ML20205J730
| ML20205J730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1988 |
| From: | Mcbrearty R, Strosnider J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205J724 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-88-26, GL-88-01, GL-88-1, NUDOCS 8810310469 | |
| Download: ML20205J730 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000219/1988026
Text
-
,
.. .
..
-
.
,
y
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION I
'
Report No.
50-219/88-26
i
Docket No.
50-219
i
'
i
License No. OPR-16
i
Licensee:
'O Nuclear Corporation
P.O. Box 388
i
Forked River, NJ 08731
[
Facility Name: Oyster Creek Generating Station
f
!
Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey
Inspection Conducted: September 9, and 12-15, 1988
/0///W
Inspectory
u
gr
A.~McBrearty, Reactor Engineer
date
/O/##
Approved by:
_
~
date
J. R. Strosnider, Chief, Materials and
Processes Section
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on September 9, 1988 and September 12-15,
'1T88 (Inspection Report No. 50-219/88-26)
Areas Inspected: A routine, unannounced inspection was conducted of the
licensee's inservice inspection (ISI) program to ascertain that the program
complies with applicable ASME Code and regulatory requirements.
Particular
emphasis was placed on the licensee's control of ISI activities such as ISI
vendor selection, control and tracking of nonconforming items, and the
incorporation of plant modifications into the ISI program.
In addition, the
licensee's respor.se to Generic Letter 98-01 was examined.
Ressly : The inspector concluded, based on the areas inspected, that the
licunsee's program complies with the mandated edition of the ASME Code and
maintains adequate control over the licensee's routine ISI activities.
The
licensee's response to GL 88-01 was timely and addressed the areas required by
the GL.
9
8810310469 681024
ADOCK 05000219
0
__
_ _ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ . -.
..
..
-
,
s
DETAILS
1.0 Persons Contacted
General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporatior. (GPUN)
- R. J. Blough, Manager Technical Support
- G. W. Busch, Licensing
D. Covill, Materials Engineer - GPUN Technical Functions
- E. E. FitzPatrick, Vice President / Director Oyster Creek
- T. Gaffney, Plant Materials
0. Holland, Senior Project Engineer
- 0. MacFarlane, Manager Quality Assurance Site Audits
0. Jerko, Licensing Engineer
- R. Ostrowski, QA/SPP
T. Patterson, Manager, QA/SPP
- G. Rhedrick, QA/ISI Engineer
- A. H. Rone, Plant Engineering Director
- M. J. Slobodien, Director, Rad Con
- R. L. Sullivan, E. P. Manager
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- E. Collins, Resident Inspector
- J. Wechselberger, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
2.0 Scope of Insgection
.
Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant
Components, of the ASME Boiler and Presssure Vessel Code provides rules
for the examination, testing, and inspection of components and systems in
a nuclear power plant.
Section XI mandates that the plant owner develop
a program which will demonstrate conformance to Code requirements, and the
licensee performs inservice inspectio.1 to comply with those requirements
and with its inservice inspection program plan.
The following areas of the inservice inspection program were selected for
inspection:
ISI organization
ISI vendor selection and qualification
System for tracking reported flaws and deficiencies to assure proper
review and closeout
Process by which plant modifications are incorporated into the ISI
p rog ram
.
f
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
..
..
l
.
-
3
'
)
In addition to the above, the licensee's response to Generic Letter 88-01
,
I
was selected for inspection.
3.0 Inservice Inspection (ISI) program (73051)
The inspector determined that the Oyster Creek facility is in the second
ten year inspection interval which commenced on December 8,1979, and
will continue until December 7, 1989. The applicable code, as specified
by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(ii), is the 1974 Edition of Section XI through
Summer 1975 Addenda.
Inservice Inspection Organization Staffing
The Special Process and Programs Division includes Nondestructive
Examination (NDE), Welding Engineering and Inservice Inspection groups,
and in addition, Materials Support to Quality Assurance.
The onsite ISI staff includes the following:
Manager ISI/NDE
ISI Engineer
NDE Engineer
The staff is aided by the NDE group which includes Level II and Level III
personnel.
During refueling outages the onsite staff is enhanced bv the
e
addition of Magnaflux Quelity Services personnel, the licensee's ISI
vendor, and by corporate staff members.
In addition General Electric
Company will perform augmented examinations for the detection of
intergranular stress corrosion crweking in austenitic stainless steel
piping welds.
The licensee's staff was found to be technically capable of performing
their assigned duties, and staff size is adequate to meet the scheduled
work load.
ISI Vendor Selection
The licensee perforns periodic surveys of its ISI vendor to initially
place the vendor on its Supplier Quality Classification List (SQCL) and
to retain the vendor on the list after the initial finding.
These
surveys are performed at the vendor's facility. Additionally, onsite
dudits of the ISI program and of vendor activities are performed during
refueling outages when these activities are in progress, and serve, in
part, to ascertain that the vendor maintains its qualification.
_
_. ..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
..
