ML20155D188
| ML20155D188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1988 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Hairston W GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810110110 | |
| Download: ML20155D188 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000425/1988019
Text
'
-l '
.
..
-
.
,
'
C lc6to(
'
,
s,
.
/
,
SEP 2 2 1968
Docket No. 50-425
License No. CPPR-109
Georgia Power Company
/ ATTN: Mr. W. G. Hairston, III
Senior Vice President
Nuclear Operations
P. 0. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: NRC EVALUATION OF V0GTLE 2 READINESS REVIEW 0F PIPE STRESS AND
SUPPORTS MODULE N0. 11
The NRC has performed a review of the Pipe Stress and Supports for Vogtle Unit 2
covered by Readiness Review Module 11 submitted on April 19, 1988.
Based upon
NRC inspection review of those activities identified in the module, we have
determined that the Pipe Supports and Pipe Stress Analysis at Vogtle 2 are
acceptable with the exception of the two items in Enclosure 1.
This decision
is based on information presently available to the inspectors and reviewers.
Should information become available which was not considered during this review
or which conflicts with earlier information, it will be evaluated to determine
what effect it may have en the above conclusion.
Please contact us should you have any questions concerning this lctter.
Sincerely,
Hl
!
/
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
1.
List of Open Items
2.
Inspection Report No. 50-425/88-19
cc w/encls:
vR. P. Mcdonald, Executive Vice
,, President, Nuclear Operations
y P. D. Rice, Vice President, Project
Director
(cc w/ercis cont'd - see page 2)
\\
8810110110 880922
I\\
ADOCK 05000425
Q
JDl
e
-
-
. , .
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
'
'
.
,"
SEP 03 1968
.
Georgia Power Company
2
d(cc w/encls cont'd)
C. W. Hayes, Vogtle Quality
Assurance Manager
gG. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager,
Nuclear Operations
./J. P. Kane, Manager, Nuclear Licensing
and Engineering
f.A. Bailey,ProjectLicensing
Manager
yB.W. Churchill,Esq.,Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge
v0. Kirkland, 111, Counsel.
Office of the Consumer's Utility
Council
v0. Feig, Georgians Against
Nuclear Energy
State of Georgia
bec w/encis:
'E. Reis, 0GC
14. Hopkins, NRR
M. Sinkule, Rll
DRS, Technical Assistant
vNRC Resident inspector
Document Control Desk
.ff
NII ,3
RJ .,(
^
)
e., y
Rll
SVias:ser
C?atterson
MSinkule
VBrohnlee [Jkeyes
M6nsI
08/;c/88
CJ/ta/88
08/4 /86
02/1 '/88
ff/.2 088 , 08/ /88
1
'l
(I
se c
,, tz
yp
Q i,
- 1-*--
%=ss
P*'
'
g.
- % m/ce/s3
-";f/ ,3 / s s
-
..
- ..
. ;<
.
,
'
'
-
.,
,
,
,
,
1
?
ENCLOSURE i
List of Open Items
,
Violation 50-425/88-19-01:
Failure to Follow Procedures,
Resulting in Errors in Pipe
Support
and
Design
Documentation
Inspector Followup Item 50-425/88-19-02:
Potential
Problems
with
j
Spring Can Travel
.i
<
I
i
l
l
I
J
i
!
l
!
4
!
!
.
I
I
i
1
l
.i
4
. _ _ _ , . - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ , , ,
_
.
_ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ . _ . . _ . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ , ,
_
. _ . .
_.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_
7 ,, .
,.
ENCLOSURE 2
.
' ' '
, , .
na seg
UNITED STATES
.'
, g
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,,
/*
CEGION ll
..j . , I *I
101 M ARIETTA STRE ET. N W.
' * '
'e
ATLANTA,0EORGI A 30323
y %.
,/
t
- ....
AUG 18 WS
-
Docket No. 50-425
License No. CPPR-109
Georgia Power Com)any
ATIN:
Mr. W. G. Mairston III
SeniorVice-President
Nuclear Operations
P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
.
SUBJECT:
-
(NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-425/88-19)
'
inis refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted
by S. J. Vlas on May 11-12 June 6-10, and July 11-14, 1988.
The inspection
included a review of activities authorized for your Vogtle facility.
At the
conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members
of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection report.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report.
Within
these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examiMtions of procedures
and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of
j
activities in progress.
!
The inspection findings indicate that certain activities appeared to violate
NRC requirements.
