IR 05000460/1981001
| ML20003D067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1981 |
| From: | Dodds R, Kirsch D, Wagner W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003D060 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-460-81-01, 50-460-81-1, 50-513-81-01, 50-513-81-1, NUDOCS 8103190011 | |
| Download: ML20003D067 (8) | |
Text
.
.
. -.
-
. -..
..
d
". s. ';CC'~iR REcO*iT0nY Cc:ciISSIO::
G 0 FF "r 0? OrT:C:: A:;n I;;FcRCE!'E!.--
t Ec:a:: v
~
50-460/81-01 Report !!o.50412/31-01 Docket !!o.50 4gn, go.p g iicense W.clER-134 -174 safeguards creup
,
I.icensee: Washington Public Power Supply System
,
'P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352
'
racility !;a=e: Washington Nuclear Projects Nos.1 & 4 (WNP-1/4)
.
WNP-1/4 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspection at:
Inspection conductec: January 13-16, 1981 l.
<4
/
Inspectors:-
A W ',O # ([" f_ /
J - 7 ',
Y/
D. F. Kirsen, Reactor Inspector Date signec
,
lYbb&filk
/- 23 - 9(
~
W.f,J.Wagny,ReactorInspector Date signea
,
,
Date Signed
'
.
, j.
,
f',W -
t<
rQ,
_
_
'd. // / Vf,
/- L ?
,f /
' Approved By:
.-r A t
'
R. T. Ocdds, Chief Engineering Support Section cate signed Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Insoection durina ceriod of January 13-15, 1981 (Recort ilos. 50-460/81-01 and 50-513/81-01).
.
s Areas Inscectcc; Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors
'
of construction activities including: licensee action on previous inspection
- findings, 30.55(e) items, IE Bulletins and potential 10 CFR 21 defects; containment structural concrete work observation; and containment welding work observation and_ record review. The inspection involved 50 inspector-hours on site by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
flo it:Ims of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
.
'
RV'Torm 219 (2)
.-. -
'
[
'7-e-
-'
em ]
,
.
- .
810s3goyQ
-
'
-.
.
.
-
.
.
4 DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted
'
a.
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
-
- J. Carson, Sr. QA Engineer
- M. Rodin, Sr. QA Engineer, Civil fl. E. Witherspoon, Director, Quality Assurance T. J. Houchins, Project GA Manaaer fi. J. Irwin, Sr. QA Engineer, Electrical b.
United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C)
<
R. Iaivers. Sr. 0A Enaineer, Piping and Mechanical'
- E. C. Haren, Deputy Project QA Manager A. Scocner, QA Engineer R. PcFall, QA Engineer E. Uagner, QA Engineer c.
J. A. Jones Construction Comoany
'U. S. Roe, Project QA Manager D. Higgenbotham, QV Supervisor R. B. Gates, Senior Engineering Manager R. Pope, Engineering Manager J. Zizak,'QV Supervisor d.
University fiuclear Systems (Ui;S)
S. Flores, Foreman e.
Folev/Hismer-Becker J. ficble, Manager of Engineering L. Maenpaa, Quality Director f.
Pitt:burth Des Moines Steel (PCM)~
-
W. Yocum, QC Welding Inspector C. Bauer, Site QA Manager Denotes exit interview attendees.
- 2.
Site Tour Upon arrival at the site the inspectors toured the WNP-4 plant areas to ' observe ccmpleted work and work in progress to ascertain general
~
compliance with industry standards and regulatory requirements. Activities examined included concrete formwork, concrete preplacement and curing rebar installation, stud welding, housekeeping, drawing control and HVAC support welding, as applicable, in the areas of the Unit 4 cooling watcr :; pray pond, GSB and containment. No items of noncompliance or
.
deviations were identified.
.
.
,2 m
s The inscector observed the follcuing housekeeping related deficiencies at the 435' elevatien of '? nit 4 containmant: one class II eouicment drain 'ine uncanped; nurerous scrats of angle iron, wood and concrete
forrxork erectien bolts layir.a on stacked class 1 rebar; several concrete embed plates laying in water; several niles of scrap wood and wire; and scrao anale iron, wood, wire and one circular saw blade laying in
'
a crane skio containing large cuality class 1 anchor bolts.
