IR 05000363/1978015
| ML19274D895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000363 |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1978 |
| From: | Folsom S, Mcgaughy R, Narrow L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274D887 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-363-78-15, NUDOCS 7902270180 | |
| Download: ML19274D895 (9) | |
Text
"
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF IllSPECTION AND EliFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-363/78-15__
Docket No. 50-363 License No. CPPR-96 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Light Company 260 Cherry Hill Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Facility Name:
Forked River Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Forked River., New Jersey and Mountain Lakes, New Jersey Inspection conducted:
November 13-16, 1978 Inspectors:
d ( ; ;.,
/L
.
>P
.,
L. Narrow, Reactor Irispector date signed
[
/.-,,
/'
.
,7 ?
._
5. A. F 'Isom,/ React r Inspector date signed lC C
/2. -6 4 ' 7l?
A. A. Varela, Reactor Inspector date signed Id ll! W R. W. ficGauchy. Chief. Construction Project Section, RC&ES Branch date signed Approved by:
bb
~
fd W. McGaughy, Chief, Construction Project Section, RC&ES Branch Insoection Summary:
-
Inspection on November 13'16, 1978 (Recort No. 50-363/78-15l Areas Inspected: Announced inspection by three regional based inspectors tr review the licensee's plan for improving effectiveness of the subcontractor's QC program and implementation of this plan; review subcontractor's QC program; review licensee's surveillance, and audits of subcontractor's work M d QC program; and to review bid evaluation for site ruScontracts.
The inspection involved 68 inspector hours on site and at the liceme's office by three regic.ial based inspectors and 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> at the licensee's office by a supervisor.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance were identified in three areas and one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area (infraction - failure to maintain control of M&TE).
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted General Public Utilities Service Corporation (GPU)
J. J. Barton, Project Site Manager
- R.
F. Fenti, Lead Site QA Auditor C. Ferrell, Contract Administrator
- R. W. Heward, Manager of Projects
- N. Kazanas, Manager of QA
- J. E. Kunkel, Project Logistics Manager
- S. Levin, Supervisor, Site Engineering J. C. Thompson, Site QC Supervisor
- M. J. Stromberg, Chief Auditor
- R. L. Wayne, Construction QA Manager
- R.
F. Wilson, Technical Director J. E. Wright, Site QA Manager Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W)
N. Carpenter, Manager (Acting), Contract Administration
- K. J. Platte, Resident Engineer W. M. Sweetser, Project Manager R. L. Wagner, Superintendent of Construction Morrison-Knudsen (M-K)
J. Crowe, Project Manager D. Kovisto, Assistant Project Manager R. Stauber, Quality Assurance fianager
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor em-ployees during the inspection.
2.
Plant Tour The inspector made a tour of the construction site to observe work activities in progress.
The inspector examined work items for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements and for evidence of quality control of the work.
Specific activities observed by the inspector included installation of reinforcing steel for the containment and auxiliary buildings, compaction of backfill, and condition of north wall of ESFC interior pit after removal of unsound concret.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
GPU Surveillance Organization and Qualifications The inspector revieved the GPU Surveillance organization and the qualifications of the quality control personnel.
The review included interviews with personnel, a examination of the personnel records of those persons performing surveillances of Morrison-Knudsen.
The documentation reviewed included:
Jersey Central Power & Light Company Quality Assurance Plan,
--
Revision 16, July 1, 1978 GPU Quality Assurance Organization Chart, August 18, 1978
--
Qualification records for six quality control personnel.
--
These records included education, details of previous employment, and special training received at the Forked River site.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Records of Surveillance of Morrison-Knudsen Activities The inspector examined the surveillance reports of Morrisan-Knudsen work and quality control activities.
These reports were examined for their conformance to GPUSC Procedure FR-1-15-01, Revision 1, January 4, 1978, Control of Nonconformances.
These surveillance reports were examined for scope, qualifications of personnel performing the surveillance, findings, corrective action, and action taken to prevent recurrence.
The reports reviewed included:
Surveillance Report 206A3, April 25, 1978, Measuring and Test
--
Equipment Control.
Surveillance Report 206A75, October 27, 1978, Measuring and
--
Test Equipment Control
The inspector noted that a number of substantive deficiencies were observed in the April 26, 1978 audit, but there was no evidence of
,
surveillance group followup of these findings.
