ML19329E431
| ML19329E431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1978 |
| From: | Howell S CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329E429 | List: |
| References | |
| HOWE-23-78, NUDOCS 8006120803 | |
| Download: ML19329E431 (13) | |
Text
1"
~
(J?-
jm j
Q f8 6
g[ j 1) se..,n.e H. H.w.41 vn. er.w.a.t s
a.a.,.i ome..: sio w..: u.cnio.n 4..nu..s ca.on usensa.n 40 sos March 3, 1978
[ mx Hove-23-78
-y.g
, '.h.,
'y v. \\
, ~;
Mr J. G. Keppler, Regicncl Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement US Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission
Q Region III 799 Roosevelt Road
.f Glen Ellyn, IL c0137
_... s. f MIDIR;D NUCLEAR PLANT -
UNIT HO. 1, DOC ET NO. 50-329 UNIT NO. 2, DOCKEI NO. 50-330 DECAY HEAT REMOVAL PUMP P.ADICGRAPHY In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50 55(e), this letter constitutes an interim report on radiography problems with the four decay heat removal pumps. provides a general description of the radiography problems and the BW schedule of part corrective action. Attachment 2 provides the specific deficiencies found in the radioEraphs by a Consumers Power Company review of the film. An interim report will be sent on or before May 12, 1978.
L t
1 Attachments:
(1) PAW letter to RCEaucan dated 2/27/78 re: 31W Report of Improper Radiographic Techniques Used on Midland Decay Heat Pumps.
(2) HDStephens memo to JLCorley Serial #23MA78, dated 2/9/78,
Subject:
" Midland Project - Radiography on Decay Heat Removal Pumps".
/,Ernst Volgenau, USNRC (15)
CC:
Dr Director, Office of Manegement Information and Program Control, U3NEC (1)
D g
5.t 8006 720 3
q
.... ~
~.
.r Att chmmt 1 Howe-23-78 Page 1 of 2 Babcock &Wileox m, m.,,,, c,,,,
P.O. Box,1260. t yr.:hdurg. V:. 24505 February 27, 1978 reeg,m acoy 3u.33:3 CPCo-1743 Filc: 12B/T1.2/12E3G/12E20 Consumrs Pc.ar Oxpany 1945 Patnall Road Jackson,!E 49201 Attention: Mr. R.C. P,at=an Project Engineer
Subject:
Connners Po;.cr Co,pany Midland Plant, l' nits I and 2 IIIR Pit @ RM)IO'aAPin' FICBLIOS Gentleman:
In response to !.'r. W. Byrd's request, attached herewith is the B5W report of the irgrop r radiographic techniques used on Midland D cay Heat Pt=ps.
Your This report is suitcbic for Consumers Po.er transmittal to Region III.
attentica is inrited to the fact that 35W does not wish to categori e this report as a "Significant D.'ficiency at this time; if major defects are un-corered during the recxnnination, we will continue this program as a SDR.
Since cly yours,
() / gf,g/
I
./
t s C. E. Mahaney Project Mmager CDI:jd Attccl m nt For:
A. II. Lazar CC:
1.'.J. Byrd Senior Project !tmager W.R. Gillespic
Attecheent 1 Q
IU:PO!fr O'1 1.. HOPim IVd)102'd'illC TEGNIO'T, How3-23-78 Page 2 of 2 DJring reVicW by the pitup manufacturcr of radiography film for variouS types of pings, it was discovered that the radiography vendor was not cc. plying with the technique shats on the approved procedures in that the ;enetr eaeters were being placed on the film side in lieu of the source side of the casings.
Although film side penetric:ters are allowed, proof testing is required.
The proaf test shots indicate a penetran ter two sizes sr.nller should have been used.
Radiographs for the four (4) decay heat ptrnps for Consttwrs Powr Co:npany wre then reviexcd to detemine if this condition existed and it was detemined that it existed only for the back covers.
A complete review of all RT film for the casings and back covers for the foOr (4) decay heat ms for consters was then mde.
The results indicated the following additional probler.'s:
(1) indications of unfused chap 3 cts on tua pteps in violation of ATG Code requirements and (2) areas of pitups which were not radiographed.
The following actions are being taken to resolve these probicas on the Constriers Pcrer Co ptny pumps:
a) A Field Giange Notice has been prepared to authorice removal of the pit:ps.
b) Tne picns will le returned to the picp manufacturer for rcradiegraphy, and if necessa:7, repair.
