IR 05000373/1979029
| ML19249D542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1979 |
| From: | Danielson D, Erb C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19249D540 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-79-29, 50-374-79-20, NUDOCS 7909240792 | |
| Download: ML19249D542 (4) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/79-29; 50-374/79-20 Docket No. 50-373; 50-374 License No. CPPR-99; CPPR-100 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
La Salle County Nuclear Station, Units I and 2 Inspection At:
La S:lle Site, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Conducted: July 24-26, 1979 NWdbm M
/4 2f Inspector: f.M. Erb A LGkk-Approved By: D Danielson, Chief
[ /4 77
'
'
Engineering Support Section 2 Intpection Summ.sry Inspection on July 24-26, 1979 (Report No. 50-373/79-29; 50-374/79-20)
Areas Inspected: Observation of welding and NDE results for replacement recirculation system inlet nozzles; observation of Penetrant Testing of welds in Unit 1 feedwater system spargers; observation of Scram Discharge Jeader W ds and NDE records of CRD system; quality records for Standby Liquid Conto'1 system; closeout of one noncompliance item. The inspection involved a total of 21 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of non.ompliance or deviations were identified.
.
999 167
@90924079g
,
DETAILS
,
Persons Contacted Licensee Personnel (CECO)
L. J. Burke, Site Project Superintendent L. Tapella, Quality Assurance E. Wendorf, S;ation Construction D. J. Skoza, QA Engineer H. H. Tauterback, QA Er.gineer G. E. Groth, Station Construction - Mechanical
- J.
Gieseker, Station Construction - Electrical B. J. McAndrew, Station,onstruction General Electric Company (GE)
R. E. Spencer, Site Manager Reactor Controls Incorporated (RCI)
J. Courtney, Site Manager H. Phillips, QC Supervisor
- D. Donath, Assistant QC Supervisor General Electric Installation and Service Engineering (GEI&SE)
- D. Bryant, QC Supervisor
- Denotes those not present at the exit interview.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (373/78-28-01): No record of removal and repair of lack of fusion (rejectable defect) in the root of 150 azimuth feedwater safe end to nozzle weld. A letter was received on July 30, 1979, from CECO corporate office advising that a supplementary NCR had been issued by General Electric I&SE. This NCR No. LSFWl-2 documents that repa.r was made on the rejectable defect (lack of fusion) prior to proceeding with the weld. The inspector has no further questions.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Recirculation Safe End to Nozzle and Thermal Sleeve Welds - Unit 1 Three welds were made for each nozzle, one was external (nozzle to safe end) sad subject to radiography, two were internal and subject to visual and penetrant test only. The welds were made using the Dimetrics Automatic TIG welder. Procedure and welders were qualified.
-2-999
\\b8
i Radiography was performed to procedure No. RT-3000, Rev. 4, by CONAM. The external weld was inconel to inconel and 5 films were necessary for full coverage of the weld. Radiographs of the following four welds were examined.
Location Indications Comment 30 Azimuth Suckback, root Acceptable 60 Azimuth Indication clad.
Acceptable 270, Azimuth Porosity Acceptable Azimuth 300 Porosity Acceptable Penetrant Test procedure No. PT-1001, Rev. 5, was used to examine the internal welds, Material certification PQC 904 was on file covering the materials. Travelers were signed off indicating the following QC che ks.
Penetrant test of weld prep a.
b.
Cleanliness of area c.
Consumable insert d.
Purge e.
Temperature d.
Welder indentification NDE testing was performed in conformance with ASME Section III, 1974 Edition, Summer 1974, Addenda.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
2.
Feedwater Spargers - Unit 1 All welds in the six feedwater spargers were being penetrant tested by RCI.
The inspector witnessed one PT where a small defect was found beside the fillet weld.
Grinding could be performed if authorized by GE.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Control Rod Drive System - Unit 1 Welds in the 8" Scram Discharge piping were excep ed and found to be of good quality, in particular the field we'Li_ Q ich were ground flush. Radiography of field welds No. 20, 2-35 nd 36 was acceptable.
The radiographic inspection was perfor, d n racedure No. RT-2-NP, Rev. O.
These welds were made to the
,qcnts of ASME Section
.,, e III, 1975 Edition, Summer 1975 Addent.
The following records of field welds in the insert and withdraw lines in the 180 -270 quadrant were examined.
yy}
\\
3-
.
.
Identification Welder Symbol QC-1-1803
--
W5 P10 W6 P12 W7 P10 W8 P10 FW10 P10 The welds were made to WP W300, Rev. 1, and were penetrant tested to procedure No. PE-1 Rev. 3.
The authorized nuclear inspector had indicated his hold points and sign off steps. The lines had been flushed, and the hydro performed. Hydro was performed on 24 lines at a time.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Standby Liquid Control System - Unit I and 2 The tanks S/N 272 and 273 for Units 1 and 2 respectively are set in place. These tanks are Class 2 and were manufactured by Lamco Incorporated.
The QC records indicate S/N 272 was accepted on PQCD-218 and that six DDRs had been resolved by engineering. All certifications for materials and personnel appeared to be acceptable. These tanks conform to the requirements of ASME Section III, 1971 Edition, Winter 1973 Addenda.
The Standby Liquid Control Pump, MPLC41C001 and SN284220, is placed but has not had the piping attached. This pump was procured to GE Specification 21A8710 and was manufactured by Union Pump Company.
Deviation No. DDR7360 is included in the QC documentation.
It was accepted by GE.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Exit Interview The inspector met with site representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted)
at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection, which were acknowledged by the licensee.
,
,
9h