IR 05000354/1985037

Insp Rept 50-354/85-37 on 850730-0802.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Preservice Insp Activities Re Mechanized Ultrasonic Exam of Reactor Pressure Vessel Welds

ML20135F034
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	08/22/1985
From:	Mcbrearty R, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20135F025	List: IR 05000354/1985037 ML20135F022
References
50-354-85-37, NUDOCS 8509170131
Download: ML20135F034 (5)

Text

.

5 *

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

i Report N /85-37 t

Docket N License N CPpR-120 Priority --

Category B

Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: July 30, 1985 - August 2, 1985 Inspectors: 22,/9 M dat '

.A.McBrearty,ReactorEgineer f Approved by: A M, FM f 2A 4 i

j T.' Wi cJgi f ,,ffhief

.

'da te '

Caterials aWd Processes Section Inspection Summary: Inspection on July 30, 1985 - August 2, 1985 (Report N /85-37)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee action on pre-vious inspection findings; PSI activities related to the mechanized ultrasonic examination of reactor pressure vessel welds including observations of work in progress, procedure review and data review; demonstration of ability to detect cracks in 22" diameter and 28" diameter material containing corrosion resistant cladding. The inspection involved 33 hours3.819444e-4 days <br />0.00917 hours <br />5.456349e-5 weeks <br />1.25565e-5 months <br /> onsite by one regional based inspecto Results: No violations were identifie ,

I B509170131 85091134 PDR ADOCK O G

- - ._

. .... . _ . - . ., -

. . . - . . . - -- - ~ . _ . _

.

,

LW .

t

.

DETAILS . Persons Contacted i Public Service Electric and Gas Company

'

• R.F. Brandt, Nuclear Plant Services Engineer

• G.L. Duncan, PSI Senior Supervisor

*R.T. Griffith Sr., Principal QA Engineer

*T.J. McLaughlin, QA Engineer i

i Southwest-Research Institute (SwRI)

j *E.J. Feige, Inspection Engineer

+

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

A.R. Blough, Senior Resident Inspector

, *S.K. Chaudhary, Senior Resident Inspector 1 *J.J. Lyash, Resident Inspector  ;

• Denotes those present at the exit meeting'on August 2, 198 ;

e 2. _ Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings

} (Closed) Unresolved Item (354/83-11-04): Ultrasonic examination of welds

) with corrosion-resistant cladding (CRC). During the course of this j inspection the licensee demonstrated his ability to detect cracks in 22"  ;

j diameter and 28" diameter samples containing CR (See paragraph 4 of '

} this report). Prior to this inspection a similar demonstration was performed by the licensee on 12" diameter cracked samples ~and is docu--

j mented in Inspection Report No. 50-354/85-28.

I

!~

. Based on the results of those demonstrations this item is considered close (0 pen)-Inspector Follow Item (354/83-15-01): Verification that vessel

, ultrasonic tracks are properly installed. The licensee's PSI vendor _is in i the process of performing mechanized ultrasonic examination of reactor l-

pressure vessel-welds. 'This includes verification of proper track instal-1ation to assure that the welds are adequately examined.

,

l This item will remain open pending completion of the vessel weld-

.

examinations.

!

i

. *

-

-

-, , . , - . - . - . . . _ . ,

._

,

s . Procedure Review

'

The following ultrasonic examination procedure was reviewed by the

,

inspector with regard to ASME code and regulatory requirements:

'

• SwRI-NDT-700-6, Revision 21, " Mechanized Ultrasonic Examination of Ferritic Vessels Greater Than 2.0" in Thickness at Hope Creek" The inspection found that the procedure complied with applicable code requirements and with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.150, Revision No violations were identifie . Observations The inspector observed portions of the mechanized ultrasonic examination i of the following reactor pressure vessel welds:

• Weld W 8

Weld W 16 - 2

• Weld W 16 - 7

• Weld W 16 - 8 The examinations were done using 1" diameter, 2.25 MH2 transducers and sound beam entry angles of 0 , 45 and 60 in accordance with the specific

<

scan plan for each examination. The inspector verified that the trans-ducer movement rate was within procedural requirement The cathode ray tube display of each transducer was recorded on video tape and will serve as a permanent record of the examination. Additionally, a strip chart record of each exam n.ation is maintaine The video tape and the strip chart are used by the Level II individual to evaluate examination result In addition to the above, the inspector requested that the technical adequacy of procedure SwRI-NDT-800-100, Revision 1 be dem;nstrated on 22"

diameter and 28" diameter samples of CRC piping welds which contained cracks. The demonstration was done in the inspector's presence by a SwRI Level II individua Equipment calibration for each examination was-done using licensee pro-vided calibration blocks of the same configuration as the cracked sample All procedural requirements regarding calibration and scanning were met, and the cracks in each sample were successfully identifie ;

Based on the demonstrated ability to detect cracks, the inspector stated that the procedure was acceptable for the examination of 22" diameter and 28" diameter CRC piping welds. The procedure was deemed acceptable for the examination of 12" diameter CRC piping welds based on a previous

, demonstration which is discussed in Inspection Report No. 354/85-28.

,

_ - c- , . _ - - - - - - . - - ,m _ , , - . - .-e--y- y, __ .. .e-,

. . - - - .

,

.

,

s .

i

'

t No violations were identifie . Independent Measurements and Calculations  ;

During the inspector's observation of the licensee's mechanized ultrasonic examination of reactor pressure welds, the inspector made independent

calculations of the transducer movement rate. The inspector used information provided by the data acquisition system and verified by calculation that the transducer movement rate approximated 2" per secon The inspector's calculations showed the movement rate to be within the

mandated procedural requirement that search unit movement rate for ,

'

scanning shall not exceed 6" per secon No violations were identifie . Data Review The inspection reviewed data which were generated during the ultrasonic examination of reactor pressure vessel shell to lower head weld W 8. The review was done to ascertain compliance with procedural and scan plan requirements. Additionally, the inspector assessed the clarity and usefulness of the video tape record of the examination with regard to

evaluation of examination result The following were included in the inspector's review:

1 *

Scan Plan Parameter Record for Examination #255

Examination #225 Scan Plan Examination Table a

Calibration Sheet #570023

Calibration Sheet #570024

Mechanized UT Examination Record Sheet #720290

, Mechanized UT Examination Record Sheet #101173 The inspector observed the review of the video tape and strip chart associated with weld W 8 which was done by the SwRI Level II who is responsible for evaluating the mechanized ultrasonic examination dat Scan plan requirements were compared with the examination data and the inspector found that the scan plan was properly implemented with regard to extent of examination, required sound beam angle and frequency, and the

! use of the proper calibration block.

i The data evaluation was done by an individual who's certification records verified that he was properly trained and qualified to' evaluate mechanized UT dat No violations were identifie ___

-e --~v-- , - -

c,e-yn,,

.

s. ..

- Personnel Qualification / Certification Records The inspector reviewed personnel records of individuals who participated in the examinations which were observed by the inspector to ascertain that they were qualified to perform their assigned dutie The records indicated that each individual had received special training-in the use of the mechanized equipment and that they were properly quali-fied to perform their assigned responsibilitie No violations were identifie . Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph'1),

at the conclusion of the inspection on August 2, 1985. The inspector

, summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the finding At no time during this inspection was written material provided by the inspection to the licensee.