IR 05000254/1989021
| ML19332C440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1989 |
| From: | Danielson D, Ward K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332C435 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-89-21, 50-265-89-21, GL-88-01, GL-88-1, IEB-79-14, IEB-80-07, IEB-80-7, IEIN-88-003, IEIN-88-3, NUDOCS 8911280128 | |
| Download: ML19332C440 (8) | |
Text
?!...
..
-
- m t
i
.
,,
' '.
'
l s.
h.
U.S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
'
REGION III
I
' Reports No.- 50-254/89021(DRS); 50-265/89021(DRS)
^
,
Dccket'Nos. 50-254; 50-265 Licenses No. DPR-29; DPR-30
"
Licensee:. Commonwealth Edison Company
'
>
Post Office Box 767-Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2-Inspection At: -Quad Cities. Site, Cordova, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
September 26, October 2-4, 12-13, and November 2, 1989
'
.
.
.
A4 YM gk
,nspector:
K. D. War A
Date W%
- Approved By:
. H. Danielson, Chief ud ['2
/
Materials-and Processes Section Date
>
t Inspection Summary.
Jins ection on September 26, October 2-4, ic-13, and November 2,-1989 Reports-No. Su-25489021(DRS); No 50-265/89021(DR5)
'
L Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced safety inspection of Inservice Inspection (ISI)' activities including review of programs (73051), procedures (73052), observation of work' activities (73753), and data review (73755); of
. actions on>Information Notice No. 88-03.(90717); unresolved items (92701);.
l'
IE,Bulletin 80-07 (92703); and of modifications (37701).
.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified. Based on.the results of the-inspection, the NRC inspector noted the following:
-
The implementation of the ISI followed the requirements of ASME Section XI and the licensee's program.
The staffs of both the licensee and ISI contractor groups were
-*
' knowledgeable and competent.
In general, the inspection results indicate a continued good
/
performance.
. Licensee's action in resolving four unresolved items, an Information
"*
i Notice, and an IE Bulletin were reviewed and found to be adequate.
8911280128 891116 DR ADOCK 0500
-
-
'
.
.
.
-
-
,
..
..
..
c.
,
,
.
m
,
'
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
- R.-Robey, Technical Superintendent
- C. Smith, QC Supervisor
- T. Barber, Regulatory Assurance
- G. Tagatz, ISI Coordinator
,
R. Bax, Senior Station Manager D. Thayer, Maintenance Senior Staff Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission (NRC)
-
- R. Higgins, Senior Resident Inspector
.
R. Bocanegra, Resideit Inspector J. Shine, Resident Inspector Lambert, MacGill, Thomas, Inc. (LMT)
,
B. Thomas, Level III (Vice President)
Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (HSB)
D. Pinell, ANII The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor employees.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview November 2, 1989.
2..
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Items (92701)
a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (254/88010 vi) - Documentation of Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria (VWAC). Modification pack 6ges M0-4-1-86-031 and-M0-4-11-2-87-07 indicated that visual inspection of welds was to.be
.
performed using the attributes and acceptance criteria in the Nuclear
- '
Construction Issues Group " Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria for Structural Welding at Nuclear Power Flants" (VWAC).
The licensee indicated these inspections were performed using the VWAC; however, the results of the inspections were not recorded in appropriate detail.
The licensee indicated that they were committed to perform inspections in accordance with the VWAC, had the results of all future inspections would be properly recorded.
A Nuclear Station Work Procedure NSWP-WO2, Revision 1 (welding procedure)
was generated snd approved for work at the CECO sites. The procedure's VWAC was clearly stated in both the procedure and the weld data sheet.
There were also instructions in the procedure detailing how to document the inspection on the weld data sheets.
-
^ c.n '..
l
!
-
.,
.
,
The NRC inspector reviewed the )rocedure and other related documentation.
The NRC inspector agreed with tie action taken by the licensee and considers this item closed.
F
'
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (255/88011-02) - Incomplete ultrasonic data package. Form NDT-C-37 for weld number 02A-510 had several incorrect data entries.- The information recorded on the form was not what the form required. The form required clarification to ensure proper data
'l entry.
.,
Preliminary data sheets for the examination of weld number 02A-510 were reviewed by the NRC. Data sheets for the final report were not available at the time of.the original review. Form NDT-C-37, Ultrasonic
Examination of Weld Overlay Reaairs by Manual Technique, was used b.y the NDE contractor to record tie'results of an automated ultrasonic examination.
Inaccuracies were recorded during the examination of r
weld number 02A-510 due to the fact that an automated examination was
'
performed and recorded on data sheets intended for manual examinations.
Presently, Ceco has.no plans to revise Form NDT-C-37, but Ceco UT Levels II and III-personnel will instruct and provide more guidance'
to. the !(DE contractor in recording data from automated examinations on these data sheets, r
The NRC inspector reviewed weld number 02A-510 fint1 reports including traveler, NDE and welding reports and found them acceptable. The NRC inspector agreed with the action taken by the licensee and considers this item closed.
'
<
c.
(Closed)-Unresolved Item (265/88011-03) - ASME Section XI Reference Paints.
It was determined that the ISI program requirement and the
ASME Section XI, Appendix III, Supplement 2, Codes were not met.
The Code required that a reference system be established for the
'
inspection starting point, direction of the examinations, and the
.
location-of the center lines of the welds.
L The licensee issued a letter as part of a procedure in the program l
for marking systems in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition, i
Appendix;III, Supplement 2.
The personnel are trained and the NRC inspector visually examineo r
.
many welds observing that there was a stating point, the directions
of the examinations were correct and the location of the center iines of the welds were accurate. The liRC inspector agreed with the action taken by the licensee, and considers this item closed.
d.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (265/88011-05) - ANSI 45.2.6 Experience Requirements.
It was found that CECO Procedure 1-10, Revision 24, did not properly address the experience requirements of ANSI 45.2.6, 1973.
Ceco informed the NRC inspector that the section of Procedure 1-10, Revision 24, that concerned visual examination, was undergoing rewrite and that the requirements of ANSI 45.2.6 would be met.
Another concern of the NRC inspector was that unqualified personnel may have signed off ASME inspections.
I
?
1
mv
-
.
-.
r
.
L
.
,
'
.
.
,
'
'
Tr.e NRC inspector reviewed the revised procedure, the requirements
?
of ANSI 45.2.6, several ASME inspections and determined that the procedure and the'ASME inspections were acceptable.
The NRC inspector agreed with the action taken by the licensee and considers this item closed, p
3.
Licensee Action on Information Notice 88-03 Unit 1 (S2717)
(Closed)-InformationNotice 88-03 (88900-01) " Crack in shroud support access hole cover welds."
Background
- t Jet pump BWRs are designed with access holes in the shroud support plate, ve~L is located it the bottom of the annulus between the core shroud and eactor.u sel wall. Each reactor vessel has two such holes which are.
" e y ees apart.
These holes aie used for access during construc-nd ubsequently closed by welding a plate over the hole.
The
'
-s ana-oud support ledge are Inconel Alloy 600 material. The ecting W '3.fterial also is Inconel 600 (Alloy 182 or 82).
b' + Nsec ; nresses resulting from welding, along with a possible
.
-e geomet y of the weld, when combined with less than ideal water
<, p(resent o condition conducive to intergranular stress corrosion
.
1G500), This has been recognized by General Electric and, as a
.6, they have developed a remotely operated ultrasonic examining peo119y for locating cracks in the cover plate welds.
This custcm alt ~ratonic examining fixture was first used at Peach Bottom, Unit 3.
On January 21, 1988, at Peach Bottom, Unit 3, intermittent short cracks were found in the weld heat affected zone around the entire circumference of-the covers.
It is estimated that cracking exists over 50 to 60 percent of the circumference with cusps as deep.as 70 percent through the wall.
It is balieved that the cover 31 ate welds had not been inspected previously on any other BWR.
It is possi)la that the cracking is generic and may, therefore, affect all BWRs with jet pumps-.
Licensee Action
,
An inspection of Dresden Unit 3 access hole cover plates was conducted in April 1988. Results from this inspection did not identify any crack indications. This inspection was performed since the cover plate configu-rations-at Dresden and Quad Cities stations are identical to the Peach Bottom Unit 3 plate design that experienced severs crevice cracking.
Hydrogen addition was implemented this outage for Unit 2 and will be implemented for Unit 1 at the end of this year.
Ba:;ed on the above information CECO does not believe that inspections are required for Unit 1.
4.
