ML19351E859
| ML19351E859 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/08/1980 |
| From: | Costello J, Hale C, Jerrica Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351E850 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900507 NUDOCS 8012190454 | |
| Download: ML19351E859 (10) | |
Text
. _.
O u s suctE^a xEcutiroar conatsston OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900507/80-02 Program No. 51200 Company:
Sargent & Lundy Engineers 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 Inspection at: Chicago, Illinois Inspection Conducted:
September 15-19, 1980 Inspectors:
b.
h d#/,
14/r /fd K R. Costello, Principal Inspector Date RrdramEvaluationSection Vendor Inspection Branch Y r1.
N / P/ Fo g' M./J,ehnson, Contractor Auditor Date J
~
Progr.am Evaluation Section Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by:
k k, h cbJh A
dO !LE,
/s/r/fo 7.f. Hale, Chief l
Q Date Po gram Evaluation Section Vendor Inspection Branch Summarv Inspection on September 15-19, 1980 (99900507/80-02)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of Sargent & Lundy Topical Report SL-TR-1A, Revision 5, in the areas of design process management, followup on IE Bulletin l
79-14, and action on previous inspection findings. The inspection involved sixty-two (62) hours on site by two (2) USNRC inspectors.
Results:
In the three (3) areas inspected there were no unresolved items.
Two (2) deviations were identified in ne (1) area.
Deviations:
Design Process Management - (1) Contrary to commitment, there are no procedures / measures which require obsoleting, recalling or identifying non-current drawing prints.
(Notice of Deviation, Item A).
(2) Contrary to procedural requirements, the project drawing list *.as not updated to show the current revision of a structural drawing.
(Notice of Deviation.. Item B.)
~
8012190 VSY
I i
2 DETAILS SECTION I (Prepared by J. R. Costello)
A.
Persons Contacted NRC Region III I. T. Yin, Reactor Inspector 1
Commonwealth Edison Company K. J. Arber, Technical Staff Engineer, Zion G. Marcus, Director of Quality Assurance J. Reiss, SNED Engineer T. Tramm, Project Engineer Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation K. Y. Chu, Manager EMD P. Dunlop, Assistant Engineering Manager Sargent & Lundy S. E. Azzazy, Project Engineer, Engineering Mechanics Division F. B. Branch, Head Engineering Mechanics Division
- A.
P. Gillis, Senior Quality Assurance Coordinator R. H. Hooks, Supervisor Structural Design Engineering R. H. Jason, Project Manager G. T. Kitz, Assistant Head, Engineering Mechanics Division
' *G. C. Kuhlman, Jr., Assistant Manager Mechanical Department W. J. Kulinski, Project Supervisor i
R. M. McCluer, Assistant Chief Structural Design Engineering l
R. M. Tamera, Project Leader C. A. Zalesiak, Structural Engineer
- Denotes those present at post inspection conference on September 19, 1980.
3.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings 1.
(Closed) Followup Item (Report No.-79-03): Where drawings stated rigid seismic restraints, many pipe restraint attachment lugs had slots of h" to Also, on hanger drawings examined where axial l
forces exist, no shear lugs had been installed to prevent shippage.
The bulk of IE Bulletin 79-14 work for Zion was assigned to Stone
& Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W).
Sargent & Lundy's (S&L) scope.
i of work was very limited and was restricted to analyzing and preparing l
l l
3 recommendations for all gross deviations reported from the field, analyzing three (3) subsystems (2SW-36, SW-31 & SW-16) and furnishing the necessary original design information to S&W and CECO (Commonwealth Edison Company). Any reanalysis necessary for the remaining systems and subsystems will be done by S&W. During this inspection, I.T. Yin was furnished three (3) papers by S&L regarding slotted holes on rigid seismic restraints which he will review to determine if any further analysis is required by S&W.
In regard to the lack of shear lugs, S&L determined that torquing of the pipe clamp bolts was required, and a letter dated October 3,1979, was forwarded to CECO to that effect.
The torquing has not been done yet and S&W is presently reanalyzing this requirement. Since S&L has no further responsibility regarding this followup item, the item is considered closed.
