ML19319A649

Insp Repts 50-269/69-05,50-270/69-04 & 50-287/69-04 on 690422.No Nonconformance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qa Programs Re Decision Making Process,Qa Repts,Records of Matls Still in Shop,Util Organization & Stds

ML19319A649
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	05/22/1969
From:	Seidle W, Swan W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Shared Package
ML19319A648	List: ML19319A647 ML19319A649
References
50-269-69-05, 50-269-69-5, 50-270-69-04, 50-270-69-4, 50-287-69-04, 50-287-69-4, NUDOCS 7911180087
Download: ML19319A649 (9)

Text

- - - - - _ _.

.n 4.&, -

Y t

y o:

~

(

y._

i 1

~1-

.. {'

.j ;

U. S. ATCMIC ENERGY C& MISSION P.EGION II DirSION OF CmPLIANCE

+

,i.

i-.

h ~l

! i l

f<

Report of Inspection f,

t9

,.7 1

CO Report Nos. 50-269/69-5 50-270/69-4 50-287/69-4 i

3'.

4 i'

}

Ddko Power Company l,

' Licensee:.

Cconce Units 1, 2, 3

'i' License !!os. CPPR-33, 34, 35 j,1 j

Category A 3c l

Date of Inspection:

April 22, 1969, April 9-11, 1969 (at site)

\\o

.1 b te of Prsvious Inspection:

j.

. g_

.I 49.47 4 dM I

Inspccted By:- -)fiNb-A ds l-W. B. Swan,. Reactor Inspector (Construction)

(Date)

[h 9:.

f

-l n

a

<r/4. 2[6"f W

f

.l; -

= Reviewed By:

'(Dat6)

W. C. Seidle, Senior Reactor Inspector Qms None ri fl Proprietary Information:

.j-r

).

t SCOPE

.f-

'I

' An announced inspection was made at the Mount Vernon, Indians, plant of the Power Generation Division of Babcock and Wilecx Company '.n ccupany with J. R. Wells, Principal Field Engineer for Duke Power Con.sny, after-

~ j.

coordinating with R. E. Oller, Eetallurgist of Region ~1II, now assigned principal ~ inspection responsibility for this plant, and J. Malcolm Curtis, j

resident Quality Assurance Engineer for Duke Power Company at' Mount Vernon.

g 1.-

~..

1 I

4'

%y?,hl

't.

-R.

--,.,. n:.., -...-

3 s 11. iso DI' 7 -

f.g.- -.- -+

kh 4.N

,s

~

c '

4, n;: ~

7 t,, 1.i

..i g

(

~-

c

• {

e s

The purpose of the inspection was to evaluate F6'3's quality assurance prodram as it pertains to piping and equipment being manufactured for the Oconee Station, by review of the q:ality assurance cr. anization, pornonnel, procedures and records, and to further judge the results of their program by inspectien of hardware in process of fabrication and completed hardware.

Tho' scope of the inspection consisted specifically of the followin3:

1.

Review of organizatior - harts and discussion of QA philosophy,

(

especially concerning nes of authority and the independence of decisions by QC men.

2.

Review the specific training, experience and tested qualificaticns of a random selection of QC men.

s 3

Review the engineering, shop, and QC procedures ccntrolling the manu-facturing and acceptance of hardware.

'f 4.

Sample the QC records, especially in relation to hardware still in i

the shop.

i

{

i 5.

Compare the QC reports by cb 'rva,cc of the hardware and test data for that hardware.

6.

Obtain copies of orcanization charts, standards, procedures and other data useful for additional evaluation away from the vendor's plant i

l and. personnel.

7.

Observe testing in process and spot check calibration of equipment.

Since the Compliance Manual Chapter 4300, '%ndor Inspections," had not yet been received, a list of questiens developed by Stone and 'icbster for A

their vendor evaluatiens was used as an outline by the inspector.

checklist of these questions is attached as Exhibit A.

All questions i

could not be answered.

.i k

SUF%UlY i

'l hfoty and Nonconfo m nce Items - None Other Significant items -

B&'d is competent to produce critical system hardw4re for nuclear 1.

power systems.

I (

t 4

g

+

.9

}.,. _

,--.p.

r;

.g t, _

s-

- ([

~

c_

v s,

2. E ped's Mount Vernon plant, which is only five years old, is clean, roo:ry, well equipped, and competently manned to perform its assigned j

u..

j-L

- functions of-piping system section assembly and fabrication of pressure vessels and reactor. vessel shells.

I The Standard Practico Instructions, Quality Assurance Manual, imple-f

~.

3

' nenting documents and records, are of unusual scope and detail.

l 4.

