ML19247B137
| ML19247B137 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/13/1979 |
| From: | Donna Anderson, Costello J, Hale C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19247B134 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900510 51200, NUDOCS 7908080012 | |
| Download: ML19247B137 (12) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMEN' RECION IV Report No.
99900510/79-02 Program No.
51200 Company:
United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Inspection Conducted: May 21-25, 1979 Inspectors:
b6d(7
~ ( f id/ 79 R Costello, Principal Inspector Date J.f.)dorInspectionBranch Ven
\\.
Ni k
0 Y) l_ h um
&l/3l79 D./ G;. ' Anderson, Pridcipal Inspector Date
.LVendor Inspection Branch G
M D ~/S '7k Approved by:
C. J @ lb, Chief, Programs Evaluation Date Section, Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on May 21-25, 1979 ("9900f19/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, criteria in the areas of design verification, design inspection, and action on previous inspection findings.
The inspection involved sixty-four (64) hours on site by two (2)
USNRC inspectors.
Results:
In the three (3) areas inspected one (1) deviation and one (1) unresolved item were identified in two (2) areas. No deviations or unresolved items were identified in the other area.
Deviation: Design Inspection - Contrary to Chapter 17.1.3 (Design Control) of the WPPSS-PSAR, a specification for the Borated Water Stortge Tank and the Demineralized Water Storage Tank contained seismic respont spectra which had been superseded.
Unresolved Item:
Design Verification - It is not apparent who is to maintain the Design Review Control Logs, how much detail is to be maintained in the logs and how to determine when a management level design review is complete.
5860N 79 08 0 8 0 t' '/ A
2 r
DetailsSection I (Prepared by J. R. Costello)
A.
Persons Contacted C. J. Bordo, Engineer D. D. Boyle, Assistant Project Engineering Manager W. C. Carney, Assistant Supervisor Vendor Surveillance H. E. Flora, Supervising Nuclear Engineer S. G. Kasturi, Supervising Instrumentation and Control Enginet.
R. H. Marsh. Manager Quality Services W. R. Morrison, Supervising Engineer Vendor Surveillance G. J. Neuberger, Administrator Foreign Print Group J. J. Parisano, Supervising Piping Engineer W. B. Pauling, Supervising Mechanical Services Engineer W. B. Robinson, Supervising Electrical Engineer J. A. Talvacchio, Electrical Engineer B.
Action on Previous Inspectier. Findings 1.
(0 pen) Deviation (Report No. 78-04):
Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, and WNP-1 PSAR some vendor drawings were not reviewed by the UE&C Reliability and Quality Assurance Department.
This method of not reviewing all crawings for inclusion of quality requirements appears to be inconsistent with NRC requirements and has been forwarded to NRR:QAB as an item for further consideration.
2.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Report No. 79-01):
It is not apparent whether the Vendor Surveillance Representative is verifying that the applicaole procedures submitted to UE&C have been reviewed and approved as required in Section A of the UE&C Vendor Surveillance Check Plan.
The inspector verified that records were available at UE&C showing that the inspectors had reviewed and approved the procedures as required for Ingersoll Rand, Dresser Industries and Gould Pumps which could not be verified in the previous inspection.
In order to prevent similar problems in the future UE&C has revised WPPSS Quality Assurance Procedure QA-7-2 making it mandatory to date the submittal of sections of the Vendor Surveillance Clock Plan and to identify the items covered.
Also, UE&C has scheduled a training seminar for the vendor surveillance people which will cover in detail the proper method of filling out the Vendor Surveillance Check Plans.
C.
Design Verification 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to determine that procedures have been established and are being implemented that:
5860f7
3 a.
Identify individuals or groups who are authorized to perform design verification reviews.
b.
Require the results of the design verification effort to be clearly documented, with the identification of the verifier clearly indicated, and filed so they are identifiable to the document reviewed and can readily be retrieved.
c.
Require that the extent of design verification take into con-sideration the importance to safety, complexity, degree of stan0ardization, state of the art, similarity with previously proven designs, applicablility of standardized or previously proven designs, known problems and their effects, and changes to previously verified designs.
d.
Identify and document the method by which design verification is to be performed.
Identify the items to be considered during design verification e.
by reviews including selection and incorporation of inputs, necessary assumptions, quality and QA requirements, codes, standards, regulations, construction and operating experience, interfaces, design method used, comparison of output with input, item application suitability, material compatibility, and maintenance features.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
a.
Chapter 17 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) for Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2.
b.
Implementing procedures to satisfy PSAR luality Assurance Program commitments and to satisfy the intent of the objectives section.
