ML20153B801
| ML20153B801 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1988 |
| From: | Sinkule M, Vias S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153B695 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-425-88-19, NUDOCS 8808310096 | |
| Download: ML20153B801 (21) | |
See also: IR 05000425/1988019
Text
.
kO cec
UNITED STATES
oqP
,
,
.
o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
g$
REGloN tl .
,
$
j
101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
c
ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323
'+4 . . . . . $
Report No.:
50-425/88-19
Licensee: Georgia Power Company
P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Docke+ No.:
50-425
License No.: CPPR-109
Facility Name: Vogtle 2
Inspection Conducted: May 11-12, June 6-10, and July 11-14, 1988
Inspector: b k.
d
8bJD
S.J.@as,ProjectEngineer
Date Signed
Accompanying Personnel:
P. A. Balmain, Reactor Engineer, (June 6-10,1988)
i
S. Q. Ninh, Reactor Engineer, (July 11-14, 19 8
l
Approved by:
' [ /[ NT
.
.
M. V. Sir.kule, Section Chief
Dat'e Signed
Reactor Branch 3B
Division of Reactor Projects
SUMMARY
Scope:
This special, announced inspection, on site, involved the areas of
safety-related supports (Unit 2), and Readiness -Review Module 11,
Pipe Stress and Supports (Unit 2).
Results:
One violation was identified: Violation, 50-425/88-19-01, Failure to
)
Follow Procedures, Resulting in Errors in Pipe Support QC and Design
i
Documentation. See Paragraph 2.C.6) a.
'
Inspector Followup Item, 50-425/88-19-02, Potential Problems with
Spring Can Travel.
See Paragraph 2.C.6) a.(7).
8808310096 880818
O
ADOCK 05000425
_.
__. . _ -
.
-
'
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- R. H. Pinson, Vice President - Construction
- A. B. Gallant, Project Compliance Coordinator
- J. J. Gilmartin, Mechanical Field Operations Staff
- E. D. Groover, Quality Assurance (QA) Site Manager - Construction
- C. W. Hayes, Quality Assurance Manager
R. W. McManus, Readiness Review (RR), Project Manager
- W. C. Ramsey, Project Engineering Manager
- C. W. Rau, Mechanical Discipline Manager
- C. Garrett, Operations Engineering, Oglethorpe Power Corporation
Otner Organizations
R. Borgatti, Deputy Engineering Group Supervisor, Bechtel
Western Power Corporation (BWPC)
S. K. Gupta, Deputy Engineering Group Supervisor, BWPC
P. Patel, Engineering Group Leader, BWPC
- 0. W. Strohman, Project QA Engineer, BWPC
- R. C. Summerfeld, RR Team Leader, BWPC
"P. R. Thomas, RR Team Leader, BWPC
- M. W. Barlow, V-SAMU Manager, Westinghouse /V-SAMU
- M. J. Beer, Technical Assistant, V-SAMU
W. E. Faires, Principal Engineer, V-SAMU
- M. E. Maryak, Completion Manager, V-SAMU
N. R. Pasala, Mechanical Engineering Group Leader, V-SAMU
J
B. G. Schappell, Manager Mechanical Construction Support, V-SAMU
)
- D. P. Shaw, Westinghouse PQAE
- B. Edwards, Resident Construction Manager, Pullman Power
Products (PPP)
- J. Miller, Quality Assurance Manager, PPP
R. Norton, Drafting Lead, PPP
T. Pacifico, Engineering Manager, PPP
H. Smith, Quality Control (QC) Manager, PPP
K. Weis, Chief Engineer, PPP
J. Morris, QC Inspector, PPP
i
A. Turner, QC Inspector, PPP
i
Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen,
engineers, technicians, mechanics, and office personnel.
.
.
.
2
NRC Resident Inspectors
- R. J. Schepens, Senior Resident Inspector - Construction
- Attended exit interview
Acronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in
Paragraph 4.
2.
Review of Readiness Review Module 11, Pipe Stress and Supports (Unit 2)
(50090)
A.
Scope of Review
This review consisted of an examination of GPC's Readiness Review
Module 11, Pipe Stress and Supports.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5,
which presented data on introduction and module organization,
organization and division of responsibilities, commitments, program
description, and, audits and inspections.
These did not require as
extensive a review as Section 6, which covered program assessment.
The evaluation of Section 6 included an examination of content,
review of findings and conclusions, review of a small sample of items
previously riliewed in the Readiness Review Program, and review of an
independert y selected sample of documents,
both- design and
construction, and a field construction inspection. The methodology
used and an evaluation of each section are presented in the following
section.
B.
Methodology
The NRC review performed was concerned with all sections of the
report, but focused on Section 6.
The entire Module was read and
I
reviewed for organization and content after its receipt on April 19,
1988.
The Region II inspectors conducted one on-site preliminary set-up
meeting.
This was followed up with two on-site inspections at the
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Unit 2.
The first visit to the Vogtle site, made on May 11-12, 1988, was to
discuss with licensee and Readiness Review personnel, the scope and
inspection plan for the evaluation of this module. The inspector was
able to identify the systems, P&ID's, isometrics, and pipe supports,
that were to be inspected and reviewed during the upcoming inspection
periods.
The
first
inspection also
invo'ived the following
accivities:
j
o
Reviewing the description of the Readiness Review program and
establishing organizational responsibilities for Module 11,
o
Verifying Module 11 review boundaries,
-
.
'
.
.
.
3
o
Inspecting and reviewing an independent sample of P& ids 'and
piping isometrics to be used in the assessment of Section 6 of
the Module 11 report,
A sample of five P&ID's covered by thirteen piping isometrics, having
56 associated pipe supports was selected to form
basis for the
o
detailed assessment of the Construction Program.
The isometrics
chosen represent a diversity of pipe systems, sizes, locations, and
pipe class.
The second inspection, was made during June 6-10, 1988, involved the
following activities:
o
A detailed walkdown of the piping systems, and pipe supports
previously identified,
o
A detailed review of the construction documentation for the
items inspected in the field,
o
An assessment of the one Level II finding reported in Section 6,
of the Module 11 report and a brief review of the 7 Level III
findings.
An evaluation of the Construction Program was made by performing a
field inspection of all piping installation and pipe supports
included in the selected sample of five P& ids, thirteen piping
isometrics and 56 pipe supports.
In addition to this field inspec-
tion, all of the Pullman Power Products (PPP) Quality Control (QC)
_
documents associated with the thirteen piping isometrics and 56 pipe
supports were reviewed for conformance to specifications and
procedures, and for compliance with design drawings.
Finally,
an
assessment was
made
on
the Level II
finding
(2RRF-011-002), resulting from Readiness Review's Program Assessment
Section. This finding involved PPP project procedures not clearly
defining authority, responsibilities, and limits of field engineers
performing verification of construction activities versus the
authority,
responsibilities,
and freedom of
quality control
inspectors
to perform
inspections
and witness
construction
activities.
The second on-site inspection was conducted during July 11-14, 1988,
included the following activities:
o
Performing a Construction Program review of findings from the
first inspection with the appropriate PPP personr.el,
o
Accomplishing general Module il review activities,
o
Performing a Design Program review, for the piping and supports
inspected during the first inspection on-site.
.-
,
.
..
-
-.
.
.
.
4-
General review activities included an assessment of the information
presented in Sections 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Module 11.
An evaluation of the Design Program was made by reviewing a sample of
the stress calculations for the thirteen selected piping isometrics
and their 56 associated pipe supports.
These calculations and
related design criteria, drawings, and change documentation were
reviewed for adequacy of design control, adherence to criteria and
procedures, and design integrity.
C.
Evaluatien
The evaluation of each Module section is provided below in the
section-by-section format used in the Module 11 report. Incitjed are
a description of the section, subject matter reviewed, basis for
j
acceptance, and statement of required follow-up or evaluation.
1)
Section 1 - Introduction
This section presents the scope of Module 11, outlines the
Module organization, and reports the project status.
The
section was examined by the NRC inspectors for appropriateness
of scope and for background information.
a.
Boundary Definition.
Module 11 included those activities
-
(stress analyses and pipe support design) for ASME, B&PV
Code, Section -III, Classes 2 and 3 piping within the scope
of Bechtel Western Power Corporation (BWPC) and Vogtle
Structural Analysis Mobile Unit (V-SAMU). The installation
of piping,Section III, Classes 2 and 3,
and mechanical
equipment were not covered in this module. The design and
construction of piping systems in the Nuclear Steam Supply
System (NSSS), were not included this module.
Also
i
contained in Module 11 were stress analyses of non-safety
related piping that must meet Seismic Category 1 require-
ments for protection of safety-related components.
The NRC inspectors found the description of Module 11
boundaries to be acceptable,
b.
Project Status.
Subsection 1.3 of Module 11 presents the
project status for design and construction of small-bore
and large-bore pipe supports.
Percentages of completion
were quoted as of September 1987.
These percentages were
shown as 77% completion for design of small-bore and 86%
completion for design of large-bore pipe supports, and with
7% completion of the analytical stress reconciliation
packages. On the construction side, it was shown as 56%
completion for installation of small-bore supports, and 86%
completion for installation of large-bore supports.
The NRC inspectors determined that the project status indicated
significant progress in the pipe support program.
,
.
.
5
2)
Section 2 - Organization and Division of Responsibility
This section describes the organizations . involved.in design and
construction for Module 11.
It explains what personnel are
responsible for specific design and construction activities, and
presents the matrix organization used by the architect /~
engineering contractor on the project.
This section was
reviewed by NRC inspectors for content and accuracy.
In the
process of this review, the responsibilities of the various
organizations and personnel within the organizations were
clarified.
The NRC inspectors had nu findings in this section.
3)
Section 3 - Commitments
This section contains listings of commitments and implementing
documents, which are displayed in two matrices.
The first
matrix, entitled "Commitment Matrix," identifies all of the
Module 11 commitments, their source documents subject and
feature. The second matrix, entitled "Implementation Matrix,"
lists the document or plant feature for each commitment, as
discussed in the source document, and the project document in
which the commitment is implemented.
During the review of Unit 1 Readiness Review of Module 11, it
was noted that two commitments contained in the FSAR were
omitted from the RR review of commitments.
This matter was
followed in Inspector Fellowup Item 50-424/86-62-01. This
inspector reviewed this matter during a later inspection and was
documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-424/86-116. This matter
was considered closed.
The ir,spection conducted at this time.
was not directed toward verifying this Readiness Review section.
4)
Section 4 - Program Description
This section describes procedures, documentation, control for
design and as-built and reconciliation activities; equipment and
material; site material control; and fabrication, installation
and inspection. The section was examined by the NRC inspectors
for content and background information. Some of the background
was useful in the review of later sections in the Module,
especially Section 6, Program Assessment.
a.
Design.
Subsection 4.1 divides the description of the
design program into several categories including the pipe
stress and pipe support design process; design criteria;
design documentation; design control and review; and design
change control.
This subsection describes the design
program from its earliest phase of design criteria
development
to
its
final
phase of design program
verification.
The NRC review of this subsection revealed
that the information presented therein gave a descriptive
_ _ _ _ _
~
.
.
4
6
accounting of the design process and defined the division
of responsibility between Bechtcl Western Power Corporation
and Westinghouse in pipe stress analysis activities.
It
also explained the interfaces between engineering groups
involved in the design effort.
The information proved
useful for developing an understanding of the design -
program, but did not lend itself to a detailed review. The
NRC inspectors identified no findings in the design program
described in this subsection.
Results from the review of
Section 6 of Module 11 were used to ' determine how
effectively the program actually functioned,
b.
Equipment and Material.
Subsection 4.2
describes
the
process for procuring safety-relating piping supports and
components or the material used to fabricate these items.
GPC serves as the purchasing agent, in compliance with
specifications written and controlled by BWPC, for these
items and supplies them to the contractors for instal-
lation.
No findings were identified in the procurement
process.
c.
Site Material Control.
Subsection 4.3
de:cribes
the
responsibilities of the pipe support installers relative to
receipt, inspection, and control of ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code material
within the scope of
Module 11. This subsection details the change from Unit 1,
in that GPC has subcontracted receipt inspection of ASME
B&PV,Section III, components and materials to Pullman
Power Products (PPP). GPC is the supplier of ASME B&PV
Code items and materials to the NA-installers, PPP, GPC's
Nuclear Construction Team,
and Nuclear
Installation
j
Services Company (NISCO).
Materials and equipment are
i
inspected when received at the job site by GPC.
After
j
satisfactory completion of this inspection, the material is
i
placed in storage locations maintained by GPC. The NRC did
not perform a detailed examination of this subsection since
the material contained a brief description and not an
as:essment.
The NRC inspectors had no findings in thf s
subsection.
d.
Fabrication, Installation, and Inspection.
Subsection 4.4
describes site fabrication, installation and inspection
activities for pipe supports and pipe whip restraints.
It
also references specification documents that control the
inspection of these items, such as codes, specifications,
and implementation procedures.
As indicated in this
subsection, the fabrication and installation of pipe
supports was performed in accordance with Bechtel_ Western
Power Corporation's Specification X4AZ01, Division P1,
General Requirements, and Division P5, Pipe Support Field
Fabrication and Installation.
It also describes the
,
.
.
7
preparation and control of the principc1 documents used
by PPP for site f abrication, installatioa and inspection
of pipe supports.
The material ~ in this subsection is
generally descriptive and was not assessed in detail
by the NRC inspectors.
The material presented does
indicate that the basic installation program addresses
project
requirements.
Results
from the review of
Module 11, Section 6 were used to determire how effectively
the program actually functioned. The NRC inspectors had
no findings relative to the description of this program.
5)
Section 5 - Audits and Inspections
This section discusses quality assurance audits and evaluatic,ns
that have been performed . by GPC, and Bechtel Western Power
Corporation, addressing pipe stress analysis and pipa supports;
and follow up of the Unit 1 findings.
It also describes
inspections and special evaluations conducted by the NRC. This
section discusses findings resulting from these audits relative
to the design and construction programs.
The section also
i
presents three design and construction problems identified since
the completion of Unit 1, Module 11, Assessment.
The three
concerns were considered significant enough by'GPC that the NRC
was informed of their potential reportability pursuant to
criteria of 10 CFR 50.55 (e).
The findings resulting from design program audits occurred in
the design functional areas, such as calculations, drawings,
field change requests, design documentat?cn, and design changes.
In addition, the NRC inspectors determined that items related to
Module 11 and past NRC findings were included in the Readiness
Review Team data base for Audits and Inspections.
The NRC inspectors concluded that findings from previous audits
and inspections were considered in the Readiness Review Team's
assessments for Module 11.
The NRC inspectors had no findings
in this section.
6)
Section 6 - Program Assessment
This section of the Module 11 Report describes activities
undertaken to ascertain whether construction and design
1
activities were adequately controlled to ensure implementation
I
of licensing commitments and conformance with project procedures
1
and design requirements related to pipe stress analysis and pipe
supports.
The section was reviewed in two phases covering
Construction Program Verification and Design Program Verifica-
tion.
The inspectors performed detailed evaluations in both
areas which are described below.
l
l
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
.
.
.
8
,
a.
Construction Program Verification
,
The Construction Program Verification - performed by the
Readiness Review Team consisted o f- an assessment of-
installed safety-related supports that had been As-built,
and associated steel.
Also, the implementation of design
'
and construction programs with : emphasis on significant
,
changes
in
programs,
procedures
and
organization
responsibiiities.
The program had the objective - of-
determining whether the construction control
process
functioned effectively and whether it ensured acceptable
pipe support installations.
The assessments made and conclusions reached in Readiness
j
Review's verification program were divided into the
i
following major categories:
o
Implementation of licensing commitments,
o
Followup of corrective actions which resulted frcm the
Unit 1 Readiness Review Program,
o
Project performance in accordance with the ' quality
program, procedures, and design requirements.
During the preparation by the Readiness Review Team for
construction walkdowns, the programs and procedures for the
installers of pipe supports for safety-related systems were
l
reviewed.
All programs and procedures were found to be
acceptable.
The inspectors reviewed portions of various procedures
during the evaluation of the thirteen isometrics and
56 pipe supports described below.
The inspectors found
that portions of the construction procedures adequately
reflect project requirements with one exception.
The
inspectors determined that the PPP Procedure
X-24,
Section 4.1 "As-Builting Piping
Systems
and
Related
Components", was not being properly adhered to with respect
to the incorporation of information ' redlined' on pipe
support drawings, by field engineers and QC personnel, onto
the mylars for the pipe supports by the drafting group.
This is discussed in further detail in Section (1) below.
As discussed earlier in this report, the inspectors
selected thirteen piping isometrics with 56 associated pipe
supports to form a basis for evaluating the Construction
and Design Program Verifications.
The piping isometrics
and pipe supports examined are listed in Table 1.
The
inspectors examined the construction aspects of all 56 pipe
supports by first performing a field inspection on the pipe
isometrics and pipe supports. During this inspection, the
following information was recorded:
I
-
.
.
.
9
.
o
Pipe dimensions, component. locations and orientation,
o
Support dimensions and support locations,
o
Support configuration,
o
Weld size and type,
o
Support materials,
o
NF component heat numbers,
o
Clearances between pipe and support,
o
Snubber NPT Code Dats Plate information, cold set,
traceability markings on connecting hardware,
o
Spring support NPT Code Data Plate information, travel
stop installation, traceability markings on connecting
hardware.
The information recorded during- the field inspections was
then reviewed against the Line Designation List (LDL),
Valve List, Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P& ids),
pipe isometrics and support drawings, all associated
documents in the PPP QC document packages, and other
miscellaneous documents. The documents included in the PPP
QC packages were Process Sheets, MFCRBs, Authorizations to
Continue Work (ATCWs), DRs, DCN-Rs, Snubber and Strut
Checklists, Weld Process Sheets, and Weld Rod Requisition
Tickets.
Arong other miscellaneous construction documents
reviewed were Requests for Support Removal,
Liquid
Penetrant Exsmination Records, Material Inspection Reports,
Maintenance Work Orders, Cortificates of Compliance, and
Certified Mill Test Reports.
Based on the inspection of pipe supports and associated
documentation, the inspectors found that the pipe support
installations were generally consistent with the documen-
tation and in accordance with project requirements.
The inspectors did, however, identify several deficiencies
I
in the construction program, which are described as
follows:
(1) During the review of the as-built information gathered
in the field, and comparing the information to the PPP
Process Packages for the individual pipe supports, it
was noted on five occasions that all the information
that was
"redlined"
per PPP
Procedure
X-24,
"As-Builting Piping Systems and Related Components",
i
i
\\
.
.
10
Section 4.1, was not properly incorporated onto the
Mylars. The. following discrepancies were found to be
properly ' redlined' and documented on a copy of the
pipe support drawing in the PPP Process Package, but
were outside the tolerance of PPP Procedure X-24, and
not incorporated into the Mylars.
o
V2-1204-014-H004, the correct size of item 'b' .
o
V2-1204-014-H006,
the ' dimension
from
the
centerline W4 to ' the centerline of the embeded
plate,
o
V2-1208-005-H007, the dimension for item #4 was
shown on the drawing as 3 5/8", the inspectors
measured in the field and the ' redline' drawing,
both indicated that the dimension was 5 1/2".
o
V2-1208-145-H017, the pin-to pin' dimension of the
spring can, drawing shows 12'-10 5/16", and the
' redline'
and the dimension the
inspectors
measured was 12'-11".
o
V2-1208-145-H016, the Bill of Materials shows
item #5 as 8" wide, the inspectors measured the
dimension as 8 3/4", this is the same dimension
as the ' redline' drawing.
This matter of discrepancies between
' redline'
information and final pipe support drawings has been
previously identified by internal audits performed by
the licensee.
An audit, documented in an internal
Westinghouse memo, from V-SAMU As-Built Completion
Group to R. W. Braddy and M.W. Barlow, dated March 15,
1988, identified similar discrepancies during a two
stage audit. The conclusion was that all the supports
were found to be acceptable, but that three had a
slight reduction in margin of safety.
In a'PPP memo,
from B.L.
Edwards to C.W.
Rau, dated February 10,
1988, PPP listed actions to be taken to minimize
future occurrences.
(2) The following drawings, both pipe support and P& ids
were found to have discrepancies between the actual
i
condition in the field and the drawing; or pertinent
information was missing from support drawing.
,
o
P&ID 2X4DB122, shows a line, designated as Line
006-8", (coordinate C-5), and just to the left of
TE 0613, should be Line 008-8".
o
V2-1208-055-H052, shows the angle iron, item 5,
in the wrong orientation.
j
.
'
.
.
.
11
o
V2-1208-055-H014, in the Location Plan, the
vertical pipe is shown as going in the (-)Y-
direction, in the field it is going 'in the (+)Y
direction.
o
V2-1208-215-H003,
-H004,
-H005,
all
three
drawings did not have a locating dimension for
the attached support (baby) in relation to a -
connection point on the parent support.
This is
contrary to PPP Procedure X-24, "As-Builting
Piping Systems and Related Corrponents", Section
6.6.
(3) The following pipe supports were found to have
dimensions on the drawings that differed from the
dimensions measured in the field by the inspectors.
The dimensions are outside the tolerance of PPP
Procedure IX-50, "Pipe Support Field Installation and
Fabrication Procedure", Section 6.2.6.G.
o
V2-1208-255-H002, the drawing shows the dimension
from the centerline of item #2 to the centerline
of the pipe as l'-4 1/4" ACT., the inspectors
measured l'-2 1/4".
j
o
V2-1204-063-H004, the location of the attachment
for V2-1204-201-H002, item #a, to the embed
plate, shows the dimension from the right side of
the embed plate to the attachment as 2 3/8", the
inspectors measured 3 1/16".
(4) The following drawings had discrepancies between the
information obtained in the field and the information
on the drawings.
During the review of PPP Process
packages for the three drawings, it was found that the
correct information was noted somewhere in the
package, but was not incorporated onto the drawings.
(Note: the correct notation of the information was not
on the ' redline' drawings.)
o
Isometric 2K3-1208-146-01, Detail 2 & 3, indicate
a class change from 212/FG0, on Line 1208-145-4"
to 414/FG4, on Line 1208-A20-1/2".
The Line
Designation List (LDL) shows 1208-A20-1/2" as
424/FG4.
DCN-R #7, dated 2-3-86, changed the
line to 414/FG4.
o
V2-1208-145-H017,
the location of the beam
attachment on the drawing shows the 'as-built'
dimension as
l'-3 1/2", documentation in the
Process package and the Final Inspection Report,
both show the dimension to be l'-2 3/4".
.
.
.
12
o
Isometric 2K3-1205-006-01, from DCN #8, the class
.
information was not transferred correctly to the
isometric.
Also,- not , all the infermation from
FEDCNR-2262, was transferred - to the 'as-built'
isometric.
(5) The following PPP Process Packages, had documentation
in the package that did not correctly reflect what was
in the field or was confusing.
o
V2-1205-004-H016, in the process package, the
' Strut Reconciliation Report" (SRR), of 5-26-87,
indicates two struts were installed, SRR of
10-14-86, shows one strut and SRR of 5-18-88,
indicates that two struts were installed.
The
pipe support drawing, (R/3), shows one strut.
There is also a discrepancy of the offset angles,
in SRR of 10-14-86, it indicates 3 degrees, SRR
of 5-26-87, indicates 2 degrees.
o
V2-1205-006-H014, the Process Package has two
different issue tickets for the spring can that
was installed, both for the same ;erial number of
B015066, they also indicate two different spring -
can sizes.
(6) The NRC inspectors while performing the inspection in
the field noted a discrepancy with respect to pipe
support V2-1204-063-H007.
The support was designed
and the drawing located the support on a 4" riser, at
elevation 208'-8", and 3'-2" . West of Column A3.
The
pipe support was actually installed at the correct
elevation, but on a different riser, approximately
l'-11", West of Column A3.
The pipe support, at
varicus times was inspected no less than three times.
PPP has inued DR PP-18138, for disposition of this
problem.
The discrepancies, in the above six items between support
installation, design informatun, construction documen-
tation and QC documentation is a violation of 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion V, and is identified as Violation
425/88-19-01 - Failure to Follow Procedures, Resulting in
Errors in Pipe Support QC and Design Documentation.
(7) During the inspection of V2-1204-063-H005, and during
subsequent discussions with both PPP and BWPC
personnel, it was determined that the spring can
installed for this support was very close to becoming
j
topped out.
Therefore, it was agreed upon, that the
'
spring can would be monitored during hot functional
.
.
.
.
13
testing, and during the process of setting the spring
to its proper ' hot setting.'
This item will then be
followed as Inspector Followup Item 50-425/88-19-02,
"Potential Problems with Spring Can Travel."
b.
Design Program Verification
The Design Program Verification performed by the Readiness
Review Team focused on evaluation of the pipe stress
analysis activities and design of pipe supports.
Their
assessment in part was intended to evaluate the compliance
of design change activities with engineering procedure
controls.
The RR review emphasized the evaluation of
conformance of as-built data and conformance of instal-
lation and data collection activities with quality program
requirements.
The RR group intended for the assessment samples to be
selected from the same systems evaluated for Module 4,
however,
since
the
sequencing
of analytical
and
reconciliation work was controlled by the turnover
schedule, the assessment sample was altered and limited.
The NRC inspectors found that the RR sample covered all the
areas needed to evaluate the module topic, however, it was
difficult to do a complete vertical slice through their
assessment, in order to draw conclusions on the overall
program.
Therefore, the NRC inspectors were not able to
efficiently use the RR review groups sample in their
review, and chose a completely independent saniple for
review.
Documents included in the Readiness Review Team's review
and results of the review were divided intc the following
major categories-
o
Pipe Stress Analysis Packages,
o
Pipe Support Calculations,
o
Pipe Support Drawings,
o
Design Change and Nonconformance Documents,
The NRC inspectors examined all of the foregoing topics in
their review. The approach used by the inspectors in their
,
examination was directed toward evaluating the same
equipment, piping, and supports, from
? beginning of
design to the completion of construct an.
This was
accomplished by first selecting a set of thirteen piping
isometrics to form a basis for an assessment of both the
Design and Construction Program Verifications.
The piping
isometrics were chosen to obtain a diversity of pipe sizes,
..
_
.-.
'
.
.
14
pipe classes, locations, and systems. None of the thirteen-
piping isometrics selected were included in Readiness
Review's program.
The thirteen isometrics chosen had a
total of 56 associated pipe supports.
Included in this
- upport sample were miscellaneous steel supports,. pipe
straps, snubbers, struts, and-spring supports. Of these 56
supports, only two pipe support drawings were within
Readiness Review's program. The piping isometrics and pipe
supports selected for evaluation are listed Table 1.
All
of the isometrics and pipe ' supports were evaluated in NRC
Region II's review -of the Construction Program . Veri fica-
tion, and a portion of the design documents associated with
these isometrics were examined in the review of the Design
Program Verification. The design documents examined by NRC
inspectors are indicated in Table 1.
The NRC assessment of
design documentation is reported as follows:
(1) Pipe Stress Analysis Packages
The following calculation packages were examined for
completeness,
inter-discipline
coordination,
conformance to design criteria and project require-
ments, consistency with drawings and installation, and
technical adequacy:
o
BJ-01-706, R/2
o
BG-01-717, R/1
o
BC-00-718, R/1
o
BC-00-725, R/0
Observations made relative to the stress analysis
review include:
'
o
The piping configuration, location of components
in the line and locations of supports, used in
the analysis was consistent with the isometric,
the installation and project tolerances, except
{
that pipe support V2-1204-063-H007, was installed
'
on
the
wrong
pipe.
See
discussion
in
Section 2.C.6).a.(6), of this report.
o
Stress limits used were in accordance with ASME
Section III Class 2 criteria for the Class 2
piping,
o
Damping values used were in accordance with
o
Load combinations used were in accordance with
Design Criteria DC-1017 and NUREG-0484.
.
'
.
.
15
i
o
. Stresses for the faul.ted condition were within
allowances specified in ASME Code Case 1606-1.
o
The valve weights and orientations used in the
enalysis were consistent with the drawings and
installation.
o
The design temperature and pressure, operating
temperature and pressure, and pipe material were
consistent with parameters given in the Line
Designation List.
o
The seismic response spectra used in the analysis
corresponded
to
the
proper
building
and
elevation,
o
The calculations for thermal anchor movements
were correct and the movements were incorporated
in the analysis. The inspectors found for
Isometric drawing 2K3-1204-014-01, calculation
BJ-01-706, a portion of Page 7 was missing in the
calculation,
indicating
the
thermal
anchor
1
movements used in the calculation.
>
o
The
calculated
stresses were within ASME
Section III Class 2 allowances and deflections at
support locations were less than the allowable
for both small and large bore piping.
(2) Pipe Suppcrt Calculations
,
The pipe support calculation p.ckages listed in
Table 1,
were examined for
c. ipleteness,
inter--
discipline
coordination,
confor.?ance
to design
criteria and project requirements, consistency with
drawings and installation, and technical adequacy,
All of these pipe supports are contained in the piping
isometrics reviewed in the Construction Verification
Review, discussed in Section 2.C.6).a.
CSservations made relative to these pipe support
,
calculations include:
o
Design loads and displacements were correctly
transferred from the pipe stress calculations to
the pipe support calculations.
o
A friction load was included whenever the thermal
movement at a support exceeded 1/16 inch.
o
The structural members used in the analyses
corresponded in size and material with the
drawings and installation.
.
'
.
.
.
16
o
That design assumptions were properly noted in
the calculation package.
The
inspector found
that for pipe support V2-1204-014-H006, that the
calculation for the'embeded plate, that it should
have been noted that.the assumptions the engineer
used, when the reduced faulted-loads, used in the
calculation, were indeed compared to the upset
loads.
o
The calculated stresses in miscellaneous steel
were within allowances of the American Institute
of Steel Construction, and stresses in ASME
Section III Subsection NF components were within
NF allowances.
(3) Pipe Support Drawings
The examination of pipe support drawings was performed
in conjunction with the review of pipe support
calculations and the evaluation of the Construction
Program Verification.
Therefore, all of the pipe
supports listed in Table I were included in the pipe
support drawing review.
The drawings were reviewed
for completeness, appropriate approvals, drafting
clarity, and consisten:y with project requirements.
The only deficiency identified in the drawing review
were those noted in the Construction Verification
Review Section 2.C 6).a of this report.
(4) Design Change and Nonconformance Documents
_
Based on the information presented in this report,
Mechanical Field Change Requests (MFCRs), DCN-Rs, and
Deviation Reports (DRs), were included in the many of
the 56 pipe support packages for the thirteen piping
isometrics evaluated by the NRC Region II inspectors.
These design change documents were examined by the NRC
Region II inspectors for the following attributes:
o
Proper disposition and approval,
o
Appropriate technical justification,
o
Correct incorporation into drawings.
The NRC inspectors identified no findings during the
examination of the sample design change documentation.
i
,:
.
.
.
17
c.
Findings
Subsection 6.5 of the Module 11 Report presents 8 findings disclosed
by the Readiness Review Team in the Design Program Verification.
Among these findings there were no Level I,
one Level II, . and
seven Level III findings. The NRC Region II inspectors performed an
evaluation on the or,e Level II finding (2RRF-001-002).
o
Finding 2RRF-001-002, Level II, was in reference to two PPP
procedures IX-50, and IX-65.
The concern was the lack of
clarity with respect to the appropriate responsibilities and
authority of PPP field engineers, QC inspectors, and QA
engineers.
The procedures have been revised and appropriate
training has been conducted.
The NRC inspectors identified no findings during the examination of
the Readiness Review Findings in the Construction and Design Program
Verification.
3
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 14, 1988,
with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described
the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
Violation 425/88-19-01, Failure to Follow Procedures, Resulting in
Errors in Pipe Support QC and Design Documentation. See Paragraph
2.C.6).a.
Inspector Followup Item, 50-425/88-19-02, Potential Problems with
l
Spring Can Travel.
See Paragraph 2.C.6).a.(7).
l
The licensee did identify as proprietary materials various documents
for review by the inspector during this inspection, but no
proprietary information is contained in this report.
4.
Acronyms and Initialisms
American Institute of Steel Construction
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
,
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ATCW
Authorization to Continue Work
AWS
American Welding Society
BWPC
Bechtel Western Power Company
CD
Civil Deviation Report
Certified Materials Test Report
Certificate of Compliance
Design Criteria (Bechtel)
DCN-R
Drawing Change Notice-Resident
.
.
.
18
DR
Deviation Report
Final Safety Analysis Report
GDC
General Design Criteria
GPC
Georgia Power Company
IDR
Independent Design Review.
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
IEB
Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
LDL
Line. Designation List
MFCR-
Mechanical Field Change Request
MWO
Maintenance Work Order
NRC
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Nuclear Steam Supply System
Operational Basis Earthquake
Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
PPP
Pullman Power Products
Procedure Qualification Record
Pipe Whip Restraint
Quality Assurance
Quality Control
RRF
Readiness Review Finding
RRT
Readiness Review Team
Safety Evaluation Report
Safety Review Plan
SSER
Supplement Safety Evaluation Report
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
V-SAMU
Vogtle Structural Analysis Mobile Unit
VWAC
Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria
WPS
Welding Procedure Specification
l
I
-
-
-
...
- . .
.
.
TABII 1
.
PIPING
STRESS
SUPPORTS
PPP
IS0 METRICS
STRESS
ANALYSIS
LINE NUMBER
CALCUIATION
SUPPORTS
SUPPORT QC
DRAWING 1RBIBER
INSPECTED BY
ANALYSIS
REVIEWED BY AND SAFETY /
PIPE
REVIEWED
INSPECTED BY DOCUMENTATION
SYSTEM and BUIISING
PIPING IS0 METRICS
NRC RE
PROBIRf NUMBER NRC RRT PIPING CIASS
SUPPORTS
NRC RRT
NRC Rg REVIEWED BY NRC
_
2I4DB121. R/22
2K3-1204-028-01 R/4
YES NO
BJ-01-706,R/2 YES NO 2-1204-014-4" V2-1204-014-H007 R/2 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Safety Injection
Q212/GGO
V2-1204-014-H008 R/3 YES YES YES NO
YES
Auxilitry Buildlag
2K3-1204-014-01, R/5
YES NO
10-01-706, R/2 YES NO 2-1204-014-4" V2-1204-014-H004 R/2 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/Gr.0
V2-1204-014-H005 R/2 YES NO
YES
N/)
YES
V2-1204-014-H006 R/2 YES NO
YES NO
YES
ZI4DRIIS, R/19
2K4-1208-055-02, R/6
YES NO
BG-02-905
NO
NO 2-1208-055-3" V2-1208-055-H044 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Chemiccl and
Q212/HG0
V2-1208-055-H045 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V41ume control
V2-1208-055-H046 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
AuxiIicry BuiIding
V2-1208-055-H048 R/4 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-055-H049 R/2 NO
NO
YES N0
(ES
V2-1208-055-H050 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-055-H051 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-055-H052 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
2K4-1208-215-01 R/5
YES NO
BG-02-905
NO
NO 2-1208-215-3" V2-1208-215-H001 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/HGO
V2-1208-215-H002 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-215-H003 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-215-H004 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-215-H005 R/5 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
$
2K4-1208-005-02,R/6
YES NO
BG-02-905
NO
NO 2-1208-255-3" V2-1208-255-H001 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/FGO
V2-1208-255-H002 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-055-H005 R/2 NO
No
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-005-H006 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-005-H007 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
2K4-1208-005-01,R/6
YES NO
BC-02-905
NO
NO 2-1208-005-3" V2-1208-005-H002 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/FGO
V2-1208-005-H001 R/2 N0
NO
YES NO
YES
\\
s.
2I4D5-119. R/15
2K3-1204-063-02, R/5
YES NO
BC-01-903
NO
NO 2-1204-057-4" V2-1204-063-H003 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Saf;ty Injection
2-1204-063-4" V2-1204-063-H004 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Auxilirry Building
2-1204-063-3" V2-1204-063-H005 R/4 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/FGO
V2-1204-063-H006 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-063-H007 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-063-H009 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-063-H010 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-063-H012 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-063-H013 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-063-H001 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-057-H039 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
- - .
-
-
-
- . -
- . -
- - -
.
. -
-
_
,
9
Page 2
.
.-
_--
..-
-
_....._-
PIPING
__.-
P&lD
STRESS
SUPPORTS
PPP
IS0 METRICS
STRESS
ANALYSIS
LINE NUMBER
CALCULATION
SUPPORTS
SUPPORT QC
DRAWINC 1RMBER
INSPECTED BY
ANALYSIS
REVIEW D BY AND SAFETY /
PIPE
REVIEWED
INSPECTED BY DOCUPENTATION
SYSTDI and BUILDING
PIPING IS0 METRICS
NRC _RRT
PROBIIM NUMBER NRC _RRT
PIPINC CIASS
SUPPORTS
EC RRT
NRC
RRT REVIE W D BY NRC
_
214DB115-2,R/16
2K3-1208-139-01,R/12
YES NO
BC-01-717, R/I IIS NO 2-1209-139-6" V2-1208-139-H016 R/3 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Chemical sad Volume
Contral,
Q212/FGO
V2-1208-139-H014 R/3 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Auxilirry Building
V2-1208-139-H003 R/4 YES NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-139-H007 R/5 YES NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-139-H008 R/3 YES NO
YES NO
YES
2K3-1208-146-01, R/15
YES NO
BC-Ol-903,R/I NO
NO 2-1208-145-4" V2-1208-145-H005 R/S NO
NO
YES NO
YES
2-1208-146-3" V2-1208-145-H006 R/7 NO
NO
YES N0
fES
2-1208-A20-l/2"V2-1208-145-H013 R/4 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/FGO
V2-1208-145-H014 R/l NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-145-H015 R/I NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-145-H016 R/I NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-145-H017 R/R NO
NO
YES NO
YES
2X4D8122. R/20
2K3-1205-004-02,R/7
YES NO
BC-00-718. R/I YES NO 2-1205-0%-14" V2-1205-004-H015 R/4 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Residual Beat.
Q212/MGO
V2-1205-004-H010 R/3 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Removal Auxiliary
Building
2K3-1205-004-01,R/13
Y.'.S
NO
BC-00-718, R/l YES NO 2-1205-004-14" V2-1205-004-H016 R/3 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/HGO
V2-1205-004-H019 R/4 YES NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1205-004-H001 R/2 YES NO
YES NO
YES
to
o
2K3-1205-006-01, R/12
YES NO
BC-00-725, R/0 YES NO 2-1205-006-8" V2-1205-006-H009 R/4 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/HGO
v2-1205-006-H001 R/S
1.".S
NO
YES NO
YES
2K3-1205-006-02,R/12
YES No
BC-00-725 R/0 YES NO 2-1205-006-2" V2-1205-006-H014 R/6 YES YES YES NO
YES
Q212/KG0
'.
\\
u .
-
,_
A