IR 05000348/1981025
| ML20040C357 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1981 |
| From: | Crowley B, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040C340 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-81-25, 50-364-81-28, NUDOCS 8201270564 | |
| Download: ML20040C357 (10) | |
Text
-
.
.
.
'o UNITED STATES
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
g REGION 11
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
j Report No. 50-348/81-25, 50-364/81-28 Licensee: Alabama Power Company P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, Alabama 35291 Facility Name:
Farley
,
,
- Docket Nos. 50-348, 50-364 License Nos. NPF-2, NPF-8 Inspection at Farley Site near Dothan, Alabama 4/7 y
/
M Inspector:
/@.
-
B.'R.
go 1 y
/
Da't Si ned Approved by:
%(
8Mdf A. R. Herdt, Section Chief Date' Signed
.
!
Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY j
Inspection on October 26-28 and November 3-6, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 52 inspector-hours on site in the areas of inservice inspection (ISI) (Unit 1) and previous inspection findings-(Units 1 and 2).
'
,
l Results Of the 2 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in one area; one violation was found in one area - (Failure to follow ASME Section XI
,
i NDE requirements, paragraph 8.b and 8.d.).
!
!
l l
l-8201270564 820118 i-DR ADOCK 05000348 PDR
'
I
. _ - - - _ -
-
.-
-
i
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee iLmployees W. G. Hairston. III, Plant Manager
- J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager
- R. G. Berryhill, Performance and Planning Superintendent
- J. M. Davis, NDE Level III Examiner W. G. Ware, Supervisor Safety Audit & Engineering Review
- G. S. Waymire, Generation Plant Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, security force members, and office personnel.
Other Organizations
- J. J. Churchwell, Assistant Engineer, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS)
R. H. Baulig, Site Services Manager, Westinghouse-Nuclear Services Division (W-NSD)
G. E. Conrad, ISI Coordinator, W-NSD E. R. Pade, Senior Engineer, Westinghouse-Nuclear Technology Division R. W. Hughes, Engineering Aid, W-NSD
.
NRC Resident Inspector
- W. H. Bradford
- T. A. Peebles
- Attended exit interview l
2.
Exit Interview l
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 6, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
l (0 pen) Violation 348/81-25-01, Failure to follow ASME Section XI NDE
requirements, paragraphs 8.b. and 8.d.
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item 348/81-25-02, Pressurizer ISI indications, I
paragraph 8.e.
!
!
l
-
s
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item 348/79-17-02, Hanger Material. This item pertained to a problem of locating material certification documentation for heat 278891 tube steel for hanger CS2-R-6, Sketch No. 3005, ISO 81. The missing documentation was located and reviewed by the inspector. The inspector has no further questions on this matter.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 348/79-17-03, Hanger Stress Analysis Review. This item pertained to a review of the Bechtel and Westinghouse stress analysis relative to 6" high pressure safety injection lines and 12" accumulator lines to determine whether the stress analysis was acceptable for the as-built conditions. The inspector reviewed Bechtel letter dated August 3, 1979 and Westinghouse letter dated July 30, 1979 stating that the stress analysis was not affected by as-5111t conditions of the lines.
The inspectot has no further questions on this matter.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 348/79-17-04, Additional Material Under Steam Generator Supports. This item pertained to I-beams and shims, not shown on drawings, lef t under the steam generator support base plates. The inspector reviewed Westinghouse letter dated July 12, 1979 and Bechtel letter dated August 3, 1979 stating that the "as-built" condition does not affect the structural integrity of the supports.
The inspector has no further questions concerning this matter.
(Closed) Infraction 364/80-43-02, Inadequate procedures for evaluation of ISI/ PSI inspection results. Alabama Power Company's letter of response dated December 29, 1980 has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II.
Based on examination of corrective actions as stated in the letter of response, the inspector concluded that Alabama Power Company had determined the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necesary survey and followup actions to correct the present conditions and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances. The corrective actions identified in the letter of response have been implemented.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Inspector Followup Items (Closed) Item 348/79-17-01, Flow Splitter Inspections.
