IR 05000528/1978002

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Repts 50-528/78-02,50-529/78-02 & 50-530/78-02 on 780410-14.Noncompliance Noted:Drawing Control Inadequate
ML20134B596
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Palo Verde
Issue date: 06/13/1978
From: Garvin L, Pate R, Spencer G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML17198A269 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-84-293 50-528-78-02, 50-528-78-2, 50-528-78-3, 50-529-78-02, 50-529-78-2, 50-530-78-02, 50-530-78-2, NUDOCS 8508150684
Download: ML20134B596 (9)
v • d • e


Text

-

--

,

_

_

_.

_

__ ____

-

.

,

,

.

.

.

U. S. MUCLEAR REGUIATORT COMMISSION

.),

OFFICE OF INSFECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

.

.

i 50-528/78-03

REGION V

'

50-529/78-02 i

Report No. 50-530/78-02

Docket No. 50-529. 529. 530 License No. CPPR-141.142 & 143 Safeguards Group i

l Licensee: Arizona Public Service Company l

P. O. Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036

Facility Nems: Palo Verde Units 1. 2 and 3

!

Inspection att Palo Verde Site. Maricopa County, Ari:ona l

Inspection conducted: April 10-14, 1978 Inspectors:

t4MI

/M M/d

,

t..J.G(rvin,ReactorInspector

'Datt signed

,

A 0 hn G/3*/PR R. f Pate, Reactor Inspector Ddte Signed

'

i

\\

Data Signed

'

'

Approved By:

/

64, 6 d//'3/78

!

G.S. Spencer [ Chief, Reactor Construction and Dece Sisned Engineering Support Branch

Summary:

I I

Inspection on April 10-14. 1978 (Report No. 50-528/78-03, 50-529/78-02.

50-530/78-02)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, unannounced ins *pection of con'struction activities including: Follow-up items, tour, audits, nonconforming

'

reports, containment welding, drawing control and pipe welding.

The inspection involved 75 inspector-hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.

Results: One item of noncompliance was identified in the area of drawing control.

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified j

in the other areas inspected.

l

.

.

.

,

)

050703 293 PDH RV Form 219 (2)

-

ww

_ --

-

--

-

,,.,

,,m__.

-

-,,

--

m-y

-

. -.

.

-

-

..

- _.. _ -

.

.

.-.

.-

.

.-

.'

.

.

-

a

,

'

.

.

DETAILS

.

.

1.

Persons Contacted

,

,

.

Principal Licensee Employees t

  • R. L. Hand. ANPP Site Quality Assurance Manager

,

i R. D. Forrester. Quality Assurance Er.sineer D. D. Webster. Quality Assurance Engineer

G. Pankonin. Quality Assurance Engineer i

  • E. E. Van Brunt. Jr. Vice President / Project Director j
  • R. L. Robb, Assistant Project Director

-

-

  • L. W. Price. Field Engineer Supervisor l

W. Hartley, Plant Manager

.

Other Personnel

!

  • C. Betzhold. Project QA Engineer

-

!

  • S. R. Abraham. Resident Engineer

M. E. Rosen. Lead QC Engineer

,

J. Beers. Lead Civil Engineer

'

'

R. E. McConkey Lead Field Welding Engineer

'

C. F. Gaither. Supervisor of Office Administration

,

i

  • L. G. Hinkelman. Vice President and Manager,of Domestic Operations
  • G. N. Robinson, Project Cost / Schedule Supervisor
  • J. D. Houchen. Assistant Project Manager
  • N. G. Bingham Project Engineer Manager
  • J. A. Packard. Field Construction Manager
  • A. K. Priest. Project Field Engineer

'

  • W. G. Henry, Manager of Construction R. V. Thornton, NDE Specialist T. D. Todd QC Welding Engineer 8. G. Jackson Field Welding Engineer i

j J. Pfunder. QA Engineer

-

L. 81ackbunn. QC Supervisor

.

j J. Smith. QC Clerk

~i W. Sears. QC Engineer D. McKaskill Welding QC Engineer D. Mehrhoff. QA Engineer L. Wilkie. QA Engineer

.

t G. Thompson, Warehouse Supervisor

!

  • Denotes those attending exit interview.

2.

Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findinas i

a.

(Closed) Noncompliance (50-528/78-01):

Excessive weld l

reinforcement on containment liner weld.

!

!

.

_ - - _ _ _

,-

,--

,

.

._.-

,_ -

-

.,

.

_

_

_.

-!

.

-

,

,

,

f-2-

,,,,,

,

,

'

The nonconfomance r'eport (NRC) No. WC-041 was reviewed.

The licensee had removed the excessive weld reinforcement and had provided instructions to the QC personnel on the proper method of weld reinforcement measurement. A random selection of

.

welds on the containment liner was observed and all weld reinforcement was within the required tolerance.

t

'

b.

(Closed) Deviation (50-528/77-02,03,04and78-01):

Con-tractor weld filler meterial control procedure did not allow

for the control of low hy'drogen covered weld filler material

,

'

in accordance with AWS 0.1 requirements.

A review of the revised procedures for the control of low a

hydrogen covered welding electrodes and observation of the implementation of the revised procedures established that

.

these procedures now invoke all pertinent AWS 01.1 weld rod i

control requirements for the quality related work of Palo Verde Units'1, 2 and 3.

j i

i c.

(Closed) Open Itan (50-528,529,530/78-01):

Conflict of -

!

liner plate anchorage detail in the Palo Verde PSAR.

The licensee had submitted a PSAR deviation to change PSAR Figure 38.1-1 to show the vertical liner plate anchors as 3" x 2" x 1/4" angle iron.

This now agrees with the description

,

in PSAR Sections 38.1.5.3 and 38.1.5.5.

d.

(Closed) Open Item (50-528,529,530/78-01): Documentation

of QA personnel semiannual training..

!

The records of the QA training session held for all QA and Nuclear Services personnel were reviewed.

The training sessions held on February 22-23, 1978 meet the requirements of QAD 2.2, Section 4.1.4.

e.

(0 pen) Open Item (50-528/78-01)':

Rejection of major component hold-down belts.

i

,

The licensee had rejected 17 bolts and accepted 54 additional i

defective bolts based on individual calculations for each bolt

!

as reported in Inspection Report 50-528/78-01.

The licensee

.

determined that the problem was not reportable under 10 CFR l

50.55(e), but agreed to submit a report consistent with the requirementsof50.55(e). As of April 24, 1978, the report was not complete. However, the licensee reconfimed that the report would be submitted.

,

o I

,

e

... _...., _

., - _..

-, _ _

_..

.._____-.__.___._m

._.

.,,,. _ _, -, -

--.

-.

.-

--

_

_ _ _ - _

___

'

,~

.

...

-3~

. ;) $

3.

Reactor Containment Liner'

a.

Erection The construction specification for the fabrication and erection *

of the containment liner plate (13 CM 370) was revised to allow a maximum reinforcement of 5/32 inch on the horizontal liner plate welds with the automatic submerged are process.

Only the areas to be radiographed will be ground to a maximum reinforcement of 3/32 inch.

This is contrary to the require-ments of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III.

Division I, which allows a maximum weld reinforcement of 3/32 inch on 1/4 inch plate.

The licensee stated that the maximum reinforceeent 5/32 inch would not compromise the workmanship quality. This will be held as an open item until the effect, if any, of increasing the weld reinforcement from 3/32 to 5/32 inch can be determined.

b.

Record Review

.

The field welding checklists, as well as the radiographs for 19 feet of liner plate welds on horzontal seams H6 and H7, were examined. No deficiencies were disclosed during the examinations.

.

4.

Ecutoment Storage The shutdown heat exchangers were observed in the auxiliary building.

The licensee personnel advised the heat exchangers were being stored "in place." The NRC inspector noted that the storage in-struction attached to the vessels stated that the vessel should be pressurized with nitrogen or protected by desiccant.

The heat exchanger vessels did not appear to be pressurized with nitrogen as no filling nozzles or pressure gauges were in evidence. Also, there were no visible indicators for humidity control.

The NRC inspector was advised that the licenske had already identified that the storage of non-rotating equipment did not meet the requirement of ANSI N45.2.2. As the licensee has an open item in this area, the corrective action obtained by the licensee will be reviewed in a future inspection. This is an open item.

5.

Auxiliary Buildino Foundation a.

Observation of Work and Work Activities The backfill and compaction testing for the Power Block 1 Area F Elevation 87.0 was observed.

The compaction was accomplished with hand operated compaction machines.

The field test indicated the compaction was greater than the 95f.

required.

No nonconformances were noted.

.

- -

.

.

.

.

. - _.

.

._.

... -.

_ _..

'

.'

,.

.

