ML20154E943: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Adams | |||
| number = ML20154E943 | |||
| issue date = 09/12/1988 | |||
| title = Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-498/88-38 & 50-499/88-38 | |||
| author name = Callan L | |||
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) | |||
| addressee name = Goldberg J | |||
| addressee affiliation = HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. | |||
| docket = 05000498, 05000499 | |||
| license number = | |||
| contact person = | |||
| document report number = NUDOCS 8809190197 | |||
| title reference date = 08-19-1988 | |||
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, NRC TO UTILITY, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE | |||
| page count = 2 | |||
}} | |||
See also: [[see also::IR 05000498/1988038]] | |||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:- | |||
'q | |||
' | |||
,', | |||
, | |||
, | |||
SEP l 2 !988 | |||
In Reply Refer To: | |||
Dockets: 50-498/88-38 | |||
50-499/88-38 | |||
Houston Lighting & Power Company | |||
ATTN: J. H. Goldberg, Group Vice | |||
President, Nuclear | |||
P.O. Sox 1700 | |||
Houston, Texas 77001 | |||
Gentlemen: | |||
Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1988, in response to our letter | |||
and Notice of Violation dated July 20, 1988. We have reviewed your reply and | |||
find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. We will | |||
review the implementation of your corrective actions during a future inspection | |||
to detemine that (W1 compliance has been achieved and will be maintained. | |||
Sincerely. | |||
Oririn't fir v d i- | |||
L j r m.o | |||
L. J. Callan Director | |||
Division of Reactor Projects | |||
cc: | |||
Houston Lighting & Power Company Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. | |||
ATTN: M. A. McBurnett, Manager ATTN: J. R. Newman, Esquire | |||
Operations Support Licensing 1615 L Street, N.W. | |||
P.O. Box 289 Washington, D.C. 20036 | |||
Wadsworth. Texas 77483 | |||
Houston Lighting & Power Company Houston Lighting & Power Company | |||
ATTN: Gerald E. Vaughn, Vice President ATTN: S. L. Rosen | |||
Nuclear Operations P.O. Box 289 | |||
P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 | |||
Wadsworth. Texas 77483 | |||
Houston Lighting & Power Company Houston Lighting & Power Cornpany | |||
ATin: J. T. Westermeier, General Manager ATTN: R. W. Chewning Chairman | |||
South Texas Project Nuclear Safety Review Board | |||
P.O. Box 289 P.O. Box 289 | |||
Wadsworth, Texas 77483 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 | |||
RIV:RI N C:MQPS 7 6 D l fj) D:DR 4[ | |||
LGilbert/cjg IBarnes Jt - hoan LJCallan | |||
f/f/88 '' / f /88 ') /88 q/g4/88 | |||
f | |||
b | |||
880919o197 3399g, /g 5 | |||
{DR ADOCK 050oo499 | |||
PDC | |||
-. - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ . | |||
, _ . _____ | |||
_ - _ - | |||
. . | |||
' | |||
. , | |||
Houston Lighting & Power Company -2- | |||
Central Power & Light Company City Public Service Board | |||
ATTN: R. L. Range /R. P. Verret ATTN: R. J. Costello/M. T. Hardt | |||
P.O. Box 2121 P.O. Box 1771 | |||
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 San Antonio, Texas 78296 | |||
City of Austin Electric Utility Houston Lighting & Power Company | |||
ATTN: R. J. Miner, Chief Operating ATTN: Licensing Representative | |||
Officer Suite 610 | |||
721 Barton Springs Road Three Metro Center | |||
Austin, Texas 78704 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 | |||
Texas Radiation Control Program Director | |||
bec to DMB (IE01) | |||
bec distrib, by RIV: | |||
DRP RRI-OPS | |||
R. D. Martin, RA DRS | |||
Section Chief (DRP/D) RPB-DRSS | |||
MIS System RIV File | |||
Lisa Shea, RM/ALF RSTS Operator | |||
R. Bachmann 0GC D. Hunnicutt | |||
G. Dick, NRR P.'oject Manager Project Engineer, DRP/D | |||
RRI-CONST L. Gilbert | |||
1. Barnes | |||
p | |||
