IR 05000566/1980013
| ML20008D846 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yellow Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1980 |
| From: | Coley J, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008D845 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-566-80-13, 50-567-80-13, NUDOCS 8010230262 | |
| Download: ML20008D846 (6) | |
Text
I
'o UNITED STATES
~,,
l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY 0MMISSION n
!.
.E REGION 18
101 MA. lETTA sT., N.W., sulTE 3100 l
e ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303o3
-
-
o
.....
l
'
Report Nos. 50-566/80-13 and 50-567/80-13 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401
,
Facility Name: Yellow Creek Docket Nos. 50-566 and 50-567 License Nos. CPPR-172 and CPPR-173 Inspection at Yellow Creek site near Iuka, Mississippi Inspector:
\\. [.
7-4-h1 J. L. Cbh Date Signed Approved by:
{//
hj/M A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on August 5-8, 1980 Art.as Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 24 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of licensee action on previous inspection findings (Units 1 & 2); steel structures and supports - welding activities within the containment (Unit 1);
review of containment radiographic film (Unit 1); and review of licensee correc-tive action for quality assurance audits, quality control investigation reports, and nonconforming condition reports (Units 1 and 2).
Results No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
.
8010,230262
- -
f_.,
_
e i
%
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted l
Licensee Employees
- M. M. Price, Project Manager
-
- L. S. Cox, Construction Engineer l
!
- C. G. Wages, Assistant Construction Engineer QC Unit
- J. N. Holladay, Construction QA YCN E. Bennich, P. E. Unit-Electrical Engineer
- S. P. Watson, ES-Document Services Unit
- L. C. Marshall, P. E. Unit-Mechanical Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included eight construction craftsmen, two technicians, two security force members, and three office personnel.
Other Organizations l
l Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (CB&I)
l C. L. Spears, Jr.
- Project Welding & QA Superintendent L. S. Savage, QA Technician
- Attended exit interview
!
2.
Exit Interview l
On August 8, 1980, the inspector met with the licensee representatives
'
noted in paragraph I above and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection of steel structures welding within the containment (Unit 1),
radiographic film review (Unit 1), and review of the licensee corrective action for audits, quality control investigation reports and nonconforming
,
I condition reports. The status of noncompliance 566-567/80-03-01 was dis-cussed and the licensee agreed to modify their response to NRC to include seven additional radiographs which were rejected as a result of the licensee's further evaluation of the 95 radiographs previously rejected for penetrameter placement and later accepted by CB&I. The licensee was informed that this inspection resulted in no new items of noncompliance or deviations.
On August 13, 1980 L. S. Cox, TVA Construction Engineer was notified that the cause and effect of 641 radiographs rejected and re-radiographed due to film darkening while in storage should be addressed in their revised response to noncompliance 566-567/80-03-01. The licensee agreed to include the film darkening problem in their revised response.
.
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Open) Infraction 566-567/80-03-01, Failure to Establish Adequate Measures to Control Radiography. All re-radiography resulting from the licensee's
-_
,-
......
-
- - -
.=. ~. -
.
t.
l
,
s-2-l l
l reevaluation of the 95 radiographs previously rejected and later accepted l
by CB&I had not been completed at the time of the inspection. The licensee was notified that their revised response should include the 7 additional l
radiographs found to be uracceptable in this review.
In addition the inspector noted that as a result of CB&I's review for proper penetrameter placement, of all radiographs (6849) made prior to February 22, 1980, 641
!
radiographs were subsequently rejected for film darkening while in storage.
l CB&I also had to re-wash the remaining-6208 ' radiographs in order to stop l
the film exposure process. CB&I will continue to monitor these film for
'
further darkening.
The inspector found that there was a difference of opinion between the licensee and CB&I at Yellow Creek and CB&I at Birmingham
as to the cause of the film darkening. As a result the licensee issued Quality Control Investigation Report (QCIR) #23585 and Nonconforming Condi-
tion Report (NCR) #YC-088 to evaluate and determine if the problem was improper film processing which could make it unique to Yellow Creek or defective chemicals which may make the problem generic. The chemicals were supplied by Gevaert and were within their active shelf life. The licensee was notified on August 13, 1980 that the scope of this problem, the cause and the affect should be-addressed in their revised response to NRC for this infraction. The licensee agreed to revise their response to include i
the film darkening problem. This item will be examined further after all l
licensee actions have been completed.
i l
4.
Unresolved Items
!
!
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are l
discussei in paragraph 6c.
!
5.
Inspector followup Items (0 pen) Inspector followup Item no.
