IR 05000528/1980001
| ML17296A691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1980 |
| From: | Eckhard T, Haynes R, Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17296A687 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-80-01, 50-528-80-1, 50-529-80-01, 50-529-80-1, 50-530-80-01, NUDOCS 8004240522 | |
| Download: ML17296A691 (11) | |
Text
Report No.
50-528/80-01 50-529/80-01 U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
Docket No.
50-528 50-529 50-530 License No.
CPPR-141 142 143Safeguards Group Licensee:
Arizona Public Service Com an P. 0.
Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Faci1ity Name:
Palo Verde Units 1,
8i 3 Inspection at:
Palo Verde Site, Wintersburg, Arizona Inspection conducted:
January 21-25, 1980 Inspectors:
. H. Eckh rd or Inspector D.
. Kirsch, Reactor Inspector Date Signed P'te Signed G.
rnandez, Reac Inspector Approved By:
R.
C. Haynes, Chief, Reactor Projects Section Reactor Construction a'nd Engineering Support Branch Date Signed Date Signed Summary:
Ins ection on Januar 21-25, 1980 Re ort Nos.
50-528/80-01 50-529 80-01 and 50-530/80-01 Areas Ins ected:
Routine announced inspection by regional and resident ase inspectors of implementation of the quality assurance program involving gA/gC organization, design control, document control, procurement control, audits, 50.55(e)
program, SAR change control and construction activities involving welding.
The inspection involved 98 inspector-hours onsite and at the cor-porate office by four NRC inspectors; Results:
Of the areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were ident-
~sfie concerning drawing control and weld rod control.
RV Form 219 (2)
80042 4
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Arizona Public Service Com an APS)
- E. E. Van Brunt, Jr., Vice President, Construction Projects and ANPP Director
"J. A. Roedel, Manager, guality Assurance
- B. S. Kaplan, guality Systems Supervisor
- W. E. Ide, Acting Site gA Supervisor
- S. Kesler, Site Nuclear Construction Engineer
+J.
M. Allen, Manager, Nuclear Engineering
"A. Carter Rogers, Manager, Nuclear Engineering G. Pankonin, gA Engineer L.
W. Price, Site Construction Manager N. E. Wibel, gA Engineer R.
D. Forrester, gA Engineer M. F. Hodge, Supervising Engineer, Mechanical W. Hurst, Supervising Engineer, Civil R. Kimnel, Site Nuclear Construction Engineer b.
Bechtel Power Cor oration Bechtel
- W. J. Stubblefield, Field Construction Manager
- D. R. Hawkinson, Project gA Supervisor
- C. E. Gaither, Assistant Project Field Engineer R. Hegedus, gA Engineer H.
W. Klopp, Field Procurement Manager R. Doskocil, gA Engineer R. Grant, Project gC Supervisor
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
c.
The Waldin er Cor oration D. Fowler, gA Supervisor R. Yarges, Lead gC Inspector 2.
Construction Status The licensee estimated that construction of Units 1, 2, and 3 was 56%,
26%,
and 5% complete, respectively, as of December 31, 1979.
The Unit 1 reactor vessel and steam generators are installed and the Unit 2 reactor vessel is on site.
The Unit 1 containment dome liner is com-plete.
The Unit 3 basemat construction is in progres.
A Manual Review Followu a)
b)
Licensee Changes made in the licensee's QA program since issuance of the construction permit were reviewed.
These were editorial changes to clarify requirements and update personnel title changes, and changes to satisfy
CFR Part 21 reporting requirements.
The licensee notified NRR of these changes in amendments to the PSAR.
The licensee's records system which identifies and controls these changes and PSAR amendment notifications appears to be adequate.
Constructor QA manual documents utilized by the site constructor (Bechtel)
and the HVAC constructor (Maldinger) were examined to ascertain the adequacy of manual development and implementation.
Both construct-ors have developed a comprehensive set of program implementing procedures.
Occasionally changes have been made in those proce-dures by the constructors to improve their effectiveness or im-prove control of work activities.
The licensee exercises final approval of all such changes, and documentary evidence of these approvals is on file at the site.
There have been no significant changes from the basic QA program comnitments as originally described
.
for the "Constructor" in the PSAR, and there have been no changes in the structure of the QA/QC organizations.
4.
A Manual Im lementation a)
Licensee Or anization - Document Control The, inspector reviewed the availability of QA manual procedures and instructions necessary for two individuals having unrelated QA/QC assignments to carry out their duties.
