IR 05000443/1979009
| ML19309B723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1980 |
| From: | Ebneter S, Sanders W, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309B715 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-79-09, 50-443-79-9, 50-444-79-09, 50-444-79-9, NUDOCS 8004070111 | |
| Download: ML19309B723 (8) | |
Text
-
.
___ ____ _ ________.
,
'
.
..
f3 A~'~
U.S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE 0F INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT-50-443/79-09 Region I 50-444/79-09
,
Report No.
,
DU-44J Docket'No. 50-444 t,rrx-i a:>
A License No.1CPPR-136 Priority Category,
'--
Licensee:
Public Service Company of New Hampshire-1000 Elm Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name:
Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:
Seabrook, New Hampshire Nove 13-16, 1979 Inspection conducted:
(Tn \\ -
Inspectors:
i,,/ /. / M,1 N 12-?.6~7$
A.'A. Varela,' Reactor Inspector date signdd
!,v' Y E nc/
/1.
2 1 - 79 W. F. Sanders, Reactor Inspector date. signed
,
date signed Q-/> / zw_ji f
.
//
f:7/)
.
T Approved by:.
/ '/-
v S. D. Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Branch date signed Section No. 2, RC&ES Branch-Inspection Summary:
Inspection on November 13-16, 1979 (Report No. 50-443/79-09) Unit 1 Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional based
-_ inspectors of construction activities.
The inspection ~ involved work activities, record review, welding and nondestructive tests on primary containment, " review of nonconformance and disposition reports in concrete 3;
and rebar for safety 'related structures, and observation of concrete curing
~
practice for safety related structures.
A construction site tour inspection was performed.
The inspection involved (40) inspection-hours by (2)
regional based inspectors.
,
Results: Of the four areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in one area (Infraction - Failure to prescribe corrective actions by Perini and UE & C to preclude placement of concrete until all reinforcing steel' identified in design and ' detail drawing has been installed, Paragraph 3.)
Region I Form 12-(Rev. April 77)
g g 04 0 70B[
-
..-
~
. - -
..
-
-.
- -. _
.
.
.
- _ -.
. _
_ - -.
.-_ __ _._-
J'
'
.
.
e
.
.
-
Inspection Sunnary:-
Inspection on November 13-16, 1979 (Report No. 50-444/79-09) Unit 2 Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by one regional based -
inspector of construction activities.
The inspection involved work activities for the containment base mat.
A construction site tour
- inspection was performed.
The inspection involved 4 inspection-hours by
- one. regional based inspector.
Results: ' No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
e
--%
. - -
~
w
-
._,,
- -,
, - - - + - -. - - -, -.,,, - -. +.. - - - -
,,,-3w-.-
-r,
-
v
-
_ _---__ __- _ --.
.
.
,.
., -
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted-Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC)
D. Covill, QA Engineer
,
- J. H. Herrin,-Site Manager
- G. F. Mcdonald, Senior QA Engineer.(Westboro)
- J. W. Singleton, Field QA Manager W. Gagnon, QA Engineer G. Hubbard, Records Supervisor United Engineers & Contractors (UE&C)
A. L. Bryce, Field Engineer R. A. Hersom, Field Staff Assistant
- R. J. Phelps, Field Superintendent QA/QC T. Vassallo, QA Engineer
' J. B. Zabielski, Concrete Superintendent R. Brown, Mechanical Liason Engineer G. Kelley, Piping Supervisor Perini Power Contractors (PPC)
P. Antonich, Assistant Superintendent of QA P. Bruce, Superintendent of QA S. Bertilano, Quality Control Engineer J. Cola, Quality Control Engineer R. Vachon, Quality Control Engineer J. Vandenbosch, Quality Control Engineer C. Walters, Quality Control Engineer Pullman Higgin Power' Piping Company H. Sinclair, Chief Engineer
- Denotes those present at exit interview,
/
,
-.
- -. - -,
,
,
,
..
. - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
,
+
2.
Construction Site Tours 1(Units 1 and 2)
_The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work and construction status in several areas of the construction site.
~ Work items were examined for any obvious defects or noncompliance with. regulatory requirements 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 i.
1 equipment calibration tags.
The inspector interviewed craft personnel and quality inspection personnel as available.
