IR 05000416/1982006
| ML20042B268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1982 |
| From: | Ang W, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042B261 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-82-06, 50-416-82-6, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-14, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8203250162 | |
| Download: ML20042B268 (6) | |
Text
('
e
.
-
/
UNITED STATES
%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
$
REGION li
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
.....
Report No. 50-416/82-06 Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Facility Name:
Grand Gulf Docket No. 50-416 License No. CPPR-118 Inspection at Grand Gulf Station near Port Gibson, Mississippi and Bechtel Power Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland Inspector: _ bd 48k 2 /r-85 W. P. Ang Date Signed Accompanyin Personnel:
J. R. Costello, RIV b
Approved by
//
~
v jfr A; R; Herdt, Section Chief Date Signed
[ '/ ng'ineering Inspection Branch E
Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on January 18-20, and January 26-29, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 49 inspector-hours on site and at
'Bechtel, Gaithersburg, Maryland in the areas of seismic analysis for as-built safety-related piping systems (IEB 79-14); Pipe support baseplate designs using
.
concrete expansion anchors (IEB 79-02); review of as-builts; and onsite design activities.
Results Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8203250162 820301
$DRADOCK 05000416 PDR
~/
.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
- Persons Contacted-(Site).
Licensee Employees
- G. Rogers, Site Manager
- T. H. Cloninger, Assistant Site Manager
- C. K. McKay, Plant Manager
- J. W. Yelverton, QA Field Supervisor
- S. F. Tanner, QA Coordinator -
- J. Cash, Project Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation
- C. F. Oneil, Resident Ught Structures Engineers
- L. Lushbaugh, Lead Stress Engineer
- J. R. Valdez,-Quality Assurance Engineer
- J. L. Kearney, Quality Control Engineer
.
Two other A/E' engineers were also contacted.
Licensee Employees (Bechtel, Gaithersburg Inspection)
- J. Cash, Project Engineer
- T. Reaves, QA Manager
- J. Yelverton, QA Field Supervisor Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
- B. K. Kanga, Manager, Division of Engineering
- D. C. Kansal, Division QA Manager
- J. D. Heaton, Project QA manager
- R. H. Flugrath QA Manager-Audits
- R. S. Trickovic, Project Engineer C. J. Wang, Assistant Project Engineer L. Jha, Plant Design Engineer G. L. Lushbaugh, Lead Stress Engineer K. I. Patel, Hanger Engineering R. L. Beck, Assistant Civil Group Supervisor P. Kochis, Mechanical Engineer
~
R. Gibson, Mechanical Group Leader
- Attended exit interview
- Received exit summary by telephone.
2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summar_ized on January 20,1982 at the site and January 29, 1982 at Bechtel, Gaithersburg with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail Unresolved Item 82-06-01 - IEB 79-02, 79-14
-
.
.
-
analytical discrepancies.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 5.
5.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety Related Piping Systems (IEB 79-14)
A follow-on inspection to the inspection documented in NRC/RII Report Number 50-416/81-58 was performei at the site to verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee commitments. Inspector Follow-up Item 416/81-58-01 identified IEB 79-14 walkdown discrepancies. Portions of the standby liquid control piping system in the containment, shown on drawing l
M1345 rev. 7, was inspected to further verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee commitments. The following standby liquid control pipe supports / restraints were also inspected:
Q1C41G001-R01 Q1C41G001-C01 Q1C41G001-C02 Q1C41G001-H01 Q1C41G001-R02 No additional discrepancies were identified.
The discrepancies noted by inspector Follow-up Item 416/81-58-01 appears to be an isolated case but pending licensee confirmation by further inspections, this item will remain open.
,
A portion of the main steam piping system inside the containment, shown on i
GE drawing 762E950 was inspected in accordance with IEB 79-14 requirements.
The long lengths (20 plus feet) of large piping (28 inch outside diameter)
involved, together with the relatively more restrictive spaces, deminished the accuracy of the inroection. However, any existing major discrepancies which could significantly affect the piping analysis would have been noted.
No discrepancies were observed in the piping inspected.
The licensee had not completed the IEB 79-14 walkdown inspections on this sytem as committed on Letter AECM-81/212 dated August 11, 1981. The licensee was reminded of
,
the commitment and was informed of the inspection results which confirmed
'
the difficulty of the walkdown of the system but also showed that significant results could be obtained.
i
.
.
Inspector follow-up Item 416/81-58-02 noted discrepancies with the uncompleted work on the control rod drive piping system by Reactor Controls Incorporated.
A follow-on inspection was performed. -The discrepancies noted were being corrected but the progress of installation and inspection work had not changed sufficiently to allow a meaningful inspection. It was noted however that approximately 50 percent of pipe support designs were requiring re-design and modifications due to field installation problems.
Pending further inspection, inspector follow-up item 416/81-58-02 will remain open.
An inspection was performed at Bechtel, Gaithersburg, Maryland, to further verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee commitments.
The following stress problems and associated-pipe support / restraint designs were sampled to verify input -data, modelling, stresses, support loads and support design in accordance with IEB 79-14 requirements.
Evaluation and disposition of walk down discrepancies and field change requests (FCR) were also inspected.
Main Steam and Feed System Stress Problems #12,131, and 132 RHR System Stress Problems 57, 69A and 73 The wall thickness of the flue head at data point 1 of Main Steam stress problem 12 was modelled as 2.375. inches versus 3 inches.
The error was corrected and the stress problem re-analyzed by the A/E during the inspection. The re-analysis did not result in any technical discrepancies.
No other similar modelling discrepancies were noted.
