IR 05000369/1997007

Insp Rept 50-369/97-07 on 970406-0503.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Sg Replacement Project Activities in Areas of Maint & Engineering

ML20140C662
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire
Issue date:	06/02/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20140C658	List: IR 05000369/1997007 ML20140C656
References
50-369-97-07, 50-369-97-7, NUDOCS 9706100016
Download: ML20140C662 (15)

Text

l

.

,

i I

!

I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'

REGION II

Docket No: 50-369 License No: NPF-9 i

Report No: 50-369/97-07 Licensee: Duke Power Company

.

Facility: McGuire Generating Station. Unit 1 Location: 12700 Hagers Ferry R Huntersville. NC 28078

.

Datc5: April 6 - May 3, 1997 Inspectors: M. Sykes. Resident Inspector N. Economos, Regional Inspector

"

Approved by: C. Casto. Chief. Projects Branch 1 Division of Reactor Projects

.

I Enclosure

'

"

9706100016 970602 PDR ADOCK 05000369 G PDR

'

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY McGuire Generating Station. Unit 1 NRC Inspection Report 50-369/97-07 This integrated inspection was conducted of the Steam Generator Replacement Project (SGRP) activities in the areas of maintenance and engineering. The report covers a four week period of announced inspections performed by the resident and a region-based inspecto Maintenance l e Preservice examination of new welds was performed in accordance with l applicable code requirements and procedures. Non-destructive examination personnel were qualified and adequately tryned to perform l

"

their assigned tasks in a conservative and conscientious manner (Section !

M1.2). I e Welding of secondary piping was completed and inspected in accordance with applicable code requirements. ~ Weld rejection rates were relatively high in spite of intensified welder training and the purchase of new automatic welding equipment. Communications between Technical Support and craft was adequate. Quality control provided adequate coverage of

.

field activities although the extent of random inspections while welding activities were in progress did not meet with licensee expectation Housekeeping around work areas was erratic. The filler metal control program was satisfactory and adherence to procedural requirements was generally adequate with the exception of an occasional breakdown in the i control and disposition of used material (i.e. sticks or unused rod)

(Section M1.2).

l e SGRP organization's preparation and execution of the SGRP was goo Adequate emphasis was placed on conforming to station maintenance and QA l practices and policies. Management maintained awareness of activities

and provided good oversight. Difficulties encountered with welding

! program performance expectations were immediately elevated to the appropriate level and received adequate attention (Section M6.1).

! e Rigid supports, struts and snubbers were reinstalled following steam l generator replacement, providing adequate protection against seismic and l operational transients. Drawings were updated to reflect the as-built plant conditions (Section M7.1).

'

• The Unit I reactor building had been adequately returned to operational condition prior to power operation. Reactor building material condition

and housekeeping was significantly improved (Section M7.2).

Enclosure

.- - . - - - . . - - - . . -- __ .-. ._

'

-

.

-  ;

Report Details

.

l Review of Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Commitments

!

While performing inspections discussed in this report, the inspectors reviewed the applicable portions of the UFSAR that related to the areas inspected. The

.

inspectors verified that the UFSAR wording was consistent with the observed l plant practices, procedures and/or parameter II. Maintenance

!

M1 Conduct of Maintenance The Unit 1 steam generator replacement outage commenced February 1 ' 1997. The re)lacement was performed due to significant tube degradation which diminisled the original steam generator service life. The original Westinghouse supplied steam generators were replaced by Babcock and Wilcox International Inc. supplied steam generators with minor changes in design characteristics. ' Duke Power acted as the prime contractor for the project. The replacement was performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50.90.

,. l M1.2 Steam Generator Replacement Proiect (SGRP) - Unit 1 (50001)  !

a. Inspection Scope i This inspection was performed to observe welding of secondary piping:

evaluate housekeeping around work areas: review associated process !

control documents; evaluate control of filler metal; and review l radiographs of completed welds and results of preservice inspections on Steam Generator (SG) tubes. primary and secondary welds as applicabl ;

b. Observations and Findinos Acolicable Codes and Standards By review of the applicable sections of the McGuire FSAR. Steam Generator Replacement Manual and various scope do:uments, the inspectors ascertained that the following ASME Code Sections and Editions were applicable to the SGR SG replacement. ASME Code Section XI. 1989 Edition. Article IWA-4000 l

-

Weld process, inspection and leak testing. Corporate Manual l Section NSD-400 and Code Case N-416-1

-

Welding procedures for secondary pipe butt welds, were qualified

! to the latest ASME Code Section IX in effect at the time of the Enclosure l

'

-

.

