IR 05000440/1978012

IE Inspec Repts 50-440/78-12 & 50-441/78-11 on 780822-24 During Which 3 Items of Noncompliance Were Noted:Procedures Re Erection of & Internal Cleanliness of Reactor Pressure Vessel Not Followed & Nonconforming Welds

ML20197C499
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	09/29/1978
From:	Gallagher E, Hayes D, Konklin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197C469	List: IR 05000440/1978012 ML20197C465 ML20197C480
References
50-440-78-12, NUDOCS 7811210112
Download: ML20197C499 (26)

Text

.

.

.

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

REGION III

Report No. 50-440/78-12; 50-441/78-11 Docket No. 50-440; 50-441 License No. CPPR-148; CPPR-149 Licensee: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, OH Inspection Conducted: August 22-24, 1978 Inspectors: J. E. Kon / /#f!?b

-

b

< tw> , A. et> < + n o{- -

. J. Ca 15gher 9 Wi!Y

'

,< 1 K. R. Na- u 9b J Jll.'i.< su % { ,

,.

.

1. T. Yin (August 23-24 only) '/ U '/ /7i

/

Accompanying Personnel: '. Hayes (August 24 only)

}\,t :=~

Approved By: yes,' Chi _

7'

Projects Section

, Inspection _ Summaryv Inspection on August 2_2__2h 1978 (Report No. 50-440/78-12g 50-441/78-11)

Areas Inspeg ed: Licensee corrective actions relative to previous items of noncompliance (Urits 1 and 2); structural concrete work activities and quality records (Units 1 and 2); structural steel work activities and quality records (Unit 1); reactor vessel installation activities (Unit 1); reactor vessel installation implementing procedures and quality

'

7 811210 //L

!

+,

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

. . . ..

-

.

.

.

records (Unit 1); ongoing construction activities (Units 1 and 2). This inspection involved a total of 76 onsite inspector-hours by four NRC-inspector Results: Of the six areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations

-

were THentified in four areas. Three items of noncompliance were identified in two areas (Infraction - failure to assure adequate implementation of procedures to maintain the internal cleanliness of'the Unit 1 reactor pressure vessel - Section IV, Paragraph 2.b; Infraction - failure to follow procedures relative to erection of the reactor pressure vessel - Section IV, ,

Paragraph 3.c; Inf raction - inadequate measures to assure that welding is performed in accordance with requirements - Section IV, Paragraph 5.c). ,

,

P Y

%

!

-

\

l l-2-

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

.

l

- l

.

l

. 1

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted 1 Principal Licensee Employees l

• G. W. Groscup, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Department E. Boals, General Supervisor, Construction j

• * A. Fitzpatrick, Construction Manager '

i

• M. Lastovka, CQS General Supervising Engineer P. P. Narducci, CQA Supervisor A. Bolesic, Receiving Quality Engineer E. Riley, Contracts Manager

• P. P. Martin, PQS General Supervising Engineer

• W. Mehaffey, Quality Engineering J. Keaveney, QA Engineer Other Personnel

• L. Gibson, Supervisor, Quality Administration (KEI)

• J. Kacer, CQC Supervisor (KEI)

• T. J. Arney, QA Site Coordinator (GA1)

• A. G. Maino, QA Program Manager (CAI)

• M. Wilcox, Senior Field QA Specialist (TECo)

• M. Pepp, Construction Quality Section (KEI)

R. E. Crofton, Construction Quality Assurance (GAI)

W. F. Ware, Construction QA (GAI)

J. J. Connelly, Construction QA (GAI)

M. Kritzer, QC Engineer (KEI)

M. Cohen, QC Engineer (KEI)

T. Westrom, QA Manager (Dick)

T. L. Ct t : 1c, QA hanager (Great Lakes)

A. C. Vt a Nyvenheim, Site Supervisor (UST)

B. Palmer, Administrative Assistant (UST)

J. Rushin, QA Manager (NECC)

T. Hesmond, QC Manager (NECC)

J. Staffiera, QA Manager (Newport News)

G. H. Self, Site Manager (Newport News)

R. Smith, QA Inspector (Newport' News)

W. Davis, QC Inspector (Newport News)

N. Land, QC Inspector (Newport News)

The inspectors also contacted other licensee and contractor employees, including members of the quality, technical, and engineering staff * Denotes those who attended the exit intervie ,

e e-3-

!

i

'

. -- . .-. - - .--

.

.

.

Licensee Act ion on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/77-07-03; 50-441/77-07-03) - Lack of cali-bration stickers on Pullman Power Products (PPP) electrode holding oven, and no temperature verification on PPP portable rod cans. The inspector inspected two PPP electrode holding ovens in use (Nos. 3 and 5) and The inspector observed that current calibration stickers are on the oven also reviewed the PPP Equipment Calibration Record Cards for electrode holding ovens Nos. 1-8, and verified that the calibrations of the holding ovens are curren In addition, the inspector observed the current cali-bration sticker on the standard thermometer used for calibration of the holding ovens, and reviewed the Certificate of Calibration, dated December 21, 1977, from Bacharach Instrument Company, which shows that the standard thermometer calibration is traceable to National Bureau of Standards Test No. 217205 dated November 25, 197 With regard to temperature verification on the portable rod cans, the inspector reviewed PPP Procedure VIII-3, dated May 8, 1978, Control of Welding Materials ( Field), and noted that Paragraph 8. 3.1 ( A) requires that portable rod cans be checked to ensure that they are plugged in and functioning at a minimum of 150 F. The inspector also observed the only two PPP portable rod cans in use at the time of the inspection on August 22, 1978, and observed that the rod cans were plugged in and war The PPP QA Manager stated that the temperature verification on the rod cans had been by hand to verify warmth to touch. On August 23 and 24, 1978, PPP committed, by letters to CEI, thatt Portable rod oven temperatures will be monitored by temperature indicating crayon to verify the minimum 150 F temperature, The portable rod ovens will be calibrated every three months, and calibration stickers will be attached to each oven, and Revisions will be made to PPP Procedure VIII-3 to reflect the above change This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-26; 50-441/78-01-26) - Inadequate requirements for Pullman to submit piping documents to GAI for approva Resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Iten 2 of the RIII Inmediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section 11.4 of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/78-02).

