IR 05000270/1973015
| ML19317D371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1973 |
| From: | Jape F, Murphy C, Whitt K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317D348 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-270-73-15, NUDOCS 7911270583 | |
| Download: ML19317D371 (15) | |
Text
- " o'g UNITED STATES
,
! (, 'e' " 9 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION p
-
l DIRECTORATE OF REGUIATORY CPEFATIONS
-
-
J
<
.\\c necios.i - suit e sia
, sw o*f an ee ac-r aee sr aesv. ~ car u.csv art ~r4,ccoac 303os
,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,
!
RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-15 Licensee: Duke Power Company Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201
.
Facility : Oconce Unit 2 Docket No.: 50-270 License No.: DPR-47 Category: B2 Location: Seneca, South Carolina Type of License: B&W, PUR, 2568 nt(t)
.
{
Type of Inspection: Loutine, Unannounced l
Dates of Inspection: September 13-14, 1973, October 3, 1973 and
'
October 23-2C, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection: October 3-5 and 8-11,1973 Principal Inspector:
F. Jape, Reactor Inspector
'
Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspectors:
K. W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Facilities Test and Startup Branch T. E. Conlon, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch N. Economos, Metallurgical Engineer Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Other Accompanying Personnel-None 4d b
'-/14 _. -
//- A~ 73 Principal Inspector:
ft F. JMpe, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup Branen
,
Reviewed By:
I r-/c
//
7?
C. E. Murphjt, pfiefc/
/ Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch
,y
'
\\
i C
__
_
_ _ -
yel1
_ _
.
.
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-15-2-
-
,
'
,w g
,
.-
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
I I
I.
Enforcement Action
.
A.
Violations
None B.
Safety Items i
None II.
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
!
A.
Violations
t l
Ventilation Imbalance Between Turbine Buildine and Auxiliary Building
-
!
The licensee's response on this item is due November 6,1973.
This item will remain open until the response has been reviewed-g and a followup inspection has been completed.
,
(..
B.
Safety Items
'
None.
III. Neu Unresolved Itens 73-15/1 Lack of Grease in Tendon Sheaths
'
The licansee reported, on October 16, 1973, that during an inspection four horizontal tendon sheaths were found that did not contain protective grease. A construction defi-ciency report on this item is due from the licensee on i
November 16, 1973.
A followup inspection will be made upon receipt of the report.
(Details III, paragraph 2)
-
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Itecs 73-14/1 Control of Radioactive Releases This matter has been reviewed by RO:II radiation specialists and their findings are reported in RO Inspection Report t
w
-
___
-
O
_
_
_
_ _ _
_ _ _
-
=
-m.
.
.
,
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-15-3-
.
f')
i
No. 50-269/73-12, Details III, paragraph 3.
Since Oconee Unit 2 had not achieved initial critical at the time that this item was identified, it was decided that at the present time this matter is of more significance to Oconee 1 than to Oconee 2.
The two units have a common ventiliation system and therefore,resolutiot of this matter will apply to both units.
(Details I, paragraph 3)
73-8/2 Valve Wall Thickness of Valve 2-RV-67
,
The acceptability of 2-RV-67 (also designated 2-RC-66) remains
'
to be resolved.
A weld mock-up is being prepared which will be sectioned and analyzed.
Results will be reported by the licensee.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
73-8/1 Body Wall Thickness of Valves 2-51-244 and 2-51-245 Analysis of wall thickness of valves 2-51-244 and 2-51-245 showed that they were not in agreement with the guidelines of i
RO:II letters to DPC, dated June 30, 1972, and February 16, 1973. The licensee's representative indicated that corrective measures have recently been completed.
The inspector stated that this action would be reviewed during
,s (j a subsequent inspection.
V.
Unusual Occurrences
~
None r
VI.
Other Significant Findings None VII.
Management Interview A management interview was held on October 25, 1973, with D. L. Freeze, C. B. Ayce:k and L. R. Barnes and on October 26, 1973, with J. W. Hamp ton, T. L. Cotton and J. W. Cox.
