ML19350C377
| ML19350C377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/16/1981 |
| From: | Barnes I, Ellershaw L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350C373 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900047 NUDOCS 8104010203 | |
| Download: ML19350C377 (12) | |
Text
_
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICN OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900047/80-03 Program No. 51300 ccmpany:
'destinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Components Division Tampa Plant Tampa, Florida 33686 Inspection Conducted:
December 1-5, 1980 Inspectors:
'd Loa w
/-/4 -a7 L. E. Ellersnaw, Contractor Inscector Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch X 0nm l
oc. - TI I. Barnes, Cnief oate ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch O
' - l' - I I Approved by:
W I. Barnes, Chief Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection conducted December 1-5, 1980 (99900047/80-03)
Areas Insoected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B criteria and applicaole codes and standards, including action on previous inspection findings; contral of forming; control of nonconformances and corrective action; manufacturing process control, and procedure, document and drawing control.
The inspection involved 65 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
In the five areas inspected, two deviations from commitment and one unresolved item were identified.
Deviation:
Control of Forming - Qualification of shell forming and procurement provisions for plate were not accomplished in accordance with Criterion V of 810401oQQ}
2 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and Section III of the ASME Code (Notice of Deviation, Item A.).
Control of Nonconformances and Corrective Action - Quality trend reports have not been issued acproximately monthly, which is not in accordance with QA Program Manual Section 16.0 and Criteria V of 10 CFR 50 Appendix 3.
Unresolved Item:
Control of Nonconformances and corrective action - the issuance and status of MRRs could not be ascertained in all cases, by review of the controlling QA Records MRR Log.
(DetailsSection I, paragrach C.3.b.).
i 4.
i 4
o t
3 DETAILS SECTION I (Prepared by L. E. Ellershaw)
A.
Persons Contacted M. Barth - Quality Assurance Engineer W. Beckley - Quality Assurance Engineer J. W. Bradley - Manager, Processes En;ineering L. Conway - Manager, Engineering C. L. Doniel - Supervisor, Recieving and Material Handling R. H. Dunn - Supervisor QA Records R. L. Frohlich - Process Engineer E. P. Loch - Manager, Manufacturing Planning L. Malizia - Process Engineer T. D. Miller - Manager, Product Assurance J. P. Mortara - Manager, Quality Assurance P. M. Parker - Quality Assurance Engineer B.
Action on Previous Insoection Findings 1.
(Closed) Item A (Report No. 79-02):
This item dealt with the Electrode Check-Out Log (Form WC-1) not being comoleted in order to account for the issuance and return of welcing materials, and certain Inconel 132 electrodes of different heat numcers were mixed together.
Westinghouse Tampa Plant (WTP) implemented the committed corrective action in that a review of WC-1 forms revealed all have been filled out to document issuance and return of welding materials, and mixed electrodes were not observed during this inspection.
2.
(Closed) Item F (Report No. 79-02):
This item dealt with penetrant materials.which could not be certified, not to contain more than 1% sulfur or total halogens by weignt, in that the penetrant containers used by production were observed to. contain rags and other foreign materials.
WTP implemented the committed corrective action in that penetrant materials used by production are maintained in closed containers.
3.
(Closed) Item A (Report No. 80-02):
This item dealt with WTP's failure to implement committed corrective action relative to the segregation of welding electrodes in holding ovens.
WTP implemented their committed corrective action in that Ccerations Management personnel have conducted audits of the holding ovens on each snift, suoplemented by nign frequency, random, Procuct Assurance Patrol Aucits.
4 C.
Control of Noncenfermances and C0rrective Action 1.
Obfectives The object'.ves of this area of the inspection were to verify that WTP had implemented the requirements for tne centrol of none:nformances and corrective action in accordance with the QA Manual and a licacie NRC and ASME Code requirements.
2.
Method of Acccmolishment The preceding cbjectives were acc:mplisned by:
a.
Review of QA Program Manual, Section 15.0, " Nonconforming Items," and Section 16.0 " Corrective Acticn."
b.
Review of Standard Division Pr:cecure ?06-001.2, "MRR Prececure."
c.
Review of Standarc Division Prececure :q6-Oc
), " Deviation Notice (ON) Precedure."
d.
Review of both open and closed MRRs.
e.
Observation of nonconforming material to assure it was identified as being nonconforming.
f.
Review of both open and closed Corrective Action Re: orts (CAR).
g.
Review of quality trend reports.
h.
Discussion with cogni: ant personnel.
3.
Findings a.
Deviation Frem Ccmmitment See Notice of Deviation, Item 3.
