ML20137E254

Insp Rept 50-416/85-38 on 851021-25.Violation Noted:Person Inspecting Thermocouple Placement & Installation Was Same Person Performing Layout & Installation of Thermocouple

ML20137E254
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	11/21/1985
From:	Blake J, Coley J, Crowley B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137E221	List: ML20137E217 ML20137E226 ML20137E254
References
50-416-85-38, GL-84-11, NUDOCS 8511270227
Download: ML20137E254 (15)

See also: IR 05000416/1985038

Text

. _ _ - _ _ _

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

.

• pm #tr UNITED STATES

f ug'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

"

["

p REGION il

j 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.

E * ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

"A..../ .

Report No.: 50-416/85-38

Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company

l Jackson, MS 39205

( Docket No.: 50-416 License No.: .NPF-29

Facility Name: Grand Gulf

Inspection Conducted: October 21-25, 1985

Inspectors: A.M. b lA / / -d2 0-8f

B. R. N owley

QV Date Signed

% .Y Osrk ll- 2 045

J. ^M"

% Date Signed

Approved by: // // f

J. . flare, Section Chief Date Signed

E ipeering Branch

D vision of Reactor Safety

SUMMARY

Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 81 inspector-hours on site

in the areas of induction heat stress improvement (IHSI) and nondestructive

. examination (NDE) of recirculation system piping.

Results: One violation was identified - individuals performing inspection same

as those performing activity being inspected - paragraph 5.b.(3).

I

CD11270227 851122

PDH ADOCK 05000416

0 PDR

r

r

.

REPORT DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Licensee Employees

• J. E. Cross, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, General Manager

• C R. Hutchinson, Manager, Plant Maintenance

• R. F. Rogers, Technical Assistant to Station General Manager

• L. F. Daughtery, Compliance Superintendent

• B. C. Lee, Quality Assurance (QA) Supervisor - Audits

• R. S. Lewis, Materials Science Engineer - Nuclear Plant Engineering (NPE)

R. A. Courtney, Senior Quality Representative

D. D. Little, QA Representative

J. D. Bailey, Compliance Coordinator

C. M. Renfroe, Plant Outage Engineer

Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians,

mechanics, security force members, and office personnel.

Other Organizations

J. W. Self, Services Supervisor - Nuclear Plant Services, General Electric

(GE)

• E.P. Bailey,InserviceInspection(ISI)SiteManager,GE

T. Brinkman, Level III Examiner, GE

M. Taylor, Project Manager, Nutech Engineers, Inc. (Nutech)

R. H. Smith, QA Administrator, Nutech

R. A. Greer, Field QA Supervisor, Nutech

J. R. Sheffield, Shift Supervisor, Nutech

J. Brihmadesam, Metallurigist, Middle South Services

NRC Resident Inspectors

• R. C. Butcher, Senior Resident Inspector

J. L. Caldwell, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview

2. Exit Interview

The inspection scope and findings were sucnnarized on October 25, 1985, with

those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the

areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed

below. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.

After the completion of the inspection, the licensee identified a problem

with liquid penetrant (PT) indications on recirculation system loop "A" ring

cross. Seeparagraph5.b.(4).

F- .}

.

.

2

(0 pen) Violation 416/85-38-01, Individuals Performing Inspection Same As

Those Performing Activities Being Inspected - paragraph 5.b.(3).

The licensee identified as proprietary some of the materials provided to oc

reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection. However, proprietary

information reviewed is not discussed in this report.

3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters

This subject was not addressed in the inspection.

4. Unresolved Items

Unresolved items were not identified during the inspection.

