IR 05000460/1981011
| ML20040E781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1982 |
| From: | Dodds R, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040E776 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-460-81-11, NUDOCS 8202050349 | |
| Download: ML20040E781 (7) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fEISSION
'
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
f
REGION V
R: port flo. 50-460/81-11 Docket f!o. 50-460 License No. CPPR-134 Safeguards Group Licensee:
Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968
.
Richland, Washington 99352 Facility Name: Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at: WNP-2 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspection conducted: December 1-18, 1981 Inspectors:
/77 M
,
A. D. Tbth, M icr Resident Inspector Date Signed Date Signed
/77 %
Approved by:
-
R.T.Dobds,dief Date Signed Reactor Constr"ction Projects Section 2 Summary:
Inspection on December 1-18, 1981 (Report No. 50-460/81-11)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the procedures for post-weld-heat-treatment, preparations for containment concrete placement, and licensee followup program and actions for handling of allegations of questionable work practices.
The inspection involved 40 inspector hours on-site by the senior resident inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Fom 219 (2)
8202050349 820120 PDR ADOCK 05000460 4 l-1%
G pyg
.
,
>
.
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted:
Washington Public Power Supply System
- R. B. Glasscock, Quality Assurance Director
- D. W. Mazur, WNP-1 Program Director M. G. Carrigan, Program Managenent Assistant
- C. B. Organ, Assistant Program Director, Engineering
- R. W. Root, Assistant Program Director, Construction
- C. R. Edwards, Project Quality Assurance Manager M. E. Rodin, Quality Compliance Senior QA Engineer
- M. H. Deter, Quality Compliance Lead United Engineers and Constructors
- K. J. Iverson, Construction Support Manager L. W. Isaacs, Construction Support Supervisor S. S. Gahir, Construction Support (Piping)
A. J. Zindel, Plant Design Engineering (Nuclear)
J. Feil, Quality Assurance Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)
D. R. Johnson, Manager of Quality
- E. W. Edwards, Project Manager
- T. F. Fallon, Project Field Quality Control Engineer
- J. B. Gatewood, Project Field Quality Assurance Engineer
- J. L. Rudd, Quality Assurance Engineer J. A. Jones Construction Company J. R. Cortez, Project Manager R. Harrington, Supervisor, Work Package Control, GSB Area Mrs. J. Stannard, Supervisor, Work Package Control, Containment Mr. J. Stannard, Welding Engineer Superviser J. Disney, Welding Engineer H. S. Wellenbrock, QA Supervisor, Special. Projects Foley, Wismer & Becker Company P. Merlin, Quality Control' Superv'isor.
_.
Jd
>
<
l
-
_
"
..,-
.
-
.
.
-2-
,
,
Other General Contacts and Notes
'
In addition to the persons identified above, the inspector interviewed personnel from the construction, engineering, and quality control site contractor organizations. He interviewed various craft and supervision who were present in the work areas during the inspectors' activities, or who visited the inspector's office.
- Denotes personnel present at the exit management meeting.
2.
General The resident inspector was on-site December 1-4, 8, 11, and 15-18.
During this period, the inspector performed routine examinations of activities, including plant tours, record reviews, and interview of personnel.
He interviewed an individual off-site, relative to allegations of questionable work practices; the details of which are discussed below'.
An NRC regional office inspector was on-site December 14-18, to follow-t up on allegations and previous NRC findings. His activities are documented in a separate inspection report. A joint exit meeting was held with licensee management on December 18, 1981.
3.
Alleged J. A. Jones Welding Discrepancies A former workman (welder) contacted the NRC Region V office to report deliberate violations of hold points and discrepancies in welder identification numbers for work in the turbine building.
He reported that he had repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the practices and had subsequently been fired. The resident inspector interviewed the welder involved to ascertain if any safety-related work was impacted.
(Work in the turbine building is generally not safety-related, and NRC regulations do not require implementation of a quality assurance program for non-safety related work.) The individual stated that he had also contacted the Supply System regarding his concerns.
i The records were subsequently examined and showed that the facts had already been investigated thoroughly by the licensee.
The licensee's investigation records appeared to substantiate the claims of the individual, and reflected that corrective measures had been taken to correct the program implementation for quality Class II and G work. No Quality Class I (safety-related) work was involved.
l The records show that the individual had been reporting improper work direction and welder identification discrepancies to his supervisors and quality assurance supervisors as early as June 1981.
On October e
,
!
14 he found another welder's identification symbol stamped on a weld l
which he had performed himself, and, following an agitated confrontation,
!
l l
[
t
~
'
(
,
--
-.
,
-
-
-
,
.
-3-
.
he vented his frustration by damaging three pipe welds with a ball-peen hammer.
In accordance with job rules, he was fired for destruction of plant property. At that time he reported the matter to the licensee's
" Hotline" program.
The Hotline _ files show that the licensee conducted an objective evaluation of the facts and took corrective actions to modify procedures to better control welder traceability for Quality Class II and G work. There was no evidence that the person responsible for the incorrect welder identification markings had been identified and corrected. However, this matter has received senior management and supervisor attention by J. A. Jones, Bechtel, and WPPSS.
No NRC regulatory requirement deviations were identified.
Also, the identification controls for safety-related systems are more rigorous than for work in the turbine building.
The individual has not alleged a safety-related problem, and review of the facts has not implied existance of one. This matter is closed.
4.
Alleged Cracks In Concrete Inside General Services Building An employee called the resident inspector to express his concern over vertical cracks which he had observed in concrete walls. The walls were the sides of filter system valve pits in the general services building at elevation 455-feet.
Subsequent records review revealed the concrete placement numbers as #2964 and 2965.
The inspector examined the cracks in the company of WPPSS and Bechtel
'
quality assurance personnel, interviewed the responsible UE&C engineer, and examined concrete placement records relative to this matter.
,
The licensee quality assurance representative located related nonconformance report #1CNCR-254-949 (dated November 8,1979), which was referenced
'
in the placement packages.
This document identified the cracks as surface shrinkage cracks, which _were explored and extend only 1/8-inch deep where the ACI maximum crack _ width is exceeded. The engineer determined that the structural integrity has not been impaired, documented this on the Nonconformance Disposition Rep' ort, and dispositioned the matter as Accept-As-Is. ~ He noted that reinforcing; steel corrosion resistance was still accomodated duelto the thick paint coating which was planned, and had been achieved,'for_the walls.
,
The inspector interviewed the engineer who had dispositioned the matter in 1979, and examined the concrete placement records to determine if there was evidence to indicate that irregular matters arose during this placement, which might lead to additional concerns. The records showed appropriate inspections had been performed during concrete placement; concrete tests had been performed and were within specification limits; concrete mix was as designated in the specification and was batched
.
'
..;
-
', s
,s
. t.
7,._. _,g,
,
,
>
,-
.
,,.
,'
<
,
m y
,-
,
,
.
.
-4-
.
via the computer systen with no irregularities noted; and curing had been performed as required.
The records indicate that premature form removal had not occurred.
The inspector identified no cause for concern over the cracks. This matter is considered to be closed.
5.
WPPSS Hotline Program The inspector reviewed the log of calls received by the WPPSS Hotline program, and examined two files in detail. The Hotline calls are handled by senior level WPPSS site management, who attempt to obtain a response to the calls within 10 days.
In one case the resulting investigation had revealed that the problems did not exist, although they were perceived to exist by the caller.
In this case the WNP-1/4 Program Director personally visited the work area to' examine the hardware alluded to by the caller.
The handling of the Hotline calls appears to involve significant management attention and interest in the quality of work at the site.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) Procedures The inspector reviewed PWHT procedure JAJ-HT-002 Revision 0F, and process control procedure JAJ-PC-HT-002 Revision 0A. Criteria defined in the following documents was considered:
PSAR Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, and 17 Regulatory Guides 1.44 and 1.50 Specification 979-211 Section ISB Part 4.3.6 Section 17A Part 3.8 Section 52G Section ID ASME Code Section III Part NB-4600, 1977 w/ Summer 1977 Addendum The inspector noted that the largest wall thickness of P1/P3 material is 3-inches, and that heating and cooling rates are planned to be limited to 115-degrees-F per hour at temperatures above 800-degrees.
