IR 05000322/1979009
| ML19259D302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1979 |
| From: | Cerne A, Mcgaughy R, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19259D295 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-79-09, 50-322-79-9, NUDOCS 7910170618 | |
| Download: ML19259D302 (7) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-322/79-09 Docket No. 50-322 Category:
B License No. CPPR-95 Priority:
--
Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Facility Name:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 Inspection at:
Shoreham, New York Inspectier, c 1 ducted:
June 28-9, 1979 8-8~/O-79, Inspectors:
.A.
D. Toth, Reactor Inspector date signed OL L elain A. C. Cerne, Reactor Inspector ddte signed M4bu
'79 Approved by:
/ /
R.W.McGaughy,pfiejf Projects Matd signed Section RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 28-29, 1979 (Report No. 50-322/79-09)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of Quality Assurance Procedures for hydrotest of the RPV; Work Activities for flushing of control rod drive piping and structurai steel erection; and Quality Verification Records for implementation of structural steel design changes.
The inspectors also perfomed plant tour-inspections and reviewed licensee action on previous inspection findings.
The inspector also perfomed followup action as necessary to resolve questions which arose during the course of inspection of the above areas.
The inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite by 2 NRC regional office based inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
I160 098 7910170 b/8
.
.
-
,
-2-DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
_Long Island Lighting Company T. W. Catchpole, QA Specialist T. F. Gerecke, QA Manager T. Joos, QA Engineer
- J. M. Kelly, Field QA Manager
- W. Museler, Asst. Project Manager E. J. Nicholas, QA Specialist
- J. P. Novarro, Project Manager A. Salano, Chief Piping Supervisor (UNIC0)
Stone and Webster
- T. Arrington, Superintendent, Field QC E. Darcomb, Jr., FQC Inspector H. Calabro, Senior FQC Inspector J. Crytzer, FQC Inspector
- C. A. Fonseca, Head-Site Engineering Office
- T. C. Gray, Constr. Turnover Coordinator
- J. Hasset, Senior QC Inspector
- K. A. Howe, General Superintendent of Construction (UNIC0)
W. Taylor, Assistant Superintendent, Field QC Courter and Company T. Hamblin, Reactor Pressure Vessel Hydro Coordinator J. K. Lemond, Assistant Project Engineer R. C. Nayar, Project Engineer
- D. W. Papa, QA Manager General Electric
- J. Cockroft, QC
- R. Pulsifer, Resident Site Manager
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
'
~
1160 099
.
.
-3-2.
Plant Tour Shortly after arrival onsite the inspectors visited various parts of the plant to observe work activities in-progress, completed work and plant status.
Observations made during this general inspection of the plant were considered as warranted during later inspection of the construction quality assurance program implementation in specific areas. Additional plant tour inspections were also conducted at other periods over the duration of the inspection.
The inspectors examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements.
Particular note was taken of presence and/or availability of quality control inspectors, and quality control evidence such as inspection records, material identification, nonconfonning material status, inspection / process hold-point status, housekeeping and equipment preservation.
The inspectors interfiewed craft personnel, supervision and quality inspection personnel as such personnel were available in the work areas.
Specific personnel interviewed included the following:
a pipe fitter performing grinding on primary system piping
--
for inservice inspection preparation.
a sheet metal worker perfonning welding on supports in the
--
containment building for ventilation ducts.
a quality control technician perfonning magnetic particle
--
examination of a pipe hanger weld.
a pipe fitter assisting in preparations for hydrostatic
--
testing of primary system piping.
No items of noncompliance were identified during this general tour-inspection.
3.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping Flushing The inspector observed the demineralized water flushing of the control rod drive piping between hydraulic drive units and reactor pressure vessel penetrations.
The inspector examined the flushing procedure and data sheets, interviewed the Reactor Controls quality control inspector and the LILC0 surveillance inspector, and observed filter bag checks and examinations.
The inspector considered water quality chemistry requirements and test data and data, frequency, flow rate and duration of flushing water, particulate monitoring criteria, and procedure content relative to initial and final valve lineup.
1160 100
.
-4-The inspector considered the above items relative to organization, procedures, inspection, documentation, cleaning, nonconfonnance, and audit requirements of the Shoreham FSAR Section 17.
The inspector identified no items of noncompliance.
4.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping Hydrotest Procedures The inspector examined planning documents and preparatory records for hydrostatic pressure testing of the reactor vessel and associated piping.
The inspector considered the provisions to assure that each associated piping line was identified and included in the tests, including review and inspection by field quality control to ascertain resolution of outstanding items and verification of system readiness for the test.
The inspector gave particular attention to ascertain that measures have been implemented to assure the installation of pipe supports necessary for the test. The inspector's review included interviews of UNIC0 construction supervision and Courter Company project engineer and quality assurance personnel.
The inspector considered the above items relative to the quality assurance program requirements of the Shoreham FSAR Section 17.
