IR 05000369/1980018
| ML19338E652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1980 |
| From: | Ang W, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17095A604 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-80-18, NUDOCS 8010030509 | |
| Download: ML19338E652 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _.
v.
....
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c,
h e
REGION 11 O
f 101 MARIETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100
b
%,***** o ATLANTA, G EOS.GIA 30303 JUL 311980 Report No. 50-369/80-18
.
Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242
' Facility Name: McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-369 License No. CPPR-83 Inspection at McGuire Nuclear Station near Charlotte, North Carolina Inspector:
S}
s
'l - I DD W. P. An
'
Date Signed dd
-
Approved by:
C 7@ 4, A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on June 30, thru July 3, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 24 inspector-hours on site in the areas of pipe support baseplate designs using concrete expansion anchor bolts (IEB 79-02); and seismic analysis for as-built safety-related piping systems (IEB 79-14).
Results Of the two areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were found in two areas.
(Infraction - Failure to follow pipe support installation and inspection require-ments, paragraphs 5 and 6; Infraction - Failure to follow weld rod control requirements, Paragraph 6).
8.010080 soy
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
.
Licensee Employees
- J. C. Rogers, Construction Project Manager
.
- W. D. Henry, Construction QA Man:ger
- T. E. Touchstone, Construction Engineer
- T. F. Wyke, Design Engineer
- E. B. Abrams, Pipe Support Coordinator
- M. S. Starnes, QC Supervisor
- W. G. Goodman, QC Engineer
- A. P. Cobb, Design Engineer
- E. B. Miller, Senior QA Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included two technicians, and two office personnel.
~
- Attended exit inter'.lew 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 3, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The noncompliances, Para-graphs 5 and 6 and unresolved item, Paragraph 6, were discussed with the licensee.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Infraction P0-04-01 - Licensee Action on this item was inspected and is discussed in paragraph 5 and 6.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in Paragraph 6.
5.
Pipe Support Baseplate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts (IEB 79-02)
On January 7,1980, Duke Power Company (DPC) su'smitted a revisi'on to the DPC response for IEB 79-02. The original resp >nse and the revision were,
discussed with the licensee. As noted on the.esponse, DPC safety factors for sleeve and wedge type concrete expansion anchors are 3 for upset condi-tions and 2 for faulted conditions. IEB 79-02 requires a safety factor of 4.
The licensee was again informed that DPC's response to IEB 79-02 did not comply with the bulletin's requirement. The following supports were
.
.
-
.-
-
.
~
,
-
'
.
.
-2-
l randomly selected and inspected for compliance with IEB 79-02 requirements and licensee commitments:
1-MCA-NV-H1
,
1-MCA-NV-H95 L
1-MCA-NV-H474 1-MCA-NI-H276
1-MCA-NI-H278 An HN-5842 sleeve type sachor for chemical and volume control system pipe
,
support 1-MCA-NV-B1 was found to be torqued to less than 30 foot-pounds.
i Construction procedure (CP) 308 Rev. 19 - Installation of red head concrete anchors, requires HN-5842 sleeve type anchors to be torqued to 40-45 foot-pounds at installation and inspected to 30 foot pounds. This support and its concrete expansion anchors had been completely installed and inspected.
This failure to follow procedure appears to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR
.
Appendix B Criterion V and shall be identified as an example for infraction 80-18-01 " Pipe support installation and inspection discrepancies".
DPC corrective action for infraction 80-04-01 was reviewed. For the infrac-tion item on concrete expansion anchors that had not been properly torqued,
'
i the licensee had inspected 10 additional hangers and noted that concrete i
<
expansion anchors on two hangers were not properly torqued. The licensee committed to inspect 40 additional hangers for proper torque of concrete
,
t
'
expansion anchors.
Pending completion of this reinspection and further analysis of inspection data, the noncompliance shall remain open.
i During DPC site engineering review of discrepancies noted during a re-inspection of pipe support 1-MCA-ND-249, the DPC engineer noted that beceuse of the unusual amount of grout required for the support, the concrete i
expansion anchor did not have the required embedment by design.
The engineer required the hanger to be repaired. It is noted that although a check for correct embedment depth is specifically required by Quality Assurance Procedure MISE serial No. 01 Rev. 5, this problem had not been identified during the design, installation inspection and re-inspection of
~ 1-MCA-ND-249. The licensee was requested.to address the potential sopport generic implication of this condition as part of IEB 79-02 work. No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. Pending licensee compliance with IEB 79-02 requirements, this bulletin shall remain open.
6.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems (IEB 79-14)
'
On November 1, 1979, DPC provided a response to IEB 79-14.
The response
was reviewed with the licensee. Portions of the following piping systems were randomly select,3d and inspected for compliance with IEB 79-14 require-ments and-licensee' cramitments:
Chemical and Volume Control System Piping on drawing MC-1414-22.41-00 a.
and pipe supports 1-MCA-NV-H1,1-MCA-NV-H5623,1-MCA-NV-H94,1-MCA-NV-H88,
!
1-MCA-NV-H95 and 1-MCA-H474.
,
I
'
-
.
,
-3-
>
b.
Safety Injection System piping on drawing MC-1414-09.42-00 and pipe supports 1-MCA-NI-H276 and 1-MCA-NI-H278.
