IR 05000528/1987011
| ML20205D178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1987 |
| From: | Richards S, Wagner W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205D101 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-87-11, 50-529-87-12, 50-530-87-10, NUDOCS 8703300346 | |
| Download: ML20205D178 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:n .. - -- - - .. e , , ~ ~ y ,, .. , . I
-
, ,,. , , ' ~ r ' + ., . < ' . , U.
S.. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ? ,, ' ' '
REGION V
j 'l Report Nos. 50-528/8'l-11, 50-529/87-12, an'd 50-530/87# 0.
c , s.
s/ , ' Docket Nos; 50-528, 50:529, and 50-530 J ' f . t i i , License Nos. NPF-41 and NPF-51 . ' ' , ) \\ Construction Permit'N5. CPPR-143, ' ' Licensee: Arizena Public Service Company P.;0. Box 21666
Phoenix, Arizona 'S5036 ' ' Facility Name: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3 ' '- ' Inspection 'at: Palo Verde Site, Wintersburg, Arizona , , ,. Inspection Conducted:; March 2-6, 1987 ' . Inspector: [ drMA - //- a ISTy,f f' ~'~ W.yagner, Rea . Ins 6ector ned , Approved by: Sd 1~ G ~ ll-59 . 5. Richards, Chiet Date Signed Engineering Section , & r , Summary: - Inspection on March 2-6, 1987 (Report Nos. 50-528/87-11,~50-529/87-12, and 50-530/87-10) Areas Inspectod: Routine,unannouncedinipectionbyrighnalbasedinspector of licensee's action on inspector identified items.
NRC Inspection Procedures 92701 and 92702 were covered during this inspection.' > , Results: No violations of NRC requirements or d ulationc weio identified.
, < ' > ,. t
i .' - > l s ,,
0703300346 870312 . PDR ADOCK ObOC0528 ' l G PDR ( ' . , , ,
__ . - - a n.
. . . ' DETAILS I ' l '1 Persons Contacted i . [ Arizona Nuclear Power Project (ANPP) p
- R. Baron, Compliance Supervisor
- C. Russo, Manager, Quality Audits and Monitoring
- J. Kirt'y, Project Manager
-
- J. Sills, Senior Compliance Engineer
[
- J. Quan, Licensing Engineer l
q W. Gratza, QA Engineer .
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting on March 6, 1987.
, 2.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items i a.
(Closed) Notice of Violation No. 50-530/86-03-25, " Masonry Block Walls Incorrectly Classified as Class 5" i The NRC CAT Inspection of January - February 1986 identified that i k masonry block walls were incorrectly classified as Quality Class S ! for which no special quality requirements beyond industry standards -) >,t are generally required.
Therefore, in process inspections were not performed.
As a result, reinforcing steel was found to.be located not in accordance with the design drawings; also, inspection records were not available to support design analysis assumptions.
NRR performeda field inspection of the masonry walls on March 19 and 20, 1986.
During that time, it was established that the only masonry walls whose failure could adversely affect safety-related - equipment were located in the control building at the 74-foot and 100-foot elevations.
.The inspector's review of the design drawings and specifications revealed that Quality Class S masonry block walls required the subcontractor to observe the installation of masonry work and to , provide inspection verification.
This is a requirement of Specification 10407-13-AM-014, Revision 2, " General Conditions for , Concrete Block Masonry." Documentat. ion required by this specification to verify that the_in process inspections were ,, conducted could not be located.
Corrective Action Request (CAR) No.
}b . > CA86-0023 was initiated to address this condition.
In addition, I( < this CAR required a review of all subcontractors containing Quality A> Class R and S permanent plant work for existence of the required p 'd s inspection documentation. This licensee's effort revealed that 5, ' / ' out of 41, subcontracts required documentation that cannot be s located.
The licensee documented these items on NCR No. CX-5378.
'..w' The inspector is satisfied with the disposition of the 5 items which ' ensure that safety-related equipment is not affected.
NCR 4, ' ' disposition concurrence was provided by the Project Field Engineer, > Project Engineer and Project QA Engineer.
y' o , i.
A s . k $ ' i.
- iK - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _. _.. _ _... _. _. <. s s.-
' ~ cl. T .& 4 E ,3 ',};@C G iq p., g , " x ,
>. ,. . ;. >y q o [,' [[, ' W d M; h.
