IR 05000358/1981021
| ML20010F343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1981 |
| From: | Ward K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010F329 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-81-21, NUDOCS 8109100060 | |
| Download: ML20010F343 (8) | |
Text
---
_
.
e
'
'
y..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
<
REGION III
. Report No. 50-358/81-21
-
Docket No. 50-538
- License No. CPPR-88 Licensee:
Cincinnati Gas and' Electric Company 139 East 4th Street-Cincinnati,_OH 45201 s
.
'
Facility Name:
Wm. If. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Inspection At:
Wm. H. Zirvner Site, Moscow, 03 Inspection Conducted: June 29, July 1, July 20-21, 1981
,
'
I.
/
_
Inspector:
. D. Ward-
<
Approved By:
D son,. Chief
[
/
Materials & Processes Section
/
Inspection Su;anary Inspection on June 29, July 1, July 20-21, 1981 (Report No. 50-358/81-21)
Areas Inspected: Review of preservice inspection (PSI) program and nondestructive examination (NDE) personnel certifications; IE Bulletin 80-08 and 80 21, activities; previously identified concompliances and unresolved item:t. The inspection involved a total of 23 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the'aren. inspected, one apparent violation was identified.
<
,
(Failure to comply with ASME Code requirements during radiographic examina-tion - Paragraph 2)
.
D 1-i
,
4 k
..
I
-
.
8109100060 81082fs p
PDR ADOCK-05000358 s
- G.
t
-
,
. -.
-
+
,
--
-
-
,..
-
@]4 q' 4 '.
3 -:-
[
_
.
-
-
,
'
-
,
_
A'
i
!:
E
- DETAILS
y,4
'
<;t
<
.
Persons Attending Pullman Power Products Shop Radiography Meeting on-June 29 1981-
<
,
,
L R.LJagger, Asst.' Director of Inspections, National Board, Boiler
-
,
P. V. Inspectors
,
.
D.1 Milan ~, Chief-Inspector, State of Ohio i,
-
H.;Sagar, Q.C. Manager, CG&E B'. Culver, Manager, Construction, CG&E
, _
,
.
- S. Swain, Construction Manager, CG&E
-
.
F. Hoover,. Con'truction Engineer, CG&E 4-s
'
M.-Rulli, Coordinator, CG&E J. Vannier, NDE Level III, S&L-a J. Nolting, NDE Level III, Site Manager, NES F. Daniels, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC K. Ward, Reactor Inspector, NRC Persons Contacted for other than meeting above
'
. Cincinnati Ges and Electric Company (CG&E)'
_,
H. Sagar,-QA Manager R. Ebas, Senior QC Engineer
,.
P. Adkins, Records Analyst
-
Sargej! & Lundy Engineers (S&L)
J. Vannier, NDE Level III Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. (NES)
J. Nolting, NDE Level III,' Site Manager The. inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee ans contractor employees.
-
H. Sager attended the final exit interview July 21, 1981.
Licensee Action.on Previously Inspected "indings
'
_
-(Closed) Noncompliance (358/01-03-01) Discrepancies in radiographs of four welds;. The inspector reviewed the response, interpreted the radiographs of the four welds,'and found that the discrepancies were removed and that the reports, radiographs and welds are acceptable.
5(Closed) Noncompliance (358/77-08-02) Weld repair. documentation was not
!-
-retrievable and the KEIA form was not.' retrievable during inspection when p
. required. The inspector reviewed the response and the' documentation that
.was retrieved aftnr;the inspector left tue site and has no,further' questions.
t
e i.
'l
,
a.
-
- 2-
'
.
~
\\
i:
lk r
..
u
, -.
, _, - ~ +,., - - -, _...
.,,..
,--,m
-.r
....,.~...,r_.,,,
v,..
.... - -. -.,, - -
,,~,._....r,
_.,,,,.,,,,....
,,.
-
,
.._-
.
!
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (358/81-03-02) NES approval in MTL block on NDE forms. The inspector reviewed several forms determining that the MTL approval block had oeen changed to NES when NES actually performed the radiography.
(0 pen) Unresolved item (358/80-20-02) No specific time for a QC inspector to be in the weld test shop. A procedure is to be changed stating the time for a QC inspector tc be in the weld test shop.
(Closed) Unresloved Item (358/79-14-20) Recirculating system locp piping heat treatment records incomplete.
NRR will resolve this item based on the NRR letter dated July 17, 1960 to RIII, G. Fiorelli.
(Closed) Unrer.olved Item (358/77-12-01) Generic dssues - tempocacy support and past flushing requirements of flushi.:A procedures, The inspector reviewed the interdepartment'correspondeace dated October 31.
1977 explaining procedure in details and has no questions at this time.
(Closed) Onresolved Item (358/79-33-02) Design change drawing due on cut rebar, nicked rebar, plates MK-2A thru 2D.
The inspector reviewed the engineering evaluations from S&L dated July 12, 1979 and July 17, 1979 and has.o questions at this time.
Licensee Action on IE Builetins Ref:
a.
IE Bulletin 80-21 titled " Valve Yokes Supplied by Malec?m Foundry, Inc.", dated November 6, 1980.
b.
CG&E letters to NRC dated December 29, 1980 and July 1, 1981 interim response to IE Bulletin 80-21.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (358/80-20-01):
No final response to IE Bulletin 80-08.
The inspector reviewed the final response and reporcs requested by IE Bulletin 80-08 and has no questions at this time.
(0 pen) IE Bulletin 80-21.
Th9 inspector reviewed the license-s initial response and GE is investigating vendors of valves they furnished as part of the NSSS System.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
_Preservice Inspection a.
General Ref:
(1) RIII Report No. 50-358/78-19 (PSI)
(2) RIII Report No. 50-358/78-23 (PSI)
(3) RIII Report No. 50-358/78-30 (PSI)
(4) RIII Report No. 50-358/79-17 (PSI)
(5) RIII Report No. 50-358/80-20 (PSI)
(6) RIII Report No. 50-358/81-03 (PSI)
-3-
y
-
,
.
,
,
b.
Progr m'and NDE Personnel Certifications The.inspectorreviewedthePreseIviceInspectionProgramPlan,
~
80A1181, Revisien 1, June 12, 1981 and the following NES NDE personnel certifications in accordance.with SNT-TC-) A,1975 Edition:
Name
_UT_
_P_T s
T. Beck II II
N. Callahan II II
R. Foley II II.
B. Mather II II
J. Montanari II No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
2.
Radiographic Interpretp* ion
,
The inspector reviewed radiographs and reports of the following field
"
welds in accordance with ASME Section III,1971 Edition, Sammer 1971 Addenda.
.
Line Number Weld Diameter Thickness Date RT ILP02B10 LP9 10" 0.593" 05/24/77 ILP02B10 3LP 10" 0.593" 06/07/76 IHP03C10 HP32 10" 0.593" 06/05/80 FWO2GB18 FW73 18" 1.156" 06/05/80
FUO26B18 FW74 12" 1.00" 06/06/80
Fk'2FC12 FW58A 12" 1.00" 05/20/80 i
F,a12FC12 FW58 12" 1.00" 03/20/80 FWOJGA13 FW56 18" 1.351" 05/29/80
IFWOZLA18 FW57 12" 1.00" 06/12/80
'
1FC01B12 FC8 12" 0.375" 05/16/80 LP02A12 LP13 12"-
0.375" 05/16/80 ILP05A12 23LP 12" 0.375" 06/11/76 ILP05A12 LP26 12" 0.375" 08/10/76-FWO2FD12 FW74A 12" 1.00" 05/20/80
.
IFW20A1325 FW33 13.25" 1.005" 03/30/77 IHP03A14 HP12 12" 0.937" 12/30/77 IWR20C8 WRK72-8" 0.322" 04/30/80 IWS02J14 W525 14" 0.375" 07/16/76 IWS15D24 WS43 24" 0.375" 03/24/77
-
IWS39B18 WSK16 18" 0.375" 10/28/77
)
I'#R02AB12 WR195A 12" 0.375" 04/24/80 ILP14B3 LPK24 3"
0.216" 06/23/78 IUP02BA8-9 VPK281 8-0.322" 04/23/30
'
IMP 08C3 HP-1;B 3"
0.438" 10/20/77 IHP18A3 HP48 3"
0.438" 01/14/77 ILPKA3 LP36 3"
0.226" 06/09/80
_
h
&
~
-4-
.a,
.
,, :.
-.. a..
.
. -.
-,.-_:
.
- - -,
-
.
.
Line Number Weld Diameter Thickness Date RT ILPO4B4 LP49 4"
0.237"
'.8/12/76 RH12CB8 RHK43 6"
0.322" 04/25/80 IMS24F4 MSK9 3"
0.300" 09/27/77 IRT01AB4 RT30 4.5" 0.337" 03/6/78 ILP14B3 LPK11 3"
0.216" 08/28/78 FWO2EA18 FW54A 18" 1.351" 03/22/78 IFWO2EB1843 FW72A 18.43" 1.543" 03/22/78 IPG18AB8 37DG 8"
0.322" 03/24/77 WX30A6 WX10 6"
0.280" 05/16/80 IRH10B4850 RH415 4"
0.237" 08/12/80 IFC09B8 FC45 8"
0.322" 03/7/77 IHP08C3 HP19 3"
0.438" 10/21/77 IFC39C6 FCK42 6"
0.280" 03/03/78 IFC14AA8 FCK96 8"
0.322" 05/14/79 IFC12A8 FC49B 6"
0.432" 06/18/b0 IHP03C10 HP27 10" 0.593" 08/16/76 IWR20C8 WR113 8"
0.322" 04/24/80 IFC19B8 FCK63 8"
0.322 03/15/78 IWR52B6 WR4 6"
0.280" 02/17/77 ICY 01B16 CY606 16" 0.365" 06/08/77 The inspector found the following discrepancies:
a.
Weld WR4 did not have the penetrameters shimmed to the total weld thickness as required by ASME Section III, 1971 Edition, Summer 1973 Addenda, Appendix IX, Paragraph IX-3334.4.
b.
Weld CY606 has had four repairs that are numbered R1, R2, R3 anu R3A. There are no original R1 or R2 radiographs. There are two views in R3 and two views in R3A which together make up 360 of the weld. One half of the weld was radiographed as R3 and the following year the other half s;as radiographed as R3A.
Each year the weld was radiographed with a panoramic technique.
When the source is placed on the axis of the object, the complete circumference is radiographed with a single exposure. ASME Section III, 1971 Edition, Summer 1973 Addenda, Appendix IX, Paragraph IX-3334.5 requires that at least three unifonity spaced penetrameters shall be employed.
Two views have two shimmed penetrameters and the other two views together have one unshimmed penetrameter. This is contrary to the above ASME requsrements. S & L gave this weld an engineering evaluation, Ref. }G'IS172, " Accept as is."
,
The discrepancies identified during this inspection are again part of the 2390 welds mentioned below and are a third repeat item of noncompliance.
(358/81-21-01)
-5-
g
- ..
> -
,
i. '
,
-
i --.
The inspector made an inspection on November.8-9, and December 12-13,-
r 1978 (Report No. 358/78-30) and found several discrepancies in radia-
'
.
. graphic techniques and' reports that resulted in an item of noncompliance.
P During'a Seicember 1979.-inspection (Report No. 358/79-17), the inspector
[.
-
found several moreLdiscrepancies during'his review of licensee actions.
The licensee then hired NES to review radiographs and reports for.
turnover-prior to operation.. NES started the review October 1979.
l_
"
i
.and completed' April 1980. Radiographs of 2390 welds were reviewed, l
958 radiographic reports had discrepancies, 543 welds had unacceptable radiographic : technique problems and 14 welds had. defects.
January 6-8, 1981, the inspector reviewed radiographs of 20 welds that were part of the 2390 welds that had received aEfinal review by
,
l.
NES (Report No. 358/81-03) and found four discrepancies.
l L
Except as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
l
3.
Pullman Power Products Shop Radiography Meeting A meeting was held at the site June 29, 1981, in which CG&E presented
,'
l a program on their action taken to date.
The NRC at one time reviewed several radiographs from Pullman and found that the. technique did not meet ASME Section III, 1971 Edition, Summer-1973 Addenda requirements (ref. RIII Inspection Report No. 50-358/81-13).
The problem is that there are several hundred radiographs of welds that do not meet the Code because of penetrameters not being shimmed to l
the total thickness of the weld. Therefore, the radiographs are unacs ptable for interpretation of weld defects, since through
'
thickness sensitivity has not been proven as required.
i
'
Actions Taken to Date by CG&E A representative group of the Pullman Power shop welds were selected based upon the different pipe diameters and wall thicknesses involved in which these welds were radiographed under field conditions with both an unshimmed and a properly shimmed penetrameter on each radiograph.
l l-These radiographs were reviewed by Level III radiographers from both L
Nuclear Energy Services (NES) and Sargent and Lundy (S & L) to deter-l mine the degree of sensitivity loss on a penetrameter shimmed to
[.
reflect the maximum thickness of the weld.
'A secondary purpose of this review was to compare same with the original improperly i
e shimmed radiographs to determine if minimum Code requirements had been met in every case.
The conclusions. arrived at by.the S & L and NES review, were that
[
Pullman had used excellent radiog;aphic techniques. The film had
been redundantly reviewed several times previously by independent qualified radiographers.
If the only' change in the radiography
!
technique would be to. add penetrameter shimming,-then no useful
!
purpose would be served by any further action. They further conclude l'
these radiographs are of satisfactory quality.
~
L l
l'
~6-I'
,
-
.:
,
-,
,
,,..,-,
,,-,,e
<,y
,,,
.,,m.,
-,_m_.y 7,n. m.
,..#y,
.-,, v w,, _,
e- -
-
,
uc
.
Of a total of 31 pipe sizes and thicknesses, 21 are accessible for -
radiography, but it was not known how many of the 31 have unacceptable radiographic techniques. The 10 sizes not readily available are either buried or are filled with water.
CG&E had 17 welds reradiographed of various diameters and thicknesses but most of the welds that were reradiographed did not have a radiographic problem.
It was noted that on several of the reradiographed demonstration radiographs, the original radiographs selected for comparison purposes were of excellent quality, and were properly shimmed showing above average sensitivity. Also it was determined that reradiographing had been done to an NES procedure and they had not utilized the original Pullman Power procedures in the radiography.
CG&E reradiographed approximately 6 welds that had radiographic problems using the original technique plus over shimming, but staying within Code with another penetrameter on the same film. Weld 79 H s
and J, Line No. 1FC09;A8, was one of the 6 welds found to be acceptable demonstrating that the weld was acceptable.
Recommendations Because of the undetermined number of radiographs that were taken using unacceptable technique (penetrameters not shimmed to meet ASME Code requirements) it was recommended by the Acsistant Director of Inspection, National Board, Chief Boiler Director, State of Ohio and the NRC chat for the Pullman Power radiographs to be acceptable, they should all either be reradiographed in accordance with all Code requirements, or satisfactory demonstration of compliance be made using the basic criteria as follows:
.... All comparison reradiography used in the demonstration will be performed as closely as possible to the original Pullman Power procedures.
.
.... Selection of' original radiographs for comparative evaluation shall
!
be based on the worse possible case rather than the best possible Case.
.... The degree of sensitivity demonstrated on the unshimmed comparative l
radiograph should be comparable to th t on the osigi.nal in order to prove similarity of procedural techniques.
'
If the above similarity is proven, the level of sensitivity
....
demonstrated shall become the basis for comparative acceptance of all other radiographs in that size-thickness category.
.... All of the Pullman Power' radiographs in question should be reviewed, first to establish which ones were improperly shimmed, then all those
found not to be in compliance should be checked against the demon-stration film as applicable.
t-7
-
-
p s
6.
,
-
.
c
,
..
....~In all ca'seslthe comparison demonstration radiograph shall meet 1.
all Code requirements;and prove the Code accepted sensitivity on l-the shimmed penetraneter displayed thereon.
!
L Quality Confirmation Program j.
s
,
A program that may demonstrate the adequacy of the radiographs in question is being implemented by CG&E.
(See Investigation Report No. 50-358/81-13, Section 12).
Exit Interview
.
!
.
.
- The _inspeccor met with Mr. H. Sagar (denoted in Persons Contacted paragraph)
at.the conclusion'of the inspection. The inspector summarized the scope and findings,of the inspection noted in this report.
t
{
!
l'
l l
!
L
,
!. '
g-
.
y
.r
?
,
l
.