IR 05000320/1975011
| ML19220A939 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1975 |
| From: | Heishman R, Narrow L, Sanders W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220A931 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-75-11, NUDOCS 7904250111 | |
| Download: ML19220A939 (12) | |
Text
3E: 1* Fe,rn 12
-
-
(Jan 75) (Rev)
,
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CD:IMISSIO :
OFFICE OF INSPECTION A:;D CiFORCDIC'T i
REGIO:1 I
_
,
'
IE Inspection Report No:
50-320/75-11
%
Docket No:
50-320
_
Licensee:
1!etropolitan Edison Co=pany License No: CPPR-66 Box 542 Priority:
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603
__ Category:
A Safeguards Location:
Middletown, Pennsylvania (~CII-2)
Type of Licensee: __, PWR 871 1".?e (BLW)
Type of Inspection:
Routine-Unannounced Dates of Inspection: _ August 27-29, 1975 L.es of Previous Inspection:
_.Tuly 29 - August 1, 1975 Reporting Inspector:
R
7h 2[
.
'# -L.--Harrow, Reactor Inspector DATE Accompanying Inspectors:--
- 3~ 'l?
/ W. F. Sanders, Reactor Inspector
_ f//
y[
e
,
' DATE
~
-
b
,
DATE i
,
.
DATE Other Accompanying Personnel:
I DATE
,
Eeviewed By:
,h W
."hT F. heish=an, Senior Reactor Inspector j?lpl}f W
"
DATE
.
.
e
.
%
"
h
!
.
wci ;
_
^
?
t-
.
.
1~
.
_
-
.
SU10'RY OF FI!'DI!;GS
.
.
Enforcement Action
A.
Items of 1;oncerpliance
-
.
1.
Deficiency Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and Section 17.1.13 of the FSAR:
Storage of safety related expansion joints in the laydown a.
storage area were not inspected in accordance with estab-lished procedures and were not properly protected.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
b.
Access to the reactor vessel was not controlled in accordance sdth established procedures.
This item was resolved prior to ce=pletion of the inspection.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
i B.
Deviations o
None'
I Licensee # Action on Previousiv Identified _ Enforcement Matters Reviewo/
.
f noncompliances previously reported on ce=bined reports for Units 1 and 2 was co=pleted.
The applicability of these items to unit 2 was isea-tified.,
(No Details)
i
. Design Changes I
',
None i
.
t
.
.
Unusual Occurrences
I None
.
Other Significant Findings
'y
"
A.
Current Findines 1.
The following items are unresolved:
L
.
.
'
.
,
_
..
I
_2_
Revision 6 to Procedure QC-2-2 had deleted the require-
.
a.
ments for segregation of items on " Hold."
This does not
,
conform to the requirements of QC-17-2.
The inconsistency was resolved by Field Change No. QC-178 which reestablished
,
the requirement for segregation. However, observation of the ' Told" area in k'arehouse No. 2 shcwed that ite=s on
" Hold" were not segregated. ' (Details, Paragraph 4)
b.
Controls could not be identified to assure that documentation was corrected for ite=s transferred from Unit 2 af ter having been inspected.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
c.
Visual inspection of the Sodium Thiosulphate tank revealed numerous linear indications on the surface of two plates.
A Deviation Report (DR) had been critten on this tank and the licensee stated that it would be amended to include this nonconfornance.
(Details, Paragraph 6)
2.
The following ite=s are considered to be acceptable:
a.
Drawing tontrol audits.
(Details, Paragraph 7)
b.
Protection of installed equipment.
(Details, Paragraph 8)
,
Control and disposition of nonconforming itets identified. ~.
c.
Deviation Reports.
(Details, Paragraph 9)
/
'
d.
Receiving and unloading of the reactor lower internals.
(Details, Paragraph 10)
/
/
'
B.
Status of Previousiv Recorted Unresolved Items
.
1.
Review of unresolved items previously reported on ec=bined reports for Units 1 and 2 was cc=pleted and the applicability of these ite=s to Unit 2 was identifie'd. - (No Details)
\\
2.
Verification of valve vall thickness vus res' olved.
(Details,
'
Paragraph 11)
,
-
Exit Interview An exit meeting was held at the site on August 2!, 1975.
'
-
.
e
. ;
~
-
-
.,
-
.
-3-
.
Persons Present
_
General Public Utilities Service Corporation
-
,
R. F. Fenti, Quality Assurance Auditor
.
W. T. Cunn, Site ihnager P. A. Levine, Site QA Auditor S. Levin, Project Ibnager M. J. Sto= berg, QA Auditor J. E. Wright, QA Manager United En:ineers and Constructors J. Carrabba, Field Supervisor Construction QC R. Dourte, Assistant Supervisor, QC i
.