.[ ,[ ..] ' ' . , }, /,, f.. ,, y,}l ~ a // .
( -n.
. m, - 4: w.
, . . a; < ., - .s ,, . - -- ,. 'The location of reinforcing l steel ~not being in accordance with the design drawings; raised. concerns'regarding the adequacy of the- ._* f, ' masonry, walls.to meetttheir design intent. This concern was-iultimatelyj resolved between the licensee and NRR,- with'the licensee , ,
- 7 committing 4to strengthen the: masonry walls at elevation 74 feet,
' - f . .The: modifications to the' masonry wall were subject to specific < ~ ', %z , .conditionsidiscussedinSection.2.d;ofthisreport.
,
,3 _ _ _ >, 73p ' .To prevent recurrence, all-Subcontract Administrators and' w.
y - F ,f - ~ Coordinators were required to receive training to reinforce the > importance of. future subcontractor work being in accordance with- , specification, Ldrawing'and procedure requirements.
The inspector.
r ~ ' , reviewed the Training Session Reports, verifying that administrative ' ' personnellinvolve'd with subcontractors ' received this training.
' . . , , \\. _ ' Based on"the licensee's corrective actions as indicated above and i g.a P'W the inspector's' examination ofsthe licensee's~ stated actions, this
Y violation is closed.
' , , s , '.s i a a. < , 'b.- (Closed)-Notice of Violation N6. 50-53'8/86-03-26, " Numerous A! s Deficiencies in Vendor Supplied Components and Materials" g if ' identified by th'e SRC. The? licensee submitted their response to This violation wasithe result of several vendors' deficiencies Q.p-this violation to Region V in letter ANPP-37490-EEVB/SGP dated' - f July.25, 1986. The. specific deficiencies identified, including '
licensee's actions to correct *the item and avoid recurrence were, Qf except for item (4), 'previously reviewed and reported by the'NRC.
, The following addresses the deficiency and the inspector's findings: g' , .. E (1) Deficiencies werelidentified with vendor installed Class IE-L components'. This was addressed in NRC:RV Report No.
! 50-530/86-20-under Followup Item Nos. 50-530/86-03-05 and 06.
. N' Based on the inspector's review of the licensee's assessment of the termination problems and corrective actions taken, this iw., . item.was closed.
' - .
> u s ,, _ i . '(2)rVendor weld discrepancies on C-E supplied instrument racks was , f1 <( previously addressed in NRC:RV Report No. 50-530/86-15 and l - Fs isatisfactorily closed in Section 2.e of this report.
- - - ,4 . , ,_ ' / (3) Poor vendor radiographic film quality was addressed in NRC:RV p3 _ , Report No.~87-08.
The inspector's-review of licensee's actions ' ,- ' f taken tozaddressithis,' issue was. satisfactorily closed.
[ , - . [(~4) jdndor'scinput for[ seismic calculations of the five-ton diesel s Jf , -t generator. building crane was'not as required by the design '
- [[ '
specifications. 'The engineering' submittal did not utilize the
' . JB -# ' bullding specific seismic' response. curves, but rather utilized LT site generic 1 seismic response curves.
This deficiency was ' documented'on EER 86-ZG-002; subsequent" calculations - .
substantiated the'ac'ceptability of.thesfive-ton diesel Lq_
[ C (: ' generator cranetto' meet seismic requirements.
The root cause
- P
,was attributedito; oversight by the crane vendor who failed to ) .
- L
. . , .g, , y .
- - . . c> _ , _ - _
,
' - . + x
=- .. . -. - -. -.-. -
N L n j' y-4 4, - . w.. - _ u - - ,, _ , f' .} ,
. g > - a't y'c.
" , o. e - v
, , , < , i ,5 '
q;' - .
,..^ . '. l.
Y m: > t " '
transmitthe$buildingspectracurvesforseismicanalysis.
'% r qAlthough there,isJno safety concern, the audit program was.. + - . -
_ s 5 expanded to include-R9 c1assification-(non "Q";but' seismically ' ,. W analysed).
