ML20009H482
| ML20009H482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1981 |
| From: | Elsasser T, Mattia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009H476 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-81-06, 50-423-81-6, NUDOCS 8108100171 | |
| Download: ML20009H482 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000423/1981006
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
-
,.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
Report No. 50-423/81-06
Docket No. 50-423
License No. CPPR-113
Priority
__
Category
A
Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Eneray Company
P.O. Box 270
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Pcwer Station, Unit #3
Inspection at: Waterford, Connecticut
Inspection Conducted-
May S-9
nd Jane 1-5, 1981
f
] lo 8/
Inspectors:
__ 4he/
-
J. Mattia, Se i. Resident inspector
da e
igned
,
/.
_
date signed
Approved by:
W
-
W
7 20j8/
1". C.TElsasser, ' ' iief, Rezetor Projects
da.e signed
'
Section 1B
Inspection Summary _:
Unit 3 Inspection on May S-29 and June 1-5, 1931 (P.enort No. 50-423/81-06).
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspector of '..>ork act-
ivities relative to safety related concrete placement; pipe erection; in-
stallation of steam generators; raceway installation, and component installation.
The inspector also performed plant inspection tours and reviewed licensee
action on previously identified items.
The intpection involved 90 inspector-
hours, including three off-shift hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, one item of noncompliance was identified
in the following area:
Failure to follow the supplier's instruction manual
for the installation of mechanical snubbers (Paragragh 8).
.
.H
8108100171 810723
PDR ADOCK 05000423
G
L-
. _J
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ - _ _ _ .
'
.-
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Northeast Utilitfes Service Company (NUSCO)
K. Gray, Supervisor, Construction QA
S. Toth, system Superintendent Generation Construction
S. Ore' ice, Superintendent New Site Construction
F. Comstock, QA Technician
D. Diedrick, QA Manager
K. Murphy, QA Specialist
R. Vaccaro, QA Technician
J. Peterson, Construction Specialist
A. Cooper, Construction Engineer
J. Putnam, Construction Engineer
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W)
W. Mackay, Resident Manager
F. Sullivan, Senior Resident Engineer
A. Prussi, Senior Resident Engineer
P. Gagel, QA Program Administrator
G. Turner, Field QC Superintendent
W. Anderson, Assistant Field QC Superintendent
M. Matthews, Assistant Field QC Superintendent
G. Marsh, Senior QC Engineer
W. Orr, Senior QC Er.gineer
N. Kelly, Construction Supervisor, Welding
S. Morris, Senior QC Engineer
R. Hooker, QC Inspector
R. Hagerman, QC Engineer
F. Froscello, QC Inspector
B. Sicotte, QC Inspector
F. Morales, QC Inspector
Westinghouse Corporation
E. Harlow, Site Representative
2.
Plant Tours
The inspector observed work activities in progress,- completed work and
construction status in several areas of the plant. The inspector
examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory
requirements or license conditions.
Partic"lar acte was taken of the
presence of Quality Control inspectors and Quality Control evidence,
such as inspection .ecords, material identification, nonconforming
material identification, housekeeping and equipment preservation.
'
-
- -
.. a
.
,.
-
.
.
3
Specifically, the inspector observed various preparations for concrete
operations for the following: cooling water discharge tunnel (fill concrete
and base slab); Auxiliary Building and Engineered Safety Feature (ESF)
Building walls; Fuel Building fill concrete, and the installation of rebar
for the ESF, Auxiliary, Discharge Tunnel and control structures.
The inspector also observed the installation of cable trays and their
supports and piping activities in the various Category I buildings.
No items of noncompliance were identified during the various plant
tours conducted, However, the following conditions were observed:
a.
The inspector noted that a Category I (aluminum) cable tray zee
(#DHH20) had two cracked welds in the rings of the tee. Ar in-
spection of other cable tray tees stored in the same area did not
reveal any unsatisfactory weld joints.
S&W issued an Inspection
Report (No. X1000279) for the tee.
The disposition was to scrap.
b.
The inspector informed the licensee that the containment persor:nel
hatch had three areas requiring corrective action which are as
follows:
(1) Excessive amount of debris on or adjacent to the hatch.
(2) Bundle of electrical cables (terminations) was uncovered and
not protected from ongoing construction activities.
(3) Circumferential field weld joints and 1/2" piping did not
have any protective coating and were rusting.
Immediate corrective actions were taken for items (1) and (2)
above. S&W issued Inspection Report No. 10002/2 for the disposition
and appropriate cor ective action for item (3).
This item is
considered unresolved pending review by NRC inspector of the
corrective action.
(423/81-06-01)
c.
The inspector noted that the heaters for the Quench Spray Pump
and Safety Injection Pump motors were not energized (Note:
the
electricians were engaged in a labor dispute). This condition
was Srought to licensee's attention and immediate corrective
activ.. sas taken.
d.
During a plant tour the inspector noted that the crafts were
straightening the end of a damaged coated pipe using hydraulic
pressure. During a review o associated drawing (No. EB-ID),
applicable specificiatic1 and weld procedure to determine that
the repair was being performed in accordance with the requirements,
the inspector noted that this pipe was part of a duct for the
supplementary leak collection and release system (SLCRS).
The
drawing (EB-ID) and associated E&DCR (No. PB-3362) were not very
a.
L.
.
..
.
.
4
clear as to what standard shall be applied, that is, if it is a
duct (per specification) then AWS D.1.1 should apply; if pipe,
then ANSI B 31.1 applies.
S&W revised the drawing to further
clarify the requirements for this duct.
The duct is considered
by S&W to be a buried pipe (exhaust to Unit 1 stack) and ANSI
B31.1Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI</br></br>B31.1" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. applies for this Category I system.
The inspector has no
further questions at this time.
3.
Receiving, Handling and Installation of Steam Generator
Two steam generators (Westinghouse Spin No. NEU-RCPCSG-3 and -4),
shipped from Tampa, Florida by barge, arrived at the Millstone 3
Construction Site. The steam generators were received, removed from
the barge and then transported to the containment and lifted into
place. The inspector witnessed most of the activities for the first
unit (-3 or Unit "C") and also verified that the requirements and
precautions in the following documents were adhered to:
--
S&W Field Construction Prccedure (FCP) #295, Rev. O, entitled
" Steam Generator Installation and Rigging."
--
S&W FCP-296, Rev. O, entitled " Setting of Steam Generator on
Temporary Supports."
--
S&W Construction Method Procedure (CMP) 10.3, entitled, " Testing
of Overhead Cranes and Monorails."
--
S&W Procedure CMP 10.1, entitled, " Rigging and Equipment Maintenance."
The inspector retiewed the following data associated with the polar
crane and lif ti ig rigs:
S&W Containment Structure Polar Crane Test Certification Reports
--
No. 9 and 10.
NDE Reports of Crane Hook, dated 7/19/80, 7/21/80, and 5/11/81.
--
Proof Load Test Report No. S191 For Westinghouse Lifting Beam
--
(DWG 1099 JIB).
S&W NDE Report for Lifting C am.
--
R. Dudgeon Inc. Test Report for 200 Ton 12" Lifting Jacks System.
--
--
Bridgeport Testing Lab and Thames Valley Steel Corporation reports
for liquid penetrant testing of the various size bolts used for
the steam generator handling.
.
Proof test reports for various slings used for the steam generator
--
lifts.
s.
L
_)
-.
-
..
- _ .
_.
.
,
-.
-
.
..
.
.
.
5
The inspector found the inspection and S&W construction personnel were
knowledgeable of the handling requirements and that they were adequately
per'orming their duties, inspection and/or surveillance activities,
during the handling of the steam generator.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Observation of Concrete Placement Activities
The inspector reviewed the S&W specification (C999) and the quality
standard, QS-10.13, requirements for placing concrete.
The. inspector
also held discussions with inspection personnel present at the concrete
'
placement locations for the containment wall (Placement No. C-3702).
Based on the review af the documents, discussions with inspection
personnel, and the d ect observation of the various activities
'
associated with the placement, the inspector determined the following:
The preplacement inspection and w0rk activities conformed to the
--
project requirements.
-
--
The inspection personnel at the placement were knowledgeable of
work requirements. They were located in close proximity to the
i
j
truck discharge and final placement location to observe and
inspect the quality of concrete and placement operations.
The quality requirements of the conc. rete being placed were verified
--
by testing near the paint of placement and at the mixing truck.
,'
The inspector verified that the delivered concrete met the specification
j
requirements for the placement as to mix design slump, air and
temperature.
--
Consolidation of concrete in the forms was adequate.
--
The form work was adequate and the rebar cover was as required by
specification.
i
--
A review of the QC inspection reports (Preplacement #S1001517 and
Placement No. S1001512) indicated they were adequate and complete.
S&W concrete pour card was properly filled out per the requirements.
--
--
The curing requirements were adhered to.
-
No items of nonccmpliance were identified, however, the' inspector
questioned the " bundling" of two No. 18 rebars horizontally around the
inner diameter of wall. The ACI 318 Building Code. Requirements, in
Section 7.4.2 (both text and commentary) specifies certain conditions
for " bundling" of rebars which are not being followed by S&W.
It is
the stated opinion of S&W (Design) that Section 7.4.2 is strictly for
a
~
v,
,.n.
. , . - . .
,-
,
,-. ,,.
, ,
,
- . , . - - , , -.,
_
___
_
._
_ _ . _
_ _ - . _ .
-
_.
_ _ _
_ _ _
,
^
.-
,.
j
.
,
6
a
columns and girders and, therefore, does not apply to the containmer...
The licensee was informed that this item is considered unresolved
i
pending review by NRC of the licensee's contention that ACI 318 Section
7.4.2 does not apply.
(423/81-06-02)
5.
Raceway Supports and Anchorages
1
The inspector observed the installation of several cable tray supports
in the control building cable spreading room for conformance to the
requirements specified in the following documents:
j
--
Stone & Webster Drawing FSK-E-140.
)
Stone & Webster Drawing FSK-CS-710-421.
--
t
Stone & Webster Drawing EE-52A.
--
--
Stone & Webster E&DCR Number FE-4239.
The inspector deten.iined the following:
)
The crafts were using approved and current drawings.
--
<
--
The materials were of the type (configuration) and size specified.
The correct weld materials and weld procedures were used by
--
qualified welders.
,
--
Weld inspection by QC inspectors was performed.
,
Location was in accordance with drawing requirements.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
i
6.
Safe _ty Related Piping Installation Work Activities
i
'.
a.
The following veld joints, located in the yard adjacent to the
,
'
intake structure (in various stages of welding), were inspected
j
to verify that the weld procedures and code requirements were
l
adhered to:
3-SWP-030-190-3, Field Weld #6 (completed except _ for weld . repair
!
on surface).
r
I
3-SWp-030-191B, Field Weld #6 (weld approximately 3/4 completed)
l
The S&W weld technique procedure No. W290 was being used for
!
welding these copper alloy (#706) weld joints. The inspector
also observed the liquid penetrant examination being performed on
the-weld repair. _The qualifications of the NDE examiners and
welder were also reviewed.
!
!
!
%-
~d
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ ______- - ____- ___ _ _-_ __ ___.
_ _ _ _ ________ _
_ _ _ _ _
____ _
l
.-
.
.
.
7
Welding and NDE were performed in accordance with the applicable
procedure and code rquirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
The following weld joints, located in the Engineered Safety
Features (ESF) building, were inspected to verify that the weld
procedures and code requirements were adhered to:
3 SIL-008-14-2, FW #22 (fitup inspection was in progress).
3 CI-QSS-3, FW#2 (fitup inspection was in progress).
3-SWP-4-PSST-153 (pipe support installation and welding in progress).
3-FWA-010-20-3, FW#23 (weld joint approximately 1/3 completed).
3-QSS-3-5-4-2, FW#2 (fitup completed).
The inspector verified th t the requirements of the applicable
S&W weld technique procedures (W12F, W39F and W21U) and code
requirements were being followed.
The weld data sheets for each
weld were reviewed. The inspector also observed the QC inspector
and construction welding supervisor performing their fit-up
inspections. The correct welding materials were in use for the
welding.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
A weld joint identified as 3CHS-003-72-2, FW#3 located ic. the
containment building was being welded and was approximato.y 2/3
completed. The inspector reviewed the wela data sheet and observed
the welding in progress to determine that the requirements of
weld technique procedure, W12G, and code requirements were adhered
to.
