IR 05000269/1987047
| ML16295A301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1987 |
| From: | Blake J, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16161A931 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-87-47, 50-270-87-47, 50-287-87-47, IEB-87-002, IEB-87-2, NUDOCS 8801110345 | |
| Download: ML16295A301 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-269/87-47, 50-270/87-47, and 50-287/87-47 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, License Nos.: DPR-38, OPR-47, and and 50-287 DPR-55 Facility Name:
Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Inspection C uc d:
30 -
December 4, 1987 Inspector:
40,
____________d_
N.
E.-
c nomos'
b atfe Signed Approved
- b
4
- -7 J. e, Chief Date Signed Materials and Processes Section Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope
This routine, unannounced inspection was in the areas of licensee action on previous open items, Unit 1 inservice inspection (ISI) review of rejected radiograph and corrective action; licensee action on Temporary Instruction (TI) 2500/26, IE Bulletin 87-02; inservice inspection testing (IST)
pumps, valve repairs, and testin Results:
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie PER ADOCK 05000269 n
REPORT DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees T. A. Barron, Technical Support Supervisor
- J. Forbes, Maintenance Engineer W. W. Gallman, Nuclear Maintenance Mechanical Engineer
- C. L. Harlin, Compliance Engineer W. R. Hunt, ISI Coordinator, Oconee
- R. H. Ledford, Surveillance Supervisor, QA M. J. Robinson, Nuclear Production Engineer
- R. Sweigart, Oconee Superintendent, Operations M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager NRC Resident Inspectors
- J. C. Bryant, Senior Resident Inspector
- T. A. Peebles, Projects Section Chief
- L. W. Wert, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 7, 1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding Dissenting comments were not received from the license Proprietary information is not contained in this repor. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (92701)
(Closed) Violation 269, 270, 2987/87-01-01, Criteria for Cold Springing of Pipe during Field Installatio The licensee's letter of response dated July 16, 1987, has been reviewed and determined acceptable by Region I The inspector held discussions with the Licensee's cognizant engineer and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter of respons The inspector concluded that the licensee has determined the full extent of the subject noncompliance, performed the necessary followup actions to correct the present conditions, and developed the necessary corrective condition The corrective actions identified in the letter of response have been implemente (Closed)
Unresolved Item (UNR)
269/87-37-01, Procedure Hydrostatic Boundaries Uncertai This item was identified when the inspector noted that hydrostatic records being examined lacked sufficient information needed to determine whether valve 1RC-46 should have been identified in the hydrostatic testing procedure TT/1/A/450/25 dated December 24, 1981, Enclosure 13.1, as an isolation boundary. The inspector's position, at the time, was that the aforementioned valve should have been used to isolate an instrument line and the reactor building component drain header during the hydrostatic tes To resolve the issue, the inspector requested that the licensee provide marked up PO drawings for review on a future inspectio During the present inspection, the licensee provided information (Dwg PO-100A-1, Rev. 22, and Rev. 27)
which showed the piping had been recognized as being part of the inspection boundaries and valve 1RC-46 was closed per OP/1/A/'1103/0. Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio. Followup on IE Bulletins
.
(Open) IE Bulletin 87-02: Fastener Testing to Determine Conformance with Applicable Material Specifications, Units 1, 2 and 3 (25026)
In response to the subject IE Bulletin and the accompanying Temporary Instruction TI-2500/26, the inspector accompanied by the site resident inspector discussed with the licensee's cognizant engineer the plan for selecting the sample of fasteners to be teste Sample selection came from a computer printout which listed all safety and nonsafety nuts and bolts/studs in the Oconee warehouse inventor The sample population varied by size, material specification popularity/use and vendo The inspectors toured the warehouses to inspect storage conditions, verify size, manufacturer's markings, grade marking or specification and related site QA traceability cod During this work effort, the inspectors selected at random a total of ten nuts and bolts for review of quality records on hand. This sample was as follows:
BOLTS 3/4 - 10x3 1/2 SA-193/B8 QA #52294 7/8 -
9x6 1/2 A-325 MMIS #0262399N 3/4 OTSG SEC 100668-001 MK # 145 QA #54760 3/4 -
10 (Threaded Rod)
SA-193 GR/B7 QA #54889 1/2 -
13x2 A-325
-
QA #42221
.
8 - 1x3 1/2 SA-193 8/7 QA #010526
NUTS 7/16 - 20 SA-194 GR8 QA #47300 3/8 - 16 A-194 GR B8M QA #53319 3/4 - 10 A-194 GR 8M QA #54463
- 1 - 8 SA-194 GR B/7CS QA #39323
- This nut has been marked with "J" and, therefore, was added to the population of test sample The inspectors reviewed the licensee's receipt inspection procedure applicable to fasteners to ascertain whether inspection requirements were consistent with those described under the action section of the subject bulletin Procedures reviewed were as follows:
Materials Manual 4.4 Material Receiving 4.5 Issue of Stock and Non Stock S.R. Materials 4.6 Issue of Stock Nonsafety-Related or ATWS Materials 4.7 Marking of QA Material Quality Control Procedure(s)
QCG-1, Rev. 28, Receipt Inspection and Control of QA Condition Material Parts and Components except Nuclear Fuel The resident inspector will continue to monitor the licensee's efforts to comply with the Bulletins' requirements and report the result. Inservice Testing (ISI) of Pumps and Valves Units 1, 2 and 3 (73756)
The controlling document for testing of pumps and valves is the Oconee Nuclear Station Inservice Inspection Program Revision N.
This document delineates performance test requirements contained in Section 4.0.4 of the Oconee Station Technical Specificatio This document defines the components subject to the IST program at Oconee and indicates the various required tests. Also included are references to various documents explaining why some components (pumps, valves) were not considered subject to the progra The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code Section XI 1980 Edition through Winter 1980 Addenda (80W80), has been identified as applicable to this activit The inspector reviewed procedures and pertinent quality records, as indicated below, to determine whether inservice testing regulatory requirements and licensee commitments were being met. Components selected for this work effort was as follows:
Pumps Procedure Performance Test Date Spent Fuel Pool PT/1/A/0251/02 1/7/87; 4/10/87; 7/7/87; 9/19/87 Cooling (lA)
Unit 1 Turbine Emergency PT/1/A/0600/12 2/13/87; 5/13/87; 8/11/87; Feedwater (1)
11/16/87 Unit 1 SSFRC Makeup Pump PT/2/A/0400/07 12/17/86; 3/18/87; 6/23/87; Unit 2 9/23/87 Low Pressure PT/3/A/0251/01 3/7/87; 5/6/87; 7/6/87; 10/12/87 Service Water (3A)
Unit 3 For these pumps, the inspector reviewed completed procedures for the dates indicated to ascertain whether inservice data was evaluated by qualified personnel and appropriate followup action taken as required; that the data reflected the requirements of the applicable code including but not limited to frequency of testing and changes thereof; justification for changes to acceptance criteria; evaluation of vibration data; reference speed; test instrument calibration and appropriate testing following
maintenance/modification-to determine operability as applicabl Val1ve Maintenance/Replacement In Inspection Report No. 50-287/87-06, the inspector discussed maintenance work performed on valves 3 MS-83 and 85 in the mainsteam to emergency feedwater pump line OiLA-The valves were cut out to machine the seating surfaces and reinstalled/welded back into the syste The applicable code(s) controlling this activity included USAS B31.1 Power Piping and ASME Section XI Class C. Because of piping configuration, second valve off Steam Generator, DPC determined that it was impractical to hydrostatically test inlet and outlet weld As an alternative to this code requirement, OPO radiographed all newly fabricated welds and examined them for leakage at operating pressure and temperatur Code relief for omitting the hydrostatic test, was requested from the Commissio This matter is discussed in paragraph 8 of this repor During this inspection, the inspector reiuested and the licensee provided records of the completed system pressure and leakage tes These were reviewed to ascertain whether test parameters i.e., pressure, time and temperature were consistent with IWA-5211(C) of the applicable cod Within these areas, no deviations or viofations were identifie.
7. Inservice Inspection Data Review and Evaluation Unit 1 (73755)
Discussions with cognizant QA/ISI personnel disclosed that a review of ISI radiographs for weld joint item no. C05.021.104 or weld no. 1-03-3-308 of the feedwater system identified a rejectable linear indication, near the root of the weld joint that was approximately 1 " lon The weld in question was on a 14" A carbon steel pipe, 3/4" thick, fabricated in March of 197 The indication was identified as lack of fusion and, therefore, not service relate A review of the original/construction film, verified the presence of the indication, which was obviously missed by the reviewer at the time. At the time of this inspection, the weld had been repaired, radiographed and leak tested. Because the plant was operating, it was not feasible to inspect the weld at this tim Alternatively, the inspector reviewed the weld repair package - Work Request No. 54685F to verify compliance with requirements of the applicable codes. The original and repair weld was fabricated in accordance with USAS 831.1 1967, Power Piping Code requirements. Inspection and testing following the repair was controlled by ASME Section XI IWA 5211(C).
The DPC procedure used to control the welding was MP/0/A/1810/14, "Valve and for Piping - Welded Removal and Replacement - Class A through F."
Procedure MP/0/A/1720/16 was used to perform the leakage test at operating pressure and temperature. Also, the inspector reviewed the radiographs of the original and repair welds and noted that the length of the indication in the original film was essentially the same as that on the film taken for ISI purposes during this outag Within the areas inspected, no deviations or violations were identifie. Inspector Followup Items (IFI)
(Closed)
IFI 287/87-01-01:
ISI Examination of Reactor Coolant Pump 81 Casing By memorandum dated February 9, 1987, the licensee submitted a request to the Commission for relief from IWB-2420 requirement of Section XI of the ASME Code, thus, permitting volumetric examination of the pressure retaining weld in Reactor Coolant Pump 3B1 instead of 3A1, during the first inspection period of the second ten year interva Availability of access was used as the basis for this reques B ecause of this change in the Oconee 3 ISI plan, the inspector requested that a relief from the IWB-2420 code requirement be submitted to the Commissio (Closed) IFI 50-287/87-06-02, Code Relief for Omitting Hydrostatic Test on Valves 3MS-83 and 3MS-8 This item was identified when the inspector ascertained that the code required hydrostatic test, on a pipe line in the mainsteam to Emergency Feedwater Pump Turbine System would not be performed at this tim The decision to forego the hydro test resulted from the fact that the configuration of the line made the test impractica '
As an alternate examination, the new welds were radiographed and visually examined for leakage at operating pressure and temperatur Following discussions on this subject, the licensee committed to inspect the subject welds as part of the ten year ISI plan to hydrostatic test the mainsteam lin Therefore, OPC submitted a request for relief from the code requirement in favor of the aforementioned alternate examinatio Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.