IR 05000454/1979005
| ML19270G151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1979 |
| From: | Gallagher E, Hayes D, Suermann J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270G148 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-79-05, 50-454-79-5, 50-455-79-05, 50-455-79-5, NUDOCS 7906050057 | |
| Download: ML19270G151 (7) | |
Text
,
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-454/79-05; 50-455/79-05 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 "
Inspection At:
Byron Site, Byron, Illinois Inspection Conducted: March 21-23, 1979 99asda Inspectors:
E. J. Gallagher f!77 h.F.boh
'
g/s/79 79.)) Hayes, Chiepk
'
d4s4 D. W.
- //S*/7f Approved By:
'
Engineering Support Section 1 Inspection Summary Inspection on March 21-23, 1979 (Report No. 50-454/79-05; 50-455/79-05)
Areas Inspected: Observation of hanger installation and review of related hanger procedures and records review; observation of concrete anchor installation and review of installation records and procedures; storage of hangers and restraints; calibration of test equipment; training records review. The inspection involved a total of 40 inspector hours
.
onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during this inspection.
,
'r 9 0 6 0 5 0 05T
.
'
DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
.
- G.
Sorensen, Project Superintendent
.
- J. T. McIntire, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- S. T. Forsha, QA Structural Coordinator
- J. T. Porter, QA Mechanical Coordinator
- R. Tuetken, Construction Lead Mechanical Engineer
- R.
Byers, Structural Field Engineer
- M. A. Stanish, QA Mechanical Engineer
- G. E. Smith, Lead Electrical Engineer
- R. Aken, QA Electrical Coordinator
- J. J. Mihovilovich, Lead Structural Engineer L. Combs, QA Electrical Other personnel of Blount Brothers Company, Hunter Corporation, Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory and Hatfield Electrical Company were contacted dur:'.ng the inspection.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Specification and Procedure Review During this inspection the inspectors reviewed the following specification and procedures, which appeared to be acceptable:
a.
Sargent and Lundy Specification BY/BR/CEA, Rev. 4, dated January 24, 1979, " Concrete Expansion Anchor Work."
b.
Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure (SIP)
No. 20.513, Rev. 1, dated July 10, 1978, " Concrete Expansion Anchor Installation and Inspection."
c.
Hatfield Electric Corporation Procedure No. 23, Rev. 4, dated May 15, 1978, " Class I Expansion Anchor Installation."
d.
Hunter Corporation Site Implementation Procedure No. 20.509, Rev. 2, dated February 14,1977, " Installation of Hangers."
Blcunt Brothers Corporation QA/QC Work Procedure No. 20, e.
Rev. 4, " Concrete Expansion Anchor Work."
-2-
.
'
.
f.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) procedure QC-CEA-1, Rev. 2, dated May 30, 1978, " Inspection Procedure for Concrete Exapnsion Anchors."
No items of noncompliance were identified.
2.
Observation of Installed Work There was no on-going work during this inspection in the areas of concrete expansion anchors, hangers or seismic restraints, but the inspectors observed and inspected completed or partially completed installations in all three areas as indicated below.
Installations which were torque wrench tested in the presence of the inspectors are so indicated.
a.
Support plates using expansion anchors:
AH0129 (2VC018) - general arrangement and to que test acceptable.
A20217 (2CV01086)- torque test acceptable.
general arrangement and torque test AH0098
-
acceptable.
- torque test acceptable.
field problem written on missing bolt.
1BR08009
-
1BR04018
- torque test acceptable.
torque test acceptable.
ISI15006
-
1AF01002
- general arrangement acceptable.
1AF01016R
- general arrangement acceptable.
ICC03022V
- field problem written on plate.
1AF0133-R
- general arrangement and torque test acceptable.
general arrangement and torque test ICC03046
-
acceptable.
ISX02014
- bolts not yet torqued.
general arrangement and torque test ICC06024
-
acceptable.
one bolt not torqued.
2FP04013
-
general arrangement and torque test ISX03001
-
acceptable.
b.
Installed hangers, snubbers and restraints:
Hanger ICC-03051 - arrangement acceptable.
Hanger MICC03108X - arrangement acceptable.
Spring support MICC01036C - arrangement acceptable.
Snubber.1CC01037 - arrangement acceptable.
Spring support 1CC03022V - field problem written on plate.
Support SX02034V - weld across beam flange but installed per drawing.
'
-
,
3'
-3-
.
.
c.
Electrical item supports using expansion anchors:
Block wall mounting; torque test acceptable.
SBT-1
-
WA-1 torque test acceptable.
WCA-3
-
torque test acceptable WCA-4
-
WCA-12 WCA-13
torque test acceptable.
CC-23
-
torque test acceptable.
WH-6
-
WC-58 2JB390 The inspectors noted generic problems associated mainly with the installation of concrete expansion anchors.
These problems included bolts installed but not yet torqued, nuts not fully engaged, missing washers, and a single case of a sawed off bolt. The licensee had already identified these problems and the corrective action measures initiated appear to be adequate.
No items of noncompliarme were identified.
3.
Calibration of Torque Testing Equipment The inspector reviewed the calibration records for the torque testing devices used to inspect concrete exapnsion anchors. The PTL procedure requirement (PTL-OrCEA-1) is for torque test devices to be calibrated monthly for J_al indicated devices with a calibration e.
Records for test device No. 3679 accuracy of + 3% of full rr.m (0 to 100 ft-lb range) were reviewed for the months of January through March, 1979.
