ML20238A723
| ML20238A723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1986 |
| From: | Baker W BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237F760 | List:
|
| References | |
| CP-CPM-6.3-01, CP-CPM-6.3-1, NUDOCS 8708210064 | |
| Download: ML20238A723 (20) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ..
, hd o Ih N .
h BrownCf'Rocunc.
IM# 29510 TO: Terry Gray March 31, 1986 FROM: Gary Maedgen ,
SUBJECT:
Clarification of CP-CPM 6.3 CP-CPM 6.3'Rev 11 DCN 6 was issued with an added sentence to paragraph 3.1.2 that can be misconstrued. The sentence in question reads. "For ASME items, an operation will be established on the traveler for QC I to document revision level used at the time of final inspection".
The intent here is to have an operation established on those travelers that will benefit from QC I recording the requested information. It is not intended that such an operation be established on all travelers issued for ASME conrnodities. __.
Kindly insert this clarification into all control copies of CP-CPM 6.3.
Paragraph 3.1.2 will be further clarified by a revision,to follow.
g/y I !
.< ke; .udl'(6%
GE~ry Maecgen Staff Engineering Construction Procedures afid Reports GM/rb cc: Bill Baker .
Heyward Hutchinson d
a e
G
= :=r____-_______-_-_r---
l JOB 35-1195 I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Construction Procedure !
DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER 6 1
'Rev. 11 Notice applicable to Constr uction Procedure No. 35-1195.- CP-CPM 6.3 _.l l
This change will be incorporated in the next revision of the procedure. !
Change the procedure as follows:
Please replace the following pages with the attached: -
Page 4 of 7 and 6 of 7 Reason for change Add requirement for ASME Travelers, clarify operation sign-offs.
Reviewed by:
lll Y l~Sb~hN Date i g
3 Brown & Root Qu'ality Assurance 04 D;IE ~
OrTgina{or' F
/ A Igz.
g Approved by: 3Yb TUGC0 QualiYfissurance DEI
- h. Vi
)f f Construction Project Manager t -A9&
Date 03/20/86 Effective Date 1.'?! 2:
l
i l
l JOB 35-1195 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Construction Procedure j DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER S l
(
Notice applicable to Construction Procedure No. 35-1195- CP-CPM 6.3 Rev. n .{
This change will be incorporated in the next revision of the procedure.
Change the procedure as follows:
Please replace / add the following pages with the attached:
Page 4 of 7 Reason for change 7 of 7 Clarify corrections to 7a of 7 . travelers, add note for conduit support travelers Reviewed by:
l Y10 Origina$.or (f h~ 2-12-% ?.+
Date ' y B CY125Gil' U rown & Root Quality Assurance oli>b Dal2~
N Approved by: S d5' 6 ') .
ljirf TITGC0 Quadyf ssurance A Dati-
///f/ /> .2-/ 9-ff, 2/14/86 Construction Project Manager Date Effective Date
i JOB 35-1195 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Construction Procedure DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER 6 l
! Notice applicable to Construction Procedure No. 35-1195- CP-CPM 6.3 Rev. 11 .
This change will be incorporated in the next revision of the procedure.
! Change the procedure as follows:
Please replace / add the following pages with the attached:
l Page 2 of 7 Reason for change 3 of 7 Clarify instructions f r in-pr cess docu-4 of 7 mentation I 6 of 7 6a of 7 and 7 of 7 I
Reviewed by:
W h*b'$$ X ity~ Assurance 7 Yl 0 te 1 Originator f Date .j,i' Brown & Root Q 9 / I Approved by: Date TUGC0 Qua Assurance
, /d///7f 10/11/85 Effective Date Construction Pr~oject Manager ' Date
i
. i l
l JOB 35-1195
' COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Construction Precedure DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER 3 J
l i
Notice applicable to Construction Procedure No. 35-1195. CP-CPM 6.3 Rev. 11 .
s This change will be incorporated in the next revision of the procedure.
Change the procedure as follows:
i Please replace the following page with the attached:
Page 4 of 7 Reason for Change Add ex'c16sion for -
BRP revision level' on equipment travelers l !
l ,
l Reviewed by:
QA41 afLLdla 3*l3* 85 i , $ 3 3 95~
OrigTnatori, f Date 9 4 ro d & Root Qu'ality Assurance Date i ?
'i l Approved by:
PAN /M 2
- TUG (0 QuaOty Adurance wK Da y ,
i i
f[ k #f Nh.P[ C3/22/85
' Construction Project Manager Date Effective Date j I
l JOB 35-1195 l
I COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Construction Procedure .
DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER ' 2 Notice applicable to Construction Procedure No. 35-1195- CP-CPM 6.3 Rev.11 s l
This change will be incorporated in the next revision of the procedurt. -
I
! 1 Change the procedure as follows: l 1
Please replace the following pages with the attached: (
l I l Page 4 of 7 l and 5 of 7 I
Reviewed by:
l 1 I
l-h~$$ / /l 85' ,
' Originator Data Brown & Root Quality Assurance Date !
~
s l
pd.ldl1ifkly j,f/ s Approved by: U TUGC0 Quality Assurance Date 00 /e e Construction Project Manager sw 2--P- W Date 02/11/85 Effective Date
, 5- l ---
l
. i l
JOB 35-1195 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Construction Procedure !
DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER 1 t i Rev. 11 .
Notice applicable to Construction Procedure No. 35-1195- cp-cpx 6 a :
This. change will be incorporated in the next revision of the procedure.
Change the procedure as follows:
Please replace / add the following pages with the attached Page 1 of 7 7a of 7
- i f'
Reviewed by:
_c /, //- X W /> / f; Date Brown & Root Quality Assurance Datt !
LGfig nator 1 Y J b MN D*t" i
Approved by: 'TUGC0 Qualiti Assurance 4
b, d ,r p//p/ [-2-9f" 01/03/85 Effective Date Construction Project Manager Date
_ 2. may.e . mpegge .
ee-- ,
em-----s-m - ..e .
'I -
- ' ^
I
. . ,. r I
, F EFFECTIVE BROWN & RDOT, INC. PROCEDURE PAGE
/ i REVISION DATE
' I CPSES NUMBER l
CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/08/84 1 of 7 8 M TITLE 'p )) 1 ORIGINATOR thAY I3 REVIEWED BT: ' R QA Datt F
p f.,/h g,7.fg/
PREP ARATION, APPROVAL, jy/f)cc/ Date AND CONTROL OF k V 5 GC0 GA
(/ g 9
/ b/dw #ng 7-f-k OPERATION TRAVELE[RS APPROVED BY: Daff
[g CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MGR o.1 TABE OF CONTENIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE 1.2 SCOPE 2.0 CENERAL -
2.1 RESPONSIBILITY
2.2 DESCRIPTION
& AN OPERATION TRAVE R 0C0 NO. 304 1 2.2.1 General Traveler Information [yfg gCCUMEN 3.0 3.1 PROCEDURE BASIC PREPARATION SEQUENCE AS OF .g g b bbb ENT f,
3.1.1 Traveler Development 3.1.2 Traveler content 7 .
J
{, 3.1.3 Nu:nbering Sequence k I OFFICE AND 3.1.4 Initiation Authority O II
,,f 3.1.5 Traveler Approval l h l g,
6 3.1.6 Distribution of Travelers -
3.2 TRAVELER CONTROL 3.3 TRAVEIER REVISIONS AND CRANGES ,
3.3.1 Revision Preparation 3.3.2 Field Revisions For Non-ASME Related Travelers 4.0 SUPPORTING MATERIALS 4.1 AFFECTED DOCUMENTS
{
o.ii FICURES [
(
Figure 1 CONSTRUCTION OPERATION TRAVELER Figure 2 CONSTRUCIIW OPERATION TRAVELER CONTINUATION SEEET i
V . _ . _ , ,
~
i l .
1 l 1
. \
BROWN & ROOT, INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE )
1 l
CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/08/84 1 of 1 TITLE: ORIGINATOR ** nee erfeinal cover sheet ** *****
Date REVIEWED BY: ** See original cover sheet ** *****
56R QA Date PREPARATION, APPROVAL, ** see original cover sheet ** *****
AND CONTROL OF TUGC0 % Date OPERATION TRAVELERS APPROVED BY ** ... n,.<o4n.1 enver sheer ** *****
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MGR Date o.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 TURESE 1.2 SCOPE 2.0 CENERAL 2.1 RESPONSIBILITY .
2.2 DESCRIPTION
OF AN OPERATION TRAVELER 2.2.1 General Traveler Information 3.0 PROCEDURE 3.1 BASIC PREPARATION SEQUENCE 3.1.1 Traveler Development 3.1.2 Traveler Content 3.1.3 Numbering Sequence 3.1.4 Initiation Authority 3.1.5 -Traveler Approval ,
l 3.1.6 Distribution of 7tavelers 3.2 TRAVELER CONTROL 3.3 TRAVELER REVISIONS AND CHANCES 3.3.1 Revision Preparation 3.3.2 Field Revisions For Non-ASME Related -Travelers 3.3.3 voiding of Travelers 4.0 SUPPORTINC MATERIALS -
4.1 AFFECTED DOCUMENTS o.11 FICURES, ,
Figure 1 CONSTRUCTION OPERATION TRAVELER Figure 2 CONSTRUCTION OPEkATION TRAVELER CONTINUATION SHEET CP-CPM 6.3 Rev.'ll DCN #1 01/03/85 Sheet 2 of 3
-**wandued.-m v+ A y .p 14 p- pg mqm. m r ,yo ypr 64,9 a,
> 1
. i!
BROWN'& ROOT, INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE PAGE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/08/84 2 of 7 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE This procedure describes the preparation, approval, and control of Operation Travelers used at CPSES to control activites. .The Operation Traveler provides, sequential instructions on how to ~
perform a task, identifies the required inspection points, and specifies.the documentation'for these activities. The specified j
sequence on the traveler should. be followed; however, due to .,
construction interferences and other constraints, deviation from. f the sequence, with QA/QC concurrence, may be allowed. Additional controls in the form of supplementary instructions or other pro- I cedures, may be used to meet the applicable requirements.
