IR 05000460/1980011
| ML19341C885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1980 |
| From: | Haynes R, Hernandez G, Kirsch D, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341C862 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-460-80-11, 50-513-80-11, NUDOCS 8103040374 | |
| Download: ML19341C885 (16) | |
Text
__ _
_ _ -.
"
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Co:NISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTIoi AND ENFoRCEMEhT
,
REGION V
50-460/80-11 Raport No.
50-513/80-11 Docket No.
50 460. 50-513 License No.
CDD0-134. CPPR-174 Safeguards Group
'
Washington Public Power Supply System Licensee:
i P. O. Box 968
!
Richland, Washington 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Projects Nos. I and 4 (WNP 1 & 4)
Inspection at:
WNP 1 A 4 Site. Benton County. Washinoton Inspection conducted: Aucust 26-29 and Sontomber 9-12. 1080 Inspectors:
e El'.
/ A
~7 - Th
D. E. K rsEh, Reactor Inspector Date signed I
rE
.G '
m. 3 1rl)
h[A. D Date Signed Toth Reactor Inspector
( $ i k s,> u k. /
i,, /n /ro
,
D'te signed G.gernandez Reactpr Inspector a
Approved By:
/
_l
/0 d
R. s. Hayn'es, Chief, irojects Section Dale S'igned S ur-ma ry :
Inspection during ceriod of August 26-29 and September 9-12, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-460/80-11 and 50-513/80-11)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by one resident inspector and two regional based inspectors of construction activities including: licensee action on previous inspection findings; safety related piping work observation and quality record review; reactor coolant pressure boundary piping procedure review, work observation and quality record review; contractor nonconformance report trending; and compliance with ASME certification system.
The inspection involved 89 inspector hours by three NRC inspectors.
Resul ts: Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in four areas. Two items of noncompliance were identified in the area of safety related piping (paragraph 6.a.1 - uncontrolled and unauthorized removal of arc strikes from stainless steel pipe spool; and undersize shop welds on pipe to pipe stop attachment fillet welds).
RV Form 719 (7)
8108040 M M
-..
..
.
-,.
- --
-. -
-.- -,
--
-
,-
.
-
.
,
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted a.
Washington Public Power Sucoly System (WPPSS)
+*J. P. Thomas, Deputy Project 'lanager
- L. J. Garvin, Acting QA Division Director
+*T. J. Houchins, Project QA flanager J. W. Carson, Senior QA Engineer
+il. C. Carrigan, Project !!anagement Specialist Various other QA and QC representatives.
b.
United Engineers and Construction (UE&C)
- G. E. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Project Manager
- E. C. Har:'
Deputy Project QA Manager it. R. Johns.
Renior Quality Systems Engineer J. J. Lancon, Mechanical / Piping QA Engineer D. M. IfcLerran,
'ordinator C. fl. Butler, Fie o
~intendent, Quality Assurance
+G. M. Ahearn, Deputy 1.v
't Manager a
N. Amoria, Project Field t % mer Manager J. Carsen, Senior QA Engineer C. PJcler, Senior QA Engineer Various other QA and QC representatives, c.
G. F. Atkinson, Wright, Schuchart/ Harbor (AWSH)
fl. D. Latch, QA Manager J. Rothstein, Senior QA Engineer T. Canning, Assistant QA Itanager M. Anderson, Assistant QC Supervisor d.
J. A. Jones Construction Company (J.A.J.)
W. Roe, QA Manager W. Swift, QA Administration Supervisor D. Higginbotham, QC Supervisor Various other QA and QC representatives, e.
Other Personnel
+G. Hansen, Senior Project Engineer, EFSEC
- Attended Exit Interview on August 29, 1980.
+ Attended Exit Interview on September 12, 1980.
_
_
__
_.
_
_
_
_ _.
-
.
'
-
.,
-2-t 2.
General
~
The licensee informed the inspector on Seotember 9,1980 of their intent to separate the Construction Manager and Architect Engineer responsibilities
'
at the WMP 1/4 site. A new Construction Manager had not yet been selected.
The plans orovide for the existing A/E to retain the engineering and design responsibility along with engineering 0A responsibility. The licensee had not firmly determined the scope of the new Construction Manager responsibilities although tentative plans had been formulated.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Items a.
(Ocen) finncomoliance (460/79-02-05):
Procurement Documents do not contain or reference the aooiicacie PSAR reauirements concern 1na measures ror controlling measuring and test eautoment The inscector determined that the licensee had prepared and initiated Field Change flotices on August 27, 1980 for sixteen contract specifications
,
'
which effectively modify those specifications to include the PSAR commitments regarding the control of measuring and test equipment.
The implementation of the FCN's, including any necessary contractor procedural revisions, will be examir.Ed during a future inspection.
b.
(Closed) Deviation (513/79-10-01): Water on the horizontal construction joint of the spray cond wall
'
The UE&C field civil engineer evaluated the possible impact of six gallons of water trcpped on the construction joint during placement of concrete.
Ccnfiguration of the keyway, position of the waterstop, the waterproofing on the exterior of the walls, elevation of the water table and operation modes of the structure were considered relative to conceivable reduction in water-tightness. This pond is used only infrequently during testing or emergency conditions, and has makeup capability. Leakage is inconsequential; nor is there concern for rebar rusting, particularly since a 16000 psi allowable stress has been used for the steel, as opposed to the usual 20000 allowed.
The engineer also considered the good results of Windsor orobe testing in three areas, witnessed by the inspector.
Riiative to the neat cement grout on the vertical construction joint, the inspector noted that the licensee has prepared an internal document to assure that this deviation from ACI-318 will be incorporated into the FSAR.
The UE&C engineers appeared to have a teci.nical rationale for using only a wetted joint, and had specified this purposely.
There apparently are other sites where this approach has been taken
,
and found to be acceptable to NRC.
The inspector had no further question on these two item *
,-
.
-
.,
-3-c.
(Closed) Deviation (460/80-04-01): Use of SFA-5.1 weld material instead of the SFA-5.5 material identified in the PSAR The licensee has prepared a PSAR deviation form to assure that the change is incorporated in the FSAR.
Confidence in the acceptability of the material has been obtained by the licensee from the NSSS supplier (BMI), based on a review of the certified material test reports by the supplier. The ilSSS Contractor recommended SFA-5.5 material on the basir of
,
shop experience and shop particular circumstances, and had 'ncluded
the SFA-5.5 in the part of the PSAR prepared by them. However, the installer (JAJ) considers that SFA-5.1 will meet the ASME Section
,
III Part NB requirements; particular attention was given to notch i
toughness considerations.
In addition to the above, the licensee initiated a review of other welding soecifications relative to the PSAR. The inspector had no further questions.
i 4.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Followuo Items a.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/77-03-13): The containment liner contractor
'
(PDM) was not recordina the ultrasonic test equipment serial numbers _.
,
,
'
On November 11, 1979, PDM procedure WUT-1 was revised to specify that ultrasonic test equipment serial numbers be recorded. The inspector examined thirty ultrasonic test reports and verified that
,
j the contractor was complying with the requirement.
This item is closed.
l b.
(Closed) Followup Item (460/78-03-01): Conflict between PDM's visual j
insoection procedure for welds and the contract specification.
J i
The inspector reviewed PDM's visual inspection procedure, the contract specification, the code requirements and determined that the visual inspection procedure appeared satisfactory. The contract specification
.
requires conformance with the ASME code, but the code doesn't specify i
visual inspection acceptance criteria. The licensee and PDM based i
the procedural limits for porosity on the code specified radiographic
acceptance standard for surface porosity.
The visual inspection procedure does not appear to conflict with the contract specification
and, based on calculation of porosity areas, appeared to be within code allowed radiographic porosity limits. The inspector had no further questions.
!
,
. - -, - - - - -. -
_
_
__
_
_
-.
i
.
,
.
.
.
'
.
i-4-
c.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/78-05-03): Licensee commitment to revise cosition descriotions to emahasize individual responsibility for
'
cuality (See also caragraph 4.f of IE Inspection Reoort flo. 50-460/
79-02).
.
The inscector examined a sanple of position descriptions for the
,
.
UPPSS and UESC staffs. The position descriotions had received the I
recuired anprovals 7-d provided for emphasis on the individual responsibility for quality.
