IR 05000320/1976008
| ML19220B415 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1976 |
| From: | Durr J, Heishman R, Narrow L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220B391 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-76-08, 50-320-76-8, NUDOCS 7904250704 | |
| Download: ML19220B415 (19) | |
Text
_
-
IZ:I Forn 12
(J-75) (Rev)
.
.
-
+
U. S.1:UCLEAR RECUL\\ TORY CCU!ISSIO:7 0FFICE OF I::SPECTIO:7 A::D E:!FORCC E:TT
.
REGIO:I I IE Inspection P.cport !!o:
50-320/76-08 Docket 1;o:
50-320 Metr p litan Edison Company Licensec:
L ccuse!!o. CPPR-66 Box 542
--
Priority:
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 A
SafcEuards
..
Middletown, Pennsylvania (TMI-2)
Loca tio n:
-
Group:
-
Type of Licensec:
Routine, Announced Ty-of Inspec tion:
June 7-11, 1976 Dates o.-. Inspection:
Dates of Previous Inspecti,.on:
y!
/ b Reperting Inspector: 'p
- t "M O/1/
L.
Narrow, Reactor Inspector
DATE Accompanying Inspectors:
///*//
-A4/
(f /#7h6 J.Eh. err?h KDW dalis Reactor Inspector
/
DffE
.
R.'
al
,jR actb Inspector DATE
j.
. 8a
<he/u A'. sv a r e l a, Reactor 7 nspector DATE Other Accompanying, Personnel:
NONE DATE k7/7[
b Reviewed By:
.
W R.
F. Beishman, Chief, Construction Projects DATE (
Section
,
.
,x 2ss
'
790125070'(
'
'
t
-
-
~
.
CUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
Enforcement Action Items of tjencompliance Infractions A.
Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VII, receiving inspec-
.
tion and review of vendor documentation for safety related equipment had not been performed as required by QC procedures.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
B.
Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, identified dis-crepancies in protection of cable and wire in outdoor storage had not been promptly corrected.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Enforcement Items None.
Design Changes The lines downstream of the pressure relief valves (PRV's) on the pressur-1zer have been downgraded from N-2 to SC.
(Details, Paragraph 4)
Unusual Occurrences None.
Other Significant Findings A.
Current Findings 1.
The following items are unresolved:
Documentation of welding inspection for field welding of a.
the structural supports for core flood tank CF-T-1B was not available for review.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
I.
, w 2 E G
}
-
-
-2-
-
-
b.
Revisions to Drawing No. 2217, Revision 7 shown on Engineer-ing Change Mamo (ECM) 2120 have not been made on Revision 9 of the drawing.
(Details, Paragraph 6)
.
The test procedure for the hydrostatic test of the conden-c.
sate storage tank does not meet the requirements of specification 2555-72 although the procedure has been approved by the Architect-Engineer (A/E).
(Details, Paragraph 7)
2.
The following items are considered to be acceptable:
a.
Receiving, placing, tensioning and grouting of dome tendons nos. D-001 and D-002.
(Details, Paragraph 8)
b.
The as-installed condition of the Makeup and Purification (MU) System from pump A to valves MU-V16A and B to the extent that this work is complete.
Items st ?1 to be completed 'aclude: hanger installation, mout..ag of pump and installation of flow restricting orifices.
(Details, Paragraph 9)
.
Welding in progress on joints 2-MU-206 and 2-BS-17.
c.
(Details, Paragraph 10)
d.
Installation of condensate storage tank except as noted under Unrosolved Items.
(Details, Paragraph 19)
B.
Previously Reported Unresolved Items 1.
The following items have been resolved:
Deficient preventive maintenance of electrical equipment.
a.
(Details, Paragraph 11)
b.
Installation of ' electrical hangers without approved drawings.
(Details, Paragraph 12)
Faulty welded connections to bus bars in unit. substations.
c.
(Details, Paragraph 13)
9[f ~ D57
{
.
.g.
_
-
.
-3-
-
=
d.
Lack of applicable revisions to B&W Field Construction Procedures (FCP's) in documentation package.
(Details,
Paragraph 14)
.
