ML20206A240
| ML20206A240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/16/1983 |
| From: | Potapovs U NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Bruggeman W GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206A005 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900403 NUDOCS 8704070455 | |
| Download: ML20206A240 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. o gge 161983 O Docket No. 99900403/83-03 General Electric Nuclear Energy Business Operations ATTN: Mr. W. H. Bruggeman Vice President and General Manager . 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Gentlemen: Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1993, in response to our letter dated October 21, 1983. As a result of our review, we find that additional infonnation is needed. Specifically, you failed to discuss the generic corrective actions and preventive measures that will be or have been taken with respect to Nonconformance B.2; e.g., what other purchases similar to the purchase made from Rosemount may have similar problems. The response to Nonconformances B.3 and B.4 implies that these two findings were in error. During a future inspection, the basis for the findings will be reviewed and the response will be reevaluated at that time. With respect to Nonconformances B.1, B.5, B.6, and B.7, your response has been evaluated and we have no further questions at this time. We will review your corrective actions and preventive measures during a future inspection. Please provide additional information for Nonconformance B.2 within 25 days from the date of this letter.
- Sincerely, Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Program Bra.nch 4
8704070455 870316 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 1
. . . g NUCLEAR ENEROY s
.. . casL g ELECTRIC ENGINEERING GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95125 Dl VISION 4
November 17, 1983
.e United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0 byO' Region ly Vendor Program Branch 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Attention: Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Program Branch
Reference:
NRC Letter - Docket No. 99900403 83 October 21, 1983
Dear Mr. Potapovs,
This letter is in response to your October 21, 1983, letter which contained the results of the NRC inspection of the Nuclear Energy Business Operations facility In San Jose, California, conducted during the week of August 29-September 2, 1983. Mr. Bruggeman has requested tnat I respond to your letter .In his behalf. The report identifies seven. nonconf ormances. The statement of each non-conformance and our response is contained in Attachment 1. Sincerely, s as
;/ ff==end (
S. Bohl, Manager ! L Quality Assurance & Rollability Operation l l Mali Code 310 LSB/km Attachment l cc: WH Bruggeman ; JM Case JJ Fox ALI(IR \ \trd a t n i v I WA I Pcy L e Q/P-
Novoabor 17, 1983 Pcgo I of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 NONCONFORMANCES AND RESPONSES B. NONCONFORMANCES-
- 1. Contrary to Section 5 of Topical Report No. NE DO- 112 09-04 A and Sections 4 .1.2 and 4.4 of Engineering Operating Procedure (EOP) 42 -6.00, "Inde-pendent Design verification", design verifications of Nuclear Control and instrumentation Division design documents are being deferred with-out controlling procedural requirements being implemented.
- 2. Contrary to Section 5 of Topical Report No. N E DO- 112 09-04 A , Section 5.07, GE did not 5.7.1 of NEDE-20586 and implementing procedure MP request that Rosemount, Inc. Issue a deviation disposition request (DDR) when Rosemount noti f ied GE that they could not meet the I EEE 32 3-1974 environmental requirements imposed by a purchase order for Rose-mount 1152 transmitters. This resulted in GE receiving and accepting purchased equipment that did not conform to the procurement document.
- 3. Contrary to Section 5 of Topical Report No. NED0- 112 09-04 A and Section A1.1 of Appendix A to GE E0P 65-2 10, the CRD clamps supplied by GE on all the BWR-6 plants were classified as nonessential components without assurance that failure would not cause a loss of the Integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
- 4. Contrary to Section 5 of Topical Report No. NE 00- 112 09-04 A and Section 2.3.7.1 of GE BWR Quality Assurance Manual, GE did not communicate needed design Informatlan to S&W that the CRD clamps supplied by GE were nonessential components and could not be used as ASME quellfled items in the analysis of the CRD piping system.
- 5. Contrary to the requirements of Section 5 of Topical Report No. NEDO-112 09-04 A and paragraph 4.2.c.3 of E0P 42-10.00, " Design Record Files" (DRF), dated June 2 3, 1980, a ORF Index (Form 50-006) or equivalent was not established and/or maintained for DRF Nos. A00-1160 (SAFER 01) and A1002 (GESTR08) as follows:
- a. A00-1160, the date entered and author's name were missing.
I
- b. A 10 02 , the date entered was missing.
l
N3vcCber 17, 1983 Pogo 2 of 5
- e. NONCONFORWANCES (Continued)
- 6. Contrary to the requirements of Section 5 of Topical Report No.
N EDC- 112 0 9-04 A and paragraph 3.3.2 of Supplement A dated August 1, 1979, to E0P 42-1.00, " Introduction-Technology and Design Conrol", mathematical analysis contained in Section 8 of DRF No. A00-1160 was not prepared and documented so that a technically quellfled person could review and evaluate its accuracy without recourse to the origina-tor; e.g., the Identification of the purpose, references, originator, reviewer, date, etc., were missing.
- 7. Contrary to the requirements of Section 5 of Topical Report No.
NE00-11209-04A and supplement A (page 12) dated August 1, 1979, to E0P 42-1.00 which designates a functional specification as a design document subject to the requirements of E0P 42-6.10 " Engineering Document issue and Application", the functional specification for SAFER 01 was not controlled in accordance with E0P 42 -6.10 ; e .g . , (a) no identifying number, (b) no revision number, and (c) Identification and signatures of originator, reviewer, and approver were missing. RESPONSE TO NONCONFORMANCE 1 The following actions are being taken to correct this nonconformance and prevent recurrence. .
- 1. The status of design documents currently identitled in deferred verification status on all projects is being reconfirmed. Completion of the verification will be scheduled as required by the Engineering Operating Procedures (EOPs). This action is scheduled for completion by December 1, 1983. I
- 2. Customers have been or will be notified of design documents currently in deferred verification status as required by the E0Ps. The required notification actions are currently scheduled for complet'lon by December 21, 1983. Priority has been assigned based on plant fuel load schedules.
- 3. In addition to the foregoing, QA&R0 is conducting an independent' audit of the implementation and effectiveness of the NEB 0 deferred verifica-tion control system. The results of this audit will be available for review at San Jose. ,
1
l Novcabor 17, '983 ) Pogo 3 of 5 RESPONSE TO NONCONFORM ANCE 2 As noted on page 8 of the NRC inspection Report 99900403/83-03, GE issued an Engineering C,hange Notice to Change the quellfication regulrements from IEEE-323-1974 40 IEEE-323-1971. Subsequent to the purchase of the Rosemount 1122 transmitters, GE has institued a Supplier Change Request form and procedure by which the supplier can formally submit exceptions to purchase order requirements. The form and procedure should prevent recurrence of this type of nonconformance. RESPONSE TO NONCONFORMANCE 3 The Control Rod Drive line clamps supplied by General Electric are classi-fled non-essential for the following reasons:
- Clamps are provided by GE to support CR0 lines during construction and during shipment for those plants with shop-installed internals.
- General Electric does not have design responsibility for the CR0 hydraulle lines (Ref. 21A8845). The owner /AE has this responsibility.
- The owner /AE is responsible for classifying the clamps appropriately if he elects to use them in the plant, i.e., code, non-code, essential.
General Electric advised A/Es and customers that, in our opinion, clamps could provide support up to the limits specified on the inter-face Control Drawing.
- Any postulated failure of the clamp must be evaluated by the owner /AE in regard to maintaining the safety function of the CRO lines and the integrity to the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
m _ Pago 4 of 5 REseONSE TC NONCCNFORMANCE 4 The fact that the CRO clamps are non-essential and non-Code was defined to the A/E as follows:
- The GE me,thod of identification is that the equipment drawings or l Interface d'o c um e n t s must specifically designate the Code and essenti- l ality requirements. Components not specifically identified are non-code, and/or non-essential.'
- when GE became aware of the S&w interpretation, GE notifled all affected customers that the clamps were non-Code _ and non-essential.
This notification will prevent any future recurrence. RESPONSE TO NONCONFORMANCE 5 . The following actions have been or will be taken to correct this noncon. formance and to prevent recurrence.
- All DRF Indexes contained in DRFs A00-1160 and A1002 have been replaced with Index form 50-006. where appropriate, form S0-006 has been added to sections of the ORFs.
- A letter will go to all Engineering Computer Program (ECP) responsible engineers within the NEBO. The letter wIll remind the responsible engineers of the forms index requirements of E0P 42-10.00 and will recommend that the engineers review their DRFs for compilance approxi-mately one week prior to the scheduled Level 1 and Level 2 computer code design reviews. The letter is scheduled for Issue December 1, 1983.
RESPONSE TO NONCONFORMANCE 6 The following actions have been or will be taken to correct this noncon-formance and to prevent recurrence.
- The analysis sheets contained in Section 8 of DRF A00-1160 have been reviewed and the purpose, author, references, date, and page numbers added, where necessary, to allow a technically quellflod person to i
revlev and evaluate their accuracy without recourse to the originator. These additions were completed November 4, 1983.. l 2 l
- A letter will go to all ECP responsible engineers within the NESC responsible for analysis, reminding them of the requirements of E0P 42 -
1.00 and specifying the requirements of purpose, reference, originator, date, and page numbers. The letter recommends that the responsible engineer perform an E0P requirements review and check on appropriate ' DRFs approximately one week prior to the Level 1 and Level 2 computer code design reviews. This letter is scheduled for issue by Cecember 1, 1983. l
NavCabor 17, 1983 Pago 5 of 5 RESe0NSE TO NONCONFORMAHCE 7 The following actions have been or will be taken to correct this noncon. formance and to prevent recurrence.
- The DRF A0b il50 is a closed ORF (has been microfilmed for offsite storego storage). However, the DRF Identification and page numbers have been added to each sheet of the functional speeltication. In addition, the name and signature of the originator, reviewer, and approver has been added to the initial sheet of the functional specification.
- ECP 40-3.00, " Engineering Computer Programs" (ECPs), will be revised by January 6, 1984, to include more specific . controls for ECP spectfIcatIons.
i
.- . - - -... - . - ~
.e .
DSL OtTr 211993 Docket No. 99900403/83-03 4 General Electric Company ' Nuclear Energy Business Operations ATTN: Mr. W. H. Bruggeman Vice President and General Manager 175 Curtner Avenue i San Jose, California 95125 l Gentlemen: l \ l This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. O. O. Chamberlain of this office on August 29-September 2, 1983, of your facility at San Jose, ' California, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. J. J. Fox and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. This inspection included a review of the following specific _ items: (1) 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report (River Bend project) stating that the heat loads provided by General Electric Company (GE) to Stone and h'ebster (S&W) for sizing the heating and ventilating system in the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system diesel generator room were about 1/3 of the expected value; (2) licensee event report (Browns Ferry) regarding a common mode failure of HPCI high steam flow differential pressure switches; (3) 10 CFR Part 21 report (GE) stating . that safety relief valves failed to comply with IEEE-323-1974 environmental qualification test requirements; (4) request to determine the basis for GE qualification of Rosemount 1152 transmitters to IEEE-323-1974 when the transmitters were qualified by the manufacturer to IEEE-323-1971; (5) 10 CFR Part 21 report (Grand Gulf) regarding internal and external corrosion in Dikkers safety relief valve actuators; (6) 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report (Nine Mile Point) stating that shipping clamps were used erroneously for piping clamps in the control rod drive system; (7) 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report (Shoreham) regarding error in data supplied by S&W to GE affecting rotational area response spectra and rotational time history of reactor vessel and associated components; and (8) a request to review GE design process controls for verification of two computer programs (SAFER and GESTR). Concerning item (3) above, these safety relief valves (SRVs) failed the test + requirements that were generated by NUREG 0588. In your evaluation you concluded that because the SRVs were qualified by tests to pre-NUREG 0588 l requirements and were in compliance with applicable requirements and standards in effect prior to the issuance of NUREG 0588, that 10 CFR Part 21 does not - apply in this case. That conclusion is incorrect. J GR t\ l (~ f[ *~) n n c a n W u a r 3ee.
% *ee-m*y --- -r- 7-vr---*+- - --7 -----yw r-- --ww--*-+-+ wer--mg--,vir---F "-W +wy ---'r-w- e
. _ . . - - ~. .= . . - . .- . - _ _ _ _ _ _
General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Operations . Even though a safety-related piece of equipment has passed pre-NUREG 0588 requirements, failure of that equipment to pass a NUREG 0588 Category 1 test does constitute a potentially substantial safety hazard per 10 CFR Part 21 and should be evaluated for reportability. No violations or nonconformances were , identified inothis part of the inspection because of 10 CFR Part 21 had been satisfied by the collective action of the parties involved (see E.4 of enclosed Appendix 8), but the reasons . set forth for GE's conclusion to not report are incorrect and unsatisfactory. Areas examined during this inspection and our findings are dir. cussed in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of an examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector, a During this inspection it was found that you failed to meet certain commitments in your Topical Report No. NE00-11209-04A. The specific findings and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosures to this letter. Please provide us within 30 days from the date of this letter a written statement containing, (1) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to correct these items; (2) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) the dates your corrective actions and preventive measures were or will be completed. Consideration may be given i to extending your response time for good cause shown. The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance i procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. I 7 n accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of ! :nis letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's ' Puolic Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within 10 days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; a~nd (b) submit within 25 days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such information. If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than 7 days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be established. ! Consistent with section 2.790(b)(1), any such application must be accompanied l i by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the l cocument or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of
- ne reasons on the basis which it is claimed that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4).
i The information sought to be withheld.shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placed in i
- ne Public Document Room.
. i
~
. - l
General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Operations Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, Cri-inal Signed Byn Uldis ?otapovs Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Program Branch
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A - Notice of Nonconformance
- 2. Appendix 8 - Inspection Report No. 99900403/83-03
- 3. Appendix C - Inspection Data Sheets (24 pages) bec:
JTCollins, RIV RLBangart, RIV JEGagliardo, RIV TFWesterman, RIV JAMarshall, RIV MIS Section (J. Perry) VPB Branch Chief VPB Section Chiefs VPB Inspector 0M8-IE:09
APPENDIX A j General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Operations Docket No. 99900403/83-03 NOTICE OF NONCONFORMANCE Based on the.results of an NRC inspection conducted on August 29-September 2, 1983, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in accordance with NRC requirements as indicated below: Section 5 of Topical Report No. NE00-11209-04A, Revision 4, dated December 1982 states, in part, " Documented instructions, procedures, and drawings are utilized to communicate quality requirements throughout all phases of design, purchasing, manufacturing, and construction. Activities affecting quality, including methods of complying with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 8, are delineated, accomplished, and controlled by such documents as policies, procedures, operating instructions, design specifications, shop drawings, planning sheets, test and inspection procedures, and standing instructions. l Nonconformances with these requirements are as follows: ' A. Sections 4.1.2 and 4.4 cf Engineering Operating Procedure (EOP) 42-6.00,
- " Independent Design Verification," states, in par., . ..
"b. Notify Engineering Services 1 by processing an accompanying Design Verification Status Change Notice (DVSCN) form that identifies the
, document, the scheduled date of deferred verification completion, ORF reference if applicable, and distribution identical to that of the issued document . ...
"a. Based on DVSCN input, notify the external user about the deferred verification status of applicable design data, together with schedule for verification and any limitations on the application of data or product hold requirements. This notification may be waived for non-important to safety transmittals with the approval of the responsible projects department or services department General Manager.
"b. Based on the DVSCN completion input, notify the user that the design 4 verification has been completed . . . ."
Contrary to the above, design verification of Nuclear Control and Instrumentation Division design documents are being deferred without implementation of controlling procedural requirements. This is evidenced
- by the following (River Bend project)
- 1. Verifications on five design documents (828E536AA, 828E537AA, 184C5467, 851E225AA, and 828E239AA) were deferred and no evidence existed that the OVSCNs were processed.
- 2. No evidence existed that the project had been notifying external users about the deferred verification status of applicable design data; e.g., information on four DVSCNs, OVSCN00206, DVSCN00239, OVSCN00240, and DVSCN00251 was not provided to the customer nor was -
the notification requirement waived.
'B. Section 5.7.1 of NEDE-20586 states, " Establish measures to assure that purchased material, equipment, and services, whether purchased directly or through suppliers and subtier suppliers, conform to the procurement documents." Implementing Procedure MP5.07, " Deviation Disposition Request," states, "The supplier initiates the need for a 00R when it is determined that a nonconformance to a GE technical requirement exists.
