IR 05000397/1982002
| ML20041F397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1982 |
| From: | Dodds R, Feil R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041F389 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-82-02, 50-397-82-2, NUDOCS 8203160460 | |
| Download: ML20041F397 (5) | |
Text
. _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
)
\\
-
U. S. fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
s
REGION V
Report flo.
50-3_9_7/82-02 Docket flo.
50-397 License No.
CPPR-93 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Washington Public Power S u n t,1 v System P.
O.
Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 facility Name: Washington Nuclear P r o _i e c t No. 2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at: WNP-2 Site, Benton County. Washinnton Inspection conducted:
January, 1982 Inspectors: M @MMk
>
J
&
R.
A.
Feil, Senior Resident Inspector D' ate Signed
'
Date Signed Date Signed Approved by:
f Date Signed
,
R.
T.
Dodds, Chief Reactor Construction Projects Sectio
Date Signed Summary:
Inspection during January, 1982 (Report No. 50-397/82-02)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee and contractor activities to re-evalute and improve detailed work methods.
The inspection involved 49 inspector-hours on-site by the NRC resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
8203160460 820224 PDR ADOCK 0S000397 PDR O
.
RV Form 219 (2)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
DETAILS
._
,
1.
Persons Contacted Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
- C, S.
Carlisle, Deputy Program Manager
- ti.
A.
Crisp, Project Construction Manager
- L.
Floyd, Project Quality Assurance R.
B.
Glasscock, QA Director B.
A.
Holmberg, Project Engineering Manager s
- R.
T.
Johnson, Project QA Manager
- R.
L.
Knawa, Quality Verification Program Manager Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)
- D.
K.
Cosgrove, QAE
- M.
J.
Jacobson, QA Hanager
- D.
R.
Johnson, Manager of Quality L.
G.
Moss, Superintendent of Construction, (Containment)
R.
Gillespie, General Foreman M.
Plumb, QC Supervisor E.
J.
Shannon, Project Safety Supervisor K.
Willoughby, Document Control Supervisor Burns and Roe Incorporated (BRI)
T.
Nickol, Design Engineer
- R.
Schlosser, Engineer WSH/BOECON/GERI (WBG)
D.
Bowen, QC Procurement Supervisor
- Denotes those present at monthly management meeting.
The inspector also conferred with other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection period.
The inspector attended several management meetings during the in-spection period.
l 2.
Facility Tours The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work and plant status in several areas of the plant during l
general inspections of the plant.
The inspector examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with reg-l ulatory requirements or licei.se conditions.
Particular note was taken of the presence of quality control inspectors and quality control evidence such as inspection records, material
identification, nonconforming material identification, house-l keeping and equipment preservatio.
_
_
. _ _
.
.
+
'
2'
-
i No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
3.
Allegation - Crack in Sacrificial Shield Wall An allegation was received which claimed that a 30 foot'section
,
- -
of a weld in the sacrificial shield wall had cracked.
The in-spector examined the wall and conferred with craftsmen in the drywell, foremen and superintendents of crafts, licensee personnel, constructor,.(Bechtcl) personnel, site security personnel and site
,
safety personnel.
The inspector could not find any basis for
>
this allegation.
4.
Status of Non-reportable 10 CFR 50.55(e) Outstanding Items
The inspector reviewed records of the following items which were initially reported to the NRC by the licensee as poten-tial 10 CFR.50.55 (e) items but were subsequently determined by the licensee to be not reportable.
The records appear to provide adequate evaluation of the potential condition.
Instrument Sensing Lines May Not Meet Separation Criteria
..
Inside Containment Violation of Minimum Wall on.Small Bore Piping
..
Thermite Welds on Cathodic Protection of ASME. Class 3 Pipe
..
Relay Interference in Suppression Circuitry
' '
'
..
Failure to Incorporate 10 CFR 21 in Subcontracts'
.
..
Incorrect Allowable Weld Stress Values Used<inLSmall Bore
..
Pipe Design Verification
'
'
'
EDR Pipe Supports With, Welds Smaller tha.n Colde
..
'
-
.
.
Utilization of Deficient' Standard Design for Small Bore
..
Supports
.,
Panels Designabed=N'onessential Essential Control Room BOP
..
by General Electric Deficiency in HPCS Diesel Air Start System
..
Quality Class 1 Hanger Detail Deficiencies
..
Nontestability of Relays'in FAZ' Logic System
..
The inspector had no further questions on these items.
,
,
=-4-
-99
--
3#
w w
-
a-
~au-- - - -
eit-g
- - -. --
m-v
+++
,_
-
- __.
.
-3-5.
Safety nelated Piping, Records Review of Installation Records The inspector initiated a review of records of installed spool piece No. SW 303.4 which is a part of the Diesel Generator Service Water Cooling System as shown on Bovee and Crail draw-ing No. SW-303-4.6.
The quality control inspection records for the selected spool piece were reviewed.
The documents appeared to accurately reflect the work done on the spool piece.
This includes but is not limited to the selding and NDE.
In the process of reviewing the isometrics drawings for spool I
piece SW 303-4, the inspector found the following discrepancies.
(1)
Seven (7) Drawing Interior Revisions (DIRs) were found in the Bechtel working stick files and in the Burns and Roe document control files against Isometric Drawing No. SW-303-4.6.