.

.

.

~

l 6

.

b.

Review of Records

The backfill of records of the trench around the Unit No.1

'

reactor and auxiliary building up to elevation 34' - 39' were i

reviewed.

The construction inspection planning, field com-

'

paction and laboratory compaction records were included.

No

,

'

aonconformances were noted.

!.

6.

Electrical Tray Supports l

During a tour of the auxiliary building, the inspector noted that Uni-Strut (prefabricated bolted construction) was being used for d

J the electrical tray supports.

Since Uni-Strut is supplied in

.

'

standard design shapes and sizes and not specifically designed for

!

a single application, the inspector requested the seismic qualifi-i cation records.

The records were not onsite, but the licensee

.

stated that the records would be made available for the next inspection.

'

j 7.

Drawing Control

,.

.

>

j Twenty drawings were selected at random from field work stations (metal print / tool shacks).

The following drawings were observed to

,

be the wrong revisior or to have change documents missing.

{

Drawing Number Location Connient

!

13-C-ZAS-210 Carpenter Shack Revision 8 is Revision 7 latest revision

!

13-C-1AS-127 Iron Worker's FCR's not with j

Revision 4 Shack Dwg. 779, 1349 Stick Al-03 1443-C-1-3

,

i C111-641-6 Iron Worker's Marathon Dwg. should

.

Shack be C111-641-8 (Rev.8)

l

,

'

C111-856-4 Iron Worker's Should be Shack C111-856-5

,

C111-C55-4 Iron Worker's should be Shack C111-C55-5

'

I 13-C-ZRE-601 Pipe Fitter DCN 2 & 3 not

.

Revision 2 Stick Al-05 wi th-dwg.

>

13-P-SIF-207 Pipe Fitters FCR 1009 and 994P Revision 5 Stick Al-05 not with dwg.

'

13-P-ZZG-016 Pipe Fitters DCN-1 not with

-

Revision 1 Stick Al-05 dwg.

li.

!

. -.

_ _..-

..

. _ _,.

-. _ _ _.

. _..

.

.

,

,,

_ -. - - - _. - _,.

. _,,.-

,,.

-.

-

_

--

. -

- - -. _ _

-

_ _.. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

.

.

,

+

.. l i.

.

.

.

,

13-C-ZAS-119 Pipe Fitters Following documents

'

Revision 9 Stick Al-06 not with dwg:

'

DCN-22, FCR-779 FCR-817, i

FCR-929, FCR-1041 FCR-580-i FCR-1238, FCR-1222 FCR-1349 From this random sampling, it appears likely that some of the

-

i drawings being used by the workers are not the latest revision or

!

have missing change documents.

'

Four construction workers were interviewed at their work location

'

~

and asked what drawing they were using for the work in progress.

i In each case, the workers or the worker's foreman accompanied the inspector to the print / tool shack and selected the drawing being used.

The following is the result of the interviews:

l a.

Drawings being used were 13-E-ZAC-007 Revision 5 and 13-E-ZAC-l 045 Revision 4.

Drawings were the latest revision, but the i

worker was not following one dimension on the drawing due to.

!

an expected drawing change to clear an interference.

,

'

j b.

Drawings being used were 13-E-ZAC-008 Revision 5 and 13-E-ZAC-

!

046 Revision 3.

Drawing 13-E-ZAC-046 should have been Revision 4.

I c.

Drawings being used were latest revisions.

!

!

d.

Drawing 13-10407-C111-F45-5 was being. used, but it was marked up to' reflect a verbal change provided by the Field Engineer.

The inspector was advised that changes.to the Marathon drawings

,

'

,

on change notices (VRCN's) were not provided to the workers.

i therefore, verbal notification was used.

This is contrary to

,

!

Criterion VI of 10 CFR 50. Appendix B which states in' part

!

that drawings and changes to drawings which affect quality are to be be distributed to and used at the location where the i

prescribed activity is performed *.

!

From the interviews conducted, it would appear that workers are not

always using the latest drawings.

However, the inspector did note that in each case, the qualigy of the installation did not appear to be compromised when the out-of-date drawing or verbal instructions were followed.

This is an open item.

i 8.

Site Tour

During a tour of the three-unit facility, it was disclosed that

,,'

Unit No.1 was 24.7% completet Unit No. 2 was 7.3% complete; and

'

i Unit No. 3 was 0.9% complete.

