IR 05000445/1986017

Insp Repts 50-445/86-17 & 50-446/86-14 on 860616-18 & 24 & 0707-17.Weaknesses & Open Items,Including Recordkeeping for Corrective Actions,Noted.Major Area Inspected:Tera QA Program for Design Adequacy Program

ML20214N026
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/22/1986
From:	Imbro E, Norkin D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214N024	List: IR 05000445/1986017 ML20214N022
References
50-445-86-17, 50-446-86-14, NUDOCS 8609160017
Download: ML20214N026 (18)

Text

_ - _ _

-

.

,

'

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor,and Technical Training Center Programs Quality Assurance Branch Report N /86-17, 50-446/86-14 Docket No , 50-446 Licensee: Texas. Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas, TX 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES)

Inspection At: TERA Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland (June 16-18, 1986)

TERA Corporation, CPSES Site (June 24, 1986)

TERA Corporation, Berkeley and San Jose, CA (July 7-17, 1986) ,

Inspection Team Members: D. P. Norkin, Senior Inspection Specialist, IE J. W. Gilray, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer, IE J. G. Spraul, Quality Assurance Engineer, IE R. P. McIntyre, Reactor Engineer, IE V. L. Wenczel, Consultant, EG&G

.

.

\

ytal / b 20 4?G Donald P. Norkin, Team Leader Date Approved by:

f., 'T ).in , /& f /.:A : ,.

Eugene V. Imbro, Chief Date Licensing Section  ;

Quality Assurance Branch l

8609160017 DR 860910 ADOCK G5000445 PDR

. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ .

-

.

, Background and Objective

.

Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) letter dated January 27, 1986 to the NRC transmitted the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Program Plan, Revision 3. Appendix A to the Program Plan describes the Design Adequacy Program (DAP). The DAP is comprised of four Discipline Specific Action Plans (DSAPs VIII through XI) covering the following design disciplines:

Civil / Structural; Piping / Supports; Mechanical Systems and Cemponents; and Electrical / Instrumentation and Control Systems and Components. These DSAPs are to be executed by TERA Corporation, and provide for third party review :

of CPSES architect-engineer activities performed by Gibbs and Hill, Stone and Webster, Ebasco, and Impell. Appendix G of the Program Plan describes the DAP QA Program which is used in conjunction with Appendix A as a basis for preparing the DAP Quality Assurance Program Procedure The objective was to inspect the implementation of the TERA QA program to determine the extent of compliance with the QA commitments of the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Program Plan, as described in the DAP Quality Assurance Program Procedure . Summary The team found the QA Program controls are sufficiently described in DAP procedures and consistent with CPRT Program Plan commitments, but identified several concerns in the implementation of these controls. The most significant concern involved the failure to communicate to reviewers the program requirement that they only review technical areas for which they have had previous experience as a design engineer. (0 pen Item Q-4).

This is of particular concern since the team identified it at a time when a substantial portion of DAP Reviews have been complete Other concerns identified by the team included documentation for review checklist verification (0 pen Item Q-10) and record keeping for corrective actions (0 pen Items Q-1 through Q-3). TERA needs to assess whether its failure to identify the above issues, in addition to others identified by the NRC team, indicates any programmatic shortcomings in the QA internal audit program. (0 pen Item Q-5) Results of Inspection at TERA Bethesda Offic .1 Procedures, Instructions, and Checklists TERA's design documents were evaluated for compliance with procedures DAP-4, Revision 3, " Preparation of Checklists," and DAP-10, Revision 2, " Development and Use of DAP Procedures and Discipline Instructions."

This inspection involved a review of these two procedures, the evalua-tion of completed and in process documents, and discussion with TERA personnel relative to the implementation of these two procedure .. - . - .-. _ .. . .

.

.

,

. Four controlled Quality Assurance Program and Procedures manuals were inspected for compliance with DAP-10, primarily to ensure they were handled in a controlled manner. The manuals contained current revisions of all DAP procedures. DAP procedures had proper distribution logs reflecting titles, copy numbers, revision numbers, recipients, and receipt acknowledgments. DAP procedures and instructions had been reviewed by TERA against the CPRT Program Plan requirements and the necessary corrections made to bring the DAP procedures into agreement with the CPRT Program Plan. The team reviewed 48 program plan changes and found that, in each case, the related DAP procedure had been acceptably modified.

