IR 05000508/1986002

Insp Rept 50-508/86-02 on 860210-14.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Readiness Review Const Assurance Program,Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters & Site Tour

ML20141N932
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	03/03/1986
From:	Ang W, Dodds R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20141N927	List: IR 05000508/1986002 ML20141N926
References
50-508-86-02, 50-508-86-2, IEIN-85-056, IEIN-85-56, NUDOCS 8603180290
Download: ML20141N932 (4)

Text

l r-

..

t s.

- -*.

.. '.

,,

tr

,

f.

. m

.

f

. *

'

g

<.

,

,,

X

'?

y f

• , (5

,,

,

'

,

.

7..., -

~,.,'

-

e

,

I,

.

' 4 (pg,

't

-

,

'I

f

' '

,

,

,

'

-

,

!^

U. S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION -

'

'

REGIUNf.N ~ _

',

~

,

,

.

1. _

.,

,

'"'[

s

"

'

'

,s s

,

,

\\

,

'

}

.. Report No. 50-508/86-02.

,

.

-

!

Docket No. 50-508

...

'.

"

'

~

,

,

'

'

i

..

.

ci

'

Construction Permit No. CPPR-154

'

<

('~

Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)

Licensee:

P. O. Box 1223

'

Elma, Washington 98541 (

Facility Name: Washington Nuclear Project 3

[' -

-

,

[-

Inspection at:. WNP-3 Site, Satsop, Washington

[

.

.

.

-February 10-14, 1986 a

, Inspection conducted:

.

.

,

.

>

Inspector:

f0

~ 2. IC E

l W. P.. Ang, Project Inspector Date Signed

>

Approved' By:

h)

h J!M l

R. T. Dodds,' Chief D&t( Signed

!

Reactor Projects Section 1 l

Suassary:

,

. Inspection on February 10-14, 1986 (Report No. 50-508/86-02)

e i

Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection by a regionally based inspector of the-readiness review construction assurance program, licensee

,

'

action'on previous enforcement matters and site tour. This' inspection

. involved.31 hours3.587963e-4 days <br />0.00861 hours <br />5.125661e-5 weeks <br />1.17955e-5 months <br /> onsite by one inspector.

Inspection procedures 63050,

,

t 35060 and 92702 were used for guidance.

[

Results: 0f the areas inspected no violations.or~ deviations were identified.

L

!

p-I.

>

i

.

i

.

l

'

l i-

'

c j

86031802W) 860;.104 PDR ADOCA 0500050s

' y>

-

O PDR e

.

-

.

-

'x

'

'

.% ;,

.,

,

'

,Et..

%,

.

=, 4,(,

..,.

-.;

'

,

~<

' '

L_

_

m s.i

-

.

. -pc

.-- -

-

-

-

--~

-

-- - +

-

,

p.,

~

.'

r. c

.,:

.

- t

,

.

.. f

.

<

,.T.

'

n

-

,

%

+

ki DETAILS f'

3-i j y.(

,

,

.

-

'%

,

'y fl.-

Persons Contacted-

'

k-a.[ ' Washington Public Power Supply System

.

P.~D. Olson, Program Director

,

• C. E. Love, Deputy Program Director

.

• M. M. Monopoli, Plant Manager

.

• D. R.; Coody Project QA Manager

<

• E.' A.. Stauffer,: Plant QA Manager k

s.

~

4o

• R. L. ' Knawa,' Construction Assurance Program Manager

- '

.

[6 i;

34s

' b.:.Ebasco Services Inc..

A. (

14.:

4 '

N,': O y

. *J. Crnich,2 Project General Manager V '

• R. M.' TayJor, : Site Construction Manager

-*P. L. Pitman, Acting Quality Program Site Manager'

'

-

• W...K.' Drinkard,' Project.QA Engineer

,

.

-

• Attended; exit interview.

-

,

,

2.

-Unresolved Items-

,

,

.

I

~

Unreso1ved items were.not. identified during this inspection.-

'

s.

_

-3.

Independent Inspection Effort.

'

M.,

-

~

..

-The inspector conducted a genera 1' inspection,of the reactor building ~and

. portions.of the auxiliary building'to observe construction progress and"

.

o;;

housekeeping and' storage.,

g,,

'

No violations'or deviations were identified.

,

~,

.

<

'

.

,

.

sw w.

.

,4.,,. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters

.. )

',}

,,

+ :,te

c%

'

u.