566/80-09-01. The inspector reviewed QCIR No. 23340 which covers rejectable welds on structural steel furnished by Mississippi Valley Steel Company for the control building. The welds had been rejected at receipt inspection for undercut, undersize fillet, porosity, overlaps end generally poor surface condition.
All structural steel welds had been repaired at the time of the inspection and the inspector observed these repairs. The welds appear satisfactory, however the licensee had not completed their corrective action which included a detail audit by the licensee Quality Engineering Branch from Knoxville. This audit had not been conducted at the time of the inspection. This item was reported to
. Region II as a 10 CFR 21 item and will be reinspected when all the licensee actions have been completed.
.
6.
Independent Inspection Effort The following areas of interest were examined by the inspector:
a.
A general plapt tour was made and general construction activities l
.
H
?
m
,
- _.
C_.w
.
_.._. -.. _ _. _
.
o I
-3-
-
l observed in the following areas:
- Reactor Building (Unit 1)
- CB&I Subassembly Area
- CB&I Construction Office
- TVA Welding School
- TVA Fabrication Shop
l
- TVA Pipe Shop
.
- TVA Stainless Shop l
- TVA Structural Steel Storage Area l
b.
CB&I Rod Room for Unit 1 Reactor Building was examined for control of l
storage, issue and temperature.
l
c.
The inspector reviewed completed audits, QCIR's & NCR's to determine I
the type of problems the licensee was encountering and if the licensee's corrective action was effective. The following two examples of poor
,
l responses to QCIR's were noted:
(1) QCIR #23335 reported a condition of burrs inside 5" rigid galvanized conduit.
The condition was dispositioned as being satisfactory per an electrical engineer.
This reply fails to address criteria that would make this item acceptable and therefore is nothing more than an opinion.
TVA's disposition should be definitive, so that anyone reviewing the QCIR would
{
have enough information to reach the same conclusion.
i l
(2) QCIR #23488' written against concrete pour F1-J6, reported that i
the formwork had not been checked by the project engineer and
!
that there was a conflict with the rebar and the water stop in the north west corner.
The disposition for this item was to complete the work. This reply requires the reader to assume that
the problems were corrected which may be a false assumption.
,
The licensee stated that both replies would be verifica and corrected.
In addition a review would be made to establish if any other QCIR replies had similar weaknesses.
The licensee also stated that a continuing emphasis has been placed on corrective action replies and that a significant improvement had been observed.
This item was identified as unresolved item #566-567/80-13-01, " Disposition to QCIR's."
Within the areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviation were l
identified.
l l
7.
Steel Structures and Supports - Observation of Welding Ac'tivities Within
~
Containment (Unit _1)
The inspector observed in process welding activities of contain.nent structural field welds as described below to determine'if applicable code
.
,
C =~---.- --
. -
I
!l*
-4-L
!
!
l and procedure requirements were being met.
The applicable code for _ this l
welding is ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, subsection l
NE,1974 Edition with addenda through the summer 1976.
!
l a.
Welding
!
.
The following welds were examined in process:
Vertical Weld A1/A2 Penetration Weld 48-A-2 Girth Weld B1/B2 j
The inspector examined the above work to determine whether:
l i
(1) Work is conducted in accordance with a document which coordinates
!
and sequences operations, references procedures, and provides for j
hold points.
(2) Procedures, drawings, and other instructions are at the work station and readily available.
(3). Welding technique and sequence are specified and adhered to.
(4) Weld joint geometry is in accordance with applicable procedure and inspected.
,
(5) Alignment of parts is in accordance with applicable requirements.
(6) Electrodes are used in positions and with electrical characteristics j
specified.
!
'
(7) Welding equipment is in good working condition and calibrated as applicable.
l b.
Welder Qualification t
The inspector reviewed the CB&I program for qualification of welders for compliance with QA procedures and ASME code requirements.
" Records of Performance Qualification Tesc" for the following welders and/or welding operators relative to the welds listed in 7.a.
above were reviewed:
\\
!
RJH, LEA, RAM, JST and WCW
.
c.
Review of Radiographs
,
The inspector reviewed the radiographs for assy B7/B8 film stations 0-1 thru 39-0 for compliance with procedural and ASME Code requirement.
-... -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a-5-
l
~d.
Weld Heat Treatment
- The ' velds listed in ' paragraph 7.a above were examined in process relative to weld joint preheating to determine whether; procedures are available; procedures specify acceptable preheating method; procedures provide monitoring and recording regt.irements; and procedural compliance.
Within the areas inspected, no items of' noncompliance or deviation were
!
identified _.
l t
!
l i
'
l
.
I l
i
'
I
!
s
!-
.
,,
..-o
_ _.
._y
-