!

Attachments A, B, and C to DAP-4 contain checklist formats, also referred to as Types A, B, and C checklists, respectively. Type A, " Design Criteria Review," checklists document reviews of DAP-1 Design Criteria Lists to verify that review topic criteria are complete, consistent, and adequately defined. Type C, " Design Review Evaluation," checklists document reviews to verify that review topic criteria have been ade-quately implemented in design documents. Type B, " Design Review Summary" checklists summarize Type C checklist reviews by review topics.

. The team reviewed ten electrical and two mechanical Type C checklists l and one piping Type A checklist. The specific mix of Type A vs. Type C l checklists was not significant since the DAP-4 requirements evaluated by the team were the same in both cases. These requirements included i approval of checklist formats, checklist revisions, and identification /

I logging of checklists for control purposes. For the checklists reviewed, l the team found no violations of these requirement . 2 Document Control DAP-11, Revision 1, " Document Control," provides requirements for ensuring that DAP procedures / instructions and correspondence are handled in a controlled manner. Equivalent requirements are also provided in DAP-10 with respect to DAP procedures / instructions. The team's review of DAP-10 is covered in Section 3.1 abov DAP-11 addresses outgoing, incoming and internal correspondence and establishes requirements for identifying, filing, logging and distrib-uting document The team reviewed a sample of DAP documents comprised of documents received from outside organizations (e.g., drawings, specifications, evaluations, calculations, and vendor manuals) and TERA produced documents (e.g. checklists and reports). The team determined that all documents reviewed were handled in accordance with the above DAP-11 requirement .3 Corrective Actions The TERA corrective action program was evaluated to determine com-pliance with procedure DAP-17, Revision 1, " Corrective Actions."

The team reviewed the corrective action reports (CARS) and observa-tion reports resulting from internal TERA audits and surveillance g-l

- _ - _ . _ .

. .

-

.

.

.

,

,

'

CARS record information concerning discrepant conditions requiring corrective action and observation reports identify conditions which do not violate program or procedure requirements, but which, if corrected, would enhance the overall effectiveness and efficiency of TERA activi-tie The CAR / observation log required by DAP-17 was also reviewe To date, TERA has issued ten observation reports and nine CARS. The records reviewed initially during the inspection were copied from the CPRT Central File in Berkeley and made available to the inspec-tors in Bethesda. The DAP QA manager's records were available on the last day of the inspection.

'

The conditions reported on the CARS and observation reports were iden-tified in a clear and understandable manner. Resolution and close-out of the CARS and observation reports were responsive to the concern Close-out or follow-up to CARS indicates the resolution and corrective actions have been implemented. The team's review of the DAP QA manager's CAR / observation log indicated that it was being maintained effectivel The team identified findings with respect to administering the corrective action / observation system, e.g. in verifying corrective action imple-mentation within the required two months. In addressing the following findings, TERA should determine whether they are generic, and, if so, what action is required to prevent their recurrenc . Procedure DAP-14, " Records," indicates that the CPRT Central Files will document CPRT activities. Contrary to this, three

-

completed records in the DAP QA manager's file were not in the CPRT Central File nor did there appear to be a cacumented, routine, systematic method to get such records into the CPRT Central Fil These records include two completed observation reports (DAP-08-QA-002 dated March 1, 1986 and DAP-08-QA-004 dated March 1, 1986)

and one completed CAR (DAP-CA-QA-003 dated March 21, 1986).

Open Item Q-1 Section 4.4.2 of DAP-17 requires that a new CAR be issued if follow-up is not completed within two months from the date of l

issue of the CAR. The new CAR is to show the reason for the

delay in the close out. Contrary to this, four CARS listed

'

below did not have the follow-up completed within two months from the date of issue, and a new CAR was not issued:

(a) DAP-CA-QA-003, issued 11-22-85, follow-up completed 3-21-86 (b) DAP-CA-QA-004, issued 11-22-85, follow-up completed 5-14-86 (c) DAP-CA-QA-005, issued 1-30-86, follow-up completed 5-5-86 (d) DAP-CA-QA-006, issued 1-30-86, still open Open Item Q-2-3-l . ._ _ . _ - - - ___. - - - - . - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-

.

