IR 05000425/1988078
| ML20235N640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1989 |
| From: | Blake J, Glasman M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235N634 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-425-88-78, NUDOCS 8903010314 | |
| Download: ML20235N640 (11) | |
Text
...
,
'
l
- L '
gurou h
%
UNITED STATES f.1 iP..
,j'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
<,
[
.
o,
't.
-
REGION H a
e 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
g t
,,g, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:50-425 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box.1295 L
Birmingham, AL 35201'
Docket No.:
50-425
- License No'.:
CPPR-109:
i
Facility Name: Vogtle 2 Inspection. Conducted: ~ December 19, 1988 - December 22,'1988
!)}
fjdwwlA; 2 lIo Inspector:
M.
.n
~
Da~te S'igned
~
Approved by:
i
/t, FM
-
Jerr.
akd, Chief.
Ddte Signed En ne ing Branch.
.,.
Ma eri is and Processes Section D vision of Reactor Safety SUMMARY
'
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was -in - the. areas. of -~ of Pre-Service Inspection;- (PSI) Program Review; PSI Procedure Review; Housekeeping; Materials Identification and Control; and Action on
~ Previous Inspection Findings.
Results:
In the areas inspected one (1) Unresolved Item (URI) in'the area of'
Pre-Service Inspection (PSI) was identified.
The URI in the area of PSI procedures as discussed in Paragraph 2.c covers the specification of maximum manual ultrasonic search unit -
dimensions versus' the radius of curvature of the surfaces being tested.
Strengths in the licensee's PSI program and procedures were evident in that required critical elements such as a thorough review of program and procedures was accomplished, sufficient well-trained staff were responsible for program implementation, and there were strong procedures established for the oversight of contractor activities in the area of PSI.
8903010314 890216 PDR ADOCK 05000425 O
PDC (1
. _ - -
.
..
..
-
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- G. Bockhold, General Manager, Nuclear Operations
- W. Gabbard, Senior Regulatory Specialist
- T. Greene, Plant Support Manager
- R. McManus, Assistant Project Construction Manager, Unit 2
- S. Owen, Unit 2 Project Engineering Manager
- R. Pinson, Vice President, Construction
- P. Rice, Vice President, Project
- J. Sanders, Assistant Project Manager
- D. Smith, Construction Engineer Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included craftsmen, engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel.
Other. Organizations Southern Company Services (SCS)
- R. Healey, Staff NDE Inspector Bechtel
- R. Pope, Mechanical Field Office Staff Engineer Oglethorpe Power Company
- D. Smith, Construction Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
- J. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector
~
C. Burger, Senior Resident Inspector
!
- Attended exit interview
.
l
!
I
\\
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _
_
-.
- - - -. -
-
_
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.__
-
__ _
. _ _ _ _
._
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
'
.
2.
Preservice Inspection The inspector examined documents, activities, and records as indicated below to determine whether PSI was being conducted in accordance with applicable procedures, regulatory requirements, and licensee commitments.
The applicable code of record for Unit 2 PSI is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel ( ASME B&PV) Code,Section XI Division 11983 edition through Summer 1983 addenda.
All PSI work for Unit 2 was performed by Southern Company Services (SCS)
with the exception of the steam generator tube eddy-current examination, and the Ultrasonic Examination (UT) of the Reactor Vessel performed by Westinghouse (W) and Combustion Engineering, respectively.
a.
Review of preservice program (73051B).
The inspector reviewed the documents listed below to ascertain whether the following requirements were met and included in the licensee's PSI program:
The services of an Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspector (ANII)
have been procured and the PSI plan has been reviewed by the ANII in accordance with Article IWA-2120 of the ASME Code.
The PSI plan has been reviewed by the licensee's site nuclear safety review committee, or equivalent.
Licensee review and approval has been documented.
Identification of all licensee commitments and regulatory requirements pertinent to PSI testing and monitoring.
Means of preparing plans and schedules and filing them with enforcement and regulatory authorities having jurisdiction at the facility.
Sufficient organizational staff, both in number and training, to ensure that acceptable PSI work was performed.
Site administrative procedures were in place to define the authority and responsibilities of the persons or organizations involved with the final evaluation and acceptance of PSI results for the licensee.
QA review included assurance that plans and procedures were reviewed by appropriate personnel and met regulatory require-ments.
i
,
- _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ __-.
_-
__
-
.
"
.
.
.
.
Procedures were established for the corrective action of condi-l tions - adverse to quality as detected during examination, including provisions to preclude repetition of such adverse
'
conditions.
Audits or surveillance of PSI activities were conducted.by qualified personnel to verify compliance with the PSI program.
Procedures were established to effectively oversee contractor activities concerned with PSI.
Listed below are the documents reviewed by the inspector related to the programmatic review:
Document.
Title ISI-P-010 Preservice Inspection Rev. 4, dated 11/4/88 Program Vogtle-2 Quality Assurance Manual Quality Assurance Manual for Nuclear Projects Quality Assurance Policy Quality Assurance Department and Procedures, Rev. 11/4/88 Policy and Procedures Manual ITE Policy and Procedures Inspection, Testing and Engineer-ing Policy and Procedures Manual 09.6-51 Control of Contractor Services Rev. 1, dated 9/14/87 09.6.12 Procurement of ND Exam and/or Rev. 2, dated 9/15/88 Engineering Consultant Services 09.6.53 Contractor Procedures - Review and Rev. O, dated 12/15/86 Approval 09.50-1 On-site Date Review Rev. O, dated 12/15/86 b.
Review of Preservice Procedures (730528)
The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below to ascertain that the PSI procedures were reviewed and approved by authorized licensee personnel, and by the ANII.
In addition, the inspector determined the PSI procedures specified referenced acceptance / rejection levels and criteria, that qualifications of NDE personnel were specified and in accordance with the Code and the licensee's PSI program, and that methods for recording and dispositioning results were specified. The procedures reviewed are listed below:
i
--__._____m____._____
- - - - - -.
-
-
.
,
..
.
L
.
.
..
.
Procedure Issued by
. Title AUX H/F V-300 SCS Procedure (written _ Practice for Rev. 4 Qualification and Certification of Nondestructive Examination Personnel AUX-V-307 SCS Preservice and Inservice Rev. 2 Inspection Documentation l
UT-V-404 SCS Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Rev. 2 Full-Penetration Welds MT-V-505 SCS Dry Powder Magnetic Particle Rev. 1 Examination:
Yoke Method -
PT-V-605 SCS Color Contrast, Solvent Removable Rev. 1 Liquid Penetrant Examination Procedure VT-V-735 SCS Visual Examination (VT3)
Rev. I c.
Technical Review of Manual Ultrasonic Procedure The inspector performed a technical review of SCS Manual UT procedure UT-V-404 Revision 2.
This review included the following:
Verified if the type of apparatus to be used including frequency range as well as linearity and signal attenuation accuracy requirements, were
>eci fi ed.
surface, scanning rate and directions)(beam angles, scanning Verified if the. extent of coverage as well as the scanning technique are specified and were consistent with the applicable ASME Code and contract requirements.
Verified if calibration requirements, methods, and frequency including the type, size, geometry, and calibration blocks material as well as location and size of calibration reflectors within the block were clearly specified and consistent with the applicable ASME Code and contract requirements.
Verified if beam angle or angles were specified and were consistent with the applicable ASME Code and contract require-ments.
Verified if methods of compensation for the distance traversed by the ultrasonic beam as it passes through the material including distance - amplitude correction curves, electronic distance - amplitude correction and transfer mechanisms, if
,
..
.
.
.-.
,
-
.
used, were specified and were consistent with the applicable ASME Code and contract requirements.
<
Verified if reference reflectors 1for accomplishing transfer and
the frequency of use of transfer mechanisms, if applicable, were specified and in accordance with ASME Code and contract require-ments.
p
.
Verified if reference level for monitoring discontinuities was defined and the scanning gain-setting specified.and that these values were in accordance with the applicable ASME Code and contract requirements.
Verified if methods of demonstrating penetration and coverage
were established.
Verified if levels of limits for evaluation and recording of
indications were specified and.were in accordance with applic-l able ASME Code and contract requirements.
Verified if method of recording significant indications is established and that the reporting requirements were in accord-ance with applicable ASME Code and contract provisions.
Verified if acceptance limits were specified or referenced and were in accordance with the applicable ASME Code and specific contract requirements.
Regarding the review of this manual UT procedure, the inspector noted that the maximum size of the ultrasonic search unit versus radius of curvature of the surface being examined was not specified.
Specification of the maximum dimensions of search units when testing curved surfaces (such as pipe welds) prevents the use of transducers which would wobble on the test surface as manual scanning progresses.
A transducer's active surface which is not in full contact with the test surface would not completely couple to the test volume, and would place the required degree of scan overlap in doubt. The result would be an invalid test.
Limiting search unit size with respect to surface curvature is especially critical when dual-element transducers are used; the search unit contains an accoustic barrier to separate the two elements which splits the transducer face along the area of maximum contact.
To ascertain whether the licensee did not use excessively large ultrasonic search units on preservice UT examinations, the inspector selected 11 Class I welds and determined the size of the angle beam
. - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
e m-f.,
-
Lq
'
o
- -
y
.
a
.
-
. 6 i
transducer used 'in the UT examination.
These welds and transducer sizes used for the' respective' examinations.are listed below:
'l l'
!
Weld Itt System OD of. Pipe TransducerSize
. 5" 1208-123 CVCS.
4"
1208-149 CVCS 3"
.25" 1208-044 CVCS 2"
.25-1208-046 CVCS 2"
.25 1208-101 CVCS 2"
.25"
.1204-014 SI 4"
.25" 1204-015 SI 3"
.25" 1204-039'
SI 6"
.50" 1204-041 SI 6"
.50" 1204-057 SI 4'
.25" 1205-007 RHR 8"
.375" The inspector determined that the above transducer sizes were appropriate for the examinations listed above.
Pending further NRC review of the revised SCS Manual UT procedures,-this matter will be identified as Unresolved Item 50-425/88-78-01.-
d.
Technical Review of Liquid Penetrant Procedure The inspector performed a technical review of SCS Color Contrast Solvent Removable Liquid Penetrant Test Procedure PT-V-605, Revision 1.
This review included the following:
-
Verified that surface preparation / cleaning method, type, time, etc., was specified.
Verified that penetrant type (intermixing of. materials from various manufacturers was not recommended) was specified.
Verified that penetrant application method was specified.
Verified that penetration time (dwell time) was specified.
- Verified that temperature of surface was specified.
Verified that specified test method was consistent with applic-able Code requirements.
Verified that brand names and specific types (number or letter designation if available) of penetrant, penetrant remover, emulsifier and developer were specified.
Verified that penetrant materials used for nickel base allnys were required by procedure to be analyzed for sulfur using the method prescribed by the applicable Code.
-
- _ _ _ - - _ _
.,
__
. _ _ _ - _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. __
__ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _- _ - _ _ -_ _.
t g
'
~
,
.
..
,
'
.
- .
Verified that penetrant materials used 'for the examination of" austenitic' stainless steel were required by procedureLto be analyzed -for total halogens using the method prescribed in the applicable Code.
-
Verified that methods for acceptable pre-examination of surface preparation were specified and consistent with.the applicable.
Code.
The area to be cleaned was consistent with applicable Code. requirements.. the cleanliness acceptance requirement were consistent with applicable Code requirements.
The surface area to be examined was consistent with applicable Code requirements.
Verified -that procedure established a minimum. drying time following surface cleaning..
Verified that method of penetrant application and the penetra-tion (dwell) time were specified and that the penetration. time was consistent with the penetrant manufacturer's recommendation.
Verified that examination surface temperature was specified and was consistent with the applicable Code.
Verified that methods for removal of solvent removable penetrant (when applicable) were specified.
Verified that methods and time of surface drying prior to developing was specified.
Verified that type of developer to be used, method of developer application and the time interval between penetrant removal and developer application was specified.
Verified that examination technique was specified and the permitted time interval during which the " final interpretation" was performed within the range of-7-30 minutes after developer application.
Verified that minimum light intensity at the inspection site was prescribed.
Verified that technique for evaluation of indications was specified, acceptance standards were included and these were consistent with applicable Code and specific contract require-
ments.
Verified that reporting requirements were specified.
e.
Technical Review of Visual Inspection Procedure The inspector performed a technical review of SCS Visual Inspection Procedure VT-V-735 Revision 1 (VT-3)
i l
.
.
__
.
.
..
This review included:
Method - direct visual, remote visual or translucent visual Application - hydrostatic testing, fabrication procedure, visual
examination of welds, leak testing, etc.
How visual examination was to be performed
Type of surface condition available
Method or tools for surface preparation, if any Whether direct or remote viewing is used Special illumination, instruments, or equipment to be used, if any Sequence of performing examination, when applicable Date to be tabulated, if any Acceptance criteria were specified consistent with the applic-able Code Section and specific contract requirements.
The procedure shall contain or reference a report of what was used to demonstrate that the examination procedure was adequate.
In general, a fine line 1/32 in. (0.8 mm) or less in width, or some other artificial flaw located on the surface of a similar surface to that to be examined, may be considered a test method for this demonstration.
The line or artificial flaw should be in the least discernable location on the area examined, to prove the procedure.
Within the scope of the above inspections and review no viola-tions or deviations were identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Items (92701B, 92702B)
a.
(Closed)IFI 50-425/88-33-02; " Protection of Permanent Plant Equip-ment from Uncontrolled Leakage" The inspector reviewed the licensee's response and corrective action to this item and found the actions taken by the licensee to be appropriate and adequate.
l The steps taken by the licensee included a walkdown of the areas
'
affected and potentially affected by leakage, and no damage was
!
identified.
In addition, a Flushing Return Header, the source of
,
leakage was disassembled and not scheduled for re-use.
To preclude recurrence, GPC management issued instructions for walkdowns prior to
,
operation of temporary equipment prone to be source of leakage to l
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
E
[-
-
.
.
-
.
ensure that sources of leakage such as fittings, connections, etc.,
are tight, valves are aligned properly and-drain path sumps are cleared, among other things. This-item is closed.
(0 pen)URI 50-425/88-02-02; " Banded Microstructure in 10" Cold Leg Accumulator Lines."
The inspector reviewed additional data relative to this item.
This-data was summarized in a technical report from Contest Laboratories,,
Columbus, Ohio, dated August 30, 1988.
Included in this report are photomicrographs, corrosion test results,-
and characterizations of the metallurgical structure of the samples submitted for testing. _ Pending further review of this data, this unresolved item remains open.
(0 pen) URI 50-425/88-37-01; " Failure to Detect Dama7e.on Pressurizer Surge Line" The inspector reviewed the. licensee's response to this item.
The licensee, in their response. indicated that the damage.to the Pres-surizer Surge Line occurred following the final walkdown inspection of. the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Pressure Boundary Piping, and that this damage wes ~ an isolated incident.
The inspector indicated time that damage. occurred could not be substantiated, and (2) g the to cognizant licensee personnel that (1);their position regardin no action was taken to assure themselves that additional damage in the vicinity of the aforementioned damage was present and under insu-lation, or in the vicinity of any welding activity following tne final RCS walkdown inspection.
This item remains open pending further licensee action and NRC review.
(0 pen) IEB 88-05 " Nonconforming Materials supplied by Piping Supplies, Inc., at Folsom, NJ, and West Jersey Manufacturing Company at Williamstown, NJ"
'The inspector reviewed a number of certifications for compliance to applicable specifications.
These certifications were for various fittings and flanges.
The inpector found the materials certifica-tions to be in compliance v / the applicable specifications.
This item remains open pending iner NRC review.
4.
Independent Inspection Effort Housekeeping (548348), Material Identification and Control (429028), and MaterialsControl(429408)
l
- - _
_
_ _ _ _ - _ _
-__-
3. :
..
,
.
.
~?
a t
- -
'
The inspector conducted _ a -general inspection of Unit 2 containment to observe activities such as housekeeping, material identification and control; material control, and storage.
'.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were l.
found.
5.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were' summarized on December 22, 1988, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1._ The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.. Although reviewed during this inspection, proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were.not received-from the licensee.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item 425/88-78-01, Maximum Search Unit Dimensions versus Curvature of Test Surface.
.
___________._-m__.-________m_____
.-.__.__._____m
___._ _ _ _.. __ _ _ _.____.
__.____ _.__. _ _ _ _