ML20004C995
| ML20004C995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1981 |
| From: | Bishop T, Dodds R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004C989 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-508-81-07, 50-508-81-7, 50-509-81-07, 50-509-81-7, NUDOCS 8106080133 | |
| Download: ML20004C995 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000508/1981007
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:F. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION - OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT . REGION V 50-508/81-07 Report No. Sn_ Sng /g1_n7 Docket No. 50-508.~ U.S.09 License' No. CPPR-155 Safeguards Group Lic:nsee: __}lashington Public Power Sucolv System . P. O. Box 1223 . Elma, Washington 98541 Facility Nrne: Washington Nuclear Projects Nos. 3/5 (WNP-3/5) Inspecticn at: WNP-3/5 Site, Elma, Washington Inspect'on conducted: March 2 to 27, 1981 Inspecto.s: /k /[[ Mt. M27h/ 'i. W. 1 shop,[br.Hesiaent inspector ' 06te Signed Date Signed Date Signed Approved By: p./p/p/ ' R. T. Dodds, Chief / Dale $igned Reactor Construction Project Section 2 Summary: Inspection during the period of March ? - 27, 1981 (Report Nos. 50-508/ 81-07 and 50-509/81-07) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection by the resident inspector of construction activities including: Electrical cable tray support weld- ing; containment structural concrete-observations of work and quality re- cords review; containment structural steel work activities; inspection tours of site facilities; follow up on a potential 50.55(e) item; and followup on previous inspection findings. The inspection involved 72 inspection hours onsite by one NRC Inspector. 'Results: Of the seven areas inspected one item of noncompliance was identified:(failure to qualify fillet weld procedure) in one area (paragraph 4). - ,- . . '810.6 o 8 0 -O ' _ RV Form 219 (2) .
77: . . ' DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted - The inspector interviewed various engineering, management, inspection and construction personnel of the organizations listed below. Key personnel including those who attended the exit interview are identified below, a. Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
- R. S. Leddick, Program Director, WNP-3/5
- P.' E. Dobson, Project Manager, WNP-3/5
- N. Kaufman, Deputy Project Manager
- J. C. Lockhart, Site Quality Assurance Manager
- C. E. Love, Construction Manager
- 0. E. Trapp, Engineering Manager
- J. M. Kovacs, Assistant Site Quality Assurance Manager
- J. A. Puzauskas, Quality Assurance Engineering Supervisor
- M. Monopoli, Quality Assurance Operations Supervisor
- J. M. Walkar, Sr. ?roject Quality Engineer
- C. H. Tev,ksburg, Quality Assurance Surveillance Supervisor
b. Ebasco Services. Inc. (Ebasco)
- D. L. Quamme, Project General Manager
- J. P. Sluka, Manager of Engineering
- A. M. Cutrona, Quality Assurance Manager
- T. E. Cottrell, Sr. Resident Engineer
- V. J. Lovelace, Quality Assurance Audit Supervisor
- P. K. Telford, Materials Manager
L. A. Bast, Project Quality Engineer
- R. G. Peck, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer
C, Fischback & Moore (FM) K. Bryden, Project Manager- H. Jaillet, Project Quality Control Manager A. McLeod, Project Engineer D. Shersen, Quality Control Engineer - d. Chicago Bridge and Iron, (CBI) 7 0. Wein, Project Welding & Quality Assurance Superintendent e. Other
- G. Hansen, Chief, Operations Division, Washington Energy Facitlity
Site Evaluation Council J. A. Adams, Owners Site Manager, Pacific Power and Light . - .... - .- . , .
- Denotes those present at the NRC management meeting on March 27, 1981
, . - . ' ah -- /
d ,4 ' s .e ,m ..e5.
