ML20032A346
| ML20032A346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1981 |
| From: | Brickley R, Hale C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032A341 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900528 IEB-79-14, NUDOCS 8110290439 | |
| Download: ML20032A346 (11) | |
Text
.
CRGANIZATION: EDS NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA REPORT NO.: 99900528/81-01 INSPECTION DATE(S):
7/8-9/81 INSPECTION ON-SITE HOURS: 32 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: EDS Nuclear, Incorporated ATTN: Mr. L. W. Cooley Vice President 220 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 ORGANIZATION CONTACT:
Mr. B. F. Phipps, QA Manager TELEPHONE:
(415) 544-8050 PRINCIPAL PRODUCT:
Engineering Consultant Ser< ices NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: EDS Nuclear Inc., has 55 contracts involving approximately 49 domestic reactor units for consulting services such as engineering analysis, equipment qualification, licensing assistance, pipe support design, pipe whip analysis and protection design, piping analysis, seismic analysis, and safety analysis.
ASSIGNED INS!MCTOR: T.M M
/o/7[f/
R. H. Brickley,yactor Systems Section (RSS)
Date OTHER INSPECTOR (S):
I. T. Yin, RIII; D. H. Danielson, RIII (Observer); J. R. Fair, HQS
(,
[O-7-f/
APPROVED BY:
s C. G a9e, Chief, RSS Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES:
10 CFR Part 21. and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
B.
SCOPE:
Analytical errors made by EDS concerning steei containment penetration assemblies for Sequoyah and Watts Bar,10 CFR Part 21 report of piping analysis errors for Sequoyah, IE Bulletin 79-14 activities, and status of previous inspection findings.
DEy;ED ORICHAL Certified By l W LN - -
~
8110290439 811014 PDR GA999 EECEDS 99900528 PDR
ORGANIZATION: EDS NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA REPORT NO.:
99900528/81-01 INSPECTION RESULTS:
PAGE 2 of 3 A.
VIOLATIONS:
None B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
Contrary to Criterion V of 10 CFR Part SC<, Appendix B, Project Instructions contained conflicting design acceptance criteria, did not reflect the latest NRC accepted operability stress limits, and did not provide guidance on use of the Blume Curves.
Further, the operability criteria for the evaluation of hangers was not apparent.
C.
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None D.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
1.
(Closed) Follow-up Iten (80-01):
The examination of calculation package No. Q1-HPCI-01 revealed that the formal system operability evaluation did not appear to be adequately documented.
The subject of operability evaluations including calculation No. Q1-HPCI-01 was reviewed.
The piping stress analysis shows that the system is within the operability stress limit for the SSE.
2.
(Closed) Follow-up Item (80-01):
The examination of calculation package No. 02-LPCI-03C revealed that the present method of using the center of gravity of the pipe system to select the horizontal static coefficient used in the calculation appears questionable.
It was stated by the licensee that the center of gravity method was the original method used by Sargent & Lundy.
This item 12, therefore, not considered to be within the scope of IEB 79-14.
3.
(Closed) Follow-up Item (80-01):
It appears that stress intensification factors had not been considered in those system evaluations based on Blume Curve design.
EDS Nuclear had assumad that these factors had been considered in these curves. The actual tases of the curves were not available for examination.
The licensee has committed to use only the rigid span criteria of the Blume Curve, therefore, this item is closed.
4.
(Closed) Follow-up Item (80-01):
In reviewing the requirements for using the Blume Curves it appeared that on piping above elevation 579 feet restraint loads will be multiplied by a factor of three to account for amplification.
Based on the commitment to use rigid span criteria (D.3. above) RIII will resolve this matter with the licensee.
- ORGANIZATION: EDS NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA REPORT NO.: 99900528/81-01 INSPECTION RESULTS:
PAGE 3 of 3 E.
OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS 1.
Analytical Error Concerning Steel Containment Penetration Forces - This item was reported to RII per 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) by TVA concerning the omission of axial forces on piping penetrating containment during pipe stress analysis of Sequoyah 1 and 2 and Watts Bar 1 and 2.
From the records examined at EDS Nuclear (EDS) it was determined that this analysis was not included in their scope of work for these plants.
This item had been brought to TVA's attention by EDS as a result of EDS's in-vestigation of this problem on an analysis performed by them for Duke's McGuire 1 and 2.
EDS had recommended that TVA investigate to see if this omission had occurred on analyses performed by other organizations for TVA.
With respect to the omission on the McGuire 1 and 2 analysis, the Safety Review Committee concluded that:
(1) it had occurred ocly on McGuire 1 and 2, and (2) that analysis of these forces was not included in their scope of work and they were not directed to include them.
