Insp Repts 50-329/73-04 & 50-330/73-04 on 730614-15.No noncompliance noted.Major areas inspected:reactor pressure vessels,steam generator,NDT shop & training area,welding procedures & weld matl documentation.V DIRECTORATE OF REGULATOR'l OPERATIONS
REGION III :
i
~212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
! Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 License No. CPPR-81 i Midland, Michigan License No. CPPR-82
Category: A*
l ~
Type of Licensee: PWR (B&W) - 818 Mwe, Unit No. 2; 1 650 Mwe, Unit No. 1
Type of Inspection: Licensee Vendor Audit Surveillance Inspection Mount Vernon, Indiana'
Dates of' Inspection: June 14 - 15, 1973 .
i
Dates-of Previous Inspection: May 24-25, 1973-(Barberton, Ohio) !,
, .
Senior Reactor Inspector (Acting) (Date) |
'
.
.
i . .
i . . . " '
}J Not applicable. : ,
}. During visual inspection by the licensee representative of the Unit '
No.1 reactor pressure vessel (620-0012-51) the RO:III inspector-
.;
j tube modifications are necessary and.that-the modifications are to be i
j- treated as a design change, which will be included in discussions
j ''during an audit of the Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) home office. j . ., located in Lynchburg,'_ Virginia. . .
i
1
j. _0_ther Significant Findings
. .
' *
.; '
,
[ .
, .s
'
Steam Generators- .59% ''
'
Steam Generators 9%
-
:
. .
Management Interview
i ,
R.'B. Reynolds, Component Management Task Engineer _
.
R. L. Rogers, Quality Control Engineer Manager Ii'(NMI) Barnes, Quality Control Metallurgy Manager
. J. F.;Jaquess,-Quality Assurance Resident Engineer R. E. Souder, Lynchburg Quality Assurance Manager . Quality-
Control Audits
.
l. The representative-indicated that a box of steam generatorC' - l
inconel tubes was observed-to have sustained shipping damage .and' inquired as to whether the tubes.will be examined for>
damage.: The B&W QC manager responded that the tubes will be visually inspected when the box is opened and again when the tubes are installed in the generator.
2. The representative discussed the formed piping halves, just recently received at the.Mt. Vernon plant, and requested information-as to the following:
'
that had been prepared by the Barberton plant and that he was aware of the deficiency. He added that all of the piping elbow halves would receive a UT examination, and any instances of lack of bond will be corrected or the material disposed of in accordance with written -disposition instructions.
b. The representative requested a copy of the Charpy impact <
- test procedure to be used to test the test samples of-
f''Ng' the piping elbow halves. The manager of QC metallurgy \_,)c stated that, for any-and all-testing performance,
"
demonstrate that the results of testing teet the code requirements.
3. The representative expressed a desire for the electroslag welding to be in compliance with Safety Guide No. 31 (R9gulatory Guide 1.34). The QC manager responded that it is most difficult-to be in compliance to a guide that is issued after the work has been performed. However, he-
believed that the only item that was not in conformance is a macro etch sample which was not made. - At any rate, he said~
.that it would be necessary for the representative to resolve ~
'this matter'with the Barberton plant personnel.-
.
.
.[~'l .
\_j major discontinuities. These discontinuities were judged to be . slag type inclusions, and the;1ongest was judged to be approxi- mately 2 % of' wall thickness. This would be within the 5% of wall' thickness tolerance to be allowed by the new 1974 Section XI
L ASME Code.
In any event, since the calibration test blocks used during -measurement of'the discontinuities were not established as being correct for.this material, new test blocks will be made, and
i a re-examination of the. weld will be performed on August 22, 1973.
5. The licensee representative said that the quality program reaudit, the weld review audit, and.the material review audit were successful and that no problems were found.
C. The RO inspector conducted a separate management interview at the conclusion of the inspection'with the following licensee personnel in attendance:'
i
.
Matters discussed and comments, on the part of the licensee representative, were as follows.
('{y,)'N,.
1. The RO inspector commented that the adjustment of the applicable code, in line with the requirements of.Section 50.55(a) of 10 CFR Part 50, urgently needs attention'. :This.1s exemplified,
by the piping elbow halves whose presently' imposed code does not . require Charpy tests, whereas the latest and-properly required | code,.indeed; does require such testing. The licensee i representative agreed.
2. The RO inspector pointed''out that, during the representative's i review of radiography examination of welding work, the
qualifications and certification of the RT-film interpreter
| was not determined.. The representative responded that he-had "
realized this after the fact but that he did not have time to
,. make an appropriate back-fit effort. He added that he would
! carry this as a follow-up item for the next audit.
.
The following persons, in addition to the individuals listed under.the Management Interview Section of this report, were contacted during the inspection.
Babcock and Wilcox Company'(B&W)
J. L. Johnson, Quality Control-Project Engineer D. K. Frerichs, Associate Project Manager, Lynchburg
! S. St. Dennis, Manager of Weld Development H. L. Ellsworth, Quality Control Project Engineer
i Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
Resultsaof Inspection
1.- Licensee Audit Insnection Plan and Checklist 7 f-~s - ,
( ) The licensee prepared inspection plan, and check sheets' vere !'
''' reviewed and included'the following:
;
coverage-and the follow-up discussion items. ) | |
!b. A quality assurance reaudit checklist (date July 1,1971) -consisting of two pages. |
c. A general and weld review checklist (dated May 12, 1971) | consisting of two pages, j
\ i
| d. ' Backup information was included in the audit booklet covering: L '(1) interoffice memos related to specific concerns for which I follow-up discussions should be conducted, (2) reports of ! . previous audits, (3) a-completed, original audit of the B&W | program (ten-page checklist) and (4) copies of 10 CFR Part 50, | Appendix B, and ANSI N45.2 - 1971. I
2. Shop Tour
A: tour of the manufacturing plant was conducted, with the following components or shop areas being subject to evaluation to complete -
the general:and weld review audit checklist. y
. (''y . :> ,.
.(_f : a .~- Unit No. l-Reactor Pressure Vessel
A' visual inspection of the Unit No. 1 (620-0012-51) reactor pressure ; vessel was conducted by the representative who copied down-the heat number markings of: (1) a lower shell4
-piece, (2) .a forging ring of the bottom head, and (3) the bottom' ~
: support skirtifor later material documentation review. In addition, the welds-of the girth' forging ring to the shell- piece (weld WR-34) and to the bottom support skirt -(WR-36) were visually examined. The documentation for these welds is to'be reviewed during a subsequent inspection, according -to the licensee. ,
b. Unit No.-l Steam Generator
'
been broken and/or otherwise damaged,.as a result of. shipping and handling. It could not be determined if any of the tubing inside had been damaged. However, the licensee representative asked a B&W representative to inspect the tubes when the crates are opened.
c. The Nondestructive Testing Shop
The NDT shop was visited where the documentation of the< -' ' ' ' '
inspections of .the weld joints, No. WR-34 and No. WR-36, for the Unit No. 1 pressure vessel were used as an example for evaluating the NDT work. . Drawing No. 142147E, Revision,
2,." Vessel Radiographic Outline", was reviewed and was ~
_
.
The training area was visited where the qualification, training, and certification record of the -radiographer (Mr. Powers) who
: performed the RT inspection of weld seam No. UR-34 was used as an example for review. 'It was determined that Mr. Powers'
I
- is certified Level I as a radiographic operator in accordance,
with SNT-TC-1A.
.
L/ e. -The Welding' Development Office
-
general and weld review audit check sheet. ,
* a. Material Documentation-
,.
~
~
,
head ring forging) Mk-37 (bottom support skirt plate) and Mk-166 (RPV. lower shell-forging). No problems were' encountered.
b. The Inspection Record.
'. The-inspection records of weld seams No. WR-34 and No. WR-36 i- ./''' were reviewed, and it was determined that the record was
.
The weld procedure, welder qualifications, and weld material ! ~ ''
documentation was reviewed for Welds No. WR-34 and No. WR-36 with no problems-identified. -)
4. The'QA Program Reaudit I
i= An interview was conducted with the B&W QC _ engineering manager -relative toLthefQA program reaudit check sheet, which was
3
concerned with changes'to the B&W program that could effect -compliance with the.18 criteria of'10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. No problems were encountered.
-5. Follow-up Discussion Items
.
.
a. UT Couplant
In response to questioning, the B&W QC manager stated that the couplant;is required'to meet the ASTM D-808 specification, and they obtain certification stating such conformance. He added that, since the couplant is in contact with the metal for such a short time and only when the temperature is at- ambient room temperature, B&W feels they have no problem.
b. Cladding Defects
Since cladding defectp had been discovered, both under clad -cracking.and clad surface cracking, the six wire deposit process has not been used. This application of SS clad to SA-508 materials seems to be the source of-such cracking. The B&W QC manager stated that their cladding of SS to low alloy steel components is in conformance to the recently issued Regulatory Guide No. 1.43.
c.- Low Copper-Phosphate Weld Material
The liccnsee representative requested that the Unit No. 2 pressura vessel girth welds in the nuclear fuel core area (three girth welds plus possiblyethe lower girth veld) be.
N welded with weld materials of low copper-phosphate content..
,
,