ML20010A365
| ML20010A365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/01/1981 |
| From: | Brickley R, Hale C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010A359 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900522 NUDOCS 8108110358 | |
| Download: ML20010A365 (6) | |
Text
,
~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900522/81-02 Company:
Bechtel Power Corporation San Francisco Power Division P.O. Box 3965 San Francisco, California 94119 Inspection Conducted:
May 11-14, 1981
/
Inspector:
[~-
R. H.Cafickley, ContrAftor Inspector Date Reactor Systems Section Vendor Inspection Branch
/
Approved by:
tl M
s C. J. @A e, Chief Date' Reactor Systems Section Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on May 11-14, 1981 (99900522.'81-02)
Areas Inspected:
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix P in the areas of control of computer programs, design verification, background verification of technical personnel, and action on previous inspection findings.
The inspection involved 27 inspector hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
There were no nonconformance, unresolved, or follow up items identified.
i 810s110358 810605 PDR GA999 EECUECH 99900522 PDR l
y
c-2 DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted R. W. C. Chang. Nuclear Staff Engineer
- S. T. Cozzens, Acting S spervisor, Quality Engineering J. C. Dodds, Dose Group Leader, Nuclear Engineering Staff C. F. Guenther, Engineer, Nuclear Engineering Staff N. M. Howard, Engineering Supervisor, Nuclear Engineering Staff
- W. T. Kellerman, QA Manager, Programs and Audits B. W. Thiel, Personnel Manager - Staffing
- Denotes those in attendance at the exit interview.
B.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings 1.
(Closed) Follow Up Item (Report No. 80 02) One microfilm card out of a random selection of 10 drawing numbers could not be located.
The inspector verified that the missing microfilm card had been located.
2.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Report No. 80-03):
It could not be deter-mined that criteria existed which required a generic evaluation for siphon break sizing on the discharge line to the spent fuel pool under a guiilotine break condition of that line.
In response to our request, the NRR Project Manager fo: 7 ojan advised that a circumferential (guillotine) break of the spent fuel pool dis-charge line, used as the design basis for sizing the siphon break, was postulated during the spent fuel pool expansion program. According to NRR, Trojan is the only plant to have used the guillotine break as a design basis.
3.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 80-03) Incorrect preliminary data, regarding compartment volumes on the Susquehanna project, were used as input to Calculation No. 8856-CAC-35-77.
The inspector verified that a reanalysis had been performed using correct data, an FSAR chdoge notice had been submitted, and that committed preventive measures had been completed.
C.
Background Verification of Technical Personnel 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that measures have been established and are being effectively implemented that assure:
-=
3 a.
The education and work experience information contained in employees' job applications are being verified by the employing organization, b.
There is objective, documented / records that attest to the employees' education and experience.
2, gethodofAccomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of the background verification records maintained on seven pe"manent employees and applicable employment group procedures.
3.
Findings a.
There were no noaconformance, unresolved, or follow up items identified.
b.
Written verification of education and experience is required for all new Bechtel employees.
Of the seven employee records examined, four were completely verified and three were in process.
The three in process had received their 30 day evaluation as required.
c.
Bechtel's agreement with " job shop" organizations require that the organization certify that they have verified the employees education and experience.
Bechtel divisions have conducted audits of some of these organizations with additional audits planned for the future.
D.
Control of Computer Programs 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to determine that:
a.
Computer programs have been developed, verified, qualified, and are being used in accordance with procedures which have been prepared, reviewed, and approved by authorized management.
b.
A computer program custodian has been designated and has the responsibility for maintaining the security of the program.
c.
Each computer program that has been authorized for use has been qualified, has an appropriate users manual, and this manual (or another manual) provides a detailed descriptien of the mathematical model, empirical data, assumptions used, and applicable references.
d.
The computer program has baen verified / qualified s.id that docu-mentation exists which includes:
4 (1) A description of the pr: gram version and options validated.
(2) A detailed description of the test (benchmark) problems, including boundary conditions, mathematical model, and all key parameters.
(3) A listing of the test (benchmark) problem input data checks and a raprint of the program input and output, or reference to the location where this is stored.
(4) The comparison of solutions, evaluation of the program validity, and an anlysis of any identified errors.
e.
Technically qualified individuals have reviewed and approved the verification / qualification of each computer program prior to its use in safety related applications.
f.
Revisions and modifications have been subjected to the saine review and approval as the original version of the program.
g.
Errars identified in computer programs are promptly corrected and appropriately verified prior to use.
h.
Errors which could result in significant deficiencies in nuclear plant design are reported to the NRC under the require-ments of 10 CFR Part 21, 10 CFR Part 50.55(e), and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, as appropriate.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of the User and Theoretical Manuals and Verification Report for computer programs ME 204, NE 305, and NE 347.
In addition the inspector examined applicable procedures from the Engineering Department Procedures Manual.
3.
Findings a.
There were no nonconformance, unresolved, or follow up items identified.
b.
Computer program ME 204 (RMHTUP) is used to analyze the room ambient air heat-up by the equipment heat or any other heat sources generated in the room. Without the ventilation, the temperature of the ambient air in the room increases with time due to the heat released from equipment.
h
5 c.
Ocmputer program NE 305 (REMOVE) calculates containment spray reu val rate constants for elemental, particulate, and organic iodiaes.
A spectrum of drop sizes produced by SPRACO 1713A nozzles is used in the model to determine a spray removal rate constant.
The resulting spray removal rate is then used to determine a mean drop diameter.
A program option is provided to calculate drop trajectories so that spray patterns can be determined. The program also calculates removal rates for deposition of both elemental and organic iodine on wall surfaces.
d.
Computer program NE 347 (GRACE I) is a multigroup, multiregion gamma-ray attenuation program for calculating total dose rate or heat generation rate in multiregion finite or semi-finite slab shields.
e.
Engineering Department Procedure 4.36 (Standard Computer Programs) was found to define' the requirements for verification, documenta-tion and control of Standard Computer Programs (SCP) used by engineering for calculations and analysis.
Revision 1 of this procedure was found to impose the applicable requirements identified in paragraph D.1 above.
f.
Bechtel SCPs are controlled by a Program Sponsor assigned by Engineering Management who is responsible for overall direction of program activities. A Technical Specialist is assigned by the Program Sponsor and is responsible for the technical integrity of the program, i.e. theoretical basis, accuracy of results, adequacy and completeness of documentation, and recommendations for modific;tions.
In addition, a programmer is assigned to maintain and make changes to the program as required.
I g.
Data Processing was found to be the custodian of the program with responsibility for document control, distribution, certifi-cation of the computer ooerating system, and release of an SCP i
into production status.
h.
The examination of the manuals identified in paragraph D.2 above revealed that they contained the applicable elements described 4
in paragraphs D.1.c through D.1.g above.
E.
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:
a
~
6 t
a.
Identify individuals or groups who are authorized to perform design verification reviews.
b.
Require the results of the design verificaticn effort to be clearly indicated, and filed.
c.
Identify and document the method by which d sign verification is to be performed.
d.
Identify the items to be considered during design verification by the design review method.
e.
Prescribe the requirements for performing design verification by the alternete calculations method.
f.
Prescribe the requirements for performing design verification by the qualification testing method.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of the analyses contained in the verification reports for the computer programs identified in paragraph D.2 above.
In addition the inspector examined applicable procedures from the Engineering Department Procedures Manual.
3.
Findings There were no nonconformance, unresolved, or follow up items identified.
F.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held-with management representatives on May 14, 1981.
In addition to ' hose individuals indicated by an asterisk in paragraph A, those in attendance were:
W. H. Chambers, Personnel Manager C. W. Dick, Manager, Division QA J. F. Flaherty, Computer Representative, Bechtel Power Management D. W. Halligan, Vice President and Deputy General Manager-F. Plutchak, QA Manag2r, Projects and Training The inspector discussed the scope and findings of the inspection.
Management comments were generally for clarification only, or acknow-ledgement of the statements by the inspector.
b
-