IR 05000508/1980001
| ML19294B966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1980 |
| From: | Bishop T, Dodds R, Hernandez G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294B960 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-508-80-01, 50-508-80-1, 50-509-80-01, 50-509-80-1, NUDOCS 8003060460 | |
| Download: ML19294B966 (12) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C010ilSSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
50-508/80-01
-
Report N 50-39/20-01 S0-5C3 & 50-503 ticcns, go, CPPR-154 & 155 Safeguards Group Docket No Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System P. O. Box 468 Richland, Washington 99352 Facility Name:WNP-3 and WNP-5 WNP-3 and WNP-5 Site (Satsop)
Inspection at:
'
Inspection conducted: _
Inspectors:
,
<-[d )
,-2 c5 - TO D. F. Kirscn ' Reactor Inspector Date Signed
~
T. W. BTsnop, Reactor Inspector
~0 -- 5 - T8
&
Date Signed a.J/u n Ja/
s-s-so G. HerngAdez, Reactor kbhpector Date Signed
/
j~
/
Approved By:
_.
R. T. Dodds,' Chief, Engineering Support Section
/ pate Signed
~
Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Su= mary:
Inspection during period of January 8-11, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-508/80-01 and 50-509/80-01)
_-
- _. -
_
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional-based inspec-tors of construction activities including licensee action on previous inspec-tion findings; licensee action on 50.55(e) items; containment structural steel welcing procedure review, work observation and record review; struc-tural steel and support welding procedure review, work observation and record review; and investigation of alleged concrete batching and transportation discrepancies.
The inspection involved 72 inspectar-hours onsite by four NRC inspec tors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations wi re identified.
RV Form 219 (2)
8003060 %
DETAILS 1.
Individuals Contacted a.
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
- W. J. Talbott, Project Division Manager
- J. C. Lockhart, QA Manager
- R. A. Davis, Senior Project Quality Engineer
- R. M. Simons, Principal QA Engineer C. E. Tewksbury, Lead Project Quality Engineer D. F. Davis, QA Engineer Various other Quality and Construction Engineers, b.
Ebasco Services, Inc. (Ebasco)
- A. M. Cutrona, Deputy QA Manager
- G. P. Zerbst, Lead Project Quality Engineer
- R. E. Jurbala, Lead Project Quality Engineer
"C. M. McClaskey, Lead Project QL_'ity Engineer L. F. Adams, Senior Project Quality Engineer Various other Quality and Construction Engineers.
c.
J. W. Cain, Project Welding & QA Superintendent d.
Morrison-Knudsen (MK)
F. C. Edler, Project Quality Manager J. M. Sallie, QC Inspector D. A. Dow, Level III QC Inspector D. G. Colbert, QC Inspector 2.
General The licensee reported that Units 3 and 5 were 19.5% and 7.9% complete, respectively, as of December 28, 1979.
3.
Plant Tour Shortly af ter arrival onsite, the inspectors toured various areas of the plant to observe work activities in progress, completed work and construction status for obvious deviations or noncompliance with PSAR commitments and regulatory requirement.
-2-The inspectors observed the daily initial qualification for Nelson stud welding activities and bent approximately 80 previously installed and inspected flelson studs with a hammer.
In addition, a number of weld rod issue forms were compared with portable oven contents and the por-table ovens were observed to be energized.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items a.
(Closed) (508/79-07-02) Infraction:
Failure to maintain specified preheat while performing welding.
The licensee's response to the item of noncompliance was submitted by letter no. G03-79-1892 dated October 31, 1979.
The inspector examined the licensee's corrective actions and observed that the corrective actions were as stated.
The response to the item of noncompliance appeared satisfactory to assure preheat compliance wit ASi1E code requirements.
b.
(0 pen) (508/79-10-05) Infraction.
Failure to control weld filler material as required by procedure.
During the plant tour and while observing welding (paragraph 8.b
of this report) the inspectors found two unopened cans and several pieces of low hydrogen weld filler material which was not being prop-erly controlled. This condition was brought to the attention of licensee and CB&I representatives and was subsequently corrected.
It was noted that the control of weld filler material is an open item of noncompliance and that, apparently, more action is necessary to assure adequate control of filler materials. The licensee actions to resolve the noncompliance will be examined during future inspection.
5.
Licensee Action on 50.55(e) Items (0 pen)(508/79-10-03): Omission of reinforcing steel _in Unit 3 Fuel Hand-ling Building Wall.
The licensee submitted a written report concerning this deficiency to IE:
RV by letter No. G03-79-2253 dateu December 3, 1979; and therein noted that a second report would be submitted following completion of certain testing activities.
This preliminary report was acknowledged by IE:RV in a letter to the licensee dated December 14, 1979, which noted that, following receipt of the final report, the licensee would be advised of IE:RV concurrence prior to the resumption of work on the walls in question.
The licensee noted that the final report was in preparatio.
-3-The inspector visually exanined the completed installation of the three test dowels and the previously omitted dowels.
The licensee documented that 191 dowels were installed, instead of the 194 dowels omitted, due to interference with embedded items.
The omission of the three dowels was documented on NCR fD. 2510.
The grouting and dowel installation appeared satisfactory.
The licensee's documentation of inspection of drilling operations and drilled holes, appended to NCR No. 2510, was examined.
The calibration and test data used to verify the tensile test apparatus, as appended to the NCR, was incomplete.
The licensee noted that the data in question would be appended for future IE:RV review.
The licensee's corrective actions and action to prevent recurrence will be examined during a future inspection.
6.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Followup Items a.
(Closed)(508/79-10-01) Followup Item:
Safety related component storage The licensee's corrective actions to assure that safety related component storage conditions are maintained as required by ANSI N45.2.2 were examined and, when completed, would appear to
-
provide such assurance. With regard to the charging pump storage discrepancies identified by the licensee, the nuts, bolts and shaf ts had been cleaned and moly-coated and the stuffing box drains had been sealed. The licensee was in the process of generating component storage condition checklists for use by the surveillance personnel and revising the surveillan::e procedure to require use of the checklists.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
(Closed)(508/79-10-02) Unresolved Item:
Questionable weld integrity -
column P4U base plate to T-shoe weld In response to NRC questions regarding the integrity of the ident-ified weld, the licensee initiated action to blend by grinding the abrupt change in material directions at the weld to base mrtal in-terface and perform a liquid penetrant (LP) test on the weld.
The LP test was witnessed by an Ebasco NDE examiner qualified in accord-ance with SMT-TC-1A requirements.
The inspector examined the LP test documentation and observed that no rejectable indications were identified.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
-4-c.
(Closed)(508/79-10-04) Followuo Item: Allegation of improper dis-position of nonconformance
^: identified in IE Inspection Report flo. 50-508/79-10, the licensee
.
had received an anonymous allegation that a welding related NCR had been improperly dispositioned.
The inspector examined the com-pleted NCR No.11296 and the licensee's resolution of the ident-ified problem.
The licensee had polisned the area in question and performed addit-ional magnetic particle examinations. All indications in the area of interest had been removed by grinding and were repaired by welding.
The final inspection performed was a visual examination, as required by ASTM-A6. The inspector examined photographs of the magnetic particle test, the areas ground out to remove indications and the area of interest after repair by welding.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
d.
(0 pen)(509/79-08-02) Followup Item: Inconsistencies between CB&I procedures and the contract specification Licensee representatives reported that a review and comparison of the CB&I procedures and the contract specification had been initiated.
Inconsistencies between the two documents will be individually addressed. One item, noted in a previous NRC inspection, concerned tha implementation of the specification requirement for the weld filler material charpy impact energies to be 5 ft-lbs higher than that required by code for base metal.
During the current inspection CB&I representatives identified supplements to material specifications which had implemented this requirement (e.g. WMS-501, Rev. O, and WMS-505, Rev. 0).
The subject of CB&I procedure and specification inconsistencies will be examined further following completion of li-censee action.
7.
Allegations of Concrete Batching and Transportation Discrepancies Background The licensee had notified IE:RV, ty telephone on June 21,1979, that a licensee investigation had been initiated in response to alleged dis-crepancies involving concrete batching and transportation.
Subsequent to notification by the licensee, an alleger contacted IE:RV with similar allegations.
The allegers dccumented their concerns in a memorandum, dated June 26, 1979, to the WPPSS QA Manager.
The licensees QA staff investigated the allegations, during the period of June 20 to July 3, 1979, and issued an investigation report on July 5,197.
-5-At some point subsequent to the initial allegers memorandum, one of the allegers forwarded a copy of the original June 26, 1979 memo to the Contract Manager observing that four of the nine deviations contained in the original memo had been resolved and requested comment on the remaining five deviations.
On June 29, 1979, members of the licensee's QA staff submitted a memorandum to the QA Manager documenting the investigative results on the remaining deviations.
