IR 05000327/1986013
ML20198A293 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Sequoyah ![]() |
Issue date: | 04/17/1986 |
From: | Blake J, Cortland P, Crowley B, Newsome R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
To: | |
Shared Package | |
ML20198A282 | List: |
References | |
50-327-86-13, 50-328-86-13, NUDOCS 8605200404 | |
Download: ML20198A293 (31) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:! i eIf4 UNITED STATES [[
- jo NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. REGION 11 - n g j 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
- ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%...../ Report Nos.: 50-327/86-13 and 50-328/86-13 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 6N38 A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Docket Nos.: 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos.: DPR-77 and DPR-79 Facility Name: Sequoyah 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: February 18-28, 1986 Inspectors: Nf2 % /7 [[d . . B. R. Crowley Date Signed b.S-kn YI7l% R. W. Newsome A. f- /% A[ F Date Signed % sb7/VL P..Cortland - ) O Da'te Signed , Accompanying P el: . R. Herdt Approved by:
J. J Blake, Section Chief Da'te Signed g eering Branch i ision of Reactor Safety , SUMMARY Scope: This special announced inspection involved 417 inspector-hours on site to evaluate TVA's reinspection of welding activities.
The evaluation included reinspection by NRC personnel using nondestructive examination (NDE) of selected welds in piping and structural components.
The NRC inspection sample included attems which had been reinspected by TVA a .: ell as items which had not been reinspected by TVA.
TVA inspection recoros t.ere compared with NRC inspection findings to evaluate the TVA reinspection.
The TVA inspection findings were reviewed to determine the adequacy of the process used to disposition those findings.
In addition to the above inspection activities, the NRC Weld Consulting Team met with NRC and TVA to personally observe welding reinspection activities.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
$[ NS b f G
' . REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director
- P. R. Wallace, Plant Manager T. Knight, Assistant to Site Director
- J. W. Coan, Project Manager - Welding Project R. A. Montgomery, Mechanical Project Engineer - Welding Project
,
- R. W. Olson, Sequoyah Modifications Manager C. W. Hatmaker, Civil Design Engineer - Welding Project J. E. Rose, Welding Engineer - Welding Project
- G. J. Pitzl, Operations Programs Project Engineer - Welding Project R. M. Jessee, Engineering Project Engineer - Welding Project J. D. White, Metallurgical Engineer, Office of Engineering (OE)
- J. H. Fox, Supervisor, Welding and Materials Section - Operations l
- D. H. Mickler, Coordinator D. J. Etzler, Level III Examiner, OE
' R. Bentley, NDE Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included Quality Control (QC) inspection personnel, engineers, health physics personnel, security office members, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors K. Jenison, Senior Resident Inspector
- L. Watson, Resident Inspector
- P. Harmon, Resident Inspector
'
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 28, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings including Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 327, 328/86-13-02, IFI 327, 328/86-13-04 and Unresolved Item 327, 328/86-13-03 listed below.
IFIs 327, 328/86-13-01 and 327, 328/86-13-05 were discussed by telephone with TVA (J. W. Coan, Welding Project Manager) on March 20, 1986.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-01, Review of Reinspection ' Summary for Package 28 and Welds M2 and M3 in Package 2 - Paragraph 6.a.(1).
-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ .
Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-02, Review of Process for Disposition of Inspection Findings - Paragraph 6.b.
Unresolved Item 327, 328/86-13-03, Resolution of NRC NDE Van Inspection Findings, Attachment A - Paragraph 5.0.
Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-04, Correction of Weld Discrep-ancy Reports - Paragraph 6.a.(2)(a).
Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-05, Review of Final Disposition Documentation for Eight Pipe Welds Requiring Rework - Paragraph 6.a.(2)(b).
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the material 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.
One new unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in Attachment A, paragraph 5.0.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspectors conducted a general inspection of the auxiliary building and the Unit 2 annulus area to observe housekeeping and storage.
Within the areas examined no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Onsite Inspection of Sequoyah Welds and Welding Reinspection Records As a part of TVA Phase II actions to address allegations / concerns relative to the adequacy of TVA's welding program, the decision was made to reinspect a sample of welds at the Sequoyah site.
During a recent inspection (See RII Report 50-327,328/86-09), the NRC observed some of the TVA in-process inspections and made a preliminary overall evaluation of the welding rein- =pection program as well as the Bechtel Welding implementation audit.
In order to further access the overall TVA welding program and evaluate the results of the Sequoyah reinspection, the NRC (RII, I&E, and RI NDE van personnel) performed the current inspection as detailed below, a.
Review of Sequoyah Weld Reinspection Data The inspectors reviewed the weld reinspection data described below relative to the Sequoyah weld reinspectio ' ,
(1) Weld Reinspection Data Summary (Preliminary) TVA provided the inspectors a reproduction of a dot matrix printout summary of the reinspection results and resolution of results.
The reproduction was poor and the inspectors did not verify the accuracy of the printout.
There were ten acceptance categories for welds in the mechanical piping systems summarized as follows: - A1 - Acceptance by initial inspection - A2 (Arc strike / weld spatter) - Acceptance by evaluation A2 (Other than arc strikes / weld spatter) through A6 - - Acceptance by evaluation Acceptance by additional NDE, applied to welds A7 - - 2-AFD-25AA, 2AFDF-25BB, 1-AFDF-92C, and 1-AFDF-96C.
A8 through A10 - Acceptance by additional NDE and evaluation - For structural welds, the following resolution categories were used: - A1 - Acceptance by inspection meaning that the weld met the visual weld acceptance criteria of procedure N-VT-6, R0.
A2 - Acceptance by calculation meaning that any portion of - the weld not meeting the inspection criteria was considered to be missing and a stress analysis was performed for the remaining portion of the weld.
All of the welding was summarized on about 480 lines of the data sheet and 30% of these required analysis.
A3 - Inaccessible welds, applied to 36 of approximately 1100 - welds.
R - Reject, not applied to any weld.
- NW - No weld applies to welds M2 and M3 in package 2 (SQEPC66) - associated with drawing 47W920-16, 8, and eight welds approved by variance several years ago.
The following problems were identified during review of the preliminary printout summary: The summary data for package 28 (SQEPC92), conduit support at - elevation 734, associated with drawing 47A056-34 incorrectly identified which welds were acceptable by inspection and which welds were acceptable by calculatio i ' ,
For welds M2 and M3 in package 2 (SQEPCG6) associated with - drawing 47W920-16, 8, the summary coded the welds as NW (no weld) and accepted without any explanation.
Questions relative to these problems will be reviewec' during a future inspection when the final summary is issued.
Pending further review, this matter is identified as Inspectcr Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-01, Review of Reinspection Summary for Package 28 and Welds M2 and f13 in Package 2.
(2) Pipe Weld Data Packages (a) Completed inspection data packages consisting of inspection reports and " Weld Discrepancy Reports" were reviewed for the welds listed below.
The records were reviewed for completeness and as part of evaluation of TVA's process for dispositioning inspection findings.
Weld Weld Map 1-CCF-71 A-7167 R16 0-CV-2744 CVCS-23 R3 0-CV-2745 CVCS-23 R3 0-CV-2746 CVCS-23 R3 0-CV-2748 CVCS-23 R3 0-CV-2747 CVCS-23 R3 2-CCF-67 A-7426 RF15D 2-CCF-80 A-7426 RF150 2-CCF-85 A-7426 RF150 1-CC-1929 CC-13 R7 1-CC-1929A CC-13 R7 1-CC-19298 CC-13 R7 1-CC-1929H CC-13 R7 1-CC-1966B CC-14 R3 1-CC-1968 CC-14 R3 1-CC-1966A CC-14 R3 1-CC-2125 CC-16 R4 1-CCF-15A A-7166 1-CCF-117 A-7169 1-CCF-57 A-7167 R16 1-CCF-197 A-7170 R19 2-AFDF-19 A-7428 2-AFDF-20 A-7428 2-AFDF-20AA A-7428 2-AFDF-20BB A-7428 1-AFDF-48 A-7152 0-ER-1990 ERCW-7 R15 0-ER-1995E ERCW-7 R15 0-ER-7921B ERCW-66 R4 0-ER-7922 ERCW-66 R4 < ,. _. -
-_- " ) . l
! t Weld Weld Map ' (Continued) 0-ER-7925X1 ERCW-66 R4 0-ER-2926A ERCW-66 R4 0-EA-384 EA-9 R10 0-EA-1494B EA-42 R8 0-EA-1494 EA-42 R8 0-EA-1505 EA-42 R8 0-EA-1562 EA-43 0-EA-1565 EA-43 0-EA-1566 EA-43 0-EA-1568 EA-43 0-EA-1593A EA-43 0-EA-15938 EA-43 0-EA-1575X1 EA-43 During reviews of the above data, packages, the inspectors identified the following problems: For weld 1-CCF-15A, the visual (VT) inspection results - were not included in the " Description of Discrepancy" on the " Weld Discrepancy Report".
For weld OER 1995E, the magnetic particle (MT) inspection results were not included in the " Description of Discrepancy" or the " Weld Discrepancy Report".
For both welds, Engineering personnel indicated that all inspection results were dispositioned even though the conditions were not identified on the " Weld Discrepancy Reports".
TVA agreed to correct the above two " Weld Discrepancy Reports" and make a review to determine whether other reports are complete.
Pending review of the " Weld Discrepancy Reports" after review and correction by TVA, this matter is identified as Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-04, Correction of Weld Discrepancy Reports.
The inspectors noted that for a number of welds in the - packages reviewed, NDE identified linear indications in the base material adjacent to the welds.
Examples are: Weld 1-CCF-71 - 3/4" Linear Weld 1-CC-2125 - 21" Linear Weld 1-CCF-15A - 2" Linear Weld 1-CCF-57 - 3/4" Linear Weld 0-ER-1995E - 1" and 1" Linear Weld 0-EA-1494 - 1" Linear _ _
' - .
- The " Weld Discrepancy Reports" and other available documentation did not provide clear evidence ~that these base material indications were properly dispositioned.
See paragraph 6.b(1) below for additional information relative to this problem.
~ For many of the packages reviewed, the in'spectors noted - that the welds were rejected visually.
There appeared to be a problem with the way some of the visual condi- ' tions were dispositioned.
See paragraph 6.b(2) below for additionhl inforg ation relative to this problem.
, (b) In addition to the completed packages above, the inspectors reviewed inspection data for the following eight welds that required more extensive evaluation and in some cases rework for disposition: 2-CCF-84X1 ~ 2-AFDF-25AA 2-AFDF-25BB (ReworkRequired) ' ' 2-CCF-68 (Rework Required) 1-AFDF-38 (ReworkRequired) 0-ER-1996X1 (ReworkRequired) 1-AFDF-96C (Rework Required) ' 1-AfDF-92C " .
The welds were rejected when NDE (PT/MT) iiispected to ASME Section III during the reinspection program.- In general, TVA attempted to accept the welds by inspecting to ASME Section XI.
If the welds did not meet Section XI. surface filing or grinding was performed and the welds accepted to ASME Section XI and/or Section III.
For two of the welds, 2-AFDF-25AA and 2-AFDF-25BB, both PT - and MT was performed. The inspectors noted that the rejected PT inspections had been cleared with acceptable PT inspections.
However, the rejectable MT-inspections had not been cleared.
For these two welds, acceptable MT inspections were conducted and documented during the course of the NRC inspection.
The following " Work Requests" relative to the rework were reviewed: _, ' - , ' AFWkumpDischargePiping 104709 104838 Component Cooling Water Piping . 104839 AFW Piping Welds , 104840 Component Cooling Piping 104841 Component Cooling Piping ' ' 107686.
ERCW' Discharge Piping 107687 ERCW Discharge Piping 107688 AFW Piping Welds - 107689 .. AFW Pump Discharge Piping . t W
. _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ._ .. ._--_ __
.
At the conclusion of the NRC inspection, TVA had not made final disposition on the above welds.
Pending review of final disposition of these welds Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-05, Review of Final Disposition Documentation for Eight Pipe Welds Requiring Rework, is opened.
(3) Structural Weld Packages The balow listed structural component reinspection records were reviewed by the inspectors for documentation completeness and to assess the adequacy of the dispositioning process used relative to the reinspection findings.
In those cases where discrepancies were reported as a result of the TVA reinspection activities, the inspectors reviewed the original construction documentation to determine if the condition was documented during the original examinations.
Item Weld No.
Drawing No.
Duct Support E3 47W920-16.8 Duct Support C1 47A055-159 Duct Support D3 47A055-139 Duct Support E2 and 4 47A055-159 Duct Support HI 47A055-159 Duct Support K3 47A055-159 Pipe Support El H10-1158 Pipe Support Il and 6 H10-1158 Pipe Support L1 and 2 H10-1158 Conduit Support K7 thru 12 47A056-150 - Conduit Support N1 thru 6 47A056-150 Cable Tray Support Al thru 4 48N1301, 04 Cable Tray Support G3 48N1322 Structural Steel FF 48W1227-2
Structural Steel V 48W1227-2 i Instrument Support D1 47W600-14 _- _ _ - -- - _ _
~ .
b.
Review of TVA Process for Evaluation and Disposition of Inspection Findings In the process of review of the above data, the inspectors made a preliminary review of the TVA process for evaluation and disposition of reinspection findings. The following documents were reviewed: - Preliminary "0E Plan for Evaluation of Reinspection Results, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant".
0E Calculations " Evaluation of Sequoyah Weld Reinspection Results".
- The following problems were identified relative to the evaluation and disposition process: (1) The above two documents indicate that base material indications are acceptable based on the fact that the base material specifi-cations do not require surface examinations.
Discussions with Office of Engineering personnel responsible for disposition of indications, revealed that base material indications that extended to the toe of the weld were evaluated based on physical observa-tion of the indications.
However, documentation does not give any details on how the indications were evaluated or the nature of the discontinuities causing the indications.
(See paragraph 6.a.(2)(a) for a list of welds with significant indications in the base material).
For base material indications clearly outside the weld, the above documents indicate that no evaluation is performed other than to review the base material specification and note that suface examination is not required.
All indications should receive some evaluation and the basis for acceptance should be documented.
(2) The OE Plan and OE Calculations indicate that visual inspection attributes such as transition, contour, overlap, lack of fusion, etc., were being evaluated as acceptable if not identified on the PT/MT report based on the fact that by TVA's interpretation of USAS B31.7, visual inspection is not required for Class 3 welds.
However, once a condition is identified that does not meet requirements, regardless of whether the inspection that identified the condition is required, the condition must be evaluated.
(3) The preliminary 0E Plan and OE Calculations identified above had several areas of discrepancies and/or conflicts.
The following are examples: Plan - Attachment 8, Page 3, paragraph II.A.5 " Base metal - indications will be evaluated to construction code base material requirements" J
.
Calculations - Page 4, " Base metal indications - Acceptable - See Attachment B"
Attachment B, Page 1, "All base material indications which were clearly separated from the weld were determined to have no relationship to weld quality".
This is not consistent with the " Plan" statement above.
Plan - Attachment B, Page 4, paragraph II.B.5, " Imperfections, - other than size, length, and location noted on report of visual examination of a weld which are not noted on reports of MT or PT examination of the same weld are acceptable without further evaluation".
Calculations - Page 3, " Acceptable if 11/32"; otherwise rejectable without further evaluation per reference 1".
This conflicts with " Plan" statement above since undercut might not be noted on MT/PT report.
TVA agreed to make necessary changes to their evaluation process to correct the problems identified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above.
Inspector Followup Item 327, 328/86-13-02, Review of Process for Disposition of Inspection Findings, is identified pending review of the final TVA disposition process.
c.
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Involvement in the Welding Project During the course of the inspection, the inspectors evaluated the extent of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant involvement in the welding reinspec-tion program.
The Sequoyah Nuclear Plant management are kept aware of the goals and progress of the welding program through contact with the Operations Programs Project Engineer member of the Welding Project.
Since the program is an independent project, the site does not parti-cipate in its activities other than to support the project.
' d.
Physical Reinspection of Welds at Sequoyah Region I NDE Van personnel and their contract level II examiners performed on independent examination of selected welds at the Sequoyah site.
Region II personnel assisted in the inspection by leading in the weld sample selection and helping coordinate with the license.
The NRC sample selection was made from the six weld groups reinspected by TVA, (See "Sequoyah Reinspection of Selected Welds - Reinspection Plan", R1 1/16/86 for definition of the six groups).
For each group, welds from TVA's reinspection sample and welds outside the TVA sample were selected.
For the initial population sample (welds reinspected by TVA), Region II inspectors selected at random welds to be inspected by NRC from the list of TVA reinspected welds considering: the total population of welds reinspected by TVA, welds reported acceptable by TVA's reinspection, welds reported as needing some disposition after _ _ _ ' .
