ML19207A931

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Rept 50-358/79-14 on 790522-24.Noncompliance Noted: Failure to Provide Adequate Corrective Action & Failure to Perform Audits as Scheduled
ML19207A931
Person / Time
Site: Zimmer
Issue date: 06/20/1979
From: Knop R, Phillips H, Vandel T
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML19207A925 List:
References
50-358-79-14, NUDOCS 7908230052
Download: ML19207A931 (23)


See also: IR 05000358/1979014

Text

.

U.S. NUCLEAR RfG11LATORY COMMISSION

.

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION III

Report No. 50-358/79-14

Docket No. 50-358

License No. CPPR-88

Licensee:

Cincinnati Gas and

Electric Company

139 East 4th Street

Cincinnati, OH

Facility Name:

Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station

Inspection At:

Zimmer Site, Moscow, OH

Inspection Conducted: May 22-24, 1979

'EU~-- h

(> [F /79

.

Inspectors:

T. E. Vandel

h & ngl d- f

~H.

S. Phillips

0 [20 / 79

'

'

b Must 3:~

6[24/Jf

H. M -Nescott

.e

K. R.

aidu

//M' 2#

/

Mp. Knop, Chie[7t

6[M/7f

ut.cdl

Tt.

Approved By:

Projects Section

1.

>ction Summary

Inspection on May 22-24, 1979, (Report No. 50-358/79-14)

Areas Inspected:

Review of previously identified unresolved and non-

compliance matters, review of the licensee auditing systen, piping system

record review for primary coolant piping and other safety related piping.

The inspection involved a total of 101 inspector-hours on site by four

NRC inspectors.

Results: Of the five areas reviewed, two noncompliances were identified

in three of the areas.

(Infractions, failure to provide adequate correc-

tive action, and failure to perform audits of activities as scheduled).

7 90 82 3 00 5~A 9

'

"/8b117

.

DETAILS

.

Persons Contacted

Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E)

  • R. P. Ehas, QA&S Engineer
  • J. W. Haft, QA&S Engineer
  • W.

B. Murray, Construction Engineer

  • J.

R. Schott, Station Superintendent

  • W. W. Schwiers, Principal QA&S Engineer
  • J. F. Weissenberg, QA&S Engineer

Principal Contractors

  • L.

L. Aiello, QC Inspector General Electric

  • E. V. Knox, Corporate Manager Quality Assurance Henry J. Kaiser Co.

(Kaiser)

  • R.

Marshall, Project Manager, Kaiser

  • J.

Maloney, QA Engineer, Kaiser

  • R.

Turner, QA Manager, Kaiser

  • Denotes those present at the exit interview.

Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings

(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-358/78-09-03); Inadequate information was

available to determine acceptance criteria for inspecting cable tray

hangers fastened to threaded Nelson Studs. During the current inspec-

tion, the inspector determined that construction inspection plan E-14 was

developed with torque testing the bolts of the threaded Nelson Studs. A

system has been established which documents adverse findings in Nonconfor-

mance Reports and includes updating the status of completed inspections.

(0 pen) Unresolved Item P G-358/78-31-01); Unavailability of shop drawings

to verify the welds e

nt Fuel Storage Racks (SFSR).

The licensee

performed an inspect 1;n on SFSRs and documented his findings in Field

Audit Report 221 dated February 16, 1979.

The inspection involved a random sampling of welds on the (SFSR) to

verify conformance with applicable GE drawings 762E210, Quality Require-

ment 22A2553, Revision 2 and Aluminum Alloy Arc Welding Specification

21A8644 Revision 4.

Several .25" groove welds en the base structural

members were identified to be continuous instead of intermittent as shown

on the drawing 762E210. CGE requested GE to respond to the finding.

GE's reply dated March 6, 1979 informed CGE that the welding symbols on

the drawings were not clear and therefore, CGE's finding was based on

misinterpretation of the welding symbols.

-2-

786118

CGE in their letter dated March 29, 1979 informed GE that their answer

was unacceptable and requested an engineerirg evaluation of the as built

welds. CGE is still waiting f'or GE to reply.

This item remains open.

(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-358/79-12-05); Inadequate information was

available to determine whether the HVAC condensing unit installation was

inspected. During the current inspection, the RIII inspector reviewed

the inspection reports on the installation of the said equipment.

Construction Inspection Plan (ClP) IVC 02CB dated May 23 indicates that

the documents relative to the control room HVAC condensing unit installed

at elevation 567'5" in the auxiliary building were reviewed.

