IR 05000201/2003002
| ML17298C085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde, West Valley Demonstration Project  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1985 |
| From: | Ball J, Clark C, Hernandez G, Miller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17298C084 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-529-85-05, 50-529-85-5, 50-530-85-03, 50-530-85-3, NUDOCS 8504290124 | |
| Download: ML17298C085 (18) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report Nos:
50-529/85-05 and 50-530/85-03 Docket Nos:
50-529 and 50-530 Construction Permit Nos:
CPPR-142 and 143 Licensee:
Arizona Public Service Company P.
O. Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Facility Name: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Unit Nos.
and 3.
Inspection Conducted:
February 1 March 2, 1985 Inspectors:
G. H. Hernande
, Senior Date igned Resident Inspecto J.
R. Ball, Resident Inspector Date Signed C. A. Clark, Reactor Inspector Date Signed Approved By:
L. F. Miller, Chief, Date Signed Reactor Projects 'Section No.
8/zD/ )
~Summar:
Ina ectionfrom 8, ehruac 1 - March 2.
1985 (Re ort Nos. 50-529/85-05, and 50-530/85-03)
Areas Inspectors of activities related'o the Unit No.
2 Containment Structural Integrity Test (SIT) and,the Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT), a review of Unit No.
2 structural steel and sup-ports quality records, and observation of Unit No.
3 electrical cable installation and terminations.
Additional'ly, a Region V
Reactor Inspector investigated two allegations related to the qualification,of startup testing personnel.
The inspection involved 268 inspector hours. on site by two NRC Resident Inspectors, and 20 inspector hours by one regional Reactor Inspector.
Results:
Of the areas inspected, no violations were identified.
8504290124 850408 PDR ADOCK 05000529,'i
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted:
a.
Arizona Public Service Com an (APS)
E. E.
Van Brunt, Jr.,
Vice President,;Nuclear Production,
+D. B. Karner,. Assistant Vice President,,
Nuclear Production J.
R. Bynum, Plant Manager
+W. E. Ide, Corporate Quality. Assurance Manager D. B. Fasnacht, Nuclear Construction Manager W. F. Quinn, Licensing Manager
- C. N. 'Russo, Quality Assurance Audits/Monitoring Manager R. J. Burgess, Field Engineering Supervisor E'. C. Sterling, Configuration.Control Supervisor R. J.
Kimmel, Transition Engineer R. L. Hamilton, Quality,'Monitoring Supervisor
+T. J..Bloom,,
Licensing, Engineer W. D. Roman, Lead Operations Engineer W. L. Bichlmeir, Operations, Engineer
'.
T. Ramey, Quality System Supervi'sor N. C. Hallas Quality Engineer
,J. Y. Morita, Licensing Engineer R. J.
Kimmel,: Transition Representative
- W. W. Montefour,,
Quality Assurance Engineer b.
Bechtel Power Cor oration (Bechtel)
+W., J. Stubblefield, S.
M; Nickell, J. Black, R. Randel, D. Freeland, D. R. Hawkinson,
- H. D. Foster,
- T. L. Horst, R. H. Roehn,
- D. Anderson R. E. Vote Prospect Manager Project Superintendent Chief Resident Engineer
'Startup/Operations Resident Engineer Pipe
& Pipe Support Resident Engineer Prospect Quality Assurance Manager Project Quality Control Engineer Project Field Engineer Lead Quality Assurance Engineer Resident Engineer Quality Assurance Engineer
+Denotes personnel attending the NRC Exit Management Meeting conducted on March 4, 1985.,
The inspectors also interviewed, other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection.
2.
Plant Status.
a.
Unit Two:
.During the week of February 3-9, 1985, the licensee performed the Containment Structural Integrity and Integrated Leak Rate Tests.
Both,tests were successfully complete Ii
'
1r lt
At present, Unit No.
2 has a scheduled fuel load date of December 1985.
Construction of Unit No.
2 is estimated to be 99%
complete.
Unit Three:
The major activity on going is the installation of electrical cable and instrumentation.terminations, which is estimated't'90X complete.
At present, Unit No.