5. Independent Inspection Effort

a. General Inspection (548348) (4?.9028) and (429408)

The inspectors conducted a general inspection of portions of the

reactor and auxiliary buildings to observe activities such as house-

keeping, material identification and control, and material storage.

b. Induction Heat Stress Improvement (IHSI) of Recirculation (RECIRC)

SystemWelds(55050)

In response to NRC letter dated July 27, 1983, relative to inter-

granular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC), the licensee issued letters

AECM-83/0481 dated August 17, 1983 and AECM-83-0667 dated October 14,

1983 providing:

-

A summary of materials and fabrication methods used for the

Recirculation (RECIRC) and Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Systems

- Mitigating techniques to be used for materials not conforming with

NUREG 0313 Revision 1, and schedule for completion of planned

techniques

- Justification for operation with materials not conforming to

NUREG-0313

- Preservice Inspections performed to serve as a baseline for

further identification of IGSCC

'

- Programs to be implemented for water chemistry to minimize IGSCC

In the letters, the licensee identified 24 welds that were considered

to contain nonconforming materials (NUREG 0313) and committed to

perform mitigating techniques on the 24 welds prior to startup

following the first refueling outage. All other welds in the RECIRC

and RHR systems were considered to contain conforming materials based

n --

[y y

, [l[ ' 4

7y  ;,

!

i

l>.i -

3

y on material type or fabrication technique ~ (corrosion resisting clad,-

1. bnnealing etc.). The-licensee later decided to use IHSI as the miti--

gating technique for the 24 welds and to perform the IHSI during the

' Fall 1985 r9aini.enance outage. Also, the licensee decided to perform

. IHSI on th'e Loop "A" and loop "B" cross caps since the caps were

^ furnace. stress relieved during fabrication. In addition, to the

.

c commitment to perform mitigation techniques, the licensee also

( comitted to perform Ultrasonic (UT) examination of the 24 welds prior >

to and after IHSI, (See Licensee letter AECM-84/0297 dated June 3, 1984

7 - Response to Generic Letter 84-11).

1. -During the' current outage, in addition to performing IHSI and pre and

.

Lpost IHSI UT, the licensee performed a new baseline UT inspection on a

portion :of the corrosion resistant clad (CRC) welds in the RECIRC

,

,

System. - The remainder of the CRC welds.will be inspected during the

/ .. first refueling' outage. The reason'for establishing a new baseline on

'

'the CRC welds is that the. original baseline was performed using the 45

'

shear wave UT - technique. Technology developed after the. orignial

f . baseline revealed that 'for stainless steel weld materials, the -60'

• 3~ longitudinal wave technique provides a far superior inspection to the-

, shear. wave technique. Therefore, the licensee decided to establish a

, -- new-biseline using the " state of the art" (Longitudinal) technique.

See paragraph 6 below for details of the observations and reviews made

.' '

'by the inspectors relative to the current (IHSI and CRC) UT examina-

tions.

,The inspectors performed observation / review of IHSI- activities as

detailed below. The work was being controlled in accordance with MP&L

' Design Change Pukage (DCP) 84/4000, Revision 1. " Induction Heating

, - Stress Improvement (IHSI) of Reactor Recirculation System Welded Piping

Components". In accordance with the DCP, the applicable code is the

1 ASME Boiler and Pressure lessel Code,Section XI,1977 Edition, S79

"

, Addenda. Nutech Engineers Inc. is the contractor for the IHSI.

- . ,,(1) Procedure Review

U

,. In addition to' the .DCP, the inspectors reviewed the following

documents relative to the IHSI:

'

- MP&L Maintenance Work Order (MWO) F55837, " Perform IHSI On

Reactor RECIRC Welds" including WI&IR's

- Nutech Procedure XML-03-005, Revision 3, " Procedure For

Induction Heating Stress Improvement - Grand Gulf Unit 1

i I

Nuclear Power Station"

i 'T - . Selected Sections of the Nutech " Quality Assurance Manual"

'

were reviewed

d

b

1

,

- _ -

e

..

4

(2) Observation of Work Activities and Review of Quality Records

The inspectors performed the following observations / reviews and

compared the results with applicable procedures:

'

- Weld W33' - observed test heat inprocess, checked equipment

calibration stickers,. and reviewed training.and calibration

records for power supply operator

- Weld G10-Al-E - Observed thermocouple (T/C) layout of

installed T/C's prior to heating and reviewed in-process IHSI

Weld Package

.

- XCAP-A - Observed T/C layout of installed T/C's prior to

heating and reviewed in-process IHSI Weld Package

- Weld W11 - Observed location of T/C's and Coil prior to

heating and reviewed in-process IHSI Weld Package

- Weld G10-Al-D - Observed layout of installed T/C's and

reviewed in-process IHSI Weld Package

-

Weld G10-B1-C - Visually examined T/C removal areas

>

1 Weld G10-B1-E - Observed in-process attachment and location

of T/C's and reviewed training and certification records for

personnel (ttachingT/C's

'

- I - Weld .G10-01-B - Observed visual (VT) and liquid penetrant s x

(PT)- inspections of T/C removal areas (See paragraph 7 for

details of PT inspection). In addition completed IHSI Weld .

1 Package ihcluding TC. strip charts was reviewed.

,

,

o

-

Weld G10-B1-A - Observed VT and PT of TC removal areas (sed

paragraph 7 below). In addition completed IHSI Wold Package'

including TC strip charts was reviewed.

Weld W34,- Observed VT and PT. of TC removal areas (see

'

-

'

x paragraph' 7 below). In addition completed IHSI Weld Package

inc\uding T/C strith charts and training and certification

records for power supply operator were reviewed.

<t n

-

Weld W29 - Observed test heat activities

N*N *

-

x

Weld W10 - Observed test heat and regular heat, reviewed

in-process and completed IHSI Weld Package, and reviewed -

training and certification records for power supply operator.

L

- Weld W27 - Reviewed completed..IHSI Weld Package including T/C

'

i strip charts'

l

E

x ,

, _ . , - - .

T

-

.

5

- Weld GG1-15 - Reviewed completed IHSI Weld Package

- Weld W30 - Reviewed completed IHSI Weld Package

(3) During the above observations / reviews, the inspectors noted that

for the majority of records reviewed, the person who inspected T/C

placement and installation was the same person who performed

layout and installation of the T/C. This is contrary to paragraph

10.1.2 of section 10 of the Nutech QA Manual which requires that,

" Inspection personnel shall be individuals other than those who

performed or directly supervised the activity being inspected and

they shall not report directly to the immediate supervisors who

are responsible for the activity being inspected". This failure

to follow the inspection program is in violation of 10 CFR 50,

Appendix B, criterion X and is identified as item number

y 416/85-38-01, Individuals Performing Inspection Same As Those

Performing Activities Being Inspected. The inspectors noted that

all activities other than T/C location and installation were being

independently inspected. . In addition, Nutech QA was performing

independent surveillances of all activities including T/C location

and installation. Also, MP&L placed MP&L QC hold points on a

random number of welds for inspection of T/C location and

installation. Therefore, based on the above program and the

inspector's. observations, it appears that T/C's were being located

and installed correctly.

Upon identification of the above violation, Nutech took immediate

corrective' action by issuing NCR number XML-03-002 and revising

procedure XML-03-005 to specifically delineate the personnel

authorized to perform inspections.

(4) During the week of October 28, 1985, while performing liquid

penetrant (PT) inspection of thermocouple removal areas after

induction heat stress improvement (IHSI) of selected recirculation

systems welds, numerous PT indications'were found on the "A" loop

,*

ring header cross. The indications were located in a seven-inch

circumferential band below the cross-to-cap weld and a 6" circum-

x ferential band above the cross-to-discharge pipe weld. In both

cases, the indications were random in orientation, up to 3/4" in

3 length (except for one 3-1/2" indication), approximately 1/4" in

'

depth and located in the heavy section of the cross. Identical

, indications were found in a spare unit 2 cross which was used for

S

IHSI procedure development. The original indication bands

appeared to correspond to the areas of overlap of the IHSI coils

9 a' 'g for the Unit 1 "A" cross and the Unit 2 cross. After identifying

the. problem, the licensee initiated various analysis and tests to

identify the nature of the discontinuities causing the PT indica-

tions. . The inspectors monitored licensee activities relative to

the problem through telephone contact with licensee personnel and

the resident inspectors. In addition a sample of the Unit 2

m

ts  %

e

.

.

6

material was obtained by RII for an independent analysis to be

completed later,

c. Indications in Main Steam Bypass Pipe

See RII Reports 50-416/84-38 and 50-416/85-19 for a discussion of the

previous history and background of this problem. As a result of MT and

UT indications found in line "A" in May, 1985 (See RII Report

50-416/85-19), line "A" has been isolated since that time. During the

current outage, the licensee removed a representative " Boat" sample

from an indication area in line "A" for metallurgical analysis. During

the current inspection, the inspector discussed the metallurgical

analysis results with the Middle South Services Metallurgist and

reviewed photomicrographs from the " Boat" sample. Based on the

metallurgical analysis, the licensee and Middle South Services

Metallurgist concluded that the MT indications found in line "A" in

May,1985 were caused by shallow aluminum oxide inclusions which are

normal for the type material, and have no relation to previous bypass

line failures. The photomicrographs reviewed support this c~1clusion.

In general, these type inclusions are of no significance.

Within the areas inspected, no violations, except as noted in para-

graph 5.b., or deviations were identified.

6. Nondestructive Examination (NDE) of Recirculation (RECIRC) System Piping

On April 19, 1984, NRC issued Generic Letter 84-11 to all licensees of

operating reactors, applicants for operating license, and holders of

construction permits for boiling water reactors. This letter addressed a

problem that had been identified in inspections conducted at several boiling

water reactors (BWRs) wherein intergranular stress corrosion cracking

(IGSCC) in large diameter recirculation and residual heat removal piping had

been revealed. These inspections were conducted pursuant to IE Bulletins

82-03, Revision 1, and 83-02 and the NRC August 26, 1983 orders. The letter

expressed the Commission's opinion that the results of the above inspections

mandated an ongoing program for similar reinspection at all operating BWRs.

The Generic Letter also described those actions which licensees should take

to provide an acceptable response to the IGSCC concern.

Mississippi Power and Light Company's (MP&L) letter of response to Generic

Letter 84-11, dated June 3, 1984, was reviewed by Region II. In this letter

MP&L identified twenty-four (24) welds in the recirculation system that were

nonmitigated and susceptible to intergranular stress corrosion cracking

(IGSCC). The susceptible welds were scheduled to receive induction heat

stress improvement (IHSI, see paragraph 5) during the first refueling

outage. Ultrasonic (UT) examinations for the detection of IGSCC were to be

performed on these welds iruediately before and as soon as practical after

the performance of the IHs1 measures. General Electric (GE) Apparatus and

.

.

7

Engineering Services were selected as the vendor to perform the UT examina-

tions using manual A scan instruments prior to IHSI and the enhanced ultra-

'

image automated equipment commonly referred to as the " SMART" System for UT

examinations performed after IHSI.

The applicable codes, regulatory requirements and licensee commitments for

the examinations were the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (B&PV), Sections V and XI (77S79), the

Coordination Plan between NRC, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),

and the Boiling Water Reactors Owners Group (BWROG) for Training and

Qualification Activities of NDE Personnel", and Code Case N335.

a. ReviewofProcedures(730528)

The inspectors reviewed GE procedures pertaining to the UT examination

of stainless steel for IGSCC to ascertain whether these procedures were

consistent with regulatory requirements and licensee commitments. The

following procedures were reviewed:

- Procedure No. UT1.43, Procedure for Ultrasonic Examination of Pipe

Welds Using Automatic Equipment

- Procedure No. UT1.30, Procedure for Ultrasonic Examination of

Austenic Metal Welds for IGSCC

- Procedure No. UT-46, Procedure for Ultrasonic Examination of

Recirculation Piping Caps for IGSCC

- Procedure .No. UT1.20.3, Procedure for Ultrasonic Examination of

CRC Welds for Middle South Energy, INC., Mississippi Power and

Light Company Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1

The above procedures were ' reviewed to determine if the following

procedure elements were properly implemented:

- The type of apparatus to be used including frequency range,

linearity, and signal attenuation accuracy requirements were

specified.

-

The extent of coverage (beam angles, scanning surface, scanning

rate and directions) and methods of scanning were specified and

consistent with the ASME Code.

- Calibration requirements, methods, and frequency including type,

size, geometry, and material of calibration blocks as well as

location and size of calibration reflectors within the block were

clearly specified and consistent with the applicable ASME Code.

-

The sizes and frequencies of search units were specified and

consistent with the ASME Code, Code Case N335, and had been

demonstrated on qualification specimens at EPRI, NDE Center.

