ML110410222
| ML110410222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1971 |
| From: | Madsen G, Moseley N US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML100151455 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-247-71-07, 50-247-71-7, NUDOCS 8111110957 | |
| Download: ML110410222 (27) | |
Text
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION REGION I DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE Report of Inspection CO Report No. 247/71-7 Licensee:
Dates of Inspections:
Dates of Previous Inspections:
Inspected Consolidated Edison Company Indian Point No. 2 (IP-2)
License No. CPPR-21 Category B December 7 - 10, 1970 March 19, 24 and 25, 1971 February 17, 23 and 24, 1971 March 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 byL22 G. L. Madsen, Reviewe d by:_
Reactor Insp tor (Principal)
N. 'C.- Moseley, Sgenior Reavr Inspector Proprietary Information:
and 16, 1971 Date None SCOPE Announced inspections were made to the Indian Point No. 2 (IP-2) construction site on December 7, 8, 9 and 10, 1970 for the purpose of reviewing construction logbooks and records.
Participation in this endeavour was as follows:
Hildreth, CO:HQ Moseley, CO:I Madsen, CO:I Brown, CO:I Whitesell, CO:I December December December December December 10, 1970 and 8, 1970 10, 1970 10, 1970 10, 1970 An audit of the responses to the questions raised as a result of this logbook review was conducted at the IP-2 site on March 19, 24 and 25, 1971 by Mr.
G. L. Madsen, CO:I.
811111959 750723 PDR ADOCK 05000247 P
PD a
m
2 -
SUMMARY
The review of construction logbooks-and records revealed eighty-one items which did not contain evidence of r esolution proposed and/or actions taken. Resoiu tions to these items were presented by Con Ed and Wedcoo An initial audit, of 17 resolutions presented, revealed Wedco QC inability to provide some backup records to substantiate the resolutions. Wedco then compiled individual packets for each logbook item presented by CO. Followup audits, in cluding a 100 per cent audit of the Wedco and UE&C QC logbook questions, were performed. These audits revealed eight items which Wedco considered resolved, however, proper backup justification was not available.
DETAILS I. Persons Contacted Con Ed Mr. A. Husband, Vice President, Construction Mr. A Corcoran, Construction Project Superintendent Mr. P. Leo, Assistant Construction Project Superintendent Mr. E. Dadson, Quality Assurance Supervisor Mr. J. Makepeace, Manager, Startup, IP-2 Wedco Mr. D. Anderson, Vice President, Construction Mr. K. Culp, Assistant to the President Mr. M. Griffin, Manager, Electrical Construction Mr. D. Walcott, Manager, Mechanical Construction Mr. T. McKenna, Manager, Civil Construction Mr. D. Lawes, Civil Engineer Mr. M. Snow, Manager, Reliability Mr. W. Dibeler, Manager, Quality Control Mr. H. Nichols, Project Engineering Manager Mr. J. Gillette, Quality Control, Field Supervisor II.
Construction Log Book Review As a result of the construction logbook review which was performed by CO at the IP-2 construction site during the period of December 7 - 10, 1970, 81 items emerged which did not containevidence of resolution proposed and/or actions taken. A listing of these items was presented to Con Ed on Decem ber 18, 1970 for review and resolution. The items presented by CO and the resolutions submitted by Con Ed and Wedco to Compliance on March 8, 1971 are included as Appendix A of this report.
-3 III. Audit of Logbook Review Items On March 19, 1971, Mr. Madsen initiated an audit,of the resolutions p-re sented for-the individual items.
The scope and results of the audit on this date are as follows:
A.
Appendix A Items Audited (17)
I.A, IIoA.5, II.A.6, Ill.A, III.B, III.C.5, IIIoC.7, rll.C.8, IIIoC.9, III.C.l0, III.C.12, IIIOC.24, III.C.27, III.D.1, III.D.2, IV.A.12, VoBolo B.
Results of Audit Backup-records relating to the individual responses presented were not readily available. Satisfactory backup data was eventually presented for the items audited with the following noted exceptions:
Item No.
Exception III.C.7, 8 and 9 Resolution relates to Item IIIoC.10 which is an open item; whereas, these items are presented as resolved. Wedco QC stated that oral approval for waivering additional PT for items III.C.7, 8 and 9 had been received.from UE&C. Backup-records for this were not available.
Additionally, the backup data for the bellows compressed question'of item lll.C.7 was not available.
III.C.12 Acceptance reports dated 12/10/70 do not relate to accumulators in the PAB. Wedco indicated that the inspector responsible for this logbook entry had indicated that the item related to line No. 16 at the high pressure safety injection pumps and the acceptance for this line was included in the 12/10/70 report. The problem with this item is that the original resolution presented really does not relate to the logbook question asked by CO.
V.B.l The inspector asked for a listing of the electrical cable turnout violations of separation that this item covered.
Some question evolved between Wedco construction and Quality Control as to which group-was handling this item. Nospecifics were presented.
C. Additional Audit Item As a result of the above, the inspector asked for the backup information for the resolution to item III.C.18. Wedco QC was unable to present the records.