%
4
The inspector reviewed Survey Report No. 8701009 which was performed by
the licensee on February 12, 1987 at the Magnaflux Quality Services
(MQS), Inc. facility at Trevose, Pennsylvania. The purpose of the survey
was to review and verify implementation of the MQS, Inc. QA program as
it relates to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and ANSI N45.2 in providing QA and
NDE personnel services for possible placement of MQS on the licensee's
SQCL.
In addition to the above, licensee QA Audit No. S-0C-87-03 was
selected for inspection.
This was the latest audit of the ISI program
and ISI vendor onsite activities during the last refueling outage.
The
audit was performed by the licensee's onsite audit group to assess the
definition and implementation of the 151 program at Oyster Creek.
The inspector found that Survey 87010v9 resulted in one finding regarding
the certification of visual inspectors using practical test specimens
that did not contain known defects.
The survey team, which included a
level III member, recommended that MQS procure hanger, snubber and
restraint practical test specimens that contain known defects.
Audit S-0C-87-03 focused its attention on various ISI elements including
the following:
ISI organization
Personnel qualification / certification
Records management
Inspection standards
Control of recordable indications
The audit resulted in no findings which required a response by the
audited organization.
The licensee transmitted the report of Survey 8701009, including the
l
finding arid recommendation, to MQS by letter dated March 2,1987.
l
Licensee acceptance of MQS as a vendor was withheld pending the MQS
'
response to the survey finding,
The inspector determined that the MQS
response to the survey finding was provided in a timely manner, and was
acceptable to the licensee.
The recommendation to procure test samples
was implemented by MQS, and evidence of this was provided to the
licensee.
Based on the MQS response, the licensee closed out the survey
finding and pieced MQS on its SOCL,
The check lists associated with Survey 8701009 and Audit S7-03 were
examined by the inspector with respect to the appropriateness of each for
the licensee's purpose.
The inspector determined that survey and audit
elements provided sufficient variety to allow the licensee to intelli-
gently assess the ISI program implement-* ion, and its IST vendor's
capability to provide the necessary services.
No violations were identified.
-- .
____
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
.
5
Control of Nonconforming Items
The licensee's system for tracking inservice inspection items which do
not clearly meet the applicable acceptance criteria includes the use of a
"Request for Evaluation" (ER), and a "Material Noncoriformance Report"
(MNCR).
To ascertain that the licensee's system for tracking ISI nonconforming
items provides for adequate liceasee review and resolution of these items
the folicwing procedures were selected for inspection:
Procedure No. GPUN 6150-ADM-3272.03, Revision 0, Entitled "Recording
and Distribution of Non-destructive Examination Data for Inservice
Inspection"
Procedure No. GPUN 9850-ADM-3272.01, Entitled "Evaluation of
Recordable Indications"
Procedure No. 1000-ADM-7215.01, Revision 2, Entitled "GPUN Material
Nonconformance Reports and Receipt Deficiency Notices"
The inspector determined that a request for evaluation is issued by the
SPP/ISI group when an ISI report identifies a condition or an indication
that requires evaluation to ascertain its acceptability.
The evaluation
is performed by a Level II or Level III Examiner, and if additional
examinations are required they are performed by the QC NDE/ Welding
group.
Indications which are determined to be non-relevant or geometric
in nature must be documented on the ER and justification for the
evaluation provided.
Additionai evaluation, when required, is provided
by the appropriate engineering organization at the request of the ISI
group.
If the engineering group finds that the condition or indication
is unacceptable a MNCR is generated by the ISI group.
A Material Nonconformanca Report may be initiated by anyone, but Quality
Control is responsible for assigning a sequential number and for tracking
the MNCR.
The originator must deliver the MNCR to the QC Manager or his
designee during normal work hours, or to the appropriate Shift Supervisor
or Senior Plant Reactor Operator during backshifts or weekends. QC is
additionally responsible for taking measures to preclude use of the
nonconforming item and for assigning and notifying the responsible
department who evaluates the condition and proposes a disposition.
The
final disposition is provided by the cognizant engineering group.
Material Nonconformance Reports are reviewed by various levels of
management and are closed out by the QC dopartment when the disposition
is completed and verified by QC, and when the QC Manager ascer'ains that
all required reviews and sign offs are completed.
Sign off by L'e QC
Manager indicates the closecut of the MNCR.
,
_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
_
_
. _ _ _
_ _ - _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
..
%
6
In addition to the above, the follosing MNCRs were selected for inspection
to ascertain whether closecut was properly done and was based on the
documented engineering disposition:
MNCR #86-498 - opened to track nonconforming conditions documented
by a visual inspection report.
MNCR #86-632 - opened to track an unacceptable ultrasonic
indication.
MNCR #86-432 - opened to track nonconforming conditions documented
by a visual examination report.
MNCR #86-426 - opened to track a nonconforming condition documented
by a visual examination report.
MNCR #86-605 - opened to track unacceptable ultrasonic indications.
