IR 05000508/1985007
| ML20210A021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1985 |
| From: | Ang W, Dodds R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210A006 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-508-85-07, 50-508-85-7, NUDOCS 8511140113 | |
| Download: ML20210A021 (4) | |
Text
.
___ _
_ _ = - - _
_ _. _
.
.
[:
t;
-
,
,
',
F U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,.
r REGION'V
. -
-
,
!
. Report No. 50-508/85-07 Docket No. 50-508
.
Construction Permit No. CPPR-154
.
- Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System. (WPPSS).
P.'O. Box 1223
. Elma, Washington 98541
- Facility Name: Washington Nuclear Project 3 Inspection at: WNP-3 Site, Satsop,l Washington-Inspection Conducted: October. 7-11, 1985.
Inspectors:
N lo-It -ff
W. P. Ang, Reattor Inspector Date Signed Approved ~By:
Yd 2/
J'
'
R. T. D6dds, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1 D4te fiigned.
Summary:
~
~
,
Inspection on October 7-11, 1985 (Report No. 50-508/85-07)
- Areas Inspected
- Routine unannounced inspection.by a-regionally based inspector of containment structural. steel welding procedures, work activities and records and site tour. This. inspection involved 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> onsite by one inspector.
Inspection procedures 55151, 55153, 55155 were used for guidance.
.
.
Results: Of the are s inspected'no violations or deviations were identified.
>
<
i
'*
,
,
,
o M
V
I"
)
,
+
i q
G,
,
--Q
%
)
p" -
%-
,,
,
t
s
=
yr
-
-
s _ -
t
,
>
. ;
.
<+
~
-
.k -
' 'S
'
-
.
__
,
'
_
>
-
,
_
'
'
~
,i.
_t
~
s a
,5-
-
,
,.
'3
&
= DETAILS
,.
,,-
.
.
.
,
,
\\
?
. -
.-
.
+
-
Persons Contacted.
'
q;
.. +
q
- 1.
j_,
's
,
-.
,
m
_,
,
,
,
Washington Public" Power Supply System;'
~
a.
x 1.w,
... ?
g
-
- R. ' N.7 Williams,; Deputy > Program Director 63._
' *C. E. ' Love,, Construction Manager i
- D. R.gCoody', Project QA' Manager ;
'
~
A. G..Carlyle, QA Engineer
'
y m
,
.
b.
Ebasco-Services Inc.
,
-
~
- RL M.' Taylor,-Cons'truction Site Manager-.
'
"
- P. L.. Pitman,l Acting; Quality Program' Site Manager
-
- R.: H. Wang,* Engineering Supervisor, 'New York !
,
,
"F. G.'Teague, Resident Engineer.
i
.
G. J. Imus,; Resident Engineer
'
D. G; McKinney, Resident Engineer _
.
^
'
V.,P. Gupta, Ebasco Site Services Engineer (ESSE)
'
s'
,
H.-Toturgul, ESSE
_,
"
,..
-
'
c.
Chicago Bridge and Iron Company(CBI)
~
~
,
^
1W. F. Walsh, District Welding;and QA"Hanager B. G. Grimsley,. Area Welding and QA' Manager)
- E. M. Grant,: Project Superintendent :
-
- a
.
' -
- J. W. Cain, Project Welding /QA Superintendent
,
- Attended exit interview.*
'
~** Contacted byjtelephone.,
-
'
.
~
$.
2.
Unresolved Items
m
,
-
,
'.
.,,., s
...-
Unresolved: items are matters about,which"more\\information_is required lto
.
2 determine whether they 'are' acceptable.or may involve violations or;
-
deviations. One'new unresolved' item identified during thisiinspection is
~
~
discussed.infparagraph5.b.",
_
a i
3.
)IndependentInspectionEffoNt=
.
'
,
-
,
f TLThe inspector conducted a general! inspection of.the reactor building and.
