IR 05000443/1981003
| ML19347E726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1981 |
| From: | Cerne A, Gallo R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347E718 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-81-03, 50-443-81-3, 50-444-81-03, 50-444-81-3, NUDOCS 8105130276 | |
| Download: ML19347E726 (11) | |
Text
.
OO 4*
U.S. NUCLEAR REFULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Qr# ' g 50-443/81-03
%,,#g Report No. 50-444/81-03
-
/g v
50-443 Docket No. ~50-444
%
CPPR-135 Category A
License No. CPpR-136 Priority
--
Licensee:
Public Service Ccmpany of New Hamoshire 1000 Elm Street
'
Manchestor, New Hampshira 03105 Facility Name:
Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:
Seabrook, New Hampshire and Newington, New Hampshire Inspection conducted:
March 2 - April 3,1981 Inspectors:
[
At C. Cerne, Sr. Resident Inspector date signed
.
date signed date signed Approved by:
t ih Oh8 hl R. F. Gallo, Chief, Projects Section 1A, d&te signed
'
Division of Resident and Project Inspection
'
Inspection Sumary:
Unit 1 Inscection on March 2-April 3,1981 (Recort No. 50-443/81-03)
Areas Insoected: Routine inspection by the resident inspector of work activities relative to pipe welding and support erection, structural steel welding and erection, NSSS support installation, equipment storege and maintenance, and component confomance and seismic qualification. The inspector also performed plant inspection-tours and reviewed licensee action on previously identified items. The inspection involved 76 inspector-hours, in-cluding ten off-shift hours, ty the NRC Resident Inspector.
,
j Results: Of the five areas in.ipected, one item of noncompliance was identified in each l
of the following areas: Failure to control structural bolting and welding to code and procedural requirements (paragraph 4b), and Failure to provide weld length criteria for l
pipe support installation prior to welding (par & graph 5b).
Unit 2 Inscection on March 2-Aoril 3,1981 (Recort No. 60-444/81-03)_
Areas Insoected: Routine inspection by tne resident inspector of worR activities relative to equipment storage and maintenance, and pipe support erection. The inspector also perfomed plant inspection-tours and reviewed licensee action on previously identified items. The inspection involved 16 insrector-hours by the NRC Resident Inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
8105180 N
.
.
.. ~ - -
..
.
'
.
..
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Yankee Atomic Electric Company W. S. Aregood, QA Engineer F. W. Bean, QA Engineer B. B. Beckley, Manager of Nuclear Projects (PSNH-Manchester)
D. L. Covill, QA Engineer W. J. Gagnon, QA Engineer
R. E. Guillette, QA Engineer (Framingham)
J. H< Herrin, Site Manager (PSNH)
D.A.Maidrand,ProjectEngineer(Framingham)
G. F. Mcdonald, Jr., QA Engineer (Framingham)
W. J. Miller, QA Manager (Framingham)
W. K. Peterson, QA Engineer (Framingham)
J. W. Singleton, Field QA Manager-United Engineers and Con'tructors (UE&C)
s A. H. Ayers, QA Engineer R. H. Beaumont, QA Engineer R. L. Brown, Assistant Liaison Engineer J. J. Carrabba, Storage Material Control Supervisor J. C. Gries, QA Engineer J. A. Grusetskie, Assistant Liaison Engineer R. P Kosian, Field Engineer D. C. Lanibert, Field Superintendent of QA F. A. Long, QA Ennineer J. J. Murphy, Field Engineer
G. Sh:w, Structural Steel Superintende'nt R. R. Thomas, Office Engineer T. P. Vassallo, QA Liaison Engineer Perini Power Constructors (PPC)
G. T. Hammond, Structural Engineer J. E. McLaughlin, Assistant Supervising QA Engineer A. G. Schroeder, Lead Structural Inspector Royal Insurance
-
J. C. An:ivino, Authorized Nuclear Inspector
.
G. Voishinis, Authorized Nuclear Inspector Pullman-Higgins (Pullman)
O. Birch, CC Inspector R. G. Davis, Field QA Manager R. R. Donald, Field QA Supervisor D. R. Geske, QC Supervisor J. Godleski, QA Records Supervisor P. Grasewicz, Lead Hanger Engineer A. D. Nance, Mechanical Erection Engineer C. Scannell, Chief Field Engineer R. Wise, QC Inspector
'
C. E. Walker, Liaison 2ngineer
,
.
.
.,
-
,
- - -
--,
-4
-
.
_
. _ _ _ _
_ _ _. _ _-
-
.-
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
l
2.
Plant Inspection-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 inspeciions of the plant.
