IR 05000528/1978008
| ML17296A295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1978 |
| From: | Albert W, Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17195A455 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-78-08, 50-528-78-8, 50-529-78-08, 50-529-78-8, NUDOCS 7902260043 | |
| Download: ML17296A295 (12) | |
Text
'\\
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COi'1i4lISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEHEflT REGION.V 50-528/78-08 Report No 50-529/78-08 50-528 CPPR-154 Docket No.
License No.
CPPR-155 Safeguards Group t
Arizona Public Service'Company P. 0.
Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Faci1 ity Name Pal o Verde Units
and
Palo Verde Construction Site, Naricopa County, Arizona Inspection Conducted:
November 29-December 2 and December 5-7, 1978 Inspectors:
W. G. Albert, Reactor In pector II
/g rz-r"F at Signe Date Signed Approved By:
M~~'
i~ii--'
~~/ y~
~ R. C. Hayne Chief, Projects Section, Reactor>><<>>gne
~
~
~
~
~
~
Construction and Engineering Support Branch Surrmary:
Ins ection on November 29-December 2 and December 5-7, 1978 Re ort Nos.
50-528/ 8-8 and 5 -
. -08
~AI d:
R i
di I
i by r
1i p
covering receipt and instal,lation of reactor pressure vessel and other primary system components.
Results:
Hithin these two areas, no items of noncompliance were found.
However, sndependent inspection effort at Unit 2 resulted in one item of noncompliance in -the area of containment structures.
>90 aa60ogp IE:V Form 219 (2)
I
DETAILS Persons Contacted Arizona Public Service Com an APS)
- W. M. Petro, Construction Manager
'*R. L. Hand, Site QA Manager G. Pankonin, QA Engineer R.
D. Forrester, QA Engineer J. A. Roedel, QA Manager L. W. Price, Field Engineering Supervisor Bechtel Power Cor ovation BPC
- C. Betzhold, Project QA Engineer H. Koner, Field Engineer M. McCormack, Assistant Project Field Engineer D. Paulina, QA Engineer R. Hedzek, Lead QC Engineer G. DuChateau, Field Engineer F.
G. Grissbaum, Lead Nuclear Field Engineer J.
Pfundev, QA Engineer A. E. Moore, Lead QC Receiving Engineer L. Afek, Lead Mechanical Field Engineer T. Heiser, Area Field Engineev R. Hayes, Mechanical Superintendent W. Boedeck, Lead Field Engineer
- A. K. Priest, Project Field Engineer
Cadwelder (2)
Millwright (1)
Iron Worker Foremen (1)
Combustion En ineevin CE S.
N. Magev, Site Manager En ineevin Test Laborator (ETL)
J. Danielski, Test Engineer
- Attendees at exit interview.
V
Receivin and Stora e Ins ection of Reactor Vessel and Primar S stems Com onents Procedures and records were examined including gA audit/surveillance records as well as receiving inspection reports.
Procedures were examined against randomly selected require'ments of the NSSS Specifi-cation CEND-353 which establishes requirements for the care of NSSS components.
Components were examined in the field for internal and external protection.
Inert gas, coatings, desiccants, seals and cover s, evidence of saltwater intrusion and dew point test provisions were examined as applicable for the reactor vessel and head, both steam generators, pressurizer and the No.
1 hot leg pipe assembly.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were found for the vessel and head, steam generators or pressurizer.
The No.
1 hot leg pipe spool was found to have a pink humidity indicator, a hole in the cover of a branch connection opening and the amount of installed desiccant was not designated.
The hot leg pipe was supplied by CE and the branch connection (stainless steel pipe) was supplied by Kellogg.
The branch connection had been assembled to the hot leg pipe at the site.
The Kellogg supplied pipe had been shipped without desiccants and the inspector was informed that covers were'provided with small slits to allow the pipe to "breathe."
However, the hole in the cover appeared to have been made for the purpose of introducing an inert gas for welding purposes..
The CE supplied pipe had been shipped with desiccants and all openings sealed.
After the two pipes had been assembled into one spool, the opening in the Kellogg pipe was incompatible with the desiccant controlled atmosphere of the CE pipe.