TVA's initial reinspection, accessibility, allowable time to accomplish the examination, NDE method, pipe size, material type, time of fabri-cation and whether fabrication by construction or nuclear power.
For the second population sample (welds not reinspected by TVA), RI and RII inspectors randomly selected group one welds (pipe welds) during a walk-through in the auxiliary building. Additional welds were randomly selected from welds that TVA had selected for reinspection, but had excluded from their reinspection for some reason.
For the remainder of the welds selected for the second population sample (groups two through six not inspected by TVA), Region I inspectors randomly selected the welds to be inspected during their inspection activities considering accessibility and sample location to obtain a good variety of welds.
In the second population sample selection, similar variables, i.e., pipe size, material, NDE method, etc., as noted above for the initial sample, were considered.
The details of the physical inspection of welds by Region I van personnel are covered by Attachment "A" to this report.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Employee Concerns The inspectors reviewed preliminary summary of resolutions to employee concerns related to welding at Sequoyah.
The final summary list will be formally submitted to NRC as a part of the phase II report.
In the preliminary summary, the concerns were grouped by their subject similarity.
Also, the inspectors discussed with TVA personnel the status of their disposition of welding related employee concerns.
Prior to initiation of TVA's new employee concerns program (February 1, 1986), there were 54 employee concerns considered to possibly affect Sequoyah welding.
After further study and refinement of the classification,18 concerns were added making a total of 72.
Forty-four were considered generic to TVA and 28 were considered specific to Sequoyah.
The 44 generic concerns were being addressed by inspection effort and engineering evaluation. The 28 specific concerns were being evaluated by NSRS.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Visit of Sequoyah Site by the NRC Weld Consulting Team Team Members - Carl J. Czajkowski BNL Paul E. Masters BNL - Consultant Robert D. Stout BNL - Consultant William H. Munse BNL - Consultant
_.
~ .
NRC Personnel - A. R. Herdt - RII W. O. Long - NRR D. E. Smith - NRR G. Georgiev - I&E P. Cortland - I&E (Not present for site visit on February 27 and 28) The NRC Weld Consulting Team met with NRC and TVA to personally observe welding reinspection activities.
On February 26, 1986, the NRC personnel noted above, met with the team in Chattanooga for a briefing.
The main topics discussed were the background for the formation of the TVA Weld Evaluation Project and the reasons for forming the BNL Weld Consulting Team.
It was stressed that the team was to evaluate the TVA weld program and arrive at their cwn conclusions independent of staff influence.
The team and above noted NRC personnel visited the Sequoyah site on , February 27 - 28, 1986.
On February 27, TVA personnel made a presentation describing the background and status of the TVA welding project.
This was followed by a plant tour during which the team had an opportunity to visually examine welds which had paint removed to permit reinspection by licensee inspectors and NRC inspectors.
(During the visit, NRC (RI and RII) personnel were conducting independent weld reinspections).
Following the tour, the team and licensee personnel met for a question and answer session.
On February 28, the team attended the RI and RII exit interview with the licensee.
Attachment: Region I NDE Van Report .. . -
. -* .. , e
ATTACHMENT: A REGION I NDE VAN REPORT U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
. 50-327/86-13 Report No.
50-328/86-13 Docket No.
50-327/50-328 License No.
DPR-77/DPR-79 Priority B Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name: Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At: Soddy Daisy, TN Inspection Conducted: Februa ry 18-28, 1986 -- Inspectors:
J #b 'H a - key ea Re tor Engineer 'date/ ~ ~kl l2 R dy M (Campbell, qETechnician j/ g/te /3 [b Approved by: Ad%Go a Ja Es T. Wiggins, Chief () Q ' dat'e M erials & Processes Section, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection February 18-28, 1986 (Combined Inspection Report Nos. 50-327/86-13 50-328/86-13) Areas Inspected: A special announced NRC independent measurements inspection was conducted at the utility's operating site using NRC nondestructive examination (NDE) personnel.
Structural field weldments, pipe welds, spiral piping welds, cable tray supports and miscellaneous supports were examined by the NRC non-destructive examination team.
The two region based inspection personnel were assisted by two NRC contract personnel.
The inspection involved 308 onsite hours, and 24 offsite hours.
(165 hours for Unit 1; 167 hours for Unit 2).
Results: No violations were identified.
_ . : r- > l l l )
. L . -, , ~ . . DETAILS . 1.
Persons Contacted Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
- L. S. Bryant, Supervisor, Mechanical Maintenance Section
- J. H. Fox, Welding Projects
- G. J. Pitzl, Supervisor, Welding Projects
- D. H. Mickler, Supervisor, Weld Staff
- Denotes those key contacts present at the exit.
In addition, other licensee engineers were contacted during the course of the inspection and were in attendance at the entrance and exit meetings.
2.
Purpose of the Inspection An onsite independent verification inspection was conducted during - February 18 through 28, 1986 using the NRC Mobile Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Laboratory.
This inspection was performed by NRC Region I personnel in conjunction with NRC contractor NDE rersonnel.
The purpose of this inspection was to perform an independent examination of selected piping welds, structural steel weldments, and pipe support welding.
Samples included welds previously re-inspected by TVA and others and welds which were outside this grouping.
NRC utilized the TVA computerized weld tracking document in the selection of these welds and to provide the weld item numbers to be used in this report.
3.0 Nondestructive Examination Nondestructive examinations were performed with the intent that these examinations were to duplicate, to the extent practicable, the techniques and methods used by the licensee.
The following nondestructive examinations were performed: Liquid Penetrant Twenty seven (27) pipe weldments and adjacent base material (1/2" either side of weld) were examined using color contrast liquid penetrant techniques per NRC procedure NDE-9 Rev. O.
