ML19347F427
| ML19347F427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/20/1981 |
| From: | Barnes I, Ellershaw L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F424 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900282 NUDOCS 8105190254 | |
| Download: ML19347F427 (14) | |
Text
.
O U.t. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIch
'E OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900282/81-01 Program No. 51300 Company:
ITT Grinnell Pioe Hanger Division 621 Dana Avenue Warren, Ohio 44481 InspectionCongted:
February 9-13, 1981 Inspector:
hd bl7-Il L. E. Ellershaw, Contractor Inspector Date Reactive Inspection Section Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by:
Nw 3 - 2o -e t Ian Barnes, Chief Date Reactive Inspection aection Vendor Inspection Branch Summary i
Inspection conducted February 9-13, 1981 (99900282/81-01)
Areas Inspected:
10 CFR Part 21 report follow-up inspection; construction deficiency report follow-up inspection; potential CDR follow-up inspection; inspection based on headquarters request and inspection regarding use of riveted clamp construction.
The inspection involved 29 inspector hours on site.
Results:
In the five areas inspected, three unresolved items and one item requiring further inspection were identified.
Unresolved Items:
10 CFR Part 21 Report Follow-Up Inspection - Procedure PE-217-1,
" Installation Instructions - ITT Grinnell Pipe Hangers", provided to customers, l
does not address the use of spacers at tha rear bracket end of sway struts.
If the spacers are not installed, the spherical ball bearing may become completely disengaged for certain sizes of struts (Details Section, paragraph B.4.b).
Construction Deficiency Report (CDR) Follow-Up Inspection - ITT degignated the use of fillet welds for skewed T-joints having angles less than 60 or more than g
135.
AWS D1.1 requires groove welds for these configurations.
(Details i
Section, paragraph C.4.b.(1)).
ITT deleted the parenthesis around dimensions in the welding symbols on certain detail sheets resulting in depth of groove weld preparation being indicated rather than the intended groove weld throat size (Details Section, paragraph C.4.b.(2)).
8105190 Z.b i
2 Item Requiring Further Inspection:
Inspection regarding use of riveted construc-tion - The ITT PE-41 series Pipe Clamp is of a riveted construction rather than a welded or bolted construction.
This is allowed by ASME Code if the component is proven by the load rating procedure.
Revisions 0 and 1 of the Load Capacity Data Sheet show, linear analysis was used.
Revision 2 was generated to reflect that the load rating procedure was used.
Data to substantiate this revision could not be reviewed, in that it is maintained at the ITT Grinnell offices in Providence, Rhode Island.
(Details Section, paragraph F.4.c.).
I
3 DETAILS SECTION (Prepared by L. E. E11ershaw)
A.
Persons Contacted R. Boyd - Inspector
- B. J. Gnat - General Supervisor, Quality Control S. J. Perreault - Project Manager and Engineering Supervisor
- G. A. Radu - Plant QA Managcr
- R. A. Russell - Senior Product Engineer
- D. M. Sewell - Division QA Manager P. Stanish - Manager, Product Engineering
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
B.
10 CFR Part 21 Report Follow-up Inspection 1.
Introduction A 10 CFR Part 21 report was submitted by Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC), Ann Arbor Power Division, to Region III of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement on October 8, 1980.
This report concerns pipe supports with partially or totally disengaged self aligning rod end bushings, which have been furnished to Midlana Units 1 and 2, and Palisades.
Tha 10 CFR Part 21 report identified ITT Grinnell as one of four supplying firms.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this follow-up inspection were to ascertain that l
the reporting organization had implemented the requirements in accord-ance with 10 CFR Part 21 and had:
a.
Met the requirements for reporting the deficiency.
b.
Performed, or caused to be performed, an evaluation of the condition, including making an assessment of generic implications, c.
Assigned responsibility for effecting corrective action and preventing recurrence.
3.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives vere accomplished by:
a.
Verifying that the requirements for reporting have been posted and that procedures have been initiated to provide for the reporting process.
4 b.
Review of 10 CFR Part 21 report and associated documents including:
(1) Purchase orders and equipment specifications for Palisades, Midland and SNUPPS (Calloway and Wolf Creek).
(2) Correspondence between BPC and ITT Grinnell (ITT).
(sj Deficiency Reports (DR) generated by BPC and ITT's responses.
c.
