ML19318B801
| ML19318B801 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1980 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B796 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-483-80-09, 50-483-80-9, NUDOCS 8006300073 | |
| Download: ML19318B801 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000483/1980009
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-483/80-09
Docket No. 50-483
License No. CPPR-139
Licensee: Union Electric Company
P. O. Box 149
St. Louis, MO 63166
Facility Name: Callaway, Unit 1
Inspection At: Callaway Site, Ccllaway County, M0
Inspection Conducted: April 23-24, 1980
T 7
to
-
,
Inspector:
I. T. Yin
Approved By:
. H. Danielson, Chief
52
o
Engineering SqTort Section 2
Inspection Summary
Inspection on April 23-24, 1980 (Report No. 50-483/80-09)
Areas Inspected:
Inspection of safety related component support installa-
tion and inspection program including observation of work and conditions
of hardware; review of work and inspection procedures, and review of per-
soneel training and document control records. The inspection involved a
tcLal of 17 inspector-hours. on site by one NRC inspector.
Resuts: Of the areas inspected, two apparent items of noncomplieice were
identified (infractions - failure to implement design instructiete shown
on design drawings - Paragraph 1; infraction - inadequate inspection pro-
gram to provide timely verification of work in accordance with design
requirements - Paragraph 2.b).
8 0 063 00(V)y
.
DETAILS
o-
Persons Contacted
Union Electric Company (UE)
- M. I. Doyne, General Superintendent, Callaway Construction
- W. Stahl, Quality Assurance Engineer
- J. V. Laux, Quality Assurance Assistance Engineer
Daniel International Corporation (DIC)
- E. D. McFarland, Construction Engineering Manager
- J. A. Holland, Project Quality Assurance Manager
- J. R. Cook, Quality Control Manager
- M. K. Smith, Audit Responsibility Coordinator
W. L. Sykora, Assistant Project Manager
A. D. Arnold, Assistant Quality Control Manager
L. W. Hill, Lead Hanger Engineer
Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company
- H. Potter, Authorized Nut! ear Inspector
USNRC - Region III
- W. Hansen, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected
1.
Observation of Work and Conditions
Very few Bergen-Paterson supplied Pacific Scientific Company
a.
(PSC) mechanical snubbers (less than 60) have been installed.
The inspector observed approximately 20 installed and 10
stored in the warehouse ar.d considered the conditions accept-
able. Very few spring haugers and rigid struts have been
installed. The conditions observed appeared acceptable. How-
ever, the snubbers and rigid struts installed on the positive
displacement charging pump pulsation damper tank SBG 05-112
were without proper connection pins. The licensee stated tha
a purchase order for the correct pin shafts will be placed a.l-
the design requirement relative to the spacer-washers for ball
bushings will be reviewed. This is an unresolved item (483/
80-09-01).
b.
Deficiencies relative to concrete expansion achor bolt locations,
bolt patterns, and component support-structural weld attachments
to plates were identified. Specific items included:
-2-
-
__
__.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
.
(1) Post Pour Embed Installation Form (PEIF) No. 2930, 8 bolt
-
horizontally placed rectangular wall plate, where hanger
EG17-H002 was attached.
(2) PEIF No. 2773, 8 bolt vertically placed rectangular wall
plate.
(3) PEIF No. 2932, 4 bolt square wall plate, where EG17 C004
was attached.
Deficiencies incltded:
The bolt locations exceeded the requirements established in
.
Drawing C-0037(Q), " Civil-Structural Standard Details, Sheet
34", Revision 10 requirement, which states in Note 3.B that
" Bolts and expansion anchors may be relocated a maximum of
3" from the location shown .
"
..
The weld attachments were not within the bolt pattern ar-
.
rangements per Bechtel Drawing C-0003, " Civil-Structural,
Structural Steel and Concrete General Notes" Revision 19,
General Note e, which states .
"the center of the total
..
weld area for the attachment of each hanger, support, or
restraint on the face of the embedded plates, where prac-
ticable, shall be within the middle one-third of the width
and length of square plate," and "The center of the total
weld area for the attachment of each hanger, support, or
restraint on the face of surface mounted plates shall be
within the same area allowed for the embedded plates they
replace, considering che center of the bolt pattern as the
center of the plate.
In addition to the above deficiencies, the responsible personnel
failed to record and report these problems per Drawing C-0003,
Note 7 requirement which state, "When the requirement of Note 6
above is impractical, a field sketch identifying the plata, shape,
and size of the attachments, location of the attachment on the
plate, and identification shall be recorded by the constructor.
The field sketches, thus prepared, shall be forwarded to Bechtel
for review in reasonably small lots."
Failure to comply with the design instructions is an item of non-
compliance identified in Appendix A (483/80-09-02).
Except as noted, no ite'ms of noncompliance or deviations were
identified.
2.
Review of Specifications and Procedures
The following documents were reviewed by the inspector:
Bechtel Specification No. 10466-M-204 (Q), " Specification for the
Field Fabrication and Installation of Piping and Pipe Supports to
l
1
-3-
O
ASME Section III for the Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System
(SNUPPS)," Revision 21, dated November 30, 1979.
Bechtel Specification No. 10466-C-103A(Q), " Installation of Concrete
Expansion Anchor Bolts," Revision 4, dated March 28, 1979.
DIC Procedure WP-100, " Installation of Post-Pour Embedded Items,"
Revision 6, dated March 7, 1980.
DIC Procedure WP-200, " Field Fabrication and Installation of Piping
and Component Supports," Revision 9, dated December 28, 1979.
DIC Procedure WP-205, " Preparation and Processing of Travelers,"
Revision 8, dated October 31, 1979.
DIC Procedure QCP-200, " Inspection of Fabrication and Installation of
Piping and Component Supports," Revision 6, dated February 25, 1980.
DIC Procedure AP-XIII-07, " Employee Training Program," Revision 0,
dated August 30, 1978.
Review Findings:
DIC Procedure WP-200 did not include the manufacturer's specific
a.
component support installation and torquing requirements, and did
not indicate Bechtel's specified tolerance and clearance require-
ments.
DIC Procedure QCP-200 did not include an inspection checklist
item for verification of location and configuration of installed
componenent support structure and attachment assemblies.
The licensee's "QA Report of the February, 1980 Audit of DIC,"
dated February 25 - March 7, 1980, Open/ Unresolved Items 2/80-A
and 2/80-01 identified the above problems. An interim change to
WP-200, including special instruction FS-M-5333, " Installation
of Component Supports," was being prepared by DIC. Followup
review of the revised procedures will be performed by the in-
spector. This is an unresolved item (483/80-09-03).
b.
.0
this review of the overall inspection status, the inspec-
te
'ientified that none of the installed hangers, restraints,
'4;id struts, or snubbers had been QC inspected. Some verifica-
tion of component locations had been performed by the field
engineers. ?IC Procedure WP-200 requirements, state in Paragraph
3.4.2 that "After a component support is erected, the Construction
Superintendent shall notify the responsible piping engineer that
the support is ready for engineering inspection. The Piping
Engineer shall inspect the component for correct location, and if
acceptable, shall notify Quality Control that component is ready
for final Quality Control inspection."
-4-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
The inspector stated that:
(1) inspection checklist requirements
were deficient as discussed in paragraph 2 above, (2) a field
engineer's preliminary inspection cannot replace the Quality Con-
trol final inspection after component installation, and (3) the
present Quality Control inspection just before piping system
turnover for testing was unacceptable as this would not assure
the prompt identification and correction of conditions adverse
to quality.
The lack of a requirement for timely inspection subsequent to
installation is an item of noncompliance identified in Appendix
A (483/80-09-04).
3.
Review of Training Records
Training records for the personnel conducting installation of safety-
related piping and equipment component support were reviewed by the
inspector. The training was conducted in accordance with DIC Procedure
AP-XIII-07 requirements.
Documents reviewed included:
CM-920, dated February 12, 1979
PPE-647, dated March 13, 1979
CM-1036, dated September 17, 1979
SAE-099, dated March 9, 1979
SAE-123, dated April 6, 1979
SAE-151, dated May 14, 1979
SAE-192, dated July 16, 1979
'
SAE-185, dated July 5, 1979
The inspector stated that he had no adverse comments after the review.
4.
Inspection of Site Document Control
During the course of observing work activities, the following drawing
numbers were obtained at one of the work locations:
C-0037 (Q), Revision 10
C-0C2211 (Q), Revision 11
C-0C2311 (Q), Revision 13
<
l
C-0C2312 (Q), Revision 5
These numbers were verified at the site document control center to
be the latest Bechtel design revisions. However, at* the second work
location, the C-0037 (Q), Revision 10, was not there; instead a
l
C-0037 (Q), Revision 9, marked " void" with the title block torn off
was retained in the drawing file.
In subsequent discussion with the
licensee engineer, the inspector stated that the provision for
the worker to retain the superseded drawings is documented in DIC
-
Procedure AP-X-03, " Document Control," Revision 5, dated October 3,
1978, Paragraph 4.7.11.
However, he was not sure whether or or not
l
1
-5-
l
.
.
the responsible personnel understands that he is still required to
obtain the up-to-date drawing for performing the work. This is con-
sidered an unresolved item (483/80-09-05).
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-
ance, or deviations. Three unresolved items disclosed during this inspec-
tion are discussed in paragraphs 1.a, 2.a, and 4.
Exit Interview
'The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted under Persons
Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized
the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the
findings reported herein.
e
i
'
,
-6-