Equipment storage, liner plate i

welds, reinforcing steel placement, concrete placement and back-

'

filling were observed.

i f

g

...

.

..

-.__...___,__a..

. _ _

. _ _ _.,,

_,. _ _ _ _ - _. - _.,

_ _ _, _ _,, _

.

.

..

__

.,.

--

.

-

.

,-

'

.

.

.

-6-

.

.

Inprocess reinforcing ste'el inspection was discussed in light of the mass of steel being placed in the steam generator supports.

-

Concern was expressed tnat unless inspection was performed on a day-to-day basis, the placement could not be acceptably inspected.

These inprocess inspections should be documented.

This item will

-

,

be examined further during the next inspection.

No other items of concern were disclosed during the tour.

9.

Pipe Installation a.

Procedure Review

-

The Bechtel quality control instructions for welding, weld electrode issue, stud welding, pipe supports and hangers, and

,

I pipe systems were reviewed.

.

l No deficiencies were disclosed during the procedure review.

!

b.

Radicaraoh and Record Review

.

!

'

The weld traveler (WR-5 form), Bechtel NOE report and the Peabody Testing Radiographic Report for the following pipe i

welds were reviewed. Additionally, the radiographs associated with these welds were examined.

-

S1-A-105-CCBS Weld 00AB S1-A-103-CCBA Weld WOOE

Sl-A-079-FCBA Wald WOO 8 CH-A-424-GCBC Wald WOO 2

-

51-B-034-GCBC Weld WOO 6.

S1-B-034-GCBC Weld WOOL 51-B-194-GCBC Weld WO15 i

CH-8-425-GCBC Wald WOO 2 PC-E-ll7-HCBA Wald WOO 2

'

S1-A-067-GCBC Weid WOO 3

'

The qualifications of the Bechtel film interpreter were also examined.

g No itamu of noncomplaince or deviations were noted during the record and radiograph examination, c.

Examination of Finished Welds Several welds that had been completed in the field were examined.

Wald SIS B119 FCBA 10" WOO 8 appeared acceptable.

!

However, Weld SIS 119 5006 appeared to have areas of scale or slag adhering to the weld surface.

Since few field welds had been completed, the subject of visual inspection of welds will

,

be examined during the next inspection.

4

_,. -

--

-. - -, -, _ -, - -.

.,

_

-.,

_

y

.. -

r

-

.-

.

...

.

-7-

,,,

.

A QC inspector was questioned in an attempt to ascertain the visual inspection acceptance standards that applied to the

'

above welds. He had difficulty negotiating his way through the various procedures that apply to piping, never arriving at -

the proper acceptance criteria.

His supervisor finally i

showed him which sub-procedure applied to the subject pipe welds.

The training of inspectors and the complex procedures associated with pipe welding will be examined during future

!

inspections.

'

10. Audits

.

Three audits that were conducted by the Bechtel QA group were reviewed.

These audits were:

)

Concrete placement No. 22-78-5-15 Field piping fabrication No. 28-78-S-19

Containment Liner Plate No. 70/49-78-S-9 i

The audits were well scoped, identified areas that required cor-l rective actions, and verified that these corrective actions had

'

been accomplished. No anomalias were noted during the audit

'1 review.

11. Reactor Vessel On January 12, 1978, the Unit 2 reactor vessel upper assembly, which was in the process of being moved, underwent a " controlled drop." Combustion Engineering has investigated and reported to ANPP. Combustion Engineering stated that additional volumetric nondestructive examinations of the welds on the upper vessel assembly will be undertaken at a 'aten date.

The results of these examinations will be reviewed by.the IC inspector. This item will runnin open.

,

12. Shop Pipe Welding During the tour of the facility, shop pipe welds were observed.

The MW Kellogg Company welds appeared to contain areas of scale / slag.

The inside of 151-308-S-009 Weld A appeared to either contain areas of incomplete fusion or internal undercut.

The radiographs of this weld did not confim either observation.

The entire area of vendor piping welds will be investigated during the next inspection.

.

r

-

'

..

.

,

.

~8~

. 16

,

,

,

13. Nonconformance Reports (NCR)_

The civil NCRs were reviewed.

No anomalies were noted during the

.

.

examination of the NCRs.

,

14.

Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (noted in Para-graph 1) at the close of the inspection. The irspectors expressed their concern about drawing contr61 practices.

(Paragraph 7)

.

.

e e

b

.

m e

i

.

.

W 9

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000528/1978002&oldid=4233941"