_ . " ' 2 2. -Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a. (Closed) 50-508/509/80-14-01, Noncompliance - Failure to calibrate equipment at specified frequencies. (WS) The licensee's response to the item of noncompliance is documented in WPPSS letter no. G03-81-059 of January 9, 1981. The actions taken include calibration of the specified equipment, verification that no other equipment was overdue, documentation of the initial problem on a nonconformance report (which resulted in an assessment of the use of the past due equipment), revisions to the calibration control pro- cedure, and training of personnel. lhe inspector verified that the stated actions had been satisfactorily completed. Quality _ records indicate that all of the overdue equipment was found to be within re- quired tolerances upon recalibration, indicating that there were no , ddverse saf0ty impacts resulting from this problem. This item is closed. b. (Closed) 50-508/509/80-17-05, Noncompliance - Improper quided bend testing of welder qualification weld speci:nens (WS) The' licensee's response to the item of noncompliance is documented in WPPSS letter no. G03-81-510 of February 19, 1981. The actions taken included: the issuance of a stop work order to the contractor to halt further welder qualifications and safety related work pend- ing corrective actions; documentation of the condition on a noncon- formance report which resulted in an assessment of work already per- formed by the improperly qualified welders, reinspection of the pro- duction welds made by the welders in questicr.; procurement of an appropriately sized guided-bend test jig; and requalification of the welders to AWS DI.I code requirements. The reply further stated that additional contractor deficiencies, detected by the licensee's quality assurance program, prevented immediate rescinding of the stop work order. The inspector verified that the actions identified in the licensee's response had been satisfactorily completed. This included the exam- ination of ten welder requalification records and test samples, in- spection of the new guided-bend test jig, and review of other con- tractor actions to resume safety related work. With respect to safety equipment, it was noted that a review of quality records identified that three of the improperly qualified welders had welded on a total of five safety related HVAC duct supports. The welds on these supports were reinspected and found satisfactory. The three welders were re- quiaified on their first attempt. Based on the above it was con- cluded that there were no adverse safety impacts resulting from this . . _ _ - - . - -.- problem. This item.is closed. ..~ c. (Closed) 50-508/509/80-14-02, Followup Item - Seismic adequacy of . friction clamping devices used in HVAC supports (WS) .n, -4 3 .amwe,
c - - _ . i -3- Licensee repri:antatives had been requested to provide the seismic qualification data for HVAC support clamping devices if they were -to be used in safety related service. A review by the licensee determined that the friction clamps will not be used in a safety related capacity and, therefore, seismic qualification data was unnecessary. This item is closed. d.- (Closed) 53-508/509/80-17-04 - Allegations to WPPSS/EBASCO regard- ing HVAC welding and welder w alification (WS) NRC investigation into the WPPSS/EBASCO handling of the allegations was initiated in December 1980 (see NRC report 50-508/5G9/80-17). During the ct.rrent inspection the inspector examined the licensee's final report on the matter, which concluded that the allegations were not substantiated with the exception of the previously known situa- tion of incorrect welder symbol stamping on certain non-safety HVAC wel ds . These findings are consistent with the documented NRC find- ings in this area. This item is closed. e. _(Open) 50-508/509/81-04-03 Unresolved item - !, consistencies between contractor cable tray support drawings and Ebasco design drawings (FM) . Licensee representatives provided documents indicating that the sub- ject of electrical contractor tray support drawing quality had been previously identified by the licensee's established quality program and that corrective action was in progress. This action included a review of the entire area of electrical contractor drawing develop- ment and review. Related to this, on March 13, 1981 the contr~'or issued a self imposed stop work order pending a review of al- apport drawings for compliance to design requirements, a review of all pre- viously fabricated supports, and re-indoctrination of design and QC personnel. As of the conclusion of this inspection, these activities were still in progress. This item is considered +, be unresolved and will be further examined following the complet.on of the con- tr.ctor's actions. 3. Followup on a Potential 50.55 (e) Item - Improper Guided-bend Testing of Weld Specimens On December 17, 1980, licensee representatives reported to NRC:RV that the use of an improperly sized guided-bend testing jig for HVAC structural weld- er's qualifications was potentially reportable under 10CFR50.55(e). On Jan- uary 16, 1981, the licensee notified NRC:RV that the condition had been eval- uated further and was found not to be reportable under the regulations. The rationale for this decision was examined during the current inspection. The inspector reviewed the engineering and quality assurance office correspon- dence on this-issue and discussed the subject with cognizant licensee person- , _ _ ..._. nel. While the condition was determined to be a significant breakdown in the construction quality assurance program, the licensee determineo that use of the test jig did not have safety significance based on the following con- ditions: (1) The three welders who installed the five class 1 hangers / supports, ' and were qualified using the incorrect bend testing jig, have been ~_ , - .
b.~ . . -4 - . L ';a.. acceptably requalified using a bend test jig of the correct dimensions. (2) The welding procedure utilized was prequalified per AWS DI.I. (3) The five supports involved have been visually inspected to applicable requirements and found acceptable (Reference 1). (4) The subject welds were duct support fillets on the ECCS Filter Exhaust System. The limiting condition for hanger design is .the G E case, and as such is over conservative for structural support for system operation. The service load requirements for these welds are considerably below the tneoretical maximum load. Considering the alsove, and the fact that the issue does not have generic significanc and has been documented in noncompliance correspondence be- tween the NRC and th; licensee (see paragraph 2-b of this report), the in- spector was satisfied with-the resolution of this matter. 4. -Electrical Cable Tray Support Welding (FM) Selected aspects of the electrical contractor's (contract no. 3240-225/253) activities related to cable tray support welding were examined during the curre:t inspection. The examination included a review of the contractor's welding procedure for structural fillet welds (F&M AWS-1) and welding act- ivities ia the Unit 3 reactor auxiliary building. The activities were ex- amined for compliance to the requirements of the PSAR, the AWS Struc'. ural Welding Code (AWS DI.I), the contract specification, and the contractor's ' procedure (no. CP.40353 - Construction Procedure for Welding Steel Structures).
