IR 05000423/1980004
| ML19344A959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1980 |
| From: | Feil R, Mcgaughy R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344A958 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-80-04, 50-423-80-4, NUDOCS 8008250210 | |
| Download: ML19344A959 (5) | |
Text
.
-
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-423/80-04 Docket No.
50-423 License No.
CPPR-113 Priority Category A
--
>
Licensee:
Northeast 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:
June 4 and 5, 1980
[ -,F9-N Inspectors:
e R. A. Feil, Reactor Inspector date signed
,
date signed date signed Approved by: h/4[ Msb/M
[ ~ 3 9-2 D
~
date signed R.W.'McGaughy,Mi[ProjectsSection, RC&ES Branch l
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 4 and 5,1980 (Report No. 50-423/80-04)
l Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by a regional based inspector l
of licensee action on previous inspection findings, facility tour, containment, fitup and welding, grouting of biological shield tank and component coolina water heat exchanger supports and polar crane deficiencies. Tt.e inspection involved 18 inspector-hours onsite by one regional based inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l l
Region i Form 12 g()08250 3 9 (Rev. April 77)
,
.----.-,--,.----.-,n.
, - -,, - -
,.,
,. - -
-.,.
e n-
--. - - -
. - - -, - -,
-,-----,,---e
-
- -, - - -
&
J DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCo)
- D. G. Diedrick, QA Manager K. W. Gray, Jr., Supervisor.H.C.Q.A.
- S. Orifice, Superintendent, New Site Construction J. L. Peterson, Senior Project Technician
- S. R. Toth, System Superintendent / General Construction Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W)
- P. A. Gagel, QA Program Administrator R. P. Hagerman, Q.C. Engineer B. L. Holzinger, QC Engineer-Civf?
- J. G. Kappos, Superintendent of C.istruction A. M. Little, QC Inspector
- W. Mackay, Resident Manager
- W. W. Orr, Senior Engineer, Field QC
- J. S. Searway, Project Manager K. L. Snyder, Calibration Engineer
- F. S. Sullivan, Resident Engineer
- G. G. Turner, Superintendent of Field QC Graver Energy System, Inc.
- denotes those present at exit interview.
The inspector conferred with other licensee and contractor personnel.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous NRC Inspection Findings
!
(Closed) Unresolved Item (423/79-10-01):
Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinders Statistical Evaluation Records are not on Site. The inspector i
Verified that the statistical analysis of Field Concrete Test Reports l
i for Mix 302-exterior of containment wall, Mix 51-interior of containment wall and Mix 402-intake structure-discharge tunnel were onsite.
This consisted of evaluation charts and statistical analyses printouts.
l
'
!
, -
. _ _ _
_ _ _
_
.
__
_ _ _ _, _. _ - _.
. _. _..
. - _,
o
.
3.
Facility Tour The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work and plant status in several areas of.the facility during the course of the inspection.
Presence of quality control inspectors, quality control records, conformance with procedural requirements and equipment preser-vation was observed.
The inspector conferred with craft personnel, super-vision and quality inspection personnel as such personnel were available in the work areas.
The inspector specifically observed preparation for pouring grout between the neutron biological shield and the containment structure liner. The inspector noted the conscientiousness and diligence of the quality control inspectors in the adherence to the criteria for the preparation and pouring of the grout.
The inspector observed that a monitoring device from the flange of the reactor pressure vessel was found exposed and without a protective cover.*
The licensee took appropriate action to cover the monitoring device. The inspector and the licensee examined the inside of the reactor pressure vessel through an access port. There was no evidence that moisture had penetrated into the vessel.
A pipe emanating from 3 SIL-TK3 was observed to be without a cover. The licensee subsequently covered the pipe.
The inspector commented that it would be most prudent if items such as missing covers were observed and replaced rather than have the inspector make the observation.
The reactor vessel is being prepared for installation. The building housing the vessel has been dismantled.
The inspector observed some welding in progress on the transition piece between the containment wall and the top dome.
The top dome lugs were being welded in place in preparation for welding of the top dome to the transition piece.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
- This is one of two connections for a monitoring device provided in the vessel flange to detect any leakage past the two 0-rings.
The two self energizing 0-
,
ring gaskets contain leakage of primary coolant between the mating surface of the vessel and head flanges.
_-
_
_
- _.
.
.
.
.
4.
Component Cooling flater Heat Exchancer Supports The licensee reported to the NRC deficiencies in the design and construc-tion of component cooling water heat exchanger support weldments.
The inspector examined Nonconformance and Disposition Reports No. 0169 dated September 6, 1979 and No. 0203 dated October 19, 1979.
The reports de-scribe the deficiencies as incomplete penetration deficient up to 90% on
'
support leg assemblies (chocks), undercutting, incomplete welds and over-lap. Lack of penetration was found in the top support assemblies (Twelve T-1 and twelve T-2).
The licensee has placed a hold on work in the auxil-iary building penjing repair and rework of the supports.
The inspector expressed his concern recarding the time lapse between the discovery of the deficiencies and the notification to the NRC. Since these deficiencies met the criteria of 10 CFR 50.55(e), they should have been reported within the time frame specified in 10 CFR 50.55(e). The licensee stated the difference in time of discovery and reporting to the NRC was due to the necessity to evaluate the oroblem and ascertain if the problem were significant enough to fall under the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e). The inspector stated that potentially reportable items should be reported unless it can be determined promptly that they are non-reportable.
This item remains unresolved pending completion' and inspection of repairs and rework of the supports (80-04-01).
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Polar Crane The inspector was informed that during assembly of the polar crane four (4)
bolts broke.
One (1) bolt broke on the vertical support plate between the end truck and G-1 (girder) (there are twenty-four bolts in the plate).
Three (3) bolts broke on the vertical support plate between the end tie (cross tie) and the end truck on G-2 (girder) (there are 21 bolts in the plate).
The installation procedure specifies that the bolts be torqued to 3750 PSI.
The 4 bolts broke at less than 3000 PSI. A certificate cf calibration dated April 23,1980 from Raymond Engineering, Inc., supplier of the hyc'raulic torque wrench, showed that the wrench had been calibrated.
The licensee had forwarded the torque wrench to another vendor for calibra-
'
tion verification. The bolts, Type A 490, are beina chemically analyzed.
Results have not been received to date.
-
.
.
_
.-
.-
..
..
The licensee plans to replace all bolts received with the polar crane with bolts purchased from a different vendor.
The inspector expressed concern that this item had not been reported to the NRC. The licensee stated that since all the bolts were to be replaced.
the recuirement for recortina did not exist. The inspector pointed out that the licensee's interpretation of reporting requirements is inconsistent with 10 CFR 50.55(e)(1).
This item remains unresolved pending resolution of the bolt breaking prob-lem (80-04-02).
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are dis-cussed in Paragraphs 4 and 5.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee's representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on June 5,1980. The inspector sum-marized the findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.
The inspector telephoned the licensee on June 12, 1980 to clarify unresolved items.
The licensee acknowledged the inspectors comments.
.
-
,
---n g--