IR 05000341/1978011
| ML20062B262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1978 |
| From: | Erb C, Eric Lee, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062B250 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-78-11, NUDOCS 7810260184 | |
| Download: ML20062B262 (13) | |
Text
~
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
,
.
REGION III
Report No. 50-341/78-11 Docket No. 50-341.
License No. CPPR-87 Licensee: Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 Facility Name: Enrico Fermi 2 Inspection At: Fermi Site, Monroe, MI Inspection Conducted: July 31 - August 3, 1978 (Wd 2%
[ /.2 f'[7/
Inspectors:
H. S. Phillips C.% Cals M 'l E C. M. Erb f-
'
E. 'W L
/
/
/
- 2-Approved By:
.'W. Hay
[' J.
7.h Projects Section v/
Insoection Su=marv Inspection on Julv 31 - August 3, 1978 (Reecrt No. 50-341/78-11)
l Reactor coolant pressure boundary piping work activ-Areas Inspected:
ities; safety related components record review; observation of work and review of quality records for reactor vessel internals; QA program l
review; previously identified ite=a of noncompliance and unresolved
,
The inspection involved 66 inspector-hours onsite by three matters.
NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the six areas inspected, no apparent ite=s of nonce:pliance
'
were identified in five areas; three apparent items of nonce =pliance were
identified in one area (infraction - failure to adhere to piping instal-lation procedures - Section II, paragraph 1.a; infraction - failure to identify, report and take corrective action relative to repair of welds -
Section II, paragraph 1.b; deficiency - failure to record welder iden-tification on weld process control sheets - Section II, paragraph 1.c).
99702.40189 q
.
.
.
DETAILS r
.
i e
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- E. Hines, Assistant Vice President and Manager, QA
- T. A. Allessi, QA Director
- W. Everett, Project Superintendent
- W. Fahner, Project Manager
- W.
F. Colbert, Project Engineer
- U. G. Orlando, Supervisor Engineer Operations
- H. A. Walker, Proj ect Site QA Engineer
- C. R. Bacon, Pield, Project Engineer
- C. J. Miller, Senior QA Engineer
,
Other Personnel M. Alberton, Construction Manager, Daniel International Corporation, DI
- J. G. Bolt, Proj ect QA Manager, DI K. Dempsey, Mechanical Pipe Superintendent, DI
- C. B. Bliesener, Project QC Manager, DI
- D. E. Seifert, Proj ect Manager, DI S. Heath, QA Welding Engineer, DI J. Senecal, QC Mechanical Inspector, DI R. Madden, QC Documentation Supervisor, DI T. C. Crouse, QA Engineer, DI J. Gresham Civil Inspector, DI G. Warner. QAPE, Utley-James, (U-J)
D. Sarpin, Inspector, U-J C. Keller, Field QA Manager, Wismer-Becken, (WB)
L. Osborne, QA Engineer, (WB)
D. Rybarik, Site Manager, General Electric Company, (ISSE)
W. Miller, Supervisor, Site Quality Control, GE (ISSE)
T. Dykes, Inspector, Quality Centrol, GE (I&SE)
H. Konkle, Site Manager, GE (NED)
R. DeKlever, Corporate QA Manager, L. K. Comstock and Company, Inc., (LKC)
T. Woodman, Site Manager, LKC The inspector also talked with and interviewed several other licensee and contractor employees, including members of the quality, technical and engineering staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
-2-
-
,. _. _
___
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Matter (Rpt. No. 341/77-07-01 and 341/77-07-03):
~
p'
Concrete post placement curing and protection surveillance checklist did not include intervals at which placement was to be vetted down.
The inspector reviewed Utley-James Checklist No. 12.
Also the check-
,
list for Job No. 7406, Pour No. W-1-16 was reviewed to establish that inspection records indicated intervals between vetting placements.
[ Closed) Unresolved Matter (Rpt. No. 341/77-07-02): Establishment of cadwelding procedure prior to cadwelding. Utley-James had developed a Procedure No. 10, Cadwelding, dated October 14, 1977.
(Closed) Noncompliance (Rpt. No. 341/77-10-09): Utley-James QC Inspec-tion Receiving Reports were not documented; inspection could not be performed due to. lack of approved drawings. The inspector reviewed Work Control Procedure No. 23 which now requires receipt inspection and status tagging within 2 days of arrival of material. Otherwise, items are held in a designated hold area until inspection and tagging are completed.
(Closed) Noncompliance (Rpt. No. 341/77-10-12):
Superceded Utley-James Drawing No. 291 (Revision N) was being used instead of the current drawing (Revision P).
The inspector reviewed Daniel QC Surveillance Report Nos.
0584, 0685, 2314, 2315 and Utley-James QC Sunmary Inspection Reports (dated October, November, December, 1977 and January, March, May, June, and July) relative to drawing control. Based on these reports, the inspector concluded that drawing control was now adequate.
(Closed) Noncompliance (Rpt. No. 341/77-10-13): Utley-James Deficiency Report, August 22, 1977, identified surface defect on wall and corrected but Daniel QC had net signed the report to indicate their verification of ec active action. The inspector found that Detroit Edison QA had met wit.: Daniel personnel to discuss what action should be taken to preclude repetition. The subject DDR was also corrected.
Functional or Program Areas Insoected The functional and program areas inspected are identified in Sections I, II and III of this report.
-3-
__
.
.
SECTION I
-
.
- .
Prepared by H. S. Phillips Reviewed by D. W. Hayes, Chief Projects Section 1.
Plant Tour The RIII inspector toured all floors of the reactor building a.
inspecting work activity, housekeeping and storage / protection of equipment. Fifteen drawings were also reviewed at a work station inside the drywell and were found to have Sargent and Lundy approval stamp as required. Areas inspected are as follows:
,
(1) Drawings in Drywell 583'e1.
Drawings Nos. 55721-2941 Revision 0, D156-B157/B146/B147/
B148 /3145 / 3155 /3154 / B157 / 3156 / 3157 / 3138 / B144 / B149 / 3150 /
B151/B152/3153 and B154.
(2) Welding of Feedwater Spoolpiece
.
MK-N21-2336-3 to Spoolpiece N 21-2336 16, 634'e1.
The inspector observed Weld 7J and found the weld traveler to show that fitup and root pass had been satisfactorily performed. Welder identification symbol had been applied.
A dye penetrant test had been performed to examine the K
root pass which was made using a consumable insert, The velding was accomplished in accordance with type.
Weld Procedure 108.
f (3) Mainsteam Line Spool Flange Cover, 634'e1.
l The inspector observed a cover missing from the flange.
The condition was immediately corrected by replacing the Cover.
(4) Mainsteam Safety Relief Valve Accumulator, 607'el, Az 30.
Review The subject component had been welded in place.
of =aintenance records indicated the component was being l
properly maintained.
l
!
I-4-
I
-- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - -.
- - - - -, -.. _ - -,
- - - - - - -. --
g
,-
,--,n
.-.
.-
.
.
.
,
(5) Biological Shield I
The inspector visually inspected welding of the place outside of the bio-shield from 583'el to the top
.
wherever scaffolding was available.
Several holes were found in'this shield approximately 1" in diamater and 1"
,
deep in the weld areas. Followup on this condition revealed the holes were purposely left as vent holes for a subsequent operation.
Five Nelson stud welds were observed at plate No. 2, 653'e1.
(6) Feedwater Nozzles and Adjacent Vessel Area The f*eedwater nozzle at the 655'e1. 150-160 Az was covered. The adjacent area of the vessel was examined
,
for are strikes. None were found.
,
b.
RHR Service Building The basement area of the north half of the RER building was toured. The concrete walls were visually inspected. Columns E12, 11, 10 and 9 at 555 elevation which were previously de-scribed as having small surface cracks at the base of the columns were enmf ned.
