ML20129A501
| ML20129A501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1977 |
| From: | Runyan J M.W. KELLOGG CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129A429 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-745 NUDOCS 8506040629 | |
| Download: ML20129A501 (5) | |
Text
.
'* e o
A DIABLO CANTON NOCLEAR FROJECT J03# 7177 SPEC.# 8711 QJALITf ASSUR.ufCI RIPORT OF DOCU)CDT.ATION AND RADICGRAPHIC FILM RETIZ'J
( REF. D.R. 3370)
O THE M. 'J.
?" ? OGG COMP.MiY A C '. 31'sC3, CA.
PRZPARED BT: 9!#-s~
J. F. RUNYAN FIELD q.A./Q.C. FANAGER
.dl22l77 Ds!z 8506040629 B41211 PDR FDIA DEVINE84-745 PDR s..
j
'.**,e
\\
45&I.ITY ASSURANCE RZPORT r.
OF DOCUMENTATION AND BADIOGIAFEIC FII.M RZY1N 1
GIF. D.R. 3370) bat 23 To perform a comprehensive review of radiographic film and documentation related to field weld 212 and other similar eelds.
E9E To review the weld procedure, welder qualification records, heat treatment records, material certifications, nondestructive examination personnel qualification and N.D.E. results of the above mentioned welds.
DISCUSSION Because of the crack in F.W. 212 it was determined that a complete review of the history of the veld, incloding inspection and tests records, was la order. 2n addition, other welds of the same configuration and material combination should be reviewed to determine, if possible, if there exists a generic type problem. D e rossit of that review is as follows.
'V.
vux.D ns m T n m s Field weld 212 was fit-up and tack welded on Friday May 18, 1974.
On Monday May 21, 1974 the tack welds and insert were removed. A new insert was installed on May 22, 1974 It is not documented as to why the original insert was removed, however, discussions with field inspectors she were on site at the time indicate that surface rust may have occurred over the weekend and the insert was removed to reelean the weld prep and install a new insert prior to consuming the ring, j
The root pass uns made on May 22, and accepted visually May 23, 1974.
Welding proceeded following q.C. acceptance and was completed on May 24, 1974 De weld surface was ground and final visual inspection completed on May 28, 1974 Other than replacing the insert no unusual or out of the ordinary aireamstances were recorded.
FREREAT AND POSTEAT A review of the was preheated to 200, heat charts on F.W. 212 indicate that the weld area F. min. prior to tack welding and subsequent welding.
l The weld was preheated on May 22, 23, and 24. The heat was turned off at the end of each shift allowing the weld to cool.
w, i
e m D y, ~5 3 *) Q
' '...V.
~
/)O fi sea., M S U.
y 97
. c'
. >... --..... N
=/
/h/7 I Fero hrA TER ws%o A4..
VrELDen Firien ince.<t, 11 4 C00.LY.C
.6,6
/~ l NW 199 6.x ion-aeno_ m y_ g,y_(g.e
- c. 7/
w.r.snu
'P.9iY4.
.S C>
/~2 EW %11 1.R W.fmtw' Cno I_h!4 s,6 /~ 3 F h / 1 '1. 9
. S"l
$?
v1-Nrflur
'D0JV&--
$*.&.l*Y..
E.h!_.2 H.
& '?I eie
^
/.T37 W..eeou
- 3v_ns.El Er v34
. so
/A.//r.l" NFL/Al ]~FA/d k/Elb Ale.
LAJA4 DER Fi7764
/r.Apre?c C acu.2_c.
.16 i-i ftv wr 50 n
3.t.q sa91-
~g.a.13.9 A &
l-2.
eat.1.2 2
_si v. c,x s s-ei.s-i v.Q51?
L& I - S -
fhi 3 2.6 si v.c-X
- ?
.i$
~ +l oo_L17
.SuG 1 - 4 kw 342
-Si s c, x e8
' l
~
'- l EIv_.y;R-t rf se ai_e_.ae4.c
%rr..c. 's
'W 5x (vit.)_D.,1ws. - s~rm.Har.-.. _.926 - has n_nwsr.xo_.,.p!n/x'
\\ B &n) esrs.we rs.wewo_Ith/n. ?9/ S e w o.r iij.r/W =
~
1_ gra a n ac phe_>re reue_
~
chhc E-.(t&
etw a a
'oppt 1 13 H a nso~
yls/n f6 Mw r/nb J331
&FAp.e..S Uf?/Y/
!!!rj'?n S'M I?.u.n:w~
^
~
_9/r & a r r-
.97tt Hese'
- =- - y o -
- r..