The request from the supplier shall be transmitted through the GE buyer who requests the 00R form from QA records center." Contrary to the above, GE did not request that Rosemount, Inc. issue a DDR when Rosemount notified GE that they could not meet IEEE 323-1974 environmental requirements imposed on Purchase Orcer No. 282-X8G55. Consequently, GE received and accepted purchased equipment that did not conform to the procurement document. C. Section Al.1 of Appendix A to GE E0P 65-2.10 states, in part, "an important to safety item is any specific component, assembly or subassembly necessary to assure: (a) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary . ... Contrary to the above, control rod drive (CRO) system clamps supplied by GE on all BWR-6 design plants were not classified as essential components (important to safety); even though there was no assurance that their failure would not cause a loss of integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. D. Section 2.3.7.1 of GE BWR Quality Assurance Manual states, in part, . 1
" interfaces between NEB 0 and external organizations performing work l affecting quality of design are identified in writing . . . systematic methods are established for communicating needed design information across external design interfaces . . . ."
Contrary to the above, GE did not communicate needed design information to S&W that the CR0 clamps supplied by GE were essential or nonessential ccmponents or whether tney could be considered as ASME qualified items in the analysis of the CR0 piping system. 1
. . l l
E. Paragraph 4.2.c.3 of Engineering Operating Procedure (EOP) 42-10.00,
" Design Record Files" (DRF), dated June 23, 1980, requires the establishment and maintenance of the ORF index, Form 50-005, or equivalent.
Contrary to the above, the ORF index or equivalent was not established and/or maintained for DRF Nos. A00-1160 (SAFER 01) and A1002 (GESTR08); e.g., (1) A00-1160, the date entered and author's name were missing and (2) A1002, the date entered was missing. 4 F. Paragraph 3.3.2 of Supplement A dated August 1, 1979, to E0P 42-1.00,
" Introduction-Technology and Design Control," states that mathematical analyses are required to be prepared and documented so tnat a technically qualified person can review and evaluate their accuracy without recourse to the originator.
Contrary to the above, an analysis contained in Section 8 of DRF No. A00-1160 was not prepared and documented so that a technically qualified person could review and evaluate its accuracy without recourse to the orignator; e.g. , the identification of the purpose, references, date, originator, reviewer, etc., were missing. G. Supplement A dated August 1, 1979, to E0P 42-1.00, " Introduction-Technology and Design Control," designates a functional specification as a design document subject to the requirements of E0P 42-6.10. " Engineering Document ! Issue and Application." Paragraph 1.1 of E0P 42-6.10 states that a systematic review is required prior to the issue and application of I corporate numbered engineering controlled documents. 1 Contrary to the above, the functional specification for the computer program SAFER 01 was not controlled in accordance with EOP 42-6.10; e.g., (1) there was no identifying number, (2) there was no revision number, and (3) the identification and signature of the originator, reviewer, and approver were missing. 1 1 A 0 9 9 e
, - , - - . . - - , .-- , n-- - - - , . _ - - ,
...n , m.. - , , , - n.
I ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ' NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.- 99900403/83-03 DATE(S) 8/29-9/2/83 ON-SITE HOURS: 135 CORRESPONDENCE A00RESS: General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Operations ATTN: W. H. Bruggeman, Vice President and General Manager 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. J. J. Fox, Senior Program Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER: (408) 925-6538 PRINCIPAL PRODUCT: Nuclear steam system supplier. ) NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: General Electric Company (GE), Nuclear Energy l J Business Operations (NEBO), has a work force of approximately 7000 people with approximately 98 percent of that work force devoted to domestic nuclear activity. NEB 0 currently has 26 reactor units under construction and 2 reactor units under contract. NEB 0 also has approximately 125 service contracts with various clients. ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: . bbk'tfghd /d /M 63 - - D. D. Chamberlain, Reactor Systems Section (RSS) Date OTHER INSPECTOR (S): D. G. Breaux, RSS R. H. Brickley, RSS R. Nguyen, RSS P. Sears, RSS APPROVED BY: 9/ 3 C. J. W(ld? Chief, RSS Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE: l A. BASES: GE Topical Report No. NEDU-11209-04A and 10 CFR Part 21.
- 8. SCOPE: Status of previous inspection findings, design verification, and followup on the following items / requests: (1) 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) r6 port (River Bend project) stating that the heat loads provided by GE to Stone and Webster (S&W) for sizing the heating and ventilating (HVAC)
(cont. on next page) 1 PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: Plant docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296, 50-322, 50-410, 50-416, 50-417 and 50-548. D
-tSthk15p5 '! ?3 45pp.
RGANI'ZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 13 SCOPE: (cont.) system in the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system diesel generator room were about 1/3 of the expected value; (2) licensee event report (Browns Ferry) regarding a common mode failure of HPCI high steam flow differential pressure switches; (3) 10 CFR Part 21 report (GE) stating that safety relief valves failed to comply with IEEE-323-1974 environmental qualification test requirements; (4) request to determine the basis for GE qualification of Rosemount 1152 transmitters to IEEE-323-1974 when the transmitters were qualified by the manufacturer to IEEE-323-1971; (5) 10 CFR Part 21 report (Grand Gulf) regarding internal and external corrosion in Dikkers' safety relief valve actuators; (6) 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report (Nine Mile Point) stating that shipping clamps were used erroneously for piping clamps in the control rod drive (CRO) system; (7) 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report (Shoreham) ! regarding error in data supplied by S&W to GE affecting rotational area l response spectra and rotational time history of reactor vessel and associated components; and (8) request to review GE design process I controls for verification of two computer programs (SAFER and GESTR). l A. VIOLATIONS: ; None
- 8. NONCONFORMANCES: )
l
- 1. Contrary to Section 5 of Topical Report No. NEDO-11209-04A and i Sections 4.1.2 and 4.4 of Engineering Operating Procedure (EOP) 42-6.00, " Independent Design Verification," design verifications of Nuclear Control and Instrumentation Division design documents are being deferred without controlling procedural requirements being implemented.
- 2. Contrary to Section 5 of Topical Report No. NECC-11209-04A, Section 5.7.1 of NEDE-20586 and implementing procedure MP 5.07, GE
.did not request that Rosemount, Inc. issue a deviation disposition request (00R) when Rosemount notified GE that tney could not meet the IEEE 323-1974 environmental requirements imoosed by a purchase order for Rosemount 1152 transmitters. This resulted in GE receiving and accepting purchased equipment that did not conform to the procurement document.
- 3. Contrary to Section 5 of Topical Report No. NECC-11209-04A and Section A1.1 of Appendix A to GE E0P 65-2.10, the CRD clamps supplied by GE on all the EWR-6 plants were classified as nonessential components without assurance that failure would not cause a loss of the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure ocundary.
"0RGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION .
NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 13 1 1
- 4. Contrary to Section 5 of Topical Report No. NE00-11209-04A and Section 2.3.7.1 of GE BWR Quality Assurance Manual, GE did not communicate needed design information to S&W that the CR0 clamps supplied by GE were nonessential components and could not be used as I ASME qualified items in the analysis of the CR0 piping system. j i
- 5. Contrary to the requirements of Section 5 of Topical Report No. NE00-11209-04A and paragraph 4.2.c.3 of EOP 42-10.00, " Design Record Files" (ORF), dated June 23, 1980, a DRF index (Form S0-006) or equivalent was not established and/or maintained for DRF Nos. A00-1160 (SAFER 01) and A1002 (GESTR08) as follows:
- a. A00-1160, the date entered and author's name were missing.
- b. A1002, the date entered was missing.
- 6. Contrary to the requirements of Section 5 of Topical Report No. NEDO-11209-04A and paragraph 3.3.2 of Supplement A dated August 1, 1979, to E0P 42-1.00, " Introduction-Technology and Design Control," mathematical analysis contained in Section 8 of ORF No. A00-1160 was not prepared and documented so that a technically qualified person could review and evaluate its accuracy without recourse to the originator; e.g. , the identification of the purpose, references, originator, reviewer, date, etc., were missing.
- 7. Contrary to the requirements of Section 5 of Topical Report No. NEDO-11209-04A and Supplement A (page 12) dated August 1, 1979, to E0P 42-1.00 which designates a functional soecification as a design document subject to the requirements of ECP 42-6.10,
" Engineering Document Issue and Application," the functional specification for SAFER 01 was not controlled in accordance with E0P 42-6.10; e.g., (a) no identifying number, (b) no revision number, and (c) identification and signatures of originator, reviewer, and approver were missing.
C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS: None 1 D. STATUS OF PREVICUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
- 1. (Closed) Nonconformance (82-03): Documented instructions or procedures were not utilized to communicate quality requirements relating to the disoositioning of potentiel design action items.
9 i
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 13 E0P 55-4.00 was revised on July 14, 1982, to formalize the requirement that the Change Control Board (CCB) maintain a list of potential design action items. This E0P requirement was supplemented with a " Procedure for Potential Design Action Items" (latest issue June 21, 1983) which provides documented criteria for the disposition of potential design action items. The CCB also reviews and approves the disposition of items. , 2. (0 pen) Nonconformance (83-01): Use of the " Design Memo" was not delineated, accomplished, or controlled by any document such as a procedure or instruction. GE issued procedure P05-008, " Design Memos," in May 1983 which effectively documented existing practices for the control of design memos and a Quality Assurance Newsletter was issued in June 1983 to
. emphasize proper control of design inputs as committed. This item will remain open pending NRC review of evidence that the control of design memos has been discussed in ongoing Nuclear Engineering Division Quality Assurance training and that a GE internal audit has included the control of design memos in the scope of the audit.
- 3. (Closed) Unresolved Item (83-01): It was not apparent if a GE specification (22A4019) requirement, assuring that the use of manifol,d and common piping is within the limits of physical separation and common mode failure, was considered or required on some BWR designs.
During the 83-01 inspection the NRC inspector was not able to obtain the GE specification for piping and tubing process instrumentation which applied to Browns Ferry. A licensee event report had stated that HPCI high steam flow isolation switches were both rendered inoperable by one equalizing valve leaking past its seat. During this inspection the GE specification for Browns Ferry was examined to determine requirements relative to instrument manifold piping design. It was found that GE designed the piping according to applicable specification requirements at the time. *
- 4. (Closed) Unresolved Item (83-01): It is not apparent that GE is in compliance with Section NB-3672.7 of the ASME Code which states, in part, "Where assumptions are used in calculations or model tests, the ;
likelihood of underestimates of forces, moments, and stresses, ! including the effects of stress intensification, shall be evaluated." For clamps and supports in the 100 KIP category, GE has , not performed a formal evaluation of tne effect of clamo induced ! local pipe stress.
)
1 I ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1 NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 13 The NRC has completed its initial evaluation of this problem. The Division of Engineering has concluded that certain loadings induced by these specialized pipe clamps can result in significant localized stresses in the piping if not properly evaluated during design. The NRC is now considering several courses of action for identifying, correcting, and controlling problems in this area of piping design. When these actions have been defined, we will evaluate GE's design conformance; therefore, we consider this unresolved item closed, but it will be inspected further during future inspections. E. OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS:
- 1. Design Verification - The intent of this area of inspection was to conduct a review of design process control activities for the Nuclear Control and Instrumentation Division (NC&ID). During this inspection the NRC inspector concentrated on the design verification of changes to verified designs.
It was noted during the review of E0P 42-6.00, " Independent Design Verification," that the deferral of required design verifications is allowed for original design as well as for changes to original desfgn. When a verification is deferred, a " Design Verification Status Change Notice" (OVSCN) form must be processed to identify the document, the scheduled date of deferred verification completion, design record file reference if applicable, and distribution identical to that of the issued document (includes project in most cases). The project managers / program managers are then responsible, based on DVSCN input, to notify the external user about the deferred verification status of applicable design data, together with schedule for verification and any limitations on the application of data or product hold requirements and to notify the user when verification has been completed. A review of design / design change documents on the River Bend project revealed that DVSCNs were not being prepared for verification deferrals in most cases and the external users were not being notified about the deferred verification status of applicable design data. This lack of control of deferred verifications was identified as a nonconformance (see Section 8.1). In addition to the future closecut of this nonconformance, this area will be reviewed further during a future NRC inspection to access GE program for tracking and closeout of deferred verifications.
- 2. HVAC Heat load Sizing for the HPCI System (River Bend) - This area of inspection resulted from a 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report stating that the heat loads provided to S&W by GE for the si' zing of HVAC in the y
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRfC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 13 HPCI diesel generator room were about 1/3 the expected values. This item was reviewed during the 82-02 and 83-01 inspections and remained open pending the notification of all affected projects with final heat load values. Based on actual testing done by one of the diesel suppliers, GE has provided the revised specifications and/or revised vendor manual data to all affected projects. This item is considered closed.
- 3. Common Mode Failure of Differential Pressure Switches (Browns Ferry) - This item resulted from a licensee event report which stated that the HPCI high steam flow isolation switches were both rendered inoperable by one equalizing valve leaking past its seat. These switches have a common high pressure (HP) and low pressure (LP) sensing line, but each switch has its own individual HP and LP isolation and equalizing valve. If one equalizing valve leaks, it could cause both redundant switches to actuate at a higher steam flow or not at all . Plant designs (BWRs) later than Browns Ferry have separate instrument taps and sensing lines for each switch which eliminates this problem. This item was reviewed during the 83-01 inspection and GE personnel were not able to immediately obtain the specification for piping and tubing process instrumentation for Browns Ferry. During this inspection, the soecification for Browns Ferry was examined and it was determined that GE designed the piping according to applicable specifications. Also, it was noted that GE issued a Service Information Letter (SIL No. 335) in July 1982 regarding the " Control of Differential Pressure Sensor Equalizing Valves." One of the GE recommendations contained in that letter was to remove installed equalizing valves and cap the low and high side pipe stubs. Such removal would prevent equali:ing valving errors and also prevent sensor errors due to leaky equali:ing valves.
No violations or nonconformances were identified in this area of the inspection and this item is considered closed at GE.
- 4. Solenoid Valves Associated with the Main Steam Line Saftey Relief Valves (SRVs) - Prior to 1979, SRVs were snipped and tagged as not.
having passed equipment qualification (EQ) testing. These SRVs had AVC0 solenoids. An engineering evaluation test performed on the solenoid / actuators showed certain deficiencies. GE recalled all SRVs, specified a new solenoid (Crosby Model CVG-01), and proceeded with EQ testing. The new solenoid failed the EQ testing. The CVG-01 solenoid could not be actuated with minimum available de voltage during a postulated loss of coolant accident. The inability to actuate was due to inacequate magnetic properties and tne i i
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS i SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA l REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 7 of 13 N increased coil electrical resistance at elevated LOCA temperatures. GE reported the foregoing in a 10 CFR Part 21 report. The valve was , subsequently modified and subjected to a qualification program per i IEEE Standard 323-1974. The qualification was approved by the NRC (Equipment Qualification Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation). It appears that the original qualification requirements . were implemented by GE. l Ouring the review, in the 1979 time frame, SRVs were shipped by GE to the following plants under construction: 1 Perry 1 and 2 ) Nine Mile Point Black Fox 1 and 2 Grand Gulf 1 and 2 Clinton 1 and 2 As noted above, these SRVs had been EQ tested to criteria in effect at the time. Subsequently, NUREG-0588 was issued causing the imposition of new EQ requirements. In 1982, Perry and Nine Mile Point transmitted to GE new radiation requirements which were generated by requirements in NUREG-0588. GE was contracted to perform EQ testing to the new requirements. Certain sealing materials in the SRVs failed the test. GE took the following actions:
- a. A Potentially Reportable Condition (PRC) memorandum was generated and evaluated.
- b. In their evaluation, GE concluded that the equipment was environmentally qualified to original requirements (pre-NUREG-0588). For that reason, GE concluded that the described condition (failed test) does not constitute a deviation from the specification or a substantial safety hazard per 10 CFR Part 21.
- c. GE notified by mail all of the affected oiants (except Black Fox which is a cancelled plant) of the failure of the subject valve to perform its function after being exposed to'the test radiation.
- d. Nine Mile Point and Perry wrote 50.55(e) recorts concerning the failure of the SRV actuator during EQ testing.
l
o o . ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 8 of 13 In their evaluation, GE concluded that the SRVs were qualified by test to the pre-NUREG-0588 requirements, thus, were in compliance with applicable specifications, standards, and Regulatory Guides prior to the TMI event and the subsequent issue of NUREG-0588. In their evaluation, GE concluded that because compliance wi.t,h NUREG-0588 was beyond the original contract requirements, 10 CFR Part 21 does not apply to this situation. After the failed test GE notified all relevant applicants who were using the SRVs. Two of the applicants notified NRC through 50.55(e) reports. Thus, no specific violations or nonconformances were identified. The GE conclusion that the condition (failed test) does not constitute a substantial safety hazard simply because the SRV passed requirements in place before the promulgation of NUREG-0588 is incorrect. The reasons put forth for GE's i:enclusions are unsatisfactory, even though 10.CFR Part 21 requirements were satisfied in this case. Even though the requirements of NUREG-0588 may not apply to a basic component, test failures of such components should be evaluated to determine if a condition exists which could contribute to the exceeding of a safety limit (defect) and is, therefore, reportable.
- 5. Qualification of Rosemount 1152 Transmitters - This area of inspection is a continuation of the 83-01 inspection which identified that a more detailed review of GE Control and Instrumentation Division (C&ID) needed to be made. -
In the previous inspection the NRC inspector identified some concerns in the C&ID scope of work. The first concern was that GE accepted equipment that did not meet purchase Order requirements. The inspector reviewed the purchase order file for the Rosemount 1152 transmitter, procurement 282-XEG55. This review included all design documents and specifications that were referenced in the purchase order. From this review, there was no evidence of a change in the purcnase order requirements prior to delivery and acceptance of the purchased equipment that would have relieved Rosemount from qualifying their transmitters to meet ! IEEE 323-1974 requirements. However, approximately 8 months after the delivery of these transmitters, an Engineering Change Notice was issued by GE to reflect a qualification recuirement change frem IEEE 323-1974 to IEEE-1971 on all previous and future procurements. , This resulted in one nonconformance identified (B.2 above). l The next concern was that Certificates of Compliance (C of C) issued i by Rosemount did not certify that the purchase order requirements ' 8 . 1
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO : 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 9 of 13 were met and GE accepted these limited C of Cs. The inspector reviewed GE purchase specification 225A6635 entitled " Purchase Spec. for Essential Components." This specification details what the vendor shall include in the transmitted certificates of compliance for the procured items. A review of the Rosemount 1152 transmitter C of Cs revealed that they contained all of the required information imposed by GE. GE now requires that the C of Cs contain a statement certifying that the product meets the requirements of the purchase order and referenced documents and be signed by the supplier's authorized QA representative. Five C of Cs with these GE require-ments imposed on them were reviewed and found to contain the proper information. In this area of the inspection, no nonconformances were identified. The next area of concern was that the retrieval of procurement documents were very cumbersome. The C&ID procurement activities have been combined with Engineered Equipment and Installation (EE&I) procurement. The responsibilities have been transferred, yet the procurement documentation centralization has yet to occur. This separation of documentation causes difficulties in retrieval activities. Until this documentation is transferred, retrieval concerns will persist.
- 6. Corrosion in Dikkers Safety Relief Valve Actuators - This item concerns a 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report by Mississippi Power and Light to NRC Region II of internal corrosion of safety relief valve actuators on Grand Gulf, Units 1 and 2. This corrosion was discovered during routine maintenance of a Dikkers' main steam line safety relief valve. Six of twenty installed actuators were found to be internally corroded. In addition, corrosion was found in six of eight spare SRVs for Unit 1 and one of eight spare Unit 2 SRVs. All of the evidenced corrosion was on galvanized steel.
The NRC inspector reviewed records of the Dikkers' SRV for actions taken on this reportable item. Wyle Test Labs were contracted by GE to test one of the corroded SRV actuators to determine if the specified Class 1E function of the device would have been compromised ) by this corrosion. The results of the test showed that leakage rates i were within designated design specifications. GE concluded that the ) test pecvided a basis for demonstration that the noted corrosion products will not affect the required SRV Class IE function. l l l
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 10 of 13 Corrective action was initiated by Mississippi Power and Light to clean and return the affected actuators to their original condition. Fifteen actuators that were corroded have been refurbished, tested, and returned to their original condition. The six installed Unit I actuators were replaced with Unit 1 and Unit 2 spare actuators. The Unit 2 actuators that have not been installed will be inspected prior , to installation. GE supplies these Dikkers' SRV actuators to the Clinton and Nine Mile Point, Unit 2, projects. GE's engineering stated that these projects were made aware of possible corrosion concerns on the Dikkers' SRV actuators. As of this date GE engineering has received no information from these other potentially impacted projects on any corrosion detected. Because of the seemingly isolated nature of the corroded Dikkers SRV actuator to the Grand Gulf, Unit 1 and 2, projects, GE engineering has concluded that the cause of the corrosion was storage conditions at the Grand Gulf site. Region II will be notified of GE conclusions for any actions deemed necessary. There were no nonconformances or unresolved items identified.
- 7. CRD Systems Clamos - This area of inspection was performed as a result of a 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report from Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) in June 1983 concerning the CR0 system clamp on Nine Mile Point, Unit 2, project (NMP2).
In the abovementioned report, NMPC stated that the CRD system piping clamps were included with the reactor vessel internals supplied by GE. The clamps restrain piping in the area of CRD housing. Reactor Control, Incorporated (RCI), which was a succontractor for S&W, utilized the clamps as ASME qualified components in CRD piping analysis. It was stated in the 50.55(e) report that GE informed S&W i i that the clamps were intended for use only as shipping clamps and are ' not ASME-qualified components. During the inspection the NRC inspector examined numerous design and procurement documents relating to the CR0 piping system and its components. The following is a summary of this review,
- a. GE's scope of work for the CR0 hydraulic line is from the CRD housing up to and including the attacnment coupling at the periphery of the CRD housing pattern.
e
. 9
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 11 of 13
- b. The CRD hydraulic lines are to be be designed, fabricated, inspected, and material selected and examined in accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, latest edition and latest applicable addenda for Class 2 components.
- c. Design considerations for CR0 hydraulic lines include the following:
Normal and upset conditions: design pressure, static weight, operating basis earthquake, and design temperature. Faulted conditions: design pressure, static weight, safe shutdown earthquate, and design temperature.
- d. The CRD hydraulic lines are classified as essential components in accordance with GE specification 22A3762.
- e. The insert and withdrawal lines are to be installed in a preplanned secuence that considers the access limitations imposed when the CRD housings and in-core housings are installed. Framing and clamping the insert and withdrawal lines, and their orientation and welding to the CR0 housings, is defined on the CR0 hydraulic line installation kit drawing,
- f. The installation kit drawing was classified as an essential component drawing,
- g. The installation kit drawing did not indicate that the CR0 clamps were shipping clamps and had to be removed. l l
It is noted from the information listed above that the CRD hydraulic line was classified as an essential component (an ASME Class 2 piping I system) and its failure would effect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The CRD clamp which was designed by GE as a connection between the hydraulic line and the CRD housing structure was classified as a nonessential component but no assurance was provided that its failure would not cause a loss of the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. In addition, during the inspection, no evidence was identified wnich indicated that GE communicated in writing that the CRD clamps were nonessential components and could not be used as a permanent structural item in t.9e CRD system piping analysis performed by RCI. l .
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPCRT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 12 of 13 Nonconformances B.3 and B.4 above were identified in this area of the inspection. The generic implications of this item are still- being evaluated.
- 8. Errors in Response Soectra - On September 27, 1982, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) notified NRC Region I of an apparent discrepancy in the Ghosh-Wilson computer program used to develop the response spectra for the Shoreham project. A review of numerous documents by the NRC inspector indicated that the discrepancy occurred in an internal subroutine used by S&W to calculate the stiffness matrices for triangular finite elements. In determination of the triangular element stiffness, the program divides such an element into three triangular subsections, then it calculates the stiffness of each subsection and combines them together to formulate the stiffness matrix of the overall triangular element. In performing this function, the program incorrectly ignored the stiffness of two subsections, assigning the stiffness matrix of one subsection to the entire triangular element. The problem subroutine has been corrected to include the stiffness matrices of all triangular subsections.
In addition to the error in the above subroutine, on February 15, 1983, LILCO reported an error that has been identified in the data transmitted by S&W to GE affecting the rotational response spectra and the rotational time history computations for the reactor pressure vessel and its associated piping and components. The NRC inspector found that the error consisted of mislabeling of the units used in the response spectra. The rocking acceleration data transmitted were labeled radian /sec', whereas the correct unit was g/ft. GE has been informed of this problem and is presently reviewing tne Mark II confirmatory analysis. This item will be examined during a future inspection at S&W,
- 9. Computer Code Develcoment and Use - This inspection was conducted in response to a request from the Division of Systems Integration, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concerning the development.and use of the SAFER and GESTR computer codes used for ECCS analysis.
The objectives of the inspection were to determine that these codes are developed and used in accordance with NRC requirements and guidance for design control of computer codes and that procedures exist that ensure that the Commission will be notified of matters reportable under NRC regulations 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) as applicable. D g
I ORGANIZAT10N: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/83-03 RESULTS: PAGE 13 of 13 l The preceding objectives were accomplished by a review of: (1) applicable procedures from the E0P Manual; (2) the contents of design record file (ORF) A00-1160 (SAFER 01); (3) the contents of ORC A1002 (GESTR08); (4) ORF A00-01320 (SAFER /TLTA Qualification); (5) SAFER 01 User Manual; and (6) GESTR08 User Manual. The review of the preceding documents disclosed: (1) both codes were developed and used in accordance with procedures that were effective during the related activity; (2) the procedures applicable to computer codes have improved significantly since the initial inspection in 1978 (Ref. Report No. 99900403/78-03); (3) the development and testing of both codes were independently reviewed by a design review team; (4) the verification tests for the codes involved data from simulation tests and/or actual plants (Vermont Yankee and Peach Bottom); and (5) the ORFs were well organized and contained adequate documentation of code activities. Three nonconformances were identified in this area of the inspection (see paragraphs B.5, 8.6, and B.7 above).
l Inspector _j)._QjflMDE_ht.1[lN 5.}, Scope / Module __5 TAT (/S.. .df._ F#that/S .'
" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DOCUMENTS EXAMINED '
J NSPfCTIoM FIN DINGS . 1 2 3 4 _ TITLE / SUBJECT
.I 3 EoP 55~-4.00 CHANG 6 C0HT60.L 606BD.- __ _ __- . . . _ ._ . . A'25- 83 2 3 _DLSIGH rnEWILS_PDS- 00% PA GE__lo.- J ___. _ . . . . _ _ 5/$3. . . . . . _ _ _ _ .'
3 % _ QUALITY ASST lBdNCE M6NSI E_UE.R #b2.__ ._..._. . _ . . . . ._6/$k _. ___. _4-_ 3 1&LLov6L_E0K_..fo!?HDal-_oLSIG.M. ALDor3. ITErnS b/21/73 . .-. 5 -_% 5LCTl0H L D66%H._AG.TI.o.H . . LI ST - _ . . . _. . . . . ... -. .. . 1b8/K3 .., . _.b ___8 _Co_elCLLTira5 OL.6IM Jl?DM llS.T . . - - . . - - . . 188/C.4 . . . .
'~
1 _A DLCR0 I JT' _0LS!GH.__AGD08 L-L5 1 _..__ _ _ .. . . . _ .7L23/83 . 6 __ _% _ DEL 6TLO.tf3 D6 SIC.N__ACIJ0ht i.1 SI. _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . . 18W63 . ._'. Document Types: Columns:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Drder 1. Sequential item Ninnber
- 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Docianent
- 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Doctanent
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Itevision (if applicable)
scope / Module _HCIID Df5_l(zt9-- l .s.v." iW' ooci1Monis_ rXAM_INr0 91400 3 PROCESS . I 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 .4 1 8 8Itifa Beno srATroN rdPL I8NSobbo4- f-9-$3_ REY. S 2 L ELtrnEHTARY Dl%8Arn 628ES34 AA RESIDtikL_)lEAT WWAL. _ 86V: ? 5YST6td 3 L ELLrt1EnTART anCr3AtA 82%E'i%}N_HIEH 16653.lLR6- CORS - -. - --- R6Y 7 SPRAY SYSTErn 4 3 EoP 42- 6.00 ino6PEnoENT DESIGH VER\fIcATtora AL30/81 5 L Eterr\tarARY ofn6 earn s2%Ess1AA HPCs PoaER stifPLY L, 8_3_ REV. 6 SysTEra 6 8 ECN He t13 396{3 A005 ISOLATOR 70 TA60LATd4 #UM 15 4-22-83 0560 on Rc L15 f/o 7 % Eco no. nsa9Is3 cunnct wissG ll-24 82 8 $ (Rr/1 Lo& NO. ArAD- 1204 RUR %2-77 , 9 % 6CH No. N334Ill A00 7tnW1 BD. fTS 5-24 -1(2 10 $ ECr4 Ho. N337287 CHGD El C006. DLL6(6D MfGS fWilf b - lb CeHTROL CIRCUIT 12EVDC POWER II 8 Ecs no. Ns 37224 conRic7 ORAFruaG ERROR 7-31-81_ . lZ $ ECN nd. N334024 CHAMG6 6LLCTRo S@tTct) 3-29 52 4 Socument Types: Coltunns:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purclias Order 1. Sequential item Nu
- 2. Speci fica tion 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Document
'3. Procedure 7. Letter . 3. Date of Document
~4. QA Manual 8. Ollier (Spectfy-1f necessary) 4. Revislon (1f appli
- _m____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
ymrz-mw.y,,,- g , g, 7 nr Sccp2/ Module N6 Ain 06S((,bl DOCUMENTS EXAMINED 980C650 (fq(J00.40'3 ' I 2 TITLE /SUDJECT 3_ _, .4
)3 8' CCN H3 417%3 cannat s eraiau ces.c_uw 5-&8L '
I4 S Ecn n1 41790 AS BUIL7 S-l7- 83_ 15 i 184-c5458 coHQ_0LA& RARA HIGH PRESSURE art SPRAY local Q -$l R(V, O_ PANGL . _ _ _ 16 $ DRF No. E22-30 Ot_Sl(M VERIFICATue stimrilARY JL 8 I t'7 8 H311(o34 criAHGE RELAY T1PE CFD. StlSrrucALLY Nor 90Aliflto _2 - 2 7- $2.
- tNETH
- RELJIY PVD. SEIStt)lCALLY 00ALifl&D 18 L 184c5467 Ass 9 RLsunvAL HEAY RErn0 VAL A LocnL fan &L c, - l(, - 81 siv. o.
I9 8 ERM r#. AML-1379 isso60 neas g.-12-81 g 20 1 147D7877 RtSIDunL HEAT RErtwVAL LOCAL FANEL A 8-l1-8I 1\ Elf,1 2l I 762E426 AA FCD RESIDL)hL HEAT R6tt101/AL SYS liW. 2 22 5 ECr4 Ho, N318516 Inc. Alt twMS alanGLS noMo 1900. rnco. C-9-81 _
' Document Types: Columns:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1. Sequential item Nie
- 2. Specifica tion 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Docisnent
- 3. Procedure 7. Le tter 3. Date of Document j 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (if appli b -
Inspector j.lMT/}@_h. S co pe/ Modu l e_H E87_L O AD ._ f0R . 5Nid(' DOCUMENTS EXAMINED - HVAC 3 4 1 2 _ TITLE / SUBJECT l 2- 23AlbOZ tlEHTIL_hllN(,. COOLING AHO IffkTtH&fHmP-2)6-3-83 Spf. 0. . . . 2 % .30_tB2720 INS 201 66at. 'AHO PA6TS_ monitIAL _.ldmP.-2)__ 4-21-63.. . 3 g _33_4_4211L_. ins 1RoAEH T duo M s IMn9Al- (QuiH_S_(?Q). [-2h1C)_ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ K - 2--- - . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . - . . . -. . .. . S 8 304A211l - IHSIMmt81_Suo - PARTS _tgnypL_(sytg_W_0 A -?h $3._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _b __Z RtPtRT ITEw1 20 . , . . . . . . - - 7 S _304 A32VI INSTRVrMH_T__ AND PARTS __m68tidLl$ LACK __85 A-2l-R3 2}__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
] 2 RREA T KtM ._20 .. __ _ .
4-2l-j3 9 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
$ 23AI509 kNTILATlHG., CooLIM&___AND_BLATMGhLLNTON S-l9-83
$6 R
]A
_s Z 304-A21l2. 304-A2?I5 23A ISh9 IHSTRtLt06HT IHSTRU_mEtLT Ano PARTS M6tNGL (GMHO GOL Uf_N.LT.lLATsqQ0LI4_6SD_Jf(Afki&(G$MO GdLO 4-2l-$3
$_-Lt O Ano _ _ _ _
Pil8 13 8 304A3252 InsinVmEn1 Ano PItRTS r.nMI_eL.(GRAn0 GPLE2) g-2]-83_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lh Z RtfEA T rF ITirG I 2- - _LS~ % 304A2119 4 2I-Q_ _% 1 22A2114AA Lysreorgsar AHo PARTS enAnog_((t_eSA3.li 1] vtu1]LBTsHG, coauMG AND__IIDLT.hi&_ uSellE) . $ -g-7f_ - . _ - _ . 17 8' 304-1365 tasreneur ano ennrs menoat(tas Atts 2) 4-2143 Document Types: Columns:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1. Sequential item Number
- 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Document
. 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document . 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (if applicable) i l
i
I inspector ._0. c.H4rd6EKLdlN W N , 0 0;;. M rane 2 .a 3 Scope / Module _]f68.T__ LOAQ. foR . Sl?lNC' DO_CUMEN_TS _EX_AM_I.N..E_D. . g _ TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4 1 2 l% 2 R6t' EAT IT6r!! /L ... _.-._. ..... .__- . . . . . . _ _ . . .: 19 _ % 304f 272 l INST @rnEnT AHn PARTS rn6HVAL.O66RY1).. 4-2l-63 .. _ .... . _Z0 2 _23A) 60 7 vEnTILATlab. C00LL%_AND HEA1NG._QtRC)-.-. .. {:l(tf3 . . . . . . _ . .