The licensee stated that surveillances were not scheduled in advance and that they believed that Morrison-Knudsen's responses to the April 26, 1978 surveillance report provided the necessary corrective action.
This item is considered unresolved pending further review by the inspector of surveillance report followup.
(50-363/78-15-01)
5.
Control of Measuring and Test Equipment The inspector examined Morrison-Knudsen's implementation of the M-K Procedure GEN-ll, Revision 1, Janu y 3, 1977, which included in Paragraph 11.3.3, "Only prnerly iuntified and calibrated tools are issued for quality cont olled construction, inspection, and tests." Also, in Paragrapf 11.4.4, "The calibration agency shall affix a label on each tool indicating date calibrated, due date, and facility name or logo.'
The inspector examined the test and calibration records maintained in the M-K engineering office, and examined selected instruments in the construction areas for evidence of required calibration, labelling, and instrument identification.
The calibration information in the field was compared to the calibration file.
The following were found not to be in accordance with the procedural requirements.
a.
A theodolite (reported to be new) was being used e. o 3 a.L; related structure, with no M-K identification number, no cali-bration sticker.
There was no record of this instrument in the M-K Measuring and Test Equipment files.
b.
Two tachometers, used for measuring the RPM of concrete vibrators, had no calibration stickers, the M-K identification numbers were illegible, and there were no hold tags.
c.
An open cardboard box was found in a M-K field office, containing several tangled-up thermocouples and leads.
Two of the thermocouples had MK identification numbers, none had calibration stickers nor hold tag.
This is considered to be in noncompliance with the site directives and Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings.
(78-15-02)
6.
Audit Program The inspector reviewed the documents listed below for conformance to the requirements or the licensee's Quality Plan, Revision 16.
a.
Procedure 7-18-01, Revision 3, " Quality Assurance Audits" b.
Procedure 7-18-02, Revision 1, "QA Auditor Qualifications" c.
Site Quality Assurance Procedure No. FR-18-01, Revision 0,
" Notification and Response to GPUSC FRNS Audits and Surveillance" d.
Site Audit Schedule for 1978 and 1979 e.
Audit Status Log and monthly audit status reports f.
Site Audits 78-05, 78-08 and 78-10, all of which were audits of the M-K QC program.
g.
Conference notes No. 130, August 1, 1978, and notes of a meeting August 2,1978, to discuss audit findings and corrective action and c;tablish target dates for corrective action; a meeting September 27, 1978 to discuss still unresolved audit findings (Audit 78-08); and Past Due Status Report from S&W to GPU, dated October 19, 1978, concerning findings still not resolved.
The inspector observed that audits were planned and performed in accordance with the procedures identified above; that follow-up for corrective action was timely and vigornus; but that corrective action was unduly delayed in some cases.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Review of Bid Documents and Contract Award The inspector reviewed Field Contruction Procedures for review and approval of purchase specifications and bidders' proposals, and discussed the procedures wi+h licensee representatives.
The following procedures were examined:
FCP 4-01, Revision 2, "Freparation of Field Purchasing Requisitions
--
cC" '-02, Revision 0, " Contract Award"
--
QA Procedure 7-7-04, Revision 1, Evaluation on and Selection
--
of Suppliers (QA)
The inspector also examined records of the licensee's QA review of the QA/QC programs submitted by the apparent successful bidders
,
(ASB) for the following bid specifications.
Specification 206 proposal by M-K
--
--
Specification 202-003 proposal by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Specification 250 proposal by the ASB
--
The QA program submitted by the ASB for Specification 250 had been subjected to a more detailed review by QA than earlier proposals.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Certification of M-K QC Perscnnel The inspector reviewed qualifications and certification of M-K QC personnel who had been qualified as Level II inspectors on re ar n
installation cadwelding.
The inspector observed that trainir.9 and certification of some of the inspectors on quality control of cadwelding had been performed by an employee of G&H Company, who had been trained as an ERICO Qualified Factory Representative.
Since G&H has the subcontract for installation of rebar, includi-)
cadwelding, certification of cadweld inspectors by a G&H employee appears to be a conflict of interest.
This item is unresolved.
(78-15-03)
9.
Cadwelding The inspector reviewed M-K surveillance reports on cadweld rebar splicing activities by M-K's subcontractor, G&H Company, for the period from October 24, 1978, to present.
It was observed that five NCR's were written to identify nonconformances.
NCR's
.
