IR 05000361/1979026
| ML19257D134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1979 |
| From: | Dodds P, Haist D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257D120 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-361-79-26, NUDOCS 8002010361 | |
| Download: ML19257D134 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. fUCLEAR REGULATORY CCFMISSION OFFICE OF IflSPECTION Af:D Ef; FORCE."El:T 50-361/79-26 Report flo.
.
Docket f;o.
50-361 Licensee fio. CPPP-97 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Southern California Edison Conpany 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility flate:
San Onofre Unit 2 Inspection at:
Construction Site, San Onofre Unit 2 Inspection Conducted: f;ovember 5-9, 1979 Inspectors:
//[2 F/'J9 l'
Ddte Signed
'
D. P. Haist, Inspector Date Signed Date Signed
///29/7f Approved by:
f r
R. T. nodds, Chief, Reactor Engineering Da'te Signed Sup rt Section Summa ry:
Insoection on flovember 5-9,1979 (Recort flo. 50-361/79-26)
Areas Insoected: Routine unannounced inspection by reqional based inspector of construction activities involving licensee's actions on previous inspection findings and preservice inspection.
The inspection involved 30 inspector-hours onsite by one fiRC inspector.
Results:
In the two areas inspected, one iten of noncompliance was identified '
involvina failure to provide measures to ensure that autorated examination search unit position indication devices are properly controlled, cal-ibrated, and adjusted at specified periods to raintain accuracy within nec-essary limits.
(paragraph 3c of Details)
1855 203 goo 20103b[
RV Form 219 (2)
-
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted a.
Southern California Edison Comoany (SCE)
- D. E. Nunn, "anager, Quality Assurance
- P. A. Croy, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor
- W. L. Rossfeld, Constructicn Lead Pt. Fnqineer
- R. R. Hart, Construction Superintendent S. S. Dziewit, QA Engineer b.
Bechtel Power Corporation-(Bechtel)
- J. E. Bashore, Division Quality Assurance Manaqer
- C A. Blum, nuality Control Manager
- J. E. Geiger, Project 0A Suoervisor
- L. W. Furst, Project Field QA Supervisor c.
Combustion Enaineerinq (CE)
J. P. Lareau, Level III Exaniner D. Jones, ISI Suoervisor d.
Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)
W. Clayton, Project Manager, Level III R. Neimeyer, Project Supervisor M. Ehnstron, level II-UT S. Todd, Level II-UT L. McFarland, level II-UT W. Wilson, Level I-UT J. Mcdonald, QA Engineer e.
Other Personnel
- R. J. Pate, NRC Resident Inspector
- Denotes Exit Interview attendees.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Follow-Up Item (50-361/79-24/02):
Absence of formal proce-dures for the control of Preservice Inspection records on site.
The licensee concluded from a review of the adequacy of CE's quality
.
1855 204
-
,
.
-2-assurance record control system and the need for formal control of quality assurance records on site that a formal procedure was warranted.
'
The inspector reviewed Engineering flotice No. 67 to procedure flo. flLE-056 Rev. 2 which adds a data handling flow chart for Preservice/ Inservice inspection data and a narrative record control progran. Provisions are now in olace to control the examination recores fron gener-ation through receipt and review by the licensee and ultimate storage in the ED'1 Center. This item is closed.
(Closed) Follow-Vo Item (50-361/79-24/03):
Demonstration of the repro-ducibility of relevant indications.
The preservice inscection con-tractor, CE was reviewing the data taken for a significant indication on which to demonstrate reproducibility of indicationn and correletion of data taken with different examination equipnent.
CE performed a reproducibility test on October 6,1979 by selecting several representative indications detected with the Nuclear Reflect-oscope during autonated examination of the reactor vessel.
The areas were rescanned with the 11-80 examination eauipnent which consists of remote manual instruments with individual Level II examiners nonitorino each of three channels. Thr ee laminar indicators in weld scan no. 02-001-010-1 and a region of plate segregate in weld scan no. 02-001-009-1 were rescanned and compared.
Differences in position were within 0.6 inches n'aximum.
There was a slight difference in indicator size due to the use of different sizing techniques.
CE stated that the differences in position are within the tolerances of the mechanical positioning device, of 1-inch
'
or 1 degree as required in procedure ESS-124.
An additional reoroducibility scan was performed on flovember 2,1979 to compare reproducibility of SWRI equipment. The lamination regions in weld scan 02-001-010 were rescanned and comaared with the previous reproducibility scan. The location correTation for the three systems fell within the tolerances of the mechanical rositioning device. The sizing correlation was satisfactory based upon the nature of the indi-cations and the scanning and sizing techniques used.
Based upon the results of these demonstration tests, the inspector had no further questions.
This item is closed.
3.
Preservice Inspection
'
a.
Review of Program The inspector reviewed the following licensee quality assurance procedures which will apply to the preservice inspection final report:
1855 205
-
..
_1 Procedure Mo.
Title N17.01 Ouality Assurance Review of GA Records N17.03 Deficient Records N17.04 OA Record Transmittal to EDM N17.05 Identification, Correction and Modification of Ouality 9ecords.
The procedures were reviewed for conformance to the requirements of 10CFR 50 Apoendix B and aopeared to be satisfactory.
The licensee stated an intention to use Bechtel hydrostatic oressure test records to satisfy the ASME Section XI pressure test requirements for ASME Class 2 and 3 oicing. This is acceptable in accordance with ASME Section XI, subsection IMA-5110.
