IR 05000445/1987025
| ML20236S417 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1987 |
| From: | Barnes I, Ellershaw L NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236S414 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-87-25, 50-446-87-19, NUDOCS 8711250148 | |
| Download: ML20236S417 (17) | |
Text
_
..
- _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS NRC Inspection Report:
50-445/87-25 Permits: CPPR-126 50-446/87-19 CPPR-127 Dockets: 50-445 Category: A2
)
50-446 Construction Permit Expiration Dates:
Unit 1: August 1, 1988 Unit 2: Extension request I
submitted.
i
,
Applicant:
TU Electric Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
Units 1 & 2
!
Inspection At:
Comanche Peak Site, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted:
October 7 through November 3, 1987 rs Inspector:
N A
Q
// Jo/ 7 L.
E.
Ellershaw, Reactor Inspector
/ Ddte Consultants:
EG&G - J. Dale (paragraphs 2.c-e, 4, and 5.a)
Parameter - K. Graham (paragraphs 2.a, 3.a, 4, and 5.a)
D. Jew (paragraphs 2.b, f, 3.b, and 5.b-c)
Reviewed by:
VAL o/B 7 I.
Barnes, Senior Project Inspector Date 8711250148 871120 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
n mm
<
>
- :,
y,
,"
q
. - ).
--
l c.
y-
,,.l; W
- - 2
?
'3
.
,
io
.-Inspection' Summary:
Inspection Cond'ucted: OctoberJ7'through November 3, 1987 (Report'
i
' 50-445/87-25; 50-446/87-19)-
'
,
- AreasTInspected :Nonroutine,t unannounced inspection of applicant actions:en_ previous inspection findings, follow up on items.of
noncompliance / deviations,. corrective action program,'and site
. design audit.
'
Results: :Within the:four areas inspected, no violati'ns'and'no o
.
deviations.were identified.
'
6
..
>
f
'.
i j
,
j i
1
.____ _ - -
, _ - -
._
,_
_ - - _
_
-
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_-
_ _ _ _ _
b i '
!
,
l
,
p DETAILS
- 1.
Persons Contacted
-*R.
W. Ackley, Project Manager, Stone & Webster Engineering-Corporation (SWEC)
- R.'
P. Daker, Engineering Assurance (EA) Regulatory Compliance
.
Manager, TU Electric
- J.
L. Barker, Manager, EA, TU Electric
- W.
H. Benkert,. Staff Assistant Manager, Operations Quality
,
Assurance-(QA),-TU' Electric l
- R.
D. Best, Nuclear Operations Inspection Report Item Coordinator, TU Electric
- R.:C. Byrd, Quality Engineering (QE) Supervisor, TU Electric l
- R.
D. Delano, Licensing Engineer, TU Electric
- D.
E.LDeviney,: Manager, Operations QA, TU Electric
- J.
J.-Kelley, Manager, Plant Operations, TU Electric
- O.,W.
Lowe, Director of Engineering, TU Electric I
- D.
M. McAfee, Manager, QA, TU Electric f
- L.
D. Nace, Vice President, Engineering & Construction, i
TU Electric
!
o,
- D.
E. Noss, QAL Issue Interface Coordinator, TU Electric
?
- D. M. Reynerson, Director of Construction, TU Electric
- M.
J. Riggs, Plant Evaluation Manager, Operations, TU Electric
!
- A.
B.
Scott, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, TU Electric
- C.
E. Scott, Manager, Startup, TU Electric l
- J.
C. Smith, Plant Operations Staff, TU Electric
- M.
R.
Steelman, Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT),
i TU Electric
- P..B..Stevens, Manager, Electrical Engineering, TU Electric
- J.
F. Streeter, Director, QA, TU Electric
- T.
G. Tyler, Director, Projects, TU Electric
'
The NRC inspectors also interviewed other applicant employees
,
during this inspection period.
)
i
- Denotes personnel present at the November 3, 1987, exit j
interview.
j 2.
