IR 05000412/1981002
| ML20005B093 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1981 |
| From: | Feil R, Kister H, Walton G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005B085 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-81-02, 50-412-81-2, NUDOCS 8107060302 | |
| Download: ML20005B093 (6) | |
Text
.
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-412/81-02 Docket No. 50-412 License No. CPPR-105 Priority
-
Category B
1.icensee:
Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburah Pennsylvania 15219 Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station. Unit 2 Inspection at:
Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted:
May 5-7, 1981
[
[
Inspectors:
R.A. FEi W Reactor Inspector
/dafe signed etJALlt~
c/nM
.
G. A. Walton, Reactor Ins'pe~ctor date signed d te signed Approved by:
f
'v
/d/te(1gned H.B. Kister, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1C, Division of Resident and Project Inspection Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 5-7,1981 (Report No. 50-412/81-02)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional based inspectors for turnover of project inspector responsibilities; facility tour of all construction activities; and review of the status of out-standing items. The inspection involved 43 inspector-hours on site by two regional based inspectors.
Results: Of the two areas inspected, one item of noncompliance in one area was identified:
Failure to provide adequate storage for nioino in temporary storage (Paragraph 2).
This is a repeat. violation.
.
l Region I Form 12
!
(Rev. April 77)
8107060302 810615
!
PDR ADOCK 05000412 l
G PpR
.
_
_
~. - - -
_
_
.
__
.
.
.
. _, _,. _. _ _
.
-
,
,
,,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company (DLC)
'
- H.N.
Crooks, Assistant Director of Quality Control R.
Coupland, Director of Quality Control
- W.H.
Glidden, Senior Q.A. Engineer F.G.
Curl, Construction R.
Washabaugh, Manager, Quality Assurance
R.L.
Williamson, QC Inspector E.
Majumdar, Senior Q.A. Engineer
- H.A.
Van Wassen, Site Construction Manager Stone and Webster (S&W)
- C.R.
Bishop, Superintendent of Construction
- C.D.
Houmiller, Site Engineer
- A.C.
McIntyre, Lead Site Engineer Sargent Electric Company
- J. L.
Kaminski, Project Manager Dick Corporation
'*
C.
Johnson, Superintendent J.
Long, QC Supervisor Schneider, Incorporated
- V.J.
Salvatore, General Superintendent
- G.F.
Sessler, Senior, Q.A. Engineer
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
i
'
The inspectors conferred with other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection.
2.
Plant Tour The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work, and construction status. Work items were examined for obvious defects and for noncompliance with regulatory requirements and licensee commit-ments.
Specific areas of temporary storage of safety related piping were reviewed and the following conditions were noted. At elevation 718' in the cable vault area numerous safety related pipe was temp-orarily stored and adequate protection from damage was not provided
.
.-
-
,,.,
,-e
-.-
n
, -,
-
- - -. -.- - -, -,, - - - -,.,
,
-.,-.,--,-g-
,-,-a-
,.
, - - -,, - -
,
.
.
in that piping of different sizes, weights, and configurations were pileo on top, and across each other without being separated. Although nn apparent damage was evident, the condition w T such that damage such as bending or gouging could occur. An example of the piping involved is CHS-124-11 and SWS-453-1.
In the outside area, adjacent to the containment building, piping SWS-451-8 war found laying on the ground, a foreign substance had been piled t_sede and on the pipe, and the construction personnel were observed walking on the pipe.
The licensee took immediate corrective action by removing the pipe to another location.
Failure to provide adequate temporary storage conditions for this piping is in violation of the storage conditions which the licensee has established for the site.
Specifically, the Beaver Valley Unit 2, PSAR Section 17, paragraph 17.2.1.13A states that the Duquesne Light Company Quality Assurance Program establishes measures to control the handling, Storage, shipping, cleaning, and preservation of materials in accordance with work and inspection instructions to prevent damage or deterioration.
The Duquesne Light Procedure FCA-11 paragraph 8.6.3 states that material must be maintained as nearly as practical in its required storage level during transit and SICP 13.2 Revision 2 Level D states that the material must be reasonably removed from actual construction area and traffic. This condition is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII.
This a repeat noncompliance'(81-02-01). The previous noncompliances identified on this item are 78-08-01 and 80-06-01.
.
,
3.
Licensee Actions on Previous Inspection Findings
!
(Closed) Unresolved Item (80-04-06):
During a previous plant tour,
,
j the inspector had observed welding activities on the containment liner dome being performed unprotected from the weather and while a fairly
l strong, gusty wind was blowing. The welder was using a covered 8018-l C3 electrode for performing shielded metal arc welding. The inspector
questioned whether the apparent wind, established as blowing between 12 to 16 miles per hour had degraded weld quality. The inspector l
examined the licensee's response to the inspector's concerns and the following actions have been taken.
i
--
A test sample was made by the welding contractor, using the 8018-C3 electrode and with wind enndition of 16 miles per hour to determine if any adverse effect 1 the weld quality had occurred.
The sample was nondestructively examined, sectioned, and examined
with no adverse conditions noted.
!
i I
w
-
y e
-
--
r -,
w
-
w
..
,
_
.
.
_
A memorandum, dated April 3,1981 to all " Senior Site Represent-
--
atives" from the Resident Manager, was issued as instructions to welders and foremen which requires that adequate protection be provided against excessive high winds.
In the event adequate protection cannot be provided, the licensee
--
.
has issued instructions to cease welding during adverse wind conditions.
