ML19338E170
| ML19338E170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1980 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Hubbard R, Latham S MHB TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009250003 | |
| Download: ML19338E170 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000322/1978001
Text
.
_
.
_
,
jat *84
9'%
J
UNITED STATES
-
!'
-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- '
.,
I
.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
.....
September 23, 1980
Mr. Richard B. Hubbard
MHB Technical Associates
1723 Hamilton Avenue
Suite K
San Jose, California 95125
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Schmitt
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 398
33 West Second Street
Riverhead, New York 11901
In the Matter of
Long Island Lighting Company
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket Nc,. 50-322
Gentlemen:
By letter dated July 31, 1980, addressed to Jerry Wilson, Mr. Hubbard asked
to be provided "with copies of all documents, and associated examples of QA
program breakdowns accumulated by the NRC Staff relevant to Shoreham that
fom the basis of the NRC concern expressed in IE Information Notice 80-26."
I am advised that two inspection reports apparently meet the specifications
of your above-quoted request.
These are identified below.
1
1.
Courter & Co. QA Program Deficiencies. This was identified during
.
Inspection 78-01 (1/10-13/78), shortly after Courter was given
'
responsibility for welding QA/QC and prior to perfomance of any welding
under the Courter QA/QC progran.
i
2.
Nuclear Energy Services (NES) Insp. Procedure 80A0467. This was identified
during Inspection 78-01 (1/10-13/78).
It was reviewed during Insp. 78-17,
(11/1-2/78) and was closed during Insp. 79-12 (8/13-16/79).
Copies of the relevant portions of the cbove-noted inspection reports are
enclosed.
If you need any further infomation, let me know.
Sincerely,
A
Bernard M. Bordenick
Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosures
As Stated
cc:
See Page Two
,
8009250@
O
__. -
_.
.
...
-
.
.
-2
cc w/encls:
Elizabeth S. Bowers , Esq.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
Mr. Frederick J. Shon
Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Edward J. Walsh, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, tsq.
Howard L. Blau, Esq.
W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Irving Like, Esq.
Joel Blau, Esq.
Mr. J. P. Novarro
Energy Research Group, Inc.
Hon. Peter Cohalan
David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
Docketing and Service Section
.
L.
_
__
. .
} . [ O JR Tsn - G A Pn cw;A M
D*"O
- D 9
' }l}rg -,[S XL
,,3
Courter'a Company. procedures do not assure that weld filler
metal'will be rebated in accordance with
equirements of
,
specification SH-258B after exposure to ambient environment
.
I
(
for per,iods longer than those specified in specification SH-
1-258B.
h
censee advised the inspector by telep
on January 18, !
1978, that EEDCR-F-llll3-W has been issued to provide additional'
guidance to C/C and other contractors relative to specification
,
SH-1-238B weld electrode handling.
The E&DCR requires use of
portable, o,vens for certain electrodes, and prohibits return of
electrodes to the portable oven, once withdrawn by the welder
in the field (32_2/7_[-Ol-04).C
Courter & Company weld procedure WPS-NW-100 does not address
cooling rate restrictions for post-weld heat treatments as
defined in ASME Section III Paragraph NE-4623.5.
!
The licensee stated that PWHT has not yet been performed under
this proced!. ire and the procedure will be corrected prior to
use, in that a separate PWHT has already been issued for
co=ent (322/78-01-05).
,
3
-
- - . -
Courter & Company QC inspection procedures (QAP-10-1 thru
QAP-10-3) do not contain acceptance criteria for assuring that
piping minimum wall dimensions have not been encroached upon
i
during blending of weld contours with base metal.
1
The licensee stated.that this matter will be returned to S&W
for review (322/78-01-07).r
L tc6HSEs Acrova ou Peevices lasrEcrica nowit* 4 ' (inse, 7E-c4
(Closed) Unresolved Item (322/78-01-04): J
d
Weld filler metal re-
baking.
The inspector examined EADCR-F-llll3-W and Courter and
>
Company memorandum #78-56.
These establish controls to assure that
,
icw-hydrogen electrode will not be exposed.to ambient environment
for periods exceeding specifications.
~'
(Closed) UnresolveTItem (322/78-01-05):' Cooling" rate restrictions
for Courter post weld heat treatment.
The inspector examined a
new Appendix D to Courter weld procedure WPS-NW-100, which describes
">st-weld-heat-treatment.
This includes cooling rate restrictions
consistant with the applicable ASME Code Section III.
(/ N J PAC Ts c N78-/f) -
. (Closed) Unresolved Item (332/78-01-07): Courter and Company QC
'
Inspection procedure. criteria for evaluation of pipe base metal
grinding. .The inspector examined Courter & Company procedure QAP-
'
.10.7, which assigns responsibilities, duties, acceptance criteria,
definitions, and corrective action evaluation /dispostion mechanics
~ for grinding marks or other surface irregularities observed on
. piping.
This procedure appropriately considers possible encroachment
<
on minimum pipe wall thickness.
,
. This. item is' resolved.
,
.
-
--
- - - -
,
.,-
,
.-
-_
--
f., h t/ c' L6 A R h td E R GW .5 E RVIMS ~ lN56Rt/tt E {dSf'Ec 7tly PacMAM
Inservice Inspection Procedures
The inspector reviewed procedures for work activities relative to
preservice examinations.
