IR 05000255/1993005

Insp Rept 50-255/93-05 on Stated Date.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Independent NDE of Components & Welds in Order to Ascertain Accuracy of NDE Performed by Licensee

ML20057A175
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	07/30/1993
From:	Harris R, Modes M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML18059A366	List: IR 05000255/1993005 ML20057A173
References
50-255-93-05, 50-255-93-5, NUDOCS 9309130150
Download: ML20057A175 (15)

Text

_ _ .. . . . . . . _ __ _ __ _ _ _

,

! a

~

l In3DSUPE 2 d

i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

- REGION 1

.

Docket N &255  ;

.P

, Report N @ 5

>.

License N DPR-20 1  ;

'; Licensee: Consumers Power l '

212 West Michican Avenue Jackson. Michigan 49201 l

-

,

s Palisades Power Station j Facility Name:

.

l Inspection .At: Covert. MI ,

t 4' ,

Inspection Dates: June 15 to June 25.1993

,

i >

'

,o r s j Inspectors: wikM Mv' ~

IC H. Harris, Technician

,

Fo e Y/ bid [f'S

" Date !

j Mobile NDE l2boratory, EB, DRS {

] i a  !

'

l J. M. Bryant; TET, Inc.; Mobile, Alabama W. M. Mmgus; TET, Inc. Mobile, Alabama ,

!

I i

.,

,; ~ l l G ' /

f Approuc cy: jh h ~

7/3J[3 1 M. C. Modes, Chief, Mobile NDE laboratory, Date -

l Engineenng Branch, DRS .

,

t

-,

l J l 1 i'

l

>

i l i

,

l i

i-

! ,

h

l

-

}

9309130150 930907

PDR ADOCK 05000255 i G PDR -

0

- . _ _ _ , - _ _ .

.- -

. . . .- - _ . = - _ _ .. - - -

.

, .

l Inspection Summary _ 2

-

l t

inspection Summary and Conclusions: An announced inspection was conducted at ;

'

the Palisades Nuclear Plant during the period June 15 to 25, 1993, using the

'

.

NRC Hobile NDE Laboratory (Report No. 50-255/93005(DRS)). The purpose of this l

'

inspection was the independent nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of components !

and welds in order to ascertain the accuracy of the NDE performed by the !

licensee. During this inspection, forty (40) welds and/or components located l

in seven plant systems were examined by nondestructive methods by the NR ;

i The results obtained by the NRC during this evaluation, when compared with l those of the licensee, were consistent with the variations expected in '

i technique. The NDE program presently deployed at Palisades is significantly !

i improved over the program we reviewed during the NRC Hobile HDE Laboratory ,

visit of February 24th to March 6th of last year. The licensee has initiated ;

a number of improvements and changes that satisfactorily respond to the '

concerns expressed in NRC report 92-01 '

'

i

Areas lospected: Areas from the main steam line (MSL), containment spray ;

(CSS), safety injection ISIS), shctdown cooling relief (SDC), shut down cooling (SCS), pressuri. e relief (PRS), long term cooling (LTC), containment [

air cooling (CRS), char;ing line (CHL), pressurizer spray and pressurizer '

surge (PSS) system ws.e independently examined by the NRC utilizing various ,

] nondestructive cet.ods. An evaluation of the licensee's quality program,

! including NDE, was performed using NRC promulgated procedures in conjunction l with the 11ccasee's approved procedurcs.

I l i

Results: Within the expected normal variations in examination techniques, the result of the NDE evaluations performed by the NRC essentially agreed with the j j results obtained by the licensee with one exception. The NRC did not agree ,

with the licensee's disposition of an indication in wo!d FCS-4-PRS-lPl-2. The !

.

'

NRC determined, beccuse of the results obtained by its independent evaluation, that it was more appropriate to treat the indication as a thermal f aticue i

crac ~he licensee subjer.ted this indication, utilizing these dimensions. to !

'

analysis in order to determine the components useful life. In their correspondence dated July 20, 1993. they restated their evaluation ' the ,

,

indication, a commitment to reevaluate the indication during the nex. outage i

,

'

and submitted an engineering evaluation Inat concludes that the crack will not !

propagat lhis remediation of the indication is appropriate for its location [

, and the commitment to reevaluate during the next outage is acceptable _ r l l

.

t

h

!

,

!  !

!

!

!

!

i

'

i

-

'

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

,

i

. ,

a

DETAllS  !

a Introduction

,

i The Code of federal Regulations (CFR), Title 10, Part 50.55a (10 CFR 50.55a),

,

requires inservice inspection (ISI) of safety-related equipment to identify i i system degradatio Before the licensee generated program of inspection is '

i applied to the equipment, it must be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the authority embodied in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(iv). The i required inspections are detailed in the American Society of Mechanical j

,

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, for Inservice l

Inspection as embraced in 10 CFR 50.55a(b). Tne NRC inspection described in j this report was made using the Mobile Nondestructive Examination (NDE)

'

,

Laboratory. The Mcbile NDE Laboratory is capable of independently performing '

the examinations required of the licensee. This capability provides the NRC with unique insights into the licensee's inservice inspection program and on a i i

sampled basis, the adequacy and accuracy of the licensee's specific NDE l

.

inspections, i

j r

!

The scope of this inspection was to review the 'dministrative portions of the program and to perform NDE of the syste s that were availabl i

,

i

[ inservice inspection Progra_m Review  !

!  ! ME Procedures (73052J l l

Before a licenste's program c.' inspettien is used, it must be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the authority embodied in 10 Cf R 50.55a(g) t

(4)(iv). The reauted inspections are detailed in the American Society of

Mechanical Erdneers (ASME) Boiler and Fressure Vessel Code,Section XI, for  !

t inwrvice inspection as embraced in 10 UR 50.55a(b). For any inspection

, program, the Code edition and addenda und is determined in accordarce with l 3 ine reqairements of 1- cfR 50.55a(g). ;;r tre Palisades b clear Plant. the applicable Code edit

'

19S3 with the surer of 1983 addene (aka 83S83). :

It was found during , ection perf rred during the period Fent ury 24th l

.

to March 6th of 1992 th ae follcwing ;.rcc(dures had been revised toh wply '

I with the 1983 Edition with Winter of 19S Addenda (aka 83W84) edition ci the l j' AsME Coce even though this edition was r.ct approved for use at the plant by the NRC. NDT-PT -01, Rev. 9; NDI-P f-02, N , 5; NDT-RT.01. Rev. 8; NDT-MT-01,

l Rev. 7; NDT-UT-02, Rev. 4; and NDi-UT-DE. h . 2. These procedures were '

j revised in this manner in ords to be atie tc use them uniformly througneut i i the Consumers Power syster, both at Big R d Nuclear Plant and at the l

] Palisades Nuclear Plant, in addition to their fossil fueled plant No j'

evidence was available showing that a tmnical review of the procecures had ,

.

been undert aken to determine if the rev . on mpacted any technical '

specification or quality com:nitment at tu plant. This was categorized as an

,

unr esolved item (URI 255/92012-001). Ir. the time between the inspection of February 24th to March 6th of 1992 and inis inspection, a technical review was i

l

1

-

. _.-_ . . . - ~ _ . - - - _ - - - - .

!

.. ,

R i

!

u'ndertaken and there existed no previous or current impact on technical I

'

specifications or quality commitments. It was determined by NRC review that *

the licensee has revised the procedures to be both site specific and to clearly meet the requirements of the 83S83 Code. These actions closes !

unresolved item URI 255/92012-00 ,

Paragraph IWA 2120 and Handatory Appendix III, Paragraph 2300(p), requires the approval of the ANI for all NDE procedures. This requirement for approval includes, in the former paragraph, the requirement that each procedure "shall )

include, as a minimum, the following information: . . . (p) approval of the procedure as required by IWA 2120." This requires some form of testimony on the procedure, that the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) has approved the procedure. The simplest way of fulfilling this obiigation is by having the ANI signoff the procedure as a matter of course. It was determined during our l inspection of February 24th to March 6th of 1992, that the Palisades Nuclear i Plant had no such ANI testimony on their procedures. This was left as an unresolved finding (URI 255/92012-002). Since that time, Palisades' l Administrative procedure 10.42 has been revised to insure that ANI review of !

,

the procedures will be performed and at an appropriate time. For the '

procedures reviewed by the NRC, it was verified that the ANI had signed the document and that his signature was dated in compliance with the administrative requirements. These changes close unresolved finding URI

,

'

255/92012-00 !

7 i l The radiographic procedure at Palisades (NDT-RT-01, Revision 8) listed a table (

,

in paragraph 10.6.3.1 for double wall radiography. This procedure, as noted l

'

earlier, was revised to the Winter '84 Addenda to Section XI. The table of !

i paragraph 10.6.3.1 is a reflection of an earlier edition of ASME Section V, !

Article The Code has since dropped the table. It is no longer applicable in Section V (referred to by Section XI for radiography) either for the ,

Summer '83 or Winter '84 Edition of the Code. According to the licensee, the

, table remained since the procedure was used in a fossil plant where it was still applicable under ANSI B31.1 for power piping. The t able did not conform l to the current requirements of ASME Section X1 and Section V. since it

, required the use of a 25 penetrameter at 2T sensitivity for the thickress {

range of 1 to and including lh inches and the Code requires that a 20 (

penetrameter at al ser,31tivity be used in the range of 1 to ar.d including 1%

inches. The lic esee was unable to give a satisfactory technical

justification during the period february 24th to March 6th of 1992 for this ;

j deviation f rom the Code and it remained as an unresolved item (UR] 255/92012-Since the inspection of February 24th to fiarch 6th of 1992. the l 003).

1 licensee has responded to the unresolved iten. The licensee has correctly i pointed out that Table T-272 of Section V, Article 2, was not deleted until ;

the Summer of 1984 Addenda of the Code. It was for this reason (and not the l

one stated by a licensee representative at the time of the original '

inspection) t hat the table was lef t in procedure GDT-RT-01. Revision B. 11 is the position of the licensee that the procedure was in compliance witn the !

.

requirements of the 83S83 issue of the Code and not the stated compliance for !

83WS The issue has been corrected by a revision of the prccedure to make it

.

'

.

-  !

!

'

3 2

-

i

!

l

. .

specific to the requirements for Palisades as evidenced by the f!RC revite This .esolves URI 2.55/92012-003. The following procedures were reviewed by the insp(ction team:

Title fio./Re Palisades Outage Plan 2-7 NA, Rev. 7 I .S. I. Specification NA, Rev. 4 Visual Examination NDT-VT-01, Rev. Il liquid Penetrant Examination fiDT-PT-01, Rev. 10 Liquid Penetrant Examination HDT-PT-02, Rev. 6 Ncnstandard Temperature Radiographic Examinatien of Welds NDT-RT-01, Rev. 9 Ultrasonic Examination of Ferritic and Austenitic Piping and Pranch Connection Welds, TOT-UT-01. Rev. 10 Magnet ic Part ic le i xaminat ion NDT-Mi-01, Eev. 8 Ultrasonic E x a,. ' g ion o f Nut s , Stucs Boit: and Pins, NDT-UT-07, Rev. '

Ul t ra s or.1 c fxamination of Vessel Wci r Nii-UT-ll, Pev. 3 Ultraschic lxamination of Nozzle-ic Vene? Welds and Nozzle Inner Radlui

'ectlen'. NDI-UI-12. Rm . 3 E,.h pro; a re wa.. review.cd foi t: , , l a u2 ith ASME Sec tions XI and '.

rmire nt: to t h- S35E3 ejitie n 31J1* ion, the results of examinuticr:s s. o . corp red wit h these procedm '~r :rliance wi t h s t at ed cc mi tm'

it procs '.res were found ic N

-

- -

p!' w i th thc requirerornt

^

. < 15! M ar j]F5U Ii is tho intont of th( + CME in f r Li a t t he requirt entt of Sect;cr a for e i n s e r. ) + insia ttlun pr; a r a: 1: di : : '. a t i o n < for trends e; nel ~

d_t<:t t ! ,- This is reflect (d i: 'M ion XI. Paragraph ]W! 313) -< >

tlast ,

1 nd 3 paping) an. Paragr-; IA ;}?1 (for Class 2 welds). E-ta:!ed in th>se referent as is the :.tipulatic,n to cc7are the current state of an indicat ic n with its previou s t a t e- Vclu-ctric and surface examinatior ults shall be cor pared wit h r. i : rded ruults of the preservic t examination ar d prior inservice examinations 'hi" Grther strengthened in IWE 3131.1 arni IWC 3131.1 when it states that it tht ,clumetric or surface examination

'

either reconfirms thi absence of fla., indications or reveals flaw indications that do not exceed t he acceptance standards listed "

the corponent shall be deemed acceptable for continued service At the time of our previous i nspection, Palisade: war not doing this an. lysis for all indicatiens. just

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

i I

l l

,

I those that were rejected. This made Palisades unable to trend indications in the plant and develop an early warning system for any generic category of indication. This was an unresolved finding pending the licensee's review of reports (URI 255/92012-004). The Palisades ISI Specification has been revised to include the requirement in paragraph 8.2 for the review of indications by

.

