ML18031A396: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:PennsylvaniaPower8LightCompanyTwoNorthNinthStreet~Allentown,PA18101~215l770-5151BrdceD.KenyonVlccPresident-NuclearOperations215/770-4378XEHQ,ZIZZCODSEP081982Mr.T.T.Martin,DirectorDivisionofEngineeringandTechnicalProgramsU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionRegionI631ParkAve.KingofPrussia,PA19406SUSQUEHANNASTEAMELECTRICSTATIONMEETINGWITHREGIONIER100450FILE841-4PLA-1275DocketNo.50-387
{{#Wiki_filter:Pennsylvania Power8LightCompanyTwoNorthNinthStreet~Allentown, PA18101~215l770-5151BrdceD.KenyonVlccPresident-Nuclear Operations 215/770-4378XEHQ,ZIZZCODSEP081982Mr.T.T.Martin,DirectorDivisionofEngineering andTechnical ProgramsU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission RegionI631ParkAve.KingofPrussia,PA19406SUSQUEHANNA STEAMELECTRICSTATIONMEETINGWITHREGIONIER100450FILE841-4PLA-1275DocketNo.50-387


==DearMr.Martin:==
==DearMr.Martin:==
AttachedarethehandoutsprovidedinourAugust25,1982,meetingwithyouandyourstaff.IncludedwiththesehandoutsisPP&L's"ReportontheInvestigationofUnitOneSmallPipingSystemDesign,InstallationandInspection-ProgramAdequacyandImplementation."Verytrulyyours,B.D.KenyonVicePresident-NuclearOperationsWEB/mksAttachmentcc:G.Rhoads-USNRCR.Perch-USNRC~Utq8>09pqp28p>ppps8782pqD8pDRAQOCKopDR8~gpss USHROREGIONX'gPSEP9Ptl233 SUSUEHANNAALLEGATIONSANDFINDINGSQUESTION1.-StressIntensificationFactorOnsitesimplifiedcalculationsdidnotanalyzeweldolet/socket'connectionswithlargepipe.AnSIFof1.3wasusedforfitting/smallpipeinterface.Fitting/largepipeinterfacewasanalyzedwithlargeltpipestressanalysis.RESPONSE-MethodsusedtoaccountforstressintensificationinsmallpipingdesignandinbranchconnectionsonlargepipingwereexplainedataPL/NRCmeetingon8/11.NRC.concurredontheapproachwithonlyoneremaining,NRCconcernwhichwillberesolvedIfeithertherequirementsIoffootnote6ofNC-3673.2barebeingmetorPLdemonstrateasafetyfactorof2fortheworstcaseweldolet/sockoletbranchconnectioncalculatedstressBechtelisrespondingtothisremainingconcernby:(1)Comparingweldprofilesofweldolets/sockoletsusedinSSESwithASMESectionIII,1974editionrequirementsofNC-3673.2b-2andcorrespondingfootnote6.(2)Performinganalysestodemonstratesafetyfactorof2inbranchconnectionstresses(worstcase).'TATUS-NRChasconcurredwiththeapproachusedduringthemeetingon8/11/82.AdditionalresponseinformationwillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82..8209240280,'
AttachedarethehandoutsprovidedinourAugust25,1982,meetingwithyouandyourstaff.IncludedwiththesehandoutsisPP&L's"ReportontheInvestigation ofUnitOneSmallPipingSystemDesign,Installation andInspection-Program AdequacyandImplementation."
QUESTION2.Nozzle'oadsonequipmentwereignoredonallSBPanalyzed.onsite.Iftheallowablenozzleloadsweresuppliedbythemanufacturer,thepipingloadswerecomparedtoit.Ifitwasnotprovideditwasnotcompared.Thelicenseecontendsthatpipeloadonequipmentisnotcriticalfornonsensitiveequipmentbecausethereisenoughconservatismbuiltintotheanalysisandtheplacementofthefirstsupport.LicenseewillsupplyalistofallequipmentthatwasanalyzedforNRC~review.RESPONSE-In8/11meetingwithNRC,PP&LandBechtelmadeapresentation.concerningtheabove'..TheNRCindicatedtheyhadnofurther.concernswiththisissueand'considertheitemclosed.PP&Ldidpromisetoprovideby8/25alistofequipmentf'rwhichdetailedsmallpipenozzleloadsanalysiswereperformed.STATUS-TheabovewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
Verytrulyyours,B.D.KenyonVicePresident-Nuclear Operations WEB/mksAttachment cc:G.Rhoads-USNRCR.Perch-USNRC~Utq8>09pqp28p
QUESTION3.Thelicenseeroutediesleevepenetrationsafterthepipingwasanalyzedforstress.Thelicenseecontendsthatthepenetrationshavebeeninspectedanddocumentedbythe"as-built"verificationprogram.RESPONSE-In8/11meetingwithNRC,PP&LandBechtelmadeapresentationconcerningtheabove.TheNRCindicatedthattheyhadnofurtherconcernsonthisissue.Itemisconsideredclosed.STATUS-Thisitemisclosed.  
>ppps8782pqD8pDRAQOCKopDR8~gpss USHROREGIONX'gPSEP9Ptl233 SUSUEHANNAALLEGATIONS ANDFINDINGSQUESTION1.-StressIntensification FactorOnsitesimplified calculations didnotanalyzeweldolet/socket
'connections withlargepipe.AnSIFof1.3wasusedforfitting/small pipeinterface.
Fitting/large pipeinterface wasanalyzedwithlargeltpipestressanalysis.
RESPONSE-Methodsusedtoaccountforstressintensification insmallpipingdesignandinbranchconnections onlargepipingwereexplained ataPL/NRCmeetingon8/11.NRC.concurred ontheapproachwithonlyoneremaining,NRC concernwhichwillberesolvedIfeithertherequirements Ioffootnote6ofNC-3673.2b arebeingmetorPLdemonstrate asafetyfactorof2fortheworstcaseweldolet/sockolet branchconnection calculated stressBechtelisresponding tothisremaining concernby:(1)Comparing weldprofilesofweldolets/sockolets usedinSSESwithASMESectionIII,1974editionrequirements ofNC-3673.2b-2 andcorresponding footnote6.(2)Performing analysestodemonstrate safetyfactorof2inbranchconnection stresses(worstcase).'TATUS-NRChasconcurred withtheapproachusedduringthemeetingon8/11/82.Additional responseinformation willbepresented toNRCon8/25/82..8209240280,'
QUESTION2.Nozzle'oads onequipment wereignoredonallSBPanalyzed.onsite.Iftheallowable nozzleloadsweresuppliedbythemanufacturer, thepipingloadswerecomparedtoit.Ifitwasnotprovideditwasnotcompared.
Thelicenseecontendsthatpipeloadonequipment isnotcriticalfornonsensitive equipment becausethereisenoughconservatism builtintotheanalysisandtheplacement ofthefirstsupport.Licenseewillsupplyalistofallequipment thatwasanalyzedforNRC~review.RESPONSE-In8/11meetingwithNRC,PP&LandBechtelmadeapresentation.
concerning theabove'..TheNRCindicated theyhadnofurther.concernswiththisissueand'consider theitemclosed.PP&Ldidpromisetoprovideby8/25alistofequipment f'rwhichdetailedsmallpipenozzleloadsanalysiswereperformed.
STATUS-TheabovewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTION3.Thelicenseeroutediesleevepenetrations afterthepipingwasanalyzedforstress.Thelicenseecontendsthatthepenetrations havebeeninspected anddocumented bythe"as-built" verification program.RESPONSE-In8/11meetingwithNRC,PP&LandBechtelmadeapresentation concerning theabove.TheNRCindicated thattheyhadnofurtherconcernsonthisissue.Itemisconsidered closed.STATUS-Thisitemisclosed.  


QUESTION4.Smallpipeanchors,perBechtelDetail600andSPA-1312,donotproviderestraintinthreedirections(x,y,z).Therearethreedrawingsofthishanger(Detail600,SPA-600,SPA-1312).Duetofabricationtolerances,theclampmaynothaveaninterferencecontacttoresistaxialand.torsionalslippage.RESPONSE-'nchorswerereworkedasnecessarytoinsuresufficient.contacttoresistaxial&torsionalslippage.Calculationswereperformedtojustifytheshimmingoftheanchorsinordertoenablethemtocarrytherequiredload.Thesecalculationsshowedthatallstressesareacceptable.PP&Lhasperformeda100%inspectionfollowingallrequiredreworkandhasverifiedrequiredcontactbetweenthepipeandtheanchoraswellaspropergapbetweenthetwohalvesoftheanchor.STATUS-TheabovewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
QUESTION4.Smallpipeanchors,perBechtelDetail600andSPA-1312, donotproviderestraint inthreedirections (x,y,z).Therearethreedrawingsofthishanger(Detail600,SPA-600,SPA-1312)
QUESTION5.Agenericboltsize,problemexistswithall1"ha@gers(Detail600,SPA-600,SPA-1312).Theboltshoulderspecifiedextendsthroughbothearsofthepipeclamp.ThiscausesthebolttoshoulderoutbeforetheWclampisadequatelytorqued.RESPONSE-BechtelResponse:Boltlengthusedalongwiththegapandcomponentthicknesscouldleaduptobottomingoutofthenutontheboltthreadswithoutachievingthetorque.FCRP-4066andPL-NCR(82-728)haveprovisionsforaddingwasherstoprecludebottomingoutofthenutonthebolt.PP&Lperformed100%inspectionofthesubjectbolts.Allrequiredreworkhasbeenperformed,i.e.,washerswereaddedasnecessarytoboltsnotpassingacceptancecriteriatoprecludethemfromshoulderingout.STATUS-PP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
.Duetofabrication tolerances, theclampmaynothaveaninterference contacttoresistaxialand.torsional slippage.
QUESTION6.BoltsspecifiedonDetail600areSA-307butSPA-600andSPA-1312areSA-325.SA-325boltsareofhigherstrength.RESPONSE-BoltmaterialwasnotspecifiedonDetail600,however,standardSA-307boltsweresuppliedandinstalled.AstudyCalculationwasperformedwhichjustifiestheuseofSA-307boltsfortheinstalledUnit1anchors.ThiswasdiscussedinateleconbetweenNRC,PP&LandBechtelon8/17/82.Astheresultofthisdiscussion,PP&LagreedtosubmittoNRCtheJustificationcalculation.Thiswasdoneon8/19/82alongwithawrittenresponse.STATUS-JustificationcalculationandawrittenresponsesubmittedtoNRCon8/19/82.PP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
RESPONSE-'nchorswerereworkedasnecessary toinsuresufficient.
QUESTION7.TheupgradeofDetail600totheSPA-1312designcauseddistortionoftheclampbecauseofweldingstresses.RESPONSE-FourlinecontactandproperbolttorquingresultinrequiredclampingIforceswhichprecludetheeffectsofdistortioncausedbyweldstresses.Thejustificationforfourlinecontactandproperbolttorqueisdiscussedintheresponsestoquestions(4)and(5)respectivelySTATUS-TheaboveresponsewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders"thisitemclosed.  
contacttoresistaxial&torsional slippage.
Calculations wereperformed tojustifytheshimmingoftheanchorsinordertoenablethemtocarrytherequiredload.Thesecalculations showedthatallstressesareacceptable.
PP&Lhasperformed a100%inspection following allrequiredreworkandhasverifiedrequiredcontactbetweenthepipeandtheanchoraswellaspropergapbetweenthetwohalvesoftheanchor.STATUS-Theabovewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTION5.Agenericboltsize,problemexistswithall1"ha@gers(Detail600,SPA-600,SPA-1312).
Theboltshoulderspecified extendsthroughbothearsofthepipeclamp.ThiscausesthebolttoshoulderoutbeforetheWclampisadequately torqued.RESPONSE-BechtelResponse:
Boltlengthusedalongwiththegapandcomponent thickness couldleaduptobottoming outofthenutontheboltthreadswithoutachieving thetorque.FCRP-4066andPL-NCR(82-728)haveprovisions foraddingwasherstoprecludebottoming outofthenutonthebolt.PP&Lperformed 100%inspection ofthesubjectbolts.Allrequiredreworkhasbeenperformed, i.e.,washerswereaddedasnecessary toboltsnotpassingacceptance criteriatoprecludethemfromshouldering out.STATUS-PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTION6.Boltsspecified onDetail600areSA-307butSPA-600andSPA-1312areSA-325.SA-325boltsareofhigherstrength.
RESPONSE-Boltmaterialwasnotspecified onDetail600,however,standardSA-307boltsweresuppliedandinstalled.
AstudyCalculation wasperformed whichjustifies theuseofSA-307boltsfortheinstalled Unit1anchors.Thiswasdiscussed inateleconbetweenNRC,PP&LandBechtelon8/17/82.Astheresultofthisdiscussion, PP&LagreedtosubmittoNRCtheJustification calculation.
Thiswasdoneon8/19/82alongwithawrittenresponse.
STATUS-Justification calculation andawrittenresponsesubmitted toNRCon8/19/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTION7.TheupgradeofDetail600totheSPA-1312designcauseddistortion oftheclampbecauseofweldingstresses.
RESPONSE-FourlinecontactandproperbolttorquingresultinrequiredclampingIforceswhichprecludetheeffectsofdistortion causedbyweldstresses.
Thejustification forfourlinecontactandproperbolttorqueisdiscussed intheresponses toquestions (4)and(5)respectively STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders" thisitemclosed.  


