IR 05000329/1973004
| ML19344A230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1973 |
| From: | Hayes D, Vandel T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344A229 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-73-04, 50-329-73-4, 50-330-73-04, 50-330-73-4, NUDOCS 8008060592 | |
| Download: ML19344A230 (10) | |
Text
~'
~
~
~
~
ni J._ :
_
.
__
..
,
-
-
.,
hl U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
.
V DIRECTORATE OF REGULATOR'l OPERATIONS
REGION III
_, Report of Construciton Inspection J
RO Inspection Report;No. 050-329/73-04 RO Inspection Report No. 050-330/73-04 i
Licensee:
Consumers Power Company
.
~212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
!
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 License No. CPPR-81 i
Midland, Michigan License No. CPPR-82 Category: A
l
~
Type of Licensee:
PWR (B&W) - 818 Mwe, Unit No. 2;
650 Mwe, Unit No. 1 Type of Inspection:
Licensee Vendor Audit Surveillance Inspection Mount Vernon, Indiana
'
Dates of' Inspection:
June 14 - 15, 1973
.
i Dates-of Previous Inspection: May 24-25, 1973-(Barberton, Ohio)
!
,
fff im y gg
// (Date)ja*C fX /y9
Principal Inspector:
T. E. Vandel
,
.
Accompanying Inspectors: None
,
Other Accompanying personnel: None FA d ~ N~7 3 Reviewed By:
D. W. Hayes
.
Senior Reactor Inspector (Acting)
(Date)
'
.
.
e O
Boogo3,
,
,
y r--
,
y
-
-
,
,
, - -
.
--
..
.-. -.. -..- -.. -.-
-
.
. ~
,
,
.~
c
'
-
.
"
- .
R
, m., C.
e
,
-
l
.
-
~
,'
s:
,;
,,
s..
=
s
,
,
p.
-
-
.l m
.
.
.
L SUMMAKY OF FINDINGS i
B i
..
'!
$
.Enforeement-Action
... ~.
p
-
!
.
....
.,
!
i A.
Violations'
5
.
[
. No_ violations of AEC requirements were identified.
'
i
.
.
.
"
'
j; B. ~ Safety Matters
. No insnediate', significant, safety matters were encountered during the~ inspection.
j-,
1-j.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters l
}J Not applicable.
,
Design Changes i
t
}.
During visual inspection by the licensee representative of the Unit
'
No.1 reactor pressure vessel (620-0012-51) the RO:III inspector-J.
observed.that the instrumentation nozzles, located in the bottom head, j
had.been cut off. -The representative commented that instrumentation
.;
j tube modifications are necessary and.that-the modifications are to be i
j-treated as a design change, which will be included in discussions j
during an audit of the Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) home office.
j..,
located in Lynchburg,'_ Virginia.
.
.
i
1. ~
. Unusual Occurrences
{
..
j No unusual occurrences were; identified during the inspection.
!--
j.
_0_ther Significant Findings
!-
. Current Findings'
i
>
.
A.
- .
.
^
Status
,
j The Midland NSS' system components. percentage completion-and acheduled
-
~ hipping dates _provided-by B&W were as follows:-
s lc
..
'
.;
'
,
[
.
i
'
-
u
'
.
2. -
'
-
.
L
-
,
>
,
,
c
.
.
.
-
<:.
,
e
.
,
'
'
B s
,
_
{
.
'
- ~
-
<
.
,
.
.
- ~.
'-+,#
"
If
,...,,,,.,., '..,,.,.,,,.,,
'
l
...,,,., 6,. s,.
.,.,,j,.,,f,...,,...#..,,,e
.,
y.g
.
+.,,e-
,
.s
,
,
4 e
&._,
,,,..,
..
_+
, -
..
.-. -
_ ~. _.. -
-
-.
.-..
-
'
~
'
"
.
uy.3
..
'a*.
~
l
.}.
.
.
s
.,
-*'
.
'
p r$
'
. : s,/ f
.
Percent-Shipping j -
Unit 1 _
Complete Date
'
i
. Reactor Vessel.an'd Head 74%
10- 1-74
'
Pressurizer.'