The KEI personnel explained that this review was performed for reassurance

that all documents were available. Release statement WR-1A dated August 9,

1978, indicates that the equipment was acceptable for turnover. Mechanical

Equipment inspection list for this equipment indicates that inspections

were performed at various stages of construction. The licensee's statement

that some hardware was removed after the completion of the final inspection

appears to be acceptable.

(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-358/79-12-06); Inadequate information was

available to determine whether the compressed air tubing installation to

the secondary containment isolation dampers was inspected. During the

current inspection, the inspector reviewed the documentation on the

installation of the Reactor BuiMing Isolation Dampers IVG03YA and IVG03YB.

CIP's dated May 23, 1979 verified that all the necessary documents including

the receipt inspection reports, release for installation and installation

were available. Duct Leakage Test Data Sheets dated May 26 indicates

-

that the leak rate of the two installed valves were tested in accordance

with procedure HVAC4 and determined acceptable. The compressed air

supply to the dampers is not required to close the damper; spring operator

closes the damper. The licensee stated that the compressed air supply is

required to open the damper and therefore not safety related and hence

was not inspected. The licensee's position is acceptable.

-3-

78G119

.

Section I

Prepared by K. R. Naidu

Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief

Engineering Support

Section 1

1.

Review of Electrical Hanger Installation Activities

a.

Cable Tray Hanger Inspection

The inspector reviewed the inspection system developed by

the licensee to inspect the cable tray hangers.

Construction

Inspection Plan (CIP) E-14 established the attributes to

be inspected on Seismic Category 1 cable trrys and includes

verification of hanger location with the benefit of design

drawing, acceptability of hanger welds, sample checking of

the torque on threaded Nelson Studs, and verifying the

torque on anchor bolts. To date, 257 out of a total of

3219 hangers have been inspected. The RIII inspector

selectively verified the inspection findings on the cable

trays and hangers in the Service Water Intake structure

which have been documented in Nonconformance Reports No.

E1786 and No. E1787 and concurred with the inspeccion

findings. The inspector also concurred with the findings

at elevation 473' of the auxiliary building.

b.

Independent Inspection

During the inspection, the RIII inspector observed that

the anchor plates of hangers 1H099 and 1H090 at elevation

546' in the reactor building were fastened with two "Hilti

Quick" bolts on one end and welded on the other end.

The

licensee referred the RIII inspector to Design Document

Change (DDC) E-658.

This DDC dated Janaury 18, 1978,

approved by cognizant S&L and licensee personnel permits

the installation of the anchor plate in such a manner.

c.

Conduit Hanger Inspection

CIP E-145 has been developed to inspect conduit installation

and includes verification of conduit hanger construction,

installation of anchoring, acceptance of welds and proper

location of hanger. Out of a total of 6422 crnduit han,;ers,

-4-

786120

3654 have been inspected. The inspector selectively

reviewed the findings on the inspections performed at

elevations 475', 503' and 546 of the reactor building and

determined that they reflected the inspection plan E-145

requirements.

No items of noncompliance were identitied.

2.

Followup on Corrective Action on HVAC Hanger Installations

a.

The inspector selectively reviewed the action taken by

Waldinger, Younge and Burtke (WYB) to correct the inspection

findings identified in their Nonconformance Reports (NCRs).

The inspector also observed corrective action taken on the

following hangers identified in the respective NCRs.

NCR No. I 78

Hanger No. 2017

NCR No. I 79

Hanger No. 2016

NCR No. I 36

Hanger No. 2007

The inspector also observed work in process to correct the

findings in NCR I 36 for hanger No. 1937 and no deficiencies

were identified.

b.

WYB has established an inspection program to inspect the

equipment installed by them. This is in response to a

previous inspection finding when it was determined that a

nut was missing on the Containment Isolation Damper No.

IVG03YB. WYB documented this finding in NCR No. EI-1A

dated May 22, 1979.

Information is being sought from the

manufacturer on the torquing requirements. This item is

considered unresolved pending review of the checklist

being established for this purpose.

(50-358/79-14-01)

The floor above the switchgear room adjacent to the control

c.

room has excessive dust (like sand) on the false ceiling.

KEI verified this situation and determined that Zonolite

flooring was used in anticipation of covering with a floor

liner to use the area as an instrument room.

Walking on

the Zonolite flooring caused disintegration resulting in

the sandlike particles accumulation. The KEI construction

manager stated that the particles and Zonolite will be

removed since the instrument room has been eliminated.

Corrective action taken will be verified during a subse-

quent inspection. This item is considered unresolved.

(50-358/79-14-02)

No items of noncompliance were identified.

-5-

786121

.

.

3.

