IR 05000352/1982009
| ML20055C005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1982 |
| From: | Durr J, Paolino R, Richards S, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055B998 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-352-82-09, 50-352-82-9, 50-353-82-07, 50-353-82-7, NUDOCS 8208100032 | |
| Download: ML20055C005 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I 50-352/82-09 Report Nos. 50-353/82-07 50-352 Docket Nos. 50-353 CPPR-106 License Nos. CPPR-107 priority Category A
--
Licensee.
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name:
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Limerick, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
May 26-28 and June 2-4, 1982
. AC Varela,' @ Reactor Inspector fI //p_.
Inspectors:
u dits liiigned u.uJ WEthW R. 4 Paolino, Reactor Inspector d(te Tigned
~u kJe>
. Tkt/S>
.A.fichards,ReactorInspector d(te Vigned Approved By:
uAA>
~7 TN S -
J. P.
urr, Chief, Materials and Processes dite signed Sec on Inspection Summary:
(Unit 1) Inspection on May 26-28 and June 2-4, 1982 (Report No. 50-352/82-09)
A routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of the spray pond and electrical cable installation. The inspection involved 50 inspector-hours onsite by three inspectors.
Results:
No violations were identified in the two areas inspected.
(Unit 2) Inspection on May 26-28 and June 2-4, 1982 (Report No. 50-353/82-07)
A routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of the spray pond and electrical equipment installation.
The inspection involved 2 inspector-hours onsite by 2 inspectors.
Results: No violations were identified in the two areas inspected.
8208100032 820723 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G
.-.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
o
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
!
- D. J. Clohecy, Quality Assurance Engineer (QAE)
- N. K. Cody, Construction Engineer
- J. M. Corcorar., Field QA Branch Head
- B. Dorfman, Technical Assistant
- G. Dyer, QAE
- J. Goodbrad, QAE
- G. Louderback, QAE
,
T. Loughian, Project Engineer
- C. Meek, QAE
'
- P. Naugle, Construction Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation D. Adams, QC Engineer R. M. Beathard, Resident Geologist
,
L. Brown, Test Laboratory Supervisor G. Danielson, Assistant Lead QCE
- D. DiPrinzio, Subcontract Engineer
- H. D. Foster, Project Field QCE B. Grater, Project Engineer
- E. Klossin, Project QAE
- G. Koch, Lead Subcontractor Engineer D. Lawro, QCE
- J. L. Martin, Lead Site QAE
- J. McLaughlin, Lead Electrical Staff Engineer C. Rosenburger, Construction Engineer N. Roy, Construction Engineer
- R. Sewell, Lead Electrical Field Engineer l
- D. C. Thompson, Assistant Project Field QCE
- J. Waddington, Lead Electrical QCE
,
l
- J. O. Wanzeck, Resident Soils Engineer
- denotes those present for the May 28 or June 4,1982 exit interviews.
(
2.
Facility Tour l~
The inspectors observed work activities in progress, completed work and plant status in several areas of the plant during a general inspection of Units 1 and 2.
Particular note was taken regarding the presence of quality control inspectors and indication of quality control activities through visual evidence such as inspection records, material identifications, nonconformance and acceptance tags. The inspectors observed the proper in place storage of the following electrical components:
Panel Nos.
20A116, 20A118, 10C091, 10C092, 108201, and Pump Motor 1C?221.
.
,
-
.-
.
.-
-
-
-
- _ _ _ _ -_- - _ __. _ __.
.
.
3.
Electrical Cable Installation The inspectors examined work performance, partially completed work, and completed work pertaining to the -installation of electrical cable to determine whether the requirements of applicable specifications, work procedures, drawings, and instructions have been met in areas relating to installation, routing, termination and inspection.
a.
Work Observation Items examined for this determination include:
--
Limerick Generating Station FSAR, Section 8.1.
--
Drawings E-1412 and E-1406.
Job Rules E-3, E-7, and E-10.
--
--
Cable pulling evolution for cable schemes 1BD101J and 1BD101T routed from location 100202 to location 1BD105.
--
Inspection of cable termination points and cable labeling for cable schemes ODJ006C, IAA115C, and 1AB21122C.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Quality Assurance Records and Audits Items examined for this determination include:
Pull cards for cable schemes 1AA11506A, IAA11508A, 11AA11508H,
--
11AA11508J, 1AA510A, IAA11503A, IBA11603A, 1BA11604A, ICA11704A, 1AB21124F, IAB21124E, 1AB21122C, 1AB21112B, IAA115C, 1AA505C, ODJ006F, ODJ006C, OD13217C.
--
PEco Procedures QAI-18-21, 18-23, 2-2.
j Audit Reports E-042, E-094, E-103.
--
--
Surveillance Check Reports (SCR) E14 and E115.
--
Qualification records for two quality assurance auditors.
The inspectors noted that SCR E115 stated the maximum tension recorded for cable scheme ICB20324 as being 1300 lbs, which corresponded to the tension indicated when the pulling equipment clears the last
!
obstruction in the path of pull. However, continuous tension recorded during this pull reached levels of 1400 to 2550 lbs. Drawing E-1412 requires only the tension at the end of the pull be recorded as the maximum tension.
Discussion with licensee and contractor personnel s revealed that tension indicated from the start of the pull to the
..-
. -.
_
.--
________
.
.
end of the pull was not compared to the maximum allowable tension because high tension during this period was attributable to resistance t
encountered by the pulling harness when entering or exiting vias or when changing direction in a raceway. The inspectors questioned the adequacy of the procedure in that when a continuous excessive tension is indicated during a pulling evolution, the tension cannot be attributed to pulling harness resistance and should therefore be compared to the maximum allowable tension. The licensee had previously identified this concern in Finding Report E-182.
Review of correspondence associated with this Finding Report and discussion with licensee personnel indicate that Procedure E-1412 will be revised to require continuous tension recorded during a pull be compared to maximum allowable tension. Additionaly, all previously completed pulls will be evaluated with regard to the revised procedure.
This item is unresolved pending NRC review of licensee action.
(352/82-09-01)
4.
Spray Pond Activities a.
Work In Progress These work activities associated with the spray pond construction were observed by the inspectors:
control surveys for riprap bedding course.
-
soil screening, stock piling and gradation testing for future
-
soil-bentonite liner.
soil-bentonite blend machinery (pug mill) calibration testing
-
of blend for pool liner.
-
machine grading of bedding for riprap at point southwest portion of embankment.
-
riprap inplace/ production test panel over the bedding course.
-
quarry screening of riprap and completed / approved test panel.
-
shotcrete preparations, application, concrete mixing, testing and curing at souteast portion of embankment.
-
removal of accumulated rain water in pond.
The above work activities were performed by subcontractors, their control was under Bechtel Power Corporation (BC's) QA/QC inspection personnel. Technical direction and in process approval, as required, was given by appropriate BC engineers. The NRC inspectors conferred with craft personnel and supervision as well as engineering and quality personnel during their tour.
The inspector also interfaced with licensee QA engineers. Those interviewed were knowledgeable of
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
contract and technical requirements contained in specifications and drawings.
b.
Shotcrete (Wet Mix Process) Application - Work Observed The inspector observed shotcrete work on the south embankment,' east of the pump house and completed shotcrete cover west of the pump house.
Specification C-99 was reviewed and translation of the specifications and drawing requirements were fully implemented in subcontractor Procedure SP-9, The inspector observed that a BC geologist had approved / released the rock embankment prior to shotcrete application. These characteristics and work activities were verified by BC quality personnel:
-
subgrade preparation.
-
-
wire-fabric installed, rigidly secured, lapped, raised above rock or fill concrete as specified.
shotcrete applied by qualified nozzlemen to required thickness
-
after laitence removal and construction joints prepared as specified.
curing and its-duration applied as specified and verified by
-
QC.
-
test panels fabricated as specified for each gun at start /end of each shif?. for diamond-drill test cores.
-
repair of surface defects.
-
test and approval of concrete truck delivery.
l c.
Record Review l
l (1) Shotcrete (Wet Mix Process)
The inspector reviewed the following records pertaining to shotcrete, its application, prerequisites, qualifications and l
in process inspection quality documentation:
!
l
-
design mix proportions for 3,000 psi /28 day compression strength, i
l
-
test panel diamond-drill cores compression test for mix approval and, nozzleman/ gun qualification tests.
-
southwest embankment, results of production compression test (diamond-drilled 3" diameter cores).
I i
i
--
-_
. - -.
.
- -
. -
.
_ _ _ _ - _
__.
._
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ - _ _ _ _
,
.
southwest embankment shotcrete preparation, inprocess
-
inspection during and after application, (QCIR No.
C-1103-SC-I-1-3 for May 26, 27).
(2) Riprap and Riprap Bedding Records were reviewed for conformance to specified requirements contained in specification C-94, Spray Pond Earthwork, and Supplier Deviation Disposition Request (SDDR) No. F182827 for riprap and riprap bedding. The inspector verified that these records (material previously excavated from the spray pond)
conform to specifications. He observed riprap material undergoing screening to remove minus 6" fines.
l d.
Calibration of Soil-Bentonite Batch Plant (Pugmill)
.
The NRC inspector witnessed calibration tests performed by Geo-Con.,
Incorporated in preparation for the soil-bentonite blending operation-of the batch plant. He verified conformance to specification C-95, Spray Pond Lining. The central batch plant is a custom built, continuous feed unit consisting of a soil hopper, conveyor with belt scale, bentonite feeder and pugmill for blending and mixing. The plant's operation relies on state-of-the art electronic controls in a master / slave relationship to proportion the soil and bentonite materials. A BC resident soils engineer and QC test lab personnel monitored the tests performed by the subcontractor and verified scale calibration traceable to National Bureau of Standards. Tests for moisture content of the bentonite and soil were performed by BC.
No violations were identified in the above spray pond activities.
5.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is necessary to ascertain whether they are violations, deviations, or acceptable. An unresolved item is discussed in paragraph 3.
6.
Exit Interview Exit interviews were held with members of the licensee's staff denoted in paragraph-1, on May 28 and June 4, 1982.
The inspectors presented the scope and the findings of the inspection.
- _ _.
__
.-
. _ - -