Fo11owin2 ***pletion of the weld on May 24, the weld was allowed to
/%
cool and no further heating was performed until post weld heat treatment on June 24, 1974 Preheat and poet heat records from other welds of the same type indicate a similar history. NOTE: Other velds reviewed were the remaining three feedwater nossle to pipe and all four main steam nossie to pipe welds in Unit I and the main steam nossle to pipe welds in Unit II. The foodwater nossle to pipe welds era not welded in Unit II.
VrmING FROCEDURE AND WF"ER PERFORFANCE QUAI,mCATION RECOTGS Tield Weld 212 was made using veld procedure number 200. The procedure was reviewed to assure compliance with ASME iaction IX.
No deviations were noted. The results of the procedure qualification tests were evaluated. Included were bend test's, tension test's, and Charpy V Notch test's. All results were acceptable.
Welder-perfcrmance qualification records were reviewed. De records were in order and the welder was found to be properly qualified.
In addition, records of other velds performed by the same welder vera reviewed. It was determined that his performance record was good. There was no reason to suspect that welders capability or performance was below standard.
MATERIAL CERTIFICATIONS O
Material Cartifications of the veld meterial and pipe-side base asterial was reviewed for compliance with asterial specifications and job specifications, including supplementary requirements. All were found to be in compliance. D e nos=le base material certifications were not available for review by M.W. Kellogg.
NONDESUUCTTVE EXAMINATION PERSONNE
L. PROCEDURE
S AND REPORTS The originsi radiographs of F.W. 212 were reviewed. B ere was an area along the nossle side of the root with greater density than other areas of the weld. This area is typical of other similar welds. De higher density is causad by the nossle counterbore which is approximately
%" wide. Dere was no utdence of linear iodicacious in the area where the crack occurred.
Review of the radiographs of other similar welds did not show evidence of linear or crack-lika indications. However, the radiographs of F.W.197, which is the feedvater nossie to pipe weld on steam generator number 1-1, indicated a drop thru which appeared to have linearly oriented voids contained within the drop thru. There were two sets of radiographs of F.W.197. The reader eheet for one set listed the drop thru as acceptable. De other reader sheet accepted the weld but did not indicate that the drop thru was present.
~
L To assure the soundness of the weld it was determined that the drop I
thru should be removed. This was accomplished in accordance with D.R. 3370.
r Q,
(Attached) i h
l
To further assure that the film interpreter, which had accepted the p
weld with the drop thru without entering it on the reader sheet, had L
not everlooked other similar or unre serious indications, a complete re-view of all the film read by him was made. His qualification records were aise reviewed. The results are as follows, Mr. Een Beck was employed by the M.W. Kellogg Company from January 2, 1974 to March 28, 1975. Eis res mo and personnel records indicates he had sufficient past experience and training to qualify him as a Level II radiographer capable of film interpretstion. He completed M. W. Kellogg R.T. emans and was certified to Level II on August 9,1974.
A review of the films which were read by him indicated that he had reviewed and accepted film prior to August 9,1974 It is assumed that this was an administrative error. To assure that the film were properly interpreted and accepted by a qualified reader, all of Beck's film was re-interpreted.
In general, the findings revealed that he frequently did not record all indications on the reader sheet. We found that he had reviewed one hundred twenty-two (122) sets of fil:n, eight had indications which in our opinica should be repaired. These repairs will be performed as soon as the systems are made available. NOTE: Four of the repairs are in Unit I, Four are in matt II. To further confirm our findings, the Q.A. Manager and Level III N.D.E. a:saminer from our Paramount plant uns asked to review the film which we had reviewed. Eis review confirmed our interpretation, a copy of his report is attached.
In light of the fact that Beck had accepted welds with rejectable indications, it was determined that other film which had been accepted by other M.W. Kellogg interpreters should be reviewed.
Seven people, other than Beck, had reviewed film. Twenty sets of radiographs interpreted by each of the seven were selected randomly and reviewed. Of the one hundred forty (140) film reviewed no rejectable in-dications were noted. It was noted that occasionally acceptable minor indications were not recorded on the reader shcat. Ecwever all significant acceptable indications were apparently evaluated and recorded.
Other N.D.E. reports, (i.e. M.T. and F.T.) were reviewed and found acceptable. This included a review of personnel and procedura qualification records.
CONCLUSION It is the writers opinion tha. the review as recorded above has covered all potential areas for problems in valding, heat treatment and N.D.E.
related to the crack in 7.W. 212.
It revealed a discrepancy in the interpretation of radiographs which has been corrected. Procedures are in effect to prevent recurrance of similar problems.
O, Mo further action is anticipated at this time.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.