Review of Essential Filter Package Documentation

The inspector reviewed specification H-2817 for Package Filter

Units which includes the design, development, manufacture and

delivery of three Essential Filter Packages (1VC09SA, IVC 09SD,

IVC 10S). Two of the Air Filter packages are for the Control

Room and the other is for Control Room Standby Makeup.

The

inspector reviewed the documentation on the Essential Filter

package IVC 09SA. The documentation which was audited by CGE QA

personnel on June 1,

1977, includes the following:

a.

Liquid Penetrant Test Report (LPTR) on the HECA filter

frame close out welds.

b.

LPTR on the HEPA filter frame close out welds.

Housing and HEPa filter frame Leak Test Reports

c.

d.

Certificate of Conformance from ACS Industries that the

moisture separators meet MSAR-71-45 specifications.

Filter test and inspection reports froa Union Carbide

e.

Corporation, on the HEPA filters.

Certificate of Confor-

mance that the filters meet Paragraph 203.6 of specifi-

cation H-2817.

f.

Test report from Sutcliffe, Speakran and Colt on the

charcoal used in the absorbers.

-

g.

Charcoal Absorber Certificaticn

h.

Flanders Filters Incorporated's certificate of conformance

on the prefilters that they meet Paragraph 203.4 of specifi-

cation H-2817.

i.

Seismic certification on the deluge valves supplied by

Alison Control Incorporated.

j.

Review of the above item d indicates that the Certificate

of Conformance issued by ACS Industries, the supplier of

the separators, covers only Paragraph 203.2.d and not

Paragraph 203.2.c.

-6-

786122

.

(1) Paragraph 203.2.c states in part:

"The separator

shall Lave demonstrated its ability to prevent blinding

(defined as a p~ressure drop increase of over 5% of a

down stream HEPA filter at a test condition of 260 F

and two psig condition for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> with steam-air

mixture containing one gallon of water droplets".

Moisture separators described in AEC Report NYO-3250-6

have not met the aforementioned conditions.

(2) Paragraph 203.2.d requires that the separator shall

have demonstrated its ability to meet qualification

requirements used in MSAR-71-45.

The licensee discussed this subject with S&L and informed

the inspector that Paragraph 203.3.c applies only for

PWRs. The licensee agreed to obtain a Design Change to

the specification. This matter is considered unresolved

pending issue and review of the Design Change.

(50-358/

79-14-03)

k.

Relative to the above item g, the inspector informed the

licensee that the available documentation did not certify

charcoal met Paragraph 203.6.b of H-2817.

The licensee

agreed to obtain additional information.

Pending receipt

of this information, this item is also considered unresolved.

(358/79-14-04)

No items of noncompliance were identified.

t

4.

Review of Installed Safety Related HVAC Systems

During observation of the installed safety related ductwork

a.

systems, the inspector identified compressed air system

lines, installed by Powers Regulator, attached to safety

related ductwork. These lines supply air for operating

nca-safety related dampers and hence were not inspected.

The inspector informed the licensee, that although these

air lines were non-safety related, they should be inspected

by the Powers Regulator to insure that their installation

had not adversly effected the safety related ductwork.

Pending development and implementation of an inspection

program, this matter is considered unresolved.

(50-358/

79-14-05)

-7-

786123

b.

The inspector verified whether the standby gas treatment

system would initiate on any of the four signals ennumerated

in Paragraph 7.3.1.1'.8 of the Zimmer Final Safety Analysis

Report. Review of S&L drawings M-714, Sheets 6 and 7,

indicate compliance to Paragraph 7.3.1.1.8.

However, it

was established that Radiation Sensors identified as RE

ID13N009B and RE ID13N019B which are to be located in the

HVAC ductwork have not been installed. These detectors

are supplied by General Electric and have not been installed

because the eounting to Seismic Category I requirements

has not been approved. Pending review of the final approved

mounting of Seismic Category 1 installation, this item is

considered unresolved.

(50-358/79-14-06)

No items of noncompliance were identified.

. _ ,

I

- 8-

d'W0.Qs'd4

Section II

Prepared by H. S. Phillips

Reviewed by R. C. Knop, Chief

Projects Section 1

1.

Introduction

A comprehensive review of the licensee's audit system was

initiated during an NRC inspection on April 24, 1979. The

preliminary inspection results were reported as unresolved in

NRC Report No. 50-358/79-12 dated June 7 1979.

Final results

and findings are summarized in the following paragraphs.

2.

U.S. Test Lab Audit of Licensee's QA&S Section

U.S. Test Lab was retained to review CG&E QA&S Section.

These

reviews were performed three times per year from 1972 to 1975.

The reviews were performed twice per year until 1978 when the

frequency was reduced in QAP No. 18 to once per year.

CG&E QA

Procedure No. 18, Paragraph 18.2 states that management audits

will be performed at least annually. The William H. Zimmer

Nuclear Power Station FSAR Section 17.1.18 states that management

audits of QA&S are conducted by a representative of the Vice

President at least semiannually for determining the effectiveness

of the QA program. The inspector found no quality history

which would justify decreasing the frequency.

See Appendix A,

Item 2.

(358/79-14-07)

This findiu represents a noncompliance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,

s

Criterion XVII which states in part:

"A comprehensive system

of planned and periodic audits shall be carried out to verify

compliance with all aspects of the quality assurance program

and to determine the effectiveness of the program" and Section

17.1.18 of the FSAR which states that the effectiveness of the

QA program will be audited at least semiannually.

The inspector reviewed the 1978 U.S. Test Lab Audit and found

that findings were open from audits performed in 1976 and 1977.

Four (4) audit findings were still open af ter an extended

period.

One finding concerning inadequate documentation review

for safety related doors numbers 268, 269 and 270 was not

responded to in 1977. The 1978 U.S. Test Lab audit noted this

fact. The licensee's QA&S section response to the 1978 audit

was inadequate in that the licensee failed to respond to the

audit finding and corrective action did not assure that other

-9_

786125

packages, reviewed by the same individual, were complete.

Also, no review or audit was made to assure that other docu-

mentation packages, reviewed by other QA personnel, were complete.

See Appendix A, Item 1.

(358/79-14-08)

This findings represents a noncompliance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,

Criterion XVI; William H. Zimmer FSAR Section 17 and QA Manual

Section 16.

3.

CG&E/QAS Section Field Audits

Audit schedules, log., selected auditor qualifications and

audits were reviewed. The findings were satisfactory except as

follows:

Response to Audit Findings

a.

Replies to the following audits were not received within

the specified time (30 daysi.

See Appendix A, Item 2.

(358/79-14-09)

Audit No.

Reply Due

Reply Received

179

6-28-78

None as of 4-26-79

IS6

8-24-78

11-28-78

197

Before 11-22-78

None as of 4-26-79

202

11-22-78

2-79

203

11-24-78

None as of 4-26-79

215

1-11-79

None as of 4-26-79

217

Before 2-24-79

None as of 4-26-79

220

2-24-79

None as of 4-26-79

This finding represents a noncompliance to 10 CFR 50,

Appendix B. Criterion XVI; Zimmer FSAR Section 17.1.18 and

QA Manual Section 18 which states in part, " Measures shall

be established to assure conditions adverse to quality

.

. and not conformances are promptly identified and

corrected."

b.

Documentation of CG&E/QAS Audit Findings

The inspector reviewed of audit Nos. 178, 179, 180, 186,

188, 192, 197, 202, 203, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221,

223, 224, 225, and 228. The review revealed that audit

findings were not clearly classified as deficiency, obser-

vation or suggestion in Audit Nos. 217 and 223, thus, were

improperly documented. See Appendix A, Item 2.

(358/79-14-10)

- 10 -

786126

This represents a noncompliance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,

Criterion XVIII; Zimmer FSAR Section 17.3.18 and QA Manual

Section 18.

c.

Audits of Kaiser

Sixteen (16) of eighteen (18) Kaiser Procedures were

audited in 1978. QA Procedures 4 and 17 were scheduled to

be audited in September and October, 1978, respectively.

The audits had not been performed as of April 26, 1979.

Zimmer QA Manual Section 18 required that the procedures

be audited annually.

See Appendix A, Item 2.

(358/79-14-11)

This finding represents a noncompliance to 10 CFR 50,

Appendix B, Criterion XVIII.

3.

CG&E/QAS Section Audit of Vendors

The inspector reviewed vendor audit performed in 1978.

In

several instances vendor audits appeared to be reactions to NRC

identified problems. The audit log indicated that 1974, 1975,

1976, 1977, and 1978 findings were followed up and were closed.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

4.

H. J. Kaiser Company Audits

This company performs several important functions on site. The

quality organization, composed of approximately 40 personnel,

performs audits and inspections to control mechanical and

electrical work performed under the direct control of Kaiser.

The mechanical work is performed by Kaiser construction personnel

while the electrical work is being performed by Foothill Electric

Company, a subsidiary of Kaiser. The importance of this work

necessitates comprehensive auditing of all elements of the

Kaiser and Foothill QA program.

Management of the Kaiser QA Program Audits

a.

