ML20080M959
| ML20080M959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1983 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080M939 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310040319 | |
| Download: ML20080M959 (4) | |
Text
.
DUKE POWER Gox_y')q'sy. '" ' - _. - ' ' - -
c.. c,
,m L.
. -.:.-. G /
e.o. nox am89 CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28242 Tz' reno *=
9 04) ara-4 m i nAr. n.wcxEn September 8,1983,9 SEP 13 A 9 : 04 os
/ Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: RII:RW 50-413/83-17 50-414/83-16
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Please find attached a response to Violation Nos. 413/83-17-01, 414/83-16-01 and 414/83-16-02 as identified in the above referenced Inspection Report. Duke Power Company does not consider any information contained in this Inspection Report to be proprietary.
I declare under penalty of perjury, that the statements set forth herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Very truly yours,
/k'W W
al B. Tucker RWO:jfw Attachment Palmetto Alliance cc: NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station 2135 Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Mr. Robert Guild Attorney-at-Law 314 Pall Mall Columbia, South Carolina 29201 8310040319 830922
[
PDR ADOCK 05000413 b G
PDR (
Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station Violation:
10 CFR 50, Apper. dix B Criterion V, as implemented by QA Topical Report (Duke-1A) Section 17.1.5.2 requires that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with prescribed instructions,. procedures, or drawings. Construction drawing No. CN-1231-18, R2, specifies that all concrete for the diesel generator building exhaust modification structure l
shall be type C1 or C2 (5,000 psi-28 day compressive strength mix).
Contrary to the above, examination of the batch plant trip tickets and the completed prepour site inspection Form M-2A for concrete placement No. 5043 dated July 11, 1983, revealed that an improper concrete mix type B1 (4,000 psi-28 day compressive strength mix) was requested, delivered, and placed in certain walls of the diesel generator building No. 2 exhaust modification structure.
Response
1.
Duke Power Company admits this violation. This violation is documented on NCI 16,860.
2.
The individual who signed the concrete prepour form for the Construction Engineer-Civil was not particularly familiar with the work, was in a hurry, and failed to read all of the notes that pertained to the pour.
In addition, the Quality Assurance staff member that signed the concrete prepour form was not familiar with the work, signed the form in the absence of a QA-Civil staff member, and failed to properly review the prepour form (i.e. loot at the appropriate drawings and verify the infor-mation as being correct) prior to signing.
3.
All parties involved have been cautioned to be sure that all information listed on the prepour form is correct and that the information is checked against the appropriate drawing (s) each and every time.
The sign-off for the Construction Engineer-Civil has been restricted by the Construction Manager to eight (8) individuals with experience in reviewing concrete drawings.
The QA staff has been verifying each and every prepour using a Design drawing (s) with no exceptions.
4.
An in-depth review of this problem has indicated that it may have been A random possible for this error to have been committed previously.
statistical review of past M-2A's will be conducted.
5.
A final report detailing the findings of the review will be submitted on or before December 16, 1983.
1 Violation:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterior. V, as implemented by QA Topical Report (Duke-1) Section 17.1.5.2 requires that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with prescribed instructions, procedure or drawings. Procedure-QA-140 Section 5.4.2.4 under the practical examination portion states " Candidates for certification shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Level III Examiner or his designee that they are fami-liar with and can operate the necessary inspection equipment and analyze the resulting information to the degree required". Topical Report Table.17.0-1 commits to Regulator Guide 1.58, R1, which' incorporate ANSI N45.2.6-1978 which in turn specifies in Table 1 that lower level personnel shall be qualified by a higher (not equal to) level inspector.
Contrary to the above, the designee who administered three out of eight checklists during the practical examination for the certification of a structural inspector concrete Level I was and currently is only certified as a concrete Level I inspector. Additionally, this designee is inappropriately titled as a concrete Level II inspector on the subject examination sheets.
4 i
Response
1.
Duke _ Power Company admits this violation.
2.
A Supervising Technician-Civil and Level II Concrete Inspector, was given the practical exam to administer to the Level I candidate. The Supervising Technician gave the three checklists to the concrete Level I inspector, who is assigned to the Concrete Lab (area where the three checklists were iadministered). The Supervising Technician observed part of the practical exam being performed, remained in the general area throughout the exam, and received the checklists back after completion of the exam. The concrete Level I inspector signed the checklists as being the administrator of the exam and omitted the-title blank. The Supervising Technician added Level II as the title by mistake.
3.
Further investigation was performed to determine if similar problems existed on other practical exams. All certification records for Civil Inspectors at Catawba were reviewed to establish the qualifications of the Level III's designee who administered the practical exams.
The Level III's designee in all cases, except the Firestop-discipline, was either a Level II inspector or a supervisor with the appropriate l
technical expertise. The Duke QA program allows the Level III Examiner-to designate individuals to perform training and certification functions.
Our practice is to designate persons who hold Level II certifications or who have technical expertise in specific areas.
i' Firestop practical exams at Catawba were administered by Level I
-Firestop Inspectors working in concurrence with the Level III Examiner, There are no Level II Firestop Inspectors because the inspection i
discipline is relatively new.
l The Level III Examiners in all other inspection categories / disciplines were questioned concerning their designees for administering practicals.
_.. ~ _, _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _.
Our practice is to use Level II inspectors or designated individuals with appropriate technical expertise.
4.
QA Procedure QA-140, Quality Control Inspector Certification, will be revised to specify the qualifications of a designated individual.
The designee will be required to:
1.
Hold a Level 11 certification in the required category or 2.
Have a technical background or an engineering degree relative to the certification area.
5.
Ful1~ compliance will be achieved by December 1, 1983.
i f
I i
l l
l L
i I