Quality Improvement Program meetings were held on April 8, and 10, 1980, in whien a review of all 1979 MRRs took place with a resultant listing of MRRs by category and quantities.
Meetings were also held on May 17 and 21, 1980, to review all MRRs issued curing the first four montas of 1980.
A meeting was held on October 23, 1980, to review all MRRs issued during the second four months of 1980, with a folicw-up meeting neld on Novemoer 20, 1980, to resolve the problems identified during the October 23, 1980 neeting.
5 b.
Unresolved Item MAR Procedure PQ6-001.2 defines the means by which deviated saterial is controlled through the 6se of the MRR.
Approxi-mately 35 MRRs were reviewed to assure implementation of the requirements of PQ6-001.2. -Tracking of the sample MRRs proved to be lacorious in that the details of the procedure were not adhered to in each case.
The procedure addresses the use of an MRR Roca Log Book and a QA Records MRR Log.
It does not address the use of a ecmguter printout to snow the status of an MRR.
The QA Records MRR Log is specified as being the means to document the issuance and ultimate close-out of an MRR.
In certain cases, the QA Records MRR Log did not show the issuance and/or close-out of an MRR.
The information was ultimately 4
obtained though, by reviewing the MRR Room Log Book and the unspecified ccmputer print-out.
D.
Manufacturing Process Control 1.
Cbiettives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that WTP had implemented the requirements for the control of manufacturing processes in accordance with the QA Manual and applicable NRC and ASME Code requirements.
2.
Method of Acccmolishment
.The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of QA Program Manual Section 9.0, " Control of Construc-tion Processes".
4 b.
Review of in process Feeder Travelers to assure.that manufac-turing operations performed to date had been signed off, and that inspection and/or ANI hold points had not been by passed for the following'four jobs: NEGT 1778, channel head assembly; KGGT 3012, tube tundle assembly; GAGT 1882, channel head clad /-
machining, and KGGT 3013, channel head claddirg.
c.
Observation of in process operations being performed on the four jobs in b, above, to assure conformance to drawing and traveler requirements.
d.
Review of accumulated postweld heat treatment times'on job GAGT 1882.
e.
Discussions with cognizant personnel
6 3.
Findings a.
Deviation Frcm Ccmmitment None.
b.
Unresolved Item None.
E.
Procedure. Occument and Orawine Control 1.
Obiectives The cbjectives of this area of tne inspection were to verify that WT.D had implemented the requirements for the approval, distribution, retrieval, and control of procedures, documents anc drawings in accordance with the QA Manual and acclicaole NRC anc ASME Ccde requirements.
2.
Metacd of Acccmolishment The preceding cbjectives were accomolished cy:
a.
Review of QA Program Manual Section 5.0, " Instructions, Procedures and Drawings," anc Section 5.0, "Occument Coqtrol."
b.
Review of the feeder travelers, drawings, NDE procecures, inspection procedures, and priority manufacturing in.ormation travelers associated with the four jcbs indicated in paragraph D.2.b above.
c.
Review of the formal release documents and the controlled listings to assure that the correct revisicn to the document was being used by manufacturing and/or inscection.
d.
Discussion with cognizant personnel.
3.
Findings a.
Deviation From Commitment None.
b.
Unresolved Item Ncne.
1
7 F.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of this inspection were summarized at the conclusion of the inspection on December 5, 1980 with the following management repre-sentatives and the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI):
J. W. Bradley - Manager, Process Engineering L. Conway - Manager Engineering R. H. Dunn - Supervisor QA Records J. Jourdan - Scpervisor, Computer Operations J. G. Leopza - Manager, Works Engineering K. N. LeRoy - ANI, Lumberman's Mutual and Casualty Co.
P. Loch - Manager, Manufacturing Planning T. O. Miller - Manager, Product Assurance J. P. Mortara - Manager, Quality-Assurance P. Parker - QA Engineer D.~ T. Smith - Manager, Material Services J. A. Tortorice - Manager, Component Design J. E. Turner - General Manager Management acknowledged the statements made by the inscectors and had no specific questions regarding the findings as presentac to them.
l
8 DETAILS SECTION II (Prepared by I. Barnes)
A.
Persons Lontacted J. W. Bradley - Manager, Processes Engineering, Tampa Plant L. Conway - Engineering Manager, Tampa Plant R. H. Dunn - QA Records Supervisor, Tampa Plant E. P. Loch - Manufacturing Planning Manager L. A. Malizia - Processes Engineer, Tampa Plant J. P. Morta a - QA Manager, Tampa Plant P. M. Parker - QA Engineer, Tampa Plant B.
Action on Previous Inscection Findings 1.