-lI _ 3 3_o4 A 3257 19s18og6er._Ano._ farts _rnaNunL (rtRRY. 2). .4-21-83 ._
_22___. 2 REfERT ITER /L_Z_0 . _ . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ ~ . . . . _ . . . ._. _23 3 304 A 2722 lHS_TBorp6HT nao PARIS mo (06L(RWtR BEno h _4:21.83 .. . . _ . _24 J 23kl.k9l V6HILLdTMG._ .CMLLM(r_ dBO_.linf8II*M 4-22.4 3 .. _ 25 8 _304 A 2_72_3 ins _Lgvra6ST Ano_e8RT5_tonHVnL.(.5KAG.LT)__- _ _4-2l. . . . 83 .. . . . . 26 J REf6AT of 176rt1 12 _. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _2.1 8 304A2724 lusito.r.tyT AntllhRTS rnn@8L_{TVA-XL7)__ 4. 8 3._ _ . . . . . . 1s 1 ~ 29 __8 30+ A3258 IHST@r6s1 ano FARTS vnhn0hL (TVR-)(l6) _ 4-2l-83_ _l ~ 30 2 gl % 304 A3259 Insraams?tT Ano PARTS ttLetLU6L (TVA -KL9) 4-2l-$[ T.~ _~.~_ 32 2 _ ___ . _ 33 $ Rod A3260 InSTUrnEn.T AH0 PARTS rnenVBL.[TVA-xzo)_. 4-2L-33. . . _ . . . . _ 34 2 , Document Types: Columns:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1. Sequential item Number
- 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Document
. 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (If applicable) e a
~'
'~,,,i,.i n,.. T M004O E
~
n Inspector _ O d ddfd6 6 R L8 [h[ _ Re.giort Nii. $363 - pain. 3 or 3 . Secre/ Module __]MI)T_.) 0AD.foR. Sl.2I4f' oocuntnis txnMiNon
-~ ~~
HVAc . 1 2 TITLE /SUBJtCT 3 4 _3_5 S 304A32_6i l'isgom6NT AND PARI 5_IMHLML[TyA .2O_ 1 83 w
._-_ G ~ _f - -
- 37. $-
304A32L2 InSTRMENT AHD PnRTs _meu0AL_(TYK-7.2)_. __4:2f-83 . . _ . . . _ _ R .U _ . _ - _ - . . . . _ . . . . . . . . - - . . - - . _ _39 7 _CtEWP- 2 149 t0PP.55 IIM O BD._2- llECS m?S6 L__. f- 24:?3_.._ _-_. . . . _ . . l (J2ltB8TDR IIEAL_ LOA 0_(PRC gj- 43)__.___ ____ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ i Document Types: columns:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1. Sequential I tem Ntmilier
- 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Document
- 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document
. 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (if appilcable) e
?
' '"' /
s,.p,./n,ai,i.. . pncpn, n ,., , yn ,n, ,, I 3 4
, _7. . _ _ _. 1111 i /5tilIJr CI
.:9w-% % M % A-
~
. 4'. *1lIl G=-
C+ . th= ' ~ bhp r rn4ena
.._3 .
r:op A- 3. io. '. _ f . _%eedl~ m .Pl~, - 4/c/71 L P-b ry . mim.< :.e ~ Am sfw.p .m st.C oy. .u.ti t/s/r. 5 -
..f___ c. . t c m % u % a c>,...atPA %.A
._.._3.___.. _htA.W.70.-87 .'.QhS y d. A.s d.Pr M .-9 J% GfG M g
._ _. t _. _.
- ye c sw _ . ._. . . _.
= b.,i,. (
' . Jh't '~ R.A I 3
_ . . -.\ .- ... . . .. . . . u{nf29
. . . ___.1 --_ . . _W_~ . ? . 20.&.66 '%5F . ... ._ _. Oyi'Pf9) .
. . _ ___ _3_ _. ..TCN ._. * . M 95.4 F_7.. _. . . . ._ _ . . . . . . 10/l/M
-. _. _. B . _ _ _
TF_t }7<',G. % L.!P~LpA . bM gn NE bD* A
.Il16/78 'T TE g
. _ _0. - . _ _ t5 C.9_.. ~ .G. OS M' . .. . 8f3nf?R
. _ M_ _. . __ epi _ ARo?N WI . . . .. .. . I2 /1hB
. . . . _ f . . .__ . M % % b >u w N u d , W J T o b y J i1G ,, a/Goa 9.
.. D%4_. ._ . . _ - . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . _ . . .. . _ _
L _. . d _ W_7l_4.*1EunAU.g5yk."M. _.. . _ _ . . __ _ . _ _ _ . . . . . . . .
#[. t?/F-Document Types: Colinnns :
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1. Sequential llein Ninnber s
- 2. Speci fica tion 6. Internal Heino 2. Type of Docinnent
- 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Da te of Docimnent
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other(Specify-ifnecessary) 4. Itevision (If applicable)
' ' ~
l '.o ,,. w v.I }; Nrope/ Module.... - - - - - . . . . . - DOCU.ME N.T.S. .E..XAM.I NE.D I 2 TITLt'/SilBJECT 3 4 _
-- - b- - @$ *1_2-3. DONt $ m. k...._.....__..... .OYC.ift 7 . O. .. .
l
- Y /M CR?d EQGL- - -__....... ........._ . ... . _. ... -9 . ... .
. . _..._... _- . (JA ._ f b o > ( c 4 E _C A N f. 1 ?> / ...
.L[;>,./[c:'. , _ _ .
E h .n2bp Q A ev.A f _, _f],$.* - /4.u.'ifm.. 'l . .AEDDR )._*. ;T6 L~ . 6 fuh.- . ..
.U.'i'l .
.ptf x,7 9 -t 4 __ M.w> aLA, i t. y'.J_.gns ,,, m/t2,, -st.g _ Sjz.gy __ _
G Mw ~.> & . (*]f ,,fq__. 4 f w a pa'f*J,, m w j , Q m3p) ,,f,,eg z__ _ _ _ __ MW W ecW' __ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . b
- I ad L DNdn<.7Addd_L. - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . _ r.y[ Q z .
G--- x ~ r- sd 19 46 %QA #knr --oj ._. _ .
.cp(3yhr.- .. . ._
G u~ u u-c y nnsw ny _ .ssets, _. _ __ __.
~ .a com .b natm & su nh 6 A,y1 6.% rp 4uf,g6 &pp) - gs -4g_333 . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _p/2 g1,. _o 5 MM ~ +; _pfze ez- . _ . . . . .[~$~
$ O$ ' 3 0 & 0 ~' O .-- ..
.GlL! .2 . . .(.)_ . _ _ _ .
? $ G C; ---~ Q & &
i Document Types: Col umne. :
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1. Sequential item Number
- 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type or Dociment J. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document
.4. QA Manual 8. Other(Specify-ifnecessary) 4. Revision (if applicable)
~
1
e
=
L. .
.5 s
= .-
_ ,. s a=== a .=t L
=
kQ c . - . hbb= ==w - r, - b. j i c _3 3 - t % 7 C W (,s$, 3 ***~ t=- n ( M'x b r.C ts m , $e. e,,
.. = c e .-
< O=->
qO q#sen $cYN D' N. E h e- $ $ b i s e N e v-~me
. y --
( . .
~ i a i i t
~
,'t, , '
! i !
i
, e .
' 3 5 . : !. . ;
3 . . .
,i I . l i ,' '
'.4 %
, s ,
' t * '
, e ,
9 m , -
=-
M b} s. E. -: v; ! %g4. 9 el 1 , , , i r - e
.st-- tJM . . .
t t 5 g, ; e's i ' t x 1- j { .,; <C3 r s t. . .
- 9. ~.3
? 09 6 E- 5: o c.
-; - e v. i L -
4 '
> o .e a %^ a .
IL 0; ; , ,,"eV G i
- c. >
=- <
%. .. e \ e .c .( % $
(: (" iM. (, I. N N ** e i
=
\
(- J ~m u 1 Q4 4 %
' L1 . t i
6
' i i
JLd(9"
'M -
.b8 i te E
' ! ~,, [
C ' f I} b'
- (9 ,c - ' = =
k Q* t)'#. .*d W
- v. N kR. i .
I [ V C w l
) ,w-
%.%. d b ' ' m=k \
6
, tv \,,
I
.=
y ca c 6 CL m *
.)
k' 9 tt*Ih. (g* I L - w .= 1 %8.
- t. i. ,' i
,I
. m
= =Cw
_. c kv O'* Q k T'
*i .I
- 6
- Q g* ,* I { '
l
! 6 di ce ct %
. G-
$.!l ! t l :
e, I i I
. I
- t I '
. I C i i . . .
!. i I l' c l
6
' p a l 6
.*! l C @m f .
. i
. h tria=-
i
' ' [ ..=. =Le=
c '
*.8 3V WE
- =cCC
= , - L L 0,. L eC
! l .
' , E C M L C' O t
= , .*
E L O y -
, C-NMW T"
, _ . _ _ . . . ,n_ _ , , . . , ,, _ . _ _. . , . - - --
. .n. u e i .~.:.. ...
Inspector l '. * :, r. A .& - iteiini t tin , . I*. vie. t of t Scope / Module- -- . D_O_C_UMEN_T_S [XA__M.I.N_E.D 3 4 1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT _. . [ J. C .4 t i . . G112.T . D 'l i " --- t9 20V i l . _ . .. _ _G ___huC*2 LW C. U.> c- T t qCLA n;y?). . . . . . ._. _. . . . . . .-
- 2. _.
G W c . u . . t\ i. t ( ). . :c,\6tt c.ut4 s> Li e t.l_. l_.l'tl C ) _ _ _ __1.S_ALF.1. 31.__.___L.M.... t C e _ 0% uti At is. _.AcJ v i s (*. a' . A G ( . i' r_ 3 5 t ?
- i [9 h . .
3 _ . .___ 8 _ T E $ [___3 3.fe g.T 'etun.4_O % s....J ?! . G 4 i..= L. _%\t.V . en.: ! l .s.! i s r.T w c_ p___nic (. . 1 A L._t. A r @ ic f J_t) . . .._. .>. . ;.y .. t %f_ t I_3 _ _ _ . _ ty v tf_.,q ; _ 3A,, 3 i 3 _ c_, a 4 .. c v- vi _ (<.. . A. g;> . 3 5 2'l__'(s.- N
... i[_'] [! ' . . _ .
4 2 E A T- UW -! ' ': 'E M 61. 1 'M.': _' __G_@_l * - H ' P-f-f_M_' V .4_M_ t' . .._. . . - . . - - - - - - - L't t i q.- VA LVd.
~
/ LA_'l_$_33 A D
. E[Ol.i k. .
.T 7 G C _ _ _T c, ri a zi % i i_i_ D ' _qq.C lbL ic_s H T-
<, v .3 i.,. . > ;,__r .J ii r _ _ .
c Q , g ,_ p. o L lT uf A ', ed ori eiG B er rAitc o '5 R V 7 [_8 J/3). _ _ __, C 'I ._.b_ti i~a [ L__L.Lf1_C'.i.*A ROMS 52 C.u i __.. _____
._if.2_'.[ R 1 .-_
'l E ____. M c-- ti_T_ul (.A__._ td u_l'Q S G G._ _k__DIti c C_~a_ .1DLL Wut D_4G- _ . - - - - - - - - . --
ILL i 4v . ', Pc i m R _: _ If.r.s t h E __v 2 . v a i>m.oi sw r u < > ito.o i _G 2 4 3i'i F i C D %_.J_4It'J4 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . b3_ _. _ E C _.haCA.: a T. ~fAL.cino el ' o_iW_; l'RC_.Ab 11 _t 4_ riticas . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ . . _ .
- Ge R t Ak id el G re .'. 4 c,T QEPoMT.dC F A tL u s' c OF SW $ f a 3[3 3 As Pr\R r z.i Document Types: Coliens:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1. Sertuential item Nimber
- 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Docipent
- 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (If applicable)
O e
c ,, _ _ _ . _ inspector __ l'. ",5 E A k"a. Pepm i fl . < , . . . ,, P.u t e' / rif g Scope /Mmfule _- -_. ---. . _ DOCUMENTS EXAMINED i TITLf/SilBJECT 3 4 1 2
- 'l 3 G G.c42 R/\L _ _ _ _
E. L C. t T~ 2 I C. EdVI(20k3 F40.td T AL. GUAL. i - _ _ _ . _ _ -.Pi2N___._i_ ? A_ M - __. _i .e ._. 4_%__i d. _C_ _ - T6t.'_i L..?E.
- t. .A. _L. Pr C i- dIOJ M .*,n, * ? J A d et 'n S. .
[O R E. @i he d WQM.t ._f_iq Q.D_t_T_8.R d.S._.Q M .4. S.HC. G %. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _3 k.E .5.51i___PS. I i . . _ ._f_.9_i b '? C ' ' ( A. . . t\ _ % E&t Road ME_L4 I A L___ 9 0 d b_s {ip r h _ Q A_T_i_\ __ t3 lG e. f y . _ _ . . _ . ,, . . . , 1 C'_'j_ D '3 cec.'~1 E ._Q C._.c!f' i k3'N_q2. , - _ , i . . . _ ._ 1 i i i i 1
., Dociment Types: Colinnns:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Drder 1. Sequential item Nisnber
- 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Docisnent
. 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document i
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (if applicable) j
inspector: klc Mft.D P. PJ 6_ /Yc d "k Docket No.: ,, j ] l / ' <l o .% , , _ Scope /Mo<fule: CRO CLAM p Report No.: I3-02 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , Res roNse sre:crsA - Item Document TITLE / SUBJECT Date Revision No. Type
- 1 LETTER Fgorm C. 6. L EWI S OF G. c To R. E . m i t t Est. 4 - 4. 93 __ _-. __
oF 5$W AfbodT rJM P- 2 r a u c t c A rt. f'ow es PLAN T . ._. Z l LETTEP_- FRoM K. E. MILteg o r 5 ) W To c . G. L t we's of 328f3 - G. E. Af500T CKD C LAM P5 3 I DR6 H0. ~lh9 E S 3*1 - 1rJ5T^ LLATr oA KeTS .1-l Y ORh0LI'C S .y .~1] _ t LI AJE CRD _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __ 4 i D A.6 No. 137CS34.o_ P;Ago c LAMP , HYDRAULIC Lines los_-J1 __ _ 2 _ , 5 1 LETTER G E A . Ze188 . P;D I - 1IG ocoZ - 1 TL ct it ze,_82 _ C __ 8 F D_P_F_ N o . $_@l 0117 ?-IN-83 .. o . _. . . _
'l E FDo g. No. g g 1 - o l'Z.~7 2-zz -83 2. _ _ _ _ _
_A A FDP g. No. KGI - o1% S-Sh83 . l (1 2 5Fcci Fi CATt o,J no. 21A8845 5_ic) _3c _ _i _,. Io I DRA w'rv6 No. ~148 E 354- ir zs-a i s 11 Df.A w W G roo . lyl c S4 o4 PU Rc H a s c PAftT, STRA7 ,, go_ra.rc ,, z , _
>>w p ._t1_ _ l OltAwNQ ~%7 E.12.4- flTDP2 At/tt'c LiNE.s CRD -l i . Ik_ 8 PA RT .t-pr - _DocumcwT too. 2.58 X t 73 A F z.n-8 z . .t .
Doctment Types: I. Drawing 5. Purchase Order -
- 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 3: Procedure 7. Letter
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other
Inspector:_ [g*cHAQ h NGUYEd DnM No.: 9990OdO3 Scopa/ Module: CED CLAMP Report No.: 8h-O2 - Re5fbNss srscTEA Item Document TITLE /SUIUECT Date Revision No. Type it+ g MPL 238 x i77 AF _. B f b , NE ACToK S YSTem , Item 5_zB_82 25 . elo. Do78 _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ W YpAA_Uttc LiN E . CRD 284 X741 GooI _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . O C . ,14 4O(2AuLs'c Liut .ClO pc 2 i A B_s il Q_ _ _ ___ __ _ .__ _ . . _ _ HypgAouc LIME. CRD Z Z A 47.5 (o A 6 _ _. ,, , , , HYDRAutt'c Li M E. CRD
'N,9 E 3 l'1 fo.o.- I. - - .