Burns & Roe G. T. Harper, Jr., Site Project Engineer Babcock and Uilcox R. J. Kunz, Quality Control Supervisor
'
The items discussed are su==arized below.
In each case the licensee acknowledged the infor=ation.
.
-
A.
Scope of the Inspection
.
The inspector stated that this inspection was conducted to review the QC program for inspection of installed components, receiving and handling of reactor internals and the status of outstanding ite=s. -
B.
Items of Noneccoliance The inspector stated that two deficiencies had been identified.
1.
Failure to properly protect safety related expansion joints stored in the laydown area and to inspect storage of this equipment in accordance with QC procedures. Protective covers had been installed prior to co=pletion of the inspection.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
2.
Contrary to B&W construction procedure No.,3, access to the reactor vessel was not controlled and evidence of smoking was observed within the area.
This item was resolved prior to completion of the inspection.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
k.
.
I 7T C70
'
-
l
.
T
-
-
-4-
.
C.
Unresolved Items
_
The inspector stated that three unresolved items had bee I
1.
Revision 6 to QC-2-2 deletes the n identified.
inconsistency was resolved by Fi litems on " Ho ot conform to QC-17-2
'
lishes the requirement for segregatie d Change QC-178 whi This
'
on.
-
However, observation of the some items not on " Hold" in the area" Hold" area in Wa outside of the area.
. I showed The area itself was notand sc=e items on segregated area.
(Details, Paragraph 4)
identified as a 2.
Controls were not available to ass
-
been inspected. corrected for itans transferred away fure that docum (Details, Paragraph 5)ro= Unit 2 after they had 3.
A visual inspection of the Sodium Thi presence of numerous linear indicatioosulphate tank revealed the
,
plates.
had been inf or=ed thatA DR had been written for this (Details, Paragraph 6)this nonconformance would beank
'
the DF..
added to D.
A_cceptable Items The inspector identified the follo i
,
l considered to be acceptable:
ng items and stated that they ar w
,
'
1.
!
e Drawing control audits.
.
(Details, Paragraph 7)
2.
Protection of installed equipment Control and disposition of nonco f (Details, Paragraph 8)
3.
.
lDR' 's.
(Deta_ '.s, Paragraph 9)
n orming ite=s identified on.
4 ~.
Paragraph 10) Receiving and handling of the react
.
,
or lover internals.
(Details, E.
Previously Reported Unresolved it ems 1.
The inspector stated that nonce =pli and 2 had been reviewed to deter =impreviously re ection reports for Units 1
.
e their applicability to Unit
.
O O
fd[W.
Y h
e 4.~ f
_
s ~-
.
e
.
9
.
.
. _.
.
-
..
-
_3_
e i
2.
The inspector stated that documentation concerning verification of valve wall thickness had been reviewed. This item is resolved.
-
(Details, Paragraph 11)
-
e e
.
e M
e @
e e
$
e e
!
.
e a d e-
.e
- {
i. 6,w
,
'
I
_
1:
.
-
-
.
DETAILS i
1.
Persons Contacted Cencral Public Utilities Service Corporation R. F. Fenti, Quality Assurance Auditor W. T. Gunn, Site Manager P. A. Levine, Site QA Auditor S. Levin, Proj ect Engineer C. L. Roshy, Quality Assurance Engineer M. J. Sto= berg, Site Quality Assurance Auditor J. E. Uright, Quality Assurance Manager United Eneineers and Constructor _s
'
J. Carrabba, Field Construction /QC Supervisor B. Crof te=, QC Engineer, Piping R. Dourte, Assistant Supervisor, QC-H. Jones, QC Engineer F. F. Long, Assistant Field Supervisor, QC A. Marrs, Piping Supervisor B. E. O? Conner, QC Docu ents Engineer i
J. Rebok, Receiving Engineer i
J. Schmidt, QC Engineer, Records Coordinator i
,
Babcock and Wilcox l
~~
-
-. l 'Id %' M Supervisor M. Shultz, Construction Supervisor, Pipe Shop R. E. Treadway, Project Manager
- - -
J. Stewart, Construction Supervisor
~
J. Downey, industrial Inspection C. Hason, Industrial Inspection 2.
Storage of Ernansion Joints
.
Paragraph.3.5, Division 2 of Specification 2555-115, Metal Expansion Joints, states "All finished surfaces shall be cleaned and all connections shall be protected by covers or wood guards to prevent damage during shipment and storage." And Paragraph IV.A.1 of Procedure QC-3-2 for Sto;. age Control states, in part "The Quality Control Group shall verify that equipment and materials are stored in the prescribed manner-."