The following items were noted:
Spacing between supports 1-MCA-NV-H88 and 1-MCA-NV-H94 is required by a.
the support drawings to be 12" i 1/4".
The actual spacing at the piping being supported is 13 3/16". These rod and strut type hangers support two adjacent pipe. The licensee felt that the spacing may have been in accordance with the drawings upon installation and during inspection, but due to possible pipe movement, may have changed since.
The licensee agreed to evaluate the condition and determine if pipe movements caused the condition. This item shall be identified as one of two conditions required to be resolved as part of unresolved item 80-18-03
" Unresolved IEB 79-14 inspection questions".
b.
The portion of sub-assembly NI-93 of drawing MC-1414-09.42-00 between joint N1-93-1 and bend 2 is required to run vertically and straight.
The noted piping is run at a slight angle off the vertical' and joint N1-93-5 appeared to be " Dog-legged". No acceptance criteria for the above noted conditions were available on site.
The licensee was requested to evaluate the above noted conditions in relation to the stress analysis.
Pending completion of this evaluation this item shall be the second part of unresolved item 80-18-03.
c.
Pipe support NI-H210 was installed on piping shown on drawing MC-14-14-09.42-00.
Pipe support NI-H210 had been deleted from the drawing. The pipe support final walk thru inspection for the noted piping had been completed in accordance with QA Procedure M15E serial No. 05.
Pipe support NI-H210 was not reported to be installed. QA procedure MISE serial No. 05 Paragraph 3 requires the inspector to assure that there are no supports or restraints installed that are not shown on the applicable drawings. This appears to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V and shall be identified as an example for infraction 80-18-01 " Pipe Support Installation and Inspection Discrepancies".
d.
Angle iron members for pipe support 1-MCA-NV-H1 are not installed in accordance with the pipe support drawing. The final QC inspection of this pipe support had been completed and this condition had not been reported. QA procedure M15E Serial 01 Revision 5 Paragraph III requires an inspection for configuration and dimensions shown on the pipe support drawing. This appears to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V and shall be identified as another example for infraction 80-18-01 " Pipe support installation and inspection dis-crepancies".
DPC identified approximately 300 pipe supports that were inaccessible for their hanger re-inspection program.
The licensee was informed that IEB 79-14 supplement 2 requires that "Information concerning the burden of performing the inspection and the safety consequence of not t
.
__. _ _. _ _ _ _-
.
-
-
.
,
>
-4-performing the inspection should be documented by the licensee and forwarded for staff review".
Pipe support design analysis for the following hangers were inspected for compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements:
1-MCA-NV-H1
'
1-MCA-NV-H94 1-MCA-NV-H88 1-MCA-NV-36R1 1-MCA-NV-08-R015 1-MCA-1683-YC-26R6 Licensee action on infraction 80-04-01 " Failure to follow Penetration and support Installation and Inspection Requirements", was inspected.
j It was noted that a supplemental response would be submitted by the
licensee. Pending receipt of the supplemental response and completion of licensee corrective action, this item shall remain open.
On May 11,1979, the licensee reported that deficient original inspection of hangers was noted when a significant number of discrepancies were identified during a March,1979 surveillance of inspected safety-related hangers. A hanger reinspection program was instituted by the licensee.
I On February 8, 1980, the licensee reported that 10 DPC QC pipe support inspectors had been terminated for cheating on tests given to qualify
]
them for other mechanical inspections.
The licensee committed to
)
audit previous QC work of these inspectors with 214 hangers being
)
inspected. This re-inspection consisted of both terminated and non-terminated inspectors. Discrepancies were identified in 92 supports.
These discrepancies were noted on hangers inspected by both groups of QC inspectors. These discrepancies had not been identified during the first two inspections of the supports. During the technical evaluation of the discrepancies in the 92 supports, engineers noted an additional discrepancy on support 1-MCA-ND-249 that had not been identified by the three inspections of the support. As noted in paragraph 5, this descrepancy was evaluated by DPC engineers to be technically unaccept-able and required repair of the support. All the discrepancies identi-fled by QC on the 92 pipe supports were determined by DPC to be technically acceptable. Nc further action was being required by DPC.
Based on the above noted DPC inspection results and the NRC findings documented in report number 80-04 and this report, DPC pipe support inspections continue to result in findings of pipe support discrepancies and do not appear to sufficiently assure the adequacy of McGuire Unit 1 pipe supports for plant operations. The licensee has been requested to assure the adequacy of McGuire Unit 1 pipe supports. No other items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. Pendin, licensee e
completion of IEB 79-14 requirements, the bulletin shall remain open.
During the inspection of pipe supports, unused E7018 welding electrodes that were old and in a deteriorated condition were found on supports NV-H1, NV-H94 and NI-H278.
No welders or welding equipment were noted in the L
,,
-5-e vicinity of these pipe supports. QA Procedure H-3 Rev. 10, Paragraph 5.5.2 requires all E7018 welding material to be consumed in the weld process or i
returned to the issue station. Paragraph 5.6.2 of QA Proceuure H-3 requires I
welding material to be kept in suitable rod pouches after issue and before use.
This appears to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V and
shall be identified as infraction 80-18-02 " Failure to follow Welding Electrode Control Procedures".
.
/
e
!
I i
.
-
,
--.
.
.