It was further found that the spool assembly had.been removed from the storage inspection schedule on the presumption that it was installed, although it was still in the pipe storage yard at the time of this inspection.
The CE site representative stated that the spool assembly had been opene'd to effect a design modification for an ultrasonic 'flow device and that this possibly accounted for the confusion and the inconsistent pipe storage practice.
The storage conditions of the pipe spool were cor-rected immediately following the inspector's obs'ervations and the pipe spool was returned to the in-storage inspection list.
This item is considered to be unresolved pending results of subsequent inspections of site storage practices.
(50-528/78-08/01)
ll
Test Lift j
~
I The test lift records were examined by the inspector to establish that the load was as required (110% of steam generator weight) and that deflections of the crane beams were within established limits.
These records established that the equipment supported illÃof the steam generator weight.
The extra 1/ was an allowance added for uncertainties associated with the spraylat coating.
Beam deflection records were within the allowable limits established-by the manufacturer (Whiting).
However, the inspector did not find a record which established that the crane beams returned to initial
,values without plastic deformation.
Bechtel personnel stated that
'such readings had been taken and that they demonstrated that no per-manent deformation took place.,
They stated that if the data could not be found and entered from the surveyor logs, new data would be taken before placement of No.
This item will be further examined during a subsequent inspection.
(50-528/78-08/02)
The Bechtel Construction Inspection Planning Record (CIP) which records the completion of procedure steps for the test liftwas examined and found in order.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were found in this area.
Procedures for Placement of Reactor Pressure Vessel and Steam Generators The rigging contractor 's'rocedures (Reliance Truck) were examined for conformance to the applicable specifications and accepted prac-tice.
The Reliance Truck QA program/procedures were examined against applicable requirements of 10 CFR Appendix B and compatibility with Bechtel QA/QC programs (e.g.,
nonconformance control).
Approval of procedures by Bechtel was verified.
CE review of installation procedures was also verified although the CE review was limited to an examination qf "interface" require-ments.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
Observations and Records of Vessel Installation The activity of vessel installation was observed by the inspector to verify by spot observations that the vessel installation was being accomplished in accordance with procedures and requirement ~
1'he inspector verified that reactor support shims were installed as measured, that shim data was reviewed by CE, that necessary inspections were being performed as scheduled and that the BPC gA organization was providing adequate audit/surveillance of activities.
One question of the inspector regarding the need to verify the gap be-tween support pads and shims following installation was resolved by adding this check to the Construction Inspection Procedure.
Calibration of the jig transit in use in the reactor cavity was verified by calibration sticker.
Orientation of the nearly symmetrical ve'ssel to plant north and matching components was verified by reference to both CE and BPC drawings.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Observations and Records of No.
2 St'earn Generator Installation Survey records verifying that verticality was within limits were examined.
Six of the hold down bolts were the subject of an NCR because of a slight interference with the sliding pads under the generator base.
Field observations of the completed installation were made.
Cleanliness cont'rois appeared adequate.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
Inde endent Ins ection Effort During a general facility tour, the inspector observed that a
cadweld in the west side of the Unit 2 primary shield was made with the bar marking step being made after placing and pinning the cadweld sleeve.
This required the craftsman to mark the bar by viewing the end through the tap hole.
This was contrary to both BPC and the manufacturer's procedures.
Discussion with the craftsman and his foreman.indicated that this had been accepted as an optional practic'e for horizontal cadwelds.
The failure to follow procedures was considered to be an item of noncompliance.
(50-528/78-08/03)
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to determine whether they are acceptable items,'tems of noncompliance or deviations.
The unresolved item dis-closed during this inspection is discussed in Paragraph.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the site inspection on December 7, 1978, the inspector met with hl. H. Petro and other members of the APS and BPC staff as noted in Paragraph 1, above.
The inspector discussed the open item regarding inspection of material and equipment in storage and stated that the matter would be re-examined during a future inspection.
Regarding the item of noncompliance, the inspector noted that this did not appear to be an isolated instance because both the cad-welder and his foreman believed that the method observed was optional.
Thus, the cause of the problem could be inadequate training or qualification, particularly since both BPC and the manufacturer 's procedures were specific on required order of events in the procedur l e
~