The Kaiser QA program is described in twenty-one (21)

Quality Assurance Procedures, QAP 1-20, which impose

requirements and general procedures based on the eighteen

criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

Implementing procedures

describing how requirements shall be executed are contained

in (1) Sixty (60) QACMI Nos. G-1 through G-17, C-1 through

C-12, M-1 through M-16, E-1, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16,

R-1, 2 and 5; (2) Twenty-five (25) Special Process Procedures

plus eighty (80) individual welding procedures; and (3)

- 11 -

7861'd7

approximately eighty-two (82) Field Construction Procedures.

The total number of main procedures totals one hundred

sixty seven (167) plus an additional eighty detailed

welding procedures which total approximately two hundred

forty-seven (247) procedures.

Sufficient management controls, such as a tracking system /

matrix /index, were not established to assure that the

essentials of all procedures are audited.

Kaiser Procedure

QAP-19, Paragraph 3.4, states:

3.4 The QA engineer audits the quality element against

the requirements and procedures imposed by the Kaiser QA

Manual.

This audit consists of, but is not limited to the

following as applicable:

3.4.1

A review of the requirements of all procedures,

forms, or specifications, associated with the audit element

to determine the adequacy of the element:

3.4.2

A review of all operations associated with the

audit element to determine adherance to written procedures,

including the witnessing of operations as required.

Par. graph 3.1 established a schedule for auditing twenty

quality system elements in the twenty QA procedures.

Audit schedules were based primarily on these twenty

procedures while largely ignoring the implementing proce-

dures previously listed.

.-

At this point the inspector considered this a finding but

decided to randomly select three important elements as a

sample. Audits of the selected sample of elements were

scrutinized to determine if comprehensive audits of the

elements were performed by the site Kaiser QA organization.

If not, did CG&E/QAS Section audits identify the problem

and assure correction?

(1) Kaiser Manual; Element 11, QAP No. 10, " Control of

Special Processes." Implementing procedures pertain-

ing to this element would include but not be limited

to the following:

QACMI:

G-11, G-12, G-13, G-16, M-10

SPPM Part 1:

1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0

Part 2:

Welding Procedures, 3.1.1-3.1.8

Construction Procedure:

2-111, 2-116

- 12 -

78G128

The audit log showed that in 1978 the Kaiser site QA

-

organization failed to perform any audits in the area

of special processes.

Audits of the Kaiser Site QA group were performed by

Xaiser Corporate QA as required in Kaiser QA Manual,

QAP No. 19, Paragraph 2.3, which states, " Independent

audits of the OA Program shall be conducted periodically

by the CGS 1 QA and Standards Subject, the KEI Corporate

QA Division and Hartford Steam Boilder Inspection and

Insurance Company." The inspector found that the

following audits had been performed:

1978 Audits

Organi-

Audit

zation

No.

Subject of Audit

CG&E/Q4S

173

Kaiser and Peabody /Magnaflux

CG&E/QAS

206

QAP-10, Welder qualification;

written procedures approved;

receiving inspection, QA records

of welders

CC&E/QAS

2C7

QACMI C-3, Rev. 3, Record of

Cadwelder Qualification

Kaiser

38

Two auditors on site from

-

Corporate

July 25-27, 1979.

Followup

QA Audit

performed on Audit No. 23

of Site

which included audit of QAP-10

Section 3.4, SPPM 5.0, 5.1 and

5.2 plus S&L Specification H-2256,

KE Construction Procedure No.

2-116.

All the these pertain to

heat treatment.

1977 Audits

The Site QA organization audit log showed that 1977

audit Nos. 308 (April, 1977) through 342 (December,

1977) included only one audit in the area of special

processes. The area audited was a review of welder

qua}!')tation records.

Corporate QA Audit of Site, Audit No. 23.

In 1977,

one audit of site activities was performed by two

a:ditors on May 3-6, 1977. The audit checklist

.

- 13 -

78G129

consisted of five parts:

1.0, Audit Followup; 2.0,

SPP 5.0 General Heat Treatment; 3.0, SPP 5.1 Post

Weld Heat Treatment; 4.0, SPP 5.2 Code Heat Treatment;

5.0, QAP-6, Supplier QA.

In reviewing this Kaiser audits described above, the

inspector found the following:

(a) Element 11 was not comprehensively audited

because management tuntivls were not in place to

assure that the KEI QA organization audited

elements at the frequency prescribed in KEI QA

Manual, QAP No. 19, Figure 19-1.

