IR 05000155/1987021

Insp Rept 50-155/87-21 on 870824-26.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Implementation Set Forth in Generic Ltr 84-11 (Temporary Instruction 2515/89)

ML20238D758
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	09/08/1987
From:	Danielson D, Jeffrey Jacobson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20238D746	List: IR 05000155/1987021 ML20238D744
References
50-155-87-21, GL-84-11, NUDOCS 8709110376
Download: ML20238D758 (4)

Text

a . g-- - = - . , ,

__J : .,.E"'

i i

1. I'

j

, ,

p ,, ,

it

'

1 ,

0.'S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RECION III

'. Report No. 50-155/87021(DRS).

..  :

. Docket No.~50-155 Licer.se No. DPR-06-

"

Licensee: Consumers Power Company West' Michigan Avenue / !

. Jackson, MI '49201-

. Facility Name: Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant

Inspection At: Big Rock Point Site, Charlevoix, Michigan

'

Inspection Conduct d: August 24-26, 1987  ;

Inspec as .

'

X~~

.

-'

on dkw j/

cr/f&r 7 l

!

Cate '

h H. Danielson YlW 4 Approved By: D,, -Chief f7

. Materials and ' Processes Date Section i

Inspection Summary' q Irispection on August ___PA-25,1987 (Report No. 50-155/87021(DRS))  ;

Areas Inspected: Routine,; unannounced safety inspection of the implementation'

'

of actions set forth in Generic Letter 84-11 (Temporary Instruction 2515/89),

(25589).

Resultt: No violations or dev'iations were identifie ,

8709110374 870908 PDR ADOCK 05000155 G PDR

- - _ - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _

___ __ _

.

I DETAILS 1

)

1. Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company (CPCo)

T. Edward, Plant Manager

• Acker, ISI Coordinator

• J. Toskeye Senior Engineer

• R. Alexander, Technical Er.gineer The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee employee * Denotes those attending the exit meeting on August 26,198L [Cl_osedTI 2515/89) Inspection of BWR Stainless Steel Piping in Accordance with Generic Letter 84g 6 General Generic Letter 84-11, in summary, contained the following information and required actions: Inspections conducted at sevtral boiling water reactors (BWRs) revealed intergrenular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) in large-diameter recirculation and resideal heat removal piping. These inspec.tions were condetted pursuant to IE Bulletins 82-03, Revision 1 and 83-02, and the NRC August 26, 1983 Order The C-ommission believes that the results of these inspections mandate an ongoing program for similar reinspection at all operating BWRs. Where IGSCC is discovered 3 repairs, analysis and additional surveillance my piso be required to ensure the continued integrity of affected pipe Staff etforts as of April 1984 on this issue included review of the Electr(c Power Research Institute (EPRI) report dated August 4, 1983, establishment of a pipe crack study group within the staff, avaluation of the results of IGSCC inspections already conducted, and discussions with licensees and itdustry grot.ps. As a result of these considerations, the staff concluded that the following actions would be considered an acceptaole response to the current IGSCC concerns:

,

(1) A piping inspectier. program ~was to be tmdertaken. This program

)

was to identify the perr,enthge of each group of welds to be inspected and the ekpansioa of the inspecti;n scope to occur when crack formation or growth was discovere (2) The competence of all Level JI and Level Ill ultrasonic test examiners w&s to be demonstrate (3) Leak . detection system sensitivity, and operability limits were to be esthbiished. The conditiors for shutdown as a result of i

'

L__ _ _-

- _ _ - -

. .

