ML19254C618
| ML19254C618 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1979 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254C606 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-79-16, NUDOCS 7910170037 | |
| Download: ML19254C618 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000341/1979016
Text
'
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-341/79-16
Do_cket No. 50-341
License No. CPPR-87
Licensee: The Detroit Edison Company
2000 Second Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226
Facility Name: Enrico Termi 2
Inspection At: General Electric Company, San Jose, California
Enrico Fermi 2 Site, Monroe, Michigan
NRC Region III, Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Inspection Conducted: June 12-13, 1979 at GE
August 1-3, 1979 at the site
August 10, 1979 at RIII office
Y
/ hah &~
Inspector:
I. T. Yin
I
g 3f
hY%1
'
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief
f/lNlN
7L.
-
/
Engineering Support Section 2
Inspection Summary
Inspection on June 12-13, and August 1-3, 1979 (Report No. 50-341/79-16)
Areas Inspected:
Pipe support and restraint installation, inspection and
verification procedures; observation of work and storage cot.ditions;
review of records for the inspe: Lion of safety related hangers. The
inspection involved 33 inspector hours onsite, in the NSSS Sunplier
office and in the NRC Region III office by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the three areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance
or deviations were identified in two areas. One apparent item of non-
compliance was identified in one area (infraction - inadequate hanger
inspection corrective action - Paragraph 1).
1156
036
030
7910170
.
.
DETAILS
Pe,rsons Contacted
Observation of Licensee Audit at GE on June 12-13, 1979
Principal Licensee (DECO) Employees
J.- D. Ryan, Project QA Engineer
J. H. Casiglia, Engineering Work Leader
General Electric Company (GE)
R. L. Smith, Senior Project Engineer
E. O. Swain, Manager, Piping Design
R. C. Boesser, Manager, QA & OM
G. R. Hosack, Manager, Quality Audits
R. J. Valencia, Audit Coordinator
Inspection of Site Activities on August 1-3, 1979
Principal Licensee (DECO) Employees
- W. J. Fahrner, Project Manager
W. Everett, Project Superintendent
- T.
A. Allessi, QA Director
R. W. Barr, Project QA Director
- K. J. Moody, Supervisor of Purchasing
- A. Godoshian, Assistant Project Superintendent
J. A. Cartmill, Assistant Project Superintendent
- E.
Griffing, Assistart Superintendent
- H. A. Walker, Site Project QA Engineer
- W.
Miller, Plant QA Engineer
- P. Cribbs, QA Encineer
- R.
S. Leonart, Startup Engineer
- W. H. Buchanan, Field Engineer
Daniels International Corporation (DI)
- D. E. Seifert, Project Manager
- M. Alba-ts, Assistant Project Manager
- K. Dempsey, Assistant Construction Mw 2.;2r
- J. G. Bolt, Project QA Manager
J. T. Blixt, Project QC Manager
- D. Vandergrift, QC Engineer
- D. Amard, Mech / Piping Engineer
R. O'Donnell, Engineer
T. Couse, QA Engineer
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
-2-
1156
037
.~
.
Enforcement Meeting at RIII Office on August 10, 1979
LIE 2
E. Hir
t. Assist-.:c 'v. ce President and Manager of QA
T. All -sai, QA Director
R. Bar .
- oject QA Dire; tor
Dir
Assistant Proje et Manager
4.
..u,
J. Casxglia, Engineering Wo ~r Leader
H.- A. Walker, Site Project Qu Engineer
D1
K. Dempsey, Mechanical Superintendent, Assistant Construction Manager
NRC RIII
G. Fiorelli, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
R. C. Knop, Chief, Projects Section 1
D. H. Danielson, Chief, Engineering Support Section 2
I. T. Yin, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support Section 2
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Unresolved Item (341/79-07-01):
Inadequate Procedure for hanger
installation deficiency trend analysis. The inspector reviewed Procedure
WB-Q-112, Rev. 3, and considered the corrective measures unsatisfactory
mainly because the categories of QA I hanger discrepancies had not been
included in the new revision. On August 2, 1979, a controlled " Interim
Changes to WB-Q-112" was issued to comply with NRC comments. The inspector
has not further questions.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (341/79-07-02):
Inadequate hanger procedure.
The inspector reviewed the revised Procedure WB-C-114, Rev. 7-2, dated
March 23, 1979, and considers the items have been adequately addressed.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected
1.
Review of Pipe Hanger Installation Activities
Problems relative to inadequate procedures, installations, and
corrective measures for pipe hanger installations we:e identified in
RIII Reports 50-341/JS-03, 50-341/78-14, and 50-341/79-07.
During
this inspection the following additional and repeated problems were
identified:
Since the second stop work on installation of safety related
a.
hangers on Mar.a 15, 1979, to the date of this inspection,
there were more than 600 hangers released for installation, of
which less than 60 were QC inspected and accepted. The site
l156
038
-3-
.
.
project management appeared to be overriding the site stop work
order.
Prior to the completion of this inspection, all work
releases were rescinded.
b.
The trend analysis procedure WB-Q-112 reviewed previously by
the inspector continued to be deficient. However, the procedure
was satisfactorily revised during this inspection.
c.
Little docume. station exists to indicate that all categories of
hanger install. tion deficiencies had been evaluated by W&B QA.
-
d.
While changes on some of the installation drawings were high-
lighted by clouding, no specific instructions were given as to
which portion of the existing structure should be saved.
Drawing P44-3047-G12, Rev. A, which supersedes P44-3047-G06,
Rev. A, is a typical example.
e.
Hangers were not QC inspected in a timely manner. For example,
hanger P44-3189-G16 had not been QC inspected af ter being
installed for more than a month,
f.
Several work packages reviewed during this inspection contained
incomplete documentation. Affected DDC's were filed in different
work locations.
g.
In review of a licensee surveillance report, PC-071079, dated
July 10-11, 1979, FMR's had not been closed in accordance with
FSAR commitments and procedure requirements. The inspector
emphasized that the procedures should b3 implemented and when
they are found deficient appropriate revision should be made.
h.
At the storage area inside the cooling tower, t'e inspett'r
c
observed drive fit bolts on seismic rigid strut lugs that
appeared to have large clearance and threaded load bearing
surfaces. One hanger component with two lugs welded on each
half of the pipe clamp was not in accordance with drawing
R-30-N2177-G27. Rev. O, design requirements.
Prior to the
,
completion of the inspection, hold tags were placed on the
affected components.
i.
Hanger 11-3146-G09 (54.9 kips design load with 3 1/2" diameter
drive fit bolt connections) was observed on the 24" RHR line
above the torus suppression pool. A review of stress report
"RHR 2" dated February 2, 1979, indicated the calculated load
to be 55.6 kips which differed from the design load of 54.9
kips. Furthermore, a thermal movement of 1.29" lateral was
indicated but the installation prevented lateral pipe movement.
This deficiency will require additional review.
~
1 1
'
q 7 0>
II
O
oJ
-4-
'
.
.
j.
DCN 2220, dated June 28, 1979 to DECO Specification 3071-42,
Rev. A, specified a tolerance of 1/16" over bolt size for
" drive fit" bolt connections. The inspector stated that a
total clearance of 1/8" to 1/4" could exist on the strut assembly.
The DECO engineers stated that they will evaluate the effect of
clearance and the threaded load bearing surface on the seismic
analyses.
k.
In review of P44-3047-G12, Rev. A, (see Paragraph 1.d above)
the inspector noted that the special lug design was without
-
vertical dimension; also, the lug retainers, Item 103 of the
standard drawing 3M-2331, were not compatible with the special
lugs.
Upon considering the problems identified above, the inspector concluded
that the licensee's actions to correct hanger installation deficiencies
and to prevent recurre ce appeared to be inadequate. This is considered
an item of noucompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII,
and Enrico Fermi 2 FSAR, Section A17.5.16 (341/79-16-01). Two
sitilar items of noncompliance were identified in RIII Reports No.
50-341/78-14 and No. 50-341/79-07.
2.
Entorcement Meeting Held at RIII
Due to the recurring hanger problems identified by the RIII inspector,
and the failure on the part of the licensee to effectively correct
the deficient conditions, a meeting was held on August 10, 1979, at
RIII, to discuss with licensee management the significance of the
problems and ways to reverse the undesirable trend.
Items discussed
included:
A new site organization structure was presented by the licensee.
a.
It provides for a special hanger installation and inspection
group to centralize operations and control.
b.
The need for a system or program to improve the design engineering,
QC, and construction personnel work interface.
Improvement
areas should include better design instructions, utilization of
field sketches to clarify design intent, and better understanding
on the use of DER's by the field personnel,
c.
Conduct QA audits on procedure implementation and streamline
the procedure revison process.
d.
The need for licensee overview on trend anlaysis peformed by
W&B QA.
In addition 19 the trend analysis, investigate the
underlying causes and provide prompt corrective actions and
personnel training.
11re
qgn
i I30
D4U
5-
-
'
.
w
Timely update of documents, work and inspection status.
Better
e.
document control and speedier document retrievability,
f.
Step-up material and equipment source and site QC inspection
and surveillance. The licensee reported 100% ccerce inspection
at the hanger vendor shops and is considering re-inspection of
all previously inspected items based on recently established
acceptance standards.
g.
50 S&W .irawings were reviewed by DECO engineers in June 1979,
.
30% contained minor problems and 20% were determined to be
"inconstructable".
Improvement on S&W hanger design review
appears to be a must.
.
h.
The need for a close working relationship between licensee
engiueering and QA. Performing joint audits on hanger pro-
cedure implementation and hardware conditions would help.
i.
Licensee engineering evaluation on gap tolerance for hanger
component pin connections.
j.
In regard to the conditional hanger work under site stop work
order, the licensee committed to limit themselves to no more
than 10 hangers on large bore pipes and 20 hangers on small
bore pipes, using a one for one replacement after QC inspection
and acceptance.
k.
The need for a better awareness and grasp on implementation of
the improved hanger program. The licensee agreed to provide
RIII a QA I hanger installation and inspection status report
for evaluation and review on a weekly basis.
3.
Observation of Licensee Audit at GE
The inspector accompanied the licensee audit team on June 12-}3, 1979,
at GE, San Jose, California. The audit areas included pipe hanger,
snubber and pipe whip restraint calculations, work procedures, and
personnel qualification. As a result of the audit, the licensee
ider.tified that (1) hanger calculations made by ITT-Grinnel Corporation
were not documented, (2) Nutech Report "Ent,ineering Evaluation of
Recirculation Pump Hangers", dated Febr9ary,1975, relative to the
inadequate design of recirculation loop
ip hangers had not been
evaluated by GE for application. Follo
on these items were
underway inaccordance with the licensee corporate procedure. The
inspector stated that he will review the resolution.
This is an
unresolved item (341/79-16-02).
It was further identified by the licensee that the GE calculations
for the cable type pipe whip restraints installed on the 12 and 22
inch recirculation loop piping were not reviewed by another qualified
l } }j
fj f j
-6-
.
.
,
.
.
engineer.
However, because of the conservatism established in the
scaling formula derived from actual tests, and the use of alternative
computation methods, overall, the calculations and documentation are
considered acceptable.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether thef r.re acceptable items, items of noncompliance,
os deviations.
An unresolved item, disclosed during the inspection is
discussed in Paragraph 3.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with site staff representatives (denoted under Persons
Contacted) at the conclusion of each portion cf the inspections. The
inspector summarized the purpose and findings of th2 inspection. The
licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
}lc-J o
L;4 2-
r a
-7-