IR 05000440/1978014

IE Inspec Repts 50-440/78-14, 50-441/78-13 on 781025-27 During Which 2 Items of Noncompliance Were Noted:Lack of Timely Corrective Action to Follow Up Action Requests & Inadequate Inspec of Backfill Activities

ML20148A336
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	12/11/1978
From:	Hawkins F, Konklin J, Neisler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148A310	List: IR 05000440/1978014 ML20148A307 ML20148A323
References
50-440-78-14, 50-441-78-13, NUDOCS 7812280316
Download: ML20148A336 (18)

Text

l i

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION III

Report No. 50-440/78-14; 50-441/78-13 Docket No. 50-440; 50-441 Licenses No. CPPR-148; CPPR-149 Licensee: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, OH Inspection Conducted: October 25-27, 1978

. //

Inspectors: J. E. Konklin / '

_jfjN J. Neisler M '//* 7

. . - _ . .

D F. C. Hawkins

{ j?_] %} $

7 p. ,

Approved By:

sd.1 [N!:'ls . -

D . k' . Hayes, Qhiet g,. jf,/Jjpf Projects Se&t' ion

.I_nspection Summary I.n s p ec_t i on on Oc_t o_b e r _2 5, _2_7_ , 19_7_8_( R ep_o r t No. 50-440/78-14 and 50_ _4 41/J8-1_3J Ar_ea s_ _I_n s_p.ec t ed : Implementing procedures relative to safety-related structures (Units 1 and 2); work activities relative to safety-related structures (Unit 2); implementing procedures and quality records relative to welding of safety-related structures (Units 1 and 2);

work activities relative to welding of safety-related structures (Un i t 2); work activities and quality records relative to safety-related foundations (Units 1 and 2); licensee action on previous items of noncompliance (Units 1 and 2); licensee action on previous unresolved items (Units 1 and 2); embedment inspection program (Units 1 and 2); ongoing site construction activities (Units 1 and 2).

Results: Of nine areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were 781228 03I fo

. - - ..

.

.

identified in eight areas; two items of noncompliance were identified in one area-(infraction lack of timely corrective action on action

. requests - Section III, Paragraph 2; infraction - inadequate inspection of backfill activities - Section III, Paragraph 2).

.

-2-

_ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ . . _ . . . . . _ . - - . . . . _ . . . _ - _ - -_

-

. .

,

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Emp_lole_e_s,

• R. Edelman, Manager, Nuclear QA Department

• C. W. Groscup, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Department

• R. E. Boals, General Supervisor, Construction

• D. A. Fitzpatrick, Site Construction Manager Oth_er Personn

• W. J. Kacer, C(o ntrol Supervisor (KEI)

• T. J. Arney, CQS Qu

neering Supervisor (GAI)

J. J. Connelly, CQS Ocality Engineer (GAI)

J. W. Mehaffey, CQS Ls al Quality Engineer (GAI)

R. E. Crofton, CQS iead lity Engineer (GAI)

J. Bahleda, CQS Civil Qua -er (GAI)

T. Westrom, Site QA Manag noration S. Kish, Site QA/QC Manager, les Corporation L. Elmer, Batch Plant Inspect . Testing A. C. Von Nyvenheim, Site Lab s sAsor, U. S. Teating R. Wheeler, QA Manager, Nationa 2obile

• J. M. Pepp, Construction Quality Section (KEI)

B. L. Bruce, Site Project Engineer, NNIC H. Gerringer, Construction Manager, NNIC J. Staf fiera, Site QA Panager, KNIC

• Denotes those who attended the exit intervie l_1 c_en s_e e_ Ac t_i on _o_n P_r e_vi ou s_I n s p e e t_1,on_ F_i_n_d_1 n g s (Closed) Noncompliance (440/77-07-7; 441/77-07-7): Inadequate storage of safety-related pipin The previous PIII report noted that safety-related piping spools had been found in storage conditions which were in nonconformance with ANSI N45.2.2 requirement During this inspection, the inspector inspected all of the areas in which safety-related piping is being stored, including the field storage within the control complex building, the main storage area behind the Pullman Power Products shop, the small storage area outside the southeast plant gate, and the new storage area near the batch plan No storage conditions contrar to ANSI N45.2.2 requirements were identified. This item is con- Jered to'be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (440/76-02-01; 441/78-01-01): Training and indoctrination of Dick Corporation personne The previous RIII

. . - . -. _ _ _ _ --

.