.

E

!

c ualification.- The original construction code of record fo FcGuire Units 1 and 2 is the ASME Code section II. 1971 Editio i Weldina In Proaress - Main Feedwater and Main Steam Pioina l This work effort was a followup to that documented in previous Inspection Reports 96-11, 97-03 and 97-05. See those reports for-details relative to the applicable weld procedures / field weld data sheets used to fabricate field welds in the Main Steam and Feedwater pipe systems. Welds selected for observation during this inspection were as follows:

Main Steam (SM) Pioina

.,

Weld Size Descriotion Observations SM1FIC 32"x1.5" Nozzle to Elbow Weld completed, grinding SG "C" repair in progress SM1FW25-04 34"x1.4" Pipe to Pipe Welding in progress Riser SG "C"

.

SM1FW24-04 34"x1.4" Pipe to Pi3e Weld completed and i Riser SG "3"

'

radiographed SM1 FIB 32"x1.5" Nozzle to Elbow Weld completed. grind SG "B" repair in progress Main Feedwater (CF) Pioina CFIFW26-28 16"x.844" Pipe to Elbow Weld completed awaiting-radiography, one interval appeared to lack a 3 to 1 taper CFIFW27-24 16"x.844" Nozzle to Elbow Weld completed, grinding for radiography CF1FW24-06 18"x.938" Bottom of Riser Grinding, weld prepped for fitup CFIFW26-02 18"x.938" Horizontal Weld undergoing repair offset at crane wall The inspectors checked these welds for apaearance, including bead start and stops, bead appearance and width heig1t of reinforcement, overlaps, undercut, cleanliness, arc strikes; availability of weld documentation at work stations, availability of filler metal issue slips: maintenance of preheat and interpass temperature. Quality Control (OC) hold points Enclosure i

. . . - .

. .. . . -. .- . .- . - .

.

-

.

'

and sign-offs, as required; and weld and welder identification near i welds, as required. Within these areas the inspectors noted that a section of weld CFIFW26-28 did not appear to meet the 3 to 1 taper between components required by NB-4233. This observation was discussed with the licensee's Technical Support Lead who generated Problem ;

Investigation Process (PIP) report 1-M97-1513 for evaluation. Following this inspection, the weld was ground to remove a rejectable indication :

and then re) aired using additional weld metal deposit to achieve the 3 l to 1 taper ]etween the elbow and feedwater nozzl I i

Housekeeoina Around Work Areas I During observation of welding activities in the lower containment and on platforms on top of SGs where work on SM welds was in progress, the

. , inspectors checked to see if good housekeeping practices were being enforced. Within these general areas. the inspectors observed an 1 excessive number of tools, cables, debris, building and scaffolding 1 Taterials - most of which did not appear to be associated with the work ;

G1 progress. The inspectors brought this observation to the attention

'

of SGRP management for action. During discussions on this subject, tne licensee indicated that housekeeping has been a challenge even though a considerable effort had been made to make improvements in this are .

The inspectors stressed that good housekeeping practices were essential l

,

'

to good work performance and Jersonnel safety. The licensee took l immediate action to correct t1e conditions described. A followu)

inspection during the week of April 14, 1997, showed conditions lad improved significantly in the lower and upper containment area l Procedure to Control Hiah Enerav Material Removal - Air Arcina

,

During the inspection documented in Inspection Report 97-05, the l inspectors identified Non-Cited Violation (NCV) 97-05-01 for failure to follow procedure. The problem involved some heavy gouging, arc strikes !

I

'

and some slag accumulation on reactor coolant pump (RCP) bodies, lateral i restraint frames and support pads. The licensee took immediate remedial i action on the damaged components and communicated expectations to the craf During this inspection, the inspectors noted that the licensee issued procedure MP/0/A/7650/153. Control of High Energy Material Removal Process. This procedure was intended to formalize the process and provide a means of documenting specific instructions to the craft during the pre-job briefing; thus minimizing the potential of repeating the proble Filler Metal Control

,

Adherence to filler metal control procedure requirements has been a challenae during this SGRP. Through discussions with the licensee's SGRP welding lead personnel, the inspectors ascertained that impro)er

,

disposal of used or damaged filler material was a problem during t11s

-

outage. To a large extent, the problem included failure to cut the used Enclosure

. ~ . . _ . . . _ - .- _ _ .-_ . _ . _ _ . . _ _. _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ ,

l

.

'

,

,

-

j

)

5

<

l

i material to the length recuired by procedure or to bend it before  !

disposing it in a locked crum provided. Other examples, but to a lesser i i extent, included inadequately completed issue slips and discovery of  ;

uncontrolled rods in the lower containment. The inspector indicated '

, that while the programmatic aspects were satisfactory, adherence to

procedural requirements will require additional training and monitoring during the Unit 2. SG replacemen '

J-

Review of Radicaraohs d

Review of radiographs of completed welds and subsequent repairs was l

3erformed as a followup to earlier reviews documented in Inspection i

'

leports 96-11 and 97-03. The below listed radiograahs were shot in  !

accordance with the Licensee's General Radiography procedure NDE-10,-

'

.

' Revision 19 and the requirements of the above-mentioned applicable cod :

!

During this review, the subject radiographs were checked for use of  !

j

'

- proper penetrameter and location, sensitivity, film density .

identification, film quality and coverage. Welds selected for this work

] effort were as follows-1 1

.

Main Feedwater  ;

. Weld N Sjle Description Status '

CF1FW26-02 18"x.938" Horizontal offset 4/9/97, i: at crane wall rejected i lack of j fusion (LOF)

,

CFIFW26-28 16"x.844" Pipe to elbow 4/9/97,

-

rejected LOF

.

j CFIFW27-34 16"x.844" Nozzle to elbow 4/9/97 i rejected LOF

- l

& incomplete  !

, penetration  !

(IP)  ;

g

'

CFIFW25-02 18"x.938" Horizontal offset 4/9/97

at crane wall rejected l

porosity '

<

and LOF

CFIFW25-15 18"x.938" 18"x16" reducer 4/10/97 rejected LOF e

i j

j Enclosure i  !

l ,

'

,

d

,- . - , -

, - - . .,,

. . .- . . - . -_ . _ - . =__ - - -. - . . - - - _ . - - - -

I

. .

i

. l l

, 6 i

Main Steam

'

SM1F1B 32"x1.5" SG "B" Nozzle 4/10/97 accepted J

SM1FID 32"x1.5" SG "D" Nozzle 4/10/97

'

rejected LOF i SM1FW23-4 34"x1.428" Pipe to Riser

.

4/10/97 accepted

'

i

'

. SM1FW26-4 34"x1.428" Pipe to Riser 4/11/97

rejected

{ slag

[ '

SMIFW24-4 34"x1.428" Pipe to Riser 4/8/97 i 1 accepted  !

i

.

Reactor Coolant 1

'

NC1F3-3 31x2.54 "C" Nozzle to Cross Over 4/6/97

, accepted 3 i

j: . NC1F4-2 31x2.54 "D" Nozzle to Hotleg 4/4/97 I accepted l

>

This review revealed that both film and radiographic quality were  ;

-

satisfactory. However, the inspectors noted that film identification.

which is used for traceability purposes, could only be seen under normal

'

overhead lighting assisted by some film manipulation. This was a

.

departure from the normal and customary practice of marking the film in

a manner which made the information readily discernable and plainly

visible under the light of the film viewer. The inspector discussed

!

'

this observation with the Level III examiner and questioned the adequacy !

of this practice in that it made reading the code required information a challenge under normal dark room conditions. The Level III indicated l that he would look into this matter and make the appropriate change l i The inspector indicated that he would monitor this area during Unit 2 SG l replacement, i I' Eddy Current Examination of Reolacement Steam Generator Tubina i 1- ASME Code Section XI,1989 Edition Paragraph IWA-7530 requires that a Preservice Inspection (PSI), be performed on replacement items including j

-

new weld joints that connect that item to the system. This is to be -

done prior to returning the system to service. As such, the licensee performed a preservice examination of all tubes in each of the four replacement SGs. The full length of each of the 6631-6632 tubes were i' examined with bobbin coil probes. Indications identified, were characterized with motorized pancake coil (MRPC) probes. Bobbin coil examinations were performed with a 0.560" diameter probe at frequencies .

!

Enclosure

.

h

'

, -

-

-

.

-

.

of 650, 320, 175 and 35 Khz operating in differential and absolute modes. The 650 Khz differential channel was used for primary analysis of indications. A Zetec MIZ-30 Remote Data Acquisition Unit was used to generate the aforementioned frequencies. The MRPC examination was performed with 0.560" probes at frequencies of 300. 200. 100 and 10kH The inspectors' review of the Eddy Current PSI / Baseline Report disclosed the following:

.

All tubes in each of the four SGs were examined over their full length with the bobbin coil prob .

No tubes were identified with indications that equalled to or exceeded minimum code acceptance criteria of 40% through wall (TW)

,

dimensio Minimal manufacturing discontinuities, identified as manufacturing burnishing marks (MBMs), were documented for reference purposes and for monitoring during future refueling ' outage examinations. A summary of the total number of tubes identified with minor indications in each of 4 the four SGs is as follows: '

MRPC Volumetric ;

Steam Generator Tubes / Indication < 14% Indications

"A" 43/49 41 l

"B" 55/60 27 i

"C" 80/93 80 I

"D" 45/60 49 Indications with degradation >15% TW were identified in two tubes of SG l

"C" and in one tube of SG "D". Examination results appeared to be i complete and accurate. Procedures and associated records were consistent with Code and Regulatory requirement I Volumetric Examination of New Welds l i As required by the aforementioned applicable code, preservice volumetric l type examination (e.g., ultrasonic / radiographic) was performed on l designated SG replacement weld joints. Procedures used for ultrasonic and radiographic examinations were as follows:

i l e NDE-600. Rev. 9 Ultrasonic Examination of Similar Metal Welds in Wrought Ferritic and Austenitic Piping e NDE-610. Rev. 4 Ultrasonic Examination of Dissimilar Metal Welds and Cast Austenitic Welds using Refracted Lorig and Shear Waves

,

Enclosure

.

.

e NDE-640. Rev. 1 Ultrasonic Examination using Long and Shear Wave Straight Beam Techniques e NDE-670 Ultrasonic Sizing of Planar Flaws in Wrought Piping

-

e NDE-10. Rev. 19 General Radiography Procedure In that these procedures had been reviewed and found satisfactory on previous inservice inspections, this review concentrated on the latest revision presently in use. This review revealed the revisions were consistent with applicable code requirements. At the time of this inspection, all preservice examinations on replacement welds had been completed. As an alternate to observing this activity, the inspectors

"

selected at random, a sample of examined welds for a review and evaluation of examination results. Welds selected were as follows:

e Auxiliary Feedwater CA1FW16-1.18-1,18-3,19-1,19-3 e Main Feedwater CF1FW24-1. -5.-15, 18-1.-19 e Reactor Coolant NC1F1-2. -3, NC1F2-2 -3. NC1F3-2. -3 and 4

.

NC1F4-2. -3 This record review revealed that the welds were adequately examined and all indications were documented and evaluated as required per applicable code requirements. Isolated transcription type omissions were noted and discussed with the cognizant Level III examiner who indicated that these omissions would be identified and addressed during their final review process. Examiners who performed these examinations were adequately trained, knowledgeable and performed these examinations and subsequent evaluations with attention to applicable code requirements. Equipment used were properly calibrated and material traceability was satisfactory, c. Conclusion Fabrication of CF and SM piping welds continued to be a challenge for the licensee. For example, the inspectors ascertained that out of a total of 23 CF field welds, only three were accepted without weld repai r. Main Steam welds had similar problems in that all joints required some repair before they could be accepted by radiography (RT).

In terms of the overall rejection rate, based on April 24, 1997, assessment the inspectors ascertained that out of approximately 109 field welds 38 (or 35%) were rejected by R On the positive side, the inspectors noted that iriconel nozzle welds and all auxillary feedwater (CA) field welds were fabricated without repai Also the inspectors noted that the rejection rate, as measured in terms

,

Enclosure

'

.

.

I

of the total inches of weld metal deposited, showed more positive results as seen below:

Total Inches Inches Percentage of System of Weld Deoosited of Defects Accentable Weld Main Steam 828.96" 27" 96.74%

Main Feedwater 1249.72" 60.125" 95.19%

)

Auxiliary 332.84" 0 100% l Feedwater l The licensee indicated that the rejection rate in terms of the number of

~' welds fabricated did not meet their expectations for this SGR I A weld performance assessment was being drafted and discussions were underway to determine the course that was needed in order to improve performance and achieve expectations during the Unit 2 SGR Weld process control and monitoring by OC was adequate, although the number of. random inspections fell short of expectations when it was i compared with the number of required inspections performe '

'

.

The quality of non-destructive examinations performed was satisfactor This was especially true in RT which has shown consistent improvement over the previous (Catawba Unit 1) SGR Housekeeping required additional attention and the licensee was taking steps to improve results during the upcoming Unit 2 SGR M6 Maintenance Organization and Administration M6.1 Oraanization and Administration (50001)

a. Insoection Scooe The inspectors observed steam generator removal and replacement activities to evaluate the stations interface with the SGRP organization, control for contractor oversight and interface, problem identification and resolution process, and quality assurance plan implementation requirement b. Observations and Findinas The inspector noted that the SGRP organization, lines of authority, and responsibility were consistent with the station organization. Interface agreements between the station and the SGRP organization were developed and implemented. The inspector noted that the effectiveness of the licensee *s planning and execution for the SGRP was good. The station maintained good communication and oversight of SGRP activitie Enclosure

. - __ _ _ . _- . ~ __ . _- _ __ ~ .._

l

'

-

.

.

E

Contractor and station staffing levels were adequate. The licensee used a

both station and contractor OC inspectors to meet Quality Assurance (OA)

requirements. Control of contractors was in accordance with NSD-10 Control of Non-Assigned Individuals and Organizations. Identification, evaluation, and resolution of non-conforming conditions were handled in accordance with NSD-208. Problem Investigation Proces Station groups were involved in the SGRP planning stages to assure that l McGuire specific requirements were understood and observed. Licensee '

and SGRP management demonstrated good understanding of the significance of the specific changes and the manner in which they were to be implemented. Licensee operating procedures were reviewed to minimize i the impact on the operating unit and shared systems. SGRP identified l 4' non-conformances were tracked and trended. In general adverse trends

_ ,

were adequately evaluated and resolve Conclusions The inspectors concluded that the SGRP organization's preparation and execution of the SGRP was good. Adecuate emphasis was laced on conforming to station maintenance anc OA practices and olicie Management maintained awareness of activities and provi ed good

. oversight. Difficulties encountered with welding program performance expectations were immediately elevated to the appropriate level and

received adequate attention.

. M7 Quality Assurance in Maintenance Activities

2 M Interference and Seismic Suonort Removal and Restoration (50001) I l Insoection Stone

<

The inspectors conducted reviews of steam generator restraints following replacement activities to ensure that interference items and seismic supports and restraints had been reinstalled following the maintenance outag Observations and Findinas

'

The inspectors reviewed SGRP modification scope document The

ins)ectors discussed the pipe support and restraint removal / revision wit 1 the licensee. The licensee stated that due to generator design

' differences and other outage related modifications to systems that some piping restraint and support modifications were necessary. The licensee also stated that certain instrumentation tubing would be rerouted and the original supports would be delete The inspectors reviewed isometric drawings oT the modified systems following steam generator installation. The inspectors conducted walkdowns of portions of the main feedwater system and the main steam Enclosure

. . - - __ - -

~

.

.

.

$ 11

,

systems in the 'B' steam generator cavit Interferences removed or

'

relocated for SG replacement (i.e., pipe restraints, supports , and snubbers) had been reinstalled or replaced. Primary system sample lines and steam generator level instrumentation was rerouted due to nozzle relocation. Instrumentation tubing was rerouted along cavity wall The inspectors verified that the tubing was installed properly and was free of visible damag Instrumentation calibration was conducted.

Conclusions The inspectors verified that rigid supports.-struts and snubbers were

'

reinstalled following the steam generator replacement, providing

' adequate protection against seismic and operational transients. The inspector also noted that drawings were revised to reflect the as-built plant condition M7.2 Unit 1 Containment Cleanliness Insoections (50001)

' Insoection Scooe The inspectors conducted walkdown inspections of the Unit 1 reactor building. The inspectors placed particular emphasis on identification of fibrous material that may cause complications during the recirculation phase of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) operatio Observations and Findinas Prior to entering Mode 4 (Hot Shutdown), the licensee implemented containment closecut procedures and restricted reactor building acces Individuals and materials entering containment for final restart preparations were logged in and out of the building by the Shift Work Manage The inspectors obtained access and conducted detailed walkdowns of portions of the lower reactor building and pipe chase area The inspectors noted that maintenance equipment used during the SGRP had been remove Protective covers used to minimize foreign material intrusion into the containment sump during maintenance activities had been removed and the sump was devoid of debris. No visible indications of system leakage were identified. Temporary shielding and scaffolding used during the outage had been removed from the building. Subsequent followup inspections by the licensee using sensitive thermography equipment identified a small crossover leg loo) drain valve leak on the

'B' steam generator. The licensee tightened t1e valve to reduce the leak, which is considered identified leakage to the reactor coolant drain tan The inspectors evaluated the newly installed blanket insulation used on the replacement generators. The original mirror insulation was replaced with fiberglass mass within a fiberglass cloth blanket insulation. The Enclosure

. _ _ . _ _ _ - - . _

-

.

-

, .

l

.

i

! fiberglass blanket is covered by a stainless steel jacket to minimize damage to the cloth. The blanket insulation was supported by rings mounted around the circumference of the steam generator shell. The original insulation could not be reused due to SG dimensional i differences. The licensee also stated that the new blanket insulation

!

'

should provide for improved thermal performance. The inspectors evaluated insulation installation from the main steam nozzle to primary t

system nozzles. The insulation was adequately installed and no concerns l were identified.

l c. Conclusion 1

)

.

The inspectors concluded that Unit I reactor building had been l

!

'

adequately returned to operational condition prior to power operatio I

~' The inspectors noted significant improvements in reactor building material condition and housekeepin V. Manaaement Meetinos X1 Exit Meeting Summary i

The inspectors ) resented the inspection results to members of licensee l

.

management at tie conclusion of the inspection on May 7. 1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented. Proprietary information is not contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not received from the license .

Enclosure

.. . _ _ . . . .~. .__ _ . _ _ - - _ - - . _ _ - _ _ _

'

'

.

l

'

l PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee .

l

'

l

'

Barron. H.. Vice President. McGuire Nuclear Station Branch A-0C Team Leader Cash M., Manager Regulatory Compliance

'

Cross R., Regulatory Compliance

, Dolan. B. , Manager. Safety Assurance l Geddie. E., Manager. McGuire Nuclear Station Holbrooks, G., Welding Program Team Leader Jhamil . D. . Superintendent. Maintenance (Acting)

Jones. R., Superintendent. Operations Morgan. R., Manager. SGRP Engineering

'

Nazar. M., Su]erintendent. Maintenance Robinson M.. McGuire SGRP Project Manager Sharpe. R.. SGRP Licensing

,

i Thomas, K., Superintendent. Work Control j Hallman. W.. SGRP Manager i Van Malssen. S.. Welding Technical Support Team Leader i

NRC  !

.

S. Shaeffer. Senior Resident Inspector. McGuire M. Sykes Resident Inspector. McGuire N. Economos. Regional Inspector

!

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 50001: Steam Generator Replacement Project Inspection l LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers CA Auxiliary Feedwater System CF Main Feedwater System CFR Code of Federal Regulations FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report LOF Lack Of Fusion MBM Manufacturing Burnishing Mark MRPC Motorized Pancake Coil NCV Non-Cited Violation NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSD Nuclear Station Directive NSM Nuclear Station Modification PIP Problem Investigation Process PSI Preservice Inspection OA/0C Ouality Assurance /0uality Control l

RCP Reactor Coolant Pump Enclosure .

..- _ ._ . . __ _ . _ . _ - . _ . .. _ .... _ _ . ._ _ _ .. . _

! ,

l

%

14 j RT Radiography .

SG Steam Generator

'

SGRP Steam Generator Replacement Project .

i SM Main Steam  !

!

I l '

!

,

I

'M e

I

-

I i

!

!

!

l

s

'

i l

,

.

,

!

i Enclosure i

I

-_ _ _ _ , -

- . - - -