ML19207A470
| ML19207A470 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1979 |
| From: | Jernigan E, Lester Tripp, Walton G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19207A471 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-336-79-10, NUDOCS 7908200060 | |
| Download: ML19207A470 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000336/1979010
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
Region I
Report No. 50-336/79-10
Docket No. 50-336
License No.
Priority
-
Category
C
Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
P. O. Box 270
Hartford, Connecticut 06101'
Facility Name:
Millstone Point 2
Inspection at:
Waterford, Connecticut
Inspection conducted-
ril 2-5 and 9-12,1979
Inspectors:
. M yr/ VA,
'M/ /M ' # '7 6
.
E. F. Qernigan, R actor Inspector
date sigried
$04Ll7Ah_
w ) 'l. I 9 79
G. A. Walton, Reactor Inspector
date signed
date signed
/
,
Approved by: .
- - - '
~I
. W
4['1
'
L. E. Tripp, Chief, Engineering Support
date sigried
Section,hc
1. RC&ES Branch
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on Apri;
-E, and April 9-12, 1979 (ReDort No. 50-336/79-10)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors
of inservice inspection activities and nondestructive examinations of steam
generator tubes and sleeved guide tubes in the Control Element Assemblies.
The inspection involved 64 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC regional based
inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance with regulatory requirements were identified.
.
809
b37%0
Region I Form 12
eg S
(Rev. April 77)
7 3082co ogg
,
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
- E. Farrell, Superintendent, Unit 2
- S. Scace , Engineer
R. Rothgeb, Engineer
J. Keenan, Outage Coordinator
J. Opeka, Station Superintendent
M. Black
S. Sedigala, Assistant Reactor Engineer
J. Stankosky, Level III
- denotes those present at the exit interview.
Universal Testing Laboratories
N. Goodenough, Quality Assurance Engineer
Hartford Inspection and Insurance Company
R. Smith, Authorized Inspector
,
The inspector also interviewed several other licensee / contractor
employees during the course of the inspection. They included quality
assurance, quality control inspectors and welders.
2.
Plant Tour
The inspector observed various work activities in progress, completed work
and plant status in several areas of the plant during a generai tour.
The inspector examined work items for obsious defects or noncomfliance
with regulatory requirements.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Inservice Inspection - Procedure Review
The inspector audited selected implementing NDE procedures for technical
adequacy and compliance with the requirements of ASME Section XI,1971
Edition, including the Summer 1973 addenda.
,
809
038
3
The procedures audited were:
NES Procedure 80AlC35
--
NES Procedure - NIP-035, Revision 4, dated March 21, 1979, Ultrasonic
--
Examination Procedures for Reactor Vessel to Nozzle Welds
NIP-033, Reactor Pressure Vessel to Flange Weld, Ultrasonics.
--
NIP-055, Revision 5, dated March 21, 1979, Ultrasonic Examination,
--
Primary Pipe
--
NIP-036, Revision 4, dated March 21, 1979, Ultrasonic Examination
Procedure for Reactor Vessel Inner Radius Areas
--
C. E. Procedure NLE-082-08, Revision 8, Eddy Current Testing of Steam
Generator Tubes
--
C. E. Procedure NLE-034, Revision 3, Visual Examination Procedure
ft Inservice Inspection.
The inspector considered the above procedures with regard to criteria
delineated in 10 CFR 50.55a(g) and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code,Section XI.
This included, but was not limited to the parameters
described below for ultrasonic, visual, and eddy current examinations.
Ultrasonic Examination Technique
a.
The type of apparatus, including frequency range, is specified.
b.
Examination coverage, beam angle and transducer size are specified.
c.
Calibration is accomplished on notches and scanning sensitivity is
defined and is consistent with ASME Code requirements.
,
d.
Evalution, recording and acceptance standards for flaw indications
are specified and consistent with the applicable ASME Code requirements.
Visual Examination
a.
Type of visual examination used, direct or remote, is specified.
b.
Lighting levels are adequate.
c.
Cleanliness of surface t'o be examined is defined.
.
t
809
039
.
4
d.
Measurement of clearan::es, tightness of bolting, physical displacement,
structural adequacy, freedom of motion and verification of settings
as appliccble are defined.
e.
Results are compared to acceptance criteria and required corrective
measures taken where applicable.
Volumetric Examinations Usino Eddy Current Technique
a.
The two channel Eddy Curresit Examination equirment has been identified
including indicator, meter, tube, strip recorcer and tape (whichever is
applicable).
b.
Method for maximum sensitivity is specified.
c.
Method for detennining material permeability of material to be examined
is specified.
d.
Method of examination (Impedance, Phase-Analysis or Modulation Analysis)
is provided.
Examination equipment calibrated in accordance with the applicable
e.
performance reference.
f.
Anplitude and phase has been calibrated with the proper applicable
reference and is recalibrated at predetermined frequency.
(Reference
flaw simulates length, depth and shape.)
g.
Correct coverage of steam generator tubes occurs during the examination.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Eddy Current Inspection Data Review and Tube Pluacing
The inspector reviewed the eddy current examination results of steam
generator tube inspections performed during the current refueling cutage.
This inspection was performed in compliance with the licensee's " Technical
-
Specification" by eddy current inspecting greater than 99 percent of the
total number of tubes.
The inspection was performed in accordance with
Combustion Engineering eddy current proc 9 dure number NLE-082-08, Revision
8.
Based on the results of these examinations, the licensee's contractor,
Combustion Engineering, has determined the following tubes would be plugged.
Hot Side L80, Row R92 - The .540 inch eddy current probe would not
pass through the tube at number 11 tube support plate.
.
809
040
.
5
Hot Side L34, Row RlCO - The .540 inch eddy current probe would not
enter the tube on the hot side.
Hot Side L40, Row R78 - This tube was a suspect leaker.
50 Row 92 - Blockage of tube.
In addition, one end of one tube required plugging.
It was found
that the other end had been plugged during the last refueling outage.
The inspector witnessed test welding of the steam generator tube plugging
performed by Combustion Engineering. The weld was made using a tungsten-
inert-gas automatic weld process.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Inservice Inspection (I _) Observation of Work Activities
The inspector witnessed instrument calibration for ultrasonic examination
of the reactor pressure vessel primary nozzle welds.
The calibration was
performeo in accordance with the approved procedure NIP-035, Revision 4.
The personnel performing the calibration were qualified in accordance
with ASNT-TC-1A. The calibration block was fabricated in accordance with
AS!iE B&PV Code Section XI and III.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Examination of Fuel Eiement Assembly Guide Tubes
a.
Testing and Evaluation of Guide Tube Wear Areas
,
During the first Millstone 2 refueling outage (the first cycle) it
was observed that the guide tubes located under control element asse~~s
(CEA's) had sustained wear. Subsequently, an extensive inspection
program has been developed using eddy current testing (ET), a
technique to determine the amou.it cf wear experienced by guide tubes
of control rodded fuel assemblies.
Evaluation by the licensee's
contractor indicated that assemblies located under CEA's for cycle
2 were to be sleeved.
809
041
.
6
.
b.
Sleeved Con _ trol Element Assembly (CEA) Inspection Program
In order to demonstrate that continued operation with sleeved guide
tubes during cycle 3 will be acceptable, an inspection program has
been developed. This program utilizes a combination of ET and visual
Examinations to confirm that the use of sleeves is an acceptable
method of mitigating the consequences of guide tube wear.
The inspector reviewed the program established for the current cutage.
The review included the following documents:
Sleeved CEA Guide Tube Inspection Program
--
Eddy Current Test Procedure for Sleeved CEA Guide Tubes in Fuel
--
AssemD1 Ms No. 00000-ESS-134, Revision 0, dated March 21, 1979.
The inspector found that the program outlined and identified each fuel
assembly to be examined and the method of examination and referencing
acceptance criteria. The above inspection program has been designed
to address all aspects of sleeved guide tube inspection.
The licensee plans to sleeve all assemblies located under CEA's except
for four (4) demonstration assemblies utilizing reduced flow guide
tubes.
No items of noncompliance with regulatory requirements were identified.
c.
Testing and Evaluation of Guide Tube Sleeves
The inspector witnessed ET of sleeved guide tubes prior.to fuel movement.
The ET techniques employed both the bobbin test and pancake coil test.
The equipment was calibrated using a specimen with a .003 deep notch
machined in the inside diameter. The test was performed in 20 degree
increments around each sleeve examined.
Preliminary results showed that
no sleeve had experienced detectable wear.
This inspection technique
is designed to detect and measure inner surface wear in the expanded
region (including the transition) of sleeved guide tubes. The inspector
audited personnel qualification certificates to verify that qualification
requirements had been met.
Portions of the raw test data were audited
by the inspector. These data indicated that the test techniques employed
were adequate for their intended ourposes.
No items of noncompliance with regulatory requirements were identified.
809
042
.
7
,
6.
Exit Meeting
At the conclusion of the inspection on April 12, 1979, a meeting was held
at the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station site with representatives of
the licensee organization. The attendees' names are asterisked in paragraph 1.
The inspector sumarized the results of the inspection as described in this
report. The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's sumarization.
.
$
as