IR 05000270/1973002
| ML19317D349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1973 |
| From: | Conlon T, Murphy C, Swan W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317D346 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-270-73-02, 50-270-73-2, NUDOCS 7911270569 | |
| Download: ML19317D349 (29) | |
Text
_-_
_
_ _ _ _..
.,
-
,
- -
I
.
,&
e^ 'CN, UNITED STATES
.
I
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
'
o
,
-!,* ' e
'i -
DI?20TCFATE OF ?2GUIATCF.Y CFZFATICNS
, <-
/[
REGloN li - Suit E 8t8
[
230 R E ac w? m E E $T RE E T. %0m?==ES?
'..,
,
,,
,,,gg If4!il O'
AT L A NT A, cE cRGI A 30303 RO Inspecticn Report No. 50-270/73-2 Licensee:
Duke Power Ccapany Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Facility Name: Cconee Unit 2
'
Docket No.:
50-270 License No.:
CPPR-34 Category:
A3 Location: Seneca, South Carolina
.
Type of License:
Type of Inspecticn: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection:
February 9, 1973, and February 13-16, 1973
$
Dates of Previous Inspection: January 17-19, and January 29-30, 1973
,
Inspector In-Charge:
W. B. Swan, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Acccopanying Inspectors:
T. E. Conien, Reactor Inspector
'
Engineering Section
,
Facilities Construction Branch F. U. Bower, Reactor Inspector Engineering Secticn
,
Facilities Construction Branch G. R. Klingler, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch Other Accompanying Personnel:
F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch
.
.
<g0 k
-
74 9
.
.-
.
.-
--_ _ _
--_
- -, - _
- -
- -
v-2-Principal Inspector:
M [ //
2*#.4*,o'
9/f/73
R. F. Warnics, Reacter Inspecter
'Ddte Facilities Test and Startup Branch Reviewed By:
[
d
- ate C. E. Murphy / Act4Wt Chief Facilities Test and Startup Branch
.
.
w e
.
.-
._-a_--
-- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - -
. - -. - -. -
-
.
.
,:
}
RO Report No. 50-27C/73-2-3-SIMMARY CF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action
,
A.
Viclations None B.
Safety Iters None
II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Iters A.
Violations The follcwing item re=ains cpen:
Welding Program Deficiencies (RO:II Letter To CPC Dated March 8,1972, Item 5)
The CPC consultant's report on -elding deficiencies and documentation in the CPC welding program will be reviewed when available to RO:II.
-
The following items are closed:
1.
Criterien V - Failure to Document Final Inspection of Mechanical Cem;cnents en Form S-2A as Recnured by Procedure S-2 (RO:II Letter to DPC Dated Decerter 1,1972, Item 1)
Form S-2A was inadvertently included with Procedure S-2 and has been recoved.
Procedure S-2 has been revised to clearly state that the list of qA documentatien is a i
checklist for transferrug systems to the Steam Production Department.
This item is closed.
(Management Interview, paragraph A.1)
2.
Criterien XIII - Failure to Identify and Perfo m In-Storage
.
Tests and Inspection (RO:II Letter To CPC Dated Decerber 1, 1972, Item 3)
Procedure P-3 has been prepared and it provides, for tests, inspections, maintenance and special care of mechanical coreponents. This item is closed.
(Management Interview, paragraph A.2)
!
i
-
.t
_
_... _..
,
, _.,
a
-
-
.~
- -- -
-
_ - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - ~ - - -
-
.
'j
.
-
RO Report No. 50-270/73-2-4-3.
Criterion X7 - Failure to Previde for Appropriate Segregation of Nonconforming Material (RO:II Letter to DPC Dated December 1, 1972, Item 4)
Procedure Q-1, "Centrol of Nonconforming Items," provides for segregation of nonconforming items "as deemed appro-priate by the Principal Field Engineer." This item is closed.
(Management Interview, paragraph A.3)
4.
Failure to Return Unused Welding Red to the Issuing Station When No Lcnger Required (RO:II Letter to DPC Dated December 1,1972, Item 5)
The importance of maintaining centrol of welding filler metal has been reiterated by the project manager to the welding foreman, general foreman, and superintendent.
This item is closed.
(Management Interview, paragraph A.4)
B.
Safety Items There are no previoucly identified safety items.
III.
New Unresolved Items 73-2/1 Reactor Vessel Core Support Records j
The required documentation for upper and lower core supports was not complete at the site.
Documentation will be at the site prior to final installation.
(See Details II, paragraph 2)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 72-8/l Receiving Inspection Cocumentation
-
Items inspected during a receiving inspection are not ccepletely documented on form QC-31.
(RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/72-8)
This item will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
72-8/2 QA Documentation The quality control organization's system for filing
_
quality assurance documentation may not provide ade.
quate retrievability of records.
(RO Inspection Report
.
No. 50-270/72-8)
-
-. -
--
-
m a n. -~ ~ ~. - - - -
-
- -.-
-
.
M RO Report No. 50-270/73-2-5-
/
.
This item will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
.
V.
Design Changes None VI.
Unusual Occurrences None VII.
Other Sienificant Findings QA Organization - DPC DPC has restructured its organization for quality assurance.
Effective January 1,1973, the Senior Vice-President, Engineering and Construction, has four QA managers reporting to him. These are QA Manager-Purchases, QA Manager-Construction, QA Manager-
,
Design Engineering, and QA Manager-Steam Production.
.
Independent GA organizational ccmpenents have also been established in each of the three divisions of the Design Engineering Deparrment and in the operating organization at Oconee Nuclear Station.
(Details I, paragraphs 2 and 3)
-
- --
VIII.
Management Interview A management interview was held en February 9, 1973, and on February 16, 1973. The following people were in attendance:
Duke Power Ccepany (DPC)
D. G. Beam - Project Manager E. C. Fiss - QA Manager, Design Engineering L. R. Barnes - QA Engineer
'
D. L. Freeze - Principal Field Engineer C. B. Aycock - Seni.or Field Engineer K. W. Schmidt - Associate Field Engineer - Electrical The following items were discussed:
A.
