IR 05000280/1981016
| ML18139B468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1981 |
| From: | Blake J, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139B466 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-81-16, 50-281-81-16, NUDOCS 8108040573 | |
| Download: ML18139B468 (6) | |
Text
e UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUIT~ 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-280/81-16 and 50-281/81-16 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company P. 0. Box 26666 Richmond, VA 23261 Facility Name:
Surry Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 Virginia Approved by: -;---=---:-:-----:-~-:=--~,------::-:-:----=-----------
A. R. Herdt, Section Chief Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on June 9-12, 1981 Areas Inspected Date Signed 7/6/81 Date Signed This routine, unannounced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours on site in the areas of steam generator repair - record review, (Unit l); inservice inspection data review (Unit l); review of CROM weld radiographs (Units 1 and 2); previous inspection findings (Unit 2).
Results Of the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
r' 8108040573 810708 \\
. PDR ADOCK 05000280 G
PDR *
..,
'
i
\\.
- Persons Contacted Licensee Employees e
REPORT DETAILS J. L. Wilson, Station Manager*
- R. F. Saunders, Assistant Station Manager H. E. Gant, Project Resident Engineer
- T. W. Brombach, NOT Supervisor
- L. A. Johnson, Superintendent Maintenance
- 0. A. Christian, Superintendent Technical Services
- R. Driscoll, SGRP QC Other licensee employees contacted included QC technicians, security force members, and office personne NRC Resident Inspector
- D. J. Burke
- *Attended exit interview Exit Interview
The inspection scope and finding~ were summarized on June 12, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 abov The inspector discussed the CROM radiograph review and the !SI data review in detai.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-281/81-11-04) - "Section XI Inspection of Weld Build-up".
The inspector reviewed this item :with the licensee's NOE super-visor and was assured that the areas in question had been examined ultrason-ically during the base line inspectio, Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio.
Steam Generator Repair - Review of QC Records (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed the steam generator repair project, noting that the job had been divided into specific tasks called Engineering Task Assignments (ETAs).
The inspector selected several ETAs which had been completed and the documentation filed in the QA records' vaul The records were reviewed for completeness and traceability,. with particular emphasis on welding and NOE records.
J,..,
\\
e
The ETAs selected for review were as follows: ETA 30010 - Nondestructive Examination of Steam Generator Supports. The inspection consisted of a complete review of the ETA package with particular attention on the following NOE and NCR reports:
MT #123, Pump Support 11 C
- Clevis Halves MT #106, Upper Restraint Support 11 C 11 Ge MT #107, Clevis (2)
. MT #108, Lower Ring Support Rods 11 B 11 Ge MT #109, Lower Ring Support Rods 11 C 11 Ge MT #104, Upper Restraint Support 11B 11 Ge MT #113, Lower Ring Supports 11A 11 Ge PT #499, Pins NCR 80-544 -
Approximately 30% of the coating is worn off leg support for 11C 11 generator NCR 80-548 -
Damage to threads - upper clevi ETA 40012 - Assembly of Steam Generator Supports The review of this package included the procurement documentation for new parts for the steam generator supports, as well as the documenta-tion of the installation activitie ETA 40007 ;~ Installation of Main Steam Pip1ng This *ETA involved shop welding (welding of elbows to pipe to form main steam spoof pieces) and field welding (installation of spool pieces)
activities. The shop welding was done by Daniels Construction Company (DCC} and the field installation welding was done by Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI).
The inspector reviewed the welding, stress relieving, and nond~structive examination records for these main steam weld The inspector also reviewed the welding and nondestructive examination records for the CBI work on the following steam generator ETAs:
ETA 40031 ETA 40006 ETA 30016 Flow Limiting Device Steam Generator Girth Weld Feedwater, Wet Lay-up and Narrow Range Level Tap Nozzle Installation There were no violations or deviations noted during this phase of the inspection.
r---
I L
'
A
\\. Inservice Inspection Data Review (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed the results of the reactor vessel automatic ultra-sonic examination and the control rod drive mechanism, bi-metallic weld, manual ultrasonic examinatio The results reviewed were in the form of copies of raw data which had been left at the site while the final analysis of the data is being done by the !SI contractor (Westinghouse).
