IR 05000266/1989011

Insp Rept 50-266/89-11 on 890322-0508.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Inservice Insp Activities.Strengths: Mgt Support & Productive Personnel

ML20247C741
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	05/16/1989
From:	Ward K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247C734	List: IR 05000266/1989011 ML20247C730
References
50-266-89-11, NUDOCS 8905250035
Download: ML20247C741 (4)

Text

-_- - .- _ ,

i e .. ..

a- .-

.

U.-S.. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY-COMMISSION

REGION III

-

Report'No. 50-266/89011(DRS).

Docket No. 50-266' License No. DPR-24 !

Licensee: Wisconsin Electric Power Company , .1 231 West Michigan 1 Milwaukee, WI 52303 1 Facility'Name: -Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Inspection.At: Point Beach Site, Two Creeks, Wisconsin j 1'

Inspection Conducted: . March 22, April 18-20, 25, 26, May 1-3, and 8, 1989 Inspector: W f[/f/J7 Date l

' Approved By: D. H. Danielson,: Chief s //p/cff Materials and Processes Section Date l Inspection Summary Inspection'on March 22, April 18-20, 25, 26, May 1-3, and 8, 1989 (Report N /89011(DRS)).

Areas Inspected: ~ Routine, unann.ounced safety inspection of inservice rocedures inspection.(ISI)

(73052), observation activities'

of work including review activities of program (73753), and data(73501),

review p(73755).

Results: ' No violations cc' deviations were identified. Based on the results-of the inspection, the NRC inspector noted the following strengths:

-

The ISI program had strong management support and was implemented with .)

approved workable procedure )

~-

Personnel performing the ISI were knowledgeable and conscientious in I their wor !

• '

Overall performance of the ISI licensee's and contractor's personnel was'

excellen '

,

l

[NF2ggggg g;gggggs o_ _ _ _ _ _ -- - )

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

'

.,.

'

.

DETAILS p 1. . Persons Contacted Wisconsin' Electric Power Company (WEPCo)-

• J. Knorr, Regulatory Engineer

• G. Sherwood, ISI Engineer

• F..Flentje, Administrative Specialist

• J. Kohlwey, ISI Coordinator, Engineer-Nuclear l

J..Zach, Manager-M. Keehan, Nuclear Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

• C..Vanderniet,. Senior Resident Inspector R. Leemon, Resident. Inspector

' Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)

H. Diaz, Level III Westinghouse Electric Corporation (W)

C. Kim, Metallurgist EBASCo Services, Inc. (EBASCo)

J. Sengenberger, Level III Hartford Steam Boiler Engineering and Insurance Company D. Oakley, ANII The NRC inspector also contacted and. interviewed other licensee and contractor employee /* Denotes those present at the exit interview May 8, 198 . Inservice Inspection (ISI) Unit 1 i Review of Program (73051) I i

The NRC inspector verified that the licensee's ISI program was ;

complete and conformed to regulatory requirements and to the ;

licensee's commitments. The program was in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1977 Edition, Summer 1979 Addenda. There was sufficient organizational staff to ensure that acceptable ISI work was performe l The licensee did not make a request for relief from the ASME Code i

'

this outage. The NRC inspector also reviewed audits / surveillance of-ISI activities conducted by qualified personnel to verify compliance with the ISI progra o

- _ - _ _ -__

. . .

-

+ Review of Procedures (73052)

The NRC inspector ascertained that the licensee's ISI procedures adequately covered all required aspects of the ISI program submitted to NRR for approval. All ISI procedures were approved by the ANII and reviewed by the NRC inspector. The nondestructive examinations (NDE) and techniques were adequately described and in conformance to the requirements and guidance of ASME Section V, 1977 Edition, Summer 1979 Ac denda, Data Review and Evaluation (73755)

The NRC inspector ascertained that the reported data covered the scope of the examinations required during this inspection period as i described in the ASME Code, Technical Specifications, and the ISI program. This review included the examination of documents relating to NDE equipment, data, and evaluations. The examination data was within the acceptable criteria as outlined in the applicable NDE procedures and ASME Code requirement No recordable unacceptable indications have been found to date by eddy current examinations in the new Unit 1 steam generator Observation of Work and Work Activities (73753)

The NRC inspector observed the following activities and verified that the ISI was performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications, licensee procedures, and the applicable ASME Codes:

(1) WEFCo personnel performing visual examinations on support welds, AC-6-SI-1003, R303, AC-6-SI-1003, 6H-14, MS-30-M-1002, H-8 and MS-30-MSR-1001, H-2 (2) WEPCo personnel performing liquid penetrant examinations on pipe weld 20 on line SIS-6-SI-1005, and pipe weld 23 on line AC-6-SI-1003, and attachment weld SIS-10-SI-1002, SIIVS6-542 IW (3) EBASCo Personnel (3 teams) performing calibrations and ultrasonic examinations on the lower shell to lower head weld 3 and vertical weld 2 on the pressurizer; also pipe welds SIS-10-SI-1003-13 and RC-10-AC-1001- (4) ANII supervisor performing an audit on the ISI activitie (5) WEPCo QA individual performing his duties on the ISI activitie (6) EBASCo personnel performing liquid penetrant examinations (PT)

on pipe welds RC-2-BP-1001-A and RC-10-AC-1001-8, reactor coolant pumps weld C, including approximately 6" on each side of the weld. The circumferential 1.25" wide electro slag weld was found to be acceptable, but there were approximately 25 linear indications 3/8" - 2" long found above the weld in the stainless steel SA351 type CF-8 static casting. The indications appeared to be surface shrink with random orientations. A Westinghouse

_ _ __-_-__

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

. , , , .

< , .- j

,

i metallurgist called the indications " Post weld self stress 1 relieving areas." Most areas were found to be acceptable in 1966/67 by nondestructive examinations. Most of the areas were buffed removing approximately 1/32" material from the 9" (nominal wall) thick casting. The areas were then re-liquid penetrant examined. Some indications were removed; however, new linear lj indications appeared. The licensee then decided to liquid I penetrant the entire reactor coolant pump casting. Eight additional !

groups of linear indications 3/8" - 1/2" long in areas away from 1 the weld were observe Eddy current examinations (ET) were 1 performed. Flaw depths 1/8" deep were found. This 1/8" depth I was established by calibrations on machined notches. Ultrasonic examinations (UT) were performed and identified near surface indications to a depth of 1/4". By ultrasonic calibrations SWRI ;

personnel demonstrated that the ultrasonic examination was

'

reliable in this casting for a depth of 5/8". The 'ndications not meeting ASME Sectirn XI, 1977 Edition, Summer 1979 Addenda, Paragraph 3518, Table IWB 3518-2, were ground with a rotary file. All remaining indications were in accordance with the ASME Code. There are approximately 40 acceptable indications remaining in the casting. The average material removed was approximately 1/8". The design thickness is 7 1/2" as specified in the Westinghouse specifications. The original radiographs of the casting were reviewed by the licensee, ANII, and the NRC inspector. Two small round acceptable inclusions were the only indications viewed in all the radiographs. The 1967 radiographic film is in good interpretable condition including density. The licensee is in the process of buying all the documentation from the foundry that formed the casting. The NRC/NRR was kept informed of the above activitie The NRC inspector reviewed the qualifications and certifications of all NDE inspection personnel on site to ensure conformance with SNT-TC-1 No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview (30703)

The inspector met with site representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at

, the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the scope and l findings of the inspection noted in this report. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar L - __- __ _