2.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 80-01): No interface comments were obtained on some design drawings requiring interface comments and the date comments were received were not always entered in the log.
The drawings identified in the finding were resubmitted for comments and have been returned with proper comments and are properly logged.
A followup audit was conducted and some additional cases were found which are being corrected.
3.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 80-01): Mechanical Department Standard MAS-4 does not describe a method for verifying and documenting when correction of outstanding discrepancies has been completed.
MAS-4 has been revised and reissued. The revised standard provides for a new review status CU, (review is completed, but connents still unre-solved). This new review status was needed for those cases where comments cannot be resolved until later, sometimes as late as final installation.
This additional classification provides a means of distinguishing between a design review completed with all comments resolved versus a design review completed with some comments unresolved.
C.
Followup on IE Bulletin 79-14 This area of inspection was a followup to a previous USNRC Region III/
Region IV inspection that covered IE Bulletin 79-14 related work for the Zion project. This inspection was conducted at the Sargent & Lundy facilities in Chicago on September 24-26, 1979, and was reported in inspection report i
99900507/79-03.
I 1.
Obiectives a.
Determine if the followup items identified in the 79-03 report have been satisfactorily resolved.
4 b.
Determine if the Zion project procedures developed for the IE Bulletin 79-14 related work have been implemented in a satisfactory manner.
c.
Review Sargent & Lundy's implementation of their IE Bulletin 79-14 scope of work for the Zion project.
d.
Review the operation of the interfaces between Sargent & Lundy, Stone & Webster, and Commonwealth Edison Company.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by examination of the docu-ments listed below.
This was a joint effort of Region III and Region IV inspectors.
LS#1 dated 8/17/79 - Zion Station, Commonwealth Edison Company, a.
IE Bulletin 79-14 Gross Deviation Log Sheet.
b.
Project Instruction PI-ZI-06, "IE Bulletin 79-14 Procedure for Processing the As-Built Information from the Station Inspection,"
revision 2 dated 9/5/80.
c.
EMD File No.019074, " Criteria for Determining Deviations from Seismic Analysis Inputs for Zion Station Units Nos. 1 & 2, Common-wealth Edison Company," Revision 00, dated 8/14/79.
d.
2SW-36, Service Water Subsystem e.
SW-31, Service Water Subsystem f.
SW-16, Service V4ter Subsystem g.
CCH-1508, Hanger for Subsystem CC-8A classified as a gross deviation requiring modification.
h.
Letter, Pipe Clamp Torquing Requirements from J. C. LaVallee, Project Manager, Sargent & Lundy to N. E. Vandke Superintendent Commonwealth Edison Company, dated October 30, 1979.
i.
Letter from R. H. Jason, Mechanical Project Engineer, Sargent
& Lundy to T. R. Tramm. Zion Project Engineer, dated June 20, 1980,
Subject:
Transmittal of New Restraint Drawings M-SWH-107X
& 207X, Revision A.
3.
Background Information a.
IE Bulletin 79-14 related work was split between Sargent & Lundy 6
5 Engineers (S&L) and Stone & Webster Engineering Corpo;ation (S&W). Approximately 10% to 20% of the work load wa>, assigned to S&L.
b.
S&L was assigned the job of doing all gross deviations, and three (3) subsystems 2SW-16, SW-31 and SV-16.
c.
The original design was done by S&L.
Commonwealth Edison (CECO) contracted with S&W to do the walk-thru. This information was then transmitted to CECO who in turn transmitted it to S&L and S&W.
S&L analyzed all gross deviations and forwarded their recommendations to CECO. They also reanalyzed three subsystems (2SW-36, SW-31, & SW-16). S&W was responsible for all other reanalysis and preparation of as built drawings.
d.
I. T. Yin of Region III has completed inspections at both S&W and S&L. The results of his inspections are published in Region III Report No. 50-295/30-19; 50-304/80-19.
4 Findings _
There were no deviations, unresolved items or followup items.
a.
b.
The two followup items from the 79-03 inspection were grouped as one item and closed out (See I.B.1).
