IR 05000322/1987004

Insp Rept 50-322/87-04 on 870209-13.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qa/Qc,Procurement, Receiving,Storage & Handling of Matls & Components & Followup of Anonymous Allegation

ML20205F233
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/20/1987
From:	Eapen P, Napuda G, Winters R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205F217	List: IR 05000322/1987004 ML20205F213
References
50-322-87-04, 50-322-87-4, NUDOCS 8703310121
Download: ML20205F233 (16)

Text

. . __ - . . .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

'

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

REGION I

Report N /87-04 l Docket N l l License N NPF-19 Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company

'

P. O. Box 618, North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station -

i Inspection At: Wading River, New York l

l Inspection Dates: February 9 - 13, 1987 '

t l Inspectors: /c L.) 3 7 j G.4Napuda, Lead Reactor Engineer / ##e

' amW R. W. Win rs', Reactpr Engineer dalu date ;

, Approved b /2o[37 l Dr.P.K.Egen, Chief,QualityAssurance date j Section, Orerations Branch, DRS, RI ,

!

! Inspection Summary: Routine unannounced inspection on February 9 - 13, 1987

(Report No. 50-322/87-04)

i j Areas Inspected: Quality Assurance / Quality Control, Procurement, Receiving l

'

Storage and Handling of Materials and Components and follow-up of an '

j anonymous allegation i Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

i

,

I i

i i

!

!

I f )

l 0

,

.-- .. __ _ . _ _ _ _ -

_

- _. _ - - _ - _ - . - - . - - - _ . . -_. -.

.

i DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted

,

Long Island Lighting Company

J. Blas, Procurement Supervisor, QSD

R. DiCola, EIT/ Compliance Engineer

G. Gisondra, Supervisor, Nuclear Licensing

R. Glazier, QC Supervisor, Audit / Receipt Inspection

'

' *

R. Gutmann, Manager Material Controls and Contracts

R. Kubinak, Director, OA, Safety and Compliance

R. Loper, Manager Quality Assurance Division

E. Moritgomery, Nuclear Projects division Manager - NED

J. Nataro, Acting Director, QASC +

R. Perra, QC Section Supervisor, Inspections

, *

P. Pizzariello, Maintenance Engineer

J. Rigert, Nuclear Analysis Division Manager - NED

C. Seaman, Manager Quality Control Division

.

S. Skorupski, Assistant Vice President Nuclear Power

!

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Dr. P. K. Eapen, Chief, Quality Assurance Section i

Attended exit meeting

,

Other engineering, management, QA/QC, and technical personnel were l

interviewed during the course of this inspection.

'

2.0 Quality Assurance / Quality Control

! 2.1 Program Review

.

'

Quality Assurance (QA) program documents (see Attachment A) were '

reviewed to verify that the following administrative controls have been established for the QA/QC overview effor Independence, qualification and training of QA/QC personnel

--

Documentation and review of corrective actions

! --

Surveillance of ongoing activities

) --

Quality element trending I

--

Auditing, including checklist preparation and implementation i

I l

i

-

.

2.2 Organization and Training The Manager, Quality Assurance Department (QAD) reports to the Director, Quality Assurance, Safety and Compliance who reports to the corporate Executive Vice President. Reporting to the Manager, QAD is a department structured into three major groups as follows:

