ML20062E724
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| ML20062E724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1978 |
| From: | Fasano A, Mcgaughy R, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062E718 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-322-78-15, NUDOCS 7812120026 | |
| Download: ML20062E724 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000322/1978015
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- . . . .. .. -. - - . - . - . .-- -
.
:
1 , ..
;
. .
* '
l
j U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
!
1 1
Region I
NOTICE
Report No. en m/M-1, 18 OCT 1978 _
AS OF >
Docket No. 50-322 NOT OBTAINED PRCFRIETARY
j RE O
e CE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 2790
License No. CPPR-95 Category
] Priority --
A
I
Licensee: Lono Island Liohtino Comoany
!
i 175 East Old Country Road ;
'
Hicksville, New York 11801 '
i .
, Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1
j
O '"'P'**' " **: Sh "'" "*" ' ""
i Inspection conducted: September 26-29, 1978
f
t Inspectors: e ,h / C !'d/
A. D. Toth, Reactor Ins ector date signed !
b ll* 0 /Cf//f7f
A. N. Fasano, Reactor Inspector * * 'I 9 "'d
!
date signed l
Approved by: kin])Rikar
' ' ~
W)7,147V l
R.' W. McGaugh , ief, Projects Section date' signed i
' ,
i
l
g- Reactor Construction & Engineering Support
Branch .
!
; Insoection Summary:
' !
Insoection on September 26-29, 1978 (Recort No. 50-322/78-15) '
3 Areas Insoected: Routine, unannounced inspection by two regional based inspectors
of Work Activities for reactor vessel feed water nozzle rework, and . fuel pool
ll 'i weld inspection / testing. The inspectors also perfonned plant tour-inspections,
;
reviewed licensee action on previous inspection finding , and performed .'ollow-
l up action as necessary to resolve questions which arose during the course of !
$
inspection of the above specific areas. The inspection involved 52 inspector-
i
hours onsite by two NRC regional office based inspectors.
'
,
Resul ts: Of the two specific areas inspected, no items of noncompliance were
identified; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified during the plar.t
!
tour-inspection. (Infraction-failure to use qualified procedure for welding pipe
!
support-Paragraph 5.)
{
.
2
j 781212002g
Region I Form 12
,
(Rev. April 77)
4
1
"
- ._ J_~ ~ L ____ _ ________ _ _ _ _ - -
~
~ w ve , __,nn.,._. , - ,
'~
- . . ...- . - . - - . . .:_ ~. - .. . - .._
l!
; -
: .
:
;
!
l
.i
! DETAILS
, c
l 1. Persons Contacted
l
Long Island Lighting Comoany
-
T. W. Catchpole QA Specialist !
*T. F. Gerecke. Engineering QA Manager
, *J. M. Kelly, Field QA Manager
j *L. C. Lilly, Site Manager ;
j
'
A. R. Muller, QA Engineer ;
*J. P. Novarro, Project Manager !
! *A. W. Wofford, Vice President
l
Stone and Webster Enoineering '
1 *T. T. Arrington, Superintendent Field QC (
.
'
*R. L. Bernard, Senior Supertendent Field QC '
*
*J. A. Burgess, Senior Field QC Engineer
*T. F. Burns, Materials Engineer
*R. S. Costa, Project QA Administrator
S. W. Crewe, Senior Field QC Engineer
W. D. Ehler, Field QC Engineer
*C. A. Fonseca, Assistant Project Engineer
T. Latham, Mechanical Engineer
R. A. Perry, Field QC Inspector i
i
'
W. J. Riess, Assistant Supertendent Construction '
W. Taylor, Discipline Engineer, Pipe Supports !
; n Courter and Comoany
i U
! H. Finkelman, Assistant Project Engineer
,
D. W. Papa, QA Manager
Reactor Controls Incorocrated !
,
~
*K. Aspinwall, QC Supervisor -
! *W. Palmer, Instrument Supervisor
i G. Secchi, Site Manager
'
General Electric Comoany
A. Bonino, Supervisor-IS&E
.j
.
*J. M. Cockroft, Quality Control Representative
; J.T. Ownby, Project Manager-IS&E
i
. r
.
s
h
'
. ._ .
_ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _
- = -
_. = - _ _ - . _ _ .- . --
.-
, t
**
.
. .
.
,
t
I
. 3
.
R. Reilly, QC Inspector-IS&E
j A. Sanpere, Field Engineer-IS&E
j *W. A. Shanks, Site Manager
>
l * denotes persons present at management meeting.
l
i
)
On September 28, 1978, the inspector also met briefly with repre-
j sentatives of NRC Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Systems
Safety, who were on-site to observe equipment installation and to
j meet with licensee representatives. These representatives were:
I
;
D. F. Ross, Assistant Director for Reactor Safeguards
1
:
T. M. Novak, Chief, Reactor Systems Branch
^
bq G. R. Mazetis, Section Chief, Reactor Systems Branch
't
W. R. Mills. Technical Reviewer
i 2. Plant Tour
!
;
-
The inspectors observed work activitics in-progress, completed
work, and plant status in several areas of the plant during general
inspection of the plant. The inspectors examined work items for
any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements
or, license conditions. Particular note was taken of presence of
quality control inspectors and qu'lity control evidence such as
,
inspection records, material identification, nonconfonning material
,3 identification, and equipment calibratio t tag. The inspectors
j intarviewed craft personnel, supervision, and quality inspection
!
'
personnel as such personnel were available in the work areas.
Where more detailed inspection of an area was conducted, the inspec-
O. tion scope and findings are described in other paragraphs of the
{ report.
i An item of noncompliance was identified during the plant tour
inspection, as described in Paragraph 5 of this report. j
l
3. !
Licensee Action on Previous Inscection Findings
1
The inspector examined records, observed conditions, and inter-
viewed personnel regarding the following previous inspection
findings: l
,! lf
t
._ _. ._
__
m - --
' ~ ~ ~
_ _ _.___ _-- EL ZZ
l
4 5
; , -
- s , .
.
4
4 !
- j (Closed) Unresolved Item (332/78-01-07)
- Courter and Company QC
h ! dI Inspection procedure criteria for evaluation of pipe base' metal
grinding. The inspector examined Courter & Ccmpany procedure QAP-
- i
] 10.7, which assigns responsibilities, duties, acceptance criteria,
definitions, and corrective action evaluation /dispostion mechanics
- j for grinding marks or other surface irregularities observed on i
h piping. This procedure appropriately considers possible encroachment ' ll on minimum pipe wall thickness. y This item is resolved. si '
(Closed) Noncompliance (78-03-01): Pipe hanger installation contrary , .
!j to drawings. The inspector examined evidance of the corrective y l;
ps actions described in Part II cf the licensee's May 10, 1978 letter
to the NRC. This included a review of procedures and specification
{{ changes, and examination of pipe support hardware. Also related to i. this examination, was the training record review conducted by an IE j; inspector in May 1978, documented in IE Inspection Report 50- <
322/78-06 Paragraph 3 (re: item 322/78-03-03).
' The inspector re-examined the pipe supports which had previously
been identified as having nonconfonning conditions (re. IE Inspection
Report 50-322/78-03 Paragraphs 6 & 7). The previous conditions
i
were found to have been corrected. The inspector also examined the
4 following additional supports for clamp-bolt, jam nut, set pin, and
thread engagement parameters: E21-PSSH-021, E11-PSSH-086 and E51-
, . PSSH-013. These supports were found to be acceptable. The inspector
examind in-process inspection procedure FSl-Fil.4-010, final
[! . -
inspection procedure FSl-Fil.4-Oll, and specification change number
H g3 (E&DCR) F-1748E. These were found to contain applicable acceptance d v criteria. g This item is resolved. h (Closed) Noncompliance .i sibilities, duties, proc (322/78-05-04): Absence
edures and records of inspection
for qualf ty affectingrespon-
H
activities other than welding. The inspector reviewed corrective
!! actions described in licensee's letter to NRC dated June 1, 1978. g The inspector intuviewed the Reactor Controls Incorporated Site
Manager and Site Quality Control Supervisor, and examined revised
!
procedure RCI-IN-1 Part 5.0 which prescribes a final inspection of
4
the installed system by the Site Quality Control Supervisor, relative
"q d 1 i! $ t J
- -
-
n _ , - _ _ _ _ -_ _ _. ._ m _ ~
- .. . . = . -
._.---- = . - - - - .. . -
*
; ,
-
' .. ,
..
,
;
i
l. '
5
l' l . 'q ! '1 to confonnance to drawings; a checklist for, and documentation of ,
"
this review is specified. For the incorrect pipe slope previously ;
identified, a "QC Hold Information" fom 69-40-F ha's been issued. !
,3 In-process inspection of installation other than welding is generally !
j . not specified, on the basis that nearly all piping is prefabricated
1 and shipped to the site from the shop..
:t
"
This item is resolved. I
3 t
J (Closed) Unresolved Item (322/78-05-05): Separation of cables in
I
1
control room panels. The inspector observed a training slide and i
!
discussion tape, and records of craft / engineer / inspector attendance, ;
',
for training conducted in June 1977 regarding cable separation '
O -
criteria. He also examined documentation of criteria clarification
requests, and deficiency correction orders relating to noncompliance
:
'
with cable separation criteria. The disposition of Noncompliance
l
'
and Deviation Report #1719 shows that RPS (Radiation Protection ,
-
System) cables of the same division may be run together (Red / White
with Blue / White), but ECCS system circuits (e.g. Red or Blue) may l
' not be intermixed nor mixed with RPS system cable (Red / White or
Blue / White or Red / Yellow). This is also documented on E&DCR No. F-
.
;
12583, which is a formal change to the specification No.159, i
pending revision of the specification itself.
-
The inspector examined cable termination inspection records for ,
cable 1G33 NRC 144 (Red) and IC71 BCC 159 (Blue / White) which indicated !
that the installation was inspected January 27 and February 17, i
' 1978 per instruction QCI-FSI-F12.1-138 for cable separation and ;
. found acceptable. Final installation inspection per QCI-FSI-F12.1- i
[J^ 014A, which also specifically calls for cable separation inspection,
has not yet been perfomed. The licensee previously (322/78-05-05) i
!
acted that the final inspection had not yet been perfomed, and l
l responsible S&W construction and quality control supervision !
,j
'
attest to the possibility that progressive cable installation !
; activities may have moved cable 1G33 NRC 144 into a nonconfaming ;
; separation configuration after' the completed in-process inspection
of that cable. As for cables 1G33 NBC 145 and 1G33 NBC 150, these ;
cables had not received their final nor in-process inspection at f
the time of the previous NRC inspection (322/78-08-05). These
i appeared to be reasonable explanations for the nonconfomance with
{ 6" cable separations criteria previously observed by the NRC inspector. ,
'
: i
!
. [
'
i
-
.
_
_._ _..___-_._ ___ 2
-
_. _
-- . _-. -
. . - - - -- --.
f
; , .. -
'
.
. I-
1
1
6 '
The inspector considered the above items relative to the nonccmpliance .
identified in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-322/77-20. In order to
.i ascertain if an uncorrected craft or QC inspection problem existed,
the inspector requested to review craft and ouality control inspector
q; training records and inspection reports regarding cable separation
-
,
i
nonconfomances. The inspector viewed the June 1977 training !
! slide / tape presentation given to craft / engineer /QC inspection
!
personnel and interviewed the training lecturer. He also examined
3 a May 1978 record of Cable and Raceway Separation training for four
QC inspectors, and subsequent May 1978 Deficiency Correction
.
Orders issued by those inspectors regardin9 cable separation ;
;
i nonconfomances identified by them. The assistant constr:ction
"
i superintendent stated that a refresher training session is planned -
O ' " *** ** *** '" ct " ' " *"*'t P ""*'- "ith
particular emphasis on newly defined acceptance criteria for routing
'
;
of RPS cable of the same division. i.
I
!
, The licensee program appears to be sensitive to cable separation
criteria, and includes both in-process and final inspection, and .
appropriate training of craft and inspection personnel. This is
attested to by the interviews of personnel and review of the following
records:
Nonconfomance and Disposition Report No.1719 *
.
Deficiency Correction Order Nos.12492E,12494E,
,
11958E dated March 7,1978 PNL 612
;
11962E dated March 8,1978 PNL 603, 612 ;
i 12245E dated May 23, 1978 PNL 609
!
i 12255E dated May 31, 1978 PNL 601
3 12492E dated August 31, 1978
(V 12494E dated August 31, 1978
[ '
:
Engineering / Design Coordination Report No. F-12583 dated April 6,
1978
Quality Control Instructions:
FSl-F12.1-138 dated January 3, 1978
FSl-F12.1-14A dated January 31, 1978
Construction training record No. CH-ABC-0010 dated June 9,1977 for
!
'
68 participants
Field QC Training Record (Internal) on Cable Separation dated May
.
19, 1977 l
j '
it This item is resolved.
I
!
'
.
1 !
q ,
.
=
i
1
- - -
_
-- -.
- -
-=. -..- .
1I . \. . .
.
-
.
-
,
.
l1
~
7 -
i
i
,
;
'
l
(Closed) Unresolved Item (322/78-1.1-01): Courter and Company
drawing master file legibility. The inspector examined the drawing
stick-file in the Courter & Company central site office. He also
j observed activities in the adjacent vault, including a quantity of
l'
.d replacement drawings yet to be filed, a master log of applicable
4 change notices, and the master file of duplicate drawings for those ;
i maintained on the stick-files. The inspector also reviewed two ;
"
'
LlLCO site QA audit reports (FA-779 and FA-816) and field Audit i
,
Transmittal / Response Forms (FA779C-4.1 thru 4.3) relative to ;
q Courter & Company and other site contractor drawing control. !
~'
*
Although instances of degraded drawings in the stick-files still
exist, duplicate drawings are available in the adjacent master -
i files, and efforts tr> upgrade the stick-files are continuing
;
.
O re9ularis. :
;
i This item is resolved.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (322/78-11-03): In-plant storage protection
of RHR heat exchangers. The inspector examined correspondence from i
the GE project manager, (JWB-T-1772) the Resident Site Manager
(WAS-652) which clarify RHR heat exchanger storage criteria and ;
deem the existing "In-Plant Storage Conditions" acceptable relative
to GE criteria. GE letter WAS-652 clarifies "In-Plant Storage ,
Conditions" as one of four specific storage categories defined in :
'
Paragraph 4.1.2 of the storage specification 22A2724 Revision 3. i
It highlights that special conditions apply during installation, ;
; other than for inactive storage. It clarifies that section 4.1.2.4.3 ,
'
requires maintenance of cleanliness and a dry atmosphere, with no ;
i time limits stated or implied, during installation. It clarifies
!
()
~
that although the heat exchangers are required to meet "Inside ;
! Unheated" conditions for "In-Plant Storage", note #17 (which specifies :
l; nitrogen cover gas) does not apply during "In-Plant Storage". ;
Letter JW8-T-1772 concludes that the RHR heat exchanger " storage is l
in accordance with GE requirements."
[
t
? The inspector examined additional Stone and Webster documentation !
and vendor documents which showed that the question of maintenance !
.
of nitrogen cover gas was raised under the QA program in 1975 and !
f
3
was resolved at that time. Relevant documents examined 1-cluded: j
l GE Document 22A2724 Revision 3 l'
l Perfcx Corporation Procedure 897-Y-041 Revision 0
: ;
I
i$ ,
, l l
6
'
l-.
r
>
., *_. _ __ _. , - - ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' * ~ * * " * * * ~ * ' * ' .
_ . . _ . . . _ _ __ _ _ _
_ . _ _ _ _ _.
: ..
*
,
,, . *.
J
8 I
Perfex Corporation Procedure 896-Y-005 Revision 1 l
S&W Engineering & Design Coordination Reports Nos. l
,
F-2889 F-2889A, and F-3437 l
!
GE Letter # WAS-652 dated August 8, 1978 I
~l '
GE Letter # JWB-T-1772 dated. !
1 1
" ) .
The inspector observed that the tube-side chamber openings were !
covered with a plastic covering and tape where piping had not yet !
I
been bolted to the opening. During a previous inspection in August j
l 1978, the inspector had the cover removed and he viewed the tube- !
I side chamber of one heat exchanger, and observed no obvious rusting I
.
or condensation. The Stone and Webster site QC organization presented ;
, to evidence of S&W QC inspection of the tube-side and shell side of l
g the heat exchangers to verify existing conditions.
: In view of the GE position, and the NRC inspector's observations, i
L this item is considered to be resolved. l
l !
4. Fuel Storace Pool liner
The inspector witnessed the leak testing for one increment of the l
fuel storage pool leak collection channel welds. The test was .
perfomed in 6 foot increments along the vertical length of each t
channel. The testing was perfomed at the.second level increment ,
from the top of the pool on the west wall. The procedure in use
was Reactor Control's Vacuum Leak Testing of Welded Joints, Bubble
Method, Revision 0, April 7,1976. The inspector reviewed the '
procedure relative to Specification SH1-302, Revision 1. He also ;
,
-
ascertained the calibration certification of the pressure gages in
.3 use for measuring the partial vacuum and the E7018 electrode record ;
t
Q for electrodes in use at the test location. t
n
, Paragraph 4.3 of the procedure specifically requires that the
: bubble solution be applied to the surfaces to be examined by flowing
! over the surface. Due to geometric constraints, the bubble solution -
! was sprayed on to the surface. Paragraph 4.5 of the procedure l
l
requires a lapsed time between the application of the bubble solution i
and the completed examination to be three minutes. It also requires !
, visual attention of thirty seconds duration, direct to each linear i
i foot of weld. The total linear footage of weld for the 6 foot ;
i
section was approximately 12 feet.) Due to the apparent conflicting j
; requirements, the field staff conducted the test within three i
i minutes, and then continued to examine the weld for additional !
-
time. I
.i1 : i
;
1; ; '
, i
i !
'
!
l
-
- _ - - .. . _
= -_. - : -- _ _ = -. -n
.. _ . . _ . . -
._ _ _ _ _ . _
.
' -
-
.
i
,
. -
9
The inspector questioned the field interpretations of the procedure
and indicated that the procedural variations appeared to be an item i
of noncompliance. In a subsequent telephone conversation on October . ,
6,1978, the inspector advised that this item hao been further i l
reviewed relative to the facts and the safety related function of ,' '
the leak collection channel, and an item of noncompliance did not l
appear to be involved. i
.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5. Pipe Support Welding
During the plant tour-inspection the inspector observed welding in-
progress on residual heat remoYal system pipe support number lEll-
q PSA-072. The rectangular tubing support was being installed in- J place, with several welds completed, one in-progress, and some weld
joints partially prepared for welding. The partially prepared
joints involved a 450 Skewed-Tee-Joint at the wall anchor plate, and the
weld in-prpgress involved a 54o Skewed-Tee Joint at the horizontal / diagonal
strut connection. The inspector interviewed the fitter and
welder and examined the applicable drawing (No. BZ-8F-16-4) and
the weld technique sheet being used by them. -
The drawing did not specify which weld procedure was applicable;
the welder stated that this was determined by the foreman and was
documented on the filler material withdrawalgp3. /The weld
technique sheet used by the welder was ndMber W70G (Fillet Welds),
which showed applicability to Skewed-Tee-Joints of 60*-to-90* with
+10*, -0* angular tolerance. The fillet weld procedure thus did
, not appear to be applicable to either the weld in-progress (54*).
q , por the partially prepared weld joint (45*). u
-
. -.
.
The inspector subsequently examined S&W Engineering Design and
Coordination Report (E30CR) No. P-3054 dated July 11, 1978 which
provided a welding technique sheet specifically for AWS welding on
structural tubing-- " Partial Penetration (Rect. Tubing)." The
welders did not have this technique sheet, nor did the joint
fitups appear to comply with the details of this technique sheet.
The inspector also noted that QC inspection procedure QCI-FSI-
F11.4-00 calls for QC verification of proper weld procedure for
'
.
.
~ ~ ~ ~ - = - - - . ..
_-___Tr'_~ - - -
, _ ,
}}