IR 05000460/1980013
| ML19341B293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1980 |
| From: | Haynes R, Kirsch D, Narbut P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341B284 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-460-80-13, 50-513-80-13, NUDOCS 8101300604 | |
| Download: ML19341B293 (10) | |
Text
- - _ - -
.
.
..
-. -._
- - - ~ -
-.. = -. - ~
,
. -
_ -
'
'
,
"
U. J. :;UCLEAR "ICULiTORY CC!cilSSIO!i
<
0FF!cE OF I!;SPECT!0!! AND E!!FORCEME!;T
.
,
m, ION v 50-460/80-13 50-513/80-13 Report No.
50-460, 50-513 CPPR-134, CPPR-17,4de ds G m p
'
Docket No.
g;;cn3, 7:,,
,
Licensee:
Washington Public Pcwer Supply System
'
P. O. Box 968 j
l Richland, Washington 99352
Facility Na=c: Washington Nuclear Projects Nos. 1 and 4 (WMP 1 & 4)
>
'
Inspection at: WNP 1 & 4 Site, Benton County. Washington Inspectidn conducted:
October 20-23, 1980
,
~
i
>
/,
i Inspectors:
M ibv /
'
i,.3 i.e l
D. F. Kirsch, Reactor Inspector Date signeo i
C
,/
/ C L < (,
i.,,. c. 8
,
d j P. P. Narbut, Reactor Inspector Date signed l
)
i Date Signed
,
Approved '.y:
.,#
h
///:,s/@o
,
R. C. Faynes:7 Chief, Projects Section Date signed
'
Su::=a ry :
,
Inspection durino cericd of October 20-23, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-460/80-13 and
.
50-513/E0-13)
{
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based. inspectors of construction activities including: Licensee action on previous inspection findings and IE Bulletins; procedure and quality document reviews relating to painting of containment equiprent and components; electrical and instrumentation installation quality implementing procedure review; 'and containment systems.
<
!
procedure and specification review. The inspection involved 48 inspector-hours
onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in three areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was identified in the area of painting of containment equipment and components -
.(paragraph 4.b - failure to provide adequate procurement controls for paint j
to be used within the containment).
.
I RV Form 219 (2)
f 8101300
.
- -
-.
.
-
.
-
..
_ _ __ _ ____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
'
-
.
<
..
I DETAILS
.
1.
Individuals Contacted
-
i
Washincton Public__ Power Suon1v System (WPPSS)
- M. E. Witherspoon, Ouality Assurance Manacer
- J. P. Theras, Decuty Project Manager
'
- T. J. Fouchins, Project Ouality Assurance Manaaer A. G. Hasler, Project Licensinn Enaineer M. S. Porter, Desien Enaineerine Sucerviser
)
,
M. J. Irwin, Senior Ouality Assurance Engineer i
J. Carson, Senior QA Engineer
,
L. Oakes, Piping Project Design Engineer United Encineers and Constructors (UELC)
,
,
- G. E. "cIntcsh, Assistant Decuty Project Manager
- E. C. Paren, Decuty Project GA Panacer
- S. Loprete, OA Engineer L. Martin, Piping Supervisor K. Iversen, Supervisor Power Engineering J. A. Jones Inc. (JAJ)
W. Roe, QA Manager J
J. Felder, QA Supervisor
- Indicates presence at exit interview.
2.
Licensee Acticn on Frevious Fo11c'.tuo Items (Closed) Follcwuo item ('60/79-07/02): The concrete exoansion' anchor
installation orocedure did not provide cuantitative values for annulari ty
!
The concrete expansion anchor installation procedure, ITI-005,
!
Revision 2B, dated 8-7-80, now includes quantitative criteria for the angularity of installation. This item is closed.
I 3.
Licensee Actions on IE Dulletins a.
(Ocen) Culletin 79-02:
Pire Suotirt Base Pl.ite Desian Using Concrete
'
Excansion Anchor Bolts.(ref:
IE,Insoection Report No. 50-460/79-14)
It was previously identified that the licensee's anchor bolt installation procedure did not ensure minimum embedment of expansien anchor bolts. The licensee's installation procedure ITI-005, Pevision 2B of 8-7-80 now requires the quality verificaticn inspector to record the actual bolt embedment. The minirun embedment required is given on the pipe support detail drawings. The inspector-had no further questions on this item.
-
_
_
.
,.
, -
-.
-.
..
-
.
-2-
.
The additional licensee actions required to cceplete the response
'
to the bulletin are described in the licensee's letter to the
~
NRC, No. G01-80-278, dated Septteber 25, 1980.
'
b.
LClosed) Bulletin _79-03A: Lanoitudinal Meld Defects in ASME SA ~312, Type 304 Stainless Steel Pipe
The licensee's response to the subject bulletin was submitted by letter No. G01-80-221, dated August 7, 1980. The licensee stated that no SA-312 or A-312, type 304 fusion welded pipe is in use or planned for use in safety related systems at WNP-1 and 4.
c.
(Closed) Bulletin 79-11:
Faulty Overcurrent Trip Device on
,
'
circuit Breaker _for Encineereo Safety _ Systems
,
The licensee's response to the subject bulletin was submitted
.
by lette* dated August 6,1979 and indicated that circuit breakers of the type addressed by the bulletin were not being used on HNP-1/4. The licensee had taken action to inform the NSSS of the problem to preclude the use of those breakers in the redesign of the rod drive tripping function.
d.
(Closed) Bulletin 79-24:
Frozen Lines
The licensee's response to the subject bulletin was submitted by letter No. G01-80-258, dated September 15, 1980. The licensee's review of designs for the KNP-1 and 4 project determined that adequate measures had been taken to preclude freezing of safety related water filled lines during cold weather.
e.
(Closed) Bulletin 80-16: Hisapplication of Rosemount Inc.,
Hoceis 1151 anc 1152 Pressure Transmitters with either
"A" or "D" Output _Co_ del The licensee's response.to the subject bulletin was submitted by letter No. G01-80-222, dated August 7, 1980, and stated that no Rosemount Model 1151 cr 1152 pressure transmitters with ~ output codes "A" or "D" are installed or planned for use in safety related applications at UNP-1 and 4.
f.
(Closed) Bulletin 80-19: Failures of Mercury-wetted Matrix Relays The licensee's response to the subject bulletin was submitted by letter No. G01-80-247, dated September 5,1980, and stated that no mercury-wetted relays were used in the logic matrix of the reactor protection system for WNP-1 and 4.
g.
(Closed) Bulletin 80-20:
Failures of Westingnouse Type W-2 Spring Feturn to Neutral Control Switches
,
The licensee responded to the subject bulletin by letter No. G01-80-251, dated September 8, 1980, and stated that type U-2 switches were not used for WNP-1 and 4 safety related applications.
i
, -., -..,.
. -. -..
-
. -. -
. -._,
.
-. - _
,, -,
-_
.
-
..
-3-
- D T l0 Pl0'3'Y LNens k@,
-
-
4 '.
Paintira of Eauierent and Corconants within Containment a.
Peview of Snecifications and Procedures The inscector exar.ined the architect-engineer Specification 9779-211, Fevisien 0, (ftuelear Stean Supoly Systen (ftSSS) and Equirrent Installatien), Section 10 (Peference Codes and Standards) and Section 9A (Recuirerents for Shen Painting of fluclear Power Plant Ecuiprent and Ccepenents withia Contairrent) and inplementing decurents to deternirie whether the recuirerents comitted to in the PSAR had been irolerented. The inspector consicered the following in perforning the evaluatien: PSAR Section 3.12, 6.2 and 17.1, Peculatory Guide 1.54, Af;SI Standards ti101.2,
!:101.4 and ti5.12.
The followino implementing docurents of the rechanical centractor,
'
J. A. Jones Inc., and their subcontractor for painting, H. B. Painters Inc., were examined:
1)
J. A. Jones Procedure ITI 008 Revision 01 of 2-8-80, Quality Centrol of Surface Preparation and Painting; 2)
H. B. Painters Inc. Procedure, HEPP-PP-1, Revision 0 of 2-3-80, Surface Preparation and Shop Painting Procedure for feeler ano Long 56648, Keeler and Long #9001 and Mobil Zinc #7; and 3)
J. A. Jones OA Program Hanual, Revision 2, Section 4 Frecurement Document Control and WPPSS Procecure, QAP-5, Revisien 6, 3/24/77.
The inscector decemined that che standards and PSAR comitments had cenerally Laen included in the specifications and procedures.
In particular, recuirocents for painting, naterial qualification, personnel qualification, procedural centrols, and acceptance criteria were included in these docutents.
b.
Review of Precurement Practices The inscoctor examined purchase orders issued to procure painting materials. Two purchase orders had been issued by the subcontractor.
H. B. Painters Inc., and approved by the site mechanical contractor's, J. A. Jones, Inc., cuality assurance group. The inspector found that paint ordered and received persuant to purchase order tio. 1616, dated 11/19/79, did not fully meet the requirements of the architect-engineer's specification. This purchase order was for "!!cbil Zinc #7" paint. The material test data which H. B. Painto subnitted to J. A. Jones on 12/4/79 denonstrated that the paint did not cass the recuired decentamination test. The specification reouires a decantaninatico factor of 10; the paint had a decontamination factor of 6.3.
However, it appeared that this nonconforming condition was not recognized by the contractor since no " hold taps", nonconfonrance report or similar controls had been executed to assure that the paint would not be used. The inspector understood that the paint in question had not yet been use._
_ -
_ _.
_
- _.. _.
-
.
_
.__.
.
.
In examining the background en this cat)Mr 30 h b
hg 3.spector: &n
-:5 three arcblens which centributed to this lure in procurement
,
centrols. The first problem cccurred during the processing of an exception to the specific brand of paint called out as approved l
in the architect engineer's specificaticn.
The second problem occurred when the procure ent document was ger. orated wherein the paint to be purchased was not properly identified. The third problen found was the apparent in3dequacy in review of raterial certificatiens data wherein the failure of the paint to rreet the decentanination test requirements was not identified althcugh the data had been submitted to J. A. Jones en Decerber 4, 1979, abcut ten months before this NRC inscection.
The failure of the contractor's control in procuring paint to be used on equipment and coeponents within the containeent r
+
appears to be an iten of noncompliance with the cuality assurance
'
program recuirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Painting (coating)
of ecuiprent within the contairment is a cuality affecting activity recuiring cuality assurance program controls.
(a60/80-13-01)
Further details on the above rentioned problems follow:
1)
Approval of excepticn to paint approved in specification:
The architect-engineer's (Engineer) Specification No. 9779-211 listad certain coating systems as approved for use, but partitted other coating systems to be used prcvided that the ccating is of the same generic type, has been tested in a laboratory as prescribed in ANSI N 101.2 and 5.12, can neet the envircreental conditions delineated in the specification and is approved by the Engineer. This cotion for an alternate coating system was exercised by the rechanical contractor via contract waiver request,
,
flo. C"R-Eil-039 dated 1/22/79. This CUR requested the use of several base primers including Mobil Zinc #7 (formula 13-F-12), Mobil Zinc Unipack (fomula 13-G-10)
and Pobil Zinc #7, (fomula 13-F-10). The CWR was approved by the Engineer for the use of the zine based primers,
>
!
Mobil Zine !7 (femula 13-F-10) and Mobil Zinc Unipack (for ula 13-G-10) but not for the other primers such as MobilZinc#7(formula 13-F-12).
Itowever, the inspector fcund during his interviews of the persennel involved that neither QA personnel reviewing the contract waiver request nor the engineer approving the
'
waiver had assured that the material requested met the technical requirements (
the contract specification.
The engineer assumed the contractor via the OA approval had checked the raterial against the requirements before requesting the waiver. The contractor QA personnel assured the Engineer would check the matdial against the requirements before approving same.
,
, vo wume=+ * v - -
--v-g
s-er..
yy,W.w.-
+ + ----+e-g==wcm..<--ge
---y-y-
-e-y,--,
e yse-c
?
e-ie-y4.4
-
g-"-
e v,%.g
,i,
-
-.w
-5
r~ r D ibgj]g ct o tyg n
-
- d. U.
'
I
-
,
2)
Identification of material en procurement document:
.
The inscector found that H. B. Painters' purchase order ?!o.1616 was written to order " Mobil Zinc #7" but did not soecify which formula.
This lack of specificity permitted various Pcbil Zinc f7 formulas to be supplied, including those which had not been approved by the Engineer. The caint actually received was Mobil Zinc f7 (formula 13-F-12), a material which had not been approved by the Engineer.
