ML19344F289
| ML19344F289 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1976 |
| From: | Crossman W, Dickerson M, Stewart R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344F268 | List:
|
| References | |
| 50-445-76-01, 50-445-76-1, 50-446-76-01, 50-446-76-1, NUDOCS 8009150080 | |
| Download: ML19344F289 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000445/1976001
Text
(-
. _ _
,
'
M
A
e
..
.-
"
- ,,7
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFCRCEMEtrf
REGION IV
g.-
IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-445/76-01
Docket Nos. 50-445
50-446/76-01
50-446
Applicant:
Texas Utilities Generating Conpany
Category A2
2001 Bryan Tower
Dallas, Texas 75201
Facility:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
.,
Units 1 & 2
Location:
Glen Rose, Texas
,
Type of Licensee:
W, PWR, ' 1161 HW(e)
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced
Dates of Inspection: January 7-9, 1976
Dates of Previous Inspection: November 18-21 and December 1, 1975
-
A9 d
Principal Inspector:
L
2
R. C. Ste % Reactor Inspector
Da'te -
'
.
Accompanying
h
/#o'n_)
4S6
,
Inspector:
M. 'W. Dickers'ETttrTleactor inspedtor /
' Date
~
s,
t
Reviewed By:
k
//2 f/74
4w, -
W. A. Crossman, Senior Reactor Inspector
Date
Projects Section, Reactor Construction &
Engineering Support Branch
.
-
B00P'N,Q
' . .
_ _ _ _ . _ . _
. _ _
,
.w
,
.__
. - - -
.q
f.
an,
\\
e,/
4
-2-
,
.
,
,, ,s
,
.
SU1DVuur OF FINDINGS
I.
' Enforcement Action
. . . ,
A.
Items of Noncompliance
1.
' Violations
'None
2.
Infractions
~
-a. . 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V,-states in part,
-
" Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by
.
documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a
,
type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be
-
accomplished in accordance with these instructions,
-
procedures, or drawings ."
!
,
5
L
(1)
Lack of Procedures
}
Contrary to the above, the licensee's contractor is
installing containment building seismic category class I
,,,,,
pipe restraint embeds without prescribed documented
.
instructions or work procedures.
(DETAILS, paragraph 4.a)
(2) Lack of QC Surveillance Procedures - Embeds
Contrary to the above, the licensee's contractor is
conducting QC surveillance of the containment building
seismic category class I embeds installations without
'
prescribed documented instructions or procedures.
-
(DETAILS, paragraph 4.b)
(3)' Lack of QC Surveillance Procedures - Containment Liner
'
,
Contrary to the above, the licensee's contractor is
~ '
conducting QC surveillance of the containment building
steel liner installation without prescribed documented
instructions or procedures.
(DETAILS, paragraph 3.b)
b.
10 CFR f,0, Appendix B, Criterion'V, states in'part,
- "Activicies affecting quality shall be prescribed by
documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a
-type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be
accomplished in accordance with these instructions, pro-
cedures, or drawings."
ggg;
(continued)
=:
m
.
s
9'
e.
_-Q
.
p
-
,
__
,
.
'~
m.
m
.
,.
- l '
-3-
. ..= l
'
-CPSES QA Plan Manual, paragraph 2.3 states in part,
"The system assures drawings, specifications, procedures
and instructions accurately . . . meet stipulations of
related codes and standards . . . ."
- r s .
B&R QA Manual,. paragraph 5.5 states in part, "B&R Procedures
Jshall provide the requirements for standard formats and
shall establish review, approval, issuance, and control
methods for procedures, instructions, end drawings."
.
(1) Design Change control'- Procedural Deficiency'
Contrary to the above, the licensee's A&E and contractor's
subcontractor have not incorporated approved design
l
changes into the applicable design specification and
work procedures, respectively, as prescribed by the
(DETAILS, paragraph 3.c)
(2) Examination & Repair - Procedural Deficiency
Contrary to the above, the licensee's contractor is
conducting examination and repair activities on seismic
category class I components without documented
l-
instructions or procedures developed and issued in a
""""
manner prescribed by the B&R QA Program Manual, paragraph
5.5.
