IR 05000320/1973003
| ML19220A557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1973 |
| From: | Barkey F, Heishman R, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220A549 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-73-03, 50-320-73-3, NUDOCS 7904230066 | |
| Download: ML19220A557 (8) | |
Text
-
-
.
.
U. S. /." 5.'.I C L::!'.HGY CL**JII SSIO::
..
DIRECTORATE OT RECU!.ATORY OPERAT'0::S REGIO:1 1
.
RO Inspection Report :o.:
50-320/73-03 Docket :o..
50-320 Licensee: Metre.,p..litan Edison Company License No.: CPPR-66 P. O. Box 542 Priority-Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 A
Category:
.
_
Location: sliddletown, Pennsylvania (Three Mile Island 2)
PUR, 871 MWe (B&W)
Type of Licensee:
Routine, Unannoun_ed A pe of Inspeccion:
.
D.tes of Inspection:
July 23-25, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection:
June 26-28, 1973 Reporting Inspector:
MW'
I'/ 3 t
-
Seth A. Folsom, Reactor Inspector DATE
.
DATE
'
Accompanying Inspectors:
F. F. Barker, Reactor Inspector
' DATE
-
e&
9ls/77 E. C. McCabe, Reactor Inspector DATE
.
'
None Other Acco'npanying Personnel:
DATE
.
C>-
Reviewed By:
'd w MM
-
w, g^..
R. F. Heishman, Senior Reactor Inspector
"
Facility Construction and Engineering Support Branch
!
-
I 7904gg9c
_ _ _
_
_
.
.
-
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
,
Enforcement Action 10 CFR 50:
Contrary to Criterion V, Appendix B, A.
in Reactor pressure vessel post-installation storage was not 1.
accordance with site procedures.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
Saf ety-related pumps had not been periodically rotated nor 2.
lubricated during storage as required by a site directive.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
Contrary to Criterion VII, Appendix B,10 CFR 50:
B.
A site directive permits " conditional installation" of equip-1.
ment without defining its meaning.
(Details, Paragraph 4)
.
The Quality Assurance Data Sheet for.a safeguards pump did
-
2.
not incorporate the 13 Change Notices applicable to the equip-ment.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
Licensee Action on Previousiv Identified Enforcement Matters Not reviewed during this inspection.
~
Design Chances _
None Unusual Occurrences None
.
_
,
Other Significant Findines_
A.
Current Findines The " Qual.ity Control System-Mechanical Components", developed by
'.
The system consisted i
the licensee was examined by the inspector.
of procedures for Nuclear Construction (NCP's) and Quality Control No (QCs) for installation and inspection of critical activities.
deficiencies were observed.
(Details, Paragraph 6)
_
\\
-
C
1
-
.
.
-
-2-B.
Status of Previous 1v Reported Unresolved Items 1.
Concrete place:ents which included cement from one silo which had initially been considered deficient were f ound to be acceptable based upon subsequent analysis and compressive strength tests. This item is resolved.
(Details, Paragraph 7)
2.
A scheduling error resulted in seven concrete placements having received less quality control than required for the particular class of concrete involved.
Subsequent tests indicated that the concrete =et the requirements.
This item is resolved.
(Details, Paragraph 8)
Manage =ent Interview The manage =ent interview was held at the site on July 25, 1973.
Personnel Attending
_
General Public Utilities Service Company Mr. G. L. Kopp, Quality Assurance Specialist Mr. J. A. Renshaw, Quality Assurance Specialist Mr. W. S. Shepherd, Project Site Manager (Acting)
Mr. M. J. Stromberg, Site Quality Assurance Auditor Mr. J. E. Wright, Site Quality Assurance Manager Mr. J. H. Wright, Resident Civil Engineer Burns & Roe Mr. D. McAfee, Quality Assurance Engineer, Mechanical Mr. M. G. Pace, Quality Assurance Engineer, Civil United Encineers & Constructors
,
_
Mr. V. E. Cichocki, QA/QC Coordinating Tuperintendent Mr. R. L. Hawkins, Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. D. C. La=bert, Field Supervisor, Quality Control Mr. B. E. O'Connor, Quality Control Engineer, Documentation Mr. J. Spinak, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer
.
.
G5' 328
-
,
.
e
.
.
-
.
3-The following items were discussed:
,
A.
The inspector suggested that Burns & Roe should be represented at The licensee concurred.
Manage =ent Interviews which involved Unit 2.
The inspector stated that he had investigoced the following previously B.
identified items, which were now considered resolved:
1.
Class 2 concrete on Class 1 structure.
(Details, Paragraph 8)
2.
Deficient cement in Silo 20.
(Details, Paragraph 7)
The licensee acknowledged this information.
C.
The inspector stated that the following deficiencies had been
,
identified during the inspection:
1.
