IR 05000387/1982034
| ML20028B261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1982 |
| From: | Durr J, Mccann J, Narrow L, Nicholas H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028B254 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-82-34, NUDOCS 8211300219 | |
| Download: ML20028B261 (5) | |
Text
r-
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Region I Report No. 82-34 Docket No. 50-387 License No. NPF-14 Priority Category B
--
Licensee: Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Facility Name:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Berwick, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducte August 2-24,1982 Inspectors:
M/
//
k2 L. Narr Reanto Inspector ~
date signed b.A%w,d HI,1W H.
Nichola,
eactor Inspector dat/e sfgned w%
dfw/M
//[L/FL
-
J. F. McCanri, Resident Inspector ddte/ signed Approved By:
d. b #
_ a,d/92 4) P. Durr, Chief, Material and Processes date ' signed Section, EPB Inspection Sum _ay :
Inspection on August 2-24, 1982 (Inspection Report No.
50-387/82-34 Areas Inspected: A special unannounced inspection by two region based and the resident inspector of the engineering and QA/QC programs for pipe supports and piping.
The inspection involved 79 hours9.143519e-4 days <br />0.0219 hours <br />1.306217e-4 weeks <br />3.00595e-5 months <br /> onsite by three inspectors.
Results: Of the three areas inspected, two violations were identified in one (1) Field modification of equipment without approved changes; and (2)
area:
failure to transmit design information to the field resulting in installation of pipe snubbers that could not function properly.
8211300219 5211b3
~
PDR ADOCK 05000387 l
C PDR
,
.
..
,
DETAILS
,
1.
Persons Contacted Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L)
R. Beckley, Resident NQA T. Clymer, QA Engineer, Operations j
- F. Eisenhuth, Senior Compliance Engineer i
- J. Green, Operations QA Supervisor
!
- H. W. Keiser, Superintendent, SSES
T. Newman, QA Engineer, Construction Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
i
,
J. Barrell, Civil Field Engineer G. Bell, Project QA Engineer K. Buchannen, Lead Hanger Engineer
,
O. Cronomize, Field Engineer
'
j G. Gelinas, Project Field QC Engineer
!
G. Glorvigen, QA Engineer l
F. Hand, Lead Civil Field Engineer
^
D. Harvey, Civil Field Engineer l
J. Johanson, Assistant Project Field Engineer T. McHenry, Assistant Project Field QC Engineer
.
!
B. Mukherjee, Plant Design Group Supervisor I
J. E. O'Sullivan, Assistant Project Field Engineer R. V. Parekh, Plant Design Group Supervisor R. Slaughter, Lead QCE - Pipe Supports Brond Industrial Services, Inc. (BISCO)
i T. Gilmore, Project Manager S. Mathias, QA Manager
!
2.
The inspector reviewed selected as-built pipe support drawings and
!
discussed changes to such drawings with Bechtel engineers.
He discussed I
as-built inspection with QA/QC personnel, reviewed QA documentation and selected QC inspection reports (QCIR's). He also observed installed pipe supports and inspected snubber connections to pipe clamps and to rear brackets.
a.
Pipe Support Drawings and QCIR's Reviewed DLA-101-H1, H2 and H4
.
DLA-102-H1, H2, H6, H7, H9*, H12, H13 and H14*
.
DLA-103-H1, H3 and H4
.
DLA-104-H8, H9, H10, H11, H12, H13, H14 and H15*
.
DCA-102-H6* and H9
.
DCA-111-H18* and H19*
.
GBC-101-H111, H188, and H267*
.
-
<
.
..
.
MST-022-H3*, H6 and H7
.
- QCIR's reviewed b.
Pipe Clamp to Snubber Connections Inspected DLA-102-H9, H12 and H14
.
DLA-104-H8, H9, H11, H12, H13, H14 and H15
.
DCA-10E-H6 and H9
_
.
OCA-111-H18
.
GBC-101-H111, H188 and H267
'
.
c.
Cutting of Pipe Clamp Flanges
,
The ends of the pipe clamp flanges for the supports listed below had been cut, reducing the specified length external to the load stud.
DLA-102-H9
.
DLA-102-H12
.
DLA-104-H9
.
DLA-104-H12
.
OLA-104-H14
.
