ML19340C397
| ML19340C397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/24/1980 |
| From: | Barnes I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340C396 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900066 NUDOCS 8011170107 | |
| Download: ML19340C397 (4) | |
Text
7 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT i
REGION IV l
Reoort No. 99900066/80-01 Program No. 51300 Company:
Texas Pipe Bending Company Post Office Box 5188
'Houkton, Texas 77012
. Inspection Conducted:
September 4-5, 1980 Inspector:
e 7 % -FD
- 1. Barnes, Chief Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by:
W 7 - R-PO I. Barnes, Chief Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Special Inspection on September 4-5, 1980 (99900066/80-01)
Areas Inspected: Review and evaluation of a reported below design minimum wall thickness condition in a bend in a feedwater system piping assembly, which had been furnished to the Grand Gulf Unit I site.
The inspection also reviewed implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, criteria and applicable codes and standards relative to action on previous inspection findings.
The inspec-tion involved 11.5 inspector hours on site.
Results:
In the two (2) areas inspected, no apparent deviations or unresolved items were identified.
'8011 17 u - /O 'f
__. ~ -.,,
1 a
i 2
f j
DETAILS SECTION i
i A.
Persons Contacted
- B. A. Graham, Executive Vice President l
L. W. Hensley,. Manager, Power Engineering
- W. W. Trijillo, Assistant Manager, Quality Assurance
- A. H. Garza, Quality Control Engineer i-
- B. V. Kielman,' Supervisor, Quality Control i
M. R. Wood, Supervisor, Documentation
- Denotes those persons attending the exit meeting.
j B.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings i
i 1.
-(Closed) Deviation (Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-02):
Preparation of a procedure providing requirements for handling and.
stor3ge'of items not completed in accordance with corrective action date commitments.
i The inspector verified the previously submitted procedure had been distributed and that reviews of audit findings. were made prior to l'
performance of internal audits.
C.
Below Design Minimum Wall Thickness Condition in a Feedwater System Piping Assembly Bend 1.
Introduction
{
Texas Pipe Bending Company (TPB) was notified by Bechtel in a letter l-dated' August'5, 1980, that areas of a-bend in a Grand Gulf Unit 1 j-Feedwater System piping assembly (Piece Mark Q1B21-G-026-5-11; Job No. N-1788, sheet 707) had been found'to be below design minimum wall thickness. The letter committed to the return of the assembly.to TPB and requested a review of 12 inch feedwater piping documentation.
2.
Inspection-Objectives-t The objectives of this area of the inspection.were to review the i
nature and scope of the reported deficiency and determine any generic implications.
j ~
3.
Method of Accomplishment i
l The preceding objectives were. accomplished by:
a.
Revicw of QA program requirements in Section 4 (Process. Control and Section 9 (Nonconformances) in the~QA Mannal, Issue 3, dated March 3,=1980.
j l.
k
+
e e
m e<,=
.a-:
+
c
,r-en v
<t-
3 b.
Examination of the fabrication records for the identified assembly with respect to:
(1) Adequacy of schedule selection relative to providing for thinning in the bending operation.
(2) Detection of the reported below minimum wall thickness condition during TPB ultrasonic examination of the bend for thickness.
c.
Discussion with TPB management relative to the methods used to identify the nature and scope of the reported deficiency and inspector examination of the results.
4.
Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations from commit-a.
ment or unresolved items were identified.
b.
The reported below design minimum wall thickness condition was verified by the inspector as being identifiable from the TPB ultrasonic report for the bend, in that a minimum value of 0.550 inch was noted at two (2) locations, which is below the applicable design minimum wall thickness of 0.553 inch. As such, this indicates a failure of TPB QA/QC staff to initially evaluate the ultrasonic results with respect to a permissible 0.602 inch minimum wall thickness for 12 inch Schedule 80 SA 106 Grade C piping and then submit the results to TPB Power Engineering for evaluation for adequacy against the required design minimum wall thickness.
A review has been performed by TPB, subsequent to identification c.
of this discrepancy, of the documentation for all bends in TPB furnished ASME Section III Code nuclear piping assemblies, i.e.,
Grand Gulf and Limerick sites.
The results of this review indicate that the problem is confined to the one (1) identified discrepancy.
d.
Inspector examination of the review results confirmed verbal statements made by the TPB QA staff, that a specific QA check i
had been instituted of bend wall thickness compliance with design requirements, approximately six (6) months after the August, 1976, manufacture of the bend in Piece Mark Q1B21-G0626-5-11.
Review of bend thickness data showed that, commencing in January, 1977, a total of 12 bends had been identified by TPB QA staff as having wall thickness values below the minimum i
permissible value permitted by the material specification for the size and schedule of pipe.
The manufacturing documentation l
r e
4 showed, in each case, that the wall thickness data had been submitted to and evaluated by TPB Power Engineering for com-pliance.with applicable design minimum wall thickness require-ments. From the information available, it would thus appear that the identified discrepancy represents an isolated event for which measures are already in effect to preclude recurrence.
D.
Exit Meeting An exit meeting was held on September 5, 1980, with the management repre-sentatives denoted in paragraph A. above.
The inspector informed manage-ment that the special inspection was performed as a result of information provided to Region IV by Region II of the Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment, relative to an identified below design minimum wall thickness condi-tion in a feedwater svstem piping assembly bend.
The inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and informed management that no deviatons from commitment had been identified. Management acknowledged the statements of the inspector and affirmed their commitment to the quality assurance pro-gram.
I 1
I l
N i
1 4
m
, -