IR 05000410/1980007
| ML17053C000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1980 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Ebneter S, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053B998 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-80-07, 50-410-80-7, NUDOCS 8010100103 | |
| Download: ML17053C000 (16) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
Docket No.
License No.
Priority Licensee:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Enie Boulevard, West Syracuse, New York 13202 Category Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Inspection at:
Scriba, New York Inspection cond c od:
15-18, 1980 Inspectors:
are a, eactor nspec or S.
K. Chaudhary, reactor Inspector Au V<> 4', /18o date signed r/~
~
date/signed Appr oved by: S.'.
Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Support Section.No.
2, RC&ES Branch date signed date signed Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Jul 15-18, 1980 Re ort No. 50-410/80-07)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors.
e inspectors performed plant tour of on-going as well as completed construction activities, reviewed licensee and AE gA procedures and records in processing of engineering design and field changes, disposition and corrective action of nonconformances, trend analysis of identified nonconformances and unsatisfactory inspection findings, licensee audit program and incorporation of field changes into "As-Built" drawings.
The inspection involved 44 inspector hours on site by two regional based inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
~6>Oooo;
/O~
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration NMPC)
"S.
E; Czuba, gA Engineer J.
L. Dillon, Senior Site gA Representative
- L. G., Fenton, Senior Site gA Representative (Acting)
- C. G. Honors, Construction Engineer
- R. L. Patch, gA Engineer Stone and Webster En ineerin Cor oration SWEC R. Calvin, guality Control Engineer
- B. F. Gallagher, Senior Resident Engineer
- C.
E.
Gay, Superintendent, Field guality Control
- C. E. Hilton, Construction Engineer
- J.
E. Rogers, Chief, Office Engineer
- L. E. Shea, Head, Site Engineering Office T. Syrell, guality Control Engineer
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
The inspector conferred with other licensee, personnel, const( uction manager and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection.
2.
Plant Tour The inspectors made a tour of the site to observe work activities in progress, completed work and plant status during a general inspection of the construction site.
The inspectors examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements or license conditions.
Particular note was taken of presence of quality control inspectors and evidence of inspection records, material identification, nonconforming work pending disposition, housekeeping and equipment preservation.
Additionally, the inspectors discussed with gC, construction engineers and craft superintendents control features of work.
Specifically the following activities were observed:
preparations for fill concrete placement outside secondary containment at elevation 225
preparations for concrete placement of drywell floor slab clean up of anchor bolts for bioshield wall rebar installation for lift number 12 of primary containment rock removal from intake tunnel replacement of Vermiculite fill below elevation 212 outside of south auxiliary bay No items of noncompliance were identified.
3..
Control'of'Nonconformance and Dis osition Re orts The inspector reviewed the Nonconformance and Disposition Reports (NSD) for compliance to the established project procedure, format, the description of nonconformance and clarity of details, and the disposition/
resolution of the reported problem.
The reports were selected at random to make a representative sample of reports in several disciplines.
The inspector reviewed the following documents:
a.
SSW Engineering Assurance Procedure EAP-6.3, Rev. 3, dated 3/24/78.
b.
NMPC Procedure gAP-16.40, Rev. 1, "Control and Use of Nonconformance Reports".
c.
S&W Procedure gAD-15.1, Rev.
D,
"NSD Report Preparation and Processing".
d.
SSW gC department NSD Log.
e. 'SD Reports
¹300 to 395 - covering 6/4/77 to 9/6/77
¹600 to 699 - covering 4/20/78 to 11/1/78
¹1600 to 1699 - covering 10/3/79 to ll/29/79 Based on the review of above documents, discussions with licensee
- and construction personnel the inspector determined that the NSD reports were properly controlled, had sufficient clar ity and detail in the description, conformed to the proper format as specified by approved project procedure, and dispositioned properly as required by procedures and other project requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this are.
