IR 05000443/1980010
| ML19341B778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1980 |
| From: | Cerne A, Mattia C, Mattia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341B761 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-80-10, 50-444-80-10, NUDOCS 8102270488 | |
| Download: ML19341B778 (10) | |
Text
..
.
.
.
.
(')
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT v
Region I 50-443/80-10 Report No.
50-444/80-10 50-443 Docket No.
50-444 LFFM-13b License No.
CPPR-136 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
public service enmnany nf Ngw Hamnchire 1000 Elm Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name:
Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection at:
Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection conducted: S tember 8 - October 10, 1980 Inspector :
.
/d O b A. C. Cerne, Resident Inspector date signed date signed date signed Approved by:
b.
80 s
v. L. Mattia, Acting Lnief, Projects cate signed Section, RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Unit 1 Inspection on September 8-October 10, 1980 (Report No. 50-443/80-10)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspector of work activities relative to pipe and pipe support erection and welding, structural steel erection and welding, and purchased material status and records.
The inspector also performed plant tours and reviewed licensee action on previously identified items.
The inspection involved 57 inspector-hours, including five off-shift hours by the NRC Resident Inspector.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified in es. '
'
of the two following areas:
(Infraction - failure to install pipe support welds i'
accordance with drawings - paragraph 4c; Infraction - failure to assure that purchawe.
structural steel conforms to the code requirements specified in the procurement documents -i paragraph 3).
Unit 2 Inspection on September 8-October 10, 1980 (Report No. 444/80-10)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspector of work activities relative to containment' liner erection and general pl'nt inspection - tours. The inspection a
involved five inspector hours by the NRC Resident Inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
81022r o gg
-
-.
'
.
<
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Yankee Atomic Electric Corgany, F. W. Bean, QA Engineer B. B. Beckley, Manager of Nuclear Projects (PSNH-Manchester)
P. B. Bohan, Senior Engineer (PSNH)
D. L. Covill, QA Engineer W. J. Gagnon, QA Engineer J. H. Herrin, Site Manager (PSNH)
G. F. Mcdonald, QA Engineer (Westborough)
W. J. Miller, QA Manager (Westborough)
C. J. Moynihan, QA Engineer R. P. Pizzuti, Ccnstruction Manager (Westborough)
H. E. Wingate Project Engineer (Westborough)
-
United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C)
R. H. Beaumont, QA Engineer M. A. Edgar, Resident Construction Engineer G. W. Kelly, Piping Superintendent T. K. Kephart, Field Engineer D. G. McClellan, Field Engineer R. J. Phelps, Field Superintendent of QA L. R. Wade, Assistant Field Superintendent of QA
.
T. P. Vassallo, Civil QA Supervisor
'
Perini Power Constructors (PPC)
G. E. Myers, Technical Advisor 0. R. Oates, QA Building Inspector J. Patterson, QA Engineer C. T. Reynolds, QA Inspector G. T. St. Hilaire, Assistant Site QA Manager Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Co. (PDM)
W. A. Stiger, QA Manager Pullman-Higgins (Pullman)
R. G. Davis, Field QA Manager R. R. Donald, QC Supervisor D. Geske, NDE Supervisor J. Godleski, QA. Records Engineer
-
.
_
cm
-
e ~~
-
.
---
.e
_
_
__ _
_ ~
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _
_
__ _ _ _.
. _
_ _
_ _
. _ _ - _ _ - -
.
.
.
.
Pullman-Higgins (Pullman)(Continued)
'
J. E. Godfrey, QA Welding Specialist J. R. Townsend, Fasident Manager B. Willard, Field QA Supervisor 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 inspection 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 records, material identification, non-conforming material identification, housekeeping and equipment preserva-tion.
The inspector interviewed craft personnel, supervision, and quality inspection personnel as such personnel were available in the work areas.
Specifically the inspector observed portions of the concrete operations for Unit I containment wall placement 1-C5-1C.
The cleanliness of the
.
construction joint and forms was checked, initial grouting operations were
'
witnessed, and the availability and activities of QC inspection personnel were verified.
The inspector discussed with construction personnel the handling of the new concrete joint interface with the penetration assem-blies to permit and assure full embedment on future lift placements.
On the day following the placement, concrete curing activities were observed by the inspector.
The inspector also witnessed and discussed with responsible QC personnel cadweld firing. and inspection and rebar bending and inspection accountabi-l lity in other areas of the Unit 1 containment structure.
The installed condition of several embed plates within the Unit 1 Primary Auxiliary Building (PAB) Equipment Vault was checked against the applicable
UE&C drawings:
F104109, Revision 2
--
F104080, Revision 8
--
F101698, Revision 5
--
l One AP123 x 0' 9" plate (12" wide) was found to be improperly oriented by
90.
Discussion with engineering and QA personnel revealed some confusion
>
with regard to the drawings where the embed plate specified lengths were shorter than the designated widths, but further investigation by the licensee revealed this installation error to be an isolated case.
Perini
' Nonconformance Report NCR 1082 was written and dispositioned to include future corrective action on embed positioning checks prior to concrete placement.
UE&C Design Change Notice 01/1917A was also written to docu-
- ment the as-built installation, so that re-design of the component to be
!
.
-- *
m
=ree w
-- P-mae
-
+-,
p
- -
vr w
r
-
w-'
, -
g
-
.
attached to the subject embed could be effected, if necessary.
The inspec-tor has no further questions on this specific issue.
With regard to all above inspection items, no items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved item (443/79-10-01):
Interruption of clip angle welds.
The inspector reviewed the following documents to determine that further inspections were conducted, other cases of this nonconforming condition were identified, and corrective action in the form of repair was specified.
Future fabrication details were also modified.
Perini NCRs 575, 654, and 708.
--
UE&C Engineering Change Authorizations ECAs 01/1367A and 01/1287B.
--
The inspector also noted repair welding activities in the field have com-menced and are ongoing.
This item is resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved item (443/80-09-03):
Long term, in place storage criteria.
The inspector reviewed UE&C letters to the licensee dated September 5 and October 9,1980 and noted that engineering analysis has
considered corrosion allowances on the carbon steel heat exchanger surfaces.
Estimates of corrosion potential without an inert atmosphere are indicated to be within allowance and without adverse impact upon the heat exchangers.
Additionally, commitment is made to procedural changes in the preventive maintenance program for all safety-related components which require noti-fication to and review by UE&C engineering when deviations to vendor stor-age specifications are invoked during construction activities or after installation.
The inspector evaluated this intended storage program in line with the quality considerations of ANSI N45.2.2 and has no further questions at this time.
(0 pen) Unresolved item (443/80-09-02):
Loose structural steel connection.
-
One part of this unresolved item required further investigation into the prevalence of flame cut slots for bolted connections in structural steel.
Tha licensee has discovered additional flame cut holes and has determined that these were supplied in that condition by Lyons Iron Works, a former structural steel supplier to Seabrook that is no longer in business.
Tla inspector reviewed UF&C QC Vendor Surveillance Reports on Lyons' activi-ties from October,1977 to Dacember,1978 and found the general coverage of inspection items to be adequate, but could not determine any documenta-tion of specific surveillance points on the method of fabricating bolt holes or slots.
l
.
__
-
--
.
.
.
.
Since the purchase specification for this structural steel (UE&C Specifica-tian 006-12-1) requires fabrication in accordance with the AISC Manua' of Steel Construction, which itself does not endorse flame cutting as an acceptable final method for bolt hold fabrication, the inspector questions how such material could pass vendor surveillance, receiving inspection, contractor acceptance, erection, and QC inspection without identification of this nonconforming and potentially unacceptable condition.
The inspector informed the licensee that he considered this lack of iden-tification and evaluation of the purchased structural steel deviation from the procurement specification to be a noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appen ~
dix B, Criterion VII.
This is an infraction (443/80-10-01).
The unresolved item (80-09-92) is still considered ooen. The two (reduction of QA requirements and reinspection of bolted connections) remaining items will be reviewed by the NRC inspe. tor at a subsequent inspection.
.
4.
Safety-Related Piping (Unit 1)
a.
Welding The inspector observed welding of the following pipe spools:
1-RH-157-01, Weld F0103
--
1-RH-160-01, Weld F0101
--
--
1-CBS-1201-05, Weld F0503 1-CBS-1213-02, Weld F0202
--
1-CBS-1214-06, Weld F0602
---
1-SW-1810-02, Weld F0209
--
Field Weld Process Sheets, Isometric Drawings, and Weld Rod Stores Requisitions were checked to verify identification, documentation, and inspection of criteria procedurally required for quality welding.
Actual welding conditions and conduct, the sequence of operations, interpass temperature controls, and the use and documentation of purge dams were all spot-checked.
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 inspector also checked the fitup and prewelding inspection on certain cement lined, carbon steel, service water (SW) welds (1-SW-1810-02, F0407 and F0501).
The applicable Welding Procedure Specificai. ion (WPS CL1-1-BR-2) for these SW welds was checked against its Procedure Qualification Record (PQR 013A) to confirm qualification
-
in accordance with the essential variables of the ASME Soiler and Pressure Vessel-(B&PV) Code,Section I.
.
.
.
All above items were evaluated with regard to the requirements established in the following documents:
ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Subsections NC and ND
--
(1977WinterAddenda).
UE&C Specification 006-248-51, Revision 6.
--
Pullman General Welding Standards GWS-III, Revision 2 and
--
GWS-CS-CL, Revision 2.
