IR 05000289/1981026
| ML20038B620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1981 |
| From: | Mcbrearty R, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038B608 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-81-26, NUDOCS 8112080439 | |
| Download: ML20038B620 (6) | |
Text
-
,
.
~
.
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I
'
Report No.
50-289/81-26 Docket Nc 50-289 License No.
DPR-50 Priority
-
Category C.
Licensee:
tietropolitan Edison Company P. O. Box 480 Middletown. Pennsylvania 17057 Facility Name: Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1
_
Inspection at: fliddletown, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted:
September 16-18, 29-30 and October 1-2, 1981 Inspectors:
$7*#
M A7,/9P/
R. A. McBrearty, Reac y Inspector date s'igned date signed date signed Approved by:
[. A4h/)
///2/7/
L. E. Tri$d, Chief, Materials and date signed
-
Processes Section, Engineering Inspection Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 16-1.
29-30 and October 1-2, 1981 (Renort No. 50-289/81-26)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee response to IF. Bulletins, licensee action on previous inspection findings and work activities associated with the Unit 1 Restart Program.
The inspection involved 55.5 insnector-hours on site by one NRC regional based inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
_
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
8112080439 811119 PDR ADOCK 05000289
- - -.. -
.. -.. -. -
. - - -
_
.-
.
,
,
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted General Public Utilities (GPU)
'D. Cowfer,-Msterials Technology Manager R. Fenti, Site QA Audit Manager D. Langan, Lead Monitor ISI Welding
- H. Miller, Welding Engineer Supervisor
- J. Potter, QA Engineer C. Smyth, Supervisor, Licensing TMI-l
- C. Stephenson, Licensing, TMI-l
- R. Toole, O&M Director, TMI-l
D. Jackson, Site Supervisor USNRC
- R. Conte, Senior Resident Inspector, TMI-2
- D. Haverkamp, Senior Resident Inspector, TMI-l
- F. Young, Resident Inspector, TMI-1
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Infraction (289/78-26-01):
Failure to follow ultrasonic examination procedures. The inspector reviewed Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. (NES)
letter number 5540-057 dated January 19, 1979, which provides justification for the use of 5.0 MH in lieu of the specified 2.25 MH test frequency.
'
Z Z
l Three welds, FW-W-1, -2 and HP-WS were ultrasonically examined usir.g a-technique (frequency) which was contrary to the applicable procedure. The
,
reexamination of the welds is discussed in IE Inspection Report number 79-05.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
(Closed) Unresolved item (289/78-26-02):
Incomplete documentation of NES employee certification to Level III: for Magnetic Particle examination. The
,
inspector reviewed NES letter number 5540-062 dated February 28, 1979 which
'
verified that the individual was properly certified to Level III.
l i
!
.
F e
.
,
.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this item.
(Closed) Unresolved item (289/80-13-02):
Film processing requirements not specified in the radiographic (RT) procedure. There was no information relative to film processing, as required by USAS B-31.7, in RT procedure XR-1-NP.
The inspector reviewed revision 2 of the procedure which includes the required information.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this item.
(Closed) Unresolved item (289/80-13-03): The size of the lead letter "F" specified by RT procedure is inconsistent with the requirements of USAS B-31.7.
The inspector reviewed the revised RT procedure XR-1-NP and found that it met the requirements of USAS B-31.7 with regard to the size of the letter "F".
In addition, the inspector reviewed radiegraphs for weld number BS 301 and weld number BS 302 which were u.ade on Jaauary 18, 1980 and January 17, 1980 respectively for Task NM 17.
The film review confirmed that the smaller letter was clearly discernible on the films and met the intent of the USAS B-31.7 requirement.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this item.
(Closed) Unresolved item (289/80-13-04): Welding process not referenced in RT procedure as required by USAS B-31.7.
The inspector reviewed RT procedure XR-1-NP Attachment I which requires that the welding procedure be identified which is used for welds which are examined in accordance with the RT procedure.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this item.
(0 pen) Inspector follow-up item (289/80-06-07): Ultrasonic indication-1 evaluation based on incorrect calibration standard.
The item concerns the evaluation of a decay heat system weld indication which used data obtained with the use of a calibration reference reflector larger than permitted by procedure. The inspector found that the weld was reexamined using the proper standard, but the licensee was unable to verify'that an evaluation was made based on the new data. The licensee representative agreed to discard existing data.and to reexamine the weld in question, weld M-40.in the decay heat system, using the latest ultrasonic technique available. The examination results will be evaluated and disposition of the weld will be made based on that evaluation. The inspector stated that the item will remain open pending completion of the proposed examination and NRC review of the evaluation and disposition of examination results.
3.
Licensee Response to IE Bulletins The inspector examined licensee drawings and records and interviewed licensee representatives to verify that proper licensee actions were taken with respect to IE Bulletins 79-03,79-03A, 79-13, 79-17 and 80-08.
-
'
- .
.
79-03 and 79-03A:
The inspector fourd that the licensee had reviewed records to ascertain whether or not ASME SA-312 type 304 SS fusion welded pipe was used in the plant. The licensee determined that such pipe was used in the following systems:
Building Spray
-
-
Chemical Addition and Sampling
-
Core Flooding
-
Waste Disposal (Liquid and Gas)
-
Waste Disposal Vents and Drains Three heats of Youngstown Welding and Engineering Company supplied pipe were used in the vertical header of the Building Spray System inside the Unit I containment.
Accessible portions of the Youngstown pipe were inspected by the licensee.
Piping in the remaining systems was determined to meet the criteria delineated in Bulletin 79-03A. The licensee's response to the NRC concerning this item completes the licensee's action on this item.
79-13:
The inspector found that the licensee was exempted from the volumetric examination requirements specified in revision 2, section 2.b of the Bulletin. The licensee's response to the NRC regarding items 2.c, 5.b, and 5.c will complete the licensee's action on this item.
79-17:
Licensee action on the item included an extensive program of weld examination and analysis to identify and repair instances of intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) in stagnant borated water line welds in the facility. Techniques incorporating ultrasonic, radiographic and liquid penetrant examination methods were used to identify the problem.
Confirmation of the identification was made by metallurgical analysis of weld samples.
The inspector found that the licensee has taken adequate actions and has generated the necessary responses to the NRC. The licensee actions on this item are considered completed.
-
-
.o-o
,
80-08:
The inspector found that the licensee has completed his review of drawings to ascertain the design of containment liner penetration welds in Unit 1.
Licensee letter TLL 351 dated July 18, 1980 completes the licensee's action on this item.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Nondestructive Examination (NDE) of Emergency Feedwater (EFW)
System Welds for Restart of Unit 1 In response to NRC concerns that a pipe rupture, under certain conditions, could render both EFW trains inoperable, the licensee indicated that the-system is not designed as a high-energy system as defined by Standard Review Plan Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 with regard to pipe breaks,-and the system was originally accepted by the NRC as such. The licensee has indicated that the normal system operating stresses are substantially below the minimum yield strength of the system piping. The inspector found that the system piping was designed and analyzed to the requirements of USAS B31.1 Power Piping. Acceptance was based on visual examination with no volumetric NDE requirements. The licensee stated that radiographic examination of the system welds-was performed for information.
To alleviate NRC concerns regarding a pipe rupture accident, the licensee has committed to perform, prior to restart of the Unit I reactor, a.volu-metric NDE of the-10 welds in the system piping with the highest combined stresses to verify that no undesirable flaws exist.
Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. (NES) was contracted by the licensee to perfo-m radiography (RT) of the selected welds.
Examination of six of the welds was completed at the time of this inspection.
The licensee informed the inspector that two of the six welds exhibited defect indications which were interpretad by NES personnel as areas of incomplete fusion.
The inspector reviewe:i the radiographs of weld #1 and weld #3 and observed the zones of incomplete fusion on the films.
Discussions with licensee representatives indicated that the latest radiographs showed no changes in a condition that was revealed on the original films, but was not reported on the related interpretation sheets.
The inspector was informed during the course of this inspection that
.
licensee review and evaluation of the films is being done with respect to
'
acceptance criteria of USAS B31.1, the construction code. At the exit interview on October 2, 1981, the licensee representative stated that acceptance criteria were not yet determined.
<
FE R
.
,.....
This item is considered unresolved pending licensee establishment of acceptance criteria,;and evaluation and disposition of all the welds in accordance with those criteria..(289/81-26-01)
5.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to--
ascertain whether they are acceptable. items, items of-noncompliance or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are.
discussed in-paragraph 4.
6.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph I) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 2, 1981.
Th+ inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.