--

A Manager, Quality Systems, and Section Heads of Procurement, Audits, and Engineering and Administration with appropriate staf A Manager, Quality Assurance and Supervisors of Electrical, Instrumentation and Field Programs; and Mechanical, Civil, Nondestructive Examination and Environmental Programs with appropriate staf A Manager, Quality Control and Section Heads of Inspections and Surveillance; and, Receipt Inspection and Audits with appropriate staf Training of QA/QC personnel has been significantly enhanced by increasing the types of courses and the number of individuals attending a broad range of technical courses during the past yea QA/QC staff attends radwaste, mechanical, electrical and health physics courses normally presented to plant technicians. Then they take courses on the same subject developed specifically for QA/QC personnel. Some QA/QC staff attended simulator training at another utilit .3 Implementation A project task force developed listings of program elements, functional areas and activities within QA program. The resulting matrix was used as a basis for audit plans. Auditors use this plan, Deficiency Reports and surveillance results to develop checklist In excess of 40 audits were conducted in 1986. Additionally, over 30 vendors were audited. The semiannual corrective action audits are tracked on a working copy audit element listing so that each of the corrective action methodologies is sampled within two audit Technical experts were utilized in all but a few audits with outside consultants participating in over 30 of thos Many audits used both licensee and consultant technical experts who also assisted in the development of checklist Surveillances were conducted on 24 in plant functional areas ( Health Physics, I&C, Operations, Radwaste, Nondestructive Examina-tion). It was noted that when an audit of material control identified deficiencies, the surveillance of that area was conducted on a weekly basis and returned to normal frequency only after management was assured that conditions remained acceptabl _ - .

.

<

All purchase requisitions considered "significant to safety" are reviewed by QA/QC and appropriate comments are forwarded through the procurement proces It was noted that QA/QC had included technical evaluations of order content in three instances, and had two other orders amended af ter they had been issued. Each reviewer maintains a review package and later compares the issued Purchase Order to the original requisition including comments that may have been made. All Purchase Orders not previously reviewed as safety significant are later reviewed to assure their classification was correc The quality trending analysis includes a numerical count of total corrective actions in twenty corrective action methodologie These corrective actions are then grouped into nine categorie Severity class assignment was adopted from NRC violation level Other noteworthy features of this effort are assignment of a weighting factor, determination of functional area, organizational responsibilities for causing deficiencies, cause code assignments and input sourc .4 Conclusions QA/QC staff levels including contracted personnel appear to be adequate with only three employee vacancies in the departmen Personnel are highly motivated and well qualifie Audits were comprehensive, the checklists were well developed with substantial technical input. A majority of the attributes addressed observation of ongoing activities or physical conditions. There was extensive use of technical expertis Corrective action was timely and appeared adequate. The trending analysis was excellent.

J QA/QC surveillance was almost totally an observation effort with little " paper review". Inspection points were well chosen and technically sound from a work process standpoin The QA/QC overview effort appeared effective, management support was evident and interfaces showed rapport and respect between QA/QC and other personne No deviations or violations were observed.

. 3.0 Receipt, Storage, and Handling of Materials and Components 3.1 Program Review

!

'

Procedures 12.019.02, Revision 14, Receiving Spare Parts, Materials, and Components, 12.019.03, Revision 11, Storage of Spare Parts, Materials and Components, and 12.019.04, Revision 12, Issue

. . _ _ _ - _ - __

- - - _.- . . -. - . - _ _ - - - . _ - . . - _ _ - - _

- - _ . - _ _ _ . - . - . '

.

1 of Spare Parts, Materials and Components were reviewed to determine

- whether administrative controls clearly describe the following:

,

--

Requirements include inspection for shipping damage.

i

--

Requirements that receiving inspection documentation be ,

prepared and maintaine '

'

--

Requirements that items be inspected to purchase order requirement Acceptable items are clearly tagged or marked for storage or issue.

--

Nonconforming items are clearly identified and segregated

where practica i 4 --

Requirements for dispositions nonconforming items have been implemente Requirements for environmental level of storage have been-established and implemente !

