IR 05000410/1985028
| ML17054B888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1985 |
| From: | Imbro E, Milhoan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17054B887 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-85-28, NUDOCS 8509200135 | |
| Download: ML17054B888 (34) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Division of guality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Report No.:
Docket No.:
Licensee:
Facility Name:
Inspection At:
Inspection Dates:
Inspection Team:
Team Leader:
Mechanical Systems:
Mechanical Components:
Electrical Power:
Controls Discipline:
Civil/Structural:
50-410/85-28 50-410 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point, Unit 2 Stone 5 Webster Engineering Corporation, Cherry Hill, NJ August 12-16, 1985 E. Imbro, Senior Inspection Specialist, IE T. DelGaizo, Consultant, WESTEC Services S. Klein, Consultant, WESTEC Services C. Bomberger, Consultant, WESTEC Services J.
Blackman, Consultant, WESTEC Services G. Morris, Consultant, WESTEC Services J.
Kaucher, Consultant, WESTEC Services G. Lewis, Inspection Specialist, IE A. Unsal, Consultant, HARSTEAD Engineering Eugene V.
Im ro Team Leader Approved:
7 ~~
~2 Jc-J
~ James L. Mil oan, ection C ref equality Assurance Branch 8509200135 8509i2
- PDR, ADOCg, DSD00410
i 4
NINE MILE POINT, UNIT 2 Engineering Assurance Technical Audit No. 50 Results and Corrective Actions Inspection August 12 through August 16, 1985 k.
~Bk In a letter dated April 3, 1985, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC)
forwarded to the NRC a program plan for completion of the Engineering Assurance In-Depth Technical Audits of the Nine Mile Point 2 (NMP-2)
Project.
This plan was subsequently revised as EA In-Depth Technical Audit Revision 1 dated April 18, 1985 as a result of discussions with the NRC IE and Region I staffs.
This program was approved with conditions as stated in NRC letter Subject:
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Engineering Assurance Program
[EAP] dated May 2, 1985.
On April 22-23, 1985, the NRC inspected the preparations and review plans of the SMEC audit team as documented in Inspection Report 50-410/85-14 dated May 10, 1985.
SMEC program imple-mentation was inspected by the NRC on May 21-25; 1985 and documented in Inspection Report 50-410/85-18 dated June 17, 1985.
2.
~Pur ose The purpose of this inspection was to review audit results and corrective actions.
Specifically, the following activities were conducted on a
sampling basis:
(1) review of back-up documentation to verify that it supports the results and conclusions of Audit Report No. 50, (2) review resolution of the Action Items identified in the report and the corrective actions for acceptability, (3) review of corrective actions either completed or in-process to determine if they had been implemented as stated in the report, (4) verification of. whether the audit had accommodated NRC comments in Nine Mile Point 2 preparation inspection report 50-410/85-14 dated May 10, 1985 and program imp'1ementation inspection report 50-410/85-18 dated June 17, 1985 and (5) verification of whether the audit gave adequate consideration to design related items from Construction Appraisal Team Inspection 50-410/83-18 dated January 31, 1984.
I 3.
NRC Ins ection Team Name, Position This inspection was conducted by NRC personnel, with support of contractor personnel as follows*:
~A Team Leader Mechanical Systems Mechanical Components E'lectrical Power Controls Civil/Structural E. Imbro, Senior Inspection Specialist, IE T. DelGaizo, Consultant, MESTEC Services S. Klein, Consultant, MESTEC Services C. Bomberger, Consultant, MESTEC Services J.
Blackman, Consultant, WESTEC Services G. Morris, Consultant,.
MESTEC Services J.
Kaucher, Consultant, WESTEC Services G. Lewis, Inspection Specialist, IE A. Unsal, Consultant, HARSTEAD Engineering
+Attended part time:
S. Ebneter, Director, Division of Reactor Safety, Region I Attended the exit briefing:
J. Milhoan, Chief, Licensing Section, IE P.
Eapen, Chief, equality Assurance Section, Region I 4.
Personnel Contacted A large number of NMPC and Stone 5 Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC}
personnel were contacted throughout the five day inspection.
The following is a listing of key personnel contacted:
Name Or anization Position W. Kennedy W. Eifert R. Twigg C. Terry M. Roy R. Fortier H. Mooncai W. Pananos G. Arena G.