In addition, a larce metal crane skip was stored on class 1 rebar outside of the Unit 4 G58. While none of the items had caused damace or detriment to the class 1 components the inspector expressed concern about the peor y.
housekeeoina practices to licensee personnel. The licensee took immediate action to clean the area and remove the foreign material.
The licensee's oractice Tor housekeeoina surveillance was examinea.
Pipino ano mecnanicai OA cersonnel perform seneouled oeriodic surveillances or housaxeeoing out no similar pract1ce nac been instituteo for tne
,
Civil CA cersonnei. Action was taken to recuire periccic nousekeeping surveillar.ces by tne leaa c1vil QA Engineer.
The area of housekeetp'ing hill be examined further during a future inspection.
-(460/513/81-01-01)
The licensee reported that J. A. Jones nad successfully passed the ASME site survey inspection conducted during tile week of January 12, 1981.
3.
Liennsee Action en Previously Icentified Enforcement Items (0 pan) (450/80-01-01) Infraction: Failure of J. A. -Jones to soecify a..
urncedures to centrol the installation of temocrary attachment welds The licensee's ecsponse to the item of noncompliance was submitted
- by letter ;;o. G01-80-140 dated l'ay 7,1980. The inspector examined the licensee's corrective actions and found tuem to be as stated.
in the letter.
The inspectcr examineo several Jcnes inspection reports and nonconformance recorts dccumenting the results of inspections performed in resolution of Contractor Motification Report No. 758 and questioned the resolution of those identifying colunns 1.5" thick. CNCR-257-1034 identified
-
an attachment welded to column U and 4.5, at about the GSB 415'
level, without any indication of preheat having been accomplished pricr to welding- (the column thickness was identified as 1.5").
A measurement indicated 1-5/8" as the actual column thickness.
The CNCR disposition was gppropriate for thickness up to 1.5" but the AUS code requires 150 preheat for thickness between 1.5" and 2.5".
The licensee stated that an evaluation of those CNCR's indicating 1.5" colunn thickness would be performed and the CNCR ~ resolution
.
evaluated accordingly.
~
.
.
-3-The inspector examined J. A. Jones procedure No. JAJ-WI-1044, Revision CE (Temporary Pangers and Supports) and observed the following:
,
(1) Paracrach 6.4.1 does not indicate the method utilized or
.
documentation requirements for the General Suoerintendent's approval of temporary structural attachment welds.
(2) Paragraoh 6.4.3 does not assign responsibility for the notification of Quality Verification.
(3) Paragraph 6.4.2.1 specifies an AWS preheat of 60 for material of 3/4" to 1.5" thickness. This is inconsistent with that preheat specified (Ef?) by JAJ-WI-011 for material of like thickness.
The licensee stated that the above discrepancies would be evaluated arid resolveo, as necessary.
4.
Licensee Action on 50.55(e) Construction Deficiency Reoorts a.
(Closed) WNP 1 and 4 General Services Buildina seismic desion deficiencies The licensee verbally reported the seismic design deficiency on October 18, 1976.and completed the reporting requirements by letters
.Nos. G01-76-694, G01-76-767 and G01-77-133, dated Novemoer 5, 1976,
.
Decencer 17, 1976 and February 24, 1977, respectively.
The discrepancy was found following the application of a more sophisticated
~
finite element analysis during the design review process. The
,
finite element analysis provided a better definition of the structural seismic analysis than the previously employed seismic analysis wherein the assumed distribution of seisaic forces was in error.
The redesign of the GSB's necessitated an additional 82 tons of
~"
rebar for the 053 basemat (about 1.9% of the total rebar in each basetcat). The licensee had placed a hold on four basemat concrete placements until the redesign including the additional steel was ccmpleted. All other areas of the GSB basemats were checked and found adequate by the Engineer.-
This item is closed, b.
