IR 05000373/1999008
| ML20205S816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205S814 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-99-08, 50-373-99-8, 50-374-99-08, 50-374-99-8, GL-89-13, NUDOCS 9904270031 | |
| Download: ML20205S816 (15) | |
Text
.
-
l l-
-
.
l-t l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION !!!
!
,
Docket Nos.:
50-373; 50-374 License Nos.:
50-373/99008(DRS); 50-374/99008 (DRS)
!
!-
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Facility:
LaSalle Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Location:
2605 North 21st Road Marseilles, IL 51341-9756 l
l Dates:
March 11 - 26,1999 l
i inspectors:
H. A. Walker, Team Leader
.
J. A. Gavula, Reactor Engineer
)
D. E. Jones, Reactor Engineer V. P. Lougheed, Reactor Engineer i
J. F, Schapker, Reactor Engineer j
Approved by:
John M. Jacobson, Chief, Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety
i
9904270031 990420
~
PDR ADOCK 05000373 C
l
-
i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LaSalle Nuclear Generating Station NRC Inspection Report 50-373/99008(DRS); 50-374/99008(DRS)
This was an announced team inspection of twelve days duration to review engineering changes and plant material condition in preparation for the re-start of Unit 2. The inspection emphasized Unit 2 modification installation and testing and the plant material condition of Unit 2. The following statements summarize the inspection results:
Overall the installation and post-modification testing of installed Unit 2 modifications
+
were good and no significant issues were noted. The plant changes were adequately I
designed, documented and installed and effective post modification testing was specified and performed. The installations of ss;ected modifications were walked down and physically examined and were found to be good. Minor problems were noted in a j
few modification packages and records and problem identification forms were issued for correction. The assigned system and design engineers were qualified, experienced, j
and knowledgeable of the assigned systems and modifications.
The temporary modification process was acceptable. The number of installed Unit 2
.
temporary modifications was high; however, only seven were expected to remain installed after Unit 2 begins operations. The inspectors rfid not consider these
{
modifications to have an impact on plant operations. Engineering personnel were adequately involved and were responsive to plant issues in this area. Control of temporary modifications was acceptable and there was an emphasis, by engineering management, on reducing the number of installed temporary modifications.
The overall plant material condition was very good. Plant areas observed during
.
walk-downs had no visible equipment problems and were very clean except for the Unit 2 steam tunnel where outage work had not been completed. A System Readiness Review and Tumover to Operations Program had been developed and was an excellent method for assuring completion of necessary wot on important equipment and systems prior to Unit 2 start-up.
[
'
-
.
.
.
Report Details Ill. Enoineerina The primary purpose of this inspection was to determine if modifications planned for the outage had been completed and to assess the possible impact of non-installed design changes on plant operations. The inspection of engineering consisted of a limited review of selected modification designs with a verification of the modification installation and testing.
The review included both design changes and temporary modifications. A review of the plant material condition was also included in the inspection.
E1 Conduct of Engineering E1.1 Desian Chances and Modifications a.
Inspection Scope (37700)
Twenty-seven selected Unit 2 modifications were reviewed to verify the adequacy of th6 installation of Unit 2 modifications. Emphasis was placed on installation details and post-modification testing. The review included design change notices, construction drawings, and calculations associated with the mod;fications. The design changes were discussed with the cognizant system and/or design engineer. In some cases, work orders used to install the modifications were also reviewed Accessible portions of selected modifications were walked down for field verification.
b.
Observations and Findinas l
The overall installation of the modifications reviewed was good. The modifications were correctly installed and properly tested. In most cases, design change packages (DCPs) and records reviewed were complete, of good quality, and contained adequate instructions for installation. In the review of modifications, engineering judgrment was
'
s considered and was good A minor item on the failure to document engineering judgement involved a min <.f change to a modification, which is included in the discussion of DCP 9800008. Although no sionif' cant problems were noted in the review of modifications, the inspectors observed several instances where design documentation was incomplete or inaccurate. These items were as follows:
DCP 9'i00181 - The purpose of the modification was to relocate the Unit 2
.
reactor core isolation cooling Turbine Exhaust Rupture Disk. The inspector noted that, although pipe support drawing M09-Rl13-2999G was appropriately deleted, the associated pipe stress calculation, L-000728, was not superceded or voided. This resulted in an active calculation in the system for which there was no plant component. Licent.ee personnel stated that calculation L 000728 would be voided and pnblem identification form (PlF) No. L1999-01542 was written on the issue.
n
.
-
.
.
DCP 9800008 - The purpose of the modification was to reinforce Unit 2
.
masonry walls between the turbine building ventilation tunnel and the high pressure core spray switchgear. As part of the modification, pipe support RTA1-2998R was changed from a vertical restraint to a vertical plus horizontal restraint. The inspector noted that the support drawing's design loads only listed the verticalload and didn't' provide any horizontalload. Licensee personnel stated that the engineering judgement used to justify this change wasn't documented in the associated calculation, L-001657, and initiated PIF L1999-01470 to revise the calculation.
DCP 9800344 - The purpose of the modification was to install a tap line with a
manual vacuum breaker valve on the *C" residual heat removal (RHR) test retum line to minimize transient hydraulic loads. The inspector noted that the design calculation, L-002365, for the tap line was accepted prior to verifying that the postulated transient loads for the test retum line would be acceptable. In addition, the inspector noted that the tap line was not evaluated for vibration because it was not adjacent to rotating equipment and because of its relatively high natural frequency. However, notes taken during the post modification test indicated that cavitation from an adjacent valve caused the test retum line to vibrate to the extent that the test was stopped. Although licensee perso.inel concluded that the test retum line vibration was acceptable for the test retum line itself, there was no evidence that this normally occurring vibration had been considered in the design of the tap line. Based on these observations, licensee i
personnel initiated PlF L1999-01468 to revise calculation L-002365 to reference
'
the appropriate evaluation of the transient loads for the test retum line and to provide justification for the tap line design considering the vibration of the test retum line.
Post-modification testing requirements for the modifications were specified in the design packages and appeared adequate to verify that the modified equipment would
'
perform the required design functions. In most cases, post-modification test records confirmed that the modified equipment would perform the necessary design function.
l In a few cases, post modification testing had been postponed since a specific plant operatine condition was required for the test.
The inspectors performed walk downs of selected modifications and physically verified the modification installations. In most cases, the assigned system or design engineers accompanied the inspectors. Discussions with the system and design engineers indicated a good knowledge of the assigned systems and modifications.
c.
Conclusions Based on the inspection results, the inspectors concluded tnet the installation and post modification testing of Unit 2 modifications were good and no significant issues were noted. The plant changes were adequately designed, documented and installed and i
effective post modification testing was specified and performed. The installations of selected modifications were walked down and physically examined and were found to j
be good. Minor problems were noted in a few modification packages and records and
i i
i J
'
,
,
,
,
.
PlFs were issued for correction. The assigned system and design engineers we,re qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable of the assigned systems and modifications.
E1.2 Temoorary ModificcUons a.
Insoection Scope (37700)
Temporary modifications (formerly called alterations) were reviewed to determine the possible impact of installed temporary modifications on the start-up of Unit 2. The inspection included a review of the controlling procedure, a review of a log describing the existing installed temporary modifications, a review of six selected open temporary modification packages, and a discussion of temporary modifications with cogn!zant licensee personnel.
b.
Observations and Findinos The inspectors reviewed the temporary modification procedure and determined that the described process provided adequate controls for temporarily installed material and equipment. Temporary modifications were required to be reviewed by a cognizant engineer, usually the system engineer, prior to installation.
The inspectors reviewed a list of Unit 2 open temporary modifications, dated March 8,1999, and noted that 45 open temporary alterations / modifications were listed.
This n' umber was excessively large; however, licensee personnel indicated that only seven temporary modifications were expected remain installed after the start-up of Unit 2. Discussions of temporary modification issues with licensee personnel indicated that engineering management had placed considerable emphasis on controlling and reducing the number of installed temporary modifications. The inspectors reviewed
-
descriptions of the seven temporary modifications, scheduled to remain in place after startup, and did not consider these modifications to have an impact on plant operations.
On a second list, dated March 15,1999, the number of Unit 2 open temporary modifications had been reduced to 38..
During the review of the March 8,1999 list, the inspector noted that five of the items were past the scheduled dates for removal. Licensee pt rsonnel stated that the dates for the items had been extended and the new dates apparently had not been entered into the computer tracking system. The updated list, provided March 15,1999, included ccrrected scheduled removal dates. Licensee personnel initiated PiF L1999-01374 to document this lasue.
c.