QUESTION8.The"ears"of,largeborepipehangerclampsweretrimmedtopreventinterference.Thishasnotbeenincorporatedintothedesign.Example:HBC-101-H210RESPONSE-TheGBC-101-H210clamptrimmingwasshownconceptuallyontheas-builtdetailand.judgedtobeadequateduringtheas-builtreconciliation.STATUS-TheaboveresponsewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP6Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
QUESTION8.The"ears"of,largeborepipehangerclampsweretrimmedtopreventinterference.
QUESTEON9.SBPSystemsonUnit1m'aybetoorigid.ThehangersrequiredforUnitIwereanalyzedbythesimplifiedmethodandresultedinabout700supports.ThehangersforUnit,2werecomputeranalyzedandresultedinabout,270.RESPONSE-Thiswasdiscussedinan8/17teleconbetweenPPGL,BTandNRC.Duringmeetingon8/18betweenPPGL&NRG;PPaLwasinformedthatthisitemisclosed.STATUS-Thisitemisclosed-  
Thishasnotbeenincorporated intothedesign.Example:HBC-101-H210 RESPONSE-TheGBC-101-H210 clamptrimmingwasshownconceptually ontheas-builtdetailand.judgedtobeadequateduringtheas-builtreconciliation.
STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP6Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTEON9.SBPSystemsonUnit1m'aybetoorigid.ThehangersrequiredforUnitIwereanalyzedbythesimplified methodandresultedinabout700supports.
ThehangersforUnit,2werecomputeranalyzedandresultedinabout,270.RESPONSE-Thiswasdiscussed inan8/17teleconbetweenPPGL,BTandNRC.Duringmeetingon8/18betweenPPGL&NRG;PPaLwasinformedthatthisitemisclosed.STATUS-Thisitemisclosed-  


QUESTION10.Structuredsteelbeam.flangewarpageandwebdamageduetodeadloadplacedonbeamsatelevation749'.nearoutboardMSIV.RESPONSE-InameetingbetweenPPGLandNRCon8/18,PPGLwasinformedthatthisitemisclosed.STATUSThisitemisclosed.  
QUESTION10.Structured steelbeam.flangewarpageandwebdamageduetodeadloadplacedonbeamsatelevation 749'.near outboardMSIV.RESPONSE-InameetingbetweenPPGLandNRCon8/18,PPGLwasinformedthatthisitemisclosed.STATUSThisitemisclosed.  
'
'
QUESTION11.AdesignchangeonDecember21,1981revisedDetail600toSPA600butthenewdesignwasnotdistributedforworkorinspection.RESPONSE-TheinstallationandinspectionofDetail600typeanchorswasdoneinaccordancewithDetail-600Rev.1whileadrawingsupersedingit(SPA-600)existedatthesite.ThisoccurredbecauseSFHOissuedthesupersedingdrawing,SPA-600onDecember21,1981,withoutfirstissuingthecancellationrevisiontoDetail600.ThecancellationforDetail600wasissuedJune2,1982.AlthoughSFHOissuedSPA-600beforethecancellationrevisionforDetail600,theydidmakeanoteonSPA-600thatitsupersededDetail600.However,duetoinadequatedocumentreviewatthesite,thisnotewasoverlooked.ThecancellationrevisionshouldhavebeenissuedpriortoissuingSPA-600.Inaddition,abetterdocumentreviewshouldhavebeendone.AlldifferencesbetweenSPA600andDetail600havebeenreconciledwiththedesignrequirements,confirmingthattheexistinginstallationsareadequate.ToavoidthisprobleminUnit2,SPA'sarenotbeingutilized.Individualpipesupportdetailsarebeinggeneratedlikelargepipesupports.Alldrawingsforinstallationandinspectionwillbeissuedandcontrolledbyestablishedfieldprocedures,whichwillincluderequirements,'asapplicable,toensureappropriatetimeconstraintsanddoumentationrequirementsforfieldreviewandimplementationofdesignchanges.STATUS-TheaboveresponsewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
QUESTION11.AdesignchangeonDecember21,1981revisedDetail600toSPA600butthenewdesignwasnotdistributed forworkorinspection.
QUESTION12.TheproposedfixofDetail600hangersdoesnotappeartobeacceptabl(linecontactonpipe,notfulllength).RESPONSE-Acalculationhasbeenmadetojustifytheacceptabilityoffourlinecontact.Thecalculationshowsthatatwoinchcontactoneachsideisacceptableresultinginstressesthatarebelowtheallowables'.STATUS-TheaboveresponsewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
RESPONSE-Theinstallation andinspection ofDetail600typeanchorswasdoneinaccordance withDetail-600 Rev.1whileadrawingsuperseding it(SPA-600) existedatthesite.ThisoccurredbecauseSFHOissuedthesuperseding drawing,SPA-600onDecember21,1981,withoutfirstissuingthecancellation revisiontoDetail600.Thecancellation forDetail600wasissuedJune2,1982.AlthoughSFHOissuedSPA-600beforethecancellation revisionforDetail600,theydidmakeanoteonSPA-600thatitsuperseded Detail600.However,duetoinadequate documentreviewatthesite,thisnotewasoverlooked.
QUESTION13.Onepipesupportattachedtotwoseismicallyindependentstructures.Threesupportshavebeenidentifiedconnectedbetweenthereactorbuildingandprimarycontainment.RESPONSE-PPaLtransmittedsetsofcalculationstoNRCon8/19/82indicatingthatthecorrectresponsespectraandseismicanchormovementanalysiswereused.Thiswasprovidedalongwithawrittenresponse.STATUSPPaLconsidersthisitemclosed.
Thecancellation revisionshouldhavebeenissuedpriortoissuingSPA-600.Inaddition, abetterdocumentreviewshouldhavebeendone.Alldifferences betweenSPA600andDetail600havebeenreconciled withthedesignrequirements, confirming thattheexistinginstallations areadequate.
QUESTION14.-Snubber,SP-HCC-136-H-.2003wasinstalledsuchthatthesupportcanbedeflectedseveralincheslaterally.RESPONSE-Wehaveinspectedthesupportafterthequestionwasraised.Thesupportframeisflexibleinthenorth-southdirection,i.e.,'ntheaxialdirectionofthepipe.Itmaintainsrigidityintheeast-westdirection.Sincethedesignrequirementoftheaxisofrestraintiseast-westonly,thesupportisconsideredtomeetitsintendedpurpose.Therefore,theas-builtsupportistechnicallysound.STATUS-TheabovewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP6Lconsidersthisitemclosed.  
ToavoidthisprobleminUnit2,SPA'sarenotbeingutilized.Individual pipesupportdetailsarebeinggenerated likelargepipesupports.
Alldrawingsforinstallation andinspection willbeissuedandcontrolled byestablished fieldprocedures, whichwillincluderequirements,
'asapplicable, toensureappropriate timeconstraints anddoumentation requirements forfieldreviewandimplementation ofdesignchanges.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTION12.TheproposedfixofDetail600hangersdoesnotappeartobeacceptabl (linecontactonpipe,notfulllength).RESPONSE-Acalculation hasbeenmadetojustifytheacceptability offourlinecontact.Thecalculation showsthatatwoinchcontactoneachsideisacceptable resulting instressesthatarebelowtheallowables'.
STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTION13.Onepipesupportattachedtotwoseismically independent structures.
Threesupportshavebeenidentified connected betweenthereactorbuildingandprimarycontainment.
RESPONSE-PPaLtransmitted setsofcalculations toNRCon8/19/82indicating thatthecorrectresponsespectraandseismicanchormovementanalysiswereused.Thiswasprovidedalongwithawrittenresponse.
STATUSPPaLconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTION14.-Snubber,SP-HCC-136-H-.2003 wasinstalled suchthatthesupportcanbedeflected severalincheslaterally.
RESPONSE-Wehaveinspected thesupportafterthequestionwasraised.Thesupportframeisflexibleinthenorth-south direction, i.e.,'ntheaxialdirection ofthepipe.Itmaintains rigidityintheeast-west direction.
Sincethedesignrequirement oftheaxisofrestraint iseast-west only,thesupportisconsidered tomeetitsintendedpurpose.Therefore, theas-builtsupportistechnically sound.STATUS-Theabovewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP6Lconsiders thisitemclosed.  


