IR 05000335/1981023
| ML17212B073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1981 |
| From: | Crowley B, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17212B072 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-81-23, NUDOCS 8112070292 | |
| Download: ML17212B073 (21) | |
Text
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303 Report No. 50-335/81-23 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 Nest Flagler Street Miami, FL 33152 Facility Name:
St.
Lucie Docket No. 50-335, License No. DPR-67 Inspection at St.
Lucie site near Fort Pierce, Florida Inspector: 8 :IY.
B.
R. Crowley Approved by: P vp'.
R. Herdt, Sect on Chief Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division
/o>S g/
ate Signed
/ z ate Signed SUMMARY Inspection on September 29 October 2 and October 13-16, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 50 inspector-hours on site in the areas of inservice inspection (ISI) and previous inspection findings.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
&85, ~07 2~ 050003$ >
p-ai. io80~,
PDR ADQCK 0
I
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licen see Empl oyees
- C. M. Wethy, Plant Manager
"N. T. Weems, Assistant Manager QA-PSL
- A. W. Bailey, QA Operations Supervisor
- R. D. Parks, Assistant Project Manager Backfit
- J. H. Barrow, Operations Superintendent
- J. E. Bowers, Maintenance Superintendent
- J. Krumins, Power Plant Engineering Site Representative
"H. W. Cairns, CPL Project QC Supervisor
- N. G. Roos, QC Supervisor G. Gotch, PRN Staff
"E. Anderson, ISI Engineer F. T. Carr, Specialist PRN Staff R. L. Miller, ISI Coordinator
- K. V. Smart, Area QC Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, QC inspectors, security force members, and office personnel.
Other Organizations C. Engel, Site Supervisor, U. S. Testing C. Miller, NDE Supervisor, U. S. Testing R. Barnes, Site Supervisor, NES C.
R. Mays, Project Field Engineer, Bechtel S. Moore, Lead Mechanical Superintendent, Bechtel H. L. Johnson, Field Engineer, Bechtel W. J. Pelphrey, Lead Designer, Ebasco
- T. A. Tarte, Project Engineer, Backfit, Ebasco M. A. Correia, Senibr Draftsman, Ebasco NRC Resident Inspector
- S. Elrod
"P. Bibb
- Attended exit interview 2 ~
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October
and October,16, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below:
(Open)
Inspector -Followup Item 335/81-23-01, Procedure for evaluation of spring hanger settings, paragraph 7.c.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 335/80-23-05, Program for review of open items prior to plant start-up.
Revision 1 to Administrative Site Procedure CPL:ASP-ll, "Construction. Turnover" has been issued.
A formal turnover of systems/equipment is required prior to systems/equipment being tested or placed in operation.
All incomplete work items and all open NCRs, DRs, Field Change Requests, and Field Change Notices relating to system/equipment turnover are placed on a
punch list.
Items to be completed prior to system/equipment startup will be so indicated.
The inspector has no further questions on this matter.
b.
(Open) Unresolved Item 335/80-23-04, Inspection of hanger installation welds.
This item pertained to the use of forms QI 9.1 and QI 10. 1 to document hanger inspections in lieu of the required form QI 10. 14 and the need for NRC to visually inspect hanger installations.
At the time this item was originally identified, it was determined that QI 9. 1 (Visual Inspection of Welds)
was equivalent to QI 10. 14 (Hanger, Supports and Restraints Installation Inspection)
for inspection of hanger welds but that QI 10. 1 was not equivalent.
The original IE:II inspection report stated that re-inspection of the involved hangers was required.
At the beginning of the current inspection the inspector was informed that the re-inspection had been performed and documented on Form QI 10. 14.
During the first week of the inspection (inspection covered two weeks), the inspector reviewed the re-inspection documenta-tion and observed four as-installed hangers.
The following problems were identified:
(1)
The re-inspection documentation on Form QI 10. 14 stated that the hangers were re-inspected visually.
However, the inspection attributes of QI 10. 14 were not checked off.