- _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - | |||
- - - - | |||
'a | |||
.;+ | |||
. | |||
- | |||
- | |||
. W:Aua 2 s es | |||
The Light | |||
' | |||
' | |||
. | |||
;- | |||
company ' | |||
B x 1700 Hounon. Texas 77M-61pp.cIl- | |||
* | |||
-- | |||
! | |||
Ilou, ton Ugtting Ac Power | |||
August 19, 1988 | |||
ST-HL-AE- 2755 | |||
File No.: G2.4 | |||
10CFR2.201 | |||
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission | |||
Attention: Docu:nent Control Desk | |||
Washington, DC 20555 | |||
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station | |||
Units 1 and 2 | |||
Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50 499 | |||
L.00nse to Notien of Violation 498/4(9 8R-38-01 | |||
Houston Lighting & Power Company has reviewed Notice of Violation 498/499 | |||
88-38-01 dated July 8, 1988, and submits the attached response pursuant to | |||
10CTR2.201. | |||
If you should have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. | |||
M. F. Po11shak at (512) 972-7071. | |||
. | |||
< [ | |||
J. H. Goldberg | |||
Group Vice President, Nuclear ' | |||
MFP/hg | |||
[ | |||
Attachment: Response to Notice of Violation | |||
498/499 881J 01 | |||
, | |||
y ri ' - | |||
' | |||
,t?- # | |||
g, | |||
r- | |||
- ' | |||
o | |||
, | |||
# | |||
or : ( | |||
, | |||
#1 a ses, .,, a nem,mn ima.. ,4e, i_,,.>,.,e4 | |||
f d L4/NRC/bs | |||
. _ _ _ _ | |||
. . . | |||
' ' | |||
* | |||
', . | |||
n ,..,,,,,,, n o ,,,,,x . u ,,,,<, c.. ,,i,...,, | |||
, | |||
g';.327p, | |||
. Page 2 | |||
a | |||
ec: | |||
Regional Adininistrator, Region IV Rufus S. Scott | |||
Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission Associate General Counsel | |||
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Houston Lighting & Power Company | |||
Arlington, TX 76011 P. O. Box 1700 | |||
Houston, TX 77001 | |||
Coorge Dick, Project Manager | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coraission INPO | |||
Vashington, DC 20555 Records Center | |||
1100 Circle 75 Parkvay | |||
Jack E. 3ess Atltnta, CA '3339 3064 | |||
Resident Inspector / Operations | |||
e/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie | |||
Coeaission 50 Be11 port Lane | |||
P. O. Box 910 Be11 port, b'Y 11713 | |||
Bay City, TX 77414 | |||
Don L. Carrison | |||
Resident Inspector / Construction | |||
c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory - | |||
Cocaission | |||
P. O. Box 910 | |||
Bay city TX 77414 | |||
J. R. Ne m an, Esquire | |||
Newan & Holtzinger, P.C. | |||
1615 L S t r e e t , N. V. | |||
Vashington, DC 20036 | |||
R. L. Range /R. P. Verret | |||
Central Power & Light Company | |||
P. O. Box 2121 | |||
Corpus Chrit:1, TX 78403 | |||
R. John Miner (2 copies) | |||
Chief Operating Officer | |||
City of Austin Electric Utility , | |||
721 Barton Springs Road | |||
Austin, TX 78704 | |||
R. J. Costello/M. T. Hardt | |||
City Public Service Board | |||
P. O. Box 1771 | |||
San Antonio, TX 78296 | |||
Revise d 06/15/88 | |||
L4/Nlt Cf t s | |||
. | |||
. . | |||
, | |||
Attechment | |||
. M @"8 ' %8 Cornpany ST-HL-AE-2755 | |||
. File No.: G2.4 | |||
Page 1 of 4 | |||
Response to Notice of Violation 498/499 88-33 F | |||
I. Statement of Violation | |||
During an NRC inspection conducted on June 27 through July 1- J the | |||
following violation of NRC requiroments was identified for f 4ure to | |||
follow instructions for measuring remaining pipe wall thickness. | |||
Criterion V of Appendix U to 10 CFP. Part 50 requires that activities | |||
affecting quality shall be proscribed by documented instructions of a | |||
type appropriate to the circumstancer and shall be accomplished in | |||
accordance with these instructions. This requirement is amplified by the | |||
approved Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD) of the South Texas | |||
Project. | |||
A nonconformance report, NCR SS-05553, required the reaeval of a magnetic | |||