Trend Anal sis 'of Identified'Nonconformances The project engineer performs an analysis of identified nonconformance to determine any developing adverse'quality trends in the construction.
The Superintendent of-Field Quality Control maintains a tabulation of all NSDs and unsatisfactory inspection findings in several discrete inspection areas.
These tabulation and categorized reports are transmitted to S&W home office for analysis and consequent corrective action if necessary.
The inspector reviewed, the following documents to determine licensee compliance to the project procedure for nonconformance trend analysis.
a.
Nt1PC, QAP-15.10,.Rev.
2,, "Review of Reports Concerning Nonconforming items"".
b.
NMPC, QAP-16.2, Rev.
2, "Analysis of Quality Problems Reports by QA!',
c.
Process Averages - Field Inspections Report Nos.
8029/WHG/bar 80136/WHG/bar Based on the review of above documents, and discussions with licensee and contractor personnel the inspector determined that the licensee is analyzing identified nonconformances and unsatisfactory inspections to identify any adverse quality trend in the construction process and/or
.Quality Assurance program.
No items of noncompliance were identified in this area.
5.
Review'of'En ineerin 'and'Desi n"Coordination'Re'orts (E8DCRs)
The inspector reviewed Engineering and Design Coordination Reports for conformance to approved project procedures, format, clarity and details of requested/approved changes, and the control exercised by the licensee on these design changes.
The following documents were reviewed by the in'spector.
The reports were selected at random for review and represented several major areas of design/construction activity and spanned a
period of several years.
s a.
SSW Engineering Assurance Procedure EAP-6.3, Rev. 3, "Preparation, Review, Approval, and Control of ESDCRs" b.
Engineering and Design Coordination Reports Drawing Series EE:
Report Nos.
C-00.161A to C-50.129 F-00.099 to F-50.014
S
P-00.233 to P-50.193 V-20.114 Drawing Series EB:
Report Nos.
C-00.097 to C-50.240 F.-00.004 to F-50.047 P-10.519 to P-50.195 V-10.002A to V-20.145 Based on the review of above documents, discussions with licensee and contractor personnel, the inspector determined that the 1icensee is exercising sufficient control on the design changes.
E8DCRs are initiated. for proper. design changes as authorized and directed by the
.approved procedure.,
The description of requested/approved changes are-in sufficient detail, and review of the changes are proper.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6. ualit Assurance Audit'Pro ram The inspector reviewed the licensee's planned QA audit program implemented on the project, and the effectiveness of the program as implemented.
The inspector reviewed'he following documents to ascertain the scope and effectiveness of the project QA. audit program as implemented by the licensee:
The following documents were reviewed:
a ~
b.
NMPC, QAP-18.10, Rev. 3, "Audits by NMPC Personnel".
NMPC QAP-16.41, Rev. 0, "Control and Use of Corrective Action Requests"..
c.
NMPC QAP-16;10, Rev. 4, "Procedure for Conducting QA Reviews of Corrective Action Requests".
d.
'MPC, QAP,-18.10; Rev. 0, "Qualification of Lead Auditors".
e.
Report Nos.
'16, dated 9/7/79 17, dated 12/24/79 18, dated 3/24/80-f.
NMPC Corrective Action Requests CAR nos.
258,,259, 260, 261, and 262 with responses from SS Based on the review of above documents, and discussion'with licensee.
and contractor personnel, the inspector determined that the licensee has implemented a comprehensive program of gA audits at the project site.
The audits are planned and carried out on a regular schedule, and the results of the audit are evaluated for proper corrective action if necessary.
The Corrective Action Requests issued by the licensee receive proper attention from the contractor's field and project managements, and the licensee pursues the findings to a satisfactory resolution.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Review of Pro'ect, En ineerin and ualit Assurance Procedures/Instructions or Contro of and Incor oration of Chan e Notices into S ecifications an Drawin s The inspector reviewed the following project, engineering and quality control procedures/instructions to ascertain the adequacy for control of and incorporation of change notices into specifications and as-bui lt drawings.
