IR 05000254/1987020

Safety Insp Rept 50-254/87-20 on 870901-1209.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Inservice Insp Activities, Including Review of Programs,Procedures,Observation of Work Activities,Data Review & IE Bulletin Evaluation

ML20237E755
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	12/21/1987
From:	Danielson D, Ward K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237E750	List: IR 05000254/1987020 ML20237E748
References
50-254-87-20, IEB-87-007, IEB-87-7, NUDOCS 8712290168
Download: ML20237E755 (14)

Text

- . - - ___ _ _ - - - - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _

e

.

i U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

!

Report No. 50-254/87020(DRS)

'

Docket No. 50-254 License No. DPR-29 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company '

Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Quad Cities Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Quad Cities Site, Cordova, Illinois Inspection Cunducted: September 1-2, 23-24, 29-30, October 6-8, 21-22, 27, 29-30, November 5-6, 17-18, 23-24, and December 8-9, 1987

)b h )$A Inspector: K. D. Ward I#/#/II Date Accompanied By: D. H. Danielson l Nove ber 5-6,1987)

~

Approved By:

/+

D. H. Danielson, Chief IINl l

Materials and Processes Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on September 1-2, 23-24, 29-30, October 6-8, 21-22, 27, 29-30, November 5-6, 17-18, 23-24, and December 8-9, 1987 (Report No. 50-254/87020(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced safety inspection of inservice inspection (ISI) activities, including review of programs (73051),

procedures (73052), observation of work activities (73753), and data review and evaluation (73755); of an IE Bulletin (92703); and of various modifications (37701).

Results: No violations or deviations were identifie !

PDR G l l

_ _ _ - - _ . _ _ .

. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

...

,

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)

• C. Smith, QC Supervisor

• Kooi, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor

• A. Scott, QA Engineer

• K. Medula, ISI Coordinator

• J. Ford, QC Inspector

- R. Bax, Sr. Station Manager R. Robey, Services Superintendent G. Spedl, Assistant Superintendent Technical Services D. Thayer, Maintenance C. Kronich, Technical Staff Engineer T. Haaker, Level III, NDE United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

• A. Morrongiello, Resident Inspector T. Ross, Project Manager, (HQS)

D. Danielson, Chief, Materials and Processes Section (RIII)

R. Higgins, Sr. Resident Inspector O'Donnell Associates (OAI)

T. Damico, Field Engineer Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. (SIA)

D. Pitcairn, Consultant General Electric (GE)

R. Hooper, Manager, Inspection Services Morrison Construction Company (MCC)

W. Flesch, QC Supervisor R. Earl, Foreman Fab. Shop Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and losurance Co. (HSB)

F. Roose, ANII D. Oakley, ANII

! .__ _ _ _ -

. _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -__ _

.

.

Personnel Present at Pre-ISI Meeting

.H. Do, Technical Staff, CECO

'K. Medulan, ISI Technical Staff Engineer, CECO G. Tagatz, ISI Technical Staff Engineer, CECO M. Horbaczewski, Corporate ISI, CECO W. Witt, NDE Level III, CECO T. Haaker, NDE Group,. Ceco L

J. Ford, QC, CECO M. Dellebetter, Maint.enance Staff, CECO R. Hooper, Manager, Inspection Services, GE T. Brinkman, Supervisor, GE i E. Secko, Sr. QA Engineer, GE R. Roose, ANII, HSB-K. Ward, Reactor Inspector, NRC Personnel Present on Two Conferences Calls I. Johnson, Licensing, CECO, Chicago N. Smith, Licensing, CECO, Chicago D. Wilgus, BWR Engineer, CECO, Chicago R. Tamminga, PSD, CECO, Chicago H. Do, PSD, CECO, Chicago J. Kopacz, Technical Staff Supervisor, CECO, Quad Cities D. Thayer, QC Maintenance Staff, CECO, Quad Cities J. Brady, QC Maintenance Staff, CECO, Quad Cities K. Medulan, QC, ISI, CECO, Quad Cities C. Froehlich, NUTECH J. Brown, NUTECH D. Pitchairn, NIA T. Giannuzzi, SIA, (November 24, 1987 only)

T. Ross, QC Project Manager, NRR W. Koo, Technical Branch, NRR K. Ward, Reactor Inspector, NRC The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor employee * Denotes those present at the final exit interview December 9, 1987.

l Licensee Action on IE Bulletin IE Bulletin No. 80-07(254/80-07-BB): Ultrasonic examination (UT) of jet pump beam bolt assemblie Pursuant to the requirements of IE Bulletin No. 80-07, all jet pump beam bolt assemblies were UT'd by CECO on September 23, 1987, and were found to be acceptable. The NRC inspector observed UT, reviewed the procedure and other associated documentation and determined that the actions implemented by the licensee met the intent of the Bulleti It is Ceco's intent to continue to UT the jet I

-

I

.___ ______________ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

' pump beam bolt assemblies'during each refueling outage; and, if beam bolt assemblies are found cracked, they will be replaced prior to unit startu No' violations or deviations were identifie ' Inservice Inspection (ISI) Unit 1 General l

This .is the' ninth outage of the second period of' the second  !

. ten year pla .

A pre-ISI meeting was held at the site September 2, 1987 (see attendance list, Paragrpah 1). CECO, GE and CONAM performed the ISI in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenda and Code Case N-23 CECO performed visual examinations (VT). GE performed ultrasonics (UT), magnetic particle (MT), and liquid penetrant examinations (PT). CONAM performed PT on the weld overlays only. The Level II and III UT personnel performing UT were qualified at the EPRI NDE center after September 10, 1985, by successfully performing the practical examination. Level I personnel not qualified at EPRI who were performing UT scanning duties were trained by EPRI qualified personnel on site. CEC 0's Level III UT personnel who reviewed GE's NDE results were also EPRI qualifie During the. outage, a chemical decontamination of the Reactor Recirculation and portions of the Reactor Water Clean Up (RWCU)

system took place. LN Technologies supplied the equipment and chemicals, operated the decontamination equipment, and provided chemistry support. Chem Nuclear Systems provided the mobile solidification service The NRC inspector reviewed procedures, programs, drawings, and other related documentatio Mock-ups were used and designed to assist in technique development and training in weld build-up and surface conditioning of weld overlays for ultrasonic examinations using the EPRI technique Weld overlay build-up and surface conditioning were performed in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addend :

Manual pulse echo UT detection instruments and transducers with various angles, sizes and MHZ were used by GE. Also on many welds the master / slave UT system was used. The master / slave is used where radiation environments require that the Level II, who is interpreting the UT, be out of the area while the Level I is inside the area examining the weld. Both personnel are in direct communication and view the UT video presentation. The master unit may be any portable instrument which meets the ASME Code

__

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

requirements for amplifier and attenuator linearity. There are no controls on the slave unit to adjust during the performance of an examinatio Changes in sensitivity are made at the master where the Level II is in an environment free from distraction All automatic UT was performed by GE using their Data Acquisition System (SMART). It is a complete UT package capable of examining weld; by remote control and storing the collected data for future review / evaluation. The display is a color presentation that is stored on a floppy disk for future referenc Normally.the system uses the standard shear wave transducer for flaw detection and sizing; however, other types of transducers may be used with the system as desire The UT of weld overlays was performed to a CECO procedure based on techniques developed by EPRI. Each of the overlays was surface finished to permit application of EPRI techniques for overlay U The overlay weld metal and the upper 25% of the original piping material were UT'd. The EPRI techniques for UT of weld overlays utilize duel element, pitch catch, and focused refracted "L" wave transducers. For the overlay weld metal, the primary UT was performed using 70 transducers, supplemented with 0.D. creeping wave transducers at the option of the examine Base metal under the overlay was UT'd using 60 transducers. The examinations were made in two directions for both circumferential1y and axially oriented flaw During this outage the Mechanical Stress Improvement Process (MSIP)

was' performed on 33 welds. The MSIP was first applied by Westinghouse (W) and O'Donnel Associates (OAI) to 53 weldments at Dresden Unit 3. A study was conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) to evaluate the MSIP being proposed by several other utilities as a remedy to mitigate intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) of stainless steel piping in BWR The evaluation was requested by the NRC staf MSIP is a development of 0A Like IHSI it is intended to produce a more favorable state of residual stress on the inner surface of piping weldments especially in the vicinity of heat affected zones (HAZ) and thereby mitigate stress corrosion cracking in BWR pipin Although the two processes have similar objectives, MSIP is a purely mechanical proces The favorable residual stresses are induced by the plastic compress of the weldment produced by a split ring like tool mounted on the pipe. The plastic strain imposed on the pipe is controlled by the opening between the split rings, which is adjusted by inserting appropriate shims. The final stress state in the HAZ appears similar for the two processes according to the study. In this study, ANL reviewed information on MSIP submitted to the NRC Headquarters by O'Donnell and Associates, Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Company, the developers of the process. Also, ANL performed analysis and tests to determine the residual stress state changes using two MSIP treated, large diameter pipe sections supplied by Vermont Yankee. This research concluded that the basic concept

. - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ ~

_ _ - _ _ - - - - _ -

.

-.

.

.

of MSIP is valid and' sound. Analysis and test results established that the process is an effective means of improving the residual stress state of piping at weldments. The process was found to be-equivalent to IHSI in terms of mitigating the susceptibility of pipes to stress corrosion cracking and was found as effective for large diameter piping as it was for small piping. Three mocc ups representing three piping systems were'used in training personnel in using the mechanical clamp for MSI During the spring 1984 outage, induction heat stress improvement (IHSI) was performed on approximately 74 welds (63 recirculation welds and 11 RHR welds). IHSI is defined as the practice of heating the outer surface of a pipe by induction techniques, while simultaneously water cooling the inner surface. The objective of this process is to relieve the inner surface of tensile residual stress in the vicinity of the weld and heat affected zon It is applicable to joints which have been in BWR service, as well as joints which have not been in servic The company perf6Fming the actual welding of the overlays was GAPC The first layer of welding wire was type 309 The welding wire over the first layer was 308L and the repair rod was 308L-16. All the' welding was performed in accordance with welding procedure specifications written and qualified in accordance with ASME Section IX, the latest addition of the Code. The preparation, application, and examination of the weld overlays were described in the-station travelers and procedures for the wor In using the Gold Track II Automatic Tungsten-Inert-Gas (TIG)

. Welding System for making weld overlays, the weld parameters are programmed into a control panel, the track is attached to the pipe, and the weld head is mounted into the track. Once this welding. cycle is started, the weld head travels around the pipe and operates to the pre-set welding parameters. Multiple weld heads may be utilized on each joint allowing for increased production and a more symmetric shrinkage in the weld. A welding operator can be up to 200 feet from the welding power supply and still perform to ASME Code quality. Remote viewing and control of the automatic pipe welding system using fiber optics and color TV allows precision welding in areas of high radiation or other potential danger to the operator. The fiber optic remote control system has been used by GAPCo, Inc. to weld pipe up to 15 feet in diameter. At the other .

end of the spectrum, the system can perform welding on a pipe down

'

to four inches in diamete The following table provided the sampling plan for addressing IGSCC concerns. The plan followed the requirements of Generic Letter 84-11. The proposed inspection plan included UT of 29 previously examined welds, 21 not previously examined welds, I weld with known flaws and 3 weld overlay This plan fully met Generic Letter 84-11 requirements. Because of various cracks found there was l an expansion sample of 63 weld _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -

.. . _- - - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

[:

,

l UNIT 1 84-11 AUGMENTED INSPECTION PLAN . . . . .

