IR 05000413/1979021
| ML19262C476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1979 |
| From: | Bryant J, Mcfarland C, Walters D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262C468 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-79-21, 50-414-79-21, NUDOCS 8002140052 | |
| Download: ML19262C476 (5) | |
Text
.
'o UNITED STATES
3 ((
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11
r
' ::
,
0[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 310C 0,
o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303o3 Report Nos. 50-413/79-21 and 50-414/79-21 Licensee: Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, Nork Carolina 28242 Facility Name:
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 License Nos. CPPR-116 and CPPR-117 Inspection at Catawba Site near Lake Wylie, Ecuth Carolina Inspectors:
/M 7'7 f C. E, cF rland Date Signed
/
7 )f j W. P. Kleinsorge Dite/ Signed A
Y i
'
IY D.'K. Walters Da'te Signed Accompanying Inspector:
? 9'9,f
/ L /y /f 9
,
.--
'CT Bria Section Chief, RC&ES Branch Date Signed Approved by:
ht gg[
/f/7/J9 3 C.~Bryauf fs'ection Chief, RC&ES Branch Dals~ Signed SUMMAkY Inspectica on November 13-16, 1979 Areas Inspected This nonroutine, announced inspection involved 94 inspector-hours by four i.nspec-tors onsite in the areas of interviewing randomly selected craf tsmen, icremen and QC inspectors related to safety-related steelwork, piping, welding, elec trical esbles and equipment and instrumentation, the evaluation of the welders qualifica-tion procedure being used with automatic welding machines, and review of preservice inspection procedures.
Results
"
Of the areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
800214o OSL
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees R. L. Dick, Vice President, Construction
- D. G. Beam, Prcject Manager
- D. L. Freeze, Froject Engineer
- R. A. Morgan, Senior QA Engineer
- S. W. Dressler, Senior Construction Engineer
- J. C. Shropshire, QA Engineer (QAE) Mechanical, Welding
- H. D. Mason, QAE Civil, Electrical AL. R. Davison, Senior QC Engineer T. H. Robertson, Construction Engineer, Civil D. E. Gadd, Construction Engineer, Welding Other licensee employees contacted including fifty-three construction craft-men, and approximately six superintendents and forty foremen who met with the inspectors to discuss interviews with craftsmen.
Other Organizations
}{artford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company J. W. Kosko, Authorized Nuclear Inspector (AN1)
C. F. Toegel, ANI Babcock and Wilcox Company NPGD C. E. Thompson, Group Leader
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 16, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. No new items of noncompliance or unresolved items were identified in the areas inspected. Two inspector followup items related to concrete placement and mechanical inspection were discussed (Paragraph Sc).
'
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items
'~
There were no new unresolved items identified during this :nspectio.
-2-5.
Interviews With Craf tsmen As a part of this inspection, private interviews were conducted by the inspectors with craf tsmen and other site workers. The principal inspector selected interviewees randomly from foremen's records of work performed on safety related equipment.
All had been onsite more than three months.
Twenty-eight workers selected in this manner were interviewed. Also, the licensee announced to the site work force that anyone else desiring to talk to the NRC should make it known to the inspectors.
Twenty-nine persons came forth and were interviewed also. These workers had been employed by DPC from six months to fourteen years.
Interviewees were asked if they had any concerns relative to the quality of construction at the site; if they weir aware of any instances when construc-tion did not meet specifications, codes or standards and corrective actions were aot taken; or if they were aware of any day-to-day irregularities cf fect:ng quality that NRC should know about. Several of those interviewed mentioned occasions where extra work was required to repair poor work caused by haste or improper planning. No one professed knowledge of any poor work that had not been found by QC and properly corrected.
An area of concern that resulted in a followup inspection was expressed as follows:
Concrete placement is done too hurriedly and results in a good deal of a.
unnecessary repair (e.g., honeycombing due to inadequate vibration).
It was stated that repairs are performed and the result is a quality placement, but if more care were taken during placement the amount of work could be reduced.
b.
An individual observed spools of wire, lumber (2" x 4" sections) and 30ft drink cans in concrete, indicating to him in.dequate cleaning or inspection of forms prior to concrete placement.
The inspectors examined this area and found that there were more voids than are noreally seen.
These were a few inches deep and were from to 3 square feet in size. Also, the piece of wood mentioned was seen. All of these areas had been marked by QC and were in various stages of rework.
Cleanliness of forms and proper vibrations are required and are documented.
This has been inspected in the past by NRC and will be reinspected. This is identified as an inspector followup item, " Concrete Form Cleanliness and Vibration Practices" (IFI) 413/414/79-21-01.
An individual was concerned over the differences between vendor and DPC mschanical installation inspection procedure requirements (i.e.,
torque reqairements) for vendor supplied safety related equipment. This will be identified as IFI 413/414/79-21-02.
,_
Other points brought up by interviewees which were not safety related but of possible concern to DPC were brought to DPC management attention for information.
No items of noncompliance or deviation were disclose.
-3-6.
Inspector Followup Item (Closed) Inspector Followup Item No. 413/414/79-17-02 Control of Welding machine settings. The inspector discussed this item with the ANI and the licensee. The inspector reviewed a project engineering memorandum dated November 16, 1979, which assign responsibility for welder qualification testing in areas outside of the weld test shop which clarified the areas not previously addressed.
7.
Preservice Inspection - Review of Procedures The inspector reviewed the preservice inspection procedures indicated in the following paragraphs to determine whether the proce ' es were consistent with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments. 'Ine applicable code for preservice and inservice inspection in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda as implemen-ted by DPC QA Program.
The follcwing procedures were revieNed in the areas of procedure approval, a.
requireme s for qualification of NDE personnel, and procedure scope:
.21-119, Rev. 2 " Ultrasonic Examination of Stainless Steel and Nickel Base Alloy Weld Scams" ISI-120, Rev. 7 " Ultrasonic Examination of Class 1 and 2 Piping Welds Joining Similar and Dissimilar Materials" ISI-240, Rev. 4 " Penetrant Examination of Weld and Base Materials Including Studs, Nuts and Washers" ISI-270, Rev. 4 " Wet or Dry Methods Of Magnetic Particle Examination of Welds, Studs, Nuts, Bolts, Washers and Pump Motor Flywheels" ISI-350, Rev. 8 " Visual Examination * of Welds and Surface Conditions" ISI-362, Rev. 6 " Identification and Layout of Welds and System Components" b.
Procedure Nos. ISI-119 and ISI-120 were reviewed for technical content in the areas of type of apparatus, iextent of coverage, calibration requirements, size and frequency of search units, beam angle, method of compensation for distance traversed by the ultrasonic beam, reference
-
level for monitoring discontinuties, method of demonstrating penetration, limits for evaluating and reporting indications, method of recording significant indications, and acceptance limit I
.
.
-4-
.
c.
Procedure No. 240 was reviewed for technical content in the areas of specified test method, brand name and specific types of penetrant materials specified, analysis for sulphur, analysis for total halogens, penetrant materials used only in combinations recommended by manufac-tures, minimum drying time, method of penetrant application, examination surface temperature, method of solvent remover, method of surface drying prior to development, type method and time of development, examination technique, examination conditions for flourescent penetrants, technique for evaluation, and requalification requirement.
In the areas inspected no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
I e
F