety-related equipment was in its
proximity. The field inspection procedures did not require inspection
of building areas to locate masonry walls which were not identified
during the Charlotte "as-bu1st" draw;ng review.
During the field
'
walkdown performed by the inspector (discus >cd in parsgraph 7c of this
report), the inspector located a group of walls in column grid H-J,
._.
-.
.
.
--
.-.
..
.
.
-
-
-
~
,
- ,
.
5
25-26 .on elevation 775 of the turbine butirJing which had not been
identified by licensee engineers during their field inspection.
The lack of a procedural requirement to inspect all areas for the
presence of masonry walls and determine if there was safety related
equipment in the proximity of the walls identified during the field
inspection was
identified
to
the
licensee
as
Violation
Item
269/81-01-02. 270/81-01-02, and 287/81-01-02, " Inadequate Procedure for
Identification of Masonry Walls". This is a violation of criterion V
,
of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B in that the procedure -did not contain
appropriate instructions _to accomplish the field identification of
masonry walls which may have safety related equipment in their
proximity.
c.
Field Walkdown in Safety-Related Areas To Identify Masonry Walls.
The inspector, accompanied by licensee engineers, walked down the
following areas te verify that all masonry walls in the proximity of
safety-related equipment had been identified for design re-analysis in
accordance with IEB 80-11 requirements:
(1) Auxiliary building, ekvations 809-3 and 822, and portions of
elevation 796-6 and 783-9
(2) The block house
(3) Keowee Hydro Station
(4) Turbine building, elevation 775, 796-6, and 822
i
As discussed in paragraph 7b, the inspector located a group of walls in
column gri?
, 25-26 on elevation 773 of the turbine building which had
not been identified by the licensee.
Since these walls had rot aeen pre-
viously identi fied, no determination had been made as to whether or not
there was any-safety related equipment in their proximity.
d.
Review of Quality Records Related to IE Bulletin 80-11
The inspector examined the following quality records relating to IE
Bulletin 80-11:
'
(1) Drawing numbers 0-15, 0-18A, 0-303G, 0-304A, 0-3048, 0-305A,
0-305B, 0-306A, 0-306B, 0-308A, 0-3088, 0-364, 0-384, 0-1013,
0-1015, 0-2304A, 0-23048, 0-2305A, 0-2305B, 0-2306A, 0-23068,
,
0-2308B, K-300A, and K-301A.
'
(2) Masorry wall data packages for the walls listed in the table
below.
These data packages were reviewed during the walkdown
inspection discussed in paragraph 7c to verify the "as-built"
details of the walls were accurate and that safety related equip-
ment in their proximity was identified.
.-
_
. .
-
.
-
-
. .
.-
_ . .
-.
_
_
_
. _ , -
.
.
..
'
-
.
6
TABLE
Location
Wall numbers
Auxiliary Building Elevation 809.3
601, 603, 615, 637, 727F,
1001, 1002, 1006, 1033, 1034
and 1222
Auxiliary Building Elevation 822
1231,1245, and 1400
Block House
1-F, 2-F, and 3-F
Keowee Hydro Station
0012, 0013, 0014, 0061, and
0062
No deviations were identified.
!
'
i
,