IR 05000382/1981020
| ML20010J059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1981 |
| From: | Randy Hall, Andrea Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010J050 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-81-20, NUDOCS 8109290555 | |
| Download: ML20010J059 (7) | |
Text
,
,
.
,
.
APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report:
50-382/81-20 Docket:
50-382 Category A2 Licensee:
Louisiana Pcwer and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Inspection at:
Waterford Site, Taft, Louisiana Inspection conducted:
August 4-7, 1981
[te//k/
Inspector:
,
.p.R. Johnson,ReactorInspector,Engineeringand
^~
Da Materials Section Approved:
d
/
R. E. Hall, Acting Chier, Engineering and Materials Date Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection Conducted on August 4-7, 1981 (Report 50-382/81-20)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of safety-related construc-tion activities pertaining to installation, inspection, and documentation of locally mounted instruments and piping / tubing fabrication; and follow up of two previously identified unresolved items.
The inspection involved 24 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
9109290555 810904~
PDR ADOCK 05000382 G
-
-
.
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- L. L. Bass, Project QA Manager
- B. P. Brown, Project QA Engineer
- R. E. Gautreau, Project Coordinator Other Personnel
- L. A. Stinson, Manager, Site Quality Program, Ebasco
- J. H. Abbott, QA !.upervisor, Mercury Company K. Gilkerson, QA Engineer, Mercury Company The NRC inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor per-sonnel including members of the engineering and QA/QC staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Lit.ensee Action on Previously Identified Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-382/80-31):
Installation of Safety-Related Electrical Penetrations.
During the course of this inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed and discussed with licensee and Ebasco Engineering representatives the response to the previously identified inspection finding regarding the use of AWS DI.1 field welds on the electrical penetration secondary side.
This item is accumented in NRC Report No. 50-382/80-31 and in subsequent follow-up NRC inspections No. 50-302/81-12 and No. 50-382/81-14.
Ebasco Engineering's response that the Shield Building is not designed as a part of the pressure retaining boundary for the reactor containment, and that consequently, the secondary side field welds do not form part of the pressure boundary, is in agreement with the FSAR design criteria. ~ The FSAR does not take credit for ASME Code Section III welds on Shield Building secondary side pene-trations which are not required to be Code stamped, since they are not part of the pressure boundary.
The use of AWS D1.1 field welds on ASME Code stamped secondary side electrical penetration sleeves or header gundril plugs is therefore in compliance with design requirements.
The FSAR commitments, including Regulatory
-
..
. _ -
. -.
.._..
.
- -..
--,
-
-
-
.
,
.
Guide 1.63, Industry Standard IEEE-317-1976, and ASME Sections III, and IX only address the primary side pressure retaining boundary.
Ebasco Specification LOU 1564.258 and Conax Drawing LOU 5817.1342 have been revised to reflect penetration secondary side ficld welding being performed in accordance with AWS D1.1.
This item is closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-382/81-14):
Multiple DCNs/FCRs Issued Against Electrical Cable Installation Drawings Without Timely Revision.
During the course of this inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed and discussed with licensee and Ebasco Engineering representatives the response to the previously identified inspection finding regarding untimely revision of electrical cable installation drawings used for instrumentation cable routing and termination of the safety-related Reactor Turbine Generator Control Panels.
The drawings identified during NRC inspection No. 50-382/81-14 had over 30 DCNs and FCRs issued against them makin Engineering (ESSE)g it necessary to obtain the Ebasco Site Supportred-li perform the inspection.
The applicable site document control proce-dures did not require timely revisions to drawings by Ebasco.
Two successive Ebasco QA audit reports in the area of controlling revisions to ESSE drawings identified procedural weakness.
The NRC inspector verified that the identified electrical cable instal-lation drawings had been revised to incorporate the outstanding FCRs and DCNs.
Full corrective action and formal issue is scheduled for August 10, 1981, when the review and approval of the revisions will be complete.
The NRC inspector reviewed the draft Ebasco Procedure No. E-11 WSES,
"As-Built Design Drawing Procedure," which will serve to control the revision of all Ebasco design documents.
The NRC inspector verified that this procedure establishes criteria for the timely initiation of the Ebasco drawing revision process.
This procedure calls for a revision of a drawing once five or more DCNs and/or FCRs have been issued.
Formal issue of the procedure is scheduled for August 15, 1981.
Ebasco Engineering documents ware reviewed and discussed The following/ representatives by the NRC Inspector:
with licensee LP&L letter to US NRC, W3K-81-0268, dated July 24, 1981, to Mr. K. V. Seyfrit, Director, Region IV from Mr. D. L. Aswell, Vice President, Powor Production m
__
.
.
,
Ebasco Engineering Procedure "As-Built Design Drawings" Proce-dure No. E-11 WSES Draft Ebasco Drawing No. LOU 1564 B-288, Sheet 10H, Revision 1
,
Ebasco Drawing No. LOU 1564 B-288, Sheet 10H-1, Revision 1 Ebasco Drawing No. LOU 1564 B-288, Sheet 1GH-2, Revision 1 Ebasco Drawing No. LOU 1564 B-288, Sheet 10H-3, Revision 0 Ebasco Drawing No. LOU 1564 B-288, Sheet 10H-4, Revision 1 This item is closed.
3.
Safety-Related Locally Mounted Instrument and Instrument Piping / Tubing Installations The NRC inspector inspected six safety-related ESFAS locally mounted instruments and instrument piping / tubing installations, along with their associated work packages and respective governing procedures, installed by Mercury Company of Norwood, Inc. The above instrument installations were not yet released for turnover, and the in-process work was approxi-mately 85% complete. The safety-related instruments and instrument installations were inspected for proper identification, location, tagging, proper protection against physical damage, physical separation /
barriers, cleanliness, seismic supports, tube / pipe spacing, correct routing, slope, component flow direction, tubing minimum bend radius and ovality, and allowable expansion (freedom of movement), insulation (safety for personnel protection / freeze protection), and heat lot (traceability). The NRC inspector reviewed the respective work package documentation (e.g., operations control records, piping / tubing inspection reports, tube tray inspection reports, process control travelers, material verification inspection reports, QC inspection reports, etc.)
for proper QC sign-off of completed work. The NRC inspector reviewed Mercury's applicable procedures and instructions for welding inspection, piping and tubing inspection, handling and storage of equipment, material and equipment control, control of QA records, and release /
turnover from Mercury to Ebasco.
The NRC inspector observed that two of the safety-related instrument piping / tubing installations (pressure switches PS-CC-7031 BS and PS-CC-7021 AS for the component cooling water pumps) had deflected /
deformed tubing runs downstream of their respective root valves due to the adjacent construction activities. Mercury's QA Supervisor
-
.
.
,
.
-
confirmed that both work packages (0RC Nos. 827 and 828) would,as called for by procedure, document on a QC inspection report which would require that both tubing runs would be replaced prior to com-pletion. The QC final inspection to the above was not yet completed.
The NRC inspector observed that the matter could be better controlled if the relatively delicate instrument facilities were not installed too prematurely, or once installed they were fully protected from ongoing construction activities.
The following safety-related locally mounted instrument and instru-ment piping / tubing installations were inspected:
LT-SI-0305B Rosemont 1151DP5 LT-CS-7123AS ITT Barton*
PS-CC-7031BS Mercoid BAW 7023804BR-8S PS-CC-7021AS Mercoid DAW 7023804BR-8S LT-AC-5040CS Roremont 1153DA4 LT-AC-5040BS Rosemont 1153DA4 The following Mercury Company piping / tubing isometric drawings were reviewed:
167-L-001-A, Revision 1 160-L-026-A, Revision 0 160-L-002-A, Revision 1 853-L-001-A, Revision 1 853-L-028-A, Revision *
The following Mercury Company work packages were reviewed:
OCR 50. 891 OCR No. 1031 OCR No. 828 OCR No. 827
- Not recorded by the NRC inspecto,
.
,
.
.
OCR No. 870 OCR No. 1081 The NRC inspector performed a revie, af the following applicable proce-dures and instruments:
Procedure QCP-3110.4, Revision 4, " Mercury Company Piping and Tubing Inspection" Procedure QCP-3110.5, Revision 3, " Mercury Company Welding Inspection" Procedure QCP-3010, Revision 3, " Mercury Company Quality Assurance Records Control" Procedure PCP-2030, Revision 4, " Mercury Company Material and Equipment Control" Procedure PCP-2040, Revision 2, " Mercury Company Packaging, Shipping, Handling and Storage" Mercury Company Procedure SP-671, Revision 0, " Procedure for Releases and Turnover from Mercury to Ebasco Construction" Ebasco Procedure ASP-IV-50, Revision 0, "delease and Turnover from Construction to Waterford Start-up" The NRC inspector performed a partial review of the following Mercury Company related procedures and instructions:
SP654, Revision 4, " Tube Tray Fabrication and Installation" SP655, Revision 4, " Assembly Fabrication and Installation of Local Instrument Supports" SP 656, Revision 3, " Fabrication of Local Instrument Piping" SP 657, Revision 3, " Installation of Impulse Lines" 7P 658, Revision 3, " Installation of Seismic I Tube Trays" SP 660, Revision 2, " Preparation and Control of Process Control Travelers" SP 664, Revision 0, " Handling of NCRs" SP 666, Revision 3, " Drilled-In Expansion Type Anchors"
,
.
.
.
,
-
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Exit Interview The NRC inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 7, 1981.
The NRC inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection.
-
- -
-
-
-
-. -
-
- -
- - -
- -
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
- - - -