IR 05000412/1983009
| ML20024E162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1983 |
| From: | Lester Tripp, Walton G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E155 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-83-09, 50-412-83-9, NUDOCS 8308090326 | |
| Download: ML20024E162 (8) | |
Text
_
_. _.
_
_
.-
...
_ _ _..
.
_
,
.
,
]
U.' S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION REGION 1
.
. Report!No..
50-412/83-09
'
Docket No.
50-412 License No.
'CPPR-105 Priority Category A
--
, Licensee:
. Duquesne Light Company RobinsonPlaz'$BuildingNo.2
'
,
'
-
Suite #210, PA Route 60
,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205
~
FacilitsName: Beaver Valley' Power Station,- Unit 2 -
'
Inspectionkt:-Shippingpoht,' Pennsylvania
~
Inspection Conducted: Jyie 1,- July 11,1983 Inspector:
.//8,M d d1d
/fMf3
^
G. A.-.Walton, Senior Resident Inspector g '
- date'
h Approvedby:d Ado 2/
.
'
/date
'
l'. E. Tripp, Chief, Reactor Projects Section No. 3A, Projects Branch No. 3 Inspection Sumary:
Inspection on June 1 - July 11,1983 (Report No. 50-412/
83-09.
'.
[
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by one resident inspector
of previously identified noncompliances and unresolved items, Information Notice, IE Bulletin, nondestructive examinations, Quality Control training, procedure reviews, document review of shop fabricated piping, site modifications,-
torquing of supports, and daily site tours. The inspection-involved 177 hours0.00205 days <br />0.0492 hours <br />2.926587e-4 weeks <br />6.73485e-5 months <br /> onsite by'one resident inspector.
!'
Results: Of the ten areas inspected, one deviation was identified; failure to meet a comitment-date for performing inspections of pipe supports for
excessive baseplate gaps..(Details,Section4).
8309090326 830725 i
PDR ADOCK 05000412 G
,
- -- _ _
-
.
...
... - -. -
.
.
.
.
. -
..
.. -.... - - -.
.. -. -
..
..
-
-
-
.
.
DETAILS-1.
Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company (DLC)
- R. Couplanc'., Director, Q.C.
- H. N. Crooks, Assistant Director, Q.C.
- F. G. Curl, Director, Construction
- C..R. Davis, Director, Quality Assurance
- C. E. Ewing, Q. A. Manager.
- H. R. Good, Weld Specialist
- S. D. Hall, Senior Compliance Engineer
- R. J.- Swiderski, Manager, Nuclear Construction W. W. Arrin, Asst. to Manager, Nuclear Construction J. Stabb, Compliance Engineer.
Stone and Webster (S&W)
~
- C. Bishop, Resident Manager
- -R. Faust, Site Structural Engineer
- A. F. Champagne, Asst. Superintendent, Engineering
- K. M. Bendiksen, Assistant Project Manager
- Present at exit meeting July 11, 1983.
2.
Construction Site Walk-Through Inspection Daily tours of the construction site were made to observe work activities in progress, completed work and plant status of the construction site.
The presence of quality control inspectors and quality records were observed. The areas observed were found acceptable and no violations were identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item 83-02-05 - Spare Penetration End Caps The inspector questioned Stone and Webster's interpretation of pipe caps being used on spare penetrations because a memorandum from Stone and Webster Engineering stated the caps should be treated as temporary attachments. Temporary attachments are subject to different rules than permanent attachments.- Stone and Webster Engineering subsequently changed their position and now state the spare penetration end caps and retaining rings are considered permanent, and will meet the design requirements
,
for the containment liner. The inspector reviewed data which shows the
-
-
-
-.
.
..
.
..
.
.
.. - -
-
.
-
- _
..
.
...
-
'
.
end cap details have been analyzed to Class MC of the ASME Boiler &
!
Pressure Vessel Code. In addition, a finite element analysis was.
performed for pressure and thermal transients consistent with a design q
basis accident, i.e., 45_psig and 280 F maximum containment environments.
. j The resultant maximum stresses were less than the code allowable in
i accordance with Article NE-3000 of the ASME code. The inspector found the end. caps will be of certified material, the welding material used
will be' certified, and the welds and welding procedure will be qualified in accordance with the ASME Code. This item is considered resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 83-04-02 - Pacific Scientific Snubbers 1The inspector hadLquestioned the' acceptance of a torque test versus-
'
Ethe: requirement to perform an acceleration test on mechanical snubbers supplied-by Pacific ~ Scientific Company.
A review of Stone and Webster's
,
memorandum No. 2BVM-2957 and attached memorandum from the Boston office
'
dated May 26, 1983, found acceptance of the torque test by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) by approval of Pacific Scientific's test procedure IT 519,~ Revision T.
The torque test is based on a.
correlation of measured torque at the inertia mass-(rotary motion of the
<
inertia mass) with measured displacement versus time. Based on this
'
' measured data, torque valves were established which correspond to an
'
acceptable acceleration limit.
Subsequent approval by SWEC on November 20, 1981, of Pacific Scientific's
'
test procedure IT 519, Revision W, included provisions for the-acceleration
,
load test velocity versus time method to replace the torque test. This
'
change was due to Pacific Scientific's installation of a ~new test machine which is capable of performing all acceptance tests sequentially.
The inspector had no further questions on this matter, and this item is
considered resolved.
(0 pen) 79-BU-02 - Pipe Support Base Plate Design Using Drilled-In Anchors The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for compliance with the requirements for installation and testing of pipe support baseplates using drilled-in anchor bolts. The review included the following:
Specification 2BVS-970 and FCP 207.
-
.
Prequalification on-site test program dated January,1978.
-
-, Retorque program, unresolved items 83-05-06, and 83-05-05.
It was identified that construction does loosen the torqued bolts after Q.C. has witnessed and accepted the torque values. When
'
..
construction retorques the loosened bolts, there was no requirement for. Q.C. inspection of bolt tightness except to verify they are
finger. tight. The licensee has committed Q.C. to implement a
retorque program on existing installed anchor bolts. As stated in the bulletin, a sampling program is acceptable.
In addition, the licensee has implemented a program to assure that any future baseplates which are loosened by construction will be retorqued and witnessed by Q.C.
n
,
-,..,,
c
,. -,
.,,.w-.,
c
..---,a
.._+.,, - -... -
.,,-....n--.,--,,._n...,.n
, - - - - -.,,,,,- -....,,_
,.-,--.,_,..nn.,-,,.~---,e
-
- __
_.
. -.
_ _
.
..
_ -
- "
e.
.
.
m
'
- Construction' documentation of-retorqued bolts. A visual observation by the inspector found a support number 2 FWE-PSR-
'059Y, in the safeguards tunnel which appeared-to be improperly torqued. The lock washers under the nuts were not; compressed.
A review of Q.C. records found three test reports'which all
,
indicated the installation was correct. A torque and tension test was recorded acceptable on February 12,1983. A request was made by the NRC inspector to' verify the bolts were still-correctly torqued. The retorque performed on June 27, 1983, and witnessed by the inspector.found the bolts were improperly u
torqued.. Ev,idently, they were loosened after Q.C. acceptance.
s
..
A review of construction records found there was no record off
'
'this support being loosened or record indicating it had been
'
retorqued or' scheduled to be retorqued.
In addition, a further review made'by S&W Construction found 14 additional supports which were final accepted but reloosened later without being
'
Vproperly documented "and retorqued. To correct this discrepancy,
,S&W Construction retorqued the 14 supports and documented their acceptance.
In additioni Q.C. witnessed and accepted the re-l torquing. Field-Construction Precedure FCP 103.1 was issued June 30,1983, which includes retorquing requirements and.
documentation indicating such. With the retorquing of the 15 supports 'and implementation of FCP 103.1 to control present fabrication, in addition to the Q.C. retorque program to verify
'
correct torquing is being applied, the inspector found the program' acceptable.
This bulletin will remain open pending further review of the program.
4.
Followup on Licensee's Commitments IE Inspection Report.50-412/82-11 dated November 1,1982, identified a violation which Duquesne Light Company responded to by letter dated January 31,~1983. An attachment was. included which addressed several of the inspectors concerns regarding this violation. Specifically, one of the concerns of the inspector _ regarded whether this violation also affected electrical and pipe' supports, as well as the identified effect of HVAC supports.
It has subsequently been identified that the concerns
.
identified in the violation do apply to electrical supports.
For a.
,
made in paragraph 7(a)pplicability to-pipe supports, a commitment was determination of its a of the above referenced attachment. The commit-
.
ment states, "a review similar to Item 5 (Gaps Under Bolted Baseplates):
will be started by March 1,1983, on installed pipe ~ support baseplates to'detemine and reconcile excessive baseplate gaps, if any.
On June 13,1983, the inspector performed a review of the licensee's i
activity to this commitment and found that no program or inspection was started or planned. When questioned, the licensee acknowledged the commitment and immediately implemented actions to establish a
program.' However, the inspector found no' procedure or system imple-
,
j mented which assures other commitments will be met. This is a deviation (83-09-01).
,.
i
,
s--
v Ac w m-n,n e
en-..,-n.se,-,
~
,n,-----.-ea---~
w..--,e..--..w-wu-,-,,
-,,nmw,,-mm,-
wwww--,,,,,p-,~n.,m,m-wa,--ea-r--
,-r-,,.-w--wv-
.
-
. _..
.
.
-
- - -.
.
-5-
,,,
,.
5.
Review of Information Notice 83-07 - Titled, Nonconfomities.With Materials Supplied by Tube Line Corporation The inspector perfomed a review of the above subject information notice to. ascertain its applicability on Beaver Valley. Unit 2.. By '
i memorandum dated April 14, 1983, Capitol Pipe and. Steel Products Company advised Pittsburgh DesMoines.(PDM) Corporation, that material manufactured by Tube-Line Corporation, Long Island, New York, was supplied to Beaver Valley, Unit 2, which was not manufactured in compliance with the provisions of ASME NCA 3800 or 10 CFR Part 50,.
Appendix B. :It was manufactured to the requirements of ASTM only.
PDM notified Duquesne Light Company by an IOC. dated April 13, 1983, that they have the material quoted above.
Four of the items are -18 inch diameter pipe. caps scheduled to be installed on the containment
'
liner spare piping penetrations and one 6 inch diameter pipe cap which is installed on a-spare penetration.-
'
- Planned disposition, by the contractor, of the five items is as follows:
.
- The four 18 inch diameter pipe caps are being returned to the vendor ~and will be replaced with new material
. which meets ASME requirements.
- The one'6 inch diameter pipe cap has been retested using
-
excess material of identical composition. Preliminary notification to PDM from the vendor has indicated acceptable results were found.
Certification will be' supplied. When i
proper certification is provided, the contractor plans to accept the installed pipe cap.
This item will be unresolved pending review of the final disposition.
83-09-03.-
6.
Procedure ~ Review The inspector reviewed procedures IP 8.4.1 an'd FCP-431, which are-associated with electrical cable installation and inspection.
The review included the contractor's controls for cable prior to pulling, during pulling and post-pulling..This included cable temperatures, protection of cables and raceways from damage, cable tension and bend radius, inspection of cables, identification and location of cables, pulling devices, meggering of cables after installation, separation and cable slack at junctions and quality control inspections of these activities. The following procedures were found acceptable except as listed below:
l
,,.,,. _ _. _ _. _. -
_ _ _.
- _ ~,... _.. _ _, _ _., _.,,. _ _
.._.. _ _,_._
_.. _,...-.___.
..
.
..
-
-
._.
.
-
--
'
.g.
- -
.
i Unresolved Items 82-05-01 and 82-12-02 identifies a concern
-
regarding cable separation.
FCP 431 Change Number 9, dated February 14, 1983,._ provides
-
a method to monitor cable tension during the cable pulling.
operation when the dynamometer (tension indicating device)
is not located in the cable pulling line. When the dynamometer is used and located in the support line for a set of pulleys and
.
not in line with the pulling rope, the procedure provided a
correlation for the dynamometer reading versus actual pulling tension being applied to the cable. The correlation is deter -
. mined by the angles of the cable being pulled in relation to the center line of the dynamometer and the pulleys.
For
- example, when the angle of deviation is 5 for the cable pulling direction from the center line direction of the pulley and.the
'
0 included cable is being pulled:at 50 angle of deviation,10 angle, a dynamometer reading of 100 will represent an actual pull tension of 55 lbs.
The inspector questioned the accuracy of this method when the included angle reaches high angle deviations. The inspector
- found that for the highest included angle pemitted of 140
'
degrees, a change of 5 degrees in the pull direction will i
affect the dynamometer reading by approximately 20 percent.
For example, a dynamometer reading of 100 will indicate an actual pull of 384 lbs. at 135 degrees and 475-lbs. at
.140. degrees.'
"
'
..
.
Due'to the inability to exactly ' measure the angles and the
"
I significant' changes in pull pressure when small angles occur,
'
the: inspector questioned the need to control the angle deviations at angles'significantly lower than 140 degrees. The licensee acknowledged this concern and agreed to implement a' review to detemine the need to limit the pull angles.
_
This item will remain unresolved until the licensee completes
~
l
-
this' review. 83-09-02.
l 7.
Steam Generator Feedwater Nozzle Modification i
The inspector reviewed the modifications being made on the feedwater nozzles to ascertain compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.
l The modifications include welding on the outside diameter of the nozzle, boring the inside diameter larger to facilitate insertion and welding an inside sleeve which connects to the feedwater sprayer ring.
I i
l-
-. -.
-.....-.. -.. -.-.-..
- - -. -.. - - -
-.. -.. - -... -. -
.
.
.-.
..
-7-The modification is designed to reduce the temperature gradients on the nozzle when the auxiliary feedwater pumps are drawing cooler water from a storage tank. The review included the fabrication checklist for steam generator 21A. The checklist, dated June 13, 1983, included provisions for progressive magnetic particle and radiographic examinations. The inspector witnessed portions of the welding activities, including preheat controls. The inspector found all areas reviewed acceptable and no violations were identified.
8.
Nondestructive Examinations The inspector reviewed the liquid penetrant examination procedure PT-10, dated May 19, 1983, and witnessed the below listed examinations
-
which were perfonned using this procedure.
- Liquid penetrant of 2CHS-002-99-2
- Liquid penetrant of 2FNC-006-4-3
- Liquid penetrant of 2CHS-750-360-2 The review included assurances that defects were being recorded and dispositioned, inspections were being performed in compliance with the procedure, and correct documentation of the status of the item was being recorded after the test was finished.
The inspector found all items acceptable and no violations were identified.
9.
Record Review The inspector performed a record review of piping system SIS-2-1 shown on ISO 10 8101. The piping was fabricated by Power Piping Company, Purchase Order Number 2 BV-58. The review included Power Piping certificate of compliance, NPP-1 Data Report Form, Radio-graphic and Liquid Penetrant Report, and material test reports for piping components. The inspector found all items acceptable and no violations were identified.
10.
Quality Control Training The inspector attended six training sessions which are given to site quality control inspectors as part of their training requirements.
The training included inprocess inspection of general cable pulling.
+
=
t-
-
y
-- -
..
--,w---
- - + -,. -
e m--
.
--
w-
-- - -
-.
-
..
.-.
-
-.
,
..
.. -.
>
.
,
- - ~ =
g.
.
.
'
m
,
,.
,
.
-t
'
The inspector found the training sessions were presented well and addressed the inspection requirements contained in Inspection N
Procedure IP-8.4.1.
No violations were identified.
11.
Unresolved' Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-
-
compliance or_ deviations.
Unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 5 and 6..
12.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee' representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)onJuly 11, 1983, and summarized the scope of the inspection. ~
4
,
f.
'
,
,
9 4.
.
.
I
'
s
+
A
-, -.,,. -,
-,m-w n.---,,-,,.n.,
.,,., -,
-,.,---.n---.,,,- -,., -,,.,-.,
n,+,n6,
..e--,e.m.,.,,-,---v,-e.,----------gn,m,