The following items were discussed with Duke construction at the October 25, 1973, meeting :
A.
Status of 2-RV-67 and 2-51-244 and 2-51-245 The status of corrective measures on these valves was discussed.
l l
-
!
-_
, _.., -...
. ~.. _ _ _
_.,,
, _ _.._
_.. _ _,. _ _. _ ~... _ _
.
...
-
.. --
w
- -.
n_
.-
,
__ w.
2..
..
,-
..
'
l RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-15-4-I
,
s
!
>
,
i The licensee's representative indicated that work is pro-gressing and reports will be submitted to RO:II.
(Details I, paragraph 2)
l
~
B.
Lack of Grease in Tendon Sheaths The inspector stated that he had reviewed DPC's progress on examination of the four tendons discovered without protective grease and that this matter would be carried as an unresolved item pending receipt of the construction deficiency report.
,
j (Details III, paragraph 2)
The following items were discussed with Duke steam production at the October 26, 1973, meeting:
'
A.
Previously Identified Enforcement Matters The status of previously identified enforcement matters, as described in Section II of the Summary of Findings, was discussed.
-
.
B.
Status of Unresolved Items s
The status of previously reported unresolved items, as
,
~.
described in Section IV of the Summary of Findings, was discussed.
(Details I, paragraph 3)
C.
Review of Shif t Supervisor's Log The inspector stated that he had reviewed the shift supervisor's log ft.r the period of October 7,1973, through October 25, 1973.
No problems or deficiencies were identified.
(Details II, paragraph 2)
D.
Zero Power Physics Testing The controlling procedure for zero power physics testing was reviewed by the inspector.
Comments were discussed and resolved with the licensee's representatives.
(Details II, paragraph 3)
E.
Baseline Inspection The status of RO:II's review of the Oconee 2 Baseline Inspection report was discussed.
The inspection indicated that all coccents and questions have been resolved.
(Details IV, paragraph 2)
-
-. -
..
- .,.-.
m..... -, _
.. -
w_-
..
~
!.
-
'
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-15 I-l
-
,
DETAILS I Prepared by:
O F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch
'
Dates of Inspection: Octobey 23-26, 1973 Feviewed by:.
//
rc/-
// /7 $
l C. E. Murphp, Chief 7
/ fate I
Facilities Test and Startup
'
Branch I,
1.
Individuals Contacted
Duke Power Company (DPC)
D. G. Beam - Project Manager J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent -
J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant Superintendent L. E. Schmid - Operating Engineer C. L. Thames - Health Physics Supervisor p
J. W. L;x - Assistant Plant Engineer y
L. R. Davison - Field Engineer D. L. Freeze - Principal Field Engineer
,
2.
Electromatic Relief Valve (2-RC-66)
i
'
The use of 2-RC-66 (also labeled 2-RV-67) was discussed with the licensee's representative.
It is RO's understanding that the relief valve isolation valve, 2-RC-4, will be closed until such time that questions regarding 2-RC-66 are resolved, except that 2-RC-4 may be opened for periods of transient operation.
,
Work is progressing on acceptability of 2-RC-66.
The licensee's
representative indicates that a weld mock-up with known defects l
would be prepared for analysis.
Results of this study will be i
reported and RO:II will have an opportunity to review the report.
I 3.
.
Control of Radioactiva Releases, UN-73-14/1
'
The previously identified unresolved item regarding the potential
'
j for unmonitored releases of radioactive materials from the auxiliary building was reviewed by RO:II radiation specialists.
The findings i
of this review are reported in RO Inspection Report No. 50-2'9/73-12, esi
... - - - -. - -
_.. - -. -
~:---.n-
- - ~.. -.. - - _
.-
_,---.g
__
.
.
r
.
,
RO,Rpt. Ns. 50-270/73-15 I-2
,
,
.
i O
j Details III, paragraph 3.