Conclusions i
Based on the inspection results, the inspectors concluded that the temporary modification process was acceptable. The number of installed Unit 2 temporary modifications was high; however, only seven were expected to remain installed after Unit 2 begins operations. The inspectors did not consider these modifications to have an impact on plant operations. Engineering personnel were adequately involved and were responsive to plant issues in this area. Control of temporary modifications was
i
'
.
,
,
acceptable and there was an emphasis by engineering management, on reducing the number of installed temporary modifications.
E2 Engineering Support of Facilities and Equipment The inspectors reviewed the effectiveness of engineering support as related to plant material condition. Emphasis was placed on plant material condition with possible effects on the start up of Unit 2.
E2.1 Plant Material Condition a.
Inspection Scope (37550)
The inspectors observed plant material conditions during plant walkdowns with emphasis on engineering issues. Lists of deferred and incomplete modifications and installed temporary modifications were reviewed for possible impact on Unit 2 operations. In addition, a System Readiness Review Program, which was developed to verify the status of important plant systems and equipment, was reviewed to evaluate the ability of the program to ensure equipment and system material condition.
b.
Observations and Findinas The plant material condition was evaluated through walk-downs of completed modifications, review of installed temporary modifications, a review of descriptions of the design changes not scheduled to be completed prior to plant startup, and a review of the methods used by licensee personnel to evaluate the meterial condition of irnportant systems. During walk-downs of completed modifications the inspectors reviewed the installation of the selected modifications as well as observed plant conditions with an emphasis on defective, degraded or out-of-service equipment. Plant areas were clean except for the Unit 2 steam tunnel where outage work had not been completed. There were no visible signs of degraded or out of service equipment and the observed plant material condition was very good.
A System Readiness Review & System Tumover to Operations Program" had been developed and implemented for Unit 2 systems. The purpose of the program was to demonstrate that system deficiencies had been identified, documented and either corrected or evaluated for the effect on system operation and reliability. The program provided for four system categories with four different levels of system review based on i
several issues including the importance of the system and the extent of engineering and maintenance work performed during the outage. A System Readiness Review Board (SRRB) had been established for review of the more important systems. The inspector attended the SRRB meeting for the reactor water cleanup system and found that the review was very thorough and included a presentation and discussion of system problems, work performed on the system during the outage including modifications, work left to be completed prior to Unit 2 operation and work not
,
scheduled for completion during the outage. Board approval was required prior to release of the system for plant operations. This was an excellent method for detailed
.
."
.
.
l reviews of important systems to verify completion of necessary work and to evaluate possible impacts on plant operation.
i The inspectors reviewed a list of design changes, which were scheduled for completion after the outage. No modifications, which appeared to have an impact on the operation of Unit 2, were noted.
A list of installed temporary modifications and the scheduled removal dates were reviewed for possible impact on Unit 2 operations. No equipment availability or Unit 2 i
operational impact problems were noted. A more thorough discussion of this item is included in Section E1.2 of this report.
c.
Conclusions Based on the inspection results, the inspectors concluded that the overall plant material condition was very good. Plant areas observed during walk-downs had no visible equipment problems and were very clean except for the Unit 2 steam tunnel where outage work had not been completed. A System Readiness Review and Tumover to Operations Program had been developed and was an excellent method for ensuring good material condition of important equipment and systems.
E8 Miscet!aneous Engineering issuu (92903)
This section describes the review, action and status of selected items which had been identified in previous NRC inspections or items that were identified by licensee personnel and reported to the NRC on licensee event reports (LERs).
E8.1 (Closed) Unresolved item 50-273: 50-274/96011-19: Possible water hammer on RHR heat exchanger. The inspectors reviewed modification 9600103, " Unit 2 Division 2 RHR WS Keepfill," which was designed and installed to correct the possible water hammer problem on the RHR heat exchanger. The inspectors walked down the modification and considered the installation to be adequate. This item is closed.
E6.2 (Closed) Violation 50-273: 50-274/96016-02: The failure to initiate a PIF and operability
'
assessment on the failure of an air operated valve actuator in the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System. The inspectors reviewed the response to the violation, dated January 8,1997, and verified that the described actions were taken. Adequate actions included addressing problems with the air operated valves as well as actions taken to ensure documentation of problems using the PIF. The inspectors had no further concems in this area. This item is closed.
E8.3 (Closed) Inspection Follow Uo item 50-273: 50-274/98005-11: Generic Letter 89-13
" Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety Related Equipment Program Discrepancies. This item was opened to ensure the appropriate Unit 1 restart priority was placed on ccrrecting the program deficiencies, identified by the licensee's quality assurance organization. The inspectors discussed the issues with the assigned 89-13 engineer. The engineer readily 6scussed the status of the program and the activities undertaken during the extended refueling outage to establish baseline information
l
.
.
,
.
about heat exchangers fed from the service water system, including extensive cleaning of the heat exchangers..The engineer also affirmed that the updated 89-13 program had been re-docketed with the NRC. Based on the information reviewed, the 89-13 program appeared comprehensive and complete and satisfied the intent of the generic letter. This item is closed.
E8.4 (Closed) Licensee Event Rooort 50-374/97010-02: Division 2 equipment was declared inoperable due to the failure to install sprinkler hangers and other components. The inspector reviewed licensee records which indicated that required actions had been completed and that fire protection sprinklers were in place in the cable spreading rooms as designed. The noted problems had been corrected and the inspectors had no further concems in this area. This item is closed.
E8.5 (Closed) Licensee Event Report 50-374/97015-00: This was a voluntary LER, which notified the NRC of a possible diversion of low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) water directly to the Suppression Pool. In order to address this problem three operating procedures were revised to address the possible diversion of LPCI water directly to the suppression pool. Caution notes were added to Section E.1.4.1 of Procedure LOP-RH-13, " Suppression Pool Cooling Operation," Revision 21, and Section E.1.2 of
,
Procedure LOP-RH-16, " Raising and Lowering of Suppression Pool Level," Revision 16, to address the possibility of diversion of LPCI water directly to the suppression pool.
Sechon D.8 of procedure LOS-RH-Q1, "RHR (LPCI) and RHR Service Water Pump and Valve in service Test for Operational Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5," Revision 44, was revised to address the issue. The inspectors had no additional concems in this area.
This item is closed.
]
E8.6 (Closed) Licensee Event Report 50-374/97023-02: Inadequate channel functional testing of RPS due to procedure deficiencies. Actions to revise applicable surveillance
procedures to correct this problem were completed June 4,1998. Additional actions to j
verify effectiveness of these changes were scheduled to be completed by September 10,1999. The inspectors included that the actions completed were sufficient to resolve the problem and the additional planned follow-up actions were acceptable. Since the additional planned actions were appropriately entered into the LaSalle corrective action tracking program, this item is closed.
E8.7 (Closed) Licensee Event Rooort 50-374/98007: Potential pressurization of the reactor building vent exhaust plenum. There was possible over pressurization of the plenum walls due to an inaccurate assumption in an engineering calculation. As a result, there was concem that the control room ventilation system, located adjacent to one of the masonry walls, could be damaged by a failure of the wall. An operab,lity evaluation determined that the system was degraded but operable and justified plant operation until refueling outage L1R08. The inspectors concluded that the planned corrective actions were sufficient to resolve the problem and the original concem. Because the corrective actions were acceptable and the item was appropriately entered into the LaSalle corrective action tracking program, this item is closed.
r
.
.
,
V. Management Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management in an exit meeting on March 26,1999. The inspectors noted that no documents provided during the inspection were identified as proprietary. The licensee acknowledged the information presented and agreed that no proprietary information was provided to the inspectors.
l
)
I
i i
.
-
.
.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee S. Barrett, Maintenance Manager J. Benjamin, Site Vice President T. Best, System Engineering Supervisor W. Bohyke, Vice President Engineering E. Carroll, Regulatory Assurance T. Gierich, Maintenance Manager J. Meister, Site Engineering Manager T. O'Connor, Station Manager R. Palmieri, System Engineering Manager l
J. Pollock, Engineering Program Supervisor l
W, Riffer, Q&SA Manager
!
J. Rommel, Design Supervisor S. Shields, Regulatory Assurance F. Spangenberg, Regulatory Assurance Manager J. Williams, Design Supervisor NRC R. Crane, Resident inspector J. Hansen, Resident inspector
,
M. Huber, Senior Resident inspector M. Leach, Branch Chief, Projects Branch 2 INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 37550:
Engineering
.
IP 37700:
Design Changes and Modifications
'
IP 92903:.
Followup-Engineering i
l
)
i l
t
i
n
.
.
.
S ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Opened No NRC inspection items were identified during this inspection.
Closed
,
,
50-273; 50-274/E3011-19 URI Determination of the effect of water hammer on RHR HX.
50-273;50-274/96016-02 VIO failure to initiate a Problem Identification Form (PlF)
50-273;50-274/98005-11 IFl on Generic Letter 89-13 Program Discrepancies 50-374/97010-02 LER on inoperable Division 2 equipment due to the failure to install equipment 50-374/97015 - 00 LER on possible diversion of LPCI water to the Suppression Pool 50-374/97023 - 02 LER on inadequate Channel functional testing of RPS due to procedure deficiencies.
50-374/98007 LER on Potential pressurization of the reactor building vent exhaust plenum.
'
Discussed
No items, identified in previous NRC inspections or documents, were discussed and not closed.
'
-
,
'
UST OF ACRONYMS USED ATM Action Tracking Management DCP Design Change Package LER Licensee Event Report LPCI Low Pressure Coolant injection NTS Nuclear Tracking System PIF Problem identification Form RHR Residual Heat Removal SRRB System Readiness Review Board
12
.
.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED The following is a list of licensee documents reviewed during the inspection, including documents prepared by others for the licensee. Inclusion of a document on this list does not imply that NRC inspectors reviewed the entire documents, but, rather that selected sections or portions of the documents were evaluated as part of the overallinspection effort. In addition, inclusion of a document on this list does not imply NRC acceptance of the document, unless specifically stated in the body of the inspection report.
Procedures CWPI-NSP-AP-1-12 Action Tracking Management Program, Revision 0.
LAP-330-46 Inservice Testing Technical Review of Pump Performance, Revision O.
LOS-RH-Q1 Unit 2 A RHRSW System Operability and inservice Test, Revision 42.
LTP-800-9 Guidelines for Development of Tests for Design Changes, Revision 12.
LTS-200-9 Unit 2 A RHR Pump Seal Cooiar Flow Rate Test, Revision 7.
LTS-600-26 Operational Testing, Revision 4.
LTS-600-34 Dynamic Votes Test, Revision 0.
NEP-04-01 Plant Modifications, Revision 6.
NEP-04-01LA '
Plant Modifications - LaSalle Appendix," Revision 5.
NEP-04-05 Design Change Acceptance Testing Criteria, Revision 0.
NSWP-A-21 Temporary Modifications, Revision O.
WPS 1.1 B1 Weld Procedure Specification, Revision 3.
WPS 1.1-8 Weld Procedure Specification, Revision 6.
MT-NDT-B Magnetic Particle Examination, Revision 19.
NEP-04-05 Design Change Acceptance Testing, Revision O.
Design Change Packages (DCPs)
9400271 Replace Motor / Gears on 2H006A l
9400420 Hot Tap One inch Bonnet Vent on Valve 2E12-F68B to Upstream Pipe, Revision O.
j 9400426 Replace Unit 2 A RHR Suction Strainer 9500487 Relocate Main Steam Thermocouples, Revision 0 9600029
' increase Maximum Flow in Residual Heat Removal Service Water Flow Loop A to 10,000 gallons per minute, Revision 0 9600030 RHR Service Water Flow Loop B Increase Max Flow 9600198 Unit 2 Division 2 RHR WS Keepfill 9600291 Replace Unit 2 A RHR Suction Strainer 9600323 Raise SAC 2SA01C Inner Cooler Relief AN MN HDR Setpoints 9600486 increase Bore Size on the 2E51-D011 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Water Leg Pump Minimum Flow Orifice, Revision 0
,
9700145-Replace Valve Disc and Guides of 2E12-F068A Valves-9700146 Replace Valve Disc and Guides of 2E12-F068B Valves
r-
.'
.
,
\\
i 9700181 Reslope Unit 2 RCIC Drain Line with Stainless Steel Piping, Revision 0 9700269 Replace 2CD01CA/CB/SA SJAE/SPE Relief Valves 9700535 2C71-S001 A RPS MG Set Flywheel Brgs Oil Seals / Load Washers 9700568 Install 2B DG Room inlet Damper 2VD01YA Close Psn Limiter 9800008 HELB Reinforce Unit 2 Masonry Walls Between VT Tunnet/HPCS Switchgear i
9800055 Resize 2E12-D30A RHRSW Restricting Flow Orifice, Revision 0 9800058 2VR10Y Steam Tunne Check Damper Closing Spring Modification 980Crl13 HELB install Unit 2 VR Exhaust Plenum Overpressure Protection 980Cr.296 2E12-C300A 2A RHR Service Water Pump Repair Modification 9800298 Upgrade Line 2WS26B Supports to Prevent Pipe Sway 9800320 installation of Unit 2 Division 1 Core Spray Cooling System Flow Indicators and Removal of Valve 2E21-DG035, Revision 0 9800344 Install C RHR Manual Vacuum Breaker Downstream of 2E12-F021 9900346 2E22-F012 Drill Hole in Upstream Disc To Prevent Press Lock 9900002 Flood Seals For Penetration Nos. 2TB-1201 & 2TB-1202 Temporary Alterations / Modifications TALT 2-799-90 Reroute floor drains in the MDRFP building.
TALT 2-28-96 Temporary power feed to the refueling floor for HEPA filter.
TALT 2-43-96 Remove insulation upstream of 2E51-D003.
TALT 2-25-97 2A Diesel Generator day tank temporary level indication.
TALT 2-12-98 Temporary replacement of 2PA08J inverter # 5 to support Unit 1 DG.
TMOD 2-0012-99 Block the opening into the undervessel area with plastic.
TMOD 2-0029-99 Temporary power to 231Y-1 CUB A4 for 2CWO1FD - 231X/Y bus drop.
)
Calculations LOOO728 Piping Analysis for Subsystem 2Rl73A, Revision 00.
LOO 2258 Evaluation of Pipe Support for Subsystem 2WS05, Revision O.
LOD 2365 Pipe Stress Analysis for Unit 2 C RHR Manual Vacuum Breaker Valves, Revision 00.
062148EMD Pipe Stress Report for 2WS-05, Revision 00B.
022600EMD Pipe Stress Report For Condensate Subsystem 2CD07, Revision 00A.
j i
.
'
-
.
,
Work Requests 940057835-01 Change MO of 2HG01A-U2 Valve to 5 ft. Ib MO 940062024 Air Compressor / Air Dryer Refer Machine Has Oil Dripping 950105658-03 Rebuild RHR Pump 950105658-04 Assemble Rotating Element of Pump 950105658-05 Remove Casing / Send Out for Repair 960058467 Raise SAC 2SA01C Inner Cooler Relief And MN Hdr Setpoints 9700601172-01 Removal and Replacement of Relief Valves 9700601172-02 Removal and Replacement of Relief Valves 9700601172-03 Removal and Replacement of Relief Valves 9700601172-04 Removal and Replacement of Relief Valves 9700601172-05 Removal and Replacement of Relief Valves 970114440 2C71-S001 A RPS MG Set Flywheel Brgs Oil Seals / Load Washers 970120569 Install 28 DG Room Inlet Damper 2VD01YA Close Psn Limiter 980031262-01 RHR WS Operationalinservice Test 980132498 2E22-F012 Drill Hole in Upstream Disc To Prevent Press Lock 990002904 Flood Seals For Penetration Nos. 2TB-1201 & 2TB-1202 I
R032960202 Test MCC and inspect and Test Battery Charger R033960118 Test MCC and inspect and Test Battery Charger R034951003 Test MCC and inspect and Test Battery Charger Problem identification Forms L1999-01374 Failure to maintain a current removal date for open temporary alterations under the current temporary modification procedure.
L1999-01468 Errors in calculation L-002365.
L1999-01470 Pipe support RTA1-2998R was different from design.
L1999-01542 Calculation L-000728 was not superceded or voided when engineering documents were changed.
Miscellaneous Documents and Records
. ASME Code Sechon B31.1 General Welding Requirements, Revision 14.
System Readiness Review and System Tumover to Operations Program for L2R07, Revision 1, dated December 17,1998.
15