In addition, the WPPSS personnel aupraisal forms were examined and observed to specifically identify the individuals awareness of and attitudes toward quality and quality assurance
,
l functions as an item included in an individual's evaluation. The j
inspector had no further questions.
d.
(Closed) Followun Item (460/78-05-07):
Licensee commitment to assess bid centractor OA resoonsioility
,
The licensee had submitted specifics regarding "QA Program Corrective
.
iteasures" by letter no. AP0-78-63, dated July 18, 1978, in response to enforcenent conference discussions.
The particulars of the actions to assess bid contractor responsibilities were addressed by letter subtask nos. 1.1.a.1 and 1.4.d.
In response to subtask 1.4.d. the licenses had issued Project !!anagement Procedure no. 7-103 (Sid Evaluation) which specified bid review resconsibilities for quality assurance and engineering. The procedure appeared adequate for assignment of review responsibility, criteria and concent resolution provisions. The inspector examined the documentation of QA review of bids oc contract 239 (Instrumentation Installation)
'
for compliance with PMP 7-103 and observed apparent compliance.
The licensee had revised the QA Instructions to require preliminary
review of contractor capability in response to letter subtask 1.1.a.1.
l The inspector had no further questions.
e.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/79-02-02): Ouality Control training for contractors
The licensee had developed about 50 Quality Training and Indoctrination
- Program (QTIP) modules covering a number of specific areas in all disciplines. The system had been made available to site contractors for augmenting the existing contractor training program contents.
The inspector examined contractor training personnel and records from AWSH, J. A. Jones and Foley-Wisner/Becker and observed that site contractors have utilized the QTIP system for training of craft, OC and supervisory personnel. The inspector had no further questions.
,
l
.
y
, +
wy-w
-- -
g w-e,-mm---r--- - - -- -,. - - - - - -
-.-w-,s-------,-,-y--yrr,--n--r-,z-.
w-~,,
.-,-
-,g.m..m.a-.,
m i m,- g y-->w+-e
,++--w..#wz.-g
-
-.
.
-
-.
.-
.
_
.-.
. - _ _ _. - _ - -
,
.
,
-
.
,
-5-f.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/79-02-03): Development of mandated procedure content nuidelines The licensee had determined that, since the majority of contracts had been awarded, a total incorporation of mandated procedures was not prudent or attainable. The licensee's QA organization had, however,
identified a number of contractor procedures to be rewritten and
!
streamlined and had subsequently rewritten and condensed 10 contractor i
procedures into six procedures to improve content. The inspector l
had no further questions.
[
g.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/79-02-11): Retention and control of
'
ouality records The inspector reviewed orocedure no. FOS-17-2, Revision 3. (Records Review-Receiving) and examined the records center operation for compliance with selected aspects of the orocedural requirements.
Items examined included: Material Documentation Status Logs; Ccnduct i
of Technical Adequacy Reviews; two equipment Data Review-Receiving Checklists and the Data Review-Receiving Checklists for four vendor supplied pipe spools.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
h.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/79-02-12): Control of chanaes to equipment
quality classification The licensee had reexamined procedure no. QAP-3 (Quality Classifications)
i and had revised the procedure to address changes to equipment quality classification on September 9,1979.
The licensee had also developed a procedure fer the determination of quality classification (EDP-4.14)
i and issued same on May 23, 1980.
The inspector determined that the licensee had not changed the quality classification of any safety related equipment since the finding was documented in IE Inspection Report No. 460/79-02 and stated that any future quality classification / changes would be examined as part of the normal IE inspection system. The inspector had no further questions.
.
i.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/79-02-13):
J.A. Jones control of test equipment The contractor's control of test equipment was the subject of an item of noncompliance identified in IE Inspection Report No. 50-460/
79-07.
The licensee's action to assure control of the contractor's
,
test equipment was examined and verified previously and is documented in IE Inspection Report No. 50-460/80-06. Therefore, the followup
.
item is considered closed.
,
i
.
-,
...
.
..
.-
_
_, _ ~
- -. -, -,...,. - _ - _ _.,. _ - - _ _. - _ _
_._.
_
_
_
_
__
.
.
.
.
.
,
'.
'
'
-6-T j.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/79-05-02): Licensee actions to resolve i
identified deviations from the ASME B&PV code for concrete containments The licensee had identified three instances of apparent deviation i
from the ASME code for concrete containment vessels (Division 2).
