ML18139B201
| ML18139B201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1981 |
| From: | Herdt A, Zajac L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139B199 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-81-05, 50-280-81-5, 50-281-81-05, 50-281-81-5, NUDOCS 8103270072 | |
| Download: ML18139B201 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1981005
Text
UNITED STATES
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
Report Nos. 50-280/81-05 and 50-281/81-05
Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company
Richmond, VA 23261
Facility Name:
Surry
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281
l-.i cen se. Nos:
OPR-32. and OPR-37
Inspection at Surry site near Williamsburg, Virginia
,,
-..
.
/ /. /~~' . /"
'/
...
,__.,. /'
. / .. ' -*
..
Inspect_s.r~
~ : , _./*:/.~* .. (.
- !** L. 0. Zaj_ac
/
.
l
Approved by:
- ~ r .. ' . .-. :. ~-"
--'----_.;.:.~---~--=----------
A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, Engineering
Inspection Branch
Inspected on February 9-12, 1981
SUMMARY
Areas-. Inspected*'..
~-
...
. . .
-
I
I, -
.
- _ .... / \\ ...
/
-
/ :_: ,:
Date Signed
- ., /
, ...
I
Date.Signed
,. :-.'..:: Th, s .'*r*outi n~-.. :*i.J*n"al'f*n*ou~;cetl \\-;,specf°i'ij~.: i nV6,l v*el::27* 'i--ri sp~ctor-ehours:*: on" s.fte. i*n **th*e :'. * ... * ... .-.: ' , ... * .
areas of Steam generator replacement:
Review of program, observation of welding
and nondes-tructive testing; .I..E.Bulletin 80-08 Containment penetrat.ion welds:
Review of records; and Rev*iew of v1sual examination procedures.
Results
Of the.ftve areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in four
areas; one violation was found in one area .. (Violation - Radiographic films not
in compliance with film density requirements. *paragraph 7.A.(I)). *
- .
. : *~: *:.*.
. ... : .
- . * ...... :*:** ... -.'!~*:.;-,: .. :*-*.:~'""**
- .**:-:~*/
.. ::..,l**_::~ .;. *::..*** **:.:. - ..
. *. :
- ,.:** :_.
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
DETAILS
R. F. Saunders, Assistant Station Manager
- J. W. Patrick, Superintendent of Maintenance
- C. W. Embler, Engineer (SGRP)
. D". J. Fort"i*n, Engi neeri rig. Supe*rvi sor
Other licensee employees contacted included two craftsmen and six QC
inspectors..
Other Organizations
- M. Tallent, Pittsburg Testing Lab, NOE Supervisor
J. Dabbler, Daniel Construction Co., Welding Supervisor
NRC Resident Inspector
- M. Davis
- Attended Ex;-t Intervi-ew
. * * 2".* * * Exit. fotervi"ew
. .
~
.
.
- . . . .
. ~. . ! .
.
-
.
.
..
Th_e_inspecti.onscope and.findings were summarized o~ February 12, i98I wlth ..
- .. :-*.,, .... , .. tho"se**per:so'r-iFfhdi'cated:,;n'*=p-a"rag..,.a*ph .. J**above:* **,"** *,::*;.- ,.._-::.**.,
.
- * **..
- ,. **.* *
3.
Licensee Action on Pr~vious. Inspection Find.ings
Not inspected.
4.
Unresoived Items
Unresolved items are matters about. whith more information is required to
.
determine *whether. they are acceptab 1 e or * may i nvo 1 ve non comp 1 i ance or
-* ** * .-
- *,** * * * ..* *0 :. dev.fation s. :. : New** *unre-so*lved.'*-i,tem*s****identif i ed: duri.ng * thi"s *-inspection.* a.re** .
"discussed* in paragraph 6/7".A.(2} arid 7.8.
.
5*.
Independent* Thspection - * * * :*
.
.
.
- * .* **=*.* The,:i*n-specto*r :;re:~i ewed * th_e:.*.v._i su~.l i nspecti.on procedure 11We 1 ding-* Iri*s.pecti on
Procedure
11 , QCI-10.5, Rev. l, to determine whether ft provided adequate
6.
2
- instructions for visual examinations. This review disclosed the following
discrepancies:
a .. The procedure indicates that personnel training and qualifications are
in accordance with QC-PQ-1 when, in fact, the training and qualifi-
catiofls were in accordance with QC-PQ-2A which has less restrictive
requirements.
The licensee is to correct the procedure or train and
qualify personnel to QC-PQ-1.
b.
Paragraph 4.6, of subject procedure, lists surface conditions that
completed welds are to be visually inspected for, but does not list
such *surface ~onditions ~~. aic strike~i*weld $patter, slag, oxidation
- (sugaring)' and sharp surface gouges .. The QC Engineer stated that "base
metal defects 11 are included in the list whi.ch is intended to cover arc
strikes, weld spatter, gouges, etc.
However, it was agreed that the
- 1 i st of defects. would be* expanded to clarify not on*ly base metal
defects, but also the meaning of the condition listed as
11weld pro-
file11.
This will be carried as Inspector Follow Up Item No. 280/81-05-05 and
281/81-05-02, Visual inspection procedure appears to be limited.on the
type of surface conditions to be evaluated and incorrect in personnel
qualifications.
No violations or deviations were noted.
Rev1ew of.iE Bulle~in No.=80-08, Eximihation of Containment Liner Penetra~
- tion* Welds **
- ...
~-
. .
. .
. -* ..
. IE. Sulletin*S0-08 was'f6rwardedon AprirT;* i'980 and requested.licensees to
- .: ****.
- '"'**. determi*rr.e****whether-, '.t;fre.i*:r-~ .. fac-H-lty**:conta:foed- *the,:*>f.1 ued*.' .he*ad*. de*s.fgn ... ,for****.*
penetration connections, or other designs with containment boundary butt
welds between the penetrati~n sleeve and process piping as illustrated in
Figure NE 1120-1, Wfntef 1975 addenda to the 1974 and later editions of the
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Coda.
If the licen~ee 1 s facility does contain
this desig~ then the licensee was requested to determine whether 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 p6tentiill~ defective~ * *
.. *: *r*n :~es¢;~*s;**~6- *~h:e :-s~:1~*'~:~/~::.*;.,v\\**~*~\\~t*a* E-1:~~-t~*/;: ~*n'~\\~~~/c~;p~~-;. f~~warded*a
le~ter dated July 7, 1980 which 'iMdicated Code requirements were not applf-
cable* nor were*v.olumetric* examinations required of the.*subJectweld.
The
le~ter did not indicate what eiaminations were performed or whether the
- .. Joints. were: fab.r:.i*ca.tediw..i th back.ing .. ritlgs:*-:
- ... *.
..
.. * .. *
..
During the visit to Surry, the i'nspector found that Region II had not
received a COfJlplete* copy- of" the lkensee- 1 s letter. * The complete 1etter
listed all the. penetrations having the f1ued head design and indicated that
each flued head forging to the. penetration sleeve was joined with a single
3
V-groove full penetration butt weld using a backing ring.
The complete
letter also states that the nondestructive examinations required for these
welds was 100 percent inspection by either the liquid penetrant or magnetic
particle technique.
The letter also,implies that liquid penetrant examina-
tion was performed on each weld; however, during the visit the licensee was
unable to verify by records that the liquid penetrant examination was
actually performed~
The inspector suggested that if records could not be
located, the licensee agreed to consider performing liquid penetrant exami-
nation of Unit One containmen.t penetration welds since the plant is
currently shut down.
The licensee needs to review this problem and estab-
lish a course of action which will result in certifying that the minimum
examination requirements have been met on the subject containment penetra:..
tion welds, for both.Un-its One *and Two.
This is Unresolved Item No. 280 and
281/81-05-01,
11 QA records are missing for containment penetration welds.
11
. No violations or deviati-0ns were noted.
7.
Steam Generator Replacement Program (SGRP) - Observation of Nondestructive
Examinations
a.
Radiographic Examination
The inspector reviewed radiographic films of piping welds taken by
Pittsburg Tes.ting Lab ( PTL) and of steam generator we 1 ds taken by
Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI) to determine whether they met applicable
. requiremen.ts.
The. radiographs for the following li.sted welds were
reviewed:
- Weld *Iden(**:*>_: System>*:.**_
Pip~ Size:&.Mat 1l *
NOE Contractor -
- ~-. .-* -
- '* *.** ,. , -.:*.:.:.W"'T2::, . ~- *:;* i*:\\, :.',;Ccinta-f nm~ri-t* :s*pra.y '. ':*, <*.**>', g*i-* S-ta'1-n.\\es*s-:,_. Stee T *- ,, ,; ;*
- .*.: :*
PTL**,: __
CSL
. -~ :*:- .: :- '
W-75
311 Stainless Steel
W-1
30
11 .Carbon Steel
W-17
- Feedwat"er *
1411 * Carbon Steel
W-24
14
11 Carbon Steel
W-7
12
11 Stainless Steel
W-1 (EP-5)
Reactor Coolant (SG-A)
29
11 Stainless Steel
SG-A Nozzle
Carbon Steel
SG-C Nozzle .
Carbor:i Stee 1.
SG-C Girth*
s*team Ge-neirator .
Carbon Stee 1
... ~-- :.~:***.-*.:-.-::. *.:: .. ,*
~ .. -:~ ... _-*,'*/~=.:*"\\, .: ... -*.:.: ':;***i; .. -:- -:***~~--*- *. .. --; _: ... ~ * ... ** .. .. : . ... : ................. , .. *-.:~
.; ~-*.
( 1) * *The *fo11owi ng discrepancies *wer~: no.ted: * * * *
._ .... *.~.: * ... * .. *:..
. :- .;.; * .. '..' *.:*
Sevetal radiographs fo-r welds 'tf-17and*W--24dp not meet*the film
- density_ requirements between_.the penetrameter a~d the weld ar~a to
.~.. . ... .. . . . . * ... * .. : . .
- _ ... *., .*. ,'
.* .**:
,. **.*.-
......
4
be evaluated.
The approved radiographic procedure and the appli-
cable iode requires the film density of the area of evaluation to
be within -15% to +30% of the penetrameter film density. The film
density in the area of eva 1 uat ion was greater than +30% of the
penetrameter film density on
several radiographs.
This was
verified by the assigned PTL film reader at the time of detection
by the inspector.
The unacceptable radiographs for the subject
welds, and any others found to be unacceptable by the licensee,
should be re-radiographed to the applicable requirements. This is
a Violation of the requirements of Criterion IX of 10CFR50,
Append_i x 8, and is identified as I tern No. 280/81-05-02, Radio-
. *graphi*c fflms* are* no.t *;f{ compliance with film density require-
ments~*
- *
(2)
The radiographs of weld W-1 (EP-5), which joins the RC Stop valve
to RC pipe*.on steam generator
11A
11 , disclosed about 30 inches of*
incomplete fusion which was not repaired.
The wall thickness of
this pipe is about 3 inches.
In-process radiographs (for informa-
tion purposes) were taken after about 1-~ inches of weld metal had
been deposited.
These radiographs showed incomplete fusion (IF)
which was noted and reported by the fi 1 m reader.
The we 1 ding
supervisor; how.ever, after looking at the surface of the weld
considered the so-called IF to be a surface condition since*there
was a sharp valley between the weld bead and the pipe bevel.
The
resident construction engineer was also convinced that the
indication wjs surface rather than IF, and authorized blending out*
of the sharp surface irregularity and to continue welding.
It.*
s-ho_"uld, l;:le noted_ that *the *fHrrr reader- was hot contacted regarding
..
.
.
thi-s deC:i s.ion*.nor .was*, he** requested .to *sight the weld *surface- *to."
..
. . . .
- . ' confi_rm if the. irregu,lar_ity: was what he. viewed on _the radiqgraphs .
. ', < _.-*:*, *' *-. * ;:. *-:-/::-_._:, .J-,_ ~- Wh-E:'rf: '*-the, 'NRG0-. *-i-rfspector ,-revfe-we'd these°'- f.i"lms.;**,-* about--'1/ 4: * i*nch *of,_;~., ** *,-.*-*: *.
weld metal had already been deposited since the radiographs were
taken.
The. inspector di*scussed the IF condition, with the QC
Engin~~r, the Weldirig* Engineer a~d th~ Welding Supervisor.
Both
the Welding Engineer and the Welding Supervisor considered that
the indication on the film was not IF, but the Welding Engineer
agreed to radtograph one area to determine whether or not the
indication had been removed during the blending of the weld
.surface, The radiograph showed that the IF still existed .
. *. *:.
. . .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
~
.
. . .
.
.
- ... *: * .* : ~- .. : . .:. * ... ;:" ;-.:: *-~ *-/ ... .- ~*:~ .. * .-; .... : :*-A.1-t*h~.ugh*> .the-.* e-~i*g-4;nal~: -radj trgrapb~s-:* ~re : f o_r -~ i:nf orma.t i o*n. .. o.n*~l y ~ antj .. ~:*--.*.- *
- were not requi"red to be .*fak:eri", the -above described actions are.--
ihdicative* of a loss of**oc control. * The film reader was not
- con*sul ted. :as* to. whether- th*e i ridfcat ion *on the:* film might. be of a
surface condi:tion or not and continued welding was authorized
- .*** :* *.*, -with~_ut. re-:-radiqgr.aph.ing.*to .ve.ri-.fy- defect remova 1.* *.
The licen.see agreed.to ensure the. IF is. repaired and review his
prog~am to:determine whether* this- was an isolated case and the QC
. program is adequate to preclude.such loss of control. This will
/
5
be carried as Unresolved Item No. 280/81-05-03, Unacceptable Weld
defect was not removed prior to repair welding.
No violatioris or deviations were noted except for the violation
identified in 7.a.(l) above.
b.
Liquid Penetrant Examination
The inspector observed liquid penetrant examination of 6
11 stain1ess
stee 1 containment spray pipe we 1 d W-186 to determine whether the
penetrant testing was performed in accordance with approved procedures
and* applTcable code requirements.* *while*visuallyexamining :the surface.
to be penetrant. te*sted. the NRC inspector observed re 1 at ive ly sharp,
deep center punch marks adjacent to the weld, at each quadrant around
the pipe, on joint W-186.
These same type marks were also noted on
joints W-1.87, W-188 * and W-:-197.
These*. center punch marks* appear* to
violate minimum wall requirements as they appear to be about 1/32 inch
deep on a schedule 40 pipe wall.
The licensee should review this
situation and determine if punch marks are too sharp and too deep.
The
licensee should also initiate action to ensure punch marks are not
permitted to be made any deeper on the pipe wall than necessary.
This
will be carried as Unresolved Item No. 280/81-05-04, Surface Center
punch marks appear to be sharp and excessively deep.
No vidlations or devi~tio~s were noted ..
c.
Liquid Penetrant Certific~tions
.
..
... .
.
. The *t"nspe.ctor .. :rev.i:~we*d* :~i;-ftifi:cat:forlS* for. th*e penetrant: materi-a 1.s *,and : : : .. *
.... ,.
.
.!::/atch nurrib.ers ]jst.ed bel_o_w. to determine _if they had _been tested for
- * ."* *' *
- *0:-*. ,::**:'. ,:*<*s*uffur* . .:an*d** ha locle11:. cdnb~nt.:-':arfd* -lf *-th*e* le*s-t "fe:su*lt:s***we.re* w-i th ;-n* acc*ept:-i*.,;
- .. *,.
- i**.*
- .**.:**=-*-:.*-: :.:*::._ ..*
able limits.
... * ...
Material
Penetrant Remover
Penetrint Remover
Developer_ .
Batch.No.
80G089
80H056
80L022
80E052
No.:v_i"q.fatjons o.~*devi*a-t-ior.J..S**we-re- .noted.-*:.:,.,*
.. . _.
. *,
. : . **.: ..
- .. * .
. .. ; :. . ,.*, *.. . .*.** . ~ .. : ...... ~
. *...
. .. ;.. ' . *.