The depth of The cracks had been excavated to sound concrete.
the excavation was approximately one inch.
The contractor was holding up on making final repair pending the return of the The in-inspector who had identified the defective area.
spector informed the contractor that repair could proceed.
i Two 18" Gate Valves, E11-50, Class 3 were found to be missing The covers apparently came off during the transfer the covers.
Both valves were from the storage area to the RHR building.
(
covered with plastic when the RIII inspector observed this I:mnediate action was taken to correct the condition.
condition.
l Four diesel generators which had just been moved to the RER building were observed. The diesel generators appeared to be properly maintained and protected.
l i
No items of noncompliance were identified in the above areas inspected.
-5-l
\\
f
,
_
- _ - _. _.
-
.
.
.
.
-
--
.
.
_
. _
.
2.
Review of Wismer-Becker QA Program
.'
The inspector reviewed the Corporate QA Manual as follows:
a.
QA Manual QA Personnel and Organization,Section I Design Control,Section III Qualification / Training, Section El Instructions, Procedures, Drawings, V Document Control, VI Control of Purchased Materials, Equipment, Services,Section VII Identification and Control of Materials and Items,Section VIII Special Processes,Section IX Test Control,Section XI Calibration,Section XII (
Handling, Storage, and Shipping,Section XIII Inspection Test and Operating Status,Section XIV Nonconformances,Section IV Corrective Action,Section XVI QA Records,Section XVII Audits,Section XVIII b.
Implementing Procedures The QA program implementation is described in MMnistrative Procedure WB-A-102 through WB-A-110.
Work Instructions are given in WB-E-101 through WB-C-124.
Procedures WB-E-101 through WB-E-Ll7 are Engineering Procedures.
Special pro-cesses such as welding are covered in Weld Process Procedures.
Implementation of Procedures c.
/
\\
(1) Audits The site group presently performs audits of Document Control. Other aspects of the WSB QA Program are audited by the corporate office located offsite.
A procedure was recently developed to allow the site QA personnel to perform QA surveillances.
Eighteen (18) document control
,
I audits performed between April 1977 to July 1978 were reviewed.
(2) Personnel Qualification / Training Records of training and qualification for four (4)
l mechanical / NDE inspectors were reviewed and were found
.
-6-I
_
.
to contain adequate information to support the qualifi-cation of personnel.
.
(3) Nonconformance Svstem
The nonconformance log was reviewed. Nonconformance Report Nos. 60, 69, 73 and 76 were reviewed for proper processing and action. Corrective action appeared to be timely and appropriate.
No items of noncompliance were identified in the areas discussed in the paragraphs above.
3.
Structural Concrete a.
Structural Concrete Placement RHR Structure (Wall), Location W-39 at 617-637' elevation, RHR Roof Slab, 638.5' el. and the RER Structure Supported Slab were observed. Mix Design 96 was used for all three place-ments. The following were adequate.
(1) Form placement (2) Rebar placement (3) Preplacement inspection (4) Proper mix delivered (5) Mix time (6) Crane bucket to placement area (7) Testing (8) Temperature Control (9) Adequate crew equipment and techniqaes (10)
Inspection during placement (11) Aggregate and Cement Storage
,
(12) Batch plant records, material control, and inspection.
'
b.
Placement Records
,
l
!
Inspection records and checklist as well as test records were reviewed to assure that proper inspection and tests had been performed on the items observed as described above.
4.
Structural Steel Welding l
i Structural Steel Welding 607'el, 300 Azimuth Drywell Structural Steel, Weld No. W43861RC was observed. The weld was to be per-formed per AWS D.1.1-72, Class 1 and NISC Procedure ES 183-1.
The ficup and root pass were observed. The proper parameters were
!
-7-l
-
- - -
- - -
-
, _ _.
_ _ - _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _
.
,
i
.
