ML20010E901
| ML20010E901 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1981 |
| From: | Bishop T, Hernandez G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010E896 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-312-81-24, NUDOCS 8109090066 | |
| Download: ML20010E901 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000312/1981024
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__ . . U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OT INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION Y Report No. 50-312/81-24 Docket No. 50-312 License No.. DPR-94 Safeguards Group Licensee: Sacramento Municipal Utility District _ P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 Facility Name: Rancho Seco Inspection at: Herald, California (Rancho Seco site) Inspection conducted: June 9-12, 1981 Inspectors: d / [(//c g g'6 / g/3/g/ ' G.Pdrnandez,ReactorJIfispector' Date Signed ' s . Date Signed - g Approved by: M C D) 8/(, [8l _ _ T. W. Bishop, Chief, Reactor' projects'Section 1, Date Signed Reactor' Construction Projects Branch Summary: Inspection on June _ 9-12, 1981 (Report No. 50-312/81-24) Areas Inspected: ' Routine unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector of licensee activities related to plant modifications including: review of construction and quality implementing procedures; observation of work activities; review of soil, water, concrete, inspection and personnel qualification records; handling and storage of material; and drawing control activities. The inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector. Results: Of the five areas examined, one item of noncompliance was identified (failure to accomplish work in accordance with approved quality assurance instructions, paragraph 4.) @109090066 010807 RV Form 219 (2) PDR ADOCK 05000312 0 PDR
.1 l a I , . ' . J - ~
- x
,jDETAILS . ; ,. - ' 1. Person's Contacted '. [ , ., , ,' .. , a. Sacramento Municipal ~ Utility Dist'rict --(SMUD)- ' . '
- R. J. Rodriguez, Manager Nuclear Operations
- R. Columbo Technical Assistant
- L. G. Schwieger,' Manager Quality. Assurance
.
- V. C.' Lewis, Onsite Generation Engineering Supervisor..
- W. J. Jurkovich, Generation Engineering Enginee'r
- T. E. Perry, Onsite Quality Assurance Supervisor
- Q. L. Coleman, Quality Assurance Engineer
l
- R. Miller, Chemical / Radiation Control Supervisor
- H. Heckert, Nuclear Engineering Technician
- D. Dearman, Civil Field Engineer
T. L. Singer, Mechanical Field Engineer K. McCarthy, Docun.ent Control Clerk b. Bechtel Power Corporation C. Letellier, Quality Control Coordinator H. Davis, Civil Inspector . E. Conley, Mechanical / Welding Inspector
c. U.S. Testing Company ' H. L. Stevens, Site Supervisor . d. SMF Corporation l T. Twomey, Job Superintendent H. Keltner, Quality Assurance Engineer l
- Denotes those attending the exit interview on June 12, 1981.
2. Site Tour l The inspector toured the facility modifications, upon arrival onsite, to observe in-process and completed work activities and to ascertain general complience with regulatory requirements, codes, standards, and procedures. Activities examined included excavation, conduit and reinforcing steel installation, soil compaction and concrete pre-placement, and formwork activities for the Nuclear Service Electrical Building. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 3. Construction Completion Schedule < Due to a' number of construction holds including contractor manning, an electrician's strike and other unanticipated problems, the . -
- , . . -2- licensee is presently modifying the project milestone schedule for c completion of. the two. Seismic Class I structures, the Nuclear Service Electrical Building (NSCB) and Diesel Generator Building (DGB). The NSEB basemat,' placemat originally scheduled for mid- May, has been rescheduled for mid-August. The licensee expects the updated schedule to be available by mid-August 1981. , i - 4. Quality A'ssuranhe Program an'd Program AdAquacy 4 -
. , The Quality Assuran'ce Program was reviewed to ascertain whether the site controllingJdocuments were Tele'va'nt to the new construction a nd consi s ten t ,wi th, the .regula tory ,requi rements .
. . . + , The doctimen't's reviewed included the SMUD Quality Assurance Manual, the Rancho.Se'co Ouality Control Instructions Manual, and Contract Specification Number 'C22.2.' ;The inspector detennined the following: ' 4 , - s. , a. Bechtel Quality Control was found to be utilizing a set of procedures entitled " Engineering -Inspection Instructions (EII) to perform their quality control function. The EII's were found to be neither described in the SMUD Quality Assurance Manual nor reviewed and approved by SMUD Quality Assurance. -Quality Assurance Procedure Number 20, Revision 1, of the SMUD Quality Assurance Manual states under item 2 of the general requirements that, "The Quality Control Instructions shall be reviewed and approved by the Manager of Generation Engineering, Quality Assurance Director, and the Manager of Nuclear Operations." b. The inspector also attempted to review the Quality Assurance Manual and the quality related procedures for the onsite testing laboratory, United States Testing Company. The inspector found that U.S. Testing has been on site since April 1981 performing quality related activities (soil, concrete sampling, testing, and inspection) without an approved Quality Assurance Manual and without approved quality control procedures. The U.S. Testing QA Manual and related procedures were submitted to SMUD on April 22, 1981, but because of a number of minor comments, the documents were never approved. The procedures currently awaiting approval are: (1) QCP-1, Quality Control Procedure for batch plant inspection a
} r- ~ i , % . -3- (2) QCP-2, Quality Control Procedure for sampling and testing of concrete aggregate (3) QCP-3, Quality Control Procedure for sampling and testing concrete l (4) QCP-4, Calibration Procedure for laboratory equipment for the onsite testing laboratory (5) QCP-5, Quality Control Procedure for receipt, inspection, , and subsequent handling and storage of laboratory equipment and materials (6) QCP-6, Quality Control Procedure for qualification, evaluation, examination, training, and certification of
personnel (7) QCP-10, Quality Control Procedure for inspection of soil- l fill. Contract Specification C22.2, Section 6, paragraph SC-12, " Quality Assurance", states in part that, " Work on this project which is identified as having a Quality Assurance Class 1...is to be performed under a written Quality Assurance Program prepared by the_ involved contractor...and approved by the District's Quality Assurance Director prior to commencement of work." 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, prescribes that " Activities l affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, ! procedures or drawings, and shall be accomplished in accordance l with these instructions, procedures, or drawings."
The failure to accomplish activities affecting quality, as documented in items a and b above, in accordance with instructions, procedures, or drawings is considered an apparent item of noncompliance. (50-312/ 81-24/01) l ' 5. Design Control a. Program ! The inspector examined the licensee's system for control of site-design and design change' activities for compliance with the requirements of the Quality Assurance program and quality implementing procedures. . ' The licensee stated that the architect-engineer was responsible for preparing and/or issuing all design documents. Design t . ' ' , e
'A
y X l ' . L. . . a , . a ,~ ,q g ,
- ,
Il [k.
' ,- . . .i ~; ' , ,,. . 1 , , , . ~ , , / L "
. - . . . . . ~ , l'
changes to design documents are accomplished through the Design Chang'e Notice (DCN)' system.-The DCN's are initiated and reviewed..by the ne:essary disciplines, at the Bechtel office responsible for the original 4 design function. b. Site surveillance ' - - From the site document? control center, ten civil drawings were selected and compared to the equivalent drawings used in the field. - All ten field drawings were found to have the current applicable DCN and of the most current revision. No items of nonccmpliance or deviations were identified. 6. Personnel Qualification a. U.S. Testing Company The personnel qualification records of six inspectors were reviewed by the inspector to ascertain conformance with ANSI N45.2.6-1978. This review indicated that all six inspectors meet or exceed the ANSI requirements, b. SMF Corporation A review of the SMF organization detennined that one individual listed as a Quality Assurance Engineer was in fact not performing a quality assurance function. The licensee stated that per SMUD memorandum dated December 11, 1981, SMUD relieved SMF of- all quality assurance responsibility during construction of the Nuclear Services Electrical Building. Discussion with this individual indicated that he had no previous nuclear experience and no knowledge of basic industry standards, such as ANSI N45.2.6, " Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Inspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel". The licensee committed at the NRC 9xit interview to modify this individual's title and pc^ an to reflect his actual duties. The licensee further committed to evaluate whether this individual or any SMF individual is required by contract to perform a quality assurance function for SMF. This item will be examined further during a future inspection to assure that the licensee has taken appropriate action with regard to this item. This is a followup item. (50-312/81-24/02) No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. . %
, _ + - _,
' ~ p - gy ,. B x [[v yj .6 , e ~ "- a - .ifjjf ; '*%u~.+N .jy g . > _ . -, f.p .y g q ; y j ,,q - sy - * ja.; q . y._., .. 4 .. . y. ; L , . ,- i c~ .4 w;P- ? . y, m w , , . ex - y j^yg: , ;f Q ' r . w. .s m 4
> wf s/ . - SL . Ly . , ,
- ,
. - - 1' , _ s g *s .