This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-27; 50-441/78-01-27) - Documents used.for installation of Safety Class 3 piping not being reviewed and

.

e-4-l~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

_

.

.

.

approved by GA Resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 1 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as dis-cussed and found to be adequate in Section II.2 of RIII Report (50-440/

78-03; 50-441/78-02). This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-06; 50-441/78-01-06) - Improper use of vibrators by Great Lakes not documented and corrected. The resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 5 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section IV.1.1.(2) of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/78-02). This item is considered to be resolve T'

(Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-11; 50-441/78-01-11) - Improper use of concrete vibrators by NECC not identified and corrected. The resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 5 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Sections _IV.1.g and IV.1.1.(2) of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/

78-02). This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-13; 50-441/78-01-13) - Use of con-crete with excessive slump by NECC not identified and corrected. Resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 5 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section IV.1.h of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/78-02). This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-03; 50-441/78-01-03) - Failure of CQC to document deficiencies in nonconformance reports. The licensee corrective action in this area was discussed in Section I.2.b of RIII Report (50-441/78-07; 50-441/78-06) and Section 1.2 of RIII Report (50-440/78-11; 50-441/78-10) and was found to be adequate. This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-04; 50-441/78-01-04) - Great Lakes not documenting storage deficiencies in nonconformance reports. The resolution of this item regarding the proper use of nonconformance reports is included in the resolution of Item 7 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section I.2.b of RIII Report (50-440/78-07; 50-441/78-06) and Section I.2 of RIII Report (50-440/78-11; 50-441/78-10). This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-20; 50-441/78-01-20) - Containers of coating materials in a Cannon storage area not identified with appro-priate quality tags. The resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 4 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section II.5 of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/78-02). This item is considered to be resolve .

.

-5-L -- ,_ - . _ . . _ - _ _ _,_ _, , _ _ _ , _

.

.

.

(Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-22; 50-441/78-01-22) - CEI audit checklists for Pullman and Cannon not completed in accordance with the audit checklist instructions. The resolution of this item is included in the resolut3-" of Items 1 (Pullman) and 4 (Cannon) of the RIII Immediate Actio' Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section II of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/78-02).

This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-05; 50-441/78-01-05) - Batching of concrete by National Mobile to a superseded design specification. The resolution of this item is contained in the resolutien of Item 6 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section I.2.c of RIII Report (50-440/78-07; 50-441/

78-06). This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-19; 50-441/78-01-19) - Inadequate receipt inspection requirements by Cannon for coating material The resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 4 of the RIIT Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section II.5.d of RIII-Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/

78-02). This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-28; 50-441/78-01-28) - Inadequate measures established by Pullman for control of design documents and procedures. The resolution of this noncompliance is included in the resolutions of Items 1 and 2 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Sections II.1 and 11.4 of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/78-02). This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-29; 50-441/78-01-29) - Inadequate Pullman procedures for pipe and component lifting and handling. The resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 1 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section II.1 of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/

78-02). This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-25; 50-441/78-01-25) - Lack of a Cannon internal project audit as required by the Cannon QA Progra Resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 4 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section 11.5 of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/

l 78-02). This item is considered to be resolve l (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-17; 50-441/78-01-17) - Cannon coating applicators qualification records not signed off as require Resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 4 of the

,

e-6-

. . . . , _ . _ _ . _ . . ,.- ~ . _ , - - , . _ , - - . _ . . . - ...-,_.,=....___.-,_-.-._,.m.,..,___,,,.-... ,.

.

.

.

RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section II.5 of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/78-02).

This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncor.pliance (50-440/78-02-18; 50-441/78-01-18) - Physical examination records of Cannon QC Manager not on file as require Resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 4 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section 11.5 of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/78-02). This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-06-01; 50-441/78-05-01) - Inadequate maintenance and storage of B-type cadwelds. The previous RIII Report (78-06; 78-05) noted that adequate maintenance conditions had not been maintained for approximately 684 B-type cadwelds installed in the Units 1 and 2 drywell During this inspection, the inspector verified that corrective action had been completed in Unit 1, in that the cadweld sleeves had been cleaned and dessicant paper replaced, and the cadwelds had been capped and taped to preclude further deterioration of the sleeve Unit 2 work was underway and scheduled to be complete by September 1, 197 Adequate corrective action has been taken. This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/77-07-05; 50-441/77-07-05) - Inadequate documentation of site storage inspection reports by National Engineering ,

Contractors Corporation and inadequate control of audit reports by Dick Corporatio The previous RIII Report (77-07) noted that weekly inspection logs prepared by NECC were not available and that Dick Corporation had an incomplete audit report checklist. During this inspection, the inspector received NECC current weekly storage inspection logs and verified that logs from August 17, 1977 through March 3, 1978 were completed adequately. Dick Corporation audit inspection reports No. 3 (August 31, 1977) and No. 4 (December 19, 1977) were reviewed and indicated that corrective action had been taken on the discrepancies note In both audit reports a complete audit c!ecklist was available. This iten is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/77-07-01; 50-441/77-07-01) - Inadequate corrective action taken on deviations noted in Great Lakes weekly storage inspection reports. Previous RIII report 77-07 noted that weekly storage inspection logs prepared by GLC which identified deviations did not provide a followup to the corrective action taken. During this inspec-tion, the inspector reviewed weekly storage inspection logs from August 14, 1977 through January 31, 1978 and noted that discrepancies identified in the reports had proper corrective action followu This item is considered to be resolve .

-7-l

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

I

.

Inadequate (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/77-07-04; 50-441/77-07-04) -The previous R storage report of embedded platedDuring on " hold."(77-07) indicated inadequate this inspection, the inspector determined to be on " hold" statu inspected the NECC atorage area of embedded plates that were on and required repair or rework.The items were properly identified and roped off in the to storagebe adequate.This yar item is considered to be resolve Inadequate (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/77-07-02; 50-441/77-07-02)The - previous storage of NECC embeds which were not supported on dunnag RIII report (77-07) identified embeds for HVAC duct work were notDuring this insp supported on dunnage in the storage area. inspector verified storage f mined that adequate corrective action has been taken in this area Thiso item supporting embedded items according to storage requirenent is considered to be resolve (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-440/78-03-06; 50-441/78-02-06) facilit KRMCA certification of National Mobile concrete batch plantnoted that the concrete batc (78-03; 78-02)

Previous report The inspector was not been recertified in accordance with NRMC time that the requirement During that inspection informed at that deleted from the concrete specification SP-1 f having an the inspector informed the licensee of the importance o During independent inspection of the batch plant facility by NRMCA.l Mobile this inspection, the inspector was informed that the Nationa 15, batch 197 plant had been reinspected and recertified by N of NRMCA was presented to the inspecto !

resolve Noncon-(Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item (50-440/77-06; 50-441/77-06) -Subject probl forming Safety Related Steel Embedment by the licensee was reported to RIII in accordance with 10 CFR 5 The resolution was reviewed by the inspector and was requirement See Section II, Paragraph 1 for detail considered adequat Lack of (Open) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-21; 50-441/78-01-21)The procedure-Calibration Procedure for Precision Weight Scele d by CE was issued by U.S. Testing Company and had not been approve See Section II, Paragraph 2 for detail Identi-(Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-15; 50-441/78-01-15)

Corrective measures -

fication and Control of Nonconforming Item considered 1 taken by National Engineering and Contracting Company were adequat Three unresolved items relative to the corrective actionsSee !

were identified by the inspecto I

.

,

,

-8-i '

-

- .

_

.

(Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-06-02; 50-441/78-05-02) - Reinforcing steel submerged in water and debris. Previous RIII Report (78-06; 78-05)

noted that 21 FHB caissons were observed with reinforcing steel submerged in water and debris. During this inspection, the inspector verified that i the subject caissons have been cleaned of debris and water, and that the reinforcing is being properly maintained. This item is considered to be resolve (Closed) Noncompliance (50-440/78-02-30; 50-441/78-01-30) - Inadequate criteria in the Manufacturing Surveillance Plan used by GAI at the Pullman fabrication shop. The resolution of this item is included in the resolution of Item 1 of the RIII Immediate Action Letter of February 8, 1978, as discussed and found to be adequate in Section I of RIII Report (50-440/78-03; 50-441/78-02). This item is considered to be resolve ,

e-9-

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

. . . .

e

.

SECTION I Prepared by J. E. Konk11n Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Projects Section Review of Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings The Region III inspectors reviewed the licenaee actions relative to the resolution of specific noncompliances and unresolved items which were identified in previous RIII inspection reports, and which were still in an open status prior to this inspection. The items reviewed, and the licensee actions relative to the resolution of each item, are discussed in the foregoing section of this repor . Observation of Construction Activities (Units 1 and 2)

The inspectors observed on-going work activities and equipment status in the Unit 1 and 2 containment buildings and auxiliary buildings, the intermediate building, the control complex, the fuel handling building, and the embedment and rebar storage area On August 23, 1978, the inspectors inspected the main rebar storage yards and the rebar field storage areas for Dick Corporation and Great Lakes. No deficiencies were noted in the main rebar storage Twenty yards or in the Dick Corporation field storage area unbundled and untagged Grade 60 rebars were observed in the Great Lakes field storage areas. The licensee and the Great Lakes QA Manager stated'that Wahib Steel, which had recently put the main rebar storage area in order,.is being contracted to take respon-sibility for the storage of rebar in the Great Lakes field storage areas, as well as for erection of the rebar for the Great Lakes concrete placement Previous RIII Report (50-440/78-04; 50-441/78-03) had cited a noncompliance (50-440/78-04-04; 50-441/78-03-07) regarding the improper storage of Grade 60 rebar. Since Wahib Steel had put the main rebar storage yards in good order and will be applying the same controls to the Great Lakes field storage areas, the inspector informed the licensee that a repeat item of noncom-pliance will not be cited against the Grade 60 rebar storage, but that the previous noncompliance, designated above, will be left open pending further review of the Great Lakes rebar storage in a subsequent inspectio ,

a m

- 10 -

,

, - , .. - ., ., ,w..~~-....-.., ., yn-,- , .... m n. w r. ..

,,e- >w, ...-..g. -

-r ...--*

a

. Embedment Inspection Progra _

,

Previous RI1I Report (50-440/78-11; 50-441/78-10) identified.an unresolved item (50-440/78-11-01; 50-441/76-10-01) regarding the resolution of the findings in CQC Audit Report No. 52, and com-pletion of the evaluation.of in-place embedments by CEI. During this inspection, the inspector reviewed, with the CQC Manager and the CQC Lead Inspector, the progress made to date in resolving the

' findings of Audit Report No. 52. Twelve Audit Action Requests (AAR's) had teen issued as a result of the audit, and covered a number of significant deficiencies in the embedment inspection program. Some of the findings have been resolved; for example, available documentation indicates that the embedment welds are traceable to the welders,.and that the welders are qualifie However, resolution of'all the AAR's generated as a result of the above audit will not be completed until early September 1978. The CQC Manager stated that completion of the evaluation of in-place embedments,,and transmittal of the evaluation to NRC is still planned fcr December 1, 1978. This unresolved item will be left open under the previous designation noted abov No items of noncompliance or deviations are identified in the  ;

above~ area .

.

o

- 11 -

,

-4,- = < - . . ...-.,s--, . . .,, ~1 ..m .-.a-,m,.- - - - , , - .e ev.,- . - , , ,e,.-, .,..e.- ~w ,,g.e. e , ,* w.. - , - - < . . - , , y y ,

.

I SECTION II Prepared by T'. Yin Reviewed by D. H. Danielsson, Chief Engineering Support Section 2 Followup on Licensee 50.55(e) Report on Nonconforming Safety Related Steel Embedments The subject problem was reported to RIII on June 29, 1977, and was reviewed by the inspector during a previous site visit (Report No /77-05 and 441/77-06). The problem was first identified by a PBI memorandum to CEI dated May 13, 1977, to request deletion of S1 requirements for the A36 steel. On June 1, 1977, CQA issued an AAR against PEI for the lack of materici documentation for the 44 On June 28, 1977, shipments of safcty related steel embed plate CQA requested CEI engineering department to evaluate the signif-icance of the proble On June 29, 1977, the CQC determined not to signof f the subject embeds and in ef fect stopped all placement of safety related steel embeds, and CQA informed RIII of the problem in accordance with 50.55(e) requirements. On July 1, 1977, CQA outlined steps to correct the problem. On July 8, 1977, CEI QA manager and CEI manager of Nuclear Engineering Departr.ent issued instructions to the project personnel and assigned a GAI Resident Inspector at the PBI fabrication shop. On July 11, 1977, a meeting

,

was held between CEI, GAI, and PBI management and material certiff-cation was requested.

'

The inspector reviewed nonconformance reports from July to October, 1977, which covered: (1) conditional release of the material for construction, (2) engineering waiver of the S-1 requirement, (3)

use of UT to check plate lamination, and (4) scrap material The inspector also reviewed PB1 subvendors' material test reports and letters of conformance dated July, 1977, through July, 197 Based on the results of the abeve review and the licensee' final l report to RIII dated August 7, 1978, this item was close !

U.S. Testing Company Calibration Procedures l l The lack of a calibration procedure for precision weight scales was identified as a noncompliance item (440/78-02-21; 441/78-01-21).

It was the inspector's concern that since the previous inspection, l

'

i

.

- 12 -

l l

l

\

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

.

February 3, 1978, to date, August 24, 1978, no calibration proce-dures had been approved for implementatio Upon further review of the matter, the inspector found that the licensee had requested detailed calibration pcocedures for all U.S. Testing Company equip-ment, including the weight scales. As a result, the scope of c orrective action had been significantly enlarged. Although the U.S. Testing Company (UST) Calibration Instructions (CI's) were transmitted to the site on February 17, 1978, March 27, 1978, April 21, 1978, and April 26, 1978, UST maintained that these CI's should not be subject to licensee approval. The licensee disagreed and rejected all CI's submitted. A CEI letter to UST dated June 21, 1978, formally requested that UST provide responses to the CEI review comments. Subsequently, many CI's were approved by CEI and documented in a memo dated August 10, 197 Procedure No. QCP-4, " Calibration Procedure for Laboratory Equipment in the On-Site Testing Laboratory," Rev. 4, was issued by -UST on July 27, 1978, and contained all the detailed equipment calibration instruction The licensee stated that procedure OAP-4 will be approved and implemented by September 1, 197 This item of noncom-pliance remains ope . Control of Nonconforming Items The lack of subject control was identified (440/78-02-15; 441/78-01-15)

as a noncompliance item against the National Engineering and Construction Co. (NECC). The inspector reviewed the revised NECC Procedure N QP 15.1, " Nonconforming Report Control," Rev. 5, dated May 1, 1978, and considered it to be adequat This item of noncompliance is close In review of the Nonconforming Reports (NR's), the inspector noted that 12 NR's were written f rom Fay to August, 1978, and most of them were not considered significan The inspector stated that a pro-cedure should be written by the engineers to allow repair of the small concrete honeycombs and voids without writing up a NR. The licensee responded that an engineering evaluation will be performed in determining the criteria and parameter In repair of large concrete placement voids, a bonding agent, Sika-bond, was applied to the surface of the patched areas in lieu of the ACI 201 mortar methods. Although the use of Sika-bond is a significant improvement compared with the use of mortar, the procurement and application procedure had not been controlled and initiate This is considered to be an unresolved matter. (440/

78-12-01; 441/78-11-01)

,

- 13 -

. . . . . .

. . -

,

,

.

$

After the concrete voids had been repaired, compound,' Symond Magic Kote Cure and Seal, was used to retain concrete moisture. The material was in accordance with ASTM C309-74, and work was done in accordance with NECC Construction'and Operation Procedure No. COP 10.1, " Concrete Placement " Rev. 7, dated October 28, 1977. S6L

_ Specification No. SP-201-4549-00, Rev. 5, dated August 25, 1977, trequires that, . . . " documentation that the liquid membrane forming compound fulfills the requirements of this specification shall be furnished to the Site Organization (S0)." At the time of this inspection NECC did not have a procedure to implement the above requirement, and as a result, SO Field Ouestion forms are used. This is considered to be an unresolved item. (440/78-12-02; 441/78-11-02)

As stated above, the Field Questions (FQ's) are used to transmit material certifications. Although training was provided to the contractors on how to use S0 issued Field Questions, Field Variance Authorizations, and Engineering Change Notices, specific procedures, such as S0 Procedure 3-2, " Field Question Procedure, Rev. 1, dated October 18, 1977, had not been issued to the contractors for us This is considered to be an unresolved item. (440/78-12-03;.441/78-11-03)

,

.a a

- 14 -

.

- .. . . ,- - . , , -. . . - . . - . . . -. . - - - .-. , . . . .

'

.

SECTION III Prt,ared by E. J. Gallagher Reviewed by R. L. Spessard, Chief Engineering Support Section 1 Observation of Containment' Concrete Work Activities (Unit 1_l The inspector observed work activities being performed on contain-ment' concrete placement No. RBI-7C (Unit 1) located between 600 to The following specific 2670 azimuth between elevations 678' to 694'.

observations were made: Placement Preparation - Placement preparation work was underway during the course of this inspection. The previous placement had been curtailed due to severe weather. A one-third key, 1 1/2 inches deep, was being prepared by chipping hammers; consequently the placement was delayed and did not begin during this inspectio (1) Steel jump forms for.the containment buildings were secured, and were tight and clean of debri (2) Reinforcing steel and embedments were properly placed and were at the specified distance from the form (3) Site QC had verified rebar size, placement tolerances, rebar location, and reinforced lap splice (4) Construction joint was being prepared in accordance with concrete specification SP-201, Section 1:0 Delivery and Placement of Concrete - The placement had not begun while the inspector was on site due to delays in pre-paring the construction join (1) The concrete mix specified for the placement was mix No. 041 or 3000 psi compressive strength design mi (2) Piping material for pumping the concrete was steel pipelin (3) Temperature control for the hot weather concreting was to be by the addition of ice into the concrete mi .

e r

- 15 -

. .. -

.

.

(4) U.S. Testing Labs were notified to perform the required slump, temperature, unit weight and air content tests during the placemen Test equipment was se Curing - The construction joints were to be water cured with wet burlap in accordance with the concrete specificatio Reinforcing Steel Splices - This placement did not include cadweld splices but instead utilized lap splices since the reinforcing steel'was less than No. 18 ars. The lap' splices inspected on the No. 11 bars were in ace dance with ACl 318-71, Chapter 7, reinforcing steel details, Aggregate and Cement Storage (1) Aggregate Storage - NationL1 Mobile has documented in nonconformance eport Nos. 143-67 and 143-68 that the aggregates delivered to the site did not meet aggregate gradation requirement Consequently the material, in part, in storage was rejected. Work was underway to remove and segregate the unacceptable material. Storage conditions of the accepted material were adequat ,

(2) Cement Storage - The cement was sealed in closed storage silos in acceptable condition Batch Plant Operations - The National Mobile Batch Plant for concrete production had been recertified on August 15, 1978, in accordance with the National Ready Mix Concrete Association (NRMCA). A letter from the consulting engineers, who performed the-inspection using the-NRMCA checklist, was reviewed by the inspecto (1) Scale Calibrations (a) Aggregate scales calibrated on August 21, 197 (b) Cement scales calibrated on August 22, 197 (c) Water scales calibrated on August 22, 197 (d) Admixture dispensers (air entraining and water reducing) were calibrated on June 9, 197 No items of noncompliance were identified in the areas inspecte . Review of Quality Records for Containment Concrete (Units 1 and 2)

The inspector reviewed selected quality records associated with con-tainment' concrete work activities. The following specific items were reviewe ,

e n

- 16 -

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

. l

'

l a. Concrete Material Records l (1) Cement test reports for Medusa Type II cement from silo l No. 12 (July 5, 1978), silo No. 26 (June 20,1978) and I silo No. 13 (May 17, 1978) were reviewed and found to !

meet the physical and chemical requirements of ASTM C-150, Standard Specification for Portland Cemen (2) Water quality records were available for January through May of 1975. Chloride ion content ranged from 40 to 54 ppm during this time, which met the Gilbert Associates concrete specification requirement of maximum 250 pp No further water quality records were available because the specification does not require subsequent tests on the Ohio water suppl The. inspector informed the licensee that the current Corporate Quality Assurance Manual in Appendix I commits to ANSI N45.2.5 which requires water quality tests to be performed every six months. Licensee intends to re-evaluate test frequency requirements to comply with ANSI N45.2. This matter will be reviewed during subsequent inspections in accord-ance with the routine inspection program requirement (3) Aggregate gradation reports attached to National Mobile NP's No. 143-68 and 143-67 indicated the aggregate recently delivered to the site did not meet the specification requirements for gradation or wash loss. National Mobile rejected a portion of the supply and reworked a pot tion by washing the aggregate. Retests confirmed that the material then met the gradation requirement (4) The inspector reviewed quality control charts for concrete qualit Records indicate that between May 4, 1978 and June 15, 1978 the average concrete strength was 4919 psi (3000 psi required) with a coefficient of variation of 4.6%. Between April 11, 1978 and May 3, 1978 the average strength was 5164 pai with a coefficient of variation of 8 .16*/. . ACI 214, Table 2, Standards of Concrete Control rates concrete with coef ficients of viriation below 107 as being excellent for constructio The inspector reviewed Audit Report No. 54 dated February 22, 1978, of U.S. Testing Laboratory. The audit performed used the NRC's standard revieu plan, Section 17.1, as a general guideline to verify compliance with the applicable 18 criteria of 10 CFR 50, Appendix The deficiencies reported in the audit report were

.

.

- 17 -

...

.

corrected or documented through Audit Action Requests (AAR). The followup of the AAR's No. 01'through 05 were reviewed by the inspector, and the responses were found to be acceptabl Reinforcing Steel Materials - Quality records of Bethlehem steel reinforcing bar, Heat Nos. 217B107 (No. 18 bars),

207A544 (No. 14 bars), 219W145 (No. 11 bars) and 209B989 (No. 9 bars) were reviewed and found to reet the physical and chemical requirements of ASTM A61-5-72 standard specifi-cation for steel bars for concrete reinforcemen All steel supplied was Grade 6 U.S. Testing Laboratory (1) Equipment Calibration - The following lab equipment was inspected for calibration contro (a) Air meter No. AM-12 (b) Unit weight bucket No. UW-6 (c) Field scale No. 17 (d) Slump cone No. 15 (e) Thermometers Nos. 82, 66 and 79 The above equipment was found to be currently calibrate (2) Technician Training and Qualification Records - Three lavel I U.S. Testing technicians were available at the containment concrete placement RBI-7 The inspector ,

reviewed the three Level I technicians' training and qualifications and found them to be in accordance with U.S. Testing Qualification Procedure TQ- (3) _ Placement Records - The technicians at the concrete placement had instructions to perform the following concrete tests at the point of concrete placement:

(a) Concrete rampling ASTM C-172-71 (b) Slump tests ASIN C-143-71 (c) Air content ASTM C-231-72T (d) Concrete test cylinders using ASTM C-31-09 The above tests are in accordance with the testing requirements of concrete specification SP-1 Dick Co_rporation Placement Records - The inspector reviewed the placement records for containment placement No. RBI-7C

,

-

- 18 -

u , _ . . _ _ _ _

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

- _ - _ _ - _ - _ -

. ,

between azimuths 60 0 to 267 from elevation 678' to 694'.

d The preplacement An inspection checklist was complete pour card referenced applicable no for inspectors to us tolerances, location, splices including reinforcing size, Nonconformance and report, cleanliness, embedded items and plates. Dick NR No. 090, regat l was reviewed by the inspector and found to be acceptabl No items of noncompliance were identified in the areaa inspecte l l l

)

.

.

- 19 - l

.

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

.

SECTION IV Prepared by K. R. Naidu Reviewed by D. H. Danielson Chief Engineering Support Section 2 Review of Reactor Vessel Installation Quality Assurance Implementing Procedures (Unit 1) Newport News Industrial Corporation (NNI) established a Manu-facturing Installation Instruction (MII) No. 1240-NC-1005 to cover pertinent installation inspection activities such as vessel placement, leveling and final adjustment to implement the' relevant General Electric requirements. The licensee was unable to provide information as to whether this instruction was approved by the licensee, as required in the applicable specification SP-38, paragraph 5.05.4, which in part, states,

"The detailed erection procedures shall be submitted to the site organization for review, record, and approval at least four weeks prior to the commencement of erection unless other-wise _specified." This matter is considered an item of noncom-pliance contrary to the requirements of Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and is discussed further in paragraph Inspection activities outlined in MII 1240-NC-1005 met estab-lished GE pro adures. Recordkeeping activities included provisions for signoffs by the CEI CQC representatives, the NNI QA, and construction representative Review of installation records up to the point of vessel alignment reflect the actual installation condition One item of noncompliance was identified in the above area (See paragraph 3.c) Observation of Reactor Vessel Installation Vork Activities (Unit 1) The inspector reviewed NNI procedure 1240-N-S005, Revision B, titled " Clean Area Access control" dated July 31, 1978, approved by CEI letter PY-S/ Con 767 QA dated August 10, 1978, established for the purpose of controlling entrance into the RPV, and determined that the procedure reflected the GE require-ments to control entry of authorized tools, equipment and personnel. The inspector observed that the procedure was ade-quately implemented relative to entry into the vesse .

.

a

- 20 -

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

____ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

l The inspector accompanied by one representative each of KNI and CEI entered the vessel on August 22, 1978, and observed that the f

' internal cleanliness of the vessel was contrary to the GE require-ments stated in procedure 22A253 Foreign particles collected inside the vessel included insects, pieces of magnetic and non-magnetic steel, fragments of paper towels, molding sand, white paint, and cotton fibre' tape. A crosswire benchmark on the upper inner surface of the shroud support cylinder, a require-ment stated in Note 1 on GE drawing 762E444 titled " Assembly Vessel and Components," had not been installed. NCR-6 identifies that when the bottom skirt of the RPV was removed, NNI inspectors found that the CRDM housings had not been capped and in addition, found sheet metal screws, cigarette butts, metal shavings and other debris. The presence of this material is contrary to the requirements of Section 6 of the GE specification 22A2537, titled

" Field Cleaning and Cleanliness of Nuclear Power Plant Componerts."

The inspector informed the licensee that the internal clean-liness of the RPV did not meet Class B cleanliness requirements and that this condition was contrary to the requirements of Criterion XIII of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and the licensee's Corporate Nucicar Quality Assurance Program, Section 1300, paragraph 1.3.1. This is an item of noncompliance in Appendix (440/78-12-04) The inspector observed activities relative to the RPV alignmen Readings taken by three separate individuals indicate that the alignment of the vessel was offset an average of 0.048" in the

"X"-direction; maximum permissible was 0.025." The final dis-position of the alignment will be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio This matter is considered unresolved. (440/78-12-05)

Except as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-fled in the above area . Review of Reactor Pressure Vessel Installation Ouality Records j (Unit 1) l The inspector reviewed the following records relative to receipt inspection and installation of the RPV and determined that the records reflected work accomplishment consistent with applicable l requirements in the following areas: Receipt Inspection Report File SP 301.5.3 identifies that Unit 1 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) supplied by General

.

.

- 21 -

L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

l l

l

,

Electric / Chicago Bridge Nuclear, (CE/CBN) was receipt inspected

to GE procedure 22A464 CBN documented that the RPV was not l

holding the nitrogen (N ) purge and pressurization due to a

'

leakage of about 200 cub. ft/hr. CBN could not determine the caus Apparently, no attempt was made to check whether the CRDMs were capped, instead it was recommended that the vessel be purged with an N atmosphere to a dewpoint of 25 F and then l aconstantsupplyof60cu. ft/hr of N be supplied to the vessel.

,

l 2 i General Electric Product Quality Certificates, GE PQC, were used f in lieu of actual documentation to accept the RP The inspector reviewed the following three GE POC (1) PQC No. N975, dated December 16, 1976, certifies that one RPV (MPL B13-D003) supplied under GE P0 205-H8953 met all the requirements, (2) PQC No. N993, dated April 4, 1977, certifies that one RPV (MPL B13-D003) supplied under GE P0 205-AE028 met

,

all the requirements,

l l (3) PCQ No. HH768, dated June 9, 1978, certifies that the RPV i with internals attached (MPL B13-D002) supplied under GE  !

I P0 205-AH431 met all the applicable requirement l The inspector requested the licensee to provide additional I information to determine exactly what was certified under items (1) and (2) which complied to the GE purchase orders l

'

205-AE028 and 205-H8953 to CBN. The licensee stated that i

i he would obtain the additional information. This is con-sidered an unresolved item. (440/78-12-06) NNI's MII 1240-NC-1005, Revision B, dated August 3, 1978 was being used to document the inspections of NNI field and QA representatives. The document was approved by representatives of NNI and the Authorized Inspector but did not indicate that I the licensee approved this document as required in the applic-l able specification, SP-38, paragraph 5.05.4, which in part, i

states, "The detailed erection procedures shall be submitted l to the Site Organization for review, record, and approval at least four weeks prior to commencement of erection unless otherwise specified. The procedures shall includ . ."

Furthermore, none of the line items indicated that the licensee had stipulated " Customer Hold Points."

Revision C of NN1 MII 1240-NC-1005, approved on August 21, 1978, stipulated " Customer Hold Points," and was available

,

- 22 -

- _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - --___-_ _- __

.

.

onsite but was not being used. Inspection had started prior to this dat The inspector reviewed the Revision B copy of MII 1240-NC-1005 in use against the designated " Customer Hold Points" on Revision C and determined that not all the " Customer Hold Points" were signed off by the licensee representative .The above finding is contrary to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) Construction Quality Section Procedures (CQSP) 1001 dated May 1, 1978, which in paragraph 6.2.8.3 states "A " hold point" requires a contractor to cease work until that hold point is inspected or waived in writing by a Quality Control Supervisor or his designee." The inspector observed that the licensee's CQC organization issued a letter to NNI notifying them of the specific attributes in which a hold point is to be placed and thus complied with' paragraph 6.2.8.2 of the above procedur Furthermore, lack of signatures of designated licensee's representatives is contrary to Section 10 of the NNI QA Manual requirements which, on page 2 of 11, in paragraph 10.1500, states " Implementation of MII's: Each step of the MII will receive a verification signature and date on com-pletion, including all examinations, tests, inspections and Authorized Nuclear Inspector, customer and QA hold point . ."

The inspector informed the licensee that the above findings are contrary to the requirements of Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, in that activities affecting quality - the instal-lation of the RPV - were not accomplished in accordance with documented specifications, procedures as evidenced in the following examples:

Contrary to paragraph 5.05.4 of specification SP-38, the licensee was unable to demonstrate that Revisions B or C of MII 1240-NC-1005 were reviewed and approved by the site l

!

organization prior to commencement of the RPV installation l

activitie l Contrary to paragraph 6.2.8.2 of PNPP CQSP 1001 and Section 10 f of the MNI QA manual, the hold points designated in MII 1240- )

NC-1005 were not signed of f completely by the licensee's repre- i sentative, l

!

'

This is an item of noncompliance identified in Appendix (440/78-12-07) )

i The inspector reviewed NCR No. 38-3, which had been initiated l

!

relative to the RPV installatio NCR 38-3 identified that,

.

.a e

- 23 -

'I

. . _ . _ _

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

.

.

.

though beam brackets items 21 through 38 (identified on drawing GE 4549-08-338-3) were shown with threaded holes, there were no threaded holes. Cause of the nonconformance was that the brackets were fabricated and delivered to the site prior to the GE drawing revisio The item was recommended to be used

"as is" since the jack screw holes were for construction aid onl An alternate method suggested in paragraph 7.3.1 of GE drawing 22A4671 was recommende Corrective action taken to resolve the nonconformance, including steps to prevent recurrence, is considered adequat Except as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-fled in the above area . Observation of Structural Concrete Activities The inspector performed a postplacement inspection on pour AX-1-502-620 in the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building and deterrined that the placement was acceptable in the following areas: The rebar spacing on the bars protruding from the alab was acceptable and in accordance with D412 222, Revision Burlap on the construction joints was we The open slab area had been sprayed with curing compound

"Symons" as indicated on the Inspection Report for Concrete Placement (IRCP) dated August 18, 197 Review of the IRCP indicates that concrete preplacement, reinforcing steel placement, concrete placement and curing were acceptabl Field cured cylinder breaks indicated that the strengths were 2386 and 2503 ps Concrete with excessive slump was rejecte No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in the above area . Observation of Containment structural Steel Welding Activities The inspector observed 10 (ten) completed welds on the con-tainment liner plates, and the transition area between the RPV pedestal and the biological shields. Eight of these welds were considered unacceptable to Section 8.15 of the American Helding Society ( AWS) D1.1-74 Code requirement The weld history records identified the following: weldor, type, size and unique identification of electrode, preheat

,

and interpass temperature; visual and other NDE inspections,

.

- 24 -

-. _

_ _ _ , . -

. .

.

~

.

.

including identification of the inspector The following are the particulars of the weld (1) Weld No. 1-100 as identified on drawing 288471 on bay 21-2 This weld is at the junction of the biological shield and RPV pedesta (2) Weld No. 1-113 as identified on drawing 288471 on bay 8- (3) Weld No. 1-553, as identified on drawing 249848, sheet 25, detail 3-A, Revision F4 on bay 1 (4) Weld No. 1-554, as identified on drawing 249848, sheet 25, detail 3-A, Revision F4 on bay 1 (5) Weld No. 1-557, as identified on drawing 249848, sheet 25, detail 3-A on bay 1 (6) Weld No. 1-954, as identified on drawing 249848, sheet 30, detail 3-A on bay 1 (7) Weld No. 1-613, as identified on drawing 249848, sheet 23, detail 3-A on bay 2 (8) Weld No. 1-614, as identified on drawing 249848, sheet 23, detail 3-A on bay 22.

l'

(9) Inspections on welds 1305 and 1306.had not been completed, The weld history records indicate that welds identified in items (1) through (8) above were inspected and determined to

be acceptable. At the request of the RIII inspector, UNI QC reinspected the welds and furnished the following findings:

(1) Weld No. 1-100; craters, rollover, surface positity, spatte (2) ' Weld No. 1-113; insufficient veld, overlay, undercu (3) Weld No. 1-553; insufficient wel (4) Weld No. 1-554; insufficient wel (5) Weld No. 1-557; insufficient weld, surface porosit (6) Weld No. 1-954; insufficient weld, undercut, overla .

e o-25-

.

I

]

.

.

.

(7) Weld No. 1-613; insufficient weld, excessive buildup, surface porosity, spatter, undercut, weld overla (8) Weld No. 1-614; insufficient weld, surface porosit The NNI QA manager stated that he will document the above deficiencies in NCR 96-1-91. The inspector informed the licensee that the above indicated that incomplete welding inspections were conducted and that this is contrary to the requirements of Criterion IX of 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, and paragraph 17.1.9 of the Quality Assurance Program of the PNPP Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. This is an item'of noncompliance identified in Appendix (440/78-12-08)

Except as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviations were iden-tified in the above area Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in '

order to determine whether they are acceptable items, items of noncom-pliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Section II, Paragraph 3 (three items);Section IV, Para-graph 2.c; and Section IV, Paragraph 3.b).

Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 24, 1978. The inspectors summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herei ;

l

l

.

a-26- 1

1

. .. - ,. - - . . . .,. . . . .- , , - - . .. . .

,,