The pit:ps are expected to be ready for shipment to the vendor by about !!.ay 1, 3978.
Results of the reradiography are expected to be availuble in the period June 19 to July 24, 1978.
c)
If repair wrk is necessary, an additional 4 to 6 months will be required until the pu:ps are returned to the site for reinstallation; depending on the degree of repair necessary.
4e 9
I
\\
Attaul=ent 2 e
m Hovu-23-78 To JLCoricy, Midland r
~.
- HDStephens, Midland N " @
Faos Consumers Duc February 9,1978 EQWCf Susaccr MIDLAND PROJECT - RADIOGRAPHY ON DECAY HEAT REMOVAL PUMPS File: 10.4 Serial: 23FQA78 coM" log,cc cc WRBird, JSC-216B TCCooke, Midland GSKeeley, P14-408B BWMarguglio, JSC-220A /
References:
- 1) B&W Order Nos. 026687LA and 026688LA
- 2) Pump Casing, Pat 643011 Production #679-A, B, C, & D
- 3) Pump Back Cover, Pat 259395 Production #679-A, B, C, & D
' An audit of NDE records and review of radiographic film on the casings and ba'ck covers for the four (4) decay heat removal pumps on reference contra:ts was made on February 2 and 3,1978. This review was made as a result of the discovery by B&W Canada Ltd. that "vis-u-ray Ltd." the nondestructive test subcontractor who performed the radiography on subject castings had used " film side" penetrameters on other castings of a similar na'ture on other contracts. The CPCo review was not limited to looking for " film side" penetrameters only, but entailed review-ing the film for complete compliance with technique and specification requirements.
Review of subject radiographs revealed the following:
- 1) Penetrameter number visible on film differs from radiographic technique sheet.
- 2) There are numerous shots where the penetrameter used on the part is of a larger size than would be allowed to meet the 2-2T sensitivity. requirement based on the part thickness given on the technique sheets.
- 3) The area thickness is not given on all technique sheets, therefore, it is impossible to determine if. the proper penetrameter for that material thick-ness was used.
- 4) Several films indicate film side penetrameters were used; however, no evidence of a technique qualification shot exist.
- 5) Many film show no overlap of zone markers; therefore, incomplete coverage.
- 6) Due to improper placement of zone markers (spaced too far apart) density at outer edges of zone'was below minimum density requirements.
- 7) Several films showed density in area of interest to exceed the -15 or +30%
allowable from the density through the body of the penetrameter.
- 8) Approximately 90% of all films were identified as R-1 or R-2; however, no one knows who has the original film or if it still exists.
m Y '; [ N; h._S, l
y ia i' ?
.T
\\
O
- Q (
J
. !_. 1 d.Y 3 l
)
QUAL.iil AE.lAliCE l
i 4
e
]
2
- 9) Several films show indications of discontinuities which had been circled with a marker and identified as surface. No indication part was verified vicually to determine if indication was surface or subsurface.
- 10) Castings C and D show duplicate film in several areas. ' Unable to determine if C or D casting was radiographed twice or if another casting was radiographed and identified as C er D. is a detailed interpretation of each radiograph on each of the four (4) decay heat pumps casings and back covers. Due to film duplication, castings C and D ' re reported separately.
a O
e e
e O
Page 1 of 7 Review Data
~
(Comments apply to both A & B unless otherwise stated)
Pump Casing - 643011 Production No. 679-A & B Sh:t Area Problem Possible Solution 1
1-2-3-4-5-6 Light Density 4-5-6-7-8-9 Possibic Unfused Chaplet Visual Inspect and RE-RT 7-8-9-10-11-12 Light Density 10-11-13-14 11-12-15-16
. f......
lA 1-2-3-4-5 Acceptable 4-5-6-7-8-9 2
1-2 Incomplete Coverage RE-RT 2-3 3
3-4 Incomplete Coverage RE-RT 4-5 5-6
~
4 1-2 Den. Dark & Incomplete Coverage RE-RT
.-2.-3 4-5 5-6 5
1-2 Questionable Penetrameter Thickness Check Required Front 2-3 3-4 4-5 Technique Change Required to In-clude #30 Pen. on Boss 5-6 Questionable Penetrameter 6-7 Density Above Max. in Some Areas 5
1-2-3-4 Questionable Penetrameter Thickness Check Required Tcp 3-4-5-6 0.K.
5-6-7-8 Questionable'Penetrameter 7-8-9-10 0.K.
9-10-11-12 Questionable Penetrameter &
Technique ~ Change Required to Include #30 Pen on Boss 11-12-13-14 Questionable Penetrameter 13-14-15-16 0.K.
.15-16-17-18 Questionable Penetrameter 17-18-19-20
Page 2 of 7 e
Review Data
)
(Comments apply to both A & B unless otherwise state.O Pump Casing - 643011 Production No. 679-A & B Shot Arca Problem Possif,le Solution 5
1-2 Questionable Penetrameter Thickness Check Required Back 2-3 34 n
n a
n n
4,"
5-6
,.x..:. -
6-7 Also, Incomplete Coverage Li'ght
~
Density 5
3-4-5-6 0.K.
- 10 U rdows I
13-14-15-16
,, s 6
1-2 Question $ble Penetrameter Thickness Check Required 2-3 3-4 Check Surface for Defect 7
1-2 Questionable Penetraneter Thickness Check Required 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7' Area #50 Pen. used Density Light 3&9 NOT USED 10 1-2 0.K.
2_3 3-4 11 1-2 Insuf ficient. Coverage (Check RE-RT Surface on "B").
2-3 Insufficient Coverage 3-4 4-5' 5-6
Pagn 3 of 7 Review Data (Comments apply to both A & B unless otherwisu stated)
Pump Casing - 643011 Production Mo. 679-A & B Shnt
__t Area Problem Possible Solution 12 1-2 Insufficient Coverage & Light RE-RT Density 2-3 3-4*
~
4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8
- Technique Chaage Required to Include #50 Pen.
Pen. on R.B.
Thickness Check Should be Donc in This Area 13 1-2 Acceptable 3-4 14 1-2*
0.K.
- Possible Repair Area Check Surface 3_4 15 1-2 Technique Change Required to Include
- 25 Pen. on Boss 15A 3-4 Acceptable 5-6 16 1-2 Acceptable 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-1 17 1-2 Questionable Penetrameter Thickness Check Required 2-3 3-4 4-1 17A 1-2 Acceptable 2-3 3-4
Attachwnt 1 Page 4 of 7 Review Data
' i (Consnents apply to both A & B unless otherwise stated)
' Pump Casing - 643011 Production No. 679-d & B Shot Area Problem Possible Solution 18 1-2 Questionabic Coverage RE-RT 3-4 5-6 a
7-8 9-10 11-12 7-2 9-4 Thickness Check Required Den. Light 19 1-2 Qu'estionable Penetrameter RE-RT Coverage & Den.
. r,,'
20 1-2 Accep table 2-3 3-4 a
21.
-l-2 Acceptable.
a 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-1 22 1 thru 18 1.
No Thickness Range on Technique RE-RT 2.
Location Markers Missing on Some Film Y
e e
4 e
.-.m
,,n,,_
. Attachment 1 Pager 5 of 7
~
Review Data
,(Comments apply to both C & D unless otherwise stated)
~
Pump Casing - 643011 Production No. 679-C & D Shnt Area Problem Possible Solution 1
1-2-3-4-5-6 1.
Insufficient Coveragw RE-RT Both Units 4-5-6-7-8-9 2.
Questionable' Pens.
7-8-9-10-11-12 3.
C & D Film Shot on Same Part 10-11-13-14 11-12-15-16
.y.,_.
1A 1-3- 4-5 -6 '
Questionable Pens.
Thickness Check Required 4-5-6-7-8-9 2
1-2 C & D Film Shot on Same Part RE-RT Both Units 2,
3 3-4 Accep table 4-5 5-6 4
1-2 Acceptable
~2-3 4 "
5-6 5
1-2 1.
Questionable Pens.
RE-RT Front n s 2-3 2.
C & D Film Shot on Same Part 3-4 3.
Density too Dark 4-5 5-6 6-7 5
1 thru 20 1.
C & D Film Shot on Same Part RE-RT Tap n s i
2.
Questionable Pens.
- 3. ' Technique Changes Required 5
.1-2 1.
Questionable Pens RE-RT Both Units
~2-3 2.' C & D Film Shot on Same Part 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7
Page 6 of 7 )
Raview Data (Comments apply to both C & D unless otherwise stated)
Pump Casing - 643011 Production No. 679-C & D Shut Arca Problem Possible Solution 5
3-4-5-6 Acceptable 7-8-9-10 dows 13-14-15-16 6
1 Questionable Penetrameter Thickness Check Reqdired 2-3
-~r 3-4 7
1-2 1.
Questionable Pens.
RE-RT 2-3 2.
C & D Shot on Same Part 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 10 1-2 C & D Film Shot en Same Part RE-RT 2-3 Both Units 3-4 1_
1-2 C & D Film Shot on Same Part RE-RT 2-3 B th Units 3-4 4-5 5-6 12 1-2 1.
Technique Change Required to RE-RT 2-3 Include #50' Pen. on Rib on Casting "C" 3-4 2.
C & D Film Shot on Same Part 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 13 1-2 C & D Film Shot on Same Part RE-RT 3-4 B th Units 14 1 C & D Fil'm Shot on Same Part RE-RT 3-4 B th Units
. 15 1-2 Acceptable 6
L-
.a
Pago 7 of 7
,m Attachmant 1 n.
Review Data f.
-(Comments apply to both C & D unless otherwise stated)
~
Pump Casing - 643011 Production No. 679-C & D Sh*t Area Problem Possible Solution 15A 3-4 C & D Film Shot on Sarna Part RE-RT Both Units 5-6 16 1-2 Acceptable 2-3 3-4
. - :" m -,,
4-5 5-6 6-1 17 1-2 Questionable Penetrameter Thickness Check Required 23 i
n n
n n
se 3-4 4-1
,17A 1-2 C & D Film Shot on Same Part RE-RT Both Units j
2-3 3-4' to 1-2 1.
Questionable Penetrameter RE-RT B th Units 3-4 2.
Inadequate Coverage 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 7-2 9-4 19 l-2 Questionable Penetrameter Thickness Check Required 20:
1-2 C & D Film Shot on Same Part RE-RT Both Units 2-3
.3-4 21 1 thru 6 C & D Film Shot on Same Part RE-RT Both Units l_
22 1-2 thru 18-1 No Thickness 'tange on Technique Correct Technique Sheets l
Sheets i
A 3/1/21 s
l
~
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
DISTRIBUTION FOR INCOMING MATERIAL
-329h330
- @: KEPPLER J G ORG: HOWELL S H DOCDATE: 03/03/78 NRC CONSUMERS PWR DATE RCVD: 03/07/78 ICTYPE: LETTER NOTARIZED: NO COPIES RECEIVED
@ JECT:
LTR 1 ENCL 1 ITERIM REPT ON RADIOGRAPHY PROBLEMS WITH THE FOUR DECAY HEAT MOVAL PUMPS, INTERIM REPT WIL BE SENT ON OR BEFOPE MAY 12, 1978.
. ANT NAME: MIDLAND - UNIT 1 REVIEWER INITI AL:
XRS MIDLAND - UNIl 2 DISTRIBUTER INITIAL:
- oc*o********* DISTRIBUTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS AS FOLLOWS ******************
CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY REPORT (10CFR50.55(E).
(DISTRIBUTION CODE BOO 4)
FOR ACTION:
ASST DIR VASSALLO**LTR ONLY BR CHIEF VARGA**LTR ONLY PROJ MGR HOOD **LTR ONLY LIC ASST SERVICE **LTR ONLY 4(( REG FILE **W/EN L )
INTERNAL:
NRC eDR**W/ENCt E&-E**W/2 ENCL OELD**LTR ONLY GOSSICK & STAFFa*LTR ONLY MIPC**W/ ENCL BOYD**LTR ONLY DiYOUNG**W/ ENCL HELTEMES**W/ ENCL R.
MATTSON**LTR ONLY KNIGHT **LTR ONLY ROSS**LTR ONLY TEDESCO**LTR ONLY EISENHUT**LTR ONLY STANDARDS DEV.**W/ ENCL K SEYFRIT/IE**W/ ENCL EXTERNAL:
LPDR'S MIDLAND, MI**W/ ENCL TIC **W/ ENCL NSIC**W/ ENCL ACRS CAT A**W/16 LTRS
- 3TRIBUTION:
LTR 40 ENCL 28 CONTROL NBR:
780670014
- ZE: 1P+2P+9P m****o***************************
THE END
\\
GAD
-