Control to within 25-degrees is planned at the soak temperature, and soak times are set for 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 hours at 1100-1150 degrees.
Temperature monitoring with thermocouples at the weld centerline and at the edges of the code-zone is planned using thermocouples inside and outside the pipe. Spares will be available for contingent conditions. Sealing of pipe bulkheads is planned to~ eliminate air-flow and undue temperature gradients. The code zone is planned to be extended to include areas where temporary attachments have been removed. ASME Code Case N-226 and Code Interpretation #III-1-79-133 are planned to be used, relating
'
.
-
--
.,
.
-5-
_
to temporary attachment of thermocouples and use of capacitor-discharge-method for such attachment.
Provisions are included for nondestructive testing of areas where thermocouples are later removed.
Calibrated thermocouples are specified, and various inspection verification hold points have been specified in the process control sheet.
Extensive quality verification and welding engineer involvement is required by the procedures. The UE&C engineers stated that the process control sheet would be revised to clarify the extent of pre-cleaning required
- and minimum number of operable thermocouples required at the start of heat treatment.
Interview of the J. A. Jones welding engineers and the UE&C welding engineers showed that the planned PWHT for reactor coolant pressure boundary piping has been coordinated with the NSSS supplier, including assessment of heating cycle history to date and related weld procedure qualification bases. The site engineering personnel interviewed appeared knowledgeable in the requirements associated with this activity.
No items of noncompliance nor deviations from commitments were identified.
7.
Containment Building Dome Concrete The inspector reviewed the preparations for conctete placement number C3004 of the Unit #1 containment building dome. This included examination of the placement area, review of the placement package, and interview of quality control and quality assurance personnel of the contractor's (AWSH) and the engineer's (UE&C) organizations. The examination included the basis for the contractor's quality control inspections of the reinforcing steel install 6 tion, including the methods of assuring that all applicable drawings, nonconformance reports, and design changes are available to and considered-by the inspectors.
~
The UE&C Resteel Placing Drawings list that was being used by the AWSH inspectors appeared to be consistent with UE&C Drawing Revision Report l
DTS099 dated Nov' ember 30, 1981, for the dome drawings, series #11220 l
through #11239. The AWSH quality control supervisor also had available I
an ongoing log of design changessand nonconformance reports, which he used to ascertain that applicable ones would be considered for each i
placement.
Generic items appeared'to be considered, with the' log entrias identifiable.to various placement' numbers. The tenure of the quality control personnel appeared to.be an asset in assuring recognition of prior generic type changes.
The inspector found that the engineer (UE&C) has assigned quality assurance surveillance personnel to the various ASME concrete activities, including
,
l the batch plant, the test laboratory, and the prime contractor. These
'
personnel are in addition to the quality control personnel of the contractor organizations.
,
l l
t
,
'
.
-6-
.
The placement area was underneath a total enclosure which had been erected over the dome area for protection against the weather elements.
The cantilever forms appeared to be adjusted such that reinforcing steel clearances were met. The work area appeared to be clean, and extensive lighting was in place for inspection and placement work.
Vibrators of various sizes were available in quantities commensurate with the placing plan. Per.711 vibrators were available for work adjacent to the liner plates.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Management Meeting The inspector met with the licensee quality assurance manager approximately weekly to discuss the status of inspection findings and other inspector activities relating to this project. On December 18, 1981 a joint exit meeting was held by the resident inspector and the regional project inspector with the WPPSS Program Director, members of his staff, and representatives of some of the contractor organizations. Persons contacted who attended this meeting are so noted (*) in paragraph 1 of this report.
'
.
'.
W
e
.
,
&
A 0