QUESTION15.Lackofclearancebetweensnubberendandclampear.RESPONSE-Theremaybealackofsufficientclearanceonthesize35snubbers.Thereforea100Kinspectionforclearancewillbedoneonallsize35snubbers.Inconjunction,a10XinspectionforclearanceswillbedoneonthebalanceofsnubbersinUnit/31.STATUS-TheaboveresponsewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Liscurrentlypursuingthiscourseofaction.-Acorrectiveactionwillbetakenpriortoheatupexceeding200F.
QUESTION15.Lackofclearance betweensnubberendandclampear.RESPONSE-Theremaybealackofsufficient clearance onthesize35snubbers.
QUESTION16.Sitefabricatedrearbracketsofsnubbersdidnotprovideadequateclearanceforlateralmovementofthesnubber.RESPONSE-TherearenositefabricatedrearbracketsforsnubbersatSSESUnit81.STATUS-TheaboveresponsewillbepresentedtotheNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lfindstheaboveresponsesatisfactoryandconsidersthisitemclosed.
Therefore a100Kinspection forclearance willbedoneonallsize35snubbers.
QUESTION17.Falsificationofrecords:QCinspectiononacceptanceofSPA-1312bolting.RESPONSE-ThesmallpipehangerdetaildrawingforhangersutilizingtheSPA-1312clampdoesnotidentifymaterialtypefortheboltsinquestion,therefore,itwasnotrequiredtobeverified.ThespecificactivityontheQualityControlInspectionRecordwassignedbecauseitdealswithotherattributesinadditiontomaterialtypesuchasmaterialsizeofrods,clamps,saddles,clevises,etc.QC.inspectionofinaccessibleitemstakesintoaccountthesequenceofinstallationtoallowinaccessibleitemstobeinspected.Whereitemswhicharerequiredtobeinspectedperdesigndrawings/QualityControlinspectionRecordsarefoundinaccessible,theyareidentifiedonNonconformanceReportsorP-20exceptionformsforpipesupportsasqualityindeterminate.STATUS-'heaboveresponsewf.llbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
Inconjunction, a10Xinspection forclearances willbedoneonthebalanceofsnubbersinUnit/31.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Liscurrently pursuingthiscourseofaction.-Acorrective actionwillbetakenpriortoheatupexceeding 200F.
QUESTION18.DivisionofresponsibilitybetweenFieldEngineeringandResidentEngineering.RESPONSE-Therehavealwaysexisteddistinctorganizationsanddivisionofresponsibilitiesbetweenthefieldengineeringandresidentengineering.TheResidentEngineeringhasadualreportingrelationshipwithinengineeringastheyreporttotheProjectResidentEngineerandtotheProjectEngineeringGroupSupervisorprimarilyfortechnicalguidance.Therehavebeeninstanceswhereresidentengineerswereloanedtofieldengineerstoworkinthefieldengineeringorganizationandperformfieldengineeringdutiesandfunctions.AroundFebruary1982,aHangerDesignCoordinationTeamwasformedtopromotebettercommunication,andtoimproveefficiencyandproductivityoftheinstallationinterferenceresolutionprocess.Normally,craftspresentaninterferenceproblemtoFieldEngineeringandFieldEngineeringinturnpassesontheproblemto,ResidentEngineeringaftertheymakeanevaluationtodecidethatResidentEngineering'sinvolvementisneeded.TheResidentEngineeringbranchoftheteamworkedasaseparateentityinthemannertheydowhentheyworkfromResidentEngineering'sworklocation.TheteamwasphysicallysituatedinonetrailertoexpeditethedocumentationprocessandalsotogetpromptinvolvementoftheResidentEngineeringbybringingthemtotheclosepr'oximityoftheFieldEngineeringorganization.ResidentEngineeringmembersduringtheseoperationsreportedtotheResidentEngineeringGroupSupervisorandreceivedtechnicalaswellasadministrativeguidelinesfromhim.Thus,thereisnoinstancewheretheorganizationalanddivisionofresponsibilitiescharterwasviolatedduringtheUnit1hangerprogram.STATUS-TheaboveresponsewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
QUESTION16.Sitefabricated rearbracketsofsnubbersdidnotprovideadequateclearance forlateralmovementofthesnubber.RESPONSE-Therearenositefabricated rearbracketsforsnubbersatSSESUnit81.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented totheNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lfindstheaboveresponsesatisfactory andconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTION19.Fieldengineering'sinitialingofcheck/approveentries'onfielddrawings.RESPONSE-I'heLeadFieldPipingEngineer's(LFPE)initialswereoftenenteredbyothersinthe"APPROVEDBY"blockonhangerdrawings,withouttheidentityoftheactualapproverbeingindicated.ThisspecificdiscrepancywaspreviouslyaddressedandcorrectedviaBechtelQ.A.AuditPFA-24-4-10,QAF/k4.FP-P-11Paras.4.3.6(smallpipeisometrics),5.3.1.2.c(largepipehangerdetails),and6.2.7.2.c(smallpipehangerdetails)allrequireapprovaloftheLFPEorhisdesignee;butdonotclearlyspecifythemethodofinitialing(i.e.,whoseinitialsareentered).Earlyintheproject,variousindividualsaredesignatedtosign/approvethesedrawingsfortheLFPE.Thedesigneesweregenerallysupervisorsinvolvedinthedr'aftingeffort,butotherpipingsupervisorswerealsodelegatedthisauthority.NOTE:"Approval"ofFieldpipingdrawings-althoughnotactuallydefinedinanyoftheprocedures,actuallysignifiesconcurrencethatrequireddesignreviews/checkshavebeenperformed(i.e.,checker'sinitialsonthedrawing)andformalauthorizationtoissuethedrawing.TherequirementsofFP-P-11wereunderstoodbysomeofthedesigneesinvolvedinfieldhanger"design"*tomeanthatthesignature(orinitials)oftheLFPEhimselfmustappearonthedrawings.Consequently,severalofthedesignees/approversenteredonlytheinitialsoftheLFPEtodocumenttheirapprovalofthedrawing.')hismethodofdocumentingapproval,althoughcontrarytostandard~ualitverificationconventionswasnotconsideredbytheindividualsinvolvedtoreflectimproper~draftXnconventions.*AlthoughreferredtoasFieldhanger"design",inactualitytheFieldperformedvaryingdegreesofconfigurationrevisionanddraftingbutinall.casesProjectEngineeringwasconsideredthefinalapprovalauthority.Insomecasesthepersonreviewing/checkinghangerdrawingswastheoriginatorofthedrawing,whoenteredfictitiousinitials("E.D.")inthe"BY"blockand("D.E.H.")inthe"CHECKED"block.FP-P-11omitsspecificcheckingrequirementsforFieldrevisionstosmallpipehangerdetails.(Althoughindependentcheckingwastheestablishedpractice.)Paras.4.3.5(smallpipeisos)and5.3.1.2b(largepipehangers)implyseparateandindependentchecks,butarenotreallyspecific.Nonetheless,therevisionblock.entrieson QUESTION19PAGE2OF3thedrawingsdoimplythataseparateindividualmustcheckthedrawing.Entryoftheoriginator'sinitialsinboththe"BY"blockandthe"CHECKED"block,aswellasentryoffictitiousinitialscanonlyreflectignoranceonthepartofthepersoninvolved,and-attemptsbythatpartytotakeashortcut..InsomecasesthecheckersenteredtheSmallPipeHangersupervisor'sinitials("A.G."or"T.G.")inthe"CHECKED"block.-TheentryoftheSPHsupervisor'sinitialsinthe"CHECKED"blockinvolvedanindependentcheckerwhowasqualifiedbutwhowasnotformallydesignatedasachecker,soheenteredhissupervisor'sinitials-againwithoutanyillintentorattemptatdeceit.WhenFieldEngineeringperformsfieldinspectionofhangers,theyinspecttheinstallationagainstthedetaildrawingtoverifyagreement.This,ineffectisareview/checkofthehangerdetail.Uponverifyingagreement(orcorrectingthedrawing)thedrawingispresentedtoQualityControlwhoinspectstheinstallationforcompliancewiththedrawingandvice-versa.Anydiscrepanciesidentifiedduringthisadditional"check"areidentifiedandthedrawingiscorrectedaccordingly(eitherbyred-lineorbyrevision)andthecorrectionisrechecked/verifiedbyQualityControlpriorto'heiracceptanceoftheinstallation.Therefore,evenifanindependentdraftingcheckwasnever~etfotmed(oozinvestigationindicatesthatthishappenedonlyinisolatedcases)subsequentFieldEngineeringandQualityControlchecksd9doccurafterthedraftingandcheckingofthedrawings,andanyresultantdesigndiscrepancieswouldhavebeenresolvedduringas-builtverification.(Theadequacyoftheas-builtverificationwassubstantiatedunderseparateauditprogramsinvolvingPPGLQA,BechtelQualityControlandasp'ecialauditteamwithinFieldEngineering.)Thus,theproceduraldiscrepancieswouldhavenoeffectonthevalidityoftheas-builtdrawingactuallyreflectingtheas-builtconditionsandasusedbyengineeringtoperformtheas-builtreconciliation.Additionallyallhangerdrawingshavereceived,afterfinalas-built,afinalLFPE/designeeapprovaldocumentedonthedrawingperPara.8.1.2ofFP-P-11.AnydiscrepanciesinpreviousLFPEapprovalsdocumentedonthehangerdrawingsare.thereforeirrelevantbecausethefinalLFPE/designee.approvalcoversthefinalQC-verifiedas-builtdrawing.Also,Pro]ectEngineeringhasreconciledthefieldas-builthangerdetailsw'iththedesignandsigned'thedrawingsperPara.8.1.2.ofFP-P-11.Thisinvolvesfinalverificationthattheas-builtdrawingrepresentsanadequatestructurebasedonthestressanalysis.
QUESTION17.Falsification ofrecords:QCinspection onacceptance ofSPA-1312bolting.RESPONSE-Thesmallpipehangerdetaildrawingforhangersutilizing theSPA-1312clampdoesnotidentifymaterialtypefortheboltsinquestion, therefore, itwasnotrequiredtobeverified.
0 QUESTION19PACZ3OF3Finally,webelievethatpipingdrawingspreparedbythefielddoaccuratelyreflect.theinstallation.Inaddition,webelievethatQualityAssuranceprogrammaticrequirementswereadequatelycontrolledbytheengineeringandfieldprograms.Basedontheabovedescribedcheckingandapprovalsaccomplishedafterfinalissuanceofthehangerdetaildrawingsbythefieldhangergroups,nofurtherremedialcorrectiveactionshouldbenecessarytoaddresscompletedUnit1hangers.Withrespecttootherdrawingsusedforpipingas-buildinganddesignverification,reviewwithapplicablepersonnelindicatesthattheLFPEinitialswerenotenteredonFCI's(largepipeas-built.drawings)andsmallpipefabricationisometrics(usedforsmallpipe,as-building);thatitwasstandardpracticeforthecheckersandapproverstoentertheirowninitials.1ActiontoPrecludeRecurrence'hebasiccauseoftheproblemsidentifiedislackofcleardirectionconcerningdefini~the'eview/checkingandapprovalfunctionsinvolvedwith'ielddrafting,andidentifyingconciselytherequirementsfordocumentingthesefunctions.AllFieldProceduresinvolvingFieldDesign(alldisciplines)willbereviewedforsimilarlackofdirection;andappropriaterevisionstotheProcedureswillbeprocessed.Inaddition,allpersonsresponsiblefordrafting,review,andapprovalfunctionswill'beinstructedastotheimportanceofadheringtotheserequirementstoensuresimilardidcrepanciesdonotoccurinthefuture.CorrectiveactionwillbecompletedbySeptember30,1982.STATUS-TheaboveresponsewillbepresentedtoNRC8/25/82.Withimplementationoftheabovecorrectiveaction,PP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.
ThespecificactivityontheQualityControlInspection Recordwassignedbecauseitdealswithotherattributes inadditiontomaterialtypesuchasmaterialsizeofrods,clamps,saddles,clevises, etc.QC.inspection ofinaccessible itemstakesintoaccountthesequenceofinstallation toallowinaccessible itemstobeinspected.
l'IQuestion20-PP&LwasrequestedtodeterminewhetherPP&LandBechtelQ.A.ProgramscoveredtheareasofconcernidentifiedduringthePP&LInvestigationofSmallPipeDesign/Installation.Response-Generally,theauditsperformedbyBechtelwereofenoughdetailanddepthtoindicatethattherewassufficientreviewoftheparticularaspectofthesystembeingaudited.BechtelMCAR's(ManagementCorrectiveActionReport)andQAR's(QualityActionReport)arewrittenforanyparticulardiscrepancy(outsideanauditscope)thatrequirescorrectiveactionandfollow-up.ThefollowingareexamplesofauditfindingsandQAR'sthatindicatedproblemareasrelatedtothosefoundduringthePP&Linvestigation:1.Audit8'24-4-10,February,1982,containedafindingthatnetedanoncompliancewiththeprocedurefor"voiding"drawings.(Anotherfindinginthisaudit,althoughnotrelatedtotheInvestigationReport,reported.thatsupervisor'ssignature(initials)beingmisused.)2.Audit//'s30-3-4,30-3-5,30-3-6,and30-9-2,datedMarch,1981;August,1981;April1982;andMay,1982;respectively,discoveredvariousinstancesoflackofcontrolsforproceduralimplementationandengineeringinterfaces.3.Audit824-4-9,June',1981','containedfindingsthatindicatedvariousareasinwhichthe'as-built"configurat'ionofthe~pipingdidnotagreewiththedrawings.4.QAR8859,July30,1982,dealtwithFieldEngineeringnotreviewingSPADrawingsinatimelymanner.5.QAR//856,July22,1982,dealswiththedeficiencyidentifiedinthedesignof"SPA600"hanger.4B..PP&1<P.A.Duringtheperiodunderreview,therewereseven(7)formalandseven(7)unannouncedauditsrelatingtothesmallpipeprogram.'.'...'-"..'.-':.';:These.auditscoveredsuchareasasdocumentcontrol,Q.C..Inspection,anddesigncontrol(relatedtointerfacecontrolandtheuseofthelatestinformationfordesignverification).Numerousfindingswereidentifiedduringtheseauditsandseveralofthesestillremainopen.Someo''heauditsinwhichthefindingsweresimilartothoseofthePP&LInvestigationare:81.Auditf/C-82-14(jointauditwithBechtel),April,1982,inwhichsomeproceduralcontrolwerelackingintheResidentEngineeringGroup.
Whereitemswhicharerequiredtobeinspected perdesigndrawings/
Ques%ion20Cont'dPage2of22.AuditPC-81-06,January,1982,identifiedproblem,areasintheFieldEngineeringlocatinghangerdeficienciesinthiswalkdown.3~4.UnannouncedAuditf/111,September,1981,discoveredvariousareasofproceduralandimplementationproblemsinthedesignportionofthesmallpipeprogram.N-5PackageReviewAuditf/'sCL-48,Hay,1982;CL-34,May,1982;andCL-34,June1982;indicatedareasinwhichthereweredraftingerrors.IV.CONCLUSIONSA..PP&LandBechtelauditscoveredtheprogrammatic/proceduralaspectsofthesmallpipedesign/installationprogram,butdidnotincludeatechnicalreviewoftheseaspects.B.TheInvestigationTeamhadthebenefitoftechnicalsupport.ThemajorityoftheconcernsidentifiedduringtheInvestigationwerearesultofthetechnicalreview.AsaconsequenceofPP&LandBechtelauditsnothavingtechnicalsupport,itcannotbeexpected,thattheywould'aisethesameconcernsthattheInvestigationTeamsdid.C.ThereviewingofPP&LandBechtelauditsrevealthattheirfrequencydidnotincreaseinproportiontoworkbeingaccomplishedduringthe"finalhecticperiod"(April-June1982).ButbothBechtelandPP&LQAcoverageofsmallpipeprogramexistedintheformsofBechtelQAsurveillanceofhangeras-builtinstallation(fromOct.1981)andPP&LN-5PackageReview,whichoccurredfromSeptember,1981,throughJuly,1982.Theseactivitiesincreasedinproportionto.theworkbeingaccomplishedduringthe"finalhecticperiod."Theseactivitiesandanydiscrepancieswereformallydocumented.STATUSPP&Lconsidersthisitemclosed.  
QualityControlinspection Recordsarefoundinaccessible, theyareidentified onNonconformance ReportsorP-20exception formsforpipesupportsasqualityindeterminate.
~~gust23,1982FILEMEMOSUSQUEHANNASTEAMELECTRICSTATIONINVESTIGATIONOFSMALLPIPINGSYSTEMSPROBLEMSAmeetingwasheldonAugust18,1982betweentheNuclearRegulatoryCommissionandPP&Lconcerningthesmallpipingprogram.CerainquestionswereraisedconcerningtheprogramandPP&Lcommittedtoinvestigatethese.TheNRCquestionsandPP&Lresponsesfollow:Question:l.NhyhadBechtelQCaccepted(signed-off)certainattributesofhangerswhichwereinaccessibleandthusnotinspectable?Response:TheNRCmadereferencetothe"detail600"clampswhichweremodifiedperSPA1312.Themodificationswereofsuchanaturethattheclampboltheadswereconcealedafterthemodificationandthusitisnotpossibletoverifythatthemarkingsontheboltheadindicatethecorrectmaterial(A-325)..~~~The'BechtelQCinspectorsign-offinSection3.0oftheInspectionReport.'IR)doesnot,indicatethattheattributeofboltmaterialwasinspect:ed,onlythatthe"detail600"clampisatthatlocation.Thisisconsistentwiththeinspectionprograminthattheboltingmaterialisnotidentifiedontheuniquehangerdetaildrawingsand,therefore,wasnotarequiredQCverification.TheboltsareinspectedbytheBechtelQCReceivingGroupuponreceiptatSusquehannaformaterialtype.=Iftheboltingmaterialhadbeenanattributetobeinspected,thefactthatitwasuninspectablewouldhavebeennotedonanon-conformancereportfor.resolution.ThePP&LInvestigationTeamsnotedthistypeofBechtelQCactionduring+heInvestigationsincenon-conformancesweregeneratedforareaswhereplatethick-nesscouldnotbemeasuredduetogroutingcompletionor:-wherestructuraltubingthicknesscouldnotbemeasuredduetoconstructionclose-up.Thesetypesofitemswereresolved'byUTmeasurementsorbydr'lingaholetopermitthicknessmeasurement.Insummary:a.Allattributesofmodifiedfrictionclamps(SPA-1312)requiredtobeinspectedwereaccessible.  
STATUS-'heaboveresponsewf.llbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
~.0b.TheinaccessibilitynotedbytheNRCinvolvedanattribute(boltingmaterial)whichwasnotrequiredbyProjectEngineeringtobeinspectedbyOC.Question:2.AretheBechtelFieldEngineeringandResidentEngineeringpersonnelworkingtogetherandreportingtothesameGroupSupervisor?Response:TheFieldEngineersandResidentEngineerswerelocatedinthesamfacilityforthepurposeofexoeditingchangesrequiredduringtheinstallationofthesmallborepipingsystemsandhangers.TheInvestigationTeamreviewedthereportingfunctions,organizationalchartandnamesofpersonnelinvolvedinthoseorganizations.Thecon-clusionoftheInvestigationTeamwasthatforUnit1FieldEngineersandResidentEngineersworkedcloselytogetherforefficiencysakebuthaddifferentreportingsupervision.TheareaofResidentEngineeringpersonnelbeing"lent"toFieldEngineeringandreturningsometimelatertotheResidentEngineeringgroupwasinvestigated.ThisorganizationalsystemappliesonlytoUnit2.TherearenoBechtelprogramrequirementspreventingitsim-plementation.TheconcernthatthesameindividualmayperformtheinitialdesignasaFieldEngineerandsubsequentlyperformtheverificationcalculationsasaResidentEngineerwasinvestigated.TheResident-.,EngineeringcalculationprocedurexequiresthatacheckerandSupervisorreviewandsignthecalculationaftertheoriginatorperforms'theinitialcalculation.Thisseriesofreviewsandsignaturesprovidesassurancethatthecalculationisperformedaccuratelyandcorrectly.
QUESTION18.Divisionofresponsibility betweenFieldEngineering andResidentEngineering.
RESPONSE-Therehavealwaysexisteddistinctorganizations anddivisionofresponsibilities betweenthefieldengineering andresidentengineering.
TheResidentEngineering hasadualreporting relationship withinengineering astheyreporttotheProjectResidentEngineerandtotheProjectEngineering GroupSupervisor primarily fortechnical guidance.
Therehavebeeninstances whereresidentengineers wereloanedtofieldengineers toworkinthefieldengineering organization andperformfieldengineering dutiesandfunctions.
AroundFebruary1982,aHangerDesignCoordination Teamwasformedtopromotebettercommunication, andtoimproveefficiency andproductivity oftheinstallation interference resolution process.Normally, craftspresentaninterference problemtoFieldEngineering andFieldEngineering inturnpassesontheproblemto,Resident Engineering aftertheymakeanevaluation todecidethatResidentEngineering's involvement isneeded.TheResidentEngineering branchoftheteamworkedasaseparateentityinthemannertheydowhentheyworkfromResidentEngineering's worklocation.
Theteamwasphysically situatedinonetrailertoexpeditethedocumentation processandalsotogetpromptinvolvement oftheResidentEngineering bybringingthemtotheclosepr'oximity oftheFieldEngineering organization.
ResidentEngineering membersduringtheseoperations reportedtotheResidentEngineering GroupSupervisor andreceivedtechnical aswellasadministrative guidelines fromhim.Thus,thereisnoinstancewheretheorganizational anddivisionofresponsibilities charterwasviolatedduringtheUnit1hangerprogram.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
QUESTION19.Fieldengineering's initialing ofcheck/approve entries'on fielddrawings.RESPONSE-I'heLeadFieldPipingEngineer's (LFPE)initialswereoftenenteredbyothersinthe"APPROVED BY"blockonhangerdrawings, withouttheidentityoftheactualapproverbeingindicated.
Thisspecificdiscrepancy waspreviously addressed andcorrected viaBechtelQ.A.AuditPFA-24-4-10, QAF/k4.FP-P-11Paras.4.3.6(smallpipeisometrics),
5.3.1.2.c (largepipehangerdetails),
and6.2.7.2.c(smallpipehangerdetails)allrequireapprovaloftheLFPEorhisdesignee; butdonotclearlyspecifythemethodofinitialing (i.e.,whoseinitialsareentered).Earlyintheproject,variousindividuals aredesignated tosign/approve thesedrawingsfortheLFPE.Thedesignees weregenerally supervisors involvedinthedr'afting effort,butotherpipingsupervisors werealsodelegated thisauthority.
NOTE:"Approval" ofFieldpipingdrawings-althoughnotactuallydefinedinanyoftheprocedures, actuallysignifies concurrence thatrequireddesignreviews/checks havebeenperformed (i.e.,checker's initialsonthedrawing)andformalauthorization toissuethedrawing.Therequirements ofFP-P-11wereunderstood bysomeofthedesignees involvedinfieldhanger"design"*
tomeanthatthesignature (orinitials) oftheLFPEhimselfmustappearonthedrawings.
Consequently, severalofthedesignees/approvers enteredonlytheinitialsoftheLFPEtodocumenttheirapprovalofthedrawing.')hismethodofdocumenting
: approval, althoughcontrarytostandard~ualitverification conventions wasnotconsidered bytheindividuals involvedtoreflectimproper~draftXnconventions.
*Although referredtoasFieldhanger"design",
inactuality theFieldperformed varyingdegreesofconfiguration revisionanddraftingbutinall.casesProjectEngineering wasconsidered thefinalapprovalauthority.
Insomecasesthepersonreviewing/checking hangerdrawingswastheoriginator ofthedrawing,whoenteredfictitious initials("E.D.")inthe"BY"blockand("D.E.H.")
inthe"CHECKED" block.FP-P-11omitsspecificcheckingrequirements forFieldrevisions tosmallpipehangerdetails.(Although independent checkingwastheestablished practice.)
Paras.4.3.5(smallpipeisos)and5.3.1.2b(largepipehangers)implyseparateandindependent checks,butarenotreallyspecific.
Nonetheless, therevisionblock.entrieson QUESTION19PAGE2OF3thedrawingsdoimplythataseparateindividual mustcheckthedrawing.Entryoftheoriginator's initialsinboththe"BY"blockandthe"CHECKED" block,aswellasentryoffictitious initialscanonlyreflectignorance onthepartofthepersoninvolved, and-attemptsbythatpartytotakeashortcut..
InsomecasesthecheckersenteredtheSmallPipeHangersupervisor's initials("A.G."or"T.G.")inthe"CHECKED" block.-TheentryoftheSPHsupervisor's initialsinthe"CHECKED" blockinvolvedanindependent checkerwhowasqualified butwhowasnotformallydesignated asachecker,soheenteredhissupervisor's initials-againwithoutanyillintentorattemptatdeceit.WhenFieldEngineering performsfieldinspection ofhangers,theyinspecttheinstallation againstthedetaildrawingtoverifyagreement.
This,ineffectisareview/check ofthehangerdetail.Uponverifying agreement (orcorrecting thedrawing)thedrawingispresented toQualityControlwhoinspectstheinstallation forcompliance withthedrawingandvice-versa.
Anydiscrepancies identified duringthisadditional "check"areidentified andthedrawingiscorrected accordingly (eitherbyred-lineorbyrevision) andthecorrection isrechecked/verified byQualityControlpriorto'heiracceptance oftheinstallation.
Therefore, evenifanindependent draftingcheckwasnever~etfotmed (oozinvestigation indicates thatthishappenedonlyinisolatedcases)subsequent FieldEngineering andQualityControlchecksd9doccurafterthedraftingandcheckingofthedrawings, andanyresultant designdiscrepancies wouldhavebeenresolvedduringas-builtverification.
(Theadequacyoftheas-builtverification wassubstantiated underseparateauditprogramsinvolving PPGLQA,BechtelQualityControlandasp'ecialauditteamwithinFieldEngineering.)
Thus,theprocedural discrepancies wouldhavenoeffectonthevalidityoftheas-builtdrawingactuallyreflecting theas-builtconditions andasusedbyengineering toperformtheas-builtreconciliation.
Additionally allhangerdrawingshavereceived, afterfinalas-built, afinalLFPE/designee approvaldocumented onthedrawingperPara.8.1.2ofFP-P-11.Anydiscrepancies inpreviousLFPEapprovals documented onthehangerdrawingsare.therefore irrelevant becausethefinalLFPE/designee.
approvalcoversthefinalQC-verified as-builtdrawing.Also,Pro]ectEngineering hasreconciled thefieldas-builthangerdetailsw'iththedesignandsigned'thedrawingsperPara.8.1.2.ofFP-P-11.Thisinvolvesfinalverification thattheas-builtdrawingrepresents anadequatestructure basedonthestressanalysis.
0 QUESTION19PACZ3OF3Finally,webelievethatpipingdrawingspreparedbythefielddoaccurately reflect.theinstallation.
Inaddition, webelievethatQualityAssurance programmatic requirements wereadequately controlled bytheengineering andfieldprograms.
Basedontheabovedescribed checkingandapprovals accomplished afterfinalissuanceofthehangerdetaildrawingsbythefieldhangergroups,nofurtherremedialcorrective actionshouldbenecessary toaddresscompleted Unit1hangers.Withrespecttootherdrawingsusedforpipingas-building anddesignverification, reviewwithapplicable personnel indicates thattheLFPEinitialswerenotenteredonFCI's(largepipeas-built.
drawings) andsmallpipefabrication isometrics (usedforsmallpipe,as-building);
thatitwasstandardpracticeforthecheckersandapprovers toentertheirowninitials.
1ActiontoPrecludeRecurrence
'hebasiccauseoftheproblemsidentified islackofcleardirection concerning defini~the'eview/checking andapprovalfunctions involvedwith'ield
: drafting, andidentifying concisely therequirements fordocumenting thesefunctions.
AllFieldProcedures involving FieldDesign(alldisciplines) willbereviewedforsimilarlackofdirection; andappropriate revisions totheProcedures willbeprocessed
.Inaddition, allpersonsresponsible fordrafting, review,andapprovalfunctions will'beinstructed astotheimportance ofadheringtotheserequirements toensuresimilardidcrepancies donotoccurinthefuture.Corrective actionwillbecompleted bySeptember 30,1982.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRC8/25/82.Withimplementation oftheabovecorrective action,PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.
l'IQuestion20-PP&Lwasrequested todetermine whetherPP&LandBechtelQ.A.Programscoveredtheareasofconcernidentified duringthePP&LInvestigation ofSmallPipeDesign/Installation.
Response-Generally, theauditsperformed byBechtelwereofenoughdetailanddepthtoindicatethattherewassufficient reviewoftheparticular aspectofthesystembeingaudited.BechtelMCAR's(Management Corrective ActionReport)andQAR's(QualityActionReport)arewrittenforanyparticular discrepancy (outsideanauditscope)thatrequirescorrective actionandfollow-up.
Thefollowing areexamplesofauditfindingsandQAR'sthatindicated problemareasrelatedtothosefoundduringthePP&Linvestigation:
1.Audit8'24-4-10,
: February, 1982,contained afindingthatnetedanoncompliance withtheprocedure for"voiding" drawings.
(Anotherfindinginthisaudit,althoughnotrelatedtotheInvestigation Report,reported.thatsupervisor's signature (initials) beingmisused.)2.Audit//'s30-3-4,30-3-5,30-3-6,and30-9-2,datedMarch,1981;August,1981;April1982;andMay,1982;respectively, discovered variousinstances oflackofcontrolsforprocedural implementation andengineering interfaces.
3.Audit824-4-9,June',1981','contained findingsthatindicated variousareasinwhichthe'as-built" configurat'ion ofthe~pipingdidnotagreewiththedrawings.
4.QAR8859,July30,1982,dealtwithFieldEngineering notreviewing SPADrawingsinatimelymanner.5.QAR//856,July22,1982,dealswiththedeficiency identified inthedesignof"SPA600"hanger.4B..PP&1<P.A.Duringtheperiodunderreview,therewereseven(7)formalandseven(7)unannounced auditsrelatingtothesmallpipeprogram.'.'...'-"..'.-':.';:
These.auditscoveredsuchareasasdocumentcontrol,Q.C..Inspection, anddesigncontrol(relatedtointerface controlandtheuseofthelatestinformation fordesignverification)
.Numerousfindingswereidentified duringtheseauditsandseveralofthesestillremainopen.Someo''heauditsinwhichthefindingsweresimilartothoseofthePP&LInvestigation are:81.Auditf/C-82-14 (jointauditwithBechtel),
April,1982,inwhichsomeprocedural controlwerelackingintheResidentEngineering Group.
Ques%ion20Cont'dPage2of22.AuditPC-81-06, January,1982,identified problem,areasintheFieldEngineering locatinghangerdeficiencies inthiswalkdown.3~4.Unannounced Auditf/111,September, 1981,discovered variousareasofprocedural andimplementation problemsinthedesignportionofthesmallpipeprogram.N-5PackageReviewAuditf/'sCL-48,Hay,1982;CL-34,May,1982;andCL-34,June1982;indicated areasinwhichthereweredraftingerrors.IV.CONCLUSIONS A..PP&LandBechtelauditscoveredtheprogrammatic/procedural aspectsofthesmallpipedesign/installation program,butdidnotincludeatechnical reviewoftheseaspects.B.TheInvestigation Teamhadthebenefitoftechnical support.Themajorityoftheconcernsidentified duringtheInvestigation werearesultofthetechnical review.Asaconsequence ofPP&LandBechtelauditsnothavingtechnical support,itcannotbeexpected,thattheywould'aise thesameconcernsthattheInvestigation Teamsdid.C.Thereviewing ofPP&LandBechtelauditsrevealthattheirfrequency didnotincreaseinproportion toworkbeingaccomplished duringthe"finalhecticperiod"(April-June 1982).ButbothBechtelandPP&LQAcoverageofsmallpipeprogramexistedintheformsofBechtelQAsurveillance ofhangeras-builtinstallation (fromOct.1981)andPP&LN-5PackageReview,whichoccurredfromSeptember, 1981,throughJuly,1982.Theseactivities increased inproportion to.theworkbeingaccomplished duringthe"finalhecticperiod."Theseactivities andanydiscrepancies wereformallydocumented.
STATUSPP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.  
~~gust23,1982FILEMEMOSUSQUEHANNA STEAMELECTRICSTATIONINVESTIGATION OFSMALLPIPINGSYSTEMSPROBLEMSAmeetingwasheldonAugust18,1982betweentheNuclearRegulatory Commission andPP&Lconcerning thesmallpipingprogram.Cerainquestions wereraisedconcerning theprogramandPP&Lcommitted toinvestigate these.TheNRCquestions andPP&Lresponses follow:Question:
l.NhyhadBechtelQCaccepted(signed-off) certainattributes ofhangerswhichwereinaccessible andthusnotinspectable?
 
