IR 05000280/1979053
| ML18136A162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1979 |
| From: | Compton R, Herdt A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18136A161 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-79-53, 50-281-79-71, NUDOCS 7911080238 | |
| Download: ML18136A162 (4) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-280/79-53 and 50-281/79-71 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name:
Surry Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 License No DPR-32 and DPR-37 Inspection at Su5fJ" 1~i7e ~~r Surry, Virginia Inspected b'U :=-W=:c-c---'---,,-C,_,/Jt,~1dJ-=-'-_., ___________ _
dY' R. M. Compton q/.._;,ft Date Signed Accompanying Personnel:
A. Approved by: aeU Herdt, Chief, Engineering Support Section 2, RCES Branch A. R. Herdt, Section SUMMARY Inspected on September 4-7, 1979 Areas Inspected Chief, RCES c;£1,f;?
Date Signed This special, announced inspection involved 39 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of concrete expansion anchors (IE Bulletin 79-02) and seismic analysis for as-built safety related piping systems (IE Bulletin 79-14).
Results Of the two areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
I
/
DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees *W. L. Stewart, Plant Manager
- T. A. Peebles, Technical Services Superintendent D. A. Christian, Engineering Supervisor
- R. Berryman, Engineer
- R.H. Woodall, Civil Engineer
- R. K. McManus, Mechanical Engineer
- C. M. Robinson, Jr., Civil Engineer Other Organizations H. W. Durkin, Coordinating Engineer, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation NRC Resident Inspector
- *D. J. Burke
- Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 7, 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 (Unit 1)
This was a followup inspection of the licen*see' s action concerning the inspection and testing of expansion anchors supporting safety related piping system At VEPCO's request a meeting was held in the Region II office on August 28, 1979 to discuss previously expressed NRC concerns with the licensee's expansion anchor inspection effort. As a result of this
- meeting Region II issued a letter on August 31, 1979 reiterating several unresolved technical concerns and an additional question related to small bore field ~wi piping that had been analyzed and had supports located using non-:rigorous *analysis. This inspection included a review of the licensee's
-~
(~ )
--2-written responses to the NRC concerns, VEPCO letter serial 725, and an examination of the inspection and test result The inspectors requested and witnessed a reinspection of three anchors and the inspection of one additional ancho During this effort it was noted that one sleeve (VEPCO sequence number 6-12) was in contact with the baseplate with no evidence that the plate had previously been shimmed to perform the load tes This raised doubts as to the validity of the original torque load tes An adjacent anchor was inspected and the licensee indicated that this anchor turned in the hole and the reinstallation torque could not be achieve On another anchor (sequence number 7-19) the recorded shell projection dimen-
.sion was in error by approximately 7 /16 inc *
As a result of the examination of the licensee's program the NRC considers that additional actions are required for the following reasons:
1)
The number of significant deficiencies identified in the initi~l sample, including those deficiencies identified but not included in the sample statistic )
3)
The number of measurement errors in the initial inspection a*s indi-cated by VEPCO reinspection results and the problems observed by the IE inspector Continuing concern about the lack of documentation of proper design and installation for small bore, non-rigorously analyzed pipin On September 7, 1979 Region II issued a letter to VEPCO outlining the actions that had been agreed would be performed prior to returning Unit 1 to service. Briefly, these actions included the following:
1)
Demonstration that a sample of small bore safety related piping systems met the original design criteri )
Flexibility analysis of a sample of as-built baseplate )
Visual inspection of a sample of anchor installations that would be inaccessible during operation for gross deficiencie )
Inspection of another sample of expansion anchors to the requirements of IEB 79-0 /
In additon, the use of approved procedures and tight QC/QA controls for this work was emphasize The inspectors also emphasized tQ the licensee that the following con-tinuing actions were expected to be performed in an expeditious manner:
1)
Analysis*of supports with as-built discrepancies identified during the
- initial inspectio Baseplate flexibility shall be considered in these analyse ~
2)
-3-Completion of remaining inspections, tests, analyses and repairs as specified in IEB 79-0 No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.
(Open) IEB No. 79-14, Seismic Analysis for As-Built Safety-Related Piping Systems (Units 1 and 2)
The inspectors discussed the status and schedule of IEB 79-14 work and the flow chart for the evaluation of identified discrepancie Stone and Webster's procedure 12843.36-PI-0 for the field verification of piping isometrics for Unit 1 was reviewe No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie /