ML19296D761
| ML19296D761 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1980 |
| From: | Crossman W, Hubacek W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D756 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-556-80-01, 50-556-80-1, 50-557-80-01, 50-557-80-1, NUDOCS 8003130127 | |
| Download: ML19296D761 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000556/1980001
Text
N s
,
x
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FS11SSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-556/80-01; 50-557/80-01
Docket No. 50-556; 50-557
Category Al
Licensee:
Public Service Company of Oklahoma
Box 201
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Facility Name:
Black Fox Station, Units 1 6 2
Inspection at:
Black Fox Station
Inspection conducted:
January 8-11, 1980
Inspector:
'. M.'
a Ch6d
/
!
W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
Date
//2
8d
Approved:
%_
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Date
Inspectior. Summary:
Inspection on January 8-11, 1980 (Report No. 50-556/80-01; 50-557/80-01)
Areas _nspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection to review project status;
review personnel qualifications; review receipt and storage of material; and
review corrective action on a previously identified inspection finding.
The
inspection involved twenty-eight inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, one deviation was identified in one
area (deviation - f ailure to attach maintenance records to three RHR heat
exchangers - paragraph 4).
-
3003180
-
.
.
DE" AILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Aeolicant Emolovees
J. B. Perez, Manager, QA
- H.
H. Eller, Site QA Superintendent
- M
W. Johnson, Site QA Engineer
G. W. Geren, Site QA Engineer
- R.
J. Kime, Manager of Construction
- J.
Angle, Superintendent of Construction
- J.
L. Haynes, Superintendent, OC
- D.
E. Kyler, Superintendent, Material
- J.
Sullivan, Supervisor, Material
Contractor Ecolovees
S. L. Toomoth, QC Manager, J. A. Jones
K. Rademacher, Site Project Supervisor, U. S. Testing Company, Inc.
The IE inspector also contacted other applicant and contractor employees
including members of the QA/QC and construction staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Applicant Action on Previous Inspection Findines
(Closed) Deviation (50-556/79-04; 50-557/79-04):
Use of Unapproved
" Preventative Maintenance Record" Form.
The " Preventative Maintenance
Record" form has been incorporated into procedure FPPM 4.8, " Storage and
Preservation of Material and Equipment," Revision 2, dated January 9, 1980.
The form was previously authorized for use by Interim Instruction Letter
4.8, dated October 30, 1979.
Personnel have been instructed in the use
of the revised form and were counseled on the need for compliance with
approved procedures.
This matter is considered resolved.
3.
Project Status
During discussions of the Black Fox Station (BFS) project status, an
applicant representative stated that activities and staffing level of
the applicant and site contractors have been considerably reduced due
to delay in receipt of a Construction Permit.
Work on Limited Work
Authorization (LWA), Amendments 1 and 2 activities is essentially
complete.
LWA Amendment 3 work has been deferred.
The major ongoing
safety-related activity on site is the receipt and storage of material.
-2-
.
Many procurement actions have been placed on " hold" or suspended.
Pro-
curement effort for BFS, Units 1 and 2 is 37% complete.
The engineering
design for Unit 1 is 58% complete.
Figures for engineering design for
Unit 2 were not available.
The applicant representative stated that approximately six months will
be required to mobilize following receipt of a Construction Permit.
4.
Site Tour
The IE inspector toured the site to observe activities and to inspect
storage of materials. Areas toured included warehouse and laydown areas,
testing laboratory facilities, the barge slip and the excavation for
Units 1 and 2.
During the tour of the outside storage area on January 8, 1980, the IE
inspector observed that " Preventative Maintenance Record" forms were not
attached to three of four residual heat removal (RHR) heat exchangers
stored in the area.
Procedure FPPM 4.8, " Storage and Preservation of
Material and Equipment," Revision 1, dated September 13, 1979, states
that the form is a working Quality Assurance record and shall remain
attached to the equipment.
