IR 05000155/1979014
| ML19263F377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1979 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263F374 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-79-14, NUDOCS 8001280045 | |
| Download: ML19263F377 (5) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-155/79-14 Docket No. 50-155 License No. DPR-6 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, MI 59201 Facility Name: Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant Inspection At: Big Rock Point Site, Charlevoix, MI Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI Inspection Conducted: November 6-7, 1979, at the site November 15-16, 1979, at Bechtel Office W
/
/
Inspector:
I.d. Yin M/#
/7 lYlfdhw bc-s ~
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief
/h/f/7 7 Engineering Support Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on November 6-7, and 15-16, 1979 (Report No. 50-155/79-14)
Areas Inspected:
Licensee actions relative to IE Bulletins No. 79-14, No. 79-04, and No. 79-02 including general discussion on NRC requirements, work procedure review, observation of work, and followup on previous identified items. The inspection involved c total of 11 inspector-hours onsite and at the licensee A-E's office by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1817 052 8001280 0 45-
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Inspection at Big Rock Point on November 6-7, 1979 Consumers Power Company (CIC)
- C. J. Hartman, Plant Superintendent
- S. L. Fox, Senior QA Engineer
- D. DeMoor, Technical Engineer
- J. Rang, Operation and Maintenance Superintendent
- E. R. Cooper, Staff Engineer
- R. E. Schrader, Technical Superintendent
- M.
J. Bielinski, Plant ISI Coordinator Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (BAPC)
-
- P. K. Smith, Engineering Supervisor Engineering Review at BAPC on November 15-16, 1979 CPC
- E. R. Cooper, Staff Engineer R. B. Jenkins, Staff Engineer
- R. W. Huston, Sr. Licensing Engineer BAPC
- J. Dotson, Project Manager
- C.
A. St. Onge, Project Engineer
- P. K. Smith, Engineer Supervisor
- S.
Sobkowski, Civil Staff
- W. H. Schwartz, Project Quality Engineer
- D. S. Riat, Stress / Support Supervisor
- S. Kapur, Civil / Structural Supervisor
- G. L. Richardson, Project QA Engineer
- Denotes those attending the exit intervieus at the site and at the licensee A-E's office.
Licensee Action on Previous Identified Items (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-155/79-01-01):
Some of the Pacific Scientific Co. (PSC) snubbers were without spherical ball bushings at the connections between the structure and the snubber unit. During this visit, the inspector observed some of the newly installed bushings on PSC snubber assemblies, and had no adverse comments.
1817 053'
.
-2-
.
-
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-155/79-01-02):
Safety wires were not in-
stalled on bolts connecting the PSC snubbers to the extension spools, and there were no records to show bolt torquing. The inspector observed some of the safety wiring on the bolts and general installation conditions and considered the corrective action adequate.
'
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
IEB 79-04 Inspection The licensee action on IE Bulletin 79-04, " Incorrect Weights for Swing Check Valves Manufactured by Velan Engineering Corporation",
dated March 30, 1979, was reviewed by the inspector.
In review of licensee letter to RIII dated May 1, 1979, and in discussion with the site personnel, it was determined that IEB 79-04 was not applic-able to the site since the valves listed in the bulletin do not exist in the plant.
.
2.
IEB 79-02 Inspection At the time of inspection, all concrete expansion anchor bolt testings had been completed by the licensee. The inspector reviewed the CPC Work Procedure SST-15, " Anchor Bolt Tension / Torque Test", Revision 4, dated November 7, 1979 and BAPC Specification 12447-033-C-94(Q),
" Acceptance Criteria of Expansion-Type Concrete Anchors", Revision 0, dated July 25, 1979. The test program included testing of one bolt per base plate and checking thread engagements, shoulder to cone dimensions, and other essential testing and inspection elements.
In order to fully accept the licensee work at the site, additional review will be made by the RIII inspector:
Since approximately 50% of the testing was not done by direct pull-ing, the torque test valves used were not site specific based on the existing concrete conditions, but were developed by the Arkansas Power and Light Company for its nuclear plants. Specific areas that will be examined during a future site visit include: (1) the justifi-cation of using torque valves, and (2) whether or not the bolt should have been lubricated during torque testing.
Bolt inspection and test records including engineering disposition of any discrepancies and nonconformances found will be examined.
3.
IEB 79-14 Inspection a.
Site Observation and Procedure Review (1). The inspector reviewed: (1) the licensee report BRP/79-14,
" Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems", dated October 31, 1979, including the " Evaluations
.
1817 054
.
-3-
.
of Items Noted During Inspection' contained in the Appenc'*x F and (2) BAPC Field Procedure 12 Procedure 12337-038-FP1,
"Walkdown Verification of Pipe Configuration Hanger Locations and Configuration for Safety System Pipe Supports", Revision 1, dated September 27, 1979, and had no adverse comment.
(2)
The inspector measured the portion of the 12" Reactor Depressurization System (RDS) header, where all four relief valves are attached at floor elevation 662' 11 7/C" and verified that the BAPC field personnel had done an aoequate inspection job.
(3)
The inspector observed the settings and installatioas of RDS restraints PS-105, PS-106, and PS-107.
For PS-106, all restraint clearances were measured.
The RDS pipe riser floor penetration at floor elevation 660' - 6" was also measured.
The inspector stated that, although documentation appeared to be lacking in detail, the measurements did meet the accep-tance criteria.
b.
Design Review at BAPC The RDS primary stress analysis, which included effects of seismic, relief valve lift, dead weight, and line pressure, was performed by Suntac Nuclear Corporation (SNC).
In review of the analysis, the SNC's method used in seismic and relief valve lift calculations appeared to be questionable. The four 6" 1500 lb-gate valves, No. CV-4180 to 4183, and the 6" x 10" 1500 lb. relief valves, No. SV-49-84 to 87 were checked for having been modelled correctly relative to weight and center of gravity in the anlysis. The specific concerns raised by the inspector include:
(1) The SNC seismic analysis for the RDS system was considered invalid because the one 12" main steam to turbine and the two 6" steam to emergency condensor lines that connect to the 12" RDS line were ignored in the analysis.
(2) The SNC relief valve analysis was considered invalid because of the lack of justification for using the formula:
F = (K + 0.2)AP where F = reaction force K = ratio of specific heat = 1.3 A = area of orifice P = pressure at time of valve opening The formila was published in an article, " Piping of Pressure Relieving Devices", by L. R. Driskell, contained in " Piping Handbook", reprinted from, " Hydrocarbon Processing", Gulf Publishing Company, 1968.
1817 055-4-
.
.
Further, the relief valve lift static loading at the valve outlet was identified in "3" direction, but the outlet was discharging steam in the "x" direction.
Likewise, the discharge opening turned in all the "x", "y", and "a "
directions, yet the static loading was modelled in only the "x" and "y" directions.
(3) The design loadings for seismic and relief valve lift restraints on the RDS were not shown in the SNC calcula-tions, nor were the valves included on the hatiware in-stallation drawings. The validity of the restraint setting and the adec,uacy of the supporting sttJrtures could not be verified or evaluated.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspecitons at the site, and at the licensee A-E's office. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknow-ledged the findings reported herein.
1817 056-5-
.