IR 05000219/1987030

Insp Rept 50-219/87-30 on 870928-1002.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Open Items

ML20236H842
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	10/19/1987
From:	Strosnider J, Winters R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236H839	List: IR 05000219/1987030 ML20236H836
References
50-219-87-30, GL-83-28, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8711050002
Download: ML20236H842 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _

_ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

,

. .

'

i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I ,

'

' Report N /87-30 Docket N License N DPR-16 Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation Facility Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At: Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Dates: September 28 - October 2, 1987

'

Inspector: Io!I3fE7 R. W. Winters, Re~ actor Engineer, MPS, EB, date DRS, Region I Approved by: N

/J. Strosnide'r, Chief, Materials'& Processes

/O 4 h7 date / /

Section, Engineering Branch, DRS, RI Inspection Summary: Routine unannounced inspection on September 28 -

October 2,1987 (Report No. 50-219/87-30)

Areas Inspected: Open Items Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

l 8711050002 871028 9 PDR ADDCK 050 G

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ >

-

!

[ -

' .

l-DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted GPU Nuclear Corporation T. Corrie, Quality Control Manager

• J. DeBlasio, Manager, Plant Support Engineering ,

G. Faulkner, Welding Manager, Corporate l

• R. Fenti, Operations Quality Assurance Manager

• P. Fiedler, Vice President, Director Oyster Creek

• S. Fuller, Operaticas Quality Assurance Manager  ;

• J. Kowalski, Oyster Creek Licensing Manager  !

D. MacFarlane, Oyster Creek Quality Assurance Audit Manager P. Manning, Supervisor, Quality Control Field Inspection '

J. Maus, Engineer, Engineering Assurance, Parsippany j T. Melvin, Oyster Creek Technical Librarian

• J. Rogers, Oyster Creek Licensing Engineer .

J. Solakiewicz, Quality Assurance Engineering and Systems Manager ,

R. Tilton, Vendor Document Control Manager United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

)

• Bateman, Senior Resident Inspector

• Oliveira, Reactor Engineer

• J. Wechselberger, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those attending the exit meetin The inspector also contacted other administrative and technical personnel during the inspectio .0 Licensee's Actions on Previous NRC Concerns (Closed)UnresolvedItem179-15-01) Seismic Support Plate Appeared to Lack Contact and be Resting on the Concrete Imbedment Anchor j d

The inspector reviewed the licensee's inspection report of the ;

reinspection of the support plat During this reinspection it was i determined that the anchor bolt shells were not in contact with the base plate. In addition one bolt was pulled tested after verification I of the shell baseplate clearance and found acceptabl l This item is close '

(Closed) Unresolved Item (8's-19-01) Welding Procedure Inconsistencies The inspector reviewed welding procedures WPS-111, Revision 4 and WPS 141, Revision 3 to determine that they had been revised to incorporate l ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code requirements. WPS 111 revision 4 I had been revised to incorporate the thickness requirements allowed by I

_ - - - _ d

- __ ;

.

3  !

.

the Code and was supported by Procedure Qualification Records l PQR-GPUN-063 and PQR-GPUN-106 for a thickness range of 1/16 in, to 8 inches. For welding requiring post weld heat treatment this procedure ,

was supported by PQR-GPUN-089 for a thickness range of 3/16 in, to 1.250 inches. WPS-141, revision 3 had been revised to incorporate the Code requirement for thickness qualification of 1.1 times the test coupon thickness when the Gas Metal Arc short circuiting process was use This procedure was supported by PQR-GPUN-08 ,

This unresolved item is close I (0 pen) Unresolved Item (84-31-01) Generic Letter 83-28 paragraph 2. and 2.2.2 for a Quality Classification List and Vendor Manual Control and l Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 Post Maintenance Testin ;

i The inspector selected several safety related components for revie l The licensee' retrieved the information on these components from the computer data base. The inspector noted that this information was complete and contained more than the bare minimum required for these component Procedures ES-011, Revision 11, Methodology and Content .

of GPUN Quality Classification List (QCL) and 5000-ADM-7313.02, '

Revision 1-01, Quality Classification List contain the method of developing and revising the QCL and the information on how to use the ;

list respectivel Based on the above paragraph 2.2.1 of GL 83-28 is '

close The inspector reviewed the documentation associated with the review '

and distribution of the vendor manuals listed in Table The J packages developed as a result of the engineering review were f complete, contained the reviewers comments, results of vendor contacts and such'other technical data appropriate to the item described in the '

manua TABLE I Control N Description l

VM-0C-0002 24 Inch Main Steam Isolation Valve Instruction Manuel VM-0C-0023 Maintenance and Testing Requirements for SOR Pressure Switches, Revision 2 VM-0C-0034 Percentage Dif ferential Relays Type IJD52A, 528, 53C, and 53D VM-0C-0058 Clean Up Recirculation Pumps, Type JTC q VM-0C-0058 Comsip Inc., Model K-IV Instruction Manual  !

