ML19317G036
| ML19317G036 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1972 |
| From: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Rich Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317G034 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002210738 | |
| Download: ML19317G036 (3) | |
Text
.
t
./
CV f
-(
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT C 6201 s Street, Box 15830, sacramento, California 95813; (916) 452 2 11 February 7, 1972 Mr. R. W. Smith, Director United States Atomic Energy Commission Division of Compliance - Region V 2111 Bancroft Way Berkeley, CA 94704
Reference:
Docket No. 050-312
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1972 in which you enclosed a list of noncompliances found during the AEC audit held December 13 through 17, 1971, relating to the construction of the Rancho Seco Nuclear. Generating _ Station. Our comments are as follows:
1.
Incorporation of " acceptance limits" to manufacturer's procedures n ).
used to perform tests on the battery chargers for the 125-volt D-C (V
system-The SMUD-Bechtel engineering staff have been re-apprized of the requirement that functional test procedures which demonstrate that components will perform satisfactorily in service includes the i-acceptance limits, and that careful.ittention must be given in their review of manufacturer's test procedures to assure that future test j
s procedures of this nature do include these acceptance limits.
(
. i In the specific c se'found durinn the audit, investigations and subsequent " user"-tusts performed at the job site determined that the equipment does meet the specifications.
In addition, a thorough survey is being made of test records on other' equipment to assure that acceptance tests have met the soecification requirements.
This survey will be completed by February 28, 1972.
2.
Specific inspection planning not prepared prior to the initiation of construction activities:
The lack of inspection planning for the installation of the 4160-volt switchgear and'the 125-volt PC battery chargers had bmm discovered by the Bechtel Quality Assurance personnel on or alnmt November 1, 1971. Subsequently, that,insnection planning was prepared and.put into use on November 8,1971 fpr the installation of the t
(# )
6
?
j-goossie N
'AN. ELECTRIC SYSTEM SE R VING MORE THAN 600.000 IN THE HFARI 0{"il'Ic5N1a
. (
]
(jI q
~ _ February 7, 1972-L Mr. R. W.! Smith - U.S. AEC 4160-volt switchgear, and on November 15, 1971 for the 125-volt
.DC battery chargers. A review of the work that had preceded the inspection planning revealed that all inspections had been performed and that there was no detrimental'effect as a result of the lack of inspection planning.
The inspection planning for the construction of the field erected tanks had not been prepared at the time of the AEC audit.
As a result of the AEC audit finding, the inspection planning was
-prepared and. released on December 17, 1971. An investigation of the inspection activities performed to that date assured us that the' small amount of wor.k accomplished had been performed in accordance i
with the drawings and specifications.
l To assure there will be no re-occurrence of such incidents, the overall inspection planning program has been reviewed ad, as of this
'date, Class I construction activities at the jobsite are covered
?l by inspection planning and/or quality control instructions.
In addition, action has been taken to assure that all future Class I activities have inspection planning prepared prior to start of construction.
These actions specifically include the use of construction schedules to schedule the inspection planning effort, preparation of a detailed O
breakdown of. Class I construction activities to provide greater V
management visibility,'and improved coordination between Bechtel Ouality Assurance Management and Construction Management with respect to needed inspection planning.
3.
Items 3,'4, and 5 of the noncompliances listed in the enclosure to the referenced -letter all deal-with the contractor's cuality control program onifield erected tanks.
To correct thes'e soncompliances the following action has been I;
'taken:
Y'
- a.
The contractor has revised his quality control manual to more a I,'
e l clearly define the. duties of the contractor's inspector, the a 4.- use.of nondestructive examination methods, the reporting and L
[;
t resolution of nonconformances, and the instructions for docu.'
+!mentinginspectionsandauditsperformed,includingtherecording l
!. 'of the inspector's identity on the inspection-records.
b.
The revised contractor's quality control manual has been revi tual j and. approved by Occhtel 'and SMUI) ()nality Assurance persnnnel.o c.
Spot audits have been performed by SHUD and Bechtcl Quality
- Assurance personnel at the construction site to assure that the procedures are being used by the contractor's personnel.
'd.
A3 previously stated in part 2 above, the construction act.ivity n,/ '
jf. and inspections on.the field erected tanks performed prior to,
+
a
(
8 o
m
'ty id!
U Hr. R. W. Smith - U.S. AEC February 7,1972 these corrective actions has been reviewed and a determination made that the tanks are being constructed in conformance with
'the drawings and specifications.
The corrective actions on the field erected tanks were completed
{
on February 7, 19/2.
As you know, we are currently at the peak period of construc-
-tion of our. nuclear generating facility.
To assure that we continue to maintain an effective quality assurance program, the Bechtel Ouality Assurance effort has been bolstered.
In addition, although we had prev"ousTy increased the Quality Assurance audit activity,the frequency of audits will be further increased.
(During the year 1970, there were 77. audits conducted by Bechtel Quality Assurance and 22 audits by SMUD Quality Assurance. During 1971 there were 105 audits by Bechtel Quality Assurance and 29 audits by SMUD Quality Assurance.)
In conclusion, we feel that the above-stated actions have corrected the noncompliances noted in your letter and we have assured ourselves tha't although these noncompliances occurred, there has been no detrimental effect on the quality of the construction of our facility.
Please advise us if the actions taken meet with your approval.
Sincerely yours, bld We y
- 0
_ y 4
. ?!attimoe h
Assistant General Manager ii i,p and Chief Engineer
'i h
'l l.*
j
+
8 e.
i
'f. f.
4 i
I i
l i
t l
l l
1 t
C
(-
i e
i
--