Separation requirements for safety related and nonsafety e.
related circuits.
(Details, Paragraph 15)
.
f.
Inspection of GE HGA and HFA relays as requested by IE Bulletins Nos. 76-02 and 76-03.
(Details, Paragraph 16)
g.
Inspection of Westinghouse BFD relays as requested by IE Bulletin No. 70-05.
(Details, Paragraph 17)
2.
The investigation of concrete block walls for conformance to seismic requirements has been completed.
However, this item remains unresolved pending completion of required changes.
(Details, Paragraph 18)
C.
Deviations None.
Exit Interview
,
.
An exit interview was held at the site on June 11, 1976.
Persons Present General Public Utilities Service Corporation W. T. Gunn, Project Site Manager R. F. Fenti, QA Auditor S. Levin, Project Engineer P. A. Levine, QA Auditor M. J. Stromberg, Sr. Site Auditor United Engineers and Constructors J. Carrabba, Assistant Superintendent D. C. Lambert, Field Supervisor QC C. W. Hunter, Electrical Supervisor J. C. Spinak, Lead QA Engineer Burns & Roe G. T. Harper, Jr., Site Proj ect Engineer L
'
a w 288
-
,
.
M e-4-
~
.
The items discussed are summari cd below.
In each case, the licensee acknowledged the infor=ation.
A.
Scope of Inspection The inspector stated that the inspection was. conducted to review the status of outstanding items and the QC program for safety re-lated piping and structural work.
B.
Items of Noncompliance The inspector discussed the items listed undar items of noncompliance of the Summary of Findings and stated that they are considered to be in noncompliance with the identified criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
(Details, 2 and 3)
C.
Unresolved Items The inspector discussed the items listed under part A.1 of Current Findings of the Su= mary of Findings and stated that these items are unresolved.
(Details, Paragfaphs 5, 6 and 7)
D.
Acceptable Items
The inspector identified the items listed under part A.2 of Current Findings of the Summary of Findings and stated that these items had been inspected with no discrepancies identified.
(Details, Paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 19)
E.
Previously Reported Items 1.
The inspector discussed the items listed under part B.1 of Previously Reported Unresolved Items of the Su==ary of Findings and stated that these items are resolved.
(Details, Paragrapns ll, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
?.
The inspector identified the item shown in part B.2 of Pre-viously Reported Unresolved Items and stated that this item remains unresolved pending completion of the work.
(Details, Paragraph 18)
l i
y 2E9
.
.
.
-
-
_
DETAILS
}
1.
Persons Contacted
General Public Utilities Service Corporation D. Blystone, QA Engineer R. F. Fenti, QA Auditor J. Godleski, QA Engineer W. T. Gunn, Project Site Manager S. Levin, Project Engineer P. A. Levine, OA Auditor J. Spinak,, Lead QA Engineer J. R. Stout, Resident Electrical Engineer M. J. Stromberg, Senior Site Auditor J. H. Wright, Resident Civil Engineer J. E. Wright, Site QA Manager United Engineers and Constructors S. Abbott, Welding Superintendent R. Blantz, Assistant Piping Foreman R. Brennan, QC Inspector
'
J. Carrabba, Assistant Superintendent, QC-Construction A. Carrera, Assistant Supervisor, Construction QC R. Crofton, QC Engineer R. Dourte, Assistant QA Supervisor J. Godleski, QA Engineer J. Hudzig, QA Engineer D. Lambert, QC Supervisor R. W. Liscom, QC Engineer, Electrical R. Mason, Assistant Project Superintendent D. Ray, Electrical Supervisor N. Reitzi, QC Inspector J. Schmidt, Records Supervisor E. Somdahl, Instrument Supervisor W. Tinlin, Construction Civil Supervisor J. Tyndall, Welding Supervisor Stressteel d. Adams, QC Inspector R. Bonamo, Field Enginear (
ris 290 t
-
.
_
..
-6-J. Fahnestock, QC Inspector
.
H. Papworth, Superintendent M. Sine, QC Inspector
.I. Suarez, QC Inspector M. Suarez, Project Manager H. b'1111ams, QA Supervisor Burns & Roe G. T. Harper, Jr., Site Project Engineer 2.
Receiving Inspection The inspector reviewed PO No. C-0198 and Purchase Requisition (PR)
No. C-52691.
These documents identify 53 flow restricting orifice plates, 12 of which are for use in safety related piping systems such as Makeup and Purification (MU), Decay Heat (DH) and Core Flood (CF) Systems.
The inspector was informed that all of the orifices had been re-ceived on site by February 5, 1976, but that no receipt inspection documentation was available.
'
The orifices had been ordered under specification 2555-999 and the technical requirements of requisition C-52691 require component traceability certification.
Section I of Quality Control Procedure QC-2-2, Rcvision 7, entitled
" Receiving Inspection" s tates that the procedure shall apply to all supplies, eq uipment, subsystems, systems and services that are identified as nuclear or nuclear-related. Quality Control Procclure QC-2-2 requires performance of a visual examination of equipment and completion of a Receiving Checklist / Inspection Report during receiving inspection.
In addition, the Three Mile Island Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 17.1.7.4 requires that all equipment and material delivered to the site be inspected as defined in the QC Procedure for Receiving Inspection.
Failure to properly inspect safety related components as prescribed by site precedures is considered to be in noncompliance of Criterion VII of 10 C7R 50, Appendix B, which states in part, "These measures shall include provisions, as appropricte, for... inspection at the contractor or subcentractor source, and examination of products upon delivery."
t-pG{
eqtO
-'-
,
o k
.
-
-
-7-
.
3.
Outdoor Storace of Electrical Cables The inspector had previously identified examples of cable reels in outdoor storage without protective covering and lack of a procedur,i controls to assure that covering would be provided.
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-13)
.
The inspector examined Electrical Construction Pr'ocedure ECP-3-2 for "Receivit.g, S torage, Handling and Installing Wire and Cable,"
and observed storage conditions of wire and cable in storage yard no. 1 and the south storage yard.
Paragraph 4.4.5 Revision 12 of ECP-3-2 states "... cable / wire reels in outside storage shall be protected from water and covered for protection from the sun, rainfall and snowfall.
Temporary covering shall be provided when factory applied lagging has been removed."
Cable reels in storage yard No.1 had previously been observed by the inspector to have been protected in a satisfactory manner.
However, a number of reels in the south storage yard were still uncovered. As examples, the factory applied lagging had been re=oved from reels nos. B7071, B5565, B3593 and X4559 but they re-mained uncovered. They had been tagged by QC as released for construction and were available for use on safety related circuits.
Since.this item had been identified in October 1975, failure to provide protective covering is considered to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, which states, in part,
" Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected."
4.
Chance in Classification of Piping The inspector observed that the Isometric Piping Drawing 2-23-3 for a section of the Pressurizer Relief Valve discharge piping had been notated to reflect a recent change in the applicable code classifi-
. cation from N-2 (which is USAS B31.7 Nuclear Power Piping) to SC (which is USAS B31.1 code for pressure piping). The Burns and Roe drawing 2024, revision 17 also had been revised to show the piping as class SC although the comparable FSAR drawing 9.3-6 of amendment (,
iG 2,%
,
_
.
.
-
.
-8-
.
AM 36, dated December 17, 1975, depicted this piping to be class N-2.
Project Change Notice No. 2018, revision 1, supplement 4, paragraph 6.a was the reference document initiating the change in classification.
The licensee stated that these changes would be reviewed and incorporated in an amendment to the FSAR.
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
5.
Welding of Safety Related atructures The inspecter selected the Core Flooding Tank, CF-T-1B, for review of the structural steel supports welding documentation.
Specifi-cation 2555-56, titled " Structural Steel," Division 5, Section SB, paragraph 2.3, invokes the requirements of the American Welding Society Code Dl.0, " Code for Welding in Building Construction;" and Burns and Roe Drawings 4205, revision 4 and 4175, revision 12, describe the type and location of the welds required to be performed for installation.
Visual inspection of welds as required by AWS Code Dl.0 had _ __
__not been completed.
The inspector examined the welders qualification records for Core Flooding Tank CF-T-1B and verf fled that the welders werc qualified.
This item is unresolved pending completion of the welding inspection.
6.
Drawing Revisions - Condensate Storace Tanks During observation of completed work on the condensate storage tanks, the inspector noted that additional everflow and drain nozzles had been installed on tank CD-T-1A but that they were not shown on B&R drawing 2555-M-157, Revision 3.
The inspector examined ECM 2120, dated October 25, ]?74, which states that the tank had been erected in accordance with contractor drawings which did not agree with the B&R drawings.
The ECM directed the blank flanging of the original nozzles, the addition of two nozzles at the correct location, and the revision of B&R drawing 2217 and applicable contractor drawings.
(
70'}
.
'
4o s*
'
-
-
-9-
-
The inspector reviewed both B&R and contractor drawings and noted that the B&R drawing did not show both sets of nozzles.
This item is unresolved pending licensee action to corrcet the
-
status of these drawings.
7.
Hydrostatic Test of Condensate Storage Tank The inspector reviewed documentation relative to field testing of the condensate storage tanks. B&R specification 2555-72, Section 15?, Revision 15, Paragraph 5.2 requires that the condensate storage tanks be tested to the requirements of ASME Code,Section III, Article ND 6000 and specifically including Winter 1971 Addenda, Paragraph ND 6500. The inspector noted that this was apparently a typographical error and should have referred to the Winter 1971 Addenda, Paragraph NC 6500. Review by the inspector of the contrac-tor's hydrostatic test procedure did not clarify which requirements of Paragraph NC 6500 were required to be met.
This catter is unresolved pending clarification of the hydrostatic test requirementa for this tank.
8.
Containuer.t Building Dome Prestressing
,
The inspector observed work and work activities related to prepara-tion for and performance of prestressing the initial two dome tendons (Nos. D-001 and D-002) for the containment building. These activities were found to be in conformance with B&R Specification
The following specific activities were observed:
a.
Receipt at job site and temporary storage.
b.
Handiing and place'ent of the tendons D-001 and D-002 and their anchorages in doce positions U-?0 and U-19 respectively.
c.
Installation of stressing equipment.
d.
Tensioning of tendons, elongation and pressure readings.
Tendon No. D-001 showed a difference of more than 5 percent between the =easured and calculated elongations.
The b',D4
-
-
.
-
-
-10-
-
stress-elongation record was resiewed by the A/E in accordance
-
with Stressteel's procedure and signed off by the A/E to signify approval.
e.
Verification of ram and gage calibration.
f.
Placceent of grout caps on tendons.
.
g.
Control of tendon exposure.
h.
Pregrouting equipment checklist.
i.
Grout proportioning, mixing, testing and pumping.
j.
Control, adjustment, anc verification of grout fill of the tendons.
k.
QC inspection activities and records.
The inspector reviewed seven QC record forms required by Stressteel's
-
procedure, observed that they provided the required information and were signed by the responsible QC inspector.
i No discrepancies were identified.
9.
Installation of MU System The inspector observed the installation of the Makeup and Purifica-tion System. The piping examined extended f rom the Makeup Pump "A" suction line to the ECCS high pressure injection valves, MU-V16A and MU-V16B.
Final mounting and alignment of Makeup Pu=p "B" was in progress.
Piping installation was verified with B&R Flow Diagram, Drawing No.
2024, Revision 17 and Isometric Drawings Nos. 2-19-2, Revision A, 2-19-12, Revision A and 2-19-23, Revision C.
The inspector noted that valve MU-V16A was not installed.
Further investigation revealed that this valve had been transferred to Unit 1 on " Material Transfer Request" serial number 318 dated October 22, 1974, in accordance with UE&C General Construction Procedure, CCP-6-2, Revision 3 titled " Transfer and Replacement of Material and Valves." A replac-ement for this valve had been ordered on Purchase Order C-00EC, Change 16 as required by procedure GCP-6-2.
.
. rp p f~)
-
p
g s)
-
.s
.
,
-
-
-11-
.
