IR 05000400/1980023
| ML18017B327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1980 |
| From: | Blake J, Coley J, Herdt A, Kleinsorge W, Zajac L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B321 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-80-23, 50-401-80-21, 50-402-80-21, 50-403-80-21, NUDOCS 8102190770 | |
| Download: ML18017B327 (25) | |
Text
gyR RECy UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303
+a*++
Report Nos.:
50-400/80-23, 50-401/80-21, 50-402/80-21 and 50-403/80-21 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name:
Shearon Harris Docket Nos.:
50-400, 50-401, 50-402 and 50-403 License Nos.:
CPPR-158, CPPR-159, CPPR-160 and CPPR-161 Inspection at Shearon Harris site near Raleigh, North Carolina Inspectors:
J l
e J.
ey..
W.
einso e
.
A.
.
rdt
~
I L. Zajac Accompanying Per ate Signed t/
D te Signed
//
gb Date Signed lj 7/d Date Signed Approved y:
A. R.
erdt, tion Chief, RCGES Branch l6-3D-gu'ate Signed SUMMARY Inspection on September 29 - October 3, 1980 Areas Ins ected This special, unannounced inspection involved 148 inspector-hours on site in the areas of In-depth QA inspection of performance in piping installation, welding and inspection; safety-related concrete; machinery installation; housekeeping and storage of materials; previously identified inspection findings; and licensee identified items.
Results Of the 6 areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in 5 areas; 3 items of noncompliance were found in one area - (Infraction-Magnetic particle examination program - Paragraph 6.c.(2)(b); Infraction - Weld
~
~
~
~
rod control (two examples) - Paragraph 7.d.; Deficiency - QA document control "
Paragraph 6.d).
8>oa s eo77o
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- S. D. Smith, Vice President, Construction
""P.
W. Howe, Vice President, Technical Services
- N. J. Chiangi, Manager, Engineering and Construction QA-R.
M. Parsons, Site Manager A. M. Lucas, Sr. Resident Engineer
- G. L. Forehand, Principal QA Specialist-R. Hanford, Principal Engineer, Welding/Metallurgy-C. R.
Osman, Project QA Specialist
="G. M. Simpson, Principal Construction Specialist
- T. J. French, Senior Engineer
"C. S. Hinnant, Resident Engineer-Electrical E. Betz, Sr.
QA Specialist NDE Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, inspec-tors, mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.
Other Organizations-W. D. Goodman, Daniels Construction Company, Project Manager NRC Resident Inspector
- G. F. Maxwell
+Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 3, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
There was some discussion concerning the details of the infraction against the magnetic particle examination program; the unresolved item concerning the qualification of the liquid penetrant examiner and the areas of concern (Inspector Follow-up Items)
concerning the examiner's test specimen identification and the placement of the back-scatter B on the RT film.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed)
Infraction 400/80-13-01:
"Welding in the Way of Rust".
Carolina Power and Light Company's (CPRL) letter of response dated June 25, 1980 has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II.
The inspectors held discussions with the Harris Site Manager and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter of
response.
The inspectors concluded that COL had determined the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
The corrective actions identified in the letter of response have been implemented.
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 400/80-13-04, 401, 402, 403/80-11-04:
"Final Weld Peening".
This item concerns the peening of final weld layers without regard for final surface inspection.
The inspectors determined that no final weld peening had been accomplished.
The licensee has revised all welding procedures that require post weld heat treat to prohibit peening.
The inspectors have no further questions.
This item is considered closed.
C.
(Open) Infraction 400/80-15-01:
"Fabricator and Contractor Undercut".
This item concerns contractor and fabricator weld deficiencies undetected by the contractor, fabricators or licensee's QC/QA program, that were subsequently identified by an NRC inspector.
An additional example of a weld deficiency undetected by contractor or licensee QC/QA program is discussed in RII:NE 400/80-18-04:
"Containment Liner Weld Geometry".
In view of the above, this item will remain open until the licensee can provide adequate assurances through objective evidence, that the QC/QA monitoring program is capable of identifying such deficiencies, with consistency.
d.
(Open) Infraction 400/80-15-02, 401, 402, 403/80-13-02:
"Failure to Follow Reinforcing Steel Storage Procedure".
This item concerns the licensee's failure to store reinforcing steel in Level D conditions.
The inspectors noted no change in reinforcing steel storage conditions, therefore this item remains open.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which moreinformation is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 5.c., 6.c.(2)(c),
and 6.c.(3)(b).
5.
Independent Inspection Effort (Units 1, 2, 3 and 4)
a
~
Construction Progress The inspectors conducted a general inspection of the power block construction site, the pipe fabrication shop, the pipe storage area, to observe construction prog'ress and construction activities such as
'welding, nondestructive examination, material handling and control, housekeeping and storag b.
Specific Work Activities Concrete Activities The inspectors observed the placement of the final liftof concrete on concrete pour No.
1CB1W282015 on September 29, 1980.
(This is an interior wall in the Unit 1 containment.)
The inspectors observed the handling and placement techniques including amount of vertical free fall of the concrete, the horizontal distance between placements, and the use of vibration.
(2)
Heat Exchanger Installation The inspectors observed the grouting of several heat exchangers in the auxiliary building.
Activities observed included preparation of the existing concrete and the application of the grout.
(3)
Machinery Installation The inspectors observed the alignment and leveling activities associated with the installation of a Terry turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump in the auxiliary building.
The inspectors also observed the alignment and leveling operations involved with installation of the Unit 1 Polar crane rails.
During these observations the inspectors discussed the activities with the workers and foremen involved to determine their awareness of QA/QC requirements.
In both cases the crews involved were very much aware of the requirements of the jobs at hand.
c Chloride Control During the general inspection of Paragraph 5.a.
and also during other inspection activities during the week, the"inspectors made the following observations:
(1)
(2)
The inspectors noted several cans of "Winbro Tapfree" thread cutting fluid containing 1,
1, 1, Trychloroethane.
At the time of this inspection it could not be determined whether the above material was consistent with Paragraphs NB-4712, NC-4712 and ND-4712 of the ASME BRPV Code.
In addition, it could not be determined whether the licensee's site procedures addressed the requirements of Paragraph NB-4713, NC-4713 and ND-4713 of the ASME BGPV Code and the requirements of Paragraph C4 of Regulatory
,Guide 1.37.
The licensee indicated that they would look further into the matter.
The inspectors noted, several cubicals in the power block (some containing safety-related equipment) permeated with the distinctive
-4-stench of-urine.
This would have only been mentioned as a house-keeping and health concern except that in a number of areas in the power block the floor drain system is incomplete and during the rains on September 29, and 30, 1980.
The inspector noted several areas where floor drains from one level were dumpj.ng water on installed equipment on the level below.
One case in point was the stainless steel boron recycle tank in the auxiliary building.
The inspectors informed the licensee that the acceptability and/or control or the use of "Winbro Tapfree" cutting fluid would be an unresolved item identified as 50-400/80-23-06, and 50-401, 402, 403/80-21-06 "Chloride Control".
The licensee indicated that. efforts would continue to be made to improve the sanitation in the work areas.
There were no items of noncompliance or deviations identified during this area of the inspection.
6.
QA Inspection of Performance This inspection was performed to determine whether site work is being performed in accordance with NRC requirements and SAR commitments, the QA/QC program is functioning in'a manner to assure requirements and commit-ments are met, and that prompt and effective action is taken to achieve permanent corrective action on significant discrepancies.
The following areas were examined to verify the inspection objectives:
a.
Field Drawings and Work Procedures (1)
The inspectors reviewed the below listed documents to determine whether the most recent revisions of field drawings, construction specifications and work procedures are in agreement with the SAR and system drawings.
CAR-SH-M-30, Rev.
10A EBASCO Specification
"General Power Piping" CAR-1364-B070, Rev. 06
"CPRL Piping Iine List" CAR-2165-G-297, Rev.
"Flow Diagram - Service Water System" CAR"2165-G-092, Rev.
"Service and Cooling Water Piping-Turbine Building"
~
~
(2)
The inspectors reviewed the below listed documents to determine whether the design changes have been properly provided, reviewed, approved and processe Pipe Spool Fabrication/
Modification Record Turnover No.
Revision 4060 4060 4065 4065 4065 4065 1-SW"34-3 1-SW-33-4 2-SW-33-2 2-SW-167-1 2"SW-169-1 2-SW-37-1
0 0, 1&2
0 0, 182 (3)
The inspectors reviewed the below listed documents to determine whether work procedures adequately describe critical points and methods of installation as well as inspection and test hold points - to properly reflect design intent.
Number Site Specification 030, Rev.
Title
"Field Fabrication and Erection of Power Piping" Site Specification 031, Rev.
"Requirements for Field Welding of Category 1, 2, 3 and 4 or Code Class 1,
2 and 3 Piping Components and Systems at SHNPP Project" Field Inspection l
(1)
The inspectors made a detailed inspection, including physical measurements, of a portion of the service water system as indicated below to determine whether equipment or systems are installed/erected as described by field drawings and construction specifications.
FW-277 FW-281 FW-1068 FW-281 FW-311 FW"1072 2-SW"169 2-SW-33 1"SW"334 (2)
The inspectors reviewed the below listed "Pipe Spool Fabrication/
Modification Records" to determine whether such modifications were properly approved and controlled and whether appropriate procedures were followed:
Turnover No.
I Revision
'4065 4065 2-SW-169-1 2-SW-33"2
2 (3)
The inspectors interviewed craftsmen and foremen associated with safety-related'piping fabrication and installation to determine
-6-whether their level of knowledge is adequate to provide the required quality of workmanship.
c.
Quality Control QC Inspection Reports The inspectors reviewed nondestructive examination reports for the below listed welded joints to determine adequacy; whether deficiencies submitted by QC inspectors received proper corrective action where applicable; and if work and work controls were adequate.
Weld No.
FW-1069 FW-1070 FW-281 FW-279 FW-311 SWFAB-4 SWFAB-9 SWFAB-10 SWFAB-13 SWFAB-9 SWFAB"11 Drawin No.
1-SW"334 1"SW"334 2-SW"169 2"SW"169 2-SW"33 2-SW"33-2 2-SW-169-5 2-SW"169-4 2"SW"169"2 1-SW-334-4 1-SW-334"2 Joint Numbers Ins ection ASME Class I
(2)
SSW8-165SB2-FW-280 C"1-221"1-CT"12-FW"52A C-1"221"1"CT-12-FW"52 2"CT-127SBl-FW-47 1-CT-11/2165-G-116-FW-37A 1-CT"11/116&118-FW-37 2-CT-12-35A-1-FW-32 1-CT"11/2165"G"116-FW-31 2-CT-4-595A-1 Weld No.
Cl"221-1"SI-1-FW-lA 3CC"20"254-SN"1-FW"524 A2-236-1"CC-137-FW-389 A2-236-1-CC-137-FW"388 Cl-221"1-SI"2"FW"13A Cl-221"1-SI-2-FW-13 Cl-221-1"SI-1-FW"1
~
I Quality Control Inspection (a)
Liquid Penetrant Examination MT MT MT PT MT MT PT PT PT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2 The inspectors observed liquid penetrant examination of 12>>inch diameter pipe weld, 2SF149-FW407 of the spent fuel
system, to determine if the examination was performed per code requirements and licensee's written procedures.
The applicable code for nondestructive examinations is ASME Boiler and Pressure Uessel Code, Section U,
1974 Edition with addenda thru winter 1976.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
(b)
Magnetic Particle Examination The inspectors observed magnetic particle examination (MT)
of four production pipe welds, identified below, and one training test specimen, to determine whether the MT was performed in accordance with code requirements and licensee's written procedures.
The applicable code is the same as indi-cated above.
Weld Identification 2SW166-SW-1 2SW167-SW"1 2SW167-FW-264 2SW168-SW"1 Pi e Size 6 Mat'l 8" Carbon Steel 8" Carbon Steel 8" Carbon Steel 8" Carbon Steel
~Sstem Service Water Service Water Service Water Service Water The following discrepancies were noted during observations of these examinations:
The test surface was not always observed during appli-cation of the MT powder, in that illumination was not directed upon the test surface, on several occasions, until excess MT powder was being removed.
The removal of excess MT powder was done vigorously using a syringe.
It should be noted that the syringe creates high air pressure unless squeezed gently.
The air pressure from the syringe when squeezed rigorously was checked in the calibration lab on an air pressure gage and also on an oil manometer.
