ML20076D080
| ML20076D080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1983 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076D065 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308230263 | |
| Download: ML20076D080 (3) | |
Text
.
7
, s '.A, a
9 DuxE POWER GOMPm P.O. BOX 33189 CHARLOTrE N.C. 28242 TE LEPHONE HAL B. TUCKER vsos reams.orr
,(704) 373-4531 July 29, 1983
,p
.nm co p,
-]
'd Mr. James P.' 0'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101-Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 o
o Re:
RII:JWY 50-413/83-04 50-414/83-04
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Please find attached a final response to Violation No. 413-414/83-04-01 as identified in the above referenced inspection report.
Duke Power Company does not consider any information contained in this inspection report to be proprietary.
Very truly yours, f 8>. V
//h Hal B. Tucker RWO/php Attachment cc: NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station Mr. Robert Guild Esq.
Attorney-at-Law P. O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Palmetto Alliance 2135 Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 8308230263 830815
{ERADOCK 05000413 PDR
- ^.)
i t
DUKE POWER COMPANY CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION i
Violation:
As a result'of the inspection conducted on March 15-18, 1983, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47 FR 9987-(March 9, 1982), the following violation was identified..
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V as implemented by Duke Power Company. (DPC) Topical Report " Duke 1-A", Section 17, Paragraph 17.1.5, requires in part that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with instructions, procedures, or drawings. Drawing Nos. CN-1491-NV104-R and 1-R-NV-1385 give the location and location tolerances for Hanger No. 1-R-NV-1385.
Contrary to the above, activities affecting quality were not being
' accomplished with documented drawings in that QA accepted Hanger No. 1-R-NV-1385 was found at a location outside the one required by the appropriate drawings.
Modification to our interim response of May 11, 1983, beginning with Item three (3) is as follows:
(3) The discrepancy with hanger No.1-R-NV-1385 was recorded on Nonconforming Item Report No. 16516 and forwarded to Design Engineering for evaluation. The i
present. location was found ac'eptable.
c The QA inspectors were re-instructed in the recognition and application of special
[
location tolerances.
4 A sample of 80 hangers with special location tolerances were selected and evaluated for_ proper location. An additional three hangers.(Hanger Nos. 1-R-NS-1055, 1-R-NS-1219, and 1-R-NI-1264) were found to have locations outside of the erection tolerances given in the appropriate drawings. These discrepancies were reported on Nonconforming Item Report No. 16638 and forwarded to Design for evaluation. The j
present locations were found acceptable.
j Due to the sample size and results received from the evaluation, it was concluded that further evaluation.was necessary.
Since the drawings for Unit 1 are essentially complete, a list was developed of Unit 1 hangers with special location tolerances (approximately 3500) and an additional sample of 200 hangers was selected. Upon l
evaluation for proper location, an additional six hangers (Hanger No.1-R-NV-2097,
! R-NV-2098, 1-R-NV-2077, 1-R-NV-2075, 1-R-NV-2099, and 1-R-NS-1242) were found to have locations outside of the tolerance allowed on the drawings. These discre-pancies were reported on Nonconforming Item Report Number 16774 and forwarded to l
Design for evaluation. The present locations were found to be acceptable.
i An evaluation of all Unit 2 isometric drawings issued for Construction for hangers with special location tolerances on the hanger detail drawing was made and all 3-isometric drawings contained a reference to the special location tolerances. This practice will continue, therefore eliminating any confusion for Unit 2 supports.
The craft have been re-instructed in recognition and opplication of special location tolerances.
4 i
f
---m%~,,.-mr--w,,--.....e.~,,.,m...
,.,.,,-.,,w.,n_m,-
..%.m.,m.m--,.,,,,-m,e,-.,,.,,.,wey,,,..,,,-m
,,,m _,_w
+.v.-,,,.,,w e m m %,_._,
n
~
re 4
ta 7
r
- It-is concluded 'that' this t;ituation.has not resulted'in any significant problem with hangers being constructed in a manner that would prevent them from performing their required functions. This is substantiated by finding only nine errors in a sample of 280 supports, and none of the errors affecthd the ability of supports to perform their functions.
(4) No further corrective steps are required.
s s a D '
r
_.y-.
_--.,ry-fr-,
,,,-.y
,-,4 y.
yr,gg,,y,p_-,
,,._v q-y
l' a
It is concluded that this situation has not resulted in any significant problem with hangers being constructed in a manner thet would prevent them from performing their required functions. This is substantiated by finding only nine errors in a sample of 280 supports, and none of the errors affecthd the ability of supports to perform their functions.
(4) No further corrective steps are required.
.-