IR 05000358/1980013
| ML19321A255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1980 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19321A246 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-80-13, NUDOCS 8007230087 | |
| Download: ML19321A255 (4) | |
Text
.
.
_
_ _ _
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-358/80-13 Docket No.
3-358 License No. CPPR-88 Licensee: Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company 139 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45201 Facility Name:
Wm. H. Zimmer Power Station Inspection At:
Zimmer Site, Moscow, OH Inspection Conducted: May 13, 14, and 23, 1980
[4d
[6 !O
'
Inspector:
I. T. Yin
/
/
Accompanying Personnel:
P. Barrett T. Daniels, Resident Inspector W/
u, w
~
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief SN Engineering Support Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on May 13, 14, and 23, 1980 (Report No. 50-358/80-13)
Areas Inspected:
Inspection of safety related hangers, restraints, snubbers, and related QA/QC program provisions. The inspection in-volved a total of 11 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Resultt.: Of the areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance was identified (infraction - inadequate design consideration for the pipe whip restraint connection bolts paragraph 3).
8 0 o 'r e s o o p
._
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E)
- W. W. Schwiers, Quality Assurance Manager
- J. F. Weissenberg, Quality Assurance and Standards Engineer
- J. B. Vorderbruegr.en, Hanger Engineer USNRC - Region III
- P.
Barrett, Project Inspector
- T.
Dani..is, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Site QA/QC Reorganization In discussion with CG&E site Quality Assurance personnel, the in-spector was informed that a major site QA/QC reorganization was in the making. The present H. J. Kaiser Company (HJK) QA and QC function will be assigned under the management of CG&E site QA Department. The new arrangement will streamline operations and minimize interface problems.
The inspector had no adverse comments regarding such organization change; however, he was in doubt of Quality Assurance independence of performing the functional or program audits of Quality Control activities. The CG&E QA Manager stated that the QA and QC duties will be distinguished and described.
In addition, there will be extensive third party audits of program adequacy to be performed by hired consulting companies.
2.
Review of S&L Hanger Design Status The inspector reviewed the computer printout listing the latest hanger design and modification status. The report was issued by S&L Mechanical Department and was dated April 22, 1980. The sup-port elements were listed by drawing numbers, and the report also consisted of a screening of the total support elements by class and type.
In conjunction with the review and during general dis-cussions with CG&E engineers, the inspector stated that:
(1) the progress of the S&L hanger review and calculations appeared to be behind original schedules, (2) CG&E had not final QC inspected any safety-related hangers due to the stop work order issued in February, 1980, and because the QA/QC inspection procedures had not received final approval by the licensee, and (3) most of the inspector iden-tified items had not been evaluated and resolved by the licensee.
-2-
_
.
'
3.
Pipe Whip Restraint Bolts The inspector. reviewed the connecting bolt and plate arrangement for the pipe whip restraints FWFR-1029 and FWFR-1030, shown on S&L Drawing No. S-432, " Primary Containment Pipe Restreint Plans FWFR and RWFR," Revision M, dated April 14, 1980. The 64 required bolts were specified on the drawing to be 1-3/8" diarneter bolts,
-
A490-F material. The arrangement was such that the total thick-ness.was 5-1/2".
Since S&L did not specify the overall bolt length, the field engineer determined the bolts should be 5-1/2" long. This length was found to be too short after they arrived at the site. Subsequently, the field engineer ordered 6-1/2" long bolts. The inspector examined the 5.1/2" long bolts, manu-factured by ITT-Grinnell Corporation, and also the 6-1/2" long bolts manufactured by Acimet Manufacturing Company, with Heat Code T-41, and Quality System Certification No. 1932, dated February 14, 1980, and identified the following:
a.
The 1-3/8" x 5-1/2" A-490-F bolts were Type 1 (non-corrosion resistant), with 8 threads per inch. The 1-3/8" x 6-1/2" A 490-F bolts was Type 3 (corrosion resistant), with 6 threads per inch.
b.
The unthreaded surface of the 1-3/8" x 6-1/2" bolt was measured to be 3-1/2" long. This means the load bearing surface of one of the stretch bars would be bearing against 1/2" of the threaded portion of the bolt.
The lack of sufficient design criteria relative to the bolt dimen-sions and configuration is an item of noncompliance identified in Appendix A (358/80-13-01).
4.
Telecon with Licensee Regarding the Bolts On May 23, 1980, the licensee telephoned the inspector relative to the problems discussed in Paragraph 3 above.
Specific items dis-cussed were:
a.
After the 1-3/8" x 5-1/2" bolts were found too short, a DDC was written to document the problem. The inspector questioned
'
why an NR was not utilized.
i b.
The licensee QA engineer stated that threaded shear loading i
surface was permitted by AISC codes under the frictional loading condition..The inspector questioned the inbalance stretch bar loading conditions, and the stress risers at the bolt threads.
c.
The licensee stated that either a Type 1 or Type 3 of A 490-F bolt material was acceptable. The inspector indicated that the coating provision for corrosion prevention needed further review at the site.
-
3'-
,
.
,
-.
~
,.
i d.
The six threads per inch for the 1-3/8" x 6-1/2" bolts was correct. No explanatie,was given as to why 8 threads per
- .
inch was provided on the 1-3/8" x 5-1/2" bolts.
Exit Interview The inspector met witi. the licensee representatives (denoted under Per-sons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on May'14, 1980. The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
,
d
5 t
k-4-
-
.
. - -. -.
. _ -
-.,,,
_