,
The inscector discussed the status of resolution for these items with UESC pe'rsonnel and the Division 2 Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI).
.
!
The deviations had been documented appropriately and were either resolvec or in the process of resolution. The ANI was aware of these questions and indicated that the items would be fully resolved prior
to affixing the code stamp to the vessel.
The inspector had no f
further questions.
k.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (460/79-07-05): AWSH Cadweldino crocedure did not address trans1 tion solices
,
I The inspector found that the AWSH Cadwelding procedure, QCCP-13 has been revised to address transition solices, and the procedure was approved by the licensee. A review of the procedure indicated that the reference and direction given with respect to transition
splices appears adequate. The inspector had no further questions.
1.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (460/79-09-01: See IE Insoection Report 30 J60/79-10): Licensee evaluation of method for indicating the nunner of dessicant bags placed inside equipment The licensee uses a computerized system for the performance of preventive maintenance on stored equipment.
The list identifies those.various attributes to be examined for each equipment item. An angraved metal tag is affixed to equipment identifying the equipment and the number of dessicant bags inside the component. Several components containing dessicant were examined and no discrepancies were observed.
m.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (460/79-09-01): Criteria for assessing reintorcing steel damage during insoection of concrete repairs
,
The AWSH inspection proc-dure QCCP-13-7 Revision 4 includes a Concrete Repair Checklist, with one item ""o damage to exposed steel". The Architect Engineer (UE&C) has not provided AUSH with criteria for making acceptance judgements on the degree of damage; thus AWSH inspectors document any apparent damage on nonconformance reports (NCRs), which are referred to UE&C for evaluation. The NRC inspector interviewed an AMSH QC inspector and the UE&C field engineer responsible for dispositioning such NCRs. He examined two typical NCRs relative to the extent of description of apparent damage, and the typical size of
'
surface defects and nicks which are reported.
Nicks of 1/16 inch depth and greater appear to be routinely documented. The inspector had no further questions.
.
.
-
,, -,
.
,.,.,
,. _. - -
.,._--,,..,,,-,n..,,,,.
.,,.., _ _ -
n-,,,,_
,.n,
.,,,.n_.-..,..
.
.
-7-n.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/79-09-03: See IE Inspection Reoort No. 50-460/79-10): Contractor's (d. A. Jones) method of indicatinq hold ooints and concerns regarding by-passed hold points The NRC first questioned the existence of by-passed QC inspection hold points in IE Inspection Report 50-460/79-10 and again in IE Inspection Report No. 50-460/80-05. The concerns for by-passed hold points were closed in IE Inspection Report 50-460/80-08. The inspector observed that J. A. Jones procedure no. P0P-N-308W specifies the method and criteria to be utilized by the contractors QA organization for the selection of process control sheet hold points.
This item is closed.
o.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (460/79-10-01): Acolicability of ASME Code Case fl-242 to Unit =1 valves provicea by Control Comoonents International (CCI)
Four valves were shipoed after the Ccde Case became effective; these are for Unit #4 and have been referred to the NRC for consideration of the Code Case.
Twelve valves were snipped for Unit #1 after the code case became effective. The vendor has not re-evaluated these valves relative to Case N-242 as this was apparently concurred in by the USSS Contractor (B&W) and the ASME Authorized Nuclear Inspector. The inspector had no further questions on this item.
p.
(Closed) Followuo Item (460/79-14-02): Li.censee controls over radiograpnic film sunolied by vendors as part of quality docunentation The licensee's system for assuring receipt of vendor radiographs was exanined.
Vendor surveillance representatives are required to sign quality Shipment Release (QSR) forms signifying that all required documentation is included in the documentation package for transmittal to the site. WPPSS records personnel perform random checks to assure that documentation packages received are complete and perform 100% checks to assure proper completion and legibility of documentation.
The inspector sampled the Document Deficiency Motices, issued by QA records personnel, and verifled that the random checks of vendor documentation for completeness were being performed.
A sample of three pipe spools were selected to verify QSR form signoff by vendor surveillance personnel. The twelve vendor radiographs of all shop welds on these pipe spools were located and verified to be on-site in controlled storage.
_
...
