IR 05000400/1986032
| ML18003B252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1986 |
| From: | Blake J, Liu W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18003B251 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-86-32, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8605200257 | |
| Download: ML18003B252 (7) | |
Text
~
~R RGB
co I
0O
~O
<<>>*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 RePOrt NOsI 50-400/86-32 Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company P. 0.
Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docket No.:
50-400 License No e I CPPR-158 Facility Name:
Harris Unit
I Inspection Conducted:
April 21-25, 1986 Inspector:,I. '. C.Q M.
C iu Approved by:
J. J.
B a e, Sect on Chief Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety Date Signed Da e Signed SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection involved 34 inspector-hours on site in the areas of pipe support baseplate designs using concrete expansion anchor bolts (IEB 79-02),
seismic analysis for as-built safety-related piping systems ( IEB 79-14),
licensee action on previous enforcement matters, inspector followup item, and worker's concerns.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
s c s
8b05200257 8b0514 PDR
-*DOCK 05000400
',
l
~
~
Il r,
L
, n j
J'
V
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
"E. Wagner, Engineering General Manager
"M. Thompson, Jr.,
Manager HPEMS
- N. Chiangi, Manager, QA/QC
"G. Forehand, Director, QA/QC
- D. McGaw, Superintendent, QA
- H. Williams, Project Engineer, HPES Civil
"B. Marlar, Project Engineer, HPES Civil
- J. Underwood, Project Engineer, HPES
- D. Whitehead, QA Supervisor
- M. Holveck, Supervisor, HPES
"L. Loflin, Manager, HPES
"M. Vernon, Superintendent, QC
- M. Wallace, Specialist, Regulatory Compliance Other licensee employees contacted included QC inspectors, construction craftsmen, engineers and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors
"G. Maxwell, Senior Resident Inspector
"S. Burr is, Resident Inspector
"P. Humphrey, Resident Inspector Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 25, 1986, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detai
the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters a
~
(Closed)
Unresolved Item 400/84-43-02, Pipe Support Inspection Records.
This item involved missing records that were associated with the phase 1 and phase 2 inspections for three safety-related pipe hangers.
The lic'ensee had determined to remove all the phase 2 completed hangers from the vault, and had initiated a
new hanger inspection program
applied to all the pipe hangers including those that had previously been inspected by the phase 1 and phase 2 inspections.
Work Procedure No.
140 was generated so that engineering reviews for final acceptance of the hanger documentation could be completed prior to the packages being placed in the vault.
This item is considered closed.
b.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item 400/84-34-02, Pipe Support Discrepancies.
This item addressed concerns for four pipe supports with respect to the inspection of gaps between the baseplate and the concrete wall surface, the inspection of concrete expansion anchor bolts and baseplates, the potential clearance problems between pipe hanger and the adjacent pipe and a pipe support structural member notched to allow welding adjust-ment.
The inspector held discussions with licensee representatives regarding the above concerns and reviewed the response documents furnished by the licensee.
It was determined that the licensee had performed the necessary survey and follow-up actions regarding the aforementioned concerns and developed the necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of similar circumstances.
This item is considered resolved.
0'nresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during the inspection.
Inspector Followup Item (Cl osed)
Inspector Fol 1 owup Item 400/85-36-01, Newly Hired Engineer Training.
This item addressed a concern that CP&L had no program to train those newly hired engineers in the pipe support design group other than having them review the guidelines and specifications.
CP&L had just completed a
technical review of the STRUDL structural analysis of
randomly selected pipe hangers to confirm the computer modeling competence of engineers using STRUDL in the pipe support group and the effectiveness of the final design verification program.
Results of the sampling program revealed that no major discrepancies were identified in terms of correctly using the computer language by the engineering personnel.
In addition, CP&L had generated procedure 7.6.K, Guidelines for the Computer Control Program, dated January 9,
1986, to establish general requirements to control verification and use of the computer software that had been used in the design of safety-related items.
This item is considered closed.
6.
IE Bulletin 79-02, Pipe Support Baseplate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts Document Review The inspector reviewed portions of the following documents to determine whether the IE Bulletin 79-02 requirements have been adequately addressed and implemente Qualification Test Report on Drillco Maxi-Bolt Undercut Anchors, January 28, 1983 Field Test Results of ITT Red Head Wedge Type Anchors, October 17, 1981 Design of Plates Secured with Expansion Type Anchors, Revision
Analysis of Expansion-Anchored Plates Using Flexible Plate Theory, Revision
NPS Baseplate Analysis Program, March 21, 1984 Work Procedure WP-42, Installation of Maxibolt Undercut Expansion Anchors, March 3, 1986 Work Procedure WP-33, Installation of Wedge Expansion Bolt Anchors, January 20, 1986 Technical Procedure TP-39, Inspection of Drilled-In Expansion Anchors and Thru-Bolts, March 11, 1986 b.
Bulletin Closure The inspector has reviewed CP&L's letters of April 9, 1986 and January 4,
1980, and determined that the requested actions of the bulletin have been acceptably addressed'he inspector held discussions with licensee's representatives, reviewed the aforemen-tioned supporting documentation and observed represen'tative samples of work to verify that the actions identified in the letter of response have been completed.
This bulletin is considered closed.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
7.
IE Bulletin 79-14, Seismic Analysis For As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems Document Review The inspector reviewed portions of the following documents associated with the bulletin requirements and the licensee commitments.
Design Guidelines 7.2.H, 79-14 Stress Analysis Verification of Safety-Related Piping Systems, April 19, 1985 Design Guidelines 7.2. I, Piping Stress Analysis, November 13, 1985 Design Guidelines 7.2.A, Piping Support/Restraint Design and Modification, October 2, 1985
Technical Procedure TP-34, Inspection of the Installation of Seismic 1 Pipe Hangers for Seismically Analyzed Pipe, June 3,
1985 Work Procedure WP-110, Installation of Q and Non-Q Pipe Hanger and Supports, March 12, 1986 Work Procedure WP-141, As-Constructed Pipe, September 24, 1985 Piping Stress Calculation No.
166 for Chemical and Volume Control, and Residual Heat Removal Systems, 79-14 Review, November 6, 1985 b.
. Bulletin Closure The inspector has reviewed CP&L's letter of March 28, 1986, and determined that the requested actions of the bulletin have been acceptably addressed.
The inspector held discussions with licensee's representatives regarding the implementation of the NRC requirements and the licensee commitments, reviewed the aforementioned supporting documentation and observed representative samples of work to verify that the actions identified in the letter of response have been completed.
This bulletin is considered closed.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Worker's Concerns a
Pipe Hanger Installation IL Concern:
Craft personnel were instructed to install four pipe hangers without the proper paperwork.
These four pipe hangers are:
1-CT-H-298, 1-CT-H-299, 1-CT-H-300, and 1-RH-H-38.
(2)
Discussion:
The inspector performed a
field inspection to determine whether the above hangers were consistent with the latest design drawings.
The inspector noted that the four pipe hangers were finally inspected by the licensee on September 4,
September 3, August 8, and July 14, 1985, respectively.
It should be noted that the worker's concern was identified in the month of May 1985.
Therefore, the aforementioned hangers were not finalized at the time the concern was raised.
No discrepancies were identified during the field inspection.
In addition, the inspector reviewed design calculations for the above four hangers.
It was found that the latest design loads were considerably less than the previous design loads for each of the four hangers.
Further, the inspector held discussions with three craftsmen who were involved in the installation of pipe hangers.
All indicated that work activities were performed in accordance with procedures and instruction (3)
Finding:
On the basis of the above field inspection, the design calculation reviews, and the craftsmen discussions, it is concluded that the four pipe hangers installed can serve their intended function as required by the.design.
The concern has, therefore, no safety significance.
b.
Pipe Hanger Baseplate Installation ( 1)
Concern:
Inside the top of the Reactor Building, there are about 100 hanger baseplates which were incorrectly installed in that 3/8 inch plates were welded back to back instead of 3/4 inch plates called for on the design drawings.
(2)
Discussion:
The inspector held discussions with licensee representatives regarding the above concern.
It was noted that the hangers installed in the area were used to support the containment spray system.
The inspector reviewed the applicable design drawings and noted that 3/4 inch baseplates were specified on the drawings.
'In order to verify plate thickness for actual installation, the licensee determined to initiate a
sampling program by selecting 1S baseplates for seven pipe hangers.
A "D" meter was used to measure the plate thickness.
Results of the sampling program conducted on April 22, 1986, revealed that all the 15 baseplates measured were 3/4 inch thick.
(3)
Finding:
Based on the results of the above sampling program, it is determined that the hanger baseplates were installed in accordance with design drawings.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.