No items of noncompliance were identified; however, one item remains unresolved as discussed below.
'
The inspector witnessed the welding of valve 1-RH-V022 to a piping spool piece (Dravo E2936-158) and discussed with the welder the means by which an argon purge was being maintained on the weld back-ing atmosphere.
It was learned that the closure of the valve was being utilized as a means of providing a purge dam on one side and, through later conversation with QA personnel, that this practice was Common.
However, the inspector also noted that the governing UE&C Specifica-tion (248-51) directed that valve closure parts shall be off their seat during welding of the valve into a piping run.
He questioned whether this requirement was related to any specific valve size (i.e., the availability of the heat sink) or was mitigated by the fact that use of the valve closure as a purge dam eliminates the need for some form of externally supplied dam to the system.
He was informed that the specification provides for no exemption and is intended as written, but that waiver may be allowed upon incivi-dual contractor request.
I
The responsible contr:rtor took immediata action to cease the prac-l tice at variance with the specification ind indicated an intent to
[
request further clarification and/or ret ief from this requirement.
l Pending final determination as to whetPar the use of the valve as a l_
purge dam during the time it is being delded into the system is an
!
acceptable practice from the standpoint of quality concerns on the j
final construction, this item is unresolved (443/80-10-02).
b.
Installation and Hydrostatic Testing
!
l The inspector witne: sed the application of X-Pando pipe joint compound l
to the backing car gap in weld F0408 of the cement lined, SW-1802 l
pipe.
The Pullman Field Process Sheet for this activity was examined
and discussed with field personnel.
The following documents were
[.
examined to_ determine comoliance with procedural requirements for the X-Pando application sequance, type, inspection and documentation.
'
.
Y
.
.
.
.
Pullman Procedure IX-31
'
--
UE&C Drawing D80499B
--
Pullman Isometric Drawing SW-1802-04, Revision 7
--
Pullman GWS-CS-CL, Revision 2
--
X-Pando Pipe Joint Compound directions
--
The inspector also witnessed the Magnetic Particle Examination (MT)
of some SW pipe welds and reviewed the Field Weld Process Sheets and NT reports for Welds F0407, F0408 and F0501 in SW-1802 line.
The Field Pressure Test Report (SW31) package for the applicable portions of the SW1802-04 and 05 lines was evaluated with regard to ASME III,
,
Subsection ND hydrostatic testing criteria.
The final protective wrapping of the subject welds and the installation of the cathodic protection weld per isometric drawing SW-}802-04 were noted.
No iter; of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Pipe Supports The inspector checked the in-place welded condition of the following
,
pipe supports and compared them with their Pullman detail drawings:
,
MS1201-SG-05
--
MS1201-SG-08
--
MS328-SG-15
--
1201-RG-16
--
Pullman Hanger Field Weld Process Sheets and Support Inspection Checklists, where complete, were examined for documentation of the correct weld joint status.
Pullman procedure IX-6, Revision 2 was reviewed for installation requirements.
On hanger MS328-SG-15, the inspector noted some transverse welding to the tension flange of a permanent structural beam which appeared to violate certain UE&C criteria on this subject.
By UE&C Memorandum, dated September 26, 1980, assurance was provided that both structural and pipe support design reviews had evaluated this support and its loadings and found it to be acceptable as detailed.
However, the inspector also noted that field welds 3 and 4 had been installed cn the wrong side of the channel connection to the beam and that this was due to misinterpretation of the drawing by both the craftsmen and the QC inspector.
Pullman NCR 358 was written and the support immediately placed en hold.
On hanger MS 1201-SG-08 the inspector found that the clip angles attaching the main support channel to a wall embed were two inches shorter than detailed, resulting in two inches less weld on field welds 4 and 5 each and four inches less on field weld 2.
Portions
.
_.
.
_ _
-
.
_
.
.
.
o
of field welds 4 and 5 were also noted to be sized less than the required 5/16".
Also, the gap between the channel and the embed was greater than detailed, resulting in less weld and violating criteria established for the acceptability of such a gap by the UE&C response to a Request for Information, RFI 73/0724A.
Since the Field Weld Process Sheet for hanger MS 1201-SG-08 indicated
'
final acceptance of field welds 2, 4 and 5 by QC personnel, the inspector informed the licensee that the noted deviations from the drawing represented a noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
The inspactor also questioned the effectiveness of the licensee's corrective action since similar deficiencies in the as-built conditions of safety-related pipe hangers had been found and addressed in an earlier report (443/80-07).
This item is an infraction (443/80-10-03).
'
A cessation of all pipe support installation work was implemented immediately. A program for re-inspection of all existing safety-related hangers was initiated.
