ML20237H208

Rev 0 to 01-0300-1629, Independent QA Audit & Technical Quality Review of Trojan Nuclear Power Plant Pipe Support Verification Program

ML20237H208
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	08/10/1987
From:	ABB IMPELL CORP. (FORMERLY IMPELL CORP.)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237H192	List: ML20237H188 ML20237H208
References
01-0300-1629, 01-0300-1629-R00, 1-300-1629, 1-300-1629-R, TAC-65726, NUDOCS 8708240394
Download: ML20237H208 (34)

Text

.. .

Trojan fiuclear Plant Document Control Desk

-Docket 50-344 August 18, 1987-License NPF-1 Att ac hment D3 1

I 1

i INDEPENDENT QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT

f AND TECHNICAL QUALITY REVIEW 0F THE r ,

TROJAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ,

PIPE SUPPORT VERIFICATION PROGRAM l

! i ll \

l I Prepared for: I Portland General Electric Company 121 S.H. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204

I i

-i i

3 I Prepared by:

l Impell Corporation 350 Lennon Lane  ;

Halnut Creek, California 94598

(

^

Impe11 Report No. 01-0300-1629  !

Revision 0 August 10, 1987 i

8708240394 870810 PDR ADDCKOSOOg4 P

n.

l l

l INP_ ELL @

t l

REPORT APPROVAL COVERSHEET l INDEPENDENT QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT AND TECICICAL QUALITY "8"I"" " T"5 T" 3^" ""CL'^^ " "*" "'^"T "*"" 8""" "T  !

R w M M ig-

• VERIFICATION PROGRAM .

I Report Number: 01-0300-1629 Revision: 0 gggggg. Portland General Electric 3 -'

Job Number: )

Project:. _Tro3an Nuetear power Plant RECORD OF REVISION REVISON DATE PREPARED REVEWED APPROVED A A

, 7 l

l

AUDIT TEAM CONCURRENCES IMPELL QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT OF THE TROJAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PIPE SUPPORT VERIFICATION PROGRAM sr/?&/~

Lead Auditor /

$/s7Date

$$4//bh /

1. de'/WE7 date Alf6i tor'f/

3 ical SpE' 6 /Ch 7 Lea F ec _

iMist Date RdAJ Lead' Technical Specialist Awx 10 1787 Date MOlms 8f to}1h technjchlSp'ecialist sc Date

/4 h klo(01

%chnicalSpeciaTist 'Date h/l0l$4 T(chnical Specialist Date '

M T- bm Technical /Jpecialist bfIof87

'Date

/f/W J $>l/o/67 Techni al Spe Date I / I jYlb cWi t}

Tech 51 cal'Sheciglist

,?f 0-/D fdl Date ii Impell Report No. 01-0300-1629 Rev. O

TABLE OF CONTENTS I

I

=

REPORT APPROVAL SHEET 1 AUDIT TEAM CONCURRENCES 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii l ABSTRACT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

iv 1-1 2.0 SCOPE OF HORK 2-1 3.0 METHODS 3-1 I 4.0 RESULTS 4-1

5.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1 Appendix A: QA AUDIT PLAN AND CHECKLIST A-1 Appendix B: TECHNICAL QUALITY REVIEH CRITERIA B-1 CHECKLIST I

I I

I iii Impell Report No. 01-0300-1629 Rev. 0

ABSTRACT Portland General Electric (PGE) retained Impell Corporation to perform an independent QA Audit / Technical Quality Review of the Bechtel Pipe Support

Verification Program. The purpose of the audit / review was to assess the adequacy of the Verification Program.

The scope of the audit / review consists of 1) reviewing the implementation of the Bechtel QA program on the Trojan Support Verification Program, and 2) Reviewing technical interface activities and selected support design qualifications.

__ Based on the review of the Bechtel implementation of their QA program and a review of a sample population of supports, it is concluded that the programmatic aspect of the Support Verification Program is adequate to de onstrate the integrity of the structural supports included in the Trojan program. Concerns are identified which relate to specific QA implementation items and to technical and documentation issues for the sample supports reviewed. The concerns have been resolved during the audit and present no significant QA or technical issues relative to support structural adequacy. Several concerns relative to documentation issues are to be i resolved during PGE's long-term program.

L__

m.___

iv Impell Report No. 01-0300-1629 Rev. 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

While performing a snubber inspection during the 1987 refueling outage, separation between grout and l concrete and between grout and the anchor plate was l noted on main steam line piping supports SS-81 and SS-86. Subsequent evaluation indicated that although the grout separation was not a problem, both supports were not capable of withstanding the design load (approximately 83 kips). Further investigation could not locate the original design calculations for these two supports (SS-81 and SS-86) as well as 12 others on the main steam line. The total of 14 supports were designed and installed to withstand the dynamic loads from a turbine trip. They were designed and installed in late 1975 when construction of Trojan was almost complete. These supports were designed by the Bechtel Civil Engineering Group.

Bechtel was requested to develop and initiate an Action Plan (also referred to as the Support Verification Program) to investigate and resolve the issue. Bechtel's Action Plan proposed to verify the following supports which were designed by the Civil Group:

1. Main Steamline Safety-Related Supports (64).

2. Safety-Related supports for snubbers and restraints (265).

3. Safety-Related anchorages (33)

4. Nonsafety-Related supports in the Turbine Building (41).

PGE added to the Action Plan those supports for safety-related systems subject to dynamic loads (76).

Additional (40) Safety and Non-safety related supports were also added from later drawing reviews.

The support verification program performed by Bechtel considered the following support items:

bolts baseplates welds member sizes 1-1 Impe11 Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of standard component hardware was in progress at the time of the audit and was not reviewed. The verification nrogram was defined in PGE letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on July 15, 1987.

Bechtel commenced work on implementation of the Action Plan. On June 22-23, the NRC sent an audit / inspection team to Bechtel's offices in San Francisco to review the support verification program and results achieved at that time.

Ten (10) concerns were identified by the NRC. PGE responded on July 10, 1987 to those ten concerns and a request for additional information in a 10CFR 50.54(f) NRC letter dated July 9, 1987. The PGE response was further clarified on July 15, 1987. On July 16, 1987, PGE met with the NRC Staff in 3 Bethesda, Maryland. The following week, July 21-23, J the NRC sent an inspection team to the Bechtel offices in San Francisco to further review the Support Verification Program. This latter inspection gener-ated nineteen (19) concerns, nine of which required responses prior to startup. PGE responded on July 27 and again on July 31 to those issues and additional ones provided by the NRC in telephone calls.

On July 31, after review of the PGE letter of that day, the NRC informed PGE that they had additional concerns which must be resolved. One of these issues was the adequacy of the Quality Assurance of Bechtel in the Support Verification Program. The NRC disagreed with the PGE position that there was no breakdown.

For that reason Impe11 was asked to perform an independent quality assurance audit of the implementation of Bechtel activities associated with the Support Verification Program and a technical quality review of the results of the Support Verification Program.

A pre-audit meeting was held with Portland General.

Electric on August 2,1987 to discuss the audit purpose and scope. A pre-audit meeting was held with Bechtel project personnel on August 3, 1987 to arrange the audit details. The audit / technical quality review was performed on August 4-5 at Bechtel's facility in San Francisco. Resolution of concerns continued through August 10.

1-2 Impe11 Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. O

2.0 SCOPE OF HORK The scope of this report consists of a quality assurance audit of the Bechtel activities associated with the Support Verification Program and a technical f quality review of selected pipe supports.

The QA audit is limited to the implementation of the Bechtel QA program as it pertains to the Trojan Support Verification Program. The Bechtel quality assurance activities associated with the Support Verification Program which were audited are:

Project Organization Project Training Design and Design Interface Control Instructions, procedures, and drawings Document Control Nonconformance Corrective Action Audits The above correspond to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criteria I, II, III, V, VI, XV, XVI, and XVIII.

Appendix A of this report contains the quality assurance Audit Plan and the QA Audit Checklists.

The Support Verification Program verified the following supports which were designed by the Bechtel Civil Group and the Bechtel Plant Design Group.

The pipe supports included in the support verification program are as follows:

2-1 Impell Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. 0

2.0 SCOPE OF HORK I

CATEGORY _ NUMBER OF SUPPORTS Main Steamline Safety-Related Supports 64 Safety-Related Supports for Snubbers and Restraints 265 Safety-Related Anchorages 33 Non-Safety-Related Supports in the Turbine Building 41 Safety-Related Systems Subject to Dynamic Loads 76 Additional Safety and Non-Safety Related Supports from Drawing Review 40 A technical quality review was performed on representative samples from each of the first five (5) categories of supports. Approximately 101. of the total supports were reviewed. The review focused on Bechtel-related support design activities, as defined in the Bechtel design verification program as defined in Section 1.0 of this report.

Appendix B contains the technical quality review checklists used.

Table 2-1 lists the calculations, drawings, and supports which were reviewed by the team.

I I

2-2 Impe11 Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. 0

2.0 SCOPE OF NORK I

TABLE 2-1 REVIEW DOCUMENTS SYSTEM CALC No. PEVIEVED BY ffATEGORY SUPPORT No.

SS-80 Main Steam Line J-301, Rev. 1 BYJ/PB I

1 1 SR-82 Main Steam Line J-301, Rev. 1 BYJ/PB 1 SS-83 Main Steam Line J-301, Rev. 1 BYJ/PB SR-85 Main Steam Line J-301, Rev. 1 BYJ/PB 1

J-301, Rev. 1 I Main Steam Line BYJ/PB 1 SR-86 1 SS-87 Main Steam Line J-301, Rev. 1 BYJ/PB 1 SR-89 Main Steam Line J-301, Rev. 1 BYJ/PB Main Steam Line J-301, Rev. 1 BYJ/PB I

1 SR-90 1 SS-91 Main Steam Line J-301, Rev. 1 BYJ/PB 1 SR-93 Main Steam Line J-301, Rev. 1 BYJ/PB 2 7 Pressurizer Spray 3-308, Rev. 1 AD/PB I 2 2

2 9

24 30 RHR Disch. to RCS CL Press Reflief Tank RV Header CVCS Letdown J-308, Rev. 1 RC-01, Rev. 1 J-308, Rev. 1 AD/PB AD/PB AD/PB J-307, Rev. 2 DWL I 3 Generic Snubber Supt TYPE I 3 Generic Snubber Supt TYPE II J-307. Rev. 2 DWL 3 55-1047 Pressurizer Relief J-307 Rev. 2 DWL 3 SS-1133 RHR Sunction J-307, Rev. 2 DWL 3 55-1259 Pressurizer Relief 3-307, Rev. 2 ~JBL 3 $5-1135 RHR Sunction J-307, Rev. 2 'JBL 3 SS-1052 RHR Recirculation J-307, Rev. 2 JBL 3 SS-1053 RHR Recirculation J-307, Rev. 2 DWL 3 $5-1141 RHR Recirculation J-307, Rev. 2 DWL 3 55-1154 RHR Discharge J-307 Rev. 2 DWL SR-1155 Safety Injection J-307, Rev. 2 JBL I

3 3 $5-1174 Reactor Cool Intr J-307 Rev. 2 DWL 3 SS-1177 Reactor Cool Intr J-307. Rev. 2 DWL 3 SS-1263 Pressurizer Relief J-307 Rev. 2 JBL I 3 4

5

$5-1268 SA-310 Pressurizer Relief Pressurizer Blowdown 3-307, Rev. 2 Support Structure 1 Moist Sepa Reheater E-111A (18 supts) J-302, Rev. O RC-01, Rev. O JBL RTC AD Pressurizer Blowdown RC-01, Rev. O AD I 5 5

5 55-300 SS-1260

$$-1264 Pressurizer Blowdown Pressurizer Blowdown RC-01, Rev. O RC-01, Rev. O RC-01, Rev. O AD AD AD 5 SS-45 Pressurizer Blowdown I 5 SS-1130 Sueoort Description Cateoorv #

Pressurizer Blowdcen RC-01, Rev. O AD 64 total I 1 2

3 Safety Related Main Steam System Pipe Supports Safety-Related Pipe Anchors Safety-Related Pipe Snubber and Restraint Anchorages and Structural Members 33 total 265 total 4 Five Non-Safety-Related Pipe Support Structures 41 total 5 Safety-Related Supports with Dynamic Loads 76 total 2-3 Impell Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. O

3.0 METHODS The independent QA audit / technical quality review team consists of a qualified audit team leader, a j qualified QA auditor and eight (8) technical specialists. The QA audit was performed by the QA auditor, with the assistance of the team. leader, through a review of documents and personal interviews with key project personnel. The technical quality review was performed by a team of eight (8) technical specialists.

This technical quality review was conducted utilizing written checklists to ensure a consistent review of selected Calculations / Designs. Of various categories of support designs, an approximate ten (10) percent of each category was selected for review.

All findings identified in this audit / review were provided to Bechtel personnel for clarification. The results of this audit / review are presented in the next section.

The audit / review was performed on August 4-5, 1987, and resolution of concerns continued through August 10.

3-1 Impe11 Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. O

4.0 RESULTS l

As a result of this audit / review of selected activities, there are five (5) deficiencies and two I (2) recommendations identified. Items 1, 2 and 3 are pertinent to the quality assurance audit and Items 3 through 7 are concerned with specific technical and interface issues for the sample supports reviewed.

1. QA Document Control Deficiency:

It was observed that Controlled Copy #6 of the Project Engineering Procedure Manur (PEPM),

Revision 42, for the Trojan Nuclear Plant (Trojan) Job No. 11760 which was assigned to Karl K. Gross, Civil Group Supervisor, contained the following discrepancies:

a. Engineering Department Project Instruction (EDPI)-4.27.1, Revision No.1, issued April 9,1981 was missing. (Ref: Engineering Department Procedure (EDP)-5.10, Rev. 2, para 3.2)

b. 29 documents (procedures, etc.) were filed in the PEPH that were not listed in the Revision 42 Table of Contents. (ref: Engineering Department Procedure (EDP)-5.10, Rev. 2 Para 3.2)

Resolution:

As a result of the above referenced observations Bechtel personnel reviewed other controlled copies of the Trojan PEPMs. The Impell audit team was informed that the necessary corrective actions were taken to assure that these Trojan PEPMs' contents reflected those required by Revision 42. The auditors concluded that the originally observed condition of PEPH Copy #6 would have had no adverse effect on the Trojan Support Verification Program (TSVP) because PEPM Copy #6 contained all the necessary procedures required for TSVP activities.

4-1 Impell Report 01-030011629 Rev. 0 ' ,.

4.0 RESULTS lI g 2. QA Corrective Action Deficiency:

. It was observed that Trojan Project Audit No.

3.2.12 dated 5/20-22; 25-29/87 and issued June 5, 1987 required a written response by 7/17/87. As of August 4,1987 neither a written response requesting an extension nor documented evidence

E of completed corrective action had been received 5 by the Project Quality Assurance Engineer (PQAE).

Resolution:

3I A formal request for extension was submitted by the Bechtel Project Engineer to the PQAE on I August 4, 1987. This request asked for an extension until September 18, 1987. The observed deficiencies: where not related to the Trojan Support Verification Program.

It is noted that the PQAE's Work Plan and Log for the period of 7/1-31/87 was reviewed. Item No.

I 8, "Honitor Civil Cales", was investigated.

It was observed that the PQAE had performed a I monitoring activity of civil calculations specific to the Trojan Support Verification Program on July 17, 1987, in accordance with

.g QADP, Rev.1, dated 3/25/76. The Bechtel PQAE g cited the deficiencies in a memorandum issued to the Project Engineer and other responsible parties on 7/17/87. Follow-up action was I performed by the Bechtel PQAE en August 6, 1987 and was documented in another memorandum issued to the Project Engineer and Civil Group Supervisor on 8/6/87. The 8/6/87 memorandum

.I required further corrective action and a written response due on 8/14/87. The above referenced activities indicate that the 8echtel PQAE was overviewing and enforcing QA requirements on the Trojan Support Program Verification activities.

I I

I 4-2 I

Impe11 Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. O

4.0 RESULTS

3. QA/TQR - Technical Procedures ~

Recommendation:

In the current support verification program, support evaluations are performed by Bechtel Plant Design Group and Civil Group. Each Group uses its own design criteria procedures. The Plant Design Group uses DC-11760-P-003, " Pipe Support Design Criteria for Trojan Nuclear Flant", Rev. O, dated 6/15/87. The Civil Group uses Standard 11760-C1, " Civil and Structural Design Criteria for the Trojan Nuclear Plant".

Rev. 5, dated 10/6/86. Although reviewers did not compare the technical contents of the Plant Design Group and Civil Group criteria on a point by point basis, it appears that the criteria developed by the Plant Design Group is a more complete document for pipe support qualification. Example: The criteria developed by the Plant Design Group states that the material yield strength should be taken at the operating temperatures. This is not stated in the criteria developed by the Civil Group. This is reflected in Bechtel Calculation File J-301 for the following supports for which the temperature is not defined to adjust the yield strength: SS-80, SR-82, SS-83, SR-85, SR-86, SS-87, SR-89, SR-90, 55-91, and SR-93.

From the above sample supports reviewed during this audit, there are no qualification issues directly related to the existence of two criteria. The adequacy of the supports reviewed were not affected by the differences in criteria. It is recommended that Bechtel review the technical contents of the two criteria and make certain that there is no inconsistency between the two criteria for pipe support qualification.

Resolution:

It is Bechtel's position that the two procedures as existed are adequate for support qualification.

4-3 Impell Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. O s

4.0 RESULTS

4. TQR - Expansion Anchors Deficiency:

Several support drawings indicated that baseplate bolts can be either Rock bolts or expansion anchor bolts. There is no documentation showing the type of bolt used in the support evaluation.

The use of expansion anchor bolts may impact the design verification since different design and analysis assumptions are required to evaluate the expansion bolts.

Resolution:

This is an open issue. Bechtel is reviewing the use of expansion anchors on the project.

5. TQR - Held Evaluations Deficiency:

There was insufficient input data to define the details for the qualification of welds in the evaluation of some supports. Examples are:

SS-87: Sketch showed one weld symbol for All welds for the support. However, there was a note requesting additional weld information and there was no evidence that this information was received.

All welds are then assumed to be 3/16" fillet all around for the evaluation.

SS-1135 SS-1268: Member weld connection was checked for adequacy; however, weld pattern, size and type were not identified. For SS-1135, welds were qualified based on a typical weld pattern and size shown on Generic Support Type I which is not a typical connection. For SS-1268, weld between member on baseplate is qualified by comparison to Type I generic support which calls for a 1/4" all around fillet.

l l

4-4 Impell Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. 0

4.0 RESULTS

I Resolution:

This is an open issue. Bechtel is reviewing the I weld calculations for the supports.

6. TQR - Data transmittal traceability I Deficiency:

I Westinghouse generated support loads were transmitted to Bechtel through telecopies (e.g.,

Bechtel Civil calculation No. J-307 Rev. 2).

Calculation files have been approved as " final" without formal transmittals.

}

Resolution:

Bechtel project personnel indicated that Bechtel 3

is receiving formal transmittals from

) i Westinghouse and these transmittals will be

}mE compared to the informal transmittals to ensure correct information was used.

l 7. Recommendations Related to Documentation

a. In Hangers Guidance Tables of Bechtel Calcu-I lation No. S-1-300 for Main Steam Fast Valve Closure Analysis, Revision 0, dated 6/17/87, support loads due to OBE and SSE are from superseded calculations. (Revision 2 of I Bechtel calculation Nos. I-29 and I-30 was used instead of current Revision 3). No explanation is given in S-1-300. Bechtel I project personnel indicated that Revision 3 considered additional impact loads of Hain Steam piping interfering with rupture re-3 straints during seismic events. Recent infor-3 mation from field walkdowns shows that this interference would not happen. Therefore, Revision 2 support loads are still valid.

Resolution:

Bechtel Project personnel indicated that I- Revision 3 calculation file will be superseded and a calculation will be prepared reinstating the correct loads from Revision 2 of the Bechtel I Calculation Nos. I-29 and I-30.

4-5 Impe11 Report 01-0300-1629 I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

Rev. 0

4.0 RESULTS l

b. Review of the support qualification file (J-301) indicated that the latest Icads have been used for the support qualification.

However, all support drawings reviewed have not been updated to reflect the. latest design

, load conditions. Example: The Main Steam Piping Support Hanger No. EBB-1-1-SS-80.

f Document OBE Loads (1b) SSE toads il.hl Dwg. EBB-1-1-SS-80 3,434 5,735 Revision 3 (11/26/86)

Calc. No. I-29 9,032 14,232 Revision 1 (7/25/85)

Calc. No. I-29 7.475 9,113 Revision 3 (1/2/87)

Bechtel project personnel indicated that Revision 1 load of I-29 were never transmitted to PGE and Revision 3 loads of I-29 were transmitted to PGE on May 1987.

It is recommended that PGE and Bechtel update all support hanger drawings to reflect current loads during the long-term program.

Resolution:

Drawing updates to be performed during the l long-term program.

c. Review of the main steam piping analysis )

indicated that the evaluation is correct.

However, the mair; steam piping analysis is documented in various calculations.

Hain steam piping analysis calculation files involved different organizations and different time frames as follows:

Gravity and hydro analysis: Bergen-Peterson MS-C8 & C9 (Circa 1973)'

4-6 Impe11 Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. O

4.0 RESULTS I

1 1

1 f Thermal & SAM analysis: Bechtel I-29 & I-30 1 (Revision 3, 1/87) I I

l Seismic inertia analysis: Bechtel (Circa 1975) f Turbine Trip Analysis: Bechtel S-1-300 j (Revision 0, 6/87) )

There is no discussion of analysis history or I calculation file. cross-referencing in recently l completed work.

]

Example 1: Supports Guidance Tables in BPC 3 Calculation I-29 & I-30 Revision 3 (1/87) have R notbeensuperbdedalthoughinBPCCalculation l S-1-300, Revision 0 (6/87), revised Support Guidance Tables have been developed and used in j this Support Verification Program. .

3 Example 2: The OBE and SSE support loads in Hangers Guidance Tables of BPC Calculation S-1-300, Revision 0 are the SRSS values of the seismic inertia and SAM as taken from I-29 and I-30, Revision 2. -A definition of OBE and SSE  !

support loads in Hangers Guidance Tables of BPC S-1-300 are recommended (Note: The OBE and SSE support loads in Hanger Guidance Tables of I-29  ;

and I-30, Revision 3 include seismic _ inertia, SAM '

and seismic impact loads)

This documentation issue does not impact the support verification effort; however, it is recommended to add cross-referencing or-consolidate all Main Steam calculations in one document during the long-term program.

Resolution:

Recommendation to be resolved during long-term program.

d. This recommendation is related to documentation of calculation and has no impact on support qualification.

Insufficient details for the qualification of support components in the evaluation of the following supports:

4-7 e Impell Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. O

4.01.RESULTS'

)

l L

SR f SR-85:

The gravity loads taken from the Bergen-Paterson load summary generated.

(: in 1972 are not traceable to thei i isometric available for-the reviewer to verify the load application.

l l- SR SR-85: As-Built sketch indicate missing bolt, but. calculation considered all bolts.

Missing bolt side would be in-

' compression, however, missing bolt should be documented and evaluation be

-done accordingly.

SR-82 ..

SR-85: Through-bolts used 8th edition AISC, although PC-11760-P-003 indicates 7th-edition. Proper reference should be used.

SS-87: Judgement was used to assess the adequacy of the support members.

Member H8x17 was judged to be noncritical and was-not evaluated in-the calculation.. Documentation should be provided for this member.

SS-1052: The snubber orientation in the-calculation is shown as 17*. The system analysis model (Drawing number-7108-S1-2501 R-19 Revision 15) shows the snubber orientation to be 8.5*.

The stresses are quite low such that.

this discrepancy'in the orientation will not-fail the support based on engineeringjudgement..However, piping analysis review is recommended to evaluate impact of the discrepancy on adjacent supports. Bechtel should document the interface with the stress.

group concerning.the discrepancy between the support drawing and piping layout drawing.

~

4-8 Impe11 Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. O

4.0 RESULTS 1

SS-1052: The baseplate and bolt stresses were verified by comparison. Support is t

similar to a Type IV generic support l H-19 Revision 1 sheets 125-127 Job 6478. This should be documented in the calculation.

SR-1155: Qualification of support SR-1155 on calcciation J-307 Rev. 2 is done by similarity to generic support Type 1 Case 9. Insufficient documentation is provided in the calculation to justify the dissimilarities between support SR-1155 which is braced-cantilever frame using H4x13 members under a 3.31K load versus Type 1 Case 9 generic support which is a H12X53 cantilever member with a 0.5K load.

Resolution:

Documentation should be updated if, the long-term program,

e. This recommendation is strictly related to the documentation of calculations and has no impact on the support qualification.

Assumptions and/or references are not clearly stated in the support calculations of the following supports:

Sucoort No. Calculation No. Calc. Rev.

7 J-308 1 9 J-308 1 SS-1047 J-307 2 SS-1133 J-307 2 SS-1259 J-307 2 55-1052 J-307 2 SS-1053 J-307 2 SS-1141 J-307 2 SS-1154 J-307 2 SR-1155 J-307 2 SS-1174 J-307 2 SS-1177 J-307 2 SS-1263 J-307 2 SS-1268 J-307 2 TURB.STR.#1 J-302 0 SS-1130 RC-01 0 SS-1135 J-307 2 4-9 Impell Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. 0

4.0 RESULTS I Resolution:

I Documentation should be updated in the long-term I

program.

f. While there is no technical impact on the results due to the criteria implementation, the consideration of Rock Bolts spacing and edge distance requirements is not consistently documented.

Resolution:

The application of Rock Bolts criteria should be consistently documented in the calculations during the long-term program.

9 4-10 Impell Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. 0

5.'0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS g

Based upon documents reviewed during.this audit / review and extensive discussions with Bechtel l personnel, the review team concluded that the support l design verification program has~ properly identified all supports originally designed = by Bechtel Civil Group for Trojan Nuclear Plant. The support-calculations reviewed are consistent with the support design verification program definition. When Deficiencies 4 and 5 identified'in Section 4.0 of this' report are satisfactorily resolved and implemented, the support verification program is adequate to ensure the structural adequacy of supports.

0A PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Our review of the QA program implementation on this-support design verification program indicates that the program is in. compliance with the established Bechtel QA program requirements. Deficiencies 1 and 2 identified in Section 4.0 of this report are considered implementation deviations and have no-adverse impact on the support verification program.

TECHNICAL OUALITY REVIEW Our review of selected support qualification calculations indicates'that the Support Verification Program is adequate to meet the goals of Trojan Program. Deficiencies 4,-5 and 6, and Recommendations 3 and 7 identified in Section 4.0 of this report are related to the technical quality review. Resolution of key Deficiencies 4 and 5 and Recommendation 3, including addressing-the impact of.these on supports not reviewed, will ensure concurrence with the goals of the support verification program, q

5-1 Impe11 Report.01-0300-1629 Rev. 0 .,

l l

l l

APPENDIX A QA AUDIT PLAN AND CHECKLIST i

I A-1 Impell Report 01-0300-1629 Rev. O

Quality Assurance Departmsnt gh

} IN LP &E y- .

AUDIT PLAN Page 2.1 l

AUDIT NO. CLIENT IPROJECT Portland General Electric Trojan -

A0300-040 AUDIT SCOPE AUDIT SCHEDULE Tro.ian Support Verification Program Adequacy 8/4 - 7/87 .

f ORGANIZATIONS TO BE NOTIFED Bechtel/ Civil REQUIREMENTS 10 CFR50 Appendix B Criteria I, II, III, V, VI,'XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII APPLICXBLE DOCUMENTS PQAM,EDP,PEPM,EDPI,PEI ACTIVITIES TO BE AUDITED 1

1. Project Organization

2. Project Training Design and Design interface controls 3.

4. Instructions, proecedures and drawings

5. Document control

6. Nonconformance

7. Corrective action

8. Quality Assurance record

9. Audits PROCEDUR: "/ CHECKLISTS Special Checklists This atTdit plan was reviewed prior to the audit by

~

the cudit team whose signatures appear below: DATE

^ 1 '> Tb / 8 [8[ _

ma%LJ had Aom-es iA$[$hS42aA l rL~%L

'i OA ot 004 11/81

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT OA AUDIT CHECKLIST I

l REVIEH ITEMS YES NO N/A REMARKS A. Proiect Organization Review

1. Is QA function independent of engineering? [ ] [ ] [ ]

2. Does QA have access to Management? [ ] [ ] [ ]

B. 0A Proaram Aeolication

1. Is QA program adequate for the verification program? [ ] [ ] [ ]

2. Are project activities controlled? [ ] [ ] [ ]

3. Is there an adequate indoctrination and training program? [ ] [ ] [ ]

C. Proiect Desian Control

1. Are design bases clearly defined? [ ] [ ] [ ]

2. Are there adequate design interface controls? [ ] [ ] [ ]

3. Is there a procedure for review, approval, release and distribution and revision of design interface

' documents? [ ] [ ] [ ]

4. Are there adequate verifying or checking methods? [ ] [ ] [ ]

0304A

- PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT OA AUDIT CHECKLIST (Continued)

REVIEW ITEMS YES NO N/A REMARKS

5. Is independent checking performed on all calculations, and drawings? [ ] [ ] [ ]

6. Is there an adequate design control program for design changes? [ ] [ ] [ ]

D. Instructions. Procedures and Drawinas

1. Are procedures and instructions adequate for the verification program? [ ] [ ] [ ]

2. Do procedures contain an acceptance criteria? [ ] [ ] [ ]

E. Document Control

1. Is the issuance of documents controlled? [ ] [ ] [ ]

2. Are calculation review and approval authorities defined and implemented? [ ] [ ] [ ]

3. Are document changes controlled? [ ] [ ] [ ]

F. Non Conformance

1. Is there a procedure to identify non conformances? [ ] [ ] [ ]

l 0304A

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC f TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT OA AUDIT CHECKLIST (Continued)

REVIEW ITEMS YES NO N/A REHARKS G. Corrective Action

1. Are adverse conditions promptly identified and corrected? [ ] [ ] [ ]

2. Are the causes of the adverse conditions identified? [ ] [ ] [ ]

3. Are corrective actions documented and reported to Management? [ ] [ ] [ ]

H. Audits

1. Is there an audit plan for the verification program? [ ] [ ] [ ]

2. Has an audit be corducted? [ ] [ ] [ ]

3. Has there evidence of follow-up on corrective actions? [ ] [ ] [ ]

0304A

y i

i;

! i l

l

) I APPENDIX B I

l I

TECNICAL QUALITY REVIEH CRITERIA CHECKLISTS i

i l

l i

l l

l l

B-1 0314A/08-6-87 Impell Report 01-300-1629 Rev. O

l l

APPENDIX B 1

TECNICAL QUALITY REVIEH CRITERIA CHECKLISTS B-1 Impell Report 01-300-1629 Rev. 0

\ i l l l

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC l

I TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT 1

l IMPELL CORPORATION i TECHNICAL QUALITY REVIEW l

s Calculation No.: Rev. No. I

Reference:

Drawing No.. Rev. No.  !

Support No. Rev. No.

Reviewed by: date / /

l 3

I REVIEW ITEMS YES NO N/A REMARKS l, A. Interface

1. Have design interface requirements -

1 l

l among BPC, PGE and other subcontractors, if any, been l identified and implemented? [ ] [ ] [ ] i l

l 2. Have design interface  !

requirements between piping 1 analysis and support design I (both are within BPC 1 Plant Design) been identified l and implemented? E 3 [ ] [ ]

~

3. Have design interface requirement between BPC Plant 3 and civil / structure (either '

BPC or PGE) been identified

[ ] ] [ ]

and implemented? [

l 4. Have all related drawings been updated for latest loads and design? [ ] [ ] [ ]

I 5. Are all open items clearly  :

documented? Are resolutions

- identified? [ ] [ 3 [ ]

0304A

I PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT I IMPELL CORPORATION

~

TECHNICAL QUALITY REVIEW (Continued)

Calculation No.: Rev. No.

REVIEH ITEMS YES NO N/A REMARKS

6. Do support loads used for design match with those generated by piping analysis?

Have the correct revisions been used? [ ] [ ] [ ]

7. Have support types and orientation used for design match those generated by piping analysis?

Have the correct revisions been used? [ ] [ ] [ ]

B. Sucoort Desian

1. For anchors, have the loads (forces & moments) from both sides '

been addressed in the support calculations? [ ] [ ] [ ]

2. For Code Break supports, do the loads used in support calculations comply with the established crittrie? [ ] [ ] [ ]

3. Does the STRUDL model or hand calculation model match the design drawing /as-built [ ] [ ] [ ]

configuration?

4. Is STRUDL input correct? [ ] [ ] [ ]

I 0304A 1

N I -

I PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT IMPELL CORPORATION TECHNICAL QUALITY REVIEW (Continued)

Calculation No.: Rev. No.

I REVIEH ITEMS YES NO N/A REMARKS I 5. Do load combinations match criteria and were the worst load cases considered? [ ] [ ] [ ] i S. Do deflections meet criteria? [ ] [ ] [ ]

7. Do stresses meet established l criteria? [ ] [ ] [ ] l

8. Are welds qualified? [ ] [ ] [ ]

l

9. )re pipe local stresses due to welded attachments considered? [ ] [ ] [ ]

10. Do gaps meet criteria? [ ] [ ] [ ]

I 11. Are the anchor bolts and base plates qualified per proper methodology? [ ] [ ]

[ ]

12. Here the proper anchor bolt allowables used? [ ] [ ] [ ]

I 13. Is spring hanger variability checked? [ ] [ ] [ ] I l

I

14. Is the snubber capacity, maximum I pin-to-pin dimension, swing angle & stroke within

allowable limits? [ ] [ ] [ ]

I 0304A l l

I  !

i

\

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT IMPELL CORPORATION TECHNICAL QUALITY REVIEH (Continued)

Calculation No.: Rev. No.

REVIEH ITEMS YES NO N/A REMARKS

15. Are standard components used in a manner for which they are qualified or was a special qualifying calculation performed to show qualification for the application? [ ] [ ] [ ]

16. Are assumptions clearly stated? [ ] [ ] [ ]

17. Are references clearly identified?

Load summary (piping analysis) [ ] [ ] [ ]

Design Criteria [ ] [ ] [ ]

Specifications [ ] [ ] [ ]

Project Instructions [ ] [ ] [ ]

Computer outputs [ ] [ ] [ ]

Hemos/ Letters [ ] [ ] [ ]

Catalogs /LCDs [ ] [ ]. [ ]

1 0304A

Trojen Nuclear plant Document Control Desk Docket 50-344 August 18, 1987 i License NpF-1 Attachment E

\ l LONG-TERM VERIFICATION PROGRAM I J

l l As committed in the July 31, 1987 letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- ,

l sion (NRC), the following describes the scope and schedule of the long-term l l verification program. The objectiven of the long-term program are to res- l l pond to the remaining NRC concerns identified during the short-term pro-i gram, verify all other safety-related supports are designed in accordance l with the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), and determine if there are j other original Civil designs that require verification. This program  ;

includes all of the following major activities- 1 I

1. The remaining long-term concerns from the NRC review (including NRC I l

Concern 17.b.2) of the verification program at the offices of the Trojan Architect-Engineer (A-E) from July 21-23, 1987 will be addressed. pCE will respond to those NRC concernu by September 30, i 1987. Additionally, the documentation concerns raised during the I l

independent audit of the A--E's quality assurance activities will be resolved by September 30, 1987.

2. All other safety-related large bore pipe support designs will be fully verified (ie, confirm that the correct design loads are used I in the support design and that the support design meets the code allowables under the FSA1: required load and load combinations).

In order to accomplish this review, a list of safety-related pipe supports by system and type will be developed. If pipe support designs are found that are not cceeptable, the supports will be modified. It is expected this activity will be substantially com-pleted by July 1, 1988. A description of the scope of this portion of the long-term program will be provided by September 30, 1987.

3. Confirm pipe whip restraints using rock bolts meet the Trojan Final Safety Analysis requirements. A description of the scope of this portion of the long-term program will be provided by September 30, 1987.

4. A Quality Assurance Audit of A-E design activities will be comple-ted by November 30, 1987. This audit will include a review of the following:

a. The procedures for performance of design calculations and for the interface of design work between different design groups.

b. The procedures for documentation of design work.

5. An evaluation of the original A-E Civil Engineering design acti-vities at Trojan will be conducted to determine if additional veri-fication of the designs is required. This evaluation will be complete by July 1, 1988.

SAB/mr 1949W j

1

>