IR 05000454/1986009

Insp Repts 50-454/86-09,50-455/86-08,50-456/86-11 & 50-457/86-09 on 860225-26.No Violation or Deviation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Engineering Allegations

ML20154N388
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood, 05000000
Issue date:	03/11/1986
From:	Danielson D, James Gavula, Muffett J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154N382	List: IR 05000454/1986009 ML20154N378
References
50-454-86-09, 50-454-86-9, 50-455-86-08, 50-455-86-8, 50-456-86-11, 50-457-86-09, 50-457-86-9, NUDOCS 8603170311
Download: ML20154N388 (6)

Text

,

_ ._ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

4 -

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report Nos. 50-454/86009; 50-455/86008; 50-456/86011; 50-457/86009 Dockets No. 50-454; 50-455; License Nos. NPF-37; CPPR-131 50-456; and 50-457 CPPR-132; and CPPR-133

. Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facilities Name: Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Sargent and Lundy Engineers, Chicago, IL Inspection Conducted: February 25 and 26, 1986 d@ t

~

f Inspectors: J. Muffett 3/s I / SG Date /

v 3[//[f4 Da t'e Approved By: D. Danielson, Chief Materials and Processes 3!hhI Date Section Inspection Summary Inspection on February 25 and 26, 1986 (Report Nos. 50-454/86009(DRS);

50-455/86008(DRS) 50-456/86011(DRS) 50-457/86009(DRS))

Areas Inspected: Announced special inspection of engineering allegation The inspectinn involved a total of 20 offsite inspector-hours by two NRC inspector Results: No violations or deviations were identifie DR 860311 g ADOCM 05000454 PDR

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted SargentandLundyEngineersJ8L1

• G. DeBoo, Supervisor EMD G. Kitz, Head EMD

• T. Thorsell, Senior Electrical Project Engineer

• W. Cleff, Project Director

• G. Jones, Project Manager (Braidwocd)

• A. Marcos, Assistant Head, Q.A. Division

• H. McCullough, Project Q.A. Coordinator

• A. Dermenjian, Director, EMD D. Hoang, Engineering Specialist, EMD

• Denotes those attending the exit intervie . AllegationFollow-Up_(RIII86_-A-0002)

_

The allegations addressed in the following paragraphs were received by mail in Region III on January 6, 1986. Two separate letters, sent anonymously from Chicago, Illinois, alleged that deficient calculations were performed by S & L's Engineering Mechanics Division (EMD) for the Byron and Braidwood Stations, Allegation (Closed) EMD utilized analysis data from reference points that were too far from impact locations under consideration in Pipe Clearance Report (PCR) calculation NRC Review The NRC inspector reviewed all six of the analysis packages for the Byron Unit I PCR impact calculations. Similar calculations have not yet been performed for the Braidwood Units, therfore, this allegation could not apply to Braidwood. Out of the several hundred PCR calculations contained in the packages, 18 calculations were reviewed in detail to determine the appropriateness of nodal point utilization in the evaluation The following S & L packages were reviewed with the following observations:

(1) EMD049881"DispositionofPipingClearanceReports(PCRs),"

Byron 1 and 2, May 2, 198 (a) PCR No. IAF01 SEQ 2 - Impact paraneters (Displacenents and Accelerations) taken from a different nodal point than moment or stress dat (b) PCR No. ICC02 SEQ 45 - Impact parameters taken from different nodal points than stress dat r

.

.

(c) PCR No ICC02 SEQ 89 - Nearest nodal point used for impact data and stress dat (d) PCR No. ICC03 SEQ 87 - Hearest nodal point used for impact data and stress dat (e) PCR No. 1FW01 SEQ 236 - Impact parameters determined from simplified frequency calculation based on response spectrum value (f) PCR No. FW-13 SEQ 3 - Impact parameters taken from nodal point 3'-2" from interference poin (g) PCR No. IMS-14 SEQ. 03 - Impact parameters taken from

.different nodal point than stress dat (h) PCR No.15X02 SEQ 12 - Impact parameters taken from different point than stress dat (1) PCR No. 2CC15 SEQ 21 - Impact parameters taken from different nodal point than nearest nod (j) PCR No. 2CC15 SEQ 44 - Nearest nodal point used for impact data and stress dat (2) EMD 049341 " Disposition of Pipe Clearance Reports for the cases in which the ratio of the seismic displacement of the target and the source are less than 0.2." Revision 00, August 15, 1984 (a) PCR No. 20022 SEQ 08 - Impact parameters taken frem different nodal point than nearest nod (b) PCR No. 2FP15 SEQ 02 - Impact parameters taken from different nodal point than nearest nod (c) PCR No. ICC09 SEQ 13 - Impact parameters taken from different nodal point than nearest nod (3) EMD 050396 " Disposition Calculations for Westinghouse Related Clearance Reports" Revision 00, November 12, 1984 Addendum PCR No. 2SX17 SEQ 19 - Impact parameters taken from different nodal point than nearest nod (4) EMD 050388 " Disposition of 35 NPS Related Piping Clearance Reports" Revision 0 (a) PCR No. 2CC06 SEQ 14 - Impact parameters taken from

,

nearest node.

l (b) PCR No. lAFIS SEC 05 - Impact parameters taken frcm

, nearest node.

!

1 L

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

,

..

.