(Closed) Deviation (Item 3, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-02):
Performance of submerged arc, shielded metal arc and autcmatic gas tungsten arc welding that was not in full conformance with the electrical parameter requirements of the applicaole Process Specifications.
The inspector verified that appropriate disposition had been made of the observed nonconfor::ances, instructions had been issued to pro-duction personnel and that a patrol inspection system was in effect.
Independent observation by the inspector of sucmerged arc pressure boundary welding and overlay cladding showed welding was being performed in conformance with the electrical parameter requirements of the applicable Process Specifications.
2.
(Closed) Deviation (Item C, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-02):
Procurement of E-901SM electrodes with testing performed only in the postweld heat treated condition, although used in appli-i cations not receiving a subsequent postweld heat treatment, i.e.
temper bead repairs after final postweld heat treatment.
-The inspector verified that an inquiry had been submitted to the
~
ASME staff and a response received, which permitted use of electrodes for temper bead repairs that had been tested in either the as welded or postweld heat treated condition.'
The inspector also established by record review, that electrodes used in the interim period prior to receipt of an ASME response, had been tested in both as weldec and-postweld heat treated conditions.
3.
(Closed) Deviation (Item D, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 79-02): Changes in welding position and-electrode diameter used for first layer cladding, permitted by PS82121UW Issue 1, were not supported by qualifications in accorcanca with ASME Section IX Ccde requirements.
9 The inspector verifiec tna PS82121UW had been amended as committed and qualified for One 2G position.
Review of additional process specifications during the inspection sucwec no further instances of non-specific language.
4 (Closed) Deviation (Item E, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Reper No. 79-02):
Performance of weld and base metal recairs without preparation, review and dictribution of an MRR anc MRRT.
The inspector verified that the ccomitted instructions had been issued to technicians and manufacturing management.
Examination of subassemclies during the inscection with rescect to weld recairs, and ccmparison against manufacturing recorcs, sncwea no instance where undocumented weld repairs had :een performed.
5.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item (DetailsSection I, G.3.b.(1), Inscection Report No. 79-02):
Omission of cperations in a feecer-traveler relating to removal of a generator shell brace and magnetic particle examination of attachment area.
This item was resolved by verification that tne present traveler system proviced operations for removal of craces and examination of the attacnment areas.
6.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item (DetailsSection I, G.3.b.(2), Inspection Report No. 79-02): Absence of cefinition in QA program Manual witn respect to manufacturing personnel responsibilities in the area of traveler documentation.
This item was resolved by both verification that Section 9.0 of the current QA Manual (revisions through September 10, 1980) provides for signcff of manufacturing operations and by review of active feeder-travelers to establish performance of signoffs.
7.
(Closed) Deviation (Item 3, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 80-01):
Instructions not providea to heat treatment service vendor in accordance with the requirements of Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appencix B, and NB-4624, sub paragraph 3 in Section III of.the ASME Code, to assure a gradually diminishing gradient outwards frem the controlled circumferential band.
The finding has been closed on the basis of the original analytical work performed in response to the finding and the sucsequent analysis (Qualification and Evaluation of. ?%1iT Methods - Gas Furnace and Local at WTP) that was performed after identification of the Westingncuse Nuclear Ccmpenents Division, Tamca Plant (WTP) failare to. address longitudinal gradients in the original analysis, i.e. Item 3, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 80-02.
10 8.
(Closed) Deviation (Item 3, Notice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 80-02):
Failure to address longitudinal thermal gradients in local postweld heat treatment analysis.
The inspector verified that the committed additional analysis had been performed, utilizing temperature gradient information derived from production local postweld heat treatment cycles, which demon-strated sub yield stress conditions throughout the cycle for longi-tudinal thermal gradients.
9.
(Closed) Deviation (Item C.1, Hotice of Deviation, Inspection Report No. 80-02):
Required chemical analysis of sucmerged arc wire flux combinations not performed for materials used in buttering appli-cations.
Inspector review cf the WTP test program performed in response to Item C.1, confirmed that the adecuacy of all ER308L wire anc flux combinations used for buttering of channel head no::les hao been established by analysis.
Ten comoinations of ER 309L wire and flux, that had been used for first layer buttering operations, were no longer available to allow in-clant testing of-the materials.
Sampling of the ER 309L production deposits made using these combinations was also determined to be impractical, owing to the physical inaccessibility of the material, i.e. the 0.0. of the nozzle buildups at the 309L/ base material interface is covered in the fabrication process by an Inconel deposit.
The tecnnical basis used by WTP to provide assurance of the adequacy of the unavailable ER 309L wire and flux combinations relied on the fact that chemistry was available for deposits made with each applicable flux lot and ER 308L wire.
