IR 05000443/1980013
| ML20004D841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1981 |
| From: | Cerne A, Mattia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004D838 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-80-13, 50-444-80-13, NUDOCS 8106100205 | |
| Download: ML20004D841 (12) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
-
Region I 50-i443/80-13 Report No. so-444/Rn 11 50-443 Docket No. 5n-444 CPPR-135 License No. CPPR-136 Priority Category A
Licensee:
Public Service Cnmnany nf New-Hamn: hire 1000 Elm Street
-
Manchester. New Hamoshire n310s Facility Name:
Seabrook Station. tinits 1 and 2 Inspection at:
Seabrook, New Hampshire
-
Inspection conducted: Novem 24-December 31,1980 f;f-JAN 9, l48i Inspectors:
A.C.Cerne, Resident Inspector date signed date signed n
m a date signed Approved by:
OMAA, Af[tr~.
'O '
l
.C.Mattih, Acting Chief / Projects
'date/ signed Section, RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary: Unit 1 inspection on November 24-December 31,1980 (Report No. 50-443/H0-13)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspector of work activities relative to centainment internal concrete placement and liner wind girder removal; polar crane ra;! installation and NDE; piping operations and NDE; Kwik-bolt installatio and system design considerations for electrical work; and audit of the licer..e evaluation program for 10CFR50.55(e) reportability.
The inspector also performed plant inspection-tours and reviewed licensee action on previously identified items. The inspection involved 65 inspector-hours, including nine off-shift hours by the NRC Resident Inspector.
Results:
Of the seven areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified in one area ---failure to control and document the engineering review and approval of a field initiated design change (paragraph 4).
Unit 2 inspection on November 24-December 31,1980 (Report No. 50-444/80-13)
Areas inspected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspector of work activities re-lative to containment liner erection; 10CFR50.55(e) reportability; and plant inspection <
tours. The inspection involved 15 inspector hours by the NRC Resident Inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
' Region i Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
810 610 0,20f,
.
-
..
.
.
.
J LiTAILS
1.
Persons Contacted Yankee Atomic Electric Company F. W. Bean, QA Engineer B. B. Beckley, Muager of Nuclear Projects (PSNH-Manchester)
P. B. Bohan, Senior Engineer (PSNH)
.
D. L. Covill, QA Engineer i
W. J. Gagnon, QA Engineer J.H.Herrin,SiteManager(PSNH)
G. F. Mcdonald, QA Engineer (Westborough)
W.J. Miller,QAManager(westborough)
i C. M. Worster, Construction Supervisor
!
United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C)
W. S. Aregood, Assistant QA Engineer R. H. Beaumont, QA Engineer
!
R. L. Brown, Assistant Liaison Engineer
'
J. A. Grusetskie, Assistant Liaison Engineer
R. A. Kountz, Welding, Superintendent i
D. C. Lambert, Field Superintendent of QA (New)
J. J. Murphy, Area Engineer
,
R. J. Phelps, Field Superintendent of QA (Old)
T. P. Vassallo, Civil QA Supervisor L. R. Wade, Assistant Field Superintendent of QA
R. D. Witt, Area Superintendent Perini Power Constructors (PPC)
R. Capra, Project Superintendent
-
G. E. Myers, Technical Advisor J. Patterson, QA Engineer t
D. G. Roberge, QA Building Inspector R. J. Vachon, Chief Building Inspector Pittsburgh Des Moines Steel Co. (PDM)
W. A. Stiger, QA Manager
,
T. Wells, QA Inspector Pullman-Higgins (Fullman)
E M. Daniels, NDE Technician R. G. Davis, Field QA Manager i
R. R. Donald, QC Supervisor D. Geske, NDE Supervisor J. Godleski, QA Records Engineer
!
P. J. Ramsey, NDE Technician
I l
-
.
-
.
.
_
_
t
.
.
>
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 iuring general
'
'
inspections of the plant. The inspector examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements or license conditions.
Particular note was taken of presence of quality-control inspectors and quality control evidence such as
,
'
. inspection records, material identification, nonconforming material identification, housekeeping and equipment preservation.
The inspector interviewed craft personnel, supervision, and
-
quality inspection personnel as such personnel were available
'
in the work areas.
,
Specifically the inspector checked cold weather protection and
'
curing of the Unit 2 containment liner knuckle grout, preparation
[
and fit up for welding of electrical switchgear support channels
'
in the Unit 1 control building, and the firing of "T" series
!
cadwelds in the Unit 1 containment. He also spot-checked various
'
controlled documents in their field location for proper revision
,
and examined the condition of certain Unit 1 structural steel
!
welds. Several anchor bolts were inspected with respect to l
drawing and specification requirements for proper size, type, installation, condition, protection, and record of material certification.
t No items of noncompliance were identified; however, two items remain unresolved, as discussed below:
l The inspector examined several anchor bolts, installed in their i
final location throughout the plants, but with anchor sleeves
not as yet filled with grout.
]
In the Unit 1 Diesel Generator Building, he observed standing l
water in these sleeves and noted some rusting of the SA-193 i
anchor bolts for the diesel generators. While UE&C Specification
MPS-1 (Revision 5) allows superficial rust conditions on carbon
!
and low alloy steels, it prohibits any evidence of corrosion
'
pitting. The inspector asked whether these bolts would be evaluated for corrosion pitting prior to grout placement and
whether their present condition was acceptable from the l
standpoint of both MPS-1 and ANSI N45.2.2 storage requirements.
l While the licensee took imediate action to remove the standing
water around the bolts and i.mprove the anchor bolt wrapping and protection, the evaluation of the bolts for corrosion pitting,
I
,
l
'
.
-
-
-
- -,
,,.. - - - - -.,,,,.,. - _
.,--.....-<.,,,n-..
-,, - ~,,.
-
.
.
!
,
in the specifi case observed by the inspector and on a programmatic i
basis prio'r to all anchor bolt final grouting, remains unresolved l
(443/80-13-01).
,
In the Unit 1 South Equipment Vault, the inspector noted that t
two structural steel wing plates had been removed from the web of the channel to which they had been welded. The Perini
,
nonconformance report (NCR No.1303) authorizing this, action was reviewed along with other pertinent documents -- UE&C
drawing F 101558, Revision 3; site approved change (SAC)
41/0450A; and Design Change Notice (DCN) 05/0171A. While
,
disposition of the NCR specified the method of removal as
grinding and indicated a requirement for NDE of the affect j
surfaces, no provisions or tolerances were given regarding
'
removal of base metal from the structural channel web. The
!
resulting grinding operation cut through the weld itself, l
instead of the wing plate, and the final blending of the i
'
affected area appeared to remove mcre material from the C10 channel web than is allowed by ASTM A6 fabrication requirements.
l The inspector asked whether A6 fabrication specs, apply to such field operations and requested that the observed condition
be evaluated and that the licensee address the adequacy of
'
procedural controls over grinding operations where the i
minimum thickness of base metal material may be detrimentally i
affected.
Pending further evaluation and actions by the I
licensee, this issue is unresolved (443/80-13-02).
,
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
.
l (Closed)Unresolveditem(443/80-12-04):
Evidence of anchor j
bolt back plate fixity.
The inspector reviewed a document
,
package, assembled by the licensee, which included engineering, l
I construction, and QA memo's attesting to the proper installation and checks of safety-related anchor bolt assemblies. The t
inspector also independently verified that drawing detail
-
notes for certain B4-36 anchor bolts had been follow;d during
,
'
bolt installation by reviewing the records certifying the correct number of nuts associated with proper anchor bolt assembly. This item is considered resolved.
,
4.
Unit 1 Containment Slab Placement
'
The inspector witnessed preparations for and portions of the concrete placement for the elevation 25' slab inside U11t 1 l
l t
i O
-
w
-
-
- -, ~ -
g
,,r,,-,-,w-
- -
,
w,
,
w-q,-
w w
.
.
,
,
containment. He checked joint and form cleanliness, concrete drop height, the placement and use of elephant trunks, concrete
-
-
consolidation using vibrators, the fixity of embedded items, and both the availability and activity of QC inspectors during the placement. A general power outage of short duratic. occurred during the placement, but no adverse. impact upon the quality aspects of the placement were observed.
,
i The inspector also witnessed concrete testing activities to include slump and air entrainment tests and the making of
-
concrete cylinders for compressive strength testing.
The above activities were evaluated with regard to acceptable ACI standard practices and required ASTM standard test methods, and no items of noncompliance were identified.
However, an item of noncompliance was identified in the handling and approval of a field change associated with the concrete placement set-up, and is discussed below.
In order to facilitate set-up of the concrete conveyor system and use of it during placing operations, approximately 1000 No. 9 rebars were cut two feet above the final slab elevation (25').
These dowels represented the vertical rebar for the seven foot shield walls around the one pressurizer and four steam generator openings. The approval for the cutting operation included an intent to cadweld additional rebar to the cut dowels at some later time, but the method of approval was a speed letter from UE&C construction to the placement contractor with no evidence of engineering review.
A UE&C Engineering Change Authorization (ECA 01/06198) had
"
previously authorized the addition of cadweld splices upon verbal approval of a UE&C construction field representative, but the inspector questioned the intent of this ECA with regard to the magnitude of the cutting operation (ie:
1000 rebar)
associated with the recent placement.
Additionally, ACI 349 indicates requirements for staggering of cadweld splices under certain design loading conditions.
While the licensee is not committed to ACI 349 for the construction of Seabrook, these design implications merit an engineering review of such large-scale cutting (and subsequent cadwelding)
operations upon which they impact.
Since the applicable Bethlehem Steel Drawings (016RW35AX, Revision 3
.
"
e,
-,,, - - -,, -
,-
--r-
, -,
,,
,r---
--
e
.
.
~
and 016RW38A, Revision 1) for the original rebar installation indicate review and approval by UE&C Engineering, the failure to provide documented evidence of a similar UE&C engineering review and approvt.1 over the field initiated design change which resulted in cutting 1000 rebar, represents a noncompliance with regard to 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion III (443/80-13-03).
5.
Containment Liner Welding and NDE (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector witnessed wind girder removal, grinding and/or weld repair of the affected liner areas, and follow up magnetic particle testing on the Unit 1 containment liner.
He examined Ultrasonic Testing records for various hanger attachment plates in the Unit I liner dome and verified the engineering approval and re-UT of certain plates that had to be relocated.
On the Unit 2 liner, the inspector witnessed vertical seam and leak chase channel welding and checked preheat, weld rod control, and fit-up toperances. With regard to fillet weld fit-up gaps, he verified QA inspection practices to include reject criteria for gaps greater than 1/16" and received written commitment for specification of this required tolerance in either the inspection procedures or applicable field drawings.
The inspector interviewed licensee and ontractor QA management personnel, inspectors,.and foremen regaifing the above items and construction and inspection practices in general.
He reviewed the following documents with regard to same:
UE&C Specification 006-15-1, Revision 4.
'
--
UE&C Procedure WS-4A, Revision 5.
--
PDM Procedures MT-3, Revision A;
--
FSP-01, Revision D; and CLT-1, Revision D.
PDM Welding Procedure Specifications,
--
'
WPS-68-4, Revision E and 68-5, Revision F.
PDM Drawings HL-3, E58 and E74.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Polar Crane Rail Erection and NDE (Unit 1)
The inspector witnessed erection of the polar gantry crane rails
.
-, - -
,y
--_,,
.
.
!
,
'
at the elevation 25' slab in the Unit I containment to include
!
preparation and curing at the concrete joint, thermite butt welding of the rail pieces, and ultrasonic examination of the completed welds. Various parameters such as temporary rail supports, welding preheat, grinding and defect removal, and the inspection processes were checked; and record certification of the crane rail material itself was spot-checked.
l The following documents were reviewed for procedural control l
over the above activities and utilized to verify proper performance.
Perini Field Civil Construction Procedure, FCCP No. 159
--
with Interim Procedure Changes, IPC Nos. 1 and 2.
Perini Quality Assurance Procedure, QAP 10.13 with
!
--
IPC No. 1, Revision 2.
l
-
Instructions for Thermit Self-Preheat Rail Welding
--
(U.S. Thermit Inc.).
