IR 05000413/1982025
| ML20027E598 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1982 |
| From: | Debbage A, Mcfarland C, Upright C, Wright R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027E589 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-82-25, 50-414-82-23, NUDOCS 8211150524 | |
| Download: ML20027E598 (14) | |
Text
-ggR Kf Greg UNITED STATES
[f o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
\\
o REGION il
$
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
-'..
s..v[/
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 o
...
.
Report Nos. 50-413/82-25 and 50-414/82-23 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name:
Catawba Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 License Nos. CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 Inspection at Catawba site'near Rock Hill, South Carolina 2[ 2
/k
/o /3
Inspectors:
-
R. W. Wricjht ([
Da'te Signed
~
/*//3 //l
-
C. R. McFarland Date Signed
>
drev lo//J/fJ.
A. G. Debba e
/
p Date Sign.ed Approved by:
/,
/
d6 C. M. Upright! S tion ief, Dajfe Sisned Engineering Ins ti ranch Division of Eng' neeri g and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on September 13-17, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine., unannounced inspection involved 99 inspector-hours on site in the areas of QA inspection of welding, mechanical maintenance, and component support installation activities; QA inspection of electrical work activities; and onsite design activities.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
... _
r'8211150524 821015 PDR ADOCK 05000
.t G
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. C. Rogers, Project Manager
- L. R. Davison, Project QA Manager
- S. W. Dressler, Engineering Manager
- R. A. Morgan, Senior QA Engineer K. W. Schmidt, QA Engineer, Electrical / Civil S. C. Broom, QA Supervisor, Records J. W. Willis, Inspection Superintendent H. L. Atkins, Surveillance Supervisor J. N. Warren, Inspection Supervisor, Electrical / Civil / Receiving D. C. Mottern, Supervisor, On-site Pipe Hanger Support / Restraint Design Group G. A. Harrison, Engineering Assistant, On-site Pipe Hanger Support /
Restraint Design Group M. Snow, Supervisor, Turbine Building Production and Document Control H. Wallace, Supervisor, Methods, Procedures, and Process Control T. M. Robertson, Supervisor, Construction Engineering, Civil J. W. Rowell, Supervisor, Construction Engineering, Electrical B. Albertson, Supervisor Document Control, Hanger Group J. Helms, Document Control Clerk Other licensee employees contacted included numerous construction craf tsmen, several technicians, QA/QC personnel, and office personnel.
Bahnson Service Company G. H. Eriksen, Site Manager ( Acting)
,
W. M. Crute, Senior QA Engineer T. E. Payne, QC Engineer J. Hunsucker, Document Control Clerk
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 17, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The following new item was discussed at the exit interview.
Inspector Followup Item 413/82-25-01, 82-23-01, QC Inspector training program records, paragraph 6.d.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters Not inspected.
- - - -
p.,
e-
-,, - -,,, -,
~---,p
- -
,-
-
.
.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Welding, Mechanical Maintenance, and Component Support Installation Activities (35061, 37055)
a.
Observations and Procedures This inspection was performed to determine whether site work is being performed in accordance with NRC requirements, the topical QA report, and site procedures; that the QA program is functioning in a manner to assure that requirements and commitments are met; and that prompt and ef fective action is taken to achieve permanent corrective action on significant discrepancies.
The site activities observed included welding operations in the pipe fabrication shop on Unit 2 containment spray stainless steel tubing and chemical and volume control system piping.
In the auxiliary building, the inspector observed a dis-mantling operation being conducted on Unit 1 motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pump to determine the extent of damage to seals and bearings following the flushing activities. Component supports installed in the auxiliary building at the 543 feet level were examined for configura-tion control and installation to the latest drawing revision.
The following procedures and specifications which relate to the observed activities were reviewed:
'
F-4, R1 Process Control for Fabrication of Piping Sub-assemblies ( ASME III)
F-9, R6 Process Control for Preassembly and Installation of Piping Systems (ASME III)
'
H-3, R14 Identification and Control of Welding Material L-71, R11 Construction Cleaning of Piping Systems and Components L-80, R13 Visual Workmanship Standards for Welds
'
L-100, R6 Welding Program M-49, R11 Process Control and Inspection of Duke Class F QA Condition 4 Systems CP-51, R3 Calibration of Weld Test Site CP-300, R6 Verification of Proper Socket Weld Fitup Tolerances CP-427, R4 Hold Points and Process Control Requirements for ASME Class A, B, and C Welds
-
,
.-
,
-
e
,
.
.
.
3-CP-479, R4 Control of Surface Applied Materials CP-630, R3 Return and Reuse of Excess Hanger Catalog Parts QA-107, R0 Temporary Procedure Changes QA-210, R12 Departmental Audit Procedure QA-300, R9 Construction Surveillance L-231, R9 Field Weld Data Sheet Gas Tungsten Arc L-252, R5 Field Weld Data Sheet Gas Tungsten Arc.
The acceptance criteria given in these documents was reviewed and observations of work and discussions with QA/QC personnel-were held, to determine that the latest revisions of these documents were being employed, that they are in agreement with the topical report, and that these documents adequately describe inspection hold points to ensure the intended design control, b.
Welding Activity Welding was being performed on a length of stainless steel piping to Drawing Number CN-2NS-18, which was to be a subassembly to the Unit 2 containment spray system. Three-fourth-inch fittings were being welded to the eight-inch diameter piping; the welding process was tungsten inert gas and the filler material was ER 308.
The welding process control sheet (Form M-4A) was nearby and the status of the work was current since preheat had been signed off prior to commencement of the welding. The corresponding identification numbers on the process sheet and isometric drawings were verified on the welded assembly and the welder made his identification mark #A-75 on the welds performed. The welder also had a valid Form H-3B covering the issue of the weld filler material as required by Procedure F-9.
A fillet weld was being made on a piping subsection of the chemical and volume control system to Drawing Number CN-2NV-569.
The welder used process specification L-231 and the status of the work package and transfer of identification marks were satisfactory. Form H-3B #860147 was available to identify the withdrawal of the filler material and the welder identification Number E-70 was made near the weld.
Visual inspection of the completed weld was made by a Level II inspector to Procedure L-80 and the gauges used appeared sati sf actory for this inspection.
In addition to the welders and inspector identified above, from the process control sheets were obtained the identification number of other welders together with the processes used and the names of inspectors.
The personal certification records of all these persons were examined.
All welders were found qualified to the processes used and their
,.
..
.
.(
!
\\
\\
.
,
' i
requalification dates had not expired.
The licensee reviews welder qualification every three months. The records were also comparea with data given on a computer printout used in the piping fabrication shop to track potential expiration dates of welder qualifications.
The inspector's records were compared with the inspector certification report dated September 2,1982 and all inspectors were found certified to the inspections made and problems were not identified in the area of welder qualification.
j
Duke Power Corporate Audit CD-82-1(CN) Welding Program, conducted I
January 11-22, 1982, was examined.
The audit covered the review of i
construction procedures, welding records, and documentation.
The
'
auditors observed issuing of welding material, oven temperatures, l
thermometer calibration, and welding material storage. The audit team checked control of welder stencils and completed welds for correctness and completeness of documentation; and interviewed welders, inspectors, i
and supervisors.
Three deficiencies were identified primarily in the area of the records control and one deficiency in monitoring of the welding process where the checking of voltage and amperage using a calibrated test set had not been performed. The audit pointed out that.
the nonconforming item report on the welding process had not clearly N
identified the cause of the condition and required a response.
A review of surveillance reports by the Duke audit team indicated no adverse quality trends.
,
Surveillance reports in the area of pipe welding are conducted monthly by the site QA unit in both welding and nondestructive examination (NDE) activities. The inspector examined welding checklists MWN4,1-82 threagh 8-82, and NDE checklists ' MWN3,1-82 through 8-82.
In both survtillances, the checklists r@ ire checking process control infor-
'
mation to verify that it had proper review prior to beginning the work and verification of the welds 'by checking the'm with the isometric drawing; these items appear to be' adequately covered. The remaining NDE checklist items were concerned with NDE process verification. The other welding checklist principal items were:
Monitoring the inspectors by performing independent inspection and
.
checking procedure knowledge
~
Verifying that the welders are qualified to the data sheet being -
.
used
,_
Checking markings made, records generated, and reviewing comp'idted
.
work process control packages
,
'
Making Volt / Amps checks and checking general welding practices
.
,
\\
The surveillance checklists make adequate reference to QA and
+
Construction procedures and reference Regulatory Guide 1.44, Control of the Use of Sensitized Stainless Steel.
,
<
>
'
t
\\
>
_
_-
- - -
=-
..
.
.
,
I i
i
<
Nonconforming item reports for welding activities during May through September 1982 were examined. These included #14694, 15341, 15388, 15379, and 15470.
In all cases, the corrective action specified appeared to be adequate for the types of nonconforming conditions identified.
I c.
Mechanical Maintenance Following the flushing activities in Unit 1 auxiliary feedwater system, including running the feedwater pump, the face bearings of one pump
'
were found very badly scratched and required replacement. The site engineering unit dismantled the second pump #1CA.1, located at AB543, to determine whether the seals and bearings in the pump were also dama3ed.
Three millwrights #4704, 6114, and 3316 and a mechanical QC inspector were assigned to this activity.
A work permit for this activity had been generated by request for shutdown #7489 and control form M-22A identified 'ne work scope as basically, remove bearings and seals, examine for damage, and replace.
The notor-driven auxiliary feedwater pump is a ten-stage Class B pump s
made by Bingham Williamette Company which has a capacity of 500 gpm at a 3210 psig pressure head. The pump is driven by a 600HP Westinghouse electric induction motor with rated speed of 3563 rpm. The inspector observed that the electrical heaters in this motor were still activated as required by normal maintenance procedures. As the team removed the bolts, the threads were coated with Neolube No. 2.
This was later verified to be an acceptable engineering controlled material and Westinghouse recommends its use especially on threads and keyways.
Also, being graphite in isopropanol and extremely low halogen content, it is an acceptable lubricant for both primary and secondary systems.
i Spot-Check cleaner was used for cleaning and freeing components; this
,
is also an approved cleaner for stainless steel. The removed bearings and seals appeared to be in sati.sfactory condition and were subse-quently reinstalled.
i Although the team had with them a portion of the pump instruction manual, it was not referred to during the observed activities.
The lead millwright stated that the pump representative had recently visited the site to explain the instruction manual and to demonstrate
overhaul on the other pump; a QC representative had also attended the training session.
The millwrights and the inspector appeared to be i
competent in the performance of their functions. The certification of the inspector was checked, found to be satisfactory, and certification valid through June 15, 1983.
The feedwater pump procurement was examined.
From the identification marks serial Q-1A836 and CN-1592-002, it was determined that the pump i 3 was ordered on Mili Power Order C-12514 to a design pressure of 1390
)
psi at a temperature of 134 F.
The receiving inspection report was J
dated May 2,1980, and this stated that the certifications, inspections and tests as required by the specifications, were supplied with the
!
--, -
, c. v
__,. _.... -. _..
-
--, - - -, -.. - -, _,. _,
-., _,. _ -
,,,. _. -
.
,
.e
oump.
The subsequent structural grout inspection after installation was performed December 3,1980.
d.
Component Support Installation Activity Piping and component hanger and support installation was in progress in both the Unit I reactor building and the auxiliary building.
Several component and piping supports had been installed and inspected at the 543 feet level in the auxiliary building and each had a tag notifying personnel that changes were not to be made to the installed support.
These supports were typically welded or bolted struts which incor-porated sway strut assemblies and mechanical shock suppressors.
