IR 05000358/1980010
| ML19329G023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1980 |
| From: | Hayes D, Naidu K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329G020 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-80-10, NUDOCS 8007110479 | |
| Download: ML19329G023 (8) | |
Text
r (
)
v g
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-358/80-10 Docket No. 50-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licensee: Cincinnati Gas and Electric 138 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Facility Name: William Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant inspection At: William Zimmer Site, Moscow, Ohio Inspection Condu d: May I and 2, 1980 Inspector:
K. R N 2/,!PD u
6/7( h Approved By:
es, e
.
Engineering Support Section 1
/
'
Inspection Summary Inspection on May I and 2, 1980 (Report No. 50-358/80-10)
Areas Inspected: Review of corrective action taken on previous items of noncompliance, status of previously identified unresolved matters, IE Bulletin and quality assurance records. The inspection involved a total of 16 inspection hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
_
800 711047k
..
- - _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
O g
DETAILS Persons Contacted
.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E)
B. K. Culver, Project Manager
~
- R. P. Ehas, QA&S Engineer D. C. Kramer, QA&S Eugineer W. W. Schwiers, Principal QA&S Engineer J. F. Weissenberg, QA&S Engineer R. L. Wood, QA&S Engineer Henry J. Kaiser (Kaiser)
E. V. Knox, QA Manager R. Marshall, Project Superintendent Other Contractor Personnel
- G. Grosardt, Superintendent - Kramig
- L.
Stewart, QC Inspector - Tech-Sil
- M. Troman, 1echnical Advisor - Tech-Sil Waldinger Young & Bertke (WYB)
- D. G. Martin, Project Manager, Sheet Metal
- D. M. Steindam, Site QA Supervisor
- Denotes those who'were not present at the exit interview. Other CG&E, Kaiser, and other contractor perscnnel were contacted during the course of the inspection.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (358/77-13-01) - Qualification records for elec-trical equipment. This item is being addressed in the compliance to IE Circular 78-08 and instrument / electrical equipment environmental qualifi-cation requirements for near term plants for operating license.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (358/78-16-07) - It was previously reported that at approximate elevation 523' inside the containment, a service air line was installed about 4' above safety-related instrument lines. The li-censee stated that this type of installation will be generically reviewed by S&L, the A/E. A separation Task Force Audit Team (Task Force) consist-
'ing of engineering and technical personnel designated by the licensee and S&L audited the separation of electrical equipment in the plant. The on
.
site audit was' completed on March 27, 1980 and the report finalized on f
,
i-2-
...
..-
,.
O
'
April 2, 1980. The licensee stated that a similar audit will be performed on the mechanical piping installation. Pending review of this audit, this item remains open.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (358/79-03-03) - Electrical conduits attached to leak chase channels inside the containment. The licensee's evaluation will be reviewed by NRR.
-
'
(Open) Unresolved Item (358/79-03-04) - The installation of safety-related instrument hangers to containment leak chase channels. The licensee's evaluation will be reviewed by NRR.
'
(0 pen) Noncompliance (358/79-13-01) - Qualification of gasket material used in HVAC System. The licensee received a letter from Sargent and Lundy (S&L), the AE, informing them that the material used by Goodyear in the manufacture of HVAC fan flexible connections was not the same material which underwent environmental tests. The licensee, together with Waldinger, Young, and Bertke, located flexible connectio9s manu-facturer with "Viton", which successfully withstood 2.3 x 10 rads.
The licensee is awaiting approval from S&L. Pending the installation of acceptable flexible connections, this item remains open.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (358/79-14-01) - Check lists to verify the ade-quacy of the installed HVAC equipment were not complete and approved by S&L. A checklist titled "HVAC Inspection" has been developed to verify the adequacy of Mechanical Equipment Installation.
Preliminary review of the checklist indicates that the intent of the verification may not be accomplished. The licensee agreed to revise the checklist. Pending
'
review of the revised checklist, this item remains open.
(Closed) Noncompliance-(358/79-28-01) - During a previous inspection, it was determined that the restoration of the cleanliness of the electrical components adjacent to the control room was not complete. The construc-tion opening has been closed and the Zonolite area has been cleaned. The inspector observed that the panels in 'the control room which were exposed to the dust have since been cleaned. The cleanliness inside the control room is being maintained by cleaning the panels at various intervals.
(Open) Noncompliance (358/79-39-20) - The noncompliance consisted of two parts, namely:
j Modifications were being supervised by the electrical test group a.
without being reinspected by individuals (QC) other than those who performed or supervised the activity. The relevant QACMI, E-8, was revised and Revision 10 dated April 23, 1980 states in part
,
_
"The Henry J. Kaiser (HJK) Electrical QAE or his designee shall be responsible for reviewing design changes, subsequent to April 1, 1980, of essential wiring diagrams to insure that physical changes to wiring are reinspected by HJK/QA". During a training session
!
-3-
!
.
-
, _ _ _ -. _, _ _ _ _, _ _ _.
._,.. - -
.
., - _ -,
_ _ _ - _. - -
_
e
.
'
. conducted on May 1, 1980, the test personnel were notified of the procedural changes. This plan has not been implemented.
Pending review of implementation, this item remains open.
b.
The second part was whether the licensee would establish through an audit the acceptability of the modification performed prior to April 1, 1980. The licensee is in the process of scheduling-an audit, this item remains open.
Other Areas Inspected Part 21 on Ruskin Fire Dampers It was reported that the negator type may slip out of the spring holding slot in Ruskin's vertical Curtain Type Fire Dampers, Model N1BD23.
Waldinger, Young and Bertke (WYB) purchased five Ruskin Fire Dampers, Model N1BD23, which were delivered to the site during March 1980. WYB letter dated February 27, 1980 indicates that the five dampers identified as IVX10Y, IVX11Y, IVC 96Y, IVC 97Y, and IVC 98Y were scheduled for shipment during February 1980. WYB contacted Ruskin and requested shop modifica-tions to the dampers to retain the spring be made prior to shipment.
Ruskin informed WYB on February 26, 1980 that the modifications were com-pleted in the shop and that the dampers would be shipped on February 27, 1980.
Inspection Report dated March 6, 1980 indicates that WYB receipt inspected the fire dampers on arrival. Welding, dimensional, documenta-tion and drawing conformance were verified; no adverse findings were identified. During discussions with WYB, it was determined that further modification to Ruskin drawing 5564 will be necessary. The modificatior-involves installation of a guide to maintain the correct blade orienta-tion during closure. The modification is expected to be carried out by Ruskin personnel who will be dispatched to the site.
IE Bulletin 78-01 The inspector reviewed the corrective action taken by the licensee and determined that Field Deviation Disposition Request (FDRR) No. KN-1-554 dated March 2,1978 requests replacement of contact arms on three relays in each RPS MG set control panel. The relays involved are of CR120A type.
Equipment Trouble Report (ETR) No. 793 was initiated and the contact arms replacement was verified to be complete on January 16, 1979.
The inspector has no further questions in regard to the licensee's action on this bulletin.
i Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Review of Fire and Radiation Resistant Seals Installation Activities
-
a.
Observstion of Installed Seals
'
The inspector observed the seal installed on penetration iden-tified as 474 located in the Turbine Building at approximate
-4-
,
-
_
__
~.
-
-
.-
. -
,
a A
elevation 527 -0" at column 19 along "L" row. This penetration is identified on S&L drawing M-531 sheet 2 titled " Penetration Locations Turbine Building Plan Elevation 527'0".
Seal require-ments for the pr.netr. tion specified on S&L drawing M-531, sheet 6, Revision W, show that the seal type is 3AA. S&L drawing M-529, Sheet 16, Revision C indicates that types 3A and 3AA seals are leaded silicone elastomer for pipe sleeves with unin-sulated cold pipe or with anti-sweat insulation removed having a thermal movement of 1/4" or less.
b.
Review of Inspection Records I
The inspector reviewed the relevant Tech-Sil checklist sheet No. 120 dated February 2, 1979. Tech-Sil is the installation contractor. The record indicates that the seal for penetration HK474, was test piece number 200, the seal depth was 4'4" and that the seal was acceptable. Test log sheet No. 16 indicates that for test piece No. 200, the system number is 133 and that the density as determined on Scale TS-101 was 157.7 pounds per cubic foot. System log sheet 34 indicates the following con-stituted the mix:
Type of Material Weight in lbs.
D.C. Sylgard, 170, Lot A, Batch EKI184F0 169.5 D.C. Sylgard, 170, Lot B, Batch EKI184F0 149.0 Sandflour, RR Type Lot A 61.5 RR Type Lot B 79.0 Lead, 572, Lot A 250.0 Lead, 572, Lot B 250.0 DC1107, Fluid added to Lot B 9.0 c.
Discussions with Tech - Sil Personnel
!
The following information was provided by Tech-Sil personnel:
(1) No electrical penetrations have been installed to date.
(2)
12,300 pounds of High Density leaded gel (EDLG) was used at the site intended for penetration where a 1/4" pipe movement was predicted; in rigid seals leaded elastomer was used. However, 3200 lbs. of sealant had to be removed as unacceptable from penetrations 3063, 3069, 3070, 3071, 3072,1210 and 1568 at elevation 546' in the tu'rbine build-ing because the sealant would not set.
Since March 28, 1980, Tech-Sil used High Density Zine Gel instead of High
-
Density Leaded Gel and to date no setting problems have been encountered.
No items of noncompliance were identified in the above areas.
5-
-
-
-
.
.
,-- _
.
_
.
A t
2.
Review of Suppression Pool Modification QA Records The inspector reviewed the following records relative to the modi-fications in the suppression pool involving the installation of "T" quenchers:
a.
The following salient aspects were verified during the installa-a tion of baseplates identified as 19E, 20E, and 21E:
(1) Layout of the wall plate is according to S&L drawing (2) Insert liner plates are as per drawings (3) Rebar detection was performed (4) Cone bore operation (5) Preparation of concrete surfaces (6) Installation of anchor tolts (7) Locate bolt holes to template (8) Installation of 2-7/16" thick wall base plate and replace-ment liner plates (9) Placement of grout and testing of the grout (10) Stud tensioning The records indicate that Quality Control inspections were performed during various stages of installation, and that no unacceptable findings were identified.
b.
Test report from H. C. Nutting Company dated July 2, 1979 in-dicates that " cone strip tests" were performed on 1-1/2" heavy hexagonal nuts (supplied by the licensee). The nuts success-fully withstood 143,600 pound proof load.
'
c.
Material Receiving Report No. 59901 indicates that the follow-ing material was received on January 1, 1980 from ACIMET Manu-facturing, Cleveland, Ohio:
(1) 207 pieces ASME SA 193 Grade B7 1-1/2" diameter l'S-1/2" long, bolts, threaded 4" each end (8 threads per inch)
-
(2) 420 pieces 1-1/2" diameter heavy hexagonal nuts ASME SA 194 Grade 7-6-
,
._-
_-
- -
_-
. __
_
.
-
- - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e.
(3) 420 pieces 1-1/2: diameter hexagonal jam nuts ASME SA 194 Grade 7 d.
Review of the HJK purchase order 339985 dated March 29, 1979 indicates that the bolts and nuts should meet the requirements of ASME Code Section III 1971 Edition with the 1973 Summer Addenda. The ASME Code Section III refers to Section II for SA materials; the opening statement on ASME SA 193 states that
.the specification is identical to ASTM A193-70. Review of par-agraph 9.2 of ASTM A193 indicates that the maximum hardness shall be Brinnel Hardness Number (BHN) 235 or Rockwell 99 for B7M bolts, which have a minimum tensile requirements of 100.
Table 3A " Approximate Hardness Conversion Numbers for Non Austenitic Steels" in ASTM A 370 indicates that for approximate tensile strength of 125 Ksi the BHN should be 258. Test Certi-fied Material Test Reports (CMTR) from ACIMET Manufacturing Company, the supplier, indicates that the BHN for the nuts is above 300 and after heat treatment for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a*. 1100 F is 285. The inspector requested the licensee to obtain the following information:
'(1) CMTR from ACIMET, corrected on February 12, 1980 does not provide BHN values for 1-1/2" diameter studs with heat numbers R-26, AV-20 and U-20.
What were the BHNs?
(2) The CMTR indicates that 1-1/2" nuts which originally had a BHN values of 311 and 321, were heat treated for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at 1100 F, after which the BHN values were 285.
The normally recommended heat treatment time is one hour per inch thickness. Why was a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> heat treatment
'
performed?
(3) At what locations on the bolts or nuts were the BHN measured?
(4) How were the bolts and nuts quenched after heat treatment?
(5) An evaluation of the BHN values of the bolts and nuts to determine that they would perform satisfactorily.
Pending receipt of the above additional information, this item is considered unresolved (358/80-10-01).
Note: Neither the ASME SA 193 and 194 nor the ASTM A 193 and 194 are clear about the exact BHN values.
No items of noncompliance were identified in the above area.
-7-
. _.
.
-
,--
--
- - - -
-
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncom-pliance, or deviations. One unresolved item identified during this in-spection is discussed in paragraph 2.d.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee staff (denoted in the Persons Con-tacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 2, 1980.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection and the licensee acknowledged the findings.
-
,
.
I I-8-i
,
w -
-
e--ye,
-
-
-+