IR 05000460/1980010
| ML19344F219 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1980 |
| From: | Dodds R, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344F206 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-460-80-10, 50-513-80-10, NUDOCS 8009120631 | |
| Download: ML19344F219 (5) | |
Text
.
'~-
U. S. ZiUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!OilSSIO!!
,
OFFICE OF I!iSPECTIO!i A!O E!iFORCEME!iT REGIO!! V 50-460/80-10 Report !io.
50-513/80-10 Docket !!o.
50-460, 50-513 License ! o. CPPR-134, CPPR-174 Safeguards Group Licensce:
Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Facility liac:e:
Washington fluclear Projects flos.1 and 4 (WilP 1 & 4)
Inspection at:
WitP 1 & 4 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspection conducted:
June 2-9, 1980 7// t. /Fe; Inspectors:
%-
fg A. D.
ioth -desiyent Keactor Inspector Dr.te Signed t
N Date Signed Date Signed Approved By:
-
.
5-7//b/&
R. T. Dodds,<-cmc) Engineering Support Section Date Signed S u==a ry :
Unit 1 Inspection on June 2-9,1980 (Report flo. 50-460/80-10)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by the resident inspector of construction activities relating to structures and supports welding, and general construction.
The inspection involved 12 inspector-hours onsite by one flRC inspecter.
Results:
Of the two areas inspected, an item of noncompliance was identified in the area of structures and supports welding i, 'ragraph 4 - shop weld undersize).
Unit 4 Inspection on June 2-9,1980 (Report flo. 50-513/80-10)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection by the resident inspector of construction activities relating to structures and supports welding, general construction and
. placement of concrete.
The inspection involved 3 inspector-hours onsite by one flRC inspector.
Results:
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
RV Form 219 (2)
800912o63/
.
'
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Washinoton Public Power Supply System
- M. C. Carrigan, Construction Manager
- T. J. Houchins, Project QA Manager
- G. D. Dyekman, Engineering Manager
-
- J. P. Thomas, Project Manager United Engineers and Constructors
- E. C. Haren, Deputy Project QA Manager
- G. E. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Project Manager
- fl. Amaria, Field Project Engineer
Shurtleff and Andrews (S/A)
K. Engstrom, QA Manager
- Denotes persons present at management meeting.
2.
General Construction Insoection Information-Units 1 and 4 During this report period -the resident inspector. was onsite on June 2-6 and 9, 1980.
The inspector observed work activities in-progress and completed work, examined in-process temporary records and completed permanent records, and interviewed craft, management and quality inspection personnel relative to the plant construction.
Principal ranagement personnel contacted are listed in paragraph 1.
Personnel were interviewed either in on-site offices or at the physical work areas on-site.
Inspection activities involved audits of specific work activities, and plant tours and associated observations of hardware, documents, or personnel.
During the various inspection activities the inspector
' particularly noted the number of QC inspectors for the work activity in-progress, the demonstrated knowledge of the QC inspectors in their assigned activity, their awareness of governing procedural and technical requirements, their effectiveness in identifying and acting on apparent quality discrepancies, and the relationship of the craft personnel and the QC inspection effort.
'
.
O
~
r --
-2-
.
.
.
s 3.
General Construction Status
.
On liay 30, 1980, a number of labor contracts had not been agreed upon with the local contractors' association,.and construction personnel started to not show up for work.
Equipment operators, carpenters, teamsters were among the crafts involved. This interfered with the handling of equipment and materials, and operation of various construction equipment. By June 6,1980, the construction staffing was down to 25% of that prior to the labor problem.
As a result of the slow-down in construction, the resident inspector site activities were also reduced, and the resident was assigned to assist flRC personnel in the inspection / investigation activities of the adjacent Unit 2.
4.
Structures and Supports Welding - Units 1 and 4 The inspector i.udited work activities for welding of structural steel for the general services building. This involved observation of the welding of reinforcement plates to steel columns flos. 3259A, 2348A, 2283A, 2271 A, 2270A, and 2267A. Weld joint fit-up was also observed.
Applicable codes, standards and quality requirements are described in PSAR Sections 17 and 3.8.4, job specification flo. 207, and contractor drawings FCil-495, Revision 1.
Observations, examination of records, and interviews of personnel were conducted relative to: joint preparation and fit-up, weld and welder identification, qualifications of the welders, preheat of base materials, certifications for the E7018 electrode, size and location of welds, visual quality of welds, and cleanliness of weld area.