(DETAILS, paragraph 4.c)
-
.
3.
' Deficiencies
None
B.
Deviations
None
'
II.
. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
'
(75-13/I.A.2) Corrective Action - Concrete Aggregates
The licensee is currently in the process of preparing a reply to this
infraction pursuant =to the provisions of Section 2.201, Part 2, 10 CFR.
The ;eply is to be submitted-January 19.
This matter remains unresolved.
'
.
.
'
(conti: 3ed)
.r2
'.
-
- _
~
l
'
'
>
-n
.n
..
.
-4-
j
>
Hs
.III.
New Unresolved Items
'
Pipe Restraint' Embeds - Examinations and Repairs
The licensee's_ contractor is implementing examinations, repairs and
b'
acceptance standards on seismic category class I pipe restraints in
accordance with a G&H letter / procedure that appears to be in
conflict with C&H Specification No. 2323-SS-17 and ASME Section III,
Division 1, Subsection NE, paragraph NE-4642.
(DETAILS, paragraph 4.d)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
-
A.
CDR'- H00507F4
-Reactor' Building Over-Excavation
.
The licensee submitted a final report on this matter, dated
December 12, 1975.
During previous on-site inspections the IE
'j
inspector had observed portions of the rock recoval activities as
i
described in the report, and there are no further questions in
,
that regard; however, final corrective measures involve pressure
j
grouting of vertical. fractures in the areas of the containment
[
building and safeguards building of each unit. This matter will
8
remain unresolved.pending the review and observallon by IE of
.
the grouting activity,
p
B.
75-12/III.2
Method of Identification and Control of Nonconformances
'=
During this inspection the inspector was informed that the revised
B&R Procedure CP-QAP-15.1 was still in the final internal review
phase and not issued for use.
This matter remains unresolved pending
IE review of the revised procedure.
V.
Design Changes
~
.
None
'
'
.
VI.
Unusual Occurrences
.
.
0
None
VII.
Other Significant Items
~
None
.
O
e
e
~
(continued).
.
'
.
, ,
.m
^-
,
-S-
.
VIII.
Management Interview
1.
Site Meeting
2
On January 9, at the conclusion of the inspection, a meeting was
-
held with the following licensee representatives in attendance:
Texas Utilities' Services Inc. (TUSI)
R. W. Caudle, Project Manager - Nuclear Plants
H. C. Schmidt, QA Manager
C. H. Gatchell, Resident Manager
P. M. Milam, Site QA Supervisor
R. Murray, Civil Engineer
~
R. M. Kissinger, Civil Engineer
Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R)
H. C. Dodd, Proj ect Manager
C. E. Bonin, Assistant Proj ect Manager
P. L. Bussolini, Project QA Manager
D. L. Hansford, Senior QC Engineer
,
W. E. Childress, Jr., Project Engineer
J. B. Loth, QA Coordinator
>===
G. W. McGee, Site Civil Engineer
,
Gibbs & Hill (G6H)
J. J. Moorhead, Resident Engineer
R. V. Fleck, QA Supervisor
J. V. Hawkins, Site QA Representative
R. C. Barber, Welding Engineer
T. R. Fleig, Electrical Engineer
F. L. McAllister, Hechanical Engineer
D. J. Fellinger, Civil Engineer
The inspection findings, as contained in the Sunmary and Details
Sections of the report, were discussed.
.
"
(continued)
e
'
p
q
.
-
.
-6-
i
-
J
-
DETAILS
Persons Contacted
_;
Texas Utilities Services, Inc.'(TUSI)
H. C. Schmidt, QA Manager
C. H. Gatchell, Resident Manager
P. M. Fulam, Site QA Supervisor
Brown & Root, 'Inc. '(B&R)
P. L. Bussolini, Project QA Manager
D. L. Hansford, Senior QC Engineer
G. H. Fisher, QC Inspector, Civil
W. E. Childress, Jr. , Project Engineer
J. B. Loth, QA/QC Coordinator
,
R. Crosno, QC Inspector, Mechanical
i
L. E. Hancock, Subcontract Administrator
Gibbs & Hill (C6H)
J. J. Moorhead, Resident Engineer
-
R. V. Fleck, QA Supervisor
J. V. Hawkins, Site QA Representative
.
M. Jeffers, Welding & QA Supervisor
W. E. Nelson, Project QA Engineer
,.
,
Report of Subjects Inspected
t
1.
Scope of Inspection
The inspection was limited to a follow-on .eview of QA/QC records and
obs.'rvation of the on-site construction activities related to the
containment building steel liner and seismic category class I embed
installations for Units 1 and 2.
In addition, a review of previously
identified items of noncompliance and unresolved matters was conducted.
2.
, Plant Progress
_
The overall plant progress, as of January 9, is reported by the licensee
as 12% complete (10% Unit 1 and 2% Unit 2).
(continued)
-
=
. _ . , _ _ _ . . _ _
_.
_ _ . _
%
,
.-
m
^
.
. . .
-7-
.t-
'
Installation of reinforcing. steel and erbeds is continuing on Unit 1
containment building foundation in preparation for concrete place-
ment to the 805'-6" elevation.
CB&I construction crews are currently installing the Unit 2 reactor
i
cavity liner plate (vertical) to the 805'-6" elevation.
Work is continuing on the safeguards and turbine building foundations.
Foundation preparation for the SSI Dam is continuing.
Backfill is now
scheduled to start in mid-January.
3.
Containment (Structural' Steel Welding) - Liner
a.
Observation of Work and Work Activities
The inspector observed the fit-up of sections of the Unit 2 cavity
,
plate liner, plates 20-4 No. 4 and 20-4 No. 5, prior to welding of
joint Nos. C19, C21 and C22.
The welds are identified and located
on drawings utilized to record information relative to each weld
joint. Preparation of the joints and their alignment appeared to be
,
satisfactory.
Each is inspected prior to velding to assure proper
alignment. The tack welding on joints C19 and C21, relative to
plate 20-4 No. 5, was observed to be in progress.
Welding in
,,,,
progress was also observed on joint No. CS (the circunferential weld
";"
joining the bottom of the cavity liner to the cavity liner, wall).
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company welding procedure WPS-E8018-01/74-2427/8,
Submerged Arc Process, in use by the welders, utilizes E8018-Cl weld
rod s, and requires no preheat unless the base metal tenperatures are
below 500F for the thickness of plate being welded. Welders were
currently qualified for the positions being welded and the specified
'l
NDE (Magnetic Particle Inspection) examination procedure.
FEP-13B,
Revision 8, was observed to be in use.
Additionally, the welds
are examined by vacuum box procedure, VTP-4B, Revision 2, prior to
,
acceptance of the final weld.
Checks are also made to assure that
applicable welding variables are within specified limits.
.
One welding material issue location is utilized for this welding.
Observance of the issue control, amount withdrawn . identity of
welder, date and identification of weld, and the handling of returned
material appeared satisfactory.
Materials are stored in a locked
storage trailer in unopened containers or in ovens which are
maintained at the. proper tenperature, 250 F.
During observation of
the welding activities no uncontrolled filler material was
observed to be in use.
(continued)
m
U-
,
,
m
R
.V
.
-8-
a
-
The stud welding operation on plate 20-4 No.1 to CB&I procedure
-
.
WPS-Stud Welding / 74-2427/8 was also observed and appeared to be
in accordance with the procedural requirements for velding and
for visual inspection in accordance with procedure VEP-1B,
Revision 1
Level II inspectors were observed to be in the cavity liner and
at the site of the stud welding operation.
The inspector also examined weld joint numbers C12, C8, C2
(cavity bottom welds) and C18. (the vertical weld joining plate
20-3 No. 1 to 20-3 No. 2).
However, final acceptance of these
welds had not been completed at the time of the inspection.
b.
Review of Quality Records
The inspector selected six field welds in the Unit 1 cavity liner
and reviewed the quality records required to be established by
Gibbs & Hill Specification No. 2323-14, Containment, Steel Liner,
Revision 3, dated November 17, 1975 and by the CB&I Nuclear
!
Quality Assurance Manual for ASME Section III Products, dated
i
April 3, 1975.
The welds selected were for joint numbers C1, C5,
C7, C16, C26, and C19.
The records reviewed appeared to conform
to the requirements.
-
Weld history records are recorded on checklist R2, Revision 1 and
R3, Revision 1.
Included were the joint number, identification r
welders, fit-up, weld procedure utilized, finished joint check,
NDE Reports (MT and VB), and final acceptance of the weld.
Also
note 4 if applicablg are weld repairs.
Records of preheat or
interpass temperatures is not required.
Individual history records
of weld repairs, if required, are also maintained on these same check-
lists.
Weld C16 required weld repair in conformance with repair procedure
GRP-10B, Revision 2 (are gouging to remove defect) as a result of
examination by NDE procedure MTP-13B, Revision S.
NDE report
No. 9, dated August 7, 1975, disclosed unacceptable porosity in
,
the weld and was recorded as nonconformity number 5.
NDE report
1
No. 10, dated August 7, 1975, indicated acceptance of the repaired
The repaired weld was subsequently vacuum box tested
on August 8, 1975, and final acceptance was completed on August 13,
1975.
A burn through on piece 20-5 No. 2, reported as nonconformance No. 15,
was recorded as repaired by weld procedure SRP (74-2427)A and
assigned weld number C33.
The weld was examined by NDE procedure
MTP-13B, Revision 8 and VTP-4B, Revision 2, and noted as acceptable
on September 6, 1975.
-
(continued)
r --
'
.m
m
"
.
,
.,
-9-
-
37
- 5?
.
Resolution of Unresolved Item 75-12/III.2, Method of Identification
and Control of Nonconformances, is pending a revision to B&R
,
procedure CP-QAP-15.1 and remains open.
Welding material verification of identify and conformance with
,'
specifications is made upon receipt at the site and the material
is then stored in the sealed containers as received.
Prior to
issuance the rods are baked in an oven maintained at a minimum
temperature of 2500F.
The rod is kept in the ovens until issue.
Weld rod is issued to the individual welder. by the supervisor of
welding and QA or by the welding supervisor.
Records of the
issuance is maintained (welder, joint, oven minimum temperatures,
date, time issued and time returned).
Unused, rod returned to the
supervisor of welding and QA or to the welding supervisor is logged
7
as returned, and destroyed or returned to the oven for rebaking
for the required rebaking period.
-
A review of welder qualification and inspector qualification records
-
indicated that the welders were qualified for the welding being
,
performed and that the inspectors were level II qualified to perform
j
the required inspections.
1
a
The inspector was informed that no audits of the CB&I work at the site
had been performed by B&R. Surveillance had apparently been provided
,,,,
by B&R but at the time of the inspection no approved procedure
relative to the surveillance was in use or available for review,
as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
In addition,
the G&H Specification No. 2323-SS-14, Section 11.0, Quality
Assurance, states in part, "The contractor shall establish and
implement a Quality Assurance Program which rigidly conforms to
the applicable rules and standards as imposed by the AEC; 10 CFR 50
Appendix B, ANSI N45.2 1971, . . . the program shall include
pertinent aspects of_ procurement, fabrication, site erection,
inspection . . . the contractor shall submit all fabrication,
installation and testing procedures to TUSI for review and comment
prior to their use."
