ML20236F525
| ML20236F525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1987 |
| From: | Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Lewis M LEWIS, M. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236F529 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8708030375 | |
| Download: ML20236F525 (2) | |
Text
_ ___
w asa O c ke r fe s
- of
'o UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c.
- ,E REGION 1 l
o 4
631 PARK AVENUE g$9.....,d, KING OF PRUDslA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 23 JUL 1987 Mr. Marvin Lewis 7801 Roosevelt Bo,evard #62 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19152
Dear Mr. Lewis:
I.am responding to your question directed to Senator John Glenn regarding an allegation made concerning the Limerici Generating Station. The alleger stated that he had observed a ten inch long crack in the B recirculation i
l system suction valve and that no corrective actions were taken.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, reviewed this allegation and found it to be unsubstantiated. A copy of the NRC letter to Philadelphia Electric Company dated May 29, 1984; their response dated June 18, 1984; the NRC inspection reports discussing this concern; and the allegation closecut letter dated August 28, 1984 are enclosed for your information.
Thank you for your interest.
I am confident the. documentation provided will resolve your question in this matter.
Sincerely, i
h e- >k William T. Russell Regional Administrator 1
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. T. Hirsch Office of Senator John Glenn United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 870803037S h h 5;2 PDR ADOCK PDR N
28 JUL 1987 O
Mr. Marvin Lewis 2
DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosures T. Murley J. Murray W. Russell J. Allan W. Kane y
S. Collins R. Gallo J. Linville E. Kelly S. Varga B. Boger W. Butler R. Clark 1
EDO 003022 Secy No.87-836 Docket No. 50-352 Public Document Room Local Public Document Room E00 Reading File Commonwealth of Pennsylvania O C (+
l l
l i
i i
l 5
i
)
)
I l
L----------------------------
I
{
' ~q UNITED STATES J'-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
p I
REGION I k
/
$31 PARK AVENUE
/
KING oF PRUS$lA, PENNSYLVANIA 194o6 3
Docket No. 5D-352 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. John 5. Kemper Vice President Engineering and Research 2301 Market Street i
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemen:
This office has received an anonymous allegation which states that a circumferen-tial cr ck about 10 inches long exists in the valve body of the B recirculation system pump suction valve.
The alleged crack in the valve was noted by an indi-vidual while leaving the inside of the recirculation pipe following the removal of a sealing diaphragm which had been used a:; a seal for Argon purging of the pipe.
The alleger indicated that:
his concerns were identified to others, including a QC representative; a visual inspection was performed, and; no corrective action was taken, and the valve was closed up.
In order for us to make a determination whether or not a problem exists, we re-quest that you provide ys your evaluation in writing, within 20-days, identifying the records and/or actions taken which demonstrate'that no unacceptable crack i
exists in the valve body.
In the event that the records are not sufficient to support a conclusion, please describe your proposal to resolve this matter.
Upon completion of our review of your evaluation and subsequent inspection, as necessary, we will advise you of our ' determination.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, I
C.
Richard W. sStarostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs cc:
V. S. Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel Limerick Hearing Service List Fublic Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania y w', L. 1
-o v7 G
d vVg
/ ~'
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 j
PHILADELPHIA FA.19101 (a t si s4 i.a son
""~0*S"""
JUN 181984 i
I l
l l
Hr. Thomas E. Nrley, Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region I j
631 Park Avenue i
l King of Prussia, PA 19406 Subj ec t: USNRC IE Region Letter dated May 29, 1984 RE:
Anonymous Allegation - Cracked Valve Limerick Generating Station - Unit 1 Pile: GO7T 1-1 (Allega tions)
Dear Mr. Murley:
i I
In response to the subject letter regarding an anonymous allegation stating that a crack existed in the valve body of the B recirculation system pump suction valve, we transmit herewith the f ollowing:
Attachment I - Response to Anonymous Allegation Should you have any questions concerning this item, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sinc er ely, h/A -82 0
JPE/drd/840615/3 Attachment Copy to: Director of Inspection and Enforcement United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission m shington, DC 20555 S. K. Chaudhary, USNRC Resident Inspector i
1 D s o r~lO d. ~y,d r + ?
1 y-s l
l
ATTACHMENT I RESPONSE TO ANONYMOUS ALLEGATION Anonymous Allegatiot-
"a circumferenetial crack about 10 inches long exists in the valve body of the "B" recirculation system pump suction valve. The alleged crack in the valve was noted by an individual while leaving the inside of the recirculation pipe following the removal of a sealing diaphram which had been used as a seal for Argon pnging of the pipe."