The violation
references to pertinent requirements, and
elements to be included in your r,esponse are described in the enclosed Notice
of Violation.
l
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2,
l
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosures
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
l
Theresponsesdirectedbythisletteranditsenclosuresarenotsubjecttothe
clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the
,
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
.
7:4);:.we ; , ;
,
.
,
.. v
.. .
-
. :.
.
,.
,.
.
/
AUG 181988
.
Georgia Power Company
2
,
Should you have any questions concerning this lett'er, please contact us.
Sincerely,
gun
r
L. Brownlee, Chief
React r Projects Branch 3
DivisionofReactorProjects
Enclosures:
1.
2.
NRC Inspection Report
cc w/encis:
'
R. P. Mcdonald, Executive Vice
President Nuclear Operations
P. D. Rice,,Vice President,' Project
Director
C. W. Hayes, Vogtle Quality
.'
'
Assurance Mana
G. Bockhold, Jr.gerGeneral Manager,
Nuclear Operations
J. P. Kane, Manager, Nuclear Licensing
and En ineering
J.A.Baley,ProjectLicensing
Mana er
8. W.
hurchill, Esc.
Shaw
Pittman, Potts anc trowbrldge
D. Kirkland, III, Counsel,
Office of the Consumer's Utility
Council
D. Feig, Georgians Against
Nuclear Energy
__ ___.
,
> .. .
. . . . .,
.
'
-
..
,
,
,
.
?
,
'
ENCLOSURE 1
Georgia Power Company
Docket No. 50-425
Vogtle Unit 2
License No. CPPR-109
During the Nuclear Re
May 11-12, June 6-10, gulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on
and July 11-14
1988, violations of NRC requirements
were identified.
The violation involv,ed pipe sup) ort design and construction.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC
Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the violation is listed
below:
.
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, as implemented by FSAR
1
Chapter 17, Section 17.1.5 states in part: Activities affecting quality
shall be prescribed by' documented instructions, procedures, or drawings
... and shall be accom
procedures, or drawings plisited in accordance with these instructions, ,
1.
Pullman Power Products Procedure X-24, "As-Builting Piping Systems
'
and Related Components"
details requirements for as-builting and
-
.
documentation of informa, tion necessary for the performance of stress
1
'
analysis reconciliation.
Specifically Section 4.1.1, states that
"Mylars shall be revised to incorporate the as-built information,
when the actual dimension differs from the design dimension beyond
applicable measurement tolerance, but is within allowable construc-
tion tolerance."
,
Contrary to the above, the following discrepancies were fnund to be
'
properly ' redlined' and documented on a copy of the pipe support
drawing in the PPP Process Package, but were not incorporated into
the Mylars,
o
V2-1204-014-H004, the actual si:e of item 'b'.
,
V2-1204-014 H006, the dimension from the centerline W4 to the
!
c
centerline of the embeded plate.
,
'
j
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 51/2".
'
V2-1208-145-H017, the pin-to pin dimension of the spring can,
o
drawing shows 12'-10 5/16", and the ' redline' and the dimension
the inspectors measured was 12'-11".
,
<
i
i
- _ _ , . _ . -
__ -
-_
_ __
._
_,_
- -
_ - ___ - -__
- _ - -
'
,,. :.
'
- ,.
.
.
,
, ,-
-
..
,
,
-
3
-
Georgia Power Company
2
Docket No. 50-425
Vogtle Unit 2
License No. CPPP.-109
~
,
.
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,
o
Isometric 2K3-1208-146-01, Detail 2 & 3, indicate a class change
from 212/FGO
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.
OCN-F #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'-31/2", documen-
tation in the Process package and the Final Inspection Report,
both show the dimension to be l'-2 3/4".
4
Isometric 2K3-1205-006-01, from' 0CN #8, the class information
o
was not transferred correctly to the isometric. Also, not all
the information from FEDCNR-2262, was transferred to the
'as-built' isometric.
.
2.
Pullman Power Products, Procedure IX-50, "Pipe Support Field Instal-
lation and Fabrication Procedure", Section 11.1, states in part that,
a
i
"Each support shall be visually inspected for compliance with thg
support drawing and this procedure.'
Section 12.5.1, states in part
4
with this procedure.g'that, "The fie
d en ineers will as-built all supports in accordance
t
Contrary to the above, the above sections were not met in that, the
following drawings, both P&ID and pipe supports were found to have
discrepancies between the actual condition in the field and the
,
drawing; or pertinent information was missing from support drawings,
V2-1208-055 H052, shows the angle f ron, item 5, in the wrong
,
o
orientation.
4
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,
,
l
'
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".
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".
i
,
. , - - - - - .