Review of testing and analysis performed by ITT.
d.
Performing dimensional inspection of rod end bearing hole diameters (random sample of 14 rods).
e.
Review of Installation Instructions, Procedure PE-211-1, Revision O.
f.
Discussions with cognizant personnel.
4.
Findings a.
Nonconformances None.
b.
Unresolved Items Procedure PE-217-1, " Installation Instructions - ITT Grinnell Pipe Hangers" provides step-by-step assembly instructions for the user.
Paragraph 3.c of section V addresses the installa-tion of pipe clamps to sway struts by stating in part, " Install the load stud through the clamp, sway strut end bearing, and spacers.
One spacer should be between the bearing and each clamp ear...." However,Section V, paragraph 2 does not address the use of spacers when installing the sway strut to the structural attachment.
If the spacers are not installed, the bushing can become completely disengaged in at least two sizes.
ITT is evaluating this condition and will make notification to customers who have received component supports of the identified sizes that would allow complete disengagement of the bushings if spacers were not installed.
The installation instructions are to be revised, incorporating the spacers at the rear bracket end.
This item shall remain unresolved pendino completion of ITT's review and accomplishment of the revision to the installation instructions.
-~
5 c.
General ITT atated that they had not received formal notification from BPC in regard to loose bushings at the Midland or Palisades sites.
However, there was an informal discussion in which two assemblics had been identified as having loose bushings.
ITT did go to the Midland site, but the two assemblies could not be located.
ITT has been formally notified of bushings which have been found to be either partially or completely disengaged at the Callaway and Wolf Creek sites.
Eleven Deviatic,n Reports (DR) involving 17 sway strut assemblies at the Callaway site, and two ors involving ten assemblies at the Wolf Creek site have been received by ITT.
The DRs were dated between June 25, 1980, and January 6, 1981.
There is no indication on the DRs as to which end of the sway strut (rear bracket or clamp) is affected.
ITT has responded to the DRs by addressing the fact that wnen the struts are in an installed position, the bearing is held captive by the rear bracket and spacer washer.
Also, while a bearing may not completely dislodge from the strut rod eye, there is a potential for lateral movement up to 3/8" maximum in some sizes.
ITT contacted the bushing manufacturer who recommended that no greater than 0.060" of lateral movement outside the housing be permitted.
Therefore, ITT's response recommended that struts at the site be inspected and if a lateral movement of greater than 0.060" occurred, to remove and re-stake in accordance with a provided procedure.
They further addressed the implementing of a staking policy during the last quarter of 1978, to eliminate the possibility of bushings becoming dislodged.
The staking policy was initiated as a remedial action in that it l
was not a formalized procedure.
5taking was implemented upon l
identification of loose bearings by ITT or customer representa-tives during final inspection or source inspection.
The formal-ized procedure, " Figure 200/201 and 211 Bearing Staking Procedure",
which has been implemented, is dated August 20, 1980.
l I
Tha inspection of the strut rod bearing hole diameters revealed tnt. dimensions to be in accordance with the drawing requirements.
The diameters were inspected with a calibrated bore micrometer.
The results from the testing performed by ITT with the bushings displaced to the m1ximum condition, showed that all continued to function within the design criteria, with no deformation or failures.
All were tested to a minimum of the rated, faulted load, in both the tension and compression modes.
6 C.
Construction Deficiency Report (CDR) Follow-up Inspection 1.
Introduction T'!A notified Region II of the Office of !nspection and Enforcement in a CDR, that certain ITT support sketches incorrectly designated fillet welds rather than rgquired groove welds fgr connecting members making angles less than 60 and greater than 135.
It was addition-ally identified that the parenthesis around the weld dimension had been omitted for specified groove welds, which changes the meaning from effective weld throat size to depth of groove bevel.
This CDR relates to Bellefonte Units 1 and 2.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to determine the generic implications and to verify that ITT has taken the necessary steps to assess, correct, and preclude recurrence of the problem.
3.
Method of Accomplishment Iba preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of contractual requirements between TVA and ITT.
b.
Review of TVA's Nonconformance Report (NCR) No. BLNALP 8002, dated September 2, 1980 to ITT.
c.
Review of TVA design specification BLNP-OS-1915-2992-00, dated March 5, 1976.
d.
Review of weld design analysis performed by ITT relative to the use of fillet welds.
e.
Review of Standardized Procedure No. 3, Revision 1, " Obtuse Welding", dated February 12, 1980.
g.
Discussions with cognizant personnel.
4.
Findings a.
Nonconformances None.
b.
U.1 resolved Items (1) Contract 77K53-820732, dated July 1, 1976, invokes design specification BLNP-DS-1915-2992-00, dated March 5, 1976, and Section III of the ASME Code, 1974 Edition through the Summer 1975 addenda.
7 Paragraph 5.2 of the design specification states, "For those systems listed in Table 5.2.1, the Contractor shall design, furnish, fabricate (if required), inspect, test, certify, and delive-tne piping supports for all piping 2\\" and larger in accordance with applicable codes and standards and the requirements of this specification."
Table 5.2.1 delineates the applicable codes and standards for all piping systems as either ASME Section III or B31.1.
Paragraph 11.0 lists the applicable documents and references including:
ASME Code Sections II, III, V, and IX, and the AWS 01.1 - Structural Welding Code.
In the identified case, AWS does not allow the use of fillet wefdsinskewedT-jofntshavingdihedralanglesoflessthan 60 or more than 135, whereas ASME does not prohibit fillet welds in this application.
ITT performed an analysis of 3/16" and 1/4" fillgt welds usedg;n acute and obtuse angles, ranging from 30 to 160 in 5 increments.
All loads were calculated based upon allowable stress levels per Subsection NF in Section III of the ASME Code.
The calculations demonstrated in each case, that the fillet weld strength is greater than the allowable stress level.
TVA contracted with ITT to review and revise all sketches toshowgrooveweldsragherthanfilletwgidswherethere are angles less than 60 or more than 135.
The review has been completed, and ITT has identified approximately 1500 out of 14,000 sketches which require revision.
The cause of this problem could not be determined by the inspector during this inspection in that design and sketch control is a function of the Research, Development and Engineering Division in Providence, Rhode Island.
This item. hall remain unresolved pending completion of the required changes by ITT and inspection at Providence, Rhode Island.
(2) ' AWS 01.1 k.tical 1, paragraph 1.5 states in part, " Welding
- ,ymbols shall be those shown in the latest edition of AWS A2.4...." AWS A2.4, Section 9, paragraph 9.2 states in l
part, "... The effective throat of groove welds.
shall be shown in parenthesis on the welding symbol....
A dimension not in parenthesis... indicates only the depth of preparation."
ITT did intend for the aimensions to mean effective weld throat, but inadvertently deleted the parenthesis when the detail sheets were developed.
l
8 The inspector ascertained that an informal document, dated February 1,1979, had been developed primarily as a trcining aid for use by the engineering staff.
This document specifi-cally addresses the use of parenthesis for designating the effective throat dimension in the welding symbol.
ITT did agree to review a sample of drawings from other jobs to ascertain if this is a generic problem or an isolated instance.
The cause of this problem could not be determined by the inspector during this inspection in that design and sketch control is a function of the Research, Development and Engineering Division in Providence, Rhode Island.
This item shall remain unresolved pending completion of the review by ITT and inspection at Providence, Rhode Island.
D.
Potential CDR Follow-up Inspection 1.
Introduction Mississippi Power and Light (MP&L) notified Region II of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement on October 28, 1580 of a potential CDR pertaining to pipe hanger threaded parts being out of tolerance at the Grand Gulf Unit 1 site.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to determine the generic implications and to verify that ITT has taken the steps to assess, correct, and preclude recurrence of the problem.
3.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of inspection requirements in regard to threaded parts.
b.
Review of the Quality Contrni Checklists associated with the identified out-of-tolerance parts.
c.
Review of ITT trip report to Grand Gulf 1, and the results of their inspection at the site.
d.
Review of shear stress calculations performed by ITT on the worst case conditions identified at the site.
e.
Performing dimensional inspection, in conjunction with ITT QA/QC personnel, on a sample of 30 threaded parts, using Go/
No-Go Gages and thread micrometers.
l l
9 f.
Review of training records relative to QC inspectors being instructed in the use of various inspection tools.
g.
Discussion with cognizant personnel.
4.
Findings a.
Nonconformances l
None.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
General Upon notification of threaded parts being out of tolerance, ITT sent a Quality Control representative to the Grand Gulf site on September 29 through October 1, 1980, to investigate.