Response
Visual inspecti ne of the incide diameter of this valve were perfomed en June 14, 1984 for the alleged crack.
No such orack was found. The only thing that could possibly be what the alleger saw waa an acceptable surface irregularity, not a crack, where the factory machined the area of the weld betweenthe seat ring and valve body.
Further, there were several documented quality control inspections on the inside diameter of this valve during the installation with satisfactory results and no evidence of there having been a crack in the valve body.
The available Quality Control and Welding Engineers were questioned regarding the alleger's indication "his ooneerns were identified to others, including a QC representative.
A visual inspection was performed and no corrective action was taken, and the valve was closed up".
There was no recollection of such a conversation on the part of the Quality Control personnel or welding engineers.
l i
l I
I 1/1 i
J
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
ss.
i COUFIY OF PHILADELPHIA JOSEPH W. GALLAGHER, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is Manager, Enginee. ring and Research Department of Philadelphia Electric Company, the holder of Construction Permits CPPR-106 and CPPR-107 f or Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; that he has read the f oregoing Response to the Anonymous Allegation l
regarding the recirculation pump suction valve ("B" loop) and knows j
the contents thereof; and that the statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
f i
~
'. !/: : ;
A b A
v v
l Subscribed and sworn to before me this day IAW of
$k 1
Notary Public PATRICIA D. SCHOLO hotsi Public. Philadelphia. Philadciphia CO, My Commission f.xpires February 10,1986 1
I 3
I t
l I
?
~
$matop UNITED STATES o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
y g
ftEGION i
.j 631 PARK AVENUE o
KING OF PRUSSI A, PENNSYLVANIA A 19406 JUN 2 0' 1984 Docket Nos. 50-352; 50-353 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. John S. Kemper Vice President Engineering and Research 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Combined Inspection 50-352/84-24; 50-353/84-08 This refers to the routine resident and region-based safety inspection by Messrs.
S.K. Chaudhary, J. T. Wiggins and J. Raval on May 1 - 31, 1984 at the Limerick Generating Station, Limerick, Pennsylvania. The inspection consisted of document reviews, interviews, and observation of activities, and the results have been discussed with Messrs. G. M. Leitch and J. M. Corcoran of your staff.
Apparent violations of NRC requimments are cited in Appendix A and categorized under the NRC Enforcement Policy,10 CFR 2 Appendix C (49 FR 8583), March 8,1984.
A reply is required and rhould be prepared in accordance;with Appendix A.
It is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget's clearance procedures under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notifycthis office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and"su'bmit written appli-cation to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter.
Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1).
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely, L
McL~b 1
~
Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident
Enclosures:
Programs 1.
Appendix A, Notice of Violation 2.
NRC Region I Combined Report 50-352/84-24; 50-353/84-08 S t' n ~7I/ d d ? N I
Philadelphia Electric Company 2
cc w/ encl:
Y. S. Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Potter Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Eugene J. Bradley, Es uire, Assistant General Counsel Public Document Pm m PDR)
Local Public Document Rom (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Infomation Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Limerick Hearing Service List bec w/ encl:
l Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Senior Operations Officer (w/o encis)
J. Gutierrez, RI DPRP Section Chief - E. Conner Jane Grant, DPRP L. Briggs T. Martin,, RI S. Ebneter, RI t
I 1
l l
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMTSS10N REGION I 84-24 Report No.
64-08 50-352 Docket No.
50-353 CPPR-106 B
License No.
