IR 05000508/1980008
| ML19345C433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1980 |
| From: | Bishop T, Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345C432 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-508-80-08, 50-508-80-8, 50-509-80-08, 50-509-80-8, NUDOCS 8012040679 | |
| Download: ML19345C433 (7) | |
Text
---
--
.
-.
.
.
.
.-
.
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Co!9 FISSION l.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFoRCEME!TT
REGION V
.
50-508/80-08 Rsport No.
50-509/80-08 Docket No.
50-508 A 50-509 License No.
CPPD-154/155 Sefeguards Group
Washington Public Power Supply System Licensee:
P. O. Box'468 Richland, Washington 99352 racility Name:
Washington Nuclear Projects Nos. 3 and 5 (WNP-3/5)
Inspection at:
WNP-3/5 Site, Elma Washinnton August 4-28, 1980 i
Inspection conducted:
Inspectors:
/
!
f/zA/ 4e
.-- -
.
!
T. W. Bishoo j ar Resident Inspector Date signed Date Signed Date Signed
[/2, fo/86 Approved By:
-
R. C. r aynes, ShiFC#rojects Section Date signed
j Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Surrma ry :
Insoection durino the period of August 4-28, 1980 (Reports Nos. 50-508/80-08 and 50-509/80-08)
',
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by the resident inspector
,
of construction activities relating to: storage, handling and protection of safety related components and related quality records; structural concrete placement and'related quality records; structural welding and quality records; HVAC quality inplementing procedures, installation work, and quality records;
,
and facility tours.
The inspection involved 92.5 inspection man-hours by the NRC resident inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or*3eviations were identified in the 11
3 areas inspected. One continuing item oY 'oncompliance was identified (welding l
and weld inspection paragraph 4a).
!
L RV Form 719 (2)
I
^801204ON
-
-
-
-
- - - - -
- - - -
- -
- - -
- -
-
-
-
- - -
.
-
-
.
i i
DETAILS l
1.
Persons Contacted The inspector contacted engineering, management, inspection and construction
,
I personnel of the organizations listed below.
Key personnel contacted included the following.
a.
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
l
- D. E. Dobson, Division Manager, WNP-3/5
- C. E. Love, Deputy Division Manager, WNP-3/5
- J. C. Lockhart, Project Quality Assurance Manager
- 0. E. Trapp, Project Engineering Manager.
- P.. A. Davis, Sr. Project Quality Engineer.
l R. Hic'n, :r. Project Quality Engineer l
- J. J. Peterson, Asst. RAB/TB Supt.
b.
Ebasco Services, Inc. (Ebasco)
l
- A. M. Cutrona, Deputy Project Quality Assurance Manager L. F. Adans, Sr. Project Ouality Engineer
- L. A. Bac, Project Quality Engineer C. M. McClaskey, Lead Project Quality Engineer F. E. Milliamson, Lead Project Quality Engineer C. S. Kudla, 213 Contract Engineer c.
Morrison-Knudsen, Inc. (MK)
F. Edler, Project Quality Manager E. Clayborn, Structural Supervisor B. Balthazor, QA Supervisor R. Polly, QC Inspector, level II D. Albrethsen, QC Inspector,-Level II D. Cook, QC Inspector, Level II D. Dow, QC Lead Inspector, Leve~ III M. Jorgenson, QC Inspector, Level II D. Shaoira, QC Inspector, Level II d.
Peter Kiewit Sons (PKS)
D. Paulscn, OA Manager T. Bennington, QA Admin. Manager R. Gerdes, Engineer e.
Wallace/ Superior (WS_)
_
J. Sandifer, Project Manager R. McGuire, QA Manager R. Vought, QA Technical G. Stein, QC Supervisor A. Kragerud, QC Foreman
.
-,
.
. - -. -..
.
. -
. -.
.
-
.-
.
,
- -2-
,
a
,
f
- Denotes those present at the NRC management meeting on August-28, 1980.
In addition, G. Hansen, Sr. Project Engineer, State of Washington
-
Energy Facility' Site Evaluation Council, attended the meeting.
i i
l 2.
Safety Related Comoonents (PKS)
a.
Observations of Work and Hork Activities
'
,
' Peter Kiewit Sons' (PKS) activities related to the storage, handling, and protection of four Unit 3 safety related components were examined.
The examination included observations of equipment identification,
4 placement, support / mounting (temporary), and protection (covers /
,
caps, desiccants, coatings, lubricants) for the Soray Chemical Storage
!
Tank, Equipment Drain Tank, Letdown Heat Exchanger, and the Volume
Control Tank. The activities were observed for comoliance with i
pertinent recuirements of the PSAR, ANSI Standard N45.2.2, contract
specification no. 3420-251, and the contractor's procedures (nos.
PKS-WI-C-105, rev. 6; PKS-WI-C-113, rev. 2; PKS-WI-B-109, rev. 2).
>
The equipment was found to be in accordance with requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
j b.
Review of Ouality Records The inspector examined the maintenance history records for the preceding
six nonths for each component identified above. The records indicated j
all required surveillances and inspections had been performed and
~
findings properly handled. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
3.
