IR 05000482/1980013
| ML19338F658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1980 |
| From: | Crossman W, Hubacek W, Oberg C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338F657 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-80-13, NUDOCS 8010270022 | |
| Download: ML19338F658 (14) | |
Text
..
.,
-
-.
= ~
--- -.
- ------ - - - -.
. - - - - - - - -.
.,
r
.
'-
'. -.
.;(
'
~
'
z
,y
,
~'
y.;
U. S.I NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ttfISSION'
'
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,
REGION IV
(This Report Contains Investigation
.Information See Paragraph 14)~
- Report No.: STN 50-482/80-13
,
'
Docket No.
STN 50-482 Category -A2 Licensee: Kansas Gas & Electric Company-Post Office Box 208
'
b-Wichita, Kansas 67201 A.
N R.
Facility Name: Wolf Creek, Unit No. 1 s
Inspection at:- Burlingt'on, Coffey County, Kansas Inspection Conducted: July'1980
' Inspector :
N O
C..R. Oberg,.Residdnt Reactor Inspector (Acting)
Date Projects Section-(Paragraphs 1-3, 7-14 & 18-21)
'
0
,
. G. Hubacek, Residhnt Reactor Inspector (Acting)
Da*+
Prejects Section.(Paragraphs 1-6, 15-17, 20 & 21)
-u
=. _
hroved:
r2
-
~
__
"\\
W. A.-- Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date
,
-
-
-
. Inspection Sc eary:
m
~
.%
' Inspection durina' July 4980 (Report No. STN'50-482/80-13)
Areas Inspected:. Routine,wannounced inspection by.the Resident Reactor Inspectors L
~(RRI) (Acting), including folleviup to previouslin'spection findings; safety-related concrete placements; safety +related pipe welding;xQC personnel certi-
.fication; construction deficiencies; iniestigation of an allegation relating to Essential Service - Water (ESW)-Pipe; deficiency reports and'nonconformance%
reports; review of records relating to reactor Feisel installation; storage
~
of mechanical core structures; and ESW system records and site tours of current t
~
' construction activity. 'The inspection-involved one hundred" twenty-six inspector-
. hours on site by two NRC inspectors.'
.
'*%
- Results
- No' items,of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
"N N
. u.
N a
I
~
S$10370 DD
-.
-
a
-
.
- _c ]..
.,, _ y ____. _
, _j
'
_
y.; :.a. x mn
-. - - - -- --- -- --.-
- - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - '
-
..fg; s:~'?
- ' ' '
l':),fi'
~
' '
'
'
'
i
,
.
e
's>M, I'a
.
j [,
'
'
-
'
-
-
m. '
hy
_.) k '
/,ii r
,
'
I
-
.sc
. <
n
.
o p
i DETAILSi
,
' cli. Persons Contacted.
k;
~
Principal' Licensee-Enclovens
-
V
,
..
..
.
.
.
.
M.lE. Clark, Manager, Quality Assurance, Site
^
'
_
fD.iW.iPrigalDAssistant QA Manager, Site
,
'G.LL.~ Fouts,. Construction Manager-S. D. Boston, QA Auditor
'
L. Borders,. Construction Engineer.
',
R.<M.:Stambaugh,~QA Engineer-
.
. D.- G. "Plasce, QA Engineer ;
'J. A. Cherry,. Contract: Administrator
'
'
'J. L? Stokes,-Construction Engineer.
T." H.7 Young,!QA Engineeri ~
.
'
....
-N.: W. Hottel, Electrical) Site Liaison
-
R. Brown, SNUPPS, Site. Representative-
,
-Daniel International' Corporation W. E. Hitt, Project Manager V. J. Turner, QA Manager
,
h
.D. L. Jones,-QC Manager-R. D. Scott, Construction Manager
.C.'L. Phillips, Engineering Manager N. Criss,; Audit Response Coordinator M.' Pfeifer,~ Quality Control, Civil
.F. Cherry,; Concrete Superintendent-
,
C. Griffin, Concrete Stiperintendent.(Special)
R. Stout,uQC Inspector J. Ferguson,AC Services' Engineer
,
-
D. J. DenairoJ, Assistant QC Manager.
~
J. N. Ayres,'QA Engineer J.LT. Goodwin, Electrical Engineer
.
-
R. : Schofield, _ Assistant-P. W. Engineer.
T. Newman,-Mechanical Engineering'.
'
-The.RRIs..(Acting) 'also talked with'and interviewed other licensee employees-and-contractor personnel including members of-the QA/QC and engineering
.
=-
c staffs.-
,
2.
Licensee Action ~on Previous Inspection Findinas
'
(Closed)fUnresolved Item (STN 50-442/79-19): Control of Vendor Manuals.
-
p The RRI (Acting) verified that.-Daniel Quality Assurance Audit Findings
'
i-
-
-(QAAF) Nos.47-05s(JulyJ19, 1978) and 47-06 (July 19, 1978) have been
^
.. _
scorrected. :The corrective actions were docu'mented in Daniel Quality
'
A
' -
As'surance Report -(QAR) Nos.,50 (November 5,1979) and 55 '(April 2,1980).
N m The Document Control"Section now~ receives.~a " Supplier Print Control m
.
Aty '
- ,
-
~~" % m *.
.y
..
' %
.w t\\..
.,,
,
TRQ
%r%..
e-.q s
O--
-
,
..
.
+
s
,
'
y
f.
-
j
.
g
QF' 5iy'y
- ,F f glq f
-
- .
y:
., '
..
,
.
.j -
~1
.-
.
,
,
,
'
m
.i-
?
e Register": for Instruction Manuals. - Daniel Construction Procedure AP-IX-03,," Document Control," Rev.'9 (April 14, 1980),- is currently
,
under ~ revision ;(Rev.~ - 10).
The R$1 (Acting) reviewed the draft pro-
.
cedure and determined that adequate controls for manuals now exist.
Additional. filing space has beeta provided in the Document Vault.
+
'
.'
This item is' considered closed.
