IR 05000320/1975010
| ML19206B038 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1975 |
| From: | Durr J, Heishman R, Narrow L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19206B028 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-320-75-10, NUDOCS 7904210734 | |
| Download: ML19206B038 (17) | |
Text
,
F a I For= 12
.
( a 75) (Rev)
.
U. S. UUCLEAR REGUIATORY CC:0!ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTIM AND ENFORCD1ENT
.
REGION I
.
II Inspection Ecport No:
50-320/75-10 Docket No:
50-12n Licensee:
Metropolitan Edison Connany License No:
C?PF-66 Box 542
'
.
Priority:
Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Category:
A Safeguards
-
Group:
,
Loca tion:
Middletown, Pennsv1vnnin (TMI-2)
Tv e of Licensee:
PWR 871 MWe (Bbn Type of Inspection:
Routine - Unannounced
-
Dates of Inspection:
July 29-August 1, 1975 Dates of Previous Inspection:
June 25-26, 1975
.
Reporting Inspector:
~4/8'
MM/
h/ P!'/I
L.
Narrow, Reactor Inspector DATE
-
s Acco=panying Inspectors:
,- n a/4
-
-T//c/M <~~
/ J.
P. D'u r r, Reactor Inspector
'
DATE
.. Law nL6 L.&
7 /w4 s-
-
.
E. P.gernig,nn,' Reactor Inspector
/
DATE
-
DATE Other Accompanying Personnel:
.-
-
DATE
/
Reviewed By:
.M[
' *?"M*M k/
I'-
R.
7. Heish=an, Senior Reactor Inspector DATE
-
.
.
.
.
.
-
p
.
-
.
~
7904210733 CM
.
..
.
,
.
-
.
5UM!ARY OF FIND!UCS Enforcement Action A.
_ Items of Scnceerliance 1.
Infraction Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX and PSAR Tabic 3.2-1:
,
Reactor Coolant Piping (RCP) weld RC-038 was observed to have a V-notch at the fusion line between the base matal and the veld deposit whereas the applicable code USAS B317 requires that the veld surface merge smoothly with the
.
component.
(Details, Paragraph 2)
-
.
This item was resolved prior to completion of the inspection
.
2.
Deficiency Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and PSAR graph 17.1.B.4:
, Para-A spool piece in the vaste disposal gas piping system was in stalled without the heat nu=bcr identification as required by-Procedure QCP-8-2.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
This item was resolved prior to "the completion of the inspecti on.
B.
Deviations None
,-
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters The following previously identified items of noncompliance hav resolved:
'
e been 1.
Core Flooding tanks - documentation.
.
(Details,' Paragraph 4)
2.
s-
.
Incosplete data sheets for pu=p MU-P-1A.
_
(Details, Paragraph 5 3.
Requirements for conditional installation of nonconfor=ing it (Details, Paragraph 6)
e=s.
\\
4.
Preventive maintenance of installed equipment.
.
graph 7)
'
(Details Para-
-
.
,
,
o
,
-
-
[h*
,
\\
r
,
-2-e 5.
Storarc
--
instrument cable.
(Details, Paragraph 8)
-
.' cable ends in storage.
(Details, Paragraph 9)
g,ying.
-:
~ a set t gate rej tc t cable.
(Details, Paragraph 10)
7.
Yailur:1-Failurr
- 30 e =p:
with specification for field uc1 ding.
(Details,
'
Paragr:rn; 11)
Desien ChsrT~~*f None
'Jnusual Occm ences None Other SiEEP _-
c. runt Findines
-~
-
y-nding A.
Currg C
,
e'ollowing items are unresolved:
y, ne 2ecords of NDE personnel qualifications are incomplete 2,,
and are inconsistent with respect to eye correction limitations.
(Details, Paragraph 12)
?rogram for pre-operational inspection is not well de-b.,
fined and does not clearly establish that it will comply with requirements of the FSAR identified codes.
.
Paragraph 13)
(Details, The following items are considered to be acceptable:
_
-
2,
,-
Documentation for reactor building structural steel.
a.
