IR 05000358/1979009
| ML19289E971 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1979 |
| From: | Julie Hughes, Knop R, Vandel T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19289E965 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-79-09, 50-358-79-9, NUDOCS 7905290720 | |
| Download: ML19289E971 (8) | |
Text
-
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
-
Report No.
5358/79-09 Docket No 20-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licensee: Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Facility Name: Wm H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Inspec. Lion At: Zimmer Site, Moscow, Ohio Inspection Conducte : Mar 21-23, 1979 ftfec-
'
'
Inspectors:
T. E. Vandel
-[- 7f
'
(i
'
kD#
b/99 (/ I?
c
.
//
Approved By:
. C. Knop, Chi f N
Projects Section
'/ /
Inspection Summary Inspection on March 21-23, 1979 (Report No. 50-358/79-09)
Areas Inspected: Follow up of previously identified noncompliance and unresolved matters; review of electrical and instrumentation activities in progress and related records; RHR system as built walk down; Part 50 Section 50.55(e) and Part 21 reports review. The inspection involved a total of 66 inspector-hours onsite by three NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
2: E3 348 7905290 7 2 0
.
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted
'
'
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E)
-
- B. K. Culver, Project Manager
- R. P. Ehas, QA&S Engineer
- J. W. Haff, QA&S Enginee.
- J. F. Weissenberg, QA&S Engineer W. W. Schwiers, Principal QA&S Engineer D. Kramer, QA&S Engineer R. L. Wood, QAES Engineer Henry J. Kaiser Company (Kaiser)
- Denote. those personnel attending the exit interview held at the end c'.
the inspection (March 23, 1979).
Other personnel of CG&E and Kaiser were contacted during the course of the inspection.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (358/78-13-01):
Several welds on seismic Class 1 cable tray hanger components in the reactor building cable areas were of questionable quality relative to the requirements of AWS D1.1-72.
Repair of the defective welds are in process, the RIII inspector observed several completed welds and determined that the correct Kaiser welding pr)cedure, SPP, 3.1.11 and S&L Seismic Category I Electrical Equipment Hangtrs Fabrication and Erection Specifications, STD-ED-115 were being use1.
Kaiser QC inspectors are inspecting all weld repairs and document ng on drawing E-19 and nonconformance report E1139 Revision. This iters will continue.o be inspected as a part of the Reportable Event 10 CPR 50.55(e) dated July 17, 1978.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (358/78-29-02):
Tech-Sil, Incorporated Quality Assurance Program. CG&E's QA conducting an audit on Tech-Sil, Incorporeted corporate office. The RIII inspector reviewed CG&E's Field Audit Report No. 219 conducted on the implementation of Tech-Sil, Incorporated QA program. The RIII inspector has no further questions at this time.
<
$49
_2-
,
.
S
a
.
.
(Closed) Noncompliance (358/78-21-01; 02):
These items of noncompliance were closed in inspection report 358/79-03. However, there remained a question as to what action would be taken to preclude repetition of like items by other site subcontractors to resolved any generic question.
The inspector reviewed three (3) licensee " Field Audit Reports" as
,
follows:
1.
No. 122, dated February 20, 1979, audit of Reactor Controls Incorporated.
2.
No. 224, dated March 2, 1979, audit of Henry J. Kaiser Company.
3.
No. 226, dated March 13, 1979, audit of Waldinger, Young and Bertke.
T'ie above appeared to be satisfactory and requires no further action by the inspector.
(Closed) Noncompliance (358/79-07-06):
Weld rod hold ovens were not equipped with direct read out temperature indicators although these ovens indicated that they had been calibrated on September 20, 1978.
The inspector verified that the weld rod hold ovens No. W-12, W-49 and W-52 had been removed from service ar. stated in the licensee response letter.
Other Inspection Areas 1.
Licensee Actions Pursuant to 10 CFR 21 The Jamesbury Corporation, supplier of mounting brackets (four),
for certain valve actuators reported pursuant to 10 CFR 21 that the brackets did not meet specified seismic requirements.
During the current inspection the following documents were reviewed relative to this matter:
(1) licensee's nonconformance report (NR) dated January 23, 1979, which identifies the pertinent 8" butterfly valves (1WS037A, B, C and D); (2) Acton Environmental Testing Laboratories seismic test report No. 13865: Revision 1, dated October 16, 1978; (3) Jamesbury Corporation certification for addendum "B" of report No. JHA-74-2 dated '.4ovember 20, 1978; and (4) Sargent and Lundys's (A/E) specification H-22 for valves.
During his review, the inspector noted that the orginally specified seismic loads on the subject valves had been changed from SG to 3G.
The licensee explained to the inspector that the A/E hed redone a previous calculation and established that the acceleration loading criteria for these valves is 1.5G.
Based on this, the loading requirement was reduced from 5G to 3G.
-
,
<
~'~
2']3 350
.
.
.
'
Review of the seismic test report for these Jamesbury valv -
actuators and mounting brackets indicates that, in each case, brackets attached to the valves, vibrated loose. The inspect <<
was unable to determine if this test was in fact a valid test.
These items will be reviewed during a future inspection.
-
2.
10 CFR 50.55(e) Reports a.
480 Volt Electric Operated Circuit Breaker The inspector visited the licensee maintenance shop to observe a circuit breaker of the type identified in the licensee defi-ciency report. The breaker involved is an ITE electrically operated 480 volt breaker type K6005.
It was observed that the trip bar shaft has sufficient he,rizontal movement tolerance that if movement occured all ir. one direction, toward the trip solenoid end, the latch lever, that latches the breaker in the open position, binds'on the solenoid and is prevented from moving freely to latch out the breaker. The breaker then is free to reclose when the closing spring becomes fully charged. The manufacturer is reviewing alternatives for a satisfactory corrective action to prevent future undesired closings. Review will be conducted during future inspections.
b.
Inadequate Welding of Seismic Class 1 Cable Tray Hangers This item, was originally identified as an unresolved item, and subsequently was reported in accordance with Part 50, Section 50.55(e) requirements relative to supports provided by Superstrut Incorporated. Disposition of the matter was resolved earlier in this report. Complete close out will involve the review of the licensee's action regarding the
,
repairs of the hanger welding as outlined in their final report dated October 30, 1978.
2<53 351
.
-4-g
.
.-
.
Section I Prepared by H. M. Wescott Reviewed by R. C. Knop, Chief
-
Projects Section 1.
Review of Quality Records for Safety Related Piping, Residual Heat Removal (RHR), Welding The inspector reviewed quality records related to welding of safety related piping outside the reactor coolant pressure boundary to ascertain that these records reflect work accomplishment consis-tent with NRC requirements and SAR commitments as.follows:
a.
Kaiser Engineers, Incorperated, Field Weld Data Sheets for the Wm H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station as follows:
(1) FW No. 76RH, Line No. 1RH07BA10 (2) FW No. 58RH, Line No. 1RH06AA14 (3) FW No. 012", Line No. 1RH05AA14 These field welds were selected at random during walk down of RHR system.
The records contained Weld Material Issue slips, Radiography Reports, Exposure Technique sheets and Liquid Penetrant Inspection Reports.
b.
Subassembly Packages from Pullman Kellog for pipe spools as follows:
(1) Spool No. 1RH55BB10-261. This package contained Defective Material Report No. 4523, spool replaced on PO 17-01-00-75-33K, dated September 29, 1979.
(2) Spool 1RH-55BB12-262 (3) Spool 1RH-55BB12-263 (4) Spool 1RH-55BB12-264 (5) Spoel 1RH-55BB12-265 These packages contained certificates of Shop Inspection, Weld History Records, Radiographic Reports, Magnetic Particle Inspection Records, Demensional Inspection Records and Final Inspection Checklists.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-or}
}q7-5-
'-
--
.
.
2.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping (Welding) Observation of Work Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System The inspector reviewed and made observations of completed work of the RHR system to ascertain that the system was installed in
-
accordance with NRC requirements as follows:
a.
Review of Wm H. Zimmer Drawings of the RHR system as follows:
(1)
M-51, sheet 1, Revision R, dated August 10, 1978.
(2)
M-51, sheet 2, Revision P, dated August 10, 1978.
(3)
M-51, sheet 3, Revision L, dated Janaury 6, 1978.
(4)
M-51, sheet 4, Revision N, dated. November 17, 1978.
b.
The inspector preformed a walk down of the RHR system to ascertain that the equipment was installed as required.
It was established that no block valves had been installed inside the containment on the suction side of the RHR pumps A, B and C as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix A
" General Design Criteria for Nuclea'. Power Plants" Criterion 56 - Primary containment isolation which requires that two isolation valves be installed in lince penetrating the containment (one inside containment and one outside of containment installed as close as practical to the containment).
Review of the Safety Evaluation Report and discussion with NRC licensing established that the requirement for isolation valves inside of containment had been waived as it could be demonstrated that they were not required.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- cy
-
--
L s
-
-6-
.
<
.
Section II
Prepared by J. Hughes Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief
-
Engineering Support Section 1 1.
Instrumentation - Observation of Work Activities a.
The inspector observed four installed Class 1E instrument piping sensing lines identified by the following instruments and KEI isometric drawings:
(1) Reactor vessel pressure transmitter:
Drawings - M471-21-NB-298, Revision 3 M471-21-NB-296, Revision 2 M471-1-NB-13, Revision 9 M471-1-NB-16, Revision 5 (2) Reactor drywell pressure switch:
Drawing - M471-18-NB-354, Revision (3) RHR discharge pressure switch:
Drawings - M471-10-RH-41, Revision 10 M471-10-RH-50, Revision 14 M471-10-RH-51, Revision 4 (4) RHR pressure differential indicating switch:
Drawings - M471-10-RH-32, Revision 14 M471-10-RH-33, Revision 11 M471-10-RH-34, Revision 5 M471-10-RH-35, Revision 15 M471-10-RH-36, Revision 11 M471-10-RH-37, Revision 6 b.
The following characteristics were in accordance with the drawings and Quality Assurance Construction Methods Instruction, QACMI No. M-14, Revision 1, dated March 21, 1973. The welds, located per the drawings, had no vis.,le cracks, lack of
,
-
fusion, excessive porosity or excessive undercutieng. The lines were properly routed or deviations were controlled by 2.
_7_
e
.
as-built (red lined) drawings. The line components were specified by the drawings.
The supports (hangers, etc.)
were incomplete, but controlled. The lines were not identified, however, the licensee indicated that, as construction progresses the lines will be identified in accordance with specification and procedures.
'
_
No items of noncompliance were identified.
2.
Instrumentation - Review of Quality Records The inspector reviewed installation records of the subject instrument sensing lines.
Installations were being properly documented on
the isometric drawings and KEI QA inspection documented as indicated
!
by the QA inspector's stamp. Liquid penetrant test results on all welds.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Independent Inspection The inspector reviewed several nonconformance reports to determine current status, are they legible, reviewed by QC personnel and are readily retrievable. keports adequately describe the noncon-formance. The inspector noted that the disposition instructions were not specific on some of the nonconformance. The licensee stated that they would review this nonconformance procedure for clarity and assure that their personnel understand and follow the procedure. This item is unresolved and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
(358/79-09-01)
Unresolved Matters Unresolved items are matters about which more information la required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. One unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Section II, Paragraph 3.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in the Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection. The results of the inspection were summarized with one unresolved item being identified.
.
5 i c )" kb J
.
-8-