IR 05000424/1986035
| ML20206C878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1986 |
| From: | Blake J, Vias S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206C810 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-86-35, NUDOCS 8606190585 | |
| Download: ML20206C878 (7) | |
Text
'
'
s
.
,,
P
-
~
.
.
.
$ 5_.
3 Etto '- '
UNITED STATES
[5 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'y
~
og*
REGION ll
,
n g
[j 101 MAfilETTA STREET.N.W.
<
'*
- -
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
%,.....f Report Nos.: 50-424/86-35
-
- Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta; GA 30302 Docket Nos.: 50-424 License Nos.: CPPR-108
' Facility Name: Vogtle 1
>
j.
Inspectio o
ct d.
y 5-9, 1986 i
i Inspec r:
r S.
. Vilis-Oste Signed Accom anyin on.
G. K. Miller, EG&G - Idaho, Inc.
,
~ Approved b.
-
i!h4
,
J.JpBlake,SectionChief Date Signed gineering Branch e
ivision of Reactor Safety
,
SUMMARY
!
>
.
Scope:
This special, announced inspection, on site, involved the areas-of
safety-related supports and mechanical snubbers (Unit ~1), and Readiness Review Module 11, Pipe Stress and Supports (Unit 1).
Results: No violations or-deviations were identified.
i t
J
+
ADO K O 00
'
DR DR a
,
'
,
. - -. - -
-. - -
- - -
.
.
. -
-. - - - - -
-
---
..
.--.----
-.--
--..
a
. - - -
.. -.
.. - -. - - - - - - -
. - -
- - -
- -
- - - -.*
_
.
.
.
i REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- D. O. Foster, Vice President and Project Support Manager
- R. H. Pinson, Vice President - Construction
- P. D. Rice, Vice President - Engineering
- C. W. Hayes, Project Quality Assurance (QA) Manager
- E. D. Groover, QA Site Manager - Construction
- B. C. Harbin, Manager, Quality Control
- G. A. McCarley, Project Compliance Coordinator R. W. McManus, Readiness Review (RR) Assistant Project Manager Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, engineers, technicians, mechanics, and office personnel.
Other Organizations
- W. C. Ramsey, Southern Company Services (SCS), Readiness Review Project l
Manager i
- 0. Batum, SCS, Deputy to VP Project Engineering
.
- R. C. Sommerfeld, Bechtel Construction Corp. (BPC), RR Construction Team
Leader
T. Puzo, Pullman Power Products (PPP), Engineer
'
W. M. Wright, SCS, RR Discipline Manager NRC Resident Inspectors
- H. Livermore, Senior Resident Inspector (Construction)
J. Rogge,' Senior Resident Inspector (Operations)
R. Schepens, Resident Inspector (Operations)
!
- Attended exit interview J
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 9,~1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during the inspection.
5.
Safety-Related Pipe Supports and Restraint Systems (50090) (Unit 1)
Observation of Work and Work Activities
-
The inspector observed inspection of the four trechanical snubbers listed below prior to installation and torquing of bolts to the support plates.
The snubbers were checked for smoothness of shaft travel by simulating normal operation by pulling and pushing the snubber shaft; the inspector also simulated unit activation by sudden movement.
It was also noted that there was no evidence of deterioration or noticeable corrosion and that the support plates and connecting joints were not bent, deformed, or loose.
The inspector also inspected the snubber components for traceability by heat numbers, serial numbers or markings, the snubbers' pins, studs, bolts, and nuts.
Hanger Number System Size V1-1202-151-H049 Nuclear Service PSA-3 Cooling Water VI-1201-064-H014 Reactor Coolant AD-1600 (Double)
V1-1201-029-H027 Reactor Coolant PSA-3 Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Review of Readiness Review Module 11, Pipe Stress and Supports (Unit 1)
a.
General
This inspection report documents Region II's initial site inspection relative to the evaluation of GPC's Readiness Review Module 11, Pipe Stress and Supports.
The inspection was conducted to aid in determining whether Module 11 provided an acceptable basis for its reported conclusion, concerning Unit 1 and common plant facilities of i
the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), that the design and
'
construction programs, and processes associated with. pipe stress analysis and pipe supports within the scope identified within this module were in accordance with applicable licensing commitments.
!
Readiness Review Module 11 is one portion (module) of a many part review being conducted by GPC to aid in assuring that VEGP Unit 1 and
!
i i
-
.
.
. -
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
-..
.. - -
.
.
.
.
.
,
_-
-
- _. -
_ _
-
.
.
-.
-.
-
- -
-
..
.
.
- -
.
.
"
.
I
common plant facilities will be operationally ready in accordance with
~
j
. scheduled plans for obtaining an operating license. The GPC Module -11 j
review activities, data and results are summarized to the NRC March 25,
',
1986.
The module report consisted of
.eight ' sections:
j.
1.0, Introduction; 2.0, Organization and ' Division of Responsibility;
3.0, Commitments; 4.0, Program Description; 5.0, Audits 'and Special.
'
Investigations; 6.0, Program Verification; 7.0, Independent Design
,
!
Review; and 8.0, Program Assessments / Conclusions.
'
i-i j
b.
Boundaries of Module 11
<
!
The inspector completed the initial examination of the. boundaries
>
I associated with Module 11 as indicated within Section 1.0 of the.
,
j report.
The objective during this examination was to 'get a clear understanding of the commitments, activities and responsibilities in Module 11 and to aid in determination of the extent to which important
,
i activities and commitments have been included and treated in the GPC
'
review.
l-c.
Section 1.0, Introduction
i Section 1.0 of the report indicated that Module 11 covered design and construction commitments and activities for pipe stress analysis and j
pipe supports for Unit 1 and common plant facilities.
This report addressed the safety-related mechanical systems classified as American
!
)
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),Section III, Class 1, 2, 3, and
l nonsafety-related systems supported to Seismic Category I requirements i
for protection of safety-related components. Also, the piping system I
final design verification program and construction of pipe - whip j
restraints was addressed. For simplicity, this module does not. include
the Westinghouse responsibility for the complete Class 1 stress
[
,
l-analysis for four-inch and larger piping and for-the fatigue analysis
'
}
for all other Class 1 piping.
j d.
Section 2.0, Organizational and Division of Responsibility i
Section 2.0 provides details of the design organization and field
,
f construction organization at. Plant Vogtle.
This includes a brief
!
description of the organization, responsibilities, and interface
relationships between GPC, BPC, PPP, 'and SCS for design, procurement,
)
and construction activities related to pipe supports, f
The inspector completed the initial examination of Section-2.0.
The
.
'
objective during this examination was verification of general content
!
and accuracy. No significant errors or omissions were identified.
e.
Section 3.0, Commitments
Section 3.0 provides the commitments GPC identified for Module 11 and
,
the verification of their implementation. -Subsections 3.1 through 3.3
'
l of Section 3.0 provide brief introductory information, including a i
i r
!
L
I.-
-
-
-
- - - -.
-.-
.
--.
.
.
.....
.
. -..
--.
-. -.
-
--- -.
~
.
_..
-
j
,
.
-
.
p
,
j
~4
-
definition of a commitment, -information regarding the-sources of the
L commitments, and a listing of the typical documents that' were j-determined to implement commitments.
,
Subsections 3.4 and 3.5 of Section 3.0 presented respectively, a matrix listing the documents considered -to implement the commitments.
In
.
addition to providing a listing of the commitments identified, t
,
'
Subsection 3.4 provides an identification and :a determination as to
- _
whether implementation of the commitment was-a design organization
responsibility, a construction organization responsibility or-the responsibility of both. The Subsection 3.5 matrix includes, _ for each
,
commitment, an identification of. design and/or -construction documents
[
that were determined to implement the commitment, a
The inspector completed an initial review of the material presented in
,
I the Module 11 Subsections 3.4 and 3.5 matrices to determine whether the t
Readiness Review had -satisfactorily identified commitments for the '
module and if it had satisfactorily determined their inclusion in j
implementing documents.
i
!
-
The inspector began his evaluation by examination of VEGP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and NRC Inspection and Enforcement Bulletins
,
(IEBs) to identify safety-related commitments'that appeared to apply to
Module 11. A comparison with the FSAR Chapters 3 and 6 and Module 11
,
'
'
commitments and implementation matrices was made to determine if the
'
Readiness Review group had identified commitments from the FSAR and for the IEB responses that represented the commitment material on the
<
inspector's independently selected sample. 'A total of~50 (over 50%)
)
t
commitments were chosen for NRC verification of implementation. The
{
inspector identified 19 questions that-required clarification by the
!
!
Readiness Review group to ascertain ' the exclusion, inclusion or
!
j clarification of the commitments.
,
t i
Further details regarding NRC. verification of commitment implementation
,
and NRC - NRR review will be provided in a later report.
j
,
i f.
Section 6.0, Program Verification
!
I
!
l Section 6.0 describes GPC's verification to assure that the VEGP design j
!
and construction programs adequately implement commitments.
It i
contains summary data supporting the. review assessment, including
e i
Readiness Review findings (violations of licensing commitments, project
procedures, or engineering requirements identified by the reviewers)
j and their resolution. The Readiness Review findings were classified _
into levels of importance to plant safety. The following. levels were
,
j used:
'
i
!
i
'
'
!
j i
i
!
i
!-
i
i
,
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
I
-
Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or engineering requirements with indication of safety concerns Violation of licensing. commitments or engineering II
-
requirements with no safety concerns III -
Violation of project procedures with no safety concerns.
Section 6.0 is divided into two subsections, Subsection 6.1, which describes design program verification and Subsection 6.2, which describes construction program verification.
(1) Subsection 6.1, Design Program Verification, as described in the Module 11 report, Readiness Review verification of the design program was performed by a design RR team (RRT) consisting of five
,
engineers, experienced in power plant design engineering.
The verification was intended to insure, through sampling, that the design process for pipe stress and supports has functioned effectively, and had resulted in proper implementation of licensing commitments in design documents.
The module report describes the design program verification as having been performed in two parts.
Part I was the verification of licensee commitments documented in Module 11 report Section 3.4 to identi fy specific project commitments regarding pipe stress and support design and the review and selection of specific commitments for their i
implementation into pipe stress and pipe support second-level design documents.
Part II was the verification of the programmatic aspects of design as well as an assessment that commitments and technical requirements were conducted in accordance with project procedures and Quality Assurance (QA) requirements (i.e., ANSI N45.2.11).
!
(2) Subsection 6.2, Construction Program Verification as described in Module 11 report, the Readiness Review verification was performed by a Construction RRT consisting of five personnel certified to
Level.II capabilities in accordance with ANSI N45.2.6, and
experienced in nuclear construction.
It was intended to ensure, through sampling, that the construction process for the completed pipe supports and related installation activities performed by PPP
>
had been adequately controlled and had resulted in proper implementation of licensing commitments.
The inspector met with the Readiness Review management and set up the proposed inspection that would be necessary to assess the
!
design and construction sections of this module.
The Readiness Review group was given a list of 11 piping isometrics of which seven (16%) isometrics were evaluated by the RRT in the design t
assessment, and two (25%) isometrics were evaluated by the RRT in
!
l l
!
l
.
..-
the construction assessment. The other two isometrics are the NRC sample outside sampling covering two additional systems.
The Readiness Review management has agreed to assemble all the documentation listed below to facilitate the NRC review of all the documentation related to the isometrics chosen and to arrange for the proper QC personnel to be familiar with the areas chosen and assist in the construction verification assessment.
Documentation Requested:
Copies (for Isometrics Requested)
-
Piping isometrics Piping stress analysis package
-
All pipe support packages (including)
Pipe support sketch (BPC)
Pipe support calculation (BPC)
,
l Pipe support QC documentation (PPP)
Any FCRs and DRs written against pipe supports Flow diagrams
P&ID drawings Make readily available
-
Valve list Line designation list Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.