Applicant Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
a.
(closed) Open Item (445/8513-O-49):
The NRC inspector witnessed an ERC inspection of pipe support CT-1-034-414-C92, ERC' Verification Package (VP)
I-S-LBSR-053.
The ERC inspector identified that certain
)
actual field linear dimensions were not in accordance with design drawing requirements.
ERC documented these conditions on Deviation Report (DR)
I-S-LBSR-053-DR1 which subsequently resulted in the J
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_
_
_
..
__
.
4-
,
issuance of Nonconformance Report.(NCR) M-23430N.
The NCR was dispositioned "This is no longer a nonconforming j
condition.
The nonconforming item has been deleted l
because of a design change which was required for reasons
'
independent of the nonconforming resolution."- The NRC inspector verified that DCA-56997, Revision 0, which had been issued as a result of the Stress Requalification Program for pipe supports, addresses a design change in which the nonconforming item was deleted and the dimen-sions are no longer applicable to the design..This item is closed.
b.
(closed) Unresolved Item (445/8514-U-15):
This item dealt with the resolution of conflicting design criteria for certain mechanical components.
A comparison conduct-ed by TU Electric of the Gibbs & Hill (G&H) Line Designa-tion Table (LDT), the Westinghouse Reference Line List (RLL), and the Westinghouse Engineering Flow Diagrams (EFDs) resulted in the identification of several design pressure and temperature differences.
Additionally, it was noted by the NRC inspector that NCRs have been written for valves having temperature / pressure ratings listed on the Code Data Log that were less than the design criteria specified in the G&H LDT.
To resolve any differences and questions, a line by line comparison between the G&H and Westinghouse lists was made.
This comparison was performed concurrently by Westinghouse, G&H, and Comanche Peak Engineering (CPE)
personnel.
As stated in Westinghouse memorandum WPT-8554 dated October 6, 1986, and addressed to the CPE Director of Construction, the RLL was revised to incorporate and resolve the discrepancies identified by this review.
Also, where TU Electric or G&H information differed with that depicted on the Westinghouse EFDs, the lists were revised in order to be consistent.
Upon receipt of the revised Westinghouse RLL, a new list, which incorporates all necessary changes to resolve any conflicts, was generated for use on site.
Twenty-three systems were identified in which changes were required.
This list was issued by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
Mechanical on May 6, 1987, as Attachment 2 to Specification CPSES-M-1017, Revision 0, " Pipeline Designation List."
The NRC inspector reviewed Specification CPSES-M-1017, Revision 0, dated May 6, 1987; and in particular, the Pipeline Designation List (PDL) contained in Attach-ment 2, in order to verify that the recommended changes identified by the joint Westinghouse /G&H/CPE effort had been incorporated.
Each system contains between 5 and 20 sheets with as many as 40 changes per sheet.
The NRC
.. - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
. _ - _ _ _ _
_
_ _____--_
tt'
y.
- 5
.
,_
,
'
!.
t ;
,
dinspector compared"the' sheets' marked'up'by.the joint te effort identifying 1the changes and~the applicable i
portions of the. newly i'ssuedKPDL.:;A sample of the Recommended changes fromiall the included systems was selected and compared to the appropriate. system line
designation' parameters contained in the PDL. 'The sample consisted of a minimum of 1 sheet per system in which at least 15 changes had been recommended.
All recommended
!
changes reviewed by the NRC inspector had been appropriately incorporated into'the PDL..
,
.
,i l
The.NRC inspector reviewed.two NCRs1where the pres-sure/ temperature ratings of the valves:were less than those listed on the G&H'LDT. LThese NCRs-(M-13,317N and l
M-13,234) identified valves.with the-listed. rating.of 150 psi 0.150-degrees being utilized on lines where the design parameters were 180 psi 0 150 degrees.
The disposition for these two NCRs was use as is due to the
. fact that this particular class valve (150 psi @ 150 degrees)'is actually rated for 255 psi @ 150 degrees;'per ANSI B.16.5.
