IR 05000280/1980032
| ML18139A791 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 09/16/1980 |
| From: | Compton R, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139A787 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-80-32, 50-281-80-35, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8011040345 | |
| Download: ML18139A791 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiSSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-280/80-32 and 50-281/80-35 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, VA 23261 Facility Name:
Surry Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 Inspection at Surry site near Williamsburg, Virginia Inspector::R ~\\, CCMvfL Approved b:: M&iz?letcll A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, RC&ES Branch SUMMARY inspection on August 20-22, 1980 Areas Inspected
' Date Signed q/16~
Date Signed This routine unannounced inspection involved 17 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of IE Bulletin 79-02, "Pipe Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts" and IE Bulletin 79-14, "Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety Related Piping Systems".
Results Of the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-fied.in one area; one item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infraction -
Improper installation and inspection of pipe support 11548-BZ-4A-8, paragraph 6).
- DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. L. Wilson, Station Manager
- T. A. Peebles, Technical Services Superintendent
- J.B. Goodson, Resident QC Engineer
- D. Alston, Associate Construction Engineer R. Bradshaw,QC Coordinator Other Organizations L. W. Brown, Senior Site Representative, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation NRC Resident Inspector
- M~ Davis
- Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 22, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 abov.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio.
(Open) IE Bulletin 79-02, "Pipe Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts", Unit 1 Revision 3 to Stone & Webster procedure STF-16, "Inspection and Testing Program for Determining Baseplate and Anchor Acceptability for IE Bulletin 79-02" was examine Paragraph 6.2.C.11 had been revised to properly apply the preload torque checks to wedge type anchor The following anchor bolt inspection and testing data packages were examined for completeness, type of discrepancies noted and conformance to procedural requirements:
MKS 143Al.21, 24" Diesel Exhaust MKS-127C2.16, 8" SI-14-153 MKS 143A *
MKS 143Al.5A MKS 143Al.25B MKS 143Al.36B MKS 1018B3. 7 MKS 1031Al. 6-2-The inspector requested that two additional bolts be visually inspected on support 143Al. 21 for which the initial inspection had identified three anchor sleeves that had been shortened, resulting in no bolt thread engage-men The additional anchor inspections were observed and the anchors found to be acceptable installation As of August 19, 1980, 143 anchors had been tested with a total of seven failures in six plate No deviations or items of noncompliance were identifie IE Bulletin 79-02 remains open pending completion of all inspections, testing and analysi.
(Open) IE Bulletin 79-14, "Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety Related Piping Systems", Units 1 and 2 The purpose of this inspection was to examine the support modification work related to IEB 79-1 Unit 1 Stone & Webster procedure STF-6, Revision 2, "Procedure for Control of Hardware Modification Sketches" was examine Section 9. 7.1 of Surry "QC Local Guidance", outlining the policy governing the VEPCO and contractor interface for quality control, was also reviewe The general program for IEB 79-14 and the various inspections and reviews being performed by QC were discussed with responsible personne Typical implementation proce-dures for design changes, field change sketches signed by QC and marked up
"as-modified" drawings were also examine Unit 2 The following procedures applicable to Unit 2 support modification were examined:
Daniels Construction Procedure W.P.203, "Pipe Hanger Modification and Installation", Revision VEPCO Quality Controlinstruction (QCI) 10. 3, "Mechanical Inspection",
Revision 0 VEPCO QCI 10. 7, "Hanger and Piping Inspection", Revision 0 VEPCO procedure QC-PQ-2A, * "Personnel Certification for Quality Control Inspectors", Revision 0
,..
,.
'
- .
