IR 05000460/1980015
| ML19345F707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1980 |
| From: | Haynes R, Kirsch D, Narbut P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345F689 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-460-80-15, 50-513-80-60, NUDOCS 8102190085 | |
| Download: ML19345F707 (11) | |
Text
".
SUCLE.iR REGUI.iTCTI CC StISSION T
0F !Nst"CT:CN.il:D ENFORCE:ENT
'
50 460/30-15 Report *:o.
50-513/80-60 50-460, 50-513 Licen3e so. CPPR-134, CPPR -174 Safeguards Group Docket No.
Licensee:
Washinoton Public Power Supply Systen P. O. Cox 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Projects Nos. 1 and 4 (WNP 1 & 4)
"2 I I' 4 Site Denton County, Washinoton Inspection at:
Inspection conducted:
o/ ember 17 - December 5,1980
},
m Inspectors:.
lCN J -% - -
17 /, a / v.
J.
r. Lirscn _f'Qactor inspector Date Signeo y<
i,
\\w j ~ E ~,~>, -
t 2/n/n I,.#.
t. G3rbut, Rea;Ctor Inspector Date Signed
!
]
s
i z / > > /n
~m.
w i'aynes, Chiey, Projects Section Date Signed
'
.
v.
Approved aj:
._]1 -
> 2_/ / p/ N t C Havres, Chier, Projects Section, Date Signed Peactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch S u=a ry :
Insnection durino.3 rica or Nover.oer 17 to December 5,1980 (Reports 50-460/80-15 and En-460/P,0-15)
Areas Inspected:
Routine unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of construction activities including review of licensee action on previous NRC inspection findings; review of corrective actions taken on adverse findings during A5"E site survey of J. A. Jones activities; observations of installation and documentation practices regarding eauipment-supports, electrical systems and components, electrical cables and terninations; review of selected quality verification documentation packages and QA audit records and review of safety related welding and welder qualification practices.
The inspection involved 61 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors and one supervisor.
Pesults: Of the eight areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were uf6ntified in five areas.
One apparent item of noncompliance was identified in the area of equipment supports-failure to provide washers between the nut and baseplate for the nuclear service water heat exchangers and failure to implement quality verificJtlen hold points requirement. One apparent item of noncompliance was identified in tht area of safety related welding-failure to specify acceptance criteria for threadolet welds on the containment spray header.
RV Form 219 (2)
11102'180Oygi h
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted a.
Washington Publ_ic Power Sucoly System (WPPSS)
- D. 'l. Mazur, Program Director, W?iP 1/4
- A. D. Vohler, Deputy Progran Director
- J. P. Thor.as, Construction Manager
- T. J. Houchins, Project 0A Manager J. !!. Carson, Senior OA Engineer J. Powell, Construction Enoineer R. Brown, Senior 0A Engineer N. J. Irwin, Senior QA Engineer b.
United Enaineers and Constructors (UE&C)
- U. J. Taylor, Construction Manager R. P. Beattie, fluclear Design Supervisor L. A. Martin, Field Supervising Discipline Engineer, Piping G. L. Faust, Home Office Liaison QA Engineer R. Sievers, Senior QA Engineer, Piping and Mechanical C. Cutler, Senior OA Engineer R. J. "cFall, OA Engineer R. Covert, Piping Engineer R. Housenan, QA Engineer M. 'litale, OA Engineer c.
J. A. Jones Construction Comoany (JAJ)
D. '.-ialcott, ' lice President J. Flannery, Project Manager W. Roe, UA Manager D. Higginbothan, QC Supervisor J. Saynton, Quality Verification Inspector J. Felder, QA Engineering Supervisor R. Pope, Engineering Supervisor J. O' Conner, Uelding Engineer W. Rodgers, Welding Engineer L. Stanley, Welding Engineer J. Disney, Welding Engineer Various other document control and quality control personnel.
d.
H. P. Foley/Wismer and Becker (Foley/W&B)
L. Lent, QC Inspector Various other cuality control and craf ts personnel.
e.