In response to the allegers telecon to IE:RV, an flRC inspector examined the substance of the licensee's investigation reports and verified that the concerns had been adequately addressed and investigated two additional concerns of the alleger.
The results of the fiRC investigation were docu-mented in paragraph 6 of IE Inspection Report 50-508/79-07.
The alleger was supplied with a copy of that report paragraph.
On flovember 13, 1979 the alleger again contacted the IE:RV inspector by telephone and expressed dissatisfaction with the inspector's investigation and reiterated the original concerns in general. The inspector again examined the licensee's investigation reports and the corrective actions initiated by the licensee in response to the concerns addressed in the alleger's memorandums. The investigation again concluded that the licen-see's investigations and corrective actions appeared to provide adequate evaluation and resolution of those concerns.
On flovember 13, 1979 the alleger requested that IE:RV examine certain other practices and/or documentation.
These practices /documentations exam-ined are listed below.
The alleger stated that instances were observed where the drum on a.
a truck was not being turned while water was being added in the field.
The inspector was unable to verify the statement. Although this is a desirable practice, ASTM-C94 contains no specific requirement to turn the truck drum while adding water in the field to bring slump within specified limits. ASTM-C94 does require that, following the field addition of water, the drum or blades to be turned an addit-ional 30 revolutions, or more if necessary, at mixing speed, until the uniformity of the concrete is within specified limits.
The licen-see had performed uniformity tests on truck 120, following the addit-ion of 15 gallons of water to a 10 cubic yard load, on June 7, 1979.
Examination of documentary evidence of this uniformity test verified that the requirements of ASTM-C94 were complied with.
Examination of numerous truck trip tickets provided evidence that the truck drums had been turned 30 revoluticns following the addition of water.
t tio items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie The alleger stated that water was field added, and subsequently b.
mixed for 30 revolutions, to trucks which had 10 cubic yard loads of concrete and that the trucks were rated for 9 cubic yards if used as a mixer.
This concern was addressed in IE Inspection Report tio. 50-508/
79-07.
ASTM-C94 requires that the load volume, for trucks utilized In to mix a dry batch, be limited to 63% of total drum volume.
this case, the 63% +ranslates to 9.379 cubic yards.
The inspec-tor verified that field water was, on occasion, added to trucks The in-containing 10 cubic yard loads of ready-mixed concrete.
spector contacted an IE:HQ staff member regarding the concern.
The HQ representative stated the position that this was a standard industrial practice and that no detrimental effect on concrete would be observed since the difference between 10 cubic yards and 9.378 cubic yards was less than 10%.
In response to the allegers concern, the licensee submitted the The conmittee question to the ASTn-C94 committee on June 8,1979.
response (by letter no. 209EB7962) was that water addition to pre-mixed concrete in the field was not considered to be equivalent to drybatch mixing of concrete.
The licensee had performed a uniformity test on truck 120 (see paragraph 7.a above).
In addition, an 8 cubic yard dry batch uni-formity test v_s performed on truck' mixer 169 on February 27, 1979 with satisfactory results. Similarly, a drybatch uniformity test using truck mixing was performed satisfactorily on August 30, 1979.
ASTM-C94, paragraph 9.5, allows the application of truck mixer uni-formity tests to other trucks of the same design and condition.
Associated Sand and Gravel (AS&G) quality control personnel are required to perform weekly and monthly checks to verify that truck mixers / agitators are clean, operable and free of deleterious wear or material. The inspector 9xamined documentation verifying that the required checks are performed.
Associated Sand and Gravel procedures require that the accuracy of water addition equipment on trucks be verified on a monthly basis.
To accomplish this, one gallon of water is withdrawn from the truck tank and weighed to verify accuracy of the sight glass indications.
Evidence documenting this verification was examined.
flo items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
The alleger stated his belief that back-up batch plant uniformity c.
tests were performed during the period of July 8-12, 1979 using a 10 cubic yard truck load composed of two different 5 cubic yard back-up batch plant produced batche.
-7-The statement could not be corroborated by documentary evidence and the contractor and licensee personnel interviewed stated that no such tests were performed. As stated in IE Inspection Report No. 50-508/79-07, back-up batch plant 'niformity tests were per-formed on 6 cubic yard loads on Februa.y 28, 1979 and August 23, 1979. This frequency conforms to procedural requirements prescribing that uniformity testing be performed at 6 month intervals.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
d.
