IR 05000259/1986042

Insp Repts 50-259/86-42,50-260/86-42 & 50-296/86-42 on 861215-19.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Recirculation Sys Piping Replacement & Concern Re Qualifications of Pipe Replacement Personnel

ML20212H890
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	01/15/1986
From:	Blake J, Girard E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212H865	List: IR 05000259/1986042 ML20212H859
References
50-259-86-42, 50-260-86-42, 50-296-86-42, NUDOCS 8701280050
Download: ML20212H890 (6)

Text

3 *

e_

p p3Orug UNITED STATES g '

kn NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

!? REGION H 0 101 MARIETTA STREET.N W., SUITE 2000

• * ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323

'+, +....$

Report Nos.: 50-259/86-42, 50-260/86-42, and 50-296/86-42 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Docket Nos.: 50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 License Nos.: DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 Facility Name: Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted: December 15-19, 1986 Inspector: e d2ehe /M E. ard Date Signed Approved by: 0,w L / f 67 Jero Q. Blake Chief Date' Signed Mat ials and rocesses Section Eng neering B anch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of licensee action on previous enforcement matters, recirculation system piping replacement and concern regarding qualifications of recirculation system piping replacement personne Results: No violations or deviations were identifie '

8701280050 870116 PDR ADOCK 05000259 G PDR -,

!

_

,

.;

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• R. L. Lewis, Plant Manager

• T. D. Cosby, Unit 1 Superintendent B. F. Painter, Modifications Manager

" Savage, Compliance Engineer

• L. Clardy, Quality Assurance Supervisor

• G. F. McConnell, Mechanical Technical Section, Lead Engineer J. Pleva, Employee Concerns Program, Project Engineer

• 0. L. Butler, Office of Engineering Services, Level III Examiner J. C. Pettitt, Special Projects Field Coordinator NRC Resident Inspectors

• L. Paulk, Senior Resident Inspector

• C. A. Patterson, Resident Inspector

• C. Brooks, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 19, 1986, with '

those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The following new items were identified during this inspectio Unresolved Item 260/86-42-01: Ferrite measurement requirements for welding material, paragraph Inspector Followup Item 259, 260, 296/86-42-01: Possible improvements /

corrections to instruction for determining bolt torque requirements, paragraph The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio ~ Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (0 pen) Unresolved Item (259, 260, 296/85-07-01): Adequacy of Actions Taken with Regard to Allegations Concerning Category 1 Support This item expressed concern that the licensee failed to sufficiently investigate the alleged violation of procedures by a general foreman and a project engineer.

I

,

? .O

During inspection 85-07, the plant manager committed to a further investigatio In the current inspection, the inspector inquired as to the status of the commitment and was informed that the investigation had been completed and that a draft report of the investigation had been submitted to TVA Employee Concerns Program management for review and approva The NRC inspector reviewed the investigation findings and conclusions with the TVA Project Engineer who performed the investigation. The inspector found that the investigation appeared thorough and complet As the investigation determined that a particular supervisor had knowingly violated requirements by performing unapproved work on safety-related items, the inspector questioned whether any personnel action was anticipated. The inspector was informed that the need for personnel action would be determined by management in their review of the matter. The inspector informed the licensee that pending completion of the TVA management review, and NRC examination of the results of that review, the matter would remain an open ite b. (Closed) Violation (259, 260, 296/86-27-01): Torquing of Bolting on Diesel Generator Cooling Water Check Valve This violation involved selection and use of incorrect torque values for installation of bolting. TVA's letter of response to the violation dated November 17, 1986, has been reviewed and determined acceptable by Region I The inspector held discussions with ifcensee's representatives and examined the corrective actions as stated in the letter of respons The inspector concluded that TVA had determined the full extent of the subject violation, performed the necessary survey and followup actions to correct the present conditions, and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances. The corrective actions identified in the letter of response have been implemente TVA's corrective actions included corrections to their instruction for determining bolt torque values, MSI-0-000-PR0017-0 In examining this instruction, the inspector questioned whether all data in tables on pages 15 (for items K, L, M, and N), 20 and 22 were sufficiently legible. Also, the inspectar noted that some of the steps in the instruction appeared excessively comple The licensee agreed to re-examine the instruction, taking into account the inspector's concerns, to determine if corrections or impruvements were needed. The inspector informed the licensee that the result of their re-examination of the instructions would be reviewed in a subsequent NRC inspectio The matter was identified as Inspector Followup Item 259, 260, 296/

86-42-02, Possible Improvements / Corrections to Instruction for Deter-mining Bolt Torque Requirement .

-

.

4. Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or deviation An unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph . Inspection of Replacement of Recirculation Piping (Unit 2) (TI 2512/13)

The-licensee is replacing portions of their Unit 2 recirculation piping up to the reactor vessel inlet nozzles. The NRC inspector examined the program and work activities involved in the replacement to verify that they were technically adequate and that they were in accordance with NRC requirement and licensee commitment The inspector conducted his examination through review of the procedural documents and drawings, observation of work in progress, observation of a demonstration of an associated ultrasonic exam-ination (UT) procedure and review of records. Details of the inspector's review and observation are as follows: Review of Procedural Documents and Drawings The inspector reviewed the following procedural documents and drawings relative to the adequacy of piping installation, welding, nondestructive examination and QA requirements:

(1) Engineering Change Notice (ECN) P0957 R0 (2) Instruction MAI-49-03, N2 Nozzle Safe End and Riser Elbow Assembly Replacement (3) Workplan and Inspection Records (WP and irs) as follows:

WP and IR N Nozzle Azimuth Loop 2172-86 A 30 B 2173-86 B 60 B 2174-86 C 90 B 2175-86 D 120 B 2176-86 E 150 B 2176-86 F 210 A 2177-86 G 240 A 2178-86 H 270 A 2179-86 J 300 A 2130-86 K 330 A (4) Nondestructive Examination Procedure N-UT-43 R0, Ultrasonic Measurement of Stainless Steel Butter (5) Drawing 47W2408-8R2, Recirculation System 12" Inlet Safe Ends / Piping Replacement

__

.

(6) Drawing 47W2408-9R2, Recirculation System 12" Inlet Safe Ends / Piping Replacement (7) General Electric Drawing 769E983R902, Modification Recirc Inlet, Outlet, and Jet Pump Instrument Seal Safe Ends, Reactor Vessel Observation of Work In Progress The licensee's planning for removal of the recirculation piping involves four cuts to be made on each of the 10 inlet pipes. Cuts 1 and 2 remove most of.the pipe to be replaced. Cut 3 severs the thermal shield connection inside the short length of pipe remaining at each nozzle.' Cut 4 severs the remaining safe end pipe from each nozzl Prior to the LNRC inspection, cuts 1 and 2 had been completed on each nozzle and the piping cut loose had been removed. During the NRC inspection, the inspector observed ' final preparations for cut 3 to be performed for the loop'A nozzles and final preparations to ready the loop B nozzles for counterboring. The inspector observed this work for conformance with the associated WP and ir Observation of Demonstration of Ultrasonic Procedure for Determination of Thickness of Stainless Steel Deposited on Base Metal The inspector observed a demonstration of the subject procedure to determine if 'it appeared capable of accurately measuring the thickness of. stainless steel weld metal deposited on the reactor vessel nozzle weld preparations. The procedure had Seen rewritten in response to a previously described NRC concern as to 'its adequacy, identified as Inspector Followup Item 260/86-39-01. Based on the demonstration, the inspector was unconvinced as to the adequacy of the procedure. The

~ inspector informed the TVA Level III examiner that the matter would remain an open issue and that it be examined further by a Region II ultrasonic examination specialist in a future inspectio Review of Records The inspector reviewed the WP and irs listed in b.(3) above to verify that the recorded work and QC entries were consistent with the work performed.

i In addition, the inspector reviewed the certifications for the weld materials for the piping replacement to determine if the materials

were in accordance with ECN P0957 requirement The materials were 4 identified as follows:

l Material Size Heat / Lot N Contract

'

ER308L .045" x 2 S474239 BF376995 ER308L .045" x 2 S8A2688 BF376995 j ER308L .045" x 2 58E0591 BF376995

IN308L .125" 5493T308L BF376996 f

l l

. __ __ . _ - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ._ _

..

.. ,

I-

.'

The inspector found that heat S8A2688 did not have magnetic instrument measured minimum ferrite number of 8 and that the ferrite number- for the IN308L material had not been determined using a magnetic instrumen ECN P0957 requires that the weld material ferrite. number be a minimum !

of 7

and that the measurement be by magnetic instrument. -The licensee

was requested to explain this apparent nonconformance with ECN P0957 requirements. Pending their review of the matter and explanation to

,

Region II in a . subsequent inspection this will be identified as

'

Unresolved Item 259,260,296/86-42-01, Ferrite Measurement Requirements t for Welding Materia Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identifie ,

'6. .

Concern Regarding Qualifications of Recirculation System Piping Replacement

! Personnel

,

On November 11, 1986, NRC Region II was contacted by an individual who

expressed concern that 30 to 50 General Electric (GE) contract personnel, who.were to perform recirculation piping replacement, had no nuclear plant experience and were not qualified for the work. Subsequently, Region II

asked TVA to investigate this concern. The results of TVA's investigation l were provided to Region II in a letter, dated December 12, 1986. TVA

! reported that they had held discussions with GE regarding the matter and t

that based on those discussions they were satisfied that the personnel had

sufficient experience to perform the intended work. These personnel were '

hired to perform machining operations and GE stated that 17 of the indi-viduals.were seasoned machinists with nuclear experienc In addition, the

! remaining individuals, though lacking specific nuclear experience, had

,

reportedly received " hands on" training at GE's Pennsylvania facility.

During the inspection, the NRC inspector questioned the TVA engineers ,

, directly involved in the piping replacement work as to the quality of the

'

work that had been performed to date by the GE contract personnel. The

'

inspector was informed that the subject personnel had performed generally satisfactoril Some problems had been noted but no more than normally

'

c expected, based on past experienc Taking into account the limited scope of work being performed by the GE

! contract personnel, the TVA engineers' comments regarding.their performance, and the fact that the work is being inspected by TVA employed QC inspectors, '

the NRC inspector concluded that the originally reported concern did not appear valid and that the matter required no further investigation or revie .

.

! I I

. . .---_-_