2.
Piping Analysis Error - This item, reported to RII per 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) by TVA, concerned the omission of an installed lateral support from the thermal load case analysis performed by EDS on Sequoyah 2.
From the records examined at EDS it was revealed that the mathematical model that was used was revised on June 17, 1977, as a resu't of the relocation of valves TVA-51 and FCV-1-182.
The corresponding support summaries were updated with respect to loads, however, the displacewats were not updated as they should have been, and thus the lateral supNrt was not deleted from the design.
The support summaries were processed in accordance with procedures that were in existence at the tims of these activities. Subsequent to this, EDS developed and issued Technical Procedure 2.1.12 (Piping Analysis Checking Procedure) which imposes detailed specific items to check on the analysis and all associated documents that should prevent recurrence of these type errors.
3.
IE Bulletin 79 Fourteen technical Project Instructions related to IEB 79-14 activities were examined.
It was concluded that the instructions contained conflicting requirements and therefore not in conformance with NRC requirements (see B. above).
D
^
~
Ai diDid4CE ?e-e ['e.uoe:
(,cu c ya,r 1
COMPANY:
E D s D u e /c e * [ cdc.o
, DOC.UT NO.
Dare-T"]p.Inspeedon Conference l j hst Inspacdon Corfare e l
(Please yAME (Ptease Prind TITLE & tease Prine ORGANIZATION P 2.st)
J. 12.
Sgi Ce.
AM L.
Ga<
AID c-l Te~ Ha j
A M.'
15r.mr Hw Adm,dra bn fps n4s 1
TC. C4led MGR Assool GA
'M
- 6. d SMkis
%4 GV6drMM6 )W SS Mu@e, A U S d / 4.,i m;,J /A n s d < L.
~
v I;Y Y/d Keach ( L arPc:b/ bc
/E :2nr
]
'D,Y )b/Nebson SecIel C N,e All C &" '
l S M
,NmR seenw)
MMilcd not N d u n_ W2 I
Ass <;tsra (951;9tsn ED 5 /Ja d,,,
l E (do> a w-o
-197.* f SM7 S vec n u w a csco.
i d
_ E
. heTac-Y
.V P. ks Aunt sos 44ctuQ l
Luo 0 Amm i~5n A,s wuc em
- j vn n
%dmi A A.Nobqood Wesb 6 = OA Mqr sW WocAcar
~'
4
! k NN k _
M flA >
1}f N
I U
I e
l t
e a
e e
e
vacket. no.
999 eo sz y Insp:ctcr
- 3. F. Fa i rz-R: port No.
r/-o/
o Scop / Module DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page
/
of -
1 2
TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4 CoEn - -.-
ed.:
/ /%~.1.- il n -.L -l.:
./1L n/.a L
, c-t~:
a
- i i-g Ql
/? H R S '
13 [3 /c )
lh a o
[fru
- _ f
,n a c le,, e \\.
~
Q CH IL S - 1. 3 - P
{ b ~..,
k w lco. e \\
. ]. A l -
o a
Ls Ah 29. o (L-o L~d RL L ~.A.hn: ~ C~ _ ~
mn-4 d
/
//
c f
i k L, -)
~
P_
L J L t-a o u - ea sts - o n i
y si LIl6US 0~ cL I. L
<L_L T t' n ono-ott -vc/
Pnd-o 9
" t w P h l Is d 4
c rL b H <^
?ru m s G lc //%(
E-CC'l g
y T % ~,: a Dn.
(4 - t 3 L l-I c C L 12w A 51<- n 100 c> - c, J
h e ns.,
A]n.
N-t4
$lueb /.r/ z ib o A su 8 - z -
1000 -- 7 j
h r w,
e Lb bcx) hL - o L Sr
'Cl-L f')
('a l es b # 09 C12DH5 e n ~ L_l.ib. $
CS A-A)n
/ - /c 3 L,
t) Jl-A
~ d l) <>.svsd a152
~~
/
~
U O
O h ow_-- _)
fu QI - R H i? < -O98
~. -
[) m f
P a ; - u in t - o i c r.
locument Types:
Column Nos.
1.
Drawing 5.
Purchase Order
- 1. Sequential Item No.
2.
Sp:cification 6.
Internal Memo
- 2. Type of Document.
3.
Pr cedure 7.
Letter
- 3. Date of Document 4.
QA Manual 8.
Other (Specify-if necessary)
- 4. Revision No., if applicable e
O
EXIT INTERVIEW Oocket No. 9994452 7 Report No.
t/-4/
Date 7/1/f/
BASIS:
/10CFRPart50,AppendixB Topical Report No.
Other NRC Requirements SCOPE:
/ Action on Previous Inspection Findinos l Yoes Sujefasl Ornd Welsh /s-7.keWNS fctray v' AxnivtialEnnors - Seauoya A 4 Vdh Baz V /03H ?ixf2/ Teocef-AMelate EnnoK9-SagesoyAh Dwswfaizeirs-Ixofnuusuffode Supposis-Conrxxc/re 7Eak N0 YES No.
FINDINGS:
Noncompliance Identified
[
l Nonconformance Identified
/
1 Unresolved Item Identified
/
Follow up Item Identified
/
1 oNOTE:
If the answer to any of the above is yes-attach a description of the item.
~.... -
ATTENDANCE LIST COMPANY:
EDS Nec/ent pocxET no. 999o\\og2r
[I-O /
Date:
7/9!f/
.... ~
I Pre-Inspection Conference @ Post Iaspection Conference I
i
.'e 71 ease VAME (Please P-int)
TITLE (P! ease Print)
ORGANIZATION ht)
.7{. A.Batek!cu bdue-br Zmre
' N TE & lK 2 / T B ux
.i t
- J,12. Git i%nwa < a c sacn dr?c /rseno
/
- /, T V/Al b%ckv L bn &
MC
/E/KQ 0.Y han e'3ev2
.EC lct-)
l1$c.S A)/2 C 2M
@.E Pl41PPS d.o2P: Q A.
M A M AC1EP_.
' E.DS NJV C. LEA k,.
T C. CdeJ haat an saame J
s fY), b. ^ 0 b o llM k.s w ] /A. ]
h
$8 Wrfin v
v v
/ % ur, A 4 7,ir d i d n
^
i Nd. SAe/s 4/eA', pW&sris'd6 DW Fh5 aucts9K I
~-
~ ~
k* / t-f f F~Y 0Y()<>n _/!ff?tvWn
//
4 5_
.\\Al2 dQ/ /))'airn qw E1) S F/Oc Le-x,l T2.h OoS600o
/
l
< na,
N 0 Faakae k l w L dt Maa. a a:.,,1, %
EES AktCLEAl u
.I E k, f/14= F h,
~
-JGtri:siPM 5% Al?'C LY l,
i
~
O! E. 7Ecitool sec ncis is mu e r <?
ED; n ue u s;17 P
e
=
D m
Int
a PERSONS CONTACTED Company f rJ S A 'o e le n t Dates 7/f-9/f/
Docket / Report No. 999006Z2/f/-0/
Inspector 77*H Bir/CAYfY Page / of
/
NAME(Please Print)
TITLE (Please Print)
ORGANIZATION (Please Print)
L. A. Ln /2 SrcAsxMmseinsoo) EDS Atekne B F. Phiop.s doxo 6A MANnsez
'/
I I
/
s AM 9sdse MAxAssa MD) 11 7z. A, Hobsood WR CA MAA/A&E/Z-T4.A. A v u e babsr Marwa P 77abeitksoM DivistoxFbsisetzta4D) it F. A. Dousberz/v Dimiss hfM M siz f 7 M d W
i
o l
ba
'T c
2 R
P A
i 6
N M
H '
Z-o O
l 4
o p
f p
oo o
a y'n%%
o-
/
/
N fnY ;s,X s
f ttf f
9t J
mnni 9
r 3
eee f
9 t mm, o
I uu.
n
.i n
cco n
o o l ooN N N
/
ADD i
t t f
i.
stffo e r onooi k
o e
2 Ne s
c p g
ueei k
o e a
nqptv D R P
meyae s.
d-uSTDR d/(
lo....
a C1234 L/
,wg 7
n 7
i I
x&
3 u
v u
E 7
x o
a n
6 n M l
r 4
e 1
ursol T
o oG t
z d
M,Js
)
D E
T a
G
- e. -
N C
I E
A s.
x-M J
m A
B a
X U
3 oA'nb E
S s.
/
S E
A No d-T L
A l
7 N
T O
t E
I c
M T
a U
P e
t a
C i
J d
O s
C D
s
)
D m
e r
E c
m a
G n
'd T
)
h m 5
o y
7 r
i 4
x a
r 9
O s
u 2
s z
2 r
o e
o u
l c
o m
u G
2 J
uO ne 0
B P
o o
k c c a
4 i
f 7
'2 N /
C i
7 a
i a
1 o
r y
a k
h s
(
eo f
o
%z A
dm i
u<2 u
i t
F re c
n OM e
6 s
mG p
O-f, 0
L-i s
el S
o o
7 o
sa
(
t c
o o
anr g 4
/
}a
- u. a.
i hrer e
7 A
i c
c cete 2
l l
rtth k
6 u
5 o A unet P
c 0
a' PILO r
a Oh
~
4de o
0 e
o A p
o t
7 d
r L
5 T.
2 s
s l
5678 4 i.
1 e
o H.
O P
c k D
24i w
a m
F C
i wA n
s oA T
t P
o i
C 2
e T
i 1
s t
l r
u e
ael o
d p
cra t
o 2
6 4
i r
E 3
3 ygi uu i
Tnfdn c
M i iea
/
p p
twccM s
o naeo n
c erprA I
S 1
3 4
5 0
8 mDSPQ 2
u I
co....
_l'D1$@p l
l l1 1
Docket No. 9edo 5,2r Inspector Tr. H.T3rtic k'ici Report No. 77-e/
Scop / Module Fo 2.6Co 3o 2.
DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page i
of. Z 1
2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4
\\
7 NUZ -o f-too 9 (f-cads 6dunA & inuusam suad d n /L n 214.2da'es thei//.arsexsislusal dia tie, 12Aci e, am/w21 Au EDS )
l&
O 2
- b
%. Unut N+u 2 2(saeA Tm 2.jl.>s
~r >>
H lhJla,w-7 4 = 0J G A %
'/r o
u vu 6
3 L
NC TL -Q l - 1600g g4 4$
NLTL - o I-r o o 9 ri FIR T!k o S
3 Tukuveob T'A x.z.22t%du 75A 7ddd Itcit -o1-too9 T&a.) m;- isc.rtzzr -14 11tz o&F7ppeac/.it>1t toiG hr A/A 9
7 0.adu BadL " 9AC, I4Ll- ( a. '~6ba$G.At-DY Wiz)' YfirAttt/Ap &)
t A/A Y
7 Eos -+ TVA, AAn aad Jnuudosn a yn tA &e%A
- !is NA 4Aesu S EC - 1/lmuha/outtastAo ll.u26th'Ncc-of-loo */ %l>d>' d 'd FirA6lerm /slis<$w a
q o
a rs, O
IO av HA tw sac-4,.al$Aautua r]mwwJJs /Isabsfle acs,Ai1,-
io lo
'}{suchstlo14ttn4t& $
NCfL -oi-foo 4 o
W4
~
0
~
II E
Ca h PJbtLIb;'L 3Yr & - 5'a. s PA A [ l - f. Y T.1/.17
~
l'Z
'l-C N s-s1bt..b 2-o f-o bol (ty&,
,L-)
$ 9 6) E ),,] $ fft f' [ p 9 ; 3 'f m ' n Y
u o
a y
Document Types:
Column Nos.
D.
Drawing 5.
Purchase Order
- 1. Sequential Item No.
2.
Specification 6.
internal Memo
- 2. Type of Document :
3.
Procedure 7.
Letter
- 3. Date of Document 4.
QA Manual 8.
Other(Specify-ifnecessary)
- 4. Revision No., if applicable
~ ~ ~ ~
~
Docket No. qqqoog,zy Inspector TZ.4.Tb d Report No. f/-e/
cl Scop / Module Fo 260o 30%
DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page 2.of 2 l
1 2
TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4 3bk koce.- Tes s AM I-C..lo, ll. [ %$2u-lb i
e O
14..tfatAt.
')l DA baff-. MC's - t16L.6 %-61-on s l Dan Ar, us.. A9ME AL*N 2f lY'2/ 9. l I*
14-
.7 y
ga gg i6 h
%aeisaik i &nboat Lash *1oiS(soc pe21-x&ss dL2 eld ass.) ilm?M- )
to 5
QA D nok*rA DPC-60 :9 O
I&
1
~'
ZI I
QAP Z./ (T%; elf fairAjaco Y&
he 2
l'1 3
QAP~3.I(O x 4,o2!'$~b 3
IS
'b o
kmL-ouS~ca$d%:l'N'bu ulA! raJAA/ Lid z'flau' b
I9 x
o
~0 0
0 0
07 cf G'
90 2
TVA st)B-M->/o bl.~1lUSCR & A iLis.af &Ii.zY3 7A s)K S2 uba 24
?
?
g g c/ ' '
u o
g i
i Document Types:
Column Nos.
1.
Drawing 5.
Purchase Order
- 1. Sequential Item No.
2e Specificatipn 6.
Internal Memo
- 2. Type of Document:
3.
Procedure T.
Letter
- 3. Date of Document 4.
QA Manual 8.
Other(Specify-ifnecessary)
- 4. Revision No., if applicable e