ML19338G350
| ML19338G350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1980 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338G342 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-80-16, NUDOCS 8010290124 | |
| Download: ML19338G350 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000358/1980016
Text
..
. _
.
.
-
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
REGION III
Report No. 50-358/80-16
1
Docket No. 50-358
License No. CPPR-88
1
Licensee:
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company
139 East 4th Street
Cincinnati, OH 45201
Facility Name:
Wm. H. Zimmer Power Station
,
Inspection At: Zimmer Site, Moscow, OH
Licensee Corporate Office, Cincinnati, OH
Inspection Conducted: July 15-17, and August 14, 1980 at the Site
Au6ust 15, 1980 at the Corporate Office
.
/Wd0n% W
d/>/
J27 jk/o
l
Inspector:
I. T. Yin
7
i
!
>
l
Accompanying Personnel:
G. Fiore11i
.i
(August 15, 1980 only)
R. C. Knop
j
P. Barrett
]
F. T. Daniels
b7ND
hw
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief
//27j/"o
Engineering Support Section 2
Inspection Summary
!
Inspection on July 15-17, and August 14-15, 1980 (Report No. 50-358/80-16)
Areas Inspected:
Inspection of safety related hanger, restraint, and
-
'
snubber site construction program. The inspection involved a total of 26
inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
In the two a'reas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance
was identified in one area (infraction - failure to document reorganization
of site QA/QC operations
paragraph 2).
8 010 29012't
'
.
-
-
-
.
..
_
_
i
l
DETAILS
.
Persons Contacted
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E)
,
- E. A. Borgmann, Senior Vice President
- B. K. Culver, Manager of Construction
- W. W. Schwiers, Manager of QA
R. P. Ehas, Senior QA Engineer
J. F. Weissenberg, QA Engineer
J. B. Vorderbrueggen, Construction Engineer
D. Fox, Quality Engineer
S. C. Swain, Construction Engineer
E. M. Schroeder, Quality Engineer
Henry J. Kaiser Company (HJK)
R. Marshall, Construction Manager
- E. V. Knox, Corporate QA Manager
P. S. Gittings, Site QC Manager
R. E. Baker, Inspection Supervisor
W. O. Puckett, Welding Engineer
T. Smith, Lead Hanger Inspector
D. M. Feltner, Construction Engineer
R. Cranston, Construction Superintendent
USNRC-RIII
- G.
Fiorelli, Branch Chief
- R.
C. Knop, Section Chief
- P.
Barrett, Project Inspector
- F. T. Daniels, Senior Resident Inspector
- I. T. Yin, Reactor Inspector
- Denotes those attending the management exit interview on August 15, 1980
at the conclusion of the inspection.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected
1.
Status of RIII Identified Items
Items of noncompliance and unresolved matters relative to large bore
'
pipe suspension systems that were not installed in accordance with
the design drawings, specifications, support component assembly designs,
and were without backup calculations were identified during RIII site
inspection in 1978.
Since then, extensive efforts to correct the problem
have been initiated and implemented in the A-E's office, and at the site.
2-
-
-
O
However, the exact status and effectiveness of the program were not
.
formally assessed and documented by the licensee. At the inspector's
request, the licensee agreed to conduct a comprehensive audit of all
aspects of large bore suspension system activities, in particular (1)
present design control status, (2) effectiveness of interfaces between
organizations, (3) construction and QA/QC work status and work plans,
-
and (4) expected completion dates for each of the implementation work
functions. The results are to be presented to RIII either orally or
in writing by the end of 1980.
2.
Site QA/QC Re-Organization
The licensee's decision to reorganize site QA/QC and place HJK QA and
QC personnel directly under the management of CG&E site QA organization
was made in early 1980, and placed in effect in June, 1980. During
4
this site visit, the inspector determined that the FSAR, QA manuals,
and other applicable implementing work procedures had not been revised
to reflect these changes. The personnel job function, interface, and
reporting channels had not been formally defined. Furthermore, in
discussion with the QA management of CG&E and HJK on August 14, 1980,
it was noted that the HJK site QC manager was not in concurrence with
working in accordance with the new CG&E policies and reporting directly
to the CG&E site QA administration.
The lack of documentation and implementation of site QA/QC reorganiza-
tion is considered an item of noncompliance as stated in Appendix A
(358/80-16-01).
3.
Procedure Review
During the July 15-17, 1980 site visit, the inspector commented that
the QC hanger inspection procedure was deficient. On August 14, 1980,
the inspector reviewed the revised HJK, QACML, M-12, Revision 9, dated
August 4, 1980, " Inspection Instructions for Pipe Hanger, Support, ar i
Restraint Installation" and HJK FCP 2-135, Revision 9, dated July 17,
1980, " Process Pipe Support Installation After S&L Final Design Analysis
and NX Instrumentation Pipe Support Installation Criteria", and noted
the following areas should be addressed:
a.
Measures should be established for the inspection of different
categories of hanger installations, such as (1) as-found, no
change, (2) new installation, (3) modification performed, and
(4) delete, not required,
b.
The time allowed from installation completion to project checking,
to QC inspection should be specified.
c.
The time allowed for a QC inspector or engineering staff person
to write an NR
after nonconformances had been identified should
be specified.
.
-3-
o
The above items are considered unresolved (358/80-16-02).
.
4.
Personnel Qualifications
>
On July 15, 1980, the inspector noticed that the licensee's recent
inspection of the Diesel generator areas had rejected all 22 previously
!
QC inspected and accepted hanger installations, including welding of
structural members.
In discussion with the HJK QC staff, it was
'
apparent that site practices for welder qualification control were
questionable in that:
(1) the procedure did not provide sufficient
QA/QC verification, (2) the identifi ation of test coupon: was question-
able, (3) there was an apparent lack of control in the test booth,
i.e., unauthorized personnel could be in the booth areas while test
coupons were being welded, and (4) there was an apparent lack of CG&E
or HJK observation and monitoring of test performance. The inspector
expressed the following concerns and requested immediate corrective
actions be initiated.
a.
Although the licensee is in the process of re-inspecting 100% of
all previously installed and inspected hanger installations, the
measures to control welder and QC inspection qualification needs
improvement.
In regard to the welder qualification control, the
HJK SPPM No. 3.2 was revised on July 21, 1980, Revision 4,
" Welder Performance Qualification Testing - General". The RIII
welding specialist inspected the implementation of this revised
procedure and considered the welding test area control, component
control, and contractor surveillance to be acceptable.
(Reference
RIII Report No. 50-385/80-20)
b.
In regard to the present welder and QC personnel qualifications,
the inspector requested licensee QA audits to be performed in
these areas.
On August 14, 1980, the inspector reviewed the
following field audit reports (FAR):
CG&E Field Audit Report No. 318, "QC Inspector Qualification and
Certification". Audit performed on July 24-28, 1980.
!
CG&E Field Audit Report No. 319, " Welder Performance Qualification
as it Relates to Pipe Supports". Audit performed on July 24-29,
and August 6-7, 1980.
The inspector had no adverse comments on FAR No. 318. Relative to
FAR No. 319, 30 new welders were tested per SPPM 3.2, Revision 4,
requirements between the period of July 23, 1980, and August 6, 1980,
among which 17 were rejected. The inspector requested selective
sample testing of previously qualified welders to the requirements of
SPPM 3.2, Revision 4.~
The licensee agreed to the request and stated
he will document any problems identified during the requalifying test
program. This is considered an unresolved item (358/80-16-03).
!
i
-4-
--
.
-
-
-
. .
.
__
\\
.
8
5.
CC&E Immediate Action Directives (IAD's)
It was brought to the inspector's attention by the Senior Resident
Inspector that CG&E's site QA recently issued IAD, No. 80-01, dated
'
July 15, 1980.
Issue of this IAD was contrary to the FSAR and the
licensee's response to RIII noncompliance item commitments relative
'
i
to the QA review of DDC's.
While the IAD was subsequently' cancelled
and corrections implemented, the inspector after review of the CG&E
QA and S Procedure 05-QAS-05, Revision 0, dated July 1, 1980, "IAD's",
stated that (1) the receipt acknowledge requirement was contrary to
Paragraph 6.7.1 of the Procedure 05-QAS-01, Revision 1, dated May 27,
1980, " Preparation, Approval, Control and Distribution of QA and S
Procedures", (2) there is a lack of requirements on how to file the
IAD's with the affected work procedures, and (3) there is a lack of
instruction on how to handle voided IAD's and the replacement of the
revised procedures. This is an unresolved item (358/80-16-04).
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance,
or deviations. Three unresolved items disclosed during this inspection
are discussed in Paragraphs 3, 4.c, and 5.
Exit Interview
The RIII management and the responsible inspector met with the licensee
representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the
inspection on August 15, 1980. The inspector summarized the purpose and
findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported
herein.
Based on previous experiences with piping support system problems the
'
following matters were stressed to the licensee (a) proper documentation of
responsibilities, (b) timely inspection of work (c) timely recording of
deviations (d) appropriate conformation of welder qualifications and
(e) proper use of IAD's.
Following discussicns on the merits of the
effort, the licensee will undertake a comprehensive audit to reconfirm
large bore piping has been installed in accordance with specifications.
>
r
-5-
--