Structural Concrete (!!K)
'
i a.
Observation of Nork and Uork Activities The Morrison-rmudsen (MK) activities related to the placement and post-placement of concrete for Unit 5 pour no. ABM 242-358 was observed
for compliance to the requirements of tue PSAR, ACI-304 and 309,.
I and contractor procedure no. CP-01, rev. 3.
The observations included examination of form work, equipment, concrete delivery, handling,
-placement, consolidation, curing, and in process testing inspection coverage.
Activities were found to be in accordance with requirements.
-
.
No itens 'of noncompliance or' deviation were identified.
Refer to j
paragraph 7 regarding additional observations of !!K concrete activities.
.
b.
Review of Ouality Records
Preplacement and placement records for pour no. ABM 242-358 were
examined for compliance to PSAR and -procedural requirements (CP-01, rev. 3).
No. items of noncompliance or deviation' were identified.
l l
l.
,
.,e
-
.,,
,
,
. -,,.
-,
,---,e
,._,.--
..,_m.
- - -.
,w,e..
-,,-.--~-,-~-,.-,nm,,
, -,
-
,-
.
.
-3-4.
. Structures and Sucoorts-Weldina (MK)
a.
Observations of Work and Work Activities The inspector examined four Unit:5 welds'which had been previously inspected and accepted by the contractor.'s QC inspectors and were documented on Inspection Reports 5-SW-10, 5-SW-12, 5-SW-22 (repair),
5-SW-23, and 5-SW-24.. The welds connected. structural beam clips to embed p.lates.. The weids were examined for material, size, length, location, visual quality, and compliance.to the requirements of applicable drawings, contractor's inspection procedure (no. AI-14,
.rev. 0), AWS Structural Welding Code AWS D1.1, and the. PSAR. The examination revealed one beam clip weld (decumented on. Inspection Report no. 5-SW-23) which was oversized to the degree that the fillet weld (which was designed to connect a clip to an embed plate) bridged from the embed plate to the clip and then to the web of the beam.
The design drawings made no reference to the welding of the beam web nor did the inspection report document that the weld did not conform to the drawing. The issue of improper welding / inspection is a previously identified item of noncompliance (508/80-06-01)
currently in the process of being resolved.
No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Review of Ouality Records The inscection reports, magnetic particle test report, welding filler material issue slip, welder qualification status reports and inspector qualification records pertaining to the above welds were examined.
for compliance with AWS D1.1 and procedural requirements.
Except as noted above, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Hangers and Supports (HVAC-WS)
-
a.
Review of quality Assurance Implementing Procedures The following Wallace/ Superior (WS) procedures, (relevant to-safety-related hangers and supports), were examined for compliance with the requirements of the PSAR, contract specification no. 3240-232, and the AWS Structural Welding Code AWS D1.1:
(1) QCP/4-8, revision 2, " Inspection" (2) QCP 6-7, revision 1, " Control of Special Processes" (3) QCP 11-6, revision 2, " Shop & Field Process & Control" No items of. noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
N
.
.
-4-b.
' Interviews with Ouality Control Personnel
.
The inspector held discussions with the WS Quality Assurance Manager and three inspectors to review currentt1ork and assess their knowledge and understanding of safety-related HVAC quality activities currently in progress, and code / procedural requirements.
It appeared that each individual had an adequate understanding of requirements. No items of noncomoliance or deviations were identified.
c.
Observations of Work and Work Activities Quality ' Class I duct hanger no. 5210 was examined for compliance to design drawings, AWS Structural Welding Code AWS D1.1, and the PSAR.
It was found that the hanger had been installed with one clip on each end of the two primary supportieg wide flange beams in lieu of two clips per eno, as shown on the current aporoved revision of drawing no. WS I-3.
The inconsistency had been documented on WS Mon:onformance Report no. 064 of May 20, 1980, which acceoted the installation as-is.
It is not clear, however, if WPPSS/Ebasco had been advised of the condition and concurred with the use-as-is disposition. This item is unresolved and will be examined further during a subsequent inspection (508/80-08-01).
d.
Review of Proiect Ouality Assurance Audit Reports
'
The insnector examined three WPPSS/Ebasco reports of QA audits performed on US. The three audits (nos. 3240-232-1 of 2/29/80; 3240-232-2 of 4/4/80; and 3240-232-3 of 6/25/80) had resulted in a total of 17 fir. dings, all but one of which had been resolved. The audits appeared to be thorough and finding resolutions (to date) appropriate.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Allegations of Improper Certification of a Receiving Inspector a.
Backaround/Allecation On August 1, 1980 the NRC resident-inspector received a letter from an individual concerning contractor's records which had-come into his possession and an allegation that he was never certified.
In a telephone interview with the i_ndividual that same day he explained that he had formerly been employed by the prime civil contractor on site (Morrison-Knudsen) as-a QC inspector but had been fired on June 26, 1980 for inadequate and incomplete docue ntation of receiving insoections he had performed in October 1979. He alleged that he had actually been fired because he made an issue of never having been certified to perform receiving inspections, yet was
-
.-
__
_
i
- ~
,-
-5-
assigned that responsibility from October to December 1979.
