IR 05000313/1974007
| ML19320A016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1974 |
| From: | Herdt A, Kidd M, Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320A000 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-74-07, 50-313-74-7, NUDOCS 8004140635 | |
| Download: ML19320A016 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. - . ' ' O Ux!T2D ;rrtIS ...[,U ?. . )f d',i;A-j$h A i OM;C ENEr'iGY COMMISSION ' d,413 {',g'6./ g ,, c, w g, ; ; or rg. %,T: T( <GWIGU , ' . net.io n is suo r mn - - ,. y 2.... s,, r, u r.. i. *.. w.w r i ,,.,.,,..r,...,o ,3^?,,;;; -;' n..,o 4...ee,-u.a w3 RO Inspection Report No. 50-313/74-7 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: B1 Location: Russellville, Arkansas Type of License: B&W, PWR, 2568 Mwt Type of Inspection: Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection: March 26-29 and April 16-18, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection: March 19-22 and April 2-5, 1974 %
Inspector-in-Charge: A. R. Herdt, Metallurgical Engineer Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Accompanying Inspector: S. D. Ebneter, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Other Accompanying Personnel: None Principal Inspector: ' M. S. Kidd,TReactor Inspector Date l Facilities Test and Star?.up Branch Reviewed By: E. c. Ms gu979-- R. C. Lewis, Acting Branch Chief Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch DOPY E Nr Tor FIR LPDR V NSIC _ - TIC / u./ . . 8004140[[ L
_
. . ~ .. .. O,. R0 Rpt. No.-50-313/74-7-2- ) i SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .I.
Enforcement Action
!- A.
Violations Certain items appear to be in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, l "Qualit r Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," as ' indicste halow. These apparent violations are considered to be of ,s.y II severity.
. . Calibre :. st Equipment .g Contrary to Criterion V, a quality assurance calibration i procedure, pertaining to the test equipment on the mechanized ultrasonic inspection appara::us, was not being followed.
(Details I, paragraph 3) B.
Safety Items None ( II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters - A.. Violations , Non'a B.
Safety Items None III. New Unresolved Items 74-7/1 Preoperati nal (Baseline) Inspection Data The licensee is performing the required ultrasonic inspections on the reactor vessel using a remote inspection tool. The manual baseline inspection data was in final report form and many deficiencies were identified. The licensee agreed to resolve and review all deficiencies and submit the final report as required by the Technical Specifications.
(Details I, ' paragraph 2.b) O - t , , - - --g7 .- T-%- - - - v-' 'Pwv- " y ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' '
-, e a _ , m- .h _ . - ~. . . . . m , ... , ~.] - RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-7-3-74-7/2 Mechanized Ultrasonic Data Verification and Repeatability . The licensee agreed to rerun a designated weld area having ultrasonic indications using the mechanized remote ultrasonic inspection tool to assure data repeatability and reliability.
(Details I, paragraph,2.c) 74-7/3 Regulatory Operations Bulletin No. 74-3 Regulatory Operations Bulletin No. 74-3, " Failure of Structural or Seismic Support Bolts on Class I Components," was sent to the licensee on March 27, 1974, with a written response required within 20 days. No response has been received.
The respons~e will be evaluated by Region II upon receipt.
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 73-16/1 Radiography Review The licensee has reviewed for weld acceptability and radio- "j graphic quality radiographs on spooJ pieces RS-HCB-A6-33 and BS-HCE-A4-32 and field weld TICT, 6-8 and found them to , meet the requirements of.*NSI B31.1.
This item is closed.
(Details I, paragraph 4) V.
' Design Changes None VI.
Unusual Occurrences None i VII. Other Significant Findings None VIII. Management Interview Our findings were discussed at the conclusion of the inspections with Mr. J. W. Anderson, Plant Superintendent. (Details I, paragraphs , 2 through 4) O . . . 4, - % . ,,7 , ,,.,N , - -. - - -,, - -. - + ,., . ,----, e
.. . . . .- ... - _ _.. - - -. . 9... - _ . . ' -. . . ' O RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-7 I-l . DETAILS I ~ Prepared By: b- [M d7 Y' A. R. Herdt, Metallurgical 'Date ,. Engineer, Engineering Section i Facilities Construction Branch Dates of Inspection: March 26-29, 1974 and . April 16-18, 1974 , l- . et cM [ '. 7 ' 9 ' ' Reviewed By: A
is,s W. A. Crossman, Senior Inspector Date i Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch 1.
Persons Contacted
t a.
Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L)
J. Anderson - Plant Superintendent J. Orlicek - QC Engineer I L. Humphrey - QA Engineer '- ') C. Bean - QA Inspector -
C. A. Halbert - Technical Support Engineer ' b.
Contractor Organizations.
,
(1) Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel) , W. D. Schuster - Senior Field Welding Engineer i R. Paulcheck - Project Field Quality Control Engineer (2) Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (B&W) ~ F. J. Sattler - Manager, Inservice Inspection i I.
C. R. Honeycutt - Site Coordinator and Representative T. F. McDermott - Shift Leader 2.
Preoperational (Baseline) Inspection Data a.
General The RO inspection including data review and observation of mechanized ultrasonic examination using the remote tool was
- l l.
. \\hM. J
, . -,, - -,,.+,l.
-,. , - - -, ., .,., - - - ~.., -- -., -. .,-
. . .,, . . " . s , j ' RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-7 I-2 a conducted on the dates shown above. The program review was included in RO inspection report No. 50-313/73-16. The status as given in this report, reflects the findings of the second , inspection.- It was reported that the required preoperational inspections were complete except for the reactor vessel, where the remote ultrasonic test was currently being performed.
b.
