IR 05000518/1981007
| ML19350E921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Hartsville  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1981 |
| From: | Contrell F, Swan W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350E915 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-518-81-07, 50-518-81-7, 50-519-81-07, 50-519-81-7, 50-520-81-07, 50-520-81-7, 50-521-81-07, 50-521-81-7, NUDOCS 8106230658 | |
| Download: ML19350E921 (7) | |
Text
n
-
-
,
s
~i:p..s
'
- :
- ~
o UNITED STATES -
- !
%
.[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.- ;
a REGION ll C
[
101 MARIETTA ST,. N.W.. SUITE 3100
%,
y ATLANTA, GEORotA 30303
- * " *
x
i
'wi Report Nos. 50-518/81-07, 50-519/81-07, 50-520/81-07,. and 50-521/81-07 Licensea-Tennessee' Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name: - Hartsville Nuclear Plant Occket Nos. 50-518, 50-519, 50-520, and 50-521 License Nos. CPPR-150, CPPR-151, CPpR-152, and CPPR-153
' Inspection at Hartsville site near Hertsville, Tennessee Inspector: j?k-j
-/
s.'k
>/)cbei W. B. Swan f
,f'
Date Signed
-
'~
N.
Approved by!
-
c t
F. S. Cantrell, SectiopChief, Restcent and Date Signed Reactor Project Inspection SUMMARY Inspection on April 1-30, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine inspection involved 97 resident inspector-hours on site in the areas of receipt of reactor pressure vessel for Unit B-2; document control; procedure changes; concrete; structural steel containments fit up; Plant S extended shutdown; open items; and independent inspection effort.
Results Of the eight areas inspected, no violations or deviations were icentified.
.
8106230 M
'
.
..
-.
-
y
,,y-
- --- p
-
~~ ~
.
~_-
,. y. _ _._
...
?,-
,.M m.
.
V }l n
.
DETAILS
,
1.
. Persons Contacted L Licensee Employees
~
- R. T. H a, Site Project Manager '
- W. T. 7
- onstruction Engineer Acting Project Manager
' R. E. u.:.g,' Assistant Construction Engineer, Project Engineering
-
-J. T. Oorman, Assistant Construction Engineer, Quality Control
. H. -S. Sheppard,1 Assistant Construction Engi_neer, Quality Control
.
P2 F. Gillespie, Supervisor, Technical Services B. F._Huffaker, Supervisor, Materials QC Unit R. C. Nixon,- Supervisor, Occument Control Unit
._
F. E. Laurent, Unit Supervisor, STRIDE Mechanical Project Engineering'
G. A. Gonzalves, QA Un'it Supervisor A. G. -Debbage, QA Audit Supervisor M. U. Rudolphi, Unit Supervisor', Project Engineering, Hanger and Supports Other licensee employees contacted _ included' document control personnel, QC technicians,- and project engineers.
.
' Attended exit interview
'
2.
Exit Interview
,
The inspection secpe and findings were summarized with the Site Project Manager on April 3, 10, 17, 21 and May 1,1981.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection -Findings (0 pen) Infraction 518, 319, 520, 521/80-18-01 a.
Failure to Take Timely Corrective Action on Drawing Control Findings (Reference 50.55(e), Item 518, 519, 520, 521/81-03-03 Deficient Orawing and Occument Control). On March 16, 1981, the licensee suomitted a response to NRC Confirmation of Action Letter dated January 30, 1981 regarding inadequate drawing control at Hartsville Nuclear Plant. This response summarized the results of the requested 100 percent drawing
- audit and actions taken to satisfy deficiencies 1 and 2 cited in the licensee's audit drawing control.
-The revision to Construction Engineering Procedure, CEP-5.01, Orawing
- Control was approved April 10,1981.
It was received and reviewed by the senior resicent inspector on April 20, 1981.
It aopears to be adequate when fully imolemented and suoplemented by management ac:fons outlined in paragraph 4 of the licensee's response.
Thism item will be left open until implementation is verified by a followup QA audit and/or the inspector's confirming observations.
\\
'
.
-.-
, -.
.-
-- - - -
.-
-
- --l
_
_
_
_
_ _.
,. _ _.
'. -
.
.
.
b.
Investigation of Allegations of Deficiencies in 100 percent Audit of Hartsville Orawings.
A. telephone'
il was received by the RII Enforcement and Investigation Staff from a person desiring to remain anonymous and who expres. sed the following concerns regarding the cond';ct of the 100 percent drawing audit discussed in paragraph 3.a. abov,.
Concerns:
(1) QA trainees not yet certified as auditors were used to assist in or perform the drawing verification.
'
(2)
It is not possible so ensure that all drawings were verified as there is no way of knowing where in the field to look for them.
The audit rest ts will n'ot be indicative of the extent of the problem (3)
i in that:
(a) When people found out about the audit, they marked all of their drawings "For' Information Only"; therefore, they would not be identified as uncontrolled.
(b) The individuals performing the audit did not document uncontrolled drawings posses:ed by their friends (they did, however. collect these uncontrolled drawings).
(c) The FCR and ECN drawings were not looked at.
(4) The auditors found that the " latest revision index" maintained by the Document Control Unit and used by the auditors in the verification contained errors and that the aperture cards had different revision numbers than the index."
The resident inspector had followed progress of the audit by the assigned working groups and had been made aware by the QA audit supervisor of difficulties encountered. For example, the QA unit staff was inadequate to j
perform the audit in the desired tire span, even when working overtime.
Difficulties of importing QA unit personnel and clerks from other TVA construction sites led to a decision to utill:e on site eligible personnel.
It was deemec unacceptable under NRC rules to utilize personnel from units involved in drawing control.
This excluded volunteers from the Occument Control, Project Engineering and Quality Control Units. Persons from Project Control and QA Training Units were considered eligible and were used.
The. aucit required working 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per day, from Feoruary 6 tnrough February 23, 1981.
.
.......
-_. _ _ -
_-
m
r
- - -. - - - - - - _ _ - - -
- - - - - _ _
'-
- ;
.
-p
3 The reside.,t inspector's observ'ations during the audit and his investigation of the specific concerns resulted in these findings:
.
(1) One uncertified QA trainee was utill:ed to direct the ' tabulating of lists of drawings by a group of clerks. Certification was not deemed necessary for this function.
(2). Valid to an extent: The auditors were thorough in searching for drawings. They utilized Security personnel on first and second shifts to open locked offices, cabinets, files, lockers and tool boxes at work stations', and on trucks. It is possible that some crawings were placed in unexplored placas.
(3) (a) Not verified:
The inspector found that document control (DCU)
personnel had been enlisted to stamp "For Information Only" on prints which the project engineering sections wished to retain for reference. -The inspector was unable to verify that such marking had been done for or by other using units by hand written or stamped notations.
(b). Indeterminant:
Conduct of the audit was open and common know-ledge.
Rolls of obsolete and possibly discrepant orints were discarded as trash and were reported to the auditors by Janitors.
No record of drawings so discarded was tabulated.
(c) Partly Confirmed: Time and manpower were insufficient to cover this area.
The resident inspector was informed of this by the audit supervisor during the audit and was told that FCR and ECN handling was to be the subject of a following audit. Revision 9" to CEP-6.01 dated 4-10-81 details handling of changes under Section 0 and E.
(4) Con fi rmed:
The resident inspector was informed during the audit by auditors and OCU personnel that some aperture cards had later revisions than shown on the " latest revision 'index" and in some instances the index noted a revision for which the corresponding aperture card was not located in the file. As these discrepancies were found, corrective actions were initiated.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector made surveillance tours curing whicn the status of project wnrk was noted, and construction activities were inspected on nuclear safety-related structures, systems and facilities.