(closed) Voids in General Services Building concrete placement G5B-1-28 The licensee provided the verbal report of this deficiency on June 6, 1977 and filed written reports by letters dated July 5, August 18, September 15 and November 14,:1977. The final report was submitted by letter dated January 23, 1978. The inspector examined documentary evidence-of the corrective action statement in the final report and had no further questions.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.. _
.
.
I'
-4-
.
c.
(Closed) WKM valve overoressurization
>
'
The licensee orovir'ed the recuired verbal report of this deficiency
-
on February 0, 1979 and submitted the final written recort by letter
'
l:c. G01-79-154, dated Marc.h 9, 1979.
Field Chanoe Order No. 04-
-
3030-000, dated Povecber 6,1978, was written to resolve the deficiency by drilling a small hole throuch the gate of certain identified valves. Discussions with licensee eersonnel indicated that the
.
valves identified by the field chance had been modified, w ww The inscector identified that certain valves, reported by the licensee's written 50.55(e) report (RCV-10 and RCV-11) had not been included ca the field chance list and were not rocified, as stated in the
,
finai retort. The licensee observec that Babcock and Wilcox had daterm1nec tne mooification to De unnecessary on Inese valves.
The inscector reouesteo tnat tne licensee suomit a supplement to the final recort to ciarify the record. The licensee committed to supply tnat suppiement. The licensee stateo that the valve as-built crawings would be appropriately modified to reflect the repair i
modification.
Based upon the licensee's commitment, the inspector
had no furtner questions.
d.
-(Closed) Defective Superstrut spot weids
@
A verbal report of this deficiency was filed by the licensee on October 31,-1979. Written reports were s'ubmitted by letter Nos.
,..
G01-79-576 and G01-80-335, dated November 30, 1979 and December 18, 1980.
.
The inspector verified the licensee's stated corrective actions by examination of: nonconformance reports lios.1-Ci!CR-218-001, 476, 477, 480 and 488; Foley/Wismer-Becker procedure QCP-30 (Ultrasonic Testing and Repair of spot Welds in Superstrut A-1262) and by discussions
.W of corrective actions taken with Foley/Uismer-Becker and licensee personnel. The inspector had.no further questions, e.
'(Closed)'UKM valve cracks The licensee ~ verbally reported this deficiency on December 7, 1979 and submitted the required written reports by letter Nos. G01-80-10
-and G01-80-387, dated January 7 and December 22, 1980.
The inspector verified the licensee's stated corrective action by reviewing the valve repair plan and the repair documentation (consisting of certificates of conformance, pressure test reports.
nondestructive examination reports, material certifications, material thickness reports and Lthe. assembly shop travelers) for four of the 23 repaired valves (valve Nos. 1-DH-V12A, 1-RC-V10, 4-RC-V11-and 4-DH-VIA). The inspector had no' further questions.
.
A T
v
-
w nye
+~-
w
.
-5-5.
Licensee Actions on Reported 10 CFR 21 Items
"
a.
Potential defect in a component of the DSRV standby diesel generator
,
( Action item Control flos. H06-000729 and 730)
.
On September 19, 1980. Transamerica Delaval notified the NRC, by letter, of a potential problem in the standby diesel generator link rod assemblies which could result in engine non-availability for the UNP-1 and 4 diesels. The Unit 4 diesels (S/fis 76031 and 76032)
had been checked, as required, by msnufacturer representatives on site.
The inspector reviewed the documented results of feeler gage testing and discussed the test method and results with Celaval oersonnel. The Unit 4 engine test results were found to b2 satisTactory.
The licensee intenos to have Delaval personnel perform similar tests en the Unit 1 engines curing the performance of preservation and creventive maintenance oy Delaval, scheduled for late January, 1981. Based upon tne above, the inspector had no further questions.
.b.
Potential cefect in Essential Instrument Control System buffer caras canufactured by Bailey Control Comoany Babcock & Wilcox informed the NRC by letter, dated July 18, 1980,
.
of a potential defect concerning the possibility that improper installation of the buffer cards in the Essential Instrument Control (ECI) system could result in loss of power to both channels of the WMP-1/4 ECI system.
Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that the ECI system design for WP-1/4 had been modified such that optical isolation devices, instead of buffer cards, are being used to provide electrical signal isolation. The modification makes the reported defect not applicable to the UNP-1/4 project.
c.
Potential defect in applications of Rosemount itodel 1152 oressure transmitters with A or D output codes (IE Bulletin 80-16)
The licensee had been made aware of the potential for ambiguous outputs involving misapplication of the Rosemount model 1152 pressure transmitters with A or D output codes and had evaluated the system applications of this transmitter in the preparation of their response to IE Bulletin No. 80-16, submitted by letter No. G-0-1-80-222, dated August 7,1980.
The licensee had determined that no Rosemount model 1151 or 1152 pressure transmitters with output codes A or D were installed or planned to be installed in safety related applications at WNP-1/4.
This bulletin is closed.
.
.
,
...
-
-.
.
'
.
-3-
.6.
Centainment-Structural Concrete
.
a.
Observatien of Uork and Uork Activities (AWSH)
'
-The inscector observed certain concrete placement i n mes on
.
a Unit 4 containment rinowall (placement number 1007) r'or comoliance with the contractor's quality control procedures. Specific activities cbserved were lift, pour rate, droo. consolidation practice, and d ina of concrete samoles. The oreolacement and olacement checklists were examined. -
s Mo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Containment-Weidino a.
Observation of Welcina Activities (PDM)
The inspector ooservec in-process welding being performed at two locations on tne Unit 1 containment structure. A replacement plate
was being welded to a section of tne containment dome liner plate
'
>
(i:o.1070), ano the Equipment haten flange plate was being attacned
-
to an extension piace (llo. 5348). The inspector verified that the
'
filler metal, base metal, welder qualifications, weld identification and weid procedure were in accordance with PDM's quality assurance and work procedures.
In addition, tne inspector examined the CMTR's of these additional plates for material compliance to ASME Section
.
III-Division 2 requirements.
Mo items of noncompilance or deviations were identified,
b.
Visual Examination of '.:eids (PCM)
i i -
The inspector visually examined 9 completed weld seams performed during fabrication of the Units 1 and 4 containment structures for compliance with PSAR, Code and procedure requirements. 'Uelds were examined for the following characteristics: weld length, size
,
and alignment, weld reinforcement height and absence of surface discontinuities exceeding code requirements. The welder qualification records were examined for compliance to ASME Section IX requirements.
The inspector examined the radiographs of 3 of the 9 welds selected
~
for compliance with AS!!E B&PV Code requirerents. Attributes examined included proper placement of penetrameters,' film density in area of interest, film identification, quality, and evidence of discontinuities conson_ly associated:with shielded metal arc welding. The inspector
-
'also exanined f DE documentation for proper recording of film ~ type, exposure, technique, penetrameter, and completion of the radiographic report. The qualification records.of the t:DE personnel performing these radiographic examinations were reviewed.
.flo items of r.oncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
-
,
.
-,
,, -,
-
,
-
- -
.
, --
.
_
.
._ _
.. _..
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
7-
.
,
c.
Weldina Material Control (PDM)
The control, issue, return and storage of weld filler material was
'
>
.
examined for compliance with procedural requirements. The holding
-
oven at the Equipment Hatch rod issue station was calibrated and operating within the required temperature range. The receiving and storace area was inscected for identification of acceptable weld material and segregation of nonconforming material.
t!o items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview The inscectors cet with licensee representatives, denoted in oaraaraph 1, at.the conclusion of tne insoection on: January 16,.1980 to summarize the inspection scope and tindings and expressed concern aoout the deterioration of housexeeolog canaltions ocserved in the Unit 4 containment. Licensee
,
representatives stated tnat accitional emphasis would be applied toward housekeeping..
W
/
k
f e
i
-
- - -,
-,
-.
,n.,-
,
. -.,.
e
,
,n,e m.
--
g