===Response===
TheNRCmadereference tothe"detail600"clampswhichweremodifiedperSPA1312.Themodifications wereofsuchanaturethattheclampboltheadswereconcealed afterthemodification andthusitisnotpossibletoverifythatthemarkingsontheboltheadindicatethecorrectmaterial(A-325)..~~~The'Bechtel QCinspector sign-offinSection3.0oftheInspection Report.'IR) doesnot,indicatethattheattribute ofboltmaterialwasinspect:ed, onlythatthe"detail600"clampisatthatlocation.
Thisisconsistent withtheinspection programinthattheboltingmaterialisnotidentified ontheuniquehangerdetaildrawingsand,therefore, wasnotarequiredQCverification.
Theboltsareinspected bytheBechtelQCReceiving GroupuponreceiptatSusquehanna formaterialtype.=Iftheboltingmaterialhadbeenanattribute tobeinspected, thefactthatitwasuninspectable wouldhavebeennotedonanon-conformance reportfor.resolution.
ThePP&LInvestigation TeamsnotedthistypeofBechtelQCactionduring+heInvestigation sincenon-conformances weregenerated forareaswhereplatethick-nesscouldnotbemeasuredduetogroutingcompletion or:-where structural tubingthickness couldnotbemeasuredduetoconstruction close-up.
Thesetypesofitemswereresolved'by UTmeasurements orbydr'lingaholetopermitthickness measurement.
Insummary:a.Allattributes ofmodifiedfrictionclamps(SPA-1312) requiredtobeinspected wereaccessible.  
~.0b.Theinaccessibility notedbytheNRCinvolvedanattribute (boltingmaterial) whichwasnotrequiredbyProjectEngineering tobeinspected byOC.Question:
2.AretheBechtelFieldEngineering andResidentEngineering personnel workingtogetherandreporting tothesameGroupSupervisor?
 