The frequency

for special processes was each six months whereas

KEI Site QA audited once in 1977 and none in

1978. See Appendix A, Item 2.

(358/79-14-12)

(b) Additionally, Element 11 was not comprehensively

audited because SPPM 3.0, Welding, and 4.0,

Nondestructive Examination, were not audited.

See Appendix A, Item 2.

(358/79-14-13)

(c) Followup on audit findings 1.3 and 1.5 dating

back to Audit No. 17 perfortned in September,

1976, were not maintained or documented as

closed in Audit Nos. 23 (May, 1977) nor in 38

9 July, 1978).

Also, 1977 audit finding requiring

action were not documented in the report as open

or closed as follows:

2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,

4.1.1, 4.1.2, 5.2, 5.3, and 6.2.

(358/79-14-14)

(2) Kaiser QA Manual, QAP No. 13, Element 13, " Calibration

of Measurement and Test Equipment." In addition to

QAP No. 13, supplemental implementing procedures

pertaining to this element would include but not be

limited to:

QACMI Nos. C-2, C-10, M-10 Paragraph 3.5.3, Test Plan

10-102, M-15, M-16 Paragraph 5.2(3), E-7, E-10.

SPP

3.0, 4.0, 5.0 which require use of densitometers,

heat treat equipment controls, welding control meters

etc.

1978 Audits _

Kaiser QA Manual, QAP 19, Figure 19-1 requires that

calibration Element 13 be audited every eight (8)

months. The inspector found the following:

- 14 -

786130

Organi-

Audit

zation

No.

Subject of Audit

Kaiser Site

346

ANSI N45.2.8 and ASME III;

QA

QAP 13 except Paragraphs 2.5,

2.6, 2.7.

Paragraph 2.7 "Cali-

bration against National Stand-

ards" was added to KEI Procedure

QAP 13, Rev. 4, on May 8, 1979.

KEI Site QA

353

This audit contained results of

auditing Foothill Electric Co.

against QACMI No. E-7, Rev. 10,

" Electrical Installation Procedure

- Cable Pulling." Cable pull

dynometer calibration was

verified.

KEI Site QA

358

Actual calibration was not

audited.

The main thrust of this audit

was

Hydro Report I:eview, however,

parts

of the report pertained to

calibration.

KEI Site QA

369 Review of Calibration Procedures

Manual (Records)

Kaiser Site

360 QACHI, E-10, " Calibration of Termina-

QA

tion Tool"

Kaiser Corp

38 Followup on calibration of Postweld

QA

Treatment Contrcl equipment / recorders.

CG&E QA

159

Calibration frequency and tagging

of torque wrenches, gauges, pyrometers;

identification; recall; calibration

instructions, purchase order for

calibration services.

The above audits of Element 13 were adequate except

-

as follows:

The calibration procedure did not require calibration

against certified measurement standard having a known

- 15 -

286131

relationship to National Standards.

Thus, this area

of calibration was not audited in 1978.

See Appendix A,

Item 2.

(358/79-14-15)

(3) Kaiser QA Manual, Element 16, QAP No. 16, " Control of

Nonconforming Materials, Parts, and Components" and

QACMI No. G-4 " Nonconforming Material Control."

KEI QA Manual requires audit of this element every

six months. The inspector found that the following

1978 Audits

Organi-

Audit

zation

No.

Subject of Audit

Kaiser Site None

None Periormed

QA

Kaiser Site None

None Performed

QA

CG&E QA

183

QAP 9, Material Identified / Controlled

and QAP-16 Control of Nonconformances

except disposition of nonconformances

was not audited.

1977 Audits

Organi-

Audit

zation

No.

Subject of Audit

Kaiser Site

313 Audit of QAP 16 consisted of

QA

reviewing audits to see if

nonconformances identified during

audits received proper followup.

Kaiser Site

325 Review of previous audit of QAP 16

QA

and QACMI, 6-4, Paragraph 1.4;

75 NCR/ Inspection reports reviewed;

disposition by engineering; rework

and hold points.

The inspector found that Element 16 was properly audited during

1977, however, the element was act audited at all by Kaiser in

1978.

Additionally, in 1978 neither Kaiser nor CG&E Qa audited

nonconformance dispositioning, which is an essential part of

the element.

See Appendix A, Iten 2.

- 16 -

78G132

b.

Kaiser Audit Checklists

Kaiser audit checklists were not in file for Audit Nos.

349, 351, 352, 354, 357, 360, and 369.

Seven of sixty-eight

reviewed were missing.

(358/79-14-16)

c.

Audit of Other Elements (January, 1978-April, 1979)

Superficial review of KEI Audit Schedule / Log indicated

that Elements 1, 3, 4, and 8 may have not been audited to

the required frequency.