Thickness Measurements . Two (2) pipe weldments and adjacent base materials were examined for wall
- e-thickness using a NOVA-D 100 digital thickness gage.
Examinations were performed per NRC procedure NDE-11 Rev. 0.
Minimum wall thickness was J
. ': . . ' . '
determined by use of ASTM standard pipe size and nominal thickness chart.
Also used were site engineering acceptance criteria for meeting design thickness for weld 2CCF68.
' Visual Examinations Three hundred and sixty-one (361) weldments and nine (9) structures with several weldments each were visually examined per VWAC NCIG-01.
These examinations were performed using visual aids such as lights, mirrors and English welding gages.
Examinations were performed to determine the general conditions of the weldment and the adjacent surfaces. All welded joints in this selected sample were examined after protective coatings had been applied. Therefore, the attributes of the fillet and flare bevel welds that could be evaluated were: 1.
Fillet and flare bevels size 2.
Location 3.
Leg and throat size 4.
Concavity and convexity - 5.
Length of weld 6.
Gross undercut and large porosity 7.
Overall workmanship The inspection was performed and an evaluation made in accordance with licensee provided drawings or sketches and the acceptance was based on the Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria contained in Nuclear Construction Issues Group (NCIG-01).
Forty six (46) piping weldments were also visually examined per ANSI B31.7.
All piping welded joints within the selected sample were examined after protective coatings had been removed.
The inspectors noted that the components involved in this inspection would be classified no higher than ASME Class 3.
Magnetic Particle Examination Thirteen (13) piping weldments and adjacent base materials were examined by the magnetic particle method per NRC procedure NDE-6 Rev. O.
Results: No violations were identified.
See paragraph 5 for specific findings and conclusions.
4.0 Review of NDE Procedures The following NDE licensee procedures were reviewed to verify their ~ technical adequacy and conformance to code requirements: ce' .. - -
.
.
.
3 Magnetic Particle N-MT-1 Rev. 4 Magnetic Partic'le N-MT-2 Rev. O Liquid Penetrant N-PT-1 Rev. 6 Visual Examination N-VT-3 Rev. 4 Visual Examination N-VT-6 Rev. O Special Procedure SMI-0-317-24 Rev. 1 Results: No violations were identified.
5.0 Reinspection and Findings The licensee had grouped the welds contained in its sample re-inspection program into six (6) groups and from these the NRC selected its sample.
The NRC efforts were designed to verify, on a sampling basis, the adequacy of previous licensee efforts under its reinspection program.
There were several instances during this inspection where the NRC results differed from the licensee.
In some instances, welds were rejected by the licensee but accepted by the NRC inspector; these differences were -- attributed to very conservative calls made by the licensee and to limitations present when inspecting welds which are painted.
Conversely, some welds were accepted by the licensee but rejected by the NRC inspector. The inspector concluded, however, that the differences identified were not indicative of an inadequate licensee programs and the NRC findings were representative of the types found by the licensee.
The inspector identified, to licensee personnel at the site, the types of findings which resulted from the NRC inspection and observed that further licensee evaluation of these findings may be required. The NRC will track the NDE Van inspection findings under unresolved item 50-327/328-86-13-03.
Below are described the scope of the NRC efforts and the principal specific findings resulting from the NRC inspection.
Further details are presented in Attachment 1.
Group No. 1: Pipe systems: The licensee reinspected a total of 298 pipe welds out of 333.
The NRC selected 35 pipe welds within the licensee's sample and 12 pipe welds outside of the licensee's sample.
Results: NRC rejected weld CC-1930-H for undercut. Weld 0-EA-1510 revealed a loose bolt on an adjoining flange.
Group No. 2: Pipe supports: The licensee reinspected a total of 459 pipe support welds. The NRC selected 92 pipe support welds within the licensee's sample, two large pipe supports that contained several weldments and one instrument. control support that contained 46 weldments, outside of the licensee's sample.
' .=~ Results: The NRC rejected 12 welds due to welding information not being on the drawing and 17 welds due to undersized fillet welds.
Two supports did not meet the drawing configurations.
l L.
. . .. .
4 Group No. 3: Cable Tray / Conduit Supports: The licensee reinspected a total of 476 welds.
The NRC selected 82 cable tray / conduit support welds within the licensee's sample and three cable tray and two conduit supports, with several weldments each, outside of the licensee's sample.
Results: No problems were identified.
Group No. 4: Structural Steel: The licensee reinspected a total of 122 welds.
The NRC selected 26 welds within the licensee's sample and 7 welds outside of the licensee's sample.
Results: Five (5) welds were rejected for fillet size, weld profile and slag.
Drawings provided for inspection did not have weld detail.
Group No. 5: The licensee reinspected a total of 165 welds.
The NRC selected 79 HVAC support welds within the licensee's sample and two HVAC supports outside of the licensee's sample.
Results: NRC rejected 5 welds for undersized fillet welds; one weld for -- incorrect center spacing for stich welding; several welds and part of the structure for not being painted; and, one weld for not being complete.
In addition, the NRC inspectors noted that one mounting plate had a gap between the plate and the wall.
These items were identified and photographed by the licensee. Also the inspector observed that the drawing provided did not have weld numbers identified.
(See General Note on Attachment 1, page 6, for Item 2).
This item will be tracked by Region II inspection report 50-327/328-86-16-02.
Group No. 6: Spiral pipe / purge air system.
The licensee reinspected a total of 15 welds. The NRC reinspected 100% of the welds in this group and 10 additional welds outside of the licensee sample.
Results: No problems were identified.
