IR 05000269/1985029
| ML20133C809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1985 |
| From: | Belisle G, Moorman J, Runyan M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133C779 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-85-29, 50-270-85-29, 50-287-85-29, NUDOCS 8510070513 | |
| Download: ML20133C809 (12) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ --__ -_______ - _ _-
T
,
50 Mog
- UNITED STAT ES D
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
p REGION 11 o
,
j 101 MARtETTA STREET, N.W.
l
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%
October 1,1985
l Report Nos.:
50-269/35-29, 50-270/85-29, and 50-287/85-29 Licensee: Duke Power Company
[
422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 l
Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos.:
DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 Facility Name: Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted:
September 9-13, 1985
,
Inspectors:.b uwc%
9 M 66 M. T. Runyan ~
\\
Date Signed J Fl.lYln n d 9/26185*
J.
oorm n, III Date' Signed Approved by:
/ /chA cf
/b /,
G. A( Belislef2Atting Section Chief Ohte S4gned
~
Division of Reactor Safety
,
SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 76 inspector-hours on site in the areas of licensee action on previous enforcement matters; QA program review; QA/QC administration; procurement; receipt, storage, and handling; and licensee action on previously identified inspection findings.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
h00 851001 O
O g9
.-
.
_- -
.
-.
.-
r
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees W. Ables, Materials Procurement Supervisor C. Baldwin, Quality Assurance (QA) Technical Support Supervisor
- R. Bond, Compliance Engineer
- R. Brackett, Senior QA Engineer D. Davidson, Compliance Associate / Health Physicist P. Guill, Nuclear Engineer, Nuclear Production Department
- H. Hedden, Materials Receiving Supervisor L. Jones, Maintenance Coordinator R. Knoerr, Engineering Manager, Project Services R. Ledford, QA Surveillance Supervisor
- W. Martin, Maintenance Service B. McAlister, Associate Engineer, Instrumentation and Electrical (I&E)
- T. Matthews, Compliance Technical Specialist H. Poule, I&E Supervisor G. Ross, Quality Control (QC) Inspection Supervisor J. Sites, Maintenance Coordinator, Materials
- M. Tuckman, Station Manager J. Wald, QA Technician Other licensee employees contacted included technicians and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- J. Bryant, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 13, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters a.
(Closed) Severity Level IV Violation (269, 270, 287/85-04-01): Failure to Verify Environmental Conditions for Calibration of Digital Multimeters The licensee response dated June 12, 1985, was considered acceptable by Region II. The inspector verified that signs have been posted noting limiting environmental conditions for calibration of Fluke digital
-
i
-
.
.
multimeters.
The appropriate calibration procedures have been revised to permit calibration only within the recommended environmental limits and to require documentation of temperature and humidity at the time of the calibration. A controlled, calibrated device is used to measure these parameters.
The inspector concluded that the licensee had determined the full extent of the violation, taken action to correct conditions, and developed corrective actions needed to preclude recurrence of similar problems.
Corrective actions stated in the licensee response have been implemented.
b.
(Closed) Severity Level IV Violation (269, 270, 287/85-11-01): Failure to Submit 10 CFR 50.59 Annual Report The licensee response dated June 19, 1985, was considered acceptable by Region II.
The inspector interviewed personnel responsible for the annual submittal of a description of facility changes required by 10 CFR 50.59(b).
A tickler system has been developed to insure issuance of this report in July or August for the previous year's changes.
The licensee submitted the summary of 1984 changes on August 15, 1985.
The inspector concluded that the licensee had determined the full extent of the violation, taken action to correct conditions, and developed corrective actions needed to preclude recurrence of similar problems.
Corrective ac,tions stated in the licensee response have been implemented.
4.
QA Program Review (35701)
References:
(a)
10 CFR 50.54(a)(1), Conditions of Licenses (b) Duke Power Company Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program (DUKE-1-A), Amendment 9 (c)
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants The inspector reviewed the licensee QA Program required by references (a)
through (c) to determine if these activities were conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. The following criteria were used during this review to assess overall acceptability of the established program:
-
Personnel responsible for preparing implementing procedures understand the significance of changes to these procedures.
-
Licensee procedures are in conformance with the QA ')rogram.
The procedures discussed throughout this report were reviewed to determine conformance with the QA Program.
The inspectors reviewed QA Program implementation as a part of the inspection. Each specific area is detailed
.
.
in other paragraphs of this report.
Prcolem areas, if identified, are detailed in the specific area inspected.
Within this area, no violations or ceviations were identified.
5.
