IR 05000313/1993024
| ML20046B273 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1993 |
| From: | Powers D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20046B271 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-93-24, 50-368-93-24, NUDOCS 9308040012 | |
| Download: ML20046B273 (9) | |
Text
.
-
- _
.
-
_-
.
-
-
-.
I
.
'
APPENDIX i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
j Inspection Report:
50-313/93-24; 50-360/93-24 Operating Licenses:
DRP-51; NPF-6
Licensee:
Entergy Operations, Inc.
Route 3, Box 137G Russellville, Arkansas 72801
i Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2
,
Inspection At: Russellville, Arkansas Inspection Conducted:
July 12-16,1993 Inspectors:
Les Gilbert, Reactor Inspector, Maintenance Section
Division of Reactor Safety Claude E. Johnson, Reactor Inspector, Maintenance Section Division of Reactor Safety Approved:
MM d'//2 9/'/3 Dr. Dale A. Powers, Chief, Maintenance Section Date
Division of Reactor Safety
,
Inspection Summary Areas Inspected (Unit 1):
Routine, announced inspection of erosion / corrosion monitoring program and associated activities.
,
Areas Inspected (Unit 2):
No inspection of Unit 2 activities was performed.
Results (Unit 1):
The licensee has developed an upgraded program for the detection of
component degradation in high-energy piping resulting from erosion /
corrosion that adequately addressed the concerns identified in Generic
Letter 89-08 (Section 2.1.1).
,
The procedures clearly defined responsibilities for the erosion /
!
.
corrosion program (Section 2.1.1).
The engineering coordinator was well trained and knowledgeable of the
'
erosion / corrosion program (Section 2.1.1).
t
.
.
9308040012 930730 t
POR ADOCK 05000313 PDR
'
_-
._
,
!
r t
.
-2-
,
The licensee has successfully completed upgrading the program to include
complete CHECMATE computer modeling of all trains of each susceptible
>
system (Section 2.1.3).
,
The licensee properly evaluated and satisfactorily dispositioned
components with unacceptable thicknesses (Section 2.1.4).
.
Results (Unit 2): Not applicable.
t Summary of Inspection Findinas
,
No inspection findings were opened or closed.
- Attachments:
,
Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting
Attachment 2 - Documents Reviewed
!
t i
i i
a f
.
I r
)
i i
.
.
.
_3_
t DETAILS
,
,
f 1 PLANT STATUS During this inspection period, the plant was operating at power.
!
2 INSPECTION OF EROSION / CORROSION MONITORING PROGRAMS (49001)
The objectives of this inspection were to ascertain whether (a) licensee
<
activities relative to the long-term erosion / corrosion monitoring program were l
in accordance with Generic Letter 89-08, " Erosion / Corrosion-Induced Pipe Wall Thinning"; (b) management control problems or weaknesses exist in the implementation of the program; and (c) the program had been independently
reviewed.
2.1 Discussion i
!
2.1.1 Program Development The inspectors reviewed the licensee's response to Generic Letter 89-08. The response was documented in a letter to NRC dated July 21, 1989. The licensee notified the NRC in this letter that development of an erosion / corrosion pipe l
wall thinning program, creation of a dedicated staff position to coordinate
program activities, and implementation of a formalized procedure provided
,
assurances that controls were in place to ensure that an effective long-term
!
i program had been implemented. The program has been compared by the licensee against the Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Council (NUKARC)
standards and has been found to meet or exceed those recommendations.
Further
,
enhancement of the program was expected as a result of the licensee's continued programmatic approach of analyzing inspection results and continued association with other utilities through the CHEC/CHECMATE Users Group (CHUG).
t The inspectors were informed that prior to 1987, the basis for selection of piping components for evaluation was engineering judgement and industry experience. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) CHEC computer
program, however, was used to some degree during the October 1987 mid-cycle
outage for Unit I to assist in the selection of nine piping locations from the condensate and feedwater systems that were then inspected. The inspections resulted in the identification of two components with wall thickness below the calculated minimum. The components were repaired and then replaced in 1988.
,
'
In 1990, the licensee upgraded the erosion / corrosion program to include the EPRI CHECMATE computer program for predicting component wall thinning in two-phase flow, carbon-steel, high-energy piping systems.
i The inspectors reviewed an early version of the program which was documented i
in Procedure 1092.090, " Secondary Pipe Wall Thinning Program Volumetric NDE Examination," Revision 2 dated August 16, 1989. The program was further upgraded in 1992 and the procedure number changed to Procedure 5120.430,
,
i i
_
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
!
-
I
f-4-
" Secondary Pipe Wall Thinning Nondestructive Examinations," Revision 0.
The
!
engineering programmatic approach to the identification of components that
!
were adversely affected by erosion / corrosion was documented in Engineering i
Standard HES-05, " Flow Accelerated Corrosion Prevention Program," Revision 1.
'
The procedures were noted to clearly define responsibilities for the erosion /
!
corrosion program. The licensee was found to have developed an upgraded j
program for the detection of component degradation in high-energy piping
'
resulting from erosion / corrosion that adequately addressed the concerns identified in Generic Letter 89-08.
!
The inspectors were informed that the engineering coordinator was on the CHUG
!
Advisory Committee and had attended most of the EPRI training sessions given
'
by EPRI on the computer program. The inspectors interviewed the engineering coerdinator and concluded that the engineering coordinator was well trained l
and knowledgeable of the erosion / corrosion program. The inspectors were i
informed that cross training of another engineer was planned in order to
!
provide a backup for the engineerino coordinator.
,
i 2.1.2 Quality Assurance (QA) Surveillance Report
!
The inspectors reviewed QA Surveillance Report 93-018, " Erosion / Corrosion i
(Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program)," dated April 29, 1993.
The surveillance
report indicated that the surveillance was conducted to review the licensee's
erosion / corrosion program in regard to NRC Generic Letter 89-08, NUMARC, Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), and EPRI guidelines and recommendations for implementation of a long-term and effective erosion /
corrosion program. The surveillance report concluded that evaluations and
,
examinations performed during this surveillance indicated that the licensee's
er vion / corrosion program, known' as FAC was comprehensive, effective, and was
,
consistent with the industry efforts, includ wg those of EPRI, NUMARC, INPO, and the NRC guidelines / documents.
The surveiliance report documented the results of the surveillance as satisfactory.
The inspectors considered the QA surveillance to be a satisfactory, independent review of the erosion / corrosion
'
program.
2.1.3 Program Implementation i
,
The inspectors reviewed several piping systems that were identified as being
'
potentially susceptible to erosion / corrosion:
,
reheat steam, and heater vents and drains.
'
\\
The inspectors were informed by the engineering coordinator that the new CHECMATE modeling had been successfully completed for all the piping systems i
that were susceptible to erosion / corrosion.
The inspectors selected lines i
from each of the piping systems selected for review in the above paragraph.
)
The inspectors selected completed CHECMATE forms for the following segments of piping:
'
Feedwater Heater 1-A to Distiller A (Reheat Steam System);
.
_.
.
_
[
.
.
l
.
.
I
!
-5-
-l i
l Feedwater Heater 1-A to High Pressure Extraction Steam Nozzle E001 (High
Pressure Extraction Steam); and High Pressure Heater lA to Moisture Separator Drain Tank T40A (High
Pressure Heater Drain).
.
.
For each of the lines, the inspectors compared the engineering input data and plant conditions to the database in the computer program. The database
'
parameters reviewed included the pipe size, schedule, length, material, and geometry factors, and operating conditions regarding flow rate, water chemistry, temperature and pressure, and hours of operation. The CHECMATE-input forms and data base were derived from, and in agreement with, the piping isometric drawings, the heat balance diagram, the pipe class summary, pipe
<
class sheets, and the CHECMATE User's Manual, as well as information provided
,
by operations and chemistry. The engineering input data was found to have
,
been developed by an engineering contractor and independently reviewed by the
. :
engineering coordinator.
2.1.4 Sample Review of Inspection Activities i
In order to review the implementation of the erosion / corrosion monitoring program, the inspectors selected a number of inspection activities from four
'
piping systems: main feedwater, reheat steam, high pressure extraction steam,
!
and high pressure heater drains. For each of the activities, the inspectors
{
reviewed the thickness measurement reports and engineering evaluations.
The minimum measured thickness for each component was reviewed against the criteria established by engineering.
For the samples selected, the inspectors verified that the results had been evaluated and satisfactorily dispositioned
,
by engineering.