The design
.
calculations for pipe restraint QIB21G0211202 did not reflect reduced weld sizes ncted during the IEB79-14 walkdown and FCR-PS-3781.
The design calculations were corrected and re performed during the inspection and determined that the as-found welds were still adequate. No other similar support restraint design calculation errors were noted. However, two other baseplate / concrete expansion anchor design calculation errors were noted and are discussed in paragraph 6.
Since all the discrepancies noted had apparently gone through the review cycle and IEB 79-02, 79-14 reviews, the licensee's A/E agreed to evaluate the apparent programatic discrepancy that did not correct the conditions noted.
Pending resolution of this evaluation, this was identified as unresolved item 416/82-06-01, "IEB 79-02, 79-14 analytical discrepancies."
The interface documents between the A/E, NSSS and RCI relevant to IES 79-14 were inspected. There appeared to be sufficent interface correspondence to assure correct seismic analysis input, data for the various piping analyst's and support / restraint load tabulations for the support / restraint analysts.
It was noted during the inspection that the NRR question regarding seismic design in paragraph 3.7.1 of NUREG 0831, Safety Evaluation Report, was still to be resolved by the A/E rd could result in changes to the piping and pipe support analysis.
No violations or deviations were identifie._
..
+.
,
,
4-
.
. 6.
' Pipe Support Baseplate Designs Usin'g' Concrete Expansion Anchors (IEB 79-02)
An inspection was performed ^ at Bechtel, Gaithersburg, Maryland, to verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-02 requirements and licensee commitments.
In addition, the inspection was performed to verify-licensee compliance with committed corrective action for licensee' report PRD-80/50 regarding reduced ultimate strengh ' for one inch diameter concrete expansion anchors.
The baseplate design calculations for the pipe supports listed below were inspected.
In addition the A/E's review program for one inch concrete expansion anchors was also inspected.
01E21 G002 R04 Q1G33 G002 H01 -
Q1G33 G002 R08 Q1833 G024 R05 Q1G33 G002 R24 Fuel oil day tank baseplate calculation number E-040.2 The design calculations for concrete expansions anchors for restraint Q1G33G002R24 u sed'l'ul tima te strength for the wrong embedment depth.
The calculations were corrected and reperformed during the inspection and showed that the safety factor for the concrete expansion anchors were still within IEB 79-02 requirements.
Design calculation E-040.2 for the fuel oil day tank.baseplates divided the loads equally among the concrete expansion anchors. However the baseplate had five concrete expansion anchors that were not.symetrically spaced.
The reanalysis was not completed during the inspection.
The 'above noted discrepancies were identified as additional items for Unresolved Item 416/82-06-01, "IEB 79-02, 79-14 Analytical Discrepancies."
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Review of As-Builts i
In addition to IEB 79-02 and IEB 79-14 inspections documented in this report and NRC/RII report numbers 50-416/81-37 and 50-416/81-58, the as-built
,
configuration for the following pipe stress analysis anchors were inspected to verify that final as-built drawings reflects the installation.
Q1P41G002A03 rev. 8 Q1P41G009A02 rev. 6 Q1P41G009A02 rev. 6 did not accurately reflect the condition of the installed anchor in that stiffeners for the anchor were coped to allow installation. However, an evaluation by the A/E indicated that the anchor was structurally adequate. The licensee initiated action to correct the
j drawing to reflect the as built condition. No other similar discrepancies
'
were noted.
i l-No violations or deviations were identified.
<
!
!
44.-
- -
--
- -,.--
.. -
- 4-,
-
. - - - -
%-
-,..m,-,-, - -
,----.,-,---,-%,t
- - ~ v
-
e
~~
...
.
8.
. On-Site Design Activities A " Light Structures" group of the A/E was stationed on sight to perform design functions for pipe anchors and safety related HVAC, cable tray and instrumentation supports. The responsibilities and procedures for the group are provided in. Project Engineering Procedure Manual (PEPM) Section 4.2.19.
Calculations and drawings for the following items were reviewed to verify -
compliance with procedures and ANSIN45.2.11 requirements.
Pipe Anchor Q1G41G009A02 Pipe Anchor Q1P41G002A03 FCN-JH-231
-
Instrumentation -Tubing Support FCN-JH-208
-
Instrumentation Tubing support FCN-JH-226
-
Instrumentation Tubing Support FCN-JH-206
-
Instrumentation Tubing Support.
Interviews with personnel ' involved in the design cnd change of the above items revealed that they were aware of' the technical -requirements but showed an apparent lack of. familiarity with the PEPM. The licensee agreed to evaluate the need for additional training for light structures group engineers.
This is identified as inspector followup item 50-416/82-06-02, Training for Light Structures Group Engineers.
Bechtel QA Audit J-04-02/J-34-02 of the light structures group dated January 14, 1981 was reviewed and revealed no significant discrepancies.
The audit sc"edule indicated that an additional audit was to be performed this calender quarter.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
(Closed) Licensee Identified Item 80-23-11 HVAC Supports On May 28, 1981, the licensee submitted a final report for potential reportable deficiency (PRD) 80/54, NRC Item 416/80-23-11.
PRD 80/54 reported deficiencies on HVAC seismic hangers that.had been installed and inspected by two subcontractors. The deficiencies were identified and are being followed by nonconformance report numbers 5156, 5157, 5158 and 5446 and discrepancy report numbers 0694, 1148, 1152, 1161 and 1478. The entire problem had been identified and is also being followed by Management Corrective Action Report Number 115. The licensee has committed to require
the constructor to inspect 100% of all. safety related seismic HVAC supports.
l Since the tracking and resolution of the reported discrepancies appears to be adequately controlled, this item shall be closed.
,
1