ML19344F043
| ML19344F043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/02/1980 |
| From: | Agee J, Brickley R, Hale C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344F042 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900522 NUDOCS 8009120335 | |
| Download: ML19344F043 (10) | |
Text
______
U. S. NUCIIAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900522/80-02 Program No. 51200 Company:
Bechtel Power Corporation San Francisco Power Division Post Office Box 3965 San Francisco, California 94119 Inspection at: San Francisco, California Inspection conducted: June 16-20, 1980 Inspectors:
l (
c./
'-2 10 R. H.'frickley, Princ/ pal Inspector Date 0 h h 6Lflu-2a40 J. R. Agre, Contractdr (nspector Date Chx khv 7->so I. T.xYfn, Reactor /Cdastruction Inspector, RIII Date Observer:
- Q Y)
J. Bin 61fi, Nucledr Hegulatory Commission Date Brazil, South America Approved by:
I k
-bb
~
C. J. Hal+3/ Chief Date Program Evaluation Section Summary Inspection on June 16-20, 1980 (99900522/80-02)
Areas Inspected:
Special inspection concerning seismic analysis of as-built safety related piping systems, implementation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B in the areas of design change control and design document control. The inspection involved fifty-five (55) inspector hours on site by three (3) NRC inspectors.
Results:
In the areas inspected no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
)
2 l
DETAILS SECTION I (Prepared by R. H. Brickley & I. T. Yin)
A.
Persons Contacted 1.
Bechtel S. S. Chituis, Assistant Group Supervisor, Stress Group V. Greenwell, QA Supervisor, Audits C. B. Hogg, Group Supervisor, Projects J. D. Laurie, Project QA Engineer 2.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEP)
D. L. Dill, Project Engineer B.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems 1.
Objectives This was a special io;pection of Bechtel/SFPD activities being conducted for the Wi;consin Electric Power Company, (WEP) Point Beach 1 & 2, with respect to IE Bulletin 79-14.
The objectives of this area of the inspection were to examine the Bechtel analysis of various piping systems to determine that:
a.
These activities are being conducted in a documented, planned, and systematic manner.
b.
The inputs to the seismic analysis can be readily identified.
t c.
Identified nonconformances are properly analyzed and the results documented.
2.
. Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were ar.complished by an examination of:
a.
Bechtel procedure (Phase 2 Piping Stt ess Analysis Guidelines I
for Point Beach Nuclear Plant) Revision 1, dated February l
14, 1980.
i l
b.
WEP procedure WMTP 12.6 (Piping Inspection Procedure for NRC IE Bulletin No. 79-14) Revision 1, dated April 10, 1980.
3 c.
Bechtel QA Management Audit of URS/ John Blume & Associates, Engineers dated May 20, 1980.
d.
Bechtel QA Management Audit of Engineering Decision Analysis Company (EDAC) dated May 15, 1980.
e.
Bechtel Calculation No. 1-2 (Main Steam Loop B, 30" EB-1-9) dated April 25, 1980. Note: This calculation supe :seded EDAC Calculation No. 249-051-03.
f.
Bechtel Calculation N,. 2-3 (Feedwater System Loop A Inside Containment, 16".EP-9) dated March 3, 1980.
g.
Bechtel Calculation No. 14-13 (Auxiliary Coolant to and from R.H.R. Heat Exchanger 11A and B) dated June 5, 1980.
h.
Bechtel Calculation No. 14-1 and 14-2 (4" AC-152N-4 System)
Note: Blume Nos. 7924-06-001 and 7924-06-003 respectively.
i.
Bechtel Calculation No. 2-8 (Emergency Feedwater from DB-3 Containment Fenetration P-5, 3" EB-10) 3.
Findings a.
Deviations and Unresolved Items None identified b.
Follow-Up Items (1) The examination of Bechtel procedures revealed that per-sonnel qualification requirements had not been established for subcontractors performing IEB 79-14 activities.
The inspector examined records pertaining to this subject area and concluded that Bechtel's control of its own permanent and temporary employees is adequate. However upcn examin-ation of Bechtel procedures and their audits of their subcontractors the inspector concluded that the IIB 79-14 program should address the following:
(a) That the qualifications of subcontractor personnel performing stress calculations and evaluations be at least equivalent to those of Bechtel personnel performing similar activities.
.--v-
4 (b) That subcontractor personnel be employed for a sufficient period prior to assignment to IE3 79 1.4 activities that management can verify that they are qualified to perform their assignment.
(c) That the subcontractor naintain sufficient control over " Job Shoppers" including verification of the individual's educational background and work experience.
The above items will be examined further during a future inspection.
(2) The examination of Bechtei Calculation No. 2-3 revealed the following two (2) apparent errors:
(a) The pipe anchor was modeled at the surface of the containment instead of at the flued head weld joint.
(b) The pipe coordinates at one offset location were incorrectly modeled in the computer program.
These items will be examined further during a future inspi ction.
(3) The examination of Bechtel Calculation No. 14-13 revealed that the location coordinates of pipe anchors at contain-ment penetrations were not calculated correctly. This appeared to be a generic problem. Two (2) additional items for follow-up were also identified:
(a) The combination of loads for the common anchor frca two (2) different calculations should be analyzed.
(b) The seismic effects on flued head expansion joints including possible torsional moments on the joints should ha analyzed.
These items will be examined further during a future inspection.
(4) The examination of Bechtel Calculations No. 14-1 and 14-2 revealed that they had incorrectly modeled the pipe offsrt at the containment penetration.
This item will be examined further during a future inspection.
5 (5) The examination of Bechtel Calculation No. 2-8 and hand calculations performed by Bechtal for the three (3) required additional pipe restraints indicated that structural' deflection was not considered.
The Licensee representative and Bechtel engineers stated that criteria of structural deflection limitation or spring stiffness will be developed for:
(a) Component supports where new calculations show load increases.
(b) Modified supports because of load increases.
(c) New supports added because of pipe system over stresses.
This item will be examined further during a future inspection.
Note:
The Region III inspector examined a number of items during this inspection that related to items previously identified as "open" in Report No. 50-266/80-03; 50-301/80-02 and identified other items during this inspection that pertain principally to WEP. The areas of inspection and the results will be documented in Inspection Report No. 50-266/80-11; 50-301/80-11, to be issued to WEP by Region III.
C.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held with management representatives on June 20, 1980.
In addition to those individuals indicated by.an asterisk in paragraph A of each Details Section those in attendance were:
C. W. Dick, Manager, Divison QA D. W. Halligan, Vice President and Deputy Division Manager D. B. Hardie, Supervisor, Quality Engineering D. R. Johnson, Chief Construction QC Engineer W. T. Kellerman, QA Supervisor, Programs J. K. Leslie, for the Manager, Engineering F. Plutchak, QA Supervisor, Projects D. Stoker, Manager of Projects The inspector discussed the scope and findings of the inspection.
Managtment comments were generally for clarification only, or acknowl-edgement of the statements by the inspector.
6 DetailsSection II (Prepared by J. R. Agee)
A.
Persons Contacted L. J. Anderson, Project Quality Engineer S. T. Cozzens, Project Quality Engineer J. J. Dowd, Project Administrator T. J. Flickinger, Quality Assurance Engineer
- D. B. Hardie, Supervisor Quality Engineering G. L. Moulton, Project Quality Assurance Engineer
- H. B. Norris, QA. Supervisor
- Attended the exit interview B.
Design Change Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
Procedures have been established and implemented for controlling a.
changes to approved design documents.
b.
Design changes are:
(1) reviewed for the impact of the change l
(2) documented as to the action taken, and (3) transmitted to all affected persons and organizations.
c.
The design changes are justified and subjected to review and approval by the same groups or organizations as the original design.
d.
Procedures have been established and implemented for controlling field changes affecting final design and installations.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by review of the following documents for Projects 10855 and 11760:
a.
Engineering Department Procedure (EDP) 4.47 Drawing Change Notice, Revision 2, February 28, 1977.
b.
EDP 4.49 Project Specifications, Revision 10, May 4, 1979.
c.
EDP 4.37 Design Calculations, Revision 2, May 27, 1976.
~
7 d.
EDP 4.46, Project Drawings, Revision 3, May 27, 1976, Paragraph 5.0 Coordination, Review and Approval.
e.
EDP 4.62, Field Change Request / Field Change Notice, Revision 3, December 21, 1976.
f.
EDP 4.2 Generic Engineering Documents, Revision 2, September 28, 1979, Section 4.7, Deviation Control; Section 4.8 Change Control, Section 4.9 Records, g.
Electrical Drawings E-1804-2, Rev. 1; E-1813-2, Rev. 1; E-1873-2, Rev. 1; E-1883-2, Rev. 1; E-1823-2, Rev. 1; E-1833-2, Rev. 1; and E-1854-2, Rev. 2, for the Raceway Plan, Turbine Bldg.
h.
EDP 2.13, Project Engineering Team Organization and Responsi-bilities, Revision 0, January 3, 1975.
i.
EDP 5.25, Project Master Distribution Schedule (PMDS),
Revision 1, October 18, 1974.
J.
Administrative Department Procedure (ADP) 2.1 Records Management, Revision 1, June 14, 1978.
k.
ADP 2.2, Operations Of Project Records Processing Center, Revision 1, June 21, 1979.
1.
ADP 2.3-1, Microfilming Bechtel Design Drawings.
m.
Project Procedures Manual (PPM), Project Engineering Instruction (PEI), No.1, Request for Design Change (RDC) Processing Procedure, Revision 7, April 30, 1979.
a.
RDC 77-039(m), Hydrogen Supply System to Generator.
o.
RDC 79-080(d) Power Supply to the Telemetering and Meteorological Tower.
p.
RDC 79-064(e), Status Indication for Auxiliary Feedwater System Manual Valves, q.
RDC Work List dated May 23, 1980.
l t
,-*,w vg-
,w---
w
<9,m y-q g
9
--w*-
g
-m-y
8 r.
Field Change Request (FCR) E-259, and related engineering-drawing E-1572, Revision 2, Raceway Plan, Reactor Building Area 21, Plan Elevation 77'0".
s.
Work Plan / Procedure-4/(WP/P-4) Field Control of Project Design Documents, Amendment 2, March 21, 1980.
t.
WP/P-5, Field Change Request / Field Change Notice, Amendment No. 2, April 12, 1979.
u.
WP/P-10, Field Design Approval and Control, Amendment 2, April 12,.1979.
3.
Findings a.
General Project 10855 is in advanced stages of design and construction.
Documentation for design change control functions for the project appear to have been implemented in compliance with the procedures listed above. Microfilm of selected drawings, specifications and calculations was retrieved from the record storage center which confirmed the implementation and adequacy of the design change control system described by the procedures identified.
b.
Deviations and Unresolved Items None were ideatified.
c.
Follow Uo Itens The EDP Manual displaying the project organization chart and the procedure describing the project organizational structure are not in agreement for the project administrator's position.
C.
Design Document Control 1.
Objectives To determine that approved procedures have been established and are being implemented for the control and distribution of design documents that provide for:
a.
Identification of personnel positions or organizations responsi-ble for preparing, reviewing, approving, and issuing design documents.
l
9 b.
Identification of the proper documents to be used in performing the design.
~
c.
Coordination'and control of design (internal and external) inter-face documents.
d.
Ascertaining that proper documents, and revisions thereto, are accessible and are being used, Establishing distribution lists which are updated and maintained e.
current.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives for Projects 10855 and 11760 were accomp-lished by review of the following documents:
Engineering Department Procedure (EDP) 2.13 Project Engineer-a.
ing Team Organization and Responsibilities, Revision 0, January 3, 1975.
b.
Project Procedures Manual (PPM), Project Engineering Instruc-tion (PEI) No.1, RDC (Request for Design Change) Processing Procedure, Revision 7, April 30,1979.
EDP 4.2 Generic Engineering Documents, Revision 2, September 28, c.
1979.
d.
EDP 4.4, Project Design Standards and References, Revision 1, October 18, 1974.
e.
EDP 4.8, Chief Engineer's Design Instructions, Revision 0, September 19, 1975.
l f.
EDP 4.34, Off-Project Design Review (Design Control Checklist and Design Review Notice), Revision 7, May 4, 1979.
g.
EDP 4.13, Project Scope Book, Revision 0, January 3,1975.
h.
EDP 4.25, Design Interface Control, Revision 1, October 18, 1974.
3.
Findings l
l l
a.
General Project 11760 This project concerns design and construction modifications to be l
implemented in a licensed and operating plant. Paragraphs B.2.n.,
l B.2.o., and B.2.p. identify some of the requests for design
O 10 ct".uges (RDCs) for modifications to be made on this project. The design document control for the design and design changes for the modifications appears in compliance with the applicable procedures identified above. The same procedu es apply to initial project design.
b.
Deviations and Unresolved Items None were identified.
c.
Follow Up Items (1) The EDP manual displaying the project organization chart and the procedure describing the project organizational structure are not in agreement for the project admin-istrator's position.
(2) One (1) microfilm card out of a random selection of ten (10) drawing numbers could not be located.
I l
r l
l
,