,
I (Closed)Unreso1NdItem(STN 50-482/79-07):- Storage of Reactor Vessel
'
- and Reactor Pressure Vessel Head. This specific activity was inspected
,F-in March 1980, end resulted in an item of noncompliance.
(.See Inspection
Report STN 50-482/,0-05).
Inasmuch as this. item was upgraded to an item of noncompliance, this unresolvedcitan is thus considered closed and is documented here for record purposes.s a
..
.
u o
(Closed) Unresolved Item (STN 50-482/79-07, paragraph 6.b)~: Replacement Splices. The RRI (Accing) reviewed the revision to WP-IV-102, paragraph-3.9, which specifies that the Civil Engineer-is to be informed of failing _
transition Cadweld splices and is to direct replacement requirements to the Cadweld Foreman. The RRI~(Acting) had no father questions on this matter, g
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (STN 50-482/79-09): Review of Reactor Vessel e
Internals Storage Procedures. -RMI-W-042 (Q), Rev. 4 now contains specific i
frequencies-for maintenance inspection requirements. The discipline i
engineer is required to; establish the " maintenance requirements" for the
,
equipment to be inspected in accordance with Daniel QCP-I-01. This includes frequency of performing maintenance checks.
4-
.
i
~
This=iteetis considered closed.
.
(0 pen) Infraction (STN 50-482/79-09): Failure to Follow Storage Proceduras for Reactor Vessel' Internals. The RRI (Actisg) determined that deficiencies reported in Deficiency. Report (DR) ISD1657M were corrected and dis-
,
positioned by Bechtel on June 6, 1979.
s DR ISD1471H has not yet been dispositioned. This had been forwarded to the Westinghouse site representative for corrective action. No action has as yet been'taken to resolve the problem. This is considered unresolved
'
and will be-reviewed in a-subsequent inspection. All other coenitments
-
made~.in EGf4 letter;of July 6, 1979, have been completed. -The RRI (Acting)
'
reviewed documents and held discussions with cognizant personnel to verify the completed' action.
'
en e'
mN'^~
This item is held open only for resolution o'f ISD1471M. This matter was discussed with the licensee.
L
+
.
-gl i
'"~
R
_
3.
M'
.
...
.,,.
A'd,l-
=
,
.
y
^
ML%nWk J$c&.J
'
'
'
a
y
,
-
.
y
--
-
-
--
c 3
$
'
.'.
a
,
,
,
"
,
![
..
' i
,s
. 3..
' Site Tours
'
--
,
.
"
h RRI (Acting * made daily tours of the site to observe construction r
. activities-and inspect housekeeping and equipment storage.
Some minor-discrepancies in nluipment storage were observed but were promptly corrected
'
.
when pointed out to the_ licensee. The RRI (Acting) also toured the URS
,
'Das and the E8W System.-
.No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I 4.
_ Inspection of Concrete Placement
.
The RRI (Acting) observed activities related to placament of concrete
.
'
for pour No. u d s4WO6 in the Reactor Building done.- The placement was.
(
.
esde during'the night of-July 20-21,-1980, to. avoid the effects of.the
'
intense daytime heat upon.the placing crews and the concrete.- Approximately i
, ~
292 cubic yards of Mix 66-ElA-N were placed.
Some early problems were experienced with deposition and consolidation i
of the concretr..in the first lift; however, the problems were identified
and corrective action was taken by craft supervisors and QC inspectors and it appeared that adequate consolidation was achieved.~ The,RRI (Acting)
'
also' observed that lighting provided was marginal, particularly during
^
placement of the first lift.' Licensee representatives stated that action would be taken to prevent recurrence of these problems during the next
,
j done placement.
' '
The RRI (ActiAg) reviewed the following documents related to placemenc
^
OC281WO6:
.
" Concrete Placement Checklist"-
!
" Concrete Placement Card" with attached special instructions
"Preplacement Checklist"
-
,
" Tendon Sheathing and Embedded Anchorage Checklist"
.
.
.
.
.
" Post Placement Checklist"
~
,
,
The RRI (Acting) also reviewed the following documents related to placement- --
i OC281WO4 which was completed on June 25, 1980:
.1
- " Batch Tickets" No. 20677 through 20715; indicating 360 cubic yards of Mix.66-EIA-N were placed
'
~
" Batch' Adjustment Forms"
'
,
t-
.4__
-
1
'
'
.
, _
s
'
-,,
l.f'
.,
4'
f
. x -? %
-., /6,
-
,-
,
_
.
.,
,
'
~
s
-
g].
'
y FJ
,
,,,f'
_.,, n.,
.,
,
pgt
~
,&
' y f 71 T S M;
T
~
~~ '
'c
<
,
pg
_ : ;n un
.
~
3;L a,
-
b lyp; y
'
,.
=_
~
3..
-
,
,
V...
.
hg.
'
'
.
-
,
,
.
~
,
j" Total lMoistureContentofAggregatebyDrying" c
w Y.."CompressiveStrength{of<CylindricalSpecimen"forsevenday~ breaks
'
'
-
,
,
)J"ConcretePlacementHistoryChecklist"
~
-
'
..
.
..
J " Concrete Placement Checklist"
,
,
w
~-
-
-
~
4 " Concrete Placement Card"
~
L"Preplacement Checklist"
.h K
-
" Tendon' She'athing and Embedded Anchorages Checklist"-
i-
" Post'Pla ement. Inspection Report"-
No items ofLaoncompliance or: deviations were identified.
5.
Observation of Pipe Weldina Activities The RRI (Act.ing)0 observed' activities related to welding of joint W 300 in the three inch. stainless steel pipe attached to the bottom of.the boric acid tank. Requirements.for the weld were contained in Engineering Change
-
Request I-N-03 BG 16 (Q) ECR-01 and the-attached Weld Record Card (WRC)
,
which referenced Technique Sheet N-8-8-B-2,--Revision 4 of Procedure
CWP-507, " Welding of Stainless Steel."
i The RRI (Acting) observed.prewelding inspection performed by a I,evel II
mechanical / welding.QC inspector and=a trainee..'All items listed on the WRC vere inspected, including fitup, cleanline'ss, purge and shield gas
-
!
flow ~ rate, oxygen content of purge, weld filler metal control, welder identification and~ certification, preheat. temperature, and initial welding current. The.RAI;(Acting) observed welding of the root pass.