1.2 SCOPE This procedure shall be used for safety-related and balance-of-plant activites. However, references to QA/QC do not apply to balance-of-plant activities and those inspectidh fuhetioht shall 1
be accomplished by other departments.
2.0 GENERAL 2.1 RESPONSIBILITY Signature authority of an Operation Traveler shall be either the l Construction Superintendents responsible for the work (or their designees) or the discipline engineers responsible for technical guidance. The BAR Site QA Manager.is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the system through the assignment of QC inspection points and consultation with the ANI for selection of ANI inspection points for ASME-related activities. '1VGC0 QA i is responsible for the assignment of QC inspection points for non-ASME activities. Neither QA/QC nor Engineering review are "
required for travelers of a repetitious nature that have a standard format. When such reviews are not performed, the' initial traveler number shall be entered in the " Reviewed By" block. The initial traveler should note the review waiver of subsequent travelers. {
Even though travelers of a repetitious nature do not require QA review of each individual traveler, ASME-related travelers of a repetitious nature shall be routed to QA so that ANI review may l be performed on each individual traveler. a CP-CPM 6.3 Rev. 11 DCN #4 10/11/85 Sheet 2 of 7 1
e i .miew .a.e
_u_._.,.- ,,_ _ ,.- _- - -_ _ .. . .__
BROWN 6 ROOT, INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE PAGE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE JOB 35-1195 CP-CFM 6.3 11 08/08/84 3 of 7 The Operation Traveler (Figures 6.3-1 and 6.3-2) serves as a fabrication / installation / inspection checklist of operations necessary to achieve a quality and product. Accordingly, the checklist details will vary depending on the complexity of the operation.
2.2.1 General Traveler Information Cenaral information normally included on the Operation Traveler is as follows:
- 1. Part , serial, or tag number and material description (s),
where applicable. Room number for the item should also be provided.
- 2. The department assigned the task to perform operation (s) .
- 3. Operation description, methods, procedures (instruction) by number and other information as required to successfully complete the operation in accordance with applicable require-ments. Examination or test procedure / instruction numbers and revision shall also be recorded on tr.e traveler or supple-menting report for examination or testing activities. QCI shall annotate the applicable inspection procedure revision number on the traveler operation at time of inspection accep-tance.
- 4. All dimensions and tolerances necessary to assure compliance with applicable design drawings and specifications. This in-formation may be given by reference, provided persons perform-ing the work have access to the referenced material.
I
- 5. Any needed of fsite operations or processing is cited in the '
appropriate sequence with all other operations. l l 6. Necessary instructions for handling, cleaning, storing and preserving items.
- 7. Required QC/ANI inspection, hold, or witness points, as applicable.
3.0 PROCEDURE 3.1 BASIC PREPARATION SEQUENCE CP-CFM 6.3 Rev. 11 DCH #4 10/11/85 Sheet 3 of 7 3.,..m.-.- ...+.=. . . . , , . . _ ,
m ,,,_,.3. . . ~ - . , . , . , , ,
%. . m.,, . , . . . . . , . 1_.,__m.__.
l BROWN & ROOT, INC. PROCEDURE EFFEGTIVE'o' g PAGI. l CPSES NUMEER REVISION DATE ' , *,. . # l JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/08/84 4 of 7 i 3.1.1 Traveler Development The operation sequence'and necessary detailed information on.the traveler should be developed among the responsible construction personnel, the Discipline Engineers providing the technical guid-ance, and the cognizant QA Department representative responsible for the quality requirements. The-Discipline Engineers or construc-tion personnel initiating the traveler- shall obtain Westinghouse j approval if the traveler involves NSSS equipment. l 3.1.2 Traveler content The traveler package shall contain, or any reference if normally l available, the drawings, procedures, instruction, manufacturer's annuals / guidelines, etc., necessary to accomplish the activity. i i
Documents required for fabrication or installation activites may be 4 issued for inclusion into a traveler package. . The document shall be t identified as being part of. the traveler package and that it cannot be used independently of the traveler package by a stamp stating "This document shall be used only in conjunction with Operation Traveler i ".
It shall be the responsibility of the organization controlling the package (PFG) to ensure the current design document revision is in-cluded in the package. This verification shall be made each day the package is used.
EXCLUSION: All hanger packages are excluded from the aforementioned control alternative. In addition, PFC weld map drawings , !
need not be transposed to each successive revision if I weld numbering was not affected by such revisions.
QCI shall record the design document revision level used at time of final inspection. For ASME items, an operation will.be estab-lished 'on the traveler for QCI to document revision level used at the time of final inspection.
3.1.3 Numberina Sequence Except as described in paragraph 3.1' 4, the organization writing the traveler shall assign the nebec to the traveler and provide :
records showing to whom the traveler uns issued, and maintain . '
records to indicate a history of all travelers generated and the activity covered by the travelers. The traveler number should be the same as the ites's identification number when possible .(e.g., ,
hanger; mark neber, equipment number, ei.e.) . - Alternatively a numbering sequence similar to the , following asy be used:
CP-CPM 6.3 Rev.11 DCN #6 - 03/20/86 Sheet 2 of 3
- W
. .- .,... , . -. g. . _,w-- w. -- . ._ .w,- . = . g_
. 6-BROWN & RODI, INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE NUMBER REVISION DATE PACE CPSES JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/08/84 5 of 7 "MF 90-001-02-5000" MP = Identification -letters representing the craf t department or engineering discipline originating the traveler.
I j
90 = The calendar year in which the traveler was written.
001 = The individual seq'uence number identifying a particular traveler.
- 02 = Unit number may be included, but is not required.
l 5000 = The turnover (start-up) system number for the activity l
described on the traveler. -
3.1.4 Conduit Support and Cable Tray Support Travelers The log discussed in paragraph 3.1.3 is not required for conduit support or cable tray support travelers. Accountability for these travelers is accomplished by QC walkdown with a subsequent veri-fication that the required travelers are on file in the Permanent ords Vault or contained in the applicable Unit 2 docu-Plant metation pr -age.
NOTE: Crerations on generic traveless for conduit supports and cable tray supports may be worked out of sequence with-out being individually approved by QA/QC as required in Paragraph 1.1.
3.1.5 Initiation Authority Travelers may be initiated by Engineering disciplines or Construction Superintendent.
3.1.6 Traveler Approval 1
i QA shall review and approve the traveler by signing the " Reviewed By" block.
3.1.7 Distribution of Travelers Af ter review by QA/ANI, as applicable, the traveler is returned to the controlling organir.ation for recording and distribution.
CP-CPM 6.3 Rev. 11 DCN #2 Q2/11/85 Sheet 3 of 3
.. _. . ?- !
i-l 1 i BROWN & ROOT, INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE JOB 351195 CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/08/84 6 of.7 1 1
3.2 TRAVELER CONTROL )
Traveler packages shall be issued to' craft personnel as they are needed for work. The traveler package shall remain in the work area until the work has been completed and accepted by-QA/QC or until the end of the shift, whichever is first, Unit 2 Travelers shall be issued in accordance with CP-CPM 7.1.
Travelers shall be. completely maintained throughout the construc-tion process. Signature of the person completing each operation. ;
. is preferred in all cases and required in the case of QCI. However,. 1 initials or signature are acceptable for craft operations. . This shall be accomplished at the completioc, of each operation and prior to moving parts or assemblies to the next scheduled operation. f All identified witness holdpoints shall be honored and work shall not proceed beyond that point until acceptance of the operation is shown by the applicable Craf t/ Engineer /QA/QC/ANI representative's 1 signature and date opposite the witness holdpoint. The acceptance l of the QA/QC inspection shall be recorded in the QA/QC Eng column..
All verification operations may be performed af ter completion of related activities provided post-constructics verification is possible.
t
_ Exception: Operations may be accomplished out of sequence when so {
stated,on the traveler. j Operations in sequence that are not requ' ired shall be marked NA, initialed and dated by the responsible group.
Unsat QC inspections shall be documented on inspection reports or NCR's in accordance with QC procedures. These inspection reports should remain with the trayalar.
Upon completion of all the steps listed'on the traveler, the traveler shall be returned to the controlling organization for ,
further processing, as required. ASME completed travelers shall be- forwarded to B&R QA while non-ASME completed travelers shall be forwarded to PPG for review and subsequent filing in the Permanent Plant Records Vault or Interim Records Vault. Trav-elers governing non-Q activities shall be forwarded to the BOP Vault.
Package Flow Group activities may result in the issuance of ' generic travelers in large quantities for standard and repetitive activities (e.g., conduit supports and cable tray hangers). When a new generic i revision is required for these previously approved generic travelers.
the change may be made by revision to the earliest numbered traveler not completed and its number entered on the remaining affected trav- , ,
eiers with a vaiver of subsequent reviews. This.will expedite field work, preclude unnecessary PFC rework of packages, and minimize the number of signatures required 87 = change.
'CP -CPM 6.3 Rev.11 - DCN #6 . ~ _ . . . . y, 03/20/86 Sheet 3 of 3
l i
. . i t 1 l
- -JDkhR60T,INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE PAGE OPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE JOB 35-1195 l
CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/08/84 6a.of 7 The PFG Supervisor shall normally be responsible for the decision to implement the above changes.
l 3.3 TRAVELER REVISION AND CHANGES 3.3.1 Revision Preparat' ion Changes to a traveler that include addition or deletion of opera-tional steps, or a change in intent of an existing step, shall -
require a traveler revision. Except as provided below all changes, regardless of their significance, must be documented on,the traveler, l indicating the operations affected, description of the change, and i l
l QA/QC's concurrence. The revision number and a description of the I l
l l
l l
l l
I a
1 CP4PM 6.3 Rev. 11 DCN f4 10/11/85 Sheet 6 of 7 P* --
-+e-- -m.-- . m. _ . . , ,
'I .
1 l
. 1 6
1 BROWN 6 ROOT, INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE PAGE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/08/84 7 of 7 j change will be noted below the last traveler operation, or on a con-tinuation sheet. The item being chadged shall reference the user to I the described change. -
Corrections to a traveler shall be made by an individual drawing a single line through the incorrect entry and initialling and dating near the change.
Minor changes such as addition of reference design document number, l
changes to design document revision levels, page number corrections, editorial corrections, etc., do not require rerouting of traveler for QA/QC concurrence.
NOTE: Unit #2 conduit support travelers that require a change from one drawing to another (i.e., CSM2AII l to CSM7AI) need not be forwarded to Quality Engi- i neering for concurrence provided that all previously accepted operations are reinstated for ' reinspection by QCI.
Completed operations may be repeated if documented on the, traveler.
Operations which have been completed but which require reworking may be re-established on the traveler provided:
- 1. The added operation is the.same as the original operation;
' 2. The added operation includes the reason for the addition (e.g. pump unbolted due to interference); l l
- 3. The same holdpoints are provided for the additional operation as the original operation.
The adding of this operation will not effect a revision or require the traveler go back through the entire review cycle. However, travelers reviewed by the ANI shall be resubmitted to the ANI for review. Other revisions shall be routed for the same approvals required for the original traveler.
3.3.2 Field Revisions for Non-ASME Related Travelers The following decision shall be made by the cognizant field QCI. Where it is not feasible or practical to route the traveler ,
to QE during revision, the QA/QC representative in the field who is familiar with the task being performed may approve a revision to the traveler provided the following provisions are met:
- 1. The revision is not a significant departure from the original concept; r-
! Sheet 3 of 4 CP-CPM 6.3 Rev.11 DCN #6 W .
~4 -
-rm ~- -n m.o. m n - o n.--mme- ~, e e e ~n , --e r~
.s .
p ., .
I
)
I BROWN 6 ROOT, INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE PAGE CPSES NLWBER REVISION DATE (
JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/,08/84 7a of 7 )
- 2. The responsible Quality Engineer is made aware of this re-vision at the first available opportunity by the QA/QC rep- ]
resentative; !
- 3. The revision is signed by the responsible Construction Super- l intendent, or responsible engineer. i l
The QA/QC representative signs and dates the traveler showing 1 approval of the revision described above. ]
1 3.3.3 voiding of Travelers ,
1 Travelpro which have received QA review may be voided if no i longer required. Unit 1 travelers shall be submitted to QA for review and disposition if it is detemined they are to be voided.
Unit 2 travelers do not need to be submitted to QA but shall remain part of the Document Package. Travelers which have not received QA review may be voided without subsequent QA review.
)
l CP-CPM 6.3 Rev.11 DCN #5 ._;- 2/14/86 Sheet 4 of 4 W
. i BROWN & R00I, INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE CPSES NUMBER REVIS ION DATE PAGE JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 6.3 11 1 08/08/84 1 of 2 FIGURE 6.3-1 CONSTRUCTION OPERATION TRAVELER constmuctics optsatice faavtLgJe 3twigg QTRavELERNO. GE0WsPedOff 24 Gumi? 8etL GeuANTffY geneg_gp_
Q.acivf?T DESCAiPflom y AEFEA8JeCE DAawweOS
@8%P%Y./ L%.ima TR. G L3 CATION g 3Y3 Teas
. -E== y On cut l AEVIEwc ev OATE ANI stvttw caft eates
- # MEAD M tag, ama i
l l
t 4
9 l
l e
l
.9 1
\ ':::A2.7 r
_ , ' sLrk ,--
n -. .
( .
4 BROWN & R00I. INC. PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE . ._g l
CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PACE
.'loti 3 5-1145 CP-CPM 6.3 11 08/08/84 2 of 2 l 1
FIGURE 6.3-2 l CONSTRUCTION OPERATION "RAVI12R CO'CI:IUATION ]
- 1 temst#UCTION cactat:04 faavC.fR Confissuatlow !
T86 4 ACTMTV 083CRsPflom e t _ cr _ ! ?
M4PaA(3 8Y OAM !
anvic.co ., ..
Amt REVIEW ca?r _
" I er na M ee $sen ates f , ,y
- i 1
.i p % .,a e
1 l
4 9
I l
=W = em e=== > = wo we.m =wA. ww-w ev -sad . w am .n .-e-w. m !.e. =+.e-w.s e- ne-e e s,==es. nem w anowe se e2ha n maa.1, +m. + e m w a w me .e.e-. amm, mum.u.s.-m e m. .s .-_t.mme._-
hAibd
- Q q C r~-WNSD-CPSES WFT-8148
^
5 R j
l Westinghouse Water Reactrb J. '; f nuour coervonsowen I
Electric Corporation DMslons i
f b C ['E g MNpPennstma mm January 10, 1986
- S.0. No: TKUJ-2004( Q) ,
Mr. J. T. Merritt, Jr. Ref: 1) Comanche Peak Assistant Project General Manager Field Traveler fME l Texas Utilities Generating Company 248-5500 (Unit 2) l P.O. Box 1002 2) CPPA-48113 )
Glen Rose, Texas 76043
(
[ TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY i COMANCHE PEAK STE#4 ELECTRIC STATION Consideration for Acceptance of the Comanche Peak Unit #2 l
Dear Mr. Merritt:
As requested in customer letter CPPA-48113, Westinghouse offers the following considerations that form the basis for acceptance of the Unit 2 Reactor Yessel i Support Shoe Side Gaps. 4 1
- 1. The reactor vessel support shoe grows (thermally) slightly less than the l RV nozzle pad. Therefore, the required D.020" (cold) side gap closes slightly to provide a small hot clearance.
- 2. The remaining hot gap is necessary to account for shim undulations (i.e.,
warping, etc.) due to machining, thus ensuring binding will not occur.
1
- 3. Once shims are installed, an average of the (4) corner gaps is determined i and is considered representative of the installation. Past experience :
indicates that shim warping during machining and shim alignment on the shoe can cause gap measurement inaccuracies.
- 4. Cold gaps which are slightly in excess of the 0.020" (cold) requirement have no effect on the design / analysis of the reactor vessel support / reactor coolant loop system.
.-,..m - m _. . . . - = .. -- . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ , , - _ _ _ - -. ._ -
s J. T. Merritt, Jr. WPT_8148 I
Based upon the above, and a review of tb data presented by Reference #1, the Unig 2 reacto* vessel show side shim installations are found to be acceptable. '
If there are any further questions or comments, please advise.
Very truly yours, !
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION j k.&weS R. S. Howard, Manager WRD Comanche Peak Projects M.Torcaso/jj s/8682d:1 l l
1L cc: J. T. Merritt '
R. D. Cal der IL J. W. Beck 1L C. B. Hartong 1L J. C. Kuykendall 1L 1L f ARMS l J. B. George 1L !
R. A. Jones 1L 1
i h
e
+ey- ,c%que, %r-wa m w A. . _m'm.au-.- a,a am ma. m wee. .m e -aae.m-m.i .am . ---. - . _ i-.,.A -a
~
I y y . ., .
, < '% %.gg -% L.b L' ..
%j UNITED STATES
[ s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ( .
f wasumorow o.c.rosss ;
\ ....
} -
JUL 0 31985 /\
Docket Nos.: 50-445 <
and 50-446 ,
l Mr. M. D. Spence- ,
President Texss Utilities Generating Company 400 N. Olive Street '
4-Lock Box 81 /
Dallas, Texas 75201 ! '
Dear Mr. Spence:
i
Subject:
Use of ASME Code Edition and Addenda for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Units 1 and 2)
The NRC staff has received your request for approval to use a later ASME' Code Edition and Addenda than that currently in the Code and Standard Rule (10 CFR 50.55a), identified in a TUGC0 letter dated December 21, 1984.
Before addressing your specific request, the staff has asked that we i clarify to TUGC0 the applicability of ASME Code Editions and Adde ida, as well as the scope of the 10 CFR 50.55a rule, in order to resolve any misunderstandings on the part of your staff. ,
The most recent version of 10 CFR 50.55a, dated March 30, 1984, approves the editions of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Yesse) Code, through the 1980 Edition and Addenda through the Summer 1982, and is only applicable to Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components. The rule does not addressSection III components such as: ClassMC(SubsectionNE); Supports (Sub-section NF); and Core Support Structures (Subsection NG). The NRC staff is currently in the process of approving additions to Sectice III of the Code are alsothrough the 1983 applicable to Code EditionClass 1, and 2 andAddendt 3 components. through the Summer.1984, As curres th written, Jon1 this new revision of the rule does not address such components as ]
those constructed to Subsections HE, NF e53 W~of Section III, as noted i s above. Caution should be exercised by your t.taff in the use of Code Editions and Addenda for which approval is pending. Use of any such Code Editions and Addenda is at TUGC0's own risk. 2
/
\
r.
gV.N A m g-g,=e-wamu++w-c*-ek. a Sesame s ud, y eMM c+ a 33 W.w egp ese g i spapss epy _ peep pp. .e#m-- # e,q,p-wa.m. 3+k, pw,.i.,g ige.q,,,,ew, 4 +....we m ,.
-g, 3p.
. . . i Mr. M. D. Spence JUL 0 31985 While NRC staff approval is not required by 10 CFR 50.55a to utilize a later Code Edition and Addenda of Subsection NF (Section III) of the Code, staff
. approval of the standard used for the construction of the component supports is required by General Design Criterion 1 of 10 CFR 50. Implementation of a later Code Edition and Addenda must be in conformance with NCA-1140 of both the later Code Edition and Addenda of Section III and the Code of record for the facility. It is the responsibility of TUGC0 to ensure that all related '
provisions of the Code are adhered to, particularly when selected paragraphs and tables of a later Code Edition and Addenda are used in conjunction with ,
the Code of record. To that end TU3C0 shall' prepare a listing for NRC staff. 4 review of those Code provisions TUGC0 considers related and with which it will comply. The list shall be compiled from the later editions and addenda speci-fied in the December graphs or tables requested 21,1984. to.beletter used.corresponding)to NCA-1140(f requires the eightplantselected owners topara
- i determine the acceptability of both the Code Edition and Addenda established in the design specification, and in later revisions of the design speciff- I cation with regulatory authorities such as the NRC. I 1
Since your request for approval to use the later ASME Code Edition and Addenda I was received when the design of Comanche Peak Units 1 and.2 is largely com- '
pleted, provide the reasons and basis for requesting the revision to earlier i design commitments. Since there is extensive testimony by your representatives j l
and the staff on the use of Section III of the ASME Code for Comanche Peak, 3 the staff requests that you perform a careful review of the hearing record to ;
identify whether (and in what manner) each of the request items may affect the l before the ASLB.
earlier identify whether testimony (and in what manner) the request items may relate to:In addit)
(a) The Motions for Sunnary Disposition submitted by TUGC0 concerning piping and pipe supports; (b) Matters which were reviewed by Cygna in the Independent Assessment Program;
-l (c) The connents of the NRC's Technical Review Team; (d) The comments of the NRC's Special Review Team; 4 l
(e) The comments of the NRC's Construction Appraisal Team. l l
With respect to your December 21, 1984 request, the NRC staff finds the use 'of the listed portions of ASME Code Section III Subsection NF acceptable when the following have been implemented: <
(a) Identify in the FSAR affected component supports (i.e. by systems and supports) to which the later Code requirements are to be applied; c
I m__* __r_L.___ J '_:'?.*!_.'JC.'.'._.M.5*-*%...m
. _. _ t?f
- f . P 17 ___:-??Ed* Mr 4 w .!* AM ***N i+ 4*n.** 6 N "h*** L'#
- MW * *
- t ^*
- N**- h*-L"'***--****~-**h*" ' ' * -"' ^ ^ ' " ~
1 7 1
- 4.
.,.._.4
'y1 i _
", t t. .
. s .
l
,t .
jut. 0 3 1985 Mr. M. sD. Spence s 1 l .s ; t
. t (b) TCGC0 n. ell assure that all code related requirements liava ;
been met:Ja listirg of, the related requirements shall 'be'. i submitted for NPC staf'f review as discussed above. , l
~
, (c) Applicable design specifications and required design i
j documents shall be revised. 1 j i Further, we request that you consider whether a Construction Permit amendment is nuessary. If not, please provide your rationale.
a , .~
Shocid there be further questions concerning this subjecty please contact the Project Manager. <
Sincerely,( ,.
, .b
' V ./
\
. . e #!ffthEF'~
s for Comar.c Project 1 Divh; ion of'f.e" Pe Licensing ,
l cc: See next page _
l 6
l 's
! 's ,
1 L
l t\
s i
h V.
\
):
l s
b s t
(
s -
s f e y
t - . . - - . . - r, . . . . .. - - - . . . - _ . - . . _ __
{
, fO k 6.
i In Reply Refer To:
Dockets: 50-445/85-07 RS 0 3 2 50 446/85-05 i
\ .
l Texas Utilities Electric Company KITN: W. G. Counsil Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock. Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlenen:
This refers to the inspection conducted under the Resident Inspection Program '
l by Messrs. J. E. Cumins and H. 5. Phillips and others during the period
, April 1, 1985, through June 21, 1985, of activities authorized by NRC Construc-tion Permits CPPR-125 and CPPR-126 of the Comanche Peak facility, Units I and 2 and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. J. T. Merritt, and other members of
'~
your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.- - I Areas examitted during the inspection included plant status, action on previous NRC inspection findings, action on applicant identified design construction deficiencies (10 CFR Part 50.55(e) reports) and plant tours. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the insptetors. These findings are documented in the enclosed inspection report.
During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities were in violation of NRC requirements. Consequently, you are required to respond to this violatic9. in writing, in accordance with the provision of Section 2.201 j of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal j Regulations. Your response should be based on the specifics contained in the Notice of Violation enclosed with this letter. Since B&R Procedure 35-1195-CCP-10
- has been revised to provide documented inspection of truck mixer blades, there was no abnomal blade wear identified as a result of blade inspection, and there
- - have be2n consistent concrete strength and uniformity tests, no reply to violation 2.c is required.
f ;
RSB b RSB HSPhillips/dc DMHunnicutt h CPT G TFWesterman DRSP EHJohnson NRR VNoonan h'@ l I lu18G l /fjB6 /1%/8G l yif j lM/86
+ 1
/60!
p;p;ofdw;t L. iA 1
--_x
I i
l Texas Utilities Electric Company 2 Shouldyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningthisinspection,wewill.liepleased to discuss, them with you. ,
Sincerely, l
06(""c' 1
E. H. Johnson, Acting Director Division of Reactor safety..and Projects <
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A - Notice of Violation
- 2. Appendix B - NRC Inspection Report 50-445/85-07 50-446/85-05 ,
cc w/ enclosure:
Texas Utilities Electric Company -
ATTN: J. W. Beck, Manager, Licensing Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Juanita Ellis -
President - CASE ,
1426 South Polk Street
! Dallas, Texas 75224 l
~~
I Renea Hicks
- . Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548 i Austin, Texas 76711 l Texas Radiation Control Program Director bectoDMB(IE01)
, bec distrib. by RIV:
l *RPB IS System
, *RRI-OPS RSTS Operator .
l *RRI-CONST *R&SPB l l *T. F. Westerman, CPTG DRSP V. Noonan, NRR R. Martin, RA S. Treby, ELD *RSB
- RIV File J. Taylor, IE
- D. Weiss,LFNB(AR-2015) R. Heishman, IE
- w/766 ]
l
- l. \
.j
s .
i 1
I APPENDIX A ,{
NOTICE OF VIOLATION -
i LTexas Utilities Electric Company Docket: 50-445/85-07 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 50-446/85-05 Units 1 and 2 Permit: CPPR-126 CPPR-127 1985, violations During of WRCan NRC inspection requirements were conducted identified. Inon April 1 through accordance June 21, General Statement with the ,
of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, 1 Appendix C (1985), the violations are listed below:
{
- 1. Failure to Promptly Correct an Identified Problem with RTE - Delta I Potential Transformer T11 tout subassemblies
)
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, as implemented by Texas Utilities 1 Generating Company (TUGC0) Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), Section 16.0, Revision 0, requires that measures shall be established to assure that-conditior.s adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficien-cies deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected.
Contrary to the above, a potential problem with RTE - Delta potential .
transformer tiltout subassemblies, which are used in the emergency diesel l generator control panels, was identified to the applicant via a letter, dated June 15, 1983, from Transamerica Delaval Inc. , This letter also provided instructions for correcting the potential problem. However, the
~
applicant did not take the corrective action. The NRC initially reported this item as unresolved in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/84-40.,
This is a Severity Level IV violation. (Supplement II.E) (445/8507-01 446/8505-01).
- 2. Failure To Follow Procedures 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by the TUGC0 QAP, Section 5.0, Revision 2 requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accor-dance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
- a. Drawing 2323-51-0550, Revision 4, Section 6 6 specified the use of .
Class E" concrete for the Unit i reactor coolant pump and steam generator supports.
t __
' 4 3
I c
Contrary to the above, commercial nonshrink grout was unbd to grout
~
the Unit I reactor coolant pump and steam generator supports in lieu of Class "E" t.cocrate. (445/8507-02)
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II.E).
- b. Brown and Root Procedure QI-QAP-7.2-8, " Receiving of Westinghouse Safety Related Equipment " Section 3.1.d.1, requires a QC inspector to verify that the Westinghouse Quality Release (QR) document checklist items be filled out completely and accurately. I l
Contrary to the above, the voltage recorded on Westinghouse QR 41424 )
checklist, attachment 1, step 4.1, was outside the specified I' tolerance, but the QC receipt inspector accepted .QR as satisfactory.
(445/8507-03)
This is a Severity Level IV violation. _
i c. Brown & Root Procedure 35-1195-CCP-10. Revision 5. dated December 4,
_ 1978, requires that central and tru.ck mixer blades be checked quarterly to assure that mixer blade wear does not exceed a loss of 10% of original blade height.
Contrary to the above, on May 31, 1985, the NRC inspector detemined thattherewasnoobjectiveevidence(records)thatthemixingblades had been inspected quarterly since the trucks were placed in service in 1977. (445/8507-04;446/8505-02)
ThisisaSeverityLevelVviolation(SupplementII.E)
- d. Brown & Root Procedure CP-QAP-15.1, " Field Control of Nonconforming l t
~
Item, " states that nonconforming conditions shall be documented in a l l Deficiency and Disposition. Report (DDR). Procedure CP-QCP-1.3, " Tool !
~
Equipment Calibration and Control," dated July 14, 1975, states that j out-of-ca)ibration equipment shall be identified on a DDR.
Contrary to tf a above, on May 31, 1985, the NRC inspector reviewed the calibration file for scale (MTE 779) used for weighing cement and j found that a 24-48 pound deviation from the required accuracy was encountered with the water and cement scales during a 1975 calibration of the backup plant scales, however, no DDR was issued to identify l this condition and require disposition of the scale and concrete (if l any) produced. (445/8507-06;446/8505-04).
ThisisaSeverityLevelIVviolation(SupplementII.E).
l l
. - - . , --..,,.,,-.-,.,.,.v..-. - . - - . . . . . - . - . , - - . .,-
3-Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Texas Utilities Electr$c Company is hereby required to submit to this office within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice, a written statement or explanation :In reply, including for each violation: (1) the reason for the violations if admitted, the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and ,
the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, l cor.:1deration will be given to extending the response time, l l
Dated at Arlington, Texas.
this 3rd day of February,1986
)
k I
l i
4 l
i i
l l
'_____Tr _L _ __':_'_ ___- __ ___LTTrrrr-_r: :_rrr T='_'_T: __r::_7 :~ ~
L
~'~- - --
? ~ =~ ~:'- - ' ' ~ -- - -
l >
APPENDIX B U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY ColHISSION REGION IV . i t
NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/85-07 Permit: CPPR-126 50-446/85-05 CPPR-127 Docket: 50-445; 50-446 Applicant: Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) 1 Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 l
Facility Name: Comanche Peak. Steam Electric Station (CPSES)
- . Units 1 and 2 ,
h Inspection At: Glen Rose, Texas
- Inspection Conducted: April 1,1985, through June 21, 1985 ,
Inspectors: _W H. 5. Phillips, Senior Resident de /#
Date Nf Reactor Inspector Construction (pars. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) l
- ~
d b 9/? /WS/85 J. E. Cumins, Senior Resident Reactor Uatti
) Inspector Construction (April 1 - May 10,1985)
(pars. 1, 3, and 19) !
l Y
D. E. Norman
, Reactor Inspectortf Date id)/ff i l (pars. 1, 12, 13, 14 and 19) bA: /Okt,/95 D. M. Hunnicutt, Section Chief Date Reactor Projects Branch 2 '
i (pars. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 19) h '
<,.u _.-+. y..,-...,y.9.,w.3%,.,y...,.,..,4..w.,y. ..~. .% m -,. . ,-.4 p .. y . 7 ...e.... ...._4,%-.-.. . ~ + . . . ..._ . . +<___ __ _
, i k
Approved: Mk D. M. Hunnicutt, Section Chief,
//.2Fd4
' Date Reactor Project Section B Inspection Sumary Inspection Conducted April 1.1985, through June 21.1985(Report 50-445/85-07)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced and unannounced inspections of Unit I which included plant tours and review of plant status, action on previous NRC inspectionfindings(violations /unresolveditems),reviewofdocumentationfor site dams, and review of 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) construction deficiency status The inspection involved 77 inspector-hours onsite by four NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the areas inspected, five violations were identified: fail-ure to promptly correct an identified problem with RTE - Delta Potential Transformer Tiltout Subassemblies, paragraph 3.a.; commercial non-shrink grout was used to grout the Unit 1 mactor coolant pump and steam generator supports i in lieu of Class "E" concrete, paragraph 3.b.; hydrogen recombiners out-of-specification voltage recorded on quality release document but QC receipt inspector accepted, paragraph 3.c; failure to provide objective evidence to show that central and truck mixer blades were inspected, paragraph 8; and failure to issue a deficiency report on cement scales that were out-of-calibra- 1 tion, paragraph 9.c.
~
Inspection Sumary l
Inspection Conducted April 1. 1985, through June 21. 1985 (Report 446/85-05) l Areas Inspected: Routine, announced and unannounced inspections of Unit 2
- - which included plant tours and review of plant status, action on previous NRC inspectionfindings(violations /unresolveditems),reviewofdocumentationfor site dams, review of documentation for voids behind the stainless steel cavity liner of reactor building, observation of NDE on liner plates, inspection of concrete batch plant, review of calibration laboratory records for batch plant, 4 i
review of reactor review pressure vessel of concrete (RPV and pipin laboratory testing,) inspection of level C1 ;
construction deficiency status, and review of violation and unresolved items status. The inspection i involved 335 inspector-hours onsite by four NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the sixteen areas inspected three violations were identified:
failure to correct RTE-Delta transformer problem, paragraph 3.a; failure to ,
provide objective evidence to show that concrete central and truck mixer blades were inspected, paragraph 8; and failure to issue a deficiency report on cement scales that were out-of-calibration, paragraph 9c.
i L
DETAILS C 1
- 1. Persons Contacted Applicant Personnel M. McBay, Unit 2 Reactor Building Manager B. Ward, General Superintendent Civil D. Chandler QA/QC Civil Inspector .
W. Cromeans, QA/QC, TUGC0 Laboratory / Civil Supervisor
- fJ. Merritt, Assistant Project General Manager
- fP. Halstead, Construction Site QA Manager
- C. Welch, QA Supervisor TUGC0 (Construction)
J. Walters. TUGC0 Mechanical Engineer
~- K. Norman, TUGC0 Mechanical Engineer .
- J. Hite B&R Materials Engineer
_I, G. Purdy, B&R CPSES QA Manager .
- Denotes those present at May 10, 1985 exit interview.
- Denotes those present at June 10, 1985 exit interview.
The NRC inspectors also interviewed other applicant employees during this l
inspection period.
- 2. Plant Status Unit;l At the time of this inspection, construction of Unit I was 99 percent
-- complete. The fuel loading date for Unit 1 is pending the results of ongoing NRC reviews. j Unit 2 At the time of this inspection, construction of Unit 2 was approximately 74 percent complete. Fuel loading is scheduled for approximately 18 l
months after Unit 1 fuel loading.
- 3. Applicant Action on Previous NRC Inspection Findings
- a. (Closed) Unresolved Item 445/8440-02: Potential Problem with Potential Transformer Tiltout Subassemblies. l By letter dated June 15, 1983 Transamerica Delaval notified the applicant of an RTE - Delta 10 CFR Part 21 report to the NRC reporting a potential problem with the primary disconnect clips of the potential transformer tiltout assembly used in the emergency '
1 . diesel generator control panels at CPSES. The Transamerica Delaval 1
i
-4 I
letter also provided instructions for correcting the problem. !
However, the NRC inspector could not determine if the problem had l been corrected at CPSES and made this an unresolved ites; 'The applicant determined that the problem had not been corrected and subsequently performed the recommended corrective action. The Unit 1 ,
corrective action work activities were documented on startup work !
permits 2-2912 (train A) and Z-2914 (train B). The Unit 2 work i activities are being tracked as master data base (MDB) item 3003-31. l The failure to promptly correct this identified problem is an I apparent violation ;445/8507-01; 446/8505-01).
- b. (Closed) Unresolved Item 445/8416-03: Commercial Grout Used in Lieu of class T concrete The applicant determined that the use of nonshrink commercial grout in lieu of the Class "E" concrete sp'ecified on drawing 2323-51-0550
- . was acceptable. Design Change Authorization 21179 was issued to drawing 2323-S1-0550 accepting the use of the commercial non-shrink ~
> grout. However, the failure to grout with Class *E' concrete as
- specified on the drawing at the time the work was accomplished is an apparent violation (445/8507-02).
- c. (Closed) Unresolved Item 445/8416-04: Hydrogen Recombiners -
Out-of-5 specification Voltage Recorded on Westinghouse Quality Release Document Quality Release N-41424 was revised by Westinghouse changing the.
specified voltage from 10+-2V to 12+-2Y Which put the questionable voltage within specification limits. However, the failure of receipt inspection to verify that the QRN-41424 was filled out accurately as required by Prncedure QI-QAP7.2-8 'is an apparent violation
, , , _ (445/8507-03).
- d. (0 pen) Unresolved Item 445/8432-06: 446/8411-06: Lobbin Report Described Site surveillance Program Weaknesses During this raporting period the NRC inspector reviewed the status of this open item several times and interviewed TUEC management and site surveillance personnel. The Lobbin report stated that the scope and objectives of the site surveillance program were unclear, lacking both purpose and direction.
There is no specific regulatory requirement to have a surveillance program; however, TUEC committed to have a surveillance program and has established procedures to implement such a program as a part of 1 the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, QA program. This extra effort is a .
strength; however, the NRC inspector. also observed, as did the Lobbin J Report, that the surveillance program lacks both purpose and direction to be effective and complimentary to the audit and wemm e.ms.- - - - - -
-m.a.. .a a,m-- ....---.s ...am-m.m.a._s-.- -
u . .- . .--i.-- .,.~ . .
inspection programs. Since the TUEC audit group is not ly' cated on site, the TUEC surveillance program on site takes on added
- significance.
This item was discussed with the TUEC site QC manager who described a reorganized site surveillance function and changes that have occurred. New procedures which describe this organization's duties and responsibilities are forthcoming.
TUEC has elected to defer responding to the violations' pertaining to the audit function in NRC Inspection Report 445/84-32; 446/84-11, but rather to have the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) respond to this report and other QA matters. The surveillance issue is closely tied to the audit deficiencies in NRC Inspection Report No. 445/84-32; 446/84-11. This item will remain open pending the mytew and imple-mentation of the CPRT action plan. A special point of interest will
- - be how audits and surveillance work together to evaluate the control -
of all safety-related activities on site to assure quality, especially the overview of quality control effectiveness.
- 4. Document Inspection of Site Dams The NRC inspector reviewed documents describing the inspection activities p(erformed SSI) for impounding on thecooling Squaw Creek water for theDam two units (SCD) and the at CPSES. Thesafe shutdown im purpose of the SCD is to impound a cooling lake for CPSES. A secondary reservoir (SSI) is formed by a channel connecting the SCD impoundment to the SSI.
Three documented inspections have been performed since 1980. The inspections were:
~ ~
I a. Relevant data for SCD is contained in Phase ! Inspection. National Dam Safety Program Squaw Creek Dam, Somervell County, Texas. Brazos l
River Basin, inspection by Texas Department of Water Resources. Date of Inspection: June 10, 1980.
- b. Inspection on August 25,1982, by registered professional engsneers f from Mason-Johnston & Associates, Inc., and Freese & Nichols, Inc.
- c. Inspection on September 19, 1984, by a registered professional engineer from Mason-Johnston & Associates. Inc.
The inspection activities consisted of visual inspections by 1Aspection teams that included accompanying Texas Utilities Service Inc. (TUSI),. ,
and Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCD) representative 0s. J Photographs were taken as a part of the documentation. The data for the
\ ,
I I
t
i piezometer observations and the data for the surface referencp monuments were reviewed by applicant personnel and Mason-Johnston engineers. i No items of significance were observed or reported by these inspection .
teams. Slight erosion areas were observed and reported. A cracked area on the service spillway upstream right bridge seat was observed by the inspection teams and continued monitoring of this area was reconnended by Mason-Johnston and Associates. No signs of cracks, settlements, or horizontal movement at any location within the SCD or the SSI were .
reported. j The NRC inspector reviewed the applicant's records and the Mason-Johnston inspection reports. These documents indicated that the SCD and SSI were structurally stable and that the applicant was performing inspection activities to maintain the structural integrity of these dams.
