IR 05000460/1979008
| ML19275A228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1979 |
| From: | Bishop T, Dodds R, Kleinsorge W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19275A225 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-460-79-08, 50-460-79-8, 50-513-79-08, 50-513-79-8, NUDOCS 7910030349 | |
| Download: ML19275A228 (7) | |
Text
.
..
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
50-460/79-08 50-513/79-08 Report No.
CPPR-134. CPPR-174 safeguards croup 50-460, 50-513 ticons, no, Docket No.
Washington Public Power Supply System Licensee:
P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Washington fluclear Project flos.1 and 4 (WitP-1 and 4)
Facility Name:
Inspection at:
WilP-1 and 4 Site, Benton -County, Washington Inspection conducted:
July 17-20, 1979 Inspectors: M[d 44h
'
8[f/7f w T. W. Bishop, React &r Inspector
/ nat'e Signed E-yal"_th CL. Kleimnenq gg hq E. A. Kleinsorg, Engineering Ai'de, Coop.
Date signed Date Signed-89-"
7
[
Approved B t
/w:
R'. T. Dodds, Section* Chief, Reactor Engineering Support Ajat6 Signed
-
Section, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Sun mary :
Inspection on July 17-20,1979 (Report flos. 50-460/79-08 and 50-513/79-08)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of construction activities including:
Preparations for placement of Unit I reactor vessel, and followup on previous inspection items. The inspection involved 39 hours4.513889e-4 days <br />0.0108 hours <br />6.448413e-5 weeks <br />1.48395e-5 months <br /> onsite by an inspector and an engineering aide.
Results:
fio items of noncompliance or deviatioas were identified in the areas inspected.
\\r 7 2N
,,
,
RV Form 719 (7)
7 91003 03V 7
&
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
- C. B. Organ, Assistant Director, Projects Staff
- W. C. Bibb, Project Manager, WNP-1 and 4
- T. J. Houchins, Project Quality Assurance Manager, WNP-1 and 4
- G. K. Dyekman, Project Engineering Manager, WNP-1 and 4-
- M. C. Carrigan, Construction Martager, WNP-1 and 4
- W. M. Lazear, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor R. C. Mertens, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer J. R. Nickolaus, Quality Assurance Engineer R. D. Crips, Quality Assurance Engineer
,
b.
United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C)
- R. S. Millne, Deputy Project Manager
- V. E. Cichocki, Assistant Construction Manager /Q. A. Interface
- 0. P. Kalami, Supervising Structural Engineer D. L. Hausauer, Contract Supervisor R. Lenta, Quality Assurance Engineer
- R. N. Devers, Document Control Supervisor c.
G. F. Atkinson-Wright /Schuchart/ Harbor (A-WSH)
M. Latch, Quality Assurance Manager T. Canning, Assistant Quality Assurance Manager J. Rothstein, Assistant Quality Control Supervisor K. Culver, Lead Quality Control Inspector d.
Pacific Testing Laboratories (PTL)
K. Bletso, Level III
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Construction Status
,
Licensee representatives reported that, as of June 30, 1979, construction of WNP-1 was 24% complete, and WNP-4 was 9% complete.
.
1C;2 2N
-2-
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) fioncompliance (50-460/513/78-07/03):
Inadequate preventive maintenance inspections.
The licensee's actions to correct preventive maintenance (PM)
inspection problems were previously examined and found acceptable (f(RC Report 79-01) with the exception of conversion of PM requirements to the standardized computer program. This aspect of the program was satisfactorily verified during the current inspection.
In addition, the iaspector examined the storage, inspection records, and PM personnel training records asscciated with the Unit 1 react::r vessel, closure head, plenum cylinder, core support cylinder, core basket, and service structure. All items were found to be in compliance with program requirements. This item is closed.
b.
(0 pen) Noncompliance (50-460/513/77-01/01 and 50-460/513/78-02/04):
Inadequate document controls.
.
The licensee's document control system was examined for com-pliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI.
The inspector examined Q. A. implementing procedures and drawing control activities, as indicated below:
(1) Review of Q. A. Implementing Procedures.
(a) UE&C: FGCP-38 " Document Control of Contractor /
Vendor Information" (b) UE&C: FGCP-39 " Design Document Control" (c) l'E&C : FGCP-46 " Construction Management's Site brawing Control" (d) UE&C: FCMP-49 " Request of Information" (e) A-WSH: QCPP-8 " Document Control" (f) Program for Auditing the Site Contractor Drawings (2) Observation of Drawing Control Activities The inspector examined the status of 32 drawings located in the field; all drawings were the current revision.
During the site tour, it was found that an unofficial sketch was being referred to during construction activities by two surveyors.
It was later determined that this
.
sketch was a result of an Information Request submitted by the surveyor.
The sketch was not attached to the appropriate documentation, or marked to reflect the 15,2 23b
-3-
.
"Information Request" or the ensuing " Request ~for In-formation." The need for positive drawing control was discussed with the licensee during the exit interview.
The inspector accompanied two UE&C drawing auditors in the field.
Also sampled and examined were 40 drawing
.
control audit reports.
Corrective action initiated and followup actions taken by the drawing auditors appearad to be adequate.
The Automated Drawing Index was examined for completeness and currentness. The ADI is updated every two weeks, and it is used primarily as a tool for the auditors.
No items of noncompliance or devfations were identified.
The licensee's program to control drawings was found to be satisfactory; however, this item will remain open pending resolution of the concerns relating to control of contractors' procedures as noted in NRC Report No. 50-460/513/79-07.
.
(0 pen) Unresolved item (50-460/513/79-07/03): The concrete c.
testing performed by Level I trainees.
Licensee representatives were previously requested to provide additional information regarding the use of trainees to perform concrete testing. As of the current inspection, licensee representatives had determined that trainees were only allowed to perform slump and air entrainment tests.
They further determined that all such tests had been performed under the surveillance of a qualified Level I or II inspector.
The specific quantity tests performed were not immediately defined, i.owever it is known that trainees were involved in the slump and air tests for placements in basically all concrete structures on the site. The licensee's evaluation of the adequacy of the testing performed by trainees was in progress.
This item remains open pending examination of the licensee's evaluation.
d.
(Closed) Followup item (50-460/513/79-04/01):
Effectiveness of licensee's followup on audit findings.
The inspector examined the documentation associated with three major audits performed by the licensee to assess the effectiveness of the licensee's followup actions. The audits examined were Nos. FQA-204-1A (Boeing Construction), FQA-254-1 A (Atkinson-Wright /Schuchart/ Harbor), and FQS-257-1 (J. A. Jones Co.).
The audits resulted in a total of 36 findings and seven ob-servations.
In all cases the licensee's followup actions were found to be thorough and appropriate for che condition identified.
The inspector has no further questions on this item.
I "m 1,2 2s5
_
~'~
P00RORGNAl.
e.
(0 pen) Unresolved item (50-460/513/79-07/04):
Weakness in the 253 and 254 contractor's quality program.
The implementation of the 253 and 254 contractor's (A-WSH)
quality program was examined. The examination included a review of selected quality implementing procedt.res, observations of work and work activities, and review of quality records.
The program examination was performed to independently assess the effectiveness of the contractor's quality program in light of the recently identified program deficiencies (WPPSS In-vestigation Report QA-1/4-79-281).
The following A-WSH procedures were examined for compliance to PSAR and applicable specification requirements:
(1) QCCP-13, Revision 1, "A-WSH Procedure for Cadwelding and Inspection" (2) QCP-17, Revision 5, " Reinforcing Bar Fabrication Inspection (Code and lion-Code)"
'
(3, QCP-ll, Revision 2, " Reinforcing Bar Installation Shell and Dome (Code)"
(4) QCP-23, Revision 5, "Concre ~* Placement Inspection (Except Containment Shell an. Dome)"
tio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
The inspector observed the work and work activities associated with concrete placements flos. 2018A and 3214 in the Unit 1 General Service Building (GSB).
The observations inc1"ded inspections of rebar placement, form placement and clean s inus, and concrete placement and testing activities.
The records associated with the placements were also examined. The work activities and records were examined for comolbace to applicable plans and procedures.
flo items of _ noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Observations were also made of reinforcing steel control in the Unit 1 GSB, Unit I laydown area, and rebar fabrication yard.
