IR 05000387/1980025
| ML17138B770 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1980 |
| From: | Jernigan E, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17138B766 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-80-25, 50-388-80-16, NUDOCS 8102040593 | |
| Download: ML17138B770 (7) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COHHISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEHENT Region I 50-387/80-25 Report No.
50-388 80-16 50-387 Docket No.
50-388 License No.
CPPR-102 Pr iority 50-387-B Category 50-388-B Licensee:
Penns 1 vania Power and Li ht Com an 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Penns 1 vania 18101 Facility Name:
Sus uehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and
Inspection at:
Berwick, Pennsylvania Inspection con cted September 17-25, 1980 Inspectors:
.
P.
Je igan, Reactor inspector jo d te signed date signed Approved by:
, 6. ri p
ief, Cng kneel'jng. support.
Section No.
1, RC&ES Branch date signed
/0 b
da e signed Ins ection Summar
Combined Ins ection on Se tember 17-25 1980 Re or t Nos.
50-387 80-25 and 50-388 80-16 A~Id:
R bd
.
dd b
d by dd bb dd d
review program and related. documentation associated with the storage, maintenance and installation of safety-related equipment.
The inspection involved 46 inspector-hours on site by one NRC regional based inspector.
Results:
One item of apparent noncompliance was identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
81080.40. 503
i'i >'i g~ f6 '6 f )
- DETAILS Persons Contacted Penns lvania Power and Li ht PP8L
"P.
R. Kyner, Resident Nuclear guality Assurance Engineer
- R. A. Beckley, Coordinator
"J.
R. Eichlig," Senior Project Engineer
- J.
D. Green,'perations guality Assurance Supervisor
- R.
G.
Byram, Supervisor of Maintenance E. Gorski,.guality Control Supervisor R. Henry, System's Engineer T. Cimo, Station Mechanical Leader E.
A. Eustice, Senior Nuclear guality Specialist V. Recla, Nuclear Plant Specialist W. Boley, guality Control Engineer E. Elyard, guality Contro1 Engineer Bechtel Power Cor oration
- M. A. Drucker, Lead equality Assurance Engineer
"H. F. Lelligh, Project guality Assurance Engineer
"K. G. Stout, Project Fie1d gC Engineer
"J.
E. O'ullivan, Assistant Project Field Engineer
"J. T. Minor, Project Field. Engineer H.
Omar, gA Engineel J. O'ullivan, Assistant Project Engineer C.
Rau, Assistant Project Engineer W. Thackaberry, Lead Civil guality Control Engineer N. Griffin, Assistant Project Field Engineer L. Price, Lead Mechanical Engineer T. Belusko, Mechanical Systems Engineer D. Farrell, Field Engineer A. Konjura, guality Assurance Engi.neer The inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during this inspection.
They included maintenance, staff, engineering and quality control personnel in the civil, mechanical and electrical inspection disciplines.
"denotes those present at the exit interview.
Plant Tour The inspector observed work activities in-progress and completed work in several areas of the plant during a general plant tour.
The inspector examined work items for obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory
requirements.
Particular attention was given to the presence of quality control personnel and documentation such as; inspection records, hold tags,
.
material identification, equipment calibration tags and maintenance records.
The inspector interviewed craft personnel, supervision and quality control personnel.
'Where more detailed inspection of an area was'onducted, the'nspection scope and findings are described in other paragraphs of the report.
3.
Safet Related Com onent Installation A/ C Procedure - Unit 1 and Unit 2 The inspector audited the implementing procedures provided to control the receiving, storage, handling and maintenance of safety-related components and equipment.
The inspector also observed implementation of portions of these procedures and audited documentation related to the aforementioned activities.
These audits and observations were made to determine if the established program and its implementation are consistent with the requirements in Appendix 0 of the PSAR f'r the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station.
The inspector found that appropriate and adequate procedures had been provided in the various Bechtel quality assurance program documents to assure tha't; receiving and periodic inspections are performed to verify that components are in conformance with purchase specifications and undamaged, or; if. not, that the nonconformance(s)
and/or damages are identified, documented and means provided to assure appropriate disposition thereof; components/equipment are identified; components are stored and protected; crane testing, rigging and component lifting requirements are established as necessary prior to lifting safety-related components; and, adequate data are generated to demonstrate that the required inspections/reviews were performed.
Procedures/specifications audited by the inspector included:
FP-M-1 FP-G-11 PSP"G"5 FP-G"ll 8856" C"8 Safet -Related Com onents Units 1 and 2-S stems Under Bechtel's Co nizance a.
