IR 05000269/1980001
| ML19294B879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1980 |
| From: | Crowley B, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17249A982 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-80-01, 50-269-80-1, IEB-79-13, NUDOCS 8003060248 | |
| Download: ML19294B879 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. / 'o UNITED STATES
~,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n $ .$ REGION 11
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.. SUITE 3100 %..... g* ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report No. 50-269/80-1 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: Oconee Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-269 License No. DPR-38 Inspection at Ogonee Site near Seneca, South Carolina Inspecto ': [[/ ! / O [0 J E R. Crowley Daf.e S'igned Approved by: ff / O A. R. lierdt D4te/ Signed SUMMARY Inspection on January 3, 1980 . Areas Inspected This special, announced inspection involved seven inspector-hours onsite in the area of steam generator feedwater line radiography (RT)-Bulletin 79-13.
Results No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
80030603dd
. . , , DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J.
E. Smith, Station Manager
- R. J. Bruckett, Station Senior QA Engineer
- J.
D. Norton, Supervisor ISI
- R. T. Bond, Licensing Project Engineer
- T. C. Matthews, Technical Specialist Other Organizations P. L. Pitz, NDT Technician (Babcock and Wilcox)
NRC Resident Inspector W. T. Orders
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee reprasentatives noted in Paragraph 1 above at the conclusion of the inspection on January 3, 1980, and summarized the scope and findings of inspection of Bulletin 79-13.
The licensee was advised that no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the inspection.
3.
Lie nsee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
IE Bulletins (IEB) (0 pen) IEB 79-13, Cracking in Feedwater System Piping.
The inspector performed the following inspection of IEB 79-13 activities: a.
Radiographic (RT) Film Review Paragraph 2.b of revision 2 to the bulletin requires volumetric exami-nation of all auxiliary feedwater nozzle to piping welds and the first adjacent outboard pipe-to-pipe welds (risers). At the time of the inspection the licensee's contractor, Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), had
. . h-2-i completed the radiography. However, the final evaluation of the film had not been completed. The film had been viewed by the B&W Level II Examiner, but had not been evaluated by the Level III Examiner. The RT was being performed to the 1977 edition of article NC-5000 of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code to the 2T penetrameter sensitivity level. The inspector reviewed film for the welds listed below which is all of the welds required to be radiographed by the bulletin: Generator "A" Generator "B" Welds - 1 ELB Welds - 1 ELB 1 FLG 1 FLG 2 ELB 2 ELB 2 FLG 2 FLG 3 ELB 3 ELB 3 FLG 3 FLG 5 ELB 5 ELB 5 FLG 5 FLG 6 ELB 6 ELB 6 FLG 6 FLG - 7 ELB 7 ELB 7 FLG 7 FLG The following observations were made during this film review: (1) The radiographs were made using a number ten penetrameter to cover the base material thickness and a number 12 to cover the weld thickness. Obtaiting 2T sensitivity in the number 10 penetrameter and meetina density requirements for the thickness and geometry involved was "arv difficult. Therefore, the visi- ~ bility of the 2T hole in the nuther 10 penetrameter was marginal in some cases. However, the 2T in the number 12 and the 4T (the required hole by code) in the 10 and 12 were readily visible.
The sensitivity was considered adequate for evaluating the welds and adjacent base material for cracks and rejectable code discon-tinuities.
(2) During review of the film, the inspector noted slag and porosity in many of the welds that appeared to be in excess of that allowed by code. As noted above, all of the welds had been evaluated by the Level II Examiner. Some of the welds he had evaluated as needing further evaluation by the Level III Examiner. Other welds he had considered to be acceptable. Discussions with the Level II Examiner revealed that he had misi:terpreted the ac-ceptance standards and was evaluating porosity as if the welds were one-half inch thick when in fact the weiis were less than one-half inch thick.
Based on the fact that the evaluation of the film was still in process, the inspector requested and the licensee agreed to have all of the film reevaluated.
.__ _ _ _
' . . -3- . On January 8, 1980, the licensee contacted the inspector by telephone and stated that all of the film had been reevaluated and 17 welds rejected out of 24 welds inspected. The rejecticns were as follows: 6 - Porosity 4 - Slag 5 - Slag and Porosity 1 - Slag and Possibly Lack of Fusion 1 - Slag and Possibly Lack of Penetration The licensee is evaluating these conditions for possible repair or justification for continued operability.
(3) The inspector noted indications in two radiographs that needed further evaluation by visual inspection of the weld and adjacent base material.
The licensee agreed to further evaluate these indications.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
_ }}