ML19290C985
| ML19290C985 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/20/1979 |
| From: | Brickley R, Hale C, Lagrange R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290C981 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900525 51200, 99900525-79-3, NUDOCS 8002150286 | |
| Download: ML19290C985 (7) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COTIISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900525/79-03 Program No. 51200 Company:
Gilbert / Commonwealth Companies P. O. Box 1498 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 Inspection At:
Jackson, Michigan Inspection Conducted:
November 27-28, 1979
,m Inspector:
\\/ _s L i W
R. H. Brfckley, Principal /'Iffspector Date Program Evaluation Section Vendor Inspection Branch fc. bO '77 P r on
'^-
R. G. ta' Grange, Medbadical Engineer Date EB/ DOR /NRR Approved by:
U C
/eO b"
/
C. J. Hal@ie'f Date Program Evaluation Section Vendor Inspection Branch Summarv Inspection conducted November 27-28, 1979 (99900525/79-03)
Areas Inspected:
Special inspection of Gilbert / Commonwealth activities on IE Bulletin No. 79-14.
The inspection involved seventeen (17) inspector-hours on-site by one (1) NRC inspector and one other NRC personnel.
Results: There were no deviations or unresolved items identified.
^
s002150
2 DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted
- R.
A. Lang, Task Coordinator
- L. Lindgren, Lead Engineer, Pipe Support
- A. D. Nayakwadi, Supervising Engineer
- P. Thacker, QA Program Manager
- Denotes those in attendance at the exit interview.
B.
Seismic Analysis for As-Build Safety-Related Piping Systems 1.
Objectives This was a special inspection of the Gilbert / Commonwealth Company (GCC) activities with respect to IE Bulletin 79-14.
The inspection consisted of two (2) phases.
a.
Phase 1 The objectives of this phase of the inspection were to deter-mine the following:
(1) The licensees that are inspecting systems to the latest drawings and comparing the results with the seismic analysis input used.
(2) The number of people that will be comparing the marked-up drawings with the seismic analysis input, a general descrip-tion of their qualifications, and the schedule for these activities.
(3) The guidelines that will be used to identify the noncon-formances of the marked-up drawings to the seismic analysis input used.
(4) The identification of units where eccentric masses have been modeled.
b.
Phase II The objectives of this phase of the inspection were to determine that:
(1) The IE Bulletin 79-14 activities are being conducted in a documented, planned, and systematic manner.
3 (2) The inputs to the seismic analysis for this system can be readily identified.
(3) Identified nonconformances are analyzed and the results properly documented.
2.
Method of Accomplishment a.
Phase I The preceding Phase I objectives were accomplished by discus-sions between the inspection team and GCC representatives, and examination of the following:
(1) The GCC organization chart for the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) project (Ft. Calhoun-1) dated November, 1979.
(2) Resumes of GCC personnel assigned to IEB-79-14 activities.
(3) GCC Memo 42-009 (OPPD Piping Analysis Logic) dated October 4, 1979.
(4) GCC Memo 42-015 (OPPD Piping Analysis Criteria) dated October 31, 1979.
(5) GCC Memo 42-017 (OPPD-Ft. Calhoun, Unit 1 Task 79-14 Procedures) dated November 1, 1979.
(6) GCC Memo 42-020 (OPPD-Ft. Calhoun, Unit 1 Task 79-14 Guidelines for Support Design) dated November 5,1979.
(7) GCC Memo 42-019 (OPPD Ft. Calhoun, Unit 1 NRC I&E 79-14 Piping Analysis and Support Design) dated November 5, 1979.
(8) Draft copy of a Special Procedure (Inspection of Piping and Piping Support Assemblies) b.
Phase II The preceding Phase II objectives were accomplished by an examination of the following:
(1) The GCC Phase I and Phase II Discrepancy Status Logs.
(2) GCC records on Drawing Discrepancies No. I-5, I-17, I-47, I-55, I-56, I-57, I-59, II-12, II-25, and II-26 consisting
4 of e.g. OPPD Discrepancy Report. Calculation Data Sheets, Hanger Load Summary Sheet, Equipment Loading Sheets and the marked-up isometric.
3.
Findings a.
General (1) OPPD personnel performed the walk down inspections using the latest issue of the drawing. Differences between the as-built condition and the latest issue of the drawing were identified as discrepancies on their Discrepancy Reports which were forwarded to GCC for analysis.
Note:
OPPD had concluded that the seismic analysis reflected the con-ditions indicated on the latest issue of the drawings.
This could not be confirmed by the inspector during the recent 79-14 inspection at OPPD.
(2) The 79-14 walkdown inspections for Phase I (Primary Systems) and Phase II (Redundant Systems) were done by OPPD personnel and the reanalysis by GCC personnel.
In Phase III (Inacces-sable Systems) both activities will be done by GCC personnel.
(3) GCC has assigned eleven (11) of their engineering personnel to 79-14 activities (comparison, initial engineering judge-ment, and reanalysis) on the OPPD project.
The backgrounds of nine (9) of the individuals were examined. Seven (7) of the individuals had engineering degrees (mechanical or struc-tural), four (4) were registered professional engineers, and the group had an average of five (5) years experience in power engineering.
(4) At the time of this inspection all Phase I activities had been completed, Phase II activities were scheduled for completion by November 30, 1979, and Phase III is scheduled to start during the refueling in January.
(5) The examination of GCC Memo 42-019 revealed that the fol-lowing guidelines have been established to identify non-conformances: A computerized piping stress analysis is required if as-built piping system does not conform to the original design as follows:
(a) The as-built piping is missing supports or supports have been added.
5 (b) The support locations on as-built piping are different than the design locations.
Reanalysis is generally re-quired if support location is more than 12" away from the original design.
An engineering judgment depending on the pipe size shall be used in such cases.
(c) The as-built support geometry does not conform to the original design geometry of the support, resulting in a change in the degree of restraints on the piping system.
(d) The as-built piping system geometry is different from the original piping geometry used for seismic analysis.
It is required to use an engineering judgment to evalu-ate the geometry change in deciding whether reanalysis of the piping system is required.
If reanalysis of the piping system is required, the first analysis should be based on the as-built geometry and support systems of the piping. The pipe stresses of as-built piping should be checked against the allowables set forth in the stress analysis criteria.
If stresses are not within the allowable, the piping system shall be reanalysed adding or deleting supports.
If a rigid support is added or deleted, the dead-load and thermal analy-sis of the piping system shall also be done.
The support loads obtained from the reanalysis shall be compared against the original support design loads and if required, a redesign or modification to affected supports shall be done. The client shall not be advised to modify, add or delete supports until the calculation is verified by an independent verifier.
A pipe support design is required if the as-built pipe sup-port systems does not conform to the original design as follows:
(a) The as-built pipe support geometry differs from the original support design geometry.
(b) The as-built support is subjected to higher loads than the original design loads.
(c) The as-built support type is different than the original designed support.
(d) As a result of reanalysis of the piping s/ stem, an additional support is added.
6 (e) As a result of reanalysis of the support, modification is required.
(6) Eccentric masses were not modeled for Ft. Calhoun I.
(7) Examination of the documents identified in B.2.b above rc"ealed that 79-14 activities are being conducted in a documented, planned, and systematic manner; identified rr onformances are analyzed and the results properly docu-menteu, Lowever the inputs to the seismic analysis do not appear, at this time, to be readily identifiable. Note:
Also see paragraph B.3.a above.
b.
Deviations and Unresolved Items None identified.
c.
Follow-up Items (1)
In process design documents (analysis) will be completed and documented a accordance with GCC design control procedures.
(2) GCC will formally issue procedures governing their 79-14 activities at OPPD.
(See paragraph B.2.a. (8) above).
C.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held with management representatives on November 28, 1979.
In addition to those individuals indicated by an asterisk in para-graph A those in attendance were:
GCC E.D. Loesch, Engineer F. T. Schwartz, Manager, QA Department W. B. Shields, Vice President and General Manager, Power Division F. W. Smurr, Vice President and Manager of Engineering D. R. Thomas, Manager, Specialties Department D. J. Watson, Site Manager L. J. Wickas, Senior QA Program Manager C. D. Williams, Director of Project Management
7 OPPD M. E. Eiden, Manager, Generating Station Engineering, Mechanical The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Management comments were for clarification or acknowledgment of the statements by the inspector.
_