ML18078A386
| ML18078A386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1978 |
| From: | Fasano A, Mcbrearty R, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18078A382 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-311-78-26, NUDOCS 7811140280 | |
| Download: ML18078A386 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000311/1978026
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
50-311/78-26
Docket No . _ _..5_0_-3_1_1 __ _
License No.
CPPR-53
Priority------
Category __ B ____ ____
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
80 Park Place
Newark, New Jersey 07101
Facility Name:
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey
Inspection at:
Ins pectia n conducted: August :?J' 1978
Inspectors:
J_ l, ~~
A. D. Toth, Reactor Inspector
f ,(9,, -r;~ ~
A.
. Fasano, ~to? Inspector
/( (i }h (_ ~vl::cf
.R. A. McBrearty, Reactor' Inspector
R. P. 21mmerman, Reac~lnspector
Approved by: !1WYM~
R. W. McGa~9hY:
7 ie ~Projects Section
'date signed
9/.>/?~.
~ate signed
da e signed
5:40 /), I 27<6
~te s~gned
Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch
Inspection Summary:
Unit 2 Inspection on August 14-18, 1978 (Report No. 50-311/78-26)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by four regional based inspectors,
of quality assurance procedures for preservice inspection with eddy-current techniques;
work acti vi ti es for preservi ce inspection wi. th eddy-current techniques; and quality
verification records for preservice inspection with eddy-current techniques, reactor
vessel internals; safety related structures welding, licensee followup actions re-
lative to items reported under 10 CFR 50.55(e)~ and licensee followup actions relative
to NRG.issued Bulletins. The inspectors also performed general plant tour-inspections,
reviewed licensee action on previous inspection findings, and performed follow-up action
as necessary to resolve questions which arose during the course of inspection of the
above areas.
The inspection involved 85 inspector-hours onsite by 4 NRC regional
fice based inspectors.
The inspection commenced 8:00 P.M. outside the normal
yshift working hours at the site. *
esults: Of the 6 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in 5
areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area. (Infraction -
failure to provide 2:1 length rat1o on socket weld - Para 5.c}
-4 0 .....,*c,fO* Ii-
-
. . .
.
.
78111
~
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
- S. Chawaga, Site QC Division Head
- J. J. Cicconi, Senior Construction Engineer - Startup
L. P. Corleto, Senior Engineer
- J. M. Destefano, Site QA Engineer
- R. D. Evans, QA Construction Division Head (By Teleohone)
- H. Fistel. Site QA Enaineer
C. P. Johnson, Startuo Enaineer
- W. T. Kittle, Site QA Engineer
- H. S. Lowe, Site QA Engineer
- D. L. McLauqhlin, Senior Construction Engineer
J. Montizaan, Lead Designer Mechanical
- E. H. Meyer, Site QA Division Head
J. Nystrom, Shift Representative (2nd)
G. D. Owen; Principal Construction Engineer
F. Parkell, Field Structural Engineer
- B. H. Sennstrom, Principal Construction Engineer
R. T. Stanley. Lead Mechanical Engineer
W. 0. Straubmuller. Assistant Chief Designer, Mechanical
- P. E. String, QA/QC Coordinator
United Engineers an~onstructor~
S. Abbott, Welding Superintendent
- N. Bender,. Assistant Lead Startup Engineer
R. Brown, Hanger Verification Supervisor
L. Caiger, Test Engineer
J. DeBlasio, Field Engineer - Mechanical
C. Flitcraft, Hanger Verification Engineer
J. McFadden. Welding QC -
P~ase A, Acting Supervisor
R. Jorgensen, QC Engineer
B. Kountz, Welding Supervisor
M. Livingston, QC Records Assistant Supervisor
- R. J. Phelps, Field Superintendent - QC
S. Skabicki, OC Engineer.
- D. C. Snyder, Project Engineer
Zetec, Inceroorated
R. S. Emery, NDE Level Ila Data Evaluator
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
3
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee emoloyees during the
course of the inspection.
They included Quality Control and con-
struction craft personnel, and technicians performing eddy current
and liquid penetrant testing of steam generators.
During this insoection, the inspector also accompanied the following
personnel on a tour of the facilitv on August 17, 1978:
Mr. E. Greher, IE-HQ Staff
Ms. C. Stuart,
Budget Analyst, OMB
2.
