IR 05000566/1981001
| ML19347D520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yellow Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1981 |
| From: | Coley J, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347D518 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-566-81-01, 50-566-81-1, 50-567-81-01, 50-567-81-1, NUDOCS 8103260456 | |
| Download: ML19347D520 (8) | |
Text
p rer
[
UNITED STATES o
g
'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
(' $
E REqlON 11
b[
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 Q,
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303 o
FEB 2 01981 Report Nos. 50-566/81-01 and 50-567/81-01 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 Creak site near Iuka, Mississippi and Combustion Engineering, Chattanooga, Tennessee Inspector:
\\. d.
2 rim d-- / f-8 /
J. L. Coleh Date Signed Approved by:
,7-/9"[,
A. R. He'rdt,'Section Chief, RC&ES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on January 12-16, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of licensee corrective actions for previous licensee reported items (Units 1 and 2); steel structures and supports - welding activities within the contain-ment (Unit 2); review of containment radiographic film (Unit 2); review licensee's action for nonconforming condition reports (Units 1 and 2); indepen-dent inspection of Unit 1 cont:anment, fabrication shops and the material receiving yard; and witness UT demonstration involving new UT techniques for evaluation of discontinuities on Unit 2 reactor vessel nozzles at Combustion Engineering.
Results Of the six areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
83.08260kh
e
.
't DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- M. M. Price, Project Manager Construction
- L. S. Cox, Construction Engineer
- C. G. Wages, Assistant Construction Engineer, QC
- C. E. Hale, Assistant Construction Engineer, Engineering Services
- J. D. Shanlever, Supervisor, Welding, QC
- S. A. Blount, Engineering Services / Technical Services
- R. D. Briggs, Supervisor, Quality Control-Mechanical
- J. N. Holiday, Supervisor-Quality Assurance Unit G. J. Pitzel, Supervisor, Metal Applications D. J. Etzler, Metallurgical Engineer J. Polcyn, Metallurgical Engineer Associate M. E. Gothard, Mechanical Engineer R. H. Daniel, Supervisor Baseline and ISI Section J. F. Lewis, Materials Engineer G. L. Belew, Mechanical Engineer R. Neal, Material Inspector J. Young, Supervisor, Birmingham Inspection Office Other Organizations:
Combustion Engineering F. Hill, Manager, Analytical Engineering W. A. Stone, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance E. Berisford, Project Manager B. R. Moss, Supervisor, Reactor Vessel Design D. Mc
Dearman,
Manager, NDE Department J. L. Woods, Nuclear Design Engineering R. Bentley, NDE NQA R. Hillis, Quality Engineer J. P. Houstrup, Structural Consultant Hartford Steamboiler Inspection and Insurance M. L. Rice, Authorized Nuclear Inspector
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 15, 1981 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The unresolved item described in Paragraph 5.b. and the inspector follow-up items described in paragraph 5.c. were discussed in detail.
In addition, the inspector follow-up item identified at Combustion Engineering on Unit 2 reactor vessel nozzles and
-
described in Paragraph 8 was relayed to TVA's Office of Power Personnel by
.
t
Telecon on January 20, 1981 and to Yellow Creek Construction site personnel on January 29, 1981.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
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 discussed in Paragraph 5.b.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The following areas of interest were examined by the inspector:
a.
A general plant tour was made and general construction activities observed in the following areas:
- Reactor Building (Unit 1)
- CB&I Subassembly Area
- CB&I Construction Office
- TVA Fabrication Shop
- TVA Pipe Shop
- Stainless Steel Shop
- Structural Steel Storage Area
- Receiving Warehouse and Storage Area b.
The inspector reviewed licensee Nonconformance Reports (NCR's) in the welding area to determine the type of problems the licensee was encountering and if the licensee's corrective action was effective.
l The following NCR's, all written in 1980, were noted as representing a l
trend which strongly indicate problems with TVA's vendor procurement program.
1.
NCR-YC-050 - Component Cooling Water Heat Exchangers Discrepancy.
A visual crack was found in the fixed end support ring to shelf weld by Yellow Creek receiving personnel.
2.
NCR-YC-069 - Structural Steel framing for Control Building Units 1 and 2.
Failure to meet requirements for fillet welds IAW American Welding Society Specifications.
This was reported in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e). Item No. 50-566; 567/80-11-09.
3.