Data Review . The inspector reviewed the preoperational inspection data for the inspections performed.
t.
The following problem areas were identifieh (1) All required visual inspections were not performed or adequately documented.
(2) Liquid penetrant inspection reporting and documentation l did not appear to be in accordance with procedure BLI-20.
(3) Measurement of piping where grinding occurred to assure minimum wall thickness was not violated. This assurance ('"S includes verification of minimum wall thickness including ( j actual ultrasonic measurements, acceptance standard and - test procedure used.
- (4) Clarification of the notes, on the individual test data sheets, regarding inaccessible areas plus definition of actual ultrasonic te at techniques used and the results eb tained.
(5) Clarification and definition of recordable and reportable { indications. This needs to be in accordance with ASME _ code requirements or appropriate justification.
(6) Correlation of data between summary sheets and ultrasonic data on individual welds tested.
(7) Assurance that ASME code and test procedure rcquirements were adhered to in the area of calibration. Specific areas which aeed to be resolved are: (a) calibration blocks listed on various individual ultrasonic data sheets are not included in volume 2, which summarizes all calibration i \\_- . ? -
I . . , - -. , -. - .. - --. . -. .-
. , f l
- _ . ' t . /'~'% . - ' \\w - RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-7 I-3 'l H l blocka used; (b) material being ultrasonically tested is j the same material as the calibration block used; (c) . material thickness of the calibration block meets the ' ASME code and test procedure requirements for the material being ultrasonically examined, (8) Assurance that all CRDM have been tested in accordance ' with the ASME code and inspection plan requirements.
Subsequent to this inspection, the licensee reviewed this area and discovered that CRDM No. 327 had not been tested.
The licensee stated that all tutse problem areas would be resolved with special emphasis on items 3, 7 and 8 since these may involve additional inspection and testing.
The licensee stated the Baseline Inspection Report will be submitted in accordance with the Technical Specifications requirements.
The inspector stated that these items are identified as unresolved
and would be examined during subsequent inspections.
Follewur Observation of Preoperational Inspection c.
The inspector observed portions of the mechanized ultrasonic inspection using the mechanized remote tool including the calibration method, working of the m thanized equipment, data records and personnel qualificat.ons. This inspection ' was being performed in accordance with Procedure BLI-ll, Rev. 2, " Automated Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Vessel Welds Seams, Nozzle Welds and Ligament Area."
<< The licensee had performed four audits of the mechanize.1 - ultrasonic inspection in accordance with Procedure No. 1304.59, "QC Inspection During Automated Ultrasonic Examination of the Reactor Vessel and Associated Equipment." The inspector
! stated that the audits should also have included assurance that the data obtained using the me hanized remote tool was reliable and repeatable.
The licensee agreed to rerun circle weld Mark Al to A2, ! Block Numbers 332, 333, 334 and 335 in accordance with BLI-ll, Rev. 2, to verify data repeatability and reliability since. the block nunbered areas had ultrasonic indications.
l , l.
! l l ,~, . . '
' .. - .., ._ - - , -...
. .. -. _ . . s , , .. m RC Rpt. No. 50-313/74-7 I-4 - The inspector stated that this item would be identified as unresolved and would be examined during the next inspection.
3.
Calibration of Test Equipment The inspector reviewed the B&W Quality Assurance Manual for Inservic.e Inspection. Policy No. 9-QA-203, Revision 0, " Nondestructive Examination control," paragraph 5, provides the policy and general
guidelines for calibration of' nondestructive examination equipment.
The inspector reviewed the nondestructive examination equipment being used on the mechanized remote ultrasonic inspection equipment (ARIS) for compliance with the Ebove procedure. The results
showed that. the t,emperature recorder had no calibration label affixed and the cathode ray tube scopes did not have a calibration ] due date on the affixed label, both instances are in violation of the Quality Assurance Manual.
The inspector also observed that the calfbration blocks for the mechanized remote tool inspection and the manual ultrasonic inspection were not identified. The licensee immediately , V corrected this situation.
The inspector informed the licensee that this item on calibration of test equipment was a violation of the procedure and Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
4.
Radiography Review The inspector reviewed the action taken on unresolved item 73-16/1.
i The licensee requested Bechtel to re-review the following radio- _ graphs for film quality, weld acceptability, we? d profile and contour:
i Field Weld Number Iso Number HCB-6-8A 5-BS-7 HCB-6-7 5-BS-7 l HCB-6-8 5-BS-7 . 1 Kel1ogg Shop Weld Numbers l
BS-HCB-A6-33 Welds A and B '
- -
BS-HCB-A4-32 Welds, A, B, and C i , . ' \\. .
e ,,_v +-- v m-w r, -,. - - w~ .<, .n,, - - -,. -,v...w.wm, n- - --v
_. _.. _ _.. _ _. - _. _ _ . _._ __ _ __ _ __. __ _ __ ___._. _ .._ __ _ _.~.. ___._ _ . r :... _ -.. , .
. , .. Y f s 4: RO Rpt. No. 50-313/74-7 I-5 f The Bechtel Level III NDE examiner reviewed these radiographs
, and found them to meet the job specifications of ANSI B31.7.
The inspector reviewed'the correspondence involved and considers this item resolved.
,. ' e ! .
1 i . } ! , ' I t .~ l - i
i !
e
w l i I , l l . - # . i i' .
h gg-e ry.--wwem.-ww-r- , - p.
y -,----- -w-m-%y----- - - - - 1,--wr- ,,ss-e----wvv*, p-e-y,-.-n-- ,- -- .--w m-e-rm. - - -m w ere-a-w-e.w,ase.-.-e-ww-w w ums*- en--e--m-mee-=-- }}