Also, the controls used to inform the individuals of the current status of the manual documents were examined.
Further, several procedures that are made available to the two individuals were checked to verify their current status.
No deficiencies were identified in any of the aforementioned areas.
b)
Constructors'
C Or anization The Bechtel and l<aldinger organizations were reviewed to deter-mine if individuals were assigned to QA/QC positions identified in their QA manuals which fulfill the following functions:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Continued development of QA/QC procedures and instructions Inspection Audit Management of the site-related program implementation These organizational positions were found to be satisfactorily staffe.
n Control a
~
b.
Site Surveillance
\\
The inspector examined the licensee's system for control of site-design and design change activities for compliance with the re-quirements of the guality Assurance program and quality imple-menting procedures.
The licensee stated that the architect-engineer was responsible for preparing and/or issuing all design end product documents.
Design changes to design drawings and specifications are accom-plished by the Field Change Request (FCR) system.
Field Change Requests are approved on-site by the Project Engineer under. auth-ority granted by procedures.
The FCRs are reviewed and init-ialed by the necessary disciplines, at the Bechtel main design office, responsible for the original design.
The inspector examined about 100 FCRs initiated by the piping,
, civil/structural and electrical, disciplines.
Examination of the licensee's document review logs, maintained by discipline super-visory engineers, verified licensee review of design documents and changes.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Com onent Installation Verification The inspector examined, for the following components, installa-tion documentation to ascertain compliance with manufacturers'nd procedural requirements:
Unit 2 safety injection tank C, Unit 1 low pressure safety injection pump SIB-P01, Unit 1 steam generator no.
2 relay cabinet, engineered safety features main control boards CB02 and DB02, and the Unit 1 turbine driven and motor driven auxiliary feedwater pumps.
The actual installation of the following components was examined to ascertain compliance with installation procedures specified by the installer and manufac-turers: turbine and motor driven auxiliary feedwater pumps and engineered safety features main control boards CB02 and DB02.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Document Control The licensee's document control system was examined for compliance
-4-with commitments specified in PSAR sections 17.1A.6 and 17.1B.6.
This examination consisted of selected procedure and implementation review.
a.
Review of ualit Assurance Im lementin Procedures The following procedures were selected and examined for compli-ance with PSAR commitments:
1)
QAD 2.0, Quality Assurance Program b
QAD 2.1, Control of Quality Assurance Directives c)
QAD 5.0, Instructions, Procedures and Drawings d)
QAD 6.0, Document Control 2)
APS Nuclear Services Department - Project Procedures Manual a)
NS-3, Technical Document Control b)
NS-4, Procurement Document Control 3)
APS Nuclear Construction Department Procedures a)
NC-7, Incoming Technical Document Control and Review 4)
Bechtel Procedures a)
HPP/QC1 3.0, Field Control of Design Documents
~ ~
The APS and Bechtel procedures reviewed indicated tha't the doc-ument control commitments of the PSAR appear to be properly im-plemented.
b.
Review of ualit Records The following quality related records and activities were examined to ascertain compliance with selected PSAR and document control implementing procedure requirements.
1)
Current revision status and availability of APS's QA Manual, Nuclear Services Department Project Procedures Manual, and Nuclear Construction Department Procedures.
2)
Review of the controls used to notify individuals regard-ing current status of the above document )
Evidence of proper review and approval of new and revised drawings for construction by APS.
4)
Current revisions status of working specifications for three disciplines; civil, mechanical, and electrical.
5)
Examination of the adequacy of facilities relating to the storage and control of drawings.
6)
Evidence that in three selected areas (civil, mechanical, and electrical),
persons receiving drawings were working with the latest revision.
During this examination on January 22, 1980 the following items were identified:
a)
Electrical Area At the control stick station located near Unit 1, one drawing out of fourteen examined was identified as super-seded.
Of these fourteen drawings, two drawings did not have the applicable FCR/DCN's listed on the draw-ing as required by Bechtel procedure WPP/gC1 3.0, Field Control of Design Documents.
Inside Unit 1 containment for three electrical craft drawing stations examined, twenty drawings were found out of revision.
These were loose drawings which the craft foremen had marked up and which they appeared reluctant to discard.
Also, these drawings were not stamped~
"Void - Not for Construction",
as required by Bechtel procedure WPP/gC1 3.0.
b)
Mechanical Pi in Area Three areas of the auxiliary building for Unit 1 were examined and ten drawings were identified as out of re-vision.
These drawings should have been discarded or marked as informational copies.
Other items identified included, a superseded drawing which had not been removed from the control stick when the new revision was inserted, and three drawings marked "void" with a pen which is contrary to Bechtel procedure which specifies that the Document Control Clerk stamp all superseded drawings with a "Void - Not for Construction" stamp.
c)
Civil Area For the civil area one drawing was found out of revision.
This was a piping drawing which was laying on a table in the civil survey shack for Unit 1.
This drawing was not marked as an information drawin In addition, on January 24,'1980 in the motor driven auxiliary feed-water pump room of Unit 1, the inspector noted that the piping fore-man's control stick contained two prints of each drawing, with one drawing containing the appropriate FCR/DCN stamp and the other missing the stamp.
Out of eight drawings checked, four were identified as superseded.
In addition, the walls of the pump room contained draw-ings which were either superseded or not marked as informational prints.
This is an apparent item of noncompliance.
(528/80-01/01)
7.
Procurement Control The Bechtel procurement program for site-originated purchases was reviewed.
Particular items reviewed included the approved bidders list and the following procurement packages:
Purchase Order No.
- 13-PM-300 (A)
- 13-CM-141B(A)
- 13-CM-111(A)
F-117976 F-117977
- F-113871
~Su lier Texas Bolt Co.
Brownyard Steel Company Marathon Steel Alloy Rods Division of Chemetron Corp.
Johnston Stainless Columbia Specialty Co.
of Arizona Item Descri tion machine and stud bolts supplemental miscellaneous steel reinforcing steel weld filler material weld filler material hex nuts The purchase orders specified proper technical standards, required material certifications, were awarded to suppliers on the approved bidders list, and appeared t'o be properly reviewed.
In addition, the material certifications for the received material asterisked above were reviewed.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Audits a ~
APS Audit Pro ram The APS audit program was examined to ascertain compliance with requirements of QAD 18.1, "Project Quality Audits", and QAD 18.2,
"Site Quality Assurance Audits".
Two separate audit programs exist:
1) the site program conducted by site QA personnel of site activ-ities, and 2) the project program conducted by home office personnel of APS site, Combustion Engineering, Bechtel (Downey), Bechtel and subcontractors site, and APS home office activities.
For both of these programs, the 1979 and 1980 audit schedules, auditor and lead auditor qualification records, and quality audit logs were reviewed.
In addition, records of the following audits were reviewed:
~ddi R
I.
Site Audits Date Area Audited 48-79-S-8 SQA-49 58-79-S-15 SQA-51 39-79-S-60 SQA-60 A~di R
II
68
70
75 2/79 2/79 3/79 4/79 11/79 12/79 Pro ect Audits Date 3/79 3/79 5/79 5/79 7/79 9/79 Procurement Document Control Design Control Storage Control Document Control of QA Records Control of Measuring and Test Equipment QA Records Or anization Audited Nuclear Services and QA Bechtel (Downey)
APS QA and Site Construction CE Chattanooga Bechtel (Downey)
APS and Bechtel QA and Site Construction No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Bechtel Audit Pro ram
~ ~
The Bechtel site audit program also consists of two separate programs:
1) audits of Bechtel site activities and 2) audits of subcontractors.
The 1979, 1980, and 1981 audit schedules, and auditor and lead auditor qualification records for both of these programs were reviewed.
All "Q" subcontractors were sche-duled for audit at least annually.
The audit records for the following Bechtel site activity audits were examined:
58-79-S-53 56-79-S-56 38-79-S-69 9/79 10/79 12/79 Storage Control for Permanent Plant Items guality Document Control (including records)
Receipt Inspection In addition, reports of Bechtel management audits conducted 2/79 and 7/79 of control of special processes including welding were reviewed.
The Bechtel audit program appears adequate.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
9.
50.55 e
Pro ram The APS program for reviewing potential 50.55(e) reportable items was discussed.
It was determined that APS does not have a formal proce-dure for reviewing the items to determine if they are reportable under 50.55(e).
APS committed at the exit interview to develop such a
procedure.
(528/80-01/02)
10.
SAR Chan e Control The inspector examined the licensee's system for controlling SAR changes and examined SAR change nos.
843, 851 and 858 for compliance with pro-cedural requirements.
The system appeared to be adequately defined and controlled.
Evidence of interdisciplinary review by the licen-see's engineering staff was examined.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
11.
Construction Activities Weldin
)
a ~
Observation of Weldin
- Safet Related Pi in The inspector examined in-process welding activities on two par-tially completed welds and one fit-up activity on 6" stainless steel piping in the Unit 1 auxiliary feedwater pump rooms.
The activ-ities were examined for compliance with ASHE code and procedural requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were ident-ifie b.
Visual Examination of Melds - Safet Related Pi in The inspector visually,".examined about twenty completed welds on six-inch stainless steel piping in the Unit 1 motor driven and turbine auxiliary feedwater pump rooms to ascertain compli-ance with procedures and the ASME Code.
It was observed that liquid penetrant (LP) testing materials had not been consistently cleaned from the adjacent base metal and some weld irregularities still contained LP-testing material res-idue.
Four of the welds containing residual LP materials were identified as weld 2, 3 and 4 of line AFB-005D and the "T"-to-pipe weld of spool SPlAF-017-S-001.
Bechtel procedure no.
PT-
,
BPC-1, Revision 0, (Liquid Penetrant Examination - Solvent Remov-able) requires that
"excess liquid penetrant materials shall be removed" while the 1974 Edition of the ASME BRPY Code,Section V, Article 24, requires postcleaning of residual LP materials only in those cases where the materials could interfere with sub-sequent processing or with service requirements.
The code also observes that postcleaning is important where residual inspection material may combine with other factors to produce a corrosive action.
This apparent inconsistency between the Bechtel procedure and actual field practice will be examined further during a future inspection.
(528/80-01-03)
The inspector observed that weld no.
1 of Unit 1 spool S002, line AFB-005, contained a particularly rough, irregular crown profile and questioned the suitability of the weld surface for examina-tion by liquid penetrant methods.
The weld had been examined by liquid penetrant method on December 13, 1979 and the LP test record indicated that the weld was acceptable.
At the inspector's re-quest, the licensee requested that an LP examination of the weld be conducted to verify weld adequacy.
The entire LP examination on January 24, 1980, was observed by an NRC inspector.
The LP examination disclosed a 4" long linear indication transverse to the welding direction on the surface of the weld.
The contract-or's examiner stated that this indication was nonrelevant and resulted from surface roughness.
However, the inspector pointed out to the APS gA engineer that the ASME BKPV Code, 1974 Edition,Section III, Division 1, Subsection ND, paragraph ND-5352(b),
requires that "Indications with major dimensions greater than 1/16 in. shall be considered relevant" and further requires in paragraph ND-5351(b) that
"Any indication which is believed to be nonrelevant shall be regarded as a defect and shall be reex-amined to verify whether or not actual defects are present.
-Nonrelevant indications and broad areas of pigmentation which would mask indication of defects are unacceptable.
"
During the exit interview the inspector stated that linear indications greater than 1/16 inch long should be considered as a defect until reexamination shows otherwise.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's position and stated that they would review current site practices and procedure c ~
This item is considered'o be an unresolved item pending further examination during a subsequent inspection.
(528/80-01-04)
The inspector also observed that an arc strike existed on base metal in the heat affected zone of Unit 1 weld no.
1 of spool S002, line AFB-005.
Licensee and Peabody (the nondestructive testing contractor) representatives speculated that the arc strike occurred subsequent to the LP examination of December 13, 1979 since standard practice requires that arc strikes be removed prior to nondestructive examination.
The licensee's program for elim-ination/repair of arc strikes on piping will be examined during a future inspection.
(528/80-01/05)
Welder uglification d.
The inspector examined the welder qualification documentation of four welders for compliance with procedures and the ASME Code.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Weld Filler Material Control On January 22, 1980 during the aforementioned drawing control
. examination (paragraph 6 of this report) five unused E6010, 1/8" welding electrodes were lying loose on a desk shelf in an elec-trical craft area located inside the Unit 1 containment.
12.
Exit On January 24, 1980 the inspector found two E7018, 1/8" weld elec-trodes inside a tool box in the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump room of Unit, 1.
Bechtel WPP/gCl 100.0
"Weld Filler Material Control" requires that all unused filler material be returned to the rod room at the completion of the work shift, and that all electrodes issued to welders be carried in proper containers at all times.
This is an apparent item of noncompliance.
(528/80-01/06)
Interview The inspectors met with 1 icensee representati ves (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 25, 1979 and summar-ized the scope and findings of the inspection as stated in this report.