During the RII inspection conducted April 24-26, and May 16-19, 1979, the licensee agreed to UT inspect the flow splitters during the next two refueling outages. The inspections were performed during the 1940 outage and the current outage.
During the current outage, the inspector observed the UT inspection "RV Side" and " Wall Side" of the B-Loop Flow Splitter and the " Wall Side" of the C-Loop Flow Splitter.
In addition the UT procedure (FNP-1-ETP-110) and the UT inspection results were reviewed.
No recordable indications have been found in any of the inspections on the Farley Flow Splitter.
.
.
.
(Closed) Item 348/80-37-02, Procedure for Evaluation of Support Inspection Results. Procedure FNP-0-STP-157-0, revision 1 has been revised to require verification of support setting results.
(0 pen) Item 364/80-43-01, Documentation of resolution of RV PSI UT indica-tions. The preliminary PSI report has been issued by Westinghouse. Alabama Power Company has reviewed the report and commented by letter dated August 4, 1981. The estimated issue date for the final report is December 1981.
(Closed) Item 364/80-33-02, Report confirming acceptable completion of PSI.
This letter was issued September 22,1980 (See IE:II Report 50-364/80-43).
(0 pen) Item 348/80-37-01, Deletion of Clad Patch Inspections. Alabama Power Company issued a letter to NRC on April 17, 1981 requesting deletion of clad patch inspections. A response to this letter has not yet been issued.
6.
Inservice Inspection - Review of Program (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's ISI program in the areas indicated below. The ISI is being performed by Westinghouse (W) in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1974 Edition with Addenda through the Summer of 1975.
a.
The inspector reviewed the ISI program for the current outage to determine whether the program had been approved by the licensee.
b.
The inspector reviewed the following APC0 and W documents relative to the ISI program for the current outage:
" Inspection Program Plan for Alabama Power Company J.M.
Farley Unit #1, Interval 1, Period 2, Outage 1,1981" APC0 FNP-0-AP-57, revision 2, "Preservice and Inservice Inspections" APC0 FNP-0-STP-157.0, revision I, " Inservice Inspection of Class 1 and 2 Systems and Components" APCO FNP-0-STP-156.0, revision 0, Inservice Inspection of Class 3 Systems and Components" APC0 SAER-AP-01, revision 0, "SAER Organization" APC0 SAER-AP-04, revision 0, "OQA Quality Assurance Records and Quality Assurance Administrative Records" APC0 SAER-AP-05, revision 0, " Audit Coverage Planning" APC0 SAER-AP-06, revision 0, " Audit Implementation" APC0 SAER-AP-07, revision 2, " Qualification and Training"
-
s
.
APC0 SAER-AP-11, revision 0, "Summeries and Analysis of Audit Results"
,
APC0 SAER-WP-29, revision 5, "Preservice and Inservice Inspection" APC0 FNP-0-AP-1, revision 8, " Development, Review, and Approval of Plant Procedures" APC0 FNP-0-AP-4, revision 5, " Control of Plant Documents and Records" APC0 SAER-WP-23, revision 5,
" Auditing of Onsite and Of fsite Vendor Services" APC0.iAER-WP-21, revision 6, " Spot Auditing (Generalized)"
W NSD-ISI-10, revision 4, Preservice and Inservice Examination Manual Ultrasonic Equipment Qualification" W OPS-NSD-101, revision 5, Field Changes 1&2, "Preservice and Inservice Inspection Documentation" W WCAP 9245, revision 5, " Nuclear Service Division Quality Assurance Program Plan" W OPR-610-5, revision 0, " Field Service Safety" W OPR-210-4, revi ion 0,
" Control of Nonconformances on NSD Items and Services" W OPR-610-3, revision 1, " Control of Field Services Activities" W OPR-205-3, revision 1, " Inspection Verification" W QPR-5, revision 0, " Inspection Services Supplier Quality Assurance Program Requirements" W PA-10.1, revision 5,
" Training Qualification and Certification of Personnel in Nondestructive Examination (NDE)"
W OPR-210-5, revision 1, " Corrective Action Status Reporting" W OPR-210-6, revision 1, "The Use of Deviation Notices in the Control of Nonconforming Material" W OPR-215-1, revision 2, " Measuring and Test Equipment" W OPR-220-1, revision 0, "NSD Internal Audit Program" W OPR-225-1, revision 4, " Records Management" W OPR-230-1, revision 3, "Special Process Development and Qualification"
. _.