(Details, Paragraph 14)
Documentation for velding.of reactor coolant and decay 3,
heat piping.
(Details, Paragraph 13)
Inservice inspection nondestructive ' examination (NDE)
"
'
c.
- procedure.
(Details, Paragraph 23)
d.
Manual ultrasonic examination.
,
(Details, Paragraph 24)
_
k.
-
.
.
.
U
-
'
,
- -- _
'
i
- 3_
B.
Status of Previcusiv Recorted Unresolved Items 1.
The f ollcwing ite=s have been resolved:
n.
Lining' of safety related tanks.
(Details, Paragraph 16)
b.
Modification of condensate storage tank screens.
(Setails, Paragraph 17)
c.
Modification of reactor building spray pump cotors.
(Details, Paragraph 18)
d.
Procedure for release of nonconforming items.
(Details, Paragraph 39)
e.
Repair of cast stainless steel valves.
(Details, Para-graph 20)
-
f.
Disposition of post-tensioning nonconfcr=ances.
(Details, Paragraph 21) '
2.
The status of the reactor coolant pu=p (RCP) studs and nuts was reviewed. This item remains unresolved.
(Details, Para-graph 22)
Exit Interview An exit necting was held at the site oa August 1,1975.
Persons Present General Public Utilities Service Corporation-
-
_
R. F. Fenti, Quality Assurance Auditor W. T. Cunn, Site Manager L. R. Howell, Construction Engineer P. A. Levine, Site QA Auditor S. Levin, Proj ect Manager C. L. Roshy, Quality Assurance Engineer
!
J. E. Wright, QA Manager
.
.
United Engineers and Constructors
-
.
V. E. Cichoki, Coord'inating Superintendent, QA/QC J. Carrabba, Construction QC i
R. Dourte, Assistant Field Superintendent, QC
'
C. W. Hunter, Electrical Supervisor C. W. Kelly, Piping Superintendent D. C. Lambert, Field Supervisor, Quality Control l
-
-
-
.
i E 4 :: 0 7 '
-
.
_
W
%
.
-4-Burns & Roe
'
G. T. Harper, Jr., Site Proj ect Engineer Eabcock and Wilcox 3. E. Treadway, Project ManR. J. Kun:, Quality Contr upervisor ager The items discussed are su==
acknowledged the informationari cd below.
In each case the licensee
.
A.
Scope of the Insocetion The inspector stated that the preoperational inspectithis inspection was structural steel and the statuson program, the QC program for pipinconduc
-
of outstanding items.
B.
Items of Noncoroliance g and
,
The inspector stated that tw
,
tified.
of the inspection.Both of these items had beeo ite=s of nonce =pliance h n resolved prior to een iden-1.
conclusion which did not meet the requirAcceptance of we n the reactor Paragraph 2)
.
ements of USAS B 31.7. coolant piping 2.
(Details, Installation of safety relat d as required by QCP-8-2.
e piping which was
'Previously (Details, Paragraph 3) not identified
-
C.
Identified Enforcement Matt The inspector identified the i ers
the Su==ary of Findings
,-
tems listed under this been resolved.
(Details, Paragraph 4 tnrcand stated that all of these section of D.
Current Findings
.
ugh 11)
ems had a.
The it.spector discussed the i
-
that they are unresolved.
tems listed belev and st
-
(1)
ated
'
NDE personnel qualification r*
~
graph 12)
records.
(Details, Para-
\\
\\
(2)
Preoperational inspection p 13)
rogram.
(Details, Paragraph
.
.
-
.
O Lia 1 4 8 e
w
-
.
,
_ 5-The inspector stated that based on review of sc1ceted records, b.
documentation f or the f ollowing items are considered to be acceptabic.
(1)
Reacter building Structural Steel.
(Datails, Paragraph 14)
(2)
Docu=entation of reactor cooling and decay heat piping velding.
(Letails, Paragraph 15)
E.
Unresolved Itc=s.
The inspector identified the items listed under part B-1 of 1.
Other Significant Vindings of the Su==ary of Findings and stated that these ltens had been resolved.
(Details, Para-graphs 16 through 21)
2.
The inspector stated that the status of the studs and nuts
.
f or the reactor coolant pu=ps had been reviewed and this item remains unretolved.
(Details, Paragraph 22)
.
e W
e e
e
.
e o
_
=
e e
.
e e
W h
Eq-w a!)
.
.
-
DETAILS 1.
Persens Contacted General Public Utilities Service Corcoration R. F. Fenti, Quality Assurcute Auditor W. T. Gunn, Site Manager P. A. Levine, Site QA Auditor S. Levin, Project Engineer D. Perry, QA Engineer C. L. Roshy, Quality Assurance Engineer J. Spinak, Site QA Engineer M. J. Strc7 berg, Sita Quality Assurance Auditor J. E. Wright, Quality Assurance Manager
_
J. H. Wright, Resident Civil Engineer L. Zukey, Construction Mechr ical Engineer United Ennineers and Constra-tors S. Abbott, Uelding Supervicc:
J. Carrabba, Field Construction /QC Supervisor A. Carrera, Assistant Field Construction /QC Supervisor V. E. Cichocki, Coordinator Superitendent, QA/QC B. Croftom, QC Engineer P. Hunter, Electrical Supervisor D. C. Lambert, Field Supervisor, QC R. Liscom, QC Electrical F. F. Long, Assistant Field Supervisor, QC A. Marrs, Piping Supervisor
-
J. Schmidt, QC Engineer, Records Coordinater
-
-
Babcock and Wilcex R. Runz, QC Supervisor M. Shultz, Construction Supervisor, Pipe Shop R. E. Treaducy, Froj ect Manager
.
Burns & Roe
,
F. Pinder, QA Enginect
-
,.
Gilbert Associates E. Reynolds, Baseline Examination Program Manager I
R. Putnam, Mechanical Engineer
-
-
C4-w rl)
-
t
.
.a
.
I
.
-
s-7-
.
CONAM Insocetion, Incorporated C. Ja=es, Technician
,
C. Rentzell, Site Supervisor (
2.
Visual insucction-RCP A visual inspection was cade of selected weld joints in the Reactor Conlant Piping (RCP) syste=.
Weld Joint No. RC-038, a circunfer-ential butt veld in one of the 28 inch reactor coolant pump discharge lines, was observed to have a vee notch at the fusion line between the base metal and weld deposit.
The notch resulted from the post
. eld grinding operation and was approximately 3/32 inch deep.
The weld had been shop f abricated, inspected and shipped to the site for crection under a letter, dated June 9,1975, from the B&W canager of quality control, Mount Vernon Works, attesting to the pipings conformance to ANSI B31.7.
_
The notch was contrary to USA Standard B31.7, Nuclear Power Piping, paragraph 1-727.4.2(d) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX, in that the weld was not merged smoothly into the co:ponent surf ace and; therefore, was not in accordance with the applicable code.
Prior to conclusion of the inspection the notch was removed from the weld by grinding and the inspector re-examined the weld and found it to be acceptable.
The licensee stated, in a subsequent phone conversation, that ultrasonic thickness measurements verified that the grinding had not encroached on the mini =um pipe wall thickness of 2 5/8 inches.
.
This item is considered to be an infraction with respect to 10 CFR
-
50, Appendix 3, Criterion IX and has been resolved.
-
,
3.
Vaste Disposal-cas Piping The inspector observed t'ae completed tack welds on the nuclear Class III weld joints nu=bered WDG-46-B-8, WDG-46-B-9, and WDG-46-3-1 which joined several pipe fittings a{d spool pieces into a subassembly.
The inspector noted that the spool piece between welds nucher WDG-46-B-8 and 3-1 had not had the heat number transfered to it as required by the UE&C procedure QCP-8-2, Appendix A which states in part, "...The marking shall be transfered to all pieces
-
where a part is cut....
.
This is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V which requires (
the acccmplishment of activities affecting quality to be performed in accordance with procedures.
