IR 05000352/1983007
| ML20023E256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1983 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Conner E, Jeffery Grant NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023E245 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-352-83-07, 50-352-83-7, 50-353-83-04, 50-353-83-4, NUDOCS 8306150247 | |
| Download: ML20023E256 (5) | |
Text
'
-
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
o3-07, 83-04 Docket No. 50-352, 50-353 License No. CPPR-106, CPPR-107 Priority Category A
-
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Cmpany 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Facility Name:
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection At:
Limerick, Pa.
Inspection Conducted:
April 24 - May 28, 1983
.
Inspectors:
tauWat 6///83
S. K. Chaudhary/ Senior Resident Inspector
'date
ditI (o-l 63
.
Jai te M. Grant, Reactor Engineer, DPRP date b
date u.
.
6!2!? 3 Approved by:
-2 L. L. Conner, dr., Chief (Feactor Projects date Section, 2D Inspection Summary:
Combined Inspection Report for Inspection Conducted April 24 - May 28, 1983 (Report Nos. 50-352/83-07; 50-352/83-04)
Areas Inspected: Routine Inspection by resident inspector and one region-based reactor engineer of:
(1) CRD supports; (2) follow-up of 10CFR21 reports; (3) design change control; (4) personnel training; and (5) review of licensee's preoperational test program. The inspection involved 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> by the msident inspector and 52 hours6.018519e-4 days <br />0.0144 hours <br />8.597884e-5 weeks <br />1.9786e-5 months <br /> by the reactw engineer on Unit 1 and 15 houns by the resident inspector on Unit 2.
No violations were identified.
8306150247 830602 DRADOCK05000g Region I Form 12 (Rev. February 1982)
i
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted PEC0
'
- D.T. Clohecy, QA Engineer
- J. M. Corcoran, Field QA Branch Head
- F. J. Coyle, QA Engineer
- E. C. Gibson, QA Engineer
- P. K. Pavlides, Manager, QA Bechtel Power Corporation
- K. Stout, Project QC Engineer In addition to the above, other managers, supervisors, engineers, technicians and craftsmen were contacted and interviewed throughout this inspection period as the inspector interfaced with their work.
2.
Status 'of Previously Identified Open Items (0 pen) Violation 82-13-01 in the area of design control by failing to incorporate Field Change Requests (FCR's) in the drawing within the time required by project procedures. The licensee has initiated additional actions to improve the timeliness of incorporation of changes into
affected drawings, and expect.s it to be complete by the end of May 1983.
The item remains open until the completion of corrective action and verification by NRC.
3.
Plant Tour and Walk-through Inspections Periodically during the inspection, the inspector made plant tours of both units and cannon facilities. During the tour the inspector examined completed work, work-in-progress, quality control activities, equipment storage and handling, and maintenance.
He discussed the technical and procedural aspects of work with craftsmen, supervisors, and engineers to assure that work was being performed in accordance with project technical and procedural requirements.
Some specific activities observed du dng these inspections included cable pulling, CRD supports, equipment handling and installations. The examination of these activities covered both units, but special emphasis was placed on work in Unit No.1.
No violations were identified.
1
-, --
-- _-
...- - -
... -
- -,..,
.,. -
, - - - ------ - -- - -
.
.
-
-
-..
-
'
.
4.
Control Rod Drive Support Design by Teledyne
.
The inspector reviewed documentation and held discussions with the licensee, A-E, and Teledyne engineers to assess the effectiveness of design control, and confomance of the completed support to the approved drawings and. design. The inspector examined the CRD support at elevation a
272' located at 14'6 3/8" south of column line G for a comparison with the approved drawings. The following drawings were reviewed:
Teledyne drawing E-5987, Revision 3
--
Teledyne drawing E-5917, & tail 9
--
'
Based on the above examination, document review, and discussions with cognizant personnel, the inspector determined that the support was erected per the approved design, and the design change control measures established by Teledyne were effective in preventing any inadvertent and/or unauthor-ized change in design.
,
.I No violations wem identified.
,
,
5.
10CFR21 Repo~rt by Tube-Line Corporation
.
The Stainless Steel Division of Tube-Line Corporation filed two Part 21
'
rtports. The first was dated April 25, 1983 and was related to stainless steel pipe flanges supplied by them for nuclear applications. The i
problem was that the flanges were not heat treated in accordance with all the requirements of the ASME code.
The inspector followed-up the deficiency and determined that the licensee has received one 8" flange from Tube-Line Corporation for safety-related
,
!
application. The constructor has identified the flange and a nonconfor-mance report has been issued to evaluate and disposition this deficiency.
This matter is unresolved pending evaluation of the problem and apprceriate i
resolution.
(352/83-07-01)
,
The second report was submitted on May 6,1983. This problem related to I
a deficiency in plate welding with filler metal that did not meet all I
the manufacturing requirements of the ASME code. The licensee is con-t tinuing the investigation to determine the application and location of
these itms and to evaluate the extent of this problem. The licensee's i
actions will be followed-up in routine resident inspections.