An in-core instrument penetration on the reactor vessel lower head was not protected. This item was corrected before the
,
conclusion of the inspection.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
-
2.
Rotetion and lubrication of Pumps MU-P-1A and 1B were not being performed.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
3.
Pump MU-P-1A quality certification did not include applicable change notices.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
4.
Site Directive QC-17-2 permitted instaJlat' ion of items in
" Hold" status, contrary to Criterion VII, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.
(Details, Paragraph 4)
The licensee acknowledged this information.
-
.
W G
-
=
GS-329
.
.
_
.
-
d DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted General Public Utilities Company Mr. F. Gemminger, Quality Assurance Engineer Fk. G. L. Kopp, Quality Assurance Specialist Mr. P. Levine, Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. R. Neidig, Assistant Project Engineer Mr. J. A. Renshaw, Quality Assurance Specialist
'
Mr. A. Salcido, Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. W. S. Shepherd, Project Site Manager (Acting)
Mr. M. J. Stronberg, Site Quality Assurance Auditor Mr. J. E. Wright, Site Quality Assurance Manager Mr. J. H. Wright, Resident Civil Engineer
.
-
Burns & Roe Mr. D. McAfee, Quality Assurance Engineer, Mechanical Mr. M. G. Pace, Quality Assurance Engineer, Civil United Engineers & Constructors Mr. F. Aldrich, Piping Supervisor Mr. M. Byers, Quailty Control Engineer, Welding Mr. V. E. Cichocki, QA/QC Coordinating Superintendent Mr. L. Dosier, Assistant Piping Superintendent Mr. J. Gilley, Quality Control, Records Mr. W. Carney, Senior Quality Control Engineer, Welding Mr. R. L. Hawkins, Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. D. C. Lambert, Field Supervisor, Quality Control
-
Mr. R. Mason, Site Job Engineer Mr. B. E. O'Connor, Quality Control Engineer, Documentation Mr. J. Schmidt, Quality Control Records Mr. J. Spinak, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. S. Suggs, Piping Superintendent 2.
Reactor Vessel Storage The inspector found that the Reactor Vessel had been installed and was not being maintained as required by site procedures. The in-core
_
(
_
_
-
.
.
-5-
'
instrumentation penetration, designated as 94-206-51-1, did not This is contrary to the provisions have a protective plug and cover.
of B&W Field Specification FS III-la, paragraph 3.0 entitled " Post Installation Storage" which states in part, "AlJ openings must remain closed or covered when not in use.", and Criterion V,
" Activities affecting Appendix B, 10 CFR 50, which requires that, quality shall b; prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings....und shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures or drawings." It was observed that the condition licensee took immediate action to correct the deficient observed by the inspector.
Related Pumps _
3.
No Lubrication or Rotation - Safety The inspector audited the condition of the Make-Up Purification.
in the Auxiliary Building.
Pu=ps MU-P-1A and MU-P-1B stored in place It was observed that the bearing housings hau been drained of lubrication prior to shipment f rom the vendor, and had not been
-
'
refilled as required by the vendor's inseruction tag attached to The inspector questioned the ?icensee concerning this the bearing.
item, and the licensee responded that si"e rcocedures for Unit 2 did not require these activities, B&W Field Specification FS-II-1, paragraph 3.1, Storage Require-ments states, " Lubricating 011 Reservcirs should be filled with a.
a goof grade of rust inhibiting oil as reco= mended by the manu-facturec " Paragraph 3.2 states, " Equipment must be rotated to renew protective coating."
UE&C QC Procedure QC-3-2, Revision 1, dated June 10, 1971, states b.
"Special storage requirements as designated by Purchase in part, Order, manufacturer's instruction, or engineer's written instruc-tion shall be implemented by the applicable Craf t Supervisor."
_
UE&C Nuclear Construction Procedure NCP-1-2 entitled, " Installation c.
of Nuclear Auxiliary Pumps," Revision 1, June 11, 1973.
Paragraph 7.7.1 states, " Pumps and motors upon arriving at the site will be rotated and inspected for adequate lubrication, the orms SF-SU-104 and SF-SU-v initial inspection will be recorded on ll3... t'he same inspection and procedure will be performed every 30 days or as required by vendor storage instructions until ready for startup.
.
(~
GW231
'
_
l
-
,
_
-
-6-a Contrary to the aforementioned procedures, safety related pumps MU-P-1A and MU-P-1B had been received at the site on May 5, 1972, and no documentary evidence waa available onsite to indicate that the pumps had been lubricated or rotated. The licensee acknowledged
'his fact and stated that the site procedures were being revised to delete these requirements.
During the inspection, the inspector observed that the non-safety related Heater Drain Pumps (EDP-lA, HDP-1B and EDP-lC) had been rotated and lubricated on a monthly basis as required by site procedures.
4.
Installation of Eculement Without Recuired Documentation The Constructor's Directive QC-17-2, Revision 5, Section E states in part:
" Items that are tagged ' Hold' or ' Reject' may be released for purposes of relocation, rework, testing, evaluation, conditional installation, or any operation which is deemed necessary by the Projeat Superintendent, the Field Supervisor - Quality Control,
-
and the Met Ed Quality Assurance Supervispr." This unlimited authori-zation is at variance with Criterion III, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50 which states, " Design control messures shall be applied to items such as... delineation of acceptance criteria for inspections and tests" and " Design changes, including field changes, shall be subject to design control measures coenensurate with those applied to the original design and be approved by the organization that performed the original design unless the applicant designates another responsible organization." The group with unlimited release authority does not qualify as such a responsible organization because it is not shown to ensure that, as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(s)(1), the items so released are designed, fabricated, erected, constructed, tested, and inspected to quality standards co=mensurate with the importance of the safety function to be performed.
Also, authorization to install or use any " Reject" or " Hold" item is at variance with the portion of Criterion VII, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50 which requires:
-
" Documentary evidence that material and equipment conform to the procurement requirements shall be available at the nuclear power plant site prior to installation or use of such material and equipment."
-
5.
Incomplete OA Data Sheet The iaspector examined the site documentation records for the Make-Up Purification Pump MU-P-1A.
It was found that the B&W certificate of conformance was a Quality Assurance Data Sheet dated August 17, 1973, which stated that the pump met the require-
~
ments of Purchase Order 021861LP. However, there was no reference (
i GS 332 I
_
-
-7-made on the data sheet that the pump met the requirements of the applicable Change Notices ta the original Purchase Order. The inspector observed that 13 Change Notices had been issued against the original purchase order (all change notices were available on-site for review) for the pumps and questioned how the licensee could be assured that the pump met the requirement of the Change Notices.
The licensee responded that based on the fact that the dates cf the change notices preceeded the date of QA data review sign-off, he was assured that al: change notice requirements had been satisfied.
The inspector did not observe any documentary evidence to indicate that copies of the change notices had been received and reviewed by the NSSS QA representative reviewing the vendor documentation.
The condition is contrary to the provisions of Criterion VII, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50 which states in part, " Documentary evidence that material and equipment conform to the procurement requirements shall be available at the nuclear power plant site prior to installation or use of such material and equipment."
,
6.
OC System - Mechanical Comoonents The inspector's review of the licensee's QC system for mechanical components was directed at auditing site procedures for the installa-tion of safety related nuclear equipment.
The inspector audited the following Nuclear Construction Procedures:
NCP-1-2 Installation of Nuclear Auxiliary Pumps NCP-2-2 Installation of Nuclear Auxiliary Tanks, Demineralizers, Evaporators, Heat Exchangers, Coolers, and Waste Gas Comp cssors NCP-7A-2 Receipt, Inspection, Storage and Handling of Reac.or Coolant Pumps NCP-12-2 Receipt, Inspection, Installation, Handling, Storage and Installation of Nuclear Core Flooding Tanks The audit found that the referenced procedures provided detailed instructions concerning responsibility for performance and documen-tation of receipt inspection, instructions for special handling techniques,,for storage precautions, for segregation of noncon-forming components,.ar installation techniques, and for appro-priately trained craftsmen.
The procedures also contained check lists to be co=pleted by the appropriate craf t supervisor and, for cirtical activities, check
-
lists for QC verification that activities or conditions were accom-plished in accordance with the appropriate specification and prore-dures.
The inspector's audit revealed no deficiencies.
(
G5 333
-
-
,
.
,
%
-
.
-8-
'
7.
Cement Ouality The licensee had previously notified the inspector that their quality enntrol procedures had identified one silo (No. 20) of cement which appeared to be deficient in that the 3-day cylinder breaks were narginally low.
The silo of cement was placed in a hold status, and was subsequently returned to the vendor for regrinding.
The test breaks subsequently perforced on the cylinders cade f rom the original cecent were well within the specified strength range.
This item is resolved.
8.
Quality Control of Concrete Placement The licensee found that, due to an error in Planning and Scheduling, scven concrete placerents in the Service Building had been subjected to the quality control specified for Class II concrete instead of the quality control specified for Class I concrete. This was reported to the inspector by the licensee on June 14, 1972. The inspector
'
reviewed the placement records and qualite control records, and
-
Deficiency Report No. 0179 which covered the incident. The 90-day cylinder breaks on the concrete were found to average 7450 psi (for 5000 psi concrete). The licensee's Deficiency Review Board (DR3) reviewed the documentation and accepted it.
This item is resolved.
.
.
.
.
.
.
L GS-334 i
_
=
.
o