ML17298A875

H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Revision 27 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 17, Quality Assurance

ML17298A875
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	09/25/2017
From:	Duke Energy Progress
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17298A847	List: ML17298A841 ML17298A843 ML17298A868 ML17298A870 ML17298A873 ML17298A875 ML17298A878 RNP-RA/17-0063, Redacted - H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Revision 27 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 12, Radiation Protection
References
RNP-RA/17-0063
Download: ML17298A875 (47)

Text

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR CHAPTER 17 17.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17-i Revision No. 27 CHAPTER 17 QUALITY ASSURANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

17.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 17.1.0-1

17.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE DURING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION [HISTORICAL] 17.1.0-1

17.1.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE PLANNING [HISTORICAL]

17.1.1-1

17.1.2 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM [HISTORICAL]

17.1.2-1

17.1.3 WESTINGHOUSE PWR SYSTEMS DIVISION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-1

17.1.3.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE PLANNING [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-1

17.1.3.1.1 PURPOSE [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-1

17.1.3.1.2 PROCEDURAL DOCUMENTS AND WORK INSTRUCTIONS [HISTORICAL] 17.1.3-1

17.1.3.2 ORGANIZATION [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-2

17.1.3.3 ASSURANCE OF DESIGN ADEQUACY [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-3

17.1.3.3.1 SPECIFICATION OF TECHNICAL REQURIEMENTS [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-3

17.1.3.3.2 DESIGN REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TECHNICAL [HISTORICAL] REQUIREMENTS 17.1.3-3

17.1.3.3.3 FORMAL DESIGN REVIEWS [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-4

17.1.3.4 SUPPLIER QUALITY ASSURANCE [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-5

17.1.3.4.1 PREAWARD EVALUATION OF PROSPECTIVE SUPPLIERS [HISTORICAL] 17.1.3-5

17.1.3.4.2 SUPPLIER QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-6

17.1.3.4.3 PLANNING OF SUPPLIER SURVEILLANCE [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-7

17.1.3.4.4 SURVEILLANCE OF SUPPLIERS [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-7

17.1.3.4.5 RELEASE OF EQUIPMENT FOR SHIPMENT [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-8

17.1.3.5 CONSTRUCTION SITE QUALITY ASSURANCE [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-8

17.1.3.5.1 CONTROL OF SITE WORK [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-8

17.1.3.5.2 QUALIFICATION OF WESTINGHOUSE PERSONNEL [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-9 17.1.3.6 QUALITY CONTROL RECORDS [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-9 On April 29, 2013, the name Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) was changed to Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (DEP). On September 13, 2016, the name Duke Energy Progress, Inc. was

changed to Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17-ii Revision No. 27 CHAPTER 17 QUALITY ASSURANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION TITLE PAGE

17.1.3.7 NONCONFORMING MATERIAL, TREND ANALYSIS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION [HISTORICAL] 17.1.3-10

17.1.3.7.1 DEFICIENCIES AT SUPPLIERS' PLANTS [HISTORICAL] 17.1.3-10

17.1.3.7.2 DEFICIENCIES AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE

[HISTORICAL] 17.1.3-10

17.1.3.7.3 TREND ANALYSIS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION

[HISTORICAL] 17.1.3-10

17.1.3.8 AUDITS

[HISTORICAL] 17.1.3-10

17.1.3.8.1 SUPPLIERS' PLANTS

[HISTORICAL] 17.1.3-10

17.1.3.8.2 CONSTRUCTION SITE

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.3-10

17.1.3.8.3 WESTINGHOUSE DIVISIONS

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.3-11

17.1.4 EBASCO ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-1

17.1.4.1 HOME OFFICE

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-1

17.1.4.2 FIELD

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-2

17.1.4.3 RECORDS

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-3

17.1.4.4 SCHEDULING

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-3

17.1.4.5 DETAILS OF QUALITY CONTROL AND INSPECTION WORK [HISTORICAL]

17.1.4-3

17.1.4.5.1 EBASCO PURCHASED ITEMS - VENDOR SURVEILLANCE [HISTORICAL]

17.1.4-3

17.1.4.5.2 SITE QUALITY COMPLIANCE - STRUCTURAL

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-4

17.1.4.5.3 SITE QUALITY CONTROL - MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-5

17.1.4.5.4 SITE QUALITY COMPLIANCE - ELECTRICAL, INSTRUMENTATION, AND CONTROLS

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-6

17.1.4.5.5 SITE QUALITY COMPLIANCE - PIPING

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-6

17.1.4.5.6 WORK STOPPAGE - UNACCEPTABLE ITEMS

[HISTORICAL

] 17.1.4-7

17.2 DELETED BY REVISION NO. 13 17.2.0-1

17.3 RNP QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 17.3.1-1

On April 29, 2013, the name Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) was changed to Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (DEP). On September 13, 2016, the name Duke Energy Progress, Inc. was

changed to Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17-iii Revision No. 27 CHAPTER 17 QUALITY ASSURANCE LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

17.1.2-1 SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDE 17.1.2-5

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-1 NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS FUNCTIONAL GROUPS QUALITY ASSURANCE FLOW CHART [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-12

On April 29, 2013, the name Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) was changed to Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (DEP). On September 13, 2016, the name Duke Energy Progress, Inc. was

changed to Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17-iv Revision No. 27 CHAPTER 17 QUALITY ASSURANCE LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE 17.1.3-1 QUALITY ASSURANCE FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WESTINGHOUSE NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS [HISTORICAL]

17.1.3-2 NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS FUNCTIONAL GROUPS QUALITY ASSURANCE SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM [HISTORICAL]

17.1.4-1 MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND QUALITY COMPLIANCE FIELD SITE OPERATIONS [HISTORICAL]

17.1.4-2 ORGANIZATION, H. B. ROBINSON QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.4-3 CP&L ORGANIZATION FOR THE OPERATION MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION [HISTORICAL]

On April 29, 2013, the name Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) was changed to Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (DEP). On September 13, 2016, the name Duke Energy Progress, Inc. was changed to Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.0-1 Revision No. 27 17.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 17.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE DURING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

[HISTORICAL]

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) took action to ensure that the completed plant was

designed and constructed with the goals in mind that the completed plant could be operated

safely and reliably in every respect.

Quality assurance programs were initiated and in effect for design, procurement, fabrication,

manufacturing, erection, and testing of components and systems for the H. B. Robinson Plant

Unit 2. The responsibilities of CP&L, Ebasco, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation

(Westinghouse) for quality assurance are described in this section.

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.1-1 Revision No. 27 17.1.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE PLANNING

[HISTORICAL]

Ultimate responsibility for all matters pertaining to the plant, including quality assurance, rested

with the applicant. To ensure that the goals of this program were met, CP&L, Ebasco, and

Westinghouse jointly planned a program which included the following items:

a) Development of design concepts

b) Engineering design

c) Equipment and system specifications

d) Vendor selection

e) Surveillance of Vendors' shops and procedures

f) Component testing

g) Erection, inspection, field testing, and quality control

h) System checkout

i) Startup testing

In the design and procurement phase, this program was coordinated by frequent contacts

among CP&L, Ebasco, and Westinghouse. A method of mutual review of important

specifications and designs was in force.

In the construction phase, a unified field quality control group was established under the

direction of the Ebasco Quality Control Engineer. This group had authority to suspend work.

CP&L, as the applicant, actively participated in the field program.

The individual responsibilities and organizational structures are described below.

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.2-1 Revision No. 27 17.1.2 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM

[HISTORICAL]

CP&L recognized the necessity of providing a quality assurance program to ensure that quality

control procedures established by the designer, constructor, and vendors were adequate and

were followed. As a result, the HBR Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) was created to

perform the auditing of the quality assurance and control program. The Committee performed

an advisory function only; line responsibility for quality assurance and quality control was a

function of CP&L Management's Line Organization.

The Committee was established in July, 1968, with the following charter:

"The purpose of the Quality Assurance Committee is to audit and to advise CP&L management

through the QAC Chairman concerning the adequacy of the Quality Assurance and Control

Program and plans for post-operational surveillance and inspection for the H. B. Robinson Unit

2."

Specifically, its function was to:

a) Make recommendations concerning appropriate levels and methods of Quality Assurance and Control for each system, taking account of the importance of the system

with respect to nuclear safety and for operation

b) Provide advice concerning assignment of Quality Assurance responsibility

c) Review reports submitted by CP&L personnel and/or independent Quality Assurance representatives and other reports as appropriate

d) Provide advice concerning other matters the QAC considered pertinent to maintaining proper Quality Assurance and Control

e) Keep minutes of its meetings "including statements concerning recommended actions and if these recommendations are unanimous."

This Committee was under the chairmanship of CP&L's Director of Technical Services reporting

directly to CP&L's Vice President of the Power Supply Department. The Director of Technical

Services was selected to lead the Committee since he represented a staff position reporting to

CP&L top management and was not directly responsible for the design and construction of the

facility. Serving on the Committee were the section managers responsible for the design,

construction, operation, and maintenance of CP&L's plant, giving broad areas of experience and

concern. The Manager of Nuclear Generation was included on the Committee to provide

continuity from the design and construction phase to the operation phase. The Operating and

Maintenance Engineer was also included on the committee. The Committee also included two

members from outside the CP&L organization who were experienced in the area of quality

assurance and quality control. CP&L engaged the Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) to

provide support to efforts of the Design & Construction Section in the auditing of quality control

procedures, fabrication, onsite storage, and erection of components vital to safety. The SWRI

Manager of the CP&L project was a member of the QAC.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.2-2 Revision No. 27 The firm of Pickard, Lowe, & Associates (PLA) was employed as nuclear consultants on the Robinson project. Their personnel provided a wide range of knowledge in the field of quality

assurance. A member of the firm served as a member of the QAC. Although not committee

members, other engineers from both the Technical Services Section and the Design

Construction Section regularly attended and participated in Committee meetings and Committee

activities.

Created as an auditing body, the Committee had established internal administrative procedures

governing the conduct of its activities. Meetings were normally held each calendar month or

more frequently if required with minutes prepared and issued to each Committee member and

to CP&L upper management. Meetings were scheduled to include all members of the

Committee or a knowledgeable representative from each organization or section. Meetings

were on occasion held at the plant site to review site records and construction activity.

The prepared Committee meeting minutes divided activities into three categories:

a) Items which had been resolved to the satisfaction of all Committee members during the intervening period

b) Action items currently in progress

c) New topics for consideration which had been presented to the Committee by any member, alternate, or the CP&L Resident Engineer.

Reports of all inspections by Committee members were transmitted to other members, the

Resident Engineer, and CP&L management with a copy retained in Committee files.

The Committee had the responsibility of auditing the quality assurance and control program

established for the project by CP&L, Westinghouse, Ebasco, and all other vendors. The

Committee implemented this responsibility through evaluation of the procedures, methods, and

results of tests, and inspections conducted by these organizations. The Committee acted

through written request to the Design & Construction Section initiating further action when

deemed necessary by the Committee.

The Committee, realizing certain equipment, components, and structures are more essential to

safety than others, adopted a list of systems and equipment to guide decisions on the level of

effort in reviewing quality control programs. This list is shown in Table 17.1.2-1. Equipment,

materials, systems, and structures listed in that table were subjected to the provisions of the

quality assurance plan. Specifically, the provisions of the plan were applied to those portions

whose integrity or reliability is essential either to preventing nuclear accidents having the

potential of causing injury to the public from substantial levels of radiation or from release of

radioactive materials, or to mitigating the consequences of such accidents. The extent to which

the measures set forth in the plan were applied to any such portion is reflected by its importance

in preventing or mitigating such accidents.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.2-3 Revision No. 27 The Manager of Design and Construction was responsible for the direction of the activities of the outside organizations, PLA, and SWRI. CP&L maintained direct communication with

Westinghouse and Ebasco project personnel through the Manager of Design and Construction.

The Manager of Design and Construction was the Committee member most directly involved

and responsible for the proper application of quality standards, practices, and procedures.

These responsibilities were carried out utilizing seven areas of review and approval in the

quality control program. These included:

a) Design review

b) Evaluation of potential equipment suppliers

c) Equipment specification review

d) Purchase order approval

e) Supplier surveillance during fabrication

f) Observation of components, shipment, and field storage

g) Surveillance of the erection and installation of equipment

The Quality Assurance Committee Chairman audited the practices employed in Items a through

d above and reported his findings to the QAC.

The SWRI augmented the efforts of Design and Construction personnel in the auditing of Items

e through g. SWRI personnel assigned to the CP&L project included experts in the fields of

welding, metallurgy, nondestructive testing, and stress analysis. Additional engineers in the

fields of mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation design as well as materials evaluation were

available as required.

During fabrication of equipment, CP&L was kept informed by written reports of progress to

permit timely quality control audit visits to the fabricators' shops. In some instances, procedures

were actually witnessed by CP&L engineers or SWRI personnel while on other occasions

quality control records were inspected. Westinghouse and Ebasco quality control personnel

had primary responsibility of fabrication shop audits. They wrote detailed reports of

these shop surveillance trips which were available for CP&L review.

Shipment and onsite storage were under the observation of CP&L's Resident Engineer for the

HBR Project, assisted by SWRI.

The Director of Technical Services kept the Committee informed in regard to conformance with

design criteria as specified in the safety analysis report.

The Resident Engineer(s) reported directly to the Manager of Design and Construction

concerning quality assurance considerations at the site, covering all phases of receipt, storage,

and erection of equipment and materials. He was not responsible for maintaining the

construction schedule. He was responsible for review of quality assurance programs as well as

auditing quality control procedures used by Westinghouse, Ebasco, and their HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.2-4 Revision No. 27 subcontractors at the site. The Resident Engineers were in contact with Westinghouse and Ebasco site quality control groups and provided a continuing review of their quality control

efforts. The Resident Engineer(s) had authority to stop any phase of construction work where

he felt quality or procedures were questionable. Deficiencies in quality control procedures

noted by the Resident Engineer(s) were reported immediately to the Manager of Design and

Construction. Direct communications with Westinghouse and Ebasco Project Managers by the

Manager of Design and Construction permitted rapid evaluation and corrective action of quality

control problems associated with

the project.

