IR 05000566/1980002
| ML19309B488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yellow Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1980 |
| From: | Crowley B, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309B483 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-566-80-02, 50-566-80-2, 50-567-80-02, 50-567-80-2, NUDOCS 8004040208 | |
| Download: ML19309B488 (7) | |
Text
.
O) +p ' * hg f
.
)
o,_
UNITED STATES
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
.
g *-
ua REGION !!
's e'['
'
o 101 MAR'ETTA ST, N.W., SUITE 3100
%
AT LANT A, G EORGI A 33303
'
FEB 131980 Report Nos. 50-566/80-02 and 50-567/80-02 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Facility Name: Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant Docket Nos.,50-566 and 50-567 License Nos. CPPR-172 and CPPR-173
.
Inspection at CombtIst on Engineering, Inc., Chattanooga, TN Inspector: _ [.
w..-;-/
[INy M[O f(,z.Ilf R. Crowley
~
Date Signed
,
Accompanying Personnel:
J. L. Coley (T nining)
Approved by:
[
/
,
x,
.2. /L
-
A.' R. Herdt, Section Chief, ESBranch/
Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on January 23-25, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 48 inspector-hours on site in the area of preservice inspection of major components.
Results No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
e
,
,$ '
800404020s
-
- - _ _ _ _ __
_ _ -
_ _. _ _,. _.. _. _ _.,.
_
_. _
._._ _
-.
T
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. H. Daniel, Supervisor Baseline and Inservice Inspection Section, QA Staff
- T. L. Hale, Engineering Associate Other Organizats2ns Combustion Engineering, Inc. - ISI Division
- J. R. Fox, Project Engineer
- J. J. Dore, Shift Engineer Nuclear Energy Services, Inc. - NES Division
- P. S. Barry, Site Manager J. D. Boardman, Shift Supervisor - Level III
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview
.
At the conclusion of the inspection on January 25, 1980, the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection of preservice inspection activities of major components. The inspector followup items of paragraphs 5 and 6 were discussed. The licensee's contractor agreed to revise the PT procedure to clarify surface preparation requirements and to evaluate the pipe welding UT procedure to insure that all requirements of Section V of the ASME Code are being met.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Preservice Inspection - Review of Program (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed the licensee's preservice inspection (PSI) program in the areas indicated below. The requirements for psi are specified in the Yellow Creek PSAR, paragraph 5.2.8.
Paragraph 5.2.8.6 of the PSAR specifies inspection in accordance with paragraph 16.4.6.5 of CESSAR (Combustion Engineering Standard SAR).
It should be noted that paragraph
.
N y
-- --
_-
__
T
-
.
y-2-
,
16.4.6.5 does not exist in the final CESSAR, only in the Preliminary CESSAR.
Therefore, the Preliminary CESSAR is considered to be the applicable docu-ment dictating PSI requirements.
Paragraph 16.4.6.5 of the CESSAR specifies inspection in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1971 Edition with Addenda through the Summer of 1973.
However, in response to question 121.1 for the Yellow Creek PSAR TVA committed to an ISI program in accordance with the edition and addenda of Section XI as required by 10 CFR 50, 50.55a (g). The 1974 edition with addenda through the summer of 1975 meets these requirements and is being used for PSI of the major components, The inspector ascertained that the PSI program and procedures had been a.
approved by the licensee.
b.
The inspector reviewed the organizational structure including qu'alifi-
.
cations, training requirements, responsibilities, and duties of personnel responsible for the PSI (other than TVA). TVA has contracted Combustion Engineering, Inc., Power System Services - ISI Division (CE - ISI Div.) to perform PSI of reactor vessel, closure head, steam generators,
>
pressurizer, primary piping and reactor ceolant pumps.
CE - ISI subcontracted Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc. (NES) to perform the inspec-tions under the management of CE - ISI. The inspection is governed by the following QA documents:
(1) CE - ISI " Shop Preservice Inspection Program Plan for TVA Yellow Creek, Unit No. 1".
(2) CE - ISI " Development Department QA Program".
(3) CE - ISI Procedure 0000-ESS-155, " Quality Assurance Program for Services Activities".
(4) NES Specification 80A9021, Rev. 2, "NES Inservice. inspection Program Quality Assurance Manual".
In addition to the QA documents listed above the inspector reviewed c.
the following procedures:
(1) NES 80A9068, Rev. O, " Procedure For Training and Certification of Nondestructive Examination Personn.-1".
(2) NES 80A9077, llev. O, " Inservice Ins; ection Project Supervision".
(3) NES 80A9005, Rev. O, " Inservice Inspection Data Review Procedure".
(4) NES 80A9023, Rev. O, " Inservice Inservice Inspection Data Control Procedure".
(5) NES 80A9035, Rev. 1, " Procedure For Weld Marking Datum Points and Identification".
,
...
_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
N-3-(6) NES 80A9060, Rev. O, " Inservice Inspection Field Change Procedure".
(7) CE - ISI 0000-ESS-153, Rev. 1, " Procedure For the Operation of the Inservice Inspection Positioning Device for the Inside Surface Ultrasonic Examination Reactor Vessels for TVA".
(8) CE - ISI 0000-ESS-118, Rev. O, " Qualification Statement For Inservice (ISI) Nondestructive Examination Procedures".
(9) NES 80A9055, Rev. O, " Calibration of Temperature Indicators".
The procedures were reviewed to assure that procedures had been estab-lished (written, reviewed, approved and issued) to control and accom-plish the following activities (other than TVA):
.
(1) Audits including procedures, frequency and qualification of
_
personnel.
(2) General QA requirements including examination reports, deviations from previously established program, material certifications and identification of components to be covered.
(3) Work and Inspection procedures.