This is contrary to Burns and Roe Site Engineering Instruction No. 3-4 which states in part:
" Drawing revision will be initiated when:
a.
Three (3) DIRs are outstanding, when requested by construction, or when one (1) DIR is outstanding for a period of three (3) months."
Three of the DIRs had been incorporated into the drawing.
Subsequently Bechtel removed the incorporated DIRs from their files.
Also the inspector was informed that one of the additional DIRs had been voided.
The licensee informed the inspector that Burns and Roe was in the process of incorporating outstanding DIRs into the drawings.
This action is scheduled to be complete by February 15, 1982.
The delinquency of incorporating DIRs into the drawings has been identified by Bechtel and addressed in correspondence to Burns and Roe.
The most recent identification revealed approximately 24 isometric drawings which were not up-dated as required by the Burns and Roe procedure.
The inspector then reviewed the large bore pipe DIR document control log for System 58, Standby Service Water.
The log contained entrys for 92 isometric drawings.
Twenty four (24)
of these isometric drawings had either three or more DIRs outstanding or 1 DIR outstanding for a period greater than three months.
The inspector informed the licensee that since the DIR Document Control log indicated that approximately 25 per-cent of the isometric drawings with DIRs on System 58 for large
.
-
- _
_
_ _ _ _. _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
-4-bore pipe were not up-dated as required, the inspector did not have confidence that the working drawings were correct for the installation.
The item is unresolved pending verification that the procedure is being adheared to and the documents, both file and working, reficct the correct status of the design and installation of of equipment and components. (50-397/82-02-01)
6.
Pipe Supports
-
The inspector undertook an inspection of the supports for snubber MSRV-1A5.
The snubber is for a Main Steam relief valve downcomer,to_the.sdppression pool.
(MSRV-1A Discharge)
The following information was obtained in the ccarse of the review o f 't h'e documentation.
~
> n
.
<
a.
The quality ^ contro'l) inspection redords were availabic ate the-work site.4
'l
.- ut LA s &
.
b.
The inspectio,n; records appeared to-have the appropriate documentation. 1
--
-
oe $
'
c.
The Isometric Drawing lNo..MS-547-2, Titled MS-RV-1A Discharge,-does not show's,nubber MSRV-1A-5.
The drawing is Revision ' 2? da t ed-11-3-81 "As Built Configua-tion and Material, Sarisfactory.-(Rev. by_G/D."
This is an isometric of the as-built *co'nfiguration and would not show any hangers still to be_added to the system as part of the original d,esign.
d.
Isometric Drawing (Noi MS-547-2H (The inspector was informed that this was the hanger drawing for MS-547-2),
Titled MS-RV-1A Discharge, dated 9-12-80 did show snubber MS-RV-1A-5.
The drawing also showed snubber MS-RV-1A-6 at the same location.
c.
Isometric Drawing No._MS-547-2 shows snubber MS-RV-1A-6 to be'at a bend in the diacharge pipe as a correction to MS-547-2H.since isometric drawing No.MS-547-2H shows snubber MS-1A-6 more than 1-foot 6-inches from the bend in the discharge pipe.
f.
Working copies of the drawings (MS-RV-1A-5 and MS-RV-1A-6)
were used at the work location.
g.
No Design Interim Revisions ( D I R s. ) were found by the inspector against Isometric Drawing MS-547-2 or Isometric Drawing MS-547-2H.
'
_.
..
.
i
,
.
-5-h..
Working drawing for snubber MS-RV-1A-5 shows center lines of two horizontal supports to be 3-feet and also 3-feet 3-inches.
The inspector was informed by the welder and fitters that this discrepancy and others noted by them during fit-up caused problems regarding the correct figure to use for fit-up.
i.
Working drawing No..MSRV-1A-6 shows two locations for the support 1) Azimuth 20 degrees 20 minutes and 2) 22 degrees 45 minutes...The inspector was informed by a Burns.and Roe design engineer that a pen and ink change to Drawing No. MS-547-2 showing snubber MS-RV-1A-5 was the correct drawing..This drawing supposedly was reflected in the working drawings.
This drawing _was in possesion of the Burns and Roe design engineering group.
The drawings in the Burns and Roe document control center did not reflect the pen and ink change.
The inspector discussed his concern with licensee management about the accuracy of the design drawings and the utilization of drawings regarding working drawings without the use of DIRs.
The inspector stated that he f el t the crafts were uneasy about utilizing these working drawings.
In addition, the inspector was informed by QC inspectors that discrepancies: in drawings were not unusual.
The inspector expressed concern about the licensees control of...the design drawing process. ~ '
.
,
.
This item is unresolvedfpedding verification that the design drawings are correct and the utilization offworking drawings follows installation procedures'.
(50-397/82-02-02)
'
'
^~';
7.
Unresolved Items es
.
'
'
^
^
^
n
,
Unresolved items are, matters about which more information is
.
required in order to ascertain whether.they are ~'cceptable a
items, items of noncompliance,'o'r; deviations.
Unr'esolved
~
items, identified durin'g this inspectlon arerdlscussed in paragraphs 5 and 6.
-
e
'
8.
Management Meeting The inspector met with licensee Management identified in paragraph 1,
on February 1, 1982 to-discuss status of his in-
-
~
spection efforts and to receive a status report of principal WPPSS activities.
-
i