ML17053C480
| ML17053C480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1980 |
| From: | Feil R, Mattia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C476 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-80-11, NUDOCS 8103300016 | |
| Download: ML17053C480 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000410/1980011
Text
v
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Report
No.
50-410/80-11
Region I
Docket No.
50-410
License
No.
CPPR-112
Pri.ority
Category
Licensee:
Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation
300 Erie Boulevard East
Syracuse,
13202
Facil ity Name
~
Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Power Station, Unit 2
Inspection at:
Scriba,
Inspection
conducted:
ctober 21-23 and
November 4-6,
1980
I'nspectors:
R.
A. Feil, Reactor
Inspector
i >
$'v
d te signed
date signed
Approved by:
a
sa,
c sng
ec ion
le, Projects
Section,
RC&ES Branch
date signed
t >/v/h'
date signed
Ins ection
Summar
>>s ecti'on
on October 21-23
and
November 4-6,
1980
Re ort No.
50-410/80-11
'reas
Inspected:
Roust
ne unannounced
inspection
by
1 regional
based
inspector of
unresolved
items
and r'eview of documentation.',
The inspection involved 54 inspector
hours
on site by
1 regional
based
inspector,
fhmj~
Of the three areas
inspected,
no apparent
items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified in two areas;
one apparent
item of noncompliance
(infraction - procedures
not followed in documentation
process - Paragraph
5) was identified in one area.
Region I Form 12
(Rev. April 77)
810S300 016
DETAILS
1.
Persons
Contacted
Nia ara
Mohawk Power Cor oration
NNPC
Nr. J.
J.
Bebko,
QA Projects
Group Leader
Mr. S.
Czuba-,
QA Engineer
Nr. J.
L. Dillon, Senior Site
QA Representative
(Acting)
Mr.
G. J.
Doyle,
QA Engineer
Mr.
C.
G. Honors, Construction
Engineer
Mr.
D. Maxwell, Lead,
Records
Management
Mr.
R.
L. Patch,
QA Engineer
Stone
8 Webster
En ineerin
Cor oration
S8WEC
Ms.
C.
Mr.
C.
Nr.
C.
Mr.
C.
Ns. J.
Nr.
R.
Nr,
E.
Mr. N.
Mr.
H.
Mr. L.
Nr.
M.
Debar,
Manager
Document Control
E.
Gay, Superintendent,
Field
A. Goody, Resident
Manager
E. Hilton, Superintendent
of Construction
Ister,
Document Control
L. Kelvin, Lead Engineer,
FQC
NcGilley, Lead Engineer
FQC
G.
Pace,
Assistant
Program
QA Manager
J. Pierre,'ngineer,
RE Office
E. Shea,
Head, Site Engineering Office
Olson,
Engineer,
RE Office
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
The inspector conferred with other licensee
and contractor personnel
during
the course of the inspection.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous.Ins
ection Findin s
(Closed)
Unresolved
Item (79-02-04):
Discrepancies
between
QA Standards,
Directives
and Report
Forms.
The licensee
had revised Quality Assurance
Directive QAD-9. 3 and the equality Assurance
Inspection
Report to eliminate
any discrepancy~.
The
QAD and inspection report
now .reflect the
same inspec-
tion attributes.
(Closed)
Unresolved
Item (80-05-01):
Temperature
measurement
of uncom-
pleted
cadweld sleeve.
An
ESDCR
has
been submitted with corrective action
on temperature
measurement
of cadweld sleeves
which have not been
completed
during the normal
work day.
It has
been
determined that the requirement
to measure
the temperature
be eliminated.
Specification
S203C
has
been
revised to state that the cadweld will be preheated
as if it were
a
new
shot
and that no temperature
measurement
is required.
(Closed)
Unresolved
Item (80-07-01):
guality Control inspection reports
affected
by E&DCRs should
be reviewed
and annotated
to identify applicable
changes
in inspection criteria.
The inspector
was informed that the com-
mitment to note applicable
E&DCRs in the remarks
column of the inspection
report was rescinded.
Also there would be
no effort to note applicable
E&DCRs on post inspection reports.
After discussion with the licensee,
the inspector determined that
no useful
purpose
would be served .by post-
ing of E&DCRs to previous inspection reports.
The applicable
E&DCRs are
identified on the Record of Drawing Changes.