===Response===
TheFieldEngineers andResidentEngineers werelocatedinthesamfacilityforthepurposeofexoediting changesrequiredduringtheinstallation ofthesmallborepipingsystemsandhangers.TheInvestigation Teamreviewedthereporting functions, organizational chartandnamesofpersonnel involvedinthoseorganizations.
Thecon-clusionoftheInvestigation TeamwasthatforUnit1FieldEngineers andResidentEngineers workedcloselytogetherforefficiency sakebuthaddifferent reporting supervision.
TheareaofResidentEngineering personnel being"lent"toFieldEngineering andreturning sometimelatertotheResidentEngineering groupwasinvestigated.
Thisorganizational systemappliesonlytoUnit2.TherearenoBechtelprogramrequirements preventing itsim-plementation.
Theconcernthatthesameindividual mayperformtheinitialdesignasaFieldEngineerandsubsequently performtheverification calculations asaResidentEngineerwasinvestigated.
TheResident-.,Engineering calculation procedure xequiresthatacheckerandSupervisor reviewandsignthecalculation aftertheoriginator performs'the initialcalculation.
Thisseriesofreviewsandsignatures providesassurance thatthecalculation isperformed accurately andcorrectly.
tC~I}}
tC~I}}

Revision as of 03:20, 29 June 2018

Forwards Handouts Provided at 820825 Meeting,Including Repts, Investigation of Unit 1 Small Piping Sys Design Installation & Insp Program Adequacy & Implementation & Suppl to Investigation of Unit 1 Small Piping Sys...
ML18031A396
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/08/1982
From: KENYON B D
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To: MARTIN T T
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML17139B041 List:
References
PLA-1275, NUDOCS 8209240280
Download: ML18031A396 (34)
v • d • e


Text

Pennsylvania Power8LightCompanyTwoNorthNinthStreet~Allentown, PA18101~215l770-5151BrdceD.KenyonVlccPresident-Nuclear Operations 215/770-4378XEHQ,ZIZZCODSEP081982Mr.T.T.Martin,DirectorDivisionofEngineering andTechnical ProgramsU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission RegionI631ParkAve.KingofPrussia,PA19406SUSQUEHANNA STEAMELECTRICSTATIONMEETINGWITHREGIONIER100450FILE841-4PLA-1275DocketNo.50-387

DearMr.Martin:

AttachedarethehandoutsprovidedinourAugust25,1982,meetingwithyouandyourstaff.IncludedwiththesehandoutsisPP&L's"ReportontheInvestigation ofUnitOneSmallPipingSystemDesign,Installation andInspection-Program AdequacyandImplementation."

Verytrulyyours,B.D.KenyonVicePresident-Nuclear Operations WEB/mksAttachment cc:G.Rhoads-USNRCR.Perch-USNRC~Utq8>09pqp28p

>ppps8782pqD8pDRAQOCKopDR8~gpss USHROREGIONX'gPSEP9Ptl233 SUSUEHANNAALLEGATIONS ANDFINDINGSQUESTION1.-StressIntensification FactorOnsitesimplified calculations didnotanalyzeweldolet/socket

'connections withlargepipe.AnSIFof1.3wasusedforfitting/small pipeinterface.

Fitting/large pipeinterface wasanalyzedwithlargeltpipestressanalysis.

RESPONSE-Methodsusedtoaccountforstressintensification insmallpipingdesignandinbranchconnections onlargepipingwereexplained ataPL/NRCmeetingon8/11.NRC.concurred ontheapproachwithonlyoneremaining,NRC concernwhichwillberesolvedIfeithertherequirements Ioffootnote6ofNC-3673.2b arebeingmetorPLdemonstrate asafetyfactorof2fortheworstcaseweldolet/sockolet branchconnection calculated stressBechtelisresponding tothisremaining concernby:(1)Comparing weldprofilesofweldolets/sockolets usedinSSESwithASMESectionIII,1974editionrequirements ofNC-3673.2b-2 andcorresponding footnote6.(2)Performing analysestodemonstrate safetyfactorof2inbranchconnection stresses(worstcase).'TATUS-NRChasconcurred withtheapproachusedduringthemeetingon8/11/82.Additional responseinformation willbepresented toNRCon8/25/82..8209240280,'

QUESTION2.Nozzle'oads onequipment wereignoredonallSBPanalyzed.onsite.Iftheallowable nozzleloadsweresuppliedbythemanufacturer, thepipingloadswerecomparedtoit.Ifitwasnotprovideditwasnotcompared.

Thelicenseecontendsthatpipeloadonequipment isnotcriticalfornonsensitive equipment becausethereisenoughconservatism builtintotheanalysisandtheplacement ofthefirstsupport.Licenseewillsupplyalistofallequipment thatwasanalyzedforNRC~review.RESPONSE-In8/11meetingwithNRC,PP&LandBechtelmadeapresentation.

concerning theabove'..TheNRCindicated theyhadnofurther.concernswiththisissueand'consider theitemclosed.PP&Ldidpromisetoprovideby8/25alistofequipment f'rwhichdetailedsmallpipenozzleloadsanalysiswereperformed.

STATUS-TheabovewillbepresentedtoNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION3.Thelicenseeroutediesleevepenetrations afterthepipingwasanalyzedforstress.Thelicenseecontendsthatthepenetrations havebeeninspected anddocumented bythe"as-built" verification program.RESPONSE-In8/11meetingwithNRC,PP&LandBechtelmadeapresentation concerning theabove.TheNRCindicated thattheyhadnofurtherconcernsonthisissue.Itemisconsidered closed.STATUS-Thisitemisclosed.

QUESTION4.Smallpipeanchors,perBechtelDetail600andSPA-1312, donotproviderestraint inthreedirections (x,y,z).Therearethreedrawingsofthishanger(Detail600,SPA-600,SPA-1312)

.Duetofabrication tolerances, theclampmaynothaveaninterference contacttoresistaxialand.torsional slippage.

RESPONSE-'nchorswerereworkedasnecessary toinsuresufficient.

contacttoresistaxial&torsional slippage.

Calculations wereperformed tojustifytheshimmingoftheanchorsinordertoenablethemtocarrytherequiredload.Thesecalculations showedthatallstressesareacceptable.

PP&Lhasperformed a100%inspection following allrequiredreworkandhasverifiedrequiredcontactbetweenthepipeandtheanchoraswellaspropergapbetweenthetwohalvesoftheanchor.STATUS-Theabovewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION5.Agenericboltsize,problemexistswithall1"ha@gers(Detail600,SPA-600,SPA-1312).

Theboltshoulderspecified extendsthroughbothearsofthepipeclamp.ThiscausesthebolttoshoulderoutbeforetheWclampisadequately torqued.RESPONSE-BechtelResponse:

Boltlengthusedalongwiththegapandcomponent thickness couldleaduptobottoming outofthenutontheboltthreadswithoutachieving thetorque.FCRP-4066andPL-NCR(82-728)haveprovisions foraddingwasherstoprecludebottoming outofthenutonthebolt.PP&Lperformed 100%inspection ofthesubjectbolts.Allrequiredreworkhasbeenperformed, i.e.,washerswereaddedasnecessary toboltsnotpassingacceptance criteriatoprecludethemfromshouldering out.STATUS-PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION6.Boltsspecified onDetail600areSA-307butSPA-600andSPA-1312areSA-325.SA-325boltsareofhigherstrength.

RESPONSE-Boltmaterialwasnotspecified onDetail600,however,standardSA-307boltsweresuppliedandinstalled.

AstudyCalculation wasperformed whichjustifies theuseofSA-307boltsfortheinstalled Unit1anchors.Thiswasdiscussed inateleconbetweenNRC,PP&LandBechtelon8/17/82.Astheresultofthisdiscussion, PP&LagreedtosubmittoNRCtheJustification calculation.

Thiswasdoneon8/19/82alongwithawrittenresponse.

STATUS-Justification calculation andawrittenresponsesubmitted toNRCon8/19/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION7.TheupgradeofDetail600totheSPA-1312designcauseddistortion oftheclampbecauseofweldingstresses.

RESPONSE-FourlinecontactandproperbolttorquingresultinrequiredclampingIforceswhichprecludetheeffectsofdistortion causedbyweldstresses.

Thejustification forfourlinecontactandproperbolttorqueisdiscussed intheresponses toquestions (4)and(5)respectively STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders" thisitemclosed.

