ML20031H342
| ML20031H342 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1981 |
| From: | Durr J, Mccabe E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031H330 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-352-81-14, 50-353-81-12, NUDOCS 8110270384 | |
| Download: ML20031H342 (11) | |
See also: IR 05000352/1981014
Text
~
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
50-352/ 81-14
Report No. 50-353/ R1-17
50-352f
Docket No.
50-353
CPPR-106
License No.
CPPR-107
Priority
-
Category
A
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Comoany
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Facility Name: Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2
Inspection at: Limerick, Pennsylvania
Inspection conducted: September 1-30,1981
Inspectors:
sth>
/o/4
f/
(A . P. Durr, Senior Resident Inspector
' date signed
date signed
date signed
'* b
Approved by: _hk-_
d3te signed
t.
L. McLaoe, Unier, Keactor
Projects Section 2B
.
Inspection Summary: (Unit No.1) Inspection on September 1 - 30, 1981 (Report No.
352/81-14) Areas Inspected: A routine, unannounced inspection by the Senior Resident
Inspector of the spray pond excavation, concrete activities, pipe and structural
steel welding, pipe supports, PGCC modifications, and licensee action on previous
inspection findings. The inspection involved 42.5 inspection-hours on site.
Results: One item of noncompliance was identified in the seven areas inspected
(Failure to document a pipe support design change, para. 4).
'
(Unit No. 2)
Inspection on September 1-30, 1981 (Report No. 50-353/81-12)
Areas Inspected: A routine, unannounced inspection by the Resident Inspector of the
spray pond excavation, concrete activities, pipe and structural steel welding, and PGCC
modifications. The inspection involved 18.5 inspection-hours on site.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified in the five areas inspected.
Region I Form 12
(Rev. April 77)
8110270394 811008-
PDR ADOCK 05000352
G
PDR_
j
.
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Philadelphia Electric Company
D. T. Clohecy, Quality Assurance Engineer (QAE)
J. M. Corcoran, Field QA Branch Head
G. Lauderback, Jr., QAE
Bechtel Power Corporation
R. D. Bryan, Project Field Supt.
M. K. Chatterjee, Staff Conc. Engineer
B. A. Dragon, QAE
H. D. Foster, PFQCE
S. S. Godsey, Adm. Assistant
J. P. Gray, Sr. , LPQCE
M. G. Held, LC QCE
E. R. Klossin, PQAE
R. A. Lanemann, Project Electrical Supt.
J. L. Martin, LSQAE
J. B. McLaughlin, Lead Electrical Engineer
A. Molinaro, Project Superintendent
R. Newman, Lead P/M Engr. Reactor Bldg.
K. L. Quinter, Asstit.PFQCE
D. M. Shaw, APEE
R. V. Staus, Construction Engineer
W. J. Tate, Jr. , Lead Staff Civil En . ,
D. C. Thompson, Ass't. PFQCE
R. E. Weaver, LSME
A. G. Weedman, PFE
General Electric Co.
W. J. Neal, Resident Site Manager
ihe above listed personnel attended an exit interview given on September 30,
1981. Other craftsmen, engineers, quality control technicians, and
supervisors were contacted as the inspection interfaced with their work.
,
.
.
S
2.
Plant Tours (Unit Nos.1 & 2)
Periodically during the inspection, tours were made of the Unit Nos. 1
and 2 primary reactor containments, the reactor buildings, the control
structure, and surrounding yards and shops. The inspector examined
completed work, work in-progress, quality control activities, and
equipment storage, handling, and maintenance.
He discussed the technical
aspects of the work with craftsmen, supervisors, and engineers to assure
work was being perfo med in accordance with requirements.
During the tour o# ti e common control room, the inspector observed the
initial portions of the work to correct flexible condait grounds in the
Power Generation Control Complex (PGCC). This deficiency was reported in
Construction Deficiency Report No. 81-00-01.
