IR 05000320/1975013
| ML19220B344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1975 |
| From: | Haynes R, Heishman R, Narrow L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220B335 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-75-13, NUDOCS 7904250654 | |
| Download: ML19220B344 (19) | |
Text
,
E:I Forn 12
-
--
Jan'75) (Iev)
.
U. S. !?UCLEAR RECUL',TO. Y CC:0!ISSIO::
OFFICE OF I :SPECTION A!!D E:,70RCC!E::T
-
REGICN I
_
.
',
E Inspection Report !!o:
50-320/75-13 Docket ?o:
sn_,,n Metropolitan Edison Co=nany License I;o: cpoe_e:
.icensec:
Box 542 Priority:
--
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
A Safeguards Group:
ocation:
Middletown, Pennsv1vania (TvT-2)
ype of Licensee:
Unannounced Routine
-
'ype of Inspection:
October 20-23, 1975 tas. ; of Inspec tion:
September 17-19, 1975 lates of Previous Inspection:
,,,lA v, f
!!.l]-7,l~*'C
'
/
'/.
-
tcporting Inspector:
.
c
~-
-
- DATE L.
Narrow Rea tor Inspector NN.. '
sece:panying Inspectors:
. -
v
'
//
DATE R.
C.
11a y4ps, Senior Reactor Inspector Q. t cCLs
%- t, !9 7s'
DAIC A.
E.
Finkel, Reactor Inspector
,
DATE 3ther Acccapanying, Perconnel: R.
T.
Carlson. Chief. RC&ES Branch DA_s c, leviewed By:
/W
h'*,T ~r R.
F.
Heishman, Senior Reactor Inspector i
.
i
-
f
-. - -. - - - - -. ~ ~ - -
-
h.- -
-
-
- - _...
.
. -,
. -... - -..
i
?!)U4250&Sf
s
.
..
.
.
SLTiARY OF FINDINGS a
Enforcement Action
.
A.
Items of Noncompliance
~
~
None
.
B.
Deviations None Licensee Action on Previousiv Identified Enforcement Itens
.
A.
Items of Noncomoliance The following items have been resolved:
1.
MT indications on reactor coolant pump (RCP) studs and nuts.
(Details, Paragraph 8)
2.
Storage of expansion joints.
(Details, Paragraph 9)
B.
Deviations The following ite=s were reviewed and found not to have been deviations as previously reported:
1.
Failure to perform co=pressive strength tests on tendon grout.
(Details, Paragraph 10)
2.
Failure to measure alkalinity of tendon grout.
(Details, Paragraph 11)
Design Chances None identified.
i Unusual Occurrences None reported.
-
.
%
!
's a -0 9 0
'
-
i
__
., _.
_.
____
_.
. _. _ _
-
_
,,,
i. 7
_
-
..
-2-
.
Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings
,
1.
'The following items are considered to be acceptable.
a.
Receiving, storage, installation and handling proce-
'
dures for electrical equipment except as notes in
-
ites 2 below.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
,
b.
Location, separation and missile protection of elec-trical equipment.
(Details, Paragraph 4)
Receiving, installation and inspection records for c.
selected items of electrical equipment.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
2.
The following ite=s are unresolved:
a.
Lack of an adequate procedure for control of cable in storage in the control storage area.
(Details, Para-graph 6)
b.
Procedure GCP-4-2 does not adequately define preventive maintenance requirements during in-place storage of equipments.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
c.
lastructions are not available for fascening diesel generator (D-G) anchor bolts.
(Details, Paragraph 7)
B.
Status of Previousiv Reported Unresolved Items 1.
The following items have been resolved:
a.
Switch replace =ent-Limitorque valve operators.
(Details, Paragraph 12)
b.
Examination of prototype tendon grout samples.
(Details, Paragraph 13)
e c.
Ultrasonic examination of reactor coolant pump (RCP)
flywheel.
(Details, Paragraph 14)
,
S.
t
.