The status of all perviously identified enforcemcat matters was discussed, and the following items have been resolved:
T
.
,
e.,, < - ~
-nm.e,
e-,--.-
- mw,
~ -
~
~~~m-
-~
--
- g
-
RO Report No. 50-270/73-2-6-
,
1.
Final Installation I:.spections Prior to Transfer of Systems and Documentation Procedure S-2, " Procedure for Systems and QA Documentation
Transfer," has been revised to delete form S-2A, " Final Mechanical Inspection Record." This form was intended for use on Unit 3 only and is not being used en Unit 2.
DPC does have another procedure and a final inspection form for Unit 2.
2.
Storage Inspections The recognized weakness in the QA prcgram will be remedied by issuance of Procedure P-3, " Mechanical Equipment Storage, Maintenance, and Inspection." This procedure has been approved and is currently being implemented.
3.
Secregation of Ncnconforming Items Procedure Q-1, " Control of Nonconferaing Items," provides for segregation of nonconforming items "as deemed appro-priate by the Principal Fleid Engineer," by indicating the location, method of identification, resolution, and other pertinent infornation on Form Q-1A.
4.
Control of Welding Rod Following the discovery of welding red material which was not in conformance with Procedure H-3, " Identification and Control of Welding Filler and Flux Material," DPC repre-sentatives conducted a survey of the jobsite. No ad-ditional uncentrolled filler metal was found. The project manager reemphasized the need for control of this material to the welding foreman, general foreman and superintendent.
Inspector Swan stated that he had reviewed QA procedures, site '
B.
docu=entatica records, and vender certifications and documen-tation related to the HPI pumps, LPI pumps, reactor building spray pumps, reactor ccolant pumps, reactor building cooling f ans, and the letdown storage tank. The inspector stated that
.
,he had no questions on these items. Hewever, he stated that, in general, more timely preparation of final procedures and tighter surveillance of vendors by CPC would be desirable.
-
The licensee's representative ce=mented that this area of QA will be upgraded and improved.
(Details I, paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14)
.._ _..
._
._
__
.. _. _ _
_
-
-
.
.
N
-
RO Ppport No. 50-270/73-2-7-i
,
C.
Inspector Conlon stated that he reviewed assembly procedures for the reactor internals.
The inspector expressed concern that the QC-31 release form for the internals modificaticns was not at the site. This vendor documentation was at the Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) offices in Chio.
Conlon stated that this will be an outstanding item (No. 73-2/1)
which requires resolution prior to the final installation of the internals for testing. The licensee's representative stated that a review of QC-31 releases for mechanical com-ponents is in process.
(Details II, paragraph 2)
D.
Inspector Bower stated that he had reviewed instrumentation and electrical systems. He stated that no violatic1s or unresolved iters were identified.
(Details III, paragraph 2)
E.
Inspector Bower discussed several minor problems he encountered
. --
during the inspection.
1.
Several transmitters were observed with two different
'
identification nu=bers.
,
The licensee's representative stated that the metal tags attached by the construction unit carried the identifica-tion assigned by engineering.
The more prominent pressure tape markings were attached by operations people for their own information.
2.
Cable channel G-4 in the reactor building does not follow the design configuratien and does not meet the fill cri-terien for a short segment of its length. The licensee's representative stated that this small four-inch channel will be replaced with one of suitable capacity in the deficient region.
3.
The techt.,que of signing off en construction doc,.:ments
-
for QC acceptance was discussed in critical terms by the inspector.
The site representatives acknowledged this problem, and stated that a revised procedure is in preparation for future implementation.
(Details III, paragraph 5.b)
.
.s
---
---.,e-,
aw
.
-%-
~ ~. -
--.
--- v
-
- _-
-
&
,
.
-
I
. '
l
-
/
RO Report No. 50-270/73-2-8-
!
,
(
4.
Problems encountered during the record review included evidence of poor document control and too great a reliance upon informal logs and memories of individuals directly involved.
.
The licensee made no response or rebuttal to this item
--
since a direct violation had not been identified.
5.
There was evidence in several unidentified areas that unsupported cable exceeded the design criteria - two feet in the cable room and five feet throughout the balance of the plant.
The licensee's representative stated that they were aware of this conditien and that it will be corrected when false-work, scaffolds and other interfering cbjects were removed.
(Details III, paragraph 5.b)
F.
Inspector Klingler stated that his part of the inspection
'
was a continuation of previcus electrical inspections, and that the particular areas of interest for this inspection
-
were the cer. trol cable terminations in the control room and cable spreading rom techniques used in making terminations, and the QA aspects-associated with it.- No deficiencies were observed.
(Details IV, paragraphs 2 and 3)
.
m e
!
.
t
.
O
k
.
n.v-a, w e.e ~m+-
m~e-m.e -- se -~
-~
<m--
"m
= = -
-
. -..
_.
_.. - 'L:
- __ - w_.-
- _ _.
_
. _ - _ _
-
-_
.
MJ R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-1 A
DETAILS I Prepared By:
W. B. Swan, Reactor Inspector Date Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Dates of Inspection:
February 13-16, 1973 Reviewed By:
N.4 hM-8/zz./7f
.
C."Bryant @ enior Date Inspector, Engineering Section, Facilities Construction Branch
.
1.
Individuals Contacted a.
Duke Power Cocoany (DPC)
D. G. Beam - Project Manager L. R. Barnes - Site QA Engineer D. L. Freeze - Principal Field Engineer B. H. Webster - Associate Field Engineer, Syste:s S. W. Dressler - Associate Field Engineer, Piping
-
T. H. McDaniel - Field Engineer, Civil M. W. Foster - Field Engineer, Office B. L. Melton - Engineer, Of fice D. E. Hatley - Engineer, Electrical
-
K. W. George - Mechanical Engineer, Piping and Equipment b.
Contractor Personnel Babcock and Wilcox Cocpany (B&W) - NSSS Supplier
,_
'
J. Stokes - Acting Field Project Manager
~
2.
Organizational Changes a.