,

3. Section 4.1 of DAP-17 requires the originator of a CAR to desig-

'

nate whether the observation is a nonconformance or a systematic deficiency when the CAR is first issued. Contrary to this, five CARS (DAP-CA-QA-2 through 6) were not so designated when they were first issue The proper designation was shown on later issues of these CAR Open Item Q-3 Training and Qualifications The training and qualifications of DAP personnel were evaluated for compliance with Procedure DAP-15, Rev. 1, " Training and Qualifications." This procedure defines the required training and qualifications of personnel assigned to the CPRT DAP and the resolution of Technical Review Team (TRT) issues in the Civil /Structrual, Mechanical and Miscellaneous areas. The team reviewed the documentation required by DAP-15 for 12 personnel listed as approved and active on the June 10, 1986 print-out of the Personnel Data Base. These personnel represented a sample of Design Reviewers, Group Leaders and Discipline Coordi-nators. The documentation reviewed included resumes, approval of DAP personnel memorandums, training records, CPRT objectivity forms, and DAP personnel qualification memorandums from the Dis-cipline Coordinator All DAP personnel documentation reviewed was complete, except for the memorandums from the Discipline Coordinators to DAP personnel. The memorandum is required by DAP-15, section and advises reviewers that, for design areas unique to nuclear power plants, they shall only review work which they have per-sonally performed previously on a commercial nuclear power plan For all other areas, reviewers shall only review design areas where they have had applicable experience (not necessarily at commercial nuclear power plants.) If reviewers are assigned work in an area in which they feel they don't meet the above requirements, they are required to immediately notify their super-visor or Discipline Coordinator. This memorandum is required to be signed by the reviewer (and returned to the Discipline Coordi-nator) to acknowledge having been advised of the requirements and provided with a list of design areas unique to nuclear power plant Approximately 50% of the 12 personnel surveyed had received this memorandum. An interview with the DAP Training Coordinator indicated that this figure approximates the percentage for the entire DAP roster of personnel. TERA stated that they are presently in the process of completing the implementation of this requirement of Section 4.7 of DAP-15. TERA should evaluate the extent to which reviews were completed by personnel that did not have direct experience, as stated abov Open Item Q-4-4-

- - ._ . - . - . . _ _

~

.

-

.

With the exception of this issue, the training and qualification

'

of the DAP personnel appeared to be adequate and in accordance with DAP-15, Rev .5 Audits The TERA internal audit program was evaluated to determine compliance with procedure DAP-16, Revision 1, " Audits" with respect to the audit schedules, the completed audit reports, the checklist worksheets used in the audits and the finding The qualification of the lead auditor was examined along with the process used by TERA for qualifying hi Five audits have been conducted by TERA from November 1985 through May 1986, consisting of 47 man days of auditing. All engineering disciplines were audited at each of the four offices (Berkeley, Bethesda, Comanche Peak site, and San Jose). The audits were conducted using checklist worksheets which, when completed, describe audit objectives, documents reviewed, results and findings of the audit and recommendation The team found the audit process and resultant reports to be acceptable for verifying compliance with TERA's commitments in the CPRT program plan. The frequency and depth of the audits appear to be adequate to assure all engineering disciplines are reviewed in a timely and effective manner. The findings were valid, adequately documented, and were properly resolved (as indicated in section 3.3 above). However, TERA needs to assess whether its failure to identify issues identified by the NRC team indicates any programmatic shortcomings in the internal audit progra Open Item Q-5 The qualifications of the TERA lead auditor were reviewed based on a certification of his qualifications, which was prepared by a nuclear utility where he was recently employed. While this certification meets the requirements of ANSI /ASME N45.2.23-1978, t " Qualification of Quality Assurance Program Audit Personnel for l Nuclear Power Plants," TERA in accordance with section 12.3 " Education and Experience," and 5.2 " Certification of Qualifi-cation," is obligated to verify that the lead auditor's educa-I tion and experience meet the qualification requirements of ANSI /

l ASME N45.2.23 and separately certify his qualification. Based on NRC/ TERA discussions, TERA has agreed to separately qualify and certify its lead auditor to this degre Open Item Q-6 Records DAP-14, Revision 0, " Design Adequacy Program Records," establishes i requirements for establishment, maintenance, and disposition of l DAP record The official files for DAP records of completed work is at Berkeley. In other DAP locations, teeparary storage-5-

. - . -- . -

-- _ _ . - . _ .