--

Maintenance of stored items is performed as required by the

{ vendor or technical requirements, including control of shelf i

lif Controls for access, identification of items, and special precautions such as coverings have been implemente .2 Implementation and Organization u

The inspector visited the three warehouses and an outside cable

! storage yard. These warehouses were used for the storage of spare

! parts, materials and component During this visit he randomly .

selected 25 items listed in Attachment 8, as a sample for review of l

,

receiving records, storage requirements, location and issue record During this visit it was noted that there was both a computer stock control program and a manual card file. The manual card file was the

.

controlling document for location and quantities. All of the storage i

areas were located inside the owner controlled are The " ready storeroom" was inside the protected are The cable storage area was classified in accordance with ANSI N45. as level D. It was fenced and access was controlled using a locked a gat The inspector observed that the cable reels were set on j cribbing off the ground, the cable wrapped with plastic as protection and the outside cable ends taped or capped and on most reels inserted j into the center of the reel as further protectio No debris or other extraneous material was observed in the storage are i

,

.-.---..._.,-rm,_,.,____m__ m__.m..m%mm,..__,__.__.,_..-_,-,--_____,.___,_.,,_,_,y,_

-

__ , ,__- - _--- -s,

. _ _ _ .

.

The West Warehouse was designated as ANSI level C storage and was located adjacent to the cable storage area inside a locked and fenced yard. In addition the building was also locke It appeared this warehouse was used for level C storage of low turnover items. No attendant was assigned to the area on a continuous basis. During the tour of this warehouse the inspector observed cleanliness was acceptable with no packaging materials, or other debris in evidenc The inspector also noted the crate containing the vessel head "0"

, rings was open. On a subsequent tour during this inspection this crate had been closed. Storage locations were clearly identified on the storage racks or the floor as appropriat Items (identified by stock number) in these locations were accurately reflected in the card file except for one large crate. Based on the number of samples chosen by the inspector (approximately 25) and the size of the crate, the inspector concluded this was an isolated case caused by the warehouse attendant relocating this crate for access to storage rack Warehouse "W1" was designated as an ANSI N45.2.2 level B storage facilit Receiving operations were also conducted in this warehouse. As with the other storage areas the inspector observed a general degree of cleanliness, with no excess packaging materials or other debris in evidenc In touring this warehouse it was noted that temporary wiring had been provided to several control cabinets in order to activate the internal heaters required by the vendo These heaters were controlled by thermostats. The inspector observed that the storage racks that contained welding electrodes were heavily loaded. One shelf of this rack had three pallets with an estimated 2500 pounds each of welding . electrodes. The other shelves of this rack also contained welding electrodes and wire. The inspector did not observe any indication of the load capacity of the storage rack In verifying the location of various items in storage a discrepancy was observed to exist between the locations on the computer printout and the card file. In all cases this discrepancy was due to the fact that the same stock number item being stored in multiple location For example socket welding pipe tees were stored in several bins due to segregation by heat numbe On the computer printout only one location was given because the computer program will only allow one location for each ite In all cases observed by the inspector, the location on the computer printout was correct for at least one of the locations shown on the controlling card fil In the receiving area, the items awaiting inspection were on pallets and identified with the order number This area appeared adequate for handling the number of items awaiting inspection and to allow space to perform the inspectio Quality Control was allotted a segregated area where items on hold were identified and held pending disposition.

'

.

-__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . __..,m__ . . , -y, ,- ,.-,_ , . ---.--.-c - , , -

-

.

The " Ready Stores" area was located inside the protected area adjacent to the maintenance machining area. This storeroom was devoted to support the maintenance department and others needing a

,

convenient source of spare or replacement parts. Cleanliness in this

'

area was observed to be satisfactory as evidenced by there being no excess packaging material or other debri The inspector verified

'

locations of various items as described on the inventory cards and in the computer printou Here also multiple locations were reflected ori the cards for the same item. However, the computer printout showed only one location for each item. In all cases the cards were observed to be accurat There was a lack of shelf life identification on the item or packages in the various warehouses. The licensee explained that the shelf life control was maintained by the computer program used to maintain stocking level As shelf life expiration dates approach, the affected items are placed on the reorder list amd these items are replaced prior to the expiration of the specified life. Although no items with expired shelf life were observed, several inconsistencies were found between the list and the items in stores. The inspector determined this was caused by a weakness in the procedure used for preparing and reviewing purchase orders. The licensee has agreed to more clearly define shelf life requirements in his procedures. This

, is an unresolved item (50-322/87-04-01) pending revision of the affected procedure To further understand the computer stock control program the inspector interviewed the computer programmer on the sit From this interview the following observations were made:

--

The data base is maintained in the mainframe computer located at the corporate headquarter Inputs to the data base are closely controlled by password limited to one or two stores department personnel trained for

,

this function.

I

! --

Outputs can be obtained by a much ' larger population but no changes to the da'ta base can be made by these individual Inputs are made as require However, the information is held in memory until the night after for data entr Stock numbers are assigned manually by the purchase requisition initiato These numbers are subject to verification by the computer to avoid duplication. However this is not done until the data is entered into the data base.

l, l

-

_. , ., , _ - - . , - - - , _ _ - . _ - -, - __c-- -- . _ . . , - . - - , - _ _ _ _ ,

-

. j l

--

Multiple stock numbers can be assigned for items with the same descriptio The program has the capability to sort the product description by a " key word" entered by the operato The program can accept only one location for any single stock numbe .3 Conclusions As a result of this inspection it was determined that the receiving, storage and issue of parts, materials and components were satisfac-tor The ability of the computer program to sort items in the inventory by " key word" enables the licensee to maintain an optimal inventory at all times. One weakness in this computer program is the inability to identify all storage locations for items with identical stock number However, the manual card file is the controlling system and in all cases observed this system was correc The rejection of duplicate stock numbers by the computer assures no two different items can have identical stock number No violations or deviations were identified, however there was one unresolved item as discussed abov .0 Procurement 4.1 Program Review Procedure 12.019.01, Revision 22, Procurement of Parts, Materials, Components, and Services was reviewed to determine whether administrative controls clearly describe the following:

--

Purchase orders reflect the technical requirement The vendor for safety related part, materials and components, was on the qualified suppliers list at the time the order was place Vendor surveillance or source inspection was performed as appropriat Receiving inspection was performed and was adequate to assure acceptability of the ite In storage maintenance of items were specified and met.

!

.

-

.

4.2 Implementation and Organization From the items selected for review in Paragraph 3, the inspector selected a sample.to verify that procurement was in accordance with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments. Included in this selection were an item requiring rework, catalog items, and commercial grade item The licensee uses suppliers with an acceptable history of quality products. Appropriate surveillances and inspections are periodically conducted by the licensee for these suppliers. New vendors are added through a direct evaluatio The licensee also uses Coordinating Agency for Supplier Evaluation (CASE) for vendor evaluatio When a request for a purchase was initiated the initiator described the product to be purchased including technical and quality require-ments. This request was then routed to the initiator Section Head for review and approval. Following this it was routed to engineering to assure all technical requirements were correctly included. It was

, then routed to Quality Control to assure all quality requirements were include After these reviews it was sent to the Manager of Stores for verification the item was not in stores and assignment of a Stock Numbe After the Manager of Stores has completed his operations he prepares a request for purchase orde The Quality Control group verifies all information has been translated from the initial request and forwards this to the Purchasing Department for initiation of the purchase order. A copy of the actual purchase order is returned to the Quality Control group for review and

referenc The purchase orders reviewed contained sufficient technical l' information to provide acceptable products, and the information required for receiving inspectio In the case of one order for

rework of a strainer, drawings were included and an inspection was performed prior to shipment from the supplier's plar Storage requirements, when required, were followed. As stated above

,

the inspector noted electrical cabinets with internal heaters l connected during storage.

i l 4.3 Conclusions Based on the inspectors review of the selected purchasing documents

, the inspector determined that purchasing was conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments.

'

, No deviations or violations were observed.

l l

.

I

_ . . _ . ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . , _ _ ,

_ , __ _ _ _ . _ , _ , , _ _ _ . _ . . _

_ _ . _ _ . _ _ . - . _ . . . ~ , .

-

.

5.0 Allegation RI-86-A-0149 5.1 Statement of the Allegation An unsigned letter dated December 9, 1986 was sent to the NRC Resident Inspector containing the following allegatio a) Incorrect counts on M&S safety related item b) Same M&S numbers on two different safety related items, both items signed off by QC c) Wrong locations d) Reluctance of first line management to correct these conditions at time of discover e) Overloaded racks throughout warehous f) Poor housekeepin .2 NRC Investigation of the Allegation The NRC inspector's findings for each statement of the allegation are discussed below:

a) Incorrect counts on Material and Stores (M&S) safety related item The inspector selected items denoted in attachment B to deter-mine whether the number of parts in the storeroom matched the records, and to assess the safety significance of this statement in the allegatio In all cases the card file correctly reflected the actual count of the part In reviewing the computer records of activity for a safety related heater stock number 87*25-1428, the inspector misinterpreted the two

transactions on the issue / return log for inventor Actual l count showed that there was only one item in the storeroom. The l card file accurately recorded that there was one item in

!

storag The card file is the controlling document for inventory. Ready stores and Level B W1 warehouse each maintain a card file for their respective inventory. These card files are primarily for the use of store room personne The user organization has no access to these card file The user orgnaizations have access to read only video terminals and

. bi-weekly printout The video terminal information lags the actual transaction by one day. Hard copies may lag the actual transaction by up to two weeks. Therefore it is possible for a member of the user organization to have an incorrect inventory as that person relies solely on computer informatio = . - - -- .. ..

-

.

.

The items chosen by the inspector were relatively large and few in number. The counts in all cases were accurate. However, for small parts such as nuts and bolts issued in bulk, inventory listed could be in error due to the dynamics of the receipt /

issue process, and the method used for inventory contro b) Same M&S numbers on two different safety related items, both items signed off by QC , M&S numbers (stock numbers) are manually assigned during the

^

approval cycle of the purchase requisition using the latest i

computer informatio Because the computer data base is not updated until after one business day, a duplicate stock number could exist. However, this duplicate number will be identified and corrected during verification by the compute During routine processing, the purchase requisition is held by stores personnel until this verification is received. If the assigned number is rejected, a valid number is assigned. If a requisi-tion is processed on an emergency basis, it is possible for the order to be placed with a duplicate stock numbe For items with short delivery times, the product could be delivered, inspected, issued and installed before verificatio In such

,

cases the stock number would be corrected after the fac The inspector assessed the safety significance of this statement of the allegation by comparing the M&S numbers on items listed in Attachemnt B to that in the card fil The inspector did not find any duplicate stock numbers either in the store room or on the biweekly printout of the stock list.

'

However, the inspector did find that there were several

-

instances where different stock numbers were assigned to the same par This is to separate the safety related inventory from non-safety related inventor In summary, under certain circumstances, it is possible for the j same M&S number to be assigned to two different items. However, i

the licensee has adequate administrative controls to correct l such duplication, before it affects plant safety and operation.

I c) Wrong locations The inspector verified the location of approximately twenty five items in the three store rooms. According to the computer print out, several of these items were in wrong locations. However, in all cases noted, the card file accurately identified the

, storage location. The card file also recorded that there were

'

multiple storage locations for items with the saw stock numbe In some cases such separation was due to storage space limita-i tion and in other cases (e.g. pipe fittings) this separation was to provide segregation by material heat number, j i

. . - - . _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ . . -

_ _ _-_._.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

.._ _ _ __ ._. _ . _ - - - _ _ . . _ . . __ _ -. _ _ _

.

J l 12 In summary, the computer inventory locations were correct, but it did not list all storage locations due to program limitation. The card file accurately recorded all storage locations for the parts listed in Attachment B. The licensee's controls are adequate to prevent the adverse impact of wrong

storage location on nuclear safet d) Reluctance of first line management to correct these conditions j at time of discover i The NRC inspectors reviewed the licensee QA hot line documents

'

and material control department documents and found no documentation of personnel reporting this concern. Discussion with first line managers in QA and material control area j indicated that these personnel had no knowledge of these alleged NRC review of the licensee's overall corrective

'

problems.