Pl ant Tour
The inspectors observed work activities in-progress, completed \\
work, and plant status in several areas of the plant during daily
general inspections of the plant. A plant tour-inspection was
performed by two NRC inspectors during the second shift on August
14, 1978.
The inspectors examined work items for any obvious
defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements or license
conditions. Particular note was taken of the condition of installed
equipment/piping/cables. The inspectors also noted presence of
quality control inspectors and quality control evidence such as
inspection records, material identification, nonconforming material
identification, and equipment calibration tags. The inspectors
interviewed craft personnel, supervision, and quality inspection
personnel as such personnel wer~ availabla in the work areas.
Where more detailed inspection of an area wa*s conducted, the
inspection scope and findings are described in other paragraphs of
the report.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items
(Closed) Unresolved Item (311/78-02-05):
Pickling of stainless
steel pipe.
The pipe manufacturer provided a corrected materials
test report, identifying the fact that the heat number 38792 was
pickled and passivated in accordance with.Armco procedure #4A.
The
procedure was-also provided for approval; it maintained that pickling
was performed following the basic recommendations found in ASTM-
A380.
This information was provided to the quality control repre-
sentative of the material supplier and was subsequently approved by
the licensee engineering organization. Although the procedure was
approved subsequent to material delivery/installation, this matter
appears to have been a documentation review oversight.
- -*:
1 ,:y,:~ * *
-
-
\\'
\\~_: __ :-~~~---
"\\;:_--~~_)*~_..::
- .;J._.{~:.._.* __ :;::_:-;*:::~~~'~~>-~-~
-~,-\\d-~-\\-.-~}t..."..::
- _,;,,-..
- -~-*-'
. "
J
- ** :.-
. -
.
.
- -:**-:-_-
~-: *->.rr*-_*;.
~---: ;~:.-:*.; 1f-~~
- .:c_ ... -~~1!: . ...:-
~-~;:.--.t~.-~_-._-* ~-
4
The NRC inspector examined a sample of other material certifications
for stainless steel pipe for this site, and noted no irregularity.
This item is resolved.
The inspector reviewed the following documentation relative to this
matter:
Armco Material Test Report HM-6-8996 (Revised June 12, 1978)
Armco Pickling Procedure for Austenite Stainless Steel dated
March 5, 1973
Armco to Pullman Power Products letter dated June 12, 1978
PSE&G to Pullman Power Products letter dated June 21, 1978
(Closed) Unresolved Item (311/78-04-01):
Discharges to the Delaware
River through the storm drain system--hydrotesting effluent. The
licensee has been in contact with EPA since January 26,
1978, relative
to hydro-test water discharges. A March 17, 1978
letter from EPA*mentions January-March discharges and authorizes
the discharges subject to specific limits on chemistry and reporting.
The required report was submitted to EPA, indicating that the
limits had been met.
In addition to the EPA March letter, the
inspector examined PSE&G letters to EPA relative to the above
dated
January 26, 1978, February 15, 1978, February 28, 1978,
March 2, 1978. This item is resolv~d.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (311/78-04-02):
Fltishing chemicals discharge.
Since the NRC inspection.in January 1978, the licensee has been in
close communication with EPA regarding chemicals to be used in
hydrotest and flushing operations, in addition to heat exchanger
layup chemicals, and condensate polishing system chemicals, and
their discharge types and frequency.
These matters are currently
under review by EPA, as evidenced by eight PSE&G letters to EPA
between January 26, 1978 and July 12, 1978, and the EPA response of
March 17, 1978.
The PSE&G test engineer ts cognizant of the need
for EPA action, and no discharge of chemi~al flushing material is
planned prior to that action.
Retention of some flushing chemicals*
. in a temporary holding basin onsite has been documented to the EPA
by the licensee. The necessary coordination with EPA appears to be
occurring at this time. This item is resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved* Item (311/78-06-02): Tubing tray hardware
approved equal aualification, use, and control. The inspector pre-
viously established that the materials quality control was such that
bolts wtthout certifications of compliance could be and were installed
in tubing tray supports. Drawing 233083-4 required specific brand
name/catalog numbered bolts and nuts or approved equal.
Another
type bolt-nuts were used; the documentation of approval or commensurate
quality control was absent.
The inspector noted that requisition
- 36934 shows that 3/8-inch stainless steel round head bolts were pro-
cured for the I&C group as non-safety related in May 1978.
As
resolution of this item, the PSE&G site QA organization showed the
5
inspector a July 28, 1978 memorandum by the site Controls Field
Engineer which evaluates the situation and deems it acceptable.
