IR 05000358/1978030
| ML19282B818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1979 |
| From: | Danielson D, Ward K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282B778 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-78-30, NUDOCS 7903160218 | |
| Download: ML19282B818 (8) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-358/78-30 Docket No. 50-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licensee:
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company 138 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Facility Name:
William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At:
W.
H.
Zimmer Site, Moscow, Ohio Inspection Conducted:
November 8-9, December 12-13, 1978
'
)1 j
.
.
i
,
Inspector:
K. D. Ward
"I
,
__
,
/*.
'
.
,
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief I 's (
/ "j Engineering Support Section 2
'
Inspection Summar_y Inspection on November 8-9 and December 12-13, 1978 (Report No. 50-358/78-30)
Areas Inspected: Observation of preservice inspection (PSI) of vessel and review of nondestructice examinations (NDE) reports.
Review of radio-
. graphs and reports in the HP, LP, and Core Spray systems.
The inspection involved 24 inspection-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the four areas inspected, no apparent items of noncom-pliance were identified in three areas; two apparent items of noncompliance were identified in one area (infraction - failure to calibrate and maintar' instruments within necessary limits
- paragraph 5.a; infraction - failure to follow established pro-cedures to comply with applicable Codes - paragraph 5.d).
7903160212
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG6E)
- B.
K. Culver, Project Manager
- W. W. Schwiers, Principal QA and Standard Engineer
- R. L. Wood, QA and Scandard Engineer J. R. Weissenburg QA Engineer Kaiser Encineers, Incorporated (KEI)
- R. Turner, QA Manager W. Puckett, Lead Mechanical Inspectcr A. Pallon, Weld /NDE QA Engineer Nuclear Energy Services, Incorporated (NES)
J. Marinelli, Electronic Technician R. Trenk, Mechanic Technician The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor employees.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Functional or Procram Areas Inspected 1.
Preservice Insnection - General Information Nuclear Energy Services, Incorporated (NES) developed the a.
Preservice Inspection Program and is performing the preservice examination in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1974 Edition with no Addenda.
b.
Preservice inspection is being performed intermittently and is to be completed in the Summer of 1979.
The automated ultrasonic examination will take approximate 1:.
c.
six to eight weeks to perform, working two shifts six days a week 2.
Observation of Work and Nondestructive Examination Activities The inspector observed and had discussions with NES personnel during the set-up of the automated ultrasonic-2-
'
.
.
instruments and equipment and during the nondestructive examina-tions. These observations included the setting up of the Reflecto-thr transponding ultrasonic calibration instruments, scope ultrasonic the Computer X and Y tape recorder for the automated ultra-unit, sonic examination of the vessel, and the automated ultrasonic examination of nozzle welds in accordance with Procedure 80All74, Revision 0, dated February 15, 1978.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified within the areas observed.
3.
Data Review and Evaluation the The data review for the following systems demonstrated that QA/QC commitmont had been complied with.
Feedwater to reactor Recirculation nozzle Jet pump nozzle safe end and instrument RCIC tc reactor RCIC f rom !!ain St eam Core Spray Steam separator Feedwater sprager Shroud head RPV closure head nozzles, supports and pads No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified within the areas reviewed.
4.
NDE Personnel Certification Review The inspector reviewed the f ollowing NEE personnel certifications in accordance with SNT-TC-1A, 1968 Edition.
The personnel were certified by NES.
Name Level Methods II UT, PT R.
Barnes J. k'ol f
UT, PT K. Dufel II UT No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified within the areas reviewed.
-3_
-
.
.
.
5.
Independent Inspection Radiographs and reports were reviewed of the following welds in accordance with ASME Section III, 1971 Edition,with Summer were used.
1972 Addenda and the applicable procedures that Line Weld Diameter Thickness Date lHP03C10 HP32 10" 0.593" 9/22/76 lHP03C10 HP33 10" 0.593" 9/30/76 1HP06C4 HP34 4"
0.237" 9/30/76 1HP06C4 HP35 4"
0.237" 2/18/76 1HP04A8 HP41 8"
0.593" 9/2/76 1HP18A8 HP49 3"
0.438" 1/10/77 liPl7A3 LP47 3"
0.216" 4/20/77 lLPl7A3 LP48 3"
0.216" 6/17/77 1LPO4B4 LP49 4"
0.237" 8/12/76 1HP21A4 HPK1 3"
0.237" 4/28/77 1HP21A2 HPK2 4"
0.237" 3/11/77 1HP17A3 HPK10 3"
0.216" 2/6/78 1HP06B4 HP17 3"
0.237" 9/28/76 1HP08C3 HPK17 3"
0.438" 8/7/78 1HP03C10 HP27 10" 0.593" 8/16/76 1HP03C10 HP30 10" 0.591" 9/20/76 1HP06C4 36HP 4"
0.237" 1/27/76 1HP01A20 HP1B 20" 0.375" 2/17/77 1HP01A20 HP1 20" 0.375" 7/26/76 1HP01A20-1 HP1 20" 0.375" 7/26/76 lHP01316 HP67B 16" 0.375" 5/2/77 IHP01A20 9HP 20" 0.375" 7/2/76 1HP03A14 HP20 14" 0.937" 9/3/76 1HP03C10 HP28 10" 0.775" 7/20/76 1HP01A20 HP2 20" 0.375" 8/9/76 ILP05A12 LP24 12" 0.375" 4/27/77 ILP22A6 LPo2 6"
0.280" 9/28/76 ILP22A6 LP63 4"
0.237" 9/30/76 ILPO4B4 LP51 4"
0.237" 10/5/76 ILPO4B4 LP50 4"
0.237" 8/30/76 lLP14C4 LPK25 4"
0.237" 8/28/78 ILP1483 LPK9 3"
0.226" 6/23/78 ILP02B10 LP7 10'
O.600" 4/30/76 ILP02B10 LP1 10" 0.593" 7/8/76 1LP02B10 LP2 10" 0.593" 6/23/76 1LP12A16 LPK4 16" 0.375" 10/3/77-4-
-
.
.
1LP02Al2 LP10 10" 0.365" 5/14/77 ILP02Al2 LP11 12" 0.365" 7/12/77 1LP02A12 LP23A 12" 0.375" 4/18/77 1LP05A12-18 LP23B 12" 0.375" 4/18/77 a.
On November 8, 1978, the inspector requested to use Kaiser Engineers, Incorporated (KEI) densitometer in reviewing the above radiographs. The KEI personnel informed the inspector that the densitometer was not always actuate and that the Peabriy Magnaflux Corporation (PMC) densitometer was more actuate and should be used when densities are to be taken of radiographs. A density reading was taken, by the inspector, from a designated radiographic area using the PMC densitometer and compared to a reading from that same area using the KEI densitometer.
The readings were found to have a wide variance.
The inspector was unable to deter-mine which, if either, of the densitometers was correct.
Both densitometers have National Bureau of Standards (NBS)
calibrated density radiographic step wedges.
The KEI densitometer is a Macbeth T0-504, No. 34210 and the PMC densitometer is a Macbeth - Quanota Log No. 7859. When the inspector returned to the site December 12, 1978, it was determined that the densitometers were in the same condi-tion as they were on November 8, 1978.
This is identified as an item of noncomplian'ce in Appendix A.
(358/78-30-01)
b.
On November 8, 1978, the inspector reviewed the first nine radiographs listed in Paragraph 4 above.
These radiographs had been reviewed by Peabody Magnaflux Corporation, Kaiser Engineers, Incorporated and the Authorized Inspector. The following discrepancies were found in reviewing the reports and radiographs.
(1) Line No. lHP03C10, Weld No. HP33; two mistakes in the report. Area 0-14 should be area 7-14 and the diameter is stated as 16" and is actually a 10" pipe weld.
(2) Line No. lHP06C4, Weld No. HP34; mistake in the re-port.
One area of interest was 3 1/4" - 7" and the next area of interest was stated as 7 1/2" - 11".
The report is incomplete since all of the weld must be interpreted.
(3)
Line No. 1HP06C4, Weld No. HP33; there is a missing report. The original radiograph showed an unacceptable-5-
-
.
.
.
area in the weld.
The weld was repaired.
There was and radiograph stating a second repair was made.
a report There was no record or radiograph of the first repair.
(4) Line No. lLPl7A3, Weld No. LP47; the repair film did not have a R1 to show that it was repair one, and the technique was unacceptable because the penetrameters shimed to the total thickness being radiographed.
were not (5) Line No. 1HP03C10, Weld No. HP32; the film density through three of the diagnostic areas varied by more than minus 15 percent from the density through the penetrameter.
On December 12, 1978, the inspector requested to review c.
radiographs and reports that had been final reviewed for turn-over prior to operation. The radiographs selected for examination had been reviewed by Peabody Magnaflux Corp.,
In Kaiser Engineers, Inc., and the Authorized Inspector.
addition, several radiographs had been reviewed by CONAM.
The f ollowing discrepancies were found in reviewing the reports and radiographs:
1HP21A4, Weld No. HPK1; wrong diameters stated (1) Line No.
on reports. The original report states 3" diameter pipe size and the two repair reports R1 and R2 state 4" diameter pipe sizes.
(2) Line No. lHPl7A3, Ueld No. HPK10; repair film does not have a R1 on the film. Records state a repair one was made.
(3) Line No. 1HP06B4, Weld No. HP17; the technique was unacceptable because the penetrameters were not shimed to the total thickness being radiographed.
Line No.1HP08C3, Weld No. HPK17; a lead letter "F" (4)
was not place adjacent to the penetraneter.
The report stated that film-side penetrameters were used to radie-graph the weld.
(5) Line No. 1HP03C10, Weld No. HP30; mistake in the One area of interest was 3k" - 7" and the report.
next area of interest was stated as 7!" - 11".
The
be report is incomplete since all of the weld must interpreted.
_c_
-
.
.
.
(6) Line No. 1HP01A20, Weld No. RP1B; no orginal report, two extra reports, one stating R1 and another R2, anc one extra film stating repair two (R2).
The weld was first radiographed having one film with antifacts.
The area with the film antifacts was radiographed twice, first without the R2, which was acceptable and then another of the same area with a R2.
The weld did not show any defects on the original radiograph, therefore was not repaired.
(7) Line No. 1HP01A20, Weld No. HP1; no repair
.'_1m or re-port and penetrameters not shimed. The film and report states unacceptable porosity in the weld.
There is not a report or film indicating that the weld was repaired.
(8)
Line No. 1HP01A20-1, Weld No. HP1; the penetrameters are not shimed, a black felt ink pen was used to mark the identification (ID) on one film and the line No. was incomplete leaving the -1 off.
(9)
Line No. 12P02B10, Weld No. LP1; mistake in the report.
One area of interest was 3k" - 7" and the next area of interest was stated as 7h" - 11" The report is incom-plete since all of the weld must be interpreted.
(10) Line No. 1HP03C10 Weld No. HP28; the report states that this pipe weld is 10 inch diameter, but the radio-graph shows that it is 71" around the pipe.
Prior to leaving the site the inspe tor was informed that the weld was 22" in diameter.
(11) Line No. ILP02E10, Weld No. LP1; the ID was left off when radiographed, and then written with a black ink telt pen on the final radiograph. An acceptable area was reradiographed as a repair but there was no repair.
This is a panoramaic radiographic and in most of the areas where the film overlapped the density varies by more than minus 15 percent from the density through the penetrameter.
d.
The inspector observed that radiography was performed on several welds using an 1R 192 source on material less than 0.25" without a separate procedure being prepared and proven by actual demonstration, as required by ASME Section III, 1971 Edition, with Summer 1972 Addenda. Peabody has technique radiographed shots of a 0.257" wall 4" diameter, a 0.280" wall 2 1/2" diameter and a 0.218" wall 2" diameter.
The thinnest material reviewed was 0.216".
- 7-
.
.
.
Items in Paragraph.1 b,c, and d, are noncompliances identified in Appendix A, (358/78-30-02).
Except as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified within the areas observed.
,
Exit Interviews The inspector met with sit e representat ives (denoted in the Persons Contacted Paragraph) at the conclusion or the inspection and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
_g_