In each case, the pressure exceeded that recommended in the "Standard Method for Dry Powder Magnetic Particle Inspection" SE"109 which is invoked by Article 7,
"Magnetic Particle Examination" of the ASME Code,Section V.
Paragraph 5 of SE-109 states in part,
"The powder shall be applied by lightly dusting a small quantity over the surface and then removing the excess with a gentle air stream.
The air stream shall be so controlled that it does not disturb or remove lightlyheld powder patterns.
In order to recognize the broad, fuzzy, lightly held powder patterns produced by subsurface discontinuities, it is essential to observe carefully the formation of indications while the powder is being applied, and also while the excess is being removed.
Adequate lighting s
-8-shall be provided for easy observation of the indica-tions."
In view of the above observations, the inspectors requested the same team of examiners to perform a
MT test on a training test specimen in the NDE lab.
Essentially the same discrepancies were noted during this test.
The only difference was that the office lighting offered more illumination than that in the production area, but was still bordering on being inadequate.
The examiners apparently felt it was inadequate as they used a flashlight, but again did not always shine the light on the test surface during application of the MT powder.
The above examples are indicative of noncompliance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX as implemented by PSAR, Section 1.8.5.9.
This item is Infraction number 50-400/80-23-01; 401, 402, 403/ 80-21-01, "Failure of Magnetic Particle Examina-tion of Comply with ASME Code Requirements".
Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance or deviations were noted except for the infraction noted above.
(c)
Uisual Examination The inspectors observed visual examinations of five final pipe welds and two pipe joint fitups, identified below, to determine if the examinations were being performed in accor-dance with code requirements and licensee's written procedures.
In addition, the inspectors personally visually examined several completed pipe welds and one pipe weld preparation, also identified below.
The applicable Code is ASME Sections IIIand U, 1974 Editions with addenda thru winter 1976.
Veld Identification Pi e Size 6 Mat'l.'Sstem Joint Status 2SW167-SW-1 2SW168-SW-1 2SW167-FW-264 2SW167-FW"265 2SF149-FW-407 2SW166"FW-270 2SW166-FW-271 1VC153-FW-337*
1WL165-FW888 1WL164-FW883*
2SW166-FW<<270*
8" Carbon Steel 8" Carbon Steel 8" Carbon Steel 8" Carbon Steel 12" Stainless Steel 8" Carbon Steel 8" Carbon Steel 6" Carbon Steel 6" Carbon Steel 2" Stainless Steel 2" Stainless Steel 8" Carbon Steel Service Water Service Water Service Water Service Water Spent Fuel Service Water Service Water Coolant Water Waste Process Coolant Water Waste Process Waste Liquid Waste Liquid Service Water Completed Weld Completed Weld Completed Weld Completed Weld Completed Veld Joint Fitup Joint Fitup Completed Weld Completed Weld Completed Weld Completed Weld Weld End Prep
+Joints visually examined by the inspector The following discrepancies were noted:
The end of the internal counterbore on weld prep of pipe, to be welded as joint 2SW166-FW-270, had a sharp shoulder (approximately 90 ).
Figure ND-4233-1 of Section IIIspecifies a 3-1 slope in this area.
This weld prep had already been accepted by the visual examiner, however, when this condition was pointed out to him, he stated that additional work had apparently been done on the weld prep after he had accepted it.
The visual examiner had the end of the counterbore faired-in before the joint was fitup.
Prior to fairing-in, this condition was pointed out and discussed with the craftsman supervisor who considered the sharp shoulder to be acceptable.
This discrepancy apparently could be of a programmatic problem.
The licensee agreed to review this program concerning weld end preparations and ensure code require-ments are not being compromised.
This is Unresolved Item Number 50-400/80-23-04 401, 402, 403/80-21-04
"Weld End Preparation Requirements."
Two 6-inch carbon steel joints (1WC153-FW-337 and FW-338) joining a valve-to-pipe, and two stainless steel joints (1WL165-FW888 and 1WL164-FW883) joining valves-to-pipe, contained sharp transitions between the weld and the valve.
Figure 4233-1 of Section III specifies a
3-1 slope between thin and heavy wall material.
Although the joints identified above are not code welds, it appears this condition may not be uncom-mon when welding thin walled material to thick walled components or fittings.
The licensee agreed to review his program and ensure the above described conditions are not being accepted on code welded joints.
This will be Inspector Followup Item Number 50-400/80-23-07; 401, 402, 403/80-21-07
"Lack of a 3:1 Slope on Welded Joints."
Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
,(d)
Radiographic Examination The inspectors reviewed radiographic films of the weld joints, listed below, to determine whether they met code requirements and licensee's written procedures.
The applicable code is the same as that indicated abov Joint Nos.
1-CT"5-2165"G-119-SW jI1 1-CT-3"2165-G-119-FW j/156 1-CT-9-2165-G-119-FW jI199 1-CT-8"2165"G-119-FW 8188 1-CT-4-2165-G>>119-FW j/168 1-CT-8-2165-G-119"FW f/190
~Set em Containment Spray Containment Spray Containment Spray Containment Spray Containment Spray Containment Spray In addition, the inspectors reviewed spot radiographs of the welds listed below on the component cooling heat exchangers.
Serial Nos.
19A5806-1 and 2, 19A5808-1 and 2, 19A5810-1 and 2 and 19A5812-1 and 2 which had been accepted by Westinghouse Electric Corporation and rejected by CP&I,.
The applicable code for this radiography is ASME Boiler 8 Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 1971 Edition thru summer 1973 addenda and Section VIII (UW-.52).
Item 19A5806-1-X616 19A5806-2-X629 19A5808-1"X641 19A5&10-1-X653 19A5810.2"X670 19A5812-1-657 19A5812-1-X673 19A5812-2-X669 Spot G"2, Spot G-3, Spot Seam I-2Rl 2-3 Seam L-2R2 3-4 Spot G"2, Spot G"5, Spot Spot G-2, Spot G-4, Spot Spot G-8 Spot G-l, Spot G-2, Spot Spot G-4, Spot G-5, Spot Spot G-l, Spot G-5, Spot Spot G"8 Spot G-l, Spot G-6, Spot Spot G-9 Seam L-2 and Seam L-1 Spot G"1; Spot G-2, Spot Spot G-4, Spot G"9 G-4 G-6 G-5)
G-3, G-6 G-7, G-7)
G-3, CP&L's original rejection of the radiographs and subsequent acceptance of the heat exchangers was documented in Deficiency and Disposition Report No. 374A which is discussed in Para-graph 6.d. herein.
During review of the dark ro'om and associated equipment, it was noted that the lead letter "B", used to detect back scattering on a. radiographic film, was positioned at the edge of the film cassette in many cases.
In this location the lead letter "B" may not always be positioned behind the specimen being radiographed, e.g.,
2-inch diameter and smaller pipe.
This was confirmed when the inspectors observed a 2-inch welder qualification test specimen being radiographed.
The pipe was placed in the center of the cassette such that the letter "B" would not have been under the pip After a discussion concerning the fact that the purpose of the letter "B" is compromised if it is not located behind the specimen being radiographed, the "B" was re-positioned for the radiography of the welder qualification specimen.
The licensee agreed to review procedures to ensure that the letter is located behind the specimen.
This action will be reviewed in subsequent inspections and is identified as Inspector Follow-up Item No. 50-400/80-23-09,40-401, 402, 403/80-21-09
"Placement of Iead Letter "B" on Film Cassette."
Within the areas examined, there were no items of noncompliance or deviations noted.
(3)
Quality Control Inspectors (a)
Discussions with Nondestructive Examiners The inspectors held discussions with three liquid penetrant examiners, four magnetic particle examiners, one NDE supervisor and one I,evel III examiner.
The discussions centered on:
a How they carry out procedural requirements.
b Whether they had the necessary qualifications for the level of work being performed.
c Whether they felt their findings received proper attention.
(b)
Review of Qualification Records The inspectors reviewed the qualification records for indi-viduals qualified to perform.. visual, liquid penetrant, magnetic particle and radiographic examinations.
The following discrepancies were noted:
A certified liquid penetrant examiner failed the color perception test in that the vision records for June 28, 1979, show 14 of 15 color plates were incorrectly read.
Remarks on this vision record indicate the individual has a red/green color deficiency.
The inspector con-sidered that additional color testing should have been administered to ensure the individual is capable of distinguishing the colors pertinent to the NDE he is to perform.
The Level III examiner stated that the test specimen given to the individual for the practical exam verified this ability to distinguish the appropriate colors as he is required to evaluate the test result The NRC inspectors requested that the four test specimens, given this individual, be penetrant tested in order to see the type of defects displayed by the test pieces.
Of the four test pieces penetrant tested, two had no
'ndications, one had a visual saw cut which also showed as a penetrant indication and the fourth test piece had two branch connection welds -
one weld having four small indications the other having none.
In analyzing the above, the subject individual may not have demonstrated his capability to see penetrant indications, since the saw cut can be seen visually and would draw the individual's attention to this area and since the records do not indicate which branch connection weld was penetrant tested.
Thus, the individual may not have penetrant tested any specimens with defects.
The licensee agreed to examine the action taken to ensure the subject individual is capable of distin-guishing penetrant indications and also magnetic particle indications as it was noted that he is also qualified in magnetic particle.
This is Unresolved Item Number 50-400/80-23-05; 50-401, 402, 403/80-21-05
"Verify color perception of liquid penetrant/magnetic particle examiner."
The Ievel III examiners have numerous test specimens for the practical examination in visual, liquid pene-trant and magnetic particle qualifications, but there are no records on file which illustrate the test piece and describes the type and location of defects/indica-tions or unacceptable conditions in these test specimens.
Consequently, the Level III examiner must remember what defects existed, or assume the examiner candidate detected all existing defects/indications.
Since several of the test specimens have no defects (as indicated above in 1) it appears the practical exami-nation may not be adequate to verify an examiner condidate's ability to detect defects.
The licensee should review this program and ensure it meets the intent of code requirements.
This will be Inspector Follow-up Item Number 50-400/80-23-08; 50-401, 402, 403/80-21-08
"Formal Records of Qualification Test Specimens."
I I
(4)
Quality Control Procedures The inspectors reviewed CPSL's Nondestructive Examination Proce-dures listed below to determine whether the procedures meet code requirements, are adequate to properly control the work, and are
-13-detailed to instruct,the QC inspector on exactly what he should be looking for (especially acceptance criteria)
when making inspections or observing test.
Procedure No.
Title NDEP-101, Rev.
NDEP-201, Rev.
NDEP-301, Rev.
NDEP-402, Rev.
NDEP-601, Rev.
NDEP-10, Rev.
NDEP-50, Rev.
Radiographfc Examination Liquid Penetrant Examination Magnetic Particle Examination Ultrasonic Examination of Welds Visual Examination of Welds Training Qualification and Certification of Nondestructive Examination Personnel Qualification of Nondestructive Examination Procedures.
Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
d.
Nonconforming Items Reports (NCR)
The inspectors reviewed selected reports of construction discrepancies in the form of Deficiency and Disposition Reports (DDRs).
Corrective action was examined to verify that:
(1)
The action taken corrected the items, (2)
determined the cause of the deficiency, (3)
considered the reportability to NRC, and (4)
instituted effective action to prevent recurrence.
DDRs reviewed included the following:
$/ 400 DDR N 390 DDR 8 381 DDR N 380 DDR N 379 DDR fj 377-DDR 0 374A DDR j/ 371 DDR 9 370 DDR 5/. 359 DDR jj 355 DDR jj 354 DDR jj 352 DDR jj 373
+During review of DDR $j 374A the inspectors noted the following problem:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation provided CPRL technical justification for acceptance of the welds and radiographs discussed in Paragraph 6.c.(2)(d).
This justification included fracture analysis of a SA 285 Grade C steel heat exchanger to determine the possibility of failure due to a small flaw detected radiographically.
The results of the analysis showed that the critical defect size for failure is in excess of 5.5 inche A small flaw growing subcritically would penetrate through the thick-ness causing a leakage which would be detected long before this critical size would be reached.
CPM subsequently accepted the welds and radiographs in question.
The inspectors noted during the data review that portions of the Westinghouse technical justification were missing from the official records file.
The missing copies were subsequently found and incorporated as part of the official records.
Failure of CPSL to control official records is in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, Quality Assurance Records.
This is Deficiency Number 50-400/80-23-03; 401, 402, 403/80-21-03
<<QA Documentation Control."
Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified except for the deficiency noted above.
