IR 05000373/1980040
| ML19345A783 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1980 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345A781 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-80-40, 50-374-80-26, NUDOCS 8011250144 | |
| Download: ML19345A783 (8) | |
Text
.(3
-
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report Nos. 50-373/80-40; 50-374/80-26
Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 License Nos. CPPR-99; CPPR-100
. Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: La Salle Site, Marseilles, IL (September 2 and 4, 1980)
Sargent&Lundy Engineers, Chicago, IL (September 3, 1980)
USNRC, IE:RIII, Glen Ellyn, IL (August 29, and September 5, 1980)
i Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL (September 10, 1980)
a i
Inspection Conducted: August 29, September 2-5, and 10, 1980
.O i
e Inspector:
I. T. Yin f
Accompan ing Personnel:
D. H. Danielson b%
W
"
Approved By:
anielson, Chief I~
Engineering Support Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on August 29, September 2-5, and 10, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-373/
80-40; 50-374/80-26)
Areas Inspected: Followup inspection of licensee corrective actions on safety related small bore piping suspensica system design and installation.
The inspection involved a total of 30 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified, so13 e s o/'/f
-
.
-.
-
. _..
.
-
.
.
. = _.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted
Meeting at USNRC IE:RIII Office on August 29, 1980 Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
B. Lee, Jr., Executive Vice President C. Reed, Vice President
W. J. Shewski, Manager QA B. B. Stephenson, Project Manager B. R. Shelton, Project Engineering Manager T. E. Watts, Project Engineer J. S. Abel, Director of Nuclear Licensing T. J. Rausch, Nuclear Licensing L. J. Burke, Site Project Superintendent T. E. Quaka, Site QA Supervisor L. C. Bird, Station Construction, G.O.
B. I. McAndrew, Station Construction, La Salle G. E. Groth, Station Construction, Field Engineer Sargent and Lundy Engineers (S&L)
R. J. Mazza, Project Director USNRC IE:RIII I. T. Yin, Reactor Inspector C. C. Williams, Section Chief D. H. Danielson, Section Chief R. L. Spessard, Section Chief G. Fiore11i, Branch Chief Inspection at La.Salle Site on September 2 and 4, 1980 Ceco
<
L. J. Burke, Site Project Superintendent T. Quaka, Site QA Supervisor
^
T. E. Watts, Project Engineer G. F. Marcus, Director of QA G. E. 3roth, Field Engineer D. J. Skoza, QA Engineer S&L W. A. Bloss, Project Engineer D. A. Gallagher, Field Coordinator 2-
.
-.
-
.
-
.
.
Morrison Construction Company (MCCo)
J. Hamilton, Project Manager J. R. Stewart, Project Engineer
'nspection at S&L on September 3, 1980 CECO T. E. Watts, Project Engineer G. F. Marcus, Director of QA S&L R. J. Mazza, Project Director R. H. Pollock, Mechanical Project Engineer W. A. Bloss, Project Engineer Management Exit Interview at USNRC IE:RIII Office on September 5,1980 CECO C. Reed, Vice President W. J. Shewski, Manager QA B. B. Stephenson, Project Manager B. R. Shelton, Project Engineering Manager T. E. Watts, Project Engineer T. E. Quaka, Site QA Supervisor T. J. Rausch, Site QA Supervisor B. J. McAndrew, Station Construction, La Salle W. H. Donaldson, Station Construction, La Salle S&L R. J. Mazza, Project Director W. A. Bloss, Project Engineer USNRC IE:RIII I. T. Yin, Reactor Inspector C. C. Williams, Section Chief G. Fiorelli, Branch Chief D. H. Danielson, Section Chief J. E. Konklin, Project Inspector J. Neisler, Reactor Inspector C. E. Jones, Reactor Inspector Meeting at CECO on September 10, 1980 CECO T. E. Watts, Project Engineer G. F.-Marcus, Director of QA
l-
-3-l
,
I
-
.
-
,
-
.
.
USNRC IE:RIII I. T. Yin, Reactor Inspector Functional or Program Areas Inspected Due to our inspection.indings relative to the design and installation of the safety related small bore pipe suspension systems in March, 1980 (IE:RIII Reports 50-373/80-12; 50-374/80-08) and in August, 1980 (IE:RIII Reports 50-373/80-32; 50-374/80-20), an Immediate Action Letter (IAL) was issued on August 14, 1980, confirming your decision to temporarily suspend all subject activities at the site and at the A-E's offices for both Units 1 and 2.
This report documents management meetings held and follow-up inspections at the site and at S&L's office to review and evaluate the various corrective actions taken in response to the IAL.
,
1.
Meeting at USNRC:RIII Office on August 29, 1980 a.
The licensee presented the programmatic changes of the safety related small bore pipe suspension systems design and instal-latica provisions in answer to the issue raised by the RIII ins: ctor during his August, 1980 i<.spection. The presentation included additional audit findings as a result of licensee and A-E audits at the site. The IAL bi-weekly report requirements were also discussed, but not established.
b.
Questions relative to the RIII request for a 100% re-evaluation of previously designed and installed hangers and restraints based on the newly established program provisions, including confirma-tion of meeting the committed design code requirements, were not totally resolved as to the extent and depth of the evaluations and if they will be carried out by S&L cr NSC. This is an unresolved item (373/80-40-01; 374/80-26-01).
,
2.
Inspections at Site and at S&L on September 24, 1980 a.
Review of Audit Reports The inspector reviewed the following audit reports including the findings and resolutions, and had no adverse comments:
.
(1) Ceco Audit No. 1-80-64, August 13-18, 1980, "S&L Small Bore Pipe Support Design Activities at the La Salle Site" and Supplement 1, August 13-13, 1980.
(2) CECO Audit No. 1-80-68, August 13-15, 1980, " Site Small Bore Hanger Design Done by Nuclear Services Corporation."
(3) CECO Audit No. 1-80-31, May through August, 1980, " Audit i
j of the MCCo."
(4) Ceco Surveillance Reports and corporate correspondence relative to the followup of the above audit findings.
-4-
-
-
-
.
-.
.
__
..
.
_
-
-
.
'
b.
Review of Work Procedures (1) The inspector reviewed MCCo Procedure EC-7, Revision 0, dated August, 1980, "Small Bore Piping Support-Restraint
<
Section Guidelines and Instructions," and stated that an additional detailed review will be da:2 during a future site inspection.
(2) The inspector had no adverse comments after review of MCCo Procedure ED-124A and EC-124B, Revision 0, dated August, 1980 relative to personnel qualification and classification determined by the Engineering Department.
(3) NSC personnel responsibility descriptions and qualification data was reviewed by the inspector and he had no adverse Comments.
(4) The inspector reviewed the MCCo site organization chart (2 sheets), dated August 19, 1980, and considered it met requirements.
(5) The inspector reviewed the S&L Project Instruction PI-LS-22, Revision 3, dated September 3, 1980, "S&L Divisional Interfaces to Complete the Design of 2-Inch and Smaller Seismic Process and Seismic Instrumentation Piping," and commented that the procedure did not reflect the NSC interface with the S&L SDD and other Divisions relative to project administration and design review controls. Further, the NSC design flowchart and ip ar and intra organizational interfac46 had not been estab-lisu 1.
The NSC (Quadrex) sr.fety related large and small bore piping analyses for Unit 1.re covered in S&L Specification J-2952, Revision 1, dated January 4,1980. At present, the scope of work involves approximately 140 subsystems.
NSC subject work for Unit 2 is defined by S&L Specification J-2952, Revision 2, dated April 28, 1980, which includes analysis for all safety related large and small bore piping, including the design of hanger and restraint system. This is an unresolved item (373/80-40-02; 374/80-26-02).
,
(6) The inspector reviewed the S&L "HLS Procedure", Revision 0, dated September 3, 1980, and considered it acceptable.
c.
Personnel Training and Document Control Several of the personnel training records were reviewed by the inspector. The licensee stated that all training will be completed prior to restarting of site work activities. The licensee further stated that all IOM's and DC's that had been used previously as procedures or instructions had been rescinded or controlled. The above items will be reviewed further by the
,
inspector during his future site inspections.
-5-
-
- -
.-.
.
.
d.
Seismic Restraint Design Considerations
(1) 15 of the small bore pipe seismic restraints were selected for review at the S&L corporate office. These items were forwarded by S&L field group for determining the effects of loading imposed on the existing structures. These 15 restraints are:
Nos. 15 to 18 (5 total) shown on M-1302-18 Nos. 71 to 73 (3 total) shown on M-1302-27 Nos. 138 to 140 (3 total) shown on M-1302-21 No. 15 shown on M-1302-20 No. 37 shown on M-1302-19 No. 29 shown on M-1302-35 No. 9 shown on M-1302-29 Subsequent to review at the site, it was found that only 7 out of the 15 items had calculations to determine the adequacy of auxiliary restraint steel members. The 7 restraints are:
Nos. 71 and 73 of M-1302-27, done by GDS under the control of S&L corporate SDD No. 17 of M-1302-18, done by S&L site No. 139 of M-1302-21, done by S&L site No. 29 of M-1302-35, done by S&L site No. 9 of M-1302-29, done by S&L site No. 15 of M-1302-20, done by S&L site The inspector stated that there should be a program to assure that no safety related restraints and hangers will be installed until the design of the components and the effects on the attaching structure had been determined.
This is an unresolved item (373/80-40-03; 374/80-26-03).
(2) The !.nspector reviewed some of the S&L site calculations based on the S&L Mechanical Component Support Design Manual and other specifications and instructions, and had the following findings:
Key plans were not shown cn some of the older hanger
.
drawings, so that load directions and component orientation could not be readily determined.
Thermal movements at anchor locations were without
.
backup documentation, and these movements had not been checked and verified.
Physical properties of the small bore piping described
.
in the calculations had not been verified.
This item is considered unresolved (373/80-40-04; 374/80-26-04).
-6-
.
.
(3) In conjunction with (2) above, the recent S&L site calcu-
-
lations that were reviewed by the inspector had taken into consideration bending and torsional movements, assembly-structure steel member dead weights, and the system loading deflections.
3.
Management Exit Interview at RIII on September 5,1980 The inspector concluded that the overall corrective actions taken by the licensee and the affected organizations appeared to be satisfac-tory, and that resumption of design and installation work for Unit I was considered appropriate. While design activities may proceed for Unit 2, the RIII staff requested that installation of safety related small bore hangers and restraints should not be carried out orior to licensee presentation of the results of additional program revisions.
CECO presented the following Unit 1 " Schedule Milestone for 2-Inch and Under Safety Related Hanger Review."
'
Submit 1st Subsystem packages to S&L 9/15/80 Receive 1st Subsystem packages back from S&L 9/29/80 25% of Subsystems complete by S&L 10/20/80 50% of Subsystems complete by S&L 11/10/80 75% of Subsystems complete by S&L 12/1/80 100% of Subsystems complete by S&L 12/22/80 4.
Followup Meeting at CECO on September 10, 1980 The subject matter contain3d in this report was discussed with the Ceco QA and Project personnel.
In addition, the bi-weekly (every two weeks) reporting requirements for La Salle Unit 1 per the August 14, 1980 IAL were established during the meeting. The first report will be due two weeks after the licensee's receipt of this report. Reports should be sent from the CECO Project Engineer to Mr. I. T. Yin of USNRC IE:RIII directly. The report should include:
a Update of the schedule milestone listed in Paragraph 3.
b.
List of subsystems by line identification when the design is complete.
c.
List of subsystems by line identification when hangers and restraints have been installed and QC accepted.
d.
Onsite and offsite QA audits and surveillances performed.
e.
Summary of audit findings, surveillance findings, and noncon-formance reports.
During the meeting, the inspector's previous request for the licensee to consider revision of the FSAR to include the NSC portions of piping analysis and component design was discussed. The CECO Project Engineer
-7-i
.. -.
_ _.
-
-
_
. -...
-
'
.
.
stated that he had discussed the issue with a number of responsible
'
parties within various organizations and had decided that the applicable sections of the FSAR will be amended.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviations. Four unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 1.b, 2.b(5), 2.d(1), and 2.d(2).
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. Details of the meeting are documented in Paragraph 3 of this report.
-8-
,
,
y
,-
- - -
,
-
,
..-v.
,,
,
,
,