He indicates that the UE&C purchasers have been instructed to
classify all *future purchases of tube tray hardware as safety
related to assure provision of certificates of conformance.
The
inspector also examined an October 13, 1976 memorandum from the
Field Engineering Mechanical Division manager to Department heads
which assigns the Controls Field Engineer such responsbility for
determining material requirements for purchase orders.
Although.the evaluation by the Controls Field *Engineer was some-
what vague regarding the basis for the use-as-is acceptance of
hardware.already installed, when interviewed by the inspector he
expressed confidence that whatever material may have been provided
without material certifications would be functionally adequate.
At the exit meeting the licensee stated that the vendors, who pro-
vided hardware already installed, have been contacted and certificates
of compliance for the catalog items furnished will be provided
shortly. The inspector had no further questions on this item, and
this matter is consi~ered resolved.
lClosedl Unresolved Item (311/78-14-03): Separation of analog and
digital cables from power cables.
The inspector examined a licensee
senior staff engineer memo to the site electrical field engineer,
dated* July 3, 1978, presented by the licensee site QA office as a
basis for resolution of cable separation questions previously raised
by the inspector.
The memorandum reiterates the intent to generally
maintain cable separation as discussed in FSAR Section 7.2, but with
some exception. It defines the basis for certain exceptions, which
are described in project Field Directive # 69 and Procedure DCP-2205.
The basis includes the fact that the instrument cables are twisted
and. shielded and control cables are shielded, and only in local
areas {_such as shafts) are the exceptions allowed.
The inspector
reviewed this matter with regard to the FSAR and IEE-Std-422-1977
and current NRR criteria and could identify no violation of regulatory
requirements or specific safety impact of the noted exceptions. The
licensee's approach appears acceptable. This item is resolved.
4.
Review of Licensee Follow-up on NRC Issued Bulletins
{_Bulletin 78-10) - Bergen-Paterson Hydraulic Shock Suppressor
Accumulator Spring Coils.
This area was inspected, *fn part, during inspection number
77-06. The inspector reviewed purchase orders E-197852 February l,
1974 and E-160050 May 26, 1972 documenting hydraulic snubber
suppliers. Documentation listed twenty-four hydraulic snubbers for
Salem Unit No. 2:
6
Sixteen 'Rexnord Hanna* on the four S/G
1s,
Eight
1 on the the four MSIV
1s.
The inspector observed the four installed
11 snubbers at
the two main steam isolation valves (MSIV
1s) in the south side
penetration area.
The conditions described in the Bulletin did not
appear applicable to the facility.
5.
-Licensee Followu Activities Relative to .Items Re orted to NRG
Under 10 CFR 50.55 e
a.
Pressurizer Snubber Malfunction:
The inspector examined licensee corrective measures for Salem
Unit #2, which arose from construction deficiencies reported
under 10 CFR 50.55(e) for Unit #1, as described in licensee
letters to NRG dated April 2, 1976 and June 10, 1976. These
letters related to pressurizer mechanical snubber malfunctions
in devices manufactured. by-International Nuclear Safeguards
Corporation (IN:C}.
This area was inspected, in part, during inspection number
77~06.The inspector verified by visual observation, on a
sampltng basis, that only Pacific Scientific Company snubbers
are being incorporated in Unit #2.
Accordingly, the Unit #1
problem did not appear to be applicable to Unit #2.
b.
Damage to RPV internals due to fallen UT calibration block:
The inspector reviewed licensee actions with respect to an ul-
trasonic examination calibration block which fell into the
reactor pressure vessel, as reported to the NRG by letter
dated August 9, 1978 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e). The
inspector verified that the event was reviewed and evaluated
by the licensee and that corrective action was taken to prevent
recurrence, and appropriate planning accomplished to effect
necessary repairs. The inspector's review included the
foll owing:
UE&C Deficiency Report (DR) #6623
UE&C DR#9084 and Attachment
UE&C QC Surveillance Report #M2159
PSE&G Significant Deficiency Evaluation Report #78-05
--
PSE&G Letter to NRC:I Dated August 9, 1978
Southwest Research Institute Customer Notification Form
- 100080
7
The inspector was informed that necessary repairs will
be made using approved procedures developed by Westinghouse
Electric Corporation. The inspector had no further questions
at this. time.
c.
Pipe cracks in small bore piping:
The inspector examined licensee corrective measures for
Salem Unit #2, which arose from construction deficiencies
reported under 10 CFR 50.55(e) for Unit #1, in letters to
NRC dated March 16~ 1976 and March 31, 1976.
These items
related to piping cracks occurring in Residual Heat Removal,
Chemical Volume Control, and Safety Injection Systems small
bore piping.
The inspector examined engineering instructions, layout
drawings, detail drawings, and physical installations which
show that socket weld strength and transition welds have
been or are planned to be improved, and pipe bracing is
planned to be installed. A socket fillet-weld Detail 17
- has been added to applicable drawings in accordance with an
PSE&G Engineering Department April 20, 1976 directive .
Detail 17 requires a 2:1 length ratio fillet weld at the
pipe socket connection of small bore piping to certain safety
related coolant systems.
The smaller fillet leg is specified
as at least 1-1/4 times the small-bore pipe nominal wall thick-
ness; the larger leg is specified as at least twice the size
of the smaller leg. The large leg size is a requirement
beyond the usual equal leg requirement of ANSI-831.7 figure
1-727 .4.4Ce).
The inspector interviewed the responsible field mechanical
design engineers for hangers and piping, and examined installed
pipe sockets for drain lines in the vicinity of valve 2RH2 and
valve 24 SG55., of the safety injection system.
The specific
welds examined included FW-2-RH-3378-1 and FW-2-RH-3070-1.
The fillet weld at these socket welds was not accomplished
in.accordance with Detail 17 of applicable drawing 218268-A-
. 8903-12.
The weld, No. FW2-RH-3378-l, had been inspected and
accepted by tield quality control inspectors on December 22,
1977 and approved January 8, 1978.
The inspection record
{_Fillet Weld History Record) did not incorporate the weld
configuration requirements of Detail 17, although it referenced
drawing 218268 upon which Detqil 17 appears .
8
The Fillet Weld History Record for Nuclear Class I weld No.FW
2~RH-3378-l shows a required fillet weld size of the usual
(ANSI-831.7) 3/8
11 size, for the 1-1/2 schedule 160 small bore
pipe (nominal wall of .281
11 x 1-1/4 = .351
11 ).
No provision is
made for a 2:1 length ratio. The actual weld was an equal-leg
3/8
11 fillet weld, as measured by a UE&C quality control in-
spector in the presence of the NRC inspector on August 18,
1978.
The Fi 11 et Weld Hi story Record for Nuclear Cl ass I Weld pw .. 2-RH.-3070 ..... 1
was labelled
11Temporary Weld.
11 The weld was identified on this
record as a l
11 schedule 40 ptpe with required 3/16
11 (equal
leg) fillet. Detail 17 of applicable.drawing 218268-A-8903-ll
(referenced by 218213-A-89Q.l-2) would require .133
11 x 1-1/4 x
2 = .33
11 large leg and .166
11 small leg.
The actual weld was
equal 1 eg of apparently 3/16
11 size.
The condition of the above two described fillet welds, and the
fact that the Fillet Weld History Records did not incorporate
the special requirements of the design drawings, appears to be
a breakdown of the construction/inspection quality assurance
program.
This is an item of noncompliance relative
to Criterion V. (311/78-26-01)
The inspector examined the following documents relative to the
above:.
Engineering Memorandum SGS/M-DM-025 dated January 31, 1977
Engineering Memorandum, Chief Mechanical.Engineer to Chief.
Design Engineer dated April 20, 1976
Miscellaneous Branch Design Criteria - RHR, CVC, SI Systems
attached to April 20, 1976 memo
Hanger Drawings:
244776-L-O and 242499-L-O, 236021-Al459,
236022-A1459, 23251-Al397
Piping Drawings:
218268A-8903-12, 218211A-8901-9, 218210A-
8901-12, 218259A-9A-8903-11. 218200A-
. 8901-l3, 218202-8901*12, 218206A-8901-9,
218213A-8901-2, 233442D-4216-13Sh26
Piping Isometric Drawings:
RH-2-3 Sheet 4 Rev. 8
.
RH-2-3 Sheet 12 -
Welding Specifi~ation:
H90~1 NU
Fillet Weld History Records:
2-RH-3070-1 and 2-RH-3378-1
9
6.
Interface Control for* System/Equipment Turnover for Testing
The inspector reviewed the licensee's startup manual as it reflects
the construction verification testing program.
In:particular, the
inspector examined the systems/equipment turnover for a part of
the main steam system.
