IR 05000454/1978007
| ML20150A957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1978 |
| From: | Konklin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150A931 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-78-07, 50-454-78-7, 50-455-78-07, 50-455-78-7, NUDOCS 7810190252 | |
| Download: ML20150A957 (26) | |
Text
'
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT e
.
)
REGION III
-
Report No. 50-454/78-07; 50-455/78-07 Docket No. 50-454; 50-455 License No. CPPR-130; CPPR-131 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
Byron Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Byron Site, Byron, IL Inspection Conducted:
August 8-10, 1978
,., 7 Inspectors:
J. E. Konklin
',[/6sdl A 7/,29'/7 F',
"Y! 'i /7 #'
-
'
K. R. Naidu is-c
-
,
y.,,
N, 'c !?7 b'
~
. F. Maxwel
'
'
., ' [ ' 4.ia 4 * -
J 8'- $0- 7 6
'
H. M. West!ott A
f > 3;./7'(
J. H. Neisler
., h.,,7
/
J c,. g,. f ('
/k 7 'l Approved By:
,I.W. Hayes, Chief'
'
'
/
/
,' Proj ects Section Inspection Summary Inspection on August 8-10, 1978 (Report No. 50-454/78-07; 50-455/78-07)
Areas Inspected:
Licensee action on previous inspection findings (Units 1 and 2); licensee action on previously reported 10 CFR 50.55(e) items (Units * and 2); work activities and quality records relative to safety-related structures (Units 1 and 2); electrical implementing procedures
-
and cable hanger installation activities (Units 1 and 2); implementing procedures related to pressure boundary piping (Units 1 and 2); reactor
.
vessel installation procedures (Units 1 and 2); safety-related component
'7?lo 19 07s2
.
.
.
'
.'
storage and quality records (Units 1 and 2); ongoing site construction activities (Units 1 and 2). This inspection involved a total of 100 onsite inspector-hours by five NRC inspectors.
Rasults:
Of the eight areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was
,
.
identified in one area (Deficiency - failure to prescribe contractor
personnel qualification and certifications in CECO approved instructions or procedures - Section III, Paragraph 2.b).
.
O e
W
.
,., -
,...
-,,,..
....,,
..
- --
.. _.
.
.
..
.
,
-..
...
.
. -..
-
-
,.
.
!
'
s DETAILS
,
i e
"
t
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- G. Sorensen, Proj ect Superintendent
- J. McIntyre, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- J. Mihovilovich, Lead Structural Engineer
- R. Tuetkin, Lead Mechanical Engineer
- G. Smith, Lead Electrical Engineer
"
- R. Gronewold, Mechanical Quality Assurance Coordinator
,
- S. Forsha, Structural Quality Assurance Coordinator
- R.' Aken, Electrical Quality. Assurance. Coordinator
- M. Pendleton, Field Engineer E. Lindholm,-Quality Assurance Engineer J.. Straub, Quality Assurance Inspector Hunter Corporation M. Sonsag,-Quality Assurance Supervisor H. Lundquist,-Material Control Supervisor
-
A. Simon, Assistant Quality Assurance Supervisor Delta-Delta Midstate-(DPM)
C. Zausda, Quality Assurance Supervisor Pitts*ourgh Testing Laboratory (PTL)
J. Troutman, Quality Assurance supervisor Westinghouse R. Sawyers, Mechanical Field Serfice Engineer The inspectors also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel, including craftsmen, QA/QC, Technical and Engineering Staff l
I members.
!
l
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
_.
l l-3-m l
.., -..,.
. ~, -. _,,....., - -,., - -
,.. _.,,. _,. _, _.. _..............,. _.......~._ _._...-_._.,, _ _ _. -._... - -
._
_
._,
. _._
_.
__
_
_
<
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (50-454/77-01; 50-455/77-01):
Rebar placement checklists without acceptance criteria.
The previous IE:RIII report
-
,
(77-01) noted that the DDM detailed concrete preplacement checklist
was inadequate in that it did not incorporate acceptance criteria.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed CECO QA Manual Section QR-10, Paragraph 10/2, Revision 7, which contains requirements for appropriate acceptance criteria. The inspector also reviewed _the DDM preplacement checklist for Pour No. 1-A-401-01-S, Containment No. 1, which includes rebar acceptance attributes and which has attached farm DDM 1~.3, Attachment A, containing rebar acceptance criteria. This
,
'
item is considered to be resolved.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-454/77-01; 50-455/77-01):
Rebar spacing discrepancies not identified as nonconforming. The previous IE:RIII (77-01) noted.that several instances of rebar spacing exceeding report specification requirements were not identified as nonconforming items.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed Delta-Delta Midstates (DDM) Discrepancy Reports No. 47 and No. 49, dated January 5, 1977, and Ceco NCR F-72, dated January 14, 1977, which detail the noncon-formfng conditions on Pour No. 1-A-374-0-4-W, and which include theThe S&L 2ngineering evaluatien that the rebar spacing is acceptable.
inspector also reviewed the DDM preplacement checklist and verified that rebar inspection attributes have been added to the checklist.
In
-
addition, the inspector verified, by review of Blount Brothers (BBC)
weckly surveillance reports and by discussion with the BBC QA/QC Manager and the licensee, that the concrete contractor and the licensee are performing inspections to assure that rebar is installed in accord-ance with Specification F-2722. This item is considered to be resolved.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-454/77-04; 50-455/77-04): Concrete placement not being properly cured. The previous IE:RIII report (77-04) noced that placed concrete was not being properly cured by Blount Brothers, covered with burlap in that approximately 12 feet of concrete was not and wetted down.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed
Blount Brothers Deviation Report Q3-212, dated May 5, 1977, which defines the noncomplying condition and specifies corrective action.
In this connection, the inspector reviewed the Report of Meeting, dated May 9,1977, conducted by Blount Brothers for QA/QC inspectors and QA/QC Supervisor, to emphasize that all items listed on a check-
!
'
list are to be thoroughly inspected.
The inspector also reviewed Blount Brothers Audit Report Q4.236, dated June 24, 1977, which covered the accuracy of checklist completion, including curing activities, and CECO Audit Report No. 10, dated June 14, 1977, which verified Blount Brothers proper implementation of their QA Program, including inspec-l tion of concrete placing, curing, and finishing.
This item is con-l sidered to be resolved.
.
-4-
.. - - _ - _ _ _., _
. _ _
_. _.. _ _. _ _ -, _. _.. _..... _. _, _. _.. _ _ _. _.. _ - _. - _. -. _. _ -
.
-
-
.
.
-
. _ -
.
..-
-
' :.
-
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-454/77-10-02; 50-455/77-10-02):
Improper storage of stainless steel spools.
The previous IE:RIII report (77-10) noted that a stainless steel spool with carbon steel end caps and
- l several stainless steel spools not.on cribbing were observed in the
,
Hunter Corporation piping storage area.
During this inspection, the
inspector inspected the Hunter pipe laydown storage area 6, Section C, and found no safety-related stainless steel spools which were not properly placed on cribting or which had noncomplying end caps. This item is considered to be resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-454/77-12-1, 50-455/77-12-1):
Unclear reference in INRYC0 Procedure No. PTP-5.
The previous IE:RIII report (77-12) noted that INRYC0 Procedure No. PTP-5 made an unclear reference to Attachment A of Procedure QCP-3, and that Attachment A could not be located.
The report also noted that the INRYC0 QC system uses a
" Certificate of Compliance" relative to components such as trumplace assemblies.
During this' inspection, the inspector reviewed Procedure PTP-5, Revision 5, dated March 27, 1978, which refers to QCP 3.3, Attachment A.
Attachment A to QCP 3.3, which is now included in the procedure, is the INRYC0 Shipping Release form.
J l
With regard to the " Certificate of Compliance," the inspector reviewed INRYC0 Shipping Release dated July 6,1977 for Part No. 120, con-sisting of 80 170W508 trumplates, which transmitted the Certificate of
.
Conformance for the 80 trumplates.
The inspector also reviewed the Reference Log maintained by Site QA, which shows receipt of the 80 trumplates on July 12, 1977, and the, Equipment Documentation Book for 1977 maintained by Site QA, which includes the vendor inspection reports, reports of tests, and reports of analyses for the 80 pieces of Part No. 120.
The inspector determined that adequate vendor docu-mentation is available onsite to support the INRYC0 Certificate of l
Conformance.
This item is considered to be resolved.
l (closed) Unresolved Item (50-454/77-10-4; 50-455/77-10-4):
Discrepancy between procedures and checklist - Reliance Truck. The previous IE:RIII report (77-10) noted that the Reliance Truck procedures require MT of shackles upon receipt and at least every nine months and visually prior to each use, whereas the checklists list MT but not VT.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the following Reliance Truck procedures:
No. 117, Revision 2, dated August 4, 1978, Pressurizer Trans-l porting.
No. 113, Revision 7, dated July 19, 1978, Steam Generator Trans-porting.
114, Revision 5, dated May 6, 1978, Reactor Vessel Transporting.
No.
.
5-
-
>
g ya-m sy --
-yw,,,,+,-
vm.,,
,.,
3, g,,
p.-
e.-
em 9%,
-.,g-g-,,,e-.... - =,
,-c. w
-,-w,,,wy.e.,,+-e
.-wm,
,.
,-wr%.v
-.--...
,
.,--,3.m.,_. - -,, -v-,..
---m
+-
_ _
i
'
It was observed that these procedures have been revised to include the requirement for visual examination prior to each use.
This item is considered to be resolved.
,
-
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-454/78-04-02; 50-455/78-04-02):
Lack of R*
Calibration Sticker on Densitometer.
It was previously reported that a sticker was not affixed on the densitometer being used by Pittsburg DesMoines (PDM) as required by their procedure CP-1.
Neither was the densitometer calibrated prior to each date of use with an entry made on a densitometer usage log. During the current inspection, the QA-representative informed the inspector that he had overlooked the requirement to calibrate the densitometer with a step wedge. The densitometer has since been calibrated and a sticker has been affixed.
The inspector reviewed the sticker and the calibration log and deter-mined that the procedural requirements have been met.
(Closed) Unresolved, Item (50-454/78-04-01):
Unconsumed Insert in Main Steam Penetration. It was previously reported that review of radio-i graphs on Main Steam Penetration. Weld FW 168 indicated possible
,
During the current inspection, the inspector reviewed
'
unconsumed insert.
the relevant documentation on this subject which indicated that a level III Hunter Corporation (Hunter) representative identified an unconsumed insert and initiated necessary repair.
Report of Nondestruc-tive Examination Defects (RND) No. 075 dated April 9, 1978, instructed removal of metal, grinding, welding and radiographs.
The inspector
-
reviewed the documentation package and determined that the necessary repair including radiographic rexamination was accepted on April 28, 1978. The radiographs after the repair disclosed that the unconsumed consumable insert was consumed.
The inspector looked at the pene-tration from the inside of the cor.tainment and confirmed that the insert was consumed.
This item is considered resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-454/77-11-02; 50-455/77-11-02):
Incorrect use of Form QP 7-1.1.
The inspector noted that CECO Quality Assurance personnel have reviewed Material Receiving Reports (MRR) for applicable electrical cable received prior to November 5,1977 (reference QA Surveillance Report BY527) and have assured that interim accepted NRR's have been/are properly identified and filed to prevent theThe possible mis-use of material that has not been final accepted.
inspector randomly selected five (5) recently initiated MRR's and observed that they were correctly signed, three were interim released and one was final accepted (records were available to show that all documents had been received / reviewed).
This item is closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-454/78-02-02; 50-455/78-02-02):
No requirements governing the installation of cable pan supports to preclude interference between electrical cable pan supports and
'
-
-6-
~,
.
- -, -.. - -.- -
.. -...
-... -. - -. - -... -.. - -.. - - - -. -.
.
-...
_
..
.
...
-.-
.
,.
,
mechanical systems.
An instruction has been sent to the site elec-trical contractor (Hatfield Electric) requiring that for those areas /
instances where a three (3) inch clearance cannot be achieved, between piping, conduit, HVAC ducts, cable pans and cable hangers; a memo is to be sent to the lead Station Construction Engineer indicating com-
-
c y
- ponent and location where three (3) inch spacing cannot be achieved.
The inspector informed the licensee that there are no further questions about this matter, at this time.
This item is closed.
Hatfield (Upgraded) Unresolved Item (50-454/78-02-01; 50-455/78-02-01):
Electric Company not prescribing in (CECO approved) documented instruc-tions or procedures the minimum physical and technical qualification requirements f or HECo inspection personnel. This item has been closed as an unresolved item and has been upgraded to an item of noncompliance.
This item is discussed in the detailsSection III of this report and has been re-identified. (Numbers 454/78-02-01 and 455/78-02-01 are redesignated as 454/78-07-06 and 455/78-07-06)
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-454/78-04-03; 50-455/78-04-03): Piping contractor's inspection personnel had not been certified by their employer as being qualified to perform their assigned duties as required by PSAR, ANSI N45.2.6 and CECO QAM QR9.0 and QP2.2. Hunter SIP 1.602,.
Revision 4, dated April 26, 1978, has been approved and implemented and qualification certificates issued for inspection personnel.
_1 O
I
-
..
-7-
~. ~,.
_.. _.. _ _, _. -... -.. _.. _... ~. _ _ _.,..., _ -. -.. _
..
.
..
.
~
.
..
-.. -_
..
l
Section I'
Prepared by J. E. Konklin j
-
.
,.
Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Projects Section 1.
Review of License Action on Previous Inspection Findfrgs.
The Region'III inspector reviewed the'11censee. actions relative to the resolution of specific noncompliances and unresolved' items.
which were noted in previous IE:RIII inspection reports, and which were still in an open status-prior ~to this inspection.
The items. reviewed, and the licensee' actions relative to the resolution of each item, are discussed in the foregoing section of thisf i
report.
2.
, Inspection of Construction Activities
!
During_this inspection, the inspector teured the Units 1 and 2-
containment buildings; the auxiliary building; the main. storage I
yard where the. reactor vessels, steam generators and pressurizers
- are stored; the storage warehouses, where:the reactor vessel heads, reactor internals'and-prestressing; tendons are stored; and
-
the rebar and safety-related piping storage yards.
In Containmant No. 1, the inspector' observed that Reliance Truck was preparing to install the large hoist, which will be used for setting the steam generators and reactor vessel in' the contain-ment, on the installed crane bridge. The main coolant piping and and set of the main stop valves have been set in the containment, first steam generator is now planned for the week of August 21.
The other three Unit 1 steam generators should then be set at about two to three day intervals, followed by' set of the Unic I reactor vessel in early September.
Reliance Truck will make a 125% test lift (based on the reactor vessel weight) with the hoist prior to lifting the first steam generator.
Storage of the prestressing tendons in the warehouses appeared to be adequate.
The tendon coils are maintained in a preservative coating in the plastic covering provided by the vendor, and are The set on pallets with a second plastic cover over each coil.
licensee stated that, in addition to the periodic inspection of storage conditions, one coil wrapping is opened each week, on a random basis-, to inspect the condition of the tendons and the preservative coating. Prestressing operations on the Unit I containment are now scheduled to begin in March 1979.
.
-8-
,
....
-
-
.
. -_.-
--
-.. -..
,
+
,
.
On August 9,1978, the inspector inspected the rebar storage yard -
' f
- maintained by' Delta-Delta Midstates (DDM), and observed.50 to 60
.
unbundled and untagged Grade 60 rebars, No. 5 and No. 11 sizes, in the main. storage area.
In addition, the inspector observed 40
'
~
i to.50 unbundled and untagged rebar' pieces in a segregated area
.
- which was designated as an " Approved Stock" area.
On August 9, 1978, DDM issued an instruction (No. 675) to have loose rebar bundled and tagged, and to have a cleanup of the entire storage area to assure that all rebar is bundled, tagged.and placed in the designated areas. On August 10, 1978, the inspector. returned to the DDM rebar storage area and observed that work was underway to comply with the DDM instruction.
In cont action with the rebar storage inspection, the inspector reviewed DCM QC. Procedure No. 1, Revision 2, dated.Iuly-18, 1977,.
" Receiving, Handling, Storage, Placing.and Inspection Reinforcing Steel,".and not,ed that there are no requirements in the procedure regarding the storage of rebar which has previously been. drawn from the storage area, is unused at the job. activity (because of miscalculatiou, cutting for openings, 'etc.), and is returned to-the storage area.