.
.
'
.
'
E4M 51
-
!
-
.
_
,
-
_8
.
This item is considered to be a Deficiency.
The licensee directed the removal of tne unmarked spool piece and replaced it with one conforming to the procedure, prior to the inspector leaving the site.
This item is considered resolved.
4.
Cere Floodine Tanks Release of Core Flooding Tanks for installation despite the lack of documentation on site to confirm performance of charpy tests had been identified as a nonccmpliance.
(Inspection Report No. 75-07)
By letter dated July 24, 1975 the licensee stated that the missing test reports had been received at the site and that release of the tanks without the records on site had been due to a nisinterpretation of the requirements at this time.
-
The inspector examined the certified test reports for the identified heats of material.
The test results were found to meet the re-quirements of Interdepairmental Engineering and Manuf acturing Instructions 6M02 for fabrication of these tanks.
This item is
'
resolved.
5.
Incomplete Data sheets Failure to incorporate Purchase Order Change Notices in the QA Data
~
Sheet for Make-up purification pump MU-P-1A had been identified as a nonco=pliance.
(Inspection Report 50-320/73-03).
By letter dated October 11, 1973 the licensee stated that the QA Data Sheet in question had been revised in accordance uith B&W Procedure N?G-1711-02 after the date of issuance of all change orders and that
-
B&W QA was required to review each purchasa order change in,.secord-ance with B&W Procedure No.19A-4A.
The inspector examined Audit Repor't No. TMI-II-1647.
This audit was conducted by the licensee to verify the existence of cocumen-tation at B&W records retention areas which adequately supports evidence of quality of the equipment at lthe TMI site.
No defi-ciencies were reported as a result of this. a.udit.
,
This item is resolved.
,-
_
6.
Cg ditional Installation of Eouipment Failure to define the condition required to permit " conditional (
installation" of nonconforming equipment had been identified as a noncompliance.
(Inspection Report 50-320/73-03)
The licensees
-
i
.
-
-
,
'
-
G4 M
_
.
_9_
reply letter dated October 11, 1973 stated that the relevant pro-cedure QC-17-2 was under revision and would define these conditions.
The inspector exa=ined UE&C procedure QC-17-2, Revision 8 dated October 23, 1973.
Section IV-F of this procedure establishes categories and conditions f or qualified release of ite=s tagged
" Hold" or " Reject."
These conditions are censidered to be acceptable.
This ite= is resolved.
7.
Preventive Maintenance of Installed Ecuir:ent Lack of docu=entary evidence that make up pu=ps MU-P-1A and lE had been periodically rotated and lubricated had been identified as a noncocpliance.
(Inspcetion Report 50-320/73-03).
The licensees reply letter dated October 11, 1973 stated that a preventive main-tenance (FM) program had been placed in effect on Septeiber 5, 1973.
L The inspector exa=ined UESC procedurec GCP-4-2 for FM and NCP-1-2 which had been revised to require that the Preventive Maintenance Supervisor shall perform PM in accordccce with CCP-4-2.
The in-spector also exa=ined 6eficiency Report (DR) No. 0198 and its supplements 1 through 4.
These documents list the nuclear auxiliary pu=ps requiring PM, the dates they were received, the PM dates for each pu=p through October 1973 and the periods of time PM was not carri i out.
Disposition of this DR shows that the Design Review Board had concluded that the pu=ps had incurred no mechanical da= age as a result of the lack of PM.
In addition, the inspector spot checked storage record cards for pu=ps MU-P-1A,13 and 1C since October,1973.
These records are considered to be acceptable,
.
-
This item is resolved.
.
,.-
8.
Storace of Instrument Cable Unprotected storage of instrument cable had been identified as a
.
nonco=pliance.
(Inspection Report No. 50-320/75-02).
l
-
l The inspector observed that instrument cable had been moved into a
'
completely enclosed building with provision'for ventilation and was stored on a raised wooden floor.
,-
_
This item is resolved.
.
k
.
i l
64'253
'
'
.
e
'
-10-9.
