ML19282C815
| ML19282C815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/20/1979 |
| From: | Brickley R, Hale C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282C814 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900522 NUDOCS 7905030150 | |
| Download: ML19282C815 (8) | |
Text
.
4 VENDOR INSPECTION REPORT U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900522/79-02 Program No. 51200 Company:
Bechtel Power Corporation San Francisco Power Division 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94119 Inspection Conducted:
February 5-8, 1979 Inspector: 7,M,3/tud'dci g./.to/77 R. H. Brickley, Pr24ipal Inspector, Date Vendor Inspection Branch h
Approved by:
L x x Q
A4099 C. J. { tale,)Cht'ef, Program Evaluation Section, Date Vendo M nspection Branch Summary Inspection on February 5-8, 1979 (99900522/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, in the areas of action on previous inspection findings, pipe support fillet welds, control of drawings and calculations, and design inspection-containment spray system.
The inspection involved twenty-eight (28) inspector-hours on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the four (4) areas inspected there were no deviations or unresolved items identified.
770soso tso
. DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted
- W. Greenwell, QA Supervisor, Audits
- W. T. Kellermann, QA Supervisor, Programs
- H. B. Norris, QA Supervisor, Projects
- F. Plutchak, QA Supervisor, Projects D. J. Schmit, Engineer
- M. J. Scholtens, Nuclear Group Leader R. J. Tosetti, Supervisor, Radiological Assessment B. C. Woodley, Mechanical Group Supervisor
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
B.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Deviation (Report No. 78-02): Two (2) examples of a failure to follow procedures in the area of QA records.
The inspector verified the completion of the corrective actions and preventive measures con-tained in Bechtel's response to the inspection report dated July 5, 1978, i.e., the issuance of the Administrative Services Department proce-dures and the completion of the QA Management audit.
C.
Pipe Support Fillet Welds 1.
Objtetive The objective of this area of the inspection was to examine pipe support drawings to determine that the specified size of the fillet welds meet the requirements of subparagraph XVII-2452.1 (Minimum Size of Fillet Welds) of Appendix XVII (Desi Type Supports by Linear Elastic and Plastic Analysis)gn of Linear to Section III of the ASME Code.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
a.
Management Corrective Action Report (MCAR) No. 11, dated December 6,1978, reporting that seven (7) out of twenty-seven (27) drawings checked on Project No. 10855 specified fillet welds that were undersize with respect to Code requirements. Note: Bechtel representatives stated that this was their only project that was committed to this Code requirement that was far enough along to have completed these drawings.
. b.
Interoffice Memorandum (IOM) dated January 3,1979, in response to MCAR No. 11 stating that Pipe Support Instruc-tion (PSI) No. 7 (Minimum Size of Fillet Welds and Maximum Effective Size of Fillet Welds) was issued on December 18, 1978, (copy attached) and that training had been conducted on the instruction.
c.
Records of training conducted on PSI No. 7.
d.
IOM, dated January 22, 1979, in further response to MCAR No.11 reporting that two hundred forty-five (245) out of thirteen hundred fifty (1350) Q classified pipe support drawings checked on Project No.10855 specified fillet welds that were undersize with respect to Code requirements.
Note: As of the date of this inspection, all drawings had been revised; however, QA had not closed out the MCAR.
3.
Findings There were no deviations or unresolved items identified.
D.
Drawing and Calculation Control 1.
Objectives a.
Verify that Bechtel procedures assure that current drawings are available and used.
b.
Verify that Bechtel procedures assure that changes made to calculations during the review process are verified by the originator and that this verification is documented.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
a.
Engineering Department Procedure (EDP)-4.46 (Project Drawings)
Revision 3, issued May 27, 1976.
b.
EDP-4.37 (Design Calculations), Revision 2, issued May 27, 1976.
3.
Findings a.
Section 6.0 (Issuing of Drawings) of EDP-4.46 was found to require all drawings, except those issued for inhouse review,
. to have its status recorded in the form of a revision note, e.g., " Issued for Also, where applicable, issued drawings shall be stamped to indicate the purpose of restrictions on release of the drawings, e.g., Preliminary - flot to Be Used for Construction, Information Only - flot to Be Used for Construction, Super-seded, etc.
In addition, paragraph 7.7 of Section 7.0 (Drawing Revision and Logs) requires each project to main-tain a drawing control log or utilize the computer program
" CEBUS" (Control of Engineering Budgets and Schedules) both of which provide identification of the latest current revi-sion of drawings. This system, coupled with internal audits and the required independent review of design activities which checks to assure that the current issue of design documents was utilited, appears to meet the intent of paragraph 7.1.4 of Section 7.0 (Document Control) of ANSI f145.2.ll-1974 which states that ascertaining that proper documents are accessible and are in fact being used might be accomplished by several schemes including the periodic issuance of master drawing or specification lists (such lists could provide a reference for auditing).
b.
Paragraph 7.3 of Section 7.0 (Procedure) to EDP-4.37 (Design Calculations), Revision 2, issued May 27, 1976, was found to require that the originator of the calculation perform the following activities after the checker has completed his review:
(1) Re-examine the calculation.
(2) Correct the original calculation sheets, as required.
(3) Obtain concurrence of checker that originals are correct by obtaining the checker's initials on the cover sheet and on each calculation sheet, unless alternate calcu-lations are provided to validate design.
This process was verified during the examination of the calculations identified in paragraph E.2.c., E.2.d.,
and E.2.e., below.
c.
There were no deviations or unresolved items identified.
E.
Design Inspection - Containment Spray System 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify for the containment spray stem that:
a.
Design criteria, requirements and commitments, as listed in the SAR, were utilized in design input durir.g system and component design.
b.
Analyses of containment spray pump net positive suction head (NPSH) during all phases of operation follow the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.1.
c.
Design analyses establish the capability of the system to provide flow at rates and temperature which result in heat removal rates consistent with those utilized in the LOCA and/or main steam line break analyses.
d.
Specifications and/or procurement documents for system com-ponents require them to be designed, fabricated, erected and tested in accordance with applicable ASME Section III at.d 10 CFR 50. Appendix B, requirements.
Provisions and plans have been marae for pre-operational and e.
operational testing consistent with SAR commitments and statements.
f.
The analysis (design) of system spray coverage supports SAR commitments and statements.
g.
The system design for pH control including analyses of pH versus time after system actuation supports SAR commitments and statements.
h.
Provisions to prevent trapping of chemical additives imple-ment SAR commitments.
i.
Calculations of iodine removal constants, use parameters, and system characteristics are consistent with those in items a-h, above.
j.
Iodine removal constants used in the analyses of the radio-logical consequences of a LOCA are consistent with item i.,
above.
. 2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
a.
Sections 6.2.2. (Containment Heat Removal Sys tem), 6.2.3.
(Containment Air Purification and Cleanup System), and associated tables and figures, e.g., 6.2-1, 6.2-19, 6.2-20, and 6.2-35; and Section 17.2 (Quality Assurance During Design and Construction - Bechtel Power Corporation) of Project No. 10363.PSAR for the technical and programmatic commitments.
b.
GE Master Parts List No. 283x235DB (P.esidual Heat Removal (RHR)
System), Section A, Revision 12, dated August 1, 1978, GE Design Specification No. 22A3139 (RHR System), Revision 5, dated February 1,1977, GE Design Data Sheet No. 22A3139AC (RHR System),
Revision 5, dated February 1, 1978, and the project Mechanical and Plant Design - Design Criteria Manual, Revision 2, dated Marci 8,1978, and procedures EDP-4.37 (Design Calculations),
Revision 2, issued May 27,1976, EDP-4.46 (Project Drawings),
Revision 3, issued May 27, 1976, and EDP-4.49 (Project Specifications), Revision 2, issued May 27, 1976, of the Engineering Department Procedures Manual to determine that they were consistent with SAR commitments.
