IR 05000508/1986004
| ML20203L456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1986 |
| From: | Ang W, Dodds R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203L388 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-508-86-04, 50-508-86-4, NUDOCS 8605010266 | |
| Download: ML20203L456 (5) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ -
'
,
i f-q.' _.,
-
,
,
,,
-
_U.
S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'
REGION V_
'
,
Report No.
50-508/86-04
.
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 Nucicar Project 3
,
Inspection. conducted: March 24-28, 1986 A
I Inspector:
.
W. F. Ang, lY'oject Inspecfor Da'te signed r
'
Approved by:
R. T. Dodds,' Chief,
/~
-
d
,
Dat( Signed
,
Reactor. Projects Section 1 Surmnart:,
Inspection on March 24-28, 1986 (Report No. 50-508/86-04)
Areas Inspected: Rcutine unannounced inspection by a regionally based inspector of the readiness, review construction assurance program, licensee action on previous enforcement matters and site tour. Inspection procedures 30703, 45050, 92700, and 92701 were used for guidance.
,
.
Results: Of the areas inspected no violations or deviations were identified, t
8605010266 860414 PDR ADOCK 050005 B G
.
y-v
-
.
.
.,
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted 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
- R. L. Knawa, Construction Assurance' Program Manager
- D.
Coleman, Licensing Project Manager-
.
b.
Ebasco Services Inc.
- T.' A. Letchford, QA Engineering Supervisor
- W. K. Drinkard, Project QA Enginaer
c.
Combustion Engineering W. Douglas, Site Manager
- Attended exit interview.
2.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
3.
Independent Inspection Effort
~
The inspector conducted a general inspection of the. reactor building and portions of the auxiliary building to observe construction progress, housekeeping and storage.
I No violations or deviations were identified.
,
4.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters a.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item 81-01-03 - EBASCO
" Adequacy of Review of Contractor Submittals s
.
The unresolved item identified a concern regarding the adequacy of.
EBASCO review of Contractor Submittals..The concern was generated because of an apparent lack'of guidance provided to Resident Engineering (RE) and Site Support Engineering (ESSE) reviewers'
A
.
WPPSS QA review of the concern was documented on interoffice memorandum QA-35-83-06 dated April-19,~1983 and noted that EBASCO
+
had taken corrective action. A review of'the corrective action was1
~
i performed by the NRC inspector. The following procedures /
instructions were reviewed:
.,
>
.
$
-
F g
-
y
-
--t
-
.
.
.
,
(1) Resident Engineer Instruction 7 - Review of Technical
.
Contractor Submittal Documents (2) NY Enginee' ring Procedure E-1 --Review of Vendor Drawings.
(3) -NY E'ngineering Procedure E-7-Review'and Approval of Drawings Diagrams and Lists.
'
- The inspector noted that EBASCO RE procedures have been issued for review'of contractor submitted procedures and drawings. ESSE procedures addressed review of contractor drawings but not contractor procedures. Pending further review by the licensee to determine the adequacy of ESSE procedures for review of_ contractor
,
procedures, the unresolved item was left open.
t No violations or deviations were identified.
,
5.
Licensee Identified Items
'
a.
(Closed)~ Item 82-10-C, " Failure of Reactor Coolant Pump Diffuser Retaining Cap Screws" (10CFR50.55(e))
The licensee's final report was submitted on February 8,1983. The-licensee determined the noted discrepancy to'bc "Not Reportable".
The final report was reviewed and discussed with1the licensee and was found to be acceptable. Although the item was not reportable,
~
the discrepancy required corrective action. :The licensee dispositioned the discrepancy pursuant to site nonconformance report 02-025 that provided for the appropriate corrective action. This 10'
'
CFR 50.55(e) item is closed.
.
b.
(Closed) Item 83-01-B, "CBI Violation of Minimum Edge Distance on Structural Shapes" (10 CFR 50.55(e))-
The licensee's final report was submitted on February' 24,-1983.
The licensee determined the noted discrepancy to be "Not Reportable".
The final report was reviewed and discussed with the licensee and l
was found to be acceptable, Although the item was not reportable,
.
the discrepancy required corrective action. The licensee utilized site nonconformance report 14674 and vendor nonconformance reports 435-NS through 454-NS to provide for technical evaluation and
. resolution regarding the discrepancy.
'
The'non-reportable 10 CFR 50.55(e); item is closed.
(Closed) Item 86-63-F, " Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) Seal' Housing i
c.
Design Deficiency" (10 CFR 50.55(e))
The licensee notified RV by telephone off a potentially reportable
,
item; however, prior to the required 30 day notification, the licensee informed the NRC inspector that the item was determined to be not reportable and that a formal report would not be submitted.