DPC Executive Of fices, Charlotte, North Carolina
'
DPC's letter dated January 29, 1973, to Director, Region II, described a major revamping of DPC organization for quality assurance
.
w*
,
.ih.
-am..m,
-%..,
- +M**e..-
V
-
.
_
1 ::
.-
_
-_
-_
-,~
_ _ _ :.
_.-
-
m RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-2 establishing a corporate QA manager and four QA managers, one each for purchasing, construction, design engineering, and steam production.
All are based at headquarters, Charlotte.
b.
DPC Site, Construction A QA engineer has been added to the construction staff.
He reports to the project manager.
A construction depart =ent organizational chart, revised to Feb ruary 12., 1973, was given to the inspector.
3.
Discussion with New Site QA Engineer The site QA engineer, appointed to this position in January 1973, had been onsite for two years with the field engineering group as an
_ _
assistant field engineer.
In his new position, he reports directly to the site project manager.
His principal assigned responsibility so far has been to review construction procedures for coverage of the requirements of Appendix.B to 10 CFR 50.
There was evidence that he has been performing this task diligently.
The QA engineer questioned the inspector concerning cethods used at other sites and training tethods for similar jobs at other sites.
The inspector stated that one effective training tethod is the visiting of a variety of sites of other licensee's and discussing a cross-section of QA problens encountered. He said also that Regulatory Operations publishes regular construction experience reports which will alert him to proble=s which can be avoided.
The inspector questioned him as to his participation in auditing (with a headquarters canagement tea =) the performance and records of the field engineering group in their QC functions.
He had not
,
participated in such an audit and had not been told that he had a responsibility to do so..
4.
Safety During inspection of installed equipment, the inspector passed a room in the auxiliary building in back of Unit 1 and noticed a number of steel drums stored there.
Also, painters were patch painting the concrete ficors and walls in the tunnel and rooms of
._
._
_-
..
.
5)
R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-3
'
-
.
the auxiliary building in the rear of Unit 2.
The fumes were heavy enough that the inspector wondered about an explosive mixture. He asked his escort if it was their practice to paint on regular shif ts.
The escort said it was not.
The question of safety involved with the storage of drums and of fire danger from paint fumes was raised.
The project manager stated that he believed the drums contained borates and acnflammable cleaning materials some of which might have been placed in used solvent barrels. He stated that he would investi-gate to see if any flammables were being stored or used, including
.
solvents in the paint. He said that if any dangerous condition was found, it would be corrected. He added that he was " acutely aware of dangers to personnel and safeguard syste=s from fires and explosions."
-
5.
High Pressure Injection Pu=ps These pu=ps were procured by B&W and had been installed < Beyond a visual check, the inspection involved review of records, procedures, and vendor manuals.
On February 13, 1973, the three installed HPCI pu=ps for Unit 2 were inspected. A te=porary bypass had been installed to isolate the pu=ps while connected piping is flushed. Openings were sealed off to protect the pu=ps and lines from contamination.
--
Pump 2HP-PlA was received April 20, 1970, and stored in DPC's storage lot, and covered with polyethylene.
On May 28, 1970, it was reported
_
to have been satisfactorily erected in the auxiliary building.
--
-
--
On May 13, 1970, fif ty copies of the vendor's =anual for licensee's use had been received onsite.
Eighteen other copies had been trans-mitted separately.
This manual, furnished by Cameron Pump Division l
of Ingersoll-Rand, was entitled "Instructicn Manual for Centrifugal P u=ps : High Pressure Infection, Decay Heat Re= oval, Reactor 3u11 ding Spray, and Component Cooling."
Pumps 2HP-PlB and 2HP-Plc were received on June 30, 1970.
The B&W receiving report stated "3/4 openings for drain gland leakage were l
.
not sealed.
Duke did this in field." The inspector verified that i
the HPCI system, with adequate documentation, has been transferred from construction to steam production.
Stea: production's files were reviewed.
-
-
-
J n.
-.... _.
- _.
-.,,,, - ~
. - - -
~ ~ ~ - -
-
- -
---
_
-
,. - -,
._
_
.
.
.
.-
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-4 General Finding on HPCI Pu=ps :
DPC records, supplemented by those of B&W onsite, adequately confira quality control of the pumps up to the time of transfer to steam production.
6.
Procedures The records examined show that quality control procedures were used at the site by the licensee and B&W for the pumps and tanks covered by this section of this report; hcwever, these procedures were not fully formalized during the receipt, storage and installation of the equipment for Unit 2.
Procedure M-9, Revision 1, approved January 2,1973, provides such a.
fo rmalization.
It is entitled " Mechanical Equip =ent Installation and Inspection." It references Materials and Equipment Receiving Inspection Procedure F-1, Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment Q-1, Vendor Installation Manuals, and Structural Grouting Procedure M-5.
It makes cleanliness inspection and documentation candatory.
Form 9A certifies align =ent and cleanliness.
Form 93 signoff by vendor representatives and the field mechanical engineer certifies that the item is approved for installation and that it meets the _
recommended inspection requirements. There is a signoff by a civil field engineer for correctness of grouting of the equipment.
This signoff is approved by the vendor representative and mechanical field engineer when applicable to the equipment item.
b.
Procedure S-ll, entitled " Procedure for Syste=s and QA Documentation Turnover," Revision ~1, ' dated Nove:ber 8,1972, has for=alized turnover -
requirements.
c.
Procedure Q-1, " Control of Nenconfor=ance Ite=s," was originally approved Septe=ber 27, 1971, and revised; Revision 2 is dated January 17, 1973.
Form QA-1, " Nonconforming Item Report," is
'
used with it.
The field engineering office (FEO) has responsibility for numbering, logging, and distribution.
The inspector questiened the field engineers about the omission of a requirement to physically segregate, in a secured area, itets found discrepant-on -receipt.._Their stand was that such physical segregation is unnecessary since hcid tags are used to prevent the i
j installation of ite=s so tagged.
Hold tags are used when there is l
s.,
'
e
.
'
-'
s momena-m
-=rea s ~ -
w ma,a eso s,em-
- --
-m-
> :.