__g g {cg
_ _,
_i -
i
__
_ _ _ _ _ _. _
_. __..._
_. _ _ _ _.. - -.. _ _ _
-
-
- 3-d.
Segregation of materials on " Hold."
(Details, Para-graph 15)
e.
Control of items transferred from Unit 1.
(Details, Paragraph 16)
.
f.
Linear indicatica on sodium thiosulphate tank.
(Details, Paragraph 17)
'
g.
Retest of main steam line (MSL) relief valve MS-R-2B.
(Details, Paragraph 18)
2.
Recoating of cable tray coatings previously identified as unacceptable is in progress with additional surveillance at the vendors plant to assure compliance with require ents of the paint manufacturer's technical bulletin.
A review of all coatings within the containment building is in progress to determine their suitability.
This item remains unresolved pending co=pletion of this review.
(Details, Paragraph 19)
3.
Inspection of D-G for possible error in piston machining vill be perfor=ed as a part of the startup test program.
This item remains unresolved.
(Detaila, Paragraph 20)
Exit Inte rview An exit meeting was held at the site on October 23, 1975.
Persons Present General Public Utilities Service Corroration R. F. Fenti, Site QA Auditor W. T. Gunn, Project Site Manager S. Levin, Project Engineer
,
G. L. Roshy, QA Engineer M. J. Stomberg, Senior Site QA Auditor J. E. Wright, Site QA Manager L. M. Zubey, Mechanical Engineer
.
e
.
i e-w.-
_
__..,e.
...,,
e-
%
e-
= = ** e N
- 6
- ***-*
'
^
-
_,
,1 -
-
_
-
..
-4-United Encineers and Constructors i
J. Carrabba, Field Supervisor Construction OC V. Cichocki, Construction /QC Superintendent
.
C. W. Hunter, Electrical Supervisor D. C. La=bert, Field Supervisor, QC R. W. Lisco=b, QC Engineer, Electrical
,
Burns & Roe C. T. Lunson, Site Mechanical Liaison Engineer F. X. Findar Lead Site QA Engineer 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 progra= for electrical equip =ent, observe the installed condition of selected itens of electrical equip =ent and review the status of cutstanding ite=s.
P.
Previously Reported Enforce =ent Ite=s The inspector identified the ite=s listed under Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforce =ent Ite=s of the Su==ary of Findings and stated that these items had been resolved.
(Details, Paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11)
C.
Acceptable Items The inspector identified the items listed in part A.1 of Other Significant Findings of the Su==ary of Findings and stated that these ite=s are considered to be acc.eptable.
(Details, Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4)
D.
Unresolved Ite=s i
The inspector identified the ite=s listed in part A.2 of Other Significant Findings of the Su==ary of Findings and stated that these ite=s are unresolved.
(Details, Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7)
.
I,
'
'
.
%. 093
_
_
,
i
.
'
- - - -. -..
--
... _ _.
.v.....-.-
__
.
-
..
- 5-
.
E.
Previously Reported Unresolved Iteus
'
1.
The inspector identified tht ite=s listed under Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items of the Su==ary of
-
' Findings and stated that these ite=s are resolved.
(Details,
'
Paragraphs 12, 13, 14,.15, 16, 17 and 18)
,
2.
The inspector identified the ite=s listed below and stated that these ite=s re=ain unresolved.
Coatings of cable trays and other equip =ent within the a.
contain=ent building.
(Jctails, Paragraph 19)
b.
Inspection of D-G pistoas.
(Details, Paragraph 20)
.,
e e
.
g.
i
.
--
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
_.
_ _ _ _.
_ _. __ -. g g gg. - - - - - _. _. -
.
-
..
.
DETAILS
-
1.
Persons Contacted General Public Utilities Service Corporation
.
