IR 05000361/1979009
| ML13309A687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1979 |
| From: | Haynes R, Narbut P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13309A686 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-79-09, 50-361-79-9, 50-362-79-09, 50-362-79-9, NUDOCS 7906140215 | |
| Download: ML13309A687 (14) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
50-361/79-09 Report N /79-09 50-361 CPPR-97 Docket N License No. CPPR-98 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name: San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Inspection at: Construction Site, San'Diego County, California Inspection Conducted:
January 29 -
February 2 and February 6-9, 1979 Inspectors:
4o
,/bP P. P. Narbut, Reactor Inspector Date Signe Date Signed
"Approved By:
.
R. C. Haynes, CrZ-rojects Section, Reactor Date igned Construction and Engineering Support Branch Summary:
Inspections from January 29, 1979 to February 2, 1979 and February 6,.1979, to February 9, 1979 (Report No. 50-361/7909.and 50-362/79-09)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspector, assisting the resident inspector, of construction activities involving the installation and welding of reactor coolant pressure boundary piping and other safety related piping. The inspection involved 78 inspector hours onsite by the regional based inspecto Results: In the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie IE:V Form 219 (2)
7906140 (1
DETAILS Individuals Contacted Southern California Edison (SCE)
+L. D. Hamlin, Project Manager
- R. R. Hart, Construction Superintendent
- P. R. King, QA Engineer
+D. E. Nunn, Supervisor Engineering 1 F. Pimentel, QA Engineer
+H. B. Ray, Manager, Quality Assurance
+D. B. Schone, Lead Engineering Site Representative
- L. L. Seyler, Project QA Supervisor
+L. D. Tipton, Nuclear Engineering Site Representative Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- +C. A. Blumm, QC Manager
- R. H. Cutler, Project Field Engineer E. A. Desbiens, Rod Room Supervisor J. R. Duncan, Welder
- J. E. Geiger, Project Field QA Supervisor R. S. Koogle, Lead Field Weld Engineer J. Leach, QC J. Mattimoe, Lead QCE Receiving Inspection D. Musko, FWE A. Nedjar, Piping R. M. Reinsch, QCE (Wedling)
C. Smith, Lead Nuclear FE E. W. Stanton, QCE (Welding)
D. Watson, FWE
S. Salwach
-2 d. Peabody Testip A. Morri11
- Denotes attendees at management meeting on February 2, 197 +Denotes attendees at management meeting on February 9, 197. Installation and Welding of Reactor Coolant Pressure udary and ther Safety RelatedPipIng The inspector examined the activities detailed below ir the areas of installa tion and welding for both reactor coolant pressure boundary and safety related piping.. The areas examined and the results of the examination are listed bel o a. Procedure review:
The inspector reviewed the follow ing procedures to ascertain the requirements established by the licensee in implerenting the codes and standards committed to in the PSA (1) WPP/QCI 400 Rev. 8, ASME III Piping Installati-on (2) WPP/QCI 402 Rev. 5, ASME III Piping FabricatCn (3)
WPP/QCI 200 Rev. 11, Control of Welding Filler Material (4) VIPP/QCI 200, Appendix II, Quality Control Dc :':mentation Procedure for Welding and NDE for ASIIE II Div T
(5)
WPP/QCI 201, Appendix I, Documentation of PSE Surface Acceptance and Related NDE required by SE
- IS (6) ESR-1, Rev. 1, Elimination of Surface Defects (7) IRP-1, Rev. 0, Inspection andRepair of Surface Defects (8) WPP/QCI 209, Post Weld Heat Treat Contractor Coordination (9) PHT-500, Rev. 4, Code Requirements for Postweld Heat Treatment (10)
PHT-501, Rev. 5, Procedure Specification for Postweld Heat Treatment of Field Welds The inspector found that the two procedures concerning repair of surface defects, ESR-1 and. IRP-1, appeared to overlap and it was not clear as to which procedure applied in certain cases and which on-site group applied which procedur The licensee stated that IRP-1 applied to welds and base material 12 inches on each side of the,eld and was applied by 1)
-3 the welding quality control engineers, whereas ESD-1 applied to all other piping and components and was applied by piping quality control engineers. The inspector had no further questions on this ite The inspector also noted that the applicable pipiing fabrication and inspection procedures WPP/QCI 400, Rev. 8, allowed piping to be final inspected and accepted prior to insulating and that there was no time limit between final acceptance and covering the pipe with insulation, nor was there a requirement for a piping incidental damage check just prior to insulating the pip The inspector observed that piping was located in areas where scheduled construction activities could result in inadvertant damage to the pipin The licensee stated that no pip ing runs had received final inspectio This item will be reviewed during subsequent inspections to ascertain the effectiveness of con trols which assure that any inadvertant damage is corrected before insulating the pipin (50-362/79-09-01) Observation of Work (1) Automatic weldino:
Field welding of reactor coolant loop piping weTd S3-1201 ML-005 Sht 1 Weld C using the Dimetric machine weld ing system was examined for compliance with the requirements of WPP/QCI 200 including pre-heat requirements and welder qualifica tion No items of noncompliance or deviations were note A portion of the calibration of the Dimetric machine welding system was examined for compliance with the requirements of procedure MWDSF503-802-It was noted that. the low voltage power supply values recorded during the calibration did rct meet the calibration procedure (MWD-SF-503-802-)
requirements, but w-,ere accepted by the technician performing the calibratio The out-of-specification values obtained were not adjustable and did not affect the ultimate adjustable outputs of the system. Consequently, a procedure change was issued on February 6, 1979, to increase the tolerance on the low voltage power supply value The calibration results of para meters affecting weld quality, such as filler metal feed rate and amperage, were spot checked by the inspector against procedure specified values. No.discrepancies were observe With respect to the calibration discrepancy for the low voltage power supply, the inspector discussed at the exit interview the need to practice procedure compliance even when, such compliance does not have an apparent direct effect on qualit (2) Manual Welding:
The inspector examined the welding of Weld B S3 1204-4L-060, Sht 1, Safety Injection System in Unit 3 and at the prefabrication area Weld N, S2-1201-ML-139, Sht 1 Reactor Coolant System and Weld EP S2 1208 ML-008, Sht 5, Chemical and Volume Control System against the requirements of WPP/QrI 200 and its appendice No items of noncompliance or deviations were note (3)
Nondestructive examination:
The liquid penetrant examination of Reactor Coolant Loop piping weld B S3-1201-ML-004, was observed both on the outer and inner diameter prior to cladding. The exam ination process was examined for compliance with the requirements of procedure PT SR 1, 2, Rev. 1. During the penetrant examination of the outer diameter, a 1 inch linear indication was noted in the wel The nondestructive examiner, the quality control engineer, and the authorized inspector evaluated the indication as a grind ing mark by a visual examination and accepted the examination as satisfactor The NRC inspector considered the practice of using visual examinations to distinguish nonrelevant indications to be apparently inconsistent with the ASME B&PV Code requirement for liquid pe;detrant acceptance standards. Namely, that an indication believed to be nonrelevant must be regarded as a defect and mus be re-examined to verify whether or not actual defects are pre sent. The Code allows surface conditioning to precede the re examination. The licensee stated that indications resulting from machining or grinding marks are not.considered to be nonrelevant indications requiring re-examination.. At the request of the inspec tor, the licensee reground and re-examined the area of the indication and the indication did not reappear. The licensee's position is being reviewed by the NR This item is considered to be unresolve (50-362/79-09-02)
(4) Pipe storage: The inspector examined pipe subassembly storage outside of Unit 3 and at the laydown area by Jap Mesa against the requirements of procedure WPP/QCI 40 At the Unit 3 area, a 14 inch stainless steel pipe subassembly 3-SI-045-1 had a 1 inch weldolet uncovered and open to the atmosphere. At the Mesa lay down area, three subassemblies, 3FS-063-3,2FS-063-2, and S3-RC-032 H-002, had, respectively, bosses taped over with gaps in the tape, untaped caps with sand in the caps, and an uncovered bos The licensee subsequently performed a 100% inspection of the laydown areas and found these to be isolated case The licensee's action appeared to be adequate and the inspector had no further question (5) Preheater installation:
The installation and operation of welding preheaters against the requirements of procedure WPP/QCI-200 was examine No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie (6) Pipe bending: Small diameter cold pipe bending per WPP/QCI-402 was examined at the Jap Mesa Prefabrication are No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie (7)
Pipe weld bevel machining:
Pipe weld bevel machining was examined against the requirements of procedure WPP/QCI-402 at the prefabrica tion area at Jap Mesa. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie (8) Filler metal control:
Filler metal control was examined against the requirements of procedure WPP/QCI 200 including rod room control, rod use in the field and receipt inspection activities. The chemical and physical property test records and vendor certifications were also examined for 1/8 inch stainless rod Lot 7565B and 3/32 inch 7018 rod Heat 422A9243. No items.of noncompliance or deviations were identifie (9) Postweld heat treatment: The inspector examined the quartz lamp heat treatment of reactor coolant loop piping weld joint B, S3 1201-ML-001, Sht 1 for compliance to the requirements of pro cedure WPP/QCI 20 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie (10) Weld grinding:
Final weld contouring by grinding for Reactor Coolant loop piping and interpass grinding of Safety Injection pip ing was examined for compliance to the requirements of procedure WPP/QCI 20 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviation An unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph 2.b.(3) of this repor Management Interview The inspector and the NRC resident inspector met with the licensee representa tives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on February 2 and 9, 197 The scope of the inspections and inspectors findings as noted in this report were discusse The licensee representatives had no additional coments other than restating their interpretation of the Code requirement concerning liquid penetrant acceptance as discussed in Paragraph 2.b.(3).
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
SUITE 202, WALNUT CREEK PLAZA 1990 N. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 APR 1 1 1979
"Docket Nos. 50-361 50-362 Southern California Edison Company P. 0. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Attention:
Mr. J. B. Moore Vice President Gentlemen:
Subject: NRC Inspection at San Onofre Units 2 and 3 This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. P. P. Narbut of this office on January 29-February 2 and February 6-9, 1979, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-97 and 98, and to the discussion of our findings held by Messrs. R. J. Pate and P. Narbut with Mr. H. B. Ray and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspectio Areas examined.during this inspection are described in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted o selective examinations of procedures and representative records, in terviews with personnel, and observations by the inspecto No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified within the scope of this inspectio In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application Ill
Southern California Edison Company-2-4P to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. The applica tion must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is containedin an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Roo Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to discuss them with yo
Sincerely, G. S. Spe ecer, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE.Inspection Report Nos. 50-361/79-09 50-362/79-09
REGION V==
50-361/79-09 Report N /79-09 50-361 CPPR-97
.Docket N License No. CPPR-98 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name: San Onofre Units 2 and 3
.Inspection at: Construction Site, San Diego County, California Inspection Conducted:
January 29 - February 2 and February 6-9, 1979 Inspectors:
4/10 P. P. Narbut, Reactor Inspector Date Signed Date Signed Approved By:
-
b 1'
R.CsrSection, Reactor Date Signed Construction and Engineering Support Branch Summary:
Inspections from January 29, 1979 to February 2, 1979 and February 6, 1979, to February 9, 1979 (Report No. 50-361/7909 and 50-362/79-09)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspector, assisting the resident inspector, of construction activities involving the installation and welding of reactor coolant pressure boundary piping and other safety related piping. The inspection involved 78 inspector hours onsite by the regional based inspecto Results: In the four areas inspected, no items of.noncompliance or deviations were identifie IE:V Form 219 (2)
DETAILS 1. Individuals Contacted a. Southern California Edison (SCE)
+L. D. Hamlin, Project Manager
- R. R. Hart, Construction Superintendent
- P. R. King, QA Engineer
+D. E. Nunn, Supervisor Engineering 1 F. Pimentel, QA Engineer
+H. B. Ray, Manager, Quality Assurance
+D. B. Schone, Lead Engineering Site Representative
- L. L. Seyler, Project QA Supervisor
+L. D. Tipton, Nuclear Engineering Site Representative b. Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- +C. A. Blumm, QC Manager
- R. H. Cutler, Project Field Engineer E. A. Desbiens, Rod.Room Supervisor J. R. Duncan, Welder
- J. E. Geiger, Project Field QA Supervisor R. S. Koogle, Lead Field Weld Engineer J. Leach, QC J. Mattimoe, Lead QCE Receiving Inspection D. Musko, FWE A. Nedjar, Piping R. M. Reinsch, QCE (Wedling)
C. Smith, Lead Nuclear FE E. W. Stanton, QCE (Welding)
D. Watson, FWE
S. SalRach Q
Smt0La NcerF
-2 d. Peabody Testing A. Morrill
- Denotes attendees at management meeting on February 2, 197 +Denotes attendees at management meeting on February 9, 197 Installation and Welding of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary and Other Safety Related Piping The inspector examined the activities detailed below in the areas of installa tion and welding for both reactor coolant pressure boundary and safety related piping. The areas examined and the results of. the examination are listed bel o a. Procedure review:
The inspector reviewed the following procedures to ascertain the requirements established by the licensee in implementing the codes and standards committed to in the PSA (1) WPP/QCI 400 Rev. 8, ASME III Piping Installation (2) WPP/QCI 402 Rev. 5, ASME III Piping Fabrication (3) WPP/QCI 200 Rev. 11, Control of Welding Filler Material (4) WPP/QCI 200, Appendix II, Quality Control Documentation Procedure for Welding and NDE for ASME III Div. 1 (5) WPP/QCI 201, Appendix I, Documentation of PSE Surface Acceptance and Related NDE required by ASME III (6) ESR-1, Rev. 1, Elimination of Surface Defects (7) IRP-1, Rev. 0, Inspection and Repair of Surface Defects (8) WPP/QCI 209, Post Weld Heat Treat Contractor Coordination (9) PHT-500, Rev. 4, Code Requirements for Postweld Heat Treatment (10)
PHT-501, Rev. 5, Procedure Specification for Postweld Heat Treatment of Field Welds The inspector found that the two procedures concerning repair of surface defects, ESR-1 and IRP-1, appeared to overlap and it was not clear as to which procedure applied in certain cases and which on-site group applied which procedure. The licensee stated that IRP-1 applied to welds and base material 12 inches on each side of the weld and was applied by
-3 the welding quality control engineers, whereas ESR-1 applied to all other piping and components and was applied by ciping quality control engineers. The inspector had no further questions on this ite The inspector also noted that the applicable piping fabrication and inspection procedures WPP/QCI 400, Rev. 8, allo:ed piping to be final inspected and accepted prior to insulating and that there was no time limit between final acceptance and covering the pipe with insulation, nor was there a requirement for a piping incidental damage check just prior to insulating the pip The inspector observed that piping was located in areas where scheduled construction activities could result in inadvertant damage. to the piping. The licensee stated that no pip ing runs had received final inspection. This item will be reviewed during subsequent inspections to ascertain the effectiveness of con trols which assure that any inadvertant damage is corrected before insulating the pipin (50-362/79-09-01)
b. Observation of Work (1) Automatic welding: Field welding of reactor coolant loop piping weld S3-1201 ML-005 Sht 1 Weld C using the Dimetric machine weld ing system was examined for compliance with the requirements of WPP/QCI 200 including pre-heat requirements and welder qualifica tion No items of noncompliance or deviations were note A portion of the calibration of the Dimetric machine welding system was examined for compliance with the requirements. of procedure MWDSF503-802-0. It was noted that the low voltage power supply values recorded during the calibration did not meet the calibration procedure (MWD-SF-503-802-) requirements, but were accepted by the technician performing the calibration. The out-of-specification values obtained were not adjustable and did not affect the ultimate adjustable outputs of the system. Consequently, a procedure change was issued on February 6, 1979, to increase the tolerance on the low voltage power supply values. The calibration results of para meters affecting weld quality, such as filler retal feed rate and amperage, were spot checked by the inspector against procedure specified values. No discrepancies were observe With respect to the calibration discrepancy for the low voltage power supply, the inspector discussed at the exit interview the need to practice procedure compliance even wahen such compliance does not have an apparent direct effect on qualit (2)
Manual Welding:
The inspector examined the welding of Weld B S3 1204-ML-060, Sht 1, Safety Injection System in Unit 3 and at the prefabrication area Weld N, S2-1201-ML-139, Sht Reactor Coolant System and Weld EP S2 1208 ML-008, Sht 5, Chemical and Volume Control System against the requirements of WPP/QCI 200 and its appendices. No items of noncompliance or deviations were note *
-4 (3) Nondestructive examination:
The liquid penetrant examination of Reactor Coolant Loop piping weld B S3-1201-ML-004, was observed both on the outer and inner diameter prior to claddin The exam ination process was examined for compliance with the requirements of procedure PT SR 1, 2, Rev. During the penetrant examination of the outer diameter, a 1 inch linear indication was noted in the weld. The nondestructive examiner, the quality control engineer, and the authorized inspector evaluated the indication as a grind ing mark by a visual examination and accepted the examination as satisfactory. The NRC inspector considered the practice of using visual examinations to distinguish nonrelevant indications to be apparently inconsistent with the ASME B&PV Code requirement for liquid penetrant acceptance standards. Namely, that an indication believed to be nonrelevant must be regarded. as a defect and must be re-examined to verify whether or not actual defects are pre sent. The Code allows surface conditioning to precede..the re examination. The licensee stated that indications resulting from machining or grinding marks are not considered to be.nonrelevant indications requiring re-examination. At the request of the inspec tor, the licensee reground and re-examined the area of the indication and the indication did not reappear.. The licensee's position is being reviewed by the NRC. This item is considered to be unresolve (50-362/79-09-02)
(4) Pipe storage: The inspector examined pipe subassembly storage outside of Unit 3 and at the laydown area by Jap Mesa against the requirements of procedure WPP/QCI 400. At the Unit 3 area, a 14 inch stainless steel pipe subassembly 3-SI-045-1 had a 1 inch weldolet uncovered and open to the atmosphere. At the Mesa lay down area, three subassemblies, 3FS-063-3,2FS-063-2, and S3-RC-032 H-002, had, respectively, bosses taped over with gaps in the tape, untaped caps with sand in the caps, and an uncovered bos The l.icensee subsequently performed a 100% inspection of the laydown areas and found these to be. isolated case The licensee's action appeared to be adequate. and the inspector had no further question (5) Preheater installation: The installation and operation of welding preheaters against the requirements of procedure WPP/QCI-200 was examined. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie (6) Pipe bending:
Small diameter cold pipe bending per WPP/QCI-402 was examined at the Jap Mesa Prefabrication are No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie (7) Pipe weld bevel machining; Pipe weld beve
-
nachining was examined against the requirements of procedure PP/CCI-2 at the prefabrica tion area at Jap Mesa. No items of noncomiiarce or deviations were identifie (8) Filler metal control: Filler metal control was examined against the requirements of procedure WPP/QCI 200 iciding rod room control*,
rod use in the fiel.d and receipt inspectionctivities. The chemical and physical property test records and ventor certifications were also examined for 1/8 inch stainless rod L 755B and 3/32 inch 7018 rod Heat 422A9243. No items of noncoraiace or deviations were identifie (9)
Postweld heat treatment: The inspector examirei the quartz lamp heat treatment of reactor coolant loop oipig.d joint B, S3 1201-ML-001, Sht 1 for compliance to the reniirements of pro cedure WPP/QCI 20 No items of noncompliance or deviations wsre identifie (10) Weld grinding: Final weld contouring a g di for Reactor Coolant loop piping and interpass grindin fafety Injection pip ing was examined for compliance to the reqreets of procedure WPP/QCI 200. No items of noncompliance or fev stions were identifie.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more informati:r is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items,
- ems or -oncompliance, or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed durina tIS inS:ection is discussed in Paragraph 2.b. (3) of this repor. Management Interview The inspector and the NRC resident inspector met witi the licensee representa tives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on February 2 and 9, 9 The scope of the inspections and inspectors findings as noted in this repit were discusse The licensee representatives had no additional comen-ts ojther than restating their interpretation of the Code requirement concernn liquid penetrant acceptance as discussed in Paragraph 2.b.(3).