IR 05000270/1973008
| ML19317D324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1973 |
| From: | Jape F, Kelley W, Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317D322 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-270-73-08, 50-270-73-8, NUDOCS 7911270552 | |
| Download: ML19317D324 (5) | |
Text
- $ ' *%
UNITED STATES
- [
k ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION d!.
4 o ':
-
i DIRECTORATE OF REGUIATCRY OPEP/irICNS i
.J
=coion n - suir e ats
- 1,, tr4rn'\\ / ',/
230 peacwr a ee sr =eer. car.es-s I
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
o*
Artaura,cconcia aa m s
!
\\
d
!
i i
i RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-8
Licensee:
Duke Power Company Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201
,
!
t Facility:
Oconee Unit 2
Docket No.:
50-270 License No.:
CPPR-34 Category:
A3/B1 Iocation: Seneca, South Carolina i
!
Type of License: B&W, PWR, 2568 Mw(c)
i x
i Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced j
.
Dates of Inspection: June 20-22, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection: June 10-17 and 19-Z1,.1977
.
Inspector In Charge:
W. D. Kelley Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startug Mr ek Accompanying Inspectors:
None Other Accompanying Personnel: None
'
~
7'E 5'~23 Principal Inspector:
Aizu
'
F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch
//3 s y
Reviewed By: [#4
- /-
r C. E. Murphy,. Chief /~
/ Date Facilities Test and Startup Brinch s
-
(
__
._
-
-
i i
l RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-8-2-
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS i
]
I.
Enforcement Actio.n A.
Violations None
.
B.
Safety Items None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A.
Violations 1.
Welding Program Deficiencies (RO:II letter to DPC, dated March 8,1972, Item 5)
The review of the welding deficiencies and docentaticu continues.
This item remains open.
(DetM is, paragrapli 2)
B.
Safety Items
-
There were no identified safety items.
III. New Unresolved Items 73-8/l Body Wall Thickness of Valves 2-51-244 and 2-51-245 Justification for body wall thickness of valves 2-5I.-244 and 2-51-245 being less than that persitted by EO Ietter,.
dated June 30, 1972, paragraph 3, re=ains to be, resolved.
(Details, paragraph 3)
73-8/2 Valve Wall Thickness of Valve 2-RV-67
'
Calculation of valve wall thickness of valve 2-RV-67 in accordance with the applicable codes reme fna to be j
resolved.
(Details, paragraph 3)
i
'
.
pi i
_ _
_
_
_ - _ _ _ _
-__. _
._ - ___
. _.
~. _ -. - -
_... _ _. _
-.... _ _._
.
.
.
-
!
'RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-8-3-
!
-
f
.
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items 73-1/1 Core Flooding System Testing Reauirement The results of TP 201/7, " Core Flooding System Flow ';4st,"
remains to be analyzed by the licensee and reviewed by the inspector. This item re=ains open.
73-6/1 Test Secuence for the Reactor Building Structural Integrity Test and the Integrated Leak Rate Test An acceptable test sequence has been used by the licensee when conducting the subject tests. This item will be inspected following completion of the tests.
V.
Design Changes None VI.
Unusual Occurrences None
.
VII. Other Significant Findings None VIII. Management Interview A management interview was held en Juna ZZ, 1973, attended by the following personnel:
Duke Power Company (DPC)
,
J. T. Moore - Special Assistant to the P cject Manager
.
D. L. Freez- - Principal Field Engineer L. R. Barns - Quality Assurance Engineer A.
DPC was informed that their corrective action relating to the welding program deficiencies had been reviewed and the RO inspector had no com=ent.
(Decatis, paragraph 2)
B.
DPC was informed that their =easurettents of the thin vall valves and their report " Reactor Coolant System Pressure Boundary s
l
.
_. -..
. -
--
--.... - -
_
-
.-
.---
..-
-
- -. - - -.
t
.-
.,
i
' B0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-8
-.4.-
/~}
Valve - Minimum 11 Thickness,." Appendix "A," had been reviewed and discussed with their mechanical engineer.
DPC I
will review their engineering evaluation and will take any necessary action to assure that the valves will meet their
,
purchase specificatictt as required _ by RO letters of June 30, 1972, and February 15, 1973.
(Dar=41 e, paragraph 3)
,
'
d
,
l l
m W
e
$
s
,
l
-
-
-
--
-
-.- _. - -... -.
_
w
,
e.
>, -
- -,, -
i
.
.