particle examination indication from pipe spool AF-2012-H. The . | |||
instructions of the nonconfornance report were to excavate the indication | |||
but not go below a remaining wall thickness of 0.437 inch. | |||
* | |||
Contrary to the above, NCR 3S-05553 was Jmproperly closed in that | |||
ultrasonic thickness measurements, made after quality control (QC) | |||
closeout of the NCR, showed that the actual remaining wall thickness in | |||
the excavation area was 0.418 inch. Initial QC acceptance was determined | |||
subsequently to have been the result of use of an incorrect inspection | |||
method (i.e., estimating remaini.g wall thickness by subtracting depth of | |||
excavation from pipe nominal wall thickness). | |||
II. Reason for Violaj_iy l | |||
The implementing procedures utilized for Quality Control verification of | |||
existing pipe wall thickness were misinterpreted by Quality Control | |||
inspection personnel, ai.d the pipe wall thickness was detarmined by | |||
subtracting the depth of excavation from the nominal pipe wall thickness. | |||
III. Corrsetive Action Taken and Results Achieved | |||
As committed by HL&P in the July 1, 1988 NRC Exit interview, a review of | |||
Customer Notification Forms (CNFs), initiated by Southwest Research | |||
Institute, the project Preservice Inspection (PSI) contractor, has been | |||
completed to identify if any additional minimum pipe wall violations have | |||
resulted due to QC inspectors using nominal wall thickness tables and | |||
depth of excavation for determining remaining wall thickness. | |||
CNF(s) shich identified surface and heat affected zone indications were | |||
reviewc,2. Counterbored piping prepared for Pre-Service and In-Service | |||
weld inspectica and receiving subsequent surface metal reduction | |||
represented the areas of cone" n or worst case scenarios. Two hundred | |||
Snd four (204) Unit 1 and Unit 2 CNF's were identified as applicable. | |||
l | |||
m0ErJAs J | |||
, | |||
. . | |||
o Nouston Lighting si Power Company | |||
Attachment | |||
, | |||
ST-ML-AE-2755 | |||
File No.: G2.4 | |||
. Page 2 of 4 | |||
A thorough review of CNF's and associated documentation was performed | |||
to identify instances where grinding took place. Those records thus | |||
identified as involving measurement of pipe wall thickness were then | |||
, | |||
reviewed to determine the method utilized. | |||
The Unit 1 CNF review did not identify any wall thickness violations due | |||
to indication removal. Additionally, no condition was identified where | |||
remaining wall thickness had been determined by subtracting the depth of | |||
excavation from pipe nominal wall thickness. | |||
The Unit 2 review revealed one (1) similar condition whereby remaining | |||
- | |||
wall thickness was determir.ed by subtracting the depth of excavation from | |||
pipe nominal wall thickness. Subssquent Ultrasonic Testing (UT) verified | |||
this pipe wall thickness to be acceptabla. | |||
The review of Unit 1 and Unit 2 Pre-Service Inspection CNFs has been | |||
completed. No case, other than NCR SS-05553, was identified where | |||
minimum wall violations have occurred due to Pre-Service Inspection | |||
Non-Destructive Examination indication removal. | |||
IV. Corrective Steps Taken to Prevent Recurrence | |||
STP plant maintenance procedures provide adequate inspection guidelines | |||
to prevent misinterpectation of pipe wall measurement method. They do | |||
not permit the estimatinE of remaining wall thickness by subtracting the | |||
depth of excavation from the pipe's nominal wall thickness value. | |||
Ultrasonic Testing or measurement of remaining pipe wall thickness using | |||
calibrated equipment is required. | |||
Construction Site Standard Procedure (SSP-18) "General ASME III Welding | |||
Requirements" and Site Standard Procedure (SSP-17), "General ANSI B31.1 | |||
Welding Requirements", which provide inspection guidelines for | |||
determining pipe wall thickness utilizing mechanical means have been | |||
revised. A standard measuring device such as a caliper or micrometer is | |||
required to mnasure actual remaining wall thickness where accessible. | |||
Where inaccessible for utilizing a standard measuring device, direct | |||
ultrasonic testing may be used. When direct ultrasonic testing of an | |||
area is not possible. UT is to be performed along the periphery of | |||
eacavated areas and the thickness of the thinnest section determined. | |||
The depth of excavation is measured utilizing an inspection instrument | |||
capable of reaching the bottom of the excavated area. This value is | |||
subtracted from the lowest UT reading achieved to dete rmine remaining | |||
pipe wall thickness, | |||
f | |||
L4/NRC/bs | |||
__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | |||
$ | |||
- - | |||
' | |||
' | |||
Attcchment | |||
Houston L4)hting & Pow Company | |||
ST-HL-AE-2755 | |||
, | |||
File No.: G2.4 | |||
Page 3 of 4 | |||
QC inspectors associated with piping installations have been instructed | |||
in use of the revised SSP-18 procedure. | |||
Field engineering personnel associated with piping installation have been | |||
instructed in use of the revised SSP-17 procedure. | |||
V. Additional Investinative Steps Taken and Results Achieved | |||
In addition to the aforementioned review of CNF's the project performed a | |||
review of Unit 2 programmatic documents utilized at STP to report | |||
discrepant piping surface conditions, to gain additional confidence that | |||
the NCR SS-05553 infringement of design minimum vall is an isolated | |||
occurrence. These documents are identified as ivilows. | |||
1) Base Material Surface Condition Reports (BMSCR) | |||
2) Deficiency Notices (DN) | |||
3) Nonconformance Reports (NCR) . | |||
Unit 2 documentation was treated as representative of conditions for the | |||
entire project. | |||
. | |||
The review of these documents concentrated on repairs performed by | |||
grinding which did not require subsequent welding activities on Quality | |||
Class 1, 2 and 3 piping lines to identify if wall thickness was | |||
determined by subtracting the depth of excavation from the nominal wall | |||
thickness. This review was completed and revealed five additional cases | |||
of acceptance of items by Quality Control based on the depth of | |||
excavation =ubtracted from nominal wall thickness measurement method. | |||
Four (4) areas were identified cr. Deficiency Notices, and the other on a | |||
Base Material Surface Condition Report. All five cases have been | |||
ultrasonically examined and 'ound to be well above design minimum wall | |||
thickness. The remaining documents reviewed were found to be acceptable | |||
based on the measurement method performed (i.e., direct ultrasonic | |||
testing, or calibrated micrometer measurement), rface blend, or the | |||
affected area was repeired by welding. | |||
The project next reviewed ASME piping systems for minimum pipe wall | |||
requirements. Portions of piping systems were identified where the | |||
excess wall between manufacturers minimum wall and calculated design | |||
minimum wall is 1/32" or less. These lines (the most limiting cases) | |||
were reviewed against the population of BHSCR's, DN's and NCR's | |||
previously discussed. No cases were found where the depth of excavation | |||
was subtracted from nominal wall thickness to obtain remaining pipe wall. | |||
Unit 2 Qsality Class 1 and 2 (vendor and field counterbored piping) and i | |||
Quality Class 3 (field counterbored) piping lines were reviewed to | |||
determine locations where countorboring had been performed. This review | |||
included determining if repairs by grinding had been performed in the | |||
counterbored area to identify if remaining wall thickness was determined | |||