,-n----
- - - - - _ _ - - . - - _ - -
- -
- - - - - - , , , - - , , , , _ _ - - _ _ - - - , _ _ , - - , . - - - - - , - - - , . _ -
.
'
..
. . :.
.
-
..
,.
,
,
-
.;
'
Georgia Power Company
3
Docket No. 50-425
l
Vogtle Unit 2
License No. CPPR-109
'
"
o
P&ID 2X4DB122, shows a line, designated as Line 006-8",
(coordinate C-5), and fust to the left of TE 0613, should be
Line 008-8".
o
V2-1205-004-H016, in the process package, the "Strut Reconcilia-
tion 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 piae support
drawing, (R/3), shows one strut.
There is also a d'screpancy 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 sprino can that was 'nstalled, both for the same
serial number of 8013066, they. also indicate two different
spring can sizes.
o
V2-1204-063-H007, was installed on the wrong vertical pipe.
The
support drawing had the correct location for the support.
3.
Pullman Power Products, Procedure IX-50
"Pipe Sup
Installation and Fabrication Procedure", $ection 6.6, port Field
states in part
that, "The locating dimension en the attached support in relation to
a connection point on the parent shall be documented on the attached
support (baby) drawing."
Contrary to the above, the above section was not met in that, the
following pipe support drawings, were found to not have the proper
locating dimension of the baby supports.
V2-1208-215-H003, -H004, -H005, all three drawings did not have
o
a locating dimension for the attached support (baby) in relation
to a connection point on the parent support.
This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement II.E).
,
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, is hereby required to submit a
written statement or explanation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATIN:
Document Control Oesk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the
Regional Administrator, Region II,
and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector,
i
within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this. Notice.
Th1s reply
'
should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should
include (for each violation):
(1) admission or denial of the violation
(2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which
have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will
be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance
will be achieved.
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to
extending the response time. If an adequate reply is not received within the
l
,.
.
.
. _ .
_
._ . __ _
,
,
' . .
'
-
.. .;
.
,
'
Georgia Power Company
4
Oceket No. 50-425
-
Vogtle Unit 2
License No. CPPR-109
-
,
.
l
time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the
!
license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action
as may be proper should not be taken.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
pt#
ey
/
-
V rgi UL.'8rownlee, Chief
ReactorProjectsBranch3
DivisionofReactorProjects
Dated at Atlanta, Geor i
thislgdayofgu.y
1988
j
,
'
t
!
.
!
]
'
i
I
j
i
i
1
j
-
i
I
i
1
l
1
!
1
i
i
'
1
t
i
, - - _ .
. _ _ . -
_,
,
_ _ .
. _ ___._ _..___-.
_ _ . , _ _ . _ _
,,m.7
,__, ..
.,y.,_____
, _,
___.m,,._m._____,-,-,,_,_
. _. _ _,,- -
_
_
__________________-___ -
_
, . .
, . , ' .
'.
,
,,
, * pS Eteg%,*
UNITE 3 STATES
'/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON
'
-
'
.'
REoloN la
I
j
,
101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
-
.
ATLANTA, otoRol A 30323
's,.....
.
Report No.:
50-425/88-19
Licensee: Georgia Power Company
.-
P. O. Box 4345
I
Atlanta, GA 30302
Docket 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 \\.dTh
8lh f Yi
5. J. ,V)as, Project Engineer
Date $1gned
Accompanying Personnel:
P. A. Balmain, Reactor Engineer, (June 6-10,1988)
S. Q. Ninh, Reactor Engin.eer, (July 11-14, 19
Approved by:
.k.
_[_ M .IT
M. V. Sinkule, Section Chief
Dat'e $1gned
l
Reactor Branch 38
l
Division of Reactor Projects
SUMMARY
Scope:
This special, announced inspection, on site, involved the areas of
safety-related supports (Unit 2), and Readiness Review Module 11
Pipe Stress and Supports (Unit 2).
Results: One violation was identified: Violation, 50-425/88-19-01, Failure to
Follow Procedures, Resulting in Errors in Pipe Support QC and Design
Documentation. See Paragraph 2.C.6),a.
Inspector Followup Item, 50-425/88-19-02, Potential Problems with
Sprir.g Can Travel.
See Paragraph 2.C.6).a.(7).
S ( 13 ? n l () d 4/
,;$ YJ (I );
L
-
-
.
va
,,
-
_ _ _ _
_____________ ______ _ _ _ _ - -
, . '
.
.
.
-
, . , -
.
..
,
..
s
/
.
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. Groever, 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
Other Organizations
R. Borgatti, Depdty Engineering Group Supervisor, Bechtel
Western Power Corporation (BWPC)
-
5. K. Gupta Deputy Engineering Group Supervisor, BWPC
P. Patel, Engineering GrNp 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
B. G. Schappell, Manager Mechanical Construction Support, V-SAMU
'O. P. Shaw, Westinghouse PQAE
- B, Edwards, Resident Construction Manager, Pullman Power
Products (PPP)
'J. Miller. Quality Assurance Manager, PPP
R. Norton, Orafting Lead, PPP
j
T. Pacifico Engineering Manager, PPP
j
H. Smith, Quality Control (CC) Manager, PPP
K. Weis, Chief Engineer, PPP
J. Morris QC Inspector, PPP
A. Turner, QC Inspector, PPP
Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen,
engineers, technicians, mechanics, and office personnel.
,
..
.-
.
' . .
-
-
.
. . '
..
/
.
.
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 ll, Pipe Stress and Supports (Unit 2)
(50090)
A.
Scope of Review
This review consisted of an examinition of GPC's Readiness Revi'tw
Module ll, Pipe Stress and Supports.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6,
which presented data on introduction and module organizatiosi,
organization and division of responsibilities, commi'ments, pro (ram
description, and, audits and inspections.
These did not require as
.
,
extensive a review as Section 6, which covered program assessment.
l
The evaluation of Section 6 included an examination of content.
l
review of findings and conclusions, review of a small sample of items
previously reviewed in the Readiness Review Program, and review of an
independently 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
reviewed for organization and content af ter its receipt on April 13,
,
l
1988.
The Region !! 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&lD's, isometrics, and pipe supports,
that were to be inspected and reviewed during the acoming inspection
periods.
The
first
inspection also involved the following
activities:
Reviewing the description of the Readiness Review program and
'
o
establishing organizational responsibilities for Module 11,
o
Verifying Module 11 review boundaries,
'
,{
.,
,.
,,
,..
.
..
,
,
..
..
3
-
<
i
.
o
Inspecting ancJ 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&IO's covered by thirteen piping isometrics, having
56 associated pipe supports was selected to form a basis for the
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 !! 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&lDs, 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 !!
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 f rom the
first inspection with the appropriate PPP personnel,
o
Accomplishing general Module 11 review activities,
o
Performing a Design Program review, for the piping and supports
inspected duritig thi first inspection on-site.
- - - - - - - - - - -
,
-
. . . -
.
.
,
,
, o, -
-
..
,
.
..
r'
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.
Evaluation
The evaluation of each Module section is provided below in the
section-by-section format used in the Module 11 report.
Included are
a description of the section, subject matter reviewed, basis for
acceptance, and statement of required follow-up or evaluation.
1)
Section 1 - Introduction
This section presents the scope of Module ll, outlines the
Module organization, and reports the' project status.
The
section was examined by the NRC inspectors for apropriatenoss
of scope and for background information,
a.
Boundary Definition.
Module 11 ircluded those activities
(stress analyses and pipe support design) for ASME, B&pV
Code, Section !!!, Classes 2 and 3 piping within the scope
of Bechtel West,ern power Corporation (BWPC) and Vogtle
Structural Analysis Mobile Unit (V-SAMU). The installation
of piping, Section !!!, 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 (NS$5), were not included this module.
Also
contained in Module 11 were stress analyses of non-safety
related piping that must meet Seismic Category 1 require-
ments for protecticn of safety-related components.
The NRC inspectors found the description of Module 11
bounW. ries 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.
Parcentages of completion
were quoted as of September 1987.
These percentagos were
shown as 71% completion for design of small-bore and 86%
completion for design of large-bore pipe supports, and with
7% completion of the analytical stress reconcil ation
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
g
i
i
t
l
1
2)
Section 2 - Organization and Division of Responsibility
This section describes the organizations invulved in design and
construction for Module 11.
It explains what personnel are
responsible for specific design and construction activities, and
presents Ce matrix organization used by the architect /
engineering contractor on the project.
This section was
reviewed by NRC inspectors for content and accucacy.
In the
,
process of this review, the responsibilities of the various
l
organizations and personnel within the organizations were
'
,
j
clarified. The NRC inspectors had no findings in this section.
]
3)
Section 3 - Commitments
P
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
i
Module 11 commitments, their source doc oents subject and
l
J
{
feature.
The second matris, ' entitled "Implementation Matrix,"
!
lists the document or plant feature for each coms,1tment, as
l
discussed in the source document, and the project document in
[
]
which the commitment is implemented,
'
.
3
g
. . .
.
.
j
Ouring the review of Unit 1 Readiness Review of Module 11, it
{
was noted that two commitments contained in the FSAR were
!
3
omitted from the RR review of commitments.
This matter was
(
followed in Inspector Followup Item 50-424/86-62-01. This
(
inspector reviewed this matter during a later inspection and was
l
documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-424/86-116. This matter
was considered closed.
The inspection conducted at this time
!
was not directed toward verifying this Readiness Review section.
(
r
4)
Section 4 - Program Description
This section describes procedures, documentation, control for
!
design and as-built and reconciliation activities; equipment and
i
material; site material control; and fabrication, installation
and inspection. The section was examined by the NRC inspectors
i
i
for content and background information. Some of the background
[
was useful in the review of later sectinns in the Module,
t
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 suppert design process; design criteria;
design documsntation; design control and review; and design
change control.
This subsection describes the design
i
pecgram from its earliest phase of design criteria
development
to
its
final
phase of design program
!
verification.
The NRC review of this subsection revealed
l
that the information presented therein gave a descriptive
l
!
l
_
l
,;
.
.
' , ' , - ',
.
..
-
..
..
,
6
,
'
i
accounting of the design process and defined the division
of responsibility between Bechtel Western Power Corporation
and Westinghouse in pipe stress analysis activities.
It
also explained the interfaces between engineering groups
involved in the design effort.
The informaticn 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 tsed to determine how
effectively the program actually functioned.
3.
Equipment and Material.
Subsection 4.2
describes
the
process for procuring safety-relating piping supports and
,
components or the materiat used to fabricate these items.
GPC serves as the pure.hasing 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
describes
the
responsibilities of the pipe support installers relative to
receipt, inspection, and control of ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel
Code mater;al
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 (PPM
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
Services Company (NISCO).
Materials and equipment are
inspected when received at the job site by GPC.
After
i
satisfactory completion of this inspection, the material is
placed in storage locations maintained by GPC. The NRC did
no'. perform a detailed examination of this subsection since
the material contained a brief description and not an
assessment.
Tha NRC inspectors had no findings in th's
subsection.
d.
Fabrication, Installation, and Inspection.
Subsection 4.4
describes site fabrication, installation and inspection
l
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,
t-
fabrication and installation of pipe
supports was performed in accordance with Bechtel Western
Power Corporation's Specification XoAZO1, Division P1,
General Requirements, and Division PS, Pipe Support Field
Fabricat an and Installation.
It also describes the
j
, ,:
-
.
.
,;.
'; . -
.
.
..'e
. . '
7
r
,
(
.
preparation and control of the principal documents used
by PPP for site fabrication, installation 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.
. Re su t s
from the review of
.
Module 11, Section 6 were used to determine 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 evaluations
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
3ection discusses findings resulting from these audits relative
to the design and construction programs.
The section also
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 raportability 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 documentation, 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
activities were adequately controlled to ensure implementation
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.
i
., __
. - _ _
_ _ . _ _ _
___ __,._ _.__
. , _ .
_ _ _ . _ _ _
_ , _ , _
_ . _ _ _ _ _
- ,
,.
.. .
'
>.
,1 . -
.
., .. .- .:
/ *
g
.
a.
Construction Program Verification
The Construction Program Verification performed by the
Readiness Review Team consisted of 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
org:inization
responsibilities.
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
Review's verification program were divided into the
following major categories:
o
Im'plementation of licensing commitments,
,
o
Followup of corrective actions which resulted from 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
con,truction walkdowns, the programs and procedures for the
installers of pipe supports for safety-related systems were
reviewed.
All programs and procedures were found to be
acceptable.
The inspectors reviewed portions of various procedures
during the evaluation of the thirteen 'sometrics and
56 pipe supports described below.
The inspectors found
that poetions 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 draf ting 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:
'
_ _ _
__
._
_ - - - - - - _
.-
- .
.,
.. =
,, .
.
,
,
.
..
..
9
g .,
.
.
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 Data 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 Linc Designation List (LOL),
Valve List, Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P& ids),
pipe isometrics an' support drawings, all associated
documents in the P / QC document packages, and other
miscellaneous documents. The documents included in the PPP
QC packages were Process Sheets, MFCRBs, Authorizations to
Continue Work ( ATCWs), ors, DCN-Rs, Snubber and Strut
Checklists, Weld Process Sheets, and Weld Rod Requisition
Tickets,
knong other miscellaneous construction documents
reviewed were Requests
for Support Removal,
Liquid
Penetrant Examination Records, Material Inspection Reports,
Maintenance Work Orders, Certificates 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 requiroments.
The inspectors did, however, identify several deficiencies
in the construction program, which are described as
follows:
l
(1) During the review of the as-built information gathered
)
in the field, and comparing the information to the PPP
j
Process Packages for the individual pipe supports, it
i
was noted on five occasions that all the information
i
that was
"redlined"
per
PPP
Procedure
X-24,
l
"As-Builting Piping Systems and Related Components',
i
i
l
. ' .
-
.
.,
.
.*
, , -
.
.
,
,
v
..
..
r
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 ".4,
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 dr& wing 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,
i
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,
f rom 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
condition in the field and the drawing; or pertinent
j
"
information was missing from support drawing,
o
P&ID 2X408122, shows a line, designated as Line
006-8", (coordinate C-5), and just to the lef t of
l
T' 0613, should be Line 008-8".
.
J
o
V2-1208-055-H052, shows the angle iron, item 5,
"
in the wrong orientation.
_
-
_
_
-_
_
__
_
.
__ .-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. . .
.
.
..
'!
y.,
.
,
-
..
7
, . -
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 Components", Section
6.6.
(3) The following pipe supports were found to have
dirensions on the dfawings 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".
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
insoectors 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 noi. 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/FGO, on Line 1208-145-4"
to 414/FG4, on Line 1208-A20-1/2".
The Line
!
Designatien List (LOL) shows 1208-A20-1/2" as
424/FG4.
OCN-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,
J
both show the dimension to be l'-2 3/4".
1
..
- - . . ,
.-,
. _ .
.'
,
.,
. ' . . . 1,
.,
.
.,
, . .
..
g-
12
.
o
Isometric 2K3-1205-006-01, from DCN #8, the class
information was not transferred correctly to the
isometric.
Also, not all the information 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, Aws one strut and SD.R 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 degree , 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 serial number of
8G15066, they also indicate two different spring
can sizes.
J
(6) The NRC inspectors while performing the inspection in
the field noted a discrepancy with respect to pipe
1
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 differsnt riser, approximately
l'-11", West of Column A3.
The pipe support, at
various times was inspected no less than three times.
,
PPP has issued OR PP-18138, for disposition of this
problem.
The discrepancies, in the above six items between support
installation, design information, 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 Follnw 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
topped out.
Therefore, it was agreed upon, that the
spring can would be monitored during hot functional
1
,
-
.-
.
.
.
? ...',
.,
.
,
.. ..
..
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 coverec: 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 inspector:, were not able to
efficiently use the RR review groups sample in their
review, and chose a completely indepe.' dent sample for
review.
Documents included in the Readiness Review Team's review
and results of the review were divided into the following
major categories:
I
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 the beginning of
design to the completion of construction.
This was
'
accomplished by first selecting a set of thirteen piping
isometrics to form a basis for an assessment of both the
i
Design and Construction Program Verifications.
The piping
isomet rics 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
support 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 prcgram. The piping isometrics and pipe
supports selected for eeluation are listeo Table 1.
All
of the isometrics and pipe supports were evaluated in NRC
Regicn II's review of the Construction Program Verifica-
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 w6re examined for
completeness,
inter-discipline
'coordinatiorf,
-
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
thst 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
j
o
Load combinations used were in accordance with
Design Criteria DC-1017 and NUREG-0484.
_ - _ - -
___
_.
._-
. _ _ - .
. _ _ -
_-
.'
<
.
.
., *:
4...
.
.
,
.. .. ..
.
15
. . .
.
.
o
Stresses for the faul.ted conditinn were within
allowances specified in ASME Code Case 1606-1.
o
The valve weights and orientations used in the
analysis were consistent with the drawings and
instellation,
The design temperature and pressure, operating
o
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
.e
-
were correct and the movements were incorporated
'
e ~- r
in the a n a lys i ngJ,hpNf04-014-0C * 'c a l c' fa t to
in~spectors found for
.
Isometric
drawin'g+ 2M3
'
u
'
BJ-01-706, a portion of Page 7 was-'Ef6Tnf in the
-
calculation,
indicating
the
thermal
anchor
movements used in the calculation.
o
The
calculated
stresses were
within ASME
Section III Class i. allowances and deflections at
support locations were less than the allowable
for both small and large bore piping.
(2)
pipe Support Calculat_ ions
The pipe support calculation packagas listed in
Table 1,
were examined for completeness,
inter-
discipline
coordination,
conformance
to design
criteria and project requirements, consi s*.ency 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.
Observations 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.
I
o
A friction load was included whenever the thermal
movement at a support en:eeded 1/16 inch,
o
The structural members used in the analyses
corresponded in size and material with the
drawings and installation.
-
_
- - - _
. - - - - . -
- _
_-
__.
. - - .
.-_ _ _ _ _ - - -
_ _ _ _
- - _ _ _ _ .
,
,
.
,
,
,
l : .
4. ..
.
.
. . . . ..
.
,
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 Orawings
The examination of pipe support drawings was performed
in conjunction with tk.e review of pipe support
calculations and the evaluation of the Construction
,
program Verification.
Therefore, all of the pipe
supports listed in Table 1 were included in the pipe
,
support drawing review.
The drawings were reviewed
for completeness, appropriate approvals, drafting
clarity, and consistency 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), 00N-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
,
_ _ _ _
.
_ _ _ - _ _ -
-
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
'
l
.<
,
e, ' . :, 4. l. ,
.
.. .. ..
.
.
'
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 one 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 incpectors 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
Spring Can Travel.
See Paragraph 2.C 6).a.(7).
The licensee did identify as proprietary materials various documents
for review by the inspector during this insnection, but no
i
proprietary information is contained in this report.
4.
Acronyms and Initialisms
Anerican 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
Orawing Change Notice-Resident
P..
.,
.
- * , . ,
-
,
y . . .. . .
18
ll
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
INP0
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
LDL
Line Designation List
NFCR
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
WAC
Visual Weld Acceptance Criteria
WPS
Welding Procedure Specification
l
l
l
l
l
1
1
L
..
'
. *
-
. .
?
TABII
I .* .
..
. .
-
--
_._
,
PIPING
STRESS
-
SUPPORTS
PPP
P&lD
ISorETRICS
STRESS
ANALYSIS
LINE NUMBER
CALCtlIATION
SUPPORTS
SUPPORT QC
,
DRAWillG MfSER
Ills *ECTED BY
ANALYSIS
REVIEW D BY AND SAFETY /
PIPE
REVIEW D
INSPECTED BY DOCIAENTATION
.
'
SYSTEM and SUIll)ING
PIPING IS2ETRICS
NBC g
Pit 03Ist NIRIBER NRC RRT PIPING CIASS
SUPPORTS
NRC RE
NRC RRY REVIEW D BY NRC
_
214D8828. R/22
2E3-1204-073-01, R/4
YES 11 0
BJ-01-706 R/2 YES NO 2-1204-014-4" V2-1204-014-N007 R/2 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Safity Injecties
Q212/GGO
V2-1204-014-N00s R/3 YES YES YES NO
YES
Availirry Building
213-I204-Cl4-01, R/S
YES NO
RJ-01-706 R/2 YES NO 2-1204-014-4" V2-1204-014-N004 R/2 YES No
YES NO
YES
Q212/GGO
V2-1204-014-N005 R/2 YES NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-014-NO M R/2 YES No
YES NO
'ES
216D8114 R/19
2K4-1208-055-02, R/6
YES NO
SG-02-905
NO
NO 2-I?08-055-3" V2-1208-055-N044 R/2 NO
NG
YES NO
YES
Cheencel and
Q212/MGO
V2-1208-055-N045 R/2 NO
YES NO
YES
Valise Centrol
V2-1208-C55-N046 R/2 10 0
NO
YES NO
YES
Ausflicry Su61 dang
V2-1208-055-N048 R/4 NO
10 0
YES NO
TES
V2-1208-055-It049 R/2 10 0
- 0
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-055-N050 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-055-N051 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-055-N052 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
2X4-1208-215-01, R/5
YES NO
NO
NO 2-1208-215-3" V2-1208-215-N001 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/NGO
V2-1208-215-II002 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-215-N003 R/2 NO
h0
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-215-N004 R/2 L
NO
YES NO
YES
V.'-1208-215-Il005 R/5 NO
NO
YES ho
YES
5
2K. I208-005-02 R/6
YES NO
N0
NO 2-1208-255-3" V2-1208-255-N001 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/FGO
V2-1208-255-N002 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-055-N005 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-005-8006 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-005-N007 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
2E4-1204-005-01, R/6
YES NO
11 0
30 2-1208-005-3" V2-1208-005-N002 !!/2 NO
h0
YES No
YES
Q212/FGO
V2-1208-005-N001 R/2 NO
31 0
YES NO
YES
22405-119. R/15
2K3-1204-063-02 R/5
YES NO
NO
NO 2-1204-057-4" V2-1204-063-N003 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Sefity Isjecties
2-1204-063-4" V2-1204-063-ilOO4 R/2 NO
10 0
YES NO
YES
Assilacry Sustdaag
2-1204-063-3" V2-1204-063-It005 R/4 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
Q212/FGO
V2-1204-063-N006 R/2 NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-063-N007 R/3
18 0
NO
YES No
YES
V2-1204-063-N009 R/2 No
18 0
YES NO
YES
1ri-8204-063-N010 R/2 NO
No
YES PO
YES
V2-1204-063-N0l2 R/2 NO
No
YES NO
YES
V2-1204-063-N013 R/2 NO
NO
YES ho
YES
V2-1204-063-N001 R/2 NO
NO
YES No
YES
V2-I204-057-N039 R/2 NO
NO
YES len
YES
-
.
