IR 05000272/1995006
| ML18101A801 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1995 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Modes M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18101A800 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-95-06, 50-272-95-6, 50-311-95-06, 50-311-95-6, NUDOCS 9506280657 | |
| Download: ML18101A801 (7) | |
Text
DOCKET NOS:
LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
INSPECTOR:
APPROVED BY:
9506280657 950621 PDR ADOCK 05000272 G
PDR U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50/272 50/311 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2
~~ Reactor Engineer Materials Section Division of Reactor Safety*
1bJJ.~~
Materials Section Division of Reactor Safety c./1.tJla<--
~
Mr. Leon R. Eliason
cc w/encl :
J. J. Hagan, Vice President-Ooerations E. Simpson, Vi_ge_ President, Nuclear Enaineerina_
C. Schaefer, External Operations - Nuclear, telmarva Power & Light C R. Burricelli, General Manager - Informations Systems & External Affairs J. Summers, General Manager - Salem Operations J. Benjamin, Director - Quality Assurance & Safety Review F. Thomson, Manager, Licensing and Regulation R. Kankus, Joint Owner Affairs A. Tapert, Program Administrator R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire M. Wetterhahn, Esquire P. MacFarland Goelz, Manager, Joint Generation Atlantic Electric Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate William Conklin, Public Safety Consultant, Lower Alloways Creek Township Public Service Commission of Maryland State of New Jersey State of Delaware Distribution w/encl:
Region I Docket Room {with concurrences)
J. Wiggins, DRS Kay Gallagher, DRP Nuclear Safety Information Center {NSIC)
D~ Screnci, PAO {2)
NRC Resident Inspector PUBLIC DRS Files {2)
Distribution w/encl: {Via E-Mail)
L. 01 sh an, NRR W. Dean, OEDO J. Stolz, PDl-2, NRR M. Callahan, OCA Inspection Program Branch, NRR {IPAS)
DOCUMENT NAME:
A:SA950606.INS To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C' = Co without attachmentjenclosure "E' = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N' = No copy RI/DRS tiL Rl/DRP SChaudhary/dmg JWhite 06/14/95 06/
/95 06/
/95 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This inspection was performed in order to determine if the utility's programmatic controls over the design, installation, modification, maintenance, and testing of safety-related pipe supports and pipe restraints is satisfactory and assures the satisfactory safety-related function of these items; the inspection also evaluated whether the utility's program is in compliance with NRC requirements, applicable codes, and licensee's commitments to the Commission in response to NRC bulletins and information notices; if an Based on a review of documentation, discussions with engineering and management personnel, and observations, the inspector concludes that:
(1)
, piping and pipe support design change and modification control is satisfactory; (2) configuration baseline document program is comprehensive and is aggressively being implemente Although the program has substantially reduced the backlog in this area, a considerable backlog still exists, which is being worked; and (3) the licensee is investigating an employee concern in this area as part of a larger concern, which at the time of this inspection, remains unresolved - to be examined in a subsequent inspection.