In lieu of checking off the inspection attributes, the report referred to the original inspection (QI 9. 1).
This use of Form QI 9.1 is adequate for the welding portion of the hanger inspection as stated in Procedure QI 10. 14.
However, for non-welding attributes of the inspection such as
"Bolted Connections Correct" and "Specified Clearances Exist", QI 9. 1 does not appear to be adequate.
(2)
The inspector observed the four hangers listed below and generally examined the welds and compared the hangers to the applicable drawings.
It should be noted that the welds and hanger s were painted thus precluding a detailed inspectio ~Han er CH-3-10A CH-3-10B SI-H-159 Comments No problems identified The we'ld between piece 2 and the embed plate has a rough area in the toe of the weld which does not meet the surface requirements of paragraph 5.3 of technique 5 of Procedure QI 9. 1 (identified by QC as the applicable procedure).
The weld between the 3" standard pipe (pc. 2)
and yoke (pc.
1) has a very rough area (globs of metal and spatter on the surface of the weld) that does not meet the surface require-ments of paragraph 5.3 of technique 5 of Procedure QI 9. 1 (identified by QC as the applicable procedure).
In addition, piece 2 does not have a weep hole as specified on drawing.
S I-H-160 The weld between piece-3 and the base plate (pc.
4) has a very rough area that does not meet the surface requirements of paragraph 5.3 of technique 5 of Procedure QI 9. 1 (identified by QC as the applicable procedure).
In addition, the two top anchor bolts attaching the base plate to the wall are more than 3O from perpendicular to the surface and beveled washers are not installed to compen-sate as required by sequence 5.3
'of Site Quality Procedure SQP-5 (identified by QC as the applicable procedure).
Near the end of the inspection, it was noted that most of the problems noted above (welding and anchor bolts)
were on existing (original construction)
hanger components and not on new hangers or modified hanger components.
Therefore, the procedures used for the inspections should have been the procedures used for IE Bulletins 79-02 and 79-14 inspections and/or original construction inspections and not current construction procedures.
In addition, it was noted that Form QI 10.14 was used for documentation of inspection of new -hangers and that Form QI 9. 1 was used only for documentation of inspection of modifications
to hangers.
It was not clear at the close of the inspection, whether or not the problems identified above had been detected and evaluated in accordance with IE Bulletins 79-02 and 79-14 and whether the inspection documentation, i.e.,
QI 9.1 vs.
QI 9. 14 meets IE Bulletins'9-02 and 79-14 (see report No. 50-335/81-26).
Therefore, this item is still considered unresolved.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector observed welding and reviewed weld travelers for Jib Crane fixed boom weld 17A and telescoping boom weld 13A.
Use of correct welding procedure, welding material control, weld appearance, and welder qualifica-tion were examined.
No violations or deviations were noted.
6.
Inspector Followup Items (Closed)
Item 335/80-23-01, Observation of crane base within contain-ment.
This item pertained to a concern that the telescopic crane base was fabricated using poor materials and welds of poor quality.
At the time the original concern was investigated, the containment was not accessible for inspection of the crane base.
During the current inspection, the inspector examined the following:
(1)
The inspector visually examined a
sample of the crane base material and welds as detailed on Drawing BCS-104-2.303,
"Reactor Building Telescoping Crane Support".
The applicable code for the welding is AWS D1.1.
It should be noted that the crane base is painted and therefore, a detailed inspection of the welds is precluded.
However, the general appearance of the welds can be ascertained.
The general appearance of the welds indicate adequate quality.
(2)
The inspector reviewed a sample of material certification records for the crane base material.
The material specified by the design drawing was A-36 structural steel.
The records review included purchase order, certificate of compliance and/or material test report, and receipt inspection records for material on Purchase Order 68921-25076B.
(3)
The inspector observed in-process welding on the crane boom (see paragraph 5. above).
(Closed)
Item 335/80-23-03, Inclusion of B31.7 into QC procedures.
This item pertained to a
problem where the B31.7 code was not referenced or included in the acceptance standards in QC procedures.
