IR 05000269/1982024

IE Insp Repts 50-269/82-24,50-270/82-24 & 50-287/82-21 on 820614-25.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Unit 3 10-yr Inservice Ultrasonic Insp of Steam Generators, Pressurizer Reactor Vessel & RCPB Pipe

ML20062H796
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	07/19/1982
From:	Coley J, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062H778	List: IR 05000269/1982024 ML20062H775
References
50-269-82-24, 50-270-82-24, 50-287-82-21, NUDOCS 8208160169
Download: ML20062H796 (7)

Text

. _ .. . -

- +

UNITED STATES y, t@ MGOq[o ,, RUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.t' n REGION li 101 MARIETTA STR E ET, '

!-

{,

o p:[$ ATI.ANTA, GEORGI A 30303 g, / t j *** *

,

.

&

Report Nos. 50-269/82-24, 50-270/82-24 and 50-287/82-21 '

Licensee: Duke Power Company

'

Facility Name: Oconee _

l Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 i Inspection at Oconee site near Seneca, South Carolina *

M

Inspector: w ey te h //

Date 'Si gne'd d

\.

ApprovedNbb'. Ec'ortom6sPActing _n_mn Section Chief 7 V

/Dat/ Signed '

Engineering Inspection Branch ~/

]

Division of Engineering and Technical Programs [

'

SUMMARY

,

Inspection on June 14-25, 1982 i

Areas Inspected l This routine, unannounced inspection involved 74 inspector-hours on site in the '

areas of licensee action on previous inspection findings; Unit 3 ten year inservice ultrasonic inspection of steam generators, pressurizer reactor vessel ,

and reactor coolant pressure boundary pipe; and inspector follow-up ' item Results

No violations or deviations were identifie ;

,

!

j h r

!

,

!

!

8208160169 820719 PDR ADOCK 05000269 4 G PDR

- -_- - . ,. _ _ _ _ .-__.__ _ - - _ _ _ - ___ -

_!

.

. -

.

_

,

t'

~

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• G. Vaughn, Acting Station Manager

• J. N. Pope, Supervisor Operations

• J. J. McCool, QA Supervisor

• E. C. Kelley, Licensing and Projects

• T. M. Hilderbrand, QA Inservice Inspection (ISI)

• R. Hunt, QA-ISI

• T. E. Cribbe, Licensing

• T. C. Matthews, Licensing Other Organizations Babcock and Wilcox, Nuclear Power Generation Division (NPGD)

• G. R. Stromer, Level II Nondestructive Test Examiner

• H. E. Stoppelmann, ISI Coordinator NRC Resident Inspector

• T. Orders

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 25, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abov The inspection findings listed below were discussed in detail. No dissenting comments were received from the license (Open) Unresolved Item 50-269, 270/82-24-01, 50-287/82-21-01: " Baseline Data is Inadequate" paragraph 6.a.

, Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings l (Closed) Violation 269, 270, 287/81-05-01: " Unacceptable Slag

! Inclusions Shown on Radiograph." Duke Power Company letter of response dated April 28, 1981 has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II. The inspector held discussions with the cognizant unit supervisor and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter

of respons The inspector concluded that Duke Power has determined

the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necessary l survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and

'

developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrences of

-

[ .

,

. .

.

2-

!

similar circumstances. The corrective action identified in the letter of response has been implemente (Closed) Unresolved Item 50-269, 270, 287/81-05-02: ' Apparent Unacceptable Defects Shown on Radiographic Films." The inspector held discussions with the cognizant unit. supervisor and examined reports and radiographic film of the refinished weld. The inspector concluded that'

'

Duke Power had performed the necessary survey and follow-up for assurance that weld No. W-8 on 1S0-26 in system 19A was acceptabl (Closed) Unresolved Item 50-269, 270, 287/81-05-04: " Die Stamping Appeared to be in Violation of Code and Licensee Requirements." The inspector held discussions with the cognizant unit supervisor and reviewed the evaluation performed by Duke Power Stress Analysis Grou The inspector concluded that Duke Power had performed the necessary '

survey and follow-up actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumste:.ces.

i (Closed) Unresolved Item 50-287/82-19-01: " Calibration Performed on Calibration Block With I.D. Surface Not Representive of Component  !

,

Inspected." The inspector held discussions with the cognizant unit supervisor and examined training records that verified additional

'

training had been conducted on this item. The inspector also witnessed the examiner in question calibrate the UT instrument on several

different components (clad and unclad). The inspector concluded that the additional training given this examiner was sufficien In addi-tion, all previous welds examined at the Oconee site by this examiner ,

have been reinspected with satisfactory result (Closed) Unresolved Item 50-287/82-19-02: " Improper Inspection Techniques." The inspector held discussions with the cognizant unit supervisor and examined training records that verified that additional training h-d been conducted on this item. The inspector also witnessed ,

"

i the examiner in question calibrate and perform ultrasonic inspections on several comoonents. The inspector concluded that the additional training given this examiner was sufficient. In addition, all previous welds examined at the Oconee site by this examiner have been rein-spected with satisfactory result .

Within tne areas examined, no violations or deviations were observed.

J

, Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed

! in paragraph .

t

!