Com:.endably, PF4 had prepared a bound document of reference data for

the Oconce Station work, entitled " Codes, Design Data, and Non-

< [.

Destructive Testing for Major Components for Oconee 1, 2, and 3",

for use by all concerned parties.

5. ~ In tractice, quality control personnel have adequate authority.

g i-

=6.

Quality control inspectors are zealous and skillful at detectin work flaws and discropant materials, and quality assurance is effective in forcing corrective action, i -

Production management, however, does not aprear equally effective. in

!(-

preventing errors in workmanship, nor does QA seem especially eager

.7 to help in preventive action.

8.

No completed pipe assemb3yy or pressure vessel for Cconee was available at this_ plant for inspection, and some flaw correction work was in process; however, work released by QC inspectors after incremental i

j

. processing and flaw repair exhibited high quality workmanship and tight ; work flow centrol.

9.'

No items of nonconformance which would clearly and directly affect 3

public safety were noted; however, in' the exit interview,)the inspector 3!

cited'the need for (1) tighter weld electrode ecntrol, (2 more 4

frequent welding machine adjustment and calibratien, and (3) incro-(l N

mental testing of the interfaces of parent metal with weld metal in

~

massive circumferential joint welds on thick walled pipe.

[,

QC reports to the 'dorks Manager who technically has the authority to 4-

-10.

j override the QC lianager on rarginal questiens, but rerortedly this A

has never happened.-

1 A joint weld on.a 28-inch diameter recirculation pipe section was-

]l 11.

being made by deposition of successive 1/8-inch to 1/4-inch layers f'

of deposited weld metal.- The assembly was rotated a fraction of a i

i The degree at a time to keep the " puddle" approximately horizontal.-

pipe wall thickness appeared to be about 3 inches.. Pipe was carbon

^

+

s

.y 5 _-

1 4.

h; 5

6 I

p.

w - - - -,-

a'n' y m, _ -

n q.. +.

i'

.p

's US<

.m

k.,.3.,

t

.m

-t,'

((

+

-4 i

steel with' stainless steel liner. The successive layers were being in--

U

-deposited with no incremental tests to detect high stress cracking.

- of the boundary between veld filler metal and the parent retal. The f-parent metal was being kept at about'180* F. ahead of-the puddling.

t Reportedly,- this mssive wcld was not to be tested until it was completed.. - An average of 140 man-hovrs are used by a series of weldor and helper teams to complete one of the welds.

The inspcctor assorted that minor cracking at the boundaries might

,(

be detcete:1 if successive incremental testing were done as the layers t

were deposited, but that residual suall cracks enuld to missed in testing.of a' completed wcld and ce'ld 1 cad to extension of the cracks F

i by operational stresses. Skti QC s.' ate i that no such failure had been j.,

experienced on one of these large wits.

i' 4

12.- The inspector requested permission to photograph the questioned weld and also a-deep metal removal being made on a completed weld to i

correct a flaw. Formission was denied by Kane. A request that Brid

- take the pictures was also denied.

^(

IMagement Interview - The exit interview was not a mnagement interview sin:o no member of DM18 a man 2 ;ccent above the _!!uclear Components Specialist (Project Function) attended. The licensce's representative, Wolls, declined to request representation beycnd: those who took part in the afternoon plant inspection.-

l The inspector had a siege of laryngitis on the plane going to Indians, and this became progressively.worso during the inspecticn; so the interview was short and difficult, with written notes and vocal assistance frcm L

l Wells.

i' 1

1.

The inspector and Wells expressed dissatisfaction with apparent laxity i

in' wold rod control. QC representatives said conditions seen werc not typical and promised improvement.

2. ' The practice of having 1.lant maintenance supervisor cert.ify the cali-

'braticn of welding nachino instrumentation and adjusting the mehines

- i periodically was discessed..B'id men defended the practicos as L

demonstrably effective.

}

- t 3.. The inspector asserted the probability that the mss deposit method j'

of mking' thick joint. welds on piping, without incremental testing, would leave small undetectable cracks at the juncture of parent metal

~

with rapidly ecoling filler metal.

B':W representatives stated they had no record of a failure of this type joint in operations.

i:

4

'4.-

't\\

t I ji f

+.

• ~~.

p ^f

=**-e

• • • WB**tW*'**^*

"[

,u

,-e

-.-,e-

-e

s 9

.(

l i

the independence of action

'lells questioned DMi sharp y concern ng V.ane replied that altheugh theoretically the Works Manager 4.

by QC.

tells' concern could veto a QC decision, this has not happened, about IEi QC independence was of special interest to the inspector, who had pressed this same point at Duke Ocence where QC (Field Engineering) reports through a project engineer to a vice president of engineering.