No items of nonco.mpliance were identified.
7.
Containment Dome and Wall Stud Weldfog
The inspector observed stud welding on the outside of containment at
penetration inserts 4B 313, 18 316, and 18 315 to verify compliance
with S&W weld technique procedure W718,- AWS D.1.1, drawing EV-12,
Revision 6 and specification C109 requirements. The correct materials
(size and' type) for the concrete anchor studs and deformed bar anchors
were being used. The rejected stud welds (incomplete filler weld)
were being properly repaired (using S&W weld technique Procedure
W718).
L
a
..
,.
-
.
8
No items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (423/81-05-02):
Lack of vendors in-
struction manual for installing mechanical shock and sway suppressors
(snubbers).
Several snubbers were installed in safety related
systems prior to receipt of the vendors instruction manual (example:
three snubbers were installed in the raactor plant component
coo! ng water piping system to the excess letdown heat exchanger
which is located inside the containment building).
The inspector
informed the licensee that the installation of snubbers without
the vendor's instruction manual is contrary to C,iterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B a.,d that the previously unresolved item is now
considered an item of noncompliance (423/81-06-03).
S&W received
ITT Grinnel Corporation maintenance and installation m nual (PHD-
7594-1 Revision 3, dated 10/12/79 for the snubbers on site (stored
and installed). The manual has detailed instructicas for the
handling, storage and installation of these snubbers.
The instruction
lists mandatory " caution" notes for each of these activities.
b.
(0 pen) Unresolveo Item (423/81-05-01): The A/E has installed
signs and barriers to control access to the reactor pressure
vessel bottom head area (mirror insulation in place storage
area). The additianal supports for the in-core instrumentation
piping beneath the reactor pressure vessel have not been installed
as yet.
This item is considered unresolved pending installation
of additional support.
c.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (423/81-05-09):
S&W received the vendor's
regenerative heat exchanger support bracket drawing (#5584). The
inspector measured several critical as-built dimensiors to de-
term, le if an unauthorized modification .to the support was per-
formed at the site.
The results indicated that the support was
not modified, however, the inspector noticed that several of the
weld joints for the clamps (detaii "D" of decwing) did not meet
the drawing requirements (weld configuration).
The licensee was
informed of this discrepancy.
The S&W issued an inspection
report (IR No. M1000159) and a ncnconformance report (N&D No.
-
0790) for this condition.
This item is still considered unresolved
pending Westinghouse disposition of discrepancy.
9.
Installation of Skid Mounted Safety-Related Pumps
The NRC inspec or was approached by some of the craf t workers (millwrights)
with a concern that S&W will not install skid mounted pumps and motors
per the vendor's instruction manual. A specific example.was given to
the inspr;tcr. The safety injection pumps (two) are presently
' stalled
(not finally leveled, aligned or grouted) in their proper location
with the intaka and discharge piping bolted to the pump flanges.
The
.-
L-
.
.-
.
.
.
9
vendor's (Pacific Pump) instruction inanual states that prior to grouting,
the motor shall be disconnected from the pump and lifted off the skid
in order to le.<el the skid.
The specific concern is that this will
not be done.
The inspector informed the licensee of the concern and
was informed that the vendor's instruction manual will be folloted or, if
not, the vendor's manual, a prope-ly approved S&'d procedure
will be followea. The inspector stated that this item is considered
unresolved pending NRC reveiw c f records and/or observations of final
installation of safety-related skid mounted pump and motors.
(423/31-
06-04)
10.
Itsta]1ation r? Prestressed Concrete Pine
The inspector observed the handling, erecting and testing of connection
of Si" diameter concrete yard pipe for compliance with S&W specification
C 966.
He also observed the QC inspection activities associated with
the installation.
No items of ncncompliance were identified.
11.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved 'tems are matters c' out which more information is required
u
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-
compliance, or daviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the
inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 2, 4 and 9.
12.
igaaoement Meetings
j
At pericaic intervals during the coursa of this inspection, meetings
were helc with senior plant r..anagement to discuss the scopo and findings
of this iaspection.
c-
,