IR 05000352/1979014
| ML19309C980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1980 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Ebneter S, Gage L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309C975 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-352-79-14, 50-353-79-13, NUDOCS 8004090438 | |
| Download: ML19309C980 (6) | |
Text
d~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-352/79-14 Report No. 50-353/79-13 50-352 Docket No. 50-353 CPPR-106 License No. CPPR-107 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
Philadelohia Electric Comoany 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Limerick Generatino Station. Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: Philadelphia and Limerick, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: Dec er 20, 21, 27, and 28, 1979 Inspectors:
V l"' M ~ Y
/7
>
L. Gage, R6 actor l inspector date signed b9(caDn.i iluieo 5. Chaudhary, Readtor Inspector da te ' signed date signed Approved by:
/
2 [7/86 S. Ebneter, Chief Engineering Support Section da te' signed No. 2, RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on December 20, 21, 27, and 28, 1979 (Combined Report Nos. 50-332779 T4 and 50-353/7923)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of (1) work activities and records associated with the quality assurance program implemented for the task of modifying the reactor pressure vessel nozzle safe ends, and (2) records associated with the quality control of the nonconformance reporting system.
The inspection involved 42 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC regional based inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
l Region I _ Fonn 12
- ^E# I l
8004000438
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo)
J. Corcoran, Field QA Branch Head
- D. DiPaolo, QA Engineer
- W. King, Jr., Construction Engineering
- G. Lauderback, QA Engineer
- D. Marascio, OA Engineer Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
- B. Dragon, QA Engineer
- T. Fallon, Assistant Project Field QC Engineer
- H. Foster, Project Field QC Engineer
- M. Jan, Area Engineer
- G. Kelly, QA Engineer
- R. Leingang, Assistant Project Field QC Engineer
- C Newcomb, QC Engineer
- M. Tokolics, QA Engineer General Electric Company, I&SE Division (GE)
- C. Clark, Project Manager
- R. Winters, Sepcialist, Codes and Standards
- G. Witsell, OC Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
- J. Mattia, Resident Inspector
- denotes personnel attending exit interview.
2.
Review of the Contractual Documentation
The inspector reviewed the contractual documents that established the requirements for the task of modifying the reactor pressure vessel nozzle safe ends.
These included:
i PECo letter of intent to GE, dated August 31, 1979.
a.
,
!
!
l
!
l
{
.
.
b.
Minutes of meeting between PECo and GE on October 16, 1979, titled,
" Quality Assurance Preconstruction Introduction Meeting."
c.
PECo Specification LX-384605, dated December 11, 1979 (Technical Specification).
d.
PECo Specification QARS-L1, dated December 11,1979 (QA Specification).
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Review of the Implementing Documentation The inspector reviewed the implementing documents for the task of modifying the reactor pressure vessel nozzle safe ends.
These included:
a.
GE Field Disposition Instruction (FDI) 65/73030, Revision 0, titled,
"RPV Recirculation Nozzle Safe End Modifications."
b.
GE FDI 40/73030-1, Revision 0, titled, "RPV Recirculation Nozzle Safe End Modifications."
c.
GE FDI 41/73030-1, Revision 0, titled, "Feedwater Nozzle Safe End Modi fications. "
d.
GE FDI 67/73030, Revision 0, titled, "Feedwater Nozzle Safe End Medi-fications."
e.
GE Quality Assurance Program Manual 18XA7005, Revision 1.
The inspector also reviewed the " hold point" traveller schedules prepared by GE and PEco, to detennine if PEco's hold points were coincidental with its contractor's.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Review of Personnel Qualifications The inspector reviewed the personnel qualification documentation for the three GE individuals who had served as Quality Control Supervisors. In two of the three cases, GE presented a letter in lieu of the actual documentation, stating that the full documentation file was available in their home office.
The inspector brought this to the attention of PEco, and asked them if they had audited the GE home office.
PEco provided the inspector with Finding Report M-273, dated December 20, 1979.
This report indicated that their quality assurance group had made a similar finding, ano they were in the process of resolving it.
No items of noncompliance were identifie.
5.
Review of GE Nonconformity Reports The inspector reviewed a selection of nonconformity reports initiated by GE.
These included LRI-1, LRI-ll, LRI-13, LRI-17, and LRI-19.
No pattern of nonconformances were found.
Proposed resolutions appeared to be satis-factory.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Automatic Welding of the Nozzle Safe Erds The inspector examined the work in progress for the modification to the reactor pressure vessel nozzle safe ends.
(GE has subcontracted the task of welding the new nozzle safe ends to GAPCO.) The inspector observed the performance of this task, which is performed with an automatic welding machine that feeds weld wire, welds, and rotates around the nozzle safe end in a continuous operation; voltage, current, and rate of travel are auto-matically controlled.
The inspector requested calibration documentation for this equipment.
The licensee did not have this documentation available at the site, but GE promised to provide it.
(The documentation was provided to the inspector during a subsequent NRC inspection.
Refer to Inspection Report Nos. 50-352/80-01 and 50-353/80-01.)
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Review of Nonconformance Reporting System The inspector reviewed the nonconformance reporting system implemented by Bechtel, the licensee's constructor.
The review consisted of a selective examination of procedures, review of a random sampling of closed nonconfor-mance reports, and discussion with licensee and constructor personnel responsible for the implementation of this system.
The inspector reviewed the following procedures and NCRs:
Procedures 8031-JR-G-31, Revision 1, Job Rules, Vol-2 SF/ PSP-G-1,1, Revision 4, Assignment of Responsibility, QC Notice Manual SF/SPS-G-3.1, Revision 2, Control of Nonconforming Items l
.
-
Nonconformance Reports NCR 3401 3502 3885 3411 3639 3700 3449 3644 3616 3481 3595 3702 3549 3604 3705 3573 3568 3706 3709 3712 3716 3711 3715 The sample of closed NCRs represented the five major areas of constructor's responsibility:
civil, electrical, welding, piping, and material receiving.
Based on this review and observation, the inspector determined that:
a.
Several NCRs were dispositioned "use-as-is" on the basis of a field engineer's inspection.
The records of this inspection were not available for review by the inspector (NCRs - 3481,3502,3716).
b.
The constructor's quality control group had accepted and closed these NCRs without verifying the adequacy of field engineering inspection, or the documentation of it.
c.
The disposition on NCR-3700 required QC to verify the work performed by the supplier pursuant to a nonconformance.
However, no documentation was available to document that this review had been done.
During the exit meeting, the licensee and his contractors stated that the documentation of the inspection carried out by field engineers and QC will be located and furnished to the inspection for his review.
This item is considered to be unresolved pending a review of the documentation by an NRC inspector during a subsequent inspection.
(79-14-01)
,
e
.
_
,
,
8.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. An unresolved item reviewed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 7.
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection.
The inspector sunnarized the
'
purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings.
,
f