IR 05000413/1980013
| ML19332A303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1980 |
| From: | Brownlee V, Burdette T, Conlon T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332A299 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-80-13, 50-414-80-13, NUDOCS 8009110427 | |
| Download: ML19332A303 (6) | |
Text
hy, Qi p ttg
'o, UNITED STATES
'
-
f, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
$
.E REGION 11 b[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 e,
ATLANTA, GEORCIA 30303 o
JUL 2 31980
-
Report Nos. 50-413/80-13 and 50-414/80-13
Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name:
Catawba Nuclear Power Station Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414
.
License Nos. CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 Inspection at Catawba near Lake Wylie, South Carolina b W ed &
7'22 'hO Inspectors:
V. L./Brownlee
~
Date Signed L
l-2 L *bd '
L
$UM f
.,$urd tte Date Signed
'
)44 Avu
<-
7-2 "L '5fd C. R. J!cFarland Date Signed
'
Approved by
- 74 //j//
'7-2 3 - TO
,
T. E. Conlon, Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on June 18-20, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 60 inspector-hours on site in the
areas of field performance including field drawings and work procedures, field l
inspection, field engineering, quality control, nonconforming items, variation i
notices, materials and equipment, audits, procurement, receiving and storage.
Results of the ten areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviatior4s were identified.
.
l i
'
8009110 sta y
-.
.
..
._
.
.
.
-
- -_-
e
.
.
l a
l l
,
.
DETAILS
.
j 1.
Persons Contacted
.
. Licensee Employees
- D. G. Beam, Project Manager
- D. L. Freeze, Project Engineer L. R. Davision, Senior QC Engineer
- S. W. Dressler, Senior Construction Engineer
- R. A. Morgan, Senior QA Engineer
- J. C. Shropshire, QA Engineer - Mechanical Welding, NDE H. D. Mason, QA Engineer Civil, Electrical, Instrument M. R. Hemphill, QC Engineer R. C. Rouse, QC Engineer T. D Mills, Construction Engineer - Mechanical T. H. Robertson, Construction Engineer - Civil / Welding R. A. Heineck, Civil Engineer T. H. Weir, Mechanical Engineer I. O. Hongesto, Power House Mechanic Superintendent A. Pruitt, Mechanic C. M. Vargas, Document Control Supervisor P. D. Christopher, QC Supervisor, Materials Other Organizations T. J. Martin, Assistant Project Manager, Bahnson Service Company (Bahnson)
W. Crute, Project QA Engineer, Bahnson R. Hale, Quality Engineer, Bahnson T. Payne, QC Engineer, Bahnson R. Gaston, QC Inspector, Bahnson
- J. W. Kosko, Sr. Hartford Steam Boiler, ANI
!
Other licensee employees contacted included four mechanics, two field engineers, three QC personnel, two warehouse personnel and eight Bahnson personnel.
i
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and. findings were summarized on June 20, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
-
-__
_
_ _ _ _ _ _. _.
.
_
.
_
_
r
-
,
.
.
,
a
-2-
-
'
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
'
5.
Independent Inspection Effort a.
Document Control DPC Construction Department Procedure G-1, " Document Control," estab-lishes the method for control of documents at the construction project.
The inspector reviewed the G-1 procedure, held discussions with document control, QC, field foreman and craf t personnel to determine personnel knowledge and understanding of the control system. Fifty drawings were welected from various field working stick files to determine if the latest revision of the documents were at the work locations.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
"
b.
Design Drawings and Specification Variation DPC Construction Department Procedure R-3 establishes the method of controlling field variation from approved Design Engineering drawings and specifications.
The inspectors reviewed the R-3 procedure, held discussions with Variation Notice (VN) control personnel, mechanical and electrical section supervisors and inspection personnel, civil and electrical engineering section personnel and field foreman to determine personnel knowledge and understanding or the control system. The inspectors selected five completed variation notices involving numerous drawings to verify that the VN's had been incorporated into the revised drawings.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l 6.
QA Inspection of Performance i
a.
Inspection Objectives
(
This inspection was performed to determine whether site work is being l
performed in accordance with NRC requirements and SAR commitments, the QA/QC program is functioning in a manner to assure requirements and
'
commitments are met, and that prompt and effective action is taken to
[
achieve permanent corrective action on significant discrepancies.
l (
..
--
. - - -.
-
..
--
.
.
.
-3-
_
i b.
-Inspection Efforts
.
The following areas of inspection was performed to verify the inspec-tion objectives:
(1) Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning Systems The licensee has contracted with Bahnson Service Company (Bahnson)
to provide the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system (HVAC) for the auxiliary building (AB), reactor building and other facilities on site. Duke provides for the general arrange-ment of the equipment and duct work, sets the major equipment, performs the seismic analysis of the Bahnson designed duct work and supports, approves the final design, and provides QA surveil-lance of the Bahnson work. Bahnson provides project management, shop and field drawings, fabricated ducting and supports, and QA and QC for the fabrication and installation work. They will.also conduct the startup, testing and balance of the installed HVAC system.
The inspector reviewed the Duke specifications for the Bahnson work, CNS 1211.00-5 and 11, the general arrangement drawings for the HVAC, CN 1200-10.2 and 10.3, the field drawings for the bolting of the charcoal adsorber filters to the floor, CNM-1211-00-150 and 151, the general arrangement of the AB exhaust filter train, CN 1227-3, the Bahnson Quality Field Procedures Manual and the Bahnson Quality Assurance Manual.
The inspector discussed the organization and work of the on site activities with.respon-
- ible Bahnson personnel. The inspector also reviewed the documen-s tation control system, the log of drawings and design change requests (DCR), and the specific QC procedures and QA procedures for document control, nonconforming parts and components and corrective actions. The inspector also verified the documentation control relative to HVAC hanger drawings 1-HVZ-5026, 5027, 5028, and,5031, and DCRs A-0083B-23, 25 and 28.
The inspector observed work in the AB relative to the bolting of the charcoal adsorber filters and the general layout of the filters for Units 1 and 2 in the AB.
The inspector also observed work in the nuclear service' water pump structure (NSWPS) relative to installing ducting, and welding hangers for ducting.
The inspector talked with the craftsmen involved and the responsible QC inspectors relative tc, the drawings and procedures, DCR's and
]
the documentation of the inspection of the installation of hangers.
j Bahnson craft work is performed per Duke construction procedures.
i The inspector verified the dimensions ' of representative items related to the ducting and hangers as modified by DCR's on the hangers in the NSWPS.
)
,
.. ~.
_._
-
,
.-
..
.
-4-
'
The inspector also reviewed the Duke on site QA surveillance of Bahnson on site work, Surveillance checklist serial number M-C-2, and the reports dated September 19, 1979, December 31, 1979 and April 18, 1980. The Duke documentation provides for the appro- -
priate criteria from 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and the followup of deficiencies identified in previous surveillance reports.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(2) Diesel Generator Jacket Cooling Water Piping The inspector reviewed field drawings and work procedures related to the current work of installing the piping for the Unit I diesel generators (IA and IB) jacket cooling water. Drawings CN 1506.04.41-03, 05, 06 and 08 identify the piping layout for the piping at elevation 556'. The piping is being installed per the requirements cf construction procedure, CP-49, for.the fabrication and inspection of the class G piping and QA procedure M-4 for the visual inspection and nondestructive testing of the welds. The inspector did observe the work performed to date. No work was being performed at the time of the inspection.
The inspector discussed the recent work and planned work with a responsible mechanic and constructi.on engineers that were know-ledgeable of the procedures and work.
, Duke craf t foreman control the work. The construction engineers observe the work and initiate nonconformance reports on noncon-forming items and variation notices when design changes are required. QC inspects the in-process work as required by procedure M-4 for the various hold points and for the completed work.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(3) Quality Control for Materials and Equipment
..