!
As a result of review' of NCRs M-13,317N, M-13,234,: and ANSI B.16.5.the NRC' inspector concurs with the stated dispositions.
Therefore, the design parameters of the 150 lb. class valves will not be exceeded when subjected-to the specified design parameters of 180 psi @ 150 degrees.
These actions have resulted.in the resolution of this
!
'
item..
c.
(Closed) Open. Item (445/8514-O-22):
During a NRC wit-j nessed reinspection of VP I-M-HVIN-017, the ERC inspector j
identified that three bolts on the inlet duct connection i
'
did not have lock washers installed.
This condition was documented on DR I-M-HVIN-017-DR1 which resulted in the issuance of NCR M-86-100216SX.
This NCR was dispositioned by being incorporated into l
CAR-111 which requires a 100% reinspection of HVAC duct supports and seismic Category I duct.
It should be noted that in addition to the 100% reinspection, the individual NCRs which constitute the CAR will be processed in I
'
accordance with site procedures and incorporated into the applicable Construction Traveler packages.
Engineering is to establish the necessary action required for
'
resolution with concurrence by Engineering Assurance and
,
Quality Engineering (QE).
Upon satisfactory completion of the activities, QE will close the NCR.
This reinspection is part of TU Electric's corrective action
~
,
program (CAP), and is being implemented by Procedure
}
l
--__:2____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
l
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___
)
6'
l
'
.
t l
CPE-FVM-CS-029 which is the " Field Verification Method
!
Procedure for Seismic HVAC Duct and Duct Hanger As-Built Verification in Unit 1 and Common Areas."
The NRC inspector has reviewed this procedure and considers it to
.j adequately address all of the identified issues.
The NRC i
inspector will inspect the implementation of this l
activity during subsequent inspection periods.
l l
As a result of this item being included in the CAP, this open item is closed.
j d.
'(Closed) Open Item (445/8514-0-29):
During a NRC wit-
!
nessed reinspection of VP I-S-HVDS-041, the ERC inspector identified several undersize welds in support AB-842-16-lF.
!
This condition was identified on DR I-S-HVDS-041-DR4 and subsequently on NCR M85-101991-R2-SX which was dispositioned by stating that the undersize welds will be
addressed by CAR-111 through the implementation of CPE-FVM-CS-029, which is part of CAP.
The CAP is being implemented as stated in paragraph 2.c
!
above.
As a result of this item being included in CAP,
<
this open item is closed.
]
e.
(Closed) Open Item (445/8516-0-40):
During a NRC wit-nessed reinspection of HVAC duct support VP I-S-HVDS-103, the ERC inspector identified the following conditions as being potential deviations:
Dimensional discrepancies, incorrect orientation, undersize welds, and unacceptable weld profile.
These items were identified on DRs
,
I-S-HVDS-103-DR1 through DR5 and then subsequently
identified on NCR M85-101991-R2-SX.
The disposition of this NCR states that these nonconforming conditions will be addressed by CAR-lll through the implementation of CPE-FVM-CS-029, which is part of the CAP.
The CAP is being implemented as stated in paragraph 2.c above.
Because of the CAP reinspection of HVAC, this open item is closed.
f.
(Open) Open Item (445/8514-0-37):
This item addressed potential deviations identified by ERC during inspection of VP I-S-INSP-024 which was witnessed by the NRC inspec-
tor.
An improper clamp installation (a TOS P2010 in lieu of a P2010) on support 024F was documented on DR I-S-INSP-024-DR1.
The out-of-tolerence tube steel length (56 3/4 inches versus 56 inches), lack of identification numbers on the baseplate, and undersize welds for support 24H were documented on DRs I-S-INSP-024-DR2, DR3, and DR4, respectively.
- _ _ _ _ _ _
.
-
The first DR (DR1) was incorporated into NCR I-85-102040SX, Revision 1, and dispositioned "use-as-is."
'This was based upon the fact that'the latest design information for this support, which was contained in
!
Drawing TNE-Il-0071, Revision 1, allowed the use of the
!
TOS P2010 clamp.
Had this drawing been contained within the VP at the time of inspection, the DR would not have been written.
The NRC inspector reviewed the NCR and VP I-S-INSP-024,. including Drawing TNE-Il-0071, Revision 1, and agrees that this condition is not nonconforming; i
l therefore, the NCR was adequately dispositioned and closed.
It should also be noted that the incorporation of this latest support drawing into the VP allowed ERC to void DRl.
This action is documented in memorandum QA/QC-RT2399.
The other three DRs (DR2 through DR4) were incorporated into NCR I-86-100053SX.
At the present time, this NCR has not yet been dispositioned.
This item will remain open pending disposition of NCR I-86-100053SX and the completion of any associated rework.
3.
Follow-up on Items of Noncompliance / Deviation (92702)
a.
(open) Deviation (445/8518-D-21, Item B.2):
This item dealt with an ERC inspector signing off the inspection checklist which attested to the fact that the bolt was torqued to 50 inch-pounds (70% of the specified value).
Subsequent NRC inspection, in which the same ERC inspec-tion criteria was used, determined that the bolt torque value was only 40 inch-pounds.
This occurred on VP I-S-INSP-023, support 23D.
Corrective actions taken included reinspecting the support for this attribute, revising the inspection checklist, and issuing DR I-S-INSP-023-DR4.
This result-ed in the subsequent issuance of NCR I-86-100380SX.
Additionally, the torque attribute was reinspected on five supports previously inspected by that particular ERC inspector.
The reinspection resulted in the identifica-tion of one additional inspector error.
Actions to prevent recurrence included the implementation of an overview inspection (OI) program to reinspect a sample of each ERC inspector's work.
The two inspector errors identified above are to be factored into the results of the OI program.
At the time of the appli-cant's response to this deviation, the results of the OI program had not yet been finalized to determine if any
further actions are necessar _
l i
-
i
!
The NRC inspector reviewed DR I-S-INSP-023-DR4 and agrees that it addresses the identified problem.
The revised j
inspection checklist for this support and the documenta-i tion concerning the reinspection of five additional
{
packages with the bolt torque attribute was also re-
viewed.
'
The-disposition for NCR I-86-100380SX stated that,
. per DCA 5221 Rev. 3 against MS-628 Rev. O, j
"..
para. 5.6.9, all tube fasteners are to be tightened in
)
accordance with the Unistrut General Engineering cata-I log."
This disposition is adequate; however, this l
deviation will remain open pending completion of the j
required rework and verification by the NRC inspector.
l
'
Further, the results of the OI program activities with respect to the identified ERC inspector will be reviewed.
i b.
(Closed) Deviation (445/8706-D-02):
CPRT failed to implement committed corrective action contained in
,
TU Electric letter TXX-4740 dated April 3, 1986, which i
was in response to a previously identified deviation.
.
As a result, TU Electric reviewed and revised their j
response to Item C, Notice of Deviation NRC Inspection i
Report 50-445/85-13; 50-446/85-09.
Additionally, CPRT
]
performed a review of TU Electric responses to NRC
!
Notices of Deviations to assure that corrective action l
commitments were being implemented by the individuals I
responsible for the committed actions.
As a result of this review, CPRT initiated a status report of NRC
inspection report items which is published every other j
week and distributed to various TU Electric organiza-tions.
The NRC inspector reviewed interoffice memorandum CPRT-1017, which documents the April 1987 review per-formed by CPRT, and has reviewed CPRT status reports of NRC inspection report items.
These corrective actions by the applicant should preclude further deviations of this type.
)
4.
Visual Examination of Welds (57050)
l The inspections of coated welds are being performed to aid in the resolution of outstanding issue No. 38 (application of j
visual weld acceptance criteria to coated welds) identified in l
Safety Evaluation Report Supplement 12.
This activity is l
,
l being implemented by Procedure CPE-SWEC-FVM-ME-102, "Reinspec-l tion of Coated Welds Quality Control Reinspection."
l During this inspection period, the NRC inspectors performed additional visual examinations of welds with respect to the o__
..
.
)
'
program discussed in NRC Inspection Reports 50-445/87-16, 50-446/87-13 and 50-445/87-18, 50-445/87-14.
A single weld joint on each of the following supports was examined in the delineated condition:
!
Pipe Supports After Coating Removal i
CS-1-079-017-C42R Pipe Welds (GTAW) After Coating Removal VA-X-AB-019-FW-2 VA-X-AB-024-FW-2 GH-X-AB-066A-FW-9A CC-1-EC-013-FW-17
.MS-1-SB-007-FW-28A AF-1-SB-010-A-FW-17 Pipe Welds (SMAW) Before and After Coating Removal CC-1-RB-081-W-17 CC-1-RB-064B-W-10 CC-1-RB-070B-W-10 CC-1-RB-032-W-6-1 CC-1-RB-002-W5-5 CC-1-RB-002-FW-16 CC-1-RB-002-W-22A To date, the comparison of coated and uncoated welds by visual examination has not resulted in conflicting differences.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Corrective Action Program (CAP)
NRC inspections were performed to verify the applicant's activities associated with the Post Construction Hardware
,
Validation Program (PCHVP).
The PCHVP was established to reconcile the design to the design bases appropriate to satisfy licensing commitments, and to reconcile the hardware to the design; i.e.,
the constructed / installed systems meet the intent of the design.
The following CAPS were inspected during this report period.
a.
HVAC (50100)
This CAP consists, in part, of a 100% "as-building" of the duct supports, ducts, plenums, air handling units, and Bahnson Service Company's installed equipment sup-ports for Unit 1 and Unit 2.
TU Electric delegated the responsibility for imple-mentation of design validation (or design modification),
as-building, and drawing preparation to Ebasco Services Inc.
The CAP required quality control (QC) inspections to be performed in accordance with the requirements of the CPSES QA Plan.
_
_--__-_-_______-____0
. _.
_
_
.___ __
I H
.
j
-
l According to procedure, individual drawings are to be
,
created for each as-built support and segment drawings H
are to be created for safety-related ductwork.
The drawings are to be inspected by QC and verified for accuracy.
The individual as-built drawings of the i
supports and duct segments are to be used for design verification.
Any required modifications are to be made and the drawings changed to reflect the modification.
The NRC inspectors have performed a preliminary review of PCHVP procedures associated with implementation of the HVAC CAP and will continue to evaluate these procedures during subsequent NRC inspections.
The NRC inspector noted that Project Procedure PP-220, Revision 0, defines the attribute matrix for the PCHVP as a checklist of all final acceptance attributes for a given commodity.
These attributes are required to be evaluated by engineering or inspected by QC in order to substantiate that the as-built condition is in accordance with the final design.
Appendix K of HVAC Design Specification 2323-MS-85 requires that inspection of welding shall be in accor-dance with site quality procedures.
Paragraph 6.4.1.8 in site quality Procedure NQA 3.09-10.1, " Requirements for Visual Weld Inspection," requires each weld to be trace-able to the welder who performed the weld.
This is part of the final acceptance inspection performed by QC.
_
)
During the NRC inspector's review, it was identified that
'
this attribute was not included in the attribute matrix.
This is considered to be an unresolved item pending i
completion of the NRC inspector's review (445/8725-U-01; i
446/8719-U-01).
On October 29, 1987, an NRC inspection was performed at the Fluor Daniel (HVAC contractor responsible for con-struction) fabrication shop to determine compliance with Construction' Department Procedures ECC-10.99-HV-004,
" Filler Material Control," and ECC-10.99-HV-007, "Quali-fication of Welders."
This inspection determined that these activities are in compliance with the requirements of these procedures.
