IR 05000373/1988007

Insp Repts 50-373/88-07 & 50-374/88-07 on 880316-0603.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Inservice Insp Activities,Including Review of Programs, Procedures,Data Review & Actions on Info Notice 88-003

ML20155J517
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	06/13/1988
From:	Danielson D, Ward K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155J509	List: IR 05000373/1988007 ML20155J506
References
50-373-88-07, 50-373-88-7, 50-374-88-07, 50-374-88-7, GL-84-11, GL-88-01, GL-88-1, IEIN-88-003, IEIN-88-3, NUDOCS 8806200522
Download: ML20155J517 (5)

Text

.

.

'

.

s-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-373/88007(DRS); 50-374/88007(DRS)

Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: LaSalle Site, Marseilles, Illinois Inspection Conducted: Marcn 16, 18, ?3-24, 29-30, April 20, May 13, and June 3, 1988 Inspector:

X.A?M K. D. Ward , 6//]/#P Uate

-

Approved By: D. H. Danielson, Chief /3 Materials and Processes Date Section ,

Inspection Summary:

Inspection on March 16, 18, 23-24, 29-30, April 20, May 13, and June 3, 1988 (Reports No. 50-373/88007(DRS); No. 50-374/88007(ORS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of inservice inspection (ISI)

activities including review of programs (73051), procedures (73052), observation of work activities (73753), and data review (73755); of actions on Information Notice No. 88-03 (90717); and of a modification / replacement (37701).

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

l i

I i

l D

i a .

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

.

';-

,

', LeJ DETAILS n>

~

. [. Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)

'*G. Diederich, Station Manager

• D. Brown, QA Superintendent

• Huntington, Services Superintendent

• R. Clark, QC Supervisor

• T. Hammerich, Regui . tory Assurance

• Oclon, QC,~ISI J. Zappia, Project Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

• Lanksbury, Senior Resident Inspector

.R. Kopriva, Resident Inspector General Electric Company (GE)

. M. Heath, Site Supervisor, Level III Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (HSB)

-K. Kim, ANII The inspector also contacted and interviewed other licensee and contractor employee * Denotes those present at the exit interview June 3,-198 . Licensee Action on Information Notice (Closed) Information Notice (373/88900-01; 374/88900-01). Information-Notice No. 88-03: Cracks in shroud support access hole cover weld CECO and GE determined that the plates were seal welded to the shroud plate so that no crevices were exposed to the reactor vessel coolant; therefore no inspections are require . Inservice Inspection (ISI), Unit 1 General (1) This was the second outage of the first period of the first

[ .. ten year plan.

1'

(2) GE performed the ISI in accordance with ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addenda. The Level II and III UT personnel performing UT were qualified for detection and discrimination l*

l-

, . .-

m

,

..

..

,

.

of intergranular stress corrosion cracking.(IGSCC) by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) after September 10, 1985. All manual UT was performed by GE using the pulse-echo UT flaw

, detection instruments and various angles and MHZ transducer Also el many welds.the GE Smart ultrasonic system was use The sampling inspection plan for addressing IGSCC concerns included 30 previously examined welds, 13 welds that were not examined previously and two welds with known IGSCC indications that were found during the first outage'and still require no repair. No new IGSCC was identified during this outage. The licensee's sampling plan for addressing IGSCC concerns was in accordance with Gencric Letter 84-11 and all welds were found to be acceptable. Generic Letter 88-01 "NRC Position on IGSCC in EWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping," was sent to all licensees of BWRs and holders of construction permits for BWRs on January 25, 1988. NRR agreed with the licensee's position that the ISI program for austenitic stainless steel piping covered under the scope of Generic Letter 88-01 would be iinplemented at the next refueling outag (3) During this outage the Mechanical Stress Improvement Process (MSIP) was applied to 30 weld b. Program and Procedures The NRC inspector reviewed the ISI program and procedures and found them to be acceptable. The licensee did not make a request for relief from the ASME Code this outag c. Review of Material, Equipment and Personnel Certifications, Audits and Data The NRC inspector reviewed the documents relating to the following:

• Data report * Ultrasonic instruments, calibration blocks, transducers and UT couplant certification * Magnetic particle material, and equipment certification * Liquid penetrant material certification * NDE personnel certifications in accordance with SNT-TC-1 * Audits /Surveillance d. Observation of Work Activities The NRC inspector observed work and had discussions with personnel during the ISI activities. These observations included the following:

.

.

i., .

,

.

(1) GE personnel performing ultrasonic examinations with the GE Ultra Image III pulse-echo ultrasonic data acquisition eouipmen (2) Magnetic particle examination of the following welds on the RHR system: Welds No. 7, No. 13,.No. 16, No. 30, No. 31, No. 34, No. 35, No. 39, No. 45, No. 47, and No. 5 (3) Liquid penetrant examination of Weld No. 62 on the High Pressure Core Spray syste (4) Ultrasonic examination of the following welds on the RHR. system:

Welds No. 30, No. 31, No. 34, No. 35, No. 39, No. 45, No. 47, and No. 51 and the reactor vessel head penetration wel (5) Visual examination of Jet Pump No. 3. The instrumentation records for Jet Pump No.-3 indicated that the pump was unable

.to come up to the proper flow. During visual examination of the jet pump, it was found that the disk space,- fron. gate valve 67-A was lodged in the jet pump; however, it did not do any damag The loose pump discharge valve spacer disk was remove The gate valve was repaired and reinstalled. The jet pump was found to be acceptable by visual examination both inside and out. The system is now operable.

<

(6) Visual examination of a 1 " diameter boat sample removed from the reactor vessel skirt weld (54' 4" diameter, 4 " wide and 2.5" thick). During the magnetic particle examination of the skirt weld, two linear indications were detecte They were also ultrasonic examined by GE and CECO and were determined to be (a) axial,1.6" long,1.5" deep, and (b) circumferential,

.8" long, .3" deep. A boat sample was taken in the axial indication to try to determine the cause of the "crack-like" indication. The area where the boat sample was removed was liquid penetrant examined and found to be clear of indication This area was then repaired. The circumferential indication was removed by blendin Both indications were remagnetic particle examined and found to be acceptabl No violations or de"iations were identifie . Modifications Reactor Vessel Water Level Instrumentation System (RVWLIS)

Modification This modification consisted of installing two new reference legs with condensing chambers and restricting orifices inside the drywell for those level instruments that will be used by the operator to monitor the reactor vessel water level in the post-accident environmen . _

T'

.

.

.

~

.

,

This modification was performed in accordance with ASME Section III, 1974 Edition, with no addenda, and the tie ends were performed in accordance with ASME Section IX, 1980 Edition, Winter 1980 Addend The NRC inspector reviewed NDE and welding reports and other related NDE and. welding documents; also observed fitting, welding, and various stages of installatio No violations or deviations were identifie . Exit Meeting The inspector met with site representatives (denoted in Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the irispection. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection noted in this repor The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar l

i