The inspector examined the color-coded, posted composite flow diagram for the RPV and piping directly connected to it, and interviewed responsible Courter test personnel relative to test planning.
The inspector selected one subsystem (B21.2) from the composite planning diagram, and examined the pressure test package associated with it.
He checked the proposed test pressure against that shown on the related test pressure specification document (TPM-29A-7C).
The inspector examined the following documents relative to the above.
Composite flow Diagram F?i-83A-2
--
System B21 flow Diagram FM-29A-8
--
System B21 Test Pressure Document TPfi-29A-7C
--
Pressure Test Package, for subsystem B21.2 (Main Steam), which
--
includes 15 checklists and forms associated with test prerequisites, quality control, calculations, conduct of test, instrument calibration, and reporting / certification of test results.
1160 131
.
-5-List of Outstanding Items for Hydrotest Subsystem B21.2
--
Statement of Hanger Readiness for flush and RPV hydrotest
--
(Albertini/Riley dated May 25,1979)
The inspector identified no items of noncompliance relative to t1e above.
5.
Structural Steel a.
The inspector examined various bolted and welded structural steel connections on a general tour of the plant.
He spot-checked such items as bolt designation, washer placement, nut engagement, minimum edge distance, slotted hole dimensions, fit-up configuration, and visual acceptability of the completed welds.
These items were evaluated with regard to criteria established in Stone and Webster (S&W) Specification SH1-152 with addenda 1 and 2, and the applicable editions of the AISC and AWS codes.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
The inspector reviewed the current file of approved Engineering and Design Coordination Reports (E&DCRs) applicable to S&W Specification SH1-152.
He selected three E&DCRs for follow-up to verify that work had been accomplisned in accordance with the approved disposition and that quality records were available to provide objective evidence of same.
Implementation verification of each selected E&DCR is discussed below:
(1) E&DCR F-6951A-S S&W structural weld record packages were sampled and Weld Data Sheets were examined to determine if magnetic particle inspection (MT) had been perfonned in accordance with specification revisions generated by the above E&DCR. The inspector also spot-checked "open" weld packages at their field locations to verify that the Weld Data Sheets had the proper hold points for MT designated and that Magnetic Particle Examination Cards were available to document completed MT.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l'160 102
.
-6-(2) E&DCR F-9017-S The inspector notcd that the use of load indicating washers, in accordance with AISC requirements, had been approved for high-strength bolting at one area in the reactor building.
He examined a S&W Quality Control Inspection Report, File Code T22-310, dated January 4, 1978 and detennined that inspection of the load indicating washer installation had been accomplished with calibrated equipment and with acceptance criteria provided by the following documents:
Bethlehem Load Indicating Washer Technical Data
--
Pamphlet Cives Steel Company Supplemental Instructions dated
--
September 14, 1977 Evidence of the acceptability of the load indicating washers, as received, was provided by a Cives Certificate of Conformance, September 9,1977, for Shipping List No. 3877.
No items on noncompliance were identified.
(3) E&DCR F-12702 The inspector checked S&W drawing FC-10T-2 and examined E&DCR F-13118 with revisions A and B to determine the current approved bolting material to be used in the screenwell and pump house area.
By visual examination of the available bolts above the water level, the inspector detennined that A325 bolts, as were allowed, had been used.
S&W Quality Control Inspection Reports for Structural Steel Bolting (August 4,1978), the Screenwash Pumps (February 26,1979), and the Service Water Pumps (March 1,1979) were reviewed to verify torque application in accordance with AISC code and S&W specif"ation requirements.
Since the coating of the A325 bolts with coal tar epoxy was stipulated as a condition to their use, the inspector checked for such coating during his inspection of the area.
He also reviewed S&W surveillance inspection reports fcr the protective coatings in the pump house 1160 103
.
-7-area and noted a S&W Nonconformance and Disposition Report No. 2387 had been written to document the need for further objective evidence that the bolts had been properly coated.
No items of noncompliance were identified; however, one item remains unresolved, as discussed below.
A qualifying note to the use of the coal tar epoxy coated A325 bolts was issued as an attachment to the dispositioned E&DCR F-13118B.
This note indicates that the coated bolts need to be examined approximately every ten years "to detennine if replacement or recoating is necessary." The inspector questioned how this information, or other similar construction originated requirements, would be transmitted to the personnel responsible for operations maintenance scheduling. While interviews with licensee QA and engineering personnel indicated that a procedural mechanism for identifying and transferring such information was necessary, it was not clear that such a requirement presently exists.
Pending licensee review of existing procedures and action, if necessary, to establish QA controls over the conversion of applicable construction issues into operating plant requirements, this item is unresolved.
(322/79-09-01)
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in urder to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 5b.
7.
Management Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on June 29, 1979, a meeting was held at the Shoreham Site with representatives of the licensee and contractor organization.
Attendees at this meeting included personnel whose names are inaicated by notation (*) in paragraph 1.
The inspectors summarized the results of the inspection as described in this report.
1160 104