-****-:-;-:,-
-:.*-
-
- -*-- ~**-~--, ---**-- r--* *-*--*., *..,..
l
i
'
w-3-VEPCO Administrative Instruction 2.5.2, "Piping Restraint and Baseplate Modification and Installation (DC 79-S56) as a Result of I&E Bulletins 79-02, 79-07 (Show Cause) and 79-14", Revision The inspector examined completed documentation for the following four randomly selected support modifications required for Unit 2 startup as shown on the "Pipe Support Modification Master Log":
Field Changes 669A, 1240A, 805C and 325 B
.VEPCO provided documentation showing those Stone & Webster and Ebasco field design engineers authorized to "red line" or make changes in the field to support design The following pipe support modifications were observed in the field for conformance to the latest or fired lined" issue of the design sketch: -
Field Change (FC) 555, Field Change Request (FCR) 166, Containment Spray MKS 12311-1, Support 3 FC 434, FCR 87 R/1, MKS AF-51, Support 3 FC 430A, FCR 90 R/1, MKS AF-51-1, Support 2 FC 390, FCR-006 R/1, Safety Injection MKS 127Kl and 127K2 On FCR-006 it was noted that an additional pipe, 6" WCMU-139, was in contact with the top end of the suppor This pipe was not shown on the design sketch nor was the support shown on the stress isometric for the WCMU lin A sketch showing this condition was located in the Ebasco work package for this support. Ebasco stated that because the sketch indicated the pipe was not touching and that the end of the support did not extend past the pipe center of gravity this condition was dismissed as not affecting the pipe or support analyse The inspector stated that they were now in contact and due to adjacent lateral supports on*the WCMU line this line would not be able to move during design loading such that it would not affect the SI line support. The licensee and Ebasco agreed to reevaluate this installa-tion and take action as require Subsequent to this inspection VEPCO informed RII at this support had been reinspected and modified to provide necessary clearance During the walkdown of the above supports, several discrepancies were noted on adjacent containment spray system support 11548-B1-4A-Three cotter pins had not been spread and one cotter pin was missing from the strut clevis pins. In addition, spalled concrete at one of the expansion anchors indicated that a tension failure (concrete) had occurred. All craft and QC HOLD signoffs had been completed for Work Procedure P-3-U2, Design Change 77-9, including attachments II and III for inspection of proper hanger and wedge anchor installation This recently installed support was not part of the IEB 79-14 progra The failure to properly install and inspect this
-~. -..~-~~-------, _r... --..... ----~--r:---... ~,-,-----.*-*--
- .
'
,'
' * "
' ' ' * *
-4-f. *..
support is in noncompliance with Criterion X of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and will be identified as an infraction, 281/80-35-01:
Improper Pipe Support Installation/Inspectio After completion of the Unit 2 IEB 79-14 support modifications, Ebasco is making completely new, "as modified", drawings of the installed support A comparison of these new "as modified" drawings to the:- "red lined".; FCR sketches, the configurations specified by the design engineers, has indi-cated differences in over half of the support VEPCO QC was reinspecting each of these installations and indicated, with examples, that most of these differences were insignifican However, the licensee was asked to provide, as a part of,the response to the above item of noncompliance, a summary breakdown or evaluation of those difference *
The experience resumes, personnel certification, eye examination and training and indoctrination records were examined for ten PTL inspectors working
under VEPCO QC directio For one certified Level II inspector two years of the required four years of applicable experience haq been waived as allowed by VEPCO procedure QC-PQ-2A and ANSI N45. 2. 6-19°'7 However, the total experience shown on this man's resume at the time of certification on March 27, 1980, wasonly 19 month The Resident QC Engineer stated prior to the conclusion of this inspection that calls to previous employers revealed that the inspector had three additional months of experience not shown on his resum The licensee comIIiitted to reviewing the certification documentation of all inspectors onsite and to issue procedures to assure that QC inspectors meet all procedural and applicable ANSI Standard require-ment This item is being identified as Inspector Follo~p Item 281-80-35-02:QC Inspector Qualification IE Bulletin 79-14 remains open pending completion of all work and NRC review of the result.
.
-..... ~.--.-. -.
' -,
--~- "'.... - - -**.. -- -*- - ------. *-- ~---
~.
-:- -... -
... sm
. "'.li...'
- .j
~.
"',i.;