_ _ _ _ _ - . - _ ._ -_- , - _ . -- -

.- - - --. - -

, .-

5. Inspector Follow-up Items (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item 50-269, 270, 287/81-05-03: " Radio-grahic Films Contain Processing Blemishes." The inspector held discussions with the cognizant unit supervisor, examined training records and examined radiographs that had been reshot to assure that no defects had been masked by the blemishe . (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item 50-269/81-16-03: " Request For Relief ['

'

From ISI Requirements." The inspector held discussions with ' the cognizant unit supervisor and reviewed the response from NRC that dealt with the Duke Power relief reques (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item 50-269/80-39-01, 50-270/80-34-01 and 50-287/80-30-01: "SSF Code Required Fabrication / Material Records." The inspector held discussions with the cognizant unit supervisor and examined records of corrective actions taken by the licensee, (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item 50-270/80-10-01: " Improper Designed I ISI Calibration Blocks." The inspector held discussions with the cognizant unit supervisor and examined records of corrective actions l taken by the license I (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item 50-287/82-19-03: " Inspection of Painted Surfaces." The inspector held discussions with the cognizant

'

unit supervisor and examined Field Change Authorization Number 82-114, which dealt with adding a qualifying statement to Babcock & Wilcox Procedure ISI-50, Revision 7, for ultrasonic inspection of painted surface (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item 50-287/82-19-04: "UT Examiner Practical Quslification Examination Requested." The inspector held discussions with the cognizant unit supervisor and reviewed radiographs of the defects used by Babcock and Wilcox to qualify UT examiner Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were observe . Inservice Inspection - Observation of Work and Work Activities (Unit 3) ,

The inspector observed the ISI activities described below to determine

'

whether activities were being performed in accordance with regulatory requirements and licensee procedure Ultrasonic examination of the pressure vessel welds is required to conform to requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.Section XI,1974 Edition through the Summer

, of 1975 Addenda. The licensee performs these examinations in accordance with the requirements of ASME Boiler and Vessel Code,Section V, Article 4,

'

1977 Edition through the Summer 1978 Addenda except that the more sensitive calibration of T-432.3.2 and the more conservative recording criteria of

T-441.9.1 are used. The licensee's pipe welds are inspected in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI and Section V, Article 5,1974 Edition through Summer of 1975 Addenda.

i

. _ . - _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ ,

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

.

.. .

4 In process ultrasonic (UT) examinations including calibrations of the pressurizer, A & B steam generators and reactor coolant piping were observed and as noted below reinspected by the inspector using the manual technique for the following weld Points Weld N Piece N Drawing N Weld Type Inspected 3PZR-WP-28 6 to 4 & 40 ISI-0CN3-002 Pressure 3' to 5'

Vessel Weld 3PHB-3 ISI-0CN3-006 Reactor 360 Coolant Pipe Weld

• 3SGAWG8-1 1 to 2 ISI-0CN3-003 . Pressure 14' to 18'

Vessel Weld

• 35GBWB58-1 8 to 51 ISI-0CN3-004 Pressure 34' to 9'

Vessel Weld

• Note: Welds reinspected independently by the inspecto The inspection was compared with applicable procedures in the following areas:

Availability of and compliance with approved NDE procedures use of knowledgeable NDE personnel Recording of inspection results Type of apparatus used extent of coverage of weldment Calibration requirements Search units Beam angles DAC curves Reference level for monitoring discontinuities Method for demonstrating penetration Limits for evaluating and recording indications Recording significant indications Acceptance limits During the licensee's UT- examination of pressure vessel weld 3SGBWG58-1 on the 8 steam generator (upper tube sheet to primary side of vessel head) ultrasonic indications were noted primarily between points 34'

and 10' . Two of the indications had lengths of approximately 45 inches and 31 inches respectively with an approximate maximum amplitude of 500P. DA The licensee's preliminary assessment was that these indications are weld slag inclusions missed by the preservice inspec-tio Construction radiographs are now being enhanced to prove or disprove their position. The inspector's evaluation of these indica-tions differed from the licensee in that after reinspection the inspector classified the large indications as crack or lack of fusio .. .

Small intermittent indications were found which were characterized as slag. The inspector stated that if the enhanced radiographs show code rejectable defects, such as slag and/or lack of fusion, then the adequacy of the preservice inspection may be questionable. Moreover this lack of confidence was reinforced when the inspector detected examiner problems as reported in NRC Reports Nos. 50-269/82-19, 50-270/82-19 and 50-287/82-19 dated July 1,1982. The inspector stated that unresolved item 50-269/82-24-01, 50-270/82-24-01 and 50-287/

82-21-01 " Baseline Data Is Inadequate", would be opened to track the evaluation of these weld defect b. In process ultrasonic examinations and system calibrations were observed for the reactor vessel and nozzles utilizing automatic ultrasonic techniques (ARIS). The following examination and/or cali-brations were observed:

Weld N Piece N Drawing N Remarks 3RPV-WR-18 86 to 87 ISI-0CN3-001 Observed exami-nation calibra-tion before and after examina-tion 3RPV-WR-34 36 to 166 ISI-0CN3-001 Observed cali-bration before examination 3RPV-WR-13 19 to 86 & 87 ISI-0CN3-001 Observed cali-bration before examination The inspection was compared with applicable procedures in the following areas:

Availability of and compliance with approved NDE procedures Use of knowledgeable NDE personnel Use of NDE personnel qualified to the proper level Recording of inspection results Type of apparatus used Extent of coverage of weldment Calibration requirements Search units Beam angles DAC curves Reference level for monitoring discontinuities Method for demonstration of penetration Limits for evaluating and recording indications Recording significant indications Acceptance limits

.. o

Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were observe !

i

!

I i

f (

i