-
-
-
.
!
.
-
, { sm
-
,
'\\
,
'
l R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-5 i
.
inadequate accocpanying documentation, when there is obvious shipping or other damage, or when discrepancies are found during confir=1ng site tests preli=inary to installation, i.e., spinning of impellers of pumps or fans. The inspector was told that hold tags are honored by installing foremen because of the likelihood of disciplinary action if tags are violated.
d.
Procedure D-1.0, " Procedure For Receiving Inspection of Safety-Related Material and Equipment," contains Form D-1.6, " Report of Receiving Inspection," with Supplement Form D-1.7 for use by Stores'
personnel. Form QC-31, " Report of Receiving Inspection," is filled out by an FE0 engineering inspector on each safety-related item.
The original is forwarded to engineering in Charlotte for review and concurrence or directions for disposition of problems.
The FE0 retains a copy in its file until engineering responds, approving
-.
-
-
installation or directing field not to install.
e.
A special procedure vas developed for installation of the large reactor. coolant recirculation pumps.
FIP 421 is entitled " Unit 2 RC Pump, Tandem Seal, Assembly and Installation." It was approved by the principal field engineer en Dece=ber 1, 1972.
It stipulated that: " Seals are to be installed under the Bingham-Willia =ette Representative."
f.
Unit 2 syste=s have been cleaned and flushed by steam production (operations) personnel.
The FE0 associate field engineer (syste=s)
has prepared Procedure L-71, " Flushing and Cleaning of Piping Sys tems," for this work on Unit 3.
The procedure was in the approval chain.
Air blow of syste=s is scheduled to start May 1, 1973, and flushing by May 15, 1973.
Cleaning will end and hot functional tests will start about January 15, 1974. The new procedure has forms for reporting of cleaning, hydrotesting and flushing.
7.
Sampling of Syste=s Turnover Procedure
-
Discussiens were held with the associate field engineer, syste=s and piping, and a mechanical engineer, piping, as well as the field engineer (office) and his records engineer concerning the status of QC-31 reports for Unit 2 equipment.
It was found that some of these had been in Charlotte (engineering) since July 31, 1972, without written response although verbally engineering has stated that the items are cleared.
The associate field engineer (systems) was preparing a listingaof uncleared QC-31 copies to demand status clearance in writing.
t
l
-
--.-
.
--
- -.
-
..
.
.
-
-
l t
{
T
-
.
. -
l J
20 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-6
!
Sampling showed that the QC-31 reports were clear for the three LPI (decay heat removal) pu=ps for Unit 2.
Conversations were then held and followed by file reviews at the operations office, concerning the accomplished turnover of the EPI
LPI, and reactor cooling systes from construction to steam production.
A file maintained by the associate field engineer (systems) was scanned.
Its two sections are: Transfers of. Systems - Unit 2, Accepted by Steam Production; and Transfers of Systems - Unit-2,-Not-Yer Accepted.
Under (1), accepted systems were: Reactor Building Cooling and Purge -
(includes reactor building cooling fans inspected during this visit)
The transfer pages listed certain exceptions or incompletes: docu=~en -
-
tation, or final cechanical adj ust=ents required, etc., not significant enough to hold up preoperational testing.
FE0 is continuing work on removing these. exceptions.
8.
Onsite Records of B&W
'
B&W procured pu=ps and tanks involved in this section of the inspection and were found to have, onsite, extensive records on the quality control inspections and tests covering fabr'. cation, receiving, i:.stallation, and testing of these ite=s of equipment.
As agents of the licensee, their records and the vendor =anuals obtained by then supplement those of Mill Supply Cocpany and DPC's Charlotte engineering groups and site field enginee rs.
The extent to which the B&W records will be turned over to DPC and integrated into the per=anent QA/QC and operations and maintenance files was not deter =ined during this inspection.
9.
LPI Pu=ps
'
Accompanied by the associate field engineer (piping), the inspector made a visual inspection of installed pumps 2PL-P23, -P2C and -PlA on level 758 on February 13, 1973. No discrepancy was noted.
.
Documentation or fabrication, receiving, storage, and installation of the LPI pumps for Unit 2 was reviewed in the DPC FE0 files
.and in the B&W site office files.
The vendor's manual and much of DPC's documentation refer to these pumps as the decay heat re= oval
p umps.
An initial receiving inspection report for these purp.s noted
"2LP-PlA, -P13, and -Plc received OK and stored in warehouse."
i
.
-w--
.. - -
.m,=
a-m % -
.-~
.%-.
--
-
.,
-
'
-.\\
l
)
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-7
-
.
Another noted that pu=p 2LP-PlB has been returned to vendor to correct motor rub, returned June 12, 1970, and deviation cleared.
Rub corrected in field on 2LP-Plc.
A B&W receiving inspection report for LPI: 2LP-PlA and 2LP-Plc, " received Augus t 13, 1970, in good condition; had been returned to vender for bearing replacement."
The following notes are from correspondence dated June 4,1970, in the second section of B&W file "620-0004 804462, Ingersoll-Rand":
"1.
Pump 2LP-PlB shipped back to Irigersoll-Rand."
"3.
Pump 2LP-Plc dissassembled and burrs and dirt cleaned up.
No more rubbing."
"6.
2LP-Plc found to have " yellow" coded gasket.
Supposed to have
" green." Directions asked."
These notes were the basis for the inspector's remarks during the exit interview concerning the need for the licensee and his agents to provide vigorous vendor inspection and assure that all required inspections and tests have been made before the agent signs the release for shipnent of safety-related hardware.
For the Unit.2 hardware,. the corrective action.seemed adequate but discrepant pumps never should have been released from the vendor shop.
10. Notes From B&W Files on Data Packages
-
The data packages contained:
QA Data Sheet Material Verification Liquid Penetrant Test Hydres tatic Test
-
Performance Test Cleanliness Note: "QA data packages sent to Ingersoll-Rand, Phillipsburg:
2RP-PIC - October 20, 1970 2HP-P1A - October 19, 1970 Copy sent to Blackley, Charlotte, October 4,1972 QA data package on 2BS-PlA, 235-P1B - October 15, 1970"
.