The in-spector discussed the vessel examination with the licensee 1 s NOE supervi.sor and was informed that there were some questions about the exact location of some indications which still had to be answered by the IS! contractor. The results of this examination will be reviewed again after final analysis by the contractor and the license During the review of the ultrasonic examination of the welds in CRDMs N, 64 and 68, the inspector noted that each weld was only examined from one side, and that the data sheet listed the examination limitation as 11 Inconel 11 *
(The welds in question are Inconel to stainless steel and the examination was conducted from the stainless steel side using a stainless steel standard.) After determining that the reason for the partial exami-nation was that an Inconel standard was not availabl The inspector informed the licensee that the examinations would have to be completed before credit could be taken for these weld The licensee stated that he understood that.a lack of a calibration standard was not an acceptable reason for an exemption from IS! requirements.
During discussion of examination results, the inspector informed the licensee that he should be prepared to justify any required !SI examinations which were only partially complete (That is partial examinations should be justified in the same manner as any other exemption from the code requirements.)
The licensee stated that this consideration would be reviewe There were no violations or deviations in this area of the inspectio.
Control Rod Drive Mechanism Weld Radiography (Units 1 and 2)
On June 5, 1981, the regional office was notified that Westinghouse had informed VEPCO that radiographic film for bimetallic, Inconel to stainless steel, welds on the CROM housings did not meet ASME,Section III require-ment The CROM housings affected were those fabricated by Rotterdam, and requirements not met included penetrameter p 1 acement, source to fi 1 m dis-tance, and image density requirement During a discussion of this item with the VEPCO NOE supervisor the inspector learned that the item was being researched by VEPCO by researching station records and questioning Westinghouse to find out what radiographic require-ments were in affect at the time of fabrication and whether those require-ments had been met.
--...... ---*-*--~-,-*.........,-
' ----------
- '-
At the time of this inspection, Westinghouse was st il 1 researching the question.and the site was reviewing radiograph files in the station record vaul The site record search turned up the RT film for the Unit CROM welds which indicated that the radiography was done by Rotterdam in 1970. A batch of RT film for Unit 1 was located which was of welds which fit the description of the CROM welds (proper diameter, wall thickness and quality)
but the only identification on the film packets ref~rred to contract plan and mark numbers. These Unit 1 RTs were taken by B&W in 196 The inspector reviewed.all of the Unit 2, Rotterdam film and a sample of the Unit 1 B&W film. The radiographic techniques for the film were as follows: Rotterdam Fi 1 m Examination Period - February to August 1970 *
- RT Procedure - 22.02 Material - Inconell Stainless Steel Source Type - IR 192 Technique - Panoramic Material Thickness - 23 mm Focal Spot - 1-1/2 x 2 mm Film - Kodak R, 10 x 40 cm Screens - Lead Source Strength - 3000 Mc Time-ca6mi Source to Film Distance - ca 55 mm Subject to Film Distance - contact Penetrameter - ASME 15 B&W Fj lm Examination Period - 1968 Procedure - x~ray Weld Thickness - 0.975 inches Film - ANS CO B Screens - 0.010 11 lead Parameters (Typi ca 1) - 285 Kv, 5 ma Focal Distance - 32-inches No. of Positions~ 8 Layout - 2-i nch increments Exposure Time - 2:00 mi Penetrameter - ASME 15 on each ~ide of weld The inspector reviewed 64 Rotterdam and 16 B&W film and noted that none of the film showed any signs of deterioration. All of the film were. readable in that the quality of the.weld represented could be easily interpreted.
-. -~,-*.******* *****-~_...,-......... -~.********..,......,.-*~,..,,,.,..
The licensee is still trying to ascertain what specific RT requi~ements were involved on the Rotterdam contract and, whether the B&W film in the site vault are of the Unit 1 CROM welds. *
There were no violations or deviations in this area of inspection.