HypjrAvLic true. cRo
-K, J e 724 Foot, is 8 EocKirdq tJ - 5 C H v 6 c,rr % lles FoN S E 57E c.TlCA ,_,,
i ( _ g .8.2 16 1 L E. T TE R FRom f. 7. Hb(.DEd oF G.E. 'T o R L. ~2 8 3 -
. LEBRE OF S&W . Ct EA - 3o 24 i1 1 LeTTec. Fgom D ..T. H KoM ADA 0F S t W To w. J. z_zs.33 ______
MUSEuR __ . _ _ . , . . _ _ . . _ _ . II 8 SHolt EH AM NEW SRV[t.ocA NODAL ARS c4 cs s PtoTS g_zs_g3 _. 19 6 DWAmic LoAp E vat vaTrod AB -ooo32 -I z,_ 6_J3 Zo G L ET TER Fg oM V. E . Fo u S E K f 5 _ . _ . _ _ . l 1.9. _l 1 z.1 L LETTER Fgoe R.J. TowscaD -... . s.3.7+__.. 2.2 1 LETTER. FRom C. G. t_ Elvis To J. T. fulE 2ABYTow S K e' G 13 - Z.3 8 DE 516M SF'Ec if'I CATIOM 14o. Z.I A 884 5 5_l9 ~$ g i DochntTypes:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchase Order
( Specification 6. Internal Memo
- 3. Procedure 7. Letter
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other
I NAO NbUYEd F"" "" " Darket No : '""d^^ Inspector: . Scope / Module: E4.5 PoPJ se StecTRA
~
"*P"'t "" - Ob- ?--
4 c ptp c. t.Amt's Item Document TITLE /SURJECT Date Revision . No. Type Z4 8 x- PLOTS otp j P0 cd 'T.H. A RS F^cTo tts AND i-s 83 - Ass c 55 m erJT ___. _ . _ _ _ _ . ._ z.5 z 5 PE c i F cA TtceJ No. 24 A 8485 #1.Zel #z - tC z _ De5 t 5 rJ STEcif trATtord ZZ A 6 734_, M PL ,_b7([Py-onl_ l t t(, g3 l Pi FirJ6 , Mas,J STc^m 4 12ccig ev enTi os 21 S fiPir44 , M AtrJ STEAM f d ec(Itct>LAT'oM ,_rdo. 72 AG 134 A A_ t-IG 83 _i_ El 8 FIFir4(x , M Aik sre Am ) Eccik cuteTieel - z fo.83 , , , DC 22 A6'? 34 A A 28 8 OWA MEc, .Lo^r) _@gfoKTS , S Essm(c _Lo cA , Sg t/ hrJI) _ _ _ _ A NtJ U_L us_ PEE 5_5 0 RIEA Te orJ , A41- 54+o _ __ __ JC 8 (0Mf o Tcf le(x - S HeRE Hom F^cToF- A 55tM 6LE Z _Z4 83 3l 8 S hor E H AM f AcTolt ST00Y . i.21 83-- _ bl _ 8 ff SYS ComruTER- P RsGK^m m^ravA L NEDE- 24o n s 18 _ _ _ 3') 8 AM585 7 PKoG gam u s Ett'.s in Aro u A t NEoc- 2 SS 18 F _ ,z -8 3 , 34 8 Sa(4 Go 1 US EMS M Ardu A L _
, _g ,z _g 36_ 8 SHoLEHorn Rect 6c utATe oro B - SAP 4_ Force s Ardo 3 IL .82 ,
MO MEPJT5 Document Types:
- 1. tirawing 5. Purchase Drder
, 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 3; Procedure 7. Let t e r
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other
.m.- o ..
inspector: 'C N AO W' tdt .
~
U"C E "** - Scop 2/ Module: C D CLAMf3 Report No.: 03-o2. . ftE57owse. 5fEC. TEA Item Document TITLE / SUBJECT Date Revision No. Type SC B S FtoR Ell A m MAird STEAM Linc. 8 - SAP + , FoFE5 ^'d D B_ro-gz _ m DM ENS __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Y1 8 P1 A lk '> TC^ m Ls'a c 6 - PIPING sTaess Reroer sp C,_3 z _ _ _ W. E Z A B 4 8~1 . . _ _ . . . . . . 3g : DRA W(cl(, 'El E34 fC STcAm Pire sus pens (ord 3 to .3_ y ,_ C M FL No. 621 Gooz ., s hts I, z, r _ _ _ _ _. __ . _ . _. 8A 8 fv1 AlU STe Am E- EE PIPE tro f TI A ll ? A Tr ord 8__ft 82 _ , _ 4-o 6 CLAS _g c A Tr orJ GT CK.D PfPE CLAMP 3 , f/leM L . .T. G . 5_13 _,, , _ , C Hoc k(E To Do mesTic. PRovecT Oerr. . faro Jo3E ___,, . _ . CA tt rarnKA _ _ _ . . . Document Types:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchase Order 2: Specification 6. Internal Memo
- 3. Procedure 7. Letter
- 4. QA Manual
- 8. Other
a.,wa, -. _ ___._ e . _ _ . w m_,,_,2aa _ , _ _ _ _ , u , a ~ , _m - , ,, w '
. T
? , .
.. . > . 5 5
. q, -
. : -l. 1 .x ,
,f y WN $ i { Q'l Q f !$ . } g l ll' a- . n* -
$5$5
- - s
~2 @. 4 .-t& t 6$$Ehkgmg 4.
o .. ! *g
- 2 "M5$($$ts$$?$PSSgmS i jic53 saeu i
i II !,i !!I '
$IE;!!
+3!
' l ! i ,
N i: ! l ;t9.! !
. : ! i :
1 ; i i I ' I l 4l 3 5' 4 l l 1 : i *; . I ! : : l, A l l l . .
.i i l} i (? j i t
i i l 'k l !
$l l s
5: t.P
; :s S. I. !
.i at IA 1 r. -J i a3
' l '
i R, A El E dh Es
- .I e$'
i L.s ? j !: l !. i 34 3
$k Vjb pb e
E V P
>l L p % g) ) ( @ !!l j8' s i -i r l
'I I:' .
h " s sok ., ,,y p .t = 4 i w If3 e
.!($r.k i$ 1s % a h, i-..a r i: .
nel P,Il kk k *{; !)it 25M xh ( " n. ( l' A j r c ht ;;as 4%t 4 4tI%4st h (afw u"oun !e 1 ii i
- ii i i az s
i i ) 19 1 ). . n:m m a a. n H *
- a- ~ ~4
%s ,, L.s ti
-setc i 82 I
- lN , " r, [M s , i j lb 1g
$lg J ] w W k d a r.!w a : t ?l! t 4 C .
5-is 8 m I 1
t Inspector -{FATJer,cM.r U.. . [ N . g3.o z l l'.u p - .2. s'I 3
- Scope /ModuleM/ ire /o/ d.y.i/e/t Cel'+ DOCUMENTS, _ EXAM _INLD 11 4
1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT ~3 ~ '~ n y m ;z f .~~64 7 6 R M W D ?? 5 W M E ~^'='?JVf
- D $ 4 ~
*? - 8_.
A^ _n a- - - -
'T Ay$44
^ ^ ^^ M A d ***- W
; sergtros yx-
~=
.-
- igm -. g
= "
. Y.YI ~.
._ 19 ---. K I N^^. se. -
^
-Y^W~' I --
e=.43 o e/1r sx-rrp r, x . _2 w inV M g y Fauv4&W~y + ,<.*cc* - m-Q -- 9 } '~ p}D
' ^
e,wn so s
~
QQMZim M5^iK'iG22G'~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ wy
^^~~ ~
ocM-oet;ry,~ ynna f~mh 4 pits. - l ! 64f W!'" _4~. $ l K'S A D f92.2 M : en. Se f KsE.__ ,, i b. xcc-sg.g se cdtz C -j"and .,A _ - ^- 4/Jii/r_ , x - 1 Aa/ 6 ggoE-Mss r, SAFEliBY Usen 'Vihavsn*T~ ~ "~' ~ ~~ ~ ~~' ~ ' ~ ^ * ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Ej'E,;{* b
^*
i i 3.$ 2 ~ g'cr Mmbse.-6TbYtto7 Led i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~
s2/5)iri --
~ ~ '
} l 2L 1 <* T5J Y= '-
~
i sc r A bt&ser-6s vrtta 2' ~~ 2.7 1 '-
,,j,Qyb
~
- m' ' M'M'BVms s ef '?Im-<wJ411Z eL w _-tre.a. "~ '~
~
~ ~~ ~ ~~~
'M J' LTA'f%Md erma-gy p e .38 f i
..,y .n......g ,, ~ , = -
,wi,
,~ , _ ~
~Y)3ii/[r/ -
~
^ 'g" :". Jrovedkr Mosif&nderCDRN> - GEM?EOFMTMbidy'-~~~ ~ ~ '
~~/j'ig7
* * ~
' ~ My f.5'aes-n. y &E$ rst L'-2 ^ -n W 2E'"a**tneer'
'SL 6 ~ g]1/Jf~ '=
1 R s e sar*VA T M y 9*f i/ 1 / O f 'W eere d dar ira 2.~1T m L%76.- A AstrA.I paa yh f&
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
p4 & ~*ip cfr/ - ) i Document Types: Columns: ! 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1. Sequential item Number
- 2. Specifica tion 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Dociment
. 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document j . 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (If applicable) 1 1
i j i i-i
n i n. r. i. u..
. a. . . . . .. -y e..p.,i i n,. g . .,y,
""' ' ^
Scope / Module Co d;s.e.l f f g q /ser_ ( ,/s* DOCUMENT _S, J._XMINED . 3 4 I 2 T11LE/SUBJEC1 6Esrimf'? m D W:Ju=r 1%&i&El%*~irney f .fu.-Q Ms. ~ i.pcilrI ~
~~~5.6 ~ s ETsit]iri
~
~
srstorAir's1"K*'**v rn a.g <- w=*<aro 1 W ,J G M ~5" ' ~
~~~ ~
ry y p & b Y ten irro5NSWA 'WaE9A2;iai agefrit ~T '2 pjffri -
*~~
Bi7K*BATAE-tI, cio-us&Lq ekr~NMe4/dEbrM6W L*nMaal2=2ffpi QQjp o
~~'~ ~ ~~
W M w '~~?lL~) :.f s M ZE22f~-L'7r;?)& & J- [rfie/Kt --
' '-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
as su2st-eesq,vena- G M A7M iLi~s.'(?L:Tsas>rstaJr[4krWiiay * 'qjkip'fgj a6 y~~ g_ inhf* ap J .~ A G,,, fim
%se A rT'~ ' ~ Ms EpsindagCQ xMiyTai;. &WifM Misikk *))LE kijii;rfri b N L-, 3 ._, . gym ,, y.... .. . . ....... ._ ..
4t_ 6 f ~2,,75)f9-
~*^
1- e 'A e,q g 6MFRir6YW3MM~Vfia&%22TM~-LE_~12.'2'M ~dr eue,ame-of ompprm prpf csonr6E?E5 TWT 93V ~~ ~ ~" ~ * ~ ' ~2,rjij' f y b
' ~ ~ ~ ' ' * ~ ' ~
- W~~ss~im =i-7Ac- =-
M 1 EE9 TIE 6E~X - _ h yvt** ^ ^:- ^_ TQMGked4_26segunO M D'E-2304 s _. g_.S. ' ~_.E ~._._.__. Document Types: Colimins:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1. Sequential item Nienber
- 2. Specification 6. Internal Memo 2. Type of Docimient
. 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document
. 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revisinn (If applicable)- o
PERSONS CONTACTED bo pa$y ' G6HLRbl ElblYAll Daws 8/29~~$fftl$3 Docket / Report No. 9790040 H- Inspector D. rHAr066RLAlW Page of ! NAMEID1 ease Print) TITt.E(Please Drint) ORGANIZATION (D1 ease Drinti TLor> b ri-r.m .e 5's . EN'Gw EER HcdE PDo eeg-2~D . Ali MiMatWe GMA!W4-L N C' 9 / 7 0 0 2P e ID SL: Rescaux Sh Eua,w NcetD * 'e' Ed It'6LcH hrsIL E E w,i>I, Sc P40 A/c d P D c Knm TEM lswl $'puim r N C /Z P1)O Y 5327I En@RD rMRIN6RtNS 5P6c1Aus7 Nc2LO H D 'P,uH Pr s ,, M ,- g OPD - e ; - ,. r. . a R . A . CICLARLl.Ll S&HICR PRdtCT ENGINE 6R DPD - R\%R 86NO
PERSCNS CCNTACTED C: meany 2 '5c] M Oates I A9- 63 Cocket/Recor* No. FIC /m*v3 Ins ~eC W DG 3/24W os 9e- I :f l
'IAMEf Please er int) Ti9.Ef21 ease 2"49 *. ) 00C-ANIUT CNf3' ease 3 da-i f'? f_g g 's c o. v' Sp e : .. v ? OllE SA ff ?I G.L. 9 u s in ar %ede r}ls/, &>J. %, .
A, A r r6 Z~ K ?c . . led. e. i
/% i
<%.iieE cc1Eis J. M. CHsr Ne8 , CMS O H " A'C
// d .!!' 9 3 4 -f '#
4 a :: n ' 1e s..? a c. c' E
- fA_.
, ,_ ."'c!l * . , .. . c . .ra n . :~, .
. , e..~
F 1 tJ id M.' r > f E4 Giqu VEAED
~v h} /
ic. /1 r1 C s'. O Q L f . r- Q D n
- u -r*? O '" L1 " " M '
<hi, /;,si>, g b' n . //?iE { i %' ,1?),.)~ll Tr'3 'l '-h -
/ 5 / ' l'>
. ./ . ..
G .V hoERsen 3R Suvsk s 9 + "i 0 l t
PERSONS CONTACTED Company SENfSAN b5b.bT$Ib Dates Y21- $/Z/$3 Occket/ Report No. 11100403/$3- Inspector 0, cNAmsgRt 4 /N,f Page l of NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATION (Please Print) T K Paul <du M ra - GA 6 6 4 % WESO SN.Geneat AC4to NPSCD O VFisiscHN4 B A h ;+ w Sr Em' , oA r2 0 G A t it. o J. M. C#st - Mox. aks ON+no
$ [ VR (fu cid .W fMW2 __ d4d$0 Ob// , M b w //$/ M+d6
%.%cu . %s.1s..;..L a/un P. 6 E f r- 4 t/K fe4c.ro# c en r w= /2 d e<1 / 2 #
~P H . % A G2%
- 8. J b.L A.LJ 0 .. H.. N pseo
.rP srsa webv % M clc. 1 0 -li t, sj ..S 7 c J J 3osemAd T e c a t u A e' - d d u psed A.d.~hME5 % WEN"s%'TZ '
W4seo I
$c/ $sofM44/w S. /* C co* $ **.y' 5"ff ,
St. O c* a saaca Mct seuarv r s .f,$ u m ssuc J . L.TL cm o ;;, mc.8 P,pw tWtg .veses k 9 hl.dla ke, bm 1% E.oc e \ apse.n u Q l l e
- - - - - - - - - - - - --.-----y m----y--w.------,.-,-r - - - , _ - - - - - - - - - , , - - - - - - -
Y Pcgo
- gg PERSONS CO.TACTED Comp ny: A GlecTWC, insp;cter: hth AstD h N Gvpg Docket / Report No.: C. Q a4 M Date: 27//ctf3 NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION (Please Print) (Please Print) (Please Print) sd sa-asu, sa. w -. -; n r y _yne mw..
u) A/ l.1o m h - h rv #. MMP z - /-s; ach - Pr% _ G.J. Ades rea _ Penkd Eu, CAS ADALRn .m T.C. \A/ o o D PEW IPK nc 2. $ASffQRf20 As <,u sec uz c~o ~r e, es c o I C. C a n. m ru3% ,c N es es E9 GI60 %. EQtc e - OPSED OL4. SOLAMK Gk .aaa /t AJR.E h
- 6. ~K4A>6-. 6K. Ewe R. /t> psEb J.L .' Lomp3 ox nuA c.s tt. (3,p :, A, mig,;
P. 61nesi Fi, y u r% p,j,,q.s y- t'a A . ( ,A4 LLC Ay F w^ w' .T<4- l i:N ' l A,v T P t 9 t N 6 A A c.'y c < T , K . 1)O GA,%MP.- PLhG PIPn.Ts MLisa C-.$.BARREta$1.n ANA rd FLW.- Flft v.; ANA:.y.;;.:; R L tN mg A.g cy. .s . p ._ tN. _, , ,1 m,g A- k . k'a 1 E A av P&.J h a c L Le,r 6 ' J l l l j
. PERSONS CCNTACTED Dates 1lM - 9 // /g3 Capany tGnua--/ f/sc me 0:cket/ Report No. 009andss/rs.s1 inscector 7 N[dekk/sy Page d of /
TIT 1.E(Please Drinti ORGANIZATION (Disese o inti 4AME(Please Printi B A 5 m ,'4 h S r E w S' c c er 4 iz a FE Almb'n s S~peclalis7 oP5O TG SHum LJAC M e c- b A-R Goawss ca n e- .m i b e G l l O A g D
- s ns en :c t
- meani 6fN68AL EL6cTR1C :a us 9- /- 83
- ceketinecer: no. 999Co403/83-03 :ns:ec :r D. CHAM 6ERLAIN
- tee' """" :? l Pre-Inspection Conference X Post-Inspection Conference 1ME(Please cHnt) "" I( 3'ea se 2-4 9 C7GM".1~CW 3' e se : d - '
). D. (HAM 6ERLAM REACTOR ENGlNEER US NRC REG. TV UCRARD k N CT UYE/J R EACTO R Eh/ CWE eR US tJRC RedeTZ~ ') AVG. G. 3GGAU X l2 Farm /2 EN c, t or r: / U S N R. C. Em'Tir. -af 2 4 c. g. $ d. A 2S " $. Y. bfl.it,YS *-f Il **
*t ei
< .' if f; ; , a . s ;i - - . . .
