IR 05000320/1974006
| ML19220B792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1974 |
| From: | Folsom S, Gage L, Heishman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220B788 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-74-06, 50-320-74-6, NUDOCS 7904270359 | |
| Download: ML19220B792 (19) | |
Text
<
.
.
_
-
,,
. _
-
c.
,
.
,
-
....
'
U.S. A~t"11C ENERGY CO:04ISSIO i
.
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
...
o
REGION I
50-320
.
50-320/74-06
-
Docket No:
RO Inspection Ecport No:
CPPR-66 License No:
Metropolitan Edisen Ccepany
_ _ _
_
Licensee:
Triority:
-
Box 542 A
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
(Three Mile Island 2)
-_ Middle.own, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Location:
.
-
,
'
'b
- (
Type of Licensee:
Special, Announced Type of Inspection:
'
September 24-26, 1974 Dates of Inspection:
~
July 9-10, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection:
/0 2f (f nfh s
/ Date Reporting Inspector Seth A IFolsom, eactor inspector
/d 7 6~ ~M I'
d_ -
Accompanying Inspectors:
Date L. Gage / Reactbr Inspector
-
kw h
/D 2 E lY Date W. M. Hayward, Reacy$d Insp ecor
.
(
cbk
.lO 2 5 lV -
Date
,.
G.Napuda,ReactorInspc/or
,
.
_
.
Date
~
J. E. Wescott, RO:HQ Other Accompanying Perscnnel:
Date
_
b
/([/rj-/ 7(
'
Reviewed By:
Date
.
R. F. Heishman, Se M acto'r Ynspector
'
i O-904270353
-
-
~ M ?S7
.-
'
..
.
~
- F'***
..
, MT9s*- me.
.y,
,
,
,
a
- *
~~s
-
-.
1
,
h i
~,
Sm MARY OF FINDINGS i
.
e
,
Enforcement Action
.
1.
Unused weld filler materials were found exposed to the atmosphere for an extended period, contrary to Site Directive MCP 2-2, Para-g sph E.1.
(Details, Paragraph 11)
Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Enforcement Matters
",
,
Not Inspected i
Desien Chances
'
None Identified
'
Unusual Occurrences
{
I None Identified Other Sienificant Findines A.
Current Findines 1.
The licensee reported that some strength tests on contain=ent concrete indicated the possibility of sub-standard cocpressive strength in one portion of the containment structure.
This item is unresolved.
(Manage =ent Interview, Paragraph 2)
2.
No documentatien was found on site which provided evidence of the validity of the certificates of conformance for vendor
supplied components.
This item is unresolved.
(De tails, Paragraphs 2 sad 4)
_
3.
Audit reports were found to have been closed out without veri-fication of the corrective action. This iten is unresolved.
(Details, Paragraph 10)
B.
Status of Previous 1v Reported Unresolved Items Not inspected
-
.
.
S2 2.98
'..
,
,
- ~. -
. ~.., - - - - _.. - _ _.. _
_.. _ _
_. _ __
e
-
,
$
-
J
-
-2-l
!
l
'
-
~
l Manntecent Interview The manage =ent interview was held at the site on Septe=ber 26, 1974, I
i with the following personnel in attendance:
General Public Utilities Service Cocoany Mr. W. T. Gunn, Site Manager Mr. G. L. Roshy, Quality Assurance Engineer
-
Mr. M. J. Stronberg, Site Quality Assurance Auditor Mr. R. L. Wayne, Quality Assurance Manager Mr. J. E. Wrig'at, Site Quality Assurance Manager Mr. J. H. Wri;ht, Resident Civil Engineer Babcock and Jilcox Mr. C. R. Gish, Site Manager
,
Burns and Roe Mr. F. J. Benner, Quality Assurance Supervising Engineer Mr. R. Claytor, Assistant to President Mr. G. Harper, Site Project Engineer duality Insrections, Inc.
Mr. B. G. Avers, President United Engineers and Constructors Mr. V.1. Cichocki, Quality Assurance / Quality Control Superintqndent Mr. E. 7. Ferguson, Resident Construction Manager Mr. D. C. Lanbert, Field Supervisor Quality Control
-
-
.
The follovir.g was discussed:
1.
The inspector requested that he be notified in advance of the start of the 170 f t. vertical tendon grout test.
