IR 05000302/1972003
| ML19308D197 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1972 |
| From: | Murphy C, Vallish E, Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308D170 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-72-03, 50-302-72-3, NUDOCS 8002270662 | |
| Download: ML19308D197 (27) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _. O.
, - ,O . . e UNITED STATES m gf[ d h ,1 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION hl* DIVISION OF COMPLI ANCE ,'
\\'* RE 3 O *4 i t - h t T E 318
- / >< /
s 2 33 P E AC H 's4 E E ST A C E *, N C A' H w E ST , , , L A,N T 4. G E C H G i A 30333 'Jrf5 t' AT , RO Inspection Report No. 50-302/72-3 Florida Power Corporatien Crystal River Unit 3 License No.: CPPR-51 Crystal River, Flori.fa Docket No.: 50-302 Category: A2 Type of Licensee: B&W, PWR, 855 MW(e) , Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: August 15-17, and 29-31, 1972 Dates of Previous Inspection: May 9-12, May 24-26, and June 12, 1972 ' Principal Inspector: [[d.//2A,rd f-B 7-7R R. F. Warnick, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Te t tarup Branch Accompanying Inspectors: C 9 - M-7 Z_ v E. J/. Vallish, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Construction Branch C 9-28-72- % R. C. Parker, Reactor Inspector Date Reactor Test and Startup Branch V-2 2 -7 L-th 1A-* G. R. Klingler, Reactof Inspector Date Reactor Construction Branch
Other Accompanying Personn
- None Reviewed By:. ('
b, 7 2-f!7 2 - C. E. Murpy,IAct g Chief Da'te Reactor Test and afartup Branch Proprietary Information: None O - 8ooes7 g , - _ - _ - _ . _ _. , .-... .
- _ ... ~, .m . . ,
R0 Report No. 50-302/72-3-2- ' . SECIION I
, Enforcement Action l A.
Noncompliance Items 1.
Contrary to Paragraph 1.7.5.2.2 of the FSAR, the sections of the 3&W Construction Company Field Specifications for NSS Components, or , parts thereof, which are applicable to Crystal River 3 have not been identified.
(See Section IV, paragraph 1.)
2.
Contrary to Criterion I and II of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 the quality ! assurance - quality control program requirements which Florida Power Corporation (FPC) expects B6W Construction Company to adhere j to have not been clearly established and delineated in writing.
(See Section II, paragraph 8.)
, Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Equipment Storage and Inspection Program (Letters to FPC, dated O November 24, 1971 and July 24, 1972) , Although FPC has responded to this item twice, the inspectors continue to find deficiencies in this area. (See Section II, paragraph 8, and Section IV, paragraph 2.)
B.
Valve Wall Thickness (Letter to FPC, dated November 24, 1971) FPC's response dated July 21, 1972, to the generic letter sent to licensees by R0, dated June 30, 1972, was received.
It is being ! reviewed by the Construction Branch, RO:II.
C.
Material and Fabrication Certifications (Letter to FPC, dated January 27, 1972)
No change.
FPC has responded to RO:II's letter, but B&W Company's corrective actions have not yet been completed.
< h $ f , - - . - - .,,, . _, _ -. _ ,. - _ _ - _.,,, -... - -. -. .. _.. -,, - _.. - -,.. -....l --
_ _ ... . _.
.. . . ?>
. , t , . . \\s_- RO Report No.
50-302/72-3-3-D.
Weld Rod Control (Letter to FPC, dated July 24, 1972) FPC responded satisfactorily to this item in their letter to RO:II dated August 23, 1972.
Corrective actions will be reviewed during - a subsequent inspection.
Unresolved Items A.
Decay Heat Pump and Motor (DKP-1A) Neither B&W nor FPC have documented the deficiencies observed on j DHP-1A pump and motor.
More information is required before a . decision can be made as to whether or not an item of noncompliance ' ' exists.
(See Section II, paragraph 9.)
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items A.
Decay Heat Service Heat Exchangers - Defective Channel Head (R0 Report No. 50-302/70-4) C A new head was stress relieved and shipped to the site. The stress relief temperature recording was reviewed.
This item is closed.
(See Section II, paragraph 10.)
B.
Tendon Wire Greasing Procedure (R0 Report No. 50-302/71-3) Prescon's procedure for greasing the tendon wires during the tendon manufacture were reviewed. This item is closed.
(See Section II, paragraph 11.)
C.
Waste Gas Decay Tanks, WDT-1A,1B, and 1C - Procedure and Records For Repair (Letter to FPC, dated August 26, 1971) The tanks were repaired and hydrostatically tested at 225 psig. The repairs and documentation were inspected. There are no further questions.
(See Section II, paragraph 12.)
D.
Procedure For Final Inspection of Piping Systems Prior to Hydrostatic Testing and Application of Insulation (Letter to FPC, dated August 26, 1971) No change. The procedure will not be needed until later in construction.
! FPC has not yet written the procedure.
- i _ _ . ., - - . . - - .. - ____ -. .. - - . --. __ -
._ - 's ,' i , . . ,-- I \\ , - O , RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-4-E.
Steam Generator Anchor Bolt Weld Requirements (RO Report No. 50-302/71-4) The steam generator anchor bolt weld requirements and appropriate docu-mentation were reviewed. There are no further questions.
This item is closed.
(See Section III, paragraph 4.)
F.
Cleaning Procedures for Stainless Steel Pipe and Valves (R0 Report Nos.
50-302/71-5 and 72-2) No change. Jackson indicated this procedure would be written and approved before it is needed at the site.
