IR 05000397/1980015
| ML17275A651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1980 |
| From: | Haynes R, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17275A652 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-80-15, NUDOCS 8010280041 | |
| Download: ML17275A651 (13) | |
Text
Report c(o 50-397/80-1 5
'I REGION V
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF IJJSPECTIOH AHD EHFORCEflEHT t>
~
Docket ito.
Licensee:
License JJo.
CPPR
Safeguards Group Washington Public Power Supply System P.
0.
Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Facili y Name:
Washin ton Nuclear Project No.
2 (WHP-2)
Inspection at:
WHP-2 site, Benton County, Washington Inspection Conducted:
August 1-31, 1980 Id j I/J Wp J Q WIJ Inspectors:,
I
~
~
A.
D. To, endor Resident Inspector Oc Date Signed Approved By:
R.
C. Haynes,
'
f, Reactor Projects Section, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Date Signed Date Signed zl gg Date Signed Summary:
~
Ins ection on Au ust 1-31, 1980 Re ort Ho. 50-397 80-15
~II
<<d:
I, I I I
III d
contractor activities to re-evaluate and improve detailed work methods.
The inspection involved 93 inspector-hours on-site by the NRC resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- A 5 0108890/l-
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted E
a.
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
- W.
C. Bibb, Project flanager
- R.
G. tlatlock, tlanaging Director's Office
- L. J. Garvin, t3anager Quality Assurance Engineering
- G. I. 'ltells, Deputy Project flanager, Construction
- R.
11. Foley, Engineering Director, 215 Contract
- R. fl. Tanner, Quality Control Director, 215 Contract
- C.
R.
Edwards, Principal Quality Assurance Engineer
"B. A. Holmberg, Change Manager
- J.
P. Thorpe, Quality Assurance Engineer
- S.
H. Holm, Deputy Project tlanager, Engi'neering
- J. 0. Martin, Plant Manager b.
Burns and Roe, Inc.
B8R
- t1. J.
- G. T.
- H. R.
- R.
D.
Parise, Special Projects Manager Harper, Site Engineering thanager Tuthi 11, Assistant Quality Assurance rtanager Carmichael, Lead Surveillance Engineer WSI]/BOECOt1/GER I WBG P. Garcia, Project flanager T.
Page, QA tlanager R. Clouse, Construction Manager Bonneville Power Administration.
BPA J.
R. Lewis, Project Engineer
- Denotes personnel present at the August 28, 1980 management meeting.
Several personnel at all levels of management and staff of the WBG and BGR organizations were also interviewed regarding activi ties in progress.
2.
General During this period, the inspection examined licensee and contractor activi ties concerning efforts to re-evaluate and improve detailed work methods.
The inspector attended briefing sessions conducted by the WPPSS Task II coordinator, attended briefing and working sessions within the mechanical contractor (WBG) facilities, attended weekly discussion sessions with the site QA n>anager, interviewed various management and staff personnel of WPPSS and the mechanical contractor (WBG), examined internal memoranda of 'ltPPSS and the mechanic'al contractor, examined letters issued by WPPSS to site contractors, examined various working schedules and documents
issued during various meetings, and visited various work areas on-site to ascertain the nature of work in progress.
Pro ect Status I
A labor dispute has effectively stopped all construction work at the site, with minor exceptions, since June 2,
1980.
As a result of previous ilRC inspection findings and correspondence, the licensee has embarked on a program to review certain completed safety related work and to re-evaluate and upgrade, as indicated, the control of safety related work by contractors.
On June 19, 1980, the licensee imposed a work restart contraint on the site mechanical contractor pending the licensee's evaluation of work methods, controls and standards of performance.
On July 17, 1980 1JPPSS issued stop work instructions to all other site contractors relative to guality Class I work.
On July 18, 1980 tne iHRC-RV Director notified the licensee that restart of certain safety related activities by the mechanical contractor,
>IBG, was subject to prior review by the NRC of the results and corrective actions resulting from the licensee's pre-evaluation of HBG's methods, controls and standards of per-formance.
