IR 05000338/1989013

Insp Repts 50-338/89-13 & 50-339/89-13 on 890418-20. Violations Noted.No Deviations Identified.Major Areas Inspected:Areas of Welding safety-related Components & Review of Reactor Vessel 10-yr Ultrasonic Exam Program

ML20244E247
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	06/02/1989
From:	Blake J, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20244E228	List: IR 05000338/1989013 ML20244E226 ML20244E246
References
50-338-89-13, 50-339-89-13, NUDOCS 8906200230
Download: ML20244E247 (6)

Text

n_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

.

L ptReho UNITED STATES l '

o ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

-[ \ , n HEGloN 11 c { O 101 MARIETTA STREET, Et # ; 'f ATLANTA, GEORGt A 30323 k .i ....' /

Report Nos.: 50-338/89-13 and 50-339/89-13 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Glen Allen,-.VA 23060 4 Docket Nos.: 50-338 and 50-339 License Nos.: NPF-4 and NPF-7

'

,

. -

,

Facility Name: North Anna 1 and 2

, ,

' ~

'

- Inspection Conducted: April - 0, 1989 -

-

Inspector: on'o m' " T ArL&nw f . F f)

/ sate / Signed f

Approved by: -

/ # s 9

) . J ./81gXe,cChief .Date Signed 4 Processes Section Matria)ringBranch En ne <

Di isipon of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:

This routine unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of welding safety related components; review of reactor vessel ten year ultrasonic

. examination program; review corrective action planned and completed on steam generator tube plugs exhibiting primary water stress corrosion cracking, (PWSCC).

Results:

The inspector identified weaknesses .related to procurement and control of welding consumables and the application of improperly qualified welding procedure in production welding. In the areas examiaed two violations were identified /

-

Failure to perform weld-repair in accordance with ASME Code Section IX requirements, 50-339/89-13-01, parcgraph Failure co establish measures for the control and identification ER-705-2 material to prevent misapplication, 50-339/89-13-02, paragraph No deviations were identifie ,

8906200230 890607 8 PDR ADOCK 0500 G

. _ - _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• F. Driscoll, Manager Quality Assurance

• O. Enfinger, Assistant Station Manager

• P. Hamill, Staff Engineer

• A. Heacock, Superintendent Engineering

• E. Kane, Station Manager

• H. Leberstein, Licensing Engineer

• R. Matth+ !s, Superintendent Maintenance

• R. Smith, Jr. , Systems Engineer

• A. Stall, Superintendent Operations

• W. Throckmoroton, Materials Engineer

• L. Travis, Site NDE Coordinator

• Weeks, Maintenance Engineer

• C. West, Superintendent, Outage Management Other licensee employees contacted during this inspectio~n included QA/QC inspectors, engineers, and technician Other Organizations Fluor / Daniel Company ,

J. Janezic, Construction Engineer NRC Resident Inspector J. Caldwell, Senior Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio . Inservice Inspection - Review of Plans and Procedures for Ten Year Reactor Vessel Examination (73753)

The inspector held discussions with the licensee's Level III Examiner on the upcoming ten year inservice inspection of Unit-1 reactor vessel weld The vessel welds will be ultrasonically examined by Westinghouse (W),

,

using a remote control device and a state of the art data acquisition and l

processing system referred to as "UDRPS", for Ultrasonic Date Recording l

.-__-------------.--J

- - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -

.

. .

.

and Processing' Syste The examination will be performed with a procedure that is consistent with ASME Section V, A-ticle 4, and Regulatory Guide 1.150 requirements. Acceptance criteria and weld coverage requirements will be controlled by ASME Section XI,1974 Edition with Summer of 1975 Addend System calibration was performed at the Westinghouse Waltz Mill facility earlier during the month of Apri The licensee's Level III examiner witnessed this activity and indicated that results of the calibration were satisfactory. Ult.rasonic examination procedure; to be used for this inspection were written ASME Code Section XI 1983 Edition with Summer 1983 Addenda and comply with requirements of the earlier code edition (74575) which has been the code of record for the first ten year interval. A sample of these procedures include:

VPC-ISI-254 Remote Inservice Inspection of Reactor Vessels for North Anna and Surr Rev. 5 Underwater Remote Visual Examination 151-047 Rev. 2 Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Circumferential and Longitudinal Butt Welds in Ferritic Vessels of 2 1/2 inches and greate >

The inspector reviewed these procedures for technical content and )

compliance with applicable code and regulatory requirement Within the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identifie . Weld Repair on Main Steam Trip Valve 2MS-TV-201B Nuclear Welding (55050),

Unit 2 One of the scheduled activities during this outage, was to do maintenance work on the .24-inch main steam valve No. 02-TV-MS-2018. The mechanical maintenance procedure used for this purpose was identified as MMP-C-MS- On April 9, 1989, a liquid penetrant examination on the seat and surrounding area of the subject valve, revealed two 1/4" linear indications in the valve body near the valve seat. The examination was l performed with liquid penetrant procedure PT-101 Revision 0. , Addendum  ;

4.1.4. The decision was made to remove the indications, by grindin However, this procedure proved unsuccessful and, the end result was that I the two indications were ground until they merged into a single cavity measuring approximately 3 5/8" long, one inch wide and 3/4" dee In that at the time of this inspection, the excavated area had been repair J welded, radiographer, and the valve reassembled the inspector made an in depth records review and made the following observation <

"

The licensee evoked ASME Code Section XI (83S83) and Section III, MC-2570 as the applicable code. Also, repair procedures MMP-C-W-1 Revision 9, Mechanical Maintenance Procedure for Welding Safety Related Equipment, was issued to direct and document field activities.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

..

__ - __ - _ _ _ _ _

e . .

,

.

• '

_

-

. .

-E 3

[ ,

l .h The.' depth of the cavity / excavation along with- valve body material'

properties precluded the need for post-weld heat treatment following weld repai VEPC0!s qualified Welding Technique 109 Revision C dated May 1988, with supporting procedure qualification records (PQR) 109 was used for the, repair. As such, this weld procedure had been qualified as a combination procedure 'using the gas tungsten -arc (GTA) welding process to deposit the root and hot pass of the weld tes The remainder, was completed using the shielded metal arc welding (SMAW)

process. The PQR shows the weld test was post-weld heat treated (PWHT) at .1150 FiS0* for one hour per inch. In reference..to. the .

thickness of weld metal deposited with the 'GTA process, the PQR -

stated, "GTAW limited to two layers for Section III welds."

ASME Code Section XI QW-407.1 identifies PWHT as an essential variable for the GTA process and requires a new PQR with the addition or deletion of PWH Contrary to these requirements the licensee, 1)'used the subject procedure to perform the weld repair on valve 2MS-TV-201B where no PWHT was required  !

and none was performed and, 2) according to weld data report on Work Order R

- No. 081290, 4/14/89 welders exceeded the two layer limit of GTA deposited ,

material -by. depositing the root plus three additional passes with the GTA prncace This . failure to conduct welding in accordance with ASME Code l Ssction IX requirements . is in violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX and is identified as violation 50-339/89-13-01, Failure to Peaform Weld Repair in Accordance with ASME Code Section.IX requirement A review of the Weld Data Report used by the licensee to document welding attributes showed the heat numbers of filler metal used for each pass of .

the weld repair was as follows: )

Purchase ASME Heat j

Order Type Specification Number Size PROCESS NS13891 ER705-2 SFA5.18 F8525 3/32" di GTAW l CNS 212032 E7018 SFA /32" di SMAW i The licensee purchases the SFA5.18 bare metal wire, in accordance with j

- VEPC0 Specification FMS-102; and the SFA 5.1 covered electrode material in accordance with VEPC0 Specification FMS-101. Specification FMS-102, references ASME Code Section II (80W83), NB-2431 which does not require weldment stress-relief /PWHT, impact testing. To verify compliance with

"

this specification and subject code requirements the inspector reviewed the certified material test reports for the material used for the subject weld-repair (HT #F8525). In addition the licensee has similar bare wire (ER705-2) material approved for field usage. This other heat of bare metal wire, was also purchased under specification FMS-102 and was  !

identified as follows- l

J n

-

. . _ _ . - _ . - - _ _ _ - - , - - . _ - _ _ _ . - . - . _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - -

___

,

..

., .

.

Purchase ASME Heat Order Type Specification Number Size IP41399 ER705-2 SFA5.18 065496 3/32" di A quality ' records review, disclosed that the material used for the weld repair (Heat F8525), was provided without stress-relief impact test results, while the material produced from heat number 065496 above, had been impact tested following stress relie Following this review, the inspector visited both rod issuing centers (Construction and Station), and interviewed cognizant personnel. Through this work effort the inspector observed that no separation or means of identification existed between materials provided in these two different conditions. A subsequent review of the licensee's procedures for controlling welding materials WP0-13, Rev. O and ADM-9.6 dated October 1, 1987 disclosed that they contained no provisions for identifying and/or segregating those materials. The inspector discussed this finding with the licensee and stated that this condition was a programmatic weakness and a breakdown of material control, in that it permits material provided under the same specification but qualified for dif ferent applications to go un-noticed and; therefore, used in production welding without taking into account applicable code considerations. This failure to provide measures for the control and identification of material to prevent its misapplication is in violation of 10 CFR 50, Apper. dix B, Criterion VIII and is identified as Violation 50-338, -339/89-13-0 In addition to the above documents, the inspector reviewed liquid penetrant and magnetic particle inspection reports, radiographs and qualification records of welders and NDE personne Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified except as noted in paragraph 4 abov . Steam Generator Tube Mechanical Plug Failure and Repair, Units 1 and 2, (62700)

The inspector met with licensee's cognizant engineer to discuss the status of planned corrective actions and obtain a progress report on Unit-2 work effor Following is a tabulation of Unit-2 tubes plugged because of eddy current (EC) indications and tubes that had mechanical plugs removed because of susceptibility to primary water stress corrosion crackin Tubes Plugged Plugs Because of EC Removed, Indications Hot Leg Hot and Cold Legs Steam Generator A 13 4 Steam Generator B 8 10

_ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

\

_. __ .__

_ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ -. ..

A *f

.i, ;,; .

. 5

.-

Tubes Plugged Plugs- Because of EC Removed, Indications Hot Leg- Hot and Cold Legs (cont'd)

Steam Generator C 30 15

.,.

-Totals 51 29 With regards to Unit-2, :the licensee was continuing the evaluation process, however a. tentative list of tubes earmarked for plugging was discussed, which was as follows:

Steam Generator A B C

' Number of Tubes 115 100 189 Current' plans call for these tubes to be secured with a plug-in-a plug (PIP) design plug on the hot leg side of the steam generato .

An additional- sixteen (16) tubes will be plugged because of the earlier

tube 3/60 failure.- These will include a suspect tube and certain others in the surrounding area as a precautionary measur Within the areas' examined no' violations or deviations were identifie . ' Exit Interview

- The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 20,1989, with those persons indicated in' paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed abov Although reviewed during this inspection, proprietary information is not,

. contained in' this report. Dissenting comments were not received from the license Item Number Description and Reference 338, 339/89-13-01 Violation - Failure to establish measures for the control and identification of ER-705-2 material to prevent misapplicatio /89-13-02 Violation - Failure to perform weld-repair in accordance with ASME Code Section IX requirements.

l _ _--___-_________-____A