ML20054G997
| ML20054G997 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1982 |
| From: | Elsasser T, Mattia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054G985 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-423-82-06, 50-423-82-6, NUDOCS 8206220479 | |
| Download: ML20054G997 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000423/1982006
Text
r
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Region I
Report No.
50-423/82-06
Docket flo.
50-423
Category
A
License No. CPPR-113
Priority
--
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:
April 12-30 and May 4-14, 1982
/
b
Inspectors:
b
~
-
d. C. Mattia, Senior Resident Inspector
date signed
date signed
7
.
b
Approved by: / /.
d
g/d/ V
T. Elsasser(Chief, Reactor Projects
date signed
Section 1B, DPRP
Inspection Sunngy,:
Unit 3 Inspecticn on April 12-30 and May 4-14, 1982
Report No. 50-423/82-06
Areas Inspected:
Routine, onsite regular and backshift inspection by the resident
inspector [1T9 Hr: ).
Areas inspected.were:
followup of previous inspection findings,
-
equipment storage, welding, concrete placement, welder qualification, equipment in-
.stallation, and plant tours.
Violations: One - Failure to follow procedures when installing Mechanical Snubbers
for pipe support.
(Detail 2).
8206220479 820608
PDR ADOCK 05000423
0
j
'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
flortheast Utilities Service Company (fiUSCO)
F. Comstock, FQA Technician
K. Gray, Construction QA Supervisor
W. Langdon, Construction Engineer
K. Murphy, QA Specialist
,
J. Powers, Licensing Engineer (Berlin)
l
J. Putnam, Senior Construction Engineer
I
T. Sullivan, Resident Engineer - flew Site Construction
l
S. Toth, System Superintendent Generation Construction
l
Stone and Webster Corporation (S&W)
F. Bearham, QA Program Administrator (Boston)
J. Carty, Site Engineering Group Manager
J. Kappas, Superintendent of Construction
R. LeDoux, Document Control Supervisor
W. MacKay, Resident Manager
G. Marsh, Senior Engineer, Welding /NDE
M. R. Matthews, Assistant Superintendent Field QC
P. Nelson, Engineering Assurance Engineer
W. Orr, Senior QC Inspector
L. Peterson, Field QC Inspector Supervisor
R. Powers, Field QC Inspector
G. G. Turner, Superintendent, Field QC
W. Voss, Senior Field QC Engineer
R. White, Material Controls & Maintenance Supervisor
G. Wilson, Field QC Inspector
Westinghouse Corporation
J. Dolan, Site Manager
E. Harlow, Site Representative
C. Peterson, Site Representative
Note:
The inspector also conferred with other licensee and contractor
personnel during the course of inspection.
_
,
.
.
3
2.
Plant Tours
The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work and con-
struction status in several areas of the plant for any obvious defects or
noncompliance with regulatory requirements or licensee conditions. Parti-
cular note was taken of the presence of Quality Control Inspectors and
Quality c -teol evidence such as inspection records, mate:ial identification,
housekeep. _ and equipment preservation.
During one of the tours, the inspector noticed that a Mechanical Pipe Snubber
(3-RCS-1-PSSP-410) inside the containment building was installed without pro-
tection from dirt or physical damage. A subsequent inspection by S&W Field
QC found three additional Snubbers (RHS-1-PSSP-420, -414 and -402) that were
covered with plastic to prevent dirt instrusion, but were not protected from
possible physical damage. This same violation had been noted during a previous
inspection wherein the licensee had failed to follow the vendor's installation
instructions with regard to physical protection of snubbers.
The licensee's
response (August 24, 1981 - AEC-MP3-247) stated that all future installations
will be done in accordance with ITT Grinnel Maintenance and Instruction
Manual PE-217-1 and that the manufacturer's recomendation to employ the
use of mock-ups during construction would be followed. When asked why mock-
ups were not being used, the licensee stated that the S&W purchase order for
the mock-ups is being held up pending evaluation of manufacture and installa-
tion costs.
The manufacturer's installation manual requires that snubbers be protected
from damage during construction. The use of mock-ups is one way to satisfy
this requirement, wrapping in plastic and the use of warning signs or pro-
tective barriers is another. The licensee installed Four snubbers and did
not follow the requirements of the manufacturer with regard to protection of
these components during construction activities.
If the licensee does not
desire to use mock-ups as they had previously decided, then some other ade-
quate means of physical protection must be used.
Failure to install snubbers
in accordance with applicable installation instructions is a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V (423/82-06-01).
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (423/81-08-04): Service Water Pipe Spool,
identified as 3-SWP-25-3-63, had a large dent. The inspector reviewed
the following documentation depicting the corrective action taken by
the contractor to repair the spool piece:
-- S&W Field QC Inspection Report #X 1000435
S&W Engineering & Design Coordination Report #F-P-2180
--
l
m
.
%
- S&W Construction Revision Notice #SWP-32A-003
- S&W Liquid Penetrr" Examination of repaired weld area, designated
as CI-SWP-32A, P a Weld No. 5
No violations were identified during the review of the above documen-
tation and inspection of the repaired area,
b.
(0 pen) Violation (423/81-12-04): The inspector continued his review
of the S&W Field QC verification of design changes, and also sampled
three Drawing Stations located in the containment to verify that
the new " Document Record Card" System as depicted in Procedure CMP 11.1
is functioning. This new document control system has been in effect
since April 5, 1982. The specific drawing stations inspected and
the findings are as follows:
- Drawing Station No. 75
.
Drawings Inspected
Remarks
The incorporated Engineering and
EE-37Q, Revision 7
Design Change Request (E8DCR) in
current drawing revision are kept
at the drawing station.
EE-52B, Revision 3
Same comment as for EE-37Q.
'
EE-52A, Revision 3
Same comment as for EE-37Q.
.
- Drawing Station No. 44
Drawings Inspected
Remarks
EP-74B, Revision 6
Same comment as for EE-370.
EP-74D, Revision 6
Same comment as for EE-37Q.
In addition, E&DCR PP-3923 was
listed as void per the document
record card, but it was in the
E&DCR Book and not marked " Void".
CI-RCS-5, Revision 4
Construction Revision Notice
(CRN) #001 which is listed as
" Void", is at the station and
is not marked " Void".
CI-RCS-10, Revision 4
CRN #003 is listed as" Void" and
was not marked " Void" at station.
l
.
I
CI-RSS-916, Revision 1
Record card lists CRN #001 as
being applicable. . However, it
is not available at drawing
station.
CI-SIL-164, Revision 2
Record card lists CRN #002 as-
being applicable. However, it
is not available at drawing
station.
FI-CHS-377, Revision 10
The record document card indicates
that Rev. 10 is the latest.
However, Revision 9 is at the
drawing station.
Drawing Station No. 47
-
A sample of seven drawings at this station did not identify
similar problems as the above two stations.
However, the~
inspector noted that four drawings (BZ-79A, BZ-79C-1,BZ-790-
1 and BZ-300A-1) record cards were filed in a separate book
binder and not in the book binder specifically for the "BZ"
. cards. Three of the cards had listings of applicable E&DCR's
on both sides, while the identical cards in the "BZ" book did
not have the second page (backside) listing of E&DCR's.
The inspector discussed the above findings with the licensee
and the cognizant S&W personnel. The following action will be,
or has been taken:
a) NUSCO QA will audit a larger sample of drawing stations
to verify S&W compliance with CMP 11.1 Procedure,
i
l
i
b) S&W has audited all drawing stations (total of 12) where
there are "BZ" drawings with listed design changes on the
front and back of the record card.
No discrepancies were
found other than 3 cards missing from the stations, and
those were replaced.
!
c) S&W Field QC will continue to verify that the data entered
l
on record cards are accurate and will quantify the in-
l
accuracies they find for NRC review,
i
d) S&W is to evaluate if it is necessary to keep both incor-
i
i
porated and void design changes at drawing stations.
'
<
.
,--w--.--r--
4-,-,-,.m.,--.- . - , .
-,------.n
-
--%-ww.-,+
.,--c--
- .,---
. , - ,
-
, , - - , _
-..-g
.%,.,,-
. =- - - --
-_
.
6
4.
Equipment Storage
a.
Inspection of Equipment Stored in Place
The inspector reviewed various documents to verify that the S&W
material controls group is performing the weekly equipment inspec-
tions as specified in the S&W Construction Methods Procedure #1.3.
All equipment / material surveillance reports issued during January -
April,1982 were reviewed. The inspector noted that the responses
from the construction area supervisors to correct the unsatisfactory
findings were not timely. There were instances when the supervisor
of materials control had to issue 3 notices before corrective action
was taken. The inspector discussed this with the licensee and cogni-
zant S&W persor.nel.
For corrective action, a memorandum was issued
by the S&W General Superintendent of Construction on May 11, 1982,
requiring his area supervisors to correct all unsatisfactory condi-
tions as soon as possible.
In addition, the two designated S&W
Field QC area coordinator inspectors are now on distribution for all
the weekly unsatisfactory finding reports, and will monitor the
corrective action to assure that it is timely. This item is consi-
dered unresolved pending review by the NRC inspector of the corrective
action taken by S&W Construction of any future unsatisfactory findings.
(423/82-06-02)
b.
Installed Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Protection
The inspector reviewed the RPV storage history cards to verify
~
that the constructor is complying with the Westinghouse long term
storage inspection plan (NEU letter 2945, dated 9/7/78). The
inspector noted that the last S&W visual inspection of the interior
of the vessel and all the Tectyl-506 coated vessel surfaces was
on July 25, 1980, just prior to placing the RPV inside the contain-
ment. The inspector questioned S&W as to why there were no in-
spections since the vessel placement. The reply was that the
Westinghouse long tem storage plan (NEU 2945) was for the period
when the vessel was stored on site. The inspector discussed this
with the Westinghouse site manager and he agreed that a storage
plan is required for the RPV while it is installed. A Reactor
Vessel Storage Inspection Plan (WMP-0131) was issued on May 3,
1982 by Westinghouse outlining various monthly inspections. This
item is unresolved pending the review and observation by the NRC in-
spector of the monthly inspections of the RPV performed by Stone &
Webster.
(423/82-06-03)
.____
-
m.
,
.
.
._
7
-
<
4
.
, ,
Placement of Reactor Vessel Internals in Containment
c.
The inspector observed the removal from storage (site warehouse)
of the reactor vessel upper internals and the transporting of it
to the containment. The inspector also verified that the place-
ment of upper internals was accomplished in accordance with S&W
Procedure FCP 306. The following documents were reviewed:
- Magnetic Particle Examination of 100 Ton Hook
258 Ton Hook
"
"
"
"
-
Three Lifting Eyebolts,
"
"
"
"
-
(Serial Nos. 32, 33, and 34).
No violations were identified.
5.
Welding
Welding of Safety Related Structural Steel
a.
The inspector inspected the welding activities associated with
the installation of structural steel at two locations inside.the
containment building. The specific location and weld techniques
are as follows:
Location
Type of Welding
S&W Techr.ique Sheet Used
Elevation 36'
Fillet weld of clips to
W 70 G, Revision 4
Beam 735B2
Elevation 51.4-
Groove weld of rebar
W 91 U, Revision 0
to embed
_ _ _ _ _
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
__
.
_ _ _ . _
The inspector verified compliance with AWS D1.1 and the applicable
S&W Weld Technique Sheet. No violations were identified,
i
Welding of Safety Related Piping & Supports
b.
t
The following weld joints in various stages of completion were in-
spected for compliance with the ASME Code, S&W Specification 968
and the applicable S&W Weld Technique Sheets:
Weld Joint Identification
Location
Weld Technique
CI-FWS-22A, Field Weld #5
Containment
W 11 B, Rev. 1
W 22 E, Rev. 4
"
CI-RHS-502, Field Weld #11
W 13 B, Rev. 3
"
CI-RCS-LP3, Field Weld #7
No violations were identified.
l
o
-
8
5
1
~
^
,
a:
!
6.
Concrete Work Activities-
The inspector observed portions of two concrete placements
(C-7253 & C-2141). The inspector verified that for the portions
he observed, the requirements of S&W Specification C-999 and
,
l
Quality Standard 05-10.13 were adhered to. The following are the
specific items inspected:
- Verified that the preplacement inspection by QC has been perfomed.
- That the inspection personnel were located in close proximity to
the truck discharge and final placement location.
- The quality requirements (slump, air content & temperature) of
concrete being placed was verified by testing and that they met
the design mix requirements.
- Consolidation of concrete in the forms was adequate.
- The fom work was adequate and the rebar cover was as required.
- S&W concrete pour card was properly filled out.
l
No violations were identified.
t
1
'
,
7.
Weldor Qualification
The inspector visited the Local 305 Pipefitters Weldor Training &
Qualification Test Center,_ located in Old Saybrook, Ct., to.. verify
('
-
that Stone & Webster is overseeing this operation, and that the
[
_
test center is complying with S&W Weldors Qualification Program
I
as outlined in their Procedures QS-9.31, QAD-9.2 and CMP-6.9.
i
During this inspection, the facility had 22 people in training, and
j
four of these were taking a qualification test in accordance with
S&W Procedure PQM 005. The inspector inspected each of the four
}
weldors' welding test coupons, and also verified their identity
i
with the records on file.
S&W has, at this facility, one field QC
i
inspector and one construction welding supervisor as full time
i
The inspec S r also reviewed the past experience,
residents.
training and qualification records of four pipefitters who have
'
been recently trained and qualified for Millstone-3.
No violations were identified.
r
.
.
,
9
8.
Fire Damage to Containment Liner (Refer to Report 50-423/81-12)
The inspector observed the removal of some of the liner plates at the
lower elevation of the fire damaged area. The inspector also attended
a S&W general discussion of the proposed repair procedure.
No unacceptable conditions were identified.
9.
Equipment Installation
a.
Grouting of Pumps
The inspector observed portions of the grouting operations for
setting the Safety Injection Pumps and Auxiliary Feed Water Pumps
on foundations.
For the portions observed, the inspector verified
that the S&W Specification #2200.00-914 requirements were complied
with.
No violations were identified.
b.
Service Water Pump Installation
The inspector inspected the installed Service Water Pump designated
as 3-SWP-P-10, and reviewed various documentation associated with
i
this installation. The specific documentation reviewed were as 'follows:
j
- S&W Inspection Reports M 3020040012, M 0050741, M 1000425, M 1000386,
-
M 1000407, M 2000224, M 2000127, M 2000199,
j
M 1000404, M 2000208, M 2000235 and M 2000224.
~
- Manufacturer's ASME Code "N" Data Report and Certificate of compliance.
'
- S&W Bolted Joint 2-2-1D Data Sheet.
-
No violations were identified during the document review. The inspector
'
did note several questionable items involving the Pump Discharge Elbow
(Batch / Serial Number 771A-001 & Heat No. E-8047). The inspector's
concerns were discussed with the licensee and constructor. The
specific concerns are as follows:
-- The surface condition of the casting is not similar to 3 other
pumps and verification that it meets the S&W Specification M 004
requirements of MSS-Standard Practice.SP-55 for surface condition
is needed. This casting was also required to be radiographed 100%.
The inspector infonned the licensee that he would request that a
NRC specialist to review the manufacturer's radiographs for this pump
since there are obvious visual casting defects with questionable
acceptabili ty.
-- The cast gusset on the discharge elbow appears to be machined almost
completely off. The inspector n'oted that the gusset is shown on the
vendor's drawing in Instruction Manual 01-002-027 and that the gusset
is on other Service Water Pumps (-1A, -18, & -1C). The licensee needs
to determine if this gusset removal was addressed in a manufacturer's
nonconformance report.
- - .
-.
. - - _ _ _ _ -
-
..
_ - - - . _
.. ..
,
10
One of the nuts on the bolting flange is not fully seated
--
due to improper machining of the flange. The licensee is
to detemine if this condition was addressed by the manufacturer
on a nonconfomance report.
Due to interference with the body of the casting, two flange
--
bolting nuts located on the bottom of the elbow were modified
(corners rounded) to pemit torquing during installation.
The licensee is to determine if this discrepancy was addressed
by the manufacturer on a nonconfomance report.
The bolting used for the discharge taper piece to the pump
--
discharge elbow is not protected from corrosion and is currently
rusting. The licensee is to evaluate if corrosion resistant
bolting is required for this service application.
Flange outer diameter of pump discharge casting is not machined
--
to the same diameter as the taper discharge piece. On the other
three pumps, the flange outer diameters are essentially equal
to the taper discharge pieces. Licensee is to detemine if the
flange dimension is in accordance with detail drawing require-
ments.
The inspector also noted that there is a variance between the four
pumps with respect to the depth of threads machined in the pump
discharge flange.
For pumps 1 A & 18, the flange is not threaded
all the way, while for pumps 1C & 1D, it is threaded to the full
flange thickness. The licensee is to detemine the requirements
from the manufacturer. The acceptability of Service Water Pump
3-SWP-P-1D and the correct flange thread depth is unresolved pending
resolution of the above NRC concerns. (423/82-06-04)
10. Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more infomation 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 4.a, 4.b, and 9.b.
11. 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.
i
.
--