IR 05000413/1989035
| ML20005E441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1989 |
| From: | Blake J, Newsome R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005E438 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-413-89-35, 50-414-89-35, NUDOCS 9001050242 | |
| Download: ML20005E441 (6) | |
Text
,,.........,,
,'
A*?
,.
UNITED STATES
'.
..
A E800g
'y' "
.
g-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N L
~
REGION ll -
- h-~
h 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
- ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%,..... f
-
-Report Nos.: -50-413/89-35 and 50-414/89-35 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street-1 Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.: '50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.:
'
Facility Name: ' Catawba 1 and 2 Inspection. Conducted: December 4 thru 8, 1989
'
Inspector:
U).
/2 - M - 9 9 um w
L-Date Signed
.
Approved by.
-
' /Z-[/3 /69 J
Blake, Chief Date Signed a rials and Processes Section En ineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope-
. This. routine, announced inspection was conducted on site in the area of Inservice Inspection (ISI) and included a review of the ISI program and implementing' procedures.and a review of the ISI plan for the Unit 'l future outage. Also, previously opened NRC items were addressed.
-Results In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were'not identified.
The licensee's ISI program appears adequate in all areas inspected.
No major problems were identified in any of the areas reviewed.
9001050242 891227 PDR ADOCK 05000413 G
PNV
.... -..
..
.
............ _..
.
,l
r REPORT DETAILS
' 1.
Persons Contacted-
.
Licensee Employees
- J. Cherry, Quality Assurance Specialist Inservice Inspection
- R. Giles, Quality Assurance Inservice Inspection Coordinator
- L. Hartzell, Technical Support, Compliance
- T. Hawkins Quality Assurance Inservice Inspection Coordinator
- V. ' King, Technical Support, Compliance Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- W. Orders, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview 2.
Inservice Inspection a.
The inspector reviewed documents and had discussions with licensee personnel, as indicated below, to determine whether the ISI program is being implemented in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 50.55a(g) of 10CFR Part 50, applicable procedures, regulatory requirements, and licensee commitments.
The applicable code for ISI is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel (ASME B&PV) Code,Section XI, 1980 ecition with addenda through Winter 1981.
b.
ISI Program Review, Units 1 and 2 (73051)
The inspector reviewed the following documents relating to the ISI program to determine whether the plan had been approved by the licensee and to assure that procedures and plans had been established (written, reviewed, approved and issued) to control and accomplish the following applicable activities:
organizational structure including qualifications, training, responsibilities, and duties of personnel responsible for ISI; audits including procedures, frequency, and qualification of personnel; general Quality Assurance requirements including examination reports, deviations from previously established program, material certifications, and identification of components to be covered; work and inspection procedures; control of processes including suitably controlled work conditions, special methods, and use of qualified personnel; corrective action; document control; control of examination
)
..
,
,f 3.+
p
equipment; quality records including documentation of indications and NDE findings, review of documentation, provisions to assure-
, legibility and retrievability, and corrective action;-scope of the inspection including description of areas to be examined, examination category, method of. inspection. extent of examinations,- and justifi-cation for any exception; definition of inspection interval and extent of examination; qualification of nondestructive examination (NDE) personnel; and, controls of generation. approval, custody, storage and maintenance of NDE records.
Inservice Inspection Plan Catawba Nuclear _ Station Units 11 and 2
-
Volume 1, Revision 4 Section Title Revision 1.
Applicable. Codes and Standards for the
Inservice Inspection.of Catawba Units 1 & 2 2.
System Boundaries Subject to Inspection
3.
Inspection Methods and Procedures to be Used
for Inservice Inspection 8.
Description of Examination Listings and
Schedules 9.
Requests for Relief From ASME Code Requirements
10.
Calibration Standards
QA-116(R12)
Quality Assurance Records Collection,
--
Storage and Retention QA-123(R2)
Processing Of Nonconfoming Item Reports By
-
Quality Assurance General Office Personnel QA-124 (R3)
General Office Quality Assurance
-
Noncompliance Process QA-191(R4)
Procedure Implementation Reviews
-
QA-501 (R10)
Quality Assurance Review Of Inspection
-
Records, Station Procedures And Work Requests QA-516(RI)
Evaluation Of ISI Indications
-
Catawba Unit 1 In-Service Inspection Master Reference Listing
-
c.
The NRC inspector discussed the proposed ASME Code,Section XI, hydrostatic testing program with site ISI personnel and discovered l
.
y y
that they. were. unaware ' that ASME Code class 2 and 3 systems -
- hydrostatic testing requirements allow two time frame options for conducting these tests.
Unlike class I systems, which require-the hydrostatic tests be conducted at or near the end of each inspection interval, the class 2 and 3 system hydrostatic tests may be tested near the end of the inspection interval, like class 1, or optionally be tested at an earlier time provided the system hydrostatic tests are conducted during the same inspection period, of each inspection interval _ of the inspection program.
The inspector also indicated that several other facilities do use the latter option to conduct hydrostatic tests so that they are not over extended at the end of an inspection interval.
The ISI personnel indicated that they would prefer to conduct the class 2 and 3 hydrostatic tests over an extended period of time rather than have them all due at the end of the inspection interval.
The p6rsonnel indicated inat they would discuss this option with management and plan to schedule hydrostatic tests during future outages.
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
3.
Licensee Action on Previously Opened Items (0 pen) Violation 50-413,414/89-14-02, Protection Of Plant Equipment.
This item identified _ conditions, through direct observations in containment, where personnel were climbing and walking on safety-related equipment, cable trays, small-bore piping and pipe supports.
Discussions with the licensee indicated that Station Directives did not provide guidance to personnel regarding protection of installed plant equipment during regular movement through the containment.
The licensee's original response to this violation, dated July 21, 1989, has been subsequently revised to allow for an extension of the commitment date to December 31, 1990.
The revised response indicates that the training ' aspect of the corrective actions being implemented will take until 12/31/90 for full implementation.
The licensee has indicated that Station Directives have been revised to provide guidance to station workers to identify and protect components in their work area and in their travel paths as well as to provide for identification and repair of any damage to components during normal housekeeping inspections.
Station Directives 3.11.1 Revision 20 and proposed Revision 8 to Station Directive 3.11.3 were reviewed by the NRC inspector to confirm the addition of plant equipment protection guidance.
Because of the licensee's recently revised response to this violation and the request for an extension of the coninitment date to December 31, 1990, this item will remain open.
I
,
.-
-
--
,
'
O,
%
..
.
(Close)UnresolvedItem 50-413, 414/89-08-01, MT Demonstration.
This item:1dentified an examination where the licensee used less amperage
.
than ASME Section XI requires for the magnetic particle examinations of reactor vessel studs and nuts.
The Code does allow this if the
.
examination parameters used are satisfactorily demonstrated to the i
futhorized Nuclear-Inservice Inspector (ANII) to be equivalent to or superior to the Code-specified method. During the PRC inspection of April 24-28, 1989 (Report 50-413, 414/89-14), an NRC inspector reviewed the procedure qualification documentation,. indicating that the ANII ~ had
.
,
witnessed and approved the alternate magnetic particle examination for the
- nuts, however, the procedure qualification documentation for the studs was not complete and was not reviewed at that time.
During this NRC inspection, the inspector reviewed the procedure qualification
-
documentation for the alternate magnetic particle examination of the studs, including the ANII verification of examination adequacy.
This matter is considered closed.
(Close) Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 50-413, 414/89-08-04, Valve Identification.
This item identified valve 27SV27A as being incorrectly identified as valve 2SV027 on isometric drawing CN-25V-3 Revision 10.
During the licensee's investigation as to the reason for the incorrect valve
. identification on the isometric, the licensee identified additional drawings that included M,a valve which required valve identification-corrections.
The % inspector reviewed the 16 corrected drawings and isometrics inv;ived in order to verify that the valves were corrected as required.
M1 valves appear to be correctly identified and this item is conside"ed closed.
(F.ose)IFI 50-413/89-14-01, Evaluation of Aris Data.
This item was identified as a result of the NRC review of data that was generated during the automated ultrasonic examination of the reactor vessel nozzles in Unit 2.
Preliminary evaluation of indications detected in the nozzles during this examination indicated that the reflectors were located totally in the stainless steel clad material of the nozzles and appeared to be inclusions rather than crack like reflectors.
The following three concerns were identified as a result of the NRC observation of the indication evaluation activities:
The clad welding process needed to be determined prior to
-
classification of the indications as a particular type of welding abnormality.
The test block used for ultrasonic signal comparison of the detected
-
indications should be polished, etched, and examined with magnification on a side edge to determine the type of inclusion in the test block and whether the inclusions have any cracks running from them into the base materia *
.
n.
.
. l l~ '
i m
i
,
Demonstrate - the sizinq capabilities of the ultrasonic examination
-
,--
system on real underclad cracks.
- The following actions were taken by the licensee in order to address the concerns-listed above.
The nozzle clad welding processes used were a wire feed oscillating
-
- submerged arc process, that produced a weld bead width of
' approximately 1-1/8", in the nozzle bore region and a manual stick electrode process used in the nozzle knuckle region.
Both of these processes produce slag inclusions.
Two cross-sections were taken from the comparison block and these
-
were polished, etched, and-photographed at the ends, at the clad / base material interface.
The indications were determined to be oxide inclusions with no evidence of penetration into the base material, On Auaust 8, 1989, a demonstration of the sizing capabilities of the t
-
automated system was conducted by Babcock and Wilcox in Lynchburg, Virginia.-
The demonstration was attended by NRC personnel who concluded-that the sizing capabilities of the system produced satisfactory results.
Based on the review of documentation supporting the above and the apparent satisfactory sizing capabilities of the ultrasonic system, this item is considered closed.
(Close)IFI 50-414/89-08-02, ISI Baseline Inspection Method.
ASME Section XI, Paragraph IWA-4500, requires that repairs be examined using the same method that was used to detect the defect that required repair. Duke Power Company NDE procedures NDE-25, Revision 12 and NDE-35 Revision 10. did not incorporate this requirement.
Revised procedures.
NDE-25 Revision 14, and NDE-35, Revision 12, were reviewed by the NRC inspector.
These procedures now reference procedure QCL-5 which requires examination of repaired areas to be conducted with the examination method that detected the defect. This matter is considered closed.
4.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on December 7,1989, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.
Proprietary information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.