IR 05000327/1987046

Insp Repts 50-327/87-46 & 50-328/87-46 on 870629-0701.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters,Employee Concern on CCW HXs & IE Bulletins

ML20236J572
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	07/23/1987
From:	Blake J, Crowley B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236J545	List: IR 05000327/1987046 ML20236J542
References
50-327-87-46, 50-328-87-46, NUDOCS 8708060210
Download: ML20236J572 (6)

Text

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

.7 l

pt UNITED STATES 4 88%q(o

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'o REGION il 5 $ -101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900

. o, ATLANT A, GEORGIA 30323

%, *...#

i Report Nos.: 50-327/87-46 and 50-328/87-46

' Licensee: Tennessee' Valley Authority 6N38 A~ Lookout Place '

'1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

'

Docket Nos.: 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos.: DPR-77 and DPR-79 Facility Name: Sequoyah 1 an Inspection Conducted: June 29 - July 1, 1987 Inspector: / . [, 7 3 '7 B. R. Crowley ( Date Signed Approved by: /lM

. J. Blake, Section Chief (/ #' Date Signed divisionofReactorSafety SUMMARY Scope: This routine, announced inspection was in the areas of licensee action ,

on previous enforcement matters (Units 1 and 2), employee concern on CCW heat exchangers (Units 1 and 2), inspector followup items (IFIs) (Unit 2) and I

.

IE Bulletins (IEBs) (Units 1 and 2).

Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ,

' DR G

A O h7

__ _ _ -____-__ _

'

.

-

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• G. B. Kirk, Compliance Licensing Manager

• T. L. Howard, QA Manager G. J. Pitzl, Manager of Materials Group - Division of Nuclear Engineering

• R. M. Cook, Licensing Engineer J. T. Lewis, Principle ISI Engineer L. J. Victory, Mechanical Engineer R. H. Scheide, Licensing Engineer J. L. Adams, Lead Welding Engineer - D&E Materials Engineering NRC Resident Inspectors K. Jenison, Senior Resident Inspector D. Loveless, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 1,1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. No dissenting coaments were received from the licensee. The following new item was identified during this inspectio (0 pen) Unresolved Item 327, 328/87-46-01, Justification for NDE of CCW Shell Window Weld The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection. Licensee Action on Previous Er.forcement Matters (927028) (Closed) Unresolved Item 327, 228/85-03-01, Review of TVA's Redefined ISI Program Boundaries. At the time this item was written, TVA had changed their ISI inspection boundaries for the regenerative heat exchanger After reconsidering, TVA decided that the boundaries should not be changed. In lieu of. changing the boundaries, relief requests were written for the heat exchangers. All changes and relief request to the program have been reviewed by the plant Safety Review Committee and forwarded to the NRC for approval. A Safety Evaluation Report (SER) has not been issued. The program will be reviewed further during routine ISI inspection . . _ _ - _ , _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _

'

.

q _(Closed) Unresolved Item 328/84-26-01, No _ Program Credit Will Be Given for Examination of Weld RC-180-17 Due to Attenuation Losses Not Considered During the Examination of this Weld. The inspector

'

l reviewed re-inspection data, taking attenuation into account, dated January 16, 1985. No change in inspection results was identifie . Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable er may involve violatio7s or deviations. One unresolved item identified during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 5 . Employee Concerns Case No. RII-86-A-0117, IE-86-A-019, Technical Concerns Exp essed by a TVA Employee at Sequoyah Relative to CCW Heat Exchanger See RII Report Nos. 50-327/87-21 and 50-328/87-21 for documentation of a-previous inspection in this are As noted in report 87-21, the concerns related to laminations in the heat exchanger shell material and porosity in the heat exchanger support _ to .

foot pad welds. The two areas of concern were reviewed as follows: Support to Foot Pad Welds As noted in RII Report 87-21, the requirements for the foot pad welds are not clear. TVA has issued CAQR SQP870565 to evaluate and repair the weld Shell Material The inspector reviewed the Work Plan (8588, R1 and R2) and the Weld Data-Sheets for the heat exchanger shell window welds. The following problems were identified during the review:

-

The records of sign off on the Weld Data Sheets are inconsistent or unclear in some cases. However, the inconsistencies do not appear to be significan For example, for a number of the welds, the preheat was signed off by the engineer after the ,

final weld visual was signed off by QC. At the time (1980) the i instructions for preheat sign off were not clea Also, the minimum preheat required was 60 F and the welds were made in the  ;

summer time. Therefore, a preheat check was not necessary to insure complianc The Original Work Plan specified UT inspection of the ' window weld For the first weld (#28 on Unit A), the UT inspection identified lack of penetration in the wel The weld was accepted based on design calculations showing that minimum wall

, - -_ - --

.

