IR 05000348/1989009

Insp Repts 50-348/89-09 & 50-364/89-09 on 890410-14.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Inservice Insp,Including Eddy Current Exam of Unit 2 Steam Generator Tubing & NDE Procedures

ML20246D112
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	04/24/1989
From:	Blake J, Kleinsorge W, Newsome R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20246D093	List: IR 05000348/1989009 ML20246D090
References
50-348-89-09, 50-348-89-9, 50-364-89-09, 50-364-89-9, NUDOCS 8905100128
Download: ML20246D112 (18)

Text

'

.

< UKiTED STATES -

.'.; [kmHfoh'k

' ^

NUCLEAR REGULATORV COMMISslON '

[" REGION li g _j 101 MARIETTA STREET, *' r ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

\ ...../

Report Nos.: 50-343/89-09 and 50-364/89-09 Licensee: Alabama Power Company Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, Al 35291-0400 Docket Nos.: 50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.: NPF-2 and NPF-8 Facility Name: Farley 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: April 10 - 14,1989-Inspectors: (t], ount Y20-87'

R. W .- / Date Signe ,% wn JON

/W./P einsor / Date Signed Approved by: s V 5 J J. Blake, Chief -Date Signsd i te ials and Processes Section ng neering Branch Division of Reactor Safety ,

SUMMARY Scope This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of Inservice Inspection (ISI) including the eddy current examination of the Unit 2 Steam Generator (SG) tubing. The inspection included a review of the ISI program and the Unit 2 inspection 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 equipment calibration and material certification documentation; and, a review of completed NDE examination data. Also,-equipment = maintenance and housekeeping and previously open NRC items were addresse Results In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identifie This . inspection _ indicated that ISI nondestructive examinations were _ being conducted adequately. However, minimal adequacy, due to a lack of attention to details, in the areas of NDE procedures review, examination program plan, and l

"

8905100128 890425 PDR ADOCK 05000348 Q PDC

,

.

'

.

.

1 Ultrasonic examiner job assignments tended to indicate that technical staffing and surveillance staffing may be borderline sufficient. The licensee's first i line and middle management did not appear to be very active in the ISI area, possibly due to the timing of this inspection, which might account for the minimal adequacy stated above. The NDE personnel conducting the examinations ,

appeared qualified although in some cases the Ultrasonic examiners did not ;

appear to have extensive experience for the assigned task. The results -of the !

independent eddy current data verifications conducted by the NRC inspectors agreed well with the reported result In the areas of equipment maintenance and housekeeping, two unresolved items were identified; the first concerns an over pressurization door left open, paragraph 3.a., and the second concerns five fire doors left open, paragraph 3.b., this inspection noted several examples of lack of attention to detai ,

!

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

I

.

.

'.

l REPORT DETAILS

l 1. Persons Contacted  !

Licensee Employees R. Badham, General Plant Engineer i * Casey, Systems Performance Supervisor  ;

I * Dykes, Auditor i'

• Hartline, Systems Performance Engineering Supervisor

• Levy, General Plant Engineer

• Mitchell, Health Physics Supervisor

• Morey, General Manager, Operations .

• Nesbitt, Technical Manager  !

• J. Osterholtz, Manager Operations )

• M. Pilcher, Auditor i

• J. Thomas, Maintenance Manager j l

Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included i craftsmen, engineers, security force members, technicians, and administrative personne Other Organizations  ;

i J. Campbell, ISI Coordinator, Westinghouse Electric Corp. (W)

E. Conrad, Westinghouse Electric Technician L. McClain, Southern Company Services, level III i

NRC Resident Inspector l

• Miller, Resident Inspector  :

• Attended exit interview Acronyms and Initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the last paragrap . Inservice Inspection

!

The inspectors reviewed documents and records, conducted independent evaluations, 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 !

-1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

.

. .

ISI is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure l

Vesset (ASME B&PV) Code,Section XI, 1983 edition with addenda through

'

Summer 198 Alabama Power personnel are primarily acting as coordinators for contractor personnel. Westinghouse has the primary responsibility as the ISI contractor for conducting the liquid penetrant (PT), magnetic

.

'

particle (MT), ultrasonic (UT), visual (VT), and primary eddy current (EC)

steam generator tubing data evaluation and collection while Conam Inspection is conducting a second evaluation of all the bobbin coil EC dat Southern Company Services (SCS) is conducting overview functions for the licensee in all NDE area ISI Program / Plan Review, (73051)

The inspectors reviewed the ISI program and the Unit 2 inspection plan for this outage to determine whether the program / 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: organizational structure including qualifications, training, responsibilities, and duties of personnel responsible for ISI; audits including procedures, frequency, and qualification of personnel; general Quality Assurance requirements including examine. tion reports, deviations from previously established program, material certifications, and identification of components to be covered; work and inspection procedures; control of processes including suitably controlled work conditions, special 1 methods, and use of qualified personnel; corrective action; document control; control of examination equipment; quality records including documentation of indications and NDE fi ndings , review of documentation, provisions to assure legibility and retrievability, and corrective action; 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; i definition of inspection interval and extent of examination; qualification of NDE personnel; and, controls of generation, approvel, l custody, storage and maintenance of NDE record l, The inspectors reviewed the below listed documents to verify that the licensee's repair and replacement program was consistent with ASME B & PV Code Section XI Paragraph Hos. IWA 4000 and IWA 7000 and NRC '

supplementary requirement i i

'

.

'

.

.

Identification Title FNP-0AP-52 (R14) Equipment Status Control And Maintenance Authorization FNP-0-PMP-305 (RS) Preparation Of Form NIS-2 Owner's Report For Repairs Or Replacements FNP-SPP-GW-001 (R6) General Welding Standard For Repairs, Replacement-And Modifications FNP-0-GMP-0.2 (RI) Repairs And Replacement Instructions For ASME Class 1, 2, And 3 Components With regard to the inspection above the inspectors noted the following:

-

The Code of record for ASME B & PV Code Section XI for both units is 83S83, however Procedure GW-001 and PMP-305 reference 74S7 There is a Reference conflict in GW-001 Paragraph 15.3.7 and Paragraph )

The licensee indicated that they would make the necessary corrections to the above indicated procedures and assure that all other FNP l procedures reference the correct Revision and Addenda for ASME Section XI. This matter will be identified as Inspector Followup Item 50-348,367/89-09-03: "ASME ISI Code Of Record".

b. Review of NDE Procedures, Units I and 2(73052)

(1) The inspectors reviewed the procedures listed below to determine

'

whether these procedures were consistent with regulatory requirements and licensee commitment 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 effor FNP-0-NDE-157.1 (RO) Preservice and Inservice Inspection Documentation

-

FNP-0-NDE-157.2 (RO) Qualification of Ultrasonic Manual Equipment

-

FNP-0-NDE-157.3 (RO) Visual Examination VT-1 l

'

.

'

.

.

-

FNP-0-NDE-157 A (RO)- Liquid Penetrant Examination

-

FNP-0-NDE-157.5 (RO) Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Bolts, Studs and Nuts

-

FNP-0-NDE-157.7 (RO) Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Welds In Vessels

-

FNP-0-NDE-157.11(RO) Magnetic Particle Examinations with TCN 0A I

-

FNP-0-NDE-157.12 (RO) Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Welds

-

FNP-0-NDE-157.14 (RO) Manual Ultrasonic Examination of with TCN 0A&08 Welds In Cast Stainless Steel Pipe )

i j -

FNP-0-NDE-157.16(RO) Visual Examination VT-3 j

-

FNP-0-NDE-157.18 (RO) Ultrasonic Examination of Studs and Bolts from the Bore Hole

-

APR-1 (RO) Data Analysis Guidelines 1) W Data Analysis Guidelines 2) J.M. Farley Unit 2 Specific Guidelines (Bobbin Coil Only)

3) J.N. Farley Unit 2 Data Analysts Training Data a. Bobbin Coil b. RPC (2) The' inspectors reviewed- the Ultrasonic procedures to ascertain whether they had been reviewed and approved in accordance with the licensee's established QA procedure 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 apparatus used; . extent of

'

coverage of weldment; calibration requi rements ; 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 limit (3) The inspectors reviewed the Eddy Current procedures for technical content relative to: multichannel examination unit, multichannel examination indication equipment is specified, examination sensitivity, method of examination, method of calibration and '

calibration sequence, and acceptance criteria.

L-__ _- _ _ _ --

.

.

.

5 (4) The inspectors reviewed the Magnetic Particle 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 Ccde Section V, Article 7, and other licensee commitments / requirements in the following areas: examination methods; contrast of dry powder particle color with background; j surface temperature; suspension medium and surface temperature l requirement for wet particles; viewing conditions; examination I overlap and directions; pole or prod spacing; current or lifting l power (yoke); and, acceptance criteri (5) The -inspectors reviewed the Visual examination procedures to !'

determine whether they contained sufficient instructions to i

assure that the following parameters were specified and l 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 examina-tion, 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 completio .

i (6) The inspectors reviewed the liquid penetrant procedure to l ascertain whether it had been reviewed and approved in accordance with the licensee's established QA procedures. 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 sul fur; penetrant materials analyzed for total halogens; surface I temperature; acceptable pre-examination surface conditioning; method used for pre-examination surface cleaning; surface drying time prior to penetrant application; method of penetrant i 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 requalificatio c. Observation of Work and Work Activities, Unit 2 (73753)

The inspectors observed a limited number of in-progress examination i activities as most of the examinations had been completed. The ,

inspectors reviewed NDE equipment and materials certification records, '

and reviewed NDE personnel qualifications for personnel that had been utilized during the required ISI examinations during this outage. The l

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

j

~

.

'

.

.

6 f observations and reviews conducted by the inspectors are documented belo (1) The inspectors observed calibration activities and the in-process ultrasonic examinations being conducted on the Pressurizer Spray welds listed below. The observations were compared with the applicable procedures and the ASME B&PV Code in the following areas: availability of and compliance with approved NDE procedures; use of knowledgeable NDE personnel- use of NDE personnel qualified to the proper level; type of apparatus 'used; calibration requirements; search units; beam angles; DAC curves; reference level for monitoring discontinuities; method of I demonstrating penetration; extent of weld / component examination l coverage; limits of evaluating and recording indications; i recording significant indications; and, acceptance limit j

!

Sketch N Weld- ID Code Iten l

1-4208 11 89.11 Class 1 i 1-4208 12 B9.11 Class 1 The following listed ultrasonic equipment and materials certification records were reviewed:

Ultrasonic Instruments Manufacturer /Model Serial N Sonic /MK II 08683E Sonic /MK II 11226E Sonic /MK II 05939E The inspector reviewed spectrum analysis data for the ultrasonic transducers listed below:

Serial N Size Frequency K11749 1.0" 2.25 MHz F28235 . 2 5 2.25 MHz LO9887 .5" 2.25 MHz Ultrasonic Couplant Batch Number 8874 Ultrasonic Calibration Blocks ALA/APR-33, ALA-7, ALA/APR-RV-3 (2) The inspectors reviewed the below listed liquid penetrant materials certification records to ascertain if the- sulfur and halogen content of the material was within acceptable content limits.

I l-

- _ _ _ _ _ -

.

e

!

!

Materials Batch Number ,

I Liquid Penetrant 88E038 Cleaner / Remover 87L009 Developer 89A03K l I

(3) The inspectors reviewed documentation indicating that a 10' pound {

lift test had been performed on magnetic particle alternating l current (AC) yoke Y-6 B-300-443 Parker. The certification record for lift test plate W50419 was reviewed to confirm the weight of the test plat ,

(4) Steam Generator Tubing Eddy Current Examination j The inspectors 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 j applied; method of examination has been recorded; examination 1 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 criteri (a) Steam generator tube eddy current data collection was being accomplished by ~ W personne In-process tube data l acquisition, including calibration confirmation and tube location verifications were observed for one steam generator

"A" tube while using the rotating pancake coil technique for examination of the tube, i

(b) In-process Eddy Current data evaluation, including- j calibration confirmation, was observed for only a few steam generator tubes as most of the evaluations had been completed and equipment changes were being made in order to continue EC operations. Data analysis was accomplished by first having the data manually evaluated by W followed by an .

'

independent manual data analysis utilizing Conam analyst If differences are noted between the two evaluations, they are resolved by a designated lead analyst (c) The NRC inspectors conducted an independent EC data evaluation verification of the reported analysis for a sample of the SG tubing. The sample of data, some having reportable indications and some with no reported l l

,

'

_ _ _ __ - d

'

, .

indications, was accomplished using W equipmen This independent verification analysis was conducted in order to confirm the validity of the reported tubing conditio The verification analysis conducted by the inspectors agreed well with the reported results. The steam generator tubes selected for this verification are listed belo SG-A SG-B SG-C Row Column Row Column Row Column 11 10 39 53 40 33 13 10 38 53 34 33 14 10 37 53 33 33 21 6 Certification records for EC calibration standards Z831, Z811, and Z5838 were reviewed for material type, correct fabrication, and artificial flaw location and size.

l (5) The inspectors 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 decertificatio Company Examiner Method-Level CONAM BMA EC-IIA CONAM DDW EC-III W JVK EC-II W GKW EC-I CONAM AP EC-IIA CONAM TJB EC-IIA W JJC EC-III W YJS EC-IIA R WCC EC-IIA W KPH EC-IIA N CAS PT-II/VT1-II W GKL PT-II/MT-II W SWT PT-II/MT-II 9 GDS PT-II W GAM UT-II 9 HMA UT-I/PT-II W WMR UT-III

..

,

'. ~.

d. Inservice Inspection, Data Review and Evaluation, Unit 2 (73755)

(1) Records of completed nondestructive examinations were selected and reviewed to ascertain whether: the methods (s), technique, and extent of the examination complied with the ISI plan and applicable 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 j designated. Records selected for this review are listed be' lo l

Drawing N Weld / Component ID NDE Method APR-1-4307 8, 16, 17, 18, 19 PT ]

APR-1-4305 25 thru 36 PT APR-1-4306 16 thru 20 & 21BC VT APR-1-2110 6 UT APR-1-2110 6 MT APR-1-3100 3801 thru 3B13 VT APR-1-4102 18BW PT APR-1-4109 10 UT APR-1-4300 10 & 11 PT APR-1-4300 ISBC PT ,

'

APR-1-4309 7, 33, 34 UT APR-1-4311 4, 5, 6 UT APR-2-2700 2316-179 PT APR-2-2313 5 PT 1 APR-1-4200 16BC PT APR-1-4503 1 thru 6DM & 7 UT/PT APR-1-1300 1 UT APR-F-1000 4302-240, 243, 246, 249 VT APR-1-1400 N38, N41, N47, N55, N45 MT N50, N58 APR-1-1400 S39 & S42 MT (2) Steam Generator Tubing EC Examination Data, Unit 2 (73755) !

!

l The inspectors reviewed the data analysis results and a sample of l l associated completed records for approximately 200 SG tubes including those listed below. The reviews were compared with the applicable procedures and the ASME B&PV Code in the following areas: the multichannel eddy current examination equipment was identified; material permeability was recorded; method of i

!

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - 1

!

.

'

'

.. .

.

k

'i examination was recorded; and, results were consistent with l acceptance criteri G-A SG-B SG-C Row Col Row Col Row Col 9 20 6 11 3 35 25 14 10 23 8 5 27 34 19 24 20-37 28 18 24 34 33 i 40 51 39 24 33 38 j 28 52 29 27 40 43 39 59 35 38 24 47 25 61 39 43 4 51 17 63 44 50 28 51 40 69 28 57 3 58 6 88 38 52 9 67 14 92 81 68 13 69 This current examination included 100% of the available (i.e., unplugged)

tubes for the entire tube length in each generator and was conducted using

" state of the art" digital multifrequency technique A sample of current examinations results were compared with historical i examination result No major discrepancies were note )

By the conclusion of the NRC inspection all EC examinations had not been )

complete The final examination results will be reported to the NRC in accordance with TECH SPEC requirements. The status for the Unit 2 steam generators is listed belo SG-A SG-B SG-C

Total number of tubes 3388 3388 3388 Previously plugged tubes 137 148 199 Tubes to be plugged * 12 4  :

• Number not finalized The licensee has identified two heats of material (4523 and 3962) used by Westinghouse (W) to manufacture Steam Generator tube plugs where the heat

'

treatment is in questio One hundred sixty seven (167) of these' plugs are installed in the unit 2 SGs as indicated below. The licensee intends to remove and replace five plugs, of heat 4523 from S/G "C", for metallurgical evaluation of that heat, and replace one leaking plug of heat 396 The remaining 161 plugs with questionable heat treatment will receive a W flow limiting " plug in a plug" repai !

I Heat ID SG A SG B SG C 4523 13 35 61 3962 11 15 42

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - E

_ _ _ _

-

.

.

,

e. ISI Observations (1) While reviewing the NDE procedures, the NRC inspectors noted that each procedure contained a standard phrase, "The item to be examined, including the volume required to be examined, shall be as defined in the Examination Program Plan.", however, a review of the Examination Program Plan indicated that it did not include drawings or definitions which defined the volume requiring

.

examinatio Discussions with licensee personnel, the Westinghouse I representative, and the Southern Company Services.. (SCS) Level III, indicated that W, upon making a job assignment to an examiner, would supply the examiner with a drawing and a verbal definition of the examination area. These drawings had not been included .as part of the official Examination Program Plan and as such were not officially approved for use during the ISI activitie Following the above discussion, the licensee issued Procedure Change 002 which incorporated the drawings into the' official

~

Examination Program. Pla The inspectors reviewed the Procedure Change for proper licensee approval and the content of the incorporated drawings and concluded that the actions taken by the licensee in this matter were adequat (2) While reviewing UT procedure FNP-0-NDE-157.14, Manual Ultrasonic Examination Of Welds In Cast Stainless Steel Pipe, which had been submitted by Westinghouse and approved for use by the licensee's l Level III, the inspectors noted that several basic ASME Section

'

XI procedure content requirements were missing from the procedur In addition, the procedure did not include some of the elements recommended by Westinghouse and EPRI which resulted from extensive research conducted by W and EPRI at EPRI on W supplied mockups of this type materiaT. Also, elements of the procedure, with regard to establishing the examination reference level, were found to be lacking and needed to be clarifie The omitted procedure requirements, omitted recommended elements, and the needed clarifications are listed belo (a) Requirements for transducer overlap were omitte (b) Requirements for scanning sensitivity were omitte ._--_ _ -

l

,

'

, .

I (c) Requirements for transducer cable length and type were I

'

omitte (d) Requirement to identify special transducer, if used, was i omitted.(This examination requires the used of special ;

focused transducers) i

(e) Recommendation for 50% transducer overlap during scannin (f) Recommendation for scanning at an increased gai .)

i (g) Clarification of the purpose of the ultrasonic signal from I the notch in the calibration standar I (h) Clarification of the calibration standard notch signal with regard to establishing the examination reference leve The NRC inspectors conducted several discussions with the licensee, the W representative, and the UT Level III, regarding i, the items list'dd above. Following these discussions W issued

-

Field Change 2 to the procedure which corrected all of the above I listed items and these procedure changes were incorporated and l

'

approved by the licensee as Temporary Procedure Change TCN-0 The NRC inspectors have reviewed the procedure changes made by !

! the licensee and have concluded that since the procedure problems !

were discovered before any welds were examined using the procedure that this matter has now been adequately addresse (3) During the review of UT procedure FNP-0-157.7, Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Welds In Vessels, the inspectors noted that ;

considerable confusion existed with regard to what calibration '

block reflectors were to be used to establish the examination reference level. This was brought to the attention of the j licensee and W issued Field Change 1 to the procedure which clarified whicTi reflectors were to be used for establishing the examination reference level. This procedure clarification was incorporated and approved by the licensee as Temporary Procedure ,

l Change TCN-0A, i The NRC inspectors have reviewed the procedure clarification and have concluded that this matter is now adequately addresse (4) During attempts to observe in-process examinations being conducted, the inspectors encountered considerable delay in observing Ultrasonic examinations on two occasions due to apparent inattention by W to examiner experience when examiners were assigning a particular task.

- _ _ _ _ - _ .

.

, .

13 j The first incident occurred while one of the NRC inspectors was observing a UT examiner attempt to calibrate the UT scope in i preparation for the examination of two Main Coolant pipe weld This calibration and examination is' difficult even for experienced UT examiners if they have not had specific experience ,

in the examination of cast stainless steel as this examination is conducted on cast stainless steel, uses a cast stainless steel calibration block, and uses special ultrasonic transducers. The UT examiner obviously had considerable ultrasonic ' experience but was not familiar with the difficulty of equipment calibration because of the calibration reflectors which were required to be used for this particular examination. After approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of attempting to calibrate the UT scope the examiner i declared he could not calibrate the instrument in accordance with j

'

the procedure and terminated the attempted calibration. Two days later, W discovered that one of their UT examiners had considerable experience with the examination of this material and {

the examiner had had specialized training at EPRI for examinations of this typ The experienced UT examiner successively calibrated the UT scope, in a reasonable amount of '

time, using the procedure requirements and this calibration was verified by the NRC inspector and found to be adequat i The second incident occurred while one of the NRC inspectors was observing a UT examiner calibrate the UT scope in preparation for i the examination of two 4" diameter pipe welds. This calibration i is difficult if the examiner has not had considerable experience with small diameter pip In this case the calibration of the UT scope took approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and it was necessary, in the latter part of the calibration process, to inlist the aid. of ,

another UT examiner who happened to be in the area and had l considerable experience with the examination of small diameter pipe. After the calibration activities were completed and the UT examiner was observed in the field examining the 4" diameter pipe welds, it became apparent that the UT examiner was well qualified as he was able to readily interpret ultrasonic sigaals as reportable type indication However, had the UT examiner with experience with small diameter pipe examinations been assigned this task or been co-assigned this task with the first examiner, considerable time could have been saved by all concerne These two incidents tend to reflect a weakness for attention to detail on the part of the W representative who is responsible for

_

UT examiner job assignment In addition, there does not appear to be adequate regard given to unwarranted radiation exposure which can result from extended UT scope calibration activities and subsequent UT item examinatio ____________a

.

, ,

!

1 Within this ares of inspection, violations or deviations were not identifie '

3. Equipment Maintenance Status and Housekeeping (548348)

The inspectors made a general inspection of the auxiliary building and the Unit 2 containment building to evaluate equipment maintenance status and 1 condition. The following conditions were noted: Door 330, to the Unit I main steam valve room, apparently a pressure isolation door, was found standing open. This door contains a key card reade Investigation, by the inspectors, indicated that a  ;

licensee employee had made an entry to the Unit 1 Main Steam valve '

room, with the unit at power, leaving the door open and unattended for approximately ten minutes. At the time of this inspection it was not clear whether the above circumstances were consistent with the f

'

licensee's program and regulatory requirements. This matter will be examined further during a subsequent inspection and identified as Unresolved item 50-348/89-09-01: "Over Pressurization Door Left Open". Door 2322, to room 2343, 4160 Volt switch gear room, identified as a

,

fire door, was found standing ope Room 2322 was unoccupied at the time of this observation. The inspector noted that the door closer was not operabl Apparently, the last person to exit this clearly  ;

marked fire door failed to assure that the door closed behind hi Fire door 2315, to room 3218, cable spreading room, was blocked open to permit the passage of cables. The licensee informed the inspectors that both doors (2322 and 2315) were included on the roving fire watch I tour, thus the door status (open or closed) was within the envelope of the APC fire protection progra The licensee, upon further examination, issued an incident report to investigate this issue

,

further. A full time fire wat:b was assigned to door 231 Pending an NRC review of the invest'gatm findings, this matter will be identified ad Unresolved Item 50A4/89-09-02: " Fire Doors Left Open". Numerous electrical cabinets had loose or missing cover retaining ,

fasteners. This observation was made in both units. The licensee l indicated that the Unit 2 cabinets were under going active maintenance i work, no explanation was offered for the Unit I cabinet J Several electrical cabinets had inappropriate opening ; For the items 3.c. and 3.d. above the licensee has issued Maintenance Work Requests to correct the NRC inspector observed deficiencie This area will be revisited during the forth coming Maintenance Team i Inspectio !

i The lef t open doors and the missing or loose electrical cabinet fasteners  ;

in the operating unit, indicate an inattention to detail on the part of 4 some licensee personne _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

-

. j

..

.

!

. j 15 j

.

I

Within the areas examined no deviations or violations were identifie !

4. Inspector Followup Items (IFI)

(Close) IFI 50-348/88-14-01, Final Disposition of Reactor Vessel j Indications. By letter dated April 28, 1988, APC submitted initial reports 1 which provided information on the evaluation and disposition of five j indications found during the inservice examination of the Unit I reactor i vesse The final reports, which were prepared by Westinghouse, were j submitted some time later and n-ovide. an evaluation of the two indications which exceed the allowable ' dards of the ASME Code,Section XI, 1 IWB-350 These reports provide fracture mechanics analysis methodology i used to determine the final disposition of these indications based on the !

criteria - of Section XI, IWB-360 The NRC inspectors have reviewed these i reports and discussed required followup actions required with the license Based on the content of these reports and discussions with the licensee, the inspectors have no further concern regarding this matte !

5. Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on April 14,1989, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspectors described the areas j inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed belo Although reviewed during this inspection, proprietary information is not contained in this repor Dissenting comments were not received from the license (0 pen) Unresolved Item 50-364/89-09-01, Over Pressurization Door left j

'

Open, paragraph (0 pen) Unresolved Item 50-364/89-09-02, Fire Doors Left Open, paragraph ' (0 pen) Inspector Followup Item 50-348, 367/89-09-03, ASME ISI Code Of ,

Record, paragraph l l

l i l

l l

I I

l

.

' '

.

~

6. Acronyms and Initialisms AC - Alternating Current APC - Alabama Power Company ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers B&PV - Boiler and Pressure Vessel Col - Column CONAM - Conam Inspection DAC - Distance Amplitude Curve EC - Eddy Current EPRI - Electric Power Research Institute ID - Identification IFI - Inspector Followup Item ISI - Inservice Inspection MT - Magnetic particle MH - Megahertz NDI Nondestructive Examination No. - Number NPF - Nuclear Power Facility NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission PT - Liquid penetrant QA - Quality Assurance R - Revision RPC - Rotating Pancake Coil SCS - Southern Company Services SG - Steam Generator TCN - Temporary Change Notice UT - Ultrasonic VT - Visual W - Westinghouse Electric Corporation l

l l

.

.._-_-__-_______.m__ __