by subtracting the depth of excavation from the nominal wall thickness. | |||
MVlffGMDO | |||
. _ | |||
f | |||
[ | |||
' | |||
. | |||
Attcchment | |||
- @"$ I' % Con 1pany ST-HL-AE-2755 | |||
- | |||
File No.: G2.4 | |||
- | |||
Page 4 of 4 | |||
This review consisted of over 5,500 vaulted weld data packages and 2,900 | |||
pipe spool data packages. Thirteen (13) areas vera identified where | |||
basemetal surface condition repairs within the heat affected zone (HAZ) | |||
on the Pipe Pressure Boundary were accepted by Quality Control and the | |||
mechanical measurement method used (i.e, caliper, micrometer or depth of | |||
excavation) was not clearly document ed. Af ter further evaluation six (6) | |||
areas required wall thickness verification. Ultrasonic testing has been | |||
performed on two of these areas and the wall thickness verified | |||
acceptable. The remaining four (4) areas are inaccessible at this time | |||
and are scheduled to be verified by September 30, 1988. This response | |||
will be supplemented by October 14, 1988 with the results of the | |||
remaining wall thickness measurements. | |||
The investigation to date of Unit 2 Class 1, 2 and 3 counterbored welds, | |||
the review of Bechtel identified piping lines hsving the least excess | |||
wall thickness, and the review of BMSCR's, DN's, and NCR'a for ASME | |||
piping, yields a high confidence level for the Project (Unit 1 and 2) | |||
that infringement of design minimum wall per NCR SS-05553 thus far is an | |||
isolated occurrence and no additional reviews are necessary beyond the | |||
ren.atning four verifications discussed in the previous paragraph. | |||
VI. Date of Full Comoliance | |||
HL&P is in full compliance. | |||
RMr'aa/UN, | |||
}} |
Latest revision as of 08:55, 10 December 2021
ML20154E943 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | South Texas ![]() |
Issue date: | 09/12/1988 |
From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
To: | Goldberg J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
References | |
NUDOCS 8809190197 | |
Download: ML20154E943 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000498/1988038
Text
-
'q
'
,',
,
,
SEP l 2 !988
In Reply Refer To:
Dockets: 50-498/88-38
50-499/88-38
Houston Lighting & Power Company
ATTN: J. H. Goldberg, Group Vice
President, Nuclear
P.O. Sox 1700
Houston, Texas 77001
Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1988, in response to our letter
and Notice of Violation dated July 20, 1988. We have reviewed your reply and
find it responsive to the concerns raised in our Notice of Violation. We will
review the implementation of your corrective actions during a future inspection
to detemine that (W1 compliance has been achieved and will be maintained.
Sincerely.
Oririn't fir v d i-
L j r m.o
L. J. Callan Director
Division of Reactor Projects
cc:
Houston Lighting & Power Company Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
ATTN: M. A. McBurnett, Manager ATTN: J. R. Newman, Esquire
Operations Support Licensing 1615 L Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 289 Washington, D.C. 20036
Wadsworth. Texas 77483
Houston Lighting & Power Company Houston Lighting & Power Company
ATTN: Gerald E. Vaughn, Vice President ATTN: S. L. Rosen
Nuclear Operations P.O. Box 289
P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, Texas 77483
Wadsworth. Texas 77483
Houston Lighting & Power Company Houston Lighting & Power Cornpany
ATin: J. T. Westermeier, General Manager ATTN: R. W. Chewning Chairman
South Texas Project Nuclear Safety Review Board
P.O. Box 289 P.O. Box 289
Wadsworth, Texas 77483 Wadsworth, Texas 77483
RIV:RI N C:MQPS 7 6 D l fj) D:DR 4[
LGilbert/cjg IBarnes Jt - hoan LJCallan
f/f/88 / f /88 ') /88 q/g4/88
f
b
880919o197 3399g, /g 5
{DR ADOCK 050oo499
-. - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ .
, _ . _____
_ - _ -
. .