35%
12-15-74 Piping 10%
12-15-74
'
.59%
-)b. l'
10-15-74 No. 2. ~
11-15-74
'
Unit'2'
L
.
Reactor Vessal t;d.' Head'
9%
10- 1-75
' Pressurizer-18%
12-15-74 Piping.
-0-
'12-15-75 i
[
No. 1 10-15-75 No'. 2 11-15-75 l
-
l B.
Unresolved Matters l
No unresolved matters were identified by the RO inspector.
.
.
]
C.
Status of Previousiv Reported Unresolv'ed Matters: Not applicable.
Management Interview
);
.A.
The following. persons attended the management interview conducted-
'
-by the' licensee representative at the' conclusion of"the audit.
,
i
,
[
' Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W)
j R.'B. Reynolds, Component Management Task Engineer
_
- J. E..Larty, Component Engineer - Administrative Assistant G. N. Emmanuel,' Quality Contro1' Manager
.
R. L. Rogers, Quality Control Engineer Manager Ii'(NMI) Barnes, Quality Control Metallurgy Manager
. J. F.;Jaquess,-Quality Assurance Resident Engineer R. E. Souder, Lynchburg Quality Assurance Manager
. Quality
-
Control Audits B.
The principalitopics:of. discussion'by the licensee representative.
and comments,Jby the vendor. management personnel'wers es follows
.
I e
g f.-
.
~3 -
- -
,
.
.
'
h
.g,
e
]
'
,
.
,
,. -
.,u.
~
..-:~.,
-
. -
-. -.=.
...a..;.-.,
,
..,a-.
--.
.
._
. _ _ -
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
-..-t--.
^
" l
,_
.
.
.
J
'
-
. '
.c
,
7~m[
=
/
j
.
l.
The representative-indicated that a box of steam generator C' -
l inconel tubes was observed-to have sustained shipping damage
.and' inquired as to whether the tubes.will be examined for
>
damage.: The B&W QC manager responded that the tubes will be visually inspected when the box is opened and again when the tubes are installed in the generator.
2.
The representative discussed the formed piping halves, just recently received at the.Mt. Vernon plant, and requested information-as to the following:
a.
How will the nonegnforming (lack of bond) piping elbow halves be dispositioned? The QC engineering manager responded that he had obtained the information on this material '(slab No. 7468-2) including the deviation form
'
that had been prepared by the Barberton plant and that he was aware of the deficiency.
He added that all of the piping elbow halves would receive a UT examination, and any instances of lack of bond will be corrected or the material disposed of in accordance with written-disposition instructions.
b.
The representative requested a copy of the Charpy impact
<
-
test procedure to be used to test the test samples of
-
fNg'
the piping elbow halves.
The manager of QC metallurgy
\\_,)c stated that, for any-and all-testing performance, instructions are issued to perform the tests required in accordance with the specific, applicable code and to
"
demonstrate that the results of testing teet the code requirements.
3.
The representative expressed a desire for the electroslag welding to be in compliance with Safety Guide No. 31 (R9gulatory Guide 1.34).
The QC manager responded that it is most difficult-to be in compliance to a guide that is issued after the work has been performed. However, he
-
believed that the only item that was not in conformance is a macro etch sample which was not made. - At any rate, he said
~
.that it would be necessary for the representative to resolve
~
'this matter'with the Barberton plant personnel.
-
4.
The licensee representative commented that results of UT examination,-performed on an upper girth weld-of the Unit No. 2 (0013) reactor pressure vessel on Tuesday, June 12, 1973, by Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) revealed three
~
.
.
/N
_4_
V
_
$
y
+
-
,-
e
-
y v
.
w p
.u.
..
.
-
~i
.
,
'
.[~'l
.
\\_j major discontinuities. These discontinuities were judged to be
. slag type inclusions, and the;1ongest was judged to be approxi-mately 2 % of' wall thickness.
This would be within the 5% of wall' thickness tolerance to be allowed by the new 1974 Section XI L
ASME Code.
In any event, since the calibration test blocks used during-measurement of'the discontinuities were not established as being correct for.this material, new test blocks will be made, and i
a re-examination of the. weld will be performed on August 22, 1973.
