IR 05000322/1979010
| ML19256E117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1979 |
| From: | Mcgaughy R, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E116 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-79-10, NUDOCS 7910290128 | |
| Download: ML19256E117 (9) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-322/79-10 Docket No.
50-322
.
License No.
CPPR-96 Priority Category A
--
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 Inspection conduc d:
Jyly 9-13,197-)
7!7 Inspectors:
c4GL.
/d W
A. D. Toth', Reacto"r Ing ector
/dat/ signed b, b /DNw%%
8/31 h9 w. H. Bateman, Reactor Inspector dath signec Approved by:
I[lirW4
.
//!7l
T, Fro,)eCLs beCtlon
/ darte gigned K.
W.
MCbaugny ~ n & Engineering Support Branch Reactor Constru Inspection Summary:
Inspection on July 9-13, 1979 (Report No. 50-322/79-10)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional based inspectors of reactor coolant pressure boundary piping.
The inspectors also performed plant tour-inspections and reviewed licensee action on previous inspection findings.
The inspectors also performed followup action as neces-sary to resol._ questions which arose during ti:e course of inspection of the abova areas.
The inspection involved 46 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC regional office based inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
1M/
037 Region I Form 12
!
(Rev. April 77)
7519290l
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Perse-Contacted Long T g d Lighting Campany
- T. F. Gerecke, QA Manager
- A. W. Wofford, Vice President
_
Stone and Webster Engineering
- T. T. Arrington, Superintendent FQC F. Bellantoni, Chief Hanger Supervisor (UNICO)
- R. S. Costa, Project QA Manager
- W. N. Doldorf, Superinten@ 7t of Construction (UNICO)
- C. A. Fonseca, Assistant Project Engineer E. Hall, FQC Inspector Supervisor
- J. W. Hassett, FQC Senior Inspector R. Perra, FQC Chief Inspection Supervisor Courter and Company J. C. Carpanini, Inspector SQA
- D. W. Papa, Superintendent SQA
- J. T. Schmit, Assistant Superintendent, SQA
- D. R. Spencer, SQA Engineer General Electric Company
^J. M. Cockroft, QC Representative
- R. M. Pulsifer, Resident Site Manager In addition to the above, the inspectors interviewed various contractor supervisory, administrative and craft personnel during the course of the inspection, relative to records retrieval, status of work, and general site activities.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
!??/
038
.
.
Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and Stone and Webster (S&W) person-nel participate in the joint UNICO construction management organization mentioned in this report.
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 inspector examined work for any obvious defcets 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 iden-tification, nonconforming material status, inspection / process hold point status, housekeeping and equipment preservation.
The inspectors inter-viewed craft personnel, supervision and quality inspection personnel as such personnel were available in the work areas.
During such interviews the inspectors made it a point to inquire regarding opinions regarding quality of work, and particularly any areas or items in which the indivi-duals felt a lack of workmanship or any possible safety related problem may exist.
Approximately 15 individuals were contacted at various times, t.ith no attempt to establish their identity.
No significant concerns were expressed.
A minor item was mentioned relating to protection of coiled cables (safety and non-safety related), and this comment was considered in the inspector's followup of NRC previously identified unresolved item 322/79-04-03.
No items of noncompliance were identified during this general tour-inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous NRC Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item (322/79-04-03) - QA program provisions for prompt followup on quality control staff Deficiency Corrective Orders (DCO's)
issued regarding environmental er other degrading conditions.
The inspec-tor reviewed the electrical QC list of open DC0's, and ascertained that DC0 #12966, dated April 19, 1979, had not yet been closed.
The S&W QC lead inspector verified that the DC0 has not yet been closed.
(The DC0 describes 5 cables, coiled, indented greatly where supported on cable tray edge.) Quality control personnel interviewed by the innector asserted that the QC organization prepares the DC0, but the QA program assigns responsibility for close-out to the construction organization.
Fol-lowing review by tne UNICo project management, the licensee representative
!?2/
039
.
stated that the quality control instruction governing DC0's will be revised to provide for review of DCO's for any prompt action required, and labeling of any such DCO's for special attention.
Appropriate instructions to the construction organization are planned.
This item continues as unresolved pending review of implementation of such controls.
(0 pen) Noncompliance (322/79-02-01) - Post-Weld Heat Treatment (stress relief) contrary to ASME III.
The inspector examined the results of licensee records reviews, nondestructive tests, and clarifying instruc-tions described in the licensee's March 23, 1979 letter to NRC.
The records involved 129 piping welds performed t,y S&W prior to assumption of ASME III welding activities under the Courter Company ASME III QA program; 30 of these had been post-weld heat-treated by S&W.
The NRC PWHT finding prompted licensee review of the records of the 30 welds, and identification and resolution of documentation, qualification, and hold time deficiencies.
The Courter Company identified 15 welds where heatup or cooldown rates were exceeded; these were documented on noncom-formance reports.
Disposition of the items involved interpretation by the engineers (S&W) of the point of measurement of material thickness, which resulted in 4 welds as having exceeded heatup rates prescribed in the ASME code.
The inspector examined records of radiography and magne-tic particle inspection of these welds, and reviewed the S&W acceptance justification on E&DCR-F-20851; this notes that PWHT holding time would relieve stresses introduced by rapid heatup in a manner corresponding to relief of the welding residual stresses.
Resolution of this matter will depend upon results of Courter visual inspections for distortion in accordance with E&DCR-F-20851, and NRC further review of the material thickness interpretations applied by S&W.
The inspector examined the following specific records relative to the above:
S&W Engineering and Design Coordination Reports F-20851, F-18396, F-18396A, F-183968, F-1829 S&W Nonconformance and Disposition Reports N&D-2184, N&D-831 Courter Nonconformance Reports NR-574A, NR-5748, NR-574C, NR-574D IM/
040
.
Courter QC Inspection Report Systems 1B21 and 1N11 dated July 3,.1979 System 1N11 dated July 12, 1979 System 1B21 dated July 12, 1979 S&W Radiographic Interpretation Reports B21 IC176-FW6; N11-IC142-FW11, N11-IC143-FW12, N11-IC554-FW11 dated July 1,1979 (3) and June 26, 1979 (1), respectively.
S&W Magnetic Particle Examination Reports Same Nos. as RT reports above; dated July 12, 1979.
Correspondence ASME/S&W Boston dated April 23, 1979 S&W FQC/ Courter SQA dated April 4, 1979 S&W FQCI/S&W FQCE dated March 28, 1979 Courter SQA/S&W FQC dated March 24, 1979 UNIC0 Conference Notes dated March 25, 1979 (0 pen)
Unresolved Item (322/78-08-01) - Undercut in welds of structural steel.
Since identification of the absence cf AWS.01 inch undercut cri-teria in project specifications and inspection procedures, NRC inspectors have during their inspections at this site attempted to find cases of excessive undercut.
They found that generally, edges of w51ds were ade-quately blended to eliminate sharp stress risers; excessive unfilled undercut has not been identified.
An April 10, 1979 memorandum (UNICO Project to Field QA) reaffirms LILCO intent to apply a 1/32 inch maximum undercut criteria for structural steel.
The memorendum identifies general oversize plates, material ductility, absence of cyclic loadings, and intermittent character of undercut as factors in arriving at this criteria.
However, after further review by the I&E office of the AWS Dl-1 Code, it is our position that the.01 inch undercut limit is applicable in those arcas when
.the undercut's direction is transverse to primary tensile stress in the structural part. This item remains unresolved pending procedure changes tc incorporate this requirement and inspections and documentation which assure this requirement is met.
4.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundarv Piping Work Act'...les The inspectors examined the installed piping and pipe hangers in the piping run from the ccitainment suppression pool exterior, to the High Pressure Coolaat Injection System (HPCI) pump suction, and from the HPCI booster pump discharge to the thermal-sleeve tee-fitting injection point of the feedwatei system.
l'D7 041
,
The inspectors examined the piping for surface defects and general loca-tion consistent with applicable design drawings, and locations of branch connections.
The inspectors also examined pipe supports for location and construction compiiance with applicable design drawings.
The inspec-tors interviewed various pipefitters and other craftsmen and QC inspectors in the areas of the pipe run.
Prior to the walk down examination, the inspectors interviewed responsible Courter Company quality control personnel, and examined applicable proce-dures, and marked up flow diagrams (prescribed by QAP-8.2), and system isometric drawings.
The quality control personnel provided copies of detailed hanger drawings, color coded piping isometM c drawings, and prin-cipal applicable change notices, portions of completed pressure test packa0es and quality control walkdown inspection report.
The S&W con-struction personnel provided copies of detailed hanger drawings for the inspectcrs' use.
The inspectors concluded that the document coordination and retrievability was sufficient for QC inspection needs.
Where ques-tions arose during the document review or walk-down inspection, the con-tractor personnel were able to adequately retrieve applicable control documentation.
The inspectors considered the above documents and inspection scope rela-tive to the QA program provisions described in Section 17 of the Shoreham FSAR, the flow path and line sizes described in figure 7.3.1-1A of the FSAR, and the 1971 ASME Code Section III part NC 6000.
Specific docu-ments, representative of those examined by the inspector, are as follows:
Courter Procedures QAP-10.7 and QAP-10.9 QC-79/158:
QAP-10.9 Ir. erim Action Memorandua Marked Flow Diagrams FM-25A-9 and FM-258-8 Pressure Test Schedules E41-8, E41.18 and E41.27 HPCI Pump Suction E41.4, E41.3 and B21-1 HPCl Pump Discharge Partial Isometric Drawings (Dravo Corporation)
IC-178, IC-179, (Pump Suction)
IC-181, IC-177, IC-180, IC-175, IC-173 (Discharge)
i M/
042
.
.
