IR 05000269/1979017
| ML19250C462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1979 |
| From: | Ang W, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19250C434 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-79-17, 50-287-79-16, NUDOCS 7911260162 | |
| Download: ML19250C462 (4) | |
Text
- pa atavy'o, UNITED STATES
'
8'
,,. c ',g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
k
- J
'c REGION 11
^^
. 8 101 M ARIETTA sT., N.W., SUITE 3100
'[8 o,
%, v 40 ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303
- ...
Report Nos. 50-287/79-16 and 50-269/79-17 Licensee: Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name: Oconee Units 1 and 3 Docket Nos. 50-287 and 50-269 License Nos. DPR-55 and DPR-38 Inspection at Guo e Nuc ar Station near Seneca, South Carolina I/
7 /3 f
Inspect W. P.
Date' Signed Approved by:
I/
d A. R. Herdt, Section Chief, Projects Section Date Signed Inspected on June 27-29, 1979 SUMMARY Areas Inspected This routine unannounced inspection involved 19 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of Unit 3 concrete expansion anchor procedures, work activities and records and Unit 1 main steam failed baseplate licensee activities.
Results Of the four areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in three areas; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (infraction 287/79-16-01; Inadequate base plate repair instructions).
!394 231 puseo 9/g 1
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J.
E. Smith - Station Manager
- J. M. Davis - Superintendent of Maintenance
- D. Thompson - Mechanical Maintenance Engineer
- J. McCoo - Quality Assurance Engineer G. Rothenberg - Mechanical Engineer T. Barron - Mechanical Engineer B. Carney - Mechanical Engineer NRC Resident Inspector F. Jape
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 29, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
Infraction 287/79-16-01 -
Inadequate Base Plate Repair instructions was identified at the exit inter-view as an inspector follow-up item.
On July 2, 1979, the licensee was informed that the item had been changed to an infraction. The licensee had no comments regarding the item.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Ur. resolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Concrete Expansion Anchor Procedures, Work Activities and Records (Unit 3)
As a result of IE Bulletin No. 79-02, Duke Power Company (DPC), initiated an inspection and test program to identify and correct deficiencies found in concrete expansion anchors for safety related pipe supports.
DPC has issued the following procedures or the repair of pipe supports and replace-f ment of deficient concrete expansion anchors:
a.
MP/0/A/3018/54 - Pipe Support Corrective Maintenance b.
MP/0/A/1800/35 - Controlling Procedure for Concrete Anchor Installation
4.'32
.
.
.
-2-
-
A repair package is prepared for each pipe support that requires repair, replacement or modification. Repair packages for the following pipe supports were reviewed and the completed or in process repair work were inspected for compliance with the procedures noted above and licensee commitments:
a.
51A-0-1479A-H10 b.
14B-0-1480A-H40B c.
51A-H14A d.
51A-0-1479E-H47G e.
51A-0003 f.
51A-H102 g.
51A-H50G The following discrepancies were noted:
Pipe support 51A-H102 and 51A-H50G - repair instructions required the a.
installation of 1/4" thick plate washers over oversize bolt holes. No instructions, or new material were provided to replace the existing bolts. Based on licensee's inspection reports, reinstallation of the existing bolts while adding a 1/4" thick washer would provide less than 3/8" thread engagement required by DPC Oconee Procedure MP/0/A/3018/51.
Repair of these pipe supports had been accomplished but had not yet been QC inspected. Old (painted) bolts were installed on these pipe supports.
b.
Pipe support 51A-0-1479E-H47G - the hanger sketch provided with the repair package shows two base plates in contact with each other but does not show them to be welded. The installed base plates are welded to each other.
Pipe support 51A-0003 - the hanger sketch provided with the repair c.
package required three base plates for the pipe support.
Despite changes to the sketch, complete locating dimensions for one of the baseplates had not been specified. The base plate was installed but had not yet been inspected.
d.
Pipe support 51A-H14A - The repair instructions special requirements and the sketch provided with the repair package requires replacement of four bolts. The repair instruction's material list provided four replacement bolts originally but was changed to provide only one bolt.
The licensee's inspection reports indicate a need to replace only one bolt. Only one bolt was replaced.
f h4 233
.
.
.
-3-s The conditions noted in a.,
and b.,
above are examples of repair instructions that do not adequately provide sufficient information to insure satisfactory repair of the safety related pipe supports and appear to be in noncompliance with 10CFR50 Appendix "B" Criterion V, as implemented by DPC Topical Report IA section 17.2.5 and Oconee Technical Specification Section 6.4.1.
This noncompliance shall be identified as infraction 287/79-16-01, inadequate pipe support repair procedures.
6.
Main Steam System Failed Baseplate Licensee Activities (Unit 1)
During the inspection, Region II was informed that a failed base plate for main steam system hydraulic snubber R2A was found by the licensee.
An inspection of the baseplate revealed that three of six concrete expansion anchors had partially pulled out.
An inspection of three other similarly located main steam system baseplates for Unit 1 was also performed. Unlike the failed baseplate, the other three base plates were not mounted with concrete expansion anchors but appear to be welded to concrete embedments.
A hairline half moon shaped crack was observed on the concrete beneath the embedment for the baseplate adjacent to the one that failed. This baseplate was for hydraulic snubber R2B that supported the same main steam pipe line that had the failed baseplate.
The licensee was requested to inspect the operating Unit 2 main steam system baseplates that were similarly located to determine if concrete expansion anchors were used.
The licensee inspected the Unit 2 baseplates and determined that concrete expansion anchors were not used.
The base plates were either attached to embedments or structurally fastened around the concrete pillars. No failures were noted in the Unit 2 base plates.
The licensee agreed to evaluate the Unit 1 failed baseplate and the adjacent baseplate that had a concrete crack beneath it to determine possible cause and future corrective action.
During subsequent telephone conversations with the licensee, it was indicated that baseplates for snubbers R2A and R2B would be replaced using attachments that are structurally fastened around the concrete pillars. The above noted condition and subsequent telephone conversations are further discussed in IE inspection report 50-269/79-15. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l394 234