IR 05000322/1981008
| ML19350E749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1981 |
| From: | Mccabe E, Narrow L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350E744 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-81-08, 50-322-81-8, NUDOCS 8106230492 | |
| Download: ML19350E749 (7) | |
Text
.
_
_ --
.
'.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0tl 0FFICE OF IllSPECTION ATID ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-322/81-08 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 Inspection at:
Shoreham, New York 981 Inspection condu,d ed:
Ma
,
.
[
[
Inspectors:
date / signed L. Narrow, Reactor Inspector
,
date signed
.
.
,
date signed
[. b-
8I Approved by:
E.C. McCabe, Jr., Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2B
-
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 4-7, 1981 (Report No. 50-322/81-08)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection (22 hours2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br /> onsite) by a regional based inspector of concrete preplacement preparation and pipe snubber installation; for review of the status of outstanding items; and for observation of work in progress and the status of construction.
Resul ts : No items of noncompliance were identified.
.
.
Region I Form 12
,
'
(Rev. April 77)
8106 23 0 L\\%
.
.
--
.
-. -.
..
.-
.-
.
-
,
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Long Island Lighting Company K.
Butler, QA Engineer T.F.
Joos, QA Engineer
- J.M.
Kelly, Field QA Manager B.R.
McCaffrey, Assistant Project Manager
- M.H.
Milligan, Project Engineer
- W.J.
Museler, Construction Manager E.J.
Nicholas, Section Supervisor, Field QA
- J.P.
Novarro, Project Manager C.
Seaman, Assistant Project Engineer Stone and Webster Engineering (S&W)
- T.T.
Arrington, Superintendent, FQC E.
Barcum, Senior QA Inspector D.
Bradley, QA Inspector H.C.
Calabro, QA Supervisor
- R.S.
Costa, Profect QA Menager (Boston)
W.
Mowrey, Senior QC Inspector R.
Perra,-Assistant Superintendent, FQC
.
.
V.
Sanders, Senior QC Inspector
,
,
F.
Seeley, QC Supervisor, Hangers
.
General Electric Comoany (GE)
- R.M.
Pulsifer, Rasident Site Manager
- denotes persons in attendance at the exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the inspection.
,lant Tour o
2.
The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work and construction status in several areas. Work items were examined for obvious defects and for noncompliance with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments. Specific activities and completed work observed by the inspector included -installat on of pipe supports, separation of i
instrument lines, cable terminations, welding for rework of pipe supports, and warehouse receiving and storage.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
<
L
l
.
~ -
s y-
-- -
,
--e c
,
r-.sy g--
--w-.
-
o-w-
,--,
y
1
.,
.
..
.,
3-
.
3.
Nonconforming Nuts and 5tuds Nuts and studs used to' attach the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) to the RPV pedestal which were fabricated by Acimet Manufacturing Company (Acimet) had been reported by another licensee as nonconforming. The inspector discussed this problem with the licensee and requested that the licensee determine whether a similiar condicion may exist at this site. The studs and nuts had been furnished by GE but the identity of the fabricator could not be determined prior to conclusion of the inspect *.on.
This item is unresolved pending identification of the fabricator and determination of the' acceptability of the fasteners (81-08-01).
4.
Shon Inspection of pioing Assemblies by Dravo Region I has recently received a copy of a rep (ort by Dravo Corporation (Dravo) concerning improper magnetic particle MT) inspection of piping assembly welds by one of their inspectors.
Since Dravo had supplied fabricated piping assembly for the Shoreham Plant, the inspector discussed this problem with the licensee.
Dravo had informed the licensee of this problem, their proposed corrective actions, and the results of re-examination of we'.ds previously examined by the inspector in question by letters dated January 26, 1981 and March 5, 1981.
Dravo's letters state that they had performed re-examinations of over 1000 examinations previously performed by the inspector in question.
They had also participated in re-exar. nations of over 150 pressure retaining welds in piping assemblies previously shipped to a nuclear construction site, which had been inspected by.the same inspector.