Unsealed Cable In storage Failure to follow procedure for sealing cable ends had been identified as a noncompliance.
(Inspection Report No. 50-320/75-02)
The inspector observed cable 1.' storage and checked a number of cabic reels to deter =ine whether cabic ends were properly scaled.
No unsealed cable ends were identified.
This item is resolved.
10.
Failure to_S_ecrecate Re_iect Cable Failure to segregate nonconforming cable had been identified as a noncompliance.
(Inspection Repo t No. 50-320/75-02)
Observation of the cable storage areas identified no " reject" cable
.
except in storage area no. 3.
This area is used for storage of cable transfered from Unit 1 to Unit 2.
In this area cable con-sidered to be acceptable is segregated within a roped off area.
This item is resolved.,
11.
Ficld Welding of Pipine, Failure to comply with the requirements of Specificatien No. 2555-72 for control of filler metal and for grinding of starts and stops had been identified as a noncomplianca.- (Inspection Report No. 50-320/75-07)
The inspector reviewed the veld history record for joint no.148A-1 R1 and Con Am Report dated June 13, 1975 for PT inspection of-this joint.
These documents showed that the. jcint had been ground out to the weld root and revelded in accordance with Welding Procedure 27 and had been inspected in accordance with Procedure LPT-1-NP with ro indications identified.
The inspector also examined an internal dE&C memorandum dated June 13, 1975 from the Piping Superintendent reporting a meeting with velding supervisors concerning this nonccmpliance and notifying welding foremen and welders for each craf t that violations of ~
Specification No. 2555-72 vill be cause for rescinding welders qualification papers and a request for the walders ternination.
-
_
This item is resolved.
(
.
\\
e
_
-
-
Eaqsq
_
,
-13-12.
1;DE Personnel Qualification Records The inspector reviewed the official nondestructive personnel quali-fication files located in the records vault to confirm the qualifi-cations of those persons currently performing nondestructive on uelds.
testing The inspector noted for=s which had inccaplete information and inconsistencies in the eye correction limitations.
general lack of collation of documents that There was a are interdependent for centinuity (i.e., basic certifications and recertifications).
It was necessary to review the stbecatractors duplicate records clearly understand the presentation and verify cor.pliance with S:iT-to TC-1A requirements.
This item is unresolved.
13.
Pre-Operational Insocction A formal pre-encrational (baseline) examination program vas not availabic for review by the inspector.
The inspector was informed that the bar.c1? ne excnination was being performed in accordance with and to n r.
Technical Specifica.tions of the FSAR. extent outlined in Tables 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of for the first These tables were developed Section 4.2 of the Technical Specifications states, interval of the in part:
Prior to initial operation a pre-operational inspection will be performed of at least the areas listed in the ASME Code, (Section XI, 1971 edition including 1971 Su=mer Add da) provided accessibility and the necessary inspect!on techniques are.available for each of thes baseline dacn f n already available and hcs been obtaine areas.
e came technigr_a as will be used during inservice inspection."
Performance cf.he baseline inspection.to the extent outlined-in the above tabits dces not co=pletely exanine all of the areas identified in the referenced ASME code.
.
This item is unresolved.
14.
Reactor Buildina Structural Steel
{
The inspector examined the documentation liste' d below and observed the status of installation of steel platforms in the reactor buildi at elevaticn 294 to 310.
..
ng
'
~
a.
Drawia;-
'38, sheets 1, 2 and 3.~
(
b.
Specif:::.M. cn 2555-60, Section SA " Structural Steel."
-
.
-
-
-
l
.
93 4 r_v-ua
-
.
.
-12-
,
- Civil and Structural Procedure CCP-8-2 " Erection and inspec.
c.
tion of structural steel in Class 1 Ca:ponents."
d.
P. O. no. 94 59.02-12-1 to Pittsburgh Bridge and Iron Cc=pany (PBLI) fcr structural steel (ASTM A 36); Ictter dated April l
12, 1974 f rom UELC to ELE submitting PSLI purchase orders for
'
structural steel and identifying P. 0.'s Sos. 70-77-1 through 5 as the orders for reactor building steel; and UELC menorandun dated January 21, 1972 transmitting mill test reports for the
,
caterial purchased under the above orders.
c.
P. O. No. 9459-02-5826 to Appleby Brothers.* Whittaker Company for nuts and bolts (ASTM A 325 7 z).
The inspector reviewed the =ill test reports for t.se structural steel, the certificate of compliance for the bolts and nuts, selected receiving reports f or this material and field inspection reports for installation of the platform at Elevation 105.
This item is considered' to be acceptabic.
15.
Pine Weldine Documentation The inspector reviewed records of welding and NDE personnel qualifi-cations; post veld heat treatment logs; reports of nonconformity and corrective actions; weld filler metal issue slips and NDE records including radiographs.
Specific welds reviewed include:
Weld Joint Number Fab.
Des crip tion
_
WJ6-3 B&W 36", Reactor Coolant Pipe WJ6-4 Nuclear Class I, FCP-7 '
WJ5-3 B&W 28" Reactor Coolant Pipe, WJ2-3
. Nuclear Class I, FCP-ll 2-DH-1
'UE&C 12" Decay Heat Removal, Nuclear Class II 2-CF-4A
, UE&C 10" Cgre Flooding, Nuclear Class I These ite=s are considered acceptable.
_
.
I 16.
Lining of Safety Rclated Tanks
,
This ites had been carried as an unresolved item as a result of probicas encountered with a me=brane lining in the condensate k-storage tank for Unit 1.
-
l
.
l gq-m.mG -
-
n
-
,
-
.
.
.
-13-The inspector examined the following documents:
.
a.
Letter dated June 29, 1973 from GPU to ELR request that E6R identify all TMI-2 tanks which contain a flexible membrane lining.
l b.
Letter frca ELR in response to above and s'tating that TMI-2 has no tanks with a film membranc.
l
!
c.
Menorandus dated July 30, 1975 from QA to QC requesting that I
I they inspect tanks or add to their checklist a require =ent for verification that no film linings are applied to safety related tanks.
This item is resolved.
,
17.
Condensate Storace Tank Screen t
'
Possible modification of these screens had been carried as an i
unresolved ite= as a rasult of problems encountered on Unit 1 due to clogging when the =embrane lining failed.
.
This item is resolved since there are not film membrane linings on the Unit 2 tanks.
!
18.
Reactor'Buildit.g Soray Pu=o Motors j
The licensee had reported, as a Significant deficiency in accord-
'
ance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) on February 4,1974, f ailure of reactor
.
building spray pump. motors to accelerate to normal operating speed
-
,
in accordance with the purchase specification requirements.
(Uithin six seconds at 8% of rated voltage)
The letter stated that the motors had been returned to the manufacturer for testing.
-
By letter dated April 21, 1975 the licensee advised that the motors had been modified and submitted test data showing that the motors as modified did meet the specification requirements.
The accelcra-tion time as calculated from the measured motor speed-torgue cu:ve and the load speed'-torgue curve was 3.37 seconds to reach full load speed at 80% of rated voltage.
This item is resolved.
_
,.
,
19.
Release of Nonconforming Items Failure to reference the " Vendor Data Status Sheet" in Procedure i
QC-17-2 had been identified as an unresolved item.
(Inspection
Report 50-320/75-02)
-
Gt} ~s t ~
~
.
.._; g~
,
.
-
,
-14-The inspector examined OC-2-2 dated May 14, 1975 " Receiving inspec-tion" and observed that the QA group is required to review documen-This tation f or all saf ety related equipment upon its receipt.
documentation includes the vendor data report.
This item is resolved.
.
20.
Repair of Cast S/S Valves The licensee had reported a nu=ber of detective cast S/S valves cost of which were chech valves 2 inch or smaller.
(Inspection Report 50-320/'5-03)'
The inspector reviewed QC records which attested to on site repairs The records documented that a total of 34 valves of these valves.
showed indications which required rework and/or repair,14 of which were repaired by welding. The necessary repairs were accomplished in accordance with approved procedures.