(4) Control of proc' esses including suitably controlled work conditions, special methods, and use of qualified personnel.
(5) Corrective Action.
(6) Document control.
(7) Control of examination equipment.
(8) Quality records including documentation of indications and NDE findings, review of documentation, provisions to assure legibility and retrievability, and corrective action.
,
O i
(9) Scope of the inspection including description of areas to be examined, examination category, method of inspection, extent of examination, and justification for any exceptions.
(10) Qualification of NDE personnel d.
During review of the PSI program, the inspector noted 3 at paragraph 6 of Section VI, " Exclusions and Exceptions", indicates < 3at primary piping is to be inspected in accordance with Appendix I to Section XI in lieu of Article 5 of Section V of the ASME code. Appendix I is limited to vessels 2\\" and thicker.
It appears that the requirements of Section V are exceeded using Appendix I in that 2 angle beam inspec-
.
'tions will be performed in lieu of I as required by Section V.
The
.
,
b o
e 1--.
.
,
-4-i primary piping is greater than 2 " thick.
The licensee's contractor agreed to evaluate the pipe inspection procedure to ensure that all requirements of Section V are included.
This item will be examined at a future inspection and is identified as inspector followup item number 566/80-02-01, "Use of Appendix I to Section XI for piping Inspections".
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Preservice Inspection - Review of Procedures (Unit 1)
The inspector reviewed the PSI procedures indicated below to determine whether the procedures were consistent with regulatory requirements and licensee committments. See paragraph 5 above for the applicable code.
The following procedures were reviewed in the areas of procedure a.
approval and requirements for qualification of NDE Personnel:
(1) NES Procedure NIP - 1130, Revision 3, " Automatic UT Examination Procedure for Reactor Pressure Vessel".
,
(2) NES Procedure NIP - 1131, Revision 3, " Automatic Examination Procedure For Reactor Pressure Vessel Techniques".
(3) NES Procedure NIP - 1133, Revision 1, " Automatic UT Examination Procedures for Reactor Pressure Vessel to Flange Weld from Flange Mating Surface".
,
(4) NES Procedure NIP - 1134, Revision 2, "UT NDE for Reactor Pressure Vessel Flange Ligament Areas".
(5) NES Procedure NIP - 1135, Revision 1, " Automatic UT for Reactor Pressure Vessel to Nozzle Welds and Extension Piece to Nozzle Welds for NDE Bore".
b.
Procedure NIP - 1130 was also reviewed in the areas of compilation of required records and procedure technical content relative to:
type of
>
apparatus, extent of co<erage including beam angle and scanning tech-niques, calibration requirements, search units, DAC curves, reference level for monitoring discontinuities, method of demonstrating penetra-tion, levels for evaluation and recording indications, and acceptance standard.
The program and procedures for weld categories B-J, B-A, B-B, and B-C c.
were reviewed to determine that examination categories, method of exainination, and extent of examination were specified and that licen-see's SAR commitments were reflected in these procedures.
d.
Procedure 534115-ESS-093, Revision 1, " Liquid Penetrant Examination Procedure for Preservice and Inservice Inspection (Solvent-Removable
.
_
]
j
.,
-5-
,
type)", was reviewed in the areas of compilation of required records and procedure technical content relative to: method consistent with ASME code, specification of brand names of penetrant materials, speci-fication of limits for sulfur and total halogens for penetrant materials, pre-examination surface preparation, minimum drying time following
. surface cleaning, penetrant time, temperature requirements, solvent
-
removal, method of surface drying, type of developer and method of g
application, examination technicque, technique for evaluation, accep-tance standards, and requalification requirements.
Paragraph 5.1.1 of the above PT procedure indicates that wire brushing is required as a final surface preparation. The procedure does not i
differentiate between hand and power wire brushing. The inspector pointed out that power wire brushing just prior to PT inspection can mask indications. Discussions with inspector personnel and obse'rva-tions by the inspector revealed that in actual practice power wire brushing is not being used as a final surface preparation. The licensee's contractor agreed to revise the PT procedure to clarify the requirements for final surface preparation by wire brushing. This item will be examined at a future inspection and is identified as inspector followup item 566/80-02-02, " Clarification of surface preparation requirements for PT inspection".
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-
7.
Preservice Inspection - Observation of Work and Work Activities (Unit 1)
The inspector observed the PSI activities described below to determine whether these activities were being performed in accordance with regulatory
,
requirements and licensee procedures. See paragraph 5 above for the appli-
'
cable code.
Personnel qualification records for one level I, one level II, and one a.
level III examiner were reviewed.
b.
In process ultrasonic (UT) inspection, including calibration checks (
and recalibration on applicable calibration block was observed for
'
portions of sections A, B, C, and D of reactor pressure vessel bottom head weld 01-001-001.
The inspection was compared with applicable i
procedures in the fellowing areas:
(1) Availability of and compliance with approved NDE procedures.
'
(2) Use of knowledgeable NDE personnel.
(3) Use of NDE personnel qualified to the' proper level.
.
--
.
-6-
,
(4) Recording of inspection results.
(5) Type of apparatus used.
(6) Extent of coverage of weldment.
(7) Calibration requirements.
(8) Search units.
(9) Beam angles (10) DAC curves.
(11) Reference level for monitoring discontinuities.
'
(12) Method for demonstration penetration.
(13) Limits for evaluating and recording indications.
(14) Recording significant indications.
~
(15) Acceptance limits.
(16) Use of instruction manual for automated equipment.
(17) Examination personnel thoroughly familiar with automated equipment.
(18) Examination permits contineous observation of scanning pattern.
(19) Continuous recording of meaningful and reproducible data.
(20) Couplant requirements.
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
.
- r.
.