3)
Peview of material certification data:
This problem apparently rests with the timeliness of the review of data provided by suppliers certifying the properties
,
of their products. The data provided in the certification letter submitted by the oaintino subcontractor to the necnanical contracter nn 12/4/79 attested that formulas 13-F-12 and 13-G-10 of the Mobil Zinc #7 paints did not fully pass the criteria estaclished for the decontamination test. Additionally, formula 13-F-10 which had been approved by the engineer was not accressed in tne test occuments.
Hewever, tnis apparent nonconrorming condition had not been identified by tne licensee nor the contractors at the time of the liRC inspection.
The above failures in the contractor's procurement controls demonstrate inadequacies in the measures provided to assure that proper material are provided for quality affecting activi ties. As stated previously, these failures appear to be an item of nonccmpliance with the regulatory requirements cf 10 GTR 50, Appendix B.
5.
Electrical and Instrumentation (Cables, Terminations, Ccmponents, and Systems)
a.
Review of Cuality Assurance Imolementing Procedures Contractor documents were examined to determine whether adequate QA plans, QA procedures, QC procedures and work inclementing procedures had been specified to control electrical and instrumentation installation activities. The insoector considered the folicwing in performing the evaluation:
PSAR sections 7.1.2, 8.3.3, 8.3.5 and 8.1.4; applicable IEEE Standards:and Regulatory Guide 1.75.
In addition, the inspector examined for compliance with commitments concerning administrative responsibility and control contained in PSAR Section 8.3.5.2 regarding periodic design reviews, design directives and field reviews. The following documents were examined:
_
_.
.
_ - _....
. _ _ _ -.
_ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
-6-
-
-
,
i (1) Specification 975-218 (Pain Electrical Contract), Pevision 117:
I (a) Section 16A: General Requirements
-
!
(b) Section 16D:
Electrical Requirements I
(c) Section 161: General Specification for Electrical
,
!
Equipment and Material (d) Section 17A: Supplementary Pequirements for Welding and fide of fluelear Power Plant Components (e) Section 17B: Supolementary Requirements for Welding and fide for Structural Welding (f) Section 52G: Quality Assurance
(2) Drawing 9779-L-306097:
Conduit System flotes and Details
!
(3) Separation Criteria Document (4) Drawing 9779-S-303010:
Key One Line Diagram
(5) Foley/Wismer and Becker Quality Assurance Manual (6) Foley/Wismer and Becker Quality Control Procedures as follcws:
,
(a) QCP-1:
Revision and Control of Documents (b) GCP-2:
Procurement (c) QCP-3:
Processing and Control of !!onconfonnances l
(d) QCP-4:
Receiving,11andling and Storage
'
(c) QCP-5:
Welder Qualification and Qualification of Welding i
Procedures i
.
(f) QCP-SA: Welding (g) QCP-5B: Welding Electrode Control (h) QCP-6:
Orientation, Training and Certification of Personnel (1) QCP-7:
Installation.of Equipment (j) QCP-8:
Control and Calibration of Tools and Instruments (k) ' QCP-9:
Installation of Raccway
(1) QCP-15: Maintenance of Electrical Equipment'
i
i
---
_
.
.
_ _ - _ _
'
.
(m) CCP-16:
Peview and Paintenance of Quality Pecords
"
(n) CCP-17: Ger.eral Housekeepirg
'
..
(o)
OCP-18: Liquid Penetrant Inspection l
(p) CCP-19:
Certification of Liquid Penetrant Inspection Personnel (q) CCP-20:
Installation of Excansion Anchors
,
}
(r' OCP-26: Grcunding i
(s) OCP-29: Sucplier Selection and Control
.
The inscector determined that the codes and standards specified in PSAR paragraph 8.1.4.1 were appropriately addressed or
referenced in sucolier contract specifications based on his
'
exaniratien of selected scecifications for inclusion of these j
stancarcs.
Foley/ilismer ano BecKer naa not cc:noleted the cuality centrol orccecures Tor caole instaiiation and termination.
!!ork in tnose areas nad not begun. These procecures will be evminea during a suosequent inspection.
(460/80-13-02)
b.