.
being applied; however, a weld on the same structure performed by a vendor appc*. red to have a lack of fusion on a filled weld.
,
Similar structures are located at different azi:nuchs. The inspector
was unable to complete the inspection to determine the acceptability of the fillet veld observed. Daniel has initiated a review to examine similar welds at dif ferent locations.
This item is unresolved and vill be further inspected during the next inspection (341/78-11-01).
.
>
.
i i
i
&
-8-
- - _ _ _
.-
.
..
.
.
SECTION II
.
Prepared by E. W. K. Lee Reviewed by D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Section 2 1.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundarv Piping Activities On August 2, 1978, the inspector reviewed the Wismer and a.
Becker Contracting Engineers (W&B) Operation Process Traveler for the installation of the Reactor Recirculation (loop B).
Process Fluid riping System, Rev. 6, submittal No.10030F.
- The inspecter observed that:
(1) A diamond notation was added to all (190) operations except one (No. 75) between June 1,1978 and June 8, 1978.
NOTE: Diamond notation means step can be performed concurrently or out of sequence with other steps.
(2) Numerous foremen signed-off dates on the traveler indicating steps were performed out of sequence even prior to adding the diamond notations described above.
(3) Numerous W&B QC hold points were bypassed.
This condition is an item of concompliance identified in Appendix A (341/78-11-02).
b.
On July 31, 1978, the inspector noted that the licensee's contractor personnel was removing defects by grinding on Weld No. N21-2336-2WO on drawing No. 6M721-2336-1.
The inspector noted that several areas in the root pass of the above weld had been ground through.
On August 1, 1978, the inspector noted that the above weld was taped up and purging was in progress.
Upwa asking the status of the above weld joint and the method of repair, the inspector was informed that radiographic exani-nation indicated all defects were removed and repair would be accomplished in accordance with the original welding pro-cedure.
(W&B welding Procedure No. 103, Rev. 6).
Upon viewing-9-
..
-,
._
__
,
.
f
.
the radiographic films, the inspector noted that the gap of the ground through areas appeared to exceed the dimension allowed by the above welding procedure. Discussion was con-
'
ducted with W&B personnel relative to the method of repair
.
when the root pass had been ground through.
Finally, the
!
inspector requested that the tape on the weld joint be removed to verify the ground area dimensions. At the weld joint location, the inspector also noted that the joint was being preheated.
When the tape was removed, the inspector noted that eight areas in the root pass had been ground through. All eight areas failed to meet the weld end configuration, such as, land thickness and level angle, as required by W&B Weld.ing Procedure No. 103, Rev. 6.
Furthermore, four of the eight areas had a gap greater than the 1/8" allowed by the above procedure.
This condi, tion is an item of noncompliance identified in l
Appendix A (341/78-11-03).
On August 2 and 3, 1978, the inspector determined that the
.
'
c.
welder identification was not recorded on the Weld Process Control Sheet for the following welds:
(1) Wald No. B17 on drawing No. GE731-E-756.
(2) Weld No. N21-2336-2WO on drawing No. 6M721-2336-1.
(3) Weld No. Ell-2327-3W4 on drawing No. 6M721-2327-1.
This condition is an item of noncompliance identified in Appendix A (341/78-11-04).
Except as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I
~
i l
l
.
i I
.
'
- 10 -
-
l
.
.
.
SECTION III Prepared by C. M. Erb
,
,
Reviewed by D. H. Danielson, Chief Engineering Support Secticu 2 1.
General _
The inspector reviewed the following activities:
Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2F - Repair a.
,
.
The repair package for this item requires that the weld of
,
the thermal sleeve to nozzle be cut, thermal sleeve removed,
'
weld buildup be made outboard of present buildup, thermal sleeve shortened required amount and rewelded. The present excavation about 3" x 2" will be blended and left as is.
b.
Revisions to Vessel Nozzles The Control Rod Drive (CRD) return line is being capped off.