In discussing this matter with the licensee, the inspector
acknowledged that TUSI had approved a revision to the review
.
requirements; however, the inspector pointed out that the relaxation
of the review function did not relieve the contractor from the
requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, which states
in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by
documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type
appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in
accordance with these instructions, precedures, or drawings."
(continued)
"
,
.
m
am
.
. .
-10-
.
-
,
.
.
It was also acknowledged by the inspector that the contractor
provided a procedure schedule which indicates that procedure,
for the B&R QA surveillance activities during installation of
the containment liner, is in preparation; however, as emphasized
by the inspector, the installation of the containment liner
plate has v een in progress since early August.
This matter has been identified as an item of noncompliance.
Surveillance of the activities of CB&I relative to Unit I were
provided by the TUSI on site QA organization.
Report No. C-
040-75, dated August 19, 1975, indicated four areas found to be
deficient. The deficiencies were subsequently resolved.
Corre-
'
spondence relating to the resolution of a deficiency regarding
the method utilized for NDE was reviewed by the inspector. Work
on the containment liner was suspended on August 29, 1975, and
resumed on September 4, 1975, after the deficiency had been
corrected and accepted by TUSI.
c.
Design Change Control - Procedural Deficiency
,
.
During the QA/QC documentation and record review, the inspector
observed that an approved ACI-ASME code change, involving contain-
ment liner plate welding requirements, was transmitted to B&R,
'"""
CB&I, and G&ll from TUSI by letter (TUS-437) dated July 14, 1975.
~
The design change authorized specific changes to the April 1973
draft addition ACI-ASME code entitled, ' Proposed Standard Code
For Concrete Reactor Vessels And Containment," sections CC-5521.1.1
(c), CC-5521.1.l(d), CC-5521.1.1(f) and radiography of Appendix IX.
The inspectofs review of the G&H specification No. 2323-SS-14 and
the CB&I QA program manual, Division 4, revealed that the above
changes had not been incot.> rated in these documents as required by
the CPSES QA Plan, Section 2.3, " Design Review" paragraph 2.3.1,
which states in part ".... the system assures that drawings, speci-
-
,
fications, procedures and instructions accurately reflect the design
bases, conform to the representations in the license application,
'
meet stipulations of related codes and standards, ...." Paragraph
2.3.4.1 incorporates ANSI 45.2.11, draft 2, revision 2, and paragraphs
2.3.4.4 and 2.3.5 prescribes the responsible discipline and procedure
,
for review and control of changes, respectively.
In discussing this matter with the cognizant licensee representatives,
'
the IE inspector identified this matter as an item of noncomplitnce
,
in that procedural requirements were not coupletely followed in con-
,
trolling the above code changes which would assure changes are dis-
.
tributed to and used at the location where the prescribed activity is
perfo rmed.
10CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states in part, " Activities
affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented, instructions,
procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances
and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions,
==
procedures or drawings."
(continued)
.
r
'*
m
m
..'
,,
-11-
y
.
?
'4.
Containment Building Embeds - Seismic Category Class I Components
During the inspector's review of Quality Assurance activities associated
with the installation of the containment building embeds, it was observed
by the inspector that during installation of the (12) containment build-
.;;;
ing sump pipe restraints, welding of temporary support attachments were
conducted by unqualified welders and without qualified weld procedures.
This matter was identified by the B&R QC surveillance inspector and
documented by B&R deficiency disposition report (DDR) No. C-172 dated
November 22, 1975,and a chronological history contained in G&H letter
.
GHF-352 dated December 5, 1975. Howe.ver, further review of this matter
by the IE Inspector revealed the following:
a.
Lack of Work Procedures
.
In addition to the procedural deficiency identified in DDR-C-172,
the IE. inspector found that installation of the containment building
drain sump pipe restraints, (G6H drawing 2323-SI-0503, Detail 14A,
.
'
Revision 3, Dated September 26, 1975) were being installed without
benefit of installation procedures which is contrary to 10CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion V and contrary to the G6H specification No.