On Aug'ust 10, 1978, the DDM QA Supervisor presented to the inspector and the licensee a copy of a work procedure, dated August 10, 1978, to be used by DDM personnel in the handling and identifi-
~
cation of rebar which is returned to the storage area. The work procedure contains adequate requirements for the control of returned rebar.
No items of noncompliance or deviations are identified in the above areas.
I i
>
f s (
.-
l 9_
_
"
.
,
'
ga v ew 3 r
,r -v,em
.y
.w.
priv o
,
4,e -w amym.-,,-w as. v ue *
c'e,r-,+,..,*,.cew.r--
,=s e mw e+ e + e w w w m e e, c e t enr e
-.4p.6.
-
a_,
d
.
-
,E,.
7.a 3L
4 Q
.,.
hJ:,
4
.
-,.
.
l Section II.
l
.
Prepared by K. R. Naidu'
'
7-
.
.'
Reviewed by D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section 2 1.
Observation of Safety-Related Structures Work Activities (Units 1 and 2)
i The inspector observed work' activities in progress on the Refueling
,
Water Storage Tanks.(RWST).
This work was.being performed by Pittsburg DesMoines (PDM). LThe inspector determined that applicable requirements were met in the following areas.
a; Liner' plates meeting:the specification requirements were being used.-
b.
Installation of the tanks was according to applicable'
drawings.
Two qualified nondestructive examination (NDE) personnel c.
were inspecting the installation.
.
d.
Records were legible and retrievable, Visual and NDE inspections were being performed as specified, e.
f.
Visual Test Procedure l(VT) 501 Revision 0, dated August 19,-
1976, in Subsection 5.2 stipulates the maximum allowable of f set in final welded' joints, for plates with thickness. up to 3/4" inclusive, to be 1/4 x plate thickness. - Observation of inspection activities and discussions with inspection personnel indicated that measuring devices such'as a " pipe i
pic gauge" were not'used to. accurately measure mismatches.
The inspector stated the procedure should specify the use of suitable. measuring devices to ensure implementation of Subsection 5.2.
The licensee agreed to review this matter.
This matter is considered an unresolved item.
(454/78-07-01; 455/78-07-01)
,
The inspector observed a mismatch condition at the junction of seam 49 and 183 on RWST Unit 2 as indicated on drawings E g.
85 and E 73.
This condition was not identified on Field Check List (FCL) No. WT2-73.18 page 6 of 8.
The contractor J
QA supervisor concurred with the RIII inspector's finding and initiated' Corrective Action Request No. 12612 documenting
.
e
- 10 -
1.
,
u-
,,,
-,~.-..,.-,.,.m.-,
,.. -,,- - -..,,,,
.,,,....m
-. m.-
-....
.~.m
. ~ -..
....... ~... ~. ~
.
o.-
'
4'
the misalignment of the plate.
The recommended corrective action was to repair the joint.
Prior to the conclusion of the inspection, the joint was repaired and determined accept-able.
This appears to be an isolated instance where the
~
-
.
inspector had missed the mismatch, therefore this is not con-
sidered an item of noncompliance.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the
<
above areas.
i 2.
Review of RWST Quality Records (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed work and quality records associated with the RWST and determined that the records on roof plates iden-l tified as 6407 and 6410 on roof seam 65 reflected work accom-
,
!
plishment consistent with specification requirement in the following areas:
i a.
Field Receiving Report (FRR) No. 126 load 43 dated July 7, 1978, indicates that the above plates were received without any shipping damage, b.
Manifest No. 007520 dated May 5, 1977, of Eastern Stainless
Steel Company (ESSC) indicates that 8 pieces of 1/4" thick plates (61"_ wide and 216" long) identified with heat number
.
F70394 met the requirements of Pittsburgh DesMoines (PDM)
Specification No. MS A 240.3.2, ASME SA240-75 type 304 Section II, Part A and ASME Section III, Division 2.
The material was solution annealed at 2000 F for 11.8 minutes.
c.
d.
Installation was according to PDM drawing E84 A of C.
Records of inspection activities were complete, legible and e.
retrievable.
f.
Qualification records of QA/QC inspection personnel were current and reflect adequate qualifications for activities p erf ormed.
g.
Corrective action requests (CARS) were written to document nonconformances and recommend corrective action.
Notations are made on the relevant Fabrication Check Lists (FCLs)
to l
the existance of nonconforming situations which are alert
.
pending resolutions.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
-
l
- 11 -
,
l'
.
-.
..
-
.
- -
-
.
-.
..
.
.
' *.
,.
3.-
Observation of RWST-Welding Activities (Units 1:and 2)
The inspector observed field welding activities associated with-the RWS1 and determined that the activities met the specification'
., _
., -
"
'
requirements in the following areas:
- '
Qualified weldors performed welding activities.
a.
b.
Approved welding procedures were used.
Control of weld rod appeared to be adequate.
c.
Prescribed inspections were.being performed by qualified
,
d.
. personnel, Periodic checks were being made-to assure that welding e.
-variable w,ere within specified limits.
No items of noncompliances or deviations were' identified in the.
above areas.
4.
Review of RWST Quality Records (Unit'1)
The inspector reviewed records for several velds on roof seam Weld No. 65 as identified on drawing.E84 A of C and determined
,
'
in that the requirements of applicable specifications were met the following aruas:
Welds were identified.on the drawings.
a.
Weld Procedure Specification (WPS) 54-82 and 1/8" diauecer
b.
type E-308-16 weld rod was utilized.
