IR 05000410/1985021
| ML17058A511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1985 |
| From: | Linville J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17058A510 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-85-21-MM, NUDOCS 8507170402 | |
| Download: ML17058A511 (84) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No. 85-21 Docket No.
50-410 Licensee No.
CPPR-112 Priority Category A
Licensee:
Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration 300 Erie Boulevard
/
S racuse New York 13202 Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Inspection At:
Scriba New York Inspection Conducted:
J ne
1985 Approved by:
J.
Li ille, Chief, Reactor rojects Section C,
DRP d
e Meetin Summar
Mana ement Conference on June
1985 Re ort No. 50-410/85-21
~Summar
- Special management conference convened at the request of Region I to discuss the results of the Large Bore Pipe Support reinspection effort conducted by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
The identified nonconforming conditions were presented in conjunction with the associated engineering analysis which demonstrated that the weld conditions would satisfy the design intent.
Enhanced system walkdowns are scheduled to detect and rectify mechanical deficiencies.
The basic philosophy used by Niagara Mohawk to demonstrate the acceptability of previously inspected pipe supports was acknowledged by Region I.
A further meeting was requested by Region I to discuss three additional commodity reinspection results along with information pertaining to Reactor Controls, Inc.
and electrical separation problems.
The meeting of June 17 was approximately two hours in duration.
8SO7i7O4O~
SBO7f2=.
- DOCK 000004$ 0
'P.DR3
r J
0'V
DETAILS Attendees Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration NMPC C.G.
Beckham, Quality Assurance Manager, NMPC (MAC)
W.J.
Donlon, President, NMPC C.V. Mangan, Vice President Nuclear Engineering, NMPC J.A. Perry, Director of Quality Assurance, NMPC (MAC)
D.L. Quamme, Project Director, NMPC (MAC)
U.S. Nuclear Re viator Commission NRC S.J. Collins, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 2, ORP J.P.
Durr, Chief, Engineering Branch, DRS S.D. Ebneter, Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS)
R.A.
Gramm, Senior Resident Inspector NMP-2 J. Linville, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2C, ORP K. Manoly, Lead Reactor Engineer, DRS T. Murley, Regional Administrator R.W. Starostecki, Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)
J. Wiggins, Chief, Materials and Processes (ORS)
H.J.
Mong, Senior Reactor Construction Engineer, IE Stone and Webster En ineerin Cor oration S.C.
Chow, Assistant Division Manager Engineering Mechanics, Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.
(SWEC)
C.E. Crocker, Superintendent of Engineering (SWEC)
Back round Information The NRC Construction Appraisal Team inspection (50-410/83-18)
was performed in late 1983.
That inspection effort identified numerous inconsistencies between inspected hardware installations and the associated design documents.
Those results prompted Niagara Mohawk Quality Assurance to perform a number of reinspection efforts to ascertain the conformance of hardware installations to the design requirements.
The reinspection efforts were conducted by Quality Assurance personnel of the following commodities:
~Comm odit Res onsible Contractor uantit Pipe Supports Pipe Supports Instrument Tubing Supports HVAC Supports Mechanical Equipment SWEC SWEC
6 ITT-Grinnell 175 SWEC
Johnson Control s,, Inc.
150
t
'h
'I l4 0'
Piping Mechanical Piping Welds Concrete Surface Structural Steel Concrete Expansion Anchors Nuclear Coatings Electrical Equipment Conduit Cable Tray Raceway Supports Cables ITT-Grinnell ITT-Grinnell SWEC S'MEC Various SWEC SMEC SWEC SWEC SMEC SWEC
isometrics
isometrics 6600 ft 80 members/
120 connections
2000 ft
189 106 319 771 Niagara Hohawk gA compiled a
summary of the deficiencies identified during the course of the reinspection efforts.
A determination was made as to the timeframe in which the deficient item had originally been accepted by the associated contractor quality control organization.
SWEC engineering analyzed the consequences of the noted deficiencies with respect to the ability of the component to perform the design function.
A meeting was scheduled between Region I and Niagara Mohawk to discuss the results of the ITT-Grinnell pipe support reinspection as a considerable number of deficiencies were documented during the reinspection for that commodity.
~Meetin ~Summa>
The meeting of June 17, 1985 was scheduled specifically to discuss the reinspection results and engineering analysis for the ITT-Grinnell large bore pipe supports.
Niagara Mohawk gA reinspected 50 supports and found 24 that were not in full compliance with the design criteria, while SWEC reinspected 125 and found 64 that were not in full compliance.
The supports had originally been accepted
'during 1982, 1983 and 1984.
The support deficiencies included improperly installed bolted connections, clearance violations, improper piping gaps, arc strikes, and other miscellaneous attributes.
A licensee assessment found that ITT guality Control procedures were generally adequate to address the engineering requirements and that the inspector qualification program was satis-factory.
The root cause of the problem was that guality Control inspectors had independently made judgements regarding the hardware acceptability where either the inspection tolerances were lacking or the engineering specifications were subject to interpretation.
SWEC engineering evaluated all of the noted weld deficiencies and found that adequate design conservatism was available such that the installed supports and the adjacent piping system components, would still perform the design function.
Engineering has since established criteria for weld size and length tolerances based upon NRC approval of ASME code case 413 and SWEC design conservatis '4 l
r
guality Assurance implemented the following actions to preclude further ITT support problems and to identify additional deficient supports:
Enhanced the ITT-Grinnell N-5 walkdown program to specifically examine pipe support bolting hardware, support to pipe gaps, support clearances, support damage from adjacent work activities, and proper
'nchor bolt identification.
Initiated ITT-Grinnell construction/engineering pre-examination prior to the support release to guality Control.
Enhanced the post inspection rework control program.
Incorporated engineering tolerance criteria into the ITT inspection procedures.
Directed ITT-Grinnell to completely reinspect supports accepted after December 1,
1984.
Directed SMEC to maintain a surveillance of support adequacy accepted by ITT-Grinnell guality Control after December 1,
1984.
Eight ITT-Grinnell Quality Control inspectors identified as having accepted nonconforming installations, were decertified and retrained.
The licensee has concluded that based upon the reinspections performed, the associated engineering analysis, and the enhanced guality Control walkdown attributes, the acceptability of the pipe supports installed by ITT-Grinnell will be ensured.
4.
~Summa@
Region I indicated that the basic philosophy that was ut,ilized by Niagara Mohawk to evaluate the acceptability of the pipe support commodity was satisfactory.
Further review of the engineering criteria is discussed within Inspection Reports 50-410/85-06 and 85-19.
Region I further requested that additional worst case commodity results be presented by the licensee in addition to an overview of the quality of Reactor Controls Inc. work and the site resolution of numerous electrical separation problems.
A meeting date of July 23, 1985 has been schedule <~=
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS NRC MEETING AGENDA INTRODUCTION PROBLEM DESCRIPTION QUALITYASSURANCE ASSESSMENT D. Quamme C. Beckham C. Beckham ENGINEERING EVALUATION C. Crocker QUALITYASSURANCE EVALUATION CONCLUSION C. Beckham D. Quamme
i
.
~ \\
p CvIS 1N
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED ON PREVIOUSLY ITT GRINNELL FIELD QUALITYCONTROL (FQC)
ACCEPTED LARGE BORE SUPPORTS
~ NRC CONSTRUCTION APPRAISAL TEAM INSPECTION
~ NRC RESIDENT INSPECTOR INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
'
NMPC SURVEILLANCEAND AUDITACTIVITIES
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION CONTD NMPC CONDUCTED AN OVERVIEW INSPECTION OF 5Q LARGE BORE SUPPORTS PREVIOUSLY INSPECTED ANDACCEPTED BY ITT GRINNELL FQC OVERVIEWINSPECTION IDENTIFIED24 LARGE BORE SUPPORTS THATDID NOT COMPLY COMPLETELY WITH THE LATEST ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS
g(
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS PROBLEM IDENTIFICATIONCONTD BASED ON THE RESULTS OF THIS OVERVIEW INSPECTION NMPC DIRECTED SWEC TO PERFORM ADDITIONALREINSPECTION OF PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED ITT GRINNELL LARGE BORE SUPPORTS
~ SWEC REINSPECTED 125 LARGE BORE SUPPORTS
~ THIS INSPECTION IDENTIFIED 64 LARGE BORE SUPPORTS THAT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE LATEST ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS,,
.