,
2323-SS-17, entitled, " Miscellaneous Steel," dated February 28, 1975.
Section 10.0 of the G&H specification entitled, "QA Program for the
Supply Fabrication and Erection of Miscellaneous Steel in Category
""""
I Structures", states in part, "The contractor shall establish and
-
impicment a QA program which rigidly conforms to the applicable rules
and standards as imposed by the A.E.C.,
N45.2-1971Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI</br></br>N45.2-1971" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process., .......
The contractor shall submit all fabrication, installation and testing
procedures to TUSI for review and cc= ment prior to their use."
This matter is identified as an item of noncompliance.
.-
b.
Lack of QA/QC Surveillance Procedure - Embeds
'
As identified in items 3.b and 4.a above, the G&H specifications
Nos. 2323-SS-14 and 2323-SS-17, Sections 11 and 10, respectively,
prescribe the requirements for establishing and implementing proce-
..
dures for fabrication, installation, testing and inspection. It is
evident by the B&R DDR-C-172, that QC surveillance activities were
being conducted; however, this function was being conducted without
benefit of a required procedure.
.
.
This matter is identified as an item of noncompliance.
-
c.
Examination and Repair - Procedural __Eeficiency
,
During the IE inspector's review of the B&R DDR-C-172, regarding the
unqualified welding of temporary attachments to the reactor sump pipe
'
restraints, it was observed that the DDR did not address to the
-
(continued)
.
.-
,
-,_
~
,
A
%
.
..
-12-
.
-
o
'
apparent lack of installation procedures (Item 4.a above) nor was
it apparent that examination and repair procedures, within the
i
meaning of 10CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and G6H specification
No. 2323-SS-17, Section 10.0, were developed and implemented for
this activity.
.-
G6H letter CHF-352, dated December 5, 1975, contains a chronological
summary of events in the process of disposition of the DDR-C-172.
The summary of events addresses to the period November 22 through
December 5, 1975.
The letter responses a G6H letter (GHF-342)
which is purported to contain recommended procedural development
and observation of all other requirements such as preheat and
post-weld heat treatment that may be applicable; however, an
-
attachment to G&H letter (GTN-5981) dated December 5,1975,
contained detailed instructions for the repair and inspection of
the pipe restraint " unqualified" welds.
The procedure / instruction
is in the form of a memorandum; without evidence of standard format
or review and approval signatures as prescribed by the B&R QA
program manual, paragraph 5.5 and B&R QAP-5.1, dated July 14, 1975.
It was further revealed by the IE inspector that during the removal
'
of the unqualified welds in accordance with the G6H instruction
referenced above, approximately 43 linear indications were found in
the base metal of 4 of the 12 assemblies.
These defects were found
during the PT examination conducted af ter grinding out of the "un-
"""""
qualified" welds.
The linear indications were in the 2 " plate edge;
indicative of plate laminations extending to 4" in length and running
parallel to the plate surface.
As a result of this finding, B&R
DDR-C-192, dated December 21, 1975, was issued.
In response to the
DDR-C-192, G6H engineering conducted an on-site investigation and
provided an additional letter / memorandum (GTN-6294) dated January
17, with an attachment entitled, " Procedure for Examination and
Repair of Edge Defects in Frames Per Drawing G&H 2323-SI-0503."
The " procedure" is in narrative form; without standard format or
review and approval signatures as prescribed by the B&R QA program
manual.
B&R QA program manual dated July 14, 1975, paragraph 5.5 states in
part, "B&R procedures shall provide the requirements for standard
formats and shall establish review, approval, issuance and control
methods for procedures, instructions and drawings. All activities
affecting quality shall be accomplished in accordance with instruc-
tions, procedures and drawings. The B&R QA/QC procedure.s shall
-
reflect and define specifications, drawings and other document re-
quirements for quality activities. These quality activities shall
be inspections, reviews and monitoring functions."
