IR 05000219/1981007
| ML19352B356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1981 |
| From: | Mcbrearty R, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352B354 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-81-07, 50-219-81-7, NUDOCS 8107060422 | |
| Download: ML19352B356 (8) | |
Text
_
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I
. Report No. 50-219/81-07 Docket No. 50-219 License No. DPR-16 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Light Company P.O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Facility Name:
0" ster Creek Inspection at:
Oyster Creek Site, Forked River, New Jersey Inspection conducted: March 24-27,1981; April 6-10,1981; and May 12-15, 1981 Inspectors: __ d. b'
he //. /9P/
R.A. McBrearty, Reacy Inspector f
date tigned date signed
,
date signed
?, w ig,<r~
.A'
A fk~
., si,1GP/
Approved by:
/
l'
date signed
'
L.E. Tripp, Chf[ef, Materials and Processes
-
Section, Engineering Inspection Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 24-27, April 6-10, May 12-15,1981 (Report No. 50-219/81-07)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee actions on previous inspection findings and inservice inspection activities in-cluding review of ISI data.
The inspection involved 105 inspector hours onsite by one regional based NRC inspector.
Resul ts:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
8107060422 B106 7 PDR ADOCK 05000 19
_DR Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Jersey Central Power and Light /GPUN
- M.
/.llgair, NDE/ISI Specialist
- J.T.
Carroll, Jr., Director Station
- T.
Corrie, Site Materials Technology Supervisor
- K.D.E.
Fickeissen, Manager-Plant Engineering
- S.H.
Fuller, Supervisor-Site QA N.C.
Kazanas, Director QA
- M.W.
Laggart, Site Licensing Supervisor
- R.S.
Markowski, Site Audit Manager
- R.
Ostrowski, ISI Supervisor T.
Quintenz, Operations Engineering
- C.
Stephenson, Site licensing Group
- J.L.
Sullivan, Jr., Manager Operations Universal Testing Laboratories M.
Kozak, NDE Level III Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company J.
Green, Authorized Nuclear Inspector
- Denotes those present at the meeting on 4/10/81 and the exit meeting on 5/15/81.
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on 5/15/81.
,
- Denotes those present at the meeting on 4/10/81.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item (219/79-18-19):
Substantiation of the status and completion of the first ten year inservice inspection items.
a.
Inservice Inspection (ISI) Program - First Ten Year Interval The first ten year ISI program at the Oyster Creek facility commenced in December, 1969 at the start of commercial operation and ended in July, 1980.
NRC Inspection Number 50-219/79-18, conducted in October and November of 1979 by members of the Headquarters Performance Appraisal Branch of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement,
__
_ _. _
e
.
.
.
,
.
identified an unresolved item regarding the implementation and documentation of ISI conducted during the first ten year inspection interval.
The inspectors identified specifically the lack of an assured status for the on going ISI program, and assurance that the interior of the vessel, components, and space below the bottom core plate inspection effort status was verified.
The inspectors, in addition, identified a need for licensee review of ISI doc-umentation and aecords for completeness, corrective action, ex-clusions, and, n' general, for substantiation of the status for the first ten year inspection effort.
To resolve the item, the licensee agreed to do the following:
,
-
Assure availability and completeness of.past documents which were the basis for ISI commitment credit.
Follow-up on certain audit finding responses to as:ure
-
completeness for acceptable closure.
'
Validate the remaining work to be completed for the first
-
ten year ISI effort based on reports and Quality Assurance records.
.
Change as required, to meet commitments, the final ten year
-
ISI Specification.
b.
Requirements for Inservice Inspection
'
Code requirements for inse-vice inspection at nuclear facilities were developed under sponsorship of the American Society of
.
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) as a cooperative effort by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N45 Committee and the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.
The committee war formed in 1967 and the ISI requirements developed by the committee were first issued as the 1970 Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressare Vessel Code,Section XI, dated January 1, 1970. The requirements, when first published, were applicable only to Class I components.
The 1970 5ection XI required that nuclear plants be designed and constructed to permit access for performance of the raquired examinations.
'
,
The design and constructicn of the Oyster Creek facility was com-pleted prior to publication of ASME Section XI and requirements for accessibility.
Consequently not all examinations required by Section XI can be performed.
'
.-..
-_
-
..
'
.
.
.