-
-
.
_ _
..,
..
..
.
..
'The RRI'(Acting).!also observed welding cf the root pass and part of the
.
,
subsequent passes for Field Weld F081-003:in'the ESW pipe. located in the pit west of the. Control Building. Requirements for this weld con-
,
tained in the.WRC appeared:-to:be met.
No items of noncompliance 3r' deviations were-identified.
-
_nv
-
-
F' '
6.-
Certification of QC Inspectors ~
-
i:
,
The RRI)(Acting)/ reviewed? documentation pertaining to certification of-
,
L
- nine QCl inspectors contacted.during the inspection period,to determine
'
L if they were' certified in accordance with the requiremaa k of Construction y
Procedure AP-VI-01,-" Indoctrination, Training, and Qualification of Quality-p Control Personnel."
,
L
-
c
['
>
'
s
-
,
. i
'
m-
,
,
.
.
.
WY
'.[
l
- g-
~
'
'" 4 - -
g
,,
,.
i
"jf _
'
'4Q [
'
s wsa. w :
y n
'
,
py 3-
+=
'
-~ p
-;<
a,. >
-
~
y;
---
,
,,
N
'.,
m r
,,. 'kN
,'.g e
'm.
.
-
- - ~ ~
.e
..
,
'
'
,4 w
-
.
/
- .
,..
.
.t
.l The RRI-(Acting)' observed _that the required' documentation was-available
-
?for all~ of' the ninel inspectors and that certification requirements. appeared:
to have been met; however,.the RRI (Acting) noted that there were incon -
,
-
sistencies.-in a large percentage of the' " Documents:of Certification"Jin -
e
-
the QC inspector's ffles in that the dates of qualification were chrono-
~
~ logically earlierithan.the. approval-aignatures by the Project QC llanager
.
.and the: individuals who recommended =that the QC inspectors be. certified.
The reasons for these discrepancies could not be' determined since.the
.
-
' individual responsible for preparation of the " Documents of Certification"-
,
was.-on leave.-
'
i This matter is: considered unresolved'and will be followed.during aLfuture
'
,
inspection.-
7.
Potential Construction Deficiency - Hold Down Bolts for Essential Service.
,
Water-(ESW) Pumps-j
>
,
l h RRI (Acting) reviewed the Bechtel evaluation. rem ets submitted.to j
,
EG&E os May 23,.1979, on the ESW pump hold down bolts..Bechtelucalcula--
tions showed that "..
the actual maximum nossle'and' seismic forces ~are'
.;
.
F less than one-fifth of the allowable values. Therefore, the presently H
i specified anchor system has a factor safety of more than~five."
j'
'
L L
The licensee reported to the NRC (Region IV) on May 27,.1979, that this
.ites was no longer considered or to be a reportable item.
Based on the information reviewed,~the RRI.(Acting) concluded that-this is not a.
reportable construction deficiency.
,
.
y
'l 8.
Potential Construction Deficiency - Incorrect Color Codina of Class 2 &-3 -
'
Bolts
,
c
. Stud boltarand nut,s, which were purchased as ASME Section III' Class 1,-'2 &
M 3, were incorrectly color coded for class designation.- This was reported.
'
to the NRC.on December 19, 1979. An investigation of.the circumstances ~
>
made by Daniel was reviewed by the RRI.(Acting). On-site QC inspectors have examined all bolts.and nuts >in stock'and corrected color coding of
>
those that'could be-eraced back to their documentation. Those bolts and
,
'
nuts which wee issued to the field were traced and discrepancies were -
corrected. Only f!ve connections were:found bolted and all five hadithe
,
correct class of bolts for the-class of connection. The investigation
.i shows-that none'of the incorrectly' marked bolts were used in'a location-H requiring Class-1 bolts.
The RRI?(Acting) concludedithat the event-is not reportable under 10 CFR
'"
50.55 (e).
.
p
,,.
'
~
.,
-.
b Q
A./ '
f j
6
.,
,
u
'u
i;. %.
l
"
- 0
,. _
,
Y
"
,
>
L
,
69eQaLK * V. ~ Q,,'j 'T c =
'
%
-
- m * Q"
+
- Y; pw~yg.
>
TY7
+"
.fd
-
w e -
e yy ~ l^,
.
.,
.~
'
~
.,
- x n,
.y
- - o,y
- +
~
-
.;~
'@
- n
.
3. /.,
.v
^%,
p.
<
'~
. ', -
'+w
,
n s r f
e~
_
i
-
..
-
.e rp,, g~
-,~ -
<
,
,
' ~
y :
.
w,.
+
~
.
r.
3+
fyy
.
-a;:
~
>
o,,
x
^
+:vs..
..........,
.
.
.
s - m
.,
..m.
' " 96 Fotential Construction' Deficiency ~- Westinshuuse 7300' Series Process
"
^
f
"
"
fControl>57 sten - Part~21-Report.
.
% l'
c _
,_
.
. _ _..
.
..
l Westinghouse! etter;to0IE (NS-TMA-2124),: dated August 23, 1979, reported j
i l
M'~
'
"a potentia 1' substantial: safety hazard'under the provisions,of.10 CFR Part
'
.
,
-
21.; This report related;two technAcal problemsfin;the 7300 Series Process
xControl'SystemJIrand'C cards in units of:the; type currently;in storage:at a
the Wolf CreekTsite.: 1A'. visit waslmade by Westinghouse engineers,to Wolf
.
.
,
_
(Creek on AprilL7, 1980, to inspect-the~affected:Isand~C cabinets., Four
e
' '
- discrepancies;were identified;;however,n they were not related. to specific
..
l1 m
- safety functions.4The RRIL(Acting); reviewed the documentation.available
"
on: site regarding.thi failed cards 'and. component identified lin the'
,. _
_
. Westinghouse ~ report.'. Nonconformance Report ISN1924ER was~ generated to
'
"
.
idocument the requirements for replacement. parts f(Printed Circuit-Boards).
_
.
y
The RRI (Acting) concluded thAt this event is not' reportable under 10
[
t
,
- CFR 50.55(e).-
'
10. Potential Construction Deficiency - Concrete Defects in Reactor Cavity
'
(See Inspection Reports 5TN 50-482/80-07.and 80-09)
Wy
'Tve rnstances of: damaged concrete were identified in_the refueling pool u
n floor at: elevation 2021'7" adjacent to the reactor cavity.
These'were
.
.
'
separate' occurrences and;did not have a common origin..=Both instances of damaged / cracked concrete _were documented and evaluated by Bechtel, the L
lead:A/E;for Wolf Creek.;_Bechtel's; evaluation "... indicated that-y
'
-
neither of~the two: instances:of. damaged concrete, if left uncorrected,
would have become a significant safety prob y throughout the operating ~
H
'
'
life.of the-Wolf. Creek No 61 Unit.
." - The following is a summary i
..
of theteauses.and: disposition:
A
J I racks Resuldina From Excessive Strain on Seal Rins' Plate Luas C
~
a.:
.
'
The cause of'the deficiency.was discussed in Inspection Report
,
No.,STN 50-482/80-09. No structural damage to the" plate.was
.'
noted N The subject liner 1 plate is non-Q;and; damage to the Fg concrete was.notTsignificant.~ The item is therefore not report-
- able under 10 CFRl50.55(e). -
u
.
b..
Spalled Concrete in Reactor Cavity
~
-
_.
..
.
-
,
-
- E i cause of theispalled' concrete was-determined?to be excessive forces inrtedEon the? liner: plate.duringlthe adjustment and fitting up q
meess.g These$ forces'were transmitted.to the-bottom:of.the liner R
~
.
%
plate (andithe W4 beams which in turn caused the cracking of-the concrete'.3 The unsound concrete wasilimit'ed to the immediat'e vicinity
~
_',
-
sof;the' ledge around!the-reactoricavity,and had:no.effect on/the ability; y
~
,
.ofithe"strueture to performdits!s'afety-related function.. Unsound g
"
-*
-
concrete:was removedJand.all damage was' identified and documented.
,
.
iThelitem wasLtherefore considered not reportable under 10'CFR 50.55(e).
~
',
W
,
,
[?
'
3)
'
~
^
s
-
u,
-
'
>
W 'KGEE: letter,aKoester-to RIV, dated June:23, 1980-.
'
'
,
-
.
g
,
g
"
p~
b
- '
,
- 7'-
J fc.%
'*
r
+
>
ll ::+ ?
(
e,
, <,
> - 3:
-
~
,
(
i 3?
~
-
r e
Y'
[ l L.
J
,
,,
' ' "
s
.,
s
,
Wcs M ' M %t L~,
.
.
.
.
-
"
A
@M@Y)OMCfkd[ <f
- .$$dn,M %, -
-
-
x :
M
'
- ' *
M -
-
w
- yoc -
m~.~..
~; '.
x
%pk( W :%j gQ :
,; ;
-
+ * '
'
'~
_,,
,
f
',
'1 h
,
'
?7.:. ' < ' 2 p%
-
-
%: >,
\\;
~ ^
'
'
,
,
,
-
-
,
- c;
-
.,
@
-
m
,
'
,m
,
,
lLTheBRIf(' Acting)Ereviewed-thefdispos'itionNCRs/1SN1808Cand:.1SN2015C-N-4
,-
py,
.,4;:thatBechtel' evaluation.c The ca'sestof:the-damage weretidentified.
u M'
- '
i laad?anJadequateland(conservat'ivefdiscussionof.the' factors'involvedwas.
-
- includedlin{thefevaluation U h site.of.theJdamage.wasiinspected by.the
~
,f
,
y G
f
- RRId(Acting);-) Repairs were accomplished in_accordance with the~Bechtel j
j Ldispositions.1 ~
'
'
!I
-
w.
_
,.
o
.
im '
-
.,.
....
.m
.
..
,
...
.
i
.
..
-11.? Potential'Coastruction Deficiency --Incorrect Concrete Mix Used-in y
'
.<
'S Auxiliary Buildina Roof-
'
y
,
-
'..
.
'
..!.
,.c
..
.,,.'t....i-
-
A potential; construction deficisocy wa's reported to RIV on' Hay.28,.1980.-
-
'This deficiency involved the use of the wrong concrete-design mix. N (correct _ mix:hadia specified. strength of.5000 psi:at 90 days. h cylinders of.the; actual mix-used werextested and.found to be over 6000 psi at 28-e' n days. 3The' average l strength.was 6470 psi at 28. days. The RRI-(Acting)
"
concluded that the estter.is not, reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
12. Potential Construction'Dhfic'ency Report - Nonconformina h eads on i
34 Inch Diameter Studs-and Nuts for NSSS-Steam Generator Lateral Supports q
R
_
On June 6',l1940,4a potenth 11.constructionLdeficiency was; reported to RIV
'
.
relating to:the' apparent failure of.several'auts at Wolf Creek to meet-r the dimensional'standardsLof ASA Standard 81.1-1960. NCR report No..
'
1SN1548C was-dispositioned by Bechtel to replace the nonconforming nuts with those that.neet the ASA standards.- h studs and nuts were manufac-
.tured by. Southern Bolt Company, Shreveport, Louisiana. When the non-fconformance was identified,- twenty-four studs and nuts were embedded in concreta-at: Wolf-Creek.._The same problem was identified at the Callaway
'4 site.(.An analysis of'the problem was done by Bechtel which was reviewed l
by itse RRI. (Acting).. The results of the investigation:and testing program by Bechtel indicate a' high level ~of: confidence exists that all stud-nut
' combinations at' the. Wolf 1 Creek jobsite. can adequately support 'the maxi-
-'
mum' design' load. The 912 kip;=inimum expected thread shear. capacity' pro-videsla factor'of-2.75 against.atthread shear ~ failure at the maximum
'
' design ~1oad of 334fkips. The. report concluded.-that had.theinonconformance
~
gone undetected there would have been no-impact on the health ~and safety
.
iof'the publin :The'RRI?(Acting)fa~ greed with this conclusion.- This item is
,
c
- cons'idered closed.-
_ ~
.13. ; Potential Construction Deficiency Report - linear Indications in Pipe
{
Spool'for Essential Service Water System
1
~
.....
.
.
-
.
,
?
'_
-
DA potential; construction; deficiency was reported-to Region IV on May 8,
J1980 E 0n June:6,'1980,Laireport was! submitted to RIV on the ESW system
'
Sindicatingithati the item is not' reportable under :10 CFR 50.55(e). N lRRIf(Acting),an=4 mad ~the pipe spool.and reviewed'the' records relating
'
'
'
- dto theireported' linear indications. As' stated, removal of the' indication
~
o G.,
iresults in aiwall-. thickness.less than the =4'nimum specified (.365").
[ N IApproved dispositionof;the DRL(No. 1SD3603M) indicates the pipe will be P'
l};: replaced.; J ~ ~
.' '
~,
,,
.
-
-
-
-._
e s
-
!.
'
- ,,
,
_
r
,,.:
'
-
m x.,
%
>l
^
'
- s
_
&&;: ' N
.z-
u
'c" QW,
,' ;F
</.
-
s3,,mi,
y.
'
'
4~
-
.ya y
p &f Y
, f7 :'
W,
,
, _.
,
,..
$&
t-
"%;:M Q.h
', - W :D r:c.
- %.,.,
n'*
,
,l~
,'
.. y e ;"l.
?
c.
.~
.
W'
,
_,
SWu:: %M? 'w
~
- -
_
.n
.
"
-
m
?p$ nc,n mc s=
=
~c,-
- - - - - -
--
c
'+
- = --
- - ~ '.
W.
M:.
g ~ Q a cl ;;, L ollf' ' ~'fY{Oh kh k
,,=+i'=7 3=:-
_
.
,'
~
k.
-
':
"
-
+
.
,{ $ f ?.,.
~' &
C-
,'
_
,
,
'
'
.x ( ?sy l
_, [ '
g/__'
,
f ~,[
_ _. _ _ _ _
- I
,
y. XP i The 'RRIi(Acting):thus, concluded that' the /itan is 'not reportable under p _ W/' ~
-
110 M 50.55(e) based'on this isolated: occurrence.i Further, the pipe: spool
.r [ spo$in thelreturn'1ine;of the ESW system. Any type of failure of.this pipe;
~' ~
Jis k"~~
(
oLLduetto1 pipe flawsicould.not,causeais~ignificant reduction in; safety..
l}
_
Forjrecard purposes ~ thisiitas is considered closed.'-
'
~'
..
.
-
'~
..
Investimatihn.df Essential' Service'-Water Pipe Internal Cleanliness
~. -14i -
,
s
~
LNRC[ Invest 1'gationReportNoESTN 50-482/80-06, Allegation No.712, refers j
- to the Essential? Service; Water.(ESW). system and;an allegation that mud
,
Land rags were'.left inside a~ previously installed segment of pipe southe.
c f1the ESWfvalve house. :The findingsLof the. investigation were that the o
titam could not be substantiated in that: access due to' safety reasons was
~'
.
_
jnot;possiblefat.thattime(March 18-24,;1980).
l c
On. July 9,'1980, theLRRI (Acting) witnessed an entry.'intc one segment'of~
-;thel supply pipe {f approximately 450 ft.;A voluaceer pipefitter. entered the 30" p for a distance o
.The pipe was-found to be free of o -
.;
' foreign objectsl(rags, mud,.etc..).
Four to six inches'of water in the R
,.
pipe prevented further= entry.
'
_
On July 18,.1980l RIVrreceived,a telephone call from EGGE who reported the
~
t following1information relating to'this allegation:.
l
y
!-
-a.
'A forman* sest two. men, one at a. time,-in6o'the ESW pipe about the time of theLNRC: investigation (STN 50-482/80-06).when he became aware of the~ allegation.
.
b.
Rags were found and brought out by both men.
~
c.
.The foreman * reportedly-acted without authoriti, risking the lives of the' men. There was water present in;the pipe.
'
'd.
The; incident was not reported to the proper' authorities.
~
The rass were:left in the pipe as'a " water dam" to facilitate welding.
e.-
The1RRI-(A'cting) proceeded to investigate this matter through review of
~
,
,
. records and interviews with' personnel and determined the following infor--
"
-motion:.
A general foreman had " requested" two men to enter the ESW pipe and-a.
remove theLrass.; =This apparently occurred during the time of the -
i
'
,
,
investigation. The general foreman was terminated on July 16, 1980,
~l-for " gross violation of Safety Rules." He had not reported his actions i,
to his. supervisors.1
+
l jItwa'sdeterminedflaterthat'a" general-foreman"wasinvolved.
')
.'
y
$
,r
,
a-
p'-
-
,
)$r
,
6.1 h
LO'
'J g.,
p:
~'~
'
.)
,
Yhb
- '
y;
~
I
- qfy
- l
'@.
,
'
,
@ '
s, e e& R s.-1
,
_
,
-
-m
-
-
u H
.
h
-,
-
'
e
_
,
_
-
>
@ @U W h i~l %@$ ~ -
-
T
%
.L
}
~
~ ~
'
~
. ?
~ '
'
A
- !
' ' ' %
(ls.:
If' '
}
~
lf l
'
-
-
s
>
w j
.
- '
,
,
%.g.L,;.u ;.b.;... --
,
- y',-
.
