IR 05000333/1988026
| ML20205P423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1988 |
| From: | Mcbrearty R, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205P422 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-88-26, GL-88-01, GL-88-1, NUDOCS 8811080125 | |
| Download: ML20205P423 (8) | |
Text
,_ __- _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ -.. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ __. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
.
J
.
-
,
.'
'
,
-
,a U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I'
Report No.
50-333/88-26
'
Docket No.
50-333
-
License No. DPR-59 Licensee: Power Authority of the State of New York P. O. Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 Facility Name: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At:
Scriba, New York
-
Inspection Conducted:
September 26, 1988 to October 7, 1988 Inspector:
/0////##
A. McBFearty, Reactor Engineer date Approved by:
.
/0//#/#r
. Strosnider, Chief, Materials and
~ date
.
rocesses Section, EB, DRS Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 26 to October 7,1988. (Inspection Report No. 50-333/88-26)
Areas _. Inspected: A routine, unannounced inspection was conducted of the licensee's inservice inspection activities to ascertain that the ISI activities were conducted in accordance with applicable ASME Code and regulatory requirements. Particular emphasis was placed on the observation of work in progress, implementing NDE procedures, and control of nonconforming ISI items.
In addition, the licensee's response to Generic Letter 88-01 was inspected.
Results: The inspection concluded, based on the areas inspected, that the licensee's activities complied with applicable requirements.
The licensee's
-
response to GL 88-01 was timely and addressed the areas required by the Generte letter.
%A
_
,
._
_ _ _ - _ _ _
e
=
'
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
New York Power Authcrity
- R. Converse, Resident Manager
- W. Fernandez, Superintendent of Power
- Ron Lauman, Director, Operations and Maintenance
- R. Patch, Quality Assurance Superintendent
- R. Denny, Senior OPM Engineer
- G. Sechler, Quality Control - NOE Level III EBASCO Services T. Pederson, NDE Level III A. Smith, Droject Manager ISI General Electric Company R. Leugh, NDE Level III
,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- A. Luptak, Senior Resident Inspector
- R. Plasse, Resident In.spector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
2.
Scope of_ Inspection Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Piant Components, of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Ccde provides rules for the examination, testing, and inspection of components and systems
- n a nuclear power plant.
Section XI mandatas that the plant owner develop a program which will demonstrate conformance to Code requirements, and the licensee performs inservice inspection to comply with those requirements and with its ISI program plan.
T,ie following areas were selected for inspectirn:
ISI Organization
Implementing NDE Procedures
Observations of Work in Proc' ess
-
.
.
.
.
Personnel Qualification / Certification Records
Q.A/Q.C. Involvement in ISI
Centrol of Nonconforming ISI Items
Respanic to Generic Letter 88-01
3.
Inservice Inspection Program (73051)
The inspector determined that the J. A. FitzPatrick facility is in the first period of the second ten year inspection interval which commenced on July 28, 1985. The applicable code, as specified by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(ii) is the 1980 Edition of ASME Section XI through Winter 1981 Addenda.
The extent of examination of pressure - retaining welds in ASME Code Class I Piping (Table IWB-2500 and IWB-2500-1, Category B-J) will be determined by the requirements of Table IWB-2500 and Table IWB-2600, Category B-J of Se:tioa XI, 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda as permitted by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(11).
Inservice Inspection Organization Staffing The licensee's Inservice Inspection Coordir.ator is an N0E Level III, EPRI qualified member of the licensee's Quality Control organization reporting directly to the Q.C. Supervisor.
During the ongoing refueling outage, the coordinator is supported by corporate staff members, a contractor Level III and EBASCO personnel.
EBASCO is the licensee's ISI vendor.
In additint., the G.neral Electric Company will perform remote visual inspections inside the reactor pressure vessel.
The inspector determined that the staff size, augmented by contractor personnel, is adequate to meet the scheduled work load.
Q.A./Q.C. In';olvement in Inservice Inspection Activities The inspector selected NYPA Q.A. Surveillance Report No. 1245 for inspection to ascertain that the site QA/QC group participated in vendor ISI activities.
The purpose of the survetilance was to verify that the ISI Contractor's (EBASCO) procedures, equipment, material and personnel complied with the applicable requirements.
The audit was performed during the period from August 23-29, 1988 and included a review of vendor procedures, personnel qualifications, and equipment certificat:on _
..
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
'
.
.
.
.
The surveillance resulted in the identification of procedural discrepancies regarding two (2) ultrasonic proceoures and the need to require calibration stickers for various magnetic particle examination equipment. Asi of the findings were corrected by EBASCO prior to the issuance of the survellisnce report.
No violations were identified.
Control of Nonconforming Items The licensee's system for tracking inservice inspection items which do not clearly meet the applicable acceptance criteria involves the use of
'
I the Deficiency Corrective Action Report (DCAR).
The licensee's Level III, who is part of the QA/QC organization, reviews ISI data and is responsible for generating a DCAR when necessary.
Lists are generated periodically for review by various levels of management.
The list identifies the DCAR, date opened, action due date, whether or not l
a reply is required and whether the reply was submitted, and the subject I
of the DCAR.
The printout also identifies the originator of the DCAR and I
the responsible superintendent.
In addition to the above, the ISI
,
Coordinator, who is the Level III, tracks examination status of the ISI l
outage program and identifies those items for which DCARs have been generated. This tracking system is maintained by the Level III and lists l
'
all the items which are scheduled for examination during the current outage.
An item is not considered completed until all requirements have been satisfied including closecut of DCARs associated with the particular item.
No violations were identified.
Review of NDE Implementing Procedures (73052)
ISI vendor HDE procedures are developed for use at the FitzPatrick facility, and are approved by the licensee's Level III for use at the site.
The irsspector reviewed selected procedures to ascertain compliance with ASME Code and regulatory requirements, and for technical adequacy for their intended use.
The fnllowing procedures were selected for inspection:
Procedure No JAF-MT-W81-1, Revision 0, "MT Examination of Welds and
Bolting" Procedure No. JAF-PT-W81-1, Revision 0, "PT Examination and Addenda
No. 1" Procedure No. JAF-UT-W81-1, Revision 0, Ultrasonic Examination of
Class 1 and 2 Piping Welds Joining Similar and Dissimilar Materials"
_
_
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_
__
_
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
.
i
-
.
,
Addenda No. 1 to the liquid penetrant procedure was intended for use at temperatures greater than 125 F and was required to be qualified for use at the elevated temperature. The inspector determinad, however, that the addenda was not qualified because it was never used at the site and the
.
specified high temperature material was not available at the site.
,
l Precautions written into the eddenda appear to be adequate to preclude its
'
use prior to qualification. Although the addenda was attached to an approved procedure and was listed along with the procedure, as being approved for use during the 1988 outage, for the above mentioned reasons this was not considered to be a violation.
However, the issue did bring into question the licensee's process for approving vendor NDE procedures.
The Q A.
,
Superintendent identified the onsite individual who has the responsibility
'
for appreving procedures, but that individual appeared to be unaware of
his responsibility, and indicated that vendor NDE procedures were approved
'
by the corporate Level III. While the inspector was at the site the Q.A.
Superintendent took action to remove any confusion regarding this matter.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this, i
With the exception discussed above, the aforementioned procedures were found to comply with applicable code and regulatory requirements, and were deemed to be technically adequate for their intended use.
No violations were identified.
Observations of Examinations in Progress (73753)
Prior to this inspection the licensee informed the NRC that, while performing ultrasonic examinations of recirculation system piping, evidence of a transverse reflector, which was thought to be intergranular stress corrosion cracking (ISCC) was detected in weld 12-02-2-71, a 12" diameter pipe to elbow weld on the "J" riser pipe.
Subsequent to the first notification, the licensee informed the inspector that surface
,
preparation and reexamination confirmed that no evidence of IGSCC was
,
present.
During this inspection the inspector requested that the
!
licensee re-examine the weld in the area of the reported reflector.
!
The inspector observed the reexamination, which was performed by an
EBASCO Level III examiner, and noted that additional surface preparation
.
was required to permit the transducer to track the reflector from the
,
pipe surface onto the weld crown without losing contact with the surface.
The indication of the reflector was observed with the transducer on the
pipe, but could not be clearly identified with the transducer on the weld crown.
The reexamination was performed with a crown.
The reexamination was performed with a 60-shear wave transducer and a WSY-70 transducer,
.
j wnich is recommended by the EPRI NDE Center for detection and sizing of IGSCC.
The reflector was detected with each transducer and duplicated the
.
results of the original examination.
!
I
!
l L
_____ ___ _ _____- ______________ _________ ________ ___ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
,
.
,
At the exit meeting the inspector stated that the ultrasonic results did not proved that IGSCC was not present in the weld and further evaluation was necessary.
He further stated that the evaluation should be based on examination after additional surface preparation, a review of radiographs and plots of the reflector location.
In addition, the inspector suggested that the use of available P-scan equipment would be a useful toni for evaluation of the reflector.
The licensee acknowledge the inspector's i
suggestions and comments and said that the weld would be further inspected l
after additional weld preparation.
The inspect.or requested that the licensee l
keep the NRC informed of further developments regarding this matter.
I In-vessel remote visual examinations were in progress by General Electric Company personnel using an underwater video camera. Data acqui.ition was
'
accomplished with the use of video tape.
.
The inspector observed the visual examination of a portion of the core spray system "C" sparger and the 5" diameter core spray downcomer at the 10 azimuth location.
The inspector found that the examinations were done by qualified personnel and that the data analysis and evaluation was I
based on video pictures that clearly showed the one (1) mil calibration
[
wire.
,
After the inspector left the site, he was informed by the licensee that j
the visual examination of the core spray downcomer at the 190 azimuth location revealed a crack approximately 9" long circumferentially, approxi-mately 10 mils wide, and 3/16" from the toe of the circumferential weld approximately six inches below the lower weld on the upper elbow on the 5"
diameter schedule 40 pipe. General Electric Company at San Jose, California,
'
performed an evaluation of the ccnaition and provided several repair options
,
which were being considered by the licensee.
The licensee was requested to advise the NRC of developments regarding this matter.
l The inspector determined that EBASCO personnel who performed ultrasonic examinations for the detection of IGSCC were listed on the latest EPRI
,
Registry for IGSCC Detection, Planar Flaw Sizing, and Weld Overlay Repair I
personnel qualification.
i The inspector verified that the ultrasonic examinations for the detection
of IGSCC were done by qualified personnel by confirming that the EBASCO
,
examiners were listed by the latest issue of the EPRI Registry for IGSCC
Detection, Planar Flaw Sizing, and Weld Overlay Repair personnel l
..
qualification.
'
No violations were identified.
,
4.
. Licensee Response to Generic Letter (GL) 8_8_-01 "NRC Position on IGSCC in BWR Austenitic StainTess Steel Piping" (92703)
i
_
i Intergrinular stress corrosion cracking near weldments in BWR piping has
!
been occurring for almost 20 years.
Early cases were in relativelj small
,
diameter piping.
In early 1932, cracking was identified in
i i
-_
_ _
..
-__
,
_.
_
. _ _. - - - -
,, _ _ _ - _..
_
_
_ _ -.
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
J l
,
large-diameter piping in a recirculation system of an operating BWR plant in this country.
Since then, extensive inspection programs have been conducted in BWR piping systems which have resulted in the detection of significant numbers of cracking weldments in almost all operating BWRs.
l Substantial efforts in research and development by the BWR Owners Group for IGSCC, related work by vendors and consulting firms, and confirmatory research sponsored by the NRC have permitted the development of revised staff positions regarding the IGSCC problems.
The technical bases for these positions are detailed in NUREG-0313, j
Revision 2, "Technical Report on Material Selection and Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping.' NUREG-0313, Revision 2 describes the technical bases for the staff positions on materials, processes, and primary coolant chemistry to minimize and control IGSCC problems.
l Inspection schedules and inspection sample sizes are based on the
'
susceptibility of weldments to initiation and propagation of IGSCC.
Inspection schedules are comparable to those specified in Section XI cf the ASME B&PV Code in cases where the piping material is IGSCC resistant.
l This Generic Letter applies to all BWR piping made of austenitic stainless steel that is four inchos or larger in nominal diameter and contains reactor coolant at a temperature above 200*F during pow (r operation, regardless of Code classification.
It also applies to reactor vessel attachments and appurtenances such as jet pump instrumentation penetration assemblies and head spray and vent enponents.
Licensees are requested to respond to the GL within 180 days of the receipt of the letter. The GL provides a list of specific items which should be included by licensees to constitute an acceptable response to the GL.
The licensee's response to the GL dated August 16, 1988, was reviewed by the inspector to ascertain that applicable systems were identified, welds
,
were categorized and inspection schedules were established in accordance with Table 1 of NUREG-0313, Revision 2.
The inspector determined that the licensee responded to the GL within the allotted time and that the response addressed the five areas listed by the Generic lettee.
The licensee plans to implement Hydrogen Water Chemistry upon the plant returning to power after the current refueling outage.
The licensee has taken credit for IGSCC examinations performed prior to the updated qualification program initiated in September 1985.
This has been discussed by the licensee with NRR but has not received NRR approval
_ _ _ _ _ -
~,'
,
,
.
.
l at this time.
The examiners performing IGSCC examisiatsons during the l
current refueling outage have all been qualified in accordance with the l
updated qualification program.
Eight of the examiners who performed l
examinations during the 1984 and 1985 outages were reqt alified under the
!
new program. The licensee's Level III is qualified in sizing and
!
detection under the new program and he also performed e.aminations during 1984 and 1985.
No violations were identified, 5.
Exit Meeting j
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on September 30, 1988.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
At no time during the inspection was written material provided by the inspector to the licensee. The licensee did r,at indicate that proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspection.
-
_
___
-