The.following licensee's records were reviewed and discussed with the licensee.
!
.
u
-
T
.~.
-
gr
.
.
,
,
.
,'
3:
-
'
.
.
.
-
'
j
~
s
ERASCO Deviation / Noncompliance 10 CFR.50.55(e),Reportability
.
' Evaluation Form dated 13-25-86 for Report Number;063.
~
"-
'
'
a
.CE Field Action' Request (FAR) 8973-P50
_
,
,
'
The inspector agreed with the-licensee's evaluation that the ites was
- ~
not a 10. CFR 50.55(e) reportable item. The seal hou' sings ' for the RCP had t
,
~
not;been installed and were being prepared for. return and; repair by. CE'
.
~
'
~
.
-Corrective action'for the item was being controlled by FAR 8973-P50.'.The
..t
..D item was closed.
'
'
l'
' ~
s
,
s D
,
a
,
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
,
x 15 ;
Inspector Follow-Up Items (IFI)
.
,
_.,
(Closed)'IFI 82-11-01, " Resolution of SDCHX Safe-End a.
Concerns" The'IFI noted unacceptable liquid penetrant inspec ion;(PT)
indication had been observed on the safe-ends. The licensee /EBASCO evaluation of the concern was documented on memorandum'MOE-83-57 dated July 13,1983. ' The memorandum,~ supporting nonconformance reports, PT reports, ultrasonic-test' reports,; radiographic test reports and radiographs were reviewed andfdiscussed with the licensee and EBASCO. The following items.were noted:
(1) The PT indications observed resulted from" removal of attachments to the safe-ends that were used for holding down temporary shipping covers.
(2) All SDCHX safe-ends were PT inspected and unacceptable.
indications removed. This resulted in the replacement of the
<
north safe-end of the south heat exchanger.
(3) All SDCHX safe-end radiographs'were reviewed by.the licensee and EBASCO and found to be acceptable.
.
EBASCO QA reperformed a review of the radiographs with the NRC inspector.
No discrepancies were. identified.- The_NRC, inspector review of the PT documentation noted a lack of' clarity in the documentation for the PT; inspection of the south SDCHX south
~
safe-end., The NRC inspector requested and observed a re performance-of the PT; inspection of the south-SDCKK south safe-end by EBASCO QA.
-
No discrepancies were identified. This IFIJis closed.
b.
(Closed) IFI 83-05-02, " Completion of CE Documentation Package" The IFI identified a concern regarding verification;of completeness of data packages sent by CE to the site and subsequently turned over to CE-Avery for field ' installation without1 benefit of EBASCO
. documentation review. The licensee issued Quality Finding Report-
.g-(QFR)02-004 regarding the item. The QFR resolution resulted in-EBASCO and CE' jointly verifying all. applicable return material requests-(RMR) to assure that CE has appropriate-documentation.
In-
.
5
f
L.
_
m
-
- - -
.
c
,
,
-
'
~
-
y T 4
'
.. -
-
..
.
r
,
,,
addition,'EBASCO and CE' agreed to assure that appr,opriate~
documentation accompanied all RMR's.
A subsequent;1icensee QA,_
sampling of 22 RMR's at the CE site office confirmed complete documentation. The-inspector reviewed the CE QA Field Manual'for CE Avery Division Field Services and confirmed that, current receiving-inspection' procedures require verification of appropriate documentation. -This'IFI is closed.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Readiness Review ~ Program - Construction Assurance Program The licensee's Construction Assurance Program has been reviewed and=was approved by the NRC on February 25, 1986. ' The licensee has prepared and issued CAP procedures as part of it's Readiness' Review Manual. The CAP procedures have been reviewed by the NRC inspectors. ~ No' discrepancies were identified.
.
'
The licensee has selected a t'eam leader and a team engineer for the first CAP module - earthwork and soil compaction. The licensee has also identified prospective reviewers for the first CAP modules.. The-qualifications and records for the team leader and team engineer were reviewed by the inspector. Records for the prospective reviewers were--
,
not complete in that background checks were still;in process.
The licensee's CAP status and' schedule were reviewed and' discussed with the CAP manager. The CAP manager stated'that a schedule for module.
review would be submitted to the NRC upon finalization of the WPPSS,
-
budget and final identification of CAP resources.
'
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Exit Interview
'
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March,28, 19,86, with
'
those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
'The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. No
- ;
dissenting comments were received,from the licensee.' The-licensee did=
~
~
-
not identify as proprietary any of the. material provided to or reviewed by the _ inspector during this inspection.
'
-
,
,
V
%
,
d
.
-;
.
,
-
I
,
\\
t k
f g
s<
_.
-