ML20215L434

Forwards Results of Investigation of Employee Concern Re Quality Verification of vendor-supplied Equipment,Per NRC .No Unauthorized Changes Made to Installation Spec.Allegation Panel Decision Encl

ML20215L434
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	05/08/1985
From:	Jamila Perry NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20215L413	List: IA-86-685, Closes Allegation RI-85-A-0012 Re Milestone Schedules Causing Poor Work Procedures & QC Omissions.Allegations of Unauthorized Changes to Engineering Spec & Improper Torquing of Switchgear Fasteners Unsubstantiated ML20215L409 ML20215L419 ML20215L422 ML20215L434 ML20215L439
References
FOIA-86-685 NUDOCS 8610290032
Download: ML20215L434 (5)

Text

_ _

f9

~

M Y NIAGARA R UMOHAWK k ) 474 1511 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION /300 ER:f BOULEVAAC WEST SYPACUSE N Y 13202/TELFPHONE (

May 8, 1985 Mr. R.W. Starostecki, Director Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Pr.rk Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Re: Nine Mile Point - Unit 2 Docket No. 50-410

Dear Mr. Starostecki:

The enclosed report provides the results of the investigation of a concern of a former employee regarding quality verification of vendor-supplied equipment. This concern was identified in your letter dated April 9,1985.

The investigation concluded that no unauthorized changes to the installation specification were allowed and that,although the fastener torque value of bolting material was not always supplied to the field forces at the time of the initial installation, the torque requirements were subsequently provided, correctly inspected, and documented.

Very truly yours, r

b.

J.A. Perry Director of Quality Assurance JAP /ams Attachment cc: Connor & Wetterhahn John W. Keib, Esquire D. Quamme, NMP2 Project Director C. Beckham, NMPC QA Manager Department of Public Service, State of New York Public Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector C.V. Mangan 8610290032 861022 PDR FOIA PDR DICK 86-585

- May 8, 1985 NIAGARA M0 HAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT - UNIT 2

' DOCKET N0. 50-410

, Report regarding former employee concern about quality verification of vendor-supplied equipment.

D_escription of Concern Per NRC Region I letter from R.W. Starostecki to NMPC dated April 9,1985, a former employee expressed a concern about the adherence to vendor quality requirements for safety-related switchgear provided by Gould. The concern involved alleged improper changes to the engineering specification by the Superintendent of Construction and an alleged failure to verify fastener torque as required by the vendor.

NMPC Quality First Investication Results The investigation of alleged unauthorized specification changes was perforr..ed in two parts: (1) discussions and interviews were held with individuals who were responsible for electrical equipment installation, (2) changes made to E061A " Specification for Electrical Installation" during the March to June 1984 time period were reviewed.

Since Gould provided equipment defined as Switchgear and Motor Control Centers that could be considered Switchgear, the investigation was expanded to include the installation of Motor Control Centers.

i Interviews were held with Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Stone and

! Webster Engineering Corporation engineering, construction, and quality control personnel responsible for installation and inspection of electrical equipment.

The descriptions of 872 N&D's and E&DCR's written to change the specification l

during the time period March to June 1984 were reviewed to determine if changes were made to fastener torque requirements. From the above-mentioned change documents, 66 were selected for a complete review to determine if the changes were properly authorized because the description related in some way to the l

concern.

The interviews and the engineering change review identified no instances where i unauthorized changes relevant to torque requirements were made to the installation specification.

The allegation that fastener torque required by Gould was not verified was investigated independently. Fastener torque requirements of selected equipment designated as Switchgear and Motor Control Centers were reviewed.

--Switchgear-related torque:

Switchgear assemblies provided by Gould and separated (split) for shipping to the site were rejoined in the field and the joining work i

Pg. 2 May 8,1985

, Attachment O

was inspected by Quality Control. The two Category I assemblies that were split were 2EJS*US1 and 2EJS*US3. The details of the inspection performed on the interframe bolting for 2EJS*US1 were reviewed. Field Quality Control identified by inspection reports dated July,29, 1984 that the torque requirement for the fasteners used to complete this work was not provided by the installation specification (E061A). This information was subsequently provided by Gould. The bolting was then tightened to the specified torque values and inspected on September 12, 1984 and documented as rework on IR E4008343.

Concerning Switchgear Assembly 2EJS*US3, the lack of torque values was identified on IR E4008459. Reinspection was performed on Sept. 10, 1984 and documented on IR ESA43711.

--Motor Control Center-related torque:

The torque requirements relevant to shipping split-housing connectors was not specified in the installation specification (E061A). The specification referred to the equiprent vendor'smanual that also did not provide the information. These torque values were provided by Gould through SWEC Engineering as a supplement to the vendor manual and responses to N&D's initiated as individual cabinets were inspected. The data reviewed indicated that there were 8 CAT 1, Class IE Motor Control Centers supplied.

2EHS*MCC102, The inspection results for the following 3 Motor Control Centers:

2EHS*MCC302, and 2EHS*MCC303 were examined. These Motor Control Centers were inspected in July 1984. N&D's were initiated in Sept.1984, responses received ty Engineering from vendor, and reinspections performed and documented in March and April,1985.

The investigation concluded that,while information required to tighten fasteners to the correct torque and perform quality control inspections was not provided at the time of the initial installation, in each instance reviewed, the inspection reports and N&D's were not closed until the correct information was received from the vendor and processed by SWEC Engineering.

Conclusions The investigation identified no instances where unauthorized changes were made to the engineering specification. In addition, the investigation concluded that the correct torque values were ultimately provided to construction and quality control personnel and the torque was verified and properly documented.

o ALLEGAT10N PANEL DECISIONS Priority: Low An allegation panel met on 3/27/85 regarding RI-85-A-0037 which was received by the OAC on 3/27/85.

Those in attendance were: R. Starostecki Panel Chairman H. Kister Branch Chief J. Strosnider Action Office Contact E. Kelly Project Engineer A. Shropshire Office Allegation Coordinator FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS:

1) Write a letter to the licensee addressing why the inspection was conducted the way it (signed by R. Starostecki) (ECD 4/5/85). The letter should express the NRC's consideration of the method he suggests but was not used because it was not consistent with the purpose of this inspection. This will close the allegation.

Division Director concurrence required for closecut.

/ LL A. Shropshir4, OAC "a

Q Strosn1 der, AOC R. 5tarostecki o d'w Panel Chairman CC:

J. Allan J. Gutierrez R. Christopher, 01:RI D. Caphton H. Kister J. Strosnideri Allegation File

e -

r ALLEGATION DESCRIPTION Shoreham 50-322 (Site or Licensee) (Docket No.)

Allegation RI-85-A-0037 was received on 3/12/85 (this allegation was broken out from RI-85-A-0012 at the Par.el Meeting held on 3/27/85) by W. Lazarus.

Characterization of the concern:

NRC's R.A.T. Inspection of two years was inadequate Confidentiality: No= Name:

Employer: Address:

Position: .

Phone:

Type of Regulated Activity: Reactor Functional Area (s): Construction DETAILS: (Timeframe of Allegation: R.A.T. In.epection of 2 years ago)

At an interview conducted by W. Lazarus, the alleger stated that the NRC's Readiness Assessment Team Inspection conducted two years ago was not adequate. He based this on the scope of the inspection by stating that it was too narrow and confined. The alleger believes that random sampling based statistics should have been used to conduct a thorough assessment at Shoreham.