ML20147E693
| ML20147E693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1978 |
| From: | Albert W, Haynes R, Kirch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147E638 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-460-78-07, 50-460-78-7, 50-513-78-07, 50-513-78-7, NUDOCS 7812210153 | |
| Download: ML20147E693 (12) | |
See also: IR 05000460/1978007
Text
r
,
,,
.
.
V. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMErlT
s
REGION V
50-460/73-07-
Repo'rt No. 50-513/78-07
Docket flo. 50-460 & 50-513 License No. CPPR 134 & 174;afeguards Group
Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply Systems
P. O. Box 968
Richland, Washington 99352
Facility Name:
WNP 1 and 4
Inspection at:
WNP 1 and 4 Site, Richland Washington
Octo,eg,J0-13f 1978
b
InspectionConducjtd:
Inspector
[/
// 7/ /[
E
G~. Albebti'Keac~ tor Irispector
/ Dat Signed
Aftado
ir/p/
~F. I rs
R
rI
p ctor
' / Dpfe Sign d
h
- ~7
//
7
7$
J."H.'Eckhar E Re
r
'n
ect
D
/ ate igne
Y7
WVitu(son, Reactor Inspec[or '
D6te Signed
kl 0;%n _
// /v/ 76
Ap;
j.
R. C. Haynes;/ Chief, Projects Section,
frate Signed
Reactor Genftruction and Engineeri ig Support Branch
Inspection on October 10-13,1978 (Report Nos. 50-460/78-07 and
50-513/78-07)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection by regional based in-
spectors of construction activities including: open items from previous
inspections, equipment maintenance and storage, safety-related steel
structures, safety-related structures welding, containment liner and
welding, structural concrete, drawing control, contractor audits, and
i
contractor QA programs. The inspection it.volved 107 inspector hours
,
onsite by four NRC inspectors.
)
1
Resul t_s :
Of the nine areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or
_
deviations were identified in six areas.
One item of noncompliance was -
identified in each area of equipment maintenance and storage, safety-
related steel structures and safety-related structures welding.
7E122io\\f3
et
. . - .
-
.
, ,
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted
.
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
- M. W. Hultgren, Division Manager, WNP-1/4
- J. P. Thomas, Project Manager, WNP-1/4
- T. J. Houchins, QA Manager,.WNP-1/4
_
- M. C. Carrigan, Construction Manager, WNP-1/4
- G. K. Dyekman, Project Engineering Manager
- C. R. Edwards, Principal QA Engineer
- J. W. Shannon, Acting Assistant Director - Technology
J. R. Nichdaus, QA Engineer
- W. M. Lazear, QA Engineer
- R. D.' Crisp, QA Engineer
J. Carson, QA Engineer
R. C. Mertens, QA Engineer
P. Magbod, QA Engineer
R. O. Romine, Supervisor of Engineering Administration
A. Bright, Administrative Engineer
,A. G.-Hosler, Project Licensing Engineer
State of Washington
- G. Hansen, Manager QA Division, Washington State Energy Facility
Site Evaluation Council
- Denotes those attending exit inter'13w.
United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C)
R. L. Peters, Mechanical Superintendent
R. H. Bryans, Field Project Engineer
R. Goldstein, Field Engineer
i
C. J.,Rammel, Preventive Maintenance Coordinator
'
B. Lentz, QA Engineer
D. House, Drawing Control Clerk.
U. E. Cickocki, Manager, Construction QA and Interface
P. Bily, Lead Contractor Drawing Auditor
R. N. Devers, Documentation Supervisor
W. J. Norton, QA Engineer
Shurtleff and Andrews
D. Fitzgerald, QA Manager
J. D. Jackman, QC Inspector
_
-
K. B. Engstrom, QC Inspector
M. Freize, Foreman
,
d-
-2
.
..
.
.
.
i
1.
Persons Contacted (Continued)
.
Boecon Construction Co. (Boecon)
M. Rothwell, Document Control Clerk
L. Keane, QA Engineer
L. McGrath, QC Engineer
G. F. Atkinson/ Wright /Schuckert/ Harbor (AWSH)
W. G. Anberg, Engineering Drawing Supervisor
P. Burns Document Control Supervisor
M. D. Latch, QA Manager
J. A. Jones (Jones)
W. S. Roe, QA Manager
P. Schonecke, QA Engineer
Capital Development Corporation (CDC)
W. Young, Boilermaker Foreman
D. Willis, Boilermaker
BabcockandWilcox(B&W)
L. Rafferty, Field Representative
Pittsburg Des-Moines (PDM)
D. Wilson, QA Documentation Supervisor
C. L. Baner, Siting QA Manager
Pacific Testing Laboratory (PTL)
M. Paige, Level I Inspector
2.