Survey records were reviewed and it was concluded that unmonitored releases of particulate and gaseous waste from the auxiliary building have remained below h'PC.
,
-
This previously identified unresolved item is considered resolved.
-
.
!
l l
!
l
'
.
I m.
As e
k i
!
'
l h
v
~..
-~
_-
.-
O'
I
.
.
.
R0 Report No. 50-270/73-15
-
)
/h/ /!71 l
DETAILS II Prepared by:
),
/ J
l KI.'W. Whitt, Reactor Inspector Ddte Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection:
Octobe 23-26, 1973 Reviewed by:
/
fu%(
//
y C. E. Murphy,l-Chi'ef
'Date Facilities Test'and tartup Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC)
J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent J. W. Hampton - Assitant Plant Superintendent R. C. Collins - Performance Engineer W. A. Brown - Chemist
-
C. L. Thames - Health Physics Supervisor 2.
Shift Supervisor's Log
/
The shift supervisor's log was reviewed for the period of October 7,1973,
'#
'
through October 25, 1973, which covered fuel loading. It was noted that fuel loading was completed on the 0000-0800 shift, October 13, 1973,
'
and the correctness of core component locations was verified on the 0800-1606 shift of the same day.
The inspector had no questions concerning the maintenance of the log.
3.
Zero Power Physics Testing The zero power physics test procedure (TP/2/A/710/1) was reviewed and the following comments were discussed with licensee personnel:
a.
Inspector Com=ent:
It does not appear that this procedure requires the plant effluent radiation monitors to be calibrated against known effluent concentrations.
This is a requirement of the AEC " Guide for Planning of Initial Startup Programs" dated December 7,1970.
-
(L
%s L
,
l
,W'*W.
' " " ~
y _
,.w-o' re-4*
-
-
,
-
-, -
.
l.
l
'RO Ept. No. 50-270/73-15-2-i r
=
)
!
Li ensee Response: The effluent monitors were factory l
ca'tierated and they are source checked on a monthly basis.
Samples of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents are also analyzed. This analysis can be compared with the effluent radiation monitor readings.
The effluent radiation t
monitors are common for both Units 1 and 2.
Therefcte, it
!
is not considered to be necessary to calibrate the a for i
Unit 2, since Unit 1 is already in operation.
A Region II radiation specialist is presently eve'uating this situation to determine whether adaquate calibratic as have been made.1/No further action is planned at this time by this inspector.
b.
Inspector Comment : The " Guide for Planning of Initia'l Startup Programs" requires that chemistry and radiochemistry tests be performed during low power testing.
This procedure does not require this testing.
-
>
Licensee Response: The require.d testing will be performed.
TP/2/B/710/4, " Initial Radiochemistry Test," has already been started and will continue through zero power testing.
A prerequisite is being added to the zero power physics test procedure to require verification that TP/2/B/710/4 has been
/'N started.
w/
The acti being taken as outlined above is considered adequate.
This item is closed.
,
1/ R0 Report No. 50-269/73-12, Details III, paragraph 2.
,
W
_.
.. - -
- - -..
-
-,
-+
.
~.
wm
e f
~
' '
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-15 III-l
-
.
DETAILS III Prepared b
- ptf M M
//
7_3 T. E. Conlon, Reactor Inspector
' Date
'
Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch j
Dates of Inspection: October 23-26, 1973 t
../
- )
I
. M :" d 4
//. I 28 Reviewed.by:
4N J. C. Bryant, Senior Inspector Date j
Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch
,
i 1.
Persons Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC)
D. G. Beam - Project Manager D. L. Freeze - Principal Field Engi_neer
,
L. R. Barnes - QA Engineer 2.
Containment Building Tendons
'N On October 16, 1973, DPC notified RO:II, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55e,
'/
that a construction deficiency had been identified on Unit 2.
The de-ficiency consisted of four adjacent horizontal tendon sheaths that had not been filled with protective grease after final tensioning.
This was discovered when, in an effort to prevent grease from leaking past the threaded grease fittings, workmen had been instructed to remove the fittings and seal the threads with teflon tape. During the course of this work, tendon sheaths numbers 31H31, 31H32, 31H33 and 31H34 were observed not to have been filled with a protective grease.
After removal of the grease caps and with the aid of hydraulic
!
jacks, the tepsion was relieved on one of the four suspect tendons at a time. The relaxed tendon was pulled to one end and visually inspected for approximately five feet and then pulled in the opposite direction and inspected for the same length at the other end.
The procedure stated that if the inspection did not reveal any signs of corrosion or unacceptable defects, the tendons would be retensioned in accordance with the original stressing procedure N4.0.
-
i l
i
.-
ss
!
_ _ _. -
--
_
_
.-
.-
~,-
g
i
-
.
-
RO Rpt. Na. 50-270/73-15 III-2
.
.
()
Tendons Nos. 31n31 and 31H32 were inspected and reinstalled prior to the inspector's arrival. The inspector did visually inspect the ends of tendon 31H33 and the inner most ring of wires on tendon
31H34. There were no signs of corrosion or unacceptable defects on the wires for the limited lengths inspected. Furthermore, it was
'
noted that the initial coating of preservative (N0-0X-lD 500) that was applied to each tendon during shop fabrication appeared to be l
in good condition.
After relaxing the tension and during the pulling operation on tendon
,
No. 31H32, moderate deformation of the wires in the outer ring next to the stressing washer occurred.
The licensee furnished photographs f'
of the subject area to the inspector for review. The photographs
!
revealed a smooth "S" bend in each of the outer wires with no visible signs of damage to the wires.
The bend radius was greater than the 1.25 incl.es minimum allowed and the angle of bend was less than the maximum acceptable angle of 60 degrees.
!
In addition, there were no signs of kinking of the wires at the point
of contact between the wires and the stressing washer due to the
'
relatively high degree of hardness of the wire as compared to the washer material. In order to verify this observation, the licensee bent (60*) several representative samples of tendon wire in a spare stressing washer and the sample wires showed no sign of kinking.
,b Within r'
areas examined, there were no deficiencies or violations; however,.r is the understanding of the inspector and licensee that this will remain an open item until evaluation of the 30-day letter has been accomplished.
.
g
,
-__
_
_, _ _..
'
W
-
_____.2_-
- -
_-
-..
,
.
.
.
'
RO Report No. 50-270/73-15
()
DETAILS IV Prepared by:
eAede R)
//
/
N. Economos
/Date Metallurgical Engineer
!
Engineering Section
'
Facilities Construction Branch Dates of Inspection:
September 13-14, 1973 October 3, 1973 us n
Reviewed by:
Y
[T to ^
//-/ $
,
g. '- J. C. B ryant, Senior Inspector Date Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted A.
Duke Power Company (DPC)
j J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent
'
J. W. Hampton - Assistant Plant Superintendent J. O. Barbour - QA Engineer
-
B.
Contractor Organization
,,
(
'
Babcock & Wilcox Compan/ (B&W)
F. J. Sattler - Manager, Inservice Inspection E. F. Berdyck - Supervisor, Field Operations Inservice Inspection 2.
Baseline Data Inspection The baseline inspection of components subject to volumetric examination for Oconee 2 was conducted by B&W under contract with DPC. The inspection was performed in accordance with the July 1,1971, Edition, including the 1973 Addenda, of ASME Code Section XI.
All pressure boundary welds and adjacent base-metal were inspected af ter a system
'
hydro test had been performed.
The report included detailed examination procedures, calibration block specifications, listing of all welds subject to examination and type of examination performed on each weld.
Also included were results of all examinations with appropriate component identification, layout, date of examination and personnel involved in each examination. Qualifications of all personnel who were involved in this baseline inspection were included in the report.
.-
.
_
--w
+.
sw anew-cev
--*,w-com.*-,-wwp W->=v+-
- - - -
m
-
__
.
s_
,
.
.
.
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-15 IV-2
.
.
.
.
O
Personnel conducting the examination were technicians qualified to SNT-TC-1A Level II assisted by technicians qualified to Level I.
Inspection results were reviewed at the site by personnel qualified to SNT-TC-1A Level II and the Quality Assurance Group of B&W Engineering and Technology Section.
The criteria used for evaluation of field data were as follows:
Significant indications were listed under two categories, " recordable" and " reportable?" In the case of ultrasonic examinations, recordable indications were those which produced a signal amplitude response exceeding 20% of the calibration reference level.
Reportable indications were those discontinuities which exceeded in size, amplitude or number the amount allowed by the Summer 1973 Addenda of ASHE Code Section XI and the 1971 Edition of Section III.
In
{
addition, reportable indications were those which, in the operator's i
opinion, were indicative of cracks, lack of penetration or nonfusion. * Some reportable indications were subj ected to complementary inspection methods, engineering evaluations and reexamination of fabrication inspection records.
A review of the ultrasonic examination results of components and welds disclosed the following:
{]-
a.
Reactor Vessel and Closure Head A total of five (5) reportable indications were detected.
Three of these were located in the lower head assembly to shell weld, MK-Bti-36.
B&W's layout places them outside of the weld seam.
,
'
Results of B&W's evaluation show the indications were the result j
of mode conversfi.n and cite the irregular nature of the clad,
weld mismatch of the base material and nonparallel (curved)
surfaces as the contributing factor for the conditions observed.
Their position was supported by the fact that inspection efforts from the OD of the vessel failed to detect reflectors greater
,
than 20% of the primary point of reference in this area.
l The remaining two indications were located in the head to skirt transition weld 1-K36-6 and appeared to be of a similar character.
I The inspector requested B&W to review original fabrication j
radiographs and to reevaluate the field data in order to verify the position sad character of the indications in question.
B&W l
has since performed the aforementioned reevaluation and has confirmed the initial evaluation.
There are no further questions.
l i
-
,
w/
i
,
ma e, - m m am. m., s. e-
.xm em me,..~~ee-oww.m.---
wa--
~
---wa,--
-we m-w a. - - - ~ ~ =
w.-
. - -
e~
~~
-
_
_
.
..
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-15 IV-3
-
.
.
.
i b.
Closure Head to Flange and Torus to Dome Weld KK 22, 23, 24 Numerous laminar type indications were reported at this position
'
at depths of 3-inches to 5-inches from the surface, ranging from 1/4-inches to 2-inches in length and having maximum amplitudes
in the order of 10-100% of DAC.
This condition appeared over a band, 2-inches wide by 14-inches long.
The inspector requested that B&W perform an evaluation in order to determine if the structural integrity of the section had been compromised by the presence of these indications.
B&W has agreed to perform this evaluation and report their findings to RO:II for review.
B&W has since reviewed fabrication inspection records and re-examined
,
!
baseline data which revealed that none of the laminar indications exceed the acceptance standards of Section III for plate materials.
Consequently, B&W feels the material in question is acceptable for the intended service.
RO:II has no further questions on this item.
,
c.
Control Rod Drive (CRD) Mechanism Housing Welds Rt. view of test results disclosed the presence of reportable type indications in one of these tubes.
In response to questioning, B&W stated that this matter had been discussed with Diamond Power of Lancaster, Ohio, who f abricated these tubes, for the purpose of evaluating the indications and
_
verifying the integrity of the tube.
Enclosed in the report, Is is a memorandum from Diamond Power to B&W, Lynchburg, stating, in part, that Diamond Power has conducted an independent review and considers the indications to be the results of variations at the base metal / cladding interface.
The memorandum further states that the condition has no detrimental effect over the life of the motor tube and that it is Diamond's position that it will be satisf actory for the service intended.
The inspector asked if B&W had issued a =emorandum concurring with the position taken by Diamond Power. The licensee stated that such a memorandum had not been issued, but would be generated and m de available for review.
RO:II has reviewed B&W's concurrence and has no further questions.
d.
Reactor Vessel Closure Washers and Bushing Sets, CRD Mechanism Housing Bolts and Nut Rings Review of visual inspection results of these items disclosed that they exhibited numerous surface imperfections requiring blending to alleviate possible notch effects. The report
\\
u
. _. _ _
__.. _ _
._,
. _ _.
_
_ _.. _.
, _. _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _. _., _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
'
R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/73-15 IV-4
-
.
.
f)
did not contain documented evidence to verify that corrective
'
action has been taken.
In response to questioning, B&W could not verify that corrective action had been undertaken on these items.
However, since the time of this inspection, the licensee has issued a memorandum verifying completion of corrective action.
There are no further questions on this matter.
e.
Pressurizer i
The pressurizer welds and base material subject to ultrasonic examination contained 18 reportable indications.
Eight of
-
these were located in the vessel's longitudinal and circle seams.
The remaining ten indications were located in the support lugs which were not subject to ultrasonic examination during fabrication.
i B&U stated that they met fabrication code requirements. The inspector had no further questions.
,
Test data show that seven of the eight indications in the longitudinal and circle seams had lengths which did not exceed the acceptance
<
standards of the ASME Code Section III.
The other reportable
,
indication was located in the base metal and was of a laminar charaqter whose dimensions did not exceed Code acceptance standard requirements for plate material.
The inspector had no questions S
on this matter.
V f.
In the-2B SG upper head to tube-strict circumferential weld, MK 8-51, test data showed a cluster of eight indications ranging from 0.5-inches to 3.8-inches in length at a depth of 3-inches to 4.5-inches from the surface.
Maximum response amplitudes ranged from 50% to 200% of DAC - six of these indications exhibited maximum amplitudes >60% of DAC.
In 2A SG, reportable indications were detected in the lower head to transition circumferential weld and in the transition to transition support welds.
Laminar reportable indications were encountered
'
in the outlet nozzle to 1cwer head welds of both generators.
In this case, the indications were located at depths ranging from 3-inches to 6-inches and had lengths up to 3.5-inches. The indications were reported to be in the base metal and were detected intermittently around the circumference of the nozzles.
.
,
_ _ _... _
%M '
%'
.
v.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-15 IV-5
'
.
.
.
..
l The inspector requested that B&W re-evaluate the areas in question
]
on both generators in order to verify that the structural integrity j
of these areas had not been compromised by the aforementioned indications.
Results of these evaluations will be submitted to I
RO:II for review.
RO:II has since reviewed B&W's re-evaluation l
of the conditions in question and has no further questions.
I g.
Primary Piping Field test data showed that Weld NK 40-39 in circle seam (Al-D-14) exhibited indications of sufficient magnitude to
.
i i
cause complete loss of back reflection. The report attributed I
this condition to slag inclusions in the clad material.
In response to questioning, B&W stated that these indications were now believed to be areas of unbonded cladding. The inspector requested that B&W review the shop UT test data in order to
,
i determine the extent of this condition and to evaluate its effect on the service life of the pipe in question.
B&W agreed
,
to investigate this matter and report their findings to RO:II l
for review.
B&W has since reported that the area in question had been inspected at the Mt. Vernon Works for clad bonding and had been cleared.
RO:II has no further questionc.
h.
Documentation Review ()
The inspector performed an in depth review of the submitted
,
data in order to verify completeness and accuracy of reported test results. This review disclosed numerous discrepancies in the accuracy of the data recorded in the summary report versus
'
that contained in the report of field test data.
For example, dimencions anc locations of reported indications, in several instances, did not correspond between documents.
Similar
.
discrepancies were noted in the notes used to explain test
!
conditions and results.
Calibration certificates for the power and search units were not included in the submitted report.
These findings were discussed with B&W who has since taken appropriate steps to correct the discrepancies and omissions.
The inspector has no further questions on the aforementioned items.
,
,
.
("c" :
-
- _. - - -.-
._
$
"U
%
w