IR 05000010/1977015
| ML20037B092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1977 |
| From: | Danielson D, Eric Lee NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037B085 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-77-15, 50-10-77-15, NUDOCS 8009030798 | |
| Download: ML20037B092 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{}
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENi
REGION III
_
Report No. 50-010/77-15 Docket No.50-010 License No. DPR-2 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection at: Dresden Site, Morris, IL Inspection conducted: June 21, 22, 27, 29; July 6 and 13, 1977 d1RS-ecYY~
/
Inspector.* : /g. W. K. Lee 7 /k 27 E
(date signed)
.
!7?tt uA't W t
Approved By: D. H. Danielson, Chief 7//f 72
-
Engineering Support Section (datd signed)
- I Inspection Summary Inspection on June 21, 22, 27, 29; July 6 and 13, 1977 (Report No. 50-010/77-15)
Areas Inspected:
ISI program; documents related to ISI; I:DE work activities; and participated in ISI " kick off" meeting. The inspection involved 39 onsite inspection-hours by one NRC inspector including six j
hours attending the health physic class.
.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were disclosed.
8000030
-
.
--
.
.--
- -.. - -. - -... - - -.. - -
-
,
.
DETAILS
-,
Pe rs ogon t a c t ed
-
Principal Licensee Employees
- B. Stephenson,' Station Superintendent B. Shelton, Administrative Assistant C. Sargent, Technical Staff Supervisor D. Maxwell, Technical Staff
- J. Kotowski, Technical Staff
- J. Bowers, Assistant Technical Staf f Supervisor
- D. Schildgen, Quality Assurance
- R.
Kyronac, Quality Control R. Merochna, Technical Staff The inspector also talked with and interviewed several licensee's con-tractor personnel and the Authorized Inspecter.
- denotes those attending the exit interview.
Functional or Procram Areas Inspected
.
1.
Review of ISI Program
_
The inspector reviewed Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) OA manual (in office review) and verified that 10 CFR 50, Appendix B require-ments applicable to ISI were met.
The inspector also reviewed the
.
Dresden 1, June 1977, ISI program to verify that the amended Techni-cal Specification, Dresden Special Report No. 45 (portion applicable to NDE, including request for relief) transmitted to NRR by CECO letter dated January 7, 1977, and the ASME Section XI requirements were met.
It was determined that the following icens are unresolved pending completion of review and acceptance by NRR of the request for relie,f stated in Dresden Special Report No. 45 and additional infor-mation submitted by the licensee:
a.
The ASME Section XI, 1971 edition requires that Category F (pressure containing dissimilar metal) welds be examined by volumetric, visual and surface methods. Contrary to the
'
above, the licensee was unable to perform volumetric examina-tion on three welds (I.D. Nos. B1-E, Al-E, and B27-E) out of the six welds scheduled to be examined during this outage due to l
the insulation standoff collars.
Relief from performing volum-l etric examination on the above three welds was requested by the l
licensee in the Dresden Special Report No. 45.
-2-j l
. ____
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_.
_ _ _.
.
.
.
.
-
b.
The ASME Section XI, 1971 edition requires that Category H (vessel external supports) welds be examinc.d by volumetric and visual methods. Contrary to the above, only visual examination
~
l was performed on the three celected steam drum hanger pads.
The pads were fillet welded to the steam drum hence meaningful ultrasonic examination can not be achieved. Relief from per-forming ultrasonic examination on the above was requested by the licensee in the Dresden Special Report No. 45.
T! gee secondary steam generator supports (A1, C1 and C2) and three emergency condenser supports (north, center and south)
were categorized as Category H and were visually examined.
Relief was requested for the secondary steam generator sup-ports because they are attached to the secondary side and hence it's an ASME Class 2 component. No relief was requested for the emergency condenser supports. Upon questioning the licensee relative t3 the emergency condenser supports, the inspector was informed that the emergency condenser is an ASME Class 2 component. The inspector stated that if the supports for the above 2 components are ASME Class 2 then they should be categorized as Category C-C and be surface examined in accordance with the 'Jinter 1972 addenda to the ASME Section XI, 1971 edirion. The licensee stated that the ISI program
.
(Dresden Special Report No. 45) will be revised to reflect the above. The licensee also stated that an effort will be made
-
to examine the above components by surface method during this outage, if this is found to be impractical, these components will be examined during the next outage and within the frequency permitted by the code, c.
The Summer 1973 addenda to the ASME Section XI, 1971 edition requires that vessel UT calibration blocks be post weld heat treated for two hours. Contrary to the above, the licensee was unable to verify whether the reactor vessel shell-to-flange and reactor vessel head-to-flange UT blocks were poet weld heat treated because the UT blocks were obtained prior to the post weld treatment required by the code. The inspector stated this matter should be addressed as an exemption and relief should be requested from NRR. The inspector further stated that it is benefic'al to perform an attenuation check between the UT blocks and the component to assure that the sound attenuation of the blocks is compatible with the component.
The licensee agreed to request relief from NRR and try to perform an attenuation check if possible.
-3-
... -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.- -.....-
-
-.
.- -
..
.-
~
.
.
.
-
d.
The ASME Section XI, 1971 edition requires that Category C (Pressure containing welds, vessel-to-flange, and head-to-flange) welds be 100; volumetric examined during an inspection
~
interval. Contrary to the above, only approximately 25% of the vessel-to-flange weld can be examined by straight beam from qhe bolting face of the flange and no angle' beam can be conducted. This is due to the design of the vessel. No relief was requested for this item in the Dresden Special Report No. 45.
The inspec:or stated that this item should be addressed as aa exemption and relief should be requested f rom NRR.
The licensec agreed.
2.
Review of Procedures The inspector reviewed two ultrasonic examination procedures, one dye penetrant examination procedure, one visual examination procedure, seven NDE personnel qualifications, five ultrasonic instrument calibration certifications and nine transducer certifications. It was determined that the above docurants met the applicable code and procedural requirements.
No. items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Observation of Work Activities
.
The inspector observed the following work activities:
_
a.
Ultras >nic examination of prinary steam system piping welds No. 0721-12" - SN and No. 0722-12" -2S.
No reportable indica-tion was found, b.
Ultrasonic examination of No. 6 (safety valve) nozzle weld to the primary s team drum. A flaw indication was found in the vicinity where an indidation was reported during the November, 1975 outage. The licensee is evaluating the two examination results and a report is being prepared for submittal to NRR as required by NRR letter to CECO dated January 23, 1976.
c.
PT examinations of primary steam drum safety valve nozzles No. 3, No. 4 and No. 8 safe-ends. A small indication (less than 1/8" long) was found on each of the safe-ends. The licensee planned to remove the indications and re-examine the area by PT.
The inspector stated that this matter is con-sidered unresolved pending review of the repair during a subsequent inspection.
The inspector determined that the above examinations were conducted in accordance with the applicabic procedures.
It was further determined that the personnel performing the examinations were qualified and that the equipment used was calibrated.
-4-
~
. -. - - - -...
.. -..
. - -.. -..
-
..
-
..
.
.
-3 Unresolved Items
'
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
~
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed under Paragraphs 1.a.
1.b, 1.c, l.d, and 3.c.
Exit Interview The inspector cet with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on July 6, 1977. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the information.
.
4-5-