5.
The licensee representative said that the quality program reaudit, the weld review audit, and.the material review audit were successful and that no problems were found.
C.
The RO inspector conducted a separate management interview at the conclusion of the inspection'with the following licensee personnel in attendance:
'
i A. J. Birkle, Staff Engineer R. E. Whitaker, Site Quality Assurance Engineer
.
Matters discussed and comments, on the part of the licensee representative, were as follows.
('{y,)
'N
,.
1.
The RO inspector commented that the adjustment of the applicable code, in line with the requirements of.Section 50.55(a)
of 10 CFR Part 50, urgently needs attention'. :This.1s exemplified
,
by the piping elbow halves whose presently' imposed code does not
.
require Charpy tests, whereas the latest and-properly required l
code,.indeed; does require such testing.
The licensee i
representative agreed.
2.
The RO inspector pointedout that, during the representative's i
review of radiography examination of welding work, the qualifications and certification of the RT-film interpreter l
was not determined.. The representative responded that he-had
"
realized this after the fact but that he did not have time to
,.
make an appropriate back-fit effort. He added that he would
!
carry this as a follow-up item for the next audit.
3.
The RO inspector: commented that the audit appeared to' have been performed in a capable ~ manner.
.
1.
p-5-u
.
-
.
%
,
.
__,
-
,n.
~
.
,-%
^
~
.
.
__,_,._-._7
- C
'
_. - _. _
.
.-
...
- f')
.
REPORT DETAILS l
Persons Contacted The following persons, in addition to the individuals listed under.the Management Interview Section of this report, were contacted during the inspection.
Babcock and Wilcox Company'(B&W)
J. L. Johnson, Quality Control-Project Engineer D. K. Frerichs, Associate Project Manager, Lynchburg
!
S. St. Dennis, Manager of Weld Development H. L. Ellsworth, Quality Control Project Engineer i
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
L J. J. Hubbard, Resident Inspector Resultsaof Inspection 1.- Licensee Audit Insnection Plan and Checklist
f-~s -
,
(
)
The licensee prepared inspection plan, and check sheets' vere
'
'
reviewed and included'the following:
a.
.An informal listing, which itemized the areas of inspection
'
coverage-and the follow-up discussion items.
)
l l
b.
A quality assurance reaudit checklist (date July 1,1971)
-consisting of two pages.
c.
A general and weld review checklist (dated May 12, 1971)
consisting of two pages, j
\\
i l
d. ' Backup information was included in the audit booklet covering:
L
'(1) interoffice memos related to specific concerns for which I
follow-up discussions should be conducted, (2) reports of
!
. previous audits, (3) a-completed, original audit of the B&W l
program (ten-page checklist) and (4) copies of 10 CFR Part 50, l
Appendix B, and ANSI N45.2 - 1971.
I 2.
Shop Tour A: tour of the manufacturing plant was conducted, with the following components or shop areas being subject to evaluation to complete
-
the general:and weld review audit checklist.
y
. (y.
>
,.
x.
-6-
i
i j
.
-
-
.
.,-.__...
.
-
C
_
,.
2 -.
'
.
,
,
>s
[
}
_i
+
.(_f
- a.~- Unit No. l-Reactor Pressure Vessel A' visual inspection of the Unit No. 1 (620-0012-51) reactor pressure ; vessel was conducted by the representative who copied down-the heat number markings of:
(1) a lower shell
-piece, (2).a forging ring of the bottom head, and (3) the bottom'
~
support skirtifor later material documentation review.
In addition, the welds-of the girth' forging ring to the shell-piece (weld WR-34) and to the bottom support skirt -(WR-36)
were visually examined. The documentation for these welds is to'be reviewed during a subsequent inspection, according-to the licensee.
,
b.
Unit No.-l Steam Generator During visual inspection of the Unit No. 1 steam generator, several boxes containing inconel tubes were observed to have
'
been broken and/or otherwise damaged,.as a result of. shipping and handling.
It could not be determined if any of the tubing inside had been damaged. However, the licensee representative asked a B&W representative to inspect the tubes when the crates are opened.
c.