-

.

.

l

of records is used for work in process. Upon completion of a l

.

review activity, the evaluation results and supportive documentation !

are transferred to the Berkeley official file. The team was limited to the review of temporary records for Bethesda's electrical / civil /

mechanical work in progress and DAP's administrative records which contain personnel training and qualification file Subsequent NRC inspections will assess records control at other TERA locations to determine each facility's compliance to DAP-14. Records reviewed at Bethesda included design review checklists, drawings, calculations, evaluations, logs, personnel training and qualification files, correspondence, audit reports, and discrepancy reports (DIRs).

These records were found to be maintained in accordance with DAP-14. However, section 3.3 indicates that CARS were not filed in accordance with DAP-1 Some checklist changes were lined out and initialed, but not date Initialing and dating record changes is not a DAP require-men However, based on NRC/ TERA discussion, DAP procedures will be revised to include a requirement to initial and date changes to DAP record Open Item Q-7 Results of Inspection of Requests for Information (RFIs) at TERA's Office at the CPSES sit .

The system for TERA personnel to request information from the CPSES pro-ject is described in TERA Memorandum DAP-M-186, " Requests for Information,"

(RFI), dated March 17, 1986. This inspection involved review of the RFI logbook (maintained by TERA at the CPSES site), RFIs, and discursions with both TERA and TUGC0 personnel concerning the RFI syste At the time of the inspection 455 DAP RFIs and 68 TRT-issue RFIs (Mechanical, Civil /Struc-tural and Miscellaneous) had been generated by TER The DAP RFIs were categorized as follows:

Discipline Number

'

.

Cable Tray Supports 29 Conduit Supports 38 Piping and Pipe Supports 42 Mechanical 146 Electrical / Inst. and Controls 85 Civil / Structural 115 Total 455 The DAP RFIs are being tracked, analyzed and followed up by TUGC0 with computer assistance. The TRT-issue RFIs are being tracked and follcwed up by use of the RFI log. Each original request is sent to TUGCO, with file copies to TERA offices at Bethesda, Berkeley, and the CPSES site. TUGC0 is responsible to respond to each request. TERA issues a weekly report to TUGC0 with a " Hot List" of RFIs whose lack of response could delay the TERA effort. A weekly status meeting is held where the report is discussed between involved TERA and TUGC0 managemen '

~

.

,

The " bugs" are being worked out of the RFI system, which includes considera-

tion of how to handle copywrited and proprietary information. RFIs which cannot be acceptably responded to, e.g., because a requested calculation does not exist, usually result in DIRs, which require resolution in accord-ance with procedure DAP- The team found that the RFI tracking system together with the DIR system provide assurance that required documentation will be made available for DAP review, or the absence of such documentation will be identified as a DIR when appropriat . Results of Inspection at TERA Berkeley and San Jose Office .1. DAP-4, " Preparation of Checklists," Revision 3, 1/15/86 As discussed in Section 3.1, DAP-4, Attachments A, B, and C provide formats for DAP review checklists commonly referred to as Type A, B, and C checklists, respectively. The Discipline Coordinator is required to maintain a log of checklists (Section 4.1). The team reviewed the

'

checklist logs of the Electrical / Instrumentation and Controls (EIC)

and Civil / Structural (C/S) Discipline Coordinators. Logs were in proper format, legible, and generally up-to-date. The EIC log of implemented Type C " Design Review Evaluation" checklists did not show Revisio'n 1 of several checklists had been issued. These check-lists were issued at the same time, shortly before the inspectio This is an isolated instance (e.g., all other log entries reflected the latest revisions) which was corrected before the inspection ende TERA has committed that the applicable design criteria in a given dis-cipline will be shown on one or more of the Type C checklists of that discipline. The requirements for documenting the bases for selection of

,

applicable criteria for a given Type C checklist form are met at the

!

