IR 05000443/1980006
| ML19345C648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1980 |
| From: | Cerne A, Mcgaughy R, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345C640 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-80-06, 50-443-80-6, 50-444-80-06, 50-444-80-6, NUDOCS 8012080060 | |
| Download: ML19345C648 (15) | |
Text
.
.
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
OFFICF OF INSPECTICN AND ENFORCEMENT 50-443/80-06 Report No. 50-444/80-06 50-443 Docket No. 50-444 CPPR-135 License No.CPPR-136 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
Public Service Company of New Hamoshire 1000 Elm Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name:
Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
.
Inspection at:
Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection conducted: May 19-June 27, 1980 Inspectors:
//( h 3ffff4
'
,
q c r Inspector y aMte signed A.lly YW th/qZE,If80
..
A. A. Varela, ReactoEnspector date signed date signed Approved by:
llf)]/ /?(hAu bx M)WV Y.W.McGaughg, pef,ProjectsSection, g
L%te 'si'gned RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Unit 1 inspection on May 19-June 27,1980 (Report No. 50-443/80-06)
Areas Inspected: a utine inspection by the resident inspector of work activities
~
relative to containment concrete placement, pipe and pipe support welding, in-stallation of electrical embedded items and raceway supports, and safety-related component installation. The inspector also performed plant tours and reviewed licensee action on previously identified items.
The inspection involved 85 inspector hours, including 15 off-shift hours, by the NRC Resident Inspector.
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were identified in four areas; one item of noncompliance was identified in one area (Infraction -
Failure to provide appropriate criteria for the inspection of equipment grouting -
Paragraph 8).
Region I Form 12 (Rev.. April 77)
8012080
...
-_.
-
_. - - -
.
-
..
.
.
l
.
[
Unit 2 Inspection on May 19-June 27,1980 (Report No. 50-443/80-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection.by the resident inspector and a regional based inspector of work activities relative to the Unit 2 containment base mat concrete placement. The inspectors clso performed plant tours and reviewed licensee action
,
on previously identified items. The inspection involved 41 inspectcr hours,
'
including 17 off-shift hours, by two NRC inspectors.
]
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
l
,
i
!
l
,
,
)
..
.-
._.
, - _.,
--..c,-
-_
_
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Yankee Atomic Electric Company F. W. Bean, QA Engineer
- P. B. Bohan, Senior Engineer (PSNH)
D. A. Burbine, QA Engineer (Westborough)
- D. L. Covill, QA Engineer
- W. J. Gagnon, QA Enginee6-
- J. H. Herrin, Site Manager (PSNH)
D. A. Maidrand, Construction Engineer (Westborough)
- G. F. Mcdonald, QA Engineer (Westborough)
W. J. Miller, QA Manager (Westborough)
C. J. Moynihan, QA Engineer
- R. P. Pizzuti, Construction Manager (Westborough)
- J. W. Singleton, Field QA Manager United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C)
J. D. Anderson, Assistant QA Engineer R. L. Brown, Liaison Engineer M. A. Edgar, Resident Construction Engineer A. J. Hulshizer, Supervisory Structural Engineer (Philadelphia)
N. Kanti, Structural Engineer (Philadelphia)
G. W. Kelly, Piping Superintendent R. A. Kountz, Welding Superintendent R. A. Mills, Liaison Engineer
- R. J. Phelps, Field Superintendent of QA T. P. Vassallo, Civil QA Supervisor J. P. Zabielski. Concrete Superintendent Perini Power Constructors (PPC)
G. J. Bourdeau, QA Inspector P. E. Bruce, Supervising QA Engineer A. J. Coviello, Chief Cadweld Inspector J. P. McKeown, Batch Plant Supervisor, 2nd Shift G. E. Myers, Assistant Supervising QA Engineer D. H. Nilsen, Assistant Supervisory QA Engineer 0. R. Oates, QA Building Inspector D. G. Roberge, QA Building Inspector F. R. Salinder, Batch Plant Supervisor,1st Shift A. G. Schroeder, Lead Structural Inspector R. J. Vachon, QA Building Inspector
,
_.
-
.
.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL)
R. Bell, Inspector
.
H. Ruffner Site Manager M. Woods, Inspector Pullman-Higgins (Pullman)
R. G. Davis, Field QA Manager R. R. Donald, QC Supervisor J. Godleski, QA Records Engineer C. D. Lyon, QC Inspector M. MacCrae, QA NDE Engineer D. L. Walker, NDE Supervisor Royal Globe Insurance E. L. Gottschall, Authorized Nuclear Inspector C. O'Sullivan, Authorized Nuclear Inspector Westinghouse C. E. Walker, Liaison Engineer
- Denotes those present at the final exit interview on June 27, 1980.
