IR 05000348/1980032
| ML19345E718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1980 |
| From: | Crowley B, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345E702 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-50-364-80-43 50-348-80-32, 50-364-80-43, NUDOCS 8102050705 | |
| Download: ML19345E718 (10) | |
Text
r
'
pa arc E[}* 3..,7
[
UNITED STATES o,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
-%"
c c REGION 11 oh f
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
' 6e ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
...../
Report Nos.
50-348/80-32 and 50-364/80-43 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name:
Farley Docket Nos.
50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.
NPF-2 and CPPR-86 Inspection at Farley site near Dothan, Alabama
[
m
/
/0
"
Inspector B. R.Crowley
/
D&te Signed
}.
. R. Herdt Accompanying Per n I[
I[
/d 0 T
Approved by A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, RCES Branch Da'te Signed SUMMARY Inspection on October 14 - November 5, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 62 inspector-hours on site and 4 inspector-hours at Combustion Engineering, Inc. in the areas of inservice inspection (ISI) (Unit 1); preservice inspection (PSI) (Unit 2).
Resul ts Of the 2 Greas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-fied in one area; one item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infraction
- Inadeq)uate procedures for evaluation of PSI inspection results, paragraph 7.d.(3).
s102050#f
.
O q
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. G. Hairston, Plant Manager
- J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager
- J. G. Sims, Supervisor of Engineering
- R. G. Berryhill, Performance and Planning Superintendent
- G. S. Waymire, Systems Performance Engineer
- D. L. Vine, Level III Examiner
- J. W. Kale, Jr., OA Engineer
- W. C. Carr, OA Engineer B. Miller, Health Physics Sector Supervisor ti. Mitchell, Health Physics Sector Supervisor Other Organizations
- E. R. Burns, Engineer (Southern Company Services)
- J. J. Churchwell, Engineer (Southern Company Services)
- R. L. Rowley, Systems Performance Engineer (Bechtel Corporation)
J. A. Vano, Inspection Services fianager (Westinghouse)
8. Lefebvre, Senior Engineer-LIII (Westinghouse)
N. A. Bollingmo, Field Services Engineer (Westinghouse)
D. C. Adamonis, Senior Engineer (Westinghouse)
J. Tarby, Engineer (Westinghouse)
G. E. Conrad, Site Coordinator, ISI (Westinghouse)
J. Cooper, Level III (Westinghouse-Penescola)
C. R. White, Senior 0A Engineer (Westinghouse-CE)
J. L. Hamilton, Senior QA Engineer (Westinghouse-CE)
NRC Resident Inspector
- W. H. Bradford
- J. P. Mulkey 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 17, 22, and November 5, 1980, with those persons indicated in paragraph I above.
See paragraph 7.b.(3) for a summary of the meeting of netober 22. On November 5,1980, the noncompliance of paragraph 7.d.(3) and the inspec-tor followup item of paragraph 7.b.(3)(b) were discussed. The licensee agreed that the administrative control procedures were inadequate. The licensee further stated that relative to the followup item, the PSI Relative report would include the evaluation of indications as discussed.
to the need to perfom an augumented inspection on
"C" outlet nozzle (see paragraph 7.b(3)(a)) the licensee stated that based on the additional inspections that had been perfomed and the fact that the indication
&
r
.
.
.
meets code requirements even if it is a defect, any augumented inspection is not considered necessary.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not' identified during tSis inspection.
5.
Inservice Inspection - Review of Procedures (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed ISI procedure ISI-11, Revision 9, Am. 3 " Liquid Penetrant Procedure" to determine whether the procedure was consistent with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments.
The applicable code for the ISI is the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI,1974 Edition including addenda through the S75. The procedure was reviewed in the areas of:
a.
Procedure approval, requirements for qualification of NDE personnel and procedure scope.
b.
Procedure technical content relative to:
method consistent with ASME Code, specification of brand names of penetrant materials, specification of ' limits for sulfur and total halogens for pene-trant materials, preexamination surface preparation, minimum drying time following surface cleaning, penetrant application and-penetration time, temperature requirements, solvent removal, method of surface drying, type of developer and method of application, examination technique, technique for evaluation, and acceptance standards.