3 has a scheduled fuel load date of March, 1987.
Construction of Unit No.
3 is estimated to be 95X complete.
3.
Containment Structural Inte rit and Inte rated Leak Rate Tests The inspector observed'he licensee's performance of the Containment Structural Integrity Test (SIT) and'reoperational Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) for Unit 2 between February 3-7, 1985.
The SIT was conducted in accordance with Bechtel test procedure No. IP 5.29, "Primary Reactor Containment Structural Integrity Test".
The ILRT was performed in accordance with the licensee's procedure No. 91PE-2CL02, "Integrated Leak Rate Test", using the method'escribed in the Bechtel Topical Report, BN-TOP-1, for short duration testing of contai'nments.
a.
Review of Records.
The inspector reviewed calibration records for all instrumentation used in both the SIT and ILRT.
Calibration records for the 44 taut wire displacement transducers used to measure the expansion of the containment structure during the SIT were examined.
Calibration records for the 24 Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs), six dew cells, two pressure gages used.to measure containment air mass, and the two flow elements used to measure the induced leak during the verification portion of the ILRT were also examined.
All instruments had been calibrated within the last six months.
The inspector discussed with the licensee the method of calibration for each instrument used in the tests.
The inspector also discussed the in situ check of the instrumentation with the licensee.
The inspector reviewed the computer programs used to cal'ibrate 'both the expansion of the containment structure and the containment leakage rate.
The inspector found that the containment leakage rate program calculated the 95X upper confidence limit using T-values for a one-sided as opposed to a two-sided students'-
distribution.
A two sided'tudents'-
distribution is. detailed in the Bechtel topical report.
The licensee modified the program, after discussions with the inspector, to calculate the 95% upper confid'ence limit using the two-sided distribution.
'No violati'ons or deviations were identifie ]pi
Observation of Work and'ork Activities.
Prior to the SIT/ILRT, the inspector observed local leak rate tests of containment penetrations being performed'n accordance with the licensee's procedure 91PE-2CL01, "Local Leak Rate Test".
The inspector found that the.penetrations were being tested at the proper test pressure, and instrumentation.
was calibrated and of the appropriate, range and accuracy.
Prior to pressurization, the inspector verified the valve alignment for 30 mechanical penetra-tions.
The inspector also verified'hat electrical penetrations were not pressurized in excess of test pressure, and performed an area survey for instrument location assignments within the containment building.
This inspection revealed that the sensors were properly located and oriented to provide an accurate representation of the expansion of the containment structure and the containment air mass.
The inspector also inspected concrete crack mapping locations on the exterior walls of the containment.
On February 4th, the licensee commenced pressurizing the containment building.
The inspector observed the attainment of peak test pressure of 69.3 psig on the morning of February 5th.
Following a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> out gassing period, the licensee returned the containment pressure to 50 psig and began taking data for the ILRT.
After a four hour stabilization period, the licensee took data for an additional eight hours before performing a 'four hour verification test.
The licensee completed the test on February 7, 1985.
No violations or deviations were identified.
Evaluation of Results.
The licensee's review of concrete crack mapping and displacement data indicated that the containment performed as predicted during the SIT.
One particular crack was found by the licensee in an area located on the containment dome.
The crack,,however, did.not significantly increase in size during the test.
ILRT data taken by the licensee was independently evaluated by the inspector for compliance with the acceptance criteria found in the Bechtel topical report.
The inspector calculated an end of test total time leakage rate of 0.0317 weight percent per day with a 95X upper confidence limit of.0.0889 weight percent.per day.
Using the average rate of change of the total time leakage rate over the last five hours of data, the inspector, extrapolating from eight hours to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />,. determined the end of test total time leakage rate for an equivalent 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test to be 0.0678'eight percent per day.
The inspector also determined the mean total time leakage rate over the last five hours of data to be 0.0265 weight percent per day.
Thus, all criteria in the Bechtel topical report were met.
However, the inspector noted the licensee's procedure did not provide assurance that'll requirements were met at the end of the test.
The acceptance criteria described in the Bechtel topical report were not clearly defined in,the test procedure.
The licensee committed to change the test procedure to more clearly define the acceptance criteria which must be me il
~
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Unit No.
2 Containment Structural Steel and Su orts Review of ualit Records.
The inspector reviewed documentation related to the.procurement and installation of reactor coolant pump horizontal and vertical support columns.
The following vendor drawings and specifications were reviewed':
Specification No. 545 80-PE-513 Revision 4, "Specification for Reactor Coolant Pump Horizontal and Vertical Support Columns for Standard Plant."
Specification No. 545 80-PE-517 Revision 4, "Specification for Reactor Coolant Pump Support Clevises and Pins for Standard Plant."
Drawing No. E-14273-321-030 Revision 3, "Reactor Coolant Pump Arrangement and Installation."
Drawing No. D-SYS-80-320-'53 Revision 5, "Pin << Details."
Drawing No. D-SYS-80-320-054 Revision 6,
"Pump Support Column Assembly and Details."
Drawing No. D-SYS-80-320-055 Revision 4,
"Pump Support Clevises-Details."
The inspector reviewed. Certified Material Test Reports for eight upper horizontal support columns, 24 lower horizontal and vertical support columns and 32 clevises.
The inspector also reviewed records related to heat treatment"for enhancement of impact properties, and final stress relieving for items having weld repairs..
The inspector noted a change in the material used for the support clevises from that specified in revision 0 of Drawing No.
D>>SYS-80-320-055.
The material initially specified was SA-487. Grade CA6NM with an ultimate tensile strength of 110-135 ksi (min.) and minimum yield strength of '80 ksi.
The material later substituted was SA 148-73 Grade 90<<60 with,an ultimate tensile strength of 90 ksi (min.) and a
minimum yield strength of 60 ksi.
Review of design evaluation contained in Design Report No. V-PESR-004:did, however, confirm the lower strength material to be acceptable The inspector also reviewed the completed construction inspection plan (CIP 350.50-2 Revision 3 Addendum 1-8) for each of the four reactor coolant pumps in Unit 2.
The inspector found that final torquing of the vertical column clevis mounting bolts remained to be done..
A special CIP had been prepared to accomplish this task following hot functional testing in Unit 2.
No violations or deviations were identifie,II
5.
Unit No.
3 Electrical Cable Installation and Terminations.
a.
Review of ualit Assurance Im lementin Procedures.
The followi'ng listed Work Plan Procedure/Quality Control Instructions (WPP/QCI)
and Specifications were reviewed'o determine if the quality assurance plans, instructions, and specifications for electrical cable installation and terminations conform to the Quality Assurance Program as described in the FSAR.
WPP/QCI No. 254.0, Revision 23, "Cable Installation".
WPP/QCI No. 255.0, Revis'ion 16, "Cable Terminations".
Specification No. 13-EM-300, Revision 6, "Installation Specification for Electrical Cables in Cable Trays".
Specification No. 13-EM-301, Revision 11, "Install'ation Specification for Electrical Cables in Conduit and Duct Banks".
Specification No. 13-EM-306, Revision 5, "Installation Specification, for Electrical Cable Splicing, Terminations, and Supports".
Specification No.
13-EM-064A, Revision 2, "Technical Requirements for Prefabricated Cable".
No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Observati'on of Work and Work Activities.
I, The inspector examined cable pulling activities in the Unit No.
Main Steam Support Structure Building, and cable terminations at electrical penetration No. 41'inside Unit No.
3 Containment)
to ascertain conformance with the above referenced procedures and'pecifications.
The cable pulling a'ctivity was observed to assure that the correct cable size, type, routing, identification and
.separation criteria complied with the above requirements.
The inspector examined the termination of ten cables at electrical penetration No.
41 to assure that the size of the conductor, the tie down, bend radius,,
crimping and calibration of the crimping tool complied with the appropriate requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Alle ation No. RV-84-A-0097 (Followu Item No. 50-528/84-52-01)
(0 en)
Characterization:
An,anonymous caller expressed concern that resumes of Level III certified contractors were routinely falsified at Palo Verde.
