IR 05000508/1986003

Insp Rept 50-508/86-03 on 860317-18.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Selected Open Issues from Previous Insp

ML20141E257
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	03/28/1986
From:	Albert W, Dodds R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20141E250	List: IR 05000508/1986003 ML20141E247
References
50-508-86-03, 50-508-86-3, NUDOCS 8604210277
Download: ML20141E257 (4)

Text

- _

< <

.

s

'

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF. INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION V

Report No. 50-508/86-03 License No. CPPR-154 f Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System Facility Name: WNP-3-

' 1

,

~

Inspection.at: Construction ' Sit'e ,'

-

, s .

Inspection Conducted: M'rch a 17-18, 1986 4 4 j

i e * .* j

. Inspecto / /r

' ' '

b -

' W. G. Albert, Redctb'r'Inspg6 tor j0 ate St'gned Approved by:

s h

IC. T. Dod6s, Reactor ProjectsSection I

~

'

.F

~/

[

tate Signe Sunmary:

Inspection on March 17-18, 1986 (Report No. 50-508/86-03[

Ar'eas Inspected: Unannounced inspection of selected open issues. This inspection-involved 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> onsite by one NRC inspecto Inspection procedure 92702 was followe ~

Results: In the areas inspected, no violations of NRC requirements were identifie .

G

!

'

(5

. s

.

DETAILS ,

,

, 1.- Individuals Contacted ,

g

'

,

I- i Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) i

'

'

+ J. R. Garvin, Quality Assu'rande Manager, (Corporate Office)" ]

D. R._ Coody, Project Quality As'surance Manage ~r - '

-

C. E. Love, Construction Manager -

'

A. G. Carlyle, Quality Assurance Engineer' 1 D. W. Coleman, Manager,-Safety Assurance ~

'

,

.? .

_,

, Ebasco Services'Inc. (Ebasco) . . .,

'

i .'

• '

'5

,

,

. ", <

"

P. L. Pitman, Quality ProgramiSite Manager +

- W. K. Drinkard, Project Quality' Engineer .

- - -

'

2.: LicenseeActiononPreviousFollow-UhandEnforcementItems (Closed) Follow-Up-(50-508/80-14/03) WPPSS/Ebasco -

QA Program Surveillance and Audit Effectiveness

'

Thisis$uewasoriginallyraisedwithregardstoafinding ~

that the licensee was tardy in identifying various problem

~

,

areas with their HVAC contractor. The item was originally written as memo'to the NRC itself for further follow-u The licensee nonetheless nearly doubled their surveillance of this contractor in the six months following the issue of Report No. 50-508/80-14.

l The licensee's actions appear prudent in view of the NRC f observation, although the suspension of' construction and the termination of the-HVAC contract no longer leaves this h issue one of practical significance. This item is close (Closed) Follow-Up (50-508/81-08-13) Ebasco - Inconsistent Definitions of Nonconforming Conditions This item originally arose when the NRC inspector observed that various definitions were being used in project documents of wnat constituted a nonconforming condition. In reviewing the issue during this inspection, the inspector compared the definitions in use with that of ANSI N45.2.10. The, ANSI

,.

.very clearly stated that questionable or indeterminate conditions constituted a nonconforming condition; this point

,

appeared to be the issue in questio It was found that l . definitions in current site docueents generally followed

[. the ANSI guidance. The only exception was the Ebasco Corporate

!

'

Manual '(ETR1001) . Ebasco personnel agreed to initiate action to provide conformance of the corporate manual to ASN Nonetheless, the inspector was satisfied that site documents now provided a clear understanding that any condition which rendered the quality of an item or service as indeterminate,

_

vould be treated as a nonconformance. This item is closed.

t i

______:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. - --

(.

-

r

..

2 4

.

c. (Closed) Follow-Up Item (50-508/81-08-22) Licensee Evaluations to Assure Procedure Comment' Resolution This item was directed to the work of J. A. Jone In a memo of April 13, 1983, the licensee's QA organization reported on a review conducted of all J. A. Jones procedures to assure that comments had been properly resolve In a memo of April 19, 1983, the licensee's QA organization reported on a satisfactory review of other principal contraccors. . This item is close d. (Closed) Follow-Up Item (50-508/81-08-24) Actions to Assure Proper J. A. Jones Concrete Placement In the original item, the NRC inspector had observed what appeared to be a weakness in the way craft personnel of J. A. Jones worked with their quality verification personnel and also a weakness in the way quality verification personnel worked among themselve The licensee had agreed to assure that appropriate corrective action was taken. As evidence of this corrective action, the licensee had records of craft training and quality verification (J. A. Jones term) trainin In neither case could the NRC inspector 1 establish that the training specifically addressed the original concern of the NRC. With the suspension of construction and the termination of the J. A. Jones contract, there is no practical way of directly determining licensee follow-up on this item. This issue is close e. (Closed) Follow-Up Item (50-508/81-09-01) Ebasco - Review of Requirements for Concrete Expansion Anchors The original item found that procedures based on Ebasco Specification WPPSS 3240-467 inadequately addressed angularity of installation and distance from discontinuities such as abandoned holes. Durir.g this inspection, it was verified that an appropriate PCP (35Q-05670) had been issued correcting the specification and that all affected contractors had been appraised of the change This item is close d. (0 pen) Enforcement (50-508/82-16-03) Ebasco Failure to Properly Classify Masonary Block Walls This item originally arose when the NRC questioned whether wall No. 41, a 23 ft, high structure in one of the diesel generator rooms, would meet seismic design criteria. A " sister" vall in the other diesel generator room was fabricated of placed concrete. In examining this issue a corollary question arose as to whether the wall had the proper quality classification since it was a seismic Class I structure which could collapse on critical, safety related ,

equipmen In reviewing this issue, the NRC inspector determined !

that it was not resolved in a aatisfactory manner. At issue are the following points:

_ _ .

' .

. 3

. Does Wall No. 41 meet' seismic design: criteria? Ebasco contends that design of the wall to UBC is satisfactory. However, a licensee design review questioned the' assumption of " rigid structure" for a wall of this type. This point ha~s not been resolve . Should the wall be a quality Class 1 structure? The licensee and Ebasco have stated that the wall is not Class 1 and cannot be Class 1 as a practical matter, when concrete blocks and mortar are used. Reinforcing steel is Class 1. To address this point a revision to the FSAR has been made. However, the NRC is not currently reviewing this FSAR and thus this question remains ope . Assuming the wall is satisfactory as a non Class I structure, (Quality Class G), has sufficient quality control been i exercised during construction to provide adequate assurance of integrity during a seismic event? Some licensee and Ebasco personnel contend that controls were adequate but available records indicate that minimal controls were exercise A compilation of records for Wall No. 41 shows only incidental mention of three visual s'irveillances by a field engineer and four concrete tracking records related to grout for block fil The contractor for this wall (CDC) did not perform safety related work on sit In the judgement of the NRC inspector the quality of Wall No. 41 is still indeterminat (Closed) Enforcement (50-508/82-19-01) Ebasco - Failure to Obtain QA Review and Approval for Deviation from Specifications This item relates to the improper use of the project change procedure (PCP) in a single instance. A licensee review of twenty-two other PCP's has shown that the responsible individual

. correctly routed the document for review in each of the other instances. Retraining was conducted. This item is close . MANAGEMENT MEETING The inspector met with the Corporate Quality Assurance Manager and the site Quality Assurance Manager to discuss the results of the inspection. The licensee agreed that additional action was required with regard to the open item on masonry block walls.