IR 05000528/1978006
| ML17296A277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1978 |
| From: | Bishop T, Haynes R, Vorderbrueggen NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17296A276 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-78-06, 50-528-78-6, 50-529-78-05, 50-529-78-5, NUDOCS 7901100378 | |
| Download: ML17296A277 (20) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFU1ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT 50-528/78-06 50 529/78
50-528 Docile~ No.
"-"'EGION V
CPPR-141 License No.
Safeguards Group Qe Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.
Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Facility Name:
Palo Verde Units 1 and
Inspection at Pal o Verde Si te, MaricoPa County, Arizona I
inspecti~o ondu
.
October 2-6, 1978
/
Inspectors:
I 4.
I
~
~
L.
E derb eggen, Reactor Inspector (
'.
'll
'shop,,
actor Inspector
+ G. Hernandez, actor Inspector
I2/I g6 Date Signed
>>/il~s Date Signed jz/i /7s Date Signe Approved By:
(~/>/7e
+~ R.
C.
Haynes Chief, Projects Section, Reactor Gate Sipned Construction and Engineering Support, Branch Sutrmary:
Inspection on October 2-6, 1978 (Re ort Nos. 50-528/78-06 and 50-529/78'-05)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activities inc udsng:
follow-up on open and noncompliance items, aggr egate stockpiling, containment concrete, structural steel, safety related piping, safety related components, and safety related supports.
The inspection involved 81 hours9.375e-4 days <br />0.0225 hours <br />1.339286e-4 weeks <br />3.08205e-5 months <br /> onsite by three NRC inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during this inspection.
7sou.oz~zg'E:Y Form 219 (2)
'i p>f()P.",
DETAILS Persons Contacted Arizona Public Service Com an
- J
- W
- L
- R.
G.
R.
A. Roedel, guality Assurance Manager M. Petro, ANPP Construction Manager W. Price, Field Engineering Supervisor, L. Hand, Site guality Assurance Supervisor Pankonin, guality Assurance Engineer D. Forrester, guality Assurance Engineer
'echtel'Power Cor oration
- J
- A S.
C.
- J
- C.
A J.
t1.
- H.
L.
G.
R.
M.
L.
R.
L.
M.I.
J, W.
M.
R.
V.
G.
L.
W.
A.
R.
J. Stubblefield, Field Construction Manager W. Bashore, guality Assurance t1anager, L. A.
Popover Division K. Priest, Project Field Engineer R. Abraham, Resident Engineer Betzhold, Project guality Assurance Engineer E. Br'aun, Senior guality Assurance Engineer F. Gaither, Assistant Project Field Engineer - Office Admin. and udits R. Beers, Lead Field Engineer - Civil t1cCormick, Assistant Project Field Engineer - Mech.
and Piping P. Smith, Project Field guality Control Engineer Afek, Lead Field Engineer - Mechanical Patton, Auxiliary Building Area Engineer Rubick, Containment Area Engineer Yaldo, Field Engineer - Welding Group Leader B. t1ayville, Assistant Welding Superintendent McConkey, Lead Field Engineer - Welding Blackburn, guality Control Engineer - Records Gill, Assistant Lead Field Engineer - Welding Boyer, Field Engineer - Welding Stauber, Field Engineer - Piping Polanen, Area Engineer - Piping Creager, Area Engineer - Civil (Containment 81)
Hedzik, Lead guality Control Engineer - Piping and tlechanical Mattson, Lead guality Control Engineer - Welding and NDE Sharp, equality Control Engineer - Welding and NDE Lausen, guality Control Engineer -
NDE (Level II)
F. Sturm, guality Control Engineer - Civil Francis, Welder/Pipefitter Herrmann, Field Contracts Administrator
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Construction Status The licensee reported that Unit
was 29.3/, Unit 2 was 8.6/,
and Unit 3 was 0.5'4 complete as of September 30, 1978.
The overall project was considered to be approximately 14/ complete.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
a.
(Open)
Noncompliance (50-528/78-03):
A marathon drawing change notice was not distributed to or used at the location where the work was being performed.
The licensee action specified in Arizona Public Service (APS)
letter ANPP-11407-JAR of July 21, 1978, was examined.
This action included the development of a drawing distribution matrix by each Area Engineer identifying which drawings and drawing changes are provided to each craft.
The craft stick files are then audited against the matrix on a monthly basis.
Implementation of the improved system was examined by a sampling of 48 drawings.
The examination revealed an inconsistency among Area Engineers regarding the control of vendor drawings.
It was noted that vendor drawings are not included in all matrices.
Licensee representatives stated that action will be taken to include pertinent vendor draw-ings on all matrices.
This item remains open pending comple-tion of the above action.
b.
(Closed)
Open Item (50-529/78-02):
The Unit 2 reactor vessel upper shell assembly was dropped at the manufacturer's shop while being moved between work stations.
Combustion Engineering performed visual and volumetric nondestructive examinations.,
The slight nicks and gouges found during the visual examination were repaired.
The volumetric examinations disclosed no hidden damage result-ing from the fall.
The assembly has been returned to its normal fabrication sequence.
This information was documented in a letter dated July 31, 1978, from the Combustion Engineer-ing Project Manager to the licensee.
This item is closed.
C.
(Closed)
Open Item (50-528/78-04):
Codes and standards used in the construction of the containment liner have not been adequately define e.
Bechtel performed a comparison study of Articles CC-2000 through CC-5000 of the 1975 edition of Section III, Division 2 of the ASt1E code and the Palo Verde Containment Design and Construction Criteria.
A tabulation, dated September 1978, of the relevant and significant code provisions, along with a comment for each indicating compliance or deviation, has been provided by Bechtel to the licensee.
A review of this tabulation-by the inspector disc)osed that there are only a few minor differences between the Bechtel criteria and the code.
The inspector concluded that the differences are of such nature that.the safety margin of the containment structure is not affected.
A licensee spokesman assured the inspector that the comparison tabulation.
document is a specific listing of the binding commitments against which the NRC inspectors can judge the acceptability of the containment installation work.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Open Item (50-528/78-04):
Existing procedures for translating engineering directions noted on SDDR's to con-struction or guality'Control (gC) forces are-inadequate.
Internal Procedure IP-4.34, Rev. 0, has been issued and IP-5.15 was revised to identify responsibilities and require-ments for assuring engineering directions are properly re-layed to the field.
The procedures were examined and appeared to be adequate for this function.
The inspector. has no further questions on this item.
(Open)
Unresolved Item (50-528/78-03, 78-04):
Seismic qualification records for Uni-strut electrical tray supports were unclear as to selection of seismic accelerations, and adequacy of embedded rail and bolted joint connections.
Initials, indicating calculations had been checked, were missing on approximately 10 calculations sheets.
Licensee representatives suggested that this item could best be resolved by a meeting between the NRC and cognizant A/E engineers.
Accordingly, this item remains open until such a meeting can be held and the NRC questions resolved.
4.
Safet
'Related Pi in a ~
Review of'S ecifications and Procedures No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted during the review of the following specifications and procedures governing the installation of safety related piping:
S ecifications 13-PH-204, Rev.
4 - Field Fabrication and Installation of Nuclear Piping Systems BPC Welding Standard WD-1, Rev.
6 - guality Control and Documentation Procedure For Welding and Nondestructive Examination for ASt<E Code,Section III Applications
'ork'Plan'Pr'ocedur es/ ualit Control Instructions WPP/gCI 101.0, Rev.
7 - Melding Control WPP/gCI 200.0, Rev.
3 - Field Piping Fabrication WPP/gCI 202.0, Rev.
2 - Piping Systems Installation
. b. 'bser'vations of Work arid "Work Activities The inspector examined completed field welds 001, 002, 003 and OQ5 in Unit 1, Train A safety injection line SI-008-GCBC-10".
In addition, the shop weld connecting a 16-inch bolting 'flange to a 20 x 16 reducer in Unit 1, Train A safety injection line No. 1-SI-072-S-004 was examined.
Good workmanship was evident and no items of noncompliance or deviations were observed..
Fit-up was observed for weld 004 connecting 10-inch ell spool No.
004 to the check valve in Unit 1, Train A containment spray pump discharge line to the shutdown cooling heat'xchanger (Line SIA-079-FGISA-10"}.
The components were shown on iso-dwg. 13-P-SIF-207, Rev. 6.
The inspector verified that the root gap and joint offset were within the specified tolerances of 1/8-inch + 1/32-inch and 1/32-inch maximum, respectively.
At the time of the inspection, preparations were being made for installing Borg-Marner 10-inch gate valve No. 1SI-470 in the suction line to Unit 1, Train A high pressure safety injection pump (shown on iso-drauring13-P-SIF-201, Rev. 6).
'hen grinding operations were about to begin to correct an improperly blended weld repair area on the valve outlet weld level surface (Bechtel NCR No-. P-A-141), the Bechtel Welding Engineer discovered a linear indication approximately 4-inches long located on the inside surface of the valve body approximately 3-inches below. the discharge and weld prepara-tion.
The indication appeared to the NRC inspector to be a
"cold shut" in the valve body casting which was apparently overlooked by the valve supplier.
The welding engineer took
prompt steps to have the indication radiographed and the con-dition documented on a nonconformance report.
On the following day, the inspector examined the radiograph which confirmed the unacceptable condition of the affected area.
