IR 05000458/1985068

Insp Rept 50-458/85-68 on 850930-1003.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Quality Concerns Program,Asme Certification Program & Followup on Previous Insp Findings

ML20136B865
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	11/01/1985
From:	Jaudon J, Mcneill W, Renee Taylor NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136B850	List: IR 05000458/1985068 ML20136B846
References
50-458-85-68, NUDOCS 8511200303
Download: ML20136B865 (7)

Text

.

APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-458/85-68 License: NPF-40 Docket: 50-458 Licensee: Gulf States Utilities (GSU)

P. O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Facility Name: River Bend Station Inspection At: River Bend Station Inspection Conducted: September 30 through October 3,~1985 Inspectors: + f /o/.7//gs-W. M. McNeill, Reactbr Inspector, Reactor D&te '

Projects Branch B1/ /pl3llf[

R.' G. I lor, Reactor Inspector, Reactor D#te/

Proje ts Branch

/

m2 & // ![

J./P.[Jaudo, Chief,ProjectionSdctionA, Date (Reactor rojectsBranch

'

/

Approved: .

gu AA ff fy J P. Jau , Chief, ' Pro' ject Section A, Reactor Date i-Pro ct Branch

[d SDoc G

de

. - -

.

.

-2-Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted September 30-October 3, 1985 (Report 50-458/85-68)

'

Areas' Inspected:

'

'

Routine, unannounced inspection of certain activities within the Quality Concerns program, the ASME Certification Program, and followup on

.

. previous ~ inspection finding '

j -

The-inspection involved 72 inspector-hours onsite by three NRC inspector , . Resultsi Within'the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were

, - identifie .

,

e-

.

,

& 4 t y e /

<

w

%

!

n

a W

' b

/~

J

-

y F ( .-9m * y-+

.

-3-Details Persons Contacted J. Deddens, Vice President River Bend Nuclear Group R. B. Stafford, GSU, Director Quality Services R. L. Spence, Stone & Webster (S&W), Resident Quality Control Manager The NRC inspector also interviewed and interfaced with other GSU and S&W personnel as necessary to facilitate the inspectio . Action on Previous Inspection Finding (Closed) Violation (458/8519-01): An engineering review did not ensure the adequacy of incorporation of changes by Engineering and Design Coordination Reports (E&DCRs) into drawing As corrective action, a 100% review of E&DCRs and drawing changes during the time in question was performed. As preventative action, the personnel involved in this review process were reinstructed in light of the errors which were identified. These actions were documented on an interoffice correspondence dated June 24, 1985. The project procedure, RBP 12.0, has been revised (Revision 13, Change Notice 11) to require that EK, Eti and EM series CAT I drawings be revised to incorporate all E&DCRs by February 28, 1985, which is 6 months after fuel load. A sample of ten E&DCRs were inspected to verify their incorporation. With the exception of an isolated minor transposition error, the sample indicated that the E&DCRs have been properly incorporated into the affected drawings. This violation is close (Closed) Violation (458/8519-02): Annual evaluations of suppliers using external historical data did not meet specified requirement As corrective action, Hayward Tyler Pump and Transamerica Delaval have restriction memos (GSU VQS-85-098 and 191) issued which limited procure-ment activities. It was established that Guideline was-not used as a supplier; therefore, they were removed from the Qualified Suppliers List (QSL). Additional observations of the NRC inspector were also corrected in regards to Pyco, Crosby Valve and Brown Boveri purchase orders and certification records. As preventative action, the procedure QAI-2.4 was revised August 22,1985 (Revision 2) to more clearly define the require-ments to be applied during annual reviews of external historical dat A review of the current QSL dated August 5, 1985, found one vendor to-have been given an annual review based on external historical data which was Conax Corporation of Cheektowaga, N.Y. This evaluation had been performed by S&W for Nuclear Utilities Parts Associates (NUPA) for GS ~

.

-4-After reviewing the report of this review, GSU issued a restriction memo on Conax which indicates adequate implementation of the above referenced procedure. This item is close (Closed) Violation (458/8540-01): An inspection of the " Job Inspection Torque" used to verify preload found significant failures. GSW and S&W performed an engineering evaluation of the inspection results. This evaluation considered the frequency of failures, errors in tension measurement, designed safety factors and the connection design. It was concluded that the safety of design was not compromised. A review by NRC regional personnel and the CAT consultant found no problems with this evaluation. This item is close e (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-458/84-36-04) Cable Spacing e (Closed)UnresolvedItem(50-458/84-36-06) Electrical Separation e (Closed) Open Item (50-458/83-21) Electrical Separation e (Closed)UnresolvedItem(50-458/84-17-04) Separation Between Cables The above items are considered closed based on NRR approval of FSAR Amendments 19 and 2 e (Closed) Open Item (50-458/85-10-03) Missing tags on small pipe supports: This item is considered closed based on the subsequent as-built inspection as documented in Inspection Report 50-458/85-3 e (Closed) Open Item (50-458/85-10-04) Approval of design changes prior to approval of supporting calculation: This item was replaced by the violation identified in Inspection Report 50-458/85-12, item 0 e (Closed) Violation (50-458/85-12-01): Field-generated' design calcu-lations not reviewed: The NRC inspector reviewed several calculations and found that they had been reviewed. The NRC inspector reviewed S&W procedures dealing with final reconciliation of all field-generated changes with original design and was satisfied that all field-generated calculations used to support the design changes are included in the change package which will provide the necessary review. Review Of Quality Concerns The objective of the inspection was to review licensee action on quality concern NRC Inspection Report 50-458/85-25 described the quality concern program. NRC Inspection Report 50-458/85-62 discussed a previous review of quality concerns. During this inspection, the NRC inspectors completed the review of all quality concerns identified prior to September 30, 1985, which had been closed by the licensee. The NRC

.