VM-0C-0110 Drive Control Unit, GEK-831, Revision 7 )

VM-0C-0182 Installation, Operation and Maintenance Manual for GE l Pushbutton and Selector Switches j VM-0C-5011 IRD Mechanalysis - Operational Manual for Vibration l Spike Analyzer, Model 820/820M {

As a result of this inspection paragraph 2.2.2 of GL 83-28 is close l l

a

. .

_1__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

,

.

_ -. .- _ _

, ,

- , e" pp 4

.

u

..

.

j i

.43 e

. j!-

'

% i

,

? i '

.

. .

.m . y Licensee's actions for Pos't MaintenanceLTesting Paragpaphs 3,l' and 3.2,

.j y . , L werenot-inspectedand'remairyppeng[

,

.

. ..

.(Closed): Violation (85-13-03)q;Failureof.MaintenanceandConstruction%

<

h %A fjf W

'to respond to Quality Deficiency Report . ,

gf ~

/j f

,

.The: inspector.'.

steps'to: assure that determined-that"the?

responsest to QORslicensee:has-are_madeL i n a'taken'severalipositivp/

timely' manner.;

'

d,

.These actions include management memos reminding! supervisors of1the < %'

-need:to; respond promptly..to QDRs,; inclusion of the' requirement y k the y

job supervisors manual and more aggressive and timely escalatiin sot, 7 overdue. items.as described in procedure,1000-ADM-7215.02 by' uhlit) , ( Assurance. .A review of'the 1987 QDR 143 by the7 i nspector:s owed that j p" recent . history of responses was acceptable, fj

~

p, This violation is closed, q ,

.(Closed) Unresolved Item (85-14-02). Failure to provide rec'obs for '. <

.

NRC review in a' timely manne "/ * 1!;

Numerousrecords.'related.toBulhetAns79-02and79-14werenot- .[

available for. review during inspbct' ion'50-219/85-14 d Subs.equent to that inspection.the~. licensee has ripeated the work'done'in response to

~

' 4"

.these bulletins. 'This work has.not been completed fH644verethe A original records requested in 'this item have become ob'sbl fete:as a y<

result-of this new effor C

'

,

O j', ,

,.

.,

. This. item :is . administrative 1y close L

'

/' . n'

'(Closed) Violation (85-35-01) The licensee.'s welding program.did notu ", ,)

identify American Welding Society (AWS) S; edification D1.1 structural'. 4  :

- welding requirement '

"

,r

• q'J '!

.

1 51

...

. . .

,

The inspector reviewed Memorandum 6153-86-0200 from the Quality - +, ,

Assurance Corporate Welding Manager to The Director, Quality Assurance. This memorandum contains as Attachment I a matrix of the AWS 01.1 Structural Welding Code requirements and referen;es the paragraph where these ~ requirements have been specifled in the GPUN 'f General Welding Standard, 6150-STD-7220.07.. From this re' view it was 'y determined that the General Weldiny Standard has been revised.to j-incorporate the requirements of the AWS Cod '

lThis violation is closed, i

_(Closed) Violation (85-35-03) Failure to follow procedure b  !

'#

.6130-QAP-7210.03 Revision 3-00 and document inspection results on the Plant Inspection Report in sufficient detai , > ,

'

1 j

,

L ,r/

f' I

'

g

'

s

/

Ll--- . __.'__N_

.

