IR 05000280/1988017
| ML18153B471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1988 |
| From: | Blake J, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18153B470 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-88-17, 50-281-88-17, NUDOCS 8807060042 | |
| Download: ML18153B471 (11) | |
Text
J>.R REGu UNITED ST.L\\TES
. ~~c;... "'
-
t""';-9 l\\!UCLEAR REGUL~.TORY COMMISSION
,:. \\~
/' ")>.L*
REGION Ii
,_
,*\\')",,,('
()
i-' '{\\S~ /. ~
10i :V1ARIErT.O. STREET,N.W.
~- "'i"'*,,.,t:i'l ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
- (',.,i
..
'*_...,::-
ov r;
..,.
- "'
Report Nos.:
50-280/88-17 and 50-281/88-17 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, VA 23261 Docket Nos.:
50-280 and 50-281 Facility Name:
Surry 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted/' May_)l-12, 1988
.. -\\
Approved SUMMARY License Nos.: DPR-32 and DPR-37 Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of modification relative to the replacement of containment Recirculation Spray Coolers; their procurement, and field installation which included weld fabrication, inspection and testing of associated pipin Previously identified open items were reviewe This work effort was curtailed because of respirator training needed for containment entr Results:
No violations or deviations were identifie ~ 8806.._?()
PDR AD1.:,,-.t,:: *
Q
-~r, U5000280 F'DC
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
~D. L. Benson, Station Manager
- 0. Grady, Supervisor, Nondestructive Testing G. 0. Miller, Licensing Coordinator J. w. Orgen, Superintendent Maintenance M. A. Ringler,* Mechanical Engineer (NOE)
Other licensee employees contacted included construction foremen, craftsmen, engineers, technicians, mechanics, and office personne Other Organization Daniels D. Briggs, Welding Foreman*
A. Wilson, Pipe Foreman NRC Resident Inspectors
- W. Holland, Resident Inspector L. Nicholson, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview Design Changes and Modifications (37700) Recirculation Spray Cooler Replacement (Unit 1)
At the time of this inspection, Design Change DC-87-22-1 issued to control the replacement, of the containment recirculation spray coolers (coolers)
in subject unit was being implemente The need for this action has been attributed to tube degradatio Through discussions with cognizant licensee personne 1 and a review of re 1 ated engineering documents the inspector ascertained that the most likely cause of the degradation has been pitting corrosion of the tubes due to service water leakage past the service water inlet isolation valve The stagnated brackish service water inside the coolers/tubes contains high levels of sulfate-:reducing bacteri These bacteria reduce the sulfate in the brackish water to sulfide which results in the highly destructive pitting attack on the copper based alloys used in the current cooler In addition the licensee indicated that the Outside Recirculation Spray (ORS), pump discharge piping, from the Restricting Orifice (RO-RSllOA/B)
to the inline check valve (1-RS-11/17) was being replaced due to evidence
of intergrannular corrosion attack which has resulted in through-wall cracking. The cause of this cracking has been attributed to sensitization of the original type 304 stainless steel piping and the inadvertent presence of chloride-contaminated water in th~ pipe. Also, the inspector ascertained that all surfaces of the new coolers which are wetted by the service water were made from titanium. The shell side of the coolers was made using stainless steel materia The ORS pump discharge piping is being replaced with Type 316-L stainless steel material in order to provide better protection against stress corrosion crackin The coolers are located in Unit 1 containment while the ORS pump discharge piping is located in the Unit 1 containment and the safeguards are To facilitate the replacement of these coolers, various interferences had to be overcom These included a portion of Main Steam Line 30 11 -SHP-3-601, where a length of approximately ten feet of pipe near steam generator 11 C
had to be cu The coolers were fabricated by Joseph Oat Inc. under Purchase Order PO# BET144-685 and the Licensee's Specification NUS-2082, Specification for Containment Recirculation Spray Cooler The replacement piping was purchased per PO# CSY-174354 and Pipe Specification NUS-2 Design requirements were updated from the original construction code ASME III Class C, 1986 and ASME VIII to the more recent ASME Code,Section VIII, Division 1, 1986 Editio Both containment recirculation spray and service water systems are safety-related and designated as Classes 2 and 3 systems, respectivel The portion of main steam pipe associated with this design change is designated Class 2 als Pipe replacement is controlled by ASME Section XI and, by reference, USAS 831.1 1968 Power Piping which is the construction code of record for this uni Document Review Following is a list of applicable engineering documents and procedures reviewed for technical content and compliance with applicable code and regulatory requirement DC-87-22-1 NUS-20 NUS-2082 P-01, 4/9/87 WP-WOl 3/24/88 WP-W02 3/23/88 WP-M02 11/20/87 3/29/88 Engineering
~eview and Analysis Recirculation Spray Replacement Specification for Piping Safety Cooler Specification for Containment Recirculation Spray Coolers General Piping and Pressure Vessel Welding Procedure General Welding Requirements Weld Documentation Cleani*ng of Fabricated Pipe and Tubing
NDE-PT-1 Rev. 5 NDE-RT-1 Rev. 1
Liquid Penetrant Examination Radiographic Examination In addition these documents were reviewed to ascertain whether the specific issues addressed included:
unreviewed safety question(s),
design basis review, update of FSAR, Technical Specification (TS),
review, seismic analysis, applicable code requirements and inservice inspection Weld Inspection Welding Procedure Review Welding procedures specifications (WPS(s))
and supporting procedure qualification records (PQR(s)), were reviewed to ascertain whether:
all essential variables, supplementary essential variables and nonessential variables are in accordance with applicable editions of Section IX of the ASME Code; each of the applicable procedures had been qualified in accordance with Section IX of the ASME Code and that the supporting PQRs were on fi 1 e; each PQR 1 i sted the es sent i a 1 vari ab 1 es for the specific we 1 ding process or processes covered and that the va 1 ues or ranges of these variables were consistent with those permitted by the WPS and were within the limits of Section IX of the ASME Code; all mechanical tests required by Section IX of the ASME Code, as applicable had been completed and were properly documented in the PWR; the PQR( s) had been certified by the licensee and that the mechanical test results met minimum ASME Code requirements; any changes or revisions of the WPS essential variables are supported by requalification of the original WPS or a new WPS; any changes in the WPS nonessential variables are properly identified and documented either as revisions to the original or a new WP Observation/Inspection of Completed Welds Completed welds were selected at random for inspection, these were as follows:
Weld#
W-9 W-13 W-14 W-13 W-1 Isometric Drawing E-115 E-114 E-114 E-117 E-116 Size Discreption 3/4 11 sockolet 3/4 11 sockolet 3/4 11 sockolet 3/4 11 sockolet Main Steam SG 11 C
30 11 ¢ X 1 1/8 thick
- W-2 E-116 W-7 E-121 W-8 E-115 W-2, -3 and -5 E-120
Main Steam SG 11 C
30 11 ¢ X 1 1/8 thick 3/4 11 sockolet to pipe
11 flange to pipe
. 90° Ell to pipe
11
¢ sch. 40 The above listed welds were examined to assure that the following attributes conformed to aforementioned code and licensee procedural requirements including:
(1)
Weld surface finish and appearanc Include inside diameter of pipe welds when accessibl (2)
Transitions between components of different diameters and wall thicknes (3)
Weld reinforcemen (4)
Shape and size of fillet and socket weld (5)
Removal of temporary attachments, arc strikes and weld spatter as applicabl (6) Absence of surface defects including cracks, laps, lack of penetration, lack of fusion porosity, slag, oxide film and under cut exceeding prescribed limit Welder Performance Qualifications Weld stencils which appeared adjacent to completed welds, identified earlier in this report, were noted and subsequently used to ascertain whether the licensee had a workable system for maintaining a continuous record of qualification status of all welders and that this system was effectively utilized and accurate. Also, the inspector reviewed the qualification status records of welders performing production welding to ascertain whether welders had been and were currently qualified to weld under the respective procedure Welder stencils selected for this task included Nos. 027, 169, 094, 143, 188, 134 and 16 Material Control (Piping and Appurtenances)
Randomly selected pipe sections and attachments associated with this design change were i dent i fi ed for review of procurement documents including quality records and site-generated quality control documents, e.g. receipt inspections and weld traveler Items selected for this task were as follows:
- *
Item Heat/Lot#
3/4 11 Sockolet, FAEV A-182, F-316L Pipe, 10 11 ¢ Schedule 40 P80172 Stainless Steel A-312, 316L ELL 90°, 10 11 ¢ Schedule 40 C4899 Stainless Steel A-312, 316L Neck Flange
11 ¢ A-182 316L 93546 PO#
CSY-174354 CSY-174354 CSY-174354 CYS-174354 The aforementioned qua 1 i ty records were reviewed to verify that material analysis, thermal treatment and mechanical properties were consistent with referenced standards and the licensee 1 s specifi-catio The records reviewed were found to be in order and receipt inspection reports were on file.
