IR 05000412/1980003
| ML19318B293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1980 |
| From: | Mcgaughy R, Narrow L, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318B290 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-80-03, 50-412-80-3, NUDOCS 8006250209 | |
| Download: ML19318B293 (9) | |
Text
.
.
.
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION s'
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
50-412/80-03 Docket No.
50-412 License No.
CPPR-105 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 Inspection At:
Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection Cond ted:
-Jiarch 25-28, 1980 Inspectors:
n/
62,[b F!!-9
/C arrow Reactor Inspector
' datef
-]'h,l w / W 9/a/h A. A. Varela, Reactor Inspector
' datE date Approved by: h[/l'/4h4(
N R. W. McGaughy, y, Projects Section,
' date RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 25-28, 1980 (Report No. 50-412/80-03)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional based inspectors which commenced during the 4-12 shift on March 25, 1980.
The inspectors examined the QC programs for concrete placement and storage and maintenance of equipment; reviewed survey records of the Settlement Monitoring Program; and reviewed the status of outstanding items.
The inspection involved 44 inspector hours on site by two NRC regional based inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l l
Region I Form 12 f., N (Rev. April 1977)
'8006250
'T /
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
.
Duquesne Light Company (DLC)
- L. E. Arch, Senior QA Engineer
- R. Coupland, Director of Quality Control
- H. N. Crooks, Jr., Assistant Director, SQC
- D. W. Denning, Assistant Director, SQC R. Hill, QC Inspector D. Morgan, QC Engineer J. Shoemaker, QC Engineer, Storage
- W. H. Sikorski, QA Supervisor
- W.. Chaisson, Engineer / Design Coordinator A. McIntyre, Lead Site Engineer C. O'Reilly, Chief Surveyor
- R. H. Tarr, Engineer
- J. E. Williams, Resident Manager Sargent Electric Company (SEC)
J. Juffalo, Document Control Supervisor W. Pearson, Assistant Project Manager R. Wise, Electrical QC Supervisor Ken Tator Associates (KTA)
J. Padavich, Superintendent Dick Corporation (Dick)
A. Cafardi, Inspector Concrete P. Duafala, QC Inspector D. Gaspen, QC Inspector J. Long. QC Consultant
,
Beaver Valley Builders Supply (BVBS)
D. Draboski, Batch Plant Operator T. M. Ordich, QC Manager 2.
Plant Tour The inspector made a tour of the site to observe work activities in progress, completed work and construction status.
Work items were examined for obvious
__
___. -
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
defects and for evidence of noncompliance with regulatory requirements and licensee comitments.
Evidence of QC activities and quality control of the work was observed.
Specific activities observed by the inspector include storage of rebar, piping and hangers in the laydown area; preparation for welding of drain piping; vacuum box testing of containment head welds; installation of reinforcing steel for the crane wall; and conc ete pre-placement preparation for the safeguards building and crane wall.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Surface Coating Within Containment The inspector observed the condition of painted surfaces within containment, discussed problems which had been identified in coating certain areas, and examined the following Nonconformance and Disposition (N&D) reports:
N&D No. 1300 dated March 12, 1980 which had been written because gaps
.
between the crane embedment structural members and welding back-up bars were too large.
N&D No. 6224 dated March 20, 1980 which identified noticeable shadows
.
in the Safety Injection Accumulator Tank coating and failure to meet specification DFT (dry film thickness) requirements.
These N&D's had not been dispositioned.
The top ring of the containment liner had been painted but no additional painting was in progress in this area.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Concrete Work in Progress a.
Placement Preparation The inspector verified the adequacy of the conditions listed for Pour No.156 of the crane wall.
Forms properly secured, leak tight and clean
.
Construction joints adequately prepared
.
Rebar, properly placed, secured, proper form clearance
.
Cadweld splices, properly centered, without end voids, properly
.
identified and without slag in tap hole (the inspector witnessed rebar installation cadweld splice preparations) and observed fabrication of two splices for size 11 rebar in another section of the crane wall)
l
.
.
QC preplacement inspection completed prior to placement
.
b.
Mixing, Delivery, Placement and Curing The inspector observed concrete placement by pumping for the contain-ment crane wall and the Safeguards Building radial wall, Pour No.13.
He determined that work and inspection activities are being accom-plished according to applicable specifications, codes, standards and procedures in the following areas:
Proper mix specified and delivered
.
Duration of concrete mixing verified at the site batch plant, and
.
transportation / remixing performed in accordance with specifications Pumping equipment and pipe maintained the concrete properties as
.
evidenced by correlation tests at truck discharge and at end of pump line Testing at end of pumpline for air, slump, temperature, unit
.
weight and compressive strength cylinders meet acceptance cri-teria, by qualified personnel using calibrated equipment Temperature control of mix and forms conform to requirements for
.
cold weather conditions Adequate placement crew and techniques of placement and consoli-
.
dation were observed Finishing, installation of keyway at construction joint, curing,
.
and temperature control of heated enclosure were observed to meet requirements c.
Aggregate and Cement Storage and Batch Plant Operation Concrete material storage and certifications and batch plant qualifi-cations were reviewed and found to meet specification requirements.
The inspector observed receipt controls by QC of cement and in-process sampling of aggregates during batching for the crane wall and safe-guards pours. Additionally batch plant operation was observed con-
trolled for the following:
Accuracy of weight scales and concrete temperature / winter control
.
by heating of wa'..er
.QC inspection generation and control of batch records
.
.
.
-
,.
.
__
_-_ _ ___
-_.
-____ _
.
.
Qualified inspection personnel verifying batch weights, moisture
.
compensation and production of proper mix ingredients No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Construction Phase Building Settlement Monitoring Program The inspector reviewed settlement measurement reports taken from precision surveys conducted monthly on all buildings during the construction period.
For the reactor containment building which is estimated now to be less than 50 percent fully loaded it was observed that the succession of banch marks, initially set at the top of base mat elevation 690 on August 1977, were carefully extended above grade to elevation 736 as constructio's progressed.
The settlement at four points surrounding the reactor building have been reported monthly to S&W Boston office together with weekly piezometer readings, construction progress reports and relevant suney information.
Evaluation of the reactor building settlement up to this time was unavail-able at the site.
Therefore, the inspector requested that such evaluation be made available and that comparison of actual with predicted settlement be included.
6.
Review of Nonroutine Events Reported by the Licensee On November 2,1979 the licensee had reported omission of reinforcing steel in a concrete placement for the the containment crane wall as a significant deficiency in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Descriptions of this defi-ciency and of some of the corrective actions are contained in Inspection Reports 50-412/79-08 and 79-09.
-
The inspector examined:
N&D No.1159-A which had been dispositioned, corrective action ccmpleted
.
and properly signed off.
Inspection Reports.1159-A,1159B-1 and 2; 1159C-1, 2 and 3; and 11590
.
covering preplacement inspection, repair welding and NDE of embedment plates, stud welding, conduit / sleeve embedment, placement, post--
placement and curing inspection records DLC QA Audit No. DC-2-80-01 of design drawing change control
.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
On December 7,1979 the licensee reported a deficiency in welding and non-destructive examination (NDE) of flued head penetration forging to sleeve welds as a significant deficiency in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The inspector examined N&D No. 9196A and discussed the status of NDE and cor-rective action with the licensee's representative.
All of the welds will be radiographed (RT).
The results will be interpreted by the Engineers i
l
.
.
.
,
l
in Boston.
For some of the examined ultrasonically (UT) penetrations certain areas of the weld will be since the results of RT are inadequate.
The status to date is as follows:
(a) All of the originally installed pcnetrations which have been RT'd show rejectable indications.
(b) Three penetrations (No. 39, 40 and 41) have been replaced with stain-less steel penetrations.
The welds have been RT'd and are acceptable.
(c) The welds of eight penetrations (No. 28, 51, 52, 55,56, 57, 74 and 76)
have been RT'd and have shown rejectable-indications.
Rework of two of the welds (No. 51 and 52) has been authorized by the Engineer.
Three of the welds (No. 55, 56 and 57) will require UT as well.
(d)
Eight welds are still to be examined (No. 73, 75, 77, 78, 97, 105 and 110), three of which (No. 97,105 and 110) will require RT and UT.
(e) One additional penetration (No. 118) has been fabricated but not yet installed.
The weld has been RT'd and is acceptable.
It still requires UT examination.
This item remains unresolved pending review by on NRC inspector of the results of NDE and corrective action.
This item remains unresolved pending review by an NRC inspector of the results of NDE and corrective actions.
7.
Review of Deficiency Reported by Vendors During 1978 the Fairbanks Morse Engine Division of Colt Industries had re-ported deficiencies in the Emergency Diesel Generators as shown below, in accordance with 10 CFR 21. Two of these units have been ordered for Beaver Valley Unit 2:
a.
Leaks in fuel oil lines b.
Defects in injection pumps c.
Defects in exhaust rocker arms d.
Lube oil header failure The vendor has reported in several letters to NRC Region III that all necessary corrective actions with respect to the above deficiencies have been completed for the Beaver Valley II units.
r
!
-
. -
.
.
'This item remains unresolved pending inspection of the changes and final inspection of the units by PQC, determination by the licensee whether i
additional testing of the units is required as a result of these changes and review of the above by an NRC inspector.
