ML20032B449
| ML20032B449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hartsville  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1981 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Parris H TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B440 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111050556 | |
| Download: ML20032B449 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000518/1981012
Text
-.
.
..
.
-
,,
..
.
,
e
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 374ot -
400 Chestnut Street Tower II
- { GT 7
,33d
October 2, 1981
E*. James P. O'Reilly, Director
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
U.S. Nuclear Fegulatory Commission
Region II - Suite 3100
101 Marietta Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Enclosed is our response to R. C. ' cwis' September 2,1981 letter to
H. G. Parris transmitting Inspection Report Nos. 50-518/81-12,
-519/81-12, -520/81-12, and -521/81-12 regarding activities at
our Hartsville Nuclear Plant which appeared to have been in
violation of NRC regulations. If you have any questions, please
call . Tim Domer at FTS 857-2014.
To the best of my knowledge, I declare the statements contained
herein are complete and true.
Very truly yours,
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
%\\ % L4
'
L.M. Mills, Manager
'
Nuclear Regulation and Safety
Enclosure
O!hhhN8
An Equal Opportunity Employer
]
w_
-
.
.
.
.
O
ENCLOSURE
HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT
RESPONSE TO NRC-0IE LETTER FROM R. C. LEWIS TO H. G. PARRIS
DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1981
REFERENCE:
Report Nos. 50-518/81-12, 50-519/81-12, 50-520/81-12, and
50-521/81-12
This report responds to the Notice of Violation described in Appendix A
of the OIE inspection report referenced above. This is our final report
on this item of noncompliance.
Noncompliance Item - Severity Level VI - Violation 518/81-12-01
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, and the accepted QA program, TVA
topical report TVA-TR 75-1A, section 17.1A.5 requires that activities
affecting quality shall be prescribed and accomplished in accordance with
documented procedures.
Paragraph 8.2.1 of Qaality Control Instruction N-101 Revision !! in the
TVA Division of Construction Program Manual requires liquid penetrant
indication which is believed to be nonrelevant shall be regarded as a
defect by other nondestructive means and demonstrated to be nonrelevant.
Paragraph 9.1 states in part that, the following types of relevant
indications are not acceptable: any crack and linear indications.
Contrary to the above, the inspection observed a liquid penetrant
examination in progress performed by a qualified Level II TVA inspector
in which the results displayed a linear indication approximately 1/2" $4
length at the toe of the weld. The TVA inspector had interpreted the
examination as acceptable.
This is a Severity Level VI Violation (Supplemert II.F).
Response
1.
Admission Or Denial Of The Alleged Violation
T'!A admits the violation occurred as stated.
2.
The Reasons For The Violation
Based on previous experience, the inspector determined that the
indication was nonrelevant since it was light pink rather than the
darker red of true indications. The inspector was also aware that
the surface preparation of the weld would produce some of these
light pink indications. As a result, the inspector determined that
the weld was acceptable and that the indication was nonrelevant.
3
Corrective Steps Taken And Results Achieved
The weld in question was reexamined and found to be acceptable.
.
-
-
n,
as
~.
a,=
-
- ,.
4
.,)
>
.4
Lb
s.
-
.
.
.,
.
.r
-2-
1
11 .
Corrective Steps Taken To'Avclid Fdrther Noncompliance
'All Welding Quality Control personnel were reminded by memorandum
'
from the unit supervisor that noncelevant indications must be
evaluated in accordance with the'~squirements of applicable QCI's.
.
- 5.
DateWhenFullComplianceWasAcbieved
.,
a
Full compliance was achieved-on August 26, 1981.
,
4
!
I
I
.o
)
L
1
%-
,