ML19281A133
| ML19281A133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1978 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19281A124 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-358-78-27, NUDOCS 7903060592 | |
| Download: ML19281A133 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000358/1978027
Text
s
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFD!ISSION
OFFICL OF INSPECTIOh ASD ENFORCLMEST
REGION III
~
Report No. 50-358/78-27
Docket No. 50-358
License No. CPPR-88
Licensee:
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company
139 Eas' 4th Street
Cincinnati, OH
45201
Facility Name:
Wm. H.
Zimmer Power Station, Unit 1
Inspection At:
Wm. H. Zimmer 1 Site, Moscow, Ohio; and Sargent and Lundy
Office, Chicago
Inspection Conducted: November 16-17 and 21, 1978
/
Inspector-
'I . T
n
r
?
!fff./fc -
Reviewed By:
,D. k Danielson,' Chief
h/t 4/'l
Engineering Support Section 2
'
Inspection _ S_umrary
Inspection on November 16-17 and 21, 1978 (Report No. 50-355/75-27)
Areas Inspected:
Inspection of safety-related hangers and restraints
and document control provision for pipe stress calculations and reports
including:
(1) Review of wel. ding and NDE procedures, (2) Observation
of weld control and performance, (3) Review of welding and raterial
records, (4) Observation of hanger component outdoor storage, and (5)
Review of document control reasures for pipe stress analyses.
The
inspection involved a total of 13 inspector-hours onsite, and 5 inspec-
tor-hours at the Sargent and Lundy offices by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncorpliance
were identified in four areas; one item of noncompliance was identified
in one area (Infraction - rigid supports welded to essential piping were
without material and welder's identification - Paragraph 3.d).
~
~
- .
7 9 0 3 0 6 0 5T2_
.
DETAILS
,
Persons Contacteil
Insp,ection on Site _During_ November 16-l_7
1_978
,-
Principa(_Iic_en_see Employees (CC6E)_
.
s
_
- B.
K. Culver, Project Manager
W. W. Schwiers, Principal QA and Standards Engineer
- J. F. Weissenberg, QA and Standards Engineer
- R. L. Wood, QA and Standards Engineer
- J. B. Vorderbrueggen, Hanger Engineer
Kaiser Engineer, Inc. (KEI)
- R.
Marshall, Project Fbnager
R.
E. Turner, QA Manager
- M.
G. Franchuk, Mechanical QA Engit.eer
K. 1. Shinkle, Hanger and Mechanical inspector
Investigation and Inspection at Sargent and Lundy Office, Chicago
on November 21, 1978
Licensee Representative (CG6E)
- W.
W. Schwiers, Principal QA and Standards Engineer
S_a r.g en t and _1; undy Engineers (S&L)
- E.
B. Branch, Head, Engineering Mechanics Division (ESD)
- J.
B. Adee, Jr., QA Coordinator
S. Rurka, Seafor Structural Project Engineer
J. M. McLaughlin, Assistant Manager, Structural Department
- G.
T. Kitz, Section Superviosr, EMD
- R.
J. Pruski, Project Manager
- R.
F.
Scheibel, Project Director
S.
G. Carlson, Mechanical Project Engineer
R. P. Pauliukonis, Administrator, EMD
A.
P. Gillis, Senior QA Coordinator
- H. S. Taylor, Assistant Head, QA Division
- W. G. Hegener, Manager, Mechanical Department
USSRC Region I
A.
N. Fasano, Reactor Inspector
- .'
- denotes those present at site Exit Interview on November 17, 1978.
- denotes those present at site Exit Interview on November 21, 1978.
- 2-
.
Licensee Action on Previous 1v Identified Items
(open) Noncompliance Item (358/78-18-01): Inadequate hanger, snubber,
and restraint inspection program.
The details of the probicm areas
observed are recorded in RIII Report No. 78-18,Section II, Paragraph 1.
_-
During this inspection samples of the KEI " Construction Inspection
.
-
Plan Daily Work Sheet, Inprocess Inspection", and the CG6E " Mechanical
Construction Test Procedure" MC-5 entitled " Pipe Support Final Inspec-
tion," Revision 0, dated September 5, 1978, were reviewed by the
inspector and are considered unacceptable based on the following
findings:
.
1.
The inprocess inspection checklist relative to the specific
inspection areas was not prepared and approved by supervision
or engineering.
2.
No requirements for documenting deviations if they are not within
specific acceptance tolerance.
3.
Inspections that should be carried out during inprocess instal-
lations to ensure timely corrections and prevent recurrence
were placed in final inspection period when adjustment of
components are required prior to testing and operations.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected
1.
