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

r- s . l

.. '.

..

t ,,

tr - -*.

f g , , ;

, <. . m

.

, ;

f , , , X '? y .* *

'

• , (5 ,

e -

'

.

7. . . , - ~,. ,' ,

I, . ,

,

'I ,

f ' '

' 4 (pg, 't

'

-

,

,

'

-

!^ '

U. S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION - ~

,

,

, .

1. _ ', .,

"

'

REGIUNf.N ~ _ '"'[ s

'

, ,s s ,

, \

'

}

.. Report No. 50-508/86-0 , .

"

! Docket No. 50-508 , . . .

'.'

'

,

i

~

. .

'

'

.

ci 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, Washington

[ . .

. . . ,

a

, Inspection conducted: -February 10-14, 1986 .

>

Inspector: f0 ~ 2. IC E *

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

l Approved' By: h)

R. T. Dodds,' Chief h J!M D&t( Signed

!

Reactor Projects Section 1 l

Suassary:

,

i

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

' y>

PDR ADOCA 0500050s -

O PDR e .

-

,

'

.% ; , ., 'x '

.

'

,Et . .  %, *

.

- .;

'

= , 4 ,( , ..,. ,

s .i -

~< ' '

L_ _ m

.

. -pc .-- - - - - --~ - -- - + -

,

r. c .,:

p.,

~ .'  ;

.

,

.

-t

.. f .

'

< ,. n -

,

1 %

+ k f'

i 3- i DETAILS 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

- ' 4o *R. L. ' Knawa,' Construction Assurance Program Manager

.

i; 3

[6 4s ' b .: .Ebasco Services In A. ( 4 '

14.:

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 intervie ,

, Unresolved Items- .

I

~

'

Unreso1ved items were.not. identified during this inspection.- _ - Independent Inspection Effor '

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 identifie ,

~,

.

,

.

'

sw .

<

.

,4.,,. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters ,, .. ) ',}

+ :,te '

~. ! ,., 3' ;c%r , (Closed) Violation'83-02-01,'P-K Failure tot 0bserve Valve Position

, Hold Point: ;i,t g, , ,

n., . f. . . < , . . . . ,

,

, , ,

,, .

.

,. , 1 s e, . ,

.

..

'"

. _

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

.and discussed with the Project QA' Manager and;EBASCO QA Program Site i Manager. The inspector reviewed, n' nconfers.snce" o report i nos.' . 5803, !

,-

5866 and 5877 and their c'orresponding corrective; action. 'In 1

-

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

,

.

,

'

l

', 2 SI-VQ 008  ; i! '

~ j 2.SI-VQ 020= -.

. '2 SI-VQ 017

.

I

,

. .

"

, , y s t I

1 ,

l

. .

. j'  !

.Q -%

W ,3 ,

y, ,

,

. 1 s, , <

l

,u,r, ,j p , ' ' , ,

s !

)

+ , . ~ .

4;- 3 , 3 ,m ,

,

<q ,, . .

<

.

'

2 CH-VP 011"

~ '

, .

,

1.CH-VP 006~

ry

, ,y _

The inspector . determined that' valve position hold

points were being

'

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

,

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

,

,'the subjectnoncompliancep performed the necessary survey and g > _

-

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

.

,. .

- 2- -

closed.^

K 4 r

g, .

H j .- 3 ;b. j(Closed) UnresfI Ed' Item 85-07-01, Containment Construction Hatch

,

'

, Weld Area Configuration-

.'

[ [*. f, 'l 'The unresolved item identified a potential problem regarding the l ', ,

'

, ,s

".

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

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

, o *

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

'

- ' ' 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 close ; ;a~t >

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

"and Systems ' in, Extended Storage or, Lay-U '

1. '

,

-

2: [1 I(7- ; .

I\i '

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

'is 'improperlUstored or 1didiup'/ddring construction or extended plant 4ou,tage,' The" notice JwasPo'f'specia1~. significance for WNP-3 due to the

~

'

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 i was required. for pumps, tanks or. heat

,

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

'

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

'

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

.

'

-acceptably cleanig Al slight film of' rust-was observed in the heat 0 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

>- e and'would be' disassembled and cleaned befsre startup. . Pumps in gen'eral s- ' would 'not be periodically. internally visually inspected..due to the yo'rk

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

3 - ,

P

'

r 4; ,

• s t ,5>

v .7

. .

> < ,

g

'

• / 1 I S

. . ). -

, , ,

L

g ,

y .

. g - - - - -

p

[.[ s i- ['

gy

• -~ , '

'

'

'

• 3 . ,O ' g '

!

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

g a[q ,

-further licensee review,.the IE' Notice was left open.

~p .. . . .m

• -

No violations or deviations were. identified..

y

"

'

.

,

. . Readiness' Review - Construction Assurance Program (CAP)

'

J . 1 . . . .

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 comment w The CAP'and the response to NRC comments were discussed with the j'  ; licensee. (The111censee. intends to. submit a' revised CAP module. review

.-

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

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

~

.

l , ", michanical. engineering modules resulting in maximum usage of-team F

s

,' p . '

member '

i 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, e unresolved items, violations, 10 CFR y $* -50l$5(e)' reports, Part 21 reports, Generic Letters', Bulletins and

>

.. 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 Q g the incomplete"open items on readiness review.

,. y ). -

I' ?"' No violations or deviations were identified.

<

'

r '8.~ Exit Interview  !

!

. / ...

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 inspectio ,

,

v .. I, ) g *

'

h, '

,

,

,

g;

_s4

< "; ,<s, +

g ,

2 , [k . -,, .(;

[k , C *

'% J, 4.., a

.i' ,! ' % , .

5 J ; .4 , 's

, ,

" '

.

3 f..* < , f '. p 1'

,

• -

p vg -

,

,

l j : : J;g

. .

.e'

.

'

.

([ 5 N) '"*Af' ,,

e  ;

e * :,: ,, 5 i **'n,

' .

,

V y ' f .

k s ,

b wf '

f  %, $ ., J j l

', 5} . y ; 1 ,e 3 -

.

xy

"

h *

af . ] , , Y#

y _ ; ; y:' ~[

< a[f c <

L -o o ,;,3

, .

. .y !( - ,

n

- vy, <

L,

'

,.T/ "

'

i

'( . ' -

.

, a

. . ,.

&. ki' . .

,

, . .