At the time of the current inspection, the B31.7 code had been added to Procedures QI 9.2,
"Inspection of Field Welds" and QI 9. 1, "Visual Inspection of Welds" but not to site NDE procedures.
NDE procedures were in the process of being revised to add requirements for B31.7.
The inspector reviewed a draft of QI 9.4, Revision 2, which added reference to B31.7 requirements.
The inspector has no further questions on this item.
(Closed)
Item 335/80-23-02, Inspection of reactor coolant pump oil collection system.
This item pertained to concerns about poor welding and installation without approved drawings on the oil collection system for the reactor coolant pumps.
At the time of the original inspection (see report No. 50-335/80-23),
the containment was not accessible for inspection of the system and the final drawings had not been estab-lished.
Discussions with licensee personnel during the current inspection revealed that the work referred to in the concern was temporary piping installed during the 1980 outage.
During the 1980 outage, work was being accomplished in accordance with work package PC/N 37-80.
The drip pans were installed.
Near the end of the outage it was determined that the final drain piping system could not be completed during the outage.
Therefore, temporary drain piping was installed to route any drainage away from danger zones.
This temporary piping installation was documented on NCR 2/30-109.
During the current outage, the temporary piping has been removed and permanent piping is in process of being installed in accordance with PC/M 60-81 and approved drawings.
Engineering is directly involved with the work and is marking up drawings as changes are needed.
When the system is completed, as-built drawings will be established.
The piping is FP5L Category 7 non-safety-related and the applicable code is B31. 1.
The inspector reviewed applicable drawings and observed the following in-process welds including review of in-process weld travelers:
Dwg. BCS-60-81. 330 Line RC-847 Meld FW 9 Weld FW 8 Line RC-851 Weld FW
Weld FW 1A Weld FM 2 Weld FW 3 Dwg. BCS-60-81.328 Line RC-846 FW 5 FW 4 Line RC-850 FM
FM 2 FW 3
k At the time of the 'inspection, none of the above welds had been final accepted by QC.
The inspector has no further questions on this item.
7.
Inservice Inspection Review of Program The inspector revi'ewed the licensee's ISI program in the areas indicated below.
In accordance with the provisions of Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L) submittal L-77-203 dated July 1, 1977, to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ISI is being performed in accordance with the 1974 Edition, including addenda through the summer of 1975, of Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
The inspection is being performed by NES using NES procedures under the direction of FP&L.
The program plan was issued by FP&L and includes the inspections required for outages 4 and 5 of the long-term plan.
a
~
The inspector reviewed the ISI program for the current outage to determine if the program had been approved by the licensee.
The program had not been approved by the licensee since it was extracted from the approved long-tecum plan.
During the inspection, the licensee issued an introduction to the plan and approved the plan for the current outage.
b.
