ML16341A456
| ML16341A456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1984 |
| From: | Bosnak R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341A455 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8501030129 | |
| Download: ML16341A456 (16) | |
Text
~I
<<Re<<~
~'llICIJ 5IWI CQ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 4GT2 sm MEMORANDUM FOR:
James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering FROM:
SUBJECT:
Robert J.
- Bosnak, Chief'echanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 AUDIT AT PGE/BECHTEL OFFICES SAN". FRANCISCO, CA, OCTOBER 22-26, 1984 4
The NRC personnel and consultants shown on Attachment fl visited the PGE/Bechtel offices October 22-26, 1984 to audit piping and pipe support design for Diablo Canyon Unit 2 and to determine whether the Internal Review Program
( IRP), when complete, will achieve its stated purpose of assuring that Unit
. 1 items identified by a number of sources which have potential inpact on Unit 82, are suitably tracked to completion.
In addition, the licensee's Allegation Review Program was checked to determine its ability to track allegations applicable to Unit 82.
Certain allegations dealing with IRP-covered-subjects may be tracked by both programs.
The Internal Review Program at present con'tains 412 identified'tems of which
'145 have been determined to be not applicable to Unit 82.
The balance of 267 items are represented by '195 review packages which are in the process of resolution and completion.
To date 181 packages have been resolved.
The NRC IRP team reviewed appropriate documents and procedures (PGE Letter, 10/19/84, DCL-84-332, PGE Letter, 7/31/84, DCL-84-276 and PEI 13).
Following this r'eview, approximately 30 of the 145 items were selected by the team to determine whether the designation "not applicable to Unit <<2" was
.appropriate-.
In addition, approximately 35, packages of the 195 were reviewed to ascertain whether issues identified as applicable to Unit 82 were being appropriately tracked through to resolution and final completion.
This includes those situations in which alternative plans are required for Unit D'2 to achieve resolution.
The IRP team's preliminary findings are that the IRP is appropriate to its goals of identifying and tracking issues raised on Unit fl as a result of Unit
- -
- 1's IDVP including the IDVP ITR's and RFI's,
- ITP, SSER open items and ihe Unit 81 2.C. (ii) license conditions, and that the ARP is appropriate to its
. goals of identifying and tracking allegations applicable to Unit f2 as iderti ied in SSER f26.
The.licensee anticipates that IRP items will be complete including the as-built information per Attachment 5 to PEI 13 by the end of 1984.
850i030i29 84ii29 PDR *DOCK 05000323 PDR j
~ \\
'ames P.'night In order to adapt to the fact that piping and support analyses were performed by three separate organizations, Westinghouse,
- Bechtel, San Francisco (SFHO) and Bechtel, Gaithersburg (EPD), the review team assignments were revised as indicated in Attachment
- 81. 'etail ed revi ew of pi ping probl em packages was commenced by the teams (See Attachment 82) for conformance to team prepared analysis features check off lists.
The teams also selected supports associated with the piping problems to check the pipe/pipe support and support/civil structure interfaces and support design analysis features.
We believe that our overall review of pipe and pipe supports for Unit t2 is approximately 33K complete as of, October 26, 1984.
It was noted that there may be split responsibility for certain gang supports used for piping which has been analyzed by more than one of the design organi-zations.
The same situation may occur for certain anchors.
The review team intends to audit such configurations as extra problems since none happened to be included in the problems identified in Attachment b'2.
Review team members have documented the procedures, instructiozs and other pertinent information used in reviewing each problem completed.
In an exit meeting with PGE and their contractors from Bechtel (SFHOEEPD) and Westinghouse.,
the progress of the various team's audits was discussed.
Unanswered questions and procedures requiring revision or revi'ew were
'ummarized.
Plans for continuation of the audit at various locations as outlined in Attachment 3 were discussed.
It was stressed that the Phase 3
audits would not be held unti 1 sufficient items had been reported as having completed Phase 3 (Definition of phases of work in Attachment 4).
The dates, number of visits and locations were for planning purposes only and subject, to
.change.
Attachments:
As stated cc:
R. Vollmer, DE T.
- Novak, DL G.
- ighton, DL Schierling M. Hartzman, DE'.
Manoly, RI T. Sullivan, DE E.
Rodabaugh, ECR B. Saffell, BCL T. Burr, INEL K. Morton, INEL M. Russell, INEL Robert J.
Bosnak, Chief Mechanical Engineering Branch
'Division of Engineering G. Miller, INEL H. Fleck, ETEC.
J.
- Brammer, ETEC J.. Prevost, ETEC P. Bezler, BNL
ATTACHMENT f. I I. Original Assi nments IRP R. Bosnak*,
NRC M. Hartzman, NRC K. Manoly, NRC K. Morton, INEL B. Saffell, BCL
~Su orts M. Hartzman*
H. Fleck J.
Brammer J.
Prevost M. Russell
'I Pi in and,Su ort Confi uration E.
Rodabaugh*
T. Sullivan H. Fleck J.
Brammer P.
Bezl er Pi in Anal sis K. Manoly*.