These procedures are:
(1) General Engineering and Design Procedure GEDP-0022, Revision 4, Project Level Design Review and Desi,a Specifications.
(2) Genercl Engineering and Design Procedure GEDP-0025, Revision 2, Management Level Design Review by Chief Discipline Engineers.
(3) Qu-lity Assurance Procedure QA-3, Resision 10, Design Control for Seabrook Station.
(4) Quality Assurance Corporate Standard No. III-1, Revision 4, Design Control.
5860C8
4 r
(5) Seabrook Station Administrative Procedure No. 21, Revision 2, Conduct of Design Reviews.
(5) Seabrook Station Administrative Procedure No. 28, Revision 3, General Engineering and Design Procedures (GEDPs).
c.
Documents to verify implementation of PSAR Quality Assurance Program commitments and to satisfy the intent of the objectives section. The documents are as follows:
(1) Design Review Control Logs for Mechanical, Mechanical Services, Instrumentation and Control, Nuclear, and Structural disciplines.
(2) Management Level Design Review Status Reports dated March 8, 1979; October 27, 1978; September 29, 1978; June 27, 1975; and May 30, 1975.
(3) System Description Master Index - Seabrook Generating Station, May 14, 1979.
(4) Design Reviews:
(a) Post-LOCA Combustible Gas Control (b) Service Water and Ultimate Heat Sink (c) Control and Diesel Generator Buildino (d) Combustible Gas Control System Part 1 - Post LOCA Hydrogen Control System Part 2 - Hydrogen Recombiner Specification (e) Containment Building General Arrangement Drawings (f) Containment Cooling System (5) System Design Descriptions:
(a)
SD-23, Primary Component Cooling Water System (b)
SD-29, Combustible Gas Control System (c)
SD-33, Radioactive Gaseous Waste System (d)
SD-47, Diesel Generator System Heating and Ventilating System 5860C9
5 r
(e) SD-76, Diesel Generator (Electrical)
)
SD-92, Seismic Monitoring (5) Specifications:
(a) 9763-006-3-1, Containment Shell Rebar Model (b) 9763-006-205-3, Hydrogen Recombiner Post-LOCA Application Non-Inerted Containment (c) ^763-006-248-8, Pipe Supports (d) 9763-006-283-3, Containment Spray System and Fuel Pool Pumps (6) Drawings:
(a) 9763-F805005, Reactor Coolant System, Loop No. 3 (b) 9763-F-805023, Containment Spray System (c) 9763-805554, Reactor Coolant System Loop Piping Arrangement (d) 9763-F-202069 & 202070, Diesci Generator Building Plans above Grade General Arianagement 3.
Findings Deviations In this area of inspection, no devit'. ions from commitment were identified.
Unresolved Item It is not apparent who is to maintain the Design Review Control Logs, how much detail is to be maintained in the logs and how to determine when a Management Level Design Review is complete.
Administrative Procedure No. 21 (Seabrook Station) and General Engineering and Design Procedure GEDP-0025 appear to be in conflict on whether the design disciplines or the Document Control Center will maintain the Design Review Control Logs.
Examination of Design Review Control Logs in the Document Control Center show 586010
6 varying degrees of completeness in filling out the entrica on the log.
Examination of Design Review Requests (bRRs) taken from Des.gn Review Control Logs show some DRRs approved with comments, but there was no way to determine when or if the comments were incorporated to complete the design review.
D.
Exit Meeting A meeting was conducted with management representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on May 25, 1979.
In addition to the individuals indicated -
by an asterisk in the Details Sections, those in attendance were:
L. Bilk, Chief Electrical Engineer, Power T. C. Chang, Mechaaical Engineer G. F. Cole, Project Manager D. H. Rhoads, Project Engineering Manager K. C. Robertson, Project Operations and Controls Manager D. J. Stride, Project Administrator R. J. Vurpillat, Assistant Department Manager Reliability and Quality Assurance The inspector, with the assistance of the other inspection team member, summarized the scope and findings of the inspection for those present at the meeting.
Particular emphasis was placed on securing proper corrective and preventive action for the design inspection deviation iden*.ified during this inspection.
Management representatives acknowledged the statements of the inspectors.
5SGC11
7 DetailsSection II (Prepared by D. G. Anderson)
A.
Persons Contacted R. M. Anzalone, Acting Supervising Mechanical Engineer J. S. Booi, Group Leader
- M. Botshon, Assistant Project Engineering Manager J. R. Browning, Structural Engineer E. W. Hageman, Supervising Piping Engineer R. P. Harris, Stress Analyst B. J. Huselton, Project Engineering Manager J. J. Jones, Piping Design Supervisor
- R. H. Leonard, Assistant Department Manager M. P. McKenna, Assistant Pipe Support Manager Z. B. Olszewski, Supervising Mechanical Analysis Engineer Dr. R. F. Perry, Manager, Mechanical Analysis G. Rigamonti, Assistant Chief, Power Engineering B. B. Scott, Supervising Structural Engineer E. Skolnick, Lead Engineer J. J. Ucci#erro, Manager, Structural Analysis
- G. Valentenyi, Assistant Project Engineering Manager
- Indicates attendance at the exit meeting.
B.
Design Inspection 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to select a single component, system, structure, or major part of one of these and verify that:
Design inp'ts are identified and include all applicable require-a.
ments; documented; reviewed and approved; specified on a timely basis and in necessary detail; prepared, processed, and controlled in accordance with applicable procedures; accurate in specifying design requirements, particularly design codes and standards; and distributed to those responsible for preparing production designs and associated documents.
~
b.
Design calculations, and' their review and approval, have been performed as prescribed by procedures.
Final design documents have accurately transcribed design input c.
in accordance with procedures.
[586flE3
8 d.
Internal and external design interface responsibilities and activities have been performed in accordance with procedures.
e.
Verification of the design has been properly and effectively performed as prescribed by procedures, including design review (including checking), alternate calculations, and qualification testing where applicable.
f.
Changes to the design, through all design activities fron input to output, have been performed in accordance with procedure requirements.
g.
Design correceive actions have been applied, as necessary, to the design for apolicable activt..es in accordance with procedures.
h.
The design document control system is effective for the item design documents in accordance with procedures.
i.
Procurement doucments have been properly prepared for the item in accordance with procedures and include the necessary documents.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished as follows:
a.
A review of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for Washington Public Power Supply Systems (WPPSS) Units 1 and 4, Section 17.1.3, Design Control, which identifies the requirements imposed upon United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (UE&C) related to '.he design process. The design process related to the WPPSS project is defined, implemented and enforced according to the following procedures:
Project Procedures (WPPSS) PP#5, Specification Preparation, September 12, 1978; P?#8, Control, Preparation, Revision and Distribution of Project Procedures, April 21, 1978; PP#9, Maintenance of Controlled Manuals, June 28, 1978; PP#10, Vendor Document Control, October 18, 1978; PP#11, Design Data Worksheet, October 2 1975; PP#14, Project Level Design Review Procedures, July 10, 1978; PP#16, Calculations, April 29, 1976; PP#18, Project Change Request, March 23, 1979; PP#20, Interface Procedures for Analysis and Support Groups, May 7,1975; PP#21, Drawing Practices and Approvals, August 14,.1978; PP#22, Specification, Systems and Equipment Abbreviations Lists, January 11, 1979; PP#25, Seismic Qualification of Purchased Components, June 4, 1974; PP#28, System Descriptious, March 29, 1976; PP#31, Control of Liceasing Document Commitments, Septenber 22, 1975; PP# 32, Control of Licensing Document Deviations, February 25, 1976; and PP#37, Request for Engineering Information, July 12, 1978.
5S6013
9 b.
The inspector selected the main feedwate: system and the auxiliary feedwater system for WPPSS #1 (Babcock and Wilcox Pressurized Water Reactor) and reviewed the following docu:aents for design input:
(1) Project Conceptual Description, WPPSS, Nuclear Projects No. 1 and 4, which included structural design criteria, and Section 6.0, Seismic Losds, September 30, 1974.
(2) Eystem Descriptions; 3779-S-M-/, Auxiliary Feedwater System (FWA), January 7, 1976.
9779-S-M 5, Main Feedwater System (FWS), September 28, 1978.
c.
The inspector compared the input in b. above with that contained in the WPPSS-PSI R, Unit No. 1, Volume 6, Section 10.4.7, Condensate and Feedwater Systems, and Section 3.7, Seismic Design.
d.
The inspector revsewed the design calculations which produced the inputs identified in b. above in the following:
(1) Calculations:
SAG 3.5.1.1, S,ismic Analysis Including Floor Response Spre ctra, contained in the December 20, 1974, and April 2, 1975, computer printouts.
SAC 3.7, Main Sceam and Feedwater Isolation Valves, dated October 10, 1975, October 1,1975, December 21, 1977, and October 13, 1975.
(2) Piping Isometries:
9779-F-422363, Main Steam System and Feedwater System Isolation Building Isometric, March 16, 1979.
9779-F-422362, Turbine Generator Building Piping Isometric Feedwater Syst em, April 13, 1979.
e.
Thc design verification process was reviewed in the following documents:
(1) Drawings:
9779-S-202'.'io, Process and Instrumentation Diagram-Main Feedwater System, January 3,1979.
586C M
10 9779-S-202541, Process and Instrumentation Diagram-Auxiliary Feedwater System, December 18, 1978.
The inspector verified that these drawings were the same as those in Section 3.2 of the WPPSS/PSAR.
(2) Computer Codes:
RESPECT-A Fortran IV computer program used to compute response spectra from digitized acceleration time-history input.
SAG 019, Users guide for RESPEC';
SAG 019, Verification runs-input / output compared to CDC-DYNRE5/
STARDYNE computer codes, December 8, 1978.
DGRS-A Fortran IV computer program used to compute design ground response spectra in accordance with Regu'atory Guide 1.60.
SAG 027-Verification of DGRS by hand calculation May 2, 1979.
f.
The inspector verified the process for changes to the design in the following documents:
Project Change Requests (PCR):
PCR No. 30, Change in anchor bolt requirements, April 9, 1976.
PCR No. 51, Demineralized Water Storage Tank increase length in eight nozzles, May 23, 1976.
PCR No. 52, PSAR change / Gas waste decay tank automatic isolation valves, May 26, 1976.
PCR No. 58, Change size of main feedwater isolation valves, June 9, 1976.
PCR No, 67, Add feedwater pump characteristic curves, June 28, 1976.
PCR No. 74, Revise nn tie '.ocations on borated water storage tank, June 18, 1976.
PCR No. 94, Steam Generator Isolation valves, June 9,1976.
PCR No. 121, Delete nitrogen blanket on condensate storage tank, undated.
PCR No. 165, New vertical and horizontal response spectra, October 1, 1976.
586015
11 g.
The following documents were traced to 7etify that the document -
control system is being implemented:
(1) Topical Report UEC-TR-001-5A, Controlled Copy No. 132.
(2) Quality Assurance Manual - Controlled copies No. 1,84,and 94.
(3) Project Procedures - Seabrook controlled copy No. 63 and WPPSS No. 25.
(4) Preliminary Safety Analysis Report - Controlled copy No. 15.
h.
UE&C does not have the procurement responsibility for purchase of nuclear components for the WPPSS project, however, the inspector reviewed the following documents used in the procurement process:
Specificationa:
9779-10-2, Feedwater Heaters, August 11, 1975.
9779-11-A-1, and B-1, Tubrine Driven Feedwater Pumps, Mar-h 2, 1979.
9779-12-5, Feedwater Pump Turbine Drives, December 18, 1978.
9779-62-5, Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps, April 11, 1979.
9779-87-5, Steam Generator Isolation Valves (Main Feedwater Isolation Valves), Tune 17, 1976.
9779-243-11, Field Fabricated Tanks (int; ting Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) and Demineralized Water Storage Tank (DWST)), February 3,1975.
3.
Findings a.
In this area of the inspection, no unresolved items were identified.
One (1) deviation from commitment was identified.
(See Notice of Deviation enclosure).
b.
The following are details of the deviation identified in the Notice of Deviation..
In reviewing the technical content of Spccification No. 243, Field Fabricated Tanks, the inspector noted that the response spectra contained in the figures on pages 20A-16, 17, and 18 of this specification were less conservative than those identified in Calculation No. SAG 3.5.1.1, Seismic Analysis Including Floor 588G16
12 Response Spectra.
Since the specifica tion was for the procurement of s orage tanks, including the BWST and the DWST, and since these two tanks are the source of supply for the Safety Injection System and the Auxiliary Feedwater System respectively, the inspector followed up on this discrepancy to establish the state of fabrication.
It appears that the material for both tanks has been purchased (Welk Brothers Metal Products) and shipped to the WPPSS site.
It appears that the reason for this oversight is that these two tanks dic not appear on the Seismic Category I listing and when the calculation was revised in April 1975, the revised seismic response spectra was not incorporated into the specification.
UE&C has indicated that the BWST and DWST will appear on,'he next edition of the Category I listin;, that the change will be documented, that S acification No. 243 will be revised, t
and that the supplier will provide a reanalysis of the design of these tanks.
UE&C corrective action on this deviation will be followed up in a future inspection.
UE&C management was advised by the inspector tha~ NRR/NRC verification of the design reanalysis will be requested.
586017