IR 05000313/1990044

Insp Repts 50-313/90-44 & 50-368/90-44 on 901029-1102.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Areas Inspected:Hpi Sys Mod Welding Activities & Internal Audit Program

ML20062H268
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	11/15/1990
From:	Barnes I, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062H258	List: IR 05000313/1990044 ML20062H253
References
50-313-90-44, 50-368-90-44, NUDOCS 9012040193
Download: ML20062H268 (5)

Text

'

l

.- . 1

. l

.

.

APPENDIX

!

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!NISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/90-44 Operating Licenses: DPR-51 50-368/90-44 NPF-6 Dockets: 50-313 50-368 Licensee: Entergy Operations, In Route 3 Cox 137G Russellville, Arkansas 72801 facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: ANO. Russellville, Arkansas Inspection Conducted: October 29 through Nov ber 2,1990 I

Inspector: a y /M I O R. C. Stewarty Reactor Inspector, Materials Date '

and Quality Programs Section, Division of '

.

Reactor Safety Approved: 8% nAr/yo I. Barnes, Chief, Materials and Quality Programs Date Section, Division of Reactor Safety .

Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted October 29 throuch November 2. 1990 (Report 50-313/90-44; 50-368/90-44)

I Areas inspected: Routine and nonroutine, unannounced inspection of Unit 1 high pressure injection (HPI) system modification welding activities, and the internal audit progra Results; Within the areas inspected, no violations or de/<1ations were identified. The overall internal audit program was frand to be appropriately defined and consistent with QA Manual Operations coreitments and Technical Specifications (TS) requiren.*nt The licensee's maintenance cont.* actor has experienced high radiographic examination rejection rates for field welds performed in the HPl piping system .

modification. Review found that the primary problem was related to limited

'

901204o193 901121 ..

.

!

PDR ADOCK OU'00 O

.

. .

-i I

. .

j

.. >

.

,*

'

l

-t-

)

accessibility 'of certain weld joints and was not indicative of a more general concern regardirg quality of welding. The contractor has subsequently l employed a subcontractor (PCI, Lake Bluff,111.). to finish welding on the HPI l system, utilizing a combination of manual and machine weldin ;

i

I

,

s

l

.

~!

!

<

e h

$

?

f

)

I

'

,  !

'

• a ?

q

.

l

.

0-

,t

.- 1

?

-ll i

r a

l

"

e t

!

..j e

?

l

!

, -- -- -- p p -4 v, y .,..,s- ~ g,w, e-m>,,v--, -.w--w 8,m., e s. ._u --m.- -.- s - ~ - - e

._ .

. .

..

.

3-DETAILS

, PERSONS CONTACTED AliO

• D. Boyd, Licensing Specialist

• Converse. Supervisor, Engineering Programs

• R. Fenech, Plant lianager Unit 2

• J. Fisicaro, Manager, Licensing T. Freeman, Installation Engineer

• L. Humphrey, General Manager, Nuclear Quality

• G. Jones, General Manager, Engineering

• R. Lane, Menager, Engineering Standards & Programs

• D. Lomax, Superintendent, Engineering Programs D. Olson, QA Auditor

• G. Provencher, Manager, Quality Assurance (QA)

D. Rackley, Welding Coordinator

• R. Sessoms, Plant Manager, Central

• J. Taylor-Brown, Manager, Quality control / Quality Engineering

• J. Vandergrift. Plant lianager, Unit 1

• D. Wagner, QA Supervisor

• J. Yelverton, Director, Nuclear Operations NRC ,

• R. Baer, Senior Reactor Health Physicist i

• C. Warren, Senior Resident Inspector i

• L. Smith, Resident Inspector

• Indicates personnel who attended the exit interview conducted on Novemb r 2, l

'

199 The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee personnel du.ina the course of the inspectio . WELDING - HIGH PRESSURE If;JECTION (i.PI) PIPING SYSTEM MODIFICATION (55050)

Information received by Region IV durinj a telephone conference call with the licensee on October 26, 1990, indicated that the contractor was experiencing welding problems on the HPI piping system modifications, with radiographic  ;

examination data indicating a 50 percent rejection rate on the ASME- . _ .