.
O
.
L
-
.
i
-
. _i c
t If U
<
-
-
.
~
G
-.
-
,
_
_
f-7-
.
The inspector examined the conditions of pipe, valves and fittings
~
ctored in the outdoor storage arca called the "Laydown" area.
It was observed that, contrary to the above-quoted require =ents, the coverings on a nu=ber of expansion joints had deteriorated and were
,
torn and that the open ends were not protected.
,
This is considered to be a deficiency with respect to 10 CTR 50, Appendix E, Criterion V which states, in part " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by docu=ented-instructions, procedures, or drawings, cf a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures,' or drawings."
Prior to cocpletion of the inspection all of the defective coverings had'been replaced.
However this nonce =pliance remains unresolved pending review of actions taken by the licensee to prevent recurrence of such incidents.
3.
Reactor vessel Protection
.
The Reactor Vessel was inspected for protection of the internal surfacqs while the work was being perfor=ed en the lover flow vanes.
This vessel is maintained within a protective housing and is classified by BLW Construction Cc=pany Procedure No. 3 as a category 3 area, codi-
fled at this stage of the work, to delete the require =ent for account -
ability of personnel and tools, However, entry is restricted to authori-zed personnel and eating and smoking are forbidden within the area.
Although the inspector was required to have permission from the Vessel Contractor to enter the Vessel it was found that there was no one present at the Reactor Vessel Protection housing entrance to prevent entry by unauthorized personnel.
-
In addition, signs were clearly posted forbidding the use of tobacco
'
and eating inside of the protective area.
The inspector observed and pointed out the presence of cigarette caterial to the licensee and contractor's representative.
,
This is considered to be a deficiency with respect to 10 CFR 50, Appendix i
B, Criterion V which states, in part " Activities affecting quality shall
be prescribed by docu=ented-instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instruction, procedures, or drawings."
Prior to co=pletion of the inspection, the B&W QC Supervisor issued a notice e=phasizing control of access to the reactor vessel area and instructing QC personnel to conduct increased surveillance of this area.
-
k_
This ite= is resolved.
-
m -. c mt
-
s4 6 s
.
- -.
-
-
.
-S-
-
i 4.
Segregation of !bterial on " Hold"
.
The inspector exacined procedures QC-17-2 for Control of Koncom-
-
forming Conditions and QC-2-2 for Receiving inspection.
Paragraph IV.4.6 of QC-17-2 states, in part "A " Hold Tag" shall be
.
placed on the (nonconf er=ing) item by QCRI and the item vill be placed in a " Hold" area designated f or nonconforming material
"
and Paragraph IV.3.b(2) of QC-2-2 Rev. 6 dated May 14, 1975 states in part " Segregated storage shall not ue required for itccs on
" Hold"-."
The inspector identified this inconsistency and was infor=ed that QC-2-2 would be revised to conf orm to QC-17-2.
Field Change QC-17S vas issued on August' 27, 1975 and reinstituted the requirecent for segregation of ite=s on " Hold."
The inspector also observed storage of items on " Hold" in Earehouse No. 2.
It was found that a space had been allocated for itc=s on
" Hold" but this space was not identified as a " Hold" area except f or some shelving within the arca.
This area was not segregated by tape or other means. The inspecter observed that operators for valves RR-V5A and MU-V5A uhich had been
-
. released for construction were stored within the area in addition to items on " Hold" and avaiting inspection.
Also it was found that other items listed and tagged as on " Hold" were stored in other secticns of the Warehouse.
This ites is unresolved.
5.
Transfer of Items
'
During review of installed equipment storage the inspector was
.
informed that certain items of equipment including pu=p MU-PIC and pump internals for MU-PIB had been transferrred to Unit 1.
Such transfers
,
are accceplished in accordance with General Construction Procedure GCP-
,
6-2 for Transfer and Replacement of thterial and Valves. The inspector then asked if controls were available to provide for correction of the QC docu=entation package in order to show this transfer and was in-formed that no such controls were available.
This item is unresolved.
,
N-.
.
,, n)
.
t re L Ct
-
-
,__e
-
~
.
-
,
-9-
.
6.
Sodium Thiosulobate Tanh s
A visual examination of the Sodium Thiosulphate Tank by the inspector
,
revealed the presence of linear indications throughout the surface
,
of two (2) plates.