R. F. Fenti. Quality Assurance Auditor W. T. Gunn, Site Manager S. Levin, Project Engineer G. L. Roshy, Quality Assurance Engineer M. J. Sto: berg, Site Quality Assurance Auditor R. Toole, Test Superintendent J. E. Wright, Quality Assurance Manager L. M. Zubey, Mechanical Engineer
-
United Engineers $nd Constructors M. Byer, QC Engineer, Mechanical J. Carrabba, Field Construction /QC Supervisor A. Carrera, Assistant Supervisor, Construction 7QC V. E. Cichocki, Construction /QC Superintendent C. W. Hunter, Electrical Supervisor B. E. O' Conner, QC Documents Engineer D. Perry, QC Engineer J. Rebok, Receiving Engineer J. Schmidt, QC Engineer, Records Coordinator Burns & Roe T. Jozkowski, Civil Engineer T. Wright, Civil Engineer 2.
Procedures The inspector reviewed the United Engineers & Constructors (UESC)
procedures listed below for receipt, storage, handling and instal-
,
lation.
.
.
_
I
-
.
' d' ()SG
_
t
-
-
-
-
-
.
~7-
~
QC-2-2, Quality Control Procedure for Receiving Inspection, a.
Revision 6.
'
b.
QC-3-2, Quality Control Procedure for Storage Control, Re-
'
vision 2.
QC-6-2, Quality Control Procedure for Record & Filing System, c.
Revision 7.
d.
QC-11-2, Quality Control Procedure for Cleaning & Cleanress Control, Revision 2.
Tbmse procedures conform to the FSAR requirements with respect to the D-G start system and assoc.4ated local control panels.
This item is considered to be acceptable.
3.
Inspection Records The inspector reviewed the inspection records listed below for the 4160 volt bus, the D-G feed breaker to this bus, the supply breaker for the 480 volt switchgear and the supply breaker for the 4160 volt motors.
a.
. Receiving, Insrection, Handling and Storace (1)
QC Report E-11625 dated June 4, 1965 for 4160 volt switchgear 2 DG-1 and 2 DC-2.
(2)
QC Reports E-11199 dated April 30, 1974 and E-9186 dated May 20, 1974 for the 480 volt motor control center (MCC) 211E3.
(3) QC Report E-9774 dated May 20, 1974 for the 480 volt MCC-ELL-2-9.
b.
Installation Records i
(1)
Inspecticn Reports E-lll62 and E-11163 dated May 8, 1974 and Ell 216 dated Fby 30, 1974 for sub-station (SS) 2-11E.
(2)
Inspection Report E-11189 dated May 15, 1974 for Transitron 241E.
(.
.
l
.
'
i
~
,a 03G
-
-
.
-
_
_ S-(3). Inspection Reports E-9718, E-11167 and E-11212 dated January 28, 1974, iay 10 1974 and May 16, 1974 respec-
.
,
tively Icr MCC 2-11E-A.
'(4)
Inspection Report E-9200 dated October 23, 1973 for MCC 2-llE.
'
(5)
Inspection Report E-11562 dated October 22, 1973 for Motor Control Unit EE-E- (01).
During this review the inspector found that there were no open nonconfor=ances, deviations or unresolved itens in the reports.
This ite: is considered to be acceptable.
.
4.
Equipment Installation listed belov which The inspector observed the installed equipment is a part of the " red" e=ergency pcuer syste=.
4160 volt DG feed breaker, s.
b.
supply breakers for 4160 otors, supply breakers associated with the 460 volt switchgear.
c.
The locatica, separation and missile protection of this equip =ent confor=ed to the requirements of the FSAR.
This iten is considered to be acceptable.
5.
Preventive Maintenance The inspecter examined D-G cotor control and breaker equipment which had been installed and observed that various methods and Preventive = sin-types of equip =ent were used to =aintain heat.
tenance procedure GCF-4-2 does not establish a method for heating nor the te=perature require =ents during in place the equipment examined and the heating =ethods used storage. The equipment are shown below:
A 110 volt AC cable was connected to the equip-a.
MCC-2-11EA :
cent heating strip.
The equipment was unheated and the cable was found to be burned off.
,
.
