IR 05000354/1985037
| ML20135F034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1985 |
| From: | Mcbrearty R, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135F025 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-354-85-37, NUDOCS 8509170131 | |
| Download: ML20135F034 (5) | |
Text
.
- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
i Report No.
50-354/85-37 t
Docket No.
50-354 License No.
CPpR-120 Priority Category B
--
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: July 30, 1985 - August 2, 1985 Inspectors:
22,/9 M
.A.McBrearty,ReactorEgineer f
date.
'
M, FM f 2A
Approved by: A j
.
T.' Wi cJgi f,,ffhief
'da te '
i Caterials aWd Processes Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on July 30, 1985 - August 2, 1985 (Report No.
50-354/85-37)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee action on pre-vious inspection findings; PSI activities related to the mechanized ultrasonic examination of reactor pressure vessel welds including observations of work in progress, procedure review and data review; demonstration of ability to detect cracks in 22" diameter and 28" diameter material containing corrosion resistant cladding. 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.
Results: No violations were identified.
,
I B509170131 850911 PDR ADOCK O
G
-
-
._
.
....
. _. -.
.,
-
..
. -
.
.
.
-
--
-
~
. _.
_
.
LW
.
,
t
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted i
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
- R.F. Brandt, Nuclear Plant Services Engineer
'
- G.L. Duncan, PSI Senior Supervisor
- R.T. Griffith Sr., Principal QA Engineer
- T.J. McLaughlin, QA Engineer i
i Southwest-Research Institute (SwRI)
j
- E.J. Feige, Inspection Engineer
+
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A.R. Blough, Senior Resident Inspector
,
- S.K. Chaudhary, Senior Resident Inspector
- J.J. Lyash, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting'on August 2, 1985.
e 2.
_ Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
}
(Closed) Unresolved Item (354/83-11-04): Ultrasonic examination of welds
)
with corrosion-resistant cladding (CRC). During the course of this j
inspection the licensee demonstrated his ability to detect cracks in 22"
j diameter and 28" diameter samples containing CRC.
(See paragraph 4 of
'
}
this report). Prior to this inspection a similar demonstration was performed by the licensee on 12" diameter cracked samples ~and is docu--
j mented in Inspection Report No. 50-354/85-28.
I
!~
. Based on the results of those demonstrations this item is considered closed.
(0 pen)-Inspector Follow Item (354/83-15-01):
Verification that vessel ultrasonic tracks are properly installed.
The licensee's PSI vendor _is in
,
i the process of performing mechanized ultrasonic examination of reactor l-pressure vessel-welds. 'This includes verification of proper track instal-
1ation to assure that the welds are adequately examined.
,
l This item will remain open pending completion of the vessel weld-examinations.
.
!
i
.
-,
-
-
,., -. -. -... _.,
._
,
s
.
3.
Procedure Review
'
The following ultrasonic examination procedure was reviewed by the inspector with regard to ASME code and regulatory requirements:
,
'
SwRI-NDT-700-6, Revision 21, " Mechanized Ultrasonic Examination of
Ferritic Vessels Greater Than 2.0" in Thickness at Hope Creek" The inspection found that the procedure complied with applicable code requirements and with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.150, Revision 1.
No violations were identified.
4.
Observations The inspector observed portions of the mechanized ultrasonic examination i
of the following reactor pressure vessel welds:
Weld W 8
Weld W 16 - 2
Weld W 16 - 7
Weld W 16 - 8
The examinations were done using 1" diameter, 2.25 MH transducers and
sound beam entry angles of 0, 45 and 60 in accordance with the specific scan plan for each examination. The inspector verified that the trans-
<
ducer movement rate was within procedural requirements.
The cathode ray tube display of each transducer was recorded on video tape and will serve as a permanent record of the examination. Additionally, a strip chart record of each exam n.ation is maintained.
The video tape and the strip chart are used by the Level II individual to evaluate examination results.
In addition to the above, the inspector requested that the technical adequacy of procedure SwRI-NDT-800-100, Revision 1 be dem;nstrated on 22" diameter and 28" diameter samples of CRC piping welds which contained
cracks.
The demonstration was done in the inspector's presence by a SwRI Level II individual.
Equipment calibration for each examination was-done using licensee pro-vided calibration blocks of the same configuration as the cracked samples.
All procedural requirements regarding calibration and scanning were met, and the cracks in each sample were successfully identified.
Based on the demonstrated ability to detect cracks, the inspector stated that the procedure was acceptable for the examination of 22" diameter and 28" diameter CRC piping welds.
The procedure was deemed acceptable for the examination of 12" diameter CRC piping welds based on a previous demonstration which is discussed in Inspection Report No. 354/85-28.
,
,
_
-
c-
,
. _
- - - - - -. - -
,m
_
,, -. -
.-e--y-y,
__..
.e-,
.
.
-
-
-.
,
.
s
.
,
i
'
t No violations were identified.
5.
Independent Measurements and Calculations
During the inspector's observation of the licensee's mechanized ultrasonic examination of reactor pressure welds, the inspector made independent
calculations of the transducer movement rate. The inspector used information provided by the data acquisition system and verified by calculation that the transducer movement rate approximated 2" per second.
The inspector's calculations showed the movement rate to be within the
mandated procedural requirement that search unit movement rate for
,
scanning shall not exceed 6" per second.
'
No violations were identified.
6.
Data Review The inspection reviewed data which were generated during the ultrasonic examination of reactor pressure vessel shell to lower head weld W 8. The review was done to ascertain compliance with procedural and scan plan requirements. Additionally, the inspector assessed the clarity and usefulness of the video tape record of the examination with regard to evaluation of examination results.
The following were included in the inspector's review:
- Scan Plan Parameter Record for Examination #255 Examination #225 Scan Plan Examination Table
Calibration Sheet #570023 a
Calibration Sheet #570024
Mechanized UT Examination Record Sheet #720290
Mechanized UT Examination Record Sheet #101173
,
The inspector observed the review of the video tape and strip chart associated with weld W 8 which was done by the SwRI Level II who is responsible for evaluating the mechanized ultrasonic examination data.
Scan plan requirements were compared with the examination data and the inspector found that the scan plan was properly implemented with regard to extent of examination, required sound beam angle and frequency, and the
!
use of the proper calibration block.
i The data evaluation was done by an individual who's certification records verified that he was properly trained and qualified to' evaluate mechanized UT data.
No violations were identified.
___
-e
--~v--
, - -
c,e-yn,,
.
s.
..
-7.
Personnel Qualification / Certification Records The inspector reviewed personnel records of individuals who participated in the examinations which were observed by the inspector to ascertain that they were qualified to perform their assigned duties.
The records indicated that each individual had received special training-in the use of the mechanized equipment and that they were properly quali-fied to perform their assigned responsibilities.
No violations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph'1),
at the conclusion of the inspection on August 2, 1985. The inspector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
,
At no time during this inspection was written material provided by the inspection to the licensee.