' G.
Access To Working Level Personnel (R0 Report No. 50-302/72-2) Kleinman informed representatives of each of FPC's subcontractors that AEC inspectors would on occasion talk to working level personnel within the subcontractors organization without representatives of management being present.
This item appears to be resolved.
(See Section II, paragraph 13.)
Design Changes None . . Unusual Occurrences During removal of concrete forms, FPC found a void in the reactor building cylindrical concrete structure directly under the personnel air lock. FPC considered the void reportable under the rules of 10 CFR 50.55(e). This was the subject of Inquiry Report No. 50-302/72-1.
(See Section II, para-graph 14.)
, ' Persons Contacted Florida Power Corporation (FPC) C. E. Jackson - Construction Superintendent J. C. Hobbs - Superindent, Electrical and Mechanical Systems M. H. Kleinman - Manager, Quality Programs and Standards E. E. Froats - Quality Engineer J. S. Fiedler - Quality Engineer D. W. Pedrick - Engineer - R. B. Johnson - Engineer R. S. Dorrie - Engineer .
w n
_ a i . . , .s . - . ,, ED Report No. 50-302/72-3-5-t A P. G. Davis - Manager, Power Testing W. P. Stewart - Assistant Nuclear Plant Superintendent P. F. McKee - Nuclear Operations Engineer G. P. Beatty - Production-Staff Nuclear Engineer J. K. Jenkinson - Shift Supervisor J. A. Jones Construction Company (JAJ) N. T. Weems - Corporate Quality Assurance Manager i E. P. Shows - Project Manager J. R. Amundson - Site Quality Control Supervisor ! Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (B&W) i L. M. Watson - Field Project Manager J. R. McGill - Quality Control Supervisor ' i T. J. Richardson - Field Engineer i H. T. Chinnis - Inspector Gilbert Associates, Incorporated (GAI) S. R. Buckingham - Coordinating Quality Assurance Engineer i EC Ernst Incorporated (ECE) E. A. Taylor - Project Manager R. I. Lorraine - Electrical Quality Control Supervisor Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) G. B. Browne - Chief Inspector Livsey and Company (Livsey) J. J. Weaver - Mechanical Manager Management Interview
f The results of the inspection of August 14-17 were discussed in a management interview held on August 17, 1972. The inspection effort was continued i during the week of August 29-31 and the results were discussed in a manage- . ment interview held on August 31, 1972. The following people attended i one or both of the meetings: s l ! ! _._.
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ -_ ,_. _- _ _ _. _. _. -
, ... - _ -... - -.-- . -. . -. . -... - - -. - .. - . _ __ -- a* . IS I . . ' . - I . . . RO. Report No. 50-302/72-3-6-C. E. Jackson FPC Both meetings J. C. Hobbs FPC Both meetings M. H. Kleinman FPC Both meetings E. E. Froats FPC Both meetings D. W. Pedrick FPC August 31, 1972 R. B. Johnson FPC August 31, 1972
R.-S.
Dorrie FPC Augus t 31, 1972 J. R. Amundson JAJ Both-meetings i ! J. R. McGill B&W Both meetings S. R. Buckingham GAI Both meetings R. I. Lorraine ECE August 31, 1972 ' A.
B&W Field Specifications for NSS Components In the interview on August 17 Warnick stated that Parker had learned that the procedures contained within the field specifications were not used for the conduct of work. Warnick said that this finding was contrary to information received previously from FPC management that the Field Specifications for NSS Components would be used for the conduct of work. Warnick stated thct he was concerned about the status of the B&W quality control program and in particular the status and use of the B&W Field specifications.
On August 31 Warnick stated that he had been informed by McGill that.
l some field specifications, and parts of other field specifications, - were not applicable to the Crystal River 3 site. Prior to the August 31 management interview, Jackson indicated that FPC would have the B&W Field Specifications for NSS Components reviewed and would identify the parts applicable to Crystal River 3.
This commitment was confirmed by Jackson in the u.anagement inter dew. Warnick said that failure to identify in writing which parts ' the B&W Construction Company Field Specifications were applicable to Crystal River 3 appeared to be contrary to paragraph 1.7.5.2.2 of FPC's FSAR. (See Section IV, paragraph 1.)
B.
Receiving. Storage, and Inspection On August 17, Warnick stated that Parker had reviewed the NSS equipment quality control system and found deficiencies in the receiving, storage, . and inspection procedures.
Parker discussed specific deficiencies that were typical of his findings.
(See Section IV, paragraph 2.)
, (
__ _ _.
_ _ ____ . _. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ . ___ _.
. . _ I 'T I ' . . _ \\ . . ! R0 Report No. 50-302/72-3-7-C.
Identification of Quality Assurance - Quality Control Program for Class I Components ! On August 31 Warnick stated that he had been unable to determine what quality assurance - quality control requirments FPC expected B&W Con-
' I struction Company to follow. Warnick stated that B&W Construction Company had been onsite since June 1971, and they had received approxi-mately 90 percent of their material and equipment. Their duties, responsibilities, and procedures pertaining to receiving, storage, nandling, and inspection should have been clearly established and de-
i lineated in writing. Warnick stated that this appeared to be contrary to Criterion I, Organization, and Criterion II, Quality Assurance Program, of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
i Jackson confirmed the commitment made prior to the management interview that FPC would identify the QA/QC requirements they expect B&W to follow.
(See Section II, paragraph 8.)
D.
Decay Heat Pump Motors I
Warnick stated that he had observed the motors for decay heat pumps lA sud 1B being removed from the decay heat pits and had reviewed the documentation for DHP-1B motor and no deficiencies were noted. There was no documentation available for DFP-1A motor.
During the inspection, Froats told Warnick that B&W would originate the deficiency report and would also "close the loop." This was confirmed by Froats during the exit interview. Warnick indicated this would remain open until the appropriate documentation was reviewed.
(See Section II, paragraph 9.)
E.
Decay Heat Service Heat Exchanger - Defective Channel Head . Warnick indicated the stress relief temperature recording for the new channel head was reviewed. This item is closed.
(See Section II, paragraph 10.)
F.
Waste Gas Decay Tanks, WDT-1A.13. and 1C - Procedur,e and Records . For Repair Warnick stated that the repairs and the repair documentation were , inspected and there are no further questions.
(See Section II, paragraph 12.)
,
mY . . .... .- . -. . ~ .. _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,, _ . _,,..,.. _, _ _, _,, _ _. _ _ _ _,,, _.,
__.
_ _ ._ _.
._ _ _ IN i . . '
s , , 20 Report No. 50-302/72-3 8- - G.
Steam' Generator Anchor Bolt Weld Requirements Vallish stated that he had reviewed the documentation for the steam
- generator anchor bolt assembly and had no further questions.
(See ,
Section III, paragraph 4.)
H.
Access to Working Level Personnel l ' l Warnick indicated the resolution of this item appeared to be satisfactory.
l (See Section II, paragraph 13.)
i + l I.
Void in the Reactor Building Cylindrical Concrete Structure
j Warnick stated that Kleinman's verbal notification of the void under ' the personnel air lock was sufficient to comply with the prompt noti-fication required by 10 CFR 50.55(e) and that Region II would await FPC's written report.
During the exit interview of August 31, Warnick was given a preliminary copy of FPC's procedure for removing Pour 535 RB, the concrete placement in which the void was located. (See Section II, paragraph 14.)
J.
Concrete Deficiency Inspectibn, Repair, and Documentation Warnick indicated that to determine the effectiveness of the concrete inspection and deficiency report form, he had reviewed the documentation of, and had observed the repairs to, deficien'cies in concrete Pours
i 258CC and 289CC. Warnick stated that no deficiencies were noted and there are no further questions regarding these two items.
(See Section j II, paragraph 15.)
K.
Spent Fuel Pit Leak Chase Trenches
Warnick stated that he had reviewed the close out of nonconformance and corrective action report 002 and the proposed solution for cor-recting the subject of 0016, both concerning spent fuel pit leak chase trenches being mislocated, and had no further questions.
(See Section II, paragraph 16.)
i - l I l-l l' l' . ? r$--+ e-y y-,ys-m - - - - - -
v w
t' - w
+wg w-en-e -w
- -k*
-' WFP'e=9---eN "--ST 't-E'*w-E 'd
__ e ' . ,- m . . ) - ~. J RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-9-L.
Welding and Class I Structures and Supports Vallish related that he had performed an initial review of the QC procedures, work performance procedures, and record keeping require-ments; conducted a record review concerning construction requirements; and observed certain work performance in the field concerning welding, and Class I supports and structures, specifically, the reactor coolant bleed tanks and the steam generator supports.
He indicated he had no further questions but stated that the reactor coolant bleed tanks and the decay heat piping would be the subject of future followup inspections.
Corrective criticism of the decay heat piping field welds was offered by Vallish.
He stated that some joints show signs of either excessive weld grinding or banding and that although the welds still conform to the applicable codes, care should be taken to prevent this from becoming a problem. Jackson said he would look into the matter.
(See Section III, paragraphs 1 and 2.)
M.
Radiographs Vallish stated that he had conducted a spot check of the traceability of field welds to their NDT record file, and conducted a random sampling of RT record films for signs of alteration.
(See Section III, paragraph 3.)
N.
Pregreasing of Tendon Wires , Warnick stated that he had reviewed Prescon's procedure for greasing the tendon wires during, the tendon manufacture.
This item is closed.
(See Section II, paragraph 11.)
0.
Electrical and Instrumentation Klingler stated that he had reviewed the QC program for instrument and electrical components and cables, as required by the FSAR and Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, and had no further questions.
(See Section V, paragraphs 1-4.)
.
s_ / ! - - ,. . ,- .. -~
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _
.- - , .m.
. ' ('~ . . . RD Reporc No. 50-302/72-3-10-i SECTION II . Prepared by: R. F. Warnick, Reactor ' Inspector
Reactor Test and Startup ,
Branch ADDITIONAL SUEJECTS INSPECTED, NOT IDENTIFIED IN SECTION I, WHERE NO j DEFICIENCIES OR UNRESOLVED ITEMS WERE E UND 1.
General ' Jackson gave the inspector a copy of the recently revised construction
schedule. Because of a change in FPC's schedule and method of figuring completion, Jackson reported that construction was considered 51% complete. (The previous inspection report, 50-302/72-2, indicated con-struction was 52% complete.)
The work force for the week ending August 11, 1972, was 1405.
Control complex building concrete placement had been completed. Major work in progress consisted of forming and installing rebar in the auxiliary building, installing electrical conduit and cable trays, installing the stainless steel liner in the spent fuel , g pit, and placing concrete for the reactor building shielding walls.
i ! 2.
Organization Changes FPC had made one change in the corporate level management affecting ' Crystal River 3.
The responsibilities of J. T. Rodgers, Assistant Vice President and Nuclear Project Manager, have been divided. The following people continue to report to him: W. A. Szelistowski, Director - Generation Engineering, M. H. Kleinman, Manager - Quality Programs and Standards, and J. A. Hancock, Manager - Generation En-vironmental and Regulatory Affairs.
