IR 05000382/1980033
| ML19341B928 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1980 |
| From: | Crossman W, Randy Hall, Stewart R, Tomlinsen D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341B922 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-80-33, NUDOCS 8102280179 | |
| Download: ML19341B928 (7) | |
Text
-.
.
. _-
.
.
_ _ _.
. - -
.. _
.
O
-
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-382/80-33 Docket No. 50-382 Category A2 Licensee:
Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174
,
facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3 Investigation at: Waterford Site, Taft, Louisiana Investigation conducted:
December 2-4 and 8-10, 1980 Inspectors:
[ h[
4 4 / /A o
,
R. C. Stewart eactor Inspector, Projects Section Oa'te /
~
'
Ju/?//?D p. P. Tomlinson, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support Date Section Approved:
kN
/
M b /M
,
d I. A. Crossma,~ Chief, Projects Section D(te/
l f
/
s
<
l
'R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Supoort Section Date Investigation Sumary:
,
l Investigation on December 2 4 and 8-10,1980 (Recort No. 50-382/80-?l)
Areas Investigated:
Special investigation of possible deficiencies identified I
during a telephone call to RIV on November 26, 1980.
The caller, an employee i
at the Waterford, Unit No. 3 site, expressed concern over six rassible construction l
deficiencies noted by him while employed by an Ebasco subcontractor.
The caller wished to remain anonymous. The investigation involved thirty-six inspector-hours
by two NRC inspectors.
Results : Of the six allegations investigated, two could not be suostantiated and four were substantiated, but were not safety signi/icant.
l 8102280179 i
~,
. ~..,.
,-,
,
-,
. <.. -,
,-
,,
-
-
., ~..,,.
_..-,.-._
.
... - _ -.
.
. - _.
_
.
.
_ _.
.
- _. _ -. - - _
_
_
i
.
INTRODUCTION Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3 (Waterford, Unit No. 3) is under conctruction in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, near the town of Taft, Louisiana.
Louisiana Power and Light Company is the Construction Permit holder with Ebasco, Inc. serving as both the Architect / Engineer and the Construction Manager.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION A Region IV Reactor Projects Section inspector received a telephone call from a site subcontractor employee on November 26, 1980.
The caller expressed concern about six possible construction deficiencies noted by him during his employment at the Waterford, Unit No. 3 facility.
The caller stated that he wished to remain anonymous, but later told his employer that he had contacted the NRC about his concerns.
SUMMARY OF FACTS On December 2,1980, two Region IV IE inspectors met with the alleger to obtain specific details of the allegations in order to assess the validity and impact on safety-related components and systems.
The followino information was gained from that interview:
Allegation No. 1 The alleger stated that he had been asked to sign an inspection form for a piping hanger that he felt was unacceptable.
Allegation No. 2 The alleger stated that inspectors had received oral instructions to enter
"N/A" in blanks on inspection forms for piping hsngers that he "was certain were for a safety-related system."
.
Allegation No. 3 j
The alleger stated that Tompkins-Beckwith_ Company, an Ebasco construction subcontractor, had used uncalibrated, borrowed torque wrenches to install high strength steel bolts in piping flanges.
Allegation No. 4 i
The alleger stated that there is no way for inspectors to ascertain the size or tensioning requirements for previously installed Hilti anchor bolts.
-2-
-
.
,. _, _. - _ _ _ _ _.. _. _ _
_ _
.. - -. -
.-_ _.
..
.
Allegation No. 5 The alleger stated that a piping spool piece was received on site with two ASME "N" stamps affixed.
Allegation No. 6 The alleger stated that an inspection record form had been initialed and dated in blanks provided for specific inspections, but that the signature on the page was a forgery.
The signature indicates that all inspections have been completed.
CONCLUSIONS Allegation No. 1 The inspection form for the pre-weld fit-up inspection of the piping hanger in question was signed as being acceptable by the alleger.
The date on the inspection sheet was two days after his interview with the NRC.
In a later interview, he declined to say why he had changed his mind and signed the inspection sheet.
This allegation was not substantiated.
Allegation No. 2 The piping hangers in question were not identified as being Seismic 1 components but should have been. The alleger was asked, during the time that the hangers were thought not to be Seismic 1, to 'WA" the inspection steps not necessary for non-Seismic 1 material.
He refused.
A check was made of intended use of the hangers and it was discovered that inadequate paper work had allowed them to_be miscategorized.
This allegation was substantiated; however, appropriate corrective action had been taken prior to the allegation to the NRC.
Allegation No. 3 The torque wrench identified by the alleger as being uncalibrated and used to install high strength steel bolts was borrowed by Tompkins-Beckwith from NISCO.
A review of NISCO's calibration records indicate that the torque wrench was properly calibrated under the NISCO calibration program during the time of the loan.
This allegation was not substantiated.
-3-
--... -.
- -._.
_ - -
.- - - - _ - -.
...
-_- -._.. -..- -- -
.- - -.--
..
l
.
,
'
l j
Allegation No. 4
"
!
The allegation concerning the determination of size and tensioning reouirements t
for previously installed Hilti anchor bolts is still under investigation as part of IE Bulletin 79-02.
This allegation was substantiated; however, it concerned a problem already under review by the NRC.
'-
t Allegation No. 5
.
One piping spool was received from Dravo Corporation with two "N" stamps affixed.
This was previously documentad on NCR TB-108.
J This allegation was substantiated; however, it was not significant to the quality
!
of the pipe and corrective ecien had ai eady been effected.
f
Allegation No. 6 The allegation of a forged signature was correct.
The forgery was discovered and corrected prior to the alleger being hired and all of his information was second hand, though correct.
This allegation was substantiated; however, corrective action had already been t.aken prior to the allegation to the NRC.
,
.
t i
i
!
i r
i
1
!
4-
-
f r
!
t
{
'
i
,,,
--ww.-9- - - *-
y, ~.,,
,, - -,
w-.+,-,-y,,,
,,mw
,,,~,#,,,r-.,,
,-.,,-,
g,-
+,-_.-_.,w_m,
,-,y,
,w ---w r a
%,,+_.m,,-e-.m.-,v.
., _ _,
,w
.-ify,._,
,
.
1 DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Emoloyees
,
- L. Bass, Project QA Manager
,
.
Ebasco, Inc. Emoloyees
!-
,
I
- L. Stinson, Manager, Site Quality Program
'
Others
- A. Orsini, Vice President, QA Manager, Tompkins-Beckwith (T-B)
.
T. Lewis, QC Inspector, T-B
'
A. Sender, QC Inspector, T-B A. Zeak, QC Inspector, T-B
,
E. Zarate, ANI, T-B d
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
J 2.
Investigative Details The following conclusions are based on known conditions at the Waterford, Unit No. 3 site, a review of selected records, visual inspection of the hardware in question, and interviews with various QA, QC and engineering
'
personnel:
Allegation No. 1
,
The alleger notified the NRC of his refusal to accept the weld fit-up inspection for a piping hanger as shown on Drawing CH-RR72, Revision 3 at the initial interview on December 2.1980.
When the inspection
.
'
,
documentation was locateo on December 4, 1980, the IE inspectors noted that the fit-up inspection had been signe) by the alleger as acceptable.
The four, was dated December 4,1980, two days after the allegation was made.
In another interview later on De;enber 4,1980, the alleger declined _ to say why he had accepted the fit-up and signed off the
>
ins pection.
This item could not be substantiated as the inspection records and the conversation with the alleger indicate that the pre-weld fit-up was correct prior to any welding being performed.
-5-
-
..
- - - --._---
.-
-
- -
- _ - -.. -.- - - - -
.
%
'
.
l Allegation No. 2 When it was discovered that the piping hangers had been mismarked, NCR TB-109 was issued and the hangers were reclassed as Seismic 1 e
components.
A review was made of the inspections peformed on this system and it was found that the pre-weld fit-up inspections had not been accomplished.