Other corrective acti.ons'taken to address > vendor s " '
- program _ deficiencies include ~theJaddition of engineering
- ' ' ' > . personnel as audit" team members, or observers, for audits of a .,~ highly technical. nature.;; 76 * '- , we; - ' '
, . w . M, Based ~ontheilicensee'scorrective'actionsi.akenandtheinspector's , , " Jexaminationiof/theflicensee's' stated, actions, this violation is , ' closed.
w 3s a^ c , .~, - , - s.
. ,. lc.
-(Closed) Notice of Violation!No; 50-538/86-03-27,'"As-Built Not in- ' x
- Accordance With Design and Installation Requirements"
. . , .. - . . < .. This ' violation: resulted from the licensee not effectively ,
V ' implementing their. inspection' program. The' specific cases ' - Cidentified and the corrective actions'taken by the licensee are as-follows: ,, N - , ' ' = (1) Undersized Beam-Attachment Pins Licens'ee's' actions taken to correct the identified ' ' ~ ' deficiencies,-the reinspection effort and the e'ngineering - < evaluation to assure compliance with the original code. design. ' - , , ' -requirements was reviewed by theiinspector and addressed in
+ . - NRC:RV Report Nos. 50-530/86-15 and 19.
To prevent recurrence,
training sessions were conducted with both Bechtel-QC and Field Engineering personnel. relative to the selection of the proper L'" - pin and bracket: size._. The inspector reviewed the training records confirming that the training was given.
In addition, - - the licensee required their operations QC inspectors to attend ~ ' ' _ ?similar training; this was_ verified by the inspector. The ' inspector also reviewed the "ANPP' Inspection Handbook" which ' revealed in Section 4.3.3.a " Note" stating " Quality Control , .
- Inspection, per the appropriate vendor manual, of beam
-
' " ' attachment / load' pin installation is a requirement per CAT Report No. 50-530/86-03."
n (2) Improper Bolting Materials t This~ftem.was previously' reviewed by:the inspector and m ' .X . -documented in NRC:RV Report No. 50-530/86-15.
The licensee's corrective act:
- 1 takenweresatisfactory/toprevent
. ~ recurrence.
y a.
, (3)- Electrical Equipment and Cable Tray Support Welding ~
- The licensee's" actions taken to correct:the electrical . equipment' mounting deficiencies and the resulting reinspection effort'was reported by the inspector'in NRCiRV Report No.
50-530/86-15.
The3 root'cause was apparent +1ack.of attention to , .J;. detail on the part of Field Engineering and QC.
The inspector reviewed the training records which indicated that the QC .g - . , $ e , ,. '4 " . ,
g +r j wa b , . _ y
p.; - % -
3:- ' - - , , , ' ' -, . -
- 4
~ ' . .w - . . ~ ' s . ' t , . ; -J.. - oc.
Welding. Inspectors. received training regarding attention to M
- detail.~-This; training;was'given-on June 10,~~ 1986, covering; -
- ' . elding requirements for cable-tray and conduit supports.
' w ,
. , -,
, A - ' ~ The discrepancies identified with cable tray support welding.
ix ~ .was addressed.in NRC:RV Report'Nos. 50-530/86-15 and 19. The-inspection reports 4 include a visual examination of cable tray + .- ~ . hanger welds performed by the inspector which provided added - , "' . confidence thatino furtherglicensee' action is necessary to _ . address this'. item.' s T ^ * ' '
,'. .
. . ~ _ . . ., Based on thellicensee's' corrective actions and the ins ~pector's '
f' examination of the. licensee's stated actions, this violation:is closed.
- < y ' ^ . d (0 pen) Unres'olved Item'No. 50-528/87-11-01, 50-529/87-12-01, and . 50-530/86-03-20 " Masonry Block Wall Adequacy" m . The evaluation of the; masonry block walls was previously discussed r , , in Section 2.a of.thisireport. The result being that the licensee ..*. :' has committed to. modify the masonry wall at elevation'74-feet, subject to the following conditionsi
~ (1). Specify-high strength bolts (e.g., A325 bolts) instead of the < , - proposed A307 bolts, since high strength bolts are recommended.
= - .in'the-AISC. Specifications for friction-type connections.
t - . .. - , (2) Specify a coefficient of friction not greater than 0.5',-instead 'of.the proposed. value: of 0.7, since the value of 0.7 given in the ACI code is' intended for concrete poured against_ rolled ~ ' steel.in new construction.
, , _ (3) The spacing and;pretensioning'of.the bolts should be such that an effective composite"designiwill.be properly. achieved.
. The implementation schedules are a's follows: - . , ,. ~ ! Unit 1-Compl'eteimplementa(ion'bythe'firstappropriate planned outage of sufficient _ duration, but not later ~ ~ ~ than first refueling., '
., Unit 2 - Complete implementation by the first appropriate " .
- planned outage'of sufficient duration, but not later-
. than>first refueling.
' -
- e e
TU' nit *3'-Completeimplementationbyinitialcriticality.
ThisItemwillremainopenuntiltheaboveconditionsand
- appropriate schedules are met.
. m M L F n (-etI t 'W ' sp-w1r.gr Po-- <f wO
- ~t e
-- - -+ e p -a "e+n y - 9-ww----r-w- . --se--e-----c--e-- e r t- - - T
E' $ -
>
> . . . .e.
(C1'osed) Followup Item No. 50-530/86-03-17, " Instrument Rack Weld Discrepancies" Vendor weld discrepancies on C-E supplied transmitter' racks was previously addressed by'the inspector in NRC:RV. Report No.
50-530/86-15.
During-this inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's vendor inspection program responsibilities regarding this , , matter. -These responsibilities are addressed in the following procedures reviewed by the inspector: '(1) 6N417.07, Revision 2, dated January 22, 1986, "ANPP Approved Vendors List." The inspector observed that this procedure provided for an e' valuation of the vendor's technical and , quality capability based on several applicable methods.
' Appendix A provides a questionnaire for obtaining vendor background information including how many personnel are employed in Engineering, Quality Control, Production, and . Quality Assurance.
(2) 6N417.08, Revision 0, dated January 24, 1986, " Vendor Source > . Activity ~ Planning and Control.".This procedure allows for.
, source surveillance of vendor activities, and source inspection to verify product acceptance.
Section 4.4.1 states-that source
, ' ' surveillance is generally performed'to give added confidence that the item-being procured meets all the requirements ~of the . purchase order.
(3)' 61417.07.01, Revision 0, dated August 19, 1985, " Vendor Audit / Survey." Section 4.1.1 of this instruction contains provisions for adding technical specialists to the vendor audit ~ team, as necessary.
(4) 61417.08.01, Revision 0, dated August 19, 1985, " Vendor Source Surveillance." This instruction establishes the methods used in performing vendor source surveillance activities.
(5) 6I417.08.-02, Revision 0, dated August 19,1985, " Vendor Source Inspection." This instruction establishes the methods used in , performing source inspection activities.
Source inspection is generally used to verify product acceptance.
.The inspector is satisfied that the licensee's vendor inspection program has been adequately strengthened to assure purchased material, equipment and services conform to purchase documents.
' This item is closed.
f.
(Closed) Followup Item No. 50-530/86-25-01, " Outdated ROS/MRS Forms" The Request on Stores (ROS) form and the Material Returned to Stores (MRS) form were revised to address the purpose and responsible person for filling out the " intended usage" block.
Applicable instructions for filling out the forms were also revised.
This item is closed.
,I
_
. . - . . - ... - - . . - _ _...
'.
.
'6 c, - . - . . , , , .,.,.. - : w --
- .
, $ .
- g..' ~
" -__f
-k< k s - J . ~ ' :
s, .. . . t ~~
- 3.;
Exit = Meeting' - , The inspector met withIlicen'see management' representatives. denoted in e , paragraph 1 on March 6,'1987.
The scope of the inspection.and the inspector's findings as~noted.in'thisf. report were discussed.~ _ r - -s .,'e i7 9-Q* j m Y,
- w
' ,,4 , t , g ,._
.l_. A: , Y' // ' , ,.. . ..q-I . q ., ' ' ' , , , ' - . ,
1 ^ ~ . . ' f: ~ $ , - % .2.
a %. g _ 4, I
6 '/ '
., $
& ~ .
@ Y s a
.I , ' h ? -
! i r i I l . ' i i , I" l . . . l.
-. - , . V - ',. -i. -~- - -,, .. _.,,,, -., ~,,,.,... -.. -. , , - e , - , ' ' . ,,- ,......-~-,r, -.,,.- ,.m }}