Project Status
At the time of this inspection, construction on Unit 1 was 16%
complete and construction of Unit 4 was 7% complete.
Operating license application is currently scheduled for December,
1979 and fuel loading for June,1982.
3.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Open Items
a.
Closed (50-460/77-03):
Engineering review of contractor
generated nonconformance reports.
Since Revison 5 to QAP-15
has been issued, all individual contracts have been revised by
PCR 5628 requiring all contractors to implement QAP-15.
.
.
.
'
-3
Oyen - Unresolved item (50-460/78-06): Missing preventive
b.
e
.
,
mcintenance checks for various valves and safety-related
vessels.
Discussions with the licensee disclosed that a
search of the records indicated that PM records for June and
July for the two steam generators and pressurizer were re-
covered but the records for valves 1-DH-V7A,1-DHR-FCV-3A and
1-DHR-FCV-3B could not be found.
Nonconformance reports
1 NCR-CM-21 and 22 document the above items.
This, together
with further findings on the subject noted in Paragraph 6
below, indicate that the unresolved item represents a defi-
ciency for failure to proper'" complete documentation as
required.
4.
IE bulletins and Circulars /PSAP Changes
The handling of I&E bulletins and circulars was examined against
WPPSS QAP-27.
It was found that QAP-27 was now being used by the
Engineering Administrative section although the procedure was
originally written for implementation by the QA department.
Engineering Administration had assumed the function of bulletin and
circular control in August 1978. A revised procedure is scheduled
for issue by October 31, 1978.
Except for defined responsibilities
and authority, the procedure was being followed.
However, it did
appear that in many cases, greater emphasis was being placed on
tracking responses to bulletins than on tracking circulars.
The
inspector emphasized that the NRC does not necessarily place
greater importance on bulletins than on circulars, but rather
classifies items as bulletins when it is desirable to obtain
replies for an evaluation of the generic aspects of a problem.
The
bulletins on environmental qualification of electrical equipment,
which eventually gave rise to a general circular on the subject
were cited as an example.
This item will be examined further
during a future inspection.
The control of deviations from the PSAR was examined for conform-
ance to the licensee's procedure EDP-8.4.
No deviations or items
of concern were noted.
5.
Document Control
The licensee's document control system, including the implemen .
tation by UE&C, Boecon, and AWSH was examined for compliance with
PSAR commitments, licensee and contractor procedures, and licensee
response to NRC enforcement action.
The licensee was in the process of effecting document control
system modifications required to implement their response to NRC
enforcement action.
The area of document control is considered
open and will be further examined during a future inspection.
.
'
4
9
a.
Review of Quality Assurance Implementing Procedures
'
The following procedures were examined:
(1) AWSH:
QCCP-8, " Document Control"
(2) WPPSS: QAP-6, " Document Control"
(3) UE&C:
FGCP-38, " Document Control of Contractor /
Vendor Information"
(4) UE&C:
FGCP-39, " Design Document Control"
b.
Observation of Drawing Control Activities
The inspector examined the revision status of 282 field-
located design and contractor drawings.
It was noted that
three AWSH drawings (CWZ112416, CWZ119709A and CWZ1197098 at
location 22C) were not the most recent approved revisions.
Action was taken 'to remove and replace the drawings identified.
c.
Audits and Surveillances
Quality assurance personnel had performed numerous surveil-
lances in the area of drawing control, as committed by the
licensee's response to NRC enforcement action.
The drawing
control surveillance reports for the months of August and
September,1978, were sampled and reviewed.
The surveillances
appeared to be adequate with regard to scope, depth, and
finding resolution.
Licensee representatives noted that
internal procedures were being revised to establish schedules
and minimum frequencies for performance of QA surveillance
over document control activities.
UE&C had established a drawing control audit group which
audits field-located drawings on a daily basis.
The inspector
sampled and examined nine of the drawing control audit reports
for the period September 28, 1978 through October 5,1978.
Eight discrepancies had been identified during a review of
2627 field-located drawings.