The repair documentation reviewed by the inspector was found to caet the requirements of Section 16 of ASTM A-351.
This item is resolved.
21.
Post-Tensionine Monconformances Disposition of post-tensioning nonconformances had been identified as an unresolved item.
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-08)
The inspector examined the identified Deficiency Reports (DRs) and their disposition.
DR No. 0475 had identified the failure to maintain the specified temperature and viscosity of the grout.
The disposition required that chilled water be provided for mixing
-
grout and that the grout pu=p and cement trailer be stated, -The inspector verified that these changes had been made.
Other changes introduced as a result of the DRs include:
New wedges which do not extend beyw the pulling head have a.
been built and have reduced tended breakage approximately 50%.
b.
Inspections are made on a scheduled basis by B&R and Stressteel of all tendens which have,been on site f or seven days after shipment from the plant and all tendons over 7 days from
-
plant and scheduled to be grouted within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Stress steel installation and Field Quality Assurance Procedure c.
(
has been revised to. increase allowable temperature of the
-
grout to "between 500F and 90 F."
l
.
_
_
Ga.~r eS
-
-.:
.
=
.
-15-The remaining dispositions of the DR's shewed review and acceptance by the DF.B but did rot require changec to equipment or procedures'.
This item is resolved.
22.
RC? Studs and Nuts
.
.
The licensee had notified Region I of fice on June 24, 1975 that indications had been identified on certain RCP studs and nuts during MT examination.
(Inspection Report 50-320/75-09).
The inspector examined a report by the USSS and its consultant (C.
R. Forrer & Associates) on their investigation of these indications.
Contrary to information previcusly furnished by their site representa-tives the USSS reported that the studs and nuts had been MT inspected by the vendors testing subcontractor (Ultra Lab) af ter machining and threading and those furnished to the site had been found to be
-
acceptable. The discrepant results were reportedly due to the dif ference in' the current applied and the time it was held ("on time").
Ultra Labs exa=ination had been conducted at 2400 Amps and 1/2 second on time.
This was in accordance with the requirements of specified codes.
(ASME III,1965 with winter 1967 Addenda).
The MT examination on site was conducted,as a part of the preopera-tional (Baseline) inspection in accordance with ASME X1,1971 with Summer 1971 Addenda of 2800 and 3000 A=ps and 10-16 seconds on time. Re-exc=ination of the studs and certain nuts by MT under conditions approximating the Ultra Lab examination and selected studs and nuts by PT resulted in negative findings.
One stud was sectioned in the area showing the largest number of indications during the baseline inspection.
The cross-sectioned area was PT examined and did not show any indications.
The NSSS has concludad from this investigation -that the studs and nuts meet applicable
-
code requirements and are suitable for use.
,-
The inspector discussed the status,of the studs and nuts. With the licensees representatives and was informed that their investigation will be continued in order to determine whether the indications identified during the site inspection a e relevant or nonrelevant.
This item remains unresolved.
.
,
,
23.
Inservice Inspection Kondestructive Examination Proceduren
_
Section 4.2 of.the FSAR Technical Specifications describes the
-
Inservice Inspection Program which is based upon the 1971 edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, including (
the 1971 Summer Addenda.
-
.
e h
=
-..
.
..
_1
-
-
.
- 16-The inspectcr reviewed the procedures for manual ultrasenic scanning and f ound them to be in accordance with the ASME code requirc=cnts.
This item is considered to be acceptable.
'
.
24.
Manual Ultrasonic Enc =ination The inspector observed ultrasonic calibrations and actual exacina-tions of selected welds.
Tne inspector observed the recording of examination results and instrument calibration checks.
Tne inspector audited examination data ' charts and f ound them to be in compliance with the ASME Soiler and Pressure Code,Section XI.
This item is considered to be acceptable.
.
.
-
s d
s
.
.
Y
,
I
-
.
i=#
=
.
S e
.
.
^
=
G 4
.!.
-
'
.
.
M