9b 095*
.
aw gew*-pewe6W eegWW we-emt a
66u***Nd M
-m
@
.M ee h
g p.y p n
,
.
.
..
9-
-
b, MCC-2-llE3 : A 110 volt AC cable was connected to the equip-ment heating strip.
The unit was vars but the cable insula-tion was cracked.
c.
MCC-2 -11E : One " half-coon" heater was installed in the unit and the heater was hot to the touch.
A 500 watt " half-toon" heater povered by a 208 volt line was also installed in the transfotter associated with this equiptent.
d.
MCC-2-11EC : A 500 vatt " half-coon heater powered by a 110 volt line was installed in this unit.
Instructions had not been provided to maintenance personnel to establish the te=perature requirements for this equip =ent.
This item is unresolved.
6.
Cable / Wire storare Control Procedure ECP-3-
~3aires that cable and wire be covered for protection fr
..: sun if it is not to be used within six months but permits them to be uncovered if they are to be used within six conths.
The inspector perfor=ed an audit of cable and wire stored in the concrol storage area for acceptable caterial.
Both uncovered and partially covered reels were found in the area.
As examples:
Reel - 4G Not Covered Reel - 3AC B-2720 Not Covered Reel - 35 B-2140 Cover broken Reel - D3100 211 Not Covered Reel - D3476 211 Not Covered Personnel working in the area had records shoving when reels were taken out and returned to the area. However, no procedure had been established to assure that cable /vire would be covered if they were not used within the six month period.
t This item is unresolved.
.
l
.
I
<a 008 t
-
-- -
-
.
. - - -.
-
_. -.
- -.
-. _
-
_
-
_
-10-
-
.
7.
D-G Anchor Bolts During his inspection of the D-G the inspector could find no
$
instructions concerning the require =ent for tightening the nuts
'
on the anchor bolts.
The supervisor stated that he had no specific
[
instructions for perfor=ance of this operation and therefore had
'
instructed the men performing this work to run the nuts hand
tight and then pull them up a half turn on the nut.
The licensee's representative stated that the installation require-ments would be reviewed to determine whether the technique used is adequate.
This item is unresolved.
8.
MT Indications on RCP Studs and Nuts Failure to report linear indicatier.s identified during magnetic particle examination of the RCP studs and nuts had been identified as a noncompliance with the require =ents of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-09)
By letters dated July 24, 1975 and August 9, 1975 the licensee docu=ented the inspection methods used and results observed and stated that the NSSS had been requested to justify use of those studs and nuts or replace them.
The results of the NSSS's investi-gation and their conclusion that the studs and nuts cect applicable code require =ents was reported in Inspection Report 50-320/75-10.
The licensee also furnished sections of stud no. 469, which had been identified as showing the most indications during the MT examination, to Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) and to the GPU System Laboratory (GSL), for independent analyses.
The inspector examined the following:
a.
PTL Raport dated August 22, 1975 which described sectioning aud exam: nation of this stud.
The results of this examina-
,
tion are teated as follows:
(1) The inclusion clusters are non-cetallic and are char-acteristic of manganese sulfide.
(2) No cracking was observed in the stud either away from or associated with the inclusions.
.
.
,
b O$
~
.
_.
_
__
. _...
. - - - -
- - - - -
- -. --. -.- --
-.
. -..
.
-
-
-11-b.
Memorandum dated October 14, 1975 from GSL stating that the suspect material has been examined by standard metal-
_
lurgical techniques, the composition of the inclusions
-
had been confir:cd by scanning electron miseroscopy with
'
' energy dispersive x-ray analysis and concluded that
'.'..the observed stringer inclusions are manganese sulfide;
.
'
a non-metallic inclusion."
c.
Deviation Report No. 9469 which had been written on May 29, 1975 to docu=ent the nonconfor=ance and which was closed out on October 22, 1975 with acceptance of the studs and nuts by the DRB on the basis of the results of the labora-tory studies.
This item is resolved.
,
9.
