IR 05000528/1983023
| ML20024C356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1983 |
| From: | Vorderbrueggen, Thomas Young NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024C349 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-83-23, 50-529-83-13, 50-530-83-10, NUDOCS 8307120549 | |
| Download: ML20024C356 (8) | |
Text
.
.
.'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
50-528/83-23 50-529/83-13 Report No. 50-530/83-10 Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 License Nos. CPPR-141, CPPR-142, CPPR-143 Licen.ee: Arizona Public Service Company P. O. Box 21666
'
'
Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Facility Name: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station - Units 1, 2, and 3 Inspection at: Palo Verde Construction Site, Wintersburg, Arizona
~
Inspection Conducted: May 2 - June 3, 1983 Inspectors:
M N ~- b LT E. Vorderbr ggen Q j'[
/
Date Signed Senior Resident Inspector V.
Approved by:
ML d "MN
.
T. Young, Jr., @tief (
Eg Date Signed Reactor Projectf Section Summary:
Inspection on May 2-June 3, 1983 - (Report Nos. 50-528/83-23, 50-529/83-13, and 50-530/83-10)'
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by the resident inspector of construction related activities pertaining to the follow-up of allegations of unacceptable electrical work, follow-up of 50.55(e) items and previous inspection items, and general activities in progress throughout the plant
'
site. The inspection involved 133 inspector hours on-site by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
~
0'307120549 830627
,
PDR ADOCK 05000520 L
(D PDR
,/
t
a
-
t
-...
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.-
-Arizona Public Service Company (APS)
'
J
,
.
E.~ E. Van Brunt,cJr., Vice President, Nuclear Projects Management
- _
. *J. A.<Roedel, Corporate Quality Assurance Manager
'*D. B! Fasnacht,: Nuclear Construction Manager W. E.'Ide, Construction Quality Assurance / Quality Control Manager (QA/QC)
-
. S. Penick,'QA. Engineer.
- L.'!Souza,-QA; Engineer
'
R.'Forrester, QA= Engineer.
,
P. Moore, QA Engineer O
.. -
b.'
BechtelPowerCorporati5n-(Bechtel)~'
~
-*S. M. Nickell, Project Superintendent
- D..R. Hawkinson, Project QA Supervisor
- R.' M. Grant, Project QC Engineer
- W.E A. Miller, Project -Field - En'gineer C. J. Dun, Assistant Project-Field Engineer
. L.' Black, Resident Engineer *
J:
<
M. Alexander,. Lead Electrical Field Engineer R. Ruff, Electrical / Instrumentation QC Supervisor
.
R. Butler, Lead Civil Field Engineer S. Wilkening, Cost and Scheduling Supervisor R. Roehn, PQAE - Site Surveillance / Audits Other persons contacted during the inspection period included construction craftsmen, inspectors, and supervisory personnel.
- Denotes personnel present at the management meeting.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Items a.
(Closed) Follow-up Item (50-530/82-09/01). Unit 3 Containment Dome
, Liner - Attachment Removal Field Change Request No. 44.595-C was' approved on August 13, 1982, as'a specification changeoto revise Section 19.5.1 of-Specification 13-CM-370 to delete " chipping or breaking" as.an approved method for removing welded construction aid attachments from-the liner plate surface. Additionally,~the licensee examined
.all domelliner seams.for identifying any pits / gouges having a depth
.
greater than:the allowed 0.06-inch; using a precison depth gauge, none were found that exceeded that value. This item.is closed.
.
I A
/
r
'
->%
aN
{,
'
.m. ML
'~
i
.
.
.
3.
Follow-up on Regional Request - Investigation of Electrical Allegations By An Anonymous Alleger B,ackground a.
On May 25, 1982, an NRC Region V office staff member received a telephone call at his home from an individual-who refused to divulge his name. He identified himself only as a Senior Electrical Engineer working for Bechtel Power Corporation at the Palo Verde nuclear plant. The caller claimed'that he had "only six hours" ta complete for his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering. He made a general allegation that.the project was "so much garbage," and that he was resigning from Bechtel and departing the area.
When asked to give specific examples of his concerns, he related the situations described in the subtopical paragraphs which follow. The alleger was asked and agreed to telephone the Region V office collect so that more specific details could be obtained; the individual never called back.
Because the allegations were so general in nature, a serious attempt was made to learn the identity of the alleger in hopes that a face-to-face interview would provide more specific details.
Interrogation of jobsite personnel and a review of personnel records, pursuant to the alleger's claim of his near-term qualification for Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, led to the probable identity of the alleger. There were no individual in the employ of Bechtel as an Electrical Field Engineer who possessed that extent of formal education. There was one individual who was assigned as an Electrical Field Engineer in Unit 2 who had boasted to his Bechtel associates that he was six hours short of his Ph.d.
in Electrical Engineering.
