IR 05000259/1981007
| ML18025B498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1981 |
| From: | Girard E, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18025B497 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-81-07, 50-259-81-7, 50-260-81-07, 50-260-81-7, 50-296-81-07, 50-296-81-7, NUDOCS 8105120585 | |
| Download: ML18025B498 (7) | |
Text
~ REqy
Op p
0O IVl n
++*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTAST;, N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA,.GEORGIA30303 Repor t. Nos. 50'-259/81-07, 50-260/81.-07 and. 50-296/81.-07 Licensee:
Tennessee Val ley Authority 500A Chestnut. Street.
Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name:
Browns Ferry Docket Nos. 50-Z59, 50-260 and 50-296 License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-5Z and DPR-68 Inspection at TVA Nuclear Power Division Offices in Chattanooga, Enspector:
E.
H. Girar Approved by:
. Herdt, Section Chief Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division Tennessee Date Signed D
e Signed SUMMARY'nspected on March 9-12, 1981 Areas Inspected.
This routine; announced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of open items (Unit 2), inservice inspection program review (Units 1, 2 and 3), inservice inspection procedures review (Units 1,
and 3)
and inservice inspection records review (Unit 2).
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were. identifie REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licen see:- Emp 1'oy.ees
- W. E. Andrews,. Chief', gA Staff
~R'. A. Sessoms, Chief,, Controls and Test Branch
"R. H. Daniel, Supervisor, Baseli'ne-and. Inservice. Inspection (IS?) Section
"G. L. Belew, Supervisor,,
Codes and Standards Section
"M. E. Gothard, Mechanical Engineer, Baseline and ISI Section
"J. Lewis, Mechanical Engineer, Codes and Standards Section
- Attended exit interview, Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 12, 1981, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed)
Infraction (260/80-28.-01.):
Inadequate Liquid Penetrant Examina-tion The.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) response letters dated November 10 and December 9, 1980, have-been reviewed and determined accept-able, by Region ZI..
The: NRC inspector held discussions. with the licensee's, Level II'1 NDE Examiner-and. reviewed; the. licensee's corrective actions as stated 'n the response letters.
The inspector concluded that TVA'ad determined: the full extent. of the subject noncompliance.
and performed the actions necessary to correct the conditions 'present.
and. to preclude recur-rence.
The corrective actions identified in the. letter of response have been implemented.
Unresolved Items Unresolved, items-are.. matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions.
New unresolved.'items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 5 and 6..
Inservice Inspection- - Review of Program (Units 1, 2. and,3)
The. inspector-reviewed'elected:
inservice inspection (ISI) program areas to, determine conformance with regulatory requirements" and, licensee.
commitments identified'n the FSAR and. the technical specifications.
These areas included program document'evision and approval, gA requirements, inspection scope and schedule, relief request approval, and technical specification ISI change Program Document. Revision and, Approval- (Units 1, 2 and. 3)
The" licensee'.
ISL, program is described: in Surveill'ance Instructions
.
4.6.G.(Units 1. and-2 licensee: approved, February 11.,
1980)
and 4.6.G.
(Uni'i= 3.'". Ti'censee. approved. February: 28, 1979).
The. 1'icensee i'nformed" the inspector thaC the-ISI. program. for the:- three units had. been under review'by'he= NRC" but that it had'ever been either approved. or disap-proved QA Requirements;(Units.
1 and;2).
The inspector reviewed the-licensee's Units
and 2 ISI program for proper QA requirements for:
(1).
Personnel qualifications and responsibilities (2)
Documentation, reporting and acceptance-requirements (3)
Review. and control of ISI, procedures (4)
Components covered by the. program (5)
Establishment of inspection procedures
,(6)
Control of work conditions, equipment, and methods (7)
Recording and review of findings Inspection Scope and Schedule (Units l. and 2)
The inspector reviewed the. Units 1 and 2: ISI program for proper speci'-
fication of:
(1)
Arear to. be. examined..
(2)'xamination'category (3)-
Method: of'nspection (4-)
Extent of,examinati'on (5)
Excepti ons< to code requirements.
(6)
Inspection interval schedule In reviewing"the schedule described in the program,. the inspector noted that Units 1. and. 2 had been in operation for more than the= first, third (cycle) of their initial ISI interval without-completing required inspections.
The: licensee. stated that they were extending the cycles for Units 1". and.. 2. based,,
on an extension permitted by the. applicable Code, (ASME Section XI. (71S71))
and. a. proposal submitted. to NRC.
requesting:
a. change:. in cycle dates to put all three units" on the same cycle: (letters. dated. July: 11, *1979 and; December 24',, 1980).
The Code.
requi'rement. referred. to, by. the. 1'icensee (IS-241'f ASME Section XI);
permits. the interva.l-to-be extended'y. one year-for ISI, periods. to be-concurrent: with plant outages-.
The inspector was informed'hat the interval'as actual'ly being: extended to allow performance of inspec-tions which the licensee;had,mistakenly failed to perform. not. for the inspection to be concurrent with outages.
This apparent nonconformance
d.
with Code requirements is considered an unresolved item. identified as 259:; 260/81.-07-04,
"ISI Schedule".
The licensee stated that; they are..
revising the ISI: program, document: to better define the required inspections'.and: to, provide..a. single concurrent. program and schedule for all three. units.
The 1'icensee.
agreed to provide a, copy. of the; revised program to NRC R'egion-It when-it.
is.-- complete.:-,
The. inspector made:
receipi: of. this'ocument inspector followup item 259;260,296/81-07-02.,
"Revi sed ISI. Program".".