'

.

8

-

Beam angle or angles were specified and consistent with the ASME

Code, Code Case N335 and had been demonstrated on qualification

. specimens at EPRI, NDE Center.

-

Methods of compensation for the distance traversed by the ultra-

sonic beam as it passes through the material were specified and

consistent with the ASME Code.

-

The reference level for monitcring discontinuities was defined and

the scanning gain setting specified. These values met or exceeded

the ASME Code.

-

Methods of demonstrating penetration were established.

-

Levels or limits for evaluation and recording of indications were

specified. These values met or exceede,i the ASME Code.

-

Methods of recording significant indications were established and

the reporting requirements were in accordance with requirements

established by the licensee.

-

Acceptance limits were specified or referenced and were in

accordance with the ASME Code,Section XI.

In addition to meeting the code requirements delineated above, 3 of the

GE procedures incorporated inspection parameters described in EPRI's

Module 17, Revision 1, " Generic Procedure for Detection and Discrimina-

tion of IGSCC." This module was utilized for GE's personnel qualifica-

tion at the EPRI NDE Center during September,1985. Procedure No.

1.20.3 did not follow the parameters described in EPRI Module 17.

However, this procedure did incorporate techniques recommended as a

result of EPRI research and was demonstrated for the Code inspector in

accordance with the ASME Code,Section XI, paragraph IWA-2240.

b. Observation of NDE Activities (73753)

The inspectors observed work activities and reviewed documentation to

ascertain whether personnel equipment and materials were properly

qualified and/or certified; approved NDE procedures were available and

were being followed; specified NDE equipment that had been qualified at

the EPRI NDE Ceiter during personnel and procedure qualifications was

being used; NDE personnel were knowledgeable of examination methods and

operation of the NDE equipment; NDE personnel with the-proper level of

qualification and certification were performing the various examination

activities including designation of NDE method / technique to be used, -

equipment calibration, examination, and interpretation / evaluation /

acceptance of test results. The following examinations / evaluations /

calibrations were observed by the inspectors in the evaluation of the

examination processes:

-

.

.

9

- GE demonstrated that their manual procedure calibration was as

documented in their completed examination test reports for RECIRC

-header end cap _ weld G10-Al-C.

- The GE Level III examiner was observed while he conducted evalua-

tions of UT indications / conditions discovered by the inspectors

(see paragraph 6.c below) during their independent re-examination

of RECIRC weld G10-Al-C.

- The inspector observed collection of data and evaluations

performed with the GE SMART System of Weld No.1833G001-W-33.

-

SMART system calibration for RECIRC Weld W-10 was observed.

The calibrations / examinations / evaluations delineated above were

observed to determine if the examination activities were consistent

with the approved procedures in the following areas;

-

The type of apparatus used, including frequency range as well as

linearity and signal attenuation accuracy.

- The extent of coverage (beam angles, scanning surface, scanning

rate and directions) as well as the scanning technique.

- Calibration, methods and frequency including the type, size,

geometry and material of identified calibration blocks as well as

location and size of calibration reflectors within the block were

clearly determined and recorded.

- The sizes and frequencies of search units.

- Beam angle or angles.

- Methods of compensation for the distance traversed by the ultra-

sonic beam as it passes through the material including distance -

amplitude correction -curves, electronic distance - amplitude

correction

- . The reference level for monitoring discontinuities was as defined

and the scanning gain setting was as specified.

-

Methods of demonstrating penetration.

- Levels or limits for evaluation and recording of indications.

- Method of recording significant indications.

- Acceptance limits were determined.

- The examination personnel were thoroughly familiar with the

inspection system, its application, operation and its limitations.

'

.

10

c. Independent Re-examination of Completed Work Activities

The inspectors conducted an independent verification re-examination of

RECIRC end cap weld No. G10-Al-C using region II ultrasonic equipment.

The examination was performed to evaluate the technical adequacy of the

GE procedure for this specific weld and to determine whether the GE

examiners had correctly implemented the procedure. The end cap weld

was chosen because GE had recorded an indication in this weld and it

was on the sixteen inch RECIRC header which GE identified to the

inspectors as being extremely difficult material to UT examine because

of its metallurgical structure.