i i
- DETAILS PURPOSE AND SCOPE The primary purpose and scope of this inspection was to determine if the licensee's programmatic controls over the design, installation, modification, maintenance, and testing of safety-related pipe supports and pipe restraints is satisfactory in order to assure the satisfactory function of the safety-related components of these items and that this program is in compliance with NRC requirements, applicable codes, and licensee's commitments to the Commission in response to NRC bulletins and information notices, if an.0 FINDINGS Background In 1979, the NRC issued several bulletins, i.e., 79-07 and 79-14, with several supplements and revisions, which created the need to verify the design, as-built configuration, and structural adequacy of safety-related piping and pipe supports in nuclear power plant To respond adequately to the bulletin requirements, the licensee retained consulting and engineering firms to verify and create, if necessary, design-basis calculation Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G), the licensee for Salem Units 1 and 2, had engaged several architect/engineering and different consulting firms to verify/create design-basis calculations for as-built piping and pipe support system Due to the urgency of the response and the magnitude of the undertaking, the work was started and carried out before procedures were created and/or implemented to administer and maintain calculation design bases and history of evolution of the revisions of design documents.. As a result, at PSE&G, a single calculation package for a piping stress analysis or support evaluation could contain several different revision levels of documents with different bases and results. Furthermore, prior to 1987, four distinct organizational groups:
stress isometrics group; hanger design group; pipe support group; and stress engineering group were involved in verifying and generating stress calculations, e.g., piping analyses, isometrics, support capacity calculations, and support structural design details. These groups largely maintained their own administrative controls on documents and calculations generated in their grou As a result, the licensee did not have a single consolidated source of information and revision history for the stress documentation generated before 198 The above inadequacy of the stress documentation packages was identified by the licensee in the review performed as a part of the Salem recovery project. The 1987 review generated approximately 1457 discrepancy evaluation forms (DEFs) describing approximately 14,800 individual item.2 Configuration Baseline Documentation The licensee's Procedure DE-CB.ZZ.OOl(z) is the general procedure establishing scope and the purpose of reestablishing the plant's design configuration baselin This procedure provides guidelines for preparation of design-basis documents (configuration baseline documentation; CBDs) to assure that the process established by the procedure creates documents that are in a specified format, consistent with the technical bases, and are controlle *
--~----------------------
The inspector reviewed Revision 8 of Procedure DE-CB.ZZ-OOl(Z).
This review indicates that the procedure was comprehensive, clearly written, and had adequate procedural controls to assure a consistent document preparatio Important procedural/technical requirements were highlighted/boxed, and the
"deliverable" was clearly specified and highlighte The current revision was approved in August 199 This was a general revision of the procedure that included expanded procedures and attachments to incorporate current methodology of developing CBCs, including change from Display Write-4 to Windows 2.0 softwar The inspector considered the procedure to be a good procedure providing sufficient guidance and control to assure consistent design-basis documentatio The "Configuration Baseline Documentation"~was comprehensive and was aggressively being implemented to create a unified document for design-basis purpose.3 Stress Documentation Discrepancy Evaluation In 1987, the licensee initiated a review of adequacy and acceptability of the licensee's existing stress documentation. This task was a part of the Salem recovery project and was initiated primarily in response to the documentation problems identified by the NRC inspection (IR 50-272/86-07 and 50-311/86-07).
The Salem recovery project and the configuration baseline documentation projects were merged together in 1988; and the stress analysis review was separated from the general system review As a result of this review by a contractor, approximately 1457 discrepancy evaluation forms.(DEFs) were initiated, describing approximately 14,800 discrepancie The major areas of concern were:
unchecked/unapproved calculations; modifications that were not implemented; lost/unavailable calculations; incorrect thermal analyses; and unsupported/undocumented engineering judgement In response to the NRC concerns, the licensee committed to resolve these discrepancies and initiated a Procedure NC.DE-AP.ZZ-0018(Q) to expedite and control the resolution of identified deficiencies in stress documentation However, a low priority effort to resolve the DEFs as engineering staff time became available for this task has not produced a significant reduction in the identified discrepancie Hence, the licensee has established a dedicated project group to resolve aggressively the DEF The inspector reviewed the licensee's Procedure NDRAP No. 125-90-0014, Revision 0, that has been implemented by the project group to expedite and control the work of DEF review, evaluation, and resolutio Based on the above review and discussions with cognizant technical and management personnel, the inspector determined that although the licensee was aggressively pursuing the resolution of DEFs and the backlog had been significantly reduced, considerable backlog in this area still existed and requires management attention.
- 3 Mod;ficat;on to Containment Spray (CS) System in un;t 2 The inspector reviewed documents (DCP:2SC-020169) and held discussions with the licensee's engineering personnel to determine the acceptability of a modification to the CS system to replace cracked spray pipes. The design change package (DCP) replaced a section of 8-inch-diameter containment spray piping. This section of the piping had developed a through-wall leak. The modification included the replacement of the leaking pipe section with a new spool piece with a flanged joint. The associated 10 CFR 50.59 safety review determined that it was a change to the facility as described in the final safety analysis report (FSAR).
The same safety analysis also concluded that the modification did not change any requirement of the station technical specification (TS) for Unit However, the licensee determined that the modification could not be installed within the specified time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> for the action statement specified in Section 3.6.2.1 of the T The licensee, therefore, submitted a relief request to the NRC to grant an additional four-day period beyond the specified 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in the T The licensee's request was dated March 3, 1989; and the NRC's approval of the request was transmitted to the licensee on March 4, 1989..
The licensee performed the modification within the allowed time, and the post-modification hydro test was performed to meet the applicable code:
ANSI B.31.7 requirement The test results were reviewed and accepted by engineering and the authorized nuclear inspector (ANI).
No deficiency was identified in the modification/design chang The design change of the spool piece with flange appeared satisfactory. The inspector has no further question in this regar.5 Review of the Design/Calculation for Pipe Support The inspector reviewed the calculations (computer/manual), photograph, and design drawings for lC-PRH-0155/0156, and 2C-PRH-20 These supports were installed in the reactor coolant-pressurizer spray and relief tank pipin The computer code used for the support design/calculation was "superpipe" version 1 The licensee informed the inspector that this computer code had been bench marked by the NRC for support design/modification pursuant to NRC Bulletin 79-14, hence, was acceptable for support design verification wor The inspector reviewed the superpipe calculation specification and found it acceptabl A detailed review of the manual calculation for the support C-PRH-155 was also satisfactory. The design drawing for C-PRH-209 and C-PRH-155/156 was of acceptable quality with adequate details and appropriate review and approva The drawings for C-PRH-209 were last revised on 8/7/93 and for C-PRH-155/156 was revised on 7/24/9 The inspector found the calculation, design, and the drawings satisfactory and acceptable.
- 4 Safety Concerns Regarding Piping and Pipe Supports During the course of this inspection, the inspector became aware that the licensee was investigating some safety concerns in this area, raised by a former employee of the licensee. The licensee informed the inspector that the concerns in piping and pipe support area were part of a much broader concern raised by the former employee, and the licensee was investigating these concern The licensee's investigation was still in progress, and there were no conclusions reached regarding the validity of these concern The inspector considered this item open for further review and inspection in a subsequent inspection by the NRC (50-272/95-06-01; 50-311/95-06-01). Management Oversight and Self-Assessment In conjunction with the review and inspection of the pipe support modification and design change area, the inspector evaluated the licensee's management support and engineering assurance activities in this are Based on the review of "Configuration Baseline Documentation" program (the management's initiative in recognizing the need for the consolidation of design data in this area); making resources available and aggressively pursuing resolution of deficiencies; and initiating, implementing, and upgrading adequate control procedures for the work indicated the licensee's management attention and commitment to the upgrading of engineering efforts in the piping and pipe support area The inspector observed that the licensee management had provided adequate emphasis and resources to upgrade the stress documentation for piping and pipe supports in both Unit.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the review of documentation, discussions with engineering and management personnel, and observations, the inspector concluded that:
(1)
piping and pipe support design change and modification control was satisfactory; (2) configuration baseline document program was comprehensive and was aggressively being implemented, although the program had substantially reduced the backlog in this area, considerable backlog still existed, which was being worked; and (3) the licensee was investigating an employee concern in this area that was part of a larger concern, and it remained unresolved to be examined in a subsequent inspectio.0 EXIT INTERVIEW At the conclusion of the inspection, the inspector briefed the licensee management by telephone on April 11, 1995, regarding the scope and findings of the inspectio The licensee acknowledged the finding The licensee did not indicate that any proprietary material was involved in this inspection.