Review of Welding and NDE Procedures for Hangers and Restraints
The following procedures from the Kaiser Engineers, Inc. (KEI)
Special Process Procedure Fanual (SPPM) were reviewed by the
inspector relative to the welding and NDE work for hangers and
restraints.
a.
SPPM No. 3.1.51, " Shielded Metal Arc, AWS Carbon Steel
to Carbon Steel Structural Shapes Charpy Tested A-588
Gr. B (As rolled)", dated February 17, 1975.
This procedure
was qualified on January 24, 1975.
b.
SPPM No. 4. 6, R. 3," Visual Examination", dated May 23, 1978.
c.
SPPM No. 3.3, R.4,
" Welding Filler Materials Control
Procedure", dated April 9, 1975.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
.
2.
Observation of Weld Controls and Performance
-
a.
The inspector observed the weld filler metal issuanc.6
station east of the reactor building.
Items reviewed
-3-
.
included calibration of electrode holding oven, control
of portable heated containers, segregation of electrodes
by type and size, and certifications of electrodes.
-
b.
The inspector observed the finished shop and field welds
on hangers and snubbers number lWS044SR, LWR 091SR,
,.
LWR 214HR, LWR 200HR, and 1WS311HA.
No rejectable weld
surface conditions had been identified.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Re_ view of Welding and, Material Records
Selective areas of weld filler metal and attachment hanger
materials for the following items were reviewed by the
inspector for certification of compliance.
a.
Snubber lWS0445R:
The heat number on the pipe attachment, a section of 8"
sch. 40 pipe, is 31565.
It was shop welded to line
lWS15A18.
b.
Rigid Restraint LWR 091SR:
The heat number on the pipe attachment is 252661, shop
welded to line 1WR03A14.
c.
Anchor lWS311HA:
The heat numbers on the shear lugs are 69D782 and 71AOSS.
The material certification, including tensile testing
and chemical analysis for Heat No. 69D782, was reviewed
by the inspector.
d.
Rigid Supports LWR 200HR, and LWR 214HR:
The heat numbers for the rigid support pipe members
welded to the Closed Cooling System lines LWR 06A14
and LWR 07314 designated as pipe class "C" and seismic
class "B" essential components were not available.
Further, the heat numbers for the weld filler metal
and welders' identification were not marked on the
supports or recorded in the installation documents.
.-
Rigid Seismic Restraints 1FC0375R:
-
e.
There were no heat numbers on the eight shear lugs. ~
Noncompliance Report No. E 1445, dated November 8,
1978, was written to document this.
-4-
.
'
The lack of control and identification of safety related materials
as described in item d above is an apparent item of noncompliance
identified in Appendix A.
(358/78-27-01).
J
Except as noted, no items of noncompliance or deviations were
identified.
.-
4.
Observation of Hanger Component Outdoor Storage
The condition of components for hangers and restraints stored
outdoors at the laydown area, east of the reactor buildings,
was considered questionable.
Rust was observed at the ball
bushing coated structural members.
Components were observed
off the dunnage on the sandy soil.
A Nonconformance Report,
No. E-851 identified piping storage problems at the same area
on October 10, 1977. This report was still open.
The inspector
stated that he had concerns relative to:
(1) the acceptability
of the rusty and frozen bushings which may require close gap
clearance, and (2) the timely resolution of noncemformances.
This is an unresolved item pending more in-depth inspection
during a future visit.
(358/78-27-02)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
S&L Pipe Stress Report Document Control
The inspector received a telephone call on October 17, 1978, from
an individual who alleged that the control for documentation of
the stress reports was not adequate.
The inspector performed
investigations relative to the subject matter on November 21, 1978,
at the S&L office, Chicago. With the exception of one specific
problem relative to the engineer not keeping an up-to-date proce-
dure, no apparent problems were identified during the investigation
and inspection.
Areas Inspected:
a.
Procedures Review
The following manual procedures were reviewed by the
inspector:
(1) S&L Organization Manual - Section 2H, dated October 15,
1978, a description of functional authirities and
"
reporting responsibilities.
~
-5-
.
(2) S6L Organization Position Description Manual - Section
.
211, d a t ed Oc t obe r 15, 1978.
This section included
responsibilities of Mechanical Department, Engineering
Mechanics Division (EMD), the division that is respon-
sible for piping analysis and issuance of stress reports.
.-
Specific job descriptions within EMD reviewed included
,
System Analysis Supervisor, Project Engineer, Piping
Engineer, and
..b neering Analyst.
_ i
(3)
EMD Technical Procedure No. 11. " Standard EMD
Checklist for Piping System Stress Report",
Revision 3, dated July 3,1978.
This procedure
included Group QA procedure GQ - 3.08, Design
Calculation Requirements.
(4)
EMD Administrative Procedure No. 5, " Procedure
for Filing Reports, Memoranda, and Analyses",
Revision 2, dated December 7, 1976.
(5)
EMD Administrative Procedure No. 6, "EMD Report
Number Assignment", Revision 1, approved on
December 18, 1976.
b.
Review of S&L Audits
The following S&L internal audit reports, including
corrective actions, were reviewed by the inspector:
(1)
Report on Internal Audit No. 23 performed on
April 1, 2, and 5, 1976, relative to personnel
compliance with procedures for design calculation,
system and structure design review, and QA documen-
tation.
(2) Report on Internal Audit No. G-17 performed on
September 30, 1976, relative to personnel compliance
with QA documentation requirements.
(3)
Report on Internal Audit No. G-39 performed on
October 24, 1977, relative to personnel compliance
with QA procedures and department standards.
(4)
Report on Internal Audit No. 31 performed on
April 14, 14, 18 and 19, 1977, relative to personnel
compliance with procedures for design palculations,
and system design reviews.
-,
(5) Report on Internal Audit No. G-59 performed on -
June 28-30, 1978, relative to personnel compliance
with various department standards.
-6-
(6)
Report on International Audit No. 41 performed after
'
problems identified at the site in August, 1978,
relative to the adequacies of hanger component design.
Areas audited included work implementation of the
.-
following QA procedures:
GQ - 3.04
Design Criteria
GQ - 3.07
S&L Drawings
GQ - 3.08
Design Calculation
GQ - 4.01
Procurement Specification
(7) QA Division Corrective Action Reports (CAR)
CAR 66, dated June 10, 1977
CAR 67, dated June 10, 1977
CAR 93, dated October 22, 1976
(8)
Reports on Internal Reaudits
. No. 31.1, dated July 15 and 21, 1977 for CAR No.
66, 67, 68 and 69.
No.
l'.1,
dated November 26, 1976 for CAR No. 93.
.
c.
Review of Stress Reports
The status of stress reports is controlled by card index
files with computer printout updates as work tool and
reference.
Three approved stress reports selected at
random were reviewed by the inspector in the area of docu-
ment control.
(1)
EMD-4130-WR-09, " Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water",
dated November 22, 1977.
'
(2)
EMD-4130-HD-6, "From Second Stage RHTR Drain Tank to
Condensor HD-6", Revision 1, dated June 12, 1978.
The above two reports were signed off by the qualified
preparer and reviewer and approved by the supervisor.
QA calculation checklist was included and signed-off.
Co; uter printout configuration, code commitments, and
reference drawing number were included in the report.
The computer program used is PIPSYS 09.5.065-3.4, dated
September 8, 1977. The load combination datm appeated
~
to be complete.
(3)
Report en "10-inch Containment Spray Header (Upper),
Run 5".
-7-
.
RH-05-TH-3, Revision 2, dated September 27, 1973.
'
RH-05-SE-2, dated September 27, 1973.
Kli-05-WT-2, dated March 30, 1973.
Although no calculation checklist was included in the
above reports, it was considered acceptable because
--
the calculations were performed prior to the estab-
..
lishment of such a requirement.
The reports include
system configuration. The load combination for primary
The
and secondary stresses appeared to be in order.
code requirements were stated in the reports.
d.
Staff Interview
(EA) who
inspector interviewed the Engineering Analyst
The
reviewed the reports EMD-4130-WR-09, and EMD-4130-HD-6.
revision of the procedure for reviewing stress
The latest
calculations was not in procession of the EA, even though
the Interoffice Memorandum of July 24, 1978, from the
Head, to EMD to the staff specifically stated that
Technical procedure No. 11, Revision 3, approved on July 3,
The
1978, should be maintained and used by the Staff.
inspectors concern included:
(1) the outdated EMD Procedure
removed from the
No. 11, dated September 6, 1977, was not
EA's location, (2) the EA's apparent unawareness of the
procedure updating, and (3) the EA's difficulty in retrieving
the required procedures. This is an unresolved item.
(358/78-27-03)
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Unresolved Items
information is required in
Unresolved items are matters about which more
items of noncom-
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items,
Two unresolved items disclosed during the inspec-
pliance or deviations.
tion are discussed in Paragraph 4 and 5.d.
Exit Interview
(denoted ir the Persons
The inspector met with licensee representativesthe conclusion of the inspection en
Contacted paragraph) at
The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the
and 21, 1978. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
inspection.
-
.
e
-8-