IR 05000272/1989004
| ML18094A418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1989 |
| From: | Carrasco J, Chaudhary S, Mcbrearty R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18094A417 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-89-04, 50-272-89-4, NUDOCS 8905160006 | |
| Download: ML18094A418 (6) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMKISSI~
REGION I
Report N /89-04 Docket N License N DPR-70 Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P. 0. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Facility Name:
Salem Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
April 3-7, 1989 Inspectors:
~
J. E. Carrasco, Reactor Engineer Approved by:
S. K. Chauohary,JChief, Materials and Processes Section, EB, DRS rid). 7. ;9g-9 date '
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on April 3-7, 1989 (Report No. 50-272/89-04)
Areas Inspected:
A routine, unannounced inspection was conducted of the licensee's inservice inspection program including outage plans and licensee control of the progra The areas inspected included steam generator secondary water chemistry, eddy current inspection history, schedules of items to be examined during the ongoing refueling outage, and licensee requests for relief from code requirement Results:
The inspector concluded that the licensee has established adequate controls to manage its ISI program in compliance with applicable code and regulatory requirements.
8905160006 890428 PDR ADOCK 05000272 Q
- DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Public Service Electric and Gas Company R. Brandt, Inspection Servcies Engineer W. Denlinger, Senior Staff Engineer -
NOE Level III R. Dulee, Principal Engineer - Quality Assurance G. Dziuba, Senior Engineer C. Lashkari, Senior Staff Engineer L. Miller, General Manager Salem Operations
- G. Roggio, Station Licensing Engineer
- W. Treston, Senior IS! Supervisor D. Vito, Senior Engineer - Licensing
- P. White, Technical Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- N. F. Dudley, Project Engineer
- Denotes those present at the exit meetin.0 Inservice Inspection Program (73051, 73753)
Inservice Inspection is mandated by the ASME B&PV Code,Section X The code edition applicable to a specific facility is identified by 10 CFR 50.55(g) based upon the issue date of its construction permi The Salem Unit 1 facility is committed to observe the applicabl~ requfrernents of the 1983 Edition of Section XI through the Summer 1983 Addend Section XI requires that the 40 year life of each facility be_divided into four 10-year inspection intervals which, in turn, are divided into three equal 40 month period The current refueling outage is the first outage of the first period of the 2nd inspection interva By letters dated October 23, 1987 and December 23, 1987, the licensee submitted its Inservice Inspection Program Plan and associated requests for relief from ASME Code Section XI requirements that it has determined to be impractica The NRR staff reviewed the licensee 1 s submittals and, by ~etter dated November 9, 1988, requested from the licensee additional information regarding the submittal The areas for which information was requested included the following: The Class 2 Containment Spray System which was completely exempted, in accordance with ASME Code Section XI provisions, from inservice examination during the 10-year interval.
- 3 The sample size of Class 2 piping welds in the Residual Hea:t::Remav=I"-*
System (RHR). Request for Relief No. 1 regarding relief from performing the inservice examination for the inaccessible portiOllS a:f" Exanrina:ticm Category B-F, B-H, B-J, C-A, C-B, C-C, C-F-1, and C-G weld.
Request for Relief No. 4 regarding relief from performing hydrostatic pressure tests of portions of the 3/4 inch Class 2 piping of the RHR and Safety Injection System.
Request for Relief No. 5 regarding the performance of visual examinations and functional testing of Class 1, 2 and 3 snubbers in accordance with the plant Technical Specifications in lieu of ASME Code requirement Based on the review of the licensee's responses to the staff's request for additional information, and discussions with cognizant NRR staff and consultants, the inspector found that the revised program plan now requires the volumetric examination of at least 7.5% of piping welds in the Class 2 Containment Spray and RHR Systems as mandated by the NRC; and that, with one exception, the relief as requested by the licensee, would be grante The exception regarding the visual examination and functional testing of snubbers was still in the NRR review proces The inspector's comparison of Technical Speciftcation requirements and Section XI require-ments show that the Technical Specification regarding snubbers is more restrictive than applicable Section XI requirement In addition to the above, the outage ISI plan and the ISI program for the current inspection period were selected for inspectio The inspection was performed with respect to licensee controls regarding the approval, tracking and documentation of inspection plan changes, the incorporation of plant modifications into the IS! program, and the selection of an !SI vendo The inspector determined that licensee QA Audit No. NM-87-12 was conducted at the Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) at San Antonio, Texas, from April 20 through 24, 1987 to retain SWRI on the licensee's qualified vendors list and permit SWRI to continue to perform !SI at Salem and Hope Cree The inspector concluded that a program was established to control the performance of IS! in compliance with ASME Section XI and regulatory requirements, and that the controls include a system for managing changes to the progra Additionally, design change packages and plant modifications are reviewed by cognizant licensee personnel to assure that, when required, the items are included in the
