IR 05000369/1989022

Insp Repts 50-369/89-22 & 50-370/89-22 on 890724-28.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Inservice Insp,Including Eddy Current Exam of Unit 2 Steam Generator Tubing & Previous Open Item

ML20246P264
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	08/17/1989
From:	Blake J, Chou R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20246P247	List: IR 05000369/1989022 ML20246P241
References
50-369-89-22, 50-370-89-22, NUDOCS 8909110077
Download: ML20246P264 (11)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ - _ - - - - - . _ _

,
 * '

ps8

   '

UNITED STATES 8, %ie, 4

        . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtsslON      j M* l"'         REGION 11
'**

L., N ['C ' 101M ARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 a.... s Report Nos.: 50-369/89-22.and 50-370/89-22

 ' Licensee: Duke P'ower Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket'Nos.: 50-359 and 50-370        License Nos.: NPF-9 and NPF-17 Facility Name: McGuire 1 and 0 Inspection Conducted: July 24-28, 1989
        'O     k<f7
   '

Inspector: t#d Rich. C. Clou Date Signed Accompanying Person el: J. J. Blake, Section Chief, RII, July 28, 1989 Approved by:

    '

Mw th  ? /7 <

   "~ '" ' '"         "* *""'

I" Materials."and Engineering Branch .Processes . Section Division of Reactor Safety-

'

SUMMARY Scope: This routint, unannounced inspection was cenducted in the areas of Inservice Inspectio7 (ISI), including the eddy cumnt examination of the Unit 2 Steam

't  Generator (SG) ti;b*ng, and previous open item. The inspection included a review of procedures; visual reinspection of pipe supports; a review of ISI
  .

data and engineering evaluation of pipe supports; observation of eddy current data collectior.; reviews of eddy current data analysis and resolution; and reviews of documentation for equipment calibration and personnel qualifica-tion > Results:-

 'In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identifie One Inspector Followup Item (IFI) was identified for the discrepancies found in the pipe support reinspection (see paragraph 2b). The licensee ISI procedurts appear adequate in the areas inspected and no major problems were identified in any of the ISI areas inspecte Persons contacted were knowledgeable and cooperative and responsible engineers adequately performed evaluation and resolution of ISI finding _

77 890 it.g0500ggg9

99091 m O -- - - - _ _ _ - _ _ . _-- _ _______ --------__ -____ _______-_-. _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _

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

REPORT DETAILS

       :

i Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

 * G. Atherton, Product Specialist III - Compliance J. M. Baumann, Quality Assurance (QA) Supervisor - Analysis R. Branch, Quality Control (QC) Supervisor - Mechanic   :
 *R. D. Broome, Project Services Manger    l R. J. Deese, Design Engineering Supervisor - General Office G. Fortenberry, QC Inspector
 * G. Goodman, QA Technical Support Manager - Mechanic  i T. M. Hilderbrand, QA NDE Supervisor - Examination   !
 *L. Keith, QA ISI Coordinator     l
 *S. E. LeRoy, Product Specialist II - Compliance   ;
 *I. A. Mattews, Design Engineering Site Office Manager   j
 *T. L. McConnell, Station Manager-
 *0. W. Murdock, Design Engineering - General Office   !

J. S. Thrashes, . Design Engineering Supervisor - General Office  !

 *B. Travis, Operations Superintendent    l
 *J. S. Warren, Regulatory Compliance    l
 *R. Wilkinson, Reliability Assurance Manger - General Office   j J. F. Willis, Design Engineer Associate  General Office l Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included craftsmen, engineers, operators, mechanics, technicians, and .;

administrative personne { Other Organizations f i Zetec Corporation l l D. H. Ives, NDE Level III Data Analysis NRC Resident Inspectors j i *K. Van Doorn, Senior Resident Inspector T. Cooper, Resident Inspector

 *L. D. Wert, Resident Inspector - Oconee Nuclear Station
 * Attended exit interview
 ?. Inservice Inspection - Unit 2 The NRC conducted a primary inspection for the licensee ISI for this refueling outage per Inspection Report No. S0-369, 370/89-19. The ISI program for Units 1 and 2 was reviewed during that inspection. This inspection of ISI is to continue the previous inspections in the areas of Steam Generator Tubing eddy current examination and visual examination (VT) l
-  __ - -- - - -_ - _ _ - - - _ -- _ ___ _a

 -
'
 ,
.
.

of pipe support The inspector reviewed documents, records and observed activities, as indicated below, to determine whether the ISI was being conducted in accordance with applicable procedures, regulatory requirements, and licensee commitment Duke Power Nondestructive

-

Examination (NDE) personnel were performing the steam generator tubing eddy current (EC) examination field work and data collection and the visual inspection of pipe supports. Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) personnel perform the primary automated data review (analysis) of the EC Data with Duke Power and Zetec Personnel performing an independent secondary data review. The two independent review results are sent to a data resolution team consisting of two persons (Level III or Senior Level IIA ), each from Duke and B&W. The data resolution team evaluates the review results and makes the final resolutio Review of Procedures (1) The inspector reviewed the procedures listed below to determine Wther these procedures were consistent with regulatory r% uirements and licensee commitments. The procedures were also reviewed in the areas of procedure approval, requirements for qualification of NDE personnel, and compilation of required record OCL-14(R9) ISI Visual Examination, VT3 and VT-4 (Duke Power)

 - ISI-424 (R14) Multi - Frequency Eddy Current Examination of ,750" 0D X.044" Wall Recirculating Steam Geqerator Tubing for A'ME J Examination and Wear at Tube Support Plates (BSW)

l

 -

1189609 A-2 Bobbin Coil Probe Speed / Data Sampling Rate Test (B&W)

 (2) The inspector reviewed tne visual examination procedure to determined whether it contained sufficient instructions to assure that the following parameters were specified and controlled within the limit permitted by the applicable code, standard, or any other specification requirement: method direct visual or remote visual; visual examination of weld; data collection and analysis; inspection elements; acceptance criteria; and, report form completio (3) The inspector reviewed the eddy current procedures for technical content relative to: multichannel examination unit, multi-channel examination indication equipment is specified, examina-tion sensitivity, method of examination, method of calibration and calibration sequence, and acceptance criteria.

L _ _____

.

_

  .
   .,

, . .

:,{{s
, a
   '
,  .

U 3 Vis el Reinspection.of Pipe. Supports

,
   'The inspector conducted an independecit visual examinations: of the pipe supports ' tabulated below which had been inspected by the
     .

licensee QC inspectors during or right before this refueling outag This; examination was conducted in order.to evaluate the adequacy of Lthe examination procedure.being used by the licensee and to assess the validity of the information being reported by the visual examiner The pipe supports' for. VT-3 were checked to detect: broken, missing, loose, or deformed. items;. crcked or broken welds; wear;. corrosion; and, misalignment. The stsndard components such as snubbers, springs, sway. struts, etc. for VT-4 were checked for:

      .

correct settings fluid . levels and leakage; ' arc strikes; paint; corrosion; other foreign material on moving parts; and, interferences that would prohibit required freedom of movement. The acceptance criteria for' component supports were listed at Table E of QCL-1 Table 1 Pipe Supports Reinspected " Support N Rev. N Discrepancies / comments 2MCR-CA-073 3 A top lock nut on the inner - clamp bolt had no thread engagement for 5/8".

