IR 05000445/1986025
| ML20211E902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1987 |
| From: | Barnes I, Phillips H, Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211E887 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-86-25, 50-446-86-21, NUDOCS 8702240438 | |
| Download: ML20211E902 (9) | |
Text
,
.
.
APPENDIX i
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION REPORT U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
NRC Inspection Report:
50-445/86-25 Permits: CPPR-126 50-446/86-21 CPPR-127 Dockets: 50-445 Category: A2 50-446 Applicant: Texas Utilities Electric Company Construction Permits Skyway Tower Expiration Date:
400 North Olive Street Unit 1: August 1, 1988 Lock Box 81 Unit 2: August 1, 1987 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
Units 1 & 2 Inspection At: Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted:
September 1-30, 1986 Inspectors:
[-
M/
- ////77 N. S. PhT lips, Sen or Resident Reactor Date d
Inspector, Construction, Region IV CPSES Group (paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10)
/,n/AnL
/ 30 07 R. L. Spessard, Depjity Director, Division of Da'te Inspection Progrdms, Office of Inspection and Enforcement NM ZAMf7 Approved:
I. Barnes, Chief, P.egion IV CPSES Group Date 0[O kb f
a
r
-
s
Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted:
September 1-30, 1986 (Report 50-445/86-25)
Areas Ins >ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of applicant actions on previous (RC inspection findings, posting of NRC regulations and delta ferrite testing.
Results:' Within ~the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
Inspection Conducted:
September 1-30, 1986 (Report 50-446/86-21)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of plant status, general-plant inspections, applicant actions on previous NRC inspection findings, posting of NRC regulations, safety injection pipe welding, nondestructive examination (NDE) of pipe welding, delta ferrite testing, and fire protection / prevention.
Results: Within the eight areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
w
-
. -
v DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted Applicant Personr:e1
- J. Barker, Engineering Assurance Manager, Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCo)
,
- T. Brandt, Quality Engineer, EBASCO
- T. Braudt, Senior Engineer, TUGCo
- R. Camp, Project Manager, Unit 1, TUGCo
- P. Halstead, Manager, Quality (Control (QC), TUGCo
- D. McAfee, Quality Assurance QA) Manager,TUGCo
- J. Krechting, Director.of Engineering, TUGCo
- J._Merritt, Director of Construction, TUGCo D..Noss,' Quality Engineer, TUGCo
- J. Redding,-Executive Assistant, TUGCo
- D.'Reynerson, Project Manager, Unit 2, TUGCo
- J. Streeter, Director of Quality Assurance, TUGCo Contractor Personnel R. Baker, Assistant Manager Regulatory Compliance, Brown &
Root,.Inc. (B&R)
R. Gottard, Quality Assurance Specialist, B&R The NRC inspector also interviewed other applicant employees during this inspection period.
- Denotes personnel present at the October 9, 1986, exit interview.
2.
Plant Status, Unit 2 The NRC inspector discussed the status of work with TUGCo managercent.
Project status reports were also reviewed. B&R Construction has turned over approximately 56 percent of the subsystems to TUGCo Startup and overall construction is about 83 percent complete.
3.
General Plant Inspections, Unit 2 At various times during the inspection period, the NRC inspector conducted general inspections of the Unit 2 reactor, safeguards, auxiliary, electrical / control, and diesel generator buildings.
Virtually all of the rooms in these buildings were inspected to observe current work activities or major safety related equipment which was stored in place. The storage conditions inside these buildings and the storage area for steel supports located just outside Unit 2 were also inspected.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
-
,-
.
s e
4-4.
Applicant Actions on Previous NRC Inspection Findings. Units 1 and 2 a.
(Closed) Violation (445/8323-V-01): Radiographs of a Class 1 field weld (FW)FW-17exceededthefilmdensitylimitsofminus15%orplus 30% through the body of the penetrameter.
The NRC inspector reviewed TUGCo response to this violation of Article 2, paragraph T-263.2 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section.III, Division 1.
Nonconformance Report M-6492, dated May 12, 1983, documented this deficiency and the corrective action; 1.e., the y
re-radiographing of FW-17 which produced film with acceptable densities. The NRC inspector verified that the radiograph of FW-17 t
,
is acceptable by reviewing NDE Report RT No. 30495 and by observing the measurement of the film density. Training was conducted to emphasize meeting this requirement and was documented on a training
record, dated May 12, 1983. Nine inspectors attended this training.