. .e . c .- . , --
f * . d~~h na v - o . *
- c,- : e ....:......, f.c.
~
. , - i/.-
- f. H' nM t.ow r#. E,vci ,e ,e it c, E Ai c > .z* - I p a
.' k ' : * . I. 1 - ._ m .;. - G n c a e .E <.+ ^, i s :-
? %6 (n $% 5.E w. ,. . e -= c - G M Q. C
~
.' t .- a Pm , . c = 1, ,,a ,, ,- _ c ,:. - cc
~B k N v f 2,;.V Nyf 7w. .a.a.: nes G5- 4' F5 d w J .: >:-:-3V .9 ,1 e . <. . , .,.
.:.n . .e a
I Yb 5 / ' $ A 8. ? 8l /!P5CW
'M ,
2 A c.. . : :: s na 4. . A & ,:., ,-- e O $ O T"\ Oc 0 pJ b egC L b ND$
'A lc- i .i, 11. / C c' %: . ' - *'- .) A/, C a's r Miv//t ssic GMs oft /?o R.T J)AL8Mch GR Gn .
CA do J.J. bs % J $ - % , le L.J,- ! C3s-enen
.c 1 ?. . ' c -
S r. e < . , .s , &. %%
~
A Vii%. /1 9 e, duitt JV<~,4 de:4,4 M.r t. o 7 a, .- - :.
, . : . :. : : ..-;,;. z., ...
} S R .. . \ en ' I '
~ -
.One. m , u.s.mucan aeoutATow ccwwission I =c.ea. %se.Cv,4,,., ,,,,,,,u,, $C'en**
T *
' CMAM66At/})t4 /),/)lf.;.- t INSPECTOR'S RE70RT ; e. , g .e j Office of insoection and En'orcement ,- ****'*** D. G , BRf. AUX .
R. H&0Ybd R H. 6A r cWlAY 0 SdARS
- 4. awe.,m a~,s,ar e o% n: - -
o0Neeat, . %0==C t,,,e.,.as .
.3,.... et,u -
m .. 66N6RAL EL6CT4ff 60. m l8icio Wo 1 - i
- F oGi l'-*008vw.w i '
, i 3 CELT'l ! I e e .ete'.act l * !
t
'o ' *l 't i l l2
- 8. bio 9 0f issw.S?'eaf. eses *.8.Ctiese i gse,
- C% ogesCowsc.v l:eD% 24'C% LO:t La ag;;% .; ;N
'O O 8eces l l )(
i . esciO%A4Oso Ct $?a88 '8 0'* te j a'g ='*E ees 4 *' 4" M NId
, wergsever epw ag * * * ,
es0. 04v I re I we I cat I ve l m 2raiss!oratowris
- 3. ettics%fas tetC'ce
*f - --} .
O . 313 31 t 0 wa a a a4a- . 32 Fm:s g 4 13 f 3 T , egg 0a,46 ACitose ,et :s aC*w ', ::sc.c t:-;*ese eae ses ea...
'S*"**'" '
l 32 . S A8.fv 2. wGwf v t.t * , g . stantSec. .4. %c, s e
, . a eC 80ses tt I6 , 37 . S egC:A4 . ,1 %vt%f vie. ;
[
*t . Nvit* :A? !
i . e.e Os.46 0,e C. w,, 1.3 . '%C10.%t 8%.e.a w.%, 9 M wCw' aw0if g m . ,8%20e 7 . . .. w.%, u ,0e, 1 09. wat aCCf. C '3..wecet l
~ *~ 5 .
s US ao w g g e g g meaG5 ;.a,ggggge g ggs;eggggge: %8tet%CE *t*Ce' *:s'a.% & f90 ,g.,geecogegie.sagg.,.. . ,;.. 08 vC AP'C%$ a=3 al.lCl0 :tv aC48 963 %#Cowa t C's sea seva st*
, , ,. Ct4Aa steas e tt. . .
l
- set 3 *; .a .;e i I i 2. W@ '.t**t e 'S I.,C3 ..* *.*
(. : j 3 0.v'at'Cao a g g
- j4 g e 3l a;g i ;j 90 ' Oa' ** 1 v: A>
l [ j 4 . vuobAf'0% 4 0.Viaf9ss g ,'7 . , t t . vst ...,gg } g 2 } ;]j y
., .. 7 ..'... , m; ,- .
*4, . . 2 ..
iij n wC0bst '98Cowa' C4 wCT.Lt %seewa' a4 m wotou %,w..e %. , i i,y o ; wm.. e sto .mm. ;n wo0 a% w.ge4,. <i , i m ..tei: .:..: dph.=s 1e ' :i I la :I:-W,, ,ii ie Ii r a 3s a:- !l l = s gs = t!I l !.I iII 3 -
.*I..a. -
- 2 - - ! i =.
!.!41.I..!!.il'.gg.g3e .2,1.=1 g I-1.1g!!.
e . 11 . .. . s , E,
. 1. ,1 .! [1 l . .
3 h.g n.
.; .. I,. , a
- t;!!.n.,!.!..!;,A..;;. : i. i.
W214,2!7,o,218H .W il3,7l M ,3 5 0 o.f 4i 0,LE! , , i l i , I , , !
'iI,,!,,'II,I,,I
* 'l
. i] .
i i ,, . el l,, , , I l , i, , , l l,e:
..,,i,,
si ,, , , I I,!, , 1 .:i i , , M2!9,2!7,0.5ISl!! 10,7,l , , I i , ',,!l.!,I ,i,, '-
'.I.
1 ,, , , iii , ,,,i ,; , , ci I,,l,.Ii , !,,l ;:: ; ,,I,, ;:, et i , , , . i'I i.,I . :. ,.! . . i. b,d 2l9,217,0,4!86 10,15", , , I I i . i , , I . ',I l , I , , ' W , , , , ,' 'I , HI,,I,,': , !,,I , ii , , , , i , ic! l , , i , , : . . . i : , , , . . , 103 l,, l,, i i . i ,I -
, , , . l
!:d2 3,ol7 0,3fBH io,1,01 , , i I i .
, , i .l i i I , ! , , i % :
I
, , i , ,
_i i n l Hi,,i,,i'i,:,,! . i. I , , i , , iL, l
- iI I i . I , , ! I ic i ,
. ,I I?l,;I,,
i, i l
. e .eq u0vema '.
i _ _ _ _ _ - a
oc soeu ros a . atacar ucovi.s w%eas , occa
%os*
rev=o.*is CowC e,iOxl'3 caIt'ist t<s :: ii.* .
, 73 l ggg, g,]t7f qig,g 2l INSPECTOR'S REPORT 8 !G !O IO OI4 0 3 I II I ' Bl 3ld '3 I ' **"'c"""*"*'. ,,
(Continuation)
' 'i !
' II i '
! l * .l: 3l.l,, l .- -
Office of inspection and Enforcement
' 'i
! i iiiI 8I '
I' ii i i io l l j i j i } % ~_.-
~ ~ . _ , . ~ , _ . , , _ -.'..........~.-..-... ...,...,... _.....,....,,,....
- t. p
' CulTR '
zl l
<l t% M b M n c d d .. U % s.1 2 J 5 6 4-/ Gad M ?~Sw) n ,c.-,a7br. h t~. NEDO :i7c *I %,Liu (s# s 2 - C. c C 24% A M M J 'ln.J5.,.,:i '! s x., w&t,~ : % )u,,,' & U c J sdR.a +;,,,: ;
hilN 01dl- c2r-Asi m'J W kebrPN m7 }'.G. l
,si anM ?n w %-
y
;Li). k id. ! ..l ,z l '1 h 's. ,i l .. I ed .il .. I mi 2, i 22.
21 !
- .I n! .
to l nl 79 g .i . 3e N 13 Se
=l 6: .
l .;'g ,p
.ac , . n .
m,o . ... owc, ,
,. t3 c ,. .r' . ,
o
.e.,
i,2
.com ,u. ;
2i9 2i7,OiS$
, l INSPECTOR'S REPORT C I4 Aldid'4'O i3 ' ' '
413I CI3i a cao ins * :=:o r: "4
! !6 ! I i (Continuation) i
' e .!,3 I,l,' ,,
Office of inspection and Enforcement - '
,ii6 i ,;IIiji
'I ' ' i c i , ,i2 <i ; i.
m m
,'X, vo m .. . . ,. ,,,,.,,,, , - ., ,,..,....-. . .~..- ....,-...,,,..,..,,...s.,,.. ,,..., ..,,....,
1. t C \lTR
. I D,Ln & %1A 5 d Lwd heatl 1lr. N6Dn.Il2604A s' luf} s.9I.2 n6of inw% v) Q A uC~.nen'n.O *I 41f 5. 09 CW A A) ^l %)Y ?$.]' SU $> ~ &, l > i' ,L l & % 6 2,2lL J (cnD ..L As.,.:( . . 'l of3 D GQ fAk O.:! %SJ) s2' m.vj 7L. 7F((- =2 2. Fu
'L ' w Y n rkJ r w aals n b~cwd) .La ~ suz d.n e,1s
=1 1x, Gmi ah SAL . -6C ->!L,(b.) a n&
'n w or L A srskh.i hwh.JA 2r-wr4 $f b,) '
I 1:
's I
-;<Jwtm'Ah14
! s' w
.. l s,
17 -l ',t -I ai i
- s A
23
*. e
.'1 I
- s rt it i
29 M' . 3t i n8 n i
).
M . bl . . cl .
=ac ac== no A_ asas r woouts*w= sea __ oocne,t
*o. e, *o .ewe eyc.n m2 o,n u. c..e...se
- ,y, . . . .
,, ,sa.
2:4t2i7idi5iS' INSPECTOR'S REPORT 91Gid!aloig ol9 I I gl3 oN 4 < o . c= siv e.
- c. : vy :, , ,,. 1,
iI ' i I ' .I:lsI.I,l.
(Continuation) i Office of Inspection and Enforcement
, i i I i i , ! .
I= l l lj Q [e( , - vuGLAfices ce mfices Waser as as asspammesauro ser sama een. W me we secoses me avaiser. 4 ese se assessary se es,eemese. (mwr mase e 50 crosserers seem i 1 t t 6VTR z NO.b (0Y f0 N AN C G b l (, 3) fjgf *k . d
'l .e .cou r w
. ,o ca3= = ,
uv.w=z= -no t w ts secroaa :A'.I e- iv.o n w o n A
, c. g go, s g. 2 . ; c , .
*M! C' CLA M @$ S t,,a t ' ')G I't., S , ~,5 Y GE oy i\ c r. ~ ; t., C,.,,;;,) _ $
,l 96.S i bM' W C /2 ?" d L A 5 5 '5"t;; r1 .* A *,, w0M cs$cs , hL C o y ccm 3 ~;
,g YI d*3i.*L T A G\ v & A rs C L -'iAT
'A I l. rs (t. g- w or_t q.c ry o ~ C m e,q, i.
,,. l . Lo%% 00 ~ t e~.'.
- re ~'s C, t'. u ~
- oe **n (LEM*e *C. C c o t m ~~
it l ' # ff e 5 5i.J r2 e %oLt.S0A4v .
't . , ,a e
i8. l
,.l eI ra!
Z, l l1 11 !
- e 5
- . i !
i 79 29 nI n! I i 12 ^ 1s la ' I ni bl I .
i l l we == n . oo.c.., :n .. w .cou,wous
,gifj,. .oa
. . .., o. t.,.c. .,
o e meniin
,, , ,,, y,g g g, g INSPECTOR'S REPORT 4 8 41'J ' Mi d 6 I TI3 o'3' * ' ' * ' ' ' c a " * "' "
- n . * : - ,s (Continuation)
I I' !' I I I-
'i I *
.)} . il. . ' 'l Office of inscoction and Enforcement iiiilI II io ll j @ ~~~~
1
. ..~~- - . . . . ........,,,,............,
, . ~ ~ _ _ , . . , _
t C1JTR 1 _. _ s.
. Sn2 h Y)$ f!f, Nhhh
- A04' 'f A
, n.) co q,reea.1 ~ s..m. - -or .8.~ e~ o.< .-. . .c'-n a -~ _
.l .
Ar40 $ C c.* t cd *?.
- b . "1. . C* Ge %.n ?. O a A t.' *
- A \ % t' /. s. C _'*. -
>\ . . rw e 1-. , cs c, o n.? c.~.- v a . u e 'EW . "*%dtl%it=> -
,i ro S r w m.,- -n cx.o c. w er. s u i> a ct e o r> v -
G-g we ree ao a e s> = ~ r % e o m .* o n e ~ r s no.. . : .) - ia l
,, ; mmn- m c.o a.co ~e- m e. vs e c> rrs &sm= - -
I /)j f ,/. M t. # ' h O ' *7' E M S / % 2 C ~'" /4 rJ / Lv .5 /S C C'
=-C 1L l
~
h
- O
- hl (, $ Y $ ~~r; M ,
et h
... l tE I 11 1 $.
I i it i .. I inI
,, I ni i
nt 21 l aI l x l.
!?
nl n.I n! -
,, 1 21 nl
- s. I n -
6j . .
=l
ac ecaa. ms a xstinv
=o.acgcrisia.cs..'
is . .ioa u =ss asmar wo w % .ssa yi ,.. - . oc.:.o I i I
o gl3lol".
sto a 2th a 14 is INSPECTOR'S REPORT 919'93dlo'#ldl3 (Continuation) I ' i I I ' I i 8 . **': o is 3
." := : . p c s.;; ,,[
.I,l.I Office of Inspection and Enforcement , 6 t i I 1III I
IIlo i
- l j j Q ,,
..xano .a mr . w c- ..n..n.....~.a.~---..,~..4.-..u.a.,,.,....,
O f/TE Contr$r.y to the requirement s of S+c t ion 5 o f Topica l Report No. NEDO-11209-04A and parasca s.h 4 2. c . 3 o f Ensineerine Or. era t i n s Procedure 23e 1980, (EOP) 42-10.00* "Desien Record Files," (ORF) dated June a DRF Indet. (Form SD-006) or equivalent was not established and/or maintained A1002 (CESTROS? as fo!!cws: for DRFs No. A00-1160 (SAFER 01) and a. A00-1160-the date ent+ red and author's name were missin9' b. A002-the date entered was missins. at 4
.i 5i i
Il _ _ . _
, I , ,1 > i i
1 8 i
*i I
5' . i il 1 i 3! I st i i .
.i . .I a
.. o, , ocout,% ,,,a .'inc samans a o~, o y ,,o gh . .. ,., gc,,,r,i . . . v..e,,
INSPECTOR'S REPORT 9 3 9 ' 9'o l ol'/lol3' 3 I I allto 21 a c'a o is s ' :a ce. .' es s-
;*Lil (Continuation) i I i i i l i i i ' s ,i,1 l i,Q pg 3
l.y.