The systems/equipment turnover or SET is
generated to yield a system or portion of a system with boundaries
which are logically and conveniently testable.
The inspector found the main steam valves at the north penetration
to be green tagged which indicates that the UE&C test group has
jurisdiction over the use of this equipment.
The main steam valves
24 MS 167 and 22 MS 167 were included in form 3.3 SET Nos. 076-MI-
R3 and 076-M2-R4.
The SET provides a testable entity for the
verification of the individual component cleanliness, integrity and
intended functional capability with the intent of bringing together
completed systems, functionally checked and ready to support pre-
operational testing.
The inspector'examined each 200 Kip Paul-Munroe snubber attached
to the above designated main steam valves.
Each valve has two
Paul-Munroe 200 Kip hydraulic snubbers.
The snubbers were examined
relative to drawings 2389650-4130-2 (5 sheets), PSBP No. 143870 and
PSBP No.139873.
The inspector also considered Specification No.
73-6373, Hydraulic Shock and Sway Suppressors for Piping and/or
Equipment Protection with.respect to licensee vendor requirements.
The snubbers were examined for indications of hydraulic. fluid level
requirements, hydraulic fluid leaks, physical deformation that may
affect the proper functioning of the units, cleanliness, and cold
set dimensions.
The examination resulted in the following findings:
Snubber pin to pin spacing was not in accordance with drawings
- 238965-04130-2 sheet 3 and PSBP-139873; the 100° temperature
of the system under test did not appear to be the cause of the
l/4" to 5/8" differences.
The snubber reservoir assemblies specified by drawings PSBP-
129322 were not installed.
The accumulator on each of two snubbers, attached to MSIV 24MS
167, was not installed properly in accordance with specification
73.,.6373 and drawing PSBP-139873.
The accumulators are used
for maintaining hyd~aulic fluid pressure during shipping and
storage.
10
Althdugh the above conditions existed, the equipment was under
test, havi"ng been released by construction through appropriate
approvals of the SET (System/Equipment Turnover - UTG) #076-Ml-R3,
form-3.3.
These approvals involve the UE&C Test Engineer QC
Superintendent, Project Superintendent.
The SET form provides for
Boundary Description/Component Listing, definition of exceptions,
and acceptance of the equipment.. A separate SET Open Item Report
and POTT open item list (for after turnover) provide for tracking
open items.
None of these documents, reviewed by the NRC inspector
with the UE&C startup engineering representative on August 18,
1978, identified the conditions described above as exceptions or
open items. Subsequently, the UE&C test engineer prepared SET
- 076-M8-RO dated August 18, 1978, to cover valves, piping, tanks
and filters associated with the MSIV snubbers.
This separate SET
is similar to the manner in which steam generator snubbers have
been handled as a separate SET.
.
This resolves the
specific accumulator/reservoir concern, in that the licensee evaluated
the condition and established a control to assure correction of the
conditions in a timely manner.
The licensee stated that the observed conditions would probably
have been i denti fi ed during the final system
11wa 1kdown 11 inspection
when the systems were turned-over to PSE&G* by UE&C.
If so identi-
fied at that time, the items might be recorded on the POTT open
item list.
The conditions observed by the NRC inspectors, along with informa-
tion obtained by interview of the UE&C startup group, indicates
that not all approving parties had the same understanding of exactly
which equipment was or was not included in the SET package.
This
item is unresolved.pending licensee review of the interface defini-
tions, and timely correction of observed nonconforming conditions
regarding pin-to-pin spacing measurements. (311/78-26-02)
7.
Safety Related Structures Welding Records
The inspector examined records associated with welding of structural
steel and similar major steel pipe restraints. Particular emphasis
was placed on the records relating to four main steam line restraints
in the north.penetration area (21 MSG-209, 23 MSG-211, 21 MSLS-16,
and 23 MSLS-17).
The inspector examined Form FP-720-3 which lists the welding depart-
ment inspection acceptance signature for each hanger; this signature
signifies that all welds on the hanger have been examined by the
welding inspector. Supporting in-process inspection work-records
were not available . The Form FP-720-3 also provides a space for
11
other information, such as minor modifications, or deviations pro-
vided for by procedure DCP-2403.
The inspector reviewed approximately
100 of the FP-720-3 forms to identify a sample of nine structures
which had some weld irregularity notation associated with them,
(period covered included May-July 1978).
He interviewed the respon-
sible hanger verification group manager, who described the followup
actions provided for such deviations.