Any additional followup on these items will be done at Stone & Webster.
c.
S&L's work on the Zion 79-14 project is essentially complete.
Examination of S&L's implementation of their 79-14 program did not develop any adverse comments.
d.
Discussions with S&W, S&L, and CECO personnel indicated their interface operations were satisfactory.
D.
Post Inspection Conference A post inspection conference was held with management representatives on September 19, 1980.
In addition to the individuals indicated by an asterisk in the details sections,. those in attendance were:
L. E. Ackmann, Director of Services W. A. Chittenden, Director of Engineering
- 3. A. Erler, Structural Design & Drafting Division Head J. E. McFarland, Head Quality Assurance Division J. M. McLaughlin, Structural Department Manager H. M. Stroka, Project Director H. S. Taylor, Assistant Head, Quality Assurance Division e
,,e v
,- -, -a-
-- +
y
-v--
e,
- - - ~ -. -. -. -....
4 i
a; 6
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection for those present at the post inspectioc, conference. Management representatives acknowledged the statements of the inspector.
9 O
a 1
e i
l i
)
i d
F
?
3 p
s i
i l
I-f
7 DETAILS SECTION II (Prepared by J.M. Johnson)
A.
Persons Contacted K. Baker, Project Supervisor (Design and Drafting)
C. F. Brown, Mechanical Engineer W. Dingler,' Licensing Project Engineer J. Dudeck, Senior QC Coordinator H. M. Guill, Senior Structural Draftsman
- R. C. Heider, Project Manager, Clinton M. L. Jacobs, Engineering Assistant J. A. Patel, Supervisor, Design Engineering, Structural Department T. J. Ryan, Assistant Chief, Design Engineering
- M. J. Shewski, Mechanical Engineer
- A.
J. Skale, QA Coordinator E. Steinweg, Designer
- Denotes those present at exit meeting.
B.
Design Process Management 1.
Objective The objective of this area of inspection was to examine the establish-ment and implementation of quality related procedures for the design process to verify that:
a.
The design process system is defined, implemented, and enforced in accordance with approved procedures, instructions, or other documentation for all groups performing safety related design activities.
b.
Design inputs are properly prescribed and used for translation into specifications, drawings, instructions, or procedures.
c.
Appropriate quality standards for items important to safety are identified, documented, and their selection reviewed and approved.
d.
Final design can be related to the design input with this trace-ability documented, including the steps performed from design input to final design.
e.
Design activities are documented in sufficient detail to permit design verification and auditing.
a w
-g-,
-m,
-.-,w,,
.y
8 f.
The methods are prescribed for preparing design analyses, drawings, specifications, and other design documents so that they are planned, controlled, and correctly performed.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
a.
Sargent and Lundy Topical Report SL-TR-1, Revision 5 (Sargent and Lundy Quality Assurance Program Manual):
(1) Section 02.00, QA Program (2) Section 03.00, Design Control b.
Sargent and Lundy General Quality Assurance Procedures:
(1)
GQ-3.04, Design Criteria (2)
GQ-3.07, Sargent and Lundy Drawings (3)
GQ-3.08, Design Calculations (4)
GQ-3.09, Foreign Design Documents (5)
GQ-3.10, System and Structure Design Reviews (6)
GQ-3.13, Engineering Change Notices (7)
GQ-3.15, Approved Procedural Deviations c.
Preliminary Safety Analysis and Final Safety Analysis Reports (PSAR and FSAR) for Clinton Power Station, Units I and 2:
(1) PSAR, Section 10.3 and figures, Section 17, Table 5.2.7, Table 3.8-4, Sections 17.1.2.1 and 17.1.6.3.1.
(2) FSAR, Section 10.3 and figures, Section 3.2, Section 5.5, Sections 5.2.2, 5.4.5 and 5.4.4, Table 6.1-1.
d.
S&L Clinton Project Instructions Nos. PI-CP-003 and PI-CP-004.
e.
S&L General Drafting Standard Nos. GDS 4.1.1 and GDS 4.1.2.
f.
S&L Piping Design Table g.
Documents related to safety relief valve discharge piping, to verify implementation of quality assurance program commitments, l
9 procedural and project requirements, and to satisfy the intent of the Objectives section. These documents are as follows:
(1) Sargent and Lundy Drawing.Nos: M06-1002, (Main Steam Piping)
Sheet 12, Revision U; M06-1002, Sheet 5, Revision P; M05-1002 (P&ID Main Steam), Sheet 1, Revision D; M051002, Sheet 6, Revision C; M27-1601-04a, Drywell Piping Plan, EL 737'0" Revision C; M27-1600-04A, Drywell Piping Plan, EL 712'0",
Revision C.
(2) GE Drawing Nos. 767E262, Revision 4, and 112D1130.
(3) Vendor, Southwest Fabricators' Isometric Drawing No. MS-4, Revision 7.
(4) Contract K-2882 for Phase II piping, miscellaneous equip-ment and equipment erection (issued by Illinois Power Company to Baldwin Associates; S&L acts as IPC's agent for the contract)
(5) Selected Engineering Change Notices (ECN), Nonconformance Reports (NCR), Field Change Reports (FCR) and Field Problem Reports (FPR) for this contract were reviewed.
(6) August 20, 1980 memorandum from Engineering Aide concerning handling FPRs.
(7) GF Design Specification 22A4622, Revision 3, and data
.heet providing design criteria.
(8) Specification K-2873 for vacuum relief valves.
(9) Calculation Numbers 01MS3, Revision 0, 01MS2, and 01 MSS.
h.
Documents related to control building to verify implementation of quality assurance program commitments, procedures and project requirements, and to satisfy the intent of the Objectives section.
These documents are as follows:
(1) Design Criteria Document No. DC-SD-01-CP (Structural Design Criteria), Section 2.3.1., Control Building.
(2) Sargent & Lundy Drawing Nos. S30-1000-01A, Revision F; S30-1301-E, Revisio^ F; S30-1004-05A, S30-1004-06AE,.
Revisions E and F; and S30-1418, Revisi
~. and F.
(3) Crawing list showing current revision >
iistribution list for drawings.
10 (4) Calculation Nos. Q13-25DG00, Revision 2 and SD-Q13-25 DG02, Revision 1.
3.
Findings a.
In this area of the inspection two (2) deviations from commit-ment were identified (See Notice of Deviation enclosure, Items A, and B.
b.
Additionally, certain actions correcting minor discrepancies were taken during the course of the inspection. These included the following:
(1) ECN No. 1841 was issued to revise article 4.2.b. of the Piping Design Table 305CP to reference stud bolt material ASME SA-193 gr B7 instead of ASME SA-192, gr B7 incorrectly referenced currently.
(2) Revised Clinton FSAR pages were submitted to Licensing for incorporation into the next FSAR amendment to show proper references on form pages and to show the material use of welded stainless " wall thickness steel piping (SA 358 gr 304Cl I welded) for the portion of the Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line which is in the suppression pool, rather than thinner wall seamless stainless steel as currently indicated.
(3) Sargent and Lundy Drawing M06-1002, Revision U was marked for revision to show proper equipment number 1B21D400N on Quencher for line number 1MS16CB, instead of incorrect duplicate equipment number IB21D400E (which is correctly shown on line IMS17CB).
(4) Incorrect ASME Code reference (ASME,Section III, 1973) on Calculations 01MS3, Revision 0, and 01MS2, was corrected by revision of these calculations.
Also a new calculation was issued (01MS5) to show that thicker wall pipe was being used (CR 940/ASME SA 358, TP 304, rather than SA 312, TP 304) because of piping flexibility analysis done by EMD (Engineering Mechanics).
c.
Followup will be made during a subsequent inspection to assure the issuance of a project procedure for handling FPRs (Field l
Problem Reports) generated by Illinois Power Company and pro-cessed for corrective and preventive action review / approval by Sargent and Lundy.
The procedure is currently being routed for comments prior to issuance, and iaterim control consists of handling FPRS like NCR (Nonconformance Reports) and FCRs (Field Change Reports) in accordance with the applicable procedure.
l
--