IR 05000443/1979006
| ML19210E468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1979 |
| From: | Mattia J, Mcgaughy R, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210E453 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-79-06, 50-443-79-6, 50-444-79-06, 50-444-79-6, NUDOCS 7912050078 | |
| Download: ML19210E468 (12) | |
Text
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-443/79-06 & 50-444/79-06 Docket No. 50-443 & 50-444 License No. CPPR-135 & CPPR-136 Priority:
Category: A
--
Licensee:
Public Servica of New Hampshtra 1000 Elm Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name:
Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2 Inspection at:
Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection conducted: May 21-25, 1979 Inspectors:
A f/JJ!)f Mattj a Reac or Inspector date signed l 0 \\ UV&y B/d//79 A.'VhreTa, Reactor Inspector
'dat,6 signed Approved by:
, h[ Nlthw P!M
vn R.McGaughy,ChpfgrojectsSection d' ate / signed RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 21-25, 1979 (Report No. 50-443/79-06).
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by thu regicnal based inspectors of construction activities.
The inspection involved work activities and records for concrete, containment, safety related piping and document control.
A plant tour inspection was also per-fonned.
The inspection involved 42 inspector hours by two regional based inspectors.
Results:
Of the five areas inspected, three apparent items of noncompliance were identified in three areas (Infractions - Failure to follow welding procedures - paragraph 3; Failure to control access to warehouses - paragraph 5; and failure to follow document control procedures - paragraph 6).
1500 307 073
7912050
.
Inspection on May 21-25, 1979 (Report No. 50-444/79-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional based in-spectors of construction activities.
The inspection involved records for concrete and work activities and records for document control.
A plant tour inspection was also performed.
The inspection involved 24 inspector-hours by two regional based inspectorc.
Results:
Of the three areas inspected, two apparent items of noncompliance were identified in two areas (infractions - failure to control access to the warehouse paragraph 5 and failure to follow Document Control Procedures para-graph 6).
!500 308
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Yankee Atomic Electric Company & Public Service Ccmpany of New Hampshire
F. Bean, QA Engineer
- B. Beckley, Manager of Nuclear Projects D. Covill, QA Engineer
- W. Gagnon, Field QA Supervisor
- J. Herrin, Site Manager
- R. Pizzuti, Construction Manager
- J. Singleton, Field QA Manager Royal Globe Insurance Company
"C. O'Sullivan, Authorized Nuclear Inspector United Engineers and Contractors
- M. Edgar, Resident Construction Engineer J. Grady, Materials Supervisor G. Kelly, Piping Supervisor D. Long, Electrical Supervisor
- R. Moyer, Field Superintendent QA (Acting)
- R. Phelps, Field Superintendent QA P. Randby, Civil Supervisor
- R. Thomas, Office Engineer
- T. Vassallo, QA Engineer
- J. Vought, Resident Construction Manager Pittsburgh Des Moines Company
- R. Davis, Field QA Manager H. Sinclair, Chief Field Engineer
- J. Townsend, Resident Construction Manager 1500 309
.
.
.
Perini Powar Constructors, Inc.
- P. Bruce, Supervising QA Engineer H. Cusick, Civil Document Engineer R. Johnson, Assistant Supervising QA Engineer J. Kowalik, Assistant Construction Document Engineer J. McLaughlin, Chief Document Control R. Thomas, Office Engineer Fischback-Boulos-Manzi L. Shea, QC Manager H. Patal, Chief Engineer
Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Plant Tour (Units 1 & 2)
The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work, and plant status in several areas of the construction site.
Work items were examined for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory require-ments or licensee commitments.
Particular note was taken of the presence of quality control inspectors and evidence of quality control activities such as inspection records, material identification, nonconforming material identification and equipment calibration tags.
The inspector interviewed craft personnel and quality inspection personnel as available.
Special activities observed for Unit #1 were containment building liner plate erection, stud welding and repair of rejected studs on liner, rebar installation for exterior wall and interior slab.
The areas observed for Unit #2 were the containment basemat reinforcing steel installation and cadwelding.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Safety-Related Pipe Welding Activities (Unit 1)
The following listed activities were observed to determine compliance with ASME Section III and IX codes and regulatory requirements:
a.
Service Water 24" Weld Joint (2 SW1801-01) Field Weld #F0113, Class III.
Observed the fit-up and alignment.