.

-5-inspectors also reviewed all quality concerns in the licensee's system which had not been closed as of September 30, 1985. The purpose of this review was to determine if there were any safety issues which could affect initial criticality. No such issues were identifie A detailed review was made of the licensee's followup on quality concerns developed as a result of the drug screening conducted under the fitness for duty program of contract personnel. The licensee had concluded that there had been no adverse impact on quality as a result of work perfonned by these individuals. From their review, the NRC inspectors found no reason to disagree with the licensee's conclusion. Moreover, the NRC inspectors did not identify any other safety issues resulting from the quality concerns which had not been addressed (closed quality concerns)

or were not being addressed (currently open quality concerns).

No violations or deviations were identifie . Review of ASME Certification Process The objective of this inspection was to review the ASME nuclear certification process as it relates to safety-related piping system This process, while more elaborately detailed in the ASME Section III Code, .is essentially an independent (of the licensee or any of his agents)

system of audits and inspections of the entire pipe process from manufacture of the pipe, fabrication, installation and acceptance testing of the finished system. As a general rule, the following categories of commercial activities are involved:

e Material manufacturers: Producers of bulk pipe and other fittings meeting specified chemical and physical requirement e Material suppliers: Distributors, often called " jobbers," that

, purchase pipe and/or fittings from the manufacturers in large quantities for resale to users such as fabricators and installer The supplier may perform certain Code requirements relating to the *

product when not part of the material specification applicable t the manufacture e Fabricators: ' Shops which specialize inTfabrication of pipe sectio ~ns into what are commonly referred to as " spools" which range from .

lengths of~ straight pipe _to complex configurations of pipe, elbows, tees and flanges. Fabrication processes are generally.by welding

~

and occasionally by bendin '

Installers: Frequently referred to as the contractor, the installer

'

e receives spools from the fabricator and; installs-them in the construc -

tion sit Installation process utilizes welding and bolting of

, spools and other components such as pumps and valves to achieve a functioning piping system. The' installer generally conducts the

_ Code-required final hydrostatic test of the syste

.

,se--

_ _ , -_ - . .. _ . - ~ _

. _ _- . _ _

>

_ .

E y ^

~

L -6 '

n

'

..

t The ASME audits'all 6f the preceding activities and issues a Code authorization certific' ate generally every 3 years. There are provisions; F

-

however, where. a higher tier activity can audit and certify a lower tier

~

activity w'ith 'the higher tier taking.on all;the Code responsibilities of

his lower, tier a' gent. ' Fabricators and instal.lers generally have a third

party inspector assignedjin.the shop and/or field to aud't and inspect

,

'

activities'on a day-to-day basis. The third. party inspector, referred to

~

, J in . the': Code J as an Authorized Nuclear Inspector, is usually an employee of 6 ~

an insurance company but on. occasion,is an employee of a city or state.

These inspectors are trained and examined by the National Board of Pressure

, Vessel Inspectors and certified by the state within which they will perform their work.. Manufactdrers and suppliers, with few exceptions, do not have

'

third party' inspector ,

~

' The NRC in'spector sel'ected,the Service Water System as reasonably

~

representative of the larger safety-related systems subject to all of the-steps identified and discusssd above. The NRC inspector reviewed the j engineer!s line list to identify the line' size make up of the overall it system.' ~It was found that 11. pipe sizes ranging from 3" to 30" had

.

- -

!been utilized. The NRC~ inspector determined that a further selection

. division would be necessary and with the knowledge that all piping larger than 2-1/2"'was fabricated off-site and installed by the on-site b ' constructor, it was decided tha.t 12" pipe would present a representative L' picture of the entire ASME certification process.

s The NRC inspector briefly reviewed the 208-page N-5 certificate for the t

'

Service Water System comprising in excess of.approximately 3,300

- fabrication and installation items. Thirty-eight pages'of the 208 were

, ' selected since they document all of the spools fabricated off-site. .These

, pages list 'approximately' 600 individual spools, of which 54 relate to the selected 12" size. -Of the 54 spools,~10 were identified as being within i the reactor containment building and were divided equally between safety

+

class 2 and 3. Review'of the Authorized Nuclear Inspector certified

[ document packages for the 10 spools indicated the following:

-e~ The:10. spools are comprise'd of!approximately 420 feet of pipe.

"

'

e The material manufacturers were United States: Steel- (approximately-400' feet) and Jones and Laughlin: Steel:(approximately 20 feet). .

~

>

o

'_ ' .

'The New materia Jerse' suppliers were y J(approximately 260two1 feet) and companie located Pennsylvania resp. (ectively)in 160 feet

'g '

The New. Jersey company material was certified.as having_come from

>

itwo heats of United States Steel pipe while.the Pennsylvania firm

' supplied their material. from two heats of Unites States-Steel pipe

'

and one of Jones and Laughlin..

,

$', to

,

All'of the spools 1were fabricated 'bylB. F. Shaw, and each was individually. certified on Authorized Nuclear Inspecto .

'

>

'

.j .. .

jr '

.

-

n ~j f l "y ;l ' :g

'

. .(,. ,

~; - ,

n'

gef #' -

%

+