IR 05000458/1998011

Insp Rept 50-458/98-11 on 980518-21.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Maint

ML20248J772
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	06/04/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20248J616	List: IR 05000458/1998011 ML20248J613
References
50-458-98-11, NUDOCS 9806090303
Download: ML20248J772 (8)

Text

_-

. .

>

ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket No.: 50-458 License No.: NPF-47 Report No.: 50-458/98-11 Licensee: Entergy Operations, In Facil:ty: River Bend Station Location: 5485 U.S. Highway 61 St. Francisville, Louisiana Dates: May 18-21,1998 Inspector: C. J. Paulk, Senior Reactor inspector Maintenance Branch Approved By: Dr. Dale A. Powers, Chief, Maintenance Branch Divis!on of Reactor Safety

&

Attachment: Supplemental Information

,

e 9806090303 900604 PDR G ADOCK 05000458 pg

'

- - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ ___ _ _

L .

.

L

12ECUTIVE SUMMARY River Bend Station NRC Inspection Report 50-458/98-11 Maintenance

• The performance of six examinations on four welds was in accordance with licensee procedures and met the ASME Code and regulatory requirements (Section M1).

• Two oversights (a missed opportunity to identify the need to submit a relief request -

before December 1,1998, and the missed opportunity to identify the use of an incorrect calibration standard) were indicative of the need to improve the review of inservice inspection data. The review process did not identify these issues, as was expected by licensee management (Section M3).

• The nondestructive examiners observed were knowledgeable of their responsibilities and the ASME Code requirements for the activities they performed (Section M4).

• The identification by a quality control nondestructive examiner of the use of an incorrect calibration standard was an example of good attention to detail (Section M4).

l

l l

)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ _

e

.

-3-ftenort Details Summarv of Plant Status The River Bend Station was operating at 100 percent power during this inspectio II. Maintenance M1 Conduct of Maintenance Insoection Scooe (73753)

The inspector observed the calibration of the ultrasonic test equipm ent used to examine Welds CSL-0041-FWO16B and CSL-004A-SW002 in the low pressere core spray system. The inspector observeci the ultrasonic and magnetic partic e examinations on l

the two welds above, and the magnetic particle examination of Welds 1E21-PC001-DH-

'

05 and 1E21-PC001-DH-06 in the low pressure core spray syste Observations and Findinas

,

The inspector noted that the examinations were performed in accordance with the l

inservice inspection procedures. The inspector was informed by the nondestructive examiner that this was the first ultrasonic examination of Weld CSL-004A-FWO16B as required by Section XI of the 1992 ASME Code (the code that was approved for the second 120-month inservice inspection interval). No examination was performed during the first 120-inservice inspection interval because the weld was exempt by Section XI of the 1980 ASME Code (the weld was less than 13 mm (0.5 in) thick).

Indications were noted on Weld CSL-004A-FWO16B during the ultrasonic examinatio The inspector observed a Level ill nondestructive examiner review the preservice radiographs to determine if the indications were, or were not, defects. The Level 111 nondestructive examiner determined that the indications were reflections from the edge of the root pass and, therefore, the weld was acceptabl Conclusions The performance of the six examinations on the four welds was in accordance with licensee procedures and met the ASME Code and regulatory requirement M3 Maintenance Procedures and Documentation Insoection Scoce (73753)

The inspector reviewed the inservice inspection procedures and examination records listed in the attachment.

i

- -- ______-___ - - - - _ _ ___

, . .

-4- Observabons and Findings

~

The inspector noted that the revision numbers of the procedures were low and that the -

' issue dates were recent. This was the result of the inservice inspection personnel reviewing the older procedures and revising them to reduce the total number of procedures and simplify the program. The inspector found the procedures to be of -

sufficent detail to perform the examinations as required by the ASME Cod During the review of the examination records, the inspector identified one examination that did not cover 100 percent of the weld being examined in January 1996, Wold 1 MSS *800A2-FWC04LA, in the main steam system, was examined by both magnetic particle and ultrasonic methods. In each examination, portions of the longitudinal seam weld were unaccessible; therefore, approximately 5 cm (2 in) of the weld were not examine The inspector requested the relief request for these examinations. The inspector was

' provided Relief Request 0007, Revision 4, dated September 21,1989. The inspector -

noted that the relief request aid not include the subject weld. During the research to address the inspector's questions, the licensee representatives identifed that the relief

_ request, which they believed addressed the subject weld, referenced the wrong type of welds. The request listed the welds as B9.11, circumferential welds, instead of B9.12, longitudinal welds, as was the subject wel The inservice inspection coordinator was in the process of reviewing the first 120-month inservice inspection interval data to verify that the ASME Code and NRC regulatory requirements had been met. The licensee has 12 months from the end of the inservice inspection interval to submit relief requests for any examination that did not cover 100 percent of the required weld area, as provided for in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)(iv). Because the time limit for the end of the licensee's current interval plus 12 months does not expire until December 1,1998, there was no violation of regulatory requirements. However, since this weld was examined in 1996 and there was a missed opportunity to identify the potential need for a relief request review, the inspector found that the thoroughness of the review of examinations after refueling cycles was questionable. As such, licensee management made a commitment to review all of the past data and relief requests to ensure that correct relief requests had been, or will be, submitted within the required time specifed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The licensee representative stated that such a review

.

would be completed by November 1,1998. This commitment was identifed as an inspection followup item (50-458/9811-01).

The inspector noted that, during the review of past examination data for low pressure core spray Weld CSL-042A FWOO2, a Level ill certified quality control nondestructive examiner identified that an incorrect calibration standard had been used for examinations performed on June 8,1985, and May 17,1994, on welds where the pipe thickness changed. The nondestructive examiner found this discrepancy when comparing the calibration standard required by the second inservice inspection interval examination record to the calibration standards used in the first inservice inspection interval. When s

n ,

'

'

. .

l

\

-5-they did not match, the nondestructive examiner found that the standard required by the second inservice inspection interval procedure was the correct standard. As a result of this finding, the inservice inspection coordinator initiated Condebon Report CR-RBS-1%8-0614, and the weld was re-examined. The inspector noted that the re-examination results were satisfactor In addition to the results being satisfactory, the inspector noted that the subject weld was an elective weld and that the licensee had examined approximately twice as many welds during the first inservice inspection interval than were required by the ASME Cod Consequently, the examinations performed previously were not required to be performed.

l l Licensee management committed to review all similar configurations where the pipe thickness changed to determine if the proper calibration standards had been used during the first inservice inspection interval. This review is to be completed by August 31,1998.

Continuing NRC review of this issue was identified as an inspection followup item (50-458/9811-02).

The inspector found that the documentation reviewed, although a small fraction of the total inservice inspection documentation, was weak as a result of the missed opportunities to identify the problems discussed above.

i Conclusions Two oversights (a missed opportunity to identify the need to submit a relief request before December 1,1998, and the missed opportunity to identify the use of an incorrect calibration standard) were indicative of the need to improve the review of inservice inspection data. The review process did not identify these issues, as was expected by

,

licensee managemen M4 Staff Knowledge and Performance Insoection Scone (73753)

The inspector observed Level 11 and ill nondestructive examiners perform and review examinations. Additionally, the inspector interviewed the nondestructive examiners with respect to their activitie Observations and Findings The inspector found the four nondestructive examiners to be knowledgeable of the examinations being performed, of the ASME Code requirements, of the procedural

requirements, and of management expectations. With respect to the Level lli nondestructive examiner that identined that the wrong calibration standard had been used on previous examinations, the inspector found this to be an example of good attention to detai .---____________J

I

.. .

-6 '

, Conclusions

= The nondestructive examiners observed were knowledgeable of their responsibilities and the ASME Code requirements for the activities they performed. The identification by a quality control nondestructive examiner of the use of an incorrect calibration standard .

was an example of good attention to detai M5 Maintenance Staff Training and Qualification Irwian S=E(73753)

The inspector reviewed the training and qualification records of the four nondestructive examiners observed during the inspectio b.- Observations and Findings All observed nondestructive examiners were properly qualified and certified for the functions they performe M8 Miscellaneous Maintenance Activities (92902)

(C!oM Vialation 50-458/9709-03: failure to comply with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(2). The River Bend Station's Maintenance Rule program failed to demonstrate that the performance of several structures, systems, and components were being effectively controlled through the performance of appropriate preventive maintenance. The inspector verified the corrective actions described in the licensee's response letter, dated March 16,1998, to be reasonable, complete, or scheduled to be completed within the time specified in the letter. No similar problems were identifie V. Management Meetings X1 Exit Meeting Summary :

- The inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on May 21,1998. Licensee management

representatives acknowledged the findings presente The inspector asked the licensee representatives whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identifie ,

-_.---L- N_N__- . - - - . _ _ _ _ - _ . - . - _ _ - . _ - - . _ _ . . _ .- _ . . _ _ - . _ . _ _ _

__

.-_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ .___- - _____-_ - _

. .

f

'

ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PEMNS CONTACTED Lican_see M. Bellamy, Acting Vice President l G. Chatterton, Technical Specialist IV l C. Forpahl, Supervisor, Engineering Programs i R. King, Director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs D. Lorfing, Supervisor, Licensing W. Mashbum, Manager, Engineering Support D. Meyers, Senior Licensing Specialist

' D. Mims, General Manager, Plant Operations D. Pace, Director, Engineering NBC N. Garrett, Resident inspector G. Reploggle, Senior Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 73753 inservice inspection IP 92902 Followup - Maintenance ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED Ooened 50-458/9811-01 IFl Documentation of relief requests 50-458/9811-02 IFl Use of incorrect calibration standard Closed 50-458/9709-03 VIO Failure to comply with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(2)

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Procedures:

NDE 4.12, " Magnetic Particle Examination (MT)," Revision 4 NDE 9.04, " Ultrasonic Examination [UT] of Ferritic Piping Welds (ASME Section XI)," Revision 0 NDE 9.19, " Ultrasonic instrument Linearity Verification," Revision 1

- _ _ _ -

.. .

2-Examination Packages:

1CSH-PSSP-2046A2 (Visual)

.1CSL-PSSP-3003A1 (Visual)

1CSL*PSSP-2009A2 (Dynamic, Visual)

1 DER *285A-FWOO1 (Liquid Penetrant, Visual)

1FWS-PSSP-2024A2 (Visual)

1FWS-PSSP-2026A2 (Dynamic, Visual)

1FWS*035A-FWOO2 (Liquid Penetrant, Uitrasonic)

ilCS*057A-FWOO1 (Magnetic Particle, Ultrasonic)

1 MSS *0058-FWOO1 (Magnetic Particle, Ultrasonic) -

1 MSS *800A2-FWC04LA (Magnetic Particle, Ultrasonic)

1RCS*900CX-SWO24 (Liquid Penetrant, Ultrasonic)

1RHS*023A-FWOO1 (Magnetic Particle)

1RHS*150A-FWOO3 (Liquid Penetrant)

1RHS*199A-FWO11 (Uquid Penetrant, Visual)

1 RHS*PSSP-3145A2 (Dynamic, Visual)

1SLS*0378-FWOO9 (Liquid Penetrant)

l l

f l !

'

_ _ _ ___ ___ O