ML20054E667
| ML20054E667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1982 |
| From: | Barnes I, Conway J, Roberds H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054E664 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900017 NUDOCS 8206140051 | |
| Download: ML20054E667 (8) | |
Text
-
ORGANIZATION:
ORAVO CORPORATION PIPE FABRICATION DIVISION MARIETTA, OHIO dtPORI INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.:
99900017/82-01 DATE(S) 3/29-4/2/82 ON-SITE HOURS: 78 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
Dravo Corporation Pipe Fabrication Division ATTN:
K. Anderson, General Manager 1115 Gilman Street Marietta, Ohio 45750 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT:
W. A. Molvie, Quality Assurance Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(614) 373-7541 PRINCIPAL PRODUCT: Nuclear Piping Subassemblies NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Approximately 10% of production devoted to nuclear products.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR:
/4/
d
/If/d-H. W. Robe'rds, Reactive and Components Program Date' Section (R& CPS)
OTHER INSPECTOR (S): J. Conway, R& CPS
.d**--
2 d>%
e.-/w/F 2_
APPROVED BY:
I. Barnes, Chief, R& CPS Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES:
SCOPE:
This inspection was made as the result of:
(1) a 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report by TVA relative to undocumented weld buildups on ASME Section III Class 1, 2, and 3 pipe ends supplied to Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and l
2; and (2) the identification at Callaway, Units 1 and 2 of inadequate surface preparation of safety-related piping welds for performance of liquid penetrant i r.specti on.
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY:
Undocumented weld buildups 390, and 50-391.
Inadequate weld surface preparation for liquid penetrant inspection 483, and 50-486.
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL l 0 6 f t Id i
~
l c
,4<<
na n,.
n 8206140051 820526 PDR GA999 EMVDR AV 99900017 PDR
ORGANIZATION:
DRAVO CORPORATION PIPE FABRICATION DIVISION MARIETTA, OHIO REPORT INSPECTION NO.:
99900017/82-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 2 of 4 A.
VIOLATIONS:
None B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
1.
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Section 9 of the QA Manual, certain inspection and verification operations on the weld joint data forms, applicable to the attachment of nameplates to piping subassemblies, had been signed-off by the weld foreman, as completed, although the name-plates were not attached and were observed in the record package.
2.
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Sections 15.4.2 and 15.4.3 of Dravo's Nuclear QA Manual, corrective action implementation date and verification followup were not docu-mented with respect to an internal audit finding pertaining to use of unapproved welding wire.
C.
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None D.
OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS:
1.
Inadequate Surface Preparation For Liquid Penetrant Inspection of Piping Welds Fabricated by Dravo - As the result of a United Engineers &
& Constructors (UE&C) Surveillance Representative observing a Dravo inspector performing an improper magnetic particle examination on an ASME Section III piping subassembly for the Seabrook Nuclear Station, Dravo notified Callaway, Wolf Creek Generating Station, and Seabrook Nuclear Station of a potential deficiency relative to incomplete exami-nation of certain welds.
In the process of reexamination of welds on Dravo piping subassemblies by contractor personnel at Callaway, it was reported that liquid penetrant examination could not be performed because of inadequate surface preparation of welds.
As a result of the above deficiencies Dravo has taken the following l
corrective action and steps to preclude recurrence:
l l
l l
I
ORGANIZATION:
DRAVO CORPORATION PIPE FABRICATION DIVISION MARIETTA, OHIO REPORT INSPECTION NO.:
99900017/82-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 3 of 4 a.
The inspector responsible for the inadequate inspection resigned from the company and all assemblies in the Dravo shop that had inspections performed by this individual were reinspected.
b.
Training sessions have been given to all inspection personnel relative to ASME Code and Dravo procedure requiements.
c.
Standards have oeen developed to demonstrate inspection surface requirements.
d.
The Chief Inspector (Level III Examiner) monitors the work of each Dravo inspector on a weekly basis, and records are main-tained to attest to this surveillance.
The inspection revealed that other nuclear facilities could have similar deficiencies but were not included in Dravo's contract review, in that, the review was made on only work performed during the last half of 1980.
2.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Referral of Undocumented Weld Buildup on Safety-Related Piping Fabricated by Dravo -
a.