These re-examinations had identified no rejectable indications in pressure retaining welds and only minor defects in non pressure retaining welds and base materials.
The Dravo letter of March 5,1981 proposed that no further action was required.
The inspector examined a memo to " Potential Reportable" file by the licensee.
This memo concurs with Oravo's conclusion that no further investigation was necessary.
The inspector questioned the lack of re-examination of any of Oravo fabrications which had been supplied to the Shoreham site. The investigation at the Dravo plant and at the other nuclear site had re-examined assemblies fabricated and tested recently (apparently within the past
-
six months). Piping assemblies had been furnished by Oravo to the Shoreham site for a number of years. Although there is no reason to expect earlier shipments to contain more rejectable indications than recent shipments a conservative approach would indicate the requirement for at least a sampling inspection of piping assemblies provided to Shoreham.
.
--
'
.
-
.
'
,
.
4-
'
.
This item is unresolved'pending re-examination of a sample of the Dravo piping assemblies at Shoreham or further' justification _that such sampling inspection is unnecessary. (81-08-02)
5.
Pipe Snubber Inspection and Records The inspector observed installed pipe snubbers N11-PSSP 860 A&B, 861 A&B, 862 A&B and 863 A&B and. inspection of these snubbers by Field QC.
The installation was in accordance.with S&W Dwgs. BZ-250-24-2, Sheet 1-6.
The snubbers had been properly released on Snubber Control Requisition Form and were properly identified by Serial No., Mark No.,
and size.
QC inspection of the snubber installation was in conformance with the requirements of:
-- '
FQC Procedure QC-11.4, Revision 13 " Hanger Installation Control Program";
FQC Instruction FSI F 11.4-04 " Snubber Installation Inspection",
--
and E&CCR F-24491, and F-24491A which provide inspection criteria for
--
snubber inspections.
~
The inspector also examined QC inspection reports for the snubbers
.
.
identified above.
.
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l 6.
Concrete preplacement Preparation
.
The inspector.cbserved installation of reinforcing shell and formwork for the Sample Facility walls; and preplacement preparations._for concrete placements No. SRF-SR-1F and 1G (Total 14.6 cubic yards).
'
The inspector examined equipment and records pertaining to operation of the concrete test laboratory and the batch plant. The laboratory equipment history chart provided a record of calibration of small equipment. Scales and testing machines were tagged to show records of inspection. The National Bureau of Standards Cc.nent and Concrete Reference Laboratory (CCRL) had inspected the concrete test laboratory in April,1980 as confirmed by a letter dated June 3,1980 from CCRL.
The concrete batch plant was not in operation diving this inspection The inspector discussed the operation with QC i.nd operating personnel.
Concrete materials are batched into transit m'x trucks and mixed in the trucks at the plant and then transported to the point of place-
,
ment. The plant and trucks had been tested on May 8, 1980 in accordance with a check list and instructions of the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. The inspector examined records of cement use on a
.
e
~
-
w
.*~-
.
.
s
-
s.
'
delivery which was maintained to assure that cement was not kept in storage for longer than the 3-month period permitted by the spec-ification without retest. The operations and records examined were reviewed for conformance to the requirements of:
Specification SHI-42 " Mixing and Delivering Concrete",
SHI-66 " Concrete Testing and Inspection Service",
SHI-354 " Concrete Work", and Drawings FC-24 (series W-AH)
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (80-19-01):
Review for reportability of a deficiency in Velan Swing Check Valves. The inspector had previously reviewed this matter (Inspection Report 81-03).
No documentation was available on site at that time to substantiate review of this item for reportability.
The following documents were now available on site and were examined by the inspector:
.
a.
Letter S&W to LILCO, LIL-17603, dated April 6,1981 which con-cluded that this item was not reportable in accordance with 10 CFR50.55(e).
b.
LILCO internal memo dated May 4, 1981 from the Nuclear Engineering Department which identified two of the valves as potentially reportable.
c.
Interoffice Correspondence (ICC) dated March 9, 1981 from S&W Engineering to Construction requesting that the four 6-inch swing cneck valves furnished by Velan be checked for jamming.
d.
