IR 05000352/1978007

IE Insp Repts 50-352/78-07 & 50-353/78-04 on 780925-29. Noncompliance Noted:Failure to Perform Liquid Penetrant Test

ML20204D204
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	10/17/1978
From:	Durr J, Mattia J, Mchaughy R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20204D196	List: IR 05000352/1978007 ML20204D189 ML20204D198
References
50-352-78-07, 50-352-78-7, 50-353-78-04, 50-353-78-4, NUDOCS 7812110304
Download: ML20204D204 (10)

Text

. .

.

'

. .

g U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I NOTICE ,

50-352/78-07 1W N  !

Report No. 50-353/78-0 4 33 op 50-352 REGION i HAS NOT OBTAINED PROPRIETARY Docket N CLEARANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 2790 pR 6 License N CPPR-107 Priority -- Category A ,

Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street  :

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection at: Limerick, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: September 25-29, 1978 Inspectors: as4 /0 g- ./

.'C. Mattia, Reactor Inspector /dat(signed

L _ uhLI /o/M/?Y ,

Reactor Ins pector 'datt signed ~

p J.QC P. Durr, % talal?B A. C. Cerne. Reactor Inspector

.

date signed 9. D. Ebneter, Chief Engineering Suoport Section No. 2, RC&ES Branch date signed Approved by: k/4/ 1htf [2 /7,/077 R.'W'.McGaugg,g) fief,ProjectsSection, date' signed RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:

Unit 1 Inspection on September 25-29,1978 (Report No. 50-352/78-07)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of work activities and records for containment structural steel supports; fuel pool erection; and safety related piping. The inspectors also performed a plant tour and reviewed the licensee's action on previous inspection finding The Unit 1 inspection involved 77 inspector-hours on site by three NRC regional based inspectors and 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> by an NRC supervisor.The inspection commenced at 5:30 outside the normal day shift working hours at the sit Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in four areas; one apparent repetitive item of noncompliance was identified in one area (Infraction. - failure to perform liquid penetrant test in accordance with pro-cedures - Paragraph 3).

?81211030y

-. =

_,

.

'

. .

.

Unit 2 Inspection on September 25-29,1978 (Report No. 50-353/78-04)_

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors j of work activities and records for refueling floor structural steel and fuel '

pool erection. The inspectors also performed a plant tour and reviewed the-licensee's action on previous inspection findings. The Unit 2 inspection in-volved 15 inspector-hours on site by two NRC regional based inspectors and four hours by an NRC superviso The inspection commenced at 5:30 p.m., outside the normal dayshift working hours at the sit j

'

Results: No items'of noncompliance were identifie .

s i

I i

. .

- - - -

.

I

-

. .

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted

'

Philadelphia Electric Comoany

• D. T. Clohecy, QA Engineer

• J. M. Corcoran, Field QA Branch Head

• D. DiPaolo, QA Engineer

• J. P. Evans, QA Engineer

• G. Lauderback, QA Engineer

• D. A. Marascio, QA Engineer-

• P. Scott, Lead Construction Engineer

.

Bechtel Power Corporation

• R. Baldwin, Quality Assurance Engineer

• J. Blevins, QA Engineer L. Brown. Lab Supervisor L. Brown, Jr., Lead Civil QC Engineer S. Chaudhary, Resident Civil Engineer

• T. Fallon, Assistant Project Field QC Engineer "

• R. French, Field Contracts Administrator J. Gray, Lead Piping QC Engineer M. Held Area 1 Lead QC Engineer

• E. Klossin, Project. QA Engineer D. Kaas, QC Engineer B. Mielnik, Area 2 Lead Civil Engineer '

M. Norm. Assistant Lead Welding QC Engineer C. Ochar. Field Engineer, Piping

• D. Schmall, Lead Subcontracts Engineer J. Quinlan, QC Engineer K. Quinter, Lead Receiving QC Engineer

• A. Weedman, Project Field Engineer C. Westhafer, 2nd Shift Superintendent

,i T. Waters, Lead Welding QC Engineer #

l R. Zappan, Area 1 Lead Civil Engineer l

i Peabody Testing G. Gordon, NDE Technician ,

'

D. Kibler, NDE Technician C. Nice, NDE Technician J. Oliver, Assistant Manager, Field Operations

!

L i-I'

!

.

-

.

3 ,

!

pittsburgh-Des Moines Corporation R. Caden, Field Engineer- "

,

J. Kinsley,-QA Inspector General Electric Comoany

• J. Neal, Resident Site Manager

• G. Wetsell, QC Engineer 2. Plant Tour The inspectors observed work activities in-progress, completed work, and plant status in several areas during inspection of the plan The inspectors examined work items for any obvious defects or noncom-pliance with regulatory requirement During the tour of the Units 1 and 2 reactor buildings and contain-ments, one of the inspectors observed work in-progress and in-place