The alleger requested that the inspector examine the truck trip tickets for placement No. ABW-018-390 and those of July 12, 1979.
The alleger stated that the fine aggregate moisture content per-centages, printed on the trip tickets of July 12, 1979, could not be correlated to test data and implied that a discrepancy existed on the trip tickets for ABW-018-390.
The back-up batch plant was used to produce concrete on July 25-26, 1979 for placement No. ABW-018-390. The inspector examined the truck trip tickets for the placement and observed a number of in-stances wherein the computer printout water allowed to be added in the field had been crossed out and a different water allowed value entered.
The licensee tendered the explanation that for the first few trucks an error had been made in the computer data entry spec-ifying a combination of ice and water greater than 100%. The batch plant operators had discovered the error and manually corrected those affected trip tickets. The inspector examined each trip ticket affected and computed the amount of water which could be added in the field such that the maximum water to cement ratio would not be exceeded.
In addition, the inspector noted that the actual field water additions did not exceed that allowed by the modified trip ticket entries.
The modified trip ticket entries were found to be accurate.
The inspector examined the truck trip tickets for July 12, 1979 and examined the controls and methods used to establish, monitor and provide for computer entry of the fine aggregate moisture content data. Associated Sand and Gravel Procedure No. 5 requires that the total moisture content of fine aggregate be established, using the procedure of ASTM C566-67, at the start of each production days run and for each 400 tons of coarse aggregate and 300 tons of fine aggregate. The inspector examined documentary evidence for July 12, 1979 and sampled test documentation from other days which verified compliance with this requirement.
Licensee personnel explained that, at the end of each production run, the storage hoppers at the batch plant are drained of fine and coarse aggregate which is returned to the stockpile.
-8-Procedural requirements examined and discussions with batch plant operating personnel verified that the moisture test data are util-ized to provide settings for computer input data and controls were in place to assure continued monitoring of moisture data to assure that the moisture content of aggregate that was provided to the com-puter was sufficiently accurate to assure that concrete design water to cement ratios would not be exceeded.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Containment Structural Steel (Welding)
a.
Review of QA Irmlementing Procedures (1) Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT)
The inspector examined the CBI procedure (HT-11, Rev. 7) for Post-Weld Heat Treatment of the Unit 3 containment vessel.
The procedure appeared to be a reiteration of the ASME B&PV code requirements for post weld heat treatment.
The procedure did not specify a number of details, for example:
thermocouple number, increment and attachment details; details of how code specified temperature variation limits would be complied with during heat up or cooldown; the procedure for luminous flame oil PWHT as required by the PSAR; special requirements for support of the vessel during PWHT as required by the PSAR; etc. The licensee stated that CBI Special Instructions, in the process of approval by the Ebasco home office engineering organizations, specify the details of how the code requirements for PWHT would be accomplished. This area will be examined further during a future inspection.
(508/80-01-01)
b.
Observation of Welding Activities Welding activities associated with Unit 3 containment vessel erection were observed. The observation included an examination of three inprocess welds and three completed welds. The activities were examined for compliance to the requirements of the PSAR, the ASME B&PV Code Section III-S74, Division 4 of the CB&I QA Manual (entitled " Construction"), and CB&I welding procedures WPS-E7018/74-3431 (entitled " Welding Procedure Specification") and GWPS-SMA 74-3431 (entitled " General Welding Procedure Specification for the Shielded Metal Arc Process").
The inprocess welding observations of the containment construction hatch penetration, vertical seam no. W-108, and portions of the circum-ferential seam joining rings 13 and 14 included inspection of joint preparation, fit-up, maintenance of preheat, welding technique, position and equipment condition. The welding activities were found to be in compliance with pertinent requirement.
-9-The completed welds for installing containment vessel penetrations nos.14,15, and IC were examined for location, size, shape, appear-ance, and surface condition.
tio items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
c.
Review of Quality Records The quality records associr.ted with Unit 3 vessel welds nos. 34B-5, 348-26, 34B-28, W106, W107, and W109 were examined for compliance with procedural and code requirements. The examination included a review of the Record Drawing Table, the record drawing for penetration inserts, magnetic particle test reports, and the qualification records for two MT examiners.
While reviewing magnetic particle test reports the inspector found one report (no. MT-767 of October 16,1979) which did not ontain the results of the inspection.
The report concerned IIT of a plate edge on ring 9 adjacent to s 11d no. W63.