Formerly H. L. Bennett, Director - Generation Construction, and R. B. McKnight, Manager - Generation Services Department, also re-ported to J. T. Rodgers. Now they report to P. C. Henry who is in the newly created position of Assistant to the Senior Vice President.
Both Rodgers and Henry report to R. E. Raymond, Senior Vice President, , ' the same individual Rodgers has been reporting to.
, p . I - - - -, ,_ , ._ _ ,,. . -,.,, -- -_,vr,-, , , -.,.,,
_- -_ ._ . _. ~ p i .. . ' RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-11-3.
Personnel Changes The following personnel changes have been made which affect FPC's Quality Surveillance, Quality Assurance, and Quality Control..Fiedler has resigned from the staff and terminated September 1,1972. He was hired by FPC to be the Quality Engineer for Crystal River Unit 4.
His resignation was prompted by FPC's cancellation of Unit 4.
He has been hired by Bechtel and is to be the Project Quality Assurance Engineer, , Greenwood Nuclear Energy Center, Detroit Edison Company, Pcrt Huron,
Michigan.
Richard S. Dorrie has been hired as an engineer in Quality Surveillance.
He was formerly a QC Engineer with United Constructors.
In GAI Damaso left and was replaced by T. Sockaci.
Sockaci will be the QA structural inspector.
RO:II does not visualize these changes having an adverse effect on the quality of the construction.
- 4.
Quality Surveillance Audits
- (
The inspector reviewed about half of Froats' Quality Surveillance file 2.2 entitled " Audits by Generation Quality and Standards Department."
FPC Quality Program - Procedures and Training 1/ 5.
As a result of audits conducted by FPC which revealed weaknesses in FPC's quality assurance - quality control program, 32 new quality , control procedures have been written by JAJ, and since June 5, 1972, twenty training classes have been conducted.
The inspector reviewed procedures: QCP - 3.2.1.1, Planning and Scheduling of FPC Generation Quality and Standards Field Audits of Construction Activities.
QCP -.3.2.1.2, Method of Conducting and Documenting FPC Field Audits of Construction Activities.
JAJ - II.2, Administrative Procedure - Formal Training Program.
JAJ - XVIII.l.2, Technical Procedure - Logbook Audits.
! ' O If See RO Report No. 50-302/72-2, Section II, paragraph 14.
! . .. -. - . ... - - . ,
_- - - - -- - . % N )
. RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-12-i J 6.
Decay Heat System Valves 4A and 4B As a result of an-Inquiry Report 1/ concerning a decay heat system - valve problem at a similar facility, the inspector reviewed the drawing of the 10-inch wedge gate Walworth valves to see if a similar problem existed at Crystal River 3.
Kleinman indicated that FPC will not use vnives 4A and 4B for regulating valves. The inspectors findings were discussed with the principal inspector assigned to the facility that reported the valve failure, and it appears that the valves at Crystal River 3 are not identical to the valve that failed.
7.
Crane Testing and Component Lifting The inspector reviewed FPC's program for routine inspection and main-tenance of mobile cranes and hoists used to lif t Class I components.
DETAILS OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN SECTION I 8.
Identification of Quality Assurance - Quality Control Program for Class I Components , During the inspection of December 7-10, 1971, Warnick and Moseley had been given the understanding by Kleinman and Froats that work at Crystal River 3 which was accomplished by B&W Construction Company was done in accordance with the B&W Construction Company Quality Control Manual and the B&W Construction Company Field Specifications for NSS Components and that these two volumes plus the two volume , FPC Quality Manual described the B&W quality requirements. Because of this understanding and to facilitate the inspection effort, RO:II requested and received a gopy of each of the four volumes for review in the regional office. 2f During this inspection Jackson informed Warnick that B&W was not expected to follow the requirements delineated in the four volumes.
Warnick was unable to determine exactly what quality assurance - quality control requirements FPC expected B&W to follow.
1/ Inquiry Report No. 50-269/72-5.
h \\s,,/ j[/ See R0 Report No. 50-302/71-5, Section II, paragraph 12, and letter to-FPC from J. G. Davis, dated January 27, 1972
< - - ,- - -,, - - -- --
-- -_ _ _. __ .. _-..._..
. -. /% ) i
. ' '
. R0 Raport No.- 50-302/72-3-13- . During the exit interview Warnick stated that B&W Construction Company had been onsite since June.1971, and had received approximately 90% - of their material and equipment. He stated that their duties and -
responsibilities and procedures pertaining to receiving, storage, - handling, and inspection should have been clearly established and delineated in writing.
In the canagement interview Warnick stated that this appeared to be ) , contrary to Criterion I, Organization, and Criterion II, Quality Assurance Program, of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
Criterion I states in part, "The authority and duties of persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall be clearly established and ielineated in writing."
(Quality Assurance as used in Appendix B also includes
quality control.)
Criterien II states in part "The applicant shall , establish at the earliest practicable time, consistant with the schedule for accomplishing the activities, a quality assurance program which
complies wich the requirements of this appendix.
This program shall be documented by written policies, procedures, or instructions. " .. ' This was discussed with Jackson prior to the management interview and i Jackson committed FPC to identify the QA/QC program FPC expected B&W l to follow.
In a phone conversation with Warnick on September 26, 1972, Kleinman agreed to the following actions: Review the B&W Construction Company's " Field Specifications for a.