'
. ,
Houston Lighting & Power Company -2-
Central Power & Light Company City Public Service Board
ATTN: R. L. Range /R. P. Verret ATTN: R. J. Costello/M. T. Hardt
P.O. Box 2121 P.O. Box 1771
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 San Antonio, Texas 78296
City of Austin Electric Utility Houston Lighting & Power Company
ATTN: R. J. Miner, Chief Operating ATTN: Licensing Representative
Officer Suite 610
721 Barton Springs Road Three Metro Center
Austin, Texas 78704 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
Texas Radiation Control Program Director
bec to DMB (IE01)
bec distrib, by RIV:
DRP RRI-OPS
Section Chief (DRP/D) RPB-DRSS
MIS System RIV File
Lisa Shea, RM/ALF RSTS Operator
R. Bachmann 0GC D. Hunnicutt
G. Dick, NRR P.'oject Manager Project Engineer, DRP/D
RRI-CONST L. Gilbert
1. Barnes
p
- _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- - - -
'a
.;+
.
-
-
. W:Aua 2 s es
The Light
'
'
.
- -
company '
B x 1700 Hounon. Texas 77M-61pp.cIl-
--
!
Ilou, ton Ugtting Ac Power
August 19, 1988
ST-HL-AE- 2755
File No.: G2.4
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
Attention: Docu:nent Control Desk
Washington, DC 20555
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station
Units 1 and 2
Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50 499
L.00nse to Notien of Violation 498/4(9 8R-38-01
Houston Lighting & Power Company has reviewed Notice of Violation 498/499
88-38-01 dated July 8, 1988, and submits the attached response pursuant to
10CTR2.201.
If you should have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr.
M. F. Po11shak at (512) 972-7071.
.
< [
J. H. Goldberg
Group Vice President, Nuclear '
MFP/hg
[
Attachment: Response to Notice of Violation
498/499 881J 01
,
y ri ' -
'
,t?- #
g,
r-
- '
o
,
or : (
,
- 1 a ses, .,, a nem,mn ima.. ,4e, i_,,.>,.,e4
f d L4/NRC/bs
. _ _ _ _
. . .
' '
', .
n ,..,,,,,,, n o ,,,,,x . u ,,,,<, c.. ,,i,...,,
,
g';.327p,
. Page 2
a
ec:
Regional Adininistrator, Region IV Rufus S. Scott
Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission Associate General Counsel
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Houston Lighting & Power Company
Arlington, TX 76011 P. O. Box 1700
Houston, TX 77001
Coorge Dick, Project Manager
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coraission INPO
Vashington, DC 20555 Records Center
1100 Circle 75 Parkvay
Jack E. 3ess Atltnta, CA '3339 3064
Resident Inspector / Operations
e/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie
Coeaission 50 Be11 port Lane
P. O. Box 910 Be11 port, b'Y 11713
Bay City, TX 77414
Don L. Carrison
Resident Inspector / Construction
c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -
Cocaission
P. O. Box 910
Bay city TX 77414
J. R. Ne m an, Esquire
Newan & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L S t r e e t , N. V.
Vashington, DC 20036
R. L. Range /R. P. Verret
Central Power & Light Company
P. O. Box 2121
Corpus Chrit:1, TX 78403
R. John Miner (2 copies)
Chief Operating Officer
City of Austin Electric Utility ,
721 Barton Springs Road
Austin, TX 78704
R. J. Costello/M. T. Hardt
City Public Service Board
P. O. Box 1771
San Antonio, TX 78296
Revise d 06/15/88
L4/Nlt Cf t s
.
. .
,
Attechment
. M @"8 ' %8 Cornpany ST-HL-AE-2755
. File No.: G2.4
Page 1 of 4
Response to Notice of Violation 498/499 88-33 F
I. Statement of Violation
During an NRC inspection conducted on June 27 through July 1- J the
following violation of NRC requiroments was identified for f 4ure to
follow instructions for measuring remaining pipe wall thickness.
Criterion V of Appendix U to 10 CFP. Part 50 requires that activities
affecting quality shall be proscribed by documented instructions of a
type appropriate to the circumstancer and shall be accomplished in
accordance with these instructions. This requirement is amplified by the
approved Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD) of the South Texas
Project.