The welding engineer was considering removal of the defect by grinding followed by a repair weld.
This item will be examined further during a subsequent inspection.
c.
'Review of ualit Records The inspector reviewed the records pertaining to the completed field welds identified in 4.b, above.
Included were the Field Welding Check Lists (Form WR-5), Filler Metal Withdrawal Author-izations (Form WR-6), guality Control Inspection Records, Welder Performance gualification Test Records (Form WR-1), and finals radiographs.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
The inspector also examined the documents in the records package supplied by Borg-Warner/Nuclear Valve Division for the 10 inch gate valve discussed in 4.b, above.
Included were the Manufacturer's Code Data Report (Form NPV-l), Certified Material Test Reports, Heat Treatment Reports, NDf Reports (RT and PT reader sheets),
Casting Repair Maps, and associated radiographs (five areas in the.valve body casting had been repaired by welding),
and Welder gualification Records (Form g-lG),
The document package appeared, to be void of any evidence that the defective indication identified in 4.b.,
above, had been examined and judged acceptable by the supplier.
No other anomalies were found in the records review.
5.
Structural Concrete a.
Review of S ecifications and Procedures No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted during a review of the following procedures and specifications:
'Technical 'S 'ecifications (1)
13-CM-191, Rev.
5 - Testing of Concrete Materials (2')
13-CM-101, Rev.
6 - Furnishing and Delivery of Concrete (3)
13-CM-365, Rev.
5 - Installation, Placing, Furnishing and Curing of Concrete.
(4)
13-CM-375, Rev.
4 - Placing of Reinforcing Steel
Work Plan Procedures/Oualit Control Instructions (1)
MPP/gCI 50.0, Rev.
3 - Testing Service Coordination (2)
WPP/gCI
'51.0, Rev.
5 - Concrete Production Coordination (3)
WPP/gCI 52.0, Rev.
7 -. Concrete Preplacement (4} -MPP/gCI 53.0,-Rev. '7-- Concrete Placement (5)
WPP/gCI 54.0, Rev.
Concrete Post-Placement The inspector was informed by the licensee that the concrete-chloride content limitation in use at Palo Verde was in accord-ance with Paragraph CC-2223.1 of ASME Section III, Division 2, which requires that the mixing water for concrete production shall contain not more than 250 ppm of chlorides, including that contained as free water in the aggregates.
The-inspector noted, however, that in November 1976, Specification 13-CM-101 (Furnishing and Delivery of Concrete)
was revised and the chlor-ides limit was increased from 250 ppm -to 400 ppm.
This change was based on an approved ASHE Code Case (No. 1811} which allows a higher chloride limit when the total chloride content of all of the concrete constituents are considered.
A review of recent water and aggregate test records revealed, however, that most chloride levels were below 250 ppm.
The apparent in-consistency between the Bechtel specification and the Sec-tion III, Division 2, limitation on chloride content will be examined further during a subsequent inspection.
Observation of Work and Work Activities Concrete preplacement activities including form and rebar installation and preplacement inspection f'r the primary shield wall iriside Unit 2 containment were observed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
During an inspection of concrete batch plant operations, some segregation was observed to be occurring while large aggregate was being stockpiled, This was brought to the licensee s attention.
This topic will be examined further during a subsequent inspection.
Review of ualit Records Records pertaining to concrete production and placement activities were examined.
The records included water and aggregate tests, placement records, NCRs, concrete cylinder'ompression tests, certificates of conformance, and records of mix designs.
No items of noncompliance or deficiencies were note.
Containment (Steel Structures and Su orts)
a ~
Oualit Im lementin Procedures The following implementing procedures for the installation, erection, and inspection of structural steel for the contain-ment, polar crane bracket modification, and polar crane truck-to-girder assembly were yxamined:
(1)
WP/P-gCI 58.0,
"Erection of Structural and Miscellaneous Steel."
(2)
Specification No. 13-CM-320, "Installation Specification for Erection of Structural and Miscellaneous Steel."
(3)
Field Change Request Nos.
2510-C, 2703-C, 2737-C, and 2766-C regarding modification of polar crane brackets.
(4)
Specification No. 13-MM-063, "Purchase Specification for Polar Crane" (bolting sections only).
(5)
Document No. 13-10407-M063-69-1,
"Polar Cr'ane Installation and Test Manual" (bolting sections only).
The inspector inquired about the qualification of the procedure identified for precision flame-cut modification of the polar crane brackets.
Bechtel representatives stated that, in addition to literature research, liquid penetrant examinations of flame-cut edges had been performed to assure cracks were not initiated in the process.
Records of these liquid pene-trant examinations could not be located.
The inspector, therefore, requested an additional liquid penetrant examination of a modified bracket.
This examination was observed by the inspector and the results were satisfactory.
