IR 05000382/1981004
| ML20003F320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1981 |
| From: | Crossman W, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003F316 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-81-04, 50-382-81-4, NUDOCS 8104200594 | |
| Download: ML20003F320 (5) | |
Text
.
.
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-382/81-04 Docket No. 50-382 Category A2
,
Licensee:
Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Facility: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3 Inspection at: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3 Inspection conducted:
February 2-5, 1981
.3 3!M Inspector:
c : r_
R. C. Stewart, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
[ Tate Approved-
-
3[8
/-
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date Inspection Sunnary:
Inspection on February 2-5, 1981 (Report No. 50-382/81-04)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activities l
related to a follow-on review of previously identified unresolved items and l
previously identified inspection findings.
The inspection involved twenty-eight inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No' violations or deviations were identified.
81042005Mr
.
.
.
.
-
.
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Emoloyees
- T. Gerrets, QA Manager
- B. Brown, QA Engineer
- B. Toups, QA Engineer
'
- L. Bass, Project QA Manager R. Sandridge, QC Engineering Technician R. Gautreau, Project Coordinator G. Pittman, QA Engineer R. Bennett, QA Engineer J. Woods, QC Engineer (Operations)
Other Personnel R. Hartnett, QA Site Supervisor, Ebasco L. Stinson, Site QC Program Manager, Ebasco R. Ronquillo, QA Manager, Gulf Engineering (Gulf)
J. Gore, Site QA Manager, Tompkins-Beckwith (T-B)
The IE inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel including members of the engineering and QA/QC staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinos (Closed) Unresolved (50-382/y Tubing-To-Coupling Weld Misalignment.
During a previous inspection p-22):
and in conjunction with the Mercury Company t
I procedures review, the IE inspector conducted a review of tubetrack and tubing installations at the -35 foot level in the Auxiliary Building.
An inspectionof installed tubing was conducted on the following panels:
R-30 C-32 C-36 C-38 C-39 1/IE Inspection Report No. 50-382/80-22, paragraph 3.b.,
dated September 26, 1980 l-2-
.
_ _.
.
.
-
.
.
.
During the IE inspector's observation of completed work on Panel No. C-39,
,
it was observed by the IE inspector that the tubing-to-coupling weld of Line No. FIS-FW-8333 OASH-H at the top of the cabinet appeared to have an unacceptable coupling alignment prior to welding.
In addition, it was observed that the Weld Data Report Form 197-1, for this specific weld, indicated acceptance by the QC inspector.
Since observation of this panel tubing work was made at the close of the IE inspection and actual physical alignment measurerents were not made at the time, this matter was con-sidered unresolved pending follow up by the licensee in determining the acceptability of misalignment and a subsequent review of this matter by the IE inspector.
During subsequent site visits and additional discussions with the licensee representatives regarding this matter, it was established by physical evidence that the misalignment was apparently due to someone stepping on the tubing which bent the tubing, causing a negative slope.
During this inspection, the IE inspector reviewed the corrective action taken with regard to repairing the particular tubing-to-coupling misalign-ment. The IE inspector observed that a Nonconformance Report (NCR) No.133, dated September 8,1980, was initiated ar.d the recommended disposition completed January 5, 1981.
Corrective action included the repair and inspection of the damaged tubing in accordance with ASME III, Class 3 require-ments.
In addition, the IE inspector observed the completed repair and conducted an observation of other instrument / tubing installations to inspect the protection of completed and/or partial installations. The IE inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
This item is considered closed.
Duringapreviousinspectionp3):
(0 pen) Infraction (50-382/B0p Failure to Follow Inspection Procedures.
, the IE inspector observed that a Component Cooling System Pipe Weld No. FW-2, shown on Isometric No. 5 of Drawing 8469-2516-R, was found to have been reworked after final inspection such that a potential stress riser remained.
A review of installation records revealed that both visual and liquid penetrant inspection had been per-formed and that the weld had been accepted.
Surface condition of the weld was unacceptable as defined by Tompkins-Beckwith Procedure TBP-26.
By letter, dated April 18, 1980, the licensee stated that Tompkins-Beckwith's
,
l corrective action included the repair and reinspection of Field Weld FW-2 and the revision to Tompkins-Beckwith Procedure TBP-41 (Revision C),
" Nondestructive Examinations," which will reflect the following requirements:
,
The QC inspector, upon acceptance of Item #29, Form 11009, shall l
inspect weld and adjacent base metal to ensure it is properly pre-pared for NDE; i.e., PT, MT.
If the weld is ready, the inspector will prepare an NDE Request (Form GP-723-14, Revision 2) and notify l
2/IE Inspection Report No. 50-382/80-03, dated March 18, 1980 l
l
-
.
-
__ _
- -..
_
_
_
__
,
_-
_
._
-
__.
.
.
~
.
,
.
Peabody Testing of the required tests.
(Note:
The QC inspector's
.
signature on this request also indicates the weld is in an acceptable final visual condition).
If the NDE is acceptable, the QC inspector shall reinspect the weld and indicate final visual acceptance in Item #31. The inspector shall insert one copy of the request in the traveler packet and forward Form 11009 to the QC welding engineer.
Should the weld be NDE rejected, minor grinding or machining shall be permitted to remove the rejectable areas and the above sequence
'
performed again by the inspector.
In addition, the licensee stated that Tompkins-Beckwith will visually reinspect all Class 3 welds made prior to March 17, 1980, to ensure that the acceptance criteria, defined in Tompkins-Beckwith Procedure TBP-26, Revision H has not been violated after the final acceptance of the welds by Tompkins-Beckwith Quality Control.
During this inspection, the IE inspector observed that the Tompkins-Beckwith Procedure TBP-41, Revision C, dated May 28, 1980, was revised and reflects the above requirements.
In addition, repairs, inspection and acceptance of FW-2, Isometric No. 5, Drawing 8469-2515-R was completed on March 12, 1980.
In discursion with the licensee reoresentatives, the IE inspector was informed that, although visual re-examination on Class 3 welds made prior to March 17, 1980, was initiated, it is estimated that over 2,000 welds
,
are involved; therefore, the reinspections were not comolete.
It is now estimated that this work will be completed by April 1,1981.
The IE inspector informed the licensee that this matter will remain open pending IE review of the QC documentation at the comoletion of the rein-l spection of the Class 3 welds.
(0 pen) Infraction (50-382/80-09):
Failure to Follow Contract Procedures t
During a previous IE Relative tgf,he Care of Safety-Related Piping.
inspection-the IE inspector noted, on April 23, 1980, during a backshift l
inspection, three spools of Component Cooling Water Piping lying directly on the concrete flooring in the Reactor Containment Building at elevation 0.
The piping spools (3CC-10-13A/B-11, 3CC-10-57 and 3CC-10-338-22-1) were not segregated from the storage of other materials to minimize damage. These other materials included reinforcing steel, tools, pieces of scaffolding,
and other items apparently used by the construction trades working in the area.
In response to the infraction and by letter, dated June 20, 1980, the licensee stated that the Tompkins-Beckwith Project Manager took l
3/IE Inspection Report No. 50-382/80-09, dated May 21, 1980 I-4-
..
. - -.. -.
_
.-
-
.
.
.
.
..
intnediate action following the NRC exit interview of April 25, 1980, by contacting the Reactor Containment Building Superintendent to request that he correct the deficient condition of the stored material. The Tompkins-Beckwith Project Manager also requested the QA Supervisor to initiate additional scheduled QC surveillances for housekeeping and CMI compliance.
In addition, surveillance inspections are being perfonned by Quality Control in accordance with Tompkins-Beckwith Procedure TBP-46, once
'
every two weeks in order to prec'ade recurrence of the subject condition.
During this inspection, the IE inspector made an inspection of the house-keeping conditions during a plant walk-through and observed that pipe spool segregation and protection were being maintained.
During discussions with the LP&L cognizant QA engineer, it was established, by documentation, that bimonthly area surveillance inspections are being conducted by Tompkins-Beckwith QA/QC inspectors; however, the documentation does not clearly indicate what areas contain stored pipe spools or are normally used for storage so that inspection of the areas every two weeks is ensured. This matter was not clarified prior to the close of the IE inspection on February 5,1981.
This matter will remain open pending a follow-up review by the IE inspector during a subsequent NRC site visit.
3.
Construction Deficiency Reports (CDRs)
During this inspection, the IE inspector reviewed with the LP&L QA Manager, the current status and progress of the final reports of seven CDRs currently outstanding.
The seven CDRs were: CDR-8,15,17,18,19, 20 and 21.
It was determined that all seven matters were being pursued; however, none were resolved for final close out.
No violations or deviations were identified.
[
l 4.
Site Tour The IE inspector walked through various construction and storage areas to observe construction activities in progress and to inspect the ueneral state of cleanliness and adherence to housekeeping requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
!
5.
Exit Interview I
The IE inspector net with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
on February 5,1981, and summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
i
- 5-l l