.

report poted that the training requirements of Procedure FQC- had not been adequately implemented for Dick Corporation QA personne During this inspection, the inspector discussed the Dick Corporation indoctrination and training with the Dick Corporation Site QA Manager, and reviewed the qualification and examination records for the Site QA Manager and the inspectors reporting to him. In addition, the RIII inspector reviewed the course contents and attendance lists for the contractor training sessions conducted onsite by CEI during the period June through August 1978, and verified that the Dick Corporation Site QA Manager attended the appropriate session This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (440/78-02-09; 441/78-01-09): Great Lakes Corporation storage deficiencies. The previous RIII report noted that review of the Great Lakes Storage Inspection Log indicated an inordinate number of storage deficiencies over a ten month period, with no apparent measures to reduce the number of deficiencie During this inspection, the inspector discussed with the Great Lakes QA/QC Manager the steps which have been taken to improve storage conditions, including a subcontract with Wahib Steel to control rebar storage. The inspector also inspected the Great Lakes rebar and embedment storage areas and noted significant improvement in the storage conditions. In addition, the inspector reviewed the Great Lakes wezily storage Inspection Logs for the period April 17, 1978 to Octc' er 20, 1978, and noted a substantial reduction in storage deficiencies reported as compared to the ten month period discussed in the previous RIII repor This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Unresolved Item (440/78-02-31; 441/78-01-31): Reference documents for safety-related piping inspection and design verificatio The previous RIII report stated that it was not clear which documents were to be used for inspection and design verification of safety-related piping. During this inspection, the inspector determined by discussions with the licensee and the safety-related piping contractor (Pullman Power Products), by review of the applicable specifications (SP-44, Revision 1 and SP-47, Revision 1), and by review of the Pullman drawing file, that the reference documents are the above two specifications and the Pullman piping isometric d awing The isometric drawings, which include a bill of material, and which show tolerances and dimensions for inspection, are drawn in the Pullman home office in Williamsport, Pennsylvani After receipt of the drawings onsite, Pullman engineering approval, Pullman QA approval and GAI engineering approsal are documented on the drawings, in accordance with the specification requirement This item is considered to be resolve . - . . _ . .. . . - _ -- . , , ~ . . _ . - -- -- . . ,.

. - . _

.

.

(Closed) Unresolved Item (440/77-06-07; 441/77-06-07): Storage control of Class A backfil It was previously reported that preventive. measures had not been established to eliminate contami-nation of Class A backfil The licensee informed the inspector that presently Class A backfill was not being stockpile The inspector reviewed revised procedure AQCP-8, Rev. 6, dated September 22, 1978 for acceptable preventive measures. This item is close (Closed) Noncompliance (78-02-24; 78-01-24): Inadequate followup -

CEI audit of U. S. Testin It was previously identified that three U. S. Testing AAR's (Nos. 005, 007 and 008) had remained open approxi-mately a period of 16 months after the action due dat The inspector reviewed AAR's 005, 007 and 008 and found them closed on April 26, 1978, April 26, 1978, and June 5, 1978, respectivel Preventive measures to prevent recurrence are now established by CQSP 1603, Rev. O, dated May 1, 1978, Section 6. This item is close (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-440/77-06-02; 50-441/77-06-02): Work procedure uncertaintie It was previously reported that procedures were not definitive concerning the extent of back gouging welds for welding both sides of a weldment. NNICO procedure 946-N-W001 was revised on November 21, 1977 to include the words " gouge to sound metal." This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-440/77-06-05; 50-441/77-06-05):

Deficiency in welding qualification It was previously reported that welders and procedures qualified only to NNIC Procedure 465-NC-WODI were working to requirements to NNIC946-N-W001. NNICO document (1701-2164 dated October 13, 1977 establishes performance qualification reciprocity between SP17; SP99; SP53 and NNIC 465-NC-W001, NNIC 946-N-W001; and NNIC 948-N-W00 Each velder's trainir.g and qualification folder contains a letter stating compatibility of NNIC procedures and ASME BPVC Section IX qualification This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Unresol /ed Item (50-440/77-06-03; 50-441/77-06-03): Quality control provisions for weldin It was previously reported that NNIC QC inspection personnel were not aware of SP-96 paragraoh 5:1 requirements regarding weld repair. Subsequent to inspection 77-06, a cont rolled copy of NNIC 946-N-WOO 1, Revision B, paragraph 6.10, detailing the requirements for weld repair has been placed in each NNIC QC inspection station. This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-440/77-06-04; 50-441/77-06-04):

Drawing inconsistencie It was previously reported that inconsistencies were noted in veld prep bevel angles on two NNIC-5-

, __ _

.

.

d rawir.gs . On November 21, 1977 a revision ~to procedure 949-N-W001 was issued to clarify the requirements for bevel angles on weld joints. Minimum bevel angle is 20 degrees and greater angles may be used in certain joint This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/77-06-02; 50-440/77-06-02): Lack of welding procedure qualification record It was previously reported that PQR's and test results for WPS's 465-NC-W001, 946-N-W001 and 948-N-W001 were not available at the job sit The PQR's for the above WPS' are now on file at the site, including copies of the test results for the required tests. Other welding contractors have been formally notified of the requirement for PQR's and test results to be on site. This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Unresolved Item (78-03-05; 78-02-05): Lack of Criteria for Cleaning Reinforcing Steel - Great Lakes Construction Compan The inspector reviewed documentation of individual and group field discussions, field demonstrations, and training of responsible personnel to instruct them of the definition of ' loose rust and scale' and what constituted excessive rust or mill scale. Further, all organizations performing inspections of embedeents and rein-forcing steel have included an inspection item for loose rust and loose mil 3 scale in their inspection program The following definition of loose rust and mill scale was developed and will be included in the appropriate revised QC procedures:

Loose rust and mill scale shall be the formation of excessive rust or mill scale such that flecks or particles could fall off during normal concrete placing activitie This item is close (Closed) Noncompliance (78-02-12; 78-01-12): Lack of NECC Procedure to Control Excessive Slum It was previously reported that NECC had not established a procedure to control concrete with excessive slump and preclude its subsequent placement. The inspector reviewed NECC QC Procedure 10.1, Rev. 10, dated August 25, 1978, Attachment 8.6 and Section 6.0 and found adequate slump control procedures now  ;

exist and are being sa'asfactorily implemente This item is close i

!

l

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

. , . --

.

.

Section I Prepared by J. E. Konklin Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Projects Section 1. Review of Licensee Action on Previous Insp_ection Findings The RIII inspector reviewed the licensee actions relative to the resolution of specific noncompliances and unresolved items which were identified in previous RIII inspection reports, and which were still in an open status prior to this inspecticn. The items reviewed, and the licensee actions relative to the reso-lution of each item, are discussed in the foregoing section of this repor . .Embedment__Inspec tion Proj, ram Previous RIII reports (440/78-11; 441/78-10), (440/78-12; 441/78-11)

and (440/78-13; 441/78-12) have discussed the ongoing status of the embedment inspection and evaluation program being conducted by CEI in response to the RIII letter of July 13, 1978 to CE Report (440/78-11; 441/78-10) identified an unresolved item in this area (440/78-11-01; 441/78-10-01) regarding the reso-lution of the findings in CQC Audit Report No. 52, and completion of the evaluation of in-place embedments by CE Report (440/78-13; 441/78-12) noted that CEI was planning to contract with Nelson Division of TRW for a stud tensile testing program, which would include pull tests on samples from deficient embedment During this inspection, the RIII inspector reviewed, and discussed with the licensee, the results of the stud tensile testing program performed by Nelson Division of TRW. Pull tests were done by Nelson Division on 99 stud samples from the site, 96 of which contained rejectable defects, including the worst ,

'

examples of each type of defect which had been identified in the embedment inspection progra Of the 99 samples tested, only three broke below the Code ultimate tensile strength (but all three broke above the design tensile strength). All but four samples broke in the shank of the stud; the other four broke in the weld between the stud and the plat l l

,

I

e The results of the tensile testing program will be factored into the statistical evaluation of the adequacy of in-place embedments, which will be performed by GA The committed date of December 1, 1978 for completion of the evaluation is still considered by the licensee to be attainabl . Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzles The RIII inspector discussed with the licensee the design of the reactor pressure vessel recirculation inlet nozzles and safe-ends, with regard to the potential for a cracking problem similar to that which occurred on another B'JR plant. Design drawings an3 materials information were obtained by the inspector. The materials of the nozzles and saf e-end components are as follows:

Nozzle Forging SA 508 Class II Safe End SB 166 Saf e End Extension SA 336 Class F8 Thermal Sleeve SA 336 Class F8 Thermal Sleeve Extension SB 166 The licensee met with General Electric on October 25, 1978 to discuss possible modification to the recirculation inlet nozzles. Three options are under consideration: Perform additional in-service inspection on the present nozzle . ASME Section XI modification of the weld joints within the nozzle Replace the thermal sleeves and safe-ends with Type 316L stainless stee CEI is presently evaluating the above option The licensee stated that Region III will be kept informed of the status and results of the evaluatio . .Li_c e;n s e_e_C_on t r_ol, _o f_ Sewp,o r t_ News _Ac t ivi t i es On October 12, 1978, CEI issued an "Immediate Action Letter" to Newport News Industrial Corporation (NNIC) to document CEl's concerns over NNIC's lack of implementation of their quality assurance program requirements, and to provide notification that, should NNIC " fail to take immediate action" regarding the items of noncompliance in the attachment to-8-

.- - - . . -

l

.

.

the Immediate Action Letter, CEI would invoke a "stop work" order on F IC at Perry for all site contracts. The licensee stated tha6 issuance of the Immediate Action Letter was based on noncompliances identified and concerns expressed both by RIII inspectors and by the CEI inspectors and auditors, and was done to obtain effective control of the NNIC activities at the site. The NNIC response to the Immediate Action Letter was received by CEI on October 26, 1978, and is present]y under evaluation by CE . ,St_a t_us of On-goi_ng Const ruc tion Activities

_

The inspector observed on-going work activities and equipment atatus in the Units I and 2 containment buildings and auxiliary buildings, the intermediate building, the control complex, the embedment storage areas, the rebar storage areas, and the safety-related piping storage area The Unit 2 reactor pressure vessel was removed from the barge and transported on-site on October 22, 1978. The vessel is presently in a horizontal position on the transporter on the embankment east of Containment No. The licensee stated that the vessel should be raised to the vertical position in the Reliance Trucking rigging structure in early. Novembe Set of the Unit 2 vessel in the containment is now scheduled for mid-December, although minimum temperature limitations on the rigging structure, the lifting bale and the pedestal could delay the se No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the areas inspecte _ 9_

. . . -

,- . . . .. - .

l

.

Section II Prepared by J. H. Neicler Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Projects Section 1. Review of Licensee Action on Previous Ins _p_ection Findings The RIII inspector reviewed the licensee's actions relative to the resolution of specific noncompliances and unresolved items which were noted in previous RIII inspection reports and which were still in an open status prior to.this in-spectio The items reviewed, and the licensee's actions relative to the resolution of each item, are discussed in the foregoing section of this repor . Review of Weld History Records The inspector reviewed weld history records for approximately 40 welds made by Newport News Industrial Corporation on safety-related structure The inspector noted that the welding supervisor sign off and date block are filled out after the weld has been completed and NDE performe This was true for 75 percent of the records examined. NNICO QA Manual, Rev. G of January 26, 1978, paragraph 9.3210(n) states, " Welding Supervisor will assign qualified welder from current list and date signifying joint is released for welding." This condition was identified by CEI quality assurance personnel and Action Request #AR087 issued on September 13, 1978 requiring corrective action by the welding contracto The contractor reply to AR087 indicated that corrective action was accomplished on September 29, 197 The RIII inspector's review of weld history records on welds ,

made after September 29, 1978 indicates that adequate corrective I action has been accomplishe . Observation of Welding _on_Safett R elated structures outside :

!

Containment The inspector observed welding on the spent fuel pool liner plate and determined that: The applicable weld procedure was being used for the weldin '

l

- 10 -

. _ _ . - - _

l l The welder performing the weld was currently qualified for the position being welde Welding material in use was the material specified for the l

jo NDE was being performed at the proper stage of fabricatio Also, visual inspection was being performed by a qualified I inspector present during weldin ; Welding material was being stored, issued, returned and controlled in accordance with applicable specifications and procedure No unused (uncontrolled) filler material was found in the welding area No noncompliances or deviations were identified in the above areas.

. Review of_Qualit_y_ Assurance Implementing Procedures for Welding 5_a f e t1R_e 1_a t_e_d_S t_r_u c_t u r e s The inspector reviewed QA implementing procedures relative to welding safety related structures outside the containment and determined that: Procedures require that welding procedures and welding personnel are qualified to applicable codes and specification Procedures assure that equipment used is of the proper type, is calibrated, and periodic checks are performed to properly maintain currency of calibration, Procedures to control and record the weld location, number, welder identification, weld procedure and repairs, NDE and inspection requirements have been establishe Procedures which cover required heat treatment activities have been establishe Inspection and work performance procedures have been established to control defect repair where necessar Procedures fcr weld material receipt, storage, identifi-cation and issue control have been establishe _ _ _ .

i No noncompliances or deviations were identified in the above area !

5. Review of_QA_ Implementing Procedures for Safe _ty Related St_.ructural u _

Steel and_Su_pfog The inspector reviewed QA implementing procedures relative to receipt, inspection and work performances for safety related structural steel and supports outside the containment and determined that: Procedures for inspection and work which identify items and hold points, where required, have been establishe Receipt inspection procedures provide for identification of damage, marking, cleanliness, protection requirements and repc. tin Preaedures to control storage, protection, issue and records of materials and components for safety related structures and supports are establishe No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the i

above area . Procedure Review Newport News procedures reviewed relative to 4 and 5 above were: N-T001 Rev. B, May 13, 1977, Instructions for Leak Testing of Weld N-Q001, Rev. D, June 5,1978, QA/QC Plan for RPV Pedestal Installatio N-N002, Rev. B, May 9, 1977, Visual Inspectio N-N003, Rev. B, May 9, 1977, Magnetic Particle Inspectio N-N005, Rev. B, May 6,1977, Ultrasonic Weld Inspectio N-N006, Rev. A, July 5, 1977, Ultrasonic Examination of Plat NC-IO02, Rev. D, April 11, 1978, Field Receiving Inspection Instruction . - _- ..-. - . --. . - ..

,

, NC-W001, Rev. A, June 1, 1976, Welding Qualification Syste NC-N002, Rev. A September 15, 1977, Qualification of Personnel in Accordance with ANSI N45. N-N003, Rev. A, March 8, 1978, Visual Inspection of Welds (ASME). N-Q901, Rev. C, March 8, 1978, QA/QC Plan for Fuel Pool Liners.

,

- 13 -

, - . . _ . .

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

.

]

l l

l

.

Section III l l

l l

Prepared by F. C. Hawkins i

Reviewed by R. L. Spessard, Chief l Engineering Support Section i 1. Observation of Reactor Exterior Wall Work Activities and

.R,ela,t ed_qua_1i_ty;Recor,ds (Unit 2)

_

The inspector observed concrete placement RB2-W9 The place-ment was a Unit 2 reactor outer shield wall located between azimuths 84 -0 - 320 , from elevation 710' -5" to 727' -6 ".

The following speedfic observations were made: Placement Preparation (1) Forms were observed by the inspector to be properly secure and clea (2) Embedments were determined to be in the proper location in accordance with the appropriate design drawing (3) The inspector reviewed the disposition of Dick Corporation NR #114, concerning out of tolerance spacing of two reinforcing bars located in place-ment RB2-W9A. Reinforcing placement was determined to be acceptabl (4) Review of the " pre-placement package" checklist indicated that all checklist criteria had been met and signed of (5) Keyed horizontal and vertical construction joints were found to be properly prepared for concrete placemen Delivery and Placement (1) Concrete mix design No. 100 (Grout) and 141 (3000 psi) were specified and delivere _ _ _, _ _ _ _ . . .__ _ .. . . _ . . _ .

.

.

.

(2) Concrete, as delivered, was centrally mixed, with truck mixing being performed af ter the addition of water at truck discharge per the con-struction specificatio The inspector reviewed mixer uniformity test results for both the central mixer and truck mixers and found them acceptabl (3) Concrete was pumped to the placement area and was then deposited via concrete drop chutes which adequately confined the concrete with a maximum five foot free fal Concrete consolidation was determined adequat (4)

U.S.Testingfielg)QCpersonnelperformed slump (every 48 yd , temperature (gvery 48 yd ),

percent entrajnedair(every100yd),unitweight (every100yd)andcasjcompressivestrength cylinders (every 100 yd ). The inspector reviewed the U. S. Testing In-Process Concrete Test Report and determined both the test results and test frequency to be conforming to project specification Plastic concrete sampling and testing techniques using calibrated equipment were observed by the inspector and found to be acceptabl Equ_ipment N Calibration Due Air Meter #1 December 5, 1978 Unit Weight Bucket #5 June 16, 1979 Slump Cone #20 January 7, 1979 Thermometers TH-77 January 11, 1979 TH-87 April 10, 1979 Scale SCE-1 March 1, 1979 A_ggregate Storage, Both normal and heavy weight aggregate storage areas were inspected and found acceptable in respect to size segre-gation, foreign material contamination control, handling techniques and pile heights, Batch Plant ,0p_eration (1) Batch plant volumetric batching devices and scale calibration reports were reviewed and found to l meet required calibration frequencie l

- 15 -

.

. . . - .- . - . ._ .

.

S Scale ID Calibration performed Aggregate G764211 August 21, 1978 Cement G764212 August 22, 1978 Water and Ice G764213 August 22, 1978 (2) National Mobile QC inspection records for central and truck mixer cleanliness, blade wear, and water meter calibration (truck mixers only) were reviewed and found to be acceptabl (3) Several computer batch tickets were reviewed'by the inspector for the appropriate QC check to assure proper mix proportioning and batching tolerances per ACI-30 These items were acceptabl Concrete Materials Cement chemical and physical test results were reviewed and found to conform to ASTM-C15 . Observation of Backfill Work Activities and Related__ Quality

_R_e_c o rd s The inspector observed Class A backfill being placed in the pipe run between Manhole 2 and 3 adjacent to the Auxiliary (Coord. E9300-E9445, N49150-N49174, El. 593'-598',

Building))

602.5 yd During a period of approximately three hours, the inspector performed random surveillance of the Class A fill area and did not observe the presence of the Great Lakes Co. (GLC)

QC inspector. The GLC QA Engineer stated that the pipe run was the only area where backfill was being placed on this dat He stated further that it is his intention to require the QC inspectors to perform as close to 100% inspection as possible, i

The inspector then discussed with CEI QC personnel whether I adequate backfill placement inspection was being performe !

I The inspector was then shown CEI QC Action Request (AR)

Nos. 36 and 40, both concerning placement of safety related f backfdll in contaminated area q l

In one instance, AR No. 36, Class "B" backfill was placed over contaminants (soda cans, rags, wood, etc.) that were present on Class "A" fill. This nonconforming condition was identified l and the material removed under the direction of the Resident l

- 16 -

l l

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

.

.

Geotechnical Engineer and CEI QC personnel without GLC QC personnel being present. GLC Inspection Report No. 12711, representative of this area, does not identify the contamination present in the fill are A second AR, No. 40, was generated by CEI QC concerning con-tamination of Class A backfil Specifically, the Great Lakes contractor while preparing to place Class "A" backfill over ,

previously placed fill, discovered contaminants present in the top lif t of the previously placed Class "A" materia This contaminated material was then removed under the direction of the GLC QC Inspecto In both instances, the CE1 QC recommendation for corrective action included GLC's evaluation of their quality program to more adequately define the responsibilities of the GLC QC soils inspector so as to provide adequate field coverage to assure qualit Further, both GLC Area Backfill Records representative of these contaminated areas were completed and the work accepted by the GLC QC inspecto Several GLC Area Backfill Records were reviewed by the inspecto Each included checkpoints such as compaction equipment used, lift height, and number of passes by the compaction equipment, et The inspector could find no procedural requirements to specifically define the GLC QC inspector's function to assure that the Backfill Record checklist criteria have been met satisfactorily as pertaining to safety-related soils placemen The licensee was advised that this failure to establish and execute a program for the inspection of activities affecting quality to verify conformance with the documented instructions, procedures, and drawings is considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterien X as described in Appendix A of the inspection report transmittal lette (440/78-14-01; 441/78-13-01).

During the review of CEI QC AR Nos. 36 and 40, the inspector determined that no Corrective Action Reply had been received by CEI from the GLC QA Department. The Corrective Action Reply due dates for AR Nos. 36 and 40 were July 28, 1978 and August 03, 1978, respectively. The GLC QA department and CEI QC were not aware that AR Nos. 36 and 40 stil) remained open and that their response was still require The inspector

- 17 -

- _ __ _, - _ -- ._ - - ,_ . . _ _ .- _ _ _ - - -_

.

then reviewed 72 QC ARs in the CEI Status Control Log and determined that QC AR Nos. 001, 008, 020, 023, 033, 036, 040, 061, 068, and 072 remained open from 3 to 19 weeks past their respective Corrective Action Reply due dates and that no followup /

closeout had been initiate The licensee was advised that this failure to assure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected is considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, as described in Appendix A of the inspection report transmittal lette (440/78-14-02; 441/78-13-02).

Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 27, 1978. The inspectors summarized the purpose and findings of the inspectio The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herei i l

1

- 18 -  !

l l

, _ , ._ - _ _