ML20038B833
| ML20038B833 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1981 |
| From: | Dodds R, Hernandez G, Narbut P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038B816 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-460-81-07, 50-460-81-7, 50-513-81-07, 50-513-81-7, NUDOCS 8112090139 | |
| Download: ML20038B833 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000460/1981007
Text
-
-
_
-
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY DMMISSION
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
50-450/81-07
Report No. 50-513/81-07
Docket No. 50-460, 50-513
License No. CPPR-134, 174
Safeguards Group
'
i
Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System
P. O. Box 968
i
Richland, Washinaton 99352
Facility Name: Washington Nuclear Projects Nos. 1 & 4 (WNP-1/4)
Inspection at: WNP-1/4 Site, Benton County, Washington
Inspection conducted: ' August 31 - September 4,'a'nd September 14-18, 1981
Inspectors:
(Vi
II/l2 /61
P. P. Narbut, Reactor Inspector
Date Signed
72&MM
/I//Z-[8 /
.
G
ernandez,ReactoOInspector
Date Signed
~
//!/2
/
Approved by:
l 't
R.' T. Dodds, Chief, Reactor Project
'Datv Signed
-Section 2, Reactor Construction Projects
Branch
Summary:
Inspection during the period of August 31 - September 4, and September 14-18, 1981
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by regional based inspectors of construction
activities including licensee action on previous inspection-findings, welding
and equipment storage for the safety related tank manufacturer, containment
penetration installations, construction shutdown maintenance activities for
the WNP-4 unit, and examination of allegations against the heating, ventilation
and air-conditioning (HVAC) contractor and the civil structural contractor.
The inspection involved 91 inspector hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the four areas examined, no items of noncompliance or deviations
were identified in three areas.
One apparent item of noncompliance was
identified in the investigation of allegations directed at the HVAC
contractor - failure to perform safety related work to approved procedures.
8112090139 811120
PDR ADOCK 05000460
G
__
.
.
.
r-
,
.
DETAILS
1.
Individuals Contacted
a.
Washington Public Power Supply System
- R. B. Glasscock, Director Quality Assurance
- D. W. Mazur, Program Director
- F. C. Hood, Manager, QA and. Safety
+C. B. Organ, Assistant Project Director Engineer
- +J. P. Thomas, Assistant Project Director, Construction
- R. F. Mazurkiewicz, Project Management Specialist
- +C. R. Edwards, Project QA Manager
+M. E. Rodin, Senior QA Engineer
- M. J. Farrell, QA Engineer
- J. M. Steidi, Senior QA Engineer
- W. Root, Assistant Program Director, Construction
- G. K. Dyckman, Design Engineering Manager
R. E. Brown, QA Engineer
b.
Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- +E. W. Edwards, Project Manager
- +J. Gatewood, Project QA Engineer
- +J. Ruud, QA Engineer
+H. P. Danies, Project Superintendent
+D.. Henry, QC Engineer
- +T. F. Fallon, Project Construction QC Engineer
- G. A. Hierzer, Field Construction Ma' nager
J. Jabaly, Lead Document Engineer
D. R. Johnson, Manager of Quality
G. Minor, QC Engineer
United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C)
i
c.
+G. M. Ahearn, Acting Project Manager
+R. H. Bryans, Manager, Construction Support
+W. R. Marchland, FSQA Division II
- +G. L. Faust, QA Field Superintendent
i
+K. J. Iverson, Assistant Manager Construction Support
- E. C. Haren, Project QA Manager
R.
D.- Gardiner, Lead Structural Engineer
N. D. Amaria, Supervisory Structural Engineer
A. Zindel, Design Engineer
B. Anderson, Design Engineer
l
l
.
-2-
d.
J. A. Jones, Construction Company (JAJ)
+P. R. Cortez, Project Manager
+K. Dempsey, Construction Manager
+W. Roe, Project QA Manager
e.