Records of weldors identified as 60, 62, and 76 who per-c.
formed the welding indicate that they were qualified, Physical appearances of the welds were acceptable.
d.
e.
No beat treatment was specified, Visual inspection and vacuum box testing were performed to f.
VT-501 and V3-608D respectively and no unacceptable indi-cations were identified.
(MTR) from Teledyne McKay dated May 19, g.
Material test report 1977, indicates that 1/8" diameter Type E-309-16 electrode, identified with heat No. 13040, meets the requirements of AWS ' A5.4-69, ASME SFA 5.4 and POM dpecification No. ES AS.43.2, Revision 2 dated October 20, 1976.
..
t.
- 12 -
,
(
r w-+s--wp-t yng
,1m ve wwst e ste--$ ss. -e+=
r er-wwges,-,
t e,+,r. W,ww-w-e -
-,ww*gwg.w p re - --
e-y
--<,e=my
.. s g s er w e w~'-4.+,y
+w.ww.-e+---,
,
as-- s i e m
- e w ce.ar me-,--a
,
te ew w.mev
'w wh.
'twe
.
.
.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
.
Review of CARS indicate that corrective action was taken in h.
an acceptable manner.
l No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in-the
-
.
g
.'
above areas.
5.
Review of RWST Quality Records (Unit 2)
The inspector reviewed work and quality records associated with the RWST and determined that the records on roof plates identi-fied as 263RP1-5 and -6, (heat number F70382)
on drawing E85 A of C and horizontal plates 247S1 (heat number F 70400) on drawing E73 A of C reflected work accomplishment consistent with specification requirements in the following areas:
a Manifest No. 007518 dated May 25, 1977, from ESSC indicates that 3 pieces of 1/4" thick plate (61" wide and 216' long)
identified with heat No. F70382 met the requirements of PDM Specification No. MS A 240.3.2, Revision E, ASME SA240-75, Type 304,Section II, Part A and ASME Section III, Division 2.
The material was solution annaaled at 2000 F for 11.8 minutes, b.
Manifest No. 077378 dated may 23, 1977 indicates that four pieces of 1/4" thick plate (45" wide and 237" long) iden-tified with heat number F70400 met the requirements of PDM s
Specification No. MS 240.3.2, Revision E, ASME SA240-75, Type 304,Section II, Part A and ASME Section III, Division 2.
The material was solution annealed at 2000 F for 11.8 minutes.
Field Receiving Reports (FRR) No. 12 (load 40) and No. 133 c.
(load 44) indicate that the above r erial was received on site on June 19 and July 17, 1978, espectively with no visible shipping damage.
Installation of the plates was according to PDM drawings E85 d,
A of C and E73 A of C.
Records of inspection activities were completed, legible and e.
retrievable.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
6.
Review of RWST Welding Quality Records (Unit 2)
The inspector reviewed the records ou several welds on seam weld 183 identified on drawing E70 A of C and determined thac the
-
- 13 -
-
. -.
.
_
. _.. _. _.. _ _
_
_
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
_.
_.-
-
i
,
in the fol-requirements of applicable. specifications were met lowing areas:
t
,
Welds were identified.on the drawings.
.
a.
<
.
b.
Weld Procedure Specifications (WPS) 54-82 and 1/8" diameter
.
E-308-16 weld rod was utilized, Record of weldor identified as 36 who performed the weld c.
' indicates that he was qualified.
-
d.
' Physical appearance of the welds were acceptable.
No heat treatment was specified.
e.
f.
Prescribed inspections were performed and dotermined acceptable.
Radiographic test reports indicate that a section of.the g.
veld was examined to procedure RTP-101B with X-ray machine type Andrex utilizing 150kv, SMa, 1.5 mm focal spot and Kodak type AA film.
The radiographs were interpreted-by a PDM 1 Level II inspector and concurred with by a PTL represen-tative (the licensee's independent testing agency). The report identified slag, porosity and' surface defects to be-within acceptable limits.-
_.
Material test reports from Teledyne McKay dated May 2, 1977, h.
indicate that 3/32" diameter Type ER 308 electrodeidentified with Heat No. C18585 meets the requirements of AWS A5.9-69, ASME SFA 5.9 and PDM Specification No. ES-A5.9.1.2,-Revision 2, dated October.20, 1976.
The inspector selectively reviewed the radiographs on Unit 1 1.
radial seam welds 65, 72,'and 75, and Unit 2 radial seam b
The' radiograph reports docu-mented the interpretations of a ?TL Level II inspector.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
t 7.
Verification of Drawing Control'
I The inspector selected the following drawings which were being
used in the Unit 1 auxiliary building for the installation of Heating Ventilation and Air Condition ductwork:
M-1311, Sheet 2 of 11, Revision D
!
M-1311, Sheet 3 of 11, Revision C
.
- 14 -
T
_-... _.. ~., _ -.,.
,,. _,, -, _. -.... _.
.
..., _., _., _.. _. _.......... _ _. _ _ _,...... _ _. _ _.. _. - - -. _ _.. _
...
-
o.
.
M-1311, Sheet '4 of 11, Revision C M-1311,. Sheet 6 of 11, Revision B M-1311, Sheet 7 of 11, Revision E M-1311, Sheet 9 of 11, Revision C M-1311.. Sheet 10 of 11, Revision C
,f
-
+
M-1311, Sheet 11 of 11, Revision C
'
The drawing control status book indicates that the above revisions were current.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
8.
Review of OA Documentation The inspector reviewed the documentation on a Velan valve identi-fied as 2CC 9467C with manufacturer's serial number 77G688.
