IR 05000327/1989008
| ML20247B791 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1989 |
| From: | Blake J, Newsome R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247B766 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-89-08, 50-327-89-8, 50-328-89-08, 50-328-89-8, NUDOCS 8903300043 | |
| Download: ML20247B791 (17) | |
Text
v
~
,
t @ *'c
.:' '
'4 UNITED STATES g,
- -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o,
REGION 11
101 MARiLTTA ST., N.W.
%,, p
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.: 50-327/89-08 and 50-328/89-08 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 6N38 A Lookout Place Chattanooga, TN, 37402-2801 Docket Nos.: 50 327 and 50-328 License Nos.:
DPR-77 and DPR-79 Facility Name: Sequoyah I and 2 l
Inspection Cond eted:
February 13-17, 1989 Inspector: ' b[ /A/
9-2-89 mm, R.-
ewsome{
Date Signed Approved by:
/
3-3-69 J J/Blake, Chief Date Signed at(rials and Processes Section Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety
.
SUMMARY Scope This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of Inservice Inspection (ISI) including the eddy current examination of the Unit 2 steam generator tubing.
The inspection included a review of the Unit 2 ISI plan for this outage; reviews of nondestructive examination (NDE) procedures; observations of in progress NDE examinations; independent examination
!
verifications; reviews of NDE personnel qualifications; reviews of NDE I
,
!
equipment calibration and material certification documentation; and a review of completed NDE examination data.
Results This inspection indicated that all observed ISI nondestructive examinations were technically adequate.
The NDE personnel conducting the examinations appeared well qualified and the results of all of the examination verifications conducted by the NRC inspector agreed well with the reported results.
The licensee's i
insistence that all contractor NDE personnel perform a satisfactory i
demonstration examination prior to being allowed to conduct examinations in the field is an excellent safe guard for assuring that the personnel in the field I
are well qualified.
The licensee has required these demonstration examinations in all areas of NDE including a demonstration of competency for the evaluation
!
of eddy current data.
Also, in the eddy current examination area, the licensee
!
has established data evaluation guidelines that are specific to the steam
_
e903300043 890315 PDR ADOCK 0500 c}7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_------_________
_ _..
-
.
,
b
generators being examined and has jointly embarked on a development project with Combustion Engineering and Zetec for the development of an eddy current probe superior to those now in use for the detection of defects in the U-bend areas of steam generator tubing.
The licensee instituted a high density contractor surveillance program for the first two weeks of ISI examinations which gives good assurance that the examinations are being properly conducted and the results of these examinations are being properly reported.
The institution of these programs by the licensee would indicate a willingness to go beyond the minimum requirements for assuring that ISI examinations are adequately addressed.
This inspection did identify two weaknesses related to ISI, one for assuring that the correct welds were being examined during ISI activities and the second indicated an inability by the licensee to identify that incorrect welds were being examined during the NDE surveillance conducted by the licensee.
In the areas examined, one violation was identified:
-
Failure to Follow Procedures and Drawings to Assure Correct Welds Are Examined During ISI, paragraph 2.c.(3)(b) 1 and *
.
,
.
J
,
l REPORT DETAILS
-)
1.
Persons Contacted
,
Licensee Employees
- M. Arroyo, Mechanical Engineer
- G. Belew, Manager NDE Section XI Program
,
l
- M. Burzynski, Site Licensing Manager
- M. Cooper, Compliance Licensing Supervisor i
S. Crow, Quality Control Manager
- C. Crownover, Surveillance Supervisor
- J. Goulart, Engineering Specialist, Inservice Inspection (ISI)
)
- T. Hale, NDE Engineering dranch
- J. Hawkins, Quality Assurance Evaluator l
- D. Howard, NDE Engineering Manager
- J.
LaPoint, Site Director
- J. Miller, Maintenance Program Support
- F.
Neimann, Ultrasonics Level III
- S. Smith, Plant Manager
- M. Turnbow, Manager NDE Monitoring
!