The licensee agreed to provide this notification, and stated that the test was still
'
'
i scheduled for October, 1974.
2.
The licensee stated that recent concrete strength testing had indicated the possibility of sub-standard concrete in ene portion of the contain=ent vall structure.
The 90-day cylinder breaks had
-
not yet been performed, but the item was considered reportable per 10 CFR 50.55(e). The inspector stated that he would follow pro-gress of the investigation in future inspections. This item is unresolved.
)
'
-
-
'
-
\\
'
S 'd 2.9 9
.
. - -.. -
-
._... _.
-
.
-
i
!
.
-3-
,
"
3.
The irspector stated he had identified a violation of the material control provisions of FSAR, Paragraph 17.1.8 and UE&C Specification MCP-2-2. Paragraph El, which required that unused weld Tiller material in opened containers be returned to the issuing crib within four hours.
The licensee acknowledged this infor=ation.
(Details, Paragraph 11)
4.
The inspector stated that the purpose of this inspection had been to evaluate the icplementation of the licensee's quality assurance program.
This involved an audit of the requirements, procedures,
'
organization, completeness of impicmentation, and the results
,
obtained.
The areas exa=ined included contain=ent steel, struc-l tural steel, pressure boundary piping, saf eguards syste= piping,
,
site originated procurement practices, site originated design, j
corrective action progrcm, embedded and other support structures, major techanical co=ponents - valves, pumps and cotors, contain=ent structure - concrete and steel and the site corrective action
-
program.
(Details, Paragraphs 2 through 10).
The following unresolved items were identified as a result of this audit of the quality assurance piegram, No documentation on site to provide evidence of the validity a.
of the certificates of conformance for vendor supplied com-ponents. The certificates are basic to the site receiving inspection procedures.
(Details, Paragraphs 2 and 4)
b.
Audits closed out without verification of corrective action.
(Details, Paragraph 10)
The licensee acknowledged this information.
.
.
-
O 82~300 i
.I B
-
i
-
-
_
m
,
.
,
'
.
~
.
.
'
DET '.ILS l.
Persons Contacted
,
General Public Utilities _ Service Company Mr. D. L. Blystone, Quality Assurance Engineer
.
Mr. W. T. Gunn, Site Manager
"
Mr. G. L. Kopp, Quality Assurance Specialist Mr. P. Levine, Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. D. Perry, Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. G. L. Roshy, Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. M. J. Strocherg, Site Quality Assurance Auditor Mr. R. Toole, Assistant Startup Manager Mr. R. L. Wayne, Quality Assurance Manager Mr. J. E. Wright, Site Quality Assurance Manager
,
Mr. J. H. Wright, Resident Civil Engineer
_
Babcock and Wilocx (B&W)_
Mr. C. R. Gish, Site Manager Burns and Roe Mr. F. J. Benner, Quality Asrurance Supervising Engineer Mr. R. Claytor, Assistant to President Mr. G. Harpct, Site Project Engineer Pittsburgh, Des Moines Steel Company (PDM)
Mr. W. Stiger, Quality Assurance Site Manager
_
Ouality Inspections, Inc.
Mt. B. G. Avers, President
.
United Engineers and Constructors Mr. M. Byers, Mechanical Engineer Mr. J. Carrabba, Preventive Maintenance Superintendent Mr. V. E. Cichocki, Quality Assurance / Quality Control Superintendent i
Mr. R. E. Crof ton, Quality Control Engineer, Piping and Welding
_
Mr. G. Derk, Lead Mechanical Inspector Mr. E. K. Ferguson, Resident Construction Manager Mr. D. C. Lambert, Field Supervisor Quality Control Mr. F. F. Long, Assistant Supervisor, Structura2 Quality Controi i
'
_
82 201
-
- --,
-
...
_
.
-
- .
.
.
-5-t I
.
Mr. R. Liscom, Quality Con: rol Engineer - Electrical
'
,
Mr. J. Schmidt, Records Coordinator
j 2.
Precsure Boundarv Piping i
The inspector audited the receiving inspection records, storage
,
records, veld history record cards, radiograph reader sheets, weld
,
repair acceptance inspection sheets, qualifications records for i
'
technicians, and hanger installation acceptance records for pressure
.
boundary piping.
Audited records were exa=ined by the inspector
~
for co=pleteness and compliance with requirements.
,
Spool piece A-32-206-1, a 36-inch coolant piping co=ponent, was selected as the sa=ple.
The specification and drawings were obtained I
to verify details of fabrication and evaluation for acceptance
!
having been acco=plished.
The spool consisted of a horizontal i
section, a 90-degree elbow, and a vertical section.
The spool was I.
produced by a contract fabrication shop, Babcock and Wilcox.
_
Spool piece fabrication and acceptance documents were identified and reviewed.
The inspector found that all on-site data sheet:
vere readily retrievable.
Field velding of the spool piece into one of the primary loops was
~
partially co=pleted.
Field weld records were examined by the
,
inspector and were found to be in co=pliance with the quality program requirements.
The procurement documents and the inspection data stated that the material and processes met the require =ents of ANSI Standard B31.7.
The inspector found that the shop fabrication quality-related docu ~
mentation was not available on site.
These records were not trans-
-
mitted with the product. A United Engineers and Constructors
'
(UELC) inspector accepted the spool piece at the vendor site on the
-
basis of an approved documented certification that the product met specification requirements.
This procedure was in accordance with the quality assurance program.
The inspecter f.iund that shop-weld RT " reader sheets" were typed copies of the original.
Two shop velds were identified and three readers' initials and the radiograph film were identified.
The inspector found that there was no documentation at the construc-
~
tion site to validate the integrity of the certification of accep-tance inspection at the vender facility according to Appendix B, Criterion VII.
This item is unresolved.
!
\\
'
-
'
82 302 y
.
.
.- I,
.
!
-
.
-G-
,
'
'
Resolution is contingent upon RO:I inspection of CPU and audits which attest to the validity of the " certification system"-en which products are released from the vendor f acility.
,
3.
Constituent Pipine - Safeguard System A section of the core-flood system was selected by the inspector as the sr.=ple of work cost advanced toward ccepletion of this class of system.
The sample consisted of two lengths of 14-inch A376-304 piping with a valve identified as CFVl A located between the two
-
sections of pipe.
The valve was a re=otely operated 14-inch gate valve,1500 psi rating.
Operator identified as 13413'+.
The two sections of pipe were identified as 2-CF-1 and 2-CF-2.
The inspector found that field inspection was specified to be performed in co=pliance with Procedure FCPN-2.
Fabrication was specified to be accomplished in compliance rith Specification ES203. NDE was confirmed to be performed to the inspection pro-cedure FCPN-2.
The welds were identified on the veld history / quality record.
Materials were identified by specification, purchase order, and code.
The pipe was confirmed to be A376-304.
The valves were =anufactured by Velan in compliance with ANSI B31.7 (1968) requirements.
Valve components were identified as NDT'd to'
B31.7 on bonnet, wedge, and stem.
Hydrostatic testing will be perfor=ed to 3-16.S (1961).
Additional requirements were i= posed by B&W specification.
The inspector found that only tecporary hangers were in use at.the time of inspection. Permanent restraints and snubbers were not attached to the piping. A nonconformance was dispositioned "use as is" for some unspecified filler metal which had been used -- 316-L was specified and 308-L was used.
This dispositioning was performed
~
in accordance with the requirements of the quality assurance program.
The records system was examined by the inspector and found to be incomplete since the acceptance evaluations were not yet complete.
The RT acceptability was in the process of being confirmed.
~
The records identified to be prepared were found to be assembled in the data package except for the quality data yet to be completed.
Valve wall thickness was not measured on the valve which is beyond the second valve isolating the system from the pri=ary coolant
_
pressure boundary.
Records of NDE of pipe welds, installation, inspection, and nen-conforming materials were examined by the inspector.
Records of I
-
-
82-203
.
.
.
.
-.
-
~
.
_
.
~-
field welding (2 girth welds) were exa=ined, inspection recorus
-
were confirmed against requirements, and caterials procurement
'
,
records.
The test and inspection records f or work cc=pleted were found by the inspector to respond according to the requirecents of documents NIN Z119-3/C6, FCPN-2, and ES-IS.
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
_
4.
Site Originated Procurement Practices k* eld filler metal used in welding CEVIA to adjacent piping was selected by the inspector for the sample.
The written controls to procure, accept, and issue the material was exa=ined by the inspector.