The inspector visually examined the following welds and reviewed the appropriate " Fabrication Traveler and Process Check List":
-
Weld Joint Nos. 2-MU-9, 2-MU-28, 2-MU-29, and 2-MU-V143A.
The veld travelers contained required technical data, evidence of review by the piping supervisor and quality control supervisor, initials of the authorized code inspector at designated witness points and a copy of the radiographic inspection report, by UE&C quality control procedure, QCP-8-2, Revision 5, titled as required
" Pipe Welding Control."
The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for inspection of pipe supports.
B, Revision 0, titled " Pipe SupportUE&C quality control procedure, QCP-1 Installation Inspection" requires an installation inspection after 75% of the pipe supports have been installed.
QC records indicate that approxi=ately 50% of the supports in the Makeup System had been installed.
Although installa-tion inspections of pipe supports had not begun QC records of system status were in accordance with site procedures.
The inspector noted that a flow restricting orifice had not been installed in the recirculation line between the "A" Makeup Pump and the Makeup Tank.
B&R drawing no. 2024, revision 17 shows this orifice to be installed in the 2 inch line between valves MU-V231A and MU-7232A.
installed without orifice plate (MU-U-6A),ECM 6223, Revision 1 provid the orifice plate to te installed later.
The inspector was informed that the orifice plate which had been received for installation in this line was not of the correct design and would be replaced.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this installa-tion.
10.
Pipe Welding The inspector observed the fitup, alignment and root filler pass of the 21/2 inch dia=eter schedule 160, class N-2 pipe joint 2-MU-206.
He also observed the intermediate filler passes and completion of the aforementioned weld, as well as, for the 10 inch diameter, (_ >
7biNO
-
-
l
.
k
_
-
.
-12-a schedule 40, class N-2, weld j oint 2-BS-17.
the welders' qualification and that The inspector verified with qualified welding procedures.
the welds were made in accordance No discrepancies were identified.
11.
Preventive Maintenance of Electrical Eculpment
.
Lack of specific instructions for maintaining electrical equipment at a satisfactory temperature during in-place storage had been identified as an unresolved item.
13)
(Inspection Report 50-320/ 75-The inspector examined the following documents:
GCP-4-2, Paragraph 5.1.10 which states "To provide adequate a,
heat for switchgear, unit substations and motor control centers, the space heaters inside the gear shall be energized via te=porary feeds with a disconnect switch provided at each gear assembly."
b.
ECM No. 3153 dated December 3, 1975 requesting that paragraph 4.1.1.1 of Specification 2555-70 be revised in a similar manner.
UE&C memorandum dated May 18, 1976, which lists the equipment c.
having factory installed heaters and states that the equipment listed is either turned over to startup or has no factory not
.
installed heaters.
The latter are still heated by temporary heaters.
The inspector was informed that seven units were still heated by temporary heaters.
During a random sampling of cubicles the inspector observed that both f actory installed and te=porary heaters were in operation, lights had been installed to provide a visual "on" signal and that red temporary wiring to the heaters was in good condition.
This item is resolved.
12.
Electrical Hanger Drawing Approval Instali.ation of cable tray and conduit hangers in accordance with UE6C sketches which had not been approved by the A/E had been identified as an unresolved item.
(Inspec: ion Report 50-320/75-14)
(
l
"jb-~ ?P7
-
N
-
-
-13-
_
a The inspector examined the UE&C procedures and observed that:
Paragraph V.D.4 of CCP-1-2, Revision 34 states that Temporary
.
a.
Hanger Field Sketches are " expanded detail drawings issued to facilitate the installation of cable tray and conduit supports prior to receiving A/E approval" and provides for their con-trol prior to and following A/E approval, b.
Addendum A to ECP-8-2 Revision 14 requires verification by QC that hangers have been installed in accordance with A/E approved drawings or that the A/E has been notified of any changes and approval from the A/E has been received.
This item is resolved.
13.
Welded Connections to Bus Bars The licensee had notified Region I on April 21, 1976, that faulty welds had been identified in the connections between the high side bus bars and the disconnects in unit substations 2-llE, 12E, 21E and 22E.
The licensee considered this to be a significant defi-ciency per 10 CFR 50.55(e) and it was reported by letter dated May 20, 1976.
