IR 05000416/1982026

IE Insp Rept 50-416/82-26 on 820406-09.Noncompliance Noted: Control Rod Drive Hydraulic Piping & Pipe Support Discrepancies

ML20054K257
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	04/26/1982
From:	Ang W, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054K236	List: AECM-82-235, Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-416/82-26.Corrective Actions:Engineering Change Notice Revised to Include Welding Requirements.Appropriate Weld Made to Make Support Into Anchor IR 05000416/1982026 ML20054K235 ML20054K247 ML20054K252
References
50-416-82-26, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8207010342
Download: ML20054K257 (6)

Text

7-

. .. *

1. UNITED STATES o,,

8 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 8 * 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o

k o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

Report No. 50-416/82-26 Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company Jackson, MS 39205 Facility Name: Grand Gulf Docket No. 50-416 License No. CPPR-118 Inspection at Grand Gulf site near Port Gibson, Mississippi Inspector: Id ,,

4'"'8

'

W.~ P . g Date Signed Approved by: / )[#/

A. R. Herdt, Section Chief WM/N

'Date' Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on April 6-9, 1982 Areas Inspected l This routine, announced inspection involved 22 inspector-hours on site in the areas of seismic analysis for as-built safety-related piping systems.

i l Results Of the area inspected, one violation was found (CRD Hydraulic Piping and Pipe Support Discrepancies, paragraph 5).

,

8207010342 820615 PDR ADOCK 05000416 G PDR

T ,

. .. .

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

• G. Rogers, Site Manager

• T. Cloninger, Assistant Site Manager

• C. K. McCoy, Plant Manager

• J. Yelverton, QA Field Supervisor

*S. Tanner, QA Coordinator

Other Organizations Bechtel Power Corpo ation (Bechtel)

C. Wang, Assistan*, project Engineer L. Jha, Plant Design Engineer G. Lushbaugh, Lead Stress Engineer Reactor Contr ls Incorporated (RCI)

{ *D. Brock, Sii.e Manager J. Murray, Engineering and Construction Manager

! *M. Malone, QC Supervisor B. Angeli, Lead Stress Analyst (ECH0)

NRC Resident Inspector

!

A. Wagner

!

• D. Scott

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview

! The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 9,1982, with l those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the ( areas inspected and discussed the items listed belo No dissenting com-i ments were received from the license Inspector Followup Item 416/82-26-01, Resolution of IEB 79-14 Sampling Walkdowns, paragraph 5; l Violation 416/82-26-02, CRD Hydraulic Piping and' Pipe Support Discrepancies, i paragraph 5; Unresolved Item 416/82-26-03, Pipe Support Tube Steel Wall Thickness,

!

I paragraph 5.

!

l

!

'

. . -- . - -- - . _ , . -- . - - - _ , - - . - - _ . .. _.- - - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ ____________ __ _-_________.__ _ _______ _ ______-___ - _____ _ _______

. -

2 Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item 416/81-13-05 - Scram header Instrument Volume-Piping. This item noted that two instrument lines from the "B" scram discharge header instrument volume tank appeared to be bent from excessive weight and were unsupported. An inspection of the piping and its applicable installation drawings showed that the piping was sloped and was supported in accordance with the drawings. The piping is to be QC inspected and an IEB 79-14 walkdown inspection is still to be performed. The inspector had no further questions on this ite (Closed) Unresolved Item 416/82-06-01 - IEB 79-14 Analytical Discrep-ancies. This item noted four analytical discrepancies in piping and pipe support design calculation The licensee initiated corrective action request number 482 to require the A/E to investigate and resolve the noted discrepancies. The A/E investigation of the problem revealed that re-analysis of the noted discrepancies did not result in any hardware changes and the discrepancies had no adverse effect on plant safety. The A/E further sampled and reviewed ten additional piping analysis and 20 hanger design calculations with similar results. The A/E briefed applicable personnel to re-emphasize the need for accurate checking and documenting all errors found in design calculations regardless of significance. The inspector had no further question . 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 it' ems identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph . Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems (IEB 79-14).

A follow-on inspection to the inspection documented on NRC/RII Report Number 50-416/82-06 was performed to verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee commitments. NRC/RII Inspection Report 50-416/

j 82-06 concluded that Inspector Followup Item 81-58-01 would remain open pending licensee confirmation that the walkdown discrepancies noted on support Q1B21G021R02 was an isolated cas During this inspection, the

! licensee stated that a review of the IEB 79-14 walkdowns confirmed that the discrepancy noted on 91B21G021R02 was an isolated case and that the discrep-ancy was caused by the in process status of the support. The support had been QC inspected and a field change request was in process during the IEB 79-14 walkdown inspections. The inspector had no further questions and closed Inspector Followup Item 416/81-58-0 NRC/RII Inspection Report 50-416/82-06 noted a lack of NSSS IEB 79-14 walkdown inspections. During this inspection, the licensee stated that IEB 79-14 walkdowns have since been performed on the committed NSSS piping. The inspector had no further questions on this matter.

l

r s

.

The licensee's January 15, 1982, response to IEB 79-14 committed to re-inspect approximately 25 percent of the total computer analyzed Category I piping to assure that their existing QA/QC program satisfied all IEB 79-14 requirements. The licensee had complated the sampling re-inspec-tions and had noted approximately 200 discrepancies. An evaluation of the discrepancies had not been performed by the licensee to determine the adequacy of the existing QA/QC program for satisfying IEB 79-14 requirements in light of the discrepancies noted during the re-inspection. Pending licensee evaluation and further inspections, if required, this was identi-fied as Inspector Followup Item 50-416/82-26-01, Resolution of IEB 79-14 Sampling Walkdown It was noted during the inspection that the licensee was in the process of performing IEB 79-14 walkdowns on the remainder of the safety-related seismically analyzed pipin During this inspection, the licensee stated that the Bechtel IEB 79-14 walkdown team would be performing IEB 79-14 walkdowns on the control rod drive system installed by RC Inspector Followup Item (IFI) 50-416/81-58-02 noted documentation discrepancies with the uncompleted work on the control rod drive (CRD) piping system by RCI. NRC/RII Inspection Report 50-416/82-06 noted corrective action being taken by RCI but left the item open due to the status of completion of the CRD system installation and inspection. The inspector had no further questions on the items noted by IFI 50-416/81-58-02 and closed the IFI. However, it should be noted that tha inspection report identified violation 50-416/82-26-02 for discrepancies noted on the installation and inspection of the CRD piping syste During this inspection the licensee estimated that the CRD system installa-tion and inspection work was approximately 75 percent complete. An inspec-tion of the CRD system was performed to verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee commitment The following were inspected with the results:

l l Insert and withdraw support number 31 of the CRD piping was inspected.

I The support was located at the 250 azimuth of the drywall and I supported 110 pipe lines penetrating the drywal The support was detailed on RCI Engineering Change Notice (ECN) GG-368, revision Work on the support had not been completed, including tube steel splices added over existing welds and shown on detail "M" of the drawing. A 5"x5" tube steel member located at approximately azimuth 243 was required by the drawing to be installed radially toward the drywall. It had been welded on one end and appeared to be installed at l an angle. This piece was still in process and the licensee's vendor l RCI, indicated that it would be evaluated and corrected accordingly.

! An east side tube steel member was in contact with a support for a l light fixture electrical box. RCI verified that the support analysis l showed no significant movements but the condition would be reported to the licensee for evaluation and disposition of the light fixtur ECN-GG-368 contained a drafting error - a support width dimension was required to be 75". The original drawing required an 85" width. The

l

r m

. .

