IR 05000387/1990019
| ML17157A561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1991 |
| From: | Gray H, Harris R, Kaplan H, James Medoff NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157A560 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-90-19, 50-388-90-19, NUDOCS 9102120231 | |
| Download: ML17157A561 (11) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-387/90-19 and 50-388/90-19 Docket No.
50-387 8 50-388 License No.
NPF-22 Licensee:
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101 Facility Name:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units
8
Inspection At:
Berwick, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
November 13-16, 1990 Inspectors:
H. J.
Kaplan, Sr.
Reactor Engineer, MPS, EB, DRS
. date
. Medoff, ea tor Engineer, MPS, EB, DRS date Harris, Technician date Approved by H. Gray, Chief, terials and Processing Section, Engineering Branch, DRS, RI date Ins ection Summar:
Ins ection on November 13-16 1990 Re ort Nos.
50-387/90-19 and 50-388/90-19 f
chemistry program and certain aspects of the Inservice Inspection (ISI) and Erosion Corrosion Programs.
'I Results:
The inspection indicated the licensee's control of reactor water chemistry was comprehensive and effective,and conformed to Technical Specifications as well as the more stringent industry standards'he ISI and Erosion/Corrosion programs were also found to be in accordance with the prescribed Codes and the licensee's self-imposed program.
Within these activities no violations or deviations were observed.
9i02i2023i 9iOi30 PDR ADO'5000387 Q
DETAILS 1.0 Peo le Contacted Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com an G. Stanley, Superintendent of Plant D. Berger, Inservice Inspection Specialists G. Kuzynski, Technical Supervisor M. Golden, Plant Engineering Supervisor
- N. Fedder, Inservice Inspection Specialist
- R. Breslin, Chemistry Department Supervisor
"D. Roth, Se'nior Compliance Engineer
"T. Dalpiaz, Assistnat Superintendent of Outages
~B. Rhoads, Chemistry Laboratory Supervisor
'C. Whirl, Assistant Manager of NgA
- J. Lindberg, NPE Project Scientist
"R. Linden, Inservice Inspection Specialist
"R. Wehry, Compliance Engineer United States Nuclear Re ulator Commission
'S. Barber, Senior Resident Inspector
- J. Stair, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those, attending the Exit Meeting.
The inspectors also contacted other administrative and technical personnel during the inspection.
2.0 References/Re uirements SSES FSAR Chapter 5, Section 1 - Reactor Coolant System Summary Description, Chapter 5, Section 2.3 - Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Materials and Chapter 9.2 - Water Systems.,
SSES Technical Specifications, Unit 1 and 2, Chapter
~ 0 Applicability, Chapter 3. Reactor Coolant System:
Chemistry, and Chapter 3.3.7.8.
Instrumentation:
Chlorine detection system.
Susquehanna Chemistry Manual Chapter 2.0 - Reactor Water, Chapter 3.0
- Condensate, Feedwater and CRD, and Chapter 5.0 - Emergency Water Supplies".
"Denotes'ocumentation obtained at licensee's facilit M~i<<
V Im lementation of the Water Chemistr Control Pro ram Module 84750 Section 2.03.b.
3.1 3.2
~Sco e
The objective of this inspection was to review the licensee's water chemistry control program.
Although water sampling methods were observed
"during the inspection, no verification of sample water chemistry'esults was performed.
~Findin s
The following documents are employed as the main guidelines for water chemistry related action levels.
1)
the Susquehanna Chemist'ry Schedule, Analysis and Controls (SSAC)
Matrix, and 2)
the Susquehatina Chemistry Manual These guidelines have limits on chemical impurity concentrations that are equal to or more stringent than those set in the licensee's Technical Specifications and FSAR, or those in the 1985 EPRI BWR Water'Chemistry Guidelines.
In addition, the Susquehanna
.Chemistry Manual has action level limits set for several components (i."e., Sulfates, Boron) that are not listed in the-Technical Specifications, FSAR, or EPRI Guidelines.
The Susquehanna Chemistry Manual is being revised so that by March 1991, its chemistry limits conform with the chemistry limits set in the SSAC Matrix.
Daily Chemistry Reports are generated at the Susquehanna
'Steam Electrical Station (SSES)
as a daily log of water impurity concentrations.
The Daily inspection reports of November 12, 1990, November 13, 1990, and November 14, 1990 were reviewed for Units I and II.
Unit II Water impurity con-centrations for the dates stated were well within the action limits set by the Chemistry Matrix for operating condition 1 (operating mode).
The corresponding Daily Chemi stry Reports for Unit I indicated out of specification Feedwater Conductivity, >0.085 pmho/cm, out of specification Condensate Demineralizer Effluent Conductivity, >0.065 pmho/cm, and out of specification Circulating Water Langelier's Index, >1.000.
The licensee corrected these conditions by alternating Unit I between operating
"
condition 2 (i.e., startup on November 12, 1990 and November 14, 1990)
and operating condition 4 (i.e., cold shutdown on November 13, 1990).
This is in accordance with the action levels set in the Susquehanna Chemistry Manual for responding to out of specification chemistry limit Monthly Chemistry Reports are generated at SSES to give a written and graphic appraisal of the yearly fluctuations of parameters which best measure chemistry performance.
A review of the Monthly Chemistry Report for September 1990 revealed that reactor water sulfate levels, which can accelerate cracking in reactor vessel components, were high for the months June, July, August and September (i.e., higher than the 16 ppb limit as set by administration).
This was attributed to poor condensa'te demineralizer performance during these months.
Sulfate levels, as indicated by the Daily Chemistry Reports for November 12, 1990, November 13, 1990, and November 14, 1990, were back within the Susquehanna Chemistry Manual specifications of 20 ppb, and administrative limits of 16 ppb as of the time of the inspection.