In February 1980, TVA notified Dravo that they had noted indica-tions on butt welds while performing UT (baseline inspection).
Both TVA and Dravo agreed that the indications were the result of weld buildups made in the shop.
These weld buildups had not been documented in accordance with Code requirements.
Dravo was able to reconstruct from fabrication records the documentation required for the identified suspect welds with the exception of t
(
14 which had 0.D. buildups.
In September 1980, Dravo sent TVA l
a nonconformance report documenting the 14 sketches for the Watts l
Bar contract and recommending that the pipe assemblies containing the undocumented weld buildups be "used as is."
Dravo's corrective action to preclude undocumented weld buildups in the future included revised procedures to incorporate better control of weld material and a QA review of weld joint data cards.
In i
addition ECN-1 " Instructions for Build-Up" was written to inc',ude the required nondestructive examinations and documentation for l
weld buildups on all ASME Class 1, 2, and 3 work.
l l
\\
ORGANIZATION:
ORAVO CORPORATION PIPE FABRICATION DIVISION MARIETTA, OHIO REPORT INSPEGl10N NO.:
99900017/82-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 4 b.
On May 28, 1980, the engineering organization generated a devia-tion request relating to the weld " buildup" problem and recommended corrective action to establish an Engineering Change Notice (ECN) system and incorporate it into the QA Manual.
There was no evidence that the QA organization acknowledged the deviation request nor followed through on implementation of the recommended corrective action.
This item will be further reviewed during a future inspection.
c.
An NRC inspection of weld buildup documentation was performed by comparison of pipe cutting sheets (which make provisions for indicating whether a buildup is required) with subassembly fabri-cetion records.
Subassemblies from Seabrook, Units 1 and 2, Wolf Creek, and Hope Creek, Units 1 and 2, were included in the inspection sample.
Fabrication records showed absence of docu-mentation of buildup being performed in only one instance, from a total of six subassemblies indicated by cutting sheets to require buildup; i.e., Hope Creek, Sketch E3035-117, Class 2.
Examination of the specific requirements applicable to the TVA Watts Bar contract showed that the failure to document certain weld buildups at pipe ends was related to QA program implementa-tion rather than failure to define requirements.
Review of General Fabrication Procedure SP-1 for this contract indicated buildups were required to be reported to the Engineering Department, in order that Shop Sketches would be appropriately revised.
l l
l 1
t
(
l
i
~
PERSONS CONTACTED Company 0 pal'8 Dates 4 f2-
/
Docket / Report No. </9 9eoc / 7 /P2 -c/
Inspector acuc7)r/cw
.a v
~
Page ' I of i
NAME(Please Print)
TITLE (Please Print)
ORGANIZATION (Please Print)
/k~$,Ydh$/'v:/.a/ kn wn //
Wee,m 8m x,,w
~
M Rp-GAS 1ad%.
N ub eu n.
- ~~
n--
L u//
A//mi? e faw e Ciamenrard.
k&*f5 '>
%' G/) 0o,r)
()fil futfi17 10/1r%VO t
Docket No. ggff y
]
Inspector,//
fgh Report No. J 4c _p j Scop / Module DOCUMENTS EXAMINED page
/ of /
1 2
TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4
/
/
DZe$N.i-fy /_'O jnt/J.3-Z Y
l wwWsb $//lA YAW.$ /sh3/f'/'
. 3 3
)[ye th,/ksa
$ *jf&ra84 n'Sdfl~ EDP fev' J~/2////
/
lz G &&uMxXA:u AnrM aw nAA
+
s$
E 7ber[8Wm/Yg euo) //s'k'/
<< k L J
s' d<<odReh &fi &< W-l9z
&w 14/x6#Maub daadw.sd4Alb rG</Ln s? 3 nAdo 1
.s
/$/e/Is m h5N!/-- HM eda /- I b//fd e.
I1
/ w w rf d ?& & w s 9 d u k a 4 n A zL n m/ dss h ut f
W/d kVh/Jtz 0/a.5N,7lAv
/0 f
Y M istr b b 7' Ani'D
!/WA W CAx$Afh.-
//
A sc
/p
' b tra)c f f b hif f4
+' l j$ u / $ / P / w /2 P'" A$xlApr sk bnd /!v j3 ll/4s/ 6" 93f-/:'9, f309S-f0', fm> F0 / f6 /> W D
/
/
j cQi kc - /D74 cun{ E 30.35~ 3/ Y, 'HI M f affbb"dbO'I')'WA
'f'E *#
ocumdnt Types:
Column Nos.
Drawing 5.
Purchase Order
- 1. Sequential Item No.
Specification 6.
Internal Memo
- 2. Type of Document Procedure 7.
Letter
- 3. Date of Document QA Manual 8.
Other (Specify-if necessary)
- 4. Revision No., if applicable a
l Dockello, gnee g7 Inspector 6*MLAy Report 110.
- 82. o t Scop / Module DOCUMENTS EXM1INED Page I
of
~2-
\\
l 1 2
TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4 I
O v.L L Cait QtAAt73 A s TuskeE MAMR A L 82.
S
- 7. -
I
$60EJAL St'Cica 9fAtma65 for itti46 3aEASTCni3Cics 3
S 7 -EMh6 llCcEifT M5 f Ecba t Q c @EcoAo S HE E.T (C-meAc.T E 2TM TC4s/-akE\\
4-
'l OfGE LE'GGtA ( n. 'llit t (2[g (n} y, 7,a,g _ f,_.
tact ['gusta.grp' 7ggge.cg f
b Mitt TCsT REheir TAAusgtt; At - torta uns tco sTAtts ricct's C rM T(t
- 6(fianccc.'.r Mstt Test cc4Tr p.ca tes _ 4 B N's T% g e. b u n s %. - m a_
5 bS~ $
?ts cteage Fe it. ? Wet oAs 3uttL,GL Aaor7s "
YTl S
v.<t Vwomac A ho.m yueoc,cuact r a st cc r,. a e p D r. e o rce 47.. a r '
N8e
'l 3
69_5 '7eccom,t I
s 3
6e, e
" T,45Teu ri-as uSE 6 c 9Em -a REoaux /sc aF mA9ct 9Ef AT
'lRa 2_
4 5
6f -\\\\
92aescaps Fog PEspoemoas 1A'icsssac Aao,-rc Y
lo 5
b f - t L.
toctoutt Foot (Atei$ g A7,.s OF Tool. Gaces t TcsT Ecuernea1 S8t
~
to lI 3
68 13 dG4fl Fr c41,.4 flocEpud-E Foe AIDE. PEtSogust oi
+
lt
?
$HtGE. QA TM'IGod At AustT C6f.41t sF f(locac1.sa QCfT h*l l2 t fe'(*4 {?. _H24{'If (3
S rou.c 94 zovcu4L Am<,1 eee.,.7e oc " utto t,ac.4 ecow1,. utto,4" ( <-/s, _ (./g, _v/n. 7/7g) umen't Types:
Column Nos.
Drawing 5.
Purchase Order
- 1. Sequential Item No.
Specification 6.
Internal Memo
- 2. Type of Document Procedure 7.
Letter
- 3. Date of Document QA Manual 8.
Other (Specify-if necessary)
- 4. Revision No., if applicable s
Docket No. 993 coon Inspector 0C4 W AT Report No. 8'l - o i Scop / Module DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page
'l of 7-1 2
TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4 (4
6 TEu OO Aco4 Fo AM uct ?EP.Ats, TELAn 4G
-t.
S Eng e.oce_ c ustact IS 0
Stx R oa c.a Fo auxut 9Ef-ns few.as_-r.
uans h c m e x c.s 16 3
TP-1 6EREtAt FA6eu A i. A floccoun_
fe h
17 3
TO ?
" M E toi 46 CEQasatiseats 3
If NS (bete 4:40 Acfi.a dc.oit u 3a n nats (Et-AT
( E f' M d I ( 8 7_)
T
('l b
'IRLEE. MCmos GG. w Eoc.satec.sc.
T. QA (1) d hc7..a 6 ) h w Eto - Buico w(
Q. stem ( ~2(tile.
Ef9 (e.
9yofgo)
Document Types:
I Column Nos.
1.
Drawing 5.
Purchase Order
- 1. Sequential Item No.
2.
Specification 6.
Internal Memo
- 2. Type of Document 3.
Procedure 7.
Letter
- 3. Date of Document 8.
QA Manual 8.
Other(Specify-ifnecessary)
- 4. Revision No., if applicable
.