NCR-YC-100, Gas Stripper pump Module.
.
A
Skid mounted piping on gas stripper pump module appears to have undersized fillet welds, visible porosity, lack of penetration on butt welds and arc strikes. This was reported in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e). Item No. 50-566/80-16-01.
>
4.
NCR-YC-119, Liquid Waste Concentrator Auxiliary Packages UNID No.
0WL-MEVP-031, Serial No. 2201-2 and UNID No. 0WL-MEVP-032, Serial No. 2202-2.
On Serial No. 2201-2 insufficient filler metal, undersized fillet welds, lack of fusion and penetration on butt welds, seal welds not completed, excessive under cut and questionable surface cracks on pump housings.
On Serial No. 2202-2 questionable surface cracks on pump housing.
5.
NCR-YC-124 Units 1 and 2 - Florida Steel, Deficient Welds.
Undersized fillets welds, craters, excessive undercut, lack of fusion, porosity and 1cnd dimension exceeds design dimension at welds connecting beams to flanges.
This was reported in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Item No. 50-566/81-01-02 and 50-567/81-01-04.
Yellow Creek and some other TVA sites depend on TVA Procurement QA to insure Vendor Conformance. The five NCR's noted above were found by Yellow Creek QC personnel after receipt of the equipment on-site. The inspector discussed with the licensee a concern with TVA's procurement source inspector's failure to identify welding problems with material shipped to Yellow Creek. The licensee was receptive to the inspector's concern and outlined three immediate steps that would be taken to upgrade the vendor procurement program and to evaluate the generic implications that may be involved:
a.
Send all vendor weld inspectors to visual inspection school and certify them in visual inspection, b.
Provide additional surveillance of vendor plants.
c.
Conduct audits at other TVA sites to evaluate the generic impli-cations.
The inspector stated that this would be reported as an Unresolved Item No. 50-566; 567/81-01-01, Generic Concern For Vendor Inspectors Visual Inspection of Welds.
On January 20, 1981, the licensee reported to Region II by telecon in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e). Failure of Source Inspection to Discover Visual Weld Defects May Have Generic Implications. A written report will be forwarded on 2/19/81.
.
)
'
-
.
l
,
c.
As a result of the procurement problems noted in paragraph b. above, the inspector performed an inspection of components stored in the receiving yard for Unit 2 and noted the following concerns.
1.
Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger Serial No. J2349G -
Conditions noted on tube side nozzle welds; irregular weld, possibly inadequate weld in areas, and excessive weld in other areas, pits, laps, and arc strikes.
2.
Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger Serial No. J2349J -
Condition noted on tube side nozzles, arc strikes rough weld and weld splatter.
3.
Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger Serial No. J-2349H -
Condition noted on tube side nozzle welds; arc strikes and weld splatter.
Evaluation as to acceptance or rejetion of the above noted conditions could not be determined at this time since supporting documentation was unclear as to what inspections had been performed on the tube side nozzles.
The licensee stated that any radiographs of the welds in question as well as documentation of other types of inspections would be made available. In addition, the inspector requested that a detail drawing of the nozzle weld joint design and reinforcement requirements be made available. This item will be reinspected on a future inspec-tion and was identified to the licensee as an inspector follow-up item No. 50-567/81-01-02, Additional Information Requested for Evaluation of Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger Nozzle Welds.
Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Steel Structures and Supports - Observation of Welding Activities Within the Containment (Unit 2)
The inspector observed in process welding activities of structural field welds as described below to determine whether applicable code and procedure requirements were being met. The applicable code for this welding is ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NE,1974 Edition with addenda through the summer,1976.
a.
Welding The following weldt vere examined in process:
Assembly C18 Seam A-1 Repairs in process Assembly 030 Seam A-1 Welding in process Assembly C17 Penetration Welding in process 283A S/N 28 i
.
.
s
Assembly C16 Penetration Welding in process 281A S/N 43 The inspector examined the above work to determine whether:
1.
Work is conducted in accordance with a document which coordinates and sequences operations, references procedures, and provides for 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 character-istics specified.
7.
Welding equipment is in good working condition and calibrated as applicable.
b.
Welder Qualification The inspector reviewed the CB&I propram for qualification of welders for compliance with QA procedures and ASME code requirements.
" Records of Performance Qualification Test" for the following welders and/or welding operators relative to the welds listed above were reviewed.
