ML17053C975
| ML17053C975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1981 |
| From: | Kister H, Schulz R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C973 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-81-12, NUDOCS 8112230170 | |
| Download: ML17053C975 (32) | |
See also: IR 05000410/1981012
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Report
No
81-12
Region I
Docket No.
License
No.
Prior ity
Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation
300 Erie Boulevard
West
Category
Syracuse,
13202
Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point, Unit 2
Inspection at:
Scriba,
Inspection conducted:
October 13,
1981 to November 13,
1981
Inspectors
~
~
~
~
R.
D. Sc
u
, Resident
Inspector
da
e signed
date signed
Approved by:
H. B. Kister, Chief, Reactor Projects
Section
1C
date signed
/2~ F)
at
signed
Ins ection
Summar
Ins ection
on October 13,
1981 to November
13
1981
Re ort No. 50-410/81-12
Areas Ins ecte
Routine inspect>on
by t e ress dent inspector of work actsv)tres
re ative to containment penetrations
including (procedure review, installation
and testing,
review of quality records), structural
steel quality assurance
procedures
and record review, structural
steel
welding procedure specifications,
pipe welding and record review,
and analysis of nonconformances.
The inspector
also performed plant inspection tours
and reviewed licensee action
on previously
identified items.
The inspection involved 78 inspector hours, including 13 off-
shift hours
by the
NRC Resident
Inspector.
Results:
Of the five areas
inspected,
one item of noncompliance
was identified
~in eac
of the two following areas:
Failure to verify materia1 identification
resulting in incor rect documentation of field weld (paragraph
7a)
and failure to
take corrective action concerning concrete
curing (paragraph
Qa).
Region I Form 12
(Rev. April 77)
-811gQ3p170
811ppMS-
ADOCK 05000410
6
~ ~ I
~ ~>
0'I
+ ~ ~
DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
Niaqara
Mohawk Power Cor oration
(NMPC)
J.
L. Dillon, g. A. Engineer, Site Lead
G. J. Doyle, g. A. Technician
S.
F. Manno, Project Manager, Unit 2
J.
P. Ptak, Assistant
Manager of Construction, Site
G.
E. Sanford,
Manager of Construction, Site
P.
E. Francisco,
Nuclear Licensing Engineer
R. A. Norman, g. A. Supervisor
E. Manning, g. A. Technician
R. Spencer,
g. A. Inspector
Stone
and Webster
En ineerin
Cor oration
(SGWEC)
C.
E. Gay, Superintendent
of Field, g.
C.
E. A. Magilley, Assistant Superintendent
Field g.
C.
R. Clarke, Senior g.
C. Inspector
T. Dean, Senior,
g.
C. Inspector
B. L. Holsinger, g. A. Engineer
C. Sperling, Senior Material Controller
G. Pierce, Site g. A. Supervisor
R. Huggon, g.
C. Engineer
R. Hardison,
g.
C. Engineer
R. Kelvin, Senior g.
C. Engineer
D. A. Kuchek, Senior Purchasing
Agent
J.
C. Thompson,
Superintendent
of Field g.
C.
R. L. Bernard, Assistant
Manager,
Field g.
C.
L. Shea,
Superintendent
of Engineering
D. 'A. Smith, Structural
Engineer
Chica
o Brid e and Iron
T. Dougherty,
Welding and g. A. Superintendent
C. Hall, Construction Superintendent
Gives Steel
Cor oration
K. Williams, Assistant Field Administrator
ITT Grinnell Industrial
Pi in
', Inc.
D.
R. Giguere,
g.
C. Manager
R. Graiko, Senior Project Engineer
C. Labenski,
Piping Engineer
J.
McManus, Area Foreman
S. Ellis, Construction Technician
D. L. Grodi, Inspection Supervisor
L. Pela, Technicial Supervisor
R.
AskeUJ, Welding Inspector
H.
E. Freydenfelt,
g.
C. Receiving Supervisor
)
v
II
II:
<<, ),>>'.
f
I
4 ~ )
<<
>>
<<
I
0..
..) )
F
v
) r), 1<<I)
.
>>
)
v,
~
,)
I
). III II)t v')
- " ) f'IJ.llg>>
P
r 'v, l)vv,, .
'.W t
I)!'l,>> v
>> V, 'll ~ lpga<<,
II
II
)j
~
)
f',)
v
1
I
v
I
v'
)
~
~
r
~ K4
~
~
'
J
+ e ~
v,
<>'r
<<<< III
II
v<<J~N
II
v
~ '
)lh'1
) 'Al
~
A
lr "I
v
r
),
J.'I
v
I
II
<<v))vk
I
'
<<L
a
v'v)
I
II)III>>J)
v
VV r
V
II
))'Vf <<)I
Il')f<<)>>'
r<<
v
~
v
~
1
I
I'<<
<<f F
J
~ v
II
Ii
N
n
J
)
<<A
Iv
Malsh Construction
Com an
J. Lewis, Pouring
Card Coordinator
2.
Plant Tour
3.
The inspector
observed
work activities in-progress,
completed work and
plant status
in several
areas
during general
inspections of the plant.