NSS Components" and delete any items that do not apply to Crystal River Unit 3.
i b.
Review the E&W construction Company's " Quality Manual For Nuclear " Construction" and delete any requirements that do not apply to Crystal River Unit 3.
Define applicable FPC procedures that B&R Construction Company is < c.
to use in place of, or in addition to, any B&W procedures.
,
d.
Review the B&W Construction Company Quality Manual, Field Spectfi-cations, and Field Procedures with B&W Construction Company site supervision, e.
Resolve any questions that arise as a rusult of the above reviews.
B $
- N s
..,,, -, , -.,., , _ -- . , - -.. .,. . ..,-._,-n, - - --._ -,. - -
__ __ ___ __ e y , - (s',) s ' - R0 Report No. 50-302/72-3-14-9.
Decay Heat Pumps and Motors On August 15, 1972, the inspector observed the motors from decay heat pumps 1A and 1B being removed from the decay heat pits. The documen-tation for the motor for DHP-1B was reviewed and no deficiencies were noted. The motor strip heater had been wired to a 220 volt supply and had burned out, in spite of a permanent metal tag indicating the strip heater was wir,ed for 120V operation. The motor was removed for shipment to Westinghouse in Tampa for strip heater replacement and to test the motor windings.
Decay heat pump 1A motor was removed for shipment also. Froats reported that the motor strip heaters for both motors were 120V as specified by B&W and the manufacturer, Westinghouse. GAI, the A/E, had specified ' 480V. Froats stated that the strip heaters would be replaced with ones rated at 480V.
There was no documentation of this deficiency available for DHP-1A O motor.
Froats told the inspector that B&W would orginate a deficiency report and that they would also close the loop. During the exit inter-view of August 17, the inspector indicated this would remain an open item until the appropriate documentation was reviewed.
As of August 30, 1972, B&W Construction Company had no documentation concerning the DKP-1A motor problem. This was determined by review of the DHP-1A and DEP-1B inspection reports, the newly created tagging log book, and by discussion with McGill and Richardson.
During the review of DHP inspection reports, inspection ticket No. 11066 revealed that on August 1, 1972 the B&W inspector, Chinnis, rotated the shaf t of DHP-1A and discovered "a harsh rubbing sound." The pump was tagged with reject tag #1. Warnick determined that B&W Field Specification FS-IV-2, " Specification for Recording and Resolving Deviations on NSS Components and Equipment" was not implemented by B&W. When questioned McGill stated that he did not feel it was ap-plicable to the Crystal River site. The inspector found this hard to understand when FS-IV-2 contains the following paragraph.
"The Deviation Report serves to record any item which is found unacceptable at the time of in pection.
." .. . - -.
______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _____ t w ma ~, es
- - s , '-' RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-15- ' . I Watson and Richardson stated that B&W Construction Company Quality Control Specification 9A-ll2 (page 4c of B&W Construction Company's Quality Control Manual) was the governing instruction for deficiencies, such as the noise when the DHP-1A shaft was rotated, and design changes, such as enlargement of the steam generator bolt holes.
The scope of this specification 9A-ll2 states, "This specification shall govern-the procedure for handling nonconformities. Nonconformities shall be defined as items which do not conform to the requirements of con-tractual documentc. such as Field C _.cruction Procedures, customer or equipment supplier specifications, readures or drawings or the ASME code."
This remains an unresolved item. More information is required before the situation can be evaluated and a decision made whether or not an item of noncompliance exists.
10. Decay Heat Service Heat Exchanger - Defective Channel Head Aspreviouslyreported,thechannelheadforthedgyayheatservice } heat exchanger, DCHE-1B, was not stress relieved. -- This head was removed and returned to the supplier. A new head was stress relieved - and shipped to the site.
The stress relief temperature recording was reviewed by the inspector. There are no further questions.
11. Precoating of Tendon Wire 2/ "he inspector was shown a copy of the applicable portions of the Prescon Quality Control Manual which covered the procedure for application of grease to the tendons during manufacture. Applicable procedure paragraphs 5.2.13, 2.2.7.13, 2.2.7.14, and 3.8 were reviewed.
A letter accompanying the paragraphs indicated these had been reviewed by FPC and that representatives of FPC, GAI Engineering and GAI QA had been present at the Prescon Fabricating Shop and witnessed the greasing operation. The inspector has no further questions and considers this item resolved.
1/ See RO Report No. 50-302/70-4, paragraph F.
2/ See RO Report No. 50-302/71-3, Section II, paragraph 2.
s
. , ~ - - r + - - e
- ^3 . ~ O . RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-16-i i 12. Waste Gas Decay Tanks, WDT-1A, 1B, and 1C i During the receipt inspection of the tanks, the 1/2 inch pressure tap , on tank WDT-1A, the 1/2 inch pressure tap on tank WDT-1C, and the 1/2- ) inch pressure and the 3/4 inch temperature taps on tank WDT-1B were found bent to various degrees. l_/ These pipes were removed and new ones welded in as outlined in the procedure prepared by Livsey and Company, Inc.. The repair procedure and documentation were reviewed by the inspector. No deficiencies were noted. The three tanks were hydrostatically tested at 225 psig. The inspector has no further questions.
13. Access to Working Level Perocunel As agreed upon in the meeting of June 12, 1972, Warnick and Parker met with FPC and representatives of their subcontractors to discuss the AEC's need for acceg to working level personnel to accomplish insper. tion objectives. _ Those in attendance were Jackson, Hobbs, Klei. an, and Froats of FPC; Wee'ms, Shows, and Amundson of JAJ; McGill and Richardson of B&W; Taylor and Lorraine of ECE; Browne of PTL; Buckingham of GAI; and Weaver of Livsey.
