ML20002A558
| ML20002A558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System, Satsop |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1980 |
| From: | Bishop T, Haynes R, Kirsch D, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Spencer G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002A545 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011200129 | |
| Download: ML20002A558 (14) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-. h' - [# o UNITED STATES ~,, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t j REGION V o g 1990 N. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD OUlTE 202. WALNUT C. SEEK PLAZA e S o,5,e WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 ( October 3, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: G. S.' Spencer, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch FROM: Regional Evaluation Peview Board: WNP-1 and WNP-4
SUBJECT:
REGIONAL EVALUATION OF WNP-l/4 PROJECT The Regional Evaluation Review Board met on September 5, 1980 to perform the evaluation of project activities for the period of May 29, 1979 through July 18, 1980. The board reviewed the following areas'.~ a. Previous enforcement actions and results b. Responsiveness and effectiveness of corrective actions taken regarding adverse findings identified as a result of the licensee's quality assurance program and NRC inspections. c. Licensee actions in the areas of IE Bulletins and Licensee Event Reports, 50.55(e) and Part 21. It is the opinion of the Board, based on the results of the review, that the licensee's performance warrants improvement in the following areas: a. Assuring that PSAR commitments are fully and properly translated into specifications. b. Assuring that specification and referenced codes and standards are adequately translated into work and inspection procedures. c. Assuring _that contractor quality documentation for civil work reflect compliance with codes, specifications and procedures prior to turnover of the documentation to the licensee. d. Assuring that corrective actions for adverse findings are effective and timely. e. Assuring that contractor training activities are effective and that ctaft and inspection personnel are sufficiently knowledgeable and disciplined in the execution of the requirements of the work and inspection procedures. 8011200 /27
j G. S. Spencer In addit. ion,.it is the opinion of the Boa'rd that NRC:RV' inspection i efforts should be increased in the areas of: inspeci.lon' of _ quality assurance programs of the various contractors with emphasis on the ~ . quality.of the work and inspection procedures; and..the scope and quality of training provided craft and ' inspection personnel regarding the contractor specific procedures. Also, additional inspection effort appears warranted-in the area of the installation of piping and hangers in view of the.six items of noncompliance identified 5y NRC inspectors in'this area _ during the appraisal period. Licensee' actions related to IE Bulletins and lice'nsee. event reports were generally satisfactory. No specific change in licensee programs or NRC inspecticns in these areas is recommended at this time.- Regional Review Board Members: A.C O \\ R. C. Haynes, Chief, Reactor Projects Section D lj'. l t:l 1%+ L J jT. W'. Bishop, Resident Inspector E / 'i i LM,M, f 50 D. F. Kirsch Reactor Inspector b. i dnc.A.D.Toth,ReTidentInsprctor
Enclosure:
4 WNP 1/4 Evaluation Form .for Appraisal: Period 5/29/79 - 7/18/80 i i
- MC 2955 i