Im lied Si ificance to Plant Construction or 0 eration':
P'
Acceptance of work and/or systems by improperly certified contractors/
personnel could'esult in improper testing.
Assessment of Safet Si ificance:.-
This allegation.was initially investigated and reported in Inspection Report No. 50-528/84-52, which -identified that the licensee had received a similar allegation through their "Hot Line".program, and had done an-extensive investigation.
The inspector elected to audit the effectiveness of the 1'icensee's.
"Hot Line" program and also examine the efforts of the licensee's resolution of this allegation.
Additionally, in Inspection Report No. 50-528/84-56, the inspector identified that as of December 10, 1984 the licensee had identified six individuals who had apparent resume deficiencies.
Duri'ng this inspection.the inspector reviewed the licensee's final report on this allegation, and determined the following:
Less than five percent of the contractor resumes reviewed had deficiencies in the areas of work experience and education.
The deficiencies were the result of incorrect information submitted on resumes under the 1'icensee's old procedures, which did not,provide for an acceptable review of resumes.
The licensee has completed their investigation of individuals who were found to have questionable resumes, and where applicable the individual's work on site has been reviewed and verified as acceptable.
The licensee has established a program to verify the qualifications and certifications of contractors performing quality related activities at Palo Verde.
STAFF POSITION This allegation was partially substantiated, in that some resumes were apparently partially incorrect.
The inspector determined, however, that, based on the documentation reviewed during this investigation, there was no evidence that improperly certified contractor personnel performed improper testing or work at the site.
While the technical portion of this allegation is considered closed by the Office of Enforcement and Inspection (Region V), the NRC's Office of Investigation is following this allegation because of the possibility of falsification of resumes.
This allegation remains open for that review, only.
7.
(0 en Alle ation Number RV<<84-A-109 (Followu Item 50-528/84-56-02)
Characterization:
Ik
An anonymous caller expressed concern that an individual was certified'
level III test engineer in the Unit 2 startup test group, based on incorrect education and work history.
Im lied Si nificance to Plant Construction or 0 eration:
The Startup test group is involved in technical acceptance and testing of the various systems in each unit.
Therefore, acceptance of work and/or systems by improperly,certified contractors/personnel could result in improper testing.
Assessment of Safet Si nificance:
(1) Technical A
roach to Resolution Examine licensee's procedures for qualification and certification of startup test personnel'nd compare these the licensee's commitments for test personnel qualification.
Review identified individual resume for previous work experience, and determine if the licensee's requirements were met..
Determine if the licensee's program to verify the work experience stated in resumes, is adequate.
(2) Ins ection Performed and Pindin s Identified
~Summar The inspector examined the licensee's procedures and found that the licensee's procedures met their commitments.
This allegation was initially investigated and reported in Inspection Report No. '50-528/84-56, which documented that this allegation was partially true, since based on submittal of incorrect education and work history information the individual had received a preliminary
'Certification Evaluation Report, that stated he was qualified to be a level III test engineer.
The inspector determined that this individual held a position as a walk down worker.
Walk down workers were not required to be certified as test engineers.
During this inspection, it was identified that a licensee investigation of the individual who submitted the resume with incorrect education and work history information has been initiated.
Staff Position This allegation was not substantiated.
There is no evidence to conclude that the individual performed improper testing or work at the site.
However it appears possible that the individual did submit an-incorrect resume and did receive a preliminary Certification Evaluation Report which incorrectly stated that he was eligible for Level III certificatio ~
t il
While the technical portion of this allegation is considered closed by the Office of Enforcement and Inspection (Region V), the NRC's Office of Investigation is following this allegation because of the possibility of falsification of resumes.
This allegation remains open for that review only.
8.
Ins ection Tour of Site:
Weekly, the inspector toured the site in order to observe general housekeeping conditions, care and preservation of equipment, handling of components, tagging and identification of material.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Mana ement Meetin On March 4, 1985, the inspectors met with the licensee and Bechtel representatives identified in Paragraph No. 1.
The scope, observations, and findings of the inspectors were discussed.
A licensee representative acknowledged the inspection finding '
~
'I 0