Pullman Ultrason.ic Examination Procedure IX-UT-1-PCR.
--
Pullman Procedure XII-2, Revision 7.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Unit 1 Piping, Components, and NDE a.
The inspector witnessed a grinding operation for repair of field weld F0202 on pipe : pool piece 1-CS-328-02 and a cutting operation on pipe, 1-CS-369-10.
The authorization i
for the pipe cut was examined (UE&C ECA 08/0990A) and
!
the Pullman Field Process Sheets for both operations were checked to insure proper hold points for QC inspection.
Various pipe spool pieces, located in the field but not
!
yet installed, were checked against their applicable Dravo sketch, as identified belcw, for correct identification, material, schedule, flarge or boss size and type, and i
!
CBS system, Dravo sketch E2936-1279
--
.
CS. system, Dravo rketches E2936-353 and E2936-366
!
--
.
.
,
.
~
'"
"
av t'
"'*9
" '
.
..
,
t
i A shop weld overgrind condition on spool piece 1-CBS-1216-2-301-8"-20, for which the Dravo on-site records do not uniquely indicate the required liquid penetrant
!
examination, was written up in the licensee follow-up action system for further evaluation. The inspector also l
noted that various unacceptable pipe surface conditions for spool piece 1-RH-158-2-601-8"-3 had been properly
identified end dispositioned on Pullman Nonconformance
Report, NCR 270.
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l b.
The inspector checked the storage or shipment condition,
!
'
as applicable, of the following components-r Accumulator Tank 1-SI-TK-9C (in place).
--
Steam Generator Nos. NAGT2055 and T2056 (recently
--
arrived on a barge).
Reactor Coolant Pump Internals for Pump P-1A
--
(recently arrived on lowbed trailer in warehouse).
i Packaging, storage conditions, nitrogen inerting, QA inspection, and security access provisions were all spot-checked as each was applicable to the above items.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
The inspector observed the radiographic (RT) examination of field weld 1-CS-328-02, FW F0201 during second shift activities in the Unit 1 Primary Auxiliary Building.
The geometric arrangement, the use of the backscatter "B",
!
the use and type of shims, the film size for total weld
coverage, and the placement of location markers and the
!
penetrameter were all checked. The observed technique
'
for double wall elliptical viewing was evaluated with regard to the requirements of Pullman Procedure IX-RT-1-W77, Revision 3.
!
Later discussion with the Pullman NDE Supervisor and Level III technician resulted in clarification of the practice
'
to apply all location markers prior to each exposure and a recommendation for procedure revision regarding the L
wording of penetrameter placement requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
l l
.
r i
'
e
--
. -,,. - -, - -
--._
. - _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
The inspector also viewed fiberscope examination of the internal diameter of piping to which lugs were welded for the purpose of _ verifying the existence of no
" burn-thru" problems. The inspector had no questions concerning the substitution of fiberscope examination in
'
lieu of random, optional RT and identified no items of noncompliance.
8.
Electrical Installations (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed the following areas with regard to design intent and construction practice in the installation of electrical duct banks, cable trays, and kwik bolts.
plastic duct splice practices a.
Duct Banks:
--
--
vertical bend minimum radius consideration of downward cable creep
--
duct spacer effect on concrete bank integrity
--
minimum concrete duct cover for cable pulling
--
need for expansion joints in duct bank runs
--
b.
Cable Tray:
use of cantilevered unistrut tray supports
--
--
handling of misdrilled bolt holes in trays
'
use of hex head bolts internal to trays
--
handling of tray offsets less than 15 degrees
--
I use of different types of tray bolts
--
c.
Kwik Bolts:
UE&C specification 18-17 requirements
--
Fischbach-Boulos-Manzi (FBM) construction
--
(FECP-507) and quality control (QCP-507)
procedures bolt and hole spacing criteria
--
bolt torque requirements
--
In each of the above areas, the inspector interviewed engineering, j
.
.
.
,
construction, and QA personnel, observed field practices and as-built conditions, and reviewed design criteria and answers to several engineering questions.
No items of noncompliance were identified; however, one item remains unresolved as discussed below.
The inspector observed at least three different types (ie:
different markings) of bolts being used for splice connections
,
of field cable tray runs. While the licensee has indicated all
-
the bolts are acceptable, hardened bolts whose different markings stem from the use of different suppliers, the inspector noted that UE&C Specification 109-1 (Revision 2) for cable tray
,
requires special tests to verify the dynamic behavior of the
'
cable tray. T'ese tests consist of unidirectional and bidirectional.oadings of tray mock-ups which include a spliced joint and evaluation of the test data against seismic requirements.
Pending the presentation of evidence by the licensee that all different types of cable tray splice connection bolts in use
,
in safety-related work at Seabrook represent bolt standards consistent with those used in the seismic testing program, this item is unresolved (443/80-13-04).
9.
Audit of Licensee 10CFR50.55(e) Reportino
,
a.
The inspector selected three technical issues with potentially reportable implications to review with regard to the adequacy of the current licensee 10CFR50.55(e) evaluation program. The three specific issues were as follows:
!
(1)
A potentially generic issue reported by the NRC Region V involving errors in the UE&C pipe support
,
design methodology.
'
'
(2)
Modifications to weld sizes at insert plates for beam connections throughout the plant (reference:
UE&C ECA 01/14428).
,
(3)
Defects identified during field inspection of vendor shop welds for pipe support material (reference: Pullman NCR 468).
,
l The inspector interviewed personnel and examined the following dccuments for evidence of procedural controls
.
!
'
.
<
,
.
- -
,
v-y
--
,- - - -
-,, -- w a--,
- --
,-,,,y
.
P
!
!
,
!
over 50.55(e) evaluation and reporting.
UE&C Procedure QAS-1, Revision 7.
--
t UE&C QA Procedure QA-15, Revision 9.
[
--
i Pullman Procedure XV-2, Revision 8.
--
Perini Quality Assurance Procedure
--
QAP 15.0, Revision 2.
The inspector's. review of these procedures revealed
that while the licensee maintained the ultimate
responsibility for reporting significant deficiencies, l
the formal, initial evaluation of defects or i
nonconformances for reportability was delegated to i
the contractor level. The current program does
!
not require any higher review of any contractor's i
decision that 50.55(e) is not applicable, except on a surveillance basis.
While the adequacy of such a reportability review
program is dependent upon ma1y subjective factors,
[
the inspector's followup of the three technical
!
issues mentioned above has resulted in notification to the NRC of one 50.55(e) reportable deficiency i
on December 16,1980 (See paragraph b. below);
,
notification of another potentially -reportable
!
deficiency on January 5,1981; and the renewed evaluation of the third item for reportability by
' l the licensee. These issues highlighted the already i
recognized need by the licensee for an improved reportability review program, utilizing for example
,
the "Nonconformance Review Board" for 50.55(e)
{
reportability input.
-
Pending further actions by the licensee to upgrade i
and formalize procedural requirements for review
!
of relevant issues as possible reportable significant deficiencies, this item is unresolved (443/80-13-05; I
444/80-13-01).
b.
- he potentially generic issue regarding UE&C pipe
!
support design methodology reported by Region V
[
was investigated by the licensee. The reported facts
.
i e
a w,
.,,--.--,,yw-y+
,
.y
- -,.
e.
,, -
y
.
-
w
..
s
indicate that UE&C implemented a final design review for all pipe support designs which had already been completed, and that this additional review is detecting discrepancies which require further evaluation. However, the current sampling of calculational errors has been analyzed by
-
both UE&C and the licensee to determine that no generic problem in either design methodology or the method of calculation exists.
The licensee reported this recent discovery of pipe
'
support calculation errors as a design deficiency under 10CFR50.55(e)onDecember 16,1980. Their position is, however, that no construction deficiency will exist since supports will be modified as the new corrected calculations dictate.
This item will be followed up at some future time under the routine inspection program for reviewing and closing licensee 50.55(e} items.
-
10.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matter 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 discussed in Paragraphs 2,8, and 9a.
11.
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.
i I
i
.
m
- - - -
-
-y----
v
,
w
-
wg-y w
v
-