IR 05000293/1990018

Insp Rept 50-293/90-18 on 900709-13.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Inservice Insp Activities to Ascertain Whether Licensee Activities Conducted in Compliance W/Asme Code & Regulatory Requirements

ML20058P052
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	07/26/1990
From:	Mcbreaty R, Terao D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20058P051	List: IR 05000293/1990018 ML20058P047
References
50-293-90-18, NUDOCS 9008160016
Download: ML20058P052 (6)

Text

. - _ _ __

!

.

r,g ,

..

.

,,

,

.

-r U. S. NUCLEAT, REGU'.ATORY COMMISSION - O

REGION I

e Report No,'. 50-293/90-18

" Docket N .

L License No. ' DRP-35 I i

' Licensee: . Boston Edison Company i TFD #1 Rocky Hill Road i

1. L -Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360  !

Facility Name: ' Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station

4

' Inspection At: Plymouth, Massachusetts Inspection Conducted: July 9-13, 1990 Inspectors:

. ul~ /4 A. 'McBreai ty, Reactor Eggineer, Mate /ials

~

M{fd

/ dats l

and Processes :Section, EB, ORS y

Approved by: b b 7 /24 /9 o D.7erao, Acting ChpFT, Materials and date !

Processes Section, Engineering Branch, DRS . 1 Inspection dummary: Inspection on July 9-13',1990 (Report No. 50-293/90-18);

)

Areas Inspected: A routine unannounced-inspection was conducted of inservice inspection activities to ascertain whether the licensee's activities were conducted in compliance with applicable ASME Code and regulatory requirement In addition, the results of the water chemistry program and licensee actions regarding selection and control of- component materials to minimize personnel-

,

'

exposure to radiation were reviewe i i

Results: No violations were identifie The-licensee maintained good primary

-

water chemistry for the reviewed period. Its program for-reducing personnel 3 j

exposure is good but not completely developed. The licensee's process for >

review of vendor personnel qualification records was noted to need improvemen i i

.

. ,

'900816'0016 900809

. . PDR ADOCK 05000'293 Q PDC '

.

' . .

, ;. .

l

,*

s ,:'

i

,

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted Boston Edison Company

.-

l

• W. Davis, Vice President, Nuclear; Administration l M.:.DiMeo,?SeniorMechanical. Engineer- .

~

• V.,- Fairland, Nuclear Eng.ineering Division Manager - Acting

• F. N. Famulari, Quality Assurance Manager .

C. Garerow,<NDE Level III .

• C. S. Goddard, Chemistry Division-Manager

.l

• P. 'J. . Hamilton, Compliance Division Manager  !

• J. Kelly, Seni ' Compliance Engineer

?

.

• E. S. Kraft, Piant Manager 1 R.' Pardee. Inservice Inspection _ Mechanical Engineer  !

• B. Perkins,1 Senior-Quality Control Engineer- &

L. Simons, Quality Engineering Division Manager d

• R. N. Swanson, Regulatory Affairs Manager G. Vazquez, Senior Radiological Engineer

• E. J. Wagner, Vice President Nuclear Engineering (telephone contact) .

.

.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

!

• J.B.'Macdonald, Senior Resident Inspector' i

• Denotes those present at the exit meetin ,

2.0 Examination Results:and Personnel Qualification / Certification j Records (73753)

,I Selected examination records were inspected to ascertain that -the i'

~

examination results were properly recorded, evaluated and dispositione The following were included in the inspection:.

Visual Examination

• !

Reactor Water Cleanup System spring hanger #H-12-1-14 i

The examiner reported on March 14, 1990, that the-part number of:the-installed-hanger, B-P3400C-10, did not agree with the number identified by the drawing, B-P VS4 C-10. Nonconformance report (NCR) No. 90-27.was issued on 3/15/90 to track the problem. The licensee determined that the <

two part numbers were equivalent and were listed in the Bergen-Patterson catalogue #82R. The NCR was properly closed out on 3/16/9 !

- j

..;,,

, , -j

.

.

t

Reactor Building Closed Cociling Water System Anchor #H-30-1-;2SA '

I On March 26, 1990, visual examination results documented the presence.of .

corrosion on a' portion of a nut surface and what appeared to be a ver_tical ;

crack along the corner of the nut. 'NCR #90-45 was issued on the-same da :

The conoition was. evaluated by. Nuclear Engineering Division (NED) and it was. deter.%ined that the . nut was not cracked, but that.the surface was - ..

damagec' . possibly by a wrench that- slipped and gouged the' metal. The !

corrosion was . verified as be.ing minor . Maintenance Request (MR) N yas issued to remove the light corrosion and to apply a protective

.

_

.

coating of epoxy paint. The_NCR'was dispositioned " accept-as-is" reg'arding l the surf 6ce gouge and was closed out on April- 16, 1990 subsequent to the -

repair work. The inspector agreed with the licensee's dispositio * Main Steam System anchor #H-1-1-X78 On March 28,_1990, visual examination results documented the presence o a 141" s long crack in the toe of the subject penetration. anchor weld. _ NCRc

1. 90-52 was-issued that day to track the ' rejectable condition. Evaluation <

and disposition by'NED. required repair of thel crack and MR #90-1-17- was-issued for that purpose. The crack was removed by grinding, the excavation

'

was weld repaired and magnetic particle inspection was conducted of the -

finished weld repair. A visual examination was performed of.the final configuration on April 17,_1990_and the acceptable _ result _. of this examina-tion were documented by the licensee. The documentation pachge confirmed

-

that the repair was properly performed and the NCR was closed ou *

Main Steam System rigid hanger #H-1-1-29 The visual inspector reported that.a portion of the hanger was resting against a structural steel member and- the condition was rejected. On March 12, 1990, the date of the visual examination, NCR #90-23 was. issued to track the rejectable condition. -NED evaluated the condition an determined that the pipe support could-perform'its? intended function and i that the structural integrity of the beam was not affected. The disposition was " accept-as-is" and the NCR was closed out on March 14,- '

199 . In the case of NCR #90-23 the Quality Engineering Division (QED) was ,

precluded from the review process because NED had determined that quality i

- assurance requirements were not affecte Based on. discussions with QED :

personnel regarding the processing of NCRs_the' inspector determined that ;

QED involvement, or lack of same, in the NCR disposition review process l was previously identified by the licensee as a problem and a deficiency '

report (DR) was issued against NE Under similar circumstances QED would sometimes be involved or, at other times, be precluded from the NCR disposition review process.

,

.

I

.

-

.

.. ..

!

L

-,

.

4 i

During the course of this inspection NED completed its response to the OR and Procedure No. 15.01, Revision 15, entitled "Nonconformance. Reports" was issued. Revision 15 requires that all NCRs that are dispositioned

" Accept" or_" Repair" shall be forwarded by the NED Manager to the Quality Engineering Division for review:and approva The inspector had no further questions regarding this matte :

Ultrasonic Examination

Feedwater System welds 6-A-10 and 6-B-8, 18" diameter pipe.to flued head welds y The welds _were reported to be free of recordable indications and were deemed acceptabl '

Qualification / Certification records of the individuals who performed the '

aforementioned examinations were inspected in addition to- the- records of other Stone.and Webster personnel, the li ensee's ISI vendor, who performed inservice inspections at Pilgrin. The inspection was performed to_ ascertain that the examiners responsibl 3 for the inservice inspection were properly qualified in accordance with requirements of SNT-TC-1A, the governing documen The inspector voiced a concern regarding the qualification of-the Level 11 examiner who aided in the-ultrasonic examinations listed above. The individual's resume, which was included'in records.provided by Stone;and:

Webster to the licensee, contained' evidence of his having been previously certified to Level II by other employers. However, large' gaps in his-involvement with ultrasonic examination were apparent-during his career, including-the eight years prior to his employment by . Stone and Webster in February, 1990. The licensee's review of the records failed to question ,

the gaps in the individual's ultrasonic experience. Additional information provided by Stone and Webster at the_ licensee's request during!the course of this inspection indicated that Stone and Webster had verified the individual's prior employment' and experience. The additional information also confirmed that. Stone and Webster had complied with SNT-TC-1A require-ments regarding certification of _ an individual based on prior certification by a previous employe Stone _and Webster, in accordance with its. documented practice rules, provided eight hours training to the individual and administered three examinations: general, specific and practical', also ,

in accordance with its written practice rules. The individual successfully 1 passed the examinations, including the practical, which consisted of ultrasonic-testing samples containing real defects. The licensee's program for vendor personnel includes training and testing on procedures, equipment and surveillance by one of its Level III examiners of individual performance during the conduct of a routine. inservice examination. -The subject Level II examiner was found to be acceptable in all instances. The licensee concluded that the individual was properly certified in accordance with his employer's SNT-TC-1A written practice. The inspector agreed that applicable ' requirements of the Stone and Webster written practice were complied with, as was the licensee's progra i s

t c, < , .

.

t 5'

At the exit; meeting the inspector stated that the licensee's-review o , vendor NDE personne1' qualification records should have identified that a

- potential problem existed and that the documentation necessary to verif that there was no problem should-have been acquired prior to allowing the individual to-perform examinations at the sit No violations were. identifie .0 Water Chemistry (84750) .

' Water chemistry data were reviewed as part of.this inspection. Th'e methods of collecting and ' verifying the accuracy' of these. data were not -

included in the scope of this inspectio .The inspector reviewed the primary water' chemistry.-data for the p'eriod of -

December 25, 1989 through July 2, 1990, and discussed these data with responsible individuals. in the licensee's chemistry ' department. : The period of--March 12, 1990 through April 26, 1990 when the reactor was.in-

~ cold shutdown, and the period of April 27, 1990 through-April'30, 1990, when the reactor was in the startup mode, was' excluded from the revie The sampling point for monitoring the reactor water quality-is at the reactor water. sampling panel, rack No. C-121, at the 51' elevation in the reactor buildin j

,1 The average conductivity per week of the primary water during~the reviewed l period ranged-from 0.108 pS/cm to 0.197 pS/cm, which was within the-

!

licensee's goal of 0.20 pS/cm and the Technical Specification . Limit of .!

umho/cm (1.0 pS/cm). The average chloride concentration per week was' i reported as ranging from less than.1.0 part per. billion (ppb)=to.2.6 ppb,- ,

the average sulfate. concentration ranged from 1.7 ppb, 10.7 ppb, and pH I ranged from 6.6 to 7.0 which was within the guidelines.of 15.0 ppb for !

chloride and ' sulfate, and 5.6 to 8.6 for pH. The-average values.for '

,

!

chloride and pH also were within the Technical' Specification' limits of

-

J 0.'2 parts per million (ppm) and.5.6 to 8.6, respe'ctivel I

!

A few instances were reported when conductivity values exceeded the BWR 'l Owners Group guideline. _The reasons ~for the high. readings were documented and the inspector determined that the conductivity was brought within the

~ guideline value within a short period of time. ; Technical Specification limit for conductivity, pH, or chloride was not exceeded during the reviewed perio .0 Occupational Exposure (83750)

l q

' The licensee's program for selecting and controlling component materials to minimize personnel exposure to radiation include the following:

• ;

The licensee contracted ABB Atom, Inc. to perform a study on radiation {

source reduction for Pilgrim which has been completed and the fina report was issued in March, 1990.

,

t I

l

- _ - - _ - - -

'

-

. =_;- --

^I

.- i

The licensee has initiated aL program of control blade management to:

, replace control blades with stellite-free material *-

A' program was-initiated to; identify and. quantify cobalt contributors in the-plant.=

The licensee is investigating the advantages, short' term and long -'

term, of chemical decontaminatio ~

The available fuel improvements to reduce cobalt sources is being ^

investigated with fuel supplier *

Feedwater regulator valves were replaced in_1977-with non-stellite j material, j

The valve maintenanc'e procedure contains precautions regarding I minimizing the entry of stellite into_ piping system The- l maintenance' work plan for valve maintenanc_e contains steps which-- 1

- verify that procedural precautions are observed.' '

Recirculation _ pumps will be rebuilt', when required, with low cobalt material *

The licensee has acquired a Gamma- Spectrometer _ for the purpose of-quantifying a radiation sourc :

!

Several other initiatives are being' considered.for the reduction of f personnel exposure,'but they are still'in the' planning stag .0- Exit Meeting- -

i-i The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in. paragraph 1) :

at the conclusion of the inspection on July 13',- 1990. : The' inspector .l summarized the scope and findings of the inspectio ;

i No-written material was provided by the inspector _to the: licensee during the inspection. :The ' licensee did not indicate that proprietary'informa- 'li tion was involved within the scope of this inspection, i

h