ML20072T477

Part 21 Rept Re Possible Defective Dravo Piping Subassemblies.Insp Procedures Will Be Revised & Accessible Surfaces in Class 1 Fabrications Will Be re-examined.Results of re-exam of Circumferential Welds at Facilities Encl

ML20072T477
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook, 05000000
Issue date:	01/26/1981
From:	Schwab G DRAVO CORP.
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20071K200	List: ML20072T288 ML20072T303 ML20072T320 ML20072T323 ML20072T329 ML20072T344 ML20072T350 ML20072T358 ML20072T360 ML20072T388 ML20072T400 ML20072T404 ML20072T411 ML20072T418 ML20072T443 ML20072T458 ML20072T465 ML20072T473 ML20072T477 ML20072T491
References
FOIA-82-524, REF-PT21-81 NUDOCS 8304080143
Download: ML20072T477 (13)

Text

. . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . - - - -

-- g;

n. .

r 1

.. e:ar

.- Dravo T y

?43 January 26, 1981

• Mr. James C. Keppler, Director, Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

Subject:

Report of- Possible Defective Piping Subassemblies Gentlemen:

We wish to report the fabrication and shipment of piping subassemblies by Dravo which may not be in accordance with the applicable design drawings and which, if installed, may constitute a safety hazard.

i .

The following details are reported below:

1. INDIVIDUAL REPORTING W. A. Molvie Manager - Ouality Assurance and Technical Services *

Dravo Corporation Pipe Fabricction Division 1115 Gilman Avenue Marietta, Ohio 45750

2. SUPPLYING FIRM

• Dravo Corporation Pipe Fabrication Division 1115 Gilman Avenue Marietta, Ohio 45750

3. NATUPI 0F PROBLEM A Dravo inspector was found to be conducting a r.agnetic particle inspection of a weld on a nuclear piping assembly using a technique not in accordance with the Dravo Magnetic Particle Procedure.

The procedure called for the area of interest to be covered in two (2) directions 90 degrees apart, where as the inspector was examining with coverage in one (1) direction only.

i

'.-jf.Il 2 i

plPE FABRICATION 01 VISION panyQ ggsp; A ATION 111$ GILU AN STAEET u AMIETTA. CM 4$750 614 373 7548 8304080143 830304 PDR FOIA .. .

KINDERB2-524 PDR *

~--

t

-d{Mi. :.9sg:g; ; . , '

c

.:. 3, Y ,

y = -

h 4e- - ,

Yh .

.~

-> s~.

Mr. James G. Keppler, Director, Region III Page 2 Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 As a result of ,this incident, all the magnetic particle and dye penetrant examinations performed by that inspector on that date were re-examined. No rejectable indications were found.

During the next two (2) weeks, over 200 re-examinations were accomplished on vo.rk originally performed by the inspector in

, question. Four, (4) indications (1/16 inch long or less) were found in l stainless base material adjacent to welds. These would be acceptable under today's Code but are rejectable under the Code of record for - '

thatjob. Two (2) rejectable indicatins in carbon steel base material were found where fitting lugs had been ground off. A number of I rejectable indications were found in stainless velds attaching I

support plates to a pressure broundary. All of the indications found were minor surface defects. -

4. FACILITY IDENTIFICATION We have shipp'ed piping subassenblies to the following facilities in j 1

the past six (6) months.

, )

t UTILITY ARCFITECT EFGR. STATION l Kansas Gas & Electric Co. Bechtel Power Corp. Folf Creek Kansas City P & L Co. Gen. Station  !

Unit # 1 l

Union Electric Cdnpany Bechtel Power Corp. C.411away Gen.

Station Unit #1 Long Island Lighting Co. Stone & Webster Shoreham Unit.# 1 ' '

Detroit Edison Detroit Edison Fermi # 2 Public Service Elec. & Cas Bechtel Power Corp. Hore Creek Cen. '

Station

, Public Service Co. of NH UEEC Seabrook Nuclear

Station Units # 1 and # 2

==

~~.

l

J'_% . .1*? %Q. . _ =

,D.$$ic-t[

~. :EO5$F ' '

. :..,3.. ".I-T..s .

[kT .

_m I'~

Mr. James G. Keppler, Director, Region III Page 3 Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137' UTILITY ARCHITECT EMCR. STATION Carolina Power & Light UE&C .Erunswick Steam Elec. Plant Units f 1 and i 2 Iowa Elec. Light & Power Iowa Elec. Light Duane Aronid

& Power . Energy Center

5. DATE DISCOVERED Inspector was found not performing to the procedure on December 30, 1980. We have not yet fully evaluated the extent of the problem.

6. OTHER COMPONENTS WITE IDENTICAL DEFECTS See list of facilities in f 4 above. No problems are known to exist in fabrications shipped to these sites from our plant.

l

' . 7. CORP.ECTI"E ACTION A. Provisions shall be added to our inspection procedures to require our Chief Inspector (SNT-TC-1A - Level III) to monitor the work of each inspector once each week. Records shall be maintained to attest to this surveillance.

B. All accessible surfaces in Class 1 fabrications which were originally mag particle or dye penetrant inspected by the inspector in question will be re-examined prior to shipment to

, the job site.

8. NOTIFICATION GIVEN TO PURCHASER OR LICENSEE A detailed report of our investigation and findings will be sent to the parties with whom we have a contractual relationship for the nuclear sites listed in item four (4) above by the week ending January 30, 1981.

1

. .w . e m e .

--. -. - ,n -

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

i

. .. . . . ... - .. - -- - ~ ' ~~ ~

. . ? " g~ f 7

-7._l$ syn . .

. :. $~cYb ,

.fihf Mr. James G. Keppler, Director, Region III Page.4 Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regualtory Comission 799 Roosevelt Road ll

, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

! We do not know of any defective material shipped to any job site because of

! this incident. In addition, although some indications found during re-examination were greater than the acceptance standards would permit, none

' of the indications were the result of serious defects in the welds or base.

materiil and it is our opinion that, if the defects had not been removed, they would not have affected the safety or reliability of the fabrication.

These two (2) conditions would eliminate the necessity of reporting this matter under 10 CFR Part 21. However, in the opinion of several of the recipients of our fabrication, it is a reportable incident and thus the reason for this letter.

Respectfully, ,

DRAVO CORPORATION

['

d u cw= W l  % wssarz ~yui W M.

l Gustav Schwab Vice President and General Manager Pipe Fabrication Division WAM/blw (Submitted in Quintuplicate) .

cc: Mr. Victor Stello Jr., Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccm ission Washington, D. C. 20555 O.

m e

. *~..

, --. s

Rnferenca (2) 1

~

rogy asoo - Attschment to SBU-43465 I MEMORANDUM hmited engineersa-~

' 0- 9763.006 OFFICE: Philadelphia D EPT. NDE - Quality. Service DATE: March 3,1981 To: D.E. McCarrigan 14U7 Coescs: BB Scott 14U6 EW Sulek 14U7 NDE File 14U7

_ *

• QA File 14U6 J.A. Werner 14U7 l

Sua>ccT: Public Service Company of New Hampshire Seabrook Station - Units 1 and 2 -

Magnetic Particle and Liquid Penetrant Reexamination of Circumferential Welds (Seabrook Site).

Initially performed by Homer F. Shankland (Dravo)

Magnetic particle and liquid penetrant reexamination was performed by Pullman-Higgins certified NDE Level II personnel from 2/9/81 thru 2/23/81.

Witnessed by UE&C NDE test . examiners D. Reinert and J. Werner.

The following Pullman-Higgins procedures were utilized to perform reexamination. - -

Magnetic Particle IX-MT-3-W77

'Rev. 01 dated 1/6/81 Liquid Penetrant II-PT-1-W77 l .Rev. 03, dated 10/30/80 l

.A total of 16 indications were recorded during reexamination of which 15 are surface base metal linear indications and I weld crater. See attached Pullman-Higgins reports and , sketches for reported type indication, spool pieces and weld locations. .

Note: Initial Pullman-Higgins reexamination on spool number E2936-298 indicated on veld C or D a linear surface indication hpving a crack like appearance. An additonal examination was requested by UE&C Level III examiner J. Werner of all . welds on spools E2936-298 and E2936-297. The examination did not duplicate the reported indication.

Magnetic Particle The yoke used for reexamination was a Parker hand contour probe.

Calibration was performed prior to examination in accordance with ASME Section V, Article 7, para. 752.3. Adequacy and direction of,the magnetic rarticle field was confirmed by use of "a magnetic particle field indicator.

The examination was carried out in two separate directions approximately perpendicular to each other and sufficient overlap to assure 100% coverage.

. - l, N

• D.E. McGarrigen Herch 3, 1981 ,

is c ,

Magnetic particle reexamination performed'on 29 spools consisting of l 75 circumferential welds revealed a total of 15 relevant indications. [

i Liquid Penetrant The liquid penetrant reexamination was carried out below 600F which i is required by ASME Section V, Article'6, however, Pullman-Higgins requalified the procedure to 400 F in accordance with ASME Section V, Article 6, para. T-663.

The temperature ranged from 50 to 550 F during reexamination. ,

Liquid penetrant reexamination performed on 23 spools consisting of 86 circumferential welds revealed a total of 1 relevant indication.

e w rner I

• s

• I b

e.r g

. JAW /Et a

o a m .-e.

ronM 3xb RefGrsnes (3)

MEMORANDUM Attcchment to SBU- 43465

. hmitedengineersa 6 No. 9763.006 OFFICE: Philadelphia '/ ie'J 6912A Den. NDE - Quality Service DaTE: March 23,1981/ File: 11.7.7 To: D.E. McGarrigan 14U7 Co.= cs: JB Silverwood/RH Leonard 14US BB Scott 14US GF Cole 06UO JF Vought Site FnoM: J.A. Werner 14U7 JR Dmytryk 12U4

. JJ Parisano 06US DC Lambert Site RC Lesnefsky 14U6 EW Sulek 14U7 QA File 14US No Response Required

SUBJECT:

Public Service Company of New Hampshire Seabrook Station - Units 1 and 2 Inspection of Piping at Seabrook to evaluate indications revealed by re-examination of circumferential weld areas (Shankland)

Re-examination and removal of reportable indications was performed at Seabrook site from 3/12/81 to 3/17/81. The magnetic particle and liquid penetrant examination was performed by C. Wilkins, Pullman-Higgins NDE Level II.

The NDE examination and indication removal was witnessed by UE&C R. Swift NDE k Level II and J. Werner NDE Level III.

Each reported indication was re-examined to confirm location prior to removal by grinding. As grinding proceeded random ultrasonic thickness measurements were performed to prevent violation of minimal vall thickness requirements. All of the indications reported by UE&C Nonconformance Report No. 860 were removed (see note below). Of the indications removed, the base metal was above minimal wall thickness requirements. The area surrounding the removed indications were blended to prevent sharp transition of base metal thickness as per JS-II-14.

, Prior to removal of the indications, the indications were in excess of the l acceptance standards and regarded as defects which were to be re-examined to verify whether actual defects exist. The indications as witnessed during removal were shallow in depth and considered to be nonrelevant indications.

Note: Spool E-2936-297 was reported by Pullman-Higgins to have a reportable indication located in weld. All welds on spools E-2936-297 and E-2936-298 were re-examined and the indications could not be duplicated.

The wall thickness measurements are recorded below of the 15 indications removed from 11 spools. ,

Minimal Wall Nominal Wall Actual Wall Thickness After Removal E-2936-321 .?if .375 .441 .411 E-2936-371 .3?F .375 .531 .500 E-2936-374 .328 .375 .550 .484

D.E. McGarrigan March 23, 1981 Minimal Wall Nominal Wall Actual Wall Thickness After Removal E-2936-380 .328 .375 .375 .353 381 .328 .375 .551 .449 416 .320 .365 .380 .351 816 .245 .280 .285 .261 1047 .328 .375 . .393 .368 1079 .189 .216 .239 .235 215 - No cavity created weld blended to base metal 287 - Crater in weld removed and blended.

E-2936-297 - Original indication could not be duplicated.

.A. Werner

/

JAW /Et a

I l

' ~

- . _. ___. . _ - ___l =. . .

(

(,.

Rafsrgnes (4) '.N .,v.', y tr A

,- Attechment to SBU- 43565 s S MR I1 '81 Fy. Cab',

e

~

, / 9 CC 3 DYBVO l' '

• 13 M&k,.. , _

Gd '. OI/A March 5, 1981 gj d, 3~~5D United Engineers and Contrudtors g)tt, *,

30 South 17th. Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dg.g ,g,w I'It '

RysvP.an-16*l ,

Attention Mr. E. H. Case

• JP>S###

g,p, pct.:236co *s tv ']

Subject:

Inspection Problem Ecport (E2936 thru E2939, E2954 and E3098)

Centlemen:

With our letter of January 26, 1981, you received a report of a problem concerning Dravo Inspector Homer Shankland. This letter

. constitutes an update on that report and. proposes that no further action is required concerning this matter.

Since the date of that report (January 23, 1981), we have reexamined at our facility a total of 1060 items - an item being an examination previously performed by Shankland on piping subassemblies fabricated for nuclear facilities. These d'9 reexaminations have been generally (but not 100%) observed by our .Y ANI, Chief Inspector or Resident Inspectors. In addition, at a f nuclear field site to which we shipped fabrication, reexamination gM ,

has been performed on 161 carbon steel and stainless pressure retaining welds previously examined by Shankland. /.[ ,-

To date, we have a historv of the reer==ination ord191 items which were initially examined by Shankland during the last four (4) -

hp\ [l

~

months of 1980. These reexaminations revealed no rejectable in pressure retaining welds _ and nothEg but minor indications defects in nonE ressure retainine velas and base material. It is gg-[ .

therefora our conclusion that some non-destructive examinations a were conducted not in strict accordance with our procedures but were conducted in such a manner that no iniurious de fects would have remained undetected. It is also our conclusion that although l some indications found were trester than the acceptance standards i

would permit, none of the indications were the results of defects in velds or base material which, if they had remained undetected, would have affected the safety or reliability of the fabrications.

We feel that sufficient e vider.ce exists, as detailed below, to support these conclusic,nt. In the 1221 items reexamined, phe following indications were found:

t PIPE FABRICATION DIVISION ORAYo CORPORATION 1115 GILMAN STREET MARIETTA.oM 45750 814 373-7541

~_______

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

t United Engineers and Contructors Page 2 30 South 17th. Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 A. In Pressure Retaining Welds: . .

Two (2) indications, 1/4" and 5/16" long, were found ,

in separate automatic welds. Both of- these indications were across the weld and located where the weld stop had been ground. The indications were the result of incomplete removal of the automatic weld stop and are considered non-relevant. Additional light grinding to remove all of the stop removed the indication.

B. ' In Attachment Welds:

One tack weld on four (4) code plates was found not fused to the code plate. The three (3) other tack welds on each plate were' acceptable.

Indications were found in y org7 velds attaching 1" i stainless support plates to a pressure boundary. It was the discovery of these indications and the explanation by Shankland that led us to the conclusion that, although he may not always have followed our '

procedure, he was experienced enough to conduct the

! testing in such a manner so that no serious defects would remain undisclosed. For instance, in performing a liquid penetrant examination, after proper application of dye and developer, any unacceptable indications were marked and the areas ground to remove the defects. To determine if the defects had been removed, rather than clean the weld, apply the red dye and clean before spraying with the developer, the developer alone was used. It is a fact that any surface defect, other than the most shallow, will again bleed and be revealed on the developer. What may have happened, although ~ denied by Shankland, was that the second application of developer on a weld was used as a final examination and some shallow defects were not revealed. It can be seen that using this sequence of events would not permit a serious defect to go undetected. All of the indications found og the support plate welds were in this category.

O 6

0 e

~ * * , . . .._ , ,

1 1

( c United Engineers and Contructors Page 3 ,

30 South 17th. Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 .

C. In Base Materials There were 24 base material indications found during l

the reexamination of class 2 and 3 welds. The Code would require evaluation of these indications using the acceptance standards for surface imperfections

• from the material specification. These indications were evaluated and judged acceptable during the l

! reexamination. Shankland states that this is what he did during the initial examination.

Indications were found in two (2) areas adjacent to welds where temporary attachments had been removed.

These areas had been ground and the indications could have ; been interpreted as non relevant grind marks considerinF the actual depth of the indications which was determined after removal.

( It must be noted that all of the magnetic particle indications found during reexamination (with the exception of those found in backing rings discussed in Paragraph D below) would have been revealed by the prod or yoke utilized in one direction at 45 degrees to the veld. It was the use of this technique by

• Shankland that necessitated this investigation.

l

! D. In Welds in Backing Rings: ,

Backing rings on a particular system were required to be welded across the split to form a solid ring which was inserted into the pipe at field welds. The welds in these rings'were to be MP examined. Of the welds reexamined, seven (7) presented indistinct, non-typical indications. Further evaluation of these areas to determine the exact nature of the possible defect causing the indication was performed by radiography (not contract requirement). This radiograph revealed a broad subsurface defect. The indications caused by these defects could easily have -

(

been overlooked at initial examination. e 1 .

O l

l l

• t'w' N g-,m.--y--p- -

~~

O I

i

(

United Engineers and Contructors Page 4 30 South 17th. Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Considering the type , size and location of the indications found to date, Dravo can see no need to continue to reexamine work performed by Shankland. Further effort of this nature would only serve to further substantiate the conclusions presently drawn. We therefore cannot authorize the expenditure of money after this date to further investigate this problem. .

We request that you instruct your inspection personnel in our shop that there is no restriction on shipping fabrications examined by l

Shankland. This action on your part will prevent further delay in

• shipping material against subject orders.Very truly yours, DRAVO CORPOPATION

Pipe Fabrication Division

$Y .

l' W. A. Molvie Manager - Quality Assurance & -

Technical Services .

f I WAM/b1w O

9 8 e t

9' G

e

i UNITto STAtts NUCLEAR REoWLAfoRV ComusAStoes FORM NRC 766 INF.PECTION 8: ENFORCEMENT - STATISTICAL DATA F EBRU ARY 1878 IMC 05358 #

PRINCIPAL INSPECTOR NM#

, FACILITY NAME M4J4AFf / INSPECTOR (S) idA 3418W J sfumeda . REVIEWER L ICENSEENENDOR Al/s*m S*AF/o# MM REGION (Al REPORT NO. DATES aNQnNvEST/INSP TRANS- DOCKET hum 8ER FROM CONDUCTING g 18 7' ACTIVITY ACTION y TYPE icilol6 lals la lil loisle lela l4l*l is i8 M M D D v Y T AE 'cagg OR LICENSE NO. (8Y PRODUCT) l l l l l TO /

14 25 30 Oo"'" 2 unle 14 li le 18 H I

$C., IIIIIIIIIIIIII M M D D Y Y INSPECTION PE RFORMED SYt_

F 3 O PERFORMANCE APPRAISALTEAM TYPE OF ACTIVITY CONDUCTED (CHECK ONE 80x ONLY) INSPECTION OTHER 3334 13 O IMPORT 14 0 lNOUIRY 050 MANAGEMENT AUDIT 08 0 M ATL ACCT.

G 10 0 PLANT SEC.

I 15 0 INVESTIGATION 02 FETY 06 O M AN AGEMENT VISIT l gis eNvesT. AL30 CHECK 07 O SPECIAL II O INVENT. VERIF.

INCIDENT 12 O SHIPMENT / EXPORT g eLoCKsi 04 O ENFORCEMENT 080 VENDOR 10 ANNOUNCED 2pUNANNOUNCED INSPECTtON OR INVESTIG ATION WARNING!

H /

35 3 O WEEKENQ/ HOLIDAY SPECTION SHIFT: 1 OAY SHIFT 2OOFFSHIFT INSPECTION /INVES*1GATION NOTIFICATION (CHECK ONE 80x ONLYi J 37 3 0 REFERRED TO HOS FOR ACTION 4 0 REGION LETTER & HOS FOR ACTION 10591 2 REGIONAL OFFICT LETTER INSPECTION /INVE'STIGATION FINDINGS ICHECK ONE 80x ONLYl K 30 DEVIATlON 4 O NONCOMPLIANCE 86 DEVI ATION 1[ CLEAR 2 O NONCOMPLI ANCE L ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE HELD: 1039 40 4i Nota: Cuahoe Must sa sueuiTTwo M oss 7se wnsmeven ensviousLv NUMBER OF NONCOMPLIANCE ITEMS IN LETTER TO LICENSEE: b CITEo ITsu or MossComPuANCE is opscaLLY ontstto anom N NUMBER OF DEVIATION ITEMS IN LETTER TO LICENSEE: Tus macono.

44 45 O NUMBER OF LICENSEE EVENTS l 4--p 46 INSPECTION FEE 3 0 ROUTfNE IFwl 4 0 ROUTINE (Fee Reduesd) 2 O ROUTINE (No Feel 1 O NON ROUTINE / VENDOR INo Feel O DT YES 47 CONTENTS 2.7900 INFORMATION REGIONAL OFFICE LETTER OR REPORT TR ANSMITTAL DATE FOR INSPECTION OR INVESTIGATION IMMEDIATE ACTION LETTER REPORT SENT TO HOS FOR ACTION 60 OATE 66 g 591 OR LETTER ISSUED TO LICENSEE 54 59 48 53 l l l l l l l IIIl l l l IIIIl l l M M O O V Y MM D D Y Y M M D D Y Y SUSJECT OF INVESTIGATION ICHECK ONE 80X ONLYI 84 47 MISC.

10 CFR 20 403 TYPE 8 10 CFR 20 405 TYPE A ,

21O EOulP. FAILURE 16 O CRITICALITY 01 O INTE RN AL OVEREXPOSURE 06 0 11 O INT. OVEREXPOSURE 220 ALLEGATION /

12 0 EXT. OVEREXPOSURE 16 O LOSS / THEFT O2 O EXTERNAL OVEREXPOSURE 07 0 COMPLAINT 17 O MUF S 03 0 RELEASE TO UNREST. AREA 08 0 13 O EXCESS MAD. LEVELS 230 PUSLICINTEREST 14 O EXCESS CONC. LEVELS 18 O TRANSPORTATION 04 O LOSS OF FACILITY 09 0 240 SA80TAGE la O CONTAM/ LEAKING 05 D PROPERTY DAMAGE 10 0 250 A8NORMALOCCUR.

SOURCE 20 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVENT 260 OTHER HEA00VARTERS ENTRIES y HOS ACTION ON INSP/lNVEST REFERRED BY REGION:

ts., news L.: ser Ceew l l l 70 75 l

- NOTE: SLOCKS K TO N MUST BE 11 DATE HOS ENFOSCEMENT LETTER. NOTICE. ORDER ISSUED: l l l l l l l VERIFIED BY IE:HOS M M D D Y Y WHENEVER ENTRIES ARE

- yg MADE IN BLOCKS T.U g ANDV V CIVIL PEN ALTY ISSUED: T7 80

-'- 1IIII y y y y AITS

REFERENCE:

W DATE 7 ENTERED INTO COMPUTER FILE (MO/YR):

.