The inspector
examined
work for any obvious defects
or noncompliance with
regulatory requirements
or licensee conditions.
Particular note was
taken of presence
of quality control inspectors
and quality control
evidence
such
as inspection records, material identification, nonconforming
material identification, housekeeping
and equipment preservation.
The
inspector interviewed craft personnel,
supervision,
and quality inspection
personnel
such
as personnel
were available in the work areas.
Specifically, the inspector observed
concrete
pour 1-122-072
P the final
pour for the primary containment during curing.
The area
was moist and
covered with burlap.
The inspector
observed
welding of the residual
heat
removal
system at elevation 215'ontainment,
T welds (liner to suppression
pool), and observed
work on the test channel at elevation 175'n the
suppression
pool.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
L'icensee Action on Previous
Ins ection Findin s and 50.55(e)
Items
a ~
(Open)
50.55(e)
Item (79-00-01):
Graver
UT of the full penetration
welds of the instrument/CRD penetrations,
adapters
to sleeves
not
meeting specification
and
code requirements.
This item will remain
open pending review by the
NRC of the following aspects
and
NRC
evaluation of any additional
licensee
submitted documentation, if
required.
(1)
Niagara Mohawk's letter of April 27,
1981
ambiguously reported
re-examination
was completed in September
1979, although
ultrasonic indications
were determined'to
be misleading
and
further nondestructive
examination
would probably
be required.
(2)
Niagara t'lohawk's letter of September
28,
1981 indicated twelve
instrument penetrations
in four different assemblies
were liquid
penetrant
examined.
The inspector
determined
twelve welds in
four different penetration
assemblies
were liquid penetrant
examined
and would appear to more accurately describe
sample size.
In addition, reduction of sample size
due to concrete
form
extensions
i~as not mentioned in the September
28 letter.
(3)
Records
concerning-'he
ultrasonic indications
have not been
provided to the resident
inspector or to
NRC Region I, I8E
personnel.
R
R
IP
Il
4
II t 'I I',,'I
I
I
4 44,
"II
44)JP
I 4>>4
4
"P,I,
4~tuft
4
4
I
It ~
, It
I
4
'
~ I
)
'I
4
(4
tl 'I
~ I
lf
4
4 J
4
4
4
~
4
t
4
'"
4
I
I
44
4ll
-
4
4=
'I
1
I
'I
~
~
I '=
tg
~ 1
4
4
=1 I tur
RC
u
4
'1
t
ll
~
44
III
"4 4
II
I
4
P, ~
4 (P
l
f, 4
1
J
1
4
'I
t
~ I'
RP(
4
4
4
It
4
1
4
II
~ 1'
.
1f
I
C
4
,4 I
4
4
4
h
1 ~
=h
Wt
~ I'I'l
P
u(
~,
4
~
4
4,
(4)
An analysis of the justification by the
NRC for substitution
of penetrant testing,
subsequent
to misleading ultrasonic
indications,
has not been completed.
b.
(Open) 50.55(e)
Item (81-00-03):
Voids in concrete
found adjacent
to the primary containment
equipment
hatches.
The voids discovered
on the outside wall of the primary containment
have
been repaired
by
removing all honeycombed
concrete
and filling the voids with grout.
On the liner side (inside wall surface)
a detailed verification of
design calculations still must
be completed.
The anticipated
completion date of the design calculations is December
15,
1981
and
this item will remain
open until stresses
are determined to be within
allowable design limits.
C.
(Open)
UNRESOLVED ITEM (81-05-01):
Unacceptable
Storage of Safety
Related
Equipment
Unacceptable
storage of safety related
equipment
and components
was
identified by Niagara
Mohawk in Nonconformance
Report No. 309, dated
June 25, 1981.
Stone
and Webster responded
to the findings in a
letter dated August 14, 1981, but the response
was unacceptable
to
Niagara
Mohawk in numerous
areas.
The resolution
and corrective
action in a timely manner will be reviewed
by the inspector in the
next inspection period.
d.
(Closed)
POTENTIAL 50.55(e)
ITEM (81-00-05):
Use of unqualified
aggregate.
The licensee
determined that this item is not reportable
as it does
not".have safety significance.
The licensee
reported to
the
NRC, Office of Inspection
and Enforcement,
Region I, in a letter
dated October 14, 1981, that the use of unqualified aggregate
was
not
a 50.55(e)
item due to the results of analysis
and tests
which
they performed.
The inspector
has reviewed this issue
and due to
the analysis, tests,
and corrective action,
as reported in the
October
14 letter, considers this item resolved.
4.
Containment Penetrations
The inspector
reviewed
documents
and records to assure
compliance with
regulatory requirements
and Stone
and Webster Specification
NMP2-P283B,
Shop Fabrication
and Field Erection of Primary Containment Steel
Plate
Liner, Sections
1-4.
Completed work by Chicago Bridge and Iron was
observed
on
a piping penetration,
instrument p'enetration, electrical
and two weld joints on a combination equipment
and personnel
hatch.
a.