-_
.
s
.
.
.
W OPR-230-2, revision 4, " Personnel Qualification for Nondestructive Exam-ination" These documents were icviewed to assure that procedures and plans had been establisheJ (written, reviewed, approved and issued) to control and accomplish the following activities:
(1) Organizational structure including qualifications, training, respon-sibilities and duties of personnel responsible for ISI.
(2) Audits including procedures, frequency, and qualification of personnel.
(3) General QA requirements including examination reports, deviations from previously established program, material certifications and identifica-tion of components to be covered.
(4) Work and inspection procedures.
(5) Control of processes including suitably controlled work conditions, special methods, and use of qualified personnel.
(6) Corrective action.
(7) Document control.
(8) Control of examination equipment.
(9) Quality records including description of areas to be examined, examina-tion category, method of inspection, extent of examination and justifi-cation for any exceptions.
(10) Scope of the inspection including description or areas to be examined, examination category, method of inspection, extent of examination and justification for any exceptions.
(11) Definition of inspection interval and extent of examinations.
(12) Qualification of NDE personnel.
(13) Controls of generation, appreval, custody, storage and maintenance of NDE records.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Inservice Inspection - Review of Procedures (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed the ISI procedures indicated below to determine whether the procedures were consistent with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments. See paragraph six above for the applicable code.
.
.-
- -
-
.
,
-
a.
The following procedures were reviewed in the areas of procedure approval and rcquirements for qualification of NDE personnel.
(1)
ISI-8, revision 7, Am. 01, " Visual Examination Procedure" (2)
ISI-11, Revision 9, Am. 03, FC 01, " Liquid Penetrant Examination Procedure" (3)
ISI-15, revision 6, Am. 02, " Ultrasonic Examination of Studs, Bolts and Nuts" (4)
ISI-47, revision 2, Am. 06, FC 01, " Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Circumferential and Longitudinal Butt Welds in Ferritic Vessels 215 " Thick and Greater" (5)
ISI-205, revision 2, Am. 03, FC 01, " Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Full Penetration Circumferential and Longitudinal Butt Welds" b.
In addition to the review of paragraph a., Procedure ISI-II was reviewed in the areas of compilation of required records and 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 materials, pre-examination 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, accept-ance standards, requalification requirements, prohibition against following color contrast examination with fluorescent examination, and examination conditions for fluorescent penetrants.
c.
Procedure ISI 70, revision 1, " Magnetic Particle Examinations", was reviewed in the area of procedure technical content relative to:
'
examination method, contrast of dry powder particle color with back-ground and surface temperature, suspension medium and surface temper-ature for wet particles, veiwing conditions, examination overlap and directions, pole or prod spacing, current or lif cing power (yoke), and acceptance criteria.
d.
In addition to the review of paragraph a, procedures ISI-47 and 151-205 were reviewed in the areas of compilation of required records and procedure technical content relative to: type of apparatus, extent of coverage including beam angles and scanning techniques, calibration requirements, search units, DAC curves, reference level for monitoring discontinuities, method of demonstrating penetration, levels for evaluation and recording indications, and acceptance standards.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
.
-_
-
s
.
.
8.
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 regulatory requirements and licensee procedures. See paragraph 6. above for applicalbe code.
a.
Personnel qualification records for two Level I, three Level II, and one Level III examiners were reviewed.
b.
In process liquid penetrant (PT) inspection of Welds 2, 4, 5,14 and 15 on ISO ALA-128 (3" Normal Charging Line Loop 2) 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 ASME 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 During observation of the aoove PT inspections, the inspector noted that the examiner failed to apply penetrant one base material thickness on the valve side of welds 4 and 5.
Upon questioning, the examiner stated that he did not consider the requirement to inspect one base material thickness beyond the weld to apply to the valve side of the weld since the valve was a casting. Since the areas in question were in a high radiation area, after being quest oned, the examiner decided to apply the penetrant to the valve sides of the welds to preclude having to re-inspect the welds in case his interpretation was incorrect. Paragraph IWB-2500 of ASME,Section XI and paragraph 3.1 of ISI-11 (the applicable PT procedure) reauire that the weld surface and one wall thickness on each side of the weld be examined. This failure to follow Section XI requirements for PT inspection is considered to be an example of a violation of the Farley Technical Specification 4. s
.
.
.
which requires inservice inspection to be performed in accordance with ASME,Section XI.
This violation is identified as item number 348/81-25-01, Failure to Follow ASME Section XI NDE Requirements. See paragraph 8.d for another example of this violation.
c.
In process ultrasonic (UT) inspection of the following welds / components was observed:
WELD / COMPONENT SCAN PROCEDURE Weld 4-4, ISO ALA-218
ISI-205 36" MS Header Weld 2-32.150 ALA-217
ISI-205 Loop #2, 32" MS RV Stud #36
151-15 150 ALA-106 The above in process UT inspections were compared with the requirements of the applicable procedure 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) Type of apparatus used (6) Extent of coverage of weldment (7) Calibration requirements (8) Search Unit (9) Beam Angles (10) DAC Curves (11) Reference level for monitoring discontinuities (12) Method of demonstration of penetration (13) Limits of evaluating and recording indications (14) Recording significant indications (15) Acceptance limits d.
In process magnetic particle (MT) inspection of MS pipe weld 2-24 on ISO ALA-217 and reactor vessel stud #20 on ISO ALA-106 was observed and compared with the requirements of the applicable procedure, ISI-70, 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) Examination method (6) Contrast of dry powder particle color with background and surface temperature
,
,
t
-,
-
e
..,
..
,
,
(7) Suspension medium and surface temperature for wet particles (8) Viewing conditions (9) Examination overlap and directions (10) Pole spacing and lif ting power for yoke metNd (11) Current for coil method (12) Acceptance criteria During MT inspection of pipe weld 2-24, the inspector noted that the magnetic particles were being applied using a hand bulb with a straight tube outlet resulting in a heavy stream of particles being arplied to the surface. In addition, excess particles were being remowd by the examiner blowing the surface with his mouth. ASME,Section XI, para-graph IWA-2221 specifies MT inspection in accordance with Article 7 of ASME,Section V.
Article 7 references specification ASME SE-109 for amplified details, on the use of dry particles to be included in MT procedures.
Paragraph 5 of SE-109 and paragraph 5.2 of ISI-70 (the applicable Mi procedure) require that the powder be applied by lightly dusting a small quantity over the surface and that the excess be removed with a gentle air stream.
This failure to follow Section XI requirements for MT inspection is considered to be another example (see paragraph 8.b) of a violation of the Farley Technical Specification 4.0.5 which requires inservice inspection to be performed in accordance with ASME,Section XI.
This violation, including the example of paragraph 8.b is identified as item number 348/81-25-01, Failure to follow ASME Section XI NDE requirements.
e.
During the course of the inspection, it came to the attention of the inspector that two recordable indications had been found during UT inspection of the pressurizer lower head to shell weld (Weld 4, ISO ALA-107).
The indications were found with f,0 angle beam inspection and exhibited maximum amplitudes in excess of 100"J DAC.
Preliminary data indicated that one indication was approximately 5/8" X 1" and the other approximately 5/8" X 1/2" At the conclusion of the inspection the licensee was in the process of pe'rforming additional UT inspections at various angles to try to determine the true nature of the indica-tions.
For followup of final resolution, this problem will be identi-fied as Inspection Followup Item number 348/81-25-02, Pressurizer ISI indications.
Within the areas inspected, no violations, except as noted in paragraphs 8.b and 8.d, or deviations were identified.