ML20063A102
| ML20063A102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1982 |
| From: | Mclendon G LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20063A096 | List: |
| References | |
| W3K-82-0486, W3K-82-486, NUDOCS 8208240193 | |
| Download: ML20063A102 (3) | |
Text
L.OU1SI AN A f 242 OcLAaONOc Sincer POWE R & LIG H T/ P O BOX 6008
- NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA 70174 * (504) 366 2345 uiEONbs$
August 6, 1982 G. D. McLENDON Senior Voce President W3K-82-0486 Q-3-A35.02.01 Mr. G. L. Madsen, Chief q
[
p Reactor Projects Branch, Region IV i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l g ' g g 1009
{c
- )
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 j
{L, j
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit 3
_s Docket No. 50-382
~-
USNRC Inspection Report 50-382/Rpt. 82-06
Dear Mr. Madsen:
The iollowing information regarding the violations cited by the USNRC Inspec-tors in IE Inspection Report No. 50-382/Rpt. 82-06 dated June 30, 1982, is herewith submitted.
A.
Repetitive Failure to Provide Prompt and Appropriate Corrective Action to Negative Inspection Findings Regarding Reactor Vessel Head Cleanliness Criterion XVI of 10CFR50, Appendix B, states, "... measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and corrected."
Contrary to the above, a review of NISCO inspection reports show failure l
to promptly correct conditions adverse to quality.
All housekeeping reports by NISCO QC for April 1-29, 1982, show unacceptable cleanliness and protective covering for the reactor vessel head. These reports (NISCO Housekeeping Inspection Report Form FS-68. show repeated rejected cleanliness. This condition is the same as reported in a violation associated with NRC Inspection Report 82-05 conducted March 1-5, 1982. These conditions were not acted upon and the same condition appeared when the NRC inspectors toured on May 10, 1982.
l l
During the site tour, it was noted that the cleanliness of the reactor vessel head, refueling canal, and internals was not satisfactory.
A review of NISCO daily housekeeping audits for the period of April 1-29, 1982, revealed that the conditions of the reactor vessel head were unsatisfactory fe_ the entire month. After April 19, 1982, the findings were annotated to "see inspection report of April 19, 1982" rather than write the findings again.
,p p ? oJ Ctc 3,,
820 8 z4 0 t 93 m
y Mr. G. L. Madsen Page 2 The foregoing demonstrates repetitive failure to provide prompt and appropriate corrective action to negative inspection findings regarding reactor head clean-liness. This is a Severity Level IV V.iolation.
The following information is submitted:
Corrective Action Taken and Results Achieved The Reactor Vessel llead is being cleaned daily. A protective covering has been placed on the R.V. Ilead and the penetrations underneath the head have been covered and taped.
The Lead Engineer is now dispositioning the llousekeeping Reports, as he receives them, and then submits them to the Superintendent for corrective action.
_ Corrective Action Taken to Preclude Repetition NISCO has added additional personnel and equipment to assure that all possible measures have been taken to maintain the equipment in the condition that it must be stored in.
The Lead Engineer is dispositioning rejected -items noted on llousekeeping Reports as he receives them.
QC is now performing a weekly indepth surveillance to verify that corrective action, as noted on the llousekeeping Report, has been taken.
Date When Full Compliance Will Be Achieved:
Due to the daily construction activities taking place In the containment build-ing, there will be an ongoing ef fort made to maintain the equipment to the required level of cleanliness.
B.
Deviation f rom Reac tor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping Material Commitments Paragraph 5.2.3 of the FSAR specifies that the material specif ications for the 42-inch diameter reactor coolant piping is SA-516, Grade 70, and the weld metal is SFA 5.1, E7018.
In deviation from the above, the weld metal in the 42-inch diameter reactor coolant piping, Welds, P10W1 and P10W2, does not meet specification requirements on SFA 5.1, E7018, and Combustion Engineering in Analytical Evaluation Report CENC-1460 derated the piping material to be equivalent to Specif ication SA-516, Grade 65.
The above was originally identifled by the USNRC an an Unresolved it.cm in their USNRC Docket No. 50-382/rseport 81-17: Postweld lleat Treatment (PWilT) of Reactor Coolant Pressure BounJary (RCPB) Piping. This unresolved item has been upgraded to a deviation.
l
Mr. C. L. Madsen Page 3 The NRC Inspector reviewed Nonconformance Report W3-1670, Supplements 1, 2 and 3, which documented the abnormal PWHT of RCPB pipe Welds P10W1 and p10W2, and the supporting reference documents that resulted in the final disposition of " accept-as-is."
The supporting documents included:
requalification of Welding Procedure Specification 10.1.14 to include the postweld heat treatment temperature and time used by NISCO on Welds P10W1 and P10W2 as reported in Procedure Qualification Record Number 148, Revision A; retesting of the five heats of E7018 electrode, used to complete Welds P10W1 and P10W2 as reported in Lucius Pitkins's letter M-5831 of December 10, 1979; and evaluation of Combustion Engineering (CE) supplied material postweld heat treated by NISCO during postweld heat treatment of Welds P10W1 and P10W2 as documented in CE Analytical Evaluation Report CENC-1460. The NRC Inspector noted that after retest, three of the five E7018 electrode heats used by NISCO did not meet the requirements of Specification SFA 5.1 for tensile strength and cield strength.
In the worst case, the E7018 weld metal was degraded to a tennile strength of 65,000 psi (70,000 psi minimum required) and a yield strength of 53,200 rsi (58,000 psi minimum required).
The following information is submitted:
Corrective Action Taken and Results Achieved CE performed an analytical evaluation which took into consideration that the af fected material, both weld metal and pipe base metal, is equivalent to Specification SA-516, Grade 65, and concluded that it was still satisfactory for service.
The FSAR commitment to use weld metal of Specification SFA 5.1, E7018 and pipe material of Specification SA 516, Grade 70 had not been met; FSAR Final Draft Amendment No. 28, paragraph 5.2.3 confirms derating of a portion of the RC piping.
Action Taken to Preclude Repetition None Required.
Date When Full Corrective Action Was Achieved Full corrective action was achieved on July 30, 1982.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please advise.
Very truly yours, f
G. D. Mc.endon Senior Vice President GDMcL/RGB/grf