Licensee Action on IE Bulletin (Unit 1) (92703)
(Closed) IE Bulletin No. 80-07 (254/80-07-BB) - Ultrasonic examinations (UT) of jet pump beam bolt assemblies.
Pursuant to the requirements of IE
,
Bulletin No. 80-07, all jet pump beam bolt assemblies were UT'd by CECO l
l.
Ri
_
,
, _.
,
C~
,.
p'
- /.
,
,
.
p
,
this outage ard were found to be acceptable. The NRC inspector reviewed
.. ' '
the procedure and other associated documentation and determined that the actions implemented by the licensee met the Bulletin.
It is CECO's intent to continue to UT the jet pump beam bolt assemblies during ea:h refueling outage; and, it beam bolt assemblies are found cracked, they will be
'
replaced prior to unit start-up, a
5..
Flued Head Anchor Assessment Prcgram Modification Units 1 and 2 (37701)
Introduction In September of 1987, cor.cerns were raised regarding structural integrity
,
of.the flued head anchors (FHA) for Units 1 and 2.
It was found that pipe
'
supports in the containu nt penetration area which utilize FHA were not
!
included under the IEB 79-14 scope of work. Consequently, the as-built
!
configuration of these anchor structures was never verified. The NRC Headquarters staff held a meeting with Ceco at the NRC Headquarters offices on' September 14, 1987, during which CECO presented the original design basis loads and analytical methodologies for the FHA structures in question.
i On January 26-28, 1988, the NRC staff and consultants from Brookhaven l
National Laboratory (BNL) conducted audits on CECO's FHA design calculations
!
at the corporate headquarters of Sargent and Lundy (S&L) and Impell l
. Corporation. The audit team identified to CECO several deficiencies in j
'
the FHA design calculation which were later included in Region III Inspection Reports No. 50-254/87028(DRS) and 50-265/87028(DRS). The audit team suggested that CECO initiate a comprehensive FHA program to correct
the deficiencies identified. On Janucry 24 and 25, 1989, the NRC staff and the BNL consultants conducted a followup audit at S&L's headquarters to assess the completeness of the FHA program and to review the new design calculations and documents prepared by S&L.
,
Evaluation-The as-built FHA configurations were inspected in the field by the Region III
~
staff as detailed in the above inspection raports (50-254/87028(DRS) and l
50-265/87028(DRS)). The audit team reviewed the FHA' structure analysis =and design calculations performed by S&L for selected FHAs. The audit team neciced a substantial improvement in the FHA program since the previous audit'. The program appeared to be strengthened by the involvement of
!
knowledgeable technical personnel as well as sound QA/QC procedures. The-majority of the remaining program deficiencies as identified during the
I previous audit were resolved to the team's satisfaction. The NRC staff l
I determined that the additional efforts included in the responses were found
l to have satisfactorily resolved all concerns identified by the audit team.
j r
gnclusion E
Based on the recent audit of CECc's FHA program and S&L's latest design I
documentation, as well as the review of the followup responses provided j
L.
by CEC 0 after the audit, the NRC staff concluded that Ceco's FHA program L
was adequately defined and was properly implemented.
!
p L
l
-
- --
<
,
u
-
+
.,
'
t.;
.
' 6.,
Inservice Inspection (ISI), Unit 1
,
a.
F.eview of Program (73051)
,
CECO and LMT performed the ISI in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition,-Wir.ter 1980 Addenda. There was sufficient organizational staff to ensure that acceptable ISI work was perform 3d.
The inspection
- plan for addressing intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC)
concerns was in accordance with Generic Letter 88-01. One hundred eighty-two welds inspected by the licensee in accordance with Generic Letter 88-01 were found to have no IGSCC including 15 weld overlays.
1wo welds, (No. 02G-53 and No. 02D-S3,.12" diameter, recirculation
rise'r welds inspected ir. accordance with GL 88-01) were found to have l
recordable indications that were acceptable to ASME Section XI, Paragraph IWB.3500.- Eacn weld had an indication approximately 0.1" x 0.15".
Weld No. 02G-S4 had an indication 1.2" long with several smaller indications (not IGSCC). All the above indicationc were located in the weld overlay material. The welds were 0.585" thick ~
,
with a 0.25" overlay.
Each flaw indication was evaluated in accor-dance with NUREG 0313, Revision 2.
Where ASME requirements were determined to be impractical, specific relief requests were requested from NRR in writing. The NRC inspector reviewed the specific relief
,
requests including the related correspondence between the licensee and the.NRC. The NRC inspector reviewed audits /surveillances of ISI activities conducted by qualified personnel to verify compiiance with the ISI program.
Forty welds received the Mechanical Stress Improvement Process including 10 Reactor Water Clean-Up (RWCU) welds.
,
The following welds received full structural overlays in accordance with GL 88-01:
Weld Number Reason For Weld Overlays 02L-S4 Stresses were too great on the line.
'
02K-F6 Stresses were too great on the line.
02M-S3 A pipe lock was removed from a pipe permanently.
(A pipe lock had baon on the weld for some time and NRR and CECO had many discussions about the pipe lock on how it would release stresses.
Finally, because of GL 88-01, the pipe lock was removed.)
02BS-S5 Weld had a leak barrier overlay (partial) that did not meet GL 88-01.
02BS-S9 Weld had a leak barrier overlay (partial) that did not meet GL 88-01.
,
.
N
&
<
y
.
L'
c41
,
- .
v'
,
,
j;
h'
02B-F1 Weld had a leak barrier overlay (partial) that did not meet GL 88-01.
_
'
- 02C-S3 Weld had a leek barrier overlay (partial) that
.
did not meet GL 88-01.
'
did not meet GL 88-01.
t
- 02G-S3 Weld had a leak barrier overly (partial) that L
did not meet GL 88-01, 02M-S4 Weld had a leak barrier overly (partial) that did not meet GL 80-01.
r 14A-F11 W(ld had a leak barrier overly'(partial) that did not meet GL 88-01.
,
14A-S8 Weld had a leak barrier overly (partial) that did not meet GL 88-01.
14A-S9 Weld had a leak barrier overly (partial) that did not meet GL 88-01.
14B-58 Weld had a leak barrier overly (partial) that l
L did not meet GL 88-01, p
L
- The NRC inspector observed welding by the Welding Services Incorporation personnel.
L Welding Service Incorporation pcrformed the actual welding of the weld overlays.
The welding filler metal used for the weld overlays was type ER308L. All welding was performed in accordance with welding procedure specifications written and qualified in accordance with ASME Section IX, the latest addition of the Code. The preparation, application, and examination of the weld overlays were described in the station travelers-and procedures for the work.
No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Review of Procedures (73052)
All ISI procedures were approved by the Authorized Nuclear Inservice Inspector (ANII) and were reviewed by the NRC inspector. The master slave unit, manual pulse echo ultrasonic examination detection
7 l
.
-
.
.
n
.
_
--
-
[,m:Q
_
<
Y,:
- '
,A e
- ,1
r -
,
.
.
e ine,truments, and transducers of various angles, sizes.nand MHZ were used.--The nondestructive examinations (NDE) were performed in
,
accordance with ASME Section V, 1980 Edition, Winter Addenda.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
l c.-
Data Review and Evaluation (73755)
-
c The examination data was within the criteria as outlined in the
,
applicable NDE procedures and ASME Code requirements. The i4RC inspector review included examination of documents relating to NDE equipment, data, and evaluations.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.d.
_0bservationofWorkActivities(73751
.
!
The NRC inspector observed work and had discussions with personnel during the ISI activities. These observations included the following:
(1)- LMT. personnel performing ultrasonic examinations of the following:
,
Weld No.
System 196751B1 Recirculatien 196751B11 Recirculation o
195751A11 Recirculation
'
1407-771A Recirculation 02D-F1 Jet Pump Riser 02F-S3 Jet Pump Riser 02K-S3 Jet Pump Riser 02H-S2 Recirculation (2) LMT personnel calibrating and utilizing the master slave unit L
in performing ultrasonic examinations.
The NRC inspector reviewed the qualifications and certifications of l
all inspection personnel on site to ensure conformance with SNT-TC-1A.
The Level II and Level III personnel performing UT on stainless steel welds were qualified at the Electric Power Research Institute for i,
L IGSCC detection.
L No violations or deviations were identified.
,
7.
Exit Interview (30703)
.
The NRC inspector = met with site representatives (Denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the. conclusion of the inspection. The NRC inspector summarized the
>
scope and findings of the inspection noted in this report. The NRC inspector also discussed the likely informational Nntent of the inspection E
report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the NRC inspector i
during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such Jocuments/
(
processes as proprietary.
l
.
_
_ _. _
_