,
g RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-8-1-J DETAILS Prepared by:
_
t4 71 ff
-
W D.. Kelley, Reacto (Inspector ' Dat6 Enginaaring Section
<
E=M14H as Construction Branch Dates of Inspectiert: June 20-22, 1973 Baviewed by:
f -th d
SIM C:. Bryaht," Senior Inspector Date
'
gineering Section F=MTi H es: Construction Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted a.
Duke Power Cocoany (DPC)
A. R. Hollins - Associate Field Engineer - Welding L. R. Davison - Associate Field Engineer - NDT D. G. Beam - Project Macager
- T. F. Wyke - Principal Mechanical Desigzr. Engineer b.
DPC Consultant
,)
- H. Thielsch - Professional Engineer
- By telephone conference only.
2.
Welding Program Deficiencies Welding program deficiencies at the Oconee site are listed in the letter of March 8,197~, from Region IL to DPC. The action taken by DPC to resolve these deficiencies on Oconee Unit 1 are described in R0 Report No 50.-269/73-1.
On the current inspection, the inspector examined the DPC weld review program in progress at Oconee Unit 2. He also examined
,
welding procedures, welding procedure qttal 4 fir ntions 4.nd docu=enta-tion of welding. The program was found. ta be; essentially the same as that of Unit 1.
The current status of the program is as giverr belcw.
If the program is carried out as planned, the inspector anticipates that the deficiencies will be resolved af ter review of the consultant's final report.
a.
Radiographic Inspecticn All radiographs have been reevaluated by independent TAvel II and
. ".
Level III exa iners and all reradiography has been completed but has not been accepted by the consultant.
l
_
,
_
-.. _ -
_
--
--
N
&
g_
.
.
.
I RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-8-2-b.
Weld Data Records The consultant required DPC to review and correct all errors or illegible infor=ation on the weld data cards.
This required the review of other documentation where the identical infor=ation was recorded.
All errors have been corrected but the consultant has not perfor=ed his audie.
c.
Documentation - Weld Material
,
The weld material documentation has been broken into the.
following four categories :
(1) List of weld material heat numbers for which acmni material certifications are available.
(2) List of weld material heat numbers for which typical material certifications are available.
(3) List of weld material heat nu=bers contain obvious transposition of mill heat numbers or =isprints of
numerals or letters. An explanation will be given
_/
for each error and the correct heat number listed.
(4) List of weld material heat nu=bers for which no dnen is available nor an explanation of the deficiency.
The above will be the subject of a separate report by-the consultant.
d.
Welding Procedure Qualifications The consultant reviewed all welding precedures with. their revisions and tabulated his findings.
The review incTudad.
the welding procedure qualification test coupons. If the test coupons did not r.eet the dimensions of ASME Code,.
,
~
'
Section IX, the procedures were requalified. One new procedure
!
had to be written for the welding of carbon steel pipe with E 309 stainless steel welding wire. The consultant reported that all welding procedures are now qualified in accordance
,
with ASME Code,Section IX; however, the new procedure :::ust be approved by DPC engineering.
e.. Weldor Qualification Tests The weldor qualification test coupons were reviewed by-the consultant and those weldors onsite whose test coupons did not conform to the dirensions specified by ASME Code,Section IX were requalified.
The weldor qualification test coupons of weldors who are not presently e= ployed by DPC were reviewed.
(
,
.#
.
.. mem
.. -,. -
..
.
.
w
-.,
,.%.-_
._
__ - -_______
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
i
.
.
j (~j RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-8-3-
'
.
by the consultant.
He evaluated then as being acceptable for qualification even though they did not meet the ASME Code,Section IX di=ensions.
,
A computer printout is used to inform the welding supervisor of the status of weldor qualificaticus. The welding supervisor is informed 30 days before the expiration of a weldor's qualifications so that the weldor may oe assigned welding requiring the specific process in order to keep his qualifications current.
The inspector took no exception to the consultant's evaluation of the veldor qualification test coupons.
f.
Inspection Procedures and Personnel The DPC nondestructive testing procedures were reviewed by the consultant and he required that they be qualified by a demonstration test.
He reviewed the qualifications of the nondestructive test personnel and his evaluatica is that they were qualified to perform the tests.
The inspector took no exception to the consultant's evaluation.
g.
Final Systems Audit The consultant has not performed his final systems audit.
He has insisted that all systems piping be inspected and all isometric erection drawings be revised to the "as built" status by DPC before he perfor=s his audit. All isometric drawings are being revised and the isometric revision sheets must be approved by DPC's mechanical engineer, associate field engineer-welding, and associate field engineer-NDT.
The consultant will select for audit, from the field' veld joint checkoff list, buttwelds that were not reradiographed in the radiograph inspection program.
At least one buttweld per isometric'
drawing will be selected for audit.
After the weld is selected by the consultant for audit, all infor=ation stenciled on the pipe will be recorded, photographs will be taken of the weld, and the weld width and ferrite content will be measured and recorded. The stenciled information to be recprded is the weldor identification symbol and the pipe and/or fitting heat number.
The nearest branch weld to the buttweld will also be selected for audit and the above information recorded.
_
The weld data cards will be reviewed by the consultant to determine that the information pertaining to the veldor's symbol, NDT technician identification, weld procedure, weld material heat t
-.
.
-
-.
--
_
-
-
.-
. -. -.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
.~
,
.
..
.
..
.
It0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-8 4-
-
t t
number, and weld repair history is recorded.
The weldor's
,
symbol must agree with the veldor's symbol stenciled on the pipe, t
and the veldor's qualification must have been valid at the tim the I
weld was made.
!
The welding material heat numbers for the buttwelds on the weld.
data cards will be audited by the consultant to determine if they agree with the specifications on the isometric drawings. The radiographs will then be evaluated and audited for fila overlap and *will be compared with the weld photograph.
3.
Thin Wall Valves DPC has completed their program of measuring valve wall thickness and identified those valves i=portant to nuclear safety that were below the minimum wall thickness specified by the standard or code referenced in their purchese order.
The entire valve body wall thickness of these valves was measured-although this is not clearly stated in their report " Reactor Coolant System Pressure Boundary Valves."
i The valve wall thickness measurements were made by technf cians previously qualified as Level I-Ultrasonics per SNT-TC-1A who were given an exercise in thickness measure =ents using spechna
,
made from wrought pipe.
An ultrasonic calibration block was made from a forged valve body of ASTM A-182, F316 =aterial, and its acoustic properties were compared with a calibration block machined from ASTM A-296, T316 bar stock that covered the full range of thickness to be measured.. There was no difference in measurements of the two specimens due to acoustic properties from 0.105 inch through 0.450 inch. A cast stainiess
,
,
steel bar of CF8M material was used as a calibration block for =easuring cast valve body wall thickness. DFC noted that there was a difference
'
in the acoustic properties of the cast material for a given thickness.
and that an error existed between physical valve body wall thickness measurement and the acoustic measurement.
,
The RO letter of February 15, 1973, states that if a measurement error of 2% cannot be met, measured wall thickness must meet the required thickness by an amount at least equal to the maximum =casurement error.
'
DPC has verified that their measurement error is less than 2% and has included the documentation in their report.
The thin areas of the valve body wall thickness were not mapped
~
and available to the design engineer who prepared appendix "A"
,
,
'
s to the report nor were the radiographs of the casting thin wall area evaluated for casting defects that might require an engineering-I avaluation in order to use higher stress values.
!
l l
...
-
_
-
_--
- --
- - - -
- + - -
--
w-
-
y v'
m.-
e-3w
-
w
.
.
-
-
-
-.
__..
1 (
.
,
t i
.
' C; RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-8-5-
.
The wall thickness of valves 2-51-244 and 2-51-245' is less than the 90% of the specified code per=itted by RO letter of June 30, 1972, paragraph 3.
The method of determining the wall thickness of~ valve number 2RV-67 was changed by the vendor from B16.5 to the 1968 Edition of ASME Section III, Nuclear Vessels, Article 1-2, paragraph 1-222(2). This edition of Section III is for nuclear vessels and the paragraph and section referenced are for cylindrical shells.
They do not apply to valve bodies.
It was not until the 1971 Edition of Section III that subarticle NB 3500 was included for the design of Class I valves.
At that time, this section was broadened to include nuclear power plant l
components.
?
This does not meet the requirements of the RO Ietter of June 30, 1972, paragraph 4, which states that the wall thickness must meet the requirements of the codes and standards in, effect on the date of purchase.
Thin wall valves will remain an unresolved item pending resolution of the following:
a.
Justification for body wall thickness of valves 2-51-244 and 2-51-245 being less than that permitted by RO Letter of June 30, 1972, paragraph 3.
b.
Calculation of valve wall thickness of valva No. 2-RV-67 in accordance with the applicable codes.
i
e I
~
&
s
%
k