- l,
'
.,
.
-
n
,=
..
,
.
,
..
.
.
.
hd
'l
'.
.
'., ,
b.~
Discussions with the two man,who entered the pipe confirmed that
- f
"
~,
Jrags_had been present.
The two return lines were entered..The
'e irags were used as a " dam"Jto prevent the water from draining down-
,f
.
"
s
,
.iuto. a' weld. ares.. i Afterlthe last'segnent of pipe was welded in
'
- e l place,.the : rags could not be ' removed.
'k
'
u.
n No_other{foreignmaterial~wasknowntohavebeenleftinthepipe.
W c.-
- f
.The wa*er was from a hydro test:done on the pipe runs earlier.in
. coast. ction.'-
..
'
'
_
lg-g
-
V d.
None of.the" men invo1Med in this in::ident had been interviewed by '
k
,'
,
the;investigatorstin reference.to report No. STN 50-482/80-06.
'
The RRIT(Acting); concluded =that; based on'the information obtained, the.
!
allegation was. confirmed but had no merit.
It must be noted that the rags
.
F wie in the " return" portion of the ESW system.
During the ESW system-
" flush,".any'and:all foreign se,t3 rial would have been discharged to the
,
_
cooling lake area.
15 '. Review of Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) and Defisiency Reports'(DRs)
i The NCRs and DRs' listed'below.were reviewed in order.to determine'conformance.
'
-
to-requirements for' reporting construction deficiencies:
'
ISN1588C ISD4287N
- \\
ISN1600C 1SD4094N
,
ISN1644C ISD4057C
,
v i
.
m, ISN1723C'-
ISD3332H
.I
.
ISN1722C-ISD3603N
,
,
\\1SN1773C ISD2978N
<
x-
,
L ISN1765C:
ISD3515M o
1SN1860N-ISD2256N
~ " ~
j ISN1874C ISD3022M
.
.
ISE1882N;
,
ISN1963C-p.:
- ~
s 11SN15'04N
.
~
No items ofl noncompliance.or. deviations were identified.
L, 1.
,)
~
%
^
-,
,
~
,
'ji
.
-
"
" e
,
,
,
,
.
,;-
F
"
-'?
e
\\
..
,.,,,
n
.
-
'l
. ^
$
- '
.s f
p QQ'Q;,' L.
'L ~, c.w 1c,
a;
%*
- ;.:,.
. :k:
- - - - -
L
=
.-
.
W.-
+
- - -...
Q g%g [:% ' [, W N
'}W, [
3- [ ~
' [ '
~~,
D i f"
]IMI
'
_
J LQP F 3
^
y
,
~
-
-
-
-
,
<
,
'
,
.sm>
- . m,
- ;
+
3s-
~ _
4:
n.
e
-
r
,y-H 1641asennatica of' teace r VesMi'- Review if Edcieds ~
-
a
,
,
,
,
-
. ~..
- ' '
-
"
_.
' ' Me REI.-(Acting) reviewed' the records of. thel final tsettinglof :the reactor :
-..
' _.
vessel. - S e following documenes were reviewed:.
'
.
> -
.
~...
7" KG&E Surveillance Report No. S-206-
,
i, l. '
NCR ISN1954M1
~
-
-
o.
.NCR ISN1503M (with'attachesnes)
_
$y
~
,
.
.NCR.ISN1644C~
-
!j'
.NCR ISN1882M l
,
J
~
u Wastinghouse Print No. '1459701 (reactor vessel supports)
j Didcussions were held with Bechtel and Daniel personnel involved with the jl Ereactor vessel setting. Westinghcuse Mechanical Service Manual, Voltaa 1,
~
,
- Section IV. Paga IVs2-3.and AWS D1.1-75, paragraph 3.5.1.9 require 75%
..~
. surface contact'(< 0.010 inch).
Se following was deteruf,ned by measure -
-}
~
ment of1the contact between the reactor vessel foot and the wear plate:
'
Nossle-Contact t
Outlet D 81.17%
' Inlet F 74.55%
.
Outlet H 76.62%
.
,
-Inlet B 89.46%
o
}
.
It.was subsequently. determined by Daniel F.ngineering that Inlet F had in -
p
- excess-of -75% contact :(NCR ISN1954M).-
e o
[
lNo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I J
17. Storate Requirements foih. Mechanical Core Structures -
~
e.
.
,.
Me. RRI (Acting) reviewed the. Receiving,and Maintenance Instructions (RMI)
'
W-0421(Q),lRev.44'for the mechanical core structures (Upper and Iower
. Internals).O Rave 4f of RMI-W-042 (Q)l was 2 signed: July 21, 1980, andLrequires-e l thatKthe "Iower Internals. Package" be'~ s' cored. horizontally. : By -direcc lobseristion', the Iower-Internals Package-is stored-(on July 28, 1980) in ~
~
' fthe;ref=aliar canal of2the Contain= ant Building in a vertical position.
j
,
lA now?RMI2(Rev..5)1wasfissued'oniJuly 29, 1980,1which.specifiediche: actual
'
k
>
,
sposition. =When(this item was discussed'during the exit meeting on;
~
lAugust 7',l1980,i he Daniel repressneative' stated that DIC did not.have-t g
s
-
- responsibility for. storage inspections of the reactor internals.< Me item c - -
G
.
e
i
,
_,
,,-.i r
[.
[T'
i r
_A r
,
r
-
,
11-
-
_
w h
Y-
t
'$
,- <
-,w -
r
.-
v
,
,
_
,
~'
,.. %
_- 1
"
- _~
v
N: g{q %,c
,
.o
,<
y
- g.
~
,
,
_
'
~ '
+
-
kh kk:Ih 2.
'I $N - T[ ik Nb
' ?
_ _
O/ > h[
Y
.
il
'
h
^
,
_
.
(ge hyf?
fQ$$fv ' ; A Ak?f[h&WW l
^
N::
~~
'
,
~ x;;. ; JUn Q ' ' 9 47f fl% y & q',;lu
-:f n
-
""
3C'
.Q
,
~R
.'
