IR 05000280/1979044
| ML18136A012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1979 |
| From: | Compton R, Herdt A, Vallish E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18136A010 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-79-44, NUDOCS 7910010785 | |
| Download: ML18136A012 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report No. 50-280/79-44 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company p; 0. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name:
Surry Power Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-280 License No. DPR-32 Inspection at Surry Power Station near Surry Virginia Inspectors~~~
E.?. V~sh
~
'/ ' - §' // ( ;)
/
- ?U£'C.--:2-f::..... M'L R~ompton z,
-. o
- Approvedf ~- J. U-, k--
~- R. Herdt, SEittion Chief, RCES Branch
' '
SUMMARY Date of Inspection:
August 1-3, 1979 Areas Inspected
~--:Z.1-7'/
Date Signed Date Signed
~h~bc;.
Date S'igned This routine unannounced inspection involved 32 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of concrete expansion anchor bolts in accordance with IE Bulletin (!EB)
79-0 Results No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie 'S 7 9 1 O O 1 0,,;'#fl l
- Persons Contacted Licensee Employees DETAILS W. C. Spencer, Vice President, Power Station Engineering and Construction Services
- J. L. Wilson, Superintendent, Operations
- T. A. Peebles, Superintendent, Technical Services
- D. A. Christian, Engineering Supervisor
- F. L. Rentz, Resident Q.C. Engineer
- M. Tower, Staff Engineer, Operations QA R.H. Woodall, Associate Engineer, Power Station Engineering and Construction Services R. McManus, Associate Engineer, Power Station Engineering and Construction Services NRC Resident Inspector
,'.-D. J. Burke
- Attended exit interview*
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 3, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 abov.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspectio.
(Open) IEB No. 79-02, Pipe support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts This was a followup inspection of the licensee's action concerning the inspection and testing of anchor bolts supporting safety related piping system The licensee's interim report, Serial No. 146, dated July 24, 1979, was reviewed prior to the inspection. Field data sheets and summary tables were examined for content, consistency, accuracy and conformance to Revision 2 of Special Test Procedure ST-39 which implements the licensees expansion anchor inspection and test progra A number of discrepancies between the data sheets and the summary tables and questionable measurement data were identifie Some examples of these ite~s are aj follows:
l
(1)
(2)
(3)
-2-Significant deficiencies such as broken anchors, adjacent nuts missing and smaller than drawing required number and/or size of anchors installed that were observed but excluded from the sample and not otherwise addressed in the licensees respons Many instances where the recorded shell top to expansion plug dimension would indicate that the shell had not been expanded or only slightly expande Recorded thread engagements that exceeded the space available as indicated by other measurements or that exceeded the actual thread length measured in new anchors of that siz The licensee agreed to review the data sheets, resolve any discrepancies and questionable measurements and clarify the conclusion drawn from this dat In addition the inspectors requested the licensee to resolve or address in a supplemental response the following itmes:
(1) Elaborate on the method(s) used to determine the torque values used for proof loading shell type anchor (2) Evaluate/analyse the installations where supports were not as shown on design drawings such as modified baseplate, missing anchors, smaller number or size of anchors or missing support (3)
Identify and address anchor installation that were observed to have deficiencies that were adjacent to the randomly selected anchor or that were excluded from the sample for any reaso (4)
To justify interim operation establish that a minimum factor of safety of two exists for anchors and supports with observed deficiencies including those with shell top to plug dimensions indicating minimal shell expansio (5) Establish if or how minimum thread engagement was determined for ultrasonically tested studs in grouted shell anchor installation (6) Address and justify the fact that the random sample did not include anchors from all safety related system (7) Describe the acceptance criteria for slip or pull out during proof load testin (8) Describe the role and actions of the VEPCO Qualify Assurance organiza-tion in the activities related to IEB 79-0 (9) Elaborate on the reasons for not being able to remove bolts or studs that resulted in exclusion of these anchors from the sample progra..
-3-The inspectors emphasized to all concerned that the intent of the IEB is to, assure operability of these piping systems during a seismic even The licensee agreed to submit a supplemental response to IEB 79-0 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.