ML19257A145
| ML19257A145 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/11/1979 |
| From: | Brickley R, Hale C, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257A138 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900507 99900507-79-3, NUDOCS 8001020206 | |
| Download: ML19257A145 (6) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900507/79-03 Program No. 51200 Company:
Sargent & Lundy Engineers 55 E. Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 Inspection Conducted: Septe N
r 24-26,/ M
/b 4/-7 1979 L
Inspectors:
R. H. BTfckley, Principal Ihspector Date Program Evaluation Section Vendor Inspection Branch b^
/
,Aw
/0 -D -79 r
I.T. Yid,ReactorInspec[oF Date Region IV k
[C -//- 7h Approved by:
(
C. J. lla-Fe, Chief Date Program Evaluation Section Vendor Inspection Branch Summarv Inspection on September 24-26, 1979 (99900507/79-03)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10CFR50, Appendix B in the area of IE Bulletin 79-14.
The inspection involved twenty-eight (28) inspector-hours on-site by two (2) NRC inspectors.
Results:
In the area inspected there were no unresolved items and one deviation identified.
Deviation: Documented procedures have not been established to control S&L activities with respect to IE Bulletin 79-14.
1665 355 8 001020 dd b
DETAILS SECTION (Prepared by R. H. Brickley)
A.
Persons Contacted
- S. E. Azzay, Project Engineer
- R. H. Jason, Mechanical Project Engineer
- G. C. Kuhlman, Project Director
- J. C. LaValle, Project Engineer
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
B.
Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems 1.
Objectives This was a special inspection of Sargent & Lundy (S&L) activities with respect to IE Bulletin 79-14.
The inspection consisted of two (2) phases, a.
Phase 1 The objectives of this phase of the inspection were to determine the following:
(1) The licensees that are inspecting systems to the latest drawings and comparing the results with the seismic analysis input used.
(2) The number of people that will be comparing the marked-up drawings with the seismic analysis input, a general descrip-tion of their qualifications, and the schedule for these activities.
(3) The guidelines that will be used to identify the noncon-formances of the marked-up drawings to the seismic analysis input used.
(4) The identification of units where eccentric masses have been modeled.
b.
Phase II The objectives of this phase of the inspection were to determine that:
(1) The IE Bulletin 79-14 activities are being conducted in a documented, planned and systematic manner.
I665 356
2 (2) The inputs to the seismic analysis for this system can be readily identified.
(3) Identified nonconformances are analyzed and the results properly documented.
(4) Personnel conducting these activities have received indoc-trination and training.
2.
Method of Accomplishment a.
Phase I The preceding Phase I objectives were accomplished by discussions between the inspection team and S&L representatives, and examin-ation of the following:
(1) Criteria for determining deviations from Seismic Analysis inputs for Zion Station Unit Nos.1 & 2, revision 00 dated August 14, 1979.
(2) Project Instruction PI-ZI-06 (IE Bulletin No. 79-14 Proced-ure for Processing the As-Built information from the Station Inspection), revision 0 dated 9/20/79. This instruction had not been reviewed and approved for issue.
b.
Phase II (1) The preceding objectives were accomplished for the Zion Station by an examination of:
(a) The IE Bulletin 79-14 Overall Log Sheet and Gross Deviation Log Sheet.
(b) Seven (7) inspection packages consisting of the As-built Verification List, a Kellog Co. isometric, hanger / support drawings and the analytical drawing.
The subsystems that these packages covered are SW-36 (Service Water Subsystem) 2SW-36 (Service Water Sub-system), SW-31 (Service Water Subsystem), SW-16 (Service Water Subsystem), CC-30 (Component Cooling System), 2RH-2A (Residual Heat Removal System), and 2CC-41 (Component Cooling),
1665 357
3 (2) The preceding objectives were accomplished for the D.C.
Cook Plant by an examination of:
(a) The following Tubeco piping isometrics:
No.
Revision Date
- FW-3 8
1/23/73 1-FW-11 7
1/12/73 1-FW-18 7
2/3 /73 1-FW-16 6
1/12/73 (b) The following NPS Designs Inc. piping isometrics:
No.
Revision Date 2-FW-76 1
6/15/72 2-FW-75 1
6/15/72 2-FW-74 1
6/ 6/72 2-FW-77 1
6/15/72 (c) Support Location Isometrics No. IGFW-1, Revision 7 dated 1/12/73; and 1GFW-13, Revision 8 dated 1/12/73.
(d) S&L letter (Seismic Analysis of Main Steam and Feedwater Piping Inside the Containment) to the American Electric Power Service Corp. dated July 30, 1979.
3.
Findings
~
There was one deviation (Enclosure, Notice of Deviation) and no a.
unresolved items identified.
b.
The Zion plants used detailed hanger drawings, piping isometrics (if available), and the latest revision of the analytical draw-ing (stress isometric) for the IEB79-14 inspection. A composite drawing was used as the input to the analytical drawing. These composite drawings were revised by field personnel resulting in revisions to the analytical drawing.
In the case of the D.C.
Cook plant, S&L receives as-built piping isometrics, support location drawings, and composite drawings from AEP. These are compared with the analytical drawing and all nonconformances evaluated.
It should be noted that the S&L scope of work is limited to the main steam and feedwater piping inside contain-ment for D.C. Cook.
1665 358
4 c.
A total of five (5) S&L personnel are assigned to the IEB 79-14 work for Zion and D.C. Cook. The individuals making the engine-ering judgements and performing the reanalysis must meet the same qualification requirements as the individuals who did the original design.
d.
The S&L work on D.C. Cook has been completed and the Zion reanalysis is expected to be complete by mid October.
~
The document identified in B.2.a.(1) was found to establish e.
guidelines for identification of nonconformances between the as-built condition and the seismic analysis input.
f.
The original seismic analysis on Zion was done, in most cases, without consideration of eccentric masses.
In addition, it was found that the Zion seismic analysis was was done only on pipe systems 10 inches and larger. For pipe systems 8 inches and less the supports were located according to standard curves.
g.
Follow-Up Items During the examination of the hanger drawings for the component cooling pump discharge line the inspector identified the following basic design issues:
(1) Where the drawings stated " Rigid Seidmic Restraints" slots of 1/4" to 1/2" on the pipe restraint attachment lugs were identified on restraints No. CCRS-1230, 1229, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1217, 1216, 1218, and 1219. Most of the slots are in the horizontal direction. These slots were designed to allow unrestricted thermal pipe movement and, because of this inherent free-dom, it is doubtful that pipe movement can be effectively restrained during a earthquake event. The non-linear char-acteristics of these slots were not considered in the S&L seismic analysis. Furthermore, the lack of QC records of actual slot dimensions during installation and no require-ment to measure this item during the IEB 79-14 inspection leads to the possibility that they may have enlarged, worsening the situation.
(2) In all the hanger drawings examined, where axial force exists, no shear lugs had been installed to prevent slip-page of the pipe clamps on the pipe.
Since no apparent data exists on the coefficient of friction for the specific condition, bolt torque requirements for various pipe sizes, 1665 359
5 measures taken to insure that the required tightness be maintained during system operation, and inservice inspec-tion requirements to verify operability after material relaxation and thermal cyclic conditions within the 40 year plant life, it appears justified that the licensee and S&L provide clarification on use of this design.
C.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held with management representatives on September 26, 1979.
In addition to those individuals indicated by an asterisk in para-graph A those in attendance were:
L. E. Ackmann, Director of Services J. B. Adee, QA Coordinator E. B. Branch, Head, EMD A. P. Gillis, Senior QA Coordinator J. E. McFarland, Head, QA Division R. Rabin, QA Coordinator H. S. Taylor, Assistant Head, QA Division The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspect ~ ion. Manage-ment comments were generally for clarification only, or acknowledgement of the statements by the inspector.
1665 360
--mm_