IR 05000269/1983020
| ML20024F658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1983 |
| From: | Blake J, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024F635 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-83-20, 50-270-83-20, 50-287-83-20, NUDOCS 8309090556 | |
| Download: ML20024F658 (7) | |
Text
.
. /*"49 UNITED STATES
-
,%
%,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
g REGION 11
- p 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 0100 e
g ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
- ...+
Report Nos.:
50-269/83-20, 50-270/83-20 and 50-287/83-20 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242
<
Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos.:
DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 Facility Name: Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Inspecti cn s
ear Seneca, South Carolina 7 /#/ O j
Inspect r: /
,
L mo
/ Date' Signed Appro d y/
/'
3 J
,81ake, Section Chief
'Date Signed neering Program Branch i ision of Engineering and Operational Programs SUMMARY Inspection on June 28 - July 1, 1983 Areas Inspected
,
This routine, unannounced inspection involved 36 inspector-hours on site in the areas of once-through steam generator eddy current examination; HPI thermal'
sleeve examination; ISI work observation; review of ten year scheduled ISI
.
examinations; auxiliary header modification procedure; letdown cooler replacement; heavy lifting device inspection procedure; pump and valve testing program and record review.
Results Of the eight areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in seven areas; one violation was found in one area (Violation - Failure to follow weld procedure specification L-231 requirements paragraph 7.a).
8309090556 830902 PDR ADOCK 05000269 G
-.
,
-
- _
_
-. -
-..
-
-.
-.
. - _. - _ _
. _. -,. - _ _ _. _
--
o
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. E. Smith, Station Manager
- J. M. Davis, Superintendent of Maintenance
- R. J. Brackett, Senior QA Engineer T. C. Matthews, Licensing
- B. Holcombe, Maintenance Coordinator
- G. Rothenburger, Support Engineer, Mechanical Maintenance R. Todd, Associate Engineer, Performance K. Rohde, Assistant Engineer, Performance B. Millsaps, Assistant Engineer
- C. B. Cheezam, ISI Engineer W. R. Hunt, Assistant QA Engineer, ISI D. W. DeNard, Test Supervisor, Performance
'
J. M. Crowe, NDE
,
Other Organizations Babcock and Wilcox, Nuclear Power Generation Division (NPGD)
W. H. Zimmer, ISI Coordinator
- A. F. Elgin, Hartford Steam Boiler, ANI NRC Resident Inspector J. Bryant
- D. Falconer
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 1,1983, with those persons indicated in paragraph I above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings 'isted below.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
(0 pen) Violation (269/83-20-01) Failure to follow weld procedure
_
specification L-231 requirements, paragraph 7.a 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
'
-
.
.
.
.
5.
High Pressure Injection Thermal Sleeve Examination (92706)
The thermal sleeves in the "A" and "B" HPI lines were radiographed by the licensee in order to determine the condition of the weld buttons and location of the thermal sleeves. The inspector reviewed the radiograph film for each of the four thermal sleeves, identified as 1A1, IA2, 1B1, and 182. The weld buttons and the hard roll areas were found to be intact.
No deviations or violations were identified.
6.
Eddy Current Examination, Once Througn Steam Generators (Unit 1) (73755)
This work effort is a followup to that documented in report number 269/83-19. Discussions held with cognizant Duke Power Company (DPC)
representatives disclosed that preliminary results show that of the 3800 tubes examined in OTSG "A", six exceeded 40% tube wall degradation.
In OTSG "B", approximately 80% of the 8071 tubes earmarked for inspection had been examined by the close of this inspaction.
Preliminary evaluation results showed that 13 tubes exhibited wall degradation ~40%.
No deviations or violations were identified.
7.
Diesel Changes and Modifications (37700)
a.
Letdown Cooler Replacement (Unit 1)
Weld repair on the replacement letdown coolers was in progress at the time of this inspection.
The repair resulted when the two butt welds on the tube side channel body of the replacement coolers failed to pass preservice volumetric examination. The coolers were being upgraded from ASME Class 3 to Class I components. The repair welding was being performed under procedure TN/1/A/1628/0/A change No 4.
The inspector reviewed the work package to ascertain whether the procedure had been reviewed and approved in accordance with Technical Specifications and established QA/QC controls; changes were refleeced by as-built drawings; applicable codes, regulatory requirements, and acceptance criteria were delineated. The governing code (s) was ASME Section XI 1974; however, preservice requirements were being performed to meet the 1980 Edition of Section XI. Acceptance criteria for weld fabrication and nondestructive examination were based on ASME Code Section III, 1980 Edition.
Within three areas, the inspector observed on going weld repairs on both coolers, discussed the work with craft, and reviewed work related QA/QC records. As a result of this work effort the inspector noted that both 308 and 316 stainless steel filler metal had been used for the fabrication of cap weld No. V-6 of cooler IA. The inspector discussed this apparent anomaly with the welders and the field supervisor who stated that the ER 308 filler metal, specified by the weld procedure, wr.s producing a discoloration or some type of a black
._.
-
_
-. _
,
__
. -
_
.
.
.
residue on the weld metal deposits and the decision was made to switch to type ER 316 as a possible remedy. This was done on four welds in the two letdown coolers being replaced.
In discussing this matter with field personnel and cognizant licensee personnel, the inspector recognized that, from a technical point of view, there was no problem with the use of these two types of filler metal in the same weld; however, the inspector stated this matter reflected a violation of weld procedure requirements in that a filler metal other than that specified by the qualified weld procedure was used and a breakdown of administrative controls was indicated by the unauthorized deviation from procedural requirements.
In this instance, the inspector stated that the field supervisor should have been aware of the administrative procedure (s) which should have been followed under the circumstances.
This failure to follow weld procedure requirements is in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V as implemented by DUKE-1-A Section 17.1.5.
This violation was identified as 269/83-20-01, Failure to Follow Weld Procedure Specification L-231 Requirements.
In reference to preservice examination requirements for these coolers, B&W stated, and the licensee confirmed, that certain code rejectable indications had been identified at or near the root of the end cap weld.
Initially, the inspector had identified this as an unresolved item pending a review of the final characterization and disposition by the licensee. However, after the close of this inspection the inspector learned, through a telephone conversation with the licensee's Level III examiner, that the end cap on the channel body of these coolers, including the weld in question, had been removed and replaced with a modified end cap which eliminated the troublesome weld indication and the resolved item.
Except for the violation discussed above, no other violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Auxiliary Header Modification (Units 1 and 2)
In order to eliminate recurring leaking at the flange connection of the auxiliary feedwater header, the licensee is cutting out the flange connection and welding in a short pipe section, thus connecting both halves of the ring header. The modification is being performed under requirements of station procedure TN/1/A/2115/00/B. ASME Code Section XI (77S78) has been invoked for installation while USAS B31.1-67 was applicable to design considerations. Work-on' thi s modification was scheduled to begin at a later time during this outage.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Inservice Inspection - Work Observation (Unit 1) (73753)
!
As a followup to the work effort documented in report number 269/83-19, the inspector observed ISI activities described below to determine whether these activities were being performed in accordance with regulatory requirements and approved licensee procedure,
o
,,
0-
.
The applicable code for this ISI is the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1974 Edition, summer 1975, addenda and Section V,
-Article 4 (77S78).
The ultrasonic procedure used for this examination was ISI-130, Rev. 16,
" Ultrasonic Examination of VesseVWelds and Nozzle Inside Radius Sections".
The inspector observed in process U/T-examinations on pressurizer lugs at the W :and X-Y axes. The welds were identified as follows:
-
Figure No.
Welsh location B2.08.013 IPZR-WP82-W W-AXIS m
B2.08.003 IPZR-WP82-XY X-Y AXIS l: *
.
These examinations war'e compared with appiicable procedures in the
,
followins'areis:
S
-
_..
,
,
Avail' ability of and compliance with aoproved NDE procedures a.
b.
.Use' of knofidgeable NDE' personnel '
'
c.
.Use,of NDE personnel qualifted to the proper level d.
Reco'iding'iif inspection results
,
-
-
e.
. Type'of apparatus used if
'
'J f.
Extent of coverdhe of weldment,
,
~
g.
Calibration requiremhnts '"', --
h.' _Searin units
.
- ^
,
/
i. ' Beam angles
- '
'
_
DAC curves
/ /
,j:I* Referench level f6tiontCri%g discontinuities
k.