Pipe Hanger Drawings BZ-11B-10-2, BZ-11B-9-4, BZ-118-5-4 BZ-118-14-5, BZ-118-25-3, BZ-118-12-4 IE11-PSSH-035-8 IE41-PSSH-013-6 1E11-PSSH-016-2 1E41-PSSH-013-6 Deficiency Corrective Orders D00-1320 and 1479 Engineering Design and Coordination Reports E&DCR-F-18951; E&DCR-F-17378 Nonconformance Reports NR-588 Quality Control Ir spection Reports QC1R - Pressure Test E21-15 dated 3/20/79 QC1R form #1086-QA-48 " Insulation Release" QC forn #1086-QA-150 " Final Installation Release" Pressure Test Valve Lineup Sheets Test E21-15 dated 3/28/79 Defect / Surface Discontinuity Records
- E41-18:
Mark IE41-W2-2-2; ISO IC-179-8K
- E41-18:
Mark IE41-MOV 032; ISO IC-179-8K
- E41-8:
Mark IE41-W1-22 ; 10-IC-178-4H
- E41-8:
Mark IE41-MOV-031; IS0-IC-178-4H
- E41-8:
Mark IE41-12V0007A; ISO-IC 178-4H
'
_ Courter SQA Inspector Work Instruction Line Walk Information (J. Carpanini) regarding QAP-10.7/10.9, NW-100, and E&DCR-5971 199/
043
.
-
Courter Interoffice Correspondence (SQA/ Construction)
(2) April 1979 action requests by 2 SOA inspectors (29) May 1979 action requests oy 11 SQA inspectors (12) June 1979 action requests by 11 SQA inspectors During the line-walk inspection the NRC inspectors noted some tape on the HPCI piping at various locations, but this was not such as to have inter-fered with examination of weld joints during the hydrotests conducted in March and April of 1979.
The Courter SQA personnel showed instructions and action requests issued by Courter SQA inspectors in May and June 1979, which demonstrate that rigorous SQA attention is being given to removal of dirt, tape, paint as prerequisites to their pre-hydrotest piping-line-walk inspections.
This attention appears necessary and acceptable.
The NRC inspectors also noted two surface discontinuities in the body of valve IE41-12V-0007A, apparently small casting defects of approximate 1/8" x 1/8" x 1/8" size.
The Courter Defect / Surface Discontinuity Record dated February 9, 1979 stated that the valve "has been visually examined and is visually acceptable at this time." On the other hand, the govern-ing procedure QAr-10.7 specifically excludes valve bodies from the line-walk defect /sur face discontinuity examination, (since such examination /
evaluation / repair-or acceptance were p-eviously performed at manufactur-er's shops).
The Courter SQA management, however, indicated their intent to have their inspectors examine valve and pump casing surfaces for field imposed defects (such as arc strikes), and they stated that the governing procedures would be amended to c.larify this intent.
Additionally, they stated that a nonconformance report would be issued regarding the condition observed by the NRC inspector to obtain S&W confirmation of the acceptability of the item.
The NRC inspector questioned the assembly of the turnbuckles on pipe hanger IE41-PSR-036.
A locknut was tightened against each end of the turnbuckle, but it appeared that the reverse-threaded ends of the sup-porting rods could turn in the collar socket and in the anchorage socket simultaneously to permit inadvertent disassembly under gravity and vibra-tory forces.
The licensea stated that this assembly would be examined and evaluated and appropriate action taken.
This is unresolved pending review of results of that evaluation.
(322/79-10-01)
The NRC inspector also observed that the horizontal arm of hanger IE41-PSR-036 IE41-PSR-036 was stamped and painted with an identification num-ber not corresponding to the IE41-PSR-036 designation.
It had a system IE42 serial number.
No iminediate resolution of the discrepancy was available, and the inspector stated that he would review this matter at a subsequent inspection.
This matter is unresolved pending such review.
(322/79-10-02)
l92/
044
.
-
5.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters abou+ shich more information is required in order to ascertain whether they te acceptable items, items of non-compliance, or deviations.
Unreso Ned items disclosed during the inspec-tion are discussed in Paragraph 4.
6.
Management Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on July 13, 1979 a meeting was held at the Shoreham site with representatives of the licensee and contractor organi-zations.
Attendees at this meeting included personnel whose names are indicated by notation (*) in paragraph 1.
The inspectors summarized the results of the inspection as described in this report.
At the meeting the licensee agreed to provide at the site within six weeks, a copy of the engineering analysis of the basis for control of low hydrogen weld electrode, for the inspector's review.
The licensee also agreed to be prepared to discuss the current status of the LILC0 analysis of QA program trends, regarding NRC inspection findings and LILCO and S&W nonconformance/ corrective action system data.
At the meeting, the 11 7nsee provided the inspector with a copy of recent articles from the South 1mpton Press and Newsday newspapers, which claim to quote the NRC as stating that E&DCR's found in the Southold dump represent "16000-18000 safety related problems" at Shoreham.
The inspec-tor stated at the management interview that the NRC, through evaluation by inspectors familiar with the E&'0CR design control system, in no res-pect considers such E&DCR's to represent "16,000-18,000 safety-related problems."
!
? / 0 /+ 5