IR 05000269/1974012
| ML19308A637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1974 |
| From: | Epps T, Long E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308A636 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-74-12, NUDOCS 7911270806 | |
| Download: ML19308A637 (8) | |
Text
.
" 4'
UN6(ED STATES p-)c :[
['o,'i') 't ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION D !.
-
DnscTORATE OF REGULATCliY OPERATIONS t
1.
N REGION ll - Suff E SIA e,
~y3
.
2m pr acMi renc sine E v. Nont waEsr te us uoe g
- dFig t%
At L ANT A, oEoRGI A 30 M 3
RO Inspection Report No. 50-269/74-12
Licensee:
Duke Pcuer Conpany Power Building 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 Facility Nane: Oconce Unit 1 Docket No.:
50-269 License No.:
DPR-38 Category:
C Location:
Seneca, South Carolina Type of License:
Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: November 12-13, 21-22 and 26, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection:
October 29 - November 1, and November 4-8, 1974 Inspector-in-Charge:
S. D. Ebneter, Reactor Inspector Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch Acconpanying Inspectors: None Other Acconpanying Personnel:
None Principal Inspector:.
)
["
/1 ~II ~ 7'b T. N. Epps, Ipactor Inspector Date Facilities Operations Branch Reviewed By: ND
_
7/h w
_-
/2 F. J. Long, Chief
_
Cate Facilities Operations-ranch
.
%.
gss s**
.
.
.
s
-
'R0 Rpt. No. 50-269/74-12-2-
'
)
.
f
~
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (
This inspection involved review of the inservice inspection program on Unit 1 during the current refueling outage.
'
.
I.
Enforcement Action A.
Violations
,
None
B.
Safety Items None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters
,
Not inspected.
III. New Unresolved Items 74-12/1 Incomplete Inservice Inspection Plan The licensee has failed to include certain inspection items
.
i in the inservice inspection (ISI) plan for the ten year inspection interval.
The licensee will review the plan,
!
compare it with the commitments of the Technical Specifications
"
and the ASME Code, and revise the ISI plan accordingly.
l (Detnils I, paragraph 4.a)
-
74-12/2 Steam Generator lA Reportable Indication
An apparent code rejectable indication was discovered in the
support skirt of the LA steam generator.
The licensee will attecpt to resolve the problem by additional analysis, further testing, and correction with baselina dsta.
(Details I, paragraph 4.c)
IV.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items Not inspected.
.
.
V.
Unusual Occurrences Not inspected.
.
j i
%
e..
-
..
_
_
. __
.-
.
_.. _
_
. _ _. _ _ _ __ _
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-269/74-12-3-
.
-
,
T
>
i VI.
Other Significant Findings
None
.
VII. Management Interview
Tha inspector met with J. E. Smith, Station Manager; J. Hampton, Director of Administrative Services and menbers of the staff to discuss the results
)
of the inspection.
The omission of inspection requirements and inadequacies i
of the eddy current procedure were discussed.
The inspector stated that-the large indication reported in the 1A steam generator skirt would have to be adequately resolved through further analysis and testing before
,
l operations were resu=ed.
The general ISI results were discussed with primary c=phasis on the steam generator lA tube tests.
,
,
,
'
-
'
.
i
'
l
,
'g,.'
f'
- - -
~_
,
.
- 1
..
._
-
-
-.
-
.
.
,
- RO Rpt. No. 50-269/74-12 I-1
-
DETAILS I Prepared By:
/
O 7'/
'
/h) S. D. Ebneter, Reactor Inspector Date Engineering Section Facilities Construction Branch
.
Dates of Inspection:
No ember 12-13, 21-22 and 26, 1974 Reviewed By:
$
!Y
/ 5
'/
/j) L. L. Beratan, Senior Inspector Date i
Engineering Section
Facilities Construction Branch
[
!
1.
Persons 2ontacted a.
Duke Power Company (DPC)
J. E. Smith - Station Manager
'
J. Ha:pton - Director Administrative Ser' ices J. Cox - Station Senior QA Engineer R. J. Brackett - Assistant QA Engineer L. Davison - Staff QA Engineer
,
'
b.
Contractor Organizations Babcock and Wilcox Cocpany (B&W)
D. Lee - Senior Engineer, Nuclear Services Department C. R. Honeycutt - Site Representative, B&W Construction Company
,
.)
-
Conas, Inc.
R. Marlow - Supervisor, Eddy Current Inspection Team 2.
Scope of Inspection i
,
This inspection was concerned with the inservice inspection (ISI) of j
L' nit 1 components. - The inspection consisted of a review of ISI plans, t
schedules, applicable procedures, data review and observation of tests
'
in progress.
These items were co= pared to the licensee's cc=mitments to verify cetpliance.
'
3.
Recuirements The licensce's cocmitments are specified in Appendix 4A of the FSAR and Section 4.2 of the Technical Specificatiens.
These documents reference-t Section XI of the ASSE Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1970 edition as the applicable code with specific exceptions to the code as noted a
$'
a
-, -
<r
, -
y 1m vi
-,...e=--
~
-2---,y
-
, -* -
t
- - - - -
e ee
-
.
.
-
._.
_ -..
.R0 Rpt. No. 50-269/74-12 I-2
-
'N
,
I in FSAR Appendix 4A and #echnical Specification Section 4.2.2 The f
~ Technical Specification also defines a requirement to volu=etrically
,
examine two elbows of the primary reactor coolant loop to obtain follow-up Information on the condition of the cladding on the interior of the i
primary piping.
A proposed scend=ent to the Technical Specificatiens, dated August 30, 1974, delineates the licensee's program to co= ply with AEC requirements i
with regard to ISI of steam generator tubes.
This proposed amend =ent,
in general, i=ple=ents the technical approach outlined in Regulatory i
Guide 1.83.
!
4.
Inservice Inspection (ISI)
a.
Planning The licensee has contracted with B&W to plan and perform the inservice inspection of Oconee Unit No. 1 B&W Pas developed an ISI plan spanning the 10 year inspection ?nternal which is documented in the ISI Xanual.
DPC reviewed and foraally approved the manual and authorized B&W to perform the ISI in accordance with it and subsequent approved revisions.
The licensee designated the nacual as Oconee Periodic Test Number PT/1/A/200/22.
The inspector reviewed the plan and compared it with the require =ents of Section XI, the commit =ents of the Technical Specifications and the co==it=ents of the FSAR.
Several inspection items that are require =encs of the ASMI Code are listed as not applicable in the ISI plans, and thus are not scheduled to be performed.
However, the licensee did not take exception to these ite=s in the FSAR and Technical Specifications and is therefore committed to perform them at some time during the inspection interval as specified in Tables IS-251 and IS-261 of ASME Section XI.
The inspection ite=s in question, referenced to ASME Section XI, Table IS-261, are as follows:
Item No.
Title 2.3 Heater Connections 3.5 Pressure Retaining Bolting 4.5 Integrally Welded Supports 4.6 Piping Supports and Hangers 5.2 Pump Casings 5.3 Nozzle to Safe End Welds 5.5 Pressure Retaining Bolting 5.6 Integrally Welded Supports 5.7 Supports and Hangers 6.4 Pressure Retaining Bolting
.
y V
,
--eg
-
y
y
--
W-
-__
d
.,
....
RO Rpt. No. 50-269/74-12 I-3
. ~,
)
,
Since the inspectien internal spans a 10 year period, no commit-
_
ment has been violated at this point and this item will be identified as Unresolved Item 74-12/1, Incomplete ISI Plan.
The ISI plan also contains Evaluation Procedures to govern the tests and inspections.
Procedure Number BLI-41, Eddy Current Procedure OTSG Tubing Examination, was inadequate in several areas.
The rejection criteria for the steam generator tube wall thinning was stated in terms of percent of minimum tube wall thickness.
Regulatory Guides 1.83 states that the rejection criteria shall be based on the calculated acceptable minimum wall thickness that can sustain a LOCA in combination with a safe shutdown earthquake.
B&W personnel stated that the 40% minimum wall thickness reject criteria specified in BLI-41 was based on an analysis conducted at B&W in Copley, Ohio, and that supporting data would be supplied.
The procedure also was deficient in failing to specify the eddy current probe scanning speed and omission of steps to follow in the event that system calibration could not be verified.
These items were discussed and the licensee revised the procedure before eddy current testing was started.
Tubes selected for eddy current examination were identified on B&W drawing 32983-F.
A total of 481 tubes per steam generator was scheduled for eddy current inspection which exceeds the 3 per cent requirement of Regulatory Guide 1.83.
One-hundred and thirteen (113) tubes of those selected for inspection in steam generator A had been tested previously.
The licensee's planning included mock-up training for test personnel and health-physics training.
The inspector had no further questions in the area of planning, b.
Test Operations Test operations were conducted in accordance with the approved procedures of the ISI manual and applicable revision.
Most of the ISI operations were conducted with a =inimum of problems The primary exception to this was the eddy current testing of the
,
steam generator tubes.
-
The Oconee Unit No. 1 steam generator LA is the first once-through-
-
steam-generator to be subjected to eddy current testing.
The equipment was of a prototype nature and thus numerous problems with probes, drive units, and cabling, were encountered.
Test operations were conducted at Level 4'in the containment Caich contributed to test problems.
._
%
-
+
-
_.
.-
...
..
- -
.
.
.-
.
.
.
.
' RO Rpt. No. 50-269/74-12 I-4
'
_
i
<
.
The inspector observed eddy current testing and calibration operations-
"
on steam generator lA.
Tube selection was done by a remote template
and master-slave system.
Calibration sequences were perfor=ed on
calibration standards prior to probe installation and a calibration
'
standard was incorporated in the probe guide tube which provided a calibration signal upon insertion and renoval from each tube.
Tube wall thinning data was recorded on a strip chart recorder;
'
defect data was recorded on strip charts and magnetic tape.
All test scans were observed in real time on Automation EM 3300 scopes.
Ultrasonic testing of the steam generator LA support skirt was also
'
witnessed.
The support skirt required a re-examination to character 1: 4 a flaw which is discussed in the succeeding section of this report.
c.
Data Review The inspector reviewed test data sheets and cross-checked test ite=s against requirements.
Preliminary analysis of the data revealed two areas of concern in the secam generator lA, one in the Y axis
'
no sic seam and a large reflector in the support skirt area.
,
Both areas have been retested by ultrasonics and the flaws characterized in core detail.
The data has been compared to
,
shop records to atteept to define the extent of the problem.
However, shop data was inconclusive and/or nonexistent due to j
laxity of early code require =cnts.
The problem is compounded by the fact the ISI data cannot be correlated with the baseline data.
The inspector notified the licensee and B&W that these areas would have to be satisfactorily explained based on detailed analysis prior to resucing operations.
This is identified as Unresolved Item 74-12/2.
t l
Preliminary comparison of ISI data with baseline data indicates there
is not a very goed correlation.
However, a more detailed analysis may show some improve =ents, a
The inspector discussed the steam generator tube eddy current l
examination with Conam and ESW personnel.
Real time analysis of the tube scan did not reveal any reportable or recordable indications.
The data was reviewed and analyzed by an NDE Level III from Conam and was being independently assessed by B&W personnel.
'
The entire results of the ISI will be analy:cd and documented as a final report and will be made available for review, i
.
.,.,.
,
~.
,. - -.,
y
,. -
---y
+.
-
,
'
RERpt.No. 50-269/74-12 I-5
'
- ',l i
i d.
Record Review
'
The inspector inspected equipment calibration records, personnel certifications, calibration standards data and licensee audit areas.
No deficiencies were discovered in these areas and the inspector had no further questions.
.
O Y
l
y en
- =w, l
J