As a result of the inspectors' calibration and examination of weld

G10-Al-C, the following findings were observed and presented to the

licensee to determine the basis of their evaluation.

(1) During calibration, the inspectors discovered that the transducer

they had selected would not calibrate to 7/8 node for 1/2 V-Path

examination or to 12/8 node position for full V-Path examinations

in accordance with the GE procedures. The apparent cause was

attributed to high material attenuation.

The inspectors were using a 3/8 x 3/8 inch x 1.5 mega hertz (MHZ)

send and receive transducer. This transducer was selected because

the inspectors were warned that the material was extremely noisy

and the 1.5 MHZ frequency should have optimized the examination.

In addition, the transducer was constructed so that the sound

exited the transducer wedge near the front of the transducer,

allowing greater 1/2 node coverage. As a result of the failure of

the inspector's transducer to establish a distance amplitude curve

in accordance with the GE procedure, the inspectors requested GE

to demonstrate that their transducer would set up as required by

procedure. GE performed their setup as requested and demonstrated

that their 3/8 inch diameter 2.25 MHZ transducer could detect the

7/8 node hole for 1/2 V-Path examinations. The GE 3/8 inch

diameter 2.25 MHZ would not set up on the 12/8 position, but the

inspectors were satisfied that if GE had used a 1.5 MHZ trans-

ducer, which GE also had qualified for these inspections, the 12/8

position would have been observed. As a result of the licensee's

decision to perform additional surface conditioning to welds in

the RECIRC system whose configuration prevented 1/2 V-Path examina-

tions, GE was not required to perform full V-Path examinations.

(2) The inspectors observed a counter bore signal when scanning the

end cap side of the weld. This signal and was observed approxi-

mately 360 around the end cap and straight beam examination of

the area verified the geometric condition. A review of the GE

data revealed that GE also identified this geometric indication.

(3) UT signals were observed at 12:00 o' clock from both sides of the

weld. These signals had not been recorded by GE. Scaffolding for

..

,

i 11

~_

this we'1d had been removed, the weld was ground smooth making the

toe of-the weld difficult to determine, and lighting was extremely

poor. The inspector requested that the licensee provide a ladder

and light. in the area so that an evaluation could be performed in

a satisfactory manner. This was accomplished the following day -

and GE's Level III accompanied the inspector to assist in deter-

mining the source of the UT signal indications. The evaluation

revealed that the. transducer had been positioned on the' weld and

that sound beam _ redirection was occurring as a result of the

dendritic structures in the weld. This condition was localized,

however, to a small area near the top of the weld. GE's Level III

also: recognized the condition and GE data collectors using the

" SMART" system later identified that they could accurately identi-

fy this phenomena. GE's examination procedure did not require

. metallurgical indications to be recorded.

(4)- The only difference between what GE had reported in this wald and

the results the inspectors obtained was one spot -indication

(approximately 31/2"- long) at 3:00 o' clock. The indication was

observed _ as exceeding 100% DAC and the inspector = plotted the

_

indication at the furthest extremity of the heat affected zone.

GE's' Level III examiner stated that this indication was in a

- border line area that was extremely noisy and that the initial

examiner'probably. had determined that it was caused by the met-

allurgical properties of the material. . The inspectors concurred

with GE's evaluation of the area. However, the inspectors _cau-

tioned the licensee that when an indication caused by any condi-:

tion is borderline, the indication should.be recorded to prevent

misinterpreted during subsequent examinations, .possibly resulting

in an expensive and unnecessary overlay weld repair. The licensee

and GE agreed and stated that in fact the indication would be

recorded 'on the subsequent automated system examination after

'IHSI.

.In summary, the inspectors independent examination challenged the GE

. procedure and the Level II evaluations. However, as a result of.this

-

challenge the inspectors were able to obtain a much greater level of

confidence than otherwise could be obtained in the NDE activities

='

performed at Grand Gulf.

d._ -Review of_NDE Records (737558).