- Denotes others in attendance at various exit interviews during the course of the inspection.
2.
Plant Tours (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector observed work activities in-progress, completed work and plant status in several areas of the plant during general inspections of the plant. The inspector examined work for any obvious defects or non-compliance with regulatory requirements or license conditions.
Particular note was taken of presence of quality control inspectors and quality con-trol evidence such as inspection recoros, material identification, noncon-forming material identification, housekeeping and equipment preservation.
The inspector interviewed craft personnel, supervision, and quality !.tipection personnel as such personnel were available in the work areas.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
i
,
,-
.
.
,
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Infraction (443and444/79-07-05) and Unresolved Item (443 and 444/79-07-06):
Failure to issue a deficiency report and lack of detailed information in the governing QA Procedure. The inspector reviewed Revision 3 (September 11,1979) to YAEC Field QA Group Procedure No. 3.
Specific requirements for deficiency reporting and controls over corrective action were noted. Also, changes had been made to procedurally prescribe the conduct of surveillances and the content of Surveillance Reports.
The use and disposition of both deficiencies and observations is described. The new procedure revision clarifies both the unresolved issue and the apparent cause of the noncompliance.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (443 and 444/79-08-05):
Lack of definitions of findings in QA Audit Procedure.
The inspector reviewed Revision 8 (February 8, 1980) to the YAEC QA Manual Procedure 9.1.
Two categories of audit findings, deficiencies and observations, are defined and the system for documentation, reporting, and control of the audit results is procedurally prescribed. This item is resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (443 and 444/78-15-01):
Use of colored duct tape and certification to the requirements of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.38.
The inspector reviewed a letter (February 11,1980) from UE&C to all site con-tractors prescribing a tape control program covering both procurement and use.
Some purchase orders were examined and noted to contain RG 1.38 certification.
During general. tours of the plant during the course of this inspection, the inspector noted the use of contrasting colored tape on several pieces of equipment, in line with the licensee comnitment to a nonconforming tape replacement program. This item is resolvo 4.
Unit 2 Containment Basemat Concrete Placement a.
Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspector observed work and inspection activities
.ed with the preparation and placement, including concrete mixing, transporting, delivery by pump line and boom crane, depositing, consolidating, finishing and curing, of the Unit 2 containment basemat. The placement identified as Pour Number 2CM-6B and containing approximately 5400 cubic yards of concrete, started at 7:00 pm May 19 and was completed by 12:00 noon May 22. The site resident NRC inspector and another regional based NRC inspector observed a major part of these activities.
The inspectors determined that work and inspection activities were accomplished in conformance to criteria identified in the following:
1 I
.
.
- _ -
.
..
.
.
.
Seabrook Station PSAR Chapter 17 and Section 3.8 and its referenced
--
codes and standards.
Job Specification 13-2, Containment Concrete Work.
--
Job Specification 5-1, Civil Testing Facility and Services.
l
--
Job Specification 69-1, Concrete Batch Plant
--
PPC Quality Control Procedures:
--
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 Pro-
--
duction Facilities Special Procedure FIP-7, Placing Concrete in Unit #2 Contain-
--
mentMatatElevation(-)30.0.
PPC Civil Construction Procedures:
--
FCCP 1, Concrete Batch Plant Operation.
--
FCCP 2. Formwork 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.
,
The inspectors observed both work performance and quality control activities and verified the scope and adequacy of the following licensee /
contractor actions:
Concrete Planning:
preparation and orientation / training of craft
--
personnel.
Verification of rebar adequately installed /cadweld splices
--
inspected and tested.
Formwork:
clean, withLrequired rebar clearance, and securely
--
braced.
,
. ~..,.
.
.
Preplacement Preparation and Inspection Report:
check-out card
--
signed off by craft supervisors; field engineer check-out and sig-nature; incomplete items on clean-up are closed; identification of specific items inspected; QC inspector sign-off and signature of authorized inspector; release of pour by area engineer and QC supervisor; approval by UE&C field engineer and resident engineer for the placement.
Batch Plant Operation:
accuracy of material and temperature con-
--
trol; record generation, print-out, control and verification of batch weights for specified mix and truck delivery tickets; QC inspector qualified; in-process tests of aggregate for gradation and moisture, and ;ompensation of added mix water to obtain specified slump within water / cement ratio.