' '
-
1. s Mifnod for demonstrat'ing p'enetratidn
-
-
m.
Limits for. evaluating and recording indications Recordin'g significant-indications.
n.
,.
'
o.
Acceptance limits
.n.<
.
"'
'
l
/
g
,g^ to.contain code recordable indications in the weld regions'.i@se lug we~1ds we s
~
The lug weld in'the W-axis contained one indication while that at thclX-Y axis contained
-
-
four indications. These were investigated,' plotted, and analyzed by
~ ?racture analysis.
Results from this ISI examination, 7th outage,
,J indicate-location and_ size to be relatively unchsnged.
'
u.
.
,
Within the' areas inspicted,s nivsiolati.oni'oE deviations were identified.
K;
< +
-
_,
.
.,
~
9. -InserdcqInspection, -Review'of Program (73051)
y s.
'
y-
.
-
,,
This was the last ISI examinar. ion scheduled for the Unit 1 first ten year
-
^
interYal. ;sccolFdin' gly,Kthe inspector reviewed the status of the ISI
>
s pro!;ra'm to as'dertain' whettier exasinations required under IWB and IWC have
-
been performed orwere ' schedule fo'r this outage.
The review included the
'"
identification ofiystems;. boundaries, and weld selection for each of the
'
categopies listed ~under IWB'and IWC.
/
'
-
s.
,
'~
No devi2tions or' violations were idi'ntified:
s e
_
,e
~
l
;
e
,
ss=
g u
J+
--.
{
y q
.
,
..
-
-
_
s
,
.
N
,
-
y rA
.
s
'*'
N2 g
'
'
,
n s.
-
10 7 Reactor heaa arid Internals Handling Fixture (Tripod)
.
s. s
,
q
,
..In response to Moncerns expressed during discussions with licensee over B&W
~{abricated tripodb with defective welds, the licensee issued maintenance Sprocedure MP/0/A/1710/12, "Lif ting Equipment, General Safety Inspection".
- The procedure requires surface and visual examinations on the welds of the device in addition ti' load testing as specified by ANSI 14.6 - 1978 which 1 is referenced in tcg procedure.
Procedure implementation date had not been set at the tine of this inspection; nowever, the inspector will followup on (theoutcomeofithisexamination/testonafutureinspection.
'
s No violations or deviations were ioentified.
-
11.
Inservice Testing of< Wmps'and Valves - Units 1 and 3 (92706)
c A
,
'
The' inspector examined selected. aspects of the licensee's-implementation Nof inservice testing (IST) MquGements for pumps and valves to verify compliance with. regulat'ory requirements and licensee commitments. The app 11 cable code for IST, as identified through 4.0.4 of the Technical Specifications and 10 CFR 50(a)g; is ASME Section XI (80W80).
The details of the inspector's examination are describad below.
Details of inservice testirig of pumps and valves'are contained in the Oconee Nuclear Station In 6rvice Inspection Program manual dated July 1982.
Performance of L
~
s required pump tests and proper recording and evaluation of results in accordance with procedures was verified for:fSe following pumps by a review of the test records indicated:
,
.,
'
RC Bleed Transfer' Pumps IA and IB
-
PT/1/A/251/17 04/19/83 Turbine Driven Emergency Feedwater PT/1/A/0600/12 05/24/83 Pump' Performance Tests IA & 1B j
Motor Driven Emergency Feedwater PT/1/A/600/13 05/18/83 Pum6 Performance Tests IA & IB
i
~a Auxiliary Service Water Pump PT/2/A/251/10 04/25/83 Performance Test (Unit 2)
s
,
,
'
i Low Pressure' Service Water Pump'
PT/1/A/251/1 02/15/83
"
'"-
Performance Tests IA, 1B, & IC
'
~ High Pre'ssure Injection System PT/1/A/0202/11 12/17/82 p.Performar.ce Test
. Low Pressure Injection Check Valve PT/1/A/251/12 10/26/82
,
(
Operability Test
- -%-
.
.
%"
Component Cooling Check Valve PT/1/A/251/13 01/27/83
~
"
Check Functional Test
...
,
,
$
%
'\\.
.
..
.
.
MS Stop Valve Closure Time Test PT/0/A/290/2 10/30/82 No deviations or violations were identified.