Stora e and Protection Units j, and
The inspector observed the storage and protection provided the following equipment..
Recirculation pumps Cbre spray pumps
Residual heat removal (RHR) pumps RHR heat exchangers
{;ore spray pumps Standby liquid control pumps The inspector examined storage conditions in the onsite warehouse and post installation protection provided safety related equipment.
The inspector evaluated the storage/protection of this equipment against applicable procedural criteria.
No noncompliances or deviations were identified.
b.
Preventive/Corrective Maintenance -
S stems Under PP8L Co nizance Unit 1 and Unit 2 The inspector audited the licensee's procedures for implementing the above captioned activities associated with equipment under the staff's jurisdiction.
The inspector reviewed these activities relative to the PSAR and applicable administrative procedural requirements.
The inspector observed that procedures addressed post operational preven-tive/corrective type maintenance activities and storage of spare parts.
However, the procedures do not appear to cover the period between equipment turnover and its being placed into operation.
Specifica'lly, there are no clearly delineated procedural requirements to assure that safety-related equipment is provided adequate protection against construction debris and damage and other construction related conditions.
Nor does there appear to be verification requirements to assure that maintenance activities are conducted timely and in accord-ance with applicable specifications.
Additionally, there does not appear to be a procedural requirement to involve QA/QC in masntenance and some modification work, specifically, that handled on a start up work request (SMR).
However, the inspector was informed that this is under review.
The inspector also determined, through his evaluation, that the program, as now being implemented, lacks the flexibilityto assure that all storage related requirements are considered during this'ransitional phase of plant construction.
The licensee's representative indicated that procedures were heing reviewed due to similar findings discussed in previous NRC Inspector's Reports 50-387/8Q-01, 50-387/80-06, and 50-388)80-04.
The inspector had no further questions, regarding these issues, at this tim Safet -Related Com onents a ~
Nonconformin Com onents or Activities The inspector audited quality related records including those asso-ciated with the installation of rotating direct drive equipment which included the following:
Standby Liquid Control Pump HPCI Pump/Turbine RCIC Pump/Turbine Core Spray Pump/Motor RHR Pump/Motor During this review the inspector observed that grouting repair was in progress on the RCIC pump.
The inspector noted that this equipment had been turned over to PP8L.
A cursory review of related data indi-cated that the problem.was associated with the grouting of equipment base plates of the ~vey<ed box configuration.
This design requires that grout be placed through holes in the surface of the plate.
The inspector reviewed historical documentation associated with grout placement into this type of equipment.
This review/audit was con-ducted to determine if applicable procedural requirements had been-met.
The inspector's review included the following:
AD-00.047 AD-6.10 AD-00.41 FP"M"1 NQAM Specification 8856-C-8 The inspector examined these activities relative to the licensee's commitments in Appendix D of the PSAR and requirements in the above listed documents.
Additionally, the inspector reviewed contractor Audit Reports No. 21-0-7 and 21-0-8, coupling alignment data sheets, Quality Control Instructions and Quality Control Inspection Reports (QCIRs).
Paragraph 16.1.2, Specification 8856-C-8, requires that all fillings shall be bonded tightly to the surface of the holes, shall be sound and free from shrinkage cracks and hollow sounding areas.
Para-graph C, Section 7. l. 10, of Field Procedure FP-M-1 requires that voids in grout shall be checked after proper curing time, by tapping the metal surface of equipment frame with a light hammer, and repaired, as deemed necessary by the responsible Field Engineer.
Requirements for grout placement and quality verification are delineated in the afore-mentioned documents.
However, discussions with cognizant field mechanical
'and civil inspection personnel revealed conflicting statements.
It
appears that the placement of grout and its related inspection require-ments are incorporated into the civil procedures.
Inspection require-ments for the post cured grout are delineated in a mechanical inspection procedure (FP-M-1).
The in-process inspection attributes developed as a part of the gCIR associated with the inspection of both civil and mechanical related work activities do not directly address the specified sound testing, although reportedly, the sound test is performed and noted on the coupling alignment record.
Discussions with responsible personnel and an audit of nonconformance reports related to the subiect indicated that in the absence of specified quantitative or qualitative criteria some discretion is exercised as permitted by the procedure.
The inspector stated that the failure to provide implementing pro-cedures containing quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria is contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8, Criterion V.
(387/80-25-01 and 388/80-16-01)
6.
-~&1t "..
t'I The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph l.
The inspector summarized the scope and results of the inspection as described in this report.
The licensee's representatives acknowledged the inspector's summarization as herein described.