Observation of welding electrodes, both in storage and in the possession of welders, and review of weld material issue slips revealed that welding material was effective-ly being controlled.
Review of welder qualification records revealed that the welders were qualified in accordance with the requirements of AWS D1.1 and D9.1.
l
- - - - _ _ _ _ _.
s
. - _ _ _ _
,
'
b.
Conduit Supports A & B Train and C Train > 2" (48053)
During this inspection period the NRC inspector selected a sample of four completed conduit walkdown packages to verify the accuracy and correctness of the EBASCO col-lected data.
The following is a list of the NRC inspect-ed packages:
Conduit Size Room
- Area
- No.
of Supports i
C03000317 1"
Yard SWI
C13012456
'2" 10B SG1
C14G21398 1"
70/66 SG1
C24030157 1"
154 RB1
- RB1 - Unit 1 Reactor building
- SG1 - Unit 1 Safeguards building
- SWI - Service water intake structure
- Number of supports includes conduit, junction box, and pull box supports.
The NRC inspector's walkdowns were performed while adhering to the criteria of field verification method (FVM) CPE-FVM-CS-056. While certain data recorded by the NRC inspector may not have matched that recorded by the EBASCO field walkdown engineer, it was deemed to be
!
acceptable since the difference in recorded dimensions
!
was still within the tolerances specified in the FVM.
No violations or deviations were identified.
c.
Conduit Supports C Train Less Than or Equal to 2" (48053)
During this inspection period, the NRC inspector per-i formed a review /walkdown of the total scope of work Impell performed in Rooms 130 and 136 of the Electrical /
,
Control building.
In addition, the NRC inspector re-l viewed the training program established by Impell for i
their onsite personnel who are performing the different j
i levels of screening (different levels of walkdown).
i
)
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ - - _ _ -
.
_
_
_
_
- __
.
--
,
I Room 130 Electrical / Control Building Calculation No.
Title RCO-1-EC-130 Room Closecut Calculation /
'
Documentation
,
L2-S-1-EC-130 Level 2 Conduit Support Evaluation
,
.
L6-1-EC-130 Level 6 Train C Conduit Support Interaction Evaluation While performing.the walkdown for Calculation i
L2-S-1-EC-130, the NRC inspector identified a discrepancy
!
in the Impell work.
It involved the span length between I
supports 2-23955 and 2-23956.
Impell had recorded this span length as 40" while the NRC inspector determined it
,
to be 47 1/2".
Subsequently, Impell stated that the l
Level 6 interaction evaluation determined that there were no safety-related equipment, systems, or components in the room.
Accordingly, no interactions (either accept-
!
able or unacceptable) will occur in this room and the conclusions initially arrived at would not be affected.
The NRC inspector concurred with this explanation; however, a determination must still be made as to whether this error was an isolated case and what impact, if any, it would have on other walkdowns that the identified
individuals were involved with.
This subject is an open
)
item pending the making of this determination (445/8725-O-02).
Room 136 Electrical / Control Building The following calculation /walkdown packages were included
,
in the NRC inspector's review of Room 136:
Calculation No.
Title RCO-1-EC-136 Room Closecut Calculation / Documentation L2-S-1-EC-136 Level 2 Conduit Support Evaluation L6-1-EC-136 Level 6 Train C Conduit Support Interaction Evaluation A-00631 Level 5 Support Evaluation While performing the field walkdown on the Request for Field Information (RFI) data for the Level 5 calculation A-00631, the NRC inspector identified a discrepancy.
It involved the span distance between supports A-00632 L
.
i
,_
-
-
3.
h. > ;/l 3 3
!
-
a t
d
.
..
.
i'
,
,,
<
.
(
,
(N/Q-07192)
and A-00633 (N/Q-07191).
Impell~had-record
"
'
ed this dimension as 11 1/2" while the'NRC' inspector',.'
.
'
determined it to be 35 1/2". - Upon notification of this' s
-
discrepancy, Impell informed the<NRC inspe:ctor that this i.
-
error had occurred on Revision 0 of the calculation which a 'i f had been superseded by Revision 1 which states, " Supports
- f f
in this calculation have been qualified by Level 6."
The
. Level 6 evaluation showed that no safety-relate'd equip-i ment existed in the vicinity of these supports." The NRC inspector verified that the supports were qualified by the Level 6 support interaction evaluation; however, a determination must still be made as to whether this error was an isolated case and what impact, if any, it would have on other walkdowns that the identified individuals
!
were involved with.
This subject is an open item pending this determination (445/8725-0-03).
No violations or deviations were identified.
Impell Training Program The NRC inspector performed an inspection of the training program being implemented by Impell for their personnel.
The Train C conduit program is slightly different than other CAPS.
Implementation of Impell project instruc-tions (PIs) is more complex than others in that they contain much more detailed technical information.
The.
successful implementation relies, to a large extent, on-the training process.
The first phase of the NRC inspection involved. reviewing
{
the historical aspect of the training process.
This vass
performed to assure that individuals who had been in-
volved in completed Impell work were properly trained.
This was accomplished by initially selecting a number of calculation / review packages for each of the various,
levels of screening that Impell performs apd identifying the involved engineers.
The NRC inspector'then checked the documentation sign-off sheets (which verify training had been taken) and assured that the involved engineers had undergone training in the correct re<tision of the appropriate PIs and any applicable PI change notices
!
,
'
(PICNs).
The NRC inspector reviewed 3 Level 2 calcula-j
.
tions involving 12 different individuals, 1 Level 4
)
calculation involving 2 individuals, 5 Level 5 calcula-tions involving 12 different individuals, and 2 Level 6 calculations involving 4 individuals.
)
.
,
i
. - - _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
g
'
'
,
'
.
,
t*
A'
While performing these reviews, the NRC inspector identi-
'
fled the following:
.-
Level 5, Calculation A-00047:
The calculation was originated (Revision 0) on July 31, 1986, and checked on August 4, 1986.
The two involved indi-
'
viduals did not ungergo the appropriate training
,
(Methodology and Levol 5 acreening sections of PI-0210-053-001, Revision 4) until August 7, 1986, and August 11, 1986, or approximately one week after performing the calculations.
Subsequently, Impell identified that this pa'tticular calculation was one of the first_ generated'by them, and that the calcu-
!
lation had been revised as a result of a Level 6
'
'
screening which had qualified all the supports contained within the Level'5 calculation.
The NRC inspector reviewed the calculation package and verified that,the calculation had been revised and that a Level 6 screening was conducted which quali-i fled the supports.
Also, review of the original
'
calculation revealed that the calculations were, fzcm an engineering standpoint, sound and consistent
'
with1 subsequent calculations performed by these individuals after their training had taken place n Based upon this review by the NRC inspector, no further action is necessary.
Ie The second phase of the inspection involved training of
,
%,
the current Impell employees to the applicable PIs.
The
'
NRC inspector reviewed an updated Impell organization chart to determine the engineering personnel working on the program and the screening levels they are involved with.
The NRC inspector reviewed the assistant project
/
engineer QA files, which contain the sign-off documenta-tion sheets showing training, to assure that all current
"
personnel have been trained with respect to the PIs and PICNs currently in effect.
These records showed that all current personnel have been appropriately trained.
No violations or deviations were identified.
'
6.
Site Design Audit
)
On October [5-9, 1987, J.
Lyons, D. Terao, and NRC consultants, f
Tc?,4 dyne F,ngineering Services (TES) and Brookhaven National h
Laboratory '(BNL), conducted audits at the CPSES site in three
[
design areas:
(1) conduit supports - Trains A, B, and C > 2";
~
(2) conduit aupport - Train C < 2"; and (3) large bore piping
'
and pipe supports.