2MCR-CA-074 4 Item No.3, Variable Spring, was called as Type "C" on - drawing and was marked as Type "X" on the nameplate of the spring ca MCR-CA-075 4 None 2MCA-CF-H204 6 A top end of the U-bolt was in. contact with the operator for Valve No.2SM-8 MCA-CF-H205 5 0" gap was found between

      .

the top of top stanchion and the restraining steel. The drawing required 1/16" clearanc A gap was found between the bottom of bottom stanchion and the supporting stee The drawing required 0" Ga . - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

4 '

 ' Support No Rev. N Discrepancies / comments (cont'd)

2MCA-CF-H206 4 A cotter pin was missing from bottom of a clamp pin near pipe side at the top of-the mechanical shock suppresso MCA-SM-185 4 No stroke scale can be read to identify the stroke settin MCA-SM-H202 2 None 2MCA-SM-H20 None 2MCA-SM-H204 2 None 2MCA-SM-H205 2 None 2MCA-SV-H8 2 None 2MCA-SV-H9 2 None

Notes:

 - Discrepancies / comments mean that the NRC inspector found additional discrepancies which were not found or recorded by the licensee QC inspector . None means that the NRC inspector did not find significant

! problems or agreed with the findings recorded by the licensee QC inspector The inspector discussed the above findings with the licensee I engineers and QC inspector They stated that some items such as l clearances and valve operator contact might occur due to the cold l condition since th*y inspected those items right before the unit was I shutdown for refueling. They did not find the valve operator contact and clearance problems during their inspections. But the licensee  ! engineers agreed to fix all the hardware problems before restart and l monitor the problems during the operation. Pending the licensee i resolution on the above discrepancies, this item is identified as IFI 50-370/89-22-01, Pipe Support Discrepancies Found During ISI Inspectio . _ - - _ .__ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _-_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _-

_ _ _ _____ ______ _ _,_ _ _ _

, >p',   .1 t
   't
 ,
   '
 . P'
*       -5 Review on ISI Data and Engineering Evaluation for Pipe Supports Records of . completed visual examinations- for- pipef supports _ were selected and reviewed to _ ascertain: . the; methods, techniques and:

extent of the- examination complied with the ISI plan and applicable procedure; findings were properly recorded and evaluated by. qualified '

    . personnel. ' All the inspection data for the supports shown on Table 1 of paragraph 2.b were reviewe Table 2, below, shows the inspector's review of selected supportsL which l required.. engineering evaluation and' disposition due to indications _ or discrepancies found ' by the licensee ' QC inspectors iduring ' the ISI walkdown. The licensee engineers stated that all hardware required to be fixed or modified will be completed before the unit restert. .Some items have been completed. Some items had work h, ,    ; request.(WR) issued. For example . Support Nos. 2MCA-CA-H81 and H83 T     '(WR No. 502021) required to tighten nuts had been completed on May .9,
'

1989 and verified by QC on May 18, 198 Table 2 Review of the Engineering Evaluation Support N Rev. N Remarks 2MCA-CA-5604 3 2MCA-CA-5605 3 Shim required and work request (WR) No.502412 issued.. i 2MCA-ND-5908 2 Adjusting rod and Ltighting. nuts required and WR No. 502403 issue MCA-ND-5907 5 Shim required and Problem Investigation Report (PIR) issue MCA-ND-5902 3 Shim required and WR No. 502402 issue MCA-ND-5508 6 Anchor bolts pulled out and Support Calculation File MCC-1206.12-12-2102, Rev. 18 revised and WR No. 502396 issue . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-  _ _ .

 *
,

Support N Rev. N Remarks (cont'd) 2MCA-CF-H206 4 Members and stiffeners bent and PIR 2-M89-0083 issue MCA-CF-H204' 6 Spacer for snubber missing and PIR 2-M89-0083 issue MCA-CA-H81 3 Tighting nuts required and WR No. 502021 complete MCA-CA-H83 5 Tighting nuts required and WR No. 502021 complete d. Observation of Eddy Current Data Collection The inspector observed the Eddy Current (EC) data collection for steam generator tubing A and The observations were compared with the applicable procedures and the Code in the following areas: method for maximum sensitivity is applied; method of examination has been recorded; examination equipment has been calibrated in accordance with the applicable performance reference; and amplitude and phase angle have been calibrated with the proper calibratio reference and is recalibrates at predetermined frequency; required coverage of steam generator tubes occurs during the examination; and, the results are consistent with the acceptrace criteri In-process tube data acquisition, including calibration confirmation and tube location verification, was observed for the steam generator tubes listed below: Steam Generator - D Tube N Row Col 79 30 91 80 30 90 81 30 87 82- 30 83

