IR 05000352/1980008
| ML19347B229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1980 |
| From: | Mattia J, Mcgaughy R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347B215 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-352-80-08, 50-352-80-8, 50-353-80-07, 50-353-80-7, NUDOCS 8010140063 | |
| Download: ML19347B229 (9) | |
Text
. _ _.
,,
lU
-
.
.
l l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-352/80-08 Report No. 50-353/80-07 50-352 Docket No. 50-353 CPPR-106
,
License No. CPPR-107 Priority Category A
--
l l
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Comoany
!
2301 Market ?treet Philadelphia, Pa.19101 l
l Facility Name:
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 l
l Inspection at:
Limerick, Pa.
l l
Inspection conducted: May 1 - 30, 1980 Inspectors:
C. %
Jv'y 2,IffO U. L. Mattia, heactor inspector date signed date signed date signed i
Approved by: zh bb
.
/ [#h [
i R.W.McGaughy,ChfeFProjects F W * S# "**
S (
Section, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch l
Insoection Summary: UNIT 1 INSPECTION ON MAY l - 30, 1980 (REPORT N0. 50-352/80-08)
j Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspector of work activities relative to:
installation and welding of safety related piping, inspection of various safety-related electrical activities, inspection of installation of reactor internals. The inspector also performed plant tours. The inspection 16volved 41 inspector hours by the resident inspector.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in two areas; three apparent items of noncompliance were identified in two areas.
l (Infractions -- failure to perfom inspection of welds in process - Para. 5; failure to provide document control - Para. 9d; and failure to inspect to latest
!
l design documents - Para. 9f).
Region I Fom 12 (Rev. April 77)
8010140 o63
- - -
.
.
,.
.
..
.
.
_ _
- -
.
.
.
.
l
!
UNIT 2 INSPECTION MAY l - 30, 1980 (REPORT NO. 50-353/80-07)
'
Areas Inspected:
The inspector performed plant tours and inspected storage of safety-related equipment. The inspector also observed the testing of electrical connectors in the control room panels. The inspection involved 8 inspector hours by the Resident Inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l
.
)
i I
i I
I
.
,
-, -
m
-
,
_
,
, -, -
. _ -
-,
.
_
_
_
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
PERSONS CONTACTED Philadelphia Electric Company NOTE D. Clohecy, QA Engineer 1,
J. Corcoran, Field QA Branch Head 1,2,3 D. DiPaolo, QA Engineer i
F. Gloeckler, QA Engineer J. Fedick, Construction Engineer 2,3 W. King, Construction Engineer 1,
J. Lauderback, QA Engineer 2,3 D. Marascio, QA Engineer l
l Bechtel Power Corporation
'
T. Altum, Supervisor of Field Welding 1,2 P. Alverson, Supervisor of Field Procurement 1,
C. Berezich, Lead Subcontracts Engineer 1,
J. Curci, QA Engineer 2,
9. Dragon, QA Engineer 1,2,3 P. Dunn, QA Engineer 1,2,3 T. Fallon, Assistant Field QC Engineer 1,
!
l
._.
_ _.,.. _.
_
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
.
Bechtel (continued)
NOTE H. Foster, Project QC Engineer 2,3 J. Grey, Lead QC Engineer J. Gwin, Project Superintendent 2,
A. Jackim, QC Engineer
,
G. Kelly, QA Engineer 2,3
!
l l
E. Klossin, Project QA Engineer 2,3 i
R. Leingang, Assistant Project Field Engineer 2,
S. Leitz, Pipefitter Foreman J. Martin, Lead QA Engineer 1.3 l
l R. Moore, QC Engineer
!
J. Reiney, Project Construction Manager 3,
T. Stidham, Procurement
M. Tokolics, QA Engineer 1,2
~
A. Weedman, Project Field Engineer 1,3 R. Yancey, Subcontracts Engineer
Reactor Controls Incorporated l
R. Aspinwall, QC Supervisor 1,
'
R. Weitenstein, Engineering & Construction Manager 1,
General Electric Co.
W. Neal, Resident Site Manager i
dotes l
1 - Denotes those present at exit interview conducted on 5/15/80 l
2 - Denotes those present at exit interview conducted on 5/22/80 l
3 - Denotes those present at exit interview conducted on 5/30/80 l
.
. - -
.
.
.
.
2.
INSTALLATION OF REACTOR INTERNALS (UNIT 1)
The Inspector inspected the various activities associated with the ins-ta11ation of the jet pump adapters to verify compliance with the require-ments of the G.E. specification 22A4111 and Reactor Controls Inc. proced-ures PRS-1 and W43/ CTS-lL. The following jet pump adapters were in various stages (welding or grinding) of completion and were inspected:
Jet pump adapter located at diffuser positions
-
- 3, #6 and #17.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
PRIMARY COOLANT PRESSURE B0UND;? PIPING - WORK ACTIVITIES - (UNIT 1)
The following work activities were observed to verify compliance with regulatory commitments, codes and standard requirements:
Piping activities in the wetwell area of primary containment -
observed welding of root for weld joint designated as FSK-HBB-ll7-3/0-51.
The inspector noted that weld joint FSK-HBB-120-6/0-50
--
was cut out. The inspector discussed this with foreman and he stated that weld was rejected due to numerous unacceptable indications on radiographs and welder is being retrained. The inspector reviewed the radiographs and also verified that weldor was in training.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING - (UNIT 1)
The inspector observed the magnetic particle (MP) examination of a weld identified as P-il on a marked up Bechtel drawing C-958 revision 7, detail one.
This weld joint was for the reactor prasure vessel horizontal stabilizer and was located at elevation 312' -8" and at azimuth 190 in the primary containmen'.. The inspector verified that the magnaflux equipment was in calibration and the examiner was
>
properly qualified. The examination was performed in accordance with the Peabody testing MP procedure. The test revealed approximately a two inch linear indication which propagated from the weld into the
base metal of the biological shie.1d. The licensee was informed that j
this will be reviewed at a subsequent inspection (352/80-08-01).
-.
.
-
.
.
.
.
,
5.
CONTROL ROD HYDRAULIC SUPPORT - WORK ACTIVITIES -'(UNIT 1)
The inspector observed welding being performed on the control rod multifunction support units. An inspection of some completed welds indicated that the welds were unacceptable and did not meet the code acceptance criteria.
The foreman on the job informed the inspector that his men were in the process of repairing these welds.
All production welding had been stopped by Reactor Controls. The inspector observed the repairs in process.
Each of weldors making repairs was verified by the inspector to be properly qualified in accordance with code requirements.
Per the Reactor Controls QA Manual, addendum LM-1 (Revision 6); Section 13.1, the quality control inspector is to inspect on a daily basis at least 10% of all non-full penetration w61ds for pre-weld cleanliness, fit-up, pre-heat and weldor I.D.
The reactor controls QC supervisor could not show the inspector that this had been performed for the weld repairs in process for the multifunction support units. The inspector informed the licensee that this was an item
- noncompliance (352/80-08-02).
6.
STORAGE OF SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT (UNIT 2)
'
The inspector inspected various equipment stored in Unit 2 and also reviewed associated maintenance records to verify compliance with
',
Bechtells Job Rule #7 and the vendors long term maintenance requirements. The specific items inspected were as follows:
Fuel pool heat exchanger 2AE202
--
Fuel pool heat exchanger 2BE202
-
--
Fuel pool heat exchanger 2CE202
--
Reactor water clean-up heat exchanger 2AE207
--
Reactor water clean-up heat exchanger 2AE208
--
Reactor water clean-up heat exchanger 2BE208
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
SAFETY RELATED PIPING - WORK ACTIVITIES (UNIT 1)
The inspector observed work activities associated with the installation of safety related piping to verify compliance with regulatory commitments, codes and design documents. The following specific activities were inspected:
Observed welding of pipe in diesel generator
--
building. The weld joint was designated as HBC-195-4/2-3.
!
l
~
l
'
'.
.
Observed welding of two pipe weld joints. The final weld
--
pass was in process for joint HBC-194/4/5-3 and the root weld was started for joint HBC-194/4/5-4.
No items of concompliance were identified.
8.
PIPE SUPPORTS AND RESTRAINTS - (UNIT 1)
The inspector observed the welding of pipe restraint #215 in the primary containment in accordance with In-Process Re-Work Notice #PW450 and Field Change Request #C-6894F.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
ELECTRICAL WORK ACTIVITIES - (UNIT 1 & 2)
a.
The inspector observed welding of a conduit support at elevation 245'
'in the' primary containment and verified the requirements of the Becntel Design Specification E-1406, Revision 28 were adhered to.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Inspected the ends of cables (not terminated) that were recently pulled in the control room to verify that they were properly taped.
The inspector found one cable with an end that was not taped.
This cable was not safety related; however, the licensee had the eno taped.
.
c.
Observed testing of connectors in Unit 2 control room panels (one in panel 20C647 and one in panel H12-P601BE) in accordance with GE Procedure FDI-TRDC-Revision 2.
The connector (J113DT) in
l panel 20C647 had two wires pulled out of their pins at a force of i
11 pounds. All other 12 wires and pins were acceptable when tested at 23 pounds. The two wires that pulled out of pins were documented and will be repaired at a later date. The inspector informed the licensee that this will, be reviewed during a subsequent inspection
,
l (352/80-08-03).
d.