Materials and Equipment (1)
The inspectors examined/reviewed the items and certification documentation for the below listed components to determine if meaningful inspections were made to verify that material meets specifications and to what degree the licensee/contractor had inspected or verified performance by the vendor; item meets design and purchase order requirements; and the documentation is adequate; and the item meets design intent.
Component Heat or Control No.
Unit 8<<90o Sch 100 Elbow 8<<x 0.500<<Pipe 8<<x 0.500<<Pipe 8<< 90'Sch 100 Elbow 8<< x 0.500 Pipe 8<< x 0.500 Pipe E1XZ I84062 N93114 W4633 I63647 L 62089
2182
2
(2)
Welding material purchasing and receiving records for the following materials were reviewed for conformance with applicable procedures and code requirements:
Size Heat/Iot/Control No.
7018 7018 7018 1/8<<
3/32" 3/32<<
421C9521 411H7461 421E5462 (3)
/he inspectors reviewed the purchase documents and certification records for the liquid penetrant materials listed below to ensure
<hey met the code requirements concerning total amounts of sulfur and halogens permitte Material
~pe Batch No.
Liquid Penetrant Penetrant Cleaner Developer SKL-S SKC-S SKD"S 78L097 78C056 78B082 Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
f.
Audits The inspectors reviewed the results of corporate audits in the area of welding and NDE.
The results reviewed were Audit Reports No.
QAA/
170-2 and QAA/170-3 and the exit meeting notes from Audit No. QAA/170-4, dated September 16, 1980.
(At the time of this inspection QAA/170"4 Audit Report had not been issued.
During the review of these audits and the reports of required correc-tive actions, there were no items of noncompliance or deviations noted.
g.
Craft QC Training The inspectors reviewed the outlines for the training courses which have been presented to the craft welding personnel.
The outlines reviewed were as follows:
(1)
Welder Craft Training - This is an introductory lecture for new hire welders which introduces the welder to the QA/QC requirements of the welding at this site.
(2)
Weld Symbol Identification Training - This is a special course instituted recently to ensure that craft personnel involved with hanger installation were familiar with welding symbols used in the hanger fabrication drawings.
This course was instituted after the NRC resident inspector identified some problems with improper weld symbols on some hanger sketches and additional problems with welder and foremen that did not know what the weld symbols meant and were guessing as to how much weld to apply in some cases.
(This course was also given to office personnel in the Engineering and QA Units.)
During the inspections of work activities the inspectors questioned various welding personnel to determine their knowledge of the i.tems covered in the training courses.
There were no items of noncompliance or deviations in this area of the inspectio Safety-Related Piping (Unit 1)
The inspectors observed welding work activities for safety-related piping as described below to determine whether applicable code and procedure requirements were being met.
The applicable code for safety-related piping is the ASME B&PV Code, 1974 Edition with addenda through winter 1976.
a.
Welding The below listed welds were examined in process to determine work conducted in accordance with traveler; welder identification and location; welding procedure; WPS assignment welding technique and sequence; material identity; weld geometry; fit-up; temporary attach-ments; gas purging; preheat; electrical characteristics; shielding gas; welding equipment condition; interpass temperature; interpass cleaning; process control systems; identity of welders; qualification of inspection personnel; and weld history records.
Joint No.
Unit Size Stage of Fabrication
~S stem MS-31"PW-286
34" x 2.000 Welding Out Main Steam With regard to the above inspection, the inspectors noted the following discrepancies:
(1)
A portable oven was unplugged and the welding rods within were cold.
These rods were drawn for use on the subject joint.
However, at the time of discovery, the rods had not quite been out of a heated atmosphere beyond the required maximum.
(2)
Welding rods (7018) lying on top of the work area for use on the subject joint were wet from rain dripping through the overhead shelter.
The accompanying site ANI and the welding inspector stopped any further welding and requested radiography of the partially filled joint.
The radiographs did not show any unacceptable defects per the report of the ANI.
The above discrepancies are indicative of poor welding controls.
b.
Weld Heat Treatment The inspectors reviewed the CPSZ program for weld heat treatment for comply.ance with QA procedure and code requirements.
The weld listed in Paragraph a.
above was examined in process relative to weld joint preheating to determine; procedures available; procedures specify acceptable preheating method; procedures provide monitoring and recording requirements and procedure complianc c.
Welder Qualification The inspectors reviewed the CPRL program for qualification of welders and welding operators for compliance with QA procedures and ASHE Code requirements.
The following welder qualification status records and
"Records of Performance Qualification Test" were reviewed relative to the weld joint listed in Paragraph a. above.
A lication B-49 A-92 DCC DCC Safety-Related Piping Safety-Related Piping d.
Welding Material Control The inspectors reviewed the COL programs for control of welding materials to determine whether materials are being purchased, accepted, stored and handled in accordance with QA procedures and applicable code requirements.
The following specific areas were examined:
Purchasing procedures, receiving, storing, distributing and hand-ling procedures, Material identification, Inspection of welding material issuing stations Welding material purchasing and receiving records for the fol-lowing materials were reviewed for conformance with applicable procedures and code requirements:
GTAW 70S6 3/32" 661C107 GTAW 70S6 1/8" 661C107 SMAW 7018 3/32" 421C8671 SMAW - Shielded metal arc welding GTAW - Gas tungsten arc welding COL CPRL CPSL During a walk-through inspection of the auxiliary building October 2, 1980, the inspectors note that an electrode caddy filled with 7018 electrode had been left unattended and not plugged in, the electrodes were cold to the touch.
When advised of the problem, the licensee's welding inspectors verified the problem and generated Nonconformance Report No.
NCR W-123 citing a violation of site procedure HP-03, Rev. 9, Paragraph 3.12.
This incident along with that described in Paragraph 7.a.,
above, were examples of a
noncompliance against 10 CFR"50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
This is Infraction Number 50-400/80-23-02; 50-401, 402, 403/80-21-02,
"Weld Rod Control.
No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in this area of the inspectio.
Licensee Identified Items (50.55 (e) )
~
~
a.
New 50.55(e) Items Prior to this inspection the licensee identified the following items as potentially reportable items.
(1)
Epoxy type coating was omitted on a vertical weld area 5-feet long and 8 inches wide on a seismic liner plate located in the containment building.
Acceptability of the coating on the remainder of the plate is also questionable.
EBASCO and CPSL are evaluating.
This item will be evaluated during subsequent inspec-tions.
For the record, the above will be identified as Iicense Identified Item 400/80-23-10,
"Coating Deficiencies".
(2)
Deficiencies in field welds for 5 pipe hangers have been identified by CPSI
.
Deficient weld symbols identified on Bergen-Paterson drawings.
Wrong welds were made on some field welds.
This item will be evaluated during subsequent inspections.
For the record the above will be identified as Licensee Identified Item 400/
80-23-11; "Pipe Hanger Deficiencies".
9.
Inspector Follow-up Items a.
(Closed)
400, 401/79-20-02:
"Studs Certified Material Test Reports".
This item concerns vendor provided certificates of compliance for studs vice Certified Material Test Reports (CMTR)
as required by Paragraph CC-2624 of the ASME BRPV Code.
The licensee has requested and received stud base qualification reports from all their stud vendors, thus completing the documentation required by CC-2624.
The inspectors reviewed the above documents and have no further questions.
This item is considered closed.
b.
(Closed) 400, 401, 402, 403/80-03-02:
"Welding Procedure Weave Width."
The inspector reviewed the revisions which had been made to the licen-see's welding procedures to provide better description of "weave-" and
"stringer-Bead" welding techniques.
This will help to ensure that welders and welding inspectors examine weld deposits using the same criteria.
Co (Closed) 400/80-13-02, 401, 402, 403/80-11-02:
"Interrupted Preheating".
This item concerns procedural inadequacy in the area of weld preheat maintenance.
The licensee revised COL Procedures MP-04 and MP-06 to reflect the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.50.
The inspectors have no further questions.
This item is considered closed.
d.
(Closed)
400/80-13-03, 401, 402, 403/80-11-03:
"Flux Storage".
This item concerns procedural inadequacy in the area of submerged arc welding flux storage.
The licensee has determined that no submerged arc welding is anticipated and therefore removed the flux storage requirements from their procedures.
The inspectors have no further questions.
This item is considered close (Closed)
400/80-18-04:
"Containment Weld Geometry".
This item con-cerns a notch condition between weld metal and base material the licensee rejected 21-feet of weld and made repairs to the rejected weld area.
The inspectors reviewed records for the above and have no further questions.
This item is considered closed.
I
~
~