In discussing this matter with the licensee representatives, the
inspector stated that B&R, as the constructor, has no provisions
within their QA/QC program that permits the implementation of un-
reviewed and unapproved procedures or instructions of the type provid-
.- J
ed by G&H.
(continued)
.
n
~
_ _
f
,
,
,
m
\\I
.. ..
- -13-
,
s
,
This matter is identified by the IE inspector as an item of
.
noncompliance in that contrary to 10CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion
'
V, the constructor did not develop or establish examination and
repair procedures / instructions as prescribed by the B&R QA program
manual.
-
d.
Pipe Restraint Embeds - Examination and Repair - Unresolved Matters
The G&H drawing, No. 2323-SI-0503, Revision 3, dated September 26,
1975, Detail 14A, delineates the fabrication and installation re-
quirements for the reactor sump pipe. restraints. Note 5 states,
" Post-weld' heat treatment shall conform to the requirements of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 111, Division 1, Sub-
section NE."
..
,
During the IE inspector's review of the G6H letter, GTN-6294, dated
January 7, and the attached repair procedure for examination and
.
repair of the linear indications, it was observed that this procedure
l
~
included grind-out of the subject linear indications, that would permit
welding of a remaining crack (or indication) of a width equal to or
.
less than .002".
I
1
The prescribed repair is contrary to the ASME Code Section III, Division
'
1, Subsection NE, paragraph NE-4642 entitled, " Weld Repairs Without
Required Post-Weld Heat Treatment", and the referenced Subsection NB,
p===-
paragraph NB-5352 entitled, " Acceptance Standards." In addition, the
.
G6H specification 2323-SS-17, Section 4.0 material, states.in part,
"All materials shall be the best of their respective kinds, obtained
from well finished shapes, bars or plates as required and shall be
free from any imperfections, laminations, pitting, slag inclusions,
......" The G&H repair procedure confines the area of PT examination
to a selected area and permits detectable laminations or indications
to remain in the plate.
In discussing these items with the licensee, the inspector was informed
'
that these items will be reviewed with the cognizant G6H engineer.
1
These items remain unresolved.
,
,
'
.
4
summe !
e
>
b
..
7_
3
'
'
'
'~
INSPECTION PLAN-
.kE In pection Report No.
50-445-446/76-01
- .: .
s
~ Licensee:
Texas Utilities Generating Co.
Location:
Dallas, Texas
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Units 1 & 2
Facility:
Type of Licensee:
W, PWR, 1159, MWe
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced
Dates of Inspection:
January 7-9,~1976
. Dates of Previous Inspection:
November 18-21 and December 1, 1975
INSPECTORS:
R. C. Stewart & M. W. Dickerson
SCOPE OF INSPECTION
,
-1.
This inspection is limited to a follow-on review of the on-site construction
activities related to concrete placement, containment linear plate installation,
and backfill (SSI Dam).
-
2.
Individual on-site inspection effort:
A.
Stewart
-
(1) Review Project Status
(2) Review previous infraction, Item 75-13/I. A.2, Concrete Aggregates
- (3) Review CDR's (10 CFR 50.55(e)) Items 75-12/IV.1 & 4
(4) Conduct inspection per procedures:
~45063B (Backfill SSI Dam)(no
P.. . : . - u - v c
-)
-
e-
480533 (Containment (Steel Structures & Supports) Containment Structures
only)
~
48055B (Containment (Steel Structures & Supports) Containment Structures
only)
.
B.
Dickerson
(1) Conduct inspection per procedure:
55053B (Containment- (Structural Steel Welding) Containment Structure only.
55055B (Containment (Structural Steel Welding) Containment Structure only.
1
Approve / Disapprove:
-
-
.
j
/ .
/
'
-
J
A
l/
[2 N W +-,>>,.r -
/ftl7C
l
/
--
,
d. C. Stewart
>
Dati:
W. A. Crossman
Da te
t