ASME Section XI was re-issued in 1971 and later editions were issued in 1974, 1977, and 1980. Addenda to the code are issued at six month intervals.
Federal regulations governing the performance of ISI at nuclear
.
facilities are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and are based on the date of issue of the facility construction permit and the date of ccmmencement of commercial operations.
The Federal Regulations which establish ASME Code,Section XI applicability for nuclear plants,10 CFR 50.55a(g), exempt Oyster Creek from mandatory use of the Code for the first ten year inspection interval, based on the construction permit issue date
~
of December 15, 1964, and the date of commencemer.' of commercial operation in December, 1969.
Legally binding ISI requirements for Oyster Creek are delineated in Technical Specification 4.3 and Table 4.3.1 and in Amenament 34 to the Technical Specification.
The amendment revised Table 4.3.1 to include augmented examinations of the core spray spargers following the 1978 repair of a crac.
Note 3 of Table 4.3.1 states that the examination schedule, ex-tent of examination, inspection process, and inspection frequency shall be reviewed after the fourth year of operation and a revised specification for subsequent inservice inspection developed. As a
.
result of the licensee's review, Change Request (CR) number 28, dated August 6, 1974 was submitted to the NRC.
Subsequent to Aug.st 5, 1974, revision 1, 2, 3 and 4 to CR 28 was submitted in Apr il 1975, September 1975, April 1976 and June 1978 respectively, to the NRC.
Change Request 28 identifies an inservice inspection program that is more extensive than the one delineated by Table 4.3.1.
,
The proposed changas were neither approved nor disapproved by the NRC.
For this reason the 'icensee does not consider CR 28 to be legally binding although it has been used as a guideline for the performance of ISI at the facility fc? the last five years of the first ten year interval.
The program delineated by CR 28 parallels the requirements of the 1971 Edition of Section XI through Summer 1973 Addenda, which were followed to the extent deemed by the licensee to be practicable with respect to plant design and accessibility considerations.
c.
ISI Program Implementation In response to the PAB inspection, the licensee contracted General Physics to perform an in depth review of ISI data for the first ten year inspection interval.
The review was intended to provide a comprehensive and detailed analysis of compliance or noncompliance with the inservice inspection requirements which were in effect at various times during the inspection interval.
<
u-
..
.
General Physics submitted a report of the results of their review in which they concluded that the inservice inspection program requirements were met or exceeded, with certain exceptions which are documented by the report.
The inspector reviewed licensee procedures, reports and records and interviewed licensee representatives to ascertain that licensee
-
commitments and regulatory requirements associated with the ISI Program were met, and that available data supported the conclusions arrived at by General Physics as stated in their report.
The following were included in the inspector's review:
Oyster Creek Inservice Inspection Implementation Review-ISI
-
first ten year summary.
.
Technical Specification 4.3-Table 4.3.1.
-
-
Technical Specification Change Request Number 28.
-
Interoffice Memorandum dated October 10, 1978-T. Quintenz to E. Growney.
Inter' office Memorandum dated July 17, 1979-T. Quintenz to R.
-
Dube.
-
Available documentation of inspections done to satisfy Table 4.1.1 requirements for the period from 1970 through 1974.
.
-
Selected data related to inspections done to satisfy Change Request 28 requirements for the last five years of the ten year interval.
.
-
Audit Repcrt No. 77-18.
Audit Report No. 78-15.
-
Documentation of reactor vessel internals examinations done
-
in 1980 to complete the first ten year inspection interval.
In addition to the above, the inspector reviewed documents related to programmatic changes which were established by the licensee to
,
'
strengthen his control over future ISI program implementation, and to minimize the possibility of noncompliance with program re-quirements.
The following were provided for the inspector's review by licensee representatives:
.
a.
_.
. - -
.
.
.
0.C. ISI PORD, Revision 0, dated 4/3/81, "0yster Creek
-
i Nuclear Station Inservice Inspection Project Organizational Responsibilities Document."
-
Procedure Number 7-7-MT-003, Revision 0, dated 2/81, "AJ-ministrative Procedure Describing the Use of Volumetric Visual / Surface and Calibration Data Sheets."
Procedure Number 7-7-MT-004, Revision 0, dated 3/81, " Pre-
-
paration of MT Special Process Standards for Nondestructive
'
Examination."