QA/QC Administration (35751)
References:
(a)
10 CFR 50.54(a)(1), Conditions of Licenses (b) Duke Power Company Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program (DUKE-1-A), Amendment 9 (c)
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (d) Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operations)
(e) ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants (f) Technical Specifications, Section 6 The ir.spector reviewed the licensee QA/QC administrative program required by references (a) through (f) to determine if the program had been established in accordance with regulatory requirements and industry guides and standards. The following criteria were used during this review to determine the overall acceptability of the established program:
The QA program documents clearly identified _those structures, systems,
-
components, documents, and activities to which the QA program applies.
Procedures and responsibilities were established for making changes to
-
-QA program documents.
Administrative controls for QA/QC procedures required review and
-
approval prior to implementation, control of revisions, and control of distribution and recall.
Responsibilities were established to assure overall evaluation of the
-
effectiveness of the QA program.
Methods existed to modify the QA program to provide increased emphasis
-
on identified problem areas.
The documents listed below were reviewed to determine if the previously listed criteria were incorporated into the licensee's QA/QC administration program, t
a
.
Oconee Nuclear Station Safety-Related Structures, Systems, and Components l
Duke Power Company Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program (DUKE-1-A),
Admendment 9 Section 17.2.2 Quality Assurance Program Section 17.2.5 Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings Administrative Policy Manual for Nuclear Stations Section 4.2 Administrative Instructions for Permanent Station Procedures, Revision 22 QA-100 Preparation and Issue of Quality Assurance Procedures, Revision 8 QA-104 Definition and Application of the Quality Assurance Program, Revision 2 QA-160 Performance of Corporate Quality Assurance Audits, Revision 1 QA-190 Review of Quality Assurance Procedures; Revision 3 QA-191-Procedure Implementation Reviews, Revipion 2 To verify implementation of this program, the inspector interviewed several members of the QA/QC staff and reviewed plant surveillances referenced in
. paragraph 6.
It appeared that responsibilities were clearly established and understood and that the surveillance program had flexibility to provide increased emphasis on problem areas. QA/QC procedures were clear, precise, and controlled in accordance with the document control system.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Procurement Program (38701)
References:
(a) 10 CFR 50.54(a)(1), Conditions of Licenses (b) Duke Power Company Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program (DUKE-1-A), Amendment 9 (c)
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (d)
10 CFR 21, Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance (e) Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operations)
(f) ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants.
u
.
-
.
-
.
5 (g) Regulatory Guide 1.123, Quality Assurance Requirements for Control of Procurement of Items and Services for Nuclear Plants (h) ANSI N45.2.13-1976, Quality Assurance Requirements for Control of Procurement of Items and Services for Nuclear Power Plants The inspector reviewed the licensee procurement program required by references (a) through (h) to determine if the program had been established in accordance with regulatory requirements, industry guides and standards, and commitments made in the application. The following criteria were used during this review to determine the overall acceptability of the established program:
Administrative controls have been established to assign departmental
-
responsibilities for procurement activities.
Administrative controls have been established to identi fy safety
-
related equipment, supplies, consumables, and services to be procured under the licensee's QA program.
-
Procedures have been established to control the, preparation, review,
-
approval, and changes to procurement documents.
Procedures have been established for qualifying and maintaining a
-
current list of approved vendors, suppliers, and contractors.
Procedures have been established to assure that vendors conform to
-
procurement document requirements, industry standards and codes, and that nonconformances are reported and corrected.
Controls have been established to provide for audits and surveillances
-
of procurement activities.
The following documents were reviewed to determine if these criteria had been incorporated into the licensee program for procurement of safety-related items and services.
Duke Power Company Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program (DUKE-1-A), Amendment 9 Section 17.2.4, Procurement Document Control Section 17.2.7, Control of Purchased Material, Equipment, and Services QA Approved Vendors List, 7/11/85 Administrative Policy Manual for Nuclear Stations Section 2.1.4 Vendor Documents, Revision 22 Section 4.4 Administrative Instructions for Purchase Specifications, Revision 22
.
.
.
QA-115 Handling Procurement and Vendor Records, Revision 2 QA-117 QA Department Procurement, Revision 1 QA-410 Processing of QA Records for Purchased Items, Revision 11 QA-411 Filing of QA Records for Purchased Items, Revision 11 QA-505 Processing of Procurement Documents for Operational Nuclear Stations, Revision 19 QA-601 Vendor Evaluation, Revision 9 QA-602 Vendor Surveillance Procedure, Revision 9 QA-605 Vendor QA Releases, Revision 2 SD 2.3.1 Material Requisition, 7/25/85 The inspector examined the following procurement documents to determine if requirements specified in the above procedures had been implemented during the initiation, review, approval, and processing of purchase requisitions:
Purchase or Purchase Order Date Transfer Requisition Date J28419-73 6/20/83 7310-835061 1/22/83 K37659-74 8/17/84 7310-760807 10/18/76 M27340-70 5/14/85
-
G12704-72 5/21/81 H51323-75 12/31/82
,
J39520-77 3/2/84 M38593-79 7/9/85 M41006-73 7/23/85 K17348-73 3/29/84 M34053-73 6/13/85 Surveillance Date Subject 0S85/10 2/27/85 Materials, Parts, and Components Requisition, P.O., and Specs.
0S85/34 7/31/85 Materials, Parts, and Components 0S85/28 6/14/85 Station Modifications Examination of the above documents and interviews with licensee personnel confirmed that licensee administrative controls and measures were being impleme1ted during the procurement of safety-related items and services.
A large portion of the technical and administrative aspects of the procure-ment process are handled at the corporate office.
This area was not included in the scope of this inspection.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
. - -
-
.
-
.-
.
_
..
--
-
- _ - -
_ - - - -
..
.
7.
Receipt, Storage, and Handling of Equipment and Materials Program (38702)
References:
(a)
10 CFR 50.54(a)(1), Conditions of Licenses (b) Duke Power Company Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program (DUKE-1-A), Amendment 9
,
(c)
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants (d) Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operations)
(e) ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants
!
(f) Regulatory Guide 1.38, Quality Assurance Requirements for Packaging, Shipping, Receiving, Storage, and
,
'
Handling of Items for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.
l l
(g) ANSI N45.2.2-1972, Packaging, Shipping, Receiving, Storage, and Handling of Items for Nuclear Power Plants The inspector reviewed the licensee program and procedures required by references (a) through (g) to determine if controls had been established for receipt inspections, initiation of nonconformance reports, disposition of nonconformances, handling, storage, and issue of safety-related equipment.
The following criteria were used during this review to determine the overall acceptability of the established program:
Administrative controls had been established for conducting and
-
documenting receipt inspections and reporting nonconformances.
Administrative controls had been established for disposition of items,
-
i marking, storing, and protection of items during storage.
I
-
Administrative controls had been established for limited shelf-life items and for performing audits and surveys of storeroom activities.
Administrative controls had been established for qualification of
-
inspection personnel.
The following licensee documents were examined to determine if the licensee i
had prepared procedures to control receipt inspections, handling, storage, maintenance, and protection of reactor plant items:
i i
i
-
-
-
.--
-
- -
-
-
- -
- - -
.
.
- -
-.
-
- -
-
-
_-
_
..
-
-
-.
.
.
Duke Power Company Topical Report, Quality Assurance Program (DUKE-1-A), Amendment 9 Section 17.2.8 Identification and Control of Materials, Parts, and Components Section 17.2.10 Inspection Section 17.2.13 Handling, Storage, and Shipping Section 17.2.15 Nonconforming Materials, Parts, and Components Administrative Policy Manual for Nuclear Stations Section 2.4 Control of Materials, Parts, and Components, Revision 22 Section 4.4 Administrative Instructions for Purchase Specifications, Revision 22 SD 2.1.2 Material Control, 5/17/85 SD 4.3.1 Housekeeping Responsibilities, 4/13/85 QA-140 Quality Assurance Inspector Training, Revision 10
.QCG-1 Receipt, Inspection, and Control of QA Condition Materials, Parts and Components Except Nuclear Fuel, Revision 22 QCG-3 Inspection of Items in Storage, Revision 1 QCL-1 Procedure for the Inspection of Field Fabricated Pipe and Welds, Revision 20 QCD-2 Cleanliness Control of QA Condition Piping Systems at Nuclear Stations, Revision 11 Oconee Nuclear Station Materials Manual Section 3.1.1 Distribution of the Station Printed Requisition, 1/7/85 Section 3.1.3 Processing of Issue Requisitions (Form 14022),
12/6/84 Section 4.1 Prestaging Stock Material for Nuclear Station Modifications, 12/6/84 Section 4.2 Control and Issue of ASME Section III, Subsection NC, ND, and NF Material,12/6/84 Section 4.4 Material Receiving, 12/6/84 Section 4.5 Issue of Stock and Non-Stock Safety Related Materials, 6/21/85 Section 4.7 Marking of QA Material, 12/6/84 Section 4.14 Material Preservation Storage, 12/6/84 Section 4.15 Maintenance of Storage Areas, 12/6/84 Section 4.16 Safe Material Handling Methods,12/6/84 Section 4.17 Inspections of Material Handling Equipment, 12/6/84 Section 4.18 Processing Pencil Requisitions, 12/6/84 Section 4.20.1 Preservation, Preventative Maintenance, and Shelf Life of Stored Equipment, Parts, and Materials, 6/21/85 Section 4.25 Annual Inventory, 5/15/85 Maintenance Directive VE Maintenance Housekeeping Program, 7/8/85 The inspector witnessed receipt inspections for material procured under the
,
'
following Purchase Orders:
I
!
.
-
- - -
.
.
l
M38593-79 7/9/85 M41006-73 7/23/85 K-17348-73 3/29/84 M-34053-73 6/13/85 Through observation of the process and interviews of the personnel performing the inspection, it was apparent that the above receipt inspections were accomplished in accordance with regulatory standards and the licensee's QA program.
A walk-through inspection of the following storage areas was performed to determine if equipment was being adequately stored:
Storage Area Protection Level Yard #1 D
Warehouse #2 B
Warehouse #3 B
Warehouse #6 B
Warehouse #7 C
Yard #9'
D Storage of parts in the above warehouses appeared adequate. QA items were clearly marked with green tags stating control and purchase order numbers.
Equipment was stored either above floor level on racks or temporarily stored in aisles on crates.
In general, all storage areas were neat, clean, and provided with appropriate environmental conditions relative to assigned protection levels.
QA carbon steel pipe stored outside (protection level D) in Yards 1 and 9 was generally rusted. Approximately 10 percent of the pipe end plugs were missing but the licensee stated that the plugs are replaced during periodic storage inspections.
When questioned on the method of insuring that corrosion was removed and piping integrity verified prior to releasing QA condition 1 piping for installation in the plant, the licensee furnished the inspector with proof that this was accomplished.
During the walk-though inspection, the inspector randomly selected eight items to verify that the attached identification provided traceability back to the original procurement documents. Documents for all items were readily available and retrievable from the QA records vault.
One item selected to be traced was 3" Schedule 80 carbon steel piping found in Yard #9.
The inspector used QA tag number 38970, which was marked on the piping, to retriese purchase order H51323-75.
This purchase order procured QA condition 1 stainless steel and carbon steel piping and specified a level C storage area. When presented with this, a licensee representative informed the inspector that this was a mistake on the purchase order and that all QA condition 1 stainless steel and carbon steel piping was being stored in D level storage.
To verify this, the inspector examined the following
-
.
__
.
.
documents used for the procurement of QA condition 1 stainless steel and carbon steel piping:
Purchase Order Date Protection Level i
K51867-75 11/14/84 D
-
K37797-75 8/20/84 D
Purchase Requisition Date Protection Level 7310 850291 1/24/85 D
7310 844029 1/19/85
7310 853626 9/22/85 D
7310 852840 7/15/85 D
The inspector concluded that the specification of protection level C on this purchase order was an isolated example, consequently, a violation is not warranted.
Within this area,' no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Inspection Findings (92701)
a.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 269, 270, 287/85-04-02: Preventive Maintenance Report (PMRPT) Master Surveillance Test Schedule The. inspector reviewed the Technical Specification Surveillance Test Overdue List and the Chemistry portion of the PMRPT. Although a few minor problems still exist with the schedule, the systematic errors noted in the previous inspection have been corrected.
b.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 269, 270, 287/85-04-03:
Technical Basis for Out-of-Tolerance Evaluation Criteria of Measuring and Test Equipment The inspector reviewed the site response dated February 18, 1985, to Corporate QA Audit NP-84-19(ON) concerning the technical justification for the out-of-tolerance evaluation criteria used with I&E test equipment. Th*s response, which was accepted by Corporate QA, stated that the calibration tolerance is based on test equipment accuracy whereas the evaluation tolerance is based on the most stringent requirement that the installed instrument is required to meet. The evaluation tolerances appeared within what may be construed a significant calibration error.
c.
(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 269, 270, 289/.85-11-02: Working Level Procedures for Project Services Group The working level procedures for the Project Services Group as delineated in Sections 4 and 5 of the Project Services Manual have been completed and implemented.
t bum..
.
.
.
-
..
.
.
.
..
.
y ;r:
r.7
/, :,7,,
..
,
~ii~
.
.l
\\
,,.
- ( '
.
'-'....
>..
d.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item 269, 270, 287/85-11-03:
Correction of Design Deficiency in NSM ON-1826 Part A.
>
A revision to 'NSM-1826 had been developed to correct the design deficiency and was scheduled to be. implemented during the next series of outages on all three plants. This item will remain open until the s
,
i
.above modifications are accomplished.
'
.f i.
t --
,
..
s;*$
,.,
g
,Y a
e i
, i,
,
e h.
. e G
/
I
,.
.,.
.).
.
.
(
b
~?
j
.. ~.
_
_.
_ _.,... _..., _. _,.. _ _..,.. _ _ _... _ _ __.
- -.. -. _.. - _.._.