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS ATTRIBUTES REINSP ECTED EACH LARGE BORE SUPPORT WAS REINSPECTED FOR WELDING AND MECHANICALATTRIBUTES INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES IDENTIFIEDAS UNSATISFACTORY
~ LOCATION
~ CONFIGURATION
~ COMPONENT MATERIALIDENTIFICATION
~ BOLTED CONNECTION THREAD ENGAGEMENT
~ PLATE GAP
~ TUBE STEEL VENT HOLES FOR SEAL-WELDED PRODUCTS
~ BOLTED CONNECTIONS TIGHT & HAVE LOCKING DEVICES WHERE REQUIRED
~ OFFSET OF SUPPORT RODS
~ SWAY STRUT & SHOCK SUPPRESSION DIMENSIONS
~ CLEARANCES
~ LOCATED OVER CIRCUMFERENTIALPIPE WELDS
~ ANCHOR BOLT LENGTH IDENTIFICATION
~ ARC STRIKES, DAMAGE, DENTS, GOUGES & EXCESSIVE GRINDING
~ WELDING BASED ON THE RE-INSPECTION RESULTS, A PROBLEM REPORT t POTENTIAL50.55 (E)) WAS INITIATEDBYQUALITYASSURANCE ON 12-4-84. THIS PROBLEM REPORT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EVALUATEDBY ENGINEERING ON 1-10-85 ANDWAS DETERMINEDNOT TO BE REPORTABLE PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF 50.55(E)
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS TIME FRAME OF PROBLEM ALLSUPPORTS ACCEPTED BY ITT-G QUALITYCONTROL PRIOR TO 11/1/84 {2846)
YEAR 1982 SUPPORTS REINSP ECTED SUPPORTS REJECTED 1983 1984 TOTAL
87 175
45
CINE 1lt
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS QUALITYPROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FQC PROCEDURES AND INSPECTION CHECKLISTS ADEQUATELYADDRESS SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS igSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONPROGRAM IS SATISFACTORY QUAL)F)CAT)ON TECHNICALTRAINING IS SATISFACTORY INSPECTORS TRYING TO ASSESS ACCEPTABILITY ROOT CAUSE LACKOF INSPECTION TOLERANCE IN SPECIFICATION /CODE SPECIFICATION/CODE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION INSPECTORS MAKINGACCEPTABILITY ASSESSMENT
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS WELI3 CONCERNS I
SUPPORTS LINEAR INCHES REINSP ECTED REJECTED PERCENT 175
24 30,000 180 0.6 ATTRIBUTES CAUSING REJECTION
~ UNDERSIZE WELD
~ SHORT
~ UNDERCUT
~ OVERLAP
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS MECHANICALCONCERNS REINSP ECTED REJECTED PERCENT SUPPORTS 175
26.3 ATTRIBUTES 2250+
3.3 ATTRIBUTES CAUSING REJECTION
~ BOLTED CONNECTIONS TIGHT & HAVE LOCKING DEVICES WHERE REQUIRED
~ SUPPORT GAPS
~ SUPPORT CLEARANCES
~ SUPPORT FREE OF ARC STRIKES, DAMAGE, DENTS, GOUGES AND EXCESSIVE GRINDING
~ ANCHOR BOLT LENGTH IDENTIFICATION
~ MISCELLANEOUSATTRIBUTES 36*
)0*
75 (61*)
- PROBABILITYOF CHANGE AFTER INSPECTION SIGNOFF.
TO ASSURE THAT QUALITYIS MAINTAINEDTHESE ATTRIBUTES WILLBE REVERIFIED AT FINALINSPECTION DURING WALKDOWNPRIOR TO N-NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS PROBLEM ANALYSIS
~ INSPECTION PROCESS DID NOT CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD
~ CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED BY REINSPECTION PERFORMED BY SWEC/
NMPC ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF ENTIRE SUPPORT POPULATION HIGH CONFIDENCE THAT MORE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS DO NOT EXIST
$1elb Ill
Y
CH85 838
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS INSPECTION RESULTS 175 SUPPORTS INSPECTED 42 SUPPORTS WITH WELDING DISCREPANCIES 30,000 INCHES INSPECTED 6 180 INCHES WITH MINOR DISCREPANCIES
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS UMMARY F
ELD WELD UNDERSIZE o WELD UNDERLENQTH UNDERCUT o OVERLAP
TOTALSUPPORTS
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS ENGINEERING EVALUATION
~ ENGINEERING INSPECTION OF HARDWARE e REVIEW DESIGN CALCULATIONS e ALLSUPPORTS ARE ACCEPTABLE 9 LARGE SAFETY FACTORS DUE TO DESIGN CONSERVATISM NO SAFETY CONCERNS
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS INHERENT CONSERVATISM IN ENGINEERING METHODOLOGY e DESIGN LOAD DEFINITION e ENVELOPED AMPLIFIEDRESPONSE SPECTRA AT ALLELEVATIONS
~ AMPLIFIEDRESPONSE SPECTRA PEAK SPREADING e PIPING DAMPING VALUES ASME III CODE e METHOD OF ANALYSIS
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS SEE DETAILA I
DETAILA 0.250" WELD SIZE SPECIFIED ON DRAWING 0.25" ACTUALWELD SIZE 0.19" WELD SIZE NEEDED 0.08" SAFETY FACTOR = 0.19 / 0.08 = 2.4 SECTION 1
~ \\
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS SEE DETAILA DETAILA 0.250" WELD SIZE SPECIFIED ON DRAWING 0.25" ACTUALWELD SIZE 0.19" WELD SIZE NEEDED 0.07" SAFETY FACTOR = 0.19 I 0.07 = 2.7 SECTION 1
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS WORST CASE EVALUATIONS LARGESAFETY FACTOR EXISTS BASED ON AS-BUILTWELD SIZES LARGE DESIGN MARGIN REMAINS SUPPORTS ACCEPTABLE WITH THE SMALLEST OBTAINABLEWELD (1 /8")
e PIPING ACCEPTABLE IF A SUPPORT WITH WELDING DISCREPANCIES WAS NOT INSTALLED
I
~
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS INSP ECTION CRITERIA e REVIEWED EXISTING'CRITERIA SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION NO TOLERANCE PROVIDED 4 UNNECESSARY AND POTENTIALLY DAMAGINGREPAIRS
~ INDUSTRY PROBLEM
~ OTHER PROJECTS 8 VISUALWELD ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (NUCLEAR CONSTRUCTION ISSUES GROUP)
6 CODE CASES/ASME
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS REVISED INSPECTION CRITERIA e TO PROVIDE REALISTIC, PRACTICAL MEASUREMENT TOLERANCE
~ JUSTIFICATION 8 ASME CODE CASE N-413 (ACCEPTED BY NRC)
'
DESIGN CONSERVATISM
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS WELD QUALITY REVISED INSPECTION CRITERIA ATTRIBUTE OLD CRITERIA REVISED CRITERIA IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENT SWEC E 8c DCR JUSTIFICATION WELD LENGTH NO(-)TOLERANCE 12 PERCENT UNDERLENGQH OVERLAP NO TOLERANCE 3/8" LONG FOR WELDS) 2" UNDERCUT (1/32" UNDERCUT SHALI NOT ENCROACH ON THE REQUIRED SECTION THICKNESS FILLETWELD SIZE NO(-)TOLERANCE-1/16" FOR WELDSM1/4"
-1/32" FOR WELDS 4 1/4" F02099B F02174A P02585A P02585A N413 & DESIGN CONSERVATISM N413 & DESIGN CONSERVATISM N413 & DESIGN CONSERVATISM ASME III-NF4424(b)
~707 t p4p PAD F021 74A DESIGN CONSERVATISM
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS CONCLUSION ENGINEERING EVALUATION ALLSUPPORTS ARE ACCEPTABLE LARGE SAFETY FACTOR BASED ON AS-BUILTWELD SIZES e CONSISTENT WITH PAST CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE e SIMILARCONDITIONS EXIST ON OTHER
