ML17156B468
| ML17156B468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1989 |
| From: | Mcbrearty R, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17156B467 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-388-89-28, GL-88-01, GL-88-1, NUDOCS 8911210117 | |
| Download: ML17156B468 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000388/1989028
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-388/89-28
Docket No.
50-388
License
No.
Licensee:
Penns
lvania Power
8 Li ht
Com an
2 North Ninth Street
Allentown
Penns
1 vania
18101
Facility Name:
Sus
uehanna
Steam Electric Station
Unit 2
Inspection At:
Berwick
Penns
lvania
Inspection
Conducted:
Se tember
18-19
and October 2-6
1989
Inspectors:
R. A. McBrearty, Reactor
gineer
IF J'1
date
Approved by;
.
R. Strosnider,
Chief,
MPS,
EB,
date
Ins ection Summar:
Ins ection
on
Se tember
18-19
and October 2-6
1989
Re ort No. 50-388/89-28
Areas Ins ected:
A routine,
unannounced
inspection
was conducted of the
licensee
s inservice inspection activities to ascertain
that the activities
were conducted
in compliance with applicable
ASME Code
and regulatory require-
ments.
In addition, the licensee's
response
to Generic Letter 88-01 was
inspected
and the results of the water chemistry program were reviewed.
Results:
No violations or deviations
were identified.
One unresolved
item
was identified regarding the licensee's
response
to GL 88-01.
89ii2i0ii7 89ii09
ADOCK 05000388
C~
'PDC
Details
1.0
Persons
Contacted
Penns
lvania .Power
and Li ht
Com an
R. A. Baker,
NDE Level III
"R. A. Beckley,
General
Supervisor - Quality Control
J. Blakeslee,
Assistant Superintendent
of Plant
"R.
G. Byron, Superintendent
of Plant
F.
C. Dalpiaz,
Maintenance
Outage Supervisor
"N. F. Fedder,
Inservice Inspection Specialist
"E.
W. Figard, Supervisor of Maintenance
"J. J.
Graham, Assistant
Manager Nuclear Quality Assuranc
"G. J. Kuczynski, Technical
Supervisor
"J.
F. Lindberg, Project Scientist - NPE
"D. F.
McGann,
Compliance
Engineer
- J.
E. O'ullivan,
NSG Supervisor
- R. J.
Prego, Quality Assurance
Supervisor
Operations
'"D. F. Roth, Senior Compliance
Engineer
"J.
K. Steingass,
Inservice Inspection Supervisor
"B. J. Veazie Site
18C
"J.
B. Wesneu,
Licensing
e
Operations
Com an
R. Jaffe,
NDE Level III
M. Stamm, Project Manager
NDE Level III
U.S. Nuclear
Re viator
Commission
"S. Barber,
Senior Resident
Inspector
- J. Stair,
Resident
Inspector
"Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
2.0
Licensee
Res
onse to Generic Letter
"NRC Position
on
in
BWR Austenitic Stainless
Steel
Pi in
92703
Intergranular stress
corrosion cracking near weldments in
BWR piping
has
been occurring for almost
20 years.
Early cases
were in relatively
small diameter piping.
In early 1982, cracking
was identified in large
diameter piping in a recirculation
system of an operating
BWR plant
in this country.
Since then, extensive
inspection
programs
have
been
conducted
in
BWR piping systems
which have resulted
in the detection of
significant numbers of cracked
in almost all operating
BWRs.
Substantial
efforts in research
and development
are detailed
in
NUREG-0313, Revision 2, "Technical
Report
on Material Selection
and
Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure
Boundary Piping."
Revision
2 describes
the technical
bases for the staff positions
on
materials,
processes,
and primary coolant chemistry to minimize and
control
IGSCC problems.
Inspection
schedules
and inspection
sample
sizes
are based
on the susceptibility of weldments to initiation and
propagation of IGSCC.
