IR 05000373/1981029
| ML20031E189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1981 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031E183 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-81-29, 50-374-81-15, NUDOCS 8110150213 | |
| Download: ML20031E189 (9) | |
Text
__
-
-
_.
.
.
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
>
I Reports No. 50-373/81-29; 50-374/81-15 Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 Licenses No. CPPR-99; CPPR-100 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility ?me:
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: LaSalle Site, Marseilles, IL Sargent and Lundy Engineers, Chicago, IL Inspection Conducted: August 24-25, 1981, at the Site August 26, 1981, at S&L Inspector:
I. T. Yin b77/Lwbv$h-Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief
9
/
Materials and Processes Section Inspection Summary Inspection on August 24-26, 1981 (Peports No. 50-373/81-29; 50-374/81-15)
Areas Inspected:
Inspection of piping surpension system installations; review of quality control records; review of piping stress analysis and piping hanger structural calculations; review of licensee actions on previous identified noncompliance and unresolved items. The inspection involved a total of 17 inspector-hours onsite and at A-E's office by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
t'
~
81101 13 510930
~
PDR A K 05000373 D
- -
-
-
,
.
.
O
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Inspection at the Site on August 24-25, 1981 Commenwealth Edison Company (CECO)
- B. B. Stephenson, Project Manager
- D. L. Shamblm, Staff Assistant Project Manager
- B. J. McAndrew, Project Mechanical Engineer
- L. J. Burke, Site Project Superintendent
- D. J. Skoza, PCD Engineer
- R. A. Braun, QA Supervisor T. Quaka, QA Supervisor R. T. Rose, Project Structural Engineer E. E. Spitzner, Start-Up Coordinator R. D. Vine, QA Engineer R. D. Bishop, Assistant Superintendent, Administration E. R. Pfister, Start-Up Test Coordinator D. W. Zebrauskas, QA/ISI Engineer M. Peters, Technical Staff Morrison Construction Company (MCCO)
- M. Wherry, QC Supervisor
- D. J. Kanakares, QC Inspector J. Stewart, Project Engineer J. Larsen, Junior Draftsman J. Christainson, Draftsman Sargent and Lundy Engineers (S&L)
- D. H. Gallagher, Field Coordinator
- K. J. Fus, Senior Structural Engineer
- D. J. Gu11aksen, Supervising Structural Er.gineer Nuclear Services Corporation (NSC; B. D. Berglin, Lead Field Engineer
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting on August 25, 1981
Inspection at S&L on August 26, 1981 CECO
- R.
L. Scott, Senior Engineer-2-
..
_ _ _ -
_
?
.
.
S&L
- L. P. Dolder, QA Coordinator
- 0. P. Gupta, Assistant Chief Structural Design Engineer
- R. H. Pollock, Hechanical Project Engineer
- W. A. Bloss, Mechanical Project Engineer
- H. S. Taylor, Assistant Head, QA Division
- F. A. Sha11wani, Senior Structural Engineer
- S. M. Kazmi, Supervising Design Engineer
- G. C. Jones, Mechanical Project Engineer
- S. D. Killian, Project Engineer - Piping
- Denotes some of those attending the exit meeting on August 26, 1981
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Noncompliance (373/80-32-04; 374/80-20-04):
Inadequate small bore hanger design considerations. The inspector reviewed the S&L approved design document PI-LS-16, Revision 3, and had no adverse comment. All previously designed and calculated subject suspension systems had been recalculated by S&L design engineering staff. During the inspection, effects of Snubber M-1302-22-102 and other loadings at the W8 x 48 structural beam (shown on Drawing HLS-372-B) were found to be properly evaluated and documented in S&L Calculation No. 901A, Revision 0, dated February 2,1981. The inspector stated that he had no further questions (Closed) Unresolved Item (373/80-40-04; 374/80-26-04): Questionable S&L site calculation measures. During the inspection, a number of S&L hanger calculations were selected for review at the site and at the S&L corporate design engineering office. No deficiencies were identified as a result of the review.
(See Paragraph 2.a of this report.)
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/81-17-01; 374/81-11-01): RCI development of walkdown procedure which meets the requirements of IEB 79-14. The inspector reviewed the RCI Document QAI-8-4, " System Walkdown Instructions," Revision 0, dated June 9, 1981, and had no adverse comments.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Inspection at the Site on August 24-25, 1981 a.
Followup IE Bulletin No. 81-01 IE Bulletin No. 81-01, " Surveillance of Mechanical Snubbers,"
Revision 1, dated March 4, 1981 was forwarded to the licensee on March 5, 1981.
CECO response, dated April 30, 1981 was reviewed by the inspector. The licensee proposed to submit the test reports 30 days after the fuel load date presently scheduled for December 1, 1981. The inspector reviewed the MCC0 Form PC-25B,
" Final Line Walk Verification - Restraints (Includes Snubbers),"
Revision 4, dated January 1981, and considered it to be adequate for the IEB 81-01 work application. The Form PC-25B is a part of MCCO Procedure PC-43, " Final Line Walk Inspection and Veri-fication of Specified Piping Systems, Supports, and Restraints."
-3-
--
-
-
-
--
_-
.
-.
-
__. _
~
.
,
,
.
b.
GE Preop Test Report i
During site inspection in March 1980 (Region III Inspection Reports No. 50-373/80-12; 50-374/80-08), the inspector reviewed
the GE preop test procedure for the Unit-1 recirculation loop piping system and had no adverse comment. During this visit, the inspector reviewed GE document NEDE 24901, " Final Test i
Report for LaSalle 1. Recirculation Loop Preop Test," dated
,
January 1981. Data review-d included: -(1) piping vibration
!
test; (2) thermal expansion tests at 125*F, 300*F, a'.d 480*F;
~
>
!
and (3) pump hydraulic pulsation test. Field identified design deviations during vibration and thermal testings as documented and evaluated in FDDR HAI-287 were also reviewed.y the inspector.
i No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified as a result -
of the review.
S c.
Review of Licensee Unit 1 Start-up Program
Subject program procedures and licensing documents relative to
,
testing of pipe support and restraint systems were reviewed by
.
the inspector. Documents reviewed included:
!
,
... CECO STP-17, " System Expansion," Revision 0, dated March 11, 1980.
...LSCS - FSAR Table 14.2-114, " System Expansion Startup Test,"
Amendment 47, dated October 1979.
...USNRC - NRR NUREG-0519, "SER related to LSCS 1 and 2," dated
,
March 1981.
,
l
...NUREG-0519, Supplement No. 1, dated June 1981.
...USNRC, Division of Licensing letter, "Preservice Inspection and Testing of Snubbers," to CECO, dated February 19, 1981.
.
.
Review findings were as follows:
i l
(1) The CECO STP-17 did not include requirements for measuring i
gap clearances between the process pipe and the surrounding
!-
pipe whip restraint structural assemblies. This is an un-resolved item.
(373/81-29-01)
'
(2) Procedures for vibration measurements for RPV level, RCIC,
nad MS flow instrumentation lines, as required in NUREG-0519, Supplement No. 1, had not been developed by CECO. This is an unresolved ites.
(373/81-29-02)
During the-inspection, the licensee representatives stated that startup test program will' cover'the safety systems inside the i
drywell including MS, FW, Recirculation, HPCS, LPCS, RHR, CSCS, j
RWCU, RCIC, SBLC,'and Equipment Cooling Water.
l
!
.
I-4-
-
-
. - -
-
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
d.
Followup Allegation Items A fonmer employee at the site made some allegations to Region III that certain work performed at MCCO was deficient. The following were inspection findings relative to the allegation:
(1) There is no control over access to the Morrison document vault such that anyone can enter and remove documents.
The inspector observed the vault area, including posted names at the door that were permitted to enter the vault, and the control measures by the Record Custedian. The inspector also reviewed MCC0 QA Program Section II, "QA Record Control," Revision 2, dated July 5, 1977; and signatures contained in the Record Register. No items of noncompliance or deviation were identified.
(2) As of April 8, 1981, a drawing, ISO IN 218, Subsystem 13, was missing regarding the above, he said he told Steve Bolene (phonetic) Sargent and Lundy, and Jim Steward, Project Engineer, Morrison, that they didn't have any control over documents.
The inspector revireed the original sepia of MCC0 Drawing Instrument Nitrogo (IN)-218, Subsystem IN-13, Ecvision C, dated February 3, 1981, and had no adverse comment.
(3) On every floor it the Unit 1 Reactor Building the alleger has seen instances in which shims have been installed between the imbed plates and the concrete. Also there are plates installed in which the requirement that the bolt extend one thread beyond the nut has not been met.
In some instances one bolt will not extend that far but other bolts on the same plate extend much further.
He feels some of the bolts may be pulling out of the wall. The conditions involve Class 2 and 3 pipe outside the drywell but in the Reactor Building.
The inspector reviewed:
(a) S&L Standard Specification for concrete expansion anchor work, Form LS-CEA, Revision 8, dated May 31, 1981, where it stated that, "As a minimum, nut shall be flush with end of an anchor,...," and (b) MCCO Standard Operating Procedure, PC-42, " Expansion Anchor Control Program for the Installation of Concrete Expansion Anchors As Defined by the A-E on Drawings and/or Froject Specifications," where shimming of wall mounted plates was concurred by the S&L design engineers. No items of defi-ciencies were identified.
(4) Based upon Item (3) above, he feels the QC inspectors are either not qualified or not doing their job, or both.
As stated in Item (3) above, the inspector did not identify any deficiencies, and the allegations were not substantiated.
-5-
_ _
_
.
.
.
(5) Regarding Subsystem IN-13, there are a total of five hangers, two of which are IN-HO 3G and IN-HO 1G, and there were two conflicting sets of drawings. Both were identified as Revision A but one was dated in January and the other in March.
The inspector reviewed IN-13, and found only two hangers shown on the drawing. These were:
(a) H01G, Revision 0, dated May 30, 1980, and Revision A, dated December 31, 1980; (b) H02G, Revision 0, dated December 15, 1980, Revision A, dated April 8, 1981, and Revision B, dated May 14, 1981.
The control of the drawings was in accordance with MCCO Standard Operating Procedure, EC-7, "Small Bore Piping Support - Restraint Selectica Guidelines and Instructions,"
Revision 0, dated August 22, 1980, and MCCO Engineering Instructions, F0PE-632, for the EC-7 procedure, Revision 0, dated August 25, 1980. No deilciencies were identified.
(6) The alleger stated that he and Jim Christianson went to Jerry Larson to look at some Engineering Change Notices (E'N) but Larson would not let them see the ECN Fi.le.
The alleger also stated that Larson aafd that the first 500 ECN's had been logged but after that the logging was discontinued and they were thrown into a box.
In discussions with Mr. Christianson, he did not recall the incident.
In discussion with Mr. Larson, he stated that the person he assumed to be the alleger asked general questions regarding the handling of ECN's and commented that the method applied at LaSalle site was not the same as he was accustomed to at another site where he was employed.
The inspector reviewed Unit 1 Isometric Piping Support Drawing Release Records for Auxiliary Steam (AS) - IN, from the period of May 1981 to August 1981, and had no adverse comment.
Subsequent to the inspection, the inspector stated that none of the allegations outlined above (1-6) were substantiated.
2.
Inspection at S&L on August 26, 1981 a.
Review of Piping Calculations During site observation, a number of pipe lines and pipe supports were selected to be reviewed at S&L for adequate stress analysis, component support design, and structural steel cumulative effects due to multiple design loading conditions. The findings were as follows:
(1) Main Steam MS_-03 (GE MS Line C)
The design loads of Snubbers Nos. M09-MS04-1353S and M09-MS04-1340S were varified against the design loads shown in.umputer output printout.
Global coordinates and obscure-6-
.
.
.
-
-
.
. -.
.
- -
- -
- -
-
-
. -
.
.
.
s angular coordinates were checked against establisned tolerance.
No deficiencies were identified.
(2) MS-03 and MS-04 Snubber attachment plates at the containment liner wall locaticas were checked for proper structural anchor ar-rangement inside the concrete containment wall. The Snubbers Nos. M09-MS-04-1353S and M09-MS-1340S on MS-03 and Snubber No. M09-MS-1294S on MS-04 were selected for review. Plate Nos. 276. 264, and 234 were identified in S&L Drawings S-332, " Reactor Containment Drywell Line Interior Developed Elevation - South Half," Revision W, and S-333A, " Reactor Containment Drywell Liner Embedded Plates Schedule Sheet 1," Revision A.
For S-333A, Details H and N were identified on S&L Drawing S s30, " Reactor Containment Liner Plate Locations and Details," Revision N.
Structural calculations for the design of Details H and N were reviewed by the inspector.
In addition, the CBI fabrication drawings were also reviewed by the inspector.
No deficiencies were identified.
(3) Small Bore Pipe Support No. M-1302-36-14 (MCCO Drawing Revision F)
The inspector reviewed S&L Calculation No. 972-LPA8, dated December 6, 1980.
Specific review areas included U-bolt design and eccentric load attachment at the wall attachment plate (Item 4 on MCCO Drawing). No deficiencies were identified.
(4) Snubber M09-PC01-1017-S The inspector reviewed the FCR No. 50248, dated April 20, 1981, documenting that the installed anchor bolt locations that deviated from design. Tba inspector reviewed Quadrex Calculation No. PN-4266, dateo July 7, 1981, in the area of plate flexibility for the as-built bolt patterns and eccentric load attachment location. No deficiencies were identified.
f (5) RCIC Turbine Exhaust Piping 1RIO2A-10" (Subsystem M-1046-2)
The thermal stress analysis in the location of rigid :<.straint RIO2-1011X, Revir4 ion D, was checked by the inspector. The stress report reviewed was NSC Calculation No. QUAD-1-80-178,
" Subsystem 1RI-02", Revision 0, dated February 29, 1980. No l
deficiencies were identified.
I (6) MCCO Drawing HP-9, Revision F Snubbers M-1302-22-101S and 102S, and rigid restraint M-1302-18-69 were selected for review to ensure proper design and calculation for the U-bolt pipe clamps. The inspector also reviewed S&L Calculation EMD-025684, "High-7-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
.
.
Pressure Core Spray 1HP-A1," Revision 02, dated November 6, 1980 for snubber and restraint design loading considerations.
No deficiencies were identified.
b.
Followup Allegation Items The inspector's findings relative to an anonymous allegation received by Region III on May 27, 1981 are as follows:
(1) Allegation There are two standards with two allowables for lubrite plates and they are using the lower grade one but there is nothing to show this to be the case because there is no traceability.
The inspector reviewed S&L Procedure PI-LS-16, Appendix V,
" Standard Criteria For Consideration of Lubrite Plate Usage,"
Revision 3, dated March 13, 1981. The procedure discussed design of pipe stanchions and lubrite plates. The inspector also revi:wed S&L Structural Design Standard, Revision 2, Section E1.0, where Paragraph 1.3.1 stat ed that the co-efficient of friction of.15 at 250'F and below should be used for the design of support plates with Lubrite bearing surfaces. The value was based on a Lubrite catalog, published by Merriman Inc., Hingham, Mass. No deficiencies were identified.
(2) Allegation Three directional loading calculations are being used regarding U-bolts and this is not appropriate.
The S&L Drawing M-1100, Sheet 33, "2-Inch and Under Anchor Design Assembly Type B," Revision B, was reviewed by the inspector. The anchor assembly utilized two U-bolts welded on anchor saddle wrapped around the process pipeline. The two directional U-bolt design calculations were reviewed during this inspection as documented in Paragraphs 2.a.(3)
and (6) above. No deficiencies were identified as a result of the review.
(3) Allegation Design drawings are being issued for conscruction with no backup calculations. The alleger said he proved there were none by doing the calculations in one instance which showed that a plate failed.
Not substantiated by RIII inspection. See Paragraph 2.a of this report for details.
-8-
- -
-
-
-
-
.
-.
-
-
._
-
~.
-.-.
. _
_ - ___ -
- _. -. - -
~ - -
-
. _ -.
e
.
'
.
>
..
(4) Allegation No calculations are being required for stanchion plates.
They just state that the plate is under compression as the reason that calculations are not required.
This allegation was not substantiated, the design require-ments for stanchion plates were discussed in Paragraph 2.b.(1)
above.
(5) Allegation The Component Support Group (struts, snubbers, etc.) are
not doing the design calculaticns because they do not know how to do them. They indicate that this is the respon-
!
sibility of the Structural Support Group but the latter does not realize that this responsibility has been passed
l to them. He said the checkers should have caught this but
they have not.
l This allegation was not substantiated.
See Paragraph 2.a l
of this report.
(6) Allegation
If you add up the segments of dimensions on support drawings, they do not equal the overall dimension.
This allegation was not substantiated.
See Paragraph 2.a of this report.
,
j Subsequent to the inspection, the inspector stated that he was unable to substantiate any of the above allegation items.
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. Two unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs l.C. (1) and 1.c. (2).
Exit Interview.
The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the
^
inspection. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the in-
.spection. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
i l
t I
i i
t
-9-
!
- - -...
-.
.
- -
- - - - - -.
- -
- -
.
- -
-
-
- - -.
-
-