was not violated and that the probability of the flaws propa-gating under operating conditions (150 psi and 200 F) was negligible. For the other welds the UT inspection was deleted and PT of the root pass and MT of the final weld was substitute The vessels were built to the 1968 edition of ASME Section VIII, which indicates that lack of penetration is unacceptable and that the full penetration shell welds are to be RT inspecte RT of the window welds is impossible because of the internal heat exchanger design. At the close of the inspection, the justifi-cation for accepting the lack of penetration and for changing the NDE from UT to PT and MT was not clear. The licensee agreed to review these questions and generate a summary of the justificatio Pending further review, the matter is identified as unresolved _

item 327, 328/87-46-01, Justification for NDE of CCW Shell Window Weld The licensee's technical evaluation of the concern relative to laminations in the shell material is detailed in TVA memorandum, Curington to Goetcheus dated August 27, 198 The conclusion was that laminations were identified during modification to the shells and were successfully repaired. TVA further stated that the material specification allows laminations and that for the vessels in question the laminations are of no significanc The inspector agrees with this assessment. The records (Work Plan and Weld Data Sheets) do not clearly document repair of lamination However, revision to the Work Plan specifies that repair of weld preps be documented under the same weld number as the original weld. Therefore, there might not have been separate documentation for repair of the lamination . Inspector Followup Items (IFIs) (92701) (Unit 2) (Closed) IFI 328/81-27-03, Commitment to Reinspect 2RC-17 and One Additional Unit 2 Nozzle. Relative to cracking in reactor vessel nozzle buttering, TVA committed in their May 28, 1981 report to rein-spect nozzle 2RC-17 and one additional reactor vessel nozzle. To satisfy this commitment, nozzle safe-end welds 29-RC-180-17 and 27.5-RC-141-24 were inspected during the cycle 1 outage. The inspector reviewed the records for these inspection (Closed) IFI 328/81-10-01, Inadequate Radiographic Procedur This item identified to the fact that Revision 0 to RT procedure N-RT-1 l contained very little specific information required by Section V of the ASME Cod The inspector reviewed revision 5 of procedure N-RT-1, which contains specific procedure information as specified Section V of the ASME Cod (Closed) IFI 328/81-10-02, Inadequate Magnetic Particle Procedur See RII Report Number 50-328/81-35 for documentation of a previous inspection of this ite This item identified the fact that Revision 0 of procedure N-MT-1 did not contain detailed information to ensure uniform examination methods. At the time of the 81-35 (

'

.

inspection, the procedure had been revised and all comments incor-parated except that lighting requirements had not been addresse The inspector reviewed Revision 5 of procedure N-MT-1, which contains lighting requirements for inspectio (Closed) IFI 328/81-10-03, Inadequate Liquid Penetrant Procedur See RII Report No. 50-328/81-35 for documentation of a previous inspection of this ite This item identified discrepancies in Revision 3 to procedure N-PT-1 and Revision 1 to procedure N-PT- The inspector reviewed Revision 6 to procedure N-PT-1 and Revision 4 to procedure N-PT-2 which address the discrepancies identified by the NRC. IE Bulletins (IEBs) (92703) (Units I and 2) (Closed) 327, 328/79-BU-15, Deep Draft Pump Deficiencie The inspector review the licensee's letter of response dated September 10, and September 24, 1979. This IEB is closed based on in-office review as documented by RII memorandum 01shinski to Lewis dated February 22, 1984, and review of the licensee's respons (0 pen) 327, 328/83-BU-06, Nonconforming Materials Supplied By Tube-Line Corporation Facilities at Long Island City, New York; Houston, Texas and Carol Stream, Illinoi The inspector reviewed the licensee's response dated November 22, 1983. The licensee's response appears to be acceptable except that the following required actions are not addressed in the response:

"

...you are requested to review the general concerns expressed in the bulletin for applicability at your facilit Your response should describe the results of the review, and if general concerns apply, you should describe the short-term and long-term corrective actions to be taken and the schedules thereo A supplemental response is needed to address the abov In addition the inspector questioned the licensee relative to beginning date (July 1981) of the time frame addressed in the licensee's respons The licensee could not readily determine why the particular date was chosen. The inspector requested that the date be justifie (0 pen) 327, 328/83-BU-07, Apparently Fraudulent Products Sold By i Ray Miller, Inc. The inspector reviewed the licensee's letter of response and noted that the following required actions were not included:

"

...you are requested to review the general concerns l expressed in the bulletin for applicability at your facilit Your response should describe the results of the review, ,

..

and if the general concerns apply, you should describe the short-term and long-term corrective actions to be taken and the schedule thereof."

A supplemental response will be required. In addition, the inspector noted that an employee concern exist relative to the response to this IE An Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) Report MC-40709-SQH has been issueo. CAQR CHS870013 has been issued to address the ECGT report. The NRC is in the process of evaluating the employee concer Pending completion of the NRC review and the supplemental response, this IEB remains open.

'- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _