IR 05000460/1982004
| ML20055C129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1982 |
| From: | Bishop T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Root R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055C130 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208100260 | |
| Download: ML20055C129 (5) | |
Text
1 Y
ry
v;g
.
7 % (.
,NA
,%
T y.
y-g y
-Q
,
..
AUG 5 1982 Docket Nos. 50-460, 50-513 Washington Public Power Supply System
.
P. O. Box 963 Richland, Washington 99352 Attention: Mr. R. W. Root Acting Program Director Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of July 2,1982 responding to the itens of nonconpliance foniarded by our letter of May 17, 1982. Based upon our review of your response, it appears that more infonnation is necessary to allow our full assessment of your corrective actions for the noncompliances.
The information required is described in an attachment to this letter.
Should you have any questions concerning the above, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, EM d ee p Lu T. W. Bishop, Chief Reactor Construction Projects Branch bcc: DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Distributed by RV:
State of WA (Lewis)
Resident Inspector (2)
Engelken (ltr)
PDR ADOCK 05000460
/
U jl 8208100260 020805
^
G PDR omca y RV/jk'
suaNaur) ' N. k. h...B.N......
..D. b..D.
B..[.s.s.......
"
"
"~ ~"
'
' ' "
'
..
.
..
.
...
.....
..
...
...........
.............
8/ h
.....T../8 2 8/ C 82 8/ O /82 DATE)
....T.'....
....
..
....
.........
..........
..............
...
....
...........
unc ronn aie no.co nucu eno OFFICIAL R ECOR D COP Y.
- u m + m m
-
![g car,,,'jg
,
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REIULATERY COMMISSION
$
- j
REGION V
C g
1450 MARIA LANE. SUITE 210
%
,d WALNUT CREEK CALIFORNIA 94596 s
Ausust 5, 1982 Docket Nos. 50-460, 50-513 Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352
.
Attention: Mr. R. W. Root Acting Program Director Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of July 2,1982 responding to the items of noncorpliance forwarded by our letter of May 17, 1982. Based upon our review of your response, it appears that more information is necessary to allow our full assessment of your corrective actions for the noncompliances.
The information required is described in an attachment to this letter.
Should you have any questions concerning the above, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
. U.
&
T. W. Bishop, Chief Reactor Construction Projects Branch (
l
i
~
> - * ~ -
.
.. -
-
--.
.~._a,,a _ a g,_ Q
. _....
.
.
Coninents on WPPSS Letter G01-82-0412 of July 2,1982, Response to Items of Noncompliance in IE Inspection Report 50-460/82-04 The followin is a brief description of the item of noncompliance and your response with a discussion of the additional information required.
~
1.
Finding A:
The wrong welder identity had been recorded by the craft foreman for several welds.
Resoonse:
A Management Corrective Action Request (fiCAR) was
.
wri tten. UNSI procedures will be revised to eliminate craft documentation.
Documents will be reviewed to assure all items have been inspected.
Discussion:
The MCAR identified in the response was written prior to the date of the occurences cited in the item of noncompliance.
Additionally, several conths prior to the date of the occurrences cited in the item of noncompliance, the Supply System had received a " Hotline" call identifying the wrong welder identity problem. There is no discussion in the response which addresses improvements to provide more effective, timely action to identified problems.
The foreman who recorded the wrong welders stated that part of the problem was lack of training in documentation requirements.
Additional Information:
Please discuss improvements to provide more effective timely action to identified problems and the adequacy of craft training.
2.
Finding B:
Welding filler metal withdrawal slips, showing low hydrogen welding electrodes with excessive.out of oven times, were placed in records storage without correction nor was an evaluation of welds made with the electrodes performed.
,
Response:
Welding filler metal withdrawal slips from August 1,1981 through December 31, 1981 were reviewed.
Nonconformance l
reports will be written for any E7018 weld rod out of the rod room longer than four hours.
