IR 05000443/1985014

Insp Rept 50-443/85-14 on 850513-17.No Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previous Insp Findings & Preservice Insp Activities,Including Observations of Work in Progress

ML20132E767
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/04/1985
From:	Mcbrearty R, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20132E759	List: IR 05000443/1985014 ML20132E756
References
50-443-85-14, NUDOCS 8507180097
Download: ML20132E767 (5)

Text

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

!

O O

'

!

!.

.

.

l f ~

I l \

i  !

! U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

'

REGION I

Report N /85-14 l l l l Docket N ,

l

License No. CPPR-135 Priority --

Category A l

Licensee: Public Service Company of New Hampshire

!

P.O. Box 330 Manchester. New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name: Seabrook Station. Unit 1 Inspection At: Seabrook. New Hampshire

Inspection Conducted: May 13-17. 1985 ,

Inspectors: 9 L~_ L 6 'l'

h. A. Mc apy,ReactorEngineer ' date ;

Approved by:.5 P -

1) Or lM d W J. T. Wigginf,' Chlef / datie >

Materials and Processes Section, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection on May 13-17. 1995 (Report No. 50-443/85-14) ,

Areas _ Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee actions on i previous inspection findings; and inspection of preservice inspection l activities including observations of work in progress, review of NDE procedures and review of PSI dat The inspection involved 33 hours3.819444e-4 days <br />0.00917 hours <br />5.456349e-5 weeks <br />1.25565e-5 months <br /> onsite by one :

regional based inspector, j Results: No violations were identifie !

l l

!

05071g  !

^

Oh43 Pim l t

.

. _ _ _ .

_ __

O O

'

.

I DETAILS Persons Contacted NewHampshireYankee(NHYJ

• J. O. Azzopardi, QA Engineer D. L. Covill, FQA Surveillance

• R. E. Guillette, Assistant Construction QA Manager

• G. Kingston, Station Staff Compliance Manager

• J. L. Marchi, SQCM

• P. E. Massicotte, Staff Engineer W. T. Middleton, QA Staff Engineer D. W. Perkins, QA Engineer

• J. G. Tefft, STO

• W. Sanchez, Engineer - Licensing Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC)

• A. Jeffrey, PSI Coordinator J. J. McArdle, NDE Level III

• P. A. Oikle, Manager Project Audits / Trending

• G. Papanic, PSI Supervisor Yankee Nuclear Services Division (YNSD)

• J. Lance, MSG Manager United Engi aers and Constructors (UE&C)

• J. A. Grusetskie, Site Engineering D. C. Lambert, P.F.Q. *0. E. O'Connor, F.S. Factory Mutual

• Nicholas, AN!!

U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission_(USNRC}

• S. Barkley, Reactor Engineer

• C. Cerne, Senior Resident Inspector

• H M. Wescott, Resident Inspector

• Denotes those present at the exit meeting on May 17, 1985. _ Licensee Action _on Previous Inspection _ Findings (Closed) (UNR 443/84-06-01) - Revision of NDE Procedure. The inspector reviewed procedure 80A6462 Revision 2, and documentation which confirmed I

O

-

.

O

that the proper scan paths, based on the procedural formula, were used for the reactor coolant loop piping welds. The procedure was found to contain information regarding material product 1orm and thickness dimensions as required by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section X Based on the above, this item is considered close . Procedure Review The following nondestructive examination procedures were reviewed by the inspector with regard to technical adequacy and to ascertain compliance with appitcable ASME Code and regulatory requirements:

• 80A6461 Revision 3, " Ultrasonic Examination Procedure General Requirements"

80A6462 Revision 2. " Ultrasonic Examination Procedure for Austenttic Piping Welds"

80A6466 Revision 1 " Ultrasonic Examination Procedure for Pressurizer Wolds"

• 80A6472 Revision 2 " Liquid Penetrant Examination Procedure"

80A6473 Revision 2, " Magnetic Particle Examination Procedure"

42-EC-114, "Multifrequency Eddy Current Procedure Westinghouse Series F Steam Generator Tubing MIZ-18 Digital Eddy Current System -

Sr 'broo k" The inspector's review indicated that the procedures were approved by the licensee, were technically adequate for their intended use, and met appli-cable code and regulatory requirement No violations were identifie . Observation of PSI in Progrg The inspector observed a portion of the 60* shear wave ultrasonic examina-tion of steam generator weld number 1-RC-E-11C-seam 5. The observation was made to ascertain that applicable ASME Code and regulatory require-monts were me The inspector found that the examination was done in accordance with pro-cedure 80A6465, Revision 2, which was approved by the licensee. The ex-amination equipment was found to be currently calibrated and the examina-tion was performed by properly qualified personne In addition to the above, the inspector witnessed the eddy current examina-tion of the following tubes in the "C" steam generator:

-

.

-

O O

R0W COLUMN 5 21 6 21 3 21 6 20 5 20 2 20 2 19 3 19 The examinations were performed by CONAM Inspection personnel using the MIZ-18 System in accordance with procedure 42-EC-114 Revision The inspector visited the off site location where eddy current examination data were being interpreted by two CONAM analysts certified to Level IIA and Level III respectivel The inspector interviewed the analysts with regard to system calibration techniques and various aspects of the MIZ-18 digital current system, and observed the analysts as they interpreted and processed dat No violations were identifie . Review of PSI Data The inspector reviewed ultrasonic calibration data sheets numbered 6465-031, 6465-032, 6466-9 and 6466-10 associated with the following velds:

• Steam generator weld #1-RC-E-11C - seam 5

• Pressurizer welds #1-RC-E-10-1, -2, -3, and -5

• Pressurizer welds #1-RC-E-10-A-NZ, -B-NZ, -C-NZ, -D-NA and -SP-NZ The review was done to ascertain that indications were properly recorded and evaluated and that ASME Code and regulatory requirements were me The review of data sheet #6466-9 disclosed that indications were detected in weld #1-RC-E-10-1. Page 1 cf the data sheet provided information re-garding instrument calibration and indicated that side drilled holes were used in addition to a back reflection calibration techniqu The ASME Code requires that the O' longitudinal beam base material scan calibration be established from a back reflection through the material, and that the weld metal scan calibration be based on reflections from side drilled holes in the basic calibration block. The use of one data sheet to represent two calibration methods resulted in difficulty in understanding the infor-mation as it related to the recorded indication .

I

- - ,

- - - - . _ , ,

_ . _ - - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

. .

-

-

O o  ;

!

To clarify the data and to confirm that the results were acceptable per  !

ASME Code requirements, the licensee re-scanned the weld and recorded the  !

two worst case indications based on both calibration technique Data [

were recorded using the following transducers:

Diameter Frequency 1.0" 2.25MH z  !

0.75" 2.25MH z  !

1.0" ,

5.0MH, i The results were evaluated by the licensee in accordance with ASME Section

.

XI, IWA 3360, IWB-3511.2 and Table IWB-3511-2 and were found to be within  ;

acceptable limits,

'

r Copies of the data resulting froa the re-examination and evaluation of the ,

results were forwarded on 5/20/85 by the licensee to the inspector. The -

,

inspector found that the data confirmed the acceptability of the weld, and i he has no further questions regarding this matte No violations were identifie . Personnel Qualification / Certification Records

,

Records of personnel who participated ir, ultrasonic and eddy current ex-aminations at the site and of the two eddy current data analysts observed by the inspector were reviewed to ascertain that each individual was qualified to perform the duties to which he was assigne The records were found to be complete and confirmed that the requirements ,

of SNT-TC-1A were me l No violations were identifie !

7. Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)  ;

at the conclusion of the inspection on May 17, 1985. The inspector sum-  !

,

marized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings. At  :

l no time during this inspection was written material provided by the in-  !

!

spector to the licensee, j

!

i

!

!

I

5

~