The difference in chemistry between the ER 308L wire and the deposit made with the wire and a flux lot of concern was noted by element.
The shifts in element composition were then applied to.
the chemistry of an ER 309L wire, that had been used with the same flux in production buttering applications, in order to predict an undiluted composition for the ER 309L wire and flux combination.
This approach was concurred with by the inspector as a viable method of assessing the effects of welding parameters and flux on element transfer from a wire to a deposit.
To provide further verification that all of the predicted undiluted compositions would be adequate with respect to base material dilution in first layer overlay operations, the inspector performed an interpolation between a Schaeffler diagram plot of the worst case 309 composition, i.e.
lowest' ferrite number, and the base material composition, using known dilution values for the process.
The results indicated that a satisfactory composition would be achieved.
11 The inspector further verified on a sampling basis that a liquid penetrant inspection is performed of the channel head no::le to 309 interfaces prior to deposition of the Inconel materials anc also of the completed buildup, provicing additional assurance of deposit adequacy and integrity.
C.
Control of Formina 1.
Obiectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify tnat forming operations had ceen oualified in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Code and that provisions nad been mace to assure conformance of these operations with the cualification limits.
2.
Method of Accomolisnment 7he preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of WTP document, TD-MET-73-058, dated Novemcer 20, 1973,
" Procedure Qualification For Shell Forming."
b.
Review of WTP document, TD-MET-76-108, datec Novemcer, 1976,
" Percent Strain Expected During Sending of Steam Generator and Pressurizer Sarrels."
c.
Examination of General Equipment Specification 953236, Revision 0, "Model F Steam Generator Reactor Coolant System," with respect to notch ductility requirements.
d.
Examination of General Equipment Specification 952400, Revision 1, " Pressurizer Vessel Assembly Series 100," with respect to notch ductility requirements.
e.
Examination of procurement requirements in Specification No. 2556A90, Revision 9, for SA 533 Grade A, Class 2 plate.
~f.
dxamination of Certified Material Test Reports for pressuri:er and steam generator shell plate procured in accordance with Specification No. 2556A90, Revision 9.
3.
Findings a.
Deviation Frem Commitment Review of the forming qualification data contained in WTP document TD-MET-73-058, dated Novemcer 20, 1973, showed only one heat of the three in the test program had been
12 Charpy-V imoact tested.
Examination of the Charpy-V imcact test data from this heat, for tne strained and unsgrained conditions,snowedanincreaseofaporoximately35FinRT$lin transition temcerature occurred during forming to a 4.3% s value, i.e.
The 50 ft. - lb. and 35 mils lateral expansion temperatures (equi' talent by ASME Code cefinition to RTNT
+60 F) increased, respectively, from 0 F to 35 F and -S F to
+28 F on being subjected to forming.
Paragrach 5.1.2.2, sub paragraph C, in General 5quipment Specification 952400, Revision 1, states with rescect to pressurizer notch ductility requirements, "An RT C
NDT of 50 F (15.6 C), or less, is required for all pressure retaining material (except bolting materials)."
Paragraph 5.2.3 in General Equipment Specification 953236, Revision 0, states withrespecttosteamggneratornotchductilityproperties, g
"An RT, pressuh,. of 50 F (15.5 C), or less is recuired of all retaining material (exce:t bolting materials).
Specific components of the steam generator may experience in-service temperatures which will recuire a RT lower tnan 60 F, e.g. the feecwater no::le.
The manufacturer is respons-ible for ascertaining material requirements utili:ing the transient curves proviced."
Examination of the material purcnase specification require-ments contained in Specification No. 2625A90, Revision 9, showed that provisions had not been made to co'mpensate for the loss of impact properties demonstrated by the forming qualification data, i.e. SA533 Grade A, Class 2 plate was requiredtobesupgliedwithamaximumRTReviewofvendorCbifiedMaterial reference temperature of +60 F.
Test Reports for pressurizer and steam generator shell plate showedthatcompliancewithtpisrequirementhadbeenachieved by drop weight testing at +70 F (no break requirement) and g
Charpy-V imoact testing at +120 F (50 ft. - lb. and 35 mils lateralexpansionrequirementoneacgspecimen).
This approach proves the RT temperature is + 60 F, or less, but does not measure the abal RT temcerature.
Review of vendor test I
datadidshowCharpy-hfmcactvaluesoncertainheatsofplate, that would acpear to indicate the actual RT at or close to tne maximum permissible tempehlture of +60 F.temperaturgwas y
Insufficient time was available, however, to fully review this data with respect to plate use and application (See Notice of Deviation, Item A).
j.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
-