.
-
Procedure Number 7-7-MT-006, Revision 0, dated 3/81, "Ad-ministrative Procedure for Nondastructive Examinatian Data for Preservice or Inservice Examinations."
i
-
Procedure Number 7-9-01, Revision 0, dated 2/81, " Nondestructive Examination Personnel Qualification and Certification."
Procedure Number 7-9-MT-029, Revision 0, datad 2/81, " Eval-
-
uations of Reportable Indications."
-
Procedure Number 7-18-02, Revision 3, dated 9/80 and Appendix A, Revision 1 to the procedure, " Quality Auditor Qualifications."
-
Position Specifications and Position Descriptions for various Materials Technolooy Section personnel.
The inspector's review indicated that the detailed review con-
,
'
ducted by the licensee and General Physics concentrated on exam-
inotions which were performed compared with legal requirements found in the Technical Specification.
The licensee performed the
,
applicable inspections to the maximum extent possible in an effort to comply with the inspections requirements. The deviations which occurred resulted from the conflicting Technical Specification Change Requests which were previously submitted to the NRC.
The documents provided to the inspector as a part of the current
!
ISI Program appear to provide adequate administrative and technical control over implementation of the program.
The inspector noted that audit report 77-18 and 78-15 remained open. The licensee representatives stated that information relative
to closure of the audits was under consideration and would be forwarded to the inspector when it became available.
No date for
,
such action could be provided by the licensee when requested by the inspector at the exit meeting.
The inspector stated that licensee action necessary for resolution of unresolved item 219/79-18-19 was acceptable with the exception of closure of the two audit reports, and that the item would remain open pending licensee closure of the audit reports and NRC review of the closecut action.
.~ m
_
',
3.
Inservice Inspection Data Revirw The nondestructive examinations :onducted during the current outage were intended to meet the requitements of the ASME B and PV Code, Section_XI, 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda, and the 1977 Edition of Section XI through Summer 1978 Addenda.
The use of those editions of the code are identified in Technical Specification Change Request 28, Revision 5 and a licensee letter to the NRC dated April 16, 1981.
!
The inspector reviewed available data related to examinations which were performed during the outage to ascertain that the data are within established acceptance criteria and that the licensee's dis-position of indications is consistent with regulatory requirements and licensee comm?tments.
,
The following were included in the review:
-
Liquid penetrant examination report for CRD Hydraulic Return System weld number NC 4-17.
-
Ultrasonic examination data sheet number 000004 and 000005 for
-
Shutdown Cooling System pipe to elbow weld number NU-1-5.
Ultrasonic examination calibration sheet number 000005, 000007,
'
-
and 000008 for weld number NU-1-5.
.
-
Request for Evaluation / Indication Plot Request m.... ar 81-002.
,
Indications noted on the data sheets were properly evaluated and dis-positioned by qualified personnel in accordance with applicable procedures.
The inspector noted that measurements recorded on the penetrant report
.
to locate an indication were not referenced to a datum point or. the weld.
This appeared to be cnntrary to the requirements of procedure number 7-9-MT-015, Revision 1, which required permanent marking on welds prior to performance of preservice or inservice examinations.
In response to the inspector's question, the licensee representative stated that Field Change 3-B-I-81-April 002 to procedure 7-9-MT-015 was issued to permit work to be done prior to permanent marking of welds or components. This was deemed necessary by the licensee be-cause the means to mark the weld prior to examination was not available a
due to unforseen circumstances.
The licensee stated further that the weld would be permanently marked and the indication accurately located.
The field change was discussed with licensee representatives and the inspector stated that some positive, reproducible method for locating indications should be employed at the time the examination of a weld or component is conducted rather than at some later date as is permitted by the Field Change.
The licensee stated that the item should be taken under consideration.
m
_.
.
i
-
.,.
.
,
,
The inspector had no further. questions concerning the item at this time.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Exit Interview-The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) on April 10, 1981 and at the conclusion of the inspection on May
'
15, 1981. The inspector summarized the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings.
In addition to those designated in Paragraph 1, Mr. J.A. Themas, NRC
^
Resident Inspector, attended the exit meeting.
.
O e
i e
J f
.;
t I
,
.-
- -.,
.-
,- -. -.
,
,
. -. _,,
.. -,,
a
~,,. -