IR 05000280/1979028
| ML18130A498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1979 |
| From: | Elrod S, Kellogg P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18130A497 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-79-28, 50-281-79-45, NUDOCS 7908240213 | |
| Download: ML18130A498 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-280/79-28 and 50-281/79-45 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name:
Surry Units 1 and 2 Docket No and 50-281 License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 SUMMARY Inspection on June 4-8, 1979 Areas Inspected Virginia
Signed This routine, unannounced inspection involved 29 inspector-hours onsite in the area of seismic reanalysis of safety related pipin Results No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie ~/ 3
- DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. L. Stewart, Station Manager
- J. L. Wilson, Superintendent Operations
- R. F. Saunders, Superintendent Maintenance
- T. A. Peebles, Superintendent Technical Services
- F. L. Rentz, Resident QC Engineer
- R. L. Baldwin, Supervisor Administrative Services
- E. P. Dewandel, Staff Assistant
- W. R. Skelley, Jr., Staff Assistant - SGRP
- A. L. Parrish, III, Project Manager - SGRP
- J. S. Fisher, Fire Marshall
- R. E. Culberson, Engineer
- C. Gillette, Administrative Supervisor - SGRP Other Organizations Stone and Webster
- L. A. Budlong
- L. B. Reynolds NRC Resident Inspector
- D. J. Burke
- Attended exit intervie.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 8, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 abov The items listed in paragraph 5 of th{s report were discusse.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio.
-2-Seismic Reanalysis of Safety Related Piping During the course of this inspection, the status of the seismic reanalysis of safety related piping and the licensee's request for startup of Unit No. 1 was reviewed with site managemen The inspector took sample dimensions of safety related piping to compare with approved drawings (MKSs).
The inspector also took sample dimensions of pipe hangers to compare with the unverified hanger drawings presently being used for input into a hanger analysis program ~hich the licensee is just startin Results are discussed in the paragraphs belo Approximately seventy five dimensions of spent fuel pool cooling piping, pressurizer relief piping, auxiliary feedwater piping, and low head safety injection piping were mad All but one, which appeared to be an isolated case, were within the tolerance specifie Licensee Quality Control personnel noted for correction the one dimension outside toleranc The inspector had no further question on generation of as-built piping drawing The sketches of hangers that had recently been field sketched appeared to have adequate detail, dimensions and workmanship but had not yet been verified by the quality control organizatio Seventy two of the hangers inside containment (estimated 15-20%) have been sketched as of the completion of this inspectio These were hangers which the contractor performing the analysis (Stone and Webster) needed more information abou No documented verification program was presently being conducted for existing hanger drawing Existing hanger drawings provided no tolerances for dimensions or cold spring settings (for spring hangers)
and usually did not detail the entire hanger, only the parts provided by the vendo Reference was frequently made to "Existing Beam" or other similar suppor During the inspection, Surry management requested Stone and Webster to provide tolerance The inspector noted several dimensional and cold spring setting deviations from the drawing Examples for the auxiliary feedwater system are: Spring hanger - SH 16 Spring Hanger - SH 17 Hanger 19 Hanger 23 Foundation not as shown on sketch SK411, Cold load 345 pounds vice 339 pounds, springs are 1'-2" vice 1'-0" center to cente Foundation not as shown, Springs are 11" vice 1'-0" center to cente Channel Beam is 5 pounds vice 4.1 pounds; Welded pad dimensions not on drawin Cold load is 258 pounds for both springs, drawing specifies 243 pounds for one and 294 pounds for the othe *
- Hanger 24 Sketch 3549-3-Cold load 420 pounds vice 373 pounds shown on drawin Insulation saddles shown but not installe The lack of stated tolerances on hanger sketches, the inability of Stone and Webster to readily provide tolerances and the observed deviations shown above combined with the lack of a hanger drawing verification program decreases the credibility of the existing hanger drawings as sole basis for analysis of hanger Surry management agreed to commence a hanger drawing verification program with anticipated completion of containment hangers on June 15, 197 Several days subsequent to the inspection, the inspector was informed by Surry management that hanger dimension tolerances had been provided by Stone and Webste The hanger drawing verification program will be further inspected in a subsequent inspection (280/79-28-01).
No deviations or noncompliance were observed in this area.