IR 05000445/1981019
| ML20040B803 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1981 |
| From: | Brickley R, Crossman W, Randy Hall, Clay Johnson, Martin L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040B796 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-81-19, 50-446-81-19, NUDOCS 8201260423 | |
| Download: ML20040B803 (5) | |
Text
.
APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Report:
50-445/81-19; 50-446/81-19 Dockets:
50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee:
Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Fucility Name:
Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Inspection Conducted:
December 7-il, 1981
[
Inspectors:
_L. E. Marti Reactor Inspector, Projects Section 3 tte Jp p/
RPB (Par raphs 1, 2, 5 & 6)
T NlbM i2/34lT/
R. H. Brickley, Rdctor Engineer, Reactor Systems Date '
Section, VIB (Paragraph 3)
'f
/
/uf]kt
_,
f,VC. L. Johnson, Reactor Inspector, Engineering &
Da'te/
Materials Section, EIB (Paragraph 4)
Approved:
7 [
///fe/g
/*v W. A. Crossma[, Chief, Projects Section 3, RPB D6te'
$
/vfi
/
<
/ R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering & Materials Section, Date/
EIB Inspection Summary:
Inspection During December 7-11, 1981 (Report 50-445/81-19; 50-446/81-19)
Areas Inspected:
Special, unannounced inspection of on site design and const ruction activities, including site tour; design inspection of pipe supports; and installation of safety related pipe supports.
The inspection involved 120 inspector-hours by three NRC inspectors.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
0201260423 820104 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
_ _. - -. -
_
. _ _._
.
-.
.
.
-
-
. _
i
.
.
'
t, i
j-2-i
3 DETAILS
!
l 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees i
- R. G. Tolson, TUGCO, Site QA Supervisor j
- B. C. Scott, TUGCO, QE Supervisor
- J. T. Merritt, TUSI, Manager, E&C
^J. C. Finneran, TUSI, Project Pipe Support Engineer M. A. Welch, TUGCO, QA Specialist i
'
<
j Other Personnel j
K. D. Williams, B&R, Lead Support Design Engineer l
A. K. Patel, Gibbs & Hill, Group Supervisor, Stress Analysis
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
!
2.
Site Tour
,
!
l The NRC inspectors walked through Unit 1 and Unit 2 Reactor Containment
and Auxiliary Buildings, Service Water Intake Structure, Unit 1 Cable Spreading Room and Control Ro.m.
The NRC inspectors observed in process i
construction activities, construction status, and housekeeping.
I No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Design Inspection - Pipe Supports J
a.
Procedures and Instructions Applicable Engineering Procedures (EPs) and Instructions (EIs) were examined to verify that QA program commitments for controlling the
design process had been translated into subordinate procedures and
!
instructions.
The following procedures and instructions were examined:
!
CP-EP-2.1, " General Program for Pipe Support Design, Fabrication,
]
and Installation," Rev. O CP-EP-4.0, " Design Control General Requirements," Rev. 2 l
CP-EP-4.4, " Technical Support Group Design Control," Rev. O j
CP-EP-4.5, " Design Verification," Rev. 1
CP-EP-4.6, " Field Design Change Control," Rev. 7
I CP-EP-4.7, " Control of Engineering / Design Review of Field Design l
Changes," Rev. O l
CP-EI-4.0-1, " Pipe Support Design Group Design Control Instruc-tions," Rev. O i
'
j CP-EI-4.0-13, "PSDG Engineering Instructions," Rev. 2 CP-EI-4.5-10. " Control of Approval and Design Review of PSDG Large Bore Field Design Changes," Rev. O
CP-EI-4.5-ll, " Control of Approval and Design Review of PSDG Small i
Bore Field Design Changes," Rev. O i
- - - - - - -
-
- _. _ -
_.
.
.
. - - -
.
-.
-
.
.
.--
. _ _ _
.
-3-CP-EI-4.6-1, " Field Design Change Control Instructions," Rev. 7 CP-EI-4.6-8, " Field Design Change Control for Pipe Supports," Rev. 1 CP-EI-4.6-10, " Field Design Change Control for PSDG Small Bore Class 1, 2 and 3," Rev. 3 No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Implementation Gibbs & Hill Specitication No. 2323-MS-46A, " Nuclear Safety Class Pipe Hangers and Supports," Rev. 3, which provides technical input for support and hanger designs, was examined for the design and analysis criteria / methods.
Revision 0 of Appendix 8 to this specification, entitled " Simplified Method for the Design and Analysis of Small Size Piping," was determined to be a key document used by the Stress Analysis Group for small bore hangers and supports.
The copy of this document that the Stress Analysis Group was using was found to be Revision 4 versus Revision 0 appended to the specification.
Further investigation revealed that the revisions (1 to 4) to this document were transmitted via Gibbs & Hill letters (GTN50492, GTN 51815, GTH53981, and GTN54256) which indicated a revision in the document without any reference to Appendix 8 of Specification 2323-MS-46A.
It is not clear which of the two revisions is the
,
'
controlling document for small bore pipe analysis, therefore, this item will be considered unresolved pending clarification.
Stress Iso. No. BRP-CC-1-AB-34B and the supports identified in paragraph 4.a below (small bore, component cooling water system),
were selected for examination to determine that procedural and specification requirements had been implemented.
It was noted that the analysis and design of small bore hangers and supports were performed by TUSI, whereas the large bore work was performed by ITT Grinnell and Nuclear Power Services.
The design record package consisted of the hanger / support drawings, seismic analyses, hanger /
support analyses, design review checklist, and the stress iso.
It was determined that procedural and specification requirements had been implemented.
On-site engineering activities, with respect to la.ge bore pipe hangers / supports, consists of translating the vendor design drawing into a B&R construction drawing, review and approval of subsequent changes (documented via Component Modification Cards), and producing
"as-buil t" drawings.
The design record packages for the supports, identified in paragraph 4.b below, were examined for implementation of procedural requirements.
In addition, a comparison was made between the Component Modification Cards (CMC) issued for each support and those contained in the installation package.
It was i
l
_______
- - _ _ -. - - _ _ _ _ -. -. - - - - - - - - - _. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_-
-
__
-
-
.
. - -.
-
__.
-
l
.
.
.
'
-4-found that the installation package for support CT-1-014-410-C52R indicated that the support was installed and inspected to Rev. 7 of CMC 11824.
Subsequent to the installation inspection, Rev. 8 to CMC 11824 was issued to provide additional information (support location benchmarks and detailed weld data) needed for the "as-built" drawing.
The TUSI mechanism for assuring that revisions to CMCs, issued subsequent to the installation inspection, are included in the
,
~
installation package and verified by QC was not apparent.
This item will be considered unresolved pending clarification.
,
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Installation of Safety-Related Pipe Supports In conjunction with the design review and inspection of safety-related pipe supports, the NRC inspectors selected at random sorne small bore and large bore nanger packages for a sampling selection.
There were two separate packages reviewed; one a design analysis hanger package, and the other an installation hanger package.
The NRC inspectors reviewed the complete history of the pipe support hangers from design analysis, to completed installation.
The NRC inspectors selected six small bore design and installation hanger packages listed below.
In the large bore pipe supports, only the instal-lation hanger package was reviewed because the design analysis was done
'
by a vendor off-site.
a.
Small Bore Pipe Supports CC-1-AB-0348-023-3 CC-1-AB-0348 009-3 CC-1-AB-0348-016-3 CC-1-AB-034B-013-3 CC-1-AB-0348-014-3
- CC-1-AB-0348-003-3 The hanger packages reviewed were all of the component cooling system.
Upon completion of the review of the design and installation packages,
,
the inspectors physically inspected the completed as-built condition
in the field in accordance with approved drawings and details.
l The inspectors reviewed the completed installation packages of each support.
All required documents, such as the latest drawing revision, and Component Modification Card (CMC), if required, were present.
The as-built conditions reflected all changes by the CMCs.
All required signatures and dates were present.
,
I
e
!
- Reviewed only the design and installation package, did not physically inspect because of inaccessibility.
t
, _ _.. _ _. _ _ _ _
_.
..
-
.
-,_
_ ___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_ _._
_..
_ _ _ _.
..
-
_. _ _.
_. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ - - - - _ _ _.. _
. - -. _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _
_
__
_
..
.
-5-b.
Large Bore Pipe Supports The NRC inspectors reviewed three large bore hanger packages and physically inspected each in accordance with the required documents in the installation package.
The hanger packages listed below were all of the Containment Spray System.
CT-1-014-428-C52R CT-1-014-408-C52R CT-1-014-410-C52R There were no violations or deviations identified.
5.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or deviations.
Two unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraph 3.
6.
Exit Interview The NRC inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
and R. G. Taylor (NRC Re3ident Reactor Inspector) at the conclusion of the
inspection on December 11, 1981.
The NRC inspectcrs summarized the purpose,
'
scope, and findings of the inspection.
-
_
-
I