Kleinman opened the meeting by explaining that the AEC inspectors will on occasion talk to working level personnel within the subcontractors organization without representatives of management being present.
The AEC inspection program was briefly explained. Warnick covered the following major points: The AEC does not conduct inspections of all construction activities, they use a sampling technique. The AEC inspects to see that QA and QC programs exist and meet minumum require-ments. The inspectors observe some completed work and some work in progress, and they review records against the codes, standards and design specified in the FSAR.
Specific deficiencies are documented only to show that the licensee has program deficiencies which need correcting.
The inspector explained that in the process of observing the work, ' it was on occasion desirable to talk to workers engaged in performing the work. The inspectors do not want to make a big deal about the matter. They normally would ask only a few questions to determine if the program was working as described in the FSAR. With management 1_/ See RO Report No. 50-302/71-3, paragraph G of *:he Management Interview.
2_/ See R0 Report No. 50-302/72-2, Section II, paragraph 25.
-
., _ -. . - - _ - - - _ _ - ___ - _.
. -- . A i . ' , . . RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-17-present, the worker might feel he was under pressure, or he might be afraid of giving a wrong answer. The workers might feel more fre.e to talk if management were not listening. Warnick explained that several individuals would be talked to so that any information given would not be traceable to a particular individual or else the worker might feel threatened.
It was explained that the AEC was not looking for worker gripes or complaints, nor were they trying to judge people. The inspectors would he determining if the QA and QC systems are working.
Should " problems" be mentioned, they will be pursueu with management to determine their validity.
, l The only question raised following Warnick's presentation concerned how the AEC inspector would identify himself to the worker. Neither Kleinman, Jackson, nor Warnick felt this would be a problem.. Warnick indicated he would go along with what ever system of identification ' FPC wanted to establish.
, 14. Void in the Reactor Building Cylindrical Concrete Structure On August 14, 1972, Kleinman telephoned Region.II to discuss a void in ~ i the reactor building cylindrical concrete structure, directly under , the personnel air lock. Because the extent of the void was not known at the time, Kleinman indicated FPC would determine the size.of the void and inform RO:II on August 16 whether or.not FPC considered the void reportable under the rules of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
On August 16, the inspector was notified by Kleinman that the void , was considered reportable. He stated that FPC would submit a written report with 30 days of that date.
While at the site the inspector observed and photographed the "oid.
Photographs of the void and reinforcing steel surrounding the air lock
.are on file in RO:II.
The reactor building concrete is 5 feet 6 inches thick at the void location. The void opening as viewed from outside the reactor building
was 16 inches wide and 3 inches high. The void was located directly j under the air lock and was contiguous to it.
- i s
'
, l _- . . .. .. . . .. .. .. _ ..
___ . ___ ___ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ e w.
i , RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-18-s_ i-An opening approximately 15 1/2 inches wide and 21 1/2 inches high was cut in the reactor building liner to facilitate inspection of the void.
As viewed through this opening, Warnick measured the void as 3 feet wide, 3 feet 9 inches high and 4 feet 2 inches deep at a point 29 inches below the air lock.
Fielder reported the void contained water when the hole was cut in the liner. The void contained about 4 inches of water when observed by the inspector.
(This was the distance between the botton of the void and the bottom of the hole in the liner.
. The void was in pour 535-RB. The concrete was placed on August 3, 1972.
The forms were removed on August 8, 1972. A nonconformance report was made out by FPC on August 9,1972.
On August 18, Kleinman stated in a phone call with Moseley that FPC would notify RO:II when their evaluation of the problem and their proposed repair procedure was prepared, so that Region II could review them prior to the actual repair.
O On August 30 the inspector was notified by Kleinman that FPC had com-pleted their evaluation of the concrete void in Pour No. 535-RB and had decided to remove all the concrete (approximately 50 yards) placed in that pour. The work was scheduled to begin as soon as the concrete removal procedure was approved.
The inspector was given a copy of the " Criteria for Removal of Concrete Pour 535-RB Around Personnel Access Opening" prepared by GAI and a preliminary unapproved copy of procedure JAJ-W57, " Work Procedure - Demolition of Concrete in Area of Personnel Access Hatch."
The void was the subject of Inquiry Report No. 50-302/72-1.
15. Defects in Concrete Pours 258CC and 289CC During the walk through inspection of the construction site, the in-spector observed a repaired defect in pour 289CC on the north and west walls of the control complex stair well between elevations 153 feet and 163 feet. To determine the effectiveness of the concrete inspection and deficiency report form, the inspector reviewed the. documentation.
The report revealed that the repairs were not entirely satisfactory and additional repair work was specified.
The RO:II inspector plans no further followup effort, since the proposed repair appears to be adequate.
V -- _ - .- . -..
~, w , , n.
V RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-19-The documentation of the inspection and repair of the defect observed in concrete pour 258CC (previously reported as pour 267CC) was reviewed and the repair was inspected Since no deficiencies were noted, this item is considered closed. lI 16. Spent Fuel Pit Leak Chase Trenches During an examination of FPC's nonconformance and corrective action ceports, the inspector noted that numbers 002 and 0016 concerned spent , fuel pit leak chase trenches being mislocated. This trip the inspector ' reviewed the closeout of 002 and the proposed solution for correcting 0016. The actual field work was not observed.
