IR 05000352/1979006
| ML19262A163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1979 |
| From: | Cerne A, Mattia J, Mcgaughy R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262A159 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-352-79-06, 50-352-79-6, 50-353-79-06, 50-353-79-6, NUDOCS 7910260467 | |
| Download: ML19262A163 (11) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-352/79-06 and 50-353/79-06 Docket No. 50-352 and 50/353 License No. CPPR-106 and CPPR-107 Priority:--
Category: A Licensee:
PEC0 2301 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19101 Facility Name: Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection at: Limerick, PA Inspection conducted: June 18-20, 1979 Inspectors:
- (. M 6'
M
'J. C. Mattia, Reactor Inspector date sigreo
, (. b hel A '7f
,_
M. Cerne, Reacto Inspector date signed Approved by:
/ k [ [/ h g W
7/ 7 7Y R. McGaugny, Eh y, Projects Section
'datd si'gned RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Unit 1 Inspection on June 18-20, 1979 (Report No. 50-352/79-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unnannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of work activities and records associated with safety related piping, structural steel and document control.
The inspectors also performed a plant to,tr inspection.
The Unit 1 inspection involved 25 inspector hours onsite by ',ne regional based inspectors.
Results:
Of the four 'rr.ss inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in three areas, one apparent item of nonunpliance was identified in one area (Infraction - Failure to follow procedures when erecting RHR Piping inside centainment - Paragraph 3).
Unit 2 Inspection on June 18-20, 1979 (Report No. 50-353/79-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of work activities and records associated wi'h safety related structures and document control.
The inspectors also oe fonned a plant im 7 267 L
7910260
)
-2-tour inspection.
The Unit 2 inspection involved 21 inspector hours onsite by two r.'c lonal inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
1917 268
-3-DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Philadelphia Electric Company
- D. Clohecy, QA Engineer
- J. Corcoran, Field QA Branch Head
- D. DiPac'.o, QA Engineer
- J. Evans, QA Eng neer
- J. Fedick, Consti uction Engineer
- S. Genca, QA (Trainee)
G. Lauderback, QA Engineer
- D. Marascio, QA Engineer General Electric Company W. Neal, Resident Site Manager G. Wetsell, QC Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation T. Altum, Lead Welding Engineer R. Beech, Ler.d QC Engineer W. Clayton, QC Engineer B. Crayton, Document Control Coordinator
- B. Drrgon, QA Engineer
- H. Foster, Froject QC Engineer H. Gilbert, QC Engineer M. Held, Lead QC Engineer J. Janda, Lead Instrument Engineer
- H. Jan, Area Engineer
- G. Kelly, QA Engineer R. Lamely, Document Review Supervisor
- R. Leingang, Assistant Project Field Engineer V. Mehta, Piping Engineer R. Newman, Lead Mechanical Engineer K. Quinter, Lead QC Engineer 17 269
.
-4-
- F. Thesing, Lead Piping Superintendent
- R. Thomas, Subcontracts Engineer A. Vik, Piping Engineer S. Zazo, Office Engineer Supervisor G. Zickefoose, Maintenance / Storage QC Engineer
- R. Zittel, Area One Superintendent Schneider Sheet Metal Company T. Lewis, QC Supervisor Other Accompanying Personnel C. Sweinhart, NRC Co-op Student
- De.,otes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item (352/79-04-02) the inspector reviewed the status 6f a potential construction deficiency in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55 (e), concerning the ITT Phillips Red Head Anchors.
The licensee is currently undergoing a testing program and has to date tested several hundred Phillips Expansion Anchors to detennine if they meet the stated catalog rating.
A Phillips representative was on site during this testing.
Licensee has also issued an orde" (dated May 24, 1979 Code: QAF0M No. 718)
instructing the Bechtel Construction Manager that the Phillips J-12 Red Head Anchors with the proper cone wedge (rose-colored)
are the only type to be installed. The licensee is evaluating the reportability (10 CFR 50.55.e) of this tratter.
3.
Reactor Coolant Boundary Piping (Unit 1)
The inspector observeo welding activities for the RH'1 piping to verify compliance with the Bechtel Design Specifications P-301 and P-322.
The following piping activities were observed:
.
7 270
-5-a.
Weld Joint DCA-105-1/9 Field Weld #7:
This joint was partially fitted-up to the cc.itainment penetration. The inspector noticed that layout dye had been used on the circumference of the stainless steel pipe as an aid in erecting the pipe.
The inspector questioned the licensee if the layout dye had acceptable levels of halogens.
After considerable effort was expended to determine what brand of dye was used out of three possible types used on site, it was concluded that a Dykem spray steel blue (Type SP-1100) layout fluid was used. The licensee found during this inspection period that a GE specification for (reactor recirculation) erecting and installing (stainless steel) piping allowed the use of Dykem Type SP-1100.
The inspector infonned the licensee that he had no further questions on this matter at this time.
b.
Weld Joint #DCA-104-01-W010:
This is a 12" diameter pipe where the welding had been completed and the final pass was being ground. The inspector reviewed the weld data history card (WR-5) and inspected the deposited weld.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Weld Joint #DCA-104-01-W003:
This is also a 12" diameter pipe where the welding had been completed and the fina; pass was being ground to prepare it for nondestructive examination.
The inspector reviewed the weld data history card at the weld joint and inspected the deposited weld.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
d.
The inspector discussed the Bechtel Specification (P-322)
erection requirements with Bechtel field engineering personnel to verify if the requirements of Section 8.2 of the specifi-cation. (P-322) had been adhered to for this run of piping (DCA-104-01).
The inspector found that contrary to the specification requirement field engineering did not provide, prior to erection, the proposed spool erection sequence and final closure fit-up points data to Bechtel project engineering for their review and approval.
The inspector informed the licensee that this was contrary to 10CFR50 Appendix ~B, Criterion V (352/79-06-01).
4.
Occument Control (Units 1 & 2)
The inspector inspected various specification and drawing files on the site te verify compliance with the Bechtel Job Rule 8031-G5,
17 271
-6-titled, " Document Control", to verify implementation of this procedure.
The following are the results of this inspection:
a.
Design Drawings From Bechtel's register of current design drawings the inspector randomly selected three drawings and their appli-cable change notices for each engineering discipline (Mechanical: M210, M213 and M231; Civil:
C656, C661 and C1267; and Electrical:
E-82. E-89 and E-159).
The inspector then verified that the following controlled files (if applicable) had the current drawings:
Field Files Nos.1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 18 and 25.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Design Specifications Fron, Bechtel's register of current de:ian specifications and their applicable addenda, additions and material requisitions the inspector randomly selected three specifications from each engineering discipline (Electrical:
E-11, E-40 and E-49; Mechanical:
M-40, M-43, M-56; Civil:
C-41, C-45 and C-51; and Piping:
P-301, P-303 and P-305).
The inspector then verified that the following controlled files (if applicable)
had the current specifications:
Staff Lead Instrumentation Engineer's File
--
Staff Lead Mechanical Engineer's File
--
Staff Lead Civil Engineer's File
--
Mechanical Resident Engineer's File
--
Bechtel's Quality Assurance Organization File
--
Lead Welding Engineering File
--
Quality Control Files
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Subcontractor Document Control From Bechtel's register of current drawings the inspector randomly selected three safety related heating, ventilating and air conditioning drawings to verify that their sub-contractor is controlling documents in accordance with their contract requirements. The drawings selected were M-1043,
~"7 272
-7-M-1046, M-1047 and their applicable changes.
The master files and the files located at the various work locations were ins pected.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Plant Tour Inspection (Units 1 & 2)
The inspector toured the Units 1 & P. ;ontainment and reactor buildings observing work in-progress in-place storage practices, area cleanliness, and completed work.
He discussed the technical aspects of the work in-progress with the construction craftsmen, supervisors, and QC personnel. The following items were identified during this plant tour inspection:
a.
The inspector examined the end connections of the structural steel radial box beams at elevation 253' to the reactor pedestal in both Units 1 and 2.
He noted the use of A325 high strength bolts and verified through an interview with the responsible QC engineer and a review of the open Quality Control Inspection Reports (QCIRs C-926-C-63-1 and C-927-C-63-1)
that torquing, in accordance with AISC requirements, would be accomplished and that an adequate QC inspection was planned.
Field dimensions were spot-checked against the details on the applicable design drawings (Bechtel drawings C-926, Revision 9; C-927, Revision 8; C-941, Revision 7; and Nooter drawing JN-044477, Sheet 2).
The inspector noted on drawing C-941 that the distance from the center of the lh" diameter bolts to the edce of the box beam end plates was shown, in all cases, to be lh".
This does not meet the minimum edge distance requirements specified in the " Specification for the Design,
' Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings" of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Seventh Edition.
Bechtel Specification C-63, Revision 3, indicates a general commitment to the above AISC requirements, and although exception to this commitment, where shown on design drawings, is allowed, the inspector requested confimation that this particular deviation from AISC minimum edge distance require-ments had been properly engineered into the design.
Pending confimation of the present design of these connections by Bechtel engineering in San Francisco, this item is unresolved.
(352/79-06-02and353/79-06-01)
)17 273
-8-b.
The inspector noted, inside Unit 1 containment, that a Grinnell constant support hanger (HB-6) for a recirculation pump had been welded to the lower flange of a radial box beam with the hanger baseplate cantilevered about 2-5/8" off the edge of the beam.
This method of attachment had been approved by GE Field Deviation Disposition Request (FDDR) HH1-093, which required that the longitudinal welds along the axis of the beam be augmented such that the baseplate be " welded all around to the box beam with a h" fillet weld".
Since accomplishing such an
"all around" weld required welding in a direction transverse to the axis of the beam, the inspector inquired into the a aplicability of the portion of Bechtel Specification C-63, w11ch addresses such welding. The licensee has referred this matter to Bechtel Engineering in San Francisco.
