IR 05000327/1990035
| ML20062H276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1990 |
| From: | Blake J, Coley J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062H274 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-90-35, 50-328-90-35, NUDOCS 9012040204 | |
| Download: ML20062H276 (6) | |
Text
r
,
.
.
.
? It UN!TED STATES j/p. rg'o
.'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiss10N
'
REGION 11
- !
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
.t
'*
ATLANT A, G EORGI A 30323
- %...../
Report Nos.: 50-327/90-35 and 50-328/90-35 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 6N38 a Lookcut Place Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
,
Docket'Nos.: 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos.: DPR-77 and DPR-79
'
Facility name:
Sequoyah 1 and 2
,
Inspection Co October 16-19, 1990
-
Inspector:
v
~J. L /Coley Date Signed
.
Approved by:
-
/o-4 u
J. J Blake, Chief Date Signed t rials and Processes Section n ineering Branch
. Division of' Reactor Safety s
SUMMARY Scope:
This routine unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of ' observation of. inservice inspection (ISI) work and work activities for Unit 2, review of
1 completed ~ radiographs - for Units 1 and 2, review of TVA's implementation of Generic Letter (GL) 90-05 for Units 1 and,2, and review-of TVA's evaluation of
- findings discovered during ISI' examinations of units 1 and 2.
Results:
ThisLinspection indicated' that ISI nondestructive examinations (NDE) were
.
- -being' conducted' adequately.
Radiographic film of welds met minimum code
_
requirements with ~ one exception; identified herein as non-cited Violation
,
.(NCV): 50-327/90-35-01, see-paragraph 2.b.
TVA has implemented the guidance for performing temporary non-code repair of ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 piping
!
in accordance.with NRC GL'90-05..- Discussions.with TVA management personnel
. indicated that there are no' Unit 2 welds which require an acceptable Code repair.before plant. restart. ' Review of ISI technical evaluations of reported findings detected during ultrasonic examinations of Units 1 and 2 revealed that they had been conducted in a very professional manner.
,
9a noco204 90111b.
POR ADOCK 05009$7 eDL
.
- - - - - - -
-. -
- -
i
.
'
.
.
I i
!
REPORT DETAILS i
i I
1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. Bentley, Level III NDE Specialist i
- J. Bynum, Vice President, Nuclear Operations i
- M. Cooper, Manager, Site Licensing t
- E. Crane, Engineer,Section XI Programs
!
- J. Curry, Special Projects Technical Manager, i
Nuclear Engineering Department (NED)
- G. Hipp, Site Licensing
- J. McClanahan, Nuclear Maintenance
- J. Proffitt, Manager, Compliance Licensing
,
!
- P. Trudel, Project Engineer, NED
,
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included l
'
engineers, technicians, operators and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
- P. Harmon, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview on October 19, 1990 2.
InserviceInspection(ISI)
i The inspector reviewed documents and records, and observed activities, as indicated-below, to determine whether ISI was being conducted in accordance with applicable procedures, regulatory requirements, and licensee commitments.
The applicable code for? ISI is the American Society lof Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel (ASME B&PV)
Code,Section XI,1977 edition with addenda through sunmer 1978.
Unit 2 is presently in the fourth cycle of the second period, of the first ten year ISI-interval.-
The inspector reviewed applicable portions of the
. licensee's ISI program (including relief requests),.the current outage
plan for : Unit-2,. procedures associated with observed NDE examinations l
listed-below, qualification and -artification records for. all licensee examiners involved with the ISI,: Cram at Sequoyah1 and evaluations of indications _ detected during the.ISI examinations.
a.
Observation of ISI Work and Work Activities (73753) - Unit 2
'
The; inspector observed ' the ISI e::aminations-for the components listed below to determine-whether approved procedures vere adequate and being followed, whether - the examination personnel were-thoroughly, knowledgeable' of the examinetion method and operation of the test equipment where applicable, and whether examination results a
were being recorded and evaluated 'as specified in the ISI program and the NDE procedures involved.
,
_
.
T
.
(1) ASME Section XI hydrostatic tests and required visual examinations on the seal water return spool pieces for the following:
Reactor Coolant Pump 1 Reactor Coolant Pump 2 No. 1 Seal Leakoff No. 1 Seal Leakoff Reactor Coolant Pump 3 Reactor Coolant Pump 4 No. 1 Seal Leakoff No. 1 Seal Leakoff No. 1 Seal Bypass As a result of plant configuration the above spool pieces could not be tested as part of the Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS) hydro test boundary (Test Procedure 2-SI-SXH-062-003.0).
Therefore the spool pieces were removed from the system and independently tested to the criteria of 2-SI-SXH--062-003.0 and SI-265.0, Rev. 6.
The VT-2 visual examinations were performed in accordance with ISI procedure N-VT-4, Rev 4,
" System Pressure Test Visual Examination".
(2) Liquid Penetrant Examination of Weld Joint No. RCS-104 This is a Class 1 pipe to elbow weld, six inches in diameter, and located on the top of.the pressurizer. The ISI examination procedure used to perform this examination was N-PT-9, Rev. 2,
" Liquid Penetrant Examination of ASME and. ANSI Code Components and Welds".
(3) Ultrasonic Examination of Weld No RCS-104 This examination was conducted - in accordance with ISI examination procedure N-UT-18, Rev 8. " Ultrasonic Examination of Piping Welds".
The above examinations were satisfactorily conducted in accordance
. with the applicable procedures.
Indications observed during the examinations were recorded and dispositioned as required.
b.
Review of Radiographic Film - Units 1 and 2 (57090)
The inspector reviewed a sample of' radiographs to determine whether they were exposed, developed, eveluated, and maintained in accordance with applicable commitments and/or' requirements.
In addition to the above, the ' technical requirements of applicable radiographic procedure, N-RT-1, Rev.11, " Radiographic Examination
. _ _ _
...... _......... _ _. _ _ _ _ _
_
__
_.
.... _..
~
>
.
'
.
of Nuclear Power Plant Components", were reviewed for compliance to
!
the applicable Code.
The following radiographs and their associated records were examined:
Weld Joint No.
Unit System Drawing No.
RCS-F83A
Reactor Coolant System A7566R2 RCS-F76A
Reactor Coolant System A7566R2 RCS-F69A
Reactor Coolant System A7566R2 RCS-F62A
Reactor Coolant System A7566R2 RCS-F694
Reactor Coolant System A7281R3 RCS-FF6A
Reactor Coolant System A7281R3 RCS-F83A
ReacLer Coolant System A7281R3 RCS-F76A
Reactor Coolant System A7281R3 UH1-2223
Upper Head Injection 2-RC-26 UHI-2225
Upper Head Injection 2-RC-26 UHI-2226
Upper Head injection 2-RC-26 UH1-2224
Upper Head Injection 2-RC-26 IPE-0163E9
Electrical Penetration Weld Conax Buffalo
/EC0-1000 2PE-0151E2
Electrical Penetration Weld Conax Buffalo 7EC0-1000 During the review of Unit I radiographs for weld RCS-F69A, film sector 3-4, composite viewing was required to meet the minimum Code density requirements for.the penetrameter.
When the film was composite viewed a section in the area of interest; i.e. part of the weld, exceeded the maximum 4.0 density requirements of Section V, Article. 2, Paragraph T-234.1 of the ASME Code and paragraph 5.7 of TVA's NDE procedure N-RT-1, Rev. 1.
The highest density'obtained in the area of interest during composite viewing was 4.22.
However, the area in question, which was approximately 1/8-inch wide by 1 1/2-inch long, could be adequately interpreted. as to weld quality, and no discrepancies were evident.
When this film sector was viewed singularly the density through the area of interest was greater than the 2.0 minimum required by the Code and the required
.4-T penetrameter -hole was clearly visible.
However due to the
' thickness ~ of the shim the density of' the required penetrameter did
.not meet the 2.0 minimum.- Therefore the' deficiency was considered to m
represent minimal safety significance even though minimum Code acceptance requirements were not met.
'
.In response to this finding, TVA issued Problem Reporting Document-(PRD)SQP900424P.
