ML20107J313
See also: IR 05000219/1974008
Text
e
,
.
-
N
-
.
,
-
M
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY C0t91ISSION
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
REGION I
'Y
RO Inspection Report No:
50-219/74-08
Docket No: 5_0-2 19
"
Jersey Cen'ral Powgr & Light
License No:
Licensee:
t
Oyster Creek'
Priority:
Parsippany, New Jersey
Category:
C
Location:
Forked River, New Jersey
. . . _
.
Typ,e of Licensee:
.
Type of Inspection:
Announced, Special
Dates of Inspection:
May 6-7, 1974
g
ex
Dates of Previous Inspection:
Q
.
[ /4/76/
I
gg
Reporting Inspector:
A
,
Date
G. A. Walton, Reactor Inspector
-
.
Accompanying Inspectors: nnnn
.Date
Date
.
Date
Date
Other Accompanying Pers'onnel:
None
_
Date
Reviewed By:
%N//
J-/4
7[
-
J. H. Tillou, Senior Reactor Inspector
Date
.
.
>
,
1\\
~
k
b
~
~'
"~~
960425 IAS 956213
"F
.
DEKOK95-258
-
_
]
..
,.
. ,
'
,
i
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
%)i
s
l'
Enforcement Action
1.
Inservice inspections of pressure boundary welds was performed
using a procedure which specifically stated it is not applicable
for inservice inspection. Contrary to this the licensee approved
subject procedure on April 18, 1974. This is a violation of Criterion
X, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.
(Details, Paragraph 3)
2.
Inservice inspection of vessel support skirt weld was performed
using a calibration block which is not in accordance with the -
require.ments of Section III of the ASME Code.
(Details,'Parsgraph
4)
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
No inspected
Design Changes
None
=>MA
Unusual Occurrences
None identified
Other Significant Findings
A.
Current Findings
(1) Review of the qualification records for NDE technicians performing
inservice inspection reveal no apparent deficiencies.
(Details,
Paragraph 2)
(2) Equipment calibration and mill certificates for penetrant
materials used in the inservice inspection program revealed no
apparent discrepancies.
(Details, Paragraph 5)
(3) Eddy Current inspection of poison control blades identified
sheathes which contain inverted tubes.
(Details, Paragraph 6)
(4) The inspectors review of the repair program for the moisture
separator revealed no discrepancies.
(Details, Paragraph 7)
.
.
.- -
.
.
.
_ . _ . . _ . . _
_ ._.
. . . _
_
. < . _
_.
_ . . _ . . _ .
_ _ _ _ .
..
~
'
o
!>
ic
1
,
.
l
1-
1
-2-
1
'
lB.
Status of Previously Identified Unresolved Items
.
-
g:<4
. Not inspected
.
f7
4 na
,
Management Interview-
A management meeting was' held'on May 14,'1974 at-the plant site in
^
Forked River, New Jersey attended by the following persons:
l
Jersey Central Power and Light Co.
5
D. Ross (Telephone) Manager of Nucient Gen. Stations
1
R. Swift, Maintenance Engineer
. . . _
SC,*
J. Kozlowski, Associate Engineer
,
J. Carroll, Plant Superintendent
Items discussed are summarized below:
1.
The inspector stated that.the scope of his inspection was limited
to the following three items:
a.
-Inservice inspection program
j
b.
Eddy Current inspection of poison control. blades
..
.4pmJ'
i
i
'
i
c.
Repair program on moisture separators
\\
'
Within these areas, Qualification of personnel, results of inspec-
tions, procedures and instructions and equipment calibration was
reviewed by the inspector
'
i
--
2.
Use of Improper Calibration Blocks
1
d
The inspector stated the support skirt weld was inspected using an
improper calibration block. The licensee acknowledged this finding.
3.
Authorized Use of Improper NDT Procedures for Inservice Inspection
"
,
The inspector stated a procedure was used during inservice inspec-
'
tion which specifically stated it was not applicable for inservice
inspection. The licensee acknowledged this finding.
4.
Disposition of " Suspect" Poison Tube Sheathes
.
'
-
,.N
\\
'
i
i
-
.
,_
_
.
,
-
- .
- - - - - -
,. ---
-
. - ,
..
_
_
_ . -
_ __
.
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _
.
.
4
-3-
- The inspector stated he had reviewed the eddy current results with
the understanding the program was not complete at this time. The
,, ; ,
1, ~-
program will be reviewed af ter final test and disposition is made.
.
.
e s,
es
O
,
I
.
t
h
i
'"
-
_
..
.
..
.
.-
- - .
,
.
. . . . - -
. .