7,a";}F c j @c 1 H , Qa p"

D =e ,p 9 ' y/ ,. - 'f..f s3 l/d /J ,

' '

f lf

-

}')

'

' I

&[A (J.fp 5

'

[

<

l' .t g

,a m .3

' The inspector verif 6' that the Plant Inspection Report form has been revised to incorporate requirements.for more specific report,ing of inspections performed. A review of recently completed Plant Inspection Reports showed these to completely detail the inspection regtdrements and' attributes actually inspecte [;

.-

Tt is violation p close ^

,

,

1/ ; ( .' ,

(Closed) Vio'lation (85-35-07) Inadequate Weld Inspection:  ;

The inspector reviewed procedure 6130-QAP-7209.21 Revision 1, Visual i

. Inspection of4,Pleids to determine that this procedure had been revised y M to incorporate Wquirements for licensee inspectors to verify tMt

'

(b y

weld symbols and,sizet are specified on the drawings or in the appropriate, specifications prior to performing inspections. These re441rements had been incorporated into the above procedur In

, addition, the inspectors had received training to assure that they y, <' were cognizant'!cf the size and configuration requirements for. partial penetrat9n. weld This violkbion is close '

S'!:/,(Closed)UnresolvedItem(86-0(0 '

Lack of Response to recoInmendations rom audit 0-0C-84-0 '

, t", The Quality Assurance Program does not require a response to audit recommendations However, Corporate policy id reqqred tmh in,to be for.mally internal transmitte memo documenting the disposition of recomtnndatins be written to file. The inspector reviewed the memo q! to file. written by"the Electrical /IC Material Manager, dated April 23,

'/d'- 19ff6 TMis memo indicated that the audited department had considered th 6(ega,jtendations and for cause, based on past history, not acted on j a t,h'be / commendation C  ;

y,

,

t,-

M' .

This iteis close '

6;; '

y _(Closed) Violation (86-09-01} >,Qualjty Assurance oversight of 1 y Computech Engineering Service ,

l l

During Inspection 86-09 the NRC inspector identified an error in calcula- l tions performed a's part of the evaluation of masonry walls required by IEB 80-1 These calculations had been performed by Computech Engineering Services for the license The inspector reviewed Verification Checklist V-1302-105-002, Reevaluation of Concrete Masonry Walls at Oyster Creek, l

'

j

"

furnished by Computech Engineering Services. This reevaluation was l performed in accordance with procedure EP-009, Design Verification. As a l b,#?

/

result of this reevaluation the licensee determined th'at the conclusions

, of the original work performed by Computech was acceptable. In addition procedure TAP-11, Purchase Requisitions has ';;een revised to provide additional guidance for quality. reviews of procured items and service /

/

.

L v

, .

' "

3 ., f , ,

6 ,

,1 9 n 4

,

-

• '

'lg

'

.

sl

/

This violation is close '

(,hsed failure to maintain records for review ofmison)ryvpils. Violation (d6-dg2]

Theinspeko reviewed Techr Walkdowns tg Reverify,IEPQ{ cal DataThis 11 Respons Report report830, Masonry described the Block procedure usid, at g(butes inspected and:provided a detailed report of  !

all walls reinspu te The walkdown was performed in accordance with GPH4 Spec (ficat'pn SP-13f>2- SS104 I, i Bas h (, .' .et h' reinUectioH performed this violation is close y (Cics Violation(f-12-01) \/ Performance of hanger rework without  ;

tprocer re (

, +

,

Tha. inst,dctor deteimined that the licensee has reemphasized the re4017pents foriautnorization prior to performing any rework, or tempwsrfly rcrovf ng or partially removing hangers and the need to folidw;V'ocedures. In addition procedure 105, was revised to incorporate sp?cific emquirements for tpp'cval prior to rework or reperforming 9ry Firk previously accehte.1 by Quality Control . These J requirement 6wr /e' siso the, subject of' a mdmo dated September 5,1986, from the Miintenanpe aMustruction Facility Director OC to all annars and Forema Contractors,c Super.;,i sors g , y/

,This vii.I,oWon is close !

y / / >  !

, 3.0 Un.Yesolved I ,

\

[l

'

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to a'scei'tain whether they are acceptable items or violation Unresolved items are discussed in paragraph ,

< , 4.0 Management Meetings $

'

1 ,

Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the f

inspection at the entrance interview on Septencer 28, 1987. The

,', , findings of the inspett*,on were discussed with licensee k

,1 -

,

,s .

e ( )

> 1 j

't i l

lj

, g s

)

\

'

Nb

!

, >

<

, ',e'u} _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- - _ _ _ - _

!

i

7  :

,..

U representatives during the course of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the October 2,1987 exit interview (see

_

paragraph 1 for attendees).

At no' time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector. The licensee did not indicate that proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspectio '

-!

i

.

i

!

i

_ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _