IR 05000397/1982005
| ML20049J942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1982 |
| From: | Dodds R, Feil R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049J939 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-82-05, 50-397-82-5, NUDOCS 8203290242 | |
| Download: ML20049J942 (6) | |
Text
-
.
.
...
'. ' '
.
U.S. fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
REGION V
Report No. 50-397/82-05 Docket No. 50-397 License No.
CPPR-93 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at:
WNP-2 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspection conducted: February 1982 Inspectors:
h[k (A 3 -\\\\ -3 1 R.AfFeil,3eniorResidentInspector Date Signed
Date Signed Date Signed Approved By:
7 M/7:b
'f[/z[f'f-R. T. Dodds, C'nief
/Date 6igned Reactor Construction Projects Section 2
,
Summary:
Inspection during February 1982 Report No. 50-397/82-05 Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of licensee and contractor activities to re-evaluate and improve detailed work methods.
The inspection involved 66 inspector hours on-site by the NRC resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
..
8203290242 820312 PDR ADOCK 050CO397 O
PDR RV Form 219 (2)
_
_ _ _ _
-
_
._
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
'
1.
Persons Contacted Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
l
- C. S. Carlisle, Deputy Program Manager H. A. Crisp, Project Construction Manager L. Floyd, Project Quality Assurance
- R. T. Johnson, Project QA Manager R. L. Knawa, Quality Verification Program Manager
Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)
L. M. Brown, Assistant Project Construction Quality Control Engineer D. K. Cosgrove, Quality Assurance Engineer
- R. E. Davis, Quality Assurance Engineer
- M. J. Jacobsen, Quality Assurance Manager M. Leach, Manager, Reverification Group D. R. Schell, Quality Control Supervisor Burns and Roe Incorporated (BRI)
B. M. Boyum, Project Engineer, Hangers
- H. R. Tuthill, QA Manager J. B. Mahoney, Group Supervisor, Hanger Piping R. L. Schlosser, Project Engineer
- 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 inspection period.
2.
Facility Tours The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work and plant status in several areas of the plant during general inspections of the plant.
The inspector examined work for any obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements or license 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, housekeeping and equipment preservation.
3.
Licensee Action'on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-397/81-25-02) Adequacy of Thermowell SW-TI-11A The thermowell had been removed from a spool piece by grinding.
It was subsequently replaced.
In the removal process the body of the thermowell was ground down.
The inspector had expressed concern that the replaced thermowell may not meet the initial design requirements.
-_
.
-
. _..
-
.
,
.
-2-An engineering evaluation was made on the subject thermowell status. The results of the evaluation indicate that the thermowell was technically acceptable for use.
This item is considered closed.
b.
Unresolved Item 50-397/81-09-01 Definition of Quality Assurance Controls for Quality Class II/ Seismic Category I Work Inspection Report No. 81-25 Paragraph 3.b page 3 stated in part; "As a result of the review, items which were classified as Quality Class II/ Seismic Category. I were down graded to Quality Class II/ Seismic Category II."
This statement was incorrect due to a typing error and should have read, "As a result of the review, items which were classified as Quality Class II/ Seismic Category I were technically acceptable, upgraded to Quality Class I/ Seismic Category I or downgraded to Quality Class II/ Seismic Category II."
c.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item 50-397/82-02-02 Possible Discrepancies in Design Drawings The inspector had observed discrepancies in dimensions and location in field working drawings at the work location for main steam relief valve downcomer snubbers MSRV-1A-5 and MSRV-1A-6.
The discrepancy in dimensions for MSRV-1A-5 was corrected by Project Engineering Directive H-B665 and the discrepancy in location was corrected by Revision 3 to the field working drawing MSRV-1A-6.
A licensee audit of the Burns and Roe as-built drawing program described numerous discrepancies for which a Corrective Action Request (CAR) was issued to resolve there discrepancies.
This item remains open pending resolution of the identified deficiencies in the Burns and Roe as-built drawing program, including assurance that procedures are adhered to and that the drawing control program insures accurate final as-built drawings.
d.
(Closed) Followup Item 50-397/81-17-01 Bechtel Program for Completion of Reverification Program Commitments Bechtel has developed the reverification plan which was concurred with by the licensee on January 8, 1982.
The plan outlines the program Bechtel will utilize to accomplish reverification for work completed and inspected prior to July 1980 in accordance with WPPSS's Reverification Instruction QV1-01, Quality Verification Program.
The plan includes the following:
.
. - -.
.
- _. -
. _..
--- -
_ - -
-.
.
.
.
.-
.
-3-The Bechtel Reverification Group has been formed under
.
the Bechtel System Completion Group to implement the procedures and instructions of the reverification program.
Bechtel will perform reverification on the piping / mechanical
.
systems under Contract 215.
The individual contractors resources will be utilized to
.
l reverify their own work.
i The contractors will be managed by Bechtel Construction
!
.
Managenent, surveyed by Bechtel QC and audited by Bechtel
'
!
QA.
The contractors have been directed to present plans and
.
procedures for implementing their portion of the reverifi-
!
cation program.
