ML18152A378
| ML18152A378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1988 |
| From: | Blake J, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152A380 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-88-39, 50-281-88-39, NUDOCS 8812050267 | |
| Download: ML18152A378 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1988039
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSIO.N
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
Report Nos. : 50-280/88-39 and 50-281/88-39
Licensee: Virginia Electric*and Power*Company.
Richmond, VA
23261
Docket Nos.: ~0-280.and 50-28l.
License Nos.: DPR-32 and DPR-37 ,
'
Facility Name:
Surry 1 and 2
.
- Inspection C
Inspex.=. '.. *
Appr'Jed by:+-,~~~--....----------------
Scope:
Results:
a e,
ie
t* rials arid Processes Section
ng neering Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
SUMMARY
This . routine, unannounced inspect ion was in the area, of pipe
replacement resultinq from erosion/corrosion (E/C) affects on the
plant's secondary side, piping systems made of carbon steel
material and i nservi ce inspection i denti fi ed rejectab le i ndi cations
on certain 2 inch socket welds.
The licensee is conducting an extensive nondestructive examination*
program to identify erosion corrosion affected components within
suspect pipe systems.
Components which fail and. pass acceptance
criteria are evaluated by engineering and replaced as required with
chromium-molybdenum steel material for better wear characteristics.
Technical pers6nnel *in charge and others performing and monitoring
this work appear to be suffidently trained to carry out their
assigned tasks.
The repair effort of rejected inservice inspected
socket .welds in the seal injection, loop-fill and safety injection
systems was not being conducted in a well organized manner at the
time of this visit. However, following discussion, the *licensee took
the initiative to address concerns and questions* raised by the
inspector which should produce satisfactory results.
Within the areas inspected," no violations or deviations were
identified.
8812050267 '881123
ADOCK 05000280
Q
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
'
REPORT DETAILS
- D. L. Benson, Station'Manager
,
- R. W. Calder, Manager Nuclear Engineefing
D. Dotson, Senior Engineering Technician
D. Grady, Supervisor, Nondestructive Testing (NOE)
R. Green, Site Engineer
,*G. D. Miller, Licensing Coordinator .
- .M. A. Ringler, Mechanical Engineer
- E. W. Throckmorton, Inservice Inspection (ISI)/NDE Services Project
Engineer
.
'
R. Tolbert, Senior Engineer
P. Tucker, Site* Engineer
J. Wilson, Manager Nuclear Support Corporate
'
.
Other licensee employees contacted i.nc T uded construct.ion foremen,
craftsmen, engineers, technician~,*and offiGe personnel: *
Other Organizations
D. Fell, Welding Foreman, NUS
D. Phel~s, Senior (ield Engineer, Mechanical
NRO Resident *Inspector
~W. Holland, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
2.
Design Changes and Modifications (37700), Units 1 and 2
a.
Replacement of Secondary Side and Auxiliary Piping Affected by
Erosion/Corrosion (E/C)
This work effort was a fo 11 owup to that documented in Reports 280,
281/88-15 and 280, 281/88-37.
In that programmatic aspects and
administrative controls of pipe replacement were reviewed and
documented in the aforementioned reports, the inspector concentrated
nis work effort in field welding activities. This included review of
material procurement documents, receiving inspection records, welding
records, . welding procedure ijnd we 1 der performance qualification
records, observation of pipe welding in progress and inspection of
partial and completed field welds.
The code of record for this
activity is the USAS.
831.1, 1967 Edition of the Power Piping*code
(Code).
At the start of this inspection, the inspecto~ met with
2
cognizant licensee personn~l in order to obtain a progress report on
the number of components examined, inspect ion point select ion,
inspection methods, component failures and replacement.
Within these areas the licensee representatives stated that the total
number of inspection points in Unit 2 were less than those in Unit 1.
This reduced* inspection* scope, was the 'result of inspection
knowledge ga~ned from the Unit 1 inspections, which were completed
earlier.
Therefore, piping systems which exhibited essentially no
E/C wall loss in the Unit 1 inspections were not inspected as much in
Unit 2. Conversely, piping systems shown to have E/C wall loss by
the Unit 1 inspecti.011s were* subje"cted to. a similiar level of
inspection.
. :
- * *
- *
- *
1 I
- 1
I
The licensee Is acceptance . criteria was developed by taki n9 wa 11
thickness measurements to calculate the E/C wear rate .. This wear
rate was then used to predict the time wh~n the pipe wall thickness
would approach its code mi.nimum wall thickness.
In addition, the
acceptance criteria provides the guidance needed .to determine if a
piping component needs to be .replaced or, repaired* immediately.
Also, it is used to project replacement*at some future time in its
operating 1ife, .or monitore~ by in~pection whi'le in service.
'
'
r
In term~ of these parameters, the* license indicated the following:
0
0
.Q
0
. .
,.
- ,
In certain instances replacement components made of material
essentially the same *as the original showed E/C rates which were
- 2 to 4 o~ders of magnitude higher than anticipated.
Certain zones of components on the suction side of the feedwater
pump exhibited 30 to 40 mills of wear.
Loop Seal E/C rate~ were in the 21 to 22 mills per year, regime ..
S/G
11811 Loop seal elbows that failed exhibited wear rates of
approximately 49 mill/year.
On October 4, 1988, the inspector met again with coqnizant personnel
and obtained a comprehensive report on component inspection and
results.
At this time the licensee indicated that 116 components out
of a total population of 202 scheduled for inspection had been
inspected.
Of those inspected, 83 components had been evaluated and
17 had been found to be-rejectable.
Two more were added to this
group following the completion of this inspection.
Following is a
tabulation of failures by pipe systems.
-*
.:,
System
Condensate
'
- Loop.Seals on
- Outside Contai'nment * *
- Inside Containment
Heater Drain
Reheater Drain lA
Heater Drain
.1st Feedwater Heater
Heater .Vent
St~am Drain -,(W3D)
Condensate
. .
3
Unit-2
- '
~
- Unit-1
Total
Failures
- 6.
6 * ..
. 3 '
1
~
2
i
r
Failure Type
Code
Acceptance
Min
Criteria
1
-
>
2
1
. 1-
5
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
the* failed component i.n Unit 1 above was an elbow--on the suction side
.. of the feedwater pump on the 1~N1 train. The licensee indicated that
the failed elbow was a replacement which had been installed during
- the 1987 forced outage.
At the time.of the-insP.ection, plans called
- for examining 38 components in Unit 1, 28 of which* are new replace-
. ments and 10 others for engineeri~g related interests. , Following is
a tabulation of*the failed components presented in terms of size, '
line-designation, years of service life and_critical dimensions.
~
Unit-2*
System/
Years
Component
Component
In
Nominal
Code Min-
Condensate Identification Service Calculated Thickness Actual Zorie
.443
1
1811 Elb~w
1.2
.526
.375
.. 453
2
1a11 Elbow
9.9
.510
.526
.383
.441
6
1811 Elbow
9.9
.584
.401
.412
4
1811 Elbow
1.2
.441
.360
.400
3
1911 X 1811
2CN-PSF2~128
9.9 failed visua.1 inspection
4
.4711i
.388
1
1811 Elbow
2 CN PSF2-133
1. 2
.432 11
.360ii
.432
2
IOii x 1411
2 CN-PSFR-15
9.9
.375
- .314
.312
2
Reducer
..
. ,,
1s11r
if.W-PSFT-9
1.2
1.18611
0.96511
1. 07411
1
1411/18HT 2FW-PSFT-1
1.2
1. 04111. 28011 * 750/0. 965n . 87111 fl. 097 11 * -
0.571ii
. 2 ..
811 Elbow 2FW-PSF2-34
1.2
0.65911
0.46211
0.573 11
. 4
. .
0
.
1411 Elbow
9.9
0.82811
0.499 11
0.509 11
1
1411 Elbow
.: 2FW-PSF2-84
9.9
0.499 11
- 0.48311
1
,.
14il Elbow
9.9
0.49911
- .48911
1
Reheater Drains .
0:31911
811 Elbow
.9. 9
0.55511
0.303 11
3
au Elbow
' 9. °9
0.555 11
Q.'jQ3
0.309 11
3
- 0.243 11
g11 Elbow
9.9
0.303
- O. 253ii
.3
Heater Vents
.
,
2.5"
(
5.5
0.227
0.102 11
0.192 11
l
Reducer
0.10'9 11
3.011 T
5.5
- O: 090 11
1
,.
Drain Line
1011 T
9.9
0.365
0.14511
0.15911
2
St:eam
Drain
W30
9.9
failed visual inspection,
.433
1811 Elbow
lCN-PSF2-133
Ll
0.518 *
0.360
.431
2
- Components rejected because of failure to meet code minimum thickness
requirements
' .. '
5
On the basis of these inspection results and engineering evaluations,
the licensee has made plans to change 30 components in Unit 2; no
decisions had been reached on Unit 1 at the time.
However, following
completion of the initial inspection, on October 7, 1988, the
inspector ascertained that 43 components had been inspected in
Unit 1; of which 12 had been evaluated.
Of these 12 components, four
had been declared failures, one***failure was* within the condensate
system and' * three *were *1 ocated in the feedwater system. . At the
time, the licensee was evaluating these failures to determine what
course of action would be appropriate.
The 30 components
schedu 1 ed for replacement in Unit 2 we-re 1 ocated in the f o 11 owing .
systems:
System
Condensate
Slowdown
Mainstream
Steam Drain
Reheater' Drains
.. *'
First Point Heater Drains
First Point Vents
Replaced *
Components
8
10
1
1
1
5
2
2
In addition- to the above,. the 1 i censee .; s rep 1 ad ng * the first and
second point "extraction steam lines from the low pressure turbines to .
- the first and second point f eedwater heaters.
The rep 1 a cement
components are made of chromium!molybdenum alloy steel material to
pro vi de for improved wear resistance properties* and imp roved Service
life. Following.these discussions, the inspector accompanied by the
1 i censee representative performed a wa 1 k through inspection to
observe those 1 i ne systems undergoing inspect i ans ( visual and/or
ultrasonic) and replacement.
b.
Wel~ Inspection
Welding Procedure Review
Welding procedures specifications (WPS(s)) and supporting
proced~re qualification records (PQR(s)), were reviewed to
ascertain whether:
all essential var1ables, supplementary
essential variables and nQnessential variables were in accordanc~
with applicable editions of Section IX of the ASME Code; each of
- the applicable procedures had been qualified in accordance with
Section IX of the ASME Code and that the supporting PQRs were on
file; each PQR listed the essential variables for the specific
welding process or processes covered and that the va 1 ues or
ranges of these var1ables were consistent with those permitted
by the WPS .and*~ere within the limits of Section IX of the ASME
Code; all mechanical tests require~ by Section IX of the ASME
-....
6
Code, had been completed and were properly documented in the
PWR: the PQR(s) had been certified by the licensee and that the
mechanical test results met minimum ASME Code requirements; any
changes or revisions of the WPS essential variables were
supported by requalification of the original WPS or a new WPS;
any changes* in the WPS* nonessentiaJ variab*l es *were properly
identified and do~umented either as revi~ions to the original or
a riew WPS.
Observation/Inspe'ction of Comple~ed Welds
Completed welds were selected at r~ndom f6r inspection, these
were as fo 11 ows:
Weld#*
157
4
4
7
18
13
19
6
,
Isometric
Drawin~
E-201
E-201
E-201
E-207
E-207
E-207
E-207
E-209
Size
Discreption
Pipe 1411 dia. sched. 40 x H
Reducer 20 11 x 10, 11 Sched. 40 x H
Elbow 1411 dia. x 0.385 11
- Pipe, 1411 dia. x 0.375 11
Reducer *1811 x 14~1 Sched. 40 x H
.. Tee 1811 X 1811 X 1411 X 0. 500 11
Redacer 18u x 1411
. Pipe 1811 sched. 49 x H
..
The above 1 i sted welds were examined to * as sou re that the
following attributes conformed to* aforementioned *code and
licensee procedural requirements including:*
.
(1) Weld surface finish and appearance.
Include inside
diameter of pipe welds when accessible.
~
(2) Transitions between components of different diameters and
wall thickness.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Weld reinforcement.
Removal of temporary attachments, arc strikes and weld
-spatter as applicable.
Absence of surface defects inciuding cracks, laps, lack of
penetration, lack of fusion porosity, slag, oxide film and
under cut exceeding prescribed limi.ts.
I*
I
7
Welder Performance Qualifications
Weld stencils which appeared adjacent to completed welds,
identified ear.lier in this report, were noted and sub-
sequently used to ascertain whether the 1 ic*ensee had a
workab 1 e system *for.** mafot-ai:ni ng** a*** continuous record. .of
qualificat10n, status *o*f all welders* and that .this. system
was effectively oti'lized *ahd accurate. Also., the inspector
reviewed the qualification *status recor~s of welders
performing production welding to ascertain whether weld.ers
had been and were currently qualified to weld under the *
. -respective* ,proced,ures.
. -
Item
Wel~er stencils selected for this task intluded Nos. 041~
069, 122,, 182, 202, 204 and 209.
~
Material Control (Piping and Appurtenances) ..
- Randomly selected pipe sections and attachments associated
with this design change (DC 87-11, were identified for
. . review of procurement documents including quality records
and 'site-generated quali-ty control documents, e.g. receipt
inspections arid weld travelers.
Items selected for this *
- task were as fol lows:
Purchase
Heat/lot #* -~
Order#
~o0 Elbow, 1411 x 0.37511
Pipe*, 1311 x 0~ 375
Reducer 18 1 x 1411
.
LKS
- A-234/WP22 CSY-185834
A-335/P22
C.SY-185834
Tee 1811 X 1811 X 1411 X *0.500
Filler Metal
1/811 dia. ER90S-B3
3/32 11 dia. ER90S-B3
3/32 11 dia. E9018-B3
2365
236474;..4-7
28808NOS
A-234/WP22 CSY-185834
A335
CSY-185834
SFAS.28
G0718
SFAS.28
G6766
SFAS.5
82667
The aforementioned quality records were reviewed to verify that
mater-ial analysis*, thermal treatment and mechanical properties,
as applicable, were consistent with referenced standards and the
licensee's specification.
Within these areas the inspector noted that the Controlled Weld
Joint Record used to document quality control inspection
conducted during weld fabrication did not in all cases fully
identify each of the two components we 1 ded together.
For
example although the record contains line items for recording of
pi eel! and heat numbers, the inspector found that in many *
instances either all or part of this information was missing
- >
I
.
c.
8
even though the record had been signed off by the QC inspector.
The inspector discussed this observation with the licensee 1s
cognizant engineer who indicated-that the applicable procedure
WP-W02 Weld Documentation does not specifically address the
subject line item, but indicated that. this. information is
recorded as normal practice> Thf*in'spector-:-stressed:**the *need
for documenting piece and heat** numbers: of coniponehts *on* the weld
record since it represents the weld fabrication .hi!itory and it
is an official per:manent recora.
Also the inspector requested
that the , subject procedure be reviewed and revised as
appropriate to address the aforementioned i nforrfiation.
<*
.
.
In addition, the inspector made the following o.bservations,
(1) ~rn ly certificates of* compliance had been furnished for the . *
replacement straight pipe sections, (2) heat numbers/material
type or other form of mater.ial identification had not been
stamped on these sections and (3) due to the absence of stamped
identification on the original sections, no traceability numbers
were being' transferred when sections were* cut to specific
lengths.
During discuss ions, on these subjects, the inspector
acknowledged that the aforementioned information was not
required by the applicable code, that this piping was hot safety
related, and tflerefore information af this. type was. not a
- requirement.
However, the inspector .stressed the fact that in .
yiew of the wall thinning problem observed in these components,
1t would-seem to be extremely important to have complete and
accurate records e . .g. heat number~, chem-. analysis and thermal
treatment on the rep fac.ement material being i nsta 11 ed for
evaluation purposes.
In re~ponse, the licensee agreed* to make .
every effort to *obtain this information.
In reference to the
weld joint record and its coverage in the aforementioned
procedure, the inspector stated that an inspector followup item
(IFI) would be identified until the procedure was revised to
address specifically each line item on the subject form.
IFI
280,281/88-39-01 Revise WP-W02 to Address all Line Items on Weld
Joint Record~
Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT)
Because the replacement material/component welds required post weld
thermal trea.tment, the inspector reviewed the contro 11 i ng procedure,
SR-lOl Rev. 1 General Stress Relieving Procedure.
This was done to
ascertain whether the procedure addressed heating and cooling rates,
metal temperature monitoring, temperature uniformity and control
limits specified, equipment calibration ~nd documentation.
Because
at the time of this inspection there was 110 PWHT in process, the
inspector selected welds No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 on ISO E-202, job number
E 289S-033-J to review QC records and, strip charts.
This work
effort was conducted to verify that components were instrumented to
provide time-temperature recordings for the duration of the entire
thermal treatment cycle, sufficient thermocouples were used to
.9
measure temperature variations during heating and cooling, specified
holding time was adhered to and was consistent with applicable code
requirements, maximum heatup and.cool-down rates were* as specified
and consistent with the .applicable. -code requirements.
Except for the inspector . .foll owup item .discussed above there, were--no -
deviations or violations),dentified. *
.. ** * * ,
.
- .:
...
. * * _
3.
Inservice Inspection of Socket Welds Unit 2, (73753B)
On* or about the 12th of October. 1988 the-- resident inspector inf armed the
ReQion that the licensee had found rejectable indicati'ons in two out of
th, rty, 211 p socket welds :inspected for i nse*rvi ce inspect.ion ( ISL)
purposes during the current outage.
A followup*telephone call to the.site
supervisor for nondestructive testing (supervisor) confirmed this finding
and the inspector obtained additional details on the' subject- failures.
which were as fo1lows:
both faiJed welds *were* located in the .Loop Fill
Header, the piping was made of 211-q>, 160 schedule Type 316 stainless steel
.material, the rejectable indjcations were identified as rounded, having a
maximum liquid penetrant, bleedout area of about 0.60 inches.
- The supervisor stated that an* addi.tional samp*ie of thirty socket welds
were tested.
This second sample produced* one rejectable weld, which
exhibited. several' linear indications located*at*the toe of the weld; the
longest being approximately 1/4 inches.
Following this finding, the
1 i censee expanded the* inspect ion samp 1 e by *adding anothe*r 162 socket *
welds; ~hus bringing the total populatfon -of. socket welds *inspected
up to 412.
On October 19, 1988, * the inspector visited Surry Unit 2 to discuss* the
inspectio~ findings, to review the inspection program and to observe the
field activity in this area. Onsite discussidns with licensee representa-
tives disclosed that of the 212 welds inspected, 21 had been -rejected for
linear and/or rounded indications which were located in the weld metal,
heat affected zone or the base metal on either side of the weld.
The
licensee stated that some of the indications appeared to be service
induced, e.g., linear in the toe of the weld, while others appeared to be
related to weld fabrication e.g., porosity cold laps while others were
related to manufacturing practices e.g., forging.
Administrative controls
established to address this work effort included Engineering work request
(EWR),88-412, Evaluate RC Piping Socket/Welds/Surry/Unit 2.
In order to
facilitate the activity, the licensee established a task group and
designated an engineer from the Corporate ISI/NDE Services Group to serve
as coordinator-and as a point of conta~t for this effort. Administrative
and work procedures to be used, were revi-ewed for content and included
the following:
SUADM-M"'.'27
SUADM-M-28
WP-W02
Requirements for a Repair or Replacement Follower
Control of Special Processes
Weld Documentation
10
The code controlling this activity was ASME Code Settion XI 1980 Edition
.with Winter 1980 Addenda.
Prior to the inspector's arrival the licensee
inspected and removed by ~rindin~ indications in two of the 21 rejected
These welds were 1dentif1ed as 4 and-5 on sketch VIR-1-4209.
The
licensee stated that the indications were rounded ranging in size from 1/4
to 0 .. 60 inches diameter. *According to-the "licensee's: reco*rds, we!"l_d" no. 4-
exhibited: one rounded indication which was* identified as porosity. This
indication was removed by grinding and no weld repair was planned.
Tne
indications in weld no. 5 were interpreted as cluster porosity which was
removed by grinding off about 1/8 inches of weld metal.* This socket weld
will requJre repai~ welding.
. *
- ,
- . .
.
While on site, between October 19 alid 21~ -1988, the- in~pector observed the
inspection. and grinding repair of the 'following five welds.
- *.
. .*
DEFECT
Line
Locatior{
~
Size
Base
16
2-CH-310.
Met~l
Linear
3/811 and.1/2 11
Loqp Fi 11
-**
18
2-CH-3'10
- e.ase
Metal
Linear
- 3/411 * and 51811
.
Weld/
12
2-CH-393
Base Metal
Linear
7/16 11 perpendicular to weld
1/1611 & 1/211 .in weld
.
21
2-CH-309
Toe of Weld
Linear
2-1/t1long, 0. 311 long *and
Loo Fill
0.5 11 long
40
2-CH-308
Linear
Four indications 1/411 to
3/811 long
The below listed welds are those which were found to exhibit rejectable
indications and would*be repaired later during*their outage.
.
Line
Location
~
Size
5
2-RC-499
Rounded
1/411 to 0.611
Loop fill
Elongated
4
2-RC-499
Rounded
1/411
43
2-SI-273
Toe o.f Weld
Linear
3/411 long
Safety
Injection
- Hot Leg
.,
11
Line
(cont'd) --
Location
Size
33
34
50
'18
33
J.1
13
23
15
20
15
22
17
2-SI-273
Safety
Injection
Hot Leg
Base Metal
Linear
1/211 long
2-SI-279
Safety
Injection
Base Metal,
Linear
3/811 and 1/211 long
~ Hot*Leg
..
2-?J-272
Base* Metal
Li near '
0. 437 11 & .3/411 long
Two i ndi cat ions i 31i long
2-CH-395
Weld. M&tal/
Seal System toe
Linear
2-CH-310
Loop Fill
Base Metal
Ro1.mded/
Two rounded 7/!6 11 & 1/411
~
Linear
four linear 1/811 long
, ..
'
.
2-CH-397
Base Metal
l-i near
Seal
2-CH-397
Base Metal
Linear
2-CH-397
Base Metal
Linear
2-CH-308
B*ase Metal
, Linear
Loop Fi 11
2-CH-309
Toe of Weld
Linear
2-CH-310
Base Metal
Linear
Loop Fi 11
2-CH-393
Linear
Seal
Injection
2-CH-393
Weld/Toe
Lin~ar
Seal
of Weld
Two small perpendicular to
l/16u and l/4ii long
1/411 ~qng
Thru indications* 0~_3 11 long
Ohe indication 1/411 long
1-1/411 long
1/411 and 3/811 long
7/32 11 long
Two 1/211 long oarallel &
As a result of observations made during the grind repair of the five .
socket welds listed above, the inspector expressed the following concerns
to site management.
0
0
Not all members of the Ad Hoc organization had a QOOd understanding
of who was in charge with respect to reporting of inspection findings*
and possible repairs.
Field personnel ~roceeded to remove indications with6ut sufficient
preplanning, i.e., baseline measurements of the weld size and amount
of material removed (groove depth) were not measured/recorded before,
during and after the grinding operation.
.*
12
In one c~se the inspector noted that at the engineer's instructions,
about 1/8 inches weld metal was ground-off to re.move a weld
fabrication defect.
No evaluation of defect type and location was
documented or measurements taken in the process.
In response to
questions raised by the_ i nspec~or, th~ .engineer state~ that the
defects had been removed, l eavrng a cavity about 1/8 inches deep
which would. be rewe l ded.
- * *
As stated earlier, following the initial report about these rejections,
the inspector discussed the findings with cognizant licensee personnel who
stated that the rejected socket welds were inspected during the preservice
inspect ion {PSI) as req,ui red by ASME Code Sect ion XI.
. * *
~
,:,
'
L
- In a9dition., because of th~ir co~e .clas.si'fication1 ,these welds .shou_ld have
received visual and surface examinatrnn fol.lowing_ weld fabricat10n.
However, on the _basis of discussions with the engineer directing and
evaluating the field grinding/repair operation, the in~pector understood
that some of these welds may not have been preservi ce inspected.
Following this exchange of information the inspector met with site manage-
ment discussed his observations/concerns aod raised the fo 11 owf ng
questions, {1) If the rejected welds. were liquid penetrant inspected
following fabrication why *~re we finding fabrication type* indications at * .
. this time, {2) If these welds were not liquid *penetrant inspected, what
other type of inspection did they receive?. (3) If the rejected welds were
PSl(d) as reported-why are we finding.these type_ of indications, *(4) Since
we are *finding these large percentage of rejectable welds in Unit 2 wt,at
- as~urances can you provide that a similar sitqation does not exist in *
ynit 1? As *a re~ult of.the concerns expressed and*questions raised by the
inspector, the licensee.has agreed to do the following:
0
a.
Document in detai 1 defect removal*, evaluation and measurements taken
during the repair of the rejected welds.
.
.
.
b.
Following grinding, measure welds, fitting and/or piping to assure
design thickness have not been-violated.
c.
Provide original f&brication records of all rejected welds.
d.
Provide preservice Inspection records of all rejected welds.
This matter has been identified as an unresolved item pending review of
the inspection records generated during the onqoing repair and the
remaining documents requested.
This unresolved item has been identified
as 280,281/88-39-02 Fabrication, Preservice and Repair Records of Rejected
Socket Welds.
Except for the unresolved i tern i dent i fi ed above no vi o 1 at ions or
deviations were identified.
4.
13
Exit Interview * .
The inspection scope and results were summarized on October 7 and 21,
1988, with those persons indicated* i.n paragraph L . The inspectors *
described the areas inspected and discussed in deta i 1 the inspect ion
resu.lts listed below. *. . .
- , ..
(Open) UNR 280,.281/88-39-02, Fabricatiqn," P*~eservice and Repair Records of
Rejected Socket Welds
~
(Open) !FI 280,281/88-39-0l, Revise- WP-W02 to Address All Line*Items on
Weld Joint Record
'*No dissenting comments were received from the licensee:
Proprietary
information is not contained in this repo~t.
- .