The Resident Engineer(s) compiled a weekly compliance report of his quality assurance

activities and forwarded copies to the Vice President of the Power Supply Department, the

Manager of Design and Construction, and the QAC Chairman.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.2-5 Revision No. 27 TABLE 17.1.2-1

[HISTORICAL]

SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDE 1.0 Containment A. Concrete and reinforcing steel which makes up the primary containment structure B. Containment liner C. Containment spray cooling system

1. Pipe, fittings, and valves 2. Pumps

3. Instrumentation and controls

D. Containment penetrations 1. Equipment

2. Personnel

3. Piping

4. Electrical

E. Containment instrumentation

F. Containment isolation valves

G. Shielding

H. Containment atmospheric control system

2.0 Core Standby Cooling Systems

A. Safety injection system

1. Pipe, fittings, and valves 2. Pumps

3. Tanks

4. Instrumentation and controls

B. Residual heat removable system

1. Pipe, fittings, and valves 2. Pumps

3. Heat exchangers

4. Instrumentation and controls

3.0 Radioactive Processing Systems

A. Radioactive liquid waste system

1. Pipe, fittings, and valves 2. Pumps

3. Tanks

4. Evaporators

5. Filters HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.2-6 Revision No. 27 TABLE 17.1.2-1 (Cont'd)

[HISTORICAL]

SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDE

6. Heat exchangers

7. Instrumentation and control

8. Shielding

B. Radioactive gas waste system

1. Pipe, fittings, and valves

2. Tanks

3. Compressors

4. Instrumentation and controls

5. Shielding

4.0 Primary Coolant System

1. Pipe, fittings, and valves

2. Reactor coolant pumps

3. Instrumentation and controls

4. Reactor vessel

5. Reactor vessel internals

6. Core

7. Control rod drive, mechanisms and housings

5.0 Chemical and Volume Control System

1. Pipe, fittings, and valves

2. Pumps

3. Tanks

4. Demineralizers/filters

5. Evaporators

6. Heat exchangers

7. Instrumentation and controls

6.0 Refueling System

1. Liner

2. Fuel hoists/transfer assembly

3. Spent fuel pool and auxiliaries

4. Cask handling equipment

5. Shielding

7.0 Normal Auxiliary and Emergency Electrical Power Supply Systems

A. Emergency diesel generator

1. Diesel

2. Generator

3. Fuel system

4. Instrumentation and controls

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.2-7 Revision No. 27 TABLE 17.1.2-1 (Cont'd)

[HISTORICAL]

SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDE B. Cable

C. Transformers D. Switchgear 8.0 Control Room A. Concrete B. Reinforcing steel C. Ventilation system D. Shielding

9.0 Radiation Monitoring System

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-1 Revision No. 27 17.1.3 WESTINGHOUSE PWR SYSTEMS DIVISION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.3.1 Quality Assurance Planning

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.3.1.1 Purpose

[HISTORICAL]

The Quality Assurance Plan of Westinghouse PWR Systems Division for the Nuclear Steam Supply System is set forth in this section. Its purpose was to describe the procedures and

actions used by Westinghouse to assure that the design, materials and workmanship employed

in the fabrication and construction of systems, components, and installations within the

Westinghouse scope of responsibility in a nuclear power plant were controlled and met all

applicable requirements of safety, reliability, operation, and maintenance.

This plan was a requirement for, but was not necessarily limited to, those components and

systems of the plant having a vital role in the prevention or mitigation of the consequences of

accidents which can cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public. These are Class I

items listed in Section 3.2.

17.1.3.1.2 Procedural Documents and Work Instructions

[HISTORICAL]

Written administrative and technical policies, procedures, and instructions were used in

Westinghouse to implement the Quality Assurance Plan. They were in formats appropriate to

their applications, such as:

a) Management responsibility statements b) Position descriptions of management and professional personnel c) Engineering instructions d) Quality assurance and reliability procedures e) Quality control notices f) Quality control plans g) Projects procedures h) Purchasing manual procedures i) Construction site procedures Technical and contractual information to assure effective implementation of these policies and

procedures was developed, documented, and controlled through a standard Westinghouse

system which consisted in part of:

a) System design parameters b) Equipment specifications c) Corporate process specifications HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-2 Revision No. 27 d) Corporate material test specifications

e) Corporate Purchasing Department specifications (including specifications for materials)

f) Drawings

g) Purchase orders

Procedures were reviewed and revised on a continuing basis by the issuing authorities so that

the procedures met the needs for which they were intended. Management reviewed

performance in accordance with these procedures to assure compliance. Independent audits,

as described later, provided objective assurance of both the adequacy of the procedures and

compliance with them.

17.1.3.2 Organization

[HISTORICAL]

Figure 17.1.3-1 shows the functional organization as it was related to quality assurance of the

Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems Divisions, including the staff review and surveillance

function of the Reliability Control Group at the Westinghouse corporate level. The

Westinghouse organization provided the checks and balances needed to foster an effective

overall quality assurance program.

The authority and responsibility of the manager of each activity on this organization chart was

set forth in writing in an approved statement of management responsibility.

The PWR Systems Quality Assurance Department consisted of four sections: Mechanical

Equipment, Pressure Vessels, Electrical, and Plant Quality Assurance. The Quality Assurance

Department had responsibility for supplier surveillance, audits of the nuclear steam supply

scope at construction sites, and quality assurance data feedback and analysis, as described

elsewhere in this Plan. Other Westinghouse divisions were organized for independence of a

quality assurance function, as shown in Figure 17.1.3-1.

The corporate Director of Reliability Control, who reported to Westinghouse top management

through an organizational path independent of the Executive Vice President of Nuclear Energy

Systems, was responsible for the surveillance and auditing of the quality assurance effort

carried out by all the divisions in Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems. The Director of Reliability Control utilized the services of the PWR Systems Quality Assurance Department in

carrying out audits of other activities in Nuclear Energy Systems.

PWR Systems Division was divided into a number of functional groups having

both direct and indirect responsibility for aspects of the design, fabrication, and construction

phases of the project. Close association and interchange of information at all levels existed

among the functional groups.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-3 Revision No. 27 Table 17.1.3-1 illustrates the relationships among these groups. Figure 17.1.3-2 shows this information in flow chart form. For example, contractual requirements originated in Projects and

were distributed to Licensing and Reliability, system functional requirement groups, system

design groups, and the equipment design and procurement groups. It can be seen that all

aspects of the project were considered at each stage in the overall program, with the respective

lead functional group coordinating the efforts of the associated functional groups.

Figure 17.1.3-2 and Table 17.1.3-1 are intended to show graphically the overall quality

assurance program. For the sake of clarity, variations among functional groups have not been

shown. Specifics of the functions were contained in the detailed documentation of the program.

17.1.3.3 Assurance of Design Adequacy

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.3.3.1 Specification of Technical Requirements

[HISTORICAL]

Engineering was responsible for designing or specifying equipment that conformed to the

requirements of the application for which it was intended. This responsibility included the

specification of quality control requirements that assured the equipment would function as

required in the system and plant.

Systems Engineering designed the plant to meet functional, safety, and regulatory

requirements. The component design engineers worked closely with systems engineering to

identify equipment limitations and to resolve functional requirements with equipment

capabilities. The design of equipment also provided for access to components for in-service

inspection and maintenance as required to assure continued integrity throughout the life of the

plant.

Written parameters were forwarded to component design engineers by systems engineering,

detailing the design requirements for the specific plant. Equipment Specifications or drawings

were prepared by the component design engineers to cover these requirements. The term "Equipment Specification" as used in this Quality Assurance Plan included drawings when they

were used instead of Equipment Specifications. Detailed quality control requirements were

specified in the Equipment Specification, or its references. Examples of these are

nondestructive tests, acceptance standards, functional tests, and recording the measured

values of key characteristics. In the few cases when Equipment Specifications or design

drawings were not used, the specific quality control requirements, tests, and acceptance

standards were identified in the purchase order.

17.1.3.3.2 Design Review for Compliance with Technical Requirements

[HISTORICAL]

Preliminary Equipment Specifications were reviewed within Westinghouse by systems

engineers, materials and process engineers, licensing engineers, Quality Assurance, Projects,

and others as required. These independent reviews assured that Equipment Specifications met

systems requirements, conformed to established engineering standards, were adequate from a

metallurgical and welding point of view, met all code requirements, satisfied all safety

requirements including those specified in safety analysis reports, contained necessary quality

control requirements, and conformed with Carolina

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-4 Revision No. 27 Power & Light's contractual provisions. Written Engineering Instructions described the requirements of the review.

Aspects of the equipment design that had an effect on that part of the plant design performed by

Ebasco were forwarded to them for their review. CP&L or Ebasco drawings which had an effect

on Westinghouse's scope of supply were likewise sent to Westinghouse engineers for their

review.

Technical requirements were provided in the bid package to qualified suppliers of components

within the Westinghouse scope of responsibility. Suppliers' proposals responding to these bids

were sent to engineering for review. The component design engineer evaluated the supplier's

proposal for technical adequacy. He insisted on sufficient functional design data to make an

independent review of the supplier's design to assure that the equipment would meet all

requirements. Consultants from the Westinghouse Research and Development Laboratory and

outside experts were also used to review specific design features, as required. The component

design engineer reviewed how the supplier intended to meet the specified quality requirements.

He reviewed the proposed equipment for its capability to perform its function for the design life

of the plant.

Westinghouse did not permit exceptions in the proposal specifications that adversely affected

the safety or reliability of the equipment.

Purchase requisitions prepared by the component engineer were the basis for purchase orders

issued by Purchasing to suppliers. The purchase order was the official contract document that

covered the technical requirements in the form of the equipment specification.

Purchase requisitions were reviewed by Component Engineering, System Engineering,

Projects, and other functions, as necessary, to assure that technical requirements had been

transmitted correctly to suppliers of the components.

Purchase orders required suppliers to submit detail drawings and manufacturing, inspection,

and test procedures as the work under the purchase order progressed. This phase of the

design was reviewed independently by Westinghouse component engineers. The written

instructions for this phase were contained in an Administrative Specification and the Equipment

Specification, which formed part of the purchase order.

17.1.3.3.3 Formal Design Reviews

[HISTORICAL]

In addition to the routine reviews of technical requirements discussed above, formal design

reviews were conducted by the Reliability Section on critical systems, subsystems, and

components to improve their reliability and to reduce fabrication, installation, and maintenance

costs. The design reviews were comprehensive, systematic studies by personnel representing

a variety of disciplines who were not directly associated with the development of the product.

Specialists from other Westinghouse divisions and outside consultants were used in the reviews

as necessary. Information developed by the reviews was recorded for evaluation and action by

the cognizant design engineer.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-5 Revision No. 27 Not all equipment received this formal design review. The design review program was projected over a substantial period of time because of the comprehensive nature of each review.

Selection of equipment to be reviewed was based on many considerations: relation to safety,

effect on plant performance and availability, stage of design development, and others.

17.1.3.4 Supplier Quality Assurance

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.3.4.1 Preaward Evaluation of Prospective Suppliers

[HISTORICAL]

Prior to considering a new supplier for placement of a purchase order, a supplier evaluation was

conducted. This was done in accordance with a written checklist. The results were

documented in a report issued to management personnel of Purchasing, Engineering, Quality

Assurance, and Projects. The evaluation was conducted by a team consisting of Purchasing,

Engineering, and Quality Assurance. Other personnel such as material engineers, process

engineers, and manufacturing engineers participated as required.

Considerations of the evaluation included:

a) Previous experience with the supplier

b) Physical plant facilities

c) Quality control program and system

d) Number and experience of design personnel

e) Material control and raw material inspection

f) In-process inspection

g) Assembly and test capability

h) Tool and gage control

i) Special processes required

j) Nondestructive testing

k) Inspection and test equipment

l) Records function

Deficiencies in the supplier's organization or systems were resolved with the supplier's

management prior to placing a purchase order.

If an existing supplier did not maintain the quality level on Westinghouse orders, a similar team

reviewed the supplier's problems and made recommendations to his management to correct the

situation immediately. When problems arose, Westinghouse specialists aided the supplier in

specific areas such as welding, manufacturing, and nondestructive testing to resolve the

problem. In this manner, Westinghouse assured the continued high level of supplier

performance necessary to obtain the quality level required by the contract.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-6 Revision No. 27 17.1.3.4.2 Supplier Quality Control Requirements

[HISTORICAL]

Quality requirements that applied specifically to a component were contained in the Equipment

Specification. Requirements of a quality systems nature, not peculiar to a component, were

contained in two standard documents.

The first, entitled "Administrative Specification for the Procurement of Nuclear Steam Supply

System Components," was applied in all component purchase orders. The Administrative

Specification required the supplier not only to manufacture equipment that conformed to

purchase order requirements, but to assure himself and Westinghouse by means of appropriate

inspections and tests that the equipment conformed to these requirements. The quality control

section of this specification contained specific requirements in areas such as:

a) Calibration of measurement and test equipment

b) Control of drawings, specifications, procedures, and other documents used in design or manufacture, and revisions to these documents c) Control and identification of material

d) Maintenance of quality control records

e) Test control through written test procedures and test records

f) Nonconforming supplies, including identification and control to preclude further use

The second document that specified quality requirements was, "Manufacturer's Quality Control

Systems Requirements" (QCS-1). This document was applied to orders for more critical

equipment such as components related to safety. This document required the supplier to maintain an adequate quality control system. This specification met the intent of Appendix IX of

Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code in the area of quality control system

requirements. QCS-1 required the following, among other things:

a) Establishment and maintenance of a system for the control of quality that assures that all

supplies and services meet all specification, drawing, and contract requirements

b) Application of the system to subcontracted items

c) Written procedures that implement the system

d) Qualification of personnel

e) Qualification and control of processes including welding, heat treating, nondestructive testing, quality audits, and inspection techniques f) Operation under a controlled manufacturing system such as process sheets, travelers, etc.

g) Written inspection plans for in-process and final inspection

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-7 Revision No. 27 h) Submittal of Inspection Checklists for approval by Westinghouse; these checklists show inspection and test status i) Recording of results of each inspection operation

j) Repair procedures, with provision for Westinghouse approval of all procedures utilizing operations not performed in the normal manufacturing sequence k) Written work and inspection instructions for handling, storage, shipping, preservation and packaging As required, inspection hold points were specified by Westinghouse in the Equipment

Specification or elsewhere in the purchase order. These were points of witness or inspection by

Westinghouse beyond which work may not proceed without approval by Westinghouse.

17.1.3.4.3 Planning of Supplier Surveillance

[HISTORICAL]

Westinghouse PWR surveillance of suppliers during fabrication, inspection, testing, and

shipment of components was planned in advance and performed in accordance with written

Quality Control Plans. These plans were prepared by Quality Assurance engineers and were

based on the technical requirements of the purchase order. The plans were reviewed and

approved by engineering.

The purpose of a Quality Control Plan was to provide planned guidance to the Quality

Assurance field representative by focusing attention on those items which contribute most to

quality and reliability; by providing specific instructions for the witnessing, documentation, and

acceptance of the equipment; and for auditing to assure the supplier's compliance with all

quality control requirements. The plan identified the points during manufacturing and testing

that Quality Assurance was to witness.

The plan covered the auditing of the supplier's quality control system and operation procedures;

surveillance of key operations such as welding, nondestructive testing, production, and

nonoperating electrical testing; and inspection verification (for example, sampling review of

radiographs, material test reports, key dimensions, and operating electric tests). Special

emphasis was placed on the aspects of manufacture and inspection that most directly affected

performance of the equipment. Lead units of a new design were given particular attention in the

supplier's shop by both Quality Assurance and Engineering representatives.

When surveillance was indicated, Quality Assurance developed a visit schedule depending on

the supplier's performance. Visits were more frequent during the initial stages of manufacture,

particularly to a new supplier, with frequency diminishing as the supplier demonstrated his

capability.

17.1.3.4.4 Surveillance of Suppliers

[HISTORICAL]

The purpose of Westinghouse surveillance of suppliers was to provide Westinghouse

management and customers first-hand objective assurance of compliance with specified

requirements. The principle followed was that the supplier was responsible for inspecting and

testing his product. The Westinghouse field representative assured that the supplier had done

this,

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-8 Revision No. 27 rather than attempting to perform the supplier's inspection for him or duplicate the work he had done.

The frequency and scope of Westinghouse surveillance varied with criticality of equipment,

supplier performance, complexity of the component, and other factors. This determination was

made by Quality Assurance in conjunction with engineering. Quality Assurance residents were

established as necessary.

Surveillance was accomplished in accordance with Quality Control Plans. In addition, the field

representative confirmed on a continuing basis that the supplier's system was adequate to

ensure that a quality product would be built. He assured that written instructions and

procedures were kept current, application of drawings and specifications was controlled, that

corrective action was implemented, and other necessary controls were effective.

The Quality Assurance representative informed the supplier directly of problems he discovered

and obtained commitments to correct them. He brought these problems to the attention of the

supplier's management as required to obtain resolution.

17.1.3.4.5 Release of Equipment for Shipment

[HISTORICAL]

The Purchasing Administrative Specification required the supplier to write a formal shipping

release when he was satisfied that purchase order requirements had been met. When the

Westinghouse Quality Assurance representative was satisfied that the equipment could be

released for shipment, and after receipt of the supplier's release, he prepared a Quality Control

Release Form, and distributed copies to the supplier, buyer, and engineer. The equipment

could then be released through normal engineering-purchasing channels for shipment.

17.1.3.5 Construction Site Quality Assurance

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.3.5.1 Control of Site Work

[HISTORICAL]

Work on nuclear steam supply equipment, as performed by the construction contractor and

subcontractors, was monitored for conformance to written procedures and specifications which

covered areas such as receiving, inspection, storage, cleanliness, erection, in-process and final

inspection and quality control, and testing. Special processes such as welding, cleaning, and

nondestructive testing were performed in accordance with written procedures by qualified

personnel.

During component installation, Westinghouse Nuclear Power Service monitored work on

nuclear steam supply and engineered safeguards equipment, and on critical structures.

Qualified personnel provided technical advice on various disciplines of construction such as

welding, mechanical and electrical system, instrumentation and control equipment, and startup.

Each man was responsible for overseeing that the Westinghouse nuclear steam supply

equipment assigned to him was in good condition when received and that it was stored,

handled, and installed properly according to applicable specifications, procedures, and

manufacturers' instructions. Furthermore, he verified that the proper documents which record

the critical actions and inspections associated with this work were prepared and filed.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-9 Revision No. 27 The headquarters Quality Assurance group consisted of a staff organizationally separate from Nuclear Power Service. This group provided independent assurance that quality-related

activities were done in accordance with specifications and procedures. Nuclear Power Service

provided technical advice to the constructor during critical operations. Personnel from

headquarters audited site activities and monitored records for adequacy.

A procedure described the system for identifying, reporting, and obtaining disposition of

nonconforming material, equipment, or practices discovered at the site. Nuclear Power Service

personnel filled out a Field Deficiency Report to provide the cognizant engineering group with

the information necessary for making proper and timely disposition of each problem. After the

cognizant personnel made a disposition, it was noted on the Field Deficiency Report and

returned to the field for action. Files of these reports were maintained to record all field

deficiencies and to provide for long-term corrective action. It was required that site personnel

discontinue work on the nonconforming equipment until disposition was made.

17.1.3.5.2 Qualification of Westinghouse Personnel

[HISTORICAL]

Nuclear Power Service welding engineers were qualified to Level II as required by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Appendix IX.

Nuclear Power Service personnel who performed or directed the preoperational and functional

testing were graduates of the Westinghouse Nuclear Operator training program.

17.1.3.6 Quality Control Records

[HISTORICAL]

The Administrative Specification described above required suppliers to maintain records for

each test (nondestructive, electrical, performance, etc.) specified in the purchase order. The

record was required to show the test procedure, equipment and materials used, the acceptance

standards applied, and the test results obtained. The part or assembly tested, date of test, and

test operator identity was shown.

The administrative specification and equipment specification also required maintenance of other

records as required, such as material test reports, welder qualifications, inspection records, etc.

Records such as trip reports, deviation notices, and other quality-related documents formed a

part of the Quality Assurance records maintained by Westinghouse.

Suppliers were required to maintain these records for specified periods, after which they notified

Westinghouse so a record file for the life of the plant could be arranged. Suppliers were also

required to transmit records to Westinghouse as work was completed for added assurance of

record availability.

Records generated at the construction site were filed and maintained there.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-10 Revision No. 27 17.1.3.7 Nonconforming Material, Trend Analysis and Corrective Action

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.3.7.1 Deficiencies at Suppliers' Plants

[HISTORICAL]

The Administrative Specification and QCS-1 described above contained specific contractual

requirements for controlling nonconforming material or workmanship.

The supplier was required to physically identify all material that did not conform to purchase

order requirements and to take necessary actions to preclude its further use. All deviations

were documented in writing and reviewed by engineering, quality control, and other appropriate

groups. First, consideration was given to restoring the material to its specified condition or

scrapping it. If that was impractical, the deviation was considered from both an engineering and

a quality control point of view. If acceptable, the deviation was formally approved in writing by

the cognizant engineer. A permanent file of these records was maintained.

QCS-1 required that the supplier's quality system provided for the identification and evaluation

of significant or recurring discrepancies and for alerting the supplier's cognizant management to

the need for corrective action. The supplier had to review corrective action for effectiveness

and the need for further action.

17.1.3.7.2 Deficiencies at the Construction Site

[HISTORICAL]

A written procedure provided for documented reporting of deficiencies found during plant

construction. These reports were submitted by site engineering personnel to the cognizant

engineering department. Like reports from suppliers' plants, these reports were reviewed for

necessary action, formally approved by the cognizant engineer and permanently filed.

17.1.3.7.3 Trend Analysis and Corrective Action

[HISTORICAL]

Plant Quality Assurance analyzed all deficiency data on Westinghouse-supplied equipment

received from suppliers and from construction sites to determine patterns of occurrence by

supplier, component, or process. With this as a guide, Quality Assurance and cognizant

engineers determined corrective actions that were needed to prevent recurrence. This action

was in addition to assuring that the supplier or site personnel took corrective action of the

individual deficiencies reported.

17.1.3.8 Audits

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.3.8.1 Suppliers' Plants

[HISTORICAL]

The Westinghouse audit function of suppliers is described in the Section 17.1.3.4, "Supplier

Quality Assurance" above.

17.1.3.8.2 Construction Site

[HISTORICAL]

Plant Quality Assurance was responsible for conducting independent audits of Nuclear Steam

Supply System work at the construction site to assure that proper procedures and instructions

were available and in use, and that adequate controls existed and were effective. Reports of

audits were sent to top management of the PWR Systems Division.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-11 Revision No. 27 17.1.3.8.3 Westinghouse Divisions

[HISTORICAL]

The Westinghouse Corporation had a formal audit procedure which applied to the PWR System

Division and all other divisions furnishing equipment or services to the nuclear industry as well

as other areas. The audit program was under the direction of the corporate Director of

Reliability Control who was organizationally independent from the operating divisions.

The purpose of the headquarters reliability control function was to provide an independent

verification that the quality assurance programs of the Westinghouse divisions were effectively

assuring that the product quality complied with the requirements of their customers and that the

programs were using the most effective approaches to prevent the manufacture of defective

products. In addition, this group assisted divisions in continually improving their quality control

programs and provided help necessary to institute the recommended improvements identified in

the audits.

Audits were performed of each division's quality assurance effort. An audit was usually

performed by a two or three man team consisting of a member of the headquarters reliability

control staff and the quality control manager of another division in the same product group as

the division to be audited.

The audit normally took five days. The quality assurance systems and procedures that had

been established by the division were reviewed to determine if these systems and procedures

were sufficient to provide an effective program. Observations were then made to assure that

the established systems and procedures were correctly being followed.

An oral presentation of the findings and conclusions of the audit was made to the Division

General Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and other personnel affected by the audit

findings. The items recommended for improvement in the quality assurance program were

presented as well as recommendations of approaches for accomplishing these improvements.

Following the audit, a written report containing the findings and recommendations reviewed in

the oral report was prepared and sent to the attendees of the meeting. In addition, a copy of the

report was sent to the Vice President to whom the division reported and to the Corporate

Director of Manufacturing. This procedure assured that the attention of a high level of

management was directed to actions needed to carry out the recommendations of the audit.

The Division Manager was responsible for reviewing the audit report and for taking action to

improve the Quality Assurance Program in those areas identified in the report as requiring

improvement. In addition, the Vice President sent a letter to each of his division managers after

completion of the audits for his group asking for the status of implementation of corrective action

for each item identified in the audit report. The answer was sent to the Vice President as well

as the Corporate Reliability Control Staff. This reply provided a basis for further followup by the

Corporate Reliability Control Staff to assure that the audit findings were acted upon.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-12 Revision No. 27 TABLE 17.1.3-1

[HISTORICAL]

NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS FUNCTIONAL GROUPS QUALITY ASSURANCE FLOW CHART

• For clarity, not shown in Fig. 17.1.3-2 FLOW PATH NO. FLOW PATH DEFINITION ORIGINATION FUNCTIONAL GROUP PROJECT LICENSING &

RELIABILITY SYSTEM FUNTIONAL REQUIREMENT GROUPS SYSTEM DESIGN GROUPS EQUIPMENT DESIGN &

PROCUREMENT GROUPS QUALITY ASSURENCE GROUPS MATERIALS ENGINEERING GROUPS ARCHITECH ENGINEER EQUPMENT SUPPLIERS CONSTRUCTORS ON-SITE SERVICE &

INSPECTION GROUPS APPLICANT A B C D E F G H I J K L 0 Design and Construction Follow and Approval (to and from all

groups) A A* B* C* D* E* F* G* H* I* J* K* L*

1 Contractual Requirements A B C D E 2 Safety Requirements B D E 3 Functional Requirements C D 4 System Design D B C 5 Concurrence on Design B D F 6(a) 6(b) Concurrence on System Design Design Review (Selected Critical

Areas) C F C D D E G K 7 Equipment Functional Requirements D E 8 System Functional Requirements D H K 9 Quality Control Plan F E 10 Equipment Specification (including Quality Control

Requirements) E B D F G HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-13 Revision No. 27 TABLE 17.1.3-1 (continued)

[HISTORICAL]

FLOW PATH NO. FLOW PATH DEFINITION ORIGINATION FUNCTIONAL GROUP PROJECT LICENSING &

RELIABILITY SYSTEM FUNTIONAL REQUIREMENT GROUPS SYSTEM DESIGN GROUPS EQUIPMENT DESIGN &

PROCUREMENT GROUPS QUALITY ASSURENCE GROUPS MATERIALS ENGINEERING GROUPS ARCHITECH ENGINEER EQUPMENT SUPPLIERS CONSTRUCTORS ON-SITE SERVICE &

INSPECTION GROUPS APPLICANT A B C D E F G H I J K L 11 Concurrence on Equipment Specifications BDFG E 12 Final Equipment Specifications E D F I K 13 (a) Design, (b) Manufacturing and

Inspection Procedure (a) I (b) E E F G 14 Concurrence of (a) design, (b)

Manufacturing Inspection

Procedures (a) FG (b) E E I 15(a) Surveillance, Process Audits and Quality Control Plan Actions F I 15(b) Corrective Action, Follow through

on Deficiencies F K 16 Materials Evaluation (a) I (b) E E G 17 Materials Concurrence (a) G (b) E E I 18 System Layout H B D E 19 Concurrence on System Layout BDE H 20 Final System Layout and Field Follow H J HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-14 Revision No. 27 TABLE 17.1.3-1 (continued)

[HISTORICAL]

FLOW PATH NO. FLOW PATH DEFINITION ORIGINATION FUNCTIONAL GROUP PROJECT LICENSING &

RELIABILITY SYSTEM FUNTIONAL REQUIREMENT GROUPS SYSTEM DESIGN GROUPS EQUIPMENT DESIGN &

PROCUREMENT GROUPS QUALITY ASSURENCE GROUPS MATERIALS ENGINEERING GROUPS ARCHITECH ENGINEER EQUPMENT SUPPLIERS CONSTRUCTORS ON-SITE SERVICE &

INSPECTION GROUPS APPLICANT A B C D E F G H I J K L 21 Inspection and Erection, Requirements and Procedures J E F G K 22 Concurrence on Inspection and

Erection, Requirements and

Procedures EFKG J 23 Equipment for Receipt Inspection I K 24 Final Equipment Inspection and

Erection, Requirements and

Procedures K J 25 Erection Follow K J 26 System Installed J K 27 Testing Requirements and

Procedures D B C E 28 Concurrence of Testing

Requirements and Procedures BCE D 29 Final Testing Requirements and

Procedures D K 30 System Performance Test

Procedures K B C D 31 Concurrence on System

Performance BCD K HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.3-15 Revision No. 27 TABLE 17.1.3-1 (continued)

[HISTORICAL]

• For Clarity, not shown in Fig. 17.1.3-2 FLOW PATH NO. FLOW PATH DEFINITION ORIGINATION FUNCTIONAL GROUP PROJECT LICENSING &

RELIABILITY SYSTEM FUNTIONAL REQUIREMENT GROUPS SYSTEM DESIGN GROUPS EQUIPMENT DESIGN &

PROCUREMENT GROUPS QUALITY ASSURENCE GROUPS MATERIALS ENGINEERING GROUPS ARCHITECH ENGINEER EQUPMENT SUPPLIERS CONSTRUCTORS ON-SITE SERVICE &

INSPECTION GROUPS APPLICANT A B C D E F G H I J K L 32 Handing over fo Completed Plant K L 33 Operating and Emergency Instructions D B C E L 34 Concurrence on Operating and Emergency Instructions BCEL D 35 Final Operating and Emergency Instructions D K L 36 Technical Specifications B C D E G K L 37 Concurrence on Technical Specifications CDEGKL B 38 Final Technical Specifications B H L 39 Plant Operation Information L K 40 Plant Operation Information (to all Appropriate Westinghouse Groups K A* B* D* E* G* K* 41 Audit of Site Quality Assurance F K 42 Analysis of Plant Operating and Maintenance Information F B D E G I HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.4-1 Revision No. 27 17.1.4 EBASCO ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

[HISTORICAL]

The Quality Compliance Section, staffed by capable and experienced personnel, was divided

into the two principal operations of home office and field.

The administration and implementation of quality compliance for vendors and field site

operations was the responsibility of the Ebasco Materials Engineering and Quality Compliance

Department. This department, which was headquartered in New York, was under the direction

of the departmental manager.

This department was established so that the manager reported directly to the Vice President -

Nuclear Engineering. Reporting to the manager were four sections of interrelated technical

disciplines: Quality Compliance, Welding and Joining, Materials and Metallurgy, and

Nondestructive Testing. Each of the sections had an engineering supervisor in charge. The

Quality Compliance Section Engineering Supervisor had reporting to him a Quality Compliance

Engineer who was responsible for the organization and direction of the field site quality

compliance supervisor and vendor quality compliance representatives. The quality compliance

section called upon the skill of the other three sections as well as company engineering

departments to assist in writing quality compliance manuals, instruction procedures,

nondestructive testing procedures, materials specifications, welding procedures, and quality

compliance procedures.

The Ebasco Quality Compliance Organization is shown in Figure 17.1.4-1.

17.1.4.1 Home Office

[HISTORICAL]

The responsibility of the Home Office Quality Compliance Engineer was to:

a) Establish a quality compliance program for the project

b) Perform liaison with the CP&L Project Manager, the nuclear steam generating system supplier, and regulatory agencies in the formulation and compliance of the quality

compliance program c) Review applicable specifications, revisions, and amendments prepared by the Engineering Department prior to issue. This review pertained to the quality compliance requirements, number and type of tests required, validity and feasibility of test methods

incorporated in the specifications, documentation requirements, and applicable code

requirements

d) Review bidding documents to assure that proper Quality Compliance requirements are contained therein

e) Set up "inspection scope" pertinent to the specification

f) Review purchase orders to determine that all Quality Compliance requirements are contained therein

g) Review Vendors' Quality Compliance procedures pertinent to the purchased item(s).

Approve or request changes in these procedures

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.4-2 Revision No. 27 h) Set up manufacturer's facilities surveys and schedule plant or source visits

i) Set up final "inspection scope" for each specification and order and inform the supplier of these requirements. The inspection scope was determined by:

1) Specification requirements

2) Criticality and sophistication of item

3) Vendor's history of performance

4) Results of Manufacturer's facilities survey

j) Perform liaison duties between home office and field quality compliance groups, engineering, purchasing, expediting, and construction relating to implementation of the

quality compliance program

k) Maintain during vendor fabrication quality compliance work records and documentation

17.1.4.2 Field

[HISTORICAL]

The field quality compliance supervisor reported to the construction project manager in matters

relating to schedule priority. However, he was responsible to the Manager of Materials

Engineering and Quality Compliance in matters relating to administration and technical control.

The responsibilities of the Field Quality Compliance Group were as follows:

a) Review specifications to determine quality compliance requirements and scope of duties pertinent to items purchased and received at the site b) Carry out inspections necessary to assure that materials and construction conform to the requirements and intent of the applicable specifications and drawings

c) Work with the Home Office Quality Compliance Engineer in carrying out Vendor surveillance and inspection program

d) Receive, review and/or prepare all necessary documentation pertinent to quality or materials and workmanship and maintain these documents in a logical, available, and complete manner

The Ebasco Project Organization Quality Compliance Relationships are shown on Figure

17.1.4-2.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.4-3 Revision No. 27 17.1.4.3 Records

[HISTORICAL]

The Field Quality Compliance Group was responsible for maintaining all records pertinent to

and necessary for the quality compliance of materials and workmanship associated with the

project. These records were maintained throughout construction and final testing. At the

completion of the project these records were turned over to the Owner. Throughout the course

of the construction project, the records were available for review by the Owner, regulatory

agencies, and/or their authorized representatives.

The Home Office Quality Compliance Engineer and Field Quality Compliance Supervisor

developed the "filing system" at the beginning of the project. The files were set up numerically

by plant system heading, such as the Auxiliary Coolant System, with subheadings pertaining to

each line designation within the system and by building. The numbers used were the same as

the applicable specification which was also the purchase order number for the equipment or

service applicable.

Piping welding records were organized by system with system packages containing (but not

limited to) material certifications, shop inspection and test documentation, performance test

records, field welding records, nondestructive testing reports, and radiographs. These records

were maintained as the work progressed and all data was assembled into the final package

when the system was completed.

Where an item was used "across the project" (such as reinforcing steel) separate records were

maintained in a "General" category.

17.1.4.4 Scheduling

[HISTORICAL]

All quality compliance work was scheduled to maintain coordination with the construction,

scheduling, engineering, and purchasing groups connected with the project. Field use of

computer printouts was made in this regard for long range scheduling, using separate sortings

where helpful.

17.1.4.5 Details of Quality Control and Inspection Work

[HISTORICAL]

17.1.4.5.1 Ebasco Purchased Items - Vendor Surveillance

[HISTORICAL]

Where vendor plant surveillance was necessary a program was organized and implemented

according to the following plan:

a) The purchase order was reviewed to determine that all quality compliance requirements were contained or referenced therein.

b) Vendor's quality control procedures for the subject item(s) were reviewed.

c) A Manufacturer's Facilities Survey was made to assure vendor's capability and to determine his understanding regarding quality compliance documentation and test

requirements.

d) The extent of shop inspection necessary to assure compliance with terms and intent of the order was determined.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.4-4 Revision No. 27 e) During vendor inspections, in addition to the specific purpose of the inspection (e.g.,

witnessing shop tests or reviewing radiographs), the quality compliance representative:

1) Reviewed applicable mill test reports and certifications for full compliance to specification requirements

2) Reviewed techniques and procedures for required inspection methods and tests

3) Determined that vendor quality control procedures were being carried out as approved f) Prior to any vendor surveillance, the Field or the Home Office Quality Compliance Engineer prepared an "Inspection Checklist" for the quality compliance or factory representative making the visit. This list contained specific details to be checked during

the visit, including dimensional tolerances, test procedures, test pressures, applicable

codes, etc. The Quality Compliance Engineer saw to it that the representative had in his

possession at the time of the visit all necessary inspection tools, specifications and

codes, and that applicable drawings were available.