During discussions with applicant representa-
tives, the IE inspector was informed that a forthcoming revision to
FPPM 4.8 would delete the requirement to attach the forms to the equipment
and, therefore, this requirement had not been enforced.
The IE inspector informed the applicant that failure to follow the
requirements of procedure FPPM 4.8, Revision 1, pending the formal
issuance of the revision, was considered a deviation from commitments
contained in Section 17.D.1.5 of the Black Fox Station PSAR.
5.
Review of Personnel Oualifications
The IE inspector reviewed personnel qualification files of eleven PSO
Quality Control personnel to ascertain whether certification of the
individuals was accomplished in accordance with procedure FPPM 3.12,
" Qualification of FPM Quality Control Personnel," Revision 2, dated
April 3,1979.
The IE inspector also reviewed records related to the
qualification of two contractor Quality Control personnel to ascertain
if the requirements of procedure FPPM 3.16, " Review and Approval of
Contractor Quality Control Personnel," Revision 1, dated March 3, 1979,
were met.
No deviations were identified.
6.
Review of Material
The IE inspector observed storage of materials and equipment which were
located in warehouse and outside storage areas to ascertain if the re-
quirements of procedure FPPM 4.8, " Storage and Preservation of Material
and Equipment," Revision 1, dated September 13, 1979, were met.
Materials
and equipment inspected included reinforcing steel; four RHR heat exchangers
(see paragraph 4); two 22" suction recirculation valves, SN E6329-1-1 and
-3-
.
SN E6329-1-2; two 24" discharge recirculation valves, SN E6329-2-1 and
SN E6329-2-2; one 12" HPCS valve, SN E6330-7-1; one 10" HPCS valve,
SN E6330-6-1; and one 16" HPCS valve, SN E6330-1-1.
During inspection of warehouse storage areas, the IE inspector observed
numerous instances of electrical equipment with attached "Nonconformance
Hold" tags which had been applied because a calibrated megger was not
available to check insulatica resistance.
Many of the tags had been in
place since November 1979.
The IE inspector was informed that action to
obtain a calibrated megger would be expedited and megger tests would be
promptly resumed.
The IE inspector also reviewed documentation related to the site receipt
inspection of the above listed valves.
This documentation included:
Product Quality Checklists (PQC)
Pre-Established Records Checklists (PRC)
Droduct Quality Certifications
Manufacturers Data Reports
Deviation Disposition Requests (DDR)
During review of the above documents for valves SN E6329-2-1 and SN
E6329-2-2, the IE inspector observed that the PQCs, dated January 8, 1980,
stated in the " Remarks" section, "These valves received for the second
time.
They were previously returned to the vendor for hydrostatic test.
This inspection was limited to cleanliness and identification." When the
IE inspector requested copies of the POCs and PRCs for the first inspection
which was conducted when the valves were initially received on July 12, 1979,
an applicant representative stated that these documents could not be found
in the site Document Control Center nor in QC records.
This matter is considered unresolved pending location of the missing documents
and subsequent review by IE.
The IE inspector also observed that the document package received January 8,
1980, for valves SN E6329-1-1 and SN E6329-2-2 contained DDRs No. 14361 and
14350, dated December 11, 1979, and December 14, 1979, respectively.
The
DDRs were related to valve disc minimum thickness and stem collar materials.
It could not be determined why the DDRs were submitted with the valves after
they were returned to the vendor for hydrostatic testing rather than with
the valves on their initial shipment to the site several months earlier
since the physical condition of the valves was apparently unchanged during
the hydrostatic testing.
This matter is considered unresolved.
-4-
_
.
9
7.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or deviations.
Two
unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in para-
graph 6.
8.
Exit Interview
The IE inspector met with applicant representatives (denoted in paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 11, 1980.
The IE
inspector su=marized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the
findings.
The applicant representatives acknowledged the inspection
findings.
-5-