E7.' ReviewEf"QualityRecords ,
' , a. U.S. Testing- w , , i Records of. test and ' inspection activities. performed by the site testing labor & tory, U.S. Testing, were reviewed. The . records included water, cement and aggregate test, concrete ~ s'ampling and testing, and batch-plant inspection. While no L items' of noncompliance were identified, the inspector noted ' [: that portions of the concrete load tickets.were filled out in pencil. 0ne item that was filled out in pencil was that which called for recording of the number of drum revolutions before concrete was discharged from the truck. ASTM-C94 requires that the discharge of. concrete shall be complete'within 1.5 hours or before the truck drum has revolved 300 revolutions. Since the load tickets contained a number of , - obvious pencil corrections, the inspector could not verify L whether the corrections were done before or after the fact. I l Discussions with U.S. Testing site supervisor and licensee . i representatives indicated that this practice would- stop immediately l and the inspectors instructed to fill- out all tickets fully in ink. The inspector considers this action satisfactory and has. no further questions on 'this matter. b. Safety Related Piping The welcing and associated quality records for work performed on the Essential Cooling Water (ECW) System and Instrument lines were reviewed. This review included material certifications, construction inspection data reports, welding, and NDE reports. Also reviewed were radiographs of six welds on the.ECW lines. " All records reviewed appeared to meet the applicable codes and standards. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 8. Storage of Material L During the course of this inspection, the inspector toured various ~ ! SMUD storage areas. for compliance to the licensee and ANSI: N45.2.2. l storage requirements. The inspector observed that one laydown area for stainless. steel and carbon steel pipe spool storage did not appfar to meet the ANSI N45.2.2 storage requirements. Discussion - with the licensee indicated that this particular storage area was not controlled in accordance with SMUD's QA program and therefore did not have to. comply with ANSI storage requirements. The licensee t / .Y ~%.' y . ,.'* % '- w. u . , f '
...m' %v'
- w
.
- -
4g. . si ~ .. .,
- ,3;+
, n c. w( v y .. g y 9 7, y . < , } ' .! a_ Y f _y - a
,,,m 3 - -- , - - ,m , . 7_ ~ . _ , , . . ', , y
-< y , ,. , + ' J , , - y s - , - . , .. " ~ -6 * further stated ^that stainless steel pipe spools from this yard have been used (for the NSEB's Essential Cooling Water system and instrument lines) and SMUD will continue as the need arises, to utilize pipe spools from this laydown yard for site modifications. The inspector was informed that most of the pipe spools have been in the laydown yard since construction of the Rancho Seco facility was completed in 1974. The question of whether this material should be controlled in accordance with the licensee's program for material to be utilized in site modifications and controlled within accepted industry practice will be explored further with the licensee during a future inspection. This is a followup item. (50-312/81-24/03) No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. l 9. Exit Interview On June 12, 1981, the inspector met with licensee and engineering management personnel denoted in paragraph 1. The scope of the j.
inspection, the. observations, and findings of the inspector were discussed. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's concerns, ! i indicating that they would take the inspector's findings under review and would take appropriate action.
i i l l t ' " , , , ' j.
, g + . * ^^ ~ "s '
- r
. y , . , ,N .\\>
<- . ,, ,, '
, [.r }}