Pending a final decision as to the applicability of certain C-63 requirements to this case and to the acceptability of the method of attachment with regard to the transverse welding, this item is unresolved.
(352/79-06-03)
6.
Reactor Vessel Internals - Storage and Maintenance (Units 1 & 2)
The inspector selected the core support, the shroud and the jet pump assemblies as sample items to inspect and verify the existence of a adequate storage and maintenance program for the reactor vessel internals.
He checked the Instorage Maintenance System (Computer) Bulk Listing of June 15, 1979 to detennine inspection requirements, time intervals, and storage locations for these items. With the jet pumps in storage at the Adwin facility, the inspector checked the maintenance status of the various components (diffusers, inlet mixers, risers) of the Unit 1 assemblies with a review of the Maintenance Logs and Maintenance Action Cards from time of receipt to the present.
The shrouds had been turned over from Bechtel to GE for rework in 1977 and a PECO letter dated November 29, 1977 transferred main-tenance responsibilities to GE at that time. The inspector reviewed Bechtel Material Receiving Report (MRR) PE-899 for the Unit 1 shroud, Bechtel maintenance inspection records up to the date of transfer, a GE Initial Cleanliness Inspection report dated November 28, 1977, and GE Monthly Cleanliness Reports of Inspections from the transfer date to the present.
He visually inspected Units 1 and 2 shrouds stored in separate silos and noted existing storage conditions and access controls. The presence of some minor carbon steel dilution into the stainless steel surface of the
'm/
274
.
.
.
-g-Unit 2 shroud had ciready been identified in a GE Field Disposition Instruction (FDI) dated February 5,1979, which also specified the method of removal of the carbon steel with appropriate examination criteria.
In examining the material receiving, maintenance, and inspection records for the Units 1 and 2 core supports, the inspector noted a documentation error resulting in the Unit 2 core support being carried on the Unit 1 maintenance record. fiRR PE-1319, Revision 1 (November 12,1976) documenting the receipt of Unit 2 core support on site had erroneously identified this item as belonging to Unit 1.
The Unit 1 core support, originally received with MRR PE-891 in March,1974 had been returned to the vendor for rework in January,1976 and has not yet been returned. While this error was subsequently discovered and noted on the MRR, coordination was not effected with the responsible materials storage engineer to correctly identify the unit number in the computer maintenance system.
Corrective action was initiated on June 19, 1979 with the issuance of the proper "Instorage Maintenancc Data" to the computer and a " Supplement Sheet" to the maintenance instructions.
The licensee also indicated tnat fomal revision to MRR PE-1319 is forthecming.
The inspector has no further questions on this matter.
The storage and maintenance of the selected reactor vessel internal items were evaluated against criteria established in GE Specification 22A2724, Revision 3, and the current, applicable Bechtel " Maintenance Instructions".
No items of noncompliance were identified; however, one item remains unresolved as discussed below.
While visually inspecting the storage conditions of the Unit 2 core support, the inspector noted indications of rusting at various locations on the exterior stainless steel surface. While GE Specification 22A2724 indicates for stainless steel storage that
"a light rust film on the steel is not considered detrimental",
the inspector interviewed various licensee QA/QC personnel to detemine the acceptability of the present condition of the core suppo rt.
Although this rusting has not caused pitting and does not appear to warrant corrective action in the way of immediate removal, it was decided that a nonconfomance report (NCR 3611)
should be issued to document and follow up this condition.
Pending disposition of this NCR by the responsible engineering personnel and review of the required corrective action by the NRC, this item is unresolved.
(353/79-06-02)
- '" 7 275
.
- 10 -
7.
Structural Steel Welding (Units 1 & J21 The inspector examined some recently completed structural steel
,
welds at elevation 352' of the Unit 2 Reactor Building.
He checked the size, length, and condition of the welds and the filler metal rod designation against requirements of the Bechtel design drawing C-212, Revision 11.
The welder ID was noted and his Welder Performance Qualification Test Record and Qualification Maintenance Record were checked for current' qualification to the applicable welding procedure.
Qualification records of another welder preparing to weld to the same procedure, were also checked.
Both welders were interviewed regarding preheat requirements and weld rod control.
w~
s The inspector verified the existence of an open QCIR 212-W-6 for these welded joints and also determined that a certain field condition, involving bolt hole interference with part of the weld, has been properly addressed in Bechtel Field Change Request (FCR)
C-5801-F, awaiting disposition.
The above items were evaluated against criteria established in the following documents:
-
Bechtel Specification C-91, Revision 12
--
AWS D1.1-76
--
Bechtel General '!qlding Procedure, GWS-Structural, Revision 2
--
Bechtel Welding Standard Performance Specification WQ-2,
--
Revision 1 Bechtel Welding Procedure Specification P1-A-LA (Structural),
--
Revision 2 No items of noncompliance were identified.
'
8.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is re-quired in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.TEree unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 5 and 6.
-
.
9'7 276
-
..
.
- 11 -
9.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 20, 1979.
The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
7 277