' ' c Office of Inspection and Enforcement- ' l ' I i i 11 I Ill n . uo.a.~.r~. - ~ ~ ~ .~.. m ~, ~ .. v 11io ,'
m no,,onaa n ,,,,,,,, ra ,.r.ne m .. ua..,u,,,,, ,,,, i. L OVIS 1 1 Contrary to the requirements of Section 5 of Topical Rer= ort No. NEDO-11:09-04A and Paragraph S.3.0 of Supplement A dated August 1, 1W9, to EOP 42-1 00, "Intreduction-TechnoIasy anct ces1 sn i Cdntrole" ma t h+ina t i ca l analysis contained in Section S of DRF Nc. A00-1160 was not prepared anc documented so that a technicalty guaIified p+rsco cou t d 1 evie .e 'and evaluate its accuracy without
. recourse to the originator e. g. the identification of the purpose, refer +ncese crisinator, reviewer, date etc. were missins.
i 19 l tL I 13 l i.
,i l
,81 17.
' t.
- 19. l al av. l al a:
- .l 5
nl
,,I ni i
n! - i
), '
SL , I se a - - J hl . . .I
...o r uu m . ,
p'i$'
=I- 9,y,pg,g, '.o. I s.o. 2niti 7 oi4isl INSPECTOR'S REPORT 91910 to 'cd v'lC 31 I i i i st31otzi . .a., c . . . . .. . . :. u . g. c, 3. i "c ?
(Continuetion) i I i I I i i c
' ' ' ' 'l*l
-H-- . -
Office of Inspection and linforceme6t I ' l1 l l l l {o = vo e non on oemnom e . amen n ... ___.. - ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,. . ,, ,, ,,,,,,,,",,, t c. v'rR t 1 Contrary to the requirements of Section 5 of Topical Report No. NEDO-1t209-04A and Supplement A (pase 12) dated Ausust 1, 1979, . t6 EOP 42-1.00 which desisnates a Functional Specification as a desisn document subject to the requirements of ECP 42-6.10, "Ensineerins Document Issue and Aemiication," ; the Funetionai Sesecification for SAFER 01 was not controlied in accordance voith ECP 6.10 e. s. a) no ic+ntifyins number, d) no revision numb +r. c) identi fice t ion and si snatures of originatore rev i e' ie r ,
. and approver were missins etc.
is l -
,J .
,, I i, l
'tl
,sl as l ts. l ni i
n.
- 24. 1 a!
I mi i ft j al ' ai i a! si l n ni u j w6 al fi U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMW'S$le
l l
, oe .
Docket No. 99900403/84-01 g I General Electric Company 4eOOpp ' i Nuclear Energy Business Operations T.
- Attn
- Mr. W. H. Bruggeman .
Vice President & General Manager 175 Curtner Avenue i San Jose, Ca. 95125 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. P. M. Sears of this office on March 12-16, 1984, of your facility at San Jose, California, and to the I discussions of our findings with Mr. J. J. Fox and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. The purpose of this inspection was to review the status of previous inspection findings, preloaded pipe clamp applications, and QA requirement / implementation in relation to certain piping supplied to Hatch, Units 1 and 2. Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed report. , Within these areas, the inspection consisted of an examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector. During the inspection it was found that the implementation of your QA program failed to meet certain NRC requirements. The specific findings and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosures to this letter. Please provide us within 30 days from the date of this letter a written statement containing: (1) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to correct these items; (2) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) the dates your corrective actions and preventive measures were or will be completed. Consideration may be given , to extending your response time for good cause shown. i The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork j Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. i
)
I 1 l RSS h h ASC:RS h BC:VPB l PMSears/jj C Hale UP,otapovs
+ /n /84 ff)/84 L{/ip/84 l S l
L h 1ggymg N
- _ - - , . . . - - - - - .- , -- _.~. ,. . ...-._, _ , . - - . , _ . . ,
General Electric Company In accordanet with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within 10 days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within 25 days from the date of this letter a written applica-tion to this office to withhold such information. If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than 7 days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be established. Consistent with Section 2.790(b)(1), any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons on the basis which it is claimed that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, a,;;. r cned bW
- c. s. n ^--
Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Program Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards, and Inspection Programs
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A - Notice of Nonconformance
- 2. Appendix B - Inspection Report No. 99900403/84-01
- 3. Appendix C - Inspection Data Sheets (6 pages) bec:
JNGrace, IE JGPartlow, IE MIS Section (J. Perry) VPB Branch Chief VPB Section Chiefs VPB Inspector DM8-IE:09
APPENDIX A General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business operations Docket No. 99900403/84-01 NOTICE OF NONCONFORMANCE Based on the results of an NRC inspection conducted on March 12-16, 1984, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in accordance with NRC requirements. Section 9 of GE Topical Report NEDO-11209-04A, Revision 4, states, in part,
" Procedures and practices are established and documented to provide assurances that special processes . . . are accomplished under controlled conditions.
These special processes are accomplished in accordance with applicable codes, standards, regulations, specifications, design criteria, and other special requirements, using qualified personnel, and equipment." Contrary to the above, GE did not assure that pipe bending done at a vendor's facility was accomplished by qualified personnel nor did GE assure that the pipe bending was accomplished using a qualified procedure for the bend rate, heating, and annealing.
+
e i
. - ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/84-01 DATE(S): 3/12-16/84 ON-SITE HOURS: 56 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Operations ATTN: W. H. Bruggeman, Vice President & General Manager 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. J. J. Fox, Senior Program Manager TELEPHONE NUM8ER: (408) 925-6538 PRINCIPAL PRODUCT: Nuclear steam system supplier.
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: General Electric Company (GE), Nuclear Energy Business Operations (NEBO), has a work force of aproximately 1,000 people with approximately 98 percent of that force devoted to domestic nuclear activity. NEB 0 currently has 26 reactor units under construction and 2 units under contract. NEB 0 has approximately 125 service contracts with various clients. ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: T. h '///s,/sc/ P. Sears, Reactor Systems Section (RSS) Date OTHER INSPECTOR (S): D. G. Breaux, RSS Server Sadik, EG&G, Idaho APPROVED BY: h- C - C. A Jile, Acting Chief, RSS Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE: A. BASES: GE topical report No. NE00-11209-04A and 10 CFR Part 21. B. SCOPE: Status of previous inspection findings, review preloaded pipe clamp applications, and review of QA requirements / implementation in relation to certain piping supplied to Hatch, Units 1 and 2. PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: Hatch, Units 1 and 2 (50-321 and 50-366), Limerick, Units 1 and 2 (50-352 and 50-353), Nine Mile, Unit 2 (50-410) g =""^*""" i
-940522033P 840430 Cas;t,1fied L7 =
PDR GA999 EMV9EDE . 99900403 PDR 4
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/84-01 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 7 A. VIOLATIONS: None
- 8. NONCONFORMANCES:
Contrary to Section 9 of GE Topical Report NEDO-11209-04A, Revision 4, GE did not assure that pipe bending done at a vendor's facility was accomplished by qualified personnel nor did GE assure that the pipe bending was accomplished using a qualified procedure for the pipe bend rate, heating, and annealing. C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
- 1. GE's remedial actions concerning crack / indications in replacement recirculation piping shipped to the Hatch nuclear power plant were reviewed. GE reported that fourteen 12" risers were penetrant tested at Hatch by GE personnel after receipt and were determined to have indications. These risers had been tested using a die penetrant examination and were passed at a GE subcontractor's facility. GE's remedial actions on this item have not been completed and those actions will be reviewed durir.g a future inspection.
- 2. Representative samples of preloaded (stiff) pipe clamp applications were selected for analysis as to their effects on piping. That analysis will be done by an NRC consultant. The stresses induced in the pipe by the clamp will be calculated. Those stresses will include thermal, preload, and dynamic stresses in areas in the pipe I under or near the clamps. The object of the analysis is to determine j if the total stresses are within ASME code allowables. The results i of this analysis will be included in a future inspection report.
I 1 l l
. I
~ . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _.
ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT . INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/84-01 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 7
- 0. STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
- 1. (Closed) Nonconformance (83-03): Control rod drive (CRO) clamps supplied by GE on all BWR-6 plants were classified as nonessential components.
As noted in GE design specifications for hydraulic lines (21 A 8845), i GE does not have design responsibility for the CR0 hydraulic lines. l A part of the lines is manufactured by GE and shipped to the site. ! Clamps are provided by GE to support the lines during shipment and subsequent construction. GE has advised all Architect Engineers (AEs) and customers that any postulated failure of the clamps must be evaluated by the owner /AE. GE also advised the owners /AEs that in their opinion the clamps could provide support up to the limits specified on the interface control drawings.
- 2. (Closed) Nonconformance (83-03): GE did not communicate needed design information to Stone & Webster (S&W) that CRD clamps were nonessential components.
When GE became aware that certain owners /AEs had interpreted that the CR0 clamps were essential, they notified all customers /AEs that the clamps were noncode and nonessential.
- 3. (Closed) Nonconformance (83-03): Design verifications of Nuclear Control and Instrumentation Division design documents are being deferred without controlling procedural requirements being implemented.
GE has initiated an action plan to review all documents listed in the Engineering Information System (EIS) to assure that current verification status is correct. The inspector also reviewed customer notification of design documents currently in deferred verification status as required by Engineering Operating Procedure (EOP) 42-600. GE Quality Assurance and Reliability Operation (QA&RO) conducted an internal audit of the implementation and effectiveness of the deferred verification control systems. This audit resulted in two corrective action reports (CARS). As of this inspection, one CAR is still open. l -
s- ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/84-01 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 7
- 4. (Closed) Nonconformance (83-03): Receiving accepted purchased equipment that did not conform to the procurement document.
The in2pector reviewed E0P 6.10 " Supplier Charge Request," Revision 1, dated December 16, 1982. This allows the supplier to formally submit exceptions to purchase order requirements. QA conducted an audit of purchases similar to the Rosemount 1152 transmitter to assure that the supplier complied with the IEEE qualification requirements specified in the purchase orders. The audit resulted in no further I examples of receiving and accepting purchased equipment that did not I conform to the procurement document.
- 5. (Closed) Nonconformance (83-03): Desing Record File (DRF) indexes or equivalent were not established and/or maintained for DRF Nos. ADO-1160 and A1002.
The NRC inspector verified that all committed corrective actions had been taken. l
- 6. (Closed) Nonconformance (83-03): Mathematical analyses were not prepared and documented so that a technically qualified person could review and evaluate their accuracy without recourse to the originator.
The inspector verified that additional information was added to the, analyses as committed by GE. A letter was also sent to all responsible engineers to remind them of procedural requirements pertaining to generation of analyses. l
- 7. (Closed) Nonconformance (83-03): Functional specifications were not i controlled in accordance with procedures. l The inspector verified that committed corrective action had been done. The inspector reviewed the revision to E0P 40-3.00,
" Engineering Computer Programs" (ECPs). The revision includes more specific controls for ECP specifications.
- 8. (Closed) Nonconformance (83-04): Design change documentation wa's not initiated for approved Field Deviation Disposition Request (FDDR)
HH1-1467. The inspector verified that all committed actions in response to this nonconformance' had been taken. The design change documentation has been initiated as part of a-larger design change package. The change is scheduled for completion by June 8, 1984.
- s. ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/84-01 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 7
- 9. (Closed) Nonconformance (84-04): Engineering services failed to process an F00R into the EIS data base to reflect field implemented design changes.
. QA&R0 conducted an internal audit of the adequacy of the FDDR system. Audit findings relating to this area have not been finalized as of this inspection. The current EIS data base reflects the field implemented design changes authorized by the referenced FDDR in the nonconformance. The NRC inspector reviewed the revision to procedures which will aid in preventing this type of nonconformance from occurring. E. OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS:
- 1. Replacement of Recirculation Pipino Risers On or about March 3, 1984, the Hatch plant received 14 12" piping risers. It was reported by GE that these risers were then inspected by first being surface smoothed by flapper sanding and then penetrant inspected. All showed some indications (microfissures). Their manufacture was described by GE as follows:
- a. Plate, fabricated by ARMCO in its Florida facility, was rolled into tube forms and welded. The ARMCO facility has a code certification and was audited by GE in April 1983 and put on the approved vendor list.
- b. The pipe was shipped to the Johnson Controls, Clearfield, Utah, facility for bending by a special machine designed and made in Holland. The process involved induction heating and bending of the pipe. Preliminary inspection (die penetrant) was performed on the risers. It was reported by GE that the bending of some of the risers was observed by GE metallurgists and QA personnel and a representative from Hatch. (The Clearfield facility is not code certified.)
- c. The risers were then shipped to Johnson Controls' Compton facility, which has a code certification to be inspected and NPT stamped. The inspection consisted of die penetrant examination.
.. ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/84-01 RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 7 Review of purchase documents and specification referenced therein show the following: (1) no specific qualifications for the personnel operating the bending machine were required by GE, and (2) no specific bending, heating, or annealing rates were required by GE.
The nonconformance in B. above was identified in this area of the inspection. Further inspection in this area is necessary. Information yet to be obtained includes:
- a. Are the heating, bending, and annealing processes being accomplished at the Clearfield facility considered by GE to be a special process in the context of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B;
- b. Are the exemptions to NB 4213 provided by the ASME Code for Austenitic stainless steels applicable;
- c. The basis or criteria used by GE in classifying " cracks,"
" indications," and "microfissures" and the significance of the latter; and
- d. A review of the revised process to be implemented at the Clearfield facility.
- 2. Specialized " Stiff" Pipe Clamps As noted in IE Information Notice No. 83-80, it has become apparent that certain loadings induced by specialized " stiff" pipe clamps can result in significant localized stresses in the piping that should be considered in the piping design. In developing these stiff pipe clamps, clamp vendors have incorporated several innovative design concepts that can detract from the piping integrity when they are not properly considered by piping designers.
GE has specified in several of its designs, stiff clamps. These clamps require, during installation, a preloading of the clamp bolts to achieve the desired stiffness properties and to prevent the clamp from lifting off the piping during design load application. The bolt preload value is determined analytically by the clamp vendors and its magnitude is extremely large. The clamp vendors have qualified the clamp stresses only and no evaluation of the effect on the piping stresses has been made by clamp vendors or by GE.
.n--- .-
.. ORGANIZATION: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900403/84-01 RESULTS: PAGE 7 of 7 Representative samples of stiff pipe clamp applications were selected for analysis of their effects on piping. That analysis will be done by" an NRC consultant. The stresses induced by the pipe clamp will be calculated. Those stresses will include thermal, preload, I and dynamic stresses in areas in the pipe under or near the clamps.
The object of the analysis is to determine if the total stresses are within ASME code allowables. The results of this analysis and the effect on GE designs will be included in the scope of a future inspection. t
s s Dockar t30. .fjTood OS _{Y-s'>l, INSPECTo R 2 bEACS - of 00 cot 4EtJTS EX AMit3 E D REl%strele.T4 St. OPE I 0 5: PAGE 1;*" M&y ***w 7 sisv. psus Ting / sos.wcT
~
T P. O . zos -uua o 7/z4/gi Po 71, E %NSVEMs Fo IR CLAMP PORceMs 2 NH H/c.Mi i['o /89 H e.H o c.o ric.ee di e c, c.t AMP _ mDoc.e.2_ srE>esscs .. s.n 3 EE c
- O < . L oc>? 5OSPE. 6 to@__ STSTE.8 fJ egg _ H .4
~6 DidC ~l(476.~722-sc 2
~7 (k/D 4 D u)G 'l b~l E'lll 7 kl 7S? g SE C.t .2 C . t oo'P #odSEEdSW Al S N SIEM. __Qa eJ 6 . .H it .T sn r z 2/.,/sc o. o c, P Pt Pt a G _ . _ _: _ ... _. _..
s ou .x,w 2 x rz. ea c. i ec. L 5E 2.t A (.,511 O FI AR .8% > PEC t 2C- Lo09 S'T2C5S S E ~P f > RI .____. . . ." ".
~l Sped _. DM0731 to A<-
'81 E '45T6H% MTL 5 P E c. - - - - - - - - - . -
% DWC i M 11 B_ _1
_. : E sysTEas c.L A M 'P A Ste H_B LY _ _ _ - i h IE NN $ j ', b N ENb CLAM EMBd _ .
. Dd da , Bf ,
A E. M S Ti rM c:, P t'P EE C,L. AMD T.t4STA. .L_L_ A. T Dd to DtdG 19 : S t. - 8Mz.8l8: _ hlP E. STaae/1 RE Poi 2T - PERRY , . . . _ .
- O bh 2ZA'It35
., , u , #
6 fS I60 M Airl '3Te MI Pi Pc- St3 c PE MC lo d . _ . . . . . . l 11 OLO G 749 E44 3 1
~
o o c., u c wi + iohlp. u c.i c c . . c ,, e e: m a s a . _ . _ . . _ ... ..
