IR 05000249/1975017

IR 05000249/1975017, on 05/19/1975, 06/18/1975, 06/20/1975, & 07/20/1975,Dresden Unit 3

ML17252B158
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	08/19/1975
From:	Fiorelli G NRC/RGN-III
To:	Brian Lee Commonwealth Edison Co
References
IR 1975017
Download: ML17252B158 (10)

Text

• • *. . '

• UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 111 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD ______ _ __..____

---

---

---

-Commonwealth Pdison Company ATI'N: Nr. Byron Lee, Jr. Vice ?resident P. O. Rox 761 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Docket No *. 50-249 This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. C. M. Erb and E. Lee of this office on May 19, June 18 and 20 and July 20, 1975 of activities at Nuclear Power Station unit 3 authorized by NRC Operating License No. DP'R-25 and to the discussion of our findings with Hr. A. Roberta and others of _your.staff at the conclusion of t;he inspectio A copy of our report of t'i:iis inspection is enclosed and *identifies tne areas examined during the within these areas, the inspection consisted oi a selective examination of proceoures and'representati ' records, interviews with plant personnel, and observations by the inspector During this inspection, it was found that certain of your activities appear to oe in noncompliance with NRC rt:!quirement The item aud reference to the pertinant requirE:meuts are listed under Enforcement Action in tne Summary of ?indings Section of the enclosed inspection report. Prior to the conclusion of the inspection, the inspectors determined that corrective action had been*taken with respect to this item of noncompliance and that measures have been taken to assure that a similar, future will be avoide Consequently, no reply to this letter is requirtid, and we have no further questi.ons regarding this matter at this time. -In accordance with Rection 2. 790 of the l'ffi.C'

s Rules of Practice,"

Part . 2, Title 10, Code ."Jf Federal Regulations, a COJ,*Y of this letter and the enclosed*

inspec'l:ion report: will placed in the 8 Public Document Room. If this contains any infonnatio that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a writter1

.,, application to this office, within twenty days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold such information from public disclosur Any such application must include a full statement of the reasons,for which.it is '[/V M ( -Commonwealth Edison Company.*

-2-AUG 1 9. 1975 . i -------------

---

____ .._.. __ -----*---------------------------------. l . claimed that. the informatiQn proprietary, and should be prepared so the proprietary information identified in the application is contained in a separate part.of the Unless we receive an application to withhold information or are otherwise contacted within the specified time period, the written material identified in this paragraph will be * .* placed in t:?c Pt1blic Docur.ient Room.. No reply to this letter is necessary; however, should you have any .questionn concerning this inspection, we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Enclosure:

IE Inspection Rpt No. 050-249/75-17 w/encl: PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Anthony Roisman, Esq.

Sincerelyyours, F:t"r.P-111 Ch:f.ef Reactor Operations Branch I

.. / U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMHISSSION y l

---

*-----------_OFFICE-OF. INSPECT-ION-AND

-ENFORCEMEN'l'

---

* -'----*-REGION III Report of Construction Inspection IE Inspection Report No.050-2.49/75-17 Licensee:

Commonwealth Edison Company P. 0. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 Morris, Illinois Type of Licensee:

GE*, BWR 807 MWe -Type of Inspection:

Announced

-In-:-Service

.* License No. DPR-25 Category:

C Dates of Inspection:

May 19, June 18, 20 and July 20," 1975 (f:.')i(.

( ,. Principal Inspector:

c. M. Ero *Accompanying Inspector:

,/ .c-7 ./ .12 -,,. _/ (1 *t'/.-./(

..-* . E. r

:.ee * (May 19, 1975 only) Other Accompanying Personnel:

• None /. /j').' ,.<) j --,1.,L /, ,* ...

Reviewed By: J'.,'v D. W. Hayes 1, Senior Inspector Construction and Engineering

Support Branch r-1" *j i:.f. . I , r -(Date) f(c.tj?)

'(Date)

.. .. \._ ... v . . ' .*"' SUMMARY . OF F.Ui.T})INGS Inspection Summary Inspection on May 19 and 22, 1975: Review of welding procedures and NDE records of Phillips Gets chow (P-G).; contractor to* install the two four-inch replacement recirculation bypass loops. Inspec.tion of .hardwar One item of noncompliance was identified:

failure to secure aa approval signature from the authorized inspector prior to use of an ultrasonic procedur Inspection on June 18 and 20: Review 6f radiographic for four-inch line from Superior Industrial X-Ray Compan Review of welder qualifications and NDE personnel qualification Inspection on July 20, 1975: Review of in-service procedures and calibration informatio Hitness.ed ultra$onic testing of four-inch bypass piping. Reviewed qualifications of NDE personnel used by* Nuclear Services Corporation (NSC). -* *Enforcement Items The following item of noncompliance was found during the inspection:

• Deficiency Contrary to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI, one ultrasonic piocedure was not approved by the prior to commencing the in-service inspectio (Report Details,Section II, Paragraph 3) * Licensee Action on Previouslx Identified Enforcement Items Not applicable

.. Other* Significant Items A. Systems and Components Not applicabl B. Facility Item Unresolved Item -ASME Code,Section XI, requires that records of in-service inspections should indicate specifically when and what NDE inspections were, made and should indicate what items must still be inspected for the ten-year requirement .