University Nuclear Systems Inc. (UNSI)
- L. Graydon, Construction Manager
- B. Sachs, Project QA Manager
J. McCafferty, Welding QC Engineer
D. Jones, QC Supervisor
C. Holt, Assistant QA Manager
M. .Shultz, . Project Manager
f.
G. F. Atkinson, Wright, Schuchart/ Harbor (AWSH)
M. Latch, QA Manager
D.~ Dickey, Lead Welding QC Engineer
g.
Welk Brothers Inc.
+M. Thomas, Project Manager
+M. Saruwatari, QA Manager
R. Kainu, Welder
h.
M&M Inc (M&M)
M. Fourier, Project Manager
i.
Bonneville Power Administration (B' PA)
- C. R. Bryant, Project Engineer
+ Attended Exit. Interview 9/4/81
- Attended Exit Interview 9/18/81-
2.
Licensee Action on 50.55(e) Construction Deficiency Reports
,
~
a.
(Closed) 50.55(e) of 1-30-80 Re:
Nonconforming Retraining Clips
on WKM Gate Valves (WPPSS ltr G01-80-68 of 2-11-80)
The inspector verified triat the valve records packages had the
retaining clip repair records included in the permanent file.
~
.
-3-
b.
(Closed) 50.55(e) of 12-18-80 Re: Bostrom Bergen Metal Products
Welded Assemblies (WPPSS ltr GO-1-81-03 of 1-7-81)
The licensee submitted several interim reports and a final
report, letter G01-81-260 of 8/19/81. The inspector verified
the actions specified in that letter had been taken through
interviews with the involved personnel. The inspector specifically
discussed the mockup samples of weld defects which were tested
to destruction. Although there was some question as to the
'
exactitude of the mockup samples, the testing results were so
conservative that the inspector had no further concern. The
inspector examined the quality of welding on nine Bostrom
Bergen embedments to assess the degree of nonconformity with
code requirements. Based on the actions taken as reported in
the licensee's response, this item is considered closed.
c.
(Closed) 50.55(e) of January 8,1980 Re:
Diesel Generator Combustion
Air Intake Design Deficiency (WDPSS ltr G01-1-81 of 1/6/81)
The licensee submitted a final report (letter G0-1-81-202) on
July 9, 1981. The inspcetor examined .the actions described in that
letter and its references. The actions appear to have been implemented
as stated. The inspector observed that one of the actions,.
the addition of louvres which are designed to minimize water
passage, is on hold for a volcanic ash study. However, this
50.55(e) item is considered closed since all the committed
changes are included in the licensee's contract change orders
and the licensees design change tracking system app' ears adequate.
For record purposes the design change is described in the
licensee document PCP-14S 00093 of June 26, 1981.
d.
(Closed) 50.55(e) (Potential) of January 7,1981 Re: Decay Heat
Removal Heat Exchangers
The licensee submitted a final report, letter.G01-81-194 of
July 2,1981, which stated that the condition had been
determined to be not reportable. Based on the; submission
of the final report and the inspector's prior examination,
discussed in report 50-460/81-06, this item is considered closed.
3.
Safety Related Components - Water Tank Manufacture
a.
Material Storage
During a general walk through examination of the site, the inspector
~
observed improper storage of piping and nozzles for the borated
and demineralized water storage tanks. The inspector observed
i
.
- ~ - - -
_
b
'
-
+
,
-4-
four pieces stored in a skip box, eight pieces off their dunnage
and laying in the sand which is contrary to the Welk Brothers
storage procedure. One of the pieces (Nozzle D8, Tag N93, Ht
855071) was abnormally rusty for stainless steel and had what
appeared to be rusty scale inside the nozzle.
The. inadequate storage and abnormal rust conditions
were subsequently documented on nonconformance reports
1-CNCR-243-12 and 13.
At the exit interview the licensee management committed to
determine the cause of the unusual rust accumulation of the
stainless steel nozzle as part of the corrective action to
the CNCR. The cause of the rust will be examined further
in a future inspection.