Training and orientation of responsible personnel in the
.
operation of the reverification program will be conducted and documented.
Bechtel will perform surveillance functions on the
.
l contractors.
Bechtel QC will perform the reverification program
.
activities for contract 215.
Bechtel QA will audit and monitor the contractor and
.
Bechtel activities and procedures.
The findings will be reported to the NRC.
.
!
To implement and govern the plan, Bechtel has promulgated two i
procedures titled:
1) Specific Work Plan / Procedure, SWP/P-G-14, Reverification Coordination dated December 16, 1981; and 2)
Specific Work Plan / Procedure, SWP/P-G-15, Reverification of i
Selected Hardware and Documentation, dated December 16, 1981.
BechtelhasreviewedpastNRCreportsandWPPSS10CFR50.55(e)
submittals for generic problem areas. These items have'been given to the responsible contractors for resolution and
<
reporting to the Bechtel Reverification Group.
The individual contractors have been introduced to the reverifi-cation program and are-in the process of developing their own plans.
._
This item is considered closed.
,
,
. _. - _.,
,
--- __._, _, -
.
.,,,.~r
,
-
y
,. -.-..
-...
.
-4-4.
Control of Interpass Temperatures on Structural Welds The inspector was informed that previously recorded interpass weld temperatures for some structural beam welds in the drywell were no longer being recorded.
The inspector verified and observed that preheat and interpass temperatures were being monitored by the use of Tempsticks in the range specified in the Quality Control Inspection Record. (QCIR).
Bechtel weld procedures PI-A-LH (Structural) does not require the recording of weld temperatures.
The Bechtel General Welding Standard specifies the use of preheat aad interpass temperature.
The recording of interpass temperature is required only when specified by the weld procedure.
5.
Sacrificial Shield Wall Engineering Evaluation Supplement No. 2 On December 29, 1981 the licensee forwarded to NRC Region V a supplement No. 2 (G02-81-556) to the " Engineering Evaluation of the Sacrificial Shield Wall" G02-80-167 dated August 1,1980.
Supplement No. I had been submitted August 20, 1980 (G02-80-183).
A final report is anticipated following completion of repairs.
The report consolidates the licensee's analyses, evaluations and corrective actions for defects and quality assurance program discrepancies relative to the sacrificial shield wall.
It includes consideration of issues relating to the eleven allegations received by NRC, as discussed in IE inspection reports 50-397/79-12, 79-13, and followup reports such as 79-16, 80-04, 80-19, 81-05, 81-06 81-09, 81-10, 81-16, and 81-22.
(Note: 81-22 summarizes the resolution of the allegations.)
The resident inspector, who had been assigned to the WNP-2 site during the period of implementation of corrective actions (June 1980-September 1981), reviewed Supplement No. 2 relative to inspection data during that period.
Particular consideration was given to Allegation No. 1 of NRC inspection report 50-397/79-12, and NRC enforcement item 81-05-04, regarding incomplete penetration of welds.
Supplement No. 2 states that none of the recently identified deficiencies fall outside the bounding assumptions made in the original SSW evaluation, nor do they invalidate the conclusions, with respect to the integrity of the SSW made in that original evaluation as submitted to the NRC. The supplement addresses the incomplete penetration which was found during examination of the weld joint for the new girth weld. However, it p_rovides data which appears to conflict with premises of the original evaluation report: The original report included ultrasonic test data for fifteen welds (SMAW and FCAW), in which three cases of incomplete penetration, with a maximum size of 5/32 inch were identified.
This data was included in Table III.D.S of the original report, and was not changed in the revision included with Supplement No. 2.
l This does not recognize the 1/4 inch incomplete penetration found l
i
_ - - _ - _ - - -
-
.-
.
.
.
_ _
_.
. _..
....
- -
..
-
-
.
.
.
'
.-
,
-
.
5-
-
j at the new girth weld location, shown in figure 3 of Supplement No. 2.
Also, figure No. 3 implies that 1/4 inch'is the-known maximum incomplete penetration, whereas NRC inspection report 50-397/81-05 notes that the 1/4 inch could not be assured at all locations
,
(i.e., it was measured after weld joint grinding was complete,
,
rather than as an exploration of surface indication).
The original evaluation report (Section III.D.S.C) identified that i
as much as 50 percent less of weld size (due to incomplete penetration)
,
would be acceptable at points of maximum stress, and that additional conservatism is contributed through plastic collapse mechanics and multiple locd path considerations.
The 1/4 inch reduction in a 3/4 inch weld appears to be within this envelope, even with same
!
uncertainty allowed for the 1/4 inch size.
The WPPSS Assistant Manager of Engineering affirmed this position and stated that the final evaluation report will clarify this matter further.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Managenent Meeting The inspector met with licensee Managenent identified in paragraph 1, on February 26, 1982 to discuss status of his inspection efforts and to receive a status report of principal WPPSS activities.
l l
l
!
<
--,..1
- _. - -
,
,,
e-w p-<-,-.-._,
--#-,,
, - -,_,,,
--,, -. _..,
---,-.
y-..
, -.~
r- _.,,- -