~. !

3'

r

,.,

,

a.

(Closed) Violation'83-02-01,'P-K Failure tot 0bserve Valve Position Hold Point:

i,t g,

,

,

,

n.,.

e,

.

,

.

,

f.

.. <,....,

,

,

,

,,

.

s

.

,.

,

..

, Supply System' letter of response dated [ March,30,.1983 was reviewed

!

. _

'"

.and discussed with the Project QA' Manager and;EBASCO QA Program Site i

The inspector reviewed, n' nconfers.snce" report i nos.'. 5803,

!

Manager.

o 5866 and 5877 and their c'orresponding corrective; action. 'In

,-

-

addition'the inspector", selected"theffollowing valves.. randomly and reviewed the in line weld.jointerecord;to.idatermine if other contractors performing similar' activities.cootrolled"the valve

~

-

position verification in a.'similar manner.,<.

,

,

- +

.s

.

,

',

'

2 SI-VQ 008

~

j

i! '

2.SI-VQ 020=

-.

'2 SI-VQ 017

.

.

,

.

v.

.

,,

y

"

t s

I

,

. s.

.

. j'

.Q

-%

!

W,3 y,

. 1

,

,

,

s,

,

<

,,j p, ' '

2.

s

,

,

-

,r,

)

u

+

,.

~

.

,

4;- 3

,m

,

,

<q

,,.

.

<

.

2 CH-VP 011"

'

~

a.

'

1.CH-VP 006~

,

,

.

ry

The inspector. determined that' valve position hold

points were being

,y

_

Lobserved by~MK/ESI/ LORD.for:the sample selected. 'The inspector

,

.

'

concluded that thefSupply System.had determined the full extent of m-

,

,

,'the subjectnoncompliancep performed the necessary survey and

,

m follow-up, actions for the subject noncompliance. The violation was g

_

-

>

.

closed.

2-

-

-

,..

^

K

.

j(Closed) UnresfI Ed' Item 85-07-01, Containment Construction Hatch

r g,

H j

3 ;b.

.-

,

Weld Area Configuration-

'

,

.'

[

[*.

f,

'l 'The unresolved item identified a potential problem regarding the

'

".

fabrication and installation ^of.th'e containment construction hatch l ',,

,

,

,s in the weld' area of.the' barrel to head weld.

Inspection report C

~

- 508/85-10 reviewed' licensee, AE and CBI action in response'to this

~

-

S item;but left the' item open pending further evaluation and

- /

letermination of any further corrective action regarding the barrel

,n

..

3'

'

• fabrication and source: inspection. 'During-this inspection, CBI y,

letter'213EB-85-WBC-20 dated' November-27,'1985'was. reviewed and g

,

o

' ' discussed with the licensee. The ' letter addressed the remaining l'

'

-

'

' conc'ern fod the unresolved item. The licensee was satisfied with

.

~

s, the CBI~ action and. considered the item to bi an isolated case.

In

'

..

addition the licensee stated that'no further CBI work is anticipated

cfor WNP-3.. The, licensee also stated _that'the Supply System is now w

.doing'all sou'rce' inspection. ~The unresolved item was closed.

'

t

n.

a~

>

5.' -

(open)1IE'Notici.85-56 - Ina'deq ate. Environment' Control for Components

"and Systems ' in, Extended Storage or, Lay-Up.

'

1. '

,

2: [1 I(7- ;

.

I\\i '

-

. The'IE Notiee' informed,licenseesiof problems which can occur if equipment

,

'is 'improperlUstored or 1didiup'/ dring construction or extended plant d

4ou,tage,' The" notice wasPo'f'specia1~. significance for WNP-3 due to the J

current' extended construdsion' delay'oflthe plant. - The inspector reviewed i.he WNP-3 preservat.iun7of JAss'ets-preventative Maintenance Program,

~

'

revision,12;(with*the' licensee 3 During this review,.the inspector noted that;no31nternaljvisual ' nspectiori was required. for pumps, tanks or. heat i

.

,

The,in' pector ' selected two motor driven auxiliary feedwater-exchangers;:

. s

,

pumpsj four DG "Jacliet' cooling water.' heat exchangers and two refueling

'

z water,stofage.tinnks for inspection." Receiving inspection records for the

'

• pumps and;the Diesel Generator >Asse'ablies were reviewed and found to

'

y include source' inspection'for, cleanliness and' receiving inspection for

,

adequacy of seals;and caps. The' tanks and the heat exchangers=were T

- internally visually ' inspected by the NRC ' inspector and found to be l

'

-acceptably cleanig A slight film of' rust-was observed in the heat

.

'

exchanger internals. The pumps could not be internally visually inspected without; disassembly of the pump. The.above noted conditions

' " -

..were discussed with the licensee. The licensee: indicate Fthat the

~

~

auxiliary feedwater pumps already:had maintenance work; requests issue and'would be' disassembled and cleaned befsre startup.. Pumps in gen'eral

> -

e

' would 'not be periodically. internally visually inspected..due to the yo'rk s-

.i effort required for disassembly. However, the licensee further-indicated thatthepumpswouldbemonitoredduringthetestprogramupgresumptior.'

P

-

,

4;

,

'

r v.7 0.

s t

,5>

>

<

.

.

,

g

'

/

I S

)

L

... -

,,,

g

,

y

.

.

g

-

-

- - -

p

[.[

i-

['

• -~, '

s p.

4.

gy

'

'

'

,O ' g y.

.

M

'

'

.

v.,

'

,

N,

'of plant completion. The licensee agreed-to:further review the l

preservation. program to determine the need for internal visual inspection

,

l of items.that.could be inspected without extensive disassembly. Pending g a[q-further licensee review,.the IE' Notice was left open.

g

,

~p

...

.

.m

• -

No violations or deviations were. identified..

,

y

.

.

6.

. Readiness' Review - Construction Assurance Program (CAP)

'

"

'

J

.

.

.

.

.

Supply System' letter.G03-85-563~ dated September 25, 1985 submitted its Q[bpi CAP for NRC review. NRC provided its comments to the WNP-3 CAP by a RV p

... letter 1. dated Noves:ber 20',;1985.. ' Supply System letter G03-86-026 dated

'

' l..

January 39, 1986 provided the licensee's response to the NRC comments.

'

.

w The CAP'and the response to NRC comments were discussed with the

 ; licensee. (The111censee. intends to. submit a' revised CAP module. review j'

.-

y., schedule to reflect a rearrangement'of the. sequence of modules reviewed.

- Thxe" intended sequence 'would allow civil engineering' modules to overlap

.

l

",

michanical. engineering modules resulting in maximum usage of-team

~

.

,

,' p.

members.

F

'

'

i s

c. F. 7

'

7-

..

.

.. -

The: inspector also reviewed with the CAP manager a'nd QA manager a. listing

,, @ 'of open inspector follow up it'ns, unresolved items, violations, 10 CFR e

,

$*

-50l$5(e)' reports, Part 21 reports, Generic Letters', Bulletins and y

Notices. 'It was noted that licensee action.for approximately half of the

>

..

r

items,had been reported to be complete and could be reviewed during L

' readiness review. :The' licensee was requested to determine the impact of Qt.

the incomplete"open items on readiness review.

g

,. y

).

-

I'

?"'

No violations or deviations were identified.

<

'

'8.~

Exit Interview

!

r

!

. /

...

The inspection scope and findings were' summarized on November 21, 1985,

with those persons indicated. in pararraph 1.

The inspector described the are.g. inspected'and discussed in detail the inspection findings. No

,

dissenting comments we e received:from the licensee. The licensee did

,

f not identify as proprietary any of,the material provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.

,

,

v..

s.

I, ) g *

h,

'

'

,

,

_s4

,<s,

,

g;

< ";

g

,

+

2, [k.

[k, C

-,,

.(;

'% J, 4..,

a

. i ',! ' %,

.

5 J ;.4,

's

" '

f..*

<,

,

f '. p 1'

• -

,

.

,

p vg l j g.

: J;g

.e'

,

-

,

'

..

.

.

([ 5 N)f.

'"*Af'

,,

e

• :,:,, 5

• • 'n, e

'

V y ' f.

k b wf

.

i

'

,

s

,

.

%, $

J l

', 5}. y ; 1

f

.,

j

,e 3 -

xy

"

h af

. ]

Y#

,,

a[f y _ ; ; y:'

~ [

c

<

L

<

- o

,.

o,;,3

..y

!( -

n

,

<

vy,

-

L,

.

,.T/

"

'(

. '

'

'

-

i

,

a

&. ki'l

.

.

,

,

.

.

,.

.

.

.