IR 05000397/1981015
| ML17275B265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1981 |
| From: | Dangelo A, Dodds R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17275B264 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-81-15, NUDOCS 8110020380 | |
| Download: ML17275B265 (10) | |
Text
Repor t No.
50-397/81-15 U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION Y I Docket No.
50-397 License No.
CPPR-93 Licensee:
P.
0.
Box 968 Richland, Washin ton 99352 i
A'
Washington Public Power Su ly System Safeguards Group yb v'
i Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Inspection conducted:
Washington Nuclear. Project No.
~ WNP-2 WNP-2 Site, Benton County, 'Washington July--27-31, 1981'ry iy Inspector.':
A. J.
D'An lo, Rea tor nspector Dat Signed Approved by:
Summary:
R.
T. Dodds, Chief, Engineering Support Section Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch D te Signed Ins ection durin the cried of Jul 27-31.
1981 (Report No. 50-397/81-15)
~AI d:
R i, di d
i by Ri 1-d inspector of construction activities including:
a review of licensee's action on 50.55(e)
items; instrumentation work observations and quality records review and facility tours.
The inspection involved 35 inspector hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the Inspection.
I8110020380 810915 PDR ADOCK 05000397
,'8 PDR RV Form 219 (2)
I f
rA
)
'I Ht
,I y
+
Wi A
Il-H
)
II"
)H-H I
@l H
i it
""sS'
l I
/H Pt It I
I I
H
)
A t*
A
- ~'
~
'
"
~ l
~
I
~
I
=~.-
u":
n. t ~" i ~."
<. t
'>..)."
~.'"
.H.':.li Cu
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Washin ton Public Power Su
S stem SS
- W.
C. Bibb, Project Manager
~K. Anderson, Special Projects
- R. T. Johnson, Project guality Assurance Manager
~A.
M. Sastry, Deputy Project Manager, Special Projects
~G. I. Wells, Deputy Project Manager, Construction b.
Bechtel Power Cor oration Bechtel co d.
- D. R. Johnson, Hanager of guality
~H. J.
Jacobson, Project qua]ity Assurance Manager
"D.
K. Cosgrove, guality Assurance Engineer L. Brown, qua] ity Control Engineer H. Boarder, guality Assurance Engineer C. Larsen, guality Control Engineer Johnson Controls Incor orated JCI R. Swift, guality Assurance Manager "
H. Arntzen, guality Assurance Engineer L. Reader, Engineering Manager M. Caldwell, Pipe Fitter Foreman Lambert, MacGill and Thomas LMT 2.
D. HacGill, NDE Level III
't Site Tour I
The inspector toured 'the plant to examine general housekeeping conditions, guality Control and craft supervisory coverage of work activities and protection of installed equipment.
On July 29, the inspector observed a hoisting-tack]e suspended from electrical conduit inside the drywe] 1 -at azimuth 210 degrees, e] evation 534 feet.
Although the hoisting-tackle was not in use, the 1icensee's qua]ity Assurance organization took prompt action to have the hoisting-tackle removed from the e] ectrical conduit and performed an inspection of electrical conduit and adjacent support for damage, with negative findings.
The licensee noted that the conduit had recently been installed, no cable had been pulled in the conduit, and labeling of the conduit was not complete.
The inspector expressed concern that proper rigging practices were not being adhered to and could adversely affect safety-related equipment.
A memorandum was issued by the Site Construction Manager on July 31, 1981 requesting all contractors to use proper care in performing temporary rigging.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were note l I ~ 4 t
~
h
%0
The inspector observed the set up and calibration of the ultrasonic device used for preservice inspection of reactor vessel nozzle No.
N2G by Lambert, MacGill and Thomas (LMT).
Calibration and ultrasonic inspection of nozzle No.
N2G appeared to be in conformance with ASME Section XI Code.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Licensee Action on 10 CFR 50. 55 e
,
Re ortable Construction Deficiencies=
J a.
Pr imar Containment ressure monitor in instrumentation sensln line routin ll i'he licensee informed the NRC under the provisions of 10 CFR 50. 55(e)
on August 27, 1980 of~ a deficiency in instrument,l'ine routing.
The deficiency consis'ts of a low point in routing. the drywell pressure sensing lines such that a water trap. could be generated causing a lower than'actua'1 pressure being sensed.
by, the instrument.
The l,icensee performed a review of.all instrument tubing runs for sensing containment pressure and atmosphere for improper routing.
,The following table 1'ists the affected instruments, instrument'elevation and sensing point elevation.
Instrument Instrument, Sensing Point Number Elevation Elevation t
ft C72-PS-N004 C72-PS-N002A B22-PS-N047A B22-PS-N047C C72-PS-N002C B22-PS-NQ47B B22-PS-NQ47D B22-PS-N048A B22-PS-N048C C72-PS-N002D C72-PS-N002B B22-PS-N048B B22-PS-NQ48D 522. 5 536. 0 The instruments identified above were corrected by PED (Project Engineering Directive} to relocate sensing points.
This item is closed.
b.
Local overstress condition of i e bearin on flat late The licensee informed the NRC under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(e)
on March 9, l981 of a deficiency in design of large bore pipe supports in that pipe supports had insufficient contact bearing area between support and pipe wall.
Due to the small contact bearing surface, calculated membrane stress in the pipe wall exceeded ASME Code allowable stresses for the faulted conditio N lf I
P'
P
'
P I
g
If l
I I
N I
fl
~
I 8 N,
jl I
f h
I Nl Sf If I
f I
I P
Il p
, IJ I
~I
N f
I
-3-The licensee performed a field walkdown which identified 119 pipe supports which may have membrane stress problems.
Through analysis, four pipe supports RHR-123, RHR-46, RHR-127 and CEP-j0 were found to be deficient in design.
These supports have been redesigned and reissued for construction.
Design criteria has been issued to a11 hanger engineers for implementation of membrane stress calculations on al1 new pipe support designs and al1 "As-Built" pipe supports that are qua']ity Class I.
This items is closed.
4.
Instrumentation Com onents and S stems - Johnson Controls JCI b.
Observation of Work and Work Activities The inspector examined work activities associated with instrument 1 inc Nos.
D-220.-6. 0-x70a and D-220-6. 0-x54Aa for conformance with contractor procedures, the PSAR and ASME Section III and IX Code.
Activities examined included cleanliness of tubing internal surfaces, hand1ing of par tially completed tubing runs, completeness of Installation and Fabrication (I/F)
packages, and indication of status of completed activities and liquid penetrant examination of welds.
The inspector visua11y examined several welds on field fabricated hangers on instrument line No. D-220-6.0-x54Aa for comp1iance with JCI procedure No.
gAS-3.103.-H2,
"Visual Inspection Procedure".
JCI procedure No.
gAS-1101-H2 limit grinding marks to no deeper than I/32".
The inspector observed four apparent grind marks on hanger No. j.076-45 which may have exceeded allowable grind mark depths.
A request for measurement of the grind marks was made by the inspector and performed by the 1icensee.
Measurements were documented on JCI inspection report No.
1365 and revealed grind marks greater than 1/32" in depth.
The
'1icensee has committed to repair all we1ds on the hanger which exceed allowable indication as stated in JCI procedure gAS-1101-H2.
)f q The inspector notes that the grind marks appeared to be an isolated case and no other grind marks greater than allowable appeared on hangers examined by the inspector.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Revi ew of ual it Records The.inspector examined quality records associated with welder qua1ifications, Certified Material Test Reports and Certificate of Compliance for conformance with the PSAR and ASME Section II and IX.
Specific activities examined included conformance of SA-36 materia],
used for the fabrication of tubing hangers, to ASME code and a review of the welder'
performance maintenance records.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie I I[
i ll
)I
5.
Mana ement Interview The inspector met with the licensee management representatives d
t d paragraph 1 at the conc1usion of the inspection.
The scope of the inspection and the observations and fi g
ndin s
of the inspector were discusse I l
e
"J
)
I f
A'
l
pa
'I v