IR 05000269/1987006
| ML20207T440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1987 |
| From: | Blake J, Economos N, Newsome R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207T437 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-87-06, 50-269-87-6, 50-270-87-06, 50-270-87-6, 50-287-87-06, 50-287-87-6, NUDOCS 8703240014 | |
| Download: ML20207T440 (16) | |
Text
7
-
_. _ _ _ _. _
i
[. ># 8iog UNITED STATES
'g',
NUCLEAR REGULATOPY COMMISSION
[
REGION il g
j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
~s.,+ /
,,...
Report Nos.:
50-269/87-06, 50-270/87-06, and 50-287/87-06 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 Inspection Conducted:
Janu m 26-30, 1987 sm&
J.3 Y
Inspect
'~
Satg Signed R.
/A?
n. W
.$ $
f
. Ec o
'
pat [Si ed O
Approved by:
-
[]
u J.
ake F5ection Chief
[ Tate Signed
.
Ma eri 1 & Processes Section D vis on of Reactor Safety
...
SUMMARY-
,
,
Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of Unit 3 inservice inspection (ISI);- ongoing repairs in reactor coolant pumps (RCP);
maintenance and welding activities.
.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
8703240014 870312 I'
PDR ADOCK 05000269 O
pm e
..
,
-
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - _ -
'
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Licensee Enployees Contacted
- M. S. TucLman, Station Manager
- T. B. Owen, Superintendent Maintenance
- R. J. Brackett, Senior Quality Assurance (QA) Engineer B. K. Millsaps, Maintenance Services Engineer
- P. M. Street, Mechanical Technical Support Engineer R. S. Matheson, Nuclear Production Engineer B.W. Carney,Jr.istantEngineer,MaintenanceServicesMechanical Technical Sup S. L. Batson, Ass D. Whitaker, Technical Support Engineer N. F. Watson, Assistant Engineer, Maintenance Services W. R. Hunt, ISI Coordinator, Oconee C. R. Henson, Technical Support Welding G. L. Blubaugh, QA Technician Welding / Nondestructive Testing F.E.Owens,RegulatoryComplIcnceSpecialist Other Organizations Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), Special Products and Integrated Field Services H. E. Stopplemann, ISI Coordinator, Oconee
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 30, 1987, with those persons indicated in the above paragraph.
The insoectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The following new items were identified during this inspection.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item 50-269, 270, 287/87-06-01, Material Traceability for UT Bolt Calibration Block 40363 paragraph 6.b.(2)(c).
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 50-287/87-06-02, Code Relief for Omitting Hydrostatic Test on Valves 3MS-83 and 3MS-85, paragraph 5.d.(1).
(0 pen) IFI 50-287/87-06-03, Evaluation of Changing Nondestructive Examina-tion Requirements of Class C, B31.7 Pipe Welds, paragraph 5.d.(2).
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
_
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
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.
The unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed inparagraph6.b.(2)(c).
l 5.
Independent Inspection Effort a.
The inspectors conducted a general inspection of Unit 3 containment, auxiliary and turbine buildungs and the " hot" machine shop to observe work progress and activities such as welding, material handling and
,
control, housekeeping and storage, b.
Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) 3B-1 Failure Unit 3 (62701)
As a followup to the inspection documented in Region II Report 50-287/
87-01, the inspector held discussions with the licensee's representa-tive and received a progress report on the repair, inspection and reassembly of RCP 3B-1, which was as follows:
In addition to RCP 3B-1, the licensee dismantled pump RCP 3B-2 for an inspection of the rotating assembly and fasteners.
The licensee stated that this inspection disclosed that in pump RCP-238-2 the majority of the capscrews in the bearing housing and upper to lower bearing housing connection were found broken. Also, the
!
inspector ascertained that a similar inspection conducted during the last scheduled Unit 3 outage on pumps RCP 3A-2 and RCP 3B-2 showed that most of the capscrews in the bearing housing assemblies were broken.
Presently, the licensee contracted the services of B&W, Lynchburg, Virginia to perform a material and failure analysis to determine the failure mechanism of these capscrews.
Also, the licensee stated that they have retained the services of MPR Associates to analyze the operating loads / stresses on the suction adapter and wear ring to determine the possible root cause of the failures.
In addition, all fasteners in these pumps which have shown a propensity for failure have been replaced with higher strength SA-453 Gr 660 Class B material and redesigned.
The upgraded capscrews have rolled instead of machined threads, which cover approximately 2/3 the length of the screw.
The remaining shank portion is somewhat larger in diameter for added strength.
Also, the number of bolts /capscrews holding the bearing housing to the stuffing box have been increased from 16 to 24.
The
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
--
-- --. - - -. - -
-
_ - - -
- - - - - -. - - - _
- - - - - - - - - - _ - -
_ - - _ _,
~
,
.
'
inspector observed the pretorcuing of the capscrews on the wear ring of RCP 38-2 as outlined in maintenance arecedure HP-2&3-A1310-46.
A review of quality records for the upgraced capscrews showed them to be complete and accurate.
At the inspector's request, the licensee agreed to )rovide a copy of B&W's report on the failure analysis of the sub;ect capscrews when it becomes available.
c.
Turbine Rotor "A" Ultrasonic Examination Unit 3 (62701)
The insaectors discussed the ultrasonic examination of turbine rotor
"A" with the licensee's accountable engineer to ascertain results of this examination.
The licensee's representative stated that as in the~
past GE performed the examination and preliminary results showed no significant indications.
The magnetic particle examination of the rotor and the ultrasonic examination of the dovetail pins produced similar results.
The licensee's representative indicated that GE's written report was expected in two to three months at which time the inspector will review it on a routine basis.
d.
Welding Repairs and Modifications Unit 3 (55050)
(1) Main Steam to Emergency Feedwater Pump At the time of this inspection, the licensee was in the process of welding back into subject system one of two valves which had been removed for maintenance purposes.
Thesubjectvalveswere3MS-83 and 3MS-85, in pipe system 01A-4, or main steam.
The controlling codes were USAS B31.1, Power Piping and ASME Section X: Class C.
Work was being controlled through maintenance procedure MP/0/A/
1810/14 " Valve and/or Pump-Weld - Removal and Replacement.
Rewelding of 3MS-83 was underway, and the inspector observed weld fitup, welding of the root and subsequent hot pass on welds 2A and 3A.
In addition, the inspectors reviewed the applicable field weld data sheet and fabrication control records, welder qualifica-tion and certification of filler metal used in the process.
Within these areas, the inspectors noted that because this line could not be isolated from the main steam line for the code required hydrostatic test, the licensee will radiograph the welds on either side of both valves and check for leakage at system temperature and pressure.
Also, because the hydrostatic test is a code requirement which cannot be met at this time, the licensee will seek relief from the Commission.
Therefore, the inspector stated that an ins)ector followup item (Ifl) will be identified until such time, w1en the relief is granted.
IFI 50-287/87-01-2, Code Relief for Omitting Hydrostatic Test on Valves 3MS-83 and 3MS-8 T'
,
'
'
p
,
v
, '.
,
,
..
>r
-
-
.,
...
'"?
,
(2) Safety-Related Systems Modifictaions involving welding inside the containment building included the Spent Fuel Drain and Fill system, Spent Fuel Cooling system and Decay Heat system.
Welding on these modifications was
'
.
approaching completion at the time of this inspection.
Work was
~
performed under nuclear safety modification NSM-1890 and work
,
requests 99356B and 99357B.
The applicable code for welding and nondestructive testing was USAS B31.7.
The inspectors observed completed and in process welds for compliance with applicable code
.
requirements including appearance and workmanship.
Welds where this work effort was expended are listed below:
.
Weld ISO / Drawing System Descriptin 66~and 56-14 Rev. 22 Spent Fuel 10" $ x.165 Class "C" 67-Drain / Fill
,.
.
26Z 53B-44 Rev. 14 Decay Heat Pad reinforcement on
.
10"4 schedule 40 pipe-outside weld
',
26ZA 538 - 44 Rev. 14 Decay Heat Seam weld on above pad; full penetration
'
26ZB 538 - 44 Rev 14 Decay Heat Inside weld around half couplant in above pipe
.
3-SF-79 Spent Fuel 4"4 x.240 pipe to valve Pool Cooling
"
A review of quality records included qualification of welders and
> quality control welding inspectors, filler metal, and welded components.
Within these areas, the inspector noted that a Variation Notice, VN-0587, had been issued to document a switch from B31.7 to ASME Section III nondestructive examination (NDE)
requirements on these welds.
The licensee's representative stated that the construction code's B31.7, Nuclear Power Piping, NDE requirement for Class C pipe welds is random radiography, where-as for the same welds, ASME Section III requires 100% surface examination.
The, variation notice was to be submitted to desian engineering for an evaluation of the requirements between the two codes and a s
position on the adoption of this change on a permanent basis at Ocorce.
The inspectors discussed the merits of this approach with the iicensee's representative and agreed to allow the examination
'
of these welds to proceed as planned with the understanding that a
s yJ
---
- -,
w
~ ~,
.n-
-
..-
-
. -
-,
.-
,.
JR x
.
.,
-
4;; L ~
"
.,
'
. review of the' engineering evaluation would have to be made by the
~
K s
. inspectors /NRC before making a final decision on this matter. : An
,
inspector. followup item was identified for tracking purposes, IFI 150-287/87406-03, Evaluation of Changing Nondestructive' Examination Requirements of Class;C, 831.7 Pipe Welds.
g N~n (3) Main Feedwater Pump' Shaft Failure While performing maintenance work on the main feedwater pumps, the licensee discovered; that the shaft in pump 3B had broken at the
,
split ring grove.. Also, the pressure ring in' both pumps was broken.
The. pumps are DeLaval single stage model 1BSXI-516.
Discussion with the licensee's accountable engineer disclosed that in.regards to the shafts, conversations with DeLaval's Engineering
-
. personnel,. disclosed that : similar failur'es had been observed on fossil unit pumps ~ during the early:1970s.. At-that time, an
' investigation by DeLaval determined that the failures were caused by the inability of the three-shoe, Kingsbury Thrust Bearing.
,
to dampen the cyclic loading ' of the shaft's thrust collar.
Apparently the load was transmitted to the split ring and the shaft
'
groove which eventually failed' because of fatigue.
In 1976, DeLaval' recommended that all. pump users replace the three-shoe-thrust.. bearing with a six-shoe design.. Reportedly, this shoe absorbs cyclic loading better than the. original ' bearing, and
'
therefore corrected the problem.
Also,.the licensee stated that
'
-
evidence of cavitation damage was observed on the impellers of-both. pumps. New internals were'being installed in both pumps.
-Within these areas, no violations or deviations were identified.
-
6..
InserviceInspection(ISI)
r The ISI inspection activities being conducted during this outage were being-(B&W)plished by Duke Power Company (DPC) and their agent, Babc
,
accom in _ Unit 3.
B&W was performing all ultrasonic examinations and the l
eddy current examination of tubing in once through steam generators (OTSGs)
.
p A and B.
DPC was performing all magnetic particle, liquid penetrant,
'
and ' radiography ' examinations.. Both B&W and DPC were conducting visual
examinations.
- a.
-Procedure Review, Units 1, 2, 3 (73052)
L L
The inspectors reviewed the ISI procedures indicated below to determine whether the procedures were consistent with regulatory requirements and i'
licensee commitments. Based on the licensee's Technical Specification, l
the applicable code for ISI is the ASME Code,Section XI, 1980 Edition,
Winter 1980 Addenda.
l
!
L v
.
L-
Ih L~
-
-
s
,
-.
_
6_
'(1)? The following procedures were -_ reviewed'in the areas of procedure approval, requirements for; qualification of NDE personnel, and compilation ~of required records.
BABC0CK AND WILC0X-PROCEDURES-Procedure No.
Title
. Revision.
ISI-24 Personnel-Qualification-Eddy Current
'8 Examination ISI-120 Ultrasonic Examination of Piping
Welds Joining Similar and_ Dissimilar Materials ISI-130 Ultrasonic Examination of Vessel
Welds and Nozzle'Inside Radius Sections-ISI-418
' Technical Procedure for the Multi-
frequency Eddy Current Examination of OTSG Tubing in 177 Steam Generators using the MIZ-18 ISI-460 Technical Procedure for the Evaluation
of Eddy Current Data of Nuclear Grade Steam Generator Tubing-NDE-B Training, Qualification and Certification
of NDE Personnel NDE-44 Ultrasonic Examination of Bolts,
-Studs, Bushings, and Threads in.
,
Flanges for Preservice and Inservice
'
Inspection NDE-12 General Radiography Procedure for
Preservice and Inservice Inspection NDE-25 Magnetic Particle Inspection
Technique (York Method) for Preservice and Inservice Inspection (1980)
Weighing of the Associated Weights
- ..
- QCB-1 Control of Measuring Equipment and
Calibration and Test Standards i
__
- _ _ - _ __-__ ____ - ______- _ _ ___ _..__-- _
,
.
QCL-5 Control of Preservice and Inservice
Inspection Activities NDE-35 Liquid Penetrant Examination
. Technique (Color Contrast, Solvent Removable Method) for Preservice and Inservice Inspection QCL-13 ISI Visual Examination VT-1
.
QCL-14 ISI Visual Examination VT-3 and VT-4
QCL-15 ISI Visual Examination VT-2
- Procedure NDE-C is in the development stages and will be used, once it is issued, instead of procedures QCB-2 and QCB-1. The new
-
procedure is being developed in order to reduce the number of procedures DPC must contend with and to eliminate errors currently identified in the existing procedures.
(2) In addition to the review above, B&W UT Procedures ISI-120 and ISI-130 were reviewed in the area of technical content relative to:
type of_ apparatus, extent of coverage including beam angles and scanning techniques, calibration requirements, search units, DAC curves, transfer requirements', reference level for monitoring discontinuities, method of demonstrating' penetration, levels for evaluating and recording indications, and acceptance standards.
(3) DPC MT procedure NDE-25 was reviewed for technical content relative to:
examination method, use of color contrast particles, surface preparation, surface temperature, particle suspension, viewing conditions, examination directions and overlap, prod spacing, prod magnetizing current, and acceptance criteria.
(4) DPC PT procedure NDE-35 was reviewed for technical content relative to:
method consistent with ASME code, specification of brand names of penetrant materials, specification of limits for sulfur and total halogens for materials, pre-examinatior, surface preparation, minimum drying time following surface cleaning, penetrant application and penetration time, temperature require-ments, solvent removal, method of surface drying, type of developer and method of application, examination technique, technique for evaluation, acceptance standards, and requalifica-tion requirements.
(5) B&W Eddy Current Procedure ISI-418 was reviewed for technical content relative to:
multichannel examination unit, multichannel examination indication equipment is specified, maximum examination sensitivity, material permeability, method of examination, method of calibration and calibration sequence, and acceptance criteria.
_ _ _ _ -.
..
,
?f,.,
?
x
,
.
.,
,
. ~
w
-
-
,
'
.~
(6)' The inspectors reviewed the visual examination' procedures'QCL-13, 14 and 15 to-determine whether they contained sufficient instruc-
- .tions to assure that' the following parameters were specified and
.
controlled-within the limits permitted by the applicable code,
,
standard,1 or any additional specification requirement;. method;-
- directtvisual,- remote visual or translucent visual; application -
hydrostatic -testing,' fabrication procedure,, visual'. examination t
of welds, leak -testing, etc. ; how visual; examination:is to be -
t performed, type of surface condition'available; method or; tool:for:
'
surface; preparation, if.any, whether ~ direct or remote viewing is used; special illumination, instruments,' or equipment to be used, if any; sequence of performing. examination, when applicable; datal to be tabulated, 'if any; acceptance criteria is specified and consistent with the applicable code' section or controlling
<
-
specification; and report form completion.
.(7) The - inspectors also reviewed the DPC_ radiographic L procedure NDE-12, which was compared with the applicable Code._ in the :
following areasi -the type'of material to be radiographed has been identified and confirmed; the material and weld surface condition
,
requirements meet the limits; the material thickness-is within the
'
specified range; type of radiation source, effective focal spot -
or effective source size, x-ray equipment, voltage' rating, and equipment manufacturer; film brand, type,' shelf-life and number of
-
films. in cassette are _ identified and verified;' minimum source to
'
film distance; blocking or_ masking technique, if used; type and thickness of intensifying screens and filters; exposure conditions for' procedure' qualifications; radiographic film processing requirements; quality of radiographs - ~ limits on mechanical, chemical, or other blemishes, such as fogging, process marks, scratches,1 finger marks, loss-of detail, or false indications; film density and sufficient contrast for single and composite viewing; use of densitomers-for assuring compliance with film
'
density requirements; system of radiograph identification; use
-
of location markers; methods of reducing and testing for back-scatter; selection and use of penetrameters including:
penetra-
'
meter placement including special requirements for single and double wall viewing; number of-penetrameters; shims under
-
'
penetrameters; radiographic technique for double wall viewing; and
?..
evaluation and disposition of radiographs.
I b.
Observation of Work and Work Activities Unit 3 (73753)
L
+
~
(1) Examiner Qualification
The inspectors reviewed the qualification documentation for the
below. listed examiners in the following areas:
employer's name; person certified; activity qualified to perform; effective period i
of certification; signature of employer's designated representa-tives; basis used for certification; and annual visual acuity, color vision examination and periodic recertification.
'
1
,E
.v+,o
+. %.w e
~.,__r.o..w,.,,,,.,
vm-~__~_....-,m,_m m m,
,,,_~r
_,m,.;-.m.-m.,..-.,_m,,
.,....--,.m..,
_ -,,
.
<
Method - Level VI Company Examiner VT PT MT EC 1 - 2
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
JWR II II
-
-
-
-
-
-
RPB II II
-
-
-
-
-
-
JMD
-
-
II
-
-
-
-
-
HAD II
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
CHM
-
-
II
-
-
-
-
-
DLR II
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
JWS-II
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GJM
-
--
II
-
-
-
-
-
GGB
-
-
II
-
-
-
-
-
B&W CRM II II II II II
-
-
-
'HWS II
-
-
-
II II II II JCW II
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
JLS
-
-
-
II
-
-
-
-
LDK
-
-
-
II
-
-
-
-
MSL III
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WAB
-
-
-
II
-
-
-
-
TMH
-
-
-
II
-
-
-
-
(2) Ultrasonic (UT) Examination (a) The inspectors observed the ultrasonic examinations indicated below.
The observations were compared with the applicable procedures and the Code in the following areas:
availability of and compliance with approved Nondestructive Examination (NDE) procedure; use of knowledgeable NDE personnel; use of NDE personnel qualified to the proper level; type of apparatus used; extent of coverage of weldment; calibration requirements; search units; beam angles; DAC curves; reference level for monitoring discontinuities; method of demonstrating penetration; limits of evaluating and recording indications; recording significant indications and; accept-ance limits.
Item No.
Description I.D.
802.031.001 SG A Lower Head 3SGA-WG17-2 to transition piece C01.010.001 SG-A Circ. weld 3SGA-WG8-1 802.040.002 SG-A Lower Head to 3SGA-WG58-2 tubesheet
-
.
. - -
_.
,
--
- _.
_
_
_
n
- --
~.,
-
~..- -
--..
, _.. ~
-
.
.
.
.
-.
e
,
,
..
,
.
- t
,
x
.
,
.
-
-
_
l
-
Item No.
Description I.D.
'
<
Reactor Coolant Bolts 12, 11, 100, 7, g'
_
_
Pump 3Al 18, 144, 153,
"
78, 104,'139,-
o
.
146, 3, 97,
-
-
-121, 136,.58,
-
'
,;
9, 19,~2'
'
- (b) The following listed ultrasonic equipment 'and materials certification records were reviewed:
-
..
o Ultrasonic-Instruments Manufacturer /Model Serial No.
'
K/B - USK-6.
4188
'
-K/B - USK-7 3779-3
,
-
- Ultrasonic trans'ducer - serial-no. 412165
{
.
Ultrasonic Calibration Block - I.D. No. 40363 Ultrasonic Couplant-Ultragel Batch No. 8447
,
.
. (c) While reviewing the material certification record for ultrasonic calibration block' 40363 which was used to examine
- the reactor coolant pump bolts listed above, the inspectors were unable ' to substantiate, from 'the documentation presented, that the block was ASTM ' A-540 Gr. B-24 material as indicated on the block.
The inspectors discussed this
.
. problem with'the licensee's representative who agreed to have
!
the chemical composition of the UT block verified in order F
to substantiate - that the : block was the correct material.
'
Pending the ' outcome of - the chemical ' analysis test and subsequent review of the documentation by the~ NRC, this item j
'
will be identified as Unresolved item '50-269, 270, 287/87-06-01, Material Traceability for UT Calibration Block 40363.
.
it (3) Liquid Penetrant (PT) Examination The inspectors observed the liquid penetrant examination indicated o
compared with the applicable below.
'The observation was
!
. procedures and the Code in the following area:
specified method, l
penetrant materials identified; penetrant materials analyzed for
- ' '. -
halogens and sulfur; acceptable pre-examination surface; drying
,
L time; method of penetrant application; penetration time; surface
'
temperature; solvent removal; dry surface prior to developing;
.
type of developer; examination technique; evaluation technique; E
and reporting of examination results.
- .
i'
v
=
4m,.~-.--,
,.,e mm..
~m-.. -.. -
,----,..,,,.,~...,#,.m,..,.,-
-r,--._r-.,.-,,,.,,y-r.-,.,,.-,n-._
.----.m--,,*
.,-,%,_,,,,-,...-
.
______
_ _ ________ _ _
___
_ - _
_
- --
--
.
,
'
.
.
'
P Item No.
Description Weld'No.
B05.050.0038-RCP-3A2, Suction-3P1A2-7-The ~ inspectors reviewed the below listed liquid ~ penetrant materials certification records to ascertain if the. sulfur and -
-
halogen content of the material was within acceptable content limits.
Materials
~ Batch Number
84H015-Cleaner / Remover 85M056 Developer
~85K080, 85H029-(4). Magnetic Particle-(MT) Examination The inspectors observed the magnetic particle examinations indicated below.
The-observations were compared with the applicable : procedures and the Code in the following areas:
examination methods; contrast -of' dry powder particle ~ color with background;' surface temperature; viewing conditions; examination overlap and directions; pole' or prod spacing; current or lifting power (yoke); and acceptance criteria.
Item No.
Description Weld No.
B08.010.001 R. V. Head Lifting Lug 3RPV-HD-Lug-A B08.010.003 R. V. Head Lifting Lug 3RPV-HO-Lug-C C05.021.364A 24" Pipe Weld 3-01A-27-01 The inspectors reviewed documentation indicating that a lift test had been performed on yokes with serial nos. OCQA-183, OCQA-43, OCQA-88, using a ten pound steel plate, serial no. OCQA-10, with the yoke being operated'in the AC mode.
Certification records
.for the lift test plate were reviewed to confirm the plate weight.
The lift-tests were performed satisfactorily.
The inspectors also reviewed material certification records for Batch No. 86D052 magnetic particles.
(5) Eddy Current (EC) Examination of Steam Generator (SG) Tubes, Unit 3 ISI activities during this outage included the eddy current examination of tubes in
"A"
& "B" SGs.
Data acquisition and analysis were being performed by B&W.
The approved B&W procedure ISI-418 and related references are the governing documents.
,,,
...
.
.
~
.
(a) _ Examination was being performed with a multi-frequency technique and utilized the computerized MIZ-18 EC Examination System to analyze-tube integrity.
Discussions with the licensee disclosed that as of January 28, 1987, there had been 13,553 tubes in SG-A probed with 30 tubes being required to be plugged.
In SG-B, 11,638 tubes had been probed with 16 being required to be plugged.
(b) - During the observation of the examination activities, the inspectors observed, by remote T.V. camera, the probing of the tubes listed below and an EC System calibration check for-SG-A.
Row Tube No.
119
118
117
115
116
114
111
110
109
108
107
106
105-
99
(c) Certification records for EC calibration standards 49154 and 49155 were reviewed for material type, correct fabrication, and artificial flaw location / size.
(d) The inspectors observed the evaluation of the EC examination data for the SG-B tubes listed below.
The observations were accomplished to verify:
use of approved procedure and equipment; use of knowledgeable examination personnel with proper qualifications; proper recording of examination data; proper examination frequencies; calibration standard adequacy; and performance of calibration at proper intervals.
R0W TUBE
38
50
37
57
63
41
..
.
..
- - - - - - - - - - -
..
,
c.
Inservice Inspection, Data Review and Evaluation, Unit 3 (73755).
(1) Records of completed nondestructive examinations were selected and reviewed to ascertain whether:
the. method (s), technique and-extent of the examination complied with the ISI plan and applicable NDE procedures; findings were properly recorded and evaluated by qualified personnel; programmatic deviations were recorded as required; personnel, instruments, calibration blocks and NDE materials (penetrants, couplants) were designated and qualifications / certifications were on file.
Records selected for this review are listed below.
Item No.
Weld I.D.
NDE Method-C05.021.364A 3-01A-27-01 MT B09.011.015A 3-PIA 2-1 MT B09.011.152A 3-53A-15.1-35 PT
.809.011.153A 3-53A-15.1-34 PT B09.011.154A 3-53A-15.1-33 PT B09.031.002A 3-PHB-16 MT C09.010.007 3-SGA-WG84-WX MT C03.040.091 3-SGA-WG87-WX MT C05.011.001 3-53B-33-63A PT I
C05.011.025 3-53B-35-27A PT i
C05.011.301 3-03A-15-19A MT l
C05.021.312A 3-03-27-18 MT C05.021.377A 3-01A-24-06 MT i
B09.011.015 3-PIA 2-1 UT-0 45",60
B09.011.152 3-53A-15.1-35*
UT-45 B09.011.153 3-53A-15.1-34*
UT-45
.
B09.011.154 3-53A-15.1-33*
UT-45 B08.010.001 3-RPV-HD-LUG-A MT B08.010.003 3-RPV-HD-LUG-C MT B02.040.002 3-SGA-WG58-2 UT-0,15L B02.031.001 3-SGA-WG17-2 UT-0, 45, 60 B05.050.003B 3 PIA 2-7 PT
- Reportable indications were found during these examinations.
Evaluation and disposition of the indications was not completed by the end of this NRC inspection.
(2) The inspectors selected for review, at random, EC examination data results from SG-B tubing which had been analyzed as having experienced wall degradation.
This review was conducted in order to assess the severity of the tubing degradation and to determine where the majority of the degradation was occurring along the tube length.
The tubes selected for review are listed below:
i
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.'
FLAW FLAW R0W TUBE DEPTH LOCATION 4-
25%
.9th TBP-
87 53%
13th TSP
88 38%
13th TSP
4 35%
10th TSP
128 69%
lith TSP + 11.1"
6 34%
15th TSP
126 37%
14th TSP +.1" 120
42%
14th TSP 123-
70%
14th TSP 140
50%
3rd TSP TSP - Tube support plate.
The below listed radiographic film was reviewed' to determine (3)
if radiographic quality was in accordance with the applicable procedure and Code requirements, and to specifically verify the following:
penetrameter type, size, and placement; penetrameter sensitivity; film density and density variation; film identifica-tion; film quality; and weld coverage.
Item No.
Iso No.
Size Comments C05.021.312 3-03-27-18 24" x 1.218" No rejectable indications (NRI)
Augmented ISI to E04-001-001A 3PDA1-47
-
monitor HPI thermal E04-001-002A 3PDA2-47
-
sleeve position which was satisfactory The inspectors reviewed the examination records for the above listed welds to determine compliance with procedure requirements for examination records and to determine if disposition of the welds radiographed was in compliance with applicable Code and specification requirements.
(4) Hanger Inspections - Record Review and Evaluation.
Hanger inspections are performed as part of the licensee's ISI inspection program and in accordance with approved procedure QCL-14 Rev. 6 written to comply with ASME Section XI requirements.
Out of a total of 209 hangers scheduled for inspection during this outage 169 had been inspected. Of these, 88 hangers had been found
.. _..
_ _.
m
_., _
_
,,, _,,,,,_.
,....,,,. _ _ -. _. _, ~ _
_._,_.,,...,,_c
., _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
,.4,_,
.. _,_,,.,. - _ _ _ _ _ _._-
-
g
-
,
-
..
'15
,
to -be ' satisfactory,16 ~ were under review, and 65 'were found to
,contain discrepancies that required disposition.
Hangers where as built conditions -do not match hanger sketch requirements e.'g.
>
<
insufficient welds, missing welds, welds in wrong location,.etc.
are identified and sent to Design Engineering for evaluation. ~ In -
these situations Design Engineering completes their evaluation and'
corrective action is taken prior-to plant startup.
Hanger sketch revision is performed as required in a timely manner. -In an effort to check this program, the inspectors selected at random hangers requiring hanger sketch revisions for.. review.
These.were
~
as follows:
Operable Hanger ISI/ Item
. Response Unit 2-01A-0-1401B-H5 Rev. 1 F1.02.005 9/23/86
2-01A-0-1441-H1 F1.02.001 9/30/86
2-01A-0-1441-H1
'F1.02.011 9/30/86
2-01A-0-1441-H2.
F1.02.002 9/23/86
i 3-03A-1-0-2437A-SR140 Rev. O D.02.020.029 3.
-
'No discrepancies'were noted.
(5) The inspectors compared selected previous examination results with
.the current'ISI examination results.
No major discrepancies were noted.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
,