Aggregate and Cement Storage:
cement observed on arrival by train
--
in bulk and pumped to storage, controlled in transit and storage; aggregate storage bins for each size prevent segregation.
Delivery and Placement:
proper mix specified, batched and trans-
--
ported to four designated pump and/or boom-crane locations; tested prior to discharge into pump for slump and air and in-process tested for record purpose at end of pump discharge by qualified inspection personnel.
Placing Crew and Equipment:
adequate craft personnel and equipment
--
.
as required by special procedure was coordinated by field engineers and craft supervision.
Placement Practice and Consolidation:
the advance of concrete
--
and attachment of successive lifts was accomplished while concrete was still pl_astic and coordinated to prevent segregation and rock pockets; limitation of horizontal movement, control of free fall through top layers of steel and consolidation with calibrated high speed vibrators was observed to prevent honeycomb voids.
Testing at Placement Lca tion:
qualified test personnel using
--
calibrated test equipmuit were observed to meet frequency require-ments, ASTM standards for sampling and testing concrete for tempera-ture, air, slump, unit weight and casting of cylinders on concrete discharged from pump lines.
Adequate finishing, curing and green cutting was observed.
--
,
l
.
.
No items of noncompliance were identified by the NRC inspectors: however, the following paragraphs note nonconforming conditions identified and corrective actions taken by the licensee.
b.
Basemat Concrete Nonconformance QC inspectors documented the.following nonconforming conditions in the placed concrete.
Nonconformance Reports (NCR) were written and sketches made to record the locations at the questionable areas.
(1) NCR #892 identifies a cold joint in a 3'x4' area where the previous adequately vibrated lift could not be penetrated by a 2" vibrator.
This area was roughened prior to placement of the next concrete lift.
(2) NCR #895 identifies an area where nine cubic yards of concrete with a low air content was placed.
Extra concrete cylinders were taken for compressive strength tests.
A third area of seven cubic yards of high slump concrete was noted, but not reported on an NCR since the waiver criteria of Engineering Change Authorization ECA01/0496C were met. These criteria included an evaluation of compressive strength tests and slump and volume tolerances.
Additionally, a retest of the slump at the pumpline discharge indicated conformance to procedural requirements.
The above NCR's have received engineering evaluation. While corrective action to preclude recurrence of cold joints was directed, no further rework on the nonconforming concrete was indicated. The noted con-ditions are minor and degrade neither the design strength of the structure nor the durability of the concrete.
c.
Corrective Action on Slump Testing ASTM C-143-74 requires a flat, moist, nonabsorbent riaid base be used under the slump cone--preferably a plane metal or glass surface. A wooden base is not satisfactory, since its surface rapidly becomes rough and eneven. The NRC inspector observed concrete test personnel using a treated, rigid wooden base which due to usage appeared question-able as to finish.
Resulting from the inspector's question on the possible effect of the wooden surface on slump values, the slump cone wooden bases were replaced by unmarred hard finish formboard with steel angle frame and back support. The licensee also made a commit-ment to procure slump boards more in line with the ASTM guidance.
The inspector. had no further questions on this item.
.
.
_
.
.
5.
Unit 1 Containment Wali Placement The inspector reviewed preplacement procedures, observed portions of the placement operatica. and examined inspection reports and documents relative to the first iment wall placement (1-CS-1A) for Unit 1.
This place-ment had bee ad with approximately one-third of the total concrete delivered tc ms when an unexpected rain with a forecast for con-tinued bad i vendered further concrete operation difficult.
Pro-cedural regt
, for concrete stoppage were followed, nonconfonning conditions v
.luated and dispositioned, engineering advice was followed on the treatnm... of the unplanned construction joints, and core samples were taken on each sloped joint to determine if adequate consolidation had been achieved for the worst case conditions of the terminated placement.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's handling of the placement stoppage, examined the core samples, discussed the engineering concerns with the UE&C Supervisory Structural Engineer, and witnessed the continustion of the placement operation on a later date.
No unresolved safety concerns resulted from the concrete stoppage or the additional joint preparation and testing activities.
During the inspector's review of preplacement documents, he selected several nonconformance reports (NCR) and Engineering Change Authorizations (ECA)
applicable to the pour to verify closure and disposition as indicated.
In the case of NCR 359. where minimum rebar spacing tolerance had not been met for certain bars, the referenced Bending of Embedded Reinforcing Steel Inspection Reports, indicating NCR closure action, did not address all originally noted nonconforming bars.
Further discussion indicated that these other bars had not been bent, but sprung into their design location.
This was later documented on the Installation of Reinforcing Steel Inspection Report and NCR 359 was amended to reference this report (R 388) in its closure action.
Perini Quality Assurance Procedure QAP 15.0, currently in
a revisien approval stage, was also amended to require direct correspondence between the actions taken to correct NCR items and each nonconforming case as listed, with such correspondence documented by inspection report and referenced on the affected NCR. The inspector had no further questions on this issue.
The inspector examined certain Bethlehem Steel Drawings (017-RW-10A, Revision 2 and 017-RMC-2, Revision 5) to verify field conformance and evaluated the overall concrete placing operation for m 1-CS-1A against criteria established in the following documents:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 2, 1975.
--
UE&C Specification 13-2.
--
Perini Field Civil Construction Procedure, FCCP-2, Revision 3.
'
--
Perini Field Implementation Procedure No. 10.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
-
.
.
.
6.
Safety-Related Piping (Unit 1)
a.
Welding The inspector observed welding of the following stainless steel pipe spools:
1-CBS-1226-02, Weld F0203
--
1-CBS-1226-03, Weld F0301
--
1-RC-58-01, Weld F106
--
1-CS-360-03, Weld F0302 (Repair #1)
--
Field Weld Process Sheets, Isometric Drawings, and Weld Rod Stores Requisitions were all checked to verify identification, documentation, and inspection of criteria procedurally required for quality welding.
The applicable Welding Procedure Specification (WPS-24-III-8-KI-12, Revision 2) was checked against its supporting Procedure Qualification Record (PQR 106) to confirm qualification in accordance with the essential variables of the ASME Boiler and Press.ure Vessel Code (B&PV),
Section IX. Actual welding conditions and conduct were spot-checked against the WPS variables. Weld Rod Insert Certification (Heats 94273, 782850, C4187T308, 3017R308) were verified to be in accordance with both ASME Section III and procedural requirements.
The inspector also noted the presence or availability of QC welding inspectors and checked their inspection verification of hold point items on the weld process sheets. The handling of certain conditions (e.g., arc strikes), not addressed by the process sheets, was dis-cussed with both welders and QA personnel.
Pullman Instruction for Welders (Document PH 001) and General Welding Standard (GWS-III, Revision 2) were reviewed by the insoector for additional criteria used during weld inspections.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Nondestructive Examination (NDE)
The inspector witnessed the radiographic ex$mination of the following field repair welds:
1-CBS-1208-01, Weld F0104
--
1-CBS-1208-02, Weld F0202
--
Pullman Radiographic Procedure IX-RT-1-W77. Revision 3, was reviewed; evaluated with regard to ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sections III and V (Wintec 1977 Addenda); and utilized to determine the conformance of the witnessed RT to approved procedures.
The inspector later checked the developed film for density requirements and viewed the film, noting the Pullman technician's i.iterpretation of relevant indications.
He verified the Level II certification of the technician and reviewed the Radiographic Inspection Reports for required and correct dat.
.
The inspector also witnessed a portion of the liquid penetrant examination (PT) of an excavation for the repair of 1-CBS-1226-03, Weld F0301. He checked the technician's Level III certification, reviewed the field weld process sheet for the appropriate hold point, and discussed PT requirements with the Pullman technician.
With regard to both the observed RT and PT, no items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Pfpe Supports
'
The inspector checked the in-place welded condition of the following pipe supports and compared them with their Pullman detail drawings:
1204-SG-5A
--
1208-RG-07
--
4835-RG-3
--
He also observed the in-process installation and welding of the contain-ment spray pipe supports (e.g., 1226-SG-2401) to the dome liner and exami.ned the field weld process sheet and current hanger drawings. The WPS (IT8-III-1-BR-2, Revision 4) was spot-checked against the welding configurations, sizes, and thicknesses being used and verified to be qualified by adequate PQR's.
No items of noncompliance were identified; however, one item remains unresolved, as discussed below.
One of the field welds which was typically a part of the above supports was detailed as a h" fillet weld.
But the angular relationship between
-
the support plate and the liner represents an acute angle which would be considered a partial penetration weld by AWS Standard D1.1.
Addi-tionally, the corresponding obtuse angle on the other side of the same weld effectively reduced the detailed fillet throat size.
Since these supports are detailed and erected to ASME B&PV Section III, Subsection NF requirements which do not address the angular relationships of skewed fillet welds, the inspector questioned what criteria would be applied to such welds at Seabrook.
'
l Discussion with licensee engineers and a review of the applicable WPS (
revealed that the weld technique in use was qualified for groove welds.
A UE&C engineering recheck of the reduced throat size determined the
l weld size to be sufficient as per detail. A Pullman Request for Infor-
!
mation was initiated on June 23, 1980 to obtain enginesring interpre-
!
tation as to what criteria to apply to such welds on a job generic basis, in light of the-lack of ASME III NF guidance.
.
Pending clarification of this question by engineering and review by the NRC, this item is unresolved (443/80-06-01).
I t
,.
.
7.
Safety-Related Structures (Units 1 and 2)
a.
The inspector noted the use of nickel coated reinforcing bars in tower concrete walls. A review of the certainpartsofcooling(006-14-5)
governing specification and purchase order revealed that
.-
specific quality requirements had been dictated to the vendor (0 wen Steel Company) regarding the electroplated nickel bond surface and testing. The inspector verified that on site document packages included test and inspection reports confirming these quality require-ments and +
UE&C had conducted a Vendor Surveillance at Owen Steel Company.
No items of noncompliance were identified; however, one item remains unresolved as discussed below.
While the Seabrook Station PSAR in Sections 3.1 and 3.8 commits to tensile testing of rebar in accordance with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.15, Specification 006-14-5 only requires tensile testing to the less s'.cingent test frequency requirements of ASTM A615. Also, the general rebar specification (006-14-1) refers to RG 1.15 requirements only if specifically requested. The ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division 2 requires tensile testing of rebar similar to that of RG 1.15 for the containment strue ure.
Despite these code requirements and RG comitments, a licensee review of rebar tensile test packages on site leaves it unclear as to what tensile test frequency is being provided.
Pending determination of whether RG 1.15 requirements are being met with regard to both the normal and special nickel coated rebar, this item is unresolved (443/80-06-02 and 444/80-06-01).
b.
The inspector observed the welding of nonsafety-related construction aids (e.g., clip angles, brackets) to several safety-related plates embedded in Unit 1 internal concrete walls. While controls are in evidence on all weld rod material for both safety and nonsafety welds and UE&C Specification WS-3 (Revision 1) indicates specific require-ments for the welding, removal and NDE of temporary attachments, the inspector could identify no procedural quality controls or inspection requirements for permanent nonsafety welds to safety-related embeds.
While the quality of such welds is not a safety concern, their potential impact upon the embed material and its ability to perform its structural support function is questioned.
- Pending the licensee's determination as to how to treat such permanent nonsafety welds and the bolementation of procedural controls, as required, this item is unresolved (443/80-06-03 and 444/80-06-02).
.
.
-
.c.
The inspector observed stud weld activities for various embed plates and pipe sleeves within the Unit 1 containment internal walls. The Pullman Stud Welding Inspection Checklists were examined and the governing specification (AWS-SW-1) was reviewed for the welding requirements of both the stud welding process and the SMAW process. Where SMAW was being accomplished, the WPS IT8-III-1-BR-2 was reviewed for essential variable criteria and the electrode type, size, and field storage were checked.
On one completed sleeve (193) where Pullman QC inspection was docu-mented (JCS10A), the inspector noted a slight lack of flash around the full 3600 stud fusion area.
Disucssion with QA personnel indicated no bend test had been conducted.
The inspector inquired as to the acceptability, to AWS D1.1 criteria, of such a condition with no bend test. A Pullman Corrective Action Report (No. 8) was initiated on June 17, 1980 and the inspector verified documentation of the following corrective action:
bend test of questionable stud with satisfactory results
--
reinspection of 25 previously accepted staas
--
re-training of inspectors as to stud weld inspection requirements
--
The inspector had no further questions on this issue.
No items of
.
noncompliance were identified.
d.
The inspectar witnessed structural steel welding for repair of a Unit 1 Primary Auxiliary Building girder (Mark 12A835) in accordance with Perini NCR 906 and WPS 156.1F, Revision 2 (AWS prequalified). He also reviewed and discussed with QA personnel the preparation for a major concrete repair (1-CI-19C-R1) of a Unit 1 interior wall.
Perini FCCP's 2, 115. and 117 and QAP 10.10 were checked and evaluated for conformance of th.e repair operation.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Safety Related Component Installation (Unit 1)
a.