The inspector observed that United Engineers and Constructors
-
(UE&C) nake the required site procurements.
UE&C Procedure 18-2 was found by the inspector to establish the process of purchase through the on-site quclity effecting and assuring organizations and the specific act of purchasing was controlled by UE&C corporate approved Field Purchasing Manual (October,1972).
The inspector observed that the engineering specifications included the quality standards and requirements to be complied with. _ The UE&C Home Of fice Engineering Division was observed by the inspector to review and approve the field originated proposal for procurement.
Procedure QC-18 imposed the quality program require =ent by way of the on-site UE&C QA organization.
The UE&C quality organi=ation
~
was observed to implement procedure QC4-2 to impose and assure
-
co=pliance by vendors with the UE&C QA Program requirements to be satisfied within the vendor quality -effort.
The GPU Vendor Evalua-tion List was observed to contain the UE&C evaluated and approved vendors.
UE&C Procedure QC4-2 was observed to establish' in-process inspec-tions of vendors by the UE&C quality organization.
The UE&C procedure QC4 and inspection plans were implemented to perform evaluations of vendors by hoth resident inspectors and itinerant inspectors from the UE&C quality organization.
Receiving inspection was observed by the inspector to ce acco=p-
-
liched according to the UE&C quality control procedures QC-2 and QC-3.
The receiving function was controlled to assure that received
.U
-
_
l 82-204
,
_
-
.
g_
_
goods were f ree of shipping damage, accountability and identifica-tion were verified and associated documentation was accounted f or.
Teceivtag inspection quality records were campled for procurc=ent of weld metal u.d on a previously selected sa=plc (core flood syst em). No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
UE&C Procedure QC6-2, was observed by the inspector to implement the acceptance inspections of vendor product and vendor product quality records.
The procedure provides for review of vendor quality data and occasionally involves inspector witnessing of
--
selected qualification processes, test, or function.
The procedure provides for the inspector to take a brief statement of ap roval on products released for ship:ent to the construction site.
There was no evidence available at the construction site to confirm that the acceptance inspection conducted at the vendor shop was perfor=ed to a specific detailed checklist type of control docu=ent.
There was no evidence available at the construction site to confirm that the licensee or his agent / contractor had examined, evaluated,
-
and found acceptable the validity of the system for writing non-specific certificat' ions of quality by field inspectors on source inspections.
This item is unresolved pending RO:I inspection of the licensees and/cr agent's home of fice documentation which gives assurance that the " certificate system" is working and that the certificates are valid.
5.
Site Originated Design On-site documentation was examined by the inspector to verify that field-originated design is so authorized.
Design verification and verification of design revisions were confirmed.
The need for and approval of design / design changes were verified.
Design centrol procedures and docu=entation were examined.
Ti=eliness of revisions
-
was examined.
The field originated design found to be estab-lished and provided for in the project /progt_m description in the safety analysis report; Paragraph 17.1.3.3.3.
The sample' selected by the inspector involved on-site seismic Class 1 piping design for field run piping.
The Burns and Roe (B&R)
engineering organization operates on site at Three Mile Island Unit No. 2.
B&R site-originated design for the sample selected was observed to be controlled by the B&R Design Criteria docu=ent dated Septe=ber 18, 1973.
-
l b
\\
N ~ N{$
s
'
.
~
'
__
he m6m o
e
.
~
.
-9_
The inspector f ound that the Design Criteria docu=ent included
-
observance of 10 CFR 50 Regulatory require =ents.
Quality standards were addressed and observed by the designers as was ev.idenced during the exa=ination of site originated design drawings.
The B&R selection and review for materia..s was found to be controlled by the " Materials Specificatior." control docu=cnt 2.0.4.
A letter directive was included in the engineering design documentation which addressed and i=ple=ented the "Mathod for Operation" by which design interface = were controlled.
Desigr. Review a, proval /authoriza-tion vexe contr ed by Procedur e 2.0.2.
Design release and instruc-
-
tions were con olled by Design Prec'.dures 84, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.
Design revisions were cont-112d by i=ple=entation of Design Pro-cedure 34, 2.5 and I'_vist.n veriiit erion was controlled by 2.7 and 2.8 of D.P.84.
Two site originated design deviation notices were exa=ined as sa=ples; U-103 and B-1070.