8.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
.
(Closed) Noncompliance (79-08-01):
Inadequate storage and maintenance of pipe har.gers. The inspector examined the following:
2BVS-981, Addendum No. 8 which requires Level C (indoor unheated) or
.
level D with equivalent protection (outdoor, on pallets and securely covered with waterproof covering) for spring hangers.
This specification also requires that threads and machined surfaces shall be coated with tectyl 131 or 506 or an approved equal and that the hangers shall be inspected monthly and recoated or resealed as necessary.
Receipt Inspection Plan 59-R5 and 59-2-R5 which require verification
'
.
that threads are coated with a rust inhibitor.
N&D 1172 which requires that pipe hangers in the laydown area be
.
,
inspected and reworked as necessary to bring them to the as-delivered condition.
This N&D had been closed and signed off based on Inspec-tion Report 1172-1 which listed the hangers and corrective action.
t The inspector also spot checked the condition of a random selection of i
spring hangers in the laydown area.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (79-06-01):
Inconsistency of procedures with requirements of 10 CFR 21.
DLC Engireering Management Procedure 8.1,
-
Rev. 4 requires that the report be submitted to NRC within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> and j
that the Vice-President be informed prior to that time.
DLC QA Memorandum, DLC QA-2150 had also been revised to conform with the above procedures.
l The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
-
i -
)
!
(Closed) Unresolved Item (79-09-02):
Protection of equipment in temporary
'
i-storage.- The inspector examined the laydown areas for temporary storage j
adjacent to the roadway around the reactor building.
Material was stored i
on wood blocking or pallets and had been moved back from the roadway. A wooden barrier had been erected between the roadway and the storage area.
,
The inspector also examined Field Construction Procedure FCP-11 Appendix 1,
Material Control Program" Change No. 30 dated January 30, 1980 which
.
established the requirements for control of material in temporary storage areas. The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
,
(Closed) Unresolved Item (80-01-01):
Installation of Waterstop.
The inspector discussed this problem with representatives of the licensee
and reviewed Specification 2BVS-904, Addendum No. 2, Field Construction Procedure FCP117, Change No.' 3 and Inspection Plan IP 6.2.3 all of which
.
-..
__.
.. _.
-
__
- _,. - -. -, -. -
-
- _ - _ _ _.
_ _ _.
.
.
.
t
had been revised in accordance with a letter from W. R. Grace (the manufacturer) dated January 31, 1980 which provided for a four hour clamping time in cold weather and additional suggestions for assuring satisfactory splices.
The inspector was informed that training on field splicing of waterstops had been conducted by the contractor and examined the training attendance record.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
.
(0 pen) Noncompliance (79-06-01):
Inadequate procedures and maintenance of heat exchangers after starting connection of piping to equipment.
The inspector discussed this question with engineering and QC representatives of the licensee and reviewed the results of the engineering investigation of heat exuhanger corrosion.
The inspector also examined the receiving reports and Equipment Storage History Cards for Heat Exchangers 2-CCP-E21A, B and C and determined that the equipment arrived. on the site in March, 1977 and the nitrogen atmosphere had been removed from this equipment in January,1979 and therefore, had been without a protective internal environment for approximately 6 months at the time of the inspection rather than 2 years as previously reported.
To summarize the results of the discussions and reviews of engineering studies:
1.
The equipment has been without a protective inert gas blanket since January 30, 1979.
2.
At the time of the inspection the scheduled fuel load date was December 1983; it has since been rescheduled to December 1985.
It is assumed that this equipment will be placed in operation approximately 2 years prior,to fuel loading.
Even assuming no further schedule slippage it will have been exposed for approximately 5 years without inspection of internal condition. and without protection other than capping the ends of the pipe when no work was in progress.
In response to a question by S&W, the manufacturer, Struther
.
Wells Corporation states that the nitrogen purge had originally j
been suggested due to the unusually long storage period.
In view of the manufacturer's recommendation, the length of time
.
involved and the severe environment to which this equipment is exposed; intermittent capping of the pipe ends alone is not considered to meet the requirenents of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII for preventing. damage or deterioration to the equipment.
This item remains unresolved.
_
_-
.
.
9.
Correction of Typographical Error Paragraph 11 of Inspection Report 50-412/79-05 discussed licensee action on a previous inspection finding, 79-05-01, and included a statement in sub-paragraph 11.b "... Radiographic Interpretation Sheets which ~showed 26 repairs for the above welds to be acceptable." This sentence should read "... Radiographic Interpretation Sheets which showed repairs for the above welds to be acceptable."
'
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee and contractor representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on Marcii 28, 1980. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as described in this report.
.