The inspector observed the' installation of the two centrifugal charging pumps (1-CS-P-2A and 2B), part of the high head safety injection system, on their anchor bolts and pads in the Unit 1 Primary Auxiliary Building.
In accordance with Pullman Procedure IX-39 and in line with ANSI N45.2.2 guidance, their rigging and handling was categorized as a special lift.
The inspector reviewed the " Instruction / Checklist Package for Handling and Installation" and noted both QC inspection and QA surveillance of this activit _
_.
..
.
.
.
In-place storage conditions were effected with the covering of each pump with welding blankets and the erection of temporary woocien shelters. No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
The inspector observed certain equipment in the Unit 1 Equipment Vault area where forms had been erected for equipment slab concrete placement.
He noted thelanchor bolt sleeves had been filled with grout, but also noted one sleeve for pump 1-CBS-P-98 with a grout fill 4" low and one sleeve for Heat Exchanger 1-RH-E-9B with a 2" low fill.
He determined that these items had received QA inspection with acceptable sign-off.
Examination of Perini preplacement, placement, and post placement reports for the grouting of anchor bolt sleeves on pump 1-CBS-P-9B indicated the use of routine concrete inspection criteria,
.
despite the fact that a non-shrink grout was placed.
While many of these criteria were applicable to the group placement, certain quality aspects discussed in the grout manufacturer's information (e.g., foundation saturation, mix type, and method of consolidation) were not addressed by the documented inspection reports.
Upon inquiry, the inspector was informed that no work or inspection procedures specifically addressing the grouting of equipment and base plates existed within the Perini program.
Th' inspector indicated to the licensee that this lack of inspection e
procedures with appropriate acceptance criteria for grouting activities, coupled with evidence of deficient conditions on the anchor bolt grouting of two pieces of previously inspected equipment represented an infraction
-
with regard to Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Perini NCR 938 was written immediately, later revised, and dispositioned on July 2, 1980 to correct the deficient grouted anchor bolt conditions.
Inspections were also conducted of all grouted or partially grouted equipment to insure the acceptability of the grout conditions on in-place components. Perini Interim Procedure Changes, IPC 4 to FCCP 2, IPC 2 to QAP 10.4, and IPC 12 to QAP 10.5, were issued to establish work and inspection procedures for the grouting of equipment, anchor bolts, and base plates.
The inspector reviewed these corrective actions and their attendant documentation and verified the existence of current inspection require-ments with acceptance criteria appropriate to the quality aspects of equipment grouting.
He determined that full compliance with Appendix B in this regard was achieved on July 2, 1980 and he has no further questions on this issue.
l
.
.
.
.
9.
Electrical Embeds and Supports (Unit 1)
The inspector examined completed work or work in process in the following areas, reviewed governing engineering requirements, and discussed these with licensee QA personnel, a.
Bending, removal, and/or replacement of embedded power strut insert studs are currently addressed by UE&C ECA 03/0777A effective June 17.
1980.
Prior work was governed by ECA 03/0318b and Specification MPS-3, Revision 2.
The inspector identified no items of noncompliance.
b.
Coriduit bends were noted on some 3" conduit located for embedment in a Unit 1 containment internal wall being prepared for concrete place-ment. UE&C ECA 03/0559E authorized the bends within tolerance con-straints; Fischbach Construction Procedure FECP-501 (Revision 2) governed this embedded conduit installation; and UE&C Drawing M-300228 (Revision 11), Sheet 3C, dictated the minimum center-line bending radius to be followed. The inspector determined that bending was accomplished with the proper shoe and identified no items of noncompliance.
'
c.
Certain welds for power strut supports for cable tray were detailed on engineering drawings and installed at several locations as intermittent fillet welds 1" in length. The inspector questioned this detail in light of AWS D1.1 requirements for a minimum lh" length for intermittent fillet welds. UE&C ECA 03/0798A had been written to change the engineering details to agree with AWS Code requirements and UE&C Memo MM-5592A docu-ments the acceptability, upon engineering strength evaluation, of all existing welds installed to the old criteria. The inspector had no further questions and identified no items of noncompliance.
10. 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 Jeviations. Unresolted items disclosed during the inspection are dis-cussed in Paragraphs 6c, 7a, and 7b.
11.
Exii. Interview At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection and at its con-
'
clusion on June 27, 1980, meetings were held with licensee and contractor oersonnel (denoted by asterisks in Paragraph 1). The inspector discussed the scope and summarized the findings of inspection activities.
.
-
. -