IE Insp Rept 50-320/74-06 on 740924-26.Noncompliance noted ...

< ..

_

-,,

* . _

- c.,

.

, -. . . .

' U.S. A~t"11C ENERGY CO:04ISSIO i.

DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS . . .

o

REGION I

50-320.

50-320/74-06-

Docket No:RO Inspection Ecport No: CPPR-66

License No:Metropolitan Edisen Ccepany _ _ _

_

Licensee:Triority: -

Box 542A

Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:

(Three Mile Island 2)-_ Middle .own, Dauphin County, PennsylvaniaLocation:

. -

,'

'b *( *

Type of Licensee:Special, Announced

Type of Inspection: '

September 24-26, 1974Dates of Inspection:

~

July 9-10, 1974Dates of Previous Inspection:

/0 2f (fnfhs / DateReporting InspectorSeth A IFolsom, eactor inspector

/d 7 6~ ~MI' d_ -

Accompanying Inspectors: DateL. Gage / Reactbr Inspector -

0 kw h /D 2 E lYDate

W. M. Hayward, Reacy$d Insp ecor.

( cbk .|O 2 5 lV -Date,.

G.Napuda,ReactorInspc/or ,

0. *

_

.

Date

~

J. E. Wescott, RO:HQOther Accompanying Perscnnel: Date_

b '' /([/rj-/ 7('

Reviewed By: Date.

R. F. Heishman, Se M acto'r Ynspector

'

i O -904270353-

-

~ M ?S7 .-'

. ..

~ #F'*** .., MT9s*- me. .y, , , ,

a* *

~~s

--.

*1

1

,

h

i'' ~,

Sm MARY OF FINDINGS i

4

. e,

Enforcement Action.

1. Unused weld filler materials were found exposed to the atmospherefor an extended period, contrary to Site Directive MCP 2-2, Para-g sph E.1. (Details, Paragraph 11)

Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Enforcement Matters ",,

Not Inspected

iDesien Chances '

None Identified

'

Unusual Occurrences {I

None Identified

Other Sienificant Findines

A. Current Findines

1. The licensee reported that some strength tests on contain=entconcrete indicated the possibility of sub-standard cocpressivestrength in one portion of the containment structure. Thisitem is unresolved. (Manage =ent Interview, Paragraph 2)

2. No documentatien was found on site which provided evidence ofthe validity of the certificates of conformance for vendor ;

supplied components. This item is unresolved. (De tails,Paragraphs 2 sad 4)

_

3. Audit reports were found to have been closed out without veri-

fication of the corrective action. This iten is unresolved.(Details, Paragraph 10)

B. Status of Previous 1v Reported Unresolved Items

Not inspected

-

.

. S2 2.98 '. ., ,

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

e

-,

$-

J-

-2- |!

l'

1- ~

lManntecent Interview

The manage =ent interview was held at the site on Septe=ber 26, 1974, I

iwith the following personnel in attendance:

General Public Utilities Service Cocoany

Mr. W. T. Gunn, Site ManagerMr. G. L. Roshy, Quality Assurance Engineer

-

Mr. M. J. Stronberg, Site Quality Assurance AuditorMr. R. L. Wayne, Quality Assurance ManagerMr. J . E. Wrig'at , Site Quality Assurance Manager

Mr. J. H. Wri;ht, Resident Civil Engineer

Babcock and Jilcox

Mr. C. R. Gish, Site Manager ,

Burns and Roe

Mr. F. J. Benner, Quality Assurance Supervising EngineerMr. R. Claytor, Assistant to PresidentMr. G. Harper, Site Project Engineer

duality Insrections, Inc.

Mr. B. G. Avers, President

United Engineers and Constructors

Mr. V.1. Cichocki, Quality Assurance / Quality Control SuperintqndentMr. E. 7. Ferguson, Resident Construction ManagerMr. D. C. Lanbert, Field Supervisor Quality Control -

-.

The follovir.g was discussed:

1. The inspector requested that he be notified in advance of the startof the 170 f t. vertical tendon grout test. The licensee agreed toprovide this notification, and stated that the test was still

' '

i

scheduled for October, 1974.

2. The licensee stated that recent concrete strength testing hadindicated the possibility of sub-standard concrete in ene portionof the contain=ent vall structure. The 90-day cylinder breaks had

-

not yet been performed, but the item was considered reportable per10 CFR 50.55(e). The inspector stated that he would follow pro-gress of the investigation in future inspections. This item isunresolved.

) '

--

'-

\'

S 'd 2 .9 9.

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

.

- i

!*

.

-3-,

"

3. The irspector stated he had identified a violation of the materialcontrol provisions of FSAR, Paragraph 17.1.8 and UE&C SpecificationMCP-2-2. Paragraph El, which required that unused weld Tillermaterial in opened containers be returned to the issuing cribwithin four hours. The licensee acknowledged this infor=ation.(Details, Paragraph 11)

4. The inspector stated that the purpose of this inspection had beento evaluate the icplementation of the licensee's quality assuranceprogram. This involved an audit of the requirements, procedures,

'

organization, completeness of impicmentation, and the results,

obtained. The areas exa=ined included contain=ent steel, struc- |tural steel, pressure boundary piping, saf eguards syste= piping,

,

site originated procurement practices, site originated design, jcorrective action progrcm, embedded and other support structures,major techanical co=ponents - valves, pumps and cotors, contain=entstructure - concrete and steel and the site corrective action -

program. (Details, Paragraphs 2 through 10).

The following unresolved items were identified as a result of thisaudit of the quality assurance piegram,

No documentation on site to provide evidence of the validitya.of the certificates of conformance for vendor supplied com-ponents. The certificates are basic to the site receivinginspection procedures. (Details, Paragraphs 2 and 4)

b. Audits closed out without verification of corrective action.(Details, Paragraph 10)

The licensee acknowledged this information..

.

-

O 82~300 i1

.IB -

i -

1-

_

m

,. ,

'.

~

.

.

'

DET '.ILS

l. Persons Contacted ,

General Public Utilities _ Service Company

Mr. D. L. Blystone, Quality Assurance Engineer.

Mr. W. T. Gunn, Site Manager"

Mr. G. L. Kopp, Quality Assurance SpecialistMr. P. Levine, Quality Assurance EngineerMr. D. Perry, Quality Assurance EngineerMr. G. L. Roshy, Quality Assurance EngineerMr. M. J. Strocherg, Site Quality Assurance AuditorMr. R. Toole, Assistant Startup ManagerMr. R. L. Wayne, Quality Assurance ManagerMr. J. E. Wright , Site Quality Assurance Manager ,

Mr. J. H. Wright, Resident Civil Engineer _

Babcock and Wilocx (B&W)_

Mr. C. R. Gish, Site Manager

Burns and Roe

Mr. F. J. Benner, Quality Asrurance Supervising EngineerMr. R. Claytor, Assistant to PresidentMr. G. Harpct, Site Project Engineer

Pittsburgh, Des Moines Steel Company (PDM)

Mr. W. Stiger, Quality Assurance Site Manager_

Ouality Inspections, Inc.

Mt. B. G. Avers, President.

United Engineers and Constructors

Mr. M. Byers, Mechanical EngineerMr. J. Carrabba, Preventive Maintenance SuperintendentMr. V. E. Cichocki, Quality Assurance / Quality Control Superintendenti

Mr. R. E. Crof ton, Quality Control Engineer, Piping and Welding_

Mr. G. Derk, Lead Mechanical InspectorMr. E. K. Ferguson, Resident Construction ManagerMr. D. C. Lambert, Field Supervisor Quality ControlMr. F. F. Long, Assistant Supervisor, Structura2 Quality Controi i

'_

82 201 -

- -- ,- ...

_

.

-

;. .

. -5-t

I4 .

Mr. R. Liscom, Quality Con: rol Engineer - Electrical ', ''

Mr. J. Schmidt, Records Coordinator9j 2. Precsure Boundarv Piping

i*

The inspector audited the receiving inspection records, storage,

records, veld history record cards, radiograph reader sheets, weld,

repair acceptance inspection sheets, qualifications records fori'

technicians, and hanger installation acceptance records for pressure. boundary piping. Audited records were exa=ined by the inspector ~

for co=pleteness and compliance with requirements.,

;

Spool piece A-32-206-1, a 36-inch coolant piping co=ponent, wasselected as the sa=ple. The specification and drawings were obtainedI to verify details of fabrication and evaluation for acceptance! having been acco=plished. The spool consisted of a horizontali section, a 90-degree elbow, and a vertical section. The spool was

I.produced by a contract fabrication shop, Babcock and Wilcox.

_

; Spool piece fabrication and acceptance documents were identifiedand reviewed. The inspector found that all on-site data sheet:vere readily retrievable.

Field velding of the spool piece into one of the primary loops was~

partially co=pleted. Field weld records were examined by the,

inspector and were found to be in co=pliance with the qualityprogram requirements.

The procurement documents and the inspection data stated that thematerial and processes met the require =ents of ANSI Standard B31.7.

The inspector found that the shop fabrication quality-related docu ~mentation was not available on site. These records were not trans- -

mitted with the product. A United Engineers and Constructors '

(UELC) inspector accepted the spool piece at the vendor site on the-

basis of an approved documented certification that the product metspecification requirements. This procedure was in accordance withthe quality assurance program.

The inspecter f.iund that shop-weld RT " reader sheets" were typedcopies of the original. Two shop velds were identified and threereaders' initials and the radiograph film were identified.

The inspector found that there was no documentation at the construc- ~

tion site to validate the integrity of the certification of accep-tance inspection at the vender facility according to Appendix B,Criterion VII. This item is unresolved.

! \ ' -'

82 302y .

. .-

e.

I,.

!-

.

-G-,

' '

Resolution is contingent upon RO:I inspection of CPU and auditswhich attest to the validity of the " certification system"-en which

products are released from the vendor f acility. ,

3. Constituent Pipine - Safeguard System

A section of the core-flood system was selected by the inspector asthe sr.=ple of work cost advanced toward ccepletion of this class ofsystem. The sample consisted of two lengths of 14-inch A376-304piping with a valve identified as CFVl A located between the two -

sections of pipe. The valve was a re=otely operated 14-inch gate

valve,1500 psi rating. Operator identified as 13413'+. The two

sections of pipe were identified as 2-CF-1 and 2-CF-2.

The inspector found that field inspection was specified to beperformed in co=pliance with Procedure FCPN-2. Fabrication was

specified to be accomplished in compliance rith SpecificationES203. NDE was confirmed to be performed to the inspection pro-cedure FCPN-2. The welds were identified on the veld history / quality

record. Materials were identified by specification, purchaseorder, and code. The pipe was confirmed to be A376-304. Thevalves were =anufactured by Velan in compliance with ANSI B31.7(1968) requirements. Valve components were identified as NDT'd to'B31.7 on bonnet, wedge, and stem. Hydrostatic testing will beperfor=ed to 3-16.S (1961). Additional requirements were i= posedby B&W specification.

The inspector found that only tecporary hangers were in use at.thetime of inspection. Permanent restraints and snubbers were notattached to the piping. A nonconformance was dispositioned "use asis" for some unspecified filler metal which had been used -- 316-Lwas specified and 308-L was used. This dispositioning was performed

~

in accordance with the requirements of the quality assurance program.

The records system was examined by the inspector and found to beincomplete since the acceptance evaluations were not yet complete.The RT acceptability was in the process of being confirmed.

~

The records identified to be prepared were found to be assembled inthe data package except for the quality data yet to be completed.Valve wall thickness was not measured on the valve which is beyondthe second valve isolating the system from the pri=ary coolant

_

pressure boundary.

Records of NDE of pipe welds, installation, inspection, and nen-conforming materials were examined by the inspector. Records of

I -

-

82-203.

; ..

. - .8 -

~

.

_

.

~-

field welding (2 girth welds) were exa=ined, inspection recorus -

were confirmed against requirements, and caterials procurement',records. ;

The test and inspection records f or work cc=pleted were found bythe inspector to respond according to the requirecents of documentsNIN Z119-3/C6, FCPN-2, and ES-IS.

No deficiencies were identified by the inspector._

4. Site Originated Procurement Practices

k* eld filler metal used in welding CEVIA to adjacent piping wasselected by the inspector for the sample. The written controls to

procure, accept, and issue the material was exa=ined by the inspector.

The inspector observed that United Engineers and Constructors-

(UE&C) nake the required site procurements. UE&C Procedure 18-2was found by the inspector to establish the process of purchasethrough the on-site quclity effecting and assuring organizationsand the specific act of purchasing was controlled by UE&C corporateapproved Field Purchasing Manual (October,1972). The inspectorobserved that the engineering specifications included the qualitystandards and requirements to be complied with. _ The UE&C HomeOf fice Engineering Division was observed by the inspector to reviewand approve the field originated proposal for procurement.

Procedure QC-18 imposed the quality program require =ent by way ofthe on-site UE&C QA organization. The UE&C quality organi=ation~

was observed to implement procedure QC4-2 to impose and assure-

co=pliance by vendors with the UE&C QA Program requirements to besatisfied within the vendor quality -effort. The GPU Vendor Evalua-tion List was observed to contain the UE&C evaluated and approved

vendors.

UE&C Procedure QC4-2 was observed to establish' in-process inspec-tions of vendors by the UE&C quality organization.

The UE&C procedure QC4 and inspection plans were implemented toperform evaluations of vendors by hoth resident inspectors anditinerant inspectors from the UE&C quality organization.

Receiving inspection was observed by the inspector to ce acco=p- -

liched according to the UE&C quality control procedures QC-2 and

QC-3. The receiving function was controlled to assure that received

.

U -_

|82-204

,

_

-

.

g__

goods were f ree of shipping damage, accountability and identifica-tion were verified and associated documentation was accounted f or.Teceivtag inspection quality records were campled for procurc=entof weld metal u .d on a previously selected sa=plc (core floodsyst em) . No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.

UE&C Procedure QC6-2, was observed by the inspector to implementthe acceptance inspections of vendor product and vendor productquality records. The procedure provides for review of vendorquality data and occasionally involves inspector witnessing of --

selected qualification processes, test, or function. The procedure

provides for the inspector to take a brief statement of ap roval onproducts released for ship:ent to the construction site.

There was no evidence available at the construction site to confirmthat the acceptance inspection conducted at the vendor shop wasperfor=ed to a specific detailed checklist type of control docu=ent.There was no evidence available at the construction site to confirmthat the licensee or his agent / contractor had examined, evaluated, -

and found acceptable the validity of the system for writing non-specific certificat' ions of quality by field inspectors on sourceinspections.

This item is unresolved pending RO:I inspection of the licenseesand/cr agent's home of fice documentation which gives assurance thatthe " certificate system" is working and that the certificates are

valid.

5. Site Originated Design

On-site documentation was examined by the inspector to verify thatfield-originated design is so authorized. Design verification andverification of design revisions were confirmed. The need for andapproval of design / design changes were verified. Design centrolprocedures and docu=entation were examined. Ti=eliness of revisions-

was examined. The field originated design found to be estab-lished and provided for in the project /progt_m description in thesafety analysis report; Paragraph 17.1.3.3.3.

The sample' selected by the inspector involved on-site seismic Class1 piping design for field run piping. The Burns and Roe (B&R)engineering organization operates on site at Three Mile Island UnitNo. 2. B&R site-originated design for the sample selected wasobserved to be controlled by the B&R Design Criteria docu=ent datedSepte=ber 18, 1973. -

| b \ N ~ N{$s '

. ~'

__

he m6m o

e

*

.

~.

-9_

The inspector f ound that the Design Criteria docu=ent included-

observance of 10 CFR 50 Regulatory require =ents. Quality standards

were addressed and observed by the designers as was ev.idencedduring the exa=ination of site originated design drawings. The B&Rselection and review for materia..s was found to be controlled bythe " Materials Specificatior." control docu=cnt 2.0.4. A letter

directive was included in the engineering design documentationwhich addressed and i=ple=ented the "Mathod for Operation" by whichdesign interface = were controlled. Desigr. Review a, proval /authoriza-tion vexe contr ed by Procedur e 2.0.2. Design release and instruc-

-

tions were con olled by Design Prec'.dures 84, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.Design revisions were cont- 112d by i=ple=entation of Design Pro-cedure 34, 2.5 and I'_vist.n veriiit erion was controlled by 2.7 and2.8 of D.P.84.

Two site originated design deviation notices were exa=ined assa=ples; U-103 and B-1070. The nocices were for=ated in two parts ,

on the sa=e sheet and included the required change (s), docu=entreview co==ents and resolutions and, the revised drawings (2141-IA- -

47 Rev i dated Septe=ber 21, 1974, and 2318-WDG-68 Rev. 1 dated. September 21, 1974).

No deficiencies was observed by the inspector in the site originateddesign activity.

.

6. E= bedded and other Suncort Structures

A safety related structural component fabricated off-site by Pitts-- burgh Des Moines Steel Co=pany was used as a sasple by the inspector

to determine if engineering specifications, procedures, selecteddrivings and f abricating installation, inspection and testingrecords were available. Objective evidence, such as records, wasreviewed by the inspector to deter =ine if acti' iTries in the areas

-

v

of vendor audit and surveillance, f abrication and installation

inspections, storage and maintenance inspections, and non-con--

forming conditions control were acco=plished as required.

Installed penetration asse=bly 68EEP10, fhb'ricated by Pitts-a.

burgh Des Moines Steel Company (PDM) was selecte'd as'a.sa=ple'

ites. The following specifications were revieued:

(1) Specification 2555-44, Division 13. Section 13E (B&R)(2) Material Specification MS-5. 0 (PDM)(3) Material Specification MS-7.2 (PDM)

-

(4) Material Specification 15-7.6 (PDM)(5) Material Specification MS-7.6.1 (PDM) .

,

s

() 5 55,

, . -

. ,-

|

-

.

~.

-10-

Ibterial Specification MS-9.2 (PDM) "

(6) Material Specificction MS-12 (PDM)(7) --

Material Specification MS-17.1 (PDM)(8)

The PDM specifications were co= pared to the architect's. Burnsand Rowe (B&R), design specification. .

No deficiencies were identified by the inspector.

Particular types of PDM procedures, required by the design -

specification, were revicued by the inspector f or B&R approvals.b.

These were:

(1) Quality Assurance Manual (concurrence)(2) RT-1(3) UT-1(4) UT-2 . ~

(5) LP-1(6) MT-1 ~

(7) VB-1(8) LCST-1

Proof Test ra.a Leak Rate Test(9)(10) Hydrostatic Test Procedure for tubes(11) WPS-25(12) PS-1 through 8(13) FD-1(14) 71 through 4 ,

(15) WRP-1(16) FS-1(17) SW-1

No deficientics were identified by dhe inspector._

The following documents were required and vere selected by -

c. the inspector for verification of availability: ,

(1) PDM Material Shop Bill for Assembly 68EFP10-

(2) PDM Purchase Order 970-

(3) Lukens Steel Co=pany MTR Filt #6368-03-06(4) braving WPS-25 Sheets 1 and 2

The fabrication procedure sequence for sub-assemblies57SA2 and 575A3 were selected for availability verificationand review.

_


-

.

s a e.c z _'-' -

i-

_

.

.

-.

-11-

ASME SA 333 6R1 (R622 and R623) and ASME Seamicsc 333 (R624Theand R625) piping appeared on the PDM purchase order.Mill Test reports were available in the Lukens Steel MTR

'

e

file.


The following NDE Reports were ava!1able for the ssbassemblyd.ite=s selected as a sa=ple:

(1) MT (57PS, 5/P6, 575A2, 57SA3, and 57AP1)~~

(2) RT (57P6, 56P6-S A2, 57S A2, aed 575A3)'

B&R Specifications 2555-44, Paragraph 3.3.11, required assenb-lies of ASME SA516 material to be liquid penetrant tested

This was not accomplished on theaf ter final heat treatment. iabove assemblies. PDM Drawings 60A through D vere produced,which specified magnetic testing of the assenblies after final

B&R engineering approved these drawings on .

heat treatment.August 21, 1973, which postdates the design specifications.


The following United Engineers and Constructors installatione.procedures were available and were reviewed by the inspector:

(1) QC-9A-2, Reactor Building, liner penetrations andaccess locks

(2) Construction procedure sequence - penetration, (includingAddendum #1) *

~ (3) CCP-3-1 preimbedment inspection procedure(4) Repair procedure for 68EF?ll

-

.


f. The following documents associater' vid. the installation andimbed =ent of assembly 68EFP10 were selected by the inspectorfor availability verification and were reviewed.

(1) DVK15-F (deviation request)-

(2) Field Receiving Reptit(3) QA Checklist far Material Fitup *

(4) VB-F1 (Inspection Report)(5) RT Reports _

(6) MT Reports

(7) QC Checklist CCP-3-2

..

(_) ~4

| SW 2(S' ,

--

.

-

.

_

-12-.

(8) Placement Checkout Lists(9) Concrete Placccent Checklist (R3186 and 188)(10) R3186 and 128 Batch Tickets .. .

No deficiencies were found by the inspector. ,

g. Qualit'y Assurance Program Survey Reports (Form #450S-RV2-70) -

dated 5/20/70 and 10/30/ /0 were reviewed. Audits 021, 7/17/73and 071 8/19-20/74 were also reviewed.

.

'to deficiencies were identified by the insp e ct or .-

7. Major Mechanical Conponent - Valve and Operator

A cain steam isolation valve, including the valve operator, wasused as a sa=ple by the inspector to determine if appropriateprocedures, specificatitas, data packages, f abricating and installa-tien records, and inspection and testing records were availabic.Objective evidence, such as records.. were reviewed to deter =ine ifactivities in the areas of vendor audit aad surveillance, fabrica-tion and receiving inspection, storage and tintenance inspections,and control of non-conformances were accomp. .shed as required.

Stored valve and limitorque operator MS-V-7A (S/N TD-79, Heata.

#2710709-102), procured undet PO No. C0069, wer- seu reed asthe samples for this phase of the inspection. The follow agdocu=ents were reviewed:

(1) Specification 2555-86 (B&R)

(2) QC-2-2, Receiving ~_nspernica (UE&C)(3) QC-3-2, Storage Control (UE&C)(4) QC-4-2, Vendor Surveillance (UE&C)(5) QC-5E-2, Leak Testv (UE4C)(6) NCP23-2, Handling /lnstallation for Valves (UE&C)(7) SP-8R (B&R)

'

.

*

No deficiencies were identified by the inspector,

b. UE&C Vendor Surveillance Reports dated 1/22/72, 2/24-25/72,3/18/72, 4/28/72, 8/7/72, 9/5/72, 10/27/72, 12/6-7/72, 1/8/73,1/17/73, 1/27-28/73, 5/10/73, and 5/23/73 were reviewed by theinspector. These reports described witnessing of body hydro- .

static tests performed to the ANSI B31.7 (1968) Standard,seat tightness testing to MSS-SP61 (with exceptions), operatortests to specifications, and packing leakage tests. The -

subject valve had failed the seat leakage test. The valve

.

e

|WW s.~

82 209-. .

4

i

L

~

..

-13-

passed a subsequent seat leakage test as evidenced by a signedNPV-1 form (code inspection). ~

.4


c. The manufacturers data report package was reviewed to ascer-tain that it contained the required docu=ents. The requiredmaterial test results (physical and chemical properties tests),heat treatment records, NDE results, weld inspection reports,sall thickness ceasurements, hydrostatic test results and theco=pleted final inspection checklisc were found in the data ~

report package.


d. The Receiving Report and Storage Surveillance Reports M864E865, M983, M1013, and M2525 were reviewed by the inspector.Storage deficiencies resulted in DR's 0171, 0187, and 0231being issued, and all had been resolved. -


The preventive maintenance records 'atveen October,1973 ande.September, 1974, were reviewed. Notations on these reportsindicated that all required checking had not been acco:plished,

at scue intervals due to the operator not being on the valve.'

Material Transfer Authorizations MRT 135, MRT 6287, and amaterial receiving report dated */10/74 indicated the operatorhad been of f site during the questioned periods.


f. Paragraphs 4.7.3.12, 4. 8.2.12 and 6.7 of Specification SP-88require pump and salve motors to be categorized into three ~

quality assurance activity level designations; F, M or noneand the alpha code is to appear along with item identity onthe equipment classification list. The inspector found thatB&R had not yet co=pleted the updating of the valve list andthe scheduled tompletion date was January,1975.

8. Fbjor Fbchanical Componene - Pu=o and Motor

A Decay Heat Removal Pump (including motor) was used as a sample bythe inspector to establish that necessary procedures, data pack-ages, specifications, fabricating and installation records, and _

inspection and testing records ware available. Objective evidence,such es records, were reviewed to ascertain that activities in the

r

%

_ . .

I~

8'_210 _

i

d,

_

|

*

. -

-14-

areas of vendor audit and surveillance, fabricating and installa- -

tion inspections, storage and taintenance inspections, and centrolof non-conf orming conditione were accomplished as required.

Partially inntalled pump and motor DH-PLA (S/N 67940), pro-a.

cured by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W, the NSSS), was selected as asample. The f ollowing docu=entes were reviewed by the in-spector.

(1) Specification 2555-18 (B&R) --

(2) NCPl-2, handling / installation for pu=ps (UELC)(3) MCP-4-2, Testing and Service Inspection of Crancs,

Rigging, and Slings (UE6C) ~

(4) Cencral Equip =ent Specifications, centrifugal pumpsfor safeguard service (B&W)

No deficiencies were identified by the inspector..

b. Vendor surveillance reports bv B&W are presently stored intheir Lynchburg, Virginia f acility in accordance with Specifi-cation NPG-17-11-31.

'

iThe following inspection points were docu ented by B&W certi-fications:

i

(1) Liquid Penetrant Test to ANSI Pump ano Valve Standard !

(Nov 68)(2) Hydrostatie Test to B&W Ltd. Specification 229994 (Rev

02) NSS-6-01-40-215-02(3) Performance Test and NPSH to B&W Ltc Specification .

-

229995 (Rev 07) USSS-6-01-40-215-03(4) Cleanliness to B&W Ltd Specification 229996 (Rev 01)

NSSS-6-01-4 0- 224-04 -

(5) Radiographic quality on pressure casting to B&W QAProcedure No. 72-46-003 (7/20/70). ~

No deficiencies were identified by the inspector. '

!

The manufacturer's data report package was reviewed by the 'c.inspector to determine if the following documents were containedtherein as required by the specifications.

(1) Certificate of Co=pliance*

(2) Name Plate Data Sheet '-

(3) Liquid Penetrant Test Reports(4) Hydrostatic Test Report

!.

U -i

i-

''

. 82-211

_

.

.

-15-.

..

Perf or=ance Test Repoi c(5)(6) Cleanliness Report ,

Radiography Report(7) Material Verification Report(8)(9) Asse=bly Records

i i s were identi-ThesE. doce cnts were availabic and no defic e. c e

-fied by the inspector.(9/S/73), Receiving Check-

The USS Receiving Inspection Report (7/73 through(9/23/73), Preventive Maintenance Records i d byd.

9/74), and Megger Sheets (7/73 throush 9/74) vere rev ewelistidentified,

the inspector and no deficiencies were d Installa-The Equipment Installation and Grouting Records and M2248 were reviewed_9

tion Witnessing Reports M1619, M163 , anby the inspector and no deficiencies were idenri ie .f dc.

structure - Concrete and Steel9 _C_ontainment lated to the

The inspector examined the fc11owing documentation red seg=ent on threeconstruction and quality control of a selecte

structure.courses of the contain=ent Schedule,

UE&C Construction Procedure Development and StatusRev. 29, September 4, 1974.

3, April

UE&C General Construction Procedure (GCP) 3-2, Rev.2,1974, specifying control of procedures. -

1974, in- -

UE&C Quarterly Index of QA/QC Procedures - July,cluding approvals. y 11,UE&C Procedure QC 4-2, 7endor Surveillance Rev. 3, Januar

.

.

1974. .,

b dweldincluding re ar caUE&C Procedure QCl-2, July 13,1973, d in-place in-

~

splices and strength tests, rebar testing anspection, and splice evaluation, concrete mixing and placement

, and concrete stre gth testing.inspectf 8 1972, _

UE&C Cadweld Splice QC Inspection Sheet, August 1 , including veld numbers and location, welder, date and t me,i

inspr'. ion checklists and resalts,

* .Y~

i.

C .,

s s.iP

me

. .

- ,

.

-16- 1

Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory R3 port of Cadweld Splicing,~

August 25, 1972. Lab. No. 728812, including acceptance require-

ments and test results. e

UE&C Place =ent Sheet, August 31, 1972, which includes inspec-tion checklist en reinforcing steel.

PTL Report No. 328, March 30,1972, which includes rebarstrength require =ents and test results.

_

3atch Plant Ticket (including tape record) No. 36761, Septen-ber 1,1972, including concrete air content, slu=p, ice quan-tity, concrete temperature, track revolutions, a.id elaspedtime.

PLT Report- RB 201, Septe=ber 1,1972, which included .oncretetest cylinder strength test results.

UELC letter to Burns & Roe, Dececher 29, 1972, including~

Control Data Corporation analysis of Cadweld splico data.

GPUSC letter to Burns & Roe, July 10, 1973, presenting enevaluation of ulti= ate compressive strength test results from

January 1, 1973 to July 10, 1973

UE&C Procedure QCl-2, General Construction and Structural.

Concrete, Rev. 5, July 13, 1973, including:

Aggregate - condition, gradation, moisture,I in-placedensity, and ccmpaction. -

Rock surfaces in contact with structu'ral concrete - -

'

surface cleanliness, removal of loose rock and water, _.

contour, subgrade condition..

Previously placed concrete - preparation for next lift.

Location and configuration of far= work, ties, anchors,bracing, shoring, supports, reinforcing steel, .and c= bed-ments. Form coating and cleanliness.

Installation and integrity of waterstops and membranewater proofing. .

_

.

i b. 82 2.13 '

.

-.. ,

=

h

-

,

*

\-

t.* I

-17-

) *

Location and dicensions of control, expansion, and con-~ [

4

struction joints, blockouts and vaterstops. .,

, '

2555-44, Reactor Building Liner,Burns &' Roe Specification dimensions, thickness, tolerances,

12 April 30, 1973 - )caterial ( ASME SA-516, Grade 55 to SA 200 .Rev.

Page 87,Pittsburgh Des Moines Material Shop 3111, Drawing 40,

-specifies shell plate thickness.March 26, 1970,Plate

Pittsburgh Des Moines Fabrication Procedure Sequence, specifies =anufactur ngi

210, 26S, and 300; June 15, 1970,No.and inspection operations.

i l 21,

Lekens Steel Physical and Chemical Certification, Ap r1970, listing specifications, Charpy Test and actual ana yses.l

August

Pittsburgh Des Moines Qualified Welders List - THI-2,24, 1973. (qualifiedWelders Qualification Test Record - Howard Eendrichs"3/16 inch to maximum, Specification No. SA 233".

i f21, 1974, providing notificat on oGPUSC letter to PDM, Maycompletion of liner plate documentation.


Corrective Act_ ion Prograq10. i ies

The inspector reviewed the Audit Program findings for d screpancThe inspector found that the site had experi-found at the site. ~ blem. That is,

enced an electrienl-tray physical interference proelectrical-tray drawings show trays located in areas w ere,h werevent the

the trays installed, they would interfere vita or preinstallation of other equipment.

/10/74,

The problem, as stated in a CPU Ictter to Burns & Roe of 6deffnesresulted from B&R having "no formalized procedure which

.

P re that the

acceptable interdisciplinary design practices to ensudesign work done by one discipline does not adversely af fectI the

|systems or equipnent of another systen".

'

$.The inspector found that the problem was known at the site inIt was identified as a problem in an unnumbered

-

I

} December, 1973.S'I

i

pk _

't

|169'd .9 +c1..

.

,

_

. .

.'

. .

-.

-1S- i

iti

GPU audit on 2/27-28/74, which was contained in the folder for- :

8

74-18 (dated 3/22/74), where it was again identi- '

Audit Report No. Audit Report No. 74-49 (dated G/25-26/74) re- '

fled as a problem.identified the probits, and the letter trans=itted by the consultantwhe made the audit f or GPU cc..sidered the problem of "tain concern"cnd requested "i==ediate actien" on it.

The inspector found that both Audit Reports 74-18 and 74-49 hadbeen closed out by CPU, although the actions requested of BLR to __

resolve the probics had not been verified.

failure to correct site identified problems prceptlyThe apparentand/or caintain folic.up to assure that these probleas have beencorrected is unresolved.

The inspector toured the contain=ent af ter the end of the workAn opened can containing low hydrogen veld rod was observed

_11.shift.in the Stean Generator Area where welding had been accc=plished

Thf a was contrary to UE&C Procedureduring.the prior work. shift.PCP2-2 which requires unused weld rod to be returned to the issuingcrib.

This is a violation of Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, whichs?ates, in part..." Activities af f ecting quali:y shall be prescribedby docu=ented instructions, procedures.. .and shall be accomplishedin accordance with these instr uctions , procedures. . . ."

.

S 8e

e

.

..e

.

e

d

|

' %d

,. S'd ' .9 ? r)

j'-at

\

-

_

IE Insp Rept 50-320/74-06 on 740924-26.Noncompliance noted ...

Documents

Transcript of IE Insp Rept 50-320/74-06 on 740924-26.Noncompliance noted ...