On August 22, 1980 HPPSS extended the mechanical contractor's stop work order to include guality Class II and G activities, with specific exceptions.
Ongoing/continuing activities were generally restricted to preventive maintenance of equipment and materials, determining status of documentation/hardware, and participation in task forces to assess and plan resolution of quality problems.
The mechanical contractor implemented staff reductions on July 17, 1980 and August 23, 1980 involving 140 personnel, including quality control, quality assurance, audit, field engineering, and documentation personnel.
The licensee initiated three principal task forces to implement actions described in the l]PPSS reply to the HRC 10 CFR 50. 54 (f)
letter of June 17, 1980.
Task force Pl is responsible for action on previously identified deficiencies and to develop project work methods to assure timely closeout of future items.
fear.
B.
A. Holmberg is the assigned task leader.
This task is active.
Task force
is responsible for assuring that contractors are properly prepared to restart work (Phase I goal)
and to reinspect documentation and physical work to ascertain the quality of completed work (phase II goal).
Hr. T.
A. Gross is the assigned task leader.
This task is active.
Task force ~3 is responsible for conveying lessons learned to the other (IPPSS projects.
ilr. t).
E. l)itherspoon is the assigned task leader.
This task does not appear to be active at this tim The mechanical contractor has also organized quality assurance and work method evaluation efforts into a task force approach.
Six principal tasks have been defined:
procedures upgrading, quality assurance program review, open items review, 'new training program, key personnel assessment, and work methods improvement.
Engineering, construction, quality assurance, scheduling and other contractor personnel have been assigned to the tasks of reviewing existing unresolved deficiencies and taking action where possible, improving procedures, developing improved training, and preparing for an orderly and controlled resumption of work.
Burns and Roe and IlPPSS personnel have been assigned to assist the contractor, including two HPPSS training specialists.
Pro 'ect Personnel The supply system has assigned an on-site representative of the Hanaging Director's office, Nr.
R.
G. Hatlock.
The licensee has introduced four WPPSS personnel into the organization of the mechanical contractor as project directors to assist in developing corrective actions.
These directors are:-
C.
'll. Cardwel'1 R.
H. Foley A. H. Sastry R.
H. Tanner project Engine'ering guality Assurance guality Control The mechanical contractor has assigned the following personnel into equal ity Assurance Department positions:
T.
Page H.
Head equality Assurance Hanager guality Control Supervisor The mechanical contractor has assigned P. J.
Garcia as the site project manager.
Hana ement Uriefin On August 9, 1980 the resident inspector attended a day-long project status briefing meeting between the l]PPSS MHP-2 project staff and the recently appointed Hanaging Director of i]PPSS, R.
L. Ferguson.
Historical aspects of the project were discussed, in addition to current status and future plans.
The staff presented the quality problems existing at the site, the related corrective action commitments to the NRC, and the corrective action implementation plans and status.
The manpower and resource'schedules demonstrated a commitment to resolution of quality deficiencies.
The presentations appeared to meet program needs to appropriately inform senior management of the status of the project quality assurance program.
The flanaging Director expressed his intentions to become personally involved in this project.
WPPSS Task Force I Activities By the end of August this group involved WPPSS personnel at various management levels to develop action plans and conduct or parti-cipate in reviews.
A coordinator was assigned, this task given priority by project management declarations, and the master schedule and reporting systems were defined.
The scope of 'the activities appears commensurate with the program described in Attachment 83 of the July 17, 1980 WPPSS reply to the NRC 10 CFR 50. 54 (f) letter.
WPPSS Task Force II Activities By the end of August this group had been staffed to 26 persons (mostly job-shop experienced quality control engineers meeting ANSI-H45. 2. 6 level II qualifications); office space had been
'stablished; a procedure manual partly assembled; various check-lists prepared and applied for procedure and personnel reviews (mostly WUG oriented);
and 347 WBG gC inspection reports ( IR's)
were reviewed for proper disposition.
This group has identified scheduling for restart of 43 principal activities of various contractors and its activities are aimed at assuring that personnel/
procedures/methods are adequate for restart of each work activity.