Since FPC's corrective actions appear to be adequate, this item is considered closed by the inspector and no further effort is planned.
i i 1/ See R0 Report No. 50-302/72-2, Section II, paragraph 20 ) s l' i .. - . - - --- - . . . . _ _ _.
~ e7 t , , . ' /~N-RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-20-SECTION III Prepared by: E. J. Vallish, Reactor Inspector Reactor Construction Branch ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS INSPECTED, NOT IDENTIFIED IN SECTION I, WHERE NO DEFICIENCIES OR UNRESOLVED ITEMS WERE FOUND 1.
Steam Generator Supports Initial review of the quality control procedures, work performance procedures, and record keeping requirements indicate they have been established in the field for welding and for the structures of the steam generator supports.
Inspection of certain of the welding and structures records indicates that the licensee is meeting the con-struction requirements for the QC system.
Inspection indicates the licensee-contractor line and QC organizations and functional relation- ' ships for materials and subassembly procurement, receipt, storage, o and erection of these supports was as docunented in the Application.
There are no further questions.
2.
Reactor Coolant Bleed Tanks Initial review of the quality control procedures, work performance procedures and record keeping requirements indicate that these have been established for the welding processes associated with these l tanks and that the licensee-contractor is meeting the construction requirements and his QC system in this regard is functioning.
Ob-servation of the contrautor work performance and construction techniques j verifies his meeting the construction requirements using adequate QC.
No further questions.
, 3.
Radiograph Check Random check of traceability of decay heat system field welds to NDT records revealed no deficiencies and a random inspection of radiographs on file indicated no evidence of alterations to these records.
DETAILS OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN SECTION I J . . .
~ ,/.s , RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-21-4.
Steam Generator Anchor Bolts Assembly 1! ' a.
The vendor's drawing titled, " Details of Anchor Plates" was furnished by the licensee. This design was approved by the , Architect / Engineer, Gilbert Associates, Inc., and indicates that the anchor bolts were to receive the full penetration weld, not the anchor plate. This item is considered resolved and closed.
, i , l , .
l i
1/ See RO Report No. 50-302/71-4, Section III, paragraph 3.
, - _ _,.,, .. _,.,. _ _ _. _.. _. . .., -. _. _ _,,..,.
__ _ . .. . _ G.
i . . , . RO Report No. 50-302/72-3 --22-SECTION IV Prepared by: R. C. Parker, Reactor Inspector Reactor Test and Startup Branch ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS INSPECTED, NOT IDENTIFIED IN SECTION I, WHERE NO DEFICIENCIES OR UNRESOLVED ITEMS WERE FOUND None-DETAILS OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN SECTION I 1.
B&W Field Specifications for NSS Components-Prior to the conduct of this inspection, the inspectors had ueen advised by FPC management that -the B&W Field Specifications for NSS Components were being utilized as work procedures for the conduct , of work on NSS components and systems.
RO:II had requested and received a copy of the Field Specification book to facilitate their inspection effort. The field specifications had been reviewed in detail by the inspectors in the RO:II office prior to this inspection and they appeared to adequately cover receipt, inspection, handling, storage, and installation of NSS components.
i l During this inspection it was determined in a conversation with McGill and later confirmed in a discussion with Jackson that the procedures contained within the field specifications were not used for the con-duct.of work. McGill stated that some field specifications were not applicable to the Crystal River 3 site. McGill indicated that part of the receiving, inspection, handling, storage, and installation work was governed by field procedures, while the balance was governed by field specifications.
Warnick said that failure to identify in writing which field specifi-i cations, or parts thereof, were applicable to Crsytal River 3 appeared to be contrary to paragraph 1.7.5.2.2 of FPC's FSAR which states in part, "The responsibilities of the B&W Quality Assurance program are: Establish quality requirements (and) Document and communicate the established quality requirements.
." . .
(
- _, - - _ _ ... _ _ _ _ . _, _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ . . /N i . - {'" RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-23- , V Prior to the August 31 management interview, Jackson told Warnick that FPC would have the B&W Field Specification book reviewed and would identify any items that do not apply to Crystal River 3.
This commit-ment was confirmed by Jackson in the exit interview.
2.
Equipment Receiving, Storage, and Inspection - Class I Components j RO:IIhasidentifieddeficienciesinFPC'sp{7gramforreceiving, storing, and inspecting Class I components. - FPC has responded to the RO:II letters of November 24, 1971 and July 24, 1972 but the inspectors continue to find deficiencies in the implementation of B&W Construction Company's portion of the program.
) During this inspection, Parker reviewed Reports of Inspection, Form PDS 31581. There were no procedures, prepared by the B&W site personnel, available for the conduct of receipt inspections of NSS components except for RCP components. The inspector reviewed the inspection report files for the pressurizer, steam generators, reactor coolant pumps and decay heat removal pumps.
In addition, the inspec- ' tor reviewed a few current unfiled inspection reports. The findings are outlined below.
a.
Receiving Inspection Report dated 4/6/72 " Pressurizer Manway ' \\ and Heater Studs and Nuts" The inspection criterion cited in the inspection report is not applicable to the components inspt:ted.
b.
Receiving Inspection Report dated 7/24/72 "RCP Driver Mount" The inspection criterion cited in the inspection report does not contain receipt inspection requirements for the components inspected.
c.
Receiving Inspection Report dated 7/27/72 "RCP Driver Mount" The inspection criterion cited in the inspection report does not cortain receipt inspection requirements for the components inspected.
1/ See R0 Report No. 50-302/71-4, Section II, paragraph 4 and CD Report No. 50-302/72-2, Section II, paragraph 8.