Documents
Reviewed
Stone
and Webster Specification
No. NMP2-P283B, Revision 4, dated
June 1, 1981,
Shop Fabrication
and Field Erection of Primary
Containment
Steel
Plate Liner, Sections
1-4.
4
4
'Ir
')'t
It'
t)t
4
~
i 4)tlt
I
Ht(g
a
, 1
I
I'I
r
a ~ 1
4 "a~
hr
It
)
~
4'ta)r-
I,
)
a)
I
ii
4
~
)
H
t
I
)
I
.H
)H
,"4
H
It
1
4
1
'
4
~
'
~
I
)t
~ I-
1
14
~
I
$ 'I,
I
r-
<<g
f((r I
I( ~
4
I
t I(
lt
1
rr
'"
(',i h ',
"f
tl
t)a
1+
'
'
'
4,)
r, +~)
~ 4
I)
I
at(
ha (1
, tl
1
', I(
~
jul
I
hr
h
r
H
'
'I
I(
h
('i tl
~ 'I(( il
)
)
)
t(t r
1
H
a
h
kr
~
1
I
1
ttt
4
Chicago Bridge and Iron Nuclear guality Assurance
Manual for
Section III Products,
Division 1, Division 2, Division 4.
Chicago Bridge and Iron TIP-1, Revision 5, Training, Indoctrination
and gualification Program.
PSAR, Section 1.3, Principal Design Criteria
PSAR, .Section 5.2.3.4,
PSAR, Section 8.5.4.3, Electrical Penetrations
PSAR, Section 12.5.2.6,
Design at Penetrations
Drawings - 12177-EV-lJ, Electrical Penetrations
'-.'2177-EY-1K, 1L, 1M, 1N, Piping Penetrations
- 12177-EV-lP,
RodcDrive System Penetrations
- 12177-EV-lY, Instrument Penetrations
- 12177-EV-41A, Combination
Equipment
and Personnel
Hatch
b.
Records
Reviewed
Installation Records:
(1)
2)
3)
Piping Penetration
Z-29
Instrument Penetration
Z303-12
Electrical Penetration
Z-232
Equipment and Personnel
Hatch at 135o, 266'4"
Engineering
and Design
Change
Requests:
1)
ESDCR V15, 237
2)
ESDCR V15, 231
Material Test Reports:
Piping Penetration
Z29
1
P270-1
-
Flued
Head
2
P270-3
-
Plate
3
P270-A
-
Studs
4
P270-5
-
Half coupling
5
P270-6
-
Plug
7
Piping Penetration
Z21A
1)
P290-1
-
Flued
Head
2)
P290-8
-
lleld caps
3
P217
-
Pipe
Piping Penetration
Z21B
1)
P281-1
-
Half circle
2)
P283
-
Plate
3)
P280-4
-
Plate
A
<<~)
Receipt Inspection Reports:
(1
2
3
5
Piping Penetration
Z-29
Flued
Head Z-9A
Flued Head Z-9B
Flued
Head Z-21A
Flued
Head Z-21B
C.
Audit:
(1)
Stone
and Webster Special
Study No. 58, Major Contractor
gualification and Certification of Personnel
Performing
gA Activities at the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Project.
SNT-TC-lA gualification:
(1)
Nondestructive
Examiner for magnetic
particle
and
vacuum box testing.
Welding Detail Drawing:
(1)
Drawing 6 - Detail A.
Observation of Com leted
Work
The inspector observed
completed
work on piping penetration
Z-29,
electrical penetration
Z-232, instrument penetration
Z303-12,
and
the combination equipment
and personnel
hatch at 135
, elevation
266'".
The inspector discovered,
from a review of the Stone
and Webster
Special
Study No.
58 concerning qualification of personnel
and from
inspecting qualification records, that Chicago Bridge and Iron
personnel
performing pressure
decay tests in various areas of the
were not qualified in accordance
with SNT-TC-1A-1975.
The personnel
were qualified in accordance
with Chicago Bridge and
Iron Procedure
TIP-1, which does not meet the requirements
of SNT-TC-1A.
Stone
and Webster
has notified Chicago Bridge and Iron of this deficiency
and has
documented
the issue
on Nonconformance
and Disposition Report
No. 2506.
Since this item has to be referred to the Chicago Bridge and
Iron home office and Stone
and Webster
needs
time to formulate the
final resolution, this item will remain
open
and the inspector plans to
followup this concern in a future inspection period.
(410/81-12-01)
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
5.
Structural
Steel
ualit
Assurance
Procedure
and Record Review
The inspector
reviewed documents
and records to ascertain
compliance with
regulatory requirements
and Stone
and Webster Specifications
(NMP2-S204A,
Structural
Steel
Category
1
and
NMP2-S204X, Erection of Structural
and
Miscellaneous
Steel
Category 1).
Documents
Reviewed
Stone
and Webster Specification
NMP2-S204X, Erection of Structural
and Miscellaneous
Steel
Category 1, Revision 2, dated
June 27, 1981.
