IR 05000416/1981037
| ML20032B444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1981 |
| From: | Ang W, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B438 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-81-37, 50-417-81-15, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8111050549 | |
| Download: ML20032B444 (6) | |
Text
.
.
/
'o,,
UNITED STATES
!
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
$
E REGION 11
101 MARlETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o,%
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 s
Report Nos. 50-416/81-37 and 50-417/81-15 Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company Jackson, MS 39205 Facility Name: Grand Gulf Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-416 and 50-417 License Nos. CPPR-118 and CPPR-119
.
Inspection at d
eclear Station near Port Gibson, Mississippi
/O */ '8[
Inspector:
-
4*r-wt m g#
P. An'g.
~C Date Signed Approved by
- wrc d
//-/ M q J A. R. Eferdt, Sectio'yChief Date Signed i
Engineering Inspection Branch
/n Engineering and Technical Inspection Division i
,
SUMMARY Inspection on September 15-18, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 23 inspector-hours on site in the areas of pipe support base plate designs using concrete expansion anchor bolts (IEB 79-02) - Unit 1; seismic analysis for as-built safety related piping systems (IFB 79-14) - Unit 1; and licensee action on previous identified items - Units 1 and 2.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8111050549 811002
'
DR ADOCK 05000416
-
. _
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted L'icensee Employees
-
- G. B. Rogers, Project Manager T. Reaves, QA Manager
- J. W. Yelverton, QA Field Supervisor
- L. L. Anderson, Project Engineer
- S. F. Tanner, QA Coordinator
.
Other Organizations Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- J. D. Heaton, Project QA Manager L. Jha, Supervisory Plant 01 sign Engineer L. Lushbaugh, Stress Group Leader
? Gordon, Resident Pipe Support Engineer C. O'Neil, Project Engineer NRC oesident Inspector A. Wagner
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 18, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below. No dissenting comments were received from the license;:
(0 pen) Inspector Follow-up Item 416/81-37-01 - lack of inspections for piping and pipe support clearances and interferences.
(0 pen) Inspector Follow up Item 416/81-37-02 pipe support tolerance specifications allows zero gap for box type restraints.
(Closed) Licensee Identified Item 416/80-20-18 and 417/80-13-18 - expansion
'
anchors - installation without project engineering approval.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
>
-
.
.
.
~
-b n"r
-
'
s
_'
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
.
5.
Pipe support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion
'~
Anchor Bolts - IE Bulletin 79-02, Unit 1
'
On January 9,1980',,the licensee submitted a revised response to
~
IEB 79-02. A follow-on -inspection to those documented on IE Report Nos.
50-416/80-08 and 30-416/80-18 was performed to verify licensee compliance with commitments and bull.etin requirements.
The bulletin response was discussed with the licensee.
The licensee committed to provide a final response to IEB 79-02. ' The final response will further discuss the licensee's -inspection program and inspection results.
Based on results of previous inspections by the inspector and the licensee,
~
a reinspection program was performed by the licensee. All installed pipe
'
support concreta expansion anchors used in seismic Category I systems were reinspected except for a few that had become inaccessible subsequent to installation. The licensee committed to comply with the bulletin sampling criteria. All subsequent concrete expansion anchors installed on seismic Category I pipe supports would be inspected and tested in accordance with
.,.,
I the revised inspection procedures.
Bechtel Specification No. 9645-C-103.1, Revision 6, provided the technical specifications. for design and installation of concrete expansion anchors.
Bechtel QC Instructions 0717T, Revision 4 and 071ST, Revision 5 provided the
'
~
monitor.ing and verification requirements for concrete exparsion anchor
~
' installation. The instructions were reviewed and the concrete.xpansion anchors in the following Residual Heat Removal system pipe supports were inspected i,n conjunction with IEB 79-14 inspections:
f
,
-
a.
Q1E126012H15 b.
Q.1E12G012H01 c.
.Q1E12G012R01 Pending licansee completion of IEB 79-02 requirements and commitments, the bulietin-snall remain open. No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety Related piping Sy.;tems IE Bulletin.79-14, Unit 1 On Augu.sl 11, 1980, the licensee submitted a revised response to IEB 79-14.
A follow-on inscection to those documented on IE Report Nos. 50-416/80-08 and 50-416/80-18%as per.%rm:d to verify licensee compliance with commit-merts and. bulletin requirements. The bulletin response was discussed with
-
the licensee. The response indicated that only seven systems would be 100
=
W'-
-
S
,.
.
.
.-
.
-
.- -. ~ -
-
- -~
.-,
,
,.=
.
-3 L
' '
percent inspected in accordance with IEB 79-14 requirements and the remain-der of the systems would not be inspected if the results of the inspections
of the seven systems provided an " acceptable confidence" level.
Further j
discussions with the licensee revealed that all systems would be-inspected
!.
in the normal construction inspection process that verifies installation
'
in accordance with drawing requirements.