Storace of Exusnsion Joints I= proper protection and inspection of expansion joints in storage in the laydown~ area had previously been identified as a conec=pliance.
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-11)
Corrective action had been taken to protect this equipment after it was identified. Field Change QC-182 dated September 23, 1975 has revised Paragraph IV A of procedure QC-3-2 for storage control to require:
a.
Surveillance of storage areas containing nuclear related materials / equipment on a monthly basis.
b.
Completion of a general surveillance checklist by the inspector
-
..to docu=ent his inspection in addition to the QC inspection report. Noncenforming conditions are to be noted on both the checklist and the inspection report.
This item is resolved.
10.
Tendon Grout Strenzth Tests i
Tailure to perform co=pressive strength test of the grout used for post tensicned tendons had been identified as a deviation fren the TSAR and project specification co=mit=ents for construc-
,
tion at the reactor building in accordance with ACI Standard 301.
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-03)
i
'sb 100
.
-
e e*
e, o
e oemmH
- Fm
-
- ' *
~%
m
-
-12-
.
The licensees letter dated August 21, 1975 states that the
-
project specification requires that the contractor develop a tendon installation and grouting procedure and submit this procedure to the engineer for approval.
The Division of Technical Review, NRR, has reviewed this catter
'
.
and made the finding which states in part,
"...lt should be noted that the design of the contain=ent structure does not rely on the
-
strength of the grout, but only on its capacity to prevent corrosion of the tendons.
The applicant's conclusion is that this deviation
,
does not impair the functional capacity of the structure and we concur with this conclusion."
This item is resolved.
11.
Alkalinity of Tendon Creut Failure to measure the alkalinity of the grout six used for grouting of post-tensioned tendon ducts had been identified as a deviation from an industry code, ACI Committee 349, " Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Nuclear Power Contain=ent Structures."
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-03)
The licensees letter dated August 21, 1975 states that the criteria in question was not invoked or referenced in the design of the facility.
However, a test of the grout.has been made and shows tha t the PH is approx 1=ately 12.5 which is near the =idpoint of the range of values established by this criteria.
The Division of Technical Review, NRR, has reviewed this matter and made the finding which states, "It is known historically that grout mixes in general provide the required PH.
The pertinent codes do r.ot require this determination. We therefore concur with the applicant's suggestion that this determination can be avoided without i= pairing the capability of the structure to function as required."
This item is resolved.
,
12.
Limitorcue Valve Operators LR0 (Now I&E)Bulletin 72-03 had informed the licensee of the malfunction of certain valve cperators and requested that the licensee determine whether any of the described operators were installed or scheduled to be installed at this facility.
The inspector examined the following docu=ents:
I CPU memorandum dated February 1,1973 from the QC supervisor a.
to QC personnel identifying the model und serial numbers of the suspect valves and instructing QC personnel to check l
.
'1 4 sia-
. _ _ _ _ _. _. _.... __. _..__. _ __..
__
-
- - - -.-
yo o g -
- -.- m,-
_
_
-13-
.
all Limitorque operators during receiving inspection and vendor surveillance and report all those in the suspect
-
range.
~
.
b.
GPU me=orandum dated March 12, 1973 stating that all Limitorque operators on site had been checked and listing all suspect
'
operators.
Letter dated February 12, 1974 from GPU Service Ccapany (CPU)
c.
to UE&C describing the program and listing the suspect operators.
List shows a total of eighty-six such operators plus two operators which had been transferred to Unit 1 by Material Transfer Request No. 25.
d.
GPU me=orandum dated October 8,.1974 requesting that the two transferred operators be examined and response dated October 16, 1974 verifying inspection and replacenent of torque switches.
UE&C ccmorandum dated October 23, 1974 and Inspection Report e.
E-ll4808 of the same date listing the suspect eighty-six operators and confirming that they had been inspected and verified acceptable or had the switches replaced.
f.
GPU me=orandum dated October 31, 1974 instructing receiving inspector to identify all Li=itorque operator model and serial numbers and the cognizant engineer to verify that it is not one of the suspect operators.