..w
.,3.=
..%
_
+,
y, m.w,.
.%a
- - -
+
c-
= * * - - = *
-%
I i
i
's
' k j
i RO Rp t. No. 50-270/73-2 I-8 QA data package on 2LP-PlA sent to NPGD Contracts October 16, 1970 2LP-PLB - October 16,1970, and 2LP-Plc - October 16, 1970 11. Building Sorav Pu=os B&W's NSS Co=ponent Inspection Report shows Type of Inspection: Receiving, In Storage, Installation, and Final.
A report dated April 22, 1970, Building Spray Pumps, 2BS-PLA and 2BS-PlB " received OK."
No notes of discrepancies were noted in the data package.
No B&W file records storage inspection until equipment is taken into the auxiliary building.
Installation of these pu=ps is detailed in an 'ngersoll-Rand Manual, sta ped B&W Instruction Book 620-0004 01 0034 001.
The manual is entitled
" Instruction Manual For Centrifugal Pu=ps."
The building spray pumps had been installed and were visually inspected on February 15, 1973.
The inlet line to 235-P13 had been disconnected for systems flushing.
Permanent identification was not yet complete on 2BS-PlA. No violations were cited.
12. Reactor Coolant Pu=os The four reactor coolant pu=ps were procured by 3&W frem Bingham-Williamette Company of Portland, Oregon.
They were installed by DPC workmen under the surveillance of a consultant on pu=ps'
installation for Bingham-Williamette, who provided constant surveillance during installation.
Westinghouse provided surveillance for final alignment of pump :otors.
Surveyors of the civil field engineer group verified casing elevation and bolt circle alignment.
'
The pumps have 9,000 hp motors, turn 1,190 rpm, and are rated at 92,200 gpm against a 362' head.
The factory provided special tools for installation and adjustment and
-
recoccended a list of. additional special tools to be procured by the cus tome r.
.
a b
,m a,.p.
.weiew--'
- h h *
" " " " * * *
^?s,
.
.
s
.
I
~
j RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-9
On July 2,1972, the FEO received the Bingham Pump Company manual entitled " Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Instructions :
28x28x41 Type RQV, Reactor Recirculation Pump, =anufactured by Bingham-Willia =ette Company, Portland, Oregon, for Duke Power Co=pany, Oconee Nuclear Station II."
This manual was stamped " Issued by B&W; Lynchburg, Virginia."
Procedures used by DPC were:
FIP No.107, " Unit 2 Reactor Coolant Pu=p Internals Installation Procedure," approved by DPC on Septe=ber 27, 1971, and given B&W concurrence on the sa=e date.
FIP No. 150, " Procedure for Field Installation of Unit 2 Reactor Main Coolant Loop," approved by DPC on March 29, 1971.
Item 4.c Pump Casing, Subitem 1, details align =ent and ites 2 specifies that surveyors verify casing elevation per Dwg. OM-201-181 and verify bolt circle horizontal alignment.
FIP No. 421, " Unit 2 Reactor Coolant Pump, Tandem Seal Assembly and Installation," approved by DPC December 12, 1972.
It stipulates " Seals are to be installed under supervision of Bingham-Williamette representative."
A memorandum to file dated October 6,1971, was found by the inspector in the civil section (FEO) logbook, " Procedure initiated for inspection of loop before setting internals in RC pumps 2B1 and 2A1 and 2 af ter 2B2 internals had been set without such inspection." A signoff by B&W was found for 2B2 pump case, suction, and discharga by DPC's operations chemist for cleanliness and DPC construction.
A similar signoff for 231 was dated August 30, 1971; for 2A2 on October 1,1971;- and for 2Al dated October 6 through 11, 1971.
The center section of the logbook contains icose leaf sheets of che=istry laboratory reports of cleanliness tests of pump components and asse=blies from December 8,1972, to February 13, 1973.
An NCR written Dece=ber 12, 1972, citing too high chloride (sweat) on pump seal was cleared December 13, 1972, by re= oval, cleaning, and replacing the seal.
i
!
The logbook contained daily logs for " tools in" and " tools out,"
clean room conditions and filter conditions during seal installation.
-
.
i
_ _ _.
_ _ _..
__.
_
._
_
i s
,
!
-
-
'
.)
!
'
\\
I I.'/
,
20' Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-10
'
.
i There was a summary consisting of six sheets of line entries on work
,
and inspection progress en the four pumps.
'
An inspection of the installed pumps was made on February 14, 1973, in the company of a mechanical engineer (assistant field engineer) of the j
FE0 piping group.
The pumps, during start, requira the assistance of a supplemental starting thrus t (oil) system at the top of the motors. The inspector observed work underway on this thrust system.
Work was being done under an enclosure and under surveillance.
The inspector was told that a gasket was being replaced by a different type to prevent leakage of flammable oil such as had occurred on a Unit 1 pump on December 30, 1972.
The inspector was handed a summary of seven QC-31, Receiving Inspection Reports. Three of these, Nos. 2600,-2601, and 2603,
l had not received confir=ing written clearance from design engineering.
The reports covered pump casings and internals. FE0 has requested
~
written clearance.
13. HPCI Letdown Storage Tank On QC-31 Receiving Report, HPCI Letdown Tank, 2KP-T1, an approval for installation was dated August 29, 1969.
The receiving report noted the absence of a required N stamp.
J A letter in the B&W site file, datgd Nove=ber 5, 1969, stated that the N stamp tag had been installed.
The FE0 had trans=itted docu=entation on the tank to steam production.
At the request of the inspector, the B&W QA data package fer Mark 2HP-Tl (Letdown Storage Tank), Chattanooga Boiler and Tank
Company, was returned for review. The inspector found this package, dated January 8,1971, to contain the following:
~
QA transmittal Slip QA Data Sheet
-
Testing Certification
.
Cleaning Certification Painting Certification Rubbing of Name Plate; No N Stamp I,
UlA Form X-ray Certification (
Mill Test Reports, 9 through 16.
.
l i
!
- l
-.,.