84-11 NOT WOL PRE PREV. PRE KNOWN SAMPLE SYSTEM SIZE TOTAL WOL EXA EXAM. EXA FLAWS EXPANSION MSIP RECIRCULATION OUTLETS 28" 30- 6 1 19 ,

N0Z-SE 28" 2 1

'

HEADERS 22" 20 2 3 2 13 RISERS 12" 41 14 5 3 22 N0Z-SE 12" 10 2 RHR LPCI 16" 32 3 4 6 13 SDC -20" 17 2 4 CORE SPRAY 10"- 32 2 4 20 JET' PUMP

. INS ",8",4" 10- 2 RECIRC.H.S.,

HV,CRD,RWCU 6" 12 2 1 4" 26 3 .4 3 TOTAL 29- 21 3 1 63 33 Column Total system . Various size . Total stainless steel welds on a particular system or siz . Total number of weld overlay . Generic Letter 84-11, total sample on original inspection plan of welds that were previously examined and also examined this outag . Generic Letter 84-11, total sample on original inspection plan of welds that were previously examined and examined this outag ... ..

.

_ ______ ___

_ _ - _ _ __ _

___ _ -_ - _-__ ___ ____ ______ _ - _ _

.

..

h Generic Letter 84-11,. weld overlays that were previously examined-and reexamined thisLoutag . Weld examined this outage that had known flaws,

, The UT was expanded in accordance with Paragraph No. IWB-2430a. of

.the ASME Code Section XI for that system and size because of the defects foun . ; Total number of welds that MSIP was performe Each flaw indication was evaluated with the guidance of the draft (issued for comments) of NUREG 0313, Revision 2. If flaws were found within the inspection sample of a specific piping category, another equivalent sample of the same number in that category was inspecte (See Column 9).

The NRC inspector notified Quad Cities NRC Licensing Project Manager or his assistant on October 19, 26, 30 and November 4, 1987, of various

. cracked welds. The NRC inspector was also involved in two conference calls with NRR, NUTECH,. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. and Ceco both Chicago and Quad Cities offices personnel, on November 19 and 24, 1987-(see Attendance List, Paragraph 1). On November 19, 1987, CECO Nuclear Licensing _ transmitted a list of all the weld overlays to the above personnel _ and discussed the weld overlay status and design bases for each weld that had a leak barrier or a full structural (" Standard" in accordance with NUREG-0313, Revision 2) weld overlay. On November 24, 1987, an_ interim fracture mechanics analysis report on welds 02BS-S5 and 02BS-S9 was transmitted to the above personnel and discussed. At the conclusion of the. call, all above personnel agreed that welds 02BS-S5 and 02BS-S9 met the requirements of Generic Letter 84-11 and draft NUREG-0313, Revision 2, for'at least one' additional fuel cycle of

. operatio The following welds were found to require a weld overlay:

l Weld No. 14A-F2, pipe-to-safe-end, 10" diameter, 0.594". thick, stainless steel, Core Spray system, axial crack, 0.64" long, 23%

through wall located on the pipe side. This was identified during the UT performed prior to MSIP. MSIP would have been performed if the crack had not been found. This weld was last UT'd in 1986 finding no unacceptable recordable indications. A leak barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l Weld No. 14A-S8, pipe-to-elbow, 10" diameter, 0.594" thick, stainless steel, Core Spray system, (1) circumferential crack, 1.5" long,_19% through wall located in the elbow side, (2) axial crack, 0.1" to 0.3" long, 32% through wall located in the_ elbow side. This was identified durirg the UT performed prior to MSI MSIP would have been. performed if cracks had not been found. This weld was last UT'd in 1986 finding no unacceptable recordable indications. A standard weld overlay was applied to this indicatio _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ -

- - _ _ _-_

.

.

l Weld No. 14A-S9, elbow-to pipe, 10" diameter, 0.594" thick, .

stainless steel, Core Spray system, axial cracks, (1) 0.3" long, 20% l through wall located in the pipe side, (2) 0.45" long, 17% through wall located in the elbow side. This was identified during the UT performed prior to MSIP. MSIP would have been performed if cracks had not been found. This weld was last UT'd in 1980 finding no ,

unacceptable recordable indications. A leak barrier weld overlay was I applied to this indicatio l Weld No. 14A-F11, valve-to-elbow, 10" diameter, 0.594" + hick, stainless steel, Core Spray system, axial crack, stain h steel, core spray system, axial crack 0.1" to 0.3" long, 20% through wall located in the elbow side. This was identified during the UT performed prior to MSIP. MSIP would have been performed if cracks had not been found. This weld was last UT'd in 1982 finding no unacceptable recordable indications. A leak barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l Weld No. 148-F2, pipe-to-safe-end, 10" diameter, 0.594" thick, stainless steel, Core Spray system, axial crack:, (1) 0.4" long,14%

through wall located in this pipa side, (2) 0.35" long, 11% through wall located in the pipe sid This was identified during the UT performed prior to MSIP. MSIP would have been performed if cracks had not been found. This weld was last UT'd in 1984 finding no unacceptable recordable indications. A leak barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l l Weld No. 14B-58, elbow-to-elbow, 10" diameter, 0.594" thick stainless steel, Core Spray system, axial cracks, (1) 0.6" long, 17%

through wall located in the elbow side, (2) 0.5" long, 10% through wall located in the elbow side, (3) 0.5" long, 25% through wall located in the elbow side, (4) 0.4" long, 14% through wall located in the elbow side. This was identified during the UT performed prior to MSI MSIP would have been performed if cracks had not been found. This weld was last UT'd in 1986 finding no unacceptable recordable indications. A leak barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l Weld No. 02C-S3, Elbow-to pipe, 12" diameter, 0.585" thick, stainless steel, Recirculation system, axial cracks, both located on the pipe side, (1) 0.75" long, 10% through wall, (2) 0.85" long, 10% j through wall. This weld was last UT'd in 1984, no recordable j unacceptable indications were found and IHSI was performed. A leak l barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l Weld No. 02D-S3, elbow-to pipe, 12" diameter, 0.585" thick, stainless steel, Recirculation system, axial crack, both located on the pipe side, (1) 2" long, 10% through wall, (2) 0.25" long, 31%

through wall. This weld was last UT'd in 1984, no recordable unacceptable indications were found and IHSI was performed. A leak ;

barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l i

l l 9 L ---

_

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

..

.

_

l . Weld.No. 02E-S3, elbow-to pipe, 12" diameter, 0.585" thick, stainless steel, Recirculation system, axial crack,1" long,15%

through wall, located on the pipe. side. This weld was last UT'd in 1984, no recordable unacceptable indications were found and IHSI was performed. A leak barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l Weld No. 02F-S3, elbow-to pipe, 12" diameter, 0.585" thick, stainless ' steel, Recirculation system, exial cracks, (1) 0.80" long, 9% through wall, located on the pipe side, (2) 1.56" long, 20%

through wall, located on the pipe side, (3) 0.88" long, 13% through wall, located on the pipe side, (04) 0.76" long, 27% through wall,

_

located on the pipe side, (05) 0.72" long, 10% through' wall, located on the pipe side, (6) 0.40" long, 14% through wall, located on the'

elbow side. This weld was last UT'd in 1984, no recordable

_ l unacceptable. indications were found.and IHSI was performed. A standard weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l Weld No. 02M-S4, elbow-to pipe, 12" diameter, 0.585" thick, stainless steel, Recirculation system, axial crack, 1" long, 22%

through wall, located on the elbow side. This weld was last UT'd in 1984, no recordable unacceptable indications were found and '

IHSI was performed. A standard weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l .Weld No. 02B-F1, valve-to pipe, 22" diameter,1.048" thick, stainless steel, Recirculation system, (1) circumferential crack, 3.0"'long, 26% through wall located on the pipe side, (2) axial crack, 0.25" long, 24% through wall, located on the pipe side. This weld was last' UT'd in 1984, no recordable >

unacceptable indications were.found, and IHSI was performe A leak barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l Weld No. 02BS-SS, pipe-to-tee, 28" diameter, 1.145" thick, stainless steel, Recirculation system, (1) circumferential crack, 5" long, 15% through wall, (2) circumferential crack, 2" long, 20%

through wall, (3) axial crack, 4" long, 25% through wall, (4) axial crack, 3" long, 20% through wall, located on the pipe side. This i weld was 1csr. UT'd in-1984, no recordable unacceptable indications were found, and IHSI was performed. A leak barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio l Weld No. 025BS-S9, pipe-to-elbow, 28" diameter, 1.113" thick, stainless steel, Recirculation system, (1) circumferential

.

crack, 23 " long, various percentage of through wall, (2) axial l crack, 0.25" long, 35% through wall. Some crack growth was found on the pipe and elbow sides from the 1984 and 1986 inspections. These were circumferential cracks, and the weld was also IHSI'd in 198 This weld was analyzed by NUTECH in 1986 to leave-as-is and was  :

concurred in by NRR. (Refer to NRC Inspection Report No. 50-254/85030 for details) A leak barrier weld overlay was applied to this indicatio i

- _ - _ _ _ _ - __

_ _ _ _

.

.

The following defective weld was analyzed by NUTECH to " leave-as-is."

l Weld No. 10BD-S13. pipe-to-elbow, 16" diameter, 0.722" thickness, stainless steel, RHR system, circumferential cracks on pipe side, (1) 1.5" long, 15% through wall, (2) 1.5" long, 17% through wall and (3) 2.0" long, 22% through wall. This weld was last UT'd in 1971 finding no unacceptable recordable indications. This was identified during the UT performed prior to MSIP. After MSIP was performed the weld was UT'd again having approximately the same results. The number (1) indication above had not changed from the pre-MSIP examination. The number (2) and number (3) indication appeared to blend together after MSIP. The through wall dimensions had not changed on either indicatio CECO stated that Unit I will continue to adhere to the restricted leakage detection and leakage limits contained in Generic Letter 84-11 for the upcoming operating cycle. Plant shutdown shall be initiated for inspection and corrective action when any leakage system indicates, within any period of two hours, an increase in rate of unidentified leakage in excess of 2 GPM. The sump level shall be monitored at four hour intervals or les programs and Procedures The NRC inspector reviewed the ISI program and the NDE and welding procedures and found them to be acceptable. CECO made no specific request for relief from the ASME Code in performing this ISI outag Review of Data, Audits and Certifications of Material, Equipment and Personnel The NRC inspector reviewed documents relating to the following: l l Ultrasonic instruments, calibration block, transducers and couplant certification l Liquid penetrant, cleaner and developer material l Magnetic particle, materials and equipmen I l NDE personnel certifications in accordance with SNT-TC-1 l Welder and welding operator qualification l Certified material test reports for the filler materia l Data reports, NDE, and welding travelers, drawings and other related documentatio l Audits / Surveillanc i l

l

_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _

~

I

. Observation of Work Activities The NRC inspector observed work and had discussions with personnel during the ISI activities. These observations included calibration, recording of documentation, and performance of the following: ,

l Level I GE personnel, not qualified at EPRI who were to perform UT scanning duties, being trained by an EPRI qualified GE individua l Visual examinations of weld overlay build-ups on weld mock-up l Training of personnel in weld build-up and surface conditioning of weld overlays for ultrasonic examination l GAPCo welders being qualified / certified in manual and automatic welding of the weld overlay l Ultrasonic examinations being performed, using the SMART system, on welds #02C-S4, #02L-F2, #02J-F6, #02F-S3, #02G-S3, #02M-F1 and #14B-F l Training, qualification and certification of personnel in using the mechanical clamp for MSI '

l

'

l The Gold Track II Automatic Tungsters-Inert-Gas (TIG) Welding System applying weld overlays on welds #02H-54, #020-S4,

1. 028-S10, #020-S7, #02BS-S9, #02E-S3 and #14A-S No violations or deviations were identifie . Modifications / Replacements Standby Liquid Control System (SBLCS) Modification This modification was made to satisfy the third and final requirements of 10 CFR 50.62 for the reduction of risk from an Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS). The modification consists of providing a second pump suction line from the SBLCS tank to the common suction header, modifying the SBLCS tank to provide a nozzle for the suction piping, and modifying the controls to provide for running both pumps simultaneousl This modification was fabricated in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenda. The NRC inspector reviewed the work request, purchase orders, procedures, and other related documentation; observed cutting and welding; and interpreted radiographs of the weld No violations or deviations were identifie i

,

12 .

_ _

..

.

'

b. RHR Service _ Water Pump (RHRSW) Modification This modification added a pressure tap to the suction piping of the RHR service water pump The pressure taps are needed to accommodate future installation of pressure gauges to measure inlet pressure during pump operatio This modification was fabricated in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenda. The NRC inspector reviewed the-travelers,~ procedures, welders qualifications, and other related documentation, and also observed weldin No violations or deviations were identifie c. Electromatic Relief Valves Modification Electromatic relief valves required that the disc retainers be seal welded in place and a leakoff pipe be welded on each valve. They were then tested for leakage and torque This modification was fabricated in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenda. The NRC inspector reviewed the work request, procedures, drawings and other related documentation; and also observed seal welding and the welding of pip No violations or' deviations were identifie d. Replacement of Weld in Reactor Water Clean Up System (RWCU)

Based on the observation by CECO of a potential steam leak in the regenerative heat exchanger room, May 1987, the Reactor Water Cleanup system piping (line 1-12121 4" A) was placed out of servic CECO visually.and liquid penetrant examined the area of the suspected-leak. A through wall crack approximately 1" long was detected in weld FW-23 which was a 4" pipe welded to a 6" x 4" reduce This weld was then ultrasonic 1y examined to determine the extent of the cracking and to provide input to an assessment of the structural adequacy for continued servic An approved temporary weld repair was made on weld FW-23 to restore system integrity during the interim period until a permanent repair could be mad During this outage weld FW-23 was cut out and replaced with welds FW-3 and FW- This replacement was fabricated in accordance l with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenda. The NRC .

l inspector interpreted the radiographs; reviewed weld data sheets, !

l

'

weld qualifications, drawings and other related documentation; and visually examined the weld '

No violations or deviations were identifie !

13 l

)

_ __ _

.

D

Fabrication of New Supports in Torus Part of-this modification consisted of fabricating new supports, No. H-1832 and No. H-1833, to add more support in the torn .

This modification was fabricated in accordance with ANSI B31.1 -1967 Edition. The NRC inspector reviewed the weld data sheets, drawings, traveler and other related documentation; and also observed welding and grindin No violations or deviations were identifie Replacement of Main Steam Line Drain Valves (1-220-1 and 2)

The main steam line drain valves had consistently failed the local leak rate test (LLRT) and had require excessive maintenance repair in order to pass this tes To solve this problem, CECO procured two 3" - 1500 lb replacement gate valves from Anchor Darling Valve Compan This replacement was fabricated in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenda. The NRC. inspector reviewed the work request, weld data reports, drawings, and other related documentation; also visually examined completed welds and interpreted radiographs of the weld No violations or deviations were identifie . Fabrication (FAB) Shop Parts of modifications (spool pieces) were fabricated in the fab sho The Morrison Construction Company foreman of the shop gave the NRC inspector a tour of the fab shop. The NRC inspector observed how the weld rod control was maintained. The NRC inspector also observed the storage of material, sheet metal, angle iron and pipe and the area where welders are qualified / certified in accordance with ASME Section IX. The fab shop was very clean and orderl i No violations or deviations were identifie !

l Exit Interview ]

l The inspector met with site representatives (denoted in Persons Contacted l paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized ]

the scope and findings of the inspection noted in this report. The 4 inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the l inspection during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar _-_- A