! (5) EMD 048319 " Disposition of Piping Clearance Reports (PCRS)"

Revision 00 July 27, 198 (a) PCR No. 2FP03 SEQ 107 - Impact parameters taken from closest nod (b) PCR No. ICC02 SEQ 100 - Impact parameter taken from closest nod (6) EMD 050387 " Reactions Due to Seismic Interaction Between S & L Piping and Structural Components" Revision 0 No specific observations were mad The above information was discussed with the S & L project engineer responsible for this work and is summarized as follows:

The PCR project was performed in several phase Initially, pipe clearances reported from the field were correlated to approximate locations on isometric drawings. Using this information, math model nodes were chosen based on the maximum displacements for the specific section of pipe in question. A certain degree of uncertainty in the exact interference point necessitated the use of this conservative approac If the PCR's could be dispositioned as " Acceptable" using this information, no further refinement was required. If a potential problem was found, additional information was requested from the field. This " Phase II" work gave nore accurate inpact locations and allowed the nearest nodal point as opposed to the most conservative nodal point in the arca to be use Three PCRs were reviewed to document this approac Items 2.a., 2.b, and 2.c above were verified through the as-built drawings for the location of the impact point. All three PCR calculations were detennined to be correct in that respec Conclusio,n, This allegation was substantiated from the perspective that in many cases the closest nodal point was not utilized in the impact calculatio flowever, the reference points in question were chosen because of their conservative data. Therefore, there is no technical basis for this allegation. The methodology applied by S & L in resolving PCR impact calculations was both logical and conservative. The use of this methodology to resolve the PCR impact calculations would also be acceptable for Braidwood, b. Allegation (Closed EMD utilized incorrect analytical methods for as-built reccociliation of pipe stresses and anchor loads. A specific example referenced support relocations reviewed by a named individual where the induced moments from proximate supports were ignore .

.

NRC Review The NRC inspector reviewed various analyses pertaining to reconciliation ,

of as-built piping dimensions and support locations for the Byron l Station. This reconciliation effort has not been initiated for I Braidwood, therefore, this allegation could not pertain to Braidwoo All of the above analyses were reviewed by the named individual. It was determined during various discussions with S & L personnel that this individual's reviews were of a secondary nature and were not directly related to checking the accuracy of the calculations. The technical adequacy of the calculations was performed by engineers subordinate to this individual. Out of the several hundred reconciliation calculations performed, ten analyses were reviewed in detail to determine if any inappropriate analytical techniques had been utilize The following S&L calculations were reviewed with the following observations or connents:

(1) EMD 030145 " Addendum to Stress Report," 2SX-46, Revision 03F0 - all supports installed within installation tolerance (2) EMD 033273 " Byron 2 Addendum to Stress Report," 2SX 72 - no recenciliation calculaticns were performe (3) EMD 036620 " Byron 2 Addendum to Stress Report," 2MS-16, Revision 00F0 - no reconciliation calculations were performe A dimensional change outside of the guidelines in PI-BB-27 was written off by engineering judgement. This was acceptabl (4) EMD C39258 " Byron 2 Addendum to Stress Report," 2AF-07, Revision 00F0 - A support was relocated from l'-0 to 3'-6".

The basis for increasing the support loads was to compare this to a similar run with a support located at approximately 2'- Loads in this case doubled and on this basis the loads for the new location were assumed to increase by the same ratio (i.e.,

3.5 times). There was no basis for this methodolog (5) EPO 037946 " Addendum to Stress Report," 200-01, Revision 00F No irregularities observe (6) EMD 038762 " Addendum to Stress Report," 2FW-14, Revision 00F Support load increase factor was determined on a static basis onl (7) EMD 038753, " Addendum to Stress Report," 250-21, Revision 00F The reactions and mcments were determined in all three direction Seismic loads were based on peak response spectrum values. This was appropriat (8) EMD 037949, " Addendum to Stress Report," 2FW-06 Revision 00F No coments mad (9) EMD 030708, " Addendum to Stress Report," 2AF-06, Revision 00F No coments mad . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .

.

"

.

(10) EMD 037742, " Addendum to Stress Report," 25X-12, Revision 00F No reconciliation calculations require The above information was discussed with EMD management personnel, '

specifically with regards to items b.(4) and b.(6). No justification-was given for the methodology described in item b.(4). It was generally agreed that the approach taken was inappropriate. However, it was concluded that due to the magnitude of the loads being addressed that this particular case would not result in an overstressed situatio Item b (6) was justified on the basis that the portion of the line in question was non-seismic and therefore, only static loads were analyze This was found to be acceptabl Conclusions

.

The allegation concerning the specific example of as-built reccnciliation improprieties could not be substantiated and is ,

considered closed. However, one example was found where an inappropriate methodology was used. Since a limited number of calculations were reviewed by the NRC inspector, S&L committed to evaluate 30 additional calculations to determine if this was an isolated incidence or not. This is an unresolved item pending the NRC inspectors review of S&L's evaluatio (454/86009-01; 455/86008-01)

3. Unresolved Items An unresolved item is a matter about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether it is an acceptable item, an open item, a deviation, or a violation. The unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 2.b.(4).

4. Exit Interview The inspectors net with representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspectors suncarized the scope and findings of the inspections noted in this report. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the

,

inspection. No documents / processes were identified as proprietary.

I i

t l 6