,
b.
(Closed)UnresolvedItem(445/8422-U-04):
Brand Industrial Services, Inc., (BISCO) certifications did not specifically state that materials meet test requirements.
The NRC inspector's followup determined that BISCO wrote TUGCo a letter which stated that their statement on the certificate of conformance that "all applicable purchase order specification requirements" were met included the requirements of ASTM E-119 and
IEEE 634. That is, Gibbs & Hill specification No. 2323-MS-38F includes these requirements which was referenced on the certificate of conformance and included in the certification statement.
c.
(Closed)UnresolvedItem(445/8507-V-05;446/8505-V-03): Accuracy ranges for same scales (MTE 779 and 780) were different on various-calibration reports.
The NRC inspector reviewed B8R letter to file from J. D. Martin dated June 30, 1985. This documentation agreed with the subject finding; however, the'one calibration report dated April 16, 1975 which showed a calibration error was within the + 0.2% tolerance.
_
d.
(Closed)OpenItem(445/8511-0-36): Several typographical errors were found in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
The NRC inspector reviewed file TI-188 which contained TUGCo office memo dated November 19, 1985, which stated that numerous changes and corrections to the FSAR were made in Amendment 55. The file also included a specific request for FSAR changes regarding the subject errors.
In addition, Procedure DQP-QE-3, CPSES QA Plan " Updating,"
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ - - _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
_ ___
. _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.,
.
.
.
Revision 0, dated November 18, 1985, describes the process for changing both the FSAR and the TUCGo QA plan.
It appears that changes were made in accordance with this procedure.
The NRC inspector reviewed several previously identified findings in the following reports: 50-445/8507, 50-446/8505 and 50-445/8514, 50-446/8511.
A detailed review of TUGCo responses (TXX-4727 and TXX-4779 for the respective reports) and files on site raised additional questions about corrective actions described in these responses. An NRC letter will require supplemental information.
No violation or deviations were identified.
l 5.
Inspection of The Posting of NRC Regulations, Units 1 and 2 The NRC inspector observed all bulletin boards posted within the confines of Unit 2 construction area and one on the Unit 1 side which included the following areas:
a.
North-west side of the time office b.
East of time office in personnel access lane c.
West side of construction admin (B&R)
d.
Eastsideofconstructionadmin(0PGM)
e.
West side of first aid facilities f.
South of the salary brass shack g.
South side of security post No. 203 h.
Brown & Root personnel office 1.
North west of TNE-BLDG (old pipe fab shop)
j South side of task force modules k.
North entrance to turbine No. 2 bldg 1.
North side of paper flow group modules m.
West side E.E.C. completed (old hoghouse)
The NRC inspector found that on each of the boards the following information was posted:
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Section 206
.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 223b
.
NRC Fonn 3 (with region and headquarter numbers)
.
Sumary of Construction Permit
.
Sumary of License / Licenses
.
Sumary of 10 CFR Part 19
.
Sumary of 10 CFR Part 20
.
-
_
_
. _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
.
Suninary of 10 CFR Part 21
.
Resident Inspector Poster (with picture and telephone number on
.
selected boards)
All postings were satisfactory except NRC form 3 on board No. 11 which had faded out and portions were illegible. This condition was immediately corrected.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Safety Injection System Pipe Welding, Unit 2 The NRC inspector reviewed welding records for the welds shown on as-built Drawing BRP-SI-2-RB-023 Revision 5, to determine if welding was accomplished in accordance with Brown & Root ASME Welding Procedure CP-CPM-6.9C, "(Appendix G) Documentation For ASME Welding, Fabrication, and Installation Activities." Weld data cards, NDE reports, and weld filler metal logs were reviewed to verify that cleanliness, fitup, preheat NDE and filler material requirements were accomplished in accordance with procedural requirements for the following welds: 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
NDE of Safety Injection Welds, Unit 2 The NRC inspector viewed 20 radiographs of welds in the 10-inch safety injection line which runs from accumulator (TCX-SIATAT-03) to the reactor coolant loop (where the loop continues on BRP-RC-2-RB-062). The welds inspected were identified as field weld (FW) FW-2 FW-3, FW-7a, and 8a on Drawing BRP-SI-2-RB-023. The radiographic (RT) reports (RT-17840, RT-8753 and RT-15542) and the corresponding radiographs showed that these examinations are in accordance with QI-QAP-10.2-3, Revision 4
" Radiographic Examination"; and Q1-QAP-10.2-3A, Revision 2.
" Nondestructive Examination Instruction For Radiography Documentation."
Similarly, 15 radiographs and RT test reports for safety injection line on Drawing BRP-SI-2-RB-078 were observed and records were reviewed to determine compliance with the above procedures which compare with ASME Section V, Article 2 requirements. The NDE of these welds complied with recuirements for the following:
placement of markers, sensitivity, weld anc; penetrameter density, acceptance criteria and radiographic technique information.
No violations or deviations were identifie...
.
<
8.
Delta Ferrite Testing, Unit I and 2
-
j.
a.
Requirements
,
The NRC inspector reviewed FSAR Appendix 1A(B) which lists l-commitments to NRC Regulatory Guides (RG). TUGCo connitted to l
control the delta ferrite content in stainless steel weld metal as described in RG 1.31. This document recommends an average ferrite
,
l number of 5 to 20 to prevent microfissures which studies have related to low delta ferrite in austenitic stainless steel weld
'
metal.
Paragraph 3.18.4 of Brown & Root Procedure CP-CPM-6.9D, Revision 7, describes the implementation of controls to assure that delta ferrite is present in sufficient amounts to prevent these potentially adverse l
conditions from occurring.
b.
Verification Testing The NRC inspector requested the calibration and use of delta ferrite tester MTE 726. A BAR technician obtained the weld test pads (WTP)
where free bare wire filler material had been deposited on copper base pads to 1/2-inch thickness by 2 1/2 inches in length per RG 1.31. The NRC inspector selected test pads which represented lots
of bare wire filler material received from vendors (ARCOS and i
l Sandvik) and were tested in 1980,1981, and 1983. Verification l
test (VT)results(whenvaluesareroundedoff)comparewithoriginal l
test (OT) as follows:
l l-Heat Lot No.
!
746100 ER316 3/32 004 9.7 9.4 l
D2061R316 ER316 1/8J 025 5.7 4.7 l
2537U309 ER309 1/16 059 15.5 15.0 l
X 1/8K l
- 464425 ER316 1/16 079 11.0 11.0
- Last lot received on site.
!
c.
Review of Test Records The NRC inspector reviewed the test log which showed the test results
'
for pads 001 through 079; i.e., representing 79 lots received from 1980 through 1983. All test results were acceptable and testing was witnessed by B&R inspectors.
The following BAR data cards contain test results which represent actual testing of welds instead of pads. All test results, were acceptable.
L
...
Unit Line/ Spool Field Weld Data tird
Loop 3
4747
Loop 3
4746
Loop 4
4754
Loop 3
4744
Loop 4
4750
RH-1-024-2501 R1
5368
RH-1-208-151 R2 2B 10350
RH-1-028-158 R2
3433
CT-2-068-301 R2
10084
CT-2-068-301 R2 26A 13261
CT-2-068-301 R2
10082 1 and 2 DD-2-16-151-3
8441 d.
Random Field Testing The NRC inspector randomly selected the following field welds for testing:
System Field VT Ferrite BRP Wilt No.
LTne No.
Safety
9.6 SI-2-RB-023 Injection Safety Injection
9.8 SI-2-RB-023 No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Fire Prevention / Protection, Unit 2 The NRC inspector observed all Unit 2 building areas and found that approximately 50 hand held fire extinguishers were properly spaced and located for insnediate use. They had been inspected by BAR in September 1986. Two fire hose stations were observed.
In areas where paints and solvents were being used, the NRC inspector observed no smoking signs, readily accessible extinguishers, and adequate storage of hazardous materials.
In addition, oil rag barrels were available for disposing of such combustible materials.
In areas where dangerous fumes may accumulate, signs were )osted to prohibit and prevent entry. Until a meter for measuring tie air quality is obtained and air quality is measured in such areas, site personnel are prohibited from entering such area,
-.
,
. -....
During the last several months and the current inspection period, the NRC inspector observed that welding was adequately controlled. That is, fire resistant blankets were used to protect equipment when these processes were used. The general plant cleanliness is very good.
No violations or deviations were identified.
10. Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted October 9, 1986, with the applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of of this Appendix. During this interview, the NRC RIV Comanche Peak Group Supervisor sumarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The applicant acknowledged the findings.
1