IR 05000373/1982031
| ML20062H167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1982 |
| From: | Danielson D, Williams C, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062H143 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-82-31, NUDOCS 8208130325 | |
| Download: ML20062H167 (6) | |
Text
-
.
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/82-31(DETP)
Docket No. 50-373 License No. CPPR-99 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Teledyne Engineering Services (TES),
Waltham, Mass.
Sargent and Lundy Engineers (S&L),
Chicago, IL Inspection Conducted: June 9-10 and 18, 1982 (TES)
June 15-16, 1982 (S&L)
Inspector:
I. T. Yin
.
Accompanying Personnel:
C. C. Williams (6/9-10/82 only)
D. Terao (6/15/82 only)
0W2Em 7 7 7>
.
Approved By:
C. C. Williams. Chief Plant Systems Section b*
/
/
D. H. Danielson, Chief 7/ 7/ E'p Materials and Processes Section Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 9-10, 15-16, and 18, 1982 (Report No. 50-373/82-31(DETP))
Areas Inspected: Inspection of TES Independent Design Review (IDR) of RHR Loop C LPCI mode in the areas of piping stress analysis and design of pipe whip restraints; review of previously identified findings. The inspection involved a total of 31 inspector-hours at the design engineering offices.
Results: No items of violation or deviation were identified.
,
8208130325 820728 PDR ADOCK 05000373
,
G PDR m.
.
-
.
-.
,_,
_, - _.
_
e
.
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Inspection at TES on 6/9-10, and 18/81 TES R. A. Enos, Manager, Projects J. P. King, Manager, Class 1 Piping J. C. Tsacoyennes, Consulting Engineer D. F. Landers, Senior Vice President J. Rivaro, Project Engineer J. A. Flaherty, Project Manager L. J. DiLuna, Manager, Design CECO B. R. Shelton, Project Engineering Manager S&L R. H. Pollock, Mechanical Project Engineer S. D. Killian, Project Engineer S. M. Kazmi, Supervising Design Engineer Inspection at S&L on 6/15-16/82 SEL R. H. Pollock, Mechanical Project Engineer S. K. Goel, Structural Analytical Division Coordinator B. A. Erler, Structural Design Director L. P. Dolder, QA Coordinator E. Branch, Mechanical Design Director R. Rabin, Senior QA Coordirator R. Cheboub, Supervisor Engineering Specialist C. N. Kirshnaswamy, Head, Structural Engineering Specialist Division R. J. Mazza, Project Director G. T. Kitz, Head, EMD Y. S. Wang, S. E. Specialist M. M. Hassaballa, Supervisor Component Qualification Division B. R. Gogineni, P. E.-Component Qualification Division S. M. Kazmi, Supervising Design Engineer M. Salmon, Consultant, EMD S. D. Killian, Project Engineer CECO B. R. Shelton, Project Engineering Manager G. F. Marcus, Director of QA 2'
__.
--., -
.
,
,,
.-
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Ites (373/81-29-01): Lack of procedure provisions for measuring gap clearances between the high energy process piping and the surrounding pipe whip restraint structure. The inspector reviewed the LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, " Hot Linewalk Inspection Procedure (HLIP)," Revision 1, dated 5/12/82, and has no further questions.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (373/82-11-07): The thrust loading reactions, including the discharge line pressurization in conjunction with other primary loading conditions during telief valve lift was not included in the calcula-tion. The inspector reviewed S&L EMD Piping Analysis Lesson Plan, Volume II, LaSalle County Project Unique Procedures and Design Data, EMD-025244, Revi-sion 2, dated 4/9/82. The specific requirements were incorporated in Para-graphs 2.1.7 " Hydraulic Transient Analysis," and 2.1.8, " Individual Analysis Requirements."
(Open) Unresolved Item (373/8-22-08): Where the piping moment of inertia (I) ratio between the header and the branch connection is close to 7 to 1, there is a possibility that equipment nozzle loading increases could exceed the manufacturer's allowables and that header support and restraint load increases could be substantial.
S&L performed the evaluation outlined
'in Region III Report No. 50-373/82-11, Paragraph 8 and documented the find-ings in EMD Calculation No. 035739, " Evaluation of the Effects of Branch Lines on the Header Restraint System," Revision 0, dated 4/30/82. The report indicates that while most of the header restraint and nozzle loads decreased, there are some header support loading increases up to 15% and some pump nozzle connection loading increases up to 54%. These load in-creases in Unit I had been evaluated to be acceptable.
In discussions with the S&L Mechanical Design Director, it was stated that the EMD design procedure will be revised for Unit-2 to include the modification of the 7 to 1 I ratio design rule. This will be s long term unresolved issue.
Functional or Program Areas Inspp.cted The Region III inspector performed inspection followup of TES IDR of RHR LPCI mode for Loop C at TES and S&L in June 1982. The TES reports reviewed by the inspector included:
TES Technical Report TR-5539-1, " Initial Status Report for the Period
.
February 11 through March 12, 1982." dated 3/12/82.
TES TR-5539-2, " Final Report," dated 5/28/82.
.
TES Addendum to TR-5539-2, dated 6/18/82.
.
1.
Region III Followup of TES Findfags There are 20 deviation and error items, and 31 open items identifien in TR-5539-2, dated 5/28/82. The inspector reviewed all the items and selcted a number of more significant issues for review followup at TES on 6/9-10/82, and at S&L on 6/15-16/82. The purpose of the
.
.
.
.
inspections were to obtain a better understanding of the issues, and to extend the observation to ensure that S&L corrective actions are generic and systematic in' coverage of necessary procedure upgrade, personnel training, and program implementation. The issues reviewed included:
a.
Open Item (OI) No. 9, Error (E) No. 5, E 16, and E 19 involved incorrect system temperature for the piping stress analyses.
i Although there appeared to be no safety issue involved, since all identified temperatures were more conservative than required, the licensee nonetheless committed to evaluate all the systems using actual design temperature to determine whether or not there can i
be any reduction in the number of snubbers that have already been installed. The licensee further committed that the review will be completed prior to the first refueling outage, and that any system suspension modification will be carried out prior to the completion of the refueling outage. This is an unresolved item.
(373/82-31-01)
b.
OI6, E8, and E9 involved incorrect elbow stress indices. S&L reviewed all affected systems for LS-1.
The computer program was revised on June 8, 1982. The Technical Lesson Plan will be revised by June 30, 1982. Personnel training has been conducted, c.
OI24 stated that the pipe was in contact with the floor penetra-tion.
S&L reviewed all LS-1 inspection packages, and identified three other similar cases. Resolutions had been completed.
2.
TES IDR Deficiencies a.
TES Engineering Procedure EP-1-009, "TES Project Plan for IDR of LaSalle County Nuclear Power Plant RHR System," dated 2/19/82, stated in Paragraph 2.1 that, "The reviewer will accept dynamic spectra for the buildings involved as presented and will only assure that their application to the system is appropriate."
Contrary to the above, the effort was carried out Unly for the RHR pump qualification evaluation.
It was not performed during piping review to ensure that the latest controlled response spectra had been utilized in the computer calculations.
Inspection followup conducted on o/18/82 at TES concluded that there had been adequate measures taken subsequently by the TES staff to verify that the application of response spectra within the piping stress analyses was correct. This was documented in the TES Addedum to TR-5539-2, dated 6/18/82.
b.
TES Technical Report No. 5539-2, "IDR LaSalle County Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Final Report," dated May 28, 1981, stated in Faragraph 2.0, Scope, that, "TES was also requested to review high energy pipe whip restraints."
-_
.
.
-
,
Contrary to the above, the TES Engineering Procedure had not been revised to include the pipe whip restraint analysis review in-cluding a review of the required design documents and basis, field inspection, and acceptance criteria.
Inspection followup conducted on 6/18/82 relative to the TES Addendum to TR-5539-2, dated 6/18/82 concluded:
(1) The TES procedure for the IDR in the areas of pipe whip restraint design and analysis program was inadequate; there was no detailed documentation on what TES had reviewed or hee the specific restraint design revicw was factored into the overall design control program; and TES's conclusion that the S&L SDD-8, " Analysis and Design of Pipe Whip Restraints," dated January 1975 was contrary to the Region III inspector's finding that SDD-8 does not contain suffi-
.cient detailed design instructions. The above findings were discussed between NRC NRR and Region III at NRC Head-quarters on 6/21/82. NRR did not consider these' findings to be problems.
.
(2) The use of the energy absorbing honeycomb crushable aluminum material was not clearly defined. Since this is not an ASME or an ASTM material, and it is not prescribed in the FSAR except for showing the desirable performance characteristics of the precrushed honeycor.b to be 6 ksi stress up to.70 in/in strain, the inspector considered that the review of the S&L specifications and testing at design environmental conditions should have been a part of the TES review.
In regard to this finding, the NRR representatives indicated during a meeting held at the NRC Headquarters on 6/21/82, that review of this issue was not specified_ for the TES task; therefore, it was not perceived to be a deficiency.
Subsequently, the licensee was asked to provide a copy of
'
the material design specification and qualified test data i
for the inspector's review. This is an unresolved item.
l (373/82-31-02)
(3) E12, and E13 stated that S&L was using Class 1 stress allowables for checking Class 2 RHR pump transient loadings.
In review of the Biz1aard local stress calculations, the inspector found that the as-built geometry of the motor shaft stuffing box at the pump discharge elbow hrd not been applied.
Although subsequent recalculation by S&L determined that the difference in stresses between the as-built and as-designed conditions were insignificant, the TES IDR relative to com-parison of "as-built" documentation to RHR Loop C configura-tion appeared to have been insufficient in detail to detect the above deficiency.
t
o
..
.
.-
..
Unresolved Items Unresolved items'are matters about which more information la required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-compliance or deviations. The unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 1.a, and 2.b.(2).
' Exit Interview-The inspector met with licensee representative at the conclusion of the
-
inspections. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
6