._
_
- -
--
-
-
_-_
..-
. _ -.
-
,
.
..
,
,
,-
.
.
,
i-8-
,
The licensee's storage areas for quality records were examined for
' '
ccnoliance with procedure FOS-17-1 (Records Retention and Control)
and ANSI M5.2 standard requirements.
.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
q.
(Closed) Followun Item (460/79-14-06):
Improvement required in housekeeoing and equipment prescrvation
,
On August 26, 1980 the inspectors conducted a tour of Unit 1 and 4 and noted a general improvement in the state of housekeeping and equipment preservation.
The subject of housekeeping and equipment
,
oreservation was addressed by an item of noncomoliance issued IE Inscaction Report No. 80-06 and will be the addressed during the followuo of this item once work activities resume following settlement of the current labor discute.
This folicwup item is considered closed.
r.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (460/80-03-02): Role of the AWSH OC insoector relative to survey work The applicable AWSH inspection procedure has been revised to clarify the function of the inspector relative to surveyors' work.
Surveyors a
j will raintain survey results in their log books, and the inspectors j
will verify that the surveyor has signed the appropriate QC record to ascertain that the work has been completed as required. The procedure also has provisions for some QC surveillance of the notebooks.
The inspector had no further questions.
I s.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (460/80-03-03): Training of night shift
!
carnanter and surveyor foremen l
'
The recently assigned A'.JSH training coordinator stated that the night shift party chiefs have now read the applicable procedures, and that this was done in the QC office with the lead QC inspector available for consultation. The QA training records for March 3-6
and April 11-15 show the apparent signatures of the party chiefs for
!
this training. Also, the training records show that QC inspector,
'
QA Engineer and Construction Superintendent training in these
orocedures was given.
Procedures QCP-3, 14, 29 and 30, and QCCP-i 12,16 and 21 were involved, regarding formwork, embeds, and waterstops.
l The inspector had no further questions.
j t.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (460/80-03-04): Adequacy of correlation
,
j test results for use as basis for sanpling concrete at the batch
plant instead of at the pump discharge The licensee advised that the correlation test program had been i
discontinued and that for the remaining concrete placements, the sampling will continue to comply with ASTM-172. The inspector had no further questions.
,
_
, _ _ _ _,
,
.
.
_ _ _ _..
_
. _ _ _ _., _. _.., _ _..... _., _,.. _.. _,
..
._
.______ - _
..
.
. _ _ _ _.
_
._
.
..
.
'
.
.,
-9-I u.
(Closed) Followuo'Iten (460/80-05-02): Contractor's (J.A. Jones)
use of "Recuest for Information" (RFI) forms for documenting nonconforming
?
- conditions and directing accomolishment of work.
(Also, see IE Inspection Reoort 50-460/80-08)
~
-The inspector exam ned a l RFI s issued in 1979 by the contractor
'
i l
,
to verify that RFI's had not been used to resolve nonconforming i
conditions and that technical direction had not been provided to the contractor without an FCfl. All RFI's examined apoeared to be
,
properly dispositioned. The inspector has no further questions.
!
v.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (460/80-06-04): Quality record discrepancies involvina a toraue nultiolier, receivina insnection and renair weld examination i
(1) Torcue multiolier used to toroue diesel aenerator hold-down bolts oio not have anorcoriate calibration documentation The contractor had documented by 1-CitCR-257-372 that the torque multiplier used to tighten the diesel generator hold-down bolts lacked appropriate calibration documentation. This CilCR was
cancelled on July 29, 1980 and the problem was documented in
,'
1-CNCR-257-1186 with the disposition to retorque the diesel generator anchor bolts using approved equipment in accordance with an approved procedure. The contractor had purchased and calibrated a new torque multiplier in accordance with approved
'
procedures, however, the retorquing had not been completed due to the craft work stoppage in effect.
It appeared that the means to accomplish the rework was controlled in accordance with the contractor's QA program and the inspector had no further questions.
(2) Ecujoment appeared to have been installed on the diesel aenerator without proper receivina inspection The contractor had documented by 1-Cf1CR-257-753 that certain diesel generator parts had been installed with " Awaiting Inspection" tags affixed and the assigned disposition was to perform the i
required inspections in-place since the parts were fully accessible.
'
The inspector examined documentary evidence indicating that the parts in question had been receipt inspected prior to installation however. t.'e documentation received from the vendor had not been ful Q accepted. UE&C personnel took immediate action to place " conditional release" tags on the parts in question.
It appears that the only discrepancy involved the receipt inspection personnel failure to remove the " awaiting inspection" tag and affix a " conditional release" tag. This discrepancy is considered
,
to be of no safety significance and the inspector has no further questions.
t
.,. - - _ _, _ _ _ _. _
,m
. m
,
_,.,
. _ _., _.. -,
_.__..,._,_,-._.m...-,.
-,__.,,m-.
~._,_,, -,_,-_., -,
,
-
".
.
,,
-10-(3)
Record nackaces for vendor sucolied pipe spools appeared inconsistent ano did not fully document NDE of repairs The observation that the vendor suoplied code data report referenced comoliance with a later code addenda than the related cipe soool drawings is considered to be of no safety significance and the matter is closed.
The licensee had taken neasures to obtain from the vendor all required weld travelers and repair documentation for the pipe spools in question. The repair records and NDE examination recorts were examined by the inspector and appeared satisfactory.
The inscector had no furthe questions.
w.
(Closed) Followun Item (460/80-09-01):
Craftsman concern reoardino nosslaie concrete voia cenina ancnor oiate or reactor coolant numo Concrete olacecents #C-1028 and #C-1025 relate to the small diagonal shelf sections which support the reactor coolant pumo anchor plates, as shown on drawing 9779-F-112405.
AWSH QC inspectors familiar with tne placements stated that the areas were definitely not congested, and there was good access for working of vibrators. The placement death for the shelves was only about four feet deep, affording good access and visibility during placement.
Reinforcing steel drawings and the placement work package showed no congestion and vibrator access to within fifteen incnes of the anchor plates.
Reinforcing steel and embed spacing of 9-inch grids afforded sufficient access to the 3-inch vibrators used.
There was no support for a concrete void thesis. The inspector had no further questions.
x, (Onen) Followuo Item (460/80-09-02):
Criteria for performing oipe wali :nickness measurements The J.A. Jones procedure No. JAJ-UI-030 (Weld and Base Metal Repair)
requires, in paragraph 5.2, that, following the removal of weld metal surface defects, the remaining thickness is not reduced below ninimum uall thickness and that the depression af t :r defect removal be blended unifornly into the surrounding surface. 90 wever, the crocedure does not specify acceptable inspection techniques and criteria necessary for the QC inspector to establish compliance with the general statements.
In addition, the procedure, in Paragraph 3, did not appear to provide adequate reference to code required NDE of excavations prior to repair by welding.
The licensee agreed to revise the procedure as necessary to resolve these questions.
This item will be examined during a future inspection.
-
-
-
-
.
.
,. _ -
_
_ _. __. _. _
_
. __ _
_
_ ______-_
._
__
.
..
.
. ',
-
'
-11
+
5.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Pie,
.
a.
Review of Quality Assurance Imnlementing Procedures The following sample of contract specifications and quality assurance procedures were reviewed to ascertain whether appropriate procedures have been established for the flSSS oiping and whether the procedures
-
conform to the QA program as described in Chapter 17 of the PS R.
(1) Specification 9779-2, NSSS (B&W) piping (2) Specification 9779-211, flSSS piping and equipment installation
'
(3) Field Quality Standard 10-1, Revision 3.0, Receiving inspection of pre-purchased items (4) Field Quality Standard 2.0, Revision 2.0, Indoctrination and certification of personnel (5) Field Quality Standard 13-2, Revision 2.0, Storage verification (6) Field General Construction Procedure 16.0, Revision 4.0, Preventive maintenance program (7) Preventive Maintenance Instruction No.11, Revision 4.0, General Preventive Maintenance
,
(8) Preventive Maintenance Instruction No.12, Revision 1.0, Qualifications / certification of visual checkers (9) JAJ PlDE-001, Revision 4A, Liquid Penetrant Examination (10) JAJ-NDE-002, Rev:iion 4A, Magnetic Particle Examinations (11) JAJ-NDE-003, Revt B 4A, Radiographic Examination (12) JAJ-NDE-004, Revision 2B, Visual Examination (13) JAJ-WI-016.0, Revision IC, large bore piping installation / erection (14) JAJ-UI-023, Revision IA, Hydrostatic test (15) PCS-RCS-211-1, Revision Gi, Installation of the Reactor Coolant
.