Special-activities observed for-Unit 1 were containment building exterior and interior walls, rebar installation and cadwelding, and concrete curing of other safety related buildings and structures. Unit 2 contaimnent building base mat activities in rebar installation and cadwelding were observed.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Recurrence of Similar Nonconformances Necessitates Corrective' Action - Unit 1 During the inspector's review of Perini documentation regarding nonconformances in concrete for Unit 1 which occured since his last inspection he observed that two different NCRs related to omission of rebar in the same wall partially completed to elevation 23' 0" for the RHR and containment spray equipnent vault.
He observed in NCR #408 that 120 #8 bars were not installed in the wall between C and D lines for connection to an intersecting floor slab at elevation
~19'
8",-and in NCR #436 that 76 #8 bars for the continuation of the wall above elevation 23' - 0" were unitted.
These conditions were discovered after the wall was placed to elevation 23' - 0",
and af ter all prerequisites regarding completeness of reinforcing steel had been signad-off for the concrete placement by Perini and UE&C.
The inspector observed in both NCRs that engineering disposition for installation of the omitted rebar consists in drilling holes in
the design locations.and grouting in accordance with a UE&C repair i
procedure.
This disposition of the NRCs has approval of project engineering, the construction manager and'is accepted by the nonconformance review board. The inspector's review of these nonconforming conditions,
,
.
and in interviews with UE&C engineering personnel, he ~1 earned that l
other NCR's nsnber 355 and 471 had been written against concrete placements where reinforcing-bars had been omitted from intersecting walls and/or slabs as required by the UE&C design drawings and Bethlehem detail drawings.
The inspector further learned that measures
!
!
.
-
.
_
.
.
. _ _ _
.
.
.
_
. yg
- b
-
.
,
E'
_
e had not been instituted as required by Perini procedures QAP 15 and '16 and.
~
- UE&C procedure lQA-16-1 to assure corrective action to preclude repetition-
,
- of concrete placements _ which have -reinforcing bar_ deficiencies.
Conse-quently.the inspector cited the licensee for noncompliance-with his com-
~
mitment to 10 CFR 50- Appendix B, Criterion.XVI, Corrective Action, (443/79-
- 09-01).
.
. Resulting from the above citation UE&C's QA Superintendent-issued on
'
.Novembe~r 15 1979 Corrective Action Request #023 to Perini. _ The CAR ireconnends these corrective actions:
,
"It appears quite evident that present pre-placement inspections of rebar are inadequate and/or insufficient.
All required, applicable l drawings have not been used during pre-pl_acement_ inspections.
REC 0 MEND CORRECTIVE' ACTION
'a..
Instruct all'.Perini field engineers and. QA inspectors, respon-
.
- .
sible for pre-placement inspection of rebar, to use UE&C design drawings and Bethlehem detail drawings for the particular place-
'
ment area including all intersecting walls and/or slab drawings.
b.
Revise applicable Perini QA procedures to specifically require QA-
'
inspectors to use and document the UE&C design drawings and
Bethlehem detail drawings including intersecting walls and/or slab drawings.
c.
Immediately conduct a formal, documented, training session for all Perini field engineers and QA inspectors responsible-for pre-
- lacement inspection of rebar.
Emphasize to those in attendance p
' '
that all pre-placement inspections of rebar must be performed and documented, using UE&C design drawings and Bethlehem detail
,
drawings' including all intersecting walls and/or slab drawings.
i d.-
' Instruct all Perini field engineers and QA inspectors not to
,
sign-off the Concrete Pre-placement Check-out card unless all
{
required drawings,.both UE&C des.ign -drawings and Bethlehem detail
+
drawings, are available on site and used during pre-placement l
inspections of reinforcing bars.
.
i
}1 l
,
.
.
.
-
'
.
.
e.
Inform all Perini Area Superintendents, that concrete placements will not be made unless all required drawings, both UE&C design drawings and Bethlehem detail drawings, are available-on site and used during pre-placement inspections of reinforcing bars."
In addition UE&C's resident engineer issued instructions to remind all UE&C field engineers as follows:
l' Proper inspection of all pour areas must include a routine and'
detailed review of.all UE&C design drawings (str., mech..elec.
nuclear) as well as all applicable vendor drawings. All drawings must be used in conjunction with each other. rather than separately.