I
fyt'
~
4
44
hht+4
I
~
4
", ;*
I,
4
If)'
h>>t
=
h
I
1
'I
.'44yrh
,4
tt I
4
"
', t
~
hh/ffvy
4 'I
k
$
hh
1
1
li
I4
'1
>
t I
~ I
'.IfN
il
1
hhyC Ivll
'I
'F
h,
1
lf
1
W
1
I
I
If
I
I 4"
y I'Ig
4
,,y
~
~
~ r*
4
lf ~
4
~
1
I
~
Iflh
4
,t4 1, 'll
ff
4
~
-'h
~
J"
T41
ll
II
tf
~
4
v
h.
1
.4 ~ 4
" '
'
4 I, l
- 4 Fg
4
,h'-I
1
I fti,,l
,I
1
hf
It/
r
~
~
1
h,
4) t
)
tv 't
Ihr
1
41 I
1
If
hh
I
~ ~I
t
f
Ar,l'
tt
4th )
4
~
1
II
4
hl
I
g
1
~ lf
~
I- '4
'.4
Stone
and Webster Specification
NMP2-S204A, Structural
Steel
Category 1, Revision 5, dated
February 27, 1981.
Stone
and Webster gS-10.17, Structural
Steel
Erection,
Revisio'n A,
dated August 7, 1978.
Stone
and Webster gA-10.43, Hanger Installation, Revision 0, dated
September
23, 1981.
1
Stone
and Webster gAD-10.5, Structural
Steel
and
Rock Bolt
Reinforcement
Inspection,
Revision
B, dated August 24, 1979.
Stone
and Webster CMP-4.1-5.78, Construction
Methods Procedure for
Structural
Steel Erection,
May 1978.
Research
Council Specification for Structural Joints Using
A325 or A490 Bolts, April 18,
1972.
No items of noncompliance
were identified; however, the following issues
remain unresolved
as discussed
below.
The inspector
noted
by a review of procedures
and discussions
with licensee
personnel
that
a procedure
did not exist for structural
steel modifications
or reinstallations.
For example, if a
beam
had to be moved for piping
clearance
the only notification to project quality assurance
was verbal
notification from the Gives craft foreman.
The inspector questioned this
process
and the possibility of reinstallation of a
beam without project
quality assurance
knowledge, resulting in the probability of required
hold points
and inspections
being bypassed.
In addition, it was learned
through procedure
and record review that although the licensee is required
to comply with AWS Dl.l, paragraph
6.5, entitled, "Inspection of Work and
Records," it does not appear that inspections
are adequate
to meet the
requirements of AWS Dl.l.
An example of this inadequacy
concerns
inspections
of fit-ups which are
done
on a random basis.
Paragraph
6.5 of AWS Dl.l
states
in part that the inspector
shall
examine the work to make certain
that it meets
requirements of Section 3.
Section
3 of AWS Dl.l states
under
assembly,
in part, that,
"The parts to be joined by fillet welds shall
be
brought into as close contact
as practicable.
If the gap separation
is
1/16 inch (1.6mm) or greater,
the leg of the fillet weld shall
be increased
by the amount of the separation
or the contractor shall demonstrate
that the
required effective throat
has
been obtained."
The documented fit-up
inspections
done by Stone
and Webster, guality Control, are
done
on
a
reasonably
small
sample
and
do not appear to meet the requirement of AWS Dl.l,
paragraph
6.5. If an all around fillet weld was completed with a gap
separation violation, it would be virtually impossible to detect
on final
weld inspection.
The lack of a rework procedure
and the apparent deficiencies
in structural
steel quality control inspection
procedures
to assure
compliance with
AWS Dl.l, paragraph
6.5 will remain unresolved
pending review by the
NRC of
licensee justification for acceptance
of the structural
steel
inspection
~
~
n
ln
vd
4
b
'
d ~
~
I
n
4
1
4
d
4
d
'
4
1
4
I 41
4
I
I
=*
4
4
d
f
4
~ ld V,
h
I
4
~ ll, jl,
I
m
~
1
n
N
I, M,n
4
I
4
il
III
I
I
d
~
d
~
II
E
1
I'
4
1
t
d
d
I
n
d
I
I
II
I
n I
4
d
I
n
4
lt ll'
- I'
"
f
~
4
n
1
4
nv
Et
4
I I
j
4
I'I
I*
V
4
4"
I
n, 'll
8,
program
and
NRC evaluation of any further licensee corrective action,
if required.
(410/81-1 2-02)
b.
Records
Reviewed
The inspector
reviewed material test reports,
engineering
and design
change requests,
welding inspection reports,
high strength bolting
inspection reports, erection inspection reports,
NDE qualifications,
visual inspector qualifications, receipt inspection records,
fabrication
shop records,
an audit, calibration record, weld material
requisition,
and weld technique
sheet
as detailed
belov(.
Material Test Report:
(1)
Beams
B330-1-1, B330-1-2,
and B330-03 located at 198'levation,
south auxiliary bay, certifications to ASTM A36.
