IR 05000416/1982038
| ML20054G574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1982 |
| From: | Ang W, Economos N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054G570 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-82-38, IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8206220076 | |
| Download: ML20054G574 (6) | |
Text
c
.
.
/
'o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
REGION 11 y
a I
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 g
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
%*****o s
Report No. 50-416/82-38 Licensee: Mississippi Power and Light Company P. 0 Box 1640 Jackson, MS 39205 Facility Name: Grand Gulf 1 Docket No. 50-416 License No. CPPR-118 Inspection a.
fj If site near Port Gibson, Mississippi N
A
_g f 20f Inspector:
..
g P[ ng T~
'
D' ate Signed hDate' SignedO/,P V Approved by:
l.A2j
$x m n w'
_
N. Economos,' Adting Section Cnief
/
Engineering Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on May 3-6, 1982
-
Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 23 inspector-hours on site in the areas of seismic analysis for as-built safety-related piping systems (IEB 79-14).
Results Of the area inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
8206220076 820524 PDR ADOCK 05000416 G
-,
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- C. K. McCoy, Plant Manager
- J. W. Yelverton, Nuclear Site QA Manager
- S. F. Tanner, QA Construction / Modification Supervisor
- A. McCurdy, Technical Superintendent T. Croninger, Site Manager
- R. W. Griffith, Project Engineer S. Pruitt, ISI Coordinator
- M. A. Lacey, QA Consultant
,
Other Organizations Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
L. Jha, Group Supervisor, Plant Design L. Lushbaugh, Deputy Group Supervisor, Plant Design R. Gordon, Resident Engineer C. O'Neil, Group Supervisor, Light Structures J. Novak, Deputy Group Supervisor, Light Structures P. M. Desai, Engineer, Light Structures K. Miller, Field Engineer Reactor Controls, Incorporated (RCI)
O. Brock, Site Manager i
J. W. Angeli, Field Engineer (ECH0)
'
M. Malone, QC Supervisor N. Rattan, Walkdown Team Supervisor General Electric /ISI R. Newell, Field Representative NRC Resident Inspector A. Wagner
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 6,1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed the items listed below. No dissenting comments were received from the license,
,
.
a.
(Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) 416/81-58-03 - IEB 79-14 Item 4.d procedure, paragraph 5.
b.
(Closed) IFI 416/82-06-02 - Training for Light Structures Group, para-graph 5.
c.
(Closed) IFI 416/82-26-01 - 1EB 79-14 Sampling Walkdowns, paragraph 5.
d.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 416/82-26-03 - Tube Steel Wall Thickness, paragraph 3.
e.
(0 pen) Violation 416/82-26-02 - CR0 Hydraulic Piping and Pipe Support Discrepancies, paragraph 3.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(Closed) Unresolved Item 416/82-26-03 - Tube Steel Wall Thickness This item identified UT wall thickness discrepancies on a 5" x 5" x h" tube steel of the 270 scram volume tank support. Subsequently, the licensee drilled holes in the tube steel area in question and measured a wall thickness of 15/32".
The low UT wall thickness reading were attributed to acceptable discontinuities in the weld of the tube steel.
QC monitoring report number 180 dated April 25, 1982, recorded the inspection performed to verify conformance of the tube steel wall thickness to its applicable specification.
The inspector had no further questions on this item.
b.
(0 pen) Violation 416/82-26-02 - CRD Piping and Pipe Support Discrep-ancies This item identified various discrepancies in the installation and inspection of the CRD piping and pipe supports. It also identified a discrepancy in the design of an anchor. As designed, installed and inspected, the anchor did not restrain the piping.
The licensee had previously identified discrepancies in the installation and inspection of CRD piping and pipe supports on Construction Deficiency Report (CDR)
Number 82/13. Their resolution was being monitored through Corrective Action Report (CAR) 544.
The licensee added the discrepancies iden-tified by Violation 416/82-26-02 to CDR 82/13 and CAR 544.
In addi-tion, the licensee requested the subcontractor, RCI, to investigate and determine the extent of the problem concerning seismic analysis anchors. The licensee also required Bechtel to perform a 100% IEB 79-14 walkdown on the CRD piping and pipe supports (see paragraph 5).
The inspector had no further questions on this item; however, this item shall remain open pending receipt of th? licensee's of ficial response and completion of the corrective action.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio.
-
5.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems (IEB 79-14)
A follow-on inspection to the inspection documented on NRC/RII report 50-416/82-26 was performed to verify licensee compliance with IEB 79-14 requirements and licensee commitments.
a.
(Closed) IFI 416/81-58-03 - IEB 79-14 Item 4.d.
This item identified a need for the licensee to issue procedures to provide for maintenance, repair and modification of pipe supports to assure that applicable seismic analysis would continue to reflect the as-built condition.
Subsequently, the licensee prepared and issued the following proce-dures to provide for the identified item.
(1) Administrative Procedure 01-S-07-29, revision 0, Component Support Program (Hangers), Safety Related (2) Maintenance Section Procedure 07-S-05-03, revision 0, Control of Work on Component Support (Hangers), Safety Related (3) General Maintenance Instruction 07-S-15-8, revision 0, Instruc-tions for Hanger Disassembly, Reassembly and Inspection, Safety Related b.
(Closed) IFI 416/82-26-01 - IEB 79-14 Sampling Walkdowns.
This item identified a need for the licensee to evaluate 1EB 79-14 sampling walk-down discrepancies and to correlate it to the remainder of the piping and pipe supports.
Subsequently, Bechtel evaluated the 350 sampling walkdown discrepancies and determined that 23 were discrepancies on completed work that required rework or further evaluation. The licen-see had required a 100% IEB 79-14 walkdown subsequent to the sampling walkdown. The licensee committed to include the evaluation and reso-lution of the sampling program discrepancies on its final 1EB 79-14 response.
c.
(Closed) IFI 416/32-06-02 - Training for Light Structures Group. This item identified an apparent lack of familiarity with the project engi-neering procedures manual by members of the Light Structures Group.
Subsequently, the licensee reviewed the training provided for the group and determined that their training was adequate.
Additional informal briefings were provided to the group.
The inspector reviewed the training records for the group and interviewed two additional engi-neers.
No discrepancies had been identified during a review of calculations performed by the group.
d.
(0 pen) RCI Pipe and Pipe Support Discrepancies - IEB 79-02 and 79-04.
NRC/RII inspection report 416/82-26 identified discrepancies in the RCI installation and inspection of CR0 piping and pipe supports (see also i
paragraph 3).
Subsequently, the licensee requested Bechtel to perform a 100% IEB 79-14 walkdown of the CR0 piping and pipe supports. The IEB 79-14 walkdown identified approximately 600 discrepancies.
The dis-crepancies were being evaluated and resolved by RCI. but had not yet
~.,.
-
_
.
.-
- -.
.
.
.
~
..
s
-
.
.
i been completed. A sampling inspection of the piping and pipe supports
-
shown on the following RCI drawing was performed to determine the
,
accuracy of -the Bechtel IEB 79-14 walkdown. No additional discrepan--
!
cies were identified.
!
GG-007, revision 10, CRDHS Scram Monitoring Station GG-002, revision 3, Genera 1' Arrangement, Scram Header Piping GG-011-6, revision 0, Scram Header Supports, 90 side
Engineering Change Notice - GG-243 i
'
Engineering Change Notice - GG-244 The inspector had no further questions regarding on-site items for-IEB 79-02 and IEB 79-14.
The bulletin will remain open pending licensee l
completion of all IEB 79-02 and 79-14 requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Construction Deficiency Reports (CDR)
a.
The inspector attempted to review CDR's 82/18, 82/13, 82/11, and 81/44.
Final licensee reports on the CDR's had not yet been sebmitted. The i
above noted CDR's were left open.
b.
(0 pen) CDR 81/49 identified thermal transients on the bottom head of.
,
!
the reactor vessel. An evaluation by the NSSS (GE) concluded that the-fatigue usage factor for the transients were acceptable. The licensee
,
subsequently concluded that the condition was not reportable.
RII
-
-
requested a formal report because of the significance of the event.
i The licensee's final report dated April 16, 1982 and the NSSS evalu-
-
!
ation letter (GE letter File No. 0275/M-001.0 MPGE-82/83 dated March 31, 1982) were reviewed.
The NSSS and licensee's evaluation and conclusions appeared to have adequately addressed the subject.
However, the calculations performed by the NSSS were not available on
,
i site. Pending inspection of the calculations, the CDR was left open.
c.
(0 pen) CDR 82/05 reported that NSSS supplied CRD housing support rods were delivered to the site with defective threads which prevented installation of corresponding nuts and jam nuts. The licensee's final report concluded that the item was not reportable because installation of some of the nuts was possible after chasing the support rods with a
thread die.
The licensee further noted that, upon correction, the installation conformed to the specified clearance requirements and,
!
consequently, the safety function of the CRD housing lower support was not compromised or degraded. An inspection of the licensee's records,
'
however, revealed that GE was still evaluating the condition for a Part 21 item. In addition, GE NCR-114 reported that excessive metal removal j
may have occurred during the chasing of the threads.
No inspection i
results were available that verified that the support rod threads still
<
.
Is.
.
.
...
..
.
. -
_
_.
___ _._
__ __
,
.,
o
conformed with applicable drawing / design requirements.
Further dis-cussion with the licensee also revealed that all the nut installation and inspection work had not yet been completed. The CDR was left open pending licensee completion of the above noted items.
No violations or deviations were identified.
.
1