IR 05000277/1993026
| ML20058C914 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1993 |
| From: | Mcbrearty R, Modes M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058C911 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-93-26, 50-278-93-26, NUDOCS 9312020621 | |
| Download: ML20058C914 (9) | |
Text
..
--_
.
_.
__.
.
a
^
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
!
REPORT / DOCKET NOS. 50-277/93-26 50-278/93-26 j
LICENSE NOS.
DPR-44 DPR-56 LICENSEE:
Philadelphia Electric Company P. O. Box 195 Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195
'
'
FACILITY NAME:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 INSPECTION AT:
Delta, Pennsylvania l
INSPECTION DATES:
September 20-30,1993 8 $ h'hh 3,/993 INSPECTOR:
Robert A. McBrearty, Reactor $ngineer Date
'
'
Materials Section, EB, DRS
,
,
t APPROVED BY:
//
//
~W
//[F
-
i
.
MichTel'C.Yodes, Chief Date Materials Section, EB, DRS
!
!
i
?
I b
9312O20621 931116 PDR ADDCK 05000277 i
G PDR
,
.
.
t
.
.
i
,
Areas inspected: An announced inspection was conducted of the licensee's inservice
"
inspection program ar.d related activities.
EtSults: The program is being implemented in compliare with applicable ASME Code and j
regulatory requirements. Nondestructive exammations were conducted by qualified and certified examiners, and those responsible for performing examinations for the detection of l
intergranular stress corrosion cracking were listed on the latest Registry of Qualified Personnel for UT of IGSCC, published by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) at i
Charlotte, North Carolina.
,
L B
.
,.
P h
i h
,
P
i
i
!
.
I
"
,
t
.
.
.
-
.
h
.
DETAIIJS 1.0 REVIEW OF INSERVICE INSPECTION (ISI) PROGRAM (IP 73051)
Inservice inspection is mandated by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (ASME B&PV)
Code,Section XI, and because it confirms the structural integrity of the reactor coolant system and other piping systems pressure boundary, is essential to protect public health and
safety.
.
<
The second 10-year inservice inspection interval at Peach Bottom Unit 3, commenced on December 23,1985, is scheduled to end on August 14, 1997. The interval was extended, as j
permitted by Section XI, to accommodate an extended outage experienced by the facility.
The inservice inspection program for the second interval is contained in Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) Specification M-733, Revision 0, and the included examinations are governed by the ASME B&PV Code,Section XI,1980 Edition with Addenda through Winter 1981.
Each 10-year inspection interval is divided into three equal periods, and the plant is now conducting its second refueling outage of the second period of the second interval.
Section XI requires that the 10-year schedule of examinations be distributed over the interval as follows:
Period Examination Comoletion 1st A minimum of 16% of the total must be completed, and credit may be taken for a maximum of 34% of the total.
,
>
2nd A minimum of 50% of the total must be completed, and credit
!
I may be.taken for a maximum of 67% of the total. This includes the examinations performed during the first period.
3rd 100% of all required examinations must be completed.
The status of examinations is maintained on a computer data base and the percent completed at any particular time is readily determined. Additionally, the data base is used for -
'
scheduling purposes when planning the work scope for refueling outages. The long-term (10-year) inspection plan is arranged by period and refueling outages within each period.
The examinations are organized by plant system and code category and are listed for completion during specific refueling outages. In addition to the ASME Code required examinations, those mandated by the NRC such as those identified by NUREG-0313,
'
Revision 2 and Generic letter 88-01 for the detection of intergranular stress corrosion cracking, are included in the program as augmented examinations.~
"
,
i
.
.
-
_
__
I
.
.
'
.
'
,
Various requer,ts for relief from code required examinations, which the licensee considers to
be impractical, have been submitted to the NRC for approval. An access study of the reactor
pressure vessel welds, for which conditional relief was granted by the NRC, was performed by the licensee to determine the percentage of each weld that can be examined using the latest equipment available to the licensee's ISI contractor. The results of the study will be l
!
verified when the examinations are performed.
!
>
Conclusions The Philadelphia Electric Company has a program in place to control inservice inspection
,
activities at its Peach Bottom facility. The computer-based program contains the appropriate
!
'
controls to assure that ASME Code,Section XI requirements are complied with.
2.0 REVIEW OF INSERVICE INSPECTION PROCEDURES (IP 73052)
j
The licensee's inservice inspection contractor has developed nondestructive examination
'
(NDE) procedures for use at Peach Bottom. These include procedures for liquid penetrant, magnetic particle and ultrasonic examination methods including ultrasonic thickness
!
measurements for the detection of erosion / corrosion. Those contractor procedures intended
,
for use at Peach Bottom have been approved by the licensee for use at the facility.
i Additionally, the licensee has developed its own procedures for visual examination methods and ultrasonic examination for erosion / corrosion. The following procedures were selected
,
for review.
j i
Contractor Procedures Procedure No. MT-PE-001, Revision 2, " Magnetic Particle Examination Procedure"
Procedure No. UT-PE-002, Revision 8, " Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Similar
and Dissimilar Metal Welds in Piping Systems"
Procedure No. LP-PE-001, Revision 4, " Liquid Penetrant Examination Procedure" e
,
Procedure No. PBM-UT-103, Revision 0, " Procedure for Manual Ultrasonic l
Examination of Weld Overlayed Austenitic Piping at Peach Bottom Units 2&3" l
Procedure No. PBM-UT-601, Revision 0, " Procedure for Examination of Ultrasonic
"
Thickness Measurements for Erosion / Corrosion at Peach Bottom Units 2&3"
,
I l
.
-
_
.
--
.
.
-
-
L
.
.
.
,
.
Licensee Procedures Procedure No. NDE-1, Revisim 3, " Visual Examination of Power Plant Components,
,
Welds and Equipment"
'
Procedure No. NDE-7, Revision 2, " Visual Examination of Pumps, Valves, Bolting
and Component Supports"
,
Procedure No. NDE-8, Revision 4, " Visual Examination of Reactor Vessel Internals"
Procedure No. NDE-6, Revision 2, " Ultrasonic Examination for Erosion / Corrosion"
,
The above listed procedures were inspected to ascertain compliance with code and regulatory requirements. Additionally, the inspection was performed to determine technical adequacy of the procedures to perform their intended purpose.
,
Visual examination Procedure NDE-8, Revision 4, governs the underwater visual i
examinations that are performed by licensee examiners using a remotely controlled video camera with results recorded on video tape. According to the procedure, the entire inspection is not required to be recorded. Section 7.2 requires tape recording of any deficiencies detected or conditions the examiner believes will require additional evaluation or
-
will become a baseline condition for future comparison. The procedure permits an individual i
certified to Level I qualification to perform the examinations and to perform other functions that include some evaluation. When the inspector voiced his concerns regarding the
.i examination performance and evaluation by a Level I examiner, the licensee stated that, in
,
actuality, level 11 examiners performed the visual examinations and evaluated the results.
,
The inspector was advised that a revision of NDE-8 was in preparation and that the section describing examiners qualification requirements would be clarified to reflect the appropriate use of Ixvel I and Ixvel 11 personnel.
j The reviewed procedures, with the exception discussed above, were determined to be in compliance with applicable code requirements and to be technically adequate for their l
intended function.
t Conclusion
The inservice inspection procedures in use at the Peach Bottom facility are approved by the
licensee prior to their use at the plant. With one exception, the procedures were determined r
to be technically appropriate for their intended use, and action was initiated by the licensee to i
correct the discrepancy noted by the inspector.
i
,
f i
5
.
.
.
3.0 INSERVICE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES (IP 73753 and 49001)
,
Prior to the commencement of the current refueling outage, the licensee performed the ultrasonic examination of reactor water cleanup syste.m welds that were accessible to t
examination personnel during plant operation. The results of those examinations were selected for inspection and include data associated with the following welds:
l
- Valve to pipe weld #12-1-1
- Pipe to elbow weld #12-1-1 A
- Elbow to pipe weld #12-1-1B
- Pipe to pipe weld #12-1-ID
- Valve to pipe weld #12-1-2R
- Pipe to elbow weld #12-0-25
- Pipe to valve weld #12-1-lC
,
i Ultrasonic examination subsequent to the performance of the mechanical stress
!
improvement process (MSIP) for the mitigation of intergrandar stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC).
Weld exhibiting IGSCC and repaired with the weld overlay method. No MSIP was
performed on the weld.
'
The data were examined to ascertain that the results were clearly documented, evaluated and dispositioned, and that the examinations were perfomied by qualified technicians.
The inspector determined that the examination data were complete and were reviewed by the i
licensee's Level III. Additionally, the examiners were properly qualified and certified in
{
accordance with the applicable provisions of SNT-TC-1 A,1980 Edition, the governing i
document, and appeared on the latest Registry of Qualified Personnel for UT of IGSCC published by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) NDE Center at Charlotte, North Carolina.
'
The ultrasonic erosion / corrosion (E/C) examination of 2" diameter carbon steel piping on the reactor feedwater pump (RFP) suction side relief valve discharge piping, location 16.1, and the magnetic particle examination of piping weld 1-2B26-1, a Class 2,26" diameter valve to elbow weld on loop B of the main steam system were selected for observation by the inspector. The two activities were witnessed to ascertain that the examinations were performed by qualified examiners and that the results were properly documented.
..
... -.
.
'
The E/C examination results showed wall thinning below the allowable minimum wall thickness that required licensee evaluation and disposition. Action request (AR) A0781942, which described the problem, was issued and was followed by a nonconformance report (NCR) to track the followup actions. The results were expeditiously evaluated by the licensee's E/C engineer and the decision was made to replace the carbon steel piping with chromium molybdenum materi,t! which is considered to be more erosion / corrosion resistant j
than the original carbon steel.
The 2" diameter RFP piping was not analyzed using the CHECMATE analytical computer code. The licensee's E/C program describes criteria, in addition to CHECMATE analysis,
that are used for selecting and prioritizing components to be examined for erosion / corrosion.
i
'
Components that are not analyzed with CHECMATE, but are considered E/C susceptible, are analyzed using the programmatic guidelines. The licensee's analysis of the RFP piping indicated that a high priority for examination should be placed on the piping; therefore, it
'
was scheduled for examination early in the outage. Also, because of the analysis results, i
replacement material was ordered by the licensee prior to the outage.
l The magnetic particle examination of the main steam weld, an ASME Section XI required inservice examination, was performed by two examiners certified to Level I and Lcvel II, respectively. Each performed duties commensurate with his level of certification. The examination equipment, an AC Parker probe magnetic yoke, was demonstrated to be capable of lifting a 10 pound weight prior to its use on the main steam weld as required by the code.
'
The weld was determined to be free of recordable indications.
The inservice inspection long-term plan identifies the code required examinations that must
.
be completed within the 10-year inspection interval. The examinations are listed by specific outage and period of the interval during which each item is intended to be examined.
'
The reactor water cleanup system and the recirculation system were selected for inspection to determine whether examinations listed on the long-term plan for completion during the current refueling outage were, in fact, on the inservice inspection schedule for this outage (3R09). The inspector determined that the appropriate items on the two selected systems were scheduled for examination during refueling outage 3R09.
!
Conclusions I
The erosion / corrosion program at Peach Bottom is effective, in that wall thinning is detected
.i before it becomes a problem. Selection and prioritization of components and planning is i
excellent as evidenced by the early examination of reactor feedwater pump piping at location 16.1, and the procurement of its replacement piping prior to the outage.
i I
.
_
_
_-
-
.
.-
- - _
_
.. -
,
.
'
l
.
l Inservice examinations at Peach Bottom were performed by properly qualified and certified
!
'
examiners who performed duties commensurate with their level of qualification.
Examination results were clearly documented, evaluation and disposition was completed in a
timely manner and data were reviewed by the appropriate licensee staff. The system for planning and scheduling of code required examinations is effective and assures that those
examinations are completed at the appropriate time. Additionally, the system will confirm j
that, at the end of an outage or interval, the required examinations were completed or l
l accounted for.
.
.
4.0 EXIT MEETLNG
!
f
'
The inspector met with licensee representatives, denoted in Attachment 1, at the conclusion of the inspection on September 30,1993. The inspector summarized the scope and findings
!
of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's remarks with no further
comments, j
t i
!
i i
,.
t n
i
I
!
!
!
!a
!
i
!
,
.
!
-
i i
i
$
'
i
-..
,. -,
, ~.
,
,
. - - -
-_
.. _. - _.
-
_
-
..
.- -
.
.._
......
=
.
_
.
_
!
,
'
..
.
i I
.
ATTACIIMENT 1 Persons Contacted Philadelphia Electric Company
R. P. Dourte NQA Engineer l
R. Gambone NSSS Manager
D. B. Miller, Jr.
Vice President - PBAPS
J. Witman Component Engineering
F. Niessen Director - Site Engineering
-
G. J. Ruff Component Engineering i
R. Smith Regulatory
J. Stanley Inservice Inspection Engineer
.
Indicates those attending the exit meeting
'
- i
!
h
!
i
l i
!
!
!
!
!
!
s
)
i I
l
)
.
p g-ye t--
-
e-
- w e est
-
--
Tv
-
n-n+--
- =-
-w*,
- -
a