IR 05000416/1981006

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Repts 50-416/81-06 & 50-417/81-03 on 810223-26.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of IE Bulletin 80-08,containment Penetration Welds & Review of Radiographic Films
ML19345H285
Person / Time
Site: Grand Gulf  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/13/1981
From: Herdt A, Zajac L
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML19345H284 List:
References
50-416-81-06, 50-416-81-6, 50-417-81-03, 50-417-81-3, IEB-80-08, IEB-80-8, NUDOCS 8105010506
Download: ML19345H285 (7)
v • d • e


Text

.

.#

^q UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

$

E REGION 11

o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SulTE 3100 O

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 g.....o O

Report Nos. 50-416/81-06 and 50-417/81-03 Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company Jackson, MS Facility Name: Grand Gulf Docket Nos. 50-416 and 50-417 License Nos. CPPR-118 and CPPR-119 I

Inspection at Gra d Gul I V, n ar Port Gibson, Mississippi

,

g/

.

Inspector:

Jcc

"/

'

L. V ZajA(

(/

Date

[

/3/8/

Approved by:

A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, Engineering

'Date Inspection Branch SUMMARY Inspection on February 23 - 26, 1981.

Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 26 inspector hours onsite in the areas of IE Bulletin 80-08, Containment Penetration Welds; Preservice Inspection including review of procedures and observation of inspections; Review of radiographic films; Review of QA records for safety related piping; and followup of previous inspector identified items.

Results Of the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.

8105010 506

.

.

.

REPORT DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

  • G. B. Rogers, Jr., Site Manager
  • J. W. Yelverton, QA Supervisor
  • D. L. Hunt, PQ Superintendent
  • J. M. Kelly, QA Representative
  • S. M. Pruitt, ISI Coordinator Other licensee employees contacted included five QA personnel.

Other Organizations

  • M. R. Lindsey, QA-Supervisor, Bechtel Power Corporation R. Edwards, NDE Supervisor, General Electric Company NRC Resident Inspector A. Wagner
  • Attended exit interview.

2.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 26, 1981, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.

3.

Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.

4.

Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violation or deviations. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraph 5.B(2)(b).

5.

Independent Inspection (Unit 1)

The inspector reviewed radiographic films and QA records for safety related piping to determine whether the appl' ble code and license

.

requirements were being me,

.

.-

,

'

A.

Radiographic Film Review (1) The radiographs, for the piping welds listed below, were reviewed for the following quality attributes-

(a)

film density (b) correct size penetrameter (c) discernability of penetrameter hole (d) adequate weld coverage (e) correct technique used (f) correct evaluation of weld and base metal defects Weld Identification System Pipe Size & Material W-16, penetration 83 Reactor Water Cleanup 18" Carbon Steel W-17, penetration 10 Feedwater 42" Carbon Steel W-26, penetration 88 Reactor Water Cleanup 18" Carbon Steel W-12, penetration 43 Reactor Water Cleanup 18" Carbon Steel W-22, penetration 21 Residual Heat Removal 36" Carbon Steel W-5, penetration 18 Reactor Coolant Isolation 18" Carbon Steel Cooling (2) The following 31screpancies were noted:

(a) Several of the radiographs for weld W-22 did not have the date (when the radiographs were taken) affixed to the films. Article 2,Section V of the ASME Code requires

,

l that the date of the radiograph be plainly ar.d permanently included as part of the identification on the radiograph.

The licensee dated these films at the time of the visit.

l The licensee also pointed out that these radiographs were taken 2 and one half years ago and that their film review

!

!

program had been substantir.ily improved since then, thus more recent radiographs '<ould not contain such discrepancies.

(b) The radiographs of welds W-26, W-12, and W-22 disclosed apparent base metal defects adjacent to the weld, such as arc strikes and weld spatter.

The film reader's record did not address these indications.

Both the licensee and the inspector physically sighted these areas on the subject pipe, but found no existing defects.

Thus, the indications had previously been repaired, or the film

[

indications were of foreign material inside the pipe.

In _

either case, the film reader's sheet should have addressed these indications and their disposition as specified in Article 2,Section V of the ASME Code.

The licensee again advised the inspector that this was as item that has subsequently been an issue of concern and has been upgraded.

(c) The radiographs of weld W-22 show the penetrameter shim located in the heat affected zone at film position no. 78.

Although this is'not a Code discrepancy, the licensee's radiographic procedure, RT-XG-2, Rev. 1, paragraph 4.1.3, states that neither the penetrameter nor the shim image should interfere with the interpretation of either the weld or the heat affected zone (HAZ).

In this case, the shim image was at the edge of the weld, thus covering a portion of the HAZ.

Since the HAZ varies in width dependent upon many welding factors, it appears the procedure should specify a nominal width for the HAZ, such as 3/16 inch, or reference to the HAZ should be deleted if of no concern as implied by the licensee.

The above discrepancies will be carried as Inspector Followup Item No. 416/81-06-01, " Radiographic Records".

B.

QA Record Review (1) The inspector reviewed QA records for the _ safety related piping welds listed below to determine whether applicable requirements were met. The penetrations listed below contain a bellows assembly.

Weld Identification System Pipe Size & Material

  • Final QA acceptance of weld not complet.

.

l

(2) The following discrepancies were noted:

(a) The reccrds for weld W-76 indicated that final visual examination had been completed on 4/16/79, as shown on Item 16 of " Field Welding Check List" which states,

" Completed weld visually examined, reinforcement checked and released for NDE." Another record, " Filler Metal Withdrawal Authorization" indicated that welding rods had been issued for welding on 4/17/79.

These records imply that welding was performed after the weld had been inspected in its final condition.

The licensee investigated this situation immediately and

.

determined that no welding had been performed after 4/16/79. The inspector was advised that is it common practice for the welder to draw welding rods in anticipation of welding a patricular joint without knowing the joint had been completed and inspected on the previous work shift. However, when this occurs, the QC welding engineer normally " voids" the Filler Metal Withdrawal Authorization" form, which was not done in this case. The form was voided and the discrepancy resolved to the inspector's satisfaction during the visit.

(b) The records for weld W-48 indicated that the weld had been ultrasonically (UT) examined, but the ultrasonic test parameters, such as type of equipment and transducer used, frequency used, transducer size used, scanning mode, etc.,

were not recorded in the spaces provided on the record form for such information.

The licensee pointed out that the same individual examined weld W-48 and all the other welds listed above and that he wuld have used the same parameters for W-48 as he did for the others since they are essentially the same material and configuration.

However, the licensee agreed that the test should be redone and the appropriate data be recorded.

This will be carried as Unresolved Item 416/81-06-02, " Incomplete QA Records."

,

No violations or deviations were noted.

6.

Preservice Inspection (Unit 1)

A.

Review of Procedures The inspector reviewed liquid penetrant and magnetic particle examination procedures to determine whether they were in compliance with the applicable code requirements.

The applicable code for preservice is ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,1977 edition with summer 1979 addenda.

The liquid penetrant procedure PT-04-390, Rev. O, and the magnetic particle procedure, MT-04-390, Rev. O, both

.

.

,.

, ;'

state that the evaluation of indications shall be done with adequate lighting. The term " adequate lighting" is general and doesn't provide a minimum lighting level conside' red necessary for evaluation of indications, nor does it provide for uniformity of required lighting for different inspectors.

In addition, the magnetic particle procedure is unclear regarding acceptance criteria.

It specifies the maximum size indication for material thickness of.312" and less,1.00" and for 2.00" and greater, but does not specify the maximum size indication permitted for material thickness between.312" and 1.00" or between 1.00" and 2.00".

The procedure does indicate that for intermediate thickness, linear interpalation may be used to determine the allowable length.

However, during discussion with the NDE supervisor and two NDE examiners, two different interpretations of the acceptance criteria were stated.

Thus, it is apparent that the acceptance criteria needs to be clarified in order to assure uniform interpretations.

These discrepancies will be carried as Inspector Followup Item 416/81-06-03, "NDE procedures are in need of clarification."

B.

Observation of Magnetic Particle Examination The inspector observed the magnetic particle examination of 20-inch carbon steel weld 3-8-1 on isometric RH-8-3-0 of the Residual Heat Removal System.

No violations or deviations were noted.

7.

(Closed) IE Bulletin No. 80-08, Examination of Containment Liner Penetration Welds (Units 1 and 2)

IE Bulletin 80-08 was forwarded on April 7, 1980 and requested licensees to determine if their facility contained the flued head design for penetration connections, or other designs with containment boundary butt welds between the penetration sleeve and process piping as illustrated in Figure NE 1120-1, Winter 1975 addenda to the 1974 and later editions of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code.

If the licensee's facility does contain this design then the licensee was requested to determine if welds were made with a backing ring and whether or not volumetric examination was conducted by radiography.

The Bulletin indicates that weld joints with a backing ring that have not been radiographed, are of particular interest as they are potentially defective.

In response to the Bulletin, Mississippi Power and Light Company

forwarded letters dated August 21, 1980 and October 15, 1980 which provided a list of all containment penetration welds including joint

'

design and type of nondestructive examination performed, or to be performed, on each weld.

Several of the penetration welds were of the backing ring type and they had been ultrasonically examined in lieu of radiographic examination.

During the visit to the Grand Gulf site the inspector reviewed the design drawings for the joints with backing rings and agreed with the licensee that radiography of these joints was impractical since they are corner joints of which 100% radiographic coverage is not possible, whereas, 100% ultrasonic examination is obtainable.

_-

.

- _.

, _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ - - -

.

_.,

__

_

.

.-

s

.

.

The inspector reviewed radiographs for a random sampling of penetration welds of the flued head design without backing rings, as listed in paragraph 5.A herein. Although some discrepancies were noted during this review, none were related to the problems identified in the Bulletin.

As a result of the above review,Bulletin 80-08 for units 1 and 2 is closed.

8.

Inspector Followup Items of Previous Inspections (Units 1 and 2)

A.

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-416, 417/79-19-01,

" Incorporation of longitudinal seam welds on PSI isometrics." The inspector reviewed a sample of the isometric drawings that are

.

currently being included in the PSI program and they did include longitudinal seam weld. Therefore, this item is considered closed.

B.

(Closed) Inspector Followup Item 50-416, 417, 70-19-02, " PSI Program Approval." The inspector reviewed the items identified as requiring followup and found the items to be complete and satisfactory except for the review of the updated PSI program which is not complete to date.

It is expected to complete in two weeks and copies will be forwarded to Region II for review.

Since the program is required to be reviewed by Region II as a part of normal responsibility, the inspector followup item is closed.

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000416/1981006&oldid=4705634"