Furthermore, all drawings applicable to the adjacent or adjoining structures (walls, slabs, etc.) shall be reviewed for their impact on the subject placement prior to sign-off."
~4.
Cadwelding Work Observation Units 1 and 2 Inspections were performed of Perini work and QC activities in cadwelding reinforcing bars for the Unit 1 exterior wall and for Unit 2 base mat.
The inspector evaluated these activities for conformance to criteria identified in the following:
Seabrook Station PSAR Section 3.8 and its referenced Standards and
-
Chapter 17 P.P.C. Quality Control Procedure 10.2, Reinforcing Steel Placement
-
Inspection P.P.C. Quality Control Procedure 103, Cadwelding Inspection
-
UE&C Civil Construction Procedure FCCP-7, Mechanical Splicing of
-
Reinforcing Bars ERICO Publication RB-10M-974
-
Horizontal #18 rebar outside hoop splices on Unit 1 exterior wall, numbers 10,12 and 18 at northwest quadrant map #89 were observed in process of fabrication. Horizontal top of mat #14 rebar splices for-Unit 2 radial bars in the 90 through 130 series at southern quadrant were also observed in process of fabrication by three cadwelders.
QC inspectors were noted present at both sites to provide verification of preparatory operations in sleeve /rebar assembly and inspection /
w
---+
+-
-
-,.,wm
~
'
.
.
~
documentation of completed splices. At' each site the NRC inspector ran-domly selected three splices completed by each.cadwelder.for post fire inspection and measurements of slag at tap hole, sleeve centering and end voids.
'
No items of noncompliance were identified.
"
5.
Observation of Concrete Curing Under Cold Weather Conditions The inspector observed.various Unit No. I safety related structures during concrete curing and verified that enclosures, heating units, temperature control and moisture application conformed to criteria identified in the following:
Seabrook Station PSAR, Chapter 17, and Section 3.2 and its referenced
--
codes and standards UE&C Job Specification 13-3, Category I Concrete Work Other than
--
Containment PPC QAP 10.5, Concrete Preplacement and Postplacement Inspection
--
PPC FCCP-2, Handling, Placing,' Curing and Repair of Concrete
--
-The following Unit 1 concrete placements, and QC verification of concrete, air and arrbient temperatures 'as well as curing were observed:
Cooling tower base compartment beams, waste process building's. grout repaired wall, pipe tunnel north wall and primary auxiliary building's west wall beam seats.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Radiography Inspection Unit 1 An inspection was made to determine compliance with the referencing code, ASME Section III, Division II, Class CC-1975 and the contractor procedure PDM CRT #8 for the welding of the liner plates and penetration inserts.
The inspector noted that the above code requires a Radiographic examination of the first 10 feet of weld and one spot (not less than 12" in length) in each additional 50 feet of weld with a minimum of 2% of all butt welds radiographed.
The inspector examined selected radiographs which represent the welding and radiographic quality over a period of time, therefore the random selection of radiographs was made from horizontal and vertical welds in cylindrical courses at various elevations. The film was reviewed using a high intensity viewer for the required densities, film selection, pene-trameter placement (source side), geometric unsharpness, weld location, and film identification of pertinent information.
I
!
.
,
-. -,
.
-- -
-.-
.
-
.
.
.
(The-inspector reviewed selected radiographs listed below and found that the weld quality was acceptable as judged against the quality of the film and the visability of the essential 4T hole in the required penetrameter No.
15.
3rd Ring Vertical Welds (6)
-
3rd -Ring - Horizontal Welds (2)'
.
4th Ring - -Vertical Welds (8)
~~
4th Ring - Horizontal Welds (8)
5th Ring.- Vertical Welds -(7)-
~
5th Ring - Horizontal Welds-(4)
ti)
,,
6th Ring - Horizontal Welds (8)
7th Ring - Horizontal Welds ~(6)
7th Ring Vertical Welds (3)
r No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Exit' Interview The inspectors met with licensee and construction manager representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on November 16, 1979.
Attendees at-this~ meeting included personnel whose names are identified by notation (*)
in Paragraph-l. The inspector summarized the results of the inspection as described in this report.
-
$-
L
,
,,------n,
-.,,
--.
-s
,
n
-
.r-
, -
--
,