IR 05000269/1981005
| ML19347F545 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1981 |
| From: | Herdt A, Zajac L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F541 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-81-05, 50-269-81-5, 50-270-81-05, 50-270-81-5, 50-287-81-05, 50-287-81-5, NUDOCS 8105200013 | |
| Download: ML19347F545 (6) | |
Text
-
,/# "%;.
UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
.
o RE'lON 11 f
101 MARIETTA ST.,:4.W., SUITE 3100 D
$
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
%, * *.. $
.
Report Nos. 50-269/81-05, 50-270/81-05 and 50-287/81-05
. Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name: Oconee
-
Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 Inspection at Oc si e near Clemson, SC 3!o?
8/
Inspect
.
L. D. Zadac 0' ate Signed Approved by:
[
3o74[8/
A. R. Herdt, Sec~ ion Chief D&te Sign'ed t
Engineerino Inspection Branch Engineeriag and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY
'nspected on March 11-13, 1981 Ar eas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 22 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of IE Bulletin 80-08 Containment Liner Penetration Welds - Review of (
records and radiographic films; and the Standby Shutdown Facility - Review of radiographic films.
Results Of the 2 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in 1 area; l
one violation was found in one area (Violation - Failure to reject unaLceptable defects shown on radiographic films paragraph 5).
-
l l
l l
8105200o05
,J
-
.
'
.
..
REPORT DETAII.S 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. E. Smith, Station Manager
- R. J. Brackett, Senior QA Engineer
- T. E. Cribbe, License Engineer
- R. H. Ledford, QA Engineer
- S. Clark, Construction Engineer J. Vignati, Construction Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included a radiographer.
NRC Resident Inspector F. Jape
,
- W. Orders
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The f aspection scope and findings ere summarized on March 13, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph i above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved itens are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable er may involve violations or devia-
,
I t'ons. New unresolved items identified during this inspection at s discussed in paragraphs 5.a and 5.c.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector reviewed radiographic films of piping joints, listed xlow, t
!
for the Standby Shutdown Fac;11ty to determine whether the radiographic l
examination met the applicable code and licensee requirements.
l l
ISO Weld Ident System Pipe Size & Mat'l.
14C-225 W-19 Auxiliary Service Water 10" Carbon Steel 14C-225 W-24 Auxiliary Service Water 1G" Carbon Steel l
d
. -
- -
-
-
.
...
, - -.--
-
.
-
~
..
14C-225 W-22 Auxiliary Service Water 10" Carbon Steel 19A-26 W-7 Diesel Intake 24" Carbon Steel 19A-26 W-8 Diesel Intake 24" Carbon Steel 19A-26 W-6 Diesel Intake 24" Carbon Steel 19A-25 W-6 Diesel Intake 24" Carbon Steel The following discrepancies were noted:
a.
The radiographic films for joints W-8 of 150-26 and W-6 of I50-25 showed apparent slag inclusions that were unacceptable. In discussions with the licensee's film reader, the inspector was advised that these indications were considered to be acceptable inside surface conditions.
To verify this, film overlays of these indications were made and both the licensee's film reader and the NRC inspector sighted the subject joints. The indications did not appear to be on the surface, however, the weld surface had been painted and it was possible that the paint filled-in lov areas on the weld making surface depressions appear to be
~
nonexister!.
Thus, the licensee agreed to buff-off the paint and re-inspect the surface visually. After buffing joint W-8, the licensee still felt the indications were surface and will blend-in the surface by grinding and re-radiograph. However, on joint W-6, the surface was smooth after buffing so the licensee elected to grind into the surface.
This grinding opened-up slag pockets, thus verifying that the radio-graphs depicted unacceptable slag inclusions that had been accepted by the film readers.
The inspector stated that failure to reject unacceptable defects was in i
violation with the licensee's Radiography Frocedure NDE 10, Rev. 7 and with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
This is identified as
'
violation 269, 270, 287/81-05-01, " Failure to reject unacceptable
.
defects shown on radiographic films."
l l
Since further examination is required to evaluate joint W-8, this will be carried as Unresolved Item 269, 270, 287/81-05-02, " Apparent unac-l ceptable defects shown on radiographic films."
b.
The radiographic films for joint W-6,150-26, identified as view (1-2),
contained processing smears / blemishes, on both films in the areas to be viewed for acceptance. Article 2 of Section V of the ASME Code states that radiographs shall be free from mechanical, chemical, or other blendsi;es to the axtent that they cannot mask or be confused with the image of any discontinuity. It was considered that the subject blem-ishes could mask the image of a defect.
The licensee agreed u re-radiograph view (1-2) accordingly since further evaluation
.c warranted.
This will be Inspector Followup Item 269, 270, 287/81-05-03, " Radiographic films contain pr: cessing blemishes that could mask the image of a defect."
d
-
._
.
.
..
.
-
.-
.-
. -.
.
.. -
.
.
-
..
,
c.
The radiographic films of joint W-8, ISO-26, disclosed a die stamped number in the adjacent base metal that appeared to be excessively deep.
This die stamp mark was sighted on the pipe by the inspector and was determined to warrant. further evaluation as it appeared not only to be excessively deep, but also sharp bottomed. The mark in question is a.
number "4" shown on film view (1-2).
It is noted that ASME Code,Section III NA,
.ragraph NA-3766.6, specifies stamping, when used, shall be done with blunt-nosed-contin-uous or blunt-nose-interrupted dot die stamps.
The licensee, upcn investigation, discovered that high stress die stamps had bun issued and may have been used. The licensee immediately put a " hold" on further die stamping by issuing a " Nonconforming Item" report, NCI-543.
The licensee agreed to evaluate the acceptability of the die stamp mark
. in question and to purge all die stamps that do not meet the blunt-nose criteria. The licensee further agreed to determine whether the high stress die camps had bean used on other safety related piping and to evaluate accordingly. This is Unresolved Item 269, 270, 287/81-05-04,
" Die stamping appears to be in violation of Code and licensee require-ments".
No violations or deviations were noted except for the violation identified in paragraph 5.a.
6.
Review of IE Bull ' tin No. 80-08, Examination of Cor;tainment Liner Penetra-tion Welds IE Bulletin No. 80-08 was forwarded on April 7, 1980, and requested licensees to determine if their facility contained the flued head design for penetration connections, or other designs with containment boundary butt welds between the penetration sleeve and process piping as illustrated in Figure NE 1120-1, Winter 1975 addenda to the 1974 and later editions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
If the licensee's facility does contain this design then the licensee was requested to determine if welds
.;ere made with a backing ring and whether or not volumetric examintion was conducted by radiography. The Bulletin indicates that weld joints with a backing ring that have not been radiographed, are of particular concern as they are potentially defective.
In response to the Bulletin Duke Power Company forwarded a letter dated July 1,1980 which stated that a design similar to those illustrated in Figure NE 1120-1 was used and that the butt welds contained backing rings I
which were radiographically examined. During the visit to the Oconee site, the inspector reviewed design drawings and recceds for penetrations of all three Oconee units.
The inspector requested the radiographic films for penetration welds for the penetrations listed below.
It should be noted that Southern Boiler and Tank Works, Inc., fabricated and welded the pene-l trations, Barrow-Agee Labs performed the radiography and Law Engineering Testing Company reviewed and evaluated the radiographic films.
'
!
Q
_
__
__
._ _
.
. _.,.. _ -._
._.
-
.
..
.
.
o.
'
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
<
P-20 P-9 P-16 P-43 P-23 P-19
,
P-60 P-31 P-45 P-61 The following discrepancies were noted:
a.
The radiographs presented to the inspector for Unit I were for the tee-weld that joins the piping sleeve to the containment liner. The radiographs were not located for the butt weld which the Bulletin addresses.
b.
The radiographs for Unit 1 P-20 (identified as J916, SP-25, B-20) dis-closed unacceptable porosity clusters throughout the length of the weld which were uniformly spaced and appeared to be~ located in the base metal in an area partially covered by the tee weld. It appears that a spot weld, a temporary attachment or weld-filled hole existed in these areas. The radiographs also disclosed unacceptable slag inclusions at view (4-5) and (5-6).
c.
The radiographs for Unit 1 P-43 (identified as J916, SP-25, B-43) dis-closed what appears to be incomplete fusion (IF) or incomplete pene-tration (IP) for sbout 3-inches in length on view (5-6).
d.
The radiographs for Unit 1, P-60'(identified as J916, SP-25, B-60)
disclosed porosity clusters the same as described for P-20.
In addition view (0-1), (1-2), (2-3) and (3-0) disclosed either IF or IP l
for about 16 inches total in length. Also it was noted that two areas of slag were rejected on view (3-0). After repair and re-radiography, one area of unacceptable slag still remained, but the weld was accepted anyway.
l Of particular concern is the fact ~ that the radiographs disclosed a l
crack in the base metal at the toe of the weld for 2h inches in length which was not rejected. The image of the crack runs-off the edge of the film, so that the entire length could not be determined.
The radiographs for Unit 1, P-61 (identified as J916, SP-26, B-61)
e.
disclosed either IF or IP in the weld.
f.
Nearly all the films for the above welds were of very poor quality as they had processing streaks, blemishes, stains, mechanical marks, etc.,
to the degree that it was impossible to properly evaluate the weld quality on most of the radiographs. Only a single film was available for each radiographic view.
,
!
d
.
..
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
-
..
-
,
^
'
,
The Bulletin will remain open until the licensee resolves the discrepancies described herein, identified as Inspector Followup Item 269/270/287/81-05-05, " Penetration Weld Deficiencies", and locates the films for the butt weids addressed in the Bulletin.
It should be noted that prior to the exii interview, the licensee did locate other records that indicated much repair work had been accomplished on the peratration welds subsequent to whan the radiographs described above were taken. However, additional records for the specific welds identified above had not yet been located.
_
J d
-. - -
- - -.
-
-.. - -