The inspector examined the following documentation:
General Electric Company letters dated April 22,1976, to UE&C a.
and May 4, 1976, to B&R providing procedures for rewelding the connections to the bus bars, b.
Welder qualification dated May 5, 1976.
UE&C QC Inspection Report No. W-2285 showing inspection and c.
acceptance of rewelding performed on the bus bars.
d.
Deviation Report (DR) No. 0583 describing the problem and its disposition which was accepted by the Deviation Review Board (DRB).
This item is resolved.
w 2S8 (_
i
.
k
_
_-
-14-a
_
14.
B&N Documentation-During review of documentation of work performed at the site, the
-
inspector had noted that procedures used during performance of this work and which had later been revised were not available in the documentation package but had been replaced by the latest revision.
(Inspection Report 50-320/76-05)
The inspector examined B&W letter dated May 14, 1976, to UESC which transmitted a foldet entitled "QC Procedure and WIN Sheets Revisions" and stated that this folder should be retained as part of the B&W QC documentation.
This folder contains:
A listing of applicable B&W QC procedures and WIN sl.cets with a.
the dates of their approval by UE&C.
b.
Copies of all listed procedures and WIN sheets which had been revised.
These documents with the current procedures and WIN sheets provide the documentation necessary for review of site work.
This item is resolved.
15.
Separation Requirements for Electrical Cable / Wire Audit by the licensee had identified a problem in maintaining the minimum separation of 6 inches between safety related (SR) and nonsaf ety relat ad (NSR) viring in certain cabinets.
(Inspection Report 50-320/76-06)
The inspector examined ECM No. 3655 which provides for revision of Specification 2555-70 Section 16Z in order to more clearly define the separation requirements; and DR No. 0586 which describes this deviation and provides for its disposition.
The disposition requires that B&R review the separation requirements within cabinets and issue instructions for obtaining the required separation b; 1ssuance of an ECM.
DR No. 0586 had been closed out based on ECM No. 3655.
This item is resolved.
(_/
-
.
w 299
k
-
-
.
-15-
_
a 16.
IE Bulletins 76-02 and 76-03 These bulletins notified licensees that failures of certain types of GE relays had been reported, identified the relays and requested
-
that the licensee's report action they have taken or plan to take if such relays were installed.
By letter dated May 13, 1976 the licensee reported that, of the types of relays identified in the bulletin, only two types were installed at this plant.
These two, HGA and HFA had been inspected and found to contain acceptable coil spools, The inspector examined the following documents:
a.
(1) Program dated April 12, 1976 for inspection of the relays requiring that they be visually inspected to determine whether the spools are black (acceptable) or white (not acceptable). QC to document results for record purposes and coil replaccment check lists if white spools are found.
(2) QC Inspection Report No. E 13,970 with attached checklist showing HGA relays and HFA relays to have been checked with no white spools found. One relay in unit substation
,
no. 2-34 which is not safety related could not be checked.
(3) OPU memo dated June 9, 1976 to QA requesting that any future shipments of HGA and HFA relays be inspected to criteria of Bulletin 76-02.
The licensee's representative stated that all HGA and HFA relays in safety related equipment had been checked.
The inspector was informed that 4 of the HFA relays had been b.
replaced in accordance with ECM No. 3576 and he examined:
(1)
GPU memo TMI-II-3816 dated May 4, 1976, which confirmed that clear spools are acceptable.
(2)
QC Inspection Report No. E 13,970 Supplement 1 which states that the four type HFA relays on Panel 30 which had been replaced per ECM 3576 had been reinspected and found to have clear spools.
This item is resolved.
U
',b 300
.
'
$
-
-
-16-
.
17.
This Bulletin informed the licensee of that Westinghouse BFD relays with certain style of coils had failed and requested that the licensee report action taken if this type of relay was installed at
,
the site.
By letter dated May 26, 1976 the licensee stated that type BFD relays were used in 4160V switchgear, that all relays had been inspected and found to contain acceptable coils.
The inspector examined the following:
a.