Six feed water safe ends have been removed and are being
,
replaced by a different design safe end.
Four Core Spray system spargers have been removed and the nozzles replaced. The two Core Spray system safe ends have been removed and are being replaced.
c.
Shroud Repair The shroud repair was completed by removing the upset, hardened material from the veld preparation area and then
building it back up with stainless filler metal. A Liquid Penetrant Test was performed and determined acceptable.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
2.
Review of Quality Records for Safety Related Conpenents The QC records for Part B21-F022, a 26" main steam isciation i
valve were examined. This valve was manufactured by Atwood & Morrill and was source inspected by GE Company.
Specification 21A9257, Rev. 1, is applicable and the certifi-cations for materials and tests were included in the documen-cation package.
- 11 -
.
.-..
-
-
--
--
.
.
.
.
(
The QC records for a 28" discharge valve in the Recirculation
/
Syst.em were examined. This gate valve, part No. 331-F031B
(S/'114123-30), was manufactured by Lunkenheimer. Specification
This valve was 21A'.477, Rev. 5, is applicable to this valve.
gis n a seismic clearance on July 18, 1977.
No item of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the raview of QC records for the above valves.
Observation of Work and Review of Qualiev Records for Reactor 3.
vessel Internals
}
The inspector observed activities in the fabricating shop where and welds are welders are qualified,1" and 3/4" pipe is bent, Several of the welds made to produce, spools for installation.
for internals are made with limited assessibility, and as a result ('
the welders must pass a performance test using the following mockups.
Jet Pump Riser Brace cc Riser Jet Pump Adapter to Shroud Support Jet Pump Diffuser to Adapter
'
Jet Pump Riser Brace to Pad CRD Housing to Stub Tube
-
Jet Pump Outer Sleeve to Inner Sleeve The tubing for the CRD insert and withdraw lines was furnished by Sandvik to ASME SA376 type 304; the fittings to ASME SA182 type Liquid Penetrant testing is performed by inspectors from F304.
Materials Assurance Company who have Level 2 certifications.
There were 17 boilermakers qualified for internals work in the vessel and 35 pipefitters qualified for the CRD socket welds.
Several radiographs made by Magnaflux were examined by the inspec-These radiographs represented development of a prcper procedure for film density and weld quality. Repairs were being processed tor.
properly and the radiography was done to procedure NDE-RT-3001, Final results of radiography on CRD cap and eight replace-Rev. 2.
ment safe ends will be examinec af ter completion during a future routine inspection.
(341/78-11-05)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the above review.
Review of L. K. Comstock Activities
,
4.
The activities of L. K. Comstock aimed at correcting certain A
previously identified items of nonconformance were reviewed.
- 12 -
. _ -.
_
-
_.
..
_
_
..
._-
.
- - -
.
'
..
.
reinspection of installed cable trays, supports and yard inven-tory was underway. Tagging of nonconforming materials is being g
performad. Engineering has issued a DCN984 outlining a modified
-
approach to the problem of weld undercut.
The undercut problem was accentuated by requiring an equal leg fillet veld on material
.
1/2 inch thick.105 inch thick.
Completion of corrective action is estimated to occur about September 30, 1978. No final assessment of this work will be made prior to this date. No items of noncompliance or devi-ations were noted in this area.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncom-pliance, or deviatio'ns. Unresolved itens disclosed during the inspection
,
i are discussed in Section I, Paragraph 4.
,
Exit Interview The inspectors met with site staff representatives (denoted in the Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on August 3, 1978. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection, including the apparent items of noncompliance identified during the inspection.
The inspector stated that in view of the items of noncompliance and unresolved matters identified during this and previous inspections in the area of piping installation, it is important that more attention and effort be directed La this area. The inspectors answered questions to clarify findings. The licensee acknowledged the findings.
I l
{
l
f
- 13 -
l
- _ _
-,-
.--
- -
-
,
-
-
_
-
_
-
.