D. Management Contact A meeting was conducted at the completion of the March 19, 1971 logbook audit inspection. Messrs. K. Culp, Assistant to the President of Wedco and E. Dadson, Quality Assurance Supervisor, Con Ed Construction, were present. The inspector voiced dissatisfaction with respect to the inability of Wedco to present satisfactory backup records to substantiate their logbook review item resolutions.
The inspector stressed the need for prompt corrective action for this situation.
Mr. Culp agreed to pursue this matter and stated that an approach to solving the apparent deficiency would be presented on Monday, March 22, 1971.
On March 22, 1971, the inspector received a telephone call from Mr. Dadson.
He stated that Wedco, QC was in the process of compiling individual packets for each logbook item presented by CO. These packets were to include the necessary backup data for the resolutions presented by Wedco and that these packets would be available for examination on March 23, 1971. The inspector returned to the IP-2 site on March 24, 1971 for the purpose of continuing the CO audit of the orginal logbook item resolutions. The results of the continued audit follow:
A. Followup of Items not Rectified on March 19, 1971 The inspector audited the folders for logbook items III.C.7, 8 and 9, III.C.12 and V.B.I. 'Sufficient backup data was contained in the individual packets to substantiate the Wedco resolutions.
B. Additional Audit Items The inspector selected six additional QC items for audit. This additional audit was terminated upon coverage of two items for the following reasons:
Item No.
Status III.C.17 Information was not contained in the packet that specified how this item was being pursued, i.e., NCR, punchlist, etc.
IV.A.4 The resolution was not responsive to the portion of the question relating to quali fication of the welders. A review of the
-5 packet indicated that the letter which left the Wedco QC office contained a statement, "that the welder qualification item has not been resolved", however, the resolution presented to CO did not include this statement and implied that the item had been resolved. This condition raised
..concerns relative to the accuracy of the remainder of the responses.
C. Followup by Wedco Wedco subsequently made a comparison of the resolutions presented to CO and the responses which Wedco QC had submitted to their management. Mr. Snow indicated that additional changes such as deletion of names and condensation of data, had been made; however, item IV.A.4, which the inspector had audited earlier, was the only one which grossly altered the implication relative to status of resolution.
D. 100 Per Cent Audit of Wedco and UE&C QC Items A 100 per cent audit of the Wedco and UE&C QC responses (items III.C.I thru IV.B.3) was conducted.
Sufficient backup was available in the individual packets to substantiate the Wedco QC resolution with the following exceptions:
Item-Exception III.C.17 Information relating to the control mechanism, i.e., punchlist, NCR, etc.,
was not included.
III.C.19 and 20 This is an IP-3 item. The sentence, "An NCR will be written after completion of investigation." should be deleted.
III.C.25 Logbook entry dated 6/22/70 and cable tracing performance was dated 6/3/70.
The logbook and cable tracing were signed by the same individual.
IV.A.,3, 4,. 5, 6, 7 and 10 The welding procedure was qualified for P-1 to P-1 materials whereas the P-1 to P-3 material was welded.
IV. A.4 Wedco agrees that the welder qualifica tion item remains to be resolved.
This mill certificate was not included.
IV.A. 11
6 -
The inspector returned to the IP-2 site on March 25, 1971. A review of Con Ed records provided resolution for the following:
Resolution Records indicate that visual inspection of this area was performed during the heatup for hot functional testing, Records ginated tracing Tracing ginated indicate that. this item was ori by Con Ed and the original cable sheets were for the wrong cables.
sheets to support the Con Ed ori question were presented for review.
IV. Management Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted with Messrs. Culp, Snow, Diebler and Dadson on March 25, 1971. The inspector voiced dissatisfaction with Wedco's inability to produce certain backup data to support the resolutions presented to CO. The need for resolution of these deficiencies was discussed. The inspector indica ted that the results of the audit indicates the following status:
Item No.
Status IV.A.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 and IV.A.ll III.C.10, 17 and III.D.l and 2 I.A Electrical, III.C.24, IV.A.12 and V.B.I II.Ao2, III.C.1, 19, 20, 22 and 23 Original response indicates item resolu tion. Results of audit necessitate classifying these as open items.
Original response indicated items to be open. Audit revealed resolution is complete.
Original-response indicated items to require further resolution.
Relates to IP-3.
Mr. Dadson stated that the necessary backup data for the resolution of the above items will be presented for Compliance's review.
I tem III.C.17 III. C. 25
Consolidated Edison Company Indian Point No. 2 CO Report No. 247/71-7"
.Appendix A Logbook Review -
Questions and Resolutions I. Consolidated Edison Company A. Inspectors Daily Logs Mechanical 10/13/70 - If the change is approved, four (4) of the supports are
.rejectable due to weld defects. VC Building.- Line No. 83.
Resolution:
The hangers and welds were inspected on 11/7/70 by the WEDCO and Con Edison inspection personnel performing a detailed review of hangers.
The deficiencies found were incorporated in the hanger punch list issued by WEDCO Quality Control on 11/7/70 signed by Mr. P. J. Gallacher.
UE&C has since approved the change in route of line 83.
The weld condi tion was classified as a deficiency due to tack welding of the hanger to the pipe in the four corners rather than a full weld on either side of the plate. The weldinghas been reviewed by WEDCO's Senior Project Engineer who has evaluated all the pertinent details and has decided that tack welds are acceptable for these hangers.
Con Edison concurs with this position.
Electrical 2/9/70 - PAB under MCC 26A and 26B. The cables entering the center appear to be in violation of redundancy.
Resolution:
This question is partly answered by FSAR Supplement 3 question Q7o6.(d)-l by providing fire protection barriers. The fire barriers specified will therefore provide the protection required for motor control centers 26A and 26B.
The final resolution to this question will be accomplished when the cables in question are realigned by WEDCO under the direction of Quality Control.
B. Operating Log Page 65 - 2/12/70 - Note:
PI-1147 inlet to 22C heater N/G. There are two pipe hangers approximately 20 feet apart supporting the condensate pump discharge line upstream of FCV-1120 that pass up through electrical cable trays. These hangers are vibrating and rubbing against electrical feeds routed through the trays.
Resolution:
The hangers referenced have been relocated.
C. U. S. Testing Reports 3/31/69 - Gas stripper. Visual inspection.of welds revealed eight conditions requiringminor repair.
Resolution:
The U. S. Testing report is ambiguous in identifying deficiencies yet making a conclusion that the unit was acceptable. A Con Edison construc tion representative made a visual inspection of the welds in question and found them acceptable on.12/21/70.
It is Con Edison's opinion that the deficiencies described in the U. S.
Testing Co. report was for information purposes and the conclusion was a description of the unit prior to shipping.
II.
Westinghouse A.
Systems Log, WAPD/NPS, R. W. Schulz
- 1. Page 17 -
1/19/68 - Had phone conversation with B. Madyda on auxiliary pumps.
He stated that all auxiliary pumps will have mechanical seals and that none of thes pumps can withstand the system hydro pressure.
Resolution:
Pump Mechanical Seal Hydro Pressure -
NPS Data Letter 68-7 dated 3/5/69 stated that hydrostatic test of pumps with mechanical seals is acceptable up to 1000 psig.
- 2. Page 32 - 5/2/68 - No. 1 Waste Condensate Tank
- a. Weld of leg pad to tank was not skipped at head to tank girth wald (drawing requirement).
- b. Bubbler tube has been ground on side adjacent to tank weld
'inspection shows approximately 0.004" wall left, Resolution:
Investigation revealed that the Waste Condensate Tank in question is the Unit No. 3 tank.
- 3.
Page 37 - 5/31/68 - Discovered that valve 385 in CVCS sheet I is not installed per W flow diag.
(Sent memo to BW 6/4/68).
Resolution:
Valve 385 in CVCS Sheet 1 is currently installed in accordance with Westinghouse Flow Diagram 684 J 627.
- 4.
Discussed with Mike Kleinman (UEC) Line No. 118 "Piping Composites and PW Flow Diagram" show 1" but-it should be 2" per W flow diagram.
Also in error is line No. 263 WDS.
Resolution:
Line No. 118 as presently installed is 2" line in accordance with Westinghouse and UE&C Flow Diagrams.
Line No. 263 is installed in accordance with Westinghouse Flow Diagram 684 J 729.
- 5.
Page 62 -.1/7/69 -
Service water line hydro still open issue.
Per R. Gates will ask UE&C to revise test report to state actual facts about hydro. G. Walter discussed with Fant, UE&C QC. Form will, be revised.
Resolution:
The entire Service Water System has been re-hydroed in accordance with WEDCO Test Procedure 3.38.
- 6.
Page 69 -
2/28,/69 - Received TWX from V. W. Doutt authorizing field hydro test for all pumps, except SIS pumps.
All others have seals which can withstand up to 1000 psig hydro pressure.
Resolution:
NPS Data Letter 68-7 dated 3/5/69 confirmed this TWX.
- 7.
Page 74 - 5/5/69-5/16/69 - Hydrotested line No. 163 from elevation 68 to primary water storage tank.
Done without procedure or Con Ed witness.
Primary water storage tank accepted by Westinghouse.
Resolution:
Oversight clarified by WEDCO letter F-OP-190 to Con Edison on 9/23/69, The line in question was re-hydroed in accordance with WEDCO Test Procedure 3.12, which was completed 9/24/70.
B. Westinghouse ITT Startup Log Book
- 1. Page 45 -
10/23/70 - Listing of Isolation Valve Leak Rate Test Results.
No indication as to satisfactory completion on valve 869B.
Resolution:
Data Sheet. for valve 869B (test number 18) shows leakage at 59.1 scc/min, to be well below specified tolerance.
- 2. 'Page 47 -
11/5/70 - Continued results of isolation.valve leak rate testing for valves 226 through 205 indicated leakage 68.9 cc/min.
in the acceptable column. Under valves 744, 248 cc/min. listed under acceptable column.
Resolution:
Test Sheet evaluation shows valves to be acceptable on integrated valve leakage basis.
III. WEDCO A.
Field Deficiency Reports FDR - 10028 - folder missing.
Resolution:
WEDCO Field RAFB Log record. shows FDR-10028 was "Cancelled on Site".
B.
Site Manager s Meeting Meeting notes -
5/14/68 -
Agenda Item,4 construction status, seventh paragraph, "Mr. V. M. Yadon noted that stress relieving of vessel supports must-be reviewed from past experience.
L. Cunningham and R. Whitehouse to follow."
Resolution:
No records exist-to indicate why this comment was made in the agenda of this meeting. No open record exists with regard to stress relieving
.of vessel supports.
C..gality Control Inspector Daily Log Books Line 178 needs repair. Was repair made?
- 1. Book No. 5, Page 19, Line-8
5 -
Resolution:
Documentation within our files indicates acceptance of Holiday Testing on spool piece No. 178. This spool piece is installed in Unit No. 3.
- 2. Book No. 6, Page 92, Line 11 Are the test instruments of test quality?
Resolution:
It is. impossible to answer this. item without knowing which test instruments are being questioned. All test instruments are suitable for tests-being.performed.
3.- Book No. 7, Page 62, Line 12 Elevation 51, 2 inch pipe, 575 re-work Giroux. Was rework done?
Resolution:
All required documentation is inour files and shows an-acceptable condition.
- 4. Book No, 8, Page 14, Line 6 Leak at NK-SWN-218. Was it fixed?
Resolution:
Identification is MK-SWN 218, not NK. Proof that the leak was fixed is indicated by acceptable hydro reports for this portion of the SWN System.
5-Book No, 9, Pages 1 and 2, Last of Page I and First of Page-2 Dye-check line 590, dye check. line No. 9 hangers.
Indications on
.pipe, possible heat cracks or stress cracks. Was it investigated and resolved?'
Resolution:
This item was re-evaluated, repaired, and accepted by NDT. Docu=
mentation is in our files and shows an acceptable, condition.
- 6. Book No. 9, Page 17, Top of Page Line 10, two inch Class A-l deficiency. Meaning and resolution, Resolution:
"Line No. 10, 2" Class A-l" -
This indicates line number and type of insulation required. This was a note for inspectors personal use.
"Deficiency" -
Inspector states that he was writing a report on this date and was practicing to insure he was spelling the word correctly.
- 7. Book No. 9, Page 38, Line 1 BFD line 22, expansion bellows I and 2. Too close for meaningful liquid penetrant tests on areas 3-9, inclusive. The inside bevels compressed due to misalignment. How was this resolved?
- 8. Book No. 9, Page 39, Line 1 MS-23. Left.side area 1-6, inclusive.
Outside bevel, bellows 4, unaccessible for meaningful liquid penetrant test due to cover shielding being too close. All areas tested show no apparent deficiencies. Was the above area penetrant tested?
- 9. Book No. 9, Page 40, Line 1 Line MS-22. Left side area. Unaccessible for meaningful dye penetrant examination. Was this penetrant tested?
Resolution for Questions III.C.7, 8 and 9 Work on these three items was a result of misinterpretation of the recommended testing procedure issued for Item No. 10.
Further investigation shows the work on these items was not required and therefore will not be continued.
- 10.
Book No. 9, Page 40, Line 11 Line MS-21. Right side area 3-9.
Unaccessible for liquid penetrant tests. Was this area penetrant tested?
Resolution:
This problem is still an open item as reported in NCR 2-49 dated 6/12/70, and has been referred to UE&C for evaluation and resolution.
-7
- 11.
Book No. 10, Page 5, All 11/20/70 - Two valves were dropped and were rejected for physical damage or service. No. 1 valve, item 16, CA-12-0062-248-I07; No. 2 valve, CA-II; No. 3 valve, CA-7, was taken apart and liquid penetrant test was performed on the valve body, seat, and disc, and no apparent deficiencies were found.
Should have a deficiency re port. Valve sizes and other possible inspections.
Resolution:
Investigation of these two valves shows that they are Seismic Class III and that the damage was to weld preps. Hold Tag No.
000076 has been attached to valve CA-II; Hold Tag No. 000034 has been attached to valve CA-12° The Hold Tags will remain attached until these valves are returned to vendor. They will not be used in Unit No. 2.
- 12.
Book No. 10, Page 23, Line 18 No. 2 accumulator in PAB building could not penetrant test all lines because of no scaffolding in PAB.
Resolution:
This item is completed per acceptance report dated 12/10/70, under our surface integrity line walking program.
- 13.
Book No. 11, Page 7 Gerosa, John N. Kopeck, Patrick Green, welders on RC pump No. 23, Only Stenwell qualified on record. Who welded and qualifications?
Resolution:
This note concerns the origination of the deficiency as detailed in Item No. 26.
- 14. Book No, 11, Page 26, First Four Lines February 7, 1970. Temperature 260, Joe why? Never-plotted No. 2 rear shield wall. Explain.
Resolution:
This was an inspectors personal note to remind himself to ask the QC clerk at that time why plotting of cadwelds and re-bar in the No. 2 shield wall wasnt done. Answer - not required by specifica tion.
8 -
- 15.
Book No. 12 F. DiLorenzo, records of instrument setting. Entire book not clear.
Several entries concern work not acceptable.
Resolution:
All deficiencies entered in this book have been corrected and are properly documented.
- 16.
Book No. 9, Page 18, Top of Page
.-Line 10, major discrepancy on AC-10. What?
Resolution:
This is the heading to the deficiency indicated in Item No. 17.
- 17.
Book No. 9, Page 18, Line 9 Spool piece 105 between 105A and 105B, pressing against jagged edge of sleeve. In my opinion, travel of pipe under pressure will rupture line.
Was this corrected?
Resolution:
UE&C personnel are currently on site and will perform an engineering study of this item.
- 18.
Book No. 21, Page 29, Line 1 Deep saw cut on line 81 near joint 8'1-5A and 81-5B, WD line.
Was this repaired? How?
Resolution:
This item has been repaired. Repair was made by Welder No. F 307 using-welding procedure No. 8. Dye check was satisfactory.
- 19.
Book No. 26, Page 76, All Hold. Investigate crane wall COL 6-5, zero degrees north to 20 degrees. Honeycomb in area about 75 feet -
0 elevation. Was this corrected - How?
Resolution:
This item is still open and documented on WEDCO Field Report No.
.0605.
Investigation is incomplete due to lack of staging in this area and obstruction caused by the presence of the reactor vessel I
-9 lifting arrangement. An NCR will be written after completion of investigation. This item concerns Unit No. 3, not Unit No. 2.
20, Book No. 27, Page 6, Line 9 Reports.
South face wall, elevation 71' 0" about 20' 0" east of crane wall. Area 12 sq. in., depth I inch, What is discrepancy?
Resolution:
This item is still open and documented on WEDCO Field Report No.
5223. This discrepancy is honeycombing. Investigation is incom plete due to lack of staging in the area and obstruction caused by the presence of the reactor vessel lifting arrangement. An NCR will be written after completion of investigation. lhis item concerns Unit No. 3, not Unit No. 2.
- 21.
Book No. 27, Page 7, Complete Page.
October 19, 1970. Check cylinder break at PTL.
Compression testing was Wes Diebler. Check seven day break on October 18, 1970.
Results not fractured completely. In case of low break demand total destruc tion. Why?
Resolution:
There were no actual low breaks involved° Statements indicate QC Engineer's request to the compression test machine operator that in case of a low break, he wanted to be notified in order that he could witness the total destruction of the cylinder for the purpose of evaluation into the actual cause of the break.
- 22. Book No, 28, Page 53, Line 15 Replace rebars where fitter welded VC mat No, 3. Was rebar replaced?
Resolution:
Comment relates to Unit No. 3. Not applicable to Unit No. 2 review.
- 23.
J. Ford Book, Page 37, 11/19/70 Talked with A. Haugie about FSAR rebar user test requirements will be changed from all heats to random heats. Why?
Resolution:
Comments in logbook relate to Unit No, 3.
10 -
- 24. Williams and Taylor Book, Page 4, 11/11/70 Discussed with Mr. Fred.Hazard.requirements for qualifying brazers on Units 2 and 3. Was informed that Courter may continue brazing for one week if they proceed to certify brazers that have done work on these lines.
See J. McLaughlin.
Signed, W. T. Taylor. Can it be~assumed from this that welders were not qualified prior to making the braze joints.
Resolution:
Yes, an NCR has been written for both Units No. 2 and No. 3 and are currently open items.
- 25.
Frank DiLorenzo Book, Page 28, dated 6/22/70 Found two cables probably in wrong tray. Resolution.
Resolution:
Further investigation showed that the two cables mentioned were not in the wrong location.
- 26.
E. Paulcheck Book, Page 16, 6/1/70 RC pump supports Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24.
What was deficiency and how was it repaired?
Resolution:
The deficiency was "non-adherence to installation and welding procedures on the installationof the structural steel inserts on the RC pump supports". This-deficiency has been corrected and accepted. All questionablewelding and material was removed and replaced in strict compliance-with appropriate procedures.
- 27.
Frank DiLorenzo Book, 4/21/70 Relay switches are supposed to trip out 6.9 Kv switchgear on over current; were mounted on the-door of switchgear by Westinghouse.
How-was this resolved?
Resolution:
Relay switches were mounted.on the door by Westinghouse and the mounting fasteners were loose. Asked the field craft to tighten.
Field craft responded. Quality Control reinspected-and accepted.
11
- 28.
Frank DiLorenzo Book, 5/12/70 Pump No. 23, noisy. Was this resolved?
Resolution:
This is in reference to circulating:water pump No. 23, in the intake structure. This pump has beenireplaced by a new pump.
- 29.
J, Ford Book, Page 15, 7/9/70 Any rebar accepted is accepted even if tags are not legible. Tom Lawson. How-do you identify the heat Numbers of the bars?
Resolution, All re-bar on-site had the heat numbers researched at the time of arrival and were acceptable. Once weather deterioration of heat
- number tags has occurred or after bundle is opened, heat number traceability ceases.
D. Nonconformance Reports
- 1. Nonconformance Report 2-75 Steam generator hold down bolts. No disposition nor approval.
Resolution:
NCR 2=75 remains open. Request for waiver filed. Waiting reply
'from Engineering.
- 2. Nonconforming Report 2-79 Brace angle welded to VC liner. No disposition nor signature.
Resolution:
NCR 2=79 remains open. Same as above.
IV. UE&C - Quality Control A. Deficiency Reports
- 1. Deficiency Report 2-14 The backing ring on field weld BFD-8A. Field weld made by Courter and Company was welded in violation of procedure specification No.
1, Addendum No. 1, which states:
12 -
"Permanent backing'ring shall be welded to the upstream side of the pipe before joining the two sections, using a minimum of three quarters-to one inch tack welds with three to four inch spacing."
Corrective action states letter approving backing-ring in these systems from UE&C,: submitted by J. McLaughlin. DR signed by.QC engineer but not approved by field superintendent of QC.
Resolution:
DR 2-14 has been signed by WEDCO QC Manager.
- 2. Deficiency Report 2-18 Same as DR 2-14, above.
Resolution:
DR 2-18 had been signed by WEDCO QC Manager.
- 3. Deficiency Report 2-20 Field weld AC-14A-16 was welded as an open butt weld instead of with the consumable insert using the TIG process. Was this open butt weld procedure qualified?
Resolution:
UE&C welding procedure No. 47 for open butt welding was qualified 12/9/69 and the weld was made 2/6/70. It should be noted that the identification number of this joint was' changed from AC-14A-16 and is now identified as AC 68BB2.
-4. Deficiency Report 2-21 The same as DR 2-20, except field weld BFD 136B. Also the weld was made by a welder not qualified in the open butt process.
(The same questions as above, plus how was the welder qualification resolved?
Deficiency report was not approved by either QAengineer or QC field superintendent.)
Resolution:
UE&C welding procedure No. 47 was qualified 12/9/69 and the weld was made on 2/4/70. Quality Control records indicate acceptable tests on this joint as follows:
Radiographic 2/6/70 Liquid Penetrant 2/12/70 Hydrostatic Acceptable
13 -
On. the basis of the above information, WEDCO Enginee:ring considers this. joint acceptable.
- 5. Deficiency Report 2-19 Same as DR 2-14, above.
Resolution:
DR 2-19 has been signed by WEDCO QC Manager.
- 6. Deficiency Report 2-33 Field weld BFD-50AD was welded without a qualified procedure and without the proper pre-heat. Was this procedure quaified, since radiography is not adequate qualification for a weld procedure.
Resolution:
The procedurewas.qualified. Records show acceptable radiography and hydrostatic tests. Based on the above information, Quality Control considers the joint acceptable.
- 7. Deficiency Report 2-35 Field weld BFD-60AB was welded without a qualified procedure.
(Same questions as DR 2-33.)
Resolution:
The procedure,was qualified. Records show acceptable radiography and hydrostatic tests. Based on the above information, Quality Control considers the joint acceptable.
- 8. :Deficiency Report 2-27 Was corrective action made? DR was not signed by approving auth
- ority.
Resolution:
Corrective action has been taken and the deficiency report has been signed as required.
9, Deficiency Report 2-28 Was corrective action made? DR should be signed by authorizing authority.
14 -
Resolution:
Corrective action has been taken-and the deficiency report has been signed by authorizing authority.
- 10.
Wedco Corporation Letter, M-622, from J. McLaughlin, dated Septem ber 22, 1970, subject:
Field Deficiency Report No. 2-39* and 2-40**,
to E. L. Walcott, Mechanical Engineer. Disposition use as is.
Action taken:
- a.
Both welds were accepted by radiography.
- b.
Inserts were used 90% of diameter. A slot was purposely left open to talk the welder around'while fusing the consumable insert. An insert piece was then fitted and fused to complete the closure.
- c. A back purge on carbon steel base material is not mandatory as in the welding of stainless steel.
If sugaring or loss of purge was a factor, it would have been detected by radiography.
- d.
From communication with construction people involved, a pre heat at 2000 minimum was obtained and maintained throughout the welding. This is within the NPS recommended temperature range for low hydrogen E-7018 type electrode when welding P-3 material to P-1 material.
Signed by J. McLaughlin, Lead Welding Engineer.
Were these welding procedures and welders qualified?
Resolution:
BFD 55 BB was welded to welding procedure No. 1 and 20. Welder F307 (qualified to WP No. 1 and 20) welded root and assisted in depositing remaining filler metal. Welder F140 (qualified to WP No. 1 unlimited) assisted F307 in depositing remaining filler metal. Joint is considered acceptable to Quality Control.
BFD 44 AB was welded to welding procedure No. 1 and 20.
Welders F8, F210 and F307 were qualified to WP No. 1 and 20 unlimited.
Welded F37 was qualified to WP No. 1 and 20-l". Joint is con sidered acceptable to Quality Control.
- BFD-55BB was welded without a qualified welding procedure.
- BFD-44AB was welded using an open butt process, without a qualified welding procedure.
15
- 11.
Deficiency Report 2-43 Lack of material certification for spool piece SI-,20A.
Red tag attached to spool piece but noevidence of corrective-action nor signature of QC engineer or field superintendent, QC.
Resolution:
Mill certifications for this spool piece were mailed from Tubeco 1/19/71 and are-on file.
- 12.
Deficiency Report 2-49 The expansion bellows for pipe penetrations. Bellows are badly distorted. Has any action been initiated to fulfill the letter dated September 8, 1970?
Resolution:
Same as Item III.C-10.
B. Inspection Reports
- 1. Inspection Report 000253-TH, 6/24/68 Item inspected - feedwater heaters. The inspector feels several radiographs are not acceptable to code.
In a letter dated Nov
.ember 12,. 1970, radiographs were questioned under Report No.
000253-TH, written by Mr. R. J. Phelps on June 24, 1968, have been..re-reviewed on November 11, 1970 and found to be well within acceptable limits under ASME,Section VIII, UW-51, signed-by F. L. Hazard, Welding-Engineer, Quality Control. Each discrepancy should be.more thoroughly explained.
. Resolution All joints in question received final radiography after completion of-weldingo Film was reviewed by WEDCO QC engineer and Con Edison, All parties reviewing the films. concurred that they now meet code requirements.
Film is now on file in QC Records Section.
- 2. *Inspection Report No, 200462-P, 4/29/69 Item inspected -RC No. 12, Was the three inch pipe replaced?
16 -
Resolution:
The'3" pipe was replaced.
- 3. Inspection Report No. 200447-P, 3/21/69 Item inspected - pipe penetration area. Was the section of line AC110 clean prior towelding?
Resolution:
There is no line AC, 110.
Visual inspection of WD-110 and AC-10 shows acceptable cleanliness.
V. Fishbach and Moore A. General Log
- 1. 2/2/70 - These CB drawings 3075 Column No. 2. Inside crane wall valve 839H, 839G were relocated next to valve 839D. We have to naturally set our junction box YL6 and YL7 adjacent to these valves but conduit for WI and for WJ we~are told to route our tray junction 245.
It would save a lot of work of we could route these conduit to tray junction.142, the same as conduit 2TZ.was when valve 494D was relocated.
Resolution:
Conduits routed to junction 245 as shown on Drawing 9321=F-3075.
- 2. 1/22/.70 -
12/30/69 - items 1, 5, and 6,and 9/29/69 - Indication of trays fully loaded or overloaded.
Resolution:
Jacket size and bulk cause the appearance of overloading. UE&C later confirmed trayloading was'within design:limits based on conductor cross-sectional area.
- 3. 10/29/69 -
This is item 2 on the daily log heat trace job. Trans former yard drawing 3254, Detail 2. Where shall heat trace cable be-installed on horizontal piping? Drawing 3252 tells us:cables should be one-inch apart since drawing 3254, Detail 2, tells us to install heat trace-wire on east side of service-water pipe.
Someone may ha.ie a preference as to what part of the pipe-wire are installed on horizontal pipe.
I
17 -
Resolution:
F&M/M will install heat trace wire on the bottom of the horizontal pipe per detail D of Drawing9321F-3252-6.
- 4.
9/23/69 Heat trace intake structure drawing 2353, Detail No. 5, Circuit 19A. We installed 56 feet of heat trace wire and completed this circuit. Minimum amount of wire used should be 65 feet of wire. What shall we dolwith theextra wire?
Resolution:
Circuit 19A was 5 ft. shorter than minimum length specified; UE&C confirmed this length was within operatingrange of wire.
5o 7/25/69.- Item 6 on this date. We installed cables PC5'JC2 and PC6-JC2, some time ago. Now you told us to install 2 No. 16 S(PC5JC2-1 and PC6JC2-2) along side the existing cables, I don't think its practical or wise to pull these extra cables through the conduit leading back to the control building. They probably won't fit and we most likelywill damage the-asbestos covering on the existing~cable.
Of course, I think we should get an EWO to remove existing cable and install 4 No. 16 cables, Resolution:
Cables PC5-JC2/l and PC6-JC2/l were subsequently deleted as a design requirement and therefore were not pulled.
- 6.
6/9/69 -
Cable pull slip No. 139.
We can't get from tray down column A-14 across concrete slab into pit.
It doesn't seem likely that-we should run conduit exposed on the Fuller pump column 148 to it.
- 7.
2/6/69 - Conduit 351 - similar confusion. Someone had better check out the entire Section G-G.
Resolution to Questions V.A.6 and 7 Conduits were installed with proper support to accomplish transi tion from tray to equipment.
- 8.
10/10/68,- Item 3 on this page. Cables-AJl C86-123. As this cable-goes.from tray 08C (on C3 side,.as shown on drawing H550) wemust raise on tray junction 84, which means we must cross over the top of C2-C4 tray.
Shouldn't there be a shortpiece of tray to support these 3 sets of 750,circle-mill cable to vertical trays?
The-same applies to-cable No. A59-COl as it leaves C3 tray section and crosses to conduit 2QPI.
18 0
Resolution:
A section of 24" tray was installed over tray 08C as per the suggestion in order to maintain separation.
- 9. 5/8/68 -
Item 5 on this page.
Is there a taping procedure to tape damaged cathode protection wire leading to annodes?
Resolution:
No.
B. Files and Speed Letters -
Fishbach and Moore to Wedco and Answers
- 1. Letter to Fishbach and Moore dated 2/16/70 from Wedco Corporation.
Letter reads:
"Attached is UEC drawing showing details of barrier installation to be used in all cases where a cable turnout occurs in a tray which is directly beneath another tray. At the present time, in cases where this occurs, the cable turning out have been secured to a rung of the tray above. This cannot be done as it violates cable separation. While the out-turningcable must be secured above, other cables within the same tray, the barrier will provide separation and protection to the cables in the tray above, plus the out-turning cable may be secured to the bottom of the barrier with the tie ropes looped through a small eyelet or small conduit strap."
Answer:
Reconsideration and final direction of this requirement will be made following the inspection.
Resolution:
A program to correct turn-out violations of separation was ini tiated this summer by Quality Control for all areas of Unit No. 2.
The correction program is approximately 75% complete as of Jan uary 1, 1971 and it will be complete before core loading.
(Ref:
letter EC-394)
- 2. 2/20/70 - This is a yellow copy transmitting a list of problems.
The two following stand out.
- a. Request that we review the feeds to the flow indicators at the residual heat removal lines P!C633, 634, 645 and 646.
- b. It seems we shall want two conductor cables and the need is for two 2 conductor cables.
We will check the number of the cable routing. It does not give a cable number or any other identification.
19 -
Resolution:
Cables and conduits were added by UE&C to satisfy the requirements of these flow control instruments as per revision to the Conduit and Cable Schedules, 9321-LL-3010 and 9321-LL-3009, of March 17, 1970.
- 3. 2/21/70 -
Pink slip -
Subject:
Control rod drive power and logic circuit interconnections.
It reads:
"As discussed with your area foreman, the signal cable interconnection between the logic cabinet and each control rod drive power cabinet must be run in the inner cabinet wireways provided by the vendor and not in the trays beneath the cabinet as shown in the schedule, with the exception of the interconnection between PM2 and power cabinet PBD which will have to be run in trays beneath the floor of elevation 33.
But in any 6 inch trays needed to accomplish power and signal cable separation beneath the floor as indicated on drawing 9321F, 3059-7.
Do not terminate cables which are run in conduit 4Z and 4ZZ21 and 5AA and 5AAl to rod drive switchgear cabinet AL8 and AL9 until UC has changed the conduit entering positions."
Resolution:
Installation was completed as per the directive.
- 4. 10/15/70 - This is a yellow copy with white copy of letter from Wedco to Fishbach and Moore attache,.
This letter is dated Oct ober 15, 1970 and listsa number of cable separation problems.
These problems have to do-with.PR4-833/2 H33-JF3/2 (IR 19-rack B3).
Various barriers are missing along route of cable to maintain separation of J3 to J4 channels. Various barriers for separation missing -
Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Resolution:
Barrier correction has been completed under supervision of Quality Control.
- 5. 11/5/70-- This is a yellow copy and is a followup to Item 4 above, It reads:
"On 10/15/70 we. wrote you a letter detailing missing tray barriers and tray identification. Our QC Department informs us that as of October 31, 1970 Items 1-7 of our letter have not been worked and only six trays in Item 8 have been identified.
It should be noted that Item 8 was not listed in my list of pro blems.
Resolution:
Same as Item No. 4 above.
20 -
- 6. 3/19/70 - This is a pink copy and reads:
"As per our field in spection of electrical.installation, it was noted that cable channel 2 from rack 20 by conduit 4XQ are tied to the cables and channel 1 in the tray. Channel 3 cables by conduit 4XR are run over the top of channel 4. Cables in the same tray, plus the channel 3 cables are laid over the edge of the barrier which may result in damage to the cable. The conduit and cable schedule does indicate the cable identification for both the conduit and cable."
I feel that F&M should be more cognizant of cable separa tion and bear the responsibility for seeing to it that it is carried out. No corrective action indicated.
Resolution:
Separation problems have been corrected in this area of the V. C.
and installation is now acceptable and complete.
- 7. Letter from.Wedco Corp. to Fishbach & Moore dated 3/16/70, subject:
Electrical Heat Tracing Installation. This letter lists numerous problems with the heat tracing, including resistant measurements on 21 circuit branches taken by the subcontractor during a visit.
14 of these branches do not fall within the maximum-minimum length specified in the drawing. This is typical of the problems discussed in the letter. No follwupaction is indicated.
Resolution:
All circuits which did not meet design requirement have been reworked by F&M/M to WEDCO Quality Control and Electfical Construction satis faction.
- 8. Letter (Wedco Corp. to Fishbach & Moore dated 3/16/70).
Item 9 says letter written to F&M on 3/9/70 points out cable channel violation over rack No. 20 elevation 68 vapor container. No work in progress to correct this item. The records indicate that no followup action has been taken on this item.
Resolution:
All circuits which did not meet design requirements have been reworked by F&M/M to Wedco Quality Control and Electrical Construc tion satisfaction.
VI. General
-1. Log books covering the UE&C construction activities and the CB&I containment liner activities were not available. Compliance was informed that Messrs. Nagle and Grey, UE&C Construction Superintendent
21 -
and Assistant Superintendent did not use log books.
In addition, Compliance was informed that personnel at the site had no additional knowledge of the existence of log books for the above activities.
Is this still the case?
Resolution:
Yes.
- 2. The initial entries in the Westinghouse ITT Startup Log Book were reported to be summations from a previous log book. Is this log book available?
Resolution:
No.
- 3. Wedco startup indicates that individuals in the group previously kept log books. What has been the disposition of these?
Resolution:
Have been discarded by the individuals.