.. .. .. v *, **.: . .. . a._ .. . . . . ' . ,. . l ' -------*---------.,..----,---

--. C. * * Managerial Items Not applicabl D. Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee

• None. E. Deviations None. F. Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items Not applicabl *Management Interview A. The following persons attended management interviews during the course of the inspection Commonwealth Edison Company (CE) B. Stephenson,*

Station Superintendent A. Roberts, Assistant Station Superintendent L. D. Burchfield, Administrative Assistant Matters discussed and comments by management were as follows:*

The inspector stated*that he had examined UT Procedure No:. C-15, Revision 0, and noted that it. had not been properly signed by the authorized inspector prior to the commencement of the *inspection

• . However, this procedure was signed by the auth6rized inspector on Hay 21, 1975. The inspector requested that the licensee*

be certain that all NDE procedures or revisions to procedures be * signed by.the authorized inspector prior to use. This matter is ,.close (Report Details, Sectio II, *Paragraph 3) The inspector noted that an overall record of the status of the various categories of in-service inspection was not available for the ten-year period *. The licensee that the records would. pulled together, and identified welds already inspected and welds to be inspected would be shown so that the percentage of in-,...service performed at. the various time intervals can be checked against the requirements of ASME Section XI and the technical

• specifications

.. . -.... -3-r.* "' . ........

• ...

REPORT DETAILS . . -. . Part I _._ -----..,...-------

---:---*--

' -. ---

---

.. Prepared By C. M. Erb ( .. i . Persons Contacted The following individuals, in additio11 to those involved

-in. the management interview, were contacted during this insp.ectio *Commonweal th Edison Company (CE) B. Mahji, Nondestrutive Test -OAB R. Mirochna, Coordinator

-

Inspectiori Quality Control Inspectoi 1 Martin, Coordinatbr

-In-Service Inspection R. Meadows, Engineering Assistant

• *Phil.lips Getschow (P-G) * M. J. Kelly, Supervisor

-Quality C"ntrol A. T. :Marconi, Welding Engineer

• *Nuclear Services Company (NSC) V. Lovelace, Supervisor

-1'IDE Testing, Level III D-. MacGill, Supervisor

-NDE Testing, Level III D. Arremony, Ultrasonic Inspection

-Level* II Results of Inspection

.-, .. -* *-.. 1. * Quality Documentation for Four-inch Diameter, 0.337 Wall

. *tion Bypass Loops; Fabricated by P-G The inspector examined the following documents in connection with .* these. piping loops, which. were replaced e.xcept for the ex.is ting weldolet and valve in each loop. Weld Procedure Base Metal Specification

,. Iiisert, Weld * Uncoated Eiectrod * Coited Electrode Qualification Test, Weld Procedure Certificate Authoriz.ation for P-G -4-. -.... . r . .... lA-MA-88-0, Revision 2 SA-312, Type 304L Type 308L SFA5.9 F-7 SFAS.4 *F-5 by Taussig Associates No. 527, "NPT'

. .. :-*certificate Authorization for P-G * Radiographic Procedure No. 626, VNi\' RT-1, Revision 1 _ --____________

.. ___ "These _documents con.fo-r.med-1"0 Sect-ion--HI

,-191-f -Ed+/-t+/-on-;*-*

---* * .Summer Addenda, and ASHE Section IX, 1971. 2. Radiography of Shop and Field Welds The inspector examined the radiographic film submitted to P-G and the licensee by Superior Indu!=itrial X-Ray Compan Film for t6e following welds was examined, and the quality of the welds was acceptable to ASHE B31.l.O, 1967. * Weld No. W-lB W-4A W-4i3 W-4B-C W-2A W-3A W-2B. W-lA R2 Fabrication Field Field* Field Field Shop Shop. Shop_ -Field 3. *qualifications of Welders anci l\lDE Personnel The inspector examined the qualifications of the following*

personnel:

' .. * *superior Industrial X-Ray Company T. J .. Green, Level 2 -Radiography and Penetrant Test K. R. Mavity, Level 2 -Radiography and Penetrant Tesi C. J. Andersen, Level 3 -Radio8raphy, Magnetic and Penetrant Tests R. W. Gardner, Level 3 -Radiography; Level 2 -Magnetic and Penetrant Tests All welders used on this job were properly qualified to Section IX and had been issued identification 4. * *In-service Inspection The in-service inspection was* performed by NSC. Test reports were signed by an NSC representative, a CE Level 2 inspector, and.the .Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance inspecto s-

Calibration blocks for the various categories of welds to be ultrasonically tested were furnished by the to NSC. . . . . . -. -. -The inspector witnessed the UT calibration and testing in the _ -_ -. --_

---

cont-ainment-of-

the -rep-J:ac*ement-

-recirci.ilatlon-

---

* * . pipe welds. Since these welds were all new welds, this UT testing * --constituted the base-line inspectio The in-service requirements e are shmm in ASHE Section XI, 1971, Summer -Addendu The UT equipment requirements are outlined in ASTM El64-6 Welds from all the categories, as shown in Section XI, were tested. 5. Qualifications of Personnel The qualified procedures for testing are shown in Section II of this repo_r The qualifications of NSC personnel for ultrasonic testing are tabulated below: v. Lovelace

-Level 3 D. Mac Gill Level* 3 J. Gower Level 2 A. Peck -Leve1*1 J. Henry Level 1 w. Ford Level 2 Consul tan.t J. -Albanese Level 2 D. Arremony Level 2 F. Griffin Level-1 J. Henry Level 1 L. Thomas Level 2 The inspector noted a letter from the Travelers Insurance Company stating*

he. had witnessed UT calibration and in...:service testing of three welds in the steam line and two welds in the feedwater line._ He also witnessed visual, penetrant, and ultrasonic tests on an _ HPCl line, safe end-to-nozzle weld, and isolation conderiser line . . The base-line and in-service testing, to date, appears to meet the requirements of Section XI. -6-' .

---

REPORT DETAILS Section II --------------__________

PI"epa-red--By-E.-- :__ --'----Persons Contacted The following individuals, in addition to those involved in the management interviews,

ere contacted du.ring this inspectio J. Martin, Coordinator

-In-service Inspection (CE) . Results of Inspection 1. Nondestructive Examination (l\TI>E)

Personnel Qualification The inspector reviewed qualification records of seven (7) NDE personnel who performed work during this in-service inspectio Their qualifications included I, II, or III on UT, RT, PT, MT, or ET and were determined to be acceptabl . *comni.om-1ealth Edison Conpany (CE) In-service inspection Plan and and NDE Procedures The inspector reviewed the following documents, and they appeared to lie acceptable:

, a. CE Procedure No*. 38-000-11, Revision 0,. dated April 1975, "In-service Inspection Plan.-" b. CK NDE Procedure No. NDT-C-1, Revision 4, dated December 21, 19_74, "Ultrasonic Inspection of Pressure Retaining Bolting from Two Inches to and Including Four Inches in Diameter."

c. CE NDE Procedure No. NDT-C-2, Revision 9, dated December 21, 1974., "Ultrasonic Inspection of Pipe Welds." d. CE NDE Procedure No. NDT-C-4, Revision 4, dated December 21, 1974, "Ultrasonic Inspection of -External Support Attachment Weld Areas on Piping."

e. CE NDE Procedure No. NDT-C-5, Revision 5, dated December 21, 1974, "Ultrasonic Inspection of Reactor Vessel Welds." f. CE NDE Procedure No. NDT-C-10, Revision 5, dated December 21, 1974, "Ultrasonic Inspection of Inner Radius of Vessel Junction."

-7-

.. _ ,,

g. CE NDE Procedure No. NDT-C-11, Revision.6, dated January 23, 1975, "Ultrasonic Inspection Flange Ligaments Between Thr.eaded Bolt Holes." * -*------'---*------*-

---

'-----------CE NDE Procedure No. NDT-C-12, Revision 3, dated December 21, n.. l_974, "Ultrasonic Inspection of Reactor Vessel Head Welds." L .CE NDE Procedure No. NDT-C-14, Revisibn 3, dated January 3, 19:75, "Ultrasonic.Inspection of Pressure Retaining Bolting Over Four Inches in Diameter."

3. * 'Pt6cedure Without Proper Approval CE Procedure No. 38-000-11, Revision 0, dated April 1975, "In-service Inspection Plan," paragraph C.l.f., states, in part, that" .... procedures must be signed and approved by Commonwealth Edison Company's Level Ill, Quality Assurance,*Authorized State Inspector and the statio These approvals must be completed prior to the commencement of the inspectio . * " Contrary to the above, CE Procedure No. NDT-C-15, Revision 0, dated January 29, 1975, "Ultrasonic Inspection of. Safe. End-to-Nozzle Welds and Ends,".has not been signed and approved by the Authorized State Inspector prior to .the commencement of the inspectio During a subsequent inspection, the above procedure was signed and approved by the Authorized State Inspector on May 21, 1975. This indicates

• correctiv action had been taken with respect to this item of compli*anc Consequently, no further action on this item. is require