Nondestructive Examinations Liquid Penetrant Testing The inspector reviewed liquid penetrant Procedure, NDE-PT-1 as stated earlier in this report and, observed liquid penetrant (PT) on selected sockolet-to-pipe welds to ascertain whether the applicable travelers clearly specified the test procedure to be used and whether a copy of that procedure was available in the areas where the work was being performed; the sequencing and timing of the examination relative to other operations such as grinding, welding or heat treating, etc.,
were specified and were in accordance with app 1 i cab 1 e Code requirements; the required materials and equipment were at the work statio The following test attributed were as specified in the applicable procedure being used and consistent with the applicable Code and contract requirements:
(1)
Surface preparation/cleaning method, type, time, etc (2)
Penetrant type (3)
Penetrant application method
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Penetration ti me ( dwe 11 time)
Temperature of surf ace Penetrant removal Drying Developer, application, type Developing time the indications were evaluated at the proper time in accordance with the procedure requirements, correct acceptance criteria were used and results were reported in a prescribed manner; Examined surfaces were cleaned at the conclusion of the examination; Record Review, (Personnel and Materials);
Qualification records of NOE inspector S.R.E. who performed the PT(s)
on the selected sockolet welds discussed earlier in this report were reviewed to ascertain whether they (records) properly reflected the fo 11 owing:
(1)
Employer's name (2)
Person certified (3) Activity qualified to perform (4)
Level of qualification (5)
Effective period of certification (6)
Signature of employer's designated representative (7)
Basis used for certification (8)
Annual visual acuity color vision examination and periodic recertification The aforementioned-liquid penetrant examinations were performed with materials listed belo Item Developer D-100 Manufacturer Sherwin Batch No.
610K6
Pe net rant DP-51 Remover DR-60
Sherwin Sherwin 626F47 524J4 For these materials the inspector reviewed the 11certification of containment content 11 to ascertain whether halogen and sulfur analysis were consistent with requirements specified in the applicable cod Review of Radiographs The inspector selected at random accepted radiographs of completed fie 1 d we 1 ds for review in order to determine whether radiographic quality and weld integrity were consistent with applicable code and procedural requirement Areas of specific interest were as follows:
(1)
Penetrameter type, size, placement (2)
Penetrameter sensitivity (3)
Film density, density variation ( 4)
Film identification ( 5)
Film qua 1 ity (6)
Weld coverage (overlap)
Radiographs selected for this task were as follows Isometric Weld Drawing Size W-6 DC-87-22-EllS l0 11 x. 365*11 W-1-1-RS-E-lA DC-87-22-E-108
11x.458 W-2 DC-88-22-E109
11x.500 W-1-1-RS-E-lC DC-88-22-EllO
11 x.458 W-2 DC-88-22-EllO
11 x.S00
Description Pipe to Ell Flange to Cooler Pipe to Flange Flange to Cooler Pipe to Flange Within the areas inspected, the inspector noted the following programmatic weaknesses:
(1)
Weld maps are drawings which depict a small segment of a piping, normally shown on engineering drawing They provide to the field, pipe configuration, size and weld joint information
required for field fabrication. A review of selected weld maps, showing in-process and completed welds, disclosed that they did not reference the applicable engineering drawing that the information was extracted fro Therefore it was impossible, without the foreman's assistance, to verify the accuracy of the as-build with the engineering drawin This matter was discussed with the licensee who agreed to look further into the matte (2)
Filler metal used to fabricate field welds is recorded on the Control Weld Joint from weld to-document weld fabrication histor During this inspection the inspector noted that, on five different completed welds the welders had neglected to record the filler metal used on the designated for The inspector discussed this matter with the cognizant foreman who concurred with the observatio The foreman was able through the use of the rod issue slips to retrieve the missing information and document it, in the appropriate place on the weld recor The foreman went on to explain that these records were st i 11 in process and; therefore, had not gone through the review and approval stage. Although, the inspector accepted the explanation he nevertheless cautioned the foreman and licensee management that the accepted practice required the welder to record filler metal information immediately prior eight using it on a wel Also, this inspector stated that because issue slips are not always retained. they cannot be relied upon for obtaining this informatio The licensee agreed with the inspector's position and indicated that they would take appropriate action to assure that the required information is recorded promptly on these traveler (3)
The fabrication, inspection and testing requirements for each field and/or shop fabricated weld are listed sequentially on the licensee's Control Weld Records (CWR).