He reviewed the Field Dis-
position Instruction, FDI No. TNFV, and discussed the technical aspects
of the work with the craftsman and his supervisor. The FDI did not specifically
address which panels, circuits, or drawings were affected. The GE site
engineer had appended a list of affected panels to the FDI.
A limited
review of the drawings affected disclosed that the design infomation in the
FDI has not been translated to the drawings. When the FDI is completed,
the design infomation may be lost for future modifications or repairs.
The Engineering Change Notice (ECN) is the nomal document used to initiate
changes to the drawings, however, this was not available for review at this
time. This item is unresolved pending review of the ECN to verify FDI
design infomation (50-352/81-14-01 and 353/81-12-01).
A visual examination of the PGCC panels disclosed three questionable install-
ation practices for flexible conduit. First, a section of conduit in
panel 20C648 is not tied down adequately and can be moved to contact
surrounding terminals. Second, in panel 10C603 a 5" section of flexible
conduit is supported only by the wire it encases. Third, flexible conduit
is supported only by wire tie wraps.
Based on these observations the
inspector asked,if the seismic qualification of the PGCC panels was made
with the flexible conduit installed, what was the anchoring criteria for
flexible conduit, and do tie wraps meet the criteria? This item is unresolved
pending replies to these questions.
(352/81-04-02and353/81-12-02)
On September 10, 1981, Messrs. J. R. Pearring, of the Hydrologic and
Geotechnical Engineering Branch, and R. B. McMallen, of the Geosciences
Branch, visited the site to observe the spray pond excavation. The spray
pond tour was preceded by a meeting with licensee's technical personnel
to discuss NRC concerns relating to the South slopes ability to retain
water, the North slopes potential for liquifaction, and the rock structure
pemeability.
.
.
- 4
3.
Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Unresolved Item (352/80-16-01) Welding filler rod transferred
to the Susquehanna Steam Generating Station (SSES) from Limerick was
identified by the NRC as not meeting ASME III requirements. The NRC
issued noncompliances 387/80-04-01 and 388/80-02-01 to the SSES. The
closeout of this noncompliance at SSES is applicable to this item at
Limerick and is reproduced below:
-(Closed)
Infraction (387/80-04-01; 388/80-02-01): Failure
to document chemical analysis of weld. filler metal. The
subject infraction involved the utilization of E309L-16 and ER 309
austenitic SMAW and GTAW filler metals which met ASME Section II
SFA-5.4 and SFA 5.9 filler metal requirements, but failed to
be tested for residual elements requir'ed by ASME Section III
(1974) Table 2432.1. The filler, received before January 1972
by the Limerick site and transferred to Susquehanna, did not require
analysis for these elements. The 1974 Edition of Section III
requires that these elements be analyzed for infonnation only
rather than indicating a specific range or maximum for each
element. The filler metals meet all other requirements for Section III
and are considered by the inspector to be metallurgically acceptable.
The actions taken by the licensee including residual analyses for
three heats and weld joint deposit analyses for two welds was
reviewed by the inspector and found acceptable. The inspector had
no further questions concerning this item.
,
r-
1
.
.
.
.
5
4.
Pipe hangers
The below listed pipe supports, hangers, and snubbers were selected for
visual examination. The examination verified selected attributes of the
design drawing were correct and that the drawing accurately reflected
the installation. The inspection consisted of dimensional measurements
of parts, visual and dimensional weld examinations, correct materials
used and proper documentation. The following supports were examined:
Support or Hanger
Finding
GBB-118-H12
Fillet weld between item #3 & #4 not
full throat; item #4 not identified
on drawing.
GBB-113-HG
Item #8 and #9 rotated 900
HBB-118-H3
Dimension on item 11 is 5/8" versus ";
lug orientation shows 1200 spacing, should
0
be 90 ; pipe clamp does not have outside
bolts as shown, beam cope has notch at-
radius.
GBB-101-H3
Behm end connections for item 17 not
consistent with drawing, beam copes appear
to be less than h" radius.
GBB-ll7-H4
No nonconformances.
GBB-101-H15
No nonconformances.
GBB-ll7-Hil
No nonconformances.
GBC-101-H48
No nonconformances.
The supports were in various stages of completion and rework.
It was
verified that final inspections had not been perfonned by the licensee's
quality control group. The licensee issued In-Process Rework Notices for
the deficiencies noted.
The beam end connections for item 17 of support GBB-101-H3 were not installed
in accordance with the drawing. Significant changes in configuration were
made. A discussion with field personnel disclosed that the hanger was last
worked on circa July,1981. A check of document centrol records shows
4
that no Field Change Requests have been issued for that support. The
_
.
.
,
'
1
.
.
6
-
1.imerick Job Rules M-17, paragraph 5.6.1 and G-5, paragraph 5.3 require
the initiation of a Field Change Request for Alteration of design config-
uration. The failure to issue a Field Change Request in accordance with
established Job Rules is an item of noncompliance.
(352/81-14-03)
The inspector noted that the copes and cutouts of structural shapes do not
appear to meet.the AISC b" radius requirement.
Specifically, the notched
condition on HBB-ll8-H3 and the radii on GBB-101-H3 beam copes. Further
inspection revealed that the Specification for Installation of Critical
Pipe Supports, Hangers, and Restraints, P-319, does not address the use
of the AISC. However, the Specification for Pipe Hangers, Supports, and
Restraints for a Nuclear Power Plant (procurement), P-317, and Design
Criteria for Design and Documentation of Pipe Supac.-ts, Hangers, t.nd
Restraints, P-401, both invoke AISC requirements. This item is tmeesolved
per. ding verification that AISC requirements are applicable to pipe
support structural elements and are implemented for installation
activities.
(352/81-14-04)
- -
-
..
. .. .
.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
7
5.
Spray Pond (Ultimate Heat Sink)
The spray pond preparation was selected for observation of rock preparation,
concrete fill, and soil backfill. The inspector reviewed the following
documents:
-- C94, Specification for Spray Pond Earthwork
-- C61, Specification for Furnishing and Delivery of On-Site Concrete
-- Cll, Specification for Placing Unreinforced Concrete
-- LGS, FSAR Sections 2.5, 3.8, and 9.2
-- Drawings C-1102, 1105, 1128, 1129, and M-384
Portions of the spray pond excavation were examined by members of the
NRC-NRR Geosciences Branch (see paragraph 2) for acceptability. Areas
beneath the spray pining were excavated down to cmpetent rock and backfilled
with Class "A" concrete. The NRC inspector observed portions of the
concrete backfilling. He eitnessed slump and air entrainment tests
verifying that they were perfomed in accordance with ASTM test methods
and the values met specification li; nits.
He observed concrete batching, transporting and placing activities.
It
was noted that concrete trucks were being driven on relatively fresh
concrete. The inspector detemined, from conversations with licensee
personnel, that sme of the concrete was only 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> old. The inspector
brought this to the attention of the licensee, who issued a "Stop Work"
notice to prevent further construction loads on fresh concrete. A review
of specification C-ll disclosed that the specification does not provide
for protection of concrete fr m construction loads as required by ACI-301.
This item is unresolved pending verification that the concrete was not
damaged and revision of Specification C-11 (352/81-14-05 and 353/81 12-03).
A review of the soil backfill records for areas adjacent to the overflow
structure identified inconsistencies in the ASTM test documentation. The
specification C-94 requires that Moisture-Density curves be made in
accordance with ASTM-D698, Method "D".
The curves reviewed by the inspector
were made by Method "C".
The ASTM-0698, Method "D" states, "This method
shall not be used unless the amount of material retained on the 3/4" sieve
is 10% or greater." The licensee has not retained the sieve analysis
records to support method "C" use.
It appears that, frm soil stock pile
sieve analyses, that the "C" method is warranted. However, the method of
sampling and record correlation are not clearly defined. This item is
unresolved pending clarification of procedures and confimation of test
acceptability.
(352/81-14-06 and 353/81-12-04)
-.
_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___A
- . . . . .- _ _
.
-
-
.
.-
.
_- ~ _
. .
.
.
8
1
1
l
~
The licensee has a "Q-List" wnich identifies structures and components
that are nuclear safety related and subject to 10CFR50, Appendix B,
requirements. The "Q-List" exempts the spray pond unreinforced concrete,
concrete backfill, soil-bentonite lining, soil cover, riprap, and shot .
crete from the list. A preliminary ' review by the NRC considers these items
to be under the purview of 10CFR50, Appendix B.
This item is unresolved .
ending review of the licensee's rationale for exenpting the above items
352/81-14-07 and 353/81-12-05).
6.
Concrete Activities
'
The inspector observed the placement of concrete in the following ; locations:
Diesel Generator roof slab, Drawing C-660-DS-K-6-3
--
-- Spray pond fill and pipe supports (see para. 5)
'
-- Suppressica pool base plate grouting, Drawing C-263
He verified that the required tests were performed, the concrete mix met
specifications, and that placement practices were in accordance with codes
and specifications.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
I
i
i
f
-
)
,
j
i
l
!
--
-
- -
- - -
. -
- -
.
. - -
.
- -
- - - -
-
--
.
_
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
.
/
..
.
-
t
'
9
7.
Observation of Pipe Welding Activities
Reactor-coolant pressure boundary (ASME III, Class. I) and other safety
related pipe welds (ASME III, Class II and III) were selected for document
,
review and observation of welding activities. The document reviews
'
verified the welder's qualifications, proper welding procedures were employed,
required nondestructive tests specified, appropriate quality control
inspection points specified and signed off, and proper preheat and postweld
heat treatments were required. The observation of welding consists of, where
applicable, examination of the cleanliness, fitup, and alignment of the
parts; proper welding equipment; purge and cover gas flow rates; electrodes
and filler materials; appearance of the weld deposit; evidence of quality
control activities; and proper documentation. The following welds were
examined:
Unit
Weld No.
Class
System
Status
1
DCA-318-3-W6
I
Fitup, Alignment,
,,
Rootpass
2
DLA-206-1-W2
I
Fitup, Alignment,
(PENE)
Rootpass
2
GBC-201-8-FW51
III
Main Steam Fitup and Alignment
j .
No items of noncompliance were identified.
_
'
-
t
.
i
/
1
o
h
}
'
/
.;
-
.
t
~t'
,
-
.
s
,
'b'
't
,
, i
.
'
r
'
>
r
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
_ _ . _ _
__
__
.. - --
- _ _ . -
-
.
.-
- .
./
,
,
. .
-10
/
8.
Containment Structural Steel
^
Containment structural steel was selected for observation of welding and
<
,
installation activities. Welding of a built-up box beam, Unit I, elevation
-
253', Drawings C-949 and C-926, W14X370, and of a box beam seat, Unit II,
elevation 272', Drawings C-929 and C-942 were observed. .The inspector
,
verified welding preheat, welder qualification, welding technique, weld
'
bead appearanbe, and confomance to drawing configuration.
i
Measurements of the Unit II beam end clearances detemined that they
f
exceeded drawing limits.
It was verified that the licensee had identifi 4
this condition and was issuing a Field Change Request.
i
'
-
No items of noncompliance were identified,
,
l
/
.
.
I
n
'
.
/
p
o
a
at
$
,e
o
l
'
'
.
- %.
~ . , -
,L
' -
_ _ _ _
-__ _
__ ___
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.. .-
= 11
9.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved itr' are matters about which more infonnation is needed to
determine if they are acceptable, deviations, or nc :ompliances.
Unresolved items are discussed in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5.
10.
Exit Interview
The inspector held an exit interview with representatives of the licensee
(denoted in paragraph 1) on September 30, 1981, to discuss the scope
and findings of the inspection.
-
- -