" Topic" level by the completion of the Type B " Design Review Summary" checklists. (Section 4.2) None of the Type B checklists for EIC and C/S were available for the team's review. To assure itself that each of the applicable criteria is verified at least once, TERA plans to prepare a correlation which will relate each design criterion to the Type C checklist (s) where the criterion is verifie The " Description of Verification" column of the Type C checklists is required to describe the method by which implementation of the criterion will be verified (Section 4.2). The team reviewed the Type C checklists shown in Table 1, and found that they met this requiremen Discipline Coordinators are required to approve by memo the use of checklist forms (Section 4.4). The team reviewed four memos from EIC and C/S Discipline Coordinators authorizing use of the Type A, " Design Criteria Review," and Type C checklist forms. (Each Discipline l Coordinator had issued separate memoranda for Type A and Type C check-list forms.) The team found that the use of the forms had been properly authorize The design review evaluation checklist forms (Type C or equivalent) are required to be given a checklist form number, revision number, and dat (Section 5.1). The team reviewed Type C checklist forms shown in Table 1 and found that the checklist forms were identified in accord-ance with the procedur .-_

-

-

.- .-. . - -

-

.

i i

After approval, the completed checklist is required to be assigned a control identification number (Section 5.3). The team reviewed all Type A and Type C checklists shown in Tables 1 and 2 of this report, and found that the completed checklists were acceptably identifie In most cases the type of checklist was included in the identificatio Although not required by DAP-4, this enhances the identificatio In reviewing the Berkeley files, the team could not locate a DAP-1 design criteria list associated with the radiation checklist (DAP-CLA-M-007). TERA located this design criteria list (DAP-CR-M-007/ Rev.1)

in the 7.4 file (item 094) although the DAP file index indicates that the list should have been filed in the X.C.1 fil The list itself was so marked, but apparently misfiled. Similarly, the team was unable to locate a Type A checklist for the welding criteria list (DAP-CR-M-11). TERA obtained this checklist (DAP-CLA-M-Oll) from the TERA site office. The DAP file index indicates the checklist should have been filed in the Berkeley X.B.2 file. TERA should review these circumstances and determine whether they indicate a generic proble Open Item Q-8

<

5.2. DAP-5, " Review of Calculations, Evaluations, and Other Implementing Documents," Revision 2, 6/23/86 The DIR (i.e. Discrepancy / Issue Resolution Report) number assigneo to each unsatisfactory item is required to be listed in the " comments" column of the Type C checklists (Section 4.5). The team reviewed Type C checklists and found that 3 of 3 C/S and 2 of 3 electrical Type C checklists that should have identified DIRs did not have the

,

assigned DIR number listed in the " Comments" column, as shown in

! Table 1. The DIRs had been issued, but they were not cross-referenced in the checklist TERA audits previously identified this type of problem (See CAR No. DAP-CA-QA-09).

Open Item Q-9

.

'

Each completed Type C checklist is required to be signed by the reviewer, the checker, and the Discipline Coordinator (Section 4.6). The checker is required to verify the accuracy of at least 10% of the

<

checklist items. The team reviewed the checklists shown in Table As shown in Table 1, 5 of 5 C/S Type C checklists sampled were not signed by the reviewer and 4 of 5 were not signed by the checker.

} Mechanical (2) and EIC (6) checklists were properly signed in all cases

'

Action needs to be taken to determine the extent of this problem and to ensure that the checklists have been properly accomplished and verifie Open Item Q-10 Contrary to good practice, the C/S checklists shown in Table 1 were com-pleted in penci It is understood that TERA plans to convert these checklists to a more permanent records retention format and to revise DAP l procedures to preclude the use of pencil in other records.

Open Item Q-11-8-

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

.

,

.

The team reviewed the Type A checklists and the HDA description and validation checklists listed in Tables 2 and 3, and found that they

-

were properly signe The reviewer or assigned personnel is required to examine all items on the checklist form and indicate whether each item was found to be satisfactory, unsatisfactory, not checked, or not applicable. "Not Checked" or "NC" may be used when a standard checklist form is used to perform a limited review of a given subject such that an applicable area was excluded from the review scope (Section 4.3).