Engineering
and Design
Change
Requests:
1
ESDCR V19, 152 - Beam B5048, elevation 261', secondary
containment
2
ESDCR V19, 084 - Post
B5036, elevation 240', secondary
containment
l<elding Inspection Reports:
(1)
Pl<9015964 - Beams
B330-1-1, B330-1-2,
and B330-03
High Strength Bolting Inspection Reports:
(1)
PS9021604 - Beams
B330-1-1, B330-1-2,
and B330-03.
Erection Inspection Reports:
(1)
SS9021280 - Beams
B330-1-1, B330-1-2,
and B330-03
2
8S1013344 - Beam A4805, elevation 215', secondary
containment
3
8S1013327 - Beam A4204, elevation 215', secondary
containment
SNT-TC-1A gualifications:
Nondestructive
Examiner magnetic particle and liquid penetrant
Visual Inspector gualifications:
Personnel
certifications to ANSI N45 2.6
Receipt Inspection
Records:
(1)
PS9001842 - Beams
B330-1-1, B330-1-2,
and B330-03
I
u<<,r<<I'I l
fl.~',I
'
I "
.0
<<l
II'
"PP
)'I
1
~ BP<<II
I UI
i
,I
i " I) V"
u
ll I
II )
I
I I
F.
I
-It
pl
u )
II
t
~ A
~
it( ) )
tg
I
P
I
I
if
1
u
II
I
<<
'(
I
- I
I
I
P
I
\\I'l
H
'I
I
I
I
=-)
<<( ~
u
ff
P
1f
i ~ III H>>u,gr
f
'
f
- 1, (
Ii'
)H
I
~ I
P
u
<<
~ <<
~
w
t)t
'I,, f'l)t
lr
II
<<
p
<<k
P
I',
P
H'
I r
I&I t
~ u
p
I>>
<< ~
,li
'l
<<
II
Fabrication
Shop Records:
(1)
Inspection
Report No. N2S204A0109 contained inspection
records
on painting, abrasive blast cleaning, material
conformance,
traceability, documentation audit,
and shipping release
for
Beams
B330-1-1, B330-1-2,
and B330-03.
Audit:
(1)
Stone
and Webster Corporate Audit dated August 26, 1981,
Structural
Steel
Erection.
Calibration Record:
(1)
Torque Wrench 5'08364 (calibration standard
808365)
Weld Material Requisition:
(1)
8176331 for E7018 rod
Held Technique
Sheet:
(1)
W40 - for restrain
beams,
structure
no.
No items of noncompliance
were identified.
6.
Structural
Steel
Heldin
Procedure
S ecifications
The welding procedure specifications
and technique
sheets
were reviewed f'r
compliance to
AWS Dl.l.
a ~
Documents
Reviewed
b.
PSAR, Station Structures
and Shielding, Section 12.
Stone
and Webster
AWS Dl.l, Helding Procedure,
W-200, Section A, Revision 5.
Weldin
Techni
ue Sheets
Reviewed
W68Z - Single Bevel Butt, Backing Strap
W69Z - Fillet
W70J - Single Bevel
T and Corner,
With Backing
W70G - Fillet
W71D - Double Bevel
T and Corner
W68S - Single Bevel Corner,
Backing Strap
Technique
Sheets
W68Z, W69Z, and
W68S were evaluated with regard to the
following criteria of AWS Dl.l:
1)
Section '5.10.3,.Fillet
Weld Tests
(macroetch)
2)
Table 5.10.1.1,
Number
and type of test specimens
and range of
thickness qualified.
(reduced section tension test
and side
bend)
, ~
f Wdi
1
~
1 fftl 9
tt5
U
AJ
I
1
<<!W>
l>< I,,'l,;W
I '.if'A WWff'ME.
1
1 *
f
I
II
1
~
El rr
fl
1
1
II
r
~
E,
f
~ '
II
"'.
1
'
I
1
P
I'I
1
J ~ El
4 \\
tr
II
~
'I ~
I
W
V
tW
~
1
~
I
. 'i
I
IV
~
1
WE 1
I'
Iea
I
~ d
<<l
II-
A tt
1
l
V ti
1
E
~ '
I
~
1
r
~
t
'E
~,!;
1
1
~
E
1
'
Jf
I
10
3)
Section 5.12, Test results required.
(acceptance
criteria)
4)
Table 4.2,
Minimum preheat
and interpass
temperature
(5)
Table 4. 1.1, Matching filler metal requirements
including
tensile strength
(6)
Section 4.9, Electrodes for shielded
metal arc welding.
(AWS A5.1,
AWS A5.5)
(7)
Section 4.10,
Procedures
for shielded metal arc welding.
(max. diameter of electrodes,
max. size fillet weld made
in one pass)
(8)
Section 2.7, Details of fillet welds.
(maximum fillet weld size)
Technique
sheets
W70J,
W70G,
W71D are considered pre-qualified
welding procedures.
These technique
sheets
were reviewed against
Section 2.6 of AWS Dl.l and the details
as specified in 2.7 through
2.14 of AWS Dl.l.
No items of noncompliance
were identified in the area of welding
procedure specifications.
7.
