ML20032B302
| ML20032B302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1981 |
| From: | Elsasser T, Mattia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B281 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-81-11, NUDOCS 8111050412 | |
| Download: ML20032B302 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000423/1981011
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
Report No.
50-423/81-11
Docket No.
50-423
License No.
CPPR-113
Priority
--
Category
A
Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
P. O. Box 270
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Facility Name:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station _, Unit 3
Inspection at:
Waterford, Connecticut
Inspection conducted: September 1-25, 1981
I At
/ o[ s/P/
Inspectors:
P
1
w
b J.C. Mattia, Senior Resident Inspector
date signed
date signed
date signed
Approved by:
.
/o[/5/f/
y
date' signed
T. ElsasYer, Chief, Reactor Proje. cts
Section 1B, DRPI
Inspection Surmary:
Unit 3 Inspection on August 20-31 and Sept. 1-25, 1981
(Report No. 50-423/E1-11)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspection by the Resident Inspector of work activitTes
associated with pipe erection; structural support welding; installation of elec-
trical raceways and training. The inspector also performed plant inspection tours
and reviewed licensee action on previously identified items. The inspection in-
volved 48 inspector hours, including 3 off-shift hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the six areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were identified
in the following areas:
(1) failure to use controlled design drawing for erecting
cable tray supports (Paragraph 4); (2) failure to follow procedure for verifying
corrective action taken for items found during audits (Paragraph 5).
Region I Form 12
(Re" gi[750d12 811019
a
O
PDR ADOCK 05000423
G
.
..
'
.
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Northeast Utilities Service' Company (NUSCO)
D. Diedrick, Quality Assurance Manager
K. Gray, Construction QA Supervisor
R. Hastings, QA Engineering Technician
K. Murphy, QA Construction Technician
S. Ore # ice, New Site Construction Superintendent
J. Putnam, Senior Construction Engineer
T. Sullivan, Resident Engineer - New Site Construction
Stone and Webster Corporation (S&W)
W. B. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent Field QC
J. Carty, Superintendent of Engineering
P. A. Gagel, QA Program Administrator
J. G. Kappas, Superintendent of Construction
W. MacKay, Resident Manager
G. Marsh, Senior Engineer, Welding /NDE
M. R. Matthews, Assistant Superintendent Field-QC
A. Prusi, Assistant Superintendent of Engineering
R. Reams, Materials Supervisor
F. Sullivan, Senior Resident Engineer
G. G. Turner, Superintendent, Field QC
Westinghouse Corporation.
E. Harlow, Site Representative
C. Peterson, Site Representative
The inspector also conferred with other licensee and contractor personnel
during the course of the inspection.
2.
Pipe Supports
The inspector measured the field fillet welds for a pipe support identified
as 3-SIL-1PSR-498, located inside the containment, at elevation - 8'.
The
welds conformed to the size requirements of design drawing 12179-BZ107D-53-1,
and also to ASME code accept.ance criteria.
,
. -
-
.
-
- .
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
-
.
.
.
3
3.
Safety-Related Piping Welding & Installation Activities
a.
The following weld joints, which were in various stages of welding,
located in the containment building were inspected to verify
._
compliance with welding and installation procedures and code
requirements:
(1) 3RCS-029-11-1, Field Weld #001. This weld joint was
completed but had been excavated for repair due to
lack of complete fusion (Radiographic Station 28-42).
The excavated area had been radiographed and liquid
-
penetrant examined and accepted. The weld repair was
in process. No items of noncompliance were identified.
(2) The inspector observed the rigging of a 29" motor-operated
reactor coolant isolation valve for the hot leg loop. -The
valve was supplied by NSSS and identified as NEU-RCPCLS-03.
The rigging and handling was in accordance with the pro-
4
cedure requirements.
(3) The inspector observed the welding of the incore instru-
mentation socket weld identified as Field Weld #48 of
Control Drawing 12179-CI-BMI-1. The welding was being
performed in accordance with S&W Technique Weld Sheet
No. W13J, Rev. 1.
The inspector also-inspected completed
welds No. 49, 50 & 51 to determine compliance with
,
applicable procedure requirements. The weld history
data cards were also reviewed. No items of noncompliance
were identified.
i
(4) 3SIL-006-41-2, Field Weld #016. This weld joint was
approximately one-half completed. The welding was in-
l
accordance with S&W Weld Technique Procedure W12F, Rev.2.
The inspector observed the actual welding and verified
that the requirements of weld procedure were adhered
<
to. The weld data card was also reviewed for compliance
with the applicable S&W QA procedure.
No items of non-
compliance were identified.
(5) The ir.spector observed the installation of spool piece
i
SIH-9-2-4-2B into the piping system, and the fit of ths
weld joints. No items of noncompliance were identified.
,
t
I
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.. . m
-
i
.
.
.
4
4.
Installation of Electrical Raceways
The inspector observed the erection of seismic suoports for cable trays
located in the Engineered Safety Features Building (29 ft. elevation).
The inspector noted that the two electricians who were erecting the
supports were not using a controlled design drawing.
They were using in-
stead two portions (8 " x 11") of design drawing EE-34JA-3, entitled,
" Cable Tray Support Miscellaneous Details - Sheet". The copied portions
were sections of the design drawing made on a copier. The insoector
questioned the electricians as to how they obtained these copies, and
was infomed that their foreman had given them the partial copies of
the design drawings. .The inspector informed the licensee that the use
of uncontrolled design documents is an item of noncompliance and contrary
to criterion VI (423/81-11-01).
5.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
a.
(0 pen) Item of noncompliance (423/81-02-01):
Failure of NbSCO QA
construction to perform scheduled audits. The inspector verified
that the overdue scheduled audits (numbers A40545, A40552, A40571,
A40595) had been performed in accordance with the rescheduled dates
and that they were accomplished by qualified aud'. tors.
In cases
where there were audit findings, the corrective actions were timely
and followed up by the auditors, except for audit A40571. Audit
A40571 had one adverse finding (No S&W certification form for one
person hired in 1980 as a field QC technician) which was not followed
up in accordance with NUSCO procedure NQA 1.14.
The audit was per-
formed on fiay 20 and 21,1981, and the audit report stated that no
response to .the finding will be required since corrective action
would be taken care of by the implementation of the recently re-
vised S&W Quality Assurance Directive (QAD) 2.5 Revision D.
A
follow up audit was to have been conducted in approximately 6 nionths
to verify implementation of QAD 2.5.
The inspector noted that the
NUSCO QA Section " Audit Surveillance Schedule Follow Up", dated
9/17/81, indicated that the audit finding of A40571 was closed on
5/21/81.
The inspector also noted that the NUSCO QA Audit Surveil-
lance Schedule, dated 9/17/81, did not list an audit of S&W field
QC organization to verify the implementation of QAD 2.5.
The
construction QA supervisor stated that an audit is planned to be
conducted even though it was not on the schedule.
The inspector
informed the licensee thac this was contrary to the requirements of
their procedure NQA 1.14 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B (423/81-11-02).
b.
(Closed) Significant observation (423/81-02-08):
NUSCO construc-
tion QA organization was not adequately staffed for Millstone
Unit 3.
The inspector reviewed the current staffing of the Unit 3
organization, which is comprised of five persons, plus a supervisor.
The supervisor informed the inspector that all requests for personnel
vacancies have been approved, and that for the current level of on-
struction activities his staff can adequately handle the work load.
The inspector verified that all five persons have been adequately
qualified as lead aucitors in accordance with the NUSCO QA Procedure
NQA 1.07.
.
,.
-
_
_
_.
__
_
.
__
.
. - _ _
_
~
5
..
.
'
c.
(Closed) Unresolved item (423/81-02-11): Northeast Utilities .
-
Topical Report, QA Program, Revision 3A. The Appendix C (Rev.0)
was not current.
It had listed several obsolete quality assurance
related procedures. Appendix C, Revision 1 was updated to reflect
the current procedures and was issued on June 26, 1981.
d.
(Closed) Unresolveditem(423/81-02-14):
Improper follow-up of
surveillance unsatisfactory findings. The NUSCO QA Procedure
NQA-2.10 was revised on March 3, 1981, o state that the surveill-
ance report shall remain open until corrective action by the
contractor / vendor can be verified on a follow-up surveillance
report by the Auditor. The inspector also verified that this
requirement was being implemented by sampling two surveillances
that had unsatisfactory findings.
e.
(Closed) Significant observation (423/81-02-17):
Design criteria
and interface for safety-related conduit supports not fonnally
defined. S&W issued a field construction procedure (FCP) No.297,
on June 9, 1981, to define the methodology to assure that seismic
conduit supports meet the design criteria established in the
specification E350 and design drawings EE-52A & B and EE-34JA,
JB & JC. The field construction procedure was reviewed and
approved by the licensee on Sept. 10, 1981.
f.
(Closed) Unresolved item (423/81-02-24): S&W procedure lacked
specifity in that there is no formal requirement, nor assignment
of responsibility to initiate protective measures for items stored
in-place frcm planned and or adjacent on-going construction activ-
ities.
S&W issued a change notice #1, on Sept. 1981, to Construc-
tion Methods Procedure (CMP) Nn. 1.3, which requires the materials
control group to perform weekly inspections of the various work
areas to insure that material / equipment in the construction areas
are in compliance with the storage requirements. The weekly
inspecticns are to be documented. This item is considered re-
solved and the inspector informed the licensee that implementation
of this change to CMP 1.3 will be inspected at a subsequent NRC
inspection.
g.
(Closed) Unresolved item (423/81-08-07): Graver temporary attach-
ment welds on the containment liner, located approximately 5 ft.
to the right of azimouth 210) at elevation 145' appeared to be not
cleaned and magnetic particle examined. A cleaning and re-examina-
tion was performed by Graver on 8/14-17/81. The inspector reviewed
the Grawr erection control sheet No. 6007, the visual and magnetic
examination reports No. 6007 detailing the methods and results of
this re-examination. No items of noncompliance were identified.
h.
(Closed) Unresolved item (423/81-08-06): Nitrogen purge was
removed on RHR heat exchanger when taken from the storage location
to its final location in the ESF building. S&W issued a memorandum
on Aug. 24, 1981, instructing cognizant personnel that they are
responsible for review of vendor manuals to insure that the vendor's
requirements are to be followed when a purge is removed
The
inspector also reviewed the field QC inspection reports Nos.
M1000234, M1000235 & M1000236, whereby a detailed inspection of
all safety related equipment stored in the auxiliary, ESF and
containment buildings was performed to verify that the vendor's
storage requirements were met. The results of the inspection per-
formed on 8/27/81 did not find any discrepancies.
-.
- -
.
_
.. ..
6
.
6.
Training of NUSCO QA Personnel
The inspector reviewed the training records for one of the' lead QA
auditors. The records indicated that the person was a Level II -
'
" witness" in liquid penetrant.
However, the records did not indicate
that the person was certified in accordance with'NUSCO Procedure
NQA-1.09. Discussions were held with the QA auditor regarding her
certifications.
The inspector was informed that she was examined'
(written) on 3/31/81 and was given a practical examination on
6/6/81 but was not certified due to some technicality which is still
unresolved. The inspector asked her if she had witnessed any liquid
penetrant examinations performed by S&W since her examinations.
It
appears that on 7/8/81 she had observed a liquid penetrant examina-
tion being performed by a S&W field QC inspector on reactor coolant
weld joint (surveillance report #C-1636). The inspector informed
the licensee that NUSCO Procedure NQA-1.09 states that "a witness
level is an individual that is qualified to observe the NDE work
performed by others" and that when she was' performing her surveill-
ance activities (liquid penetrant-observation) she should have been
qualified.
It is the NUSCO QA manager's opinion that the Level II-
witness qualification is for when an evaluation of a L.P. examina-
tion is specifically planned, such as in a vendor shop when auditing
or doing an in-process verification. The inspector then informed the
licensee that the QA procedure NQA-1.09 should be revised to be more
specific when witness level is required. This item is condidared
unresolved pending revision of NUSCO QA Procedure (423/81-11-03).
7.
Plant Tours
The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work and
construction status in several areas of the plant. The inspector ex-
amined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory
requirements or license conditions.
Particular note was taken of the
presence of Quality Control Inspectors and Quality Control evidence
such as inspection records, material identification, nonconforming
material identification, housekeeping & equipment preservation.
No
items of noncompliance were identified.
During one of the plant tours, the inspector noted that two pipefitters
were straightening a containment penetration No. 116 which had an
"out of round" condition. They were using a 11.2 ton hydraulic ram.
The inspector informed the licensee that he had two concerns with the
repair.
a.
The piping specification allows repair of dents on piping,
but doesn't state the approved methods. The inspector has
seen various methods used on MS-3, either cold working;
heating & applying force; and use of hydraulic force. The
inspector stated that the approved methods should be in the
specification or a construction procedure.
. -
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
. . . .
7
.
..
b.
The S&W ASME Manual and Quality Standard 15.1 does not address
the situation where a minor noncomforming condition is found
by construction which doesn't require a'nonconformance report
(N&D); but because of its unsatisfactory condition, S&W field
QC should be made aware of it to inspect the before and after
condition. An example of this is the repair of dente.1 or
"out of round" conditions of containmer!t penetrations, where
an inspection report should be issued documenting the condit-
ion and repair.
This item is considered unresolved pending review of licensee's investi-
gation of this matter (423/81-11-03).
8.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they-are a:ceptable. items, items of noncompli-
ance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection
are discussed in varagraphs 5 & 6.
9.
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.
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
--- -
-
-
m
.m
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ , _ _ ,
_ , _ _ _ _ _ _