-
,
- portions'of the auxiliary, building ~to? observe ' construction progress and
.f,
' construction activities.such as welding,Gmaterial.handlingcand control; A
'
l housekeeping and storage.. 'In addition the inspector' discussed the '
~
licensee's:and_itsl constructor's!Preparationstfor the planned: containment'
'
'
structural integrity:testJ to a'ssess :the ' adequacy' of the:11'censee's-3 -
activities in thatJarea?
~
"
...-
l
.Within.'th,e areas examined 'no violati.o' ns. oridev.'istions'..were.' identified.
'
.
"
,
w
,
'
t
- '
'
,
,
y 4,'
,
.'+
J
[i)
-
t.
,
'
.n
.
<
e
,,
. g+
,
'
t'
_
_.,
,
,
- - -
- m n
- -
-
-
-
x.
.
.
,
-
,
,
.,
,
<
,
e
%
~K ji p-
%,
x-y J
g_
_
_
'
,
_
,
'
l'
?"'
. )_e
,
/
'
'
- ' 4.
-
-
m
,
-
,g
"
-
- m,
-
.
14. # Licensee' Identified' Items
~
^
, <
{,,,_
.
_
_
(Closed) Item 508/82-09-B "0 mission'of' Compressible Material Around
.
Containment Penetrations" (10xCFR 50.55(e)).
<
~
'
,
/The licensee's" final report was sEbmitted on February 11, 1985. The-licensee had determined that hadethe deficiencies remained uncorrected,;
-
- (
they would not'. havefadversely'sffected the, safety of the plant at anytime-
~
'
[:'
throughout_the expected-lifetime of the plant and:therefore was not
'
'
reportable in accordance'with~the 10 CFR 50.55(e)! criteria.. An analysis
!
~
_
had'been performed by;Ebasco andlCBI'that' supported this: conclusion.:
<
-
,Although the actual. analysis was,not:available on site, san Ebasco report
_
'
on'the analysis was available,Trevieked_by:the inspector and discussed:
~
with both the~ licensee'and Ebasco.; Nonconformance report (NCR)114161 y
e
,
q documente'd the~ discrepancy;and the A/E's evaluation and disposi. tion. The"
g :L
-
NCR required clarificationitofmore" clearly, document the items,being
_
y ac.cepted as-is and lthe remainder of? work' required.
T,he' licensee
~
,
u-clarified the NCR during the' inspection.;. Based'on,the' inspector's review
-
,
E
,"
' of the rlicensee's and A/E's: evaluation-and ~' disposition-_of the reported -
-
discrepancy, the 10-CFR 50.'55(e) item was closed.
_
s
_
'5.,_ContainmentSteelStructures'-Weldina'andNondestr$ctiveExamination:-~
' :
l'
,
'
eChicago Bridae and Iron (CBI), t T
y
.
.
.
.
.
.
'CBT structural steel welding activitiesMinside' containment had been-l '~
'previously inspected and 'the inspection documented on RV: inspection report 50-508/82-08. Although WNP_-3 is currently in an extended
,
construction delay phase, the licensee has? decide'd to.completeithe=
,u containment structural steel work to the extent-that would allow
S performance of._ a containmentroverpressure/ structural: integrity. test. J An -
inspection was performed to; verify licensee compliance with:FSAR r_
..
^
'
-
commitments and NRC requirements'regarding containment structural stsel-
/
,.
i
. welding...The licensee commitments lare contained'in WNP-3 FSARisectione
'
'3.8.
'
-
.
.
.
.
..
>
>
.
t
,
, Review of Quality Assurance Implementina Proceduresb
'
a.
i '.
Thefinspectors'ampledandreviewed'kheCBINuclearQualitylAssurance
"
Manual for ASME-Section.III' Products,' issue. number 10_. dated
- 1981'andWeldProcedureWS-30,WeldProc~edureSpecification]Aprilh
_
l L
E7018/74-3431LRev."S k The procedures were' reviewed for compliance'
/
'with ~the appropriate requirements of the FSAR,' th's AWS ' Structural'
-
'
'
~
Welding Code ANSI standards' and'ASME' Code.