All reinforcing steel examined was found to be properly tagged and controlled.
During the work observations, the inspector privately interviewed i
ten quality control inspectors. The inspectors were quest oned regarding selected procedure requirements and were found to be knowledgeable in the areas of interest.
In addition, the inspectors were askeJ if they had ever tieen subjected to intimidation by the crafts or their own supervisors.
In no case was there any indication that intimidation had occurred or would be tolerated.
2238
-5-
,.
.
The training and qualification record packages of eleven quality control inspectors were examined for compliance to ASME and AliSI ti45.2.6 requirements. Of the eleven packages examined, the inspector found three instances where the contrac-tor had utilized the provisions in ANSI li45.2.6, Paragraph 3.1, which states, "The education and experience requirements specified.... should not be treated as absolutes when other factors provide reasonable assurance that a person can competently perform a particular task." As an example, where AliSI specifies that a Level II inspector must have graduated from a four-year accredited engineering or science college plus have two years quality assurance experience or be a high school graduate with four years testing or inspection exper-ience, A-WSH has certified an individual as a Level II with only three years of college and nine months quality experience.
Similarly, an individual with a high school degree and two months quality experience was certified as a Level I, where ANSI specifies the individual must have one year experience.
The review also disclosed one individual whose records did not support his qualifications as an ASME Level II inspector.
The contractor took immediate action to withdraw this individual's Level II qualification until further evaluation could be performed.
It was noted that the situation of interpretatinn of ANSI requirements was identified by the licensee in thHr investigation (WPPSS Report QA-1/4-79-281). The resolutu.n to this situation will be examined in a subsequent inspection.
This item remains unresolved.
The system weaknesses identified during the WPPSS investigation were discussed with the contractor and licensee management representatives. The inspector inquired as to why the weak-nesses were not identified by the routine quality program.
The representatives stated that several of the weaknesses identified viere not programmatic deficiencies, rather they were somewhat isolated areas not routinely included in the quality surveillance program.
Other items, such as rebar control, were areas that were not closely monitored in the past. The actions to correct the specific problems identified and prwent their recurrence will be evaluated in a subsequent insprction.
4.
Preparations for Unit 1 Reactor Pressure Vessel Installation The Unit 1 reactor pressure vessel installation is currently scheduled for August 25, 1979. The detailed lifting and setting procedures, as well as the installation checklist were in prepara-tion during the current inspection.
The vessel is to be lifted and installed by Lampson-Universal Rigging, Inc., using the 1,139,000 lbs.
capacity Transi-Lift System 01-001.
The inspector examined the
,
field load test report for the Transi-lift System (610.11 ton load test of July 11,1979).
l',2 23@
-6-
,
-
.
.
The method being used by the contractor to certify the test weights does not adequately assure that a proper test load was applied.
The test weights (type A concrete weights) were certified on a truck scale, two at a time. The individual weight was then deter-mined by dividing the combined weight by two.
As a result, individual weights varied from a low of 29,105 lbs. to a high of 38,500 lbs, for test weights of the same general configuration.
In many ca m only one of the two weights certified together was used in this load test.
It is, therefore, not clear what test load was actually applied.
Licensee and contractor representatives stated that this situation would be investigated and appropriate action taken.
It was also found that the UE&C witness signature had not yet been applied to the test document. The contractor stated that the test had been properly witnessed and ti at the appropriate signature h
would be obtained.
The inspector requested that records of crane stability determination, frequent and periodic inspections, and wire rope inspection required by AfiSI B30.5, be available for examination during the next f1RC inspection.
Licensee representatives agreed to have the.information available.
The subject of reactor vessel installation preparation is open pending resolution of the question of actual crane test load, and examination of crane inspection recards and vessel installation procedures (50-460/79-08/01).
5.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection, a meeting was held with licensee and United Engineers and Constructors representatives denoted in Paragraph 1.
The activities covered during the inspec-tion and observations and findings of the inspectors were discussed.
The inspector expressed concern regarding A-WSH's interpretation of AftSI's recommended qualification program for inspection personnel (Paragraph 3.e), and indicated the licensee'5 response to the A-WSH position must assure compliance with the intent of the AftSI standard.
17,?.25f