The Susquehanna Review Committee (SRC)
has recently finished a Nuclear (juality Assurance (NgA) Audit of the licensee's Chemistry Program.
The major scope of the SRC audit included:
1) conduct of chemistry, 2) train-ing and qualification of chemistry personnel, 3) sampling control and
'nalysis, 4) compliance with SSES Technical Specifications; and 5) imple-mentation of the Susquehanna*Chemistry Program Manual.
The SRC/NgA audit concluded that the Susquehanna Chemistry Control Program was being effec-tively implemented.
One major area of concern in the audit addressed a
"lack of attention to detail," for establishing and using procedures relating to chemistry work activities.
This was particularly evident in the area of establishing procedures for the training and qualification of contractor personnel in chemistry related work activities.
A second area of concern in the audit addressed the need for plant in-line instrumenta-tion enhancements.
The inspector verified that the licensee has:
1)
initiated a written procedure program that is to be completed and approved by December 1,
1990; 2)
instituted a self-assessment program of which a key issue is procedural adequacy and adherence; 3)
revi'sed procedure NTP-gA-41. 1, the Chemistry Training Matrix, to requi re that any site work by any personnel (i.e., licensee or otherwise)
requires specific training, that no in-plant work is done without on-the-job-training, evaluation and sign-off, and that all in plant work is to be controlled by the Lab Supervisor and performed only through approved permits and work authorizations.
Main locations for water sampling in the Reactor Coolant Systems, Condensate System, Condensate Drain System, and Reactor, Water Cleanup System are:
1) Condenser hot well, monitored in the control room; 2) condensate pump discharge, monitored in the control room; 3) condensate demineralizer inlet; 4) feedwater heater inlet; 5) feedwater inlet to the reactor pressure vessel; 6) inlet to the RCWU, monitored in the control room; and 7) discharge from.the LCWU, monitored in the control roo The inspector witnessed the procedure for sampling the condensate demineralizer as perf'ormed by the licensee's personnel.
It was noted that the technician followed the procedure for sampling condensate demineralizer influent a'nd effluent water verbatim, and took the proper precautions to insure that the fume hood in which the sampling lines are. located-,
was identified as a "hot" area.
The licensee's technician then demonstrated the procedure for the logging of the, data.
The licensee. informed the inspector that hydrogen injection of the reactor coolant system has not been considered because I) hydrogen injection increases radiation and 2) they have not had experienced any intergranular stress corrosion cracking, as experienced by other BWR plants (See Para-gra'ph 4.2) in the RR systems.
This is attributed to. good water chemistry control and the use of IHSI (an Induction Heating Stress Improvement Technique)
applied during installation.
The inspector's review indicated that the licensee's water chemistry.
control program has been in existence for a number of years.
The licensee recently reorganized the chemistry department as an effort to improve the existing program.
Noted changes of the chemistry department/program have included:
I) an increase in the number of staff members from 32 to 50; 2)
a change in the departmental structure to include an engineering section, under the departmental supervisor, which is responsible for ascertaining that the water chemistry monitoring and control systems are performing up to standards; and 3)
a significant chemistry instrumentation upgrade.
3.3 Conclusions The inspectors concluded the licensee's control of reactor water chemistry was effective and conformed to Technical Specifications require-ments as well as the more stringent industry standards.
No significant excursions regarding reactor water chemistry were reported by the licensee.
-4.0 Inservice Ins ection ISI Pro ram 73755 4.1
~Sc'o e
The inspector reviewed several quality contrql documents in certain areas of the licensee's inservice inspection ( ISI) plan and Erosion/Corrosion Program to verify that the licensee had developed and implemented adequate procedures consistent with the applicable Codes, Standard and FSAR commitments for the recent 5R outage.
I 4.2
~Findin s
The inspector reviewed several quality control documents selected from examinations performed on the Core Spray (CS), Control Rod Drive (CRD)
and Reactor Recirculation (RR) Systems.
Included in this review were
examination by the following methods:
ultrasonic, visual, magnetic particle and liquid penetrant.
-
No significant indications were recorded.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures and quality documentation for Erosion/Corrosion and the implementation of the inspection, evaluation-and trending program for Erosion/Corrosion.
Several documents were reviewed to verify that the method of inspection, indication evaluation and documenting was in accordance with applicable codes, standards and regulatory requirements.
Of 31 components checked in this outage, only.
one component (X196Zl) in the extraction steam required replacement because of reduced wall thickness.
Conclusions The documentation tracking and evaluation of Quality Assurance records were found to be satisfactory.
No,violations were identified.
5.0 Review of Previous Findin s
Violation 387/89-26-01 Potentionally Unacceptable Ultrasonic Indications.
This item concerns the licensee'
failure to completely evaluate potentially unacceptable ultrasonic indi,cations in the Unit
reactor'essel prior to the restart on June 10, 1980.
The licensee subsequently determined that the indications were judged to be nonmetallic inclusions and not rejectable under ASME XI.
On August 7, 1989, in a meeting at Berwick, PA, the licensee stated that the problem recurred because of inadequate procedural controls, both within the licensee's and ISI subcontractor's organization.
On October 20, 1989, the licensee responded to the Notice of Violation with acceptable corrective actions.
This item is closed.
Unresolved Item 50-388/389-28-01 This item is concerned with the reporting requirements covering the IGSCC examination results as required by Generic Letter 88-01.
In the licensee's original response to GL 88-01, he stated that he would notify the NRC resident of unacceptable indications..
On September 18, 1990, the licensee formally indicated that he would notify the NRC instead of the resident.
This item is closed.
6.0 Exit Heetin An exit meeting was conducted on November 16, 1990, (see paragraph
~ 0 for attendees)
at which time the findings of the 'inspection were presented to the licensee.
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspecto ~8