Specifically, the individual alleged that while his certification records show he was trained on October 3, 4, and 5, 1979 he was never trained nor given a. test to be a receiving inspector.
He explained that certain contractor records, which had been placed in his possession by persons unknown, substantiated his allegation.
Further, he provided the name of another individual who could substantiata
"
his allegation. The allegations were investigated by: reviewing
,
the documented requirements for certification of receiving inspectors;
>
interviewing individuals involved with the training, testing, and certification of the alleger as well as the individual whom the.
alleger stated would substantiate his allegation; and examining i
the records of training, testing, certification, and other quality documents.
b.
Findina The allegation was not substantiated. Neither the records nor the interviews indicated that training and examination had not been performed.
The records, which consist of three pages of a log entitled " Inspection "
'
Report Number Log" containing entries from July 25 to October 25, 1979,
!
vere mailed by the alleger to the NRC:RV office and subsequently returned to the licensee. The records were reviewed by the NRC staff and it was found that these records were not relevant to the allegation nor did they indicate any wrongdoing.
i Statements of persons interviewed'and the quality records indicate that the individual was trained, although there some inconsistency regarding the duration of training on October 3, 1979 (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> vs 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />). The records and interviews aiso indicate that the in'dTvidual was given an oral exami_ nation on October 6, 1979.
Interviewees
,
stated that the training on October 3, 4, 5, 1979 (which consisted of on-the-job work experience training) and the oral exam were somewhat
,
infornal since the individual had just recently (September 17 and 19,1979) passed written and oral tests in concrete ria:ement, concrete curing, rebar, tag control, and general inspector q..alification.
It was suggested that the individual may not have recognized the on-the-job training as formal training or the oral exam as a formal examination due to the informality of the situation.
Based on a review of ane contractor's requirements for certification it appears that the individual probably should have been-given both an oral and a written examination for certification as a receiving
,
inspector. The cognizant manager for this activity explained that in this particular case it was determined that a written test was not mandatory since the individual had previous receiving inspection
!
experience, had completed the required training, and had passed four written and oral exams in the previous month which covered most
,
'
i
- - - - -
.. -
,.
_s_
of the topics of the receiving inspector exanination. Those topics which were not covered in the prior written examinations were included in the receiving inspection oral examination, according to the individual who administered that examination.
The insoector has no further questions regarding this matter.
No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
7.
Site Tours At various times during the inspection period the inspector made tours of the Unit 3 and 5 plant island and material storage areas, examining general housekeepino conditions, OC and craft supervisory coverage of work activities, availability fo work documents, equipment calibration status, tagging and identification of materials, and protection of installed ecuipment.
While touring areas where concrete placements were in progress the inspector cbserved various occasions wnen consolidation activities did not appear to be fully consistent with ACI requirements.
It was noted that consolidation was not always accomolished in a systematic manner and that vibrator operators occasionally did not wait for all large air bubbles to surface before removing the vibrator. These concerns with consolidation practices were discussed with contractor and licensee representatives.
This matter will be the subject of further inspection (508/509/80-08-02).
On August 14, 1960 while on tour the inspector observed two craftsmen torquing hich strength b 'ts on structural steel in the southwest quadrant of Unit 3 reactor auxi;..cy building, 390 feet elevation. The inspector noted that the craftsmen completed the torquing of the joint and subsequently arplied " match narks" to give the appearance the bolts had been turned one half turn from the snug tight position after marking.
Common practice is to bring the bolts to a snug tight position, match mark the positfon of the bolt and nut, and then turn the nut or bolt approximately 180 to achieve the required torque. The inspector asked the craftsmen why they applied match marks after torquing rather than prior to torquing.
The answer provided by the craftsmen indicated they did not have an adequate understanding of the purpose and use of match marks.
The inspector then discussed with the contractor's field superintendent the craft training progran for bolting and the use of match marks.
The superintendent stated that this subject had been discussed at several standup training sessions and that charts, showing the proper use of match marks, were displayed in construction sheds and trailers. The inspector verified the existence of these charts.
The inspector subsequently observed bolting operations on eight occasions and noted that match marks were used properly, concluding that the observation on August 14, 1980 was an isolated case.
With respect to the August 14, 1980 bolting, the contractor performed a 100% recheck of bolt torque for the area in question and took action to assure the two craftsmen would not repeat the mistake. The inspector.has no further questions on this matter at this tim,
'
...
-7-
)
i 8.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. One unresolved item was identified during this inspection and is discussed in Paragraph 5.c.
9.
Management 'Meetinas Management meetings were held on August 7 and 14, 1980, with a sumary meeting on August 28, 1980.
Licensee and Ebasco representatives attending the August 28, 1980 meetino are denoted in paragraph 1.
During the meetings the inscector sumarized the scope and findings of the inspection identifying the unresolved item discursed in paragraph 5.c and the followup item discussed in paragraph 7.
Licensee representatives stated that they would review inspection findings and initiate appropriate actions.