Inspection Program (undated) requiring a visual inspection of the Westinghouse BFD relays to determine whether the coil cover is a varnished cloth or molded type.
Molded type is acceptable.
b.
QC Inspection Report No. E-14271 dated May 6, 1976; Inspection of BFD relays in 4160 and 6900V buses and reporting that all coils were of the molded plastic type.
GFU memo dated May 7, 1976 to Engineering attaching copy of c.
I checklist showing inspection of BFD relays.
By copy of this memo UE&C was requested to inspect any future shipments of BFD relays to assure that coils were of the molded plastic type.
18.
Concrete Block Walls The licensee notified Region I on July 29, 1975, that failure of certain block walls which were not designed for seismic loading could result in damage to safety related systems.
This information was confirmed ay letter dated August 28, 1975, which stated that this might be reportable in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The letter also stated that the identified walls were being removed and would be replaced.
In addition, the A/E had been instructed to make an investigatien of all other block walls where similar problems may exist.
The inspector examined the following documents:
a.
B&R Memo dated May 24, 1976 from Engineering to the Site Project Manager which states that:
(
_
w 201
'
.
_
-
.
-17-
~
Investigation of block walls around reactor building stairways has been completed.
Calculations show that they are properly
-
designed for the safe shutdown earthquake; Block walls in other buildings are adequately designed; and the investigation
of block wall design around stairways with respect to seismic events was completed.
b.
ECM No. 2833 which provides for design changes to block walls in the control building.
ECM No. 3299 which places restrictions on attachments to c.
certain block walls in the auxiliary and fuel handling building.
d.
ECM No. 3214 which provides for design changes to block walls in service building.
The A/E's investigation of block walls has been completed.
The inspector observed that the block walls initially identified in the control building as not designed for a seismic loading have been replaced.
However, tot all of the changes identified on the ECM's have been completed.
This item remains unresolved pending completion of this work and
,
its review by the inspector.
19.
Installation of condensate Storage Tank The inspector observed completed work and quality records asso-ciated with the condensate storage tanks, CO-T-LA and CO-T-1B.
.
Governing requirements include:
B&R Specification 2555-72, Section ISP, Revision 15 titled " Condensate and Demineralized Water Storage Tanks"; B&R Drawing No. 2217, Revision 7; and ASMI B&PV Code,Section III 1971 Edition.
by the inspector included: Specific quality documentation reviewed Material test report for shell plate ISP2, Heat No. 71D686.
a.
The report contained documentation that the plates met the requirements for ASTM specification A285-72 Grade C steel plates.
"s [i O N
k
.
-
-.
.
.
_
-18-
.
=.
.
b.
Contractor Field Receiving Report dated August 26, 1974.
This report documents the contractor's receipt inspection for the
~
1SP2 steel plates used for tank CO-T-1A.
.
Contractor Field Receiving Report dated August 20, 1974 for E-c.
7018 welding electrodes.
This report includes the electrode test report dated March 2, 1972 Lot No. 4210 documenting the electrode chemical and physical properties in accordance with AWS Specification 5.1.
d.
Contractor Deviation or Variation Reports (DVR's) 1 through 6 for tank CO-T-1A.
The contractor's corrective action received concurrence from the onsite Deviation Review Board in accordance with UE&C Quality Control Procedure QC-17-2 Revision 11, titled " Control of Nonconforming Conditions."
e.
Contractor's " Documentation Checklist for Installation" dated June 11, 1975.
This docu=ents the contractor's review of construction documentation for the ISP2 plates for tank CO-T-1A.
f.
Contractor's " Construction Checklist" form Q201 dated Septem-ber 3, 1974.
This form documents the installation steps and QC inspection of the ISP2 plates for tank CO-T-1A.
Specific items included on the checklist are fitup, visual and magnetic particle inspection of welds, review and acceptance by the authorized code ir.spector, and contractor's QC inspection.
g.
Qualification records for contractor's QC/NDE inspectors.
The records indicate three contractor Level II inspectors were certified in accordance with SNT-TC-1A requirements.
Except as noted in Details Paragraphs 6 and 7 of chis report, no discrepancies were identified.
k_
-
~,2 203
.
.
-