IR 05000387/1979001
| ML17138A660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1979 |
| From: | Gallo R, Mcgaughy R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17138A656 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-79-01, 50-387-79-1, 50-388-79-01, 50-388-79-1, NUDOCS 7907110696 | |
| Download: ML17138A660 (14) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION ANO ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-387/79-01 Report No. 50-388/79-.01 Oocket No.
50-388 CPPR-101 License-No.
CPPR-102-Priority Category Licensee:
Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com an 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Penns lvania 18101 Facility Name:.
Sus uehanna Steam Electric Station, Units
8
Inspection at:
.Berwick, Pennsylvania
.
Inspection conducted:
Inspectors
.
M. Gallo, January 2 - February 2, 1979 ent Reactor Inspector dat signed date signed Approved by:
R. H.
cGaugh RC8ES Branc ef, Projects Section, date signed dat s
n d Ins ection Summar Unit 1 Ins ection on Januar 2 - Februar 2,
1979 Re ort No. 50-387 79-01
~A*: R
1 p
y
dd
p 1:
11
d welding of reactor coolant pressure boundary and other piping; storage of reactor vessel and internals; and procedural requirements and installation of safety-related pipe support and restraint systems.
The inspector also performed plant tours and reviewed licensee action on previ'ously identified items.
The inspection involved
.""= 93. inspector-hours by the NRC resident inspector.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in three areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified ( Infraction-failure to remove an arc strike in accordance with established procedures
- Para-aph 5.b).
V SOV1106ac Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
lns ection Summar
Unit'
Ins ection on Januar 2 - Februar 2,
1979 Re ort No. 50-388 79-01
~AI d:
i i
P i
bl'h id i
p f:
g f
reactor vessel and internals; nondestructive testing of safety-related piping welds; and procedural requirements for safety-related pipe support and restraint systems.
The inspector also performed plant tours and reviewed licensee action on previously identified items.
The inspection involved 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> by the NRC resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were, identifie DETAILS Persons Contacted Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com an Note L.
R.
G.
E; S.
E.
R.
J.
T.
A.
Ballard, Site QAE Beckley, Site QAE Burvis, Site QAE Carroll, Site QAE L. Denson, Assistant Project Construction Manager Elyard, Site QAE H. Featenby, Project Construction Manager Green, Resident NQA F. Oldenhage, Resident Engineer R. Sabol, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance 1,
1,2,3
3, 4,
1,
Bechtel Cor oration G.
M.
G.
G.
J.
A.
R.
H.
J.
B.
W.
G.
A.
K.
C.
J.
L.
C. Bell, Bechtel QAE A. Drucker, Electrical QAE Gallandorm, Lead Pipe/Mechanical Engineer Gellinas, QC Lead Engineer Piping/Mechanical Khandar, Mechanical QAE Konjura, Mechanical QAE Lamb, Assistant Lead Welding QCE Lilligh, Project QAE O'ullivan, Assistant Project Field Engineer Ott,, Lead Welding QCE Ross, Assistant Lead Welding Engineer Schrader, Project Field QCE Spielhagen, Project Field Engineer Stout, Assistant Project Field QCE Turnbow, Field Construction Manager Van0men, Field Contract Administrator A.'Whewell, QC Assistant Lead Mechanical Engineer
2, 3, 4,,5 2,
1,2,3,4,5
1, 2, 4,
5
NISCO M. Sopko, Site Engineer J..Reiner, Site QCE
General Electric Com an Nuclear Ener Division NED E; A. Gustafson, 'Site Manager T.
M. LeVasseur, gC Representative C. Roof, Mechanical Engineer Peabod Testin Com an M. Whalen, NDE Supervisor Notes 1 - denotes those present at exit interview, January 5,
1979 2 - denotes those present at exit interview, January 12, 1979 3 - denotes. those present at exit interview, January 19, 1979 4 - denotes those present at exit interview, January 25, 1979 5 - denotes those present at exit interview, February 2,
1979 The inspector also interviewed other PP8L employees, as well as, em-ployees of Bechtel, Peabody Testing Company,,
NISCO and. General Electric Company.
2.
Plant Tours - Units 1 and
The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work and plant status in several areas of the plant during general inspection of the plant.
The inspector examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements or license conditions.