!SI progra.*
3.0 Review of NOE Implementing Procedures (73052)
The inspector reviewed selected procedures to ascertain compliance* with ASME Code and regulatory requirements and for technical adequac The following procedures were selected for inspection:
Procedure No. X-FE-101-3, Revision 3, 110nsite NOE Records Control 11
Procedure No. SWRI-NDT-200-1, Revision 70, Deviation 4, 11Solvent Removable Liquid Penetrant Color Contrast Examination 11
Procedure No. SWRI-NDT-300-1, Revision 35, Deviation 3, 11 0ry Powder Magnetic Particle Examination"
Procedure No. SWRI-NDT-600-31, Revision 23, Deviation 1, 11Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Austenitic Pressure Piping Welds
- Procedure No. SWRI-NDT-600-41, Revision 16, Deviation 2, "Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Ferritic Pressure Piping Welds" The inspector determined that the aforementioned procedures complied with applicable code and regulatory requirements, and were technically adequate for their intended us.0 Steam Generator Tubes Plant History Salem Unit 1 commercial operation commenced on June 30, 1977 and the plant operated with leaking condenser tubes for the majority of the first fuel cycl Steam generator tube eddy current examinations, which were conducted during the first refueling outage, identified that almost 50% of the hot leg tubes examined had dents in the 1 - 2 mil range at the various tube support plate intersection No other degradation was detected during those examination To preclude further steam generator tube degradation the licensee took the following actions:
Installation of a full flow condensate polishing syste *
Installation of a 1/3 flow condensate cleanup system for cycle cleanup prior to power operatio *
Retubing the condenser - replaced 90-10 copper nickel alloy tubing material with a high chrome, stainless steel material designated as AL6 The changes resulted in improved steam generator chemistry and dissolved oxygen level No further tube denting has been identified since it was first detected during the first refueling outage and this is attributed by the licensee to the actions described above.
Inspection The inspector discussed the planned eddy current examination of the Unit 1 steam generator tubes with licensee personnel, and reviewed the outage plans for the examinations and associated activities to ascertain that the planned scope and extent of the steam generator tube eddy current examinations complied with the requirements of the plant Technical Specification 4. The inspector determined that the licensee intends to examine tubes in each of the four steam generators such that all row 1 and 2 tubes in steam generators #12, #13, and #14 will be examined, and 30 percent of the tubes in number 11 steam generator including all row 1 and 2 tubes will be examine The inspection sample is selected by Westinghouse Electric Corporation and is approved by the license The selection is based on past inspection results, industry experience, and Technical Specification requirement The examinations planned for the current refueling outage were determined to comply with the plant Technical Specificatio Westinghouse personnel will perform the eddy current examinations and evaluate and analyze the resulting dat If tube plugging is required, t~e activity will be performed by Westinghouse using mechanjcal plug The inspector discussed previous examination results with the Inspection Services Engineer and determined that, since the first eddy current examinations, the licensee's steam generator maintenance program has resulted in a relatively small number of plugged tubes in each Unit 1 steam generato Table 1 shows the results of each steam generator eddy current examination for Unit 1 since the commencement of commercial operation in 197 Based on the above, the inspector concluded that actions taken by the licensee early in the plant's operating history have resulted in a minimum of steam generator problems including a small number of tubes requiring removal from servic Approximately 23% of the plugged tubes were conservatively removed from service because of eddy current indications which were less than the Technical Specification 40% through wall plugging limi The inspector further concluded that the eddy current examinations planned for the ongoing outage complied with the plant Technical Specification requirement.
Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on April 7, 198 The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio At no time during the inspection was written material provided by the inspector to the license The licensee did not indicate that proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspectio *
Steam Mod Outage 1st RFO 2nd RFO 3rd RFO 11th RFO 5th RFO 6th RFO 7th RFO Fo reed Total Genera-September Apri I October January November Apri I Apri 1 *
Sept Outage Plugged tor 1977 1979 1980 1982 1982 19811 1986 1987 Apri I Tubes 1288
- 11 10 TLB
- 4 CLI
0
. #12
- 5 CLI 2 AVB
18 10 TLB HL
- 13 10 TLB
- 3 CLI
J CLI 1 U-Bend
1 Ill lleaking 1 No AVB Plug 1 Leaking Plug
- 14 10 TLB
0
- 17 CLI 2 AVB
31 1 HL 1 Mistake
- -
Includes 4 tubes in #11, 2 tubes in #12, 3 tubes in #13 and 9 tubes in #14 with indications less than 40% through wal I (403 p I ugg i ng I i mi t)
TLB - Tube Lane Blocking Device abrasion (vibration damage).
CLI - Cold Leg Indications at tube support plat AVB - Anti vibration bar abrasion (vibration) damag U-bend -
Indication at apex or tangent point of U-ben DA - Debris abrasion at tube sheet.