The team rev1ewed the Type C checklists in Table 1 and found that some checklists show a reason in the comments column when "NC" is used; others do not. Although DAP procedures do not require this documenta-tion, the team considers that TERA should revise DAP-5 to require justification when a criterion is marked "NC," or otherwise indicated to be not applicable. This action would be consistent with the DAP-5 requirement for indicating the basis for determining verification conclusion Documenting the thought process behind the not checked /

not applicable determination provides assurance that all checklist items were considere Open Item Q-12 5.3. DAP-14, " Design Adequacy Program Records," Revision 1, 6/16/86 The DAP Manager is required to develop a file index for the DAP General File and discipline files per examples shown (Section 5.0). The team reviewed the DAP file index (Rev. 5, June 9, 1986), the files at Berkeley, and documents at Berkeley and San Jos The Berkeley office maintains the official DAP files until they are given to TUGC0 at the time of approval by the SRT. The files are organized in accordance with the file index and are being maintained in accordance with the procedures. Each discipline file is subdivided by topics, and each topic file is subdivided into subfiles representing criteria lists, checklists, calculations, etc. The DAP records system is being accept-ably implemente .4. DAP-11, " Document Control," Revision 1, 10/24/85 Manuals are required to be maintained up-to-date with the latest docu-i ment revisions (Section 4.1). The team reviewed controlled copies 7, 19, and 25 of the CPRT DAP QA Program and Procedures manua One of l

the three manuals did not contain the latest (April 11, 1986) revision l of Procedure DAP-2 The team considers this isolated based on review-

! ing three manuals which included a total of 63 DAP procedures. It was corrected before the inspection ende .5. DAP-21, " Homogeneous Design Activity Validation and Selection of Specific Items for Review," Revision 0, 12/9/85 DAP-21 Attachment B, " Homogeneous Design Activity (HDA) Description and Validation Checklist," has space for signature of both the preparer (reviewer) and the Discipline Coordinator (approver). The procedure is silent on actions to be taken when the Discipline Coordinator is-9-

.._

- __.. _ _

.

,

also the reviewe The team reviewed Attachment B HDA checklists

-

shown in Table 3. Checklists reviewed were signed and dated, but numerous EIC checklists have the same signature on the " Prepared by" line and the " Approved by" line. In each of these cases, a " checked by" line has been added, signed, and dated by a second individua Discussion with TERA personnel indicate the checking was a technical overview of the reviewer's work which was requested by TERA management when the reviewer and approver are the same individual. The team con-siders that DAP procedures should address the above situation, so that the meaning of the checker's signature is clear in cases such as the EIC HDA checklist Open Item Q-13 Personnel Contacted H. Levin Review Team Leader, DAP F. Dougherty Design Adequacy Manager, DAP F. Schofer Systems Engineering Manager, DAP E. Blackwood Programmatic / Generic Imali-cations Coordinator, DA?

B. Dubois Quality Assurance Manager, DAP 0. Nevins Training Coordinator, DAP J. Miller Site Manager, DAP R. Newman Deputy Site Manager, DAP R. Melten Site Quality Engineer, DAP R. Pages Conduit Supports Leader W. Djordjevic Associate M. Godfrey TUGC0 TRT Manager E. Sawyers TUGC0 Data Manager G. Awakeem Reviewer C. Mortgat C/S Coordinator D. Brosnan EIC Coordinator K. Pixley DAP File Clerk J. Setka Deputy Discipline Coordinator L. Bates Group Leader

- 10 - ,

,

_ - .

-

.

-

.

,

Table Type C, " Design Review Evaluation," Checklists Reviewed by Team

.