Loop piping Inspection cnd/or work instructions for post-installation cleaning of the RCFB piping systems have not been approved and will be reviewed during a future inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified, b.
Observation of Unrk and Mark Activi_ ties Certain reactor pressure boundary niping activities were examined
<
to determine whether the activities were being accomplished in accordance
with NRC requirements and PSAR commitments. The piping activities were examined considering the following attributes: receipt inspection,
,
marking and identification, storage, protection, preventative maintenance, l
installation, inspection and documentation.
l
,
_ -. _
.,. _. _ _
, __
. _..,.
._ _.., _ _.
_,.... _ _ _ _...... _ _ _ _.. _ _.... _ _..,...
.
..
,
.
.
,
-12-The following Unit flo. 4 t!SSS piping in storage was examined:
Pice Snools_
Serial fiumber (1)33"OutletAssembly 20-4A-2032-50-1 (2) 33" Cutlet Assembly 20-4A-2032-50-2 (3) 32" Iclet Assembly 21-C5-2032-50-2 (4) 32" Inlet Assembly 21-C5-2032-50-3 (5) 23" Inlet Assembly 21-C2-2032-50-1 The following two " runs" between steam generator 2B and the eastside reactor coolant pumps for Unit flo. I were examined to verify compliance with aonlicable crocedures and specifications.
Pice Scools Stace of Installation (1)5/:121-C5-2023-50-2 Field welds nos. 14 & 15 incrocess (2) S/:t 21-CS-2023-50-3 Field welds nos. 16 & 17 fit-up io itens of noncompliance or deviations were identified, c.
Review of Guality Records The insoector examined quality related records relative to reactor coolant pressure boundary piping to ascertain whether these records reflect work accomplishment consistent with llRC requirements and PSAR cemitments. The following records were examined for the Unit l!o. 4 IlSSS pipe spools in storage (see paragraph b): B&W shipment authorization, design certificate, code data reports, list of welds and radiographic acceptance, hydrostatic test reports, report of inspections, final heat treatment reports and receipt inspection records.
The cualification records of ten inspectors performing preventive naintenance inspections and six inspectors performing receipt inspection of TiSSS piping were also examined.
The nrocess control sheets for the two installed runs in Unit ilo. 1 (see caragraph b) were examined for inclusion of the following:
inspection reports, nonconformance reports, drawings, filler matorial and piping weld / fide records.
The orocurement packages and material certification records for the following heats of welding filler material were examined:
,
_
.
.
__
..-
..
.
..
.
.
.
,
-13-Heat t!unber Filler 11aterial (1) 92013 A E 7018 (2) 0505 A E 308-16 (3) 0456 B E 308-16 (4) 0357 E 308-16 flo items of noncomoliance or deviations were identified.
d.
0A Audits The inspector examined the established audit schedule to determine adherence to the frequency of planned audits for the flSSS piping contractor (J. A. Jones). All audits examined had been performed as scheduled.
The inspector examined two audits and 30 selected surveillance reports conducted by the licensee on J. A. Jones or flSSS piping activities during 1979 and 1980.
flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Other Safety Related Pipinn a.
Observation of Work and Work Activities The insoector selected the below listed stainless / carbon steel piping spool subassemblies, supplied by the vendor, laying in the oipe storage laydown area for examination. The subassemblies were examined for compliance with the ASME B&PV code and licensee procedures by examination of the attributes of (a) pipe stop attachment fillet weld size and appearance; (b) weld reinforcement size; (c)
evidence of site OC inspection and acceptance; (d) piping subassembly surface condition; (e) subassembly storage conditions and (f) evidence of unacceptable shop weld surface preparation.
S0001 flo.
DHR-412030-2 CSS-442006-2 DHR-441801-8 CSS-411987-1 CSS-411914-5 DHR-412029-3 f!SU-411489-2
-
- -,
--.
- -,
_.
~
..
,
.
.
,
-14-(1)
Findinos The inspector observed, on Auoust 26, 1980, that spool no.