The state of Texas requires periodic inspections of these dams j (principally the SCD) due to inhabited dwellings downstream. The j applicant has met these inspection requirements. -
j
. 4 i No violations or deviations were identified.
l S. Voids Behind the Stainless Steel Cavity Liner in Unit 2 Reactor Bu11dino l In review of previous related TRT concerns, the NRC inspector reviewed applicant records, including NCR C-82-D12D2; WCR C-1784, Rev.1; NCR C-1784, Rev.1; NCR Rev.C-1824 2; NCRRev.
C-1766, Rev.1; NCR 2; Significant C 1791',
Deficiency Rev.1;Report Analysis NCR C-1824,(SDAR)
- 26, dated December 12,1979; DCA-20856; and Gibbs and Hill Specification 2323-5S-18. The review of records and documentation and discussions with various applicant personnel indicated the following:
Structural concrete was placed in Unit 2 reactor building at elevation 819 feet 6-3/4 inches to 846 feet 6 inches on June 21, 1979. This concrete was placed adjacent to the stainless steel liner
- - wall s. The concrete forms for this pour were not removed until October 1979.due to subsequent concrete placements for the walls to elevation 860 feet D inches. When the forms were removed, hone and voids were observed by applicant personnel. The applicant'ycombs s review of the extent of unconsolidated concrete resulted in the issuance of SDAR-26 on' December 12, 1979. Investigations were begun and Meunow and Associates (M&A) of Charlotte, North Carolina, were contracted to perform nondestructive testing on in-place concrete.
M&A performed these tests on a two foot grid pattern on the compartment and liner sides of all four steam generat6r (SG) compartment walls. The selected test locations did not include the locations where the voids were later found to be located.
l l
l
f In August 1982, preparations were made to pour the conen,ete annulus around the reactor vessel. When the expanded metal forsavork was removed from the reactor side of the compartment walls, yoids were observed and NCR C-82-01202 was prepared. DCA 20856 was prepared as )
a procedure to repair the void area. DCA 20856 indicated that the !
voids were not extensive (a surface area of about 28 square feet by 8 )
inches maximum depth) and that the repair procedure assured that the '
total extent of voids had been identified. One half (0.5) of a cubic yard of concrete was ustd to complete the repairs as indicated on grout pour card 261.
The applicant's review and evaluation of the gird pattern and a comparison of SG compartments 2 and 3 to 1 and 4 indicated that voids did not exist in 56 compartments 2 and 3. The review of test girds extended down to elevation 834 feet, which is the floor elevation of the liner. The liner walls of SG compartments 1 and 4 were not tested at elevation 834 feet, but at elevation 836 feet which is above the area of the identified void % No testing was done on the.
'.' liner side of the area of the voids below elevation 836 feet. The-program also included removal of 2 inch x 2 inch plugs from the stainless steel liner at locations where test indications raised questions concerning the concrete. The inspections of the concrete by applicant personnel after the plugs were removed confirmed that therewerenoadditionalunconsolidatedconcreteareas(voids).
In accordance with OCA 20856, the applicant removed stainless steel liner plates from three areas (one area about 1 foot by 1 1/2 feet and two areas about 3 feet by 1 foot, excavated or chipped to sound concrete, and cleaned the concrete surface area. One and one-quarter
- inch (11/4) diameter probe holes and grout access holes were drilled I in the liner plates to determine the extent of and to assure full
! definition of the void area. Air access holes were drilled in the I - -- - stainless steel liner plates to assure that grouting would be accomplished in accordance with the procedure.
The procedure (DCA-20856) specifed that the grout was to be cured for 28 days or until the grout reached a compressive strength of 4000 psi. Repairs to the liner plates were specified in DCA-20856 and G&H {
Procedure 2323-55-18. j
, DCA-20856 required that under no circumstances was cutting of the liner across weld seams, across embedded weld plates, or into leak l chase seal welds or drilling through the liner at leak chase channels, embeds, or weld seams permitted. Documentation review indicated that DCA-20856 was adhered to and that no cutting or i drilling occurred in prohibited locations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l r . ,,.-._..,_-,,,-.-,,..,..--,.-m.~,-.. _ . - ,
- 6. Nondestructive Testing Observations of Liner Plates in Fuel Vansfer C;rel The NRC inspector observed portions of non-Q liquid penetrant examinations (PT) being performed on liner plate welds following re-installation of the liner plates in the areas of the fuel transfer canal removed for inspection and repair of the concrete. The inspector perfomed the PT on .
the welds as required by the repair package and the procedure !
(QI-QP-11.18-1, " Liquid Penetrant Examination"). Scattered weld porosity was identified by the inspection. The porosity was ground out and a repeat PT was perfomed. The final inspection is scheduled to be perfomed by QC inspection personnel. The liner plate areas to be inspected by PT were identified in DCA 20856. ,
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 7. Cadweld Splice Observations and Records
~ ~
- a. Calibration of Tensile Tester -
I The NRC inspector observed the calibration of the Tinus-Olson Universal Testing Machine (Model Number 600-12 Identification Number !
M&TE-784) on April 2 and May 7, 1985. The machine was calibrated !
just prior to perfoming tensile testing of cadweld splices and 4 subsequent to completion of tensile testing each day that tensile testing was performed. The machine calibration date for April 2, 1985, prior to start of tensile testing was observed by the NRC inspector and recorded as follows:
Nominal load Calibration Reading Error Error' Remarks (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 5 0 0 0 0 0 machine on 4/2/85 100,000 99,750 +250 +0.25 200,000 199,600 +400 +0.2 300,00 299.450 +550 +0.18 350,000 350,300 -300 -0.08 400,000 401.200 -1200 -0.03 500,000 501,350 -1350 -0.27 4 600,000 602.450 -2450 -0.40 l The NRC inspector reviewed calibration data for March 4, March 8, April 2. April 3. April 30, and May 7,1985. All calibration data met within the +/- 15 accuracy requirement specified by Calibration Procedure 35-1195-IEI-37. Revision 3. dated March 11, 1982. The reference standards were identified as follows: .
- Sedide +p 4=aBWittq'=y th y N >$ 548=m4W ste- Sh unneta+g$.tgrpsee-gp*hDy shM 9pesame gm> y qpap ei p gap eng ,,ap + sy-- .g w r ge N9 emagym,*p-s .ge- asN e*=em,,p y wp i eep--i g - e st+==4 ge.eu wm e-p+g-**eydamp, e g p- -me e
ID No. Manufacturer Calibration Due Date .[
RS-75 BLH~ Electronics January 27, 1987 RS-75.3 :BLH Electronics January 27, 1987
- b. Observation of Cadweld Splice Tensile-Testing (1) Qualification Tensile Testine i
On April 2,1985, the NRC inspector observed the following
' tensile testing of cadweld splices for cadwelder qualification:
EBD 08 GBH Q1, GBH Q2, G8V Q1, BFD Q4, BFD Q3, BFH Q4, GAH Q1, GAV Q1, and GBV Q2.
Each of the above qualification cadweld splices was tensile tested to 400,000 pounds (100,000 psi) and met the requirements
- stated in the procedure. ,
S (2) Production Tensile Testina ,
The NRC inspector observed the tensile tester calibrations and the following production cadweld splices tensile testing on May 7. 1985: FXD 3P, FYD 4P, FYD 8P, FAD 87P, and FUD 6P.
f Each of the above production cadweld splices was tested to '
l 400,000 pounds (100,000 psi)and met the requirements stated in the procedure.
(3) Installation of Production Cadweld Sp11ces The NRC inspector observed installation of rebar and cadweld splices at frequent intervals (five or morit observations per week during the weeks of April 8 and 15; May 6,13, 20 and 27; .
and June 3, 1985). The rebar installation for the Unit 2 !
l closure was performed in the area identified as elevation 805
! feet to elevation 875 feet and azimuth 300 degrees to 335-degrees. The installation activities observed included rebar spacing, location of cadwelds, observation of selection and removal for testing of cadweld splices for testing, and determination of location of rebars and cadwelds for the as-built drawings.
(4) Documentation Reviewed The NRC inspector reviewed the following documentation for the rebar placement and cadwelding for the Unit 2 containment 1 (reactor building) closure area:- H L_ _=_ __ n = = _= = - -_ _ ~ _____ _ -. _ x_-m >
-_- .. .-m-----
1
-1 Drawings DCAs NCRs $
2323-5-0785, Rev.7 22616, Rev. 1 C85-206294 )
2323-S-0786, Rev.9 22728 C85-200339, Rev.1 '
2323-51-500, Rev.5 22737 C85-200355, Rev.1 2323-51-506, Rev.5 22836 2323-S2-505, Rev.5 22878 (Sheets 1-7) 2323-52-508, Rev.2 22772 2323-52-506, Rev.3 No violations or deviations were identified.
- 8. Concrete Batch plant Inspection. Unit I and 2 The NRC inspector inspected the concrete production facilities for the following specific characteristics for the following areas: (1) material storage and handling of cement, aggregate, water and admixture, (2) batching equipment scales, weighing systems, admixture dispenser, and recorders, l (3) central mixer (not applicable because it had been dismantled).
(4) ticketing system, and (5) delivery system.
The current batching is a manual operation since almost all concrete has been placed. The central mixer was dismantled and removed from site two or three years ago when concrete placement was virtually completed.
Presently, the backup batch plant (which was a backup system for the central mixer) is in operation to complete the remaining concrete placements. This batch plant is in good condition and complied with the subject checklist except for one area.
The WRC inspector inspected the inside of one of three trucks used for mixing concrete (that is, the batch plant dispenses the correct weight of
. materials as required by the specific design six numbers and the truck
- then mixes the batch to be placed.) The blades inside the truck are {
subject to wear and should be checked at a reasonable frequency. The Brown & Root (BAR) representative responsible for checking the blades in accordance with BAR Procedure 35-1195-CCP-10 Revision 5, dated December 4,1978, was asked for evidence that the blades had been checked for wear on a quarterly basis as required by procedures and it was found that there was no record of such checks dating back to 1977 when they were initially checked.
In the FSAR Volume V, Section 3.8.1.2.3, the applicant commits to ACI 304-73. In ACI 304, the maintenance of mixer blades is required.
Procedure CCP-10, paragraph 3,10 " Truck Mixing," is silent on blade wear but Section 3.11 infers that the blades should be checked for both central and truck mixing. The inspection of both central and truck mixing blades -
I 1
n_--_n_==-=_==_n-=__ _ _ _ _ = - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ , -
i-was not documented, although the B&R representative stated that the mixing blades were periodically inspected and laboratory testing wouid have probably indicated if there was a problem with the mixing blades.
Strength and uniformity tests have consistently been within the acceptable range indicating that concrete production was acceptable even though mixing blade inspection was not documented.
Otherwise, the condition of the inside of the truck was satisfactory as the drum and charging / discharging were clean. The water gage and drum counter were in good condition.
This failure to follow procedures is a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V. Subsequent to the identification of this violation, the blades were checked for wear and blade wear was presently within allowable limits (445/8507-04; 446/8505-02).
No other violations or deviations were identified.
3 9. Calibration Laboratory for Batch Plant Unit 1 and 2 The NRC inspector obtained batch plant st: ale numbers from tags which indicated that the scales had been calibrated and were within the calibration frequency. Cement (MTE 779), Water (MTE 766), admixture scale (MTE 764), and aggregate (MTE 780) were reviewed. The scales had been periodically calibrated since the batch plant was activated. The records were adequate except as follows: ;
- a. Scales MTE 766 records do not differentiate between the required accuracy of the scale and the digital readout.
- b. Scales MTE 779 and 780 records show various accuracy ranges for the same scale; 1.e., MTE 779 (SN749687) records the following: report
- -- dated January 1976 gives 15; report dated July 1976 gives 15 while the report dated October 1976 gives +/- 0.25.
the above items are unre-The solvedcalibration appeared pending further to be review proper, of the applicant however,s actions regarding the correction of these records (445/8507-0i; 446/8505-03).
- c. Records for scales MTE 779 records contained BAR memo IM-1108 dated July 16,1975, which described a nonconforming condition. This condi-tion affected the water and cement scales causing a 24-48 pound deviation (7,000 pound scale) during the calibration test. The memo stated that the condition was corrected and the scales were .then calibrated; however, no deficienc report was written as required by B&R Procedure CP-QCP-1.3, { Tool and Equipment Calibration and Tool Control" dated July 14,1975, and CP-QAP-15.1, ' Field Control of Nonconforming Items," dated July 14, 1975. As a result there is no evidence that
-..- n =_-_n_n_,n_._ -____=a_.~.__..--..~-.-.~..
_- - ., - ~.. - . _ . - - .- . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . __ _:
corrective action included an evaluation to determine if{ concrete
- production was adversely affected. ,,
This failure to assure that a nonconforming condition was evaluated -
is a violation of Criterion XV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, (445/8507-06; 446/8505-04).
- 10. Concrete Laboratory Testing Units 1. and 2 TUGC0 Procedure QI-QP-11.1-1, Revision 6, was compared with ASME Section III, Division 2 Subsections 5222, 5223 and 5224 to assure that each ASTM testing requirement was incorporated into the procedure.
The NRC inspector inspected the testing laboratory equipment and found the test area and equipment were in good condition and each piece of equipment was tagged with a calibration sticker which showed it to be within the
. . required calibration frequency. Test personnel were knowledgeable of test ,
requirements and equipment.
- The NRC inspector witnessed field tests performed by laboratory personnel as follows: .
Date Truck No. Mix No. Ticket No. Air Content (5) Slump (in.)
Temp l'F )
925 64013 Reg 8.2-10.3 NA 70 max 6/3/85 RT-41 57 Mea 8.7-9.1 NA 128 64014 Reg 5.0-7.0 5 max 70 max 6/3/85 RT-35 6.25* 57 Mea 6.6
~
- Initial slump was high; however, after additional truck rotations the
~
slump was found acceptable.
The following laboratory equipment was checked and found to be within calibration: Forney Compression Tester, MTE 3031; Temperature Recorder MTE 3013 and 3014; Unit Volume Scale, MTE 1053; Pressure Meters MTE 3000B, 3002 and 3004; Sieves NTE 1286, 1239, 1272, 1274, 1136A, 1156, 1094, 1093, 1095,1178,1179,1300 and 1180; Aggregate scales, MET 1058 and 1067; and 2" grout sold MTE 1111.
The following test records for placement number 201-5805-034 were reviewed: (1) concrete placement inspection, (2) concrete placement sunnary and, (3) unit weight of fresh concrete.
No violations or deviations were identified. .
-___-~____-____?_'_I_TY_'?_?*$"?""??-'
- ~^*T~~ t 5'^'?
- -- *'"'*?"'""*~~-
- ~ " " ^ * ' ~
- 1 * "' ~
' * '~*"
i
- 11. Inspection of Level C and D Storage Unit I and 2 ,y The NRC inspector' inspected all laydown areas where piping, electrical conduit, cable, and structural reinforcing steel were stored. These materials were neatly stored outside on cribbing in well drained areas which allowed air circulation and avoided trapping water. This met the Level "D" storage requiremertr,et ANSI N45.2.2.
The electrical warehouse contained miscellaneous electrical hardware..
This building was required to be fire resistant, weathertight, and well ventilated in order to meet Level "C" storage requirements. This warehouse was well kept ar4 set all requirements except for a lock storage area located upstairs at the rear of this building (electrical termination tool room). Two minor problems were identified and the warehouse ,
personnel initiated action to correct them. l rade cement was marked The
" shelf first lifeproblem out of date" noted'was but it had that noahold boxtag.
of nuclear khe box was subsequent i
, tagged inaccordance with TUSCo nonconfomance Procedure CP-QAP-16.1, !
Revision 24 (Nonconfomance Report (NCR) E85-200453) after being identified by the NRC. During discussions with the warehouseman, the NRC determined l that engineering told the warehouseman to mark the asterial and lock it up, but did not tell him to apply an NCR or hold tag. Also, the NRC inspector noted a very small leak in the roof above the electrical temination tool room. This leak was in an area that did not expose hardware to moisture. !
The roof is currently being repaired. I The mi11 wright warehouse storage area was inspected; however, only a small j number of items or materials were stored in this area. The overall storage conditions in this area met or exceeded Level "C" storage requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
' 12. Reactor Pressure Vessel and Internals Installation - Unit 2-This inspection was perfomed by an NRC inspector to verify final placement of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and internals by examining the completed installation and inspection records.
- a. Requirements for Placement of RPV Requirements for placement of the RPV to ensure proper fit-up of all other major NSSS equipment are in Westinghouse Nuclear Services Division (WNSD) " Procedure for Setting of Major NSSS Components",
Revision 2, dated February 13, 1979, and " General Reactor Vessel Setting Procedure" Revision 2 dated August 30, 1974. The NRC
1 inspector reviewed the following drawings, which were PeNrenced in the RPV operation traveler, to verify implementation of WNSD recommendations:
o WNSD drawing 1210E59 " Standard - Loop Plant RV Support Hardware '
Details and Assembly" o WNSD drawing 1457F27 " Comanche Peak SES RCS Equipment Supports -
Reactor Vessel Supports" o CE drawing 10773-171-004 " General Arrangement Elevation" o CE drawing 10773-171-005 " General Arrangement Plan" Neither site prepared installation drawings nor specifications (which implementedtheWNSDrecommendedprocedures)wereavailableandthe drawings examined did not show certain specific installation .
3.
criterion such as centering tolerances, levelness tolerances and clearance between support brackets and support shoes.
The inspector considers this matter unresolved. (446/8505-05)
- b. Document Review The NRC inspector reviewed B&R Construction and Operation Traveler No. ME79-248-5500 which described the field instnsctions for installation of the Unit 2 RPV. Requirements recossended by WNSD procedures were implemented in the traveler. Worksheets attached to the traveler showed the RPV to be centered and leveled within the ,
established tolerances. Traveler operation 19 required verification I of a 0.020 to 0.005 inch clearance between the support bracket and support shoe, after applyin the shim plates. Change 5 subsequently changed the clearance to a .015 to .025 inch clearance. The 1 installation data reflected in attachment 3B of the traveler i '
indicated an as-built clearance of 0.012 to 0.026 inch which exceeds both the original and revised tolerances. This condition was accepted on the traveler based on Westinghouse concurrence, and there was no documented engineering evaluation onsite justifying the final tolerances. This matter is considered unresolved pending documentation validating the final installation tolerances. (446/8505-06) 1 The NRC inspector reviewed the following receiving records for the !
RPV hardware ar.d found them to be in order:
o Report No.14322 for 54 each closure studs, closure nuts, and closure washers a I'
o Report No. 09507 for vessel S/N 11713, Closure Head 11713 and 26 0-Rings 1
I o Deviationnoticesandcorrectiveactionstatementsi The NRC inspector reviewed the following completed travelers for internals installation and found them to be satisfactory:
o ME-84-4641-5500. " Assemble Upper Internals" ,
o ME-84-4503-4000. " Install and Adjust Roto Locks" o ME-81-2145-5500. "Retorque UI Column Extension" c RI-80-385-5500 " Transport and Install Lower Internals" ,
o ME-84-4617-5500. " Repair Lower Internals" o ME-84-4640-5500. " Assemble Lower Internals"
~ ~
~
. c. Visual Inspection
- At this time, visual inspection of the internals by the NRC inspector was not possible, and inspection was limited on the vessel placement to a walk-around beneath the vessel to inspect the azimuth markings and for construction debris between the vessel and cavity. No problems were identified in this area. q l
- d. Records of 0A Audits or surveillance
- The NRC inspector requested TUGC0 QA audits or surveillance performed by TUGC0 of the Unit 2 RPV installation. TUGC0 did not make available any documentation of an audit or surveillance which
, evaluated specified placement criteria, placement procedures,
._ . hardware placement, or as-built records. This item is unresolved .
pending a more comprehensive review of these activities !