.e_ 8 -
u a.a-pow ELL. T'o C. A H I L L- dot i F f I dG TiiAT L c c. .oc . qc A tl. . s y_ , _. ,, ,, 8d b CS$ 3341 _ Gf2.l[83 FOR Ald*>I l f 'd b C l EM P> E Ok. AI"PL .'C.ATt on
~2 E S Po ed C iBt.
TYPE 0 5~ D OC. ; DWG- DRAdl>JG L.T R - (:E T T F 9,g R. 'EstPORT c'E', SPEC- SPECtf IC Attok! - PRO- Pit 0C6 D*J EE g @AtinohlAt -
' $ 4 d . ,
'j . c.o i gj .); i - *
&1 Ci & N'c.
~Z.
- i -
c'
- d e I' -
C , : 2 9 $! 7 V y - u- - i . uq s. < 2 ,4. 0 7: 1 l t/ 'l ,
.si c'
2* 1 N g'
; ?
F Cl-CL W o- . W D h {d!4y Q., I i f g ! $ i2 vo p"l I g -
.. u, O
I-bN a N b cJ bRs is /' 5 f l# ; 0 E g r u I
- q. t i e ei . w oi s o ? <
N l E 3 d d d 2
',$ 50 7 02 l
@ ,pl, G 2 ci 64 4 F Cl V Dwer w ,2; y l Uy ,
0 'u' - 3 ip{ 4' g u80 o @ o
' 0 d o d'I e 2
1 . o w gl rs s 2 - O QI g *a 3 sf O O F./ W
~2. 'd e
o h.
< < 4 2 o -i w .G
> J l 0 g tu y iJ H
-2 o I e C .2! 2 -
o J t,
- a 7 G o I
< } < .)
T U f <L 2 u
}
ug G a_ 7 H T U d Q ! G C p - u a o y ? . e W m M N
% > g -
0,2 0- a d d 2 m t e 1 , w - O $ T p_ C- 5 g U $ 0z e 1 -' 3 un N Vut a d a 2 t- 'u V 0- -
~2 w I d U u 5 c% G N C o 9
{< g r g r<
~2
'2 %* -1 (1
l A
~
i (- 0 1 C 3 X b *
- 0 -
2 g
%e, @ <d ;;
3 ci 4 ! C a w y 3 us p~
$$ -t j ~
d r2 ?! d $ k d
.Ll 4y "E in 1 % 9 c2 c 1 s & t i
O
~
A M ' a o f2' ji f V * ' Cl N i-f ~2 'O Il C
.r ..
. e ,, a O '
e a1 e r o- g g 5 ( d 8 $.EC 4.d ,
!d..
'T o-
- d. '
7 i
. T_.d#
E -d E
* .47 a
JE'
- d. E 1 -
T -
+* ,d_
rn ,
./
-- O O 4l lylsj l
.#< 1
'. $g 0
P-O
.3
,.3 a ,, -
T k g ~
? +
1 -
& D $ Y h N O "
, $< 0 c-N u,
]. .
r- 4- N ,a 't C m 6 s M *W J . 4 o d g a " u e > a Cod s y t 0* @2uc 2 > '2 g 0 - es g O L-0 0 (L ,3 Qg b .) , fa; 3 y i g ag o, gi g O ,,,
.) ,
)O.
3 o o ra ? S
> J < 3 g *
$eV;or6 o' ',
gg0 ,.
~Z
$ =hjl V J- r- oc c-0 -
g S c e y v s Y-s e oo7kQ H - - - -.
p
+
. e
- a
._ m. o.
. a ~ .
z. e e o
/-
~
e . o L_ g . e o >i_ _ n
. . m e
_ _ - . e . n m 9 _ . e g c - . M/ :s o e _ e e-
.E 3 -
0 . q_ - 9 o , i2 t _ r g atne c. s cc or s t
. m oE n ore E _
R _ _ A ee _ c E T _ c e j s D o s s E / u d E. l i n F M t i A T x e ' E . e s u T N P
- E P 6 M o o s, c
n :
. .- i o-O .
R E T sy T a - E. 1 p v
. R i-s i
s
- - - - - m.
. w _ T.
t _. .
?
A A S c "g - I P o tEL _ts t s
- ARAw G Cuo u b
P. y . I C N F O. N c t WO I tfAo
- c.
- D Wc AEotMn T
R o & F t i OF R P r A c. O DSPQ9 t E f. P P Q E t P G EottD S o Y WPRnt T DSPof N
$*" 42 t.
I S
- 9 9t
ll l
/ . ..
O _
. . [
Y- . F
/3 . _
f_ _ _ 0 _ Y I h 4 / . Q . 0 ..
)s _
0 O- 2 S' 9 o T _ nC d
- 5 _ _
@,_/ h~ _
4
.$0 M 5: _
C< 0 _ 3
=
$ s dc -
e 4 e o i/ y _ _. u O s, h r t e T do t _ _ - A, s Tt i ._ (9 ._ p t e k s t E . r r _ M. % p 'w. coE'IoG A Q_ 's di A f
)s D
. /
h/ s u P P o T c- A DR P A T t A Co t t
=i ko e
i c a e c T A A uo D C fs t E i A s N g o S A e / T e F A - f s t e C Ts A t
.e l
E u /. x a ht u n E % e m< l l G o a T V s i a o G T s oc l c a w h e R a f f n f P J d u s o t D b c o J. X-i S i 8 0 6o A l o E o M' E o do t a, s e D 5 Co C J r i R l u E / ) h D F w t o a oe A ci
'0 6, T s e u
f N 3 E - k h u E Q n 2 l w u l L 2 A ( A p J A o_ i t T T t
- t s p 2 t s a &
m- p o e n ( f U t Fo r M
' A
( t T G w F h i t 'n o ~~ b s D
)
D A o ~ u i
, q E A D e ~
C D e i e f J o o u a a 4 g i S p F k Y D E r t T e O p M 9 g c L 4 n r Ti s e i 2 ij t u t-i L t M i r oa O
- r. f n t A E
M T- o E u A U kr uC F r t s i D i v A e A O w. O C A Q D c T O b i O o lC O : D C-D '. , R E
> t 3 3 s / a /' r : ) g T
b,I /g 3 M . [t f2 E 8 l v / 1
/. [6 E'
! g. f t
t
/
- /
w T m 3 hr s i [2 E. 0_ M
/ t h.
O
/
o / /" Z B / l
/ L i
z i 9 i t 2 i l! o 9 i is 84 M
~
e - _ R __ V. s i s b _ _ G _ 13
- b 1 T L
K m t o O ]
/. c >v..
e 6 l. o A 6 J,. I # 2
- mi '
4 E : 4 4 s E 2 d k' 4 2 4' o r g* 4
' (c P 9 'p 4 t tELo O M t
s o f o- P, P ARAss m c o T- o t- G r a' G ; GCUdeu I y C O Nf OJ*co To - 5 o I D Wc tFMn ci R n r AEo T o M , e i G c, r, r O t f 7 t i r V p c x. g o O O L
~
5 RPrAc 0 DSPQq C E E N C w t T.n I c
. a i .
7., s p k E - - -- Ct P P S o P WPaAc Y G Ento N c 5 h u T DSPcd I- S Y I
?- 3 f * ~
8 0 a
' l . .
._ s
l _ - .= r e - _ .
=
. . . m
. . . e s
- e
. m . . e e
e e e _ w MV
. . e. . . .
. e w
.. e 0 /
o m o O L' _ _
- .m u
.m e
9 -
%f p _
.B o _
3 0 .- t e4 -t t' Tr r et k. c oE n ms _ DRp C 2 G . a A k S T C
)
Y/ C i TI I t M. t 5 i 0 S F P O 5 D S F 1 E / O D . 3 P t E. . / n t J H i p o e
' A T i T
x K - F. A I V E s F b T 4 e O e r- D o L H D er o A o F c c 0 .. o , P. E _ 2 ._ t a la 9 T T i m ks n
~ E.
l 1 O {t l Q - - .- d. R . a A W T t s M L _ k o U o T 1 3 A *' 0 . d 8 M 9 g 4 8 P 5 c c e if. t . La he A a r
. N Q o t-G Cud m I
D y C O NFodc I t i D W c.E A a AFo R T O M 7r D O F RPrAe _ O DSPQn EC P E P Q k J k f E P G CO E Hn,__ RA S o Y WP . 4 t
- t. T DSPS K* S
. * . i : e , i* ,
. - - penscus conne.-u
- sncany S 6 Al 6I2 A L 6_L64 Ti2 c Oates 3!l(af 84 Oceker/Recer: No. 4498 o 4o3 /4 -o' *nscecter .$EA12s
/
G xir McETtsic, ?t9* _ ;f I
- MEf31eese :-inti N.!(please 3 dnt) OAUNT!.2TICN(3?sese :-inet ,
Tant &% N
~
'~o X e V/ fM WAM $/AlpAC k[ hkWf0 Lar T Unteach cic/ ens N # 's e QA4Ro i l
TK Poule dae 4 Me e- Q A ff tr c C, E N'ESo l P. 2 A~e i a- Ce fwse Gc og s'p o
//f BAR C L A 7 Aum r g o o,c p. Gr //rs /pf P.D A. d tuf t-p m s.a y c f X - Poe g;,
c]. M. CMSF Me - emirr CYstw Gl~ 00*If0 L. 3. Boi.n uu- Ge GA420 G 6 -5 M ,,,b c J < Sa f du E.J.4 e,,,. . n,- GE iv sio J.L. R w Ja, Mi v ApQn,.J. ' 6-F. Nf P D D. G. IoeG Sd. $ C4 4 A &L. df - $4$'dC i I l i l i
}, l l
'l
.1 i
i i l l
l PERSONS CONTAL.tu Carcany GEd6Rh GL6(TWc :a:es 3//2/P'/ 2ecier/a.cor. no. 99e oo4os/r4-os :nse.c:er P SEAi25 aa rwace meereac pag. x e , Antesi..s. = ene msm..s. = 4,e caux m i cNr='s.s. : 4,e
'l.$. OrHL M @ > *$l rYl'h?.Da?% N" ' #~rdCh *<O' % f .9. 6xdA 6nso/A,4 4 VAvec 'bl$d bib?6d.
ns % Si/L . d- - GrMrs e+Me cl. M. Casr py, a lt sanwiI 'Gr xrao es nro f D c Ba-x.1 surce c,m, nee i n u t e Es s ,o w 1 r i 1 l
PERSONS CONTAC ID l Company 0 Gd 52 Al ELr=CT2rc Cates 3 /k - ((, 8d l coenetinecer: no. 999 00 40 8 /N-0 i :nscoe:ce l' 3 N A 25 ' / 3 age 1 cf
' LAME (Please 3 d W im.E(olesse 8 d W CQGANTUT:CN(3' esse 3*i W l
Je F Thornpson N . Ap>% Anal. Crehe-+l Elech/<. G% ,
- 5) Am 16sm ~ "
bene k% dwak A4 Vwic est/ r s $ s --
& 24& 7 %'d % M E %/ Be.ctnd, 3AvAb G An/Utt s e. q ,;a rt ( p y , v g ) ' g ,g ,
h, Iviva wz fr.% Q A. E si w ( @ k 4E H . AJ . R k cd+- Engin e em G C-
%'O - I- 9: w ~ GE 4 . FA A L- A M t n \ Sa W CE E 'l GiB o ce- Goc e-. C i=~
J C Cna mw h w ue C, E ates.y c. Aw cu_. e - h N'4 h cvs Edra.+ JT Wev -sdem
/ /
Mirt- Senues SmL ' G &~
% 0% GACL W ~~ 00 * $$$ { '7
( ' N b YL-E kRt k\t" t RL O C EuG e GE _.m --
, ,. . PERSCNS CONTAC T lcmpany G NE Ed .t EL ECT/f/ C 34:es 3 /t 2 Jocket/Recor No. inscoc:cr D. % Aux Page g of IMEf81 ease 3-inti n R E(71 ease 3*dnt) ogsantpr;CN(Diesse 3-dntt "lA J Epi s Ss Ev Ge QAn (Q A l. 26 ) 5 602cb R E. Novak S. %m k y. D M -OhtRo '
de se a v.=x dan eveu~h u A/df Et'D V f M. v> A L. p w w fe fus N c SZ - Pl>c l S.T. Be //ows 3, , Pn , . Enye )+ p pp l G#.SocANAs NC. uct Ruh N P5FM ! R T VALENelA Se. E9 (z GAaRN QAS D.C &,un kae,ou gx; g_ ,_ u,s L (, c , , F "
.I l
1 i i I J i i i i l i I
, I
e
. AGREEMENT This h t is made and entered into as of the 6th day of February,1986, by and among General Electric Company (GE) and
< . . I the Government Accountability Project (GAP) representing San A. ! l i Milan III. WHEREAS, Mr. Milaa, a former employee of GE, possesses certain documents generated during his employment with GE (" Documents"), WHEREAS, GE believes it has legal rights in the Documents, WHEREAS, GAP and Mr. Milan wish to provide th4 Documents and ! information derived from the Documents (cumulatively, the "Information") to the Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRC) in [ connection with allegations they have made to the commission, WHEREAS, GAP and Mr. Milan do not agree that GE has any proprietary rights to the Documents, nor~that thara in any ! proprietary information in the Documents, i The Parties agree as follows: l A. GAP and Mr. Milan will provide the Information to the ! NRC. i I B. GE agrees that it will not pursue legal action against GAP or Mr. Milan based on the provision of the i Information pursuant to Paragraph A. C. In consideration of the above, GAP and Mr. Milan will treat the Information on a confidential basis without admitting that the Information is proprietary to GE. 4 specifically: i h ! i , ,.
o .. , (1) GAP and Mr. Milan will safeguard the Information and hold it in strict confidence. (2) Restrictions on disclosure contained herein shall , not apply to any information or material
- a. which can be shown to have been lawfully l known or used by GAP or Mr. Milan without restriction prior to the date of this Agreement, or
- b. which either before or after the date of this Agreement is lawfully disclosed to GAP or Mr.
Milan by an independent third party without restriction on disclosure on behalf of GE, or
- c. which either before or after the date of this Agreement becomes available to the public through no fault of GAP or Mr. Milan.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as permitting GAP or Mr. Milan to unfairly obtain the right to use information that becomes publicly known through an act or omission on their part. D. The Parties recognize that GAP or Mr. Milan may receive - requests from duly constituted government agencies for access to the Information, and that use of the Information may become necessary in prosecuting or defending an action against GE. In such event GAP will notify GE and provide GE an opportunity to obtain
, suitable protection for the Information. Should GE not exercise this opportunity within a reasonable period, l
, l __ . . .
I ' or not receive adequato protection, GAP and/or Mr. Milan are not restricted by this Agreement from pseviding the Information to the government agency or court requiring it. Neither GAP, Mr. Milan, nor GE waives any rights that they possess outsidd of this Agreement. Government Accountability Project General Electric Company for itself and San A. Milan III By */ By .-w Date YlA%- !'5'll h Date Y Y
/
I F 4 i I
~
42901 . l lt .- ,.
l 4 e .. f
SUMMARY
OF NRC STAFF'S ACTIVITIES
- October 21, 1983, NRC inspection at GE in response to allegations made by Mr. Milam.
t
- November 21, 1983, GE responds to NRC inspection report.
I f - October 7,1985, NRC receives GAP letter of October 5,1985 which I highlights Mr. Milam's concerns and requests NRC/ GAP meeting.
- October 29, 1985, NRC responds to GAP letter and requests all pertinent information, specific allegations, and consultant's report be sent to NRC for review. ,
- Between October 29, 1985 and February 1986, discussions were held among GE, GAP and NRC to work out details to obtain NRC access to records held by GAP.
- February 1986, NRC inspection team reviews records at GAP's Washington, D.C. office (approximately two weeks).
- March 10, 1986, NRC receives letter from GE counsel with respect I to treatment of proprietary information. ]
- March 1986, NRC receives records fron GAP.
April 1986, R. Pettis telecon with Mr. Milam to set up interview in San Jose during week of 4/14-18.
- April 16,1986, Interview with Mr. Milam in San Jose
- April 14-18, 1986, NRC inspection at GE.
- May 6, 1986, NRC sends Mr. Milam copy of transcript for his review and l correction.
June 1,1986, Mr. Milam responds to NRC letter of May 6 by sending corrected copy of interview. July 14-18, 1986, NRC inspection at GE.
- October 2,1986, R. McIntyre telephone conversation with Mr. A. Jackson of GAP concerning the GE inspection results and status of resolution of allegations.
- ( -
.}}