IR 05000423/1980003
| ML19320D572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1980 |
| From: | Cerne A, Feil R, Mcgaughy R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320D565 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-80-03, 50-423-80-3, NUDOCS 8007210545 | |
| Download: ML19320D572 (3) | |
Text
.___
..
.
V[--
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
80-03 Docket No.
50-423 Lic'ense No.
CPPR-113 Priority Category A
-
'
Licensee:
North East Nuclear Energy Company-P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 Inspection at:
Waterford, Connecticut
~ Inspection conducted: April 2 1980
. Inspectors:
k 4(4/r/s
[ -/8-D C.
erne, p or Inspector date signed
'
.
6-9-50
.
R'. Feil, Reactor Inspector date signed date signed j
Approved by:
N/4
/
//
~~/8' Ib R' W. McGaughy(/fJrief, Construction date signed
.
-Projects Section, RC&ES Branch
.
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 23, 1980 (Report No. 50-423/80-03)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced turnover inspection by regional based inspectors consisting of an orientation tour of the site for the newly assigned inspector.
The inspection involved 9 inspector-hours on site by two regional based inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
i
. Region I Form 12
,
-(Rev. Apr.11 77)
.
80072'1056
.
.
__
.
.
..
.
-
. _.. ___--_
_ _ _ _ _.____-.. _-
- d 4.
>
t
,
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO)
K. W. ' Gray, Supervisor. Construction OA
- S. Orefice, Superintendent - New Site Construction
- S. R.1Toth, System Superintendent - Generator Construction
-
l-
- J.-O' Brian, Specialist, Construction QA
_
Stone and Webster Engineering Coorporation (S&W)
W. B. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent, Field QC
- R. H. Lane, Superintendent of Construction Services
- G. G. Turner, Superintendent of Field QC
.
- Denotes those present.at exit interview.
The inspectors conferred with other licensee and contractor personnel.
'
2.
-Facility Tour The inspectors toured the site facilities, observed work in progress
,
and contacted various licensee and contractor personnel in the process of the turnover inspection.
Areas covered included the containment
'
-
and reactor area, control building, auxiliary building, turbine building and other service areas.
The inspectors met with various licensee and contractor personnel to introduce the newly assigned inspector.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
3.
~ Containment Liner Allegations
-
The inspector informed the licensee that certain allegations had been
,
made regardiqg the welding work on the Unit 3 containment liner.
Specifically these. allegations were directed toward the following activities.
Erasures of. weld repair marks on the containment liner floor by
--
a' subcontractor foreman.
- ~ ~ Alteration of the weld test coupon' results for a subcontractor welder, who' additionally received help in the first ten feet of his radiographed production liner' seam welding, r
O e
. -
,
y.7-ss,e-
~--- - -
'-----m---Y-
- m'
-"='-m--?
" *' " * " '9
.
. s
3
' The inspector on two previous inspections at the site (Inspection Reports 50-423/79-12 and 80-01) attempted to determine whether the allegations could be substantiated and what significance they may have had on the final quality of the containment liner, as constructed. He interviewed several welding, managerial, and inspection personnel; checked the adequacy of the applicable QC program; and reviewed the results of the spot radiography (done in acccrdance with Regulatory Guide 1.19) for various welders and welds to determine whether evidence of unqualified welders or poor welds existed.
These inspection activities disclosed no evidence of deficient welds, incomplete repair, or inadequate QC weld inspections. While the interviews did not confirm the allegations, the inspector nevertheless directed efforts toward determining the impact upon final construction, assuming the allegations were true.
No adverse impact was discovered.
On this inspection, the licensee was informed that the follow-up of these allegations resulted in no items of ncncompliance or unrescived safety concerns about the actual quality of the containment lince welds.
4.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragrap,h 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 23, 1980. The inspector reiterated the substance of the allegations.
The licensee acknwoledged the inspectors comments.
i t
y
_
-
-