O . v l i i . _ - _. - - eey-
of
. _- . - O j . . - ~s ( / ~ RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-24- - _, d.
Receiving Inspection Report dated 5/5/71 " Decay Heat Removal Pump and Drive (M-PlA and DH-PlB) and RB Spray Pump and Drive BS-PlA and BS-PIB)" No inspection criterion is cited in the inspection report.
e.
Receiving Inspection Report dated 6/8/72 "RCP Internals" Receipt inspection of these components appears to be properly documented, f.
Receiving Inspection Reoort dated 1/11/72 "RCP Parts (RC-PLA/B)" No inspection criterion is cited in the inspection report.
g.
Receiving Inspection Report dated 1/25/72 "RCP Casing" B&W Procedure No.17, which specifies receipt inspection require-ments for RCP casings, is not referenced in the inspection report.
The inspection report does identify the applicable B&W Field Specification.
h.
Receiving Inspection Report dated 2/1/72 "RCP Casings" Same as item (g) above.
i. Receiving Inspection Report dated 2/10/72 "RCP Casings" , Receipt inspection of these components appears to be properly documented.
j.
In-Storage Inspection Report dated 8/10/72 "RCP Motors" _ The inspection criterion cited in the inspection report is not applicable to the components inspected.
i l Receiving inspection reports reviewed by,the inspector all referred to B&W Field Specification, FS-II-l (Storage Requirements fer NSS Components and Equipment). This field specification does not provide receipt inspection requirements or guidance. McGill stated that placing the component in storage is considered to be-a part of the receipt inspection and that this field specification provides the appropriate storage requirements.
l - -r g .,.97 _.. g , _,_7 ., _,.,, _,,,,. 7.
,,,, , ,,g_ .._.c ,
. -__ _ _ - _ _ _ _____ - -_____-__ ~ e, ,, ,
. , R0 Report No. 50-302/72-3-25- - s Parker asked McGill if the B&W inspector, making a given receiving . inspection or an in-storage inspection, carried a procedure or specifi-cation that contained the inspection requirements it it with him during the conduct of the inspection. McGill answered, "no."
The inspector's concern over FPC's identification and B&W's implemen-tation of the requirements for receiving, storage and inspection were discussed with Kleinman.
, i l Warnick called Kleinman on September 7, 1972, and discussed FPC's letter of August 23, 1972, which was written in response to the RO:II letter of July 24, 1972. Warnick discussed his concerns with FPC's letter and indicated that FPC's actions to correct receiving, storage, and inspection program deficiencies were not adequate in scope and depth.
' Kleinman agreed to send RO:II a supplemental letter. Warnick told i Kleinman the supplemental letter should discuss how much of the NSS suppliers receiving, storage, and inspection program FPC looked at, what was found, what needs correcting, what has been done to fill the gaps, and what remains to be done.
s_ ! O . ,e-m , , -_- - .-m.
,
, ~ _ _ _ ._.
-C ' _ . . M O . ..,
. / - ( RO-Repore No.-50-302/72-3-26- ' , ! SECTION-V-Prepared by: G. R. Klingler, Reactor Inspector Reactor Construction Branch ADDITIONAL SUBJECTS INSPECTED, NOT IDENTIFIED IN SECTION I, WHERE NO DEFICIENCIES OR UNRESOLVED ITEMS WERE FOUND 1.
General Electrical Systems Installation
The main effort was directed toward cable tray installation.
Approxi-mately 50% of all scheduled cable tray has been installed.
Cable
tray installation in the cable spreading room is estimated at 90% complete. The current schedule shows cable installation starting in early October.
, The batteries are being stored in place, and the battery chargers , are being used to keep a trickle charge on them.
Installation of the 4160 and 480 volt switchgear has just begun, with some of the panels being stored in place.
Approximately 75% of the 1,768,000 feet of cable ordered has been received.
. 2.
Electrical / Instrumentation and Control System (E/I) This inspection was directed toward the QC program aspects of the E/I systems installation with particular emphasis on that procedural control necessary to assure compliance with FSAR commitments, and , cable installation design to provide redundant system separation, d identification and conformance to the QA/QC program requirements.
> 3.
Organization / Functional Alignmet a.
Florida Power Corporation Mr. J. C. Hobbs, Superintendent of Mechanical and Electrical-i.
l System is responsible for all electrical work performed by E. C. Ernst Company.
~ Electrical and Instrument Quality Surveillance will be per-formed by R. B. Johnson for all work performed by E. C. Ernst.
.I ~- . . - - . -...- - .. . -. -- _ _ -
_._____. -. _.-_-__ .g
_ . . RO Report No. 50-302/72-3-27- - % , b.
E. C. Ernst Company Mr. Emmett Taylor is the project manager.
All field supervisors and quality control supervisors report to him.
' Mr. R. Lorraine is the quality control supervisor, and all QC inspection for electrical and instrumentation report to him.
All instrument / electrical installation work will be performed ' by.E. C. Ernst Company.
A.
Additional FPC E/I Areas Investigated Where No Deficiencies or Unresolved Items Were Found a.
Special handling and storage requirements.
b.
Quarantine of nonconforming components.
' c.
Components handling and installation specifications.
d.
Inspection and testing provision for E/I components and cabling.
e.
Cable NUI program.
> ! f.
Battery installation.
DETAILS OF SUBJECIS DISCUSSED IN CECTION I i None . T , ,
. r
- -
r--- m - - - - w ,.-., p.
,,-.,,y..-a-,, , ,,-wy , .-..._-,,.,.4y,.- r-m,--... -.. -, ' }}