Engineering Assurance Procedure EAP 6.3, Rev.
3 July 10, 1979, Preparation, Review, Approval, and Control of (E&DCRs) Engineering and Design
'oordination Reports guality Control Instruction FN2-S6. 1-02A issued January 23, 1980, Status of E&DCRs Project Manual, Projec't Procedure PP 16,, Rev. 8, February 13,. 1980 Incorporation of E&DCRs into Specifications and Drqwings.
The inspector observed the above procedures/instructions to be explicit, to assign responsibility and provide for adequate control.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Review of Primar Containment Concrete ualit Records for'Control'f E&DCRs and Incor oration of Desi n Chan es in As-Built'Drawin s Pertinent work and gC records were reviewed on construction observed during a previous inspection.
Primary containment wall lift number ten, pour number 1-122-022P, involved E&DCRs numbers C10730 and C1076 The records were reviewed for conformance with:
Nine Mile Point Station, Unit 2 PSAR, Appendix D
I
"Codes and Standards committed in PSAR sections on structures and concrete S8W Specifications No's.
S203H, S203A and S203C for Concrete Testing Services, Mixing and Delivering Concrete and Placing Concrete and Reinforcing. Steel S8W Construction drawings No.
EC-30 and EC-'3'.for'.the:primary. reactor building wall and reactor support pedestal SSW QC Instructions and Procedures
- QS-10. 12, QS-10. 13, QS-14.2, QAD 10.8 and QAD-14.3.
The inspector reviewed documents relative to the following:
Document Identification a ~
b.
c ~
Concrete Preparation Delivery Placement and Testing Concrete Curing IR 8S-9021792 IR OS-9027227 IR PrS-9027422 IR 8S-9027423 d.
Test cylinder compressive strength e.
Batch Plant print-outs
~
Pour 81-122-022 Pour 5'1-122-022 No items of noncompliance were identifie The above wall pour lift 810 of the suppression pool was designed, as indicated on engineering drawing EC-38A-4, to have horizontal construction joint at elevation 235'-0"...
Due to presence of diagonal shear bars and, in order to suppor t construction schedule at level of the drywell floor, E&DCR number C10730 and C10761 approval was obtained to construct a 45 construction joint using expanded wire formwor k from elevation 232'-0" to 234'-6".
Incorporation of the above changes into as-built drawings was verified in subsequent issues number 5 and 6 of the above drawing.
This sample of gC records and as-built drawings demonstrated the processing, disposition and approval of field changes and the succeeding
.incorpopac$ aniof E&DCRs into As-Builts.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Unresolved Item -
ualit Control Ins ection Re orts Should I entl Latest Cnteria of icable E&OCRs Not Yet Incor orated sn the Orawsn s at Time of Ins ection The inspectors'eview of primary containment concrete records identified in the above paragraph, demonstrated that on a day to day basis gC records and logs for control and acceptance of work involving field engineering and design changes are satisfactory.
However, for the historic record additional gC instruction appears necessary.
Since drawings are delayed in incorporating approved field changes gC inspectyon reports should identify applicable E&DCRs to record that inspects ons have been made to the latest criteria.
This was discussed with licensee and S&W personnel and resulted in S&W gC Field Superintendent issuing an I.O.N. to all lead gC inspectors to note applicable E&DCRs in the remarks column of theinspection report to assure that inspections were made to the latest criteria.
However, previous gC inspection reports affected by E&DCRs should be reviewed and annoted to identify approved changes.
This is identified as an unresolved item number 80-07-01.
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 disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 9.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on July 18, 1980, a meeting was held at the Nine tlile Unit 2 site with representatives of the licensee and construction manager.
Attendees at this meeting included personnel whose names are indicated by notation (~) in Paragraph 1.
The inspector summarized the results of the inspection as indicated in this repor T
~
v