Four supports were selected and, from their identification number, the records were obtained from the hanger document control office. Varia-tion Notices (VNs) against the original support drawing were checked to verify inclusion into the final revised drawing and the inspection records were examined to verify final inspection to the final revised drawing. The component supports in the auxiliary building were then inspected to verify installation to the revised drawing configuration and the correct locations. These component and piping supports are:
1-A-WL-3566 Rev 3, for pipe CN-1492-43.10-00
.
1-R-CA-0015, Rev 4, for pipe CN-1492-CA012R
.
1-A-RN-3104, Rev 4, for pipe CN-1492-43.10-00
.
1-R-YA-0033, Rev 1, for pipe CN-1492-VA004R
.
Other component support records were randomly selected to verify that VNs had been incorporated into the revised drawings, that the final inspection records were satisfactory, and that these records had been reviewed by the site QA unit.
These component and piping supports were:
'
1-A-WG-8337, drawing no. CN-AA-1040, Rev 2
.
1-A-GS-3019, drawing no. CN-AA-1048, Rev 3
.
1-A-KC-3059, drawing no. CN-AA-1076, Rev 1
.
1-A-WL-3971, drawing no.1-A-WL-3971, Rev 1
.
Monthly surveillances are conducted by the site QA Unit on pipe support activities.
The checklist requires that a review of previous surveillance reports be made to observe origination of component support packages, verify correctness of information on the design sketch, to observe cutting of hanger steel and transfer of markings.
Field welding activities are to be observed, identifying the filler material used and heat / log number, to monitor weld inspection, observe erection of pipe support / restraint, verify Q.C. inspection of final assembly, and review the completed process control packages.
The completed checklists for 1982 were reviewed these being CEI2,1-82 through 8-82.
No major problems were identified.
During the August surveillance, the QA Unit found that an M-58A form in the process control package had not received QA review prior to being sent to the
___
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ -
-_
_
.
.
i field for work.
The responsible supervisor and crew involved were
!
identified.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
j 6.
QA Inspection of Electrical Work Performance (35061)
The inspection was conducted to determine whether the site work is being i
performed in accordance with NRC requirements and SAR commitments, the QA/QC program is functioning consistently with these requirements and commitments, and to assure that timely and effective action is taken to achieve permanent corrective action on significant deficiencies.
i The inspector reviewed schedules, drawings, and work procedures relative to
!
the installation of safety related electrical and instrumentation work and l
the related QC and QA activities, j
a.
Field Drawings and Work Procedures i
The following documentation was reviewed as representative of the work in progress and the control of documents used in the field (CN denotes Catawba Nuclear on drawings, CNS denotes CN Specification, and QA denotes Quality Assurances):
'
CNS 1390.01-00-0070,R9 Guide for Cable Installation In Cabinets and Duct Systems and Calibration of Instruments CNS 1390.01-00-0018,R20 Design Engineering Department Electrical Division Installation Specification Manual CNS 1390.01-00-0035,R14 Cable Grounding and Termination Sealing CN 1938-01.01,R15 Computer Cable Pulling, Outdoor Area, General Plan CN 1938-05.01 R12 Computer Cable Routing, Outdoor Area, Sections and Details CN 1050-81 R14 Reactor Building Interior, Seismic Mounting for Electrical Equipment CN 2907-01 R10 Electric Equipment Layout in Reactor Bldg.
Plan Below El 565 CN 1761-06.04 R7 Connection Diagram, CR Area Ventilation (VC)
CN 1760-01.12 R5 C:.inection Diagram, NSW System (RN) Solenoid
<alves QA 131 R4 Quality Assurance (QA) Training QA 140 R4 Quality Control (QC) Inspector Training QA 101 R3 QA Records Storage Area QA 300 R9 Surveillance
,
L-100 R6 Welding Program
.
M-21 R13 Inspection of Field Welding of Structural i
Steel, Miscellaneous Steel and Other Steel
Construction for QA Condition Structures
!
M-41 R8 Electrical Equipment Installation Inspection
i i
_-- _ _ _ _ -. _., - _..
