IR 05000508/1986007

Forwards Insp Rept 50-508/86-07 on 851009 & 0324-27.No Violations Noted.Acceptability of Design Insp Plan Re Engineering Assurance Program Module 1 (Piping/Pipe Supports) Reviewed

ML20203H393
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	07/15/1986
From:	Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:	Mazur D WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
References
NUDOCS 8608040397
Download: ML20203H393 (2)

Text

--

i .

,., ,.

.

t JUL 151986

. Docket No. 50-508-Washington Public Power Supply Syste P.O. Box 1223 Elma, Washington 98541 Attention: ,Mr. D. W. Mazur Managing Director Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: WNP-3, Readiness Review, Engineering Assurance Program (EAP) .

Our October-25, 1985 letter to you accepted your commitment to conduct an EAP; as part of your Readiness Review Program and identified-the Quality Assurance Branch of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement as having the lead NRC responsibility for inspection of your EAP activitie On October 9 and 10 of 1985, the NRC conducted an inspection at your offices in Richland, Washington to review the acceptability of your design inspection plan associated with EAP Module 1 (Piping / Pipe Supports). Also, on March 24 through 27, 1986, the NRC conducted an implementation inspection at your Richland offices to erisure that an adequate depth of review was performed on Module.1 by your EAP review team. The results of these inspections are documented in the attached inspection report. To date the NRC believes that the EAP' team is reviewing the technical design attributes in sufficient depth

to formulate meaningful conclusions ~regarding the adequacy of the design and

! design process. The overall acceptability of the module will be judged by NRC when the module is formally submitted for review. The open items _ _

identified in Section 5, " Specific Comments," of the inspection report will be reviewed at our next inspection of the Module, which will occur subsequent to the issuance of the final report by WNP-3.

No violations of NRC requirements were identified within the scope of this

inspection.

i In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Roo '

,

i'

i

! I

'

,

8608040397 860715 PDR ADOCK 05000508

-

G pop ,

<

,?',

,s

. .. . .. _ _ _ - . . . .

., .- -

i

.. .

,

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad to discuss them with yo

Sincerely,

'

Ortainut signe'd liy

D. [.' kihNEh, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Enclosure:

Inspection Reprot No. 50-508/86-07

'

cc w/ enclosure:

A. D. Kohler, WPPSS R. B. Glasscock, WPPSS L. J. Garvin, WPPSG J. D. Martin, WPPSS

'

State of WA

l i

a

i

.I t

RV w th O $ .

Wang:jb KHendonca AChaffee DFKiytch

'

,

07/t4/86 07//i/86 07/45/86 07 /86

l

1

'

.

, , , + _ ,_ n._.,, _ ,. . . _ . _ . . . , . . , . _ . . , , , , _ . , _ . _ _ , . , . _ . . , _ _ , , . _ . _ . - , _ . . _ . , _ . _ , . . . . _ _ . , _ , . , , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ , . _ , ._ .- , . _ _ . , . . . . , _ . , ,

. .

.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-

0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE, VENDOR, AND TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER PROGRAMS QUALITY ASSURANCE BRANCH Report No. 50-508/86-07 Licensee: Washington Public Power Supply System Docket No. 50-508 Construction Permit No. CPPR-154 Facility Name: Washington Nuclear Project 3 Inspection Dates: October 9-10, 1985 March 24-27, 1986 Inspector: R. W. Parkhill, Inspection Specialist, IE 19??A [f 6/27lh't, R. W. Parkhill Inspection Specialist, IE Approved by c# N N4w /k$

_ #b E. V. Imbro, Chief Licensing Section Quality Assurance Branch i c. ,,sch

.

c \

'#~

_ 'p] Q),) ' \ 'yf

> >'

- ,

e *

.

WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT 3 (WNP-3)

-

READINESS REVIEW, ENGINEERING ASSURANCE PROGRAM

-

MODULE N0. 1-PIPING / PIPE SUPPORT INSPECTION OF CHECKLISTS AND IMPLEMENTATION Background Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) has instituted a Readiness Review Program to provide ~a documented basis for the acceptance, by both the Supply System and the NRC, of the completed design. Because construction was suspended indefinitely at WNP-3 in 1983, WPPSS has adopted a two phase Readiness Review Progra Phase 1 will be completed prior to restart of construction. It will 1) baseline the design at its present stage of completion, 2) provide additional assurance that the portion of the facility design completed to date meets appli-cable NRC requirements and licensing commitments and 3) will ensure that this facility is prepared to proceed with the licensing process when construction is resumed. Phase 2 will be completed subsequent to restart of construction. The WNP-3 Readiness Review program is comprised of three elements:

(a) The Preservation Program which addresses the on going maintenance and protective activities for plant components; (b) The Engineering Assurarce Program (EAP) which covers the in-depth review of the design process and its implementation; and (c) The Construction Assurance Program (CAP) which provides for an in-depth review of construction completed to date and for self-assessment of the

,

Preservation Progra ' Region V is the overall NRC manager for the WNP-3 Readiness Review Program with

.the Office of Inspection end Enforcement (OIE) designated as the primary NRC

_ reviewer for the EAP. The EAP will be performed by project independent WPPSS personnel and/or contractors in two phases that coincide with the Readiness Review. Phase 1 reviews the design work completed up to the point that con-struction was halted, and Phase 2 will review the design work performed after construction is resume The EAP for Phase 1 is comprised of review topics (or modules) as delineated in

,

'

WNP-3 letter to'J.B. Martin dated November 11, 1985, and amended in presentation to the NRC in Bethesda, Maryland on February 13, 1986. The topics are listed belo Module E3-01, Piping and Pipe Supports Module E3-02, Civil / Structural and Non-Pipe Supports Module E3-03, Design Control -

! Module E3-04 Component Cooling Water Module E3-05, Design for Installation (Deleted, covered in other modules)

Module E3-06, Safety Related MVAC Module E3-07,1 Safety Related AC and DC Systems Review Module E3-08 f.CCS Review l Module E3-09, Equipment Qualification Program Review

-

Module E3-10, Design for Operation (Deferred to Phase 2)

l

'

Module E3-11, Hazards Analysis (Deferred to Phase 2)

Module E3-12, Instrumentation and Control (I&C) Design

.

- '

, .

-

.

. .

. Purpose

-

Two inspections were conducted at the WPPSS offices in Richland, Washington, during October 9-10, 1985 and March 24-27, 1986. The first inspection reviewed the completeness of the design inspection plan utilized by the EAP personnel to determine if they included the elements necessary to result in a meaningful revie The second inspection reviewed implementation of the design inspection plan to determine if appropriate questions were being raised by the EAP reviewers in order to achieve an adequate depth of review. Specifically, the EAP depth of review was evaluated by selecting various calculations which had been reviewed by the EAP and independently reviewing them in order to identify any concerns not found by the EA . Personnel Contacted The following is a listing of personnel contacted during the inspection:

Name Organization Position Inspection N G. C. Sorensen WPPSS Mgr Regulatory Programs 1 R. B. Glasscock WPPSS Dir. Licensing & Assurance 2 L. V. Garvin WPPSS Mgr Readiness Review Program 1,2 G. A. Block WPPSS Mgr EAP 1 L. C. Oakes WPPSS EAP Mod #1 Team Leader 1,2 H. Shrivastava WPPSS (Consultant) Module #1 Reviewer 1,2 S. N. Purohit WPPSS (Consultant) EAP Adviser 2 L. A. Rodgers WPPSS (Consultant) Module #1 Reviewer 1,2 D. Scott WPPSS Module #1 Reviewer 1 General Conclusions The EAP Module 1 (Piping and Pipe Supports) has progressed to the implementation stage. The EAP review team is in the process of formulating questions based on their review of selected project documents and drawings, and evaluating responses from the architect engineer, Ebasco. This review will lead to a draft report requiring additional responses from the WPPSS project engineering staff and/or Ebasco and eventually resulting in a final report for EAP Module 1. The final report will identify the status of the design, including future actions to be completed when construction is restarted that will provide additional assurance

,

'

that the regulatory requirements and licensing commitments are being fulfille To date, the NRC believes that the EAP review team is performing an adequate review subject to the recommended program enhancements identified in Section 5,

" Specific Comments." Specific Comments Comment 1 During the first inspection, the NRC recommended that the EAP Module 1 include i

'

a review of an ASME Class 1 piping stress analysis. As observed in our second inspection, the EAP review team has included a review of a Class 1 piping stress analysis, viz. calculation 2601-1, " Safety Injection Piping from RC loop 1A to t

'

SI Tank #3 and Containment Penetration #15 and #19." This comment is considered CLOSED.

l l

.__ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ .

i

. .

.

Comment 2

-

During the first inspection, the NRC recommended that the EAP Module 1 include a design review of field routed small bore piping. During the second inspection, the EAP review team leader indicated that a design review of fiald routed small bore piping would be performed in conjunction with Phase 2 of tne EAP. Therefore, this comment remains open pending implementation of this element of Phase (0 pen Item 86-07-01)

Comment 3 During the first inspection, the NRC noted that the pipe support design inspec-tion plan was too terse, covering only 17 attributes, and recommended that it be expanded to document other specific attributes that are being evaluated as part of the EAP but are not being documented. Examples of some attributes that were not documented on the design inspection plan include: (1) verification that the pipe support load combinations are compatible with the FSAR; (2) veri-

'

fication that the pipe support design for loading and location is in agreement with the stress analysis; (3) compatibility of the pipe support design drawing with the fabrication drawing; (4) verification that the support stiffness meets the stiffness criteria; and (5) verification that load capacity of vendor supplied hardware meets pipe support load During the second NRC inspection, we verified that all the attributes identified by the NRC had been included in a newly expanded design inspection plan. This design inspection plan contains 35 attributes and more accurately documents the depth of review being performe This comment is considered CLOSE Comment 4 During the second inspection, the NRC observed that the stress analysis review for calculation 1063A resulted in an EAP Review Item E3-01-27 that stated "The LPSI Pump nozzle loads do not meet Ebasco's generic allowables." However, a comparison of the LPSI pump nozzle loads should also have been made against the vendor allowables. Therefore, this remains open pending a comparison of the equipment nozzle loads as calculated in the piping stress analysis against the associated vendor allowable nozzle loadings for all stress analyses reviewed by the EAP review tea (0 pen Item 86-07-02).

Comment 5 During the second inspection, the NRC noted that the stress analysis calculation 1063A Revision 0 did not include any hydraulic transients nor did the EAP reviewer identify any such transients as an itea to be discussed with Ebasco. This stress analysis is partially composed of containment spray pump discharge piping that may be empty when the pump is started, resulting in a subsequent hydraulic transient, i .e. , water hammer. Therefore, this item will remain open pending justificatirn by the EAP review team regarding the validity of the aforementioned transien (0 pen Item 86-07-03)

- .. . - - - -_

.<

. ,.

Comment 6 During the second inspection, the NRC noted that not all of the pipe supports

-

reviewed were being compared to their associated piping stress analysis for compatibility of loading and location. This comparison needs to be made and the results documented in the design inspection pla (0 pen Item 86-07-04)

Comment 7 During the second inspection, the NRC noted that for pipe support SI-330, the EAP reviewer did not quest.fon why the snubber cold position offset of lin inches exceeded the movements listed on the pipe support drawing (i.e. x = .049, y = +.026, z = +.233). This item needs to be resolved by the EAP review tea (0 pen Item 86-07-05)

Comment 8 As a result of the secund inspection, the NRC recommended that all items identi-fied as a result of the EAP be given to the WPPSS project engineering staff for resolution. Previously, onl became an "EAP Review Item" y items which identified required as anreview a formal EAP " from Finding" or " engineerin project Concern"

" Observations," which were originally not turned over to project engineering, should be forwarded to project engineering for the appropriate resolutio (0 pen Item 86-07-06)

Comment 9 During the second inspection, the NRC noted the following design inspection plan items that appear to be either inappropriately classified or have an inadequate documented basis for a classification:

(a) Item 3.10 of the pipe support design inspection plan for calculation CS-8 regarding the reasonableness of stiffness assumptions for structural steel was marked " Acceptable." The basis for the acceptability of this item needs to be documented in sufficient detail to permit an auditor to understand why it is

" Acceptable." A comment of "Yes, they are" does not provide a basis for acceptabilit (0 pen item 86-07-07)

(b) Item 5.1 of the pipe support design inspection plan for calculation CS-8 was marked as " Acceptable." Since the reviewer identified that no analysis exists for the pipe support, a spring hanger, this item ("Does the pipe support analysis.... satisfy the intended function of the support?") should have been judged not acceptable for the question and should have resulted in a Findin (0 pen item 86-07-08)

(c) Item 4.6 of the pipe support design inspection plan for calculation CS-40 was marked as " Acceptable." This item addressed an attribute regarding pipe support location being within the design tolerance of the location shown in the piping stress analysis. Since the reviewer noted that no tolerances were given, this item should have been identified as a Findin (0 pen item 86-07-09)