(a) Duke Procedure M-9, Revision 14 is the controlling procedure for mechanical equipment installation inspection.
The
'
inspector reviewed Procedure M-9 and selected for review the installtion of the reactor water makeup pumps IA and IB for Catawba Unit 1.
The inspector found that inspection reports were properly prepared in accordance with Procedure M-9.
Inspection procedures and reference documents provide sufficient detail to instruct QC on acceptance criteria for making inspections.
(b) Subsequent to review of inspection reports for the reactor water make-up pumps 1A and IB, the inspector held discus-sions witi. the licensee inspector responsible for the reactor water make-up pump installation inspections.
Discussions with the licensee inspector and inspection of
.,.
- -
.
,
.
.-
-- -.
.
.
.
.. -.
.- --. - - - -
r o
..
C-5-r.
'
pump installation work verified that inspection procedures were being followed. The licensee inspector did, note that a new form M-10A was ' required for some previously corrected
,
work (torquing of studs).
The licensee inspector took immediate action to correct this discrepancy. The following process control documents were reviewed fct the reactor water make-up pump installations:
.
Form M-9A-Rotating Equipment Alignment Records Form M-9D-Process Control Sheet for Installation of Rotating and Non-Rotating Equipment Form M-10A-Process Control and Inspection of Torqueing of Bolts and Studs Form M-9B-Equipment Release for the Installation of Rotating and non-Rotating Equipment Form H-5A-Structural Grouting Inspection No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(4) Surveillances Duke QA procedure QA-300 is the ca. trolling procedure fcr the
' performance of quality assistance surveillance at Catawba. The inspector reviewed QA-300 and held discussions with QA group supervision regarding surveillance activities.
The inspector reviewed the following surveillance reports for compliance with QA program requirements.
Surveillance Report M-9-4-80 dated 5/30/80 Surveillance Report M-9-2-80 dated 4/30/80 Surveillance Report M-9-12-79 dated 1/29/80.
Surveillance Report M-9-11-79 dated 12/28/79 Surveillance Report M-9-8-79 dated 10/10/79 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Procurement, Receiving and Storage a.
Inspection Objectives This inspection was performed to determine if equipment procurement.
specifications include applicable QA and technical requirements identified in the SAR and if receipt inspection and storage activities are conducted in compliance with QA program requirement.
..
.
\\
-6-
,
b.
Inspection Effort DPC Construction Department QA procedure E-3, " Field Procurement of Items and Construction Services" references the DPC Construction QA manual for ASME Code Work Section E-3, " Field Procurement of Items and Construction Services". DPC Construction Department QA Program proce-dures P-1 and P-3 are.the controlling procedures for establishing the method to assure that items received at the construction site meet the requirements of the procurement documents.
Senior construction Engineers are responsible for determining code requirements and inputing technical requirements into the purchase requisition. Senior QA Engineers are responsible for reviewing all requisitions, specifications and attachments to input applicable QA.
requirements. The Resident Cashier is responsible for preparing final requisitions from draf t requisitions provided by the Senior Construction Engineer. The purchase requisition is then forwarded to Mill Power, Charlotte for generating the purchase order. QA Manager, Engineering and Services, Charlotte, is responsible for reviewing field purchase orders to assure that they accurately reflect the approved purchase requisitions. QA Manager, Vendors, Charlotte is. responsible for the QA Approved Vendors List.
The inspector reviewed the controlling procedures; held discussions with Senior Construction Engineers, QA personnel, and receiving inspectors to determine personnel knowledge and understanding of the control system; and inspected the warehousing and laydown yards. The inspector selected completed purchase orders E58134, A98537, E35133 and a transfer from Cherokee, to determine if the system was func-tioning in accordance with the instructions and procedures.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-,
.
. _.
.. _.