Furthermore, because of-pipe support. inspection discrepancies noted by the' inspector during previous
,
. inspections and subsequent licensee action on the problems identified, all installed pipe supports were reinspected and new pipe supports installo -
tions would be inspected to a revi<ed inspection program. The. licensee committea to provide a final rssponse to the bulletin clarifying the
,
inspection program and to report the results of the inspections.
'
The following Bechtel specifications, procedures and instructions - that
'
,
provided the licensee's piping system installation and inspection require -
>
ments were reviewed:
i a.
Specification 9645-M-204.0, Revisicn 6, Design Specification for Field Fabrication and Installation of Nuclear Service Piping and Instrumenta-tion
- b.
. Specification 9645-MS-16, Revision 20, Criteria for Hanger Installation I
c.
Procedure 9645-SG-1, Revision 3, IE Bulletin 79-14 Implementation i
Procedure
i d.
QC Instruction 07/6T, Revision D, Piping, Mechanical, I&C Monitoring Checklist e.
QC Instruction 0715T, Revision E, Piping Inspection Activities i
f.
. Construction Work Plan / Procedure (WP/P) - P-1, Revision 1, large Pipe and Small Pipe Work Plan and Inspection Records
.
g.
WP/P-P-5, Revision 1, Large Pipe and Small Pipe Hanger
,
'
h.
WP/P-P-6, Revision 0, Valve Installation and Inspection i.
WP/P-P-10, Revision 2, Field Design Change. (Redline) Procedure for Pipe j
Hangers, Supports, Guides, and Achors J.
-WP/P-P-11, Revision 1, Field. Design Cha,ge (Redline) Procedure for Field Designed Small Pipe
Bechtel Specification 9645-MS-16, Paragraph 2.6.3 allows piping with
>
'
operating temperatures less than 150 F to have a zero gap 'with pipe supports.
Normal construction and inspection practices however, indicate i
that the pipe support inspections were normally performed subsequent to field fabrication and installation of the pipe support. Consequently, the
-
.- -.,.
. _..
.... -
,
,.-
.
..
-.- -..- - -
...
..
.
.
inspection would not identify any stresses that could have been induced during field fabrication and installation of pipe supports with zero clearances.
This was discussed with the licensee and its architect /
engineers (A/E).
They agreed to study the question and provide a resolu-tion.
This was identified as Inspector Follow-up Item 81-37-02, " Pipe support tolerance specifications allow zero gap for piping le-than 150 F."
This item will be inspected on subsequent inspections.
The Residual Heat Removal System (RHR) was one of the seven systems rein-spected by Bechtel as part of their IEB 79-14 confirmatory walkdowns.
Portions of RHR piping shown on Bechtel drawing M-1348A, revision 20, were inspected to determino the adequacy of the original inspections and the confirmatory walkdowns. The Standby Service Water System was not one of the systems reinspected during the Bechtel IEB 79-14 confirmatory walkdowns.
Portions of the Standby Service Water piping shown on Bechtel Drawing M-1358K, Revision 8, were inspected to further determine the adequacy of the original piping system inspections. In addition the following pipe supports shown on the two drawings previously mentioned were also inspected to verify the adequacy of the pipe support re-inspection program.
Q1E12G012H01 Q1E12G012R02 Q1E12G012R01 Q1P41G010H01 Q1P41G010C02 Q1P14G010R02 The inspection ravealed that clearance and interference conditions existed in both the RHR System and the Standby Service Water system. TFe conditions noted had not been previously documented and evaluated for its ef fects on the piping analysis.
The specific conditions noted did not appear to be significant conditions to the Bechtel Stress Analyst who concurrently performed the inspection. The pipe movements noted on the pipe supports for the affected piping appeared to confirm this. However the apparent programatic lack of inspections, documentation and evaluation of piping clearance and interference conditions was discussed with the licensee. The licensee agreed to perform additional inspections to identify, document and evaluate such conditions. This item was identified as Inspector Follow-up Item 81-37-01, Lack of inspections for piping and pipe support clearances and interferences. This item shall be inspected during subsequent inspections. Pending licensee completion of IE Bulletin 79-14 requirements and commitments, the bulletin shall remain open.
No violations or deviations were identifie '
..
.
7.
Licensee Identified Item 416/80-20-18 and 417/80-13-18 Units 1 and ;
(Closed)
On Septunber 3,1981, the licensee submitted a final report regarding the subject potentially reportable deficiency which dealt with the installation of concrete expansion anchors for conduit hangers, instrument process tubing and air supply supnorts, without prior approval. Bechtel's evaluation of the condition was dxumented on letter MQBC-81/007.
The licensee's project engineering evaluation of the -condition was documented on letter PMI-81/
1736. The licensee and the A/E concluded that had the conditions remained uncorrected, they would not have affected the safe operation of the plant and consequently that the item was not reportable. The final report, the Bechtel evaluation and the project engineeriag evaluation were reviewed.
The inspector had no further questions and the item was closed.
.
.