CPPR-107 Priority Category A
Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street j
l Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
]
Facility Name:
Limerick Generating Station Inspection At:
Limerick, Pa.
Inspection Conducted:
May 1 - 31, 1984 Inspectors:
l b
%y Cfiaudhag Senior Isident Inspectorchby S.
date yT W I
, Senior Resident Inspector date
/k,'ds-C-c /g/N c
WRa4, Reactor Engineer date Approved by: ((
n-S
/
g E. L. Conner Qlief, RBactor PrVjectS date Section 38 1
Inspection Sumary: Combined Inspection Report for' Inspection Conducted May 1 - 51, 1984.
(Report ~Nos. 50-352/54-24; 50-353/84-08)
Areas Inspected:
Routine inspections by the resident inspectors and a region-based inspector of:
followup of previous inspection items (Units 1 and 2); preoperational test program implementation verification; preoperational test procedure review; preoperational ztest witnel, sing;<cuggnistanqtyJes;$
jan field-e
.s6HtIon implemented electrical separation criteria;'rgndikof"-
f valve leakage control system design, installation and system turnover; review of system startup engineers' requalification examination results; review of vane-axial fan groundi long-tenn equipment storage maintenance (Unit 2); and followup on Constriction Deficienc ;
Reports. The inspection involved 85 manhours for Unit 1 and 35 manhours for Unit 2.
Results: Two violations were identified:
failure to adequately conve of a system from top-tier to lower-tier drawings (Paragraph 8, Unit 1)y the design basis
- and, failure to adequately follow the long-tenn storage maintenance procedures for Unit 2 equipment (Paragraph 11).
In addition, three significant unresolved items were identified.
They are: (1) the acceptability of the licensee's current plan not to complete connection of the standby gas treatment system to the refueling zone until prior to the first refuelin outage (Paragraph 6); (2)the a. ceptability of the revised field criteria for electrical separation (Paragraph 7); and, (3) the acceptability of the current main steam isolation valve leakage control system design (Paragraph 8).
f d ~.. d d o f f)
V 'T r / s y 3
-(
4
3
(
osed)
Follow Item 50-352/84-10-02:
Revision of FSAR to show status of e Unit 2 Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) pumps.
The insp tor reviewed the disposition to Startup Field Report (SFR) 16A-7 which dicated that Licensing Document Change Notice #FS-484 had been issued t revise the FSAR to show the Unit 2 RHRSW pumps will receive power from nit 2-related offsite power supplies.
(Closed)
Fo ' ow Item 50-352/84-19-01:
Resolution of NRC comments on-preoperationa' test procedure, P59.37 :The inspector' reviewed. Test; Change Notice (TCN)1 P59.3 which incorporated into Appendix B of the procedure requirements to 1 the calibration dates for the drywell'-to-Suppression Pool vacuum bmaker sition indicating switches.
Test records indicate these calibrations w perfomed on 4/24/84.
(Closed)
Unresolved It 50-352/80-17-02: No criteria specified for cutting of rebar in block 11s.
Bechtel Engineering issued PFEM-1697 directing the field not to sly the criteria for cutting'rebar in concrete walls to rebar cutti in block walls.
Cut Reinforcing Steel Reports, as defined in Job Rule 28, were reviewed for arty cut rebar in Q-listed block walls.
The bars t were cut without prior engineering approval were reported on NCR 4332. ~ Civil Quality Control Engineers -
received training in this matter.
her, criteria for cutting rebar in block walls were issued in DCN 8 to rawing C-608, Revision 10.
In addition, the' following items were adm istratNily closed as a result and no further problems identified in the a licable program areas:
Follow Item 50-352/80-09-03 Follow Item 50-352/80 4 -05 (Closed) Unresolved Item 50-353/79-06-01: Structu 1 steel radial box beam end connections. This item was resolved for. Uni 1 (79-06-02) in inspection report 50-352/81-16. The resolution equally pplies to Unit 2 activities.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 50-353/78-06-01: ASME Code Namepla s may interfere with preservice and inservice inspection. This item s resolved for Unit 1 [78-10-01),in ins equa119%$N1Wth"tinit't.'"pection report 50-352/81-10. The res lution
" " ~ ~
' '~~
3.
P1 ant Tour Periodically during this inspection period, the inspectors toured the Unit 1 containment, reactor enclosure, control room, diesel. generator enclosures, the Unit 2 reactor enclosure and containment and the Spray Pond Pumphouse.
The inspectors examined completed work and work in progress for indications of defective workmanship or nonconformance to project specifications.
Special emphasis was placed on the involvement
4 I
of site quality control personnel.
The inspectors reviewed applicable drawings, procedures and reports to assess the state of completion of the facility and the preoperational test ' program.
Specifically, the inspectors witnessed a portion of the installation of 5 drywell temperature elements and relocation of 2 otners under the controls of Startup Work Order 60A-64. Additionally, the vendor data i
package, QC inspection records and vendor redicaraohs for the recircu-
]Rion system suction valves were rev1ewed.
No violations were identified.
4 Preoperational Test Procedure Review and Verification inspector reviewed the below-listed preoperational test procedures to ssure they were in conformance with the licensee's administrative ins etions and to assure that the test procedures adequately fulfilled the t t commitments provided in the FSAR and the SER. No coments resulte from this review.
1 Procedures viewed:
P32.2 C trol Room Isolation and Purge System P3.1 E/F H 13.2 KV Power No violations wer identified.
5.
Preoperational Test
- tnessing, The inspector witnessed rtions of the following preoperational tests:
P4.1 4.16 KV Power P24.1 Standby Diesel G rators In each case, the inspector veri.
a copy of the approvad test procedure was in use, test personnel were f liar with the test methods and proced-ures, results were adequately record and the system startup engineer was. familiar with the requirements. reg ing. test chang 3' notices and test exceptions.
~~
~ ~ ~ " ^
For P24.1, the inspector witnessed one of t five required successive starts of the D diesel generator, conducted o 5/30, using starting air from only one air receiver.
The diesel st ed successfully, however, it failed to stabilize within the requi d frequency band.
The generator frequency overshoot upon startup an did not stablize to less than 61.5 Hz in the required 10 seconds.
T startup engineer indicated that this matter was under review by Bechte Engineering and by the vendor.
The tentative prescribed corrective act'on involves readjustment of the diesel govemor.
This action will b performed on all four diesels.
Bechtel Engineering is also reviewing the frequency band requ'rements to determine if the five completed starts of the D diesel generat should be declared unsuccessful and not counted toward the 23 sequentia successful starts required by Regulatory Guide 1.108.
The inspec r will follow this matter.
L -
<e.-
[
'o UNjTED STATES 8"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
I REGION I P
g 631 PARK AVENUE g
,e KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 AUG 0 21964 Docket Nos. 50-352; 50-353 l
l Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. John S. Kemper Vice President Engineering and Research 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pa 19101 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Combined Inspection 50-352/84-26; 50-353/84-09 This refers to the routine resident safety inspection by Messrs. S. K. Chaudhary and J. T. Wiggins on June 1 - 30, 1984 at the Limerick Generating Station, Limerick, Pennsylvania. The inspection consisted of document reviews, interviews, and observation of activities, and the results have been discussed with Messrs.
G.M. Leitch and J. M. Corcoran of your staff.
Apparent violations of NRC requirements are cited in Appendix A and categorized under the NRC Enforcement Policy,10 CFR 2 Appendix C (49 FR 8583), March 8, 1984. A reply is required and should be prepared in accordance with Appendix A.
It is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget's clearance procedures under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Because of NRC Region I's concerns regarding implementation of the preopera-tional test program for Unit 1, Region I management met with you, Mr. M. J.
l Cooney and Mr. G. M. Leitch on June 16, 1984. At this meeting, you described those actions which had been taken to strengthen the program. The actions you described were acceptable and appeared responsive to our concerns. We will continue to monitor your activities in this area.