Suspect operators are identified as not acceptable.
The inspector examined the receiving checklist / inspection reports for all Limitorque operators received since October, 1974 and observed that the model and serial nu=bers had been identified and were not in the suspect range.
This item is resolved.
13.
Prototype Tendon Grout Samples The inspector's request that he be permitted to examine sectioned i
sa=ples of the prototype tendon had been identified as an unresolved item.
(Inspection Report 50-320/74-07)
.
$
_
h
$
e
-
-.
_.
_
. _ -
-.--
--J-'
-
,.
-
-
-
-14-
.
The inspector was informed that the sectioned sa=ples were avail-able at Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania but that a report of the
_-
=
de=enstration test was available on site.
This report titled
" Grouted Tendon De=enstration Test for 170 Foot High Vertical
-
Tendon" was prepared by Stressteel Corporation and was issued July 24, 1975. The inspector examined this report and observed that it
,
'
complied with the Burns & Roe (B&R) procedures for.uis test
-
and had been approved for publication by B&R.
Section 7.0, Examination and Evaluation stated in addition to other items that:
Grout co=pletely filled the spect=en and c= bedded each
.
a.
shroud.
b.
Subsequent sectioning showed grout to be solid and co=-
pletely encasing the top anchorages.
Based on this report and prior inspection of production grouting in progress, examination of the sectioned sa=ples is not required.
This ite= is resolved.
14.
UT Docu=entation - RCP Fivvheels Examination of docu=entation confir=ing ultrasonic inspection (UT) of the RCP flywheels had been identified as an unresolved ite=.
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-01).
The inspector examined:
a.
Change Order No. 5 to B&W Specification CS-3-16 Section 22 which requires that "all flycheel seg=ents shall be ultra-sonic inspected in accordance with B&W Spec. 5-102E, April 18, 1969 issue, after final =achining and certified results of tests shall be provided."
b.
Change Order No. 11 to the same B&W specifications which
.
substitutes B&W Draft Specification UT-108 for Specifica-tion }-102E identified in Change Order No. 5.
c.
UT test reports for upper top, upper =iddle, upper bottc=,
,
and lover seg=ents of motors nos. 38827, 38828, 38829 and 38830.
!
.
,.,'u 103
~
,
'
.
__
@
k
_
..
-15-
.
The complete data packages for these =otors had not been signed by GPU QA because of outstanding questions concerning the oil
~;
level switch and vibration switch tests.
However, the GPU QA Engineer stated that the UT test data had been reviewed and was
-
'
acceptable.
This item is resolved.
15.
Secregation of Ite=s on " Hold" Inconsi'tencies between the requirements of procedures QC-17-2 and QC-2-2 with respect to segregation of ite=s on "nold" and failure to segregate such items had been identified as an un-resolved ites. (Inspection Report 50-320/75-11)
Field Change QC-180 to QC-2-2 dated Septe=her 8, 1475 has es-tab 1fshed a require =ent for segregation of ite=s on " hold" except for large ite=s and those requiring special storage conditions.
This change brings QC-2-2 into agree =ent with QC-17-2.
The inspector observed the " hold" area in Warehouse No. 2 and found it to be properly marked and segregated by tape.
Only caterial on " hold" was stored in this area and no items on
" hold" were observed in other areas of the warehouse.
This item is resolved.
16. Transfer of Material After Inspection Lack of specific instructions for =sintenance of docu=entation associated with transfer of material / equip =ent from unit 2 to unit 1 had been identified as an unresolved item.
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-11)
The inspector examined a memorandum dated October 16, 1975 from the site QA Manager which identified the records to be =sintained by QC for such transferred ite=s.
This item is resolved.
(
.
I r.
i
'W 204
.
-
.
. _...
.
__..__.
-___
_-
..y__
-
-.
,
-16-
.
17.
Sodium Thiosulohate Tank
-
The presence of linear indications had been identified during a visual inspection of the Sodium Thiosulphate tank and had later been confir=ed by PT examination.