'

storage of piping components. He also observed the intermediate welding. passes on the 20" diameter, nuclear class 3, RHR service pipe spool, HBC-183-1/0 and verified that the quality control docu-mentation was properly filled out, and that the welder was qualifie No items of noncompliance were identified during the plant tour; however, two items requiring further inspection effort by the in-spectors and follow-up action by the licensee were noted, as follows: Contrary to the details shown in Bechtel Drawing C-192, Revision 20, a structural steel column (E20) in Unit 1 Area 16 was found to be missing nuts and washers from its bolted base connection at elevation 177'. Subsequent investigation revealed that the

'

anchor bolts were Seismic Class II, and not safety-related to the function of the Class I Column. The licensee did,however, take immediate action to replace the missing nuts and checked 2 other column base connections at that elevation for similar discrepancie The inspectors noted a flatbed trailer loaded with reinforcing steel parked on the Reactor Tunnel Roof concrete placement (RS-H-947) which had just ended its required 7 day curing period that morning. Subsequent discussions with Bechtel QC personnel indicated that workmen had been cautioned not to back truck loads over that recent placement. The seven day cylinders for that

,

!

pour, which were broken on the previous day, indicated that the concrete had attained a strength greater than the minimum 80 percent of 28 day design strength required by the load limitation criteria of Bechtel Specification C-36. Thus, procedural loading restrictions were not violate aw 8

, e N - e 'h--q r----- ++ +-- Ts M *r

._

. . .

- -

. t

.

3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas i (0 pen) Noncompliance (352/78-03-03): Nondestructive examination of piping and pipe welds The inspector reviewed the matters discussed in the licensee's letters of June 12, 1978 and September 18, 1978 and NRC Region I letter of August.24, 197 The inspector interviewed 6 of the licensee's contractor nondestructive examination technicians responsible for the performance of liquid pene-trant . tests of safety-related pipe systems. He discussed the evaluation and disposition of liquid penetrant indications. All of the technicians -

interviewed appeared to be knowledgeable of the test acceptance criteria and the proper disposition of relevant and nonrelevant indication The inspector then witnessed the performance of liquid penetrant tests on the pipe weld end preparation HBC-507-C1072-7-FW8 and pipe weld HBC-182-1/0-FW50, each performed by different technicians. The first test, on the weld end preparation HBC-507-C1072-7-FW8, was accomplished in accordance with the test procedure requirement The second test, on the pipe weld HBC-182-1/0-FW50 did not meet pro-cedural requirements of IPPT-340-39-02, Amendment No. 2, paragraph 6.6.3, in that the technician wiped liquid penetrant indications from the part before the 7 minute developer dwell time had expired. The sequence of events were as follows:

... The technician precleaned the part and applied the visi-ble dye penetran ... After the appropriate penetrant dwell time, the technician cleaned the part, allowed the proper drying time, and ap-plied the developing powde '

... Approximately 3 minutes into the developing dwell time the technician wiped several penetrant indications from the area of interest and reapplied developing powder to the .

areas just wiped.

l

'

The technician stated that the indications were the result of weld bead ripples and grinding marks and, therefore, not relevant to the tes . . .. .

,

i The failure to acccmplish the liquid penetrant test in accordance l with the- procedure indicates that effective corrective action was not taken in response to the noncompliance in I&E Inspection Report 352/78-03. This is a repetitive item of noncompliance (352/78-07-01).

.

_ ._ . . ._ . _ _ _ . _ . .

- .

.

-

.

. .

(Closed) Noncompliance (352/77-12-01 and 353/77-12-01): During a prior inspection, completed . field fillet welds for RHR heat ex- 1 changer supports were found to be undersize. The licensee rein-spected all four supports and issued a Nonconformance Report (No l 2970, 2971, 2972 and 2973) for each support. The inspector reviewed completed reports and also examined the completed repair welds, as was required by Bechtel Design Change Notice No. 2 to Drawing C-196 .

Revision 6. The inspector hid no further questions regarding this matte ,

I (Closed) Unresolved (352/78-04-01): Objective evidence was' lacking to verify that the heat shrinkable splices were flame tested. A re-vised Conax Qualification Report for Electrical Penetration Assemblies, dated August 22, 1978 Section 4.8 indicated that Raychem type WCSF-N shrink tubing was flame tested and that the report was in Conax File .

IPS-35 . Containment Structural Steel Supports - Observation of Work. (Unit 1)_

The inspector examined the in-place condition of five beams (mark numbers A200R, A200L, A181, B181 and A32) providing the support for -

the two feedwater swing disc check valves inside containment. These >

beams were installed and fitted-up, but end connections, either bolting or welding, had not been completed. The inspector cross checked in-pro-cess erection details against current drawings and verified that quality control inspection effort had been initiated. The lead Quality Control civil and receiving engineers were interviewed to determine the ade-quacy of control of the erection operations and the quality of the materials in-plac The traceability of the beams to appropriate material documents was spot-checked for compliance with procedural specifications. Docu-mentation was also reviewed to verify proper material certification, conformance to testing requirements and referenced ASTM standards,

'

and quality control review of same. The qualifications and applicable records of one QC engineer respcasible for the inspection of beam erection were reviewed for the completeness of training, testing, ex-perience and current physical examinatio The inspector considered the above items with regard to criteria delineated in:

-- Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 PSAR, Appendices A and . . . - . . -. _, ., ,.. _ . - -

.

.

. .

-- AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Seventh Edition

-- ASTM A435-74

-- Bechtel Specifications 8031-C-63 and C-72 The inspector examined the following documents relevant to the in-stallation details and material quality of the fine beams in questio The accuracy, completeness, and conformance of 'nese documents to the criteria stated in the above references were ve'cate Bechtel Drawings C 932 (Revision 7), C 938 (Revision 3), C 940 <

(Revision 2) and C 941 (Revision 6)

-- Bechtel QC record copy of Drawing C 932, indicating status of the beam structural connections

-- Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Company Drawing C 932, Revicio'n

--

QCIRs 932-C63-1 and C-72-SF-1376

-- MRR SF 1376

-- Bethlehem Steel Corporation Report of Tests and Analysis for 2-1/4" thick A441 plate (Heat No. 801525090), verified June 13, 1975

-- Armco Steel Corporation Report of Chemical Analysis and Physic:1 Tests (for A325 bolts), verified August 17, 1976

-- Training and Certification Records for a QC Engineer No items of noncompliance were identifie , Refueling Floor Structural Steel - Review of Ouality Records (Units 1 & 2)

~

The inspector examined various structural steel members and their end connection details at the refueling floor, elevation 352' . In-place conditions and locations were cross checked against' current installation drawings and erection specifications. Documentation of Quality Control inspection activities was reviewe . l

.

.

'

The inspector considered the above items with regard to the require-ments of Bechtel Specifications C-63 and C-72, applicable references of'the AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Seventh Edition, and QC Instruction 8031/R-100 (Revision 10). The following documents were reviewed:

-- Bechtel Drawings C-192 (Revision 20) and C-211 (Revision 8)

' -- Field Change Request C 4909 with engineering approval, dated September 8, 1978

--

QCIR C-211-C63- NCR 1597 with final disposition, dated August 5,1977

--

QCIR 41A-MRR 30094

--

MRRs 30094 and 30100

-- Requisition for high strength bolts 2056 and 2058 For the supply of load indicating washers ' listed on MRRs 30094 and 30100, the inspector determined that required user's tests had not ~

been performe However, for the washers that had been issued to the field for installation, sampling and testing in accordance with Spec C-63 had been accomplished and documented by Bechtel QC on May 4,1978. The licensee also indicated that new QCIRs (C-41AMRR30094 and 30100A) were being issued to accomplish i the required user's tests and that the washers in question were '

being " hold tagged" until proper disposition of those 'QCIR No items of noncompliance were identifie . Reactor Coolant pressure Boundary pioino - Raview of Quality Records (Unit 1)

..

Three reactor coolant pressure boundary pipe spools were selected for review of the quality documentation. The review verified that the documentation meets requirements of the appropriate editions of the ASME Codes, Appendix A of the PSAR, and regulatory requirements. The following listed pipe spool document packages were reviewed:

C r

, ,.,-.-,--,,.-w -

c.- .--r-- ., ., < - . ~ _ - - - . , + . , n- ., , _ e

_ _

-

.

System Identification No Code Class Recirculation Loop- MPL:B32G001 RD-2-B-12 1 i I

DLA-108-1-1 1-

Feedwater

- Main Steara MPL:B21G001 Item 5 -1 The review consisted of selected examinations of material certi-fications, certificates of conformance, nondestructive examination records, fabrication and inspection records, and nonconformance report The review of the documentation for the recirculation loop pipe spool B32G001 RD-2-B-12 disclosed that a flattening test, as prescribed by ASTM-A-530, may not have been perfonned. The licensee is further checking offsite documentation. The item is unresolved pending com-pletion of the document search (352/78-07-02)

Beyond the unresolved item, no items of noncompliance were identifie . Fuel Pool Liner Work Activities (Units 1 & 2)

The inspector observed fuel pool liner erection activities to verify-compliance with the following documents:

- Bechtel Technical Specification C 45, Revision 6

- PDM Welding Procedure Specification 70-110

- PDM Drawing E 45, Revision A

- PDM Welding Specification WS-17, Revision G The following items were inspected:

'

- Welding in-process performed by weldors A-1 and W-2 Qualifications of above weldors Cleaning of welds prior to depositing subsequent layers Weld rod control at work areas No items of noncompliance were identifie .

t

• v ~ - - - - , v., .,.,,4 ,,

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

,

,

-

.

,

t

'

. .

.

l

, Unresolved items i Unresolved items are matters about which more'information is require ,

in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or items of noncompliance. An unresolved item disclosed during-the inspection is discussed in Paragraph ~

' Exit Interview  !

At the conclusion of the inspection on September 29, 1978, a meeting was held at the Limerick Generating Station site with representatives  !

of the licensee and contractor organizations. Attendees > at this meeting included personnel whose names are indicated by notation (*) 1 in-paragraph 1. The inspectors summarized the results of the i'n-  !

spection as described in this repor :

,

t

• i

, y- .--.r.. , w- ,r,,r-,..:..<,.--.~4...#-,_e.,_..u..--, ,...._,.-.,%-., .

v r. - .a,.- w w. . -o . . ~ * ~ , - _. , - ~ , . . .- ,_, , . ~ - -