- . (446/8505-07).
l No deviations were identified; however, two unresolved items were identified and are described in the above paragraphs. (ll.aandd)
- 13. Reactor Vessel Disorientation On February 20, 1979, the applicant reported to the NRC Resident Inspector that e design error had resulted in the reactor support structures being placed in the wrong position on the reactor support pedestal such that the reactor would be out of position by 45 degrees. Initially, Unit 2 was to be a mirror image of Unit 1, however, a design change was initiated to permit identical components for both units. The design change was .
implemented for the reactor vessel, but not for the pedestal support locations. The problem was not considered by the applicant to be
I l
reportable under provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) since thebrror could .
not have gone undetected. ..
The deficiency was reported to the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment on February 22, 1979 and during a March 27, 1979 meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, the applicant presented the proposed redesign and rework proce- J dures for relocating the pedestal supports. No unresolved safety concerns q with the repair were identified at the meeting.
i During this inspection the NRC inspector reviewed various documentation relative to the disorientation proolem, including design changes and the construction traveler which implemented the repair. l l
The following docunents were reviewed:
j o NRC Inspection Reports 50-446/79-03; 50-446/79-07; 50-446/79-13
~ ~
. l
. o TUSI Conference Memo, dated March 1, 1979. H. C. Schmidt to S.
Burwell (NRC Licensing PM) o TUGC0 letter TXX-2980, dated April 30, 1979, to W. C. Seidle o NRC 1etter to TUGC0 dated May 29, 1979 j
o DCA 3872. Revision 1. dated February 28, 1979
Subject:
Rework of Structure for Placement of the RPV Support Shoes o DCA 4122, dated March 22, 1979,
Subject:
Replacement of Rebar for RPV Supports
! c Construction Traveler CE79-018-5505, dated March 14, 1979
Subject:
- - Rework of Reactor No. 2 Cavity - New RPV Support Locations l
i
- o Grout Replacement Cards No. 007, 008, 009, 010, 014, and 015, various-dates.
Subject:
Replacement of Grout around Rebar for Repair of RPV Support Shoes o Various Inspection Reports for Grout Properties and Application for RPV Support Shoes No violations or deviations were identified.
- 14. Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary (RCPB) Systems .
The inspection was performed to verify: the applicants system for preparing, reviewing, and maintaining records for the RCPB piping and <
components; that selected records reflected compliance with NRC requirements and SAR comitments for manufacture, test and installation of
==e--_,=_======_=_ wxr-- -- - - , - , - - ,- .. . -- - --
1 1
i items; and as-built hardware was adequately marked and trace _a@e to j records. The following items were randomly selected and inspected:
- a. Pressurizer Safety Valve - This item was inspected to the commitment stated in F5AR, Table 5.2-1 which includes ASME Section III,1971 Edition through Winter 1972 Addenda. Valve S/N N56964-00 007, which ,
- is installed in the B position, was inspected. The following records '
l were reviewed:
o QA Receiving Inspection Report No. 21211 o Code Data Report Form NV-1 o Valve Body Certified Material Test Reports (CMTRs)
The valve was in place, however, installation had not'been completed; .
- - therefore, the hardware installation inspection consisted of 1 verifying that the item was traceable to the records.
~
]
- b. CVCS Spool Piece 301 - Requirements.for this item are stated in ASME,Section III,1974 Edition through Sununer 1974 Addenda, which is the j commitment from the FSAR, Table 5.2-1. The ites was field fabricated 1 from bulk piping and purchased elbows and installed in the CYCS with field welds ' number 1 and 6 (ref. BRP-CS-2-RB-076). The following records were reviewed:
o B&R Code Data Report o Field Weld Data Card o NDE Reports
~ ~
o QA Receiving Reports for piping and elbows o CMTRs The installed spool piece was inspected for weld quality and to verify that marking and traceability requirements had been met. The r itemhadbeenmarkedwiththespoolpiecenumber(3Q1)andtheB&R drawing number which provided traceability to the material certifications.
- c. Loop 3 RC Cold Leg - Requirements for this item are stated in ASME, t Section III,1974 Edition through Sumer 1974 Addenda, which is the comitment from the FSAR Table 5.2-1. This piping subassem6ly consists of a 27.5 inch cast pipe with.a 22 degree elbow on the '
( reactor end, a 10 inch 45 degree nozzle, a 3 inch nozzle, and three 2 T -_x' U " _ _ 'C f f
- _ *#~-.""MS"VI-"*'C
-- **'*TMf" ' 'MW L * * " ' " * "N"'**'*** **"9i**N**N* ' ' ' * * * * * ' * " " * * " ' ' '^ " "
- l l
1/2 inch thermowell installation bosses. Thefollowinghecordswere reviewed for the subassembly: ,
o QA Receiving Inspection Report No. 12389 l o Westinghouse Quality Release (QRN 47523) o Code Data Report Fom NPP-1 o 27 1/2 inch line CMTR o 3 inch nozzle CMTR o Field Weld Data Cards o NDE Reports
. (1) Sandusky Foundry and Machine Company test report for the cold ~
- leg pipe certifies that material meets requirements of ASME Section II,1974 editions through winter 1975. Southwest Fabrication and Welding Company code data report NPP-1 Form certified that the cold leg subassembly met requirements of ASME Section III, 1974 edition through winter 1975.
(2) The NRC inspector reviewed the procedures and hydro test data applicable to Unit 1 since Unit 2 hydro had not been completed.
Requirements for the tests were presented in Procedures i CP-QAP-12.2, " Inspection Procedure and Acceptance Criteria for l ASME Pressure Testing" and CP-QAP-12.1, "ASME Section III i Installation Verification, and N-5-Certification." Procedure CP-QAP-12.1 requires that 6 data package to be used in the test.
. . be prepared with the test boundary and the additional following data shown:
o Base metal defects in which filler material has been added. I and the depth of the base metal defect exceeds 3/8 inch or '
10% of the actual thickness, whichever is less, o Untested vendor performed piping circumferential welds.
o Approximate location and material identification and description for permanent pressure boundary attachment with applicable support number referenced.
o Weld history, which shall reflect weld removal and/or weld repair.
i
""':X'* "_T_ 'Ll.__2_
_ _ ** it' _'_T .T**i_
- "'?'^' ' " ' ' " * ~ ' ' " * ' ~ ' * ' ' * '
1 l
The completed hydro data package (PT-5501) for Unit 1, loop 3 l cold leg was reviewed for compliance with the abovi l requirements. Drawing No. BRP-RC-1-520-001 had beep.used to annotate the test boundary. A handwritten statement on the drawing indicated: "No major base metal repairs could be located" and "No hangers with weld attachments could be j located." Welds perfomed by the pipe subassembly. vendor, I including the 22 degree circumferential weld and the penetration 'l fittings had not been identified. The following items are unresolved pending further review to determine:
o If the statement "no major base metal repairs" was based on a visual inspection or on a review of vendor and site j inspection and repair records. j l
! o If the shop circumferential weld attaching the 22 degree '
elbow to the pipe assembly was inspected during the test.
.. o If welds for penetrations into pipe assembly were inspected since Procedure CP-QAP-12.1 does not require identification of such welds and they were not identified on the drawing.
l The above issues will remain unresolved pending further
~
evaluation by the applicant (445/8507-07; 446/8505-0g).
I
- d. Personnel Qualifications - personnel who had performed selected tasks ,
were identified during inspection of installation records. Training 1 and experience records for the personnel were reviewed to verify that l employee qualifications and maintenance of records were current and met requirements. Names or codes for five welders and two NDE examiners, who had perfomed tasks during installation of the items being inspected, were identified and their qualification records j
- - reviewed. There were no questions in this area of the inspection.
! ;- No violations or deviations were identified.
- 15. Special Plant Tours (Unit 1 and Unit 2) -
On May 23, 1985, the NRC inspector conducted a tour of selected areas of
. Unit I and Unit 2. The grou Technical Review Team (TRT) p consisted of one NRC inspector, two NRCrepre TUEC representatives. The TUEC representatives tagged each area where a deficiency was alleged. With the alleger's consent a tape recorder was also used to note locations and describe any alleged deficiencies. The allegers indicated that they had identified all deficiencies during the
..__.._.,.....,._.__,---._,_,_m.._._._. . . , _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . _
s tour and all other deficiencies that they had knowledge. ThekRCTRTis analyzing this infonnation and will decide what action, if any., .should be taken.
During this tour the NRC inspector independently identified a questionable ,
practice in that the top of the the pipe chase at the north end of room 80 '
in Unit 1, safeguards building had-two large stickers which stated that areas on the wall were reserved for pipe hangers GHH-SI-1-58-038-005 and R1(?)1-087-X11. These stickers were dated 1980. It was not evident whether hangers were missing or none were needed in these locations and the reserve tags were not removed. TUEC representatives were unable to answer the question issnediately. This item is unresolved pending further review during a subsequent inspection. (445/8507-08).
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 16. Routine Plant Tours (Units 1 and 2) .
~
At various times during the inspection period NRC inspectors conducted general tours of the reactor building, fuel building, safeguards building, electrical and control building, and the turbine building. During the tours, the NRC inspector observed housekeeping practices. preventive ;
maintenance on installed equipment, ongoing construction work, and i discussed various subjects with personnel engaged in work activities.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 17. Review of Part 21 and 10 CFR 50.55(e) Construction Reoorts Status The NRC inspector reviewed all reports issued to date to assure that NRC and TUEC status logs were complete and up to date. A total of 183 reports have been submitted to date. This inspection period one Part 21 report on ,
- -- Diesel Generator 011 Plugs and two 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports on the '
< ' Equipment Hatch Cover and SA106 Piping (light wall) were submitted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 18. Exit Interviews i
The NRC inspectors met with members of the TUEC staff (denoted in paragraph 1) on May 10 and June 10,1985. The scope and findings of the inspection were discussed. The applicant acknowledged the findings.
l l
M
_ L '_2 2 r "2 "'* T__ :!:r_* T"_'
- T2*-._ T*:!rT**"T!r_ _ -
_V~*7~* ?T*'" t'n M'*V"- ~T" ? ?? *'* ~
- t "' -'*~~~~-~~"".v'