-.
-,
,
.* w
=
.
'g-
Page 2
.
. .. .... ....... -
. * < . .
.
_
--
__
_.---
.,
FIFING
,,
.-
F61D
STRESS
-.. ..
SUFFORTS
FFF
!SorETRICS
STRESS
ANALYSIS
LINE NIAGER
CALCUIATION
SUFFORTS
SUFF0WT QC
DRAWING NiseER
INSFECTED ST
AllALYSIS
REVIEM D Bf AND SAFETY /
FIPE
REVIEWD
INSFECTED BY DOCUIElfYATION
SYSYDI med EUILDINC
FIFING ISOfETRICS
SC RRT
PROSIRI NIMBER BRC RRY FIFING CIASS
SUFFORYS
lac Rg
I_E_IC
RR_Y REVIEWD RY NBC
-
.
_
2X4D8315-2. R/I6
2K3-1208-139-01, R/12
YES NO
3C-01-737, R/l YES NO 2-1208-I39-6" V2-1208-139-II016 R/3 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Chemicci med Volume
Central.
Q212/FGO
V2-1208-I)9-N0I4 R/3 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Ammilirry Seilding
V2-I208-139-N003 R/4 YES NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1200-139-It W afs yr3 leo
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-139-N0
Ls YES NO
YES NO
YES
2K3-1208-146-01. R/15
YES 31 0
E-03-903, R/I NO
NO 2-1208-145-4" V2-1208-145-li005 R/5 No
NO
YES NO
YES
2-1208-146-3" ve-I208-145-5006 R/7 EO
No
YES leo
YES
2-1208-A20-l/2*V2-1208-145-11013 R/4 NO
NO
YES 11 0
YES
Q212/FC0
V2-1200-145-N014 R/3 NO
NO
YES NO
TES
V2-1208-145-II015 R/l NO
NO
YES 11 0
YES
V2-1204-145-8016 R/l NO
NO
YES NO
YES
V2-1208-145-N017 R/3 11 0
NO
YES NO
YES
2I405122. R/20
2E3-1205-004-02, R/7
YES 11 0
E-00-718. R/I YES NO 2-1205-004-14" V2-1205-004-N015 ?/4 YES NO
YES If0
YES
Reeldoel Best
Q212/MGO
V2-1205-004-N010 R/3 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Removal Ansiliary
Seildsag
213-1205-004-01 R/13
YES NO
3C-00-718. R/l YES NO 2-1205-004-14" V2-1205-004-N016 R/3 YES NO
YES NO
YES
Q2I2/IIGO
V2-1205-004-II019 R/4 YES ho
YES 31 0
YES
V2-1205-004-N001 R/2 YES 30 0
YES NO
YES
wo
2K3-12C5-006-03, R/12
YES NO
3C-00-725, R/0 YES NO 2-1205-006-8" V2-1205-006-II009 R/4 YES leo
YES leo
YES
Q212/E0
V2-1205-006-Is001 R/5 YES NO
YES leo
YES
2K3-3205-C06-02. R/IZ
fES 11 0
BC-00-725. R/0 YES No 2-1205- W -2" V2-1205hEIC R/6 m m m M
m
Q232/E0
.
.
- - -
-
-
- - -
- - - -
-
..
..
- ....
t
AREA PERFORMANCE
I
CATEGORY 3
)
Licensee management attention to and involvement
in the performance of nuclear safety or safeguards
octisities are not sufficient.
The licensee's
performance does not significontly exceed that needed
1
to meet minimal regulatory requirernents.
Licensee
resources appear to be strained or not effectively
used.
NRC attention should be increased above normal
levels.
.
)
i
,
.-_ __- --_.--..
, ,
._._,.._..,.__-_,-,_,_..__,-____-_,_,,_.,.,,,.__,,_-._,.,,__,.n.___,,_.._-,_,.n_.
,_
,