This individual apparently had falsified his educational background, as the universities which he had referenced on his. employment application, when contacted by Bechtel, reported that they had no record of the individual's attendance there. The individual was discharged on June 24, 1982, for falsification of his employment application and left the Phoenix area. To date, NRC attempts to locate the individual have been futile.
b.
Allegation Regarding Rework Resulting From Lack of Supervision Allegation: The alleger stated that massive rework was going on because of the lack of supervision.
Investigation: The project. quality control procedures require that when any work item is found to be discrepant with established requirements, it must be documented on a Nonconformance Report
[
p
-
3'
.
.
,
(NCR). This requirement applies'to all three quality classifications (Q, R,'and S).
The NCR identifies the aberrant item / condition (s), the governing document (s), and the engineering disposition to remedy the situation.
Consequently, a review was made of NCRs initiated during the six months prior to the allegation date of May 25, 1982, in order to evaluate whether or not s
unacceptable work 2and subsequent rework during that time frame was indicative of a lack of supervision. The inspector reviewed electrical NCRs 1601 through 2200 (600 total) dated November 18, 1981 through July. 16, 1982, respeccively.
The NCRs related to all three Units. Causes of those nonconformances can be generally identified in the categories of vendor error, construction error, inadvertant accident, documentation discrepancy, design change, and incomplete work. Particular interest was given to the NCRs pertaining to Unit 2 since the person who is believed to be the alleger was assigned to Unit 2 and, therefore, would have minimal knowledge of conditions in the other two Units. Seventy NCRs during the time period stated above related to Unit 2 electrical work; only five of those 70 NCRs were considered by the NRC inspector to relate to inadequate supervision. Four of the five were for cable " pulls" to an incorrect terminal point and one was for installation of an incorrectly sized conduit.
The inspector discussed this issue with the Bechtel site Construction Superintendent.
Bechtel maintains that high productivity is a direct result of good supervision.
In their view, this requires close coordination of work activities, diligent direction of craft personnel, and strict adherence to procedures and specification requirements. The superintendent stated that one of the indicators Bechtel uses as a " measure" of supervisory adequacy is the " Unit Productivity Rates." For electrical conduit, tray and cable installation, the unit rates are calculated in manhours expended per foot, and manhours per termination for cable.
connection. The inspector examined the recorded electrical unit rates for Unit 2 during the time period of interest. Each was seen to be essentially constant throughout the period and for each month all were less than the previously estimated rates. According to Bechtel management, unit rates of this nature reflect good productivity and, therefore, close control of work activities.
l This, they maintain, requires a minimum of rework which can only result from adequate supervison of the work force.
The inspector also examined the Bechtel Surveillance Program Monthly Reports which covered the period October 19, 1981 through July 16, 1982. Of 480 surveillances performed, 96 covered Unit 2 electrical work activity, and only one Corrective Action Request resulted from that effort. The inspector also reviewed the reports of QA audits performed (six) from the period of November 9,1981 through May 6, 1982, on electrical work in' Unit 2.
There were no adverse findings in any of those reports which would reflect inadequate supervision.
NRC Finding: Based on the~ foregoing information, the allegation of
" massive" rework and lack of supervision'has no factual foundation.
-
.
.
W
$
- <
,
,
s
.
-
a'
'
' a z,_
s
.
,
-
4-
<
,
i>
,
-
.
.
,
. -
,
'
c.
Alleg tion"Regarding Diesel Generator Control Panels s
Allegation: -The alleger. stated that the diesel generator panels in the diesel rooms are' not installed according to design. The panels were' supposed to have been bolted to the floor and no bolts were provided...As a result,-all the high voltage panels and control panels in the' diesel generating building of Unit 2 have to come out b'ecause they were installed wrong.
Investigationi In each diesel-generator control room (two per unit)
there-are three panels,or cabinets:
one engine control cabinet (No.-B01), cone. generator control cabinet (No. B02), and one high-voltage cabinet- (No.- B03). Cabinets'B01 and B02 abut on one end.
The. original design specified anchor bolts in the foundation for bolting down the cabinets.
In Unit 1, a misalignment between the anchor bolts and the' cabinet base mounting holes was encountered for
.'
Cabinets B01 and B02. The solution was to set a four-inch channel j-frame, drilled to match the anchor bolts on the concrete pad, cut the protruding bolts flush with the channel surface, weld the cut
bolt ends to the drilled holes in the channel, and then weld the
j-cabinets to the channel. This situation is documented on NCR
~
No. M-G-193 dated August 14, 1979. The cabinet supplier (Cooper Energy Services) concurred with this solution. A somewhat similar,
'
but not as severe, misalignment was encountered with Cabinet B03; this was reaedied by slotting the holes in the cabinet base and using plate washers over the slotted holes. This situation is documented on NCR M-G-277, dated December 4, 1979.
For Units 2 and 3, the design was changed (Drawing 13-C-ZGS-100) to
,
.
eliminate the anchor bolts and-to embed a seven-inch channel frame in the foundation pads for welding the cabinets in place.
Cooper i
Energy Services established the criteria for'the welding. The.
Unit 2 panels, installed between June 17, 1981, and March 22,.1982,
are installed correctly and do not have "to come out" as alleged.
r NRC Finding: The inspector determined that the foregoing facts are
~
in accord with approved project procedures. This allegation' appears to be based 'on incomplete knowledge of circunistances and events,
>
d.
Allegation Regarding Control Panel Cable Separation and Installation
.,
Allegation:.-The alleger stated that there was inadequate separation
'
of cables in the horseshoe-shaped control panels in the Units 1 and 2 Control Rooms.
Instead of the required six-inch separation between the' Quality Class 1 and non-Quality Class cables, they were installed'with only 1/2-inch separation. He also implied that there
-
[
was some problem with the installation of cables under the control Jpanels, but he was not' specific _in this regard. He stated that he
,
i had1 reported.the improper separation of the control cables in'a NCR L
~
that he wrote "about'three months ago," and he said Engineering told
!=
-
him they had no~ roblem with the way these cables were installed.
p The, alleger:provided the names of three Bechtel. electrical field r-engineers ^who he1 claimed could substantiate his concerns.
!
-
s
.
,
s e_
,t a
>
,
,
g y,
,
..
,h*
^
'y l s m! g - l };
e,'
V
+
x Af-
. *;i
- '?
A
/$y
<
,
g,.
-
' l{ t F :,
<. '
<
b,.c
,
'
s 4.#
"J-
%
e t
, *.t
,
~
,
.
..
3 *i,
,, _ ' " V
', *,
-
y
- rw
-
w.
-
. ~ j 'l
,5
,
f/
.%-
A w-1+
- _
_
_ -
_
.
.
Investigation: The main control panels are furnished pre-wired by Comsip, Inc., Linden, New Jersey. The criteria for separation of elect rical cables are established in IEEE Standard 384-1977 and Regulatory Guide 1.75.
These requirements were invoked in the purchase specifications for the panels as well as the field installation specification for the panels. Examination of the project records disclosed the following chronological facts:
(1) Separation discrepancies in certain Unit 1 panels were noted in early October 1981 by Bechtel Unit.1 Field Engineering personnel. This resulted in Field Memo No. RE-056, dated Octcher 14, 1981, to Bechtel home office Engineering pointing out the problem and requesting assistance. This resulted in a Field "walkdcwn" inspection by home office engineers.
(2) NCRs 1668 and 1669 for Unit 1, and.1676 for Unit 2, all dated December 16, 1981, were issued to document the identified cable separation discrepancies. The separation violations were related to Bechtel installed annunciator wiring at the top of certain panels, Bechtel installed wiring entering from below certain panels, and vendor installed wiring in one panel (B06).
Three Bechtel engineers were involved with the issuance of the three NCR.
It is known that the alleger is got one of those three engineers. All three are still employed with Bechtel.
(3) Bechtel issued Deficiency Evaluation Report (DER) No. 81-53, dated December 17, 1981, initiating evaluation of the matter as potentially reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.55(e).
(4) Bechtel Letter No. B/CC-E-38291 dated January 29, 1982, to Comsip, Inc., identified to them their involvement in the problem and requested their assistance in corrective action.
(5) A Comsip representative visited the jobsite on March 10, 1982, to examine the panels installed in Units 1 and 2.
The results of his examination and the Comsip commitments for corrective action are documented in their letter, No. AR-1299, dated March 24, 1982.
Correction of the cable separation violations has now been completed. The licensee judged the matter to be reportable to the NRC. Their letter dated May 24, 1982, provided their formal report to the NRC in compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The three engineers named by the alleger were interviewed at length in an attempt to corroborate the concerns of the alleger. None of the three had any concerns about the quality of the electrical work at Palo Verde. Two of the engineers had been involved in this cable separation problem; they stated that they were satisfied with the way that the matter was identified and resolved.
NRC Finding: Based on the above information, the allegation that cable separation violations were present ~in the control room panels F
'
7,
.
is factual. The alleger, however, had no perceptible involvement in either the discovery or the reporting of the matter. His statement regarding Engineering's lack of concern has no substance in fact.
4.
Review of 50.55(e) Items - All Units During this reporting period, the inspector reviewed and closed out the 11 items tabulated below which the licensee had identified to the NRC as
.having potential 50.55(e) reportsbility significance. Each item was documented on a Deficiency Evaluation Report (DER) as required by the licensee's procedure. The DER describes the discrepant condition, identifies supporting doucments and the corrective action to be taken, and is the basis for the licensee's report to the NRC. For each of the items, the records indicate that the licensee's evaluations were thorough and that satisfactory corrective action had been completed or has been arranged.
In the tabulation below, the four marked with an asterisk (*)
were judged by the licensee to be reportable under -the 50.55(e) criteria and have been satisfactorily reported; the others were considered not reportable. The inspector concurs with the licensee's decisions.
DER No.
SUBJECT 82-39 Equipment installed below maximum flood level -
Unit 1 Containment
- 82-40 3-Molded case CBs were tested /left at current settings below allowable trip range tolerance - Unit 1
.
83-03 Foreign-material found in in-board bearing housing -
l Unit 1 HPSI Pump (Ingersoll-Rand)
,
"
83-04
. Improper Test Procedures / Conduct by the Waldinger Corp.
.
,9
Unit 1 Air Haridling/ Filtration Unit
<
,
i
.
,
83-05
,Circularjweld, undercut-discoveredduringPipeSupport
,
y rework ~- Unit 2 Containment,
,
,
' Undir-rate'd shock suppressor used on line in reactor
- 83-06-
coolant pressure boundary - Unit 1 Containment
,
H,.
'
83-18
' Impropcr-installation lof U-Bolts in Fire Protection
'
-
-
System - Unit 1
~
Unqualified APS inspecto's' accepting construction work 83-20
,
r
.
during prerequistie testing - Units l'& 2
-
'
N
,
83-21
. Improper Operation of LPSI Pump - Suction valve closed -
Unit 1
- 83-23 Anchor Darling Mainsteam Isolation Valves - Failure to close in required 5 seconds - Unit 1
- 83-24
. Lube oil / Jacket water heating systems unable to maintain design temperature - Units 1, 2, 3, Diesel Generators.
.
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _
-_-
__
'
.
-
.:
.
The inspector observed that DER 81-29 was revised to include the evaluation of the failure of 30 ASTM A325 bolts to reach the required torque value of 540 foot pounds. This occurred on June 7, 1982, in the Unit 3 Auxiliary Building structural steel and was documented on NCR No. CA-3489. The licensee considered this occurrence to be 50.55(e)
reportable and did so by their letter to the NRC dated May 11, 1983.
Their report, however, was Revision 1 to their original 55.55(e) report dated November 25, 1981, which pertained to a similar failure of 22 ASTM A490 bolts in two roof-frane trusses in the Unit 2 Fuel Building. The inspector reviewed all previously issued DERs and found that none had ever been revised to handle the occurrence of a second similar deficiency. The inspector expressed concerns to the licensee about the unusual reporting of this latest bolt failure and about their risk pertaining to timeliness of reporting to the NRC.
In response to the inspector's questions, the licensee stated that they considered the only difference in the two occurrences was the ASTM designation and physical properties of the bolts, and that the second occurrence was another failure of high strength bolts, furnisted by the same vendor, which had previously been reported. Their initial conclusion was that the second bolt failure incident was not a separate deficiency having safety significance and which required separate reporting to the NRC.
Later, however, af ter hardness testing of samples of the. failed bolts demonstrated a meterial deficiency of possible safety significance, they felt reporting was appropriate and did so by revising the initial report.
To prevent future confusion about reporting of events to the NRC, the licensee immediately issued a written directive (QAD No. 83-C-9) that DERs would not be reopened to address subsequent events.
Since this was an isolated case and the licensee took immediate preventive action against recurrence, the inspector considered the issue to be closed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Inspection Tours of Plant Site At various times during this inspection period, the inspector toured the plant site in order to observe general housekeeping conditions, care and preservation of equipment, handling of heavy components, tagging and identification of material, absence of welding electrode stubs lying around the vairous work areas, adequacy of caps over pipe openings not being worked on, and presence of cribbing under stored pipe spools, valves, and other components.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Management Meeting On June 7, 1983, the inspector met with the licensee and Bechtel representatives identified in paragraph 1.
During the meeting, the inspector summarized the scope of the inspection activities and reviewed the inspection findings as described in this report.
'
.
___J