Pressure
Boundar
Pi
e Weldin
and Record
Review
a ~
Wel dinge
The inspector
examined
completed weld data reports
on welds ¹03,
¹06,
and ¹11 which appeared
on
Subsequently,
the
inspector discovered
weld ¹06 at 229'levation in the containment
building had not been done,
and the 'spool pieces,
57-6-2-41-1-39X
and 57-6-2-41-2-40X to be joined by weld ¹06, were in storage in
the containment building in an unworked condition.
The Welding
Inspector
had signed off hold points for fit-up, root pass,
and
accepted
the final weld on September
14, 1981.
This represented
a noncompliance with 10CFR50,
Appendix B,
Criterion V, as the welding activity had not been accomplished.
(410/81-05-03)
During discussions
with the ITT Grinnell g.
C. Manager,
Inspection
Supervisor,
and Welding Inspector
and from a record review of all
the welds
on isometric 57-6, it was learned that the Welding
Inspector
had mistakenly signed off on the weld data report for
field weld ¹06 while actually observing
and intending to sign off
on field weld ¹04.
Field weld ¹04 was
a pipe to elbow weld as
was
field weld ¹06.
The ITT Grinnell Welding Inspector's error was his
failure to verify material identification and check the isometric
for correct elevation/location of the weld.
In addition, it was discovered
during
a review of procedures
that
ITT Grinnell does not have
a procedure
which requires
the welding
inspector to verify material identification.
The inspector
reviewed
Grinnell's weld data report and noted the following weaknesses:
l,g'h
(
I I;)', ,, lr
4'h ) hfl"hy,hf
Ih
I
hh
I
>
<<fyl
yl, '
4
I
I
I
~
I
~
1
'I
~ '
I
fly
1
'4 ~
4
11
ytr fl'
y
h
'4
)
) h
If y',
~ I
'ry 'f
4
II4
4
1
)
jI
I>> I I
t
'
l
~4
I
I
~
"'.'.
t
.It 1
~
ff
I
I
r
'\\ r
I
1
11
b.
(1)
There is not a place on'the data report to verify material
identification which consists of lack of a hold point sign off.
(2)
Wall thickness
dimensions
were not being written on the weld
data report.
Subsequently,
the ITT Grinnell
Q.
C. Manager promptly undertook
the following corrective measures:
(1)
Reprimand the Welding Inspector for not verifying material
identification and accepting
an incorrect,
unmade weld.
(2)
Conduct
a training session
with all Welding Inspectors
stressing
the need to verify material identification and
check isometric drawings to assure
correct sign off of welds.
(3)
Revise the applicable
procedure
and weld data report to
include verification of material identification.
(4)
Re-examine all welds
and weld data reports of safety related
piping to assure all welds are complete
as documented.
Also, ITT Grinnell management
agreed to promptly consider additional
improvement in the weld data report, to include wall thickness
dimensional
information and recording
heat
numbers of loose material,
as singular
tees
and elbows,
on the data report.
Corrective action measures
81
and 82,
as detailed
above,
have
been
satisfactorily completed.
The inspector will verify during
subsequent
inspections
the implementation of measure
83 and the
completion of measure
84.
ITT Grinnell Procedures
Reviewed
FQC-3.1-1,
FQC-3.4-1,
FQC-4. 1-1,
FQC-4.1-2,
FQC-4.1-3,
Purchase
Orders
and Requisitions,
June
12, 1981.
Receiving Examination,
June
12, 1981.
Material Requisitioning for Stone
and Webster, July 9, 1981.
Work Packages,
June
12, 1981.
Weld Data Report Instruction for Inprocess
Inspectors,
July 27, 1981.
Verification of Installed Materials,
June
12, 1981.
, Storage of Equipment
and Materials, January
11, 1979.
Control, Storage,
and Disbursement of Welding Materials,
June 2, 1980.
Calibration, January
28,
1981.
Field Document Control, April 3, 1979.
, Receiving Examination Nonconforming Items, January ll, 1979.
, Nonconformities,
June 12, 1981.
, Internal Audits, June 7, 1980.
, Surveillance of Storage Areas, April 14, 1978.
Isometric Control, June
12, 1981.
FQC-4.2-3,
FQC-4.2-10
FQC-5.1-1,
FQC-7.1-3%
FQC-9.1-2,
FQC-10.1-2
FQC-10. 1-4
FQC-12. 1-1
FQC-12. 1-2
FQC-2.1-2,
No items of noncompliance
or unresolved safety concerns
resulted
from a
review of the procedures,
except
as noted in paragraph
7.a.
'I
II
1
I
tf
4
I
If
I
4
4
~'t
f
I'
ll r
tl
l
4
-
E
~
4
C
4
Il
kk
llf
'I th
I,
f
b
htf
I
hk
1
I,
I(
4
1
I ~
=k
I f')+
4
4
"kb
r
It
tr
. kj
I
4
4
4 ~
4
'lip
F
I j
f
j
~
b
tb
+'I 'I
I
b
~,
W
~ I
'I "
I
I
4
,
F
4
Ij
'I
I
I
b 'll
-r
I
~
4
4
4
~
I
I
k
4
tl
,Ir
I
If
4
'I
~
~
tl
~
I
A
I
12
C.