This had been identified as
an unresolved item.
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-11)
This tank had been rejected for other reasons as shown on Deviation Report (DR) 0468 which was issued P.ay 29, 1973.
Supplement 1 to DR 0468, dated August 8, 1975, released the tank for return to vendors shop for repair.
The inspector examined supple =ents 2 and 3 to DR 0463 which describe the linear indications, direct performance of the necessary repairs, instruct the vendor. surveillance QC representative to place extra e=phasis on visual inspection and provides a DR3 recoc=endation that GPU/QA provide veddor surveillance prict to return of the tank to the site.
This item is resolved.
18.
Main Steam Line Relief (MSR) Valve The licensee had reported that during unloading of MSR-2-3 it had been dropped. Although there was no apparent da= age to the valve the licensee had decided to return it to the vender for inspection and resetting if necessary.
The inspector examined the following documentation:
a.
Letter dated August 13, 1975 from SSR to vendor returning valve and instructing vendor to perform an external visual examination, test valve set point and reset if necessary and incorporate results of any rework into document packages.
b.
QC Inspection Report of shop inspection dated October 6, 1975 and Test Report dated October 1, 1975 for hydro and steam tests.
Reported that 35R-2-B valve seat was tight
,
and no reset was necessary.
Report was also signed by the Authorized Code Inspector.
c.
QC Inspection Report dated October 13, 1975 reporting
.
documentation review, verification of code stamping and verification of center of gravity marks on crate.
This item is resolved.
l
-
t
_...
.
.
...
.
-..
..
..
,
.
-.
..
-
..
-17-
-
19.
cable Travs s
By letter dated August 26, 1975 the licensee reported that visual examination of the reactor building cable trays had revealed
mechanical da= age and poor paint adhesion.
The letter stated that Deviation Report No. 9?90 was initiated and that a review
.
'
was being conducted to verify that all other coatings used inside
containment were acceptable.
The inspector exacined the following documents:
a.
DR-0490 which reported the deficiency and corrective action as noted above, the disposition required the trays to be returned to the vendor and reccated per paint manufacturers Bulletins M-7 and M-7 N?; that a coating adhesion test will be made and that GPU-QA vill supply vendor surveillance to verify that Bulletin require =ents are =et, b.
DR-0507 which rejected 269 of 310 pieces of cable tray for poor work:anship and less than required coating thickness.
Report of Manuf acturer Surveys dated July 29 and 30,1975 c.
which concluded that the vendor is capable of meeting the painting require =ents.
d.
Inspection Reports M-3998 and M-3999 reported witt.essing of surface preparation, primer and finish coating of cable trays and splice plates.
e.
GPU me=orandum dated October 14, 1975 concerning final inspec-tion of cable trays and of vendors inspection.
100 cable trays inspected 5 rejected for foreign material in paint; vendor inspection reported to be adequate.
This item re=ains unresolved pending co=pletion of QA/QC review of all coatings within the reactor building containment.
i 20.
Diesel Generator The licensee had been informed by the manufacturer of a possible generic deficiency in cachining of the D-G pistons. This information was also supplied to licensees by DRO (Now IE) Bulletin 7416.
(
.
!
'iW 106
,
- - - -... _.
..
. _.. -
...
. --.
d I
-
.
.
.
..
-
_la_
.
Inspection of this unit will be ; e -formed during startup testing.
Procedure SP 51-19 " Diesel Generator Inspection and and initial Operating Test" dated April 21, 19'5 has been issued.
The objec-
=
tive of this test includes a requirencnt for inspection of both
_
D-G's for possible piston =achining error per Sulletin 74-16.
.
Detailed instructions will be issued in the future.
The licensee stated that this work will be started about three conths prior
to start of hot functional test.
.
This ite= re=ains unresolved.
t
s
. _ _ _
. _. -- -
. - - - -
--
- --
-
d t)
.1 r
.
_'