IR 05000219/1992022

Mobile NDE Lab Insp 50-219/92-22 on 921207-11 & 930111-15. No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Cs,Css,Sdc,Ms & FW Sys

ML20056C175
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	03/19/1993
From:	Harris R, Mcbrearty R, Modes M, Peterson P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20056C170	List: IR 05000219/1992022 ML20056C169
References
50-219-92-22, NUDOCS 9303300187
Download: ML20056C175 (10)

Text

.

k

'

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

DOCKET / REPORT NO. 50-219/92-022 LICENS E N DPR-016  ;

LICENSEE: GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, NJ 07054 FACILITY NAME: Oyster Creek Unit 1 INSPECTION AT: Forked River, New Jersey INSPECTION DATES: December 7-11,1992 and January 11-15, 1993 INSPECTORS: . __ #d M ff' /- /f- f_3

. M. Peters 6n, Technician, Date Mobile NDE Laboratory, EI, DRS LY

. H. Harrik, Tech'nfcian, '

3- /f- 7 3 Date Mobile NDE 12boratory, EB, DRS ,

sG r/>V l ]~ / 9-f &

CM. McBreart'y, Reactor Eigineer, i) ate Material Section, EB, DRS

,

W. M. Mingus; TET, Inc.; Mobile, Alabama J. Bryant; TET, Inc.; Mobile, Alabama APPROVED BY: [ ~

7 /. I j ff M. C. Modes, Chief, Mobile NDE f

Date ~

[

L:.boratory, Engineering Branch, DRS i

9303300187 930324 PDR ADOCK 05000219 G PDR

i

.

!

- i i

2 I

,

Inspection Summary and Conclusions: An announced inspection was conducted by_the NRC's Mobile Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Laboratory at Oyster Creek Power Station, ,

'

Unit 1, during the. period December 7-11,1992, and January 11-15,1993, (Report N /92-022). The purpose of the Mobile Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Laboratory ,

!

is to perform independent evaluations of components, systems and welds to assure that NDE performed by the licensee is done in compliance with the requirement ;

Areas Inspected: Selected areas of the core spray system (CS), containment spray system l (CSS and CTS), shutdown cooling system (SDC), main steam system (MS), reactor coolant system (RC) and feedwater system (FW) were examined by the NRC utilizing various NDE methods as listed in the attached table. The licensee's procedures, in conjunction with NRC 1 procedures, were used for nondestructive evaluation. The licensee's final evaluation reports were reviewed and compared with the results obtained by the NR :

Results: The inservice inspections, evaluated by the NRC, were in compliance with the i requirements of the Federal Code and the requirements of the American Society of '

Mechnical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, (ASME)Section XI, for inservice inspections (ISI). The program for inspection is manned by professional personnel and the -

individual inspections performed were conservatively execute ,

$

i

!

,  !

i

.

i

,

e

.

r

.

3 l r

'

INTRODUCTION  ; The Code of Federal Regulations,10 CFR 50.55a requires that inservice inspections of !

l safety related equipment be performed to identify any service related degradation of safety systems. These inspections are required to be performed in accordance with ASME Section XI Code. The inspection performed by the NRC at Oyster Creek was made using *

the NRC Mobile NDE I.2boratory. The Mobile NDE Laboratory is capable of independently duplicating the examinations required of the licensee. This provides the NRC with an l overview of the licensee's ISI program and tests the adequacy and accuracy of the licensee's

.

i inspection .0 INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM REVIEW (73753,73751,73752,73755)

During the period of December 7-11,1992, and January 11-15, 1993, an on site independent ^

inspection was conducted of Oyster Creek Unit 1. The inspection was performed by NRC inspectors and NDE personnel contracted by the NRC. The objectives of this inspection were to assess the adequacy of the licensee's inservice inspection and flow accelerated ,

corrosion (FAC) inspection progra !

i These objectives were accomplished by independently performing examinations selected from the Oyster Creek ISI plan and the flow accelerated corrosion program. The ISI program is

'

described in The GPU Nuclear Third Iaterval Inservice Insoection Program Undate for the t

Ovster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Jersey Central Power and Light Compariy,-

Revision 0, dated February 27,1992; submitted to the NRC on April 16,1992. The flow accelerated corrosion program is described in GPU specification SP-1302-12-237, Nuclear l Safety Related Pine Wall Thinnine insocctions Soccification for Oyster Creek Nucleat ;

Generating Station Erosion / Corrosion Program, Revision 5, dated 1/11/90. The emphasis m !

'

selecting components for examination is placed on safety system .0 NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION (NDE) q Visual Examination (57050) ,

,

Eighteen (18) safety related pipe weldments and adjacent base material (1/2 inch on either ,

side of the weld) located in the CTS, CS, CSS, SDC, MS, RC and FW systems were l visually examined in accordance with NRC procedure NDE-10, Rev.1, and GPU procedure :

6100-QAP-7209.16, Rev. O, dated 9/16/91. Visual examination was performed of pipe :

t systems and attached components utilizing QC documents, isometric and as-built drawing The examination was performed specifically to identify any cracks or linear indications, ,

!

gouges, leakage, arc strikes with craters, or corrosion, which may infringe upon the minimum pipe wall thickness. Mirrors, flash lights and weld gauges were used, as required, ;

to aid in the inspection and evaluation of the weldment l Results: The visual examinations performed at Oyster Creek were found to be adequat l l

i

!

~~

.

. 4

'

Ultrasonic Examination (73753,57080) h CS, CSS, CTS, SDC, MS and FW Thirteen (13) safety-related pipe l weldments located in t eModel 136D systems were ultrasonically examined using a Stave Metal Piping Welds.y1, and GPU proced accordanceMwith NRC procedure NDE-11, Revisionanual Ultraso i il 6100-QAP-7209.08, . Revision i 0, dated 9/16/91. Three (3) welds in th weld in the CSS (NQZ-1-1-14), one (1)1) weld weld n t in e the FW (RF-2-61) and two (NQ-1-64, NQ-2-81, NQ-2-31, i 35, 88, NRC and 94),

procedure oneRev NDE-2, (d1.by ultrasonic (2) welds in the SDC (NU-1-5 and i 7) were exam as undertaken utilizing ne Model 136D was verified for linearity in conforma f the welds, w t established transducers and cable that matched, as closely as pdis k utilizing the appropriate Oyster Creek Unit I caic examination, a number of In addition to a direct comparison of the results of the ultrasond thickne the welds were profiled utilizing a profile gauge and termine if adequate coverage wa XI, Appendix III. These i

to construct a scale model h of the weld in order to eobta coverage calculations were then compared with t e c Creek is in conformance Results The ultrasonic calibration-for-test performed by OysterXI. It is with the requirements of Appendix III of Section d O.D. notches. The side Section XI that the calibration for test be tance performed curve can be using I.D. an drilled holes are included, by ASME, so that the shape of the accep determined. The results of the NRC examinations were essent a y Oyster Creek. . Obsenations (73753)

3. Reactor Vessel Visual d top guide was selected for The remote underwater visual examination of the steam dryer and d a inspection to ascertain that the results were clearly recor e permit proper evaluatio y personnel using underwater, The examinations were performed by General Electric Companrecorded remotely operated video equipment and the results were license and disposition of the results were performed by the bank 5 and another bracket t ding into the base The fillet welds attaching a support bracket to material in each case. Material Non-Conformance Report

-- -

_ _ .

.

-

!

.

.

4 ,

.

5 Ultrasonic Examination (73753,57080)

-

Thirteen (13) safety-related pipe weldments located in the CS, CSS, CTS, SDC, MS and FW_

systems were ultrasonically examined using a Stavely Model 136D ultrasonic flaw detector in accordance with NRC procedure NDE-11, Revision 1, and GPU procedure

6100-QAP-7209.08, Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Similar Metal Pinine Welds, Revision 0, dated 9/16/91. Three (3) welds in the CS (NZ-1-58,59 and NZ-3-47), one_(1) ,

weld in the CSS (NQZ-1-1-14), one (1) weld in the MS (MS-1-30), six (6) welds in the CTS :

(NQ-1-64, NQ-2-81, NQ-2-31, 35, 88, and 94), one (1) weld in the FW (RF-2-61) and two !

(2) welds in the SDC (NU-1-5 and 7) were examined by ultrasonic examination. Tb Stavely l Model 136D was verified for linearity in conformance with NRC procedure NDE-2, Rev i To obtain the greatest possible repeatability, the examination was undertaken utilizing '

transducers and cable that matched, as closely as possible, those used by the licensee. The distance amplitude compensation curves, used for acceptance 'of the welds, was established uti lizing the appropriate Oyster Creek Unit 1 calibration standard l

In addition to a direct comparison of the results of the ultrasonic examination, a a. umber of the welds were profiled utilizing a profile gauge and thickness readings. This data was used to construct a scale model of the weld in order to determine if adequate coverage was obtained in keeping with the requirements of ASME Section XI, Appendix III. These coverage calculations were then compared with the coverage claimed by the subcontractor and accepted by the licensee in the final inspection report ,

Resnits The ultrasonic calibration-for-test performed by Oyster Creek is in conformance '

with the requirements of Appendix III of Section XI. It is the intention.of Appendix III of Section XI that the calibration for test be performed using I.D. and O.D. notches. The side drilled holes are included, by ASME, so that the shape of the acceptance curve can be determined. The results of the NRC examinations were essentially the same as those of i

Oyster Creek .

r Observations (73753) i 3.3.1 Reactor Vessel Visual The remote underwater visual examination of the steam dryer and top guide was selected for inspection to ascertain that the results were clearly recorded and were of sufficient quality to permit proper evaluatio The examinations were performed by General Electric Company personnel using underwater, remotely operated video equipment and the results were recorded on video tape. Evaluation and disposition of the results were performed by the license The fillet welds attaching a support bracket to the steam dryer at bank 5 and another bracket between banks 5 and 6 were found to be cracked with the cracks extending into the base ,

material in each case. Material Non-Conformance Report (MNCR) No. 920144, dated

_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ,

. _ - . .

.

.

'

,

^

12/15/92, was prepared to track and disposition the two cracked areas. The licensee has subsequently reported that the cracks have been repaired by welding. Similar repairs of cracks on the same brackets were performed in 1983 and 1986, respectivel ,

The remote visual examination of the top guide was performed to monitor a crack which was "

detected in 1991, during refueling outage 13R at guide blade location 42-31 and which the licensee committed to monitor during the present 14R refuehng outag ;

.

The results of the examination verified that the original crack had not propagated, but a l second crack was identified on the same member. Visual examination was obstructed of a portion of the member in 1991 and it is possible that the second crack was present at that ,

-'

time. A third, new crack, was identified at fuel cell 20-45. Each of the cracks extended through the affected member. The licensee evaluation of the condition resulted in a use-as-is dispositio .

The results of the steam dryer and top guide visual examinations and the related dispositions have been repoded to NR During the performance of u air test of core spray system 1, bubbling was identified coming from the area of a fillet weld on the sleeve connecting two sections of the core spray downcomer piping in the reactor vessel annulus between the vessel wall and the core shrou '

The sleeve was used to aid pipe fit up during installation of the piping. The bubbling was identified with the use of a remotely operated underwater video camera which, because of its size, could not identify the precise origin of the bubbles. Further examination using a smaller camera identified an approximately 1/8" diameter opening in the fillet weld which the licensee attributed to an original weld defect, not a crac At a meeting on January 6,1993, with the NRC at Rockville, MD, the licensee discussed the core spray system leak and proposals for disposition, including the use of a mechanical clamp to secure the pipe in the event the defect caused a complete failure of the piping. At the conclusion of the meeting, the licensee was requested to provide additional information to 7

'

the NRC so that a determination could be made regarding the necessity of the clamping devic A portion of the ultrasonic examination of isolation condenser system, 8" diameter, weld N NE2-212 was observed to ascertain that procedural and regulatory requirements were complied with. The examination was performed subsequent to the application of the Mechanical Stress Improvement Process (MSIP) using the General Electric Company SMART 2000 automated ultrasonic examination system and was intended to comply with NUREG-0313, Revision 2, and Generic Ixtter 88-01 requirements. Additionally, the weld was examined to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section X !

.- --

. t

!

,

,. .

l

!- 6 The inspector determined that applicable requirements were complied with, examination personnel were qualified and certified in accordance with the provisions of SNT-TC-1A and the examiners were listed on the latest edition of the Registry of Qualified Personnel for UT ,

i of IGSCC which is published by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) NDE Center at Charlotte., North Carolin Conclusions: The video tapes of the underwater visual examinations of the core spray system, steam dryer and top guide clearly show the condition of the various components and ,

provide an excellent means for evaluation of the results. The objects under examination are i

well lit and in sharp focus which will permit comparison with the results of subsequent visual examination of those component .