- G. Wade, Supervisor Quality Control ISI
- C. Webber, Eddy Current Level III
,
- C, White, Quality Assurance Specialist l
- C. Whittemore, Licensing Engineer Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included craftsmen, engineers, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- K. Jenison, Senior Resident Inspector l
!
- Attended exit interview Acronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the last paragraph.
2.
Inservice Inspection The inspector reviewed documents and records and observed activities, as indicated below, to determine whether ISI was being conducted in accordance with applicable procedures, regulatory requirements, and licensee commitments.
The applicable code for ISI is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel (ASME B&PV) Code,Section XI, 1977 edition with addenda through Summer 1978.
TVA personnel are primarily acting as coordinators for contractor personnel who are
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_-
.
- - - - - - _ _
~
.
.
conducting the nondesbuctive examinations using TVA procedures.
The liquid penetrant (PT), magnetic particle (MT), ultrasonic (UT), and visual (VT) examinations are being ccaducted by United States Testing (UST) and Corporate Consulting and Development Limited (CCL) personnel.
The steam
,
generator tubing eddy current (EC) examination data collection was accomplished by Combustion Engineering (CE) with Zetec and CE personnel performing the data analysis for TVA.
a.
ISI Outage Plan Review, Unit 2 (73051)
The inspector reviewed the ISI plan for this outage to determine whether the plan had been approved by the licensee and to assure that procedures and plans had been established (written, reviewed, approved and issued) to control and accomplish the following applicable activities:
duties of personnel responsible for ISI; scope of the inspection including description of areas to be examined, examination category, method of inspection, extent of examinations, and justifi-cation for any exception; definition of inspection interval and extent of examination; qualification of NDE personnel; and, controls of generation, approval, custody, storage and maintenance of NDE records.
b.
Review of NDE Procedures, Units 1 and 2 (73052)
(1) The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below to determine whether these procedures were consistent with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments.
The procedures were also reviewed in the areas of procedure approval, requirements for qualification of NDE personnel, and compilation of required'
records; and, if applicable, division of responsibility between the licensee and contractor personnel if contractor personnel are involved in the ISI effort.
N-VT-1 (R12)
Preservice and Inservice Visual
-
Examination Procedure
-
Eddy Current Data Evaluation Guideline SQNP-410-005 (R2)
Eddy Current Data Analysis Procedure
-
Evaluation of Westinghouse Steam Generator Tubing
-
SQNP-410-004 (R6)
Eddy Current Examination Of Nonferromagnetic Steam Generator Tubing Using MIZ-18 Equipment N-MT-6 (RO)
Magnetic Particle Examination of ASME
-
with PCR-89-26 And ANSI Code Components And Welds
-
N-PT-9 (RO)
Liquid Penetrant Examination of ASME with PCR-09-27 and ANSI code Components and Welds
-
N-UT-18 (RS)
Ultrasonic Examination of Pipe Welds
_
.
..m
~
.
,
3 1-UT-5 (R3)
Ultrasonic Examination Of Bolting
-
with PCR-89-30 Components N-VT-19(R3)
Ultrasonic Examination Of Welds In
.
-
with PCR-89-34 Vessels Two Inches And Greater N-UT-23(R2)
Ultrasonic Examination Of Ferritic
-
with PCR-89-38 Butt Welds And Adjacent Base Material In Pressure Vessels Having Wall Thicknesses In The Range Of 0.20 Inch To 2.0 Inches (2) The inspector reviewed the Ultrasonic (UT) procedures to ascertain whether they had been reviewed and approved in accordance with the licensee's established QA procedures. The procedures were also reviewed for technical adequacy and conformance with ASME,Section V, Article 5 and other licensee commitments / requirements in the following areas:
type of
,
l apparatus used; extent of coverage of weldment; calibration requirements; search units; beam angles; DAC curves; reference level for monitoring discontinuities;' method for demonstrating penetration; limits for evaluating and recording indications; recording significant indications; and, acceptance limits.
l During the review of UT procedure N UT-23, the inspector noted that this procedure appeared to allow the use of a level I UT examiner for the performance of examinations that should be performed by a level II examiner.
This was brought to the attention of a Level III UT examiner who then issued a Procedure Change Request (PCR) which corrected the wording problem in the procedure.