For those components that exhibited wall thickness degradation, the inspectors verified that the components had been replaced or scheduled for an examination within the specified number of refueling cycles
in accordance with criteria established by engineering in Procedure 5120.430.
For component replacement in the main feedwater system, the inspector verified
.
l that a different material (chromium-molybdenum alloy steel) had been used and
,
other components had been examined to satisfy program expansion requirements.
The inspectors also reviewed the certification of the ultrasonic equipment, the calibration blocks, and the nondestructive examination personnel who performed the thickness measurements. The equipment and personnel met the calibration interval and certification requirements, respectively, of Procedure 5120.430.
2.2 Conclusions The licensee has developed a program, for the detection of component degradation in high-energy piping resulting from erosion / corrosion, that
adequately addressed the concerns identified in Generic Letter 89-08. The
,
licensee has successfully completed upgrading the program to include complete CHECMATE computer modeling of all trains of each susceptible system.
The (
i
.
-
.
t t
I-6-procedures clearly defined responsibilities for developing, maintaining, and
implementing the erosion / corrosion program. The engineering coordinator was
,
well trained and knowledgeable of the erosion / corrosion program.
The inspection did not identify any management control problems or weaknesses
>
in the implementation of the program. For those sampled components with a i
measured thickness less than the specified acceptable thickness, the licensee
,
properly evaluated and satisfactorily dispositioned those results.
'
The licensee's erosion / corrosion program had been satisfactorily and
independently reviewed by the quality assurance organization.
.
,
+
s I
i
-.
,
-
,.
. -
-
..
--
,
"
,
ATTACHMENT 1 l
1 PERSONS CONTACTED 1.1 Enteray Personnel
- S. Boncheff, Licensing Specialist
'
- C. Eubanks, Supervisor, Engineering Programs
~
- J.
Fisicaro, Director, Licensing
- R. Jones, Technical Specialist III, Engineering Programs
- D. Lomax, Manager, Engineering Programs
- D. Mims, Manager, Unit 2 Systems Engineering
- K. Panther, Specialist, Non-Destructive Examinations
- J. Ray, Supervisor, Non-Destructive Examinations J. Taylor-Brown, Coordinator, Quality
- J. Vandergrift, Plant Manager, Unit 1 In addition to the personnel listed above, the inspectors contacted other personnel during this inspection period.
- Denotes personnel that attended the exit meeting.
2 EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted on July 16, 1993.
During this meeting, the inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee
'
did not identify as proprietary, any information provided to, or reviewed by the inspectors.
,
-
, -
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
_
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Memorandum OCAN078905, " Response to Generic Letter 89-08, Erosion / Corrosion Induced Pipe Wall Thinning," July 21, 1989 Memorandums to File, "ANO-1 and ANO-2 Erosion / Corrosion Program," CHECMATE MODELING, April 26 and June 4, 1990 ANO-1 Refueling Outage Inspection Plans /Results IR9,1R10, and 1Rll IR10 Post-Outage Report Quality Assurance Surveillance Report 93-018, " Erosion / Corrosion (Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program)"
Engineering Action Request No.90-582 Engineering Action Request No.90-549 Engineering Action Request No.90-550 Engineering Action Request No.90-541 Certificate of Compliance (Calibration blocks)
DRAWINGS PKS-M-100, Revision 5 PKS-M-101, Revision 5 PKS-M-102,. Revision 5 PKS-M-103, Revision 4 PKS-M-104, Revision 4 PKS-M-105, Revision 5 PKS-M-106, Revision 5 PKS-M-107, Revision 5 PKS-M-108, Revision 3
PROCEDURES HES-05, " Flow Accelerated Corrosion Prevention Program," Revision 1 5120.430, " Flow Accelerated Corrosion Prevention," Revision 1
_ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - - _ - _ - _ _
_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _
___-
. -.
..
-
..
.
. - ~ -
-
.
'
'I...
'
-
.
!
i i-2-i
!
i 1415.001, " Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement (Digital Or Meter Display),"
Revision 2
.;
,
e
a I
f
,
f
!
I
.c
.
G E
'
'I
-!
f
>
r k
k
.i
[
I
>
.
I i
>
.. )
'
_,.
.
- -
.
-
-
-...
.....
. _....