The inspector noted that the ultrasonic testing calibration technique
used for examining welds using procedure 80A0467, ray not accomplish
a full volumetric coverage of the weld as required by ASME Section
XI Table IS-261jtem 1.2 Category B.
WFrTre'reTce'dW6cedure states =,
that calib' ration ~from the reference holes is only necessary from
~
EITibF'aTion holes at the 1/4T and 3/4T (T = thickness) location.
This calibration does not assure defect detectability at the r.aterial
surfaces.
This item remains unresolved p, ding further action by
the licensee and subsequent inspection by the inspector (322/1850liO9M
LicenseeActiononPreviousInspectionFindinosfiN.sP. 77-Oj'
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (322/78-01-09):
Nuclear Energy Services
Incorporated Procedure 80 A0 467 does not assure detection of flaws
at material surface upon which transducer is placed.
Procedure 80 A0 d67 provides for the ultrasonic examination for the
reactor pressure vessel head meridional, circumferential dome and
flange i. elds.
The calibration requirements of this procedure are
such that it does not provide for the detection of defects near the
ou' er surface of the welds and adjacent material.
This procedure
was used during the previous examination of the vessel head welds.
In view of the vessel head design, wherein the internal surface is
unclad, the inspector found that full vet-path calibration was
practical to permit examination of the full valume of material
surface in the area of interest.
On June 27, 1978, Mr. F. Gerecke of LILC0 telephoned Mr. R. C.
Haynes of the Region I office and informed him that the preservice
examination of the vessel head welds would be repeated as necessary -
to assure ultrasonic examination of the full volume of the material.
This item remains open pending review of the retesting results.
Licensee Action On Previous Inspection Findinas [/NSP. 76-/7f
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (322/78-01-09):
Nuclear Energy Services
- ncorporated Procedure 80A0467 does not assure detection of flaws
at material surface upon which transducer is placed.
The licensee has informed Region I office that they intend to
retest the reactor pressure vessel head welds to asssure full
volumetric examination is achieved.
The licensee's contractor is
presently revising the procedure for this examination.
This item remains open pending review of the retesting results.
-
-
-
.
,
..
..
ticenne Action on Previous fiRC Insouction Findinos"(/N.5F. 79'l2
~
'
(Closed) Unresolved item (3?2/78-01-09):
Preservice inspection procedure
",
ties-80A0467 provisions to assure detection of flaws at the material surface
upon which the transducer is placed.
The inspector examined Revision 4 of
procedure I;ES-80A0467, dated October 30, 1978.
The procedure has been
revised to include full-V calibration for testing for transducer-side
surfece-flaws.
The inspectors also intervicwed responsible personnel
regarding retesting of the RPV closure head welds, and examined I;uclear
Er.ergy Scrvices Inc. letter t;o. 5535-99 which comits to reperior.T.ence of
the RFV closure head ultrasonic e> air.inations.
The LILC0 OA Level 111
engir.cer hes included this item for follcaup in his open ite.: list.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
.
,
l
.
,
'
_ _ _ . .
.
-
.
0
'%h'P[
v
A
a Slid
h
oe
UNITED STATES
551N5 No.-
6835
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Accession No.:
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEME_NT
8005053064
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20555
June 10, 198C
IE Information Notice No. 80-26
To All Part 50 Licensees
-> EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR QA PROGRAM 5
Description of Circumstances:
Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 requires that each applicant and licensee establish
and execute a Quality Assurance Program, and that each licensee "shall require
contractors or subcontractors to provide a quality assurance program"
Further Appendix B requires each applicant and licensee to regularly review
the status and adequacy of subcontractor programs.
The NRC is becoming increasingly concerned by continuing evidence that many
holders of construction permits and operating licenses are not properly
implementing these facets of their quality assurance programs.
Examples of
this lack of effectiveness of contractor QA program implementation, and
inadequacy of licensee overview of contractor QA program implementation are
appearing in every facet of project activity.
Instances have been observed
where architect engineers have released documents for procurement with
inappropriate material specifications.
Nuclear steam system suppliers have
overlooked erroneous assumptions in analysis of instrument system response to
design basis transients.
Other cases have been observed where both AE's and
N555 have not followed through on commitments to review vendor detailed
designs.
Vendors' quality assurance programs have been found to contain
errors of both omission and commission.
A containment tendon installation contract was awarded to a specialty contractor.
During a licensee audit some three months after work started it appeared that a
contractor inspector was falsifying records by initialing inspection points not
actually observed.
A subsequent investigation by the licensee revealed that the
contractor had required that QC inspections be performed only on a random basis
even though all records had QC signatures.
The signatures could mean that the
activity was inspected or that record signoffs by others were reviewed; or that
the_ data were recorded by the QC' inspector.
It is apparent that the licensee
had not appropriately reviewed the contractor's inspection program prior to the
start of work.
In another instance, after completion and acceptance of a major structural
steel installation, the licensee fcund that significant rework would be
required to correct construction quality problems.
NRC inspection at the
contractors fabrication facility disclosed that in addition to work for that
licensee, the contractor had contracts for "high density" fuel storage racks
from_several operating licensees.
None of the NRC licensees had inspected
the contractor's shop or examined his quality assurance programs.
~
Response to Information Notice.No. 80-26 is not required.
The NRC expects
appropriate action from all licensees and organizations engaged in nuclear
,
activities and actions will be examined in the ongoing NRC inspection program.