~
'
,
,
'
'
- No violations or deviations were identified.
~
.
>
I.
..
.
.
' ^
bh Observation'of Work and Woik' Activities-
~
'
'
'
i
-
,
+
<
~
r
!4
~
The inspector observed the work' activities on' the; 32 foot diameter m
,
containment construction' hatch. S L
between the hatch barrel and head lpecifically,._ welding activities'
!
'
~
were' observed and discussed with
!
_
the-licensee, the A/E and'with CBIfpersonnel. 'The. inspector noted;-
.
,
-during this discussions that"a potential problem existed'regarding-
'thefexterior hatch to barrel weld.~ :It appeared:that? upon f f,
~
.,
,
' '
.L i,
e
'
,
M
'
h
-
'l s
s
'
Jm.
.1.
.
-
m...o
.
.
a
.
L ui ul 1.
1-.-
- - im
w w e,$ v w m g[q~
'
-[
' ^ '
/
v yp,
-
.
e
--
y'
'
<
y+
n
.
n fi
$"T?
- am' c y *,y.. lx[ ' ' ~.
,'
..l'
Tr
'
^A i,
- y
'%".$
__
.%;
x w
- ~
,p_. c
':
r
.x^
'3;
..
,
T 3 -;p
_
y
- t-
-
- %
/
f
,
e
)
%-
,
h {".Jj$(:(
)M'
2'
U,
'
'N
"
,.
K G W P &. '
,=
,
'
,
g P'#
.,
r wa<r
,
+
.
x-a y
~.
Biu ~
c
? "
'
. -
.. +
..
...
.
..,
es.
g n-A=
installation of theldesigned 1.5? inch: thick weld on the barrel'to -
@4'
f w " hatch. joint, the jointg configuration; would vary. from the originaf . # ~j u
gw'
' design in.that an edge-would be left approximately 1/2 inch Thove
-
2+
"
r
'
the weld'on the' barrel. JThe installation of more than 1.5~ inch ~ weld,
"fY#.
W i
would require post-weld heat treatment 4which(is not currently
'
W
[la
] planned. Di~scussionstwith CBI1,indicatedLthat the corrective' action 4 e
,
would beito remove'_theledgeion;the barrel'to be.in accordance with
y M
.
,
E vgz the joint' configuration.f However, CBI didinotLhave a, procedure to
,q 7.,
m
. accomplish this' work'during th'e' inspection.-.Furthertinspecg' ion of
'
t
%-
"
' '_
.CBI. contract.74-3431 drawing l64 rev.14 ; 2 32? feetLdiamet,er? '
.
.
~
'
construction hatch and~ drawing 66'rev.-2,; barrel'and,hnd' details,,-
,
indicate that'if the barreltand head'were manufactur'edin accordance ~
_.
.
(
'
- with the' drawings,'the problem.would'not exist. 1Reco~ds available r
_
"1 on site indicate that the barrer.and head had?been inspected 7"
,
,
,
,
s
'
'
'subsequenta to= manufacture and: had 'been' certified ;to be in'accordance.
,., s with the drawidas. Recoids on site'also indicate thatsthe barrel'
i t
'
A
"
inspector'alsoinoted thatino[pa' sed receipt 1 inspection ~.
and; head,hadJsatiIsfactorily s'
The
- a
~
- NCR'sthodibeen written regarding the
s" J 1 potential. problemX However,an October 510jf 1985, CBI entered item
'
'
t
,
-
number 264'os their'nonconformance'controlElist regarding the
-
.
- subject problem..During;thef nspectioni the' licensee, the A/E'and'
V i
1CBI'were unable to obtainfaccurate a:easurements of the barrel 'due, to
,
.
'
interferences'Oith h'esting element"siand the actual welding being'
S
-
<
'
-Y performed. ' Pen' ding accurateidefidition of the. potentisl problem,.
<
D evaluationiand; corrective a'ciiion,"this has,been tidentined _as
'
-
P
'
Unresolved Item
,
area con' fig'rationf508/85-07-01,"dontainmentlh
.
construction' hatch weld
y
.
' p tv
-
g u
'
'
,
.'3 LNo violations or devia,tions were 'iden'[tifle, d.
>k L
.,
-
.
~
-
'%:
1,
_
m.
x
-
n4
=c.-
Review of Records, (< \\
'~
C
.
_-
.
-
.
_
_
fp '
'
-
s y
'
"
'
'
.
.,
.
,.
' '
,
,The' inspector examined the iualificatioil testirecor$ and
'
'
l p
qualification checklists:fo'r three welders who had performed" welding.,
'
,
,
on structdralisteel discussed in paragraph 5(b). The inspector;I
.[
'
^
verified proper qualification for'the: positions'and preaesses used
-
t
-
,
'
M in accordance with the AWS Structural! Welding Code.~ :Thesinspector'
<
"
-
- ,
also examined the contractor's method fortensuring tn t
. (
".;, * _ Jgualifications of the Level II '(liquid penetrant), examiner discussed
.qualificatifons were being maintained.' The inspector examined ther (
' " N,.
'
t (
[
. ci
m
.;
'
.
~ W~
in paragraph ~5(b) for compliance:with the' requirements of ANST-TC-1A.4
~
.
,
~
Y<
-(1975);
A
'
'
'
4, m,.
. - /
.,,
,
y.
&
J,.
.
.
,
,
f; ; y
,
i
-
e-L n F.
..
.
.
T
-.
,
r 1.
.' N5
'
' #: s
'
e-m
..n'~#
= No violationsfor/ deviations'were identified.".
A %. * g-
-
51,
, >
.v s
p rn -
m
,
cm i e
.
.
-
-
.
e
,
jt
,-p'.
,,,.,,-
j
,
.'
t
-
j.. c 4,, g a,
<
- 4
. +qm c
.
".
M^
.
+
y_ m 16.e : Exit 1 Interview ?
-
- ' '
~
,.sW'u M
'
/
.
,
^
-; ~ j
,,
v
_
"
j
.
...
... vr-
. :. +
.
L 41 :
..W
. ::
a
.
-L;>
_
-
>
_
.
.
r
~
.
,
3;~b 2 j:" 'The? inspection scope;and findings lwere summarized-on: October..11,11985,j;ef
'
%
~
with-those^personseindicatedlin paragraph'1. The' inspector described th 4$
- areas inspected and;discussedLin detailtthe inspection" findings., No1 f "y
,,
~
> '
,
~
Mg6 * " j [dissentingMomme'nts were?receivedifrom:the flicensee.The*1icensee ^did T '
'
l' ~
,1 ff gnot identifyfas_proprietaryfany of.the material.provided to or; reviewed P:
f-
,
t
e9 i-7 1 iby tthe} inspector during ;this ? inspectionk f N ' %. ',. *
,' g. 3
-
o-
'S g-
9
-
.
o g..,
m
-
w
,
,
,
.
I
'
~
\\? j^ >
>
- _
'
' -
,.
,~
.n
- 's.
i.
y
-
<
-
t
+q-
,
,..
-
,
,
'
'
,
,,
v+,',I/(
YM
- jf j-b
.
g. g
+
,-
,
,
s s.,y;
":.
<
a
,
- +
,
e
,
' '
.
s7 D')..
i43
-
)i
'.[ ;
,
.
-'
'f f'g
,
,
,3
+
.; [_
.
- y d NQ.5IY.
"
'
,
,
..
<
~,
'L f }l'.
At
^
~
'
s-g
},f f Y
,
t
~;'d
'
l
'e
'*
, -..-
.
..
- 'a;*-
-.
-