       )

83 30 79 84 30 77 e. Review of Eddy Current Data Analysis and Evaluation In-process eddy current data evaluation, including calibration confirmation, was observed for the tubes listed below on Table ; Primary automated data analysis (review) was performed by B&W and j secondary automated data analysis was performed by Zetec and Duke

-am__m_____ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _

- . _ _ . 't

Powe If differences are noted between the two evaluations they are resolved by a data resolution team, one Level III from B&W and one Lead Level IIA from Duke Power. The data resolution team prepares the final discrepancy report. The steps are listed below: (Note: Primary. reviewer or secondary reviewer performs independently from steps 1 to 6)

 (1) . Performs calibration curve set-up and hybrid mix parameter (2) Stores set-up to disk (3) Runs tape which stored data through Computer Data Signal (CDS)

for indication flaggin (4) Reviews Graphics dumps and actual data (if needed) for the relevant indication (5) Edits CDS generated report and deletes the non-relevant portio (6) Sends disk with report to a data resolution team for the final review in comparison to the other independent review dis (7) Data Resolution Team compares the two independent review result and resolves the differences and makes a 'inal repor (8) Data Resolution Team sends a final report to Management for disposition of tube repair or plug if require Table 3 Eddy Current Data Analysis Review Probe Probe withdrawal ~

    ~

withdrawal

   ' Speed   Speed Tape N SG Row Col In/Sec ~ Tape No. SG
    -~

Row Col In/Sec 064 X- 49 32 19.32 ~ 064 X~ 49 39 20.29 064 A 49 35 19.36 064 A 49 40 15.59 064 A 49 36 19.43 - 064

    ~

A 38 59 N/A 064 A 49 38 19.45 _ i

_-

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ !is - ll

 - During the observation of data analysis on Table 3,' the inspector  j asked the data analyst to verify the probe withdrawal . speed which  j shall not exceed 14 inches /second unless prior approval from a B&W ET
       -

Level III and customer is ' granted per Section 10.2 of B&W Specifica-tion ISI-424, Rev.14. Most withdrawal speeds were around 20 In/Sec

 - per Table 3. The inspector questioned why the withdrawal speeds :

exceed the specification limi The licensee data analyst presented a written: authorization letter dated July 17, 1989 and signed by_a B&W -ET level III. and witnessed by an ANII, and a B&W technical-document No. 1189609 A-2, dated June 2,- 1989. The letter authorized - that a withdrawal speed of 24 inches /second with a -sampling rate ofJ 800 samples /second can be used and was tested"at McGuire Unit 2, . Steam Generator.A, with Zetec Software of DDA-4, and MIZ-18A Remote Data Acquisition Unit -(RDAU) 6 per B&W technical. specification N A-2. The computer sampling range is from 40 samples /second to .400 samples /second for the MIZ-18 and from 40 samples /second to

    -

1000 samples /second for the MIZ-18A per_ Section 7.7.7 of Specification No. ISI-424, Rev. 14 . . MIZ-18 normally uses 400 samples /second and MIZ-18A uses 800 samples /second. Therefore, the withdrawal speeds greater than 14 In/See are acceptable, Qualification and Calibration Records for Examiners and Equipments

 .The inspector reviewed the qualification documentation.for the below'
     -

listed examiners or analysts in the following are's:a person certified; activity qualified to perforc; effective date of certification; signature of employee's _ designated representative; ar.d, annual visual acuity, ' color vision examination, and periodic decertification. The equipments were checked for their calibration expiration dat . Personnel Qualification Er.aminer Method - Level ATG EC II ASG EC II TMH EC IIA MSL- EC IIA RLN EC IIA WEB EC IIA RJH EC IIA WKD EC IIA MWB EC IIA RMB EC III JMB EC IIA DHI EC III I