Records indicated the accuracy to be within the i 3% accuracy for both the clockwise and counterclockwise direction.
The device was last calibrated on March 12, 1979, and indicated an accuracy of -3.0% at 30, 40 and 60 ft-lbs.
The inspector requested to witness a calibration of the test device during this inspection. This calibration was performed using a reference torque analyzer traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. The results of this calibration indicated the accuracy of the test device to be in excess of the 1 3% accuracy requirement. The device was put on hold until confirming tests could be preformed. The PTL lab technician responsible for calibration performed additional calibration tests the following day. The results indicated accep-table accuracy for three consecutive calibration trials. Although the tes'- ^?er.'.ce was acceptable, the PTL lab manager sent the device for p"a ;itionary maintenance to the supplier to preclude possible up" a rs insecurate device.
b ; i te..t yf noncompliance were identified ia this area.
-4-
.
'
4.
Quality Records Review a.
Receipt Inspection and Material Certification As of this inspection, Hunter Corporation had only recieved two shipments of concrete expansion anchors (CEA's), both from the Hilti Corporation. The following documentation pertaining to the CEA's was reviewed and found acceptable:
(1) Receiving Inspection Check List No. 1094 (2) Material Services Request No. 14885 (3) Material Receiving Report No. 5007 (4) Material Services Request No. 15322 Hunter procedures require a certificate of conformance to be supplied with each order of CEA's.
Furthermore, Hunter Corporation, through Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO), is committed to ANSI Standard N45.2.13 which requires that certificates of conformance supply certain information.
The two certificates supplied by Hilti Corporation were incorrectly titled certificates of compliance, not conformance, since additional information to substantiate compliance was not supplied. One of the two certificates was not dated and could not be correlated with the shipment it arrived with except for a handwritten bill of materials on the bottom of the certificate. One certificate was signed by a salesman and the other was signed by a regional engineer, whereas ANSI N45.2.13 requires an authorizing signature by a member of the firm's quality assurance organization. CECO procedures, however, do not require that vandors on an approved bidder list (such as Hilti Corporation) have a QA program. Hence, it is not clear whether lack of an authorized QA representative's signature on Hilti certificates indicates a lack of quality control in the procurement of the CEA'r.
The licensee agreed to research this matter and resolve their position on authorization of the certificates and the type of certificate being supplied by Hilti Corporation. This is an unresolved matter.
(454/79-05-01; 455/79-05-01)
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Drawing and Installation Records The inspectors reviewed the drawings and hanger installation records as compared to the actual installations for the following c
hangers and found them acceptable.
(1)
LAF01033-R 3,
(2)
1CC03046 4-
"
(3)
ISXO2014-5-
.
'
.
(4)
ICC06024 (5) 2FP04013 (6)
ISX03001
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Storage of Hangers and Restraints Hunter Corporation stores the hangers and restraints to be installed by them according to type.
Siesmic restraints (mechanical snubbers and spring hangers) procured from Pacific Scientific and ITT Grinnell, respectively, are stored in a controlled atmosphere warehouse.
Mechanical items are tagged for identification and disposition.
Nonconforming items, or items otherwise on HOLD, are tagged and, where practical, segregated. The storage area inspected appeared to be in good order and the following restraints appeared to be in good order:
M-1S118015S M-lS118041S M-1S118049S M-1S118063V (maximum rated load - 525 lbs.)
M-1S118064V (maximum rated load - 1190 lbs.)
M-1S118070V (maximum rated Icad - 700 lbs.)
Rigid hangers are stored outside on dunnage and in clearly marked areas. Retrieval of the hangers is through a yard supervisor who controls the hanger storage area. Hangers stored outside are cleaned of surface corrosion and given a protective coating to inhibit corrosion prior to installation. The following hangers were inspected and found to be in acceptable condition:
2FP-03050 1PW-04006 1CV-59011 No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Training Records a.
Pittsourgh Testing Laboratory Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) is committed to ANSI Standard N45.2.6 for training of its inspection, examination and testing personnel. The records of the PTL QC inspector
",
who performed the torque tests on all the restraints during this inspection were selected for examination. The training
'.
recordsfortheQCinspectorwereverifiedbytheFTLsite
manager, a Level III inspector, and appeared to meet the requirements of the standard with regard to eye eraminations, prior experience and education.
-6-
.
,
b.
Hunter Corporation The inspector reviewed Hunter Corporation's Site Implementation Procedure 1.602, Rev. 4, dated April 26, 1978, and compared the training records of the Hunter Corporation Material Control Supervisor (MCS) to the procedure. Hunter Corporation was conducting its formal training classes as required by procedures
- -
and to date the MCS had received instruction in eight of the f/'
nine required training areas. Despite the fact that the MCS had received training in the areas of quality assurance, material and service procurement and material receipt and inspection, questioning of the MCS by the inspector revealed that although he was verifying the Hilti certificate of compliance, (procedures call for a certificate of conformance; see parpagraph 4.a. this section) the MCS was only assuring receipt of the certificate and was unaware of ANSI Standard N45.2.13 require-ments regarding valid certificates of conformance.
The inspector subsequently pointed out the ANSI requirements to the MCS; the licensee was informed of the matter. Subsequent to the inspection, the MCS received instruction on ANSI N45.2.13 requirements; the licensee notified the inspector by telephone on March 27, 1979.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
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 the Details section, Paragraph 4.a.
Exit Interview The inepectors met with site staff representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on March 23, 1979. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings as reported herein.
.
G '7.g
,.
&
,.
-7-