~ '
Q 'q:g
..
b
.
Kh;;:S ~
_b
./
>
>
37 7 y
,
.
_,
ym
-
n L_
<
' 1 w
n
_
, _ 41s'..therefore considered unresolved and;will be~ reviewed during;aisubsequenti
.
- gy
- ,
- 7.
.
7 '
?inspectiont
.
,
,
,
-
' ~
e s
m
.
,
,-
. 'f
~ 218L. Work Bold Aaressent
.
,
..K +
.
.
.q,
.
l
'
q
- ,1
~ Sw.
...
~
.-
,
^
9; s
-
lTheLlicensee-issued;al" Work Hold Agreement",(No.111) on' July 25',.1980,.
J
<
.
,
.
a1 which stopped! work on field coatings:;and' surfaces. for all safety-related fj 7 structures. 1TheLreasonEfor the vork stoppage;is that the ' current; con.
j
lstruction procedures'do :not; reflect the requirements :of Bechtel'Specifi-
.
'
Ecation 10466-A-125(Q),;" Technical Specification for Surface Preparation,.
.
s FurnishingLand Applicat. ion ofTSpecial Field Coatings and Surfaces for
,
SNUPPS."-
'
-
-
,
Thisciten will be reviewed'in subsequent' inspections.
.
<
' :19..LEssential Ser41ce / ater Systan'(ESW)
W i
~
.I
.
- :
- {
lThe RRI?(Acting) nade;a visusf inspection of:available portions of the l
"
'
.
. ESW pipingland valve components.- A review was also made of specificJ j
welding; records;;and other' documents as listed below:
'
Welding. Technique Sb' at, N-1-1-BA-1, Rev. 5
-
zNCR ISN1417M, November 20, 1979, (Defective Spool S01'1 ESW:line)
.
n ECR ICK-205-ECR-05, March.11', 1980
.
,
g (
F101' Weld Control Record, Weld F301, March'21,,1980
,
- '
o F101' Weld. Control Record, Wald F302, March 21, 1980 Weld Repair Instructions, Weld Z-F301-R1,-March 25,1980-F101 Weld Control Record,. Weld F301-RI, March 25', 1980
'
ISD Deficieacy Report, 1SD3603M,' March 26, 1980,
~
Spool 205-8011-ESW line
-
NDE Report,: PBT-MT-753, March 26,1980 (Accept)
,
o
"'
'NDEl Report,PBT-NT-754,TMarch'26,1980(Rejact)
.. o.
.
,
'
E fHydroi.TestReport,ESWLjne, Aprilj7, 1980 (Satisfactory)
?
<
%
.:
'
y,'%%
~
NDE Reportf PST-MT-772, March 10, 1980, (Reject)
4 - Jh : ICE-205-S011'
. %
-
. s.
,
-
.
.
SQ4 4y
,
- NDE ReportpFBT-UT-257, April 11,,1980,.-(Reject)
'
,
-
- ICYv205-50117(Mininum Wall Thickness was Exceeded).
,
_'
" '
w
~
~
,
..,
j J
- . =
y
.
^ ^ _ =.
.
.
,
-
Q
,
T
"
~2
_
k
-
,,
A.
.,
M
'
'
4'
t
'
j
,s
,g
,
l_l$N;M l4 ':
v..
..
2:
?
V
'
e
,
- Y'
.:
f lp;'.':
,
.j 5 fs? _{ - Sf4 fq }a m._
~
g l2.C L_k y w
..
, _ -.
,__..;.,
,
,.
a
ey
.,,.g(z_ w,,
v
.
(t
,,
, &2 L g Wg;f * ^ '[ &MQ '
yg(f}T
-
?
W'^:* ;}~
t:P M WM %= ~ g%ik.
MM ; ~
~'
- p.
l
- . W
" ' '
K. ' i.h
-
< '
- (
..
- b ff
- L
,s W,9;e, T *<,-
~ NW.
'
^
.
' ' -
47'
x
'
,
' m-t.
W
-
,
l f}
~,
%
,..
~~D
'
,
,
~ " '
~ E" Rap'idNemo"'(KleikegetoSchofie'1'd) Replace 5011,Aprili 22,~-1980
~
,
.
.
'
?
-
e
~mw
,
- ,.?
.
,
]
BeEhtel5Memozl0881-N-201'C(l'8D-3 MON), April'.30,~1980 NO* M
.
y
.-
,
...
..
.
W
.&&&
-
E ECR.ICK-205-ECR-05 (Change 2), May128,K1980-
.
y 0-
'
,
-
a DIC Inter-Office Communication re:
hlity Performan'ce, 'Adgust: 4,.1980,
'
l
'
.
...
.
ICP 202,-Rev. 0,- to? Procedure AP-VI-02, Rev. 8 s
,,
'g Duringthe record review, specific attention was-made of'a series of, comments-inserted by QC personnel'in the. Weld Control-Record, Weld F301, Drawing'.
No.:TC-K205-ECR05... The comments concerned the acceptability ofLthe 30"
pipe wel'd joint: fit up. 'After discussion with Daniel QC personnel and L
visual-ewamination of-the' veld, several facts were determined. h se are-
<
described below:
.
,
,,
+
a.
The weld (F-301) offset wasfinitially determined to be excessive
~
(5/32").and documented by the QC' inspector (Level II) to'be incorrect-j
.
- -
and"as, exceeding code limitations. ' N welding' foreman' protested to
.
the QC inspector's senervisor.
- )
.
'
q b.
.After-a d'iscussion between the.QC inspector and his supervisor,/the'
w ld preparation was. signed off. h next day,.the QC inspector-
-
changed his mind and stated it;was incorrect.
After further dis-cussions, the,i.yervisor approved further welding..
t.
Further discussions between the Assistant Manager, Quality. Control
c.
_and QC inspe.ctor. developed. The weld (the root pass was now
.
' complete):was' ground'out in the area _of question-and the offset again
'
measured-by a;Hi-Lo gauge.