6.0 Unresolved Items An unresolved item is a matter for which more information is necessary to . determine whether the item is acceptable, a violation or a deviation.
Unresolved items are contained in paragraphs 5.
7.0 Attachments Attachment 1 is a tabulation of the welds considered in the NRC NDE Van inspection.
8.0 Exit Interview - ...- On February 28, 1986, the NDE Van personnel attended the exit conducted by Region II personnel. The findings of this inspection were described at this meeting. At no time during this inspection effort was draft written material provided to the licensee.
J
,_____ _-_-____________ - _ _ _ _ _______________ ______________ - __ -_ - * Att;chment 1 ' PlPING G 0UP NO. 1 RE-INSPECTED BY TVA AND INSPECTED BY NRC WELD NO.
VISUAL INSPECTION SURFACE INSPECTION COMMENTS RESULTS RESULTS LICENSEE NRC LICENSEE NRC MT PT MT PT N/A A N/A A 0-CV-2745 ACC - 2-CC F-68 - ACC A N/A A N/A 2-CCF-83A ACC ACC A N/A A N/A ACC A* N/A A N/A NRC re-examined by MT and accepted it again a 2-CCF-84XI - second time.
1-CCF-19308 REJ ACC N/A A N/A A 1-CCF-71 REJ ACC REJ N/A A N/A Licensee rejected visually ror underrilled weld, ove rl a p, a rc strikes and lack or fusion. MT was rejected for 3/4" l inea r. NRC re-examined by MT this weld and accepted it again a second time.
This item is part or unresolved item 327/328-86-13-02.
1-CCF-125 ACC ACC A N/A A N/A 2-AFDF-25AA - ACC A A N/A A 2-AFDF-25BB - ACC A N/A N/A A 2-AFDF-25CC ACC ACC N/A A N/A A 1-AFDF-29 REJ ACC A N/A A N/A Licensee rejected visun t iy for lack or rusion.
ACC A N/A A N/A 1-AFDF-38 - - 1-AFDF-52 ACC ACC A - - - 1-AFDF-55 REJ ACC A N/A A N/A Licensee rejected visually for arc strikes.
1-AFDF-92C - ACC N/A A N/A A 1-AFDF-92D ACC ACC N/A A N/A A 1-AFDF-96C - ACC N/A A N/A A 0-ER-1995C R EJ ACC A N/A A N/A Licenree rejected visually ror are strikes.
0-ER-1996X1 - ACC A* N/A A N/A O-ER-2003 ACC ACC A N/A N/A A O-EREW-20438 REJ ACC A N/A A - Licensee rejected visua lly for 1/32" porosity.
0-ER-7924 REJ ACC N/A A N/A A Licersee rejected visually for 3/16" porosity.
0-ER-7926A ACC ACC N/A A N/A A
I. . _..-____. _ .
Att:chment 1 WELD NO.
RESULTS . COMMENTS LICENSEE NRC LICENSEE NRC MT PT, MT PT CBI-2WP ACC ACC N/A N/A N/A N/A CBI-3WP REJ ACC N/A N/A N/A N/A Licensee rejected visua lly for a rc strikes.
CBI-7WP ACC ACC N/A N/A N/A N/A CBI-8WP REJ ACC N/A N/A N/A N/A Licensee rejected for undersized fillet and arc strikes.
O-SE-530B ACC ACC N/A A N/A A . O-EA-324 ACC ACC N/A A N/A A O-EA-327 REJ ACC N/A A N/A A Licensee rejected for a rc strikes.
O-EA-376 ACC ACC N/A A N/A A O-EA-380 R EJ ACC N/A A N/A A Licensee rejected for undersized fillet 1/32".
O-EA-1510 REJ REJ N/A A N/A A Undersize fillet 1/32" and a rc strike. NRC visually rejected for loose bolt on adjoining flange, a rc strike.
O-EA-1549 REJ ACC N/A A N/A A Licensee rejected ror surrace arc strike.
O-EA-1592B ACC ACC N/A A N/A A PIPING WELDS INSPECTED BY NRC AND NOT REINSPECTED BY TVA 0-CV-3816 ACC A - - - - , O-CV-3156 - ACC - - - A O-CV-1553 - ACC - - - A - A N/A 1-AFDF-32 - ACC - - O-SE-5027X1 - ACC - - - A O-EA-1564 - ACC - - - A O-EA-1999F - ACC - - A - 0-EA-14468A - ACC A - - - System 77-1 - ACC - - - - System 78-1 - ACC - - - - System 75-1 ACC - - - A - REJ Excessive undercut.
R EJ - - - CC-1930-H -
- Accepted per Section XI j
.Walds OER-19921 and OER 19953 were scheduled to be inspected but welds were we due to condensation, T ' .
Attrchment_1 STRUCTURAL WELD EXAMlMATION GROUP NO. 2 PIPE SUPPORTS VISUAL RESULTS UNIT TYPE ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS
PS
A1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
PS
B1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
PS
C1,2,3,4 ACC REJ Welding symbol not on dwg provided
PS
8 ACC REJ Welding symbol not on dwg provided
PS
C ACC REJ Welding symbol not on dwg provided
PS
F ACC ACC
PS
C Top Only ACC ACC
PS
H Top Only ACC ACC
PS
A REJ REJ Fillet welds undersize
PS
D REJ REJ Fillet welds undersize
PS
E REJ R EJ Fillet welds undersize
PS
.I Do not REJ Fillet welds undersize have copy CROUP NO. 3 CABLE TRAY / CONDUIT SUPPORTS O CTS
C1,2,3,4 REJ REJ Licensee rejected weld for undersized welds. NRC Detail "D" rejected weld base plate detail "D" two side welds Base Plate undersized.