The MNCRs resulted from evaluation requests which addressed conditions
which were found to be unacceptable and required rework or repair to
become acceptable.
The inspector determined that initiation, processing,
review and closecut of the MNCRs was in accordance with the licensee's
,
i
established system.
No violations were identified.
Incorporating Plant Modifications into the Inservice Inspection Program
Plant modifications and design changos are controlled by the licensee
with the following Technical Cunc'.lons Division and Quality Assurance
Engineering procedures:
Procedure No. 5000-ADM-7315.01, Revision 2-00, entitled
"Specifications"
Procedure No. 5000-ADM-7313.11, Revision 3-01, entitled
"Modification and System Design Descriptions"
Procedure No. 9800-QAP-7203.01, Revision 1, entitled "GPUN QA Review
of Engineering Specifications, Installation Specifications,
Modification and System Design Descriptions"
The inspector reviewed the above procedures and found that Quality
Assurance Engineering is required to review modifications and design
change packages with respect to inservice inspection requirements
including preservice inspection of new welds.
.
The procedures required that conditions shall be identified for
performing ISI during operation or shutdown and, in addition, access
requirements to accommodate ISI must be identified.
-
,
.
.
-
s
,
7
In addition to the above, the inspector reviewed the fol' lowing modifica-
tion package which was completed during the last refueling outage:
Reactoi Head Vent Valve Modification
The inspector found that all required reviews were performed as evidenced
by the completed sign offs. Additionally, the applicable edition of ASME
Section XI was referenced, and the requirements for preservice inspection
of new welds was identified.
The appropriate welding records and NDE
reports were included in the package and in addition, the Code required,
properly completed NIS-2 Form was included.
The NDE reports contained
all the required QC, ISI and ANI signatures.
The inspector determined that the modification was initiated, reviewed
and performed in accordance with the licensee's established system.
No violations were identified.
4.
Licensee Response to Generic Letter (GL) 83-01 "NRC Position on
WSCC in SW Austenitic Stainless Steel PipIF(~9270T)
--
Intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) near weldments in BWR
piping has been occurring for almost 20 years.
Early cases were in
relatively small diameter p! ping.
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.
These inspections have resulted in
the detection of significant numbers of cracked weldments in almost all
operating BWRs.
Substantial efforts in research and development have been sponsored by
the BWR Owners Group for IGSCC Research.
The results of this program
along with other related work by vendors, consulting firms, and
confirmatory research sponsored by the NRC, have permitted the
development of revised Staff Positions regarding the IGSCC nroblems.
The technical bases for these positions are detailed in NUREG-0313,
Revision 2. "Technical Report on Material Selection and Guidelines for
BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping",
NUREG-0313 Revision 2 describes
the technical bases for the staff positions on materials, processes, and
primary coolant chemistry to minimi:e 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 ASME B&OV Code in cases where the piping material is IGSCC
resistant.
,
%
..
..
,
s
8
This Generic Letter applies to all BWR piping made of austentitic
stainless steel that is four inches or larger in nominal diameter and
contains reactor coolant at 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 instrumentation
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 Itcensees to constitute an acceptable response to the GL.
The licensee's response to the GL dated August 12, 1988 was reviewed by
the inspector to ascertain that applicable systems were identified, welds
were categorized and inspection schedules were established in ac:ordance
with Table 1 of NUREG-0313, Revision 2.
The inspector found that the licensee responded to the GL within the
allotted time and that the response addressed the five areas listed by
the Generic Letter.
The licensee has developed an inspection schedule based upon the
categories defined by the NUREG and the GL.
The weld categories in this
plan are predicated upon stress improvement plans which will be performed
during the upcoming 12 R outage, and Hydrogen Water Chemistry which will
be implemented upon the plant returning to power operation after the 12 R
outage.
The licensee plans to conduct inservice inspections during the
12 R outage in accordance with the existing plan based on Generic Letter 84-11.
The licensee met with the NRC (NRR) on May 26, 1988 and again on June 28,
1988 to discuss the licensee's plans for outage 12 R and its plans regarding
1GSCC inspection / stress improvement.
These meetings were the subject of
NRC correspondence to the licensee dated 6/16/88 and 7/6/88.
Correspondence from the licensee to the NRC dated 2/16/88 and 4/5/88
provided information regarding the licensee's plans for outage 12 R.
The S/16/88 NRC letter advised the licensee that the information
presented in its correspondence of 2/16/38 and 4/5/88 and during the
meeting of 5/26/88 would be reviewed by the staff and that the licensee
would be advised of the staff's position regarding the matter.
The NRC
letter of 7/6/88 discussed items presented by the licensee during the
6/28/83 meeting and requested additional, specific information from the
licensee.
The licensee response was contained in its letter of 8/1/88.
At the tirne of this inspection the licensee had not yet been advised of
the staff's position.
1
- - _ _ _
.
..
~,
..
9
5.
Exit Meeting
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on September 15, 1988.
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.
.