IR 05000313/1973002
| ML19317H113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1973 |
| From: | Brownlee V, Crossman W, Swan W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317H100 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-73-02, 50-313-73-2, NUDOCS 8004140591 | |
| Download: ML19317H113 (18) | |
Text
,
_.. _..
.
-
_. _
_. _ _ _
_
_
_
.
,
.*
_
_
,
-
8 [ %,,,q UNITED STATES j
y~Q'e'
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
.
^.
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATCRY CPERATICUS
-
<
g 4-REG eo N 18 - SulT E 818
'%
f'
2M RE AC HT R EE ST RE ET. NORT HwEST p
,,
4 TES O A T L. A N T 4. G EORo s A 30303 RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-2 with attached Inquiry Report Nos.
50-313/72-3Q/CDR and 50-313/73-lQ/CDR Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Comoany Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601 Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Docket No.:
50-313 License No.:
CPPR-57 Category:
A3/B1 Location: Russellville, Arkansas Type of License: B&W, PWR-2568 Mut, 880 Mwe Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: January 16-19, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection: January 2-5, 1973 Inspector-In-Charge:
W. B. Swan, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Accompanying Inspector:
T. E. Conlon, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch
,
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
, ) $ <*
'
'A. Yi-.. ' t R-i'///A.8
'
Principal Inspector:
<
V. L. Brownlee, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Section, Facilities Construction Branch Reviewed by:
[
I'I" 73 o-W. A. Crossman, Acting Senior Inspector Date Facilities Section, Facilities Construction Branch V
l 800414057/
--
..
_
_.
,_
_ _
___
.
.
.*
-
.
.
,
I l
~
+
s (0Rpt.No.50-313/73-2-2-
\\'
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations None B.
Safety Items None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcament Matters A.
Violations
,
None B.
Safety Items None
III.
New Unresolved Items None IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items i
71-6/1 Stressing Washer Design (Unit 1) (Region II Letter,
'
January 24, 1972, Item 1)
l Completion of stressing washer installations on Unit 1 gave defacto closing of this item.
(Details
]
I, paragraph 4)
72-2/1 In-Core Instrument Guide Tube Failure (Unit 1)
Region II Letter, May 23, 1972, Item 1)
It is our understanding that the licensca will determine the applicability to his facility and conduct an evalua-tion of the failure of reactor in-core instrument guide tubes which occurred at a similar facility. This item remains open.
72-4/1 Reactor Vessel and Reactor Vessel Internals Modification (Unit 1) (Region II Letter, July 27, 1972, Item 1)
It is our understanding that a design change is in prepara-
'
~-
.
.
..
- ~_
--
_
_.
__
.
_
.
.
,
-
-
RIO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-2-3-
.
tion regarding this item. We have referred the item to Regulatory Operations, Headquarters for further evaluation and will advise the licensee the results of this evaluation at a later date. This item remains open.
72-4/2 Cable Routing (Unit 1) (Region II Letter, July 27, 1972, Item 2)
The routing of cables under the control room removable floor may not meet safeguards and reactor protection systems separa-tions and loading criteria. It is our understanding that the licensee will evaluate this item and corrective measures will be initiated as may become necessary. This item remains open.
72-4/3 Cable Routing (Unit 1) (Region II Letter, July 27, 1972, Item 2)
The separation of safety channel wiring inside the Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) supplied panels may not meet the requirements of the safeguards and reactor protection systems p
separations and loading requirements.
It is our understanding that the licensee will evaluate this item and corrective (
)
s-measures will be initiated as may become necessary. This item m
remains open.
72-4/4 Control Rod Drive Motor Tube Defect Analysis (Unit 1)
(Region II Letter, July 27, 1972, Item 3)
The control rod drive motor tube housings contained metal defect indications and possible thin walls. It is our understanding that design changes are being made and will
,
be the subject of a B&W topical report. This item has been referred to Regulatory Operations, Headquarters for further evaluation. We will advise the licensee of the results of this evaluation when it becomes available.
