IR 05000361/1984034

Insp Rept 50-361/84-34 on 841203-05.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Inservice Insp Work on Pressure Boundary Piping Welds & Supports During Cycle 1,Outage 1 & Allegation Followup

ML20140E343
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/20/1984
From:	Casella F, Johnson P, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20140E341	List: IR 05000361/1984034 ML20140E334
References
50-361-84-34, NUDOCS 8501100786
Download: ML20140E343 (6)

Text

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION V

Report N /84-34 Docket N License N NPF-10 Licensee: Southern California Edison Company P. O. Box 800, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name: San Onofre Unit 2 Inspection at: San Clemente, California Inspection conducted: December 3-5, 1984 Inspector: M F. A 'Casella, Re ctor I p or

/j-/7- k Date Signed

/

Approved By: r . /j-/7-7 T' Young, Jr'. , C ef, Eng nee sg Section Date Signed 1%5F P. H. Jo son, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 3 Date Si'gn6d Summary:

Inspection during the period of December 3-5, 1984 (Report No. 50-361/84-34)

Areas Inspected: The unannounced safety inspection consisted of a technical review of the San Onofre Unit 2 Inservice Inspection work on pressure boundary'

piping welds and supports during Cycle 1, Outage 1. There was also some followup work done on an allegation. The inspection involved a total of 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> ontite by one NRC regional inspecto Results: In the areas inspected, there were no violations of NRC requirements identifie ;

I l

i 8501100786 841224 gDRADOCK 05000361 i PDR

. _ ~ . . . - ._ . .. -

. . - - - -. . .- . - +

, o

,

.

. . . ~

t

~

'

, DETAILS ,

,

, Persons Contacted Southern California Edison Company (SCE)

, *J. G..Haynes, Station Manager

-

• R.'W. Krieg'er, Deputy Station Manager

*D. b. Schone, Site QA Manager-

• B. Katz, Manager, Operations and Maintenance Support

- - *J. D. Boardman, Operations and Maintenance Support ISI Engineer

>

• C. A. Kergis,1QA Engineer

• M. B. Ramsey, QA Engineer, Codes Compliance

'

.

L -

• M. Speer, Compliance Engineer J. Hundis, Operations and Maintenance Support

'

R. Retana, QA Engineer, Codes Compliance

$ Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)

. ,

• R. M. Reinsch, Project _QA Engineer

'

G. Alvarez, Field Engineer Supervisor G. Clothier, QC_ Manager ,

M. Ensminger, QC Engineer

"

-

.

.

i

'

_The inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel l

'

including plant technicians and engineers,Lquality assurance' personnel

.and general construction personne *

i

• Denotes those attending the exit interview on December 5,.1984.

L~e Inservice Inspection

. . Compliance with ISI Program EThe SONGS 2 ISI programThas previously' been reviewed for compliance - -

>

'with ASME Boiler and' Pressure-Vessel Code Section XI (NRC Report-84-13,-~Ites'4.a). The inspector compared'the current. inspection schedule to the program commitments for Cycle' 1,- Outage 1:and found no. discrepancies. Pressure vessel' nozzle safe end to: loop weld _

inspections _will be_ deferred to a later outage to allow use of the vessel PAR tool. This appears consistent with~ Code allowances:and

-

is based upon;ALARA consideration ~ . 4 L Methods and Results- #.

1 The'inspectorreviewedasamhle'oftenCalibrabionand. Examination-

. . .

'~

- Data' Sheets ~ Each sheet was generated :as a record of a specific '

.

'

inspection of a specific weld. The' data sheets were inspected for

~

-

'

evidence .of . procedural ~ compliance,: accuracy of calibration and _ _

,

description of' findings. .All reports reviewed were complete and compliedwithqcodeandproceduralrequirement ,

• r

p '

~ .2

.

t

-

, ~ Procedures

-

.The-inspector. reviewed the technical adequacy of two nondestructive evaluation (NDE) procedures:that were used during the ISI<

inspections. _These were: S023-ISI-022 Rev. 3, "UT Examination Procedure for.Hain_ Coolant Piping Eafe End Welds," and S023-ISI-06 .Rev.L2, " Generic Manual UT Examination Procedure."' TheLreviews were-E for'the purpose of _ ascertaining compliance with ASME Code Section V:

and. XI'1977 Edition through _ Summer of ~1979 Addenda. The inspector determinedithat these two procedures' adequately met code requirements in the areas of.equiprent usage ~and extentfof' coverage; calibrations; beam angles, frequenciestand reference levels; and-

,

, ~ evaluation, recording and acceptance limits of indication yExamination Equipmenta 'nd Personnel Certifications The inspector reviewed a sample of UT instrument calibration certifications, UT transducer characterization packages, and UT s

couplant and PT penetrant chemistry' test reports;for accuracy, completeness _ and compliance 'with Ecode requirements. .The _

certifications chosen for review were those: indicated on the data sheets inspected in 2(b).above..-In addition, the certifications and

~

. eye examinations of those' inspectors listed on the' data' sheets wer reviewed for completeness and compliance 1with SNT-TC-1A. All documents that were reviewed'were found-to be complete and in compliance with code requirement QA Program Requirements All of the actual field inspection'during this period had been'

~

performed by contractor > personnel. The inspector attempted,to ~=

. verify.how.the. licensee controlled the. quality'of the inspection

'

_

workt He' found that'a' Level III in the.QA' Code Compliance group had

~

.

performed technical reviews ,of the procedu'res that were used,.and had reviewed the. certifications of personneliand equipment supplied

'

'"

by'the_ contractor. That individual had_also verified that-the .

'

correct calibration standards were present and-in use, and had:  :

'

monitored equipment calibrations using these' standard ~

As part of the examination documentation, recorded results were reviewed.and signed off by: the. contractor,-the licensee ~ISI supervisor and QA Code Compliance Level III,'and the Authorized

-

Nuclear, Inspecto There was no ' actual surveillance by' the license of contractor activities while testing was in progress. The licensee's Site QA

Manager cited a h..h confidence level in. the . experienced -inspectors:

-'

supplied by the . contra'ctor' as the- reason. fo'r the lack of ,

surveillance. Thei licensee has committed to- performed surveillances

'

'

- of future ISI activitie <

L

-.q, ,, -

p ,

'

.

J

@ 3*

.

-

-' Weld 02-014-002,. Data' Sheet 19-54 c

The UT inspection of this weld showed an indication in the center of

'the' weld.that had not.previously been. identified with volumetric'

testing.during either preservice inspection or fabrication radiography. ~The weld is an inconel transition field weld between-the' stainless steel safe end on the suction of reactor coolant pump

~

'

2B and the 30 inch carbon steel elbow leading to steam generator E088.~ iThe original PSE inspection used a 2.25 MHZ shear wave with-the' instrument.in a pulse-echo configuration. The current ISI test ,

used a 1 MHZ dual element transducer supplying a-refracted longitudinal wave with the instrument configured for through

'

transmission. The latter is more sensitive for testing this type of.

K weld and may be the reason for detecting'an indication which was not

..previously. identified. The licensee is currently evaluating this

new indication against construction radiographs and in accordance with ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section'XI IWB-351 Licensee _ evaluation.and disposition of this indication will be tracked as Open Item 84-34- .No violations of NRC requirements were identifie : Allegation-Followup Allegation or Concern No. 18

~

Task:

ATS No: RV-84-A-108 Characterization

~

Plant construction and plant modifications:are'being conducted.without assurance that the controlled. documents being used are the curren ..

issues. Field Revision' Lists. used are out of date and there is no way. of ,

being sure that~the documents tendered.by Bechtel's: field document control center are the' latest issues;from engineerin IN11ed ' Significance 'to Plant ' Design, Construction or Operations .

clack of control of. documents and drawings used in construction could" adversely -impact final configuration and lead to unsafe ~ operatio . Assessment of Safety Significance '

The staff addressed this allegation by interviewing Bechtel Field Engineering, QC and~QA personnel;. reviewing SCE Design Change Package and

. Configuration Control procedures,. ' reviewing the -BPC Field Control QCf

' Manual and inspecting the Bechtel Field Document Control Station.,

~

__

, The staff foundlthe following: %

L

-(1) All' construction performed:in.the field by Bechtel.is done-in

.accordance with the procedures set forth by-Southern California Edison (SCE) Engineering ~ and Construction (E&C) Department. Quality A1surance' Procedures. Bechtel's Norwalk, Project Engineering group

_

.

$ . ,

f

,

~

w .

h

...

.

'

. releases Design-Change' Packages (DCPs)'to SCE's Corporate Document Management center (CDM), which in turn issues the DCPs to the fiel The.DCP.'is the authorizing' document to perform all work in the field. The DCP is unique to each job and each drawing in a DCP'is .

an. original, created specifically for the. job ~at hand. In the rare instance of.a revision to a'DCP, all' work under.the original DCP is-stopped'and a new DCP is issued.to carry'the work from that point to

_

.the desired final conditio :(2) Minor changes to,a DCP may be accomplished via a Field Change-Request.(FCR). Bechtel's Project Procedure Manual,~ Procedure 2.8,.

" Field Change Requests", defines-the requirements for initiating,

. processing, approval and control of FCRs. The procedure allows.an FCR to be used for making minor changes to a' design document, provide clarifications to documents, or make minor physical changes in order to satisfy the original design. requirements. -During .

previous inspection,..a sa~mple of 24 FCRs were examined'to determine the nature of'the changes involved as well as the review and-approval"provided by BPC Project Engineerin Res'ults'of this examination are documented in Report 4 No' s .- 50-206/84-16, 50-361/84-22 and 50-361/84-22. The staff feels there :is no reason to suspect any ' lack of document control . resultin'g-from the use ~of FCR (3) There.isa'FieldDocumentControlStation(FDCS) maintain $donsite by Bechtel. .The staff believes this -facility. corresponds to th ' Field Document Control Center mentioned in the allegation., The staff found.no document entitled " Field Revision List,"-.but believes the " Weekly Document: Log (WDL)"' corresponds. The staff inspected;

,

'the FDCS and found that the~ stick files contained white " Controlled"'

drawings._.BPC and SCE maintain a sizeable staff of personnel who have'as.their-sole-function the-daily maintenance of. controlled'

'

drawing stick file i

~

BPC Field Control QC Manual Procedure 19'(WPP/QCI-019) requires that-

.

- prior ~to using a pink.or uncontrolled -drawing, the user must consult the Weekly Document Log:(WDL). The WDL'will provide the current; revision along with applicable DCNsRand FCRs-outstanding against that drawin '~

Staff Position' -

The' staff concludes that the administrative: controls and procedure <

'

-requiring the use of-Design Change Packages in the, field'make the chance-Lof using outi of date documents almost' impossible. lFurther,'if an-

. Lengineer or. craft person were to' use FDCS stick' files for' reference, thei controlled nature'of the drawings contained therein would make11t-almost impossible to find a' drawing which was out-of.date. Since the WDLHis

~

.

-updated weekly and-the contro11ed' stick-files are updated daily, the stick files are actually'more current than the WDL. Lastly, with the

. remote'. possibility that construction personnel would even refer.to a_n

' uncontrolled l drawing, there is an administrative control in place that

, . , .

+

j -q ,-m-s

, 5 .

.

.

. . .

-

'

requires the user to refer to the WDL prior to using the uncontrolled

' drawin Action Required There is no- further action require ' ' Plant Tour

.

i The inspector and Resident Inspector-toured Unit 2 Containment Building, looking atl construction in progress on the new pressurizer spray line and

observing general cleanliness.and radiological controls. .While in the

' Containment' Building, the inspectors observed 15 fire watches standing around waiting for watch relief. On questioning, these watchstanders-

-

' indicated that this was their normal watch relief location. The-inspectors' felt that although they.were not in a high radiation area,

~

. this relief practice.was not in keeping with ALARA principle *

~

Subsequent to the exit ' meeting of December 5,1984, the' licensee has moved the location for-fire watch relief to an area outside containmen ~

After leaving the containment building, the inspectors found an individual lying on the flo'or of the contaminated machine shop in the-radwaste building. That person was'not wearing anti-contamination

.

, clothing at the time. The area appeared to be posted as a controlled surface contamination area. -After this issue was raised by the

. inspectors, SCE Health Physics performed a swipe survey and found no:

~-

-

,

detectable loose surface contamination in the area. The license subsequently agreed to have health physics personnel enforce ALARA-principles on a more regular basi General cleanliness within'the containment structure-ap'peared adequat , , Management Meeting

~

.The inspector met.with licensee management personnel denoted in

'

paragraph,1 at the conclusion of the inspection.on December 5, 1984. The

'scopeobservationsandfindin~gsof}theinspectionwerediscusse '

. , .-

.

,

'

> .. .e 0 -

'

b '

-

T.-

. . . - 4-d

,( 1 [

.h .-P

,.k r " 4 4 v r

,

a . ' - 4

>

>

.-_

, '

t t

'

(

!