Corrective actions taken appeared
adequate.
d.
Automated Drawing Index
An Automated Drawing Index (ADI) has been developed by UESC.
This index is to include all design drawings and contractor
issued drawings.
The ADI was utilized by the inspector to
determine the most recent revision of field-locatea drawings.
The validity of the ADI was examined by comparing the ADI
listed revision of certain sampled drawings against those in
,
-5-
..
.
the master drawing files of UE&C, Boecon and AWSH.
It was
.found that the ADI did not include all UE&C design drawings,
.
since seven design drawings marked as issued to Boecon for
construction were not listed on the ADI.
Also, eighteen
design drawings issued to AWSH were not listed on the ADI and
in one case, the ADI listed the wrong revision. The licensee
indicated that the ADI was still in the process of development
and was being updated on a daily basis so that all design and
contractor drawings applicable to individual contractor
organizations would eventrally be included.
e.
Document Revision Transmittal and Control
The UESC procedures require that contractors acknowledge
receipt and incorporation of transmittals revising contract
documents.
UE&C had identified about 54 transmittals to
Boecon and AWSH for which no completed contractor acknowl-
edgements were on file and had taken action to assure prompt
acknowledgement and return.
The inspector sampled various
specification revisions and noted that the contractors had
apparently received all revisions.
The inspector examined
Specification No. 9779-206 at the Boecon Field Engineering
office and observed that revisions had been filed in a binder
separate from the binder containing the specification and that
numerous revisions had not been entered into the specification
body.
In addition, Specification No. 9779-253 was examined at
the AWSH document control office.
It was noted that Page 14V
was that of Revision 17 and not the effective Revision 25 for
Page 14V.
Licensee representatives noted that the drawing
control audit group only audits drawings and that the advis-
ability of including other documents in the audit scope would
be evaluated. . Action was taken to correct the discrepancies
identified.
It was identified that the UE&C document control center listed
Revision 25 as the latest revision to Specification 9779-253.
Examination of the specification at AWSH showed Revision 26
had been received and entered.
Licensee representatives ex-
plained that Revision 26 which listed changed drawings, had
been issued by the drawing control office and Revision 25 had
been issued by the document control organization. The licensee
stated that measures would be implemented to assure that all
specification revisions would be brought to the attention of
the document control center.
6.
Equipment Maintenance and Storage
a.
Examination of Stored Equipment
Storage conditions for the reactor pressure vessel, the two
steam generators and the emergency generator were examined.
i
_
.
.
.
..
.
-6-
.
.
.
In accordance with UE&C procedure FGCP-16-2 and B&W.Specifi-
cation FS III-la-23, the. interval between successive' inspections
of.the reactor vessel was not to exceed 30 days.
However, the
inspector found that the last surveillance was recorded 139
days previously.
In addition, it was found that an inspector
(recently assigned) was unaware of the. requirement for in-
spection of the secondary side of the steam generator although
he had performed major component inspections.
Also,~it was
found'that the rotor for the diesel generator was not maintained
with the'same heat controls as those for the stator even
though the manufacturer did not distinguish between the two
components.
The inspector found that site B&W personnel were cognizant of
vessel and steam generator conditions.. The rotor and stator
of the diesel generator were not stored assembled as the
manufacturer 'apparently intended; thus the stator heaters did
not take care of both components.
However, ambient temperature
was well above dewpoint which was all the manufacture required.
The absence of adequate and prompt documentation of inspections,
together with the unresolved item noted from the previous
inspection in this area (see Paragraph 3.b above), appears to
constitute an ite[n of noncompliance,
b.
Storage and Maintenance Requirements
The inspector examined provisions for obtaining storage and
maintenance requirements.
While many manufacturer's manuals
were available at the site, the basic method of providing the
site with requirements was the completion of a form by the
design office of UE&C.
The form is entitled " Equipment /
Material Storage and Preventative Maintenance Requirements."
One section of the form was entitled "Special Storage and
Preventative Maintenance Instructions."
It was found from an
examination of over 200 such forms that only a small percentage
(less than 10%) had this section completed.
The instruction
controlling the preparation and use of this form, which was
labeled " Attachment 1", -could not be made available to the-
NRC inspector at the time of this site visit.
Compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 13,
Criterion V and XIII could not be readily determined and the
item is considered to be an unresolved item.
-
.
-7-
-
7.
Structural' Steel Installation
'
'
a.
Review of Quality Records
The inspector reviewed the following quality records associated
with the beams listed below in the Unit 1 and Unit 4 General
Services Building (GSB).
Unit 1, Area A, El 438
Unit 4, Area B El 454
Beam Mark
Beam Mark
5-1170E
7-18048
5-1166A
7-1800H
5-1192D
7-1807A-
5-11678
7-1810G
5-1165H
7-1814A
5-1184A
7-2680E
5-11648
7-24578
The records reviewed included, certified Material Test Reports,
Certificates of Conformance, Receiving Inspection Reports,
Bolting Inspection Reports 28-42 for Unit 1 and 23-34 and 48
for Unit 4, and selected Nonconformance Reports including
open, dispositioned or closed NCR's. All records reviewed
accurately reflected the ' status of the work except that the
Certified Material Test Report for beam 7-1810G could not be
reviewed as the mill item number for the beam could not be
found in the cross reference catalog.
The CMTR for beam 7-
1810G will be reviewed during a future inspection.- No items
of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
8.
Structural Steel Welding
a.
Obser'vation of Work
The inspector observed the welding of " Nelson" studs to floor
beams through "Q" decking in the Unit 1 GSB at elevation 441
feet between lines A and B and lines 6 and 9.
Contrary to the
i
requirements of Shurtieff and Andrews Quality Assurance Pro-
'
cedure 2E, Revision 2 " Stud Welding and Inspection," the
inspector noted the following items:
(1) studs with surface
rust were being welded, (2) the first two' studs on each member
were not in all cases t,,'ng bent 30 degrees and (3) the first
two studs ~ welded on each Jember per set of equipment were not
being bent when two operators were welding on one member with-
L
different guns and controllers.
The inspection of Nelson
studs.by the assigned QC inspector was also observed.
The QC
inspector was using the proper criteria'as contained in QAP-2E
and was familiar with the visual inspection criteria of AWS
D1.1-1972 as implemented by QAP-2E.
The failure to follow
the stud welding procedure appears to be an item of noncompliance,
,
I
l
ll
,
'
.
.
-8-
.
..
One welder'was observed welding beam clips to embed plates in
the Unit 4 GSB at elevation 420 feet on line 1, 2. feet west of
.line T.
One beam clip weld was in process and the other had
been fitted.up but not tacked.
The welder was observed using
'
the proper procedure and filler metal. A check of the records
-indicated that he was qualified for the' process and position
being used in accordance with AWS Dl.1-1972.
Fit up conformed
to the requirement of AWS Dl.1-1972.
Two additional welders
were observed putting 5/16 inch ' fillets around studs requiring
repair with E7018 electrodes. All requirements of QAP-2E were
being met. ~No items of noncompliance or deviations were
noted.
b' .
Review of Quality Records
The inspector reviewed selected quality records associated
with structural steel welding. The qualification records of
six QC inspectors were reviewed for compliance with Shurtleff
and= Andrews QAP-13 " Qualifications of' Quality Assurance
,
Personnel . " One QC Inspector's Certification stated that the
inspector was certified as a Level II' inspector.
This certifi-
cation statement allows the particular inspector to perform
activities such as structural steel placement and inspection,
inspection of bolted and welded joints 'and inspection of
repairs.
The inspector's resume documented approximately 14
months experience and only one training session on stud welding
inspection.
QAP-13 requires that such inspectors be a high
school graduate and have four years experience or other docu-
mentation showing demonstrated capability or completion of
proficiency testing. These records could not be found in the
inspector's certification file.
The QA Manager was designated as a Level III inspector and his
resume listed his education as an MS degree in Electrical
Engineering from John Quincy Adams College.
No high school or
undergraduate education was listed.
Following the site in-
l
spection, the Eleventh Edition of American Universities and
l
Colleges and the Ninth Edition of the Yearbook of Higher
Education were reviewed which disclosed that John Quincy Adams
College was not contained in the listings of accredited colleges
and universities.
This finding is contrary to the requirements
of QAP-13, " Qualification of Quality Assurance Personnel"
which requires that the Level III inspector be a graduate of
an accredited college or a high-school graduate with ten years
experience.-
All stud welders were listed on the qualified stud welder
roster and the three welders observed doing SMAW welding were
qualified for the process and position being used.
The failure of QA/QC personnel to meet QAP-13 qualification
requirements appears to be an item of noncompliance.
t
j
.
.
-9-
.
'
9.
Containment Structural Steel Installation and Welding (Unit 4)
a.
Observation of Work and Work Activities
,
i
The NRC inspector examined the Unit 4 containment liner plate
installation and welding to ascertain compliance with the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (B&PV Codc)Section III,
Division 2.
The following installed panels and weld seams
were examined:
(1) Panels
28E44 (ring 7)
213El
(ring 10)
214E1
(ring 10)
28E74 (ring 10)
(2) Weld Seams
7V-15, 6H-12, 6H-13, 7V-16, 6H-14, 7V-17, 6H-15,
10V-16, 9H-16, 9H-15,10V-17, 9H-17,10V-2, 9H-2,
In addition, installation of ring #13 liner panels (including
fit up and tack welding) and vacuum box testing of vertical
and horizontal welds on ring #11 were observed.
No deviations
or items of noncompliance were noted.
b.
Review of Quality Records
The following quality records of containment liner plate
installation and welding were reviewed to ascertain compliance
with ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division 2:
(1) Material certification for the panels listed in Paragraph
9.a(1),above.
(2) Fabrication checklist (weld records) for the welds listed
in Paragraph 9.a(2), above.
(3) Welder operator qualification records for the processes
used on the welds listed in Paragraph 9.a(2), above.
(4) Radiographs for welds 9H-16, 9H-15, 9H-107, and 10V-2.
(5) Local panel tolerance deviation report for ring 1.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were noted.
.
_10
-
.
.
10.
Structural. concrete
-
a.
General Service Building (Units 1 and 4)
The NRC inspectors observed and examined concrete placement
1290 in the Unit 1 General Service Building (GSB) and place-
ment G-201 in the Unit 4 GSB for compliance with the require-
ments of ACI-318-71. Also, batch tickets and records of tests
performed at the placements were reviewed.
No deviations or
items of noncompliance were noted.
b.
Containment (Unit 1)
Curing records of lift 1-C103 (placed on October 5,1978) and
the preplacement inspection records for lift 1-C104 were
reviewed to ascertain compliance with ASME B&PV Code, Division
III, Section 2 and ACI-318-71.
No deviations or items of
noncompliance were noted.
The reactor primary shield wall reinforcing steel and forms
were examined, and the importance and difficulty of adequate
concrete consolidation for this lift was discussed with the
licensee.
Problems with such placements at other facilities
were noted.
11.
Contractor Audits
The audit program and the completed audits covering QAP-2A,B,D&E,
QAP-3, and QAP-9A were reviewed. The audit checklists are being
revised as required to perform an upcoming audit.
The audits show
that the audit checklists are being used and the depth and scope of
the audits appear commensurate with the status of the work. All
findings were assigned to a responsible person for completion and
reaudits of the deficient areas show that corrective action had
been taken.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were noted.
12.
C'ontractor QA Programs
An initial review of the QA program for the J. A. Jones Company was
made. Jones will have the principal piping contracts for the
installation of primary system components and other class I piping,
and will perform its own NDE.
Program elements meeting 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion I, II, III and XVIII were examined, licensee
approval of the program was verified, and an initial tour of the
uncompleted small bore pipe shop and records storage facilities was
made.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
1
- -
- - - -
. - -
- ._.
'~
-11-
.
.
,
.
'13.
Unresolved Items
,
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is re-
[
quired in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items,
items of noncompliance, or deviations.
Unresolved items discicted
during the inspection are discussed in Paragraph 6.b.
14.
Exit Interview
,
At the conclusion of the site inspection, the inspector met with
those individuals designated in Paragraph 1.
In reviewing the
resul'i of the structural steel welding inspection, the inspector
emphasized that the' reject rate from welding of Nelson studs
through "Q" decking was such that the process, as presently practiced
at WNP 1 and 4, was unacceptable.
Licensee personnel noted that
the process was a conventional " state of the art" process and that
a 10-15% reject could be tolerated. The inspector disagreed and
stated that he intended to solicit an NRC position regarding the
practice.
With regard to the inspectors' concerns about preventive maintenance-
systems, the licensee stated that they shared these same concerns
and had initiated certain corrective-actions following the previous
NRC inspection.
However, full resolution and implementation would
take some time.
'
.
I
-