-.
-
.
.. -. -.-
. -.. -
.. -- - l i
'
l
,
.
,
!
~
~
s i
)
/
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 I-ll
l The inspector went on February 15, 1973, to the B&W' site office and j
reviewed the file entitled " Letdown Storage Tank." The file contained
{
a receiving inspection report dated Dece=ber 7, 1968, with informa-tion copied from the DPC receiving report prepared before 3&W had a man onsite. This stated that there were no external discrepancies
-
and that no internal inspection was cade.
i I
l The record showed that an in-storage inspection was cade on April 1, 1969, and the interior of the tank was found to be " dry and clean."
" External rust on the upper shell and head probably 'due to weld
~
,'
spatter in shop."
Three other in-storage inspections were recorded before the tank
was reported moved into the auxiliary building on Septe=ber 19, 1969.
!
An undated B&W installation inspection report was'found which noted
_ _ _. _
!
no discrepancies. Deviation N-1002;~prepar_ed April 1,1969, noted:
~ ~ _
"CB&T on jobsite Dece=ber 7,1970, and repaired tank-on weld spatter."
,
14. Reactor Building Emerzency Cooline Fans A receiving inspection, Form QC-31, for fan cotors, was signed off December 15, 1969.
The electrical section of FE0 perfor=ed the inspection of installed fan units using For: QC-46, entitled " Electrical-Instrucentation Equipment Installation Inspection." QC signoff for installed fans was dated June 6,1972, and was dated June 12, 1972, for the fan cotors.
The inspector found a =e=orandus to QA file dated Nove=ber 21, 1972, with subject: Trans=ittal of Docu=entation Ocone'e 2 to construction at Oconee - Duke File 0S-18.3.
Item 3., Reactor Building Cooling Fans, Joy Manufacturing Cc=pany, 20 B-213, 2 speed, 150-175 hp, and 124 rpm.
Visual Inspection:
The reactor building e=ergency cooling fan installa-tions were inspected on the af ternoon of February 15, 1973, with the DPC =echanical engineer who had overseen their installation and had devised an elaborate flanged piping =anifold required to permit replace =ent access for the cooling Jils in the ducting distributing the fan's output. No discrepancies were noted in the installed fans and connecting syste=s.
-
The installed system had been transferred to steam production (operations)
by the electrical section of FEO.
The inspector reviewed records in the file pertaining to Reactor Building E=ergency Cooling Fans 2A, 23, and 2C =anufactured by Joy Manufacturing Cc=pany.
The file contains =aterial certification and analysis reports for fans S/N GF-
.
,%%,.._
- 'm*--
' * ' - " " '
w
,
+
!
.I
'T -
'
s i
i RO Rp t. No. 50-270/73-2 I-12 i
.
13705 through 13713 and for GF-14462.
Drawings entitled " Vibration Isolation and Seismic Force Protection For Joy Fans" were stamped as received on August 19, 1970.
The file also contained the quality assurance manual for the fan motors, supplied by Reliance Electric Company.
- The QA/QC records on the f ans themselves were missing from this file.
These were obtained from the " blockhouse," a transitional records storage structure. There were three thick files for the fans.
Files were designated OS-95L-4,
-5,
-6.
They contain specifications, criteria, meeting minutes, shop inspection reports, test results, radiation resistance test results, and other docu=ents.
It was evident that Joy Manufacturing Company intended to qualify their
.
fans for nuclear service beyond this three-fan purchase.
.
_w
.
%
O
.-.
-
.-_
~~.._-.s
.. _.
.~,.._
c s
m wwwm
.~
~~ --. a
- s.
,
-.a
_
.
I I
'
-
,
.
i RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 II-l DETAILS II Prepared By
- me af 3 / S / 7.h" T7 ET Conlon, Reactor Inspector
/Datd
.
Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Dates of Inspection: Feb ruary 13-16, 1973
! &w[
,2//Jh3 Reviewed By:
C. BryartE, Senior Inspector Date '
.ngineering Section Facilities Construction Branch 1.
Persons Contacted
.
Duke Power Cocoany (DPC)
'
S. W. Dressler - Associate Field Engineer, Piping O
B. H. Webster - Associate Field Engineer, Systems
'
A. R. Hellins - Associate Field Engineer, Welding fV L. R. Davison - Associate Field Engineer, NDT 2.
Reactor Vessel Core Supcort Records During a followup record review on reactor vessel upper and lower core supports, it was determined that dccu=entation for receipt inspection and vendor certification for caterial and fabrication were not available at the site.
Duke field engineers traced the vender documentation to Babcox and Wilcox Co=cany (B&W) in Barberten, Ohio. The receipt inspec-tion records were traced to DPC's =ain of fice in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The inspector inq tired if the =issing records would be at the site p rior to final installation of core supports.
DPC =anagement gave assurance that the appropriate docu=entation would be available for review at the site prior to final installation.
'
3.
Main Steam System
.
a.
Welding
.
DPC personnel informed the inspector that all welding is cocplete on the main steam piping; therefore, followup observations of welding in progress could not be performed during this inspection.
.
~es-e-..nm..,
--w w m
.,m.e-s
- -. -..,
--a
_
o
--_e-
--
_.
_
_
.
.
i i
RO Rpt. No.-50-270/73-2 II-2
.
The inspector performed a folicwup record review of welding by arbitrarily selecting four field welds and checking the associated QC records.
The four field welds were Nos. 3, - 5, 13 and 14 for Mai: Steam System No. OLA.
These field welds are pipe to nozzle The joints on the inlet side of the four. main steam stop valves.
pipe is carbon steel and 24 inches in diameter.
All joints are of the butt type with backing rings. The following records for the above-listed field welds were reviewed:
(1) Isometric sketch No. 4
-
(2) Field weld checkoff list for each joint
,
(3) DPC construction procedure E1.0 (4) Radiographs and evaluation sheets
_ _
_. _
_
_ _
(5) Weld procedure and qualification
-
There were no deficiencies or violations identified in welding of the main steam sys tem.
b.
Piping Flushing and hydrostatic testing of the =ain steam and feedwater syste=s have not been done as of this inspection.
Discussions with steam production personnel indicated that flushing and hydrostatic testing will be accomplished ~af ter March 1973.
The inspector performed a folicwup record review of receipt inspections, and material certifications from vendors.
There were no deficiencies or violations identified in the piping.for the main steam system.
~
4.
Reactor Vessel Internals Upper and Lower Core Suceorts
.
,
The upper and lower core supports (ULCS) were f abricated by Allis-
Chalmers (AC). During shiptent to the site, one of the storage con-tainers sustained external damage.
Visual inspection of container contents revealed no damage to core support parts.
Record review showed that AC certified cleanliness to Level C and DPC cleaned all mating parts prior to initial asse=bly.
Af ter assembly, the entire
.
unit was cleaned by DuPont to Level 3.
.
.
- - - -
.-
.. -.
... -..
.-
.-
-
,
~y.
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-2 II-3 In order to maintain this degree of cleanliness, the unit is stored in a partitioned-off section of the refueling canal.
The unit itself is draped with plastic sheets using tape to seal along all edges.
The partitioned-off portion of the refueling canal, slong with the plastic wrap, provides a controllable environment for maintaining cleanliness.
The ULCS assembly and initial trial installation was conducted in accordance with DPC FIP-130. This procedure was concurred with by B&W.
Af ter the incident involving failure of the in-core instrumentation nozzles and guide tubes on Unit 1 (R0 Report No. 50-269/72-3), the ULCS for Unit 2 was disassembled for codification by B&W.
Upon completion of the modification to the in-core instrument guide tubes,
the unit was reasse= bled, reinstalled for fitup, and is presently stored in the refueling canal.
Final cleaning of the entire as-sembly will be done at a later date, but prior to final installation.
5.
Main Steam Relief Valves The main steam relief valves were manufactured by Crosby Valve and Gage Comp any. DPC purchased the valves under specification OS-254.
After review of DPC receipt inspection (form QC-31), the follcwing vendor documentation was checked:
a.
Material certification
.
b.
Radiographic evaluation Liquid penetrant. test on nozzles and discs c.
d.
Hydrostatic tests results e.
Vendor certification of cocpliance
~
There were no deficiencies or violations identified in this area.
.
6.
-
a.
Cleaning (Internal)
Final cJeaning of all internal surf aces of the reactor coolant system compenents and associated piping had not been accomplished as of this-inspection. The licensee informed the inspector that final cleaning would be done on Unit 2 using procedures si=ilar to those used on Unit 1,i.e., gross cleaning will be done in accordance with field inspection procedure.FIP-15 and final cleaning
.
in accordance with a procedure similar to TP/1/B/200/16-2.
.
- m amemwn
..wwmm-r..em--
-
,
-
-..
._ --
... -
.
. -..
-. - ~
-
.
!
-
l
'
l
- .3
-
I
,
..s l
!
R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/ 73-2 II-4
-
.s i
-
i j
b.
Hydrostatic Testing I
Hydrostatic testing will be done af ter final cleaning.
A separate procedure will be written for Unit 2, si=ilar to the procedure (TP/23/230/2) used on Unit 1.
The licensee agreed to notify Region II prior to hydrostatic testing.
!
!
!
!
-
i
.
!
a i
-
A
!
-
!
.
-
i t
n
.
.Ii-
.
e e
.*
,
'
.-. -.
. - _. -
.-
__ _
__
.,_
_, _ _
___
-
. -.
.-
-
.. -, _.... _...
-.
.
.
-. - -
.
., _ _.
. _ _,, - -... - - -. -..,...,
!
'h
.
,
RO Report No. 50-270/73-2 III-l
!
- f 0b-it '6$
i t7 7T o
DETAILS III Prepared By:
F. U. Bower, Reactor Date i?spector, Engineering Section, Facilit'ies Construction Branch Dates of Inspection:
February 13-16, 1973 Reviewed By:
s w/
ef[/9/93
. 4ryant@enicz'
Date
.
spector, Engineering Section, Facilities Construction Branch 1.
Persons Centacted Duke Pcwer Cemeany (DPC)
C. Aycock - Senior Field Engineer K. Schmidt - Associate Field Engineer M. Stancil - Electrical Inspector
D. Hatley - Assistant Field Engineer C. Groce - Relay Foreman 2.
Instrumentation and Electrical Systems Portiens of a number of systems were examined; these included repre-sentative sanples of equipment, =aterials, compenents, records and the physical installation to determine that requirements associated with these systems had been adhered to and that a level of assurance compatible with the needs related to public safety had been met.
Systems examined included the following:
Steam generator integrated controls, primay ecolant temperature, primary coolant pressure,
'
uninterrupted a.c. pcwer system, battery systems and Keewee-Ccenee emergency power.
Representative components forming a part of the above systems were
,
selected for in-depth review and consisted of the follcwing:
a.
Steam senerator' integrated controls - Level transmitter 2LT-77 and connecting cable No. 2IS46a.
b.
Primary coolant temperature - RTD sensors 2RDIA and RD2B and connecting cables No. 2ENIS10Sa and No. 2ENIS207a.
,
l
'%
.
l
- -. -
-. - - ~ ~ -
- _.. -
_,, _
_
_.
_ _ _
_
l L
.)
~
>,
- l i
f
-)
RO Report No. 50-270/73-2 III-2
.
c.
Primary coolant pressure - pressure transmitters No. 2PT17P and No. 2PT18P and connecting cables No. 2ENIsll3a and No. 2tSIS214a.
d.
Uninterrupted a.c. pcwer and battery system - No material or hardware items were examined for these systems.
Inspection activity was
,
related to QC system review as implemented by the QC site unit.
e.
Keowee-Ocenee emergency power - Transformer CT-4 and 15 kv feeder cables.
3.
Record Review
_
The followup record review confirmed that the several vendors had provided certificates as required by the CA program and as set forth in the procurement dccument.
The record files included confirmation that the site receiving unit had accepted the equipment as ccmplete and the engineering department had reviewed these documents and certi-fled the equipment as suitaile for installation.