The licensee should review this

area thoroughly and address the matter under his corrective

action in the reply to similar items of noncompliance in

this NRC report.

This matter is unresolved pending the

response to this report.

(358/79-14-17)

The findings described in Paragraph 4.a and 4.b above

represent items of noncompliance to 10 CIP 50, Appendix B,

Criterion XVIII.

5.

Inadequate Corrective Action

Kaiser QA Manual, QAP No. 16, Paragraph 3.6, states, " Corrective

action on recurring discrepancies will be reviewed and analyzed

by the Quality Assurance Engineer responsible for that discipline

in question (electrical-mechanical piping). After such analysis

is made, he will report his findings to the Quality Assurance

Manager for further action.

The inspector found no such analysis or reports had been made.

See Appendix A, Item 1.

(358/79-14-18)

The licensee QAS Section had identified problems with the audit

tracking system records. A new procedure was developed, however,

the old log which showed audit finding / followup status was not

corrected.

That is, thirty-one (31) of sixty-six (66) entries

were not made.

In nine (9) cases, the column was marked not

applicable when applicable should have been marked.

See Appendix A,

Item 1.

(358/79-14-19)

The above findings represent a noncompliance to 10 CFR 50,

Appendix B, Criterion XVI.

- 17 -

786133

Section III

Prepared by H. M. Wescott

Reviewed by R. C. Knop, Chief

Projects Section

1.

Review of QA Records, Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping

The inspector reviewed reactor boundary piping quality related

records to ascertain whether these records reflect work accomplish-

ment consistent with NRC requirements and SAR commitments, as follows:

Review of the following Standard Procedure Engineering (SPE):

a.

(1) SPE-1001, Rev.

1, dated January 8,1970, " Solution Heat

Treatment for 300 Series Chromium Nickel m;ainless Steel".

(2) SPE-1005, Rev. 2, " Stainless Steel Hot Bending Procedure".

(3) SPE-1007, Rev. 3, dated June 17, 1971, " Ferrite Control of

Austenitic Steel Welds".

(4) SPE-53, Rev. 2, dated June 19, 1971, " Ultrasonic Testing

Procedure".

(5) SPE-55, Rev. 1, dated August 26, 1971, " Ultrasonic Thick-

,.

ness Gauging Procedure".

(6) SPE-121, Rev. 2, dated 6/15/71, " Liquid Penetrant Inspec-

tion".

(7) " Liquid Penetrant Examination Procedure Per Nuclear Power

Piping Code USAS B31.7 (Class 1 Piping) Rev. 3, dated

April 15, 1971.

(b) Review of QA records for the Reactor Recirculating Loop Piping

System, GE P0 No. 205-AD761, pieces marked, PC MK P26-1, and

P30-1.

These records contained as follows:

(1) Drawings of pieces.

(2) Weld Procedure Qualification Certificate of Compliance.

(3) Solution Annealing Records and Certificates of Compliance.

- 18 -

786134

(4) Hydro Test Warranty and Certificates of Hydro Tests.

(5) Welder Qualification Certificates of compliance.

(6) Non-Destructive Examination Personnel Certificates of

complieuce to SNT-TC-1A.

(7) Chemical and Physical certificates and data.

(8) Heat Treatment Certificates of Compliance.

(9) Furnace strip chants of heat treatment performed.

(10) Certificate of Compliance to PO NO. AD 761

Review of beviation Disposition Request, DDR No. 5030

c.

d.

Paview of Purchase Specification 21A9318, Rev. 3, for

Recirculation Loop Piping.

(1) Purchase specification No. 21A9318 Paragraph 4.3.2.2

states that, " Materials shall be annealed by heating to a

temperature between 1900 and 2050 F and held at this

temperature for one hour per inch of thickness, but not

less than one half hour;"

Review of heat treatment oven

strip chart recording for Job No. 15095F date Approved

May 31, 1972, established that material heat treated was

held at the required temperature for approximately four

(4) minutes, in addition, one (1) loading appears to be

questionable in that the average temperature was approxi-

mately 1885 F.

Also, review of heat treatment strip chart

recording No. 58, dated March 14, 1972 for Job No. 15118

for Ells No. 19 thru 28, established that the chart was

incomplete. The portion retained for documentation pur-

poses indicates that this material was held in the oven

for four and one half (4.5) hours.

This item is unresolved pending the licensees review and

audit of the solution annealing heat treatment records Ibe

the reactor recirculating loop system to verify compliance

with applicable procedures.