This is termed the Phase I effort of the reverification of Completed Safety Related Work (RCSW) Task Force.
This effort is planned to include reinspection of work:, performed within 90 days prior to the June 1980 work stoppage.
The Phase I Task Force II effort appears to be progressing through its planning stages commensurate with the program described in Attachment 81 of the licensee'
July 17, l980 reply to the HRC.
Phase II activities will include more detailed work reverifications upon completion of the Phase I activities.
The inspector noted that contractors have been requested to identify any areas where continued work may prevent future reinspection activities.
The Phase II approach appears commensurate with WPPSS's reply to the NRC.
The schedule for the Phase II activities has been extended beyond the previously forecasted dates because of the allocation of, resources to an expanded Phase I scope.
WPPSS Task Force III Activities The inspector observed no indication that Task Force III is currently active.
This effort depends on the results obtained by the other task forces.
tlechanical Contractor WBG Activities By the end of August, the mechanical contractor established several task forces to review procedures, perform gA program review and trend analysis, identify open items, improve the training programs,
certify personnel, and establish performance monitors.
These activities were focused toward start of work on the repair of the sacrificial shield wall.
Also, special task;forces have been assigned for large-bore hangers, small bore hangers, and structural steel rework.
All work procedures have been placed in question, and working to existing procedures has been discontinued.
As a result, quality control, quality assurance and field engineering lay-offs were effected.
Remaining staff has been working on task force efforts and associated efforts such as:
a) review of inspection reports and hold tags, b) procurement of welding equipment, c) review of work packages, and d) removal of loose materials from the reactor plant areas.
- The WPPSS/WBG activities appear commensurate with the licensee's reply to the tfRC.
Status of WPPSS BSR Audits of WBG The inspector reviewed the status of 27 open audit findings with the responsible lead auditor.
The open findi'ngs are a result of 1979 audits.
Of the 27 findings, a
B8R audit in July 1980 showed that only about 9 could be closed out as adequately resolved.
The audit results were documented a'nd follow-up actions, including re-audits, were performed.
Tne inspector ascertained that action to resolve the audit findings was included in the WPPSS Task I activities and applicable WBG Task III activities.
Small Bore Pi in Desi n
The inspector examined documentation which demonstrated the licensee'
actions to assure the readiness of Gilbert/Commonwealth Associates to commence work on design of small bore, piping.
A i~>arch 28, 1980 trip report describes the WPPSS evaluation committee bid evaluation pre-award survey, and a July 14, 1980 audit report describes the readiness audit of June 20-24, 1980.
The audit report indicates that procedures, personnel indoctrination and training, interface control, reporting of defects, and other design related cri teria were considered.
Audit findings were resolved or referred to the program manager for response.
Sacrificial Shield Wall Re air Records The inspector examined records of some repairs which had been made in f977 at bsam attachment areas at elevation 541 feet, azimnths 233 and 306
.
An employee on-site directed the inspector'
attention to these areas as locations where r'equired repairs may not have been completed.
The inspector interviewed personnel and examined on-site records of iHIX testing and Burns and Roe (SSW task force office).
Initial reviews identified IIX reports of non-destructive testing which appeared to support a conclusion of
incgmplete repairs (Report L7B dated tlarch 12, 197/,
fear azimuth 233
, report L-5 dated j'larch 11, 1977, for azimuth 306 ).
However, further review by the SSll task force leader identified Leckenby field inspection reports which demonstrated that the defects in question had in fact been identified and repairs completed and verified by NDE.
Report 8104 dated tlarch 18, 1977 addressed the one-inch long defect noted in the center of weld area 855 at azimuth 233
- Report Nos.
83, 84, 105 and 127, along with Leckenby letters dated flay 24, 1977 and July 26, 1977 and NIX UT report dated July ll, 1977 addressed the seven-inch long defect noted at azimuth 306
- also a Leckenby report dated January 26, 1977 for weld 553, and NIX UT report dated March 12, 1977 jndicate that an attachment weld defect was repaired at azimuth 217
.
The inspector had no furtner questions on this item.
