IR 05000338/1988029

Insp Repts 50-338/88-29 & 50-339/88-29 on 880912-16.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: IE Bulletin 79-14

ML20155K546
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	10/19/1988
From:	Blake J, Robert Carrion NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155K534	List: IR 05000338/1988029 ML20155K529
References
50-338-88-29, 50-339-88-29, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8811010292
Download: ML20155K546 (4)

Text

"

O .

,.

.[ UNITED STATES

• '

7 3- y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o * REGION ll

[ 101 MARIETTA $T NX e.,,,j ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323 Report No /88-29 and 50-339/88-29 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, '/A 23261

Docket Nos.: 50-338 and 50-339 License Nos.: NPF-4 and_NPF-7 Facility Name: North Anna ,

Inspectio es - eptember 12-16, 1988-Inspacto . -G /c ? 6

< -a ' a Date Signed Approv by J

&

('~Blake, Chiet

,_

h /[7 Date Signed a rials and Processes Section n ineering~ Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:

This IEB 79-14 routine,dule (Mo 25529) unannounced inspection .tas conducted in the ar Results: In the areas inspected, violations or devictions were not identifie Generally, the licensee demonstrated a high level of professionalism and safety consciousness throughout its org,anization. ALARA considerations were given a high priority during the pipe support walkdown. However, some of the drawings presented to the inspector illeg,ible, and/or as As-Built confusing DrawingsInwere in conten of poor addition, quality,inor several m discrepancies were observed between the information contained on the drawings and what was installed. While these findings raise questions about attention to detail and supeivision, they g,enerally have no affect on safet The calculations were readily available and appear to have been done to applicable codes and standards.

r 8811010292 881020

{DR ADOCK 0500 ]G t

.-

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

" L. Bowlina, Assistant Station Mana

• C. Compton, Senior Staff Engineer,gerEngineering Mechanics, Civil Engineering Dea * F. D iscoll, Aanager of Quality Cont ol

• R. Kansler, Superi,1tendent of Maintenance

• Kemp, Licensing Coordinator

• Leberstein, Enoineer, Licensing Dep * Quare, Associaf.e Engineer Licensing Dep " M. Robinson, Jr. , Manager,of Civil Engineering Supervisor of Site Nuclear Engineerin

• J.E.Wroniewicz$eniorEngineer,EngineeringMechanics,g

"C. A. Zalesiak, Civil Eng. Dep Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included technician NRC Resident Inspectors L. P. King, 9 sident Inspector

• Attended exit interview Action On IEB 79-14 The focus of this inspection was a review of the licensee p,rogram conducted to resolve the issues identified in IEB 79-14, "Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems."

The ins)ection began with a discussion with cognizant licensee engineers about tie scope of the program whereby a list of the included systems was developed. From this list the inspector chose two systems for a detailed review, taking into account ALARA considerations and operational concern The two systems included: TheComponentCoolingWaterSystem(EastLead),

118P, in the Auxiliary Building of Unit 1, and 'he Main Steam Line in the Reactor Containment to Turbine Room By-Pass,1010 KA, of Unit For the Component Cooling Water System, the following drawings were reviewed:

Drawing Revision 11715-ECI-118P M1 11715-FC-24G 5 11715-PSSK-118P.01 1

. ..

.

Revision Drawing)

(cont'd-118P.02 1-118P.03 1-118.04 1-118.05 1-118.06 1 For the Main Steam Line, the following drawings were reviewed:

Drawing Revision 12050-ECI-101KA 1H 12050-FP-1B 9 12050-MSK-101K1 4 12050-PSSK-101KA.01 -

-101KA.02 -

-101KA.03 -

-101:M. 04 -

-101XA.05 -

-101XA.06 -

-101KA.07 -

-101KA.08 -

-101KA.09 -

-101KA.10 -

-101XA.11 -

The Field Quality Control Procedure QC-11.4, entitled "Inspection of Pipe Hamrs," was reviewed. Although later voided, this procedure required a 100% i :pection of all Q1 Q2, Q3, and S-Class pipe suoports to assure conformance to the design , documents. The procedure contains a check list which includes items such as location, clearance, base plate and anchor bolt orientation, system, and line numbe entitled "Field Also reviewed Fabrication was Field and Erection QualityControl of Piping, Control Procedure Program." Th QC-11.2,is procedure w used to continuously insaect )1p,ing and components, to verify the location and identification of all ma;erials, and to assure that the system run ceometry is in accordance with applicable design documents and system flow c iagram Upon completion of the installation phase, this procedure was voide A walkdown was conducted of the above-referenced portion of the Main Steam Line. All 12 supports indicated on Drawing No,12050-ECI-101KA, Rev.1M were reviewed. The inspector encountered various difficulties due to poor drawing quality, inaccessibility of some of the supports, and a hostile environment due to elevated temperature A detailed inspection was made of five of the supports, while the rest were cursorily reviewed for items such as general installed configuration, attachment to correct line, location of attachment, and other gross characteristics. Of the supports

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,

.

-

.~

'

.

'

-

checked closely, some minor dimensional discrepancies were discovere Some fillet weld discrepancies were noted but were always larger than specified and were Also in the case of Drawing No. 12050-PSSK-101M.there 05, the "Af ore , "acceptabl e.and "B" snubbers,were reversed f actual installatio A separate walkdown was conducted for the above-referenced Component Cooling Water System. Of the six supports, only one, 1-CC-R-24 of Drawing No. 11715-PSSK-118P.01, was accessible. Several discrepancies were noted, the most important being that of the 3/4" X 4" gusset plate on the north side of the 8 x 8 x 3/8 tubular steel column and its base plate. The plan view shows the plate attached to the column and base plate via fillet welds. However, there is a 1/2" gap between the column and the installed plate. The plate is not shown on the Elevation Looking East. Two additional dra6g inconsistencies were noted on this drawing: The 3/8" x f < 6" rlates shown in the elevation 4'-9" above the floor, welded to the ..v iumn., ~are not shown in Section 2-2; and the angle arrangement used to support the 1"4 line, SI-12-1502-03, is not shown on the elevation. Three of the other supports were elevated, requiring a scaffold, for accessibility and two were located inside a high radiation cubical. Nevertheless, a visual review was made of the three visible supports for general geometric configuration aiw orientation, attachment location, et Discrepancies were noted on Drawing No.11715-PSSK-118P.02, Support 1-CC-R-25, in that a horizontal brace is incorrectly shown on the north side of the support while it is actually installed on the south side (sheet 1 of 3) and the elevation is incorrectly called out to be looking west while it should be called out lookingeast(sheet 3of3).

The calculations of the previously-referenced supports were reviewe Although some were difficult to follow, they generally appeared to be adequate, being done to applicable codes and standard In conclusion the inspector felt that IEB 79-14 could not be closed due to the numerou,s discrepancies identified between the drawings and as-built support While none of the noted discrepancies affect the safe operability of the plant,, generally beinc editorial oversights, they indicate a lapse in attention to detail anc/or a breakdown of supervisio In order to make a more complete evaluation of the problem, the inspector will review additional systems to determine if the observations made during this inspection are unique to the specific systems sampled or are generic to the entire 79-14 program. Therefore, IEB 79-14 remains open pending future investigatio . Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on September 16, 1988, with those persons indicated in aaragraph The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed 'n detail the inspection results listed belo Proprietary information is not contained in this repor Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.