It was.found-to be and recorded'as 3/32".
,P
.
h weld was then repaired and subsequently passed NDE.
'
h bas'is'ifor acceptance of pipe fitup-is found in.the~ Daniel Welding
-
.
.
.
.
.
,
!
Technique: Sheet:N-1-1-BA-1 and ND-4000, paragraphs ND-4232 and ND-4233 of I
ASME Section III, Division.1. -Due to' problems in alignment, a large tack weld-(approximately 14 inches) had been placed in the area'of concern
'
to'the QC' inspector.
Basedion"an.extersal measurement (Cambridge gauge)-
C in the center.of the tack weld, theLoffset wt.s thought to be 5/32"
~
c During 'the ' inspection process.related e'.m., the deficiency report which
~
'had been:. filled out by the QC inspe: tor was not located.
It was then-determined:that since-the report had'no-basis, as determined by QC Q
. supervisor, fit was not. assigned (a report number and therefore not entered E
-
into the.DR/NCR log.,LA.-copy of the. original DR had been, retained by the:
,
--QC~ supervisor and was,provided to the RRI:(Acting).
,
. y
-
n ~
The procedure:for handling DRs was discussed'with the QC Nanager. As a fresult faLehange to the? procedure for the processing of DRs was made, h-
,
,
change,JICP-202, Rev. 0 requires:that all DRs initiated by & QC' inspector
'
-
+
g;
-
-
t,
_ y,.
f.
'
.x e.
'.
,
g3
.
,
.
w -
.
I
~
- e<'-.
' ' -.
- - - -
^
'
..M~
W
,,, y ',; w
~
,
s
>
' ' -
sr
"Wh
.
,
l, M& _l3kjy( 3Y% l.
- -
y
.
,,
-
.
Gh dr > ~ n s
m
, _, -
>;t g; ;,x 3
_.,.,..
- g
,,,
,
-
,
q$::
N I????mi. "'??Yhh
?
'
?
,
L.-g ow m ;. p
=
.
,
,
...jS. '.gq?u $.
n s a
.,
+ ct -
,
?,???
1 ^ ^ N; ' WN~
d
.
+
s. s,p.,s-
.
.s
-
, -
,
,
,
,
.ps.
..
1....,~
w
.
..
A@f3y;w~,,Wof. an.NCR/M,tinformation isEdetermined'to be incorr
, ;q o
-
.
p (bereviewed'and;ia'partistatesithat,:G;. ["At any time during the processing;
~
,
[$. -[jW.
Lthe NCR/DR'shall'be: returned to theJoriginator.: For those DR/NCRs notL
'
' D sbeingiprocesse',3 the) reviewer =shallianotate1 withiastatement,'NCR/M d
Tm
' \\ written;ia error' 'and a brief statement' of. the reviewer's reason and J
'
sf ' ~ - ' '
?justiification for' rejecting the:NCR/M.. Return M/NCR to Loriginator and ~
'
-
1 f'
insistainLalcopy in a,. suspense'. file." -
-
,
m. s.;c..a,.,.,
sn. :-
- -
-
a
_
,
.,....
,..
..
-nm
'
Thisivi11' prevent <significant. deficiencies: from por eibly being suppressed.
> '
.
,
.
lduring' review;andtany subsequent rejection of po % tial NCR/DRs.
'
.
m
[..
- .
.
.
.
'
'
C.
.~
- ThAjRRIj(Acting)subsequentlydetermined,thstassedontheiaformation,
'
.provided Rtheiweld was, acceptable and the. alignment.does not'escoed code
_~
1 limitations' '
' '>
.
,
f
^
,..;
' ;No:itemsiof noncompliance or deviations'were identified.;
$
20.; Unresolved: tems
'
.
,
- Unresolved' items are matters about1which more information is required
(in order ~toLascertain whether they_are acceptable. items, items of
.
.
noncompliance, or deviations. ' Unresolved items disclosed during the :
?
_
' inspection-are[. discussed?in-.the pa.ragraphs indicated below:
.
'.
fParagraph 2'
, Disposition ~of DR ISD1471M-
._
t g
- Paragraph 6'- Certification.of QCl Inspectors-
- Paragrap$ ;17 - Storage Requirements for Mechanical Core' Structures
'
.
...
21. Exit' Interview
-
.
.
v g
The RRIsU(Acting). met withLthe'various licensee-representatives (listed-
.
f.:
-in paragraph 1):oa July 3,10,124,- and-on August l7, 1980, to discuss the findings of the-July. inspection' efforts.
'
a
-
-
-
.i
!
t
.o.
'
'
'
,. ; *
[ N..
,u.
,
~
,
>
,
.,, >
w
,s c
.j
(
w -
-
V
-
s m..
g
-
- '
'
-.
p
,p-
$*
O
>,.
,
.*-. '. '
,
.
.
- -
.,
'
'~
e
.
>
,
.
y W
4 J
-
_.s ;-
_
$14 ;
'
g g' sp'
-
-
-
-
+
,,.
,
_e
,
e
$
m" ;
.,,
f A
,
-'
- '
ya
, :fQ k,* -
, p ;f
'
-
.;
~
,
y
_ *
'
.p-
.V
-
. g
,
,
Q. ', -.v* W.. %
- .r%
W, T1 v'
..
t.., f. _
r.
.
c
,
"
- -,
~
',
- ; -
', -
'
l
% :;
w.
..t
._,
..
.
-
,. w'
_
~, 7 3 *'T t..,.s 7 [
- '
?@ .Ci.,
s Q::'Q)ic ^ ~
~
,_.,
,
.h "
('
! '< a
Af f..
?'
- ?
>
-. -
,m.'f-l:- } -
'
.s:, <
--.R
> "9Q j,:G:,Qp
- M.
y
.:lQ 3. }
's W',,,
' "
,_ g
%
,j y
-
]:
.; <
., _
y
~
,,
,
+
...
nc,-..--.
a -
-
.-.
_