,
'k,
._y
-
'
y
,
e j
.*
ly
/',
%:
o F
a.
Conduit Supports (Trains A, B, and C > 2") (October 5
,
,
through October 9, 1987)
'l The staff and BNL (G. DeGrassi and J. Braverman) audited the CPRT third-party (TENERA) review of the EBASCO conduit support (Trains A, B, and'C > 2") design activi-ties.
The staff reviewed the CPRT " Discipline Specific-l'Results Report: Civil / Structural - Train A & B Conduit end_rcupports," DAP-RR-45-002, Revision 0, dated Septem-
' ber'25, 1987, and the supporting engineering evaluations
-
and checklists.
The. purpose of the staff audit was to
sssess the overall adequacy of the TENERA effort in their.
'
Of overview of Trains A and B conduit design.
No signifi-cant open or unresolved items were identified.
A summary of findings was discussed at the exit meeting held on October 9, 1987, and will be provided in an audit e
summary.
b.
Conduit Supports (Train C < 2") (October 5 through October 9, 1987)
The staff and TES (J. Flaherty and E. Solla) audited the CPRT third-party (TENERA) review of the Impell conduit support (Train C < 2") design activities.
The staff reviewed the CPRT Results Report ISAP I.c, " Train C Conduit and Supports," Revision 0, and the supporting documentation.
ISAP I.c was formerly titled, " Electrical Conduit Supports."
The purpose of the staff audit was to assess the overall adequacy of the TENERA effort in their overview of Train C conduit design.
The staff identified a concern that the results report did not accurately portray the actual review conducted by TENERA.
Although the staff finds the actual review by TENERA to be ade-quate, the staff finds that the results report should be revised to be consistent with the review actually per-formed.
A summary of NRC findings was discussed at the exit meeting held on October 9, 1987, and will be provid-ed in an audit summary.
c.
Large Bore Piping and Pipe Supports (October 7 through
,0ctober 9, 1987)
The staff and TES (R. Hookway and G. Moy) audited select-ei items remaining from the design audit performed i
pIcviously at the offices of SWEC in Cherry Hill, New l
Jers?v.
Tla staff conducted plant walkdowns on specific
piping and p4.pe supports which are associated with selected generic technical issues being followed by the staff.
The staff continued its audit of the as-built program as a follow up to resolve open and unresolved items from previous audits.
In addition, the staff
- - - - _ _ _ _ _
___
_ _. _ _ _
_ _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
j?
discussed with the TU' Electric Technical Audit Program personnel, the scope of TU Electric technical audits to
,
obtain an understanding of TU Electric's overview activi-l ties.
No open on unresolved items were identified.
]
7.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required'in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or deviations.
One unresolved item dis-i closed during.the inspection is discussed in paragraph 5.a.
I 8.
Open Items open items are matters which have been discussed with the i
licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both.
Two open items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraph 5.c.
9.
Exit Interview (30703)
An exit interview was conducted November 3, 1987, with the applicant's representatives identified in paragraph 1 of this report.
During this interview, the NRC inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The applicant acknowledged the findings.
!
!
!
!
I
_ _. _ _
.
. - _,.
.-
I
,. 4 H.
.?
A-,
I DISTRIBUTION:
T66b. kit 3F..i_lbst^f(50 445/. 446,D.,a g;m,
p LPDR OSP Reading
'CPPD-LA l
LCPPD Reading (HQ)
- Site Reading
- CPRT Group
.
'* SRI-OPS
'
- SRI-CONST-AD for Projects.
- MIS System, RIV
'*RSTS Operator, RIV RPB, RIV.
,
RIV Docket-File
- DWeiss, RM/ALF'
JTaylor.
JKeppler/JAxelrad'.
CIGrimes PFMcKee JLyons
'
AVietti-Cook MMalloy JMoore, OGC JGilliland, RIV FMiraglia EJordan JPartlow-BHayes i
- w/766
l
_ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...... _ _ _ -
- - - - -. - - -
- - - -
~