The inspector found that many of the welds called out on the contractor's support fabrication drawings and the Ebasco design drawings were smaller '. than the minimum fillet weld size permitted I,y the AWS Structural Welding Code (AWS DI.I) for prequalified joints. Examination of an approved con- tract Field Change Request (no. FCR-F01017, dated January 14, 1981) es- tablished that this condition had been recognized by the contractor and Ebasco and action was specified for resolution. %is action included a statement that the weld precedure must be quali<ied (since the AWS pre- qualified weld requirements were not being used). However, contrary to this requirement, as of March 26, 1981, the contractor had not taken action to qualify the welding procedure. Representatives of the contractor's quality assurance and engineering offices stated that they did not recog- nize further qualification to be necessary since WPPSS/Ebasco had approved their fillet weld procedure (contained in revision 3 to construction pro- cedure no CP-40353) on January 30, 1981, subsequent to the issuance of ' FCR-F-1017, with no comments pertaining to further welding procedure t qualification. Licensee representatives explained that both documents (the FCR'and the procedure) may have been in the review cycle simeltanously ___ which may have led to the approval of their construction procedure without s .,.y', Ac . ___ -
. . -5- qualification of the fillet weld procedure (although it was noted that some of the individuals'who approved the FCR in early January 1981 also approved the revised construction procedure on January 30,1981). The failure to qualify the welding procedure, as required by the AWS Structural Welding Code, the FCR, and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX, is an apparent itemofnoncompliance(50-508/509/81-07-01). No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 5. _ Containment Structural Concrete (JAS) ' a. Observations of Work and Work Activities The J. A. Jones concrete activities related to Unit 3 centainment were xamined. The examinations included observation of: reinforcing stet storage, handling, and installation; (in the laydown area and Unit-3 containment) preplacement activities related to containment placement no. 3RBIO43 (form er,ection, reinforcing steel installatior, and embed installation); document control auditing; and interviews with six craftsmen, three craft supervisors, two quality control in- spectors, and an 6aditor. The activities were examined for compliance to the requirements of the PSAR, the contract specification (no. 3240- 265), contractor procedures (nos. WE-WP-2 and WE-WP-5), and design drawings (nos. G2521, G?524, G2526, G3509, G3513, G3514). The activities observed were found to be in accordance with procedures and the per- sonnel interviewed were knowledgeable of requirements. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. b. Review of Quality Records The quality records pertaining to concrete placement no. 3RBS060 and four inspector's qualifications were examined. The placement records included stud weld inspection reports, nonconformance reports, concrete preplacement check list, preplacement punch list, concrete tracking record, concrete trip tickets, and piping test records. The inspector qualification records included eye examination records, training re- cords, work history resumes, test records, and certification documents. The records were examined for compliance to the requirements of the PSAR, the contract specification, ANSI N45.2.6, and contractor procedures (WG-WP-5 and P0P-N-702). No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 6. Containment Structural Steel Welding (CBI) CBI activities related to Unit 5 containment welding were examined for "~~~ ~~~~" " compliance to approved CBI welding procedures, the contract specification, the ASME B&PV code, and the PSAR. Observations were made of joint fit up . v %
r= - , .
- -6- - and preheat, identification,' preparation, use of specified weld filler materials, interpass temperature control, welder technique, weld size, and supervision quality. control coverage. 'The joints examined included Unit 5 ring 12.to 13 girth weld (saw process) areas 45-65, 100-125, 185-200, and 310-331. All. activities observed appeared to be in compliance with specified requirements. CBI activities for control of~ welding filler material at the Unit 5 con- tainment location were examined including observations of material storage, temperature control, issuance, and handling for compliance to procedural requirements. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 7. Inspection Tours of Site Facilities At various times during the inspection period the inspector made tours of the Unit 3 and 5 plant island and material storage areas, examining gen- eral housekeeping, QC and craf t supervisory coverage for work activities, availability of work documents, equipment calibration status, tagging and . -identification of materials, and protection of installed equipment. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the in- spection_ tours. 8. Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of-noncompliance, or deviations. One unresolved item was addressed in this inspection re- port in paragraph 2.e. 9. Management Meetings Management meetings were held on March 13 and 27,1981. Licensee and Ebasco representatives that attended the March 27, 1981 meeting are de- noted in paragraph 1. During the meetings the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection identifying the unresolved item dis- cussed in paragraphs-2.e and the item of noncompliance discussed in para- graph 4 Licensee representatives stated that actions would be initiated on the concerns identified. .,_ _ . , ~ ,. . - ,
6 4 }}