,
- PROJECTS 6 MORE PRACTICAL INSPECTION CRITERIA 6 NO SAFETY CONCERNS e NO FURTHER REINSPECTION REQUIRED
A
~
~
WRP~IW h
C HIS t<0
. 1 NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS QPMP ACTION e IDENTIFIED HIGH ITT-G QUALITY CONTROL REJECT RATE o IDENTIFIEDSPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES CAUSING REJECTS AND INITIATED CORRECTIVE ACTION e INITIATEDITT-G CONSTRUCTION/
ENGINEERING PRE-INSPECTION PRIOR TO RELEASE TO QUALITYCONTROL
~ REMOVED ITT-G QUALITYCONTROL FROM P RE-INSP ECTION STATUSING
~ INITIATEDPOST ACCEPTANCE REWORK AWARENESS PROGRAM
E A
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS UALITYPROGRAM
- ENHANCEMENT ENGINEERS PROVIDED INSPECTION TOLERANCE
~ MEETINGS HELD WITH CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL AND QUALITYCONTROL INSPECTORS TO REITERATE THEIR ROLE IN QUALITYPROGRAM I IDENTIFIEDSPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES FOR REINSPECTION AT FINALWALKDOWN E'vow ns
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS FQC-4.2-26-2 FINALSYSTEM WALKDOWN CHECKLIST ATTRIBUTES 6 THREAD FASTENER LOCKING DEVICES 6 JAM NUTS ON HILTIBOLTS o SUPPORTS NOT ON CIRCUMFERENTIALWELDS o THREAD ENGAGEMENT e COLD SETTINGS 0 ISI CLEARANCES o ARC STRIKES, GOUGES, DAMAGE o GAPS SUPPORT CLEARANCES
~ MISSING, LOOSE OR DAMAGEDHARDWARE
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS REINSPECTION PROGRAM
~ FINALWALKDOWNINSPECTION ASSURES REINSPECTION OF SPECIFIC MECHANICALATTRIBUTES ITT-6 TO COMPLETELY REINSPECT SUPPORTS ACCEPTED AFTER 12/1/84 e SWEC SURVEILLANCEOF SUPPORTS ACCEPTED AFTER 12/0 /84
Pl
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS SURVEILLANCE/AUDITRESULTS SUPPORTS ACCEPTED AFTER 12/1/84 NMPC/SWEC SURVEILLANCE EA/QA AUDIT SUPPORTS RESINSP ECTED 150
REJECTED WELDING 5 (3.3%)
REJECTED MECHANICAL 24 (16~/o)
1 (5%)
REJECTED ATTRIBUTES WERE SIMILARTO THOSE IDENTIFIED IN FIRST REINSPECTION. ENGINEERING HAS EVALUATEDTHESE RESULTS AND THE SUPPORTS ARE ACCEPTABLE AS I. 0 NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS WELI3 CONCERNS ATTRIBUTE UNDERSIZE LENGTH UNDERCUT PROFILE CONCERNS TOTAL-WELDS INSPECTED TOTALWELDS REJECTED 0/o REJECTED 0.4%
INITIALWELD ACCEPTANCE
83 sa
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS MECHANICALCONCERNS ATTRIBUTE CONCERNS HARDWARE INSTALLATION MATERIALTRACEABILITY CLEARANCES/GAPS DIMENSIONS ORIENTATION POST WELD HEAT TREATMENT TOTALATTRIBUTES INSPECTED TOTALATTRIBUTES REJECTED
% REJECTED 9 *
4 **
4 *
5 *
4 ***
2000
1.35%
- FINALWALKDOWNINSPECTION ATTRIBUTE
- DOCUMENTATIONREVIEW
- FINALWALKDOWNAND ENGINEERING AS-BUILT WALKDOWN
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS SURVEILLANCEEVALUATION
~ TWENTYTHREE INSPECTORS
~ NINE INSPECTORS
~ EIGHT INSP ECTORS SUPPORTS ACCEPTABLE ONE SUPPORT REJECTED TWO OR MORE SUPPORTS REJECTED SUPPORTS STILL BEING REWORKED WITHOUT PROPER CONTROL
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS CORRECTIVE ACTION
~ DE-CERTIFIED EIGHT (8) INSPECTORS-RE-TRAIN AND RE-CERTIFY PRIOR TO FURTHER INSPECTION
~ STRENGTHENED THE REWORK CONTROL FOR LARGE BORE SUPPORTS
1g
.
I ~
I CN4$ 'lit
l)
NMP2 PIPE SUPPORTS CONCLUSIONS 4 I e ORIGINALPROBLEM CAUSED BY INSPECTORS ASSESSING ADEQUACY e REITERATION OF INSPECTORS'OLE o PROVIDED ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCE TO INSPECTORS e SURVEILLANCEINDICATES QUALITY PROGRAM IS SATISFACTORY
~ LARGE BORE SUPPORT PROGRAM IS SATISFACTORY CHIS MI
'T