IR 05000328/1980014
| ML19343A281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1980 |
| From: | Herdt A, Zajac L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343A280 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-328-80-14, NUDOCS 8009170163 | |
| Download: ML19343A281 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ cy ( #ys*neuq% ' b UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - j' pg j :; g .,a REGION 11 t. - y p, 101 MARIETTA si N.W., sulTE 3100
$t \\'# ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o
- .***
, , Report No. 50-328/80-14 . Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 - Facility Name: Sequoyah Docket No. 50-328 License No. CPPR-73 Inspection at Se o ah site near Chattanooga, Tennessee Inspector.: W b /(L.D.Zajac Date Signed Approved by: / [[[ d A. R. llerdt, Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on July 8-11, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 31\\ inspector-hours on site in the ' areas of Preservice and Inservice Inspection Program Review, follow-up on inspector identified items concerning preservice/ inservice inspect. ion program.
Results Of the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were iden-tified.
i L f 8009170 ) I )
~- _ _ _ . , _ 's . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted . Licensee Employees
- G. Stack, Project Manager
- T. Northern, Jr., Construction Engineer
- D. McCloud, QA Supervisor
- R. Daniel, Supervisor Baseline and ISI
- W. Glasser, QA Representative
- W. Andrews, QA Supervisor
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 10, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Open) Deficiency (327/80-14-01 and 328/80-08-01) Failure to comply a.
with preservice/ inservice inspection requirements. The subject defi-ciency was identified in NRC letter dated May 1,1980. TVA letter of May 23, 1980 with supplemental letter of June 9, 1980 advised that all of Section 3 of Sequoyab Nuclear Plant Surveillance Instruction 114 had been. reviewed for compliance to Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. A follow-up review, by the NRC inspector, of Section 3 and Tables A and B of SI-114 indicated that the TVA review was inadequate in light of the following apparent discrepancies: (1) ASME Section XI, Table IWB 2500, Category B-G-1 requires the threads in base material to be examined. Neither Section 3 nor Table A of SI-114 address threads in base materials.
(2) ASME, Section XI, Table IWB 2500, Category B-A requires examina-tion of 5% of the length of each circumferential weld. Section 3 of SI-114 identifies the total length of all the welds and Table A indicates the sample to be tested is 5% of the total length.
Thus, 5% could be examined on only one weld.
(3) ASME, Section XI, Table IWB-2500, Category B-C requires the examinations that are performed during each inspection interval-(10 year period) to cumulatively cover 100% of each circumferential weld. -Section 3 of SI-114 does not specify that 100% of each weld is to b: axamined during each inspection interval nor does Table A.
Table A indi; stes that 1/3 of the weld length will be examined /
- - - .-
-2-during each 1/3 of the inspection interval, but does not specify that a different weld segment will be inspected each time such that 100% coverage of the entire weld length will be obtained during the 10 year period.
(4) ASME, Section XI, Table IWB-2500, Category B-E requires examina-tions performed during each inspection interval (10 year period) to cumulatively cover at least 25% of each group of penetrations of comparable size and function. Section 3 of SI-114 identifies four groups of penetrations; control rod drive, upper head injec-tion, vent pipe and instrumentation. Table A indicates that 25% of the total number of penetrations shall be examined (vice 25% of each group) and that 1/3 of the 25% will be examined during each 1/3 of the inspection interval.
Thus, 25% of one group could be examined per SI-114 and the same 1/3 of the group could be examined during each 1/3 of the inspection interval.
(5) ASME, Section XI, Table IWC-2520, Category C-A requires for Class B pressure vessels, that examination cover at least 20% of each circumferential weld, uniformly distributed among three areas around the circumference.
Section 3 of SI-114 identifies the total length of welds on the steam generators and indicates that approximately 20% of four welds will be examined during baseline and inservice inspection. Table B of SI-114 (for Class B components) l indicates a percentage cf the total weld length that requires examination, but does not specify a percentage for each weld length, nor does it specify three segments uniformly distributed around the circumference. Furthe rmore, SI-114 does not specify that the weld segments examined during baseline be identified l such that the same segments will be examined during subsequent inservice inspections.
- (6) ASME, Section XI, Table IWB-2500, Category B-J requires examina-tions performed during each inspection interval to cover all of the area of 25% of the circumferential joints.
Section 3 of SI-114 specifies these requirements, but Table A does not specify an examination of 25% of the joints in all cases. The following table illustrates examples of where 25% of the total number of a pipe group is not required in Table A of SI-114.
No. Reg'd to Be Pipe Group Total No.
Inspected l ' 3?" SS Butt weld
6 G" SS Butt weld
9 4" SS Butt weld
6 2" SS Butt weld
2 14" SS Branch weld
0 2" SS Branch weld
0 t /
~n r 'O-3- ,
During discussion with the licensee on this matter, the inspector was advised that Table A only represents the first 10 year period and that the one or two specimens, as noted above, requiring examination to ensure 25% coverage will be scheduled during one of the later 10 year periods.
The inspector suggested that in those, cases such a note should be added to Table A.
This item vill remain open until the licensee completes a comprehensive j review of SI-114 and ensures all ASME and NRC requirements are included in' the preservice/ inservice program.
b.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (328/80-11-01) Potential Inadequate Preservice/ Iuservice Inspection Program This item was identified in NRC letter of June 25, 1980 and primarily deals with how the QA program is implemented with regard to preservice/ inservice inspections. The inspector reviewed additional information/ documents provided by the licensee concerning this subject. Following this review the inspector still considered the preservice/ inservice program (SI-114) incomplete with regard to quality assurance require-ments. The licensee requested additional time to review the inspector comments and to provide the appropriate documentation to resolve these comments.
This item will remain open pending further review and verification by the licensee that the QA requirements are adequately implemented for preservice/ inservice inspections.
The licens e's verification will be examined further in a subsequent NRC inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
. . - - - - }}