Section III, Class 2, field weld During this inspection,'the inspector conducted an overview of the welding activities associated with the HP1 system modification. It was observeo by the inspector that the licensee's contractor had temporarily discontinued manual welding on the HP1 system piping modification and had subcontracted with PCI, a piping fabricator / installer who specializes in automated machine pipe welding, to complete the piping welds on the system. In discussing the current

__

'

. .

.

.

4-status of the weldir.? on the HP1 system with the licensee's installation er.gineer and nondestructive examination (NDE) supervisor, it was ascertained that a total of 21 welds i.ad been completed to date. Radiographic examination (RT)dataregardingthe21weldsindicatedthat8weldshadbeen found to be rejectable when compared to ASME Code requirements. However, 3 of the 8 welds required 2 or more repairs before being found to be acceptable on RT examination. The inspector examined 18 radiographs representing 6 of the relcetable butt welds in the 4-inch piping. Limited areas of la d of penetration, lack of fusion, and slag inclusions werc observed to be present. 'te inspector selected three field welds requiring multiple repairs for an in-situ ec mination (i.e., FW-17, ISO Drawing 17-FU-24; FW-65 and FW-67, 150 Drawing 17-MU-28 All three welds were located in tightly confined areas and represented a significant degree of dif ficulty for the welder. In addition, the welds were located in a radiological area requiring the welder to wear doubic anticontamination clothing and a respirator during the welding proces The inspector also examined radiographic records related to the HP1 system pre-fabricated pipe welds. This information indicated less than an 8 percent rejection rate for 68 welds. The inspector concluded that the primary welding problem was related to accessibility for manual welding, and was not indicative of a more general concern regarding quality of weldin During the review of welding activities, the inspector witnessed portions of the PCI welder automatic welding machine qualifications. In addition, the inspector reviewed the welding procedure specificaticos, with and without consumable inserts, and the certified material test reports for newly purchased weld wire to be used with PCI machines. These activities appeared to meet applicable ASME Code requirements. At the close of this inspection, 13 PCl welders had been ovalified for both manual and automatic machine welding. In addition, field welding had resumed on the HPl system modification. Within this area of inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie . AUDIT PROGRAM (40702and40704)

This area of inspection was performed to complete inspection activities that '

were initiated during a previous inspection (HRC Inspection Report 50-313/90-21; 50-368/90-21).

During the inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's QA Operating Procedure OAO-6, " Internal Audits," Rev'sion 7, dated July 30, 1990. The procedure was found to define appropriately the requirements and responsibilities for planning, performing, reporting, end followup action associated with QA internal audits. In reviewing the overall audit program with the cognizant licensee representative, the inspector was provided copies of the 3 year,

" Nuclear Quality Audit Schedule" and the 1,'90, "QA Technical Specification (TS)

Audit Schedule." The inspector conducted a comparative review of the two schedules against the comitments in the QA Manual Operations and Technical i Specifications (TS) requirerents. The inspector determined from this review l that the scope of the defined audit program was consistent with the commitments of the QA Manual Operations and TS requirement I

. .. . . . - .

. .. . i

-

.  !

-

.

i-5 i

The inspector also performed a review of Operating Plant TS Audit," Unit Two Containment Systems,* QAP-18G-90. Revision 2, conducted May 5 through June 27, 1990. The completed audit report was verified to contain comprehensive checklist items that were relevant to the TS requirements. Results were well documented and findings individually identified with recomended actions. Open items appeared to be tracked appropriately, responses were timely, and item l closures adequately documente J The licensee's internal eudit program was found to be defined appropriately and !

to be consistent with QA manual Operations comitments and TS requirement Within this area of inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie EXIT INTERYlLW (30703)

-An exit-interview was conducted on November 2, 1990, with those personnel denoted in paragraph 1 in which the inspection findings were sumarized. No information was presented to the inspector that was identified by the licensee as proprietary.

l

!