IR 05000395/1982011: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 20:27, 19 December 2024
| ML20041A647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1982 |
| From: | Herdt A, Kleinsorge W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041A643 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-395-82-11, NUDOCS 8202220376 | |
| Download: ML20041A647 (5) | |
Text
.
.
- '
UNITED STATES
o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c.
g a
REGION 11 g[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 g
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
Report No. 50-395/82-11 Licensee:
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company P. O. Box 764 Columbia, SC 29218 Facility Name:
Summer Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-395 License No. CPPR-94 Inspection at i
near Columbia, SC
,
/ ? (o Z
Inspect r:
_. /
v W. P K1,ek or e Date Signed
- [/C
/
d 8cl
'
Aopro ed by:
A. R. Herdt, Section Chief
__ Datd Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on Janaury 11-14, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 29 inspector-hours on site in the areas of licensee action on previous inspection findings, spent fuel storage racks and licensee identified items (10 CFR 50.55 (e)).
Results Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8202220376 820127 PDR ADOCK 05000395
,.
F
,
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- 0. S. Bradham, Plant Manager
- V. R. Albert, Asst. Plant Manager
- K. W. Nehles, Sr. Engineer
- D. A. Nauman, Grp. Manager Nuclear Services
- S. J. Smith, Asst. Manager Maintenance Services
- M. W. Clants, QA Manager
- A. R. Koon, Technical Services Coordinator
- S. S. House, Nuclear Licensing
- B. G. Croley, Asst. Manager Technical Services
- N. C. Fields, Technical Support Engineer
- T. A. McAlister, Survey Specialist Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, operators, security force members, and office personnel.
Other Organizations
- J. R. Fletcher, Project Quality Manager, Daniel Construction Company (DCC)
NRC Resident Inspector
- J. L. Skolds
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized.on January.14, 1982 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the
areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed l
below. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
!
Inspector Followup Item 395/82-01: " Document Changes - White Out" para-
<
I graph 6C.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation 395/81-17-01:
" Failure to Follow Ultrasonic Inspec-tion Procedure For Base Line Inspection." SCE&G letter of reponse dated September 4, 1981 has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by the Region II.
The inspector held discussions with the plant manager and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter of response. The inspector concluded that SCE&G had determined the full extent of the subject t
l L-.
I
.
.
.
violation, performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
The corrective actions identified ir, the letter of response have been implemented.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector conducted a general inspection of the fuel, auxiliary and intermediate buildings to observe activities such as material handling and control, housekeeping and storage.
Within the area examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Spent Fuel Storage Racks The inspector reviewed procedures, made a physical inspection of the installed spent fuel storage racks and reviewed quality records, to ascer-tain whether field activities pertaining to the installation of spent fuel racks were accomplished in accordance with NRC requirements, applicable codes, standards and commitments.
a.
Review of Procedures The inspector reviewed the below listed documents to ascertain whether specifications, drawinas, work instructions and inspection procedures had been established te assure the technical adequacy of the following activities pertaining to spent fuel storage racks.
(1) Procurement Spent Fuel Storage Rack Procurement Specification (2) Receipt Inspection FQCP 3.1.0 R 16
" Receiving Inspection" (3) Storage FQCP 3.2.0 R 15
" Storage, Handling and Issuing" MS-2 R4
" Instruction for Inspection of Equipment Stored In Place" DCC AP-VIII-03 R8 " Cleaning Handling and Preservation"
-
-_
- __ _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
,.
.
(4)
Installation
" Spent Fuel Storage Racks, Equipment Disassembly / Assembly Guide" b.
Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspector examined the spent fuel storage racks in place af ter installation to verify that procedural requirements had been met in the following areas:
-
Appearance and size of welds (on a sampling basis).
Cleanliness.
-
-
Configuration of the spent fuel racks relative to the assembly drawings.
Obvious defects such as cracks, dents and missing parts.
-
-
Identification.
Proper location and orientation.
-
-
Seismic restraints in place and gapped.
-
No apparent damage to the racks or spent fuel pool during instal-lation.
-
Work performed in accordance with appraved procedures.
-
Adequate QC inspection coverage.
c.
Review of Quality Records The inspector reviewed receiving inspection records, material certi-fication documentation, installation records, nonconf rmance reports and QA audits to verify that procurement, receipt inspection storage and installation of the spent fuel storage racks was consistant with NRC requirements, applicable codes, standards and commitments.
With regard to the inspection above, the inspector noted numerous examples of changes / corrections made to Field Change Requests, Deficiency Notices and Nonconformance Notices with a white opaque correction fluid.
The above documents were dated after May 30, 1978.
The above is contrary to a SCE&G Inter-0ffice Communication dated May 30,1978 (CGSSD-425-QC) which states in part:
'
"any changes, corrections or revisions on any document that are plant records will be made by striking through the old information with one straight line, writing in the new information, and signing or initialing and dating the change. " White out" or " liquid paper" type substances will not be used to change documents that are plant records."
At the time of this inspection the safety significance of the above changes could not be determined.
The licensee indicated that they would look further into the matter.
The inspector stated that the above would be identified as inspector followup item 395/82-11-01:
" Document Changes - White Out."
c-
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
______________________.________-U
_
~ _ _ _ _
_
__
.__. ___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
s.-
.
Within the areas examined no violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Licensee Identified Items (10 CFR 50.55(e)
a.
(Closed) Item 395/79-20-01 " Pipe Support Loading with Velan Valve" (10 CFR 50.55(e)). On June 7, 1979, the Licensee notified Region II of a 50.55(e) item concerning pipe support loading. The final report was submitted on January 21, 1980.
The report has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II.
The inspector held dis-cussions with responsible licensee and/or contractor representatives, reviewed supporting documentation, and observed a representative sample of work to verify that the corrective actions identified in the report have been completed. This matter is considered closed.
b.
(Closed) Item 395/80-10-03 " Deficient Instrument Tubing Hanger Welds" (10 CFR 50.55(e)). On March 19, 1980, the Licensee notified Region II of a 50.55(e) item concerning safety related instrument hangers /
supports.
The final report was submitted on April 18, 1980.
The report has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II The inspector held discussions with responsible licensee and/or con-t rac tor representatives, reviewed supporting documentation, and observed a representative sample of work to verify that the corrective
-
actions identified in the report have been completed. This matter is considered closed.
L