A nonconformance report, NCR SS-05553, required the reaeval of a magnetic
particle examination indication from pipe spool AF-2012-H. The .
instructions of the nonconfornance report were to excavate the indication
but not go below a remaining wall thickness of 0.437 inch.
Contrary to the above, NCR 3S-05553 was Jmproperly closed in that
ultrasonic thickness measurements, made after quality control (QC)
closeout of the NCR, showed that the actual remaining wall thickness in
the excavation area was 0.418 inch. Initial QC acceptance was determined
subsequently to have been the result of use of an incorrect inspection
method (i.e., estimating remaini.g wall thickness by subtracting depth of
excavation from pipe nominal wall thickness).
II. Reason for Violaj_iy l
The implementing procedures utilized for Quality Control verification of
existing pipe wall thickness were misinterpreted by Quality Control
inspection personnel, ai.d the pipe wall thickness was detarmined by
subtracting the depth of excavation from the nominal pipe wall thickness.
III. Corrsetive Action Taken and Results Achieved
As committed by HL&P in the July 1, 1988 NRC Exit interview, a review of
Customer Notification Forms (CNFs), initiated by Southwest Research
Institute, the project Preservice Inspection (PSI) contractor, has been
completed to identify if any additional minimum pipe wall violations have
resulted due to QC inspectors using nominal wall thickness tables and
depth of excavation for determining remaining wall thickness.
CNF(s) shich identified surface and heat affected zone indications were
reviewc,2. Counterbored piping prepared for Pre-Service and In-Service
weld inspectica and receiving subsequent surface metal reduction
represented the areas of cone" n or worst case scenarios. Two hundred
Snd four (204) Unit 1 and Unit 2 CNF's were identified as applicable.
l
m0ErJAs J
,
. .
o Nouston Lighting si Power Company
Attachment
,
ST-ML-AE-2755
File No.: G2.4
. Page 2 of 4
A thorough review of CNF's and associated documentation was performed
to identify instances where grinding took place. Those records thus
identified as involving measurement of pipe wall thickness were then
,
reviewed to determine the method utilized.
The Unit 1 CNF review did not identify any wall thickness violations due
to indication removal. Additionally, no condition was identified where
remaining wall thickness had been determined by subtracting the depth of
excavation from pipe nominal wall thickness.
The Unit 2 review revealed one (1) similar condition whereby remaining
-
wall thickness was determir.ed by subtracting the depth of excavation from
pipe nominal wall thickness. Subssquent Ultrasonic Testing (UT) verified
this pipe wall thickness to be acceptabla.
The review of Unit 1 and Unit 2 Pre-Service Inspection CNFs has been
completed. No case, other than NCR SS-05553, was identified where
minimum wall violations have occurred due to Pre-Service Inspection
Non-Destructive Examination indication removal.
IV. Corrective Steps Taken to Prevent Recurrence
STP plant maintenance procedures provide adequate inspection guidelines
to prevent misinterpectation of pipe wall measurement method. They do
not permit the estimatinE of remaining wall thickness by subtracting the
depth of excavation from the pipe's nominal wall thickness value.
Ultrasonic Testing or measurement of remaining pipe wall thickness using
calibrated equipment is required.
Construction Site Standard Procedure (SSP-18) "General ASME III Welding
Requirements" and Site Standard Procedure (SSP-17), "General ANSI B31.1
Welding Requirements", which provide inspection guidelines for
determining pipe wall thickness utilizing mechanical means have been
revised. A standard measuring device such as a caliper or micrometer is
required to mnasure actual remaining wall thickness where accessible.
Where inaccessible for utilizing a standard measuring device, direct
ultrasonic testing may be used. When direct ultrasonic testing of an
area is not possible. UT is to be performed along the periphery of
eacavated areas and the thickness of the thinnest section determined.
The depth of excavation is measured utilizing an inspection instrument
capable of reaching the bottom of the excavated area. This value is
subtracted from the lowest UT reading achieved to dete rmine remaining
pipe wall thickness,
f
L4/NRC/bs
__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
$
- -
'
'
Attcchment
Houston L4)hting & Pow Company
ST-HL-AE-2755
,
File No.: G2.4
Page 3 of 4
QC inspectors associated with piping installations have been instructed
in use of the revised SSP-18 procedure.
Field engineering personnel associated with piping installation have been
instructed in use of the revised SSP-17 procedure.
V. Additional Investinative Steps Taken and Results Achieved
In addition to the aforementioned review of CNF's the project performed a
review of Unit 2 programmatic documents utilized at STP to report
discrepant piping surface conditions, to gain additional confidence that
the NCR SS-05553 infringement of design minimum vall is an isolated
occurrence. These documents are identified as ivilows.
1) Base Material Surface Condition Reports (BMSCR)
2) Deficiency Notices (DN)
3) Nonconformance Reports (NCR) .
Unit 2 documentation was treated as representative of conditions for the
entire project.
.
The review of these documents concentrated on repairs performed by
grinding which did not require subsequent welding activities on Quality
Class 1, 2 and 3 piping lines to identify if wall thickness was
determined by subtracting the depth of excavation from the nominal wall
thickness. This review was completed and revealed five additional cases
of acceptance of items by Quality Control based on the depth of
excavation =ubtracted from nominal wall thickness measurement method.
Four (4) areas were identified cr. Deficiency Notices, and the other on a
Base Material Surface Condition Report. All five cases have been
ultrasonically examined and 'ound to be well above design minimum wall
thickness. The remaining documents reviewed were found to be acceptable
based on the measurement method performed (i.e., direct ultrasonic
testing, or calibrated micrometer measurement), rface blend, or the
affected area was repeired by welding.
The project next reviewed ASME piping systems for minimum pipe wall
requirements. Portions of piping systems were identified where the
excess wall between manufacturers minimum wall and calculated design
minimum wall is 1/32" or less. These lines (the most limiting cases)
were reviewed against the population of BHSCR's, DN's and NCR's
previously discussed. No cases were found where the depth of excavation
was subtracted from nominal wall thickness to obtain remaining pipe wall.
Unit 2 Qsality Class 1 and 2 (vendor and field counterbored piping) and i
Quality Class 3 (field counterbored) piping lines were reviewed to
determine locations where countorboring had been performed. This review
included determining if repairs by grinding had been performed in the
counterbored area to identify if remaining wall thickness was determined
by subtracting the depth of excavation from the nominal wall thickness.
MVlffGMDO
. _
f
[
'
.
Attcchment
- @"$ I' % Con 1pany ST-HL-AE-2755
-
File No.: G2.4
-
Page 4 of 4
This review consisted of over 5,500 vaulted weld data packages and 2,900
pipe spool data packages. Thirteen (13) areas vera identified where
basemetal surface condition repairs within the heat affected zone (HAZ)
on the Pipe Pressure Boundary were accepted by Quality Control and the
mechanical measurement method used (i.e, caliper, micrometer or depth of
excavation) was not clearly document ed. Af ter further evaluation six (6)
areas required wall thickness verification. Ultrasonic testing has been
performed on two of these areas and the wall thickness verified
acceptable. The remaining four (4) areas are inaccessible at this time
and are scheduled to be verified by September 30, 1988. This response
will be supplemented by October 14, 1988 with the results of the
remaining wall thickness measurements.
The investigation to date of Unit 2 Class 1, 2 and 3 counterbored welds,
the review of Bechtel identified piping lines hsving the least excess
wall thickness, and the review of BMSCR's, DN's, and NCR'a for ASME
piping, yields a high confidence level for the Project (Unit 1 and 2)
that infringement of design minimum wall per NCR SS-05553 thus far is an
isolated occurrence and no additional reviews are necessary beyond the
ren.atning four verifications discussed in the previous paragraph.
VI. Date of Full Comoliance
HL&P is in full compliance.
RMr'aa/UN,