IR 05000498/1987016

Insp Repts 50-498/87-16 & 50-499/87-16 on 870427-0522.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Site Design Activities & Licensee Action on Previously Identified Insp Findings

ML20215E266
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	06/09/1987
From:	Hunnicutt D, Stewart R, Tapia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215E239	List: IR 05000498/1987016 ML20215E237
References
50-498-87-16, 50-499-87-16, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-2, NUDOCS 8706190311
Download: ML20215E266 (8)

Text

,

,

'

'

, .-

L APPENDIX U.S.-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

,

NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/87-16- Construction Permits: ~ CPPR-128 50-499/87-16 CPPR-129 Dockets: ;50-498 50-499-Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P)

'

P. O. Box 1700

,

Houston,-Texas 77001-Facility Name: South Texas Project _(STP), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: South Texas Project, Matagorda County,_ Texas

, ' Inspection Conducted: April 27'through May 22, 1987 Inspectors: 'b7#Nwnmie

,

J.- d Tapia, Reactor Inspector, Operations d/9/8 7 Dite'

'Section, Reactor Safety Branch AA

& w;A'

R. C. StewdM, Reactor Inspel: tor, Operations s/ r/r,.

Date Section, Reactor Safety Branch Approved: sb % .NumirdcAO: 4/9/87 D. M. Hunnicutt,. Chief, Operations Section Date /

Reactor. Safety Branch Inspection Summary

. Inspection' Conducted April 27 through May 22, 1987 (Report 50-498/87-16; 50-499/87-16)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of site design activities and

,

licensee _ action on previously identified inspection findings.

!

L Results: Within the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were l identifie h6190331 870615 G A DCK 0500049s PDR L

<

.

I

'

1. 8

.t.,t

DETAILS'

1. Persons' Contacted HL&P Personnel'

S. Head, Supervisor, Project Compliance W. Evans, Engineer,' Project Compliance Bechtel C._Humes, Project Engineer C. Kraft, Quality Engineer 2. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Inspection Findings p

An inspection was conducted of the licensee's response to the'following items identified during the NRC Construction Appraisal Team (CAT)

inspection-(NRC Inspection Report 50-498/85-21;50-499/85-19): Incorporation of Changes into Drawings (CAL 85-21-52, PEA Violation 86-12-10 This item concerned the discrepencies observed in FCRs and FCNs being modified upon incorporation into the referenced design drawing Engineering department procedures have been revised (EDP-4.47 Revision 5, EDP-4.49 Revision 7 and EDP-4.62 Revision 6). The procedures now require that if technical information contained in the

.

areviously_ approved amendment is changed, the change can only be made

)y the issue of another _ amendment. Editorial changes must be

' identified in_the revision block of the parent document. 'The appropriate personnel have received retraining regarding the revised ,

procedures. This item is considered close j ' Concrete Expansion Anchor _(CEA) Not Derated Per IEB 79-02 (CAL 85-21-40)

i

The NRC CAT inspector reviewed Wiss, Janney, Elster, and

,.

Associates (WJE) Report No. 81C52Q, entitled " Tension, Shear and i P Relaxation Testing of Expansion Anchors at the South Texas Project,"

dated May 29, 1981, and found that two individual tests for the :

i

'

1/4-inch diameter CEAs indicated ultimate load. capacities lower than the allowable load times the required.4.0 factor of safet ,

'

Specification 5A010SS1000 " Installation of Expansion Anchors, Rock Bolts, Grouted Anchor Bolts, and Core Drilling for the South Texas i Project," Revision 7, gives the allowable loads derived from the STP l

- specific test performed by WJE. The test report submitted by WJE )

'

was reviewed by the NRC inspector in conjunction with the review of the licensee's response to NRC Bulletin No. 79-02 (see NRC Inspection i

l l

p '

,

o n; . -

.

^

9,- -

w

'

- 3 k _

'

Report 50'498/N6-25;50-499/86-23). It was found that the allowable tensile load adopted for the CEAs in question was the average o : individual test'results. reduced by one standard deviation. This value was.found to be 976 lbs. and was rounded-off to 1000 lbs. The value identified by the NRC CAT inspector-(890 lbs.) was based on three' individual test results and did not include all of'the test' l data available;

'

The specified capacity for 1/4-inch CEAs with 1 1/8-inch minimum i'

embedment, after applying the 4.0 factor of safety to the 1000.lb is 250.lbs. The adopted value of 1000 lbs. is conservative when compared to the manufacturer's published rated capacity of 1453.lb .

L Based on the results of the NRC inspector's review, this matter is i considered closed, j Slippage of Concrete Expansion Anchors (CAL 85-21-41)

'

!' The NRC CAT inspector also' reviewed the'CEA' load /s1'ip curves documented'in Appendix C of WJE Report _No. 81C52Q. The CAT inspector expressed concern that for the 1 1/4-inch diameter CEAs at the allowable load of-5.7 kips specified for the standard minimum j embedment of 8 1/2-inches, the tested slippage.was 1/16-inch 'The

'

CAT inspector also noted that at the increased allowable load ~of 8.6 kips specified for the deeper embedment of 101/2-inches, the slippage was 3/16-Inch. It was the. CAT inspector's opinion.that the ,

identified slippages had not been adequately considered in the design criteria.in.that they did not represent repeated loading and that the impact on the piping system analysis had not been considere :j l

The licensee agreed with the CAT inspector that the slippage of ?

3/16-inch, corresponding to the increased allowable load for the deeper embedment' length, was high and potentially adverse to the pipe stress and the distribution of loads to the' pipe support Accordingly, Specification No. 5A010SS1000 was revised to preclude the use of the higher loads allowed for deeper embedment length .The licensee performed a review to identify any designs which specified deeper embedments to obtain higher allowable loads. Since the deeper embedmentLlengths required bolts of nonstandard lengths, only 20 supports were identified in the licensee's review. The identified pipe supports were reanalyzed to determined whether the actual design loads were below the load level corresponding to the slippage of 1/16-inch which was analyzed'and found to be acceptabl Three supports were identified as having high design loads and were reworked by field change requests to replace the unacceptable I wedge-type CEAs with ductile-typei  !

The potential slippage of 1/16-inch was considered to be acceptable by the licensee. The NRC inspector reviewed the technical basis for the licensee's position in light of the CAT inspector's concern It was determined that although the stress analyses of piping systems '

did not include a specific numerical allowance for the variation in i

'

,

W .

.

y y y.; 3

'

O 4_

l

'

us

'

pipe ' support stiffness- that could be ' introduced by the slippage of 1/16-inch, the' analyses, implicitly recognized a finitely bounded.'

stiffness,of pipe' supports which provided an envelope of values to;

' '

'

account for_ variations in actual stiffness. In addition, the design

'analy'ess also considered the. potential maximum clearance of 1/8-inch

--which'would' result'from the' allowed installation gap of plus or minus

L1/16-inch between; pipe and support. These two' design considerations introduce a' margin:inLthe analyses which negates the effect of a 1/16-inch deflection on the expected stiffness'of the pipe. support The deflection ofil/16-inch is only expected upon full capacity loading;which is applicable to few support [ . Specification No. 5LO10JQ1000, " Design' Criteria for Pipe Supports,"

!

Revision'6,' Table.4.36.1-1, provides design criteria restrictions for the~use of wedge-type CEA This-document precludes the use of wedge-type CEAs in pipe supports for ASME Class 1 piping of all sizes o and.for ASME Class 2 and 3 large bore piping subject to vibratory loading. The design criteria restrictions effectively control-potential slippage effects by allowing wedge-type CEAs only for non-Class 1 small bore piping and for,non-Class I large bore piping Lwhich is not' subject to vibratory loadin ~The potential slippage of CEAs accepted in the design analyses does not reduce the ultimate load capacity of the CEAs. The structural

.

designs of cable tray supports, conduit supports,'HVAC duct supports and'other miscellaneous supports are based on equivalent static

'

analyses using peak spectralaseismic responses that are independent Lof specific natural frequencies. Therefore, the design of these supports are not affected by the potential slippage of the CEAs. The slippage only has the potential to affect the design of pipe supports which involve considerations'of stiffness under vibratory load Based on the results of the NRC inspector's review, the design criteria correctly incorporates the results of the load / slip curves and the CAT inspector's observationsc This item is considered close . Onsite Design Activities An inspection was conducted to determine whether onsite design activities, y including controls for engineering and construction initiated field changes,-were being conducted in compliance with the technical and quality assurance requirements described in the STP FSAR. Revision 17 of the QA Program Description (QAPD) for the design and construction phase of the i STP was submitted by HL&P on March 23, 1987, in accordance with the '

requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(f)(3). This document was reviewed by the NRC inspectors and found to satisfy the design control criteria of 10 CFR 50,

-Appendix Bechtel Project Quality Program Manual represents the Bechtel Western Power Corporation Quality Program for the STP. It describes the ,

requirements of Bechtel Topical Report BQ-TOP-1, Revision 3A, as modified '

i I

m. . 4 ,

g(.,jlf $ .

4"p r ~5

, , < g *ib y,P r 3< in:Part'B of Mp Quali.ty4ssurance-Program Description. This manual also.

rm -describes'the quality program.related activities of engineering, q,e procurement, construction. management,.and quality assurance'for.the STP, Y; The following implementing procedures utilized in the: QA program of the'

..

principalt designer were reviewed. by the NRC.. inspectors:

/e, w-

,

g N,pa. ' Bechtel Engineering Department Procedures.(EDPs) -

L

'p

. No. L4.1,l!' Design Criteria," Revision '5

• l 3, c yo.x 4.37, i' Design Calculatidns," Revision 5 J"~ No.'4.46, " Project Drawings,". Revision 8

"

U -

LNo.4L47["DrawingChange. Notice (DCN's)," Revision 5

..

~

LNo. 4.49, " Project Specifications," Revision 7

'

P g

"- No. 4.50,'"ASME Component Design Specifications,"-Revision 4

'

• No.4.55,"ProjectMaterialRequisitions(PMR's),"f.evision5 ,

.\

No. 4.61, "Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's),"LRevision 2 ';

[, s

- -

. No .) 4.62, :" Field ' Change Request / Field' Change W . Notice:(FCR's/FCN's)," Revision 7-

'Q'.

d g e 4. 63',' Supplier \ Deviation Disposition Request (SDDR's),"

No ~

l Revision 6 R e l

, STP' Standard, Site Procedures (SSPs) --

,fk

'

%

No.hd*Nonco'nformanceReporting," Revision 3

,e LNo. 34, " Technical Requirements and Walkdown Procedure for

'

-

As-Building of. Piping Systems," Revision 3 l

No. 37, " Configuration Control Package," Revision 2 i

'

No. 39, " Engineering Procedure.for As-Built Reconciliation of Safety-Related Piping Systems and Associated Pipe Supports,"

Revision 1

• - t hv.4A6, " Field Material Requisition Preparation and Approval," !

h vision 1 No. 49, " Field Change Request," Revision 1

.A

-

y

. . L. :

W 4 .

'

L 6 , Bechtel Work Plan Procedures (WPPs) -

.No. 20.1, " Field Change Notice," Revision 8 No. 22.2, " Guidelines for Notifying ECI On Changes To SEO I&C c '

Generated Drawings," Revision 0 Ebasco Site Instruction -

• -

~No. 2.17, " Requests for Engineering Assistance,"' Revision 2-The NRC' inspectors: found that the reviewed procedures and instructions are employed for control of engineering design work to meet' technical and regulatory requirements. These controls . identify responsibilities and-provide procedures'to' assure that the design requirements are correctly translated.into the final desig The controls also provide for

. preparation of appropriate documentation to permit review of the process 4 used and of the results obtained.. The controls provide for the 1 identification and specification of appropriate quality standards and fo control of changes and design interfaces. Design criteria are assembled by the project during the' initial stages of design. These criteria '

include the criteria contained'in safety analysis reports and other project; requirements. iThe design criteria are maintained current-and serve as: a basis for preparation of the final desig ~

The design control program incorporates measures for identification and control of-design interfaces among the various engineering disciplines on the: project, between the project and technical support groups within Bechtel, and of such external interfaces as the construction contractor, nuclear steam supply' system. supplier, other equipment suppliers and contractors performing design work, and HL&P. .These' measures include:

(a) identification of technical. responsibilities'of the various design groups and provisions for coordination'of design documents'among them, (b)' description of responsibilities.of provisions for coordination.with-

.other design and'engi_neering support groups within Bechtel, and (c) definition of interfaces and control of communication with organizatio~ns external to Bechtel ' l g

Essentially.all engineering' documents are prepared by project personnel o

, and include drawings, specifications, design analyses, system descriptions and technical reports. -They are verified or checked in accordance with- ;

project. procedures. . Project group supervisors are responsible for all engineering work performed within their discipline and for approval of

-

engineering documents prepared within their groups. Procedures and ;

instructions for verification and checking of drawings, calculations, and !

specifications'are included in the procedures governing the preparation of i these documents. These procedures identify the positions of individuals responsible for. verification or checking and require that design errors be identified and followed up through correction. Verifiers and checkers on the project are required to verify the incorporation of required correction Documents cannot be released without verification or I-

l

c,a.,-

I

,

checkin Key design documents for systems and structures important to safety are subject to design verification, which may be accomplished by:

(a) critical design. reviews, either individual or interdisciplinary; (b) alternate calculations; or.(c) qualification testin Design verification is performed for the following key documents: system descriptions, flow diagrams, piping and instrument diagrams, control logic ;

' diagrams, electrical single-line diagrams, structural systems for major '

facilities, site arrangement, and equipment location drawing Specifications, calculations, and computer programs in support of the key documents are verified. Documentation of the design verification is provided by a design verification report signed by the appropriate individual. Design documents other than key' design documents, identified above, are checked for technical correctness and conformance to design input requirement Engineering department procedures establish the extent of checking, the duties of the checker,.and the extent of his responsibility to which he attests with his signature or initial The signature or initials of the checker and date affixed on the design document in accordance with the engineering department procedure satisfies the criteria of the Regulatory Guide 1.6 Traceability of characteristic signatures and initials to the .

individual is provide j Design changes, including field changes, are subjected to design control measures commensurate to those applied to the original design. Checking and review.of design changes ~are performed by the project engineering team !

to the same level as that of the original desig Changes to design !

requirements'or completed designs produced by project engineering, which may be proposed by suppliers and contractors, are required to be reviewed and accepted by project engineerin i In the case of proposed changes to the original design initiated at the construction site, the design changes are reviewed, accepted, and documented by Bechtel site engineering. " Work authorization acceptance" of design changes is required prior to implementation. " Work authorization acceptance" of field change requests by unit engineering is permitted; however, site engineering confirms " work authorization

, acceptance" within the time period designated in the applicable l procedures. Final inspection may be based on unit engineering accepted

'

field change requests, subject to reinspection if project engineering does not confirm unit engineering acceptance. For design changes proposed by suppliers, acceptance of the design change by project engineering is required prior to shipment of the-item to the jobsit In all cases, approval of the proposed design change by project engineering is required prior to fuel loa Certain design work may be performed by Bechtel site engineering providing I it is in compliance to the design control features utilized in the design i office by Bechtel project engineering. Suppliers are not allowed to change Bechtel design requirements or Bechtel reviewed supplier design

y ;

' "

' '

, a;. . . -

. , .

,

%

~

e

.*

documents withoutLobtaining' approval by Bechtel project engineering.

b ., , Constructor / contractor' construction' site changes to engineering design are

!. : ' doc'dmented by;means,of1 change requests.which require authorization by-h ' project) engineering. Significant or unique changes are authorized ~

individually. Project engineering may give written authorization in the

'

'

form of-specificationsior other instructions:to. field organizations to

"

make routine changes. ' Field organizations have the authority'to approve'

w changes:to; design' details in cases where the original design details were prepared ~by thatLfield organizatio The NRCLinspectors reviewed four FCRs and two FCNs which were randomly-selected from the'HL&P records. management system for. independent revie Thisireview provided. verification'of the programmatic adequacy and proper-

<

implementation of,Bechtel procedures affecting the control of quality-related design activitie . Exit Interview

~

The NRC inspector met with licensee-representatives and the resident 4inspectorcat the. conclusion of the inspection.and discussed the results of the inspectio :

,

!

!

f l

l

i