Commitment was also made to expand and redirect the training program underway for both the craftsmen and QC personnel on AWS welding symbols, drawing interpretation, and proper weld sizing, defect discovery, and inspection.
5.
Containment Liner Erection (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector witnessed some manual welding on the Unit 2 containment liner knuckle plate and leak chase channel installation.
The use of a qualified WPS, the size and control of weld electrodes, and the conformance of weld preparation areas to ASME III, Division 2 requirements were spot-checked.
The presence of QC inspectors in the area was also noted.
The inspector also observed some weld X-ray activities on the Unit I con-tainment liner dome and discussed with the NDE technicians the utilization of the required backscatter "B" and backside film penetrameters.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Structural Steel and Embeds (Unit 1)
The inspector witnessed some structural steel welding in the Primary Auxiliary Building. Weld rod requisition and control, WPS designation,
,
'
and fitup and tack welding were checked.
The inspector discussed with the foreman the method of communication of weld status to QC personnel for ade-quate inspection coverage.
The following documents were reviewed:
4
\\
,
.I U
._..
_ -_
,..
.
.
.
.
UE&C Procedure WS-3, Revision 1
--
UE&C Drawing F101500
--
Perini Field Civil Construction Procedure FCCP-156, Revision 1
--
Perini Quality Assurance Procedure QAP-10.11, Revision 1
--
The inspector questioned whether adequate measures were provided to handle NDE and repair of cracks discovered in process prior to final inspection, because of the way weld repair was defined in FCCP-156.
Perini issued Interim Procedure Change IPC 2 to Revision 1 of FCCP-156 clarifying the requirements for tandling cracks in accordence with requirements of AWS D1.1-75.
Additionally, this IPC establishes a program for the use of a Weld History Repair Record.
The inspector has no further questions on this issue.
The inspector also questioned the handling of bend testing of site-fired stud welds on structural embeds where AWS D1.1 requires such testing on all replacement studs. The existing program in use by Pullman allows the craftsmen to replace a stud they had fired and rejected, without notifica-tion to QC.
The inspector was informed that Pullman QC personnel are bend testing and re-straightening all site-fired stud welds, regardless of any determination of whether they are replacement studs or not.
The inspector verified this prs ~~ 'ce in review of the Stud Welding Inspection Checklist for Sleeve NER 37 an-
'tation with a responsible QC inspector. Since the intent of the AWS Cot
"'o met by this program, he has no further questions.
No items of ncacompliance were identified in the above areas.
I 7.
Evidence of Material Acceptability (Unit 1)
The inspector examined the condition of the followirig piping spool pieces j
at their field locations:
1-CC-833-1-152-14"-2
--
1-RH-157-1-601-8"-2
--
1-CBS-1203-5-151-6"-3
--
l l
On the RH pipe, arc strikes were evident near the shop welds and these l
were correctly identified and documented on Pullman NCR 256.
For all three
!
spool pieces, the Dravo sketches were reviewed for indication that NDE required by ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Subsections NC and ND, as appli-cable, was specified.
MT reports for the structural attachment lug welds were examined and the welds themselves were inspected for conformance to the sketch configurations.
.
+w
-
e
-
.
.
A Chemical and Volume Control System (CS) spool piece was also checked against its Dravo sketch (E2936-890) for conformance and a documented revi-sion to the pipe was evaluated with regard to the requirements of UE&C Specification 006-248-1, Revision 4.
The inspector also examined some partially embedded pipe whip restraints within containment and reviewed the Ryerson records documenting acceptable MT of the welds in accordance with UE&C Specification 006-18-1, Revision 4.
The inspector's question regarding the documentation of weld traveler details for welds made on subassemblies,of the restraints was answered by Ryerson letter to UE&C, dated September 30, 1980.
The pipe whip restraint material type, weld electrode certification, and inspection requirements were all verified, as was the existence of an onsite receiving inspection for this material (Receiving Inspection Reports RIR 3133 and 3166).
No items of noncompliance were identified with regard to any of the above material or records.
.
8.
Cable Tray Erection (Unit 1)
The inspector spot-checked various runs of installed cable tray within the PAB equipment vault for conformance to the details in UE&C notes (M300229).
Specifically, the length of run between supports and method of connection to structural members and concrete were examined.
The detailed support of cable trays JA and JB at elevation -50' in the vault area was discussed with QA personnel in regard to governing installa-tion criteria.
Licensee QA had already initiated action questioning the adequacy of the existing support condition.
Subsequently, the inspector reviewed UE&C ECA 03/0904A mooifying the subject tray lengths and adding supports. The inspector deemed the licensr.e's QA action appropriate to the situation and has no further questions.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-ance, or deviations.
An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 4a.
10. Management Meetings At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection, meetings were held with senior plant management to discuss the scope and findings of this inspection.
.
v
,
TV