Bushne11 SWEC SWEC SWEC NMPC NMPC SWEC SWEC SWEC SWEC SWEC Senior VP, Manager CHOC Chief Engineer, EA Audit Team Leader Licensing Manager Manager Special Projects Power Discipline Auditor Electrical Auditor Structural Auditor EMD Auditor Hazards Auditor 5.
General Conclusions As a result of this inspection, a large number of Action Items identified in Audit Report No.
50 were considered to be closed-out by the NRC staff with no further action required.
Actions Items from this inspection which the NRC staff considers to 'be open items are identified in Attachment I to this report.
Attachment I provides a discussion of the action required to close the specific items.
In several instances, this action involves the inclusion of additional back-up documentation by the audit team.
In some cases, additional technical work is being performed on the part of either the audit team or NMP-2 project personnel.
As a result of NRC staff comments, the SWEC audit team agreed to pub'lish a supplement to the report of Audit No. 50 which would provide additional technical information.
The NRC staff understands that the supplement to the report of Audit No.
50 will address:
(a} the safety-significance of any plant hardware changes, (b} dialogue between the audit team and the project where necessary to further describe the significance of specific items, (c} Action Items closed-out by the audit team since publication of the original report, and (d} NRC open items as indicated in the attachment to this report.
Attachments 2 and 3 contain a status of inspection items from prior NRC inspections of the NMP-2 engineering assurance program referenced in Paragraph 2 above.
Attachment 4 to this report provides a discussion of the incorporation of design related items from the NRC's Construction Appraisal Team Inspection 50-410/83-18 dated January 31, 198 (
Attachments:
1.
NNP-2 Technical Audit No. 50:
NRC Open Items 2.
Status of Prior NRC Inspection Items -
NRC Preparations Inspection Report 50-410/85-14 3.
Status of Prior NRC Inspection Items -
NRC Implementation Inspection Report 50-410/85-18 4.
Incorporation of Design Items from the NAP-2 CAT Inspection
ATTACHMENT I NMP-2 Technical Audit No.
NRC Open Items The follow>ng >s a 'listing of NRC open items as of the completion of the NRC's inspection on August 16, 1985.
These items are presented in accordance epor o.
.
W>thorn with the individual disciplines identified in Audit R t
N
are discussed.
Followin the
p ine area, open items associated with a specific SWEC Act I
g e
>st>ng of Action Items, other general items are c son tern iscussed, where applicable.
It is noted that as a result of this inspection th EA t
'
'echnical reviews and is reviewing documentation su ortin the e
earn
>s oin additional particularly in the electri al d
d c rica an power disciplines.
CONTROLS DISCIPLINE (Report Section 6.1)
Action Item Ho. E-CI5-0 Set Point Calculations - Assumptions for Test Equipment Accuracy Setpoint calculatio p 'ations assume an accuracy for test equipment for which field confirmation is required.
SWEC Memo of 7/3/85 (Ho tht o dr b
tbl h
ccuracy or test
~n tr me ts
.es e es a
>s ed to ensure that the a
e er an ose stated on the calculations.
This item remains pen pen
>ng verification that satisfactory procedures are in place to ensure instrument accuracy satisfies the assumptions of the calculations GENERAL ITEMS
~D Nonconformance and Disposition Reports (NKDs)
Cogent NSDs selected for review addressed simple problems.
Additional N50s of a more complex nature should be selected for review or justification should be provided that NSDs selected for review in the Controls area are representative of all MDs in this are ELECTRICAL DISCIPLINE (Report Section 6.2)
Ac.',o,". '.tern No. E-Ell-0 Preventative Maintenance for qua'1ified Life Status The project's response to this item stated that maintenance and surveillance plans would be prepared which would address qualified life status of the equipment.
This item will remain open until a sampling of the maintenance ana surveys'l1ance p'1ans is per formed to demonstrate a satisfactory response to the SWEC EA team concern.
Action Item No. E-E20-0 gA Category Identification - Battery Changes Drawings This item concerned incorrect gA category identification on drawings.
A 1005 review was performed by the project of wiring and one-line diagrams which resulted in discovery of an additional 56 errors.
A sample of 20 physical drawings was also reviewed, representing less than 2X of the physical drawings (only one of which was a Category I drawing).
Additional Category I safety-related drawings are being reviewed by the EA audit team.
Ac" on Item No. E-E16-0 Inconsistency - FSAR and One-Line Diagram - MOV Horsepower Rating This item resu'1ted in changes to a one-line diagram 12177-EE-1CP-2 and FSAR Table 8.3-4.
The ESDCR prepared by the project only addressed the specific motor-operated valve identified in the action item and failed to address the remaining MQVs on the same diagram which also did not agree with FSAR Table 8.3-4.
Before this item is closed out, all inconsistencies should be corrected and further review should be under taken to determine if this is a generic problem or justification for not doing so should be provided.
GENERAL ITEMS Description Review of Pump-Motor Combinations Coranent In Audit 450, the SWEC EA team reviewed a
10 hp pump-motor.
The EA team is expanding its review to include a large pump-motor combination where the team could audit such things as driven equipment brake horsepower requirements and minimum voltage acceleration.
This review will also confirm power discipline interface relative to the capability of the HVAC systems to maintain proper environmental conditions for the pump moto Descri tion Comment Control Circuit Voltage Drop Physical Separation Calculation Review Battery Specs'.
Audit Report 5'50 indicates that dc control circuit voltage drop was reviewed, however, the backup documentation does not support this statement.
The NMP-2 project is currently conducting a Cable Length Verification Program to confirm the acceptability of control circuit voltage drop.
This item will be held open until it is. confirmed that ESF pump switchgear dc control circuit voltage drops have been found acceptable.
The audit review plans implied that the extent of the separation review was limited to confirming that cables were routed in the correct division trays.
No evidence was found in the backup documentation that the EA review investigated physical separation or raceway barrier design and its effects on cable ampacity.
If the review was performed, the results of the review should be reflected in the backup documentation.
If the review was not performed justification for not doing so should be provided.
In the two calculations reviewed by the NRC team, the following deficiencies were noted.
EC-42 (Battery Sizing):
(I) battery open circuit voltage of 123.8 v
was assumed in determining the current requirements for the inverters rather than the 114.8 v determined later in the calculation, (2) different motor horsepower was assumed for the 3 MOYs in two related calculations, (3) lack of design margin (Per IEEE 485) in currents used to establish battery discharge voltage profile, and (4) differences in battery one minute cell discharge. rates.
(I) no reference for the 101 v minimum MOY voltage, (2)
no margin on current for the cable voltage drop from battery to switchgear, (3) apparent inconsistencies in current drawn by various loads, (4) no apparent justification for the assumption limiting operation of valve ICS*MOV 122 to a window at I18.5 minutes into the battery discharge, and (5) followup action not identified where cables were identified with excessive voltage drop.
In view of these problems, the SWEC EA team should further evaluate the validity and effectiveness of these calculations including any design process implications.
The review of battery material did not consider battery cell jar material or intercell spacer material.
The SWEC EA team will conduct a review of these materials.
Also, the audit checklist did not document a performance or acceptance test per IEEE 450 for either constant curre t ischarge or a load profile discharge.
This item should curren be verified by the SWEC EA team or justification for not doing so should be provide MECHANICAL COMPONENTS (Report Section 6.3)
Action Item No. E-M04-0 E-M05-0 Dynamic gualification - Valve 21CS*MOV126 Identification of Applicable Dynamic Loads-Valve Spec.
P304R The SWEC audit team did not verify that the seismic qualification documentation submitted by a valve vendor was complete, properly approved by the SWEC project and hence in conformance with ASME code requirements.
This item will remain open until such a verification is completed.
Further, since the GE Phase
MOV gualification Program affects the entire line of BOP Limitorque motor operators, the item will also remain open until it is verified that the GE program is com-pleted, envelops the affected NMP operators, and that the documentation is in order.
Action Item Nos.
E-M08-0 E-MIO-0 E-Mll-0 E-M12-0 E-M17-0 E-M23-0 Stress Analysis Thermal Load Cases Decoupled Branch Line Stress Evaluation Approval of Soc-o-let Relocation by Pipe Stress Group Evaluation of Small Bore Equipment Nozzle Loads Transmittal of Pipe Stress Analysis Results for High Energy Line Break Analysis Design Change Tolerances for BSW Shield Doors-Review and Approval.
A number of Action Items have been dispositioned by virtue of the existence of a calculation closeout procedure (PP-93) which is designed to verify all pertinent input information, with calculational reevaluation as required.
This item will remain open until it is confirmed through a representative sampling of calculations that these items have, in fact, been properly addressed.
GENERAL ITEMS Descri tion Selection of Pipe Support Review Conment An examination of the BZ drawing for the ICS system indicates
'that the majority of pipe support designs are significantly more complex than those chosen for review by the 'audit team.
Therefore, the technical attributes may not have been ade-quately evaluated.
The SWEC EA audit team is reviewing additional pipe support designs to form a more representative sample.
~ ~
POWER DISCIPLINE (Report Section 6.4)
Action Item Nos.
E-P07-1 E-P10-0 E-P16-0 E-P27-0 E-P29-0 E-P31-0 E-P37-0 Relief Valve 2ICS*RV112 Sizing Problem Report PR-P-149 - Project Compliance with Power Division Standards Flow Orifice Thickness Verification - Spec.
C011N Discrepancies in Calculation for RCIC Test Line to Condensate Storage Line Size Verification Inconsistency - Calculation for RCIC System Design Pressure/Temperature/Pipe Size Selection and Power Division Standard Drain Pot Level Control Single Failure Effect on Suppression Pool Water Level f'urther technical details are needed for these items relative to safety-sign'-
icance and design process effectiveness.
Specifically, where hardware changes lgni-are involved, the adequacy of the design prior to the change (from a safety viewpoint) should be discussed.
In general, the project's response to these items should be provided along with the audit team's evaluation of the response.
Finally, the audit team's overall conclusions relative to design adequacy and design process effectiveness should be reiterated in view of these specific items.
Action Item No. E-P21-0 Pump ICS*P2 Recirc.
Loop Heat Dissipation The SMEC EA audit team did not confirm that a procedure or suitable program is in effect to verify that appropriate post-startup testing is performed to determine whether or not the heat generated by the keep-fill pump can be adequately dissipated.
This should be done or justification should be provided for not doing so.
Action Item No. E-P38-0 Localized Steaming from Open Equipment Drains The SWEC EA team did not verify that a procedure or suitable program is in effect to monitor possible contamination from open drain funnels following plant startup.
This item will remain open until this verification is performed or justification is provided for not doing so.
-5-
GENERAL ITEMS Descri tion Cogent HELB Adequacy of HYAC Zone Temperature Calculation Adequacy of RCIC Test Line Size Yerification Calculation e
The safe-shutdown portion of the NNP-2 high-energy-line-break program remains an open item since this portion of the program has not been implemented by the project and therefore was not a subject for review during this technical audit.
A revi review of backup calculations for Review Plan 1903-0 indi-cated that maximum HYAC zone temperatures calculated for the reactor building were based on average cooling water (service calculation water) temperatures supplied to unit coolers. S'h (EHY-50) was used to substantiate environmental parameters for equipment environmental qualification, maximum zon service water temperatures should be used t d t o
e ermine maximum mar ins in e temperatures.
This will reduce apparent d
t g
n some zones but is not expected to exceed the design ess gn emperatur unless
'u temperatures established in this calculati N
th
ion.
evert e ess, should evaluate t justification is provided for not doing so the EA t he effect of using the maximum temperatures e
earn and should also determine the extent of the roblem f generic stand oint (i e pro em rom a poin (i.e., should ensure that environmental qua-i ication temperature levels have been adequately established).
A review of the calculation A10.1 H-8 Rev.
3 to verify RCIC test line sizing revealed an error in the way flow resistance CV was used in coefficient (K-factor ) derived from valve vendor
'f d
the calculatIon.
The K-factor was derived for r speci
~e 3 inch nominal pipe size and used with 4 inch piping to determine flow resistance.
This error will result in a chan e
orifice 2 I in the size of flow orifice 2 ICS RO 125 Th CS RO 125 was based on an assumed steam inlet pres-a um TDH of sure to the 'RCIC pump's turbine. driver. of 165
'
ps i pro ucing tested with the
p p
o 6IO feet.
However, the RCIC pump is generall p ant normally operating at a steam pressure
genera y
of 1000 psi.
At this steam pressure, the RCIC produces a total evaluate dynamic head (TDH) of 3000 feet.
The calculatd te the potent)al for pump runout and possible deleterious cu a ion s
not effects to the pump when being tested in the normal operating mode.
Also, the potential for cavitation through the orifice should be evaluated at this operating condition due to the in th high pressure drop across the orifice and the r d d
e vena contracta due to the high flow velocity.
e re uce pressure The stress analysis performed to determine the orifice thickness did not consider the pressure drop this orifice would see during the condition when the RCIC pump was flow clear tested at normal reactor pr essures.
From th b
the project did not recognize the existence of mode.
This multiple operating points for the RCIC pump durin th t t item will remain open until these concerns and any generic implications are addressed.
-6-
I
CIVIL/STRUCTURAL DISCIPLINE (Report Section 6.5)
Action Item No. E-S03-0 Control Building and Diesel Generator Building Stability Analysis The project's technical justification to demonstrate that the mat will not slide at the contact with the rock surface was not checked by the SWEC EA audit team.
The EA team should evaluate the project s technical justification or justification should be provided for not doing so.
Action Item No. E-S04-0/I ICS Cubicle Watertight Door Design - Conflicting QA Categories The NMP-2 project is in the process of reviewing SWEC specifications P306C and S203C to determine the effects of radiation on seals.
The action item will remain open'until this review has been completed by the project and evaluated by the EA team.
Action Item No. E-S09-0 Design Requirements for Special Doors-Spec.
S208G The project is in the process of performing calculations and obtaining certified mill test data.
This will remain an open item until this work is completed and has been evaluated by the EA team.
Action Item No. E-S23-0 Cable Tray Base Plate Anchor Bolt Holes The EA a"--t team did not verify that an analysis was performed to demonstrate that prying forces are not a significant contributor, to the overall tension in the drilled-in anchor bolts.
This item will remain.open until this verification is performed or justification is provided for not doing so.
ACTION ITEMS EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION (Report Section 6.6)
There are no items which the NRC staff considers to be open in the equipment qualification are i ~
ATTACHMENT 2 Status of Prior NRC Inspection Items NRC PREPARATIONS INSPECTION REPORT 50-410/85-14 of May 10, 1985 SPECIFIC COMMENTS BY DISCIPLINE Report: 50-410/85-14
The comments below relate to the corres ond'n sponding comments in Inspection Item No.
Status Conments*
I - Mechanical System/Power Engineering Closed Review plans were revised in this discipline and were subsequently reviewed by the NRC and were II I r found to be satisfactory.
Also HELBA and S
'l sml c
/
review plans were determined to be sufficient.
l I - Engineering Mechanics/Mechanical Components Closed III - Electric Power Closed Review plans in this discipline were either modified or where additional documentation was required, these comments were reflected in the report of the implementation inspection (Inspection Report No. 85-18).
Hence, this item is considered closed and the details of the items from the implementation inspection are Attachment 3.
During the preparations inspection it was determined that the following areas were not evaluated during the SMEC (NY) review of the AC System.
Subsequently, these items have been included in the SWEC Engineering Assurance audit:
- Electrical protection of motors and motor operated valves
-
DC motor operated valve voltage drop
- 120 volt ac 8 dc control circuit voltage drop
- Containment Electrical Penetration protection
- Motor starting voltage when loading the diesel generator
- Instrumentation and control power supply
- 1-
~ ~
Item No.
Stilius Comments*
Electric Power (continued}
Closed These items were either incorporated in the audit or where additional action was required, comments were provided in the report of'he implementation inspection ( Inspection Report No. 85-18).
Hence, these items are considered closed and details of the items from the implementation inspection are provided in Attachment 3.
IV - Controls(Instrumentation and Controls Specific Comments Closed Instrumentation and control audit preparations for the inspection were subsequently reevaluated during the inspection of program implementation.
These preparations were considered to be satis-factory, subject to the comments provided in the implementation report which are discussed in Attachment 3.
Y - Civil/Structural Specific Comments Closed Review plans in this discipline were modified and are considered to be satisfactory.
-2-
~
'
ATTACHMENT 3 STATUS OF PRIOR NRC INSPECTION ITEMS NRC IMPLEMENTATION INSPECTION REPORT 50-410/85-18 of June 17, 1985 Specific Comments by Discipline
'The comments below relate to the corresponding items in Inspection Report 50-410/85-18
.'tern No.
Sutjau't Mechanical S stems Control of Design Changes Status Comments*
Closed Evidence was available to indicate that the audit was evaluating the. project's technical justification for design changes.
1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 Review of ACNs, ECNs,
ERDCRs RCIC Steam Line Dose Rate Ca 1 culati on HELB/MELB/Flooding Inadequate Substantiation of Review Verification of Assumptions Closed Closed Closed Closed
. Closed Additional change notices were reviewed which were of a substantive nature.
Evidence was available to indicate that the validity and appropriateness of computer codes was being considered by the auditors.
Review plans of the HELB/MELB area are now auditable.
Substantiation of acceptable attributes in the review plans has been provided.
There was evidence that the audit was investiga-ting instances where calculational assumptions or input needed further verification.
1.7 Incorrectly Stated Audit Action Item Closed Mechanical Com onents The action item was revised to correctly identify the deficiency.
2.1 Pipe Support Stiffyers ---'..
Verification not apparent Closed Sufficient evidence exists of a review of pipe support stiffness including identification of a representative sample of pipe support calculations to be audited.
2.2 Verification of Assumption Open As discussed in Attachment 1 to this report, several action items remain open pending verification of calculational input information as per procedure PP-9 ~ ~
Item Ne.
~Sub 'ect
Status Comments
2. 3 Field Design Changes Closed During the implementation audit there appeared to be inadequate plans to review the technical adequacy of the field design change system at the site.
Review of Audit Report 5'50 confirmed that adequate plans were established by the EA Audit Team.
2.4 2.5 Calculation Update Requirements Adequacy of Audit Review Documentation Civil/Structural Open Closed As discussed in item 2.2 above, this item remains open pending further verification of calculation validity.
Audit documentation was thoroughly reviewed subsequent to publication of the report.
Subject to the comments on this report, backup documentation was sufficient.
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Limited Depth of Technical Audit Seismic Analysis Stiffness of Conduit Support Plate Flexibility Electric Power Closed Closed Closed Closed The review was expanded to include all major categories of structures at HNP-2.
The audit team verified input and output of selected computer programs in order to verify seismic analyses.
An action item was subsequently prepared on this item (E-S26-0),
An action items was subsequently prepared on this item (E-S27-0).
4.1 4.2 Review of Design Process Potential Action Items Closed Closed There was evidence in the documentation that this item was being checked.
Action items were subsequently prepared on these items.
4.3 EA Review Requirement on E8DCRs Closed An action item was subsequently prepared on this ite ~ ~
Item No.
4.4
~Sub 'ect FSAR Conmitments for Safety Related Overload Heater Selection Status Closed Comments An action item was subsequently prepared on this item.
4.5 Use of Manufacturer's Data in Diesel Load Profile Calculation Closed An action item was subsequently prepared on this item.
Instrumentation 8 Controls 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Auditable Review Plans Calculation Assumptions IEC Calculations Advanced Change Notices (ACNs)
Closed Open Closed Closed The Audit Report 850 coupled with the review plans and the action items comprise a complete and auditable package.
This item remains open pending the review of the implementing procedure to ensure that test equipment used for calibration meets or exceeds the accuracy specified in the calculation.
Two additional setpoint calculations were added to the list to be reviewed.
Three ACNs were reviewed as part of Audit Report 850.
850.
5.5 Separation 8 Isolation Requirements Closed Separation within the remote shutdown panel was reviewed.
Additionally, instrument tubing separation was evaluated.
5.6 5.7 ESDCRs Problem Reports Closed Closed An adequate number of E8DCRs were reviewed (5).
One complete problem report has been reviewed and 3 partially complete problem reports were evaluated.
One complete problem report has been reviewed and 3 partially complete problem reports were evaluate ~ ~
O~
Attachment
NMP-2 Cat Inspection Items In reviewing the report of SWEC Technical Audit No. 50, the NRC team consider the design related items from the report of the NRC's C
Team to ensure that these i o
e s
onstruction Appraisal au it team.
The NRC team concluded that these i these items had been sufficiently investigated b
the EA ese items had been sufficiently o.
or ad been sufficiently addressed in a rev
'WEC Engineering Assurance technical audit.
Details NRC's review a e provided below.
Desi n Related CAT Item Design Change Control Consistency Between the FSAR and Design Documents Conment guestions of timing of incorporation of changes as well as the review process to determine the adequacy of changes was addressed in SWEC Audit ¹19 of the Site Engineering Group.
This matter was one of the major features of SWEC Audit ¹50 and was adequately addressed.
Seismic gualification of Class 1E Equipment Prequalification Testing.
Anchor Bolts This item was reviewed by the electrical discipline with support of the componnets discipline during SWEC Audit ¹50.
This was addressed in Section 6.5 of SWEC Audit ¹50.
Preparation of E8DCRs in lieu of N8Ds Acceptance Criteria of Electrical Installation Specification Electrical Separation Criteria Deficiencies These problems were checked in all disciplines by SWEC Audit ¹50.
This was verified by the electrical discipline during SWEC Audit ¹50.
Separation within the remote shutdown panel was evaluated in SWEC Audit ¹50 with no generic problems note ~7
\\) l~
q