WCW, JWG, WW c.
Review of Radiographs (Unit 2 Containment)
The applicable code for this radiography is ASME Boiler and Pressure
,
!
Vessel Code,Section V,1974 edition with addenda through the summer of 1976.
Assembly Seam Film Stations C-20 A-2 0-1 thru 38-39 C-20 A-1 0-1 thru 38-39 C-21 A-2 0-1 thre 38-39 C-21 A-1 0-1 thru 25-26 C-23 A-1 0-1 thru 38-39 B-22 BUTT-3 Horizontal Stifferer B-22 BUTT-4 Horizontal Stiffener
T o
The inspector noted that film stations 23-24 and 36-37 for Assembly C23 Seam A-1 had areas in the weld that appeared to be lack of fusion. The licensee had noted these areas to be pressure marks caused by the lead letter B.
CB&I however, re-radiographed the areas in question.
The additional radiography concluded these areas to be pressure marks.
d.
Weld Heat Treatment The welds listed in the paragraph 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 requirements; and procedural compliance.
Within the treas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Licensee Identified Items (50.55e)
a.
(0 pen) Item 566/567/80-11-01 - Structural Steel Framing For Control Building.
This item concerned Bristol Steel (Mississippi Valley Steel) failure to meet requirements for fillet welds according to the American Welding Society contract specification on structural steel framing for the control building. All structural steel welds have been repaired and the licensee has conducted an audit at Bristol Steel.
The licensee also stated that closer surveillance of work in vendor shops would be performed. The inspector, however, reviewed documentation received at Yellow Creek which indicated that this shipment had received visual inspection by the licensee's vendor procurement branch prior to ship-ment.
The licensee's audit also did not address what actions Bristol Steel had taken to prevent defective work noted in this 50.55(e) item from occurring again at Bristol Steel or Mississippi Valley Steel. In addition, the licensee has not addressed the possibility that this may be a generic problem as noted in the unresolved item described in paragraph 5.
Both vendors have all supplied structural steel to other licensee sites.
This item will remain open until licensee actions described in paragraph 5.b. have been completed.
b.
(0 pen) Item 50-566/81-01-02, 50-567/81-01-04 - Florida Steel Deficient Welds A consignment of
"I" beam type structural members was shipped from Florida Steel Corporation to the Ycllow Creek site.
This consignment appears to have undersized fillet welds, craters, excessive undercut,
,
l lack of fusion, and porosity.
In addition, land dimension exceeds design dimension at welds connecting beams to flanges. (TVA NCR YC-124 identified November 21,1980). This report assigns the above numbers for record purposes. No inspection of this item was performed.
t t
-
e
..
A
8.
Licensee Demonstration of New Ultrasonic Testing (UT) Techniques (Unit 2).
The inspector attended a UT demonstration at Combustion Engineering in Chattanooga, Tennessee on January 16, 1981. The purpose was to demonstrate the results of a collimated beam transducer using manually operated 'JT equipment on discrepancies found in the outlet nozzlts of Yellow Creek's Reactor Vessel for Unit 2.
The discrepancies had previously been rejected when the automated system using a normal beam transducer had been used.
The results of this demonstration indicated that the discontinuities were much smaller than previously reported using a normal probe.
The sizing difference appears to be attributed to the beam spread on the reflective surface of the discontinuities. Using the collimated beam transducer, the discontinuities appear to be acceptable. The inspector noted, however, that the amplitude for the discontinuity on weld No. 02-001-015 located at 165*
had dropped from the recorded 62% DAC when utilizing the normal probe with the automated system to 40% DAC when the co111 mated probe was used. This discontinuity had a recordable length of 2 inches and a 2a dimension of 1.18 inches when measured with a normal probe using the automated system. The 40% DAC reading would make this discontinuity nonrecordable. However, this decrease in amplitude is not consistent with the concept of the (focused)
collimated beam transducer.
The collimated transducer should give equivalent amplitudos for the area / distance relationship. The difference encountered could be the result of variables associated with the manual scanning process. The licensee will reinspect the nozzles using the automated system and the collimated beam transducer in mid-March. The variables will be eliminated at this time and an accurate comparison of the area / distance / amplitudes relationships can be made.
This item was reported as inspector's follow-up item no.
50-567/81-01-03, Demonstration of Equivalent UT.
l l
,
l I
<