The nocices were for=ated in two parts
,
on the sa=e sheet and included the required change (s), docu=ent review co==ents and resolutions and, the revised drawings (2141-IA-
-
47 Rev i dated Septe=ber 21, 1974, and 2318-WDG-68 Rev. 1 dated
.
September 21, 1974).
No deficiencies was observed by the inspector in the site originated design activity.
.
6.
E= bedded and other Suncort Structures A safety related structural component fabricated off-site by Pitts-
-
burgh Des Moines Steel Co=pany was used as a sasple by the inspector to determine if engineering specifications, procedures, selected drivings and f abricating installation, inspection and testing records were available.
Objective evidence, such as records, was reviewed by the inspector to deter =ine if acti' iTries in the areas
-
v of vendor audit and surveillance, f abrication and installation inspections, storage and maintenance inspections, and non-con-
-
forming conditions control were acco=plished as required.
Installed penetration asse=bly 68EEP10, fhb'ricated by Pitts-a.
burgh Des Moines Steel Company (PDM) was selecte'd as'a.sa=ple
'
ites.
The following specifications were revieued:
(1) Specification 2555-44, Division 13. Section 13E (B&R)
(2) Material Specification MS-5. 0 (PDM)
(3) Material Specification MS-7.2 (PDM)
-
(4) Material Specification 15-7.6 (PDM)
(5) Material Specification MS-7.6.1 (PDM)
.
,
s ()
5 55
,
,
.
-
.
,
-
l
-
.
~
.
-10-Ibterial Specification MS-9.2 (PDM)
"
(6)
Material Specificction MS-12 (PDM)
(7)
--
Material Specification MS-17.1 (PDM)
(8)
The PDM specifications were co= pared to the architect's. Burns and Rowe (B&R), design specification.
.
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
Particular types of PDM procedures, required by the design
-
specification, were revicued by the inspector f or B&R approvals.
b.
These were:
(1) Quality Assurance Manual (concurrence)
(2) RT-1 (3) UT-1 (4) UT-2
.
~
(5) LP-1 (6) MT-1
~
(7) VB-1 (8) LCST-1 Proof Test ra.a Leak Rate Test (9)
(10) Hydrostatic Test Procedure for tubes (11) WPS-25 (12) PS-1 through 8 (13) FD-1 (14) 71 through 4
,
(15) WRP-1 (16) FS-1 (17) SW-1 No deficientics were identified by dhe inspector.
_
The following documents were required and vere selected by
-
c.
the inspector for verification of availability:
,
(1) PDM Material Shop Bill for Assembly 68EFP10
-
(2) PDM Purchase Order 970
-
(3) Lukens Steel Co=pany MTR Filt #6368-03-06 (4) braving WPS-25 Sheets 1 and 2 The fabrication procedure sequence for sub-assemblies 57SA2 and 575A3 were selected for availability verification and review.
_
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
-
.
s a e.c z
_
'
-
'
-
i
-
_
.
.
-
.
-11-ASME SA 333 6R1 (R622 and R623) and ASME Seamicsc 333 (R624 The and R625) piping appeared on the PDM purchase order.
Mill Test reports were available in the Lukens Steel MTR
'
e file.
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
The following NDE Reports were ava!1able for the ssbassembly d.
ite=s selected as a sa=ple:
(1) MT (57PS, 5/P6, 575A2, 57SA3, and 57AP1)
~~
(2) RT (57P6, 56P6-S A2, 57S A2, aed 575A3)
'
B&R Specifications 2555-44, Paragraph 3.3.11, required assenb-lies of ASME SA516 material to be liquid penetrant tested This was not accomplished on the af ter final heat treatment.
i above assemblies. PDM Drawings 60A through D vere produced, which specified magnetic testing of the assenblies after final B&R engineering approved these drawings on
.
heat treatment.
August 21, 1973, which postdates the design specifications.
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
The following United Engineers and Constructors installation e.
procedures were available and were reviewed by the inspector:
(1)
QC-9A-2, Reactor Building, liner penetrations and access locks (2) Construction procedure sequence - penetration, (including Addendum #1)
~ (3)
CCP-3-1 preimbedment inspection procedure (4)
Repair procedure for 68EF?ll
-
.
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
f.
The following documents associater' vid. the installation and imbed =ent of assembly 68EFP10 were selected by the inspector for availability verification and were reviewed.