Difficulty was encountered in interpreting the QC records purporting to approve the installation of these equipments.
It was finally shown in every case that the QC record was ccmplete; hcwever, success in this endeavor was dependent to a substantial degree upon the informal logs and personal memories of the individual inspectors responsible for generating the records.
The inspector discouraged the continued use of signed off construction documents as QC records since, in many cases, the work represented by any construction drawing could and did continue over a long pezied of time causing doubts to arise as to the validity of such approvals.
In this regard, the inspector was told by the responsible licensee representative that a new procedure, which is in the planning scage, would be available for future use.
4.
Review of QC System
-
The QC system was reviewed to determine if suitable provisions were available to ecnfirm that requirements associated with such factors as wireway separation and protection, cable routing systems, cable redundancy and separation, wireway loading and relay coordination were met.
A procedure governing the QC activities associated with tray and cable installation has been prepared and i=plemented at the site.
,
l This procedure, No. M-40, " Electrical Cable Installation and I
.
. _ _
_.
.
._
.
'
<
t
-
-s
)
i RO Report No. 50-270/73-2 III-3 i
f Inspection," details the activities of the QC inspector for inspection and documentation.
Requirements as they pertain to the individual installations are detailed in other documents. The FSAR, Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.1.1, ccmmits to the intent of IEEE-279.
Drawing Nos.
CEE-14-1B,lP and lQ established tray fill and separation requirements.
(Tray fill is 100% for all' cables other than pcwer cables - Pcwer Cables are to meet IFCEA standards.)
Wireway separatien and protection and the cable (tray) routing system are further discussed in FSAR Sections 7.1.2.3.5 and 8.2.2.13.
The requirement for redundant systems has been identified and enumerated in the FSAR, Section 8, Table 13-1.
A DRL safety evaluation report dated December 28, 1970, was en file at the site which made specific statements of approval (page 54)
of the " Applicants" desigt provisions for identification and separatien-of redundant syste=s cable and equipment.
'
.
. __, _.
The power protective relays, associated with the safety related
~
systems, are under the jurisdication of the Relay Division of the - ---
Relay Meter and Communication Department.
A detailed discussion with the responsible site representative of this unit revealed that this group includes approximately 20 engineers and 30 field technicians.
Three technicians are assigned to Cconee full time. As in many-
-- -
-
utilities, this unit has overall system responsibility for power pro-tective relays including coordination studies, relay settings tests, calibration, maintenance and repair.
A review of site records indicated that a comprehensive and continuing program is in effect at Cconee that *is expected'to assure a level of quality in this area, compatible with the requirements..
5.
Cbservation of Work Electrical and Instrumentation Ccmponents a.
Examinatien of the installation of the several ce=ponents listed
_
in Cetails III, paragraph 2 abcve, was made frem the standpcint of installation techniqu'es, protection of installed compenents
._
-
and quarantine of nonconforming components.
For those equipe nts...
ccmpleted, no deficiencies were identified.
I b.
Cables and Terminations The several cables listed in Details III, paragraph 2 above, were examined as installed to determine that program requirements
,
such as materials, wireway separation, protection, cable routing, cable redundancy, cable separation, wireway leading, NDT and
,
QC inspection had been met.
.
.
5 -
.m--,m
.~m--
mm,.
-
wwe.
-. - - ~
~
W
I,' q
-
i s
RO Report No. 50-270/73-2 III-4
.
Some minor deficiencies that were noted will be corrected in the final cleanup of the job as planned by the site field engineer.
The minor deficiencies noted were workmanship items and were not exclusively related to safety systems.
They included the following:
Level transmitter 2LT-7P is also marked as 2LT-7A.
Cable channel G-4 does not follcw design configuration and does not meet the fill criteria.
(Note: Only one cable in this tray is a safety system ccmponent.
Balance of plant cables are principally at fnit.)
Cables serving a primary circulation pump motor (south) have an unsupported length in 4xcess of criteria.
.
QC inspection records were not completely adequate without explanation by individuals directly responsible for the generations of sr h documents. This problem is seemingly created by the usu of signed off construction drawings as the QC record documents. The responsible field engineer stated that this problem was in the process of correction and a new procedure would be prepared and implemented in
the future.
-
NCTIE:
It was not possible to visually inspect the buried portions of the Keowee-Oconee emergency pcwer cables since they were installed and placed in service to support Cconee Unit No. 1.
This installation had been witnessed by the Unit 1 Principal Inspector and no deficiencies had been observed.
(See RO Report No. 50-269/70-10).
Very comprehensive records are available for this installation and they were examined by this inspector.
In addition, a report.of a recent DFC manage-ment audit (November 8-10, 1972) also made in this area was examined.
The records appeared cceplete and did not reveal
,
deficiencies.
.
.
.
I t
,
-
i
,
.m n.- m n.
ween.-
. ~ ~.. -
.-n..
-~.-s
-
...~,..-. ~
)
RO Report No. 50-270/73-2 IV-1
.
DETAILS IV Prepared By:
hl)
2/23/73 i
t w., w G. R. Klingler, Reactor
'Date Inspector, Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: February 9,1973 Reviewed By:
n :4
. 7I1MN C. E. Murphy,/Acti rg Chief Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Ceepany (DPC)
\\
-
K. Smith - Associate Field Engineer - Electrical L. Freeze - Principal Field Engineer C. Aycock - Senior Field Engineer 2.
Control cable Terminatiens i
No procedures have been written that specify a particular asse=bly sequence or define quality standards for installing spades on control
cables.
Installation verification of control cables on their terminal strips is ade against an engineering drawing by a QC inspector, and cable meggering is also perfor=ed according to a procedure with results
+
documented.
3.
Conductor Splicing Inspection of installed cables was nade to determine if conductor splicing was being performed. Those areas inspected were in the cable spreading roo= and control rocs flocr penetrations.
For those areas inspected, no conductor splicing was detected. There is no precedure
-
written for conductor splicing, and DPC personnel stated that it is not their policy to allow conductor splicing.
.
- =*
..-..w,
_%
.