.___ _ _ _ = - - _ _ _ . _ .

.

[:t;

; -, ,

' ,

F

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,.

r

REGION'V

. - -,

! . Report No. 50-508/85-07

Docket No. 50-508. :

Construction Permit No. CPPR-154.

: Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System. (WPPSS).P.'O. Box 1223

. Elma, Washington 98541

- Facility Name: Washington Nuclear Project 3

Inspection at: WNP-3 Site, Satsop,| Washington-

Inspection Conducted: October. 7-11, 1985.

Inspectors: N lo-It -ff; W. P. Ang, Reattor Inspector Date Signed

Approved ~By: Yd 2/ J''

R. T. D6dds, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 1 D4te fiigned.

Summary:~ ~

,

Inspection on October 7-11, 1985 (Report No. 50-508/85-07)

; Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection.by a-regionally basedinspector of containment structural. steel welding procedures, work activitiesand records and site tour. This. inspection involved 30 hours onsite by oneinspector. Inspection procedures 55151, 55153, 55155 were used for guidance.

;. .

Results: Of the are s inspected'no violations or deviations were identified.

> <i '*

,

*

,

1,

o M

V

7 I"

)

,

+

4 iq

G,,

--Q %

)

p" - %- ,, ,

t 4 s =

yr -

3 - s _ -t ,

> . ;.

<+ ;~

- .k - ' 'S'

-.

__ ,

'_

> -,

_ 7'

'~

,i. _t ~sa ,5- -

,

,.

'3

& = DETAILS ,.,,-

.. .

,,

\

?# . - .- . 7

+ -Persons Contacted.

' q; .. + q

:1. j_, 's, - . ,4 m _ , , , ,

Washington Public" Power Supply System;'~

a.x 1.w , . .. ?

g - *R . ' N .7 Williams,; Deputy > Program Director63 ._

' *C. E. ' Love,, Construction Manager i*D. R.gCoody', Project QA' Manager ; '

4~

A. G..Carlyle, QA Engineer '

; y m, .

b. Ebasco-Services Inc. ,-

~

*RL M.' Taylor,-Cons'truction Site Manager-.'

"

*P. L.. Pitman,| Acting; Quality Program' Site Manager -

**R.: H. Wang,* Engineering Supervisor, 'New York !, ,

"F. G.'Teague, Resident Engineer. i.

G. J. Imus,; Resident Engineer '

D. G; McKinney, Resident Engineer _.

^

'

V. ,P. Gupta, Ebasco Site Services Engineer (ESSE)'

s',

H.-Toturgul, ESSE_ ,

",..

#-

'c. Chicago Bridge and Iron Company''(CBI)

~

~,

^

1W. F. Walsh, District Welding;and QA"HanagerB. G. Grimsley,. Area Welding and QA' Manager)

: E. M. Grant,: Project Superintendent :- :a.

' - *J. W. Cain, Project Welding /QA Superintendent,

* Attended exit interview.* '

~** Contacted byjtelephone. , -

'.

~

$.

2. Unresolved Items*

*m ,-

,

'.., , . , s . . .-

Unresolved: items are matters about,which"more\information_is required |to.

2 determine whether they 'are' acceptable.or may involve violations or;-

deviations. One'new unresolved' item identified during thisiinspection is~ ~

discussed.infparagraph5.b.",_

a i

3. )IndependentInspectionEffoNt= .

' *

, - ,

f TLThe inspector conducted a general! inspection of .the reactor building and. -,

- portions'of the auxiliary, building ~to? observe ' construction progress and.f, ' construction activities.such as welding,Gmaterial.handlingcand control;

A '

| housekeeping and storage.. 'In addition the inspector' discussed the '~

0

licensee's:and_its| constructor's!Preparationstfor the planned: containment'' '

structural integrity:testJ to a'ssess :the ' adequacy' of the:11'censee's- 3 -

activities in thatJarea?~

9"

. . .-|

.Within.'th,e areas examined 'no violati.o' ns. oridev.'istions'..were.' identified.'

.

"* ,

w ,' t#'

'' '

, ,

y 4 ,',

.'+J

[i) -

4 t.,

'

.n . *

''< e ,, . g+ ,

* 1 '

t';_

_., ,,

- - - - m n - - - - - x. ..,

- ,

,. ,

, < , e

% ~K ji p- %,x-

y J g__ _

', _

,

' l'?"' *

. )_e , 12 /'

'

;' 4 . -- m ,

- ,g "

- : m ,-

.

14. # Licensee' Identified' Items~

^

, <{ ,, ,_ .

__

(Closed) Item 508/82-09-B "0 mission'of' Compressible Material Around .