Weld RCS-F69A joins a three inch cap to a thermowell on the_ reactor coolant system crossover leg and re-radiography would require that the RCS loops be drained below the level normally required for refueling activities.
Area radiation dosage levels are significant and would be increased by the draindown.
The inspector informed l
_._C____
. _ _. _ _ ___ _
____m.__.
_____._____..______m.
_ _ _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
____________.__-_.__m__s
-
'
-
-
..
.
,
.
-
cognizant licensee personnel that Violation NCV 50-327/90-35-01, Radiographic Film Density at Film Sector 3-4 for Weld No. RCS-F69A Exceeds Maximum Code Requirements, would not be cited since the criteria specified in Section V. A of the NRC Enforcement Policy were satisfied, c.
Review of TVA's Implementation of NRC Generic Letter 90-05(73753)
.
On June 15,1990, GL 90-05 was issued to all holders of operating licenses for nuclear power plants. This GL provided guidance for performing temporary non-code repairs of ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 piping. A summary of the guidance is as follows:
-NRC approved relief requests are required for all temporary non-code repairs in Classes 1, 2, and 3 piping that is impractical to repair during power operations.
-Flaws detected during scheduled shutdowns must be Code repaired prior to restart.
-Temporary repairs can remain until the next scheduled outage exceeding 30 days, but no later than the next scheduled refueling outage.
-Temporary repairs in Class 1 and 2 piping and high energy Class 3 piping must meet certain load-bearing requirements similar to that provided by engineered weld overlays or engineered mechanica1' clamps.
-Temporary repairs in other Class 3 piping may be analyzed using the NRC specified " wall-thinning" or "through-wall flaw" methods.
The inspector discussed. GL 90-05 with. cognizant plant management,
{
licensing, and engineering personnel and reviewed TVA Standard Site Procedure (SSP) 13.3, Rev. O, " Repair / Replacement of ASME Section XI Components" to ensure that necessary requirements had been properly implemented.
During the above discussions.the inspector was assured-(y TVA personnel - that Sequoyah Unit 2 had experienced no temporary b
non-code) repairs which required additional actions during this outage, e :,-
d.
. Review of Licensee Evaluations of ISI Examination Results - Units 1 and 2 (73753)
The 'following Conditions Adverse to Quality Report (CAQR) and Notification of Indication (N0I) reports were reviewed by the inspector to determine if these evaluations and corrective actions were performed in accordance with the applicable NDE procedures and
,
the applicable portions of the ASME Code.
This inspection also
-
- - - -
- -
_ _. _. _.
_ _ _ _.... _
..
-
,
..
,
,.
,
included review of the examination data, sketches of ultrasonic indications, component and weld profiles, and the mathematical calculations used to evaluate the reported conditions to the applicable Code criteria.
CAQR/N01 No.
Units Applicable Component Finding CAQR-CH5900013 Sequoyah 1 and 2 Class A&B Vessels inadequate Watts Bar 1 and 2 Class A&B Vessels ultrasonic Browns Ferry 1 Class A&B Vessels coverage of 2 and 3 nozzle inner radius sections N01-2SQ-268 Sequoyah 2 Weld MSW-1 Ultrasonic (Steam indications Generator exceeded No. 1)
allowable code limits N01-2SQ-269 Sequoyah 2 Integral Liquid Attachment penetrant on 6" pipe in indications penetration exceeded Acc No 4 allowable acceptance criteria The ultrasonic evaluations including examination data, component sketches depicting indication location and ultrasonic coverage, and-associated mathematical calculations were complete, accurate, and technically sound.
The level 111 ext. miner involved in these evaluations performed his duties in an outstanding manner.
Within the areas examined, no violations (r @vietions were identified except as noted in paragraph 2 b.
3..
Exit Interview
- The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 19, 1990, with ~ those persons indicated.in paragraph 1 above.
The. inspector described :the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
Dissenting cortments were not received from the licensee.
Proprietary information is not contained.in this report.
NCV 50-327/90-35-01, - Radiographic - Film Density at Film Sector 3-4 for Weld No. RCS-F69A Exceeds Maximum Code Requirements, paragraph 2.b I.