(1) DVK15-F (deviation request)
-
(2) Field Receiving Reptit (3) QA Checklist far Material Fitup
(4) VB-F1 (Inspection Report)
(5) RT Reports
_
(6) MT Reports (7) QC Checklist CCP-3-2
..
(_)
~
l SW 2(S
'
,
-
-
.
-
.
_
-12-
.
(8)
Placement Checkout Lists (9)
Concrete Placccent Checklist (R3186 and 188)
(10) R3186 and 128 Batch Tickets
..
.
No deficiencies were found by the inspector.
,
g.
Qualit'y Assurance Program Survey Reports (Form #450S-RV2-70)
-
dated 5/20/70 and 10/30/ /0 were reviewed.
Audits 021, 7/17/73 and 071 8/19-20/74 were also reviewed.
.
'to deficiencies were identified by the insp e ct or.
-
7.
Major Mechanical Conponent - Valve and Operator A cain steam isolation valve, including the valve operator, was used as a sa=ple by the inspector to determine if appropriate procedures, specificatitas, data packages, f abricating and installa-tien records, and inspection and testing records were availabic.
Objective evidence, such as records.. were reviewed to deter =ine if activities in the areas of vendor audit aad surveillance, fabrica-tion and receiving inspection, storage and tintenance inspections, and control of non-conformances were accomp..shed as required.
Stored valve and limitorque operator MS-V-7A (S/N TD-79, Heat a.
- 2710709-102), procured undet PO No. C0069, wer-seu reed as the samples for this phase of the inspection.
The follow ag docu=ents were reviewed:
(1) Specification 2555-86 (B&R)
(2)
QC-2-2, Receiving ~_nspernica (UE&C)
(3)
QC-3-2, Storage Control (UE&C)
(4)
QC-4-2, Vendor Surveillance (UE&C)
(5)
QC-5E-2, Leak Testv (UE4C)
(6) NCP23-2, Handling /lnstallation for Valves (UE&C)
(7)
SP-8R (B&R)
'
.
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector, b.
UE&C Vendor Surveillance Reports dated 1/22/72, 2/24-25/72, 3/18/72, 4/28/72, 8/7/72, 9/5/72, 10/27/72, 12/6-7/72, 1/8/73, 1/17/73, 1/27-28/73, 5/10/73, and 5/23/73 were reviewed by the inspector.
These reports described witnessing of body hydro-
.
static tests performed to the ANSI B31.7 (1968) Standard, seat tightness testing to MSS-SP61 (with exceptions), operator tests to specifications, and packing leakage tests.
The
-
subject valve had failed the seat leakage test.
The valve
.
e lWW s.
~
82 209-
..
i L
~
..
-13-passed a subsequent seat leakage test as evidenced by a signed NPV-1 form (code inspection).
~
.4 No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
c.
The manufacturers data report package was reviewed to ascer-tain that it contained the required docu=ents.
The required material test results (physical and chemical properties tests),
heat treatment records, NDE results, weld inspection reports, sall thickness ceasurements, hydrostatic test results and the co=pleted final inspection checklisc were found in the data
~
report package.
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
d.
The Receiving Report and Storage Surveillance Reports M864 E865, M983, M1013, and M2525 were reviewed by the inspector.
Storage deficiencies resulted in DR's 0171, 0187, and 0231 being issued, and all had been resolved.
-
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
The preventive maintenance records 'atveen October,1973 and e.
September, 1974, were reviewed.
Notations on these reports indicated that all required checking had not been acco:plished
,
at scue intervals due to the operator not being on the valve.
'
Material Transfer Authorizations MRT 135, MRT 6287, and a material receiving report dated */10/74 indicated the operator had been of f site during the questioned periods.
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
f.
Paragraphs 4.7.3.12, 4. 8.2.12 and 6.7 of Specification SP-88 require pump and salve motors to be categorized into three
~
quality assurance activity level designations; F, M or none and the alpha code is to appear along with item identity on the equipment classification list. The inspector found that B&R had not yet co=pleted the updating of the valve list and the scheduled tompletion date was January,1975.
8.
Fbjor Fbchanical Componene - Pu=o and Motor A Decay Heat Removal Pump (including motor) was used as a sample by the inspector to establish that necessary procedures, data pack-ages, specifications, fabricating and installation records, and
_
inspection and testing records ware available.
Objective evidence, such es records, were reviewed to ascertain that activities in the r
%
_
.
.
I
~ 8'_210
_
i d
,
_
l
.
-
-14-areas of vendor audit and surveillance, fabricating and installa-
-
tion inspections, storage and taintenance inspections, and centrol of non-conf orming conditione were accomplished as required.
Partially inntalled pump and motor DH-PLA (S/N 67940), pro-a.
cured by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W, the NSSS), was selected as a sample.
The f ollowing docu=entes were reviewed by the in-spector.
(1)
Specification 2555-18 (B&R)
--
(2)
NCPl-2, handling / installation for pu=ps (UELC)
(3)
MCP-4-2, Testing and Service Inspection of Crancs, Rigging, and Slings (UE6C)
~
(4)
Cencral Equip =ent Specifications, centrifugal pumps for safeguard service (B&W)
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
.
b.
Vendor surveillance reports bv B&W are presently stored in their Lynchburg, Virginia f acility in accordance with Specifi-cation NPG-17-11-31.
'
i The following inspection points were docu ented by B&W certi-fications:
i (1) Liquid Penetrant Test to ANSI Pump ano Valve Standard
!
(Nov 68)
(2) Hydrostatie Test to B&W Ltd. Specification 229994 (Rev 02) NSS-6-01-40-215-02 (3) Performance Test and NPSH to B&W Ltc Specification
.
-
229995 (Rev 07) USSS-6-01-40-215-03 (4)
Cleanliness to B&W Ltd Specification 229996 (Rev 01)
NSSS-6-01-4 0- 224-04
-
(5) Radiographic quality on pressure casting to B&W QA Procedure No. 72-46-003 (7/20/70).
~
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
'
!
The manufacturer's data report package was reviewed by the
'
c.
inspector to determine if the following documents were contained therein as required by the specifications.
(1)
Certificate of Co=pliance
(2)
Name Plate Data Sheet
'-
(3)
Liquid Penetrant Test Reports (4) Hydrostatic Test Report
!
.
U
-
i i
-
'
'
_
.
.
-15-
.
..
Perf or=ance Test Repoi c (5)
(6)
Cleanliness Report
,
Radiography Report (7)
Material Verification Report (8)
(9)
Asse=bly Records i
i s were identi-ThesE. doce cnts were availabic and no defic e. c e
-
fied by the inspector.
(9/S/73), Receiving Check-The USS Receiving Inspection Report (7/73 through (9/23/73), Preventive Maintenance Records i
d by d.
9/74), and Megger Sheets (7/73 throush 9/74) vere rev ewe list identified, the inspector and no deficiencies were d Installa-The Equipment Installation and Grouting Records and M2248 were
_
tion Witnessing Reports M1619, M163, anby the f d c.
structure - Concrete and Steel
_C_ontainment lated to the The inspector examined the fc11owing documentation re d seg=ent on three construction and quality control of a selecte structure.
courses of the contain=ent Schedule, UE&C Construction Procedure Development and Status Rev. 29, September 4, 1974.
3, April UE&C General Construction Procedure (GCP) 3-2, Rev.
2,1974, specifying control of procedures.
-
1974, in-
-
UE&C Quarterly Index of QA/QC Procedures - July, cluding approvals.
y 11, UE&C Procedure QC 4-2, 7endor Surveillance Rev. 3, Januar
.
.
1974.
.
,
b dweld including re ar ca UE&C Procedure QCl-2, July 13,1973, d in-place in-
~
splices and strength tests, rebar testing anspe d placement
, and concrete stre gth testing.
inspectf 8 1972,
_
UE&C Cadweld Splice QC Inspection Sheet i
inspr'. ion checklists and resalts,
- .Y
~
i
.
C
.
,
s s.
i P
me
.
.
-
,
.
-16-
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory R3 port of Cadweld Splicing,
~
August 25, 1972.
Lab. No. 728812, including acceptance require-ments and test results.
e UE&C Place =ent Sheet, August 31, 1972, which includes inspec-tion checklist en reinforcing steel.
PTL Report No. 328, March 30,1972, which includes rebar strength require =ents and test results.