Cutting of the pipe clamp flanges had been performed without engineering authorization and withcut QC inspection. Approval of ITT-Grinnel had been requested to remove 1/8 inch of material from the load stud end of the clamp flange and this approval was granted by TWX on October 17, 1978.
Minimum edge distance from center of load stud for all snubber sizes were supplied. This information was not shown on drawings supplied to the field. As-built drawings for pipe supports DLA-102-H12 and DLA-104-H12 had been " red-lined" to show the revised flange dimensions. Other drawings had no record of the changes.
/
The failure to properly document and control field design changes is a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III (387/82-34-01).
d.
Clearance Between Pipe Clamp Flange and Snubber Technical Specification No. 8856-M-209, Rev.13, requires that all pipe snubbers have structural connections which will permit 5 degree angular rotation in any direction.
For the pipe supports listed below, the clearance between fl[nges and snubbers could result in interference in case of movement of the pipe.
DCA-102-H9
.
DLA-102-H9
.
DLA-104-H9, H13 and H15
.
GBC-101-H188
.
e I
J
I
....
Pipe support detail drawings do not establish this dimension and it was not subject to QC inspection.
Failure to provide appropriate detail drawings and acceptance criteria is a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III (387/82-34-02).
e.
Fabrication of Pipe Support Hardware Onsite The inspector examined work orders for onsite fabrication of special fittings and parts for pipe supports which had been issued in 1982.
QC inspection reports of selected pipe supports were reviewed to determine that the site fabricated parts had been included in the QC inspection of the pipe supports. No work orders had been issued during this period for fabrication of rear brackets for snubbers.
During field inspection for clearance between pipe clamp flanges and snubbers, and cutting of pipe clamp flanges the inspector checked rear brackets. Clearance for lateral movement of snubbers was adequate.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
f.
Quality-Related Documents The inspector audited the Bechtel records listed below (for 1978-1982) to identify deficiencies related to pipe supports.
QA Audits
.
Nonconformance Reports (NCR's)
.
Management Corrective Action Requests (MCAR's)
.
Field Change Requests (FCR's)
.
Field Change Notices (FCN's)
.
,
Engineering Memo's to Construction (EMC's)
.
Construction Memo's to Engineering (CME's)
.
,
The licensee's QC audits and NCR's for 1981-1982 were also audited.
The purpose of this audit was to determine if clearance between pipe clamps and snubbers or clamping of small bore pipe to provide 3-way anchorage had been identified as problems during installation.
These deficiencies were not identified on the documentation reviewed although clearance had been referred to ITT-Grinnel as discussed in paragraph 3.3 above.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this matter.
3.
Nozzle Loads Due to Small Bore Pipe The question of nozzle loads due to small pipe was discussed with the licensee.
He stated that specific nozzle loads are checked if the vendor
....
provides the allowable load as a design requirement.
In other cases the engineer exercises his judgement in deciding whether a check on the actual load is required.
In most cases, for small bore pipe, a check is not required.
The inspector examined a list of equipment for which such nozzle loads had been analyzed.
To evaluate the completeness of this list he per-formed a random inspection of installed equipment and reviewed schematic drawing for the following systems:
Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage System
.
Residual Heat Removal System
.
Reactor Building Heating and Ventilation System
.
High Pressure Coolant Injection System
.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item and no violations were identified.
4.
Penetration Seals by BISCO The inspector examined specification 856-A-60, Rev. 2 for design and installation of penetration seals and discussed installation and in-spections of the seals with representatives of Bechtel Field Engineering (BFE) and BISCO. He also examined check lists used for as-built inspection by BFE and Internal Work Releases (IWRs) used by BISCO for performance of work and its inspection. Grouted seals are not included within the BISCO scope of work.
An initial walkdown is performed by BFE to verify as-built conformance to drawings. BISCO then prepares the as-built drawing which describes the penetrations and assigns sealant materials to be used.
Following approval of the as-built drawing by BFE the work is released on an IWR which is approved by BFE and which is retained as a work and inspection record.
In addition to monitoring of work in progress, BISCO QC monitors blending
of materials, performs density check and inspects the penetration prior to placement of materials.
The inspector had no further questions concerning this item.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspec ton on August 24, 1982.
In addition, Mr.
G. G. Rhoads, the NRC Resident
.nspector was present.
The inspector summarized the scope and findir.js of the inspection.