The inspection was l
concentrated or. Plant A power block structures, but included outlying structures such as the intake pumoing station, and the Plant A essential service water pump stations.
.
,
.,.
,. -. -..
-- --
.
.
o'
Open Site Items Control: Nonconformance. reports (NCRs), significant quality control inspection reports (QCIRs) an.: QA unit audit findings were reviewed for pertinence to the inspection program and for adequacy of corrective actions.
" bservations that the Blasting: The inspector verified by intermittent o
daily afternoon blasting for excavation of trencnes and subsurface tanks were controlled to avoid damage to nearby structures.
Reactor Vessel Receipt: Reactor pressure vessel (RPV) X-21 for Unit B-2 was unicaded and temporarily stored near the unloadi.,g dock on April 17, 1981, along with the unattached RPV head and tne separately packaged shroud head and separator. On April 20 and 29, the inspector verified that the vessel inert gas blanket was being maintained.
Because of barge availability problems, GE had the vessel delivered before N.O.E. testing of the vessel exterior was complete. TVA will mount the vessel on rollers to permit full access while the N.D.E. examination is completed.
In dicussions with GE and TVA project engineers, the inspector was told that entry into the vessel will not be required for the testing. The specific requirements for long term (six years) storage and areventive maictenance of the RPV nad not been transmitted by GE to TVA, sc preparation of the RIS & PM procadure is pending.
Containment Erection-The inspector inspected the fit up of the third steel ring of the A-2 Containment.
It was noted that the joint tolerances were being met, and the preheating was in process for w?lding and weld repair.
In the areas inspected, no violations or deviations wera identified.
Procedure Peview: The inspector reviewed' revision 3 of CEP-13.02 Storage and Preservation of Materials, Components, and Systems.
The inspector notified the site construction engineer that the revision failed to soecify,
,
or detail under Storage Levels, th:t stored vessel, valves and pipe are to be closed by covers and caps. In the preparations of Receiving, Inspection and Preventive Maintenance Procedures (RIS & PM), project engineers frequently reference the requireme,ts of Level, A, S, C, or 0 in CEP 13.02 where the need for capping and covering are not yet spelled out. Warehouse inspectors are governed in monthly inspections by paragraph IM of CE? 13.03 Revision I, Warehouse Storage Area Inspection as follows:
"IM. Caps and Coverings - Verifies end caps, blank flanges and other protective covers are in place to prevent camage or the accumulation of dirt, dust and moisture and that weatherproof coverings used for outdoor storage (sheeting, tsrpaulin, etc.) are flame resistant and secured orcoerly to provide drainage and air circulation, protect the item f rom wind-driven rain, crevent water collection on the covering, and to protect the covering f*om wind damage."
The construction engineer on May a, 1981, initiated action to revise CEP-13.02 to sW1 out the needs for covering of vessel ocenings and cao::ing of valve and pipe ends. Until this revisi0n is publisned, Unresolvec Item
_
-
.
.
._.
' i, h ' '
o
'5 u
'518,'. 519,- 520, 521/80-15-04, Stainless Steel Tanks Left open while in Storage, will remain cpen.
~
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Licensee Identified 50.55(e)~ Items a.
Previously Identified Items (0 pen) (518, 519, 520, 521/81-03-03) Deficient Orawing and Occument L
Control (HTRO-50-518, 519, 520, 521/31-05) (Reference Infraction 518, 519, 520, 521/80-18-01). The licensee's final report dated March 16, 1981,- outlined root causes of the control. problems and stated that a revision to C.E.P.-6.01 Drawing Control had been draf ted.
~
Revision 9 to CEP-6.0 dated 4/10/81 has been reviewed by the inspector and found to be arparently adequate.
TVA Memorandum dated April 27, 1981, from Projer.; Manager to Supervisor, Quality Assurance Audit Unit.
Subject: Hartsvilh. Nuclear Plant - Imolementation of CEP-6.01, Rev. 9.
This document lists 5 areas of action to be taken to implement the revised procedure.
The site QA unit is scheduling a re-audit of drawing control in June 1981. This. item will remat, open pending clearance of any deficiencies identified during the re-audit.
b.
Newly Identified Items (0 pen) 518, 519, 520, 521/81-07-01 Failure by ITT Grinnell to use proper testing methods (HTRO 50-618, 519, 520, 521/81-07 dated April 3, 1981). Tees anc. elbows on 23 pipe stool pieces were tested ultras-onically instead of by penetrant or magnette particle.
None of the spools were installed. Information on Geinnel's corrective actions is due by May 20, 1981.
(0pened and Closed) 518, 520/81-07-02 Reactor Pressure Vessel Nut and Stud. Irregularities (HTRD-50-518/81-03, 519, -520, 521/81-08 dated April 9, 1981). Part 21 is applicable. Acimet supplied studs and nuts for RPV's attachment to pedestals for Hartsville Plants A and B were inspected by site personnel.
The nuts were given 100 percent visual and gauge inspection. Ninety percent of the studs were given a visual and gauge inspection.
No studs were rejected.
Out of 1008 nuts inspected,179 B-Plant nuts were rejected and isolated for return to Aciment for replacement and reinspection. The stud and nut assemblies for RPVs on A-1 and A-2 were all insoected. The insoector observed the inspection and torquing of the asse.molies on Unit A-1 RPV.
(0 pen) 518, 519, 520, 521/81-07-C3 Deficiencies in TVA's Procurement Control Activities.
(HTRO-50-518/81-11; 519, 520, 521/81-09 dated April 16,1981). An investigation by TVA's Nuclear Safety Review Staff identified five deficiencies in tne control of procurement activities.
,
,,
_
_
,
_.
_,,
,. _. -. ~ --
_
- - _... _.
~.
-
..
. ;, y ' ^
Evaluaticn is proceeding and TVA is to provide the results in a follow up report.
Within the areas inspected, violation or devir.tions were identified.
7.
Cuncrete Forming, installation of rebar, positioning cf embedments, placements and -
post placement curing wers inspected as work progressed in the Plant A containments, fuel buildings, auxiliary buildings, control buildings, and essential service water pump housas. S;1ecific placements inspected included filling of the setrad third of the A-2 vent wall with 230 cubic yards of 100.75 concrete under placement A2R-22 (part); and curing of radwaste
,Aac ments A0W71 B, 45C and 650. Installation of rebar for the foundations and sump areas of emergency diesel generator buildings at the south sides of Units A-1 and A-2 were inspected.
During inspection of activities for structural concrete in these areas, the conformance with the requirements of C.
F. Braun Specification 300-01, Revision S. " Concrete", TVA Construction Specification G-2, QCI C-201, Rev.
4 and CEP 9.02, Revision 5, was verified.
Within the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Status of IE Bulletins (Closed) 80-23 Failures of Solenoid Valves Manufactured by Valcor Engineering Corporation.
The inspector reviewed and accepted.TVA's final report, dated April 2,1981, which states that investigation determined that the subject Valcor solenoid valves have Part Nos. V70900-2'.-1 or 3 are not used at Hartsville.
9.
Status of IE Circulars -
_
(Closed) IEC 81-04 The role of shift Technical Advisors and Importance of
+
Reporting Operational Events. This circular is not applicable to a con-struction site.
(Closed) IEC 81-05 Self-Aligning Rod End Bushings for Pipe Supports.
This circular has been made available to the Hangers Project Engineering Section at Hartsville,and is under review for site applicability.
(Closed) IEC 31-06 Potentiel Deficiency Affecting Certain Roxboro 10 to 50 Milliampere Transmitters.
The circular has been made available to the Electrical. and Instrumentation Sections of Site Project Engineering for review as to 'applicahility at the Hartsville plant.
.
-
..
..