This item remains open.
72-7/1 Pressurizer Safety and Reliaf Valve Mounting and Connecting Piping (Unit 1) (Region II Letter, August 21, 1972, Item 1)
It is our understanding that the licensee will cvaluate the pressurizer safety and relief valve mountings and connecting piping to assure that these have been analyzed for dynamic reactor forces during blowdown. This item remains open.
(Details II, paragraph.3)
ss I
-
l
.
.
.
'
.
~
.
'
,
.
.
-
,
%
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-2-4-72-11/1 Paddle-Type Flow Switches (Unit 1) (Region II Letter, December 19, 1972, Item 1)
It is our understanding that the licensee will obtain information regarding the extent to which paddle-type flow switches are utilized within the nuclear piping systems. This item remains open.
(Details II, para-graph 2)
72-11/2 B&W Safety Cabinets - Internal Panel Wiring (Unit 1)
(Region II Letter, December 19, 1972, Item 2)
(See Item 72-4/3.)
It is our understanding that the licensee will require
,
that B&W perform an engineering evaluation of all safety cabinets regardin~ conformance to the separations criteria for internal cabinet wiring. This item remains open.
I 72-11/3 Cable Installation in Control Room and Computer Room False Floor and Floor of Main Control Panels (Unit 1) (Region II i
Letter, December 19, 1972, Item 3)
(See Item 72-4/2.)
'
f l
It is our understanding that the licensee will require
'
Bechtel Engineering Corporation (Bechtel) to evaluate cable installation under the control room and computer
,
i room false floor regarding separations, loading and quality
'
workmanship criteria. This item remains open.
72-11/4 Aluminum Instrumentation Housings Located Inside Containment (Unit 1) (Region II Letter, December 19, 1972, Item 4)_
,
It is our understanding that the licensee will determine that the aluminum instrument cases within containment are accounted for in the containment aluminum inventory. This item remains open.
72-11/5 Storage and Inspection Program For Installed or Stored In-Place Equipment (Unit 1) (Region II Letter, December 19, 1972, Item 5)
It is our understanding that the licensee will determine that Bechtel does have and is implementing a quality
,
assurance storage and inspection program for installed l
or stored in-place equipment. This item remains open.
l V.
-
.
..
-
.
-
_
-
,
.
.
.
-
__
,
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-2-5-
,
72-11/6 General Electric Company (G-E) Reactor Trip Breakers (Unit 1) (Region II Letter, December 19, 1972, Item 6)
It is our understanding that the licensee will obtain test data for cur review on the G-E reactor trip breakers (four). This item remains open.
72-11/7 Qualification of Containment Instrumentation (Unit 1)
(Region II Letter, December 19, 1972, Item 7)
It is our understanding that the licensee will confirm that instruments located within the containment building were designed and qualified to function following the Design Basis Accident (DBA). This item remains open.
72-12/1 Discrepancies Between Piping and Control Systems (Unit 1)
It is our understanding that AP&L will provide an engineering evaluation regarding the extent of the control system cross connection. AP&L will be required to document the deficiency, analysis of safety implications and corrective action if safety
- ~
/
related systems are identified which have control system cross connections.
72-12/2 Valve Wall Thickness Verification (Unit 1) (Region II Letter, June 30, 197?.)
It is our understanding that AP&L will develop and implement a verification program when AEC defines the requirements regarding their letter of exception, July 28, 1972. This item remains open.
,
V.
Design Changes None l
VI.
Unusual Occurrences None VII.
Other Significant Findings A.
Proj ect Status See Details I, Item 2, General.
B.
Personnel or Organizational Changes 1.
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
,
+
.
.
.
,
~
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-2-6-One man has been added co the QA group. He is L. Humphrey, a general engineering graduate of Arkansas Polytechnic College. AP&L total site QA staff for construction is five.
2.