The valve is installed in the Component Cooling System in the auxiliary
building.
CECO's Material and Equipment Receiving and Inspection a.
Report-(MRR) No. 10431 dated January 11, 1978, indicates the five 150 lb butt weld carbon steel gate valves were received onsite, with no visible shipping. damage, and accepted on January 16, 1978.
.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse),' supplied a b.
Quality Release form (QR) No. 36909 dated December 6, 1977, which indicates that the valves were supplied by Velan and meet Westinghouse Specification G-678853, Revision 1 and Drawing No. 83901-R, Revision A.
The QR stated that the.
i
'
following attributes had been reviewed and accepted.
(1) Material Certifications
'
(2) Heat Treat. Records (3) Penetrant and Magnetic Particle Tests Reports (4) Ultrasonic Test Reports (5) Design Analysis (6) Westinghouse 688 Form (7) Pressure Test Records (8) Seat Tightness Test Records
..
- 15 -
,
- +
.
_
_ _ -.
.-.
-
m.~
_-
.
_
_-
. _
".. '
,
-
,
(9) Welding Psrsonnel Qualification certifications (10). NDE Personnel Qualification Certifications
'
!
~
- r
=
w
(11) Code Form NPV-1 (12) Visual Inspection
'-
.
(13) Dimensional Inspections-
,
(14) Clean 11 ness'
- (15) Painting (16) Packing e
'Three Deviation Notices were identified and documented as
'
c.
approved. *
>
. Specific documentation that the valve meets the criteria of y
d.
t Westinghouse Specification G-678853, Paragraph 3.1.12 and Attachment C and D titled " Class 1 Faulted Condition Criteria" was neither available nor documented on the QR as reviewed.
The' licensee stated that Westinghouse. the NSSS supplier and custodian of _ the quality records would not furnish the
-
certification.
The licensee agreed to verify the existance of documentation confirming that the valves met the seismic
-
This is qualifications when ' installed in any position.
f considered an unresolved item.
(454/78-07-02; 455/78-07-02).
No items of noncompliance or dev1ations were identified in the above areas.
1)
Observation of Electrical Cable Trav Support Welds JUnit 9.
The inspector selected the welds on cable pan hangers identified as 13H5 and 13H3 located in the auxiliary building at elevation The welds had 346' identified on drawing 6ED 3004, Revision D.
been inspected and determined acceptable by the licensee's repre-sentatives. However, RIII inspector observed that the attachment welds on hanger 13HS vere undersized. The licensee concurred This with the inspector and initiated paperwork for repair.
appears to be an isolated instance of incomplete inspection andthe hence considered an unresolved item pending verification that weld was repaired.
(454/78-07-03)
The cable tray support velds were being inspected to Hatfield Procedure No. 13N dated August 24, 1977, titled." Visual Exami-nation Procedure." 'The procedure identifies that welds should
..
.0 16 -
-
, v:
- -., - -.
....,.....,v-
..-..w,-+,..
,,
--..--+.m.m.,m,o,,-..-.,,
,,-...-,-,,.1yy-,--,,,.....~,=
.
.ry.
- r
-
.
not be und', sized by 1/16" and oversized by 3/32".
This require-ment appears to be in compliance with the AWS D1.1-75 criteria Paragraphs 3.1.4, 8.15, and 3.6.
J Note 22 on drawing 6E0 3275, Sheet 3, titled " Field Tolerances of e
.-
.
Clasu 1 Cable Pan Hangers," states "All field weld sizes and lengths as shown for electrical equipment supports or mounts shall be considered as minimum required. Weld leg oversize and additional weld lengths are acceptable at the purchaser's option.
Any interferences caused by welds exceeding these minimum require-ments shall be the electrical installation contractor's responsi-bility to resolve at his own expense" per ECN 415 and 416.
The licensee agreed to review this matter and provide justification for deviating from the AWS D1.1-75 criteria and provide additional information as to how he intends to implement the provision " Weld leg oversize and additional weld lengths are acceptable at the purchaser's option." This is considered an unresolved item.
(454/78-07-04; 455/78-07-04)
No items of noncomplian-a or deviations were identified in the above areas.
-
- 17 -
~-
., -
_,
..
.
-
.
'
.
Section III Prepared by G. F. Maxwell
-
/
-
,.
Reviewed by R. L. Spessard, Chief Engineering Support Section 1 1.
Review of Implementing Procedures Electrical - Units 1 and 2 The inspector selected and reviewed the below listed Hatfield a.
Electric Company (HECo) procedures.
The procedures were compared with IEEE-336-1971, Commonwealth Edison Company Topical Report CE-1-A, Revision 4 and Sargent and Lundy Specification 2790.
(1) Class' 1 Phterial and Equipment Receiving and Inspection (Procedure No. 5, Revision 1)
(2) Handling and Storage of Material and Equipment (P ro-cedure No. 14, Revision 0)
(3) Class 2 Cable Pan Installation (Procedure No. 9B, Revision 1)
-
(5) Class 1 Cable Pan Identification (Procedure No. 9E, Revision 0, Issue 1)
(6)
Setting of Class 1E equipment (Procedure No. 12, Revision 1, Issue 2)
The inspector also reviewed some of the comments which CECO Quality Assurance personnel have made about the above pro-cedures (ref erence letter BY2991 concerning grounding of Class 1E Electrical Equipment).
b.
As a result of the review, the inspector observed:
'
(1) The procedures for installation of Class IE Electrical Equipment do not include specific inspection checkpoints to assure that Class IE Electrical Equipment has been properly grounded (reference IEEE-336 Section 5.1.1.(7)).
