ML19319A641

Insp Repts 50-269/69-07,50-270/69-06 & 50-287/69-06 on 690715-17.No Nonconformance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qc Manual,Adherence to Const Schedules & Reviews of Unit 1 Blasting Rept,Qc Records for Unit 2 & Const

ML19319A641
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	08/15/1969
From:	Fred Bower, Murphy C, Seidle W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Shared Package
ML19319A638	List: ML19319A637 ML19319A641
References
50-269-69-07, 50-269-69-7, 50-270-69-06, 50-270-69-6, 50-287-69-06, 50-287-69-6, NUDOCS 7911180080
Download: ML19319A641 (27)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:,__ qz

E.. L,J *

~ { --- \\ ~ ~ ~ s .x 1 t V l-i q,: . jet , j[. .p - -- f }. ' c J.- .p

..j, 1-5 ll1 E;.

ct g*'*l'.! ] U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION REGIm 11 [ ", % J t ~~. + l-DIVISION OF COMPL'ANCE t, J..'m l' }; :; &

^!

r ';;t Report of Inspection o 'L CO Report Nos. 50 269/69-7 g I 50 270/69-6 tl 50-287/69 6 -) sr p =f f

l. ',

3 I,.. ~ ' ' Licensee Duke Power Company l Oconce 1, 2, 3 Licens,c Nos. CPPR-33, 34, 35 - l. * : Category A >4 l- . + l' Date of Inspections' July 15-17 1969 i k,' . Dath of Previous Inspection: Apr 1 23 24,1969 l4. ( -M'/ b 4f ~ j Inspected By: / / ade f !.J.- D C. E. Murphy)-RgMctor specto r }:. (In Charge) x ,i tl~d i awh [ (' F. U. Bower, eactor Inspector (Const.) Date ) i l g k. . f f_ k< P /e* 6.j. ' f '.i! -Date - i  ! 4 q W. C. Seid14f euior "eactor Inspector 0 / N' ,i? [ ] Reviewed By: / at6 D " 'J a W. C. SeidlV, Senior Reactor Inspector i-The portions of this report relating to the electrical / t iNote:^ i ? *i I electronic inspection were, prepared in the main by 'i s F. U. Bower; None .. Proprietary Information: t .I J L SCOPE ),cl

• 7-y 4

l water power reactors under construction near Seneca, South Carolha, j~ Nn announced inspection was made of the' three 2568 Ret pressurized '[ T 1 y }' l L. ;, known as Oconce Nos.1, 2 and 3. '~ ~ i,. 7 i-

f ' '

^ 5 f O-0 2 - 4.911180O/g5.e,, f..; ' ,i + .l, ,6

b g- ~ g,, j c > p. 71

t. J c

j. i

'.E ~. i 50 270/69-6 ,j! 1. j CO Report Mos. 50-269/69-7 - M] I ..+ .50 287/69-6 i 1 ' y t.. l ? t. s s Purposes of the inspection were: (l', to evaluate the quality control I, / [k[,% [ organization and marntal; (2) to determine the construction completion'. status and significant schedule dates; (3) to review action on previous nonconformance item - Cadweld inspection; (4) to review t hn 5- ,!.the Unit'l blasting report; (5) to review valve receipt, storage, 3 j and records; (6) to review the quality control records for Unit 2 construction; '(7) to observe construction in progress; (8) to n discuss electrical and instrumentation QA/QC programs for both I ~ 1 design and installation activitiep; and (9) to introduce Murphy, j' .j the newly assigned principal inspector for the Oconee reactors. 3 \\ /- 1 1 1,. SUlhnRY ~' E' .i ' [ .] j I f Saf ety Items - None .j. + 't, Nonconfomance Items - None 1 .. + w l-s. Unusual Occurrences - None y e Q Status of Previously Reported Problems - 5: l 1. The problem of Cadweld inspection I as been resolved. Packing I ? is now removed so that visual inspect' ion of tl S filler metal may be accomplished by the inspector, yi }h. a-2. The inspectors were shown an "in house" report on the blasting M a 2 j (, that had taken place near Unit 1. This report concluded that -{~4 the blasting would have caused no damage. (See Section I for $j.) details.) !?V i.- ! 7 'i ' Otlier Significant Items -

\\ ~

,; \\

1. I A welding rod oven in the Unit 2 area had been unp' lugged from :.

j .r; .E .; 7 its power source. Management now requires that ovens be wired I, directly to the power source. (See Section G and Management' > Interview Sections.) ,9' j,y 6 y!',. 2. An audit of recor'ds relating to the containmer.t construction h; r + \\- was made. The records were complete, and retrieval was easy... r 'c Some errors were noted in entering information. This was .i

• ~

brought to the attention of management. (See Section F and {.3 c Management Interview Section.) (] 1 l e gi = t ..t-t(. ,16 w y .I !;9 ~

• r.

n.. j 1,' 3

1 ls { ^ ~~ 5 ~~~W~~ ~"&" y-y _4.. .q. i w, t ..9 ';i pm y- ..e a. i;7 j.

',(

'i , 0: 50-269/69-7' -3' F. 4

C0 Report Nos..

k- { L, - 50-270/69-6' '[*,[f f; - '# 4

50-287/69 '

~ { .q s t I3. : A1 review of the concrete placement ' operations indicated that ' ~ -n 5 proper met. hods. were being used. (See Section K.)' T E a cq 3 .g j jQ' 4. An inspection and review of the electrical / electronic instal. l . ; ;-- e

h b4,l lation activities revealed that no significant construction

. work had been accomplished other than for the installation j a r i of the polar crane.. The site QA manual reflects good breadth, T 4' but was lacking.in depth. Adequate acceptance documentation ~~ ! !jl - was 'not available for Class I equipment arriving at the site. - }< (See Section L.) . j ,1t ;[ 5.. A review of the electrical design details indicated that the' p" q I l~'. x. j redundancy of safeguards system cables is being protected j. ]:' both by physical separation and by the use.of armored cable. . I, Redundancy of equipment is being protected by physical sep- [% i, lb -s aration and barriers. (See Section L.)

p. r

~' Management-Interview - A separate electrical /e1 ctronic interview was-j T (f held at the site on July 16 since Bower, Aycock and Wells were to + visit Duke's main of fices in Charlotte, North Carolina, on July 17. (_[ ' V This interview was held.with Rogers, Wells a J Aycock in attendance. 'l i interview was ' After the meeting in the Charlotte offices, ,n exit ' held with Lee, Vylic and Oaen in attendance. .b' g.j In both meetinh,s Bower emphas'ized the need for the field to have .[ ~ adequate vendor inspection documentation in order to perform a .Since it was the responsibility.of. ?;< meaningful receipt inspection. lt Engineering to obtain this information f rom. the vendors, Lee directed, ' lC 4 Wylie and Owen to see that the field received the assurance required " ' h,e [ i, - A l~ , g g that the equipment being received had been inspected, accepted, and - r h,,. b was qualified for installation. l; a In the electrical / electronic exit interview at the construction site [- 7, o 1 '[ Bower had emphasized;the need to develop a comprehensive electrical /, _ ! Although the ef forts to date were a good 7, electronic QY manual. E the manual.must cover QA/QC-in considerably more depth before ; d w E start, Bower also pointed out that f,l f it could be considered as adequat'e. - 'proceddres were needed for the handling of discrepant. equipment which, C J L Rogers indicated that the action would be ; $,was received at the site.taken ~onF the' above' items to insure that the material w ' ^h". f -r ceived and installed. J ^ y / ? ,., The formal exit ' interview at the construction site was held with .A L ~ The following items were P: Rogers and Hdnnicut on July 17,.1969.- ,f discussed in this meeting:., s' l ig' k Yv s- ~f .y i ' ' [ ;. g ~i_ f ' I Rg3 ; '. _; ,] \\ ^

1..

Y G+$Wymn m "nmmekv ;~~~r-~m r-rm-e.Qx&v-4l ; T e y ,y>. \\ m.

. L.: 0 'Q l' ' Q,,N y ) -hn..}' N j i ..,[%t r, [y CO. Report Hos.- t 50-269/69 -4-- 'g. S0 270/69-6' 3 g F., L I, a i. l ri 1 50-287/69-6 >y k '? f '. l, 4 , q, j.,, j. -) u -N. i. ;. t. - d ] _, jj y 1.L. Veld Discrepancy Procedures _ e. 's y j q c The principal inspector noted that although records arc maintained of defective welds, n'o procedures exist to bp .],$. ;, f ' insure that veld repairs are effected. Concrete placement j ..q, signoff requirements should preclude embedding defective Q:. ucids, but welds in exposed piping or vessels may escape e., repair. Rogers stated that he would check into instituting l: u pl{ procedures that would insure that all welds were repaired. ,g it j The inspector will followup on this item. I .!~p7 2. Ovens for Veldin:t Rods r, 4 {

,; - j..

It was pointed out to Rogers that an oven containing low ! - i- ? -[ hydrogen welding rods had been cbserved that was unplugged L f rom its power source. Rogers stated that he had been [ *,. i ^ } rl informed of this and that all ovens were being wired directly to power sources without intervening plugs. l l~ l- ] 3. Ice for concrete i 4 .,I-. 7 Rogers was told that during an inspection of the concrete batching plant, it had been observed that the ice used to e 5 F. -l cool the concrete contained a noticeable amount of silt. = r[ ,i' Rogers stated that. the water for making the ice came f rom the Anderson, South Carolina, public water system and that the dirt in the ice could possibly be caused by the high water consumption brought about by the prolonged hot [ \\', He further stated that this problem wu being .M weather. .p .x ;, [. experienced with the public water system at Seneca, fp? [ ~ nl l i//t South Carolina. He advised the inspectors that he would 3 investigate this problem and verify that the ice company d* L ' [ [.f ! 2 Q4. . was still obtaining its water from the city water supply. a 3., ~ g,s 1 /4 ~t. .,j .{ h '.,

4. ' Recordkcoping '

I 7 The principal inspector mentioned to Rogers the case with ~ ll ' '[ - 1 . which records could be retrieved. He pointed out, however, b[ h q j. - 4 that several errors had been noted in entries made in the f records. In one case, the concrete batch plant inspector ' s. 41 7 f Qi si. lad' entered the quantity of aggregate in' a batch 3000 pounds lower than actually used. Three errors had been made in L. f h, z): %gi e .the records relating to one section of the liner plate fo'r . f, ,k~ ( t-1 Unit 2. Law Engineering Testing Company had incorrectly f ? the receiving l identified the section in an inspection report, J .4' inspector had assigned the section to the incorrect unit, ^ 7.,1 [ and the mechanical inspector had entered an incorrect heat i' l j: J [ ' number.. Rogers agreed to take steps to improve the accuracy, he 1 y -

f. ;

of the recordskeeping.. l' 3 -w - .1 ~ }' ll is,-3;y -1 J. ' i.b, Dh$h.) k,k b [.

Q ') g si) 'N '%weMisagen.nge.. s',i 't 3 ( y-3,g- \\ y. o . 5 \\ -

• y l-t 1

y, 6- .r i 'd 5- ~ ,CO Report Nos..50-269/69-7 p, W" * + - 50-270/69-6' l j ;m (l 50-287/69-6 -P , ', i *). .1 I I ?M 3- - :.G [ . Vendor Inspect 1on Documentation (. i: $ 4, 5.' t i-1 The Senior Reactor Inspector discussed in detail the need-L for vendor inspection documentation and for QA certifica - l (( @ 'l tions to be available at the construction site so as to )';. 3

l. l 1,.

Preclude the acceptance and installation of discrepant, l i-c material and equipment. At present, vendor inspection ev infonnation is available only at the Ch triotte offices. l: .it ,y .Jj The receiving inspector at the construction site assumes that any incoming material has been reicased by the 4h.,;.

l.

inspector at the vendors plant and meets applicable spec-The receiving inspector i'.ications and other requirements. t, ' + 7 only inspects for shipping damage or other obvious def t-l 5 The SRI told Rogers that if he (Rogers) were I / ciencies. not able to ef fect a change in this procedure, that + a meeting would be held between the management people in

j. '

• e

,i Charlotte and Compliance personnel to discuss this matter. Rogers indicated that he was receptive to such a meeting. t. c k D 6. Electrical / Electronic Items _ b,. -T The electrical / electronic items were not discussed in this. 'f meeting since they had been covered by Bower the previous J ' i* day. i I DF.TA ILS h*. 4 ~i ,j ) Persons Contacted During~ Inspection

p. f

.h ' ;A. g :!, tj;, ij. 3, yI-Duke Power Company _ [1 t W. t-i- > k., h >W t. W. S. Lee, Vice President, Engineering Y .s U. J. Rogers, Project Engineer [ i.*' t - - J. R. Wells, Principal Field Engineer E. C. Fisk, Nuclear Engineer n

~

}- C. J. Wylie, Principal Electrical Engineer jQ + Principal Mechanical Engineer ? ' LC W. Owen, .i B. Jefferies, Supervisor, Plant Equipment Design Engineer f t ~ J. Hall, Supervisor, Control Boards and Auxiliary Systems /- C. Bostian, Electrical Power Engineer l- ~) a ~ C. L. Hunnicut, Civil Engineer I s.. C. B. Aycock, Electrical, Engineer -i.-

(

,1 { ~ >G~ .f. -:;.;:*.L 1 ~ ~~ ( ~~ I}{C ~~~~

• WUO*'i"T7 ~J.i

,jL 1, L

y j.- / g.. j <c l ). / Y gl E __ u M_.I? Ih [/fis_ _ t g_> ( II} ,p v, t U -t,[e .i 4 Y. ' o.d e c.j4 + l ') p i';; 6-Y' .;l ~ 50-269/69-7 + ,.UO Report Nos. 50-270/69-6 i '~ b,, g 4' + ' Up 50-287/69-6 1 ' gj p

• 3,h-s,

h [4 a i' C. Price, Senior Design EngineerR. B. McCrary,, Superviso y t 1-jq ' '[ h i _1 h Plar.t l# M. L. Moore, Concrete Inspector, BatcJ. T. Moore, Su]. !.j 3. N c j ~.1] f j B_abcock and Wilcox, fp .. t.<. 3 W. Fausse, Site Erection Supervisor f -l (, ,.._ o y 4

i

- l [( N i 1 J. 4 ^ l - Prescon_ i r A. N. Kennedy, QC Representative and Erection Superv so .~f' L t-l ,[ f 7,, 4 1 .l';, Administration and Orga 'ization i, l i to changes 'l B. Discussions were held with Rogers and Wells re at veDuke is no long I, P 1 the functions of in the site organization. a field engineer, mechanical, but has splitMartin has the respons j,,"; s for piping and Grier {' )_" the position..I./ equipment, Sibley has the responsibility i ,t No' other ] has the responsibility for nondestructive testing. ~ y d personnel changes of significance have been ma e. i c 1 f the M The tot il-work force assigned to the construction ol ding supervision.;[ Of l 4 .Keowee !oxaway Project is 1340 inc u.pproximately 1000 a i r station. p. j They

i.. '

f',', these, Duke nos has 39 engineers and technicians at Oconee.

c. , plan on a total of 42. b: -l ~7 ~ r.j is planning to be at the tl 1 h h,j.' Smith,. Operations Superintendent,~. site beginning S j i, : .j. i

!l

p j; j. c. 2'j-., 7,. ~ '. i s' p T < G. QC Manual Section been completed fl The manual chapter for welding rod control has f 3 . J e. c. m-r- he inspector. f3 A.. j [.,,. ' fj .and a c >py is.being mailed to t p f6; d Wells the need to have procedures 4 He also stressed the h Seidle stressed to Rogers an p' t- ~ issued before work starts on an item.needifor a strong n l 't dif > t el valves., He-3 j .':h, N 'M ' ' j l i cj j j ,' [ g II -r-50-269, 270, 287/ 69 '3. ' s CO Report Nos.. ,t I'

- t I

' ;i ' f e -i 'h I q ,u' 2~ + 7 1. W l.; a-t i-n .pn-. gkiy --, '8 ;., t .t.. )

~ ~ '. ~- ;- z s.T - Q. . ik' ,w... 3 .g .~s. - .~ v 1 p _ (. . -(. go..d,,p[ + N t . r,. . ].- ., +. 1 ; \\. t w .y-i u p g.- pfa ~gy-50-269/69-7 K _j-{,}.C0 Report Hos. / - { . a q j, .50-270/69-6 , N.J,' i , ; 3,' .50-287/69-6 1 ;.. 3 u - ~ - ,m .v 3 ' '[ C C, = 't ,'. ; g.q9 d kk ~ stated that on some jobs valves had been accepted whose pedigree I. l ' [.;I J . could not be verified. Rogers and McIls were receptive to these 9 jjf comments.and coir.ented that they would be alert to this problein. j :- j y; ( ~l j ;3'. - . _ t- 'Li. t . 4;;. D. Const ruction Progress _ .F *. 1( t -3

• ?

{ 1. Rogers and Wells did not have the latest construction s completion figures available. (A quarterly progress report j r /; 8 .3 received subsequent to the inspection indicates a combined I.' I . i;' project completion of 21.57..) j

h..

i g 2. The-Unit I concrete is up to the ring girder and is presently {, l(1,- .i a, 4 -l j. being placed in the 17th ring. The reactor vessel must be in' place before concrete for the interior walls is placed. ( ] 4 ~ The-only equipment installed as yet has been the polar

' y 2,.

Control circuit problems must be corrected in it [s 'j f c rane. r before it is placed in service. ? ;j ',r

{.

3. Concrete has been placed in the first ring frame of the Unit Placement has begun on the second lift. p_ 2 containment. 4 t.. 4. Foundation preparation is ~ continuing for Unit 3. Placement .TN iDb of the base slab is expected to connence in early August.

• n3-i The P,3 i,

5. Intake pipes have been installed for all three units. '1 F Unit 1 turbine foundation has been completed. Steel 'd } crection for Units 1 and 2 turbine building has bec' n 1 .'E completed and the overhead cranes installed. .z; 'L~ [(E..ScheduleDates N ~' t t-a: . 1. Even though delivery dates for major components have slipped ~ 'E if, considerably, the construction schedule h'as not been revised I !. f . ;;.lt + 4* W since March 16, 1969. y 't ti The Unit 1 Steam Cencrat.or A was scheduled to be shipped the 1,- I. h' ( il,:)4 % ,p 2. t' week of July 20 and the reactor vessel was scheduled for I!

. s t shipment in September so as to reach the job site on y}

-l' L F l I i -.j November 14,.1969. - Steam Generator n aust be in position ~ l ~ ' b,7 I.,3 ' N 4W, hefore the reactor vessel is installed. Since a firm ship.' i.K f/

di ping date has -not.been established for this generator, it

' [-' r' f 4 could become the critical' item for Unit 1. Three primary t. . f: ' pump volutes, four sections of primary piping, and the decay N. heat cooler have arrived at the job site. Kennedy estimated Ij > y. - that tendon installation would not begin until May 1970.' l 9 i 7,;. .. r g 9 s h N. 4) ~ 1. ~ ! II ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' l,~' s.a, yv~. gy ys *2 wg, *r.% ) t f '., ~ '* ~' * " ~ [k w ~

.P 9-h ^( [ . i.d ' L .. j.) (e c 2 , j [i *' M. p . &[ i - +. .^. 'C0'ReportNos.[ 50'-269/69-7 f l,Q L50-270/69 6 ..j - r j J

O n.

c * J ,- g. Sd-287/69-6' t <y a .,,s - q-,. i ... A r

g s

%s / 4- ' F. : Records Inspection ..i

l.3,'_ ;

7 . 2 . In order ~ to determine the adequacy _of recordkeeping and the case [ h. ' o,- t,Tc W i; of record retrieval, an audit was made of the records associated ij., with a section of the containment wall for Unit 2. Lift C-1 was i IIj ',i,,' randomly selected for this audit. O y- - i + if' i -1. R_cinforcing Steel e I. - The reinforcing steel drawings are keyed to the litt and fj, $ s i identifies each bar type used in the lift. The robar bill L. of material indicates the mill certif,1 cation sheet number . (' -A for each rebar size and type. / b ' { { <if . /, ' j The.18 'S bar in this lift was identified as being reported -C s [ . [Q

U on mill certification sheets 38, 39, and 44. The 14_ S bar

~~y p was reported on mill certification sheet 44 1 { { The heat numbers for each bar type were indicated on the }g ; mill certification sheets together with the results of the I e r chemical analyses and physical tests of the matt *al. 7-I j

j Onsite tests were also made of each lot of reinforcing that g.

g was received.- Bars were tested for tensile strength and r; i.. ~ ' deformation. q [ Rebar Test Samplins / a ,m t

c. p,

~, ,n ,, i; ] it g Mill Reports {i' >I' LL Heat No._ Size Yield Tensile % Elongation 0, l.4 (Psi) (psi) l:. l f;,. ' ,i. * ., t '). 'j

W.

_285 W-004' 18 - 68,000 101,000-207. n1

• I

'28$-W-010 18 -70,500 113,000 167. * 'Q .289-U-009' 18 77,500' 118,000 177,* } ? ? h i 'C68-3532 14 -68,000 113,950 13% -7 1 C68-6733 14 68,540 110,600 107. p [; Site Test i-k@,

\\

Heat No.- Size-Tensile _ Avg. Deform. (in.) t- '1 \\l J

• l /

(psi) {6 3542-14_ 108,0.00 0.086 I ! _ [; e s 1 # n N ,A- ,z i - j } . 1.' 1 4 g t _g 11., n .q: I o x

M

!,] --, q 3 y,z-w 3'." s. _J.. f.,E.l,.y%a_.4... -,e --- --&.,g v p ., y. Q, A m m

. Y_.i __ _ ,2.- ..,.. N.. ~ \\, ~

(,s*4.,;V

k. -r s

~ q i y b t- - *1, i 7 t 61 ^ ,k:0ReportNos. 50-269/69-7' 9-i .,,(j y

r. *,

50-270/69-6 O 'l i ' 50-287/69-6

',)

l *. g;. ' 4. 4 6 7, t (- ( { q 4-v.D p, 2. Cadweld_ Splice Records p A 1 A key drawing lists the splice series in each quadrant in ? .E the containment. A second drawing identifies the individual p[0# ., ; (l-p splices In a series by argular location in the quadrant by i ') 3 fi its vertical position and by its location with respect to .j l 0 the inner or outer wall face.- All splices have been numbered. Q [, __ serially by size as they were inspected. The daily inspection, J c j- t Icg lists the splices that were inspected by serial number and .s l by location number. F. :i 1 t a': j .The inspection records confimed that the splices in the C-1 i f* ^ ~ ', lift had been inspected. Seven splices had been rejected and ' cutout. The replacement splices had passed inspection. i 'f Three sister splices had been tested successfully. Ij-i + Cadweld Test Results I i t' ( Rupture ? Date Splice No. Test No. Size Stress, (psi)l/ {'. 4/21/69 18111246 197 18 92,000 ~l[ t ' ' 4/22/69 18111298 199 18 94,500 ,!; O ,,i 4/24/69 18111348, , 202-18 96,500 J j 6, g 1/ ar pulled out. I~ } B 1 t F (} l. H

H 3.

Liner Plate Records

4 (j

N z (.

j.,

lb Mark numbers for each liner plate section were indiccted on i

m ,$j, the f abrication and erection drawings. Where identical C,M ' t sections were used, they carried the same mark number. Shop 1s c y; _ . numbers used in the fabrication of the plate sections corresponded 9 t i to the mark numbers except that subdesignations were assigned to t ;o c,g * -like pieces to indicate their exact locations in the liner. l Vendor shop inspection of the liner plate had been performed 3 l, ', 4 by-Law Engineering Testing Company, Birmingham, Alabama. The i A. / ,1.,. Lqw inspection reports available at the site listed discre-k,]-- pancies, and shipping dates. These reports identified the / liner plate sections by shop number and material heat number. t In one report, it was detemined that an incorrect shop numb ^ce l!-'f' had been given for a section that was being shipped. This 5 discrepancy was reviewed with Hunnicut, who corrected the ' R report and initialed and dated the correction. Although these, { reports were easily retrieved from the flies, the information i

4..

k ^ g, '~ \\ - l y.._ l

r

.i! r, i 'Y.h, - T._ ,,a- ,F'9~'"**"*I*~ (I . T[Y'NkI _,.ww.- .=-+.+-% ,'**'sk-[,' h- l j t

~ ,s i ~' 4 A I-La-**% } =- ir - 7 ..m g .1 r .,% ' [ 1 11 J 31- ,m. Vn. ]( .!,CO Report Nos. 50-269/69-7:.

l y i '

E 50-270/69-6 i' b .Y 50-287/69-6 hO .o 7 .7 i t y , f' j ', ', they contained was arranged chronologically, and it was ~ ti f g. + 1.,.. necessary to read several reports to retrieve a particular .e y; bit of information. ,y f Q .$;.,U spot check of the mill certification reports indicated s. i 1 that they had been properly completed. Itent numbers for , (. cach section of the liner plate could be obtained f rom l j;) the vendor shop inspect (on reports, the receiving reports, i or the liner erection report. An index indicated the mill, . '. ~ * ' ecrtification numbers for each heat number. ( l \\ A receiving report was made at the site for each liner P ,.f plate shipment. This report identified the liner plate g ,i !j sections by shop number that.wcre received in each ship- / { (i ment. A review of these reports was made. One report + L for Unit 3 plate had been incorrectly identified as Unit / 1 plate. This report was corrected by Itunnicut, who initialed and dated the correction. I The' daily liner plate erection reports were filed chronologically. To detemine when a particular section is [ had been erected, it was necessary to scarch these reports. .[ g Since the concrete placement dates were known, it could 7 be used as a starting point; and, though inconvenient, l the date of erection of a particular section could be ]7. k . j, determined without too much dif ficulty. i f-j. An examination of the liner plate report for the C-1 lift ,[ 1 :.' ' ",i revealed one error in listing a heat number. This utror M ' l-was also corrected, initialed and dated by llunnicut.

. i NE

' N j, s Thd liner plate (ield welds were keyed to the lift number [, I-1 I and the location of the seam on the plate section. The 7 [. ' T , weld inspection reports listed the weldo-identification 1 ( .5 6-number for each section of weld and indicated whether 'r [ [l ~ , [l} !! ", ~ visual, vacuum box, dye penetrant 'or X-ray inspections 4 had been made. These reports appeared to have been L . properly completed. The weldors for the C-1 section of i ,1 liner plate had been certified for this particular type f, of plate. I p I j t\\ .j. Records are kept of each defective weld. Since concrete j ic, may not be placed untti the welding inspector signs the fI prepour site inspection card, an indirect method exists l T. to insure that weld discrepancies are corrected before a pour is made. The inspector pointed out to !!unnicut that I {d y f 3 ,s Y, ,~ l ,i f h :, mN,mq rver- . m - e.r. .- r -

i. "<

_ _ ~ - ___{g - - - :),- . e 4

' ~ W ~~' ~ ~.( L. n r 2 p .I' 1 ]' (

1. i j.

CO Report Nos. 50-269/69-7 11 -- . ; > M ;,p ',50-270/69-6 / j - ' ' '. - %r [

}

50-287/69-6 g ' q ( I 9;[ _.,; g $ <er l-4 .q-c e there were no procedures to insure that weld def ects ' vere i,- 4, g) corrected in those cases that did not involve concrete r ff

• placement, and that procedures should be developd to

,U k p 'p-verify the repair of defects. .'d -d n3: A gregate Records _ .'i. 4. J O h

• h The aggregate used in a particular batch of concrete could t

'{ s . I, no-be directly traced to a particular shipment since it ; 'Ih [@T was placed in bulk stora'ge upon receipt. Each type I ^ i - j aggregate, however, is obtained from only one source. Q(g 1 Steve analyses are made periodically by the concrete 3 I / l i l. ;,f ' inspectors. Fine aggregate (sand) is also test.ed for . : } [i s }; conformity to ASTH C29-60 and C40-66. These records were ~/

}.+

l

g' reviewed and appeared to be adequate.

'./ t? 5. Cement Records The manufacturer is required to supply an analysis of a j{.,' g bin sample for each lot of cement shipped. In addition, ' L Duke sends sampics to the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory for analysis for conformity to ASTM C150, Type II. A e ' comparison of these analyses on one shipment is given. t } 4 . t below: ...l }1.q/ j,;, t.i g mical Tests ~?! Test Manu f actu re r FIL Spec. Requirements i '.[ (7.) (7.) (7.) 1 '4 o s

• Is 3

Si 0. 22.5 22.16 21.0 min. 2 4.50 4.60' 6.0 max. ~,' j" ' " - A1203 o Fe2 3 4.00 3.60 6.0 max. O l ,kh

, j % ~,,

Ca0 63.6 V ' - !Mgo 2.1 2.48 5.0 y S03 2.0 2.20 2.5 max. ., g '. L [' j ;, Loss on Ignition 0.6 O.95 3.0 max. t

• i.

Insoluable Residue 0.14 0.26 0.75 max. f C ). 1 E,,' -CS 46.4 47.7}, 58 max. combined 3 CA 5.2 6.1J 8 max. ~ ] ') 3 ed ( j ,o..Li ,q 2 .., ' pO .. + t f O' i- -.t ,t t t i '. l (4 - r

s. :

. :o I Ys p7g t

• 1

.y E-

g, --e ..a .~- ~ - ._J .-- - x "~~~ ~. ~~ pY _ j. 8 ) i

• a, --

j y., s J.- 3: t L . is ; .y .[. g! S f.' (a, n: CO Report Nos. 'A-269/69-7 [;j4[t, 50-270/69-6 p j y.4 ya p* 50-287// y 1 h, V ;' l'

.' v;

'$^ ~ [. 'i - [f-[$ '[ j Physical Tests '~ [ (p;:[ i.t Manuf acturer, t'fL Spec + s. y ~ Fineness ( '?) Wagner. 1805 sq.cm/s. 3289 sq.cm/8 1600 sq.cm/g.- ' p. 1 it Blaine ~ 3094 sq.cm/g. 2800 sq.cm/g. L.? { Soundness 0.08 0.08 0.80 max. {._ [ Time of Setting l Initial 3.20 hrs. 2.50 hrs. 45 min. min. t-1 [j Final. 6.20 hrs. 10 h r. ma x. 4 9 t Air Content 8.47. 6.47 12.0 P ..-I Comp ressive \\ 1815 psi ~ ? 3 Day-2100 psi 1000 psi a 7 Day 3110 psi 2730 psi 1800 psi / 0 4815 psi 3500 psi ( *. ~ i' 28 Day j .h - . l, 4 n. .4 11 ,( .-6. Compression Tests ". c., l i, ~. ', The compression tests for the C-1 lift were reviewed. All Ie y" b breaks exceeded the requirements for both 7-day and 28-l,, day curing which were 3,000 psi and 5,000 psi, respectively. l, .,';<g 4 e 2 di .) i- ,? , j Compression Test Results l' WA ' Cylinder No. Average Load (Ibs) Average Strength (psi) Day Break- ,[ j \\ - [l ' 1 661-11 120,000 4244 7 ,[ ,l F. F ' j;

661-18 137,500 4363 7.'

c.i 661-11 175,500 6207 28, l ,1 4 !.'t 661-18 191,000 6756 28 l @l 1 m j{' 4 { 7' F.: } 8 y' , 7. Prepour Inspection i ' i The prepour inspection form was reviewed for Lift C-1. This t 3 f, * '.

/, "'.

report had been properly. completed and dated. Certifications l (h' were signed by the cognizant foremen and inspectors. - {g. ~ +j ; p( I' -ji ' 8. Batch Plant Record and Record of Concrete Placed I., .,1 t.v i .'s ~ The batch plant record had been properly filled out and

d.

q signed by the batch plant inspector. The quantitics and .T ~.',: . truck tiumbers were in agreement with the placement record. -f + Results of the ' field tests made were as follows: L 'd -0' +.j

• 4 V

1 i 9 g 4 y-p,, ~ ' ' ' ~

p.

(, n an'., + - --e ,7. r p,7.. g. __..._......--rm.---+

... -~ x. _ S,.r 2 $. 3.- #' ' g% ~,.* _ o ; l-t .s U o ir j j_- -c '+ - 1 - 13'-- -l 'l 4 ' CO Report Mos. 50-269/69-7 l ( [ 50 270/69-6 I <L .i j 50'287/69-6 ( 'l . d' Temperature (OF) h, [. Conc ret e Air: j'; -l..t h .i ' { ~ Slump (in.) A

• r Content _ Q s,

t, rest No.. Cylinders-h 56 62, ' 1l [JE 2.7 68i- .a 3 1/4 55 661-2 2 3/4 ; 54-72 y p "c; 2.7 661-7 3 1/4 56 72- !^ il i 3.9 6 2.6 i .-66.1-11 3 1/4 56 72- ~' 1 3.1 661-15 2 3/4 54 72 ' 6 2.7 p '661 18 2 1/2 s d'~'i) 661 20 i. 3 d t -i ,f l C. Construction-t l' A visual inspection was made of the construction and storageIn addit i -i i f s {; i i j h j practices and progress, this tour served to' f amiliarize Murp y ~ k 1 areas by the inspectors.

l Photographs were made to document

[' with the Duke f acilities. inspection and are P. .k $ .the progress of construction 'since the last attached to the C0:11 copy of this report only. k g 4.._ (- During the course of the inspection tour, it was observed by hr., 2 containment k Murphy iat the welding rod oven in the UnitA check of the oven revealed that N area had been unplugged. be !!T although the interior was still warm, the rods couldThe oven contained handled without discomfort.Each size was stored on a s'eparate shelf. As I hat the p the inspector Icft the oven, a weldor informed him t three sizes. <[; { he oven. r electricians had aircady been requested t'o reconnect t lq 'l y I,ater, Moore, the Duke Weldhu Supervisor Technician, told the the ovens were being wired directly from the ? fjg j. inspectors that intervening plugs to preclude the N 'i power sources withoutaccidental removal of heat f rom the rods. ? 2 f: _[ ' The inspectors were shown a locked section of a storage ware- 'vi house by Wells, who stated that all the B&W saf eguard equipment j'"d i ~ ! ' I, ' I The inspectors were also shown 7 -is would be stored in this area. l controlled entry storage areas where small stainless stee b The only stain-fittings and instrumentation would be stored.less steel A ' ' q' 4 L fi-i ~ '.I, drains.. f No stainless steel welding was being done at the welding shopsIt y a; 3, ^ j. ,[ ! > M Q -;- *j, ; L

'L t' S y-3 7.,.- . g, -i, [, f il' t 4 E f

f

• 4 -

C0 Report Nos.~50 269/69-7

• 1' 50-270/69-6 j

j -4 ', '5'-287/69-6 9 ~ *

• j q

3i N, fi that the blasting, which was.done 190' from the containment q i.

'j.

base slab, had caused an acceleration of 0.61g.. This slab F ~

j. t -

contained concreta which had been placed 11 days prior to L fll. 'i ~ the incident. A seismolog located on the slab had measured 'l the displacements and frequency of the vibrations. The l' i structural design criteria for the plant for the maximum f hypothetical earthquake are 0.10g and 0.15g for Class I t ,f I structures founded on bedroc,k and os erburden, respectively.M. }j, The report, however, concludes that for g less than or equal to 1.0, it had been found by ' experience that concrete would not be damaged. '[1 ,) The inspectors questioned Rogers and Wells as to whose j q experience the report referred. Neither could answer, y Il;n .but agreed to try to detentine to what authority the j i .h report referred. Ut p. r J' J. Tendon Installation i-d y ~ (,- . stated that in'his opinion the installation of tendons would Kennedy, the site representative for the tendon fabricator, i j } I; not begin until about May 1, 1970. He also comented f avorably 3 Q on the quality of the concrete in the cor.tainment. I K. Concrete Placement ?N The inspectors witnessed the batching, placing, and field i, ~ testing of the concrete for lift F-2 in the Unit 2 contain-j!. ment'on July 17, 1969. 41 {' hp The inspectors first visited the batch plant 'and reviewed its 'h operation with llunnicut and McCrary. The recorder unit for i the control console das still out of order.2,/ The automatic - l-control features 'were operable and were demonstrated to the I . inspectors. Several truck invoices were reviewed and'it was - i, t noted that on one of the invoices the ' quantity of coarse j 3, aggregate had been incorrectly entered by the inspector. i The automatic features of the batch plant controller would = p l have precluded an-error in the actual amount used. s' r. -l i i . t: 7t MFSAR Section 2.6.

2/C0 Report Nos. 50-269, 270,287/69-3.

.i ). .. ~. t'k d 1 .n 4 -+s 9 p3 4 { 6 e f.M 9 6 t c r. P

.d e j

i.

) ;t., c t-4 .i o<.- 2 m s o

i-o en

/) (i. - 'Ik Q]g r, [',' . r,, f : - 'j [ ( 'e N .. n Q.. L.. .L.- f 3 C0 Report Nos. 50-269/69-7. 50-270/69-6 j s 50 287/69-6 } [. ) The inspectors watched the loading of Truck 71. The t ruck was first loaded with 1400 pounds of cmshed ice. Water, additives and the dry ingredients were then added. It was observed that the revolution counter had been set to zero prior .h to the start of dmm rotation. The drum was rotated at fast speed for 70 revolutions before the truck Icft the batch plant. Information e'ntered on the truck invoice was as follows': l pick Invoice No. 18623 7 cubic yards Mix C-2 Hoistu re 47. Cement 4060 No. 1 Aggrenate 7360 Water 20 pounds ( No. 2 Aggregate 15500 i i Total 23360 6 Before 1 caving the batch niant, the inspectors questioned Itunnicut and McCrary about the ice which contained a con-siderabic amount of dirt. McCrary stated that the ice was supposed to be made from potabic water obtained from the l Anderson, South Carolina, municipal water system. He tiso I said that the ice had contained dirt for the past several 6: days aad thought that the condition might be caused by heavy demands on the water system. f The inspectors then returned to the construction site. The truck arrived at the site at 10:03 a.m. The first bucket of I , concrete was being unloaded f rom the t ruck when the inspectors I I 'a r riv ed. The counter registered 153 counts. Field tests j indicated that the air content was 4.77.. The concrete 1 l temperature was 567 F and the ambient was 800F. The initial !I' l test resulted in a 2-3/4" slump. A second test showed a 2-1/4" slump. i The placing of concrete was observed by the inspector. The J, forms were cican and the reinforcing steel adequately tied. Concrete was being placed in 18-inch courses and each course - was being properly consolidated with vibrators. The concrete inspector was present and the prepour inspection fonr.s had }(- been signed off. l. i i. t, ,t, I W...

7-u' .(g y ~( C0 Report Nos. 50-269/69 < 150-270/69 f.. 50-287/69-6 ) , McCrary showed the inspectors. a set of graphs that he had ? been keeping. These graphs showed the break strengths of cach test cylinder and the c.ver~ ges of the breaks of each .. -[ a three successive cylinders.j These charts, he said, showed c' him the trends in concrete strength and alerted him to ] possible troubles. - j. He' also.showed the inspectoEs a statistical analysis that i .had been made of the concrete, compression tests. i The ?, -l follouing data.were taken froin the analysis. r Compression' Tests Analysis i-s 'C-1 Concrete C-2 Concrete I No. of. tests ] r i 27 90 j Average strength (psi) 6144.3 5861.7. Stan3ard deviation 436.2 [ Coefficient of variation 487.4 f { Lowest break (psi) 5040 4368 7.07.

8. 37. -

I '. 4 Highest break (psi) 7021 6968 Range (psi) i 1981 2600 \\ i for the C-1 concrete, the 77. coefficient of variation indicates t that one test in 200 might break below 5,000 psi with the average break of 6144 psi. psi. For C-2 concrete, one testNonc. of the 27 tests. had broken below 5,000 l i E in 25 might_ fall below 5,000 psi. _Only five tests', o one-inlghadactuallybrokenbelow5,000 j Q L. - Electrical /Elcetronic QA/QC Inspection .n e.;e i,. w -Construction Review .L .I 1. i n i. '\\ d a.t A_dministration and Organization p -I.' -l { 1 4W The site Q't/QO organization for control of the electrical /, e i' instrumentation, installation presently consists of one >i nan, Aycock.. This limitati.n of staff is predicated on [ j '.4; -the present' construction activity in this area, which is minimal. !j i l.i

C 1

-j' L j Aycock expects to acquire inspectors as required when- }3 ~ .\\ V j' the tempo of work increases. evaluated his future requirements for personnel and He apparently had not .i t .t-C 4 could ~not predict the ultimate number,' although he D ,2 7 did assure the inspector that qualified people were i. i 'c ( - presently availabic within their organization.when h _[ required.- The personnel he expects to acquire are [ . a' part of the maintenance group f rom whence he came,

• 3 p

[

.L 'y t t "TY#T TI [ g e. l l " l%.I,",Q._ ..m U n:: D pI, ?$\\ .. _ _ s _.~. ^' h Ig d

.~ _ - g-4 )k:. ^ y. .- \\. " I 50-269/69-7 . 18 - t. LCO Report Nos..50-270/69-61 s-

• c F

?50-287/69-6

• c

. - r, _ i. 't.. .h - Aycock reports to the principal field engineer, Wellr. ..,L '; 'Aycock cecured the inspector that his QA/QC action was L- ~ ' .h ~ h; has authorit" to stop the job, but expressed that he .. i, independent of any other consideration. : He stated he ~ hi ~- felt it his tesponsibility to minimize such actions by 'iti i- ' anticipating and-solving problems before such acti,on i)l N became necessary. n n i ~_ W b. Construction Progress <n ( ' m .h Electrical construction accomplished to date has bcon l .W g largely limited to the installation of " cast in" and - buried conduit and such systems as lighting and con-U y ~ n .venience power. -fM Theelectrical work force at the site consi.sts of 25 il personnel which is expected to remain fairly constant !I for the immediat a future due to the relatively comfort-N, abic paceTof the racility construction progress. N( ( A large amount of the cicctrical equipment, in the form jr .of distribution centers, motor control centers, motors, etc., have been received at the site and are stored in E the warehouse.., j -The Unit No. I polar crane, a safeguards system, has been installed complete with the exception of its permanent 8 facili y power supply. The cont rol and drive units for i ,il the crane were being operated as' a' functional test during {j this inspe'etion, using a temporary power connection to ,g. -the pickup bus. Testing was terminated when a number of 11 problems developed. Until repaired,'the crane will remain -f unaccepted but in limited service. i p J, Lq - j'. ',

c. - QA/QC Program 4

Discussions nith Aycock and a review of his wo *. ..f fort 4 &j reveal little to indicate that he has had auch prior ,?' cxperience in the QA/QC field. Itis ef forts to date - 4 ' 1 _,. ~ ~

• _.'

have.bcen the receiving inspec' ion of the cicctrical/ / t --d '../ c electronic equipment 'and the planning' for future ,#p ' ' clect rical' const ruction ef fort. (1)~ The QA manual offered for review by Aycock represents M ~ ... f,(; r

a credibic. cf fort on his part when considered f rom

-( his' position of minimal experience. 'The manual ) 4.. %.e ... i ,.{ 5 e +fh - .p ..g ski p. --? ,.~.rcr ~ z-,9 y^, r-w;3, -u.: 4,7 -; m-~; ~ ~ . ;,,7..' + g }q

• f,'

i m 2 dw E

.{. g, v-2,,,

5. l

, L, M {. .\\, i CO Report Nos. 50 269/69-7' ' ~ 150-270/69-6: 1 '50-287/69-6 s i j reficcts breadth, but is considerably lacking in depth.. Aycock was urged to contir% working on Q lL ; N thu fmanual, using what he had %mpleted as an ~jl- ,J-outline to build on. The lac'c of detailed field q j-procedures and the failure ta provide' inspection I: milestones were pointed out as.ione of the serious !hj deficiencies in the manual. 4 }

i:

. (2) Receivinc_ Inspection i', y: .C Two pieces of.cquipment received at the site were fi - chosen to review in depth to sample the Q\\/QC . y procedures used at the site for receiving electrical i equipment. The equipment chosen was the polar crane l) for Unit No. I and a 7200-volt motor control center -l 4 - I also for Unit No. 1. { '. (a)' Polar Crane i A review of the data availabic and discussions .i { q with site personnel revealed that the procurement i. specification for the crane, which presumably 's included the source QA/QC action, was prepared by the structural section of Engineering. A copy of this specification was not availabic to e the inspector for review, Conversations with the responsible site staff revealed that the l device was procured as an industry standard; 4 however, the fabricator was required to submit p_ f- .his in house Q\\/QC procedures for qualification r. l by Duke.. These procedures were available.and l were review 4d. None of the documentation examined referenced the mechanical nor ciectrical portions - j ~~ f of the device in any way at all. The QA/QC pro. cedures submitted by the f abricator dealt l jj ',, exclusively with the structural portions of the -j h item. i ~ ,( ~ Site receiving inspection had been performed,- ~ but had been limited to an examination for ~ !' <p j-shipping damage. No documentation was avail- .E / able to confirm that the manufacturer had met M the provisions of the procurement specification.. 'jl* uNothing indicated that the device had been 6 di accepted or cuthorized for shipment to the site h nor was approval for insta11a' tion authorized by Jj - the Q1/QC record. IT 1., n I ? n j{ l: ~ n -. t.c, e - ---- --c-y. ;,, - 4 t,,,.m.,-..n.,.,g- .~ " +,-. 4 *7 y,* ' .,*sj ' r . &p, ,(,, ML s ' L i: Wx ^ L

n: 2. t ~.: . o 1.. ... v. ~ c y 3 ] ) w y- -o r

a'

-.C0 Report Nos.- 50 269/69.- 20 E 9,

4 1

SQ-270/69-6 t

50-287/69-6. ~* P + [ I I [Nq ~ An additional concern of the inspector was the I. 2 evident. lack of any formal test procedure. It- 'also appeared that no provisions had been made f l ' to record the test results and document j

p,f acceptance / rejection of the test operation.

i } t

\\,,,

t (b) Motor Cont rol Center { p i i me QA/QC record review made for the 7200-volt h ~ . motor cont rol center revealed that a receiving insrection had been nade at the site but for I. . shipping damage only. n e r The procurement specification set forth modest. / l. testing and inspection requirements e,o be parformed by the vendor _ with provisions to obsc.rve these functions by Duke personnel if ', they so chose. ( The record f ailed to reveal any acceptance or i I inspection record indicating that the provisions of the procurement specification had been ful-filled or that - the equipment had been approved - g 3 for installation and use. [. i t -(3) Evaluation-j 1._., An evaluation of the QA/QC study performed by the inspector revealed a significant discrepancy in their procedures. - The discrepancy is the f ailure j[. of the rc ponsibic group to provide adequate acceptan,ce documentation for Class 1 equipment [t x. arriving at' the job site for installation. N j. i This condition was found to be general fo'r all equipment, as well as the' electrical equipment presently received' at the site. Site management, j when notified of this problem, indicat.ed their-P, p Q prior. identification of this. situation and ' stated -l. -!? that ' attempts to resolve the problem 'with the } responsibic group, Design Engineering, had not - (! j produced the needed results. I . ti .. ~ ~ gj In response to a request by. Duke site management, y the electrical' inspector agreed to meet with them .4 j.. and Engineering to assist in resolving this signif. 7 Q v. icant problem. g[! + j *: t .c .gI '~ g

b

~~* 3 }L. -,,r.. ,pg; - a-- ~ r*a, "7 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. r.W".* '. l?y , i, g g, ~ q ...j.. zu ) P, - ). - tf,. ' . f t - a '" y f n .,p-y 3

, y,,, \\ .} ( t l t i C0 Report Mos. 50-269/69-7 ' 50-270/69-6 50-207/69-6 i r i Aycock discussed plans for a program requiring i i periodic inspection and testing of electrical equipment at t.he site, both stored and installed, to determine that the equipment was being properly cared for during the preoperational period to prevent deterioration. The program he outlined has not been formaliced or implemented as yet. ( In view of the relatively larac amount of equip-j ment now at the site, such a program should be J promptly dcveloped and implemented. The present document record file for elect rical l [ receiving inspection action contains all such documents for everything received at the site { requiring such documentation. These documents j' are filed as they are completed (chronologically). f The recovery of documents f rom such a file was 8 discussed f rom a standpoint of the great difficulty g' involved when the reevrd grew to thousands of hI documents extending over a period of years. 't b g It was observed that the receiving inspection ] fj record was a " success file" since it did not have h any discrepapt items. Discussions on this subject y revealed what the inspector considered to be Icose. f p rocedu res. It was suggested that this was one r more area where closer control and better procedures F could be developed. h Duke management was encouraged to review their .[ procedures for receiving inspectioni documentation 1l and filing, and the field management of discrepant ij equipment / materials.- The advantages of maintaining a sep- . j;. arate file for discrepant items, which would be an j ^V active file reviewed continually and updated as discrepant items were corrected, was discussed as being H very important to reveal the individual actions that ') n the inspectors took on a daily basis, and would go a [f long way toward certifying their QA/QC actions. t .g i (: 2. Engineering Review - Charlotte Of fices i< a. Certified Electrical Equipment J. i. ii While visiting the construction site and during discussions with the electrical construction engineer, it was determined 'Ii t- ~ q li 4: ^ ^ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ p

y... - r--r.,y g g^{.-'

n. a

.y.., C

g O'l' k." + -,.. [' 'C0 Report Mos 50-269/69-7L - 2'2. i' ~ ~ ~50-270/69-6 ~ y 287/69-6 t v =, -? that electrical equipment was arriving at the site with-i- out certificati,on of acceptance by any quality assurance 4 [. organization.. To further evaluate this apparent problemi j l it was decided to organize a meeting in Charlotte with Y principal and respon'sible individuals for this activity. ,7 d The meeting was held and was~ attended by the following i ' Duke Power. Company people

• s

,k . [, C. J. Wylie - Principal Electrical Engineer U. '0 wen - Principal Mechanical Engineer J. R. UcIls - Principal Field Engineer - C. B.. Aycock - Elect rical Field Engineer y ' l The discussion of.this particular problem centered around / ^ .the various responsibilities associated with the preparation of documentation certifying that electrical equipment had ~ been manufactured and supplied in accordance with the pro-t curement specifications. It was clear f rom the outset and ' understood by all parties that the selection and procurteent of all materials, of which cicctrical mate' rial and equipent [* { is a part, is the responsibility of Engineering. They are responsible for making the initial seicetion and preparing the purchase specifications. These specifications are .I prepared'in such a' manner that they specify the type and i extent of QA/QC required for the production of such f -assemblies and components. The problem was that the equip. [ q ment was arriving at the site for' acceptance, storage, and j ~t -ultimate installation without certifying documentation that p1; ' the equipment had been f abricated as required by. the pro- [ ~' { curement specification. No acceptance' inspection document, (* 4 - setting forth clear acceptance by any particular individual,- [ was available. ~ It was determined that the responsibility - i for procurement and distribution of this particular document { '4 was the responsibility of Engineering. They agreed that it .j y ( was their responsibility. They discussed the fact that they had been having difficulty.with their vendors in pro-L n' ^ * - curing this document; however, it was equally clear that I providing such documents was ' a contractural obligation ![ J which should make'it simple to acquire. It seemed that Q. the pressure of constniction schedules had caused the y: principal engineers to accept telephone conversations as J documentation, in.a _ sense, and they had authorized the shipping pf the equipment without actually having received an acceptance document. They used the argument that they, were not willing to give the field an acceptance document 4 on 'the basis of a telephone call..This seemed to lsc a. contradiction since they were willing to authorize shipment }v; 'without the document.- h ~

l ?,

5' i e* w.,-ee-- e,w*"+w.e*-Wm**-

• M r*--

M . [ Q*.*g.. - ... g ;..- g,s, '. I .' $2.'% 'h P + g -- m_

l f C O Repo rt Nos. 50 269/69-7 i. 50-270/69-6 L 50-287/69-6 p. The problem was resolved with the acceptance of responsi-- l bility on the part of Engineering to procure and provide the i -Id the acceptance documentation discussed. This secnig ly :111 require further meetings on the part of P. ; the fit d engineers and the design engineers to set up a proco. ire whereby this gap in their system can be 3 4

closed, they agreed to review this situation over the l

interim period and have final procedures available for the principal inspector's review and discussion at his ? next visit to the site. D y b. Design Planning I Duke Discussion Team: !j C. J. Uylie - Principal Electrical Engineer C. 3ostian - Electrical Power Engineer B. Jef feries - Supervisor, Plant Equipment Design Engineer (-- J. Itall - Supervisor, Control Boards and Auxiliary Systems C. Price - Senior Design Engineer f C. B. Aycock - Electrical Field Engineer ' a From the continuing discussions with the above-listed responsible members of the electrical engineering design P staf f, the inspector arrived at a number of conclusions. I These conclusions are based on several principal subjects d discussed and are taken up individually in the following l narrat ive bl j5 (1) Separations Criteria .( l On the subject of redundant safeguards cabic instal-lation, the inspector stated that a problem observed by the inspector at other plants seemingly was asso-ciated with the difficulty of administering the installation of large numbers of cables. With this b { consideration, the engineers were asked what their i criteria for installing the safegur.

• cables was.

Their reply was that those cables forming a pa:-t of redundant safeguards systems and located in the turbine building would be separated in individual trays by a distance of eight feet horizontal. In the auxiliary building area, which included the electrical dist ribution equipment rooms, the cable !( p t p h". p* . v w --. -- - .,_,,(.,,;......--...-- 9@.:, h 'd . ' el,. *;o :,4 l

f;c \\ l.- {! F. CO Report Nos. 50-269/69-7.- L 50-270/69-6 ( 50-287/69-6 hi spreading room, and the cont rol room, the cables ii d. vere to be enintained separate as much as practical. ? Further development of this detail revealed that I' I the licensee had fim plans to use armored cable i. throughout the plant. With this consideration, redundant cables could be located in the same tray 4 3-and still have the steel separation described by y many licensees in their separations criteria. The developing ccnversation revealed that they had def-g inite plans to maintain cenplete separation through. j out the plant for all redundant cables, with the { possibla exception of the point where cables j-le ft the trays and entered the control cabinets {,y in the cont rol room. Even there, detemined effort was { to be made to maintain separation. L (2) Cable Tray Installations A review of the detailed cabic tray layout 5 d rawings h revealed an ext nsive and well thought out cabic { tray installation. Plans were not firn as to how 'I the trays would I designated or the identification system that would L-s used. 11owever, early decisions had been made to provide redundant trays for the redundant safeguards cables. Further separation of systems was to be maintained with separate tray systems to be provided for the power cables above 600 volts, power cables below 600 volts, and instru-mentation and control cables. The inspector was reminded of their decision for armored cabic when he ques':ir 'ed their mixing of low-noise cabic with other cables. They reported that they had performed tests with low-noise b armored cables and stated they had not found one significant problem with mixed installations; v: consequently, they had decided to install low-noise ,f cables with the other instrument cables. i u (3) Cable Installation Administration { Planning for tne administration of cabic installations was not yet complete. The engineers spoke freely of a some of their ideas concerning this. They have pro-i posed to color code the armored cable for the redundant t i 1 (' t s. i g. 1. - r..,.,,,, 7 L L

.3 1 r.

-..,.f g,,. _ _.. 3 n; F E a

k,

• J

/ I s / f CO Report Nos. 50 269/69-7 - 50-270/69-6 287/69-6 3 ^ safeguards systems along its entire length. The particular method to be used had not yet been worked out. The combination of color coding of f cables and the,significant marking characteristics proposed for the trays, along with a computerized administrative program of cable installations, are all being considered by the engineers. If this program can be arranged to give the various controls discussed, it ufl1 aid in the solution of the cable problem. I (4) Containment Vess 1 Penetration Area j Questions regarding the penetration area at the containecnt vessel produced answers in the form [ of detailed drawings which were reviewed by the i in s pect o r,. All cable splices and all connections i to and f rom the penetrations are made within the confines of a cabinet designed for the purpose and are either in the form of connectors or ( terminals within these cabinets. The penet rations themselves are as shown and described in the FSAR. I (5) Cable Tray Loading W ' It is proposed to load the cabic trays in accord-ance with the IICEA standards for the power cables. This standard reportedly calls for one layer only , ~, of arrored cabic in each tray separated by f rum one fourth to one diameter between cables. For the control and other cables, the loading will be l based on ampacity limits but, instead of reducing the number of cables in the tray, it is proposed to accomplish the same thing by derating the capacity s l of the cables, thus avoiding exceeding the ampacity limits even if the cable tray is 1007. full. This does not mean they propose to fill the trays 1007. full. As a matter of fact, they spoke in terms of i 307. fill. Ilowever, the final planning in this ,} area is not firm. (6) Wo rkmanship 'i A general discussion about concepts of installing t rays, equipment, and cables in the plant revealed that they feel secure in the fact that all employees are old-time, long-term employees of Duke Power '( Company which, in it.self, can be depended upon to produce an accomplished workmanlike job. T, h ..~ r ~g - i.: 7;D.: f..,...;. r 1, .pe. .T ",WP *' 7 ~ ~" ' ~

• d:f.

f.c.' - u p

^um 3-3.- ~. ;

u.....

k ~ n, x t u [ I-CO Report Nos.'50-269/69 J 26 - [,, 50-270/69-6 9. 50-287/69-6' n ', 5 4 , ~. 4 I -( t-Discussions ~ of the details of the installation ,; i 'i ~ revealed that all cable tray supports will be l' )4 - X.! 7 detailed on the d wings prepared by the Engi-j neering' office. Annored cabic terminations, T 4 supports, and exits and entries to cabinets will r be detailed. It is proposed to utilize cabic.

trays or cable ladders for all horizontal runs.

Vertical runs may. be made on -surface racks con-i structed of unistrut or structural steel members .' I ' li' attached to the walls. t t (7) ' Equipment Layout b 3 i 7" A review of the drawings showing the electrical equipment layout revealed battery installations with redundant systems for each plant located in i individual cabinets within the confines of the i turbine building. Each battery was located in its individual cabinet-like enclosure, which they (- any flanr.abic products to the outside environment. .' (( reported would have an exhaust system to discharge The batteries being used are a lead-calcium type batterf. They state that this type battery pro-j . duces approxi,mately 107. of the hydrogen that !~ ordinarily occurs in the regular lead-acid battery. 1-Consequently, they anticipate no problem f rom this point. 4 The 600-volt A.C.. motor cont rol centers, battery / charges, inverters, D.C. distri'uution panel, and i9 600-volt A.C. redundant power distribution centers are all located in the same room.. U.' .p. 1 (8) Cable Spreading Room .1 <*I-The detailed layout and section drawings of the i cable spreading room were reviewed in detail and. r 1 considerabic discussion ensued regarding the M. routing of cables in and around this room. It li_ j y was stated by the inspector that this particular d~ S- ./ region could prove to be a problem area if not 7/ adequ at ely. designed. These problems, as experi-enced by the inspector, were generally associated with undersized rooms and cable tray capacity for ~7 an unexpected large cable population. .u 4 r J s,...t . w., y p y ..t.s

x

. m

Q i z ", ) u

a.. ?

.., w.. l.{.;'f 4 * *, +3j..::n n. ,o y;+rw g 'g - ~ b h,y1 . >y \\. q t I { .s / '. * ~ .,i [;) s! 'y h;.). 1 r-3 ~ . 27 .y ,il - ; ' 69/69-7 p:,d',s{qCoReportNos.50-250 270/69 6 j ,n,,. 11 d l-t

e. n j '

d' 3,.i 50 287/69-6' t,, . ) ,:[, d an extensive i ,j, N.,.,. The plan review revealed a large roorn anThe details o [l!"l[j . q.1 . g,. - l i d it can be * [>*j cable tray systern., area were discussed extensively, anl de plans to k t g,; }l reported that these details inc usystems in separate trays this N hn ]' 1 ',.. the cables of redundant -If it proves it:possible, t e i /' to the maximum extenteredundant cables will occupy t e trays. Q+ ', d I +'

jj.

g.' .p ,J~ I i h g m, ] \\ f , t j%. j , p; l-jI 1 l 1"' f

i..

t.l-;.{. 1- , * (. t 1

I *

(; ;. 3 ..i, j,,. b f u g e s t s t:' 4 1 + j l 1, e g e e S e l. g- .I 1 [y i <\\ ' 3 ..j I s e. I p; 4 ^ ,,s., i -c~ 1 i. i'

t

• -f'p

+ h g ^ No. k 1 M.t 2 j ::'. _ e !I I ~ j(( '1' ff

; 1,

,I!. N t' e l. ..rs g. e j' 4 i . ; r., n + + \\ j %. {(' . i6 .ie e $g

• f. =* *,
• t-

' l ',

j J,

{p -.,j ;, .t 1 ;. t i } + e i + ',t*,

. ~ $

/ e 1. o, I .Qd e ,4 r C, f . j; % aif g-c ? ' 4 h * ' I' g .'./ r.

• Y:

\\' i 1 ? 4 s

h. ;-

Qn.k ' u a. t ') f ! f.. ~ ~~~ } 4 ~ (., ~*** ~ ~ j y

• • [

>+ : e_ 4 ~~ .* s: .I s. 4 ' Q l,,. br e.i, J. s w: I -.}}