All welding quality is examined by nondestructive methods such as
--
visual, magnetic particle and radiography, where applicable to verify acceptable quality is obtained.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (81-00-01) Breakdown in QC Program: Duquesne Light Company (DLC) received information that a problem existed at another facility regarding the substitution of Grade 40 rebar for Grade 60 rebar.
Investigation into the problem was initiated by DLC relating to instructions and implementation action if any.
During this investigation an error in QC was found.
OLC QC found that substitution of Grade 60 rebar for Grade 40 rebar had occurred on the basis of a Request for Information (RI) which is not an approved engineering instruction.
The investigation by DLC QC revealed discrepancies in the chronology
.of the documentation.
The RI which authorized the substitution of rebar is dated 12/14/78. The Field Change Procedure, FCP-119, change 3, Placement of Reinforcing Steel, which authorized the substitution of rebar is dated 11/17/79. The Inspection Plan IP 6.2.3, Preplacement,
Placement, and Post Placement of Concrete, dated September 5, 1978 l
required that the proper grade of rebar oeing placed be verified but l
did not authorize substitution of rebar.
!
l The investigation revealed that six(6) Grade 60 rebar were instalied l
in the Lower Pump Cubicle modification instead of Grade 40 rebor which i
was specified in the drawing. The QC inspector originally gave an UNSAT attribute for the wrong grade of rebar.
He subsequently received the RI which stated that the substitution of rebar could be made. The attribute was then changed to SAT by the QC inspector.
,
When these discrepancies were found, the licensee initiated a Non-comformance & Disposition Report (N&D). The licensee determined that this was the only occurrence of substituting Grade 60 for Grade 40 rebar.
The licensee reported the item to the NRC as a potential reportable item in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
.
.
.
.-
_.
.. - -..
.
- - -.. --,
.
--
..
.
.
.
.
.
The inspector reviewed the documentation relating to the breakdown in QL and verified the licensee's actions and reports. The N&D dis-position states " Accept As Is."
Drawing No. 12241-RC-480 is being revised to indicate that the substitution of Grade 60 rebar for Grade 40 rebar is acceptable in accordance with Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Engineering Department Memorandum No. SDM 81-3. ' The memorandum states that:
"For structures designed for applicable loads in accordance with ACI 318 Code using reinforcing steel having a specified yield strength (f ) of 40,000 psi, both ASTM A615 Grade 40 and Grade 60 satisfy the specified yeild strength requirement and may be used interchangeably.
The ACI 318 Code is written to insure an elastic performance of the structure under design loads.
Substitution of Grade 60 reinforcing on a one-to-one basis for Grade 40 does not invalidate the original design. The structure will perform in the same manner with the Grade 60 reinforcing as it would have with Grade 40 reinforcing and the
- -
stress levels in all elements are unchanged for the design loads."
IP 6.2.3, Preplacement, Placement and Post Placement of Concrete, was revised (Revised date July 27,1979) to allow substitution of Grade 60-rebar for Grade 40 rebar.
.
The gap in date between the RI (12/14/78) and IP 6.2.3 (July-27, 1979)
is covered by a memo (DLC QC 502) from Mr. D. Denning to Mr. R. Coupland dated 12/20/78. The memo, Subject:
Impaoper Grade of Reinforcing Steel Immediate Corrective Action and Investigation, was signed by the appropriate authorities and instructed QC personnel from DICK Corporation to disseminate the information to proper QC inspection personnel.
The licensee intends to provide instructions to preclude such long delays in the authorizacion to change a procedure and the actual
!
publication of that procedure. To preclude the use of unauthorized l
documents the licensee has revised Procedure SQC-4.1, Preparation of I
Inspection Plans dated March 26, 1981 and includes the following requirements:
l l
The SQC Senior Engineer and/or his designee shall review and I
analyze all pertinent approved drawings, specifications,.re-l ferenced codes and standards and the PSAR, in order to establish the attributes to be applied. When 7.ny form of Engineering instruction conflicts with the base documents mentioned above,
'
the conflict is to be brought to the attention of the Director or an Assistant Director of SQC prior to inclusion in the inspection plan.
i i
\\-
-...
.
.
.
Using the above information, the SQC Senior Engineer or his designee shall prepare an Inspection Plan, whereby, an'SQC Inspector, using this plan and an associated Inspection Report, can verify and document the conformance of the activity to the relevant quality requirements on the Inspection Report.
The Inspection Plan shall include the attributes to be inspected, sampling methods to be employed, environmental considerations or restrictions, acceptance criteria, required tests and associated equipment, hold points and other specific information the SQC Inspector needs to verify the activity and compile his report.
He shall include as t -inimum, those inspection attributes required by the Project Engineer and tabulated on the T.I.D. Form, which is part of the Specification.
- The source document on which each inspection-attribute is based shall be referenced with the inspection attribute in the inspection plan historical plan.
The licensee has evaluated the breakdown in QC and concluded that there is no safety implications and therefore has determined that deficiency is not reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
This item is considered resolved.
,
4.
Status of Facility The ifcensee stated that the facility is 42% complete. Work force is presently 677 craft and 543 noncraft.
5.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee and contractor representatives (de-
,
l noted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection of May 7,
!
1981.
The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as described in this report.
.
I l
l
!
!
l t
t L-
--
~ _ _,
_. _ _ _
.. -
__ _
_
.