6.
Follow-Up on Radiation Monitors from GA Technology On May 12, 1983, the licensee received four radiation monitors from GA
'
Technology containing C136 and Ba133 as sources.
Initially, from the
<
supplier's documentation, it appeared that the sources exceeded the exempt quantities (10CFR30.71, Schedule B) for these materials.
However, an
,
investigation by the licensee QA and on-site health physics group revealed that the sources contained materials within exempt limits. The Chlorine i
and Barium sources had 0.05 microcurie and 10 microcurie activity respec-tively. Two monitors did not show any detectable levels of radiation on
',
!
!
,- -, _ -- -
-n--
,-~,--c-
,--,-n,.,----.n,-.-,,,-,--,.a,-
-,---.,.,-.--.,-.---.---~n.-,,,,-----_,-.v..n--n...
i
.-
..
'
- the surface of the package and one-showed a level' of 0.1 mR at contact.
The confusion resulted from an error-in the accompanying documentation.
No violations were identified.
7.
Design Change Control The. inspector reviewed a random sample of Field Change Notices (FCN's)
and held discussions with cognizant licensee personnel to determine the -
status of field design change control. The following documents were reviewed:
Bechtel Procedure, 8031-JR-G-35, " Job Rule for the
--
Preparation and Issuance of Field Change Notices" Bechtel Procedure, EDPI-4.62-1
--
FCN's:
i 5048M 47C 783C 3563M 121C 784C 3408M 126C 3103E 3228M 801C 3070E 2631M 820C 3052E 3636M 796C 986C
.
3774M 795C
,
The inspector identified several unincorporated FCN's.
However, the
!
licensee informed the inspector that the identified FCN's were part of the backlog being incorporated into affected documents' pursuant to the NRC finding 352/82-13-01, and the corrective action should be completed by the end of May, 1983.
The. inspector, however, questioned the procedure for not incorporating FCN-986C into PSA-711. FCN 784C was reissued as FCN 784C, Rev.1, but was later superseded by FCN 986C.
Both previous FCN's required incorpor-ation in drawings C-711 and PSA 711, however, the new FCN 986C required ~
incorporation only in drawing C-711. The -licensee informed the inspector that the changes in FCN 986C were dimensional changes, therefore,
,
affecting only the civil drawings.
Because the PSA drawings do not
!
,
{
contain dimensions, it was not necessary to revise them.
No violations were identified.
i
!
8.
Training
!
In conjunction with the design change inspection, the inspector reviewed
,
i the training records of the personnel involved in review and approval of FCN's.
Bechtel Procedure, JR-C-2, " Job Rule for Orientation of Super-
'
I intendents, Field Engineers, and Field Procurement Personnel" establishes
,
the training requirements for these personnel. The inspector determined
!
,
l
!
!
. _ _ - -., _, _. _. - -, _.. _
. -
.. _ _, -. - - _. _,,, _,, _ - - _ _, _ _ _. - _, _, _ _ _. _ _
--
.
- -
,
.
5 that the engineers were prcperly indoctrinated and qualified prior to-performing such activities.
No violations were identified.
9.
Pipe Supports and Hangers The inspector randomly selected ~eight large bore pipe supports and hangers, six inside containment and two inside the reactor building, for visual examination of the as-built configuration in comparison to that approved by the latest documentation. Document 8031-JR-M-17, " Job Rule for Field Control of Pipe Supports (Hangers)" describes the manner in.
which pipe supports are controlled from field procurement through final installation. The following supports were selected for examination to determine their confonnance to the specified Job Rule:
DBA-107-H1 GBC-114-H1 DBA-107-H3 GBC-ll4-H2 EBB-109-H4 DLA-112-H7 EBB-109-H11 DLA-112-H13 No violations were identified.
10.
Status of Preop / Start-up Tests The inspector reviewed the status of Unit 1 preop / start-up tests. The licensee informed the inspector that 26.6% of the tests were complete.
The licensee is 4.6% behind in the preop / start-up test schedule of.31%.
However, to compensate for the delay, the licensee is planning to expedite system turnovers from construction with minor non-critical exceptions.
The punch-list exceptions would be such that it would not affect the safety and/or test result validity during tests, and would be able to be completed after the acceptance of _the tumover. The-licensee also indicated that the Integrated Condensate flush was satisfactorily completed and air lines were blown in the reactor encloser building. The inspector did not find any itens of concern at this time.
11.
Unresolved Itens Unresolved items are matters about which more information is needed to detennine whether it is acceptable or a violation. Unresolved itens are discussed in paragraph 5 of this report.
12.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of this inspection period, an exit interview was held with the msnbers of the licensee staff (denoted * in paragraph 1). The inspector discussed the scope and findings of this inspection.
!
!
.
!'
I