Courter QC Inspection Report dated March 20, 1981 reporting that the four 6-inch check valves had been tested and found to operate satisfactorily.
The inspector discussed the difference between the evaluation for reportability by S&W and LILCO Engineering with the licensee.
Since the disc hangers for all valves had already been replaced and since Velon had reported this item in accordance with 10 CFR 21, it was agreed that there was no reason to submit another report at this time.
The inspector also reviewed the licensee precedures and records of potentially reportable events and determined that they were adequate.
.
'
-
p
--p.
,
.
.
.
-
o,..
_
.
8.
Review of Deficiencies Reported by Vendors a.
(Closed) Part 21 Report (81-88-02): On November 5, 1980, Velan Engineering Company reported jamming of disc hangers in 4-inch and 6-inch swing check valves.
This item was'previously reviewed during inspection 50-322/80-19 and is discussed above.
It is considered to be resolved.
b.
(Closed) Part 21 Report (80-88-02):
Bergen-Paterson (B-P) had reported to NRC and notified the. licensee of several problems with B-P part 2540 strut assemblies when used with Pacific Scientific Company (PSCO) mechanical shock arrestors. These problems included:
(1) PSCO Shock Arrestors, size 15 and 50:
Insufficient clearance to operate in 83 degree off-axis applications (2) PSCO shock Arrestors, Size 50 and 120:
Strut extension exerts pressure on rear dust cover and may cause distortion.
May also exert pressure on internal mechanism and create resistance to free movement.
(3) PSCO Shock Arrestors, Size 120:
Insufficient clearance through 180 degree installation angle.
(4) PSCdShockArrestors, Size 120: Not acceptable for rated load of 120K. Maximum acceptable load is 112K.
All of the aoove potential problems were also identified in IE
Circular 79-25 and 79-25, Supplement A.
The licensee corrective actions were reviewed during inspection 80-05, 80-19 and 81-05 but remained unresolved.
The inspector examined B-p letters CCN:1012/32/0076 and CCN:
1012/32/0076; N&D No. 3000; instructions for corrective actions required by its disposition; and inspection reports of rework performed. The B-P letters identified the snubbers potentially subject to interference. N&D No. 2875 which was superceded by N&D 3000 identified snubbers which were to be returned to vendor for modification or replacement and snubbers which were to be modified on site.
IOC dated March 27, 1931 with attached summary which identified snubbers by hanger number and showed status of corrective actions and inspection. The IOC also provided instruction for inspections to be performed for snubbees returned to B-P for rework.
The inspector also examined N&D 3068 which identified the snubbers which fail to meet the 120K load rating. This N&D was dispositioned for replacement of the rear bracket.
The attached inspection
.
-. -.,
.
--
,_-
-.
_
.
.
..
,
a L
-
.g. ;
,
.
reports identified certain snubbers which had been received and which had been modified on site and the remaining snubbers which had been modified by the vendor prior to shipment.
The inspector had no further questions concerning items 80-88-02 and 79-C1-25.
'
,
c.
(0 pen) Part 21 Report (81-88-03):
Bergen-Paterson (B-P) had reported to NRC and notified the vendor of a potential inter-ference with certain strut assemblies. To date 26 snubbers have been identified as unable to meet the B-P specification for 6 degrees freedom of movement in all directions.
The ' inspector discussed this problem with the licensee and was informed that a dimensional check was in progress.
Nine of the snubbers had either been corrected or found not to have any interference.
This item has been evaluated by the licensee for reportability in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Based on information available to date it is not considered to be reportable.
This item remains unresolved pending conclusion of the dimensional
.
check and necessary corrective action.by the licensee and review
-
by an NRC inspector.
.
9.
Unresolved Items
'
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, or items of noncompliance. Unresolved items identified during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3 and 4.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 7,1981.
In addition, the NRC Resident Inspector, Mr. J.C. Higgins attended the meeting.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
I
-
.
'
..
_
.
-
..
_..