For Class 1 pipino, the preservice inspection contractor, CE, will perform the visual examination during the prinary systen hydrostatic oressure test and will generate the exanination records.
No itens of nonconoliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Review of Quality Assurance Inolenentino Procedures The preservice inspection contractor, CE, has obtained a new sub-contractor, Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) to continue and comolete the automated oreservice exanination of the Unit 2 reactor vessel. The inspector reviewed the approval cycle used to incoroorate SWRI nrocedures and equiprent into the CE ouality assurance system. The orocess requires revision to both CE and SURI examination procedures to nake them compatible.
The inspector reviewed the following Enaineering Notices (EN's) issued to revise the reactor vessel shell course examination procedure:
1.
EN#68 to incorporate SWRI procedure No. NDT-700-6 Rev. 4 and Deviation No.1.
2.
EN#69 to incorporate new scan olans due to change in cauip-ment (Deviation No. 2 to SWRI Procedure No. NDT-700-6, Rev.4).
No items of noncomoliance or deviations were identified.
c.
Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspector observed automated ultrasonic examination of Unit 2 reactor vessel shell weld no. 02-001-016.
This weld is a nine inch thick unoer shell to middle shell course circunferential sean.
The inspector verified that scan limits, instrument functional checks and instrurent linearity verifications were in accordance with Drocedure no. NIP-730 and apolicable EN's.
Certified instruments
.
\\
1855 206
.
-
.
..
.
-4-and transducers were beinq used. rertified Level II exaniners were nonitorino the instrunent and nerforming calibrations on the aopropriate calibration block. The inscector observed the end-of-shif t calibration check.
flo itens of nonconoliance or deviations were identified.
The inspector reviewed date evaluation activities and was informed that some nozzle weld exanination data taken on Noverber 7-8, 1979 had been voided.
These exaninations were performed from the inside of the nozzle bore using a rotator rounted on the end of the inscection boon. The coordinates of the search unit are renorted renotely via encoders in decrees rotation and boon extension.
Exanination per-sonnel determined visually that the rotator did not aopear to be in the position indicated by the encoder read-out after the exan-inations. The coerators later deterninad that the rotator position indicator was in error uo to five deorees which, at a radius of 21-inches is a cosition error of approximately 1.3 inches alono the wel d.
The contractor had clanned to reolace the rotator and con-tinue the exanination.
The inspector reviewed crocedure ESS-124, Operation of the Inser-vice Inspection Positioninq 9evice for the Inside Surface Exan-ination of 0.eactor Dressure "essel.
Section 7 of this nrocedure re-ouires nositional calibrations checks at least every 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of boon orientation and elevation by locatina known weld oad build-ut s ultrasonically. Section 7 also requires calibration of each nozzle centerline location ultrasonicallv at the becinninq and end of the nozzle exarinations. Powever, the 'ollowino exanination nodes have de#iciencies in the method or frecuency of onsition calibration requirenents as indicated:
(1) For nozzle bore exaninations (nozzle-to-shell and nozzle-to-oine " elds) rotational cositinn indication is not calibrated nrior to, during, or after exanination.
(2) For nozzle bore exaninations, tha boon extend position indica-tion is calibrated ultrasonically on nozzle datun coints prior to, but not during or after examinations to confirn position oosition calibration.
(3) For nozzle-to-vessel shell weld exaninations fron the vessel shell side, the traversing arn radial nosition indication is not calibrated prior to, durina, or after exaninations.
.
l85S 207
~
-
.
.,
.
.
-5-(4) For vessel botton head oeld exaninations usino the nivot boon, vertical and horizontal cosition indication is calibrated orior to, but not during or af ter axaninations to confirn position calibration.
In addition to the absence of oosition calibration verification, Drocedure ESS-124 does not orovida cuidance on the limits of accuracv that must be naintained to ensure (1) that the reouired retal volure has been exanined; and (2) that #1a'c' indications can be located and sized in accordance with AS'1E Rection XI.
(ie: Paracraoh I -
6310(3) of AS"E Section XI,197a editinn' throuch sunner 1975 addenda requires all flaw indication dimensions to be recorded to the nearest 1/10 of an inch.)'
The failure to orovide reasures to nrocerly calibrate the position indication devices associated with the exanination modes described above at specified oeriods to raintain accuracy within necessary limits is an apoarent iten of nonconoliance.
(50-161/79-26/01)
d.
Audits The inspector reviewed the report of an audit conducted by CE on January 17, 1979.
The audit covered nanual exanination of oressurizer lonqitudinal, circunferential, and nozzle welds and equipment naterial, and oersonnel certifications.
No deficiencies were ident-ified. The insoector also reviewed the licensee's audit "o.
CES-03-79 conducted durino the oeriod of July 13-18, 1979.
The audit covered naterial, eouinnent, and oersonnel cualifications and nro-cedure coroliance.
Results were satisfactorv with no corrective action required. The licensee stated that an audit of autonated oreservice exanination activities will be nerformed in the near future.
Audit activities aopear to conforn to the licensee's cuality assurance nroaran. The inspector had no further nuestions in this area.
4.
Fxit Interview The insoector met with licensee representatives (denoted in caraoraoh 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on Novenher 9, 1979 and surnarized the scoce and findings of the insoection as stated in this report.
This exit interview was held in conjunction with the NRC Resident Inspector's weekly meeting.
.
'I8,55208