Palisades PTS using the rules of IWB-3000 as described above. This  ;

j administrative change resolves this issue and is considered close The licensee had a written system that identifies a method of orientrtion for

'

the recording of indications on the final reports as required in ASME Section XI, Paragraph IWA-2610, and this system meets the intent of the requiremen !

However, the identification system does not include any requirement to permanently mark the weld centerline. This is an important basis for repeatability of the NDE and is further required in mandatory Appendix III, '

Paragraph 111, 432 The Code describes suggested ways of accomplishing the marking system. The licensee had centerline marked welds as part of ,

modifications in safety systems but dM not mark existing welds. This observation was lef t as an unresolved item in Report 92012 (URI 255/92012- !

005). Since the inspection of February 24th to March 6th of 1992, the licensee i has taken the position that they will not permanently mark existing welds ;

l because it was not a requiremer t of the original preservice inspection '

program. They have supported this position by stating that the weld crowns are easily visible and that the NDE technicians can quickly locate the weld centerline. There are weld centerlines located in the pressurizer relief line .

that were very difficult for the NRC NDE personnel to determine. However, th procedure previously used for locating these centerlines has been revised, the

'

licensee has committed to marking all new welds and this unresolved ite- is ,

close .3 ISI Data Review (73755)

. The NDE evaluation of weld flaws for acceptance under Section XI is bas =d on !

the amount of stress the indication introduces in a plane. If two fla.s are located sufficiently close to each other, they are considered to be one fla ,

This evaluation is required in Paragraph IWA 3300 as diagrammed in Fig ue IWA ;

a 3330-1. During the NRC's inspection of February 24th to March Eth of 1992, i

the final Palisades ISI penetrant report for weld ESS-12-SIS-261 note- two

indications at the same location without evidence that a measurement ha: been !

i made to det ermine that these indications should not be considered as one

indTcation. The specific requirement is that the flaws be separated b,'. a l

cistance equal to twice the depth of the deegr flaw ( X d 24 or ?d, wr are d, *

-

is the depth of flaw one and d is the depth of flaw two, with tne asstcption ;

, that round penetrant indicaticas are as deep a % their diameter). The

licensee revised the penetrant report form to include the requirement fcr

measuring the distance between adjacent indications. This separation j measurement closes the uriresolved item (URI 255/92-12-006). Durir;g the

original inspection of february 24th to March 6th of 1992, Consumers Po er NDE '

procedure NDT-Ul-01, Rev. 8, paragraph 10.6, required the axial shear wave j scanning of welds in two directions on the crown and along the weld (nce Re and paragraph 12.4). The original procedure under paragraph 20,5, in com;)liance with Section XI, paragraph 11I-4430 (a), required the entire weld

.

!

$

i

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

!

I

!

!

and HAZ be scanned by the longitudinal method on the face of the weld if the weld could not be examined from two opposing sides. This requirement continues in paragraph 12.3 of the current revision of the procedure. During the original inspection of February 24th to March 6th of 1992, Palisades failed to note the limitations in scanning weld ESS-12-SIS-2Bl. The requirement of ASME Section XI, paragraph III-4500(f) was not complied with, i.e., "The following data shall be recorded on an examination data sheet:

' .. i

. (f) surface from which examination is conducted." lhis weld examination had ;

been accepted by Consumers Power Company. This was left as an unresolved finding, URI 50-255/92-012-07. The reporting requirements of Consumers Power !,

NDE procedure NDT-UT-01, Rev 12, Attachment D, now includes the information required in Section XI. This unresolved item is considered close i 1 ISI Performance (737531 i  :

During the inspection of February 24th to March 6th of 1992, an 80% of DAC

] reflector (intermittent in length) was not recorded for weld FWS-18-FWL-251- .

'

243 per the requirements of ASME Section XI, paragraph IWA-2232(b), CP l Procedure NDT-UT-01 Rev. 8, paragraph 11.1, and ISI plan Rev. 3, Appendix 6A,

-

Parts B and E. The licensee was unable to duplicate the NRC's results in this regard. The equipment used by the licensee and the NRC was essentially the '

same and the transducer was the same type, brand, size and frequency from the

, same mar 4facturer. The NRC Mobile NDE Laboratory subjected the two i

transducers to a frequency spectrum analysis. The transducer used by the

licensee showed signs of degradation. There is no specified limit for this degradation and the transducer did meet the requirements prescribed for i The NRC lef t this as another unresolved item since the licensee needed to dispose of the indication in the above weld and determine what other ,

i

! transducers might be in their inventory that suffered from the same

' 1 deterioration (URI 50-255/92-012-08). j Since our inspection of february 24th to March 6tn of 1992, the licensee

'

i i

retvaluated the indication, the transducer and the calerations used to

_'

cetermine their acceptance of the indicatio Because all the parameters used i to estslish the evaluaticn were in compliance wi+h the minimum requirements of the Rde. Palisades categorized the indication as genetric with less than

,

, f

'

50~ of DC arrplitude. The licensee evaluated their insentory of transducer ;

There were in evidence 0 Q new transducers during this current inspection period and the licensee indicated that they were owned Dy the power station it self for their exclusive use. Inis unresolved item 3 considercd ricsed.

'

j During tne inspection of f ebruary 24th t o March 6th of 1992, Consumers Power

!

R pany U ccedure hDT-UT-01, Rev. 8, para. 7.2.2.2 D, stated: " Search unit i size, frequency, and angle shall generally be selected according to Table 1."

!

Table 1 for a nominal material thickness of 100" to 1.5" lists a transducer i

.

size of L c" to 1/2" in size at an angle of 45 or 60 The thicknesses l listed on the final ult rasonic examination reports for welds MSS-36-MSL-2SI-

.

219, MSS-36-MSL-2SI-217 and MSS-36-MSL-2S]-218 are less than 1.5". According l to the Consumers Power Company procedure, a 1/2" or less transducer would have i

! been use There are no weld, geometry or interference restrictions which woeld have caused any other choice of transducer. However, the welds were i

,

enmined with a 1" diameter transducer. The large 45 shoe of this transducer ;

,

,

J

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

.

,

(2-1/8" long by 1-11/16" wide) along with the wide crown of the minimally

. prepared surface of the weld meant that the required coverage of the 1/3 zone could not be obtained on the first 1/2 node. Instead of exercising the options contained in ASME Section XI, Para III-3230(a)(1) and/or (2) along with Consumers Power Company procedure NDT-UT-01, Rev. 8, para 7.2.3 A. and/or

B., which would have guided them back to the smaller transducer of their Table

1, they decided to extend the scan to a full 1 and 1/2 nodes in order to ;

obtain coverage. This means a sound path that is 3 times longer then a ,

smaller transducer with the inherent lose of sensitivity to small indications.

During February 24th to March 6th of 1992, the NRC examined weld 219 with a

'

1/2" diameter transducer using the first 1/2 node. This examination revealed ;

an indication that is 26" long and up to 100% of the reference level. The ,

'

nature of the indication seems to be geometric but would require further examination to more fully categorize. Consumers Power Company was made aware .

!

,

of this discovery and repeated the examination with the 1" transducer and the transducer that was later determined by the NRC to suffer from a loss of ;

!

sensitivity. This was left as an unresolved item pending further evaluation

, by the licensee (50-255/92-012-09). l

'

Since the inspection of February 24th to March 6th of 1992, the licensee has '

reconfirmed the geometric nature of the indication by a reexamination, and review of construction radiographs. In addition, the licensee stated that the

' transducer had been evaluated for deterioration by the manufacturer of the transducer and found acceptable. The current revision of the procedure !

includes a statement that the transducer should be chosen in accordance with Table 2 of the procedure. Table 2 does not allow the use of a transducer larger than %" for material thicknesses one inch and less. These corrective actions and procedural changes resolve the unresolved item.

Nondestructive Examination (NDE)

During this inspection, forty-two (42) welds ana fort;, (40) supports or hangers located in the main stear line, containment spray, safety injection,

!

shutdcwn cooling relief, shutdown cooling, pressurizer relief, long terr

] cooling. containment air cooling charging line, pressurizer spray and j oressJrizer surge systems were examined Dy nondestructive methods by the NRC.

An evaluation of the licensee's quality program. including NDE, was performed !

i using NRC promulgated procedures in conjunction with the licensee's approved l procedures.

!

l Visual f xamirat ion _L570501 i

Thirty-nine (39) safety-related pipe weldments and adjacent base caterial (1/2

!

inch cn either side of the weld) were visually exanined in accordance with NRC !

procecure NDF-10, Rev. O Appendix A, and associat ed site procedure NDT "T-01 j

Rev. 11, QC documents. isometrics and as-built drawings. Examined during this

' inspection were ASME Classes 1 and 2 pipe weldments selected from SIS, MSS.

'

CVC, TWS and the CSS system Inspections were performed specifically to identify any cracks or linear indications, gouges, leakage, arc strikes with a

craters, or corrosion, which may infringe upon the minimum pipe wall thickness J

,

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

.

,

a'd n modifications to piping or components. Mirrors, flash lights, and weld

,

gauges were used to aid in the inspection and evaluation of the welds,

'

i

Results: The welding and overall workmanship inspected was satisfactor No cracks, gouges, corrosion or any indication that may be detrimental to ti,e operation of those systems inspected were reveale i

-

l Inspection Hanaer/ Support (57050) '

-

During this inspection, forty (40) safety-related hanger / supports were visually inspected per NRC procedure NDE-10, Rev. O, Appendices A and B in '

conjunction with site procedure NDT-VT-01, Rev.11, and QC documents and

"

associated isometric drawings. Included in this inspection were  :

hanger / supports selected from the PRS, CSS, SIS, LTC, CRS, CHL, and PSS l system For component integrity, the specific attributes examined were proper installation, configuration, or modification of supports, evidence of mechanical or structural damage, corrosion, bent, and missing or broken

,

members. Table #2 is a list of specific hanger / supports inspecte '

Results- The overall condition of hanger / supports inspected was satisfactor ; Liquid Penetrant Examination (570601

,

l Twenty-five (25) safety-related pipe weldments and adjacent base material (1/2 I inch on either side of the weld) were examined using the visible dye, solvent i

removable liquid penetrant method per NRC procedure NDE-9, Rev. O, in ,

i conjunction with the licensee's procedure NDT-PT-01, Rev. 10. Included in  ;

this inspection was ASME Class 2 stainless steel pipe, field and vender shop weldments selected from the 515, SDC, and CSS system i Results: The surface areas examined were properly prepared for the

,

examination. Interpretation of indications located in the same area were

-

compared with the results of the previous inspectio .4 Ultrasonic Examinat ion (57080) I

f ourteen (14) safety-related pipe welcnents were ultrasonicall examine

using [

] NRC procedure NDE-1, Rev. 1, in conjunction with the 1 k n; .', procedure NDT- l

Ul-01, Rev. 12, and associated isometric drawings and ultrasonic data recort *

Included in this examination were ASME Classes 1 and 2 pipe weldments selected

f rom the MSL, SCS, SIS, and PRS system To obtain the greatest possible s l repeatability in performing the NRC independent measurements. the examinations

,

were perf ormed utilizing transducers and cables that matched those used oy the t

licensee as closely as possible. A distance amplitude correction curve was '

, established utilizing Consumers Power Company calibration standards.

.

Results: ihe ultrasonic examinations performed by the licensee were ,

conservatively executed in conformance with the revised procedures and in compliance with the requirements of the ASME Code standard. The licensee went I i

.

7 i

!

\

-

,

d

. . - ._

._ __ _

_ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ .

l

.  !

i

,

h

to great length: to assure that full coverage of the weld was being obtained l

"

in as many directions as possible. The ultrasonic inspection of components has been strengthened since the NRC inspection of February 24th to March 6th  ;

of 199 ' Radioaraphic Examination (57090)

Recently completed radiographs for three (3) safety-related pipe weldments in '

, the PRS line were reviewed by the NRC inspectors. The procedure and technique used to make the radiographs were in accordance with site procedure NDT-RT-1, Rev. 9. Also reviewed were associated isometric drawings and radiographic t

~

data report i i

Results: Although no violations were identified and the radiographs and welds !

'

met the stated requirements, the NRC did not agree with the licensee's '

disposition of an indication in weld PCS-4-PRS-IPl-2. The NRC determined,

'

,

because of the results obtained by its independent evaluation, that it was more appropriate to treat the indication as a thermal fatigue crack. The NRC  !

used the dimensions of I-7/8 inches in length by less than 1/3 wall thickness in order to evaluate this indication. The licensee subjected this indication, i

utilizing these dimensions, to analysis in order to determine the components  !

useful lif In their correspondence, dated July 20, 1993, they restated

their evaluation of the indication, a commitment to reevaluate the indication ,

during the next outage and have submitted an engineering evaluation that concludes that the crack will not propagate. This remediation of the indication is appropriate for its location and the commitrent to reevaluate ,

l during the next outage is acceptabl j

B

, Tables (

,

This is a table listing the components examir,ed by the NRC Mobile NDE l

! lat' oratory during itr inspection of Palisad3s Nuclear plant '

,

.

,

I

. i

,

A N

!

!

!,

a f

l -

4

. - , - ,

- -, ,

~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. _ - . _.. . _ __m . . . _ . - . . ...m . _ . _ . _ . . _ . .

)

! -

. .

,

NRC NDE MOllILE LAllORATORY TA1:LE NO. I

, ==

,

WELD ID. AND/OR SYS l NONDFSTRUCTIVE TEST SIIT. #1 j ISO / DRAWING

,

CL RT UT Fr MT VT ACC RFJ

ESS-10-SIS-LPA-221 5 15 2 X X X

.

Ess-10-SIS-LPA-225 515 2 X X X

LSS.10-515 -LPA-220 SIS 2 X X X I I

E55-19 SIS-LPA-220LW SIS 2 X X X l

,

l

., L5514 SDC-LIC-206 SDC 2 X X X  !

l ESS 14-SDC LIC-2ML1 SIX' 2 X X X I i

!

j l L55-14-SDC LIC-206LO SDC 2 X X X i i I

i L55 K CSS-SLA-219 C5S 2 l X X X i h j 135 K-CSS SL A-220 CSS '

X

.

l X X

U.5LC59'5LA 223 C55 2 l X X X

'

r i

135 M CS S-IPA-214 CSS 2 } X X X

'-

,

! i i

i L55 M -C5SlT A-215 CSS 2 i X X X  ;

i ,

.

.! ,f L55145LOLIC 202 SDC 2 X X X f

,

, f ISS-14 SDC-LIC-202LD SDC 2 l X X X

' ,

ij , '

h U~:4 51C llc 2a2Li 5' D L .

!

N X N j

.

t i 9 1 J y L 4 sD-7 L f 4J N 5Dc 2 N .l X N

. c j r

] '

..

<l tu . sDr uc sm 2 ! .

X x '

l1:

-

4 .

'

f? * bI N k -) r$ _'*,[< .

\ \  ;

. i

j us m si e xois snc 2 l l x x x l

, ,

j u ,o srem r . sac : i -

X X '

f l g u, m sDc Xon 2 sDc x x x 2 g[

p .i

!!

[z' 12 b ll.I 2d2 $l4 '

Y h '

i h a

FM ' 515-11 l' 261

-

S!5 2 N X *-

i

'

L

'

,

b i:- il MS 11 M ?!v S 3 2 I N

[ {

f 551 's $15 !! 1; 2 j 41 % l  :

$i5 2 \ \ \  !

{

c ,

,

j h K $ 04 l'RS 1P2 ? ID \

u

f 's

-

i d

e I

i t

. I

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

. _ , ~. . . _ .

.

!

SRC NDE Moll!LE LABORATORY

<

TABLE No. I

%ILD ID. AND/OR SYS l'  !

NONDESTRUCTIVT. TEST h Si!T. #2 i

.

ISO / DRAWING  ; r- *

d CL RT UT PT l MT VT

,

. . -

{ACC RFJ I ICS-04 PRS IP2-3 t

,

PRS I X X -

f ICS44 PRS Iri-l PRS I X X

'

M S5-36-M S L-ISI-202 MS 2 X X X X

a MSS 36-MSI ISI-202LD MS 2 X X X X M55-36-MSI ISI-202LU! MS 2 X X X X i

I a M55 36 MSL-151-202LUO MS 2 X X X X l

MSS 36-MSL-151201 MS 2 X X X M55-36 MSL-ISI-20lLDO MS 2 X X X 4 t ICS-12-SCs 21134 SCS 1 X X x ,

l

.i l'SS-12 Sis 2fil-1 SIS : X X X LSS-12-SIS 2 Al 12 f,15 i X X X a

.

ISS 6 SIS-1 Al 12 pI 515 1 X X X i ' *

.

{'

,

[ E..SS 12 $15-1 A 6 515 : X X X  !! i l '

[

i-ses-4 Pss iri is ess i l lx x x [.

, i i w s a n s w i i: m i J, i s t x x  ; -

.--  :

; 6

. . Ih6-51S-2 Al 21 SIL 1 l l X l X X h

! i -

i I

!

s

. = _ = = = =

Tolat x

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 3 i,

-

-L-l _25 i 1, 4 39 41 i ,

'

i a

d d

,

l

!

1

'

'

I,

.

I '.

i l

!

>

'I

. ...m _ _..=..m_ _ .- . . _ _ _ . .__ _ _ . . . _ _ .

d

, *

I

_

l NRC INDEPENDENT MFAWREMENTS PROGRAM IIANGER/ SUPPORTS TAftli 2

'

IDENT1HCATION SYS CL ACC

_ l REJ COMMENTS a

l L55-14 SDC-LPC 2% SDC 2 X ISO B37

, ESS lO 515 LPA-222 SIS 2 X f.55-10L5LS LPA-220 SIS 2 X I~.SS- 14 515-LPA-223 SIS 2 X ESS-lO-51S-LPA-22R SIS 2 X i

4 L5S-10-S!S-LPA-230 SIS 2 X

'

$

E$546<55-SLA-221 PR CSS 2 X 150 B46

, LSS418-CSS-IPA-212 #'R2 CSS 2 X 150.B30

,

E554M{55-IPA 212F U CSS 2 X I i  !

l US44 CS5 IP A-215PR I Css 2 X

,

-

r E.554 C55 IPA 215)$2 CSS 2 X i

'

, LSSI* Cis !PA -216PR CSS 2 X 1 l l \

t SSJM 55-IPA-21FOR CSS 2 X

!

U B5 OS-CSS IPA.22.1PR CSS 1 X

!I, hbb (bb-!Pk 22f f b bbb ) k e

!.

il f 5s la csi lP3-2011 R c5S 2 X iso fD'

[

, n m n, css a n 22sPR css : x

, it.s i cc -1P3 2.:I t css : x < \

I {

5 5 1 -l.'C $ !- Il li 2 2 4) T CSS 2 h X

.

d,I' -

-

i

,

i c' 12 515-!l P 20111 515 : X 150 FO a $

a L i> I ' SU iPC 219I k

>

1 '

$15 \

. d

,

,li i

'b f3 5 ll' h II A 23 II F b!h '

\ t

! i>s-1- is IF A-:pli s:s '

s j

7 :

4 l 1  !

I  :

f3's I;LisRP22iV SU j \

i

_

!? > i m e ss ,a l'

l a as . x l ll

,

I e

U as e sis itP 2m s:s : ,

i

[ 155 l' $i; il P 2173 }t $15 2 4 t +

'

'

[56-I)-bli llP 2] fit SIS 2 \ 150 l141

.

ii

'

.

i a

I i

't I

-

.- -. . _ .

. . . . . _ . - - . - . - . . ~ . . - . ~ , . . . . . - . _ ~ - . ~ . . - . . . . . . - . . __ .

'

-

r

'

, NRC INDEPfEDENT MEASURIMENTS PROGRAM

, ilANGER/ SUPPORTS l

TABLE 2 .

IDENTIllCAllON SYS CL ACC RFJ COMMENTS l

ESS-12-SOC XOA-212PR SDC 2 X ISO:B41 f

ESS-18-51S-S5I2-237PR SIS 2 X ISO:B136 i

a

055-l O-SIS 4J'& t27 $1S 2 X 150 838 L5S-10-SIS LPIF277Lt $1S 2 X LSS-10 SIS LPB 227th SIS 2 X ESS-18 SIS-Sil2-235PLI s!5 2 X 150 B136 LUG i

E 55-18-SIS-SII2-235PL2 515 2 X LUG l

] 4

,

LSS !&-SIS-$ll2-2351'13 SX 2 X LUG LSS-18-SIS-Sl{2 235PL4 515 2 X LUG

-

j  !

l ( f.55 4 SISC Ril-230 $15 2 X 150 B136 A  !

i Y

, LS5-f v 415 CPil-232 515 2 X F-- -

If c, .

=.~

!%I2-Sis !LP 221 515

-

X 150 Be

v J

J ,

4

,

i j

a l

4 i J l 5 '

1  :

}

! l i i I

.

' I i

I i

i d

A i

- - - .. , ,. ,, . - . -. . . - .

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

-

"

. l,

-

l Persons Contacted i Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspection at :

the entrance meeting on June 15th and the findings of the inspection were i

discussed with the licensee representatives during the course of the

.

_ inspetlinn and presented to licensee management at the exit meeting on {

June 25th. The licensee did not indicate that proprietary information was !

-

involved within the scope of this inspection nor were any objections note .

Consumers Power Company T. Fouty, Senior Nuclear Operations Analyst '

T. Newton, Senior Nuclear Operations Analyst

D. Ziegler, NDE Supervisor l R. Humphrey, Technical Services  :

J. Decker, Technical Services K. Osborne, System Engineering Manager l D. Washatka, Impe11-Systems Staff

' l O. Rogers, Safety and Licensing Director R. VanWagner, Predictive Testing Supervisor G. Morini, Westinghouse Dynacon  :

i U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

D. Passehl, Resident Inspector, Rill  !

J. Schapker, Reactor Inspector, Rlll  !

4 i

'

s r

J p

F

,

e

.

A k

I I

i i

l l

l

, -. e - - . __,