In accordance with 10 CFil 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the QfAG i n c ;.:
T-'.
- AUG O 21984
.date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1).
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely, I
I O
r tarostecki, Director l
Division of Project and Resident l
i Programs
Enclosures:
l
- 1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation
- 2. NRC Region I Combined Report 50-352/84-26; 50-353/84-09 cc w/encls:
l V.S. Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power l
Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Eugene J. Bradley, Esquire, Assistance General Counsel Public Document Rocm (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
NRC Resident Insepctor l
Connonwealth of Pennsylvania Limerick Hearing Service List bec w/encis:
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Senior Operations Officer (w/o encis)
J. Gutierrez, RI DPRP Section Chief Jane Grant, DPRP L. Briggs T. Martin, RI S. Ebneter, RI l
D U. S. UUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
REGION I 84-26 Report No._ 84-09 50-352 Docket Nc; 50-353 CPPR-106 B
Category A
License No.
CPPR-107 Priority Licensee:
Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
^
Facility Name:
Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 Inspection at:
Limerick, Pa.
Inspection Conducted:
June 1 - 30,1984 J
A Inspectors: MdiaE7In L f 7
/N S.
K. ChaTJdhary, Senior Resident Inspector Date Dtul w -
,/g/w T. blig iM,4 enior Resident Inspector
'Date S
,d k cL%I 7//MG bT. Baunack, Project Engineer Uate 4....N. h L -. s A. l s
- 5. R*.ynolds, tReactor Engineer Date
,lalvt D. Vito/ Reactor Engineer
/0015 kebdAbYL-7/21/s'/
a urc4ee by:
R. M. Gallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Date Section 2A Instecticn Suna ry-Combined Inspection Report for Inspection Conducted June 1 - 30, 1964 (Report Nos. 50-352/84-z6; 50-363/84-09 )
i Areas Inspected: Routine insp sctions by the resident inspectors and region-based inspectors of:
followup on outstanding inspection items; followup on construction deficiency reports; TMI action plan followup; preoperationt.1 test procedure review and test witnessing; calibration of the primary containment vacuum relief valve position indication system; and recirculation valve indication. The inspection involved 135 hours0.00156 days <br />0.0375 hours <br />2.232143e-4 weeks <br />5.13675e-5 months <br /> for Unit 1, of which 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br /> were by the regional inspectors,and 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> for Unit 2.
l Results: Two violations were identified: inadequate test program implementation (para. 6); inadequate calibration procedure (para. 7). In addition, an indication found in the B reactor recirculation pump suction valve was reviewed.and found not to be a crack. The test program violation is particularly significant because of the current pace of preoperational activities and because of the importance to safety of the systems involved. Increased licensee attention to this matter is warranted.
V:9 !!O n 1/ c0,
I Y v % 7 -- v j
13
)
7.
Calibration of the Primary Containment Vacuum Relief Valve Position i
Indication system I
The inspector reviewed the calibration records for the primary contain-ment vacuum relief (PCVR) position indicating switches. This review.
was t assure these switches were calibrated to the= sensitivity required to demo trate that the potential steam bypass of the. suppression pool through a partially open vacuum relief would be adequately indicated j
to plant-rato rs.
In its respo e to FSAR question 480.7, the licensee stated that-valve opening detectable at a disc lift of 0.06 inches or greater 2
above the valve eat.
If all eight vacuum relief valves (2 in series rs) were open 0.06 inc on each of 4 down e less than the 0.05 ftges, the corresponding bypass leakage area would assumed in the containment analyses.
4 FSAR section 9.4.5 desc bed the valve position indicators as sets of redundant, plunger-type tches with a differential travel of 0.004-inches. This differential ravel, when multiplied through the mechanical linkage to the valve disc, 1d be attained if the valve disc travelled 0.06 inches off its seat.