APPENDIX B REGION y LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (CONSTRUCTION ), Facility: Washington-Nuclear Project Unit 1 and Unit 4 Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System Unit Identification: Docket No. CP No./Date of Issuance Unit No. 50-460 CPPR-134 Dec. 23, 1975 1 50-513 CPPR-174 Feb. 21, 1978 4 ~. Reactor Information: Unit l' Unit 4 NSSS B&W B&W MWt 3600 '3600 Appraisal Period: May 29, 1979.th ough July 18, 1980 Appraisal Completion Date: September 5, 1980 i Review Board Members: T. Bishop, Reactor Inspector (assigned as regional' principal inspector for WNP 1/4 during appraisal period) A. Toth, Reactor Inspector- (assigned as resident inspector at WNP 1/4 from October 1,1979 to July 1,1980) D. Kirsch, Reactor Inspector (current regional principal inspector for WNP 1/4)' R. Haynes, Chief, Projects Section, Reactor Construction & Engineering ~ Support Branch 2955-B-1 4/15/80 i
MC 2955 ( App. B) A. Number and Nature of Noncomo11ance Items: (See Attachment 1) Noncompliance category: Unit 1 Unit a Violations 0 0 Infractions 8 2 Deficiencies 1 0 Areas of Noncomoliance: Unit 1 Unit 4 (List Areas as Required) (Points) (Points) Calibration Procedures 10 10 Piping / Hangers Field Welds 20 Pipe Hanger Rework 10 Pipe Support Shop Welds 10 -Equipment Protection 10 10 Structural Steel Shop Welds 10 Concrete Placement 10 Cable Tray Support Welds 2 Total Points 82 20 8. Number ar.o nature of Ceficiency Reoorts (See Attachment 2) C. Bulletins Generally Bulletins have been responded to in a satisfactory and timely manner. (See Attachment 3) D. Escalated Enforcement Actions Civil Penalties - None - Orders - None - Immediate Action Letters - None - Other 80-C6 Letter re: Ineffective Corrective Actions. (RegionVDiregpgg/80 1.etter of July 11,1980) 2955-B-2
e-t \\' MC 2955 (App. B)- l E. Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months - None - + I' . F. ' Justification of. Evaluations of-Functional Areas Categorized as Requiring an increase in Insoection Frecuency/Sccce (See evaluation sheet) See Attachment-4 i 1 d i d 4 i i l' I 2955-B-3 4/15/80.
-~ u + 1 i Page 1 of 3 ' ENFORCEMENT HISTORY ~ INSPECTOR % COMPLETE INSP. HOURS PER PLANT / PROJECT - -YEAR-HOURS INFRA"TIONS DEFICIENCIES DEVIATIONS . AT YR START- ' ENF.; ACTION =*1980' 674 6 0-F 30/15 112-1979 927 6' 4 4 20/8' ~ 93 WNP 1/4 1978-410 13-4 . 0
- 8/3' 24 F
L1977 345 1 1: 0-3/0. 172 1976 56 0 0~ 0 0' NA. 1975 120'(est.) 0 0 0. 0. 'NA-
- 1980 DATA IS TilROUGil JULY 18, 1980 3
i-t 6 h I F P 4 -m T-e +r -e m vm-v - e t -, Page 2 of 3 WNP 1/4 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY ) DESIG,'t, PROCUREMENT, & CONSTRUCTION 9 3000
- 4 60 -
l 2500 - l - 100 50 - INSPECTION, f HOURS 'A l a / 2000 4-90 i l \\ - 80 40 - I w E I l l 2 I e 1500.j-70 E / 5 i E / p i 7 1 I / -60$ $ ~0 - U TEMS OF G 5 I e N0tlCOMPLIANCE ~ a I a - 50 $ b / " 1000 1 20 - - 40 l / 500 f 30 p' f / A r0NSTRUCTION / / PROGRESS - 20 / / 10 / / /
- 10 0
~ HR HR HR HR N 0 0 ' 76 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 YEAR
ATTACIO!ENT 1 Page 3 of 3 - i mo m .,a-u i T,~_,,' rNroncFMENT ACTION - 'C;P 1/4 , ]._ o3 g ITEM DESCRIPTIC'; . s :it
- EE!K;5E.
ES?CNSE E3?. LT. P E PO?.T --- 5y ,\\ 75n, ;i: =ce:v =9
- 0.lDFTE
- CLCEE:
.1;;r i Inadequate. procedure for calibration 79-07-01 l .~G01-79-471l i, I 08-28-79 S0-06 TNF s rnneeni n c,anauring s ene eman 07-?s-70 (WNP 1/4) I l 1 AWSH: Failure to remove standing, ]-{g-g} j .lG01-8008 g unter/imnropor ennen1'dation t o., t u vo_1p ? cl_n1_on technique (WNP 1) 12-04-79 l l Excessive weld weave on pipe weld: 1NF JAJ (WNP 1) [ 19-13-0Z l l [ 6U1-00-/9 ; l 01--16-80 l l l 02-19~-80 1 { j JAJ: Failure to adequately specity 60-01-01 IR F ~ temporaii'wifd controls (WNP 1) 04-07-80 ~ !
- G01-60-140. " - ~ ~
+ 05-07-80 ~ j j Inadequate shop fillet welds on pipe 60-01. > 601-60-140 I 03-07-80' INF-hangers (WNP 1) 04-07-80 Failure to properly store / preserve 80-06-01 i G01-80-225, INF safety related equipment (WNP 1/4) 07-11-80 ? ? ! ;8-13-80 i F.a.i_l.u..re.to control work on 80-06-02 i C01.-80-225 INF completed supports (IC!P 1) 07-11-80 1 i 08-13-80 t i DEF ^ Undersize fillet welds on raceway 80-07-01 t i G01-80-210 suddorts (IRP 1) 06-26-80 I I 07-25-80 = I l l I l IMF, Undersize shop welds.in structural 80-10-01 lG01-80-231 steel (WNP 1) . 07-17-80 108-19-80 ~~ --i i 1 I I i l -l l I I i l I j l 6 S /
~.. ATTACHMENT 2-r- "^ ~50.55(e): ENP 1/4 0** '@~ S. Wo c a 1 ^ ITEM. DESCRIPTIO:: . EE/ RE5?c::SE
RESPONSE
E5P. LTR. REFORT . i "GT.* F:ED REO. DAT: m '" D r:0. / DA'E ' C LC SEC. .. ;Tr ,G01-79-533 Makeup Pump; Speed Increaser l. l10-18-79 Suoverts .10-01-79 i l..... j i .l l 4 lG01-79-576. 1 Interim Suoerstrut Soot Welds 10-31-79 ' Report 11-30-79 j i i i i t. l. l l. 1 j. Interim l.G_01-83 -10 I WM Valve Crar ka I 12-07-79 Reoort I 01-07-80 l l j . _. _ - i 1 G01. 80--50. - j ' 01-24 Pine suonores 01-04-80 i j a Mancnnforming. Retaining Clips-WIG 1 jG01-T0-68 4 vni an 01-V-80 02-1*-80 [ j t Vertical Amplified Response Spectra, Interim,. /cofem4ri 06-11-30 }C01-20-190 j l -l 07-11-80 j t j g-g 4 j t e l g. i l t ~ i p l l I i i l l l 1 I l j l 1 l l 9 ~- - - - - + -,
~
- ATTACIE!ENT 3 D N
- Dv Ub bJ;1;
~f' IE Bulletins WNP 1/4 .. Replys R W d.) 5/79 --7/80 .( ITEM DESCRIPTIO.. .31UE/ ' RE5?G:;5E RES?0:;SE ?E5?. L7?.. REPORT ,.0TIF'ED ?EQ. DATE RECEI'!ED ?;0./D'IE CLOSED . : = ;* 7 %11 Faulty Overcurrent Trip Device .5/22/79 7/22/79.l8/6/79 fnonumber -7614'- As built Seismic Analysis 7/02/79 !11/02/79 p lG01-79-476 l
- 9/7/79-79 15 Deep' Draft Pumps' 7/11/79 l9/11/79 f
(To E: Q) 1 79 2jl -Failure of Transformer-9/12/79 'l10/27/79 11/12/79 lG01-79-55d-l i 2
- 79'-24 '
Frozen" Lines' l9/27/79 10/31/79 l' ~ i '/E25 WEC BFD Relav Failure 11/02/79 ! 01'/02/80* I 2/11/801fG01-80-66 f 79-28 Possibl*e'I'iniit Switch Problem '12/07/79 I 02/d7/80~ !'2/11/80 !G01'80~67J i ~ ~ -~ 80-03 Loss of Charcoal. ~ 2/06/80 ' 03/21/80 3/19/80 IG03-80-547'I ~ 80-05' ~CI/CT Taidi Damage - ' 3/10/80 ' 06/10/80 l ' /12/80 l ELE-GCS-80d75 Examination of Liner Penetration 80-08' 'iTeills ' 4/07/80 ' 7/07/80 7/10/80- IG01-80-193 I ~ l ~ 80-09 Hydramotor' Actuators-4/17/80 I 06/17/80 7/2/80 G01-80-193 3 Misapplication of Pressure lG01-80-222.l 80-16 Transmitters 7/17/80 8/7/80 .. ~.... t t t l g j .2 { l .. _ _ _.*Resoonse delaved due to extenuating circumstances. ~ = .f Extension requestec' 'rtd granted l l q l + l l l l .a -. l.
4 Page'l'of 4 WNP 1/4 4 ATTACHMENT 4 Experience during this. appraisal period indicates that the' licensee needs to direct' additional attention towards assuring that the architect- - engineer's specifications include.the relevant cammitments made by the licensee in the PSAR. -Similarily, additional attention is needed to assure that contractor QA programs and procedures include the relevant requirements delineated in the architect-engineer's specifications. Examples of'these shortcomings are included in items A and B of this attachment which follow. Li addition, the licensee's' actions to correct certain matters discussed during enforcement conferences in May and June, 1978, with Region V management ~have not been fully effective. These matters include: Strengthen Quality Control Although the-licensee has taken steps in strengthening quality within the crafts and QC/QA organizations, additional actions are still warranted as evidenced by items C, D and E of this attach ent. Shorten Response Time ~ t While the licensee has completed cominitted actions.to shorten the time i to respond to and correct known quality problems these actions have not been sufficient to eliminate these problems. Refer to item D. i_ Excose Trends and' Recur."r.g Problem and f.ese!ve Them Licensee action-has not been fully effective in avoiding recurring problems and resolving them in a timely manner. Refer to itens D and E. Bring About Improved Construction Manager and Contractor Resocnsiveness Although committed actions have been completed these actions have not been wholly successful in achieving immediate and effective responses from site contractors. Refer to item D. t. Raise OA Within WPPSS Committed actions are completed, and effective except as noted above. Increase WPPSS/CM Management Attention to Quality Problems Committed actions are completed, and effective except as.noted. j Strengthen Bid Reviews in Area of 0A Responsibility Committed actions are completed, and effective except as noted above. r w _y- _e_-
A WNP 1/4 Attachm:nt 4 Page 2 of 4 A. Translation of PSAR Commitments to Specifications The licensee has.not been fully effective in assuring that PSAR . commitments are translated into specifications and procedures, or alternatively, that deviations are without exception evaluated in accordance with the system to assure incorporation into the FSAR. During the February,1979 QA inspectionLof the previous period an item of noncompliance was-cited regarding a-specific failure in this regard. During_the current period, three cited PStR deviations plus a relevant unresolved item were described.' Some of the. items 4 involve mitigating circumstances; however, the evidence indicates attention to PSAR connitments is lacking. Until recently, WPPSS engineering review checklists for specification reviews did not include a specific item regarding PSAR commitment verification. Examoles of Failure to Translate PSAR Commitments to Soecifications 1. The PSAR canmitment to impose AWS-SFA-5.5 requirements for weld material for. reactor coolant pressure boundary piping were not included in the specifications -lesser requirements were specified. 2. ACI-318 requirements for neat cement grout treatment of construction joints of the spray pond were not specified or accomplished. - 3. ANSI-N45.2.2 requirements tc control access of personnel to class C equipment storage areas were not addressed in the specification nor were wholly comparable access controls provided. 4. Regulatory Guide 1.31 requirements for delta ferrite tests of weld material for stainless steel welding were not included in the specification. B. Translation of Specification Requirements Into Cona?ruction Inspection Procedures The Supply System (WPPSS) has not been fully effective in assuring that specification requirements are translated into procedures for construction and inspection work performance. Examnles of Specification Requirements Not Translated Into Procedures 1. Calibration program requirements, including tecnniques and frequency of calibration of measuring and test equipment, were not includud in'the contractor's procedures nor fully accomplished. 2. Welding and weld inspection requirements for temporary attachments to structural steel were not included in the contractor's procedures nor accomplished. 3. Inspection of valve orientation prior to welding is not addressed in the work or inspection procedures.nor other objective evidence provided to assure such inspections were performed. 4. Examination of thermal expansion effects on preliminary alignment of equipment is not included in the procedures nor considered.
WNP 1/4 Page 3 of 4 C. Completeness and Accuracy of Quality Records The licensee received allegations in May, 1979, regarding apparent discrepancies in the quality assurance program of the concrete contractor, AWSH. Included were allegations of documentation problems. The licensee's investigation of the allegations confimed that various problems existed. Our review of the licensee's investigation findings and the results of an NRC investigation in this area in May, 1980 and the licensee's recent reviews of containment wall concrete records indicate that the documentation problems may not be fully resolved at this time nor that documentation discrepancies will be resolved by AWSH prior to the turnover of the documents to the licensee. D. Incomplete, Ineffective and Delayed Corrective Actions -The licensee's corrective actions on adverse quality findings have occasionally been incomplete, ineffective or untimely. This is characterized by insufficient thoroughness in followup actions. Examples of Incomolete, Ineffective and Delayed Corrective Actions The WPPSS investigation of concrete practices identified several c'eficient areas in May,1979. It took one year to effect the required actions to correct the deficient practices. Other examples include: 1. Protection of equipment has been a continuing concern culminating in a noncompliance citation and an associated special NRC request for attention to this area. 2. Calibration and test requirements had not been incorporated into work procedures, contrary to commitments made in reply to a previous citation regarding this matter. 3. After questions raised by an NRC inspector, WPPSS performed evaltation and repair of a weldolet weld witkut identification of the necessary weld size. Final corrective action required continued URC inspector inquiry. 4. The licensee has not effectively addressed the question of chloride contamination on stainless steel surfaces. There has been indecision in determining the measuring techniques and acceptance criteria. The effects of concrete curing water in the RPV, high chlorides in fire retardant paint on wood blocking for stainless steel piping and unidentified foreign material on stainless steel piping have beeri in question for months.
~ WNP 1/4 Page 4 of 4 E. Contractor Trainino'and Discipline The licensee has not been fully effective in assuring effective contractor training programs are implemented. The licensee's investigation of allegations in May,1979, regarding the concrete contractor, and the NRC investigatica in May,1980, of similar allegations revealed weaknesses.in training QA personnel to current procedures. The variety of noncompliances and unresolved items identified by NRC inspectors indicate that this weakness extends to construction personnel and to other contractor activities. Various corrective actions have been taken by the supply system, including special trair.ing in response to specific NRC findings. For general technology training, training materials have been disseminated to contractors and trairing coordinators. Continued efforts are warranted. Examples of Weakness in Contractor Trainigg. 1. Neither welders nor inspectors were observing weld weave limitations on stainless steel piping. 2. Workers ~ tampered with completed, inspected and tagged pipe hangers without-notifying QA inspectors. 3. Concrete placement techniques in use were weak regarding water on construction joints and consolidation practices. 4. Neither welders nor inspectors were observing the limitations on electrical parameters for RCPB piping welding. 5. Inspection. hold points were bypassed by crafts. 6. Personnel were using " Requests for Information" to obtain resolution of nonconforming conditions which should have had nonconformance report system controls applied. 7. Inspection personnel-not familiar with the pipe wall thickness 4 verification requirement; pursuant to removal of surface defects. 8. Weld procedures were ~r.ot readily accessible to welders nor readily available in work.v2as. 9. Training of welders on job procedures was weak.
- 10. The night shift craft foremen was not trained relative to concrete survey work procedures.
l 4 r --n-,}}