It was ascertained that welders (using symbols KQ and DF) who were making the groove welds were qualified for the material thickness involved, and the welders applying fillet welds (TK, PV, QV, PH, HW) were qualified for fillet welds.
The inspector also examined the existing shop fillet welds on the columns, and found that the welds were undersize in several cases.
For example, the specified 5/16" fillet welds on column flo. 2270A were actually 1/4" or less over their full length; specified 1/2" fillet weld on attachment clip of column flo. 2283 was actually 3/8" or less over its full length.
Contract specification flo. 207 requires fillet welds to comply with AWS Dl.1, including visual inspections. The licensee site QA group promptly prepared nonconformance report flo. 4-flCR-207-056 citing the undersized welds.
The inspector previously questioned the effectiveness of shop weld inspection by the structural steel supplier, Allied-Capitol Joint Venture (Reference flRC Inspection Report No. 50-460/513-80-01).
In response, the licensee site QA organization provided copies of records which demonstrated that shop fabrication problems had previously been identified by the licensee in 1978 and corrective actions had been taken, including reinspection of materials at the WitP-1/4 site. The inspector's review of those records is described in flRC Inspection Report tio. 50-460/513-80-03 concluding that
, shop material quality problems appeared to have been adequately addressed.
-
However, in view of the recent identificati.on of undersize welds, the inspector reviewed the contract flo. 207 structural steel correspondence file at the records center on-site to ascertain if other corrective actions had occurred in addition to those previously examined.
The previously
-3-
.
.
.
examined records were found to be representative of complete licensee
-
action.
In particular, Capitol Steel Corporation letter (ALUE-79-5582)
states that " reinspection of structural steel has been completed, all of the steel stored in yard areas 1 and 4 was reinspected also, and this completes the Allied / Capitol Joint Venture Reinspection of Structural Steel."
It indicates that nonconformance reports were to have been submitted, documenting any uncorrected repairs required.
The responsible site contractor (Shurtleff and Andrews) could identify no such nonconformance reports for the weld defects currently identified.
'
Nor could the licensee identify any evidence that reinspection activities have not in fact been completed.
The undersize shop welds appears to be the result of failure to install welds cccording to drawing requirements and appears to be an item of non-compliance.
(460/80-10-01)
.
5.
Containment Structural Concrete - Unit 1 The inspector met with contractor quality control concrete inspectors, placement foreman, field engineer and licensee quality assurance surveillence personnel to review the concrete placement techniques used at placement No. C1106.
This meeting was held to ascertain whether the placement was successful in filling the forms near the containment liner near the top of the plac2.cnt.
The placement was unusual in that it involved a blockout in the containmaat wall above the fuel transfer tube, and involved placing concrete up against an overhead construction joint. The overhead joint was only slightly sloped, 54-inches deep, and the space was congested with several layers of No.18 reinforcing steel. The inspector was informed that efforts were made to assure pumping of concrete against the liner with positive feed, special half-pipes were used to locate vibrators back against the liner plate, and lateral control of the concrete was used at the latter part of the placement to avoid air pockets. The inspector also interviewed the ASME authorized nuclear inspector relative to his observations for this placement. The inspector had no further questions regarding the effectiveness of this placement.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Exit Interview The inspector net with licensee management personnel on June 9,1980 to discuss the inspector's findings. Attendees at these sessions are so designated in Paragraph 1 of this report. The inspector summarized the scope of his activities and reviewed his findings as discussed in detail in this report, t
'
With regard to the item of noncompliance, the inspector stated that the undersize welds appeared on several beams which were concurrently being worked at the Shurtleff and Andrews site laydown area by several welders and at least one QC inspector; but none reported the questionable condition.
The inspector noted that the variations in the welds from one column to the next were obvious. The inspector added that he received comments from
.
the Shurtleff and Andrews inspection person *nel to the effect that shop fabricated itens had been inspected in the shop and that it was not in their scope of activity to question the shop work.
- - _.
.._
.
_
_
_ _ _ _
. -
.-
_.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
-4-
,
.
.
.
The inspector also commented on concrete placement No. C101 at Unit 4 regarding the concrete voids discussed in IE Inspection Report No. 50-513/80-09.
Review of the applicable elevation drawing (V2918-V-ll-3) and discussion with UESC field engineering staff resolved the inspector's concerns over any possible minor honeycomb at the first lifts of the placement.
The inspector stated that the previous outstanding item (regarding consolidation assurance in congested areas) re.na~:ns subject to continued review as discussed in the aforementioned inspection report.
t
.
I