Bechtel Engineering Corporation (Bechtel)
J. B. Loth, Project Quality Assurance Engineer, will be transferred to the San Francisco office as a QA Coordinator reporting to the Manager of Quality Assurance. Loth will be replaced by Allred as Project QA Engineer (PQAE); however, Allred will be based in San Francisco and report to the project manager. In the past, the PQAE was based at the site and reported to the project engineer. Beckham will becomo the new Lead QA Engineer (QAE) at the site and will report to Allred in San Francisco.
R. Forrester will be added to the site QA staff in order to maintain a three-man staff.
A. Curtis, formerly Project Field Engineer, has transferred to Beche
'rancisco project engineering group. He mainta'
_.aion with the site project manager on Arkansas One, Stuuolefield.
-
,
R. E. Cameron has been advanced from the electrical section to the position of Project Field Engineer, replacing Curtis.
J. Rachel has been added to the field engineering group as an Area Engineer, Civil.
C.
Inquiry Reports 1.
50-313/72-3Q/CDR (Attachment A)
2.
50-313/73-lQ/CDR (Attachment B)
..
VIII.
Management Interview A.
Exit Interview Attendees 1.
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
N. A. Moore - Chief QA Coordinator A. C. Bland - QA Engineer (Civil)
C. L. Bean - QA Engineer (Mechanical)
E. Quattlebaum - QA Engineer (Electrical)
L. W. Humphrey - QA Engineer (General)
2.
Bechtel Engineering Corporation (Bechtel)
)'
J. B. Loth - Project QA Engineer (*
C. G. Beckham - Lead QA Engineer (Mechanical)
-
_
_
-.
.
..
-
_
-
__
..
-
-~
.
,
x RO Rpt. No. 50-313/73-2-7-
,
P. W. Sly - QC Engineer (Records)
K. Higgens - QC Engineer (Mechanical)
The inspectors apprised the attendees of the general areas of inspection and findings.
No enforcement action items were identified.
Three areas of concern were discussed with the attendees:
A.
Post-Tensioning, Previously Identified Unresolved Item,
'
71-6/1 - Stressing Washer Design Although completion of stressing washer installation on Unit 1 gave defacto closing of this item, the inspector asked if efforts were being made to modify the stressing washer for Unit 2 use.
The AP&L QA coordinator stated that he knew of no open discussion between Bechtel and Prescon on the matter but that he would inquire.
(Details I, paragraph 4)
O B.
Systems Cleaning The inspector stated that no discrepancies had been no:ed in the records and procedures for cleaning of piping erstems and equipment. He asked that telepnone notice be given to the principal inspector when final backflushing of the; NSSS systems into the reactor vessel is to be performed, s ince this will afford an opportunity to further judge the effectiveness of cleaning and cleanliness maintenance
,
procedures used.
The licensee promised to telephone timely notice.
(Ietails I, paragraph 5)
,
C.
Containment Leak Test
,
The containment leak test will follow the complet1or of post-ter_sioning of the containment. The licensee was told that during auch tests at other sites, some of the est instrumentation had failed. To avoid repeating the tests, engineering evaluations had been made to establish the sufficiency of the data obtained "oy the functioning instru-mente. He stated that the procedure for the proposed leak
,
f(
-
__
-
-
.
.
- __
.
..
.
.
.
I
.
.
!
-
i
i h
.
^
d i
i R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-2-8-f
'
I l
!
rate test probably will be reviewed by Regulatory Operations with emphasis on the adequacy of instrumentation to obviate i
reliance on an engineering evaluation to establish the integrity of the test.
'
l The coordinator stated that the matter will be discussed with
j AP&L test engineers.
t
,
W s
I r
a i
'
l l
{
l
,.
I
!
i
!
a i
!
..
l
,
l
!
.. _ _ _ _
..
_ _.. _ -. _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _, _ _. _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _. -. _,., _ _.