)
Based on the above, the inspector ought to verify that the calibration procedure for the position switches as such that the 0.06 inch travel distance at time of switch actuation as verified. A review of calibration data on the switches, ZS-57-137A-i/ A-2' hrough D-1/D-2 showed that the -
required sensitivity was not attained, records 1ndicated only the open/ closed indications wert tested and th exact actuation points for the open/ closed switches were not recorded adjusted.
The inspector infonned the Startup Director and he bead Results and Test Engineer that the calibration procedure use or these position switches was inadequate. Failure to provide an ad ate calibration procedure for the PCVR position indicating switches ~
1sted 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V requirements.
(50- 352/84-26-0 8
Visual Indication on the Internal Surface of Reactor Recirculation Valve The licensee identified internal surface indications in the reactor coolant recirculation system valve B32-lF0238.
In inspection report 50-352/84-24, the inspector documented the results of nis review of the radiograph reader sheets and the accompanying vendor and receipt documents associated with the B reactor recirculation pump i
suction vsive B32-1F0233. There were no problems identified in the documents reviewed.
In response to a 5/29/84 letter from NRC Region I, the licensee. conducted a visual inspection of the valve internals. Access to the valve was gained by entry into the suction line' 28" pump via the reactor vessel.
As a result, the licensee identified a circumferential indication at the.
weld joint between the valve seat ring and the valve bcdy casting,
__m__.._m_mm__
14 f
2 A region-based inspector also reviewed the document package for the valve.
The valve body is cast stainless steel SA351, grade DF8M and the seat ring is centrifugally cast SA351, grade 3A (with high ferrite). The seat ring l
was welded to the valve body with E308L filler metal and the SMAW process.
Discussions with GE NEB 0 (San Jose) indicated the seat was hardfaced with the GTAW process. Available data showed that the filler metal was Stellite i
6 meeting MIL-R-17131A, Type R Co-Cr-A. The hardfacing is approximately 3/32" thick with a minimum thickness detemined by (dilution) hardness requirements. GE NEB 0 stated that the ring to body weld penetrant test was done with a water-washable technique. The location of the indication is consistent with the layout of the weld area and the junction of the i
joint level on the valve body side of the seat ring to valve body weld.
1 1
Representatives of GE, Bechtel, PECO and the NRC reviewed photographs l
of the indication. The conclusion of the review was that the cause of the indication was a lack of weld metal sufficiant to " clean-up" the weld area during post-weld machining. The indication was not a crack and was of a configuration such that no stress concentration was to be expected.
The stress applied in service for the valve tody to seat ring weld was detemined to be negligible and the weld it rot part of the i
valve's pressure boundary.
Further, the materials involved are notch insensitive and the indication (surface irre 1
an adverse effect on the valve's perfomance.gularities) would not have l
The inspector visually examined another valve, B32-2F031B, which was identical to the valve with the indication.
The inside weld face (reported by GE to be a 450 bevel on the valve body side and 200 bevel
^
l on the ring side) was observed with minor round visual indications that would pass a water-washable penetrant test.
The NRC inspector concurred with the technical findings of the licensee and had no further questions regarding this matter.
9.
Un. resolved Items Unre ved items are matters about which more information is neCessary to asce in whether they Ace violations, deviations, or acceptable items.
Unresolve tems are discussed in paragraph 4 of this inspection report.
- 10. Meeting on Preop ational Test Program Implementation On June 20, 1984, a tour of the Limerick facility, Mr. R. W.
Starostecki, Director, ision of Project and Resident Programs, Region I, met with Mr. G.
eitch to discuss NRC-perceived weaknesses in the licensee's lamentation of the Unit 1 preopera-tional test program. These weakn ses were considered to have resulted l
l in the violations identified during is and previous reporting periods.
Special emphasis was placed on the ext t of involvement in program activities by the pemanent PECO station aff.
i On June 26, 1984, Mr. J. S. Kemper, Vice Presi t Engineering and Research and Mr. M. J. Cooney, Manager Nuclear P uction met onsite with Mr. Starostecki and Mr. H. B. Kister, Chief, P ects Branch 2, to describe those actions taken to strengthen the prog These actions will be evaluated during future inspections.
I