>
The inspector examined work for any obvious defects or nonc.ompliance with regulatory requirements or license conditions. Particular note was taken of the presence of quality control inspectors and quality control evidence such~as~ f nspection records, material identification, nonconfaming material identification, housekeeping and equipment preservation. The inspector interviewed craft personnel, supervision, and quality inspection personnel as s.ch personnel were available in the work areas.
Specifically the inspector examined duct work installation and duct hanger welding in the Primary Auxiliary Building, the welded condition of various electrical power strut assemblies as supports for conduit, and the field storage conditions and identification of several small diameter piping valves.
Cold weather protection and post-placement curing of concrete in the control building and containment penetration area were spot-checked. The inspector also verified the engineering authorization and design control over a temporary
'
construction opening in the connon wall between the control and diesel generator buildings.
Field dimensions, the placement of reinforcing bar, and the treatment of the construction joint surface were all checked in accordance with UE&C drawing, specification, or engineering change authorization
- ~~(ECA) requirements and the Perini concrete record package for the previously
,i placed, interfacing concrete (Pour 1-DGB-10A/1-CB-228) was reviewed for criteria essential to the quality construction of the construction opening wall.-
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Infraction (443 and 444/79-05-01): Equipment space heaters not properly connected. The inspector reviewed UE&C Field General Construction Procedure FGCP-9, Revision 6, and verified that space heater wiring and
,
l energizing requirements are being satisfied. Discussion with storage and maintenance and QA personnel and an inspection of various motorized l
equipment in storage at the Newington facility revealed that in addition
,
l to routine maintenance checks and inspections, lights connected in parallel with the space heater wiring are used to visually indicate heater
!
operability. This item is closed.
b.
(Closet.) Unresolved item (443 and 444/79-05-03): Salt water intrusion on RPV and internals during shipping.
Durir.g January, 1981 (81-01 Report)
,
I an inspector observed and reviewed preparations and packaging of certain j
RPV internals for shipment to the manufacturer for decontamination.
During this inspection, the inspector ' reviewed the following UE&C nonconformance reports (NCRs) to include disposition, corrective actions, and closure.
l l
~
,
- -
- --
-
- - -,
~-,_
,,. ~ - - -.
-.,.., -. _.,
--
,
_
_
.
.
.
.
- -
4 NCRs
--
,
,
239 269 240 281 241 287 265 All affected RPV parts have either been cleaned and accepted or are identified, both by the program and records, to be in a status awaiting analysis and further corrective action. This item is resolved.
c.
(Closed) Unresc1ved item (443/79-10-03): Evaluation of electrical equipment submergence. The inspector discussed the question of submergence evaluation and qualification with licensec project licensing personnel and a cognizant NRC inspector. The licensee position and data on this issue will be presented to the NRC formally in their response to NUREG-0588 requirements. On this basis, this item is closed.
d.
(Closed) Unresolved item (443/80-09-02): Implementation of a " traveler" program for bolted connections. As a result of the inspection ending in October, 1981 (80-10 Report), a portion of this unresolved item was resolved as an infraction and documented as noncompliance 443/80-10-01.
During this inspection, the.insp~ector reviewed actions taken by the licensee to resolve the remaining questions pertaining to this item.
He examined the disposition to Perini NCR 1Q47 and reviewed and discussed -.
the structural connection traveler program, which identifies and documents in log form the status of each bolted connection, with the engineer and coordinator for the program. QA involvement in this tracking system was noted. This item is considered resolved.
4.
Structural Steel Erection and Welding (Unit 1)
a.
Con:ainment The inspector examined structural steel welding in progress and structural steel connections in process in the containment annulus area. The Perini Weld Data Card for connection 28177AA (QA Report W492) was reviewed for
proper acceptance and inspection criteria, sign-off, and applicable notes.
The actual welding parameters.and weld configuration were visually inspected, discussed with the welder and foreman, and checked against the governing requirements. Magnetic particle examination (MT) and technique were discussed with the responsible NDE supervisor.
Welding and NDE specification were evaluated with regard to the requirements set forth in the following documents:
AWS Standard D1.1-75
--
UE&C Specification 12-2
-~
!
.
-
- -
-
.
.
-
, _
.. -
..
_ -.
.
.
..
.
UE&C Procedure WS-3, Revision 1
--
Perini Field Civil Construction Procedure, FCCP-156, Revision 4
--
Perini Welding Procedure Specification, WPS-156.11, Revision 1
--
Bolted connections for a W27 be'am (MK4D1730) at elevation -16'within the containment annulus area were examined with regard to material configuration and dimensions and shop weld conformance to design details. Field rework on.the beam, in accordance with the disposition to Perini nonconformhnce report (NCR) 1471, was checked to the present installation status.
Field conditions were evaluated with regard to the following drawings.
for relevant design and installation criteria and conformance to AISC-high-strength bolting requirements:
UE&C Drawing F102320, Revision 4
--
UE&C Drawing F102323, Revision 3
--
Cives Drawings (UE&C Foreign Prints) FP15109-25 and 26 and
--
FP15106, Sheet 173.
No items of noncompliance were identified in any of the above areas.
b.
Control Building
.
The inspector examined structural connections and welding in the control building cable spreading room area (elevations 50'- 75). Column splice bolting and welding details were checked against the drawing requirements.
Material and base plate dimensions were spot-checked. Torque and QA inspection records for certain bolted connections were verified to be
~
programmatically controlled. The inspector reviewed the following i
documents to determine the acceptability of the noted as-built conditions.
AISC and AWS 01.1 Standards
--
.
1-UE&C Drawings F101240,F101365 (Revision 3), and F101371
--
Cives Drawings (UE&C Foreign Prints) FP11544 (Revision 4) and
--
FP12560 The inspector noted plug welding being accomplished on a W36 beam (MK 12B498) to repair ten misplaced bolt holes. He verified the
,
authorization for this repair process (disposition to Perini NCR 1355)
and control over the welding in the form of a Welding Procedure Specification (WPS 156.5 - AWS prequalified) and a Weld Data Card (QA report 114). QA inspection, both in process and of the final welds, was noted. Upon examination of these welds, however, the inspector determined that AWS 01.1-75 plug weld criteria had not fully been met in that the, center to center spacing of the holes was approximately two hole-
.
w
-
m e
-~ -,
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
-
.
diameters, while AWS dictated a minimum of four hole-diameters. This close spacing of these welds additionally led to questions of the potential for and acceptability of high residual tensile stresses remaining in the web of this beam after the completion of repair welding (reference:
AWS Welding Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 6). With regard to these questions and concerns, the licensee has initiated action requiring the A/E to provide justification for the present as-wsided condition of this beam.
The inspector also examined the structural bolted connection of a W18 beam to beam 12849B at a location approximately six inches away from where the above plug welding had taken place. He noted that different lengths of thread were visible beyond the toraued nut, indicating that different lengths of bolts had been utilized in this connection. This was true also of other connections in the control building area.
However, the applicable drawing (UE&C FP12086) specified all ten bolts in this connection to be 2h" in length. While the ' inspector recognizes the fact that different lengths of bolt can be acceptably used in high-strength bolted connections as long as the nut is fully engaged without shanking on the bolt grip length and the threads remain out of the shear plane, he questioned what controls were in effect to allow the constructor to deviate from design bolt length installation while at the same time assuring that shanking and shear plane threads are not a problem. The licensee indicated that the responsible contractor had incorrectly taken advantage of bolt length tolerances specified in the AISC Manual and directed UE&C QA to inspect other connections for
-
installed' bolt lengths other than those specified by design. Several other nonconforming connections were thus identified.
With regard to both the plug weld deviation from AWS D1.1 criteria and the bolt length nonconfomances, both occurring on beam 12B49B, as well as potentially elsewhere, the inspector infomed the licensee that this lack of control over these special processes represented a noncompliance with regard to 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion IX (443/81-03-01).
This noncompliance was discussed with the licensee Field QA Manager and Site Manager at exit interviews on March 27 and April 1,1981.
,
5.
Safety-Related Pioing a.
Welding (Unit 1)
i The inspector observed welding of the following pipe spools:
'
1-CS-355-02, Field Weld F0201
--
1-CBS-1225-03, Field Weld F0302
--
1-CC-833-02, Field Weld F0202
--
1-CC-829-01, Field Weld F0102
--
Field Weld Process Sheets and Weld Rod Storas Requisitiore Mare checked l
to verify identification, documentation, and inspect'
s criteria l
procedurally required for quality welding. Actual wela ng conditions and i
.
,
-_
.
.
.,
,
+
conduct, the sequence of~ operations, and the use and documentation of purge dams were all spot-checked. The inspector noted the presence or availability of QC welding inspectors and checked their inspection verification of hold point items on the weld process sheets. The following Welding Procedure Specifications were reviewed for confonnance of the actual, essential welding variables to procedures qualified in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code,Section IX.
WPS 24-III-8-XI-12 (Revision 3)
--
WPS IT1-III-1-XI-12 (Revision 3)
--
The specified NDE methods were also checked against the ASME B&PV Code, Sections III and V for the applicable class of piping.
Isometric drawings were spot-checked and the following Pullman inspection procedures were reviewed:
Procedures X-9 (Revision 4) and X-11
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Pipe Supports (Units 1 and 2)
The inspector checked the in-place condition, either final accepted or still in process, of the following pipe supports and compared them with
,
their Pullman detail drawings:
-
1205-SG-08 782-RG-09
--
--
1206-SH-08 1820-SG-07
--
--
1226-SG-01 782-RG-09
--
--
MS1201-A12 360-RG-12
--
--
Pullman Hanger Field Weld Process Sheets and Weld Rod Stores Requisitions were examined for documentation of the correct weld joint status and
'
usage of specified weld material. The inspector checked hanger material and weld dimensions, identification, and configuration. Where welding was in progress, in-process weld acceptability, grinding and weld red control were spot-checked against the applicable criteria specified in Pullman WPS IT8-III-1-BR-2 (Revision 4), as qualified to the essential
'
f variables documented in Procedure Qualification Records PQRs 020A and l
Q21A.
The inspector noted that the field weld identif. cation markings, stamped on the structural pieces for henger 1205-SG-08, did not confonn to the hanger drawing. Review of the process sheet and discussion with the QC inspector revealed that inspection of the welds was accomplished in accordance with the drawing with documentation matching the field stamped numbers. This conflict was resolved by Pullman Corrective Action Report No. 21, which not only corrected the erection drawing, but also issued
.
'
.
.
..
-.
_
__
_
___
.
.-
.
-
.
.
'
instructions to cease field weld numoer scribing in the field, since only welder symbol markings are required. Further discussion with QA personnel revealed that the cause of this problem appeared to be based in pap 3rwork, in that drawing revisions may have changed the weld numbers after welding had already been accomplished. While no hardware problems were evident, commitment was made to verify proper field markings during the programmatic
,
final inspection of each hanger using the Support Inspection Checklists.
The inspector had no further questions on this issue.
Upon examination of welded hanger 360-RG-24 and its governing UE&C and Pullman drawings, the inspector noted that the length of weld of the
pipe support member connected to the concrete embed was not specified.
A 1h" constructicn tolerance is allowed by UE&C Engineering Change
,
Authorization ECA 01/07750 in the location of embeds, while a 2" construction tclerance is provided by Pullman procedure IX-6 for the placement of the support weld. These tolerances, when considered with
,
tM fact that support to embed weld length is not specified, provide the potential for an affected hanger to be installed to all given
!
requirements, and be so inspected and accepted, with the subject weld
-
being 3 " short. The inspector questioned whather these tolerances had been considered in the pipe support design and was informed that
,
i they had been not. With regard to this problem, the following
,
j_
connitments were made:
I All newly issued pipe sup' port drawings will specify a minimum
-
--
support to embed weld length.
~
!
A review of a group of previously designed supports will identify
--
where minimum weld lengths have not been specified.
>
,
'
Minimum weld lengths for all installed hangers will be de ennined
--
and these hangers will be reinspected to assure compliance.
l The inspector infonned the licensee Field QA Manager and Site Manager i
during exit interviews on March 27 and April 1,1981 that this failure to l
provide quantitative weld details essential to pipe support quality prior l
to erection, when coupled with the failure to account for interfacing
!
construction tolerances, represented a noncompliance with regard to i
10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion V (443/81-03-02).
c.
Vendor pice Scools (Unit 1)
i The following vendor pipe spool pieces, located in the field but not l
yet installed, were checked against their applicable Dravo sketches.
Spool piece Dravo Sketch
.
E2936-940 I
1-C5-307-1-301-3"-3 i
1-CS-366-1-2501-3"-1 E2936-1224
.
1-SI-201-2-2501-10"-2 E2936-1133
!
1-CC-782-1-152-14"-3 E2936-197 j'
-
'
..
-
_ _ _ _
_
.
~
l
.
.
,
-
.
,
Identification, material, wall schedule, lug and boss size and type, and weld locations were all checked against the applicable UE&C material specifications. Weld procedure use and the documentation of the proper NDE were verified to meet the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, subsections i
NE,NC, or ND, as applicable.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Nuclear Steam Supoly System (NSSS) Supports (Unit 1)
a.
Crosscver Leg Supoorts The inspector examined the structural steel being installed within Unit 1 containment to support the piping connecting the steam generator to the reactor coolant pump in each of the four cooling loop 3.
Weld type, structure configuration, engineering changes, material size and composition, bolting, and re ord of NDE and inspection were all checked for a representative sample of the members making up these supports. Selected records were reviewed. These items were checked against the criteria specified in the following documents:
AWS Standard 01.1 and the AISC Steel Construction Manual
--
UE&C Specification 12-5 (Revision 1) and Procedure WS-3 (Revision 1)
--
UE&C Drawing F-101482 (Revision 0)
--
UE&C Engineering Change Authorizations (ECA) 01/1775A and 01/1895A
--
No items of noncompliance were identified but several questions remain unanswered in the following specific areas:
Use of vee groove welds and their NDE
--
Requirement for backing strip use
--
Authorization for structural configuration change (ie: substitution
--
of stiffeners for a middle flange)
Record adequacy with regard to weld identification, inspection
--
and NDE
-
These questions were discussed with the licensee Field QA Manager and Site Manager at exit interviews on March 27 and April 1,1981. Pending
the licensee's presentation of evidence of the engineering acceptability of the as-built condition of the crossover leg supports, the adequacy of the records, and the correct procedural handling of shop-erection mod-
'
ifications recardino.these items, this matter remains unrosolved.
(443/81-03-03).
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
.
J
-
_
.
.
.
.
,
-
.
.
b.
Reactor Pressure Vessel Supports l
The inspector examined the material and method of installation of the
Unit 1 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) support system. Material type,
'
bolt traceability and certification, component configuration, and field installation techniques were all checked against ASME Code requirements l
and criteria specified.in the following documents:
UE&C Drawings F101483 (Revision 2), F101415 (Revision 5) and
--
F101426 (Revision 3)
Westinghouse Drawing 1186F47 and Engineering Specification
--
G-952628 (Revisicn 1)
Pullman Field Ins ructions FI-102 and FI-116 (both Revision 0)
--
While no items of noncompiiance were identified, the inspector noted that the connection of the RPV box supports to the reactor cavity concrete was detailed to utilize high-strength bolts. The applicable drawing (F101483) consnitted to ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Subsection NF and illustrated a slotted hole to be fabricated in one of the plies of this bolted connection. Honver, the installation criteria for these.1oints, as specified by the governing installation code (ASME-Winter 77 Addenda),
indicated that the slot dimensions were such so as to require a S/16" plate washer over the slotted ply. No plate washer was supplied,
.
Additionally, ASME III..NF requires these high-strength bolted connections to have the nut either torqued or locked, but the Pullman instructions specified only snug-tightness and the length of the bolts precluded double-nutting.
The inspector questioned the apparent conflict between the actual support installation and the governing requirements of the applicable ASME Code edition. He discussed this issue with the licensee Field QA Manager and Site Manager at exit interviews on March 27 and April 1,1981 and indicated that pending clarification of this conflict with the ASME Code, this item is unresolved (443/81-03-04).
7.
L' nit 1 Component Instal'ation a.
The inspector examined the installation of some 20" pneumatic-actuated
,
butterfly valves in the component cooling system. The seismic analysis I.
of these valves was reviewed and the dimensions used in the calculations were checked in the field. Additional calculations to justify the wall thickness for seismic consideration of the bolts in shear were requested and also reviewed. Flow direction, bolt material, and component status were all checked. All these items were evaluated with regard to criteria specified in the following documents:
USNRC 9egulatory Guide 1.48
--
- -
-
. _ -
--
-
- -
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
'
.
.
-
ASME B&PV Code Section,III, Subsection ND
--
UE&C Specifications 248-45 (Revisi-1) and 248-51 (Revision 7)
--
No items of rencompliance were idantified.
b.
The inspector also examined the reactor coolant system hot legs (29" class 1 piping) before and after movement into containment. He checked the installation of the follcwing valves into their piping systems against the applicable isometric drawings.
Valve Iso. Drawing 1-CC-V-0133 CC-775-01 Revision 2)
1-CC-V-0258 CC-829-01 Revision 0)
Pullman procedures 7X-5, Revision 6, and X-4 were reviewed for applicable requirements relative to temporary and final joint torquing of valves ir.to the piping runs and to the documented inspection criteria for these operations.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Storage and Maintenance (Units 1 ar.d 2)
The inspector conducted an inspection-tour of the licensee's equipment storage facility in Newington, N.H.
He spot-checked the condition of various components, the levels of storage, and specific items, such as purge maintenance, motor heater operation, QC inspection status cards, and temperature / humidity record charts, where applicable.
Certain preventive maintenance records were reviewed and the governing requirements for equipment maintenance and protection, both in storage and in place, as delineated in UE&C Field General Construction Procedures FGCP 6 and 9, were discussed with both maintenance supervisory and QA personnel.
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 noncompliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are
,
discussed in paragraphs 6a and b.
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.
.
- -.-m m-
- -.
-
-e--
--