IR 05000269/1985036
| ML15224A531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1985 |
| From: | Jape F, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15224A530 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-85-36, 50-270-85-36, 50-287-85-36, NUDOCS 8512100062 | |
| Download: ML15224A531 (4) | |
Text
s RE~UNITED STATES
.d o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-269/85-36, 50-270/85-36, and 50-287/85-36 Licensee:
Duke Power Company 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287 License Nos.:
DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 Facility Name:
Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Inspection Conducted: October 15-17, 1985 Inspector: _ _
_
_
__
///r-7/j'1f J. J. Lenahar C Date Signed Approved by:
__ __ _
__
_
_
/A V?
F. Jape, SecTion Chief Date Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 19 inspector-hours at the site during normal duty hours, in the areas of licensee action on previous inspection findings and licensee identified items (LERs).
Results:
No violations or deviations were identifie D12100062 851202 GR ADOCK 05000269 PDR
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees M. Addis, Mechanical Engineer, Maintenance Service J. Brackett, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor B. W. Carney, Supervisor, Maintenance Service
- W. Foster, Planning Engineer, Maintenance Department
- R. H. Ledford, QA Engineer
- T. C. Mathews, Compliance Tech T. B. Owen, Superintendent of Maintenance
- J. N. Pope, Supertendent of Operations M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager
- P. Guill, Oconee Licensing Engineer
- C. Ray, Principal Engineer, Design Engineering
- J. Daughtridge, Civil Engineer, Design Engineering
- J. Reeves, Senior Engineer, Design Engineering Other licensee employees contacted included two engineers, and four Quality Assurance/Quality Control inspector NRC Resident Inspectors
- J. C. Bryant
- M. K. Sasser
- L. P. King
- Attended exit interview, October 17, 198 **Participated in November 6, 1985 conference cal #Attended exit interview and participated in conference cal.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 17, 1985, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection finding No dis senting comments were received from the license Subsequent to the inspection, Unresolved Item 287/85-31-02 was discussed in detail with the individuals indicated in paragraph 1 above during a tele phone conference call on November 6, 198 The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspectio. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Open) Unresolved Item (287/85-31-02), Evaluation of Pipe Support/Restraint Deficiencies Identified During Inservice Inspectio During an inspection conducted September 23-27, 1985 (See Inspection Report No. 50-287/85-31) the inspector reviewed 57 of 61 nonconforming item reports (NCIs) written during inservice inspection of 83 selected safety-related Unit 3 pipe supports and restraints. The inspector re-examined the 57 NCIs and reviewed the remain ing four NCIs during this inspectio Review of the NCIs disclosed that approximately 25 of the NCIs documented discrepancies between the as-built hanger/support drawings and the existing hanger/support The remaining NCIs documented minor problem such as missing spacer washers in attachment of hanger rods/snubbers to hanger brackets, minor weld fabricator deficien cies, minor hanger configuration discrepancies, and loose jam nuts on hanger rods. The as build drawings had been prepared during field walkdown inspec tions performed for the seismic analysis of as-build safety-related piping systems required by IE Bulletin 79-1 Discussions with design engineering personnel during the November 6, 1985, conference call disclosed that when design engineers became aware of the numerous NCIs written during the in-service inspections, the NCIs were evaluated together as a group due to the implication of possible generic problems concerning pipe supports not constructed in accordance with IEB 79-14 as-built drawings. These evaluations, which were performed in accor dance with the original design criteria, disclosed that the stresses acting on the pipe support were within code allowable limit Eighteen pipe supports were repaired to disposition the NCI Disposition of the remain ing NCIs was "use-as-is", although the as-built pipe support drawings were revised as required to document discrepancies identified during the in-service inspectio Sixteen of the eighteen pipe support repairs were performed by site personnel to restore the support to configuration on IEB 79-14 as-built drawings. These repairs involved correction of minor defi ciencies such as replacement of spacer washers, tightening of jam nuts, bending cotter pins, and et Repairs to two of the supports were directed by design to restore original margin of safety which was required by the original design analysis. The requirements of the original analysis exceed ed code requirements. The design engineers indicated during the conference call that all supports were operable in their as-built condition prior to completion of the repai The inspector will review the analysis and evaluation performed by design engineers of the NCIs in a future inspector, Unresolved Item 287/85-31-02 will remain open pending further review by NRC Region I. Unresolved Items Unresolved Item were not identified during the inspectio.
Licensee Identified Item (LER)
(Open)
LER (269/85-12) Reactor Building Tendon Inspection and Reporting Intervals Exceede The licensee's review of reactor building tendon surveillance records disclosed that seven out of ten surveillances had not been completed by the due dat In addition, Technical Specification (TS) 4.4.2.2 requires that the Reactor Building Tendon Surveillance Reports be submitted to NRC within 90 days, of completion of the inspection. Review of the tendon surveillance records disclosed that three reports had not been submitted to NR In the past, the licensee's interpretation of the TSs permitted a grace period of plus or minus 25 percent in determining the due date for comple tion of the tendon surveillance This was based on assumption that the plus or minus 25 percent specified in TS Section 4.02 applied to all sur veillance However, the TS Section 4.02, Table I only addresses surveil lance performed at intervals up to 18 months (refueling outages). After a recent review of the tendon surveillance records and the TS requirements, the licensee has concluded that the 25 percent grace period does not apply to surveillances performed at intervals exceeding 18 months, therefore seven of ten surveillances were not completed within the specified two or five year interval Since all the required surveillances had been per
.formed and no problems were identified, the health and safety at the public were not affected. The licensee will revise the Administrative Directives to specify time frames for completion of the tendon surveillance inspections which are not due every five years. Another alternative method of correct ing this problem would be to request an amendment to the TS to include a grace period for performance of the tendon surveillances as included in TS for other plants that require performance of tendon surveillances at five year interval Review of the records disclosed that three of the ten Reactor Building tendon surveillance reports had not been submitted to NR These were reports for Unit 1 (due July 26, 1985); Unit 2 (due August 29, 1984); and Unit 3 (due October 31, 1980).
The licensee submitted the reports for Units 1 and 2 as an attachment to a letter dated October 8, 198 The inspector reviewed the report Based on this review, the inspector con cluded that the post-tensioning systems in Units 1 and 2 are in satisfactory condition and are capable of performing at their intended functio The licensee could not locate a copy of the Unit 3 tendon surveillance report which was due on October 31, 198 The licensee is currently developing a new report from the surveillance data and will submit this report to NRC when it is available. The licensee submitted a tendon surveillance report for Unit 3 to NRC as an attachment to a letter dated September 12, 198 This report covered the third tendon surveillance of the Unit 3 reactor building which was performed between September 22, 1982 and June 6, 198 Based on review of this report, the inspector concluded that the post tensioning system in Unit 3 is capable of performing its intended functio This LER will remain open pending NRC review of the revised Administrative Procedures and the 1980 Unit 3 tendon surveillance repor Within the areas inspected, no deviations or violations were identified.