Particular note was taken of presence of quality control inspectors and quality control evidence such as inspection records, material identifi-cation, nonconforming material identification, housekeeping and equipment preservation.
The inspector interviewed craft personnel, supervision and quality inspection personnel as such personnel were available in the work areas.
.3 No items of noncompliance were identified.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
(Closed)
Noncompliance (387/78-03-04):
Failure to Inspect Preliminary Alignment of Rotating Equipment to Prescribed Criteria.
During this inspection period, the inspector reviewed the licensee s cor-rective action regarding the failure to inspect preliminary alignment of rotating equipment to criteria of Field Procedure FP-M-1.
The licensee
has revised FP-M-1 and the applicable inspection plan gCI M-2.10 to provide quantitative acceptance criteria for the preliminary align-
. ment of rotating equipment.
gCI M-2.10, Section 3.1.e references FP-M-1 Sections 7.1.7, 7.1.8 and 7.1.16 for preliminary alignment.
requirements.
'FP-M-1 provides specific requirements for determining preliminary alignment tolerances.
FP-M-1, Exhibit, "A", Preliminary Coupling Alignment Data Sheet, has also been revised to include al-lowable alignment readings,:
as well as.
thermal offsets, if recommended by the equipment'endor.
Exhibit "A" also requires that the source used to determine allowable, alignment readings be documented.
The sour ce of this information is FP-M-l, unless otherwise specified, by the equipment vendor.
The inspector interviewed the gC Engineer who had accepted the RCIC pump preliminary alignment and had been interviewed during inspection 50-387/78-03.
The gC engineer stated that his function was to verify conformance to criteria established by-engine'ering and documented in procedures or specifications.
During this inspection period, the inspector observed work in progress for the preliminary alignment of the Unit 2 Reactor plater Cleanup Filter Demineralizer Holding Pumps and Precoat Pump (non-safety-related)
Equipment Nos.
2P-223A, 2P-223B and 2P-222, re-spectively.
The inspector observed that the FP-M-l, Exhibit "A" had been prepared prior to the start of preliminary alignment.
The inspector al'so noted that the responsible Bechtel Field Engineer, a
licensee representative and a Bechtel gC Inspector were at the work location to witness. the preliminary alignments.
gC inspection is required for the Holding Pumps only.
The inspector reviewed the completed coupling alignment data sheets for conformance with FP-M-
and the gC'nspection Records for conformance with gCI M-2.10.
The inspector also requested that the licensee notify the resident inspector prior to the final alignment of safety-related equipment.
The inspector will witness the final alignment of,.selected equip-ment to verify compliance to quality assurance program requirements.
The inspector examined the following documents relative. to the above:
Preliminary Coupling Alignment Data Sheets for Equipment Nos:
2P-.222, Precoat Pump 2P.-223A 2P-223B, Holding Pumps 2S-212/2P-203, and 1S-212/1P.-203, RCIC Pump and Turbine for Units
and
gCI M-2. 10, Revision 4, dated July 20, 1978 FP-M-1, Revision 4, dated September
'28, 1978 gC Inspection Records, 50.0-M1-1P-203-2, 50.0-M1-1S-212-4 and 50.0-M1-2S-212-2P-203-3 Vendor Manual Ml-E51-82-2
The inspector had no further questions regarding the item of non-compliance for failure to inspect preliminary alignment of rotating equipment to prescribed criteria.
However; an unresolved item re-garding coupling runout readings is addressed in Paragraph 10 of this report.
~
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (387/78-20-01):
Nondestructive Testing Requirements for quencher Support Welds.
During this inspection, the inspector was informed that the field welds in question, FW 6 and 7 were non-integral attachments to the quencher and were being installed to the requirements of Bechtel Specification M-213 for installation of pipe supports which requires visual examination only of welds.
The inspector verified that drawings GBC-101-17 thr u GBC-101-32 had been revised to include a reference to Specification M-213 for field welds FW 6 and 7.
The inspector had no further questions on this matter.
4.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundar and Safet -Related Pi in Weldin The following-listed activities were examined and verified that they were being performed in accordance with the ASME Section III and IX Codes, PSAR Appendix D, the Bechtel guality Assurance Manual Section III, Site Specifications M 204, M 207, M 164 and drawings'-198 and M-199, GE Specifications 22A4628, Peabody Testing Procedures IPMT-200-39-03 and IPPT-300-39-03 and the NISCO Field gA Manual and NISCO gC Procedures.,
a ~
Weldin
- Unit
Wel ding of:
DLA-102-1-FW2 VRR-B31-2-FW B19 DLA-104-1-FW2 Control Rod Drive Piping Weld No. 2013-1-FW2 The inspector verified selected detailed drawings, welding pro-cedures, base and filler materials as specified, welder quali-fication, quality control documentation, weld appearance, welding variables such as gas flow and amperage and nondestructive testing activities as appropriate.
No items of noncompliance were identifie b.
Nondestructive Testin
- Unit
Unit 2 and Common Liquid Penetrant Testing of Weld Joint Nos:
DLA-102-1 FW2, DLA-102-1 FW4 Magnetic Particle Testing of Weld Joint Nos:-
HRC-.1-3-FW9 HRC-214-1 FW2, The inspector verified, as appropriate, surface preparation, qualification of examiners and testing techniques.,
No items" of noncompliance were identified.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundar and Safet -Related Pi in
- Unit
a.
Pi in S stem Work in Pro ress The inspector examined work activities for the Main Steam System and the Main Steam Relief Line quencher Installation and Testing.
The-inspector verified that activities examined were in accordance with the ASME Code Section III, PSAR Appendix D, FSAR Sections 5.4-.9,'0.3, the Bechtel guality Assurance Manual Section III, GE, Specification 22A 4628, Bechtel Specifications M-214, M-204, and drawings M-199, VNB B21-2, GBC-101-10 and, GBC-101-26 and Field Procedure P-5.
The"inspector observed handling, installation, protection, hydro-static testing, initial alignment and identification.
The inspector reviewed associated gC inspection records, verified correct materials (where-installed)
and except as noted in Paragraph b, verified that work activities were in accordance with the procedures and specifi-cations referenced above.
b.
During observation of work activities on the Main Steam System, the inspector noted an arc strike on Reactor Pressure Vessel Main Steam Nozzle N3A.
On January 30, 1979, the arc stri ke was pointed out'to Bechtel gC and construction representatives.
The inspector was informed that the arc strike would be ground and liquid pene-trant examined.
On January 31, 1979, the inspector observed that an area about twelve square inches had been ground in the area of the arc strik During subsequent r eview of General Electric Specifications regarding the Reactor Pressure Vessel the inspector noted additional requirements for arc strike removal from the Reactor Pressure Vessel.
General Electric Specification 22A4202, Revision 3, Section 11.5, specifies etching of the base material with an ammonium persulfate solution after each 0.020 inch depth of grind.
-This specification requirement was not observed.
On January 31, 1979, after grinding of the arc strike had been completed, Nonconformance Report No.
3393 was issued by Bechtel gC.
The failure to follow the prescribed arc strike removal procedure is contrary to'he requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V (387/79-01-01).
c.
Pi in S stem Installation Verification The inspector examined two partially completed piping runs and verified that they were installed in accordance with approved drawings and specifications.
Piping runs examined were:
(1)
Recirculation Pump 1B Differential Pressure Line The inspector verified conformance to FSAR Section 5.4.1 and drawings-SP-DCA-123-4 and M-143.
(2)
Residual Heat Removal System - Containment Spray Cooling Header The inspector verified conformance to FSAR Section 5.4.7 and drawings GBB-118-1, GBB-118-3 and M-151.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6. 'eactor'Vessel'nstallation
- Units 1 and
The inspector examined protection of the installed reactor vessels and stored closure heads for compliance with site procedures and PSAR Appendix D commitments.
The inspector reviewed the procedural requirements for vessel protection and verified that required in-spections and preventive maintenance were being completed.
The in-spector observed that openings were covered as required, work plat-forms inside the Unit 1 vessel were nonflammable and that Unit
vessel access was controlle Documentation reviewed by the inspector included:
Field. Inspection Procedure G-5, Revision
Project Special Provisions Notice SF/PSP G-5.1, Revision
Equipment Maintenance Requirement and Record Form for Units 1 and 2, Reactor Vessels and for Reactor Vessel Closure Heads No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Reactor Vessel Internals - Units 1 and
The inspector examined protection of the stored reactor vessel in-ternals for compliance with site procedures and PSAR Appendix D
commitments.
The inspector reviewed the procedural requirements for internals protection and verified that required inspections were being completed.
The inspector observed in-plant storage of the steam dryer and the shroud head and separator for Units
and
and the. Unit 2 shroud.
Documentation reviewed by the inspector included:
Field Inspection Procedure G-5, Revision
Project Special Provisions Notice SF/PSP G-5.1, Revision
Equipment Maintenance Requirements and Record (EMRR) Form for Units 1 and 2 steam dryer and the shroud head and separator and the Unit 2 shroud No items of noncompliance were identified.'.
Safet -Related Pi e
Su ort and Restraint S stems a.
A C and Work Procedures and S ecifications The inspector reviewed the below listed procedures and specifica-tions pertaining to safety-related pipe support and restraint sys-tem installation.
The inspector reviewed them for technical ade-quacy, proper approvals and conformance to commitments in the PSAR Appendix QCI C 1.50, Revision
QCI P-2.10 A and B, Revision
Bechtel Specification M-213, Revision
Bechtel Specification C-72, Revision
Bechtel Specification M-209, Revision
ITT Grinnell Specification PHD-7594-1 Bechtel.
QA Audit Checklist 24.4.P.5 Bechtel QA Audit No. 24-4-5 Field Procedure FP-P-11, Revision
Field Procedure FP-C-l, Revision
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Fixed Pi e
Su orts - Unit
The inspector examined three installed fixed pipe supports in the reactor containment wetwell for conformance to design drawings and procedures referenced in a.
above.
The inspector accompanied Bechtel QC personnel during, their inspection of these
%angers:;
Final QC inspection in accordance with QCI P-2.10B was completed during this period.
Discrepancies noted by QC per-sonnel during this inspection were documented in Nonconformance Report No. 3343.
The inspector also reviewed in-process inspection results for these supports completed in accordance with QCI P-2.10A.
Supports examined were:
EBB-102-H21 GBB-109-K27 GBB-112-H17 One unresolved item relative to drawing GBB-109-H27 is addressed in Inspection Report 50-387/79-03.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Containment Liner During a tour of the Unit 1 containment, the inspector noted that
"no concrete" had been written on the liner plate at approximate elevation 752 feet, azimuth approximately 210'.
The inspector
"sounded" the area in question, approximately twelve inches in diameter, and noted a hollow sound in this area.
The inspector was informed that this type
of holi'ow sounding area was possible due to the design spacing of the-concrete embedments and the fact that the concrete is not de-signed to adhere to the liner plate.
The licensee concurred with the Bechtel position that concrete/liner separ ation at areas between embedments is neither uncommon nor structurally significard; and that further investigative or engineering effort is not warranted.
The inspector has no fur ther questions on this matter.
10.
Pum Cou lin Runout During the review of correctiVe action for aniitem>>'of-:noncom-.'- ";.
pliance regarding the inspection of preliminary alignment of rotating equipment, it was noted that a coupling rim runout for the RCIC Pump was not in conformance with Field Procedure FP-M-1.
The rim runout reading of.003 inches for the RCIC Pump-stated in Inspection Report 50-387/78-03, Paragraph 5,
has been reviewed by Beehtel and General Electric site personnel.
Since the coupling vendor, Midland-Ross Corporation; is out of the coupling business, no further information could be obtained on the Waldron Coupling used in the RCIC Pump.
General Electric considers the
.003 inch rim runout to be an acceptable condition for preliminary'lignment, but has requested that they-be advised of the results achieved during final alignment.
Final alignment, however, does not normally include a recheck of runout.
Resolution of the acceptable runout for the RCIC Pump is considered an unresolved item and will be reviewed by the NRC during a subsequent inspection (387/79-01-02).
The inspector reviewed the following
'ocumentation relative to the above:
Preliminary Coupling Alignment Data Sheets for the RCIC Pump and Turbine Units 1 and 2 1S-212-/1P-203 Bechtel Letter to General Electric, M-789, dated January 22, 1979
General Electric Letter to Bechtel, EAG-1024, dated January 29, 1979 11.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is re-quired in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items or items of noncompliance.
An unresolved item identified during the inspection is. discussed in Paragraph 10.
12.,
Exit Interview At; periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were-held with facility management (dates and attendees are denoted in Oetail 1) to discuss inspection scope and findings.