'
The UNSI Project Manager ha's stated that failure to comply with weld rod control measures will result in termination of welders and/or weld rod room attendents.
The " Records Clarification Form" cited in the item of l
noncompliance as the procedural vehicle for correcting
'
welding filler metal withdrawal slips was not the required form.
,
.
6 6 -Meme.. a L '.n. 4r.h W e -
-e. 4 a.e-e.
.
..
w e
-. =.
+..s_
-d,
&wa. dem moim%
eA 5me eM
. -
-
.
.
-2-Discussion:
It is not clear why review of welding filler metal withdrawal slips was limited to August 1, 1981 to s
December 31, 1981.
The UNSI Project Manager position regarding termination of welders and/or weld rod room attendents may miss the central personnel issue. As identified in the inspection recort, a welding quality control supervisor instructed a welding inspector (in speed memorandum no. 14297 of February 2, 1942) to file uncorrected weld filler metal withdrawal slips. Additionally, quality control request for information QCRFI No. 433 of December 10,.
1981 reported other examples of filler slips for E7018 weld materials showing excessive out of oven times and requested guidelines for correction of weld filler metal withdrawal slips. The quality assurance answer to the QCRFI referenced a correction procedure but the weld filler metal slips were not corrected nor were the affected welds evaluated.
It is apparent thatasome corrective action may be warrented in assuri.ng complete responses to QCRFIs.
Reouired Information:
Please justify review of weld filler metal withdrawal slips for the limited period of August 1 to December 31, 1981.
,
Please identify any corrective action taken in reference to adequacy of QCRF1 responses.
Since your response states that the records clarification form was not the proper form on which to document weld filler netal withdrawal slip deficiencies, please identify what actions have been taken to prec.lude repetition of this problem.
l 3.
Finding C:
A memorandum was issued to change the requirements of welding l
procedure specifications (.NPS's).. The memorandum stated t
the UPS material thickness limitations applied to groove welds only and not to fillet welds.
t
'
Response:
The memorandum was a clarification only, not a change.
WPS's will be reviewed and rewritten to reduce the need for clarifying memorandums.
Discussion:
Since each WPS has a entry line to designate the base l
metal thickness range to which the WPS applies, the
!
memorandum appears to represent a change to the WPS since l
it says to ignore the thickness requirement for fillet welds. This was a repeat item of noncompliance.
I L
s n'
-__,n.s'
'
.a+w
..
a._,
.
. :. a w +
n, ew..
n a.
.~
,
.
-3-
Additional Information:
.s Please identify what actions will be taken to preclude repetition.
4.
Finding D:
Assemblies were installed with butt welds rather than fillet welds as specified on applicable drawings. The assemblies were inspected and accepted by quality control inspectors.
Response:
Reinspection of the assemblies is being performed on a random basis.
Nonconforming items will be documented for engineering resolution. All quality control inspectors were retrained.
Discussion:
It appears there has been an ongoing problem with adequate inspection at UNSI.
Previous examples are:
Enforcement 81-02-05 Acceptance of welds which did not meet code.
Enforcement 81-02-06 Acceptance of welds and ducts which did not meet procedure requirements.
Unresolved 81-07-04 Temporary attachment welds not inspected.
The Supply System had previously committed to perform a 100% reinspection of welds and a sampling reinspection of plenums. However, during inspection 50-460/82-11, UNSI management indicated that, due to contract changes, reinspection was no longer contemplated.
'
Additional Information:
-
Please indicate what actions will be taken to confirm the adequacy of inspections performed by quality control personnel for all previously accomplished work.
Additionally, since retraining of UNSI quality control inspectors was indicated as an action to prevent recurrence in response to enforcement items 81-02-05, 81-02-06, and this item of noncompliance, please indicate how you intend to assure that this retraining will be effective for future work.
m..-
.... _. _. _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _
.....
,
.
. _.. _
,
., _
.
_,