'

>

action program indicated timely and effective corrective actions

'

in all areas examined. The licensee also has an excellent trending program to track and closecut identified concerns.

! In summary, the inspector did not note any conditions adverse

! to plant safety resulting from the first line manager's reluctance to correct condition identified in this allegatio ;

'

e) Overloaded racks throughout warehous The inspector toured the warehouse to assess the shelf loading

!

conditions. In the level B warehouse, the inspector estimated that there was 7500 pounds of welding electrodes on one shel Other shelves in the same rack also contained welding material

! but in different packagin In the " ready Stores" area the inspector estimated that there were approximately 2800 pounds of

'

lead bricks on one shel :

l The licensee could not locate the original specifications for these shelves during the inspection. He did provide a catalog

'

of similar shelvin However, neither the inspector nor the

! licensee could establish sufficient specifics of the installed r j shelving to determine the load capacity from this catalog. The

'

i licenee has committed to have his Fire / Safety Organization i perform an industrial safety inspection of all three warehouses i' for potential overloading and structural adequacy of the existing shelving by March 10, 198 i i In summary, while this potential shelf overload condition has no immediate impact on the safe operation or shutdown of the plant, it may pose an industrial safety concern for the

] personnel in the warehouse and cause a loss of material inventor The licensee has committed to reevaluate the overloaded shelf conditio > .

i

,

-vr-, ,,r,- . , , , -,-,cy.,4.,,-.,,-,,-,ym,n, .m.--,..-ye

- , - _ , , ~ _ _ . _ ,,---,-y_-m,--_%----m- gwm._,._-.--

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _

.

,

.f) Poor housekeepin During the tours of the three warehouses housekeeping appeared to be adequat In the level B warehouse there was some

congestion in the aisle where large parts.were stored. This was

,

in part caused by ongoing handling of large crates in the aisl No excess packaging material, or other debris was observed in the warehouses.

!

In summary, the housekeeping in the three warehouses at the time of this inspection was adequate and it had no adverse

!

impact on nuclear safet .3 Conclusion:

Based on the above, the inspectors concluded that the statements in the allegation have no immediate impact on the safe operation or

shutdown of the plant. The licensee was responsive to the statements

! of the allegation and initiated immediate steps to evaluate the

,

impact of this allegation on personnel safety and inventory. The

effectiveness of these licensee actions will be reviewed during future routine NRC inspection.

l 6.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or violation Unresolved items are discussed in paragraph 2.0

!

7.0 Management Meetings Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the

inspection at the entrance interview on February 9,1987. The findings of

.

'

the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives during the course of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the February 13, 1987, exit interview (see paragraph 1 for attendees).

At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the

! licensee by the inspecto The licensee did not indicate that l proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspection.

~

!

i

{

t i

l l

I.._- - , . _ _ _ _ . , _ -

-

,.___ _ .,- _ _._ _ _ ___ _ _ ....- - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - , . _ _ _ - , - _ _ . - . _

- . . . . -. . . - . -_ - . .

. ,

!

i

'

Attachment A Quality Assurance Documents Reviewed

>

Audits QC-86-06 Work Controls QC-86-11 Interim Station Modification Program QC-86-01 Procurement and Material Control

Maintenance Work Orders 86-1204 Replacement Block Valve "0" Rings, Purchase Order (PO) 380822

'

86-4474 Replace Tested Explosive Valve, P0 365547 86-5290 Replace Chiller Temperature Control Valve Disc, PO 388539

! Purchase Requisitions S-10488 Highly Enriched B . Sodium Pentaborate, P0 388093 t

i S-12100A 225 KVA Transformer, P0 387006

'

S-12268 Cable Tray Material, P0 385818

Miscellaneous Quarterly Trend Analysis Report (February 1987)

'

Several Monthly Open Audit Status Listing Reports

Several Audit Item Summary Reports i Several Deficiency Status Reports

QA Manual QA Procedures Manual

!.