It was determined, by an engineering decision,
'
to grind away part of the weld on each of ten hanger welds and acid etch the resultant surfaces to see if the specified configuration and fit-up requirements were satisfied.
This item was discovered, documented and dispositioned prior to the time the alleger contacted the NRC.
Although this allegation was substantiated, no further action will
,
be necessary as the steps taken by Tompkins-Beckwith appear to have
,
i been adequate and correct.
Allegation No. 3 Certain bolt torquing operatians performed by Tompkins-Beckwith
involved torque ranges in excess of the capabilities of their on-site
! _
tools.
It was arranged thac Tompkins-Beckwith would borrow a torque i
wrench from NISCO which had a maximum capacity of 2000 foot-pounds.
A review of NISCO records indicate that the calibration schedule for this particular tool was adhered to during the period of the loan.
-The alleger, seeing a tool in use that was not traceable as belonging
,
'
to Tompkins-Beckwith, possibly assumed that its use was not authorized and that its calibration was questionable.
.
This allegation could not be substantiated.
Allegation No. 4 This allegation is presently being investigated under IE Bulletin 79-02, dated March 8,1979.
IE Inspection Report No. 50-382/80-20, dated September'5,1980, cites a violation relative ta tension testing of
- anchor bolts.
This allegation was substantiated but was already being investigated prior to the alleger's interview with the NRC,
Allegation No. 5 Tomokins-Beckwith received from Dravo Corporation ene piping spool
-
with two "N" stamps affixed. -The pipe spool was purchased by Oravo i
Corporation from Colt Industries who had performed the' required inspections and attached their name plate (S/N X1658) and "N" stamp.
'
' Prior to shipping the part, Oravo also attached a name plate and "N" stamp. The fact that Colt Industries had originally inspected and
,
-6-
,
ve.-~r
.,,. n a 4
,.,~.,--.-=n-4
,,,-e-w er e -,-,
e,
-,
...w--,--v.
pm,--
--
g e-g
+ -- - -,
nee
-,,rww
,,, -
p
-
..
stamped the part was not mentioned on the Dravo shipping documen-tation.
This was discovered by Tompkins-Beckwith and NCR TB-108 was issued on July 30, 1980.
It was determined that this was strictly a documentation error on the part of Dravo and corrected documentation nas been requested reflecting the fact that the pice spool was inspected by Colt Industries.
This allegation was substantiated but was previously identified and documented.
There is no detrimental effect to the hardware.
Allecation No. 6 The alleger stated that a Tompkins-Beckwith insoector's signature had been forged on an inspection report.
Interviews with the alleger, the inspector named by the alleger and Tompkins-Beckwith supervision disclosed that a nonsafety-related inspection report had been forged by a former employee, but that a corrected and accurate report is now filed in the record vault.
The inspector who performed the inspections placed his initials in the appropri-ate blocks on the inspection report form to indicate the individual inspections were comoleted.
He did not place his signature at the bottom of the sheet as this would indicate that all inspections had been accomplished.
Another inspector, no longer employed at the Waterford, Unit No. 3 site, noticed the missing signature and forged the final inspection blank thinking he was "doing a favor for a co-worker. " The first inspector later retrieved the inspection form to complete the inspection and saw the entry in the signature space.
He immediately notified his supervisor and cuestioning began to ascertain who had made the entry.
The second inspector readily admitted what he had done; and, when informed of the gravity of a forgery, claimed that he had only tried to help another employee.
He further stated that this was the only time he had signed another's name to anything.
A review of other related records did not reveal any other improprieties.
The alleger was not employed at Waterford, Unit No. 3 at the time this occurred so his information was not first hand.
This allegation was substantiated; but had already been discovered and corrected by Tompkins-Beckwith.
As there was aoparently no intent to defraud and the offender is no longer employed at the Waterford, Unit No. 3 site, no further action is deemed necessary.
3.
Exit Interview The IE inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the investigation on December 10, 1980.
The IE inspector summarized the scope and findings of the investigation.
-7-
-