The inspector reviewed the following FP&L and NES documents relative to the ISI program for the current outage:
"St. Lucie Unit 1-Long-Term Inservice Examination Plan Class 1,
2 and 3 Components and Systems"
"1981 Outage Program Plan and Schedule" FP&L QP 2.5, Revision 2, "Quality Assurance Introduction and Training" FP&L QP 2.9, Revision 4, "Qualification of QA Audit, QC, Inspection, and Construction Test Personnel" FP&L QP 10.6, Revision 1, "Inservice Inspection (ISI)"
"The Collection and Storage of Quality Assurance Records For Nuclear Power Plants" FP&L QP 18. 1, Revision 4, "Conduct of Quality Assurance Quality Audits" FP&L QP 18.2, Revision 7, "Scheduling of Quality Assurance Department Audit Activities" FP&L QI 1-PR/PSL-7, Revision 2, "Quality Control Organization" FP&L QI 10-PR/PSL-4, Revision 1, "Plant Inservice Inspection"
-FP&L QI 18-PR/PSL-2, Revision 8, "Quality Control Surveillance" NES 80A9021, Revi sion 3,
"Inservice Inspection Quality Assurance Manual" NES 80A4791, Revision 0, "Quality Assurance Program Plan For Inservice Inspection" NES 80A9032, Revision 3, "Procedure For Qualification of Inspectors" NES 80A9068, Revision 0, "Procedure For Training and Certification of Nondestructive Examination Personnel" NES 80A9069, Revision 3,
"Procedure For the Certification of Visual Examination Personnel" NES 80A9022, Revision 4, "Quality Assurance Audit Procedure" NES 80A9026, Revision 2, "Qualification of Quality Assurance Program Audit Personnel" NES 80A9037, Revision 3, "Qualification and Training QA/QC Specialists" NES 80A9003, Revision 4,
"NES Document Control Procedure" NES 80A9060, Revision 0, "Inservice Inspection Field Change Request" NES 80A9023, Revision 0, "Inservice Inspection Data Control Procedure" NES 80A9035, Revision 2, "Procedure For Weld Marking Datum Points and Identification" NES 80A9054, Revision 0,
"Check of Calibration For Magnetic Particle Inspection Equipment" NES 80A9053, Revision 2, "Ultrasonic Instrument Linearity Verification" NES 80A9056, Revision 1,
"MacBeth Quantalog Densitometer Calibration Procedure" NES 80A9055, Revision 0, "Calibration of Temperature Indicators" NES 80A9067, Revision 1,
"Measuring Instrument and Gage Calibration Procedure" NES 80A9005, Revision 0,
"Inservice Inspection (ISI)
Data Review Procedure"
These documents were reviewed to assure that procedures and plans had been established (written, reviewed, approved and issued)
to control and accomplish the following activities:
(1)
Organizational structure including qualifications, training, responsibilities and duties of personnel responsible for ISI.
(2)
Audits including procedures, frequency, and qualification of personnel.
(3)
General QA requirements including examination reports, deviations from previously established program, material certifications and identification of components to be covered.
(4)
Work and inspection procedures.
(5)
Control of processes including suitably controlled work condi-tions, special methods, and use of qualified personnel.
(6)
Corrective action.
(7)
Document control.
(8)
Control of examination equipment.
(9)
Quality records including description of areas to be examined, examination category, method of inspection, extent of examination and justification for any exceptions.
(10)
Scope of the inspection including description or areas to be examined, examination category, method of inspection, extent of examination and justification for any exceptions.
(11)
Definition of inspection interval and extent of examinations.
(12)
Qualification of NDE personnel.
( 13)
Controls for generation, approval, custody, storage and mainte-nance of NDE records.
During review of the program, the inspector noted that procedures require that settings on constant and variable spring type hangers, snubbers, and shock absorbers be recorded but the instructions for disposition of the recorded settings are not clearly defined.
The licensee stated that the settings are being given to engineering for evaluation, although this requirement is not included in ISI proce-dures.
The licensee agreed to revise ISI procedures to cover evaluation of spring hanger settings.
This is identified as inspector
followup item 335/81-23-01, Procedure for evaluation of spring hanger settings.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Inservice Inspection Review of Procedures The inspector reviewed the ISI procedures indicated below to determine whether the procedures were consistent with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments.
See paragraph 7 above for the applicable code.
a.
The following procedures were reviewed in the areas of procedure approval and requirements for qualification of NDE personnel:
(1)
NES 80A4804, Revision 0, FC 001,
"Liquid Penetrant Examination Procedure" (2)
NES 80A4803, Revision 0, FC's 001 and 002,
"Magnetic Particle Examination Procedure" (3)
NES 80A4811, Revision 0, FC 001, "Ultrasonic Examination Procedure for Steam Generator Welds" (4)
NES 80A4805, Revision 0, FC's 001 and 002, "Ultrasonic Examination Procedure For Primary Coolant Pipe Welds" (5)
NES 80A4806, Revision 0, FC 001, "Ultrasonic Examination Procedure For Austenitic Piping".
b.