Inspection
schedules
are comparable
to those
specified in Section
XI of the
where the piping
material
is
IGSCC resistant.
NUREG 0313 is referenced
and provides the NRC's position relative to inspection
and
repair of piping systems
susceptible
to
Generic Letter 88-01 applies to all
BWR piping made of austenitic stainless
steel that is four inches or larger in nominal diameter
"nd contains
a temperature
above 200'F during power operation,
regardless
of code classification.
It also applies to reactor vessel
attachments
and appurtenances
such
as jet pump instrumen'tion penetration
assemblies
and head
spray
and vent components.
Licensees
are requested
to
respond to the
GL within 180 days of the receipt of the letter.
The
GL
provides
a list of specific items which should
be included by licensees
to
constitute
an acceptable
response
to the GL.
The licensee
responded
to the
GL on August 10,
1988 with supplemental
responses
dated
February
13,
1989, August 18,
1989,
and October 2,
1989.
The submittals of August 18,
1989
and October 2,
1989 were in response
to
the
NRC request for additional
information dated
May 31,
1989.
In its original response,
the licensee
stated that it will notify the
NRC Senior Resident
Inspector within 30 days if detected
IGSCC cracks
do
not meet the
IWB-3500 criteria of Section
XI of the code fot continued
operation without evaluation or if a change is found in the condition of
welds previously
known to be cracked.
The evaluation of the cracks for
continued operation and/or the repair plans will be submitted
as part of
the Outage
Summary Report.
For cases
described
above,
the Generic Letter
requires
NRC approval of flaw evaluations
and/or repairs in accordance
with IWB-3640 and
IWA-4130 before resumption of operation.
If the
licensee
follows its stated
response
the information will be submitted to
the
NRC subsequent
to the resumption of operation,
therefore,
precluding
the required prior NRC approval.
At the exit meeting the licensee
stated
that it will review its response
regarding reporting requirements.
The
licensee's
response
is under review by the
NRC, and the inspector discussed
the above with the cognizant
NRC staff member to make
him aware of a
potential
problem.
This issue is considered
unresolved
pending licensee
action
and subsequent
NRC review (50-388/89-28-01).
3.0
Review of NDE Im lementin
Procedures
73052
The inspector
reviewed selected
NDE procedures
to ascertain
compliance
with ASME Code
and regulatory requirements
and for technical
adequacy.
The following procedures
were selected for inspection.
~
TP-ISI-402, Revision 1, "Ultrasonic Examination of Nozzle Inside
Radius Single Zone Technique"
~
NUT-1, Revision 0,
"Manual Ultrasonic Examination of Similar and
Dissimilar Metal Welds for IGSCC"
~
NMTW0-1, Revision
1,
"Wet and Ory Magnetic Particle Examination"
~
NLP-1, Revision 3, "Procedure for Color Contrast Liquid Penetrant
Examination"
The above listed procedures
were found to meet applicable
code
and
regulatory requirements
with the exception of NUT-1 which failed to
include
a requirement for maximum scan
speed.
The
NDE Center
recommends
a maximum speed of 3" per second for the detection of IGSCC.
The General Electric Company Level III examiner
and the Level II examiner
who performed the ultrasonic examinations
observed
by the inspector
were
aware of the
EPRI recommendation
and the limit was observed
during
performance of the examinations.
The licensee
revised procedure
NUT-1 to include the 3" per second
maximum
scan
speed prior to the conclusion of this inspection,
and the inspector
had
no further questions. regarding this matter.
Conclusions
The licensee's
NDE procedures
were technica'lly adequate
for their
intended
use with the exception discussed
above.
The licensee's
Level
III showed
good initiative by quickly revising the procedure to correct
the deficiency.
Addition'Lily, the examiner's
awareness
and use of the
EPRI recommendation
is an indication of the quality of the training
provided to the examination
personnel.
No violations were identified.
4.0
Observations
of NOE in Pro ress
73753
The inspector
observed
the ultrasonic examination
and the liquid
penetrant
examination of the 22" diameter pipe bend to sweepolet
VRR-B313-3-2-B and -C on the recirculation
system
"A" loop.
The
ultrasonic examinations
were performed to satisfy the requirements
'of
NUREG-0313, Revision
2 and Generic Letter 88-01 regarding intergranular
stress
corrosion cracking.
The ultrasonic examinations
were performed manually by General
Electr'ic
Company inspection personnel.
A Level II examiner performed the
examinations
(probe pushing
and screen monitoring) aided
by a Level I
individual.
The examiner
was observed to have trouble maintaining
a
consistent
rate of transducer
travel
and the required transducer
overlap.
Complete coverage
was assured
by rescanning
trouble areas.
The inspector stated at the exit meeting that the examination results
would be more consistent if a two man
team performed the manual
examinations
(one examiner to manipulate
the search unit and
a second
qualified examiner to monitor the screen).
Additionally, the
use of one
of the several
automated
ultrasonic
systems
used
by the majority of the
industry would further improve examination quality and would help reduce
the amount of radiation to which the examiners
are exposed.
The examination
personnel
who participated
in the ultrasonic
and
penetrant
examinations
were found to be properly certified in accordance
with SNT-TC-1A and,
in. addition, the ultrasonic
Level II examiner
was
trained
and certified for the manual detection of IGSCC at the
Center in Charlotte,
In addition to the above,
remote,
underwater visual examinations
were
performed by CTS inspection
personnel
of reactor pressure
vessel
components.
The examination results
were recorded
on video tape
and
were evaluated
by a General
Electric Company Level III visual examiner.
The inspector
observed
video tapes of the visual examination of steam
dryer welds DC-A-3, DC-D-l and DC-D-2.
The results
were recorded
using
an underwater,
remote color video camera,
and were judged to be of
excellent quality regarding clarity and sharpness
of image.
Indications
which were thought to be relevant indications were reexamined
using
various lighting angles
and found to be non-relevant indications or
shadows.
Conclusions
The personnel
who participated
in the various examinations
were certified
to the appropriate
level of qualification.
The examinations
were
performed in accordance
with the applicable procedure,
complied with code
and regulatory requirements
and evaluations
were technically correct.
No violations were identified.
5.0
Primar
Water Chemistr
84750
Water chemistry data were reviewed
as part of this inspection.
The
methods of collecting and verifying the accuracy of these
data were not
included in the
scope of this inspection.
The inspector
reviewed the water chemistry data for the period of
June
1989 through September
1989.
Sample points for monitoring the
reactor water quality are
as follows:
~
Condense
hot well, monitored in the control
room
~
Condensate
pump discharge,
monitored in the control
room
~
Condensate
demineralizer inlet
~
heater inlet
~
inlet to the reactor pressure
vessel
~
Inlet to the reactor water cleanup
system,
monitored in the control
room
~
Discharge
from the reactor water cleanup
system,
monitored in the
control
room
The average
monthly conductivity of the primary water during the period
reviewed ranged
from 0. 15 to 0. 17 ymho/cm which was within the licensee's
goal of 0.20 ymho/cm and below the Technical Specification requirement of
less than or equal
to 1.0 ymho/cm.
Chlorides were reported during the
four month period
as less
than
5 parts per billion (ppb) vs the Technical
Specification limit of 200 ppb.
6.0
Unresolved
Items
Unresolved
items are matters
about which more information is required to
ascertain
whether they are acceptable,
violations or deviations.
An
unresolved
item is discussed
in paragraph
2.0 of this report.
7.0 ~Efl
The inspector
met with licensee
representatives,
denoted
in paragraph
1,
at the conclusion of the inspection
on October 6,
1989.
The inspector
summarized
the
scope
and findings of the inspection.
At no time during the inspection
was written material
provided by
the inspector to the licensee.
The licensee did not indicate that
proprietary information was involved within the
scope of this
inspection.