Signed

• Disci- DIRs Discipline pline Checklist No Title Listed Reviewer Checker Coor M DAP-CLC-M-072 Drip Pot for MS to AF Turbine Y Y Y Y M DAP-CLC-M-006 V.E. Welding En QA Requirements Y Y Y Y C/S DAP-CLC-CS-030 Tornado Missiles NA N N Y C/S DAP-CLC-CS-042 RB Eqpt Hatch Analysis & Design NA N N Y C/S DAP-CLC-CS-001 Aux Building Platform N N N Y C/S DAP-CLC-CS-038 Cable Spreading Room N N N Y C/S DAP-CLC-CS-029 RB#1 Polar Crane Support Details N N Y Y EIC DAP-CL-I-002 Standby Electrical AC System (D/G) Y Y Y Y EIC DAP-CL-I-011 - AFW-Class 1E 480V Alarms Y Y Y Y EIC DAP-CL-I-019 Transmitter Func-tional Requirements Y Y Y Y EIC DAP-CLC-E-007 Batteries / Chargers Capacity Y Y Y Y EIC DAP-CLC-E-037 Fire Protection '

Review N Y Y Y EIC DAP-CLC-E-055 Diesel Generator Neutral Grounding N Y Y Y

• M = Mechanical C/S = Civil / Structural EIC = Electrical / Instrumentation and Controls

,

l

'

l

.. . q

-

.

-

.

,

.

Table Type A, " Design Criteria Review," Checklists and DAP-1,

-

" Design Criteria Lists," Reviewed by Team

• Disci-pline Checklist Design Criteria List Title M DAP-CLA-M-002 DAP-CR-M-002/Rev. 1 Overpressure Protection L M DAP-CLA-M-001 DAP-CR-M-001 Auxiliary Feedwater System M DAP-CLA-M-003 DAP-CR-M-003 HVAC/ Control Room M DAP-CLA-M-011 DAP-CR-M-011 Welding Engineering M DAP-CLA-M-007 DAP-CR-M-007/Rev. 1 Radiation Protection C/S DAP-CLA-C/S-001 **DAP-CR-CS-001/ Draft Load Determinations Rev. 1 C/S DAP-CLA-C/S-004 Same as above Foundations EIC DAP-CLA-EIC-006 DAP-CR-EIC-007/Rev. 1 Control EIC DAP-CLA-EIC-004 DAP-CR-EIC-005/Rev. 1 Electrical Load Capacity EIC DAP-CLA-EIC-003- DAP-CR-EIC-004/Rev. 1 Electrical Characteristics EIC DAP-CLA-EIC-010 DAP-CR-EIC-Oll/Rev. 1 Support System - D/G

• H = Mechanical C/S = Civil / Structural EIC = Electrical / Instrumentation and Controls

• • Civil / Structural has only 1 criteria lis .

.

--m-,

r-

.

,

,

'

Table DAP-21 Attachment B, "HDA Description and Validation," Checklists Reviewed by Team

• N Title M004.0A System Pressure Drop - Gas Systems M03 Temp. and Humidity Range - Normal and Accident M08 Flooding - Internal - Critical Crack and Break Locations E002 600V Power Cable - Selection / Sizing / Spec E04 Raceway, Cable Trays - Equipment Installation Design E07 Protective Devices Settings - Calculations / Analysis 100 Microprocessor Based Monitoring Systems (Class IE) -

Component Spe .0 Transmitters - Component Specification 103 Instrument Panel / Rack Design - Panel Location C13 Safe Shutdown Impoundment Dam C136 Tornado Dampers and Blowout Panels C136A Hand ca.lcs for Tornado Dampers C136B Hand cales for Blowout Panels C136C Computer cales for Blowout Panels C191.083 Miscellaneous Category Steel

• M = Mechanical E = Electrical I = Instrumentation and Controls C = Civil / Structural

.

. . . .

.

.. s

, W. G. Counsil -2-due to the fact that reviewers were not properly informed of the above quali-fication requirement. For all open items, your response should address the specific issue, its generic implications and actions to preclude recurrenc In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Roo P

Sincerely, Original signed by Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement Enclosure: As stated '

Distribution:

DCS 016 PDR QAB Reading DQAVT Reading JMTaylor RWStarostecki, IE BKGrimes, IE HJMiller, IE GTAnkrum, IE EVImbro, IE RHeishman, IE JCraig, IE VNoonan, NRR AVietti-Cook, NRR CTrammell, NRR RVollmer, NRR LChandler, ELD GMizuno, ELD RMartin, RIV TWesterman, RIV CHale, RIV QAB:0QAVT:IE QAB:DQAVT:IE C:QAB:DQAVT:IE DD: :IE NRR

.

DPNorkin EVImbro GTAnkrum HJ er VNoonan I

0$/3/86 08/ /86 0 6p# 09 >/86 09/ /86

g,. d M q "'N W

OGC LChandler D:DQAVT:IE Tp+9 g#

, 09/ /86 BKGrimes 09/ / $ga,(

,

9\y(\\

'

+ + Q6%

l .f

. s# o4J *

Y" - _ _ _ _ _ _ . .- _ -.-- --- - - ..

.

g s :

W. G. Counsil -2-In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC's P,ublic Document Roo /

Sincerely, James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Enclosure: As stated '

Distribution:

-

DCS 016 PDR QAB Reading

'DQAVT Reading JMTaylor, IE RWStarostecki, IE BKGrimes, IE

-

HJMiller, IE GTAnkrum, IE EVImbro, IE -

RHeishman, IE -

JCraig, IE VNoonan, NRR AVietti-Cook, NRR CTrammell, NRR RVollmer, NRR

- LChandler, ELD '

GMizuno, ELD RMartin, RIV -

TWesterman, RIV CHale, RIV

.

@

QAB:DQA :I f QAB:DQAVT:IE QAB:DQAVT:IE C:QAB:DQAVT:IE DD:DQAVT:IE ay N DPNorkin EVImbro GTAnkrum HJMiller

/ /86 08p86 08/22186 08/ /86 08/ /86 D:DQAVT:IE DD:IE D:IE BKGrimes RWStarostecki JMTaylor 08/ /86 08/ /86 3 08/ /86 9 , d oow h- -

p ,,J 3'/

'

L.chdW -

.

.

f W. G. Counsil 4 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a py of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public D ument Roo

Sincerely, James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Enclosure: As stated Distribution:

DCS 016 PDR QAB Reading

'DQAVT Reading JMTaylor, IE RWStarostecki, IE BKGrimes, IE HJMiller, IE GTAnkrum, IE EVImbro, IE RHeishman, IE JCraig, IE VNoonan, NRR AVietti-Cook, NRR CTrammell, NRR RVollmer, NRR LChandler, ELD GMizuno, ELD RMartin, RIV TWesterman, RIV CHale, RIV

,W A A 7QAB:0QAVT:IE QAB:DQAVT:IE C:QAB:DQAVT:IE DD:DQAVT:IE \ DPNorkin EVImbro GTAnkrum HJMiller 0/ 6 08p86 08/22/86 08/ /86 08/ /86 D: k:IE 1:IE B e RWS stecki JR ylor g/ 86 / 6 4. %~ ygg i b .b

.

. - - - - - - , . --m ,w ~ - ~ , - - . - w . - - - - , ,em~- ----- --

,

i k

'

W. G. Counsil-2/

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), aycop /

of this letter and its enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Docudent Roo

Sincerely, James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Enclosure: As stated ,

-

.

Distribution:

DCS 016 PDR QAB Reading

'DQAVT Reading JMTaylor, IE F RWStarostecki, IE BKGrimes, IE IlJMiller, IE -

GTAnkrum, IE EVImbro, IE -

RHeishman, IE ,

JCraig, IE VNoonan, NRR ,

AVietti-Cook, NRR CTrammell, NRR RVollmer, NRR

/ -LChandler, ELD

• GMizuno, ELD ' '

RMartin, RIV . TWesterman, RIV CHale, RIV

.

W QAB:0QA :I f QAB:DQAVT:IE

• QAB:DQAVT:IE C:QAB:DQAVT:IE DD:DQAVT:IE y \ DPNorkin EVImbro GTAnkrum HJMiller

/ /86 08p86 08/22/86 08/ /86 08/ /86 D:DQAVT:IE DD:IE D:IE BKGrimes RWStarostecki JMTaylor 08/ /86 08/ /86 08/ /86 N , N doA -

'

N96Gc %f& gka K

-

tudofeN

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ^

.

_ _ , _ _ _ _ , - - -