17.1.4.5.2 Site Quality Compliance - Structural

[HISTORICAL]

The following items were performed to assure the site Quality Compliance of structural

materials:

a) Concrete Materials Approvals and Mix Designs - All materials entering into production of structural concrete for the project were sampled and tested in full accordance with project specification requirements and applicable ASTM and American Concrete Institute

standards prior to any placement of concrete in the permanent structures.

b) Mill test certificates were required and reviewed for all cement used on the project.

Separate storage facilities were maintained at the batch plant so that no mixing of

cement types or brands took place.

c) Concrete aggregates were periodically sampled and tested. The batch plant was inspected to ascertain that only previously approved aggregates were used.

d) The concrete batch was inspected for conformance to ASTM C-94. During concreting operations, the batch plant was checked to determine that approved mixes were being batched and all batching was being done in accordance with project specifications.

e) All concreting operations were inspected in the field including forms, reinforcing, placing, curing, and stripping. Slump tests, air content checks, and concrete cylinders were made as required.

f) All concrete materials testing, design mixes, batch plant inspection, site inspection, and cylinder testing were performed by an independent testing laboratory hired by the

contractor.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.4-5 Revision No. 27 g) Mill test reports for reinforcing steel were required and reviewed covering each heat of material supplied. Material was inspected upon receipt at the site for identification marks and condition.

h) For Cadweld Splices, mill test reports covering sleeves and cartridges were required.

Storage areas for these items were checked to assure that no deterioration had taken

place. All operator qualifications records were maintained. All production splices were

visually inspected and samples randomly selected for testing to destruction. A log of all

test results was maintained and results charted.

i) Mill test reports for structural steel were required and reviewed. When received at the site, material was inspected for proper identification and condition. Where shop

fabrication was required, a vendor surveillance program was set up as described

previously. Erection of structural steel was subject to inspection as required. All

connections were particularly checked for soundness and tightness.

j) For field welding of structural steel, welding procedure tests and operator certifications were checked for conformance to applicable specifications of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the American Welding Society (AWS), or Ebasco.

Where field qualification tests for procedures of performance were required, these were

witnessed by a representative of the Quality Compliance Group. Field welds were

inspected and where required, nondestructive tests were performed, witnessed, or

reviewed by a representative of the Quality Compliance Group. Radiographs were

reviewed and a report of the tests and the radiographs was maintained in the Quality

Compliance file.

k) Particular attention was placed on the fabrications of the containment liner. Mill test reports were checked and became a part of the permanent Quality Compliance file.

Welding procedure and welder qualifications were checked and certifications became a

part of the permanent Quality Compliance file. Welding records and nondestructive

testing were audited and nondestructive test reports were reviewed. These tests

included the leak testing of the leak detection channels.

Procedures for the final containment pressurizations and test were reviewed and this test was

witnessed.

17.1.4.5.3 Site Quality Control - Mechanical Equipment

[HISTORICAL]

The following items were performed to assure the site quality control of mechanical equipment:

a) A receiving inspection was performed for Ebasco and Westinghouse material. Items were checked when received at the site for damage, sealing, and generally to determine

if the item was ready for installation. Records and documentation as defined in this

section were required to be on site and acceptable prior to installation.

b) On safety related items, the Field Quality Compliance Supervisor prepared a checklist of inspection requirements, limiting factors, and acceptance criteria. These inspections

were required to be completed with satisfactory results prior to acceptance into the

structure.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.4-6 Revision No. 27 c) Nondestructive tests (including pressure and leak rate) required by the specifications were witnessed or reviewed by a member of the Quality Compliance Group.

Radiographs were reviewed and a report of the test and the radiographs was maintained

in the Quality Compliance file.

d) Field welding on mechanical equipment was subject to the same criteria as noted under "Field Welding of Structural Steel." Records and all radiographs became a part of the Quality Compliance file.

e) The cleanliness of mechanical equipment was carefully checked in full accordance with project specifications.

f) During the course of field welding on the piping systems, a "Record and Schedule of Field Welds" was maintained and available for checking progress.

17.1.4.5.4 Site Quality Compliance - Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls

[HISTORICAL]

The following items were performed to assure the site quality compliance of electrical,

instrumentation, and controls:

a) A receiving inspection was performed for Ebasco and Westinghouse supplied equipment. Items were inspected when received at the site for damage to the crating or equipment and for proper identification. Records and documentation as defined in this

section were required to be on site and acceptable before installation.

b) The inspection of installation was primarily a check of the workmanship in mounting and wiring the equipment to code and specification requirements.

c) After installation, components were given preoperational checks by testing for their proper electrical and mechanical functions without energizing the equipment. These

tests were conducted to applicable standards of the American Standards Association

(ASA), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), and the National

Electrical Manufacturer's Association (NEMA) in addition to the "Startup Checklist for

Electrical Equipment".

d) Operational checks were also performed. After successful preoperational tests, equipment was further checked for proper mechanical and/or electrical functions with the

equipment energized. Tests were conducted in accordance with applicable ASA, IEEE,

and NEMA standards and the "Startup Check List for Electrical Equipment".

17.1.4.5.5 Site Quality Compliance - Piping

[HISTORICAL]

The following items were performed to assure the site quality compliance of piping:

a) A receiving inspection was performed for Ebasco and Westinghouse supplied material.

Piping was checked when received at the site for damage, sealing, and cleanliness.

Records and documentation as defined in this section were required to be on site and

acceptable before installation.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.1.4-7 Revision No. 27 b) All welders and welding procedures were certified in accordance with ASME Code requirements. For those welders or procedures requiring field certifications, tests for certification were witnessed by a representative of the Quality Compliance Group.

Qualification records became a part of the Quality Compliance file.

c) Field welds in critical systems and others where required were numbered and these numbers became the permanent identification of the joint.

d) Nondestructive testing (including pressure and leak tests) were witnessed or reviewed by the Quality Compliance Group. Radiographs were reviewed by the Quality

Compliance Group.

e) The cleanliness of the piping systems was carefully checked in full accordance with project specifications.

17.1.4.5.6 Work Stoppage - Unacceptable Items

[HISTORICAL]

Any item which in any way did not meet the quality compliance requirements of the

specifications was required to be noted as unacceptable. The Quality Compliance Supervisor

immediately informed the Construction Superintendent of this fact. The method of repair or

replacement of the item was determined in accordance with specification requirements. The

replacement was subject to the same quality compliance requirements as the original item.

Repair of the item was in accordance with an approved procedure and this procedure defined

the quality compliance requirements necessary for acceptance.

If a condition arose wherein the Quality Compliance Engineer determined that project work must

be stopped in order to preserve the quality of the project, he so informed the Construction

Superintendent, Construction Manager, Project Manager, and the CP&L representative, and the

proper course of action was established and implemented. Any conflict in decisions was

immediately reported to the home office Manager, Materials Engineering and Quality

Compliance for resolution.

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.2.0-1 Revision No. 13 Section 17.2 was deleted by Revision No. 13

HBR 2 UPDATED FSAR 17.3.1-1 Revision No. 27 17.3 RNP Quality Assurance Program Description The description of the Quality Assurance Program is contained in the Duke Energy Corporation

Topical Report Quality Assurance Program Description Operating Fleet, DUKE-QAPD-001.

That Topical Report follows the format and content guidance of NUREG-0800 Section 17.3

except it is based on ANSI N18.7-1976 in lieu of ANSI/ASME NQA-1 and NQA-2.

Topical Report DUKE-QAPD-001 is incorporated by reference into the UFSAR.