1 Mano11 volunteered to mail a copy of Felis " Standard Practice Instruc-It was received pror.ptly and is on filo 5.

tions" to the inspector.

in Region II.

DETAILS A.

Persons Contseted 1.

p ', cock and '.lilcox I

F. W. Kane, QC Liaison between Mount Vernen and Barberten plants A. A. Varelli, Euclear Component Specialist 1

Roy thnell, QA Representative M. J. Ecover, Contract Supervisor assigned as pro,iect expediter for the Cconee Station work exclusively 9

2.

AEC-Compliance _

..d R. E. Oller, Fetallurgist, assigned primary inspection for all d

work by TS,i subsequent to s-heduling of this inspection 3.

Duke Power Corrany_

J. R. Wells, Principal Field Engineer, Duke Oconce Station J. Malcolm Curtis, QA Representative for shop inspection at BEi plants 4

B.

Process Control Kane and Manoll explained the use of the " Standard Practice Instructions" in planning and controlling of nanufacturing for each individual part and subsequent assemblics, t

(-

p 3

g

-N*-

ar#

f

,eg a

g O

I

.3

~

w._

(

' Hoover had assembled a set of papers consisting of single copies of

~ '

each document used in the mnufacture of a shepard's hoek shaped acnem-bly of 36-inch cteen loop piping, number A-57-203-50.

The doctnen-tation for this assembly, which has been delivered to site, was sampled at Mount Vernen and en a separate inspection at Barberton, Ohio.

Separate sheets are prcrared for each process step and each QC action.

As a result, the stack of papers for this simple assembly measured two inches in thickness. Usually, the individual piping parts are

(

shipped in alirost ccepleted condition to Mount Vernon for as.,embly.

The following additional specific areas were reviewed.

1.

Channe Control Shop drawings for a chan;c are prepared at Barberton (I'ount Vernon in the near future) and are rcuted to Iynchburg for approval of general arrangenent only, and stress analysis; then they re routed to Duke at Charlotte for review if an interface is involved.

2.

QC Decisions

[

If a QC squawk is challenged on the basis of interpretation of drawings, specifications or codes, the manager of MDT at Barberton has the final say.

In practice, questions are usually settled locally. The inspector's decision can be overridden only by signatures of two agreeing QC superiors. Pending a delayed decision, action on the part is deferred by a variation in proccus flow.

3.

Check of QC Squawk The QC inspector makes out a sheet rejecting a eccpleted prccess step. The reason for the re'ection is not stated on this sheet, which stays with the part, but on a separate sheet which goes to the RT, UT, PT, etc., group where it is filed along with findings on subsequent repairs. It is possible to determine exactly what was wrcng, wh'ere and what was dene to correct it, and to see the results of tests, that is, if one knous all the steps, is persis-tant, and has the time and patience.

c 4.

Review of Test Results by Licensee's Inspector Urier present purchase order ter;ns, BfN is oblir;ated to show Duke's inspector only the final, acceptable test results, even though a series of flaws, corrections, and retests nay have been involved.

!(

~.

4 t

e 7..

7

?

4*

L.

s.-

o

('

O.-

Shop Incrections 1

In the morning, a valk-thrcugh inspection of the piping c sceably shop was made. Only.one subassembly for Duke piping was being, worked on, a eccticn of 28-inch diameter rceircolation pipe. A.4oint weld, as previously described in this report, was being raie. A nunter of pipe spools an1 ells were inspected. So:-c of these had been shipped to this plant from "ount Vernon with inconplete cladding or c11 sows,

.(

etc., supposedly because of pressure of work at Barberton.

Inconel cladd3,: on the end of a pipe secticn was inspected, licre

' dells ob,iccte ;o Ethi shipping sections of pipe to the field which are not trirm

".nal dimensions, sinca this requires Duke, as j

the installe rform this specialty cutting and welding of Inconel.

'dc.

' hat Duke purchase orders would be modified l

to require FL to "close len;;th tolerances" in the near futu re.

Internal finish of piping was exa aned. Whl applies internal stainleas steel cladding to the 28-inch and 35-inch pipe by automatic weldors The resul-laying down a spiral six-stringer pattecn of filler metal.

tant surface is quite rough and regai: as extensive grinding to ncet surface finish and diameter tolerances.

In the afternoon, an inspection was made of the reactor an1 pressure vessel fabrication arcas.

It was busy nostly with I!avy work, and impressive because of the size and complexity of the eqairment and processes. I;o Duke Cconce equipment was in process here, so no detailed inspection cr questionin;; was done, f

D.

'delding Control Also in the afternoon, the gauge room, various raterials storage areas, and receiving inspection areas were inspected.