M ndincs (1) !! elder Oualification The licensee utilizes a welder qualification transfer prenran, as allcwed by A',!S Dl.1 (Structural Welding Code),
to crovide a basis for transfer of welder qualification when a teldar on-site is employed by different contractor.
Enecificaticn lio. 3779-218 and Foley/Wismer and Becker cuality control prccedure QCP-5 had been revised to properly acccunc for utilization of the welder qualification transfer prenran.
The-inspector cbserved, hcwever, that the Foley/
l Wisner and Cecker quality assurance manual procedure OAP-9 (Control of Special Processes) provides in paragraph 4.3 that the I:anager, Quality Control shall verify through performance tasts that only qualified welders are accepted.
This apparent inconsistency was brought to the attention of the licensee's Quality Assurance !!anager who stated that action would be taken to resolve the inconsistency. The inscector had no further questions.
(2)
Inclusion of Class IE Channels in Procedures The licensee recently specified the inclusion of a channel
"N" in the separation criteria document and specification f:o. 9779-218 as a class IE electrical channel. This channel is rec.uired to meet requirerents of Regulatory Guide 1.75 and IEEE-384 (Criteria for Independence of Class IE Equipment andCircuits). The inspector observed that channel M was not-addressed by the Foley/Wismer and Becker quality control procedures. This was brought to the attention of licensee
.L,.-
.s
- -.
_., _ _
-
,,, ~....
,
_,, _ _..
.
.. _ _,
_.
., _.
...m.,.__
_a_
-
.
D "
lD
" l0 Y}h
,
o o M o M JL h
..
personnel who stated that the QCP's would be modified as
-
necessary to properly account for channel M.
The inspector had no further questions.
(3)
Inclusion of Channel Seoaration Insoections in Procedures Examination of the Foley/Wismer and Becker quality control precedures identified that the procedures did not include inspection criteria to verify compliance with IEEE-384 and Regulatory Guide 1.75, as committed in the PSAR. Action had been taken to modify the specification. The licensee noted that actions were planned to modify the quality control procedures to include inspections appropriate to the commitments.
The inspector will examine those procedural modifications during a subsequent inspection.
(460/80-13-03)
6.
Containment Systems Procedure and Soecification Review The insoector examined the subject documents at WNP 1/4 relative to the ccamitments in PSAR paragraohs 6.2.1.6 and 6.2.2.6 (Materials),
6.2.3.2 (valve orientation), and 6.2.5.3 and 6.2.5.6 (Ccmbustible Gas Control System-Materials).
Commitments regaraing containment liner material; non-metallic materials; prohibitions for contact of stainless steel with low melting point materials, halogens, sulfur, aluminum; and limits for liquid penetrant halogens and sulfur were found to have been appropriately included in the contract specificat;cns examined (Nos. 9779-204, 213 and 218).
Discussions with engineering and QA personnel indicated that valve orientations are supplied on drawings by UE&C engineers.
The PSAR states that the use of aluminum in containment is " strictly centrolled" and that zinc or galvanized material is not used.
Licensee representatives stated that aluminum controls are implemented by contract specifications prohibiting aluminum for purchased material i
and installation services. The inspector verified the inclusion of those prohibitions in a sample of contract specifications. The licensee detemined, hcwever, that specification No. 9779-42 (Class 1 Valves)
did not contain those aluminum exclusions.
The inspector determined that none of the specifications reviewed contained exclusions for zinc and galvanized material and that galvanized conduit, cable trays and paints containing zine were specified for use in containment.
Licensee representatives demonstrated that zinc and galvanized material in containment has been accounted for in the FSAR sections on containment combustible gas control and noted that certain zinc containing paints had been analyzed. The inspector observed that the electrical' contract specifies a zinc rich paint for raceway /
support repairs and that contract 9779-211 (NSSS Piping and Equipment Installation) specifies a zine rich paint for use on pipe supports and other components and equipment inside containment.
Based on the above aluminum exclusion and zinc / galvanized material determinations the licensee agreed to evaluate the existing controls over these materials in containment and appropriately verify implementation of those controls.
(460/80-13-04)
L
_9
-
.
,.
l
'
7.
Exit Interview
.
The inspectors met teith licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
on October 23, 1980 to su= arize the inspection purpose, scope and findings. The licensee ackncwledged the apparent iten of noncompliance (see paragrach 4b. ).
.
l l
l l
i l
i