Containment Penetrations" (10xCFR 50.55(e)).<~

'

,/The licensee's" final report was sEbmitted on February 11, 1985. The-licensee had determined that hadethe deficiencies remained uncorrected,; -:

( they would not'. havefadversely'sffected the, safety of the plant at anytime-~

'

[:' throughout_the expected-lifetime of the plant and:therefore was not '

'

reportable in accordance'with~the 10 CFR 50.55(e)! criteria. . An analysis !~

_

had'been performed by;Ebasco and|CBI'that' supported this: conclusion.:<

-

,Although the actual. analysis was,not:available on site, san Ebasco report_'

on'the analysis was available,Trevieked_by:the inspector and discussed:~

with both the~ licensee'and Ebasco.; Nonconformance report (NCR)114161 ye, qdocumente'd the~ discrepancy;and the A/E's evaluation and disposi. tion. The"*

g :L-

NCR required clarificationitofmore" clearly, document the items,being_

yac.cepted as-is and |the remainder of? work' required. T,he' licensee ~ ;, u

-clarified the NCR during the' inspection.;. Based'on,the' inspector's review -,

E ,"' of the rlicensee's and A/E's: evaluation- and ~' disposition-_of the reported -

- discrepancy, the 10-CFR 50.'55(e) item was closed._

s

_ '5.,_ContainmentSteelStructures'-Weldina'andNondestr$ctiveExamination:-~' : l' :,

'

eChicago Bridae and Iron (CBI) , t T 4 y :

4 ..

.. .

. 'CBT structural steel welding activitiesMinside' containment had been-l '~

'previously inspected and 'the inspection documented on RV: inspectionreport 50-508/82-08. Although WNP_-3 is currently in an extended :

,

construction delay phase, the'' licensee has? decide'd to.completeithe=,

u containment structural steel work to the extent-that would allow * *

Sperformance of._ a containmentroverpressure/ structural: integrity. test. J An -inspection was performed to; verify licensee compliance with:FSAR r_

..

^

'-

commitments and NRC requirements'regarding containment structural stsel- /,.

i . welding. ..The licensee commitments |are contained'in WNP-3 FSARisectione '

'3.8.'

-.

..

. . .> >

.

t,

, Review of Quality Assurance Implementina Proceduresb 'a.i '.

Thefinspectors'ampledandreviewed'kheCBINuclearQualitylAssurance"

Manual for ASME-Section.III' Products,' issue. number 10_. dated;1981'andWeldProcedureWS-30,WeldProc~edureSpecification]Aprilh

_

|

L E7018/74-3431LRev."S k The procedures were' reviewed for compliance'*

/ 'with ~the appropriate requirements of the FSAR,' th's AWS ' Structural'-'

'~

Welding Code ANSI standards' and'ASME' Code. ~

;'

,,

' '

:No violations or deviations were identified. ~ .

>I. .. . .' ^

bh Observation'of Work and Woik' Activities-~

'

''

i-

,

+<

~ r

!4~

The inspector observed the work' activities on' the; 32 foot diameterm ,

containment construction' hatch. SLbetween the hatch barrel and head |pecifically,._ welding activities'!

' ~

were' observed and discussed with! _ the-licensee, the A/E and'with CBIfpersonnel. 'The. inspector noted;-

.

,

-during this discussions that"a potential problem existed'regarding-'thefexterior hatch to barrel weld.~ :It appeared:that? upon f f,

~

.,,

' '4 .L

i, e'

,

M'

h -

# #'l s s;

'

Jm . * .1. . _

-

_ _ _ __ _m...o_ _ . _ _ ._ a _._ __ _ L ui ul 1. 1-.-__-_-_im_

w w e ,$ v w m g[q~ '

-[' ^ ' *

/ v yp , -

. e -- 4 y'' < y+ n.n

fi $"T?; am' c y * ,y. . |x[ ' ' ~ .

,' . .|' Tr'

^Ai , *y '%".$

;__

.%;xw - ~ ,p_ . c ':r .x^'3; .. ,T3 -;p _

y :t- - ;% / f , e) %-1,

h {".Jj$(:( )M' 2' U, ' 'N ", .

K G W P &. ',=

, * ' , g P'#.,

*

r

wa<r , +.

x- a y ~. Biu ~ c ? "'

: . -.. + .. . . .

.. ., es.g n- A= installation of theldesigned 1.5? inch: thick weld on the barrel'to -

@4' f w " hatch . joint, the jointg configuration; would vary. from the originaf ''. # ~ju

gw' ' design in.that an edge-would be left approximately 1/2 inch Thove-2+ " r'

the weld'on the' barrel. JThe installation of more than 1.5~ inch ~ weld,"fY#. W i

would require post-weld heat treatment 4which(is not currently * '

W[|a

] planned. Di~scussionstwith CBI1,indicatedLthat the corrective' action 4e,

5 would beito remove'_theledgeion;the barrel'to be.in accordance with :y M . ,

E vgz the joint' configuration.f However, CBI didinotLhave a , procedure to,q 7., m . accomplish this' work'during th'e' inspection.-.Furthertinspecg' ion of 't

%-" ' '_ .CBI. contract.74-3431 drawing |64 rev.14 ; 2 32? feetLdiamet,er? '

. .~

;'

construction hatch and~ drawing 66'rev.-2,; barrel'and,hnd' details,,-,

indicate that'if the barreltand head'were manufactur'ed''in accordance ~_ .

.

(' #with the' drawings,'the problem.would'not exist. 1Reco~ds availabler

_

"1 on site indicate that the barrer.and head had?been inspected 7",, , , s

'

'

'subsequenta to= manufacture and: had 'been' certified ;to be in'accordance., . , s

with the drawidas. Recoids on site'also indicate thatsthe barrel'i t 'A"

inspector'alsoinoted thatino[pa' sed receipt 1 inspection ~.and; head,hadJsatiIsfactorily s' The - a

~

;NCR'sthodibeen written regarding the 5

s" J 1 potential. problemX However,an October 510jf 1985, CBI entered item' '

t,-

* number 264'os their'nonconformance'controlElist regarding the-

.

: subject problem. .During;thef nspectioni the' licensee, the A/E'and' Vi1CBI'were unable to obtainfaccurate a:easurements of the barrel 'due, to,

. '

interferences'Oith h'esting element"siand the actual welding being' S- <

# '

-Y performed. ' Pen' ding accurateidefidition of the. potentisl problem,. <

D evaluationiand; corrective a'ciiion,"this has ,been tidentined _as'

-

P '

Unresolved Item,

area con' fig'rationf508/85-07-01,"dontainment|h. construction' hatch weld *

y .

' p tv - gu ' '

6

,

.'3

LNo violations or devia,tions were 'iden'[tifle, d.>k

L ., - .~

-'%:

1, _

m. x-n4

=c.- Review of Records, (< \'~

C. _- .

-.

__ 99 fp ' '

-

s y' "

' ' .

. , . ,.' '

,

,The' inspector examined the iualificatioil testirecor$ and''

l

p qualification checklists:fo'r three welders who had performed" welding .,'

, ,

on structdralisteel discussed in paragraph 5(b). The inspector;I .[' ^

verified proper qualification for'the: positions'and preaesses used -t -

,

'

M in accordance with the AWS Structural! Welding Code.~ :Thesinspector' 4< "-

;, also examined the contractor's method fortensuring tn t . (5

" .;, * _ Jgualifications of the Level II '(liquid penetrant), examiner discussed.qualificatifons were being maintained.' The inspector examined ther ( ' " N, .'

t([ . ci# m

.;'. ~ W~ in paragraph ~5(b) for compliance:with the' requirements of ANST-TC-1A.4 ~

.,

~ Y< -(1975); A ' ' '4,m ,. . - / . , ,, y. & J ,.

.. ,,f; ; y ,

i-

e- L n F. . . . .

T-. , r 1. ; .' N5

'

' #: s ' *e

-m ..n'~# = No violationsfor/ deviations'were identified.". A %. * g- - 51 ,, >

.v sp rn - m , cm i e 3. .- -

. e,

jt ,-p'. ,,, ., ,- j,

1.' t 1 -

j . . c 4,, g a,

<

;4 . +qmc.

". M^ .+y_ m 16.e : Exit 1 Interview ? - * ' '

~ ,.sW'u M'*/ .

,^ -; ~ j ,, v

_

"j. . . . . . . vr- . :. + . L41 : ..W . :: a

.

-L;>_

-

> _

.

.

r ~. ,

3;~b 2 j:" 'The? inspection scope;and findings |were summarized-on: October ..11,11985,j;ef' % ;~ with-those^personseindicatedlin paragraph'1. The' inspector described th4$ : areas inspected and;discussedLin detailtthe inspection" findings., No1 f "y ,,

~

> ',

~

Mg6 * " j [dissentingMomme'nts were?receivedifrom:the flicensee.''The*1icensee ^did T ' '

|' ~ ,1 ff gnot identifyfas_proprietaryfany of.the material.provided to or; reviewed P: f-,

t 7

e9i- 7 1 iby tthe} inspector during ;this ? inspectionk f N ' % . ' ,. * ,' g. 3 -

o-'S

g- 9 9 -

. o g .., m - w ,,

,

.I ' ~

\? j^ > > ;_' ' - , . 3 ,~.n

*'s.:

i. y - <

- t+q-, , ..- , ,

3' '

, , ,

v+,',I/( YM- jf j- b. g. g+ *,- , 3 ,

s s.,y; ": . <a , - + ,e,

' ' .s7 D') .. i43 -

#)i 7

' .[ '' ; ,

''. -'

'ff'g ,

, ,3#+

.; [_.

*y d NQ.5IY." '

, , . . <

~ , 'L f }|'.*

At^

~ 's -g } ,f f Y,

t

~;'d'

| 'e'*, - . .- .

.. ;;'a;*-

- .-