In the case of nondestructive testing, the CWR provides separate line items for surface and/or volu~etric testing. T~e inspector/NOE technician performs the prescribed examination, e.g. PT, MT and subse-quently initials on the appropriate time without identifying the NOE procedure u~ed to perform the examinatio The inspector expressed disapproval over this practice and stated that since the CWR is the official record used to describe the fabrication, inspection and testing of a weld; it should provide an accurate account of the materials, procedures and any other pertinent information associated with the fabrication, inspection and testing of that wel In response, the cognizant engineer stated that the NOE procedure used, is recorded in the NOE report which gives the results of the inspection and becomes a part of the weld packag The inspector did not change his position and recommended that the licensee review this area furthe *
(4)
Welder performance qualification records including originals and updates were reviewed as discussed earlier in this repor Judging from this review, the inspector noted that the present system did not lend itself well verifying historical continuity of welder qualification especially for certain welders with breaks in employment over certain time periods. Although ~he necessary information was provided, the present program lacks the organization and streamlining to provide a readily auditable profile of each welder's historical qualification recor This concern was discussed with the licensee's cognizant engineer and management who agreed to 1 ook further into the matter and improve the syste (5)
The inspector discussed radiographic examination of welds during this outage with the licensees cognizant NOE supervisor. These discussions disclosed that although radiographic penetrameters are procured per ASME standard SE-142 requirements and receipt inspected, the licensee's program, for the control of measuring and testing devices, does not provide for the identification and control of these penetrameter The inspector therefore, recommended that consideration be given to a program that provides for penetrameter identification/traceability to assure that only properly procured and approved penetrameters are used on the job. This item was identified as Inspector Followup Item (!FI) 280, 281/88-17-01, Identification and Traceability of Penetrameter (6) While inspecting completed welds on the portion of the main steam line that was cut to accommodate installation of the replacement coolers the inspector and a VEPCO QC inspector, noted that a come-along was being used to he 1 p 1 i ne-up a 14" diameter feedwater pipe to this feedwater nozzle on SG"C".
The inspector discussed the observation with the licensee's cognizant welding engineer and reque~ted that he research the VEPCO pipe specification to determine if this practice was addressed in the pipe specification and report bac Following the close of this inspection the engineer informed the inspector that through adjustments to spring hanger pipe supports, weld fitup was accomplished without cold springing the pipe. Also, the inspector was informed that the pipe specification does not a 11 ow permanent co 1 d springing of piping for fi tup purpose This observation was discussed with site management who assured the inspector that cold sprining in not an acceptable practic These assurances along with the information provided satisfied the inspector's concerns on this matter.
(7)
VEPCO's Cooler Specification NUS-2082, Specification for Containment Recirculation Spray Coolers, specified under paragraph 5.6 Documentation that 10 CFR 50 Part 21 statements
. ---~-' --* '-. *. ~---* *.:"
woul ct be provide The inspector reviewed the procurement records and was unable to locate the subject informatio Because this statement may be in other documentation not reviewed by the inspector, an IF! item was identified until such a statement/record can be provided for revie IFI 280, 281/88-17-02 10 CFR 50 Part 21 statement on Replacement Cooler Within the inspected no violations or deviations were identifie.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
(Closed) IFI 280, 281/87-36-01, Evaluation of Stud Lubricant Fel-Pro C-5 This item was opened by the resident inspector when the licensee found that a number of closure studs in Main Steam Trip Valve MSTV 201B exhibited integranular stress corrosion crack The follow-up item was identified to allow for a review of the licensees evaluation and corrective action During this inspection the inspector reviewed the licensee's failure analysis on the subject, entitled Surry 1 Main Steam Trip Valve Stud Failure Analysis FAL-00060, dated January 4, 198 Also, the inspector discussed the recommended corrective actions in subject report with the licensee I s cognizant engineer and determi ne*d that the problem has been addressed sufficiently to permit closing this ite.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 12, 1988, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 abov The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed belo No dissenting comments were received from the lice~se (Closed) !FI 280, 281/87-36-01, Evaluation of Stud Lubricant Fel-Pro-C-5 Paragraph (Open) !FI 280, 281/88-17-01, Identification and Traceability of Penetra-meter Paragraph (Open) !FI 280, 281/88-17-02, 10 CFR 50 Part 21 Statement on Replacement Coo 1 er Paragraph 2.