In addition to the review of paragraph a.,
Procedure 80A4804 was reviewed in the areas of compilation of required records and technical content relative to:
method consistent with ASME code, specification of brand names of penetrant materials, specification of limits for sulfur and total halogens for materials, pre-examination surface preparation, minimum drying time following surface cleaning, penetrant application and penetration time, temperature requirements, solvent removal, method of surface drying, type of developer and method of application, examination technique, technique for evaluation, acceptance standards, requalification requirements, prohibition against following color contrast examination with fluorescent examination, and examination conditions for fluorescent penetrants.
C.
In addition to the review of paragraph a.,
Procedure 80A4803 was reviewed in the area of procedure technical content relative to:
examination method, contrast of dry powder particle color with background and surface temperature, suspension medium and surface temperature for wet particles, viewing conditions, examination overlap and directiqns, pole or prod spacing, current or lifting power (yoke),
and acceptance criteri d.
In addition to the above review, Procedure 80A4811 was reviewed in the areas of compilation of required records and procedure technical content relative to:
type of apparatus, extent of coverage including beam angles and scanning techniques, calibration requirements, search units, DAC curves, reference level for monitoring discontinuities, method of demonstrating penetration, levels for evaluation and recording indications, and acceptance standards.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Inservice Inspection Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspector observed the ISI activities described below to determine whether these activities were being performed in accordance with regulatory requirements and licensee procedures.
See paragraph 7 above for applicable code.
a
Personnel qualification records for one Level I, two Level II, and one Level III examiners were reviewed.
b.
In-process liquid penetrant (PT) inspection of weld 2" CH-147-22 on ISO A-33 was observed and compared with the requirements of the applicable procedure, 80A4804, and code in the following areas:
(1)
Availability of and compliance with approved NDE procedures (2)
Use of knowledgeable NDE personnel (3)
Use of NDE personnel qualified to the proper level (4)
Recording of inspection results (5)
Method consistent with procedure (6)
Penetrant materials identified and consistent with ASME Code (7)
Certification of sulfur and halogen content for penetrant materials (8)
Surface preparation (9)
Drying time following surface temperature (10)
Penetrant application and penetration time (11)
Examination surface temperature
(12)
Penetrant removal (13)
Drying of surface prior to developing (14)
Developer type, application and time interval after penetrant removal (15)
Time interval between developer application and evaluation (16)
Evaluation technique (17)
Reporting examination results c.
In-process ultrasonic (UT) inspection of weld 2.5" RC-157-8 on ISO A-27 was observed and compared with the requirements of the applicable procedure, 80A4806, and code in the following areas:
.(1)
Availability of and compliance with approved NDE procedures (2)
Use of knowledgeable NDE personnel (3)
Use of NDE personnel qualified in the proper level (4)
Recording of inspection results (5)
Type of apparatus used (6)
Extent of coverage of weldment (7)
Calibration requirements (8)
Search Units (9)
Beam Angles (10)
DAC Curves (11)
Reference level for moni toring di scontinui ties (12)
Method of demonstration of penetration (13)
Limits for evaluating and recording indications (14)
Recording significant indications (15)
Acceptance limits
illl qr<
~O C)'ll
d.
The
"1981 Outage Program Plan and Schedule" for the reactor pressure
'essel, closure head, pressurizer, and reactor coolant piping was reviewed to determine compliance with the "Long-Term" ISI program and ASME Section XI in the areas of:
(1)
Number of items to be inspected (2)
Methods of examination (3)
Extent of examination.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Inservice Inspection Data Review and Evaluation The inspector reviewed ISI NDE weld records for pipe welds 30" RC-121-6 and 30" RC-121-3 on ISO A-18 to determine whether the records were consistent with applicable code and procedure requirements.
See paragraph
for the applicable code.
The records were reviewed to determine whether:
a.
Calibration data sheets show any major deviation between initial-and final calibration b.
Recordable indications are properly recorded c.
Evaluation of examination data was performed by a Level II or Level III examiner d.
Evaluation of data complied with applicable procedures e.
Evaluation of indications complied with applicable procedures.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie