ML18038A010
| ML18038A010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1985 |
| From: | Mangan C NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17054B513 | List: |
| References | |
| (NMP2L-0371), (NMP2L-371), NUDOCS 8503280539 | |
| Download: ML18038A010 (343) | |
Text
V REGUL&<'ORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS) l1 ACCESSION NBR: 8503280539 DOC ~ DATE: 85/03/22 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-410 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2i Niagara Moha 05000410 AUTH ~ NAME ~
AUTHOR AFFILIATION MANGANgC ~ VS 'iagara Mohawk Power Corp.
RECIP ~ NAME .RECIPIENT AFFILIATION SCHNENCERiA, Licensing Branch 2 el<
SUBJECT:
Forwards Vols 1 8 2 of SEW "Rept of Findings of Independent Review of Key Technicali Interface 5 Const Concernsi per 850315 agreement Audit plans also encl.
~
DISTRIBUTION CODE; B001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR g ENCL f SIZE::
Related Correspondence ii1i:~~/
Qg4J /
TITLE: Licensing Submittal: PSAR/FSAR Amdts 8 NOTES'-
RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL".
NRR/DL/ADL 1 0 NRR LB2 BC NRR LB2 LA 1 0 HAUGHEYgM 01 1 lo INTERNAL: ACRS 41 ADM/LFMB 1 ELD/HDS3 IE FILE 1 IE/DEPER/EPB 36 IE/DQAVT/QAB21 1 NRR ROEiMiL NRR/DE/AEAB 1 NRR/DE/CEB NRR/DE/EHEB 1 NRR/DE/EQB NRR/DE/GB 28 2 18 13'RR/DE/MEB
, iVRR/DF/MTEB 17 1 NRR/DE/SAB 20 NRR/DE/SGEB 25 1 NRR/DHFS/HFEBPO NRR/DHFS/LQB 32 1 NRR/DHFS/PSRB NRR/P(./SSPB 1 NRR/DSI/AEB 26 NRR/DSI/ASB 1 NRR/DSI/CPB 10 NRR/DSI/CSB 09 1 NRR/DSI/ICSB 16 NRR/DSI/METB 12 1 NRR/DS I/PSB 19 AB 22 1 NRR/DS I/RSB 23 REG FILE 04 1 1 ~
'2 RGN1 IB 1 0 EXTERNAL: BNL(AMDTS ONLY) DMB/DSS (AMDTS) 1 LPDR 03 1 1 NRC PDR 1 1 NSIC 05 1 1 PNL GRUELiR 01 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED'TTR 51 ENCL
0 tg 0
r k'I N
A
/
4< I i'4 II 1 "f 0 I
r 1
il 1
u
V MIIASAIRA Q g~~og+Q g NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION/300 ERIE BOULEVARD WEST, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202/TELEPHONE (315) 474-1511 March 22, 1985 (NMP2L 0371)
Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Schwencer:
Re: Nine Mile Point Unit 2 In-Depth Technical Audit Docket No. 50-410 Niagara Mohawk is providing the following material as we agreed during our meeting at the Region I office on March 15, 1985.
- 1. "Report of Findings of Indepdendent Review of Key Technical Interface and Construction Concerns," May 13, 1983, Volumes I and II. This report is the result of the SWEC New York Operations Center review Nine Mile 2 project and specifically provides information of'he relating to the review of the AC power systems which was performed as par t of that evaluation.
- 2. SWEC guality Assurance audit reports and audit plans for audits performed of Reactor Controls, Inc. in August 1983, January 1984 and July 1984. This information should pr ovide your staff with additional background for their evaluation concerning the technical auditing of Reactor Controls, Inc.
- 3. In order to provide additional information relating to Reactor Controls, the SWEC dr aft g.A. audit plan for the upcoming audit of Reactor Controls relating to the as-built reconciliation activities on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 control rod drive piping system is also included.
8508280539 8503>>
e II 1
rJ
Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion Page 2 March 22, 1985 We believe that your review of the above information will provide you with sufficient bases regarding our decision not to include an AC power system or Reactor Controls as part of our upcoming Engineeing Assur ance technical audit and associated guality Assurance audit. Regarding those audits, the plan for implementation of the coordinated reviews, as well as additional information relating to surveillance programs being applied on Reactor 'Controls'ardware installation on site, will be provided in subsequent correspondence.
Very truly your s, C. V. Mangan Vice President Nuclear Engineering 5 Licensing COT:ja Enclosure xc: R. A. Gramm, NRC Resident Inspector (w/enclosure)
J. Mi lhoan (w/enclosure)
Project File (2)
REPORT OF FINDINGS OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF KEY TECHNICAL, INTERFACE AND CONSTRUCTION CONCERNS NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT2 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION VOLUME II Prepared by STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NEW YORK OFFICE J.O. NO. 12177.73 May 13, 1983 8503280539 STONE & WcssTKR
I I
I
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation RPP" 2" 0 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation J.O.No. 12177.73 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program CONSTRUCTIBILITY REUIEW FINDING Task No./Description: No. 4 - Clarit and Com leteness Sheet 1 of 2
- l. Items of concern/Item under review:
- a. Clarity .of drawings
- b. Completeness of drawings
- 2. Source of information, persons contacted, background on subject matter:
Same as Task No. 2.
Near the end of 1982, contractors expressed some concern over clar-ity and completeness of drawings. Much of their concern was directed at BZ (supports) drawings. The EM Division subsequently reissued its procedure for checking drawings, which provided a re-vised checklist. Also, groups of 500 BZs were given a second re-view, some in CHOC, some by the SEG.
- 3. Finding:
- a.
CLARITY Amount of information on EK drawings make them "busy;"
thus, half-size prints are difficult to use. No other signifi-cant drawing clarity concerns were identified.
- b. COMPLETENESS BZ drawings have apparently improved since imple-mentation of the revised designers'hecklist.
EX drawings (Category I) lack some information or have incor-rect information, e.g., EX-401B (missing dimension, dimensions do not add up, section does not match plan).
DP drawings (Category I) do not provide hanger locations rela-tive to building lines; rather, only to pipe or tube runs.
Hangers then cannot be located without pipe being in place.
Originated by Signa e y= /-
Date I9 Review/Concurrence Const ction
~zManager
> ~i'-89 C2/1217773/8/2RH SvoNe & Weusvea
I I
I I
I I
I I
Task No. 4 Sheet 2 of 2
- 4. Evaluation of potential impact, conclusions:
Earlier concerns by contractors appear to have been largely addressed. New concerns, primarily expressed by the ISC contractor, are attributed in part to his just getting started in the Category I/seismic (preengineered) areas. Improvement in the qual-ity of Category I EK drawings is expected as contractor concerns get fed back through design.
While wiring diagrams, flow diagrams, test loop diagrams, and loop calibration reports were not considered, it is concluded that draw-ing clarity and completeness of all other drawings are adequate to maintain the present schedule for construction completion and start-up ~
C2/1217773/8/2RH SToNK tk WcssTER
~ - = ~
I I
1 C
I
TASLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME lX RPP-1 Design Review Procedure for Systems and Interdiscipline Communication RPP-2 Review Procedure for Constructibility RPP-3 Review Plan Scope of Work RPP-4 Cancelled RPP-5 Project Files STOMK & WcssTcR
I~
I I
I I
I
J.O. NO; 12177.73 REVIEW PROJECT PROCEDURE RPP-1-2 STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Date: March 17, 1983 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Revised: March 24, 1983 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 Revised: May 5, 1983 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 of 10 DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR SYSTEMS AND INTERDISCIPIINE COMMUNICATION P/~4~& /crea pH~ 4~ (P $ ~
Review Project Engineer ate 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 -This procedure implements, documents and controls the indepen-dent design review with respect to the evaluation criteria, performance and results of the following areas (see Flow Chart, Attacbment 12):
Service Water System Onsite Emergency AC Power System Interdiscipline Communication 1.2 This procedure provides the necessary forms and instructions to assemble all the review results for tasks identified in each disciplines'ob Book.
1.3, For the independent review of constructibility ,concerns, see Review Project Procedure RPP-2.
2.0 SCOPE 2.1 Inde endent S stem Desi n Review 2.1.1 Service Water S stem Review will include a multi-discipline design review to ensure performance of its required functions.
2.1.2 Onsite Emer enc AC Power S stem will be reviewed to ensure performance of its required functions.
2.1.3 The Interdisci line Communication Review will deter-mine that the proper flow of design information and normal communication exists between all engineering disciplines, design functions, vendor facilities and construction forces as well's the incorporation of all scope changes.
C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 SToNK 4 WEssTKR
I I
I
Page 2 of 10 3.0 CRITERIA 3.1 Desi n Assum tion Review 3.1.1 Verification of System Design Input a) Review the evolution of the system design inputs and scope changes to ensure t'.hey have been incorporated.
b) Determine whether documents have been revised in a timely and properly sequenced manner, to indicate the latest status of design, procure-ment and construction.
3.1.2 Design adequacy for compliance with commitments to the appropriate design criteria and licensing re-quirements.
3.1.3 Specific safety-related functions -will be accom-plished as intended.
Procurement specifications utilize the appropriate technical design criteria.
- 3. 1.5 System interfaces will be reviewed to the extent that they have an impact on the system under review.,
3.1..6 New analytical techniques or cal'culations'will not be considered unless a questionable approach or incon-sistent result is uncovered during the review.
3.2 E ui ment uglification Pro ram Review criteria used in establishing the qualification status of the safety-related equipment. This will include the basis for specifying the environmental parameters, operating time and equipment selection.
Determine that the electrical cabIes and equipment, and mechan-ical equipment comply with the required environmental parame-ters, including the seismic and hydrodynamic loads.
Investigate the project program requirements, including scope
.of documentation, and determine if piogram requirements are being followed.
3.3 Post THI Re uirements Post TMI requirements of NUREG-0737 'ill compliance where direct impact on the system design occurs.
be reviewed for C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 STONE & WCSSTKR '7
I I
)
~
~
l I
l l
I
Page 3 of 10 3.4 Sin le Failure Criteria Review Assess systems to confirm that the design incorporates single failure criteria for mechanical, electrical and control compo-nents. Determine if Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEA) have been adequately performed to ensure proper operation and that the required redundancy exists.
3.5 Interdisci line Communication Review 3.5. 1 Assess the plant systems, documents, and administra-tive procedures to ensure that the current design has been updated for all changes (Design and Licensing) within each discipline. Areas of concentration will include document and calculation completeness, design consistency, and design change implementation.
This review will be based on the specific two system design reviews as defined in Sections 3.1 through 3.4. Compliance'ill be verified as part of the two system reviews and by sampling selected areas of other fluid .and/or nonfluid systems. The sampling will be of sufficient depth to provide a meaningful conclusion, representative of the entire project.
- 4. 0 PROCEDURE 4.1 Obtainin Verification Data and Documentation 4.1.1 The Lead Engineer responsible for verifying a design effort or reviewing the flow of interdiscipline information shall identify and obtain from the NMP-2 Project all the documentation required.
All documents obtained from the NMP-2 Project shall be controlled according to Section 5.0, Document Control..
4.2 Identif in Licensin Commitments and Documents 4.2.1 The responsible engineer shall review the FSAR and determine which documents are pertinent to the task being reviewed. These licensing documents shall be identified on Attacbment l. Attachment 1 shall be signed and dated by the responsible engineer and approved by the Lead Engineer.
4.2.2 Using the documents listed in Attachment 1, the responsible engineer shall identify those licensing commitments and other design commitments establishing design requirements for the specific areas of review.
These licensing commitments shall be listed by the responsible engineer according to Attachment 2.
Attachment 2 shall be signed and dated by the respoa-C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 STONE 8( WRBBTKB 37
I I
Page 4 of 10 sible engineer and approved by the responsible Iead Engineer.
4.2.3 The Interdiscipline Communication Review will concen-trate on the flow of engineering information and in-corporation of scope changes into the development of the system design. The documents, procedures, and specific commitments (Attachment 2) identified in the system reviews will provide the basis of this review.
As a means of verifying that the flow of information between disciplines has occurred, the NMP-2 Project Procedure pertaining to this subject will be used as the benchmark.
4.3 Review Method 4.3.1 The responsible engineer shall consider the licensing and other design commitments in Attachment 2 when determining which parameters/characteristics best represent the areas selected for review of a given task.
4.3.2. Review Project Procedure RPP-3, Review Plan Sco e of cwork, outlines the task breakdown for each disci-pline. This scope listing may include descriptions of certain subject categories rather than specific tasks. Prom these descriptions, specific tasks will be identified. Additional tasks may be specified as the review progresses.
4.3.3 The Lead Engineer shall identify the specific tasks and assign a sequential identification 'number from the appropriate disciplines'ob Book Master Task Number List, Procedure RPP-5.
4.3.4 Identify and assess these parameters/characteristics in Attachments 3 and/or 4.
4.3.5 Attachments 3 and 4 are Review Plans designed to organize, control, and document activities for specific reviews/analyses of the engineering for a given task.
a ~ These Review Plans shall be used by the respon-sible engineer to document the review of the specific parameters/characteristics.
- b. The responsible engineer shall summarize the review for a given task by completing, signing, and dating a Task Review Summary (Attachment 6).
The I,ead Engineer shall review, sign, and date each Task Review Summary.
C2/1217773/lA/2RH 03/074/83 SToNE & WKssTKR 37
I
~
I
Page 5 of 10 Co The I,ead Engineers shall summarize the reviews for a given discipline in each system that they are responsible for verifying, by completing, signing, and dating a System Summary Sheet (Attachment 7).
- d. The Review Plans 'and 'Task Review Summaries will provide the input to the System Summary Sheets.
All summary sheets shall be filed according to paragraph 6.0 of this procedure. The System Summary Sheets are input to the single review summary (Attachment 8) for the complete system.
4.3.6 The responsible. engineer shall 'consider the applica-ble design and licensing requirements and determine which of the review methods (for calculations or documents) listed in Attachment 3 or 4 best meets the needs of the review process.
4.3.7 The method for reviewing the calculations or the purpose for reviewing the document shall be identi-fied in the spaces provided on Attachment 3 or 4 respectively.
4.3.8 Attachment 4 will be used to'ddress interdisci-pline communication concerns. These forms will be uniquely identified by preceding the discipline identificaton number with an "I". Refer to Task Force clarification memorandums when using Attach-ment 4, Item IV-B.-
4.3.9 Sources of input information and design criteria will be reviewed to ensure that they are final and up to date. Documents will be reviewed for consistency and incorporation of all approved information. Engi" neer'ing changes that developed will be reviewed for effects on revisions to the system design in each discipline.
4.3.10 Changes will be monitored by reviewing the implementation of NMP2 project procedures, holds on drawings, revision changes to documents, licensing commitment changes, field changes described by ESDCRs, vendor equipment changes, and Engineering Change Notices.
4.3.11 Detailed instructions to complete these Review Plans are contained in Attachment 3 and 4.
4.3.12 When a review results in issue of an Open Item Report (Attachment 5, see Section 5.0, Reporting), the open item number from the report shall be identified in the space provided on Attachments 3 and/or 4 and/or 5.
C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 SvoNc L Wcssvca
~
~
~
II
Page 6 of 10 4.3.13 The responsible engineer shall complete the Task Review Summary by recording the task title, stating the task objective, checking the appropriate conclu-sion box and noting any comments pertinent to the conclusion of the task review.
4.3.14 Upon completion of all reviews scheduled to be performed for a system the Lead Power Engineer (or the Lead Electrical Engineer for the Electrical System) shall assemble all of the original System Summary Sheets for that system from the appropriate disciplines and attach them behind a System Review Summary cover sheet (Attachment 8).
4.3.15 The Project Engineer shall review the summaries and indicate the results of the review for that system by marking the appropriate box, signing and dating the review Summary cover sheet.
5.0 REPORTING 5.1 The Lead Engineer responsible for the review of a given design effort in his discipline shall itemize and report the review/
analysis results using the Design Review Packages defined in Section 6.1 as input.
5.1.1 The results of the review for specific task are suamfarized in the Task Review Summary. Systems are summarized for a given discipline by the Lead Engi-neer in the System Summary. These summaries are used to maintain the information required by the reports identified in this section.
5.2 Reports will be prepared to provide visibility of progress, to furnish information between disciplines and to summarize poten-tial discrepancy items.
5.2.1 Biweekly status meetings will be held to present cur-rent progress, significant issues and manpower and dollar expenditures to NMPC. The task force and man-agement reviews shall be accomplished prior to the weekly meeting. Items that are not fully reviewed by the task force will be discussed at the next biweekly meeting. Meeting notes will be issued immediately.
They shall be written as summary notes, with support information and clarifications furnished by the appropriate attachments.
5.2.2 Open Item Reports
- a. These reports are prepared by the responsible engineer using Attachment 5, for the purpose of reporting an apparent inconsistancy. The basis C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 STONE 8t WCSSTKR
ll Ii
~
~
a a
I
Page 7 of 10 for the Open Item Report shall be documented in a Design Review Package.
- b. Open Item Reports shall be identified by a file number assigned sequentially from the next available number starting with 001.
c~ The completed Open Item Report shall be reviewed and approved by each Lead Engineer, the Review Project Engineer, and the Engineering Manage-ment sponsor.
- d. The Review Project Engineer shall review with at the biweekly progress meeting all Open 'MPC Item Reports after each has been completely re-viewed and approved.
5.2.3 Potential Discrepancy Reports After an open item report has been discussed with NMPC and the NMP2 project (usually at the biweekly
, progress meeting) and is found to remain open, it is identified as a potential discrepancy and reported on the Potential Discrepancy Report form, Attachment 9.
All potential discrepancy reports shall be trans-mitted to NMPC with an explanation letter.
5.2.4 Final Report a~ Each Lead Engineer having input to any Open Item Report, or Potential Discrepancy Report, identi-fied during the review shall maintain complete documentation filed within the Job Books.
- b. Upon completion of the system reviews, the initial draft of the final report will be prepared and submitted to NMPC for review and comment.
C ~ Upon resolution of all Client comments, the final report will be approved by the Review Project Engineer and Engineering Management Sponsor and issued to NMPC.
6.0 FILING 6.1 The responsible engineer shall assemble all the individual documents and Review Plans necessary to clearly present the results of the design review performed for a specific task. As a minimum, the Design Verification Package shall contain:
- a. Attachment 1 - Review Licensing Related and Design Docu-ments
- b. Attachment 2 - Review Licensing and Design Commitments C2/1217773/lA/2RH
I Page 8 of 10
- b. Attachment 2 - Review Licensing and Design Commitments
- c. Attachments 3 and/or 4 - Review Plans for Calculations and/or Documents
- d. Attachment 6 - Task Review Summary 6.2 For details on the indexing and filing of the documents listed in paragraph 6.1, See Review Project Procedure RPP-5-0, Sec-tion'.0, Project Files.
6 is unique to each task of a system for a
'ttachment given discipline. Copies for each task reviewed within a given system for a given discipline shall be filed in the Task Job Book for that discipline.
6.2.2 Attachment 7 is unique to each system for a given discipline. Copies for each system reviewed by a discipline shall be filed in the job book for that discipline.
6.2.3 Attachment 8 is unique to each system. The Review Summary and attached system summaries shall be filed according to system in the Review Summary Job Book.
6.3 Numbering In order to identify a Review Plan (Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6) used in a review as unique to that specific review, the Attachments shall be assigned sequence numbers from the appropriate job book lists accord" ing to Review Project Procedure RPP-5-0 Section 3.0, Project Files. The identification number consists of the following items:
Example:
E -xxx 1 (a) (b) (c) (d - Attachments 3 and 4 only) a ~
responsible for the review'nd the specific job book to which the review is assigned and in which tions are:
it is filed. The possible letter designa-N - EMD S - Structural G - General E Electrical P - Power F - Field C - Controls C2/1217773/lA/2RH 03/074/83 svoaK a wessex@
I
?
I 1
I
Page 9 of 10
- b. Identifies the ~s stem for which the review was done according to the tab numbers of the Task Job Book:
SWP - Service Water System S - Structure EPS - Onsite Emergency AC Power System CST - Construction EQP - Equipment Qualification Program
- c. Identifies the ~s ecific task number this form belongs to, taken from the appropriate job book index.
- d. Xdentifies sequential subnumber for Attachments 3 and 4 used in one task review.
C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 SroNa a Wcnsvea
l I
I I
Page 10 of 10
- 8. 0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Task Review I'icensing Related and Design Documents Attachment 2 - Task Review Licensing and Design. Commitments Attachment 3 - Calculation Review Plan Attachment 4 - Document Review Plan Attachment 5 - Open Item Report (OIR)
Attachment 6 - Task Review Summary Attachment 7 - System Summary Sheet Attachment 8 - System Review Summary Attachment 9 - Potential Discrepancy (PD) Report Attachment 10 - Open Item Report Log Attachment 11 - Potential Discrepancy Log Attachment 12 - Flow Chart C2/1217773/lA/2RH 03/074/83 sToNK tk wcssTcR 37
I I
I
~
I
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Attachment 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page.l of 1 TASK REVIEW LICENSING RELATED AND DESIGN DOCUMENTS TASK NO.
Instructions:
List all licensing related and design documents that apply to a specific task assigned for review. Identify the title, identification/revision, and issue date. Attach addi-tional pages when needed.
DOCUMENT TITLE IDENTIFICATION/REVISION ISSUE DATE I
Responsible Engineer Date
'ead Engineer Date C2/1217773/lA/2RH 03/074/83 STERE Ih WEBSTER 437
I l
STONE S( WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Attachment 2 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 of 1 TASK REVIEW - LICENSING AND DESIGN COMMITMENTS TASK NO.
Instructions:
reidentify Review the licensing related and design documents listed in Attachment 1 for this review and the specific commitments applicable to the review by listing the commitments below, attaching photocopies of the ap-propriate pages, or identify the specific page and paragraph from the ap-plicable documents. Attach additional pages when needed.
Responsible Engineer Date Lead Engineer Date C2/1217773/lA/2RH P3/P74/g3 sTDNE a: wEBsTER 7
I I
I
~
~
~
i
~
~
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 3 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 1 of 5 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM CALCULATION REVIEW PLAN TASK NO.
SYSTEM I. GENERAL INFORMATION NMP-2 Original Calc.
Title:
NMP-2 Calc. No./Date (Include Current Rev. No.)
File Location Calculation Description Purpose of Review II. REVIEW METHOD
- l. Identification a Mark the review method used below.
- b. If an alternate calculation was prepared also complete Section III.
c If a Design Review was performed also complete Sections III and IV.
0 Alternate Gale. 0 Calculation or Design Review III. RESULTS
SUMMARY
- l. Based upon an Alternate Calculatibn, or a Calculation Design Review of the attributes selected in Section IV, referenced document: (Mark the appropriate block.)
it was determined that the 0 is correct and satisfactory 0 exhibits evidence of an apparent and requires no further error or inconsistency that has action/reporting. been verified and is reportable as an open item.
Open Item No.(s)
Responsible Engineer Date I,ead Engineer Date C2/1217773/lA/2RH O3/O7 /g3 STONE 8( WKSSTdR
I I
l
STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 3 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 2 of 5 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM IV ~ REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS
- 1. Complete the following records to document the results of the review.
For each parameter noted indicate whether the document reviewed was satisfactory/unsatisfactory in REMARKS. As a minimum, describe all tg unsatisfactory conditions in REMARKS.
Identify all significant parameters from the Review Licensing and Design I 2.
Commitment
- a. Inputs list No.
where correctly selected and and determine whether:
incorporated into design.
COMMITMENT ITEM NO. INPUT SELECTED f
lg
~ b. Assumptions necessary to perform the design activity are adequately described, reasonable, and reverified as required.
[I COMMITMENT ITEM NO. ASSUMPTIONS SELECTED
~
iI C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 sssss s wssssss kt37
I gi
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 3 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 3 of 5 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM c ~ Applicable codes', standards; and regulatory requirements for design have been met.
COMMITMENT CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATORY ITEM NO. RE UIREMENT SELECTED
- d. Design interface requirements have been satisfied.
NOTE: The reviewer shall obtain the initials (in REMARKS)"of the interfacing disciplines'ead or Responsible Engineer as acknowledgement that the information transfer was utilized where required INTERFACE DESIGN INTERFACE DOCUMENT RE UIREMENTS SELECTED 'FINAL DOCUMENT)
C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 sssss a.wssssss 887
I STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 3 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 4 of 5 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM
- e. An appropriate design (calculation) method was used.
DESIGN (CALCULATION) METHOD USED
- f. Inputs are current and the output is verified to meet the require" ments of the application.
INPUT/OUTPUT SELECTED C2/1217773/lA/2RH 03/074/83 sssss s wssstss 437
l I
I
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 3 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 5 of 5 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM
- 3. Document any supplemental parameters identified for review. Denote N/A (Not Applicable) in SUPPLEMENTAL PARAMETERS SELECTED if no supplemental parameters are identified.
SUPPLEMENTAL PARAMETERS SELECTED C2/1217773/lA/2RH 03/074/83 SToNE R WEssTER 437
g
)
I
STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 4-NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 1 of 4 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM DOCEKNT REVIEW PLAN TASK NO.
SYSTEM I. GENERAL INFORMATION Type of Document Document Title Document/
Rev. No. Date Outstanding Change Requests II. RESULTS
SUMMARY
Based upon a Design Review of the attributes selected in Section III. of this Review'lan, it was determined that the items identified in Section III from the referenced document: (Mark the appropriate block.)
0 are correct and satisfactory 0 exhibit evidence of an and require no further apparent error or action/reporting. inconsistency that has not been verified and is reportable as an open item. (See Section III).
Open Item No.(s)
Responsible Engineer Date Lead Engineer Date C2/1217773/1A/2RH P3/P74/83 sToNK 6 wcssTER 7
I I
I I
I
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 4 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 2 of 4 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM III. REVIEW
SUMMARY
- l. Identify the purpose of the review (areas of concern).
0 Separation 0 TMI Requirements c
0 Redundancy, 0 Interdiscipline Communication 0 Calculation Results Q Equipment Qualification 0 Pipe-.Schedule, Diameter, Design Pressure or Temperature 0 Other:
Specify
- 2. Identify additional documents that provide technical backup data.
C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 scocc a wcccccc 887
I I
I I
I I
I
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 4 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 3 of 4 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM IV. REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS
~i Complete the following records to document the results of the review. For each parameter noted, indicate whether the document reviewed was satisfac-tory/unsatisfactory in REMARKS. As a minimum, describe all unsatisfactory (j conditions in REMARKS. Identify the significant parameters/characteristics including those from the Licensing and Design Commitment list and explain their impact on the review.
il A. TECHNICAL REVIEW PARAMETERS/CHARACTERISTICS SELECTED FOR REVIEW
~l i
lj (j
lg
'I fj
~i C2/1217773/lA/2RH o>/0>4/8~ sTDNE s wcosTER JIL~
I I
I I
fj I STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Attachment 4 Page 4 of 4 INTERDISCIPLINE COMMUNICATION REVIEW, il PARAMETERS/CHARACTERISTICS SELECTED FOR REVIEW
[i il
~l fjy
~l
('.
[i Ii
'I C2/1217773/lA/2RH I
I I
I I
I
STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 5 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page, 1 of 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM I OPEN ITEM REPORT (OIR)
OIR SYSTEM DISCIPLINE SUBJECT TASK NO.
DESCRIPTION:
- 1. Documents/Rev. No.
- 2. Related Documents Si nificance of Concern Originator/Date:
REVIEW RESOLUTION:
Item found to be acceptable Item is open; further resolution required and item is reported as Potential Discrepancy No.
REVIEWED BY:
Lead Electrical Date I,ead Power Lead Structural Lead Controls Lead EMD Review Project Engineer Engineer Management Sponsor C2/1217773/1A/2RH 0>/014/M sTONC a WEBSTaR Jk3~
I I
I I
I I
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 6 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 1 of 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM TASK REVIEW
SUMMARY
TASK NO.
SYSTEM TASK TITLE TASK OBJECTIVE:
CONCLUSION: (add additional pages as'ecessary).
All task items are correct and The following discrepancy require no further action/ ~
items exist:
reporting COMMENTS:
Responsible Engineer Date Lead Engineer Date C2/1217773/1A/2RH STONE a WEBSTER Jkk~
I I
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 7 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 1 of 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM SYSTEM
SUMMARY
SHEET DISCIPLINE:
SYSTEM:
I. INSTRUCTIONS The Iead Engineer shall review all Task Review Summaries for the system and report the results below.
II.
SUMMARY
- 1. Total number of Task Review Summaries used to complete the system discipline review:
- 2. Remarks All task items a'e correct and require no further action/reporting Potential discrepancy items exist.
Iead Engineer Date C2/1217773/lA/2RH 0~/0~4/8~ SVO&e & WC&Sea& kP~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 8 NINE MIIZ POINT " NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 1 of 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM SYSTEM REVIEW
SUMMARY
SYSTEM:
- 1. The results of the reviews by the individuals assigned to review the design of this system are provided in the System Summary Sheets attached to this cover sheet.
- 2. The specific details of each review represented in the summaries are filed in the appropriate discipline job book by system and task.
This system has been reviewed and no potential discrepancies were found.
This system has been reviewed and all potential discrepancies have been noted and reported according to the Review Project Procedure RPP-1, Section 5.
Review Project Engineer Date C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 STQNc & WcBsTKR k,37
I I
I
STONE Sr WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 9 NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 1 of 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM POTENTIAL DISCREPANCY (P.D.) REPORT P.D. No.
System Discipline Subject Task No.
Open Item Report No.
DESCRIPTION:
Originator Date Review Project Engineer Date Engineer Management Sponsor Date C2/1217773/1A/2RH 03/074/83 showa a weasels
I V
l I
I
STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment 10 NINE MILE POINT " NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 1 of 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM OPEN ITEM REPORT (OIR) LOG POTENTIAL OIR SUBMITTER DATE DATE DISCREPANCY NO. DISCIPLINE SUBMITTED REVIEWED NO. REMARKS 1
C2/1217773/1A/2RH M/o>4/8> sTDNE It wEBsTER JkL~~
I I
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Attachment ll NINE MILE POINT - NPP UNIT NO. 2 Page 1 of 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM POTENTIAL DISCREPANCY (P.D.) LOG P.D. OIR SYSTEM/
NO. NOS SUBSYSTEM C2/1217773/1A/2RH 0~/0~4/8~ sToNc It wEBsT$ R 437
I l
I l
"4 v s g tt I
Snt 12 TASK DOCUMENT OPEN ITEM DOCUMENT AND AND TASK ANO SYSTEM S TOPIC DEANS REVIEW DEANS SYSTEM REVIEW AND CALCINATION POTKTCTAL DISCIPUtaK
SUMMARY
SCOPE TASKS SY OISCIPUNE COMMITMENT REVIEW DISCREPANCY REPORTS
SUMMARY
REPORTS REPORTS USTS actlm fala ~ L>>1
~ tel ~ last alter Tales ~ tc I oc eae
~ Orat ~ OC angltt tace 4 ooa acct>> Talc CaLc. Iftace t) ~ et ~4 atter
~ 44 aft ac>> aa Otal ItfAtl ~ eeratt
~ Oe>>I ~ I anat>>r C-Irt fet>>C Itta I tasa l>>1 atter j
~ IC ~ SCI>>>>
co>>re>>cars C anaa>> a
~ eelala I otc>> mr rane eton 4 Tt ac otlnr ~
~ 44 anal>>>>a
~ Ots Care
~ etna Tale I I 1
~ LccTacaa
~ alas I ~ astir 1 4>>lttl tmmf eaf >>aal C
~ n Talc I Ilaattl j
ac tt\La
~
otcr ear llstl>>
tan e I ~I ~ re>>tat
~
et' ~ ITta sla Olt>>a ~ ala I
>>Or>>ss et 1
>>sea lilac>> ar ~ IITI>>
~I lr leal>>alt I
~ eat ala I tattltl>>L ~ et tltt>>1 ca>>mr>>cate>>o Q j >>ref 4>>cacaaece anat>> n
~ noaf LTI>>s lln I Hr>>aa ~ 04 41face ~
il
/i I Pret
~ raaetc
~4 tr>>s gj em jjJ
>>Tawg core>>>>cata>>>> j c afatttak
~ Item rafa l war ance
~ o>>aa aoc>>L>>c CO>> 4 oar Iafas l>> Ir at>>fatal
~
~
~ III>>Ifast ~
INOEIIENOENT DESIGN REVIEW FLOW CHART SHEET DT SYSTEM REVIEUVS (SHEET 1 OF 4)
s!
Attachment 12 l I I l l I l TASK DOCUMENT OPEN ITEM l l l DOCUMENT AND I AND ~ l TASK AND SYSTEM 8 TOPIC DEFINE REVIEVI l DEFINE SYSTEM REVIEW l AND CALCULATION POTEKsiL I "DISCIPLINE
SUMMARY
. SCOPE l TASKS BY DISCIPLINE I COMMITMENT REVIEV/ j DISCREPANCY REPORTS 5
SUMMARY
REPORTS l REPORTS USTS I l l l I l I l l l .I l l l l I l l I l l l I l l l DEFIHK TASK 1 UST I I l POWER TA5K5 1ASK AKVlEW UC. 5 0 ESICH l l P.SWP 1 DOC ATTACH ~ I C l CALC. 5 DOC REVIEW rl TASK REVIEW l CALC. A1TACH DOC. AttACH P.SWt.1.1 rl AHV OtEHITEIIS 1
sull watr P Srdt I ATTAC'H ra C.SWP l DfSIRE COHTROL TASK 5 UST TASK RftlfW
'TASKS UC. a DESIGN t CCHHITHEHTS COHSTRUCT.
C P.SWW ATTACH rl f j eelI REVIEW 5U$ .1ASK 5 SUIIIIARV 1 SERVICE OtfH ItfW. I WATER STSTCII Rftcat Art~ rs ~ .swto I \
LOC ATTACH rra Iswt) ~ .swt 1.5 1 C.5 wP DKSIKE TASK 5 1
'E KLKCTIUCAL TASKS srstfw E REVlEW OEFIKC OH5ITK 5llllLAR SUS TASK 5 SUIJ HARV \
SCOPE EIIEACEHCV AC tOWER RESOLTED rf5 STSTEII Et5 5 Of AEWKW Srstflr SERVICE WATER Sts. P.SWt I5 OtEHITKW 1
SUB lla at Sr l
5 Easi ~
TH5CIPUHK 1 TASK I l DESIRC 5TRUCTURAL P.SWP l TASKS ATTACH rr Srstfw rdfrdfw l 5 5US TASK I Suhluaat FINAL tftORT I IHTERDI54 SEC
~ OTKHTIAL SWP rr P r+ COHIAUHICATIOHS Qt SHEET DISCAEPAHCT RKtOAT ATT~ rr PNWP. j ATTACH l
/IIII I ~ SWF IQ LOC ATTACH ~ II I DESIRE CIID l l TASK5 I IHTERDIS4 I i H f r~
1 COIIHUHCATIOHS REVIEW I I KDUIP. SEC suwllaav I jar+ OUALISICATIOHS Qf 5HEET I I l CO H-5wt I l L I l Kcult.
) f WWWm~~~~ (EE~ OUALlFICATKHIS CzaratLK. 1 tfvffw COHSTRUCTASIUTV SERVICE WATER srs TEII REVIEW I SIHrHART ar+ RfVlf w gf SHEET ~ OWER DISCitUHE 1 COH FOR~ TASKS AIID J SUSTASKS WITHIH TASK I NDEPENDENT DESlGN REVIEW FLOW CHART SHEET 01 SYSTEM REy(EQ/$
(SHEET S OF 4>
~l I
1 I~
V I
/
l~ t 4%
J.O.No. 12177.73 Review Project Procedure: 'PP-2-0 Date: April 15, 1983 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Page 1 of 3 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program /~~+ f pl' Review Project Engineer REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR CONSTRUCTIBILITY 1.0 PURPOSE This procedure describes the method by which an independent review of constructibility activities will be accomplished and how poten-tial problems will be identified and recorded, particularly those problems in disciplines of work which have had a history in the nuclear industry of being critical to the completion of construction and turnover for startup of systems.
2.0 SCOPE 2.1 Followu on March 1981 ITT Grinnell Re ort will include deter-mination of what recommendations, if any, remain to be imple-mented with the piping contractor, ITT Grinnell.
2.2 Su orts Interferences will include a review of selected areas of previously identified interference problems between supports for large bore pipe/equipment, small bore (field run) pipe, conduit, tubing, and cable tray to determine potential generic problems for remaining work areas.
2.3 Installation Practicalit will be directed towards Engineering products (specifications, drawings, and changes thereto) for portions of the systems selected for independent review (ser-vice water and onsite emergency ac power) to determine the ex-tent to which these products represent constructible design and to identify any potential generic problems that may pertain to engineering products yet to be issued for construction.
2.4 Clarit and Co leteness of En ineerin Products Issued for Construction Use (Drawin ualit ) will include a review of specific problems raised by Construction (contractors) and the determination of potential generic problems that may pertain to products yet to be issued for construction.
3.0 PROCEDURE, GENERAL Constructibility review in each of the four areas: (1) March 1981 ITT Grinnell Report, (2) Supports, (3) Installation Practicality, (4) Drawing Quality, will be accomplished through direct communica-tion with site (contractors and SWEC) and CHOC project personnel, checking content of selected Engineering products, identifying and documenting apparent problems with a common presentation format, and evaluating the identified problems in terms of their potential for delaying the remaining construction activities. Particular emphasis will be placed on those disciplines with a history in the nuclear industry of being critical to completion of construction and turn-C3/1217773/1/5Y STONE a WKSSTKR
I I
I I
I I
Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation RPP-2-0 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Page 2 of 3 Nine Mile.Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program over of systems for startup, e.g., pipe hangers, small bore pipe installation, system continuity (flushing, hydro, insulation),
instrumentation installation, cable tray and conduit installation, cable pull and cable termination, fire protection and separation, and open licensing issues that can affect, hardware.
4.0 PROCEDURE, TASKS 4.1 Followu on March 1981 Re ort on ITT Grinnell Pi in Erection Activities 4.1.1 Review the conclusions from the report, and briefly document which of the recommendations have been or are being implemented.
Identify any recommendations that have not been im-plemented, and explain why they have not been imple-mented.
Evaluate the potential impact of unimplemented recom-mendations on remaining piping installation activi<<
ties.
4.1.4 Document this task in accordance with Attachment l.
4.2'u orts Interferences 4.2.1 Investigate reports of supports for field run pipe, tube, conduit, or cable tray taking up space required for large bore pipe, duct, or equipment supports.
Attempt to identify six specific cases (some in Cate-gory I areas, some in Category II areas) and document each (see Checklist, Attachment 2). Determine cause(s) of interference and the parties responsible for the 'problem.
4.2.2 Follow up with responsible parties to determine generic problem exists with issued-for-construction if a documents and/or with those remaining to be issued.
4.2.3 Evaluate potential for this problem delaying remain-ing construction activities.
4.2.4 Document these investigations, causes, evaluations, and followup activities in accordance with Attach-ment 1.
4.3 Installation Practicalit 4.3.1 Review project procedures and methodology for provid-ing construction knowledge to the engineering and design effort with emphasis on first,-issue drawings C3/1217773/1/5Y STONE 8t WCSSTIL'R
l I
I I
Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation RPP-2-0 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Page 3 of' Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program and significant changes. (See Checklist, Attach-ment 3, Sheet 1.)
4.3.2 Review a sampling of drawings, specifications, and changes thereto from the, selected systems and eval-uate the'onstructibility aspects of each. Identify and document problems. (See Checklist, Attachment 3,-
Sheets 2 and 3.)
4.3.3 Conduct interviews with piping and electrical super-visors (and general foremen, where appropriate) and field engineers for contractors and SWEC to identify at least 10 specific constructibility problems.
Investigate in some depth those problems which may be generic and have the greatest potential impact on the remaining construction activities.
4.3.4 Document results of the review and interviews, and evaluate the potential for delays in the remaining construction activities from impractical installation information.
4.4 Clarit and Com leteness of En ineerin Products Issued for Construction Use 4.4.1 Investigate reports of problems raised by Construe" tion (contractors) concerning lack of clarity and completeness in the specifications, drawings, EM)CRs, and NSDs they must use.
4.4.2 Determine whether or not generic problem(s) exists and, if so, document problem(s) in detail.
4.4.3 Evaluate problem(s) in terms of impact on the remain-ing construction activities.
5.0 REPORT Compile findings and evaluations into one report, and provide an executive summary.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS h
6.1 Standard Format for Task Documentation; Attachment 1 6.2 Supports Interference Checklist; Attachment. 2 6.3 Constructibility Procedures and Methodology Checklist (Sheet 1), Specification Checklist (Sheet 2), and Drawing Checklist (Sheet 3); Attachment 3 6.4 Flow Chart for Constructibility Review; Attachment 4.
C3/1217773/1/5Y SvoeE 4 Wessvca
l I
i
~
~
~
I
Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation RPP-2-0 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program I
ATTACHMENT 6. 1 CONSTRUCTIBILITY REVIEW FINDING Task No./Description: Sheet of
- 1. Items of concern/Item under review:
- 2. Source of information, persons contacted, background on subject matter:
- 3. Finding
- 4. Evaluation of potential impact, conclusions Originated by Review/Concurrence Signature Date Construction Manager%
STONC 8t WEBSTER 4hLQL C3/1217773/1/5Y
l I
I
Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation RPP-2-0 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Page 1 of 1 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program ATTACHMENT 6.2 SUPPORTS INTERFERENCE CHECKLIST
- 1. Is interference between two contractors or within one?
- 2. Is the interference due to a field run pipe, conduit, tray, tube, or other item?
- 3. If yes: a. What requirements was the contractor who is instal-ling the field run item responsible for satisfying?
- b. Did he satisfy them?
c Were drawings/model available to point out the inter-ference ahead of time?
- 4. If no: a. Do procedures exist for clearing such an interference prior to drawing issue?
- b. Do allowed tolerances add up to cause the interfer-ence?
- 5. What planning (e.g., layout, walkdown) took place before installa-
.tion of the first item? Of the second'tem (interference dis-
~
covered)?
- 6. Is there a I
procedure for resolving the interference? Is it timely?
- 7. Is a model used? Would using it be helpful in this instance?
- 8. How was the interference resolved, of the project?
and was it in the best interests
- 9. Could the interfering supports have been combined into a common sup-port?
- 10. What was (or would have been) the effect on turnover of either of the systems involved?
C3/1217773/1/5Y STONC 0 WKSSTCR
I Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation RPP-2" 0 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Page 1 of 3 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program ATTACHMENT 6.3 CONSTRUCTIBILITY PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY CHECKLIST
- l. Is there adequate time for review of pertinent data?
- 2. How are comments from the reviewer transmitted to the responsible engineer or designer?
- 3. What does the responsible person do with the reviewer's information?
- 4. Do changes follow the same procedures as the original design?
- 5. What is the extent of constructibility reviews provided for EGDCRs, NQ)s, etc?
- 6. To what extent do Engineering and Construction personnel discuss the necessity for potential changes and their effects on cost and sched-ule?
- 7. Are innovative ideas or techniques used as a result of the construc-tibility review?
- 8. Review with all participants the quality, legibility, and complete-ness of all documents produced.
- 9. Is there coo'rdination between/among contractors to provide supports for more than one discipline, e.g., conduit or tubing on cable tray supports or pipe hangers?
- 10. How is the model used?
ll. How are composites used?
C3/1217773/1/5Y STONE 6 WcBsTER
I I
I I
Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation RPP-2-0 Niagara. Mohawk Power Corporation Page 2,of 3 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program ATTACHMENT 6. 3 a
SPECIFICATION CHECKLIST
- l. Is the scope of work completely defined?
- 2. Are all required definitions provided?
- 3. Are items specified as "Furnished by Contractor" or "Furnished by Engineers," such as construction services and facilities compatible with project approach and schedule?
- 4. Are applicable project codes and standards specified?
- 5. Do erection specifications identify "what to do" rather than "how to do?"
- 6. Are the requirements for "prior engineering approval" necessary and practical?
- 7. Are inspection and QA program requirements clearly defined?
- 8. Are materials/products from one specification compatible with another, e.g., are concrete curing compounds in. the concrete place-ment specification compatible with the requirements of the protec-tive coating specification?
9., Are .acceptance criteria achievable and practical?
- 10. Do contractor specifications define all procedures that the contrac-tor will be required to submit?
Have Construction comments been resolved, and have any new comments, objectionable to Construction been incorporated prior to Construc-tion signoff of first-issue specifications?
- 12. Do contractor specifications prohibit entry to the site of expend-able and temporary construction materials not compatible with perma-nent plant materials?
C3/1217773/1/5Y STONE 8( WCOSTCR
I I
I I
d I
Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation RPP-2-0 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Page 3 of 3 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program ATTACHMENT 6. 3 DRAWING CHECKLIST
- 1. Review tolerance criteria to ensure adequate flexibility to suit field conditions.
- 2. Verify that sufficient details, dimensions, and tolerances are pro-vided for congested areas.
- 3. Review pipe routing such that it can be supported from nearby struc-tures and is not out in mid-air (distant from floors, ceilings, and walls). Confirm how the model is used for this activity.
- 4. Verify that released portions of the drawing can stand alone and do not depend on any existing holds.
- 5. Review field weld locations to ensure that there is maximum ease of accessibility and a minimum number of spool pieces.
- 6. Verify that instrument tubing to differential pressure instruments is routed such that minimum slopes can be maintained between the root valve and instrument.
- 7. Verify that there are no requirements or dimensions shown which un-intentionally restrict construction, particularly those which may not be necessary to meet engineering requirements.
- 8. Review details for proper welding technique identification and at-tempt to minimize bimetallic field welds.
- 9. Verify that adequate accessibility exists for equipment installa-tion, removal, and maintenance.
- 10. Verify that piping, conduit, tubing, and instruments are routed in such a manner that they can share common supports or mounts wherever feasible and acceptable to Engineering.
ll. Verify that interfaces with other contractors are shown clearly on the drawings.
- 12. Verify that materials and components specified on the drawings are in accordance with specification requirements.
- 13. Verify that all vent and drain valves are shown and that they can be readily operated.
C3/1217773/1/5Y STONC 6 WEBSTER
I I
I I
I
RPP Mare , 1983 ATTACJMENT 6.4 Follow up on Evaluate the TASK 1 ITT Grinnell Implementation ITT Grinnell Reviews of Recommendations Report Prep and Approve - TASK Procedure 2-Supports Investigate Supports Problems Interf.
Determine Responsible Parties Does Generic Problem Exist' NO Document Compile Prep Interference ES Evaluate Findin s Finding Executive Im act and Summary Evaluation and Final Reports TASK 3 Installation Review Review Sampling Conduct Document Practicality- Procedures of Drawings, Interviews, and Evaluate and Method Specifications, Gather Specifics Findings and Changes TASK 4 Clarity of Drawings/
Specifications Changes Investigate Does Document L, Reports Generic NO Findings Problem Existed Y'ES Evaluate Im act C3/1217773/1A/5Y
I I
I l
J.O. NO. 12177.73 REVIEW PROJECT PROCEDURE RPP"3-0 STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Date: March 21, 1983 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION Page 1 of 1 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM REVIEW PLAN SCOPE OF WORK Review Project Engineer Date 1.0 PURPOSE This procedure establishes the scopes of work to be performed by the engineering disciplines involved with the independent design review of the areas identified for Review Project Pro-cedure RPP-1-0, Section 2.0, SCOPE.
2.0 SCOPE 2.1 This procedure applies to all work performed under the program for the Independent Review of Key Technical and'nterface Con" cerns for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2.
3.0 PROCEDURE 3.1 Interdiscipline Communication 3.1.1 The review by all disciplines in the area of Interdisci" pline Communication shall be performed according to Attachment l.
3.2 Equipment Qualification 3.2.1 The review required for Equipment Qualification in addi-tion to the areas covered in the individual discipline scope (Section 3.2) shall be performed according to Attachment 2.
3.3 The scopes of work to be performed by the following disciplines shall be according to:
Power (Attachment 3).
Electrical (Attachment 4).
Control Systems (Attachment 5).
Engineering Mechanics (Attachment 6).
Structural (Attachment 7).
C2/1217773/2/2RH STONC & WcssTcR
l 5
I I
1, l
I
J.O. NO. 12177.73 STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION " UNIT 2 Attachment 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 of 1 SCOPE OF WORK - INTERDISCIPLINE COMMUNICATION Determine that the proper flow of design information, system descrip-tions, and normal communication exists between all engineering dis-
'iplines, design functions, vendors, and construction groups such that the development of a system design and incorporation of scope changes proceeds in an efficient manner where all parties are using current finalized controlled design documents.
Typical areas of reviews will include:
The two systems selected for the design review (Service Water System and Onsite Emergency AC Power System) will be used as the basis for the review.
Reviewing project correspondence on selected subjects with the objective of analyzing the information flow between disciplines.
Major design changes incorporated will be reviewed on a random basis for consistency among design documents that describe or support a change. The design change case will be reviewed to ensure that the "change" was routed through all affected disciplines and change information was incorporated in the procurement and construction documents.
C2/1217773/2/2RH STONE a,'WCSSTKR
I I
J.O. NO. 12177.73 STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION " UNIT 2 Attachment 2 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 of 1 SCOPE OF WORK - EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION In addition to each discipline's review of equipment within its scope of work, the Project's Equipment Qualification Program, including environ-mental, seismic, hydrodynamic loads, and operational criteria, will be.
reviewed for conformance to licensing commitments.
C2/1217773/2/2RH STQNK tk WKSSTKR
l 8
I I
J.O. NO. 12177.73 STONE Sr WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 Attachment 3 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 of 2 SCOPE OF WORK " POWER
Ventilation calculations for the standby diesel generator and switchgear areas will be reviewed to* determine that adequate flow and cooling capacity have been provided to maintain design temperatures.
- b. Documentation will be reviewed to confirm that adequate fuel oil and pumping capacity have been provided for the standby diesel generators.
c The service water system review will confirm that adequate cooling water for the standby diesel generator system has been provided.
- 2. Service Water S stem (SWP)
The Service Water System review will concentrate on the safety-related modes of operation. Selected modes of operation will include Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), Ioss of Offsite Power (IOOP), and coincident LOCA and LOOP.
- a. Selected hydraulic calculations will be reviewed to verify consideration of transient effects, adequate NPSH available, pump capacity, and discharge pressure.
~
- b. Selected heat load calculations will be reviewed to verify heat exchanger sizing and adequacy of specified service water flow rates. /
c The adequacy of design pressures and temperatures will be veri-fied for piping, valves, controls, and equipment.
P
- d. Documentation will be reviewed to ensure adequacy of pump motor horsepower under different operating conditions.
- e. The piping drawings will be compared to the flow diagrams and FSAR to confirm that the pipe arrangements and pipe classes are consistent and correct.
- f. Conditions in the pump suction piping for selected system operating modes will be reviewed to determine the potential for instability.
C2/1217773/2/2RH sToNe 6 WessTeR
I I
~
t I
,gi l
go The review will confirm that technical specifications and system design are adequate to meet all licensing commitments.
- h. Ventilation calculations for the service water pump area will be reviewed to determine that adequate flow and cooling capa-city have been provided to maintain design temperatures.
1~ The system will be reviewed for compliance with post-TMI re-quirements of NUREG-0737.
J ~ The adequacy of the system design to prevent freezing at the pump intake structure will be confirmed.
Site data and system design provisions will be reviewed to determine the potential for pump strainer and heat exchanger plugging due to biological growth.
- 3. Sin le Failure Anal sis The review of the Service Water System (SWP) and the Onsite Emergency AC Power System (EPS) to meet single failure requirements will be performed as follows:
a ~ The flow diagrams and system description for the SWP system will be reviewed to determine the ability of the system to perform its intended function assuming that there is a single active failure of a mechanical component in the system.
- b. The Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for the SWP and EPS systems will be reviewed for proper selection of the top event (the selected failure mode of a system).
C ~ FMEAs for the selected systems will be reviewed to ensure that all the major system components, as defined in the flow dia-grams, have been included in the analysis.
- d. The review will confirm that the FMEAs were developed for the selected system using the latest controlled documents.
- e. The review will confirm that for the selected system, the FMEA findings satisfy one of the following categories:
- 1) There are no single failures.
- 2) There is adequate resolution for identified single fail-ures.
a) There is justification of system adequacy despite the identified failure.
b) There is confirmation that proposed system modifica-tions were made, as well as another FMEA.
C2/1217773/2/2RH STONe S WessveR
I t
i I.
~
~
~
~
5
~
~
4
J.O. NO. 12177.73 STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 Attachment 4 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 of 2 SCOPE OF WORK " ELECTRICAL
- 1. Onsite Emer enc AC Power S stem The review of the Onsite Emergency AC Power System design will use the FSAR licensing commitments and design criteria to establish the accept-able limits for the system design. The following design calculations, one-line drawings, and procurement specifications will be reviewed in detail to ensure that the basic design criteria have been incorporated.
Review of reserve station service transformer sizing calcula-tion.
- b. The station service system calculations will be reviewed to determine if the adequate voltages are available at the motor terminals for the following load and operating conditions:
Minimum load with maximum 115-kV switchyard voltage.
Full load with minimum 115-kV switchyard voltage.
Worst case motor start condition with minimum 115-kV switchyard voltage.
C ~ Review of voltage profiles at the emergency buses during a degraded 115-kV switchyard voltage condition. Review of emer-gency bus undervoltage relay trip set points to prevent de-graded offsite sources from affecting operation of the system.
- d. Review of Class 1E diesel generator sizing calculation.
- e. Review of 4-kV and 600-V power cable sizing calculation for selected motor loads.
4-kV switchgear, load-center, MCC, motor, diesel generator, cable, etc, specifications will be reviewed to determine following requirements have been addressed:
if the I,icensing commitments Design criteria Calculation results Equipment qualification C2/1217773/2/2RH Shrove & Weasvaa
N-
~
~
~
~
g~ Class 1E one-line drawings will be reviewed to determine if the following requirements have been included:
Licensing commitments Design criteria Calculation results Redundancy
- h. Selected Class IE raceway layout drawings will be reviewed to determine if the following requirements have been addressed:
~ Separation Licensing commitments
~ Design critera
- 2. Service Water System The detailed calculations, procurement specifications, and construc-tion documents will be reviewed to ensure that the system design is consistent with the design criteria and licensing commitments. This review will include the following:
A review to verify that the appropriate equipment qualification environmental parameters, seismic requirements, and hydro-dynamic load requirements have been included in procurement specification requirements.
Separation and redundancy requirements.
Impact of post-TMI requirements of NUREG-0737.
Cable sizing calculations for the large motor feeds.
Voltage profiles (at motor terminals) during full load and motor start conditions with minimum switchyard voltage.
C2/1217773/2/2RH STONE 8c WEBSTER
l J.O. NO. 12177.73 STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION " UNIT 2 Attachment 5 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 of 2 SCOPE OF WORK - CONTROL SYSTEMS The review of the Service Water System and the Onsite Emergency AC Power System will use the FSAR licensing commitments and design criteria. The basic methodology for performing the review will consist of the following tasks as defined for each system.
- 1. Service Water System Review of logic diagrams to confirm system operation for auto-matic and manual control as required during a LOCA and/or loss of offsite power; Review of applicable instrument loop/schematic diagrams for redundancy, separation, and operation.
Review electrical elementary diagrams for instrumentation and control device redundancy, separation, and different modes of operation.
Review of instrument and alarm set points for required system operation.
Review the appropriate Equipment Qualification environmental parameters, seismic requirements, and operating durations have been included in procurement specification requirements.
Review of selected calculations for instrument selection.
Review of selected instrumentation specifications and data sheets for instrument selection.
Review of indication provided for operator monitoring require-ments.
Review for compliance with post-TMI requirements of NUREG-0737.
Review instrument location drawings and piping drawings for incorporation of required instruments.
- 2. Onsite Emergency AC Power System
~ Review logic diagrams to confirm required load sequencing of diesel generators.
C2/1217773/2/2RH STONE S WseSTER
I l
I 5
~ Review of indication provided for operator monitoring.
~ Review of applicable electrical elementary diagrams for control device redundancy and separation.
C2/1217773/2/2RH STONC 6 WEBSTER
I l
~
I I
J.O. NO. 12177.73 STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 Attachment 6 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 of 2 SCOPE OF WORK ~ ENGINEERING MECHANICS The review shall include selected piping runs from Service Water Pump Bay (Division 1) to RHS heat exchanger and the piping in the vicinity of Diesel Generator cooler, a minimum number of pipe support, and major com-ponent supports in the Service Water System and check for compliance with applicable FSAR licensing commitments and design criteria of ASME III.,
Code Classes 1, 2, and 3, and ANSI B31.1. The following areas will be included.
- 1. Design Input Control Review the implementation of project procedure(s) for latest revision status of ARS design information, pipe support drawings, and piping isometrics. This will determine updated design input information is distributed to the input if the user.
- 2. System Review The review process will include the following areas:
Review design criteria for pipe stress analysis.
Review pipe stress analysis for the latest revision of design input, modeling technique, design loading cases, and maximum stresses.
Review design criteria for pipe support designs.
Review pipe support design for correct application of support design loads, loading orientation, load com-binations, and pipe support location plan on final support drawings. A minimum number of pipe supports will be reviewed.
Review design information and criteria for major equipment supports.
Review the calculated safety/relief valve hydrody-namic loads.
Review for adequate separation of safety-related system to counteract. the effects of pipe whip, jet impingement, and missiles.
C2/1217773/2/2RH SToNK tk WKGsTsR
I I
- 3. Input Information The following are assumed to be correct and will be used as input information in performing the review.
The design and operating parameters as specified in the Standard Iine Designation Table of Piping Engineering and Design Specification, (P301A).
The seismic Amplified Response Spectra (ARS) curves, ARS enveloped curves, and computer storage locations of their digitized data.
The hydrodynamic ARS curves and computer storage locations of their digitized data.
All postulated pipe break locations and sources of internally generated missiles.
Pipe rupture restraints, jet impingement shields, and missile shields.
C2/1217773/2/2RH szondi e wassvea
I I
J.O. NO. 12177.73 STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 2 Attachment 7.
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM Page 1 of 1 SCOPE OF WORK - STRUCTURAI The structural review will include piping support embedments, cable tray and conduit supports and its embedments for the selected systems. The tasks include the following:
- 1. Review of criteria and analytical methods for determining the. allow-able loads on the various types of standard embedment plates.
- 2. Review of analyses of Category I cable tray supports.
- 3. Review of designs of Category I conduit supports.
- 4. Review the evaluation of structural adequacy of standard embedment plates to support selected piping and cable tray systems.
- 5. Review support designs of cable tray and conduit supports using drilled-in concrete anchors.
- 6. Computerized calculations will be reviewed for:
Design assumptions and analytical approach.
Modeling technique and computer code .input.
~ Reasonable results.
C2/1217773/2/2RH STONE a WEBSTER
I l
I
THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFZ BLANK Stoma th WaosveR
l I
l
J.O.No. 12177.73 Review Project Procedure: RPP-5-0 Date: March 17, 1983 Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation Page 1 of 3 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program PROJECT FILES Qic wA./~~. g -(7-A'ate Review Project Engineer 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 This procedure provides instruction for the preparation and indexing of the Independent Review Project Job Books.
2.0 SCOPE 2.1 This procedure applies to all Job Books prepared and maintained for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Review of Key Technical and Interface Concerns hereafter called the Independent Review.
3.0 PROCEDURE 3..1 General 3.1.1 Project files for the Independent Review shall be organized into Job Books (see Attachment 1, Job Book Index). Job Books for this project shall be divided into two categories:
~ Administrative Job Books which organize documents that control the administration of the project.
~ Task Job Books which organize documents resulting from design review activities performed according to RPP-1-0.
3.1.2 As a minimum the Administrative Job Books shall con-tain the following:
Job Authorization Project Procedures - All procedures needed to conduct the project activities Estimates and Costs - Engineering estimates and costs records STONE & WEBSTER C2/1217773/3/2RH
I I
I
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Page 2 of 3 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program Progress Reports - Progress reports and schedule updates Conferences - Notes of Conference and notes of telephone conversations
~ Correspondence with NMPC
~ Interoffice correspondence
~ Reports - Review reports generated by the Review Team.
3.1.3 Task Job Books shall be subdivided into the following categories:
Power Electrical Control Systems Engineering Mechanics Structural Interdiscipline Communication Equipment Qualification 3.1.4 Documents shall be filed by subject content in chronological order into the appropriate subdivisions of the corresponding Job Book..
3.1.5 The Job Books shall be prepared by attaching at the top of the spine of each book a label bearing the following identification data:
J.O.No.
Project Name Client Name Job Book No.
Title 3' Job Book Number 3.2.1 The following numbering sequence applies to all Job Books:
(1) (2)
C2/1217773/3/2RH STONE & WEBSTER
I I
I
Stone 8 Webster Engineering Corporation Page 3 of 3 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program (1) Letters indicating Job Book categories:
A = Administrative t RP = Reference Power RE = Reference Electrical RC = Reference Control Systems Ij RN =
RS =
Reference Reference Engineering Mechanics Structural RF = Reference Construction P = Power E = Electrical C = Control Systems N = Engineering Mechanics Ij F S = Structural
= Construction I' Interdiscipline Communication tj EQ = Equipment Qualification (2) The volume number of multiple binders, contain-ing the same subject, assigned in sequence as Ij needed.
'ti Ij Ij tj Ij i
Ij Ij STONE & WEBSTER C2/1217773/3/2RH fj
l I
I I
Stone 6 Webster Engineering Corporation Attachment 1 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation tI Nine Mile Nuclear Station - Unit 2 Independent Design Review Program JOB BOOK INDEX Job Book No. Job Book Title A-1 Administrative P-1 Power Tasks fj E-1 Electrical Tasks C-1 Control Tasks i N-1 S-1 I-1 EQ-1 Engineering Mechanics Tasks Structural Tasks Interdiscipline Communication Equipment Qualification lj rj I
II
~i cj rI fI
~
C2/1217773/3/2RH STONC & WEBSTER
'I
I I
I I
I I
I I
SWEC:70:83 83963:R.G.D:LLP INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM w'.o ~0. 12210. 50/12177. 50 k m.ae SUBJECT EQUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT DATE September 12, 1983 r
REACTOR CONTROLS INC.
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA FROM W. E. Bezanson TO G. M. Schierberg CC General Files Chrono File JHarrison/Audit File(2)
RJPalleschi/gIC File RBKelly RKMaxon TJFitzgibbon WHDar ragh WHGrieves MGPace JJZullo EDiem WME i fert(2)
JTPl ant PDGraham TVaughn FACanuso CZappile JAKirkebo JDeMeo KRMiller RGDrumond-BOTf9 SEP 121983 P$ .0sy THIS AUDIT APPLIES TO:
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY - RIVER BEND STATION UNIT 81 NIAGARA'MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION - NINE MILE POINT UNIT 82
~A
'I
~ ~ ~o L'i STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORAT)ON PROCUREMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION T-381 AUDIT EVALUATION FORM SUPPLIER AND LOCATION EPARERS SIGNATURE Reactor Controls Inc.
1245 South Winchester Boulevard San Jose, CA 95128 R. . Drummond MATERIAL MANUFACTURED AT FACILITY DATE OF AUDIT Engineering and Design of Piping Systems August 9-11, 1983 AUDIT RESULTS ASME CERTIFICATES HEI D CERTIFICATE NUMBER (S):
OPEN - Pending Resolution of Corrective Action Items NPT-N-1299 NA-N-1300 CURRENT S 6 W CONTRACTS Gulf States Utilities Co.-
228.180-C285 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.-
NMP2-P301V CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED YES - See Audit Summary COMMENTS FUTURE ACTION DATE Completed audit checklists along with all back-up data Fifteen(15) days after are on file at the Stone & Webster Engineering receipt of this report.
Corporation, Procurement guality Assurance Division, Boston, MA.
APPROV D BY SIGNATURE
J=
QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT REACTOR CONTROLS, INC.
SAN JOSE, CALIPORNIA On August 9-11, 1983 Stone 5 Webster Engineering Corporation, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Gulf States Utilities Company conducted a special Quality Assurance Audit at the San Jose, CA facility. The purpose of the audit was to verify Reactor Controls, Inc.'s compliance to their Quality Assurance Program, the applicable Stone 6 Webster specification requirements, and the intent of the following criteria of Appendix "B" to 10CFR50.
CRITERION III - DESIGN CONTROL CRITER?ON VI - DOCUMENT CONTROL NOTE: The audit was conducted at the request of the River Bend and Nine Mile Projects. The audit was mainly concentrated in the River Bend design and engineering area and included a review of areas common to both projects. However a review of the Nine Mile Project (RCI) engineering documents could not be performed since the responsible RCI personnel were not available.
PERSONNEL CONTACTED AND ASSISTING IN THE AUDIT WERE:
REACTOR CONTROLS INC. PERSONNEL
- B. MacKellar Project Engineer
- S. Schmukler Lead Engineer
- L. Nishiguchi Technical Manager
- J. Murray Engineering and Construction Manager
+A. Mourad Project Engineer
- D. Jasmann Quality Assurance
- R. Weitenstein River Bend Project Engineer R. Crumm Quality Assurance Manager R. Chaudhari Lead Engineer (Pip'ing)
AUDIT TEAM PERSONNEL
- R.G. Drummond Lead Auditor SWEC/Boston
- W. Ce Luong Supervisor EMD SWEC/CHOC
- T,Y, Chow Supervisor EMD SWEC/CHOC M.J. Shah Supervisor Structural Division - SWEC/CHOC
- C. Lambert Supervisor, Gulf States Utilities E. Zoch Supervisor, Gulf States Utilities
+P. Prancisco QA Engineer, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
- Denotes attendees at exit critique.
~
AUDIT CONCLUSIONS It is the conclusion of the audit team that Reactor Controls, Inc. is not complying with certain requirements of their Quality Assurance Program, the applicable Stone & Webster specification, and the referenced criteria of Appendix "B" to 10CFR50, in the areas audited as referenced below. However, the results of ths audit indicate that shipments should not be stopped nor should' Stop Work Directive be issued.
AUDIT
SUMMARY
This report contains observations which are not in compliance with established requirements, or were determined to be in need of improvement.
0 During the conduct of the audit, 57 attributes were checked, resulting in 32 observations, of which 5 were nonconforming.
NOTE: Those items identified with the prefix "CAI" require "A" a written corrective action response. The item in Attachment is a recommendation only and a written response is not required. The items in Attachments "B" and "C" require a written response from the responsible Stone & Webster Pro5ect Engineers.
CORRECTIVE ACTION AUDIT
SUMMARY
The following observations reported by SWEC's Quality Assurance Corrective Action Audit of March 15-18, 1983 are closed as a result of this audit based on the completion of RCI's corrective action.
CAI-1 and CAI-2.
NOTE: Stone & Webster's audit report dated April 4, 1983 is now considered closed.
CRITERION VI - DOCUMENT CONTROL Appendix B to 10CFR50 and RCI's Quality Assurance Instructions (Section 3) contain requirements for control of incoming documents.
A sample of eight documents sent to RCI by SWEC, which were the last entries in the RCI incoming correspondence log, was reviewed to determine compliance to RCI Procedure requirements. The following is the result:
Seven of the eight transmittals had problems.
- a. Three of the four documents required to be entered in the Document Control System for action by RCI, were not entered.
b.. Although the procedures do not specify a time limitation for the initial review, most of the reviews were done in 3 to 5 days. Four of the eight have not been reviewed to date although two were received in May, 1983, one in June and one in July.
- ~
4 CRITERION VI - DOCUMENT CONTROL CAI-1 (Cont.)
RECOMMENDATION Provide compliance to procedural requirements. Also, update procedures to include a time limitation for the completion of RCI's review of future document submittals.
CRITERION III - DESIGN CONTROL CAI-2 Specification 12210 - 282.180, Page 1-70, Lines 56.49 and 58.11 require RCI drawings, isometrics, and sketches contain specified minimum information.
None of the drawings, isometrics and sketches reviewed during the audit contained all of the required information.
Examples of missing information are:
- l. Job numbers
~
2 Contract or specification numbers 3~ SWEC line designation numbers 4~ Reference drawings and revisions
- 5. Spool piece mark numbers
- 6. Material lists RECOMMENDATION Provide compliance with specification requirements or obtain a specification change from the SWEC Prospect.
CRITERION III DESIGN CONTROL CAI-3 Specification 12210 - 228.180, Page 1-4, Line 4.47 requires that traveler-type documents shall incorporate quality assurance checkpoints on fabrication and erection records.
Presently, the ANI indicates on the Weld Data Sheets where he wants "inspection hold points" established. However, the Weld Data Sheets are not used in the fabrication process.
RCI procedures do not define how these hold points are transmitted to the fabrication area and objective evidence was not presented to indicate RCI's contention that hold points are established on the spool piece sketches.
RECOMMENDATION Expand the procedures to define how inspection hold points are transferred to traveler type documents for use in the fabrication area.
CRITERION III DESIGN CONTROL RCI's Quality Assurance Instruction (QAI') 3-5, Section 5.2. 2 states that "Calculation source of input data, factors, equations and codes shall be identified and referenced as necessary to provide positive traceability".
e l4
CRITERION VI - DOCUMENT CONTROL CAI-4 (Cont.)
Contrary to these requirements, the sources of many of the input values contained in the reviewed calculations were not identified.
In addition, the calculations reviewed were not finalized to create a formal record (i.e., a signed out calculation revision) in support of current issued RCI design drawings.'l RECOMMENDATION Provide compliance with the requirements of QAI 3-5, Section 5.2.2.
Calculations must be finalized to provide a formal record of the calculation contents which supports RCI design documents.
CRITERION III - DESIGN CONTROL RCI procedures PC-1 and PC-2 (pipe clamp standards for welded U type and friction type pipe clamps) do not have test results or design analysis to provide assurance that the design bases are adequate for the River Bend Pro)ect.
RECOMMENDATION Provide the design bases either by test or design analysis to assure adequate design for these and all other standards used on SMEC prospects.
ATTAINT IIAll CRITERION III DESIGN CONTROL R-1 RCI's Quality Assurance Manual, Section 2 requires the fabrication and erection areas to control the use of ECNs (Engineering Change Notices).
Neither the RCI QA manual nor RCI implementing procedures establish requirements for the control, use and incorporation of RECOMMENDATION The RCI QA program should be updated to establish requirements for CRITERION III - "
DESIGN CONTROL R-2 RCI procedure PC-1 (pipe clamp standard for welded U type clamps) lists a tolerance of 7/64" for dimension "C" on attachment A of the procedure. This tolerance appears to be excessive for 1/2" diameter pipe and could cause potential problems during construction.
RCI drawing RB-010, Rev. 1 for multi-function supports lists a dimensional tolerance (generic on all structures) of 1/2". This tolerance appears to be too restrictive and may cause unreasonable construction problems.
RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that a tolerance of 5/64" be listed on 1/2" pipe and 'that less critical Attachment A to PC-1 for tolerances be considered for all other pipe sizes listed on this procedure.
Reconsider the 1/2" generic tolerance and set more reasonable tolerances.
~ ~
~ ~ ATTAQiMENT B CRITERION III DESIGN CONTROL R-3 As requested by the River Bend Project, EA performed an audit of RCI. Engineering Assurance has concluded the following as part of that audit:
I. River Bend Specification 12210.228-180, page 1-6, as modified by E&DCR P-12,136 correctly reflects that RCI is an "NPT" certificate holder (fabricator of piping subassemblies and piping supports) and an "NA" certificate holder (installer). The specification also correctly assigns RCI responsibility to complete NPP-1
. and NF-1 Data Reports in their entirety based on their "NPT" certificate. However, the specification was found to be incorrect or missing information in relation to ASME III requirements as follows:
A. Page 1-6, item 27 incorrectly requires RCI to out and sign "N-5" forms 'corn letel based on their fill "NA" certificate. As "NA" certificate holder, RCI can only complete the installation portion of N-5 Data Reports. As "N" certificate holder, SWEC must complete the final portion of "N-5" Data Reports.
B. The specification does not identify for interface purposes that SWEC is the "N" certificate holder having overall design responsibility for the piping system being fabricated and installed by RCI.
C. The "
specification does not establish interface requirements between RCI and SWEC relative to the joint completion of the "N-5" Data Reports or identify the RCI design documents that require detailed technical review by SWEC as a basis for certifications as "N" certificate holder.
NOTE: Current SWEC reviews of RCI documents "for interface requirements only" as indicated by the definitions of "Approved" and "Approved as Revised" in the specification are not sufficient for this purpose.
RECOMMENDATION Revise the specification to:
o Identify SWEC responsibilities as "N" certificate holder.
o Establish requirements for )oint completion of "N-5" Data Reports by RCI and SWEC.
a
~
I
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ATTACHMENT B (Cont.)
CRITERION III DESIGN CONTROL R-3 (Cont.)
Recommendation (Cont.)
o Identify the RCI design documents that shall be submitted to SWEC for detailed technical review as a basis for SWEC certifications as "N" certificate holder. Typical examples of these design documents include stress analysis, stress reports, drawings (design and as-built), load capacity data sheets, etc. Establish submittal schedules with consideration for fabrication and installation status.
Develop Prospect Procedures for the detailed review of RCI documents that establish the extent of review required, methods of documenting SWEC approvals, and logging systems that relate the documents reviewed and approved to the N-5 Data Reports to be approved by SWEC as "N" certificate holder.
ACTION ASSIGNED: ZAKirkebo
ATTAQiMENT C CRITERION III DESIGN CONTROL As requested by the Nine Mile pro)ect Engineering Assurance as part of the RCI audit has reviewed the responsibility for "N" stamp certification and offers the following conclusions:
R-4 1. Nine Mile 2 specification 12177-MNP2-P301V, was found to be incorrect or missing information in relation to ASME III requirements as follows:
A. The specification {page l-ll) incorrectly indicates that RCI is an "N" certificate holder. RCI is an "NPT" certificate holder (fabricator of piping subassemblies and piping supports) and an "NA" certificate holder (installer). SWEC is the "N" certificate holder having overall design responsibility for the piping system being fabricated and installed by RCI.
Page 1-11, item 13 incorrectly requires RCI to fill out and sign ",N-5" forms corn letel . As "NA" certificate holder, RCI can only complete the installation portion of N-5 Data Reports.
As "N" certificate holder, SWEC must complete the final portion of "N-5" Data Reports.
NOTE: Based on their "NPT" certificate, RCI can complete NPP-1 and NP-1 Data Reports in
~
their entirety.
C. The specification does not establish interface requirements between RCI and SWEC relative to the joint completion of the "N-5" Data Reports or identify the RCI design documents that, require detailed technical review by SWEC as a basis for certifications as "N" certificate holder.
NOTE: Current SWEC reviews of RCI documents "for interface requirements only" as indicated by the definitions of "Approved" and "Approved as Revised" in the specification are not sufficient for this purpose.
RECOMMENDATION Revise the specification to:
o Identify RCI responsibilities as "NA" and "NPT" certificate holder.
o Identify SWEC responsibilities as "N" certificate holder.
o Establish requirements for )oint completion of "N-5" Data Reports by RCI and SWEC.
~ ~ ~
~ ~
ATTACHMENT C (Cont.)
CRITERION III - DESIGN CONTROL R-4 (Cont.)
Recommendation (Cont.)
o Identify the RCI design documents that shall be submitted to SWEC for detailed technical review as a basis for SWEC certifications as "N" certificate holder. Typical examples of these design documents include stress analysis, stress reports, drawings (design and as-built), load capacity data sheets, etc.
Establish, submittal schedules with consideration for fabrication and installation status.
Develop Pro)ect Procedures for the detailed review of RCI documents that establish the extent of
- review required, methods of documenting SWEC approvals, and logging systems that relate the documents reviewed and approved to the N-5 Data Reports to be approved by SWEC as "N" certificate holder.
ACTION ASSIGNED: C. Zappile, Jr.
~'
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Mr. J. Murray September 12, 1983 Engfneerfng 4 Constructfon Manager Reactor Controls Enc. 12210.50/12177.50 1245 South Mfnchester Boulevard San Jose, CA 95128 quALm ASSmeCE am1T REPGRT REACTOR CGHTROLS INC.
Yransmftted he~fth are the results of the audft conducted at your fact lfty on August 9-11, 1983.
You are requested to revfnr thfs report and submft your'ounts on the correctfve actfon ftees wfthfn fffteen(15) days of recefpt, statfng the actfon xhfch has been taken by you, and the date ~n full complfance efll be achfeved. Your response should fnclude a descrfptfon of actfon (to be) taken to prevent recurrence of these deftcfencfes.
At thfs tfee, I efsh to thank you and your staff for the courtesy and cooperatfon extended to our representatfves.
U~IGINAL SIGNED
- 6. H. Schferberg Manager Procurement equal fty Assurance Enclosures RGD:lLP
C t
4
STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION AUDIT PLAN TITLEI pc a x n Mc=-wc'~e Co~rto~ ~ o~ Sa~ Jose L'<.
AUDIT PLAN NO.s C-7 l -A PREPARED BYs APPROVED BYs RQ QIRIAAAaacs W DV.
REVISION s DATEs O
- Supervisor, POA PAGE I OF g,
- 1. 0 PURPOSE To daternina compliance by84C4r GolersI<
requirementsuf their Quality Assurance Nanual
~
and the to the applicable Stone & Webster specification(s).
I
- 2. 0 REFIyRENCES 2.1 gddc4r Qn4iic Revision/, dated TAc., Anality Assurance lttnual, g.g( 83 2.2 St'one & Webster's specifications 2.2.1 I<Z.>n. +gs. 1SO 2.2.2 )'Ll'l le +~ ~Z P 805 V
- 3. 0 PROCEDURE 3.1 The audit shall be performed in accordance with the following instructions:
3.1.1 Review all referenced documents.
3.1.2 Complete the attribute sheets by entering all the required information during the, audit.
3.1.3 Add any additional attributes as required during the audit.
T-090-I
pj
~I 4
3.2 To verify the attribute "Are the procedures adequate to assure control of the system" (usually written as the last attribute in each section), examine each unsat condition and determine if the condition is a result of a procedure inadequacy 3.3 The attached sampling plan (Attachment 3.1) gAD 7.11 as appli-cable shall be used to perform this audit.
3.4 All attributes not answered for any reason shall be marked NA (Not Auditable) and the reason given in the coaments column.
4 3.5 Verify the program being audited also covers those components or parts which are nonpressure boundaries as defined by ASME Section III.
1 AU D l T PLAN ATTR I B UTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTR I BUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKO. NO. UNSAT.
Verify that traveler type documents incorporate quality assurance check points.
228.180 page 1-4 line 4.47 Verify that RCI has received from the Engineers a "Release for Fabrication.
228.180 page 1-9 line 8.44 In cases where conflicts exist between specification requirements and piping drawings, has RCI reported in writing to the Engineers for disposition2 228.180,page 1-15 line 14.35 AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATIO SHEET) PAGE OF
0 AU D IT PLAN TR I BUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTRIBUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD NO. UNSAT.
Verify that if RCI's'rawings do not confo to SWEC drawing: 12210-EP-87, written approva has been requested by RCI.
228.180 page 1-15 .line 14.38 Verify that RCI has submitted to the Engineer the stress report which includes:
- a. description of the input
- b. procedures of analysis
- c.
calculations final stress summary
- e. equipment loading results
- f. support loadings
- g. corresponding designs 228.180 page 1-18 line 17.4 AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTi NUATiONWHEET) PAGE OF
AU DlT PLAN ATTR I BUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTRI BUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UN SAT.
Verify that prior to fabrication RCI wil submit to the Engineers their shop bendin procedures.
- a. Does the procedures include th requirement that the longitudina seam is to be located on the neutra axis of the bend7 228.180 page 1-22 line 20.7 Verify that RCI isometric drawings include th following:
A. li Contract No. (RBS-228.180)
J.O. No. 12210 River Bend Station Unit 1 Gulf States Utilities Company Vest Feliciana Parish, Louisiana B. Reference drawing number and revisio number.
C. Spool piece mark numbers.
J '
~
AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGE OF
AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES ITEM RESP. OBSERVATIONS NO. ATTRIBUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO, CKD. NO. UNSAT.
D. Location and identification of all field welds. Location and identification of all shop welds which require inservice inspection. (Unique identification shall be SMEC's or RCX's)
E. Line designation and component mark number.
F. Fabrication dimensions.
G. Material List.
228.180 page 1-70 lines 56.49
- 8. Verify that hanger assembly sketches contains the following:
A. All support locations with support identification numbers, individually located dimensionally with reference to structural steel column lines and radially from the center of circular structures.
B. Existing steel marked "existing".
C. Additional supplementary steel marked "new"
( ~-
+i'>
clclf) 3 AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGE OF
4 AU DlT PLAN ATTR I BUTES-RESP. 08SERVATIONS ATTR I 8UTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
D. Spring hangers sketches shall include spring figure number, type, size, normal working load, setting for hot and cold positions and pipe movement.
E. Bill of materials.
228.180 page 1-70 line 58.11 Verify that subcontractors that provide services to RCI have been approved by the Engineers.
Has RCI imposed upon these subcontractors the same requirements that have been
-imposed upon them by the SPEC specification (as appropriate}.
228.180 page 1-73 line 61.2 Verify that RCI has procedures for the preparation, approval and control of both manual and computer calculations.
(General)
+i AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGE OF
AUDIT PLAN ATTRI BUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTRIBUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKO. NO. UNSAT.
GENERAL (Project Requested)
Verify that RCI has a formal program for th following:
- a. A method of controlling and incorporatin changes to RCI engineering and desig documents generated by:
- 1. Stone 6 Webster (external)
- 2. Reactor Controls (internal)
(General)
Verify that computer program verification basis is fully documented.
Is the RCI computer program verification procedure being fully implemented.
(General)
~t AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGE OF
AuDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES ITEM RESP. 0BSE RVATI0 NS NO. ATTR I BUTES OR G. COMMENTS NO. CKO NO. UN SAT.
Select several computer programs utilized by RCI for SWEC projects, and review the documentation and basis for the verification of each program.
PEPE SUPPORTS (Project Requested)
Select a sample of various clamp drawings and evaluate each of the designs.
2~ Select a sample of pipe support drawings and check to see what effect the stated tolerances may have on the design.
3~ Review methodology of generating loads resulting from water hammer, jet impingement and pipe rupture.
~- Ti<0-3 AUDIT PLAN NO.... (OONTINUATIOA SHEET) PAGE OF
AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES ITEhl RESP. OBSERYATIONS NO. ATTRIBUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
4~ Review details of the mathematical models, loads, computer programs, methods of analysis, assumptions, load combinations and complianc to code requirements. (ASHE III NP Section)
PIPE STRESS - (Prospect Requested)
Select a number of representative pipe stress problems and review the basis of the analytical detail.
2~ Review a sample of pipe stress problem models, input loads, computer programs used, methods of analysis, assumptions, load combinations and the analytical results.
3~ Review compliance to code requirements '(ASME III and ANSI) for stress.
P
~i' <.. v.j AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGE OF
1 SPEC:19:84 - 84333:RO:AEK INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 12210.SO/12177.50 QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT REACTOR CONTROLS INC. (RCI) DATE March 21, 1984 SAN JOSE, CA FROM WEBezanson G, M. Schierberg CC General Files Chrono File JHarrison/Audit File(2)
RJPalleschi/QIC File RBKelly RKMaxon TJFitzgibbon WHDarragh WHGrieves JEHuston MGPace JJZullo EDiem WMEifert(3)
JTPlant TCrouse TVaughn
. FACanuso JAKirkebo CZappile MYeming WWhit,ten KEMiller GFoley RGDrummond:jmm THIS AUDIT APPLIES TO:
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY RIVER BEND STATION UNIT 81 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION'- NINE MILE POINT UNIT 82
r I
STONE'6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION PROCUREMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION T-381A AUDIT EVALUATION FORM S UPPLIER AND LO CAT I ON P EPARERS'IGNATURE Reactor Controls Inc.
1245 So. Winchester Blvd.
San Jose, CA 95128 R. Drummond MATERIALMANUFACTURED AT FACILITY DATE OF AUDIT
\
Control Rod Drive Piping January 24"26, 1984 AUDIT RESULTS, ASME CERTIFICATES HELD CERTIFICATE NUMBER (S):
OPEN - Pending Resolution of Corrective Action Items NONE (For Engineering and Design,'URRENT SWEC CONTRACTS Gulf States Utilities Co.
228.180 C285 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
P-301V CORRECTIVE ACTION REQU IRED YES - See Audit Summary COMMENTS FUTURE ACTION DATE Completed audit checklists along with all back"up data, are on file at the Stone 6 Webster Engineering Thirty (30) days after Corporation, Procurement Quality Assurance Division, receipt of this report.
Boston, MA.
This report also closes the following observations CAI-l, CAI-3, and CAI-5 identified in the previous Stone 6 Webster audit report dated Sept. 12, 1983, owever CAI's 2 and 4 remain open pending resolution y RCI.
APPROVED BY SIGNATURE
P QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT REACTOR CONTROLS INC.
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA On January 24-26, 1984, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation conducted a Quality Assurance Audit at the San Jose, California, facility. The purpose of the audit was to verify Reactor Controls, Inc.'s compliance to their Quality Assurance Program, the applicable Stone 6 Webster specification requiremen'ts, and the intent of the following criteria of Appendix "3" to 10CFR50.
CRITERION III - DESIGN CONTROL CRITERION IV - PROClBUKEZT DOCUMENT CONTROL CRITERION VII - CONTROL OF PURCHASED MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES CRITERION XVIII AUDITS NOTE: This was a limited scope audit to cover only those criteria identified above.
~ ~
~
(
PERSONNEL CONTACTED AND ASSISTING IN THE AUDIT WERE:
REACTOR CONTROL INC. PERSONNEL
- Robert Crum Quality Assurance Manager
- D. Jasmann Quality Assurance Specialist F. R. Seddiqui Technical Manager
- J. C. Murray Engineering and Construction Manager RBP
+A. Secchi. Engineering and Construction Manager NMP L. J. Nishiguchi Manager Structural Mechanics
+A. Mourad Analysis Pro)ect Engineer RBP R. Martin Pipe Rupture Lead Engineer
- R. Weitenstein Project Manager RBP
- S. Schmukler Lead Engineer
- D. Chaudhari Lead Engineer
- V. M. Durvasula Project Engineer NMP STONE & WEBSTER AUDIT TEAM PERSONNEL
- R. G. Drummond Lead Auditor
- G, J. Foley Auditor W. C. Luong Supervisor EMD Pipe Support Y. Chow Section Manager
- A. Tewfit Resident NMP
- S. M. Malhotra Coordinator RBP OBSERVER
- P. E. Francisco N.M. Quality Assurance Engineer S. Szabo Lead Nuclear Technical Engineer RBP
- E. Epstien Responsible Engineer NMP
+Denotes attendees at exit critique.
AUDIT CONCLUSIONS It is the conclusion of the audit team that Reactor Controls, Inc. is not complying with certain requirements of their Quality Assurance Program, the applicable Stone &, Webster specification, and the referenced criteria of Appendix "B" to 10CFR50, in the areas audited. However, the results of this audit indicate that shipments should not be stopped nor should a Stop Work Directive be issued.
AUDIT SUKfARY This report contains observations which are not in compliance with established requirements, or were determined to be in need of improvement.
During the conduct of the audit 66 attributes were checked, resulting in 801 observations, of which 5 were nonconforming.
NOTE: The item identified with the prefix "CAI" requires a written corrective action response. Those items in Attachment "A" are recommendations, however, a written response is required.
,f E
k B
0
CRITERION IV PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT CONTROL CAI-1 Reactor Control Purchase Order No. 11206-01 (NMP) issued to Sandvik Steel, Inc. dated June 25, 1982 invoked the requirements of Reactor Control's Procedure MS-1, Rev. 2, dated July 22, 1982, for the controls of manufacturing materials to ASTM A312 and SA 312 Class 1 pipe. Procedure MS-1 states in part that "for each heat the supplier shall perform a cold bend 90 deg to a radius of 50 in. for 3 in. ~ck stainless steel oipe."
Contrary to the above requirement, Reactor Control TWX dated July 12, 1982 to the manufacturer stated that the "3 in. ~ck stainless steel pipe does aot have to be bent as required. (Note: no addition to the purchase orde'r was issued for review by pro5ect and Engineering Assurance for acceptance to the change in the purchase order requirement).
RECOMMENDATION Comply with the applicable Quality Assurance Procedure and applicable code/specification requirements-CRITERIONS III & V CRITERION V OF APPENDIX B Criterion V of Append&> B to 10CFR50 states affecting quality shall be prescribed bythat'Activities documented instructions, procedures etc."
RCI recently revised their design procedures dealing with calculations, and in doing so they left out the following controls concerning calculations.
a~ Calculation format and page numbering
- b. Revising calculations C~ Definition and responsibility of third signature
- d. Definition of "Open Item" system including close out method
- e. Other areas previously described in the revised/deleted procedures.
RECOMMENDATION Initiate new procedures to cover the above.
NOTE: At the conclusion of the audit a "DRAFT" procedure was provided to the audit team, however, it did not address all of the above items.
CRITERION 'XVIII - APPENDIX B CAI-3 App end&c B, 10CFR50 requires an audit system to verify compliance with all aspects of, the Quality Assurance Program. Audit results shall be reported to management and corrective action taken in a timel'y manner.
Internal audit of engineering (Report No. 83-02-01) conducted April 11, 1983 listed five observatons or findings (unverified computer programs, use of calculations not yet reviewed and approved etc). The report was issused and a response from the pro)ect was requested by May 26, 1983. Every 30 days thereafter a notice of later response was sent to the project by QA.
The pro)ect did not respond until September 1983, almost five months later. This appears to be an unreasonable amount of time taken by the project to re'spond to a report of deficiencies.
RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the RCI Quality Assurance Program include a standard time for responding to audit deficiencies.
2~ In the future it is suggested that QA take further action in order to receive response in a more timely manner. (As presently allowed'y the RCI QA Program.)
3~ RCI Management should take appropriate action to ensure Pro)ect personnel respond in a more timely manner to audit deficiencies.
CORRECTIVE ACTION AUDIT
SUMMARY
The following corrective action items of the audit conducted on August 9-11, 1983 were satisfactorily verified and are considered closed:
CAI-1, CAI-3, CAI-5, R-3, and R-4 The following corrective action items remain open pending .further action:
CAI-2 and CAI-4 These items are identified in this report by their original CAI numbers followed by the letter "U."
With the incorporation of the open corrective action items in this report, the audit of August 9-11, 1983 is now considered closed.
OPEN ITEMS FROM THE AUGUST 9-11 1983 AUDIT RCI)
CRITERION III - DESIGN CONTROL CAI-2(U) Specification 12210 282.180, Page 1>>70, Lines 56.49 and 58.11 require RCI drawings, isometrics, and sketches contain specified minimum information.
None of the drawings, isometrics, and sketches reviewed during the audit contained all of the required information.
Examples of missing information are:
- 1. Job numbers 2.. Contract or specification numbers
- 3. SWEC line designation numbers
- 4. Reference drawings and revisions
- 5. Spool piece mark numbers
- 6. Material lists RECOMMENDATION Provide compliance with specification requirements or obtain a specification change from the SWEC Project.
RCI'S RESPONSE DATED OCTOBER 13 1983 AND CORRECTIVE ACTION RESULTS RCI had requested a change to the specification.
SWEC'S RESPONSE DATED OCTOBER 31 1983 Response satisfactory to be verified during future audit.
CORRECTIVE ACTION AUDIT RESULTS The. corrective action audit indicated a change to the specification had been issued. However, the change did not include all documents listed in the specification.
RECOMMENDATION RCI should resubmit the request asking changes to the specification for all listed documents to waive the requirements.
CRITERION III DESIGN CONTROL CAI-4 (U) RCI's Quality Assurance Instruction (QAI's) 3-5, Section 5.2.2 states that "Calculation source of input data, factors, equations, and codes shall be identified and referenced as necessary to provide positive traceability."
~
V 0
~ ~
~ ~
Contrary to these requirements, the sources of many of the input values contained in the reviewed calculations were not identified.
RECOMMENDATION Provide compliance with the requirements of QAI 3-5, Section 5.2.2.
NOTE: The above QAI 3-5 has recently been revised.
A draft replacement was provided to the audit team. Compliance to the new requirements will be audited at some future audit.
RCI'S RESPONSE DATED OCTOBER 13- 1983 AND CORRECTIVE ACTION RESULTS RCI had committed to a complete review and update of all their final design calculations by February 1, 1984.
SWEC'S RESPONSE DATED OCTOBER 31 .1983 Response is satisfactory - to be verified during future audit.
CORRECTIVE ACTION AUDIT RESULTS RCI had updated many of the final design calculations, however, the review and update was not complete. .In addition, RCI has recently revised the 3.5 section of their QA Program. Several omissions were noted in the new procedures and RCI has verbally agreed during the audit to revise the procedures to include all past calculation requirements.
RECOMMENDATION RCI must complete the revising of the 3.5 section of their QA Program to include all calculation requirements missing from original procedures.
When this is complete a review and update must be conducted of all calculations used in the final designs issued to date.
CLOSED ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS AUDIT A reivew of current documentation belonging in the RCI Document Control System indicated that the system was being maintained up-to-date. In addition, a training session has been conducted on the Document Control System.
CAI-3 A procedure for the incorporation of "Hold points" on the "Shop Traveler Type Document" has been issued.
(PQA has been requested to review the traveler documents at the fabrication facility during the next audit conducted in 1984.)
~ ~
~ ~
Backup data has been assembled and kept as backup data for RCI clamp standards PC-1 and PC-2.
R-3 Specification P301V has been changed by issuance of E&DCR P-12,443 which changes responsibility for the "N" certification from RCI to SWEC.
In addition, the project has sent EA for review, a project procedure that defines SWEC project responsibility for the "N" certification.
R-4 Specification 228.180-C285 has been changed by issuance of E&DCR No. P<<12,555 which changes responsibility for the "N" certification from RCI to SMEC-In addition, the pro)ect has issued procedure RBP>>3.10-0 that defines SPEC project responsibility for the "N" certification.
NOTE: In regard to R-3 and R-4 above, SWEC has assigned an engineer on a full time basis for each project at RCI's facilities for review and surveillance of design activities.
ATTACHMENT A RECOMMENDATIONS IJ CRITERIA III DESIGN TECHNICAL PORTION OF AUDIT I
R-1 Design document SA-932>>DAO, Rev. 4 for the GSU project lists an Appendix D entitled "Verification Descriptions oS Computer Programs used on the GSU."
This document does not list all the computer programs used on the GSU project. Examples: E-Weld, E-2A17, E-Plate, SPECTRA, etc.
Revise SA-932-DAO to include all computer programs used on the GSU pro)ect. 'I R-2 Design document SA-4029 dated, February 17, 1983 is complete, however, the code required equations have not been completed.
Revise the design document to include the complete code zequired equation.
Design document SA-932-DAO does not have the referenced Appendices C&D attached to the document nor does it refer to where copies of the appendices can be obtained.
Attach copies of all appendices to the document or insezt a reference noting-the location of all referred appendices if the document is too voluminous.
R-4 Computer output is not attached to most of the design documents done for stress because of the volume of that output.
RCI should consider using microfilm or microfiche to attach computer output to the particular design document.
R-5 Calculation results are being used in final design yet the third "approved" signature has not been signed to the calculation cover sheet.
Calculation results must not be used foz any purpose until all approvals have been accomplished.
ft 0
STONE d WEBSTER MICHIGAN, INC.
Br Robert Crea March.21, 1984 Quality Assurance Manager Raacto? Controls, IlLco J O.Hos. 12210.50/12177.50 1245 Soi Qinchester B1vd San Jose, Ch, 95128 QUaZXX mSmumCE murr REPOaX REACTOR CONTROLS XHC Traneaitted he~th are the results of the audit conducted at your facility on January 24-26, 1984 Tou are requested to revte~ this report and. submit your comments on the corrective action items and recomuendations vithin thirty (30) days of receipt, stating the action vhich has been tacan by you, and the date vhon full compliance AU. be achieved Your response should include a description of action {to be) tatusn to prevent recurrence of these deficiencies.
ht this togae, I wish to thank you and your staff for the courtesy and cooperation extended to our representatives.
ORIGINAL SIGN'.D 0 H. Schierberg Manager Procuraaant Quality assurance Enclosures RGD! ae
4' STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION AUDIT PLAN TITLEl AUDI OF SAN J SE ALIFORNIA AU D IT PL AN NO. t PREPARED 8YI RC-1984 R.G. Drummond/G.Foley REVISION t DATEt APPROVED BYt N/A 1/12/84 PAGE I OF 2 ~~ Supervisor, POA
- 1. 0 PURPOSE To determine compliance by 'Reactor Controls Inc. to the requirementsaf their Quality Assurance Nanual and the applicable Stone 6 Webster specification(s).
- 2. 0 REFERENCES Reactor Controls Inc. , Ouality Assurance Nanual, Revision 8, dated, 10/7/82.
2.2 Stone 6 Webster's specifications 2~2~1 RP2-P 301V Addenda 4 to Revision 0 2 ~2~2 GSU 228,180 Addenda 5 to Revision 0
- 3. 0 PROCEDURE 3.1 The audit shall be performed in accordance with the following instructions:
3.1.1 Review all referenced documents.
3.1.2 Complete the attribute sheets by entering all the required information during the audit.
t 3.1.3 Add any additional attributes as required during the audit.
0 3.2 To verify the attribute "Are the procedures adequate to assure control of the system" (usually written as the last attribute in each section), examine each unset condition and determine if the condition is a result of a procedure inadequacy.
3.3 The attached sampling plan (Attachment 3.1) /AD 7.11 as appli-cable shall be used to perform this audit.
3.4 All attributes not answered for any reason shall be marked NA {Not Auditable) and the reason given in the coaments column.
3.5 Verify the program being audited also covers those components or parts which are nonpressure boundaries as defined by ASME Section III.
LOT SAMPLING PLANS SAMPLE PLAN A SAMPLE P SAMPLE PLAN C SAMPLE PLAN 0 LOT OR BATCH SIZE SAMPLE ACCEPT 1 REJECT ) SAMPLE ACCEPT 1.REJECT 2 SAMPLE ACCEPT 1 REJECT(2) SAMPLE ACCEPT(1 R EJECT(2)
S I ZE NUMBER NUMBER SIZE NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER SIZE NUMBER N UMBER 2t08 ALL AII u AII up 1 2 ALL to 5 to 5 ALL UP 9 to rb ALL 0 TO 13 16 to 25 ALL 0 26 to 50 ALL 5 8 13 51 to 90 50 20 13 13 91 to 150 50 20 20 13 151 to 280 50 32 32 7 8 50 2 281 to 500 50 50 50 10 11 50 2 501 to 1,200 80 80 80 14 15 80 1,201 to 3,200 125 125 7 125 21 22. 125 3,201 to 10,000 200 200 1 125 21 22 100 3'OTES:
(1) Accept Number - accept lot if items or less are found unsat (2) Reject Number - reject lot if items or sere are found unsat M W KIAD St cV t+<emC7 EO lDSts ~I n fit v M~~ ~
OI+f c+ W Cmp
1 ~'
.-, I)
)' 'l~
~ ~ ~ ) ~
I ~ ~
) ~ I ~ g
) I ~ ~ ~ ~
)
~ ~
~ ~
~ II
~
~ I ~ III ~
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ I ) ~ ' I I ~ ~ ~
~
~ II
0 0
Uendor Rep.
Title.
AUDIT PLAN, TRI SUTES AUDIT PLAN NO RKV J.O NUMbKR AUDITOR lS) AUDIT OATf Rt -1984 N/A 12177.50 /12210.50 RESP. QbSKRVATIONS ATTRIBUTTS" GOMMKNTS QRQ. NQ. CKD.. UNSAT CRITERIA III Verify that traveler type documents incorporate quality assurance check points.
12177-NMP2-P301V, page 1-7, lines 6.11 6.13 {also see page 1-73, line 54.1 and page 1074, line 54.37) 20 Verify that in cases where conflicts exist between pipe drawings and specification requirements, RCI has asked SMEC to provide the resolution.
P301V, page 1-25, lines 19.18 -. 19.20 3~ Verify that the fit up of all ]acket welds shall be as detailed in RCI's quality assurance program.
P301V, page 1-26, lines 20.27 - 20.28 narc I OV l3
AUDIT PLAN ATTRI BUTES ITEM RESP. OBSERVATIONS NO. ATTRIBUTES ORG.. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
4~ Verify that RCI has submitted their analytical report to the Engineers for approval.
Does the report contain a description of the input, procedures of analysis, calculations, stress report summary, equipment loading results, and support loadings and corresponding designsf P301V, page 1-29, lines 22.13 - 12.16 5~ Verify that the following design criteria are specified in purchase orders used to purchase socket welded fittings (as delineated on page 1-33 of of specification P 301V).
- 6. Verify that all structural shapes shall be ASTM A-36 or equal and structural tubing is ASTH A501 or A500 Gr. B.
P301V, page 1-34, lines 25.5 - 25.7 AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHE ET) PAGE&OF ~
I 4
AU D IT PLAN A TR I BUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTR I BUTTS ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
Verify that RCZ has submitted to the Engineers for approval, bending procedures for each type of material to be bent.
P301V, page 1-34, lines 26.13 26.14 Verify that RCI has submitted a statement indicating the point manufacturer and brand name to the Engineers.
P301V, page 1-56, lines 39.28 - 39 Verify that, all RCX isometric drawings shall include the following information:
a'ine Unit Mile Point Nuclear 2 Niagara Station Mohawk Power Corporation- J.O. No. 12177, P.O.
No@ NMP2 P301Vo
- b. Piping arrangement drawing number and revision.
%~
AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHee T) PAGE&OF ~>
r n
AUDIT PLAN ATTRI BUTES RESP. 0 8S ER VATI0 NS ATTR I BUTES OR G. COMMENTS NO. CKO. NO. UN SAT.
- c. Pipe line number
- d. SWEC Isometric drawing no.,
revision and revision symbol.
- e. SWEC tag or spool pc. mark no.
- f. Identification and location of welds.
- g. Component mark numbers.
- h. Dimensions for fab.
- i. Coordinates and elevations.
- k. Applicable code and code classes.
- 1. SWEC pipe classes and pipe class breaks.
- m. Initials and dates of designer and checker.
AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATIOH SHEET) PAGE < OF ~~
l AUDIT PLAN ATTRI BUTES RESP. . OBSERVATIONS ATTRIBUTES OR G. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
- n. Contractor name.
- o. Tabulation of spool pcs.
- p. Notes as necessary.
P301V, page 1-86, lines 65.10 67.50 Verify that spool piece sketches include the following information:
- a. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation J.O. No. 12177, P.O.
No. NMP2-P301V
- b. Piping arrangement drawing number and revision.
- c. SWEC Isometric drawing number.
- d. SPEC tag or spool piece mark number.
- e. Pipe line number.
l~g1 AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGE OF
AUDlT PLAN ATTRl BUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTR I 8 UTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UN SAT.
- f. Bill of materials.
- g. Bill of labor (test, process operations, cleaning, painting, marking, and code stamping).
C
- h. Dimensional details.
- i. Weld i'dentification of all shop welds.
- 5. 'Loose material spool piece tag number.
- k. Piping class and applicable code class ~
- 1. Weight.
- m. Seller's name.
P301V, page 1-89, lines 67.42 - 68.22 Verify that hanger assembly sketches contain the following:
AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGER Ol
AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES RESP. 08SERVATIONS ATTRI8UTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
- a. All support locations with support identification numbers, individually located dimensionally with reference to structural steel column lines and radially from the center of circular structures.
- b. Existing steel in the immediate area necessary for identifying locations from which the pipe is to be supported (marked "Existing").
- c. Additional supplementary steel to be erected for the support of a particular hanger assembly (marked P301Vy page 1 91 y lines 69 ~ 22 69 ~ 37 Verify that all correspondence from RCI to SWEC concerning this specification contains the following heading:
CONTRACT NO. NMP2-P301V FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF CRD HYDRAULIC SYSTEM AND ERECTION OF RECIRCULATION SYSTEM AND INSTALLATION OF RPV INTERNALS .
NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 (J.O. NO. 12177)
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION r
AUDIT PLAM NO, { CONTINUATlON SHEET) PAGE +.OF l~
AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS.
ATTRIBUTES OR G. COMMENTS NO. CKO. NO. UN SAT.
Verify that subcontractors providing services for any portion of this contract have'een approved in writing by the Engineers.
P301V, page 1-93, lines 71.29 - 71.36 Verify that RCI has a formal program for the following:
- a. A method of controlling and incorporating changes to RCI engineering and design documents generated by:
- 1. Stone & Webster (external)
- 2. Reactor Controls (internal)
General Verify the correspondence received from SWEC concerning the current contracts have been properly placed into the "Engineering Control Check List" (ECCL) system.
C g 4 hlfAIT PI Aha NP. (CONTtNUATIQN SHEET) PAGES OF J~
AUD(T PLAN ATTRIBUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTRIBUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UN SAT.
Verify that documents are placed in the ECCL system in a reasonable period of time after receipt.
Verify that revisions to the ECCL have been, issued after a maximum of 10 revisions have been made to various listed documents.
Verify that transmittal notices have been maintained with the revision affected and recorded on the ECCL by the recipient.
Verify that transmittal notices have been signed by recipients to verify receipt of the notice and documents.
RCI QA procedure, section 2, pages 5 and 6.
Verify that the Project Manager has determined that a particular document should be entered into the "Document Control Center".
AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGE ~ OF
b AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTR I BUTfS ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UN SAT.
Verify that obsolete documents have been removed from t: he file, marked
""OBSOLETE"" and placed in the obsolete file.
RCI gA Procedure, Section 2, page 7.
Verify that Engineering Change Notices
{ECNs) have been issued to revise or correct drawings.
Verify that ECNs have been approved by the same persons who approved the original drawing.
Verify that no more than six {6)
ECNs are issued against each drawing.
Verify that ECNs have all been incorporated into each applicable drawing within six {6) months.
Verify that ECNs have been referenced on the applicable drawings to alert the user of the change.
RCI QA Procedure, Section 2, page 9 AUDIT PLAN NO. f (CONTINUATIOVSHf T) PAGE i OF ~
~ I AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTR I BUTES OR G. COMMENTS NO. CKO. NO. UNSAT.
Verify that Quality Assurance audits have been conducted in the engineering and design area.
Verify that the audit schedule has been updated at periods not exceeding thirty (30) days.
Verify that the completed audit report contains the following:
- a. Completed checklist
- b. Description of audited items
- c. List of deficiencies
- d. Summary of effectiveness
- e. Signature of auditor and date
- f. Audit number Verify that all corrective action items have been closed out.
RCI QA Procedure, Section 2, page 4 AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGEMI QF ~
II AUD(T PLAN ATTRl BUTES ITEM RESP. OBSERVATIONS NO. ATTRIBUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
CORRECTIVE ACTION RIVER BEND CA/ 1 - Verify that all contract documents are reviewed and entered into the Document Control System in a timely manner. 8 Verify that training has been conducted to assure future reviews are completed and applicable documents are entered into the Document Control System in a timely manner.
2~ CAI' Verify that RCI has written a procedure for the 'incorporation of "HOLD POINTS" on spool piece drawings.
Verify that the procedure has been implemented review several spool piece drawings for compliance.
3~ CAI 4 - Verify that calculations that back<<up completed designs have been formalized, completed and meet all RCI QA procedure requirements.
AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGEL~ OF ~
AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTR I BUTES OR G. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UN SAT.
CAZ 5 - Verify that pipe clamp standards back up data is available for all standards used on SWEC pro)ects.
AUDIT PLAN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET) PAGE%OF ~
AUDlT PLAN, ATTR!BUTES AUDIT PLAII HO REV J.O NULISER AUDITOR I 5) AUDIT DATf
'T<II RESP. Des'VA TION5 GOlliiKNTS RO. ATTRlBUTKS" ORG. RO. CKD HO. UN5AT TECHNICAL PORTION OF AUDIT Pi e Stress Verify that computer program E2A17 issued 8/27/83 is being properly applied to pipe stress problems on the River Bend and Nine Mile prospects by RCI.
2~ Verify by conducting a random review of calculations that calculations for completed designs have been finalized.
(See Attached Form)
Verify that standards PC-1 and PC-2 (pipe clamp standard procedure) is properly backed-up by sufficient documented design basis.
2~ Verify by conducting a random review of calculations that calculations for completed pipe supports have been finalized.
. (See Attached Form).
nasr I ne 1
Vendor Rep.
REACTOR CONTRO C. - SAN JOSE, CA AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES AUDIT PLAN NO. REV. J.O. NUMBER AUDITOR IS) AUDIT DATE
-I 8 N A 12177.50 12210.50 ITEM RESP. OBSERVATIONS NO. ATTRI BUTES ORB.
COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
CRITERION VII CONTROL OF PURCHASED MATERIAL, E UIPMENT AND SERVICES Verify that an approved vendors list (AVL) has been established, maintained, and updated at intervals not exceeding ninety (90) dB)F S ~
(Sec t ion 3, Pg; 5, Para. 3.2.2. e)
Verify that an on site vendor survey has been employed to evaluate a prospective vendor's quality assurance program and a vendor survey report completed.
(Section 3, Pg. 1, Para. 3.1.a)
Verify that a vendor survey checklist and report (Exhibit D-2) is tailored to meet the specific requirements of Section III and prepared by the QA Manager.
(Section 3, Pg. 1, Para. 3.1.a)
- 4. Verify that the completed vendor survey check list and reports are maintained in the headquarters filed by the QA Manager.
(Section 3, Pg. 1, Para. 3.l.a)-
Are copies of vendor's certificates of authorization or quality system certificate (material) from ASME are maintained in the headquarters file by the QA Managerf (Section 3, Pg. 1, Para. 3.1.b)
Verify that when vendors are added or deleted during the interim period, the QA Manager shall mark these on the A.V.L.
. -.;Section 3
AUDIT PLAN TTRI BUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTR I BUTES ORG. t'OMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
'RITERION VII (cont.)
Are the procedures adequate to control the program2 (General)
Are the procedures being satisfactorily implemented2 (General)
~ ~ r ~ ~ a ~ era (C )984 I r r a:~< i~f l n. I (le DArc 2 nc 2
Vendor Rep.
RECTOR CONT SAN JOSF, CAL. fit]e AUDIT PLAN A TRIBUTES AUDIT PLAN NO. REV. J.O. NUMBER AUDITOR (S) AUDIT DATE RC-1984 N A 12210.50 12177.50 ITEM RESP. OBSERVATIONS NO. ATTRI BUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CK 0. NO. UNSAT.
CRITERION IV PROCUR19IENT DOCUMENT CONTROL Verify that purchase orders to vendors who don't hold ASME certificates require all material certificates to include a statement that the material was supplied in accordance with the quality assurance program approved during Reactor Controls most recent survey.
(Sect. 3, page 1, para. 3.la)
- 2. Verify that purchase orders to vendors who do hold ASME certificates require the vendor to include the quality system certificate or certificate of authorization number and expiration date on the material certificates supplied with the material.
(Sect.3, page 2, para. 3.lb) 3~ Verify that the project manager approves purchase orders.
(Sect. 3, page 4, para. 3.2.1d) 4~ Verify that the QA manager approves purchase orders and addenda or changes to purchase orders.
(Sect. 3, page 5, para. 3.2.2c)
- 5. When source inspection is required verify that it is documented on a written report.
(Sect. 3, page 5, para. 3.2.2d)
AUDIT PLAN TR I BUTES ~ ~
RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTR I B UTES ORB. COhlMENTS NO. CKO. NO. uNSAT.
CRITERION IV Verify that purchase orders indicate that the material manufacture shall not perform any welding and certification to this effect be provided.
(Section 3, Page 4, Para. 3.1.g.'(5))
Are copies or purchase orders forwarded to the shop or job site2 (Is this documented'2)
(Section 3, Page 6, Para. 3.2.3.c)
Verify, that unless otherwise specified in the engineer's drawings, structural shapes shall be purchased to ASTM A-36 or equal.
(Spec. GSU C-285, pg. 1-21, line 19.7)
Verify that purchase orders invoke Part 21 of Title 10 of the, code of federal regulations.
(Spec. GSU C285, pg. 1-73, line 60.41)
(Spec. P30XV, pg. 1-94, line 71.52)
Verify that Austenitic stainless steel raw material is purchased and furnished in the solution .annealed unsensitized condition.
(Spec. GSU C285, pg. 1-21, line 19.14)
(Spec. P301V, pg. 1-34, line 25.11)
Veiify that CMTR are furnished which includes a statement certifying that the material supplied is in the solution-annealed, unsensitized condition and, if unstabilized, has either been water quenched or has successfully met the requirements of ASTM A 262 Practice A Figure l.
(NOTE: Fig. 2 or 4 for P-301V)
(Spec. GSU C 285, pg. 1-21a, line 19.23)
(Spec. P 301V, pg. 1-34, line 25.15)
DA o'c' Ac
0 AU D IT PLAN TR I BUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTR I BUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKO. NO. UN SAT.
CRITERION IV Verify that purchase orders for Class 2 weld material require certified material test reports be submitted.
Are the procedures adequate to control the program?
(General)
Are the procedures being satisfactorily implementedf (General)
~ h ~ ~ ~ r r. 'I OOI I r rhine t a ~ ~ . g'.". g'gg ChLj er~ %
oAc'c 4 Am 3
k 4C
Vendor Rep.
REACTOR CONTRO SAN JOSE, CA Title AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES AUDIT PLAN No. REV. J.O. NUMBER AUDITOR IS) AUDIT DATE RC-1984 ITEM RESP. OBSERVATIONS No. ATTRIBUTES ORG. COMMENTS No. CKD. No. UNSAT.
CRITERION XVIII - AUDITS Verify all aspects of the guality Assurance Program are audited on an annual basis.
(Sect. 12, Pg. 1, Para. 12.1.1)
Verify an audit schedule if prepared by the guality Assurance Nanager ix revised at inter-vals not to exceed 30 days.
(Sect. 12, Pg. 2, Para. 12.1.3)
- 3. Verify internal audits are performed by personnel trained to the requirements of Reactor Controls, Inc. audit personnel training program gAI-18-2.
(Sect. 12, Pg. 2, Para. 12.2.1)
- 4. Verify auditors do not have direct responsibili in the area being audited.
(Sect. 12, Pg. 2, Para. 12.2.1)
I 'f ~I
'I k
'I
~ g REACTOR CONTRO SAN JOSE, CA AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES ITEHI RESP. OBSERVATIONS No. ATTRIB UTES O1G. COMMENTS NO. CKD. NO. UNSAT.
Cant. CRITERION XVIII - AUDITS
- Verify a quality assurance audit checklist is used to conduct audits.
(Sect. 12, Pg. 2, Para. 12.2.2)
Verify the gA Audit Checklist is completed the auditor and submitted to the gA Manager
'y for review.
(Sect. 12, Pg. 2, Para. 12.2.3)
'7. Verify the completed audit report contains:
- a. Completed gA audit checklist
- b. Description of all audited items
- c. List of deficiencies
- d. A brief summary
- e. Signature of auditor and date
- f. Audit number (Sect. 12, Pg. 2, Para. 12.2.23)
- 8. Verify that for gA audits, which require corrective action to correct deficiencies, a corrective action request (CAR Exhibit X-4) is initiated by the gA Manager for each deficiency.
(Section 12, pg. 3, para. 12.2.4) or 1non aWo ~ ~ a ~ ~ y ~ r ~ gy
~ p, ~ ~ p ~ ea a 'wee a wee n
AU DIT PLAN TTRI BUTES RESP. OBSERVATIONS ATTRIBUTES ORG. COMMENTS NO. CKO No. UN SAT.
Verify that the CAR and Audit Report has been transmitted to the location(s) of. the individual ' responsible for correction of the deficiencies.
(Section 12, pg. 3, para. 12.2.4)
Verify that the correcti ve action has been taken by the location manager and documented on the .CAR ~
(Section 12, pg. 3, para. 12.2.5)
Verify that the corrective action request is referenced to the audit by the CAR and contains the following information:
- a. Description of deficiency b.. Corrective action taken or being taken
- c. Action taken/being taken to prevent recurrence
- d. Completion date or expected completion date
- e. gA/gC verification of corrective '
action within 30 days of completion NOTE: Are gA/gC qualified audi tors7)
(Section 12, pg. 3, para. 12 ' ')
If the corrective action taken is not approved by the gA Hanaget', does the program identify what action is to be taken and howl (General)
~ ~ ~ Wl "~ ~ ESfl RC 1984 I enas+ ~ ao ~ t p~t pg c. u re~ \ ~ lb t%t+ 3 AI+ 4
REACTOR CONTRO SAN JOSE, CA S AUDIT PLAN ATTRIBUTES s
1 s j ITEM- RESP. OBSERVATIONS No. ATTRIBUTES OR G. COMMENTS No. CKO. No. UNSAT.
Cont. CRITERION XVIII - AUDITS 13 Verify all internal aIdits and corrective aetio are reviewed by the Vice President and the gA Manager.
(Sect. 12, Pg. 4, Para. 12.4.1) 14 Verify deficiencies noted during audits and corrective action taken is tabulated and pre-.
sented to the management review board.
(Sect. 12. Pg. 4, Para. 12.5.1) 15 Verify a summary reportof the Reactor Controls Inc. audit program is prepared on an annual basis by the gA Manager and the results re-ported to the Vice President.
(Sect. 12, Pg. 5, Para. 12.5.3) 16 Are the procedures adequate to control the programs (bENERAL) 17 Are the procedures being satisfactorily impl ementedl (GENERAL) sS nA&c 4 nc 4
\1 I P
SWEC:50:84 84898:aaO:mS 4.0. OR
~ ~ ~
INTEROFFlCE MEMORANDUM W.O. NO. 12210.50/12177-50 "QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT PATE AixPmt 22, 1984 V '.
. REACTOR CONTROLS INC. (RCI)
(
SAN JOSE, CA.
FROM M. E. Bezanson:nks M. Schierberg CC Gener al Files Chrono Files JHarrison/Audi t File(2)
RJPalleschi/QI C File RBKelly JEHuston RKMaxon TJFitzgibbon MHDarragh MHGrieves CLTerry RLLykens EDiem MMEifert(2)
JTP1 ant TCro use RBAvrich FACanuso CZappile JAKirkebo JWhedbee MYeminy KRMiller ACampana RGDrumond ~
THIS AUDIT APPLIES TO:
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY - RIVER BEND STATION UNIT 81 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION - NINE MILE POINT UNIT 0'2
4 Y
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
~
PROCUREMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION T-38]A AUDIT EVALUATION FORM SUPPLIER AND LOCATION PREPARE S S GNATURE Reactor .Contro'is Inc. 4~c( .
1245 So. Winchester Blvd.
San Jose, CA 95128 R. G. Drumond MATERIAL MANUFACTURED AT FACILITY DATE OF AUDIT Control Rod Dr ive Piping July 24-26, 1984 AUDIT RESULTS AS ME CERTIFICATES HELD Open-Pending Resolution of Corrective Action CERTIFICATE NUMBER (S):
Items None(for Engineering and Design)
CURRENT SV/EC CONTRACTS Gulf'tates Utilities Co.
228.180-C285 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
P-301V CORRECTIVE ACTION REQU!RED Yes-See Audit Summary COMMENTS FUTURE ACTION DATE Completed audit checklists along with all back-up data Thirty {30) days after receipt of are on file at the Stone 8 Webster Engineering Corp., this report.
Procurement quality Assurance Division, Boston, N.
APPROVE BY S I GN ATURK
i qUALITy ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT REACTOR CONTROLS INC.
SAN JOSE, CA. 95128 On July 24-26, 1984 Stone 8 Webster Engineering Corporation conducted a equality Assurance Audit at the San Jose California facility. The purpose of the audit was to verify Reactor Controls Inc's compliance to their guality Assurance Program, the applicable Stone 8 Webster specification requirements, and the intent of the following criteria of Appendix "B" to 10CFR50.
CRITERION III - DESIGN CONTROL CRITERION XVIII - AUDITS
~ ~
PERSONNEL CONTACTED AND ASSISTING IN THE AUDIT WERE REACTOR CONTROL INC. PERSONNEL
(
- R. Crum D. Jasman guality guality Assurance Manager Assurance Specialist
- A. Nelson Project Manager (NMP)
- G. Secchi Engineering E Construction Manager (NMPERB)
- R. Chaudhari Lead Engineer
- M. Scales Design Project Engineer (NMP)
- V. Dur vasula Project Engineer (NMP)
- L. Nishiguchi Engineering Manager
B. Mackellar Project Engineer (RB)
STONE 5 WEBSTER AUDIT TEAM PERSONNEL
- W. Luong Section Manager EMD
- S. Malhotra Coordinator
- W. Tewfik Resident Engineer
- T. Chow 'Section Manager EMD
- R. Drummond Lead Auditor OBSERVER
- E. Epstein Responsible Engineer (NMP).
- Denotes attendees at. exit critique.
AUDIT CONCLUSIONS It is the conclusion of the audit teamthatReactor Controls Inc. is not complying with certain requirements of their guality Assurance Program, the applicable Stone E Webster specification, and the referenced criteria of Appendix "B" to 10CFR50, in the areas audited as referenced below. How-ever, the results of this audit indicate that shipments should not be stopped nor should a Stop Work Directive be issued.
AUDIT
SUMMARY
e This report contains observations which are not in compliance with estab-lished requirements, or were determined to be in need of improvement.
During the conduct of the audit 24 attributes were checked, resulting in 664 observations, of which 1 was nonconforming.
NOTE: Those items identified with the prefix "CAI" require a written corrective action response. Those items in Attachment "A" are recoomendations only however, a written response is required.
CRITERION II I - DESIGN CONTROL
( CAI 1 Reactor Controls Inc. has chosen to use "Task Books" to assemble design data, including calculations for pre-defined areas of SPEC contracts.
During the audit a number of problems were fden~~ed xn these "Task Books", as noted below.
A. Task Books are required to be signed arid dated by (I) preparer, (2) reviewer and (3) approver, how-ever the task books only contain one(1) date for all three(3) signatures. In many cases the book was dated by the preparer before the reviewer and approver signed.
B. Many task books contain pages marked with the same revision number as the book, but in some instances the pages are dated after the books have been signed and dated. (River Bend Project Only) (In some cases the book is marked Revision 3 but some pages dated later than Rev. 3 are marked revision "0")
Task Book 5'SA-2462 is marked revision 0, yet the last section of the book contains almost 100 ob-solete pages which have apparently not been replaced in the book because none of the pages in the book are marked revision l.
C. Many task book pages did not contain the following information:
I. page numbers
- 2. not all "obsolete" pages so marked
- 3. calculation numbers
- 4. all required signatures.
NOTE: ~ During the audit most of the above four items were corrected by the issuing groups.
D. Several calculations were noted with problems con-cerning "Engineering Change Notices" (ECN's)
- 1. SA-4825 contained ECN f227 as an attachment.
ECN 8227 had nothing to do with SA-4825.
- 2. SA-4830 should have contained ECN f227 as an attachment instead of SA-4825
- 3. The Appendix to SA-2463 contains the results of an evaluation of an ECN, however the ECN is not identified.
E. On several occasions during the audit, the tech-,
nical auditors were not able to follow some of the calculation logic, imput or assumptions. They re-quested definition by RCI Project people and other personnel.~e . brought in to explain some details.
These task books and calculations must be sufficiently detailed as to design input, assumptions, references such that a person technically qualified in the sub-ject can review, understand, and verify the adequacy of the results without recourse to the originator.
RECOMMENDATION RCI guality Assurance Instructions (gAI's) must be upgraded to address more clearly all the problems noted above. Many of the task books will be revised during the "As-Built" r econsiliation period, and during this time the books must be updated to meet procedure re-quirements, in preparation for future turnover to station personnel.
CORRECTIVE ACTION AUDIT SDMMARY The following corrective action items of the audit conducted on January 24-26, 1984 were satisfactorily verified and are considered closed:
CAI-1, CAI-2, CAI-3, CAI-4(u)
The following corrective action item remains open pending further action:
CAI-2(u)
Mith the incorporation of the open corrective action items in this report, the audit of January 24-26, 1984 is now considered closed.
Open items from the January 24-26, 1984 audit (RCI)
CRITERION III - DESIGN CONTROL CAI 2(U) Specification 12210 - 282.180, Page 1-70, Lines 56.49 and 58.11 require RCI drawings, isometrics, and sketches contain specified minimum information.
None of the drawings, isometrics, and sketches reviewed during the audit contained all of the required information.
f Examples of missing information are:
- 1. Job humbers
- 2. Contract of specification numbers
- 3. SWEC line designation humbers
- 4. Reference drawings and revisions
- 5. Spool piece mark numbers
- 6. Material lists.
RECOMMENDATION Provide compliance with specification requirements or ob-tain a specification change from the SWEC Project.
RCI'S RESPONSE, DATED APRIL 16, 1984 AND CORRECTIVE ACTION RESULTS RCI stated that they would submit a specification change request to Stone 5 Webster by May I, 1984.
CORRECTIVE ACTION AUDIT RESULTS RCI has not requested the specification change to date.
RECOMMENDATION RCI should submit the request asking changes to the specification for all listed documents to waive the requirements.
CLOSED ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS AUDITS CAI I - A review of Purchase Order File 0'11206-01 indicates that the subject TWX had been reviewed, approved and placed in the proper file. l CAI 2 - K-3-1 Instruction for Engineering/Analysis Design Control has been approved And issudd for the preparation and control of calculations.
~ e In late 1983 RCI's management Review Board determined that more emphasis should be placed on responding to audit findings. A revised procedure was issued dealing with Corrective Action Requests (CAR's). Since then The guality Assurance Group has been mre aggressive in pursuing audit responses.
In the past six months only two audit responses have been late. One was one day late and the other only three days late. This record reflects the committment that RCI has made to respond to audit findings in a more timely manner.
CAI 4{V) All of the final designs sampled during the audit were backed up by formalized f
fully approved calculation.
V
~ ~
~ ~
ATTACHMENT "A" RECOMMENDATIONS CRITERION III - DESIGN CONTROL R"I Task book SA-$ 601 1ists the ang'le between modes 230 and 250 as 11 . The angle should be 10.5 according to the input document.
R-2 In each of the task books sampled during the audit, it was noted that RCI uses a preprinted list of references.
Hany of the listed references are not used in the cal-culations, but no attempt is made to indicate which of the references are utilized by marking those ref-rences that are used.
When referencing computer runs in Task Books and cal-culations it is RCI's practice to list the computer run date, or the computer file signmff date. 'Zt is reccamended that the date of the cmguter run date only be used in references, so as to avoid confusion.
When transmitting new loads for supports from one cal-culation to another by ART's, it is recommended that RCI list all supports effected by the higher loads on the ART.
Several ART's were noted with only a partial listing of supports for a given calculation.
S STONE 8 WESSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION Mr. Robert Crum August 22'984.
guality Assurance Manager Reactor Controls Inc. 12210.50/12177.50 1245 So. winchester Blvd.
San Jose, CA 95128
(}UALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT REACTOR CONTROLS INC.
Transmitted herewith are the results of the audit conducted at your facility on July 24 - 26, 1984.
You are requested to review this report and submit your comnents on the corrective action items within thirty (30) days of receipt, stating the action which has been taken by you, and the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Your response should include a description of action (to be) taken to prevent recurrence of these deficiencies.
At this time, I wish to thank you and your staff for the courtesy and cooperation extended to our representatives.
O iGlNAL SIG; 0 G. M. Schierberg Manager Procurment guality Assurance Enclosur es RGD:nks
STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION AUDIT PLAN TITLEI AUDI OF REACTOR CONTROLS INC. RCI OF SAN JO AUDIT PLAN NO. I PREPARED BYI RCI-1984A R.G. Drummond REVISIONI DATEl APPROVED BYI 0 . 7/2/84
~ ~
PAGE I OF 2 Supervisor, POA 1.0 PURPOSE
'o determine compliance by Reactor Controls Inc. to the requirementsef their Quality Assurance Nanual and the applicable Stone 6 Webster specification(s).
2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 Reactor Controls Inc. , Ouality Assurance Nanual, Revision 5, dated 9-4-8>
2.2 Stone 6 Webster's specifications 2~2~7 GSU 228.180 Revision 0 Addenda 6 NMP2 - 301V Revision 0 Addenda 5
- 3. 0 PROCEDURE 3.1 The audit shall be performed in accordance with the following instructions:
3.1.1 Review all referenced documents.
3.1.2 Complete the attribute sheets by entering all the required information during the audit.
3.1.3 Add any additional attributes as required during the audit.
T-090-I
3.2 The attached sampling plan (Attachment 3.1) QAD 7.11 as applicable shall be used to perform this audit.
3.3 All attributes not answered for any reason shall be marked NA (Not Auditable) and the reason given in the comments column.
3.4 Each attribute marked unsatisfactory shall be evaluated by the auditor to determine if the noncompliance should be processed in accordance with QS-15.1, "Nonconformance and Disposition Report" QS-16.1, "S&W Problem Reports", QS-12.2, "Notifying Clients of Potentially Reportable Deficiencies'under 10CFR50.55", or QS-16.3, "Identifying and Reporting Defects and Failure to Comply under 10CFR21".
0 8
LOT SAMPLING PLANS SAMPLE PLAN A SAMPLE P SAMPLE PLAN C SAMPLE PLAN 0 LOT OR BATCH SIZE SAMPLE ACCEPT 1 REJECT j SAMPLE ACCEPT 1 REJECT 2 SAMPLE ACCEPT 1 REJECT 2) SAMPLE ACCEPT(1 REJECT(2)
SIZE NUMBER NUMBER SIZE NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER SIZE NUMBER UMBER 2t08 ALL 1 All u All up 1 2 ALL to 5 to 5 ALL UP 9 to 1b ALL 2 TO 13 16 to 25 ALL 2.
26 to 50 ALL 5 8 13 51 to 90 50 20 13 13 91 to 150 50 20 20 13 151 to 280 50 32 .32 7 8 50 2 281 to 500 50 50 50 10 11 50 2 501 to 1,200 80 80 80 14 15 80 3 1,201 to 3,200 125 125 125 21 22 125 3,201 to 10,000 200 200 125 21 22 100 NOTES:
(1) Accept Number - accept lot.if items or less are found unsat (2) Redect Number - reject.lot if items or mora are found unsat .
UW to c+I< W
%I'ba g
n tfsv tp tO~~ ~
aI as c+ W 40 W
I
TYP OBS VATIONS YENDOR REP.
VP VHD VH- AUDIT PLAN ATTR TES TITLE AUDIT PLAN HO. REV 4.0. NUMBER AUDITORIS) AUDIT DATE RC I-1984-A 0 12210.50 umm ATT. LOT OBSERVATIONS
"'O. ATTRIBUTES SIZE HO. CKO. HO. UNSAT COMMENTS RIVER BEND PROJECT CRITERION III Desi n Control Verify that design document SA-932-DAO, for GSU on Appendix "D" lists all computer programs used on the pro)ect.
General (R-1)
- 2. Verify that design document SA-4029 Code required equations have been properly completed.
General (R-2) 3~ Verify that design documents contain all referenced appendices and attachments.
General (R-3)
TOTAL: ATTRIBUTES OBS. CKD.
OBS. UNSAT T-090-4 PACE I OF
p, ~.
Eil
~ ~ I
~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ I ~
~ II 1 ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~
~ 4 ~
~ ~ ~ 'I
~ ~ I ~
~ ~ ~ I ~
~ I ~ ~
~ ~
1 I 1.
0 I
~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~
I I 11 ~ I ~
I
~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I 1 I
1
~ ~ )
~ ~
~ I I .~ ~ . ~
al I.
~ ~
f, II ~ ~ ~
1 el
~ ~ I I I ~ 11 I ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 1 ~ II
~ ~ ~ All '
~
~ ~ fl ~
II ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
~ ~ ~ fl I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I ~ ~
1 ~
~ I ~
~ ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
I ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 'I
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~
JP. AS QAccvt.
~~LAvt 4QWSu~
Cover Sheet:
Client Prospect Document Originated Revision Page and Continuation Calculation Title Rev. No.
Preparer Date Checked by Date Approved by Date Revision Description Identification of:
References Input Assumptions Retrievability
CALcu~ HumBHR. ~
+@~LA~~ r47t&ksLl~
Page Accountability Page No. on each page Calculation No. on each page Is the reason for the calculation obvious'7 Conclusion respond to reason Is the conclusion properly trans-cribed into. the final designs
I, k
0, S
Is the method used propert Are equations identified or easily recognizable7 Is conclusion properly arrived of'7 Are all input valves adequately ident ified'?
Ho+ are assumptions confirmed'7 Are calculations revised in a manner that provides tracking to all original revisions'7 Does the calculation contain all referenced addenda or attachments'
'1 AUDIT PLAN ISUTKS Can.. ms'OMNKNTN ICOSI'. OOSKNVATlON5 ATTRISIJTKS sa.
CORRECTIVE ACTION
- l. Assure that RCI has taken the following aetio (mr) as stated in their reply dated June 14, 1984:
- a. The TWX has been reviewed and approve according to the review and approva3 process.
- b. The approved TMX has been placed 'in th Purchase Order-file /311206-01.
(CAI-I)
- 2. Using the new procedure, (on calculation (Ra) preparation) assure that current calculations (mp) have been prepared and reviewed as required.
(CAE. 2j(ose atcached work sheets)
- 3. Verify that a change to specification 282.180 (Ra) on page 1-70 lines 56.49 58.11 has been requested by RCI and approved by SPEC.
(CAI. 2(u))
AQDIT FL1II IIO. f NNTIIIQATIOllSHKKT) PAOKI 0F ~
P I
~ ~ ~ II ~ ~
~ ~
~
~ II ~ ~ I I ~
~ II I ~
~ ~ . ~ I
~ ~
)I VENDOR REP.
TYP A OBSE VATIONS VP VHD VH AUDIT PLAN ATT TES TITLE AUDIT PLAN NO. REV J.O. NUMBER AUDITORIS) AUDIT DATE RCI-1984 A 0 Jul 23-27 1 84 ATT. LOT OBSERVATIONS ATTRIBUTES COMMENTS NO. SIZE NO. CKO. MO. UNSAT NINE MILE PROJECT III Desi n Control Verify that design and engineering aspects of the Quality Assurance'rogram have been audited for the current year.
{RCI QA Manual Section 12)
- 2. Verify that the audit schedule has been prepared and revised at intervals not exceeding 30 days. Have copies been sent to all managers by the Quality Assurance Manager.
TOTAL: ATTRIBUTES OBS. CKD.
OBS. UNSAT T-090-I PACE 1 OF
0 RR'
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ I
~ ~
~ 11 ~ ~ I ~
I' ~ ~
~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~
~
o ~ I ~
~ ~ I t
I A II ~ II ~ 0 ~ ~
1 I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~
I
~ II I ~
I
~ ~
II IBUTES ATTIIISQTES aK ..I OaaavavIOaa CCO.. VIVAT
- 6. Select several manual calculations and review them using the enclosed check sheets.
NOTE: After reviewing the new RCI calcula-tion procedure, add more attributes to the check sheets.
(RCI Procedure on Calculation Preparation and Approval)
AUDIT I'I.AN NO. (CONTINUATION SHEET }
PACER of ~
e h
~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ I
~ I ~ ~
~ ~
I ~ ~
I'I
~~LA 4QI446Ll~
Page Accountability Page No. on each page Calculation No. on each page Is the reason for the calculation obvious7 Conclusion respond to reason Is the conclusion properly trans-cribed into the final design7
. 4
~J /VS ~ IP IAAF% p CA~uL ATrgdeu~
Is the method used proper2 Are equations identified or easily recognizable2 Is conclusion properly arrived of2 Are all input valves adequately identified2 Hov are assumptions confirmed2 Are calculations revised in a manner that provides tracking to all original revisions'2 4
Does the calculation contain all referenced addenda or attachments2
I ~
STONE 8 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
~
AUDIT PLAN
~ TITLEI I hF REACTOR CONTROLS INC. (RCI AUDIT PLAN NQ.I PREPARED SYI R.G. Drummond REVISION I DATEI APPROVED SYi PAGE I OF
- Supervisor, POA 1.0 PVRPOSE To determine compliance by Reactor Controls, Inc. to the requirementsaf their ality Assurance Manual and the applicable Stone & Webster specification(s).
2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 Reactor Controls, Inc. , Ouality Assur Manual, Revision 6, dated 8/1/84 2.2 Stone & Webster's specifications 2,2,1 Shop Fabrication, Field Fabricated, Field Erection, and Testing of Control Rod Drive System Piping 2.2.2 RCI procedure PABR ev. 1 - AS-Builts Reconcilation 2.2.3 RCI procedure 8ABWD- v. 3 - As-Built Walkdowns
- 3. 0 PROCEDURE 3.1 The audi all be performed in accordance with the following instructi 3.1.1 Review all referenced documents.
3.1.2 Complete the attribute sheets by entering all the required information during the audit.
3.1.3 Add any additional attributes as required during the audit.
T-090-I
.0 3.2 To verify the attribute "Are the procedures adequate.to assure control of the system" (usually written as the last attribute in each section), examine each unsat condition and determine if the condition is a result of a procedure inadequacy.
3.3 'The attached sampling plan (Attachment 3.1) /AD.7.11 as appli-cable shall be used to perform this audit.
3.4 All attributes not answered for any reason shall be marked NA (Not Auditable) and the reason given in the coainents column.
3.5 Verify the program being audited also covers those components or parts which are nonpressure boundaries as defined by AS Section III.
3.6 Each attribute marked unsatisfactory shall be evaluated by the auditor to determine if the noncompliance should be processed in accordance with QS-15 ~ 1~ "Nonconformance and Disposition Report" QS-16.1, "S&W Problem Reports", QS-12.2, Notifying Clients of Potentially Reportable Deficiencies under 10CFR50,55",
or QS-16.3, "Identifying and Reporting Def Comply under 10CFR21" ~
'nd Failure to
I
\'I
TY OBS RVAT ON
'ENDOR REP..
VP VHD-VH- AUDlT PLAN ATTR TES TITLE AUDIT PLAN NO. 4.0. NUMBER AUDITORIS) AUDIT DATE RCI-I 8 ATT. LOT OBSERVATIONS ATTRIBUTES COMMENTS NO. SQE NO. CKO. NO. UNSAT CRITERION III Desi n Co NOTE: This audit pla sists of the following sectiore:
A. Corrective Action (last audit) t~xli~
B. Administration of As-Built Reconciliation Program C. Technical Portion of audit.
A. Corrective Action See Next Sheet TOTAL: ATTRIBUTES OBS. CKD.
OBS. UNSAT
AUDIT PI.AP I SUTES INO OK ~ . QOSKNvATIONS ATTRIIllTKS 01%. IIO. COO.. LNSi>
B. AS BU NCILATION PROGRAM Prior to as-built walkdown have all applicable ECN's been incorporated into its relevant drawing'2 RCI Procedure ABWD-112W Section 3.1.
2~ Prior to as-built walkdown haveclosed all NCR's written against the system been ABWD-1 Section 3.3 Verify that the applicable engineering 30 been drawings listed on page 3 of ABWD-1 have the "Walkdown Stamp" shown on stamped with Attachment A of.ABWD-l.
AUGIT PLAt ISUTKS ITEN ~K . OemavaVIOaS NQ AT%RibUTES ONI. I. COO.. Qfl5Il
- a. e e stamp contain all necessary st , signatures and date on each of the drawings reviewed7 4~ Verify that all analy been completed and signed out for the rious systems before the walkdown.
ABWD-1 Section 3.6.
- 5. Verify that drawings used in the walkdown have been marked up to show the following'.
- a. Pipe support locations, if out of tolerance.
- b. Support type..
AUDIT PLht. IMPUTES ~ ~
Iles% RE5 . OOSKRVATfON5 NO ATTRIbQTKS 01K COMMKNTS OO. CEO.. QN54T,
- c. A e ere expected pipe movements will pr ly interfere with other equipment.
- d. Welds will be documented to type and configuration.
- e. Dimensions of pipe and pipe fittings if not within the specified tolerances.
ABWD-1 Section 5.0
- 6. Verify that Attachment B to ABWD-1 (Walkdown Report) has been properly filled out and signed. by the walkdown team leader, pro)ect manager and the analysis pro)ect engineer, in addition to the walkdown engineer, gA engineer and the . prospect manager again for verification of disposition.
t~Aaa a
0 AVGIT PL!if 77BI SUTES IMN NE ~ OSSKAVATIONS NO ATTRlbUTKS NO. CC5.. Qf05AT.
7~ Verif tgt final documentation includes as-bui rawings, task files, and Design Analysis reports.
a~ Have all as-built drawing deviations been identified and 'econciled and placed in the appropriate task file(s)7 RCI Procedure ABRS Rev. 1, Section 1.0.
- 8. Prior to the walkdown, has RCI conduc review of the analysis to assure th analysis has been performed to the design documents7 ABRSA-1 ~ Section 3.2.1
ItEII SEI . OemavaVIOaa ATTR lb UTK5 IIO. Cue..vaaat
- 9. Verif C. RCI has prepared- the "Final Design iew Document Register" listing all current contract documents.
Is it properly reviewer.
filled out as applicable by the ABRSA-l Section 4.2.5
- 10. Vazify that RCI has ptapatad a "Final Review Checklist" to check the adequa completeness of the analysis.
Is the form properly filled out as required by the reviewer7 ABRSA-l, Section 4.2a6
AUDIT PLY YTRIPIUTKS OCOKNVATIONS ATlRISUYKS ORI. 00. CNO.. IN%AY.
Veri a RCI has prepared a "Final Design Revie olution Sheet" if the "Final Design of Review Checklist" indicates a need resolving an item on the checklist.
Is the form properly filled out as required by the reviewerI Are all items requiring resolutions listed on this sheets ABRSA-1, Section 4.2.6
-12. Verify that when the "Final Design Review" package is completed, a copy is contained in the respective task file, and the original is kept in the Pro)ect File.
ABRSA-, Section 4.2.10
ft l
l I'
AUGIT PLlhf iRUTES AtTRlbUTEI AK,, OOSKRvATfONS 0%f. I Ceo ONSat Verif @ as a part of the "Walkdown" documen a calculation has been generated and included defining maximum expected pipe/support movements for each system.
ABRSA-1, Section 4.2.10 Verify that the Project Manager has developed a schedule and manpower plan to accommodate the confirmatory analysis.
ABRSA-1, Section 4.2.10 Verify the project engineers are preparing Analysis/As-Built Differences Reconciliation Sheet after the walkdown.
Is it properly filled out by the assigned project engineer.
ABRSA-l, Section 6.1.1 & 6.1.2
AUQIT PLA TTBILMTES iK ~ O~RVATION5 ATTRISUTES 01f. Wk CCO.. UN5AY.
- 16. Verify Reconc t the completion of the As-Built on and Analysis, As-Built Drawings have been issued to show present condition of RCI supplied pipe and support components.
ABRSA-1, Section 7.0
- 17. Verify that RCI has prepared the "Final Stress Report".
- a. Does the report contain as a minim 0
- a. Title Page
- b. Approval Page
- c. Certification page
- d. Table of Contents
- e. List of Tables t~NM kQbIT Ol AQ QA t tvweassaaaesass ease ee t
V AUGIT PLt TTAiRUTES ATTllISUtES
. st of Figures
- g. Text:
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Scope
~
- 3. System description
- 4. Description of Method
- 5. Results
- 6. Summary and conclusion
- 7. References
- h. Appendix 1 ~ Computer program description
- 2. Back-up calculation.
) AAss 8 0 so s A8 0 Sic 0 0 0 'I
0 oeaaavavioes ATTRISUTKS OO. CCO.. ONSET.
- b. H st een submitted to SWEC for review a rovalZ ABRSA-1, Section 7.0.
The following attributes are not taken from known existing RCI procedures, however these attributes are considered essential for a fully documented as-built program.
What procedures govern the Final De n Review and As-Built -
Reconciliation P including.prerequisi.te activities for s %5 of N.5 'Z Do the procedures identify which piping systems are applicable to this programZ AUDIT FLLQ NO.
a . OeeaevaVSOaa 1TlRlb UTES ONf. I. CR5.. LlÃSAT
- 20. Do th o dures identify which groups are involv this programs
- 21. Do the procedur identify the responsibilities of ea group and hov they'nterfacet
- 22. Is there a schedule for the program2
- 23. Is there a status maintained for the program?
'I AUDIT PL@ TTAISUTKS O~81%TIONS ATYRlbllTKS ON
- l. CCO.. VlfSAT.
- 24. Are eP quirements adequate'.
Do the procedures describe what information must be collected and submitted for N.5 signoff.
- b. Is there a method to identify information requiring confirmationf
- 25. FINAL DESIGN REVIEW What are the approved documents to be used as sources of input in the Final Design Reviewf r-OOO-a
I lTKM OaeaavaviOaa IA ATTRISUTKS I. COO.. @%SAT, ~ ~
- 26. Do th P ved documents contain ditect1y, or by r ence, all sources of inputf
- a. Are all sources of input traceabie2
- 27. Do completed .calculations reference 'the are latest revision of source documents andsource they based upon the approved documents'
- a. . Have the requirements of the proce s been complied with on co packages2
- 28. Do support calculations contain the final loads'aa a SIISSi sm ass asa O~~aaaaaWa~aa means>> 0
AUDIT PLlLP 77AI BUTTS v~
oeSaavaViesS AT%ilb UTES 0%0.
NO. Cme.. LBNAY ~ ~ t r
- 29. Is calcul V
~ evidence that s has been reconciled the stress with the final as uilt piping drawing'2 AS-BUILT RECONCILIATIO
- 90. Ate the lines to be as-built identified2
- a. Doea this account for all the lines2 b> If the answer to "2" is nn, is there these a
are criteria to assure
- representative of all lines2 t-oeo- AUOn ra,AW rO. EcoNTINUAtloN %KEN'.T) FLOE OF
l>
AUDIT PLAI ISUTES.
at Nr. OesaavaVIOea ATlRlbllTKS M CA LIAT
- 31. Are Q andplicable drawings the latest revisi do they reflect the latest analyses
- a. Are all documents marked valkdmm'7
- 32. Do the as-builts demonstrate that all the attributes required to be shown by the procedures have been checked7
- a. piping configuration and geometry
- b. location of fittings c.. location/orientation of valves
- d. types of bends
l II l I
oaatavavioas ATYHlbUTES 016. OO. CEO.. llfl5AT.
pr location
- f. support type and orienthtion 4
- g. Are clearances c ecked against pipe movementst
- 33. Are the latest math models used in e walkdownf
- 34. Have all analyses been completed and ail open items closed out7 f~Nn i aieit a aa vn
lHO ~ OOSKltVATIONS ATTRISllYKS 01O. 0a. CNO..oaaav.
- 35. Does a 0 edure exist to stipulate measuring techniques and criteria to the valkdovn teams
YYRIPIUTE~
ONKNVATION5 AT.TlllbllTES OO. CC.. lRCSAT,
- 1. Select several typical calculations from the following. systems and conduct a technical review:
- b. Control station piping (use attached matrice)
General AQDlt PLAN NO CCCNTIQULTIdQ IICCT) a@ac. nF ..
T ~
~ IC