IR 05000348/1982002
| ML20041A503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1982 |
| From: | Crowley B, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041A499 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-82-02, 50-348-82-2, NUDOCS 8202220235 | |
| Download: ML20041A503 (6) | |
Text
.
.
'#
'o{ '
UNITED STATES
'8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOld o
b REGION 11
_
.
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
Report No. 50-348/82-02 Licensee: Alabama Power Company P. O. Box 2641 Birmingham, AL 35291 Facility Name:
Farley Docket No. 50-348 License No. NPF-2 Inspection at Farley site near Doth n, Alabama Inspector: [I.[-
A177
%
/ 2d L-B. R. Crowley
'Datd Signed Accompanying Personnel:
J. H. Smith (Oak $i ge National. Laboratory)
Approved by:
I
/ 2d 6l A. R. Herdt, Section Chief Dat6 Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on January 5-8,'1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of inservice inspection, pressurizer UT indications and previous inspection findings.
Rescits No violations or deviations were identified.
8202220235 820127 PDR ADOCK 05000348
,
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees W. G. Hariston, III, Plant Manager
"J. D. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager
- D. E. Mansfield, Superintendent of Nuclear Engineering and Technical Support J. D. Sims, Superintendent Planning and Resource Management
- R. G. Berryhill, Performance and Planning Superintendent
- W. G. Ware, Supervisor Safety Audit & Engineering Review
- W. B. Shipman, Maintenance Superintendent K. Burr, Systems Performance Supervisor J. M. Davis, NDE Level III Examiner M. Stinson, Plant Modifications Supervisor H. R. Garland, Maintenance Supervisor G. S. Waymire, Generation Plant Engineer C. Buck, Project Engineer, Nuclear Engineering and Technical Support Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, security force members, and of fice personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
- W. H. Bradford
- T. A. Peebles
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 8,1982 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. Relative to the pressurizer ISI UT indications, the licensee agreed to make available the information requested and to re-inspect the indications at the next refueling outage (see paragraph 6.d).
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Violation - 348/81-25-01, Failure to Follow ASME Section XI NDE Requirements. Alabama Power Company's letter of response dated December 17, 1981 has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by Region II. As verification of licensee corrective actions, the inspector reviewed re-inspection records for the following welds:
-
-
.
Magnetic Particle Inspection - ISO ALA-217:
Weld 2-21 Weld 2-22 Weld 2-23 Weld 2-24 ISO ALA-218:
Weld 3-29 Liquid Penetrant Inspection -
ISO ALA-120:
Weld 34 Action remaining to be completed is ' revision of procedure FNP-0-AP-57 to include spot checks of inspector technique. This procedure revision is to be completed by January 15, 1982.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Inservice Inspection - Data Review and Evaluation The inspector reviewed the ISI NDE records described below for the current (Period 2, Outage 1-1981) outage. The applicable code for the ISI is the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 1974 Edition with Addenda through S75.
a.
NDE records for the following reactor vessel closure head welds were reviewed:
Meridional welds 1,2,3 and 4 - ISO ALA-102
.
Head to Flange Weld 5 - ISO ALA-102
" Weld Ultrasonic Examination" reports, personnel certifications and equipment certifications were reviewed. The records were reviewed to ascertain whether the following requirements, as applicable, were met:
(1) The method, extent and technique of examination comply with licensee's ISI program and applicable NDE procedure.
(2) The examination data is within the acceptance criteria as outlined in applicable NDE procedure and applicable code requirements.
(3) The recording, evaluation and disposition of findings are in compliance with the applicable NDE procedure and applicable code requirements.
(4)
Inservice nondestructive examination results are compared with recorded results of prior Section XI examination.
(5) The method used for NDE was sufficient to determine the full extent of indications or acceptance.
.
. _.
-
.
b.
NDE records for the following pressure retaining pipe welds were reviewed:
ISO WELD SIZE & SYSTEM ALA-120 Weld 5 Loop #1-12" Accumulator Discharge ALA-120 Weld 6 Loop #1-12" Accumulator Discharge ALA-128 Weld 14 Loop #2 - 3" Norinal Charging ALA-128 Weld 2 Loop #2 - 3" Normal Charging ALA-122 Weld 30M Loop #2 - Reactor Coolant ALA-122 Weld 5 Loop #2 - Reactor Coolant
" Weld ditrasonic Examination" reports, personnel certifications and equipment certifications were reviewed. The records were reviewed to ascertain whether the following requirements, as applicable, were met:
(1) The examination unit calibration data sheets show no major devi-ations Latwaan initial and final calibrations.
(2) Collected examination data and any recordable indications are properly recorded to permit accurate evaluation and documentation.
(3) Evaluation of examination data performed by a Level II or Level III examiner.
(4) Evaluation of examination data complies with the procedure.
(5) Evaluation of indications (if applicable) comply with the criteria of the NDE procedure and ASME Section XI.
(6)
Incomplete examinations and results were reported to permit full evaluation (if applicable).
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Inspector Followup Items (0 pen) Item 348/81-25-02, Pressurizer ISI Indications. This item pertains to two recordable indications found during UT inspectian of the pressurizer lower head to shell weld (weld 4, 150 ALA-107). The indications were found with 60 angle beam inspection and exhibited maximum amplitudes in excess of 100% DAC.
Preliminary UT data indicated that one indication was approxi-mately 5/8" long X 1" deep and the other approximately 5/8" long X " deep.
The inspector examined actions taken for the indications as follows:
a.
Since the previous inspection (See IE:II Report 50-348/81-25) the licensee has been evaluating the indications with the following results:
r a
e e
(1) The licensee's ISI contractor made a beam spread study using side drilled holes in the applicable calibration block and computer-
,
graphics.
Based on additional UT and reducing dimensions based on the beam spread study conclusions, the ISI contractor and licensee concluded that the depth :iimension on the larger indi-cation is only.006."
(2) Based on the beam spread study of paragraph (1) above and the fact that ASME Section XI does not provide acceptance tables for indications in the subject material, the licensee dispositioned the indications on APC0 "NDE Indication Evaluation Report" No. 19 as being acceptable to ASME Section III, paragraph NB-5330.
b.
The inspector reviewed the following information:
(1) "NDE Indication Evaluation Report" 019 (2) " Preliminary Report-Beam Spread Coorection" (3) UT reports - Current, 2nd outage, and PSI (4) Fabrication RT film (5)
Information relative to the critical flaw size for the weld -
rough estimate of allowable flow depth for a surface flow in.28 inches.
c.
Review of the above information revealed the following problems:
(1) The beam spread calculations and the method for reducing the indication size for the larger indication from a preliminary depth of.951" to.006" were not clear.
(2) The.006" depth appeared to be unrealistic when compared with the original UT data.
(3)
Indication dimensions in the "NDE Indication Evaluation Report,"
the " Preliminary Report - Beam Spread Correction," and the UT report were inconsistant.
(4) The indications had not been characterized as to type.
(5) The disposition does not address previous inspections (PSI etc.)
of the weld.
d.
The licensee pointed out that the final ISI report was not due until 90 days af ter completion of the ISI and most of the above questions would be resolved in the final report.
However, prior to considering the indications resolved, these questions must be resolved to the satis-faction of the NRC staff.
Therefore, the inspector requested that a complete data package for the indications including the following information be made available for review in a time frame consistent with the plant schedule for returning the plant to power:
.
,...
(1) What was found (2) Actions taken (3)
Final conclusions - including rationale for considering acceptable (4) Characterization of indications (defects)
(5) Some explanation of previous inspection results (PSI and Subse-quent ISI)
The licensee agreed to make available the information requested in the final form prior to plant " Heat up" and to make available ISI contractor technical personnel as needed to interpret ISI data, provided need for.such personnel is identified in sufficient time.
The goal for having the information in the final form is January 20, 1981.
The licensee further agreed to re-inspect the indications during the next refueling outage.
L____. _. __
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
._