Other Personnel
- A. D. Toth, f;RC Resident Inspector
- G. Hansen, Senior Project Engineer, State of Washington, EFSEC
- Denotes exit meeting attendee.
g mg o
-
_
' "
-
='
-2-2.
Licensee Action on Proviously Identified Followun Items (Closed) (af0/79-09-02) Unresolved Item: AWSH Control of_co ctete
_
place'"ent in conoested areas (Closed) (460/79-10-03) Follouun Item: AWSH Consolidation Practice TSTeTEIlisnectionReport50-460f79-11)
The inspector exanined the AUSH personnel training program lesson plans for nA/DC indoctrination, concrete preplacement/nlacenent and the concrete practical exanination for inclusion of congested area concrete olacement trainino.
These documents indicated aporopriate training for this activity.
The activities of concrete preplacement and placement were examined by the insoector for the olacement in the area of the personnel hatch on the Unit I containnent buildina wall for conoliance with ACI standards.
The area had been adeauately cleaned and protected from the elements.
In process concrete test activitiec were observed to be in connliance with ASTM and specification reauirements.
The contractor ( AWSH) had sufficient personnel and equipment on station and in use to efrectively accomolish the placement and consolidation activities.
Small one inch vibrators were used to consolidate concrete in the areas of neavy rebar congestion and adjacent to the containment liner. AWSH cuality verification inspectors were stationed near the olacement surface to verify proper placement and consolidation.
Consolidation activities were examined by the inspector and appeared s a ti s f a c to ry.
3.
Pa ior Eauiment Supports a.
E arva tion at Cccapleted..'ork Activities l
rim the si e tour the inspector examined the base plate
'
t l
suoport installation for the Unit 1 Component Cooling Water (CCW)/
Heat Exchangers (i'os. l A and 3C), a quality class II activity, and the Unit I fluclear Service Water (t:SM) Peat Exchangers ( :os l A and 2B), a quality class 1 nuclear safety related activity.
The insoector observed that all of the anchor bolts for the I;SU heat exchancers and several anchor bolts for the CCW heat exchangers did not hate washers installed between the nuts and the equipment baseplates.
Further, the nuts of the anchor bolts haj the torque seal applied indicating that the installations were complete.
l Detail 3 of the manufacturer's drawing (f o. CK37847), issued to
Jones by UE&C identified that a washer is reauired between each nut and the baseplate for these heat exchangers.
Examination of the process control sheets indicated that the required inspections for IB! heat exchanger anchor bolts had been completed and torquing of the nuts had been verified by J. A. Jones QV personnel on i
February H,1980.
The failure to install the washers as instructed by the drawino appears to be an item of noncompliance.
(460/80-15-01)
DYID}*D ~3'Y
'
U Nu oj.2 k a
_;_
.
The inscector noted that subsequent to the discrepant anchor bolt installation (February la,1980), the licensee issued FCfl flo.
257-1-80-laa8, on August la,1980, requiring the installation of new nuts and washers on the NSW, CCW heat exchangers and pump rounts.
This change was to correct a condition unrelated to the missing 'ashers problem.
Further exanination of the process control sheets for fiSW heat exchancer No. 2B indicated that three hold points had not been sinned off as comoleted by J. A. Jones OV personnel.
These hold noints were for:
(1) preparation of the foundation for grouting, (2) receive and inspect eauipment, and (3) check equipment orientation and install.
J. A. Jones procedure No. POP-N-50lW (Use of Process Control Sheets) states in paracraoh 5.3 that " Mandatory hold points shall be signed off by cuality verification" and further reouires in paragraoh 6.5 that " Work shall not proceed past the hold point until Quality Verification sign off of the process control sheet." The f ailure to fully imnlement tne hold point requirements appears to be an item of noncompliance.
(460/80-15-02)
The licensee wrote nonconformance reports documenting the above discrepancies subsequent to their identification by the NRC inspector.
In examining the bacxground on these matters the inspector found the following problems:
(1)
Ere instructions provided on tne contractor's equipment installation process control sheets were general and did not anure that all installation requirements would be met.
The inspector observed that the contractor's process control
- nwt did identify the installation drawings as a reference but did not require that these drawings be obtained, provided or used by the personnel doing the equipnent installation.
!
For exanple, step 6 of the process control sheet specified
" check equipment orientation and install JAJ-WI-006" without requiring compliance with the installation drawing.
Procedure JAJ '.il-006 did not contain specific reouirements for the utilization of the referenced drawings by the craft or OV l
personnel.
Step 8 of the process control sheet stated " Tighten l
all anchor bolts JAJ-WI-004" and this procedure did not specify any requirements for installation other than the torquing of anchor bol ts.
The inspector discussed the apparent lack of specificity with cognizant contractor personnel who noted that Jones management were aware of this issue regarding equipment l
installation process control sheet generalities and lack of soeci fici ty.
These personnel stated that those concerns had been discussed with engineering who apparently decided to continue use of the general equipment installation process sheets.
D Y }D *D 3'} bj dd e Ju od.
.
(2)
Procedural discrepancies related to hold points.
The matter of missed hold points had been identified previously by the contractor and licensee and was addressed in IF Inspection Report flos. 50-460/79-10, 30-05 and 80-0F.
The licensee had issued Corrective Action Requests, flos.1-CAR-257-05 and 1-CAR-257-10 dated December 3, 1979 and April 17, 1980, respectively, identifying that Jones QV personnel had not satisfactorily implemented the reauirements in procedure POP-il-501U for inspection hold points. The Jones specified corrective actions included discrepancy trending and additional personnel training but did not appear to require a review of procedures and work process sheets performed in the past to assure that those process sheets correctly reflected the as-installed status of construction and OV verifications.
Exanination of the Jones procedures identified that the Jones orogram addresses both mandatory hold points and inspection hold roints.
However, the inspector found that the program lacked adequate definition of each type of hold point or the neans to be used on the process sheet for indicating the type of hold point. The method being used by J. A. Jones for indicating OV hold points is to draw a line in the process control sheet OV verifit.ation block but there is no unique delineation between the mandatory and inspection hold points.
In addition, the inspector observed that the Jones process control sheet system does not provide definition of a means for indicating mandatory secuential steps if sequencing were deemed necessary for a particular installation.
4.
Electrical (Ccnponents and Systens)
a.
f bserva tion of Work and Work Activities The inspector examined two 430V electrical panals (flos. OEB3B and GEBiB) to ascertain (1) the storage and cleanliness conditions, (2) nanel protection measures employed and (3) the installed condition of mounting welds for conformance to detail drawings and licensee procedures.
?!o items of noncompliance or deviations were i den ti fied.
!
b.
Review of Quality Records The followinn documentation related to the two 480V electrical panels (Mos. OEB3B and OEB4B) were examined for compliance with licensee procedures and industry codes and standards:
(1)
UEEC receiving inspection reports.
(2)
Foley/Wismer and Becker receiving inspection reports.
(3)
Process traveler for panel installation.
!
DY0
]D' M [ @NL,
'
ileI o M.1 AI
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_
-5-
.
-
.
(4)
t'anufacturer's test results and certifications of coninrrance to specification recuirenents.
,
(5)
Cocument deficiency notices, as aonlicable, identifyina ranufacturers docurentation not included in the original subnittal.
(6)
Fnlev/Wisner and Becker Audit !!o. 80-4 (7)
Folev/Wisner and Becker welder cualification 100 (S)
elder cualification documentation for one welder.
..
(9)
Inspector cualification documentation for six OC inspectors.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Electrical (Cables and Terninations)
a.
Observation of Work and k.'ork Activities The Folev/Uismer and Becker storage area for electrical cable reeis, conauit, cable trays and junction boxes was examined for compliance with manufacturers' recommendations and licensee proceaures for storage and handling of the equipment and material.
He items of noncomoliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Peview of Duality Records The insnector selected five cable reels and examined imnlementation of the licensee's system concernina ouality records.
Docunentation exaninea included nanufacturer's test docunentation, receiving insrection ceports and licensee document deficiency notices identifying which documents had not been received from the nanufacturer The dccumentation examined covered 48 cable reeis.
a items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
6.
Concerns Exnrossed By Contractor Personnel A J. A. Jones supervisor notified the NRC Resident Inspector that a O'! inspector reauested that he be allowed to talk to a itRC inspector.
The O'l inspector net with a regional based t!RC inspector during this inspection and expressed concerns regarding the methods to be used by J. A. Jones to control cuality documentation packages.
J. A. Jones had conmunicated the individual's concern to the licensee.
The contractor (J. A. Jones) had recently revised the work package control system from a two package system to a one package systen.
The field engineers now combine the Quality Verification packaoes and the construction craf ts packages into a sinole packace.
The individual's prinary concern appeared to center on the use of non-union field enoineers to nerform the work instead of union quality verification personnel. The individaul could not identify any instances were the reouirements of the Jones OA procram or AflSI f145.2.9 had been violated or comnronised.
a &j )Dm wf M 1A3
O ]W y,
r
-6-
-
.
.
The NFC instector examined the Jones systen for control of the
-
documentation packanes by discussion with docunent con';rol and field engineerinq personnel. A revised crocedure soecifying the details of the revised work rackace centrol system for work packages was in crepa ra ti on.
All personnel intervie'!ed appeared knowledgeable of the controls intended and the system, as discussed, anneared to be workable.
The licensee's review of these concerns concluded that the single work nackare systen was in accordance with OA nronran and ANSI M45.2.9 reauirerents.
The inspector had no further questions on this matter.
0A Audits The insoector exanined five randomly selected licensee audits of contracts 218 (electrical), 211 and 257 (niping and eouierent installation within containment and the general services building). The audits exanined were FOA-211-2, 257-2, 257-3, 218-1 and 218-3.
The audit findines appeareo to nave been resolved in accordance with the licensee's OA systen.
The insoector noted tnat the tine recuired for resolution of scme rindings and verification of tne corrective action was in the order of two to four months.
The need for tinely resolution of audit findinos was orougnt 60 tne attention of licensee managenent during the exit interview, wno acknowledged the concern.
The licensee noted that actions nad been taken, suosecuent to the dates of the audits reviewed by the HRC, to snorten the tine between audit finding and final resolu tion.
3.
Safety Related Pioe Eeldino a.
3evie. of nuality Assurance Innierontina Procedures The inspector examined tne contract specifications and inolerenting contractor procedures listed below.
In his review, the insoector considered the licensee's connitnents in PSAR Sections 3.9, 3.12, 5.2, 6.2 and 17 and reouirenents in the AS"E CSP'l Code Sections III and IX,1977 Edition through the Surrer 1977 Addenda.
(1) WPPSS/UE3C Specification 9779-211:
Section 15A, Mechanical Installation; Section 15B, ASME III Piping Fabrication and Installation; Section 17 Pelding and NDE; Section 52B, Cleaning and Cleanliness Renuirement for Muclear Power Plant Components.
(2) JAJ-WO-001, Revision 4B: Welder Perfornance Oualification Procedure.
(3) JAJ-WP-P8, Revision 4A: General Reouirements for Welding Group P-8.
W A h[Ih'
D DI m
-
_-_
7_
'
..
(4)
JAJ-UP-P3-3, Revision 18: General Requirements for Welding
.
Group P8-3 Austenitic Stainless Steel (5) JAJ-NDE-004, Revision 2B:
Visual Examination Procedure.
(6) JAJ-NDE-006. Revision 1D:
Fitup Inspection.
(7) JAJ-NDE-003, Revision 6C:
Visual Veld Inspection.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Observation of Ucrk and Work Activities The inspector examined pipe welding activities on a stainless steel containment soray header pipe.
The weld examined was identified as ueld E01 of spool 14 on UE&C pioing isometric drawing f!o. 412443.
The weld was classified as WPPSS Quality Class I, ASME Class 2.
The wela attaches a 3/4 inch (nominal pipe size) threadolet fittina to the 10 inch soray header.
Threadolets were added to the soray heaoer design via the arcnitect-engineer's (UE&C) field change notice (FCH) 211-1-80-113 Revision 1, dated 5/16/80, to provide vent points during hydrostatic testing.
At the time of inspection the weld had been completed, visually insnected and signed off on the weld inspection form (JAJ-211) as satisfactory by the contracto" (J. A. Jones Construction Co.).
The inspector verified by discussion, records reviaw and visual exanination that the welder and the OV Inspecto were qualified, the required weld filler metal was used, preheat and maximum internass tanperature were monitored, purge gas was used, proper raterial identifications u -
verified and the finished weld appeared to be free of do-However, the inspector was unable to verify that proper and weld size had been achieved since fitua and '.. eld size hau not been specified in the FCN, weld procedure, fitup inspection procedure, visual weld inspection i
procedure or in any other information available to the welder or 07 insoector. Through further discussions with the welder, QV l
inspector,.;elding engineers and piping engineers the inspector l
determined that the field change notice authorizing installation of the threadolets had been approved by engineering and quality assurance but did not specify the size pipe to which the threadolets l
were to be attached. Three quarter inch threadolets are ordered l
frem manufacturers catalogs in a size range to approximately
'
fit the curvature of the pipe to which they will be attached, e.g. 3/4" X 2"-2 1/2" or 3/4" X 6"-12".
,
l i
l D}"l0
- ~Dlf
~N N &}f l
t
.g.
..
-
.
.
In most cases some grinding of the threadolet is required to achieve a proper fitup.
The size of the attaching weld is indicated by the nanufacturer by a line on the threadolet.
The nanufacturer's literature provides instructions to weld to the weld line and provides photographs which are essentially workmanship samples to show what a properly installed fitting should look like.
The literature does nnt provide quantitative values for the weld size recuired.
The threadolets received were 3/4" X 2"-21/2", rather than 3/4" X 6-12" as would be expected for the 10" spray header.
Extensive grinding by the welders was required to achieve a fit to the pipe. This grinding essentially eradicated the manufacturer's weld line.
Discussions with the welders and QV oersonnel indicated they had not been made aware of the manufacturer's instructions.
Discussions with the piping enaineers indicated they were not aware that the threadolets received were of a size to fit the smaller diameter pipe applications.
The QV insoector and the craftsmen stated they had established the amount of grinding required and the amount of weld required in the absence of other instructions.
However, these personnei stated that they were not cognizant of the AS"E Coiler Pressurt Vessel Code requirements for weld dimensicns and ceometry whicn. fee applicable to these full penetration weld joints.
A similar situation c.1sted in a different fabrication area.
In this case sockolet fittings had been welded to two inch pipe.
The work was performed in the J. A. Jones fabrication shoo area and a different inspector and welder were involved.
'! eld 13, depicted on drawing I;o. 414107 for Spool 58, was
.
exanined.
In this case the weld had not been signed off as accepted by the QV inspector, but the QV inspector stated the weld size had aaain been established by the craf tmen and QV.
Further discussion with the QV inspectors indicated that they had unsuccessfully sought clear guidance on the requirements far the weld sizes.
In the absence of guidance, the inspectors decided to use the ASME rules for fillet weld sizes for socket welded flanges as a guide. The QV inspectors stated that they had not formally communicated their request for guidance to the contractor.
The failure to provide documented instructions including acceptarice criteria for the installation of fittings in safety related systems appears to be an item of noncompliance.
(50-460/80-15-03)
l l
DMD R D%!
'
b du L.,
_
l
, - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
_ _.
. _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _. _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
____ -_ ____________ _ ___________ ___ __________
9_
..
'
.
Further backnround which relates to this concern is contained
.
in a previously identified unresolved item (50-460/79-14/03)
which dealt with insufficient weld metal on a 4" weldolet provided by the B. F. Shaw Company, a pipe supplier. The licensee's action on this item was reported in IE Inspection Reports No. 50-460/80-06 aid 80-08 and the corrective actions included that the site inspector was provided with the manufacturer's standard for typical weldolets and had conducted a surveillance of other BF Shaw weldolets for adequate weld fill.
It appears that the actions taken to preclude recurrence of the problem was inadeouate since manufacturer standards or comparable information concerning installation of acceptance criteria for such fittings was not transmitted to J. A. Jones QV inspectors or craftsmen.
c.
Review of Ouality Records The insoector examined material certifications for a sockolet on drawino 414107, Spool 58, Iten 13.
The sockolet was SA182 Grade F304, material, purchased to WPPSS material specification llo. 3260.
The inspector verified material traceability through the heat number and verified conformance to the material specification requirements for chemical and physical properties.
The insoector examined the welding procedure specification and the weiding proceoure qualification record for JAJ-WP-P8-3.
- o items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9.
Helder Qualification The inspector examined the J. A. Jones welder qualification facility and interviewed two welders engaged in qualification testing and two welding instructors.
Through these discussions the inspector determined that the parameters of voltage, amperage and travel speed are not quantitatively measured in the welder qualification process. These parameters are quantitatively measured in the field when the welders are performing field welds of austenitic stainless steel.
The inspector found that the field welding controls were adequate regarding PSAR commitments for control of heat input to stainless steel uelds; horver, the inspector considered that the welder qualification practices were weak concerning the heat input commitments.
This subject was discussed at the exit interview.
The licensee considered that the present practice was adequate since welder qualification is performed under controlled condition and under the scrutiny of a welding engineer. The inspector had no further questions on this matter.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
~mm m
3-E adu wJu
$..\\.L
-10-
,.
.
10.
AS'tE Nuclear Survey of J. A. Jones Construction Company p-The results of the subject survey were reviewed by the inspector and discussed with management personnel of the J. A. Jones
Construction Company (contractor) and the licensee.
This effort was to gain an understanding of the corrective actions being taken on deficiencies identified by the survey team and the possible effect of these deficiencies on completed work and the ongoing work by the contractor at the WNP 1/4 site.
The inspector found that the deficient areas were receiving attention by the contractor and the licensee.
Most of the defic'encies identified concerned documentation practices and simila
.ssues. The more noteworthy issues concerned weaknesses in the contractor's indoctrination and training programs for personnel and the bypassing of inspection hold points.
In August,1980, the licensee audited the contractor as a follow-up action to the ASME Nuclear Survey in April,1980, and found continuinq deficiencies in the areas of document control and training of personnel.
Several instances were also identified where procedures were not being followed by personnel.
The inspector found these procedure implementation deficiencies indicated shortcomings in the training of personnel regarding requirements of the contractor's quality program for specific job responsibilities, e.g., receiving inspection and material control.
'
The licensee recently reaudited the deficient areas found in
April and August,1930 and the licensee stated that the contractor had resolved the problems with regard to the corrective actions
'
taken or to be taken.
!
The inspector discussed with the licensee the apparent need for l
continued imorovement in the contractor's implementation of the l
quality program, particularily in view of the recent restart of I
work af ter an extended work stoppage and the plans for expediting the work by increasinp the ramber of craftsmen and going to two
'
'
shif t operation.
f This contractor's performance will be subject of future NRC inspections.
l The results of the resurvey by the ASME team, scheduled for mid-Jannery,1980, will be examined to ascertain the effectiveness of i
!
the licensee's and contractor's corrective actions.
(460/80-15-04)
i 11.
Exit Interview
!
The inspectors met with licensee representatives, denoted in
!
paraaraph 1, at the. conclusion of the inspection on_ Hovember 20, l
1930, to summarize the inspection scope and findings. The licensee acknowledged the apparent items of noncompliance (see paragraphs 3a
,
and 8b).
The inspector observed that the licensee had recently
established a written set of duties and responsibilities for the Project QA Manager and the Director of Quality Assurance and noted
I that these documants had not been formally approved by licensee i
management.
These documents define those duties and responsibilities necessitated by the recently revised corporate and project organizational structure. The inspector recomme Jed that these
,
revised duties and responsibilities be formally approved to
'
inclement the QA program under the revised organizational structure.
D""D "g'%
Q'
so aJu 11 Hn