(50-358/79-14-20)

(2) Deviation Disposition Request, DDR No. 5030 Reference;

Recirculation Loop Piping, dated August 24, 1971, states,

" Plate was purchased per your 21A9318 Rev. 2 which states

" Materials shall meet all the requirements of ANSI B31.7

Class 1" (REF 4.3.1).

ANSI B31.7 Class I states "Sahll

meet requirements of A-358".

A-358 defines lot as all

pipe of same material and same wall thickness.

- 19 -

766135

Your 21A9318 Rev. 3 defines lot as all pipe or fittings of

the same mill heat of material wall thickness which is

heat treated in one furnace charge.

Revision 3 would require more test plates than was pur-

chased per Rev. 2.

Securing more test plates would require

using plates on hand for test plates and purchasing more

plate for pipe. Because of prolonged delivery and high

cost involved, we ask this deviation from your 21A9318,

Revision

3."

The above was approved based on A-358 definition of a " Lot" and

that the definition of " Lot" in 21A9318, Rev. 3 would apply to

Section III 1971 contracts.

Specification No. 21A9318, Rev. 3, Paragraph 4.1.3, states,

"Where the requirements of this specification are more strin-

gent than the requirements of the above codes, this specif1-

cation shall take precedence."

Test plates that are not of the same material used in fabri-

cation would not be representative samples.

This item is unresolved pending review by the licensee to es-

tablish that the above is acceptable.

(50-358/76-14-21)

(3) Specification 21A9318, Revision 3, Paragraph 4.4.7.e.

states that, "The allowable out-of-roundness of bends as

determined by the dif ference between the major and minor

.e

diameters shall not be greater than 8 percent of the

nominal diamter."

The inspector could not verify that the ovality require-

ments for the headers in the recirculating loop piping as

there was no documented measurements in the QA/QC records.

This item is unresolved pending the licensee's review to

establish that the requried measurements are documented.

(50-358/79-14-22)

(4) Certification of weld filler metal for heat Nos. 81973-65,

D2006T308, and C2006T308, did not list the physical test

results for the material in the as welded condition. This

item is unresolved pending the licensee's review of the

QA/QC records to establish that the tests were performed

on test pieces.

(50-358/79-14-23).

-2

-

786136

2.

Review of Safety Related Piping Quality Assurance Records

The inspector reviewed quality records relative to safety related

piping activities outside the reactor coolant boundary to ascertain

whether these records reflect work accomplishments and SAR commit-

ments.

Review of Seven (7) NDE Personnel qualification records to

a.

verify qualification to SNT-TC-1A requirements.

b.

Review of welder qualification records and maintenance of

qualifications.

Review of isometric drawings.

c.

d.

Review of weld material certifications.

e.

Review of weld material issue records.

- 21 -

786137

Section IV

Prepardd by T. E. Vandel

Reviewed by R. C. Knop, Chief

Projects Section

Subsequest to the receipt of an affidavit regarding watertight doors at

the Zimmer hearing during the week of May 21, 1979, the inspector re-

viewed records regarding water tight doors located ie the reactor build-

ing and water pump tuuse. The following information was obtained.

1.

Employee A was on site during February and March 1978, employed by

R. V. Harty Company to install watertight doors.

2.

A Fopsi pressure test was applied by Employee A as a contractor

proof test and not a licensee quality acceptance test.

3.

Tea doors failed to hold the Fopsi due to leaking between the steel

angle door frame and the concrete placement in which they were

embedded.

4.

Subsequent to the time the R. V. Harty Company departed from the

site, the leaking door frames were repaired utilizing an epoxy

plastic material.

5.

Currently the quality acceptance tests are being performed with two

frame tests, one at 10 psi and a second at 17 psi being performed,

along with a door test at 82 psi (door seal test) also being

performed.

6.

The inspector reviewed some test results of tests that had been

successfully completed.

All door testing had not been completed at

the time of the inspection. Further review will be conducted during

future inspections.

(50-358/79-14-24)

Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in

order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncom-

pliance or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection

are discussed in Section I, Paragraphs 2b, 2c, 3j , 3k, 4a, and 4b,

Sections III, Paragraphs Ic(1), Ic(2), Ic(3) and Ic(4) and Section 4.

- 22 -

76G138

Exit Intervi_ew

The inspectors met with site staff representatives (denoted in the

Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on

May 24, 1979. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of

the inspection, including the apparent items of noncompliance identi-

fied in the Results Section IIof this report. The licensee acknowledged

the findings.

The licensee was also provided a punch list of items prepared by NRC

that are open items requiring followup and close out during future

inspections.

This list also included two items that notification is

requested so that the construction activities may be observed by NRC

inspectors.

s

- 23 -

%66139