Some idle welding rachines were observed. The inspector was told that Efdl maintenance calibrates the instramentation and verifics the operability of each weldor periodically, and a certification tag is updated. Oatside calibration of the calibrating instrurents is purchased, but na check was made by the inspector on this.

he The inspector challenged the apparent laxity of weld rod control, was told that the inspectors verified at shcrt-time intervals that correct electrodes were being used, and that the coated electrodes t

a

.s

=

__4 4

e me

,,,--pm.mu.

4 v-

~'*T*

e S

~

4*

w

w,,.

I

~8-were kept in ovens nearby; however, the inspector went with a IWN QC man on a tour during which time no oven was found in the open pipe shop area. ' clls was erg hatic that rud would tighten up eloctrode ssuance control ard igece the use of ovens near the use point.

A spot check uas made on the test certifications for a weldor picked at ra'fom.

Tne records for this :c.an were detailed and up to date.

-[

1

Attachment:

Exhibit A 0

O f

s 4

I

.i

.. ~ - -

' o 9

a b

mM.,2-

S'f0P CALITY co'.TA% SUM'q.-(.

..,,. s y

,. ; " ~.%

YTQ,... ;. Tm."'.' d ;~

Z. _.*,: :.l,,

..~.,..

... ' f. y ' ' i..,. L.

,vts,

y;o'.

.L'.. J f.., :..:..'

's

.. ;.m,w.:..

r.7 c.a.

..' *..,s'... ~.,

....., ~..

• ;. ',.

• s,, 7

.i

.n.....;.. 2.

r.~. -. ;* 7..'. -

.h. : !

/

h and order chan;es e

'i;'- Ts ther5 a systea.to cssura shop conformanct with drawing c angest have a Quali s

.u.

./

l

. r ;..- Q4,

. 'h (2.. *Does. the p an3. ~ Are procedures adequate to meet our quality require 4

4..

Does the plant have sufficient inspectors to caintain centrol

. s.'

3-

6. - Does the vort acw in production indicate quality, to scet our requirements hased caterials 5,'.

~

5.

Does vendor have written procedures for quality control of pur g

Do these procedures reflect customers order requirements.

7 Do purchase orders require cert 4.fied mi.51 test reports 8.

,9 Are v.ill test. reporte maintained cn file.Does receiving inspution check all incoaing c 10.

11.

'.2.1Is re,)ected er.terial secregatedArc' inconing raterials identified as to purchase cider cr.d test

~~~

Dees vendor cake verificatica tests to check. mill test reports.

il

/

3J

15.. Is there adequate control in hs idling, protection and identification of mater a s 14.'

Are procedures for control and issuance cf aterials adequate,

,e Does this ccatrol peruit identification of caterinis with test reportsAre w 16.

/ /

'7.

v procedurcs follwed in asse.bly, inspection and testing

'8.

./

Are ins.getica records cai..inined to provide positive history of inspection Are the*a 19 if Do these records chev corres tive acticas tr. ken during fabrication 20.

Is' mterial identificction with test reports maintained during fabricat 21.

22.

v.

~4. - Does quality Centrol approve test procedures to assure contractural cor.pliance

~

23 v

Are records of inspection and test data caintain(d on fileAre adequate writt 5

./

25 Do these instructions cover specific custocer order requirecentsAre ade

's 1.

7.

d gages

).. Are adeqote procedures used fsr caintenance and calibratica of tools an 0.

Io these procedures S ve calitration dates, curves, serial nu=ters, etc.

' 1..Do these procedures provide positive control for issue and return of tools and.6ases i

J.

,/

Is housekeeping good in receiving, stcrage, fatricating and shipping areas.

3

..,..a. ;.

. ;......y...

,2.

y,....,.

a.

- ~...,

33 Inspector's comentat

~. l ~~ m *...' l., [... ),-

,, ' '.: (. -l ';

l.'..Z.. ;._;.} ', ]..;

-.p 3,,,.....,.; g ;,

.g 3.. Exhibit A..

~

< %,.. f..t..

. y..a ::...L~... : :.,.:.,..;e. ; :'.",f

. ;- Dage.D 9t L.

... c..

--.; 3 ;. ~.,..

y.

, ~,.

~t:,

,. y -,).; y. ;-

'.9 *.,...

~, '

.p.

. ;~

'~

'a

• 4e. +

• y

,*.s

. e.t y..

~

Survey hy

-y..

. i..;.

~ ? :, y,,,,1 Sicnature _. j,,

Date

• ~* j *.; *G~ '.' * : =..~..

1 ; W..

j. ~,

• m,

. s.

- -,*.~......a.

-* e 7 -~~

• r r