       \

i _a______________.____ J

      . _ _ _
 .
 .-

1 Equipement Calibration Equipment Name Serial Calibration Expiration Date RDAV 059 December 9,1989 RADU 006 November 9,1989 3. Independent Inspection While the inspector conducted the visual reinspection of the pipe supports identified in paragraph 2.b. above, it was noted that Pipe Rupture Restraint No. 2RR-C-CFCO-R4, Drawing No. MC-2690-266, was damaged and removed from the field without replacement. This rupture restraint was next to and created damage to the reinspected support No. 2MCA-CF-H20 The inspector questioned the licensee engineers why this rupture restraint could be removed without replacement. The licensee engineers stated that this rupture restraint was an arbitrary intermediate rupture restraint for pipe breaks which could be eliminated per NRR approval since this type of restraints is no longer required because the safety margin for the plant was remedied by the improvement of other system design and operating procedure Per the NNR's letter enclosed with a Safety Evaluation Report, dated April 22, 1986, and the Duke Power's internal letter CSPT-86-MC-076 enclosed with Attachment 1, dated March 12, 1986, the rupture restraint No. 2RR-C-CFCO-R4 was in the list which could be eliminated for Main Feedwater Line which consisted of eight break locations with ten rupture restraints and thres fet deflectors. Therefore the removal of the above rupture restraint is acceptabl . Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolsed Item (UNR) 50-369/87-25-01, Loads Used in Support Calculations Differing from Loads in Piping Stress Analyse The inspector held discussions with the licensee's engineers and reviewed the stress calculation No. MCC-1206.02-83-2014, Rev. D5 and Support Calculation No. MCC-1206.16-60-1001 Rev. 5 for Support No.1-MCR-NC-H530 and'H531. After the inspector's last inspection, the licensee engineers com'oined the loads from the stress calculations of NC-09 and NV-01 and sent a support / restraint load summary to the pipe support design group for reconciliation per letter No. CSPT-87-MC-206, dated September 30, 198 The above stress calculations were revised to the current revision, Rev. DS, on March 11, 1988 to enlarge and include 13 pipe supports in overlap regions in order to reduce the support loads in those region points. The previous stress calculation included only four pipe supports in overlap regions. The new loads for support No.1-MCR-NC-H530 were sent to the support design group for review and evaluation. The inspector reviewed the support summary loads in the stress calculation and support l

       '

calculations in detail for support No.1-MCR-NC-H530 and H531. The inspector noted that the new support loads for support No. 1-MCR-NC-H531 due to the stress calculation rerun were not sent to the support design group for review and evaluation. The licensee engineers replied that the ___ _ _ _ _ _

      . - _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 '
..
  -
  .
 -
 .2

new loads for H531 were very close to the previous loads and the stress engineers decided that it was not necessary to send the new loads due to the small changes. The inspector compared the old loads and new loads for H531 and found that the new load at Z-Direction for the faulted condition was 31%' lower than the old load with the uraet condition 23% lower. The new loads at X-Directions for both conditions were about 4 to 6% lower than the old loads. Per the licensee work procedure, any loads increase 10% or decrease 25%, the new loads should be sent to the. support design group for review and evaluation. The licensees engineers agreed to send , the new stress loads for support No.1-MCR-NC-H531 to the support design group for review and evaluation due to the load changes. The stress and support calculations are acceptable except for the load decrease evaluation of support no. 1-MCR-NC-H531. Therefore, this item is considered closed.

l 5. Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on July 28, 1989, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed belo Proprietary information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not received from the license (0 pen) 50-370/89-22-01, Pipe Support Discrepancies Found During ISI Inspection , l d L l l

  /
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

j }}