IR 05000395/1982002
| ML20041A745 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1982 |
| From: | Girard E, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041A743 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-395-82-02, 50-395-82-2, NUDOCS 8202220460 | |
| Download: ML20041A745 (7) | |
Text
_-_
_
,
/
'
UNITED STATES 8'
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b
a REGION 11 Q
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
%
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report No. 50-395/82-02 Licensee:
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Columbia, SC 29218 Facility Name:
Summer Docket No. 50-395 License No. CPPR-94 Inspection at Summer, site _near Colurr.bia, South Carolina o -n v,e n J
. fy. 6f7 /WA-Inspector / E. H. G " rd
-
f Date Signed Appro d by:
b g
_/ M N A. R. Herdt, Section Chief at Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on January 4-8, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 35 inspector-hours on site in the areas of licensee action en previous inspection findings, licensee identified items (50.55(e)), inspector follow-up items, preservice inspection and review of as-builts.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
9202220460 820129 gDRADOCK05000
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _i
r
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. A. Williams, General Manager, Nuclear Operations
- D. A. Nauman, Group Manager, Nuclear Services 0. Bradham, Plant Manager
- S. J. Smith, Assistant Manager, Maintenance Services
- D. R. Moore, Manager, Quality Assurance
- S. S. Howze, Engineer, Nuclear Licensing
- J. Connelly, Deputy Plant Manager
- P. Fant, Director, Station Quality Control T. A. McAlister, QA Surveillance Specialist F. McKennon, Quality Control Group Leader L. B. Collier, Welding Supervisor Other Organizations G. Hughes, Metallurgist, Westinghouse Electric Corporation R. A. Stought, Site Service Manager, Westinghcuse Electric Corporation W. Remkis, Engineer, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
- G. A. Dacier, Quality Assurance Engineer, Daniel Construction Company J. R. Fletcher, Project Quality Manager, Daniel Construction Company NRC Resident Inspector
- J. L. Skolds
- 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.
In a telephone conversation on January 18, 1982, the inspector informed the licensee that the inspection t
findings would result in identification of two new enresolved items:
!
a.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (395/82-02-01):
" Pressurizer integral support weld PSI exam" paragraph 7.
b.
(Open) Unresolved Item (395/82-02-02): "As-built piping and records" -
paragraph 8.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item (395/81-22-01):
Calibration block and ultrasonic examination (UT) procedure for preservice inspection (PSI) of main loop reactor coolant system welds. This item identified Region II's concern
-.-
c
.
.
that the UT practice used to examine main loop welds from adjacent wrought piping was not adequate, in that:
a.
The refracted longitudinal wave UT technique employed has not been adequately demonstrated to detect crack-like indications (as described in paragraphs 3 and 6 of IE Report 395/81-22) and, therefore, does not appear to comply with applicable code requirements stated in ASME Section V (74S75), paragraph T-110(c).
b.
The UT technique was calibrated on a cast block, preventing proper evaluation of indications.
Using a calibration block so dissimilar from the structure through which the examination is performed is considered poor practice and does not appear to comply with the applicable code requirements stated in ASME Section V (74S75),
paragraphs T-533 and T-535.1(a).
When this item was originally opened the NRC inspectors were only aware of the use of the technique in examining welds of wrought pipe to cast fit-tings. In the current inspection, the NRC inspector found that it had also been used in examination of branch connections, where the materials on both sides of the welds were wrought.
Examples included welds identified 19BC and 25BC on licensee Sketch CGE-1-4100.
During the current inspection, the NRC inspector discussed this item with the licensee and their PSI contractor.
It is the licensee's and contrac-tor's contention that the technique is satisfactory for examinations performed through wrought materials, and that calibration on a cast cali-bration block results in a more conservative examination and evaluation.
The licensee stated that they did not wish to use both cast and wrought calibration blocks for the main loop welds, as the procedure would result in increased exposures to personnel in future inservice inspections.
The licensee agreed to demonstrate that their refracted longitudinal wave technique, calibrated on a cast block, would provide examinations through wrought piping that are equivalent to or superior to the commonly used shear wave technique calibrated on a wrought block. For this demonstration the licensee will obtain and use a wrought calibration block. The wrought cali-bration block is to contain a saw-cut notch (or notches if the licensee desires) as described in ASME Section XI (77 edition), Appendix III, Supple-ment 7(b)(2), except that the only allowable notch configurations will be those depicted in Figure III-3430-1, Sketches (b) and (c). For the demon--
stratien the contractor's refracted longitudinal wave transducer will be calibrated on their cast calibration block, and a commonly used shear wave transducer will be calibrated on the wrought calibration block for com-parison. Both calibrations will be performed using the co. tractor's Proce-dure ISI-205.
The two transducers will then be positioned to obtain the maximum amplitude from the opposite side notch ( V path away) on the wrought calibration block.
If the refracted longitudinal wave transducer produces a signal at the proper sweep range location with an amplitude equal to or greater than that obtained with the shear wave transducer, Region II
.
.
will consider the licensee's refracted longitudinal wave technique accept-able for the PSI UT examinations performed on wrought main loop piping.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 7 and 8.
5.
Licensee Identified Items (10 CFR 50.55(e))
(0 pen) Item 395/81-28-03:
Undersize socket welds on EFW pumps.
The licensee's final report, dated September 14, 1981, indicated that other equipment would be examined for the condition reported. The NRC inspector was informed that the checks on other equipment had not been completed.
This item will remain open pending the licensee's completion of his checks and the NRC inspector's review of the licensee's actions for compliance with NRC regulations.
6.
Inspector Followup Items (0 pen) Item 395/81-17-03: Ultrasonic inspection reporting inconsistences.
This item was opened as a result of concerns regarding apparent recording errors in PSI reports found during review by an NRC inspector.
The inspector questioned the licensee during the current inspection to determine what ~ action had been taken relative to these errors. The licensee stated that they were reviewing the PSI reports and obtaining corrections. They noted that they had not received the final PSI records from the contractor who performed the work and that their review would not be complete until the final records were checked. This item will remain open pending the licen-see's receipt and review of the final PSI records and verification by NRC Region II that the records have been adequately checked to assure the absence of significant errors.
7.
Preservice Inspection - Data Review and Evaluation The inspector undertook a selective review of the licensee's PSI records to verify their compliance with regulatory requirements and FSAR commitments, including code requirements. The licensee's code commitment for PSI is ASME Section XI (74S75).
As noted in Paragraph 6 above, the licensee has not received the final PSI records from the contractor responsible for the PSI.
Further, cognizant licensee personnel informed the inspector that a few PSI examinations had not been completed. Two items previously opened by Region II, unresolved item 395/81-17-02 and inspector followup item 395/81-17-03, involve quest-ions regarding the licensee's records.
Region II is concerned that the PSI and PSI records be satisfactorily completed.
The licensee's progress in completing the PSI and records will be examined further by Region II in subsequent inspections addressing items 395/81-17-02 and 0 r
-
.
Cognizant licensee personnel informed the NRC inspector that, while the final PSI records had not been received, they had in process or preliminary copies of records of most of the examinations. The inspector requested and selectively reviewed preliminary records of the following. nondestructive examinations to verify performance of required examinations and preparation of records thereof:
Exam Category Examination BF UT of weld 16DM on Sketch CGE-1-4300 B-G-2 Visual of Conoseal bolting on Sketch CGE-1-1300 B-G-1 Visual of flange ligaments on Sketch CGE-1-1100 B-H UT of integrally welded pipe support WS-2 on Sketch CGE-1-2100 B-K-1 UT of integrally welded pipe support WS-2 on Sketch CGE-1-4303 B-N-3 Visual of vessel internals on Sketch CGE-1-1200 B-J UT of branch connection welds 18BC, 19BC and 25BC on Sketch CGE-1-4100 The inspector found that the examination record of the pressurizer support referenced above did not appear to adequately identify the location of the weld, in that it was identified with the same number as the lower vessel head weld (weld 1). Further, the licensee's PSI Program (Revision 2) indi-cated there was no integral pressurizer support wold requiring examination.
Licensee personnel stated that they believed that the support weld lay on top of the head weld and that it was examined with that weld. Adequate identification of the support weld, correction of the PSI Program and assurance that the weld's examination and examination report are satis-factory is identified unresolved item 395/82-02-01, " Pressurizer integral support weld PSI exam" Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Review of As-Builts The inspector selectively examined installed piping and piping records to determine whether the as-built design and construction drawings and tracking documentation for incomplete work and discrepancies correctly reflects the as-built condition. The piping specification applicable to the piping is identi fied as SP-220-044461-000, Revision 9.
The piping examined by the inspector and the applicable design and construction drawings are identified below:
a.
Piping:
Emergency feedwater (EF) system from turbine driven pump to the first valve.
l
c
+
.
Design Drawing:
C-314-0SS-1, Revision 0 with applicable as-built discrepancy lists for supports and dimensions (Forms MF-14-2 and 14-3).
Construction Drawing; SE-EF-06.
b.
Piping:
Feedwater (FW) system from penetration 306 to restraint FWH-161.
Design Drawing:
C-314-081-31, Revision 0 with applicable as-built discrepancy lists for supports and dimensions.
Construction Drawing:
c.
Piping:
Safety injection (SI) system from loop A cold leg to Accumulator Tank nozzle.
Design Drawing; C-314-691-6, Revision 1 with applicable as-built discrepancy lists for supports and dimensions.
Construction Drawing:
d.
Piping:
Reactor coolant (RC) system (pressurizer spray) from cold leg to elbow at elevation 483.771.
Design Drawing:
C-314-601-28, Revision 2 with applicable as-built discrepancy lists for supports and dimensions.
Construction Drawing:
The four piping system portions identified above were examined for (1)
proper location, type and configuration of supports and (2) proper piping location and configuration. The inspector reviewed the construction _ records for several weld jotr.ts in the abova piping to verify proper weld location, identification and nondestructive exa.: Mation in accordance with the con-struction drawing and specification and tne code.
The welds checked were identified as follows:
EFW system field welds 49, 50 and 52.
SI system field weld 2R4 The inspector also checked construction records to verify that the piping at the above welds was the proper specification and size indicated by the drawings. The inspector identified the following apparent discrepancies in his esamination of piping and records:
FW System - Several welds on rupture restraint WPA 436 had not been completed, only tacks were present (as seen in examination of the piping).
The licensee stated rupture restraints were being tracked separately from piping supports and that the condition was identifie n
.
o
.
EFW System - The construction records identified piping pieces in the first spool piece differently from the construction drawing.
In addition, the recorded piping thickness indicated in the records for one piece appeared to be in error.
RC System - A rupture restraint seen located near the connection to the main loop cold leg was not shown on the design drawing or the discrep-ancy lists 14-2 and 14-3 for the piping and supports. As noted for the FW system, the licensee stated that rupture restraints were being tracked separately.
SI System - Weld FW-2R4 is located near accumulator A.
The report of a UT thickness check made for this weld, after a repair for under-thickness, indicates the weld checked was near accumulator B.
It is not clear whether the record is incorrect or the wrong weld was checked.
The above conditions are identified unresolved item 395/82-02-02, "As-built piping and piping records".
The significance of the conditions will be examined by Region II in a subseqt.ent inspection. The licensee noted that the licensee construction records checks had not been completed.
Within the areas ir;spected, no violations or deviations were identified.
!
i L