IR 05000440/1982012
| ML20027E807 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1982 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027E804 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-82-12, 50-441-82-11, NUDOCS 8211160198 | |
| Download: ML20027E807 (5) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-440/82-12(DETP); 50-441/8'2-11(DETP)
Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 Licenses No. CPPR-148; CPPR-149
'
Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name: l'erry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: Perry Site, Perry, Ohio Inspectien Conducted: October 11-12, 1982 l]/W wv n
/# M b
Inspector: AI. T. Yin d)1f4D kW Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief
/o2#[L Materials and Processes Section
/
'
.
Inspection Summary Inspection on October 11-12, 1982 (Report No. 50-440/82-12(DETP);
50-441/82-11(DETP))
Areas Inspected:
Review of piping suspension system installation and inspection program; observation of ESW pump reinspection and rework; followup on previous identified items. This inspection involved a total of 14 onsite inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
,
,
f l
,
l n
f2 k
050
.
O
l l
- - - -
.
- _
,
- -. - - -. - _..
_.
-.
.-.
-
. _ - -
..
-.. - -. _
..
.
..
_
_
-. _.
_
,
.
.
DETAILS
.
Persons Contacted l
Region III Meeting with Licensee Held on September 21, 1982 i
CEI M. Edelman, Division Manager, Nuclear Engineering and Construction
-
R. L. Farrell, Manager, QA
'
J. Kline, Manager, Nuclear Construction G. Leidich, Supervisor, Construction QA GAI L
W. E. Meek, Vice President
K. R. Peck, Assistant Project Manager i
.
!
USNRC - Region III
'
W. Little, Chief, Engineering Programs Pranch D. H. Danielson, Chief, Materials and ProcessesSection I. T. Yin, Senior Mechanical Engineer a
M. L. Gildner, Resident Inspector
F. W. Reimann, Reactor Inspector i
J. M. Peschel, Reactor Inspector
'
R. A. Hasse, Reactor Inspector Site Inspection Conducted on October 11-12, 1982
,
i
'
- M. Edelman, Division Manager, Nuclear Engineering and Construction
- R. Vondrasek, General Supervisor, Nuclear QA Department
.
GAI-K. R. Peck, Assistant Project Manager
,
- H. Rappert, Mechanical Project Engineer R. Webb, Pipe Support Designer
- G. Parker, Unit Supervisor, Mechanical and Piping
.
.
Cavarness, Lead, Three Phase Hanger Inspections J
,
KEI A. P11cque, Area Superintendent
'
- Denotes those attending the management exit meeting on October 12, 1982.
.
1 i
t
... -,
__ ~,
. _,. _ -., -
_. _ _ -
, _. ~..
,
, _... -, - - _, _., _. _.. _...,. _ - -,.. _ _. _ _,... -.... - - _
.-
.-
Licensee Action on Previous Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Items (440/81-13-01; 441/81-13-01; 440/81-13-02; 441/81-13-02): Licensee upgrade of.the site piping suspension QA/QC Inspection program. The inspector reviewed the Pullman Power Products, Document No. IX-6, " Installation and Inspection of Pipe Supports,"
revised on September 2, 1982. The review was based, in part, on the comments given to the licensee in Paragraph 3 of Region III Inspection Report No. 50-440/81-16; 50-441/81-16.
Subsequent to the review, the inspector stated that the program approach appeared to be systematic and thorough. The installation and inspection provisions appeared to be adequate in technical considerations and detail descriptions. The licensee further stated that a high percentage overview of PPP imple-mentation of the program was presently being conducted by the PNPP QA organization to ensure program compliance and effectiveness.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (440/81-13-03; 441/81-13-03): The utilization of Hilti Kwik bolts under water required further evaluation. The licensee reviewed the 16 bolts installed on the two 4" ESW pump water level still well pipe sections with 3/4" wide slotted holes, and considered them to be acceptable. The reasons given were:
(1) the pipe sections were welded to the floor penetration; (2) relative insignificant wave movement loadings; and (3) design safety factor of at least eight. The inspector stated that he had no further questions relative to this specific case. However, he was in no position to concur with any generic underwater Hilti bolt applications in safety related systems unless it was formally qualified by test and analysis.
(Closed) Violations (440/81-16-01; 441/81-16-01; 440/81-16-02; 441/81-16-02):
Inadequate design control and QC inspection measures taken during instal-lation of the ESW pumps. These items are closed. See Paragraph 2 of this report for details.
(Closed) Violation (440/81-16-03; 441/81-16-03): GAI small bore piping support design, and Hilti bolt design allowables had not been issued, reviewed, and approved in accordance with document control procedures.
The inspector reviewed the GAI Piping Engineering Department " Project Pipe Support Design Instructions Manual," revised on : April 29, 1982, and " Master Load Capacity Data Sheets" manual, dated February 19, 1982, and had no adverse comments.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (440/82-09-08; 441/82-08-08): Questionable site design change control measures. Among the five issues identified during the site inspection conducted on July 26-30, 1982, four items were closed, and one item remains open.
See Paragraph 1 of this report for details.
.
RIII Meeting with Licensee Management A meeting _was held at Region III on September 21, 1982 to discu.s the licensee upgraded site design change control program. A number of issues were raised by the inspector during the team effort inspection conducted
.
3
-
__ __. _
,
,
on July 26-30, 1980 which prompted the licensee and its onsite design organization to further clarify the use of the various control measures such as ECNs, FQs, and EVAs. Discussion topics and licensee presentations included:
(1) organizational approach; (2) site design team functions; (3) design control program; (4) design change document control; and (5) design overview. At the end of the meeting, the Region III staff stated that the licensee and GAI design control program appeared to be adequate. Further review of the program implementation will be conducted at GAI corporate office. The followup of specific issues identified at the site is documented in Paragraph 1 of this report.
Funct'onal or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Field Design Change Control Issues The inspector reviewed the following upgraded project procedures contained in the Appendix sections of the GAI Project Procedures Manual:
Appendix N, " Engineering Change Notices," revised September 30, 1982.
Appendix 0, " Processing Field Questions," revised September 30, 1982.
Appendix P, "Non-Conforming Conditions," revised September 30, 1982.
Appendix V, " Field Variance Authorization," revised September 30, 1982.
Appendix Y, " Seismic Clearance," revised September 30, 1982.
The issues identified in the Region III Inspection Report items 440/82-09-08 and 441/82-08-08 were discussed subsequent to the inspector's review of the procedures.
a.
The review process of the field ECNs appeared to be out of sequence. Corrections were made in Appendix N, Paragraph 2:04.
b.
There appeared to be lack of program description on design review of cumulative effects and functional and operability assessments of the affected portions of the systems. This is a design verification item that will be reviewed at the GAI corporate design office.
The contractor and NSSS supplier unique site design control c.
documents were not included in the PNPP evaluation program.
The licensee stated that subject requirements will be included in the CEI Nuclear Design and Procurement Procedures, 0501,
" Field Question" section. Subsequent to the inspection, the licensee forwarded a copy of Program Revision Notice No. 5541, dated October 13, 1982, to the inspector. The applicable requirements were included in the program.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
_ _ _ _ _.. _ _
_
__
_ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_-.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
..
.
d.
The ECN, FVA, and FQ procedures appeared to be less than definitive in their applications. The inspector determined that clarification was made in the above procedures relative to their uses and restrictions.
e.
Inadequate GAI review. procedure for the non-safety related portions of systems that could affect safety system operations.
The inspector reviewed Appendix 0 of the GAI Project Procedures Manual and considered that additional provisions on handling such matters should be developed.
Subsequent to the inspection, Appendix 0 was revised on October 15, 1982. The inspector reviewed the revision and considered that further clarification appeared to be needed. This item remains open.
2.
Rework of Emergency Service Water (ESW) Pumps Region III Inspection Reports 50-440/81-16; 50-441/81-16, Paragraphs 1.a and 1.b discussed deficiencies relative to inadequate design control and QC inspection during installation of the ESW pumps. To facilitate corrective actions, the licensee pumped out more than a million gallons of water in the ESW pump house sump for inspection and rework. The rework will include:
(1) inspection and instal-lation of shims in pump shaft restraining rings (the sum of the two measurements taken across any diameter will not exceed 3/16");
(2) removal of existing carbon steel nuts and studs and replacing them with galvanized nuts, studs, and lock washers; (3) sleeve nut thread engagements will be specified; (4) nut loosening will be prevented by the utilization of lock washers welded to the base plate; and (5) removal of existing red primer and application of a coat of Carbon Zinc 11 on the restraints.
The inspector reviewed a set of typical installation drawings for MK-1P45-II393 (5 sheets), applicable QC inspection plans and checklists, and observed the work preparation prior to rework on the ESW pumps in the pump house building and considered the licensee measures to be adequate.
During the management exit meeting held on October 12, 1982, the inspector requested that he be notified prior to completion of the rework modification and the removal of work staging and scaffolding.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledges the findings reported herein.
.
-.
.,.
...
_ _ _.
.
_-