His inspection results are as follows:
Unit 1 - 56 pieces inspected with 10 being rejected; Unit 2 - 8 pieces inspected with none being rejected.
The checks were made with Go/No-Go gages and thread mir.rometers.
In nearly all cases, the Go gage was slightly loose but the No-Go gage entered the tap distance from one half the length up to the full length.
ITT performed shear stress calculations on the worst case con-ditions and concluded that all the threaded parts are acceptable for their intended use.
This information was sub-mitted to their customer (General Electric Ccmpany) for review on November 4, 1980.
ITT had not received formal notification of disposition at the time of this inspection.
ITT did state, however, that GE had verbally indicated it appeared to be acceptable but GE wanted to discuss the data with MP&L.
The inspector reviewed the associated QC Checklists for the identified parts.
The checklists show that these parts were final inspected at ITT in April, 1978, and that all threaded parts had been accepted.
Due to the lapse of time since the manufacture of the above noted parts, the inspector, with ITT quality control personnel, dimensionally inspected threaded parts which had been manufactured recently and were being prepared for shipment.
Out of a sample of approximately 30 threaded parts, two threaded U-bolts would not accept a Go ring gage.
It was determined that thread damage was the cause of these failures and not incorrect dimensions:
one thread in both cases.
l l
l 1
1 1
1 10 There is no relationship between the damaged threads and the identified problem at the site.
However, the inspector did point out that the instance demonstrated a need for review of protection measures for threaded parts after they have been final inspected and accepted.
ITT stated that the customer had reworked at least one threaded part at the site.
Whether or not the rework of the one part, ard perhaps others, contributed to this problem is not known.
If not, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that ITT's final inspection of these parts during April 1978 was inadequate.
E.
Inspection Based On Headquarters Request 1.
Introduction On September '9, 1980, Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) reported to Region V of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement that certain rigid sway brace 2.ssemblies had been supplied to WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2, which did not meet the requirements of ASME Section III, Subsection NF, Mandatory Appendix XIII subparagraph XII-2732.1, in that fillet welds were observed to be undersized and of poor quality with lack of fusion at the toe of the weld.
Using ASME Code Allowables for analysis, it was also determined that a design deficiency e::ists fog certain brackets when loads are applied at an angle greater than 15 off the perpendicular.
ITT was identified to be one of the supplying firms.
l 2.
Inspection Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to review the nature and scope of the reported discrepancies and determine if the problem had generic implications.
3.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were cccomplished by:
a.
Review of procurement documentation associated with brackets supplied to WPPSS Unit 2:
St.ipping Oraers E43-613-00; E43-612-00, and E43-603-00.
b.
Review of ITT Product drawings H1543 through H1546 for Figure 306 and 307 rear brackets used with PSA Mechanical Shock and Sway Suppressors.
c.
Review of the Product Drawing denoted welding procedure specifi-cations (WPS), 1-0601 (FCAW) and 1-01-2 (SMAW), and the supporting procedure qualification records.
11 d.
Observation of in process welding and inspection of rear bracket assemblies.
e.
Review of inspection personnel visual. examination qualifications.
f.
Discussion w,th cognizant personnel.
3.
Findings a.
Nonconformances None.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
General ITT has received three orders that could be directly related to WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 from the ITT sales office in Portland, Oregon.
The orders are placed by either telex, telephone, or formal documentation.
ITT generates a Shipping Order based upon the information received from the sales office.
The three orders were written up as follows:
Order No.
Date Quantity Description (1) E43-603-00 3-26-80 6
Rear Brackets with pins for PSA #35 (2)
E43-612-00 4-21-80 25 Rear Brackets with pins for PSA #10, Figure 306 (3) E43-613-00 4-25-80 25 Rear Pivot Assemblies for PSA #1 complete with bearings and mounting bolts.
25 Rear Pivot Assemblies for PSA #3 complete with bearings and mounting bolts.
The designation - PSA and number - refers to Pacific Scientific Co.'s mechanical shock arrestors and the particular size.
Order No. (3) above, does not contain rear brackets.
1
.m m,_..
12 This was the total ordering information available.
The above items were shipped to WSH/Boecon/GERI, WPPSS, Hanford,.
Jcbsite No. 2, Richland, WA, between June 26, 1980, and October 31, 1980.
The rear bracket assemblies used with PSA's mechanical shock arrestors are designated as ITT Figure No. 306 and 307.
A review of the product drawings and observation of in process welding on similar rear brackets showed:
(1) welding was being performed in accordance with the applicable WPSs and the product drawing; and (2) full penetration welds were used and not fillet welds.
The inspector visually and dimensionally examined similar rear brackets which had been completed, inspected, accepted, and placed in storage.
These brackets also conformed to the product drawing requirements.
Regarding concerns over the possibility that a design defi-ciencymayexistforcertaigbracketswhenloadsareapplied at an angle greater than 15 off the perpendicular, ITT's Load CapacityDataSheetforthebracketssgatesinpart,.
" Load must not be. applied outside a 10 included angle cone of action to the pipe clamp axis without special authori-zation."
F.
Inspection Regarding Use of Riveted Clamp Construction 1.
Introduction A telephone call to Region IV of the Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment was received on February 3, 1981, from the NRC resident inspector at the WPPSS 3 and 5 site, pertaining to the use of riveted clamp construction by ITT for sway strut assemblies.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this part of the inspection were to determine if the I
component supports manufactured with riveted construction are in accordance with ASME Code Section III design criteria and if ITT had complied with the required rules for design.
3.
Method of Accomplishment l
l The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of ASME Code Section III, Subsection NF, General Design l
requirements.
b.
Review of Load Capacity Data Sheet for the PE-41 Pipe Clamp.
l i
I,
13 c.
Review of Drawings PE41-10025, Revision D, " Stiff Clamp," and PE 41-50500, Revision C, " Strap Assembly".
d.
Discussions with cognizant personnel.
4.
Findings
_onconformances N
a.
None.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
Item Requiring Further Inspection Drawings PE 41-10025 and PE41-50500 show the Stiff Clamp Frame 7
and Strap Assembly, respectively.
The strap assembly is sub-contracted to, and manufactured by, a vendor &ho is on ITT's approved vendor list.
The strap assembly is of a riveted construc-tion and is used in the PE-41 series Pipe Clamp, which is desig-nated as a linear type compcnent standard support.
ASME Code, l
Section III, Subsection NF, imposes mandatory Appendix XVII for the analysis procedure to be followed, unless design is accomp-lished by use of either the experimental stress analysis procedure, l
or the load rating procedJre.
If Appendix XVII is used the supports l
are required to be of a welded, bolted or welded and bolted con-struction.
Fabrication of component supports is also required to corply with the provisions of Article NF-4000, which addresses welded and bolted construction only.
Review of the Load Capacity Data Sheet (LCDS) for the PE-41 Pipe Clamp, Revisicn 2 dated January 30, 1981, shows both ITT used the load rating procedure in lieu of analysis, and the ASME Code classification is Class 1, 2, 3, and MC.
The LCDS shows the material for the straps as being SA 564, Type 630, Condi-tion 1075, with the rivet material identified as being SA 453 Grade 660, Condition A or B.
Review of the substantiating data could not be performed at this time, as it is maintained at the Research, Development and Engineering Division in Providence, Rhode Island.
The inspector reviewed the LCDS, Revision 0, dated June 1, 1980, and Revision 1, dated June 9, 1980.
Revision 0 did not list the l
rivets and showed that design had been accomplished by analysis.
In addition, it did not list the required Level A and B, Level C l
and Level D maximum load pounds.
Revision 1 added the levels and maximum load pounds, but still did not address rivets, and continued to show use of linear analysis.
Revision 2, dated January 30, 1981, was issued to show the corr.ect information.
ITT has shipped approximately 2200 PE-41 seYies supports to the
(
WPPSS 3 and 5 sites since September, 1980.
14 ITT stated that they have been requested by their customer to obtain a Code Case in regard to the use of rivets.
ITT indicated that they would formally present a request for a Code Case to the ASME, Component Support, NF Subcommittee in March, 1981.
G.
Exit Interview The scope and findings of this inspection were summarized at the conclusion of the inspection on February 13, 1981, with the following management representatives and the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI):
D. L. Chartrau - Plant General Manager R. R. Gallatin - ANI, The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company.
See paragraph A. for additional attendees.
Management acknowledged the statements made by the inspector relative to the findings.
In addition, management agreed to address the findings and to inform NRC upon completion of their evaluations / reviews.
l
..