In addition to the above NDE procedure, the inspector reviewed licensee Surveillance Test Procedure FNP-0-STP-157.0, Revision 0, which documents approval of. NDE procedures used for ISI.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Inservice Inspection - Observation of Work and Work Activities (Unit 1)
The inspector observed the ISI activities described below to determine.
whether these activities were being performed in accordance with regula-tory requirements and licensee procedures.
See paragraph 5 above for the applicable code.
a.
Personnel qualification records for two level I and two level II examiners were reviewed.
.
,
t
.
.
b.
In-process liquid penetrant (PT) inspection of weld WS-1 on ISO ALA-229 was observed and compared with the requirements of the applicable procedure, ISI-11, and code in the following areas:
(1) Availability of and compliance with approved NDE procedures (2) Use of knowledgeable NDE personnel (3) Use of NDE personnel qualified to the proper level (4) Recording of inspection results (5)
Method consistent with procedure (6)
Penetrant materials identified and consistent with AStiE Code (7)
Certification of sulfur and halogen content for penetrant materials (8) Surface preparation (9) Drying time following surface temperature (10) Penetrant application and penetration time
,
(11) Examination surface temperature (12) Penetrant removal (13) Drying of surface prior to developing (14) Developer type, application and time interval after penetrant removal (15) Time interval between - developer application and evaluation (16) Evaluation technique (17) Reporting examination results c.
In-process ultrasonic (UT) inspection of welds 1 and 2 on ISO ALA-210 was observed and compared with the requirements of the applicable procedure, ISI-205, and code-in the following areas:
(1) Availability of and compliance with approved NDE procedures (2) Use of_ knowledgeable NDE_ personnel n.~..
.
.
.
(3) Use of NDE personnel qualified in the proper level (4) Recording of inspection results (5) Type of apparatus used (6) Extent of coverage of weldment (7)
Calibration requirements (8) Search Units (9)
Beam Angles (10) DAC Curves (11) Reference level for monitoring discontinuities (12) Method of demonstration penetration (13) Limits for evaluating and recording indications (14) Recording significant indications (15) Acceptance limits Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations w?re identified.
7.
Preservice Inspection - Data Review and Evaluation (Unit 2)
The purpose of this area of the inspection was to verify by a record
~
j review that the PSI nad been completed and all indications properly dispositioned in accordance with regulatory requirements and applicable l
procedures.
The applicable code for the PSI is the AStiE Boiler and
,
Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1974 Edition with Addenda through
'
575.
At the time of the inspection, the PSI report had not been com-pleted.
However, the licensee had issued a letter dated September 22, 1980, stating that PSI of the ASME code Class 1 and 2 components' and supports had been completed in accordance uith ASME Section XI and all code rejectable indications were repaired, removed or otherwise t
dispositioned in accordance with ASME Section XI.
The letter further
!
stated that PSI of the ASME code Class 3 components and supports had
,
!
been completed except for hydrostatic testing of portions of seven
!
systems.
At the time-of the inspection, all but one of these systems had been completed.
The -spent fuel cooling and system cleanup could not be competed until pool flooding after fuel load. The following is a summary of the areas inspected and the results:
l
.
-
.
.
a.
October 14-17, 1980 - The inspector reviewed the following:
The "Preservice Examination Program for J. M. Farley II" was (1)
reviewed to determine whether the NDE records system contained provisions for files, records and documents on all examination categories as listed in AStiE Section XI.
(2) The NDE records for the areas listed below were reviewed to determine whether records contained or made reference to:
examination results and data sheets, examination equipment da ta, extent of examination, deviations from program or procedures, dispositon of findings, re-examination after repair, and identification of NDE materials.
ISO Area APR-1-4300 Pressure Retaining Piping Welds Pressure Retaining Welds in Pressurizer APR-1-2100 APR-1-3100 Steam Generator Primary Side APR-1-1100 Reactor Vessel During this review, the inspector noted that recordable indica-
+he following components had not been dispositioned tione Reac.. vessel - 5 UT indications
"C" Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel - PT and VT indications Pipe Weld 4DM, ISO APR 1-4300 - PT Indications Discussions with PSI personnel revealed that 12 other welds had indications that had not been fonnally dispositioned in The licensee agreed that their letter of September 22, writing.
,
1980 was in error and initiated actions to dispositon all t
indications.
On October 17 additional manual UT remaining inspections were performed by the PSI contractor to aid dis-position of the UT indications in the reactor vessel.
The inspector exited the site on October 17 and informed the licensee that when all indications had been properly dispost-i tioned, a followup inspection would be performed.
b.
October 21-22, 1980 - The inspector continued the inspection and -
made ~the following reviews and observations:
Raw inspection data including associated calibration data i
(1)
sheets for the following reactor vessel welds was reviewed:
l Program Item _
!
Outlet nozzle to safe-end weld at 95 degrees
l
.
-
.
.
.
3 Outlet nozzle to shell weld at 335 degrees
Outlat nozzle protrusion at 335 degrees
Flange Ligament
Outlet nozzle to shell weld at 95 degrees
Outlet nozzle to shell weld at 215 degrees
Inlet nozzle to safe-end weld at 265 degrees
Ir termediate to upper shell course circum-ferential weld with plate 550800
Lower shell course longitudinal wald with plate 800 at 45 degrees
Intermediate shell course longitudinal weld with plate 550600 at 135 degrees (2) NDE certification records were reviewed for two level II UT I
examiners who perfomed the abovt vessel inspections.
(3) The inspector reviewed the licensee's disposition, including applicable code required calculations, on all indications noted in paragraph a.(2) above.
All indications were dis-positioned as acceptable.
For the 5 UT indications in the reactor vessel, the licensee stated that extensive manual re-UT (using various techniques, angles, surfaces, etc.) could not verify the indications originally recorded using the automatic UT equipment.
However, code calculations were made considering that the indications recorded by the automatic equipment were valid indications of defects and that the defects were orientated in the most unfavorable orientation.
All indications were acceptable by these calculations. However, since the calcula-tions showed one indication ("C" outlet nozzle safe-end base material) to be just within th-acceptance limits, the licensee decided to radiograph (RT) tupect this indication area to further verify the absence of defects. The RT film were reviewed by the licensee and presented to the inspector for review.
During the review, the inspector noted an indication in the base material in a location different from the area of the UT indication being investigated. During the evaluation to detemine the location and nature (surface or subsurface) of the new RT indication, it was determined that the wrong weld had been radiographed.
The intent was to RT inspect the safe-end to nozzle weld favoring the safe-end side of the weld.
In fact, the safe-end to pipe weld favoring the pipe was radiographed.
Therefore, the RT indication was in the pipe base material.
At this point the inspection was terminated and a meeting held with the licensee.
The following areas were covered in the meeting:
(a) The inspector stated that since the reason for the UT indications from the automatic equipment is not known, the licensee should evaluate performing an augmented ISI on the
"C" outlet nozzle.
Also the need to resolve the
~
-
- -
-
- -
-
O
.
.
new RT indication and perform RT of the correct area on the "C" outlet nozzle safe-end was discussed.
The inspec-tor expressed concera over the apparent lack of effective coordin n ion for the RT work performed the previous night.
The licensee stated that prior to proceeding with evaluation of indications, plans would be made and positive control over coordination of remaining testing and evaluations would be implemented.
The licensee stated that the need for an augmented ISI for outlet nozzle "C" would be evaluated after completion of supplementary NDE presently in process.
(b)
The inspector stated that the entire resolution package for the 5 reactor vessel indications, including calcula-tions and information relative to review of vendor NDE data, should be included in the final PSI report.
The licensee stated that this addition to the PSI report could be made.
This item is identified as inspector followup item 364/80-43-01, " Documentation of resolution of RV PSI UT indications".
(c)
The inspector again expressed concern relative to the error in the September 22, 1980 letter (see paragraph 7.a.(2) above) and the necessity for providing accurate information to the NRC.
The licensee stated that their response to this concern would be discussed at a later date.
c.
October 31, 1980 - The inspector visited Combustion Engineering, Inc. in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the manufacturer of the reactor vessel, and reviewed the follewing:
(1) RT film for the welds listed below were reviewed for general quality and to determine if film exhibited defects which might be correlated with UT indications found during PSI.
The applicable code for these film is the ASt1E Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 1968 Edition, S70 Addenda.
(a)
Seam 2-943-B, "C" outlet nozzle to safe-end weld (b) Seam 2-943-A, "B" outlet nozzle to safe-end weld (c)
Seam 1-943-A, "C" inlet nozzle to safe-end weld (d) Seam 19-923-B, Intermediate shell course long' seam at l
25*.
No defects were noted to correlate with indications found by UT during PSI.
(2) McInnes Steel Company "ftterial Certification" and " Ultrasonic Inspection Report" for
"C" inlet and outlet r.czzle safe-ends
.
-
-
r
.
were reviewed.
The safe-ends were manufactured and UT inspected to Sections II and III of the 1968 Edition, S70 addenda of the ASME code.
d.
November 4-5, 1980 - The inspector continued the inspection and made the following reviews and observations:
(1)
For the "C" outlet nozzle to safe-end weld, the licensee radio-graphed the weld and base material in the area where the UT indication was found with the automatic equipment.
Two RT shots were made with the cobalt source located inside the nozzle and directed down each fusion line of the weld.
Approximately 30 inches around the circumference of the weld and adjacent base material was covered.
A 2T penetrameter sensitivity was achieved in all film and in most cases the the IT hole was visible.
The licensee had reviewed these film and concluded that the results supported the results from the manual UT inspection (see paragraph 7.b.(3)) further verifying the absence of defects.
The inspector reviewed these radiographs.
(2) The licensee re-radiographed the defect in the
"C" outlet pipe base material which was picked up by previous inadvertant RT (see paragraph 7.b.(3)).
The radiographs for this area were. compared with the original vendor (TUBC0) RT films for the centrifuga11y cast pipe spool.
The defect in the current film could be correlated with the same defect in the original vendor film and was dispositioned originally and currently as acceptable shrinkage.
The applicable code for this casting radiography is ASf1E,Section III, 1971 Edition, paragraph NB-2570.
The inspector reviewed the above current film and compared the defect in question with tie defect in the original film and the the ASTM reference film applicable for acceptance.
In addition the following RT film were reviewed:
(a)
The remaining vendor film for film I.D.15-16 for
"C" outlet pipe spool (serial 147924)
(b) Vendor film I.D.1-2 and 20-21 for "C" inlet pipe spool (serial 147921)
(c) Daniel Construction film for "C" inlet and outlet pipe to safe-end welds - field welds IF and 8F (3) The inspector reviewed the licensee's administrative control procedure for PSI, FNP-0-AP-57, revision 1,
"Preservice, Inservice and Eddy Current Inspections".
In addition the PSI contractors "Preservice Inspection Program", including associated procedures for documentation of PSI results, was reviewed.
Based on review of the procedures; the fact that the licensee reported to the NRC that the PSI had been completed and all
.
,
F
.
..
.
..
code rejectable indications dispositioned, when in fact all indications had not been dispoistioned(see paragraph 7.a.(2));
and the problems encountered during final disposition of the indications (see paragraph 7.b.(3)); the above procedures are considered to be inadequate to properly cover evaluation and disposition of inspection resul ts.
This lack of adequate procedures is considered to be noncompliance with Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 as implemented by paragraph 17.1.5 of the FSAR and is identified as an infraction, item number 364/80-43-02, Inadequate procedures for evaluation of ISI/ PSI
inspection results.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations except as noted in paragraph 7.d.(3) were identified.
.
-
- - -
-