O CS
A1,2,3,4 ACC ACC O CS
B1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
CS
C1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
CS
D1,2,3,4, REJ ACC Licensee (ejected weld D2 for slag O CS
E1,2,3,4 REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld E2 for slag and weld profile O CS
F1,2,3,4 ACC ACC O CS
G1,2,3,4 ACC ACC O' CS
H1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
CS
11,2,3,4 REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld 12 for slag . i, 1' l
, . .
Att:chment 1 VISUAL RESULTS UNIT TYPE ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS O CS
J1,2,3,4 ACC ACC O CS
K1,2,3,4, ACC ACC
CS
L1,2,3,4 REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld L2 for undercut and weld L4 for unde rcu t, surface slag.
O CS
M1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
CS
N1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
CS
01,2,3,4 REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld 04 for surrace slag O CS
P1,2,3,4 REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld P4 for surface slag O CS
Q1-10 ACC ACC
CS
R1,2,3,4 REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for slag CROUP NO. 4 STRUCTURAL STEEL ,
STRU
N1 REJ REJ Licensee rejected weid for surrace slag.
NRC rejected weld for drawing not having veld detail for inspection. Also washer lodged in channel since fabrication located over 8" FRD system pipe.
STRU
R ACC ACC
STRU
S ACC REJ NRC rejected for fillet size
STRU
T ACC ACC ,
STRU
M ACC ACC
STRU
CC ACC REJ NRC rejected for fillet size and weld profile
STRU
BB ACC ACC
STRU
AA ACC REJ NRC rejected for veld profile
STRU
A ACC ACC
STRU
B REJ REJ NRC rejected for veld profile . I 1.
'I
_
'l .
Attschment 1
VISUAL RESULTS UNIT TYPE ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS
STRU
C REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld C and D due to section inaccessible, weld size and profile.
STRU
D R EJ ACC Licensee rejected weld C and D due to section inaccessible, weld size and profile.
O MISC
A ACC ACC
MISC
B ACC ACC O MISC
C REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for surface slag O MISC
D ACC ACC O MISC
E REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for surface slag O MISC
F REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for surface slag O MISC
G REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for surface slag O MISC
.H R EJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for surface slag O MISC
J REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for surface slag O MISC
K ACC ACC O MISC
L REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for surface slag O MISC
M ACC ACC
MISC
N ACC ACC
MISC
O REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for surface slag and undercut GROUP NO. 5 HVAC O DS
A1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
DS
B1,2,3,4 REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld for incomplete weld and undersize weld . i.
' -
, .
Att chment 1 ' VISUAL RESULTS UNIT TYPC ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS O DS
C1-12 ACC ACC CENERAL NOTE FOR ITEM 2: Seve ra l cases where type weld called for on drawing could not have been made due to Joint design. Many welds on drawing do not havve weld size shown.
Part of this supportis also reported below as structural weld examinations outside of TVA sample.
This item will be tracked by NRC Ril as part of 50-327/328-86-16-02.
O DS
D1,2,3,4 ACC ACC Licensee did not inspect D2 and D4 due to inaccessibility.
O DS
E1,2,3 REJ ACC Licensee rejected weld El for underfill, weld E3 for surface slag O DS
F1,2,3 ACC ACC O DS
H1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
DS
11,2,3,4,5,6 ACC ACC
DS
J1,2,3,4 ACC ACC
OS
K1,2.3,4 ACC ACC
DS
L1-12 ACC ACC
DS
S Do not ACC have repo rt
DS
A1-10 REJ REJ Licensee rejected weld A9 for fillet size and profile and weld A10 is rejected for weld profile. NRC rejected welds A3, 4, and 9 for veld fillet size.
DS
B1,2 REJ REJ Licensee rejected weld Bi ror fillet size. MRC rejected 81 for fillet size.
-
DS
C REJ REJ Licensee rejected fillet size,
DS
D ACC REJ NRC rejected fillet size.
DS
E1,2, El R EJ REJ Licensee rejected fillet size. NRC rejected fillet size,
DS
F F1 REJ REJ Licensee rejected fillet size. NRC rejected fillet size.
DS
C ACC ACC CROUP NO. 6 SPIRIAL PIPE - PURCE AIR SYSTEM
NA
1 ACC ACC 2' NA
2 ACC ACC
NA
3 ACC ACC
NA
4 ACC ACC - I L 'l ' __
. .
Att chment 1 . vlSuAt RESutTS UNIT TYPE ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS .
NA
5 ACC ACC
NA
6 ACC ACC
NA
7 ACC ACC
NA
8 ACC ACC
NA
9 ACC ACC
NA
10 ACC ACC
NA
11 ACC ACC
NA
12 ACC ACC
NA
13 ACC ACC
NA
14 ACC ACC
NA
15 ACC ACC PIPE SUPPORT (Outside TVA Sample)
PS
A Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
B Do not REJ Welds were required to be 1/4" fillet by drawing.
have Actual 2 sides are fillet and 2 sides flared bevel.
copy of Weld profile under 1/4".
rpt
PS
C Do not REJ Welds were required to be 1/4" fillet by drawing.
have Actual 2 sides are fillet and 2 sides flared bevel.
copy of Weld profile under 1/4".
spt
PS
D Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
E Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
F Do not REJ Welds were required to be 1/4" fillet by drawing.
have Actual 2 mides are fillet and 2 sides flared bevel, copy of Weld profi le under 1/4".
rpt , l. *
AttSchment 1 VISUAL RESULTS ' UNIT TYPE ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS-
PS
G Do not REJ We l d s we re req u i red to be 1/4" f i l l e t by d raw i ng, have Actual 2 sides are fillet and 2 sides flared bevel.
copy of Weld profile under 1/4".
rpt
PS
H Do not REJ Welds were required to be 1/4" fillet by drawing, have Actual 2 sides are fillet and 2 sides flared bevel, copy of Weld profile under 1/4".
rpt INSTRUMENT / CONTROLS SUPPORT
1S
1-46 Do not REJ NRC rejected for veld length and because weld location have did not meet drawing. Weld type and size for cross members copy of and ma in f rame not listed on drawing p rovided.
rpts PIPE SUPPORT (OutSide TVA Sample) O PS
A Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
B Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
C Do not ACC have copy of rpt . O PS
D Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
E Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
F Do not ACC have copy of rpt PIPE SUPPORT (OutSide TVA Sample)
PS
B Do not ACC have copy of . rpt . I i,9 , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- , ,, _.
