IR 05000313/1973015
| ML19320A103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1973 |
| From: | Brownlee V, Crossman W, Kelley W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320A097 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-73-15, NUDOCS 8004140708 | |
| Download: ML19320A103 (6) | |
Text
_.
_
.
.
.
.
'O e
p'** '%
UNITED STATES
.
o q
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
!(N*<
DIRECTORATS OF REGULATORY OPERATICUS
'
S r.
-
iS REGION ll
$U e T E 810
'$ ' \\, l '
a 230 6*E ACMT R E E $7 RE ET, NoH T HwE$7
- f4 f n O'
AT L. A N T A. G E CHG, A 30303
,
,,
RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/73-15 Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Company Sixth and Pine Streets Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71601
Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Docket No.:
50-313 License No.:
CPPR-57 Category:
A3/B1 Location: Russellville, Arkansas
.
Type of License: B&W, PWR-2568 Mut, 880 Mwe Type of Inspection: Special, announced, Construction Dates of Inspection: October 23-26, 1973
,
'
r-Dates of Previous Inspection: September 11-14, 1973 and September 25-28, 1973 Inspector In Charge:
W. D. Kelley, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Accompanying Inspectors: None
,
Other Accompanying Personnel: None
-
[ # './:/N
<, b.' i
// /7.j27 I
- 1 o
/
Principal Inspector:
V. L. Brownlee, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Section, Facilities Construction Branch
' /,!, !
i"ts,
/
,
7'2 Reviewed by:
- '
'
W. A. Crossman, Senior Inspector Date Facilities Section, Facilities Construction Branch i
'J 800414o7,,,
.
.
- _.
..
_
.
.
,
.
'
..
<
.s
/%
(
R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-15-2-
,
.
SUICIARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations
"^
None B.
Safety Items None II. jLicensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations None
,
B.
Safety Items
.
None
.
III. New Unresolved Items None IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 72-12/2 Valve Wall Thickness Verification (Region II Letters, June 30, 1972, and February 16, 1973)
,.
The draf t of the valve wall thickness verification program report was presented for review. The program and documentation
-
was found to be incomplete. Thickness measurements were not made of valve bonnets and covers or all weldend preparation. This item remains open.
(Details I, paragraphs 2,
'
3, and 4)
<
,
V.
Design Changes
!
None VI.
Unusual Occurrences None-
.
..
_
.
.
--
-
-
.
. _. _ _.. _ _.. _..
_ _ ___
. _
_
. _
. _... _.
. -
_
...._
.
<
i
.
,
'
.
..
.
'
.
i
,
RO.Rpt. No. 50-313/73-15-3-
'
-
.
.
.
!
!
VII. Other Significant Findings A.
Project Status None B.
Personnel or Organizational Changes
l None C.
Inquiry Reports None
'
VIII. Management Interview Our findings were discussed at the conclusion of.the inspection
,
with Mr. Moore, Chief QA Coordinator.
'
,
I
i e
,t k!
!
!
.
.
1 t
>
..
P I
< - -
r,-
--.
-r-
-w,
_ _,,,
.-,.?, -,,-,
,
..,..,..,..,_.-m._.,,._,__y,.
_.,2_,,.._,_._,_,
,_.,..,,... _. -.,
,_,,,,m...,_
_,,.....,,,, ~
._
_ _
.. _
.
>k
,
.
.
V
_
d R0 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-15 1-1
-
-
DETAILS I Prepared by:
//
/7 f,
W. D. Kelley, Reactor Iryspector Da'te
'
Engineering Section, Facilities Construction Branch Dates of Inspection: October 23-26, 1973 S
O-
[
U Reviewed by:
'
'
-
-
.ir-J. C. Bryant, Senior Reactor Inspectcr Date
. Engineering Section, Fccilities Construction Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted
Arkansas Power and Light Comnany (AP&L)
N. A. Moore - Chief - QA Coordinator-
Contracting Organizations l
(a) Bechtel Engineering Corporation (Bechtel)
E. Patel - Piping Engineer - San Francisco G. Katanics - Project Engineer - San Francisco
(b) Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)
R. M. Moore - Construction - Site Representative 2.
Valve Wall Thickness Verification Program (a) Report
<
.
A draf t of the valve wall thickness verification program report
,
was presented to the inspector for review and coment. A review of the documentation and procedures revealed that they had not been reviewed, correlated, or audited by Bechtel or AP&L in accordance with the licensee's commitment during the inspection of July 18-20, 1973.
Some of the errors and conflicts noted by the inspector that would have been noted in a QA audit by the licensee are as follows:
(1) Design justification for use of a 12 inch valve in a 14 inch piping system was not included.
(2). Hydrostatic testing and disc-leak testing of the two repaired Velan check valves was not specified, completed or planned.
,
,. _ _.,
,
,
,
._- _-
_
_.7 y
- - - -, _ _ _ - - - - -
..
.
- '
.
.
.
.
.
,~
y/
20 Rpt. No. 50-313/73-15 I-2
-
(3) Thickness measurements had not been made of valve bonnets and covers.
(4) Thickness measurements had not been made of one weld end
-
preparation of the core flood valves.
(5) The calibration accut scy for their ultrasonic equipment and how it was applied to the valve wall thickness measure-ments was not specified.
(6) Calculations for rerating valve from standard ANSI B16.5 rating to design pressure and temperature conditions were not included.
The licensee was made aware of these errors, conflicts and omissions and he stated they would be corrected in the final report. The licensee stated that all documentation and proce-dures would be audit for additional errors.
t b.
Pilot Onerated Relief Valve (PSV-1000)
B&W is pursuing with the manuf acturer (Dresser Industries) the resolution of the thin wall pilot operated relief valve. A mock-up has been made of the weld joining the two piece body and it has been sent to a consultant for evaluation.
The B&W position will be based on the consultants findings.
i 3.
Repair of Velan Valves l
The data package for the repair weld wall thickness buildup of the 14 inch Velan valves DHV-14A&B was audited. The Velan welding procedure stated that the position (ASME Code Section IX essential variable) was in the flat or 1G position. A procedure qualification was available for the procedure and weldor but was qualified in the 6G position.
Bechtel personnel was aware of the discrepancy but had not taken any action to correct the procedure. The procedure had to be written for welding in the fixed positien (5G or 6G) because the valves were repaired in place after they were welded into the piping system.
The repair procedure does not require.that the repair area be radio-l graphically examined; however, the documentation has radiographs and evaluation sheets for part of the repair weld buildup. The radio-
.es graphs did not completely cover the repair area as the weld buildup (
)
had a maximum width of 91/4 inches but a 41/2 inch wide band was
\\s_ /
radiographed. In addition the position markers were located in the -
diagnostic area of the film.
i
,
-
-
..
-_
. -.
.
.
_ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
__-
__. _ _..
.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _
e
- .
.
.
i
.
RO Rp t. No. 50-313/73-15 I-3
'
...
.
,
!
I
,
I
'The data package did not have a list of required documents or a
,
summary approval sheet. Bechtel stated that a document check list would be generated and the person reviewing the document would be
'
,
required to " sign off" the check list ite:s he reviewed, i
,
.
s j'
i i
!
,
.
!
l
,
1
~
r i
I i
,
,
c
$'
'
J h
'
I l
'
i e
k
1
l-i i
6 I
I i.
,
_ _,
,,..,..., _. _ _.
. -,
,..... - -. - _ _ _ _,
~ -.. _
.
.
.-
.