'

l

.

unidentified leakage or of inoperability of leakage measurement'

instruments were to be established, b. Inspection Program and Performance of Inspecti,on Though the licensee has performed three inspections for IGSCC, no formal inspection program has been developed. The first inspection for ISSCC was conducted during the Spring 1983 timeframe. This inspection was conducted in accordance with the provisions of IE Sulletin 83-02 by the Magnaflux Con poration. The NRC inspector reviewed Procedure 22.A.35 " Ultrasonic Examination of Austenitic Piping and Cranch Connection Welds" for 1GSCC and found it acceptabl A total of 15 wcle were examined by EPRI quaHfied personnel with no incidence of IGSCC noted. A rc/iew of this inspection effort is detailed in NRC Inspection Repbrt No. 50-155/8301 During the Fall 1985 outage, the second IGSCC e gmination was performed. The number of welds required to be examined by Generic Letter 84-11 was 31 however, the licensee examined only 18 weld A review of this examination effort by NRR resulted in a request to the liansee to examine 31 welds during the next examination period. The examination was performed by N.Q.S. Inspection Inc. in accordance with Procedure P2.A.35, Revision 3. This procedure requires that IGSCC examination personnel be qualified in e cordance with the requirements of IE Bulletin 83-02. The NRC inspector reviewed the certifications of all IGSCC examiners and fecnd all to be EPRI qualified. The NRC inspector also reviewed Proccdure 22. A.21

" Ultrasonic Examination General Requirements" and found that all Level I Examiners were required to be supervised directly by Level II or III personnel. Of the 18 welds examined, no evidence of IGSCC was found. A review of this examination effort is detailed in NRC Inspc-ction Report No. 50 155/8501 During the Winter 1987 outage, Combustion Engineering performed the third IGSCC examination. A total of 31 welds were examined per the requiremersts of Generic Letter 84-11. Th' NRC inspector reviewed Procedcre Rock-ISI-016, "UT Detection Procedure for Discrimination of !GSCr" and found it acceptable. This procedure requires that i personnel be EPRI qualified for IGSCC and that Level I personnel !

perform examinations only under the direct supervision of Level II or HI personnel. The NRC inspect 9r reviewed the examination data and found that all examinaticas were performed by or under the direct supenision of EPRI qualified personnel. As in the first two

,

'IG$CC exaininations, no evidence of IGSCC was found. A review cf this examination effort is detailed in NRC Inspection Report N /8700 In summary, 64 examinations of 40 weidt. out of a total of 98 susceptible welds have been performed with no occurrence of IGSCC. The licensee is currently developing a formal inspection program 1or future IGSCC inspections. The licensee plans to submit this program to NRR for review by the end of September 1987. The '

details of the inspection program will be reviewed during a future inspectionandisconsideredanopenitem(155/87021-01).

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

g

- -

o

,

! -

[ i j (-  : Leak Detection and Leakage limits The Big Rock Point (BRP) Technical Specifications for reactor coolant leakage surveillance requirecants provide for sump level

.conitoM ag every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The guidelines provided in Generic Letter 84-11 however, require that sump level be monitored at 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> intervals. The BRP unidentified leakage lim:ts require a plant L th9tdown if the coolant system leakage exceeds 1 gpm. This is n L considered to be more restrictive than Generic Letter 84-11 vi requirements and is acceptable. The B.RP maximum allowable - "

inoperabi?ity period.of the monitoring system does not meet they )

requirements of Generic Letter 84-1 '

In summary, the leakage moritoring intervals and allowable inopeha- : '

bility period for ERP does not meet NRC guidelines. These issues .

are currently being reviewed by the NRC staff and is considersd.4n OpenItem(155/87021-02). 9 3. Ogn__ Items Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involves some e tion on the part of the NRC or licenset er both. Open items disclc3ed during this in:ipection are discussed in Paragraph 2, Exit Interview The Region III inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Parsgraph 1) at the cenclusion of the taspection. The inspector sunmarized the prpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee representatives acknowledged this information. The inspector also discussed the likely information! content of the inspection report with regards to documents cr processes reviewed during the inspection. The licensee representatives did not identify any such documents / processes as i p.ropr l eta ry .

i

~__ __ _ _ __ _________ __ - ___. - ___- - _ - -

_ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _

r .

.

t 6's W

r

&. .

I v3 mi

<

(,3

~ f a:

~.,~ '

.,

.

I as D N *

,-,WS

,.

.

]

i

,

. , . . }