_
..-
.
p.
g S
%
RO Report No. 50-313/73-2 I-l
'
DETAILS I Prepared By:
'e'
.,.5 s Id7
W. B. Swan Date Reactor Inspector
'
Engineering Section Facilities Construction
Branch
Dates of Inspection: January 16-15, 1972 Reviewed By:
,.4 /z,/')J
,
A.C.Bryaint Date veSenior Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted O
!
a.
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
N. A. Moore - Chief QA Coordinator A. C. Bland - QC Inspector (Civil)
C. L. Bean - QC Inspector (Mechanical)
E. Quattlebaum - QC Inspector (Electrical)
L. Humphrey - QC Inspector (General)
b.
Contractor Organizations Bechtel Engineering Corpo ation (Bechtel)
..
J. W. Mace - Assistant Project Superintendent J. B. Loth - Project QA Engineer P. W. Sly - QC Engineer (Records)
K. Higgens - QC Engineer (Mechanical)
T. Green - QC Engineer (Civii)
C. Nelson - Post-Tensioning Engineer G. Stewart - Mechanical Civil Engineer, In Charge of System Cleaning O
-
.
.
_
.
-
.
.
...
-
_- -. - -
.
.
-...
.
'
.,
,
.
-
ll
~
\\
,
RO Report No. 50-313/73-2 I-2 L
,
I l
2.
General L
'
!
!
Progress of construction: The following list provides the estimated l
percent physical construction complete total effort:
Description 10/27/72 12/1/72 1/9/73
!
Unit No. 1 (Total)
91 93, Piping Systems
94
!
97
j Core Flood
80
96
,
l Makeup and Purification
85
90
[
93
Electrical (Total)
88
Raceway and Conduit
98
Switchboard and Shutdown Board Installation
98
<
'
Cable Pull
90
l Cable Termination
80
l Reactor Protection
75
Engineered Safety Features
80
99
Bechtel personnel onsite for U it No. 1, 664 and 83 subcontractor n
personnel; Unit No. 2, 135 and 41 subcontractor personnel; total,
!
923. AP&L personnel 92 and 5 QA personnel. Labor problems, none.
3.
Work Summary and Schedule
..
Site efforts continue to be concentrated on piping and electrical systems installation. All major components have been set.
l The systems turnover rate is good. Systems completely turned over, 62%; partially turned over, 22%; remaining, fully in construction l
status, 16%. Some preoperational resting is reported to have started.
I t
-
-
.
.
,
.
_
,
,
.
R0 Report No. 50-313/73-2 I-3 4.
Post-Tensioning System Installation Stressing of the tendons on Unit 1 containment was found to be progressing well, with completion expected by the end of February. Through January 16, 1973, there were 133 hoop tendons, 21 dome tendons and 51 vertical tendons remaining to be stressed.
Only two tendons had not been pulled into their sheaths. The sheath
,
for tendon 31 H12 was obstructed by a lest Kellems cable grip. Approval to omit installation of this tendon was dated October 12, 1972. Tendon 32 H8 may also be omitted. It is close to abandoned (omitted) tendon 31 H12. When an engineering evaluation has been completed, a disposition will be issued.
The inspector observed grease streaks on the exterior of the vertical containment wall. He was told that investigation had shown that the grease had escaped from tendon sheaths through hairline cracks in the thick concrete wall. The licensee expects (and hopes) that completion of stressing of the tendons will compress and close these g)
cracks. No nuclear safety problem is involved but the grease streaks (d are esthetically disturbing to the architectural motif. The inspector watched stressing of dome tendons 1 D21 and 1 D13. Bechtel engineers recorded QC and engineering data as the work progressed.
No discrepancies in procedure or workmanship were noted.
Elapsed time for stressing the two tendons was eighty minutes.
The crew expected to complete stressing of dome tendons on January 24, 1973. The grease filling of tendon sheaths would then commence.
The inspector noted that as the pulling jack screw was run into the stressing washer, there was enough friction to turn the stressing
washer and wind up the tendon 1/2 to 3/4 turns. During stressing, it could not be seen whether all of this windup was relieved.
