ML20058F141
| ML20058F141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1981 |
| From: | Foster J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058A387 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-206 NUDOCS 8207300308 | |
| Download: ML20058F141 (2) | |
Text
Cs-L. % I L L # L-l
.\\
U ITED STATES y
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DO NOT DISCLOSE E
.E REGION lli Contains identity of 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD Confidentihl SOurCC oLEN ELLYN, ILLINo!S 60137
- e..*
MAY 21 1981
/
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Region III Files, Zimmer, Investigative File 80-85 FROM:
James E. Foster, Investigator THROUGH:
John Streeter, Acting Director, Enforcement and Inves-tigation Staff
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION OF IMPROPER WELDING PROCEDURE, VOIDING OF NCR On October 24, 1980, Mr.
]thenaweldingQCinspectorat the Zimmer site contacted me at approximately 3:25 p.m.
He stated that during his inspections of welding being performed on support plates in the suppres-sion pool (Mark II suppression pool modifications) he identified deficiencies in the welding procedure being utilized. He had generated a nonconform-ance report, NR E2721, Control No. 4926, documenting these deficiencies on July 7, 1980.
He stated that the NCR had been forwarded to Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S&L), and that they had advised that the welding procedures were deficient, and all welds made utilizing the procedures should be removed.
He indicated that Cincinnati Gas and Electric (CG&E) was unhappy with this disposition, as a large amount of time-consuming and expensive rework would be required to fulfill the disposition from S&L.
CG6E had sent a letter to S&L, he stated, taking issue with their disposition, and voiding the subject NCR.
He felt that this was imp:oper, and questioned whether S&L would reply to the letter sent to them from CG&E.
Through contacts with Mr. Daniels, the Resident Inspector, the NCR package, including the letter from CG&E to S&L, was obtained and reviewed with In-spector Jerry Schapker.
Schapker's review indicated that the response from CG&E to S&L appeared technically correct and acceptable providing the weld geometry and size were as documented in their letter. Close-out of the allegation was therefore postponed until an inspection of the welds could be accomplished.
Due to other priorities and scheduling difficulties, review of this matter was postponed.
During March 11-13, 1981, Inspector Carl Erb inspected the Zimmer site (I&E Inspection Report No. 50-358/81-09, attached).
His review included the welding in question.
h08820609 DO NOT DISCLOSE Contains identity of EB2-206 PDR confidential ccurce SUD
t I
B31:07 DISCLO3C l
t Con?ai:tc i entity og confidentt31 cc : cn Region III Files 2
MAY 21 tggj His inspection indicates that the weld geometry is acceptable, and the voiding of the NCR was technically justified. On this basis, this investi-
]
gative case is considered closed.
~
(
)ispresentlyemployedatthe construction site.
I will contact him and provide him with the results of our review.
f James E. Foster 4
Investigator
Attachment:
i Insp. Rpt. No. 50-358/81-09 6
i i
l l
f I
l l
07 D c= a..,ISC:.03:--
u.,....
c c:- tu,. ~ ~ " ' -
e4
-.,,n..
,,_7.,
r
---.n..-
-.... - -,y
e..
.,f car %g p
UNITED ST ATES 8
'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P
.I REGION lit b
', / _
g
[
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD g M@b-g, *...+g ctru rLLyu LLinois sotar
'5 'E 1 1981 Docket No. 50-358 Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company ATTN:
Mr. Earl A. Borgmann Senior Vice President Engineering Services and Electric Production 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the routine inspection conducted by Mr. C. M. Erb of this office on March 11-13, 1981, of activities at Wm. H. Zimmer Power Station authorized by NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-88 and to the discussion s
of our findings with Mr. W. Schwiers at the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and inter-views with personnel.
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during the course of this inspection.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the en-closed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, except as follows.
If this report contains information that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply in writing to this office, within twenty-five days of the date of this letter, to withhold such information from public disclosure.
The application must include a full statement of the reasons for which the information is considered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary information iden-tified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
/FO OD
\\
J s
a Cincinnati Gas and 3.g Electric Company
);,
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, C. E. Norelius, Acting Director Division of Engineering and Technical Inspection
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-358/81-09 cc w/ enc 1:
J. R. Schott, Plant Superintendent Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b AEOD Resident Inspector, RIII PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Harold W. Kohn, Power Siting Commission Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment Helen W. Evans, State of Ohio i
I RIII.<*
RIII
- c. Erb /so
.i77#
RI}\\
RIII RIII
'h W,oli.
nti:.
i Danielson Sp @~ard Florbill e 2us l!
3/26/81 3/07/7/
p h,i '
e fc'
.f e.
4' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0riMISS10N OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND EhTORCE!!ENT REGION III Report No. 50-358/81-09 Docket No. 50-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licensee:
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Facility Name:
Mn. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Insp etion At:
Zinuner Site, Moscow, OH Inspection Conducted: March 11-13, 1981 27 f/
Inspector:
r hmb ddh~
~/ >' I k / P/
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief 3/
Materials and Processes Section Inspection Summary Inspection on March 11-13, 1981 (Report No. 50-358/81-09)
Areas Inspected:
Inspection of SRV and downcomer bracing in suppression pool; welding and QC activities related to embeds in floor and walls of suppression pool. The inspection involved a total of 20 inspector-hours onsite by one h7C inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifified.
f OglO T
gg51 t
+
l' DETAILS Persons contacted i
Cincinnati Gas and Elect _ric Company
- W. Schwiers, QA Manager D. Kramer, QA Engineer - Civil B. A. Gott, Construction Engineer L. Wood, QA Engineer Kaiser Engineers, Incorporated M. R. DuPuccio, QC Inspestos D. Donovan, Lead Inspector - Civil K. Shinkle,.QA Engineer R. Laker, Level 111 NDE P. Norman, QA Engineer
- Present at the exit interview on March 26, 1981.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Welding in the Suppression Pool Welds involving the SRV 12" pip'es and KWU quenchers were performed by the Kaiser Piping Group, while embeds and braces to the downcomers and SRV piping were performed by the Kaiser Civil Group. Representa-tive welds in both areas were examined together with the NDE and fabrication records.
'i No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
v 2.
KVU Quencher Installation and Record Review The 13 KWU quenchers are arranged in an inner circle and an outer circle with the respective SRV pipes braced to the reactor pedestal or to the outside wall.
Welding and a PT examination were observed on the fillet welds at-taching the quencher base (SN-002) to the floor plate embed. This weld is a 13/8" fillet joining the stainless steel base to the Specification SA588 carbon steel floor plate..The WeldsProcedure used is No. 3.1.80 and the brace is Specificatio'n SA240, Type 316 stainless steel and E-309-16 coated rod and the shielded metal' arc process was used. An interpass maximum temperature of 150*F is main-tained and PT is performed on the root, at the 50% level, and on the final ground surface of the weld.
. t
l<
N The inspector witnessed the PT at 50% which was done by a Level 11 inspector to Procedure No. SPPM 4.2.
The weld had been ground carefully and all steps of the PT inspection were performed in an acceptable manner. The inspector's Stamp No. 106 was imprinted on the process sheet to indicate acceptance by Quality Control.
The KVU quencher is welded to its base using Weld Procedure No. 3.1.37 and the weld is in Class 3 Category. This weld is found on Isometric Dwg. PSK-MS-21A and is a Type 316 to Type 316 stainless steel weld. A backing ring of Type 316 is used and the root is welded using the G1AW process. After the first 3/16" root is in, the weld is completed using the shielded metal are process and ER 308 filler.
Radiography is performed to Procedure No. SPPM 4.1 and four double wall exposures are made which cover the weld area 100%.
The backing ring is not removed upon completion of the welds. The weld issue slips showing the amount and types of electrode issued are filed with the process sheets.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Bracing to the Main Steam Safety Relief Valve (SRV)_ Piping Braces to the outside ring of SRV pipe are anchored to emted plates (2"-2 3/4" thick) which are held in the wall by from four to eight studs. The area around the embed plate is chipped to an acceptable depth so that grout can be poured behind the plate and around the embedded studs.
Four filler strips 1/4" thick of stainless steel are welded to the outside edges of the embed which is Specification SA588 GR A carbon steel. Weld Procedure No. 3.1.80 is used with a (" thick stainless steel backing strip below the 500 foot elevation which is the approximate water level, while a carbon steel backing strip is used above the water level in the suppression pool. The weld is given a PT inspection on the root and final weld.
It is also given a Vacuum Test since the suppression pool is a Class I structure.
No preheat is used and ar. interpass temperature of 100'140' is maintained to minimize any temperature effects in the underlying concrete.
Leak chase channels are installed over welds and the embedment studs have circular leak chases over each protruding stud end. The leak chases are fillet welded and subject to a pressure test.
Prior to selding on the circular leak chases, a tensioner is used to preload the studs to various loads depending on the usage of the embed.
The filler plate welds between the embed plate and surroundiny original stainless steel plates are ground and inspected using PT, UT, and Vacuum Test inspection on the final weld.
A Gusset plate 9/16" x 4' 2" is welded with a fillet weld to the embed plate so that a brace can be attached to each of two adjacent downcomer pipes. This weld is carbon steel to carbon steel using Weld Procedure No. 3.1.51, Revision 1.
The SMAV process is used with E7018 filler metal.
y, Eight lugs are welded to the SRV pipes with four above and four below a split clamp, which is attached to the brace arm.
These lugs hold the clamp and are welded to Veld Procedure No. 3.1.21H.
The pipe is 12" x.688" to Specification SA106, Grade B, while the lugs are Specification SA516, Grade 70 and are about 5" x.406".
The weld is a full penetration achieved by grinding the root before welding on the open side.
MT inspection is performed on the root, intermediate and final weld.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
N-Stamp on the Personnel Hatch During this inspection, we were unable to find the ASME Code Data Report or certificate of shop inspection on the subject item.
However, further search of CBI documentation by the licensee turned up this item.
The actual N-Stamp on the hardware was complete, except no National Board Number appeared on the plate. Further investigations revealed that the State of Ohio and S&L did not require this number, although the N-Stamp with MC below was in place.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Exit Interview An exit interview was conducted with Mr. W. Schwiers and others of your staff on March 26, 1981. The purpose and findings of the inspection were summarized and acknowledged by the licensee.
- ~ ~ -
~
m