IR 05000259/1987032

Insp Repts 50-259/87-32,50-260/87-32 & 50-296/87-32 on 870914-18.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Previous Enforcement Matters,Microbiologically Induced Corrosion Investigation & Inservice Testing Program

ML20236M260
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	10/14/1987
From:	Blake J, Girard E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236M255	List: IR 05000259/1987032 ML20236M252
References
50-259-87-32, 50-260-87-32, 50-296-87-32, GL-84-11, NUDOCS 8711130058
Download: ML20236M260 (13)

Text

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

.

.

gn Rf00 UNITED STATES a

+4

'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 'i -

T,^

REGION 11 hy j1 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

"'

c ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

%.

$

.....

Report Nos.: 50-259/87-32, 50-260/87-32, and 50-296/87-32 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority

'

6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-?.801 j

Docket Nos.: 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 License Nos.: DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 Facility Name:

Biowns Ferry 1, 2, and 3 Inspection C ut eptember 14-18, 1987

-

Inspect r:

/

u

/0 f

4 E.

rd Date Signed j

Appro ed b h

/0//f

J.

gake, Chief Date Signed j

M e71alsandProcessesSection Ipytsion of Reactor Safety i

SUMMARY l

Scope:

This routine, announced inspection was in the areas of previous i

enforcement matters, microbiologically induced corrosion investigation, inservice testing program for pumps and valves, actions taken to implement Generic Letter 84-11 and inspector followup items.

Results:

No violations or deviations were identified, a

1 guggcg %Wjjy G

i i

d

.

.

.

i REPORT DETAILS

.,

1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• R. L. Lewis, Plant Manager

• D. C. Mims, Superintr.ndent of Technical Support Services

• C. McFall, Compliance Engineer

J. C. Pettitt, Special Projects, Field Coordinator H. E. Hodges, Mechanical Engineer, Mechanical Test Section

,

• C. T. Goodson, Inservice Inspection Coordinator j

• M. J. May, Manager of Site Licensing and Safety K. R. Mulling, Mechanical Engineer

• F. E. Hartwig, Project Manager

]

M. Koss, Metal'lurgist l

W. Pratt, Mechanical Maintenance Engineer i

R. Simmons, Inservice Inspection and Testing Engineer

• E. Crane, Irservice Inspection Engineer I

G. Wade, laservice Inspection (Personnel Qualifications)

{

G. Morris, Site Licensing Engineer NRC Resident Inspectors

• G. L. Paulk, Senior Resident Inspector

• C. A. Patterson, Resident Inspector

• C. Brooks, Resident Inspector

.

• E. Christnot, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview

]

i 2.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 18, 1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.

The inspector

'

described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.

No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.

]

l

'

'

The plant manager committed to provide a report to the NRC within 60 days supplementing the previous Browns Ferry CL 84-11 response and report.

The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of.the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.

-

'

.

.

,

/ *

..

2:

3.

Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matte's'

r a.

(Closed) Unresolved Item.(259, 260, 296/84-40-02):

Leakage' Testing Acceptance. Criteria for.CIVs.

This item expressed concern as to the licensee's - conformance. with~

ASME Section XI leak test requirements for ' containment isolation.

valves (CIVs).

The -inspector' has Ere-reviewed this : matter w'ith cognizant licensee personnel and considers t.he CIV leak test criteria stated in the licensee test programL submittalcof?0ecember 23,;1986, is acceptable for the current test interval. This item closed.

'

b.

-(Open)' Unresolved Item (259, -260, 296/85-07-02):

-Adequacy Lof Procedures

'

This item. identified. concerns 1with ' regard to the adequacy of inspection requirements 'in -the Llicensee's procedures ;for inspection of support installation.

The inspector ' had previously determined that the results.of re-inspections of supports =being performed.by the licensee in their Welding Project should be considered in determining the status of this item. According 'to licen'see ' personnel.,.TVA ; is:

scheduled to stbmit a report' of the Welding Project-findings to the NRC on September.30, 1987. Pending NRC inspection of this submittal, the matter of the adequacy' of.the inspection' procedures..'for.:

-

structures will remain open, c.

(Closed) Violation-(260/86-03-01):

Failure to.Foll'ow ' Procedures for-Housekeeping in Radiation andLContaminated Areas The licensee's letters of response, dated March 31 and. June 27, 1987, have been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by' Region II. The inspector held discussions with the. licensee's representatives and-examined the corrective actions stated in the letters of. response.

The inspector concluded that the licensee had determined the full extent cf the subject violation, performed the necessary surveyf and followup actions to correct the present ' conditions; and taken the corrective actions necessary to prevent recurrence ' of-similari circumstances.

The corrective actions. identified-in' the letters.of response have been implemented, d.

(Closed) Violation (259, 260, 296/87-01-01):

Ferrite Requirements -

for Welding Material

.

The licensee's letter of response, dated -March 9, ~ 1987,. has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable;by Region II. The inspector -

~

held discussions with the licensee's representatives and examined the-corrective ' actions stated in the letter -of -response. Theiinspector concluded thatLtheLlicensee had determined the' full: extent'of'the subject -violation,. performed the :n~ecessary Tsurvey and followup actions to' correct' the present. conditions and,taken' the corrective :

actions necessary to prevent' recurrence 1 of L similar circumstances, C______.___.__

_.._________m______

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

.. _. _

, _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _,

-

-

_

-

'

y g

,

+

.,,

,

3-

,

.

'The corrective actions identified in the.lett'er of response have b'een-

[

implemented.

]

,

i L'

In reviewing the documenti: utilized.. by the : licensee to, record, j

disposition and. verify correction of the' nonconformance described by -

'

'

this. violation lthe' NRC. inspector noted that one spags was. missing.

~

The document, Corrective Action-Report (CAR) 87-0007,- did not'contain:

the page that described the adverse condition; As thistis a' quality

'

record, theiinspector expressed concern Lat ; the loss. Subsequently,-

1<

- the -licensee obtaine'd a copy if the page.from a. non quality record.

.i typing computerfmemory and added the.page 'to the record copy, e.

(Closed) Violation-'(259, 260, 296/87-01-02):

Storage-of Compressed Gas Cylinders The ; 11censee's letter of response, dated '. March 9, 1987, has been rev'iewed and determined to be acceptable. by Region II. The. ins.oector,

held discussions with the 1icensee's representatives and examined the +

corrective actions, stated in the' letter. of. response. The inspecto.r concluded that the licensee had. determined the full extent of the subject violation, performed the necessary survey and followup

.;

actions to correct the' present conditions anil ?taken the corrective actions neesssary to prevent recurrences of similar. circumstances

.

The corrective actions identified in.t'he11etterlof' response have been

implemented.

f.

(Closed) Violation. (259, 260,- 296/87-11-02):

Failure to Provide d

l Adequate Measures.for the Identification and Control of Welding.

i l

Consumables

{

1 The licensee's letter of response, dated May 7, J1987, 'has been -

reviewed and determined to be ' acceptable by Region II. - The ' inspector.

held discussions with the licensee's representatives and examined the corrective actions stated in the letter off response. The' inspector concluded that the licensee had' determined the full extent of. thet l

subject violation, performed the; necessary survey: and. followup-

'

actions to correct the present conditions:and taken the corrective actions necessary to prevent recurrence 'of 1similar circumstances; The corrective actions identified in the letter of re'sponse have beer.

implemented.

- 4

'

4.

Unresolved Items

<

-

<!

Unresolved items were not identified.during' this. inspection.

+

'

5.

Microbiologically Induced. Corrosion (MIC) Investigation-

/

'

.

The licensee's investigation ofg MIC in their Emergency Equipment Cooling-s Water (EECW) stainless steel piping was ' described to the NRC-inspector in.

l a briefing in the NRC Residents Office on September.17,1987. ~ Licensee personnel stated that a sample co.nsisting :of 95 welds-had.. ; bee n

>

,

<

(__________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

x

}

,

'

.

.

.

,

q

'4

?

p q.v

_

..

.

-

,

radiographer for evidence of MIC. 'Eight of'these welds.were'.found to have indications. of-MIC 'but investigators consider the' attack to,be' minimal-(onei of the welds leaked = due to. through-wall MIC_ pitting).

Theilnspector was

<

.

]

informed that the licensee planned to. pres'ent.their " corporate"! plans for

addressing-MIC to the NRC in an.0ctober meeting.

,. 1,

,

a During 'the MIC discussions, it was noted that 30.of:the'95 EECW. welds _

radiographer were found to contain weld defects that-would be considered

'

rejectable in ASME Class 1 or 2 welds. LThe welds in question were Class 3

')

welds, which do not. require radiography a n d l,. therefore, 'have' no,

,j

-

radiographic acceptance ' standards - specified. Although the-weld defects

'

h-found in the' EECW welds had been noted_ and ?recordedL by radiographer, '

'

there had been no effort made to determine if the defects represented.

serious deficiencies ~ in the ' piping. 'The NRC inspector expressed concerq that the defects had not been documented as potential conditions adverse-to quality for. evaluation and di sposition - by qualified. licensee x

engineering personnel. The. inspector noted there _ did not appear to be.

.;

'

clear, well organized ~ direction, planning 'and management of ; the - MIC _' _

j l

investigation. Licensee perronnel stated that~ the weld defects would be-

.I

)

'

documented for appropriate review and disposition.

t

,

This matter will -be examined further in subsequent. inspections by-NRC resident and/or region based personnel.

Within the area inspected, no violations or deviations were.idantified.

,_

6.

Inservice' Testing (IST) Program for Pumps and. Valves The licensee's IST program and its associated request [for' relief from O

Code requirements are being reviewed by Region.II pursuant toL preparation R

of a safety evaluation. The program indicates Lthat it was prepared to d

conform to ASME Section XI (80W80) (the " Code")? requirements. During the

.]

current inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed documents'icensee engineer, observed hardware.

R l

and discussed testing requirements' with the cognizant :l

as follows, to aide in the Region II evaluation:

-i a.

The NRC inspector observed one' of the Diesel.. Fuel. Transfer Pumps l

(pump 3B).

The cognizant licensee engineer indicated _how pump flow.

'l

'

would be measured to confirm a test flow of 210*/> of a reference value.

This test requirement is to be proposed in. the licens'ee's revision to their relief request PV-1.

b.

The NRC inspector observed Unit 3 hydraulic control valve 67-51. The cognizant. licensee engineer described how _ i t'

operated and. why = -

specifying a maximum stroke time was' difficult. 'He " Indicated that -

,

TVA design personnel were being requested to specify a' maximuni str'oke:

s

time for such val'ves.or to indicate why they.were not -required for; safe shutdown.

This is related to relief. request'PV-26.

<

a>

,

i

. ib

'

c I

s'

s

'.

_

_-__

. '

_

__

__

+

q

!

.

.

y

,,

,

.

<

d c.

The NRC inspector observed the Unit 1 fuel pool check valve 78-526.

The cognizant licensee engineer explained how the valve - would be tested quarterly. This appears to negate the n'eed for relief request PV-22.

d.

Relief request PV-21 requested relief to leak test containment isolation gate valves in the direction opposite to that in which they l

are pressuri::ed in accident conditions. The NRC position is that, as the valves are containment isolation valves, leak testing requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, must apply; and that, since

!

such wrong direction testing is contrary to Appendix J requirements,

_

the licensee must obtain an exemption from the Appendix J requirements.

The licensee stated that they had requested an exemption, but that they had been infomed that it was unnecessary.

,

l l

The inspector verified that the licensee had been so informed in a l

letter, dated October 24, 1984, from D. Eisenhut (NRC) to H. Parris l

(TVA).

This letter provided a safety evaluation of Appendix J

>

'

exemption requests submitted by TVA in 1976 and 1977.

The NRC

-)

evaluation of testing the: gate valves in the wrong direction is

contained in Section 2.0, No. (4) of the safety evaluation,and states i

that no exemption is required since tha wrong direction testing tends

'

to reduce seating force and results in a conservative measurement.

The inspector noted that, although this might be correct for globe valves, it is incorrect for the gate valves described in the exemption.

The inspector indicated that he would sinform cognizant NRC management of the error and that no licensee action was required i

!

at this time. The inspector requested the licensee to obtain and forward him copies of the drawings of the valves described in the exemption request to aide in further NRC examination of the significance of the wrong direction testing.

e.

The licensee has indicated that they plan to submit an additional

,

relief request for their IST program which will propose to have

!

Technical Specification (TS) 4.6.D.1 requirements replace the Code i

requirements for testing Main Steam Relief Valves (MSRVs).

The j

inspector discussed this matter with personnel responsible for j

maintenance and testing of the MSRVs.

TS 4.6,0.1 requires half of l

the MSRVs to be bench checked or replaced with bench checked valves J

each refueling outage. The Code requires testing of a small sample l

l with sample size expanded if failures are detected.

The inspector i

found that the TS was more conservative in test Frequency but that j

its one shortcoming was that there was no clear requirement that any i

valve must be tested after plant use or that any testing be performed l

l on removed valves before return of the plant to operation.

This

!

would appear to allow failures that occurred during operation to go

!

!

unrecognized. The cognizant licensee engineer was informed of the NRC inspector's concern with regard to this possible shortcoming of the proposed testing only to TS requirements.

(

l Within the area examined, no violation or deviation was identified.

'

l

_ _ - -.

- _.

- - - _

.

q

.

,

j

'

.

,

[

tr.

6'

~

l l

7.

' Inspection of Licensee's Actions Taken t'o Implement ' Generic _ Letter'(GL)

d

~

84-11:. Inspections of Boiling Water. Reactor Stainless Steel' Piping

I (25589) - Unit 2

-

i

!

This matter is'a-restart. issue for Browns Ferry.'

l l

The NRC inspector conducted a review'to assess'the actions of the license.

b9 sed on the initial suggestions contained in GL' 84-11 and related '

correspondence concerning specific licensee commitments.

j The related correspondence, identified from th'e NRC. Document Control System, is listed below:

!

Date Correspondence i

!

6/7/84 Letter from L. Mills (TVA) to H. Denton (NRC), Response to.

GL 84-11

']

]

6/15/84 Letter from D. Vassallo (NRC) to H. Parris (TVA), Safety -

Evaluation of TVA Response. to GL 81-04-(and NUREG 0313R1)

stating that response ' was not acceptable and -that. the J

evaluation should aid the licensee in.re'sponding to - GL-

'

84-11 5/22/85 Letter from J. Domer (TVA) to D.-Vassallo (NRC), states TVA-does not consider it necessary to' change TS to -conform to

leakage test recommendations 'of GL-84-11

a 3/11/86 Letter from J.. 'Domer. (TVA) to D. Muller. (NRC), provides final report documenting 'GL.84-11 Unit 2 pipe.' inspections and results j

.

i 3/26/86 Letter from M 'Grotenhuis (NRC)'to S. White-(TVA), provides

~l

.

Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on TVA responses ofL 2/13/85'

(Unit' 1 only), 5/3/85,.(Unit 3 only), 5/22/85 and 6/7/84.

i The letter indicates-the responses are acceptable for.the'

j upcoming refueling utages.but ' requests, additional o

information.

The SER comments negatively on cert'ain exceptions that TVA stated with regard - to.GL 84-11, and i

requested an additional response addressing lthe following:

-;

-

Post Induction Heating Stress -Improvement (IHSI):

"

Inspection Provide assurance that if 100?! o'ff the ~IHSI welds are not inspected the. examination 'ofs the ' remaining _ welds will be completed at the next. refueling outage.

Of course, the sampling" will"be expanded if, crack indications"are reported:in the'IHSI' treated welds-

.n

.

.

..

I t

-__ ___

_- _ _ _.

l

'

.

.

..

.i i)

z l

.

~7

.,

!

-

.

.i Re' actor Coolant' Leakage Monitoring'

]

-

Provide assurance that the Technical Specifications

)

will be changed to monitor the leakage rate every_four L

hours and to limit' the inoperable p'eriod of the sump.

,j L-monitoring ~' system 'to 24~. hours or, provide'.an

!

acceptable. basis for.any variations from.those limits.

>

Weld Overlay Design

-

Provide assurance of adequate margin in ' IGSCC d

resistance by makingieach overlay repair consist ;of a

]

~

minimum of two ' layers' or, provide 'an acceptable. basis-l

'

for any, variations.from the minimum two layers.