The Nondestructive Testing Shop The NDT shop was visited where the documentation of the
<
-' ' ' ' '
inspections of.the weld joints, No. WR-34 and No. WR-36, for the Unit No. 1 pressure vessel were used as an example for evaluating the NDT work.. Drawing No. 142147E, Revision
,
2,." Vessel Radiographic Outline", was reviewed and was
~
determined to have been reviewed and approved and'was the latest revision.
A' film packet for veld seam No. WR-34 was examined, and the technique' described on the packet was
_
satisfactorily compared to the-RT technique specified on the drawing. ' Film V-47 to'V-48 was viewed for quality of RT work.
All items checked were determined to be acceptable without comment.
.
'd.
The NDT Training Area The training area was visited where the qualification, training, and certification record of the -radiographer (Mr. Powers) who
- performed the RT inspection of weld seam No. UR-34 was used as an example for review. 'It was determined that Mr. Powers
'
I
- is certified Level I as a radiographic operator in accordance
,
with SNT-TC-1A.
.
-7-r^r i
)
V
.
't a
-
-
-,.,
. -, - -,
'
~
-
.
.
.__,__.2,.
1.
.w.
-
-
- i
.
,
L/
e.
-The Welding' Development Office
.The welding development office was visited ere a review of welding procedures, qualifications, and welaer qualifications was conducted using weld seam No. WR-34 as an example.
No-problems.were identified.
-
3.
Documentatio' n -Review -
The following documentation review was conducted to' complete the
.
general and weld review audit check sheet.
,
a.
Material Documentation-
,.
~
The three material pieces previously-selected of the Unit-No. 1 pressure vessel were used as an example for-the docu-mentation review. The material purchase orders,-test reports, and receipt inspection records were reviewed for Mk-36 (lower
~
,
head ring forging) Mk-37 (bottom support skirt plate) and Mk-166 (RPV. lower shell-forging). No problems were' encountered.
b.
The Inspection Record
.
'.
The-inspection records of weld seams No. WR-34 and No. WR-36 i-./
were reviewed, and it was determined that the record was
\\
complete and had been accepted and signed'off by the appro--
s
.priate inspector.
.
c.
Weld Records The weld procedure, welder qualifications, and weld material
~
'
'
documentation was reviewed for Welds No. WR-34 and No. WR-36 with no problems-identified.
-)
4.
The'QA Program Reaudit i=
An interview was conducted with the B&W QC _ engineering manager-relative toLthefQA program reaudit check sheet, which was
concerned with changes'to the B&W program that could effect-compliance with the.18 criteria of'10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
No problems were encountered.
-5.
Follow-up Discussion Items Discussion was entered into relative to the following items.
.
.
.
s_ ) '
-8.
,
,
-
,
-
,.-
- -
.
,.
.,
,
.,
._.
.
m s_ s _-
m. -
-
.
,. J e
,-
-
.
.
,
a.
UT Couplant In response to questioning, the B&W QC manager stated that the couplant;is required'to meet the ASTM D-808 specification, and they obtain certification stating such conformance. He added that, since the couplant is in contact with the metal for such a short time and only when the temperature is at-ambient room temperature, B&W feels they have no problem.
b.
Cladding Defects Since cladding defectp had been discovered, both under clad-cracking.and clad surface cracking, the six wire deposit process has not been used.
This application of SS clad to SA-508 materials seems to be the source of-such cracking.
The B&W QC manager stated that their cladding of SS to low alloy steel components is in conformance to the recently issued Regulatory Guide No. 1.43.
c.-
Low Copper-Phosphate Weld Material The liccnsee representative requested that the Unit No. 2 pressura vessel girth welds in the nuclear fuel core area (three girth welds plus possiblyethe lower girth veld) be.
N welded with weld materials of low copper-phosphate content.
.
_
This in to improve the ductility quality of.the welds in the high neutron radiation area.
It vas agreed that B&W would
,
order the wire immediately and that a directive letter would
)
be issued by Consumers Power Company.
,
9 k
e i
9-
-
-
,
u
.
.
,
,
-
.
.
....
... -
-
,,,
,