QUESTION8.The"ears"of,largeborepipehangerclampsweretrimmedtopreventinterference.

Thishasnotbeenincorporated intothedesign.Example:HBC-101-H210 RESPONSE-TheGBC-101-H210 clamptrimmingwasshownconceptually ontheas-builtdetailand.judgedtobeadequateduringtheas-builtreconciliation.

STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP6Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTEON9.SBPSystemsonUnit1m'aybetoorigid.ThehangersrequiredforUnitIwereanalyzedbythesimplified methodandresultedinabout700supports.

ThehangersforUnit,2werecomputeranalyzedandresultedinabout,270.RESPONSE-Thiswasdiscussed inan8/17teleconbetweenPPGL,BTandNRC.Duringmeetingon8/18betweenPPGL&NRG;PPaLwasinformedthatthisitemisclosed.STATUS-Thisitemisclosed-

QUESTION10.Structured steelbeam.flangewarpageandwebdamageduetodeadloadplacedonbeamsatelevation 749'.near outboardMSIV.RESPONSE-InameetingbetweenPPGLandNRCon8/18,PPGLwasinformedthatthisitemisclosed.STATUSThisitemisclosed.

'

QUESTION11.AdesignchangeonDecember21,1981revisedDetail600toSPA600butthenewdesignwasnotdistributed forworkorinspection.

RESPONSE-Theinstallation andinspection ofDetail600typeanchorswasdoneinaccordance withDetail-600 Rev.1whileadrawingsuperseding it(SPA-600) existedatthesite.ThisoccurredbecauseSFHOissuedthesuperseding drawing,SPA-600onDecember21,1981,withoutfirstissuingthecancellation revisiontoDetail600.Thecancellation forDetail600wasissuedJune2,1982.AlthoughSFHOissuedSPA-600beforethecancellation revisionforDetail600,theydidmakeanoteonSPA-600thatitsuperseded Detail600.However,duetoinadequate documentreviewatthesite,thisnotewasoverlooked.

Thecancellation revisionshouldhavebeenissuedpriortoissuingSPA-600.Inaddition, abetterdocumentreviewshouldhavebeendone.Alldifferences betweenSPA600andDetail600havebeenreconciled withthedesignrequirements, confirming thattheexistinginstallations areadequate.

ToavoidthisprobleminUnit2,SPA'sarenotbeingutilized.Individual pipesupportdetailsarebeinggenerated likelargepipesupports.

Alldrawingsforinstallation andinspection willbeissuedandcontrolled byestablished fieldprocedures, whichwillincluderequirements,

'asapplicable, toensureappropriate timeconstraints anddoumentation requirements forfieldreviewandimplementation ofdesignchanges.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION12.TheproposedfixofDetail600hangersdoesnotappeartobeacceptabl (linecontactonpipe,notfulllength).RESPONSE-Acalculation hasbeenmadetojustifytheacceptability offourlinecontact.Thecalculation showsthatatwoinchcontactoneachsideisacceptable resulting instressesthatarebelowtheallowables'.

STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION13.Onepipesupportattachedtotwoseismically independent structures.

Threesupportshavebeenidentified connected betweenthereactorbuildingandprimarycontainment.

RESPONSE-PPaLtransmitted setsofcalculations toNRCon8/19/82indicating thatthecorrectresponsespectraandseismicanchormovementanalysiswereused.Thiswasprovidedalongwithawrittenresponse.

STATUSPPaLconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION14.-Snubber,SP-HCC-136-H-.2003 wasinstalled suchthatthesupportcanbedeflected severalincheslaterally.

RESPONSE-Wehaveinspected thesupportafterthequestionwasraised.Thesupportframeisflexibleinthenorth-south direction, i.e.,'ntheaxialdirection ofthepipe.Itmaintains rigidityintheeast-west direction.

Sincethedesignrequirement oftheaxisofrestraint iseast-west only,thesupportisconsidered tomeetitsintendedpurpose.Therefore, theas-builtsupportistechnically sound.STATUS-Theabovewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP6Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION15.Lackofclearance betweensnubberendandclampear.RESPONSE-Theremaybealackofsufficient clearance onthesize35snubbers.

Therefore a100Kinspection forclearance willbedoneonallsize35snubbers.

Inconjunction, a10Xinspection forclearances willbedoneonthebalanceofsnubbersinUnit/31.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Liscurrently pursuingthiscourseofaction.-Acorrective actionwillbetakenpriortoheatupexceeding 200F.

QUESTION16.Sitefabricated rearbracketsofsnubbersdidnotprovideadequateclearance forlateralmovementofthesnubber.RESPONSE-Therearenositefabricated rearbracketsforsnubbersatSSESUnit81.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented totheNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lfindstheaboveresponsesatisfactory andconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION17.Falsification ofrecords:QCinspection onacceptance ofSPA-1312bolting.RESPONSE-Thesmallpipehangerdetaildrawingforhangersutilizing theSPA-1312clampdoesnotidentifymaterialtypefortheboltsinquestion, therefore, itwasnotrequiredtobeverified.

ThespecificactivityontheQualityControlInspection Recordwassignedbecauseitdealswithotherattributes inadditiontomaterialtypesuchasmaterialsizeofrods,clamps,saddles,clevises, etc.QC.inspection ofinaccessible itemstakesintoaccountthesequenceofinstallation toallowinaccessible itemstobeinspected.

Whereitemswhicharerequiredtobeinspected perdesigndrawings/

QualityControlinspection Recordsarefoundinaccessible, theyareidentified onNonconformance ReportsorP-20exception formsforpipesupportsasqualityindeterminate.

STATUS-'heaboveresponsewf.llbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION18.Divisionofresponsibility betweenFieldEngineering andResidentEngineering.

RESPONSE-Therehavealwaysexisteddistinctorganizations anddivisionofresponsibilities betweenthefieldengineering andresidentengineering.

TheResidentEngineering hasadualreporting relationship withinengineering astheyreporttotheProjectResidentEngineerandtotheProjectEngineering GroupSupervisor primarily fortechnical guidance.

Therehavebeeninstances whereresidentengineers wereloanedtofieldengineers toworkinthefieldengineering organization andperformfieldengineering dutiesandfunctions.

AroundFebruary1982,aHangerDesignCoordination Teamwasformedtopromotebettercommunication, andtoimproveefficiency andproductivity oftheinstallation interference resolution process.Normally, craftspresentaninterference problemtoFieldEngineering andFieldEngineering inturnpassesontheproblemto,Resident Engineering aftertheymakeanevaluation todecidethatResidentEngineering's involvement isneeded.TheResidentEngineering branchoftheteamworkedasaseparateentityinthemannertheydowhentheyworkfromResidentEngineering's worklocation.

Theteamwasphysically situatedinonetrailertoexpeditethedocumentation processandalsotogetpromptinvolvement oftheResidentEngineering bybringingthemtotheclosepr'oximity oftheFieldEngineering organization.

ResidentEngineering membersduringtheseoperations reportedtotheResidentEngineering GroupSupervisor andreceivedtechnical aswellasadministrative guidelines fromhim.Thus,thereisnoinstancewheretheorganizational anddivisionofresponsibilities charterwasviolatedduringtheUnit1hangerprogram.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRCon8/25/82.PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

QUESTION19.Fieldengineering's initialing ofcheck/approve entries'on fielddrawings.RESPONSE-I'heLeadFieldPipingEngineer's (LFPE)initialswereoftenenteredbyothersinthe"APPROVED BY"blockonhangerdrawings, withouttheidentityoftheactualapproverbeingindicated.

Thisspecificdiscrepancy waspreviously addressed andcorrected viaBechtelQ.A.AuditPFA-24-4-10, QAF/k4.FP-P-11Paras.4.3.6(smallpipeisometrics),

5.3.1.2.c (largepipehangerdetails),

and6.2.7.2.c(smallpipehangerdetails)allrequireapprovaloftheLFPEorhisdesignee; butdonotclearlyspecifythemethodofinitialing (i.e.,whoseinitialsareentered).Earlyintheproject,variousindividuals aredesignated tosign/approve thesedrawingsfortheLFPE.Thedesignees weregenerally supervisors involvedinthedr'afting effort,butotherpipingsupervisors werealsodelegated thisauthority.

NOTE:"Approval" ofFieldpipingdrawings-althoughnotactuallydefinedinanyoftheprocedures, actuallysignifies concurrence thatrequireddesignreviews/checks havebeenperformed (i.e.,checker's initialsonthedrawing)andformalauthorization toissuethedrawing.Therequirements ofFP-P-11wereunderstood bysomeofthedesignees involvedinfieldhanger"design"*

tomeanthatthesignature (orinitials) oftheLFPEhimselfmustappearonthedrawings.

Consequently, severalofthedesignees/approvers enteredonlytheinitialsoftheLFPEtodocumenttheirapprovalofthedrawing.')hismethodofdocumenting

approval, althoughcontrarytostandard~ualitverification conventions wasnotconsidered bytheindividuals involvedtoreflectimproper~draftXnconventions.
  • Although referredtoasFieldhanger"design",

inactuality theFieldperformed varyingdegreesofconfiguration revisionanddraftingbutinall.casesProjectEngineering wasconsidered thefinalapprovalauthority.

Insomecasesthepersonreviewing/checking hangerdrawingswastheoriginator ofthedrawing,whoenteredfictitious initials("E.D.")inthe"BY"blockand("D.E.H.")

inthe"CHECKED" block.FP-P-11omitsspecificcheckingrequirements forFieldrevisions tosmallpipehangerdetails.(Although independent checkingwastheestablished practice.)

Paras.4.3.5(smallpipeisos)and5.3.1.2b(largepipehangers)implyseparateandindependent checks,butarenotreallyspecific.

Nonetheless, therevisionblock.entrieson QUESTION19PAGE2OF3thedrawingsdoimplythataseparateindividual mustcheckthedrawing.Entryoftheoriginator's initialsinboththe"BY"blockandthe"CHECKED" block,aswellasentryoffictitious initialscanonlyreflectignorance onthepartofthepersoninvolved, and-attemptsbythatpartytotakeashortcut..

InsomecasesthecheckersenteredtheSmallPipeHangersupervisor's initials("A.G."or"T.G.")inthe"CHECKED" block.-TheentryoftheSPHsupervisor's initialsinthe"CHECKED" blockinvolvedanindependent checkerwhowasqualified butwhowasnotformallydesignated asachecker,soheenteredhissupervisor's initials-againwithoutanyillintentorattemptatdeceit.WhenFieldEngineering performsfieldinspection ofhangers,theyinspecttheinstallation againstthedetaildrawingtoverifyagreement.

This,ineffectisareview/check ofthehangerdetail.Uponverifying agreement (orcorrecting thedrawing)thedrawingispresented toQualityControlwhoinspectstheinstallation forcompliance withthedrawingandvice-versa.