. F
' Attichment'1
VISUAL RESULTS UNIT TYPE ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS .
PS
D Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
E2 Do not REJ NRC rejected fillet weld size have copy of rpt
PS
E3 Do not REJ - NRC rejected fillet weld size have I copy of rpt !
PS
C Do not ACC have copy of
rpt
PS
A Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
Ef4 Do not REJ NRC rejected risset weid size have copy of rpt
PS
El Do not REJ NRC rejected filiet weld size have copy of rpt PIPING SUPPORT (OutSide TVA Sample)
PS
R/H A Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
B Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
C Do not ACC have ' copy of rpt
PS
C Do not ACC have
copy of 1.
rpt i i
4 ?
' _ J
_.~ . _ _ _ _ /
.
Att:chment 1 VISUAL RESULTS ' UNIT TYPE ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS.
1 PS
H Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
1 Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
J Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
K Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
L Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
L/H A Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
B Do not ACC have copy of rpt ,
PS
C Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
H Do not ACC have copy of rpt i
PS
I Do not ACC have copy of , l rpt l' PS
J Do not ACC
have copy of rpt . t
-
, le , .
, . ..
Attscheent 1 . VISUAL RESULTS UNIT TYPE ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS .
PS
K Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
L Do not ACC have copy of rpt PIPE SUPPORT (Outside TVA Sample)
PS
A Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
A Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
B Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
C Do not REJ NRC rejected weld "C", welded on 3 sides only, have copy of rpt
PS
D Do not ACC have.
. copy of rpt
PS
E1,2,3,4 Do not REJ NRC rejected welds E1,2,3,4 undersize fillet weld and weld have does not meet drawing requirements for type, copy of rpt PIPE SUPPORT (OutSide TVA Sample)
PS
RH F Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
1 Do not ACC have copy of rpt - . I .
, ,9 .
r .
Attichment 1 VISUAL RESULTS ~ UNIT TYPE ITEM WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC CDMMENTS
PS
J Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
M Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
N Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
Q Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
R Do not ACC have copy of rpt PIPE SUPPORT (OutSide TVA Sample)
PS
A1,2,3,4 Do not ACC have copy of rpt
PS
B1,2,3,4 Do not ACC ' have copy of rpt
PS
C1,2,3,4 Do not ACC have copy of rpt STRUCTURAL WELD EXAMINATION OUTSIDE OF TVA SAMPLE DWG NO.
47A053-118 Pipe Support All Out-ACC side . of sample 47A054-2B Pipe Support All Out-REJ NRC rejected support because it did not meet drawing side configuration, of I sample i, 1'
.. .
Attcchment 1 . STRUCTURAL WELD EXAMINATION OUTSIDE OF TVA SAMPLE VISUAL RESULTS* UNIT TYPE WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS 45W1363 Cable Tray All Out-ACC Support side of sample - 48W1364 Cable Tray All Out-ACC Support side of sample 48W1367 Cable Tray All Out-ACC Support side of sample 47A056-5 Conduit Support All Out-ACC FE 5127 side FE 5128 of sample A7A055-93 & 170 Duct Support All Out-REJ NRC rejected, weiding does not meet drawing requirements VAR #55-170-1 side for spacing.
VAR #55-93-23 of sample 47A056-5 Conduct Support All Out-ACC side of sample , 48N1216(R13) St ructu ra l Misc A Out-ACC side of sample 48N1216(R13) Structura l Misc B Out-ACC side of sample 48N1216(R13) Structura l Misc C Out-REJ NRC rejected for short length of weld.
side of sample 44N1216(R13) St ruc tu ra l Misc D Out-ACC side of sample
. l . O 1e *
. _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .'1 . . -
Attachment 1 . VISUAL RESULTS UNIT WELD NO.
LICENSEE NRC COMMENTS 48N1216(R13) Structura l Misc E Out-ACC side of sample 48N1216(R13) Structural Misc F Out-REJ NRC rejected, fillet weld undersized - side of sample 48N1216(R13) St ruc tu ra l Misc G Out-REJ NRC rejected; beam has been cut and reweided and the side added weld was not indicated on drawing provided.
of sample i 47A055-09 Duct Support All Out-ACC i side of , sample 47A055-170 G SEJ The NRC inspector identified that there were attri- ! (Listed as item 2 also) butes which appeared acessible, although they had been M REJ identified as inaccessible.
N REJ Findings: Only visible portion is painted. We l d su r-
O REJ face problems such as craters, weld profiles, undercut,
P REJ weld surface slag existed one missing weld was identi-Q REJ fled.
There is a space between support plate and con-R REJ crete.
See item 2 for additional info for this weld.
T REJ 47W915-1R16 Spiral 1-10 Out-ACC Licensee unable to locate any formal documentation of side veld inspecti n n these items.
Licensee has marked up Welded . of drawing and photos of the additional welds inspected by P1pe sample NRC.
- l ! i
. . .
, i.
}}