IR 05000369/1981025
| ML20010H353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1981 |
| From: | Foster L, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010H331 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-81-25, 50-370-81-13, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8109240381 | |
| Download: ML20010H353 (6) | |
Text
--
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
s p **4g t
UNITED STATES l
g fg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
p, REGION 11 j
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.. SUITE 3100
- .
(
o ATL ANT A. GEORGI A 30303 g
.....
Report Nos. 50-369/81-25 and 50-370/81-13 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Facility Name: McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 License Nos. NPF-9 and CPPR-84 Inspection at Corporate Office, Charlotte, NC and McGuire Nuclear Station near Charlotte, NC
_8 24/
Inspector:
,
L.
ster Date Signed
.
Approved by:
/
A. R. Herdt, Section Chief Date Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on August 4-6, 1981 Areas Inspected This special, announced inspection involved 22 inspector-hours onsite and at Duke Power Company's Corporate Office in the areas of pipe support base plate designs using concrete expansion anchor bolts (IEB 79-02); seismic analysis for as-built safety related piping systems (IEB 79-14); QA manuals and procedures; audits of contractor; 50.55(e) items; and previously reported noncompliances and unresolved items.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
o!
'
- - _ - - _ - - - -
>
. __
.... - - - - -
--
_
-
.
.. -.
. - _ -_
.
,
i
REPORT DETAILS l
i
'
)
1.
Persons Contacted i
Licensee Employees
- W. O. Henry, QA Manager, Construction
.
]
- G. A. Copp, Nuclear Engineer, Licensing, Steam oroduction
'
R. Sharpe, Nuclear Engineer, Steam Production R. Ovellette, Jr., Engineer, Steam Production l
B. L. Peele, Senior Engineer
'
W. D. McGarity, Assistant Design Engineer E. B. Abrams, Project Manager, Hangers T. F. Wyke, Principal Engineer J. W. Willis, Project QA Engineer P
- Attended exit 'nterview j
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 6,.1981 with '
,
those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the
>
areas inspected and discussed in detail the findings listed below.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
- .
i a.
(Closed) Violation 369/80-38-04 and 370/80-20-03. Failure to establish adequate measures for the control of design interfaces and for
,
coordination among participating design organizations. During previous
,
i inspections, the NRC identified several areas where adequate design control measures were not being implemented by the licensee and i
-
participating organizations.
The licensee had also identified and reported similar type deficiencies on November 26, 1980 and January 9,
1981.
The licensee response dated February 19, 1981 addressed the j
violation and specified corrective action which had been performed to
'
correct the items and corrective action initiated to prevent
,
-recurrence.
Corrective actions initiated and implemented were as follows:
(1) Reviewed and revised QA procedure QAP-8. and procedures MCSRD 15 and 28 (2) Eliminated the use of memoranda and verbal instructions to define
,
and change design parameters and procedures (3) LOCA loads have been reviewed and incorporated into the support / restraint designs.
.
(4) 'The licensee has performed three special. audits of their contractor since December 8, 1980
<
-++pg e
--
~
y-w ai my-s--
.-g-y++
e a
y-e.
g-
- - - -
ay---+-
wa----*-----*--??eM
--+--m'd
~
(5) The licensee's contractor has irsued Directive Nc. DCP-003 to achieve greater control over design interfaces (6) Hanger / restraint drawings have been revised to show the reanalyzed loads, if higher than original load
(7) The licensee is not maintaining a list of supports / restraints and l
associated loads on a single document, but can relate the hanger / restraint with the math model which would show the latest calculated loads for each hanger (8) The licensee has increased the audits and surveillances of their piping analysis contractor to ensure that measures to control
.
design activities are being implemented.
'
'
Based on the above observations, this item is closed.
_
b.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 369/80-38-05 and 370/80-20-04.
As-Built
'
Certification Package Documentation. The licensee had performed three audits of their piping analysis contractor (EDS) since December 1980.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Licensee Identified Items (LII)
,
a.
(Closed) LII 369/80-33-02 and 370/80-18-02. Pipe Support Hanger Loads Incorrect.
The licensee has submitted reports to NRC on November 26, 1980 and January 27, 1981. The licensee and his vendor (EDS) have
,
completed their review of math models, design loads, applicability of hanger / restraint designs, and procedures. Corrective action consisted of procedure chanpe.,, increased surveillance of EDS and DPC design departments, reanalysis of piping, corrective loads on support
'
.
sketches, and modification of hanger / restraints. The licensee is not
!
maintaining a list of supports and associated loads but is keeping a i
load summary sheet, hanger number, and math model number used to
!
calculate the loads.
Based on the licensee's corrective action, this item is closed, b.
(Closed) LII 369/80-33-03 and 370/80-18-03. Additional Axial Loads on Piping Penetrations.
The licensee submitted reports to NRC on
,
!
November 26, 1980, December 17, 1980, and January 9, 1981. The reports stated that the LOCA loads were not incorporated into the cold penetration design and the reports specified the corrective action
]
being taken to resolve this problem.
The licensee and vendor (EDS)
have performed design reviews, piping stress analysis, hanger / restraint
modifications and have revised their procedures to ensure that the
e.'fec ts of LOCA forces will be used during future design and installations.
Review of affected penetrations on Unit I was completed on January 28, j
1981. Review is continuing on Unit 2.
DPC has determined that +his
,
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
..
,
.
problem is not generic to other DPC plants. Based on the above, this item is closed, c.
(Closed)LII 50-369/81-25-01 and 50-370/81-13-01.
Misinterpretation of Specification MCS-1206.02-04-0000 (Nonconformance Report No. DNC-0018). During a review of design work on Unit 2, the licensee's vendor (EDS).found t;iat Section 6.2.3. of Specification MCS-1206.02-04-0000 had been misinterpretated.
Results were that 16
^
out of 229 math models were affected as they did not specify support restraints in accordance with concentrated weight span criteria. An evaluation by the vendor and licensee showed that if the supports were
'
omitted at the concentrated weight-locations (valve weight) then t..u pipe may be overstressed during a seismic event.
The licensee reported this to NRC on April 24, 1981 as a potential 50.55(e) (CRD).
item and then submitted a final report on May 22, 1981. The licensee
.
stated that corrective actions were completed on July 1,1981.
The inspector inquired about the effect of this finding on Unit 1.
The licensee stated that a rigorous analysis had been performed on Unit 2 and the worst case was used to evaluate Unit 1.
The licensee stateo that Unit 1 was not affected. The vendor and DPC are evaluating this problem to determine if it is " Generic" to other plants. The inspector
.
has no further questions concerning the McGuire plant.
6.
Inspector Follow-up Items a.
(Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item 50-369/80-38-01 and 50-370/80-20-01.
QA Technical Audits. The licensee stated that they had evaluated their QA Manual and procedures and determined that they would not add the requirement for technical audits; however, they stated that two technical audits and a surveillance were performed at EDS since December 1980 and that EDS had also performed a technical audit of
.
their piping analysis group. The licensee's reports and their vendor's
,
(EDS) responses were reviewed by the inspector.
Based on the above, this item is closed.
b.
(Closed) Inspector Follow-up. Item 50-369/80-38-02.
Safety Factor on Hanger / Restraints. The licensee and their vendor (EDS) have reanalyzed the hangers and have modified them as required.
The NRC Resident Inspector (RI) has previously examined and discussed this item in IE Report 50-369/81-03. This item is closed.
>
7.
IE Bulletins (IEB)
a.
IEB 79-02, Pipe Sup~t Jase Plate Designs Using Concrete Anchor Bolts, Units 1 and 2.
% ik ensee's response dated December 16, 1980 (submittal of % + v 9 4 to their original response 'of July 2,1979)
concerning. M /* C :as been reviewed and found adequate. As stated in the lice 2e'.
wort and confirmed by the NRC RI in Report 50-369/81-03, the licenee has examined, analyzed, modified, and
.
-
_
..
..
,
installed the hanger / restraints to meet the Safety Factor of 4 in Unit 1. This bulletin is closed for Unit 1.
The program for Unit 2 appears adequate and ~ if the program is implemented throughout the design, analysis, and installation of the
-
.,
base plates and anchor bolts, they should meet the safety factor of 4.
Corrective actions including the revision of procedures, performing more detailed inspections, training of personnel, and audit of contractor appear adequate. This bulletin for Unit 2 remains open until verification by RII of licensee's program can be completed.
b.
IEB 79-14, Incorrect Pipe Support Analysis and Design. The licensee's latest response dated January 27, 1981 was reviewed in conjunction with other licensee and vendor correspondence as denoted in paragraph 8.
An attachment to the licensee's January 27, 1981 response presented a summary list of inaccessible supports / restraints for Unit 1. -The
reasons that the supports are inaccessible were also presented. During interviews with licensee personnel, the licensee stated that their
'
program will reduce the number of inaccessible hangers on Unit 2.
They also stated that all Unit 2 hangers / restraints will be inspected in detail and results will be documented, therefore, no large scale reinspection program would be required. The licensee and vendor have revised procedures to help ensure the following:
(1) All technical information is reviewed and submitted formally (2)
Interfacing activities are controlled (3) Piping and supports are reanalyzed (4) Walkdowns of complete piping systems to confirm correct installation (5) More frequent audits (including technical areas)
,
(6) Latest loads are included on hanger sketches (7) Review procedures (8) That correct valve weights are used during analysis.
This bulletin is closed for Unit 1, but will remain open for Unit 2 since RII will continue to review caiculations, observe installation of hangers / restraints and associated piping, plus will continue to observe the licensee's action concerning the implementation of his program, and audits of the piping analysis vendor.
8.
Documents Reviewed a.
DPC Procedure Nos. MCSRD 15 and 26 b.
DPC QA Procedures QAP-4 and 8 c.
DPC Surveillance Report of EDS dated April 27-29, 1981 d.
EDS response to DPC dated June 4,1981 and DPC reply dated July 27, 1981 e.
Duke memos SRG-81M-0192 and SRG-81M-0306 dated February 26 and April 10,1981, concerning corrective action on N'<C findings f.
EDS correspondence to DPC dated March 11, 1981 concerning action to
' increase Design Interface Reviews
..
,. _ _,
-..,
g.
DPC response to NRC dated February 19, 1981 concerning violations 369/80-38-04 and 370/80-20-03 h.
DPC letter of December 16, 1980 to NRC and Revision 4 of DPC's Response to IEB 79-02.
1.
DPC response to IEB 79-13, "Feedwater Nozzle Welds" dated January 3, and 17, 1981 j.
DPC response to IEB 79-14 dated January 27, 1981 k.
Design Nonconformance Report No. DNC-0018 dated April 14, 1981 concerning supports for concentrated weights (valves) on Unit 2.
1-