_
3atch Plant Ticket (including tape record) No. 36761, Septen-ber 1,1972, including concrete air content, slu=p, ice quan-tity, concrete temperature, track revolutions, a.id elasped time.
PLT Report-RB 201, Septe=ber 1,1972, which included.oncrete test cylinder strength test results.
UELC letter to Burns & Roe, Dececher 29, 1972, including
~
Control Data Corporation analysis of Cadweld splico data.
GPUSC letter to Burns & Roe, July 10, 1973, presenting en evaluation of ulti= ate compressive strength test results from January 1, 1973 to July 10, 1973 UE&C Procedure QCl-2, General Construction and Structural
.
Concrete, Rev. 5, July 13, 1973, including:
Aggregate - condition, gradation, moisture,I in-place density, and ccmpaction.
-
Rock surfaces in contact with structu'ral concrete -
-
'
surface cleanliness, removal of loose rock and water,
_
.
contour, subgrade condition.
.
Previously placed concrete - preparation for next lift.
Location and configuration of far= work, ties, anchors, bracing, shoring, supports, reinforcing steel,.and c= bed-ments. Form coating and cleanliness.
Installation and integrity of waterstops and membrane water proofing.
.
_
.
i b.
82 2.13
'
.
-
..,
=
h
-
,
\\
-
t
.
I-17-
)
Location and dicensions of control, expansion, and con-
~
[
struction joints, blockouts and vaterstops.
.
,
,
'
2555-44, Reactor Building Liner, Burns &' Roe Specification dimensions, thickness, tolerances, 12 April 30, 1973 -
)
caterial ( ASME SA-516, Grade 55 to SA 200.
Rev.
Page 87, Pittsburgh Des Moines Material Shop 3111, Drawing 40,
-
specifies shell plate thickness.
March 26, 1970, Plate Pittsburgh Des Moines Fabrication Procedure Sequence, specifies =anufact i
210, 26S, and 300; June 15, 1970, No.
and inspection operations.
i l 21, Lekens Steel Physical and Chemical Certificati l
August Pittsburgh Des Moines Qualified Welders List - THI-2, 24, 1973.
(qualified Welders Qualification Test Record - Howard Eendrichs
"3/16 inch to maximum, Specification No. SA 233".
i f
21, 1974, providing notificat on o GPUSC letter to PDM, May completion of liner plate documentation.
No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.
Corrective Act_ ion Prograq 10.
i ies The inspector reviewed the Audit Program findings for d s found at the site.
~
blem.
That is, enced an electrienl-tray physical interference proele h
were vent the the trays installed, they would interfere vita or pre installation of other equipment.
/10/74, The problem, as stated in a CPU Ictter to Burns & Roe of 6 deffnes resulted from B&R having "no formalized procedure which
.
P re that the acceptable interdisciplinary design practices to ens I
the l
systems or equipnent of another systen".
'
$.
The inspector found that the problem was known at th
-
I
}
December, 1973.
S'
I i
pk
_
't l1 69'd
.9 +c1
..
.,
_
..
.
'
.
.
-
.
-1S-i i
ti GPU audit on 2/27-28/74, which was contained in the folder for
-
74-18 (dated 3/22/74), where it was again identi-
'
Audit Report No.
Audit Report No. 74-49 (dated G/25-26/74) re-
'
fled as a problem.
identified the probits, and the letter trans=itted by the consultant whe made the audit f or GPU cc..sidered the problem of "tain concern" cnd requested "i==ediate actien" on it.
The inspector found that both Audit Reports 74-18 and 74-49 had been closed out by CPU, although the actions requested of BLR to
__
resolve the probics had not been verified.
failure to correct site identified problems prceptly The apparent and/or caintain folic.up to assure that these probleas have been corrected is unresolved.
The inspector toured the contain=ent af ter the end of the work An opened can containing low hydrogen veld rod was observed
_
11.
shift.
in the Stean Generator Area where welding had been accc=plished Thf a was contrary to UE&C Procedure during.the prior work. shift.
PCP2-2 which requires unused weld rod to be returned to the issuing crib.
This is a violation of Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, which s?ates, in part..." Activities af f ecting quali:y shall be prescribed by docu=ented instructions, procedures...and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instr uctions, procedures...."
.
S 8e e
.
..e
.
e d
l
' %d
,
.
S'd '.9 ? r)
j
'
-at
\\
-
_