actual width was approximately 84-3/4". RCI stated that the ECN discrepancy would be correcte As previously noted, the above discrepancies were observed on an uncompleted support. The discrep-ancieswerepointedouttothelicenseeforevaluattonand/orcorrec-tion prior to completion of work on the suppor The CRD 270 scram monitoring station piping and supports shown on RCI drawings GG-007, revision 9, GG-009-20, . revision 2, and ECNs GG-147, revision 0, GG-167, revision 2, GG-309, revision 1, GG-310, revision 1, GG-322, revision 1, were sampled and inspecte Scram drain line support number 13 shown on drawing GG-009-20 and ECN-GG-167, did not appear to be installed perpendicular to the piping. RCI indicated that the support had not been QC inspected. RCI further stated that the support analysis showed it to be a vertical support and that the condition would be technically acceptable, but agreed to further inspect and evaluate the noted condition. This discrepancy was pointed out to the licensee for evaluation and/or correction prior to comple-tion of the QC inspection of the pipe suppor Horizontal 3"x3" square tubing, shown on ECN GG-322, supporting piping from the scram volume tank, was installed with its cross section at an angle from the horizontal plane to provide for the slope of the pipin The ECN showed the cross section to be at a horizontal plane. RCI stated that the support had not been QC inspected and agreed to evaluate the noted conditio Scram drain piping support number 9 shown on drawing GG-009-20 and ECN GG-167 was installed over a pipe coupling. Subsequent discussions with RCI revealed that the support was required to be a stress analysis problem ancho However, it was noted that the QC accepted pipe support was not welded or attached to the piping. RCI stated that the drawings were in error in that they did not require attachment of the support to the piping. Consequently, the support, as designed and installed, did not serve as an anchor contrary to the seismic analysi This appears to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and was identified as the first example for violation 50-416/82-26-02, CRD piping and pipe support discrepancie Reactor Controls Incorporated drawing GG-007, revision 9, requires the two-inch IPS scram drain piping located at elevation 136'-6 % " to have pipe lengths of 13'-5" from the tee adjacent to valve F0li to its first bend, and 15'-0" from the first bend to the second bend. The two-inch IPS scram drain piping was installed and QC verified with the above required dimensions actually 11'-7" and 13'-113s". This was identified as the second example for Violation 50-416/82-26-0 Reactor Controls Incorporated drawing GG-009-20, revision 2, requires scram drain line support number 13 to be 6' from support number 1 Support number 13 was installed 6'-61" 3 from support number 12. This was identified as the third example for Violation 50-416/82-26-02.

,

, ,.e- ~m

r

• . . -

5 Reactor Controls Incorporated Engineering Change Notice GG-147, Revision 0 requires the 270 scram volume tank drain piping to be 10 inches from the tank nozzle tethe centerline of the horizontal run of its first elbow. The piping was installed with an 8-inch dimensio This was identified as the fourth example for Violation 50-416/82-26-0 A sampling ultrasonic wall thickness measuing of various items was requested by the inspector and performed by the license During sample ultrasonic wall thickness measuring of 5x5xh" thick square tubing of the front horizontal member of the 270 scram volume tank support, four local spots were noted to have UT thickness readings of 0.173" to 0.231". The licensee stated that the readings were not necessarily wall thickness readings in that it appeared that the noted area was over a tube steel seam weld. The readings could have been indicative of slag or lack of fusion in portions of the weld. The licensee agreed to evaluate the condition further to verify conformance with pipe support drawing requirements. Pending evaluation and reso-lution of the noted condition, this was identified as Unresolved Item 50-416/82-26-03, Pipe support tube steel wall thicknes Pending completion of IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee commitments, the bulletin shall remain ope . (Closed) Construction Deficiency Report (CDR) 81/47 - Pipe Support Spring Settings On March 15, 1982, the licensee submitted its final report for CDR 81/4 The licensee reported that pipe support spring cans, Bergen Patterson type MS-3201 and MS-3401, were installed without bench mark minimum and maximum load indicators and were subsequently incorrectly set. The licensee reported that all Unit 1 springs had been properly reset and procedures for Unit 2 have been revised to assure proper setting. The licensee further stated that its A/E has revised their purchase specifications to include a requirement for minimum and maximum load position indicators for future orders and to preclude recurrence. The deficient condition was controlled and resolved by Management Corrective Action Report (MCAR) number 131. MCAR 131 and CDR 81/47 were reviewed. The inspector had no further questions.

i l

l

.

L