B. Saffell T. Burr K. Morton G. Miller II.
Revised Assi nments Bechtel San Francisco B. Saffell*
K. Morton, INEL M. Russell, INEL John
- Brammer, ETEC Bechtel, Gaithersbur K. Manoly*
T. Burr, INEL G. Miller, INEL M. Hartzman*
H. Fleck, ETEC J. Prevost, ETEC P, Bezler, BNL Pi in and Su port Confi uration Same as
- above, IRP Same as above.
Pago I of ->
DIABLO CANON PROJECT - UNIT 2 PIPING AHD SUPPORT ANALYSIS HRC AUDIT SUt&MY SHEET SYSTEH HAHE UNIT I
Designation Ca lc.
P Ipo No.
S I zo UNIT 2 Dos lgnat Ion Ca Ic.
P Ipo No.
S I zo PIPING AHALYSI S-BY SUPPORT AHALYSI S BY NC REVIEW BY 10/24/84 Accumulator d RIIR Loop 4 Acc.
- 2. Safety InJoctlon Loop 3 Sl 3 6tl 2 II 4N M 400I 6"
- 3. Pressurizer Surge Llno Por SRG l4" M 410I l4"
- 4. Por Safety d Rol lot PSARV 6"-3" M 420I 6"-3" L!no l2n I2n 4n 4n
- 5. Letdown Rogonorotl vo 9-IOS 3"
float Exchangor Loop 2 If 430I IP29/0353p/II
f
Pago 2 01 o
DIABLO CANYON PROJECT " UNIT 2 PIPING ANO SUPPORT AIIALYSIS NAC AUOIT
SUMMARY
SHEET SYSTEM NAME UNIT I Desi natton Ca Ic.
P Ipe No.
Size UNIT 2" Oes Ignat Ion Ca lc.
P Ipe No.
S Ize P IP I NG ANALYSIS BY SUPPORT ANALYSIS BY AC REYIEK OY IO/24/84 Auxlllary Feedwater 2-l20 3", 4" H-OI7-05 3"
4" SFHO SFHO Chenlcal and Volume Control Systen '-306 5/4", 2" 8-536 CYCS) 8-537 3/4, I/ZN 2tI 5/4h Za SFIIO SFHO Safety InJectlon 9 304 5/4u 9-516 3/4" SFHO SFHO Auxlllary Stean 6-30 IH 2"
6-500 I", 2" SFHO SFHO Llquld Rad~aste 19-307kl 2"
19"505 l9-503 3/4", I" SFHO 2ll SFHO IP29/0553p/ZI
PIIgo 3 ol 3 DIABLO CANON PROJECT - UNIT 2 PIPING AND SUPPORT AHALYSIS NRC AUDIT SUITQRY SHEET SYSTEH NAYS UNIT I
Deslgnatlon Ca Ic.
P Ipo Ho.
Sizo UNIT 2 Desi gnat Ion Ca Ic.
P Ipo Ho.
Size PIP I NG.
ANALYSIS BY SUPPORT AHALYSI S BY NRC REYIEK BY IO/24/84 Steam Supply To Aux.
2-I II 4"
Food Pump - Turbine G 016 OI 4n (EPD) Bochtel (EPD) Bochtel (13)
~
SFHO (2)'afety InJoctlon-Boron InJoctlon Tank Suction d Discharge 8-l06 3", 4" G-020-0I 3",
'4".
(EPD) Bochtol (EPD) Bochtol (l6)
Main Steam - Load 3 HS-3 8",
IO" G-03I-02 8",
IO."
('IO) "
IBII 24 II 24 N 28 II SFHO (6) 28m~
30n Foodllator, FK-I.
FKI-4 16", 24" G-032-05 l6", 24" (EPD) Bochtel (EPD) Bochtel (62) "
26-l/4",
26-I/4",
SFHO (II) 3 0h 33ff 30ll 33ll N)TES:
I. Humbers In paronthesls
(") represent scope of pipe supports.
- 2. There are no gang supports with organlzatlonal Interface.
IP29/0353p/3)
gL TJ
~ ~
r 0
lr I
0 I-4 1I
~ '4 E 4 I',
1
In general 'the three phases of piping work are defined as follows:
PH I Stress analyses were based on preliminary.response spectra which were essentially the Unit 1 spectra, which, included Hosgri.
Preliminary thermal modes.,
equipment nozzle load acceptability, and preliminary Seismic Anchor Movements for equipment and structures, etc
, were used in some cases also.
Pipe supports designs were based on those preliminary stress analyses.
PH II Stress analyses based on unique response spectra generated-for Unit 2, including Hosgri.
Final thermal modes,. SN's, nozzle loads, and engineering walkdown isometrics etc.
- used, in general (some final data still pending).
Pipe support Phase I loads 'checked against Phase II, loads and revisions issued as required.
PH III As-built close out, plus any additional reviews due to Unit 1 concerns (such as the seven licensing conditions), Field Change Request (FCR) incorporation, Field Change Transmittal (FCT) incor'poration, Hot
. Functional Test walkdown changes, equipment nozzle load acceptance, etc.
It is estimated that about 150 minor revisions to pipe supports may yet result from the final close (Total scope is about 9300 pipe
These are normal plant close-out activities incl'uding compliance with and response to IE Bulletin 79-14.
~r t
aW
'I