The inspectors reviewed records associated with the qualification and

certification of personnel and equipment, examination results and data

sheets, calibration data sheets, weld profile data, examination evalua-

tion data, records on extent of examinations, records on disposition of

findings, re-examination data after IHSI and records identifying NDE

materials such as couplant and certified marking materials. The

records were reviewed in part to determine if personnel and equipment

' utilized by GE to perform the examinations had been qualified / certified

'in accordance with SNT-TC-1A and the most recent certification effort

.

12

administered by the EPRI NDE Center in accordance with the "Coordina-

tion Plan for NRC/EPRI/BWR0G Training and Qualification Activities of

NDE Personnel". The records were also reviewed to determine if the

data files were complete, technically adequate and within the previous-

ly established acceptance criteria.

Records for the following welds were reviewed:

Calibration

Weld Nos. Data Sheet Nos. Sheet Nos.

W-34 85-1004 85-1003

G10-B1-E 85-1005 85-1003

Cross Cap #A 85-1010 85-1009

Cross Cap #B 85-1011 85-1009

W-30 85-1013 85-1012

W-6 85-1014 85-1012

W-7 85-1015 85-1012

W-4 85-1017 85-1016

W-27 85-1018 85-1016

G10-B1-A 85-1020 85-1019

G10-B1-X 85-1021 85-1019

G10-B1-L 85-1022 85-1019

G10-Al-F 85-1034 85-1033

G5-81-A 85-1036 85-1035

W-28 85-1037 85-1035

W-10 85-1042 85-1041

G9-B1-B 85-1044 85-1043

During the review of the above records, the inspectors noted that

examiners who had been specifically certified to one transducer size,

frequency, and beam angle at EPRI were using a different diameter

transducer in the field. The licensee stated that their verbal in-

structions with the NRC-IE training coordinator and EPRI did not

establish the diameter of the transducer as a limiting factor. On

October 24, 1985, the inspectors and the licensee held a conference

call to -the EPRI NDE Center to discuss the matter of transducer dia-

meter with the NRC-IE Training Coordinator. The NRC IE training

Coordinator stated that the diameter of the transducer was not a

limiting qualification parameter for a transducer, but that frequency

and angle were qualification parameters. The NRC IE Training Co-

ordinator stated, however, that the inspectors should be satisfied that

the difference in transducer -diameters reflected good engineering

judgement (1/8 " difference) or the licensee should demonstate their

selection by comparing calibration distance amplitude curves (DAC) and

gain settings between the qualified transducer and the diameter of

transducer used. The inspectors review of calibration records between

the two diameter transducers in the same material and pipe sizes and

this review did not reveal any significant deviation between DAC

calibration.

~

.

13

Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.

7. Liquid Penetrant Examination (57060)

The inspector examined the liquid penetrant (PT) examination activities

described below to determine whether applicable code and regulatory require-

ments were being met. See paragraph 5 above for the applicable code.

a. :The inspectors observed in-process PT inspection on the IHSI T/C

removal areas for the following welds:

G10-B1-A

G10-B1-B

W34

The examinations were observed to verify that:

-

Applicable instructions or travelers clearly specified the proce-

dure to be used and that a copy of the procedure was available for

the inspection.

- Sequencing of examinations relative to other operations - were

specified and in accordance with applicable code and procedures.

-

Personnel performing the examinations were qualified.

-

Materials used for the examinations were certified and the certi-

fications met applicable requirements.

- Areas, locations and extent of examinations were clearly defined

- The following attributes were as specified in the applicable

procedure and consistent with applicable code:

(1 Surface preparation / cleaning method, type, time, etc

(2 Penetrant type

(3 Penetrant application method

(4) Penetration time

(5) Temperature of surfaces

6) Penetrant removal

7) Drying

8) Developer, application, type

(9) Developing time

(10) Evaluation technique

(11) Acceptance criteria

(12) Reporting of results

b. Personnel qualification / certifications records for NDE personnel who

performed the PT inspections of the welds listed in paragraphs a. above

were reviewed.

,

..

14

c. Material certification records for the below listed PT materials, used

to inspect the welds listed in paragraph a. above, were reviewed.

Remover - DR60 - Batch 431H4

' Penetrant - DP40 - Batch 41501-

Developer - D100 - Batch 45F6

Within the areas inspected, no' violations or deviations were identified.

.

_