Anydiscrepancies identified duringthisadditional "check"areidentified andthedrawingiscorrected accordingly (eitherbyred-lineorbyrevision) andthecorrection isrechecked/verified byQualityControlpriorto'heiracceptance oftheinstallation.

Therefore, evenifanindependent draftingcheckwasnever~etfotmed (oozinvestigation indicates thatthishappenedonlyinisolatedcases)subsequent FieldEngineering andQualityControlchecksd9doccurafterthedraftingandcheckingofthedrawings, andanyresultant designdiscrepancies wouldhavebeenresolvedduringas-builtverification.

(Theadequacyoftheas-builtverification wassubstantiated underseparateauditprogramsinvolving PPGLQA,BechtelQualityControlandasp'ecialauditteamwithinFieldEngineering.)

Thus,theprocedural discrepancies wouldhavenoeffectonthevalidityoftheas-builtdrawingactuallyreflecting theas-builtconditions andasusedbyengineering toperformtheas-builtreconciliation.

Additionally allhangerdrawingshavereceived, afterfinalas-built, afinalLFPE/designee approvaldocumented onthedrawingperPara.8.1.2ofFP-P-11.Anydiscrepancies inpreviousLFPEapprovals documented onthehangerdrawingsare.therefore irrelevant becausethefinalLFPE/designee.

approvalcoversthefinalQC-verified as-builtdrawing.Also,Pro]ectEngineering hasreconciled thefieldas-builthangerdetailsw'iththedesignandsigned'thedrawingsperPara.8.1.2.ofFP-P-11.Thisinvolvesfinalverification thattheas-builtdrawingrepresents anadequatestructure basedonthestressanalysis.

0 QUESTION19PACZ3OF3Finally,webelievethatpipingdrawingspreparedbythefielddoaccurately reflect.theinstallation.

Inaddition, webelievethatQualityAssurance programmatic requirements wereadequately controlled bytheengineering andfieldprograms.

Basedontheabovedescribed checkingandapprovals accomplished afterfinalissuanceofthehangerdetaildrawingsbythefieldhangergroups,nofurtherremedialcorrective actionshouldbenecessary toaddresscompleted Unit1hangers.Withrespecttootherdrawingsusedforpipingas-building anddesignverification, reviewwithapplicable personnel indicates thattheLFPEinitialswerenotenteredonFCI's(largepipeas-built.

drawings) andsmallpipefabrication isometrics (usedforsmallpipe,as-building);

thatitwasstandardpracticeforthecheckersandapprovers toentertheirowninitials.

1ActiontoPrecludeRecurrence

'hebasiccauseoftheproblemsidentified islackofcleardirection concerning defini~the'eview/checking andapprovalfunctions involvedwith'ield

drafting, andidentifying concisely therequirements fordocumenting thesefunctions.

AllFieldProcedures involving FieldDesign(alldisciplines) willbereviewedforsimilarlackofdirection; andappropriate revisions totheProcedures willbeprocessed

.Inaddition, allpersonsresponsible fordrafting, review,andapprovalfunctions will'beinstructed astotheimportance ofadheringtotheserequirements toensuresimilardidcrepancies donotoccurinthefuture.Corrective actionwillbecompleted bySeptember 30,1982.STATUS-Theaboveresponsewillbepresented toNRC8/25/82.Withimplementation oftheabovecorrective action,PP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

l'IQuestion20-PP&Lwasrequested todetermine whetherPP&LandBechtelQ.A.Programscoveredtheareasofconcernidentified duringthePP&LInvestigation ofSmallPipeDesign/Installation.

Response-Generally, theauditsperformed byBechtelwereofenoughdetailanddepthtoindicatethattherewassufficient reviewoftheparticular aspectofthesystembeingaudited.BechtelMCAR's(Management Corrective ActionReport)andQAR's(QualityActionReport)arewrittenforanyparticular discrepancy (outsideanauditscope)thatrequirescorrective actionandfollow-up.

Thefollowing areexamplesofauditfindingsandQAR'sthatindicated problemareasrelatedtothosefoundduringthePP&Linvestigation:

1.Audit8'24-4-10,

February, 1982,contained afindingthatnetedanoncompliance withtheprocedure for"voiding" drawings.

(Anotherfindinginthisaudit,althoughnotrelatedtotheInvestigation Report,reported.thatsupervisor's signature (initials) beingmisused.)2.Audit//'s30-3-4,30-3-5,30-3-6,and30-9-2,datedMarch,1981;August,1981;April1982;andMay,1982;respectively, discovered variousinstances oflackofcontrolsforprocedural implementation andengineering interfaces.

3.Audit824-4-9,June',1981','contained findingsthatindicated variousareasinwhichthe'as-built" configurat'ion ofthe~pipingdidnotagreewiththedrawings.

4.QAR8859,July30,1982,dealtwithFieldEngineering notreviewing SPADrawingsinatimelymanner.5.QAR//856,July22,1982,dealswiththedeficiency identified inthedesignof"SPA600"hanger.4B..PP&1<P.A.Duringtheperiodunderreview,therewereseven(7)formalandseven(7)unannounced auditsrelatingtothesmallpipeprogram.'.'...'-"..'.-':.';:

These.auditscoveredsuchareasasdocumentcontrol,Q.C..Inspection, anddesigncontrol(relatedtointerface controlandtheuseofthelatestinformation fordesignverification)

.Numerousfindingswereidentified duringtheseauditsandseveralofthesestillremainopen.SomeoheauditsinwhichthefindingsweresimilartothoseofthePP&LInvestigation are:81.Auditf/C-82-14 (jointauditwithBechtel),

April,1982,inwhichsomeprocedural controlwerelackingintheResidentEngineering Group.

Ques%ion20Cont'dPage2of22.AuditPC-81-06, January,1982,identified problem,areasintheFieldEngineering locatinghangerdeficiencies inthiswalkdown.3~4.Unannounced Auditf/111,September, 1981,discovered variousareasofprocedural andimplementation problemsinthedesignportionofthesmallpipeprogram.N-5PackageReviewAuditf/'sCL-48,Hay,1982;CL-34,May,1982;andCL-34,June1982;indicated areasinwhichthereweredraftingerrors.IV.CONCLUSIONS A..PP&LandBechtelauditscoveredtheprogrammatic/procedural aspectsofthesmallpipedesign/installation program,butdidnotincludeatechnical reviewoftheseaspects.B.TheInvestigation Teamhadthebenefitoftechnical support.Themajorityoftheconcernsidentified duringtheInvestigation werearesultofthetechnical review.Asaconsequence ofPP&LandBechtelauditsnothavingtechnical support,itcannotbeexpected,thattheywould'aise thesameconcernsthattheInvestigation Teamsdid.C.Thereviewing ofPP&LandBechtelauditsrevealthattheirfrequency didnotincreaseinproportion toworkbeingaccomplished duringthe"finalhecticperiod"(April-June 1982).ButbothBechtelandPP&LQAcoverageofsmallpipeprogramexistedintheformsofBechtelQAsurveillance ofhangeras-builtinstallation (fromOct.1981)andPP&LN-5PackageReview,whichoccurredfromSeptember, 1981,throughJuly,1982.Theseactivities increased inproportion to.theworkbeingaccomplished duringthe"finalhecticperiod."Theseactivities andanydiscrepancies wereformallydocumented.

STATUSPP&Lconsiders thisitemclosed.

~~gust23,1982FILEMEMOSUSQUEHANNA STEAMELECTRICSTATIONINVESTIGATION OFSMALLPIPINGSYSTEMSPROBLEMSAmeetingwasheldonAugust18,1982betweentheNuclearRegulatory Commission andPP&Lconcerning thesmallpipingprogram.Cerainquestions wereraisedconcerning theprogramandPP&Lcommitted toinvestigate these.TheNRCquestions andPP&Lresponses follow:Question:

l.NhyhadBechtelQCaccepted(signed-off) certainattributes ofhangerswhichwereinaccessible andthusnotinspectable?

Response

TheNRCmadereference tothe"detail600"clampswhichweremodifiedperSPA1312.Themodifications wereofsuchanaturethattheclampboltheadswereconcealed afterthemodification andthusitisnotpossibletoverifythatthemarkingsontheboltheadindicatethecorrectmaterial(A-325)..~~~The'Bechtel QCinspector sign-offinSection3.0oftheInspection Report.'IR) doesnot,indicatethattheattribute ofboltmaterialwasinspect:ed, onlythatthe"detail600"clampisatthatlocation.

Thisisconsistent withtheinspection programinthattheboltingmaterialisnotidentified ontheuniquehangerdetaildrawingsand,therefore, wasnotarequiredQCverification.

Theboltsareinspected bytheBechtelQCReceiving GroupuponreceiptatSusquehanna formaterialtype.=Iftheboltingmaterialhadbeenanattribute tobeinspected, thefactthatitwasuninspectable wouldhavebeennotedonanon-conformance reportfor.resolution.

ThePP&LInvestigation TeamsnotedthistypeofBechtelQCactionduring+heInvestigation sincenon-conformances weregenerated forareaswhereplatethick-nesscouldnotbemeasuredduetogroutingcompletion or:-where structural tubingthickness couldnotbemeasuredduetoconstruction close-up.

Thesetypesofitemswereresolved'by UTmeasurements orbydr'lingaholetopermitthickness measurement.

Insummary:a.Allattributes ofmodifiedfrictionclamps(SPA-1312) requiredtobeinspected wereaccessible.

~.0b.Theinaccessibility notedbytheNRCinvolvedanattribute (boltingmaterial) whichwasnotrequiredbyProjectEngineering tobeinspected byOC.Question:

2.AretheBechtelFieldEngineering andResidentEngineering personnel workingtogetherandreporting tothesameGroupSupervisor?

Response

TheFieldEngineers andResidentEngineers werelocatedinthesamfacilityforthepurposeofexoediting changesrequiredduringtheinstallation ofthesmallborepipingsystemsandhangers.TheInvestigation Teamreviewedthereporting functions, organizational chartandnamesofpersonnel involvedinthoseorganizations.

Thecon-clusionoftheInvestigation TeamwasthatforUnit1FieldEngineers andResidentEngineers workedcloselytogetherforefficiency sakebuthaddifferent reporting supervision.

TheareaofResidentEngineering personnel being"lent"toFieldEngineering andreturning sometimelatertotheResidentEngineering groupwasinvestigated.

Thisorganizational systemappliesonlytoUnit2.TherearenoBechtelprogramrequirements preventing itsim-plementation.

Theconcernthatthesameindividual mayperformtheinitialdesignasaFieldEngineerandsubsequently performtheverification calculations asaResidentEngineerwasinvestigated.

TheResident-.,Engineering calculation procedure xequiresthatacheckerandSupervisor reviewandsignthecalculation aftertheoriginator performs'the initialcalculation.

Thisseriesofreviewsandsignatures providesassurance thatthecalculation isperformed accurately andcorrectly.

tC~I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18031A396&oldid=732046"