Verified the weld identifi-cation, wald procedure and weldor qualifications, appearance of the tack weld, welding materials and quality control checks.
The inspector noticed that the tack welds were 2 - 3 inches long and there were twelve of them for this 24" weld joint. The piping contractors weld procedure (CL1-1-8R-2, Rev. 00) for this cement 1500 310
.
.
.
lined pipe weld joint states that the general welding standard (GWS-CS-CL) gives the size for tack welds, however the welding standard only states that tack welds shall be used at a minimum.
The ASME code only defines what a tack weld is but does not address size limitations.
It is considered to be good welding practice to limit or control the size of tack welds, in fact, the inspector noted that the piping contractor's GWS-CS-III, Revision 02 for carbon steel piping (ASME Section III) rquires that tacx weld shall be " to 1" long.
This item is unresolved pending review by NRC inspector of a procedural control for tack welds for cement lined pipe welds (443 & 444/79-06-01).
b.
During observation of welding activities for weld joint #F0113, the inspector noted that the QC inspector had signed the visual inspection operation on the field weld process sheet after the fit-up and tack weld had been completed.
The visual inspection was to be performed prior to fit up and tack weld and in accordance with Pullman Power Products Procedure X-9 requirements.
One of the requirements is to verify that the end prep has been prepared to the proper configuration per the applicable welding procedure.
This is physically impossible when the weld joint is tack welded.
The inspector also was informed that approximately twenty service water weld joints were also inspected the same way.
The inspector informed the licensee that this is an item of noncompliance and contrary to Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 (443/79-06-02).
4.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (443/79-05-03 and 444/79-05-03): Westinghouse Storage Guideline Procedure recommended that 4 inch diaphragm valves be stored with desiccant.
The inspector reviewed a letter written by Westirg-house on April 18, 1979 (Code NAH-730) which stated that desiccant was not required if the valve was in a plastic bag and stored in a heated building with the temperature above the dew point.
The valve is stored in accordance with these requirements. This item is resolved.
5.
Storage of Safety-Related Equipment (Units 1 & 2)
The inspector on two separate days went to the on-site warehouse (Nos. 1, 2 & 3) to review the condition of the reactor vessel internals after they were cleaned from the salt water exposure. (Reported in Inspection Report 443 & 444/79-05.) During these visits it was observed that there was no control over who can or cannot enter the warehouses at the various open doors.
Lists of personnel authorized access to level A, B, & C storage areas were available but enforcement was lacking.
The inspector informed the licensee that this was contrary to the requirements of UE&C Procedure QCP-13 (handling & storage control) and 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V (443/79-06-03 & 444/79-06-02).
1500 311
.
.
.
6.
Document Control (Units 1 & 2)
The inspector randomly selected several current drawings and specifications from the Master Distribution List to verify that UE&C and the subcontractors had the proper documents in their files.
The following are the specifications and drawings selected for this inspection:
Specifications (Piping)
248-3 Revision 8; 248-8 Revision 3;
& 248-51 Revision 5.
(Electrical) 48-2 Revision 2; 48-5 Revision 5;
& 248-8 Revision 2.
(Civil)
69-1 Revision 6; 12-2 Revision 0; 13-2 Revision 4; 13-3 Revision 4; 14-2 Revision 3; 15-2 Revision 2; 18-2 Revision 0; & 80-2 Revision 0 Drawings (Piping)
F-202252 Revision 0; F-202264 Revision 1; F-202312 Revision 7; F-202315 Revision 8; F-202501 Revision 3; & F-202502 Revision 6 (Electrical) F-310761 Revision 2; F-310762 Revision 2; F-310781 Revision 2; and F-310784 Revision 3.
(Civil)
F-103232 Revision 0; F-103401 Revision 4; F-104000 Revision 3; F-104074 Revision 0; F-101401 Revision 12; F-101402 Revision 12; F-101404 Revision 4; F-101405 Revision 8.
The following are the areas inspected to verify that the above applicable drawings and specifications were in the appropriate files:
UE&C (Construction Managers):
Inspected the files located in
--
the Administration Building.
No items of noncompliance were 1dentified.
--
Fischbach-Boulos-Manzi (Electrical Contractor):
Inspected the files located in their office.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Pullman Power Products (Piping Contractor):
Inspected the
--
files located in their office.
The inspector found one specification (248-8 Revision 2) in the file that was not current and was not stamped to indicate that it had been superseded.
1500 717
.
.
.