0428 and 0432 identified nonconforming cor.ditions in work performed by cadwelders Nos.144 and 183. A stop worP order was issued by M-K to prevent further production work by these men pendi.ng their requalification.
The inspector noted that NCR's Nos. 0428 and 0432 had been written for incorrect or missing visual reference marks on the rebar for centering of the cadweld sleeves.
Review of Procedure CP-12-FR,
" Mechanical Splicing of Reinforcing Steel Bars", by the inspector revealed that the procedure does not specifically place the responsibility on the cadwelders for assuring that the reference marks are properly located and marked.
This item is unresolved.
(77-15-04)
10.
Subcontractors QC Program a.
The inspector examined documentation shown below concerning the plan developed by the licensee fir improving the effectiveness of the Morrison-Knudsen Company (M-K) QA/QC program; and for implementation of this plan.
(1)
Conference Notes No.184, dated October 30, 1978.
This conference by S&W and GPU was held, in part, to review the action plan developed by GPUSC QA to remedy inadequacies in the M-K Quality Assurance program.
This plan provided for the following actions:
(a) The M-K QA manual will be rewritten to more specifically apply to the Forked River Project; and will be reviewed by GPU.
(b)
Inspection checklists in M-K procedures will be reviewed by GPU, and modified to provide additional definitive information to assist in performance at inspections.
(c) GPU inspectors will provide on-the-job training to M-K inspectors.
(d) M-K will submit a revised weld rod control procedure anc a visual weld inspection procedure to GP.
.
(e) M-K will be notified by the S&W Contract Administrator of existing deficiencies to their QC commitment; and M-K will be notified of significant QC deficiencies in the future by formal notice from the S&W Contract Manager.
(2) Conference notes dated October 31, 1978.
M-K, S&W and GPU personnel attended this meeting.
M-K discussed a revised organization and introduced Mr. J. Crowe, the new Forked River Project Manager.
GPU preserted the plan outlined under (1) above for improving the effec.iveness of the M-K QA/QC program.
The delay by M-K in ct "recting identified problems was also discussed.
(3) Letter MK-206-446 from S&W Contracts Manager to M-K Project Manager. This letter identified deficiencies in the M-K QC program; delays in correction of three deficiencies; and required that M-K advise of steps taken or planned for correction of these problems.
(4)
Letter M-K Project Manager to S&W Contracts Manager, dated November 10, 1978, which confirmed M-K agreement to implement the GPU Action Plan outlined in (1) above and provided the status of actions taken.
Also, it states t%t six additional inspectors and one document control c erk had been hired and that the Division QA/QC Manager had spent additional time on site to train and qualify inspectors.
(5) The recently revised M-K Quality Control Manual No. U-100 which had been released by S&W on November 10, 1978.
This manual had been revised to provide more specific conformance to site requirements.
The revised manual addresses the authorities and responsibilities of individuals assigned to the new organization at the site.
The new manual was observed to be tailored to more appropriately address commitments of the PSAR, Appendix 5D, Quality Control, and JCP&L/GPU QA Plan for Forked River Nuclear Station.
Sections 1 through 5 of the revised man'eal clarify the purpose, scope, responsibility, procedures and references for the QA/QC progra.
(6) The construction procedures listed below have been revised to provide quantitative and qualitative acceptance criteria and checklists for inspection purposes, but have not yet been released for construction by S&W.
CP-01-FR, Revision 4, November 14, 1978, " Placement
--
and Compaction of Class 1 Backfill" CP-ll-FR, Revision 3, November 7, 1978, " Placement
--
and Curing of Concrece" - additional changes are being made, for inclusion in the Preplacement Checklist CP-12-FR, Revision 4, November 9, 1978, " Mechanical
--
Splicing of Reinforcing Steel Bars."
b.
The inspector discussed plans for improvement of the M-K QC program with licensee personnel and discussed the status of on-the-job training with M-K personnel and with the two S&W inspectors assigned to provide this training to M-K QC inspectors.
Recognition of this problem by the licensee, S&W and M-K, establishment of the licensee's plan for improvement of the M-K QC program and initiation of implementation of this plan arn considered to be acceptable and the ins ector had no further questions at this time, 11.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or items of noncompliance.
Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 4, 8 and 9.
12.
Exit interview At the conclusion of the inspection on November 16, 1978, a meeting was held at the Mountain Lakes, New Jersey office with representatives '
of the licensee and contractor organizations.
The inspector summarized the results of the inspection as described in the report.