Relief Requests (Units 12', and 3)
The licensee informed the inspector that ISI program relief requests had been submitted to the NRC for approval in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(5)
requirements, but that none of the requests had been either approved or disapproved.
The NRC inspector examined a licensee relief request submittal letter for Unit 3 dated December ll, 1978.
The inspector informed the licensee that this area, would be identified as inspector followup item 259, 260, 296/81-07-01,
"Status of Relief.
Requests".
e.
Technical Specification ISI Requirement Changes, (Units 1, 2, and 3)
The inspector noted that; the first third of the ISI inspection interval had been completed for Units 1 and. 2. and that 10. CFR 50.55a(g)
required.
a. change in ISI Code requirements.
This change would conflict with ISI, requirements given. in the technical specifications for Units
and." 2 and; the. inspector asked, the licensee if'mended technical specifica-tions for-the units. had'. been. submitted.(as; required. by 10 CFR 50:55a; (g)(5)(ii))
The. licensee. stated. that. they had not.
They informed the inspector that they had'. previously notified., the NRC'hat ISI; technical specification amendments, for. Units 1. and.
2. would not. be submitted until details. of ISI'echnical specification changes submitted for Unit 3 had been resolved; The inspector was shown a. letter from the licensee-to the NRC (NRR - Division of Operating Reactors)
dated December 19, 1978, confirming this action.
The inspector informed the licensee that their apparent failure to submit required technical speci'fication amendments for Units'. and 2. would be-identified as unresolved item 259, 260/81.-
07'-05, "Technical Specification Changes".
Within the areas. examined, no vioTations.or deviations. were identified..
I'nservice. Inspection; R'eview of'Procedures (Units 1, 2. and 3)
The. licensee. informed; the; inspector that. their. nondestructive examination procedures..
were, written to comply with ASME S'ection XI. (74S75).
The inspector reviewed two liquid. penetrant;,
and.
one ultrasonic; examination procedures for compliance with ASMESection XI (74S75).
a.
Penetrant Examination Procedures:
N-PT-3, Revision
and N-PT-1, Revision
b.
These, procedures, were. reviewed'or proper specification of test. method..
brand'ames; and. types of penetrant. examination materials, controls on sulfur and; halogens procedure. steps,,
examinati'on surface: temperature; and qual,ification..
Ul'trasonic. Examination Procedure:., N-UT-9, Revision
This procedure was reviewed for proper specification of apparatus, extent of coverage.,
calibration, search units, beam angle, distance amplitude correction, reference reflectors, scanning setting, demon-stration of penetration, limits for evaluation, recording and recording method.
The inspector found that the procedure failed to specify requirements for identifying the location of the portions.of welds examined for welds examined on a sampling basis.
Further, in reviewing records, as, described in paragraph 7 below, the inspector found several instances where weld portions examined were not identified.
The inspector noted that the failure to identify specifically the portions of welds examined could lead to improper sampling and noncompliance with Code (ASIDE Section XI) requirements for percent of welds to be checked.
This apparent inadequacy in the procedure was identified as unresolved item 259, 260, 296/81-07-03,
"Identification of Portion Examined for fields Examined. on a Sampling Basis".
Within the. areas examined, no.violations or deviations were identified; S
Inservice. Inspection Data Review and Evaluation. (Unit 2)
The NRC'nspector reviewed selected areas of the licensee's ISI data from the September October 1980 outage. for compliance with the requirements of the applicable-Code ASME Section XI (71S71)
and the licensee's ISI program.
The areas reviewed'are as follows:.
a ~
b.
Extent and Frequency of Examinations
.
The. inspector examined the-records to determine-if the extent and frequency of examinations performed was consistent with the licensee s
ISI: program and the code..
The. inspector found that" the licensee had not compl'eted all of'he required'nspections for the-interval, but that. they pl'armed additional'nspection in a future outage to fulfill the requirements.
This-is. discussed in'aragraph.,5.c.
above.
Records, for Selected Code Areas.B.,
H; and,J-1.
The inspector reviewed the 'records for the subject areas to determine.
whether they contained or provided, reference to (if'pplicable)
required examination results and data, equipment data, calibration
data,, evaluation data, extent of examination, deviations from require-ments, disposition of findings, re-examination data (if necessary),
and identification of. NDE materials.
c.".
Records for Examination of Reactor Pressure-Vessel Welds V-'-A and C-4"5, The: records-for the. subject welds-were.. reviewed by the inspector-to determine compliance. with requirements. for. method and extent. of exami-nation; data: acceptance; recording, evaluation, and disposition of findings; and adequacy of method.
Welds V-3-A and C-4-5 we'e not examined in entirety by the licensee.
In accordance with Code and ISI program requirements only portions or
"samples" of these welds were examined.
The inspector found that the records did not. locate the portions checked.'s described in paragraph S.c;,
the. licensee's procedure did not-require recording the locations
'nd this was identified as an unresolved item.
d.
Records for Examination of Piping Welds KR-2-19 and GR-2-18 (Recircu-lation System),
RCR0-2.-45 and 2-47 (Control Rod Drive Return System),
and OSRWC-2-3 and DRWC-2-1A (Reactor Water Cleanup System)
The inspector reviewed. the records for these piping welds to determine-whether requirements were. met for:
(1)
No change. between initial and final'alibration
.
(2)
Proper data. records (3)
Data~ eval'uation by-a, Level II. or III.examiner (4)
Data evaluated as required.
Within. the-areas examined; no violations or deviations were. identified.