The manager showed the in-
spector the current file of design modification requests associated
with hanger inspection and work activities. Of the nine hangers
selected.by the inspector, the inspector identified one safety
- related hanger and verified that a followup design modification
request had been processed.
No i terns of noncompliance were identified *.
The. inspector examined the fa 11 owing documents re 1 a ti ve to the above:
Drawings
219824-04136 Sheets 23, 24, 25
222807-04130 Sheets 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
240927-D
Forms FP-720-3 (listing the following)
- 24-MSLS-17 and 18; 2C-PEDG-10 and 11; 22-FWR-9
2P-CLTG-lll*; 2C-SAG-103; 2C-RHRVS-94; 2C-SAG-95
P2-SWA-56; 2P-CCG-409; 21-MSG-209; 23-MSG-211
Engineering Change Request File
May 1978 through July 1978 - w/specifi'c examination of Numbers:
c 1681, 1687, 1689, 1693, 1694, 1731, 1743, 1744, 1768,.1773,
1786.
Training Quizes for Welding Department Staff for Early 1977
8.
Preservice Inspection Program
The Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) General
Procedure 75-6467 Revision 0 dated August 6, 1975 and entitled
11Preservice Examination Administrative Plan No. 1 and 2 Units"
provides the basis for administration of a program of preoperational
examination in atcordance with the Salem FSAR and the 1971 ASME
Code Section Xl (with addenda through winter 1972) and the applicable
.J
12
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). The eddy current examination of
steam generator tubes is included in the above plan, including a
commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.83, Inservice Inspection of
Pressurized Water Reactor Steam Generator Tubes.
.
I
The inspector found that the PSI program was in accordance with the
ASME code Section Xl, 1971 edition.
9.
Preservice Inspection*Work Activities - Eddy Current Examination
of Steam Generator Tubes
The steam generator inspection program conducted at this time was
done to satisfy PSE&G general procedure 75-6467 and the Salem
FSAR.
Procedure 75-6467 requires that a preoperational examination
of 100% of .the steam generator tubes be done.
The inspector witnessed the eddy current examination of the following
ten tubes in steam generator number 24:
INLET SIDE
OUTLET SIDE
ROW
COLUMN
ROW
COLUMN
19
14
3
22
17
14
4
23
16
14
1
22
15
14
5
23
11
14
7
23
The examination was conducted in accordance with Zetec, Inc.
Procedure Z-QA 301 dated August 7 ~ 1975, entitled "Eddy Current
Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes." Personnel conducting the
examination were certified to NOE Level I and NOE Level I.I for the
eddy current inspection method.
The examination equipment was
found to be within the current calibration period.
- The inspector observed the method for data interpretation and
evaluation which was done by a Zetec, Inc. NOE Level IIa individual
at an off-site location. The equipment used for data interpretation
was similar to that used for data collection. The inspector found
that the evaluator was documenting his findings in accordance with
. the applicable requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
J
{f
1 a.
13
Reactor Vessel Internals - Review of Quality Records
The inspector reviewed the records relative to receipt inspection
and protection of the installed vessel internals.
The review was done to ascertain that the records show that receipt
inspection was done in accordance with licensee commitments, and
that adequate protection of the components was maintained after
installation in the reactor vessel.
The inspector's review included the following:
Material Release Notice #QC 2717, #QC 3764 and #QC 2774
Receiving Inspection Report #QC 2717, #QC 3764 and #QC 2774
Receiving Report #2717, #3764 and #2774
The above documents are associated with receipt and inspeGtion of
Salem Unit 2 flux thimble assemblies, guide tube assemblies, core
barrel and upper internals assembly.
The record review also included selected reactor cavity access
control log sheets for the period from April 3, 1978 to April 11,
1978; August 7, 1978 to August 9, 1978 and for August 15, 1978
which was the latest available log.
The reviewe*d records indiCated that the associated activities were
properly performed and met the applicable licensee commitments.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
11.
Unresolved Items
12.
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is .
required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items,
i~ems of nontompliance, or deviations.
An unresolved item disclosed
during the inspection ts discussed in Paragraph 6~
Management Interview
At th~ conclusion of the inspection on August 18, 1978 a meeting
was held at the site with representatives of the licensee and contractor
organizations. Attendees at this meeting included personnel whose
names are indicated by no ta ti on (*) in paragraph l. The inspectors
summarized the results of the inspection as described in this report .
J