ML19309G806
| ML19309G806 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1980 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309G768 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005070601 | |
| Download: ML19309G806 (4) | |
Text
. _.
8005070&o/J Duxc POWER COMPm Powsa Bust.omo wa Socru Caracu Srazzt. Cn.auu2rre. N. c. csa.w
-.. -:.. a c a.. a.
March 5, 1980 v u
- in na' re.c....c;...re.
l S'ese 'e s aw -* c ae 373..;g3 i
a Mr..'a:23 ?. C'2cilly, Director
'J. S. :.a ;;ar Regulaccry Co==isaion Region *:
131 "ari-::ta Street, Suite 3100 4
Atlanta, A: ;ia 30303 l
I S ub j a.c t : ?!cCuire !:uclear Station 0:cket ::o. 50-370 1
I
(
' 2..: ::u a:
7.I : Z:!G S. 370/80-01 1
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
1
.u requestod by your letti.r of I abruary 11, 1980 please find attached a response
- a che items of noncompliance identified in the subject inspection report.
- w r C:=pany does t.ot consider any information contained in IE Inspection L.a :
7.;;or: ::o. 50-370/30-01 io be proprietary.
I
'*ery truly yours,
/r
/
s a.k w, &:,
saew,/
s i
'?illian O. Parker, Jr. f7" f
[
LJ3:scs At tach =an t 4
i l
l I-
MCCUIRE STCI.ZAIL STATION RESPONSE TO IE INSPECTION REPORT No. 50-270/80-01 A.
As required by Paragraph (a)(1) of 10 CFR 50.55a " Structures, systems, and components shall be designed, fabricated and inspected to quality standards ce=mensurate with the function to be perfor=ed." For reacter coolant pressure boundary and other safety-related piping this que.lity standard is identified in the FSAR as ASME Sectica III.
>SME Section II! provides =inimum veld site require =ents for socket velda flanges in 71i;ure N3-4427-1.
Contrary to the above, en January 10, 1980, the licensee's well process control sheet for ASME Section III Class I sccket-welding flan;e wells NC2FW33-20 and -21 in the Reactor Coolant System specified min'=u weld sizes below that required by ASME Section III.
In addition, the follow-ing welds had si:es below the minimum requirements:
Weld System Pine Size Ccde Class NV2FW274-6 Chemical Volume Control 2" Sch 160 2
TV2FW274-10 Chemical Volume Control 2" Sch 160 2
NC2 Tb7T5070-1 Reactor Coolant 3/4" Sch 160 2
NC2 Fb7T5060-4 Reactor coolant 3/4" Sch 160 2
NC2FW43-7 Reactor Coolant 1" Sch 160 1
This is an infraction.
RESPONSE
It was determined that the minimum weld sizes for socket weld flanges and socket weld fittings had been specified to be 1.25T, i.e., 1.25 x the nominal pipe wall thickness. These require =ents have been corrected to specify 1.09T for socket veld fittings and 1.4T for socket weld flanges.
In addition, an audit was conducted which included inspection of a sample of flanges and fittings in the following areas on McGuire Unit 2.
(a) Socket veld flanges using greater than Sch. 40 pipe for veld size.
(b)
Socket weld flanges using less chan Sch. 40 pipe for weld size.
(c) Socket weld fittings using greater than Sch. 40 pipe for veld size.
In regard to Item (a), approximately 30 percent of the welds did not meet the requirements. All remaining welds under this category will be reinspected for veld si:e and a review will be conducted of the extent of the rejects and the design criteria for these velds.
Corrective action in this area will be reviewed with the NRC Principal Inspector upon co=pletion.
In regard to Items (b) and (c), findings in these areas were not significant and did not warrant further reinspection of welds ia these categories.
.- B.
As required by Criterion V of Appendix 3 to 10 CFR 50, and implemented by DPC Topical Report Duke 1-A Section 17, Paragraph 17.1.5, " Activities affecting quality shall be accomplished in accordance with the require-ments imposed by.
instructions, procedures and drawings." Procedure F9 Rev. 7 requires that craftsmen responsible for work maintain design drawings at the work location.
~
Contrary to the above, on January 10, 1980, a Safety Injection System piping subassembly that included weld NI2FW54-21 did not comply with design drawing dimensional requirements and the design was not present at the work station.
This is an infractien.
RESPONSE
i Each supervisor =aintains the appropriate design drawings for pipe
~
installation. The requirement that these docu=ents be =aintained in the work location for access by the craftsmen has been reemphasited.
The work location has been defined, at a minimum, as the superviser's work desk.
In the situation cited, a field installation was incorrectly taken to the fabrication shop for completion without the design drawing acccmpanying the assembly.
In addition, a Variation Notice had been incorporated in the field installation isometric which specified an additional weld that was not required for installation. This veld was not used by the field craftsman, however, the isometric was not appro-priately corrected at this time.
This discrepancy was documented as a nonconforming item and has been corrected.
It should be noted that the asse=bly would have received a standard configuration inspection prior to installatica to assure co=pliance to the design drawings.
3 C.
As required by Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, and as i=plemented by DPC Topical Report Duke 1-A Section 17, Paragraph 17.1.5, " Activities affecting quality shall be accomplished in accordance with the require-4
=ents imposed by.
. instructions, procedures, and drawings. Procedure
)
M4 Rev 5 requires fLnal visual inspection of welds in accordance with procedure LS0'(Rev. 7).
Contrary to the above, on January 10, 1980, the inspector performing final visual inspection on weld NI2FW54-21 did not know hcw to perfors the inspec-tion required to assure compliance with final weld offset requirements stated ir procedure L80 (Rev. 7).
This is an infraction.
.m
s.
?
1
~.
1-a
RESPONSE
All QC welding inspectors have received formal training under the guidance of the Quality Assurance Department to assure that each inspector could perform the inspection required to assure conpliante with final'we'.d offset requirements.
"his training consisted of i
reemphasizing and clarifying the requirements in Construction i
Department Procedure L-80.
Eact. QC inspector has received an instru
]
ment to adequately perform this inspection.
An audit was conducted to determine if any outside dinneter misnatch I
could be identified in piping. No joints vera found to be out of tolerance. All welding inspectors interviewed duria; this audit I
had been aware of the mismatch requiremente prior to this inspection.
j This situation was also documented as a nonconforming item.
i 4
I o
i 1
1 I
4 i
1 2
i i
h' I
i l
1 i
~
f~
l i