In addition, the
E&DCR and
the Record of Drawing Changes
is
a document which will be in the permanent
plant file.
This specific unresolved
item is closed.
(Open}
Licensee Identified Item (80-00-01):
Deficiencies in Component
Seismic Environmental gualifications in GE Supplied
Equipment.
The
.licensee
had reported in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.55(e) that during an
audit of the
NSSS vendor,
no evidence
was found that three electrical
instruments
were adequately qualified.
A search of records following
the audit located
the qualification records
in another file.
The vendors
gA Program is being modified to cross-reference
qualification records
and vendor-qualified documentation.
The documentation
shows that the
electrical
i.nstruments
are adequately qualified to satisfy their intended
design function.
(Open) Construction Deficiency Report (80-00-04):
8 Rebar welded to plate
embedded
in pedestal
per
ASME vice
AWS
D 12. 1.
The licensee
reported
the
following deviations
were identified with eight sections of No.
14 rebar
which were field welded to shear
bars
on reactor
pedestal
embedment
PB-37.
1.
The welding procedure
used
was
an
ASME Section III procedure
but was
not qualified to the code applicable for the work performed (i.e.,
AWS D12.1).
2.
The welder was qual ified to ASME Section
I X but not to the applicable
code (i.e.,
AWS D12.1).
3.
The welds were not tested
using sister splices
as required
by the
specification.
This particular cadwelding
was limited to these eight rebar welds
and
has
been evaluated
as follows:
1.
The welding procedure
used for the welding of'o.
14 rebar to plate
PB-37 is qualified to
ASME Section III and was
used with 300oF pre--
heat.
This procedure is adequate
for the work performed
and will
provide acceptable
results.
This has
been verified by,comparing,
the welding parameters
specified in the procedure
used with those
specified in a procedure qualified to
AWS D12. 1,-
2.
3.
The welding procedure
used is comparable
to an approved
AMS D12.1
procedure
and the
we 1 der
was qualified to the
same
pr ocedure.
A
review of the welder's
previous qualifications indicates that the
rebar
and plate that
he actually welded are of essentiallv
the
same
chemistry
as the materials
he was qualified to weld.
A visual inspection
was performed
and documented for these
rebar
welds indicating that surface
cracks or discontinuities
were not
,present.
4.
Initially, the design of embedement
PB-37 was
based
on
a pullout.
load of 405 Kips.
Subsequently,
the actual pullout load to be
resisted
by this plate for the worst loading condition has
been
determined
to be 336 Kips.
Eight No.
14 rebar welded to the plate
can provide
maximum pullout capacity of 704 kips.
Therefore,
the
welds in question will not be stressed
to full design load.
Design
calculations of the plate indicate that maximum pullout load on any
single
No.
14 rebar is 31.4 kips for the worst loading condition,
which is far less
than the allowable load of 88 kips.
In order to further assure
the adequacy of the welding procedure
used,
three sister
splices will be prepared
using the aforementioned
Section III procedure
and tested for tensile stress.
Action to prevent
recurrence
is being evaluated.
3.
~Fili
T
The inspector observed
work activities in progress,
completed
work and
plant status
in several
areas of the facility during the course of the
inspection.
Presence
of quality control inspectors,
quality control
records,
conformance with procedural
requirements
and equipment preserva-
tion was observed.
The inspector conferred with craft personnel,
supervi-
sion
and quality inspection
personnel
as
such personnel
were available in
the work areas.
Specifically, the inspector observed
the installation
and placement of
containment penetrations,
the cadwelding in progress
on the containment
and work on
a void found in the pedestal
concrete.
No items of noncompliance
were observed.
4.
Status of Construction
The primary containment floor'as
been poured.
The reactor vessel
is
being maintained with a nitrogen atmosphere.
Installation of the
mud
mat in the lake tunnels is continuing.
Concrete
and rebar work on the
reactor building, secondary
building and control
building is continuring.
The facility is ~304 complete.
The construc-
tion completion date is December
1985 with comm rcial operation starting
in November
1986.
5.
Review of Documentation
During the review of Unresolved
Item No. 80-07-01 the inspector
looked
at
30 drawings to ascertain
the status of any
E&DCRs posted against
the
drawings.
One drawing number
12177-EC-38A-6,
Primary Containment Hall-
Section,
Reactor Building had more than
5
E&DCRs posted
on the drawing.
This exceeded
the procedural limits for incorporation into the drawing
of no more than
5 N&D/E&DCRs with a time limit of 2 months
as required
by Project Procedures
16 and 24.
The inspector subsequently
undertook
a review of the records for concrete
pour
1-122-015P.
The following documents
were review,'ed.
Documentation Checklist
Concrete
Pre-Placement
Inspection
Report
S8021528
Concrete
Pour Card
1-122-015P
Concr ete
Placement
Inspection
Report S8021545
Compression
Strength
Test Reports
1-122-015
Concrete
Curing Inspection
Report 88021552
S8021696
Concrete
Curing Record
1-122-015P
Nonconformance
and Disposition Report 0635
Drawing Numbers
12177-ED-38B-5,
6 and
7 Pr'.mary Containment Hall
Elevation - Reinforcement
Reactor
Building
Engineering
and Drawing Coordination
Reports
Drawing Numbers
12177-EC-38C-5,
6 and
7 Primary Containment Hall
Elevation - Reinforcement,
Reactor Building
Record of Drawing Changes
(For above drawings)
E&DCR and
N&D Drawing Change
Record
(For above drawings)
Some of these
documen.s
were also
used
as reference
documents for concrete
pour l-122-016p..
Documents for thi.s pour i<hach. a<ere reviewed i'ncluded the
following:
Documentation Checklist
Concrete
Placement
Inspection
Reports
S8022409
S8022655
S8022387
S8021601
Concr ete
Pour
Card 1-122-016P
Concrete
Placement
Inspection
Report S8022410
'ompressive
Strength Test Reports
1-122-016
Concrete
Curing Inspection
Peports
S8022746
S8023128
Concrete
Curing Record
1-122-016P
Engineering
and Drawing Coordination Reports
Dr awing
Number 12177-EC-38A-4
Primary Containment Wall-Section
Reactor
Building
Drawing Number 12177-EC-38E-5
Primary Containment Wall-Section
Reactor Building
Record. of Drawing Changes
(for above drawings)
E&DCR and
N&D Drawing Change
Record (for above drawings)
During the exami nation of the records for the
2 =oncrete
pours
the follow-
ing discrepancies
were found.
1)
Drawing 12177-EC-38C-7
Wall Elevation-.Reinforcement,
Reactor
Building had
5
EDCRs over
2 months old posted
to the drawing
and not incorporated into the drawing as required
by Project Procedures
Nos.
16 and 24.
This is the current drawing being used in the
S&WEC
engineering office on site.
2)
EKDCR No.
C10379 dated
May 18,
1978 which is posted
on Drawing No.
12177-EC-38B-7 is still open.
The requirements
of this
E&DCR were
completed
on
May 30,
1980.
All work covered
by the drawing has
been
completed.
The Field Quality Control
(FQC) is responsible
by Quality
Control Instruction
QS6. 1 for closing and maintaining the status of
E&DCRs that require inspection
by FQC.
There
was
no record
on the
-:nspection report that te
E&DCR wa'tilized during inspec ion of
the concrete
pour.
3)
Drawing
No 12177-EC-38A-4
does not ref'lect the as-built condition
of the primary containment wall because
E&DCR CI0199 was not incor-
porated correctly into the drawing as
shown
on the
E&OCR.
The deficiencies in the records
and drawings
and lack of adherence
to
procedures
represent
a noncompliance
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion
V.
(80-11-01)
The inspector
was informed that the drawings with the discrepant
postings
of E&DCRs would be revised
on November
28,
1980.
Because of the deficiencies
and dis'crepancies
found in the small
sample
reviewed by the inspector the licensee
was inforoed that the inspector
lacked confidence that the
QA/QC program provides the correct documenta-
tion to reflect the as-built conditions of the facility.
The licensee
informed the inspector that an audit would be undertaken
.
during the week of November 7,
1980 by the licensee of S&MEC system for
controlling and implementirg
E&DCRs ard
N&Ds.
The inspector subsequently
informed the licensee
that the results of this
inspection provided evidence that
S&WEC is deficient in that the
QA/QC
program does not provide assurance
that adequate
review and followup is
made of inspection
and audit records.
6.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee
representatives
(denoted
in paragraph
1) at
the conclusion of the inspection
on november 6, 1980.
The inspector
summarized
the scope
and findings of the inspection.
A
~
I
I