Followup item (50-460/81-07/01)
The inspector interviewed the Bechtel QC surveillance
inspector responsible for Welk Bros. and examined the
surveillance records for the month of August 1981. The
records indicated that the Bechtel surveillances were reasonably
thorough and had identified similar storage problems which
had been corrected. The condition observed by the inspector
was apparently a recent occurance caused by moving the
equipment.
b.
Tank manufacture
The inspector examined certain aspects of.the manufacture
of the boric acid water storage tank for compliance to the
Welk Brothers procedures and ' interviewed a welder and a weld
rod issue station attendent. The aspects of manufacture
observed were welding of a tank vertical weld, weld rod
control, use of work travelers, and verification that a welder -
qualification record, weld p~rocedure qualification record and
weld procedure specification were on file for the welder
and process observed in use.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were observed.
The inspector noted, however, that the QC inspectors were not
indicating preheat reauirements had been met on the weld traveler
form.
Interviews established that preheat requirements were, in
fact, being met but the OC. inspectors initialed the preheat
reauirement box on the form only when a heating device was used
versus when-the preheat requirement was met.
,
4
.
. -
- - - .
. . - -
- .
- - - - - . .
- -
- - .
- - - - - -
.
- .
. - . . -
. .
.
- . -
- - - . .
. -
. -
- -
- . -
. - .
. . - - -
. . . -
. - .
.
_.
.
. _
_
_ - _ _
.
.
.
-5-
The inspector also determined that the Welk Bros. QC inspectors
are not formally certified as inspectors as indicated by Regulatory
Guide 1.58
These two items will be inspected further in a future inspection
(Followup-Item 50-460/81-07/02)
4.
Allegations against University Nuclear Systems Inc. (UNSI)
The NRC received two specific allegations against UNSI. Those
allegations and other suggestions of problems gathered through
interviews with UNSI personnel are detailed below.
a.
Allegation: Crafts are working to "information only" drawings
rather than " released for construction" drawings.
Finding: The allegation was substantiated but is not a safety
concern.
-
Discussion: QC. personnel interviewed indicated they had not
inspected to'the information only drawings. UNSI quality
assurance management personnel stated that they were aware of the
situation but did not consider a problem existed since final OC
~
acceptance inspections were not being performed.
Bechtel letter
BECUE-81-5126 o.f August 4,1981, recognized and documerited the
situation.
,
The problem developed as follows:
(1) UE&C prepared contract drawings provide the necessary
engineering information for HVAC installation.
(2) UNSI prepares shop drawings from the contract drawings but
does not make any engineering changes.
(3) Currently, UE&C is required to approve the UNSI drawings
prior to release for construction. The UE&C review time
is delaying construction of the HVAC systems.
(4) To eliminate the delay, UNSI, with Bechtel concurrence, is
allowing construction to proceed with information only (not
reviewed by UE&C) drawings while working on a program change
which would authorize UNSI to release drawings for construction
with UE&C approval to be obtained on a noncontrolling basis.
At the exit interview the inspector noted that the proposed
method of UNSI release of shop drawings did not apparently
include a systematic method of assuring that the UE&C did
approve the drawings prior to final acceptance of the completed
and inspected work.
-
, ,
,
,
- '
+ ~
-
.
(
.
,
,
i
,
.
~ ,s
-
.
-
,
,
. .
.
-
,
f. " ? %
,
,}
.
<-
.
.
-6-
.
The licensee action to ensure that.the' designer, UE&C,
approves drawings:used to perform work prior to final
acceptance of that work is considered a followup item.
(50-460/81-07/03)
b.
Allegation: Welder performance . test bend samples are selectively
removed so that the best part of the weld is bend tested.
Finding: The allegation was not substantiated. The allegation
was directed against M&M Inc. which performs welder qualification
for UNSI- at the WNP-1/4 site.
Discussion: The sampling technique was found to be in accordance
with AWS D.l.1 1977 Edition.
Interviews with the weld examiner
indicated that the method of sample selection was consistent
from welder to welder that is, the bottom inch of. the six inch
test plate is removed and discarded then two consecutive 1/2"
samples are removed for bend testing. The. inspector examined
welder test records and determined of the 24 welders tested for
UNSI by M&M Inc. eight had passed and sixteen had been failed.