These indications extended into the fusion boundaries of the weld joints. A later dye penetrant exacination
of these areas show substantial dye leaching in several of the
,
defects indicating sc=e depth into the base metal.
This tank had been rejected for other reasons and the licensee stated that thesc indications would be added to the DR.
.
.
This item is unresolved.
7.
Drawing Control Audits During a previous inspection (Inspection Report 50-320/75-07) the licensee i
had stated that additional audits vould be cenducted during June and
,
July,1975 to observe whether i= proved centrol of drawings was naintained I
The inspector examined audit Nos. GPUSC 75-22 and 75-26 which had been conducted in June and July respectively.
These audits identified no nonconfor=ance execpt for one subcontractor who was found to have eleven out dated drawings, the majority cf which verc for work which had been deleted from his scope of work.
The inspector asked what cethod was used by QC to detercine that in-
.
formation on out dated drawings was not incorporated into the work and was informed of the :folleving:
I a.
Prior to turnover of any system a Final Acceptance Inspection is made in accordance with Procedure QC-16-2.
Included are a visual inspection review of QC docu=entation and verificatics of con-struction rel'ated checks.
The check list for the final inspection
~
includes verification of cc=pliance with applicable revisions of drawings, specifications and procedures.
.
.
b.
QC-16-2 requ; ires that the craft supervisor shall maintain a log of systems and erection drawings for systems which have been turned over by construction and notify the QC supervisor of re-visions cade to any of these drawings. QC will deter =ine if the revisions affect any part of the turned ever system and if so will inspect the affected part.
In addition QC made a sample review of thirty drawings to deter =ine'
whether out dated drawings might rehult in nonconforming construction.
The results, as reported in File TMI-II-1803 dated Fevruary 19, 1975 showed that seventeen revisions did not update technical infor=ation or were reference drawings which did not affect construction.
k-
.
wo,
.
-
---
.
_
.
-
-
.
-
,
-10-
The rc=sining thirteen revir. ions did involve chances but
_
in cach case the information was available $n the field prior to issuance of the revised drawings.
-_
8.
Protection of Installed Ecuirment
_
Ihe inspector observed items of equip =ent listed below to verify that they were physically protected from construction activitics, that temporary coverings were adequate to provide protection fren dust and debris and that heating devices were installed and operating as re-quired.
The components examined include:
.
a.
Reactor Cooling Pump 1 A/B c.
Decay Heat Pu=ps PIA and PIB
.
d.
Make up Pu=p PIA I
e.
Ibin Steam Valves 4A and 4B
-
f.
Core Flood Valve VIA
!
This item is considered to be acceptable.
9.
Control and Disoosition of Nonconformances The inspector examined the QC records sheving nonconformance status
,
and disposition of the following DR's.
!
DR-453 for DH-V65 (incc=plete)
a.
j b.
DR-351 for WDL-VIA & B, 2 A & B (incomplete)
!
-
c.
DR-394 for WDL-V268
/
.d.
DR-376 for WDL-V531
/
.
e.
DR-366 for'DH-V4B
.
/
The inspector also observed the quarantine area and the nonconforming tags and markings for traceability identification of status and re-sistance to deterioration.
-
.
This item is considered to be acceptable.
10.
Reactor Vessel Internals
.
An inspection consisting of a review of Field Construction procedure No. 31 and observations of the receiving inspection, unloading and storage of the lower Reactor Vessel internals was made.
This' item is considered to be acceptable.
,
(_
.
$
th s_
f, hb'Y e
gg
.
.
A
.
-
.
_
-
..
-11-
'
11.
Valve k'all Thickness Verification Fronram This incpection was made as a follow-up to the letter of June
-
22, 1972 f rom the Directorate of Regulatory Operations requiring the licensee to develop and implement a program to verify the vall thickness of cach valve within the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary as defined in 10 CFR 50.55(a), Codes and Standards, where the valve is over one inch no=inal pipe size for pressuri-zed water reactors.
The valve vall thickness verification program submitted by the
.
licensee consists of a cc piled book of data which contained the following:
(a) Description of locations ceasured.
(b) 11casuring techniques used (c) Description of equipcent used (d) Acceptance Criteria (e)
Su==ation of results The program included all of the valves required by the R.O. letter-with the exception of fourteen and have not been received at (14) valves which have been reordered the site as of this inspection.
'
valves have been ordered with a requirement for the vendor to furnish These
. data to verify the vall thickness and the licensee has written specific instructions for this data to be reviewed at receiving inspection Therefore, this item is considered closed.
.
.
e
.
n
.
.
.
L_
.
.
.
=
f '( 4
{%Y
.
g&
g,
[
.
-
.g._
_