The ultrasonic examination was performed in compliance with applicable code and regulatory requuements by properly qualified and certified examiner j i

3.3.2 Phased Array Examination ,

The inspector observed the interpretation of current data taken from angle 57*, at a radius of .

338 mm on the "B" nozzle and the data taken in 1988, on nozzle B1,57*, at an incremental !

radius of 350 to 400 mm. The inspector also observed the gathering of data from the D l

'

nozzle at multiple phased angles at a radius of 498 mm. The calibration curves for each of the current data sets were established on the vessel mockup, burned into an eprom (uniquely identified), and compared against a reference standard before examination commenced. All :

the examinations were undertaken in conformance with the commitments delineated in l Procedure SNPS-AUT-04.01, Revision 7, GPUN/ Oyster Creek - Automated Phased Array ,

Ultrasonic Inspection of RPV Nozzle ;

'

Conclusions: The examinations and interpretations were executed in a conservative manner with close attention paid to details. All examinations were in conformance with the requirements and undertaken by well trained professional personne .4 Flow Accelerated Corrosion (49001)

Concerns regarding flow accelerated corrosion (a. k. a., erosion / corrosion) in balance of plant piping systems has increased as a result of the December 9,1986, feedwater piping line rupture which occurred at Surry. This event was the subject of the NRC Information Notice 86-106, issued December 16,1986, and its supplement issued on February 13, 198 The licensee's actions with regard to the detection of erosion / corrosion in plant components were reviewed with respect to NUREG-1344, " Erosion / Corrosion Induced Pipe Wall Thinning in U. S. Nuclear Power Plants," dated April 1989, Generic Letter 88-08 issued May 2,1989, and NUMARC Technical Subcommittee Working Group on Piping and Erosion / Corrosion Summary Report, dated June 11, 1987.

l l

l l

l

<

- _ _ _ - _____e _ _ ,

. - . . - - . - .- - .

3 1

.

!

i

!

The Oyster Creek flow assisted corrosion (FAC) inspection program is defined in their procedure SP-1302-12-237, Revision 5, dated 5/29/92. The program is administered by a GPU corporate engineer. It was observed that the following systems are included in the ,

program per 5.7.2 of their procedure: cold reheat (cross-under piping), hot reheat (cross- ,

over piping), high pressure turbine extraction steam, low pressure turbine extraction steam, l

!

heater drains and vents, turbine drains (drains to condenser), feedwater (including inside containment), condensate, service water (as an augmented inspection), residual heat removal, I

and feedwater recirculation. In addition to these systems, other systems may be included based on their susceptibility to FAC due to the following parameters: moisture content,- i water chemistry, temperature, material composition, and flow path geometry. In addition to this determination, the CHECMATE program is used with the basic heat balance derived b I a separate model: PEPSE TRD 153, 8/17/8 .0 REVIEW OF SITE NDE PROCEDURES AND MANUALS (73052)

.;

The following ISI procedures were selected for inspection to ascertain that the procedures '

complied with ASME Code and regulatory requirements, and that the procedures are capable of performirag their intended functio i General Ekctric Company Procedures l

'

Procedure GE-UT-208, Revision 1, " Procedure For Automated Ultrasonic Examination of Similar and Dissimilar Piping Welds For IGSCC" Procedure GE-UT-209, Revision 1, " Procedure For Automated Ultrasonic Examination of ,

Dissimilar Metal Nozzle to Safe End Welds" l

Procedure GE-UT-212, Revision 1, " Procedure For Automated Ultrasonic Examination of Weld Overlaid Austenitic Piping" Siemens Nuclear Power Services, Inc. Procedures Procedure SNPS-AUT-04.01, Revision 7, "GPUN/ Oyster Creek - Automated Phased Array Ultrasonic Inspection of RPV Nozzles" l GPUN Procedures  !

!

Procedure 6100-QAP-7209.01, Revision 0, " Magnetic Particle Examination" Procedure 6100-QAP-7209.02, Revision 0, " Liquid Penetrant Examination *

Procedure 6100-QAP-7209.13, Revision 1, " Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Dissimilar Metal Welds Using Refracted lAngitudinal Waves"

!

I

_ _ . . _ . _

,

'

+

,

8  ;

.