!

i i

!,

i

!

l

!

!

!

l

,

f i

. . . . . . - --.e .,_,--,-.,---w -,o-.,,,-- . . . . , - ,e-,---- ---r--v..-em,-----,-- - * ~ , - - - - , - - - - - - - - - + - *e ---

.. . - _ . -. . -

-_ . . . - . . _ - - - - _ . .-

- .

Attachment B f Stores Items used for Sample j Item M&S N Description Location Remarks

1 29-53-0402 Sphere Unit, Wall W1-D-16 Vendor 167495

, 2 87*25-1428 Heater W1-B-23 Vendor 15835 l PO 379833

, Verified Count i

,

3 98*60-0412 Resister, Indoor W1-B-28 Vendor 23208

) Neutral Grounding Assy Location i verified i

4 51*50-0601 Transformer Floor Heater

.

energized

!

5 45*31-3881 Disc, Valve W1-L-16 P0 310062 6 51*50-0602 Disconnect Switch W1-Floor P0387006 Vendor 11478 7 01*95-4055 . Thread Seal Tape D1-C-38 P0 381881 a

8 73*72-0014 Rosemont Cover for 1151 D1-C-10 t

9 55*10-7065 Gould Rundell, Black Cl-A-26 PO 364526

Operator Vendor 11405 Count Verified i 10 10*45-0951 Screws, ASTM 194 Cl-A-26 PO 383266 l

Grade B Vendor 4392 11 34*20-1020 Electrode 1/8 i D1-B-61 PO 367125 l E9018-B31 SFA 5.5 i

12 66*52-2062 Switch; SBN P/N 10CM762 D1-B-45 Vendor 11494

- GE Count Verified I

! 13 62*04-0731 Relay, Agastat, TODO, 01-E-77 Card Location 4PDT, E7024 AD Correct

]

14 72*05-0010 Gasket Piston, Packing D1-F-05 P0 374077

,

Vendor 11170 Vendor Quali-

'

i fication l Verified i

,

!

- - . _ . . _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ , . . _ . , _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . - . _ _ _

. . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _._ __ -_ . . . .. ___ .

? 2

i Attachment 8 Stores Items used for Sample-l Item M&S N Description Location Remarks

.

15 77*50-0251 Conical Basket Strainer C3-SS-009 P0 383513

-

20 inch - reworked Vendnr 80985 i

Vendor Qualifica-tion 4 Verified Inspection performed at vendor facility i

l 16 86*55-0403 Cooling Coil, Aerofin C3-SS-011 Verified Count

1 17 08*90-0850 Studs, AISI 4140 B7 WD-T-27 PO 376860

'

SA 193 Vendor 30370

l 18 41*79-0015 Tee, Carbon Steel WD-V-1 PO 344975

-

6000 pound Vendor 19259

Multiple Locations

'

i 19 55*10-7068 Relay, GE NGV D1-E-64 Verified count Undervoltage i

20 98-50-0144 Penetration Feed W1-A P0 381939 .

'

Through QC Hold Area

i Location Verified j

21 79-78-3009 Case, Series, 1 st W1-F Location Verified j Stage t

'

22 87*22-1033 Gasket P/N 12601155 D1-B-61 Location Verified i d

j- 23 87*22-5117 "0" Ring 01-B-61 Location Verified i

'

Fuel Oil Strainer Vendor Verified Receiving Inspection Verified 24 72*84-0267 Gear, Worm Shaft C1-A-28 P0 364910

. Vendor 5785 Verified Count Varified Vendor

' 25 34*04-1003 Flux, Brazing 02-B-73 PO 369155 Receiving Inspection

! Veri fied

[ Commercial i Grade Item

\

,

l '

l l

. - . _ _ , - - . . - . . . - - , , _ . . . . _ , _ - , _ . , ~ . . - - .