In addition to the above documents, the inspector examined the draft version of the inspection plan for the brackets (Special CIP 501.1).
It was noted that the plan did not include a
specific inspection of flame cut surfaces for removal of slag and dross, and the absence of cracks..
Bechtel repre-sentatives stated this situation would be reviewed.
No other anomalies were noted.
b.
Observations of Work and Work Activities In-process and completed structural steel erection activities for Unit 1 were observed.
This included examination of seven completed structural bolted joints in the northwest quadrant,
of the containment (as shown on plan I'lo. 13-C-ZCS-530); obser-vation of in-process steel erection in the southeast quadrant of the containment (plan Ho. 13-C-ZCS-531);
in-process polar crane bracket modifications; arid completed polar crane truck-to-bridge girder bolting.
Mhile observing the in-process steel erection activities in the southeast quadrant of the containment, the inspector observed a-craftsman removing a welded beam clip from an I-beam using a
hammer, instead of using an approved method (grinding, chipping, machining or arc gouging).
The craftsman was immediately in-structed by an engineer to contact a welding engineer to proper-ly dispense remaining weldment and base metal.
The following day, the inspector noted another beam clip had been welded over.
the area where the original clip had been removed.
The inspector then inquired about the inspection of the base metal where the original weldment was removed.
Cognizant day-shift welding engineers and quality control engineers stated that they had not been advised of weld removal, but that swing-shift engineers may have examined the base metal.
The inspector ex-pressed concern to licensee and Bechtel representatives regard-ing the instruction to the crafts on handling rework items of this nature.
Licensee and Bechtel representatives indicated
'he specific case in point would be reviewed together with the broader question of craft handling of rework items.
This sub-ject will be examined further during a subsequent inspection.
During the examination of the polar crane truck-to-bridge girder bolting, the inspector noted that split lockwashers had'een.
used v(ith high strength (A325), torqued bolts.
The AISC "Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTH A325 and A490 Bolts" is silent on the use of split lock washers with
. high strength bolts.
Bechtel representatives indicated that
.the use of split lockwashers would be examined, and appropriate action taken.
This item is considered unresolved, and will be examined further during a subsequent inspection.
Ho items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Review of ualit Records The inspector reviewed in-process records for steel erection (drawing mark-ups)
and polar crane assembly.
It was noted that the bolting of the crane trucks-to-bridge girders had been approved by field and quality control engineers.
No other anomalies were identifie Containment Prestressin S stem)
The quality records associated with tendon sheathing installation for concrete placement 1C109 were r'eviewed.
The records indicate
.
that all inspections were performed and discrepancies either corrected or accepted as-is by engineering.
This subject will be examined further in conjunction with the follow-up on the Notices of Violation identified in NRC Report No. 50-528/78-05.
Defective Pi in Subassemblies
- 50.55 e) Item On September 27, 1978, the licensee informed Region V of a matter considered to be reportable under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50;55(e).
Pullman Power Products, the fabricator of piping sub-assemblies for the project, had discovered in their radiographs of completed joint weldments, that ASt1E code rejectable defects were present in the adjacent pipe longitudinal fusion weld seam of certain completed subassemblies.
The piping material is ASTH SA312 Type 304 stainless steel, manufactured by Youngstown Pipe and Melding Company of Youngstown, Ohio.
The defects pertain to excess porosity and lack of fusion 'in the longitudinal seam.
A total of 106 subassemblies, intended for use in safety injection systems of the'hree Palo Verde units, have been fabricated from the suspect pipe and have been received at the jobsite..
According to the pipe manufacturer, the ultrasonic examination of the pipe was performed priot to removing the scale resulting from the solution'eat treatment.
Because of thi s surface condition, the ultrasonic examination failed to detect the intermittent defects in the longitudinal seam.
At the time of the. inspection, NDE specialists from both Youngstown Pipe and Melding and Pullman Power Products had arrived onsite and were finalizing their procedures and setting up their equipment for performing independent ultrasonic examination of each of the ques-tionable piping subassemblies, 13 of which have already been installed in Unit 1.
This subject will be examined further during a subsequent inspection.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 3.f and (s
-10-10.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection, a meeting was held with the licensee and contractor representatives denoted in Paragraph l.
The areas covered during the inspection, and the observations and conclusions of the inspectors were reviewed.
The inspectors dis-'ussed the segregation that was observed during the stockpiling of large aggregate at the concrete batch plant.
It was also
'ointed out to the licensee that'echtel's system for handling rework items requires improvement as demonstrated by the manner in which the beam clip removal/structural steel repair in Unit
was handled.
The licensee expressed assurance that prompt con-sideration would be given to the NRC's concerns and appropriate action would be take P
"I A
rs ~
~
J
Il I<i