ML17272A698
| ML17272A698 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1979 |
| From: | Bishop T, Dodds R, Haist D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17272A697 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-79-14, NUDOCS 7911020377 | |
| Download: ML17272A698 (18) | |
See also: IR 05000397/1979014
Text
p ort No
5 0 397/ 79
1 4
Docket No.
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COKfISSION
.
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
License
No
GPPR-93
Safeguards
Group
Licensee:
Washington Public Power SuPPly System
P. 0.
Box 968
Richland,
99352
Inspection
conducted
AuguSt 6-9,
1979
~~c
Inspectors:
) iv.
l
T.
W. Bishop,
Reac
r Inspector
D.
.
1st.
Reactor
Inspector
Facie it
Name
Was hi ng ton Hucl ear Project
Ho .
2
(WHP-2 )
Inspection at:
WHP-2 Site,
Benton County, Washington
Date Signed
Pzc
Date Signed
Approved By:
Summary:
rj',4c~
R. T. Dodds, Chief, Reactor Engineering
Support Section,
Reactor
Construction
and Engineering
Support Branch
Date Signed
Dat
Signed
Ins ection
on Au ust 6-9,
1979
Re ort Ho. 50-397 79-14
~A<<d:
>>
d
p
I'I
1b
d
inspectors of work activities
and quality assurance
records of the prime
mechanical
contractor
and of quality assurance
program interfaces
between
that contractor,
the architect-engineer
and the licensee;
observations
of pipe support work and work activities
and review of quality records;
and followup on previous inspection findings.
The inspection activities
involved 40 inspector-hours
by two
HRC inspectors.
Results:
Ho items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
RV Form 219 (2)
HY~
~9>>ggo
1
I
I
II
t
I
tf
I
tt
,8 RECII
po
gS
+**++
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COiVIIVllSSlON
REGION V
1990 N. CALIFORNIABOULEVARD
SUITE 202, WALNUTCREEK PLAZA
WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA94596
September
27,
1979
Docket Ho.
50-397
Washington Public Power Supply System
P. 0.
Box 968
Richland, Irlashington
99352
Attention:
Hr.
N. 0. Strand
Managing Director
Gentlemen:
Subject:
NRC Inspection at Washington Nuclear Project
No.
2
(WNP-2)
This refers to the inspection
conducted
by Messrs.
T.
W. Bishop and
D.
P. Haist of this office on August 6-9.
1979 of activities authorized
by
NRC Construction Permit No.
CPPR-93,
and to the discussion of our
findings held
by Nr. Bishop with Hr. A. D. Kohler and other members of
your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas
examined during this inspection
are described
in the enclosed
inspection report.
Within these
areas,
the inspection consisted of
selective
examinations of procedures
and repre'sentative
records, inter-
views with personnel,
and observations
by the inspectors.
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements
were identified within
the scope of this inspection.
In accordance
with Section
2.790 of the
NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
Part 2, Title 10,
Code of Federal
Regulations,
a copy of this letter and
the enclosed
inspection report will be placed in the
NRC's Public
Document
Room.
If this report contains
any information that you believe
to be proprietary, it is necessary
that you submit
a written application
to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting
that such information be withheld from public disclosure.
The applica-
tion must include
a full statement
of the reasons
why it is claimed that
the information is proprietary.
The application should
be prepared
so
that any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure
Washington Public Power
Supply System
-2-
September
27,
1979
to the application,
since the application without the enclosure will
also
be placed in the Public Document
Room.
If we do not hear from you
in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in
the Public Document
Room.
Should you have any questions
concerning
this inspection,
we will be
glad to discuss
them with you.
Sincer ely,
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report
Ho. 50-397/79-14
G. S. S)encer,
Chief
Reactor Construction
and
Engineering
Support
Branch
.
cc w/o enclosure:
N.
E. Witherspoon,
Division tlanager,
equality Assurance,
A.
D. Kohler, Manager
WNP-2 Project,
P
I,
f
hl
l
U ~ S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE
OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
R
t
N
50-397/79-14
Docket
No.
License
No.
CPPR-93
Licensee:
Washington Public Power SuPPly System
P. 0.
Box 968
Richland,
99352
Washington Nuclear Project
No.
2
(WNP-2)
Ins ection at'NP-2 Site,
Benton County, Washington
Safeguards
Group
Inspection
conducted'!'nspectors:
l )v.
l
T.
W. Bishop.
Reac
r Inspector
D.
.
>st, Reactor Inspector
Approved By:
R. T. Dodds, Chief, Reactor
Engineering Support Section,
Reactor Construction
and Engineering
Support Branch
Summary:
Date Signed
Date Signed
Date Signed
Dat
Signed
Ins ection on Au ust 6-9,
1979
Re ort No. 50-397/79-14
A~d:
.
d
1
by
dd
1
b
d
inspectors of work activities
and quality assurance
records of the prime
mechanical
contractor
and of quality assurance
program interfaces
between
that contractor,
the architect-engineer
and the licensee;
observations
of pipe support work and work activities and review of quality records;
and followup on previous inspection findings.
The inspection activities
involved 40 inspector-hours
by two
NRC inspectors.
d
Results:
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
RV Form
2'19 (2)
-
,
CI
l"
i
0
DETAILS
1.
Persons
Contacted
a
~
Mashin ton Public Power
Su
1
S stem
MPPSS
b.
"A. D. Kohler.
MNP-2 Project tlanager
- A. tl. Sastry,
Project Quality Assurance
flanager
- J.
C. Janus,
Construction tlanager
- D. Lawrence, Quality Assurance
Engineer
L.
D. Noble, Mechanical
Engineer
Burns
and
Roe
Inc.
B&R
C.
- R.
C. Root,
MNP-2 Deputy Project Manager
- G. T. Harper, Jr., Technical
Support Manager
- tl. J. Parise,
Deputy Project Quality Assurance
Manager
- J. A. Lanck, Quality Assurance
Engineer
- L. Good, Assistant Resident Project Engineer
R.
Dewey, Melding Engineer
M. Gotham,
Melding Engineer
WSH/Boecon/Bovee
and Crail/GERT Contract
215
d.
L. Ramsett,
Corporate Quality Assurance
Manager
A. Larson, Quality Assurance
l1anager
T. Bennington, Quality Assurance
Supervisor
L. Buckner, Quality Control Supervisor
M. t1orris, Engineering
Hanager
G. Bradbare,
Chief Melding Engineering Supervisor
C.
King-, Melding Engineer
Industrial Heatin
and Plumbi n
Inc.
IHP
e.
D. Gregory, Quality Manager
C. Schwerin.
Lead Quality Assurance
Inspector
State of Mashin ton
- G. Hanson,
Senior Project Engineer,
Energy Facility Site
Eva]uation Council
- Denotes
those attending
the exit interview on August 9,
1979.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous
Ins ection Findin s
'a ~
(Open) 50-397/79-12/01:
Several
practices
associated
with the
inspection
and rework of concrete
expansion
anchors differed
with the requirements
1
I
-2-
Procedure
No. (CP-25, Revision 5.
Hanger Inspection-Traceable
Systems
and Project Engineering Directive
(PED)
No. 215-CS-
1050 were reviewed to verify that
a check to ensure
the sleeve
has not pulled up against
the plate
was required for all
new
anchor bolt installations
and all future anchor bolt reinspec-
tions.
The inspector
also verified that training sessions
were
being conducted
by NPPSS/B&R for anchor bolt reinspection
personnel
and reviewed the results of an unscheduled
audit by
WPPSS/B&R on the
215 contractor concrete
anchor bolt activities.
It was noted that the reinspection
program did not specifically
address
the acceptability of concrete
anchors
in grouted floor
column supports,
and did not prohibi t reuse of Phillips Red
Head anchors.
The licensee
stated
that these
items would be
addressed
in a revision to the
PED.
The licensee
also stated
that
a sampling
program would be prepared
to recheck already
reinspected
anchors
and anchors installed subsequent 'to
February,
1978 for sleeve pull up against
base plate.
This
item will remain open pending
PED revision and evaluation of
the sampling
program results.
(Closed)
Noncompliance
(50-397/79-03/01):
Inadequate
inspection
of a pipe support
by the industrial Heating
and Plumbing
Company (IHP).
The licensee's
response
to the item of noncompliance
was
summarized
in WPPSS letter
No. G02-79-76 of April 20,
1979.
The corrective actions identified in the letter bere satis-
'factorily verified during
a previous inspection (refer to
NRC
Report
No. 50-397/79-09).
This item was left open pending
final
IHP acceptance
of a suitable
number of supports
so that
the effectiveness
of the routine
IHP inspection
program could
be properly evaluated.
During the current inspection
the
inspector
examined five accepted
pipe supports
and reviewed
the records
associated
with 30 accepted
supports.
The supports
and records
were found to be
in~ coppl<iance with specification
and drawing requirements.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Open
Item (50-397/79-13/01):
Allegation concerning
structural
steel
platform inadequacy.
An anonymous allegation
was received that the first thermal cycle of the containment,
would produce
a differential thermal
growth that would crack
all cantilevered
Alleger also claimed that two
B&R
engineers
were fired for agreeing with him.
The allegations
were not substantiated.
The licensee
produced
calculations of thermal
growth and maximum stress
levels
based
upon
26 postulated
cases
of thermal cycling throughout plant
life.
The maximum calculated
stress
level is 29,900 psi vs.
69,800 allowable.
One of the two engineers
allegedly fired by
B&R is
novi a
B&R employee;
the other
was never
a
B&R engineer.
Based
upon the licensee's
analysis,
this item is considered
closed.
-3-
d.
e.
(Closed)
Unresolved
Item (50-397/79-12/05):
Use of addenda~
system for controlling HP-84 structural
steel welding.
The inspector
reviewed
50 additional
addenda
to Work Procedure
WP-84 for design
changes
or changes affecting structural
integrity.
No such
changes
were identified.
The Project
Engineering Directive governing
use of addenda
require review
by BER gA and initiation of IR/NCR's for unique deviations
to
WP-84.
The inspector confirmed that the required weekly
review of addenda
was taking place.
Based
upon these facts
and the absence of any design
changes
this i tem is closed.
(Closed)
Unresolved
Item (50-397/79-13/02):
Use of Field
Change
Requests
(FCR) by 215 contractor.
The inspector
had previously identified two incomplete
FCR's
and one
FCR not submitted to
B8R for approval within the time
required
by controlling document
HP-107,
and
had questioned
the ambiguity in WP-107 which implies that certain non-major
design
changes
are allowed without BSR approval
and the
latitude in determining what constitutes
a major design
change.
The licensee
has directed
the 215 contractor to cease
using
FCR's
and withdraw HP-107.
B&R will review all FCR's issued
to date for unreviewed
design
changes.
Based
upon licensee's
affirmative action to this problem, this item is considered
closed.
3.
Contract
215
ualit
Pro
ram Review
The inspectors
examined
the areas of the
215 contractor's
quality
assurance
program described
below.
Areas selected
included
known
problem areas
based
upon previous inspections,
areas relating to
allegations
and other areas of interest..
a ~
Ins ector Trainin
'and
uglification
The contractor's
procedure for training and qualification of
inspection
personnel
(guality Control Procedure
No.
RCP-22,
Revision
1) was examined for compliance
to the requirements
of
the contract specification,
the
FSAR, and the general
intent
of ANSI Standard
N45.2.6.
While no items of noncompliance
or "
deviations
were identified, it was noted that the procedure
does not address
consideration of previous inspection
experience
in determining
an inspector's qualification status,
nor does
the procedure
address
documentation of the supervisor's
evaluation,
of the inspector's
performance
during the qualification period.
Interviews of ten recently. qualified inspectors
and two super-
visors established
that previous inspection
experience
is
considered
in determining qualification status
and that the
supervisor's
evaluations
were performed,
but not documented.
Examination of ten inspector's
training packages
revealed that
each inspector
had previous quality inspection experience
commensurate
with the requirements
of ANSI N.45.2.6.
The
effectiveness
of inspections
performed
was satisfactorily
verified by independent
inspection of ten accepted
pipe supports
(see
Paragraph
4 of this report).'t was. concluded,
therefore,
that the contractor's
training and qualification program is in
compliance with the contract specification,
the
FSAR, and the
general
intent of ANSI N45.2.6 but that the procedure
(gCP-22)
and training'ecords
may require
added defini tion or detail to
provide continued
assurance
of adequate
inspection qualifi-
cation.
Contractor
and licensee
representatives
stated that
this situation would be reviewed
and appropriate
action taken.
This item will be examined during
a subsequent
inspection.
(79-14-01 )
b.
gC Ins ection Procedures
-
C Su ervisor Hemoranda
- The inspector
examined
60 memoranda
issued
by the
gC supervisor
to determine if the memoranda
had circumvented or obviated
inspection
procedure
requirements.
The inspector
found no
such instances
but rather
found awareness
and concern for
quality on the part of the
gC supervisor.
The memoranda
effectively communicated
these
concerns for and clarifications
. of inspection
requirements
to the
gC supervisor's staff.
c ~
Desi
n Control
Design control in the form of the addenda
system
and the
FCR
system were examined
and are reported in Paragraph
2 above.
d.
Ins ection Status
Control - Hold Ta
s
The inspector reviewed Procedure
No..(CP-5,
"Inspection/Non-
conformance Reporting," to verify that the placing and removal
of hold tags
was properly controlled.
The procedure
was found
to provide adequate
control.
The inspector
had
no further
questions
in this area.
e.
Meld Re ection Rate
The inspector
reviewed the actions that have
been
taken
by the
contractor to lower the weld rejection rate.
The actions
included (1) assignment
of a construction superintendent
in
charge of weld quality, (2) initiation of weekly status
reports
and,
(3)
a policy of re-examining welders at
a specified weld
reject rate.
Rejection rates
were previously between llÃ-
33% and are presently
between
15Ã - 20$ .
The inspector will
continue to monitor this activity to assure
that the contractor's
efforts are effective in lowering the weld rejection rate.
(79-14-02)
Ins ection
Re orts
IR's
Official Documents
g.
h.
The inspector
reviewed Procedure
QCP-5,
"Inspection/Noncon-
formance Reporting," to ascertain
whether the
QC supervisor or
lead inspector
has authority to invalidate inspection reports.
It was determined
that the
QC supervisor
or lead inspector
reviews IR's for clarity and the senior
QA engineer validates
IR's.
Supervisors
and lead inspectors
do not have authority
to invalidate inspection reports.
The inspector
had
no further
questions
in this area.
Qualification of S ecial
Process
Procedures
The contractor's
program for qualification of welding and
post-weld heat treatment
procedures
was reviewed for compliance
to the requirements
of the
FSAR and
A'WS or ASNE Code,
as
appropriate.
Individual procedures
had
been previously ex-
amined
as
a part of the routine inspection
program.
It was
noted that the contractor
had recently requalified welding
procedures
at the request of t'e licensee,
due to problems
~ with weld test record traceabi lity and the application
of'eneric
weld tests.
A final report on the requalification
program
was being prepared
by the. contractor.
The subject of
welding procedure 'qualifications will be examined further
following issuance
of the contractor's
report.
(79-14-03)
The qualification of the contractor's
post weld heat treatment
procedure
(PWHT Ho.
1) was addressed
in a separate
HRC inspec-
tion report
(Ho. 50-397/79-10).
Subcontractor
uglification
In reviewing the contractor's
program. to qualify its sub-
contractors, it was determined that extensive efforts are
currently in progress
to re-examine
each subcontractor's
quality program.
Initial effort'ts are being concentrated
on a
review of the subcontractor
responsible for the fabrication
and installation of the Sacrificial Shield Wall
(SSW).
This
review includes:
a review of quality requirements
levied on
the subcontractor,
a review of implementing procedures,
a
review of inspector
and weld qualifications,
and
a review of
quality records,
including as-built drawings.
It appears
that
.
the contractor's
actions to assess
the
SSW subcontractor
are
appropriate for the concerns identified in this area (refer to
'RC
Reports
50-397/79-12
and 50-397/79-13).
Similar reviews
are scheduled for other subcontractors.
The results of these
reviews will be examined during
a subsequent
inspection.
(79-14-04)
4.
Pi
e
Su
orts
and Restraints
Observation of Work and Work Activities
The prime mechanical
contractor's activities related to dynamic
pipe support fabrication
and installation were inspected.
The
- ~
0
.inspection
included examination of ten completed spring supports
for evidence of proper welding, material sizes,
configuration.
installation, location,
and setting indicators.
Ilo items of
noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
b.
Review of ualit
Records
The quality related record
packages
associated
with the ten
dynamic pipe supports
inspected
were reviewed.
The record
packages
included acceptance
inspection records,
weld records,
NDE records,
and as-built drawings.
No items of noncompliance
or deviations
were identified.
5.
Exit Interview
At the conclusion of the inspection
a meeting
was held with licensee
and Burns
5 Roe representatives
as denoted in Paragraph l.
The
activities covered during the inspection
and observations
and
findings of the inspectors
were discussed.
The corrective measures
being taken
by the licensee
in the areas of design control
(Para-
graph Z.e).
improvement in the weld reject rate
(Paragraph
3.e),
and subcontractor's
qualifications
(Paragraph
3.h) were recognized
as being
needed
to assure
that the plant will be constructed
in
accordance
with pertinent requirements.
yl
,I'I
i
0