The NRC inspector verified that level I personnel were not accomplishing examinations that would require a Level II examiner.
(3) The inspector reviewed the Eddy Current (EC) procedures for technical content relative to:
multichannel examination unit, multichannel examination indication equipment is specified, examination sensitivity, material permeability, method of examination, method of calibration and calibration sequence, and
acceptance criteria.
'
While reviewing procedure SQNP-410-005 the NRC inspector noted that the procedure indicated that the EC signal from relevant i
indications would begin to form in a downward motion.
This is not correct when the mode of examination is absolute.
The NRC inspector discussed this with the EC level III and Field Change Notice 374939-002 was issued on 2-17-89 correcting this error.
_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
~
.
.
(4) The inspector reviewed the Magnetic Particle (MT) procedure to ascertain whether it had been reviewed and approved in accordance with the licensee's established QA procedures. The procedure was reviewed for technical adequacy and for conformance with the ASME Code Section V, Article 7, and other licensee commitments /
l requirements in the following areas:
examination methods;
'
contrast of dry powder particle color with background; surface temperature; suspension medium and surface temperature requirement for wet particles; viewing conditions; examination overlap and directions; pole or prod spacing; current or lifting power (yoke);
and, acceptance criteria.
(5) The inspector reviewed the Visual (VT) examination procedure to determine whether it contained sufficient instructions to assure that the following parameters were specified and controlled within the limits permitted by the applicable code, standard, or any other specification requirement:
method - direct visual, remote visual or translucent visual; application - hydrostatic testing, fabrication procedure, visual examination of welds, leak testing, etc.; how visual examination is to be performed; type of surface condition available; method or implement used for surface preparation, if any; whether direct or remote viewing is used; sequence of performing examination, when applicable; data to be tabulated, if any; acceptance criteria is specified and consistent with the applicable code section or controlling specification; and, report form completion.
(6) The inspector reviewed the Liquid Penetrant (PT) procedure to wertain whether it had been reviewed and approved in accordance with the licensee's established QA procedurcs. The procedure was also reviewed for technical adequacy and conformance with ASME,Section V, Article 6, and other licensee commitments / requirements in the following areas:
specified method; penetrant material identification; penetrant materials analyzed for sulfur; penetrant materials analyzed for total halogens; surface temperature; acceptable pre-examination surface conditioning; method used for pre-examination surface cleaning; surface drying time prior to penetrant application; method of penetrant application; penetrant dwell time; method used for excess penetrant removal; surface drying prior to developer application, if applicable; type of developer; examination technique; evaluation techniques; and, procedure requalificaticn.
c.
Observation of Work and Work Activities, Unit 2 (73753)
The inspector observed work activities and reviewed certification records of NDE equipment and materials and reviewed NDE personnel qualifications for personnel that had been and will be utilized during the required ISI examinations during this outage.
The observations and reviews conducted by the inspector are documented below.
(1) Observation Of Ultrasonic Examination Activities
-
_
. _ _ _ _
_ _ _.
__
__
.
o e
-
,
-
.
(a) The inspector observed calibration activities and the
...
in-process ultrasonic examinations, being conducted on the welds indicated.below.
The observations were compared with the applicable ' procedures ande the ASME B&PV Code in the -
following are's:
availability af and. compliance with a
approved NDE procedures; use of knowledgeable NDE personnel; use of NDE personnel qualified to' the proper 1evel; ' type of
~
apparatus used; calibration requirements; search units; beam-angles; DAC curves; reference level for monitoring discontinuities; method of demonstrating penetration; extent of weld / component examination coverage; limits of evaluating; and recoding indications; recording significant indications; l
'and, acceptance limits.
Drawing No.
Weld ID Class 1 S1 -0002C ~-
SIS-249
1 1S1-0320B MSW-2-
(b) The inspector conducted an ultrasonic verification examination, using.TVA equipment, on portions of the above
,
listed welds. These examinations were performed in order to-
.I-W evaluate the technical adequacy of the ultrasonic examination procedure being used by the licensee's contractor to perform ultrasonic examinations and to assess the validity of the j
information being reported by the. ultrasonic examiners.
The verification ultrasonic examinations conducted by the inspector indicated that the procedure being used to conduct the examinations is adequate and the verification j
examination results compared favorably with the information i
being reported by the ultrasonic examiners.
(c) The following listed ultrasonic equipment and materials certification records were reviewed:
Ultrasonic Instruments Manufacturer /Model
' Serial No.
KB/USL-38 522004 KB/USL-38 522188 KB/USL-38 522184 The inspector reviewed spectrum analysis data for the ultrasonic transducers listed below:
)
i
.
,
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - _ _ -
.
e
.
E1823 1/2" x 1" 1.0 MHz (megahertz)
90151 1/2" x 1" 1.0 MH z 041747
.5" 2.25 MHz 15282
.375" 1.5 MH Ultrasonic Couplant Batch Number 8764 (2) Observation Of Visual Examination Activities (a) The inspector observed the visual examination of pressure retaining bolting identified on drawing ISI-0013-C as item RC-1765-BC. The observation was made to:
determine whether the applicable drawing, instructions or travelers clearly specify the procedure to be used and that a copy of the procedure is available in the area where the work is being performed; identify for record review the personnel performing the examination and ascertain whether they are qualified to perform the assigned task; determine whether the required tools and examination aids (as specified in the examination procedure) are available at the work location; determine whether the specific areas, locations and extent of examination are clearly defined; determine whether the test attributes are as specified in the applicable test procedure; ascertain whether the defects are evaluated in accordance with the procedure requirements, correct acceptance criteria is used, and the inspection results are reported in a prescribed manner.
(b) The NRC inspector conductec an independent examination of the pressure retaining bolting identified above.
This examination was conducted in order to evaluate the adequacy of the examination procedure being used by the licensee's contractor and to assess the validity of the information being reported by the examiner.
This re-examination generally agreed with the findings of the visual examiner.
(3) Observation Of Liquid Penetrant Examination Activities (a) The inspector observed the PT examinations indicated below.
These observations were compared with the applicable procedure and drawing and the ASME B&PV Code in the following areas:
specified method, penetrant materials identified; penetrant materials analyzed for halogens and sulfur; acceptable pre-examination surface; surface temperature; surface drying time prior to penetrant application; method of penetrant application; penetrant dwell time; method used for excess penetrant removal; surface drying prior to developing, if applicable; type of
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__ __
_-
. _
_ _ _ _ _
-
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
.
,
developer; examination technique; evaluation technique; and, reporting of examination ~results.
Drawing No.
Weld ID Class ISI-0002-C 2-SI-1131-A
ISI-0002-C 2-SI-1131
ISI-0002-C 2-SI-1127
MSG-0008 CVC-1086
MSG-0008 CVC-1041
The NRC inspector re-evaluated the above welds following the PT examiners evaluation of the welds but prior to the developer being removed from the weld surfaces.
This re-evaluation was conducted in order to determine if the evaluations performed by the PT examiners was in accordance with the applicable procedure acceptance criteria and to determine if the examination results were being reported as required.
The re-evaluations conducted by the NRC inspector indicated that the proper evaluation was made by the PT examiners and that the examination results were being reported as required.
(b) Within this area, one violation was identified. This violation is discussed in the following paragraphs.
1.
On February 15, 1989, while observing liquid penetrant (PT)
examinations in the field, the NRC inspector identified a PT examiner conducting an examination on a Chemical and Volume Control System, Class I weld, CVC-1090 as shown on drawing MSG-0008-C, instead of the weld identified on this drawing as requiring examination, weld CVC-1091.
The sequence of events proceeding this observation and the actions following this determination are documented in the following paragraphs.
The NRC inspector had just completed observing 2 other PT examiners conducting examinations on 3 welds.
During the observation of'these two examiners, the NRC inspector noted that one of the examiners precleaned a weld that did not require examination at this time.
The NRC inspector determined this by reviewing the drawing that the examiner was working from.
One of the welds designated on the drawing did not correspond to one of the welds that the PT examiner had precleaned, apparently in preparation for the examination of the weld.
The NRC inspector questioned the PT examiner with regard to whether he was preparing to examine the correct selds.
The PT examiner at this point reviewed his drawing and indicated that he had not yet precleaned one of the welds that required examination and indicated that he had cleaned the non-required weld because it had penetrant material residue on it.
The examiner then pre-cleaned and examined the weld designated on the drawin v
.
i
-
,
)
Following the observations noted above, the NRC inspector approached another PT examiner who was in the process of penetrant testing two welds simultaneously.
The liquid penetrant had already been applied j
to these two welds.
The NRC inspector reviewed the drawing that the examiner was working from and during this review determined that one of the welds being penetrant tested was not shown on the drawing as requiring examination and that one of the welds shown on the drawing as requiring examination was not being tested.
The NRC inspector asked the PT examiner if he was sure he was examining the correct welds and the examiner's response was that he was sure he was examining the correct welds.
At this point the NRC inspector
{
requested the PT examiner to review the drawing he was working from.
'
After a review of the drawing, the PT examiner determine that he was not, in one case, examining the correct weld and terminated the j
examination of the erroneous weld.
The NRC inspector immediately conveyed to licensee personnel his
!
concern as to whether the correct welds were being examined in the field.
J
!
On February 16, 1989, the day after the NRC inspector's observation, an investigation was conducted by the NRC inspector and licensee
,
personnel to determine if correct welds were being PT examined during
.ISI activities.
This investigation was conducted by having three PT examiners physically point out the welds that they had previously examined and comparing these welds with the welds that required examination.
The welds pointed out were visually confirmed as having some evidence of penetrant residue remaining on them.
As a result of this investigation, it was determined that the PT examiner who had been observed erroneously examining the weld noted above, had on January 28, 1989, erroneously examined two welds. The two welds pointed out by the examiner were identified as welds CVC-1103 and CVC-1104 however the welds designated on drawing l
MSG-0008-C as requiring examination were CVC-1101 and CVC-1102.
The two welds pointed out by the examiner had evidence of having been PT examined but the two welds that required examination had no evidence of ever having been PT examined.
The investigation of the two other PT examiners indicated that they had apparently PT examined the correct welds in all cases that were verified at this time.
Nine welds were verified for one of the PT examiners and two welds were verified for the other at this time.
The licensee is conducting an investigation of all PT examiners in an effort to determine if additional welds were erroneously examined.
Results of these investigations had not been completed by the end of this inspection.
- - _ _
-
..
.
'
..
As' a result of the findings described above. it is apparent that the'
PT examiner failed to follow general procedures and drawings to assure.
that the welds subjected to examination were the: welds designated on the drawings as' requiring examination.- This failure to, adequately control activ.ities affecting quality as prescribed by ' documented.
instruction, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to' the
,
circumstances and assuring that the activities are being accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings is a.
violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix. B,. Criteria V, and will be identified as Violation 50-327, 328/89-08-01, Failure to Follow Procedures. and
Drawings to Assure Correct Welds. Are Examined During ISI.
L During the observations and activities described: above, the NRC inspector identified two factors that appear to have contributed 'to the examination of the wrong welds.
These possible causes are: 1)
Poor quality drawings are.being used in the field to identify the-welds that require examinations; 2)
The absence of a weld / item identification permanently placed in close proximity to the weld / item requiring examination.
-2.
On January 28,-1989, a partial surveillance of the' liquid penetrant examination of two welds was conducted by licensee personnel as documented in Monitor Report #555-89-24. The welds were identified as i
'
CVC-1101 and CVC-1102. in the report..
During the l followup l
investigations conducted on February 16,~1989 to determine if. the correct welds were being examined during ISI activities, as described
'
in 1. above, the two welds identified as having. been examined and under surveillance at that time were welds CVC-1103 and CVC-1104 and not welds CVC-1101 and CVC-1102.
The licensee's surveillance of these weld examinations failed to identify that the welds which were being examined were not the welds that required examination.
The NRC inspector reviewed the procedure that was used to conduct the surveillance described above, QMI-555, Revision. 3,
" Level III Monitoring Of Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Personnel", and found that the procedure does not contain provision for verifying that the correct item / weld being examined during the surveillance is the
,
weld / item that requires examination.
The absence of a provision in l
this procedure for verifying that the correct item / weld is being examined is probably a contributing factor to the violation.
, -
-..-______m___m__
,
'
.
.~
(c) The inspector reviewed the below listed liquid penetrant materials certification records to ascertain if the sulfur and halogen content of the naterial was within acceptable content limits.
Materials Batch Number Liquid Penetrant 87LO10, 83D030 Cleaner / Remover 88J029, 888042, 85D017 Developer 85C020, 88E063, 840081 (4) Review Of MT Equipment Certifications The inspector reviewed documentation indicating that a ten pound lift test had been performed on magnetic particle alternating current (AC) yokes 524130, 417218, and 417818.
Certification records for lift test plates E83523 and E83521 were reviewed to confirm the weight of the test plates.
(5) Steam Generator Tubing Eddy Current (EC) Examination The inspector observed the EC activities indicated below.
The observations were compared with the applicable procedures and the Code in the following areas:
method for maximum sensitive is applied; method of examination has been recorded; examination equipment has been calibrated in accordance with the applicable performance reference; amplitude and phase angle have been calibrated with the proper calibration reference and is recalibrates at predetermined frequency; required coverage of steam generator tubes occurs during the examination; acceptance criteria is specified or referenced and is consistent with the procedure or the ASME Code; and, results are consistent with the acceptance criteria.
(a)
In-process tube data acquisition, including calibration confirmation and tube location verifications was observed for the following steam generator tubes:
-
.
-
.
.
+ ~
Steam Generator 2 Steam Generator 4 Row Column Row Column
14
46
15
46
16
46
16
46
16
46
16
47 l
17
47
'
17
47
18
47
2
2
2 (b)
In-process Eddy Current data evaluation, including calibration confirmation, was observed for the below listed Steam Generator Tubes.
Data analysis is accomplished by having the same data evaluated by two independent data analysts.
If differences are noted between the two analysts evaluations, they are resolved by a designated lead analysts.
Steam Generator 1 Steam Generator 2 Row Column Row Column
76
46
76
46
76
46
76
45
76
42
70
43
70
43
70
43 (c) During the observations of the analysis activities for the above listed tubes, the inspector jointly evaluated the. data with the analysts. No significant discrepancies were noted.
,
(d) Certification records of EC calibration standards Z-1726, Z-1184, and Z-6125 were reviewed for material type, correct fabrication, and artificial flaw location / size.
- _
_ _ -
_
'
.
'
,
W
4 (6) The inspector reviewed the qualification documentation for the below listed examiners in the following areas:
employer's name; person certified; activity qualified to perform; effective period of certification; signature of employer's designated representative; basis used for certification; and, annual visual acuity, color vision examination, and periodic decertification.
Company Examiner Method-Level CE JER EC-II CE DPF EC-I CE EGW EC-I CE AP EC-IIA
,
I CE JFJ EC-IIA Zetec CMM EC-IIA Zetec FS EC-IIA Zetec JRJ EC-IIA UST RHW VT-3/II UST GVT PT-II CCL MMM PT-II/VT-3&4/II CCL SJD PT-II UST CAM PT-II/VT-3/II i
UST MRH PT-II UST RDW PT-II UST DTJ PT-II l
CCL JDA UT-II/PT-II UST RLG PT-II/MT-II TVA DWB PT-II TVA JCM PT-II CCL DTD UT-II TVA EJT UT-II TVA MDT UT-II UST BDA PT-II/VT-3/II UST WAS UT-II CCL TJC PT-II/VT-4/II UST BTB MT-II
CCL DSW MT-II
d.
Inservice Inspection, Data Review and Evaluation, Unit 2 (73755)
Records of completed nondestructive examinations were selected and I
reviewed to ascertain whether:
the methods (s), technique, and extent I
of the examination complied with the ISI plan and appliedble NDE procedures; findings were properly recorded and evaluated by qualified personnel; programmatic deviations were recorded as required; personnel, instruments, calibration blocks, and NDE materials
.
(penetrants, couplants) were designated.
Records selected for this i
review are listed below, t-------_------------------.
- - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~,
,
~
,
- o i
Drawing No.
Weld / Component ID NDE Method MSG-0009-C/10 2-SIH-228 VT-3 ISI-0013-C RC-1632-X1 PT
,
ISI-0013-C RC-1624 PT l
ISI-0002-C SI-2254 PT i
MSG-0009-C 2-SIH-150 VT-3 ISI-0002-C SI-1822 PT
)
,
'
l MSG-0009-C/10 2-SIH-227 VT-3 MSG-0009-C 2-SIH-157 PT
'
MSG-0013-C 2-RCH-894 VT-4 i
ISI-0008-B RCW-22 PT ISI-0002-C SIF-206A PT ISI-0013-C RC-1666 PT ISI-0013-C RC-1669 PT i
ISI-0013-C RC-1670 PT ISI-0013-C RC-1672 PT (
ISI-0013-C RC-1673 PT l
MSG-0008-C CVC-1237 PT
.
l MSG-0008-C CVC-1237A PT l
MSG-0009-C CVC-1241 PT MSG-0008-C CVC-1245A PT ISI-00088 RC-30 PT l
ISI-0008B RC-15 PT ISI-00088 RC-23 PT l
MSG-0013-C 2-RCH-297 VT-3 l
l Reactor Coolant RC-18-SE UT l
Reactor Coolant RC-10-SE UT
'
Reactor Coolant RC-11-SE UT Feedwater FDF-006 UT i
Reactor Coolant RCW-01 UT I
Reactor Coolant RC-15 UT l
Reactor Coolant RC-23 UT Reactor Coolant RC-30 UT
'
MSG-0012-C 2-RCH-38 VT-3 MSG-0010-C 2-RHRH-429 VT-4 l
ISI-0013-C RCS-046 PT I
ISI-0013-C RCS-052 PT ISI-0074-A BIT-5 MT 151-0320-8 MSW-1 MT MSG-0008-C CVC-1094 PT
,
l ISI-0074-Al SIF-105 PT l
Reactor Coolant RCW-22 UT ISI-0013-C RC1590 PT ISI-0013-C RC-166-BC VT-1 ISI-0320B MSW-1 UT Safety Injection SIF-136 UT Safety Injection SIF-177 UT Feedwater FDF-140 UT
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
-
O
.
'
i
I
,
)
l
.
FDF-131 UT Feedwater FDF-021 UT Feedwater FDF-022 UT l
MSG-0008 CVC-1086 PT J
ISI-0002-C 2-SI-1131-A
.PT i
'
ISI-0002-C 2-SI-1131 PT 15I-0002-C 2-SI-1127 PT ISI-0013-C RC-1765-BC VT-1 MSG-0008-C CVC-1103 PT MSG-0008-C CVC-1104 PT Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified except as noted in paragraph 2.c.(3)(b) above.
3.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on February 17, 1989, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed.below.
l l
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
i
l Violation 50-327,328/89-08-01, Failure to Follow Procedures and Drawings
{
to Assure Correct Welds Are Examined During ISI, paragraph 2.c.(3)(b) 1
"
and 2.
I i
l
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_J
._
._
._.
.- o a
e -
!
'
e I
l
l 4.
Acronyms and Initialisms AC -. Alternating Current i
ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers B&PV - Boiler and Pressure Vessel CCL - Corporate Consulting and Development Limited CE - Combustion Engineering CFR - Code of Federal Regulations DAC - Distance Amplitude Curve EC - Eddy Current ID - Identification ISI - Inservice Inspection
KB '- Krautkramer/Branson MT - Magnetic particle
'
MH - Megahertz NDI-NondestructiveExamination l
No. - Number j
!
NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission PCR - Procedure Change Request PT - Liquid penetrant R - Revision
.
TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority l
UT - Ultrasonic UST-United States Testing Company.inc.
l VT - Visual
.
1 l
!
__-_ _.