All tendons are stressed to ram gauge pressure of 7,450 psi. Anchorage shims are then installed to yield a liftoff pressure on the ram gauge between 6,700 and 6,950 psi.
Elongation measurements are made on ram pull rod travel beginning at
l 1,000 psi and at 7,450 psi. The measured elongations exceeded the l
calculated elongation by 15/16 inch to 1-1/8 inches, averaging 1 inch for the dome tendons as observed by this inspector and recorded for other tendons on the tendon record cards. Acceptance is based on the force exerted and not on elongation.
l l
.
-
--
-
.
,
,
.
O (v)
RO Report No. 50-313/73-2 I-4 Both this inspector and an A/&L inspector noted that the 1,000 psi pull on the tendon did not complete seating of all buttonheads on the stressing washer and perhaps did not complete unwinding of a twisted tendon or overcome all internal wire friction with other wires and the sheath or complete minor flattening of sheath surfaces.
-
The inspector asked why, in the face of a consistent discrepancy, the procedure had not been changed to increase the initial gauge pressure to where the buttonheads would all be seated and the other factors relieved, then to relax the ram and build back to 1,000 psi before starting to measure elongation. He was told that the matter had been discussed with Bechtel but that the Bechtel SFHO chief project engineer, working with Bechtel and Prescon engineers, had not issued a resolution.
No violation existed. The stipulated procedure was being followed.
The drawing required only that the measured elongation be recorded.
The calculated elongation was given but no_ acceptance criteria was given. The inspector stated that the recorded elongation figures are apparently worthless since the tendon is not fully extended and seated g ~ss (
)
before the measurement is started.
He stated that the matter should be resolved before Unit 2 work procedures are finalized.
So far, Bechtel and Prescon have not agreed to change of procedure.
Records Review: Complete Bechtel QC records were found for each tendon.
For Tendon 21 H32 on December 21, 1972, Bechtel QC wrote NCR 353 noting
that greasing had not been done within fifteen days after the tendon was stressed. The civil area engineer stated trat the tendon was greasy enough to protect it since it had been grea.ed, pulled in, pulled out, and then greased again during repulling.
Bechtel engineering is investigating but has not yet given site QC a resolving decision.
AP&L Audit Review: The inspector reviewed the audit made by AP&L QA of Bechtel's post-tensioning work on December 15, 1972. AP&L Form ANO-12, entitled " Containment Building Post Tension System Audit," was used. The entries cover installation, calibration, tensioning, schedule, greasing schedule, and documentation of tendon and sheathing data. The audit was signed by AP&L.
It noted NCR 353 mentioned above. No fault was found with the audit method or the record verification of tendon grease acceptability.
s x
,
l l
._
.-
.
-
.
.
.
-
.. _..-
,'
-
.
,
-
I
~~g
.
i
\\~.s]
R0 Report No. 50-313/73-2 I-5 The receiving report for the last shipment of tendon grease, dated January 3, 1973, was reviewed. The shipment consisted of 4,000 gallons of Visconorust No. 2090-F. The test report from Viscor Chemical Laboratory, dated January 2, 1973, showed:
Chlorides less than 1 ppm; Acceptance limit, 2 ppm Nitrate less than 1 ppm; Acceptance limit, 4 ppm Sulfides less than 1 ppm; Acceptance limit, 2 ppm 5.
Cleaning of Class I Piping Systems and Equipment - Unit 1
'
,
The fabrication cleaning of the Class I piping and NSSS equipment was found to have been completed with the exception of a short section of
radwaste piping at a manifold which was waiting for installation of
!
late valves before cleaning; also, cleanliness had not oeen certified for some floor drains.
t Bechtel has had the responsibility for cleaning primary piping systems, all of which are stainless steel. AP&L has the responsibility s
for cleaning secondary piping made of carbon steel.
Some of this
- - " secondary" piping may have the capability of contaminating primary systems. Regulatory Operations preoperational test group has been alerted to monitor these latter cleaning operations.
Bechtel procedures were reviewed covering " Cleaning of Nuclear Stainless Steel Systems," " Field Fabrication of Piping Systems for Nuc1 car Services; Section 8.0, Cleanliness During Construction," and " Shop Fabricated Carbon and Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping and Piping Supports for Nuclear Service, Section 6.5, Cleaning."
The procedures were found to call for no chemical cleaning except for some solvent wiping of subassemblies and the assembled 28-inch and 38-inch
.-
reactor coolant loop piping. Heavy reliance was placed on hydro-laser cleaning of assembled systems. For example, 2-1/2-inch branch lines were cleaned with this tool and then flushed at a rate of 450 gpm.
-
,
The inspector verified that the NSSS piping supplied by B&W had been
'
cleaned at the shop, sealed, and kept in a cleaned condition until
,
'
field erection started.
Review of Cleaning Diagrams and Pumping and Cleaning Equipment: The inspector was shown typical piping system diagrams prepared by the cleaning supervising engineer for each increment of cleaning with designated injection and discharge points and isolation detai1. The hydro-laser and pumping equipment which had been used sure 'nspected.
~s
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
A R0 Report No. 50-313/73-2 I-6 Control of Cleanliness: After each section was cleaned, temporary closures were made and tagged by the cleaning supervisor. The pipe welding supervisor was not allowed to permit closure of a joint without a release of this hold tag.
.
Review of Records: The record file of the cleaning engineer entitled
" Flushing Record M-230 NSSS Cleaning; Water Analysis 2.45" was reviewed.
It records analyses of all water samples: new demineralized, reprocessed demineralized, influent and effluent at flushing.
A file folder entitled " File 2.45 Liqwaste" contained a summary sheet of cleaning data for pipe 2-1/2 inches to 4 inches and a separate summary for pipe 2 inches and less. All questions were answered during this review.
During the review of cleaning records, some incomplete entries were noted for some " Rework" instruction sheets issued by the cleaning engineer. During the inspection, all these incompletes were signed off by the cleaning engineer by cross references to log sheets and p
other records.
\\
Equipment Cleaning Records: Cleaning records were reviewed for the
'
following equipment: Pressurizer T-1, Steam Generator E-24A, Steam Generator E-24-B, Pumps P-32A, B and C.
The record traced the cleaning of the pressurizer and the steam generators from vendor, through receipt and after storage in final position. Final inspection acceptance of cleanliness of the steam generators had not been made by the AP&L and B&W ceam by the end of the inspection.
The pumps P-32A, B and C had been returned to the vendor for reeleaning of internals and recheck. The purchase specifications raquired cleaning; the pumps were released for shipment as clean; receiving inspection
'
had cleared various casings and internals; however, contamination was found on the impe11ers and in two of the casings so the pumps had been returned to the vendor for recleaning and rework.
The final record showed that the in-place cleanliness of the pumps was verified:
P-32A - August 30, 1972 P-32B - August 25, 1972 P-32B Recleaned September 12, 1972
-
P-32C - August 30, 1972, Case and Internals August 23, 1972 i
P-32D - Internals August 2, 1972, Shaft Assembly August 16, 1972 m
G
.
k n
-
.
.
.
/-Uy R0 Report No. 50-313/73-2 I-7 6.
Observations of Equipment at Intake Structure Large condenser cooling water pump P-3C was found to have been removed. The AP&L mechanical QC inspector said that there were two
- .
reasons: The pump shaft mountings were displaced enough that the pump shaft was too far out of alignment; the motor shaft ma; be bent.
The motor has been returned to Electric Products Company for recheck.
The QC records leading to the pump removal and those covering rework will be reviewed during a followup inspection.
7.
Concrete Work at Intake Structure to Adape for Unit 2 An extension of the intake structure had been commenced under the exemption permit for initial Unit 2 work. Delay to December 1972
!
in obtaining Unit 2 construction permit had caused a shutdown of several months for this work.
The concrete structure extension work was found to have resumed and s
was inspected.
'
Licensing required the installation of a cooling tower for Unit 2.
The excavation for the pipelines connecting the intake facilities to the cooling tower was found to be substantially complete. Pipe installation had started and forming was underway for protective concrete support to the concrete cased power lines between che transformer area and the switchyard.
8.
Walk-TS. sugh Inspection of Fuel Storage Vault for Emergency Diesel Power Unite, An underground concrete storage vault, topped by a concrete access and ventilation shaft equipped with watertight bulkheads, has been installed capable of insuring undisturbed d?.esel fuel supply even if some accident such as a tornado should driva the lake water to a depth of twelve feet above ground level.
No discrepancy was found in the basic structural work.
a
-w r
.t-w
-
v-r---
-
.
.
.
R0 Report No. 50-313/73-2 II-l c2 7/!73 DETAILS II Prepared B
/
T. ENonloWReactor Inspector Date Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Dates of Inspection: January 16-19, 1973
.
Reviewed By:
J/z//4 7 J.A'. 'ilrya6tge'nior Inspector Datif Ef(gineering Section Facilities Construction Branch 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
N. A. Moore - Chief QA Coordinator C. L. Bean - QA Engineer (Mechanical)
b.
Contractor Organizations Bechtel Engineering Corporation (Bechtel)
J. B. Loth - Project QA Engineer C. G. Beckham - Lead QA Engineer (Mechanical)
P. W. Sly - QC Engineer (Records)
K. Higgens - QC Engineer (Mechanical)
E. Guinn - Mechanical Engineer 2.
Paddle-Type Flow Switches AP&L has identified four paddle-type flow switches installed in non-safety related systems on Unit 1.
However, AP&L is waiting on a letter from Bechtel for additional assurance that no paddle-type flow switches are installed in any safety related systems by Bechtel or one of Bechtel's subcontractors. The licensee stated that no paddle-type flow switches would be used in Unit 2.
This item remains open.
3.
Pressurizer Safety and Relief Valve Monitoring and Connecting Piping The licensee informed the inspector that the analysis for dynamic forces during blowdown of subject valves would not be available during this in-spection. This item remains open.
U)
l l
-
..
._
_ __
_
_
_
_
_-
_ _. _ _
'
.
.
N R0 Report No. 50-313/73-2 II-2
,
-
,
4.
Specification and Procedure Review The inspector reviewed the following documents for applicability to hangers and piping supports and found then to be La compliance.
Bechtel purchase specification 6600-M-119, revision 1.
-
a.
.
b.
Bechtel field inspection procedure M-1.
5.
Hanger and Support Installation
.
The inspector performed a talk-through visual inspection of primary coolant pressure boundary piping. Particular emphasis was placed on 2-1/2-inch diameter and larger piping for the following systems:
a.
Cor.- Flood b.
Decay Heat c.
High Pressure Makeup d.
Main Feedwater e.
Main Steam During the course of inspection, numerous small deficiencies were noted.
'
The canstructor personnel pointed out that approximately 90% of hangers, restraints, guides and supports have been installed, but only 5% have been final inspected and accepted.
6.
QC Record Review _
l QC records were reviewed for those hangers, supports, and guides that had been final inspected and accepted. The records consisted of:
'
Receipt inspection of material used to join or attach hangers to
!
a.
piping
>
b.
Material certifications Weld procedure qualification and weldor qualification c.
d.
Nonconformance reports e.
Field inspection checklists
N.
s
-.
,
._
_
__
.
__
_ _
.
~
'
.
l
'
R0 Report No. 50-313/73-2 II-3 i
7.
Bechtel QA Audits
'
Bechtel QA records revealed that three audits have been performed against field inspection procedure M-1, titled " Progressive Inspection of Hangers / Restraints." The findings of these audits were that the
status of field inspection checklists was not being kept current and that hanger installation sketches were lacking. Corrective action was initiated in June 1972. The inspector did not observe these deficiencies during his review of QC records.
~
1
-
.
..
_