-

..

11/10/86 Letter from' R. Gridley (TVA) to D. Muller (NRC), provides

,l response to 3/26/86 ' letter from NRC (above) indicating conformance with the proposed requirements

'f l

12/12/86 Summary report of 11/4/86 NRC/TVAEroeeting'to discuss Unit 2 l

Safe End Replacement.

d The inspector's review was accomplished through examination 'of' related licensee documentation and. previous NRC.~inspectionsfand'.through a,

discussions with cognizant licensee personnel..The,. review addressed' the-licensee's inspection program, competence : of ' ultra' sonic /(UT) examiners,

leak detection, performance of inspection and subsequent-actions.

j Items based on actions suggested ~ by. GL' 84-11 were. checked by the' NRC.

inspector in each of.these area's. The items checked and.the inspector's

.,

- findings relative to each is as follows:

.j

,

i a.

Inspection Program (for IGSCC susceptible welds: as described in' GL 84-11)

sq l

(1)

Item:

The program requires the inspection.of 20iof the welds <

not inspected previously (four minimum) for each pipe. size.

_,

Finding:

The licensee's June 7,1984 response letter stated.

that they would examine 100% of. the accessible stainless steel-a I

welds greater than or equal to four inches before induction heating stress improvement (IHSI)iuring their Cycle 5 refueling:

outage for Unit-2. ' In their March 11,.1986 letter reporting the4

' results of the examinations, they indicated that none of their 12 four inch diameter-welds had been ultrasonically examined because of configuration. Also, many3of 'the.other welds had not?

i

been (completely - scanned because' of configuration:. (e.g., no -

-

- examination from one ' side because; of rapidly _ changing fitting

thickness). The NRC inspector; verified that.the licensee ls: scan a

plan for. the Unit 2, Cycle.~Seoutage'. hadj required l' the -

examinations as-stated in the originalaresponse' letter.

,

,.

.

b l

%

O

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

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - __ __

_

- - _

,

,

l-j

.

.

.]

.

'

(2)

Item:

The. program requires the inspection.of 20% of the welds previously inspected and found not to contain cracks (two minimum)'for each pipe size.

Finding: The licensee's Inservice Inspection Program, SI 4 6 G, paragraph 19.15, specified examination of all of the welds in i

accordance with the commitment stated in their June 7,.1984 letter.

As noted in (1) above, the licensee's scan plan also I

specified the examinations, j

l (3)

Item:

The program requires the inspection of all unrepaired -

welds previously found to coritain cracks or' indications 'of cracks, i

Finding:

The licensee's program and their scan plan required j

examination of sli stainless steel welds as-stated in their-June 7, 1984 response.

(4)

Item:

The program requires the inspection of all ~ weld overlays on top of welds containing cracks or indications' of cracks longer than 10% of the circumference.

Finding:

Tne licensee's program and their ' scan plan required examination of all stainless steel welds as stated in their June 7, 1984 response, j

(5) Item:

The program requires the inspection of all welds treated by the induction heating stress improvement (IHSI) technique and i

not,previously examined after IHSI treatment.

Finding: The licensee's response of June 7,1984, stated that a 25% sample of the stainless steel welds (greater than four inches) would be examined following IHSI. during the Cycle 5 refueling outage.

It indicated that the sample would be selected from those welds which required recording / evaluation of indications and that any additional welds needed.to complete the 25% would be selected from those with the highest procensity for

,

cracking.

The licensee letter of November 10, 1986,- responding to the March 26, 1986 letter from the NRC, stated that post IHSI inspections not performed in the Cycle 5 outage would be completed'in the Unit 2 Cycle 6 refueling outage.

The NRC inspector verified that the Unit 2, Cycle 5 scan plan

'

specified post IHSI examination of 25% of the welds that had received IHSI treatment for Unit 2.

_

m,.

.

..

, d/h 4'

,j

..

)

.

i

w fp

,

,

ip

.0'a s

(6) Item:

The program requires 'a visual examination for.leaksge of thereactorcoolantpipingduringeachplantoutageinwhichthe

containment is deinerted, j

'

'

s (1 g

Finding: Although the licensee's June 7, 1984 response lettar; g,,

{

may be interpreted. as indicating that the visual examination j

will.be performed as stated, it is not completelys clear; onf the i

matter.

A check by the NRC inspecton found that The licsnee's

/

)

~

program (as implemented by SI 3.3d.A) requi r es.. the sibJsct H

i examination to be performed each refueling outage and thaf the i

examination (per discussions with cognizant TVA personnel) is I

t intended to meet the requirements of the'74S75 revision of ASME Section XI. This is not in accorjanc.a with.the' recommendations 7 /j of GL 84-11, Attachment 1, pardgraph E. GL 84-11 indicates the examination should be performed each outag'e in which j the'

)

containment is deinerted (not eacn refueling outage)',and that

/

the examination should be performed consistent' wjth.(the 1980

{

edition of Section XI.

. ~i l

"

.l

'

At the NRC inspector's request, the ' licensee agreed to clarify their GL 84-11 response through a supplemental submittal to 'she NRC.

)

-

b.

Competence of Ultrasonic Test (UT) Examiners j

,

i

.

.

(1)

Item:

The program requires qualification by' L formal j

performance capability demonstration. tast such as that being

conducted at the Electric Power kesearch Institute (EPRI)

Nondestructive Examination Center.

Finding:

The inspector found that the above stated i

qualification requirements' are not implemented 'through

-

requirements prescribed by the licensee's program or procedures.

The program (SI 4.6 G) does,not specif.y special: Intc:rgranular Stress Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC),UT^ examination. procedure. or personnel qualification.

Two pr6cedures' commonly used/for the examinations were checked and one (UT-25) was found't6;uontain quali.fication requirements for, Levels I and II periannel but none for Level III; personnel. 'The other' procedury - (NUTr29) 'did not contain the special qualification rehWrenencs for anyglevel

,

of personnel.

,

Note:

Region 11 inspection specialists who have observed ~ the exams and checked personnel and procedure qualifications have

'

found them to be satisfactory.

"

.

(2) _ Item:

The program requires personnel who are performing as SNT-TC NDT Level I UT examiners to demonstrate field performance capability. ' As an alternate, Level 1 txaminers may work only with or under the direct,supervis4on of Level II or III personnel.

,

(

i u

I i

(

I.

<

[.-

' [l',

-

r e

a.m :

mdLCw

_ _ _ _ _

)

j

'

.

,

l

'

^

!

Finding:

The NRC inspector found that, as stated in b.(1)

above, the 1icensee's ' program does not state special IGSCC i

'i personnel qualification-requirements.

f i

c.

Leak Detection and Leakage Limits

>

,,

,

(1)

It_em :

The technical specification (TSs) requires i a plant shutdown for inspection and corrective action when any leakage

,

detection sy' stem 'ndicates, within any period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, an l

increase in the rate of unidentified leakage in excess of 2 gpm

or its equivalent, I

a Finding: The inspector found that the licensee's TSs (3.6.C and 4.6.C.) included requirements similar to the above but somewhat less restrictive than stated in GL 84-11.

The TS requirements were incorporated in a September 14, 1987 l

'

change.

NRC evaluation ano acceptance of this change will be'

.a verified by the inspector in a subsequent inspection.

(2) ltem:

The TSs require that at least one of the leakage measurement instruments associated with each sump shall be-operable. The outage time for inoperable instruments shall be limited to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or the licensee shall immediately initiate j

an orderly shutdown.

Finding: The licensee's TS requirements (3.6.C and 4.6.C.are j

similar to the above but not identical.

For example, they l

permit one instrument to be inoperable for 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, after which

they must be in cold shutdown with 24. hours.

As noted in'(1)

f sbeve, the TS recluirements were incorporated September 14, 1987, j

and NRC evaluation and acceptance of ithis change will be

verified in a subsequent Region II inspection.

d.

Performance of Inspection (1). Item:

The, welds have been inspected by the licensee in accordance with a. above.

Fi ndi.ng:

The inspector found that the licensee's updated scan plan ~ indicated that the examinations stated in the licensee's March 11, 1986 letter had been completed.

The inspector-examined the tfollowing sample of examination records (selected from the - sdn plan) to further -verify completion of.the examinations as stated:

Weld No.

Size UT Report Date Examiner Comments GR 2-3 28" R0618 11/30/84 - LII-JDB KR 2-13 12+"

R0568 2/27/85 LII-CQS

. Post IHSI LIl-CB

,

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

,

n-,

r

,

s-i (

,

,

q

,

j

-

j

,

t'

j

'

'l

GR 2-12 12" of495 2/26/85 LII-CQS Post IHSI l

'

LII-0B I

GR :-15 12"

'R0765

'6/20/85 LII HMH Overlay Weld R0767 7/19/85 Lii-EWS

'

GR 2-19 12" ';

R0769 7/19/851 LII-WLG'

)

R0515 11/15/84 LII-JDB

GR 2-26 2%"

R0521 11/15/84 LII-CQS GR 2-27

.28"

!30619 11/30/84 LII-IGH,

s GR 2-28 2'8 "

h0620

\\11/30/84 LII-IDH

+

KR 2-36 12+"

R0444 4/8/85 LII-CQS

Post IHSI KR 2-37 22" R0581 4/2/85-

-LII-CQS Post IHSI In addition to the records check indicated above, the NRC inspector verified that previous 'NRC Inspections 259, 260,.

296/84-51 and 85-33 observed proper licensee pe' formance of UT-r examinations on welds DS-RHR-2-4, KR 2-36, KR 2-14 and KR-2-37.

(2)

Item:

The UT examiners demonstrated their competence' prior to examining welds using the essential paran eters of their qualified procedures.

Finding:

From a review of recopds, the inspector determined that the licensee was using properly qualified examiners for the examinations tabulated above.

'~

'

i e.

Subsequent Activity i

Item:

The progesm provides for,scppe expansion and additional inspection when new cracks are ibund or existing cracks grow to unacceptable size.

l

~.

Finding: In their response to GL f4-11, the licensee did not address scope expansion and additional inspection.

The licensee's program provides for conformance with ASME Section XI.

The inspector questioned licensee personnel regardino their failure to ' 3'

examine any four inch weld because of "configuratiorJ and was informed that they planned to conduct additional examinat.

's, including radiography, to assure the welds were satisfactory and that a supplementary report documenting the examinations would submitted to the NRC.

This report will include clarification of 1.' age check

.

practices as referred to in a.(6) above.

The plant mana er agreed to i

provide an interim report for the above if a final report

• .2 not submitted l

within 60' days.

>

Within the areas inspected, no, violation or deviations were identified.

_

b

'

i,

.

,

j,.'

,

.

_

$

,

,

/

.

.

{

b 9.

'

\\

.e

<

n

..

,

..

i.

k

- 7

]

[

8.

Inspector Followup Items (IFIs) (92701)

l a.

'(Closed) IFI (259, 260, 296/84-40-05):

Interpretation of RG 1.26.

This ' concern originated from the. NRC inspector's. review of the licensee's determination of components to be included in their. IST -

!

program.

The inspector finds the current program submittal. acceptable J

based on a proper interpretation of RG 1.26, and the matter.is j

adequately resolved.

<

b.

(Closed) IFI (259, 260, 296/84-40-08):

Exercising Testable Check -

)

Valves.

-i

.

.

]

This item documented a question from the inspector to the licensee l

asking whether they tested their testable check valves in a manner that assured they were exercised to the positions required to fulfill

-

their functions.

The licensee has informed-the inspector. that the j

subject valves are tested by methods which assure they are exercised to the positions required to fulfill their functions. The inspector considers the question answered.

)

c.

(0 pen) IFI (259, 260, 296/84-40-07):

Historical Information on Equipment.

The licensee informed the inspector that correcU ons being undertaken relative to this area were still-in progress and that the item was not ready for NRC review.

This item involves the licensee's

development of a program to assure their information on safety-related equipment is maintained accurate and up-to-date, d.

(Open) IFI (259, 260, 296/86-04-03): Adequacy of Work Plan Records.

This item deals with deficiencies the licensee identified in

completion of work plan records. The inspector was informed that the l

licsnsee had not completed corrective actions relative to the matter

"

ano that it was not ready for final NRC inspection.

,

d

.j

-

1 i

$

l

..l l

!

la