ML17146B124
| ML17146B124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1988 |
| From: | Kerch H, Mcbrearty R, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17146B123 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-87-21, GL-84-11, NUDOCS 8802020201 | |
| Download: ML17146B124 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000387/1987021
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report
No.
50-387/87-21
Docket No.
50-387
License
No.
Priority
Category
C
Licensee:
Penns
lvania Power & Li ht
Com an
2 North Ninth Street
Al 1 entown
Penns
1 vania
18101
Facility Name:
Sus
uehanna
Steam Electric Station
Unit 1
Inspection At:
Berwick
Penns
lvania
Inspection
Conducted:
November
16-25
1987
Inspectors:
/WP C
. A. McBrearty, Reactor
gineer
MPS,
date
Q c
H.
W. Kerch, Senior Reactor
gineer
MPS,
Approved by:
R. Strosnider,
Chief, Materials
and
Processes
Section,
EB,
d
e
Ins ection Summar:
Ins ection
on November
16-25
1987
Ins ection
Re ort
No. 50"387/87"21
A~Add:
A i,
d
i <<d
regional
based
inspectors
of the licensee's
response
licensee
response
to previous inspection findings,
and non-conformance
report
closeout.
Results:
No violations were identified,
880202020l
880120
ADDCK 05000387
G
DETAILS
Persons
Contacted
Penns
lvania Power 5 Li ht
Com an
PPEL
R.
R.
- 5'
- F
- g
- J
AAAH
- R
%AD
- F
Baker, Coordinating
Engineer -
NQA
Beckley,
General
Supervisor
Byram, Plant Superintendent
Dalpiaz, Technical
Supervisor
Freeman,
Inservice Inspection Specialist
Golden, Plant Engineering
Supervisor
Graham,
Senior Compliance
Engineer
Kichline, Licensing Specialist
McGann,
Compliance
Engineer
Palmer, Jr., Operations
Supervisor
Prego,
QA Supervisor
Operations
Ritter,
Power Production
Engineer
Steingass,
Inservice Inspection Supervisor
U. S. Nuclear
Re ulator
Commission
"J. Stair,
Resident
Inspector
"Denotes those
present at exit meeting
on ll/20 and 11/25.
- Denotes those
present at exit meeting
on 11/20
- ""Denotes those present at exit meeting
on ll/25.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous
Ins ection Findin
s
(Closed) Violation (387/86-05-01):
Failure to include longitudinal welds
in the ISI program.
Non-conformance
reports
(NCR) were written by the
licensee
which identified the longitudinal welds which were omitted from
the Unit
1 ten-year
program plan.
The inspector
reviewed the
NCRs,
selected
welds from the listing, and verified that the selected
welds were
now included in the licensee's
ISI ten year program plan.
A similar condition (longitudinal welds omitted from the ISI program
plan)
was identified at Unit 2.
The inspector
found that the Unit 2
welds were identified by the licensee,
and that those welds are
now
included in the current Unit 2 ISI plan.
Based
on the above this item is closed.
(Open) Violation (387/86-05-02):
Failure to respond to audit finding.
NDI-gA-15.3.7 Revision
2 required the Nuclear Support Group to provide
a
qualified visual testing inspector to witness
snubber testing.
The
NgA
audit found that there
was
no evidence that
a qualified inspector
was
provided,
and that the snubber testing
was witnessed
by the contractor
performing the work.
The audited organization
was required to provide
a
written response
to the finding within 30 days,
but failed to do so.
The
licensee
completed its corrective action regarding
the item,
and found
that it was
an isolated
case
based
on
a review of audit records.
The inspector
found that the
NgA audit finding was closed out by the
licensee
based
on deletion of the requirement
from revision
3 of the
controlling document.
Because
the licensee
had failed to provide
a quali-
fied inspector
as required,
the inspector raised
the question
regarding
the qualification of the contractor representative
who witnessed
the
snubber testing
and the validity of the testings
The inspector
stated
that the item will remain
open pending licensee verification that the
witnessing inspector
was qualified to perform that function.
(Open) Unresolved
item (387/85-10-02):
Radiographic film acceptability.
Background:
The recirculation
system riser piping was
removed for the
application of corrosion resistant
cladding
(CRC) as
recommended
by
NUREG 0313 to mitigate the occurrence
of intergranular stress
corrosion
cracking
( IGSCC).
The piping removal
process
resulted
in
a portion of
the original sweepolet-to-riser
weld being left in place,
and the
reinstallation of the piping after the application of CRC resulted
in a
double weld configuration at the location of that weld.
Because
of the
weld configuration
and the various materials
through which the ultrasound
must pass,
the licensee
was unable to perform
a meaningful ultrasonic
examination
using conventional
methods
due to the great
number of
ultrasonic signals which were present
on the cathode
ray tube at one
time.
The licensee
had developed
an automatic
UT technique
which did not
produce the desired results.
For this reason
the licensee
requested
relief from the
ASME Section
XI examination
requirements for preservice
inspection.
At the first refueling outage
the licensee
performed the
Section
XI volumetric examination of those
welds using radiography with
the Miniature Linear Accelerator
(MINAC).
This resulted
in personnel
exposure of 1.5
man
and required all other activities to
stop while the radiography
was in progress.
The licensee
subsequently
decided to again explore the feasibility of using ultrasonics
as the
examination
method
and developed
a manual
technique
incorporating
the use
of a refracted longitudinal angle
beam.
This technique
was demonstrated
to the
NRC on
a mockup of the double weld,
CRC configuration,
and
was
found to be satisfactory
based
on the demonstration
results.
The licensee
is still evaluating the
UT technique,
and is considering its use
on the
riser welds and the withdrawal of relief request
No. IRR-6.
Relief
Request
No.
IRR-6 involves the licensee's
proposal
to perform the fol-
lowing in lieu of the surface
and volumetric examination
required
by ASME
Section XI:
ALTERNATE PROVISIONS
Visual examination of the weld will be performed during system pressure
tests
required
by IWB-5000 of Section XI.
Volumetric examinations
of the
weld will be performed to the extent practical
due to the geometric
and
metallurgical constraints
described
above.
The Unresolved
item resulted
from the
MINAC radiography that was done
during the first refueling outage.
The following documents
which are
related to the radiography were reviewed
by the inspector:
Southwest
Research
Institute
SWRI
Technical
Discussion
on Peach
Bottom
'Procedure
SWRI-NDT-400-4
'SWRI Justification of Accepting
RT by MINAC
PPLL
Letter dated July 7,
1987 with four attachments
EPRI/BWROG/NRC
'Technical
Basis
Document for the
use of MINAC
In addition to the above the inspector
reviewed the
MINAC radiographs
of
17 weldments in the recirculation
system.
The review was done to verify
the adequacy of the licensee's
volumetric examination of the unique
Susquehanna
sweepolet-to-riser
CRC double weld configuration.
Results
Wide variation in film density
ASME code
and
EPRI Technical
Basis
Document density limitations
were not met
Improper penetrameter
selection
and sensitivity
The practice of film evaluation
using penetrameters
from
adjacent film
The inspector
noted that the radiographs
were
made in a radiation environ-
ment with a 3.5
MEV rated
energy
MINAC unit that was extremely difficult
to manipulate
in a confined
space
such
as the
BWR drywell.
All of the
exposures
were double wall with angle deviations,
and in addition the
piping was filled'ith water at the time the radiographs
were made.
For the above mentioned
reasons
the inspector
determined that existing
radiographic quality was
as
good as
was obtainable
considering
the adverse
conditions
under which the radiographs
were made.
This item remains
open
pending the licensee'
deci sion regarding
the
volumetric examination of the riser double welds,
and the
need for the
relief from ASME code volumetric examination
requi rements.
Licensee Actions Taken to Im lement Generic Letter
Inspections
which were conducted
pursuant to IE Bulletins 82-03,
Revision
1, 83-02,
and the
NRC Orders of August 26,
1983 revealed
intergranular
stress
corrosion cracking
(IGSCC) in large-diameter
recirculation
and
residual
heat
removal piping in several
operating
BWRs.
As
a result of
these inspections,
was issued
on April 19,
1984 to
require
an on-going program for similar reinspections
at all operating
BWRs.
Susquehanna
Unit 1 was not in commercial
operation
when
was issued
on March 4,
1983
and was not referenced
by the bulletin.
The
facility began
commercial
operation
on June 8,
1983 and was shutdown for
its first refueling outage
on February 9,
1985.
The licensee
responded
to Generic Letter 84-11 via
dated June
1,
1984,
and committed to perform induction heating stress
improvement (IHSI) on welds which were considered
non-conforming prior to
IHSI treatment.
The licensee
also committed in its letter that,
subsequent
to IHSI, the non-conforming/conforming
service sensitive
would receive
augmented
inspections
to the extent defined in
The licensee
committed to examine the applicable welds with the
ultrasonic
method,
or by radiography
using the Miniature Linear
Accelerator
(MINAC).
V
The inspector
found that the licensee's
commitments
were met in that
135
welds received
IHSI treatment.
A total of 108 of the welds were ultra-
sonicly examined,
and
17 welds were radiographed with MINAC following the
IHSI treatment.
Of the remaining ten welds eight were
1" diameter
branch
connections
and received
no
NDE, and two were 4" diameter welds which were
inaccessible
due to geometry.
The ultrasonic examinations
and the
radiography
were performed
by personnel
who were qualified in accordance
with IEB 83-02.
The facility technical Specifications identify the required surveillance
measures
for primary system leak detection.
No violations were identified.
4.
Review of Inservice
Ins ection Non-conformance
Re orts
The inspector
selected for review the following non-conformance
reports
from the
NCR log which is maintained
by the licensee:
NCR No. 87-0355
NCR No. 87-0375
NCR No. 87"0376
NCR No. 87-0409
NCR No. 87-0410
NCR No. 87"0411
NCR No. 87-0421
NRC No. 87-0544
The
NCRs were reviewed to ascertain
that the
NCRs clearly identified the
non-conforming condition, the disposition,
and that they were properly
closed out.
The inspector
found that the
NCRs were writteh for a variety of non-conforming
conditions which did not appear to establish
any particular trend.
Addi-
tionally all of the reviewed
NCRs were closed out based
on
gC verification
that the implemented corrective actions
conformed to the
recommended
disposition.
No violations were identified.
The inspectors
met with licensee
representatives
denoted
in Paragraph
1,
on November 20,
1987,
and at the conclusion of the inspection
on
November 25,
1987.
The inspectors
summarized
the purpose
and
scope of
the inspection,
and the findings.
At no time during this inspection
was
written material
provided by the inspector to the licensee.
The licensee
representatives
did not indicate that this inspection
involved any
proprietary information.
L'
'