Procedure 6150-QAP-7209.29, Revision 0, " Ultrasonic Examination of Weld Overlay Repaired Joints" i

,

The General Electric Company procedures are intended for use with the GE SMART-2000 automated ultrasonic examination system, and the Siemens phased array procedure will be used to control the ultrasonic examination of feedwater nozzles and the control rod driv ;

!

return nozzle required by NUREG-061 The phased array procedure and the GPU procedures were determined to be acceptable and l were generally well written. The Siemens procedure describes how applicable NUREG-0619 i

!

requirements as interpreted by Siemens and GPUN will be implemente Several questions concerning the SMART-2000 procedures arose and as a result, Field - '

Revision Requests (FRR) Nos. OC 14R-01, OC 14R-02 and OC 14R-03 were prepared which resolved all of the questions. All of the inspected procedures, including the FRRs, were approved by the licensee and are acceptable for use at Oyster Cree ,

!

!

Results: The prompt response by the licensee to resolve questions concerning its vendor's ,

NDE procedures resulted in acceptable procedures and demonstrated good control over j inservice inspection vendor activitie l LICENSEE ACTIONS ON PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS (92701,92703)

,

(Closed) Unresolved item 91-37-03: The adequacy of ultrasonic examinations performed on l weld overlay repairs at Oyster Cree :

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) NDE Center at Charlotte, North Carolina, in conjunction with the BWR Owners Group, was instrumentalin developing ultrasonic examination techniques which are capable of examining the weld overlay material and the ,

base material directly under the overlay. At _the time of NRC Inspection No. 91-37 EPRI :

recommendations were that the calibration block and production weld should be similar in

'

diameter, wall thickness and overlay thickness. During a telephone conversation on December 12, 1991, with cognizant EPRI personnel, the inspector and a licensee representative discussed the overlay examinations as performed at Oyster Creek. EPRI

'

suggested that the licensee perform an investigation to determine the adequacy of _using calibration standards that differ from the production weld with respect to overlay thickness and diameter. With EPRI assistance, the investigation was performed using the Oyster Creek facility. The investigation method, results and conclusions are documented in GPUN i

Technical Data Report No.1070, Revision 0. Examination sensitivity, based on original EPRI recommendations, is established from side drilled hole reflectors in a calibration block '

containing a weld overlay. The GPU investigation concluded that greatm sensitivity is attained by establishing a 5% to 20% full screen height noise level from the production wel The inspector agrees with the conclusions reached by the investigatio l t

I i

,

. ._

,

.. t

. .

Based on the GPU investigation conclusions, which were concurred with by EPRI, and the ;

fact that the scan sensitivity of the questioned Oyster Creek examinations was based on a '

10% to 30% noise level through the production weld, the examinations are considered to be acceptable and this item is close (Closed) Violation 91-18-01: Use of an ultrasonic calibration block not in compliance with the block required by the governing procedur ;

The calibation block used for the ultrasonic examination of shutdown cooling system weld i NU-3-5 contained weld overlay 0.450" thick and the production weld contained weld overlay 0.29" thick. The governing procedure required that the calibration block be overlaid with ;

wcld material of the same thickness range as that of the part to be examined. Licensee

!

corrective actions included instructing its NDE vendor on the importance of following '

approved procedures and what to do in the event that the ability to follow a procedure is precluded. Licensee Deficiency Repon (DR) No.91-044 was issued to track the ite !

t The procedural violation resulted in a concern regarding the adequacy of the ensuing ultrasonic examination which is related to item 91-37-03. Based on the licensee's closecut of DR No.91-044, and the conclusions of TDR 1070, Revision 0, this item is close , MANAGEMENT MEETINGS .

Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspection at the $

entrance interview on December 7,1992. On January 15,1993, an exit interview was held - .

'

with members of the licensee's staff listed in Section 7.0.' At the meeting, the findings of the

_'

inspection were discussed with licensee's managemen i

+

4 6 i

!

- . - .- ,,

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

.: -i

.

. >

10 l PERSONS CONTACTED f i

M  !

S.Irvin Director, O&M f J. Kimbel Director, QA

.;

P. Scallon Manager, Plant Ops i

J. Rogers Manager, Outage D. Covill Manager, NDE/ISI ,

P. Czaya Manager, OC Licensing l P. Manning Manager, NDE/ISI Services -

B. Tilton Manager, Site QA/QC (Acting)

G. Rhedrick Izad ISI Engineer ,

R. Nademus NDE Engineer j

'

M. Heller OC Licensing Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

D. Vito Senior Resident Inspector '!

-

J. Nakoski Resident Inspector J. Zimmerman Engineer )

j

1

,

l

.l