This does not indicate selectivity on the part of the weld examiner.
c.
Other Items
Other items which came up persuant to the followup of the original
two allegations were investigated. .The items 'and results are
as follows:
(1)
Item:
Tack welds are not being inspected because
'
construction is not notifying inspection.
Finding:
Partially substantiated.
Discussion: The problem divides. into two parts; tack welds
for temporary attachments and tack welds for fitup of
permanent items.
This problem was identified by request for information RFI-4-277
of June 16, 1981 for temporary attachment welds UNSI QA
management issued a new procedure revision for Bechtel review
and approval _on July 21, 1981. The procedure change was
approved by Bechtel for.use on September 15, 1981 (during
theinspection).
,
.
,
qS
'
.
s
.
.?.
The procedure change as issued appears to violate the AWS
D.1.1 inspection requirements in Section 6 for the quality
requirements of pragraph 3.3.7.
It appears that the original
problem identified (construction bypassing inspection)
was not properly resolved.
The second part of the tack weld problem (. tack welds for
fitup of permanent items) was not pursued during this inspection.
This item is considered unresolved.
(Unresolved Item
(50-460/81-07/04)
(2) . Item:
QC inspectors are intimidated.
Finding:
Partially substantiated but not a safety
concern because there were no indications of inspections
having been performed improperly.
Discussion: There were several items or incidents involved
in this category. There was one specific allegation that,
in a meeting of inspectors, the QA manager refused.to give
~
a QC inspector the NRC telephone number. By interviewing
.
the involved QC inspector and the QA manager, it was determined
that the particular individual was not intimidated but that
other QC personnel considered the QA manager response
intimidating.
Another item is that several QC inspectors felt ~that writing
a conconformance reports (CNCR's) could get them in trouble and
that it was d;3tinctly undesirable to write CNCR's. Discussions
with other QC. inspectors and the QA' manager indicated that the
intent of statements made was to avoid writing unnecessary
CNCR's and to ensure adequate research of requirements was
done prior to writing the CNCR. The inspectors interviewed
were mixed in their response; some understood the message
as the QA manager intended it, others perceived it as intimi-
dation.
,
i
!
At the exit interview licensee management ccmmitted to
evaluate the actions necessary to correct this potential
intimidation. This item will be inspected further in a
future inspection.
(Followup. item 50-460/81-07/05)
l
l
i
I
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
.
.
.
-8-
9
(L
Item: PC Requests for Information (RFI's) are not being
answert ' in a timely manner.
Finding: This item was not investigated during this -
inspection and will be examined further in a future
inspection. Of the examples discussed, one was a QC
RFI-349 of August 25, 1981 in which angle support members
supported from structural steel ware not located per
drawing requirements. The RFI-identified the fact that
other already inspected and accepted supports may have the
same condition. Another example was QC-RFI-277 of
June 16, 1981 dealing with the problem ~of construction not
calling for inspection of tack welds.
'
This item will be inspected further in a, future inspection
(Followup Item 50-460/81-07/06).
. ork is being done to memorandums!instead of
(4)
Item:
W
procedures.
Finding: Substantiated.
-
Discussion: The' inspector confirmed that work was done
to UNSI memorandums rather than approved procedures.
Memorandums do not have the benefit of formal change control,
or licensee review and approval.
Examples of the use of memorandum in lieu of procedures
'
were discussed with various personnel.
One example dealt with the quality related activity of
generating as-built drawings. A contract change order
was issued to UNSI to perform an as built check of the
installed HVAC ducts and hangers-against drawing requirements.
The instructions to Quality Control personnel on how to
perform these inspections were issued as inter office
memorandums QA 412 of June 29,1981, QA 412 Revision 1 of
7/8/81, QA 412 Revision 2 of September 7,1981 and
speedletter BLS-247 of September 18,.1981.
Speedletter
BLS-247 changed tolerances to +1/4" whereas as the
miscellaneous construction tolerance given on UE&C Drawing
a
9779-L-604900 Sheet MI 2 states that unless otherwise noted,
all dimensions are to have a tolerance of +1/8".
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
.
'
,
.
.
,
.
.
i
-9-
.
A second example dealt with speed letter 9303 dated
June 2,1981 which implemented a proposed change to QCP/CP-27.0
prior to changing the procedure. The change dealt with
documentation.
A third example was speedletter BLS-250 of September 3,1981
which authorized work on a defective tap-in piece rather
than having the work instructions provided on a CNCR
dispositioned by engineerin.g personnel per the requirements
of QCP CP 10.0, Nonconforming Materials, Parts and Components.
Procedure QCP/CP10.0 paragraph 5.22 requires all nonconformances
be dispositioned on the original nonconformance report and
that the nonconformance receive engineering concurrence.
The failure to accomplish activities affecting quality in
accordance with documented instruction is an apparent item
of noncompliance.
(Enforcement Item 50-460/81-07/07)
(5)
Item:
Procurement controls were bypassed in procuring a
quality related item.
Finding: Substantiated for the initial actions.
Discussion: The inspector noted a great deal of apparent QC
inspector unrest due to what was perceived as a management attempt
to circumvent quality control systems for the procurement of a
'
piece of schedule controlling quality related duct work. The
piece in question was a " tap-in" piece, Pc13-904053.
The item was purchased from a local sheet metal fabricator who
did not have a contract for quality class 1 material. The purchase
was conducted informally by the UNSI Project Manager and the item
initially bypassed normal receipt inspection controls. ~ It was
apparent to the inspector through discussions with involved.
personnel that the entire issue was an emotional one in the UNSI
organization. The final actions on this item by the UNSI
organization were proper. That is, the hardware item was
written up on a nonconformance report and a corrective action
request was written by UNSI QA to UNSI managenent for the problem
of bypassing procurement controls.
____
_ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _ - _ _ _
.
1
~
.. .
.
.
-10-
At the exit interview the inspector discussed this procurement
i
item with licensee management. One item of concern to the
inspector was the fact that although the new Bechtel
organization was in place and working level Bechtel personnel
,
were aware of these procurement actions neither the site Bechtel
QA management or licensee QA personnel were aware of this rather
high level contractor departure from good quality control practices.
The inspector ellicted and received a committment from licensee
management to consider and to describe, in correspondance to
the NRC, the adequacy of the threshold for Bechtel forces to
notify WPPSS management of significant quality problems, and
secondly the adequacy of the current WPPSS/Bechtel system to
detect and resolve quality related unrest at working level. An
additional example discussed at the exit interview related to
unrest of J. A. Jones inspectors previously described in
Inspection Report 81-06, paragraph 5.e..
The licensee response is considered a followup item (50-460/81-07/08).
5.
Containment Penetrations
a.
Review of Quality Assurance Implementing Procedures
The inspector examined the following specifications and drawings,
which govern the purchase, handling and installation of
electrical, mechanical and piping containment penetrations for
conformance to PSAR, ASME B&PV Code and ANSI standard requirements:
i
(1) Specification Number 9779-148- Containment Piping
Penetrations (contractor: Nissho-IWAI).
(2) Specification Number 9.779-213- Containment Liner
(contractor: Pittburgh-Des Monies Steel Company)
(3) Specifi~ cation Number 55-Containment Electrical Penetrations
(contractor: Westinghouse Electric Corporation)
(4) United Engineers and Constructors Drawing Nos.-9779-5-805313,
'
9779-S-805311, 9779-S-805312, and 9779-S-805310.
(5) Westinghouse Electric Corporation Drawing No. E-40196.
(6) The applicable contractorLproceaares for installation of the
containment penetrations were also reviewed.
,
4
-- e
ser-,
- - - ,e
e----
--
.-
v
- ,-
-- , . . ,
,-
--,e
,_n.n.,,,.
,,,,g
,
,a
,
-n,
o..
,
y
,n-g,
a
, _ , - , - . , , , -
,.,--a
--
'
,
. ,
,
T
.
,
~
. -
<
.
,
"
,
-
-11-
-
,
. - .
.
The inspector noted that the containment mechanical and piping
penetrations are being welded and weld procedures qualified
to Section III, Division 1 of the ASME Code. Discussion with
the cognizant engineer indicated that all, penetration field welds
would be tested as required by the Code during the Structural
Intergity Test (SIT). However, the inspector noted that the SIT,
as specified in Section 6000 of Division 2 of the Code, requires
that the containment be pressurized to 1.15 of design pressure.
The welds therefore, would be tested below the test 3ressure
specified in Division 1.
Division 1 requires that t1e welds be
hydrostatically tested to 1.50 or pneumatically tested to 1.25 of
<
design pressure.
The licensee stated that they would investigate and resolve this
issued. This item will be examined further during a future
inspection. This is a followup item (_50-460/81-07/09).
b.
Observation of Work and Work Activities
The inspector examined work, activities associated with the
following containment penetrations:
I
(1) Penetration No. 88, S/N 4066
(2) Penetration No. 52, S/N 4062
(3) Penetration No. 60, S/N 4116
(4) Penetration No. 50, S/N 4045
(5) Penetration No. 6, S/N 4091
(6) Penetration No. 4, S/N 4090
Activities examined included storage and maintenance of
genetration assemblies, cleanliness of internal surfaces, rigging
end handling of penetration at work locations, completeness of
work release packages, control of weld filler material, and NDE
,
examination of weld repairs.
During the examination several
installed penetrations on the westside of the containment were
found without protective covers'(penetration Nos. 35 and 16), a
,
paint can was found inside penetration No. 6, and one multiple
head penetration No. 50 hag all o'f the ends uncovered and one
of the sleeves was bent 10 . All of these discrepancies were
immediately documented on a Surveillance Report Number
1-211-002 by the licensee.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
'$
-
E
S
,
.
-1 2-
c.
Review of Quality Records
The inspector reviewed the quality records for the above penetrations
for compliance to the licensee's specifications, procedures, and
industry standards. The records reviewed included process
control sheets, quick fix change proposals, request for information,
contract waiver requests, pipe weld /NDE records, weld filler
material records, NCR's and applicable drawings.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Allegations Regarding AWASH-(Civil Contractor)
Allegation: AWASH Cadweld personnel are performing only sister splice
testing and are not taking production splices in their sampling program.
l
Finding: Not substantiated.
Discussion: The inspector interviewed records. personnel and examined
a sampling of Cadweld test records. Essentially all test samples were
production splices not sister splices.
7.
Unit 4, Long Term Shut Down
The inspector initiated an examination of the long term shutdown of
the WNP-4 site. The examination was a physical inspection only and not
an examination.of personnel and maintenance systems.
In general, very
-little. equipment has been installed. There were some pumps, heat
eyr. hangers, fan units, and the diesel generators. The pressurizer is
the only major component installed.in the containment.
The general physical . condition appeared satisfactory, fire loading
was very low.
In general, all electrical equipment and motors had
heaters energized.
A few exceptions were noted but these appeared
to be isolated cases and action was initiated by the licensee to
revolve those deenergized heaters.
The inspector noted one structural column base wgich was in standing
water. The column at elevation 399, azimuth 150 , was in a concrete
blockout which formed the water " trap". Had construction been finished,
the blockout would have been concreted in and no water trap would exist.
Since the length of layup time is unknown, but may be extensive, corrosion
wastage of hold down bolts is a concern. Therefore, the item will be
inspected further on a future inspection.
(Followup item: 50-513/81-07/10).
'
.
.
'
-13-
-
'
.
,
,
.
,
,
8.
Unresolved Items
.
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whethes they are acceptable items, items of
noncompliance, or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during
this inspection is discussed in Paragraph 4.c.(.1) of this report.
9.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in
paragraph 1 on September 4 and 18,1981. -The scope of the inspections
and the. inspectors findings as noted in this report were discussed.
-
k