..-
_ -.
...
_ --___.--.,
.
,, _ _ -. _ - -.
_. -
-
. _.
~
.
.
M-57 R0 Installation and Inspection Requirements for QA Condition 4 M-61 R4 Instrumentation Process Control and Inspection R-2 R8 Control of Inspection Discrepancies The inspector also verified nine other field drawings that were referenced in surveillance reports (paragraph 6.d) versus the document
"
control records.
b.
Field Inspection Field observations and discussions with electrical QC, QA, and craft personnel were conducted relative to the terminations of cables and cable pulling.
The inspector observed the QC reinspection of terminations on the Unit 2 safety related lighting panel 2NR3 at elevation 557 in tb reactor building and a nonsafety related, condi-tion 4, panel 2LRb at elevation 570 in the reactor building.
The inspection and installation was consistent with the requirements of the Construction Department QA procedure (QAP) M-41B and drawings CN2907-01 and CN1050-81. The mounting panel 2LR5 will be reinspected as part of a generic reinspection program the licensee reported as a
10 CFR 50.55(e) item to Region II on February 23, 1982. The inspection will be to the requirements of QAP M-21.
The inspector observed the pulling of cable number 2RN502 at manholes 9. 11, 13, and 16.
The 2575-foot 350 MCM single conduit cable was being lubricated by American Colloid Company Slip X-300 Universal Grade Cable Lubricant SX304, a mineral based lubricant.
Drawings CN1938.01.01 and CN1938.05.01 and specification CNS1390.01-00-0070 (as noted on the cable pull card) were at the work site. Discussions with the QC inspector and representative craft personnel at the work site indicated an adequate knowledge of the work and their workmanship appeared to be adequate for the assigned task.
c.
Quality Control (1) QC Inspection Reports The inspector reviewed the QC inspector reports for the activities
'
observed (refer to paragraph 6.b above) and representative varia-tion notices. The adequacy and independence of the QC inspection activities appears to be adequate. The corrective actions for identified deficiences appears to be adequate.
(2) QA Procedure The inspector reviewed the Construction Department QA procedures
'
that are being used by QC inspectors for the activities observed (refer to paragraph 6.b above), the QA Department procedures for
'
training QC inspectors, and the QA surveillance of QC activities.
.
.
.
.
.
The frequency and timing of the inspections appear to be adequate to properly control the work.
(3) QC Inspectors The number of QC inspectors appears to be adequate for the coverage of electrical work.
Discussions with the inspectors contacted indicate that they are knowledgeable of the inspection procedures and of requirements in the specifications and on the drawings. The QC inspectors appear qualified to perform the level of work assigned.
Discussions with representative inspectors indicated that negative findings receive proper attention and that the corporate commitment to the QA/QC program is positive.
d.
Nonconforming Item Reports (NCR)
The inspector reviewed a random sampie of ten NCRs that had been routinely sent to the Resident Inspector (RI) office as " closed" during this inspection.
The NCRs are routinely reviewed by the RI and have been reviewed by other Region II inspectors during previous inspections.
None of the ten NCRs reviewed had any deficiencies relative to corrective actions or the reportability to the NRC.
The licensee has a trend analysis program that has been frequently upgraded. The licensee's involvement in NCR followup appears to be adequate, e.
QC Training The inspector examined the training records of two Level II inspectors and five Level I inspectors chosen as representative QC inspectors for the installation of electrical equipment, cable trays, and cables. The QA Department procedure QA 131 designates the Site / Station Supervision to be responsible for maintaining _and updating training records for QC inspectors. The NRC inspector's review of the training records during the last six months indicates that the inspectors have been trained, but there is no administrative method to assure that inspectors will continue to be trained in the QA and construction procedures applicable to the needs of the various groups of QC inspectors. The licensee agreed to develop an administrative method to designate the applicable procedures in which the various groups of QC inspectors will receive training to maintain their qualifications as inspectors.
The super-visors of the various QC inspection groups will continue to be responsible for the instruction of their inspectors and to provide records of the training to QA.
This is identified as inspector followup item (IFI) 413/82-25-01 and 414/82-23-01, QC Inspector Training Program Records.
f.
Audits The licensee audits the electrical work through a corporate QA Depart-ment program. A team of corporate auditors (2) were auditing the L
_ _
_
_
_
. _..
.
.
,
electrical work during this inspection. The inspector accompanied the auditors while performing the field inspection of electric terminations discussed in paragraph 6.b.
Records for the corporate audits are not maintained on site. The auditors appeared to adequately inspect the hardware, documentation, and personnel involved with the work being audited.
g.
Surveillance Reports l
The onsite QA organization has a routine surveillance program for electrical and other work (not an audit program).
The inspector reviewed the instrumentation surveillance reports for January (CEI-3-1-82) through August (CEI-3-8-82) 1982.
0A procedure 300 provides the requirements and the forms for the checklist (CEI-3 Revision 0, Instrumentation Installation) and the report format. The reports identify instruments and associated loops inspected; applicable procedure and drawings, documentation control, personnel training, and adequacy of workmanship. The reports appear to be adequate.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Onsite Design Activities (370558)
The object of this inspection was to ascertain what design activities were being performed onsite and to determine if these activities are performed in
.
accordance with technical and quality assurance requirements described in
-
the Duke Power Company (DPC) Topical QA Report.
a.
Functional Responsibilities for Onsite Design The inspector held discussions with responsible licensee representa-
'
tives to determine what extent the licensee has retained or delegated responsibility for onsite design.
DPC Corporate Design Engineering (CDE) is responsible for the Catawba project design in that all original calculations, specifications, purchase requisitions, and drawings are prepared and checked by qualified individuals from within
CDE. No variations from these design drawings or specifications are permitted without prior approval by CDE.
I Variation Notices (VNs) serve to document an agreement with CDE to conduct work at variance with approved CDE drawings or specifications.
VNs which are initiated by various disciplined construction engineers are required to receive verbal approval by CDE and written approval by the Project Manager or his designee prior to field implementation.
CDE has placed a field extension of their pipe hanger support / restraint group onsite to expedite the handling and approval of applicable VNs and for the design of supplemental hangers, supports, and restraints as needed.
The onsite design extension group from CDE is currently comprised of six engineer, and one draftsman. This onsite design group handles approximately 90*. of the site hanger problems with the
.
--
- - - -, - -, - - - -,,. - ~ _, -
.,. - -, _
_ _, _ _ - - - - - - -
.1
-
- - _
-
e----
-
w
+-
-
+e
-.
_
. -=. _
-
-. -
_
.
.-
._
-
-.
_
.
..
.
,
'
.
remaining 10*.
being resolved by CDE.
The inspector conducted discussions with the supervisor of this group and examined the design input being used by one of his principle designers concerning a design modification which was being worked on for pipe support hanger mark
,
No 1-R-AS-0101 R0. This hacger could not be installed per approved CDE drawings due to interference of the base plate supports with support No. 1-R-RN-249 R3.
This problem ~ is typical of the majority of their work in that it involves modification of an original CDE design where the design input (loading) remains the same. Complex problems or those requiring considerable time to analyze are submitted to CDE for computer analysis.
Discussions revealed that each site-handled variation notice eventually receives final CDE review to assure that
'
the change did not impact the overall design.
DPC has contracted with Bahnson Service Company (BSC) to construct the HVAC system for Catawba: however, the design activities are performed c
Changes to the HVAC design (specification, drawing, standard, or code) at Catawba are accomplished by Bahnson design change requests (DCRs). A DCR is similar to a VN in that written authoriza-tion is necessary from construction engineering to incorporate changes that had been verbally approved by CDC.
All DPC VNs and Bahnson DCRs are eventually transmitted to corporato
'
design for final approval and, at this time, CDE may take exception to the recommended verbally approved dispositions. The VNs and DCRs are i
"as-built" drawings unless CDE takes exception. CDE is responsible for revising drawings to incorporate the change and issue new drawings to the site.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
i b.
Design Procedures Reviewed DPC Procedures
(1) Design Specification No.
CNS-1206.00-04-0C3, R8, Procedure Requirements for Fabrication and Erection of Hangers, Supports and Seismic Controls (2) CP-385, R17, Support / Restraint Erection Tolerances (3) Procedure D-1. R8, Control of Field Design (4) Procedure G-1, R17, Docment Control j
(5) Procedure R-3, R14 Design Drawing and Specification Variation Bahnson Service Company Procedures (1) Specification No. CNS-1211.00-05, CN-SRD-Design Criteria 77-1.0, Appendix B
,
l (2) QFP 3.004 CNS, R2, Design Change Procedure (3) AFP-CNS-17.001, R0, Documeat Storage
, _ _. _
_ _ _
. _, _ _ _ _ _ _
,
-
-.
- -
.
-
..
+
..
.
=
The inspector interviewed several DPC Construction Engineering personnel (from the hangers, civil, mechanical, and electrical disciplines) onsite DPC design personnel (pipe hanger support / restraint extension group) and BSC QA/QC and field engineering personnel to determine whether they were knowledgeable of the requirements specified in the above applicable documents.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
c.
Design Changes By procedure, DPC VNs and BSC DCRs are initiated onsite when an item cannot be constructed or installed as dimensioned on the drawing and within allowable procedural erection tolerance. The following VNs and DCRs from various engineering disciplines were examined, several of which were field inspected, to determine whether the reason or need for change was adequate; the change did not appear to compromise the original intent; the change was reviewed and approved by "other than the originator"; the review considered impact on overall design; and the design drawings are revised to incorporate changes:
VN Nos. 11762, 24220, 27466, 29108, 29358 DCR Nos. A-00778213, A-0072B-302, A-0072C674 Examination of electrical drawing No. CN-2713-04.02, R4, revealed the design change specified by VN 29358 had been incorporated by revision 3 to the subject drawing.
However, VN 21358 rather than the proper VN29358 was denoted on the drawing as the cause for revision 3.
Further review concluded that this was a editorial error.
The initiator of the subject VN telephoned the responsible corporate design engineer of this editorial error so that it would be properly handled on the next approved revision. Since this was an isolated insignifi-cant editorial error to a drawing that would not have affected any hardware installation, and the licensee took immediate corrective action to resolve the matter, it was not identified as a problem nor was it pursued further by the inspector.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
d.
Drawing Control
.
The inspector conducted discussions with responsible document control personnel from the DPC site document control unit, the DPC hanger document control unit, and Bahnson's document control unit.
The physical adequacy of the facilities relating to storage, issue, and control of drawings for all three document control units were examined.
Drawings were randomly selected from control sheets that identified the most current revision of drawings used and the respective drawings in the master working files were examined for agreement with the control lis r
!
.,
e
\\
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
e.
Audits (1) Departmental Audit CD-82-6(CN), Document Control and Records Facility (2) Quarterly and annual inspections of document holder's documents Document Holder Annual Inspection Quarterly Inspection Albertson, Brenda 2/02/82 5/07/82 Scruggs, J.
9/02/81 8/18/82 1/18/82 (3) Surveillance of Bahnson Service Co.
M-C-2-11-78, M-C-2-12-78, M-C-2-1-79, M-C-2-2-79, M-C-2-3-79, M-C-2-6-79, M-C-2-9-79, M-C-2-12-79, M-C-2-3-80, M-C-2-6-80, M-C-2-9-80, M-C-2-12-80, The inspector examined the above listed audit, inspections, and surveillances conducted on DPC and BSC construction, document control, and record activities to verify that the audited organization received a copy of the audit report, that appropriate standards were referenced for measuring performance, that auditors were selected in accordance with QA manual provisions, and that adverse findings received effective corrective action.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.