The inspector observed the locating of three safety related consoles in the Unit 1 control room in accordance with Design Drawing M-602, Revision 7.
The consoles were designated as 10C681,10C665 and 10C602. After they were properly located and accepted by the quality control engineer, they were released for welding to the rail embeds in the floor. The inspector reviewed the weld documents the weldor had in his possession for welding these consoles.
(Note:
welding had commenced at this time.) The inspector noted that the welder's documents were obsolete.
The Field Change Request M2999F issued 9/13/78 that he had was incorporated in the applicable
!
l
.
.
-
.
drawing 8031-M-1-H12-3010-M-2.2BR on 3/16/79. The G.E. documents FDDR HH1-1000 and 1001 were Revi: ion 0 and the current revision is
- 2. The FDDR documents essentially approved, with comments the Bechtel Field Change Request M2999F. A review of the Bechtel quality control inspection documents to inspect this work (QCIR M602-W-1) were also obsolete and identical to what the
.weldor had. The inspector infomed the licensee that this was contrary to Criteria V of Appendix B of 10CFR50 (352/80-08-04).
e.
Observed the visual inspection being perfomed for PGCC cable 8909/C71A-012 in accordance with requirements in nonconformance Report #4066.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
f.
Observed welding of supports for electrical termination box on Drawing E-1193 that is located at elevation 253' inside containment.
The inspector reviewed data (drawing, QC plan and weld data)
associated with this welding and found that the inspection plan QCIR-E-1193-W-1 did not reference the latest field change request (FCR) E-3601F. The plan had referenced FCR-3523F which was superceded by FCR-E-3601F. To further determine the control of documents for welding electrical items, the inspector randomly selected a closed out (welding and QC acceptance was completed) QC plan (QCIR-E-ll63-W-2)
where a drawing change had occurred prior to welding being completed.
In this particular case, the Bechtel cognizant electrical area engineer notified the cognizant QC engineer of this QC plan, in writing (speed letter dated 2/22/80) that two FCR's were issued (FCR-E-3564 and E-3579) to the design drawing. This was not a requirement of Bechtel's procedure SF/ PSP 6.1, but the area engineer thought it was prudent to do so.
A review of the QC plan (QCIR-E-ll63-W-2) had FCR E-3564 referenced, but did not have the FCR E-3579 referenced as an inspection acceptance criteria. This design chance was to add a thicker plate (h" to 5/8"). The design specification E-1406 that dictates what the fillet weld stize should be did not require a change in fillet size from a h" to 5/8" plate thickness. -The irispector
'
informed the licensee that there are three (see item 9d and f)
examples that the inspector had found that are contrary to Bechtel's project procedure SF/ PSP-G-6.1 Rev. 2 in Section 4.3.8, which states in part that "... it is the construction quality control engineer's responsibility to revise the inspection record to reflect applicable revisions to inspection criteria and/or project quality control i nstructi ons..." The licensee was also informed that this is an item of noncompliance and contrary to Criteria X of Appendix B of 10CFR50.
(352/80-08-05).
.
.
-
.
,
10. PLANT TOUR - UNITS 1 & 2 The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work and the plant status in several areas of the plant during general inspection of the plant. The inspector examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements or license conditions.
Par-ticular note was taken of presence of quality control, evidence such as inspection records, material identification, housekeeping and equipment preservation.
The inspector interviewed, when appropriate, craft l
personnel, craft supervision and QC personnel in the work areas.
During his plant tours the inspector noted in two different areas what he con-siders may be significant deficiencies, reportable to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ii) accordance with 10CFR50.55(e) requirements.
The specific items are as follows:
a.
During the course of welding the reactor pressure vessel horizontal stabilizers to the biological shield, several I
I linear indications were found at various locations. Most of
the indications were in the biological shield. The A/E issued
'
two nonconformance reports (NCR) 3540 and 4171 for these various indications. The inspector informed the licensee that this item is considered unresolved pending evaluation as to the reportability of this item (352/80-08-06).
b.
Several cables in the power generation control center were damaged during construction activities. This necessitated that a 100% visual inspection be conducted to determine the ex-tent of the damage. The A/E issued NCR #4066 for this nonconforming condition. The inspector informed the licensee that this item is considered unresolved pending evaluation as to the reportability of this item (352/80-08-07).
11. UNRESOLVED ITEMS l
'
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraphs 4, 9, and 10.
.
12.
EXIT INTERVIEWS At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with the facility management (dates and attendees are denoted l
in detail 1) to discuss inspection scope and findings.
l l
,
I i
'
. - -