Alle ation of Hissin Buried Pi in The inspector encountered comments that when certain buried piping was hydrotested it was found that parts of the pipe-line were not installed, contrary to existing records.
The inspector interviewed gC and test personnel and identified a quality Class III line which had circumstances similar to this.
The 4-inch floor drain sample line 84FD(7)- 1 from the radwaste building had been buried in 1977 after hydrotesting an installed portion.
Apparently the open trench for the uninstalled portion was also filled.
In 1979 an extension of the hydrotest was planned and gC staff identified a lack of weld documentation during their pretest review.
Nonconformance report and other control documents were prepared and the Engineer dispositioned the matter by allowing a pressure-drop test to ascertain integri ty of the pipe and welds.
During the test, excessive leakage and exploratory excavation showed that the section of piping (110 feet)
had not been installed.
It was then installed and the test comp'leted.
The si tuation affirmed that the originally identified absence of weld documents did in fact represent incomplete work, rather than misplaced records.
Testing and installation of this non-safety-related piping did not involve NRC regulatory requi re-ments.
However, the matter demonstrated the value of prerequisite documentation reviews and has been discussed by personnel at the site.
The implication of existence of falsified weld records was not substantiated and appears to have been a result of exaggeration or misunderstandings.
Documents reviewed by the inspector, relative to the above, included:
Drawings:
f1531, M507, FD-979-1, TP-LIC-l, FD-432-1.7, FD-432-8.15 RFI-215-4977 and RFI-215-4916 Inspection Report 215-IR-3290 NCR-215-4652 and NCR-215-4916 Notification of Test, 56. 1 bPT-26 flydrotest Test Report 56-1 rPT-26 Test Package Conditions 56.
gPT-26 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Reactor Pressure Yessel. Reflective Insulation The inspector interviewed site contractor personnel from Branch-
.Insulation and examined insulation material in storage relative to defective spot welds.
The insulation is classified as guality Class I and corrective action plans are under development, including seismic loading engineering evaluations.
Boltin f1aterials The inspector briefly discussed bolting materials with HBG warehouse personnel to determine if material has been procured from the Southern Bolt and Fastener Company.
The purpose of this check was to determine if any tensile strength data or problems were available at this site.
This supplier has not provided material to HBG.
Plant Tour On August 27, 1980 the inspector made a tour of the reactor building and reactor containment with ter.
C.
E. Eschels of the Washington State Energy and Utilities Commission.
gC personnel of the mechanical contractor (HBG) and the ventilation system contractor (THC) were contacted.
During the tour, b1r.
Eschels expressed concerns about two items which he had previously documented to HPPSS in his letter of February 5,
1980.
HPPSS reply letter of February 13, 1980 indicated that the two items would be reviewed by the BSR engineers.
The two items were among several discussed in that correspondence.
The HPPSS site gA manager committed to inform the HRC inspector about the actions taken to resolve these items.
(80-15-01)
Pipe supports b1S-180, BS-215 and RFH-12 were:observed, and mention was made of a 10,000 pound limit which may be violated by these large supports.
Subsequent review of specification
//215, page 159-10, showed a 10,000 pound operating load limit for any one pipe support in order to minimize the result of failure of any one support.
It was not clear that the observed supports complied with this criteria.
Discussions with the B8R hanger engineer indicated that this matter is under review as part of the ongoing effort to correct the 8215 specification.
The results.of that review will be examined at a future date.
(80-15-02).
At the 518'levation, azimuth 135
, the plate supports welded to containment spray piping appeared to contain defective welds.
This matter was conveyed to the HPPSS site gA manager for incorporation into the planned work reverification effor.
ilanac ement ileetin s The inspector met with the WPPSS site gA manager on August 15 to discuss status of his inspection efforts and to receive a status report of principal WPPSS activities.
The inspector expressed interest in reviewing WPPSS evaluations of B&R and contractor engineering personnel qualifications.
This information was not yet available.
The inspector met with WPPSS and B&R site management personnel denoted (*) in paragraph 1, in conjunction with l<RC regional inspectors'nspection exit meeting on August 28, 1980.
The inspector described the scope and results of his inspections as described in this report.