-
--
-.
.-
.
>
!
i
DETAILS.
.
I-
1.
Persons Contacted
e
Jersey Central Power & Light Company
}
'
J. Carroll Plant Superintendent
i
D. Reeves - Chief Engineer
R. Swift - Maintenance Engineer
!
J. Kozlowski - Associate Engineer
K. Fickeissen - Technical Supervisor
~~
Magnaflux Test Lab.
,
R. Venello, Level III Test Examiner
,
L
2,
Qualifications of Test Personnel
i
The inspector reviewed t'se qualifications, abilities and levels of
the licensee's inspection agency performing inservice inspection.
!
It was pointed out by the inspector certain test personnel were not
certified as being qualified.- The Level III Examiner for the
.
licensee's inspection agency stated the' personnel were qualified
- se1
and certified their qualification on each applicants record by
affixing his name and his title (Level III Examiner). This item is
considered resolved.
3.
Procedures and Instructions
The inspector reviewed the licensee's inspection agencies pro-
cedures, applicable for inservice inspection.
Procedure 13N Ultrasonic
Proc / Nuclear Welds, Paragraph 13.2.2 states; "---This procedure is
,
L
not applicable and shall not be used for in-service inspection-- ."
Contrary to this the inspector noted procedure 13N is referenced as
the procedure used for inspecting welds. The licensee's inspection
agency stated 13N is applicable and proper to use while performing
,
'
inservice inspection and paragraph 13.2.2 of 13N is in error. It
was noted the licensee approved procedure 13N on April 18 - 1974 f or
use en inservice = inspections. This is an apparent violation of
Appendix B, .10 CFR 50,- Criterion IX.
i
1
4.
Inservice Inspection Techniques
The inspector. reviewed the preliminary data which was obtained from
the inservice inspection performed during the present outage'. The
'
inspector noted the vessel support skirt was ultrasonically, inspected
i
J
-,
-
-
.
a
<
.
~5-
i
using a reference calibration block which could not be demonstrated
as providing equivalent response to the basic calibration block
required by ASME Code Sec. III, Paragraph 1X-343(b) . ASME Sec. III
.
.
Paragraph II-343 states in part, "---Drilled holes shall be used as
e
basic calibration reflectors to establish a primacy reference
response of the equipment. ...These holes shall be located either in
the production material or in a basic calibration block of an
equivalent P-Number-- ." The calibration block used for the inspec-
tion was not in accordance with the above requirements. Allowances
are made in paragraph IX-343(e) of Sec. III of the ASME Code which
states;
"---In lieu of the above, other calibration reflectors are
permitted, provided equivalent response is demonstrated-- ."
Failure of the licensee to perform equivalent sensitivity comparison
is a violation of Section III of the ASME Code.
5.
Equipment Calibration and Mill Certificates of Penetrant Materials
The inspector reviewed licensee's program for maintenance and cali-
bration of equipment being used for performance of inservice in-
spection.
The equipment being used is certified as being properly calibrated.
j
Each certification contains a valid signature with date stating
l
type of equipment, serial number of equipment, and date equipment
iDGW
was calibrated. No deficiencies were noted.
All penetrant materials being used were certified by chemical anal-
ysis which recorded total amounts of sup1hur and halogen. No
deficiencies were noted.
6.
Eddy Current Inspection on Poison Blades
Eddy Current Inspection was performed on fif ty percent of the
poison control blades by the licensee's contract inspection agency.
The test was performed to determine if inverted sheaths were present.
Preliminary results reveal certain sheaths do contain inverted
tubes. The licensee informed the inspector at least one sheath
would be removed and replaced during this outage.
Evaluation is
being performed to determine disposition of other sheaths which may
contain inverted tubes. The eddy current method of inspecting
sheaths for inverted tubes is a positive method of inspection when
the inspection reveals acceptable conditions, however further
evaluation is required to determine disposition of tubes which
tests indicate may be inverted. No discrepancies were noted.
7.
Moisture Separator
9
0
$
-
.
.
.
. .
-
__
_ _
,\\
.
..
.
<
. . .
, _
.
,
.
-6-
The inspector reviewed the repair program presently in progress on
welds in the moisture separator. This review included a visual
'
inspection by the inspector. Numerous linear indications were
- .
rejected by the licensee's contract inspection agency due to their
j;(;s
location in the Inlet welds, Outlet welds and base material adja-
-
cent to welds. It was noted that all indications required a mini-
mum amount of surface removal (1/8" max.) to eliminate the re-
jectable indications. No deficiencies were noted in the. repair
program.
. - . .
.
l
?
!
.
6