(2)
Concerning the procedures for setting of Class 1E Equipment and installation inspection:
_
- 18 -
__
_
- _ _ _...... _,
.
_
~.
_ _-
.
(a).The procedure for the installation'of electrical equipment allows a " sample" inspection. The (
l sample inspection allows HECo to inspect a low I
percentage of the -installations (requires minimum
-
-
of 20%).
,
t'
(b) The check-point for inspection of the torquing of cable pan bolts requires 10% of the bolts to be
,
checked by inspection personnel.
l
!
(c) The procedure for the installation of cable pans
!
al*ows the installation to be accepted with 75% of the pans (on the affected drawing) installed with
,
!
the remaining 25% to be accepted on a surveillance basis.
The inspector discussed the above observations with CECO Quality As'surance personnel and the CECO lead Electrical Engineer. The inspector was informed that S&L does not consider the grounding syscem to be safety-related; there-fore, HECo has not been required to inspect the grounding of Class 1E Electrical Equipment / Cable pans. 'The Lead Elec-trical Engineer informed the inspector that Commonwealth Edison Operational Analysis Department (OAD) does/will check all electrical equipment, as part of their normal testing
~
-
requirements, to make sure that electrical equipment has-been grounded.
Further, that the lack of. requirements for
~
l inspection personnel to have a specific check-point to
'
assure that Class 1E Electrical Equipment has been properly grounded and the basis for " sample" inspections of the installation of Class 1E Electrical Equipment will be evaluated further. This is an unresolved matter.
(454/78-07-05; 455/78-07-05)
Qualification and Training of Inspection Personnel - Units 1 2.
and 2-During an 'III' inspection at Byron, on April 11-14, 1978, a.
the inspector observed that HECo did not have a CECO approved documented instruction or procedure that included the min-imum physical and technical qualification requirements for i
HECo inspection personnel. This condition was identified as l.
an unresolved matter.
(454/78-02-01; 455/78-02-01).
On
'
9-10, 1978, the inspector observed that HECo has.
August submitted a procedure to CECO, for review and approval, which addresses the minimum physical / technical qualification requirements for HECo inspection personnel. However, the
.
- 19 -
,
.
procedure (No. 17A) is still in the interim stage and has not yet been final approved for use. The inspector was informed by the CECO Electrical Quality Assurance Coordinator and the CECO Quality Assurance Supervisor that:
.
(1)
CECO has comments on procedure No. 17 A which must be
- .
resolved prior to final approval.
(2) That CECO only plans to comply with the " intent" of ANSI N45.2,6.
b.
The inspector selected three additional site contractors and reviewed their procedures for the qualification and training of inspection personnel. The inspector observed that the
-
applicable procedures for one of these contractors, the HVAC contractor - Reliable Sheet Metal Works, Inc., failed to require any inspection experience for Quality Assurance personnel.. The inspector discussed this condition with a CECO Mechanical Quality Assurance representative who stated that during an audit, of the records for Reliable Sbaet Metal inspection personnel, a deficiency was iden:1fied.
The deficiency was related with the experience requirements delineated in Reliable Sheet Metal procedure No. 3 October 18, 1977, Paragraph 3.
HECo's failere to delineate in a CECO approved documented
_
instruction or procedure how they intend to comply with ANSI N45.2.6-197: 'ictions 3, 3.1, and 3.2.1 and Reliable Sheet Metals' f ailure to delineate in a CECO approved documented instruction or procedure how they intend to comply with ANSI
~
N45.2.6-1973 Section 3 is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V; Byron PSAR Chapter 17.1.5; CECO Topical Rpoert cection CE-1-A, Revision 4 Section 5 and ANSI N45.2.6-1973.
1.3.
This is an item of noncompliance identified in Appendix A.
(454/78-07-06; 455/78-07-06)
3.
Observation of Work - Electrical - Units 1 and 2 The inspector selected two cable pan hangers (13H5 and 13H3)
a.
which have been installation inspected by HECo inspection personnel. The hangers, located in the auxiliary building elevation 346', were checked with a standard tape measure and were found to be installed at the locations delineated on drawing 6E0 3004 Revision D and supplementing tolerance drawings.
The installed hanger assemblies were found to be identified with manufacturers identification numbers which correlated with those indicated on drawing 6EO 3004, Revision D.
The inspector observed that the cable pan installation
.
- 20 -
.
-
.,
_ -,
_
-.
. _.., _._ _.,,.__._ _ - _
,_
.
.
-
.
l
.
I
'
check-list for the cable pans which were supported between the two hangers was incomplete. Two of the. heck points
which had not been completed were:
inspection of cable pan
,
bolt torquing and inspection of the Zinc-rich coating of the
-
-
spots on the cable pan which requires /needs coating.
The
,
inspector was informed by HECo inspection personnel that an Electrical Deficiency (No. 57) has been written about specified torque values for cable pan bolts. The inspector was test informed by the CECc Lead Electrical Engineer that the Zinc-rich paint will be applied to all of the required spots, i.e., welds which bond the cable pans to their respective hanger parts, prior to cable being placed in the cable pans.
The RIII inspection observations for the welds related with cable pan hangers listed above (13H5 and 13H3) are documented in the DetailsSection II of this report, b.
The inspector selected three material receiving reports (MRR's) which have been prccessed by HECo inspection per-sonnel. The MRR's, 3905, 3846, and 3934, were reviewed and found to have been processed by HECo personnel in accordance with HECo procedure No. 5 Revision 1, Paragraph 5.2.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
e, e'
- 21 -
- - - - -
...
_
.
d
'
<
Section IV
. Prepared by H. N. Wescott
_
^
Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Projects Section 1.
Review of Ouality Assurance Implementing Procedures for Safety Related Components The inspector reviewed the CECO QA Manual, Revision 30, a.
Quality Procedures as follows:
(1) QP No. 7-1, " Control of Procured Material and Equipment Receiving and Inspection" (2) QP No. 8-1, " Identification and Control of Mat erials Parts and Components"
'
(3) QP No. 5-1, " Quality Instructions and Procedures" (4) QP No. 15-1, " Reporting Quality Nonconformance During Construction and Tests" (5)
QP No. 16-1, " Corrective Action for Reportable Defi-ciencies and Quality Nonconformances that Occur During Construction and Tests" b.
The inspector reviewed the Hunter Corporation Quality-Procedures as follows:
(1)
SIP 3.102 " Material Receiving and Inspection" Revision 2, dated April 28, 1978.
(2)
SIP 11.101' "Nonconformance Reporting and Processing,"
'
Revision 3, dated December 14, 1977.
The inspector reviewed the following to verify conformance c.
with the above procedures:
(1)
Review of eight (8) Nonconforr.ance Reports.
(2)
Review of Records for material on Hold.
-
- 22 -
-... _. _ _ _ - _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
-
.
(3) Review of " Hold Card Log" (Form HC-96).
(4)
Review of " Material Receiving Reports" (MRR)
.
(5) Observations made in materials storage areas.
.
(6) Review of Nonconformance Status Log" (Form QP 15-1.2)
There were no unresolved items or noncompliance identified.
2.
Review of Records for Safety Related Components and Work Activities The inspector reviewed CECO Quality procedures and records a.
as follows:
(1) QP No,. 13-1," Site Handling, Storage Preservation, Maintenance and Shipping of Material, Equipment and Components".
(2) Material Surveillance Criteria and Reports.
(3)
Observation of work being performed on four steam generators in the laydown area.
(4) Observations made of stored components in the laydown
~
area and in the warehouses.
COMMENT:
Four steam generators stored at the Byron Site Laydown area are to be shipped to the Braidwood site for use there.
(5)
Observations made of primary coolant piping storage in the primary containment.
(6)
Review of Certificates of conformance for the primary coolant piping.
There were no unresolved items or noncompliances identified.
,
-
- 23 -
,
~
-
-
--
,
-- -
,.,
...
,
,,, - _ _,, -
,_
-_______
'
.
Section V Prepared by J. H. Neisler'
-
-
,,.
Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Projects Section 1.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping - Review of Quality
,
l Assurance Implementing Procedures The inspector reviewed quality assurance instructions and a.
procedures relating to the receipt, storage, handling, installation and testing of reactor coolant pressure boundary piping f or Byron Units 1 and 2.
Specific procedures reviewed during this inspection were the current revisions of the following:'
(1)
Commonwealth Edison Quality Procedure QP No. 7-1
" Control of Procured Equipment - Receipt Inspection" (2) Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure SIP 3.801 " Material Storage Criteria"
"
(3)
Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure SIP 20.506 " Material Handling" (4) Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure SIP
~
4.101 " Field Ordering Materials For Production Use" (5) Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure SIP 3.602 " Material Receiving and Inspection" (6)
Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure SIP 6.501 "Non Destructive Examination" (7)
Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure SIP 6.501 "Non Destructive Examination" (8) Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure 5: P 7.502 " Gauge and Measuring Equipment Control" (9) Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure SIP 20.504 " Hydrostatic Testing" b.
The inspector observed weld operator qualification tests using the semiautomatic welding machine with which the licensee plans to perform pressure boundary pipe welding.
.
-24-
_ _ _ - _ -
....
.
__
__
_. _., ___
.
_
. _ - _ - _
- _.
,
'
.
l No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
2.
Reactor Vessel Internals - Review of Quality Assurance Implementing i-l
<
,.
Procedures
.-
The inspector reviewed procedures related to the receipt a.
inspection, storage and handling activities involving the-
reactor vessel internals.
b.
The inspector determined that crane and rigging testing and vessel internals lifting procedures have been established, Procedures reviewed relative to reactor vessel internals c.
included:
(1)- Commonwealth Edison Quality Procedure QP 7-1 " Control of Precured Equipment - Receipt Inspection."
(2) Reliance Trucking procedure 119, Revision 3, dated July 19, 1978 " Load Testing the Polar Crane."
(3) Reliance Trucking Procedure 115, Revision 4, dated August 4, 1978, " Transporting Lower Internals from Jobsite Storage and Setting Them in the Containment."
..
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the r$ove areas.
Reactor Vessel Installation - Observation of Work and Work 3.
Activities The inspector observed preparatory work for installing the reactor vessel as follows:
Magnetic particule testing of 50 ton shackles used for a.
lifting and installing the reactor vessel, b.
Preparation for and liquid penetrant testing of weld prepa for welding control rod upper canopy seals on the Unit I reactor vessel head.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above areas.
Unresolved Items
.
Unresolved items are matters about which more baformation is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-
.
compliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during'the
...
- 25 -
, -., _....,. -..,. - - _.... - _ _
-. - - -
- - -.. - -. - - - - -... -. - -
~
.
,
inspection are discussed in Section II, paragraphs 1.f, 8.d, 9.a and 9.b;Section III, paragraph 1.b.
Exit Interview
'
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 10, 1978.
The inspectors summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
.
-
26 -
-