Calculation No. EJ-l (RHR-NPSH), Revision 1, dated July 3, c.
1975, to verify that it satisfied E.1.a., E.1.b., and the requirements of the applicable documents of E.2.b., above.
d.
Calculation No. EJ-8 (RHR Containment Spray Design), Revision 0, dated October 7,1976, to verify that it satisfies E.1.a.,
E.1.f., and the requirements of the applicable documents of E.2.b., above.
Calculation Nos.15 (Calculation of 2 Hour Site Boundary e.
and LPZ Thyroid Dose After LOCA Assuming Iodine Removal by Containment Sprays), Revision 0, dated December 13,1975, and 47 (LOCA Doses - Revision to Calculation Nos.15 and 46 for Changes in Leakage Rates and X/Q), Revision 0, dated September 29, 1977, to verify that they satisfied E.1.i.,
E.1.j., and the requirements of the applicable documents of E.2.b., above.
f.
Specification Nos. P1301 (Q) A (Design Specification for ASME Section III Gate, Globe, and Check Valves 2-1/2 inches and Larger - 150-400# Pressure Rating), Revision 1, dated June 23,1978, and P 301 (Q) A (Technical Specification for ASME Section III Gate, Globe, and Check Valves 2-h inches
. and larger - 150-400# Pressure Rating) Revision 1, dated June 23, 1978, to verify that they satisfied E.1.d. and the requirements of the applicable documents of E.2.b.,
above.
g.
Drawing Nos.1-P2-EJ-12 and 13 (System Isometric - RHR "B" Containment Spray), Revision
, dated May 1978, and 1-P2-EJ-24 and 25 (System Isometric - Rh "A" Containment Spray),
Revision 1, dated May 1978, t erify that they satisfied E.2.d. and the requirements of one applicable documents of E.2.b., above.
3.
Findings a.
This project is a BWR, therefore objectives E.1.g. and E.1.h. are not applicable.
b.
The examination of calculation No.15 (paragraph E.2.e.)
revealed the following:
(1) An iodine. partition coefficient (H) of 370 was used to calculate the decontamination factor (DF) of 50 for elemental iodine which was used in the thyroid dose calculation.
Section 8.3.4 of ANSI N581 (PWR and BWR Containment Spray Sys'.em Design Criteria), Draft 7, June 1977, allows use of an H of 100 when no chemical additives are utilized as in this case. With this restriction (H=100) the inspector calculated a DF=13.6 for this project.
Referring to Section 6. 2. 3. 3. 2.1 (Iodine Retention by Spray Solution) of the project PSAR the inspector verified that a DF of 50 based on an H of 390 (not 370) was identified to NRR, therefore no further action by NRC:IV is contemplated.
(2) On page 4 an error of a factor of 10 5.as identified in the calculation of a sprayed volume (equation (a)), and on page 24a the inputs to a computer program that deter-mines the iodine removal rate constant used 346 spray nozzles with a flow rate / nozzle of 15.2 gpm.
There are 372 nozzles per calculation No. EJ-8.
Discussions with Bechtel engineers revealed that these errors were in the conservative direction and would have no significant effect on the final results.
(3) On page 41 the volumes listed to determine Vc and V were in error, i.e., Vc=V +V +V5 should have been V =V + z+V5 2 3 c l
.... and V =V +V +V4shouldhavebeenV=V+V+y4 Engineering b 1 2
b 2 3 personnel demonstrated that the error was in the identifica-tion of the volumes used and not the values, i.e., the calculated Vc and Vb were correct.
F.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held with management representatives on February 8, 1979.
In addition to those individuals indicated by an asterisk in paragraph A, those in attendance were:
R. D. Allen, Vice President and Division Manager H. Friend, Manager, Division Engineering S. I. Heisler, Manager, Division QA D. R. Johnson, Chief Construction QC Engineer T. Y. Mullen, Manager of Projects J. B. Violette, QA Manager, T.P.O.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Management comments were generally for clarification only, or acknowledg-ment of the statements by the inspector.