Records
Reviewed
The inspector reviewed purchase
orders, receipt inspection reports,
pet sonnel certifications, audits, calibration records,
and deviation
reports to determine
compliance with licensee 'and regulatory
requirements.
Pur chase
Orders:
NMP2-FPO-12493 - SA-403WP304 elbow
NMP2-FPO-12345 - 2" and smaller pipe and fittings
NMP2-FPO-12869A - SA-105 fittings
NMP2-FPO-12503 - E7018 weld rod
NMP2-FPO-12464 - SA-312TP304 pipe
Receipt Inspection Reports including Material
Ger tifications:
ITT Grinnell receipt inspection reports
and Stone
and Webster
receipt inspection reports
were examined for the purchase
orders
listed above.
In addition, material certifications were examined
for compliance to the
ASME BLPV Code, Sections II and III.
Personnel
gualification Records:
Welder, designated
by symbol
FM, qualified to welding procedures
1-4-2-2 and 1-1-1-7.
Welding Inspector, certified as Level II to ANSI N45 2.6.
Nondestructive
Examiner, certified Level II, SNT-TC-lA, X-t ay.
Audits:
81-04, Drawing and Specification Control, dated February
12, 1981.
81-07, Procurement
Control, dated
March ll, 1981.
81-10, Process
Control, dated April 20, 1981.
The inspector noted that the audits tended to lack objective
evidence
and the Grinnell g.
C. Manager agreed that audits
should
contain objective evidence in order to determine
the scope
and
depth of the audit.
Calibration Records:
800128, precision level
800028, inside micrometer
The above instruments
were calibrated against
a gauge block set to NBS.
Deviation Reports:
f/1253, dated August 25,
1981
4'1185, dated August 28,
1981
81385, dated
October 20,
1981
.No items of noncompliance
were identified, except
as noted in paragraph
7.a.
IIff
V
I
V
R'g If
g
V -I
U>>f
1'
I,Ul 'I'l,
IV
>>1
VU
I I
tl
Ulf >>-I
f fl
I
1)
1
I
'
a Vf
~ I
W
~
ll
>>V
WIW
I
'I
4
1
V
f
~
I ~
1,
Ih
IV
Uf 4
~ pe>> 1,; / .W " I
V
I
~
~
~
V f
I
VU
V
1! "$ ,1
I
~
>>
~ *>> ~
.),)
I
,Il
1,3';Pfv
! f
l )Uf l
)
1
I)
W 'll)
1 Wl
)fjf
) 'w'"
I'UII
>>
ll v'Ih
W,
)
>>
V
~
~
13
'.
Anal sis of Nonconformances
~
~
~
~Ct
C
The inspector
noted that in a period from August ll, 1980 to
May 13, 1981, there were thirty-five (35) nonconformances
written
by Stone
and Webster relating to concrete curing.
The concrete
pours were determined
by Stone
and Webster to be acceptable,
based
on visual inspections
and windsor probe testing;
however,
the cause of the thirty-five nonconformances
was not analyzed
nor
was corrective action taken to preclude repetition.
As a result,
required conditions for concrete
curing were not maintained.
Detailed below are the thirty-five nonconformances
and the related
defi ciencies.
Nonconformance
Re ort No.
Date
Deficiencies
1880
1886
1890
1897
1905
1943
1944
1945
1989
2056
2059
2122
1914
1915
2101
2259
2001
2006
2013
2023
2033
2034
2043
2044
2049
2054
2055
2058
2068
2082
2089
2102
2117
2118
2124
8/15/80
8/11/80'/19/80
9/9/80
8/12/80
10/28/80
9/22/80
9/13/80
11/7/80
3/10/81
2/25/81
5/1/81
9/14/80
10/80
4/13/81
5/13/81
1/7/81
11/19/80
1/28/81
2/10/81
1/28/81
1/28/81
3/3/81
3/3/81
2/28/81
2/2g/81
3/2/81
3/10/81
3/20/81
3/27/81
3/27/81
11/12/80
4/19/81
4/22/81
4/20/81
Drying Out
Drying Out, Temperature
Drying Out
Inadequate
Curing Records
Temperature
If
Cl (
,QF) IFFC(lip
IL F
~
4
ll
f(
lf(
4
4
4
",'C<<f)
-
F-,l'r-I 'tF'
<<
I'i((
<<)
~ C'(
4
g
)<<I)'- ( <<
)5 'f
Crf 1',
"<<cr",I
lr"f
4
P
It
<<
qi
F '1
1
I ~ If)
'
'
I '$ )
)
jf j<<]
Q
$11
~ ~
]I 1 ~
y
R""','l
$ 4.[
- <<
4
\\4
4
$
4
I" (ff
'I ",4
f,
4
4
1
4
I,
k
'4
4
4
I
f
4
F
4
I
4 ,)
r 11(F,
If
%E
~44
1
i
I
4(
=I
, 14
The temperature
deficiencies resulted
from not keeping the
temperature
of the concr'ete
between
50o and 70
F when the air
temperature
surrounding the concrete
was less than 40oF,
as
required
by Stone
and Webster Specification
NNP2-5203C, Revision 6,
dated July 1, 1980.
The inadequate
curing records resulted
from a
failure to record temperatures.
Failure to take corrective action is
a noncompliance
contrary to
Appendix B, Criterion XVI.
(410/81-12-04)
Upon further investigation, the inspector discovered that Stone
and Webster's guality Assurance
Program requires
the following
inspection
program for concrete curing per gS-10.13,
Revision
C.
Concrete curing checks shall
be random,
based
on the expected
Average Daily Temperature
using the following frequencies
as
a
mlnlmum:
ADT
Below 40o
Above 40o
Number of Ins ections
Per
Week
In addition,
Walsh Construction 'Company records curing temperatures
twice a day, during the regular shift, at approximately nine a.m.
and three p.m.
Nonconformance
k'1915 involved twenty-four (24) pours
where temperatures
were not recorded
on weekends.
The inspector
questions
whether curing checks
by Stone
and Webster field quality
control personnel
are adequate
in number, considering the number of
curing nonconformances
and the records of curing temperatures
as
documented
by Walsh Construction
Company.
The licensee is reviewing
the curing inspection
program for possible corrective action.
Dowel Placement
From July 27,
1981 to October 29,
1981 there were thirty nonconformances
written by Stone
and Webster resulting from missing or mislocated
dowels in concrete
pours.
The missing dowels were identified by Walsh
Construction
Company, after inspecting previously poured concrete,
prior to making the second
connecting pour.'he
Stone
and Webster
field quality control personnel
apparently
had failed to identify
'the missing dowels
and the field quality control preplacement
representative
had signed
and dated the concrete
pour card
as
"released for pour" despite
the missing dowels.
The worst case
appears to be nonconformance
report no. 2613, where approximately
twenty (20) out of thirty-four (34) dowels were missing.
Detailed
below are the thirty nonconformances
and the related deficiencies.
E
i,
- ) 'f ')"
"J )I'".
h
'llj
ff
0
~
J UL
) I IE
~'f
) (j,
H<<rf
0-
i<<
'ht f >><<U
IU 0
10
)
0
I )
Mh
I
lf
' I".0 t
~
'j
M
0
~'h
h
'h
'h
'I
Uj
))0
"I,'" ) )
tt
I
01
fl
lh
0
A
I
I h)
U'
0
4,0
~
h
0
<< "I
I
)U
0
~
Il ~
I
0
j
t)
0
<<)) ')
~ )
I
M
'M
M
h
~
H
0
)
0
tg
0
~
I
Ui
e
M
<<M
0
0
)>>0 1,"
If
t
h
J
h
0
0 ffh
0
)
,',) Hl
0
0 ~
0
I
I
I
0
~
t
ll
I
'ff
)
f
'('I
UI
I
r) h
'
(
~
IU
') /'.,
'r
0
-A
f
if
Uill
hi f,"I
I f,h)'
<<Ej
fih t, "~(I,
0
H
'
j);g ) )tg
$
$
I
)
~
g
p
I
0
h
I jhhrt
ff
h br ill 'l,<<U I <<hh
th
t ~ 'l 'tt.
't~t'pproximate
No,
t~i
2619
2613
2609
2608
2597
2578
2576
2573
2568
2563
j25433
2512
2488
2481
2477
2475
2465
2435
2433
2432
2431
2429
2424
2423
2422
2420
2397
2316
2314
Missing Dowels
II
'I
Nislocated
Missing Dowels
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Hissing/Hisl ocated
Hissing Dowels
II
II
Missing/Mislocated
Missing Dowels
II
II
II
Missing/Hislocated
Hissing Dowels
Hislocated
,
Nislocated
7
20
18
2
6
9
$2/
710
6
4
1
1
2
4
1
9
6
20
6
10
2
5
7
10
9
The inspector
requested
the licensee
to address
the following areas',
The significance of the failure of quality control personnel
to
identify missing dowels.
(.2)
(3)
(4)
Adequacy of the guality Assurance
Program in this area.
Whether or not the missing dowels are continuous or,,just
end conncections
to the next pour for overlap or cadwell.
That the Stone
and Webster inspection
program combined with the
Walsh Construction
Company inspections
were adequate
to assure
that pours which were not able to be reinspected
have
a suffi-
cient number of dowels
and rebar.
f
6
(5)
Corrective Actions that vrill Be undertaken
to assure that
missi.ng dowels are properly identified and repaired,
This item remains unresolved
pending licensee
response
to the above
items.
(410/81-3.2-05)
9. ~-'.> Unresolved 9tems
Unresolved
items are*matters
about which more information is required in
order to ascertain
whether they are acceptable
items,
items of noncompliance
or deviations,
Unresolved
items disclosed
during the inspection are dis-
cussed
in paragraphs
5.a
and 8.b.
10.
Hang ement Reetin
s
At periodic intervals during the course of this inspection,
meetings
were
held with senior plant management
to discuss the scope
and findings of this
tnspecti'on.
The licensee
acknowledged
the inspectors findings and concerns,
and all parties were cooperative.