The inspector then examined an additional 130 reports for evidence of a similar problem.
tio other problems were identified from this review. Accordingly, this omission was determined to be an isolated case.
CB&I representatives stated that appropriate action would be taken to properly correct the record. This action will be verified during a subsequent inspection (508/
80-01-02).
"B&I representatives explained that this type of
.
omission had : een detected in the past and was attributed to the large amont of information which must be recorded on the MT report form.
One corrective action which was taken was to pre-print a suply of the forms with much of the repetitive information such as, pacedure no. used, equipment type, and powder type.
It was found that forms had also been preprinted with inspection results indicating no defects were detected.
The inspector expressed the concern that the use of preprinted results provides a potential for greater problems.
Licensee representatives stated that the use of preprinted results would be reviewed and appropriate action taken. This item will be examined during a subsequent inspection (508/80-01-03).
9.
Steel Structures and Supports (Morrison-Knudsen)
a.
Visual Examination of Welds Completed welds in three areas of 1 nit 3 were examined to ascer-tain whether the welds met the vis tal standards established by AWS D1.1 and Morrison-Knudsen weldi 9 specifications.
The follow-ing welds were examined:
(1)
In-process welds on angle support ta beam 244B. elevation
'
.-
-10-360' between lines x and n.
These consisted of three inch long welds on nine inch centers. Some welds visually examined by the inspector were found to possess discrepancies, exceed-ing code and procedural requirements.
The fiRC inspector was informed that the final QC inspection had not been completed nor the inspection report signed off.
The inspector reviewed the inprocess inspection report and had no further questions.
(2) fiumerous welds examined on the Unit 3 MIS platform beams welded to an enbed plate appeared to meet procedural requirements and AWS D1.1.
(3) A stairway bracket to embed plate weld did not appear to be stamped with the welders identification symbol.
An examination of the helding records indicated that the same welder had performed the tack, root, and final passes.
On January 10, 1980 the weld was restamped to comply with procedural requirements and documented on inspection report control No. SW-98.
The inspector had no further questions.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Welder Qualification Twenty-two stud welder qualification records were reviewed by the inspector to ascertain conformance to the requirements of AWS D1.1 and the Morrison-Knudsen Stud Welding Procedure ("WP-AWS-1").
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
c.
Welding Material Control Welding electrode issue and storage activities were observed by the inspector at the Morrison-Knudsen warehouse. All E7018 welding electrodes are issued from the warehouse in portable rod warmer 3.
The records of oven temperature checks for the months of December 1979 and January 1980 were examined and observed to conform ra uire-ments of the AWS D1.1.
Electrodes in storage were examined to assess thc storage conditions and verify proper markings.
During this examination the inspector noticed that accept tags were not attached to certain cans of E7018 weld rod.
Licensee personnel indicated that the tags had fallen off, but that the electrodes had been receipt inspected. The inspector selected two heat num-bers and examined the material certifications and receipt inspec-tion records.
The records verified material adequacy.
The cans were subsequently re-tagged by the contractor.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie '
..
-11-10. Safety Related Structures (Morrison-Knudsen)
a.
Observation of Work and Work Activities Structural steel belting of Unit 3 beams 282A, 281G, 279G and 248A were examined by the inspector for compliance with the M&K proce-
. dure for Structural Steel Erection and the AISC specification for high strength bolting. During this examination the inspector noted that there appeared to be some confusion regarding match marking which affords the inspector a visual means of verifying that the nut had been torqued. All bolts examined were tightened by the turn-of-the-nut method. The inspector observed that match marks were painted through both the nut and the bolt. Since these particular nuts were specified to be tightened one half turn from the snug tight position, the paint marks had again been matched, thus creating a question as to which bolts had been torqued.
Licensee representatives stated that this had been identified by a previous audit and instructions had been provided to craf t personnel, showing the correct manner of painting the match marks to eliminate the confusion. At the conclusion of the inspection, the licensee indicated that structural steel erection procedures would be ex-amined and revised as necessary to clarify matchmarking require-ments, flo items of noncompliance or deficiencies were identified.
b.
Review of Quality Records The inspector selected two connections from a structural steel drawing identifying those connections which had been inspected.
Inspection records "ere examined and appeared satisfactory.
fio items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee management representatives on January 11, 1980 and summarized the inspection scope and findings.
The licen-see cocaitted to notify IE:RV at least 2 to 3 days prior to the start of Unit 3 containment vessel post weld heat treatment.