Perini Power Contractors (Civil Contractor):
Inspected various
--
files located in the office and out in the job locations.
In addition to the above list of drawings and specifications, the inspector randomly selected several of Perini's own drawings to check for document control.
The Perini drawings selected were as follows:
ICIF-3; ICIRB-1; ICIRBP-1; ICIRPS-1; ICM-RB-6; ICM-RBP-6.
The following are the results of this inspection:
Drawing F-104000 Revision 1 was in the engineering file
--
with the current drawing (Revision 3).
The revision 1 drawing was not stamped to indicate it had been superseded.
In a field file designated as File 7C, which is located
--
at the containment area the following condition was found:
Current Revision Dwg. No.
Sheet No.
Revision In File 7C 1-Cl-REP-1
1
38
0
1
42
0&2
2 0&2
1
48
0
1
Note:
Obsolete drawings had not been stamped to indicate they were superseded.
The inspector informed the licensee that the above conditions found in the two contractors (Perini & Pullman) files was contrary to UE&C Field General Construction Procedure #2, Revision 4 and Appendix B of 10CFR 50, Criterion V.
(443/79-06-04 & 444/79-06-03).
7.
Unit No. 1 Containment Structural Concrete Placement Reactor Basemat Record Review Pertinent work and quality records were reviewed of structural concrete placed in the reactor basemat observed during previous inspections.
Records were reviewed and personnel were interviewed relative to the Reactor Pit Walls placed July 11-12, 1978 and the Recirculation Sump Pit placed November 9, 1978.
The purpose of the review was to ascertain whether the records are in conformance with established precedures and they reflect work accomplished to criteria identified in the following:
1500 313
.
(Reactor Pit Walls Involved 1205 cu. yds. of 4,000 psi cone. rete and Recirculation Sump Pit 860 cu. yds.
These placements are identified as Lift #1-CPW-2 and Lift #1-CM-7A respectively.)
Seabrook Station PSAR, Chapter 17, and Suction 3.8 which
--
included referenced codes and standards Job Specification 9763-13-2, Revision 3, November 14, 1977,
--
Containment Concrete Work Job Specification 9763-006-5-1, Revision 3, October 10, 1977,
--
Civil Testing Facility and Services
--
Job Specification 9763-006-69-1, Revision 5, October 12, 1977, Concrete Batch Plant PPC Quality Control Procedures:
--
QAP 10.3, Cadwelding Inspection
-
QAP 10.4, Concrete Batching, Delivery
-
-
QAP 10.5, Concrete Pre placement and Post placement Inspection
-
QAP 2.0, Qualification and Certification of QA Personnel QAP 10.0, Qualification and Certification of Concrete
-
Production Facilities
-
QAP 10.1, Testing of Concrete Materials and Concrete
-
Special Procedure 41980, Placement of Concrete Reactor Pit Walls, Revision 3, July 11, 1978
--
PPC Civil Construction Procedures:
FCCP 1, Concrete Batch Plant Operation
-
FCCP 2, Form, Work and Handling, Placing, Curing,
-
Finishing and Repair of Concrete PTL Quality Control Procedure QC-FSTC-1, Field Sampling and
--
Testing of Concrete and, PQ-2 Qualifications for Inspection and Testing Personnel 1500 Tid
.
.
The following documents were reviewed and evaluated for criteria established in the above, for work accomplished consistent with NRC requirements and SAR commitments.
Perini documentation files identify the following information contained in the placement package for each lift number.
a.
Preplacement Preparation - concrete placing scheme, placement check out card, preplacement inspection report, designation of assigned QC inspectors, and signature of authorized inspector at designated hold points.
b.
Concrete Material Qualification records confirm that specification and inspection requirements were met, and audits of testing laboratory activities disclose no unresolved finding and/or discrepancy not having been corrected.
c.
Rebar Installation and Cadweld Inspection Reports - material certifications - installation verified for type, condition, size, location, spacing, clearance and ties; cadweld splicing by qualified operators and testing to qualify the process, inspection records; qualification of inspection personnel and audits of splicing activities.
d.
Batch Plant Operation plant certification, calibration, prebatching and batching inspection records, production records for placements #1-CPW-2 and 1-CM-7A and qualification of inspection personnel.
e.
Delivery and Placement - designated mix was delivered and placed, records of batches delivered, required tests at placement found acceptable, inspection records relative to placement and qualifications of inspection personnel.
f.
Curing - temperature records maintained, inspection after form removal n.d ir,spection records including signature of authorized inspector on post placement inspection report.
g.
Test Laboratory / Compressive Strength Cylinders - 4000 psi (28 day) concrete mix results for seven, twenty eight and 90 day breaks on 13 sets of cylinders for Lift #1-CPW-2 were reviewed and found to meet design requirements.
h.
Review of Deviation Reports - nonconforming reports initiated against these placements were reviewed and found complete, proper approvals are shown and corrective action as appro-priate were undertaken to remove nonconforming conditions.
1500 315
.
.
i.
Review of Surveillance and Audit Reports - UE&C surveillance reports of Perini concrete placement and testing, Report numbers 203, 205, 235, 237, 318, 319, 333 and 340, covering period May through December, 1977, and Perini audit reports number QAR-15, 16 and 17 for period December, 1977, January and February, 1978.
The acave records were found readily retrievable, legible and complete.
No ite.ts of nuarompliance were identified.
8.
Unit No. 2 Record Review of Fill Concrete Placements for the Reactor Basemat Worx and quality control records were reviewed and personnel interviewed relative to fill concrete placed for the reactor basemat to provide a leveling course and fill the irregularities in the excavated rock.
Records were reviewed of the reacter pit foundatica Lift Number CPW-1A and basemat Lift Number 2-CM-1B observed by the inspector on July 13 and November 7, 1978.
The inspector verified that required work and inspection activities are being accomplished to criteria identified in the following:
Seabrook Station PSAR Chapter 17 ard Section 3.8
--
Job Specification 69-10, Revision 0, October 12, 1977
--
UE&C Construction Procedure FCCP-2, Revision 2, September 13,
--
1977, Formwork and Handling, Placing, Curing and Repair of Concrete
--
Perini Quality Control Procedure QAP 10.4, Concrete Batching, Delivery and Placement Inspection
--
Perini Quality Control Procedure QAP 10.5, Concrete Pre and Post placement Inspection The following documents identified as placement packages number 2-CM-1B and CPW-1A of the concrete leveling fill and inspection records were readily retrievable and legible in the Perini quality assurance files.
a.
Preplacement Preparation b.
Concrete Material Qualifications and In Process Tests c.
Batch Plan'. Operation, Qualification end Calibration Reports d.
Delivery, Placement and Field Test Inspection heports e.
Curing
.
,_~-
,
-
.
f.
Test Laboratory / Compressive Strength Test Results g.
Nonconformance and Deviation Reports h.
Surveillance and Audit Reports No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Unit 1 Containment Linar Plate Stud Welding by PDM The inspector reviewed engineering specification requirements and interviewed QC personnel relative to quality control activities for stud welding performed by automatically timed stud welding equipment on the containment liner plate, a.
Welding Qualification and Certifications UE&C specification WS-48 on Stud Welding and Nondestructive Examination require conformance to ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 2, 1974, subsections CC-2620. Stud welding material, process qualification records and certifications were reviewed.
PDM quality documentation on " x 8k" bent studs of ASTM A-108, Grade 1015, lot # 15385 appear complete on material obtained from Tru-Fix Products Company.
Stud mechanical property test requirements per subsection CC-2624 are also certified by Tru-Fix Products Co. and were accepted by PDM as conforming to applicable sections of ASTM Section III, Division 2.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Quality Control Inspection Procedures PDM QC inspection procedures and records on inspection of studs automatic machine welded at the site to the containment liner were reviewed.
The inspector identified a lack cf criterion in PDM procedure SW-1.1, Stud Welding Concrete Anchors, dated April 24, 1975.
PDM QC records indicate visual inspection had rejected studs for lack of fusion around the periphery of the weld.
These were removed by grinding off the defective stud.
However, procedure SW-1.1 section 4.0, Inspection, appears deficient and lacks definitive criteria for this control.
Pending approval by UE&C Of draft revision to the procedure and review by NRC inspector, this is en unresolved item (50-443/79-06-05).
1500 317
-
,
-
.
11!
,
10.
Purchase Documents
,
As a result of a problem regarding quality verification documentation of materials procured from Modern Suppliers, the licensee conducted a review of all purchasing documents.
An inter-office memorandum dated May 23, 1979 documented the fact that Modern Suppliers was not utilized as a vendor for the Seabrook Station.
11.
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.
Two unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3 & 9.
12.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 25, 1979. The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
1500 318