CH2 412033-2 (ASME code class 3) had the following apparent discrepancies:
(a) Five carbon steel arc strikes existed on the stainless steel pipe surface between shop welds no. I and 2; and (b) the pipe surface adjacent to shop weld 2 had been around raisino the question of compliance with code required nininun wall thickness. Examination of that pipe spool on August 27, 1980 identified that (a) the carbon steel arc strikes had been removed and (b) two shop welded pipe stop attachment fillet welds had nominal 1/4" leg size whereas the detail for the oipe spool (no. CHRX-35) reauired 5/16" fillet welds for those nice stoo attachment welds. The customer drawing number for detail DHRX-35 is 9779-F-412030, Revision 3.
The insoector observed the licensee's performance of measurements of pipe scool wall thickness to verify compliance with the ninimun wail thickness criteria of the ASME B&PV code. That measurement verified that the wall thickness did meet the minimum code requirements in the areas questioned.
The licensee measured the fillet weld size of the eight pipe stco/ pipe attachment welds and determined that six of the eight fillet welds were undersize and documented the finding by Non-conformance Report No. 1-NCR-137-190 on August 28, 1980. The shco traveler verified that the shoo fillet welds had been inspected and accepted by B. F. Shaw shop personnel on April 24, 1980.
This is an apparent item of noncompliance.
(460/80-11-01)
The licensee's procedure no. FGCP-48, Revision 0 (Corrective
"aintenance llanagement), requires in paragraph 5.0 that "All Maintenance performed under the Maintenance Management Program will be accomolished by !1aintenance Work Request."
It was determined that the removal of the arc strikes on spool no.
DH7 4120?;-2 was not performed by a flaintenance Work Request and no r: :ord of work accomplishment existed. The unauthorized renoval of arc strikes, on pipe spool no. DHR-412030-2, is an apparent item of noncompliance.
(460/80-11-02)
b.
Review of Duality Records The inspector examined the following quality documentation for pipe spools DHR-441801-8, DHR-412030-2 and CSS-442006-2: vendor's quality shipment release; data review receiving reports, receiving inspection checklist, Form NPP-1 code data report, shop welding traveler, and nondestructive examination reports. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie ~
^
i-15-7.
Licensee Actions to Excose and Resolve Trends As a continuing action to evaluate the licensee's management attention to the 0A program (also see, IE Inspection Report 50-460/79-02), the inspector examined the J. A. Jones system for trending deficiencies documented by the contractor's nonconformance renorting system (CMCR).
The contractnr has prepared charts indicating the number of discrepancies, since the start of the contract, in the areas of hold point violation, material defects, weld defects, improper material, material damage, procedure or process violations, installation errors and incomplete documentation, among others. The trend analysis has been prepared for both containment work (contract 211) and General Services Building (GSB) work (contract 257) for both WNP 1 and 4.
Examination of the charts for the containment work did not indicate any particular area with a preponderance of CNCR's; however, examination of the charts for the GSB in the areas of hanger installation, pipe installation and support steel indicated a preponderance of CUCR's with respect to procedure compliance, welding compliance and/or installation discrepancies. This was brought to the attention of the licensee's Project GA fianager.
A numerical summary of CNCR's, issued by month, since the start of the contract was prepared.
The inspector agreed that that sunnary was indicative of the increase in work activity by the contractor over the contract life and expressed concern that an evaluation of CNCR frequency of occurence in these areas, with appropriate compensation for the increase in work activity, did not appear to have been completed. The licensee agreed to evaluate and resolve the inspector's concerns.
(460/80-11-03)
8.
Comoliance with ASME Certification System Recuirements The inspector examined the AS:!E certifications of the licensee, architect /
engineer and site contractors J. A. Jone;, Wismer & Becker, PDM Steel, Peter Kiewit, and Welk Brothers lietal Products for compliance with article NA-3030 of the appropriate ASME code edition applicable.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
on August 29, 1980 and September 12, 1980 to summarize the inspection purpose, scope and findings.
The licensee acknowledged the apparent items of noncompliance (see paragraph 6.a.1).
The licensee committed to notify the inspector three days prior to the next containment vessel wall concrete placenent and at the commencement of work following the settlement of the existing labor dispute.
_
,. _.
. _ _